HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/17/1984 Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2.5 .~C3UTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11¢J71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONI$ JR.
SERGE DOYEN. JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI M l' N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 1'7, 1'984
A Special Meeting of_the..Southold Town Board of Appeals
was held on THURSDAY, MAY 17,'1984 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the
Southold Town'Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge Doyen;
Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Robert J. DOuglass; and Joseph H. Sawicki,
constituting all five members of the board. Also present were
Victor Lessard, Administrator (Building Department), and approxi-
mately 16 persons in the audience at the opening of the meeting.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
and proceeded with the first ~ublic hearing:
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. §229 - VINCENT GRIFFO for an
accessory storage building in an area other'than the requjred
rearyard area at 280 Basin Road, Paradise Point, Southold,
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 p.m. and read the
legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN GOEH'RINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated
December 29, 1981 ~nd-icat~ng the placement of the tool shed which
I'll ask about during 'the hea'ring, and a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this property and properties in the
surrounding area. Mr. Perricone, would you like to be heard in
behalf of this application?
STEVE PERRICONE: My name is Steve Perricone and I'm
President of Twin Fork Contracting. If there are no objections
to the application, I will sustain from saying anything further~
5outhold Town Board of Appeals -2- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
' (Appea~ No. 3229 VI~-CE~ G~'IFFO, ~ontinued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you , how far is it off the line, Steve,
the actual setback?
MR~ PERRICONE: It's five foot.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Five foot e~actly.
MR. PERRICONE: Yes. The fence-is about three foot. The line
goes over a little bit more. Th~y.ldid~covee it up With shrubs to
make it look as nice as possible, You can't see ~t from the street
and you can't see it fro~ the neighbor's property either. The two
neighbors don't object tO~i~'~either~
MR. CHAIRMAN: We were over there, I think it was last_Wednesday
evening. What's. presently in the building?
MR. PERRICON~: Flower pots, 'fishing rods, that's, about all
they keep in it. They.don't_have any tractors or anything like_that.
Doroski handles the landscaping so they don't have aoy to916,
tractors or !awn mowers ....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objection to a restriction be
placed on it that it be_used only ~or storages purposes.
MR. PERRICONE: No, 'not at all,
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you ve'r~'much. Would anybody else like
to be heard in'behalf of this applicat~o..n? Anybod]' wishing to
speak against this .~ppl~'cation? Que'stions fYom b~d'"~m'~grs? (None)
MR~ CHAIRMAN: ~aring no other comments, I'll make a motion
granting the application with the restriction tha~ it only be used
for storage purposes ....
MR, SAWICKI~:~ Second.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant s~eks approval of the construction
of an accessory 8' 'by 12,1 one-story tO91 she~ located in the
westerly sidey~rd afea_a minimum of five feet from the west
property line~ A variance is requested from Article II1, Section
!00732 of the zoning code which requires_accessory~buildings to
be located in the rear yard~ The premises in question is located
at ~he north side of Basin Road at Paradise Point, Southold, with
frontage along Town Harbor (Bay) of_~a minimal setback from the
retaining ~all (at the top of the bank). Th9 board agrees with
the applicant inasmuch as~there is a very limited bui]dable rearyard
area.
$outhold Town Board of Appeals -3- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
? (Appea~ No. 3229 - V~CEN~G~IFFO, conti.~ued:)
In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the
relief requested is not substantial; (b) that the granting of the
requested relief, the character of the neighborhood will not De
adversely affected; (c) that by allowing the variance, no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; (d) that no
adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities
of any increased population; (e) that the relief requested will be
in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and (f)
that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance,
as indicated below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki,
it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3229, application for VINCENT GRIFFO
for approval of the location of an 8' by 12' accessory storage shed
a minimum of five feet from the westerly side line within the sideyard
area, BE AND HEREBY iS APPROVED, PROVIDED THAT THIS ACCESSORY BUILDING
NOT BE USED FOR SLEEPING~ HABITABLE QUARTERS (ONLY STORAGE PURPOSE-~-~-~
Location of Property: 280 Basin Road, Southold; 1000-81-1-19.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer~ Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3239 · JAMES'ANDERSON, 16 Waverly
Place, New York,~Y for a Variance t.o..Arti~'~ x~.~ec~ion IO0~I~(D)
to reinstate nonconforming dwelling use of buildin§ in this
General Business Zoning D~stric~, '300.Moore's La'ne. (a/k/a Linden
Avenue), Cutchgoue, NY~ 1000-109-03-.008.
The Chairman opened ~he h~aring at 71i. 38 p.m. and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its~en'ti?ety and a~peal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a co'py of a survey'~a~d M~ch 26, i984
indicating a ~=it's sho~n as a~pne~story frame ho~se, approximately
1.9 feet from, I assume it's the north property line; an~ 14.7 feet
from Linden Avenue~ and a framed garage_approximately 14.9 feet
from Linden Ave'hue. Would.somebody like ~o be heard._iD behalf of
~his application?
JA~ES ANDERSON: t don't know what you'd like to ask me?
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Anderson, 'fight? Did you have
anything you ~ould l~ke to say?'
MR. A~DERSON: Well, just-that the house had been lived in at one
~outhold Town Board of Appeals -4- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appea~ No. 3239 - JA~ES ~ND~RSON, continued:)
MR. ANDERSON (continued):
point, and that as far as we know, it was never used as a business,
and we Would just like to restore the house to its original purpose.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Two things come to mind when you mentioned that.
The first thing that comes ~o mind is the garage~ What do you
intend to do with that?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, the garage at this point is in very unstable
condition. We hope that at sQme point that ye will be able_to
resurrect it, and_leave the garag~ as a garage.
MR. CHAIRMAN: '-What do you i~tend to do ~ith the zoning on the
pi~ec~ i~self? I'll answer your question and then you can question
me about it. Do yOU intend to, or do you object tO our taking away
the rights of the use of the business ~oning=-
MR. ANDERSON: I would love for you to take it back.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Well, I'~ not physically taking it away--I'm taking
the use of it away. ~
MR, A~DERSON: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: ~ith the right, of course, of reinstating, which
is one_of the issues here, of reinst~ti'ng the residentiality of
this particular structure.
MR., ANDERSON: Yes, definitely we would like that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: is ther~ anything that I said that"you would like
to question me on?
MR. ANDERSON: O~r main purpose is to reinstate the property as
residential and discontinue ~he business.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What is your timeliness on this t~i.ng? When are
you looking for a decision?..
~R, ANDERSON: As soon as possibl'e~
MR. CHAIRMAN: We havew a ~ery lengt'hy meeting tonight, I doubt
seriOusly if you'll see any decision OD this tonigh't. ~e have not
talked about it. We have not deliberated on it~ y~t~. Possibly
within two'weeks we will start the deliberation on it,_and hopefully
we will have a decisio~for you, you know, Within the next three ~._
weeks or something of that nature. That's the best I can do for
you at this parti~ula'r time.
'Southold Town Board of Appeals =5- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appea~ No. 3239 - JA~ES]~ND~RSO~, continued:)
MR. ANDERSON: Ok. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak
on this application? Against?_ Questions from board.~members? (None)
Hearing no. further comments, I'l~ make a motion closing the hearing
and reserving decision pending deliberations.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
On motion 'by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, t~ Cl'd~e t~e ~e~ring_'ahd~'r~erve ~i'ng
deliberations in ~ ~a~r-~ JA'M"E~-~~ ~~
Vote of the Board: ~Ayes:' M~ssrs~ Goehringer~ D~yen~ Grigonis,
Douglass add Sawicki. This resolution ~as adopted 'by unanimous vote
of a~l the members of the board.~_
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No~ 3222: JOHN WICKHA~, by Wickham,
Wickham and B.reSsler, .P,C., Main Road, Mat~, NY for a Variance
to Article VI, SectioQ 100-60 to use premises a~ a business office
for marin'e contracting, ~ith accessory use for storage and repair
of contractor's own v~hicles and equi.pment,..at 67576~Main Road,
Greenport, 'NY; County Ta~ Map Par~el]Nb'~'lO00-052~05:058.
T~e Chairman opened the hea~ing ~t 7:4§ p.m. and reaa the legal
notice of this hearing in its entirety and appea) application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a~copy of a survey prepared by Roderick
VanT~y], P.C. on October 21, '?~3 .indicating .~he~pencil~ed-in
areas and approxim~%e t.ocatioDs of where the equipment .Uou]d be
stored, a bu~ld~ng of ~pproximate]y 30' by 60' and parki'ng, spaces,
parking lot, Qnd so pn add so forth. And_I have a copy of the
Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding..properties
in the area. Would ypu like to be heard in behalf of_.~.this
application, Miss. Wickha~?
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Thank you. I would ~ost like to
briefly, start by saying Shat this ,~pp]ication~is being made on
the basis of a bard~hip primarily tha$ the property has been
unproductive and a dra~n_on resources for a numbe~_of years and
has not been able to be sold. The buyer cur'rently iQtQrested in
the prmper'ty is._the first bonafide offer that's bQen available
probably in.about 15.years, and he i~ here tonight, Mr. MQlrose,
to answer any questioDs you may have~ I've already given ~he
board a fairly extensive description. I wonl% repeat that if we
$outhold Town Board of Appeals -6- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3222 - JOHN ~ICKHAM, continue~:i
MISS WICKHAM:
could have that stand in the record, but if you do have any questions
we can answer them. Also, I~ve asked John_W~ckham to come~ He owns
a minor portion of the property which js owned by five different
people now, and I~'d like him to discuss the exac~ nature of the
hardship, Before I have him come up, I do just want to mention
that the proposed use is not something that.would be out of
character with the types of uses in the area. The main point is
that the vehicle that would be here would be the owner's_own
vehicles. They would not be for public repair or ingress and
egress by the publi~ in general. A B~l zone allows ~ public garage.
Certainly this. is...a much. less offensive use thaD that type of zoning
would all. ow. And I don't.~think it's going to inhinge at all...on
the values of the neighboring proper~es. John? .....
JOHN WICKHAM: Jo~n Wick~-am; I~m a l~ce~sed real estate broker.
I've. also been engaged in zoning and pl~nning for ~}moS%~
30 years, 28 to be exact, and a~ currently on the L.~I. Regional
Planning Board. I mention this because .~bis vehicle, a variance
with special exception by the Board of Appeals is .one which the
PlanniDg Board in_previous years has recommended to developers
and builders as a means of controlling the use. If it is ~o~n-
zoned, than any use in the lower zone.can be hazardous as a matter
of right. 'If i~ is a Speci~]~ Exception, then only those exceptions
allowed by Zoning Board of Appeals can be used~_ You have really
r~gid control. This pratic~?ar ~ase I feel that ~creening is one
of the impor%ant'thin, gs, and in this regar6, the adjacent property
owners, Cassidy, came to me=-I didn"t gp to them--and th~ sa_~d,
"We understand that this is'going'to come before the boa~ and we
want you to know that we do Dot oppose it so long as there is
scree~i, ng," To get to the point a~ far as this case is concerned,
this was p~rt of~my grandfather's estate. !~.'My grandfather was an
attorney,..rather !Dteresting, he was district attorney for four
different terms. He did in 1881 without leaving a wi..ll, and this
estate has really never been settled, It..was d~vided by the
courts at that ~ime, and it hasn't been settled; and as long as
it could be farmed and the Rempe's=across the road on the o~her
side~-rented ~t for agricultural land for a good many years-but
when they could no longer farm.it; of course, they .have since sold
it; it became~a hardship~
There are Gail said five owners, and we have had absolutely no
income on it ~r the past several years~ About 15 or more years
ago, we were holding, it for $70,.~'0~Q, We ha~ no %akers at all. At
that time, Bill~Wickham, Who was then one of the owners, suggested
that we chang~._the back part to "B" so the entire parcel would be
"B~" Pre~iously ~t bad only'300'~ depth~ Which was done and still
no takers, and ~e have'had in all the years since, we have had no
real inquiries. We had good bi~es, but no real iDqu~ry~ I h~te to
5outhold Town Board of Appeals -7- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appea~ No. 3222 - J6.~N~'~'ic~AM, continued~)
MR. WICKHAM~ continued:
think of what would happen if a few of us were to meet our demise at
this time because two of us are well past 70 and it would be even
more entangled. And it seems to me ~hat lO0+ years to settle an
estate is about all one could ask. And we would really appreciate
serious consideration'by your board. I would be glad. to ~answer any
questions.
MISS WICKHAM: I wonder if I could direct a couple of questions
to you.
MR. WICKHAM: Certainly.
MISS WICKHAM: You stated that about 15 years the property had
been offered'for about $70,0'00. And I believe in abou~!~74 ~t was
rezoned for business for the entire piece~ Was the same..p~ice
cont~mued since it wa~ in that zone?.
MR. WICKHAM: I can't tell you exactly, Gail, but very soon~
thereafter we put the price ~Q $75~000
MISS WICKHAM: And is it currently listed at that price?
MR. WtCKHAM: N'o. It is currently liste~ at $100~00. It was
in my opinion as a real estate broke~r a.~.very, ver~._re.~sonable price.
In v~ew. of the fact that we just sold a piece of..proper'ty ~hat.was
in my wife's name in. Cutchogue w. hich was~..only two ac~res for $75,000.
MISS' WICKHAM: So'you feel the price of $70,000 duri'ng the
period of about 1969 or 1970 until ~t was raised some time in
the last.'7~s was reasonable for a 3½=acre parcel of property?
MR. WICKHAM: Yes. With 3½ acres, and a good many hundred feet
of highway frontage, ~his is, ~r at 1. east part of. it.~ RoUte 25.
MISS WICKHAM: Now the current offer ~at we have now, can you
tell us what the price of that is?
MR. WICKHAM: Well, ~t was based on $100,000. Actually, Mr.
and Mrs. MelroSe, Sr~ have been friends of ours,.'friends.~_~f a'lot
of people'iD Southold Town for many, many~years, and as usual in
thi~ sort of a deal_.you si~mply tak.~ off the commission. There
will be no commiss, ion paid on a straight deal ~'r actually $90,000
in this case.
MISS WICKHAM: ts that the contingent arrangement?
MR. WICKHAM: Gall, I can't tell ypu. I th~nk it is, 'but
don't sign the pa~rs~
'Southold Town Board o~ Appeals ~8- May 17, 19184 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3222 - JO~N ~CKHAM, continueR:)
MISS WICKHAM: You mention that the property has been unproductive
and isn't currently having any income siDce the. Rempes left farming~
MR. WICKHAM: -We had one other piece of income and this agai~
bears out the point that it was listed with the real estate brokers.
The Wetmore Agency had an office_on that property f~r some years
which went pretty~well towards paying the..ta~es,..but when they
that office.off, we have had no income at all.
MISS WICKHAM: I would just like to conf~rm that the one offer
that is now before us that has been the fir. st in 15 years since_the
property has been on the market is contingent upon getting the
variance. They cannot use the property without~it~ So the hard-
ship is ~hat ~D'les's thi~ proper'ty is s,~ld according to this deal,
we will be unable to settle the ~.state and distribute the proper%y
that bas been going on Since 1881. I'd also just like to g~ve the
board copies of t~ bills. I.,.we]~t back a~far as 1979, '80. At
that tim~ the ~axes we~ about $600 a year. They are now $800
or $900 a year, and that has been the constant o,~.tflow in addition
to the survey and ~il~ipg~.expenses~.]for the r~zoning and t~ere has
been ~ery little income.~to ~ffset that leaving the property totally
unproductive
MR, CHAIRMAN: Thank you,
MISS WICKHAM: If the board has a'ny questions, we'll be glad to
try and~ans'wer them
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any reason Why the area on Albertson's
Lane'was selected as opposed to the~Main Road frontage?
M~SS WI~KHAM: Well, first of all, I~ll let Mr~ Melrose see if
he has anything'to ad~ ~ell that 1Qcation ~n the rear is
probably the least obstrusi~ location in the proper'ty. It would
also I suppose at some future time leave ~h~?~6nta§e but that
would have to be s.~jectLito a further application,
MR. CHAIRMAN: A~e you ask~'ng for ~"'~ariance to use this particular
entire piece of proper'ty or just that area slated?
MISS WICKHAM~ '~t would be the property '~ut you had asked for a
site plan and this is on that prope, r'ty is ~he actual operation of
the bu~iness that would occur.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So then you wouldn't have any objection that if
there was fu%~re use or anx.~future~expansion that a restriction be
placed on it that they wo]u]~have' to come back to confOrm to another
application?
'.Southold Town Board of Appeals -9-~ May 17, ~984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3222 - JOHN WICKHAM, continued~:)
MISS WICKHAM: In terms of something other than a "B" Zone?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Or an expansion of the original, of this
original application?
MIS~ WICKHAM: I think he understands that. I'll agree to that
condition then. (Mr. Melrose Sr. was presenti)
MR. CHAIRMAN: The other questions will be of Mr. Melrose
concerning fences and such° Thank you.
MISS WICKHAM: Ok.
BOB MELROSE, SR.: My name is Bob Melrose, and I'm a Vice President
of Melr'o~e] Marine Service~COrporation. 'W6'!veibeen in business since
1968, and we do marine construction work, docks, bulkheads, ma~ine
railways and underwater structures. We operate aloDg the North Shore
of Long Island, essentially College Poin~,.to GreeDport. My son, James
Melrose is President and~Dwner of the company and ~I work for him. We
both live in Greenport, and we would like, to_set up a site here where
we' could establish a business office ~nd have spac~e, to do maintenance
and repair work on our land-bas, e~d equipment. We cur~en~Sb~n~.~space
at Jacobson's (?) Shipyard'in OySter Bay wh~re our ~toat~Dg~equ~me~t
is located. But we have very l~ttle land scape there, and we have
no facilities for doing main%enance work. And this is what's holding
us back right now. So we would like Sou to consider the change in
zoning to permit us to use th.~ proper'ty in this way. If you ~Dave any
further questions, I'll be glad to tr~and answer ~hem,~
MR. CHAIRMAN: The'building you are going to use as an office--you
have two. bu'ild~ngs here slated 30' by 60~. .Would one of thos. e build-
ings be an accessory building and the other an .~ffice?
MR. MELROSE: W~tl, the~ll be an office in that first 30' by 60'
building'and eventually we' wou]~d plan to build another 30' by 60~~
building ............
MR. ~HAIRMAN: For the purpose of storage?
MR. MELROSE: For the purpose of'storage and inside space where we
can ~ork'on equipment. ~_
MR, CHAIRMAN: An~ what kind of fencing would you be entertaining,
a stockade type or=-
MR. MELROSE: Well we were thinking of terms of anchor=post fencing
to keep people, especially kids out of th,~ property becaus,~they have
a habit ,~f~hrowin. g rock$~through win~ows~
~outhold Town Board of Appeals -9-~ May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeai No. 3222 - JOHN WICK~AM, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know, you know, what type--if that would
suffice to completely obstruct whatever view might occur here con-
cerning the stacking, of the types of materials that you've enter-
taining. What types of materials would you be placing within this
area? '
MR. MELROSE: I would say at this time that we're not considering
the storage of any].signJficaDt amount of materials. It's mainly the_
equipment--in_fac~ we store very little~material now in our operations.
We have the material brought in to the job, and we maintain a very
small inventory. The only materials we buy are things we need for
overhauling and~rep~iring our equipment~
MR.-CHAIRMAN: In going 'back ~iefly to the fencing, Mr. Melrose.
I have. no basic objection. I don't kno. w 'how the.~board feels about a
chainlink 'fence. ~ just that, how.ever, there may be something in
the decision if the board so sees to grant this particular application
that some sort of stop gap measure, that if one person, an adjoining
property, was upset with .ehat they.were looking ~t, then you might
have to slat th~s fence to make~'it in,~omeway a.little more aesthet$cally oriented.
MR-. MELROSE: Actually, on this pa~%ioular proper'ry., one of the
th~Dgs that has attraQ~d 'us to it is the~'fac~.t, bat .~here are a lot
of trees growing up on this property, and what we would propose ~o do
is to leave as many of the small tr~es there as possible, add within
a very~short time they are goin. g to surround the area ~h'at we intend
to use. And that's one of ~he ~hings we liked about this piece of
property. And I can assure you that it's our plans to make this an
attractive place.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The only other thing that I, in drawing up any type
of findings, We would have a little difficulty in stating the actual
dimensions. Somewhere within the.next two or three weeks, I don't
know if you were sitting here WHEN I was talking to the prior appli-
cants, because we will not entertain this for at least t~o or three
weeks because of the lengthy meeting tonight--could you just give us
some idea of area tha~ you're talking about here, in~-reference to
square footage?
MR, MELROSE: I have a drawing that I made myself that shows the
dimensions_and I can leave a copy of that.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Oh, that woul'~ be good. I just want to know if
we're talking about-- You're going to send us. something? I'm just
looking .for an approximate area.
MR MELROSE: It would be a~proximately one acre.
_ MR. CHAIRMAN: That you're entertaining? One last question in
relation to the fences. Are you entertaining anything over 6'6"?
5outh~ld Town Board of Appeals -lO- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3222 - JOHN ~ICKHAM, continued:)
MR. MELROSE: No. We're mainly interested in putting the fence
up to keep small children or people from coming in on the property,
a~d it would have a gate on it and be closed off.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So you wouldn't be going over 6'6"?
MR. MELROSE: I don't see a reason to, no.
MR. CHAIRMAN: T'hank you very much. You've been very helpful.
Is there anybody else that would, like to .speak in behalf.of this
application? Anybo'dy like to speak against the application? Ques-
tions from board.members? (None) Hearing no further questions,
I!ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until
later.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
it was
RESOLVED, to clOSe 'the he~rin__~ and reserve decision until later,
pending deliberations in the Matter of
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. Th~s resolution was adopted by unanimous
vote of all the members.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3225: JOSE V. RODRIEGUEZ, Box ll3,
Fishers Island, NY for a Variance to Construct dwelliDg in this
B-1 Genera] Business. District at the West Side of Fox Lane, Fishers
Island, NY.~ 1000-012-01-001.002~
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:08 p.m. and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its entiret~ and ap.peal application.
MR. ~HAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey, la~t d~te appears to
be revised 3/28/80, and a copy~_of ~ Suffolk County Tax Map i~dicat-
lng this and surrounding properties in the area, and a pi.¢ture
indicating the existing building. Mr. Lark, wo~ld you ~ike to be
heard in behalf of this application?
RICHARD Fi LARK, ESQ.: I thank you, Mr. Goehringer. ~'m not
sure that the board is aware of the history of this.. The property
as well as the surrounding property as you~rea~ in the app~icatioD
is zoned "B-l~" Back in 1980 the .FIDCO~ the prior owner,~.deci~ed
to get rid of some of their holdings over on ~he Island. There was
a need for, ~hat Mr. Rodrieguez ru~s is an upholstery business--so
originally he had been there with a very small building and they
decided_to sell him what was at that ti~e really a postage stamp
piece of property. But the Planning Board is splitting that of~
'~outhold Town Board o~ Appeals -Il- May 17, ~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3225 - JOSE V. RODRIEGUEZ, continued:)
MR. LARK (continued):
creating a set-off, if you would. Since it was B-l, decided it to
be 30,000 sq. ft~ and that's as you see it on the survey before you.
That's what it is, and then Mr. ~odrieguez went ahead and built
this building that is presently on the site, which I think most of
you are familiar with,.~and moved off the little shed that was there
that actually was an encroachment ~t the time, and cleaned up the
situation over there~ Now due to his personal situation, finds
himself in need of housing, and the only place that he can_move
to and stay on the Island_and stay in business 4s~ito the only
property that he owns, which is this one, and due to the tremendous
influx in price of real estate on that Island, it!s impossible for
him. to go ahead and to_do anything, to buy any suitable housing_or
much less rent yearro.und suitable~h'ousin§~ S~ he is app'lyin§ ~o you
for permission .~o put a mobile home .....
As I understan~ it a mobile home which he proposes to construct
on there basically is a 60' by 14~ and then haE e~tension which
comes as part of_~the home' whi.~h.~.is 14' by 8" §ranting a .952' sq.
ft. unit which meets the zoning sta~ndards. As far as other
properties in the area, basically on a nonconforming basis that
have residences, I am informed~t, bat to the north Mr~ Gada and
his business area has fo.~r or five apartments, and on~.the school
property there is a house that'.s use~ as a residence wh~C~:is in
~ 1,O00.~yards of this property. So this is not a precedent in the
sense that this is the on']y area in the B-1 area tb.at's used for
residential or a mixed residential and business purpose, Ok~ So,
I was quite careful to find out tbat~ The mobi'l.~ hgme will be
tucked away as you. can see on the survey up in .%he back s~.it will
not be obstrusive or be right in the ro~d because he's going to .~
live there, that's the whole point~ ~nd he has been there for many
years, so it's not a situation where he's t'rying to do something,
sell it and leave. He wants to stay. And tbat.~s his problem.
-'The water will be supplied by F~shers Island Water~Com~an~ and
because of the present confusion_with the Federal and State Govern-
ments on the sewage system over there, the County Health Department
prefers that he prefer cesspools at' the present ~omen~ rather than
hook into the present sewage system which runs-also right by the
property. So the Health Department said, "Yes, you can do ~t but
you're going to have %o build your own cesspool .~ather than hook
into the sewer line~ because a.~ you know in~th:~2t area it goes
directly overboard and they're trying to get that straighened out.
But th~ water is furnished by the waZer company on the Island so
there's no problem° It will be on a foundation, in other..words,
even though~it is a mobile~home,'.~h'a~ ~ou'~.~d~I ~nderstand to be
a mobile home, it will be a permanent ~tructur~ It will be there--
'5outhold Town Board of Appeals -12- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appea~ No. 3225 - Jd~E ~i R'6DRI'~U~z, con~inu~d:)
MR. LARK (continued)
it won'-% be on wheels to come and go. And I think all things being
considered, his mai..D~ financial hardship is that in th~s particular--
which is Unique to Fishers Island in particular=-there are no small
sized pieces of pro..perty. This end o~ the town, which is part of
old Fort Wrigb~,._~by._enlarge is ~ll spoken for, and the board has
g~an.~ed many~variaDces in those portions which are resid~nti, al and
some which are business to construct to reconvert some of the o~d
two-family and one-family officers' Quarters as residences, and
that_is not too far fro~_the area, and it is in keeping wi%h the
overall situation. And with~what's going to be possibly in the
future with the remaining holdings that FIDCO has, this.will not in
any way interfere and I know tha~ the residences an~ people that
reside~on the Island both in summer and yearround do ~an.~to keep
this business, ~nd that was ~de~ced by_the fact that they went
out of their Way to make this proper~ty ~ffordable to him originally
back ~n 1980 so..we could build a perm~nen~ ~ite_and stay ecoDomica~ly
in business. So wi'tho~t belaboring this point, I would_respectfully~
urge that he does have a hardship ~n the ~ense that the com~uni~y.~
itself would tend to suffer with the loss of the business if he ~s
not allowed to live on %be Island, because due to the nature of his
work and eve'rytbing, he can"t commute~ And~Connecticut, of course,
is the neares~ place he could commute and he's stuck kind of between
a rock and a ha~d ~late,sort of speak, the euphonistic phrase, so
I think he--and thi~ isn"t ~he first,_so you're not establishing a
precedent for other people who ~ovet~il i~D. As you know all the
~and surrounding it .~s $Boke'n for and .bas been iD the same ownership
for many, many yea'rs. It is r~ther stable climate .over there as
far as ~xchan§i~g properties are concerned. ~So it's not something
that you're going§ to be starting a floodgate of, and I thi.nk ther~
is a definite ne~d, 'and considering ~he'~ize, ~bape and topography
of the parcel and where he"s locating it, I think it will be
innocuous an~ tucked in rathe~ nicely back there.
Does anybody have any ques~tions~'I think mo~t of them have--
MR, CNAIRMAN: We've been by it. But what kind of business ~s it,
Mr. [ark?
MR. LARK': He's an upholsterer. An upholstery business. Right.
It's a custom situation, Wh.~re he takes iD work throughout the year
and you know, then delivers it and his sole clientale are those~.that
live on the Island. He's been in it for many, many years. I guess
ever since he~ gotten out of the Coast Guard. Ha~n~t he, Mr.~Doyen--
in that particular business?
MEMBER DOYE~: Oh, many years.
MR. LARK: Right on Fi'~h~rs I~land~
Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3225 - JOSE ~. RODRIEGUEZ, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Was this entire piece of property bought as one
uni,t, or was it, dr were pieces of it purchased?
MR. LARK: Ok, originally bac~ in ~980 FIDCO, Fishers Island
Development Corporation agreed to convey him, oh I would say about
a 12,000 sq. ft. parcel. That was in contract. It had to be
approved by the P~anning Board. The Planning Board said no.
That's all.he needed for his business, "If we're going to approve
a set-off with any time out of this lO,'~12-acre piece on this end
of the Island, we want you to have a.30,O00 sq. ft. piece." And
that's why you see that as such as irregular shaped parcel. The
Town still ~s using at FIDCO's grace some_of the old~.gunn~ng places,
they tell me something in a bur~ing ground,, refuse.area, and the
FID¢O didn't want to interfere with that, and so that's~why you
see the screwy property lines there~ And was it Fox Stree~,_Fox
Lanes is somewhat .~ ~n~ma, Before Mr, Rodrieg~z put his.~
building there nobody ever-'really knem wh~re it. went legally.
BuildiDgs all over it. And as ~ say., he cleaned all ~hat
because he moved the shed off and we got t~bat all ~traigh~ened
out. And, no, it went as one piece in one deed. In fact, the
contract back in 1979 was with FIDCO, but by the time they had
gotten straightened out ~'~h~tb~ Planning Board and powers to be,
the deed to ~hat piece as you see.~t on ~he survey was dated
10 June 1980, Li'b~r 9023 page 370. So. it's in one piece.
MR. CHAIRM~N: Thank you, sir. I don't think I have any
other questions, Mr~ Lark~ I thank you. We'll see if anybody
else does. Including~.Mr. Doyen, Mr. Doyen always has.~something
to say
MEMBER DOYEN: Mr. Lark covered the situation very well.
MR. LARK: I don't know what.~et'~e-=
MR. CHAIRMAN: Altrright, hearing no further questions, I'll
ask if anybody else would like to be. hear. d in behalf? Nothing?~
Anybody to speak aga'inst the application? Question~ from board
members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll ~ake ai~mo.tion
closing the hearing and reserving dec~sion until t~ter~
MEMBER DOUGLAS~: Second,
~n motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. ~Douglass,
it was
RESOLVED, td ClOse the .h.e~ril,ng and reserve decision until later,
pending deliberat~'Ds' in ~he~Ma~ter of JOSE V. 'RODR.IEGUEZ,. Appeal
No. 3225 ........ i'
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Gr'igonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. Th~s resolution was adopted by_unanimous vote
of all the members of the board.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3239:
Upon application of JOSEPH FISCHETTI, Hobart Road, Southold, NY
for a Variance to the Zoning O-~--d-i-nance, Article V, Section 100-50(~)[1]
for permission to erect sign with less than four-foot clearance
from ground, at 52800 C.R~48, Sou~hold, NY~ County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-051~05=002.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:20 p~m. and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its entirety and appea~ application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey ~nd~cat~'~g the placement
of the sign Mr. Fischetti is p~opo.~.ing, and I have a copy or_the
Suffol~ Coun'ty~T~x Map showing t~is and surrounding properties in the
are~. Mr. Fischetti,_woul'd you like to be heard in behalf of your
application?
JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Are there any questions?
MR. ~HAIRMAN: The sign does not exceed the total square footage?
MR. FISCHETTI: No, it does not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you-]like to add anything to the application
as to why .....
MR. ~ISCH.ETTI: It's basically a cedar sign, with gray stain on
it. ~We'~e trying to just keep i~ve'ry ~nobst~usive and low' We
felt four feet off the groun'd_~-it just makes it more rinsible, which
is. not the case ('remainder of.statement inaudible),
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any intentions of lighting it?
MR. FISCHETTI: No, not at all. Just have landscaping around it.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else to be heard in
behalf of this applicatioD? Anybody against the .~pplication? Ques-
tion~ from board~members? (None) 'Bearing no furt.bgr, comments,
make a..motion gf'~ating the application as app.lie~ for, based upon
the fact that we had ~isite~.he site and do~.agree that a targ~ sign
around a~turn like that might have visual def~ts to a driver--and
that's the major reason Why I"m making the motion
MEMBER DOUGLASS~ Seco~-d.
S~uthold Town Board of~'~ppeals -15- May 17, 198-4- Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3239 JOSEPH FISCHETTI, continued:)
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks a variance from Article V, Section
100-50(C)[1] of the zoning code to erect 52" by 108", the lower edge of
which will be two feet above the ground, rather than the required four
feet above the ground. Said sign will advertise only that use permitted
on the premises in question and shall comply with all of the supplementary
sign regulations of the code pertaining to this zoning district.
The premises in question is zoned "B-1 Multiple-Residence" and
contains an area of approximately 2.8 acres. For the record it is
noted that t'he premises is presently being improved with multiple
dwelling structures, which shall be in compliance with this board's
conditional approval of a Special Exception application in accordance
with Section 100-50(B)[3] of the Zoning Code as granted February 19,
1983, and any and all other approvals required for same.
The board members agree that the property in question and this
type of advertising lend itself to the granting of the relief requested,
as well as being more in keep.~ng with the landscaping.
In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the
relief requested is not substantial; (b) that the granting of the
requested relief, the character of the neighborhood will not be
adversely affected; (c) that by allowing the variance, no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; (d) that no
adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities
of any increased population; (e) that the relief reques.~ed will be
in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and (f)
that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance,
as indicated below.
Accordingly, it was recommended that the visibility must remain
clear and unobstructed for at least IO feet from the front property
line, and the following resolution was adopted:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3239, application of JOSEPH ~ISCHETTI
for permission to construct 52" by 108" sign advertising on,premises
business, at a minimum of two feet above ground, 'BE AND'HEREBY IS
APPROVED AS APPLIED.
Location of Property: 52800 C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-051-05-002.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote.
6outhold Town Board of Appeals -16- May l?, 1984 Regular Meeting
'PUblIC HEARING: Appeal No 3240: JOHN ~ PATRICIA DINIZIO by
Robin . Carr for a Variance t~ Ab~iCle~III,~Sec:tion 10~'32 for
permission to construct inground sWimmingpoo~ in the sideyard area,
at 315 Brown Street, Greenpo'rt, NY; 1000~048_03-042.3]
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:20 p.m. and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. ~HAIRMAN: I have a copy of atsurvey ~at~d September 15, 1975
indicating the app~ox~at~.pt~ce~e~t of~ thei~ous:e on ~he proper%y,
the approximate Placement of the swimmingpool in the sideyard area,
approx~mate'ly 35_~eet from the house and ~ s~immi'ngpool approxi-
ma~e'ly 16' bY 32'~ Mr. Carr, would you like to De heard_in behalf
of this application?
ROBIN CARR: Just if there are a~y questions:.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are' you showing the deck area on this pool or-=
MR~ CARR: As far as I understand they were going to ~ave cedar
or something around
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I just ask you, over hebe, a question on
dimensions? The real'ly w'by I asked YOU this, you see it says
10 feet here.
MR, CARR: That's why he~s talking about as]far as fencing.
This exterior line is fencing. _
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. So the fencing will go~ ~s far as l0 feet.
But to your'kn~w~'e'dge.~ there's Do dec~i'ng~..~
MR. CARR: Not to the best of my knowledge~ No. What he intends
to do later, you know=[
MR~ CHAIRMAN: --is not apart, i~o~ your application here, Ok.
Thank you. Do you have any idea i'f be inten~s.~.to do any lighting?
MR~ CARR:. As far as I-know, t~here s' a light by that set of ~oors
off of the side of the hous'e~
MR. CHAIRMAN: B~t no to{al lighti'ng around, court ~]i~hting, or
whatever?
MR. CARR: None that I know of~
MR. CHAIRMAN: Wha~t's your tim~lin'es~ on th~s, do you want to
get going as qu~ckl'y !as possible?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- May 17, t984 Regular Meeting
('Appeal No. 3240 - JOHN~..A..ND PA~cIA DINIZ~O, Continu6di)
MR CARR: Well, I think he was talking about a 4th of July
weekend party. The time frame as far as that goes, yes, it's
important.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I have not discussed this with the
board, so, what~I'!l'l~tby:.and do=-I'm going to close the hearing--
but what I'm going_~o t~y and do is deliberate after this meeting.
I don't know if we'll get to it tonight. If not, we'll be having'
a Special Meeting within the next week or so. And we'll be dealing
with it at that pa.rticular time. Thank you for pointing that out
to me. Is there anybody else that would_lik~ to ~peak in behal~ o~
the application? Against ~he application? Questions from board
members? (None)
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Hr. Douglass,
it was
RESOLVED, to close ~he he,ring and reserve decision until later,
pending deliberations in the Matter of JOHN ~ND P~TRICI~ DIN~Z!O,
by Robin Carr, Appeal No. 3240.
Vote of the ~oard: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. Th~s resolution was adopted 'by_unanimous vote
of. all the members of the board~
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3241:
Application of ROBERT W. GILLISPIE III, Box 1112, Southold, NY
for a Variance to. Art]c 6 '.]', $~c~io'n'lO0~60(C) ~o~ permission to
erect ~gn with insufficient setback from the frgnt [street)-'
property_..line at N/S Main Road, Southold, NY; ]000~061-02-07 and
par~ of 0§~
Th~i~Ch~imman opened the hearing at 8:31 p.m. and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its entirety an'd appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a a surv.ey prepared on April 2,
1984, indicating the 9' setback that Mr. Gill~spie is referring.~to
of his existing building, and a copy of the.Suffolk County T~x_Map
indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr~ Gillis-
pie, would you like to be heard ~n behalf of this appl~ication?
ROBERT W. G~LLISPIE III: If there are questions-Z
MR. CHAIRMAN Yes. You're putting this on the ~ast side?
- MR. GILLISPIE- Of th~ building, yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The maximum size restrictions are 4' by 6' YoU
Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeai No. 3241 - RO~ERT~-GI~LISPIE, continued:)
.M~R. CHAIRMAN (continue'd):
mentioned five by six. Are you talking about that marq~ee~,Qn~op
of the sign. Does that violate anything, Victor?
MR. LESSARD: I don't k~ow off hand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Because ahyth~ng~that we grant is 4' by 6' and
we're not going to go over that figure 4 by 6.
MR. GILLISPIE: So that scroll work should not be there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Wel~, I think that's up t~ the interpretation of
the building inspecto~ Sign r'estriction, isn't it based upon the
actual lineal footage of th~ building, Mr~ Lessard?
MR. LESSARD: Y~s, ~ W6'll sign i~ A ground sign is no~
He's'tal~ing ~about~a ground ~gn~ right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll look into i{ before we make a decision.
And what's your timelines~ on the erection of the sign?
MR. LESSARD: He's looking for the variance. He can argue
wi,th the building inspector on the size. I would think.
MR. GILLISPIE: The basic problem is the setback.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand. I don't think there's any contest
on the setback, we're aware of that si.tuation.
MR. GILLISPIE: The s~deyard setback.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're aware of that, we've been by the property
several times since you filed the application. What I will do is
close the hearing and try and give you a decision within t~e next
few weeks if that's all right eith you. And so we don't violate
anything yet in reference to size and whatever. And thank you.
Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of
the application? Questions from board members? (None) I'll make
a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later.
On.motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later,
pending deliberations in the Matter of Appeal No. 3241, ROBERT_W.
GILLISPIE III.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members of the board.
Southold Town Board o~f~Appeals -19- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS: Appeals No. 3237 and 3236:
Applications of GOLDSMITH~AND TUTHILL, INC. by R.F. Lark, Esq.,
Main Road, Cutchogue,----N-~--~-6r:
(a) a Variance to Article IX, Section 100-93 of the Zoning
Ordinance for permission to ~onst~uct office building with an
insufficient frontyard setback;
(b) a Special-Exception to Article IX, Sections 100-90,
100-91 and Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B) for permisdsiQn to
construct office and storage building in this "~-.1" General
Industrial District.
Locati'on of Property: 1515 Youngs Avenue, Southold, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel NO, !000-60~-6.
The Chairman asked if there was any objection to combine the
hearings in the above applications, and it was agreed that they
be held jointly. The Chairman opened the hearings at 8:37 p.mo,
read the legal_notice of these two hear~gs~and each application
accordingly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of what appears to be a site plan
showing the actual position of ~he propose~office-storage buil_ding.
It appears to be 17~0 sq. ft... Is that a loft_~or 660?
MR. LARK: StOrage p~p~ses~
MR. CHAIRMAN: Storage part, for a total square footage of 2400.
(The Chairman passed each board member a copy of the_site plan f~r
viewing.) I have a copy of a site plan dated 1/3/84 which~appears
to be the most current_one~
MR~ LARK: That's correct.
MR. ~HAIRMAN: And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding prQper~ies in ~he~area. ~r' Lark~
RICHARD F. 'LAR~, ESQ.: Ok. I think one of the first q~e~tions
tbat'the'~boa~d is oinq _
. - ......... g .l ~ to have to resolve in any decision rendered
iS whether or not a special exception is required. My reading of
the Zoning Code does not. The building inspector's reading o~ the
zoning ordiance,,..~t is. Basically the reason I'm bringing_that to
your attention is that ~e~are.~iQ_a "C-l" General Industrial District,
ano buildings and premises may be u~ed ~o~ any lawful purpose,.except,
and the~ it~.§oes oQ, "no building or premises shall be used Uwelling,
boarding house, tourist home, motel, and uses hereinafter set forth
- permitted only by Special Exception." And all the uses hereino~%er
~et forth in ~hat sectioD do not mention anything that's related to
'~outhold Town Board of Appeals -20- May 17, 1~84 Regular Meeting
(Appea~s. No. 3237 and 3236, ~OLDSMITH & TUTH~LL,-contin~ed:)
MR. LARK (Continued):
this business. But by some method t,he building inspector goes back to
the prior section~ which is the !'~C~Liight Industrial" District, and I
think it's clear in that zone use district that for yard for the sale
or storage of fuel and building materials, you do have to get a
special exception. And as precedent to th~, the board some years
back did grant a variance to locate ~ fuel tank that was located
there. A~d that needed to be.because of the sideyard, rearyard.
No question, variances are needed here to put the_proposed office
bui-lding in the site where iris propose]d. But as ~ matter of law,
I question as to whether or not a special exception is needed._ But
neither here nor there, since they ~di'd deny it~ we did apply also,
the board does agree with the buildin~g inspector, ~hen we'v~ g~ven
you sufficient reasons on both page. s of th~ application which ~ulf~ll
the criteria in the zoning ordiDa~c:e for the g~anting of a special
exception. But I respectfully submit.that I don't think one.is
necessary? However, as to a_~ariance, one is necessary, and the
hardship, the practical difficulties that the petitioner finds himself
is, as you know from readi.~g the application a~d visiting the site,
the premises have been there a long time, Since 1946 as a matter of
fact, it's been used for this p~ec~se business that is there. The
office at the present time to conduct the fuel business, Goldsmith
and Tuthill~ i~ they m~nt space from Southold Lumber, which is right
across the~street; ~nd Soutbold Lumber is i~ the process of trying
to expand its office space, so actually in essenc~ is asking u~ to
leaved even though it'~ a related company. So they thought the
most practical thing to do w~s to go ahead and build an office
building with some,_if you would, covered storage ~or petroleum
products that can be ~arried to and from the site. It[s not a good
idea to mix these types of products ~.n the lumber area, so the
building and the pla~s speak for themselves~
We ~ent befor~ the P~anning Board some time back. They had no
objection, and~they understand the reason why the building has to
be so close to the road. It's not necessari~l~ tb~be~.~n c~nformity
with the neighborhood. AI~ the buildings there are right o~ the
sidewalk. That wasn't the main reason.
Initially, we tried to set it back, but the 'further back we went
with tractor trailers coming in to make deliveries to the bo~h the
underground and above groun~ fueld tanks, ~hey need maneuvering room.
So as~you can .see fr~m page 2, or lA as ~t~s~m~ferred to there, the
Planning Board wants sQme delineation of parking spaces and with no
problem~at all we were able to get the .~eQuired.niDe~ The beauty of
the ~ay the p.~rking is laid out, in the r~ar, aan'be used fort
employee parking, as wel! as any type of customer parking, but it
leave~ so~e maneuvering_room because most df the de.liveries by the'
tracto~traile~s~_are.~'~the evening hours, ~ou kno~ when it'~.~clOsed
~outhold Town. Board of Appeals -21- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. '32.37 and 3236 -~OLiDS'MTT'~i"& TU~'IL£, continued:)
MR. LARK (continued):
to the public. So they will be able to come in and we've made it
one-way. The northerly entrance as you can see is a one-way
entrance coming which will serve both for automobiles and for
the heavier, not oqly the~Southold Gol. dsmith and Tuthill fuel
trucks but also for ~he delivery trucks, and then the Q~it will
be for the south, And by ~ituatin. g the building where it is,
if we move closer to the_road, we couldn't put a driveway in front
of the building, which most of the general public would use.
Mainly, they'd_come in to pay b~.lls and stuff like that. That's
the main trDffic that you'd'get,.~ehicular typ~. And by moving
it back, we ~an into the existing garag~ so we couldn't_get th~
tractor trailers throdgh.' So this.seemed to be the best
compromise that we can work out~ And therein lies the practical
diffi~ul'ty, cOnsidering_the size and shape'of ~he parcel in the
existing ~anks' to allow=i-and we also toQ~k in%o consideration to
allowing, God forbid, any 'type of_emergency vehicles to get in
a~d to get. out by the on~-way ingress and ~gress,~this would
prevent congestion and leave sufficient space in_width, the
driveway to get i~ and Out. And as you c~n see, spots 7, 8~and 9
will be primarily for pub]l~c's use a~ well as they.~.]w~i~.tstop i~
the driveway in_the f~.~nt~..of the buil'din~g. Parki'Dg t. he rear
is probably~primarily for e.~p'l'oy, ees beca~_~'e .it'-s removed. And
with the %ype of st~oKage in.~he.~rear, it would 'be sort of a
-loading doc~ fo~ a pick-up truck, if you would, it could pull
up to it and put bulk fuel, you kno~,._cases qf oil and~.stu~
l~ke that. That's the...pr~ma~y reason for the back~
I am told by both Mr. Rich and the building inspector that
the building that they~have proposed to be_constructed which is
in the cemaining page~ of th~ e~hi'bits before you~does-conform
to the building code-for both an office building, size= shape,
lavatories, ramps for the handicapp.~d, one thin.g~or another~..~hat
you have to put in now adays, and ~he. fire wall separation is ok,
since you arq storing flam~able produ~]~ in th~ sQ~e buildi'ngs
that you have peopl-ejwo~ki'ng~_
So the mai~ e~Phasis i$-~or the frontyard and the sideyard,
the variance for the yardsj.~.a~d then.~you'l%l have to rule Q~D~
whether a special exce'ption is requi~d~i~!~If you claim one is,
in your interpre%ation of the'codQ, then we~._r~e~spectful'ly submit
we~met.~with all this cr.i~eria of that a board..is en~.t~]~d ~o -
grant a speci~] excepti, on. And~.unless you 'have any qu.~tions--
I have Mr, Rich here~' As..far as ti_me t~ble~, I :kn'Qu' you might .....
ask that, since you!ve asked it of other appli'c'ants,~wetvq.~_started
thds back in December with the Pl.~nning Bo.~.d. As'I say~ 'ou~-
biggest problem is we felt we needed variance~ ~igh~ up front~.
and it was a.~questiO, n qf..~where from a site plan p~int of view,
the Planning Board takiDg in o~herL:6onside~i~'tion ~nd some of the
Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appea~ No. 323? ~n~d~d~323~'~i~GOLDSMITH &'-TUTHILL, continued:)
MR~ LARK (continued):
pr~c~cal difficulties we had, and they've agreed with our site plan
provided we ~en~.~ it on the parking,~which we've done. They'v~
.~pproved that, and the officia~ site~plan approval would wait_.your
approval, 'because there'~no question ~e have to have that in an
iDdustr~al district, too. Th~re"s no quarrel with that~ It's just
a question of getting it now.
MR~ CHAIRM~N: C~n I ask you, when you refer to existing fence
in the~frontyard. You're referring that as being a property line,
is that not?
MR. LARK: Yes.
MR- CHAIRMAn: Ok. So therefore the southerly most portion,
since ~he building appears not t~ conform to ~the ~oad, might be.
a little less_thaD 2~feet~ Is that correct?
.MR- LARK: The sur~ey--
MR RICH: The front of the building, I think, would be 25 feet
from the property line~ The fence .~s not right po the..property~line,
there's a 6' high board fence_there now, picket fence~ ..Th~ re~son
we picked the dista'nce ~back, as Mr. ~Lark ~aid, i~ so that we can get
tractor trailers between the new building and ~that .first shed on the
north side, and also it's exactly in lin~ with the ~gway Store~ The
Agway S~ore is 23' from the property ~ine at one co~De~and 27 on-the
other, cocked to th~ road th~n._ So w.~'re kind of splitting that
difference.
MR. LARK: The fence is just slightly off the property line, on
.the property side, not on the stree't_si~e.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So it's real'ly a littl~ more than 22 feet.
MR- LARK: Yes. That being~'~he 'clos'~st spot, I thi~k is what
he was trying to show there, where the vehicle would be turning in.
MR. C~AIRMAN: So assuming, going 'by wha{ we have~-I don'{'know
if we have a copy of the survey~
MR. RICH: ~ ha~ a lot of ~opies of Mr. 'VanTuyl's~eur.vey made,
I thought that you had them, but ~aybe. they on]y'~ent to th.e Planning
Board. (A copy~of the survey was given to~he~Chairman~)' ~ .....
MR. LARK: Mr Chairman, it's~ Dasically, the map that you have
is really a tracing off the VanTuyl sur~e~ I mea~..it won't'show
you anything different. It's. really a t~ing of.f of i.'t~ Ok?
That's what we did~ In other word~ that doe.6.s~ow the dimensions
~outhold Town Board o~"Appeals -23- May 17, 19~4 Regular Meeting
(Appeals No. 3237 and 3236 - GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL, continued:)
MR] LARK (continued):
and everything.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So in other words, if the board so granted to
approve this application, and we placed in the application that the
building be placed no closer than 22 feet--~
MR. RICH: That~wduld be great.
MR. LARK: That's fine. Because it was a juggling act-~hat's
how it was derived,
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me~-give you an example as ~to why we said that.
We recently granted a h'~use in the Southold Hamlet area which says
that it will conform to all side yards~ And instead of placing the
house straight on the lot_they cocked it, and now it's 9!8" --
MR. LARK: I'm very muchJ~aware of'~that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So we're being very careful about this because
there really is no reason to hear the..~ppl.icat~on twice, but we do
have to hea~ the application before the..existing--
MR. LARK: Th.at"~ill be no problem, and I see~what you're getting
at. What he's s~yin§ i~, the rQad ~uns at a bias as to what we have--
that was done deliberately because of--
MR. RICH: D~d you want to keep this one--
MR. :HAIRMAN: It's the same exact thing. Th~re'.s no reason for it.
MR. RICH: The only difference is 7s that the plan ~ou.gentleme~
have referred, is dra~Q to_a 1" to 20 scale, and th~s ~as bne t.g 40..
We thought this would sKow bet%er, and wh.en we came back after going
to the Planning Boa~d,.we Wanted' to show and if' you turn t~ the next
page, it"l] show the parking, or somewhere ther~.~s a parking plan on
there. This one show.~ the parking, and this was drawo'to ~.be_same
scale but after we went to ~he Planning Board 'so that it would meet
with their requirements. Now,_.O.py questions we woul'd be delighted
to answer them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This.is a one-story structure?
MR. RICH: Yes..
MR. CHAIRMAn: -With no basement?
MR. RICH: There 'i,s a basement. Look on the last page, there's
a basement under the office part ..........
MR. LARK: Onlyo
$outhold Town Board of Appeals -24- May 17, ~984 Regular Meeting
(Appeals No. 3237 and 32§6 - GOLDSMITH &-T~THILL, continued:)
MR. RICH: Only.
MR. LARK: The other is on a poured slab. That's right.
The main storage area.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes, but it shows the basement also.
MR. LARK: Yes, so you can get. a furnace and everything else.
You don't have them mixed in with fuel.
MR. RICH: Well, also, we wanted ~o be able to run the piping
and be able to get.out, rather than have it ir a slab. I don't
like plumbing and piping in the slab. We have to put several
bathrooms in there~ The water for that will come from the Town,
the Village water runs right in the front. There.'s no pump.
MR~-CHAIRMAN: This w~ll be a stucco masonry structure?
MR. RICH: Well, the ba~k will be. The front we!il probably
use ~inyl siding, ~ ~
MR. CHAIRMANi On the whole structure.
MR. RICH: Noo.Just vinyl siding on the-front. Actually, some
of the detail we haven't wo~ed out.~yet. I think we're go,~ng to
have to hire an architect to get thi~ building actually the way we
want it in order to get a building permit~ The po~n.~ is, I didn't
-want to do that and spen-d the~money for the arc,h~tect if I could
not get permission to ~uild it. So.~eLve 'done the start on it.
The best we could,
MR. LARK: General'ly, it's my information that=- he's right--
we'll probably have tO get an architect's seal. Bu~ the overall
plaDs as to what is encompassed in it does'meet with the building
code-building requirements.
MR. RICH~' Would it be possible if you feel so inclined to
grant us p~rmission to go ahead with t.h~s be.f~e we ha,~e a complete
plan-- .~
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, definitely.
MR. RICH: Yeah, Because I"would rather not spend the money for
the architeCt if we're not going to be able to build it. .
MR. CHAIRMAn: No~ We're not in building des'i~n ~n a~y way,
manner or form.
MR. RICH: Because I understand before we get the build~ng permit
we have to have it. I understand tha~.
~outhold Town Board of Appeals -25- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeais No. 3237 and-32~6 - GOLDSMITH & TUTHI~L, continued:)
MR CNAIRMAN: No, I just as a matter of going through the plan
ask the questions of what the exterior of what the building was
going to have. That may be a question that some one iD ~he audience
might have.
MR. LARK: All right. From here if the board so grants it, we
have to go back to the Planning Board to finalize the approval and
then we would be in a position_to formally apply for approval,
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr, Lark.
MR RICH: If there are any questions, we'll answer them.
MR. CHAIRMANi Ok. W~'ll see if anybody i'~ the audience has
anything they'would l~ke to~ay, I.~ there'anybody else to speak
in behalf of this_application for Goldsmith-~Dd Tuth~ll? A'n~body
like to,speak against the applicatio.n? Questions from board me~bers?
(None).
On~mo%iOn..'b~ Mr~ Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
it was
RESOLVED, to Close'th~,..~.~ing and reserve-decision~until later,
pending deliberations in.the Matters~6f GOLDSMITH AND. TUTHILL ~n
&ppeals No, 3237 and 323'6.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs, Goehringer, Doyen, Gfigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki'. Th~s resolution ~as adQ~ed b~_una.nimous vote
of a~l the members of the board.
9:05
TEMPORARY'RECESS: Motion was made by Mr. 'Dougllass, 'seconded 'by
Mr. Goehringer, ~to recess for approximately thre~_min~es, This
resolution ~as~idu'ly car.ri.ed.
9:10.~ RECONVENE: Motion was made ~by Mr. 'Doug~as's~ seconded by
~'Member Sawick~, to reconvene the Regu'la~ee~in'g .... ~hi~ re,solUtion..
was unanimously adopted, ·
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No, 3235:
~po~ application ~'G'~RTRoDE"M]'~'AL~ bY R.F~ Lark, Esq,, Main
Road,~Cutch_Q.gue,.NY for a._Var~anc~ to the Zoning Ordinance,~.~Article
III,. Section 100-32 for permission to constru.c~.~ew .d~e.ll~ng ~hi~h
places accessory storage building in the frontyard area~ ~o'cation
of Property: S/s East Road,~,.Cutc.hogue~ NY; lOQO~llO-O~.~O1.]~
.Southold Town Board b,x Appeals -26- May 17, 19~ Regular Meeting
(Appea~sNo. 3235 - GERTRUDE M. ALI, continued:)
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:11 p.m. and read the legal
notice of this hear.ing in its entirety andfappeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey showin~ the proposed
location of a new dwelling to be set back 151 feet from East Road
and an existing frame.garage which is the subject of this ~pplication.
We also have a copy of the_County Tax Map indicating this and surround-
ing properties in the area. Mr._Lark, would you like to be heard?
RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ.: The one thing tha~ the survey that you
have doesn't show is that the existing driveway goes rights to the
east of the framed garage. In other words, it comes in off East
Road if you've been down to the property, you know. That was
anothe~ consideration. That and~.the fact that the building is
still in pretty good shape and Mrs. Ali, as I indicated,?'~h~
property has been in her_family since 1915, was ~aced with maybe
taking it down and then her builder told_her,"I'don't see the~sense
of that when I can fix it up, and when I take'it down.] would
rebuild it in the some spot anyway." So, That's what happened
there, As I say, the garage has been there for man.y, maQy years
and it conforms~_to, as I uoderstand it, the existing~thin.g for
an accessory building~such 'as it did not exceed 18 feet. It is
closer than_3 feet f~om the property line, but that is preexisting.
SO that's not part of this appl~cat.~on. And it..does no~ occupy
obviously more_than 40% of the area. The main teas.on is that ~our
zoning is kind of unique ~ven know the propert'y owhers a'~e living
on the bay or the sound and treat the b~y ~Qr sound side as their
front yard which in reality it is their bac'kyard. And as I say
we couldn't locate it and move it to the rea~, because you see.
how the building is, how 'the proposed building is being_~..constructed,
it would be right in the way of the view... And the building itself
as indicated i~ the applica.tio.~ does conform. The COu_oty wanted
it back 50 feet off tbe._top of the bank ..... and so did the Planning
Board to covenant_it to that ~ffect. Again, considering _~he
neighborhood as you go up both...on East Road and West Road, Whic~
is Qn the other side~o~.Eleet's Neck Road or Pequash Avenue,
there are numerous' garage..~ right in the fron~t~a~d area there.
I know the board is familiar ~th that fact, So it is in keeping
with the neighborhood, and since the'Town Board decided not tg-_
change our zoning to allow an optional frontyard in either one,
but to keep it to the board's, d~cretLion, each and every application,
I think you can see the practical difficulty met by th9 p~.~%ioner
here to grant this yard ~equirem~nt of allo~ing an_~acceE~ory
structure to be which wit.1 now be the.~.fr'o~t' yard~~ Any queEtions?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. 'Lark, ~his is veny difficult for me to
say, but as you kn'o~,.we appreciate you~.~Gomi_Q.g.~befor.~ us because
you at all times usually 'have the aQ.swers to ~yery question that
we have. The b~ard is_~extremely upset with t. his piece of
_ property because for some reasq.o, ~hen this propq,r~ was in the
oature of.a minor_subdivi'sion, it appears th~ it has not been
~outhold Town Board of Appeals -27- May 17, ~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3235 - GERTRDDE M. Ali, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN (continued)~
brought before this board.~ And it appears that it is undersized.
The board did~ not want to entertain this application until we
went down and looked at it, ok and actually viewed it. And it
appears that it does not meet the 40,000 at the time of the nature
of the application, which appears to be a problem of the Planning
B6ard because they didn't send it over. So could you please give
us the square footage of the parcel, and if it is undec 40,000;
we would like to bear the application first, being i,t an undersized
lot at the time it was subdivided.
MR. LARK: There. has been no difference since the lot was
bul~kheaded, it has been bulkheaded for many, many years.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This was not the nature-of the-]
MR. LARK: As I under.stand it, What the surveyor is showing you
there is from the bulkhead back. That's Young and.Young. Ok. That
bulkhead was put in-~must have been 15 or 20 years or better. Ahd
originally it~was put b~ck to hold the bank and there was beach
are~ which the owner did own, going out some maybe'20 or 30 feet,
and then that was even further.~increaSed when they dredged East
Creek and the~,County put the spoil on there~ This surveyor for
some reason, I see ~hat on t'he_~_su~vey, your comment, has~only shown
from the bulkhead back, On the survey ~hat was used, Mr. V~oTuyl's
survey that_.was used for the Planning__Board, originally ~t was just
slightly over three a~res if ~y memory is corr. ect, ao~ they divided
it into_three parcels. And this one .was a~ the~only requi~ement they
had was 150 feet at the building, which you see it bas there-, and it
was as I remember it on tha~ survey, a~4~,O00 sq. ft. I was not
aware that Howard Young had reduced ~t, but I cad ~e why he has.
Because the dimensions of the property~haven~t change'd. So the'only
thing I can explain is he .just_took from the bulkhead'back, which ~s
at the bottom of the bank and doesn~'t allow for.~any beach area~ Which
they do own., That"could be my only exp!~anation. ~othing has changed
down there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you possibly supply us~wlth the original
subdivision map so tha~ ~ mi~gbt~- ~ ........
MR. LARK: Yes, that's no problem. I don~t have that in this
file here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no. Some time. We're not going to deliberate
upon it tonight anyway.
MR. LARK: No. I have that in the file~
MR. CHAIRMAN: The board was ~ery concerned about that when we.
went down there because it didn't, ce~%ainly appe'ar, to be an acre lot
~outhold Town Board o~' Appeals -2B- May 17, 19~ Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3235 GERTRUDE M. ALI, contin~ed:i
MR CHAIRMAN (continued):
and we didn't understand why it didn't come before us first. We feel
with the subdivision--
MR. LARK: -~t was 40,000 sq. ft. I can show you that on the
VanTuyl survey. I remember that. In fact I .think it was 4Q,O00 and
a little bit more, to be honest with you. Which is three and a
fraction acres, as I remember it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So you'll supply us with that.
~ '~r~blem, and as you can compare it,
MR. LARK: Yes. That is no
there has been ~o change. I thi~k the only difference being the
beach. And there is a_beach there. I don'_t uDderstand why_he didn't
show it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: tt was so close to the hear.lng when we looked at
it, we decided just to ask you at the hearing as~_opposed
MR. LARK: ~ can furnis-~ that map. It was an ~tual survey that
it he did it. That's~.~no problem~
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that
would like to be heard fo~ the application? A'nyone ~gainst_~the
application? Questions from boa~.~ members? (Ngne) ~earing no
further questions, I"l] ~ake a motion closing %he hearing pending
a receip~ of the original subdivision map approved 'by the ~lanniDg
Board.
On motion by Mr.. 'Goehringer~ seconded by Mr. Sawi.cki,
it was
RESOLVED, tO ¢1~05e ~-h~ and reserve decision until later,
pending ~e~e~pt~o~e~o~g~nal~s~bd~ision map app~o.v-ed_~by~b.e~
Planning Board, 'in the mat~er ~f Appeal'No. 32~,'~.RT~DD~E~"~' ALI~
Vote of the Board: 'Ayes: ~es~s~--Goehring~r,
Douglass and Sawicki. Th~s resolution was adopted 'by~na, nimous vote
of a~l the members o'f the board.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal N'o~ 3243:
Upon"application of"~EVIN'AND LE'SLEY MtLOWSKI~ Bo× 134,. 'Cutchogue,
for approval of access, Private-Right-of-Way'located at the west
side of Cox Neck Road, 'Mattituck, NY (D'o~ or.formerly 'W. 'Chudiak);
lO00-113-7-part of 12 .......
~outhold Town Board of Appeals -29- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appea~ m~. 3243 - KE~IN ~ND'-~ESLEY MILOWSKI~ continued')
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:25 p.m. and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey prepare~ January 5, 1984
prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. indicating a parcel of approximately
80,000 sq. ft.~ which appea~s to be approximately 258~ feet from, or
312.16 feet to the maximum, from Cox Neck Road. _And I have ~ copy oft
the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties
int he area. Kevin, would you like to...be heard in behalf o~ your
application?
KEVIN MILOWSKI: We just need the application for the right-of-way
for access, and I guess the people that._~o live on. CoxJs Nec~ have been
using the road for 23 years to t.be back of their, property, and there is
no other access to my .property.
MR. CHAIRMAN: C'an-yo~ gi~e me the approximate placement of where
you will be placing the house? So we ~kn.o~. where we_are going with
this r~ght-of-way.
MR. MILOWSKI'i Well, 'we're going 150 in~ so my driveway would
come r~ght_in. _
MR, CHAIRMAN: You're not going to change that in any way~
MR. MILOWSKI: ~o, I'm not'going to go ~ack or an.yth~-ng. I just
want to come up and go right in~.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are aware of the fact that this right-of-way
appears to began active r~ght=of~w~y~ 'that if there are aDy ~other
lots to be produced her~_~-_ _
MR. MIL~WSKI: This was also purcjased within the time that we
were doing~this, and this rigbt-Q.y~wa~ does come d'own here and I
hear that this road is going_to~..co~e ~hrough'. And far as Bill
Chudiak says, he says~t~is ~s a proposed r~g~t~of~y, this
here, was prQposed and never wen% t.brou§h'~ _That. ~ ~n't. knQ~
MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want-you to be aware, and when we do so
grant it, and'we're d~scussing=~will~ be discussing'hte road improve-
mentS as you kn'ow~ The r'ight=~.~-w~y will on'~y be granted to h~re,
and that'~ the reason why I asked you].th.~ qu~ion~,~so if there is
any further development along this right-of-Way, t~ere~ will not be
any active 280A'~., from this particular 9oi~.t ~n, ~
MR. MILOWSKI: F.ine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, I'll ask~you the perverbial question I ask
- everybody. ~What is your timeliness on this? When.~do'~you need the
decision?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3243 - KEVIN AND LESLEY MILOWSKI, continued:)
MR. MILOWSKI: As soon as possible.
MR. CHAIRMAN:! You also want to build as soon as possible.
MR. MILOWSKI: ~ight~ When I got the lot, I didn't even know
about this until the lot was approved and then I was on my way to
the right-of-way.
MR~ CHAIRMA'N: Well, I can't guarantee you anything on it
tonight, but probably within two weeks, Ok? And_than~ you very
much for comiDg ~n.
MR. MILOWSKI: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the~e anybody else that would ~ike to speak
in behalt of the app~ication~ ~Anybo'd~ ~'to speak against the
a~plication? (None)~ Questions f~om'board member.s? (None)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hea~ing no further comments, I'l~ make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision until l~er.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. - ~-
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded 'by Mr. Grigonis,
it was
RESOLVED, to Cl'ose ~e hear~i'~ng and reserve decision until-later,
pending deliberations in th~.M~tem of Appeal No. 3243, for ~.~N
~ND LESLEY MILOWSKI.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. 'Goehringer., D~yen~ Grigo'nis,
Douglass a~d Sawicki. This resol~tioD ~as adopted by una~,i~9$ vote
of a]_l the members o~ the board ....
The Chairman at this point in time asked Stanl'ey 'Corwin and the
audience if anyone had obj6¢~ions to the combinat~of.hear~'ngs
on Appeals_~No.__3117!~and 3~18 in the Matters of~KAT]HRI'NE'FA'RR .... There
_ were ~o objectio~ concerning this request, ~ 'Z] '~" _~-~.
S~uthold Town Board of ~Appeals -31- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Appeals No. 3117 (Special Exception) and
No. 3~18 (Variance) in the Matters of the Applications for KATHRINE
FARR,..by Stanley S. Corwin, Esq., First'Street, Greenport, NY for:
~ a Special Exception to the Zoning ordinance, Article VIII, Sec-
tions lO0-80(B) and 100-81, for permission to construct build~ng
for marina and brokerage office use in this "C-Light Industrial"
Distr~ct, at llO0 Manhanset Avenue, Greenport, NY; and
(2) a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Sections
lO0-80(B) and 100-81 for permission to construct building for
marina office in this "C-Light Industrial" District, at llOD
Manhanset Avenue, Greenport, NY; Counts Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-034-05-021.
The Chairman opened the hearings at 9:30 o'clock p.m. and
asked Mr. Corwin and the audience if there was any Qbjection to
h~s op~ning~both hearings at the same time. Mr. Corwin stated
that he felt they should be considered together because the variance
was of no value without the special exception. Accordingly, the
Chairman read the legal notices pertaining to both applications
and in addition read both applications for the record, ~he.~V~riance
and Special Exception applications, respectively.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the map' dated March 7, 1983
~nd~cating a proposed structure for the variance of 16' by 23'
It appears to be a two-story structure. It appears to be four feet
to the closest part of the bulkhead~
SECRETARY: That was my notation on the map, and I'm not
sure that's accurate~and~weZshould_~heck.
MR, CHAIRMAN: All' ri'ght-, I'll ask the question. And I
have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties l_n the area Mr. Corwin.
STANLEY S. CORWIN, ES'Q,: I think that the board is familiar
with the contents of our appl.~cation. Our first application to the
town goes back to June 1982~. We landed ~ne of those chicken and
egg things where we have to have a site plan first',-or a variance
first. Those matters have been resolved.up to this point as a
result of working with the Planning Board~ They have given us
a conditional site ~plan approval subject to further action, pend-
ing hte action of this bR~d. I'm not suppose~ to relate the
facts because I'm sure that you~re all familiar with them. We're
...dealing with a very small piec~ of ~r.gperty there~ The application
fon.whjch we're making.as.far as_us9 is concerned is'abou.t.the only
thing for which it could be used other than to remain sterile. I.f
you care to ask questions, and ~'~ilike to reserve a Iittle time in
the event that t~reLs s~meo~e here that may be opposed to the
application so that I could replY','
MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRING~'R:~ Mr. Corwin, do you have any idea
the exact distance of the proposed'structure is S~pp.osed to be from
S~uthold Town Board o~"Appeals -32- May 17~ i984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3117 and No. 3118 - KATHRINE FARR hearings continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN (continued):
the--the proposed structure that you would like it to be f~om the
existing bulkhead? I have pencilled-in figures that we had taken
when we had gone down there and you know with a tape some time ago.
I think there was even snow on the ground at that time to be ho'nest
with you. At that time we were talking, our figures were four feet.
MR. CORWIN: Something on the order of four feet, about the
width of the w~lk at the ~dge of the bulkhead.
MR. CHAi~MAN: At any time during the negotiations with the
Planning Board, were there any other locations that either you or
the Planning Board had suggested concerning the placement of this
building--
MR. CORWIN: The Planning Board suggested that the property
be put down info,he southwest corner. We presented to them the
practicalities of that si"tuation, and they acceded that and agreed;
when they considered well what actually happened, unless we changed
the configuration of th~ building and made it an rhomboid rather
than square or rectangular. So they withdrew that and agreed that
the best place to put it was where we had originally asked.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The area indicated iof 3' by what appears to
be 13, appears to be an open deck area?
MR. CORWIN: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So 16 times 2, so you're talking basically
a buiIding of about 640 sq. ft.
MR. CORWIN: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What would be basically be occurring within
this structure?
MR. CORWIN: In the first place the structure is going to
have to be elevated so that the g~.~und floor is some distance above
the tidal bulkhead because of the flood plain situation. So
there's really going to be nothing ~on ~he ground floor.to speak of.
On the second floor, what it really is is the first floor, it's
going to be an _.~ffice building, ~.~mply with offices in it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: At any time that this was discussed with the
Planning-Board, was there any suggestion on anybody's part about
_us~ng the, I guess you would call it the first floor of this building
for the purposes of parking?
MR. CORWINi Yes. At one time the Planning Board suggested
~that we enlarge the building so that we can. get two cars in.~here,
when we were talking about the number of cars. The bottom of the
S~uthold Town Board of~Appeals -33- May 17, 1~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeals No. 3117 and 3118 KATHRtNE FARR hearings continued:)
MR. coRWIN (continued):
building can and will be used for parking of cars.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So the building then will be open? With
possibility an enclosed stairwell, that's what. you're proposing?
MR. CORWIN: Trues
MR. CHAIRMAN: With whatever retaining is required, steel
lolly columns, cement block piers, whatever the case might be?
MR. CORWIN: That's correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The present parking that was required by the
Planning Board is how many cars?
MR. CORWIN: Five. And that is subject to furthers-they
have indicated to us that they're not going to--it's going to have
to comply precisely with the total number of square feet and each
parking area required as long as.we have the minimum width and
length.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're talking about 10 by 20?
MR. CORWIN: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As opposed to 350 sq. ft. that they require?
MR. CORWIN: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any specific reason why you or
your applicants have suggested this ~roposed position a~_ opposed
to any other one? Th~ placement
MR. CORWIN: No. Not really.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you feel that you could live with some
other position other than this particular one?
MR. CORWIN: If the board would ever mind to discuss the
alternatives of moving the building ~ne way or the other, not
beyond the possibility that we. could sit d.own and do it, but I
don't see any reason. We went all through that with the Planning
Board. It seems to me the best situation for what they wanted
with respect to parking, and they're considering where they wanted
the curb cut, and the landscaping that they ho~ed to persuade us
to put in, and things]like that. I think the.location as proposed
is not only practical from the point of view of the applicants but
I don't see any reason why it should be change~ as far as either
one of the board~is concerned.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, at presen%, with the proposed structure
tha% you'have b~fore the board at this time. You are'basically
talking about a 13' setback from Manh~nset.AveDue?
MR. CORWIN: That's-correct.
S~uthold Town Board o~ Appeals -24- May 17, 198~ Regular Meeting
(Appe~s No. 3117 and 3118 ' KATHRINE FARR hearings continued:)
MR. CHAI'RMAN: '~, and thereby going back on my original
question of total square footage, you are in effect saying that
the total usable area of this building for office purposes will
really only be 320 sq. ft.
MR. CORWIN: That's right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And you don't object to any restriction on
that basis?
MR. CORWIN: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't have anything else. Does anybody
else have any questions of Mr. Corwin? (None) Ok, let's see.
what develops. Thank you, Sir. Does anybody else have any questions?
In behalf of the application?
MR. GUASTINi: My name is Guastinelli, I built a house--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Guastina?
MR. GUASTINI: G-u-a-s-t-i-n-i.
MR. ~HAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. GUASTINI: I just moved in my house located on the next
block, and it seems to work on that building on their property now
to keep it in good shape and neat an~ well landscaped, and I think
that it would be'a definite asset to let it expand. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else that
would like to be heard in b~half of this application? Anybody
wis~hing to speak against the a~plication? (No one). Is there any-
thing you would like to add, Mr. Corwin? Is know that this has
been a very long process.
MR. CORWIN: No, thank you. It has been a long process.
We lost two summers. And weld like not to lose another.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir. Hearing no further comments,
gentlemen? A'ny questions? Hearing no further comments, I'll
make_ a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until some
time later in the future.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close t~elhe__~ring ~nd reserve decisions~u~.~l
later some time in'..the future in the matters o'f~.K~THRINE FARR, in
Applications No. 31~7 and 3118.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted unanimously by
all the members.
Somthold Town Board of~A~ppeals -35- May 17, l~rd~4 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3232. Application for BERTRAM AND
MARGERY WALKER, by R.T. Haefeli, Esq., Box 757, Riverhead, NY for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for:
(a) an interpretation that the existing cottage and garage are valid
preexisting, nonconforming uses and structures; (b) approval of a
wooden deck as an accessory structure in the sideyard; (c) approval
of a reduction of livable floor area of a proposed dwelling conversion
to 500 sq. ft. and approval of insufficient sideyards. Premises
located at Edgemere Park, MacDonald's Path off Peconic Peconic Boule-
vard, Laurel; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-145-4-014.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:48 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have letters in the file that the board
has read and I will not read at this time. I have a copy of the map
indicating two lots, Parcel A, which I will refer to as the house lot
which is 16,857 sq. ft. and it does not appear to be the nature of
this application, and Parcel B, 15,118 sq. ft., which appears to be
the nature of this application~produced by Howard Young, most recent
date March 21, 1984. Parcel B indicates a one-story frame cottage
garage of approximately 24.4' by 32.4' It includes the garage. A
deck of various quantities. An existing storage building. It appears
that the location wants to be changed. :Of approximately 8.5' by 12.2'
and an existing it appears to be and I hope you don't mind my saying
this -- delapidated shed of 8.0' by 7.6' And I have a copy of the
Suffolk County Tax Map i~dicating this and surrounding properties in
the area. Mr. Haefeli, would you like to be heard?
RICHARD T. HAEFELI, ESQ.: You've read the application, Mr.
Chairman, and in support of the first part of that application I have
two affidavits and a letter from various people. I have an affidavit
from Beatrice Fechtig, which indicates that the property with this
particular building was Used for residential purposes as early as
1953, and from FY'ank Fulcher and Virginia Fulcher, an affidavit stat-
ing it was used for residential purposes prior to 1955; they are the
prior owners of the property. The Walkers purchased the property
from them. We also'have a letter from a Walter Dohm, who ~s in the
plumbing and heating business and is familiar with the property, and
again indicates that the structure in question was used for resi-
dential purposes prior to 1957~
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to supply those?
MR. HAE£ELI: Yes. (Mr. Haefeli handed the Chairman the
affidavits for the records)
MR. CHAIRMAN: In any~one of these affidavits, has anything
been addressed Mr. Haefeli concerning seasonal and opposed to
yearround use?
MR. HAEFELI: No. Just that it has been used for residential
purposes. I don't know if there's a distinction in your code or a
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -56- May 17, 198~-~Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MR. HAEFELI continued:
distinction in the zoning law generally, as between a residence used
on a seasonal basis verses a residence used on a yearround basis--
provided it's a residence.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, there have been in the past C/O's issued
by the Building Department on the basis of a seasonal dwelling.
MR. HAEFELI: No. I don't believe that he has a C~O in
existence for either a summer or yearround. '
The applicants' position is simply that at the time they pur-
chased the property they purchased the piece of property that had a
separate residential dwelling on it. According to your cone, the
lots in this particular filed subdivision map are considered, do not
have to meet under the bulk, area or the width requirements of the
code. And in essence they're single and separate lots. We have got--
Mr. and Mrs. Walker own four lots, two of them -- the main dwelling is
on, that's Lots 17 and 18. Lot 16 is covered by the cottage and
the garage, and Lot 15 is a vacant piece of property, as to which
there is a shed that is going to be moved to a different location
and put it into a conforming location as to which we've received a
building permit~ Since, we are really directing ourselves to Lot 16
The question comes down--there is insufficient evidence to establish
a preexisting residential nature of the cottage prior to 1957, whether
or not the Walkers are entitled to variances on the bas~s 6f practical
difficulty.
Lot 16 being a separate lot would entitle the Walkers to put a
house on it. .'The only question then is, is there any place on that
particular lot that a house could be put in a conforming location
without requiring variances. And I think the answer is fairly simple.
In looking at Lot 16, it's not totally impossible, but to do it, you
would have to have a house that is 15' in width, and it's reasonable
to have a house that's 20 to 30 feet in width. To have a house of
that size, you would require variances.
Number 3, the actual building itself, whether this board finds
it was used as a yearround residential dwelling prior to 1957, summer
residential dwelling prior to '57, was in existence at this location
since prior to 1957. And the conversion or creation of a yearround
dwelling in this building, as a yearround dwelling, to move it anyplace
on this particular.~property, to make it conforming we cannot do, and
we created a hardship for~us to have to take this particular ~uilding
down and come in with a building that would conform which would be
approximately 15 feet in width. And that based upon either the
affidavit and letters that have been introduced establishing the
preexisting, residential character of this particular structure,
and/or the fac~ that we are entitled as of right to have a structure
put on here, has been on here., and we have a practical difficulty in
putting any other structure on it reading the requirements, we would
be entitled to a variance,
So~thold Town Board of'Appeals -37- ~J
IAppeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MR. HAEFELI continued:
As far as whether or not this is going to have any adverse
impact upon the neighborhood, I think the board may have some
familiarity of the houses in the area; but I would like to point
out that directly across the street, Mr. Ziedler owns three houses,
I believe, 12, 13 and 14, and then in 1982 he applied for and I
believe received a building permit to add onto his existing dwelling.
In doing so, he brought his existing dwelling to within eight feet
of the sideyard. It looks like approximately 14 or 15 feet of the
front yard. Now that's the house directly across the street and is
has a similar setback situation as we!re requesting here.
Across the street on the other side, Mr. Carey owns Lot 7
and Lot 6. His house is situated on Lot 7, and as to one of the
sideyards, it's approximately 2.1 feet from the northerly side yard.
Again, the house itself cannot meet the current zoning requirements
of the code.
Right next to the Zeidler property is Chitham's. They're on
a single lot having a width of approximately 40 to 41 feet, and I'd
have to say they have little or no sideyards with respect to the
westerly side and approximately 15 to 16' sideyards on the east side.
And Mr. Gannon owns a house down the street and as far as his
is concerned, he bas a sideyard setback of about 5.2, 5.3 feet.
Therefore most of the homes, if not all of the homes in this area
have substantial setback reductions from what the code would require.
And the request that they are making is similar to any of the
other setback requirements of the other homes ih the area.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything else you would like to say?
MR. HAEFELI: Not at this time. I believe there are going to
be other people that may speak.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have one question that I want to ask you, but
I'll wait at this particular time until some time at the latter part
of the hearing. I have more than one question, but one in particular.
Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf of the_application?
(No one.) Would anybody like to speak against the application?
JAMES CRON, ESQ.: Good evening, gentlemen. My name is James
Cron. I'm with the Law Offices of Cron and Cron, Main Road, Cutchogue,
New York. I am speaking on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Frederick S. Carey
in Qpposition to this particular application. I would also at this
time hand up the affidavit of Frederick S. Carey (Exhibit B1). That
exhibit, Mr. Chairman, sets forth the construction which took place in
1980.
As the board is aware, the application concerns a preexisting
nonconforming use which is alleged to have taken place prior to the
present zoning ordinance, which was instituted in 1957. As I'm sure
the board is aware, a preexisting, nonconforming use entitles that user
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -38- May 17~ 198~Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MR. CRON continued:
only to what preexisted zoning. It cannot be expanded upon. Therefore,
if in 1957, this particular structure which is a garage, was a two-car
garage with a small bedroom and a small bathroom, if that preexisted
zoning, that would be the entirety of the usage which would be exempt
from the zoning board requirements. Anything constructed subsequent
to 1957 would have to comply with the zoning as it existed at that time.
We submit and I think the affidavits of Mr. Carey and the
testimony which you will hear later, will indicate that the. particular
structure which was a garage and is a garage have only a seasonable use
and was used only during the summer time as the main house on the
property was only summer usage also. Prior to 1976, no one lived on
that property yearround. It was not until the Walkers moved in and
Mr. Walker did substantial alterations to both the housein..putt~n§~a
heating system and the garage in putting a heating system that
yearround occupancy became available.
Prior to that time, there was -- and I'm talking about 1957 =-
and also prior to 1980, a smaller two-car garage with a small bedroom,
small bathroom and a common sewer with the main household. The
structure which now exists and which is the subject matter of this
particular application and which is reflected in the map the board
has before it, is the structure that is completely different from
the one in 1957, with a completely different use from the one in
1957. And approximately in the Year 1980, substantial renovations
were made in this particular building. The renovations consisted of
in squaring off the building, raising the roof, raising the foundation
approximately three feet, adding a living room, two bedrooms, a full
kitchen, and also a full bathroom. The living area in particular,
well as stated in the application is 500 feet, that a substantial
variation of the living area required by the zoning ordinances in
1980 and also prior to that time. There's been mention that Lot No. 16
is a buildable lot. In fact, Lot No. 16 is not a buildable lot. All
four tots are in common ownership, and as you gentlemen are aware, a
merger would have taken place. Furthermore, gentlemen, if you look
at the map, you will see Lots 15, 16, 17 and 18, those lots were con-
veyed to the Fulchers to the present owners, the Walkers. At one
time the Walkers also owned, excuse me -- the Fulchers, also owned
Lots 12, 13 and 14, at the time Mr. Fulcher sold to the Kelly's, who
were the predecessors to th Zeidlees -- I believe, gentlemen, he
requested a minor subdivision and set-off. If that is the case,
gentlemen, I'm sure you are aware that one of the conditions of that
would be that there be no further subdivision of any of the lots.
That would also include Lot 15, 16, 17 and 18 which were in common
ownership at that time and in common ownership at the present time
by the Walkers.
Reference has been made that the requested variances are not
substantial, and obviously gentlemen we contest they are substantial.
In particular, it is to be noted that this issue was litigated in the
Town Justice Court. The petitioners here were defendants in an action
which Mr. Lark prosecuted as Special Assistant District Attorney on
So~utnola Town Boara of"~ppeal$ -39- M~y 17, 1~8~ Regular Meeting
(Appeal NO. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER., continued-:)
MR. CRON continued:
behalf of the town. The applicants were found guilty, and I would
like to read to you--the board may obtain a copy of the decision of
Justice Tedeschi, People v. Walker, decision dated October ll, 1983~
The~elevant partio~!'With.respect to Docket No. 421, 'this court
finds that the testimony and evidence presented at the trial herein,
the Defendants did in fact alter and convert a detached two car garage
accessory structure in the front yard by installing a bathroom,~kit-
chen facilit'ies, two bedrooms, a living room, a wooden deck, and that
same were being occupied as a second dwelling on the premises without
first obtaining a Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy .... "
This decision was not appealed from, gentlemen, and it stands
as a conviction against the applicants.
What the applicants propose to do here tonight, gentlemen, is
to ask you to exempt them from the zoning laws of the Town of Southold.
They were found not to be in conformity with those zoning laws; they
were convicted after a trial; they did not appeal that conviction.
They, however, wish you to reward them, reward them for violating the
law. The applicants here tonight have steadfastedly refused to obey
the zoning requirements. All these alterations took place not in
1957, but in fact, in 1980. And in fact, gentlemen, I believe you
have a map in front of you by Mr. Young dated 1984. I also have a
map from Mr. Young dated 1978. That map shows a garage on Lot 16.
That map also shows a dwelling--excuse me, a structure substantially
different from the one in front of you. It shows a garage which is
not rectangular as is the particular structure in front of you, and
it shows a structure without a deck on it.
We content, and I think the facts will prove it out, this
particular structure was a garage, was used as a garage, was converted
illegally as a garage, and now the applicants are asking that you set
if off, make it a legal structure after having been found guilty after
trial that it is not a legal structure, and somewhat exempt them from
not only the laws of New York State but the zoning requirements of the
Town and the State of New York.
I would at this time offer the map of Young & Young dated
February 9, 1978 (Exhibit B-2).
Mr. Chairman, at this time, I have nothing further; however, I
believe there are some other individuals who have other pertinent
information as to the particulars as to the_particular use of that
structure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're representing Mr. Carey?
MR. CRON: That is correct.
(End. of Tape. 2..)
(Mr. Cron submitted the affidavit of Frederick S. Carey for the
record - marked Exhibit B-1.)
MR. CRON: I think ~the affidavit sets forth all the pertinent
facts.
Seuthold Town Board of~A~ppeals -40- May 17, 198q~JRegular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank. you, Sir.
MR. CRON: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak
against the application? Mr. Zeidler.
RICHARD ZEIDLER: I am Mr. Walker's neighbor, and I have seven
letters here from the neighbors which I will give you. We would like
to see the garage go back to being a~garage like it was five years ago
when I bought my'home. If you have been down there the location, you'll
notice it's a gravel road. We all kind of feel that we don't want to
see anybody else split their property up or anybody convert their gar-
ages into dwellings.. And I think if Out of being kind, everybody would
like to see, well I would ane several other people, if it's possible
for Mrs. Walker to live there until she no longer lives there, that
this thing convert back to a garage. There's a problem with water;
there's a problem with sewage. There are times you can stand on the
boat basin and the water is all white from the cesspools running, I
don't know whether it's Walkers', the mother's, or somebody; but it's
there.
This whole thing bas become a mess and we'd like to see it
revert back to a garage. I'll give you these letters.
(Mr. Zeidler handed the chairman a letter from each of the following
for the record: Dorothy Gannon, letter and envelope postmarked 4/24/83;
-Elizabeth C. Jessup, letter and envelope postmarked 5/23/83; George F.
Kendall, letter and envelope postmarked 5/6/83; Julian M. Bayuk, M.D.,
letter and envelope postmarked 4/22/83; Arthur L. Smith, Jr., letter
dated April 22, 1983; iEdward M. Cummings, D.D,S., letter and envelope
postmarked 4/23/83.)
MR. ZEIDLER continued: These are people that couldn't be here tonight
who have all. sent letters.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak
against the application? Yes, ma'am. Kindly state your name when
you use the mike.
ANN KELLY: My name is Ann Kelly and the Fulkchers sold us the
property. When we moved there, the structure that they're referring
to was a garage with a very small bedroom and a bathrOom. We had
offered Mr. Fulcher and Mrs. Fulcher many times to use our water off
season, and as long as I was there, it still was a garage. We moved
there in 1979; it was a garage. I know that they had no facilities
at that time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -41- May 17, 19~-~ Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MR. HAEFELI: You said they had a bathroom and a bedroom there?
MRS. KELLY: It was a room -- at the time I saw it they_ had no
bedrooms; it was empty.
MR. HAEFELI: But it was a room that people were living in.
MRS. KELLY: Not at the time I saw it~
MR, HAEFELI: Thatls how you saw it. You weren't there in-season
then to see all of it and how it was being used.
MRS. KELLY: Well I lived there all yearround.
MR. HAEFELI: But in-season, were you in that particular
structure to see how it was being used?
MRS. KELLY: No I don't recall being in there then.
MR. HAEFELI: It was jsut at off-season?
MRS, KELLY: Yes.
MR, HAEFELI: And it had a bathroom in it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Haefeli, you have to address the
question to the board first so we can take it down, and then the
problem of question and answer--
MR. HAEFELI: I thought she said a bathroom and a bedroom and
I wanted to clarify it.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Ok, so just ask the question forward and then
we'll have her answer it --.~just so we can get it. Go ahead.
MR. HAEFELI: I would like to know if she did say she saw a
bathroom in the structure.
MRS. KELLY: There was bathroom facilities. The room I saw I
would assume was a bedroom because Mr. Fulcher said they used it as
a guest room during the season. H~wever, it was not furnished at
that particular time that I saw it.
MR. CHAI.RMAN: Any other questions?
MR. HAEFELI: No.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much (to Mrs. Kelly). ~Would you
like to'say something in rebuttal, Mr. Haefeli? I do want to say
this--that it was the chairman's option of not swearing in any witnesses
at this particular time. When we start to get into more conflicting
- testimony, it may be required.
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -42- May 17, 198¥ Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:i
MR. HAEFELI: The first thing I would like to do is hand up
copies of the surveys of the Gannon~'s property, which I referred to
earlier as to what their setbacks are. The Chisholm's property.
The Zeidler property. And the Carey property.
MR. CHAIRMAN: By the way, the statement was made for both
parties, not just--
MR. HAEFELI: I assumed that.
(Pause~)
(The Chairman marked the exhibits in blue ink~nd made them
part of the file.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you wish to caucus with your applicants,
you're very welcome to do so. In no way am I tr.ying to restrict
anybody in that.
MR, HAEFELI: I'm just waiting for you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry.
MR. HAEFELI: A couple of points I would like to bring out
at this time--there's no question that there was a Justice Court
proceeding. There's no question of the decision that's on file.
There's no question that you can go read that decision. (There
was another conversation going on in the audience.) There's also
the fact that a building permit for the shed which is shown on
this survey has been issued after the date of those proceedings.
Also, the fact as far as the proceeding affect this part of the
applicati'on of this building, there are additional proceedings
pending in the Justice Court. I'm not familiar with them because
my partner is handling them. But it has been put over for an
additional period of time. One of the reasons for it is to allow
the applicant to make an application to this board. Unless I'm
wrong, the Law of the State of New York and the Code of the Town
of Southold gives this board the jurisdiction to determine ques-
tions arising under the zoning code. And the fact that there may
have been a conviction in the Justice Court does not preclude an
applicant to come into this board and request either appropriate
variances o-r appropriate ~nterpretations of the code Which'i~his
board has the power to give. So I don't want the board to become
totally colored by the fact that there was a Justice Court pro-
ceeding~ I will have to, between now and the next hearing date,
find out the exact status of that proceeding as~.~it relates to
this part of the application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Haefeli, we're aware of,~hat--this
has happened many, many times, not only in this~.particular instance;
we are exactly aware that there are sometimes court preceedi'ngs
prior to applications. Sometimes court proceedings are held up
So~thold Town Board of ~peals -43- May 17, 198~ Regular Meeting
(Appea~ No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY'WALKE.~, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
prior to applications.
MR. HAEFELI: As far as what is existing there, and assuming
the worSt on behalf of the Walkers, that they don't have a preexi~.ting
one=family residential dwelli. Dg as that term is sup.plied in your Code
today, what they do have i~.the protection of your. Code wit~_respect
to the lots that they purchased.. Not only the~.Walkers have it, but
the Zeidlers have it, the Careys have it,__and the.ChiSholms have it.
There's a specific exception in your Code as to whether these lots
have to meet the area and the width requirements; and they do not.
They have to meet the area and width requirement of the lots as they
were filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office. In this case, yoU.~ve
got one and I believe it's 50 feet in. width, approximately. It gets a
little bigger down on the bulkhead side. Therefore, thex_ are entitled
to plaCe a dwelling on that lot provided they can meet the other
provisions of the code, and if they can't meet the other provisions
of the code, they're entitled to come before this board based upon a
practical difficulty and. ask for the requisite variances~ And that's
exactly what the Walkers are doing here tonight.
I think they have established the fact that th'ey're entitled to
a variance based upon a practical difficulty, based upon the size of
the lot, based upon the existing.nature of the structures that are on
the property. And the fact that it would be more expensive to take
that structure down, wh.~ch I think thi~ b~ard can accept offhanded,
than to convert what may already be there th~n~o?put ~p a..new
structure. No structure can go on that lot that can be in a con-
forming location, Number One. Number Two, every other house in this
subdivision has variance problems of the same or similar nature
because of the size of the lots. They're all e~titled to have homes
placed on it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you~a quick question before you lose
that train of thought~ Are y~ou referring ~o Lot No. 16 and Lot No. 15
as being in single and separate ownership?
MR. HAEF~[I: In single and separate ownership? No. They're
not in single~ they're ~n the same name. What I'm saying, is~ there's
a specific exclusion in your Code wi~h respect to these 10ts because
they're part of this particular filed subdivision. If they weren't,
then they would have to either meet their current area req~ir~ment'~
or be ~el~i~single and separate. And what I'm s'aying to you~i~.~
your Code provision in essence creates single and separate lots with
.respect to all the lots ~ithin this subdivision. We do have another
person that we were going to have come here to testify tonight with
respect to the status of the use of that cottage prior to 1957~
Unfortunately, due to an illness in the family, she was unable to
be here, and therefore I'm .§oing to ask that it be put over at least
until the next meeting so I have an opportunity to do so to ~'further
testify as to what was in ~Xistence on the lot prior to 1957.
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -44- May 17, 198~ Reg~ular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: This board prior to closing or recessing this
hearing will caucus to discuss that request. Do you have any objec-
tion to that (to J. Cron, Esq.)?
JAMES CRON, ESQ.: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I also would like
to clarify a couple of the things raised by counsel.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's just take the "first objection first.
MR. CRON: Well, ~would object to it being put over without
disclosure who this witness is and what the alleged illness is.
Obviously, I can say that I have a witness, t~, but that doesn't
make it the case. I think the board should go into who this person
is, what the relationship to the property is, and what the particular
illness was rather than there being an adjournment.
MR. HAEFELI: Beatrices Featig, is her sister is in critical
condition, and I believe it's in Pennsylvania. She left within the
last several days to be down at her side. She submitted an affidavit
and I wanted to bring her in to further clarify that affidavit. There
is one other point in reference to the fact that this is a nonconform-
ing use. I don't think this use is nonconforming at all. It's a
residential use~from the start, always has been. So we've got a
· proper use. The question is"do we have a use on a proper~size piece
of property, a preexisting piece of property, or do we need variances
in order to permit the conformity with the area requirements of the
code." This is not putting a business use in a residential district.
That's a nonconforming use. This is a residential use, a permitted
use in a residential district.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to continue, Mr. Cron?
J, CRON: Yes, Mr~ Chairman; The first thing that I would like
to address, Counsel has stated that there is a building permit for an
accessory building, and that isn't correct. There was a building
permit which was withdrawn on March 27, 1984, and I submit now that
withdrawal b~Mr. Lessard. (The Chairman marked the 5-page exhibit
as Exhibit "E.")
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
MR. CRON: One ~ther point that I wish to address=-there has
been reference made to the other members of the subdivision, that
being I~believe the Chisholm$', the Walkers and the Gannons, and also
the Zeidlers. No reference has been made to the square footage of
those particular buildings. As you gentlemen are aware, they're
asking for a substantial deviation from the 850 sq. ft. requirement
of a residential dwelli~go They're asking for a 500 ft. use of
this particular structure. I think that ~s substantial. I think
it's something that the board should way very heavily.
Furthermore, the board, whi'~e the var'iance application is
before it, does not have to grant it. It's solely within your
discretion. A number of things whi. ch are to be considered W~ich
Somthold Town Board of'~ppeals -45- May 17, 198~ Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 ~ ~BE.RT__ ~AM AN_D MARGE'RY WA~KE'~R, continued:)
MR. CRON continu~ed:
this bo'a.rd sh~u~'d'take '~nt'o~.ac'c'o'u~n.t is discretion of the health of
the neighbors. If you have a common sewage system here obviously
it does pose a heal. th hazard. They are very .low to water there, I
believe the water tab]e--there~s ~ater abutting this particular piece
of property. As far as the sid'eyards are concerned, I believe the
application is only asking as concerns the lot on which the structure
is on. They're talking about a 16~foot on one side and nine foot on
the other, obviously, if~the other parcel was being considered there
is a. greater sideyard than 16 foot,.so I believe the example in the
exhibits before the board is inaccurate. We're only talking about
this particular lot, not Parcel B as shown on your map. I believe
all of these reasons are enough for the board in its discretion to
turn it down. This was a garage in 1957. It continues to be a
garage with extension modification--illegal modification. I will
not re-hash again what I've already put before the board. Yes, Mr.
Chairman?
MR, CHAIRMAN: I don't understand, originally you said to me
that you felt that Lots No. 15 and 16 were merged.
MR. CRON: I believe all of those lots were merged under common
ownership, 15 through 18.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. But now you're addressing your
statements to Lot No. 16 only.
MR. CRON: Yes, sir. I'm doing that because in the application
itself, on Number 3 on the rider,"that the following variances be
granted." They were talking about reduction of one sideyard from 10
feet to nine feet. They're talking about reduction of both sideyards
from 25 to 16.40 feet. If both those lots were taken into account,
obviously there would be a larger sideyard than nine feet and 16.40
on the other. I believe we're only talking about that one particular
tot. Counsel may clarify that, but I think that it's something that
the board should look into because it would obviously be a mistake to
consider both lots when there are only asking for a variance on one
particular lot--in which case they could build--according to counsel's
~rgument, on the other lot that's vacant. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Haefeli.
MR. HAEFELI: Yeah. As to the letter that you have that was
submitted by Mr. Lessard--I haven't discussed it With Mr. Lessard, and
maybe we will either have to get Mr. Lessard in here or an affidavit
from Mr. Lessard to explain it to me--the background to this board.
But a building permit was issued for that accessory structure by Mr.
Lessard on the basis that there were three separate and distinct lots
here. Pursuant again, pursuant to the provisions of the Code and
these lots being exempted from the area requirements of the code.
One of the lots contained a main dwelling--the second one contained
a garage and apartment, and a third was vacant. Based upon that, Mr.
So~thold Town Board of A~peals -46- May 17, 198~ Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
Mm. HAEFELI continued:
Lessard issued a building permit for that, for the one structure. It
was subsequent to that that apparently certain people, he came to the
conclusion that the Walkers were claiming they had only two lots. One
being Parcel A shown on the survey., and the other being Parcel B. I
informed Mr. Lessard both in person and by letter that the Walkers are
not giving up their right to having three separate and disti~ct lots--
Parcel A being one,L]Lot 15 and 16 being the other, and Lot 17 being
the other. And to answer the prior question--yes, it is our position
that Lot 16 alone constitutes a separate building lot. Lot 15 consti-
tutes'a-~sepamate building lot, and Lot.17 and 18 which were not part
of this application would be a separate lot; and we're direct~n§
ourselves specifically with resPect to Lot 16 and a request for
variances on Lot 16 as far as the sideyardsr are concerned, because
it's obvious that if 15 and 16 were together we would have two
problems, the first of which we would have a corner lot which would
require two frontyards, and Number Two, we would only have one side-
yard, therefore we wouldn't be making the same request for sideyards
as we are in fact makin§.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Zeidler. Oh, excuse me--go ahead.
MR. HAEFELI: I just wanted to further point out that one of
the witnesses came up and said to this board the fact that there was
a bathroom and there was a bedroom or living accommodations in that
garage apartment.
MR. ZEIDLER: After listening to the attorney, I feel real, real
sad tonight. I moved to your town five years ago and built a very nice
home, in a very nice area, not with the idea of splitting my lots to
sell them for profit some time~in the future; and I think there are
other people that split those lots also. But this man sad we're
dealing with Lot 16, not the other lots. To me I'm kind of said that
maybe this is beipg done so they can sell them for a lot more than
what they have, and I think ~u?should take that into consideration.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, could you use the mike please.
I'm sorry to ask you to do that, I know it's out of the way, but we
are taping this at the same time.
ANN KELLY: When we bought the three lots in Edgemere Park--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have you~'-~ame please?
MRS. KELLY: Oh, yes. Ann Kelly. When we bought the property
it consisted of three lots--we were told we can only build one house=-
that it was one property. At no time did anyone ever give any indica-
tion that we could possibly build three different houses on three
different lots. They abut the water~-just after we bought it I think
the new rule w. as that youZhave to be lO0 feet away from the water--
the cesspools, et cet~ma. ~B~t.~eYer did anyone indicate that it was
anything less than one piece of property--in no way would we have
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -47- May 17, 198~ Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MRS. KELLY continued:
gotten a permit to build three houses. Mr. Fulcher in fact wished to
split that lot--the~th~ee lots in half, and sell a lot and a half
from the lot and a half, and they wo~ld not allow that in the subdivi-
sion, of the conversations he mentioned. Thank you~
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs~ Kelly. Mr". Haefeli, could I
ask you two questions please?
MR. HAEFELI: Yes, sir?.
MR, CHAIRMAN: The existing storage building that's on the
property which appears to be on Lot No. ]5 at this time--that
particular storage building ~s to be moved to a new location closer
to the adjacent cottage that we're referring to in this application,
is that correct?
MR. HA'EFELI: That's correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. You are also substantiating that the deck
is not attached to the house and that it is an accessory structure.
MR. HAEFELI: Thatls correct. That there is no actual physical
attachment of the deck to the house, and as such it would constitute
an accessory structure which would be permitted in the rearyard but
would not be permitted in the sideyard.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anything else that you
would like to say?
MR. HAEFELI: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything in rebuttal, Mr. Cron, before we make
a decision here one way or another?
MR. CRDN: No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, Mro Haefeli, I could ask you
this later, ~. if we so grant this extension., could you address
the cottage please and tell us what's in there now?
MR, HAEFELt: Kitchen, two bedrooms, bathroom, living room, or I guess
kitchen-living room together, or kitchenette.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any questions of any board
members before we caucus?
MEMBER SAWICKI: None. Everything'ha§ibeen covered.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions from anybody in the audience?
(None) 'All right~ I will take approximately five minutes recess to
discuss the extension. I will address though ~.Mr. Cro~ and I will tell
him that usually it has been_the nature of this board in situations
like this to.grant at least one recess. I am not in any way influencing
my board to do so. I am going to speak to them and that's the issue at
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -48- May 17~ 19'84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AN_ ~ MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN continued.
hand, and see what they so desire. Do you have any comments about that?
MR. CRON: Not until you make your decision, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to recess for approximately five minutes, at which
time this hearing will be reconvened.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen,
Sawicki, Goehringer. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
The board took a recess a~d left th~ room to caucus for approxi-
mately l0 minutes.
RECONVENED 'HEARING: On motion by Mr. 'Sawi'cki, seconded by
Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that the public hearing in the matter of BERTRAM AND
MARGERY WALKER, BE AND HEREBY IS RECONVENED.
Vote of the Board: Ayes~: Messrs. Gr'i§oni~, Dou§~ass, D'oyen~,
Sawicki and Goehringer. This resolution was.~unanimou~]y
The public hearing reconvened at 10.:.52 p.m.
MR~ CHAIRMAN (GOEHRINGER): As I had mentioned to Mr. Cron,
we'll grant the'extension. We can'% give you the exact date of
the next meeting--we haven"t voted on it ~et. We only uniquely
grant one extension. Secondly, I'll be perfectly honest with'you--
both gentlemen, both attorneys. The time that we spent in there
in the caucus was not specifically timed--it was devoted to the
nature of granting the extension and not granting the extension.
There are several issues in this particular case which seem to be
somewhat difficult to grasp and we implore you to clear them up
either with expert testimony or whatever at the next hearing. That
does not mean any of the testimony that we've received was not
taken, in the sense that it should have been taken, and that is
of course we are considering ex~ert testimony, but we would like
more. Ok? Thirdly, we will be dealing with sworn testimonx~.at
the next hearing on everybQ]dy's part. I have'received affidavits
from people. I would assume that's just as good as swearing
someone in. And fourthly, I would like to commend everybody for
a very well presented way in which this particula~ group handled
themselve~ Fifthly, we have been very, very successful in the
past and in caucusing, within a meeting, this was not the last
application--sending the entire group out into the h~ll and
hammering out something that they would be happy with. I think
the one thing that we all have to be aware of is we are all
Southold Town Board of'~ppeals -49- May 17, 1§~ Regular Meeting
(Appea~ No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
property owners and for~some right in this particular town; and cer-
tainly the hamlet of Edgemere Park is a unique subdivision. I'd
like to see if there could be some agreement, and I'm not specifically
talking about major changes--asking something, and you say, "Well, we
do agree on this particular point" or "We don't agree on that. particular
point." And I realize there may be litigation involved here. I guess
that's all I have to say. Mr. Z6~dler?
MR. ZEIDLER: On the seven letters that I brought you from the
property owners in Edgemere Park considered the same as that sworn
testimony?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I certainly will consider them as such, sir;
however, you have to understand that we are unable to question these
people, ~o if anybody would like to come forward, it would certainly
be well appreciated.
MR. ZEIDLER: All right~ One more thing. Will we get a notice
of the next meeting? We did not get a notice of this meetinq except
in the newspaper. And I'm an adjoining property owner. (si~)
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. You will have to call the town hall, but
we'll certain'ly; be rest assured, that both attorneys will be aware
of when the next meeting will be. We run into a major problem with
that, and that is if you don't call one person, then they get upset
and so on and ~o~forth. Unfortunately, this board has only really
one full-time and one part-time person for the summer, and it's very,
very difficult to do that continuously.
MR. ZE!DLER: Well~ I came in front of your board--and when I
came in front of your board for my variance, I had to notify my
neighbors by registered mail. This was not done in this case.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What we will do in this particular case, is,
we will hammer Out a date tonight prior to your leaving, ok, and
we wil.1 do that for the sole purpose that we will not have to
readvertise this hearing.
MR~ HAEFELI: Mr. Chairman--just one point?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Surely.
MR. HAEFELI: That on March 21st, notice of this application
was sent to Mr.. Zeid.ler and to Mrs. Chisholm by certified mail; and
I think it's'on the back of the'application.
MR. ZEIDLER: Do you have a receipt that I signed for it?
MR. HA~FELI: We d~dn't have to.
MR. ZEIDLER: Well, I never received it.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -50- May 17, 19~8~4 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MR. HAEFELI: Well, then, it must have gotten lost in the mail.
MEMBER~DOUGLASS: They didn't have to notify them by certified
mail because they're across the road.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The law, Mr. Zeidler, aslMr. Douglass had men-
tioned, only requires those property owners that are within that
area of the road confines, so therefore, I don't know wheme the
ownership of the creek is and so on and so forth, in respect to
this ting--so that's probably the reason why. They can do it
gratuitously, but they're no~ required to so it~ Ok? Are there
any further questions, counsellor? (None)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to recessing this to the next regular
monthly meeting, it was brought to my attention that Mr. Esseks
is going to be out of the country on the Truckenbrodt application,
and the only physical time that we could get together ~ea~Dg in
mind he's coming back on the 21st would be Friday night of the 22nd.
And I realize, Mr. Douglass, Friday night is extremely difficult
for you, do you think that would be a problem, and Mr. Sawicki?
SECRETARY: That is cou~t night. I would have to check
the schedule of meetings.
MR. LESSARD: Friday is court night. That's out.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Why don't you leave that open, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, at this particular time for the purpose
of not readvertising this hearing, we'll go along with the 22nd
unless there's some conflict with one of the Judges. Is that
all right?
MEMBER SAWICKI: Well, do we have to make a dare,right now?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Well, we don't.
SECRETARY: The 21st is Thursday.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Esseks will not be back on the 21st. He's --
SECRETARY: The letter said until the 21st.
Mm. CHAIRMAN: Oh. All right.
MEMBER DOYEN: Excuse me, Jerry. I don't understand why we
have to wait for Mr. Esseks.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Because he is representing one of the applicants
in the~Truckenbrodt application which will be the nature of the next
megular meeting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oko It appears that the 21st of June, which is
a Thursday evening. So at this particular time I'll make a motion
S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -51- May 17, 19~ Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
scheduling the next Regular Meeting as June 21st, unless changed.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to recess the hea~ing of Appeal No. 3232, matter of
BERTRAM AND MARGERY W~LKER until the next Regular Meeting of THURSDAY,
JUNE 21,~cha~ged. ' -
Vote of the"Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Haefeli, Could-you present us with a~
copy.of th~_original filed map of "Edgemere Park," that was filed
with the Suffolk County Clerk. Thank you very mu~h.
Mr, Haefeli nodded affirmatively,.~
The Chairman thanked everybody for coming in, and indicated
to the audience that the time will probably be in the area of about
9:00 o'clock pom., prior to the last hearing that night.
So~thold Town Board of Appeals -52- May 17, 198~'Regular Meeting
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3223.
Upon application for THOMAS R. AND BARBARA D. MERCIER, New Suffolk
Avenue, Mattituck, NY (by Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C.) for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(A) for
permission to convert an existing single-family dwelling use into two
professional offices. Location of Property: 4905 Middle Road (C.R.
48), Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-141-01-21; "Map
of Clara W.R. Reeve #212", Part of Lot 5.
The public hearing on this matter was held on April 5, 1984, at
which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations and
receipt of other documentation.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicants seek a variance from Article III,
Section lO0-30(A) for permission to convert an existing single-family
dwelling into professional offices for not more than two professionals,
to wit: medical practitioner and assistant. Article III, Section
100-30(C)[1] permits a professional office of a doctor as a home occu-
pation, however, one of the requirements is that the practitioner must
reside in the dwelling (Local Law No. 2-1983). Also, professional
offices are permitted in the "B-Light" and "B-1 General" Business
Districts subject to site plan approval of the Planning Board. This
being a use variance for a "B-Light" or "B-1 General" business activity,
this project must also receive site plan approval from the Planning
Board.
All of the members of this board are familiar with the property
in question as well as the surrounding neighborhood. The property in
question is located on the north side of County Road 48 (a/k/a Middle
Road) and the west si'de of Love Lane Extension. Abutting the premises
on the north is a "paper road," which is shown on the filed subdivision
map of "Clara W.R. Reeve," as filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's
Office on 12/4/22 as Map No. 212. It is the intent of the applicants
to use this "paper road" for access into the proposed parking area of
this parcel. The p~rcel in question contains an area of approximately
5,750 sq. ft. with 115' frontage along C.R. 48 and 60' frontage along
Love Lane Extension. The premises is only improved with an 888 sq. ft.
one-story frame dwelling set back 12 feet from C.R. 48 and 32.5 feet
from Love Lane Extension.
For the record, it is noted the premises on the east side of
Love Lane Extension and extending easterly along C.R. 48 to Wickham
Avenue are zoned "B-1 General Business." Also, premises located
on the south side'of CoR. 48, easterly along Love Lane, are zoned
"B-1 General Business"; and premises located westerly of Love Lane
Soythold Town Board of Appeals -53- May~17, 198~.Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3223 T. MERCIER, continued:)
south of C.R. 48 are zoned "C-Light Industrial."
An affidavit has been submitted for the record in support of
this application as well as those statements introduced at the
public hearing April 5, 1984. Although the record does not show
a substantial economic hardship, it is apparent that since a
professional would be permitted to have an office as a "home
occupation," and since the applicants do not intend to change
the residential character of this structure and property, that
this proposed use would be within the interest of the community.
Accordingly, the board determines: (1) the plight of the
owner is due to the unique circumstances of the land; (2) the use
under a variance would not alter the essential character of the
locality; (3) that the use will not prevent the orderly and
reasonable use of adjacent properties or properties in adjacent
use districts; (4) that the safety, health, welfare, comfort,
convenience and order of the town will not be adversely affected
by the proposed use and its location; (5) that the interests of
justice wwould be served by allowing the variance, as indicated
below.
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3223, application for THOMAS R.
and BARBARA D. MERCIER for permission to convert an existing
single-family dwelling for a two-professional-office use for
a medical practitioner and a medical assistant, BE AND HEREBY
IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
I. Compliance with the 20% maximum-lot-coverage requirement
in the event of future construction~
2. Limit of two medical practitioners (as requested);
3. Site/parking approval by the Planning Board;
4. A legal right to use the pres'ent "paper road" for access;
5. Referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant
to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter~
Location of Property: 49D5 Middle Road (a/k/a 1045 Love Lane),
Mattituck, NY; Part of Lot 5, Map No. 212, "Map of Clara W. Reeve";
County Tax Map Parcel No..10D0141-01~21.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote.
Southold Town Board o~Appeals -54- May 17, 195~ Regular Meeting
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3225.
Upon application of JOSE V. RODRIGUEZ, Box 113, Fishers Island,
New York for a Variance to the Zoni~ance, Article VII, Sections
lO0-70(A) and 100-71, for permission to construct dwelling in this
B-1 Business District. Location of Property: West Side of Fox Lane,
Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-012-01-001.002.
The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening,
at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
This is an application for permission to locate a 64' by 14'
prefabricated, modular home with 12' by 7' vestibule/stoop approximately
13 feet from the northeasterly front property line and approximately
30 feet from the northwesterly side property line. This modular home
is proposed for one-family use by the applicant/owner, The premises in
question is located in the B-1 General Business District, contains an
area of approximately 30,000 square feet, and is improved with a
32' by 35' structure p.resently used as an upholstery business,
"Island Interiors," having a setback from the front property line
of 35 feet. Since the premises is polygonal in form, the proposed
structure technically has less of a distance from the front
property line although the building will be set back behind (westerly)
the front of the existing building towards the northerly section
of this lot, [see sketched plan submitted 3/1/84].
For the record, it is noted that a prior action concerning this
property was rendered March 20, 1980 under Appeal NO. 2656 for the
Fishers Island Development Corp. which denied insuff~icient area in
a proposed subdivision.
In considering this application, the board has determined:
(1) that the use hereby authorized will not alter the essential
character of the immediate vicinity (2) that the safety, health,
welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town will not be
adversely affected by the granting of this permit; (3) that the
use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and
intent of zoning; (4) that the circumstances are unique and
that by allowing the variance, no detriment would be created to
adjoining properties; (5) that no adverse effects will be
produced on available governmental facilities 'of any increased
population; (5) that the interests of justice will be served by
allowing the relief requested.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Sawicki,
it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3225, application for JOSE V. RODRIGUEZ
for permission to construct and use 64' by 14' prefabricated building
with a setback from the front property line of 20 feet, and 13 feet
inclusive Of'.vestibule~tooplarea), FO~ONE-FAMiLY RESIDENCE BY THE
APPLICANT/O'~NER'O~?~-i~'P~R~MI~"~ ~E~AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS 'sHOWN
~ SKETCH OF 3/1/84.
Location of Property: Fox Lane, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax
Southold Town Board o~JAppeals -55- May 17, 19~' Regular Meeting
(Appeal No, 3225 - JOSE V. RODRIGUEZ, continued:)
Map Parcel No. 1000-012-01-001.002.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis
and Sawicki. (Member Douglass abstained for additional time for
inspection.) This resolution was adopted by majority vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR'JUNE 21, '1984: The board reviewed each
of the_~ol!o~'i'ng~ma'~t~S~ ~611owing action:
On mJtion by Mr. Douglass, seconded-by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, t~at the foilowing matters BE AND~E~B~'qARE
SCHEDULED for public hearings to be held at the ~ex~- R~g~!ar, Meeting
Qf thi~ bo~rd,~to_wit; 'Jug,~,,~,,21, 1'984 .... and that the Secretary'is
hereby authorized and dirQcted ~Q~QdVertise notice of S~J-pursuant-
to la~ in the local and official newspspa?ems of thq_%own
accordingly: .... -
7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3244 - FATHERrJOHN DENNY;
7:40.p.m. Appeal No. 3220 GEORGE R. TUTHILL:
7:45 p.m. Appeal No, 3245 ] DAVID'AND JEAN'BRAW~ER~
7:55 p.m. ApPeal No. 3247 ~'ERNEST AND JEAN'STUMPF~
8:05 p.m. ^ eai .o 322
8:15 p.m. Appeal No '3248 - JOHN-'G~Ga~IS
8:20 p,m. Appeal No 3246 PATRICK'CARRIG 'a~d MARK MdDONALD~
8:25 p.m. A~peal No 3206 -'HENRY P. SMITH;
8:40 p.m. Appeal No 3231 - DOUGLAS MILLER;
8:55 p.m. Appeal No 3232 - BERTRAM AND'MARGERY WALKER;
9:15 p.m. Ap~eai No 3234 - ARTHUR R.''TRUCKENBRODT.
Vote of the Bo~d: Ayes: Me~srs~
Goehringer. Doyen,, Gr'igonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolut'ion_u~]s adopted by unaQ~qg~ vo~e
of all the members of the board
ROAD REPORTS TO BE REQUESTED: The Secretary was authorized
and instructed to request an_iDspection and read_K~port on each
of the following matte'rs from John W. 'Davis, which_6hould be
received p~ior to the datg of the public hearings:
Appeal No. 3246 Carrig 'and McDonald;
Appeal No. 3231 - Douglas Miller.
S~uthold Town Board of~Appeals -56- May 17, 1~8~ Regular Meeting
NEXT SPECIAL MEETING: It was the agreement of the board to
hold a Special Meeting within the next two weeks to deliberate and
take action on those matters pending and for ~hose other business
matters properly coming before the board at that time. It was
expected that a..Special Meeting would be held on or about May 31st.
COORDINATION AMONGiBUILDiNGi zONiNG AND~PLA~N~G: The board
members discusse~ the past pract~ce~rior tq .Fix or ~even months
ago) in which an applicant would take_the-following steps, and
which the ~h~ee dep~tments ba~e been ex_Pedi~_iZousl~'an~/i-~ an
orderly manner coordinating revi~ews:
i'. Applicant appli6s a~ BUILDING INSPECTOR"S OFFICE with
prQ~osed pla~_for revie'~ ~S ~ G~aQc~ o£ n~Qcom~l.'iance
under Ch. 100 .(Zoning) and Ch~ 4~']~i6od
2. Applicant proceeds t~ file applications with:
(a) Planning Board of~i'~e ~"to Ch. Al06 (Subdivisions)
and Art. XIII (Si~e Plans);
(b) If necessary, Zoning Board of Appeals as to Ch. lO0
(zoning rel.~,ef),
3. Applicant receives recommendations from Planni'ng~Board
for transmittal to Zoning BOard of
public h,earing. _
The board agrees that th6se steps s~oeld!.-be continued to eliminate
delays for the applica'nt~.and_ad'd~ ea-~-~~b.d~rtment
The practice withi'D ~he ]~st siX'or'seven mo~t~'?nvo]ve~'ten or
more st,eps. The Chairma~ w~s '~.~t'h. Qr~'d~to_cQ~r~_6p~Dd.i~e.~.
Zoning and Planning 'Commission to resolve this problem.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: Pursuant to Part 617 of Article 8
of the N.Y.S.'Environmental-QuaTTty_Review Act of the_EnVironmental
Conservation Law and Local.Law ~44.~4 of-the-Town:of. Southold,.th~
board declared the following ~e,gat]'ve ~vi'rohmental., ~ecl'a~ti'ons
for each project and for the reasons.as no~e~ below;
Appeal No. 3206 - Henry P. Smith
(Continued on next page)'
$outhold Town Board of Appeals -57- May 17~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Decl'aratiOns, continued:)
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3206
PROJECT NAME: HENRY'P. SMITH
This notice is issued-pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered & determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for insufficient area and w~dth
of two proposed lots,
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, Count~ of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: W/$ Pec0nic Lane, Pec0nic,
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(t) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the envirornment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area;
(3) The property in guesti'on is at an elevation of l0 or more
above mean sea level.
· Southold Town Board of Appeals -58- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
~Eng~r66m~ntal-'De~larafions, continued':)~
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRON~iENTAL DECLAP~TION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 324?
PROJECT NAME: 'MR.
This notice is issued ~6rSUan~ f6 ~rt 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the To~rn of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a s~gnifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Ra~.sed deck w~th insuffici, ent setback
in side and rear yards.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: W/s South 0akw00d Dr~ve, Laurel,
]000-]45-03-005.
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~4INATION:
(i) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) Construction proposed is landward of existing structures.
Southold Town Board of~.~ppeals -59- May 17, 19~_~ Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3248 ........
PROJECT N~dE: J0hD'Gfig0nis
This notic~ is issued ~ursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: ~ ] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: New dwelling with reduction of s~deyard
setback;
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 860 Main B'ayview Road, S0uth0]d; ]000~070,07-16.2.
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area.
S~uthold Town Board of~ppeals -60- May 17, 1S_~ Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP~TION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO
PROJECT NAMe: George R.' 'TutSil~
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the lmplementzng
regulations~ pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the envirornuent for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or simil&r
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Area and width in a p~0p0sed 10t set-off.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: N/S Bay Avenue, Cutch0gue.; 1000-140-04=033.
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~MINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical envir0nmenta] area.
S~uthold Town Board of.~f"opeals -61- May 17, 1984.R~egular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRON~[ENTAL DECLAP~TION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3227
PROJECT NA&4E: EUSTACE C. ERIKSEN
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the To%rn of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the envirorn~ent for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or simit~r
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Request for reversa~ of the December 12~
1983 Decision of the Building_~nspe~i~or to pe~itconversion and_~
renovation of "guest cottage'~ or ~econd dwe!~ing.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Sou~hold, County of Suffolk, more.
particularly kngwn as: 10S§ West View Drive, Ma~tituck; ]000=]39~]-3.
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION:
(!) An Enviroramental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the envlronment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
~alA~r°ad or structure exists' between the a~tivity)proposed
~etlands (or other critical environmental area
and
Seuthold Town Board of Appeals -62- May 17, 198~--JRegular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3244 .......
PROJECT NAME: FATHER JOHN~DENNY
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Access0'ry building in fr0ntyard.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southo!d, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 1255 Private Road #] (Goose Creek Lane), S0uth0ld;
1000-078-08-009 ..............
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
wet]l~)ds.A~ road or structure exists between activity proposed and tidal
S~uthold Town Board of-Appeals -63- May 17, 198~Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRON~LENTAL DECLAP~TION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3245 .............
PROJECT NAFLE: DAVID'AND JEANNE BRAWNER
This ~tice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations~pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality ReView Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law ~44v4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for appr0va] of insufficient area
of plot to be set=off containing approx, l..!'2l acrq~. ....
LOCATION OF PRO~ECT: Town ~f S6~th01d,'-C~nty of Suffolk~ more
particularly known as: S/s Main Road, '0rient; ]000-20-3=part bf ]].
P~EASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATiON:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question is not located Within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical envir0nmenta] area.
S~athold Town Board of ~ppeals -64- May 17, 198~lRegular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATI~q~ ENVIRON~iENTAL DECLAP~ATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. :~ ~ 3246 ..............
PROJECT NAME: 'PATRICK 'CARRIGG AND MARK'S. MCDONALD
This notice' is issued-pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment~ for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Access over private rig[it=of-Way (280-A)
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: R-0-W N/S Bergen Avenue, Mattituck;
1000-I 1 2-01-018 ....
REASONIS) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION:
(i) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The relief requested is not directly related to new
construction.
'Soauthold Tow~ Board of Appeals -65- May 17, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations, continued:)
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members of the board..~
There being no other business to be transacted at this time,
~he Chairman dec_lared the meeting adjourned. The meeting was
adjourned at approximately 12:15 a.m.: May 18, 1984.
Respectfully submitted,
~da F. Kowa~ls~i, Secretary
Southo]d Town_Board of Appeals
App~oved~- -Ge~rard. P. ~oehr ~ n'g'er
l____.__ C ~