Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/29/1984 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RrtAD- STATE RrlAD m. 5 ~BOUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI ~1 I N U T E S N~VEMBER 29~ 1984 REGULAR MEETING A Regular Meetin§ of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday,: November 29, 1984_ ~t 7:30 o'cloc~.p..m, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold; New York. Present were: Gerar'd P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., Member; Serge Doyen, Jr., Member; Robert J. Douglass, Member and Joseph H. Sawicki,. Member. Also present were Victor Lessard, Building-Department~Administrator, Mrs. Barbara Strang, stenographer of hearings, and approximately 20 persons in the audience at.the opening of the meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 o'clock p.m. and proceeded with the first public hearin_~, in the Matter of Appeal No. 3279, of ERNEST GUETTINGER. The public hearing was closed after receiving comments from the applicant, and the board asked Mr. Guettinger if they could return to inspect the subject building, and Mr. Guettinger had no objection, Motion was made by Mr~ GOehringer, seconded"by Mr. Douglass, to declare the hearing closed, pending reinspection. This resolution was unanimously adopted. 7:43 p.m. Public Hearing in the Matter of JOHN AND MARILYN FLYNN. Following the public hearing, the follow~ng action was.. taken; and The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from a Notice of Disapproval from the ~uilding Inspector dated August 29, 1984 for which the applicants applied for a building permit to construct a one-family dwelling 35 feet from Little Peconic Bay Road. The site plan dated Au§ust 29, 1984, p~epared Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- November 29-~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. '3285 - John-and Ma~i~[l'yn'~ n~ continued:) by Garrett A. Strang indicates that there is an existing 12' by 16' concrete-block building 7± feet off the northerly boundary line along Little Peconic Bay Road. It is the applicant's request to retain same as a storage building accessory to the proposedtone-fa~ily dwelling. It is the opinion of this board that it is the unusual character of this parcel, having frontage along three streets, which lends itself to the practical difficulties of this case. Article III, Section 100~32 allows accessory buildings for storage purposes only~ in the rearyard and having a minimum setback of three feet from all property lines and a maximum height of 18 feet. This parcel technically has three "front" yards. In considering this appeal, the board finds that: (a) the circumstances of this appeal are unique; (b) no adverse effects will be created affecting adjoining properties; (c) the variance will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of this zoning ordinance; (d) the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Gri§onis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief as requested under Appeal No. 3285 for permission to retain an existing 12' by 16' accessory_building for storage purposes in the frontyard., BE AND HEREBY IS~A~P~RO~, provided that same not be used for habitable or sleeping quarters Location of Property: 2250 Little Peconic Bay Boulevard, Cutchogue, NY; Nassau Point Subdivision Part of Lot 142 and 143; County Tax Map Parcel No. lO00-111-12-O01. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. 7:50 p~m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of'ALFRED AND BARBARA DiN.UNZIO. At. apprQix~'ma'~el~8:lO p.m.; motion was ma--~e carried to caq.cus_ temp'orari'lx~ 'At 8:.15 p.m. 'the hearing was reconvened, on motion by MI. 'Goehringer~sec'onded by 'Member Grig- onis, and unanimously carried. No additional testimony was_giv~.p from the public, and motion was made'by Mr. Goehr. i'ngeK, seconded _by Mr. Dq.ugl_a.ss, and unanimousl'y carr. iedj _to close _~he hearing - ~.ending deliberations. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- November 29, 1984 Regular Meeting 8:.20 p~m~ .Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3286 for'.JOSEPH'GRASSO. F.~]lowi.ng ~he public hearing, the following_~ac~6n~iA~: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Member Douglass, it was RESO.LVED, that Appeal No~ 3286 in the Matter of JOSEPH'GR~SSO be and hereby, is RECESSED until December 13, 1984, a~.app~y 7:30 p.m. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawic.ki. This resol.etion was adopted by unanimous, vote of all the members. The minutes of the public hearing have been taken electronically by Mrs~ Strang, and are to be filed under separate cover with the _~ Office of the Town ~ierk,with these Minutes. 8:40 p.m. Public Hearing was 6pened and r.ecessed until December 13,~ 1984,~ in the Matter of A~p~al'No.'FL-15'for JOSEPH GRASSO, ~fter motion was made by Mr. Goehringe~, ~econded by Mr. ~-~-~glass,.~ and unanimously carried'by all the members. No testi- mony was given at this time, since the hearing will be reconvened on December 13, 1984. 8:40 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3284 - RICHARD'W.' SLEDJESKI. Comm~Dts made d~ring this hea~ing were taken electronical].y ]~y Mrs. Strang and prepared under separate cover. The minutes of the statemen~.s will be filed simultaneously with this set with the Office of the Town Clerk. Following the public hearing in this matter, the following action was taken by the board: This is an appeal from the August 8, 1984 Notice of Disapproval of the Building Inspector for approval to erect fencing six feet in height along the front property lines to the south of the existing one-family dwelling. The premises in question contains an area of 20,000 sq. ft. with frontage along two streets, 100 feet in length. The lot in question technicall.y has two frontyard areas: (1) ~porth of the existing dwelling a de.p.th of 49.8 fee~_, and (2) south of the existing dwelling a depth of 63± feet from the deck of the ~ool, as shown on survey prepared May 25, 1983 by Donack Associates, The fencing is propos_ed to extend along the southerly property line along _ County Road and northerly 48 to the front of the dwelling for a length of 150± feet. It is the opinion of this board that the unique character of this parcel"s frontage al~ong two streets lends itself to the prac.tical d-6f Appeals -4- November 29~, 1984 Regular Meeting Southold Town Boar (Appeal No. 3284 RICHARD W. SLEDJESKI, continued:) difficulties; and for practical purposes and privacy, it is the inten- tion of the applicant to shield the property from the County Road, preserving its residential character. In considering this appeal, the board finds, for the reasons mentioned above, that: (a) the circumstances of this appeal are unique, (b) no adverse effects will be created affecting adjoining properties since no access is requested onto the County Road; (c) the variance will be in harmony with and promote the general pur- poses of zoning since the houses and driveway accesses face Homestead Way; and (d) the interests of justice will be served, by allowing the variance, as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goeh- ringer, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3284, in the matter of RICHARD W. SLEDJESKI for permission to erect fencing six feet in height along the property lines in the frontyard area along C.R. 48, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The fencing be maintained in good condition at all times; 2. The fencing not be relocated to encroach further within the frontyard area off Homestead Way. Location of Property: N/S C.R. 48 and S/s Homestead Way, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-40-02-21. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrin§er,_Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. 8:45 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of GENERAL WAYNE INN, Appeal No. 3290. The minutes of the statements ~ during the public hearing are being prepared under separat'e cover by Mrs. Strang., which will be filed simultaneously herewith. Following the public hearing, the following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to declare the hearing closed pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- November 29, 1984 Regular Meeting _~ ~8:55 p..m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of ANTHONY PAGOT.O~ ~ppe.al N~,~ 3291. Pur. suant to_a w~ritten requested received f~m Swim_ King Pools, .]~§ent f~ the applicant, the following action was taken and n9 o~e was present to ~.R~ak concernin.9 this matter at this time: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Gri§onis, it was RESOLVED, that.Appeal No. 3291, Heating'of ANT.HO'NY PgGD.TO, be and her.eby is'RE.CES.SED until the latter January ]~Meet- Vote of the 'Board: 'Ayes: Mess.rs. Goeh'~i'nger, Do~en, Gr~§~nis, Dou.glass and Sawicki~ This resolQtion was adopted 'by unanimous vote of_~ll the members. ADDITIONAE SET,UP FOR P.UBLIC HEARING for December 13, 1984- After reviewing the do-cuments conc~r~ng the following-matter, the board took the following~c.tion: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded 'by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED,.~hat 'Appeal NO~. 3306, application by Ira Haspel for ANTHONY'AND'SALLY'PI.RRERA,_.be.and hereby_~is.scheduled~for'p~bl..~. hearin_~-~'"be ~he?~H.URS~AY, D~'£~.EMB~R'13,~ '1~9._ ~ 8~4, in addition, to those previously schedgled; and ~hat the Sec?et~ry ]s hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of same pursuant to law in the local and official newspapers of the town, S~ffolk Times and Long Island Trave]gr-Watchman, Inc. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Dou.glass and Sawicki. This resolQtion was adopted by upa. ni~ous vote of all the members. APPROVAU OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Go~wa~'. RESOLVED, that.the Minutes of the November 15, 1984 Regular Meeting,'BE AND HEREBY ARE APPROVED. Vote of the Board: ~A~e's: Messrs. Goehringer~ Doyen~.Gri§onis, Dou.glass and Sawicki~ This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of..a.!l the members. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- November 29, ~1984 Regular Meeting AMENDED CONDITIONS: Appeal No. 3117 Special Exception - Ko FARR. The board members reviewed the cou'rt o~d~r of Hon. Joseph R. Corso, Justice, Supreme Court of Suffolk County, and the following action was taken: WHEREAS, on October 18~ 1984, under Index #84-15561, Hon. Joseph R. Corso~ Justice, 'Supreme Cou?t~ .Special Term, of Suffolk County, has ordered that the subject special excepti_on be reissued, without conditions 5, 6, 8 and 12, and WHEREAS, the remainder of this board's decision rendered June 28, 1984 shall remain in full force and effect pursuant thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, 'o'n motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the decision as rendered by this board BE AND HEREBY IS'RE, ISSUED, WITHOUT CONDITIONS 5_,. 6, 8 and 12, as ordered, and re-numbered as follows: t. No lighting that will be adverse to neighboring uses; 2. A railing or barrier (guard rail) shall be constructed, not to exceed 30'~ above ground level, along the front property line to prevent unsafe ex~ting onto street, [except that the area for ingress and egress within the "curb cut" remain open]; 3. No fencing along the front property line, except chainlink for proper visibility (or otherwise noted in these conditions); 4. No fencing along the north side property line less than (or within) six inches of ~.ront property line [except chainlink or guard rail for proper visibility if screening is desired]~ 5. (7.) Proposed future construction or changes requires approval by the ZBA before a building permit is to be issued; 6. (9.) Existing stockade fencing along south line shall be continuously maintained; 7~ (10.) No launching ramp shall be built or permitted; 8. (11.) Building 'approved herein shall conform to all set- _ backs in letter/memorandum dated June 18, 1984 from Stanley S. Corwin, P.C., attached hereto for reference; Southold Town Board of Appeals =7- November 29, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3117 - KATHRINE FARR, continued:) Location of Property: West Side of Manhanset Avenue, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-34-05-21. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. AMENDED CONDITIONS: Appeal No. 3118 - Variance - K, ?ARR. The board members took the following action in accordance with the Judge's Order of October 18, 1984, concerning the subject Article 78 proceeding: WHEREAS, on October 18, 1984, under Index #84-15561, Hon. Joseph R. Corso, Justice, Supreme Court, Special Term, of Suffolk County, has ordered that the subject variance be reissued without conditions 5, 6, 8, and 12, and WHEREAS, the remainder of this board's decision rendered June 28, 1984 shall remain in full force and effect pursuant thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the decision as rendered by this board BE AND HEREBY IS RE-ISSUED, WITHOUT CONDITIONS 5, 6, 8 and 12, as ordered, and re-numbered as follows: 1. No lighting that will be adverse to neighboring uses; 2. A railing or barrier (guard rail) shall be constructed, not to exceed 30" above ground level, along the front property line to preven~ unsafe exiting onto street, [except that the area for ingress and egress within the "curb cut" remain open]; 3. No fencing along the front property line, except chainlink for proper visibility (or otherwise noted in these conditions); 4. No fencing along the north side property line less than (or within) six inches of front property line [except chainlink or guard rail for proper visibility if screening is desired]; 5. (7.) Proposed future construction or changes requires approval by the ZBA before a building permit is to be issued; 6. (9.) Existing stockade fencing along south line shall be continuously maintained; Southold Town Board of Appeals-8- November 29, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3118 - KATHRINE I~ARR, continued:) 7. (lO.) No launching ramp shall be built or permitted; 8. (11.) Building approved herein shall conform to all set- backs in letter/memorandum dated June 18, 1984 from Stanley S. Co.rwin, P.C., attached hereto for reference; Location of Property: West Side of Manhanset Avenue, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-34-05-21. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3288 - JOHN WICKHAM'~ .OTHERS. The public hearing on thi-~ m~tter was-held on November 15, 1984, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations: Upon application for'JOHN WICKHAM, Main Road, Cutchogue, NY (by A. Wickham, Esq.) for a Variance to'Amend Conditions 3, 7 and 8 of the 6/28/84 decision rendered under Appeal No. 3222, and Article VI, Section 100-60 in a proposal to establish business office for marine contracting with accessory use for storage and repair of contractor's own vehicles and equipment, at 67576 Main Road, Green- port, NY; Coun'ty Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-052-05-058. The board made the following findings and determination: Appellants, under ApPeal No. 3222, appealed a determination of the Building Inspector which denied appellants' application to change use of the premises to a use permitted in a "C-Light Industrial" Zoning District. On June 28, 1984, this board granted a use variance as applied with 13 conditions~ On September 11, 1984, appellants applied for relief from Conditions No. 3, 7, and 8; and on November 15, 1984, a publ.ic hearing was held. The board members have taken all the statements of the hearing into consideration. Condition No. 3 reads, "Said fencing shall be of a type that will not allow visibility from'~the streets and other areas outside of the fenced area." It is the understanding ~ the board that the applicants would pre~r to provide a type of fencing similar to "anchor post" ~ith p.!antings. It is the opinion of the board that during winter month~., some of the plantings may not provide sufficient screening. The board has no objection to a combination of landscap- ing and solid fencing as indicated in Abigail Wickham's letter dated September 11, 1984, provided it prevents visibility from the exterior. Condition No. 7 reads, "Vehicle lifts, or pits, vehicles, Southold Town Board o ppeals -9- November 2-~, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3288 JOHN WICKHAM, continued:) dismantled or otherwise, and all parts or supplies, shall be located within a building." It is the intent of this board that parts, supplies, inoperable or junk vehicles, whether dismantled or otherwise, shall not be p~rmitted to be placed outside of a building. Cranes, crane booms, buckets, snow plows, and related accessory equipment may be stored outside the buildings, but must be within the screened, fenced areas shown on the 9-13-84 site plan. Condition No. 8 reads, "Alt service or repair of vehicles/equip- ment of the contractor shall be conducted in a building." The board members agree that since the contractor intends to repair or service only his own vehicles and/or equipment, that they should be permitted to be serviced outside the buildings provided they remain in the screened, fenced areas, and shall be typically placed in the areas depicted on the 9-13-84 site plan. Any extensive modification of these "service and storage areas" which may block access to these buildings in the frontyard area will require re-application to this board for reconsideration. One of the major concerns of this board is access by emergency vehicles in the event of a fire. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the Decision as Rendered under Appeal No. 3222 in the Matter of JOHN WICKHAM AND OTHERS, be and hereby is amended to re-word Conditions No. 7 and 8, as follows: 7. Vehicle lifts or pits, any dismantled (inoperable or junk) vehicles of the contractor shall be located within a building. Cranes, crane booms, buckets, snow plows, and related accessory equipment may be stored outside the buildings but must be within the screened, fenced areas shown on the 9-13-84 site plan; 8. Any service or repair of vehicles owned by the contractor for which this use variance is granted shall be permitted within the screened, fenced area, and shall not be permitted to be in any area outside the fenced areas. The vehicles of the contractor may be stored or parked outside the buildings provided they remain within the screened, fenced areas and they do not block access to the buildings; and any extensive modification of the servicing and subject storage areas other than permitted and typically shown on the 9-13-84 site plan will require re-application to and re-consideration by this board; and it was FURTHER RESOLVED, that the remainder of this board's decision and conditions rendered June 28, 1984, shall remain in full force and effect. Location of Property: North Side of Main Road, and West Side Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- November 29, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3288 J(~N wIC~'~AM, continued:). '-'~ of Albertson's Lane, Greenport, NY~ County Tax Map No. 1000-052-05-58. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrin§er, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3290: Upon application of GENERAL WAYNE INN, Bayview Road, Southold, NY for a Special Exception to the zonln~ Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(C)[6](f) for permission to erect directional sign at premises identified as County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-69-02-003; corner of C..R. 48 and Ackerl~.Pond Eane, Southold~ NY (current owner: S. Doroski). 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 a Special Exception to permit the placement of 4' by 4' directional sign for the General Wayne Restaurant, which is located quite a distance away from the main routes tn the township at Bayview, Southold. The sign is proposed to be located on the South Side of County Road 48, a minimum of 25 feet west of its intersection with Ackerly Pond Lane, and a minimum of five feet from the northerly property line along C.Ro 48. The premises in question is located in the A-Residential and Agricultural District and contains an acreage of approximately five acres. The present use of the premises is a§ricultural sales, and a ground sign advertising the Doroski's Nursery exists at this northerly section of the property, It is the opinion of the board that the purpose of the s~gn is directional and therefore will be in the public's interest as distinguished from advertising and is necessary for the traveling public. It is also the determination of the board that: (1) the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (2) that the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town will not be adversely affected by this sign and its location~ (3) this proposal will not alter the essential character of the property or the neighborhood in this zoning district; (4) the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of zoning. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was Southold Town Board o ppealS -ll- November 29,~t1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3290 - GENERAL WAYNE INN for DOROSKI, continued:) RESOLVED, that a directional sign for the General Wayne Restaurant as applied under Appeal No. 3290,' BE'AND'HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ~1. The sign may continue only as the property owner's consent is in effect; written permission of the property owner (and subsequent owners) shall be furnished to the Zoning Board of Appeals; 2. The purpose of the sign must be directional in the interest of the public, for the General Wayne Inn; 3. Said sign shall not exceed the size 4' by 6'~ 4. Said sign shall not be less than 5' from any property line; 5. The bottom edge of the sign shall not be less than 4' above ground; 6. The sign shall not be lighted; 7. This sign permit may be terminable at once at the discretion of the Board of Appeals if other legislative action were taken affecting this decision; 8. This sign permit is subject to the rules and regulations of the Federal Highway Beautification Act and any and all other laws for funding of highways, when applicable. 9. The sign must be maintained in good condition, or removal may be directed. Location of Property: South Side of C.R. 48 and West Side of Ackerly Pond Lane, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 69-02-003. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. Southold Town Board of Appeals -]'2~ . November 29, 1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3230: Upon application of JEAN C. HOLLAND, Vanston Road, Cutchogue, NY (by M. Hall, Esg.) for a Variance to t-]fE-Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31,._ for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels in this .proposed division of land known as Lots 36 and 37 on Map of W.C. Grabie at Nassau Point, and Lots 327 and 328 on Map of Nassau Point Club Properties (Section C), Lowland Road, Cutchogue, NY; County .Tax Map.. Parcels No.. 1000-111-10-1 and 18o The public hearing on-this matter was he'id October 25, 1984, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels, the most northerly lot of 58,000± sq. ft. (47,000 ± east of Lowland Road and 11,000 sq. ft. west of Lowland Road) and the southerly lot of 56,200± sq. ft. (46,200± east of Lowland Road and 10,000± sq. ft. west of Lowland Road). The lot width of the southerly parcel is to be 121 feet along Sunset Road. The northerly parcel is a corner lot as defined under Section 100-13 and meets the requirements of a minimum of 175' lot width of the current zoning code. The northerly parcel as proposed is improved with a 1½-story, one-family dwelling, which will have a setback from the southerly lot line of 15 feet, and existing at the northeasterly (frontyard) area is an accessory storage/garage structure 44' from Meadow Beach Lane. The southerly parcel as proposed is vacant. The board members have personally visited the site in question and are familiar with the character of this resid6ntial neighborhood. The board members have taken all testimony at the public hearing of October 25, 1984, into consideration in rendering this determination. For the record, it is noted that the applicants purchased the subject premises July 17, 1967. Since that time, several building permits have been issued permitting substantial renovations and enlargement of the dwelling on these two lots, jointly. It is the determination of this board that: (a) this proposal would not be within the character of this neighborhood because of its configurations; (b) the setback of the existing dwelling would be insufficient and would not meet the requirements of zoning for a 50-foot rearyard; (c) the evidence submitted is not sufficient to justify the granting of the relief as requested; (d) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and. in considering all of the above, the interests of justice would not be served by allowing Southold Town Board ~ Appeals -13- November ~-9, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3230 JEAN C. HOLLAND, continued:) the variance as applied. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the relief as requested under Appeal No. 3230 in the Matter of JEAN C. HOLLAND, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as applied. Location of Property: Lots 328 and 327, Map of Nassau Point Club Properties (Section C); Lots 36 and 37, Map of Walter C. Grabie Subdivision; County Tax Map Parcel No. lO00-111-10-O01 and 018. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3250: Upon application for JAMES AND BEULAH RICKETTS, Conklin Road, Mattituck, NY (by G. Olsen, Esq.} for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Articles I and III, Section 100-31, (Al06) for approval of insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels in this division of land located on the West Side of Conklin Road (Grant Boulevard), Mattituck, NY~ County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-139-03-19 and 30 (30,1). The public hearing on this matter was held on November 15, 1984, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code which requires a minimum of 80,000 sq. ft. of lot area and 175 ft. of lot width for each parcel in a proposed division of land. By this application, proposed Parcel No. 1 would have 15,681 sq. ft. with 115.41 ft. frontage along Conklin Road~ proposed Parcel No. 2 would have an area of 32,358 sq. ft. with 154.19 ft. along Conklin Road. Each of the premises are part of the 1935 Subdivision of "Mattituck Heights," to wit, Parcel 1 consists of Lots 69 and 70; Parcel 2 consists of part of Plots D and E. Parcel 1 is vacant, and Parcel 2 is improved with a one-story, one-family frame house, and two small accessory storage sheds. For the record, it is noted that the applicants purchased the subject premises by separate deeds, on November 18, 1965, during the 12,500 sq. ft. zoning requirements of the town. The board members have personally viewed the site in question and are familiar with the character of this residential community. In viewing the neighborhood, the board finds a majority of the parcels to be of a size larger, although only by perhaps 7,000± sq. ft. than proposed Parcel 1. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- November 29, ~984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3250 JAMES AND BEULAH RICKETTS, continued:) The board members are also familiar with all of the facts and statements given at the public hearing of this matter held on Novem- ber 15, 1984. It is the determination of this board that Parcel 1 is not of an average size consistent with the majority of the lots in this immediate area and therefore: (a) the variance requested is not in harmony with and will not promote the general purposes of zoning~ (b) the burden of proof is not sufficient to justify the granting of the relief as requested; (c) the relief as requested is substan- tial in relation to the requirements of zoning; (d) the interests of justice will be served by denying the relief, as requested in this application. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief as requested under Appeal No. 3250 in the Matter of JAMES AND BEULAH RICKETTS, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Location of Property: West Side of Conklin Road (a/k/a Grant Boulevard), Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-139-03-19 and 30 (30.1). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. RESERVED DECISI.ON: Appeal No. 3287- Upon ap~plication of'A-L~RED AND BARB. AR~DiNUNZIO, 6 Glenn Road, Southold~ NY.~for a Varia~9 fon appro~_acc~ss,. New.~?rk 'Town Law, SectiQ~ 280-A concerning rig~t-ofqway located off the east side of Wel~s Road, Peconic, 'NY; _ to _premi...~s ]dentifie'~_~s C~un'ty Tax M~p P.~rcel No. 1000-75-06-001. The public hea'ring O'n ~'is matter was held earlier this evening~ at which ti]me ~he}~hea~i'ng~'was declared closed pendi?g deliberation6.,_ The board made the following findings and determination: By this ap.plication, appeli-ants seek approval of access over a private right-~rway as shown on the survey prepa?ed by Young & Young~ updated July 25~ 1984. The subject right-of=w~y ~ronts along Wells Road 50 feet and extends from the easterly side of Wells R~ad ~in. a southeasterl~y direction a length of 94.00 feet to the appel- lants' property, for a total length of 110 feet and a width of 16.50 Southold Town Board ~Appeals -15- November 2~, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3287 - ALFRED AND BARBARA DiNUNZIO, continued:) feet. For the record copies of deed dated March ll, 1982 recorded at Liber 9156 cp 194 from Krukowski to the DiNunzios, and title insurance policy, indicating the subject right-of-way have been submitted. Also, deed recorded at Liber 7989 cp 536 dated February 5, 1975 from Krukowski to the adjoining property owners, Zaneski, was submitted for the record which indicates the right-of-way in question. The statements made at the public hearing in support of and in opposition to this application have been considered. At the present time, the subject right-of-way has been landscaped and mowed by the Zanieski's, and objection has been made as to allowing use of this right-of-way for access to the DiNunzio's premises when an alterna- tive access route could be agreed to between the adjoining landowners. It is the opinion of this board that the right-of-way is the only legal access to the applicants' premises, and this board does not have the authority to relinquish that right. This is an application for suitable improvements for access by emergency vehicles which is reauired under New York Town Law, Section 280-A before a building permit can be authorized. It is the understand- ing of the board that this right-of-way may at some time in the future be rel.ocated over land presently of Charles DeLuca which would be more suited and more practical for all involved. The board does agree that a better access route could be obtained, but is without authority to require same. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3287, application for ALFRED N. and BARBARA H. DiNUNZIO, be and hereby is granted approval of access in accordance with New York Town Law, Section 280-A, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The right-of-way be cleared for the full 16.50 foot width; 2. The right-of-way be improved the full 16.50 feet width and llO' length as follows: (a) remove topsoil for 8"; (b) replace topsoil excavation with 8" of 80%-sand and 20% gravel bankrun mixture; (c) place a ~'~ top course of 3/4" stone blend; (d) The finished road surface to be about even with the grade of the Zaneski property (at the lawn area); 3. The right-of-way must be maintained in good condition at Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- November 29, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3287 L ALFRE~ AND BARBARA DiNUNZIO, c~tinue~:) all times; 4. The improvements of the right-of-way be inspected by the Zoning Board of Appeals, or the ZBA road engineer, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and after notification for inspection. Location of Property: East Side of Wells Road, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-75-06-001. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. RE~SERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3242: Upon application of HENR~-'DOMALE~SKI~ Ore.go~ Road, Cutchogue, NY (by A. Wickham, Esq.) ~n~_i..anc~s:_~. ~a) to the Z~.n~ng'Ordi_nan_ce Article III, '~ection 100-31 for approval of insufficient width of two propQSed parcel's in this division of land, and _lb) New York Town Law, Section 280~A for approval of access. Location of Property: Private Right-of-Way off the North Side of Oregon Road, Cu~chQgue, NY;.~ Coun'ty Tax Mg~. Parcel] No. lO00~095-Ol-p~rt of 011. The publ-~c he~ing~ co~cer~ing this '~atter were held on September ll, 1984 and continued on October ll, 1984, ~% which time the hearing was d~clared closed pending deli~rations. The board ma'~e the-~following findings and determination: By this applicatio~', '~ppellan't seeks: (1) approval of access over a 25' private right-of-way located approximately 570 feet west of "Duck Pond Road," ~and extending northe~ly 3,080.~.? feet to the premises..in question, and (2) relief from the 175-foot lot width requirements of the zoning code ~r approval of 145.75-foot lot'width of two parcels in this proposed di-~visio~ of Ian~. The right-of-way in question is shown"~on survey prepared February 28, .1984 by ~pung & Young to be along th~ easterly side of a 25.7± acre par~l also of the applicant, Henry Domal.~.ski. This right-of'Way has a traveled width of approximately nine feet and is on original ground with no evidence of other materials~ Ther'e are deep ruts throughout and some parallel sections ~'ion9 the westerly side are lower than the ruts. No drainage problems are anticipated if this road is brought up to standards since Lot No. 2 appea.~s to slope from north to south at a flat minus grade. Adjacent land for Southold Town Board Appeals -17- November Z~i, 1984 Regular Meeting '(~Appeal No. 3242 - HENRY DOMALESKI, continued:) most of the length along the easterly side is higher than the opposite side. Proposed Lot No. 1 will contain an area of 2.05 acres and No. 2 an area of 1.949 acres. To the east of these parcels is "Birch Hills" Subdivision. of July 19, 1967, which consists of lots substantially smaller in area and having lot widths of 100 feet~ To the west of the subject parcels is a 25± acre farm. It is the opinion of the board that the relief as requested is not unreasonable under the circumstances. In considering this appeal, the board finds: (a) that by allowing the variance, no detriment will be created affecting adjoining properties; (b) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (c) that the variance will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zon.ing; (d) the circum- stances of this appeal are unique; (e) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3242 concerning premises located at the northerly end of private right-of-way, north side of Oregon Road, Cutchogue, for insuffi- cient lot width of 145.75 feet for Parcels 1 and 2, and for approval of access, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The right-of-way be improved for a width of 12 feet centered within the right-of-way as follows: (a) Add 12" of 20% stone, 10% loam, and 70% sand mixture for the 12-foot width and fill low areas along west side; (b) Place a compacted 2" crowned top course of 3/4" stone blend on the bank run; (c) Grade evenly; no hollows; 2. Right-of-way shall be continuously maintained in good condition. 3. Any other new subdivisions, set-offs or construction on other premises along this right-of-way shall also be subject to New York Town Law, Section 280-A; ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- November 29, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No~ 3242 - HENRY~DOMALESKI, continued:) 4. An inspection and acceptance by the Zoning Board of Appeals of these improvements, after written notice. Location of Property: R-O-W at the North Side of Oregon Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-95-01-11 and 12. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all th'e members. The boalrdlrevilewed the folio, wing matters and it was the consensus Of the board that same are ready for public hearings to be held in January; however, it was recommended that they be held at a meeting subsequent to Appeals No. 3295 and 3302 con- cerning the Wade property since it was expected they would be very lengthy: Appeal No. 3307 - Adele Deckinger; Appeal No. 3309 - Henry Smith and Son; Appeal No. 3308 - Lauren Krug; Appeal No. 3310 Gary Doroski; Appeal No. 3277 Marie Patterson (recess from 11/15); Appeal No. 3291 Anthony Pagoto (recess from tonight); Appeal No. 33. - SergehDoyen~(file received tonight). The dates and times will be determined at our next Regular Meeting, of December 13th. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: Pursuant to Part 617 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quali~~w Act, Article 8, of the Environ- mental Conservation Law, and Local Law 44-4 of the Town of Southold, the board declared the following Environmental Declarations of Nonsignificance: Southold Town Board o~-~ppeals -19- Nov~em~er ~J~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental''Dedl'arati'on~s, continued.:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATI~-E ENVIRONMENT~_L DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3303 PROJECT NA/~E: FRANK FIELD REALTY, INC. 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: [ , Type II ~ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Brown Street (and Linnett Street), Greenp0rt, NY - To remove two of four existing dwellings and construct a tw0-fami]y dwelling, for a total of three dwe.]]ings with four units LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, county of Suffolk, more _. particularly known as: Brown Street, Gr~epp0rt, ~Y; ]0007~8~3-]9' 20, 8, 9. P~EASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short fol~n 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~)'-"lhe premises in question-'is not located in ~ environmentally sensitive area; (3) This area appears to be serviced by the Village of Greenport for septic waste and water. Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- November 29, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificance APPEAL NO.: 3304 PROJECT NAME:''MARGARETHED. CLEMPNER Th±$ not±ce is ±ssued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.$. Environmental Qua!ity Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and LocaZ Law #44-4 of the Town of Southo!d. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the-~asons 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 simii~r project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: 8' by ]2' accessory st0ra§e build,n§ in $ide3ard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk~ more particularly known as: East Side of Inlet Lane Extension, 'Greenport; 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 proposed 8' by 12' accessory sro'rage building is landward of existing construction; (3) Being a setback variance, no further processing is required under S.E.Q.RoA. regulations. S~)uthOld Town BOard o ppeals -2~1- November 2'9, 1984 Regular Meeting · (EnvirOnmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificance APPEAL NO.: 3306 PROJECT NAME: ANTHONY AND SALLY'PIRRERA 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--~asons 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 simii~r project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type ii [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: 24' by 32' accessory shed with carport in fr0ntyard area, approximately 160 feet north of C.R~ ~8, Greenp0rt. LOCATION OF PROJECT: To~n of Southold, County of Suff~ik~ more particularly known as: N/S C.R. 48, G~eenport; ]000~44=02-003. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: {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 proposed accessory buildin~-'is landward of existing construction; (3) Being a setback variance, no further processing is required. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution w~$ adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. Southold Town Board of Appeals =22- November 29, 1984 Regular Meeting .OTHER FILES P.ENDING: The board members reviewed the following matter~ which ~r~ held in abeyance pending the documenta- tion noted below: Appeal No. 3294 - Peter Troyano for 280-A (await maps and certification) Appeal No. 3259 - Nicholas Aliano (Await Village contract) Appeal No. 3214- Hanuaer and Bagley (Await Co Health) Appeal No. 3252 - J. Charles (Await Co. Health & DEC) Appeal NO. 3251 Renate Riedel (Await DEC ame dment) Appeal No. 3305 - Robert Norkus (Await DEC) Appeal No. 3293 - Harold and Josephine DeNeen (Await Co. Health). HEARING PENDING: Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR'TRUCKENBROD~/SWANSON. No action was taken by the board at this time; additional time was requested by the board. INVESTMENT BROKER'INTERPRETATION REQUEST: Building Inspector Curt Horton inqeired as to whether an investment broker was one of those uses under "home occupations." The Chairman said he will request an opinion from the Town Attorney and advise accordingly. Being there was no other business properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, in a . ~owalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals ~G4~RARD P. GOEHR-INGER,/L~HAIRMAg RECEIVED AND FILED BY fApproved - December/}'3, 1 984 ~ SOLrrHOT~D TOWN CLE~ / DATE ~-/~-~ HOUR II/~ 7 November 29, 1984 INDEX Ernest Guettinger PP. 1-2 2½ minutes - S~de 1 John and Marilyn Flynn PP. 2-3 2½ to 6 minutes - Side 1 Alfred and Barbara DiNunzio PP. 3-8 6 to 20 minute~ - Side 1 0 to 3 minutes - Side 2 Joseph Grasso PP. 8-11 3 to 15 minutes - Side 2 Richard Sledjeski PP. 11-12 0 to 5 minutes Side 3 General Wayne Inn PP. 12-13 5 to 7 minu~s Side 3 Swim King Pools P. 13 7 minutes - Side 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Thursday November 29, 1984 #3279 At 7:30 p.m. - Public Hearing was held in the matter of ERNEST GUET.TINGER, for a Variance to'cons~ucH-~accessory garage in area with reduced sideyard setback, Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-136-01-37. Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. ERNEST GUETTINGER: I~am Ernest Guettinger. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, is there something that you would like to say on behalf of this application? ERNEST GUETTINGER: No, not really. CHARIMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you check that mike to see if it's on? It doesn't appear to be. There's a switch on there. Thank you. Mr. Guettinger, we now go out on in- spections individually and a few. of the Bcard members were not able to come down and inspect the property. Therefore we will have to come back for a reinspection. Are you available at any one time when we can go through the garage, the existing garage as it stands right now and you can show us exactly where the addition is going to be, etc? ERNEST GUETTINGER: Well, I could make myself available. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. A~e you out on the weekends or do yoq live here now? ERNEST GUETTINGER: I live here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right. We will get together and give you a call. Are you listed in the telephone book? We will let you know when we are gcing to be down. It will be sometime within the next ten days and we will investigate the property. I beleive only two of us made it down there, the other gentleman thought it would start to get dark and they didn't get a chance to get down.to the property. ERNEST GUETTINGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me ask y.ou a couple of questions about the application. You are going to use this proposed ad- dition only for storage purposes? ERNEST GUETTINGER: Yes. Garden supplies and possibly a sailboat. ''~ ZBA '~ P.2 Guettinger Hearing - Continued 11/29/84 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wii1 ~there be any electric in the ad- dition at all? ERNEST GUETTINGER: I haven't really decided, but I don~t think so. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Any insulation or anything of that nature? ERNEST GUETTINGER: NO. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ~nd I understand you changed the size, it's 10 x 14. ERNEST GUETTINGER: 10 x 14 (Ten by Fourteen). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much. We will call you. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? There being no further questions, I make a motion closing this hearing, reserving decision until later. #3285 At 7:45 p.m. - Public Hearing was held in the matter of JOHN and M~RILYN. FLYNN, for a Variance~to retain existing structure, Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-ii1-12-1. Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. GARRETT STRANG: Good evening. I think the application is relatively straightforward and self explanatory. There is an existing 12 x 16 concrete block building on the property, it will fall in a frontyard due to the nature of the fact that the property is bounded on three sides with roads. We would like to maintain that building as a storage, pos- sibly workshop type accessory use building to the principal building, which is a residence. And, again, to take it down and build a new one would be a 'hardship to my clients. CHAIRMAN GOEHR~NGER: While you are up, you wouldn't object to a restriction that it never be used as a habitable dwelling sleeping quarters or anything of that nature? GARRETT STR~NG: I think that there would be no problem with that at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. ZBA Flynn Hearing - Continued P.3 11/29/84 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? Bearing in mind, Mr. Strang, we have bsen holding up the con- struction of thfs house since August 30thr I have no objection to this application and I will offer a motion granting it, with the following condition: that it not be used for any more than storage purposes (no habitabilitY). I will offer that motion to the Board. All iR favor. (Unanimous) Granted. Thank you'. (Findings and determination in official minutes filed with Town Clerk.) ~3287 At 7:50 p.m. - Public Hearing was held in the matter of ALFRED and BARBARA DIN~NZIO, for a Variance for approval of acc~s's' c0ncernin'g' a right-of'way, Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-75-06-001. Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: My name is Edward J. DiNunzio and I am the owner's brother. I would just like to indicate to the Board that the right-of-way as described in the application was listed first of all in the deed from the previous owners, John and Margaret Grakowsky, to the applicants, specifically set forth in the deed; secondly, the property, the right-of- way was described in a prior deed from Joseph and Victoria Grakowsky to John and Barbara Grakowsky in the same language that deed is dated 1962, and the .persons whose property the right of way affects received deeds to their properties - there was an original deed in August' 1975; followed up by a correction deed on February 5, 1976 and in both of those deeds, the propsrty was deeded to the owners ,f~ichael and Georgine Zaneski~ subject to the exact same right-of, way, and reference is made to the deeds that se~ forth the right of way. The right-of, way itself has been found and the- right-of. way insured by the American Title Insurance Company, both by the original title policy, which was granted to Alfred and BRrbara DiNunzio, who purchased the property and also on a more recent title insurance report, done just recentl~ for mortgage purposes. It think it's interesting to note for the Board simply that I am aware of a letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Zaneski in opposition to the right.of.way, the use of the righ~ of-way that if other access is obtained by Alfred and Barbara DiNunzio, the right-of.way, immediately by its terms, becomes extinguished. Now that possibility is being explored right now, but the swap of land referred to in Mr. Zaneski's letter, would, as I Understand it, require Planning Board approval. The building of the property is currently being delayed and in fact, prohibited, because there is no access~ The contractor involved has indicated to my brother and sister-ir~law that he sees absolutely no difficulty in moving the necessary equipment that he feels is required for construction, in and out, without .... ~ ZBA DiNUNZIO HEARING - Continued 11~9~4 EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: - Continued - touching any of the property outside the right-of, way. I know that was an item mentioned in one of the inspection reports. But I would like to submit copies of the deeds referred to for the Board, indicating that the right-of-way has been in existence and that the people who are objecting to it now, first of all knew about it when they bought their property in 1975 and 1976 and in fact, I under- stand they acquired their property from a.relative of Mrs. Zaneski and its that same relative that deeded the property to their relatives and then to my brother. So, I think that everybody went into this thing with their eyes open and I think it's rather unfair to be objecting to what they knew existed at the time that they purchased the land in 1975-76~ In terms of unnecessary hardship or praCtical difficulties, I think the situation is painfully apparent. Without the right~of-way, the land cannot be utilized for the purpose for which it was purchased, which is the erection of a one family dwelling. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you aware of our engineer's report Mr. DiNunzio? EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: I believe that's the report I ~ferred to, and I guess that report also indicates there also is in the Zaneski deed, a survey, and indicates the engineer felt that there would be a problem with certain vehicles turning. Per- haps Mr. Cullen would like to speak on that~point. He is the contractor and he seems to think'there would b~ no problem in getting the necessary equipment in and Out of' the property. CHAIRMAN GE~HRINGER: And the timing that's involved in this application is as quickly as we can give you a decision? EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: Hopefully anytime within the next three minutes, without appearing flip. Everythinq is being held up because of the lack of the approval° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I cannot guarantee you one tonight, but we will do the best we can to give you one. EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? ROGER CULLEN: I am the builder. The enqineer reported that there might be some problems with getting equipment there. I can see no problem getting bulldozers, perhaps a big transit mixer, but we don~t have to do that. We can go another route. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When I had asked this gentleman if he were aware of the engineer's report, I was mainly talking about the he was asking for and the re- habilitation of this right4of~way, although there is no complaint about that. .... , ZBA P.5 11/29/84 DINUNZIO HEARING - Continued ROGER CULLEN: NO complaint. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That 'was mainly what I was concerned about. Could I have your name for the record? ROGER CULLEN: Roger Cullen, Gardiner's Bay.Construction Company. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Would anybody like to speak against this application? MICHAEL ZANESKI: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is Michael Zaneski, and it's my property that is subject to the right of way. First-of all, I would just like to say that I have been here since 1976, and since that time, I have tried to take care of the right of way. It's like a sore thumb, it keeps on popping up. I respect Mr. DiNunzio's wishes for the construction of his house. By the same token, I value my pro- perty and its appearance. A 16%' right of way would be totally unacceptable on my part. As a matter of fact, the right of way is about 15', ends up about 15' from the corner of my son's bedroom and to move heavy equipment in is totally unacceptable at this time. There is another alternative for Mr. DiNunzio to move his equipment in and out and I think he is aware of that. I would just like to see the whole matter cleared up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What are you alluding to in reference to the other, are you talking about the repositioning of the lot line? MICHAEL ZANESKI: Well, I am talking about another method of access for the heavy equipment that he needs for the construction of his home. We had discussed it at one time and I thought it was taken care of. CHAIRMAN GOKHRINGER: In other words, you don't object to the right of way as a means of egress and ingress to the house, but you object to the right of way being used for heavy equip- ment? MICHAEL ZANESKI: Well, Mr. Chairman, let me make my point. I do object to the right of way, for the simple reason there is a more practical and easier way for Mr. DiNunzlo to gain access to his property. I do object to the right of way. I feel he should not be granted conditional approval to bring the heavy equipment in through the right of w~y, when there is an easier way for him to begin construction without the right of way. CHARIMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Hall. ~ICHALE ~ALL, ESQ,: What I have just handed the Zoning Board, is a copy of a proposed swap that has been worked out between my client, Mr. Charles DeLuca and Mr. DiNunzio. For the record, I am here opposed to the right of way, but I do want the Board to know and of course, Mr. DiNunzio to know, that we ZBA DINUNZIO HEARING - CONTINUED 11/29/84 Michael Hall: continued - have been working in a spirit of cooperation back and forth on the phone and by letter .for about the past six weeks. The proposed swap that you see there would of course, eliminate the need for the right of way and give Mr. DiNunzio a street acess off Wells Road onto his property. There's one new lot line that would be drawn and that's the dotted line you can see on the map. That one, of course, needs Planning Board approval, but what I'd like the Board to work with us on tonight is we would like to see Mr. DiNunzio get his biulding permit, We don't want to hold him up. I think Mr. Zaneski feels the same way and I think Mr. DeLuca feels the same way, but we wsul~ ~ike to.have Board condition its, it's almost the exact/o~'Pw~a~eyou ~'just suggested to Mr. Zaneski. We would like to see them allow perhaps temporary use of that right of way so that Mr. DiNunzio can get started on his building and get a'building permit, but subject to ultimately the swap being approved between DiNunzio and DeLuca and eli- minating any need for the right of way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Legally, Mr. Hall, we cannot give a con- ditional ~proval. We can either give approval or not give ap- proval. I understand what we have done in the past in some cases when the Board, and we have not discussed this application, there has been no deliberation on it, and therefore, it's not incumbent upon me to ask my Board members or our Board members to, or to question the Board on this particular issue. We have in the past waived the right of improvement to right of ways until a certificate of occupancy is ready to be issued. I have no idea if this Board is willing to do that. That is about the only conditioning we have ever seen. At the time this agreement has been struck, you would have to come back or send us a letter indicating that once the lot lines have been changed you not only have to go to the Planning Board, you would probably have to come back to us for a readjust- ment of the lot line. Unless of course, we suggest~a-~ right of way. MICHAEL HALL: No, it would be an ac~al -- lot line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, then you won't have to come back fora readjustment of the lot line to my knowledge. Is that correct Mr. Lessard? MICHAEL HALL: The reason I am here tonight is not to stop Mr. DiNunzio in his tracks but to ai.leviate the situation for all three neighbors, which would ultimately be better for Mr. DiNunzio to have straight access; it would, of course, be better for Zaneski to have no right of way going very close to his house and it would cause.no problem with DeLuca. And I would like to Board to be aware of that situation, to see if we could work it out the best way possible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Hall. ..... ZBA P.7 11/29/84 DINUNZIO HEARING -Continued EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: If I may address myself to that point for a moment. In addition to perhaps needinF Planning Board approval and the approval of this Board, the only reason I mentioned before we are working toward this solution in terms of the property swap, but by virtue of the z~ning change that occurred subsequent to my brother's purchase of the land, his lot is now considered undersized. The property that is sought to be swapped would mean he would be giving ~way c~nsiderabty more in square footage than he is receiving. Without checking into the legality at this point with the Planning Board, we would need approval to actually render the pt smaller than it currently is and I don't know whether tha would be forth- coming. For those reasons, I fee-1.'that we r~ally have no al- ternative at this time but to pursue the r±~ht of way. Surely we are not looking to harm anybody, but b~ the same token we cannot leave ourselves with no visible means with whidh to develop the property. It's kind of a catch 22 situation. We are working toward that swap. It has been approved in concept, subject to the approval of this Board and whatever other municipal Boards must approve the lOcation, but I don't know when it will take place or when the approvals will be forthcoming. We are waiting for maps for submission to the appropriate authority. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just a quick question. If the Board at this point did approve this application, and the application was granted subject to the following improuements, would you thon do those ~mprovements? EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: In all candor, sir, there is a possibility, there is a third surely not a right of way situation, but there is what appears to be a well-worn treaded path around the left side of Mr. Zaneski's house and approaching the property a dif- ferent way, I believe over the land that is owned by Mr. Scott. If we had the right to go ahead and build, my brother has in- dicated that he' would approach Mr. Scott to see if he could use that access for the equipment, ~n anticipation of the fact that ultimately we would work out a property swap and in fact, not disturb a blade of grass. But we don't know.whether we will get that approval or that permission~ by Mr. Scott. If the Board wishes, we would consider making no improvements to the right of way, ~nly those necessary according to the B~ard, to move the equipment in and out, and therefore make the least disturbance, subject to the eventual swap, if that's what you are driving at sir? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am and I am not. The reason for the 280A is this particular right of way support a fire vehicle 12 months of the year. That's basically why tho engineer's report so deemed the conditions that they deemed. So I would say that there's a definite problem in what we are going to do here concerning this particular application and I realize winter is coming, etc., so I may ask the Board'for a caucus at this particular time to see what they want to do. ZBA P.8 11/29/84 DINUNZIO HEARING' - Continued EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: Surely if there are any other questions we can answer for the Board, we will be more than happy to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will take a ten minute recess to dis- cuss this (Recess) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I make a motion to reconvene. Is there anybody either on the pro or the con side who would like to say anything? The reason basically for the caucus was to see if the Board wanted any additional information. I think we are all aware and cognizant~of what exists here and we will try to take everybody's opinions in mind here and do the best we can. Hopefully, during~ the short appeal period that we havezon this application, if anything does develop on the side, please inform us of it, particularly if an agreement with Mr. ScOtt will help Mr. Zaneski out, etc. Thank you very much. I make a motion closing this hearing reserving decision. ~3286 At At 8:20 p.m. - Public Hearing was held in the matter of JOSEPH GRASSO for approval of a Variance for insufficient frontyardLsetbacks, Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-59-06-003. Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. DONALD DENIS: My name is Donald De~is, I repr~se~t~ Mr. Grasso. There is a slight'correction on the application. I stated the rear yard is 50' it should be 35'. All we want~to do is say that the case is fairly well stated; the property is difficult to build one, because it has an approximate depth of 83'; 34' is the setback ~quired by the DEC and 35' is the requirement of the Town. You take the front yard of 5.0' and there is no buildable area. We designed a house of approximately 1600 sq. ft. on the first floor approximately 34' deep; we did stagger the front of the house to fit the profiles of the curves road, to minimize the encroachment; but we did wind up with a request to reduce the front yard to 12'. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For some reason,~I am lacking the actual plans of the house. I do remember looking at them. Mr. Denis, what did you say the reason for the irregularity of the line&i footage of the house, the length of the house in question was? khat is the reason the house has such irregularity in reference ~o ~esi~n~ DONALD DENIS: Well, we were trying to put the profile of the line of Grea~ Pond, which is irregular. When you take the 35' from the rear yard and you take the 34', which is from both the DEC and Town, you come up with irregular shaped parcel, buildable parcel, assuming you don't have a problem with the front yard. So what we did, we tried to maximize the use of ~ ' ZBA - P.9 11/29/84 GRASSO HEARING - Continued DONALD DENIS: Continued - that space by fitting the house into that profile. What we did do is we s2aged the front of the house to again fit the profiie of the ~oad and that is the reason is is not a rectangle. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason why I ask you that question, is that the Board kind of feels that the i~r~gularity is causing quite a substantial reduction Of front yar~ area and I under- stand what you are saying, but I think tha possibly the house could be streamlined a little more to allo' for a greater re- duction from 12' in the front yard area. think the 12' is, and I am not talking specifically myself~ put I am talking for the Board members, I think 12' is a very, very small front yard area for a busy road such as soundvie A~ue, particularly in the summertime. I wish you could offer us some alternatives in 5eference to streamlining this house. DONALD DENIS: Well, the only thing we could offer the Board is that possibly we reduce the house by a couple of feet and perhaps the profile of the house could be compromised a little bit by moving it over further to the west in some of the build- able area. But there is only a small part that isn't used. I mean, the width of the g~rage is only a normal garage, it's only 24' deep, which is a normal garage and I am still sand- wiched-between~he rear yard requirements and the 12' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why you can't go to the east a. little more? DONALD DENIS: Well, as you go further to the east, the situation gets worse by topography. Also, the greatest buildable area is to the west, so we went to the west line and we are 15' off the west line, as tight as we can get there. There is a possibility that we could build and fill up that little cor- ner, it's not a very large corner, it's only 11' x 18', but I wouldn't say it was impossible to do. We would be willing to try to make an attempt to do that, if it suits the Board. I don't think we can reduce the front~yard substantially, but I do think there is a front compromise here that we would li~ to ...I don't know if we can reduce it very much to maybe 12', 14' or maybe 15' CHAIRM~N GOEHRINGER: Whatever, I think it would help us out a little bit more in understanding the concept of this par- ticular application, but as I said to you, I am not the youngest person on this Board; the gentlemen~to my left has been on this Board some 27 years and they all certainly substantiate the fact that we have very rarely have seen a 12' front yard DONALD DENIS: This may be an unusual situation where we have a 35' rear yard and a 50' front yard on a lot that is only 83' deep. ZBA ./ ~ P.10 11/29/84 GRASSO HEARING - Continued DONALD DENIS - Continued: The two ii]les overlap, so I know they CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, what do you suggest in this particular case? Possibly a re-evaluation of th.s plan and you can bring it back to us? DONALD DENIS: I will have to consult with my client... I just consulted with Mr. Grasso. We have another situation here that presents a problem, aside f~ ~m what is going on here, and that is that we would like a deci:~ion tonight, if possible, Mr. Grasso has a closing Ghat is sche~luled for tomorrow. He is under contract to purchase this property, and they have to close tomorrow. If he fails to clo~e~ he forfeits attorney's fees and all other legal fees involved in a closing. Mr. Grasso did say that he would get his deposit returned, but it does create a hardship in that respect. He would be willing to go down to 15' if the Board would be so disposed.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would hate~to do that without seeing a plan, although this is not an architectural design situation, in other words, we do not deal with a~hcitectural design. I would like to see a plan and the Board would like to see a plan on what you could possibly do. This is quite a predicament, and I do not know what to suggest to you in this particular case. We do understand t~ hardship to a certain degree. DONALD DENIS: Even. going to 15' is ~g~ing to be very difficult. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would like ~o see him lengthen the house a little. I hate to suggest houses in the past t~at have done this. There are several houses, one of which is on the North Road in Greenport and it has a burm i~ front of it, approximately across from Albe~tson Lane, that was made to conform fairly well with the lot and it was a lot approximately similar in depth and that's basically what I am ~eferring to, the house that does not have the irregularities Of this, and please, I think it's a very, very nice planl I just question the width of the house bearing in mind that you had almost 200' of road f~ontage here and again, I am not trying to force you to do anything is not architecturally sound or whatever the case might be, b~t we just have certain feelings about this particular setback. DONALD DENIS: It is my opinion that ~f the house is lengthened, the situation gets worse, it doen't tend to minimize it, it tends to make it worse. If the house is redesigned and the garage is put on the west side of the property, the situation gets worse, because the house gets pushed further to the east. As we go further to the east, the rea~ yard and the front property line start to converge. So our maximum area to put the house, 'maximum buildable area is on the west part of the property. I feel that the profile in front more nearly - J ~ ZBA P.11a 11/29/84 GRASSO HEARING - Continued DONALD DENIS: Continued: conforms to the uniform setback. One of the corners will pro~ect closer to the road. I mean we are talking about a garage here that's on a rear yard and the front yard is 12' back. I guess it's possible to put a one-car garage in, that.may help a little bit, but I don't think it will he~p very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Lessard had a sugge.stion. See if you can bear with us, Mr. Denis. MR. LESSARD: On your west line, sir, you 16' You are allowed to go to 1.0' on that side. Would it be possible to go to 10' and slide your house away from the road a little bit and still hold your 35' setback from the¥~ater. DONALD DENIS: I think that wOuld help a littl~bit. I don't think it's help substantially in the change in the character of our application, no. MR. LESSARD: Your garage is also designed for a two- car garage. That would help move you away from the rQad if it was a one-car garage. You have your garages on the east, sir? DONALD DENIS: Yes. there is a two car garage. MR. LESSARD. They are only suggestions DONALD DENIS: You know, I think it's rather a unique piece of property and it is really unbuildable in its presenn condition, unless there is a variance granted by this Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think by the nature of our discussions we have shown that we definitely would like to work with this gentleman. I can't suggest to him what he should do fomor~o~ I personally would like to recess this application until the December 13th meeting, as. a reschedule, and have you come back with some alternate plans so we can see what we can do here. I think if it gdes on the merits ~of the case, we are going to have tremendous problems dealing with it at this particular time. DONALD DENIS: Is it possible to get an indication from the B~rd what is an acceptable setback? t am lust asking that question, I am not trying to ...is there some point that is acceptable or not acceptable? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I couldn't tell you at this particular time, because we haven't discussed it. We don-~t discuss it really until we deliberate on an application, as you know. Do you see anything wrong with what I suggested, for December 13th? ZBA P. 11 b GRASSO HEARING - Continued 11/29/84 DONALD DENIS: We will give it another pass, and see if we can come UP with an alternate scheme. We didn't do .al- ternate schemes, because this is the one we presented be- cause we thought it was the most logical, but I will try to take the house and move it over closer to the west property line and see if we could make more utilization of that northwest corner. But I think the profile on the front of the house as we have it is pretty advantageous. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Possibly you could clip a corner to gain a couple feet one way or another~ because the house ~s a fairly modern design, is it not? DONALD DENIS: I don't think it's that modern. Does that mean the second part of our applicatfon here will also be held?? There ~s a variance request on the flood plain. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can close that. W~ will recess this one and close the other one or we can recess both of them. DONALD DENIS: I would like to recess bot.h of them, I guess. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think that makes .sense because then there may be a little change here. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in favor of thfs application? Anybody against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion recessing this hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting, December 13th #8. #3284 At 8:40 p.m. - Public Hearing was held in the mattermof RICHARD W. SLEDJESKI , for approval of a Variance to a fe~c~e exceeding maximum four foot height, Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-40-02-21. Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and apPeal application for the record. IRVING PRICE: Mr. Chairman. Thank you, I am Irving Price, a lawyer with offices at 828 FrOnt Street, Sreenport, NY. I appear on behalf of Richard W. Sledjeski as to the appeal for permission to maintamn a 6' fence in what- is considered a front yard under the zonmng ordinance of the Town of Southold. It wasn't until we had zoning that I realized you could have two front yards. I always thought where the front door was was the front yard and I quess I was further deprived, because for 24 years I liv~d in house that had no front yard, it was right on a sidewalk, had no sideyard, but it had a front door, back door and two side doOrs and weagot along fine. We had a fence across ZBA SLEDJESKI HEARING - Continued P.12 11/29/84 IRVING PRICE: Continued- the front that I had to paint every two years, I can remember that. But seriously, we believe that the fence that is located in the best possible location. It is only 6', the zoning ordinance itself allows 6½' on the rear or the sider so we are un~er that requirement and then I don't know Where it would be but the zoning ordinance says when located other than in a front yard area or along side or rear lot line, the same'shall not exceed 8', so this is only 6' I also believe one point was not brought out in this application and that is it is also a matter of protection for children who might wander on to it, and it protects any- one who wanders into the swimming pool. Therefore, I urge that this Board upholds the right to maintain the fence. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GQEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Price. Anybody else like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? BOARD MEMBER f .- ~. ; What type of fence are you talking about, a Hurricane fence, or what? IRVING PRICE: It's a stockade fence. The ground was not artificially raised, it slopes BOARD MEMBER : I think with the location of the house, I think I would like to make a motion... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Subject to two conditions; that the fence is continuously maintained along with the swimming pool and tha~ they never encroach on the front yard area, I mean the front yard of the house, front yard or rear yard, IRVING PRICE: You lost me now. You are talking about Homestead Way? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. That's basically what we are looking for and I will second that motion. Thank you very much for coming in. #3290 At 8:45 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the matter of GENERAL WAYNE INN, for approval of a Variance to erect directional sign, Suffolk County Tax Map 41000-69-02-003. Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. WAYNE FARINA; I am Wayne Farina and I represent General Wayne. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is this sign going to be illuminated? WAYNE FARINA: Illuminated? ZBA P.13 GENERAL WAYNE INN HEARING - Continued 11/29/84 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Illuminated. WAYNE FARINA: It2could be, if tkat's possible as a means to advertise. Illuminated, yes, most likely. CHAIRMAN G©EHRINGER: Could you ask your father and ask him to let us know if it's illuminated, because we want to in-= corporate that into the application. So, let us know tomorrow. WAYNE FARINA: Yeh, I am sure it is~illuminated. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Tha~swhat I meant, are you going to use lighting or lettering ? WAYNE FARINA: Lighting and Lettering. Anything that stands out. It's badly needed here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Anybody else like to speak on behalf of this application? MRS. FARINA: I would just like to say one thing, we really need this sign, because it is a hardship as it stands now. ~CHA~RMAN GOEHRINGER: We are aware of that. W~ will do the best we possibly can, we just haven't disussed it, that's why we are not ready to make a motion. We will discuss it after the meeting and do the best we can to give you a decision in the very near future. Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no fur~V~r questions, I make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. Thank you for coming in. 93291 At 8:55 p.m. - Public Hearing was held in the matter of SWIM KING POOLS. Chairman noted tha5 application was requested to be recessed until January meeting. Made motion for same. Hea~ing ended at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ba~rbara A. Strang *These mi _~lectronically recorded tapes. ~ ~-~T"~'~ ~?~' TP~ SOUTHOLD TOV~?N DATE Tovm of Sou[l~oid