Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/11/1984APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGO~IS, JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 SrlUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11cj71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES OCTOB.E~.I.q, REGULAR MEETING A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursda2z October 1'1'~ 1984 at 7:30 o'c.lock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Charles Grigonis; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki, consisting of all the members. Also .present were Victor Lessard, Building Depart- ment Administrator, and approximately 30 persons in the audience at the opening of the meeting. ' The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:36 p.m. and proceeded with the first public hearing on the agenda. The verbatim testimony of all the hearings held this evening are attached at the end of these minutes for reference which have been prepared by Sara Lenihan. A public hearing was held in the'matter of-Appeal No. 3271, for Schellenbach ~nd RglrJas from 7:38 p.m. to 7:42 p.m. (Minutes attached) A public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal No. 3289, for James Preston: from 7:43 pom. to 7:51 p.m. (Minutes attached) A public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal No. 3242, which was recessed from the last regular meeting of .th~ board, September 13, 1984, from 7:52 p.m. to 7:55 pom. for HENRY DOMA.LESKI. (Minutes attached.) At 7:55 p.m., the Chairman o~'~ered t~ letter of the applicant, Mrs. Patricia C. Lollot dated October 10, 1984 in which they have requested that their application for a five-foot high fence be withdrawn. Southold Town Board o~f~Appeals -2- October 1T~ 1984 Regular Meeting The following action was taken, after motion was made by Mr. Doug- lass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, TO ACCEPT the appticant~'~ithdra~al of this application in Appeal No. 3264. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. A public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal No. 3251, for REN~TE RIEDEL/W. SMITH from 7:57 p.m. to 8:31 p.m. (Minutes attached) A public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal No. 3281, for EDWARD L. HERRMANN, from 8:32 p.m. to 8:48 p,m. (Minutes attached) A% 8:~8_p~]m., mot~o~ wa§.m~de]'by Mn~i~Goehringar~ seconded by Mr. Douglass, fo~ a two-minute recess,'at which time the meeting would be reconvened. This resolution was unanimously carried. At 8:50 p~m., motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, to reconvene the Regul.~r'Meeting and p.roceed ~tSthis time wit.~ the public hearings, This resolution was unanimously carried. At 8:50 p.m., a public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal NOo 3270, for DR. BAL~'H~RI'PILLA~, having.been closed at 9:~3 (Minutes of hearing a~%ached.)' At 9:16 p.m., the public hearing in the matter of SCHELLENBACH AND ROJAS,].Appeal No. 3271, was reconvened. There being no ~d~i- tional comments or questions at this time,_motion was made by Mr. Goehr~nger, seConded by. Mr, Grigonis, to'CLOSE'THE HERRING AND' RESERVE DECISION i'n t~e Matter Pfi~e~l]_~Q.ii~27~ .~Th~ing was declared closed at 9:17 p,m~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was adopted by unanimQ.~s~ote of all the member~ Southold Town Board o~Appeals -3- October ll;~ 1984 Regular Meeting The board members discussed a tentative date of Saturday morning for inspections, possibly October 23rd, for the following matters, in addition to a few other required inspections on rights-of-way: (a) Jean C. Holland, Vansto~ Road, Cutchogue; (b) Academy Printing Services, Traveler Street, Southold; (c) Colgate Design Corp~, Main Road (7-11), Cutchqgue; (d) Windsway Building Corp., R-O-W off North Bayview, Southold; (e) McKay and Greenly, Main Street, New Suffolk; (f) Southland Corp., Main Street (7-11), S~uthold; (g) Bernard R. Dempse~, Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue; (h) Ernest G. Curran, Rabbit Lane, East Marion; (2) Henry Domaleski, North Side Oregon Road (R-O-W), Cutchogue. NEW HEARINGS FOR OCTOBER 25, 1984: On motion by Mr. S'awicki, secon~glass, ~t was RESOLVED, that the following matters be and hereby are scheduled for public hearings to be held at the next Regular Meeting of this board, October 25, 1984, and that the Secretary is authorized and directed to advertise same pursuant to law in the local and official newspapers of the town: (a) Appeal No. 3230 - Jean C. Holland; (b) Appeal No. 3273 - Academy Printing Services; (c) Appeal No. 3276 - Colgate'~esign Corp.; (d) Appeal No. 3282 Windsway Building Corp.; (e) Appeal No. 3233 - McKay and Greenly; (f) Appeal No. 3275 - Southland Corp.; (g) Appeal No. 3283 - Berna~d R. Dempsey; (h) Appeal No. 3272 - Ernest G. Curran. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members Southold Town Board 6¥ Appeals -4- October lT~ 1984 Regular Meeting NEW APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3298: Port of Egypt Enterprises by Allen M. Smith, Esq. to re-develop premises located at the south side of Main Road, Southold, NY for 40 motel units, residential unit, existing restaurant use, marina and boat storage uses, et cetera. In reviewing the site plan received October 9th, the board noted many items were left out and requested that the following documents and additional information be provided before this application will be considered complete under SoE.Q.R.Ao: 1. Topographical survey must be submitted (six copies) showing lowest floor elevations above mean sea level as well a~ ground eleva- tions and varied contours, i~ any; 2. Site Plan to include the following: (a) Setbacks of all proposed buildings, and buildings to be retained on site from all property lines and bulkheads; (b) Dimensions~/sizes, sales areas, and office areas in square feet of all buildings; (c) Distances of road frontages; actual lot line distances as shown on survey; deletion of areas not under consideration; (d) Parking areas shall be screened as approved, by the Planning Board as well as site plan approved (preliminary), which is required for any use in a commercial or industrial zoning district under Article XI, Section 100-112(J)[5]; 3. Comments or approval from the Suffolk County Health Department; 4. Comments, approval or letter of non~urisdi~ion from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Con.servation; 5. Submission t~ the~Planning Board and Building Inspector for thorough review and/or certification as required under Article XIII, and Floodplain Management regulations, Chapter 46 of the Town Code. The Secretary was directed to send a letter to the attorney requesting this information before proceeding further, o~ motion made by Mr. Goehringer,.seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and unanimously carried. RENEWAL'OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION~SIGN PERMITS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, second-~ by Mr. Goehrlnge~, it was RESOLVED, that the following' sign-permit-renewal requests be and hereby are approved, subject to Federal._ Highway Beauti'ficat~on Act and Funding Laws for Highways, if a~plicable: Southold Town Board o~/ Appeals (Sign-Permi t-Renewal s ;.) -5- October l~l, 1984 Regular Meeting Appeals No. 2619, 2620, 2621, 2622, 2622, 2624, 2625, 2626, 2599, 2600, 2601, 2602, 2603, 2604, 2605, 2606, 2607, 2608, 2744, 2875, 2876, 2877, 2878, 2879, and 2880. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehr'inger, it was RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the following Regular Meetings as submitted: June 21, 1984, pages 1 - 93. July 26, 1984, pages 1 67. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr~nger,'{t was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaram tions.on each of the following., as noted therein, determln' '~' ing'~ac-~--~ -- matter not to have significant adverse effects on the environment: Southold Town Board or'Appeals -6- October 11,-1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~e APPEAL NO.: 329l PROJECT NA~: ~NTHONY P~GOT0 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 Southo!d. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the--~ascns 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: Accessory structure in fr0ntyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Bayberry Road, Nassau Point, Cutch0gue; REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETER~INATION: (!) 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: ~') The premises in question is '~t-a'~ elevation of more than 10 feet above mean sea level. (3) Separating the project in question from the waterfront or environmental area is a 50-foot traveled roadway. (4) The relief requested is a setback variance which does not require further processing under Iype "II" Actions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Southold Town Board Appeals -7- October ll~,Jl984 Regular Meeting ]Environmental Declarati'ons_, continued:) NEGATI%rE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP~TION Notice of Determination ofNon-Sa'gnif~cance APPEAL NO.: 3292 PROJECT NAME: K & L Properties 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 IX] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: ~ppr0val' of access to the subject premises from Indian Neck Road, Pec0nic. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kno%rn as: R-0-W off Indian Neck Road, Peconic. REASON(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; ~) /he relief requested is not"dir'e'ttly related to new construc- tion. (3) The relief requested is landward of existing buil'dings. (4) A minor subdivision was processed and approved by the Southold Town Planning Board during 1981 concerning the premises to which this access is required. ~outhold Town Board ~ peals -8- October 11~11984 Regular Meeting .(Environmental Declarati]gn.s, continued:) NEGATI%rE ENVIRON~IENTAL DECLAP~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Signific~nce APPEAL NO.: 3294 PROJECT NA~IE: PETER J. AND MARGARET S. TROYAN0 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 cf the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southoid. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the'reasons indicated below. Pleas~take further notice that' this declaration should not be considered~ determination made for any other department or agency which may 4iso have an application pending for the same or similar project. I~ TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II IX] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: ApproVal 'of access over a private right-of-way ]0cated at the north side of C.R. 48, Peconic. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southotd, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: R-0-W off north side of C.R. 48, Pec0nic; RF2%SON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~4INATION: (1) An Enviror~ental 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; (3) The premises to which this access i"s required has been approved by the Planning Board July 30, 1984. Southold Town Board 01,~Appeals -9- October 11~J1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Decl'arati'ons, continued:) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3296 PROJECT NAME: JOSEPH AND ARLENE LESTINGI 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%on 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: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory garage in frontyard area, LOCATION OF PROJECT: particularly known as: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more llS0 Sound Drive, Greenp0rt; 1000-33-4-1. 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 relief requested is a s~tback va'fiance which does not require further processing under "Type II" Actions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act; (3) The area of the proposed accessory garage is at an eleva- tion of 10 or more feet above mean sea level. Southold Town Board o~ Appeals -10- October ll'~J/1984 Re§ular Meetin§ ~Environmental Declarati~ons, continued:) NEGATI%rE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3297 PROJECT NAME: PETE AND DESPINA MARKOPOUL0S 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~ 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 similar project. TYPE OF ACTION:' IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Insufficient sideyard setbacks. New dwelling. LOCATION OF PROJECT: particularly known as: ]000-99-1-24. Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more 605 Sound Beach Drive, Ma%tituck; 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; ~) The relief requested is a $~tba'C'k variance, which does not require further~processing under "Type II" Actions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act; (3) Separating the project in question from the waterfront is a 50-foot ~raveled road. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members Southold Town Board o ppeals -11- October ll, 1984 Regular Meeting REFERRALS TO SUFFOLK CO, PLANNING COMMISSI'ON: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the following matters be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission together with copies of their files and minutes, in accordance with Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter: 1. Appeal No. 3267 - Constance Klapper; 2. Appeal No. 3269 - T. Occhiogrosso; 3. Appeal No. 3200 - R. Entenmann; 4. Appeal No. 3289 - James Preston; 5. Appeal No. 3242 H. Doma]eski; 6. Appeal No. 3251 R. Riedel; 7. Appeal No. 3270 B.H. Pillai. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members Appeal No. 3267 C. KLAPPER. The board members began delibera- tions in the matter of Constance .Kl. appe[, which hearing was held and closed on September t3, 1984, and affidavit was received in accordance with the board's request September 21, 1984. It was agreed that before a final determination is made, that the Chairman consult with the Town Attorney as to an effect same could render on a recent Article 78 proceeding in the matter of Bertram Walker. DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS: (continued on page 12). Southold Town Board of Appeals -]2= October ll, 1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3271: Upon application for J. SCHELLENBACH AND A..ROJAS, 1225 Ninth Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the~ning-~~'e, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct deck addition with insufficient side and rear ~ard setbacks and exceeding the 20% lot cover- age requirement. Location of Property: 1225 Ninth Street, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 10Q0~048-03-028; Greenport Driving Park Subdivi- sion Lot 4. 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: By this appeal, applicants seek a Variance to Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule o~ the Zoning Code, for permission to construct a deck addition extending 13 feet into the southerly sideyard and deck further extending into the easterly rearyard area with an insufficient setback at 15 feet as sketched on ~urvey of December 20, 1982, and sketch drawn August 12, 1984, received August 14, 1984. The building inspector has also-disapproved this project for excessive lot coverage; the total allowable is 1162 square feet (20% of 5,810± lot area). The parcel in question is known as Lot 5, Subdivision of the Greenport Driving Parks Map No. 369, and is located on the east side of Ninth Street, Greenport. The subject premises contains an area of approximately 5,810 sq. fro with 56.46' frontage along Ninth Street, and is improved with a one=family, !½-sto~y f~ame dwelling and accessory garage and shed structures. It is th~ opinion of the board that the sideyard setback from the south property line should not be less than eight feet to allow access by emergency ~nd fire vehicles, particularly since the accessory garage on the north Side is set back two feet from the north property line. This reduction would allow a deck area to bE constructed of a total of approximately 283 square feet. When adding this to the dwelling's coverage of !042 sq. ft. and accessory garage of 276 sq. ft.~ the total allowable would be 1,601±, for a variance of 439 sq. ft. It should be no~ed, however, that any additional construction would require further applications for variances as required under Sections 100-32(C) and lO0~31. Southold Town Board of Appeals ,13-. October ll, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appea~ No. 3271 Sd'~ELL-~N~CH ~d ROJAS, continued:) In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the relief as conditionally approved is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirements; (b) that by allowing the relief, no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; (c) that no adverse effects will be produced on available govern- mental facilities of any increased population; (d) that the relief will be in harmony with and promote the .general purposes of zoning; (e) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to grant a deck addition to the subject dwelling as restricted below: 1. That the deck setback shall not be less than eight feet from the south side property line; 2. That the deck set~ack shall not be less than 15 feet from the rearyard property line; 3. That the deck not be roofed or enclosed. Location of Property: 1225 Ninth Street, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-48-3-28; Lot 5, Subdivision Map of G~eenport Driving Park. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3289: Upon application of~JAMES~F. AND ELLENM. PRESTON~ Box 1422, Southold, NY for a Variance to t e Zo~ng~aTC~]~-fticle III~ Section 100~31 for approval of the insufficient area and w~d~-h of ~ t s this parcel in h~ ~roposed set-off of ~and located along Hyatt Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map. Parcel No~ 1000-50-01~18.3 (part of ~8.00).. The public hear.ing on th~s matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pendin~ de.liberations. The board made the following findings an-d determination: By this appeal, the a~p~plic~nts seek a variance to Article III, Southold'Town Board o'f Appeals -14- October II, ']'984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3289- JAMES F. PRESTON, continued:) Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code, for approval of the insufficient area of 59,275.50± sq. ft. and insufficient width of 150 feet of a vacant parcel of land in this proposed set-off division which is bounded on its east and west property lines by private rights-of-way and bounded on its north and east sides by property now or formerly of Witherspoon. The parcel in question was part of a 1979 subdivision application before the Planning Board which has not been finalized due to certain covenants and restrictions which were required to be filed by the applicant at that time. On August 31, 1979, the subject parcel was sold by C.S. Witherspoon to Arthur W. Rathje, Jr. and wife at Liber 8670 cp232. For the record it is noted that although the 1979 subdivision has not been finalized, the Planning Board at its Meeting of September 10, 1984 approved this parcel of land as a "set-off" provided under Section 106-13 of the Code. For the record it is also noted that the neighborhood consists of several parcels of the same or similar size, and therefore the granting of the ~equested relief will not adversely affect the character of this neighborhood. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the relief as approved is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirements; (b) that by allowing the relief, no substantial detri- ment To adjoining properties would be created; (c) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (d) that the relief will be in harmony with and promot~ the general purposes of zoning; (e) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as applied. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the applicatio~ of JAMES F. PRESTON for approval of insufficient area and width of parcel' in t~-~s set-off of land as approved by the Planning Board, .B.E._AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED and subject to referral to the SUffolk County Planning Commission in accordance with Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter. Location of Property: South Side of private right-of£way known as Hyatt Roa~, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 50-001.-18.3 (part of 18.00)., Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Gr'igonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of ali the members. Southold Town Board of Appeals -15-October 11,--1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3281: Upon application of EDWARD L. HERRMANN, 1000 Marlene Drive, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zonlng-~nance, Article III, Section' 100-31, for permission to construct addition with reduction of sideyard setback to less than the required 10 feet. Locatio~ of Property: 1000 Marlene Drive, Mattituck, NY; 1000-144-2-40. 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: By this appeal, applicant seeks a variance to Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, of the Zoning Code for approval of. an insufficient setback at nine feet from the southerly side property line in order to construct a nine-foot by 24-foot addition for expansion of the present living area. The premises in question is located at the west side of Marlene Lane, Mattituck and ~s more particularly identified as Suffolk Coun'ty Tax Map'District 1000, Section 144, .Block 2~ Lot 40, containing an area of 10,875 sq. ft, with 75-foot road frontage. The subject premises is improved with a one-family, one-story frame house and accessory frame garage located in the. rearyard area, and set back from the northerly side property line 6.3 feet as shown on survey sketch dated 9/7/8..~, and 9/28/84. The percentage of lot coverage for all buildings, existing and proposed, is 19±%, which is within that ~per- mitted under the Bulk Schedule. The total variance requested by this application is one foot, whi.~h in the board's opinion is not substantial and. is reasonable considering the width of this lot. The total sideyards of this dwellin.g structure ~ll be 34± feet, wh~.ch is more than that r~quired under.the zoning ordinance. The board agrees with applicant's reasoning under the circumstances. The board members have personally visited the premises in question and i~ familiar with the build~ng~ and immediate area. It is noted that o~posi..~ion from the adj..pining property owner on the south has been made part of the record. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the relief as approved is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirements (10%)~ (b) that by allowing the relief, no substantial detri- ment to adjoining properties would be created; (c) that no adverse effects will ~e produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population~ (d) that the relief will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; (e) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as applied. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3281, application made by EDWARD L. Southold Town Board ~ Appeals -16- October 11,-~984 Regular Meeting (Appea'~' No. 3281 EDWARD L."'HERRMANN, continued:) .... HERRMANN for approval of an insufficient setback at nine feet from ~ s~h property line for a proposed addition to dwelling, BE AND HEREBY IS'APPROVED'AS'APPLIED. Location of Property: West Side of Marlene Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 100D-.144-02-40.' Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and SawiCki. Thi_~ resol;tion ~s adop.~ed by _unanimous vote of all the members. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3200: ROBERT ENTENMANN. The public hearing on this matter was held on se'ptember 13,~--~-9~4. The board made the following findings and determinatiGn: By this appeal, applicant seeks a Variance to Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code for approval of a 1.239-acre parcel of land to be established in the subdivision application before the Southold Town Planning Board referred to as "Parcel One." The subject parcel has ah average depth of 718.00 feet and a lot width of 75.44 feet and is at the presen; time vacant land. Access to the subject parcel is over a private right-of-way, which is within the boundaries of the proposed division of land, and will be subject to the improvements as required by the Planning Board pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-A, or by subsequent application to this board. The board members have personally visited the premises in question and is familiar with the immediate area. For the record, it is noted that there is a parcel of land adjoining this parcel on the east that is of the same size and configuration as that proposed. Although there is ample area of the premises in question being approximately 43 acres, to require the applicant to extend the lot another 300+ feet in depth would be creating a lot unusual in shape and character and not feasible as buildable area. The board .agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) that the relief as approved is not substantial; (b) that by,allowing the relief, no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; (c) that no..._adverse effects wi'il be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (d) that the relief will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; (e) that the variance requested is the minimum necessary; (f) the circumstances are unique; (g) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as noted below. N~, ~'herefore, on motion by Mr. Goehn~nger, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- October ll, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No~ 3200 - ROBERT ENTENMANN, continued:) RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3200, application for ROBERT ENTEN- MANN for approval of insufficient area and lot width of "Parcel One" of a size 737' by 75~44 feet in this proposed division of land, BE AND HEREBY IS'APPROVED'SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A 75' wide by 15' strip at the end of the right-of-way along the southerly end of this parcel shall be incorporated into the area of "Parcel One" (for more control and maneuverability from the right-of-way into the parcel); 2. No reduction of east and/or west (side) yard areas to less than that required by the zoning ordinance. Location of Property: North Side of Sound Avenue, Mattituck; 1000-112-1-7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. RESERVED D.E.CIS.I.ON: Appeal No. 3270: Upon ap.plication for DR. BALA HARI PILLAI by Gary F. Olsen, Esq., Box. 705, Cutcho. gue, 'NY, for a Variance to ~ Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100~30(~)i' for permission to establish sleeping quarters in a nonconforming accessory building. Location of Property: 8280 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, ~aurel, NY; 1000-126-11-019. The public hearing was held earlier this evening, at which time the heariEg ~as declared closed, pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section 100-30(C) of the Zoning Code for permission to establish sleeping quarters in a nonconforming acce~9orA:_.buildi'ng presently located in the frontyard area of this par- cel 'of t_.and, and which is noEconforming as to its frontyard location rather tha~ in the required rearyard area. The parcel in question is locat~d on the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard with a lot width of 97.50 feet and lot area of approximately .32,500 sq. ft. The subject premises is improved with a one-sto'ry frame dwelling, with established sideyards Of 29.8 feet on the east s.ide and approximately 25 feet on the_west side. Also existing on the premises are a sw~mmingpool and whirlpool, as shown on survey most recently dated June 21, 1982, prepared by Young.&' You'ng, L~S. The board members have personally visited the site in question and So'uthold Town Board of ~ppeals -18- October 11~,~/1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No~ 3270 - DR. BALA HARI PILLAI, continued:) are familiar with the statements presented at the public hearing in this matter. For the record it is noted that the building .contractor testified in support of this application as to the expense involved in adding to the main house verses renovating the accessory building for sleeping quarters. Also, the owners of this parcel have a large family requiring domestic help which is one of the main reasons the relief is sought. Also, reference has been made to a prior variance for similar relief under Appeal No. 2486 of Richard Wall, conditionally approved on Novembe~r 9, 1978, concerning premises in the Hamlet of Cutchogue. In considering this appeal, it is the opinion of the board that the relief as requested be denied for the following reasons: (1) Article III, Section 100-30(C) of the zoning code limits uses acces- sory in this residential zone to home occupations as noted, garden house, toolhouse, storage building, playhouse, wading or swimming pool, as noted, private garages as noted, storage building as noted~ horses and domestic animals as noted, certain signs as noted, yard, attic, garage, auction sales of the owner's personal property as noted; (2) the hardship claimed is personal to the current owner of the premises which will not justify the granting of this variance, which would in turn run with the land itself; (2) that the evidence submitted is not sufficient to justify the granting of the relief requested; (3) that the relief as requested is substantial since sleeping quarters is not a permitted accessory use under the zoning ordinance; (4) that the difficulty could be obviated by some method, feasible for the applicants to pursue, other than a variance as appl.ied herein; (5) that the circumstances of this appeal are not unique; (6) that in view of the manner in which this case arose and considering all of the above, the interests of justice would not be served by granting the requested relief. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested in Appeal No. 3270 in the matter of DR. BALA HARI PILLAI for sleeping quarters in accessory garage structure located in t--~e frontyard area, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS APPLIED. Location of Property: 8280 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; 1000-126-11-019. 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 -19- October ll'~~-1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3269: Upon application of THOMAS'AND JACQUELIN.E OCCHIOGROSSO 77 Vanderbilt Boulevard, Oakdale, NY (b~~ ~is~~-~s~yj for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of the construction of a new one-family dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback of 12½ feet (reduction of that granted under Appeal No. 3031 1/27/83). Location of Property: 1580 Corey Creek Lane, Southold, NY; Corey Creek Estates Filed Map #4923, Lot 28; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-78-04-019. The public hearing on this matter was held on September 13, 1984, at which time the public 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, for approval of a 12½-foot front~ard setback of a new one-family dwelling and attached garage ~tructMre from the west side of Corey Creek Lane, Southold. 'The premises in question is known and identified as Lot 28 of Corey Creek Estates, Filed Map #4923, and more particularly referred to as District 1000, Section 78, Block 04, Lot 019 on the Suffolk County Tax Map. The EubjeCt premises is a corner lot as defined under the zoning ordinance. Article III, Section 100-31 of the zoning ordinance as amended during 1983 r~quires a minimum frQntyard setback at 35 feet. On January 13, 1983, relief was conditionally granted under Appeal No. 3031 for a 20-foot frontyard setback and requiring the applicant to maintain the 50-foot minimum rearyard setback. During April 1983, Building Permit #12227-Z was issued for a new one-family dwelling with a frontyard setback at 22 feet. Subsequently, the applicants applied to the. Town Board for a Wetlands Permit pursuant to the notice of violation issued bY the building inspector during May 1983. During June 1984 the building insp_ector issued a v.iolation as to the frontyard setback. On Jul~_20, 1984, this application was filed and a public hearing was held on Septem~ber 13, ]984. A practical difficulty cl~imed by applicants is that the January 1983 v~iance appro%,al c.O~flicts with the New York State Department of'Environment~.~ Consgrvati_~n approval i~'ued_]/22/79 which permitted a location with__a 35zfoot front~ard setback (a~nd the N.Y.So D.E.C. aR.~ro.val issued 11/~/82 which permitted an amended location with a 13-foot frontyar~ setback)-~. It appears that subsequent to January 22, 1-~'~9, {~ size and positioning of the proposed house was changed which prompted the amendments to each of the other agencies. For the record it is noted that the board members-are familiar with the premises in question, the neighborhood, and the testimony S'outhold Town Board ot~Appeals -20- October ll, ~t984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3269- OCCHIOGROSSO_, continued:) and documentation presented in support of this application. In considering this appeal, it is the opinion of the board that the applicants maintain the previously-approved 20-foot minimum frontyard setback, and that the relief as requested herein be denied for the following reasons: (1) the dwelling structure could be changed in size and character to conform with the buildable area of this lot; (2) an application to the other agencies for the previously approved 20-foot frontyard setback could be made, and that the practical difficulties claimed are self-imposed since the modification of the structure as shown on the survey amended April 26, 1979, Sept. 142 1979, August 23, 1982, February 18, 1983, and July 6, 1984, was at the option of the applicants and not an agency requirement; (3) that the relief requested is substantial, being approximately 65% of the code requirements; (4) applicants have failed to show that there are no alternatives to the relief requested herein; (5) literal application of the zoning regulations would not deprive the landowners of residential uses of the ~remises; (6) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in~con'sider- lng all of the above, the interests of justice would not be served by allowing the variance as applied. In denying the relief in this appeal, the board authorizes the applicants to construct a new one-family dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback of not less than 20 feet, as previously granted under Appeal No. 3031. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Gri§onis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3269 for a 12½-foot frontyard setback, BE'AND HEREBY IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as applied. Location of Property: 1580 Corey Creek Lane, Southotd, NY; Lot #28 of Map of_Corey Creek Estates #4923; County Tax Map Parcel No, I000~78~04-019. Vote of the Board: Douglass and SawiCk'i. of all the ~embers. Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, This resolution was adop.ted by unanimous vote Southold Town Board o~-'~ppeals -21- October ll, 1984 Regular Meeting Being there was no other business properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals x/Gerard P. Goe~frin§~/~ Chairman J October 25, 1~984/ RECEIVED AND FILED THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLM.~ To~ ~erk, Tovm of Souihotd VERBATIM HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ocTOBER~iq,'1984 REGULAR MEETING Pp'. 1-19 So~thold Town Board of Appeals -1- October ll, ~984 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: & ROJAS~ Ninth St. Greenport~ for a variance for lot coverage and rear side yard set back to~construct~a deck.. County Tax Ma~Parcel No. 1000-Q48~03-028. Appeal No. 327.1. Upon application for SCHELLENBACH The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:38 p.m~ and read the legal notice of thiw hea=ing~in its entirety and appeal application~ MR. CHAIRMAN:~ ~ehave a copy of the survey by R. Van Tuyl~ dated December 30~1982. Would..anybody like to be heard in favor of this application? (~here was no response.) Would anybody like to speak against this application? (There was no response.) Dose the board members have any questions about the application? The members having no questions~ I make a motion recessing the hearing to later on in the meeting until the applicant can be reached~ MEMBER DOYEN: Second Vote of the Board: Ayes. MR, CPLAIRMAN: (Resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the board members~) PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3289. Upon application.for JAMES PRESTON~ Hyatt Rd~ Southold~ for approval of lot area and width. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~50~0t-18~3. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:43 ~.m. and read the legal notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeel application~ MR.. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the survey ~ R. Van Tuyl~ P.C.~ dated July 1!~ !979. Mr. Preston would you have any more information to add to this application? MR. JAMES PRESTON: -~Th~ application should standon its face and if the board has any questions to ask~ I would be glad to answer them. w%~us~a&~,~us.t,r~ad~t~e~a~]~]~ ~n~d~c~9 ask you how did this thing come to ba?~ MR. JAMES ~RESTON: Upono~r ~consideration of ~he lot, ~'censideration of purchasing of~._the lot~~ I c~e,up~:.t~Othe toWn~d,'6hecked to see that the lot was in accordance with the t~ laws that the town may have~ I saw the building inspecto~ and~as ad~ised..into viewing the~first ~maD~ tha~ ~e~me~!.~o have t~he lines drawn in to show that this is a separate lot. We then searched the Planning Board~ file and found the correspondence on the suk~division~ tohave been arequest to the former owner~ Charles S. Wither- spoon~ now deceased, to provide covenants and restrictio~ on the third cut off piace of ~last' ~f~'~thec~e sub-division~ the piece of land holds his personal reeidents~ his former personal residesc%. The Sou~hold Town Board of~l~.ppeals -2- October ll, i_o4 Regular Meeting (.Appeal No. 3289--.JAMES PRESTON, continued:) ~Ovenants and r_es~rictions will provide that the last piece will never bo further sub-divided~ tha~s approximately 1.8 acres. I sought the assistance of the.Planning Board and the executors of the estate and the town attorneys and the town attorney h%~s~ u$~ or the estate~to consider granting,,the covenants and restrictions as of this day, We had ~p~]q~e~Ng of the Planning Board ~t~'~0~a~:d)r6~?~ the estate ~eto mixed emotions amongst the beneficiar~s~,Dfthe estate faile~.~0 provide their signaturesfor the covenants and restrictions. At that point I was toldthat we should apply and have k~en granted ~b~e~c.~'t0 your approval tc ~tZ_;~ both simultaneous set offs from the former original Witherspoon property and %;r~t}~s~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have the total acreage of the lot? MR. JAMES PRESTON: For ~t particular lot? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. JAMES PRESTON: It's about 5~9,SC~%..~0]~±square feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any immediate plans for building a a one family h~me yet? MR. JAMES PRESTON: That is correct~ we sold our home~ and have plans to begin immediately upon approval to construct our own residenc~ and I doubt that we ~ould~;have sold the house if there was going to be any problems. MR, CHAIPJN~2%N:. ~;hat is your ~:$~m~.%~%n~s,s~O'.:n~]~'this::? As soon as possible? MR. JAMES PRESTON: I~idlike to begin the construction0fthe resider~ prior to the winter frost= !~ ~a~$~a~a~t~q~r§ta~i~.th~,~ the contractorsi~v,~ved ~%~a~%~h~8~V~,~ will start i~ediately~ so that they will get the ins~e work ~?~'%~0~z~tlthe winter. Time i$ of th~ essenc~ due to t~ climate and just getting the house ~.i~t s0 that we ca~ move ~t0 ~t. ~¥: O~I'~M~N ::~-~~ I~f~. ~b~:~t [~,~e ~'4d~ d ~s~ml'~fo r~~,~ . ..... ~ou -~ ~'~h~%, ........ '~'we :-~i l ~i~ ~h~ ~t~e. next. two weeks. We have deliberated as yet for several reasons. We re aware of the situation as stands. MR. J~S P~S~ON: Just one point that the current o~er has ~en pressing to complete the proces~,~'-~ne~,,~ay~:or:':~o~her I feel that I ~ covered for that~ but t would like to get it as soon as possible. MR. CHAIRMAN: Our Normal situation is a special meetin~ fire.to seven working da¥~,,after the normal Regular Meeting, if we ~6n't ge.~ to it tonight. It dep~ends on how lengthy the meeting is. MR. JAMES PRESTON: They have scheduled the closing for next Wednesday. Lis it your ~n{~¢~,?t%.~?~that I can get a completed application nex~ Wednesday. If it is not a good idea I will have to re'il them to cancel,it. MR. CHAIRMAN: W~l~,?.}~y~u~:do~?~ ~ee ~<.~;¢:~.6!'~D '.$eB~ig~{~ ~.~lvg;$ye~m~ an indica- t~n~o-~,~hen~u~Bex~ee$%D§~%~lu~, ok, and at that particuTar point,-then'y6u can-you know, we'll see what develops~ As again, I have not discussed it with the board at this particular point. So~thold Town Board o~, Appeals - 3- October ll: 1984. Regular Meeting (Appeal-No. 3289 --JAMF~.,PRESTON~ continued:) MR. JAMESPRESTON: Should, I~..ret~r~,for,the discussion? I ha~e an eight o'clock 'appointment. And t can come back.. MR. CHAIRMAN: You arc.welcomed to call nine~thirty~ but I don~t know if will make a decision on it tonight. MR. JAMES PRESTON: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anyk~dy else like to speak in k~half of this application? (There was no response.) Would anybody like to speak against the application? (There was no responses) Is there any questions from the board mem~rs? Hearing no further questions I make a motion ho close this hearing° MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. Vote of the Board: Ayes. RECESSED HEARING:. Appeal No. 3242. U~on applicatiom for HENRY DOMALESKI~ Private R~O~W'off theNorth Side of oregon Rd.~ CutchOgu~ for a variance of insufficient width of.two parcels~ and approval of road access. --~ County Tax Map. Parcel No. t000-095~01-Part of II. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 7:53 p.m. and read the legal notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: This.~application is an appeal from the last regular scheduled meetin~ which wa~ ~es~ed ~m~September %~ 1984. ? Miss WIckham, is the~e any~ing you w0u~G ~]Ke ~0 aoc beT0re we c~0se ~ne nearing. MS. WICKHAM: I just wanted to make sure that you received a road report .... MR. CHAIRMAN: I have received a road report, but I have not discussed this moad report, the .6~t.,~b~% road report dated August 22, 1983~ that was ~ne rD? the Planning Board. I have not d~iscussed this road report ~it~ ~ ~D,~vi~s~'. I~um~ct~a~h~a~ ~ ~cha~e~,~,~s~fe~t.~n~§.~ ~¢~,.cerning the r0~d report. I did not have the report in my particu]a~~ file at t6e last meeting. MS. WIC~AM: May i just review it?%,~'~I~sn]~?!~;~y0ur n0rma] depth for rem0va] of topsoil? M~ CHAIRMAN: ;~ese~, ar~',:~h~ ~'~,~omme~da~:~ c~ t~e~ 1 ~:~a~<~ ~0u,],~ adopt ,a~T,~ii~s.~,D:O'in~? The 0nly one I can rec0]lect was recently voted on for Carri§ and McD0na]d and [ believe it was the board's recommendation to remove ]2". We have not discussed it. MS. WICKHAM: I think it's a fairly well traveled farm road~ obviously there are ruts and things that will have tO be clea~ed but I think excavating 12 inches might be a little where it really needs to be~to ]have considerable work done. Southold Town Board Appeals -4- October 1 984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3242 - HENRY DOMALESKI0 continuted:) MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the timing on this application? C~act vendees? A~e,.~h_e~.,~la~g~t0 5~i1~ in the fall, or when are they going to start? MS. WICKHAM: No, I don't think~%~e planning to do it this fall. They are busy digging potatoes, but &~.~00n 'as.~0~-c0uld ma~e, a,~ecision ~e. w~ul'd' app?'ecli ate 1 t. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? (There was no response.) Would anybody like to speak against the application? (There was no response.) Does any of the board members have any questions about the application? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing this hearing. MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. Vote of the Board: Ayes. Resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the board members. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3264. Upon application for PATRICIA & REINER LOLLOT, Ryder Farm Lane, Orient, for permission to construct a 5 foot high fence in front yard area. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-015-024.11. The Chairman opened..~he hearing at 7:55 p.m. and read the legal notice of this hearing in its ~ntirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: This application was for a 5 foot fence on Ryder Farm Lane in Orient, and that I have in my possession a letter from PATRICIA LOLLOT, stating that after reconsidering the situation, that she finds that they could live with a 4 foot fence which meets zoning standards. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I make a motion that her withdrawl of the application be accepted. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Second. Resolution was adopted byunanimous vote of all the board members. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3251. Upon application for RENATE RIEDEL, Meadow Lane, Mattituck, for approval of the construction of a new one-family dwelling with insufficiant set back. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-05-007. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:57 p.m. and read the legal notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application. Southold Town.Board o-f Apoeals -5- October 11~' 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No~ 3251 - RENAT. E RIEDEL~ continued:) MR. CHAIrmAN: I will ask you for the your name? MRS. RENATE RIEDEL: (Gave the Chairman the proper pronuciation of her name.) MR, CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the su~ey by Young & Young Land Surveyors~ dated~ July 5~ 1984, ~h~e~%~g~9~0~se~placement of an 18 foot in width ~y 36 foot length, houSe~ approximately 25 feet from Meadow Lane~ and a ~-Suffolk County Tax Map those of you who ~h&ve ~q~st3~e~-~kef0re. this board befo~e~ I am going to ask the spokesman from the group representing the estat~ ~ in that particular sub-division, and I will ask you speak and anybody after that~ you are wetcomed~o speak., Please state your name and so forth, Mrs, Riedel would you like to speak in he~fof your application? MRS ~NATE RIEDEL: I really don't have anything, else to say, MRo CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to speak in behalf of the application? (,There ~as no..~response~) Would anybody like to speak against the application? MR, BOB COSTANZO: Good evening~ and I am. the owner of lot 18, I was first gi~img~.notice back in the spring~ and my first concern~3~ was the wild life i~ this area~ The pond that is on lot 42~ ~ e~ceptions everything .that I have seen in writing states that permit for variance for 42~ but ~.~;~:~ Youngs & Youngs ~a.~%d shows 42 and There is a pond~,that is on 41 and 42, and that pond -- MR, CHAIRM3UN~:~,YOU are referring to lot numbers? r, ~OB COSTANZO. Yes lot numbers, i am sorry, T~ose lot numbers are the Ma%tituck ~state, The small pond that is ~n~ i~ats two proper~ies~ I,.believe to be a nesting area~ for wild life~ and I have a number of ~d,~sS~sin the .,!a~t2~t years that I have been living there~ to shOw,hat there are Wild life there~ At present I notic~today I took the 9~,~Ui~'e~:~, andnotice theycame out poorly~ there were probably in the area ab~t..lO0 ducks~ right in that little pond area~ There is also ~e-~e~ that~feeds ~. I have. spoken with.~.S~ony Brook~ and concern~ah~i~n~'~.~h the wild life, they did ask to look~ hot they didn"t have the time, l. bu.t~.they ask~s~01ook for some nests~ I didnot see any to be~st, They arethere and during spring tim~ the.ducks do nest in that area~ I~?it goes any further I would request to see a !ong~form from the DF2~ on,the envi~'nmental, Concerning the appeal from the decisionof the ~uilding Inspector, I take smceptation~ probably to most all on the ~s~hi.~'~ I do believe-to be self inflict'%W~. I amnot sure that they are the owners of the property~ or the potential to buy ~t~e property, ~S~faras ~,~e~.~g unique, that entire street ~b~ac~s?~7~ bb~ %~ marsh~ in fact~all.the'property has some marsh on it, They make note on lot 18 that my house is close to the water, and this is correct, There is no marsh withies 75.feet of my home, I%~wooded area that is close£0 and also my home was built in 1965, As far a% number three, as far as the character of the distric~ I take e=ception to this~ in their attempt to Southold Town Board ~, Appeals -6- October ll~ 1984 Regular ~eeting (Appeal No. 3251.~- RENATE RIEDEL~ continued:) build a small home~ the size 18 X 36, that first floor will be 648 square feet. The ~eason why t bring this ups that house, does belong g~r~.~ the property.is part of Mattituck Estates. That is covered by Covenants and Restrictions. dated October 8~ 1965. It was recorded_ and filed in the office of the Cler_k of Suffolk County. Covenants a~R~strictions~ n~ ~lwelling may be located closer than 50 feet from the main road~ from the side road~i 35 feet~ also a one story dwelling must'not be less -~an 1160 square feet. a two-story dwelling cannot-be~less than 800 square feet~ first floor of course. do have a cory of the Covenants and Restrictions f~or ~aH~ ~Copy submitte~ f~ the file.) MR. CHAIRMAN: In the period ~a~~ ~ ~_t~i~i~~ you did call me on the phone,, did you or did you not? CHAIRMAN: You calle~';.~Umfdfffi~e~& ~a~ about the long envir'~,m.~,,~;a~,.]~, a~m~e~_~m~e ~t~ ~ f~s~rm do you remember that? BOB C©S ,.~ANZO: Yes~ Ido. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know exactly what you what you ~e'~ talki.~, about in the beginning of the hearing you ~entioned to me that you.~anted the DEC to~ do .a ~m'~ ~~%al~S~,sm~t tf~m, i s t~Wh~t~ y0u~-~e talking about? Or what are you talking about? MR. BOB COSTANSO: I understand that there are two enviTunmental forms, one being short form, which I believe that the pe~pSe that are reqesting this ~ariance had filled out, at least ~hey bottom of it. The one that came in, fw~lq~.~heDEC where ,they are asking for the 72 foot set back-from the marsh. I was informed that there-is als0 a long form that would be much more intensive study of the area. where they could go out~ and I g~ess they havenf~n~$~]~tSd~0?~pw~c%im~ watching the wild life in the area. I don*t think the short form has it~ ~ga~,the best of.my k~wled~e. I'm a layman at this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you remember what I said to you on the phone at that particular time? MR. BOB COSTANZO: No~ Im sorry I MR. CHAIRMAN:-~I said~to you~ ~%~ this particular time that have done and ,~ce. pted the short form, ~/~at does notmean we couldn, t change that, ~f]c~ We accepted it mainly because of~the DEC approval based upon 70 s~me0~ feet set back~ ~Thi.s~pa~ticular time ~we are going to stay wi~h tha%~particular fo~, and ~we will discuSst~QR~.?~r0cess to answer, yo~r q~stion~ I .have mot ~%~C~ '~ A ~ ~ any ~ard m~rs~ or my se~f t~,~hange it W~en..y~,~refer to a ~t back in the subdivision, are you considering~ad~ Lane a satellite road? S~uthold Town-Board of Appeals -7- October Il, 1984 Regular M6eting (Appeal-No 3251 ~ ,RENATE~RIEDEL~continued) No. MR. BOB COSTANZO: /Meadow Laneaccording to the <~;~.W~'~ I have a ~- shows a 35 foot set back. MR. CHAIRMAN: Basically, what the applicant is asking for then is a 10~%foot reduction~from that par. titular set-back. MR. BOB COSTANZO: Correct~ MR.~CHAIRMAN: Than~ you° Would anybOdy else~like to speak against the application~ MR. BOB COSTANZO: fm sorry~ I do have a petition from the residents of the estates. (Pet~t~0n submitted for the ~ec0rd.) MR. CHAIRM~: Wo~ anybody else tike to speak against the application? MR. A~h~SR.~i~N~R-~:~ I am a resident of Mattituck Estates, and I speak ~en~raliy on behalf, of the number of residents of Mattituck Estates who are here tonight~ who object to ~he application~ I am not sure of the number~that I am representin~i~s,~t_t'en people.~ I think that the board should be aware of two points that are of interest~ One point is that this application seeks as I understand it a zoning varianc~ and it~makes no consideration at all ~{~' the set of covenants and restrictioms~_~which govern~ and control, s all of the residents of Mattituck Estates~, and I think~ ~,~.~ ~.~ respect to the board)s~reti0n, they should ~a~.into consideration~ that fact that all of us in Mattituck E~ta~es,~tive in houses ~hs~ and in homes that conform to the covenants and restrictions which are in effect now~ and will be in effect for some years to come~ and I would also like to make a second point~ :~.-~hat this application in effect ~es~S~toSc~aS~he character of the,~neighborhood, W~ all live in houses that are set back a substantiat~st~f~0~%s~ec~eroads in Matti~uck Estates. N~ an application~ia .made to build a home which is close,~fto theroad~ and which seems to me.changes the character of whole area~ as we~t as 5~g 4u violation of the covenants and restrictions~ and it seems to me that this applica~t,t.~over come ~ burden of proof on these points, and I respectfully .request on behalf of myself and other~residents~of the estates~ that the application bedenied. /hank you for your c0~s~deratJ0n. MR. CHAIRMAN: Be~ore you sit do~n Mr. Norlinger~-you. do agree that the set back~ %ho~h? concerningthe covenants and restrictions 6~'~t you are aware~ I hope you do concurs.- with the fact that the set back should be _~5 feet? In this particular area~ or a 50 foot set back? MR. NORLINGER: I believe that the covenants and res%z~i~tions are a 50 foot set back. and it is my impression that this will ~b~a~te]~ but I again respectfully~ ~hg~ the board consider very carefull~ the board does anything to move somebody forward, like one sticking like $ sore thumb, in th~ area. Southold Town Board Of Appeals -8- October ll. ]984 Regular Meeting (ApI~al No. 3251 - RENATE REDIEL~ continued) MR. CHAIP~: You also object putting the minimum ~q~ of ~he house on the firs,t floor? MR. ALLEN NORLINGER: I think that this party like the rest of us Should b~ bo~d by the c. oven~ts and r~strictions, thats for, they run with the land~ they stay there, they were originally ~'~D~a~t[e~ for 25~years with automatic ~6~W~ at 10 years each~ and it will run into ,t~ next century~ before they can ~ change~. I can'~ see why any consideration should l~ given to anyone who wants to make a change~ and build something small and different and protr~ng into the area, &~ ~ing-the only one that does. I don"t-~:hink anybody should~ I think that all of.~-s should live up to the c~vena~s and'restrictions~ otherwise what use would a covenantm and restriction~ What I was eluding.t0 is there MR. C~AIRMAN: IC"-?~,~. seems to De some disagreement as to what Meadow Lane is~ is it a satellite road, or ~s it the main ~oad for the su~division~ ~{'he~ words is it 35 feet or is it 50 feet? ~hats basically,my concern~ at this particular point. MR. ALLEN, NORLINGER: /~ dag~' ~°k~°~w?n~si%ee~n~e~$~%' -what ever it is they want to move it in~ and I don~t think it should 1~ altowe~0 be moved in. MR. CHAIRMAN:~ l~t me ~e%p~s.emy question~ Would you and the people that arc.here representing wo%ttd be happy with a 35 foot set ~ack? MR. NORLINGER.: I don~t think the people that are in our area would be happy if they feel i~s a violation of the covenants andrestrictions. I think they will have to go to court and restrain a~.~ violation for the re~trictionao I don't know of the difference between of what kind of road Meadow, Lane is. wWb~tevem it is~ I don't think it should be moved forward. ~R, CHAIRMAN: Is there a possibility that I might ask you being a spokesp~o~r~ for this group to come back at some later hearing and give me your i,~te~p~g%&~ if you think that this particular set back should ~-35 feet 6Dr 50 feet. MR. CHESTER.BOBERG: I just like to read you one line of the covenants. "No dwelling shall be erected or place~neare~lTt~u!~feet to any 'front lot line." MR. CHAIRMAN: You are~r~eading from numl~r 4, Mr. B0berg? MR. CHESTER,BOBERG: Yes sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: It reads ~%rt~3g~.fe~tto~any side street, too, Mr. ~orlinger ~hat w~ have done in th~ past is we have asked the applicant along with the,properts~wn~D~c association to.go, out in the ihail~ for 20 m~nutes to a half hour and-come back wi~h what they can live with and what the applicant can live with. I am going to suggest to~my l~oard that we recess this hearing~ until we really come to a determination what the set back should be at this particular point~ ~d t am also going~to ask Southold Town Board o'f Appeals -9-October ll, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3251 .... -RENATE REDIEL,~continued) the applicaR~-.to,-go back to the DEC and hold this hearing in open recess, and ask if they would not pos~bI~:~.consider a,!ower reduction of the normal 70 plus a minus feet that th~easking for. That is all I can suggest to you at this time, and I am referring to you and I should be looking at the applicant at the same time also. MR. VICTOR LESSARD0 BUILDING INSPECTOR: This sub-division was started in 1960.something? Did I hear you right, Mr. C0stanz0? MR. NORLINGER: You heard~ but I am not famitar with it. MR. VICTOR LE$SARD. BUILDING~INSPECTOR: I don't know much about your covenants, but MR. NORLINGER: They weren"t renewed~ they just have been in effect since then until now~ and are still in effect. MR. VICTOR.LESSARD. BUILDING INSPECTOR: Since the DEC has in effect since 19~6~ and they put down the~.~? restrictione~ was this considered with your restrictions? MR. NORLI~C~E~: You are asking a question that t cannot answer. You have to talk-to the build~.~,., about that. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have to understand that this is being so it is very important that this is taken in proper testimony particular since the property owners association has indicated that they will go for any type of restraining order and I of course will comment that I have the right any time to swear any m:em~m~ ~]~f %h:s~ ~a~-%e~&e t~'h,a~t so wants to speaks- and I will do that if I think :hat there is contrary testimony. MRS. REDIEL: ~ This piece of land was supposed to be filled in. · oday you can not fill in anything on it on the wet land, so therefore I think the envir]:0~nmentalist are right ~,~ ~ ......... ~ ,~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any questions Mr. Norlinger? MR. NORLINGER: No. ~ MR. JO~N ]~[E~$~,t~ I thi~ the $tat~ent the person before me ma~ regara tol.~hel su~oz~%~e~:~t,~ this land tL~t is suppos~to ~ filled on ~o~e 8~? I-~.~lieV~ I always understood that as a building lot fact that it w~ a.~non buildable~ in fact. if you will find its previous o~ers~c~%d ~0~hu~Idfothe~-w~e~ ~en ...... know believe is the na~ of $~-f~ and the ~ou~ lady c~e bF a~ut a year ago~ and mentioned ~ that they were~.~fact in co~ract, and they were denied, That is what I have ~en told. from the previous o~er, -i .~::?:,-:.~:]~ I lo~.at, that property -a~d ~i%t~ ~s'::~ ~.~g~e,~e,].~p~r'~ ~e'-h~4?b~g~ns~e~ ~.a~a~,ss the street, ~ ~k~,]E~]~d68,~n~e~:~.~i~]]n¢.%..;~.~]~h L~ regards to the covenants, I think its ~b~-~t~di~e~a~ :f~-~ ~-eg]~:%~::~:~3~h]~:9 ~er than 100 percent of the .a~ailable development.,:;now who are built in it a~;were Southold Town Board ppeals -10- (Appeal No. 3251 - Renate Reidel, continued:) October 1984 Regular Meeting MR. DEBROWSKI (continued): subject to the rules, not only of the covenants associated with that subdivision but also the town, and set back. clauses included, et cetera, departures from wells and pools and water tables and boundaries, et cetera, with regard to the dwelling and its associated periphery. I think, for peopl'e to come into our area, ok, with the knowledge that there's an insufficient parcel of land, to buy it or purchase it or consider purchasing it with the intent to come before the board and the people of the town, and consume our time, ok, so that they make the exceptions to the rule. I think that creates chaos for you to sit and dwell on it. We made rulings. We all abided by them. And adhered without coming here and giving you objection to them; and we have a development as you drive through it that subsequently looks rather appeasing to the eye. I believe a dwelling that's 36 by 18, and I just heard that this evening, is rather small and certainly not in compliance or with anything that we've seen built there that's being asked--the request that's being asked to be built on a parcel of land that, hey~I live across from that, from that pond and from that area, and 65' setback from your town line, not the road, which if you wanted to include that, we're about 80 feet back. And the mosquitoes are quite large, ok. The next step would be, hey-after the dwelling is there, let's get this annoyance out of the way, so let's start spraying, et cetera. We ccould go into pandora's box for this sort of thing as to repercussions and the environmental impact, et cetera, to make the dwelling and the area pleasing to the people who have purchased it and I believe I do have your-- I emphasize with you, but I believe that the land had to be purchased, ok, with the knowledge that it was quite questionable as to whether it was inamenable with a coventional domestic dwelling. And I don't think it's fair to us taxpayers to assume that we are all going to abide by your rules and regulations, and then make exception for one individual. To me, that creates Routes 25 as you see them 30 and 40 miles off the road. We constantly make exception and pretty soon you've got a situation that it is no longer controllable and rather chaotic in appearance. And that's my opinion on the situation, and as has been said before, I would appreciate that you concern yourselves very, very ( ) and then prejudiciously with a solution here that's going to be certainly taken to mind those people who are now residents of that community and your constituents who have adhered to your rules and regulations. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Costanzo. Did you have a question or a comment? MR. COSTANZO: Well I did. Maybe I can help in that one question. There is a map that I have in my possession from May 5th of 1965. The covenants does state "main road, 50 feet" "side road, 35 feet," which you'll see in the covenants. The map, to answer your question, that we're trying to get to is that road 35 feet or 50 feet. The map does show it. This is a map of Mattituck Estates, it's a Map of Division for the Estates. I will show it to you. It does show that road. It's -35 feet. But it doesn't show any road in the entire estates as a main road. It shows every road at 35 feet. So there might be a discrepancy there. I'm not sure that there's another map that supercedes this one. Southold Town Board Appeals -ll- October (Appeal No. 3251 RENATE RIEDEL, continued:) MR. COSTANZO (continued): ] ~/, 1984 Regular Meeting But that is an entrance to Mattituck Estates from the main road of New Suffolk Avenue. There's two entrances on New Suffolk Avenue, and there is one entr'ance off of 25. MR. CHAIRMAN: map by the way? MR. COSTANZO: Very good. Yes. I thank you very much. This is a signed MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Anybody like to speak against it? Do you have anything else Mrs. Riedel that you would like to say? (No response.) Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion holding this hearing in open recess; and then ask the applicant to go back to the D.E.C., discuss with D.E.C. the nature of this particular hearing, tell the D.E~C. whatever she cares to, but hopefully she'll tell the D.E.C. that this board does not specifically condone changes in normal covenants and restrictions, and let's see what the D.E.C. comes back with in this particular case. I'm also going to ask Mr. Nordlinger if he'll research that, and we'll advertise at the town's expense the next hearing on this application when Mrs. Riedel comes back. Mr. Nordlinger, did you have any comment on that? MR. NORDLINGER: No. Thank you for your consideration. MRS. RIEDEL: I went to the environmentalists again, and they wouldn't give me more land, more setback. MR. CHAIRMAN: I know you indicated that to our secretary, but what I would like you to do is to send them a certified letter indicat- ing the nature of this hearing, in fact, you're very welcome to, in the period of the next month or so pay for the minutes of this hearing, send them a copy of the minutes of this particular hearing, and indicate to them that we do not specifically condone a variance from the normal covenants and restrictions of this subdivision. And let's see what they come up with. Are you fully aware of that they came out and did a field inspection on this parcel? MRS. RIEDEL: I thought that they did. all kinds of shots from all angles. MR. CHAIRMAN: MRS, RIEDEL: MR. CHAIRMAN: And I had to send pictures, Are you sure that they came out here, physically? I didn't see it, but they said they did, All right. I thank you very much. as a motion, gentlemen. I'll offer that MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was - RESOLVED, to recess this public hearing for reconsideration and reapplication to the N..Y.S.D.E.C~ by the ap.plicant~ RENATE RIEDEL. This resolution was adopted unanimously-by all the board members. SQuthold Town Board ~,~ Appeals Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- October 1~-~~, 1984 Regular Meeting October 11, 1984 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3281. Upon application for EDWARD L. HERRMANN, Marlene Drive, Mattituck, NY for approval to construct addition with reduction of sideyard setback. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-114-2-40. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:32 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey for Edward Hermann dated September 7, 1984, indicating where,.the addition will go. Mr.~Nerm.a~n, would you like to be heard in behalf of your applica%ion? EDWARD HERMANN: Yes, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we are intending to do here is to add an addition, a room onto the house, a bedroom, for our retirement home as of next year. In so in putting this room oD, in order to mvoe it over any further, if I don't get the variance it will create a hardship on the inside of the house with the interior rooms and walls. A~tually, on the application, it will be two feet~ There has been a cha~ge. I was unaware of how much room I had on'the side until the survey was prepared. I find now that all that will be necessary would be a one-foot extension which would still leave a 9' sideyard. And.by putting this on, I don't believe there would be any hardships going to the south--the next dwelling to the south is approximately 29' from the line. With the 9' remainder, it would be approximately, let's see--38 feet between that portion 6f the residence and the next-door dwelling. And I have nothing further to say other than I don't believe it would be a hardship, for anyone if this variance were to be granted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you say this was going to be a bedroom? MR. HERRMANN: Yes, sir. MR CHAIRMAN: i thank you. Is there anybody else to speak in behalf of the application? Anybody to speak ~gainst. the application? I have in the fi~e a letter. I'll read the letter, It say~., .°.Zoning B~ard Of Appeals Gentlemen: The main entrance to my house faces to the north, expands to the south side of the Herrmann house would encroach upon the privacy of my entrance. This~would diminish to aesthetic value of my home. Narrowing the distance between our homes would also compromise the air space between us and increase the volume ~f noi~e~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- October ll, t984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3281 - EDWARD L. HERRMANN, continued]-) MR. CHAIRMAN (continued): ...The expansion of sanitary facilities and the proposed construction necessitating the variance is likely to have environmental impact on my water supply. The precedent of granting variances on narrow lots is contrary to the philosophy of the building code for preserva- tion of water supply and waste disposal. There are obvious a~ternatives which a variance is not needed: 1 The expansion to the north of their property where there is land far in excess of 10 feet, or: 2 - To ezpand to the west which there is at the very minimum ~0 feet of vacant property. Very truly yours, /s/ Helen L] Fanning... (There is also another letter of objection from Mrs. Fanning dated August 22, 3984 in the ~ecord.) Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Any questions from any board members? Anybody? (None) Victor, do you have anything to comment on? (Nothing) Any further, Mr. Herrmann, before I close the hearing? ~ MR. H~RRMANN: Part of that statement you read, was there to be an additional drain on the water supply? !rdon't see how having another bedroom, an addition onto that house is goiDg to require any more water usage? And the house ne~t ~oor, actually there is sufficient room between the two houses, if that is the concern of my neighbor to the south, which would be apprpximately 39 feet between houses. MR. CHAIRMAN: 'bk~ Thank you. Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the heariog and reserving decision until later. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, i~ was RESOLVED to declare the hearing closed pendin'~ deliberations. This reso~ution'~was unanimously adopted. A two-minute recess was~.taken to telephone Barbara Ulrich concerning the first hearing of Schellenbach and Rojas to ~swer inquiries of the board. The meeting._.reconvened at 8:50 p]~m. So~thold Town Board o~-Appeals -14- October ll, 1984 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3270. Upon application for DR. B.H. PILLAI to construct sleeping quarters in accessory building. Peconi~ Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:50 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey, l~st dated April 27, 1981, from Young & Young indicating the approximate placement of the garage on the property which is the natur~ of this application, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Olsen, would you like to be heard? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Yes. My name is Gary Olsen, Main Road, Cutchogue. I am the attorney for the ap~plicant~,~.Dr.'and Mrs. Pillai~ who own a parcel of property oD the sou~h_side of Peconic Bay B~u]evard in Mattitu~k, 'NY. _The pro~r'ty cont. ains approximately 30,~76 sq. ft. and b~ars Suffolk COunty ~x M~p No. lO00~Sec~n 12~ Block ll, Lot 19. This application is for a variance permitting the applicants to construct sleeping quarters above an existing garage. The.garage is presently a nonconfgrmi'ng accessory buildings, and is located.between the applicants' pr~sen't home and ~coni~ Bay Boulevard. The garage as I have scaled~it is approximately 90 feet so~h of PecOnic Bay Boulevard~ As I pointed out in my application, the applicants find that they now need because of the size ~n~ increase in t~e_fam~ly ~hat they need to hire a fulltime_person to help in the caring of their children. There is not~.prese~%ly sufficient room within their h~me to give housing facilities for their h'el~_~s well as providing privacy for their help ~nd privacy for themsel¥~s. The applicants~ ~rcumstances are unique in that they had until just recently four children, six weeks ago Mrs. Pillai gave birth to twin daughters. The family presently consists of a. boy. nine years old, a boy seven, a boy five, a. bpy one, and twin daughters now-6 weeks old. There present house has ~wo bedrooms downstairs and three bedrooms upstairs. Each!i~a~t is occupying the downstairs bedroom and Dr. and Mrs. Pillai are ~t~lizing one bedroom upstairs, and then each bedroom upsta~rs.~ the remaining two bedrooms, are shared b~ two boys apiece. The ~leeping facility which is proposed above the garage wo. ul~di ~ contain a sitting room, bgdroom, closet_space and a bathroom, and the total area upstairs would contain ~about 4~20 sq. ft. And below the sleeping facilities wou~d be the garage facilities for the parking of cars. I do have a copy of the proposed layout, which I don't know if the board has, which I sought from the Building Department; but if not, I~tl submit it to you, Southold Town Board of Appeals -15-. October 11, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No~ 3270 -~B~H~ 'P~LL~I, co~t~n~ed:) M'R. CHAIRMAN: Y~,~'~I'~o.~ I remember looking at it. Thank you. MR. OLS.EN: I w~sh to state that theye will be no choking facilities above the garage, and that the garage sleeping__~rea would only be utilized~by the applicants' household h~lp~ ~nd all meals w~uld be shared by that person in the main hpuse. I also wis~ to state that the applicants do not wish to create a separate independent dwelling or ~s~dence, and that the s6~d sleeping facilities would not be used for rental purposes to third parties. It being the ~pplicants' intention that the facilities would only be used 'by household_help in-conjunction with the maid house. I further wish to poin~'~'~ut to the board that the exterior dimensions of the existing garage will not be changed. It is rbspectful'ly su~it~d th~ to require ~he'applicants to provide living,_fac~!j.~ies for their help in the existing_house would require an extension to th~ house, whigh the way the house is laid out, it just would not work~ -And it would caus~ a great deal more than providing facilities in the fashion~_we're recommending .... Accord- ingly, it would be an economic hardship. Certainly the 6pp]icants' large family with six small ch.ildren p~sents them_with a p~actical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship, ~nd unique circumstances if the slegpjng facilities above the garage cannot be provided for household help~ The granting of the variance would not change the character of. the neighbonhood since no independent nesidence or dwelling is~sought to be constructed~ For 9n intensive purposes, no ngw building ~ill be constructed. ~he premises will ]oo~, if the variance is granted, basically the'wax, the premises .looks at it does now. I respectfully submit that allowing sleeping facilities above the garage.in this day and age is. a use customarily incidental to and subord]nate.~.to the main ~se of this property ~ a ~ingle-family residential parcel; and that the .gran~ing of th9 v~riance would in no way adversely affect the chara_gter or th~ value of the adj~ni'fig property owners or of the neighborhood. It has been brought to my attention by William Jacobs, the applicants' builder, that he obtained a similac-'type variance back on. November 9, ]978 for a Richard Wall on Nassau P~int Road, Cutchogue, your file_#2~86, to construct an accessory building on Nassau_Poin~ in the frontyard, which building has sleepin~g facilities upstairs, The board gran~ted the application on the condition that the premises Would only be used in gonjuncti'on with the main residence and would not be rent~ to third parties and would not have kitchen facilities. Dr. and Mrs. Pillai ~ould be willing to agree to similar conditions should the board decide to grant the variance and impose restrictions. Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- October ll, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3270 B.~. ~iLLAI, continued:) MR~i OLDEN (continued:) In closing, I submit that there are practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships in the carrying out the strict letter of the present zoning regulation, and that the board's power to vary or modify such regulations in this case is within the spirit of the zoning chapter, and there is no detrimental effect in the granting of the application to the zoning regulations, public safety, welfare of the community. That by granting this application substantial justice will be done. I do have also present tonight William Jacobs, who is the builder, and if you have ~ny questions-- I know he has some comments that he would like to make also, and.you may wish to direct some questions to him if you have any .... WILLIAM JACOB§: My name is Bill Jacobs. I'm a builder, and I live on Depot Lane in Cutchogue. The .garage apartment, living quarters over the garage, is something that would cost them around $23,000 and it's compared to extending tbe_s~de of the house and ripping out the dining room and doing a tremendou~ job o'n their house in changing the whole set-up and everything. It would probably cost them anywhere between $60,000 and $80,000. So we can't see that it's a hardship -- it's a hardship, an economic hardship to put this kind of money into something for ~.iving quarters rather than do something over the garage like we're planning. MR~ CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jacobs? We did go down and look and the property. We're aware of the garage. We looked at the garage and the playground area.~ I think.this may be the evening of asking for diffe[ent things, but before I ask this board to comment on th~s application or deliberate on it, I th~nk we would like to see the interior--the part of the house that faces the road to see how extensive it really would be to put an addition on the house, ok. As you know it has not been the nature of this board since at least 1980 to grant these applications, ok. MR. JACOBS: Well the f~ont of the house that you're talking about is facing the road. You have the kitchen right off the front. MR. CNA£RMAN: That's on the lefthand side, is it not? MR~ JACOBS: Right. And then they have their new playroom that they built with all the stone work and fireplace work and everything in_there. And beyond that you have the dining room-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Towards {he water?- MR. JACOBS: Towards the water more, and that would where the only place that they could--but it would be ripping out all of that dining room and gol.Dg that way, and then you re getting Closer to the SoOthold Town Board ppeals -17- October 11, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3270 - B.H. PILLAI, continued:) MR. JACOBS (continued): water, you'd have foundations and stuff like that where you don't have it with the garage. And it isn't changing the garage. It is a treed lot. There are lots of trees up there in that area. We're not chang- ing the size of the garage. And we're just as far as the height is concerned, we'd be 18 feet from the ground, which is in accordance with the code for an accessory building. MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the nature of the reinforcement to the existing garage based upon going up? What has to be done? How sophis- ticated do the walls have to be? Do they have to be changed? MR. JACOBS: No. The walls are all structurally good. The beams are structurally good. There is a deck in there now. Floor beams, girder. And of course we were ripping the roof out and going up with walls and then the roof. So-- MR. CHAIRMAN: There would be no reinforcements in the existing foundation? MR. JACOBS: No. We wouldn't need it. MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much. Mr. Sawicki? MEMBER SAWICKI: I notice is that going to be a separate the same one? on the plans there, the toilet facilities, cesspool or are they going to hook into MR. CHAIRMAN: What are you going to do with the cesspools? MR. JACOBS: Right. The cesspools are there towards in front of the den. We would join into the existing cesspools and the water would come from the existing well in the house. So it would be underground feed to it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anything else? Would anybody else like to speak in behalf of or against the application? Mr. Cron. RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ.: Yes. If it pleases the board. My name is Richard J. Cron. I'm an attorney at Cutchogue, New York. And I am representing an adjacent neighbor, a Mrs. Evelyn A. Stewart, and a landowner to the west, who in fact opposes this application. The reason for Mrs. Stewart opposing the application is she feels it is going to have a detrimental effect obviously on her property values by virtue of basically adding, and while it hasn't been classified as such, the safeguards to enable such not to happen do not exist. In other words, another dwelling on that front single lot, ownership. You can say that it has no kitchen facilities, but all you need is the electricity and you've got kitchen facilities. The house or the addition described meets all of the qualifications of another dwelling with the exception of course of what you want to classify as cooking facilities. With the electricity you can put in a hotplate and you've So~thold Town Board of Appeals -18- October ll, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appea~ No. 3270- B.H. PiLLAI, continued:) MR. cRON (continued): got cooking facilities. But that's not the real reason why I would oppose the application in her behalf. I think the board is well aware of the fact that there is a distinguishing difference between a use variance and an area variance. And what is basically sought here is a use variance. And in order to enable one to satisfy a Board of Appeals as to the granting of such a variance, you've got to make a determination firstly, that the property in question or the land in question is not yielding a reasonable return under the present existing zoning ordinance~ Well that obviously has not been established here~ Nobody has brought forth any proof to show that the proper'ty as it is zoned is not yielding a reasonable rate of return~ You've got to show them the hards, bip that the law seeks in a use variance is an economic hard~hip, and it's not a hardship that's predicated on the fact that"well I can build an extension on the garage or an addition to the garage at a cost less than I can add a desirable extension to the residence." That's not the economic hardship that the law imposes. I don't want to be facetious but I suppose to some extent the hardship is self-imposed. You know, the fact, what really is being spelled out is not really a hardship or an economic hardship. What is being spelled out is an inconvenience, perhaps an inconvenience. I didn't hear anything to indicate that the person or the domestic being employed would necessarily have to live. in the house or outside of the house or be working at such t~me~ I would assume that somewhere along the line one gets 8 hours to sleep and whether it's done in~.the house or whether it's done in the extension or the addition or it's done in one's own home, it obviously can be done. So I don't think that the hardship that is being brought before the board is one which the board can give legal cognizance of. Secondly, the other thing that must be established as far as an applicant for a use variance is uniqueness_of?the thing, and the hardship, whatever it may be, and of course it's required to be an economic hardship, has to be unique to the property in question. The hardship can't be that which arises by %he impact ofi~'the zoning ordinance and would be applicable to all other properties in the vicinity. Because that goes to the reasonableness of the ordinance. So that uniqueness test hasn't been met here. It isn't sufficient to say that, "Well, we have an existing garage and it wouldn t be convenient to"do all of these things in the residence, in the principal residence." That doesn't make it convenient. And frankly every time you have a-use variance, there is a corresponding effect on the character of the district. You're changing the use of that district and by adding more people, you're changing the use wit.hin that district. S~ while I can be sympathetic to the applicants, I don't think it's something that this board can rely upon ~n granting the relief requested. I think the board is dictated by wh~t]the la~ imposes upon the board before it can grant a use variance, and I don't Southold Town Board of Appeals -19-October ll, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appea~ No. 3270 - B.H. PILL~I, continued:) MR. CRON (continued): think any of those things have been proved to let. the.board act on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Cron. Mr. Olsen, did you have anything else to say? MR. OLSEN: I would just like to state again that we're not trying to change the use of this property. The property is still to be used for singl'e-family residential purposes. We are not trying to create a separate dwelling or ~esidence. What we're strictly try- ing to do is limit it to sleeping facilities which would not be rented to third parties~ ] wpuld onl~ be used for househouse help or other family members, My understanding 9s:that.historically until fairly recently maybe,'~as recent as 1980, was the comment that you made, that ~he town automatically allowed this sort of thing, and that there's.a lot of precedents throughout the township where people do have sleeping facilities above a garage; and I can't see that is going to be~of a~y negative or detrimental hardship on any adjoining landowners by p~rmitting this. And we're asking for the board's consideration. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Is there anybody else to speak pro or con on this application? Questions from the board members? (None) Victor? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. On motion Dy Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, t~ close the hearing pending ~eliberations until later in the Matter of Appeal No. 3270, fo~'DR.~ B.H. PILLA~ ~ . ~. This resolutio~ was unanimousiy adopted. '~ ' ~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much gentlemen for coming in. The hearing was declared closed at 9:15 p.m. Verbatim transcription of the hearings held by the Board of Appeals on October 11~_.1984 were ~ped by Sara. Lenihan, editted by Respectfully submitted, L6i~w a~] ny $outhold Town Board of Appeals