Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/04/1982Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- -~TATE ROAD 25 RDUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR, SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, C~'la~ JOSEPH H. SAWICKI MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1982 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 4, 1982 at 7:15 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr.; and Robert J. Douglass. (Absent was Member Joseph H. Sawicki.) Also present were Mrs. Ruth Oliva, NFEC; Mrs. Shirley Bachrach, League of Women Voters; Mr. Henry Lyt!e; Mr. George H. Fisher. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:15 o'clock p.m. The public hearings originally scheduled for January 14, 1982 have been postponed until this evening because of the hazardous weather conditions on January 14th. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2938. Upon application of Joseph D. Posillico, Sr., 3605 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100-35 for permission to construct fence exceeding four feet in height along the frontyard area at 3605 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Corwin; east by McMahon; south by the bay; west by Private Road, Corwin; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-123-6-12.4. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7:15 p.m., Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2938 - Joseph D. Posillico, Sr., continued:) read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a sketch of the property indicating where the applicant is seeking the variance for the fence. We also have a copy of the County Tax Map indicating the surrounding property in the area, and the road which he points out in the application. I would ask anybody that is speaking tonight to please stand up, use either mike on the right or left hand side of the room, and please state your name before speaking. Is there anybody that would like to speak in behalf of this parti- cular application? (None) Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application? Sir? HARVEY BESUNDER: Thank you. My name is Harvey Besunder, Cruser and Hills, 206 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Corwin, the adjoining property owners. Ladies and gentlemen, it's striking to me, I viewed this property physically the other day and in driving through the neighborhood and looking at the application and listening to the application today it seems quite clear that the granting of the application would severely change the character of the neighborhood. It does not appear to me in'the entire area that there are any fences of the nature proposed herein. Most of the fences if they do exist at all seem to be of the open type with maybe two levels but completely open. The entire area seems to be an open area with no fence more than four feet, and I believe only one that I could see even close to four feet. As I understand it, in the construction of this particular property the grade was changed to approximately three feet above what had existed previously so that we really would have a change of nine feet if this proposal is granted. There does not seem to be any undue hardship or any practical difficulty that the owner could possibly have if the strict com- pliance with the zoning ordinance is effected. Therefore, I think the application should be denied in its entirety. Thank you very much. N~ EHAIRNAN, Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir. N~. DENA~IO, My name is Denario. I live two houses east of Mr. Pbsillico's house. I also am here to speak for Mrs. McMann who lives next door to Mr. Posillico. Mr. Posillico also in his plan with the Building Department, and I'm the one who brought the subject up of the backfill of the property to the Building Department. Mr. Fisher said he would speak to you gentlemen about it. I don't know whether he did or didn't. It has created a problem not only with the fence which is the topic tonight, but it'll be a nine-foot fence on four sides, or three sides of the property, because it is his intention according to his building plan--I have a copy of it here from the Building Department, to put a six-foot fence at least on two sides, and a six-foot fence which he is applying for now which is three sides of the property. Seuthold Town Board ~f Appeals -3- W~bruary 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2938 - Joseph Posillico, continued,) MR. DENARIO continued: On top of it all, the backfilling of the property creates a problem to my backyard, to Mrs. McMann's backyard, to Corwin's backyard, for that matter to the right-of-way. We all live down- hill from the high ground, and he suddenly made high ground inbetween. As far as cars being parked there, the cars that park there only park on about one-third the length of his property, not the full length of his property because there is a cross fence, a split-rail fence, that prohibits cars from going any farther down toward the bay. And I agree with this gentleman that it cer- tainly isn't in keeping. We haven't got a fence and haven't had a fence inbetween properties any higher than three or three and one-half feet, and they are all split rails. I can't see the need for it. This gentleman wants to fence all four sides of his property with other plans too. Incidentally, he is not finished filling his property. He only has -- he has no topsoil down there so that means he's going to go up a little bit higher. This could be a ten-foot fence. Certainly it isn't in keeping with where we live. MR. CHAIRN~N, To answer your question, Mr. Denario, I did speak to Mr. Fisherl and he is aware of your opinions and your concerns concerning this particular elevation. MR. DENARIO, Now my major concern is -- just to get to the point and not to interrupt you -- first hurricane ,-e have, I won't get in my backyard, and I have a separate p%ece -- that is legal on the property and has been there zor over 50 years. My house will be underwater as a result of this. I'm astonished. Like I've spoken to the Building Department twice, I'm here now and I was here~on another occasion for Mr. Posillico. We would love to have him in the neighborhood, but let him be a neighbor. He doesn't strike me as though he wants to be a neighbor. Thank you. MR. CHAIR~N: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against this particular application? The gentleman in the back please. CHA~T~S HUMMEL, My name is Charles Hummel. I live directly north of this piece of property we've having discussion tonight. I would like you to know that I put my life savings into a piece of property, built a house on it because I love the view, I love the neighbors. Now the view is going to be taken away~ all the neighbors are turning sour~ and the whole neighborhood is going down because of this. Now most people think of pollution as a smoke stack with black smoke going out Df it. Well, it has been proven that noise is a pollution, and also a eyesore is a pollu- tion. And that's what we're goinK' to have right here. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN, Thank you. Anybody else? Sincere there isn't anybody speaking in behalf of Mr. Posillico I won't ask if there is anybody from his, or he in general,,or anybody representing him, would like to ask the board any questions. Would anybody that was not basically in favor of this particular application like to ask ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -4- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2938 - Joseph Posillico, continued,) the board any questions? We were down~ we did look at the prop- erty~ we have pictures in the file concerning it. We have, of course, as you know been down to the property with the prior application for.the actual construction of the house at that particular time~ and we are completely aware of the situation and the nature of the road, and that's all I can basically say. (There were no further comments.) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion reserving decision on this particular applica- tion. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was REEOLVED, to close the hea~ing and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal No. 2938, app'~ication-~f Jo'~eph~co, Sr. Vote of the Board, Ayes, Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) The Chairman mentioned that any decisions that were passed tonight would be available at both the Supervisor's Office at 765-1800 or at the Office of the Board of Appeals and Building Department at 765-1809 or 1802, which are in the same room. In the event the secretary is out tomorrow, either office may be called for the board's decisions. PUBLIC HEARING, Appeal No. 2937. Application of Beverly Andrews, 145 Maple Lane, Mattituck, NY (by A. Siemerling as agent) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-32 and 100-34 for permission to construct inground swimmingpool in sideyard area on a corner lot at premises located on the corner of Grand Avenue and Maple Lane, Mattituck, NY~ bounded north by Jem- mott~ east by Young~ south by Maple Avenue~ west by Grand Avenue~ County Tax Map Parcel 1000-107-02-part of OlO. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7:30 p.m., read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli- cation. MR. CHAIRMAN, We have a copy of the survey indicating the house and garage and another accessory building and sketch of the swimmingpool, and deck with no dimentions off the rear of the house. We also have a copy of the County Tax Map indicating this particular property and the surrounding area. Is there anyone wishing to speak for this application? Anyone against? (None) The Board made the following findings and determination, $outhold Town Board of Appeals -5- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2937, Beverly Andrews, continued,) By this appeal, appellant seeks approval of the location of an inground swimmingpool, 16' by 32' and located northerly of the existing dwelling and approximately 40 feet of Grand Avenue. At the time of inspection, the board found that there is a deck area at the northerly side of the house and stockade/chainlink fence surrounding the inground swimmingpool. The premises in question is a corner lot with 126' frontage along Grand Avenue and 210' frontage along Maple Avenue, and containing an area of 29,448 square feet. The board agrees with the reasoning of applicant and feels that the requested location is the most practical and feasible under the cir- cumstances. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the code require- mental that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no submtanial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than a variancel that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and pro- mote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance as applied for. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to approve the aDplication for Beverly Andrews, Appeal No. 2937 as applied. Location of Property, 145 Maple Lane (Avenue), Mattituck, County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-107-2-10. Vote of the Board, Ayes, Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING, Appeal No. 2940. Application of Richard Mohring, 460 Glen Cove Avenue, Sea Cliff, NJ (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) for a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law Section 280A, Article 16. Location ~f Property, Right-of-Way off the west side of Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold, NY; bounded north by Carney; east by Lewis; south by the bay; west by Kohut, Graham, Travers, Latham and Lewis. County Tax Nap Parcel 1000-66-2-44. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7,34 p.m., read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli- cation. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2940, Richard Mohring, continued,) MR. CHAIRMAN, We have a recent survey ihdicating the posi- tion of this particular piece of property where the easement lies abutting the property, and the tax map indicating the surrounding property. The easement is approximately 15 feet in width and runs approximately 141.82 feet from the property to Arshamomaque Avenue. Is there anybody that would like to speak in behalf of this appli- cation? RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ., Yes, Rudolph Bruer. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I think this is a perfect example of where a 280-a access variance should be granted. This is a lot on a filed map which has been approved by the Southold Town Planning Board. The road access has been I believe improved to almost the subject property, for the most part, and of course the appli- cant would be willing to continue with the improvement to his property to meet the Town's requirement for access for emergency vehicles, et cetera. I believe this appeal should be heard to- gether with the appeal following this which is the adjoining lot over which part of the, over which the access to this lot runs. I am told by Mr. Bertani that the road has been or the easement has been improved substantially, and as far as this particular lot goes, it would be improved to the lot in accordance with the board's standards, road specifications. MR. CHAIRMAN, Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of the application? Anybody to speak against the application? (None) Any questions from any of the members of the board? MEMBER DOUGLASS, I would just like to ask Mr. Bruer something. That area no doubt has covenants, right? MR. BRUER, Yes, they do but I don't -- go ahead. n MEMBER DOUGLASS, I was just ~ondering if in the covenants if it granted the access through that road. MR. BRUER, Yes, it does. It's in the deed to Mr. Mohring, Mrs. LaMorte's lot. Adjoining this. It's subject to that ease- ment and together with an easement over the lot adjoining hers. And it is all shown on the approved subdivision map of Grace Lewis at that time. MEMBER DOUGLASS~ Does it go right on down to where they walk down to the water there, do you know? MR. BRUER~ No, this is up from that. MEMBER DOUGLASS, Yeah, I mean does an easement for a road go right on down to there for those other lots? MR. BRUER, Any owner in that subdivision as a mat~er of right by being an owner in that subdivision, unless restricted by Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2940, Richard Mohrlng, continued,) MR. BRUER continued, the covenants and there isn't any restrictions, have the right to go over whatever roads are in that subdivision. ~ENBER DOUGLAES~ Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN, Any body else like to speak concerning this applicatic~? Any other questions from members of the board? (None) A motion is in order, gentlemen. MR. BRUEM, Excuse me. The a~plicant here would appreciate an early determination on this one due to the rising costs of building materials, et cetera, to get started. N~EMBER DOUGLASS, I make a motion we close the hearing and reserve decision on it. On motion by Mr. DouElass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Richard Mohring, Appeal No. 2940. Vote of the Board, Ayes~ Messrs. GoehrinKer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) PUBLIC HEARING, Appeal No. 2939. Application of Mignon S. LaMorte, 620 Ely Avenue, Pelham, NY 10803 (by John Bertani as agent) for a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law, Article 16, Section 280A. Location of Property, Right-of-Way off the west side of Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold, NY~ bounded north by Lie- bleinl east by Lewis; south by the bay~ west by Mohring (formerly Clauser). County Tax Map Parcel 1000-66-2-45. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7,40 p.m., read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli- cation. MR. CHAIRMAN, We have an updated sketch, fairly recent, of this particular piece of property which abuts Mr. ~ohring's property on the east side,of Mr. Mohring's property, and closer to Arshamomaque Avenue. This particular piece lies approximately 41.82 feet from Arshamomaque Avenue, on the same 15-foot right- of-way, and we have a County Tax Map indicating the location of this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there anybody that would like to speak in behalf of this particular application? JOHN BERTANI, John Bertani. The only thing I would like to Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2939, Mignon S. LaMorte, continued:) N~. BERTANI continued, say is that this also has a Certificate of Occupancy. This piece of property is a buildable piece of property, and also this is the last set of lots down in that area. After this road you have about 100 feet of paved roadway that has access to that beach that you were speaking about, so this wouldn't interfere with anybody's right-of-way, to get to that beach in any way. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ., Yes, Rudolph Bruer. I would to reiterate my comments on the earlier appeal (Richard Mohring) and ask the board to note it for this one. I think it should be granted. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN, Thank you. Would anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from any board members? (None) A motion is in order on this one, too. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis and Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Mignon S. LaMorte, Appeal No. 2939. Vote of the Board, Ayes, Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) PUBLIC HEARING, Appeal No. 2941. Application of Peter and Mary O'Hanlon, 610 South Ninth Street, New Hyde Park, NY 11040 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct new dwelling with insufficient rearyard area at 730 Greenway West, Orient, NY; bounded north by Trezzo; east by Stuke; south by Kmetz; west by Greenway West; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-15-1-20. (Richard Lipman, Esq.) The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7:46 p.m., read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have an updated survey showing the proposed house which indicates a 50-foot setback from the frontyard and a 26' rearyard setback, with 55 feet on either side. We have a letter in the file from Mr. and Mrs. Terrazo indicating concern for this particular application. Is there anybody that would like to speak in behalf of it? Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2941 - Peter and Mary O'Hanlon, continued:) RICHARD LIPMAN, ESQ.: Richard Lipman, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. O'Hanlon. The lot in question varies in depth from between 126 on one side and 119 on the other. If they were to observe both the 50-foot setback and the 50-foot rearyard, the buildable piece would be rather small. Most of the dwellings are modest in size and I believe it is in conform- ity with other dwellings in the area, and I don't think it would constitute any substantial variance from those dwellings. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you know, Mr. Lipman, the actual square footage of the proposed dwelling? MR. LIPMAN: I believe with garage it's approximately 2200 square feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. It is a one-story house? MR. LIPMAN: One-story ranch-type with attached garage. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of the application. (None) Would anyone like to speak against the application? MARYANN GIBBS: My name is Maryann Gibbs, Mr. Chairman. I speak for the Petty's Bight Association. It's the property owners concern on this particular piece of property, and they are all half acres. We have no objection to any variance provided that it coincides with our covenants and restrictions. Does Mr. O'Hanlon have title to this property? MR. LIPMAN: Not as yet. Mr. Chairman, may I? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, surely. MR. LIPMAN: Mr. O'Hanlon is under contract to purchase it, the contract being contingent on the approval of the variance. MRS. GIBBS: You see, we couldn't deal with Mr. O'Hanlon on our covenants and restrictions unless he was a member of the association. And not owning the property as yet-- you see, we have 40 feet in the front. I think you're aware of it-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I'm looking at the covenants and res- trictions right now. MRS. GIBBS: And I think there's no restriction in the rear at all. The property is, you know, some of it is irregular. So we have no objection to anything that Mr. O'Hanlon would propose to do provided it coincides with, you know, our restric- tions and covenants. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2941-Peter and Mary O'Hanlon, continued:) like to speak against the application? (None) Is there any- thing else you would like to say, Mr. Lipman? MR. LIPMAN: Mr. Chairman, if the association would prefer and the board would allow, we would be glad to comply with the 40-foot setback and increase the rearyard by ten feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we will take that into consideration. MR. LIPMAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody that would like to say any- thing? Mr. Douglass? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes. I would like to ask-- you don't have to get up-- on that road at the present time, what is your average setback, the 40 feet as in your covenants? MRS. GIBBS: Now, on I think Mr. Kmetz's property, I think is back a little further than 40 feet. But it is within our covenants, and not less than 40 feet. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well, I mean there is nothing forward of 40 feet? MRS. GIBBS: No. The 40-feet is our, is according to our covenants. MR. LIPMAN: I wanted to say we don't propose to go forward of the 40 feet-- MRS. GIBBS: I realize that you gentlemen, but I am only pointing out that we have half acres and private property. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes, I know the land well. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lipman, last year we had Mr. Kmetz's application before us. At that particular time he was granted a 35-foot reduction on the rearyard, not a 35-foot reduction but a 35-foot setback, the reduction was some 15 feet, and he did build his house 50 feet from the road-- MR. LIPMAN: I believe the lots are somewhat different in shape. This lot on one side is only 119 feet deep. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Yes, there is a difference there of about seven feet. Anybody else like to speak either, yes sir? BILL GIBBS: My name is Bill Gibbs, and I as a resident of the area of Green Acres, the variance would have had to come from our Planning Board or our Association? MR. CHAIRMAN: The variance would come from this board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- .February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2941 - Peter and Mary O'Hanlon, continued:) MR. GIBBS: And your board, you want 50 feet back and yet our homes that we have there now are set back 40 feet. Does Mr. Hanlon have to go 50 feet or 40 feet? MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't tell you until we discuss it Mr. Gibbs. To answer your question, the present frontyard setback is 50 feet for Southold Town. So Mr. O'Hanlon I would assume and I don't know if I should assume, opted to not ask for a frontyard setback but to ask just for a rearyard. Due to the nature of the situation here, Mr. Lipman has indicated that 40 feet would be all right with him giving him a 36-foot rear- yard setback. MR. LIPMAN: If I may, the problems with the depth of the lot does not allow a reasonable piece between the 50-foot rear line requirement and front line requirement. We will gladly adjust the depth to comply with the variance so that we can just build a reasonable size house on this lot. MR. GIBBS: Oh we have no objection to the variance pro- vided it stays within the boundaries of a residence. Everybody else is set back 40 feet, we don't want to see somebody set back 20 feet from the road although the town says 50. And we don't want to hinder a person from coming into the area although right now as far as we know, Mr. O'Hanlon isn't even a property owner. So I don't know whether he should be a property owner before he can dispute on it. I don't know. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well he is a contract vendee, which is similar to, isn't that correct? MR. LIPMAN: The problem here is again, he doesn't want to purchase the property and then find that he cannot build on it, therefore we are asking first for the variance, and if the variance is granted we have every intention of going through with the contract in purchasing the property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you understand that, Mr. Gibbs? MR. GIBBS: Yeah, provided of course his building will conform with our variances. I don't know whether Mr. O'Hanlon even knows that we have covenants and restrictions? MR. LIPMAN: We are aware of the covenants and restrictions of the Petty's Bight Association, and in fact the application is submitted and complies to the stricter requirement of the town as to the 50 foot. MR. CHAIRMAN: The only thing is, Mr. Lipman, concerning any deviation of this particular application, I'm addressing this to both of you I'm sorry, if you wanted a reduction from 50 feet to 40 feet as Mr. Gibbs has suggested and you talked about, the application would have to be readvertised as a Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2941 - Peter and Mary O'Hanlon, continued:) frontyard setback along with the rearyard, so it would be front and rear yards, not just in the case of rearyard as it is in this case. MR. LIPMAN: We would be perfectly satisfied is they granted just the rearyard variance so that we could construct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fisher, you have a question? GEORGE H. FISHER, Senior Building Inspector: I'm not familiar with this particular case but if there are any houses within 300 feet of this proposed house, then you can use that as the established average setback which may be your 40 feet. MR. CHAIRM~AN: George, in this particular case, there is only one house which was granted last year which has a 50 foot frontyard setback within the immediate vicinity. MR. FISHER: Therefore there are no houses less than 50 feet from the road within 300 feet of the proposed house. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. MR. FISHER: Therefore he cannot use the average. He would have to be 50 feet back, or a variance if you so grant it. MR. CHAIRM3LN: Thank you. Mr. Lipman, for your own edification, Mr. Fisher is our Senior Building Inspector. MR. LIPMAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't know if you knew that, Mr. Gibbs. MR. GIBBS: No I didn't. But, Mr. Fisher, we have a ( entire statement inaudible.) And these restrictions (inaudible). (Discussion among several persons.) MR. FISHER: The restrictions that you may have have nothing to do with the town. The people must comply with the town, and if you have it more restrictive, why then it's up to you to enforce yours. MR. GIBBS: Yes. Ours are more restrictive, but we don't want to harm anybody for coming in for the variance, but We don't want to hurt the people who already built. I think Mr. O'Hanlon's application would be willing to abide the 40-foot setback, but it doesn't. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Do you have the section of your covenants on that 40 foot? So that you can read it? MR. GIBBS: Yes, we do. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2941 - Peter and Mary O'Hanlon, continued:) (The Chairman passed Member Douglass over the photocopy of Petty's Bight Association covenants and restrictions in the ZBA file.) MRS. GIBBS: Do you have a copy of this? I think you have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it's right in front of him. MRS. GIBBS: Number 5 it is, on page two. "No dwellings shall be permitted on any lot unless the ground floor area of the main structure exclusive of one-story open porches shall be not less than 750 square feet. Any structure constructed on any lot shall be set back 40 feet from the front property line and 25 feet from the side line. Any structure ..." Well, this wouldn't apply. MEMBER DOUGLASS: said on the 40 feet. under 40 feet-- That's what I wanted to hear, what it It specifically says 40 feet and not MRS. GIBBS: Forty feet, yes. In other words, Mr. Kmetz wanted to go back 50 feet. I don't know whether he had applied for 40 feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, he went back 50 feet. MRS. GIBBS: He wanted to go back 50 feet? So he threw us off. Doesn't that throw us off a bit? I mean as far as that line goes. MR. CHAIRMAN: He was asking for 42, Mrs. Gibbs and the board suggested he go back 50. MRS. GIBBS: Oh. Is that going to be a pattern now? MR. CHAIRMAN: According to what Mr. Fisher said, yes. MRS. GIBBS: You see, that I don't understand. I think Mr. Kmetz should have been given the 42. Because every else has built 40 feet back. I mean that's my opinion. Now this means that everybody who applies for a variance now are going to be in trouble? MR. CHAIRMAN: Not in trouble. They will have to apply for a variance. MRS. GIBBS: They won't get the 40 feet that everybody else has. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well each lot is rather unique anyway. It's different in reference to a variable depth, so we would have to treat each one differently as they came along. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2941 - Peter and Mary O'Hanlon, continued:) MRS. GIBBS: How will that look with all these structures on there-- MR. CHAIRMAN: A deviation of ten feet really does not have a traumatic effect in my opinion, ok this is strictly an opinion. MRS. GIBBS: Well it might to the man who is going to live next door to you and your house is set back that extra ten feet and that doesn't give him his proper view of the waterfront. In his rearyard at least. He loses than ten feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you want to say anything else? MRS. GIBBS: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Lipman? MR. LIPMAN: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that when we filed our application we were aware of the decision for Mr. Kmetz, and that is why we asked for the 50-foot setback. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? (None) Hearing no other testimony, I will make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until a later date. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Peter and Mary O'Hanlon, Appeal No. 2941 until a later date. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2926. Application of William J. Clark, Esq. for Joseph Yaboni and Myron Haup.tman, Middle Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30A and 100-32B for approval of insufficient sideyard areas of existing buildings due to location of new lot lines. Loca- tion of Property: Oregon Road and Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by North Road and Reliable Associat west by Elijah's Lane; south by Tuthill; east by Yaboni and ano. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-100-4-6. (Recessed from 12/17/81) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no testimony and based upon the fact that this is a recessed hearing, I will make a motion granting this as applied, based on the findings of the Planning Board, subject to County Planning referral_and the building closest ~? Or.egon Road be either r~moved or destroyed. The Planning Board states that ~/ey nave no objection to the sideyards. Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2926 - Joseph Yaboni and ano., continued:) The following are the findings and determination of the Board: By this appeal, appellants seek permission to locate a divi- sion line in their proposed subdivision, presently pending before the Planning Board, as shown on survey made by Young & Young,L.S. dated November 4, 1981 for Reliable Associates leaving a sideyard setback of 3.4 feet on the proposed corner parcel and .3' setback for the small accessory shed and 2' setback on the most northeast- erly proposed parcel. The total area of the land in question is 44.187 acres and applicant proposes to comply with all other rules and regulations in this subdivision. The new lot line proposed in this application is shown to cut through a building situated between proposed Lots 1 and 2 north of the large framed barn, and it is the feeling of this board that the structure should be either destroyed, removed entirely from the premises, or relocated as permitted by the building and zoning codes. The board also feels that the relief requested is reasonable and most feasible under the circumstances. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the code requirements; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obvi- ated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available govern- mental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general pur- poses of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to approve the application of William J. Clark, Esq. for Joseph Yaboni and Myron. Hauptman in Appeal No. 2926, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That the building presently existing through which the subject division line is made: (a) be destroyed, (b) be removed and relocated onto either parcel in compliance with zoning; or (c) be removed entirely from the property; (2) That this matter be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter. Location 0f Property: South side of Oregon Road and East side of Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-100-4-6. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- February 4, 1982 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2931. Upon application of Robert and Frank Klos, Main Road, Cutchogue, NY (by Chet Orlowski, Builder) for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70B(4) for permission to construct addition to principal building in this B-1 Zone District at 37570 Main Road, Peconic-Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Main Road; east by Konarski; south by Horton; west by Horton. County Tax Map Parcel 1000-85-3-6. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8:13 p.m., read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli- cation. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of an updated sketch indicating the buildings on the property, the proposed addition which encom- passes approximately 25 by 36 to the rear of the building, the front building on the property, and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating the surrounding properties and this property in the area. Is there anybody that would like to speak in behalf of this application? FRANK KLOS: My name is Frank Klos, partner in Ted's Auto Body. I would just like to say that we need the extra room in order to do the work on the increased business, and I have to have the cars inside. I've been working on them outside during the summer months but it's kind of hard in the winter. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in behalf? CHET ORLOWSKI: I'm Chet Orlowski, the builder. We tried to arrange the buildings so the building addition is in the rear of the building so it wouldn't take up any sideyard room, it doesn't affect the sideyards at all. I think we've met all building requirements what is supposed to be made on the building. We would like to see that this thing is granted for. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody to speak against the application? Any questions from members of the board? (None) MEMBER GRIGONIS: I'll offer a resolution granting this as applied for. By this appeal, appellants seek permission to construct a 25' by 36' addition to the existing one-story frame and block auto-body repair shop and service station at the rear. Exist- ing on the premises also is a large metal shop building towards the rear of the property. The premises in question is zoned B-1 General Business and has established a use of an auto repair shop. The proposed addition is to accommodate increased auto repair services, and complies with all other zoning rules and regulations of the Town of Southold. Southold Town Board uf Appeals -17- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2931 - Robert and Frank Klos, continued:) The Board finds that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located, or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts; that the safety, health, welfare, comfort, conven- ience and order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; and that the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to app.rove Appeal No. 2931, application of Frank and Robert Klos to construct addition to existing principal building as applied for. Location of Property: 37570 Main Road, Peconic, NY; bounded north by Main Road; east by Konarski; south and west by Horton. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-85-3-6. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) (See next page) Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- February 4, 1982 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2944. Application of Barbara Kujawski, 125 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30A for permission to conduct real estate branch office at premises zoned A-Agricul- tural and Residential, more particularly known as 125 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY; bounded northwest, northeast and east by J. Kujawski & ano.; south by Sound Avenue; east by LILCO. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-120-1-2.2. The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8:25 p.m., read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not going to vote on this application because I am licensed by the State of New York to sell real estate and I have in the past sold real estate in Southold Town. Does anybody have any objection to my chairing the meeting, either attorney or applicant, or-- (There was no objection.) The Chairman proceeded with the hearing as follows: We have an updated survey indicating the position of the house on the property which is approximately 40,241 square feet, which encompasses a large l%-story home and a rear garage. And we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating the surround- ing properties and this particular property. For anybody in the audience, the subject property is approximately 50 feet from the Riverhead Town line in Mattituck on Sound Avenue. Is there any- body that would like to speak in behalf of the application? Yes, Mrs. Kujawski. MRS. BARBARA KUJAWSKI: I think I've pretty well stated it in the application. When you came to inspect the premises, you saw that I did have an office that was separated in the house and closed off to separate it from the rest of the house. I have a separate bathroom. I have a separate entrance. I do have a blacktopped driveway that goes from the back of the house to the garage that probably would adequately park five, six, seven cars depending on how they park. The only problem I could foresee is that in order to gain access, you have to go onto the adjoining piece of property, and if that is a problem which it hasn't been in the past I would be willing to put a driveway from the west on the piece to the west of the house, right into the back of the house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of the application? (None) Does anybody wish to speak against the application? CHRISTOPHER KELLAY, ESQ.: My name is Christopher Kelle~, Esq. from Twomey, Latham and Shae on behalf of Mr. John Kujawski. This is a tough situation for my client. He feels badly he has Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2944 - Barbara Kujawski, continued:) MR. KELLEY continued: to be here. What our main objection to the application is, is that there are joint owners of this property. This is not indicated on the application, but in fact Mr. Kujawski, Mrs. Kujawski's former husband, is a joint owner of the property. And it is our position that this board does not have jurisdiction to hear an application for a use variance without consent of the joint owner of the property. We've laid out our position in writing in a letter I would like to transmit to the board and we have also enclosed a certified copy of the deed indicating joint ownership. (The following letter was entered into the record submitted by Mr. Kelly: ...Dear Chairman Goehringer: On behalf of our client, John Kujawski, Jr., we hereby object to the application of Barbara Kujawski for a use variance for property at 125 Sound Avenue in Mattituck. This is an application for a variance to use a single family dwelling located in a residential and agricultural district for a non-conforming use as a real estate branch office. Our client, Mr. Kujawski, is a co-owner of the subject property as evidenced by deed to the property dated December 21, 1976, a certified copy of which is submitted herewith. As a co-owner he objects to the use variance for this property being granted. Since the time of the purchase of this property by the parties, they have been divorced, and pursuant to their judgment of divorce stipulated to certain uses of the property. Pursuant to that judgment Barbara Kujawski was permitted to use the home for her own real estate office, but was not permitted to rent the space out or use it as a branch office for another real estate firm. This is because pursuant to the agreement John Kujawski, Jr. was required to pay property taxes, utilities and maintenance on the building. It is our position that without the consent of both owners of the property, the Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear an application for a use variance. Reimer v. Dallas, 129 A. 390 (Sup. Ct. NJ 1925). To allow a use variance on this property without the co-owner's consent to the application would be to subject that co-owner to paying the rent and overhead for an Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2944 - Barbara Kujawski, continued:) outside real estate firm, which was not contemplated by the parties in the judgment by which they were divorced. We, therefore, submit to the Board that this application be withdrawn, as being not made by a proper party, and wholly be denied. Sincerely, /s/ Christopher Kelley .... ) (Photocopy of Deed at Liber 8164 cp 283 and 284 were entered into the record showing conveyance on December 21, 1976 to John Kujawski, Jr. and Barbara Kujawski, his wife.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. KELLEY: Since the parties have been divorced, they, pursuant to their divorce judgment, they were in agreement where- by Mr. Kujawski allowed, or it was agreed that Mrs. Kujawski would retain the premises for a period of time, at least until the youngest of their children reached the age of 21. According to that agreement, Mr. Kujawski would pay utilities, real estate taxes and certain maintenance on the house, and it was also agreed that Mrs. Kujawski could operate her own real estate business if she was able to get the proper permits and so on. Unfortunately, that is not what the proposal is tonight, and that is why my client is concerned. He is concerned that there will be a, what in effect will be a real estate tenant, a busi- ness, other than Mrs. Kujawski's, and in effect he will be paying the overhead of that business, which he never agreed to do and which he does not think falls within the purview of the divorce judgment. If this branch office is allowed to open, my client will have to pay the utilities, real estate taxes and so forth, which he doesn't think this ought to be agreed to and which it is our position he did not agree to. Aside from that we also feel that there has been no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship shown here. Mrs. Kujawski could open her own office, and we don't feel it is within the character of the neighborhood to have a commercial property, for instance with signs and traffic and so forth, coming into a real estate office. The effect would be a commercial-office building in an area where there are some busi- nesses uses but they are conforming with the residential-agricul- tural zone use requirements. I think you can understand my client's position. We feel badly that this has to be in front of a zoning board of appeals. It's really a matrimonial matter. It's something that really should be worked out in court, or amicably between the parties is possible which we have also tried to do and has been unable to. This like I say a matrimonial matter, as 8 matter of sgreem~nt Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- February b~, 1982 ( Appeal No. 2944 - Barbara Kujawski, continued:) MR. KELLEY continued: between the parties; but our position is that this board does not have jurisdiction without the consent of the co-owner, Mr. John Kujawski, Jr. Thank you. Mn. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to say anything against this application? (None) Mrs. Ku- jawski, would you like to say anything in rebuttal? MRS. KUJAWSKI: I spoke to my attorney this afternoon, and he said that this should not be brought up snd it is not a zoning board matter. If my ex-husband does not want this which he agreed to, I have it in writing in my pocketbook signed by him, then it should have been brought up before ( ) and I don't know where to go from here. I think maybe an adjournment to get my lawyer here-- I didn't expect this. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would say that there is the possibility of recessing the hearing. I don't know how the board feels about it. I don't know if there is any objection from Mr. Kelley, and I think if that were the case maybe what we will do is deliberate, but let's see what Mr. Kelley says concerning the recessing of t he hearing, sir. MR. KELLEY: We would agree to recessing the hearing. It is our concern that you as members of the zoning board of appeals with zoning expertise will have to pass judgment on the construc- tion of the separation agreement or judgment. We would consent to a recessing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mrs. Kujawski, you had something else to say. We were just discussin~ it. MRS. KUJAWSKI: This matter really doesntt belong in front of the board. All I'm asking for is what I want on the applica- tion. This matter here does not belong before the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do yo~ gentlemen want to deliberate on this, recess, what do you want to do? ~MBER DOUGLASS: I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. (Member Douglass thought that Mrs. Kujaw~ki would have preferred that the hearing be closed inasmuch as per- sonal matters were brought up.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I ask for a second and vote, how important to you feel it is, Mrs. Kujawski, having your attorney here? Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- February ~, 1982 (Appeal No. 291~I - Barbara Kujawski, continued:) MRS. KUJAWSKI: I really am put in between a rock and a hot plate. He has attorney here. What do I know about the laws? I really didn't expect all this nonsense here. MR. CHAIRMAN: You are aware of the fact what happens when we close the hearing? That means no other information c~ come forth. Ok? That's all it really means. MRS. KUJAWSKI: I rather would have my attorney be given a chance to do the things that his attorney is doing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you withdraw your motion? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Let me ask -- do you want, I put a motion on the floor to close the hearing on what we've got and to reserve decision. Now this would stop everything right where it is. Would you rather come back here with an attorney and have two attorneys tearing things apart more, or do you want to -~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't we take a five-minute recess so that you can discuss it with the gentleman you have with you, and then we'll come back, when you're ready come back hopefully by 8:35. First of all, do you want to press the motion or do you want to -- MEMBER DOUGLASS: No, let Mrs. Kujawski tell me what she desires. MRS~ KUJAWSKI: Give me five minutes here just to get my act together here and I'll be right back. MEMBER DOUGLASS: You tell us what you desire because if my motion is passed it will stop it r~ght now. If I withdraw the motion and you recess thi, yo~ ~re going to h~ve two ~ttorneys pounding from both sides, and it'll be ~nything but what you're asking. MRS. KUJAWSKI: I'll be right back. Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grgionis, and duly carried to recess for approximately five minutes. Motion was made by Mr. Goehring~r, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and duly carried to reconvene the hearing of Barbara Kujawski at approximately 8:38 p.m. MR. CHAIRMAN: Serge, was there something that you wanted to say? MEMBER DOYEN: Well, only that as a matter of policy, we have always given the applicants before this board every opportunity to have everything they want to say, legal or otherwise, you know, for Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 29~1~1 - B~rbar~ Kujawski, continued:) MEMBER DOYEN continued: our information so we can hopefully come to a good decision, so before you give us your decision we want you to feel free and know that if you want your lawyer here, we're perfectly willing to recess this for you to bring forth whatever infoz-~mtion you want to add, or in a way that you think it's legal perhaps, or whatever. MRS. KUJAWSKI: I think I am going to take Mr. Doyen's advice snd just put everything on hold, so I can get my lawyer here, because I feel I'm at a disadvantage. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to ask Mr. Douglass to withdraw his motion. MEMBER DOUGLASS: It's withdrawn, if that's what Mrs. Kujaw- ski wants. MEMBER GRIGONIS: I'll offer a resolution to recess this say until the next regular meeting. We don't have an actual date but it will be at least three weeks, won't it? MR. CHAIRMAN: It will either be February 2~th or February 26th. was MRS. KUJAWSKI: Aud hopefully this will all be resolved. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seceded by Mr. Goehringer, it RESOLVED, to recess the hearing of Appeal No. 29;14, appli- cation of Barbara Ku~awski, until the next regular meeting of this board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass and Mr. Grigonis, and duly carried, to approve the minutes of the following meetings: January 14, 1982; December 17, 1981; May 14, 1981; August 21, 1981; August 26, 1981. Motion was made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, and duly carried, to table the following matters pending certain approvals or additional information as noted herewith: Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- February 4, 1982 Appeal No. 2945 - Hubert and Catherine Harren - Pending Planning Board review and comments for this proposed sub- division. Appeal No. 2946 - Peter Kujawski - Pending Planning Board review and comments for this proposed subdivision. Await the following: (a) location of the access road requested for approval in this application, length, width and dis- stances to its closest structures, and (b) certified receipts and affidavit of mailing for adjacent property owners to the east and west, and (c) distances from the existing farm buildings to the proposed line location separating the 10 acres. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, to recess in order to deliberate in "closed session." This resolution was unanimously adopted. Approximately 8:50 p.m. Closed Session Deliberations were held. Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, to reconvene the regular meeting. This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2938. Application of Joseph D. Posillico, Sr., 3605 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-35 for permission to construct fence exceeding four feet in height along the frontyard area at 3605 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Corwin; east by McMahon; south by the bay; west by Private Road, Corwin; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-123-6-12.4. The public hearing concerning this appeal was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was closed pending deliberations. The public hearing concerning this matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was closed pending deliberations. By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct approximately 180 feet in length of six-foot high fenc- ing on the westerly property line abutting the private road. Applicant has stated that he needs the fencing over four feet Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2938 - Joseph D. Posillico, Sr., continued:) high (four feet is permitted by the zoning code) for privacy from vehicles parked on the dead-end road. Applicant has not set forth for the record practical difficulties, nor has the burden of proof for economic injury, effect of variance on the character of the neighborhood, or uniqueness been shown. In viewing the properties in the neighborhood, the board has found that fences that have been constructed are not in excess of four feet high. It is the opinion of the board that the granting of the relief requested would not substantiate justi- fication therefor. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is substantial in relation to the code require- ments; that the circumstances herein are not unique; that by allowing the variance a detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty can be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than a variance; that the relief requested will not be in harmony with or promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will not be served by allowing the variance. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to deny the application of Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. as applied for in Appeal No. 2938. Location of Property: 3605 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Corwin; east by McMahon; south by the bay; west by Private Road, Corwin; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-123-6- 12.4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2940. Application of Richard Mohring, 460 Glen Cove Avenue, Sea Cliff, NJ (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) for a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law Article 16, Section 280A. Location of Property: Right- of-Way off the west side of Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold, NY; bounded north by Carney; east by Lewis; south by the bay; west by Kohut, Graham, Travers, Latham and Lewis. County Tax Map Parcel 1000-66-2-44. The public hearing concerning this matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was closed pending deli- berations. Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2940 - Richard Mohring, continued:) The board made the following findings and determination: By this application, applicants seek approval of access over a private road 15 feet in width located along the south side of Subdivision Lot #3, Map of Beixedon Estates, Southold, and located off the west side of Arshamomaque Avenue. The premises in question is known as Subdivision Lot #6, Map of Beixedon Estates, is approximately 100' in length and an average of 355 feet in depth. Applicant has no alternate viable route to the premises, and the board agrees with the reasoning of applicants. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the code require- ments; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance as applied for. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to grant approval of access as applied for in Appeal No. 2940 and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Such new access road shall have a width of not less than 15 feet and be cleared of all trees, brush and other obstructions to a width of 15 feet. 2. Such new access road shall be improved in either of the following two methods: (a) Surfaced with a minimum depth of four inches of packed three-quarter-inch stone blend so as to afford access for emergency vehicles. Such stone blend may be either applied to the ground surface and shaped, or the surface may be excavated to permit the application of packed blend to a depth of four inches, or (b) Have topsoil removed to a depth of eight inches and then filled with eight inches of a good grade stone and sand bank run. The surface shall then be covered with a layer of two to four inches of three-quarter-inch stone blend, or in the alter- native oiled with a minimum of four-tenths of a gallon of road oil per square yard. 3. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any buildings or structures on the premises to which this access is referred until all of the conditions set forth herein have been complied with. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2 7- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2940 - Richard Mohring, continued:) 4. Where the terrain of the land over which such access road is traversed is such that drainage problems may occur, the applicant and/or owner shall be required to construct such drain- age facilities as may be recommended by the. Town Engineer. 5. That this access road be approved by the Board of Appeals, Town Inspector or Town Engineer, or Town Building Inspector, as to meeting the above requirements. 6. That this access is deemed to include the approval of access to all lots abutting the above-described streets, namely, Arshamomaque Lane (Avenue) and the subject private road. Location of Property: Right-of-way off the west side of Arshamomaque Avenue (Lane), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-66-2-44. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2939. Application of Mignon S. LaMorte, 620 Ely Avenue, Pelham, NY (by John Bertani as agent) for a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law Article 16, Section 280A. Location of Property: Right- of-Way off the west side of Arshamomaque Avenue (Lane), Southold, NY; bounded north by Lieblein; east by Lewis; south by the bay; west by Mohring (formerly Clauser); County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-66-2-45. The public hearing concerning this matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this application, applicant seeks approval of access over a private road 15 feet in width located along the south sides of Lots #3 and part of #2, Map of Beixedon Estates, Southold, and located off the west side of Arshamomaque Avenue. The premises in question is a vacant lot, known as Subdivision Lot #5, Map of Beixedon Estates, is approximately 100' in length and an average of 357.50 feet in depth. Applicant has no alternate viable route to the premises, and the board agrees with the reasoning of applicant. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the code require- ments; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing Southold Town Board o~ Appeals -28- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2939 - Mignon S. LaMorte, continued:) the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance as applied for. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to grant approval of access as applied for in Appeal No. 2939 and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Such new access road shall have a width of not less than 15 feet and be cleared of all trees, brush and other obstructions to a width of 15 feet. 2. Such new access road shall be improved in either of the following two methods: (a) Surfaced with a minimum depth of four inches of packed three-quarter-inch stone blend so as to afford access for emergency vehicles. Such stone blend may be either applied to the ground surface and shaped, or the surface may be excavated to permit the application of packed blend to a depth of four inches, or (b) Have topsoil removed to a depth of eight inches and then filled with eight inches of a good grade stone and sand bank run. The surface shall then be covered with a layer of two to four inches of three-quarter-inch stone blend, or in the alter- native oiled with a minimum of four-tenths of a gallon of road oil per square yard. 3. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any buildings or structures on the premises to which this access is referred until all of the conditions set forth herein have been complied with. 4. Where the terrain of the land over which such access road is traversed is such that drainage problems may occur, the applicant and/or owner shall be required to construct such drain- age facilities as may be recommended by the Town Engineer. 5. That this access road be approved by the Board of Appeals, Town Inspector or Town Engineer, or Town Building Inspector, as to meeting the above requirements. 6. That this access is deemed to include the approval of access to all lots abutting the above-described streets, namely, Arshamomaque Lane (Avenue) and the subject private road. Location of Property: Right-of-way off the west side of Southold Town Board oK Appeals -29- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2939, Mignon S. LaMorte, continued:) Arshamomaque Avenue (Lane), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-66-2-45. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2941. Application of Peter and Mary O'Hanlon, 610 South Ninth Street, New Hyde Park, NY 11040 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec- tion 100-31 for permission to construct new dwelling with insuf- ficient rearyard area at 730 Greenway West, Orient, NY; bounded north by Trezzo; east by Stuke; south by Kmetz; west by Greenway West. County Tax Map Parcel 1000-15-1-20. The public hearing concerning this matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicants seek permission to construct a new private one-family dwelling 50 feet from the road line, 26 feet from the rear property line, and within the require- ments for sideyard setbacks as shown on survey dated October 26, 1981 surveyed by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. The premises in ques- tion is a vacant lot with road frontage of 168.60 feet, an average depth of 123.13 feet, and lot area of 20,765 square feet, slightly more or less~ In viewing the neighborhood, members of the board have found only one house within 300 feet (for average setback), and for which this board granted a variance on 5/27/81 requiring a setback of 50 feet from the road and permitting a variance in the rearyard to 35 feet. The members of the board have reviewed the covenants and res- trictions of the Petty's Bight Association for this subdivision, and find that it requires a setback of 40 feet from the front property line and do not restrict the setback in the rearyard, which is the subject of this variance application, in the declaration of covenants and restrictions. It is the feeling of this board that the rearyard setback requested to 26 feet is most practical and feasible under the circumstances and is within the character of the neighborhood. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the code require- ments; that the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than a variance; that no adverse effects Southold Town Board o~ Appeals -30- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2941 - Peter and Mary O'Hanlon, continued:) will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance as applied for. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to approve as applied for Appeal No. 2941, applica- tion of Peter and Mary O'Hanlon permitting the construction of a new one-family dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback of 26 feet. Location of Property: 730 Greenway West, Orient, NY; Green Acres Subdivision Lot #26; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-15-1-20. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) APPEAL NO. 2928. REQUEST OF PETER S. TERRANOVA DATED JANUARY 18, 1982 FOR A RE-HEARING. The board reviewed and discussed Mr. Terranova's request dated January 18, 1982 and made the following determination: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, not to re-hear, change, modify or alter the decision of this board rendered December 17, 1981 concerning appeal No. 2928, which was find with the Town Clerk on Janu- ary 22, 1982. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) APPEAL NO. 2932. REQUEST OF ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ. for A RE-HEARING ON THE APPLICATION OF JAY P. and M. JOANNE DAVIS- SLOTKIN. The board reviewed and deliberated Mrs. Wickham's request dated January 14, 1982 and made the following determination: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, WHEREAS, the applicants' attorney herein requests recon- sideration by this board in order to present: (a) expert testimony that the property cannot yield a reasonable return as a residence in that location; (b) expert testimony showing the unique nature of the problem; (c) unnecessary hardship; et cetera; Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2932, Request for Re-Hearing, Jay P. Slotkin) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a rehearing be scheduled and advertised in the local and official newspapers of the Town to be held at the next regular meeting of this board, to wit, Friday, February 26, 1982 to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) APPEAL NO. 2886. REQUEST FOR RE-HEARING IN THE MATTER OF NICHOLAS D. YUELYS. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, WHEREAS, on February 2, 1982 the Office of this Board received communications from Francis J. Yakaboski, Esq. Attorney defending the Town in an Article 78 Proceeding, Yuelys v. Zoning Board of Appeals, informing the board of the applicant's intention to reduce the size of the storage shed from 12' by 30' to 8' by 16' and changing the requested setback(s); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a rehearing be scheduled and advertised in the local and official newspapers of the Town to be held at the next regular meeting of this board, to wit, Friday, February 26, 1982 to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) APPEAL NO. 2917 - MATTER OF CONSTANCE MESSINA and James Cross for approval of access. The board reviewed correspondence received January 29, 1982 from Mr. Hindermann, Building and Housing Inspector, concerning the right-of-way in question and notified the board that a few years ago the water level in the pond near the right-of-way rose and covered the right-of-way, making same impassable. The board agreed to reinspect the area of concern and will, if necessary, communicate with the applicants. Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- February 4, 1982 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2927. Upon application of Janet A. Davis (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30A, B, for permission to operate an antique shop in an A-Agricultural and Residential District. Location of Property: Corner of Main Road and Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Scharadin; west by S.R. 25; south by Pequash Avenue; east by Carroza. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102-3-7. The public hearing concerning this appeal was held on Decem- ber 17, 1981, at which time the hearing was closed and decision was reserved pending deliberations. The Board made the following findings and determination: This appeal is for a use variance to permit residentially zoned property to be used as an antique shop. The premises in question are located at the southeast corner of New York Route 25 and Pequash Avenue at Cutchogue, New York, (Suffolk County Tax Map 1000-102-3-7). The property has a frontage of 99.86 feet on New York Route 25 and 153.90 feet on Pequash Avenue, and an area of 16,143 square feet. There is erected on the property a 2½-story wood frame dwelling house with a detached garage. There is a B-1 Business Area on the southwesterly corner of Route 25 and Pequash Avenue for a distance of approximately 200 feet on Route 25 and extending for a depth of approximately 450 feet along Pequash Avenue. The property to the north (across Route 25) east and south is residentially zoned. At the hearing, it was stated that the premises were owned by Helen Madzelan until her death in 1980. The executor of her estate has submitted an affidavit that there is a Contract of Sale to sell the premises to the appellant for $50,000.00, and that the premises were appraised at a value of $39.500 for estate tax purposes; that if used for residential purposes it would derive a monthly rent of $200.00. There was also testimony by a real estate broker that he has listed the property for two years and was unable to sell it for residential purposes. He also testified that, in his opinion, the property could not be used for any purpose other than some type of business use because of its location across Pequash Avenue from busi- ness zoned property and its location on Route 25, one of the main east-west highways in the Town. Before this Board may grant a use variance, on the grounds of unnecessary hardship, the record must show that (1) the land cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the district; (2) that the plight of the owner is due to unique circum- stances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood; and (3) that the use applied for will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The courts hold that one seeking a use variance must demonstrate that no use permitted by the Zoning Code will bring a reasonable return, which must be by "dollars and cents" proof, and that the proof required is not only met by the statement of a real estate broker that the property will not attract a purchaser for a purpose permitted by the code or that in his opinion the land will Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- February 4, 1982 (Appeal No. 2927 - Janet A. Davis, continued:) not yield a reasonable return if used only for conforming uses. The appellant has not sustained the burden of proving lack of reasonable return. As previously stated, the areas to the north, east and south of the subject premises are located in a residential district. Thus, the plight of the appellant is not due to unique circumstances. All of the neighboring properties are subject to the same circumstances. In the Board's opinion, the appellant's remedy is legislative and not administrative. For the above reasons, on motion by Mr. seconded by Mr. RESOLVED, that the variance request is denied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- February 4, 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2949. Application of Barney Monticello. Tennis court on a corner lot. Map of Paradise Point Lot No. 6. CTMP #1000-81-1-12. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the folloWing Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of Barney Monticello: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: 1000-81-1-12. Paradise Point Lot #6, Southold. Vote of the Board: Ayes: MeSsrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Doyen and Grigonis. (Member Sawicki was absent.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- February 4, 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2947. Application of Anastasios and Anna Parianos. Reconstruct and relocate second dwelling as existed prior to des%r~ction by fire, with insufficient yard areas. Peconic Bay Blvd. & Sigsbee Road, Laurel, NY. 1000-126-5-13. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of Anastasios and Anna Parianos: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: Peconic Bay Boulevard and Sigsbee Road, Laurel. 1000-126-5-13. Vote of the Board: Ayes: MeSsrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Doyen and Grigonis. (Member Sawicki was absent.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- Feb£uary 4, 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2950. Application of Mr. and Mrs. James Mullins, for addition to dwelling with reduced frontyard on a corner lot. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of Mr. and Mrs. James MUllins: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a ~ype II Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. The premises in question is distant from the wetlands area and which is barred from the wetlands area from an existing 50' private road. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: Corner of Sunset and West Lanes, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-88-6-6. Vote of the Board: Ayes: MeSsrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Doyen and Grigonis. (Member Sawicki was absent.) Southold Town Board ~f Appeals -37- Feb~ .ary 4, 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2724. Application of CLARA PROUT. Location: 465 Private Road #3 (off Pine Neck Road), Southold. Deck addition to dwelling with insuffi- cient rearyard. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the followinq Negative EnVironmental Declaration concerning the matter of ~lara Prout: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a Type II.Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. Applicant has received a permit from the N.Y.S.D.E.C. authorizing the construction of a 16' by 28' wooden deck onto rear of existing home, leaving a setback of 28 feet from the bay. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: 465 Private Road #3 (off Pine Neck Road), Southold. 1000-70-6-16. Vote of the Board: Ayes: M~ssrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Doyen and Grigonis. (Member Sawicki was absent.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- Fe~£uary 4, 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2948. Application of Dimitrios Pavlidis. One-family dwelling with insufficient rearyard at 790 Hickory Avenue, Southold, NY. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declaration concerning the matter of Dimitrios Pavlidis: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed in this appeal application is hereby classified as a Type II.Action, not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason(s): An Environmental Assessment in the short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be in- volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal application. Location of Property: 1000-54-6-6. 790 Hickory Avenue, Southold, NY; Vote of the Board: Ayes: Me.~srs. Douglass, Goehringer, Doyen and Grigonis. (Member Sawicki was absent. ) Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- February 4, 1982 On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to schedule and advertise in the local and official newspapers the following matters for public hearings to be held at the next regular meeting of this board, to wit, February 26, 1982 at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, as follows: 7:30 p.m. Appeal No. 2724. Clara Prout. Deck addition to dwelling with insufficient rearyard. 465 Private Road #3, Southold. 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 2947. Anastasios and Anna Parianos. Reconstruct and relocate second dwelling as existed prior to destruction by fire with insufficient rearyard. Peconic Bay Boulevard and Sigsbee Road, Laurel. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 2948. Dimitrios Pavlidis. One- family dwelling with insufficient rearyard. 790 Hickory Avenue, Southold. 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 2950. Mr. and Mrs. James Mullins. Addition to dwelling with reduced frontyard off Sunset Lane, Southold. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) Being there was no further business to come before the board at this time, the meeting was declared adjourned. Respectfully submitted, - --Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary , Southold Town Board of Appeals - Chair~ Alme~ ?,EcEIVED AND FILED BY TkE 5OUTiiOLD TO~I~ CL~ L