Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/17/1966 APPEAL BOARD MEMBERS Robert %v,/. Gillispie, Jr., Cheirmen Robert BerBen Charles GreBonis, Jr. Ser~e Doyen, Jr. Fred Hulse, Jr. Southold Town Board o£ Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. Telephone $O 5-~660 MINUTES SOUTHOLD TOWN BOAR~ OF APPEALS November 17,, 1966 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, November 17,, 1966, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie,. Chairman; Robert Bergen. Fred Hulse,~ Jr.,-Serge' Doyen, Jr. Absent: Charles Grigonis, Jr. PUBLIC Pr~-mRING: Appeal No. 987 - 7:30:PjM~,CE.S~T~), Upon application of George Ahlers, Euguenes Road,. Cutchogue, New York, a/c George Graham,3 Nassau'Point Road~ Cutchogue, New York~ for avariance in accordance with the Zoning'Ordinance, Article III, Section 300, Subsection 6, for permission'to erect an accessory byilding ~n ghe front yard area. of property: east~de Nassau Point Road, lot number Point Club Properties. Inc.., Cutchogue, New York. Fee pai~ $5.00 The Chairman opened the hearing byreading the application for a special exception~ legal notice of hea~ilg,, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and ntoice ~ the applicant. SoUthold Town Board of Ap~als -2- November 17~, 1966 T~E CHAIRMAN:-Is there anyone present who wishes to speak in favor of this application? GEORGE~: I'think the application is fairly c~ar. There is no way to put the garage in the back yard as required. The front yard is the only possible solution. THE CHAIRMAN: How far is llt between the bank and where the house sits? GEORGE AHI~RS: I would say twenty five feet' between tie house and the bank. THE CHAIRMAN: The property is pretty well screened on the road side with trees and shrubs. There is an existing accessory building in the front yard. A children's playhouse. This will be at least 100 feet back from the property line. There are many areas in the Town where this has been done. Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak in favor of this application? .(There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this applicati~? ~There was 'no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appellantrequests permission to construct a private detached garage in the front yard area. The Board finds there is only about 25 feet between the main building and the rear line of the property. The Board finds that the proposed garage will be setback at least 100 feet from the front property line. The Board points out that it is impossible to build the garage in the rear yard area,, in view of the fact the main building is so close to the rear property line. The Board finds that this variance will not change the character of the district. There are many homes along the waterfront with garages in the front yard area. The Board finds t~at strict application of the Ordinance will produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same ~se district and the variance does observe the ~i~ito£ e_he Ondinance~ Southold Town Board of'Appeals -3- November 17, 1966 On motion by Mr. Doyen,. se~nded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLV~O that George Ahlers, Eugenes Road, Cutchogue~ New York, a/c George Graham, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, N~ York, be granted permission to erect a private detached garage in the front yard area on property located on the east side of Nassau point Road,. lot number 68 in Nassau Point'Club Properties, Inc., Cutcho~ue, New York, as applied for on the application ~ the Board of Appeals dated October 28,~ 1966. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie~ Mr. Bergen, Mr. Hulse, Mr. Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appea~l No. 988 - 7:40 P.'M.':(E:.~J), Upon application of Ann G. Carl~ executrix of the will of Margaret L. Baumgartner,~ Malla~'Drive, Lloyd Neck, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,. Section 307, f~r permission to reduce side yard area. Location of property: north west corner of Little Peconic Bay Road and Nassau Point Road, lot number 144 in Nassau Point Club Properties,. Inc., Cutchogue~ New York. Fee paid $5.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal n~ice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper.~ and notice to the applicant. THECHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak in fsHor of this application? MR.' KUEHN: Mr. Smith who filed the application, wrote you letter. '(The Chairman read the following letter): "NOVEMBER 9, 1966, Hon, ~obert Gillispie~ Jr., Main Road~ Southold, New York, "Re: Appl'ication of Ann G. Carl for variance "Dear Mr. Gillispie: Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- November 17, 1966 "My firm.represents the applicant on this application because we are the attorneys for Mrs. Carl, as executrix, in the administration of the estate of the owner of the property involved. I appeared as counsel for the applicant because I live in Southold, as you kn~w~ and I am the only lawyer in the office living in that area. "Since-f~ling the application, I have made plans to leave for the West'Coast the first part of next week~and,~ accordingly, I shall be unable to attend the hearing. I have arranged to have Ro~ld L. Kuehn of our office appear in my stead. Mr. Kuehn is entirely.familiar with the case and will be prepared to ~'~cuss it. "I am making this explanation of my failure to ateend the hearing lest my absence seem 'disrespectful to you and the other ~embers of your Board. "Sincerely yours, /s/ Harold L. Smith. THE CHAIRMAN: I nm not exactly familiar with the circumstances thattead up to this. MR. KUEHN: Goingback, first the property was subdivided in September~ 1961, not in 195~ as stated on t~e application. THE CHAIRMAN:The zoning Ordinance was passed in ~'957o (Fir. Kuehn moved that the application be corrected to read "a portion of the one-car garage attached to the main structure on the subject premises is eight feet from the boundary line created in 1961 ......... ") MR. KUEH~: What had happened, Mr. and Mrso Baumgartner purchased this property in 1961. They originally .owned lot 145 and 144. They in 1961 subdivided this by select to Jacobsen, who is the present owner of this property. ~~ Someone did not make them aware of the side yard requirement. THE CHAIRMAN: Real estate agents are rarely over zealous. MR.' KUEHN: tt probably would have gone on forever but Mrs. Baumgartner passed away ahd the house was in the estate. It was picked up that the corner of the garage appeared to be within eight feet of the boundary line and the boundary line requirements is ten feet. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- November 17,11966 THE CHAIRMAN: The house seems to be more or less parralell to the irregular curve on Nassau Point'Road. The lots lines are not at right angle to the road line. MR. KUEHN: The house seems to be set square on the curve of the road. THE CHA~: This is an old house. The lots w~e 50 foot lots? MR. KUEHN: I don't know the size of the lots. I think they were wider than that. THE CHAIRMAN: Each neigb_bor~ the. neighbor to the North and Mrs. Baumgartner~ one half of 100 foot lot approximately, which laybetween them. Then I guess Mrs. Baumgartner sold her one half to the northerlyneighbor. MR. KUEHN: She sold it to the adjoining neighbor. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone presentwhowishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appellant request permisstion set off'a_ of property. There is an existing dwelling on the lot in ¢ Said dwelling is erected only eight feet from the property, line. The applicant requires a reduction in the side yard requirement. The Board finds that this is a topographical error and has happened before in the NassaUPoint area which is a filed map area. The Board further finds that many of the lot lines are not at right angle to the road line. The Board points out that this variance restores the lot lines as they were on the original surveymap that was adopted by the Town Board when passing the Zoning Ordinance. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- Novembe~ 17~ 1966 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinityc~ this property and in the same use district; and the variance does observe the spiritof the Ordinance. On motion by Gillispie, seconded by Mro Hulse, it was RESOLVED that Ann G. Carl, executrix of the will of Margaret-L. Baumgartner~ Mallard Drive, Lloyd Neck, New York be granted permission to reduce side yard area requirement on property located on the north west corner of'Little Peconic BayRoad and Nassau Point'Road, lot number 144 in Nassau Point-Club'Properties, Inc.~ Cutchogue~ New York~ as applied for on the application to the Board of Appeals, application dated November 1, 19665 and as shown on the survey by'Otto Van Tuyl and Son~. map dated October 17, 1966. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie~ Mr. Bergen,. Mr. Hulse~ Mr. Doyen. PUBLIC P~%RING: Appeal No. 989 - 8:00 PjM~[.E,-S~T,), Upon application ofJohn A.-Clarke~ a/c Harbor~Cove,~ Inc., Vanston Road, Nassau Point, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance~ Article III~ Section 304, for permission to reduce front yard setback. Location of the property: south side-Sailors Lane, Nassau Point, Cutchogue~ New York~ buun~ed north by Sailors Lane, east by Harbor~Cove~ Inc., so~th by~Wunneweta Pond, west by Harbor Cove,Inc. Fee paid $5.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the' ap~iication applicant. ~ CHAIRMAN: IS~here anyone present-whowishes to speak in fa~ of this application? Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- November 17, 1966 WILLIAM WICKHAM, ESQ.: Gentlemen, I would like to say a word. This house or the foundation was not, obviously, put in by any engineer or surveyor. It had two basis.-One was the contour. Actually it was jockeyed into position. ~he builder and the owner wanted to take advantage of the contour and get the house in this particular location. You will also note%hat it has somewhat of an a~gle. That was to take advantage view overlooking the pand and .continuing out to Peconic Bay. is real%~ quite spectacular. They have ample area from~Sai!~Os Lane to thehouse. It is over some 40 feet. It is only t~is ar~ that falls short by two feet. We can't see where any harm is being done as far as the development is-concerned. Youare familiar with this because I was down here and got access on Sailors Lane. The house to be built' to the North can'tbe harmed because there is a distance of 40 feet. People North of the circle will be over 100 feet, and of course on each side the owaer intends to build. If they don't build, they can controll the location by the covenants that affect the property. One of the covenahts is that they aptxove the location. It has been bought out in the petition the circle could be changed. There has been some difficulty in the construction of the turnaround. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak in favor of this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure the only people that would be harmed by granting this variance would be this Board. It's a minor defect-as ~ou point out. The circle was sufficient from Point to point. You probably could getthe Other two feet, but this 100 foot turnaround is a Town requirement. WTT.LIA~TI(KHA~, ESQ.': There has been no decision made on dedication. When there are 50%cf lotuowners the road here and the right of way-will be turned over to the association. They can dedicate the roads if they wish to. THE CHAIRMAN: Would it be too much trouble tc ~hange the turnaround. Wt?~IAMWIC~, ESQ.': We would have to shift the whole circle. Eac~w~uld be changed. Southold own Board of Appeals -8- November 17~ 1966 THE CHAIRMAN: This is a self imposed hardsb3p. Once we grant.one of these, there is no reason why any one else in the whole area couldn't apply for this. There is no paving laid. There wouldn't be too much expense to comply with the requirements. Was the circle there before the house. WILLIAM WICKAH~, ESQ.~: The whole map was laid out before the house was constructed. THE CHA~: In the previous case, the house was constructed b~fo~ the Zoning Ordinance. It was a situation that existed prior to zoning. This situation just came up in the last year. WILLIAMWICKHAM,-ESQ.: The house was erected eight feet from the property line. MR.' BERGEN: The house vas erected before they bought the other lot. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? ~(There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant request permissionto reduce the front yard setback bytwo feet. The house in question is located on a 100 foot turnaround. The house is sufficient distance from the road on the s~hight line of the road~ however it is only 33 feet from the a~c on the turnaround. The Board finds that this is a self imposed hardship~ as the house was located toe close to the turnaround circle when construction was started. The Board finds that the turn around could be adjusted so that the house in question can meet-the requirement of having a 35 foot front yard area. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will not produce practical ~ifficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is not unique and would be shared by all properties alike in the immed~-~ate.vicinity of thisdistrictand in the same use district; and the variance does not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- November 17, 1966 On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED John A. Clarke, a/cHarbor'Cove, Inc.,. Vanston Road, Nassau Point, Cutchogue, New York~ be denied permission to reduce the front yard setback on property located on the south side of SailorsLane, Nassau Point, Cutchogue, New York, as applied for on the application to the Board of'Appeals, application dated November 1, 1966; and as shown on the survey map by Otto Van Tuyl & Son, map dated June 3, 1966, revised October 18, 1966. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, Mr, Bergen,'~r~ Hulse, Mr. Doyen. PUBLIC HE~ARING: Appeal No. 990 - 8:15 P.M.~.S.T.), Upon application of Stanley'Corwin, Esq., 114 Main Street, Greenport, New York, a/c John M. Rodden and Wife and Robert'Zimmerman and Wife, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Section 1007~ Subsection ~)~ for permission to change the classification ora non-conforming multiple resi4ence. Location of property: south side Main Road, Orient, New York, bounded north by Main Road, east by Frank J. Miller, south by H.M. Demarest & Snns, west by Private Road. Fee paid $5.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a special exception, legal notice of'hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and notice to the applicant. T~E CHAIRMAN: In our Zoning Ordinance there is no specific criteria set up determining which use is higher or lower, or if you want to use the word restrictive orless restrictive than any other use. The reason, I understand, this application is here, is for this Board to determine, and one of the functions of this Board is to interpret the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. As I reCall, all the Zoning Ordinance says about this thing is whether a use is higher or lower or the same. It doesn't tell you~how to tell whether a use is higher or lower. In the past we have been guided bywhat little we know ourselves, and the New York State Law which is very restrictive on any multiple residence, which the building inspector is pretty familiarwith. As I understand our Zoning Ordinance, if this was changed to a similar non-conforming use there would be no need to come in here. They would just get a certificate of occupancy. Who is to determine what is an exactly similar use unless it is this Bomrd a~d that is why we are here. $outhold Town Board of Appeals -10- November 17, 1966 THE CHAIRMAN: At this time is there anyone present_who wishes to speak in favor of this application? STANLEY-CORWIN~ ESQ.: Mr. Chairman, I subscribe in general to the substance of your remarks. I think you have explained as adequately and completely as anyone can the reason why we are here tonight. We have a situation where we are making a change only in a sense. I think tlkis Board can act administratively in this matter if they will search out the people who are here tonight and who can supply the answers as to the use that is to be made of the premises, and to compare it with the use that is presently being made and for which it is registered as a non-conforming use. And there are people here who are the prospective purchasers of this property.under an existing contract of sale. They can, I am sure, satisfy you with respect to what is intended to be done here. I would 1~= to call your attention that under the provisions of 801 C (c), you have right in authorizing the change in this type of permissive use to impose such conditions and safeguards that may be deemed appropriate or necessary. As far as any reasonable such conditions, we would have no objection to. Let me suggest.preliminarily to you, we don't have anythought to go through for the record the determinations that you have to make under sub-paragraph la with respect to adjacent property. I would like to assume we can regard these as capable of ali being answered in the proper way. However, if yeu~have any questions, whether or not the proposed use willaffect anyone of these determin- ations, you are required to make, such as the health, welfare, comfort,and convenience and order ofthe Town may be adversely affected, We would be glad to give you our views on these questions. We think too, with respect to sub-paragraph B, where you-are required to take into consideration some 12 different aspects, all of these can be answered in a way that would make it possible to grant this application without any restrictions or conditions at all. The Board recognizes, and we recognize, once you grant this type of application it runs with the land and that the owners have nothing to do with it. At least as far as the fomseeable future is concerned we~have the people who are the prospective buyers. With respect to what happens-beyond their use, I can only suggest to you if the proposed use is permitted that it is of such. a nature and great degree of public interest that the requirements of'the New York State Department of Health and other administrative and.executive bodies, would almost mean that the operation conducted-will not be detrimental to the Town of Southold. With these prepatoryremarks, I would like to introduce to you Mr. Rodden, bits. Zimmerman, Mrs. Rodden, then Mr.~ Zimmerman on the end, who are the buyers of the p~operty, and who are familiar with the type of operation to be conducted. Mr. Rodden will be the spokesman for the group. Southold ~own Board of Appeals -11- November 17~ 1966 THE CHAIRMAN: I think before I ask to hear from Mr. Rodden, I would like to ask the Building Inspector, who is in charge of enforceing the New 'York~State Law, whether or not in his opinion the proposed modifications, whether or not the result will conform with the New York State Law. HOWARD TERRY, Building Inspector: Yes. They will have to comply or they will not ~et a certificate of~occupancy. I have $~ given them a letter on what has to be done. So far, everything is pretty well understood. STA~IELY'~CORWIN, ESQ-.: That's only the beginning of'our troubles too. In this respect we are dealing with the enforcing officier of the Multiple Residence Lawi and this has to do with s~fety matters and thingslike that. In addition to that we also have other administrative bodies.to impose other hardships upon use. We are willing to meet them all. THE CHAIRMAN: Other administrative bodies. What others? MR. RODDEN: The New York~State Department of Social Welfare. The regional office is located in New York. We had occassion before we went into this situatiun to make application to the New York'State Regional Office. We had an inspector representing the regional director Out to theOyster Pond Inn. This regional inspector went through the home, inspected it very carefully, and told us that we would need complete compliance with whatever their directions were. Also we had to comply with the directions of the Town of Southold. THE CHAIRb~N: What about the County Board of ~Health? Do you get involved with them too? MR. RODDEN: Yes, we are indirectly involved With them. We have to have our cesspools and water supply checked out very throughly. Whatever we have been directed to comply with, and in order to make changes and in order to comply with State and local authorities, as Mr. Corwin state~ we are completely.willing to along with it. All of Mr. Terry s requirements will be compli~ with in a short period of time.. In order for the State to authorize us to go along with our changes we must first have a certificate of occupancy from his office. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you had experience in operating a rest home. MRS' RODDEN: Yes. Mrs. Rodden and I are presently partnsrs in a Nursing Home. Mrs. Zimmerman and Mrs. Rodden are involved in a rest home. I have also an association with a rest 'home. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- November 17, 1966 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you propose to concentrate your efforts in this area? M~. RODDEN: Mrs. Zimmerman and Mrs. Rodden will be functioning down here. THE CHALRMAN: Mrs. Zimmerman and Mrs. Rodden? MR. RODDEN: Yes. MR. HULSE: What will youFcapacity be? MR. RODDEN: Seventeen guest. There are no patients. Under no circumstance ~o we offer any services to the guest-other than custodial care, room and board. Under no circumstance are we permitted.by t~e New York~StateDepartment of Social Welfare Law to have any person in ourlhome who is considered, or would be considered a patient. These people who occup~l~ the home have full facilities of thinking and capability of functioning as individuals. The~-~ only thing is they are elderly. THE CHAIRNAN: What is meant by custodial care? MR. ROI)DEN: The way the New York-State Social Welfare de'scribes a rest home type of case, or a person who is to be offered custodial care~ is a person who needs guidance in bathing facilities, propercontroll of diet. We make sure they eat three mealsa' day. They'have room and board. THE CHAIRMAN: Are they required to do any chores? MR.' RODDEN: No. They.have a min~assistance in dressing, and attendance during the night hou~s~, and observation of their personal welfare. They have all authority by law to go and come as they please. THE CHA~: There are no restrictions on personal movement? MR.' RODDEN: No, sir, none at all~ Guest at our other homes go to town, go out to the movies by themselves. They can attend any function they wish to attend w~hout-us~aving any authority to controll them. However, we do one thing. We request-our guests that they inform us where they will go. We are responsible to our law, ourselves and to the people. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- November 17, 1966 STANLEY CORWIN, ESQ.: It was that aspect 'of this application Fir. Chairman, and Gentlemen, that prompted me to say during my preliminary remarks, so far as interpretation of reclassification is concerned it is more a matter of substance because essentially the operation is one that could be conduc%ed if the property were to be sold and the classification continued as it is, without getting into the problem of which is higher or lower. Bear this in mind, that if the present owner sold the property to me and I just conducted anouther tourist home, it would still be permitted under your Ordinance, but this thing is obviously going to be % higher byreasons which FAr. Rodden has indicated. MRS. MII~ER: We own the property to the east. I would like to know if the prospective buyers are aware that there are three lively, healthly, Normal, noisey childre~ next door and justhow much this will affect the~ rest home. MR. RODDEN: We have had other homes where there has been a whole street full of children. A group of children built a treeehouse about 40 feet from our present home. I guest you can imagine how eigh~ or nine children during the course of a summer day can be active and loud. This does not bother our guests. May'I say one thing Mrs. Miller. Too many people think elderly people should be put in a c~ssification of untouchables. This is wrong. MRS. MILLER: You imply that the people need rest. MR. RODDEN: We use the word guest. We h~e no patients. These people are just as happ~r~' alive, and functioning as you and I may be. There are no restrictions on children. The people love the children. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions from members of the Board? (There was no response.) $outhold Town Board cf Appeals -14- November 17, 1966 (MR. Ernest Radford submitted the following letter to the Board: Letter was read later in hearing.) THE CHAIRMAN: Do any of your guest have their own automobiles ? MR. RODDEN: Ail of the patients in the nursing home and guest in the rest home, none of themc~n vehicles. THE CHAIRMAN: How do they go to the Village. MR. RODDEN: We will bring them to town. We must provide for services to all denomination of churches, we must provide visits to the village. NMe must provide visitations to any place they.wish to go to ~w~ if they have no family or relation to bring them. We are committed to bring them to that area. THE CPL~IRMAN: How many vehicles do you require for this chore~ MR. RODDEN: I have a little bus. We find that no more than four people at any time requiring to be going out all at one time. We have the means to take them out. THECHAIRMAN:' Is this identified with local hospital or medicare? MR. RODDEN: No it is not. THE CHAIRMAN: It doesn't involve the welfare depazl~m~t? MR. RODDEN: It is possible that welfare would be involved. Relative to medicare or medicade there is no assoc~tion between that and our type of business. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you talked to any of the local doctors that might be available? MR. RODDEN: We can't do that yet. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? (There was no response. ) Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- November 17, 1966 The Chairman read the following letter: "November 16, 1966, SoutholdTown Zoning Board, Southold, New York. "Gentlemen; "Please be advised that we the undersigned, all residents in the immediate vicinity of the Oysterponds Inn, have no objections whatsoever to the establishing of a Rest Home in said building. "In our opinion a ~est Home would be far superior to merely'a change of management at the Inn. "While Mr. and Mrs. Blauvelt maintained a very dignified business which was an asset to the community, we might not be so fortunate a second time. "Aside from this apprehension on Qur part, there is a dire need of a Rest Home in this vicinity as you well know. A ~est Home would afford the people of the surrounding area a very essential service especial~ since the North Road Rest Home closed its doors some time ago. The patients had to be transferred to Shel~r Island and points far west. "Thanking you for your indulgence. "Very truly yours, /s/ Mr. & Mrs. Edgar A. Brown; /s/ Florence M. Keogh; /s/ bit. & Mrs. John S. Gilbert; /s/Mr. & Mrs. John M. Appelt; /s/Mr. & Mrs. Henry P__. Meyer." After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the appellant requests permission to change the classification of a non-conforming multiple residence. The Board finds that the premises in question are presently known as the Oys~erponds Inn, a non-conforming tourist home use in a residential district; a use which existed prior to the passage of the Zoning Ordinance in 1957. The proposed new use of the premises is for an adult rest home. ~ne building in question contains twelve rooms~ two halls, pantry, four bathrooms~ two lavatories~ attic andfull cellar , with a detached garage, all on a plot comprising about one acre. The Board determines that such a use of the premises is considerably more restrictive under State Law than the operation of a Tourist Home~ and that the new use must conform to the New York State Multiple Residence Law and comes withing the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Social Welfare. The Board determines Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- November 17, 19~$ further that the proposed use of the premises for an adult rest home is Of the same or higher classification compared to the present use as a tourist home. Those who are guest at this adult rest home will require only custodial care, no patient~care. There is no restriction of personal freedom. Necessary transportation will be furnished by the management or relatives and friends of the guests. The Board finds that there will be no infringement of the twelve clauses noted under Article VIII, Section 801 C la, and foresees no need for restrictions or safeguards in connection therewith. The Board is of the opinion that the proposed use will provide a much needed facility for the Town of Southold. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and justice will be served and the legally established or permitted .use of neighborhood property and adjoining use districts will not be permanently or substantially injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that Stanley'Corwin, Esq.~ 114 Main Street, Greenport New York, a/c John M. Rodden and Wife, and Robert Zimmerman and Wife, be granted permission to change the classification of a non-conforming multiple residence on property located on south side Main Road, Or,t, New York, as applied for on the application to the Board of Appeals, appl-ication dated November 3, 1966. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Bergen, Mr. Hulse,' Mr. Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 991 - 8:30 P.M.~.~.S.T.), Upon application of Walter Uhl, a/c Henry J. Schuler~ Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance~ Article III, Section 307, for permission to reduce the side yard area. Location of property: south side Peconic Bay B~vd., Laurel, New York, bounded north by Peconic Bay Blvd., east by'D.J~ Stack, southby Great-Peconic Bay, west by M.B. Pellmann. Fee ~id $5.00. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- November 17~ 1966' The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? LEFFERTS P.' EDSON, ESQ.: I would like to speak for it. You have this situation in other areas of Southold Town where there are long narrow lots on the water. You have the same thing in Indian Neck in Pe~ic. He had seventy feet on a parrall~l basis but-no on a right angle basis. The~ is just not ~ enough room unless this application is granted. We respectfully request your consideration. THE CHALRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds t~at the appellant request Permission to reduce the side yard ~equirement on a lot with seventy foot frontage on the road. On a right angle basis the lot only has 65 foot frontage. ~5%e Board finds that the lot has a total area of over 22~000 square feet, which is well over the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordin~e. The lot in question is a long narrow lot that pre-existed the Zoning Ordinance. The Board points out that a reduction in side yard would be granted by the building irspector if the lot was undersized, and in the Board,s opininn there is no reason to denythis application because the lot is Qversized. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordi~nce will produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this p~operty and in the same use district; and the variance does observe the spirit of the Ordinance and will not change the character of the district. $outhold Town-Board of Appeals -18- November 17, 1966 On motion by'Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that Walter Uhl, a/c HenryJ. ~chuler, Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel, New York, be granted permission to reduce the side yard area on property located on the south side PeconicBay Blvd. Laurel, New York, as applied for inthe applicatie~to the Board of Appeals, application dated November 3, 1966. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Bergen, Mr. HUl.se~ M~. Doyen. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the minutes of the Southold Town Board of Appeals dated November 3, 1966, be approved as submitted. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Bergen, Mr. Hulse, Mr.~ Doyen. On motion by Mr. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it- was RESOLVED that the iminutes of the Southold Town Board of Appeals dated November 10, 1966, be approved as submitted. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, M~. Bergen, Mr. Hulse, Mr. Doyen. on motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set' 7:30 P.M., (E.S.T.), Thur. sday,~r~z Dec~a%ber 1, 1966, at the Town Office, MainRoadt Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing uponapplication of John Haponi¢~ a/c Irlad RafuSe,-Arshamomaque, Avenue, Southold~ New .York, for a variance in accordance with the' Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 300, Subsection 6, for permission to construct an accessory'building in the front yard area. Location~ of property: east side Arshamomaque Avenue, lot number 11, Beixedon Estates~ 8outhold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Bergen, Mr. Hulse, Mr. Doyen, Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- November 17, 1966 On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 7:45 P.M., !(E.S.T.)Thursday, December 1, 1966, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold~ New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of William M. Beebe, New Suffolk Lane, Cutchogue, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Section 408, Subsection A, as Section 1002 applies~ for permissbn to retain an on premises identification ground'sign. Location of property: east aide New Suffolk'Lane, Cutchogue, New York, bounded north by Walter Teresko, east byWa~ter Teresko, south by Beebe, west by New Suffolk Lane. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Bergen, Mr. Hulse, Fir. Doyen. The next regular meeting of the Southold Town 9~ Board of Appeals will be held at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, December 1, 1966, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Barbara C. nittmann, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals