HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/15/1966Southold Town oard App is
~OUTHDLD, L. I., N.
Telephone SO 5 9660
APPEAL BOARD
MEMBERS
Robert W. GilJispie, Jr., Chairman
Robert Bergen
Charles Gregonis, Jr.
Serge Doyen, Jr.
Fred Hulse, Jr.
MINUTES
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF' APPEALS
September 15,1966
A regularmeeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals
was held at::'~30 Po'M~'!.(E.'D, SoT), Thursday, September 15, 1966,
at th.eTown Office., Main Road,-Southold, New York.
There were present: Messrs: Robert'W. Gillispie, Jr.,
Chairman; Robert Bergen, Fred Hulse, Jr., Charles Grigonis,Jr.
Absent: M_r~ Serge Doyen.
The Board reopers~ the uhearing onAppeal No. 945, upon
application of~John. C. Courtenay~ 133'Central Avenue, greenport,
New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 303, f0~ permission to divide property
with insufficient frontage. Location of property: east side
Carroll Avenue,'~econic, New York, bounded north by Joseph
Booker, east by.W. Buckingham, est., south by W. Buckingham
Eatate, west by Carroll. Avenue.
The Board~view~the minutes or,September 1, 1966, as they
concerned Appeal no 945.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-2-
September 15, 1966
~ECHAI~9~%R= On September 1, 1966, the first hearing held
was John~Courtenay, appealing from a ~ecision of the Buil~g
Inspector, Appeal number 945. The decision was postponed until
7530 PoM~ tonight so that the appellant could obtain a sur~ey
of the property in question.
The su=vey in,cares that there is 151½ feet onCarroll
Avenue. The northerly dimension of the present lot is 283.6
feet, the southerly d~esion is 261.47 feet. At the rearof
the lot it is 138.75 feet. He proposed to divide this into
two 75 3/4 foot lots. Both of the lots created will be
larger th~n the minhaum required by theZoningOrdinance, by
30 Or 40~. The total area to be divided is 37,000 or 38,000
square feet. The purpose of getting this survey was to
clarify for the people who live onthis street any information
that~wasn't available at the first hearing.
On the northerly side the distance, fromthe side yard is
16% feet. The minhaum requirement is 10 feet. The southerly
d~stance is ~ feet f=o~ the porch to the proposed ~ivision.
The ~riv~ay that was referred to is on the southerly side of
the northerly lot. Ithas a clearance offive feet, plus or
minus, which is plentyas far as zoning is concerned.
There is no variance on any portion ofthis property,
except f~.the 100 foot~requirementon the road. The owner
has enough area here for two lots.
How about the road frontage?
T~~= The. requirement is 100 feet. He has 75 feet
road fuconta~e f~r each lot.
MP. B~BR: If the zoning is for 100 feet of r~ad frontage
h~ can you grant this?
~o B~N= That is Why he is here before this Board. He
~ee~s a varia~ce.
~r. Booker viewed the survey which Mr. Courte~.
submitted
to the Board of' Appeals.) ~"'~ ~
~So BOOKERs The front lot will be 75 feet from north to
south ?
THE' CB~IRNAN~ He has two 75 f~ frontages on Carroll Avenue
Southold to~n Bo~.~d ot~.'Appeals -3-
Sept~m~her 15, ~1966
thought you had to have 100 foot frontage?
T~E'.C~H~N~N: That is why we have this Board. There are
many cases where a variance has to be made to the Ordinance~,'
MRS. BOOKER~ How long has zoning been in effect?
T~ ~~ Since. 1957. ~
MR. BO~KER:~ I~n't people r~ize when they sell that they
are going to get into something like this?
own the land.
MR. IMM~R: Mr. Day has contracted to buy 100 feet of this
land subject to this Board's approval.
THE-~: Is Mr. Day present?
MR, I)AY: Yes.
~Mr. Bay presented to the Board a copyof a contract
for the PUrchase of 100 feet raod frontage of;th® property
in question,~.
THR'~:' Mr. ¢ourtenaY, ~ you can explain this
contract ?
MR. CO~JRTEH~Y~ This contractcalls for 100 footfrontage and
150 f~ct~depth. This man asked me if I would sell him the rest
of the-property, the fifty one foot~'frontage. That fifty one
foot'frontage .ran 150 feet, ~, and there was a ba~k
lot 110 feet'by 140 feet. So this man was about to buy this
other propert~.,-X drew up a sketch showia~'the property, and
X showed it ~ ~ ~tract calls for 100 feet frontage and
150 feet ~,, ~d X showe~the divi~i~on the way it is on this
survey. X sp~ke to hhn about it to see ii thegwOUld release
me. They'said they would think about it. I went ba~k to see
them and they-said it was alright to s~l ~he rest of the lot.
T~'~: Mr. Day, did you agree to release Mr.,~ Courtenay
from the contract?
When did 'you contract to PUrdase the property?
Southold To~n Board of Appeals -4-
September 15, 1966
NR~ Ih~¥: In 1963
T~E~~t As I understand it, Mr. Day and his wife,
agreed to buy, on February 8, 1963, 100 feet by 153 feet on
'Carroll Avenue, leaving property in the rear. ~hat you are
asking £or here, Mr., Courtenay, is the wrong thing. At the t/me
you agreed to sell tlgs property ~u should have obtained a
pekmit to~ sell ~property and leave p~operty that is less than
the minhaum required.
MR. COURTENAY~ The lawyer didn't tell me that.
~Cltl~IRN~N~ What~ you should be applying for is not the
division..shewn in this su~¥ey, but the division you set' up when
you sold Mr. Day the 100 feet by 153' and left 51 feet. You can
leave 5~-feet, but no~,ione could build on it. I think y~u people
should get together again and start all over. There is no use
of us hearing this in thelight of this information.
The hearing on appeal no. 945 was closed. No action was
taken. ~a the case.
' PUBLIC~LRING'- Appeal No. 950 - 7~50 P.N~i~oD.'S*T.)e UpOn
application of: Donald H. Casef a/c' Aliccw. and Henry'R... Caee,
for~c~t~n of access in accordance with ~be state of New
Yor~' Town Law, Section 280A. Location of property: south side
of;Cedars Road and west side of Hew SuffOlk' Road, Cutahogue, Hew
York~ boanded north by' Cedars Road, east by ~roperty of applt~nt~
soath by property of applicant, west by property of applicant-
. petexson~ Fee paid $5.00.
The Cha/xamn opened the hearing by rea~tng the appld~ation
for;~an apda1 of/access, legal notice of he~ring~, aff~davit
attesting to its pablication in the official newspaper, .and
not/~e to the appli~ant. -
-MR~ BE~&~Nt Mr.. Cron~ Have you been o~ this road?
~ILICK ~~-. I haven't been on it. There are a couple
of: corre=tie~s / would like to make forthe record~ Ntm~er one
happems q:o be a' typ~graphical error. It rea~- all other parcels
in this tract have been sold and have frontage on public roads.
It' shothl, d L"~cI~ /~ast be sold. N,,m¥~er ~0~ 'r was informed
subsequent to 'this application that one of the cottages has
been burned ~. The one that is up is the one that' is for
sale.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5-
September 15, 1966
RICHARD CRON, ESQ.': They ~ave been using this lot to get to
and from these cottages for sometime. I am not familiar with
the physical nature of the road.
MR.'HULSE: I was there Tuesday and I couldn®t find a road.
MR. BERGEN: There are three cottages there now.
RICHARD C~ON,ESQ.: I~ was told that one was burned.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think we could grant approval of access
on this ~subject-to the approval of the building imspector or
town engineer.
Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this
application?
(There was no response.)
After investigation and inspection~e Board finds that
the appellant request approval of access on a thirty (3~ foot
right of'way. Th~s' r~ght' of way'runs approximately· 3~ feet
north and south on the property of the appellant. This right
of way is the only means of aCcess to the'existing cottages
on the applicant's property. This right of way will be
accessible to all emergency~equipment after it is improved
and meets the requirements of the Building Inspector ~the
Town.ofSouthold.
The Board finds that strictC~~_ application of the Ordinance
will produce practical difficulties or 'unnecessary hardship;
the.hardship created is unique and wuUld not be shared by all
properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property
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.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that'Donald H. Case, a/c Alice W. and Henry E. Case,
be granted recognition of access on property located on the south
side of Cedars Road and west side of New Suffolk Road~ Cutchogue,
New York. This recognition ofaccess is grafted subject to the
f~nal approv~al of the Southold Town Building Inspector.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: _Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Bergen,
Mr. Hulse, Mr. Grigonis.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6-
September 15~ 1966
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 951 - 8:10 P.M.'~.D.S.T.), Upon
application of'Arnold Golz, Mat~ituck, New York, for recognition
of access in accordance with the State of New York Town Law,
Section 280A. Location of property: private right ofway off the
west side of Naugles Drive, Mattituck, New York, bounded north
by L. Monro, east by Pawlo Klymk0, s~uth by Jos. Leogrande, west
by Irma Vignes.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading t~application
for approval of access, legal notice of hearing, affidavit
attesting to~ publication in the official newspaper, and
notice to the appellant.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
favor of this application?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone presentwho wishes to speak
against this application? ~
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Board has inspected the right of way. Mr.
Bergen will give a report on it.
MR. BERGEN: We inspected the right of way. It is 20 feet
wide,: clear and has a good hard surface. It is okay.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions?
(There was no response.)
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that
the aPPellant'request approval of access on a private right
of way that is 20 feet wide. The Board finds that this right
of way is clear of brush, etc., and has a good hard surface.
This right of way is the only means of access to a proposed
new ~we~ling to be bullion this right of way. The Board
finds that the right of way will be accessible to all emergency
equipment.
The Board finds that 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 vicinityof this property and
in the same use district; and the variance does observe the
spirit of the Ordinance and will not change the character of the
Southold Town Board of-Appeals -7-
September 15, 1966
On motion by M_r. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Hulse~ it was
RESOLVED that-Arnold Golz, Mattituck, New York, be granted
recognition of access on property located on the west sideof
Naugles Drive, Mattituck, New York,
Vote of the Board:-Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Bergen,
Mr. Hulse, Mr. Grigonis.
PUBLIC HEAR//~G: Appeal No. 952 - 8:20' P.M.(E~D.S.T.), Upon
application ofArch Davi=., Southold, New York, for recognition
of access in_accordance with the State-of New York~Town Law,
Section ~280A. Locationof property: north side Main Road, Orient,
New York, bounded north by land of Berry,. east by land of
~Demarest, .south byMain Road, west by land of Berry-Ruth Young.
Fee paid $5.00.
The Chairman .opened the hearing by reading ~e application
for recognition of access, legal notice of hearing, affidavit
attesting.~its publication in the official newspaper, and notice
to the appellant.
THE3CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone ~resentwho wishes to speak
in favor of this application?
WILLIAM WICKHAM, ESQ.: I would like to make a few rmmarks.
In addition to the problem we have in disposing of the property,
there is the question whether or not the building inspector would
issue a permit even if the parcel is still on the same ownership.
The right of way l~ds from one ~arcel to the other. It would
be our _~ntention to continue this right of way ~ down along
the easterly portion of the Main Road parcel. There~is a building
there that is designated as a garage~ and t~at will be removed.
THE CHA/RMAN: Have any efforts been made to widen this
right of way?
WTT~IAMWICKHAM,E~.: We spent quite alot oftime on that.
There were a number of attempts, all negative. .We even went~so
far as to prepare an agreement extending the right-of way. There
was an attempt to purcahse property fromM rs. Young. It was
impossible. We are now disgusted.
THE CHAIRMAN: Was Mrs. Young acting for herself at that
time?
Southold ToWn Board of'Appeals -8-
September 15, 1-966
WILLIAM WICKHAM, EE~.': We had to go to a member~ of the
family.
THE C~: I understand from Louis Demarest, he deals
with a woman in Huntington. He rents part of the Ruth Young
farm~land.
WII~IAMWICEPLAM,EEQ.: I would question getting anything
recordable at'this time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is this right of way in the deed?
WII~.IAMWICKHAM,ESQ.: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to see you try to make aaother
deal.
WILLIAMWICKHAM,ESQ.~: I don't~know how we could.
MR.' LARSEN: I am in favor of this being granted. Two
y~ars ago I tried to sell a piece of ~irs. Xoung's property$
with permission ofher attorneyj That property-has never
be~n sold and it is impressible to do business with these people.
I also have people interested in this parcel and they will
not buy-without this right ~of way and without permission to
build a house.
WILLIAM WICKHAM~ESQ.: I talked at one time withM~. Tasker's
secretary. I believe she is a daughter-in-law. She said she
would speak to her husband about it, but she said it was hopeless.
MR, BERGEN: Does this right of way adjoin the Demarest
property?
WTW.LIAM WICKHAM,EEQ.: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: The right of way would have to be improved.
It would need bankrun, sand and g~avel. We. have never approved
one as narrow as this. Could a fire truck get through a 10
foot right o~ way~
MR. GRI(DNIS: Yes.
THE C~: Are there any other questions?
(There_was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this appli~atig~?~There was no response.)
Southold~Town Board of Appeals -9-
September 15, 1966
After inwestigation and inspection~e Board finds that
the appellant request permission 'for approval of accessaon
a ten (10) foot right of way. This right of way starts on
the Main Road and leads to a parcel of land located on Long
Island Sound.. As pointed out atthe public hearing, there
is no possible way to enlarge the existing right of way. Many
attempts have been made to acquire more land for this right
of way~ however, all attempts have been unsuccessful. Without
the approval of this right of way, the parcel of land located
on the Long Island Sound would be of no value, as it could not
be built upon. The Board believes that the right of way will
be accessible to all emergency equipment.
The Board finds that strict application ofthe Ordinance
will ~roduce 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 tke same use district; and the variance does observe
the spirit of the Ordinancea~d will not~ change the character
of the district.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by F~. Hulse, ir'was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals grant
approval of access to Arch Davis, Southold, New York~ for'pro-
perry located on the north side Main Road,-Orient, New York,
bounded north by land of Berry, east by land of Demarest, south
by Main Road, ~est by land of Berry-Young. This permission is
granted subject to the final approval of the Southold Town
Building Inspector.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- F~r. Gillispie, Fir. Bergen,
Hulse, Mr. Grigonis,
PUBLIC_HEARING: Appeal No. 954 - 8:48 P.M.~.D.S.T,), Upon
application of~Walter Kapp, a/c Peter and Lucy Bogovic, 30-72
37th Street~ Astoria, New York, for a variance in accordance
with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 303, Article X,
Section 1000A, for permission to divide property with insufficient
frontage and area. Location of property: east side Founder's
Path and west side Old Shipyard Lane, Southold, New York, bounded
north by H. Jacobi-A.N. Young, east by Old Shipyard Lane, south
by R. Bennett, west by Founders Path. Fee paid $5.00.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10-
September 15, 1966
TheChairman 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 t~o speak
for'this application?
WALTER KAPP,ESQ.': I think-that the existing dwelling is on
· the red portion which is on Founders Path. The only thing I
wouldlike to say, I don't think anything will be changed. The
parcel was bought as separate parcels by the owner for the ~
purpose of diViding it.
THE CHA~: Is there any difficulty obtaining water in
this area?
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR: The water mains go up to Archy Young's.
He paid to have the pipes brought down to him.
MR.~ HUNTER: Several of us property'owners in this area
feel that a variancs would not be desirable.
WALTER KAPP, ESQ.: For what reason?
MR. HUNTER: The person buying this property could setup
a cheap summer~place and use it for commercial purpose.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Zoning would set up minimum requirements
for the construction of~a house on this property.
MR. HUNTER: This variance would affect the area.
THE CHAIRMAN: How would it affect the area?
MR. ORGASS, O1~ Shipyard Lane: All our propertyis over
200 feet long and 75 feet wide in that neighborhood,
ARNOLD LARSEN: The largest parcel across the street from
this is 12,500 square feet. You can't build a 850 square foot
hause for less than $10,000. I am sure that a house built here
would meet~the minimum requirements.
WALTER KAPP,ESQ..: I don't'know where you get 200 feet in
depth. The largest lot is 150 feet in depth.
MR. ORGASS: We are on the other side of the street. The
house built on the red protion is built on the back property line.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -1i-
September 15,-1966
MR. ORGASS: Mr. Young has a fence on the property. The
house will have to be moved.
ROBERT TRUBENBACH: I would like to take this opportunity
to say that.we need a Town Hall. The number of square feet
for that lot was 19,000 square feet. I took the measurements
from this map and I camSup with about 15,000 square feet.
THE CHAIN~: Mr. Kapp, do you have the figures?
WALTER EAPP,ESQ.: No.
ROBERT TRUENBACH: You are going to get two lots, 7,S00
square feet each.
THE CHAIRMAN: I figured about 8,000 sq~e feet for each lot.
ROBERT TRUBENBACH: Does this application show any hardship,
or does it show speculation?
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think it would substantially change
the character of the neighborhood.
ROBERTTRUBENBACH: I.thinkit.would.
THE'CHAIRMAN: The appliCant has to show unique hardship
or unusual hardship. There is a pointhere that'isn't clear
to me. Mr. Kapp claims that~this is two lots. The map that
was aceepted by the Town Board is on file somewhere. Iflthis
was two lots this throws a new light on it.
HUNTER: The~-~uestion is, was it one lot before zoning?
THE'CHAIRMAN: If it was ~ two lots at the time the Town
Board accepted the map, th~would still have to come in here.
WALTER KAPP,.ESQ.: As a matter of fact, none cf the lots
on that block comply with the 12,500 square feet.
MR. HUNTER: They~are all occupied and built'upon before
Zoning went into effect.
ROBERT TRUBENBACH: We are objecting to splitting this lot
up and creating'a slum condition.
South01d Town Board of Appeals -/~-
~September 15, 1966
UNIDENTIFIED~SPEAKER: What is the code? After a person
puts up a house Me would have to see a summershack. Is there
a code to regulate the amount of money spent on a house?
THECHAIRMAN: The minimum requirement for a house is
850 square feet~of living area.
UNIDENTIFTRD SPEAKER: They could put up a little~shack-and
live down there in the summer.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that ventures a little fromZoning.
It is illegal in New York-State to put a minimum figure in
dollars on a house. You can regulate the lenght or-width,
and we have 850 square feet. As Mr.- Larsen pointed out, it
would require a certain amount of dollars to put-up a 850 square
foo~ house.
ROBERT TRUBENBACH: The Health Department requires 100 feet
between the well and the cesspool.
THE~CHAIRMAN: If the property~as divided and someone
app~ed for a building permit, the would have to go to the
Board of Health and meet their~requirements. There is no
point in granting a variance thatthe Health Department is
going to deny. I would say that we will have to go into this
a little further before making a decision. I don't think we
have all the facts.
The Board agreed that the hearing upon appeal number954,
upon application of~WalterJKapp,~ Esq., a/c Peter and Lucy Bogovic,
30-72 37th Street, Astoria~ New York be postponed until 10:00
P.M., Thursday, Sepeember 22, 1966.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal NO'. 955 - 8:50 P,M.'(E.'D.S%T.), Upon
application of Harold R. Reeve, Jr.. a/c'Frank'Cowan, Route 25,
East Marion, New York, for a special exception in'accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance., Article III, Section'300, Subsection 5 ~a),
for permission to convert'an existing dwelling into a two family
dwelling. Location of property: north side Route '25~ East Marion,
New York, bounded north by K, Ketcham, east by~Stanley'Boken,
south by'Route 25, west bYRiSht ofway. Fee apid $5.00.
SoUthold Town Board of Appeals -13-
September 15, 1966
The Chairman ope~d 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.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present-who wishes to speak
for~this Application?
HAROLD REEVE, JR: I have nothing to add.
THE CHAIRMAN:Why did you proceed with this before you
got a building permit?
~%ROLD REEVE, JR.: I didn't; start until I applied for a
building.:permit from Mr. Terry. HZ assured me that this was
just a routine procedure.
THE CHAIRMAN: The building i~spector has his own ideas.
M_y inspection of this indicated that the house adjacent~to the
east was a two family house. Two doors tothe west~there is
a Tourist~home, the Old Homestead. Four doors to the west
there is the Green Lantern. Then there is Stars Manor adjoining
a private road. Going east there is a house owned by 'five
familes. Somewhat further to the east there ~ a tourist home,
Olympia Manor. Across the street-there is a two family house.
This property in question is 9,000 square feet. It adjoins
a right of way and a vacant house. The frontage of the lot
on the Main Road is 65 feet-by 126 feet. The rear'of the lot
is 79 feet. So far as water'is concerned, there is vacant
pr.operty to.the west and vacant property in the rear.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak fer this application?
'(There was no response.)
THE.CNAtRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against .this application?
(There was no response.)
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that
the appellantrequest permission to convert an existing one
family dwelling into a two family dwelling. The attic space
of the ~ existing dwelling will be converted to house
the appellant and his wife, and the first floor of the
existing house will be for the appellant's daughter and son-
in-law. The Board finds that this house in located in a
neighborhood where there are a number of multiple dwellings.
Southold Town Board of'Appeals -14-
September 15~ 1966
The Board finds that t~e public convenience and welfare
and justice will be served and the legally established or
permitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use
districts will notbe permanently or substantially injured
andre spirit of the Ordinance will be observed.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie~ seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
HESOLVED that'Harold R. Reeve, Jr.~ a/c Frank~Cowan,
Route 25, East Marion, New York, be grantedpermission to convert
an e~sting dwelling into a two family dwelling. Location of
property: north side Route 25, East~Marion, New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, MI. Bergen,
MI. Hulse, Mr. Grigonis.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 956 - 9:05 P.M.(E.D.'S.T.)~ Upon
application of Stanley~Corwin, Esq., ~a/c Nicholas Chryssiadis
andMichael Thalassinos, EastMariun, New ~York, for a variance
in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article"X, Section
100T, Subsection (e) , for permission to construct an addition
to a non-conforming multiple dwelling. L~cation of property:
east side Rocky PointRoad, East Marion, New York, bounded north
by~P. Sideris~ east by'E.H. King, south by'Pantelias, west by
Rocky'Point Road. Fee paid $5.00.
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 hotice to 'the
applicant.
Stanley~Corwin, Esq. submitted a survey of the property
to the Board of Appeals.
THE CHAIRMAN: The lot is 100 feet by 210 feet. '21000square
feet. There is some question here in connection with the
applicant-states it is for two familes, but there are three
~pw-~'apartments there.
-STANI~YCORWIN,ESQo: There are two famines on the property.
Two apartments are occupied and the third is available for
occupancy.
MR. HULSE: When was the original building constructed?
STANLEY CORWIN, ESQ.: In 1955
Southold-Town Board of Appeals -15-
September 15, 1966
THE CHAIRMAN: The house was originally constructed to
hold three families?
STANI~Y~CORWIN~, ESQ.': Yes. Two people built it, Bizakis
andVrotsos. They both lived there and made something from
the third apartment. They went out to the wes% coast and put
the house on the market. These two people bought it with the
same thing in mind. ~- They went'in under the Multiple Residence
Law. --
THE CHAIRMAN: When did that take place.
STAh/LEY~CORWIN,ESQ.': Before the Zoning Law.
THE C~AIRMAN: This would be~ non-conforming use under our
Zoning Ordinance.
STANLEYCORWIN, ESQ.: Yes.
THE:-CHAIRMAN: There are a couple of points the Building
Inspectorbrought out. Re can find no record of a building
permit issued forthis building in the first place. A permit
'shoutd~have been issued.
STAb~R¥CORWIN, ESQ.: I-don{t think there was an.y requirn~nt~
for a-certificate of Occupancy'at the time the building~as built.
TPIE~CHA//~MAN: OUrlcertificate of Occupancy is an amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance. It occured somethime after the Zoning
Ordinance went into effect. Whether or not there was a certificate
of Occupancy required by the State Law for Multiple Residences,
t don't know.
STANLEY-CORWIN, ESQ.: The application is on file. I admit,
it was filed belated, t don't think it has any thing to do with
the application. The owners or'the property are here X and would
lik~ to answer any question you may~have.
else
T~E CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone/presentwho wishes to speak
for this applicatiom?
MR. CRANDILLIS: I have no obj~tion to this.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
B~.~b~ETH SLOCUM, ESQ.: I am a resident of'East Marion, and
attorney with an office at 202 Front Street, Greenport, There
are other peoplelhere from East~Marion, whom I do not represent
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-16-
September 15, 1966
if you would like to ~w~ hear from them first.
THE CHAIRMAN: ' You~may speak now.
KENNETH SLOCUM,ESQ.: I represent the~W~.Aquaview Property
Owners Association, Inc., which consist of 15 familes in this
immediate neighborhood.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is some 2,000 yards to the N~rth.
KEbINETH SLOCUM~ESQ.: Rocky'Point' Road, onwhich the applicant's
property is located is one mile and two tenths long, runnisg from
the Main Road, north to Aquaview Road. On the right hand side
of the ~ocky Point Road there are 27 residences, including the
applicant. Exclusive of the applicant's place, which is 14 places
in from the corner,'these are all private dwellings. Between ]0~
thethird and fourth private dwellings there are a couple of
summer cottages thathave been there for 20 years. On the west
side of Rocky~Point'Road, immediately on the road, there are
four private dwellings. Back-off the road there are four more
private dwellings. The only multiple dwelling in the entire
area i~ the Old Coast Guard Station.
THE CHAIRMAN: None of the residences in this area are
Multiple Residences?
KENNETH SLOCUM, ESQ,': Not a single one. This is out'of
2'7 residences on the same side of the road. The applicant's
place is ~'only a non-conforming use, but has been cared
on the books as a violation for the entire period of its
· existance. The Multiple Dwelling Law-went into effectin 1946
for the~whole State, and was accepted by Southol~ Town in 1952~
The present building was built in 1955. In my'opir~n the appIication
is in error when he says it was built prior to the'Zohing Law,
but prior to a time when registration was required. This ~as
to be required in 1952, the building was built in 1'955.
THE-'CHAIRMAN: There i's an application fora building
permit in the file, but it does not have a date or~t.
KENNETH SLOCUM: Over the years they have ignored mail
amdpersonal calls telling him that the place should have'been
registared and a certiebate of occupancy was necessary.
TNE CPtAIRF~: The policy here of this Board is to try not
to be ~influenced ~ ~o~F~c~- ~¥°Ce~w~
SOuthotd Town Board of Appeals
September 15, 1966
KENNETH SLOCUM,ES~.': Up until the time that~the present
owners purchased this place, it was not'used as a residential
purpose. It was strictly~a commercial rental proposition. The~
present owners can say you don't want to go back into ~what
someone may have wanted to do. They purcahsed this property
with their eyes open, knowing exactly what the dimensions of
the. apartments were, what the dimensions of the house were,
what kind of rooms they had. They knew that it was in violation.
There was also in this file an application was made to get a
certificate of'occupancy and a variance, before these people
ever purchased.
The Chairman read the following three letters into the
r~cord:
"September 7, 1963, Corwin & Glickman, Attorneys, Main
Street, Greenport, New York. Attn: Stanely'Corwin, Esq.
"Dear~ Sir:
"In response to your question 'What now?' RE: premises of
George Vrotosos and Theo. Bizakisa Rocky Point'Road, East Marion,
LI, I believe that it would be proper for the present owners to
file, at this time, for a multiple residence buildingpermit as
should have been done in the first instance. Both local and State
counsel agree with this procedure.
"To get this>~matter cleared up.I am enclosing building permit
application forms, and application forms forhealth dept% approval
of the water.supply'and sewerage disposal installations, which are
required by the'Multiple Residence Law. If you have a key tothe
Premises'I would li~ to make an inspection of the building some
day soon to see how it stacks up to the requirements.
~Kindly submit the applications in duplicatewith a plotplan
and a detailed drawing of the building plans (layout~ door'& window
sizes, stairs, he~ting equipment, etc). The fee for a multiple
residence permit is based~on cost of construction, I will advise
you upon receipt of the actual cost of the building on the enclosed
affidavit form.
"Trusting this will be helpful&nd get this cleared up.
"Yours truly~'/S/Howard Terry, Building Inspector."
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-18-
September 15, 1966
~September 5, 1963, Mr. Howard Terry, Office of Building
Inspector, Town Clerk;s Office, Southold~ New York,
"Dear Mr. Terry:
In answer to your letter of September 3rd we have had many
situations in which owners of multiple dwellingshave flouted
the law until such time as they wished to dispose of'the property
to another pm~chaser. In most instances the attorney for the
t~rchaser insiSts on clear title and a Certificate of'Occupancy~
at ~k~ which time the owner wakes up to the necessity of complying
with the Multiple ResidenceLaw.
"From what you say I gather that at the time the three-
apartment building was erected the area was zoned in such a
manner as to permit this type of structure. If so, I would
suggest the possibility of your permitting the filing of an
application of the present owner. In such an event you would
check-carefully to make certain that~l requirements for the
construction of any multiple residences had been compled with
and the the building was now completely within the terms of
that law, or if not that violations you would place thereon
would be corrected before you would grant a Certificate of
Occupancy.
~'Please bear in mind, however, that you as the local en-
foreement officer have the sole authority, discretion and
responsibility for making your decisions and interpreting this
law and what I have told you was primarily for your advise and
counsel._. I hope this has been helpful to you and we will be
glad to lear from you what transpires.
"Very sincerely yours, s/s/ MacNeil Mitchel, Chairman"
"August 2, 1966, Supervisor, Lester Atbertson, 16 South
Street, Greenport, New York,
"Dear Sir:
"In response to your telephone call this morning I am
enclosing copies of the correspondence Ihave had RE: the
"Yellow building", E/S Rocky~Point Road, East Marion.
"This building was built in 1953 or 1954 when Ed. Conklin was
building inspector.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
September ~5, 1966
P"I can find no record of a building permit being issued
or a certificate of occupany being issued, or a statement
of registry being filed as required.
"I have made several attempts to contract former owners of
these premises - in person and by mail but to no avail. They
did not'answer letters or I could never find anyone home on the
premises.
"I do know that there are three apartments in the building
and it has been rented out at leastpart of every season, one
of the tennants has taken me through the building.
"We are carrying it on our list~of non-conforming uses at
this time.
"As you can see from the attached letters the new owners
were willingto accept it w~_~hout~any legal papers. Stanley
'Corwin's attitude is 'it's there, so What are you going to do
about it?'. i think that the most'that we can do at this point
is to require the new owners to file a statement of registry.
"I have verbably denied Stanley an approval.toadd another
apartment on the building.
"Trusting this will bring you up to date in this case.
"yours truly, /s/ Howard Terry, Building Inspector."
KENNETH S~UM,ESQ.: And I would gather and Mr. Corwin
can correct me if I am wrong, that no. appli~ation~was made
since that date, and none prior to that'tdate. Are we to accept
the applicant's statement that there is no intention whatever
to use this for commercial purpose.
THE CHAIRMAN: The way I understand it, they plan to use the
building themselves.
KENNETH SLOCUM,ESQ,: They did no~mention the factthat~they~
had rented the third apartment. I am¥~ot going to predict what
is in the minds of these people, nor say that is t~eir intention.
But if they need additional, living space, let'them use the present
existing third apartment. We have a violation, we have a non-
conforming use. Lets not add to this commercial use. Let them
use the available third apartment.
Southold Town Board of-Appeals
-20-
September.15, 1966
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything further?
KENNETH ELOCUM, ESQ.': This has been in existance since 1955
in violation. The present owners knew that,this building was in
violation.
ETANV~Y~CORWIN~ ES~.~: To havethis Board consider conditions
on what the former owner did, is not'only irrelevant, but quite
improper.
-KENNETH'SLOCUM,ESQ.: These people bought{his with.their
eyes open. Theythemselves knew that application was made and
denied, and still they went ahead and bought it. Le~ not let
any one tell us they made an investment that~is too big, because
theyknew.
STANLEY~CORWIN,ESQj: We have many correspondence with Mr.
Terry. We didn't think we ~ere in violation. We ~ave one of
-the reasons this was regarded as a violation because of 'the fact
-it was never filed with this office and there is no approvaI of
a private ~sewage disposal system. I took this matter up with
the Board of Health, and there w~ no requirements as far'as their
office was concerned.
T~ECPLaIRMAN: What are the locations of the apartments?
(Stanley Corwin, Esq., pointed out on the survey the
location of the three w~ separate apartments in the building.)
THE'CHAIRMAN: How many rooms in each apartment?
STAN~Y CORWIN, ESQ.: There is a bedroom, living room, kitchen,
This extension would enlarge the third apartment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Board of Health has no particular
requirements as to cesspool's let-mUltiple residences?
STANLEYCORWIN, ESQ.: Theyhad no requirements in respect
to this property.
KE~NETH SLOCUM,ESQ%: Does the applicant show how much they
intend to expand?
MR. HULSE% The application says $3500.
-STANLEY~ORWIN, esq.; That is based on estimates from two
or three contractors.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-21-
September 21, 1966
KENNETH'SLOCUM,ESQ.: I would like to say again that this
is an area of one family residences. They say there is no
intention to use this for commercial p~poses~ If'they only
need more room for two families, let them use that third
apartment.
STANLEY'CORWIN, ESQ.: After all the purpose of the thing was,
there is an available unit that could be rented as part of carrying
the building. I submit that there is nothing about the application
to warrant a denial on the health, welfare or moral of the Town
of Southold.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else wish to speak either for or
againstthis ~plication?
(There was no response.)
On motion by Mr. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED that a decision on Appeal No. 956, upon application
of Stanley Corwin, Esq., a/c Nicholas~Chryssiadis and Michael
Thalassinos, East-Marion, New York,be postponed until 10:30 P.M.,
Thursday, September 22, 1966, at'the Town Office, Main ROad,
Southold, New York.
A~s:
Vote of the Board:~n~. Gillispie, ~Lr. Hulse, Mr. Bergen,
Mr. Grigonis.
PUBLIC-HEARING: Appeal No. 957 - 9:30 P.M.'~E.D.S.T.), Upon
application or'William and Regina Victoria, Bapvi~w Road,~ Southold,
New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 300, Subsection 10, and Article
Section 408, Subsection A, for permission to retainl the following
signs: (1) one on premises identification sign with insufficient
setback, located on the south side of Bayview Road, Southdd, New
York, bounded' north by Bay View Road,' east by James Bitses, south
by Corey's Creek, west'by"A~ &~F. Koke; (2) on~ directinnat sign
on the p~operty of~ Antone Snrozenski, located on ~e so~th side
of the Main Road, Southolsod6t~ew York, bounded north by Main Road,
east by Mike Surozenskil ~ by Mike Surozenski, west by Mike
Surozenski; (3) one directional sign on the property of'George
O~erton, located on the south east~corner of Bay~Water'Road and
South harbor Lane, Southold, New York, bounded north by Bay Water
Road, east by Myra Foster, south by C.H.~ Wickham, west by' South
Harbor Road; (4) one directioaal and advertising sign on the
property or,Elizabeth Bedell, lo~ated on the south side of Main
Southold Town Board of Appeals -22-
September 15, 1966
Road, Peconic, New York, bounded north by Main Road, east by
Westerlund-Skwara, south by'Creek, west by Indian Neck Lane;
(5) one directional and advertising sign on the propezty of
Leadner Giovert located on the south side of Middle Road,
Cutchogue, New York~ bounded north by'Middle Road, east by
M.E~' Grimm, south by B. Glover, west by J. Homan. Fee paid
$5.00.
The reading of the legaI nnotiee was waived by agreement
of the applicant and the Board of Appeals.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a special exception.
The Board and Mrs. Victoria discussed the several signs under
application and their locations. The Board advisedMrs. Victoria
that the signs located on the Bedell p~operty, Surozenski proper~Y,
and the Glover property were tOO close to the highway. The
identification sign at the entrance to the property was discussed.
There was some controversy about the setback of this sign. The
Board advised Mrs. Victoria they would further investigate this
sign.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is t~ere anyone present~who~ishes to
speak against this applicatinn?
~There was no response.)
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that
the appellant request permission to retain mne on premises
identification sign~and four.'off premises directional signs.
Letters of permission from the property.owners are on file for
all dire~tionaI signs, except the sign located on the.Bedell
property in Peconic, The sign located on the BedeI1 property
should have.the directions to the Motel listed on it. These
directional signs are in the interest of the travelling pubiic
as a place of lodging.
The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare
and justice will be served and the leg~ly established or
permitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use
districts will not be permanently orsubstantially injured
and the spirit of the Ordinance witlbe observed.
Southold Town Board of-Appeals -23-
September 15~ 1966
on Motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED that William and Regina Victoria, Bayview Road,
Southold, New York, be granted permission to retain the following~
signs: !(1) one on premises identification signt{with insufficient
setback, located on the south side of Bayview oad~ Southold,
New York; (2) one 'directional sign on the property of Antone
Suzoxenski, located on the south side of the Main Road, Southol~
New York; (3) one directional sign on the property of George
Overton~ located on the south east corner of Bay'Water Road
and South Harbor Aane, Southold, New York; (4) one directional
~9~mx and advertising sign on the property of'Elizabeth Bedell
on the south side of Main Road, Peconic, New York; (5) one
directional ~ and advertising sign on the property of'Leander
Glover, located on the south side of Middle Road, Cutchogue~
New York. These signs are granted subject to the following
conditions:
1. All signs are granted for one i(1) year only~ renewable
annually upon written application to the Board of AppealS.
2. All signs are subject to all subsequent changes in the
Southold Town Building Zone Ordinance as it applies to signs.
3. Ail signs mubt be located at least five (5) feet from
any property line or highway line.
4. Ail signs must be located at least three ~) feet~above
ground level.
5. The on.premises identification sign at the entrance to
the motel is subject to further inspection by the Board of Appeals.
6. The sign located on the Bedell property, Peconic~ must
show directions to the Motel.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- ~r. Gillispie, Mr. Bergen,
Mr. Hulse, Mr. Grigonis.
The folbwing letter was written to Mr. Emory J. Garrett,
Bay'Avenue~ Cutchogue~ New York.
Dear Mr. Garrett: We are sympathetic to the problem that has
been presented to us for permission to retain a directional sign
on Bay'Avenue and Sterling Road, Cutchogue. However, there is no
Southold ToWn Board of Appeals
-24-
September 15, 1966
provision~ in _the Zoning Ordinance to permit directional signs
for off premises businesses, either agricultural or other types.
Accordingly, to reverse our decision of August 4, 1966, would
entail granting you a privilege that is denied to all others in
the Town.
Yours-Very truly, Robert-W. Giltispie, Jr., chairman,
Southold Town Board or'Appeals.
Carbor Copy: Supervisor Lester M. Albertson.
On motion by Mr. Hulse~ seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED THAT the minutes of ~he Southold Town Board of
Appeals dated~September 1, 1966, be approved as submitted.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie,Mr. Bergen,
Mr. Hulse, Mr. Grigonis.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen~ it was
RESOLVED-that the following annual estimate submitted
to t~e Southold Town Board forrthe fiscal year beginning
January 1, 1967:
Secretarial assistance at public hearings
Stationery, form printing and postage
Library and Subscription ~oZoning Bulletin
Advertising of legal notices
Telephone
Travel expenses divided as follows:
1.'Estimated expense for three members of
board to attend Association of Towns
meeting in New York in February $375.00
2. Estimated expense of Mr. Doyen, Board
member from Fishers Island for
attendance at Board meetings in Southold
$300 00
3. Estimated travel expense of Board
to Fishers Island ~125.00
$ 250.00
200.00
100.00
1000..00
100.00
800.00
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-25-
September 15, 1966
Remuneration of Board of'Appeals: $1750 of
which is remunerated to the Chairman and
the balance of $1650 to each member
Total estimated expense of Board of Appeals:
Total estimated income from appeal applications
~8350.00
$10800.00
850.00
$ 9950° 00
The work of the Board of Appeals has greatly increased
in the past year and ~he responsibility and time involved
carrying out these responsibilites is very much greate~rthan
in the earlier years of zoning°
The Board of Appeals is still firmly of the opir~n that
the fee of all applications to the Board should be increased
from $5°00 to $~5.00 because of the increase cost of the public
notices which average about $10.00 now that we are advertising
in both of the local papers.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, Mro Bergen,
Mr. Hulse, Mro Grigonis.
A letter was written to the Southold Town Board commending
the performance of the secretary to the Southold Town Board of
Appeals and th~ $outhold Town Planning Board, Mrs. Barbara Dittmann,
and recommending that her salary be increase from the present
figure of $4,000.00 to $4,500.00
The next regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals
will be held at 7:30 PoMo, Thursday, Septembe~ 22, 1966, at the
Town Office, Main Road, Southold, ew York.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 PoMo'
R~spectfully'submitted,
thold Town Board of Appeals