HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/27/1983APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWlCK[
Southold Town Board o£Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD. L.I., N.Y. 119'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 27, 1983
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was
held on ~riday, May..27, 1983. at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold
Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge Doyen;
Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Charles
Grigonis (illness). Also present were: Mr. Victor Lessard,
AdminiStrator (Building Department), Mrs. Ruth Oliva, and approxi-
mately 30 persons.
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 o'clock p.m. and
proceeded with the first public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3122. Application for REV. WIL-
LIAM J. HILLIARD, by Irving L. Price, Esq., 828 Front Street,
Greenport, NY, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Sections 100-23 and 100-32 for permission to re-locate
accessory structure in the front/side yard areas at Heathulie
Avenue, Fishers Island, NY; Minor Subdivision Map of Smith-
Hilliard ~155, Lot 3; more particularly known as County Tax Map
No. 1000-009-006-005.2.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:33 p.m. and read the
legal notice of hearing and appeal application.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of a sketcn (survey)
revised November 24, 1978 indicating the placement of the 6riginal
garage and indicating the approximate placement ~the new location
of the proposed structure, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in
the area, which shows approximately a site of 2.1 acres. Mr. Price,
would you like to be heard in behalf of this application?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3122 -REV. WM. J. HILLIARD, continued:)
IRVING PRICE, JR., ESQ.: I have nothing further to add, except
that Mr. Hilliard on April 10th sent a letter to all of his neighbors,
if I might add, to the petition if I may read it:
"...My name is Rev. William J. Hilliard. I have been a property
owner and part time resident of Fishers Island for over 20 years. In
1978 I became your neighbor when I purchased the Clark property known
as (). Since that time we have been trying to repair and restore the
property. You may have noticed some of the recent external renovations.
One of the improvements that we have contemplated is the relocation of
the garage from its present site northeast of the dwelling to a
prepared site southeast of the dwelling. This move will enable us
to grade and landscape the yard and will not only improve the garage
but also enhance the entire property. I write to explain this to you
since you may be contacted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Southold, Long Island, from whom we nave applied for a
variance. Our intention is to improve the appearance of the property,
and at the same time ~etain its rustic character...
... I trust you will agree with these goals and support me in this
matter .... "
And to the best of my knowledge, there nave been no replies. It's a
case of where a formal notice was sent and the applicant himself sent
a letter explaining what he wanted to do to his neighbor.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a couple of questions while
you're up there?
MR. PRICE: Certainly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea the approximate'size of the
garage?
MR. PRICE: I think this is to scale.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We scaled it approximately--
MR. PRICE: It shows it 16' from the side line, the present
garage, so I would assUme that.it's probably about 16-20.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We scaled it to about 15 by. 28. Does that sound
abou~ right?
MR. PRICE: I'm not going to argue with you becauSe I'm not a
surveyor, bu~ I Would say 28 is a little long.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen just told me it's 15 by 23' Ok.
MEMBER DOYEN: It isn't objectionable whether it's 23 or 28.
is an improvement.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would we assUme there would be no sleeping
Southold Town Board or'Appeals -3- May 27, 198'3 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3122 - ~V. WILLIAM J. HILLIARD, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN:
quarters in there and that it would only be used for storage?
MR. PRICE: Yes. We'll make that part of the conditions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And used only for a storage building.
MR. PRICE: Garage.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Accessory building to the main house.
Thank you, Mr. Price.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to be
heard in behalf of this application? (No one) Anyone wishing
to speak against tne application? (No one) Questions from any
board members? Bob? (None) Joe? (None) Serge? (None) Hearing
no further questions, gentlemen, it is my opinion that the motion
is in order. Would anybody like to make a motion on this?
MEMBER DOYEN: I'll make the motion that it be granted as
applied with the condition that it be used only for storage
and accessory.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Second.
(continued on page 4)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- May 27, 1983'Regular Meeting
Upon application for REV. WILLIAM J. HILLIARD, by Irving L. Price,
Jr., Esq., 828 Front Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-23 and 100-32 for permission to
relocate accessory structure in the front/side yard areas at Heathulie
Avenue, Fishers Island, NY; Minor Subdivision Map of Sjith-Hilliard
#155, Lot 3; more particularly known as County Tax Map No. 1000-009-
06-5.2.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to remove an existing
accessory garage structure from its present frontyard location and
place same in an alternative frontyard location as shown on survey
revised 11/24/78, prepared by Chandler, Palmer and King, submitted
with this application. In relocating this accessory building, the
board agrees that the appearance of th~s property would be enhanced
and that the area chosen is the most practical u~der the c~rcum-
stances. The lot in question is an eight-sided parcel, and contains
an area of 53,052 square feet. Inasmuch as this parcel fronts along
Heathulie Avenue at an angle, there ~s minimal rearyard area ~n which
an accessory building could be built without a variance.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial under the circumstances; that
the c~rcumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance
no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created;
that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appel-
lant 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 indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3122, application for REV. WILLIAM J.
HILLIARD for permission to relocate accessory garage structure in
frontyard area, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITION:
That this accessory garage structure shall only be used for
storage purposes, accessory to the main building.
Lo~ation of Property: Heathulie Avenue, Fishers Island, NY;
~inor Subdivision Map of Smith-Hilliard No. 155, Lot 3; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-009-06-5.2.
~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- May 27, 1983 R~gular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3127. Application for HILDEGARD
MORAND, by Irving L. Price, Jr., Esq., 828 Front Street, Greenport,
NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-34
for permission to construct addition, attaching nonconforming acces-
sory structure, leaving an insufficient sideyard setback (as a prin-
cipal structure), at 935 Old Shipyard Lane, Sou~hold, NY; Pounders
Estates Map 834, Lot 107; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-64-05-021.
The Chairman oPened the hearing at 7:43 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey from Roderick Van Tuyl,
P.C. dated February 22, 1973 indicating the placement of the house
and accessory garage on tnis property known as Lot 107 at Founders
Estates, and the proposed addition of 13' by 13'8" in question. Mr.
Price, would you like to be heard in behalf of this application?
IRVING L. PRICE, ESQ.: I would like to emphasize while it is
an addition, it's really only a connection. It connects two
existing structures, a dwelling and a detached garage. None of tne
outside measurements will be changed at all. There will just be
an enclosed breezeway or whatever you want to refer to it. It will
nave a bathroom and a laundry room to replace tne laundry room which
is at present in the cellar, and I have one additional piece of evi-
dence I would like to read from Z. Mickh Kaplan, M.D.:
"...To Whom It May Concern:
...This will certify that Mrs. Morand does have severe
oestheo arthritis of the knees making it difficult for her to
climb steps ....
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Z. Micah Kaplan .... "
like to make that part of the record. That's all, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to be
heard in behalf of this application? (None) Anyone that would like
to speak against the application? (None) Questions from board
members? (None) Mr. Price, would there be any change of the garage
at all--anything placed within the garage setting?
MR. PRICE: Just a side door where the 13'8" connects
and the garage.
the house
MR. CHAIRMAN: For the purpose of the electric garage door opener
as you mentioned in the application.
MR. PRICE: Well, you can walk out of the garage into tne house
without going outdoors--that's the only change.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hearing no further questions, I'll
make a motion reserving decision until later.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
Southotd Town Board of~ppeals -6- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3127 - HILDEGARD MORAND, continued:)
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal Noo 3127, mat%er of HILDEGARD MORAND, be
closed, and that Hecision be reserved until later.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 310E. Upon application of WILHELM
and SILKE FRANKEN, 75 Carroll Street, Brooklyn, NY for a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule,
for permission to construct new dwelling with an insufficient front-
yard setback, at Osprey Nest Road, Cleaves Point Subdivision Section
I, Map 2752, Subdivision Lots 14 and 15, at Greenport; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-35'6-22, 23 and 24.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearina in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey prepared by John H.
Geideman 12/6/82 indicating the proposed dwelling which is a
1½-story of approximately 32' by 64', and showing a setback from
O~prey~Nest ROad of a~proximately 30' of either corner. Is there
anyone wishing to speak in behalf of this application?
JOHN GEIDEMANN: If there are any questions, I'm here to answer them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is &nvone else nere to speak in behalf
of the application? Mr. Franken.
WILHELM FRANKEN: Without that five extra feet I won't be able
to build a house.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? (None] Anyone against tne application?
(None) You are aware that this is in a Flood Plain area and that you
will have to meet certain requirements. You have no objection to any
disposition from this board that this will be subject to Flood Plain
conditions?
MR. FRANKEN: Yes, I am. I have no objection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will make a motion closing this nearing and
reserving decision until later.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that %he nearing ~s hereby declared closed and that
decision be reserved until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3108,
WILHELM AND SILKE FRANKEN. Vote of tne Board: Ayes: Messrs.
Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was
absent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7-
May 27, ~983 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3113. Application of BURKE E.
LIBURT, 1420 King Street, Orient, NY for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32, for permission to con-
struct accessory horse barn in the sideyard area, at 1420 King
Street, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~026-02-040.
Tne Chairman opened the hearing at p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketch indicating the
10' by 12' barn to be constructed about 73' from King Street,
41' from one side, 53' from another side, and 71' from tne
opposite side. And we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax
Map indicating this property and the surrounding property in the
area. Mr. Liburt, would you like to be heard in behalf of this
application?
MR. LIBURT: I think the application speaks for itself. Is
Mr. Douglass sitting with you on this matter. Since I have issued
a complaint, I wondered if he would step down on this one.
MR. CHAI~{AN: We had discussed tnis prior to the meeting, and
Mr. Douglass has shown--and I'm not speaking for nim-- shown no
objection to th~s application of yours and I had asked him not to
leave because I didn't think there was any reason for it.
MR. LIBURT: ( ) in the record. Oh, I believe there's a
letter approving our support.
MR. CHAIRMAN: WOuld you like it read?
MR. LIBURT: I don't think it's necessary.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to ~peak in behalf?
Would anybody like to speak against? (None) Hearing no further
comment, I'll make a motion granting this as applied for.
M~2~BER DOUGLASS: Second.
(Continued on page 8)
Southold Town Board of'<~~peals -8- May 27, 1983 ~egular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3113 - BURKE E. LIBURT, continued:)
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, appellant seeks a Variance to Article III, Section
100-32 of the zoning code, to locate an accessory structure (horse
stable) in the sideyard area to the north of the existing one-family
dwelling, and set back approximately 40' from the northerly property
line, 71' from the westerly property line, and approximately 73' from
the easterly property line (fronting King Street).
The premises in question is improved with a one-family two-story
dwelling structure and garage and a 1½-story accessory building, which
is located on the rear property line. For the record it ~s noted that
the 1½-story accessory building was the subject of a prior appeal
(Appeal ~3082) which was required by the board's decision rendered
February 25, 1983 to be located a minimum of 40' from all lot lines
for the reasons stated in that prior decision. It is also noted for
the record that due to the unusual shape of this 39,048-square-foot
parcel, there is a minimal rear yard area available for new construc-
tion~
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial under these unique circumstances;
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 facili-
ties 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
as applied for.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3113, application of BURKE E.
LIBURT for permission to locate accessory horse stable in the
sideyard area, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR.
Location of Property: 1420 King Street, Orient, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-026'02-040.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Doug-
lass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution
was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board Of Appeals -9- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3116. Application of JOHN GRIGONIS,
Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article VI, Section 100-60 (A) & (B) for permission to
construct new dwelling in this B-Light Business District at 860 Main
Bayview Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~70-7-16.2.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:00 p.m. and read the legal
notice of nearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a sketch indicating Mr.
Grigonis' present dwelling on a lot of approximately, of irregular
size, 168' by 175'. Itappears that Mr. Grigonis is looking to
divide a piece from this of approximately 68' by 181'. And we have
a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and
the surrounding properties in the area. Would somebody like to be
heard in behalf of this application? Could you use tne mike please
and state your name?
JOHN GRIGONIS: I would like to build a small dwelling in there
for my daughter, and this big home that I'm in right now as I say
it's too big for myself, and there ~s no business there any more
like there used to be. Is there anything else you want to know?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The garage will remain on the property, Mr.
Grigonis?
MR. GRIGONIS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's see what develops throughout the hearing,
ok? Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in
behalf of the application? Anybody like to speak against the
application? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a
motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until
later in the matter of Appeal No. 3116, application of JOHN GRIGONIS.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10 May 27, 1983~Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3121. Application of ALFRED AND
ZINA HULL, 333 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10038, for a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-118E for permis-
sion to reconstruct and alter existing building which would exceed
50% of the fair market value of this structure, requiring a
variance to continue or reinstate a second-dwelling unit in this
"A-Residential" District, at 3630 Soundview Avenue, Peconic, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-68-04-004.
Th~Ch~rman opened the nearing at 8:02 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have .a copy of a map prepared by Roderick
VanTuyl, P.C. dated June 29, 1979 indicating two structures on
the property, one to tne west and one to tne east. And I have a
copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicatinq this property and
the surroundinq properties in the area. Would somebody like to
be heard in behalf of ~tnis application? Yes. Would you like to
use the mike, Mrs. Hull?
MRS. HULL: Well, could you hear me?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I have ~uestions I want to ask. Is
there anything you want to say before I--
MRS. HULL: Well, the reason why we bought the property was
that we planned to modernize the house for our retirement years
which would be in about 10-15 years from now, and we planned to
come out here and live here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Maybe you could step up ~o be bench here--
I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions concerning the
other ."house." The smaller of the two houses, which is this one,
what's the pre'sent use of that building?
MRS. HULL: Well, we painted that so that we could start
working on the-- we call this the little house -- and so that
we can work on the big house, and of course the big house is
very, very, quite old, and needs a lot of reconstruction to
bring it up to a modern level.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you using this for a dwelling now?
MRS. HULL: Yes, for the summer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are aware of the fact that this does not
meet the minimum square footage requirements of Southold Town
for a dwelling?
MRS. HULL: I know, but we purchased the property with the
two houses there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Was this in a very delapidated condition similar
to the 0ther house?
Southold Town Board Of Appeals -11- May 27;-~1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3121 - ALFRED AND ZINA HULL, continued:)
MRS. HULL: It just needed paint.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And there is a full kitchen, lavatory facilities?
MRS. HULL: Yes. It has a bathroom, a tiny, little bedroom, and
a 16' living room.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the nature of the other structure that
we're talking abou~--that's a picture of it, right?
MRS. HULL: Yes, as it stands now. But when we purchased it, it
had roofing covering on it, which we have removed and it had a lot of
extra sheds attached to it which we have removed. We've removed
the beaver board walls inside and we thought that we would be able
to go ahead and just go ahead and start building. We didn't realize
that we would need a permit and an okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What's going to be the nature of the little house
when you finish the big house?
MRS. HULL: It's going to be used by my grandchildren.
MR. CHAIRMAN: For the summer?
MRS. HULL: For the summer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no heat in this house?
MRS. HULL: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that sufficiently answers my questions.
MRS. HULL: Ok, and in the meantime I just received this, and
we have our permit to go ahead with our cesspool. (Mrs. Hull sub-
mitted a copy of the preliminary approval of the Health Department
concerning new cesspools and well-ZPermit 913-S0-76.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Very good. Is there anybody else
that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? (None)
Anybody like to speak against the application? (None) Any ques-
tions from any board members? (None) Hearing no further questions,
I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
On motion by Mr. Goenringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later
in the matter of the application of ALFRED AND ZINA HULL, Appeal
No. 3121.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3124. Application of SOUTHOLD
LUMBER CO., INC., Youngs Avenue, Southold, NY for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119B for permission
to erect fence exceeding 4' in height along the frontyard area of
these premises more particularly known as 675 Boisseau Avenue,
Southold, NY; Couhty Tax Map No. 1000-63-02-030.1.
The CSairman opened the hearing at 8:07 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketch which shows the
nature of the fence proposed which comprises approximately two-thirds
or three-quarters or Hummel Avenue~ just across the rear of the
property enclosing the outside corners of two concrete buildings
and then along ~he land of the L.I.R.R. and down along the railroad
siding to an existing wood-framed building. It then encompasses
the remaining part of the rear of the property which is frontyard
on Boisseau Avenue of approximately 370.35', and on Hummel Avenue
a frontage of 156.10 on Boisseau Avenue., and then again along
the L.I. Railroad 323.47 f~et. Mr. Rich, would you like to be
heard in behalf of this application? Mr. Lark, excuse me.
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New
York, for the applicant, as you know, Mr. Rich is also here to
answer any board questions. To make your file complete, I want
to hand up a letter that Mr. Rich just received from the insurance
agent regarding the fencing of the property to aive it to the
board. It's a general letter, but I'll cover the detail in a
moment. (Mr. Lark submitted a letter d~ted May 27, 1983 from
McMann-Price Agency concerning liability recommendations, which
is made part of the file.)
I'm not.going to speak to the application itself because
I think you gentlemen also have a issue that I want to
talk about first here. If you recall under Appeal No. 2508,
back in December of 1978 by a decision that was rendered by this
board on February 1, 1979, I thought we had clarified the deci-
sion of fencing as related to commercial properties. But I
will maintain the new conceived amendment to tne zoning ordi-
nance which went into effect on -- no, I guess it was Local Law
~2 of 1983 which went in effect earlier this year. The Section
#100-34 and 35 were renumbered l19B and l19A. 100-34 and 100-35
were designed for a residential district, and wnen you read tnose
two sections in their entirety, they're designed strictly for a
residential district. In fact, 100-35C doesn't make any sense at
all when you read it either literately or figurately or on any
type of application. But be that as it may~ A and B do, and 100-34
does. For some magical reason, the Town Board on the advice of
the Building Department saw fit to renumber tnose sections to
l19A and l19B, which put them in the general regulation section.
In the process of doing, they didn't say anything. They just
lifted the language entirely and renUmbered them in the general
regulations.
Southold Town Board bf Appeals -13- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3124 - SOUTHOLD LUMBER CO., INC.)
MR. LARK continued:
The Building Inspectors have always maintained that ARticle XI,
which they appear now, apply to all zoning districts. I'm no~ so
sure that's true because when you read every section in Article XI,
whether it be 100-10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, they specifically
say whether it applies in all districts or not. For example, 110
say, shall apply in all districts--our sign ordinance section.
Section 113 doesn't, but it ~oes into great specifity. 114 says
prohibited uses in all districts. And 115 applies just to a
junkyard which would be to everything. 116, and then of course
the nonconforming use section, and then the hotel and motel.
Curiously enough some of the sections apply only for residential
districts. When you read like 112, on off-street parking, they
specif~ what districts we're talking about. But be that as it
may, that's all the building inspectors needed was to apply it
in the general regulations, and then they said the general regula-
tions apply to all districts. That's why I say this amendment
was ill-conceived because I can foresee that Mr. Rich's might be
the first of 100 different applications that you'll have for
properties in business districts where the owners want to have
fencing. Fencing in a business district is far different than
fencing in a residential district. The Rich case is a classic.
They have a lumberyard there, and for not only insurance pur-
poses bu~ just to run a business because it's a storage yard in
a commercial district, and obviously they store lumber and build-
ing material, and if he doesn't have it fenced--what he proposes
is a chainlink 6' fence with three stands of barbed wire on top
facing ~n. The obvious reason is to keep people out. Of course
it looks ugly. Nobody is trying to say it's a landscaping delight.
Of course it looks ugly. But it's there for a purpose, to keep
people out in a commercial district so ne can run a lumberyard.
Ok? Ye~?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you know tne approximate height of that
fence with the barbed wire on it?
MR. LARK: Jim, what will it be when you add the barbed wire,
is that about another foot?
MR. RICH: That's about 13 more inches.
MR. LARK: It's on an angle, that's why I asked.
MR. RICH: Seven foot one.
MR. LARK: It'll be 7'1" from the ground to the tippy top of
where it is. When he bought this back in '82 and of course tne
zoning ordinance there, because of the decision of the board in
Appeal No. 2508, these fencing restrictions didn't apply in a
commercial district. And the reason for buying it obviously was
to expand h~s lumberyard and so on and so forth, and with the
few items that they;ye placed over there, they tend to walk in
the middle of the night. So he had to come in for fencing and he
Southotd Town Board ~f Appeals -14- May 27,~1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3124 - SOUTHOLD LUMBER CO., INC.)
MR. LARK continued:
had to come in for the whole thing. So I grant you that taking the
most favorable light to the Building Inspector's interpretation
WhiCh they have tried to apply before in commercial districts and
were turned down, the reasoning is still the same, and I think that
if we're going to have fencing requirements in commercial districts,
they should be different than they are in residential districts
because of the very nature of the use. Hopefully with the updating
of the Master Plan and the rezoning that will have to go through at
that time, we can take care~Of it so you won't be flooded with these
types of applications.
The other thing that has bothered me, is when they took the
100-34 section -- and you'll see on the sketch that he presented
on the corner of Hummel and Boisseau, he actually got told to lay
it out that way by the Building Department. It knocks off the
corner there, so he's not fencing right up to the corner. Now,
in a residential district where you have a corner lot that hasn't
created much of a problem. But once he puts a fence here in that
particular area he's going to have a title question, because the
title company takes the view that once you run a fence, and I
know some of you are familiar with that having your own properties,
that anything outside the fence you lose title to. They question
the title to your land because you're not possessing it. And
those that are familiar with that know what I raising. I don't
know how to handle that. I know why ~he corner section was put
in in the residential--I know perfectly well--not only for traffic
flow and everything else bug here you have a chainlink fence and
I question not only the planning but the use of his property naving
to cut ittoff on a bias like that. I don't think it'll serve any
purpose. Yes, he'll do it because he wants--he bought the land--
he wants to use it now--he wan~s to put up his fence so he can
start storing the lumber, and the other building materials over
there; but I don't know that we're accomplishing anything in an
Industrial-Use District by doing it. You know--taking that
residential-type fencing requirement and applying it here. Did
you have a question?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Whose suggestion was it to do that?
MR. LARK: The Building Department because it's a corner lot.
You see, they just lifted it entirely and put it over, and this
is what has created the problem. So when I got into tne act
afterwards, ~ said, well, with that interpretation the only thing
you can do is apply to the Board of Appeals., apply to nave tne
whole thing fenced tne way you want to do it, and then wnen he
got down to the corner, they said, no it has to go that way, it
can't go up on the corner. I objected--I said to him, I said,
"Mr. Rich I think you should go right to the corner because that's
the proper use of the property, " I don't want to give vandals
and people a foothole--you know what I mean, like a platform on
which to operate out of. So I said I think you should go right to
the corner. But if the board feels due to the traffic considerations
or something, not to, bug with a chainlink fence it's a see-thru
operation anyway...I just couldn't see it. So that's how the sketch
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3124 - SOUTHOLD LUMBER CO., INC.)
MR. LARK continued:
was prepared and before you.
I think that's an interpretation you also ought to give, whether
you want to do it on a case by case basis, or whether this thing
should all be thought out again--you know, fencing in a commercial
or business district. Not only from the title problem, but from
what you're faced with here. You're right next to the railroad
tracks. You've got nothing but commerce around you. That
property, as you all know from living in town, has always been
an industrial use. The lUmberyard has been there for many, many
years. This was used as Agway. There's a railroad siting on
the property. It's strictly a commercial use, 100%, and now that
the insurance agency is after nlm, his insurance carrier--he'll
relate to you some problems ne has had with vandalS and you know,
setting fires, which could be a disaster to him over there. He
is forced to do this. He really didn't want to. A four-foot
fence would be worthless, which would comply because you've got
nothing but street frontage except along the railroad, of course.
So it has been recommended to nlm by both the police department
and the insurance, the only way to do it is to put up a regular
6-foot with the barbed wire on top--nobody likes it, but that's
the way it'll nave to be, and if you look at the rest of his
property, wnich goes on over to Youngs Avenue, that's the way
that is also. So it will kind of match it. If you know what
I mean--it won't be a sore thUmb by itself.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you one question. Concerning the
fence as it's proposed on this drawing, I understand the title
problem that exists. However, I also u~derstand the Building
Department's opinion on it, and I'll give you a very good example
in Riverhead on Roanoke-Railroad Avenue, which is Mid-Island
Lumber. They stack their lUmber all the way up to the corner
and it is almost totally impossible to see what's coming on the
opposite side. Possibly, one of the recommendations the Build-
ing Department might go along with is the possibility of a
split-rail fence, or a 4' fence just to encompass that. I
realize it would be dead land in that particular area but there
wouldn't be any title problem.
MR. LARK: I see what you're trying to say. A fence within
a fence. The security fence would be on the inside--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Also, I would say possibly even a split-rail
fence which would 16ok very, very nice there and decorative.
MR. LARK: I understand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know if the Building Department would
go along with it.
MR. LARK: Well, the way they've interpreted it, it's with
the Board of Appeals now. And with the amendment giving you the
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- May27, 1983 Regular Meeting
MR. LARK continued:
interpretations of their interpretations now. We've got that straigH~2
ened out finally. It's at this board now where it is. But I do think
that the whole thing of fencing in commercial buSiness districts will
have to be re-thought out because I just don't think the height if
nothing else requirements of them apply--whereas they do apply in
residence districts so you don't end up with spiked fences or things
of that nature. That isn't the case here. This is a dead need-type
situation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are aware of the fact that you didn't apply
for an interpretation--very simply as a fence as it's proposed.
MR. LARE: Right. I understand that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail we're really prepared to give you as a deci-
sion is as it appears in this particular matter.
MR. LARK: As it appears on the application. But I do think
that you can consider the wider question as to just how you are
going to interpret fencing in commercial districts. You already
have ruled on that. I realize prior to the amendment, but those
sections--the very ~ections which they're trying to interpret
again. In the general use area, you said those sections don't
apply. The content--the 4' in the frontyard, the 6½' along the
side and the rear--that type. Ok?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Again I understand what you're saying, but I
will say this, once there is a determine made by the Building
Inspector, you have to go by that determination so I'm sure it's
going to be on a case-by-case ba~ls,
MR. LARK: Ok.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Until sucn time as you eluded to, as the
Master Plan is amended. Right now we're involved in two-acre
problems, and--
MR. LARK: No, t understand. But I mean this is one of the
areas that is going to nave to be dealt into. Just what to do.
Jim, did you want to add anything?
MR. RICH: Thank you. You covered it fairly well. I would
like to mention one thing that Mr. Lark did mention one thinq--
we did nave a fire some time ago--there were rags stuffed in-the
spaces between the piles of lumber and we had the fire department
there--in fact we had two of them. We had the fire department
there both times. Fortunately, someone was crossing the railroad
tracks and saw the flames. So there wasn't much damaqe. But at
that time and since then, we have been told both by t~e fire
department and by the police that we should fence this in, or
fence as much of our property as we can. Last summer a man got
on a dirt bike and they think it's private property, so they can
ride there without being harassed by the police--but he hit a
pile of lumber and went over the top and almost broke his ankle.
Southold Town Board Of Appeals -17- May 27~~ 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3124 - SOUTHOLD LUMBER CO., INC.)
MR. RICH continued:
Of course, we're worried about a lawsuit, which didn't develop
because ne I guess he realized he was on private property. But
we don't want anymore of that if we can possibly help it, so
we do feel very strongly that we would like to have a fence and
we do feel that we would have to have it 6' becaus~ we really
have two frontyards there. We're on two pieces of property. I
think you can see from the application there are no residences
on that side of the street. There are residences across the
street, bu~ they were all built after the ~roperty was used
industrially--the potato-storage buildings were there and then
some of the buildings were being built and the coal yards were
there. They have since been removed bu~ we would like to use
it for lu~ber storage if we can have this fence.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rich, wouid there be any external lighting
that might be objectionable to any neighbors or anything?
MR. RICH: Well, we have the rest of our yard--has flood
lights that comes on when the night is in--they light at night.
We've never had any objections. We have no plans right now
to put any lighting on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: None of these court lights or anything that
would be extremely bright.
MR. RICH: Well, we have on the other parcel and do have
lights, but have never been criticized and nobody has said any-
thing about it because they're sort of behind buildings and
they shine parallel to the railroad tracks. If you look at
the property, some of them don't know--there isn't anything
at all to the Sou~h of us. Colonial Village has a high split
rail fence and in back of that, there are high trees so they
can't even see you across the railroad track. They would be
the only ones that would see us. If you nave any other questions,
I'd like to try to answer them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll see what develops throughou~ the hearing.
MR. RICH: You may ask why I didn't put the fence up in 1982
when I bought the property. I probably could have done it then,
because that was before the zoning was changed, but the fence
itself is rather expensive and I wasn't prepared at that time.
We haven't really been able to use the property because things
are disappearing--the little things that we have back there now
we find are disappearing. In fact I get calls from some of the
neighbors saying a car drove ou~ and something like that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Rich. Is there anybody else
that would like to be heard in behalf of this application (None)
Anyone wishing to speak against this application? (None) Ques-
tions from any board members?
Southold Town Board-of Appeals -18- May 27/1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3124 - SOUTHOLD LUMBER CO., INC.)
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Jim, would there be any way, maybe you could
so that you could cover yourself all. the way~ make some kind of an
agreement so that you won't stack material any closer than "so"
close to Boisseau Avenue so that you could go on all the way
around?
MR. RICH: I'd be glad to do something like that. I'd like to
get the fence as near to the property line as possible because I
don't want to lose title to some of the land.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Both buildings now are outside of the fenced
part, the way it's drawn on here.
MR. RICH: Yes. Those are the buildings on the property that
we bought in February, yeah, they are outside.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: They'll be outside of your fence.
MR. RICH: Well they won't be if we put up the fence. We're
going to attach -- they're right on the property line those
buildings--all the buildings on Hummel Avenue are right out on the
property line there, and we're going to stop_~ the fence at the
buildings, otherwise there will just be a little strip of land
between the back of the building and the fence and then it would
become the public access road, highway. If you go along Hummel
Avenue, you'll see a building, there's a fence that abuts the
corners, adjoins the corners of it. It stops. The block build-
ing makes a fence there and then the fence begins again. Is that
what's there?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes.
MR. RICH: So that's right out there now. We could keep the
lumber back from Boisseau Avenue though.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: That's what I'm talking about, out there on
that corner.
MR~ RICH: Yes. We've drawn a fence diagonally across. I
think if you look at the zoning ordinance, you'll see a section
in there that shows that. But even in the zoning ordinance,
there's a section that shows that. I'm not prepared to cite the
section but I'm familiar with the picture of it in the zoning
ordinance.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you.
MR. RICH: We can keep low things all along Boisseau Avenue.
We wouldn't have to go bug so high. I think you're aware of
what happens. We pile things three and four units high--some
of it's 10' high.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Rich. Anybody that would like
to comment on anything? Mr. Lark? (No) Anybody else? (None)
Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing
Southold Town Board~0f Appeals -19- May 27,~ 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3124 - SOUTHOLD LUMBER CO., INC.)
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
and reserve decision until later.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later
in the matter of the application of SOUTHOLD LUMBER CO., INC.,
Appeal No. 3124.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
TEMPORARY RECESS: On motion by Mr. Goenrlnger, Seconded by
Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED, to recess temporarily for approximately five minutes,
at which time the meeting Would reconvene.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted. [Recessed at 8:35 p.m.]
MEETING RECONVENED: On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr.
Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to reconvene~the Regular Meeting of this board at
this point in time ~8:~4 p.m.)
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3123. Application of HENRY PIERCE,
2615 Wells Road, Peconic, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct
accessory storage building in the front and side yard areas at
2615 Wells Road, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-
086-02-1.2.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:45 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey produced on
March iS, 1983 by John H. Geideman, P.L.S. indicating the setback
of approximately 35' from Wells Road and 72' from, it says,
existing meadow, and 75' from existing meadow on the opposite
side. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating
Southold Town Board Of Appeals -20- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3123 - HENRY PIERCE, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Would
somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application?
RALPH CONDIT: My name is Ralph Condit. I'm Henry Pierce's
next door neighbor and we're aware of where he has to build the
building, and I think it's a Suitable location. It's in a
wooded area. It's not going to cause any problems that I can see.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Sir, would you like to be heard?
JOHN GEIDEMAN: Only that the way that it appears on the drawing
there, it actually--the limitatiHh is caused by the general contours
of the land as you can see. The establishment of that wetlands and
meadow as indicated there is bounded as shown because of the decision
by the D.E.C. that that became the limit of the usabl~ land.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you prepared to answer any questions concerning
the building?
MR. GEIDEMAN: If there are any in that area.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This building is to remamn only as a storage building?
Accessory to the main building?
MR. GEIDEMAN: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: For what purpose, do you know?
MR. GEIDEMAN: Garden equipment and some boats that are outside
on the edge of the water there. Just to be tucked away for the
winter, I imagine. Water-wise and garden-wi~e you might say.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do Vou have anv idea which way the doors might
be swinging--or the overhead doors?
MR. GEIDEMAN: They're overhead. One main door would be the
opening door.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would it be facing towards the house, the road,
or, do you have any idea?
MR. GEIDEMAN: We're going to make some tests here to see what
the varying of the ground is, but I think at the present time we're
going to try to face it toward the house.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you have any objection if that was a
limiting condition in your application?
MR. GEIDEMAN: Well, if the land was accessible to an approach,
I think it would be the best place to put it. Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Geideman. Would anybody else
Southold Town Board<df Appeals -21- May 27/'1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3123 - HENRY PIERCE, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
like to be heard in behalf of this application? Sir?
HENRY PIERCE: My na/~e is Henry Pierce. I want to enlighten
that we will not change the rustic of the property as it stands.
There'll be no landscape or anything. The area between the garage
accessory building, and the road will be left in its natural state--
heavily overgrown.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The reason why I asked the question, Mr. Pierce,
concerning the garage doors is because in a structure of this
size, which is 30' by 36' the board likes to suggest that the doors
open not toward the road, so that if t~ey remain open they not
become a deterent to anybody going by.
MR. PIERCE: Ok. The plans call for the garage to be facing--
the door to be facing the house. We are not going to put a drive-
way in or anything.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Anybody wishing to be
heard in behalf of this application? Anybody to speak against
the application? (None) Questions from any board members? (Non~)
Ok, gentlemen, a motion is in order provided that the doors do not
face the Wells Road area.
MEMBER SAWICKI. So moved.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded.
(Continued ~n Page 22)
Southold Town Board ~f Appeals -22- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3123 - HENRY PIERCE, continued:)
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, appellant seeks to construct a 36' by 30' accessory
two-car garage structure approximately 160 feet north of the existing
one-family dwelling and 35 feet from Wells Road. For the record it is
noted that the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation has
restricted the proposed construction to an area a minimum of 75' from
tidal wetlands as shown in Permit 410-83-0014 TW issued March 24, 1983.
Inasmuch as the land in question is partly meadowland, there is minimal
practical building area, and the board does agree with reasoning of
appellant.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance
request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique;
that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining
properties will 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 indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3123, application for HENRY PIERCE for
permission to locate accessory two-car garage structure in an area
other than the rearyard, as applied, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That the entrance/exit doors of this proposed accessory building
do not face Wells Road.
Location of Property: 2615 Wells Road, Peconic, NY; 1000-086-02-1.2.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, Doyen and
Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was unanimously
adopted.
Southotd Town Board of Appeals -23- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3081. Application for ROBERT T.
KROEPEL, D.D.S., by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Main Road, Southold,
NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section
100-31 for appr6val of two proposed parcels having approximately
37,069 square feet in area and 120.85 feet of road frontage, at
the nortn side of Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-86-6-16.
-The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:50 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey produced by
Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. January 24, 1983 showing Lot ~1 of .851
acre and Lot ~2 of .851 acre. I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in
the area. Would you like to be heard in behalf of this application,
Mr. Bruer?
RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ: Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman, Members of
the Board. I'd like to say that this is, I would say, a typical
application that comes before the board. It's an application
wherein the applicant has an unusually large piece of property
for the area--larger than what is required by zoning and ne
comes in here--it's not enough to make two lots out it and he
comes to the board and asks, "Please, may I cut this up into
two lots so it conforms with the rest of the neighborhood." As
it's cut up it will still be larger than or as typical as the
lots in the area. That was true wnen this application was made.
This application was submitted to the board late January, or
the 1st of February. It came before the board at a meeting on
February 4, 1983 and it was discussed by the board and it was
determined at that time that this matter should go before the
board, or you had requested that the Planning Board give you some
input on it. And with that the matter was adjourned.
The matter was put before the Planning Board, and as you know
the Planning Board had an unusually large case load due to the
pending so-called moratorium at that time. On March 28, 1983
it finally appeared on the Planning Board schedule, at which time --
it was not a public hearing--it appeared on their schedule and
they duly made notes of the size of the property and whatever and
they appointed a member of the board to go out and inspect the
property. The matter again came up on their April meeting, at
which time they again took the position, well, this is an under-
sized lot, why haven't you gone to the Board of Appeals. I
said, "Well, I've been to the Board of Appeals and they have written
you a letter dated, I think it was, February 8, 1983, asking you
for your opinion." I begged with them at that time to refer this
back to the board which they obviously did, because I'm here tonight
on a hearing. Obviously, as you all know the Town Board nas, last
week, I believe passed two-acre zoning. However the application
that was made based upon the denial of the building inspector,
I believe, still applied, because we're applying from the bulk
and parking schedule--however we're now asking you to grant us
a variance from the 40,000 -- I guess it's now 80,000.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- May 27, ~83 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3081 - ROBERT T. KROEPEL, continued:)
MR. BRUER continued:
The hardship is that with respect to this property if it can be
divided, it's' obviously worth a lot more, to wit, in this particular
case, Dr. Kroepel, he can'make a $12,000 profit. Without Ghat, it's
back to a much lesser value as a one-lot parcel of 1.7 acres.
think the property is unique in that if you look at the tax map, and
I think you've all looked at it--this is an unusually wider and
larger piece of property than most of those 6n Indian Neck Road.
You'll notice the property across the street, I'believe some of
them are 97' wide--they might be three acres but they're 1200,
1300, 1500' long and created a long time ago. And basically all
the lots that you have in this particular section of the tax map,
Subsection 6 there, are lots that were created prior to zoning.
They were cut up either Willy Nilly, or wnatever, many years ago,
and I guess what we're really asking for is to be able to take our
piece and cut it up--have two lots out of it and wind up with, I
believe two lots that are consistent with the property that's
there. I don't think the adding of one house there more than the
present zoning w6uld cnange tne character of the neighborhood.
And with this in mind, I would respectfully request that the
board grant the application. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bruer. Is there anybody else
that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody
wishing to speak against the application? Just a minute--what
we normally do in this case, if there is an association of
property owners down there, and somebody would like to be a
spokesman for that association, or everybody would like to speak
in tneir own behalf, we'll take you one at a time. Knd I believe
the gentleman in the red shirt over here was the first to get up.
JOHN SHIPMAN: We, the property owners of Indian Neck,
surround ~his land, and I think one house is sufficient.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you have anything else?
MR. SHIPMAN~ No, that's it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for voicing your comment.
This lady is up-- we'll take this side of the room first.
VIRGINIA LAWTHER: I'm Virginia Lawther and I'm right behind
the property involved. My house is on the creek. I have the
driveway on one side on this particular property. As Mr. Bruer
said, originally when the doctor bought the property, it was just
less than two acres and it was perfectly all right for him, even
at that time he would have had to haze a variance in order to
build two houses, or divide the proper~y in order to make it
available to two different people. He would have had to had
the approval of the board because each piece would have been
less than an acre. Now that it's two acres, it really doesn't
make any difference. We are talking and we have been reading
and you have been fighting ab6ut this building of additional
homes because of the water table and the houses--the buildings
and the property on Indian Neck Lane are not all smaller than
two acres, or than one acre. As he said, some of them are
Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- May ~7; 1983 Special Meeting
(Appeal No. 3081 - ROBERT To KROEPEL, continued:)
MRS. LAWTHER continued:
narrow and long, but it still gives us more property, and I feel that
under the circumstances, one house will be enough -- and I don't like
to be nasty -- I really know care how much profit Dr. K~oepel makes
on the sale of his property.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else over here? Yes, ma'am?
Would you state your name before you speak?
MRS. BODENSTEIN: I'm Mrs. Bodenstein. I live down on Indian
Neck Lane. The surrounding properties -- there are a few smaller
parcels. For the most part they are much larger. The houses that
are going up presently are not right on the road as these would
pretty much have to be. They're back in the woods where they are
not even noticed. You can't even see them. It would certainly
change the character of the area. Especially now in view of
two-acre zoning. I don't think they would be suitable at all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else on this side? Ok,
we'll go to the center.
ANNE KNOWLES: Anne Knowles, Indian Neck Lane. I disagree
with the idea of the houses as the other people have said as being
smaller or about the same size as these houses would be. We all
have larger pieces--not all, but some of them are larger pieces
of property. I nave close to five acres and I object to this
parceling of land into two lots. Again, to me, he is even break-
ing the one-acre zoning because he has only got 1.66 acres and
that amounts to-- he's asking for 37,069 square feet each which
comes to 74,138 square feet. Under 40,000 square feet allowed
for a home building, ne is certainly lower than the amount specified
by that of 8,000 necessary. I don't know what his right is to
ask for this on vacant property. He bought it at a nice low price
and he wants a profit of $12,000 in a short time since October. But
I think he's getting his money's worth.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir?
DR. ROSENBURG: I'm Dr. Rosenburg; or'Indian Neck Lane. I
think in order to grant a variance, I think hardship has to be
demonstrated. I do not see that hardship demonstrated in this
case whatsoever. The inability to make a profit certainly does
no~ indicate the hardship. The doctor certainly knew what he
was getting into before he bought the property and I imagined he
planned to put two houses figuring it might be an easy job to get
a variance. And I hope it's otherwise. I don't think an applica-
tion should misquote as much as this application m~squoted. I'm
directly across from these lots, and they are, both of them,
larger, a good deal larger than this property. I had the
opportunity to break a number of pieces up and come under the
one-acre zoning when I brok~ ~p my propert~ but I~chos~hot-t~ do
so--the parcelsthat I made are definitely quite a bit larger --
Southold Town Board or'Appeals -26- May ~7, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3081 - ROBE-RT T. KROEPEL, continued:)
DR. ROSENBURG continued: ! /
one is two that we had, and another I think i~ about 1.36. They're
all quite, definitely larger than this property as proposed and
directly across. And again, I must repeat, h
reason that a variance should be given. And
demonstrated here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Doctor. Is th
would like to speak against the application?
rebuttal, Mr.~ Bruer?
MR. BRUER: Just very briefly. I can un
here has said and I can understand their feel
would like to--just to make a couple of comme
here for an area variance and we're talking al
also practical difficulties. I think the los
Kroepel does have a contract for the sale of
to the division of the property, it does crea
can't do it. Also, it's very important here
application based upon the time it was submit
~t was caused, basically by the Planning Boar.
nere. And of course, the granting of the app
because it does have to go to the Planning Bo
approval of the division because they haven't
we also have to comply with Suffolk County He
Article VI. And I believe I laid out the fac
before exactly wha% they are--without any win,
again we would request that the board grant t
DR. ROSENBURG: Can we rebut the rebutta
~rdship nas to be the
khat has not been
~re anybody else who
(None) Anything in
~erstand what everybody
kngs for it. I just
%ts, that we're asking
)out hardship, yes--
of a sale which ~r.
~he property subject
2e a hardship if he
~o look at this
~ed and the delay
~, is why it wasn't
Lication here is
~rd again for their
approved it, and
~lth Department,
~s pretty much
~ow dress~.ng, and
]e application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, tne onl~ thing I do :
doing so it just continues on and on, so if y~
being brief, I have no objection. Go ahead.
DR. ROSENBURG: I wouldn't be lengthy at
MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't mean you directl,
the whole public.
DR. ROSENBURG: I just wish to say again
more obvious as this gentleman in his rebuttal
lack of being able to make a profit of $12,00{
Again, even more evident that the reason for
was to have to build a home not for the Docto
~tate, Doctor, in
wouldn't mind
all.
,-~I'm talking to
it becomes even
stated, that the
creates a hardship.
~uying this land
himself but to
speculate. Now I do not think that this boar~ should in any
way be a part of speculative property. /
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Doctor. Anybody else wishing to
say anything? (None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a
motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Second.
Southold Town Board of'Appeals -27- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3081 - ROBERT T. KROEPEL, continued:)
On motion by Mr~ Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later
in the matter of the application of ROBERT T. KROEPEL, Appeal No. 3081.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3128. Application of JOHN AND
JANET FLOWERS, 400 Conklin Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission
to construct garage in the frontyard area, at 400 Conklin Road,
Mattituck, NY; Garden Heights Subdivision Map 577, Lots~24 and
25; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-139-04-006.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:08 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a sketch surveyed 11/26/71
indicating the property structure of 18' by 24' approximately
10 feet from a paper road called "Oak Place," and 10' from the
rearyard. Mr. Flowers, would you like to be heard in behalf of
this application?
JOHN FLOWERS: Yes, I just want to say my property is small
and it's the best location where I could locate it and on the
map, Oak Place is a paper road--it's not open, and I don't think
it ever will be.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This will always remain as an accessory
structure--you won't have any sleeping quarters or anything of
that nature?
MR. FLOWERS: Just a one-car garage.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very mucn. Is tnere anybody else
that would like to be heard in behalf of the application? (None)
Anyone against tne application? (None) Questions from board
members? (None)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion
granting this as applied for with the following condition: that it
always remain as a garage accessory to the main house.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
(Continued on page 28)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- Map 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3128 - JOHN AND JANET FLOWERS, continued:)
Upon application of JOHN AND JANET FLOWERS, 400 Conklin Road, Matti-
tuck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section
100-32 for permission to construct garage in the frontyard area, at 400
Conklin Road, Mattituck, NY; Garden Heights Subdivision Map 577, Lots
24 and 25; CoHnty Tax MaD Parcel No. 1000-139-04-006.
The public hearing concerning this application was also held earlier
this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending
deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, appellants seek permission to construct an 18' by
24' accessory garage structure at the northeasterly portion of the
premises. The premises in question is a corner lot as defined by
Section 100-119A (renumbered from 100-34), fronting along Conklin Road
109' and along Oak Place (a paper street) 125' The total lot area
is 12,500 square feet. Existing on the premises is a one-family
dwelling set back 50' from Conklin Road, 37' from Oak Place, and
49' from the easterly rear property line. The accessory garage
building is proposed to be set back 10' from the northerly property
line (Oak Place) and 10' from the easterly rear property line.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial under the circumstances; that
the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance
no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created;
that the difficulty canno~ be obviated by a method feasible to appel-
lant other than a variance; that No adverse effects will be produced
on available governmental facilities of any increased population;
that the relief requested will Le in harmony with and promote the
general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will
be served by allowing the variance as indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3128, application of JOHN AND JANET
FLOWERS, for permission to construct an 18' by 24' accessory garage
10' from Oak Place and 10' from the easterly (rear) property line,
BE AND HEREBY IS A~PROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That this accessory garage shall always remain accessory to
the main building, for storage/garage purposes.
Location of Property: 400 Conklin Road, Mattituck, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-139-04-006.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- May 27, 1'983 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3107. Application for RICHARD E.
SULLIVAN by David S. Horton, Kouros Road, New Suffolk, NY for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31,
Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct deck which will exceed
the maxim~m lot coverage of existing and proposed structures, at
440 Third Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-117-09-020.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:10 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey dated January 21,
1983 indicating the house and garage, and the proposed deck which
I nave no distances on. Mr. Horton, could you tell us the size
of the deck?
MR. CHAI~N: I have what it exceeds it by, bu~ I don't have
the sizes.
DAVID HORTON: Well, let's see. We're 4' off here, 4' off~here.
MR.CHAIRMAN: This is 4' here.
MR. HORTON: Yes. This is I would say about 30--I'm not
sure. I would have to nave a scale and ruler. One thing I would
add, Mr. Sullivan has an entrance here, an entrance here, and an
entrance here and this is an entrance to the garage and this is
the reason we're doing this this way. I can't--I could give it
to you if I had my plan but I don't have one here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you possibly call the office on Tuesday
and give it to us and then we'll try and make a decision as soon
as possible if that's all right.
MR. HORTON: Sure. Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. While you're up there, Mr. Horton,
could you tell us, this deck will always remain open?
MR.HORTON: Yes. Open deck - C.C.A. and it will never be
enclosed. No footings under the posts.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf
of this application? Anyone wisning to speak against the applica-
tion? Questions from board members? (None) And you'll call us
about that?
MR. HORTON: Yes. Thanks a lot.
On motion by Mr. Goehrlnger, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later
in the matter of the application of RICHARD E. SULLIVAN, Appeal ~3107.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goenringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of'Appeals -30- May 27, I983 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Appeals No. 3126 and 3125.
~3126 - Upon application of JACK LEVIN, 59670 C.R. 48,
Greenport, NY, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Sections 100-30(B) [i] and 100-31 for permission to use the
existing dwelling for two-family use, second-dwelling unit having
less than the required 850 square feet of living area, at 59670
C.R. 48, Greenport; more particularly identified as County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-44-4-5.
#3125 - Application of JACK LEVIN, 59670 C.R. 48 (North
Road), Greenport, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 (B) [1] for permission to
convert existing dwelling into two-family dwelling use on a
minimum two-acre parcel located _at the south side of C.R. 48,
Greenport, NY; more particularly identified as County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-44-4-5.
The Chairman opened the hearings at 9:15 p.m. and read both
legal notices in their entirety and applications.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It should be noted that the property contains
38.897 acres. Mr. Levin, would you like to say something in
behalf of your applications?
JACK LEVIN: It's a 50-year old house bought over 30 years
ago. There are 50 acres of land with it. The person who sold
it had a right of tenancy. It has been on the tax rolls. I've
paid my taxes on it. I feel I want'to get sometning out of it.
In order to do that I thought I would make two apartments out
of it, rent it in affiliation with the motel and my apartments.
Since I'm the only neighbor across the street and for many yards
of either side, I felt that it would enhance.the property by
fixing it up into two apartments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The problem that exists is similar to the
problem of the prior hearing, and this problem was not addressed
until the 23rd of May, and that is now that we are at two-acre
zoning (for one-family), basically we're going to nave to deal
w~th this on a four-acre baSis because it is--you're asking for
a two-family house. My basic question to you after finding
out from the Secretary of State that the four-acre zoning is
in effect, are you willing to give up four acres to make this
a two-family house?
(There was no response.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll be honest with you, Mr. Levin, I really
wanted to shed this light upon you not at this nearing--I wanted
to.ask you that question outside, but you weren't-oUtside'during
the break, and I said-- · .........
MR. LEVIN: Well, that sheds a little different light on it.
Southold Town Board o~-~ppeals -31- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3126 and 3126 JACK LEVIN, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it does. And I apologize and I'm very sorry
to shed that news on you at this particular time.
MR. LEVIN: But the application was in a long time before --
MR. CHAIRMAN: I realize that. I don't know if it's fair to
ask you that question and have you give us an immediate response
to it. So if you want to think about it and let us know.
MR. LEVIN: I certainly would.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like us to recess this until tne
next Regular Meeting?
MR. LEVIN: Yes, do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Then you can let us know what you're feelings
are concerning it, ok? We assume the next meeting is going to
be June 23, 1983.
MR. LEVIN: I'll get a notice of it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you very much for coming in.
Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of
these applications? Anyone wishing to speak against the
applications? (None) I assume there are no questions from
any board members? (None) I'll make a motion recessing both
the variance and special exception until the next Regular
Meeting.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to recess Appeals No. 3126 and 3125, variance and
special exception matters of JACK LEVIN until the next Regular
Meeting of the board (June 23, 1983).
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded
by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following ~egative Environmental Declara-
tions for tne reasons as stated, infra, pursuan~ to tne N.Y.S. Environ-
mental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4 of the Town Code:
~o~thold Town Board o~-~ppeals -32- May 27, -~83 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Decla~a~ions, continued:) -
APPEAL NO.: 3132
PROJECT NAME: BRUCE AND PATRICIA STEWART
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4)
of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law.
This board determines the within project no~ to have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. Also, please ~take notice that this
declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other
department or agency which may also have an application pending for the
same or similar project.
TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Two-car garage addition.
LOCATION OF PROJECT:
particularly known as:
1000-102-05-014.
Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
870 Schoolhouse Road, Cutchogue, NY.
REASON(_S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the
environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
(2) Premises is not located near a critical environmental area.
APPEAL NO.:
PROJECT NAME:
3134
HANS H. RIEGER
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4)
of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law.
This board determines the within project not to have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice tha~ this
declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other
department or agency Which may also have an application pending for the
same or similar project2
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory garage in frontyard area. -
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 370 Harbor Road, Orient, NY; 1000-027-04-006.
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the
environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
(2) Project is located forward of an existing dwelling, away from
waterfronting area.
~o~thold Town Board or~Appeals -33- May 27, '-'~83 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations, continued: )
APPEAL NO.: 3135
PROJECT Nk~E: PETER AND CALLIOPE PAPANTONIOU
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4)
of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law.
This board determines the within project not to have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this
declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other
department or agency which may also have an application pending for the
same or similar project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Increase size of existing garage which
is located in the sideyard area (nonconforming location).
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known~as: 55370 C.R. 48, Soutnold; 1000-052-03-026.
REASON IS) .SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the
environmen~ are likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
APPEAL NO.: 5136
PROJECT NA/~E:RICHARD AND DONNALEE RELYEA
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4)
of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 Of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law.
This board determines the within project not to have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this
declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other
department or agency which may also have an application pending for the
same or similar project.
TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type It [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory horse barn in frontyard area.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southo!d, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 1060 Foxhcllow Road, Mattituck; 1000-113-006-023.
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEk~INATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the
environment are likely to occur should this project be imp!~mented as
plann~).~ Project is landward of existing buildings and water areas.
Southold Town Board o~_ ~peals -34- May 27,
(Environmental Declarations - continued:)
APPEAL NO.: 3137
PROJECT Nk~E:DAYSMANMORRIS
83 Regular Meeting
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4)
of the implementing regulations pertaininq to Article 8 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act of the E~vironmental Conservation Law.
This board determines the within project no~ to have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this
declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other
department or agency which may also have an application pending for the
same or similar project.
area.
TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type ti [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Use Variance-store marials in open yard
B-Light Business Zone. "Commercial use" requested.
particularly known as:
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
405 Kirwin Boulevard, Greenport, NY.
REASON(_S) SUPPORTING THIS DETE~qINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the
environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as
plann~). The subject premises is not located near a critial environmental
area or water.
APPEAL NO.: 3138
PROJECT NAME:ALFRED J. TERP
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4)
of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law.
This board determines the within project not to have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this
declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other
department or agency which may also have an application pending for the
same or similar project2
TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type ti [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Bathroom addition to dwelling with an.
insufficient sideyard setback.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southotd, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 1435 Hobart Road, Southold.
REASON IS) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(t) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates ~hat no significant adverse effects to the
environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as
plann~). The subject premises is not located within 300 feet of tidal
wetlands or other critie&l environmental area.
S~thold Town Board of '~ppeals -35-
(Environmental Declarations~ continued:)
APPEAL NO.: 3140
PROJECT NA~4E: KATHRYN REEVE
May 27, ~3 Regular Meeting
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law ~44-4)
of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law.
This board determines the within project not to have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this
declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other
department or agency which may also have an application pending for the
same or similar project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory garage in sideyard area.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 855 West View Drive, Mattituck.
REASON(~S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessmen~ in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no significan~ adverse effects to the
environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
(2) Project is landward of wetlands area and is not located
any closer to water area than existing dweliln~g.
APPEAL NO.: 3129
PROJECT NAME: IRENE PAPADAKIS
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4)
of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law.
This board determines the within project not to have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take notice that this
declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other
department or agency which may also have an application pending for the
same or similar project2
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Interpretation of zoning ordinance -
"skin care clinic" as a home occupation.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southotd, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: North Side of Main Road, Orient.
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub-
mitted which indicates that no ~ignificant adverse effects to the
environment are likely to occur should this project be imp!~mented as
plan~%~. Project is no~ located wit~in 300 feet of tidal wetlands.
Southold Town Board'~f Appeals -3
(Environmental Declarations, conti
APPEAL NO.: 3141
PROJECT NAME: DOUG AND KARIN CONST
This notice is issued pursuan
of the implementing regulations pe
Environmental Quality Review Act o
This board determines the witl
adverse effect on the environment.
declaration should not be consider~
department or agency which may als~
same or similar project.
TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II
May 27, x~83 Regular Meeting
lued: )
~NT
to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4)
3t~ining to Article 8 of the State
the Environmental Conservation Law.
in project not to have a significant
Also, please take notice that this
~d a determination made for any other
have an application pending for the
[ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:
rearyard setback.
LOCATION OF PROJECT:
particularly known as:
Addition to dwelling with an insufficienn
Town of
Ea~ Side
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETt
(I)- An-~Environmental Assessm¢
mitred which indicates that no sigr
envlronmen~ are likely to occur sho
planned.
(2) Premises is not located w
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messr
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was
unanimously adopted.
Southold, County of Suffolk, more
of Village Lane, Orient, NY.
~INATION:
nt in the Short Form has been sub-
ificant adverse effects to the
~!d this project be implemented as
ithin 300 fe~t of tidal wetlands.
~. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
absent.) This resolution was
Southold Town Board of~ppeals
-37- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
DATE FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Douglass,
seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the date for the next Regular Meeting of this
Board is hereby set for TH.URSDAY, JUNE 23, 1983 commencing at 7:30
p.m., to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold,
New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the following meetings:
April 20, 1983 and April 27, 1983 Regular and Special Meetings,
respectively.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goenringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonls was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
~EW MATTERS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 6/23/83:
Douglass, seconded by ~Mr. Goehringer, it was
On motion b~ Mr.
RESOLVED, that the following applications be and hereby are
scheduled for Public Hearings to be held at the next Regular Meet-
ing of this board, to wit, June 23, 1983, and that the same shall
be advertised pursuant to law in the official and local newspapers:
Appeal No. 3132 BRUCE AND PATRICIA STEWART.
Appeal No. 3134 HANS H. RIEGER.
Appeal No. 3135 PETER PAPANTONIOU.
Appeal No. 3136 - RICHARD AND DONNALEA RELYEA.
Appeal No. 3137 DAYSMAN MORRIS.
Appeal No. 3138 - ALFRED J. TERP.
Appeal No. 3140 - K~THRYN REEVE.
Appeal No. 3129 - IRENE PAPADAKIS.
Appeal No. 3141 - KARIN AND DOUG CONSTANT.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goenringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of' Appeals .... 38- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 31000
Application for ROGER L. MUNZ and VICTOR CATALANO by Philip J.
Cardinale, Esq., Main Road, Drawer W, Jamesport, NY for a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Sections 100-70 and 100-71, and
Article VIII, Sections 100-80 and 100-81 for permission to establish
retail sales of boats on this 17,913 square foot parcel, in a B-1
Zone. Location of Parcel: 13175 Main Road, Mattituck, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-03-038.
The public hearing on this appeal was held on April 20, 1983.
By this appeal, appellants seek a variance for permission to
establish retail sales of boats in this "B-1 General Business"
District. Article VIII, Section 100~80(B) of the zoning code permits
such a use in a "C-Industrial" District after receiving both site
plan approval from the Planning Board and Special Exception approval
by this board. In an application filed simultaneously herewith,
appellants have requested a Special Exception from Article VIII,
Section 100-80, and appellants have also received conditional site
plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board dated May 16,
1983.
Existing on the premises is a 50' by 40' garage structure which
has for many years been used for automobile repairs. This structure
is situated approximately 60 feet from the Main (S.R. 25) Road
property line, 93 feet from the rear property line to the north,
10' from the westerly sideyard area and 18' from the easterly
sideyard areal Appellants are proposing a 24' by 50' outside
display area directly in front of the existing 50' by 40' proposed
showroom/sales area, and the off-street parking will be provided in
an area within 58' of the Main Road property line. Also proposed
is a 6' by 45' planting area. The total lot area is 17,913 sq. ft.
In considering this appeal, the board determines: (1) that
the use applied for will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood; (2) that the use will not prevent the orderly and
reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent
use districts; (3) 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; (4) that
the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the
town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its
location and (5) that the use will be in harmony with and promote
the general purposes and intent of this chapter.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3100, application by ROGER L. MUNZ
Southold Town Board o~--Appeals -39- May 27, -1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3100 - ROGER L. MUNZ and VICTOR CATALANO Variance, continued:)
and VICTOR CATALANO FOR A VARIANCE to establish retail boat sales
boat sales in this B-1 Zong, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. No storage of boa~s shall be permitted in the front parking
or ingress/egress vehicle ~reas;
2. No repairs or finishing of fiberglass is permitted outside
of the building;
3. The designated parking areas shall remain open and unob-
structed at all times from storage of any materials;
4. The 6' by 45' planting area as indicated on the site plan
shall always be maintained;
5. No vehicles shall be permitted to be backed out onto the
State Highway;
6. The westerly 10' egress and the easterly 18' egress along
both sides of the building and extending up to the State Highway
shall remain totally unobstructed at all times for access by emer-
gency and other vehicles;
7. That the agreement between the apppellants and James and
Deborah Navas (or subsequent owners) permitting accessibility over
the proposed easement area (as shown on the 1/12/51 sketched-in surveY)
shall be in effect at the ~ime this variance ~s effectuated, except
that no storage Of boats will be permitted in the front parki'ng 'area
at any time;
8. Compliance with the Southold Town Planning Board conditions
dated May 16, 1983.
Location of Property: 13175 Main (State Road 25) Road, Matti-
tuck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-.03-038.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Griganis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- May 27, ±~983 Regular Meeting
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3101.
Application for ROGER L. MUNZ and VICTOR CATALAN. O, by Philip J.
Cardinale, Esq., Main Road, Drawer W, Jamesport, NY 11947 for a
Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section
100-80(B) [14] & [15] for permission to utilize premises for boat sales
on the premises in question zoned "B-1 General Business," which use
is permitted in a "C-Industrial" District by Special Exception. Loca-
tion of Property: 13175 Main Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Nap Parcel
No. 1000-140-03-038.
The public hearing concerning this application was held on
April 20, 1983.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this Special Exception application, appellants seek permlsslon
to establish retail sales of boats in this "B-1 General Bus~ness"
District. Article VIII, Section 100'80(B) of the zoning code permits
such a use in a "C-Industrial" District after receiving both site
plan approval from the Planning Board and Spocial Exception approval
by this board. In a variance application filed simultaneously here-
with, appellants have requested a variance from Article VII, Sec-
tions 100-70 and 100-71 to permit the requested use ~n this "B-l"
zone with the established lot area of this parcel, to wit, 17,193
square feet.
Existing on the premises is a 50' by 40' garage structure which
has for many years been used for automobile repairs. This structure
is situated approximately 60 feet from the Main (S.R~ 25) Road
property line, 93 feet from the rear property line to the north,
10' from the westerly sideyard area and 18' from the easterly
sideyard area. Appellants are proposing a 24' by 50' outside
display area directly in front of the existing 50' by 40' proposed
showroom/sales area, and the off-street parking will be provided in
an area within 58' of the Main Road property line. Also proposed
is a 6' by 45' planting area.
In considering this application, the board determines: (1)
that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of
adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts;
(2) 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; (3) that the safety,
Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -41- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3101 - Special Exception, ROGER L. MUNZ and another:)
health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town will
not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location;
and (4) that the use will be in harmony with and promote the
general purposes and intent of this chapter.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3101, application by ROGER L. MUNZ
and VICTOR CATALANO FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION to establish retail
boat sales in this B-1 Zone, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. No storage of boats shall be permitted in the front parking
or ingress/egress vehicle areas;
2. No repairs or finishing of fiberglass is permitted outside
of the building;
3. The designated parking areas shall remain open and unob-
structed at all times from storage of any materials;
4. The 6' by 45' planting area as indicated on the site plan
shall always be maintained;
5. No vehicles shall be permitted to be backed out onto the
State Highway;
6. The westerly 10' egress and the easterly 18' egress along
both sides of the building and extending up to the State Highway
shall remain totally unobstructed at all times for access by emer-
gency vehicles;
7. That the agreement between the apppellants and James and
Deborah Navas (or subsequent owners) permitting accessibility over
the proposed easement area (as shown on the 1/12/51 sketched-in survey)
shall be in effect at the time this variance is effectuated, ~xcep~
that no storage of boats will be permitted in the front parking area
at any time;
8~ Compliance with the Southold Town Planning Board conditions
dated May 16, 1983~
Location of Property: 13175 Main (State Road 25) Road, Matti-
tuck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140~03-038.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehr~nger, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Gr±gon~s was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board o~Appeals -42-
May 27, ~i983 Regular Meeting
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3124.
Upon application of SOUTHOLD LUMBER CO., INC., Youngs Avenue, Southold,
NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119B for
permission to erect fence exceeding 4' in height along the frontyard area of
these premises more particularly known as 675 Boisseau Avenue, Southold, NY;
County Tax Map No. 1000-63-02-030.1.
The public hearing on this application was held earlier this evening,
at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to erect a six-foot high
fence with approximately 13" of barb wire for security and insurance pur-
poses enclosing the lumberyard, which encompasses an area from Youngs
Avenue, along Hummel Avenue, and along Boisseau Avenue in Sou~hold. The
subject premises contains an area of 1.2 acres and is improved with
four one-story structures. Partly along Youngs Avenue is an existing
6' high fence. This premises is zoned "C-Light Industrial and is and
has been a lumberyard for quite some time.
For the record it is noted that it is not unusual for this board
to require suitable screening or fencing around the periphery of the
area used for outside storage, and accordingly this board agrees with
the reasoning of appellant. This parcel is unique particularly since
it fronts on three public streets, and the board agrees that a fence
of four feet would not be effective in detering vandals and other
unauthorized persons from entering the storage area.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements
of zoning; that the circumstances are unique; that by allowing the
variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be
created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible
for appellant other than a variance; that the relief requested will
be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and
in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in considera-
tion of all the above factors, the interests of justice will be
served by allowing the variance as indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3124, application of SOUTHOLD LUMBER
CO., INC. for permission to erect fence approximately seven feet in
height (including the barb wire) along the front yard areas, BE AND
HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
The subject fence is permitted up to the point of intersection
of H~ummel and Boisseau Avenues, except that 30' from this point of
intersection shall not be used for storage and shall remain unob-
structed for visibility and always maintained (grass cut).
Southold Town Board old-Appeals -43- May 27, 1983JRegular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3124 - SOUTHOLD LUMBER CO., INC., continued: )
Location' of Property: 675 Boisseau Avenue, Southold, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-63-02-30.1.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3094.
Upon application of NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, C.R. 48, Mattituck,
NY (by Gerry L. Horton) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100'31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of lot having insuffi-
cient area and frontage along Westphalia Road, Mattituck, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-141-02-021.1.
The public hearing concerning this application was held on
March 23, 1983 and April 20, 1983, at which time the hearing was
declared closed pending deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, appellant seeks a variance to Article III~ Section
100-31, Bulk Scheduie, of the Zoning Code for approval of a proposed
Lot 93 of this proposed three-lot Minor Subdivision located at Matti-
tuck, NY. Parcel No. 1 would contain an acreage of 2.14; Parcel No. 2
would contain an area of 40,013 square feet, and Parcel No. 3 would
contain an area of 20,000 square feet. Parcels 1 and 2 would have
a frontage along C.R. 48 of 243.96 feet and 254.36 feet respectively;
and Parcel No. 3 would have frontage along Westphalia Avenue of 100
feet.
Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, of the Zoning Code
as amended May 16, 1983, requires a minimum lot area of 80,000 square
feet and a minimum lot width (road frontage) of 200 feet for parcels
in the "A" Residential and Agricultural District. It is noted for
the record that prior to May 16, 1983, the Bulk Schedule required a
minimum lot area of 40~000 square feet and a minimum lot width of
150 feet.
Upon inspection of the premises in question, the board finds
the~following structures existing: Parcel 1: church, two portable
structures, 1½-story frame house, concrete basketball court and
an accessory building to the easterly most side; Parcels 2 and 3 are
vacant.
In considering this appeal, the board determines: (1) that
the variance request is substantial in relation to the requirements
of the zoning code (by more than 50%); (2) that the difficulty can
be obviated by a method feasible to appellant other than a variance;
(3) that the circumstances herein are not unique; and (4) that by
Southold Town Board of-~Appeals -44- May 27, 198~Regular Meeting
(Appeal Noi 3094 - NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, continued:)
allowing the variance, detriment to adjoining properties may be
created.
It is also the findings of this board that the applicant has
demonstrated practical difficulties., and accordingly, the variance
must be denied.
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3094, application for NORTH FORK
BAPTIST CHURCH for approval of lot having insufficient lot area
and width, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED.
Location of Property: C.R. 48 and Westphalia Avenue, Mattl-
tuck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-141-2-21.1.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Doug-
lass and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution
was u~animOusly adopted.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3121.
Application of ALFRED AND ZINA HULL, 333 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10038, for a Variance' to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-
l18E for permission to reconstruct and alter existing building which
would exceed 50% of the fair market value of this structure, requiring
a variance to continue or reinstate a second-dwelling unit in this
"A-Residential" District, at 363'0 Soundview Avenue, Peconic, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-68'04-004.
The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening, at
which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
This is an appeal from the Notice of Disapproval issued
by the building inspector dated April 6, 1983, wherein it is
the decision of the building inspector that "proposed recon-
struction and alteration ...to existing building as a second
living unit...wouid exceed 50% of the fair market value...a
variance is required for continued use .... " In a letter dated
March 29, 1983, the appellants herein were notified by the
same building inspector that because there have been no
sanitary facilities in this building, and this building has
been without electrical service since 1973, and since this
building has been completely gutted, that there has not been
a use of this structure and the structure to the west continu-
ously for more than two years.
At the hearing, the appellant stated: (1) that when they
Southold Town Board o~Appeals -45- May 27, 198~ JRegular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3121 - ALFRED AND ZINA HULL, continued:)
purchased the property (8/14/79), these two buildings and the
accessory buildings were existing; and that the westerly framed
structure 3ust needed paint and contained a tiny bedroom, lava-
tory, kitchen and living room, and which appellants have been
using in order to work on the larger building, in the summer;
and (2) that the reason the premises was purchased was to
modernize the larger house for their retirement years.
In researching town records, it has been found that the
appellants herein purchased the subject premises 8/14/79 in
the amount of $17,500 from Suffolk County. The estimated cost
for the alterations and reconstruction is $45,000 (see build-
ing permit application dated 3/14/83).
Since the variance applied for is a use variance, before
this board may grant such a variance, the record must show that:
(1) the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if
uSed only for a purpose allowed in that zone; (2) that the
plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to
the general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect
the unreasonableness of. the zoning code; and (3) that the
use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essen-
tial character of the locality. The courts have held that a
claim that the property is yielding less than a reasonable
return requires proof, in dollars and cents form, of all matters
bearing upon the return available under existing zoning, includ-
ing proof that no permissible use will yield a reasonable return.
There is no evidence that the property cannot yield a reason-
able return if the premises is used with one-family use status
verses multiple-family use status. The alterations and recon-
struction proposed substantially exceeds 50% of the fair market
value, and it is the opinion of the board that the nonconforming
status of this structure as a dwelling unit has been discontinued,
if same existed prior to 1973. In viewing the surrounding
neighborhood, two family dwelling units on one parcel are not
common.
In considering this appeal, the board also determines that
the use will not be in harmony with and promote the general pur-
poses and intent of zoning; that the interests of justice would
not be served by granting the relief requested; that proof has
not been demonstrated that the land in question cannot yield a
reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in that zone;
that the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances;
that the use may alter the essential character of the neighbor-
hood; and that the interests of justice would not be served by
allowing the variance applied for.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Doyen,
it was
Southold Town Board of"-~ppeals -46- May 27, 198~ ~egular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3121 - ALFRED AND ZINA HULL, continued:)
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3121, application of ALFRED and
ZINA HULL, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED.
Location of Property: 3630 Scundview Avenue, Peconic, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-68-04-004.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass,
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3127.
Upon application for HILDEGARD MORAND, by Irving L. Price, Jr., Esq.,
828 Front Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-34 for permission to construct addition, attach-
ing nonconforming accessory structure, leaving an insufficient sideyard
setback (as a principal structure), at 935 Old Shipyard Lane, Southold,
NY; Founders Estates Map 834, Lot 107; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-
64-05-021.
The public hearing on this application was held earlier this even-
ing, at which time the hearing was'declared closed, pending deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct a laundry-
room and bath addition to the existing dwelling and attaching same to
an existing accessory garage which is located in the sideyard area 13'
from the southerly side of the house and approximately eight feet from
the southerly side property line.
The premises in question is known as Subdivision Lot #107 of
Founders Estates, Map 9834 approved May 10, 1927, and is located along
the easterly side of Old Shipyard Road (Lane) having a frontage of 75'
and a depth of 223.25' The premises is improved with a one-story,
one-family dwelling and the subject accessory building. The dwelling
is set back approximately 52' from Old Shipyard Road (Lane) and is set
back from the northerly side property line 10'
In considering this appeal, the board determmnes that the
variance request is not substantial under the circumstances; that
the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance
no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created;
that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appel-
lant 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 indicated below.
On motion by Mr~ Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
Southold Town Board of-Appeals -47- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3127 - HILDEGARD MORANq, continued: )
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3127, application for HILDEGARD MORAND
BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. No further sideyard reductions;
2. Garage shall never be converted into living area (must remain
as a garage for storage purposes).
Location of Property: 935 Old Shipyard Lane, Southold, NY;
FouNders Estates Map 834, Lot 107; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-
64'D5-021.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3108.
Upon application of WILHELM and SILKE FRANKEN, 75 Carroll Street,
Brooklyn, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule for permission to construct new dwelling
with an insufficient frontyard setback, at Osprey Nest Road, Cleaves
Point Subdivision Section I, Map 2752, Subdivision Lots 14 and 15, at
Greenport; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-6-22, 23 and 24.
The public hearing concerning this application was held earlier
this evsning, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending
deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, appellants seek permission to construct a new
one-family, 1½-story dwelling with an insufficient setback from Osprey
Nest Road of 30 feet. The premises in question is known as Lots 14
and 15 of Cleaves Point Subdivision, Section I, Map 2752 dated Septem-
ber 10, 1957 and contains an area of approximately 25,500 square feet.
This is a request for a variance from Article III, Section 100-34
wherein, under the circumstances, this parcel would be entitled to a
frontyard setback of 35' feet, or the average established setback of
existing dwellings within 300' therefrom, whichever is greater, without
a variance. This parcel is an unusually-shaped parcel of land and
fronts along Gull Pond Inlet. The elevations of this parcel are at
variations from between five to 10 feet. The area chosen for the
construction of this dwelling is the most practical and reasonable
and the elevation in this area is approximately 8.5 feet above mean
sea level. The finished floor elevation is proposed to be at 12 feet.
The board agrees with the reasoning of appellants.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
Southold Town Board of Appeals -48- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3108 - WILHELM AND SILKE FRANKEN, continued:)
variance request is not substantial under the circumstances; that
the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance
no substantial detrimsnt to adjoining properties will be created;
that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appel-
lant othar 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 indicated below.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3108, application of WILHELM AND
SILKE FRANKEN, for permission to construct new dwelling with an
insufficient frontyard setback at 30', BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. NO further frontyard reductions;
2. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Law of the Town
of Southold;
3. D.E.C. Permit 910-82-1178 issued February 3, 1983.
Location of Property: Osprey Nest Road, Cleaves Point Section
I, Map 2752, Subdivision Lots 14 and 15, at Greenport, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-6-22, 23, 24.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass
and Sawicki. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was
unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4.R- May 27, 1983 Regular Meeting
INCOMPLETE FILE: Appeal No. 3133 - THOMAS KENNEDY for a Variance
to permit business use in an "A" Residential and Agricultural District.
It was the consensus of the board members in reviewing the subject
appeal application filed May 17, 1983, that a letter be sent to Mr.
Kennedy requesting the following information prior to the scheduling
of a public hearing in this matter:
1. Which section of the zoning code is the use he is requesting.
2. What is the type of retail sales proposed.
3. What is the proposed square footage for each of the following:
(a) retail sales area (b) storage (c) building area.
4. How many parking spaces are proposed at 350 sq. ft. each.
5. Where will the egress and ingress be located and now much
square footage will be applied for accessibility?
6. Will screening be provided for adjacent residential properties
(Art. XI, Section 100-112-K).
Mr. Kennedy should also be made aware that site plan approval will be
required from the Planning Board for any business use of ~he premises,
if granted.
~.Y.S. REVIEW BOARD TO N.Y.S. CONSTRUCTION CODE. It has come to
the board's attention that the Town Board has appointed the Zoning
Board of Appeals as the Review Board to the N.Y.S. Construction Code.
It iS'~the feeling of a majority of the board members that the
Construction Code should not be v~sw~d~as the same matters which
normally fall under the Town Zoning Code. The board agreed that
an appointment should be made witi~ tne Town Board to further dis-
cuss this apointment and to recommend that persons who are knowledge-
able in the building sphere, such as licensed builders, architects,
etc. should be considered.
Being there was no other business properly coming before the
board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned.
The board members agreed to call a Special Meeting as early as
possible.
Lin~a F. Kow~alski, Se~r~'~-ry
//~_~y~~ S outhold Town Board of Appeal~ . ..
APPROVED- ~erar~P.~ Goehringer :.~.~?'~ .