Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/23/1983APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR. SERGE DOYEN..IR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals HAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 1983 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, March 23, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Serge Doyen, Member (Hishers Island). Also present were: Mr. Victor Lessard, Administrator (Building Department); Mr. Henry Lytle (Southold-Peconic Seniors Club); Mrs. Ruth Oliva (North Fork Environmental Council); and Mrs. Shirley Bachrach (League of Women Voters). Chairman :Goehringer asked Member Grigonis to open the meeting and chair the first two public hearings. Chairman Goehringer was absent during the opening of the meeting and the first two public hearings. It is also noted for the record that the recording secretary for the first two public hearings was Eileen Carey, substituting for Linda Kowalski. Chairman Pro Tem Grigonis opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. FL-13. Application of JAMES AND DORIS IDLER, 27 Anoatok Drive, Huntington, NY 11743 for a Variance to the Flood Plain Management Law, Chapter 46, Section 46-7 for permission to utilize area below the eight-foot minimum required elevation for placement of electrical utilities and equipment in this A-7 Flood Zone. Location of Property: 1010 Maple Lane, East Marion, NY; Cleaves Point Filed Map 4650, Subd. Lot 60; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-035-05-027. The Chairman (Pro Tem) opened the hearing at 7:30 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. S~hold Town Board o~ _Appeals -2- March 23, 19&~Regular Meeting (Appeal No. FL-13, JAMES AND DORIS IDLER, continued:) MR~. JASES IDLER:' Excuse me, there is another sketch there. The elevation would be 11' it shows on there. CHAIRMAN GRIGONIS: Here we go--it's right on top, that's why I couldn't find it. MR. IDLER: Can I say something else also? CHAIRMAN GRIGONIS: I'll go through it, and then you may speak. (Mr. Grigonis continued reading the appeal application and noted the sketches in the file.) Ok. Did you have something further you wanted to say? MR. IDLER: It'll be higher than it's shown there, because existing now on this...I asked VanTuyl to give me the elevations of the four corners, and he only gave me the two lower corners. Well, the garage...it'll be higher here, so actually the lowest point, it says here, eight foot. It'll be about, grade would be about 10'5" at that point there. That would be the grade. Because everything will be brought up to meet that level...this is the garage level. CHAIRMAN GRIGONIS: This sketch here shows 9½', bu~ I don't understand just What it stands for. MR. IDLER: We have 9½' at this point here. He didn't give me these heights here, but this is higher than eight and this is high- er...the garage, so this will be brought up to the garage elevation. So actually, this level here would probably be another foot above this as far as the elevation goes...I mean as far as the grade. CHAIRMAN GRIGONIS: That would make the furnace 9½' maybe? MR. IDLER: Well, yeah, I show it 3'4" to the bottom of the furnace below, so actually it will be about another foot. About 2'4" below the eight-foot mark. I've checked the furnace and so forth, the furnace man says with a 2' he could get in there for the furnace and tank, so we can raise it that high. MR. LESSARD: You're asking for relief of 2'4", right? MR. IDLER: Yes, yes. MR. LESSARD: Give or take. MR. IDLER: Give or take, it may an inch or so one way or the other. It's close there. That's all I want to say. CHAIRMAN GRIGONIS: Anyone else wishiDg to speak in favor of this? Anyone to speak in opposition? (None) Any of the board members or Vic, have any questions? (None) So I'll offer a resolution closmng the hearing and reserving decision until later. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Appeal No. FL-13, JAMES AND DORIS IDLER, until later. Sou~hold Town Board o~ ~ppeals -3- March 23, 19S~ Regular Meeting (Appeal No. FL-13 - JAMES AND DORIS IDL.E~, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Sawicki and Doug- lass. (Members Goehringer and Doyen were absent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3091. Application of JOHN AND LINDA KOWALSKI, 404 Atlantic Avenue, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for a Certi- ficate of Occupancy of Lot No. 3 of Minor Subdivision of Christine King, Map No. 117, with an adjustment of lot line between Lots 3 and 4, leaving insufficient road frontage for Lot No. 3 and leaving an insufficient sideyard setback from the existing dwelling on Lot No. 4. Each parcel contains an area exceeding one acre. Location of Property: West Side of Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-114-12-013.3 and 013.4. The Chairman (Pro Tem) opened the hearing at 7:37 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. CHAIRMAN GRIGONIS: We have a copy of the tax map of the surrounding area showing the lots in the immediate vicinity. one here to speak for this, anything to add? Any - LINDA KOWALSKI: I'm Linda Kowalski, and if there are any ques- tions I would be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN GRIGONIS: Ok. Anyone else to speak f~r it? Anyone to speak against it? (None) DON FEILER: Yes. A couple of questions beforehand. I'm Don Feiler; I own and live on the property to the north of the property seeking the variance. You mentioned that the area of Lot 3 would not be changed? CHAIRMAN GRIGONIS: I think that's the way I read it. "...It should be noted that the area of Lot No. 3 would remain the same, 1.793 acres .... MRS. KOWALSKI: It should say, Mr. Chairman, that it's going to be a minimum of 1.793 acres which was what the Planning Board requ'ired in 1978... MR. SHADELL: Excuse me, my name is Shadell. My recollection to correct that, that lot is about2, something acres. I don't have the overall map. Do you got it? The development of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4? MRS. KOWALSKI: There should be a copy in the back of the file. There is a copy of the Planning Board requirement for 1.793 and it would remain 1.793. CHAIRMAN GRIGONIS: It was 2.035. It would be cut back to 1.793 acres. It,s not far from two acres. S~thold Town Board o~ ~peals -4- March 23, 19 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3091 - JOHN AND LINDA KOWALSKI, continued:) MRS. KOWALSKI: There was a Planning Board meeting on March 7th (1983), and I submitted the same map that you have, and they approved it subject to approval by the Z.B.A~, and that was the 1.793 acres with the same lines as shown. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that answer your question? MR. FEILER: Well, yeah, that answers that question. But I would like to express my objection. I think it was mentioned of the unusual condition of the existing house and the location of it. I think that hardship is hard to explain and it's clearly a self- imposed hardship, and the relief that's sought I'm concerned mostly about the road frontage for one-third difference in the relief. And that's pretty unreasonable. I'm concerned about my own devalu- ation of property since I'm right to the north of that, and I think this variance they're seeking is for a financial gain to sell the lot, and our property is devalued because of that. Their gain will be our loss. And I don't think this is quite fair. The depreciation of our property is not just my own. I've spoken to several real estate brokers, and it's a real depreciation. It's a character change. It's not in harmony with the general plan that was arranged for in that minor subdivision. When we bought the house, the surrounding property was a major concern because it was all vacant. The zoning there was important to us and what the ultimate conditions were going to be, and I think it's quite a bit different from 150' road frontage to 100' road frontage. That's, off of my garage, that would leave their setback distance 18' off of my garage. That's not as generous as it was when I bought the house. I don't think that's a burden I should have to bear. There are some alternates that could be approached. The first thing as I said before, it's all a self-imposed hardship and I realize that the previous owner built the houSe in the middle of this on two lots, bu~ the new owners, I'm sure, got into this with their eyes open and couldn't leave, nothing hidden by that, but if the house was moved, this existing house and conform to the original minor subdivision; or a flag lot possibility of putting a new house in the back of that property, rather than on top of my house. And another thing I'm concerned with is whether this would set a precedent for the remainder neighborhood. If someone else were to decide this change to 100' it could open the door to the whole piece of property across the road from us which is approximately 1,000 feet of road frontage. Instead of 150' road frontage, why not 100' and that would be several extra houses on there. And you can figure it out, maybe three, four, five extra houses. That's a considerable change in the character of the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN GRIGONIS: I doubt if the Planning Board would take a parcel would take a parcel and do anything like that with it. MR. FEILER: Well, I talked with Henry Raynor (Chairman of the Planning Board), and he mentioned that it was not with his blessing...this is what was suggested to them...they did not approve of anything -- I'm not sure it was their intent to approve it really. S~q~thold Town Board o Appeals -5- March 23, 383 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3091 - JOHN AND LINDA KOWALSKI, continued:) CHAIRMAN GRIGONIS: There's a letter here, it is dated March 17, 1983: "...Mr. and Mrs. John Kowalski 404 Atlantic Avsnue Gresnport, NY 11944 ..~" this is from the Planning Board, it reads, "...Re: Proposed lot line change, formerly Christine King Minor #117 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kowalski: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, March 7, 1983: RESOLVED, that the Sou~hold Town Planning Board approve a set-off (106-13) for a lot line change as designated on the map of John P. and Linda F. Kowalski, formerly filed as Christine King Minor Sub- division ~117, subject to the applicant receiving approval for a variance regarding road frontage from the Zoning Board of Appeals .... " So the Planning Board has approved it. MRS. KOWALSKI: May I say one thing? If the Planning Board had recommsnded that we go along with a flag lot, a road frontage variance would still be needed. Also, if it were a flaq lot, there is a lot of marsh land there, and that would mean we wo~ld have to build a house very near the marsh, and the D.E.C. would not permit that because it would be too close. Also he mentioned, the opponent mentioned his garage being very close to the lot line. Excuse my voice, it is going. And that lot is. not being moved. That line has always been there. We're changing the lot line between two lots. We're not creating a new lot...we're changing a lot line. In 1978 a house could be built on that lot, and we're not really changing anything. It's just one house that would still be permitted on that lot. Also, if we were to move the house, it is 3300 sHuare feet with a full foundation, and it would cost us probably-- at least $15,000 to move the house, which is probably more than the lot is worth. CHAIRMAN GRIGONIS: Anyone else? MRS. BERTHA STARS: Yes. I'm to the south of the property. That property was originally set up to be two lots with 150' front- age. There is no hardship really, Linda, with the sideyard unless you want to make a buildable plot in there. MRS. KOWALSKI: May I have your name, please? MRS. STARS: Bertha Stars. Now that's a buildable plot. If that wasn't to be a buildable plot, there is no problem with the sid~yards, that area does not call for another home in that area between the ones to the north and the original house. The oriqinal owner placed it that way and had no problem with the sideyards~ The sideyards are being changed to conform so there is a saleable building plot there, and I don't think it's right. I really don't. I can't see another house in there, and it could se~ a precedent ~ SQ~hold Town Board o ~.~ppeals -6- March 23, 1 3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3091 - JOHN AND LINDA KOWALSKI, continued:) MRS. STARS continued: across the street if someone did the same thing, bought two lots at 150' and decided to do the same thing again. It would be a hardship...well, there's a lot across the street with 100' frontage. I don't think that's right. Because I don't see where there's a hardship here unless the person definitely wants to make a plot that they can sell. They bought it the way it was, and when the Kings owned it and Ebba subdivided it, it was not to be subdivided further. Now they're getting a variance to make a buildable lot. I don't think it's right. MRS. KOWALSKI: I would ~ust like to say one more thing. There is a total of 4.14 acres, and if the board denied the application for insufficient road frontage...the present zoning is 40,000 square feet, and it would be an economic hardship for us to leave one house on four acres. We'd perhaps be forced to convert that to a two-family dwelling which is permitted by the code by Special Exception and have to go for that. MRS. STARS: When you bought that house you knew, your contract wasn't contingent upon you making it a buildable plot. If my intent was to live there, 'I would never want another house in there. I would never even go in to getting a variance to make that a buildable plot, because I certainly wouldn't want anybody stuck in front of me or along side of me...and the whole area as you go down Ole Jule Lane, there isn't one house on top of a another house, so it seems to me you really are doing it for financial purpose because you would sell the house, and sell the plot, and here we sit on Ole Jule Lane. I don't think that's right. Those houses there are very well spaced, and that, the 100' frontage is nothing for a house to go on. And' I think it depreciates our property and I don't think it should be. MRS. KOWALSKI: There are houses on Ole Jule Lane that are on top of each other (interruption by Mrs. Stars) MRS. STARS: Not around our area when you come down Ole Jule Lane, no~ until you get way down...right there it's open; .and if one house went ~h~there, it would spoil the whole continuity of that area, and the same thing could be applicable across the street. Somebody subdivides, gets two lots, and all of a sudden decides well we want to make another building plot. Now we've got a hard- ship case because across the street there is a lot with 100' frontage. We either stick with it or we don't, and you bought the house knowing darn well it was placed in the middle. MRS. KOWALSKI: We did not buy the lot knowing it was in the middle because we did not have a survey showing the house with a lot line going through the house. We were not aware of it until we had the survey made for the property. I didn't bring the original copy of the survey with us, but that is why we are making the change. (Mrs. Stars and Mr. Feiler interrupting.) MR. FEILER: Did you buy in one-- S~uthold Town Board o~ .~ppeals -7- March 23, 198 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3091 JOHN AND LINDA KOWALSKI, continued:) MRS. STARS: The original owner had no intent of making a lot out of the other side. (There were several persons speaking at this time and the statements were not clearly audible.) MRS. STARS: You bought it. You wanted to make it...you must have bought it knowing it was on the middle of two lots. Now you want to make a building lot out of the area? No way! How can you have 100' frontage. You,re changing it again. It wasn't to be subdivided further, and I know that because I was interested in the parcel on the other side. And I was to the attorney and asked him if I bought the first lot next to me, if I could further take and subdivide it part of it in the back making it two lots to the west of me, with the heart of that lot, he told me "No way can you do that because this parcel can no further be subdivided." MRS. KOWALSKI: I would like to add there is no restriction in the subdivision approval that it could never be resubdivided..excuse me, I mean, we are. not creating a new lot. MRS. STARS: You are creating a new lot. MRS. KOWALSKI: We are not (Mrs. Stars interrupting again.) MRS. STARS: Compared with the way it was subdivided. And we don't want a 100' lot. MR. CHAIRMAN: We are going around and around now, so- Is there anyone else that has something different to say? MR. SHADELL: My name is Shadell and I own Lot No. l~to the north of Feilers. I voice my objection to this. MR. FEILER: Can I-- I would like t~TnRg°f~ did before-- Mrs. Kowalski bought her property under one impressmon. I was under the same condition. I bought my property knowing what the zonmng was, what the setback was, and what the ultimate situation was. And th~s ms changing that situation. I was willing to pay the price of my house because of that. I don't think it should be on my shoulders. I don't think it should be put on my shoulders--the devaluation. There's a significant devaluation of my property because of that. This was the zoning and the map was drawn up for a reason and it should stay that way. MRS. KOWALSKI: May I ask you, are you opposing that a house would be built closer to your house...would you rather a house be built further back with a covenant on there if it were approved that it would be farther away from your house? MR . FEILER: It's not away from my house. It's the general character of that --the arrangement. I don't think there is any acceptable arrangement any more. There was an acceptable arrangement mn my opinion when I bought the house. That was acceptable to me. ~ S'O~thold Town Board o~ Appeals -8- March 23, ~83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3091 - JOHN AND LINDA KOWALSKI, continued:) MR. FEILER continued: If I knew this was a 100' lot there, I might have had a different opinion on it. It might have been a different price for the house, and that's not my own opinion. As I said before that~i't ~was verified. It's as simple as that. MRS. PATRICIA FEILER: I would like to speak. MRS. FEILER: My name is Patricia Feiler, and I live with my husband on the property to the north of the Kowalski's. I understand that the Kowalski's are trying to do the best they can in the situation that they are in. But I do feel that the results of this variance which would probably be a buildable lot with a house on it eventually whether they own it or sell it or whatever. (The secretary changed the tape to side two.)( Mrs. Feiler indicated that the changes proposed would leave the burden on theme) WILLIAM STARS: My name is William Stars, I live to the south of the said property, and I also oppose the changing of the property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? MRS. KOWALSKI: I just have one more thing to add. The building width of the lot is 130', actually a variance in that area of 20' rather than one-third as was mentioned. On the road there's 100'... in the middle of the lOt 130'. MR. FEILER: Well the middle of the lot is where your house is now. MRS. KOWALSKI: No. We are way up front. The middle of the lot is approximately 80 feet in the back of our house. MR. FEILER: Are you saying Lot 3 or Lot 4? MRS. KOWALSKI: We are talking abou~ Lot 3. MRS. STARS: What -- (Mrs. Stars interrupted.) MRS. KOWALSKI: The house is set back 100 feet from Ole Jule Lane. The 130' width of Lot No. 3 is 275 feet or more (Mr. Feiler interrupting) from the road. MR. FEILER: Excuse me, that's where the wetlands, not exactly, but the lowland, with a flag lot, that would be the same area. MRS. KOWALSKI: Excuse me, but I haven't finished what I wanted to say. The variation (of elevation)in that area is between ten feet and twenty feet of elevation, so, and it also is a wooded area. The marshland does not start until 350 feet back from the road. There is no marshland there in this area. MR. FEILER: Can I ask you--which lot were you purchasing when you bought this? MRS. KOWALSKI: We purchased it in two parcels on the deed. ~buthold Town Board o ~ppeals -9- March 23, ] 3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3091 - JOHN AND LINDA KOWALSKI, continued:) MR. FEILER: But you thought that the existing house was on Lot No. 1 without any problems. MRS. KOWALSKI: Not Lot 1, no. MR. FEILER: On Lot 4. But you didn't think there was any problem, you just'_~thought there were two building lots available. MRS. KOWALSKI: We thought that the house was built on Lot 4 completely. We had no idea. Also, the reason that we are asking for a sideyard setback, we were trying to get as much width for Lot No. 3 as possible, and if the board would ask that we have the 15' that is required and make the lot larger, we would be willing to do that. MR. FEILER: For Lot 4? MRS. KOWALSKI: For Lot 4 , ill-you objec~ to the 10' sideyard there. MR. FEILER: Well then, that would reduce the new lot. MRS. KOWALSKI: If that is what the board would ask for, if they would require that. But there was nothing in the Planning Board subdivision back in 1978 that restricted it to the size it was, and we did go to the Planning Board in March and they approved it as submitted on the plan. MR. FEILER: The zoning at that time was 150' road frontage. There was a restriction. And that's the way I understood it. And that's what shouId be upheld. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, this will all be taken into consideration when the board acts on it, and if there is no further we have several more to go .and we are running way behind. If there are no further questions, I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonls, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision ~n the matter of Appeal No. 3091, JOHN AND LINDA KOWALSKI. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonls, Douglass and Sawicki. (Members Goehringer and Doyen were absent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming ~n. So~hold Town Board o~ /Appeals -10- March 23, ~_~83 Regular Meeting At 8:02 p.m., Chairman Grigonis called a five-minute recess. Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and unanimously carried, to recess for approximately five minutes, at which time the Regular Meeting would reconvene. At 8:13 p.m., Mr. Goehringer returned to the meeting room. Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, and unanimously carried, to reconvene the Regular Meeting at this time. Recording secretary Eileen Carey left, and the regular secretary Linda Kowalski commenced taking minutes of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3088. Application of JOHN AND FRANCES DiVELLO, Drawer 1402, Westphalia Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80A for permission to construct one-family dwelling in this "C-Light Industrial" Zone. Location of Property: 605 Mary's Road (a/k/a 305 Hill Street), Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-140-02-032. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:14 o'clock p.mi and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey produced by Young and Young dated November 4, 1981 indicating this particular par- cel as 1.426 acres intended proposed placement of the house approximately 60 feet from Mary's Road, 50 feet from Hill Street, and 40 feet from L.I.R.R. 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 your application, Mr. DiVello? MR. JOHN DiVELLO: No, I don't have anything to say that isn't already said in the application. MR. CHAI~4AN: Do you have any idea what the proposed square footage of the house is? MR. DiVELLO: Twenty-six by 52, whatever that comes to. Thirteen something? Thirteen fifty. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (None) Any questions from any board members? (None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hear- lng and reserving decision until some time in the very near future. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until some time in the very near future, in the matter of Appeal No. 3088, JOHN AND FRANCES DiVELLO. SoU~hold Town Board o~ ~.Appeals -11- March 23, 383 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3088 JOHN AND FRANCES DiVELLO, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was abssnt.) This resolution was unani- mously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3089. Application of ANN WYDEN and PEGGY HELLER, One Harris Court, Great Neck, NY 11021, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct scresn-porch addition with a reduced rearyard setback at 2015 Bay Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000- 31-17-002. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:17 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its ent±rety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketch of a survey dated August 25, 1981, indicating this particular property and the proposed addition which appears to be 9'4" by 8' and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the~area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? (None) Anyone wishing to speak that is opposed to this application? (None) Any questions from any board members? (None). Hearing no questions or comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until a later time in the matter of Appeal No. 3089, application of ANN WYDEN and PEGGY HELLER. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonls, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent.) This resolution was unani- mously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3090. Application of CHESTER M. MAYER, by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., 2265 King Street, Orient, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-35A for permission to erect fence exceeding the maximum height requirement of four feet within the frontyard area at 2265 King Street, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-026-02-043.2. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:19 o'clock 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 on January 20, 1981 indicating the nature of this application and the 80' of stockade Sou~%hold Town Board of Appeals -12- March 23, Y~83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3090 - CHESTER M. MAYER, continued:) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER continued: fence that is mentioned here in the application and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Bruer, would you like to be heard in behalf of this application? RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: Yes. There should be another letter in the file wherein the application was further amended, or asked to be amended, to the~ degree that the four-foot fence go back an additional 24' from the road from where it is. The purpose of that would be to bring the four-foot area from the road frontage back some 32' and at that point continue the 6' fence back an additional 56'. The purpose of that has been that the applicant and his neighbor, Mr. Schnoor, have agreed amongst themselves, subject to, of course, the board and the town, that as far as Mr. Schnoor is concerned, he wouldn't object to a four-foot fence if it was back so his open porch could have visibility. So Mr. Mayer agreed that that would be fine and that would still leave him the privacy that he required. With respect to this fence, we're here because of a determination of a building inspector. I kind of disagree with the determination because if you take his interpretation of the ordinance, you have anything in front of Mr. Mayer's house it's his frontyard, which I agree with, bu~ they also go further and say that along the sideyard there as far as the fence is concerned, that that is.really his frontyard. The ordinance is pretty clear, and it says that subject to the provisions of 100-34 that has to do with corner lots, walls, hedges, live plantings, et cetera, within 5' of the property lines may be erected and maintained subject to the following height limitations: when located in the frontyard along the frontyard property line, the same shall not exceed four feet; when located along the side and rear lot lines, the same shall not exceed six and one-half feet. Now I can understand why the building inspector did what he did, if you go to the definition of sideyard and frontyards, the definition of a sideyard, it says, "It is an unoccupied ground area fully open to the sky between any property line other than a street or rear lot line and a line drawn parallel thereto between the front and rear yards." So he said that the frontyard, which I think he's correct, the frontyard is that area in front of the building. I believe though that if you read this and continue it further, you can never have a fence between that side part of the building up to the frontyard. But needless to say, the circum- stances here do create a hardship and more particularly a practical difficulty. It's a hardship and practical difficulty because of the setbacks of the two buildings or the buildings on this particular street. The Schnoor building I believe was there first and if the Mayer or the applicants' building was placed in line with the Schnoor building, there wouldn't be any problem here because he u~der this application would have that part from the front of his house out to the road, going to the 4' line and 6' back to the rear. It's a unique situation in that if you notice the, I believe members of the board have been out there because they usually inspect these premises, the fence happens to be 2' in on the Mayer property. Mr. Schnoor is using, right up to the fence, for gardening in terms of flowers and whatever...I think that's why they reached an agreement Southo~d H~n~Board o.~ Appeals -13- March 23, _~83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3090 - CHESTER M. MAYER, continued:) MR. BRUER continued: with respect to this fence. The only open item is who is going to share what part of the cost a~ this particular point and as to cutting down the fence or settling it down. I would like to point out to the board that if Mr. Schnoor owned this fence it would be perfectly legal. In fact, more so, because the 4' area would be back behind the front of the building. We intend to go approximately 10' beyond or north of Mr. Schnoor's property line so he could have the air and see from his porch out along both streets and everybody Ks insured their privacy. Again t think the application should be granted nothing is going to change in the area. I think it's very important for the board to know that if the fence was moved 2' south and was owned by Mr. Schnoor, it would be a perfectly legal fence. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you sit down, just let me go over these figures with you. The house is approximately 82' from King Street. MR. BRUER: Yes. I have some guidelines if this might help the board of what is proposed. If I may pass it around° (Mr. Bruer passed out copies of the sketch showing the proposed fencing to each of the other board members and Mr. Lessard for view- ing.) MR. BRUER: What we basically plan to do would be that the 4' fence area would be contained to the area from the street line 32' back. And at that point, the 6' fence would then go up. MR. CHAIRMAN: And that 32' is basically what Mr. Schnoor's setback is from the road? MR. BRUER: No, his setback according to our measurements is approximately 21'. We would then give him another 10' for his porch which he would like the air and sunlight visibility, for his use and enjoyment on that porch. So in a sense we're willing to cun down almost three sections, not quite three sections of that fence, to bring it down to the 4' limitation set by the building inspector. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MR. BRUER: And as I said, if. it were Mr. Schnoor's, it would be perfectly legal. I roughly drew this tonight, showing the cross- ing of the frontyard here saying that this is where the fence is and what we intend to do is make from here to here back the 4' and only here to here 56' of the 6'. Thank you very much. MR. CHAI~4AN: Thank you, Mr. Bruer. to be heard in behalf of this application? to speak against the application? (None) board members? Would anybody else like (None) Anybody like Any questions from any Southold Town Board o~.~Appeals -14- March 23, _~83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3090 - CHESTER M. MAYER, continued:) MEMBER DOUGLASS: Mr. Bruer, are you aware that there are cove- nants in the deed on that house, covering this? MR. BRUER: No. I should be because I repressnted Mr. Mayer when he bought it. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well there is. MR. BRUER: What does it say? MEMBER DOUGLASS: It says that he cannot have anything above four feet out there. MR. BRUER: If that's the case, I guess the person entitled to enforce that covenant could enforce it. But I don't think it has to do with the application here. I mean it's worthwhile information for the board but-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you get us a copy of that? MR. BRUER: I'll look for it. I wasn't aware of it. MEMBER DOUGLASS: It's in the deed. MR. BRUER: Well, I'll look for it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just so we can have it for the record, ok? MR. BRUER: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, would anybody like to speak against the application? Any other questions from any board members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until a later time in the matter of Appeal" ~o. 3090, application of CHESTER-M. MAYER. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawickio (Member Doysn was absent.) This resolution was unani- mously a~opted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appsal No. 3092. Application of ERNEST H. PRUSS- NER, 910 Old Shipyard Lane, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100~31, Bulk Schedule for permission to construct extsnsion reducing the rearyard setback and exceeding the 20% maximum allowable lot coverage at 910 Old Shipyard Lane, Southold, Southold Town Board o'_ Appeals -15- March 23, _~83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3092 - ERNEST H. PRUSSNER, continued:) NY; Founders Estates Map 834, Subd. Lot 91~ County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-064-04-022. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:91 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal applicationl MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey dated October 15, 1965 and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the parcels in the surrounding area. Is there anyone wishing to speak for this application? (None) Is there anyone wishing to speak against the application? MR. MEREDITH: My mother owns the property directly to the north of the Prussners, and I own the property next door to my mother. I'd like to know, is this a two-story or a one-story addition? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name, sir. MR. MEREDITH: Meredith. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Meredith, we can't answer that question. We had gotten a letter from the attorney indicating that they would not be available tonight. ELIZABETH GOLDSMITH: I'm Elizabeth Goldsmith and they had requested a postponement, but I can answer Mr. Meredith that it is a one-story. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Ok? MR. MEREDITH: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you would like ~o ask, Mr. Meredith? MR. MEREDITH: Well, I gather there will be a further hearing. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll continue this hearing until the next regularly-scheduled meeting. Ok? Would anybody else like to speak in behalf of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (None) Ok, at the request of Abigail A. Wickham, Esq., I'll make a motion recessing this particular hearing until the next regularly-scheduIed meeting. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to recess the matter of Appeal No. 3092, application of ERNEST H. PRUSSNER until the next ReguI~r Meeting of this board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent.) This resolution was unani- mously adopted. ~ S~uthold Town Board of-~Appeals -16- March 23, Y983 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3094. 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 for approval of lot having insufficient area and frontyage along West- phalia Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-121- 02-012.1. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:37 o'clock p.m. and read the legal, notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the survey of the subdivision, sort of speak., and the parcel in question is on No. 3 which is 20,000 square feet and 100' of road frontage on Westphalia Road, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the surrounding properties in the area. Would anybody like to speak .in behalf of this application? Mr. Horton? (GERRY HORTON was present.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I should note for the file we have a petition, "...We the undersigned object to the down zoning that the Bap- tist Church is requesting on their lot facing Westphalia Road: .... " /s/ by 33 persons. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of the application? (None) I also have two letters, one from Ruth Whit- marsh and one from Pamela McCaffery (objecting to the application). Would anybody like to speak against the application? Could you state your name please? MRS. ROSENFELD: I'm Mrs. Rosenfeld and my property adjoins the Lot 3 in question, and I would like to state that I have a full acre of land and I'm not, as you stated in your statement, all the surround- ing areas are a half acre...and I question that statement. There are, It's a very strange piece of property; it's a 100' on Westphalia and then it goes back to 83 at the back. My u~derstanding was that it was planned for a driveway and I don't think it's big enough for a house. It would make our life disorderly...we would have to put up fences; we would have to pu~ up trees for ~rivacy. It just doesn't make any kind of sense. I think that Sou~hold Town has an one-acre zoning and I don't think we should change that for anyone. I really don't. I think our water supply is questionable, and if we're going to make these variances continuously, we're going to all be drinking salt water. I think it would change the character of our neighborhood because we would be very crowded. It wouldn't look like what's left there on the road. The other very minor thing that I would oppose is that there are many large trees and there are a lot of birds in that field, and I think that any one of those five things should be enough to not gr.ant the variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Rosenfeld. Would anybody else Sou~ho!d Town Board o~ ~ppeals -17- March 23, 83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3094 - NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: like to speak against the application? Mr. Horton, the board was down there and they are aware of the survey. I was just wondering if the Baptist Church could furnish us with a survey indicating the other two parcels of property that are involved here that aren't mentioned on this survey, and that's the one with the house on it and there's another tangent piece that goes off on one side, is there not? MR. HORTON: It's on it. This is the parsonage here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. It's not shown as a lot on this subdivi- sion though. It"s shown as just this lot with the parsonage cut out and then you have another tangent piece which comes out over here which is not shown on the survey. MR. HORTON: I was not aware this was a contiguous piece. This is all together? MR. CHAIRMAN: It's cut out. MR. HORTON: Oh, you mean this should have been on it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. It should have been on it and this other piece over here should have been on it. MR. HORTON: Oh, this little piece here. Ok. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you think maybe you could get that for us, if we recess the hearing here and you could re-present it to us at the next regular meeting? MR. HORTON: Yeah, sure. You want this included, as on the Lot No. 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, and then include the acreage, what's involved .in that, and then whatever is on this tangent. MR. HORTON: Ok. Sure. No problem. This used to be a legal lot. The church bought this property, this was a lot here; this was a lot down to here. This was a lot down to here. MRS. ROSENFELD: But it isn't now. MR. CHAIRMAN: And it has been merged? MR. HORTON: Yes, unless the surveyor ms wrong, it's a half acre lot there. Rosenfeld. MR. LESSARD: MR. HORTON: two lots. When was it purchased, ,Gerry? I think around 1976. The church bought I believe Sou~hold Town Board oz ~Appeal-s -18- March 23,~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3094 - NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, continued:) MR. LESSARD: And nothing has been done to it since? MR. HORTON: Nothing was done to it, no. Now they're trying to get the three lots and go back to two lots. MR. LESSARD: Well they don't have to worry because it did. MR. HORTON: I think it was three lots they bought. I was not there then, so I don't know. MR. CHAIRMAN: But you'll get that for us and we'll recess- MR. HORTON: Well you all want this included in Lot No. 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Show us what else you own in that particular area. I don't mean you individually, I mean the church. MR. HORTON: Ok. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. HORTON: And you won't need a new application or anything? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we're just going to recess this till the next regularly-scheduled meeting. Ok. Any comments from anyone? (None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion recessing this application until the next regularly-scheduled meetinq. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to recess the application of NORTH FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, Appeal No. 3094, until the next Regular Meeting of this Board (tentatively April 20, 1983). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member. Doyen was absent.) This resolution was unani- mously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3095. Application for GEORGE AND SYBIL PENNY, by Skinny Dip Pools, Inc., Box 108, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100z32 for permission to construct swimmingpool and fence in the front and side yard areas at 9395 Soundview Avenue, Sou~hold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1090-59-6-21. The Chairman opened the hearinq at 8:45 o'clock 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 20' by Southold Town Board o~ Appeals -19- March 23, ~98.3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3095 - GEORGE AND SYBIL PENNY, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: 40' proposed pool to be placed approximately 45' from, it looks like the north property line, and approximately 50' from their house. Would you ~ike to be heard in behalf of this application, Mr. Siemer- ling? (No comments.) (Mr. Siemerling was present.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like an opportunity to be heard in behalf of the application? (No one). Would anybody like to speak against the application? (None) MR. HENRY LYTLE: I would just like to ask one question. MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly. MR. LYTLE: Is that the property that was put for the horse pen? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, this is on the other side of the house. It doesn't show the distance from the pond b~ it's farther from the pond than the house is. It's the same piece of property bu~ that's in the frontyard area, this is toward the opposite side, to the north, northeast. It shows north. MEMBER DOUGLASS: It's northeast actually. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Siemerling. I would assume that this struc- ture would not be enclosed in any way? MR. SIEMERLING: (Nodded no.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to speak regarding this application? Any questions from any board members? (None) I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBERS~ SAWICKI AND GRIGONIS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Messrs. Sawicki and Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until a later time in the matter of Appeal No. 3095, application of GEORGE AND?SYBIL PENNY. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonls, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent.) This resolution was unani- mously adopted. S6~thold Town Board of Appeals -20- March 23, ~983 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3096, Application of FRANK AND BRENDA CICHANOWICZ, LuPin Drive and Skunk Lane, Cutchog~e, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-32 and 100-35 for permission to construct accessory swimmingpool and detached garage, and fence exceeding the maximum-permitted four- feet in height within the frontyard area at 255 Lupin Drive and 4135 Skunk Lane, Cu~chogue, NY; Hickory Acres Map 3325, Subd. Lots 1 and 2; County Tax Map Parcel ID Nos. 1000-97~9-15 and 16. The Chairman op~ned the hearing at 8:48 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a rather extensive landscaping plan produced on 2/21/83 indicating the nature of the swimmingpool, garage and deck/patio areas and the chainlink fence, and I 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? (No owe). Would somebody like to speak against the application? (No one). Any questions from any board members? (None) Hearing no questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3096, application of FRANK AND BRENDA CICHANOWICZ. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyan was absent.) This resolution was unani- mously adopted. PUBLIC RE-HEARING: Appeal No. 3085. (Rehearing of Appeal No. 3028). Application of ANN O'SULLIVAN, by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280A. Location of Parcel in Question: 5692 Main Bay- view Road, Sou~hold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-78-4-41.2. The Chairman opsned the hearing at 8:51 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketch of a survey indicating the right-of-way and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this parcel and the parcel in the surrounding area. Mr. Bruer, would you like to be heard? RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. The original application here was made by the O'Sullivans who are present tonight for the erection of a shed, a 12' by 20' shed. That appeal was granted with the idea or the condition ~e~thold Town Board o~ Appeals -21- March 23, ~983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3085 ANN O'SULLIVAN, continued:) MR. BRUER continued: that a 280-A access be granted. It was granted, subject to as you read, an improvement of the road. As indicated before, the house, or this particular right-of-way services two residences and that's all that can ever be used on this particular piece of property and it has been in serv~ca for over 50 years. The O'Sullivans own the back piece of property and I believe her sister owns the front piece, and it has been in the family for over all these years. I have here pictures showing the right-of-way looking at it from the subject property down to the main road (Bayview Road) and back again. I would like to have this as part of the board's file, and I think a viewing of those photographs would show that the road is more than adequate considering the use of it to be for only two properties. (Mr. Bruer submitted a total of 12 color photographs of the areas in question for the record.) MR. BRUER continued: I would like to point out further that in the past, the roadway has been used for fire access to get to an adjoin- ing landowners piece of property, and it was certainly adequate at that time. The economic hardship here...the O'Sullivans have received an estimate where they were quoted a figure from $3,000 to $3,500 to improve the roadway up to the conditions the board specified on the last appeal. Under the circumstances of the building being requested here and for the purposes for which the application was originally requested, I think it's excessive 5o ask the O'Sullivans to put this road into the condition the board set forth in the last appeal. As a practical matter, if there was ever any problem getting to the subject property which, if you look at the survey, it's very close to Corey Creek Lane...although it is a private road, the road is in good condition and I'm sure on their own, emergency vehicles would use that access if needed. Again, I can only reiterate the fact that the existing building has been there some 50 years. That there is in existence Certificates of Occupancies for this building dated I believe February 6th, 1981 for a private one-family dwelling with an attached outside storage shed; that's CO ~Z10378. That there is a second CO for a private one-family dwelling and attached garage, Z10382 it looks like. Both dated February 6th, one signed by Mr. Horton and one signed by Mr. Fisher. I believe the appeal should be granted as requested. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bruer. Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf of this application? (No one) Would anybody like to speak against the application? (No one.) MR. BRUER: Just one word-- on the prior appeal, the reasons the O'Sullivans were not here at that time, they had to be on the West Coast and were not in the area...otherwise I'm sure they would have been here. Southold Town Board o. ~peals -22- March 23, 1 3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3085 - ANN OTSULLIVAN, continued:) ~. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bruer. Unfortunately, our pictures didn't come out as nice. Hearing no further conlments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision u~til later. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hea.ring and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. 30.85, ANN O'SULLIVAN. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent.) This resolution was unani- mously adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3086. Application for PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC., 62500 Main Road, Southold, NY (by George~A. Cottral) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Sec- tion 100-80A for permission to construct addition with an insuffi- cient frontyard setback and to use proposed addition for retail sales in this "C-Light Industrial" Zone. Location of Property: 62500 Main Road, Sou~hold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-056-06-006. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:57 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of sketch dated 12/20/79 indicating the existing retail sales area of approximately 26' by 32' which is No. 1, and a proposed retail sales area with addition, Of a variable 40' by 30' Store No. 1 having a sales area of 276 square feet and a storage of 556 square feet. Store No. 2 having retail sales area of 400 square feet with a storage area of 800 square feet. And 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 the application? (Nodded negatively.) MR. GEORGE COTTRAL was present. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to speak in behalf of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (No one). It is my understanding that retail sales No. 1 is going to remain as it is now? MR. COTTRAL nodded affirmatively. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sales No. 2 would be what kind of business? MR. COTTRAL: MR. CHAIRMAN: storage area? It's proposed to be a retail fish market. Would there be extensive tanks and such in the MR. COTTRAL: No. Southold Town Board o~ Appeals -23- March 23, ~83 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3086 - PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC., continued:) MR. COTTRAL: We're not proposing to go large scale. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Any questions from any board members? (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. RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later in the matter of Appeal No. 3086, application of PORT OF EGYPT ENTER- PRISES, INC. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent.) This resolution was unani- mously adoPted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the meetfngs of this board held: February 4, 1983 Regular Meeting, February 19, 1983 Special Meeting February 25, 1983 Regular Meeting March 12, 1983 Special Meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonls, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent.) This resolution was unani- mously adopted. RESPONSE TO INQUIRY: Appeal No. 2098, Decision Rendered February 5, 1976 for William Jacobs application, with conditions. Edward Hindermann, Building and ~ousing Inspector, and Mr. Costello have requested a clarification of the subject appeal. Member Grigonis, being a voting member in that decision, informed the secretary that the relief granted was for two dwelling units in' the barn, in addition to the existing one-family dwelling use in the principal residence, making a total of ~three dwelling units on the subject parcel (213 acres). CLOSED SESSION FOR DELIBERATIONS: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to recess this Regular Meeting temporarily for the purpose of "deliberating in closed session"; and at the end of deliberations, the board will reconvene this ReguIar Meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonls, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent.) ~ ~$~uthold Town Board ~j Appeals -25- March 23~<~983 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declaration, Appeal No. 3097, DeVoe, continued:) REASONS SUPPORTING THIS .DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects"to the environment are likely to occur shOuld this project be implemented as planned. (2) This relief requested by this application is not directly related to construction. APPEAL NO.: 3087. PROJECT N~E: LULA MAE LATHAM. 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 II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, ~re particularly known as: Right-of-Way located off the south side Main Road, -Q~e~t. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates tha~ no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) The relief requested is n'ot directly for new construction. ~ Southold Town Board o~ Appeals -26- March 23, 19F (Environmental Declarations, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3098. PROJECT N~W~E: HENRY JOHN PAVL~K 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, pteas~ 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: Accessory garage in sideyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southotd, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Grand Avenue, Mattituck, NY. REASON.~SJ.~.~UPPORTING THIS DETER~INATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment 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. APPEAL NO.: PROJECT NA_~E: 3099. DOROTHY REISE 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 II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Tennis court and garage on vacant parcel. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Hyatt Road (private), Southold, NY. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEk~INATION: (!) 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. ~Southold Town Board o.~ ~ppeals -27- March 23, ~'~83 Regular Meeting ~vironmental Declarations, continued:~ ~- APPEAL NO4: 3100 PROJECT NAME: ROGER L. MUNZ a~d VICTOR CATALANO. 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. Zone. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Use variance to permit boat sales in B-1 LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 13175 Main Road, Mattituck, NY. RE-ASONtS) 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.: 3101 PROJECT NAME: ROGER L. MUNZ AND VICTOR CATALANO. 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~ Zone. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Exception for boat sales in B-1 LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southo!d, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 13175 Main Road, Mattituck, 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. : Southold Town Board o~ %ppeals -28- March 23, 19~~ Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) APPEAL NO.: 3102 PROJECT NAME: JOHN F. AND MARY F. McFELLY 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: One-family dwelling as proposed places accessory building (existing) in frontyard area; and ~lling will have insufficient sideyard setbacks. 3'- LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. REASON~S$~.~UPPORTING 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. APPEAL NO.: 3104. PROJECT NAME: ANNE POLASHOCK. 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 II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Replace and enlarge existing porch Which will exceed the 20% maximum-permitted lot coverage. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southo!d, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: East Side of Third Street, New Suffolk, NY. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that ne significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. So~thold Town Board o~ Appeals -29- March 23, _ 83 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (Appeal No. 3104, Polashock, continued:) (2) The premises in question does not adjoin a wetlands or other environmentally critical area. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonls, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent.) This resolution was unani- mously adopted. APPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1983: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Hr. Gr~gonls, it was RESOLVED, that the following applications be and hereby are SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS to be held at the next Regular Meeting of this board, to wit, April 20, 1983 commencing at 7:30 p.m., and that notice of same sh&ll be advertised in the local and official newspapers of the town pursuant to law: Appeal No. 3097. ROBERT AND J©KNNE DEVOE. Approval of Access off the Main Road, Orient. Appeal No. 3087. LULA MAE LATHAM. Approval of access off the south side of Main Road, Orient. Appeal No. 3098. HENRY JOHN PAVLAKi Grand Avenue, Mattituck~ Accessory garage in sideyard araa. Appeal No. 3099. DOROTHY REISE by Rial Realty Corp. court and garage on vacant parcel. Road, Southold. Tennis Hyatt Appeal No. 3100. ROGER L. MUNZ and VICTOR CATALANO. Boat sales in B-1 Zone. Main Road, Mattituck. (Variance) Appeal No. 3101. ROGER L. MUNZ and VICTOR CATALANO. (same) (Special Exception) Appeal No. 3102. JOHN F. AND MARY F. ~cFEELY. Insufficient side- yard setback for new dwelling. Accessory build- ing in frontyard area. Appeal No. 3104. ANNE POLASHOCK. Lot coverage variance. Replace and enlarge existing porch. Third St, New Suff. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent.) This resolution was unani- mously adopted. ~Southold Town Board o~ ~ppeals -30- March 23, 1 3 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3084. PATNICK REALTY. Upon application of PATNICK REALTY CORP., by Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq., Main Road, Box 38, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60 permitting two residential dwellings in this B-Zoned District. Location of Property: 69430 Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000'45-04-001. The public hearing on this application was held on February 25, 1983, at which time the hearing was declared closed psnding deliberations and further research. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellant seeks to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for a single-family residsnce (converted from a garage) which has appar- ently been used as such since 1968. The principal building is a noncon- forming one-family residsnce preexisting the adoption of the zoning ordi- nance in 1957 and has continuously been used as a one-family residence. The premises in question is located at the south side of Main Road, Greenport with a road frontage of 300 feet and contains an acreage of 2.036. The premises is zoned "B-Light Business." In researching town records concerning this property, it appears Building Permit #11444Z and Certificate of Occupancy 9Z10894 were issued on November 2, 1981 and Pebruary 26, 1982, respectfully, for "...a laundry room addition to existing dwelling." In considering this appeal, the board determines that under the circumstances, the use applied for will not alter the essential char- acter of the neighborhood; that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacsnt properties or of properties in adjacsnt use districts; that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located, or of permitted or legally estab- lished uses in adjacent-use districts; that the safety, health, wel- fare, comfort and conveience and order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as noted below. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Gr±gonls, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3084, application of ?ATNICK REALTY requesting approval of the conversion of a garage into the one- family residential structure now existing on the premises, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) Any change of use of either or both of the existing buildings shall be subject to conformance with all zoning regula- tions, and laws subsequently adopted to this decision; and no more than one use shall be permitted upon the premises except as permitted by this variance (i.e. no business and residential mixed); (2) Review by the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant ~uthold Town Board o~ Appeals -31- March 23, It ~3 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3084 - PATNICK REALTY, continued:) to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter. Location of Property: 69430 Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-45-05-001. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doug- lass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. Member Goehringer left the room at this time. R~SERVED DECISION: Appeal NO. 3091. Application of JOHN AND LINDA KOWALSKI, 404 Atlantic Avenue, Greenport, NY for a Varian'ce to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100'31 for a Certificate of Occupancy of Lot No. 3 ~f Minor Subdivision of Christine King, Map No. 117, with an adjustment of lot line between Lots 3 and 4, leaving insufficient road frontage for Lot No. 3 and leaving an insufficient sideyard setback from the existing dwelling on Lot No. 4. Each parcel contains an area exceeding one acre. Location of Property: West Side of Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000'114-12-013.3 and 013.4. The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this~evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, appellants seek to obtain a Certificate of Occu- pancy for Lot No. 3 of Minor Subdivision Map #117 of Christine King with a change in the position of the lot line separating the parcel in question and the parcel abutting on the sou~h (Lot No. 4). Parcel No. 4 has constructed thereupon a one-story framed dwelling set back approximately 100 feet from from Ole Jule Lane, set back approximately 89 feet from the southerly property line. Applicants propose a 10-foot sideyard setback from the northerly property line of Lot 4 to attain as much road frontage as practical. Lot No. 3 is vacant, having an acreage of 1,793 and frontage along Ole Jule Lane of 100 feet, and thence widens out to 130 feet, 275 feet back from Ole Jule Lane. Lot No. 4 has an acreage of 2.348 and frontage along Ole Jule Lane of 150 feet. Appellants have received approval from the Southold Town Planning Board of the within proposal at a Regular Meeting held on March 7, 1983. It is noted for the record that the board members are familiar with the statements raised at the public hearing held March-23, 1983, objecting to this application. It is the opinion of the board that the changes proposed will not alter the character of the neighborhood; that the subject parcel will conform in all other respects with zoning; and that the plan as submitted is the most practical under the circumstances. · S6~thold Town Board of~ Appeals -32- March 23, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3091 - John and Linda Kowalski, continued:) In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are unique and practical difficulties have been shown; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining proper- ties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellants other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental faci= lities 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. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3091, application of JOHN AND LINDA KOWALSKI, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR. Location of Property: West Side of Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcels ID No. 1000-114-12-13.3 and 13.4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonls, Douglass and Sawicki. (Members Doyen and Goehrlnger were absent.) RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. FL-13. JAMES AND DORIS IDLER. Upon application of JAMES AND DORIS IDLER, 27 Anoatok Drive, Hunting- ton, NY 11743 for a Variance to the Flood Plain Management Law, Chapter 46, Section 46-7 for permission to utilize area below the eight-foot minimum required elevation for placement of electrical utilities and equipment ~n this A-7 Flood Zone. Location of Property: 1010 Maple Lane, East Marion, NY; Cleaves Point Filed Map 4650, Subd. Lot 60; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-035-05-027. 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 application, applicants seek permission to place electrical utilit~ies within basement area below the eight-foot elevation above mean sea level. The premises in question is located at the westerly side of Maple Lane, East Marion, and is located partially in an A-7 Flood Zone and partially in a B Flood Zone. Applicants propose to locate the utilities a minimum of 20'! from the foundation floor, which appears to be approximately four feet above mean sea level. The board finds upon v~ewlng the area there are several homes in the neighborhood of the subject parcel. The dwellings constructed on these lots are on lots of a similar size, and the dwellings constructed thereon are constructed below the base flood level.. The board therefore finds that the lot in question meets the standards set forth in Section 46-16A of the Code Soft-hold Town Board of Appeals -33- March 23, 1983 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. FL-13 - JAMES AND DORIS IDLER, continued:) since it contains an area of less than one-half acre and ms contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level. In passing upon this application, the board has considered all technical evaluations; all relevant factors; all standards specified in the Code; and all of the applicable factors contained in Section 46-15B, subdivisions (1) to (11), inclusive, of the Code. The board further finds and determines that: (1) there is a good and sufficient cause for the grant of this variance; (2) a failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the appli- cant; (3) the grant of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, or additional threats to public safety, or extraordinary public expense, or create nuisances, or cause fraud, or victimize the public, or conflict with existing local laws or rules or regulations. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that JAMES AND DORIS IDLER, the applicants herein, be and hereby ARE GRANTED a variance from the provisions of the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold to construct a one-family private dwelling with u~ilities in the basement area AS APPLIED FOR, on premises located on the westerly side of Maple Lane, East Marion, NY, and more particuIarly identified as County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-05-27; AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of Section 46-16F of the Code, the applicant is hereby given notice that the structure for which this variance is granted will be permitted to be built with the u~ilities ~n the basement area below the base flood elevation, and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor eleva- tion; AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary to this Board transmit copies of this determination to the applicants and to the Town Building Department/.Inspector. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Members Doyen and Goehringer were absent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. At this point in time, Member Goehringer returned.to the meeting. SO~hold Town Board of Appeals -3 4- March 23, 1~83 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3088. Upon application of JOHN AND FRANCES DiVELLO, Drawer 1402, Westphalia Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80A for permission to construct one-family dwelling in this "C-Light Industrial" Zone. Location of Property: 605 Mary's Road (a/k/a 305 Hill Street), Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-140-02- 032. 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, applicants seek permlssaon to utilize the east end of the subject premises for one-family residential use and to con- struct a one-family modular home. The premases ~n question is vacant land, containing 1.426 acres, and as zoned "C-Light Industrial." Abut- ting the premises on the north are the Long Island Railroad and several homes in the A-Residential District. Abutting the premises on the east are Mary's Avenue (Road) and an A-Residential Zone. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the use applied for will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adja- cent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located, or of permitted or legally established uses an adjacent- use districts; that the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as noted below. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3088, applicataon of JOHN AND FRANCES DiVELLO for permission to construct modular home and use same as a one-family residence, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW- ING CONDITION: That only 40,000 square feet shall be applied for residential use (around house). Location of Property: 605 Mary's Road (a/k/a 305 Hill Street), Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-140-02-032. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doug- lass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. ~ S~uthold Town Board of peals -35- March 23, 19~ Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3096. Upon application of FRANK AND BRENDA CICHANOWICZ, Lupin Drive and Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-32 and 100-35, for permission to construct accessory swimmingpool, detached garage, and fence exceeding the maximum permitted four feet within the frontyard area at 255 Lupin Drive and 4135 Skunk Lane, Cu~chogue, NY; Hickory Acres Map 3325, Subd. Lots 1 and 2; County Tax Map Parcel ID Nos. 1000-97-9-15 and 16. The public hearing on this application was held earlier this even- in~, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicants seek permission to construct an inground swimmingpool in an area in front (westerly) of applicants' one-family dwelling and a 20' by 20' garage structure abutting the brick patio of the subject pool at the northeast corner. The proposed pool is 20' by 40', brick patio area 2800 square feet and garage structure 400 square feet. Upon inspecting the property, the board finds that only that area westerly of~the existing residence as practical due to the loca- tion of the cesspools and the position of the residence. The premises in question is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-119A, fronting along Bay Avenue (a/k/a Skunk Lane) 125 feet and along Lupin Drive a total of 327.38 feet. The lots in question are part of a major sub- division entitled, "Hickory Acres," Map No. 3325, subdivision lots No. 1 and 2. For the record it is noted that applicants originally proposed a 5' high fence along the frontyard area at the northerly property line; however, it is the understanding of the board members that this proposal is no longer anticipated and applicants will be conforminq with the zoning code with a maximum-height requirement for fences ~f four feet. In considering this appeal, the board determines that thevariance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zon- ing code; 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 appellants 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 interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3096, application of FRANK AND BRENDA CICHANOWICZ, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CON- DITIONS: 1. That the fence shall not exceed the height of four feet; 2. That the pool must meet all setback requirements for a ~hold Town Board of ~peals -3_6- March 23, 19L Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3096 - FRANK AND BRENDA CICHANOWICZ, continued:) principal use; 3. That the accessory structure be used for "pool use" (not to be used for housing of automobiles or for living quarters, etc.) Location of Property: 255 Lupin Drive, Cutchogue, NY; Hickory Acres Subdivision Map No. 3325, Lots 1 and 2; County Tax Map Parcel ID Nos. 1000-97-09-015 and 016. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doug- lass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3095. Upon application for GEORGE AND SYBIL PENNY, by Skinny Dip Pools Inc., Box 108, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct swimmingpool and fence in the front and side yard areas at 9305 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-59-6-21. The public hearing concerning this matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicants seek permission to construct a 20' by 40' ingrou~d swimmingpool in an area easterly of applicants' existing dwelling structure deemed to be front and side yards. The pool struc- ture will be set back from the easterly property line a minimum of 45 feet and approximately 50 feet from the residence. Upon viewing the property in question, the board finds there is minimal rearyard area available for new construction and therefore the rearyard would not be practical. The premises contains an area of 1.78 acres with 200' frontage along Soundview Avenue and approximately 399' frontage along Great Pond. Under the circumstances, the board agrees with the reasoning of applicants. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zon- ing code; 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 appellants 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 interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by M~. Grigonis, it was 'S~ut~hold Town Board of peals -37- March 23, 19[ Regular Meeting '(Appeal No. 3095 - GEORGE AND SYBIL PENNY, continued:) RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3095, application for GEORGE AND SYBIL PENNY for permission to locate inground swimmlngpool and fence in the front and side yard areas, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR. Location of Property: 9305 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-59-06-021. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3089. Upon application of ANN WYDEN and PEGGY HELLER, One Harris Court, Great Neck, NY 11021, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct screen-porch addition with a reduced rearyard setback at 2015 Bay Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-31-17-002~ The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicants seek permission to construct an 8' by 9'4" screened-in porch addition at the rear northeasterly corner of the existina one-story, one-family bungalow. The premises in question contains an area of approximately 4,000 square feet, with a frontage along Bay Avenue of 69 feet and an average depth of 64.75 feet. The premises fronts Marion Lake on two sides and is improved with the one-story bungalow with small front porch and accessory shed which is located in the rearyard approximately 10' from the shoreline of Marion Lake. The proposed screened- porch addition will be no closer than 13 feet from its nearest point with the shoreline. The board finds that applicants' reasoning is not unreasonable under the circumstances. In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance request is not substantial in relation to the requirements of the zon- inc code; 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 appellants 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 interest 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. 3089, application for ANNE WYDEN and PEGGY HELLER for permission to construct an 8' by 9'4" screen -porch addition, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW- ~SomC~hold Town Board of ~.~eals -38- March 23 198< Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3089 - ANNE WYDEN and PEGGY HELLER, continued:) ING CONDITION: That the subject addition shall always remain screened and shall never be closed with windows or walls. Location of Property: 2015 Bay Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000- 031-17-002. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent.) This resolution was unanimously adopted. ~-~i~g there was no other business properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned· Respectfully submitted, · K~walsq~i, Secretary Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals (As to pp. 10 - 38) Eileen M. Carey, Temp. Secretary (As to pp. 1 - 10) APPROVED ~rard P ~ hring , Chairman · _ ,ch Chairman Pro Tom {pp. 1-I0 inc., and pp. 31-33 incl.) RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK