Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/13/1969Southold Town Board of Appeals SOLITHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 11~1 Telephone 765-2~50 APPEAL BOARD MEMBER Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman Robert Bergen Charles GrJgonis, Jr. $¢r~e Doyen, Jr. Fred Hulse, Jr. MINUTES SOUI~{OLD TC~%~ BOARD OF ~L~PEALS March 13, 1969 A regular meeting of the Southold Tova~ Board cf Appeals was held at ~:BO P.M., Thursday~ Mmurch iB, 1969, at the Town Office~ Southold ~ I~ew York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr,~ Chairman; Fred Hutse~ Jr,~ Charles Grigonis, Jr. Absent: Messrs: Robert Bergen, Serge Do.ven~ Jr. PUBLIC HEraldING: Appeal No. 1235 - 7:30 P.~i.(B.S.T.), Upon application of Leo Steedle: 3 Krobel Court, Baldwin, New York~ for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article II~ Section BO$~ for permission to ~uild new one famil.v dwelling ~with reduced front yard setback. Location of property: west side of private right-of~way off south side of King Street~ Orient, New York, bounded north by Charles Krult~ east by James Douglas, south by Jzumes Douglas~ west by Orient~ Harbor. Fee paid $5.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and notice to the applicant. TH~ CHAI~WL~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak in favor of this application? GEORGE~ FRY: If anything is built beyond the present house, it wo~ld throw that whole proper~y off. The way the house is angled ~ this would not be in accordance with this property, Only two or three years I had to go to work and extend sideways because I couldn't come out, I think if you go and look at the property~ you will s~that all of the hquses a~9 ' straight line. If ~uything is extended into that right o~ way, mm ~1~ me very very wrong. Southold Tc~n Board of Appeals -2- 9~ch 13, 1969 TH~ CPL~IRM_~N: ~&~at is the average setback of the houses now? ~ORC~ AJ~LERS: Forty-eight feet from the property line. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that the average setback? GEORGE A~q~ERS: Yes~ except for ~r, Douglas, Sr, That projects way back~ TP~ C-~IR~iA~N: This right of way dead ends into this !ot, is this correct? GEORGE AHLERS: That is correct, TH~ CPL~IPJ~LAi~: How many houses ~re on this r~ght of way? MR. FRY: Four. THE C_w~LIRbLa~N: Hc~v many project in front? ~R. FRY: None of them. They are all i~n a line. THE CHAINh¥~%_N: How many vacant lots are there do~n there? 5~. FRY: There is one vacant lot, except for the one 5~..~hlers is going to build on. THE CHAIRSI~/N: Is this property bulkheaded? 9~. FRY: No. THE CPL~IP~4AN: Are you objecting to this application? ~Lq. FRY: I am objecting to anything that will extend. TP~ E~{AIR?.~: It appears from thissketch if the 48 foot setback was insisted ~upon~ the house would hang over the cliff. I~. ~qLBRS: If this house was to be set back 48 feet~ the house would have to be set on spiles, There ~s no watermain here. We have driven a well up in the corner. We have a right to drill a well on our property, THE CIA~I~L~N: ~r. Fry was out of turn. I asked if there was anyone 'present who wishes to speak for this application? LEO STBEDLE: I ~m the ortner of the property. The right Of way does not extend into that property, It terminates at the west side of it~ so that it ~!1 not be in the common right of way, ' THE CPLa. IPdf~N: There is no way to locate this house on this property~ even if a side yard variance was granted, ~en did you buy this lot? Southold To%m Board of Appeals -3- ~.i~rch t3~ 1969 }~, STEEDLE: The final closing was almost a year ago, It was at least 10 months : probably eleven mrs ago, TP~- C~AI~.~N: Was the lot in this condition when you bough~ it? I~R, STEEDLE: I$ was s!igh~ly recessed~ but the ~ptem~r Storm leveled ·hat a little bi~ more, ~, ;~ERS: I would say its ~possible~ except for putting the house on spiles, ~o~ain the setback, T~ C~i~L~N: Is ~here ~yone else who wishes ~o spe~for ~his application? FLO~ ~qG~ ~.: I would like ~o spe~k for it, Ii would be better for ~he area.~o have the house less ~h~ the 48 feet se~back~ th~ to have i~ siuck out on ~op of lhe enb~en~, Spiles tend ~o distract from ~ TP~ C~I~&a3¢: Is ~here ~yone else who wishes to spe~for ~his applicati~? (There ~as no response,) T~ C~.I~_~N: ~y member of the Bo~d have any questions? ~, H~SE: How far is it from the center of the lot to water? ~. ~RS: I don~t ~ow e~ct~, We have 63 feet to the edge of the ~l~f~ ~er one half of the lot is ~ach, ~q, HUL~: How old is this s~vey of the property? ~q, ~RS: ~tober 7~ 1968~ ~C~IRi~N: Do you t~ow how much of this was t~ken aw~y in the storm of Nove~er? ~, ~RS: ! don~t ~ because I didn't see it before. ~ C~I~*D~N: You c~t tell from the survey how much ~ the pro~rty has eroded? ~q ~ERS: It isn't sho~ on the survey, (A floor pl~ of th~ proposed house was sh~ to the ~ard~ ~so the location ~ the house on th~ pro~rty ~s e~l~ned ~d pointed out to the ~d, The floor plus of the house were discussed ~d so~ alterations were suggested,) South~ld To~v~ Board of Appeals March 13, 1969 THE CHAI~Z~N: We have established that the projection line of the main house would be ~.6 feet from the easterly line of the right of way. The other houses are 48 feet from the right ~f way. ~. AHLERS: I think that is wrong. We propose to put the edge of the house right right inside the edge of the right of way. T~se houses are located 32 feet from the edge of the right of way. This would be an additional 32 feet. It is not in line ~ith this. Tb~ CF~AI~JLN: Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak ~xthis ~ app!ication~ (There was no response,) THE CP~I~i~Hq: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? ROBERT J. DOUGLAS: i am the owner of the Willow Terrace property which is ih back of this property. I have a sketch of our development w_hich has gone to the Pl~uning Board~ As far as that right of way is concerned~ each property owner o%%~s part of it. I didn't lcaow it ended at this property line. As far as I know and according to Vand TuyI's survey~ it goes into this property. I ~ interested in this application because of the property that I have in back of it ~l~_d how it would be affected. These lots are all.20~O00 square feet or better, i don't want to see anyone buy property that they can't sel!. They haven't lost any property since they bought it. The beach was washed though. I ~ndersts_ud the house is long. ~.~ AHL~RS: The house is 30 feet by 26 feet. DOUGLAS: Isn,t there some o~her way ~o erect this house? ~r~C~_~!R~w~: They might have to adapt a new house plan for this particular site. LEO STEEDLE: I have the papers of April 4, on which the variance was granted for the right of way~ but it terminates at the property which m~_kes it clear. Ti~ CHAIR~JLN: Did you buy this property by F~oi!? I~;~. STEEDLB: Yes. (The Chairman read the action of the Board of Appeals in the matter of a right of way on the property in question. 95Q. ST~EDLE: The ohly other point I want to ~e is the land that was 10st during the storm. About one third of this property had water across it at the time of the storm. Southo!d Tov~n Board of Appeals 5~rch 13, 1969 T~E CHAIP~A~: One of the interesting points for beach erosion is that the Internal Revenue does not grant relief for the loss of land through storms. MR, kHDERS: How much of a reduction could be expect? TH~CHAIRI~AaN: These people are 48 feet back from the road~ ~v~, AHLERS: kUaat about ~r. Douglas on the other side, That projects way beyond, Cs_u't you t~_ke that into consideration? THE C~I~N: We can't consider anything that happened prior to zoning. This house would not be used to determine the setback, It is recommended in the new zom~ng Ordinance that the average be takenfrom two houses on either side of the property or 200 feet on either side. If you set this back ~5 feet and 24 feet from the back llne, would that be satisfactory to you? b~, DOUG~LAS: That gives some room between this lot and where the other people have their Iine~ ~ TME CPLa~!Pd~N: I think that would be the sotutio~¥~uYou reduce the setback of 48 feet and we are 9olng to cut that in half because of the hardship involved here~ %~en you purchased the !ot~ you knew what the size of it was, You went into this ~%~th your eyes open, i~. DOL~LAS: Most of the other lots have been kept filled. TP~ CHA!~: Apps~ently it needs to be bulkheadedo MR, STAPLE: If the Board wants to make it a condition that we bulkhead~ we would be g~d to compl~-ith it, THE C~IRMAN: We suggest a change in the design of the house, Thereis probably no other ~y of doing it, You will have to keep it 24 feet from that line. FRY: Did I understand that would be granted,~ TP~E CHAIRM~N: This is in line with waterfront property in this type ~f case where there is side yard and front yard difficulty due to'the topography of the land, FRY: That rig!~ o~way goes right through there~ THE CHAIP2~ka_N: Tl%e rightof way ceases at the ed9e of the iot, ~ FRY: No it does not~ It goes right through.to Mr, Douglas property, TP~ CF~IR~: ~e are doing the same thing we would do on a side yard variance, which the Ordinance gives power to reduce 50 per cent on an undersize lot~ This is the last lot on thepresent right of way, ~e there any other questions on this application? ~There was no response.) Southold Tow~ Board ~o~ Appeals -6- ~Zch 13, 1969 After investigation and inspection the Board fLuds that the applicant requests per~ssion to build new one family dwelling with reduced front y~rd setback. The Board findsthat the applicsnt is the ova~er of waterfront property and much of fhe lot Lu questions has been lost due to erosion. If the dwelling was to adhere to the established setback it would be.located on the beach area of the lot. Thus the dwelling would have to be eet on spiles. The Board is willing to allow a reduction in setback. The front line of the house should not be erected closer than a distance of 24 feet to the edge of the easter~line of the private right of way: King Street. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance wo~ld produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship~ the hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in ~he i~nuediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the vari~uce would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the character of the district. On motion by ~. Gillispie, seconded by Iww. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that Leo Steedle~ ~ t~obel Court, Batdwin, New York, be 9ranted permission to build a new one family dwelling with reduced front yard setback, as set forth above, on property located on the west side of Private right of way, off south side of King Street~ Orient, ~ew York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- ~o Gillispie, ~<r. Hulse, ~ Grigonis~ PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1234 - 7:~5 P.M.(E.S.T.), Upon application of Georgia C. Fox~ lB20 Fox Road, ~fient~ New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Articl~ III, Section B03~ Article X~ Section !000A, for permission to build new onefamity dwelling with reduced frontage and area, and for approval of access to private right of way in accordance with the State of New York Town Law, Section 280A. Location of property: right-of-way off ~st side of Village Lane, Orient, New York, bounded north by A. Younie, east by Oyster Ponds Historical Society, south by A~M. Van De Water, west by Orient Harbor. Fee paid The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, sffidavit attesting to its ~ publication in the official newspaper, and notice to the appiic~t. THE CF~IRSL~N: This lot was purchased in November, 19~. This lot has been in single and separate o-~ership since the time of the Ordinance. For this Board to deny this application would be dewing the o-~ner use of the property. This lot is about 8~000 square feet~ Just slightly one third of the size recommended by the Town and County. As far as I know, the access is there. FOX: It is okay. TERRY,(Building Inspector): It has had beach gravel on it. SouthoId Tovm Board of Appeals -7- ~rch 13~ 1969 THE CPL~IR~k~d~: Do you have any pla~s for the house? If~qS. FOX: How large of a house could we build? ~, TERRY: It could be 37 1/2 feet without a variamce. (Location of the house on the p~operty was discussed. The applicants v~re advised of the side yards that they would have to maintain.) THE CHAIRM~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was.no response.) A~ter investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to build a new one family dwelling with reduced frontage ~ud area, and for approval of access to private right of way~ The Board finds that the access in question is accessible to all emergency equipment, The Board also finds that the lot in question has been held in single ~ud separate o~ership by the applicant prior to the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance. In general, the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship cretaed is unique and would not ~e shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance would observed the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the chara~oeer of the district~ On motion by ~. Gillis~ie, seconded by ~ir~ Hulse, it was R~SOLVED that Georgia C. Fox~ 1320 Fox Road~ Orient~ New York~ be granted approval of access to private right of way: and granted permission to build a new one family dwelling with reduced frontage and area~ as applied for, on property located right of way off west side of Village Lane, Orient, New York. There shs~! be no ~ front yard or rear yard variances granted for this property. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- ~{r. Gitiispie, ~ir. Hulse: 24r. Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 123~.- 8:00 P.M.(E.S.T.)~ Upon application of Shirley Saland, M~in Road, ~ttituck, New 'fork, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance~ Article III, Section B00, Subsection 5 (a), for permission to convert existing building into two family dwelling° Location of property: south side ~in Road~ [~ttituck~ New York, bounded north by Main Road~ east by F, Sidor, and Billard, south ~y M~ttituck Estates and Sidor~ west by ~.z~rtin Filla. Fee paid $5.00. Southold Tovm Board of Appeals -8- 5~rch 13~ 1969 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a special exception~ legal notice of hearing~ affidavit attesting to its publication inthe official newspaper~ snd notice to the applicant. THE CHAIP~N: This application has comp%led with the new county regulations under State Law~ Section 239 -t and m. The c~unty has ~rked this application for local deterF~[nation. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application. SHIRLEY S~J~UND: You pretty much have the picture there. This is an enormous structure. We bought the farm house with the idea of using the barn as a home. We dontt want to change the outside dimensions at all. It's c~assic. TH~ CHAI~J~N: There is a residence on the property that you bought? ~S. SALAND: The farm house that we are living in. THE CHAIR~2~: The area or,he property involved here is adequate and it is set back f~r from the road. Do you propose to sell the farm house? 5[qS o S.~LA~D: Yes. THE CM_~IPdV~%N: D~e there any. other questions? (There was no response.) THE CHAIP~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to convert an existing structure ~utp a two family dwelling~ The Board finds that there is ample property, the area is large enough for~a two family dwelling~ ~nd the structure is set back far enough from the road. The application meets all the requirements for the conversion ~f a structure into a two family dwelling. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship cre~ted is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the s~me use district; and the variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and w~uld not change the character of the district, Southold Town Board of App~ls -9- }?~rch 13, 1969 On motion by ~r. G~igonis: seconded by ~;~ Hulse, it was RE~G~VED Shirley Saland, ~in Road~ ~4attituck, New York, be grantedpermission to convert an existing building into a two f~ily dwelling~ as applied for on property located on the south side Road, ~ttituck, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:~. Gillispie, ~J~. Hulse, I~r, Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 12S1 - 8:1~ P.M.(B.S.T.), Upon application of Shirley Saland, ~ain Road~ ~;~ttituck~ New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning OYdinance, Article III, Section 30B, Article X, Section 1000A, for permission to set.off lot and dwelling with less than required frontage. Location of property: south side ~ir~qoad, I~attituck, N~ York, bounded north by ~in Road, east by Frank Sidor, and Bi!lard~ south by Mattituck Estates and Sidor~ west by ~rtin Filla. Fee paid The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance~ legml notice of hearing, affidavit attestin9 to ~s pub- tication in the official newspaper, and notice to the applicant. THE CHAI~WL~N: There isn't any h~rdship involved in this application. 1 I~S. SAL~ND: You mean the prOPerty csm not be eeparated? TH~ CHAIRIrU~N: It ca~u be separated, but not the way you want to do it. (Su¢gested changes in the division of the property were pointed out. The County recommended that a 100 foot f~ontage be maintained.~ TH~ CHAIPd~t~N: You are not going to be able to divide this property theway you have proposed. But the back line would be so close to the barn~ THE CH~LR~M~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against thisapptication? (There was no re~onse,) After investigation and ~spection the Beard finds that the applicant requests permission to divide property and set off a lot and dwelling with less than the required frontage. The Board finds there is no hardship involved in this application. There is ample property to provide the house and lot set off with 100 foot frontage~ Southold Town Board of A'P~eals -10- ¥~rch 13, 1969 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is not unique and would be shared byall properties alike in the ~mmediate vicinit~ of this propert~ and in the. same use district; and the variance would not observe the spirit of ~he Ordinance and would change the character of the district. On motion by 'Mr. Gillispiel seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that ~ShirleY'Saland,~ Main Road~Mattituck,~ New York~ be denied permission to set off lot and dwelling with less than required frontage~ as applied for on property located south sideMain Road~ Mattituck, New York. The existing farmhouse shall have a frontage of 100 feet. This width of 100 feet shall extend southerly along the easterly tineat ~a distance of 100 feet parallel tot he westerly line to a point -which is determined by the rearline .of the existing farmhouse. From this point the new lot line,shall go in a westerly direction'a~ rightangles to the easterly line and parallel to the'Main Road to theproposed dividing line as shown on the survey by Van Tuyl & Son which was submitted and is part of this application. The balance of the lot shall be 'as shown on said survey. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Hulse~' Mr. Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No, i233 - 8:30 P%'M~ (E~SfTj)~ upon application of Julius ~Zebroski~ Bayview Road~ Southold~ New York~ for a variance in accordance ~ith the Zoning Ordinance~ Article 'III~ section 303a~Article,'X~ Section 1000A~ for permission to use lot with insufficient frontage on public street.' 'Location of property: west side Ole Jule Lane and west side Channel Lane~ Mattituck~ New Yorka bounded north by ChannelLane, east by Ole Jule 'Lane,. south by ColetteRivoltal west byCanal. Fee paid $5~00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for'a variance-, legal notice of ihearing~ affidavit attesting to its publication in-the official' newspapera and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: ts ~here anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MR. ZEBROSKI: I wish to speak for it. MR%' HULSE: Do you have a survey of the property? MR.' ZEBROSKI: Ihave ~a map that shows the property. (Mro-Zebroski pointed out-the lot inquestion.) The lot is about 20,000 square feet. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the setback in this neighborhood? MR~ TERRY: About 60 foot setback. THE CHAIRMAN': Is ~there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) Southo!d To~ Board bf Appeals -1!- March 13~ 1969 ~ter investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permissi~ to ~%~'~eslot with ins,~fficient frontage on public street. The Board finds there is no possible way to increase the frontage of this lot. The lot has more than enough area for construction of a dwellingo The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practi~ai difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is not unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the i~m~ediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the character of the district. On motion by B~. Gillispie, seconded by ~;~. Grigonis~ it was RESOLVED Jul~s Zebroski, Bayview Road, Southold~ New York, be granted permission to use a lot with insufficient frontage on a public street, as applied for~ on property located west side Ole Jule Ls~e an~ west siue C~mel, i~ttituck~ ~ew York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- ~.~. Gillispie, ~?~. Hulse, Mr. GriGonis. O~ motion by i~. Hu!se, seconded by ~. Gillispie~ it was RESOLVED that the minutes of the Southold Town Board of ~peals dated February 27~ 1969~ be approved as submitted. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - ~V~r. Gillispie~ ~. Hulse~ ~r. Grigonis. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 Respectfully subra~tted, Barbara C~ Di~tm~mn~ Secretary Southold Tm Board of Appeals