Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/11/1969 Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, Li I., N.Y. 119~1 T~lcphone 765-26~0 APPEAL BOARD ME~4BER Robert '9(/. Gillispi¢, Jr.~ Chairmen Robert Bergen Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Fred Huls¢, Jr. M_INUTES SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS December 11, 1969 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P:M%'~ Thursday~. December 11, 1969, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold~. New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr.,.Chairman; Robert Berqen~ Fred Hulse~ Jr.; Charles Grigonis~ Jr. A~sent: Mr, Serge Doyen~ Jr. Also present: Howard Terry, Building Inspector PUBLIC HEARINg: ~ppeat No. 1304 - 7:30 P2Mj ~.'S.T~'), upon application Of severius Lambros, 24 EllingtOn Drive, East Northport,~ New York~ for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance& Article III, Section 305~ for permission to build new one fam±Iy dwelling with reduced front yard setback. Lcca,~ion of property: north side of Ruth Road~ Mattituck~ New York~ bounded north by'Lots 189 & 190 of Capt. Kidd Estatesa east by Basis~ south by Ruth Road~, west by J. Murphy. Fee paid $5.00. . Southold ToWn Boardr~f Appeals -2- December 11~, 1969 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a var iance~ legal notice of hearing~ affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper~, and notice to tH~ applicant, ~ ..... ~.. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MR. SE~/ERIUS LAMBROS: I am Mr. Lambroso THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything to add to what you have already stated in this application? MR¥ LAMBROS: No~ $ir~ I don~t. But I would like to show you the sketches pertaining to it. I set the house back 42~8''. I was told that it must be setback at least 35~ so I set it back an e~tra 7~ 8" ts'make sure. After I did this~ I was then told that they had to be in a straight line. THE CHAIRMAN: Not necessarily in a straight line, If you are the first house on a block you must be setback a minimum of 35 ~ from the street line, If there are existing houses onthe streete then you must take the average of their setbacks for your setback, I will read ArticleIII~ Section 305~. which pertains to this, -'~here property in the Vicinity is partly built up with perm- anent buildings-and an average, setback line of more orLless than thirty-five (35) feet has been established~ no buildings~ hereafter erected or altered~ shall project beyond the'line of the average setback so'established." In other words~ for example~ if there are 2 houses on the street~ one is setback 40®, and the other one is setback 45~, the average setback would be 42½~. MR. LAMBROS: We'll~, some of the houses are Setback' Closer than 30 feet. MR. HULSE: On the same side of the street? MR. LAMBROS: No~ across the street. THE CHAIRMAN: To determine the average setbacks, we take both lots on the side of you~ in your case~ on the east and west. MR.' LAMB~OS: On one side of me there is an empty lot. THE CHAIRMAN: Howard~ what'is the average setback here? H(YA~RD TERRY: From 45~ t* 50~. THE ~HA~: Did Mr. Lambros get a permit? HOWARD TERRY: Yes,~ he did. k~ , Southold Town Boar~f Appeals -3- ~' December ii~ 1969 The Chairman inspected the building permit file. THE CHAIRMAN: file~ Mr. Lambros? MR.' LAMBROS: THE CHAIRMAN: HOWARD TERRY: from Mattitucko THE CHAIRMAN: housese HOWARD - TERRY: THE CHAIRMAN: Did you draw this sketch in the building permit No~; Sir~ I did not. Howard,~ who drew this sketch? The builder who came in for the permit~. S.Wo Petty It says here on the application in line with other That's right, he understood that when he left here. Well~ the building was not placed as stated in the application. Who filed this application? MR%~ LAMBROS: I filled it out and sent it into the office and then Mr. Petty went down there to get the permit. THE CHAIRMAN: Well~ as I understand it~ you filed an application for a building permite but the house was not placed as stated in the application. I don~t see any way we can help you~ this is a self- imposed hardship. MR. LAMBROS: But I never saw that sketch before. HOWARD TERRY: Petty brought it in when he came for the permit. THE CHAIRMAN: I don~t see any way this Board can give you relief. MR. LAMBROS: Well~ how can I remedy the situation? So as t® be in good Standing with the building inspector? HOWARD TERRY: Who put the foun4~_tion in? MR.' LAMBR~: Mr. Petty staked it out~ and then another man fr~m Mattituck dug the hole~ and someone else put the foun~_tion in. HOWARD TERRY: When our road man checked it ~ut~ it was OoK.~ the stakes were in the right place, But the next time he came around the foundati,n was poured in front of everybody else~ not where the original stakes were set up. This.has happened b~fore, You will either have to cut the front of the house off~ or move it back completely. MR.' LAMBROS: Who could have moved the stakes? ', Southold Town Board~]~f Appeals -4-~ /' December 11~ 1969 HOWARD TERRY: I don't think anybody moved them~ I think who ever poured the foundation.~, poured it wrong. E.~ LAMBROS: How far back do we have to go? THE CHA~: You have to 'take the average setbacks. Which would be 47s 9"o THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else present wh~ would~ like to speak for this application? (There was no response. ) THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to build new one family dwelling with reduced front yard setback. He has inadvertently commenced a found- ation which should be 47'9" from the street liner but is actually only 42s8'' from the street line. The Bsard finds that the applicant has a self-imposed hardship and is unable to grant relief. The Board finds that stridt application of the Ordinance will not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is not unique and'would be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance would change the character of the neighborhood and would not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie~ seconded by Mr. Bergen~ it was RESOLVED Severius Lambros~ 24 Ellington Drive~ East Northport, New York~ beDEN/RD permission to build new one family'dwelling with reduced front yard setback as applied for on property located ®n north side of Ruth Road~ Mattituck. New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie~ Bergen~ Hulse~. Grigonis. PUBLI~ HEARING: Appeal No. 1305 -- 7:45 P~M~ ~SlT~), upon application of Leslie King, Mill Road~ Mattituck~ NeW York~ for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance~ Article ILI~ Section 300~ Subsection 5 _(d)# for permission to maintain Stable on premises of other than the owner of the horses - part of property owned by Middle Main Associates, Location of property: .. Southold Town Board~ Appeals --5-- "~" De~ember ll~. 1969 north side of Main Road, Cutchogue,. New York~ bounded north by Rai!road~ ~east by' H~'E~' Tuthill - Hagen,. south'by Main Road~ west by' William Wick/~am Estate. Fee paid $5, 00. The Chairman read Article III~; Section 300,. Subsection 5 which pertains to this application. THE CHAIRMAN: In considering this applicationa the Board must also consider ArtiCle VLI~ which concerns itself with special p~wers of the Board of ~Appeals, this application ? LESLTM KING: THE CHAIRMAN: T~RSLIE KING: by the h~Ur? Is there anyone present Who wishes to speak for I am Leslie King. Do we have all the information here in the application Yes~ I think so. But this is not a riding academy, You don't charter~ lease~ or rent any horses out THE CHA~: THE CHA IR/~A~: T~..ST.IE KING: THE CHAIRMAN: KING: NO, I don't. Who exercises the hOrses? I do. HOW many horses do you have nOW? 4 ponies and 1 horse. The property you lease~ do you have access to the road,, or do you lease the whole property? · .RSLIE KING: I have access to the road. THE CHA~: You propose to stable several horses for friends? LRSL/~KING: Well~ actually 3ust one horse f~r a friend, possibly THE CHAIRMAN: - T.R.~T.~IN KING: THE CHAIRMAN: LESLTR KING: What kind of a lease do you have on this property? I have a one '(1}'year lease~ from Sept-~69 to Sept.'70~ I counted 7 stalls~ is that correct? There are only 5 in the main part~ and there are 2 ~n the garage for quarantine, .~ Southold Town Boar~?fAppeals -6- "- December 11, 1969 THE cHA~puWI%N: As far as feeding the horses and taking care of them? You buy all the feed and so forth? T.RSLIE KI~G: Oha, Yes. I take care of everything. THE CHAIRMAN: Would you expect to use these horses anywhere except on your own property? T~SLVR KING: I have permission from several farmers to ride on their property, Now this is for me to ride my own horse~ as far as I am concerned the other are just supposedto stay there. MR. 'BERGEN: Do you cross the Middle Road (CR27~ the dual highway?' ?.RSLIR KING: Oh,, no. THE CHAIRMAN: What farmers do you have permission from? T~SLTR KING: Just about all of them= Mr, Horton~ and the other p~ople in that area. THE CHAIRMAN: YOU have verbal permission? Do y~uknow the p~oples names? ?.RSLIE KING: The names of all of them? THE CHAIRMAN: The reason I am asking you this is because we may get a serious complaint in here someday. ~ESLIR KING: Well~ no~ I don~t have any written permissions just took their word, for it. I wOuldnft go on anybodyfs property without askinqthem first? THE CHAIRMAN: If you are familiar with Besch in MattituCk. We had a l~t of trouble with that one. Horses got loose and ran into the Main Road~ we had several accidentsa one horse got killed on the Railroad. We gave another person in East Marion permission for such an operation and he told me not too long ago that he was getting out of business becauseit is too dang®rouse Of course~ both of these p~ople rented horses. ?~S~IN KING: Oh yes~ there is really a lot t~ it. I would never rent horses ont~ it is t°o dangerous. THE CHA~: Well now~. if this is granted~ would it be all right to say that no one can ride the horses but you? · RSL/R KI~G: Couldn't the owners of the horses I am stabling ride their own horses? Southold Town Boarder Appeals -7-- ~' December 11~ 1969 THE CHAIRMAN: Well~, yes. I should say that no one but the owners of the horses can ride them~ T.~.SLI~. KING: Yes~ that's fine with me. You can even put a stipulation on how many,, because there will not be over 2. MR. HULSE: Plus your own horse. T.RSLTM KING: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN; How many do you have? T,RSL~ KING: Right now~ I have 3 ponies and 1 horse. THE CHAIRM~: And you would propose to possibly board several horses for friends here? How m~ny? T~RSLIE KING: It will not be over 2. THE CHAIRMAN: Well,, how does the rest of the Board feel about this? are there any other questions you would like to ask Mrs. King? MR. GRIGONIS: I think we have covered everything. THE CHAIRMAn: I am trying to think of some of the difficulties we had with Besch. We had plenty. For example,, the accumulation of manure,~ which would go under the Health Dept. T,F. SL~R. KING: I have that all taken care of,, Mr. Horton takes it out for me. In the winter, it will be taken out once a month,~ in the summ~r,~ once a week. Where do you live? Mattituck. So actually this is just a place for you to THE CHAIRMAi~: LESLIE KING: keep horses? ?.RSLTM KING: Yes, my own horse~, and I have several friends who come out from the city~ whose h~rses I will be boarding, THE CHAIRMAN: LESLIE KING: MR.' HULSE: on the place? T.RSLIE KING: Then this is a hobby or a business? This is a hobby. Is ~ere anyone who lives near by that keeps an eye Yes~ Mr. Horton, and I am down there most of the time. · Southold Town Board.~f AppeaI~' -8-- December 11, 1969 T~E CHAIRMAN: Howar~ did you find the Besch file? HOWARD -TERRY: No, I didn ® t. ~ CHAIRMAN-2 Well as I remember~ the Board of Health objected to the manure and the neighbors objected to the dust. HOWARDTERRY: The Besch operation was entirely different~, it was close to residences.. This is not~ it is way out back in the woodsy. there wouldn't be any problem, THE~: What about the electric fence? What would happen to a person or a child, if they touched it? LESLIE KING: We~,~you could feel it, but it couldn't hurtyou, THE CHAIRMAN: Do you remember when your lease expires? because if we give you permissionrenewable from year to year~ it would have to coincide with your lease. ~ T,RSL~.. KING: I. don~t remember the exact date~, sometime in September° THE CHAIRMAN: Well~ that's sufficient, the f~st permission would run from September 1st, and I think we should stipulate in this special exception that it will be renewable upon your application, THE CHAIRM~H: Are thereany fuzther questions, or is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (~here was no response. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to maintain stable for horsesa on premises, other than her own. This operation is solely a hobby of the applicant with the exception that she may occasionally board 2 horses for friends, In granting this permission the Board limits the applicant to stable 3 ponies and ~ horse of her own~ plus ,2 horses of friends. This permission shall also be sub3ect to the condition~ listed below. The Boardsfinds that the legally established or permitted use. of neighborhood property and adjoining use districts will'not be permanently or substantially injured and the sp/zit of the Ordinance will be observed. On motion by F~. Grigonis~ seconded by Mr, Hulse~ it was RESOLVED Leslie King~ Mill Roada Mattituck~ New York~ be GRANTED permission to maintain stable on premises of other than the owner of the horsesa asapplied for on property l~Cated on Southold Town Boarder Appeals -9~' December 11, 1969 north side of Main Road~. Cutch~gue, New York~ subject to the foil®wing conditions: 1. Applicant must refrain from riding horses on the Main Road~ however~the applicant herself may walk the horses across the Main Road to ride on other land across the street. 2. Ail riding shall be on the leased property of the applicant or other premises with the owners consent. 3. Boarding or stabling of horses up to 2 shall be permitted, in addition to applicant's own. 4. Outside storage of hays, straw, or other material shall be at a safe ~i~a~ee from any building and as ~ire safe as possible. 5. This special exception shall be granted for a period of one year~ from Sept. 14 1969 to Sept. 1, 1970a renewable upon written application by the applicant,, provided that her lease is renewed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie~ Bergen® Hulse~ Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1306- 8:00 P,M. ~(E.D.T.), upon application of James E. Callahan~ Central Drive~ Mattituck~ New York~ for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article LII~ Section 307~ for permission to construct addition to existing dwelling with reduced sideyard area. LOcation of property: North si~e of Central Drive~ Mattituck~ New York~ Map of Captain Kidd Estates~ Lot ~ 91. Fee paid $5.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a va~iance~ legal notice of hearinga affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper~ and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MR. JAMES CALLAHAN: I am Mr. Callmhano The main reason for this appeal is because of the chimney which protrudes into the garage 18 inches~ which would make it almost impossible to get 2 cars into the garage. There are several buildings constructed in the immediate vicinitywhich do not conform with the zoning regulations. If permission is granted and the garage is constructeda the nearest building would be 50 ft. It would not detract from the area in any way,~ it would only make it more attractive. If I were to construct a seperate garage~ it would make it necessary to go deeper and possibly remove some of the trees. I have already removed a tree from this location~ at considerable Southold Town Board~]~f~ Appeals --10-- . J December ll~ 1969 expense~ and replanted it rather than cut it down. This is one of the factors why we did not build the garage on in the beginning~ 15 years ago~ the trees were so beautiful we just c*uldn~t cut them down. But now it is a physical necessity that we have an attached garage. THE CHAIRMAN: Well~ actually quite a few~of the lots on Central Drive ~e under sized. Under the Zoning Ordinancew the standard lot size is 100~ frontage and 125' depth. MR. C~T~.%/{AN: My lot is 905 in the front and it graduates to 91~ in the rear~ it is 265~ deep on one side and 258$~ deep on the other side. THE CHAIRMAN: Is-this one of the filed maps? HOWARD TERRY: Yes~ this is an approved filed map. THE CHAIRMAN: The only reason you have to come in here and make an appeal to this Board is because your lot exceeds the minimum area requirement of 12,500 sq. ft. If your lot were under sized~ the Building Inspector would be authorized togrant you a 50%reduction. Whereas your lot.is on one of these filed maps, Ithink the Board- will be able to grant you relief. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to construct addition to existing dwelling with reduced side yard area. The applicant states that this attached garage is a physical necessity. Due to the chimney which would protrude 18 inches into the garage~ the side yard would have to be reduced to 8~.6"o The Board finds that the applicant's lot is on an approved filed map~ therefore they feel that the applicant should be gra~ed relief. .The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by ali properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; andthe variance will not change the characteJ~r of the district and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On moti*n by Mr. Bergen~ seconded by Mr. Grigonis~ it was RESOLVED James E. Callahan~ Central Driv'e, Mattituck, N:ew York~ be GRANTED permission to construct addition to existing dwelling with reduced sideyard area as applied for on property located on north side of Central Drive~ Mattituek, New York, Map of Captain Kidd Estates~ Lot % 91. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs:Gillispie~ Bergen,. Hulse, Grigonis. Southold Town Boar~of Appeals -11-- December 11, 1969 PUBLIC B~RIHG: Appeal No. 1307 -- 8f~,15 P,'M. ~(E~'S~T.}® upon application of Gruhill C~nstruction Corpo, 3356 Route t12~ Medford~. New York a/C Edward Dennis.a 228 West Rivera Drive~ Lindenhurst~ New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance~, Article III, Section 307, and Article III~ Section 305~. for permission to build new one family dwelling with insufficient sideyard area, Location of property: west- side of Westview Driver Mattituck, New York.~ bounded north by J. Mollick~ east by Westview D~ive, south by J. Fo Hurley~ west by Mattituck Creek. 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 officical newspaper~, and notice to the applicant, THE CHAIRMAN: ~inspecting sketch~ which accompanied application) The l~t has 75ft. frontage on WestviewDrivew and 75ft. frontage on Mattituck Creek. The nearest portion of the proposed h~use would be 30ft, from Westview Drive. The sideyard area would be reduced to a total of 17 feetw 8½ ft. on each side. The notice of disapprpval from the Building Inspector states that it was disapproved because of insufficient sideyard area~ and Section 305 & setback. MR. HULSE: What is Section 305 for setback on here for? On the plot plan it says in line with other h~uses~ 30 ft. HOWARD TERRY: On the plot plan it says 30 ft. I question this because Ithink the rest of the houses are frc~ 35~ to 40', so I made note to check the set back. When he builds the house he had better make sure that he has the right set back or he will have the same problem that man from Mattituck has. This lot~ when established, prior t~ the Ordinancea was a 75 ft. lot with less than 12~500 sq. f~, of area. When the dredging on the creek was~bne~ this lot was built out~. so that it. had over~2i500 sq. ft.~, depen~g ~n h'ow mu~ has erode~ there may be 12~500 ~ sq. ft~ THE CHAIRMAN: If At was under i2~500 sq, ft,~ he-w®ul~n~t even have to come inhere. HOWARD TERRY: Well~ it was built out to ~ver 12~500 but it may have eroded to less than 12~500 sq. ft,~ sO t~ keep b~th of us ~ut ~f trouble, I thought he had better' come 'inhere' and get it str~ghtened out once and for all. THECHA/~MAN: Now~ y~u have a note here to check the setback, Didn~twe grant a variance on this street~ right next door? HOHARD TERRY: Yes~ a side yardvariance~ THE CHAIRMAN: Well~ if we got that folder out~ we could check the front yard setback. HOWARD TERRY: I don~t thinkwe need the f~lder, as long as he Southold Town Boarder Appeals -12- - December 11, 1969 takes the average set back he will be MR. HULSE: I think we cv. uld eliminate' Section 305' from the application, it was ~ust a note to check the set back. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (~There was. no response. ) A~ter ~investigationand inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to build new one familydwelling With insufficient'side yard area. The applicant possesses a 'lot 75 ft. wide and is unable to increase-the width. There is s~me doubt as to whether the lot is more.or less than 12~500 sq. ft~ of area~ because the lot has been increased by dredging. The Board feels that the applicant~'s request for 8½ ft. side yards is reasonable~ however there should be no variances to the front yard setback as determined bY'theI adjoining residences. The Boardfinds that s~rict application of the~rdinancewould produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would be shared byall properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the district and will observe the, spirit of the~ Ordinance. On motion by Er. Gillispiew seconded by Mr. Bergen~ it was RESOLVED Gruhill Construction Corp.~ 3356 Route- 112~ Medford~ New Y~rk a/c Edward Dennis~ 228 West'Rivera Drive, Lindenhursta New York be GRANT~5% pe~,ission to build new one, family dwelling with insufficient Sideyard area as applied for on.property located at west side of~WestvieWDrive~ Mattituck~ New York~ subject to the condition that no variance be granted to the front yard setback. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messms: Gillispie~ Bergen~ H~lse~: Grigonis. PUBLiC HEARING: Appeal No. 1308 - 8:30 application of Marcia' E. D~wns~ ~1230 Watersedge'way~ New, York, for a special exception in accordance with the' Zoning OrdinanceaArticle'~III~ Section 300,~ Subsection. 51~]~ for per- mission to use existing dwell'ing as two '(2) family~residence. Location of property: north side. of Watersedge Way~ Southold~ New York~ bounded north by R%S%' Soper~, east by Gin Lane, south by'WaterSedge' Way~ west by MasOn, Fee paid $5.00. % Southold Town Board~f Appeals --13-~, t December 11, 1969 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a special exceptions, legal notice, of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication-in theofficial newspaper,~, and~ notice tothe applicant. A letter addressed to the Town Clerk, from Mr. Downs,, dated March 31~ 1964, inquiring~bout front yard setback,, and~lr. Terry~s reply of April 1~ 1964, contained in file was read. A letter from the Bay Haven Property Owners Association protesting the Downs use of their home as a 2 family d~'elling was read. Upon receipt of this complaint an inspection of the premises was made by BuildingLInspector George Fisher. A copy of this report and aletter' notifying the Downs of their violation was sent tothem. A letter was also sent to the president of. the Bay Haven Property Owners Assoc. informing them of the action taken. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MRS. DOWNS: I think I have stated the reason for it, and this is the only reason. We have never solicitated rental on it. As a matter of fact~ some of the members of the association asked us 'if we would rent it to their friends andrelatives. I think the reason the complaint was made was because we did not rent it to them and we do not belong to their association. HOWARD TERRY: The Downs are not part of the subdivision. There are 3 parcels in this area which are not part of the subdivision, Soper~ Downs~ and Pospisil, These 3 houses were under construction-att he time the subdivision map was filed. The outline of the Bay Haven sub- division map goes around these lots. They are desCribed property~ they are not part of the subdivision~ although they do have their access on the same street. MR. HULSE: In what year were these houses built? HOHARD TERRY: Fir. Myles original building pez~it$ 614 Z was issued en March 24~ 1959~ and its C~O~ $Z 513 on Feb. 23, 1960. This was for a single family dwelling 24' x 36' and a 12' x 20' garage on the westerly end. THE CHAIRM~: Somewhere along the line,, before he sold-it to Mr. & Mrs. Downs...... .... o.o. What was the original owners hame? HOWARD TERRY: ~Charles & Mary Jane Myles. THE CHAIRMAN: You bought the house as it is now? MRS,' DOWNS: Yes~ as it now stands. We have not done anything structurally. _. $outhold Town Board~!/~f Appeals --14-~ ~ December 11~ 1969 HOWARD TERRY: ~lro Myles came back on June 2,~ 1961 for a building permit to extend the house to the west~ another garage addition 1~'x24 THE CHAIRMAN: Another garage addition? HOWARD TERRY: Yes~. that's right. The housewas or~ginally built with a one car garage. Then on June 2, 1961 he applied for another permit for a garage addition~ when this was completed we issued C~'Oj ~ 1075Z~ dated July 20~ 1961 for a one family dwelling. MR. HULSE: Wella sometime after that he musthave added this apartment. P1OWARD TERRY: Sometime after the C%O.i was issued and before the Downs bought the propertya somebody converted what-was the old garage into an apartment. MR. DOWNS: When the new garage was built, the old one was converted into this apartment. HOWARD TERRY: When we issued the C.O. that was just an enclosed room~, it was not an apartment. So sometime after,the C,O. was issued and before the Downs bought the propertya somebo~ywent in there and set that apartment up~ we don't kn~odid it. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the size ofthe lot? HOWARD TERRY: 105' x 180' THE CHAIRMAN: This apartment is rented now? MRS, DOWNS: Yes, there is a young single man in there. THE CHAIRMAN: Wella you.have an illegal use. MRS%~ DOWNS: Yesa we realize that now. THE~IRMAN: There is noway that I-know of that the Board can give any relief. I can give you considerable history on our experience with this type of thing. Originally our thin~ing wasa in the absence of any guide linesa incidently~, this would not apply to your h~usew but to a lot of older houses around here, that are quite, largea too large for'a couple~, so the Board using its powers of variance~ granted variances occaSionally~ rather than to have these places continue to deteriorate we thought it was better to have 2 family occupancy~, particul~_rly'in areaswhere 2 family occupancy already existed~ prior to zoning. .. Southold Town Boar~ 'of Appeals -15-.~ December ll, 1969 MR. BERGEN: We did this provided that they had enough open area for 2 building lots, 25,000 sq. ft. of area. THE CFi%IRMAN: I am talking about even prior to that. We had a case in Orient on~ Skippers Lane. It was a large house with about 14 rooms but.the lot was not very large. The man that bought it thought that he would do a lot of the work himself. He was going to convert it into a 2 family house. His bD~ther-in-law woulduse the up-stairs and hewOuld use the down-stairs. When the hearing was held all the pDople in the area protested it. We grantedthe appeal and they took it to the Supreme~ Court and'to the Appelate DiVision of New York~ both of which upheld our decision. But when they carried it on to the Court of Appeals in Albany our decision was reversed. Incidently, this is the only case that I can recall that our decision was ever reversed. Shortly after this, there was an amendment made to the Zoning Ordinance which permitted this Board~ in its discretion, using a whole page of regulations~ to grant 2 family occupancy on property where there is 25,000 sq. ft. of area or the equivalent of 2 building lots. So there is no way we can help you. The fact that you did not know that this house was an illegal use when you bought it is irrelevant. As far as the b~rdship your mother would suffer from loss of income~ the Board is not permitted to consider financial hardship~ as a legal hardship. The reason stated in your application is not a valid reason for appeal. MR.' DOWNS: Well, what about Giordano? T~LE CHAIRFa%~: The BayHaven Property OwnersAssociation has made a complaint about him too. It isbeing checked out. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak in ~egard to this application? ~(There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that "the applicant requests permission to use existing dwelling as 2 family residence. The applicant purchased a dwelling which had been illegally converted into a 2 family residence. The, fact ~hat he did notknow that this house was an illegal use, when he bought it is irrelevant. The applicant's reason f®r appeal is not a valid one because this Boardis not permitted to consider financial hardship asa I~gal hardship. 'The applicant does not have 25,000 sq. ft. Of area or the equivalent of 2 build/ng. lots~ therefore the Board cannot possibly grant relief~ A stipulation of this action shall be that the tenant must vacate the. apartmentwithin 60 days~ byFebruary 1~ 1970. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the -. .~ $outhold Town Board,]-~f Appeals -16- December 11~ 1969 hardship created is not unique and would be shared by all ,properties al/ke in the immediate vicinity of 'this propez~cy and. in the same use district; and the variance would change the character of the neighbor- hood 'and would not observe the L~irit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie~ seconded by Bergen. ir'was RESOLVED Marcia Eo Downs~ 1230 Watersedge-Way. Southolda New York be'DENIED permission to use existing dwelling as two (2) family'residence as appliedfor on property'located atnorth side ofWatersedge Waya SoUthold. New York~ A stipu-lation of this action shall be that the tenant must ~acate-the premises within 60 days~, by'February'l~ 1970, Vote' oft he Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie,, Bergen~ Hulse~ Grigonis. Herb' Wells appeared before the Board of Appeals for an informal discussion concerning'the violation on Vail Bros~ wall sign~,,property located a~ E/$ PeconicI Lane and~ain Roa~a Peconic. New Yo~kl. This sign is in violation because it projects into, the bed of the highway, I~,was decided to apply for a re-hearing on the original Appeal 'No. ~95 t~ try to correct this violation. ~n motion by M=. Hulse~ seconded by'Mr. Be=gena it was RESOLVED that the~SoUthold Town Board of Appeals set 7:30 P~- (E~S~T.). Thursday. January 8~ 1970~ at the,Town Of Eice. Main Road~. Southold. New York. as the time, and Place'of hearing upon application of Hank and Lynn Rienecker~ Schoolhouse Road~, Cutchogue,, New York~ for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Article III~, Section 305. for permission to build new one family dwelling with reduced front yard setback. Location of property: west sideof'Eastwood Drive'Extension~ CutchOgue~ New York,. Map of Eastwood Estatesa Section II~ Lot-S 25. Vote of the, Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie~ Bergen, Hulsea Grigonis. On motion by Fir. Grigonisa seconded by Mr. G~llispiea it was RESOLVED that the Southold ToWn Board of' Appeals set 8:00 P.M. ,'~.S%T.'). 'Thursday~ January 8~ 1970~, att he' Town Office~ .~ Southold Town Boar ~f Appeals --17-- .~,~ December 11,~ 19~ Main Roada $outhold~. New York, as the, time and place of hearing upon application of James J. Treuchtlingera 60-~ East End Avenue, Hicksville~ New York~ for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Qrdinance~ A~ticle III. Section 304, for permission to build new one family dwell/rig with less than required front yard setback. Location of property: north side of North Parish-Drive. Southold~ New York~a bounded north by the Bay,~ east by'Matthews~ south by North Parish Drive~ west by G. Vankleecko Vote of the Board: Ayes:-Messrs: Gillispie~ Bergen,~ Hulse, Grigonis. On motion by'Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Hulse~ it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 8:15 P.M. ~2S~T.'), Thursday~ January 8a 1970~ at the Town Officea Main Roa~a Southold~ New York~ as the t/me and place of hearing for a rehearing on Appeal No. 795; upon application of Vail Broso~ Inc. a MainRoad & Peconic Lane, Peconica New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinancea Article IVa Section 408~ Subsection ~)~ for permission to re-locate existing wall sign. Location of Property: northeast corner of Main Road and Peconic'Lanea Peconic~ New York~ bounded north by L. Gozelski~ east-by'L. Gozelski~ south by Main Road, west by Peconic'Lane. Vote of the Board: Ayes:-- Messrs: Gillispiem Bergen~ Hulse~: Grigonis. On motion by Mr. Grigonis~ seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the minutes' of the' Southold Town Board of: Appeals d_ated November 13~ 1969, be approved as submitted. Vote of the Board: Ayes:~ Messrs: Gillispie,, Bergen, Hulse~ Grigonis. On motion by Mr. Gillispie~ seconded by Mr. Bergen~ it was RESOLVED that the next regular meeting of the SoUthold Town Board of Appealswill be held at 7:30 P~'M..~'Thursday, January 8~ ,1970~ at the Town Office,~ Main Road~ $outhol~ New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen~ Hulse~ Grigonis. , , e ~ Southold T~wn Boar ~f Appeals -18-- December 11.~ 1969 The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 Respectfully submitted.a /' ~, ~ ~ cretary ~ ~]~ D I Southold T~wn Board of Appeals Robert' W. Giilispie~: Jr.~ Chairman