Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/14/1974Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 119'71 TeJephone 765-g660 APPEAL BOARD MEMBERS Robert W. Gilllsple, Jr., Chairman Robert Bergen Charles (3rigonjs, Jr. Serge. Doyen, Jr. F~ed Hulse, Jr. MINUTES Southold Town Board of Appeals November 14, 1974 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) , Thursday, November 14, 1974, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman; Robert Bergen; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Fred Hulse, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1963 - 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon application of Harvey Bagshaw, Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70 B (4) and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct Body Shop on property with insufficient side line. Location of property: N/S Main Road, Laurel (Dis~. 11), New York, bounded on the north by J. O'Connell; east by A. Goodale; south by Main Road; west by J. O'Connell. Fee paid $15.00. ~The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: .A previous appeal has been made. This prior appeal was for a special exception. What was denied was per- mission to construct a body shop. Is Mr. Bagshaw here? MR. HARVEY BAGSHAW: Yes. So~thold Town Board of Appeals November 14, 1974 THE CHAIRMAN: I have made some changes here in the application. There were some omissions. Permission to construct Body Shop was what was denied. Is that right?" PHILIP J. O'FRIAS, JR., ESQ.: More accurately it was sideline restrictions. When the applicant was here on the original application he was unaware of the degree of angles at Which the sidelines met Main Road. Attached to the present application there is a sketch. THE CHAIRMAN: If we added the words "reduced sideyards" would that be alright? MR. OFRIAS: That would be better. THE CHAIRMAN: Article VII, is that correct? Do you agree with that Mr. Bagshaw? (The sideyard clearances under question). MR. BAGSHAW: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Permission to do this was granted on a pre- vious application dated August 1, 1974 at which time it was stated that the plot is rectangular in shape, diagonally at right angles to the Main Road. That was what the Board had to consider at the last hearing. We are now being asked to angle the building slightly on the lot in order to keep the front of the building parallel to the Main Road. This requires a reduction in sideyard. It does not change the size of the pro- posed building. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MR. HARVEY BAGSHAW: As you can see on the map it is not the entiressize of the building that would be that amount of feet off the property line. It would be the southeast corner, 5 feet from the property line; and the northwest corner, 15 feet from the property line. You can see by the way the lines are angled on the highway, the rest of the building gets ~rther away. As we go north on the east side and south on the west side it gets further away. It would be two corners that would be close to the other people's property. I don't think it would look very nice if it were on an angle. THE CHAIRMAN: I think we discussed before whether you could change the shape of the building. MR. BAGSHAW: Everything on the building is standard size. The trusses are standard size. We would run into a lot more labor and so forth, and the Building Department would require another set of plans. · Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- November 14, 1974 MR. OFRIAS: It would involve considerable expense and probably be much less efficient. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else wish to speak for this application? I think we understand your problem.., the lot angles at a considerable angle to the road. MR. OFRIAS: The property to the west is a number of acres in size. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else wish to speak for this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? MR. ANDREW GOODALE: I appear in opposition to this application on behalf of myself and my wife. I make no waiver of any prior right of notice that occurred in the prior hearing. I had no knowledge affecting Application No. 1933 of August 1st. I would say, the first question I would like to respectfully ask this Chairman and the Board has to do with layout for this particular building. I have deduced so far that it is a pre- fabricated steel building, 60' x 60', in which functions are going to be carried out. On that basis it would appear that this building is going to be set on a lot on a plan that is already formulated without making allowance for the layout in the building. I believe it is standard practice to have some engineering studies conducted whereby methods of egress and access and exit are formulated; and various operations that take in the dismantling of cars. repairs that are necessary, the lifts, so there is a chain type of operation. I hear nothing in the description of the building where spray booths are located and whether bulk requirements for offstreet parking have been met in terms of the squake footage of the building. With that preliminary statement, I would like to draw the attention of the Board to the prior hearing, as I have gathered from the Minutes and as I have put them together, the situation was that the special exception was granted and also reduction of sideyards. They were reduced to 35 feet, a one-third re- duction. No mention was made of parking spaces. I did notice that there were certain restrictions which were primarily taken from the Building Code, Section 170 B.4 which restricted that the building shall be no closer than 25 feet to the easterly lot line and 10 feet to the westerly line. It was proposed that "no motor vehicle sales, used car lots, gasoline or repair shops or similar businesses are to be located within three hundred feet of a residence d~strict" . The Main Road at that place is possibly 125 feet ko 130 feet from residences and directly across is a District which is improved with residences. ' Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -4- November 14, 1974 MR. GOODALE (cont'd): I would also submit that there is Residential-Agricultural District directly north of the railroad track, in back of Fogarty Appliances, which I believe is in the ownership of O'Connell; so that we repeat and cite that this is not an Industrial area. It is a Business area. This would create an Industrial atmosphere. In regard to the approval of the special exception, I would offer a comment that in the event that there are violations, that do accrue, I know of no Ordinance that can effectively police these things, mainly as to the number of cars parked. Who is the present owner? The last information I had was that it was Russ Tuthill. I assume he is already under contract to sell, or contract to buy, or contract vendee. It was cited that "I am the owner"... I did note it was stated "I am the owner" The next point is with Application (No. 2), which is the subject application, and that is that a special exception would further reduce the already reduced sideyards from 35 feet which I understand has b~en previously approved t0 20 feet which would cut down any access, primarily on the east with which I am concerned, in being built 5 feet from the property line. If we have hazards and response of fire equipment ~oming in it would pose problems. The application alleges that the hardship is unique and the sideyards are reduced to a total of 20 feet, 15 feet on the west and 5 feet on the east, due to the necessity of orienting the building facade parallel to the road. In any event, the building will be within 300 feet of adjoining residential districts. Whether any study was made as to what type of building should be put on here has yet to be explored. The reduction in the prior Application No. 1933 approved the special exception subject to certain re- strictions that by implication permitted facilities such as a service station to operate oil and gas functions and, if I read that correctly, it basically creates an auto body shop and service station combined. I can form no conclusions. The Body Shop is subject to restrictions. It permits, by implication, that these things can be carried on. What area will be left for front yard requirement or rear yard requirement? To pursue the concept that the hardship is unique, I believe that the hardship is created by the applicant himself, and a reduction in the sideyards is not warranted. There should be a complete study of the layout, plans for location of various facilities, particularly spray booths which use a highly in- flammable and explosive mixture; the fact that there will be noxious fumes, the fact that this will occur in close proximity to residences and other business interests that exist nearby. This Board should consider that this potential hazard will exist in order that properties are no~ devalued. ~ Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -5- November 14, 1974 MR. GOODALE (cont'd): This is non-conforming use by special exception and it should be placed in an Industrial area. If this were a boat yard for the sale of boats they could not get into a Business area by special exception. It would have to be Industrial. This is not Industrial property as alleged in the application. We find by looking at the map that this is not so. Directly to the north on the opposite side of the railroad tracks it is zoned Residential and Agricul- tural. It would be to the extreme northeast and to the east of the subject property. It is registered in the name of Liso & O'Connell. Also, there is a residential parcel on the north side, somewhere near the subject property, that is zoned Light Business. It has a "For Sale" sign on it and it is approximately 1,000 feet east of the subject property. The gas station across the street is a conforming use existing before the Zoning Ordi- nance, whereas to introduce a special exception subject to re- structions puts a non-conforming use on property. I would say it would not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. I note that four employees are scheduled for the operation. This would mean, a plant of this size, that it is some kind of enterprise where a great deal of traffic would be generated in the area to sustain this type of operation, to the detriment of the surrounding area. This is under the Zoning Ordinance as a Garage and includes Body Shop, not a Body Shop by definition. I would ask that this Board consider the definition. It implies that there is a repair function, there is an area of dismantled cars, an interchange of bodies, and from my observation, probably a great deal of "hot rod" work. Garages don't have spray booths, inflammable sprays, and they don't store "junk" cars. I think it is known to us the way insurance companies view a car that is a total wreck. It becomes subject to cannibalism for parts. Some of these operations lea~ to vandalism and theft° I don't think it should be in this type of area. There would be a general noise problem. There must of necessity be an air hammer or a body straightener which must be involved with the bodies of these cars, and which would lead to the type of operation that is not compatible to the adjoining residential area. I don't know whether this plot is of sufficient size. I think a Body Shop should no t be located on it. There must be an industrial area in the Town that is more suited to this type of business. I am informed that there are industrial properties in the area on the North Road. I would ask that this Board consider all these factors before you make any precipitous decision to place an installation of this kind in this neighborhood. We have some people present here tonight who live in this agricultural area. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak for this application? Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -6- November 14, 1974 MR. MARTY TEKIEN: a residential section. front of my window. I live across the Main Road. That's I would not want to see any junks in MR. DANIEL FOGARTY: I have Fogarty's Appliance and Service Center to the west of this proposed area. I have a lease on that now which is good for two years from now; six and a half acres to his north and west. I have been endeavoring to make a Major Appliance and Home Improvement area out of this thing. We want to keep the area "up". I have been doing a considerable amount of landscaping. I would like to register my objections to this use of the property, and the way it comes up to my area because I want to landscape. MR. PETER WARREN: I have the gas station. I wish to speak against this because the property, itself, is way under- sized for this type of operation even in the Ordinance that gives requirements. It sets the size of land required. It's almost unbelievable, taking that land and using it for that building. Also, I have, and I thinkkthe people in the area will agree, taken care of that corner compared to what it has been, and I think my property has been an improvement. I can not understand how the Board will grant a variance on a piece of property which is so undersized, especially a piece that is coming into the town of Mattituck along the Main Road. There is an Industrial Park in Cutchogue. I do think if someone wants to have a Body Shop they could pick ~p a piece of property in an industrial area. Let them start a business over there, it is zoned for it, the requirements are there, and I do think it would be best for the Town to keep it in an industrial area like that. THE CHAIRMAN: Would anyone care to reply to some of the statements that have been made against this application? PHILIP J. OFRIAS, JR., ESQ.: I believe that perhaps some of the people here are missing the question of what we are con- cerned ~ith here tonight. It is not whether he can have a Body Shop there. He can have a Body Shop there. It is whether or not he ~an have a reduced side yard requirement so he can construct a building perpendicular to the road which would be more in conformity with the buildings of Mr. Goodale and Mr. Fogarty. Most of what has been said is not relevant. This application concerns the reduction of sideyard requirements. The fact that there is residential area on the north side of the railroad tracks, and the interior layout of the building, is not relevant. It is not a pre-fab building and is not steel. It is brick construction and quite attractive. I don't think you could find anything wrong with the building. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -7- November 14, 1974 MR. OFRIAS (cont'd): In so far as junkkcars being stored, all of the aspects of the Ordinance have to be complied with. Cars Will not be stored outside w~ich is another reason we want to keep the building perpendicular to the road. We are concerned with nothing but side yard requirements. THE CHAIRMAN: I think you are correct in that this special exception use was granted to the applicant. I think we should go into some of the points that Mr. Goodale raised. We are basically concerned with the side yards. The question of whether it is corporate ownership or individual ownership might be of interest but I don't think this Board is required to consider it. Actually, I believe Mr. Bagshaw owns ~he ·and and operation. Have you bought it yet? MR. BAGSHAW: It is all pending on the action of this Board. THE CHAIRMAN: How would you describe the operation? Are you going to have a paint shop? MR. BAGSHAW: Yes, that conforms to Building Department codes. We had mentioned that because of the plans which are already drawn up to reduce it to a smaller size would be an economic hardship. The difference in cost between 50' x 50' and 60' x 50' is not really that much. THE CHAIRMAN: How about 40' x 80' or 40' x 70'? (There was a discussion as to whether a square building is more economical to build). THE CHAIRMAN: This is a use that is permitted by special exception. MR. BAGSHAW: The property is 18,000 sq. ft. and the building is 3,600 sq. ft. There are no car entrances to this building from the highway. A gentleman here is afraid of putting junk cars in front. There would be no cars in front except for a small parking area. I think the Town wanted four offstreet parking places. At the back, on the north side, it would be larger. THE CHAIRMAN: How Would you take a vehicle into this building? MR. BAGSHAW: On the north side. I have nothing on the south side. There are no entrances on the highway side at all. It would be more like a professional building. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -8- November 14, 1974 THE CHAIRMAN: You would landscape. Are there any other questions you can think of? MR. BAGSHAW: The Inspection Agency of the Building Depart- ment would take care of that. MR. GOODALE: I make this point. The previous special exception granted approval and stipulated 300 feet to adjacent residence district. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think it put a restriction of 300 feet. MR. GOODALE: This was from the Zoning Ordinance itself. I quote here: "No motor vehicle sales, used car lots, gasoline service or repair shops or similar businesses are to be located within three hundred (300) feet of a church, public school, library, hospital, orphanage, or a rest home nor within 300 feet of any residence district". THE CHAIRMAN: I think one of the things that interested the Board is that there is a gas station and I believe there are home occupations across the street. I would suggest we reserve decision on this and we will consider each of Mr. Goodale's objections and will take this up at the next meeting which will be three weeks from now. MR. OFRIAS: I would object to the Board considering all of the objections as many are not relevant to side yards. THE CHAIRMAN: I think the 300 foot requirement was inadvert- ently included. This was a series of recommendations that was incorporated in the Ordinance and whenever we have an application for a gas station we include all of these things because so many become related one to another. You might open a gas station at some time and this would all be in there. MR. GOODALE: This Board is not bound by a previous special exception and so can make any adjudication that is consistent with the Zoning Code or policy. MR. FOGARTY: If the building is squared off closer to the area I occupy, which way would these paint vapors go? Will that make the area much less valuabl~eto me. THE CHAIRMAN: That is a question that can only be answered by the wind. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- November 14, 1974 MR. BAGSHAW: Last July I was in contact with the people who own the lot to the north and to the west and they had non objections to my putting a Body Shop there. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you plan to take general auto body work? MR. BAGSHAW: Yes, not mechanical repair at all. THE CHAIRMAN: I think a point was made about frame straightening. MR. BAGSHAW: The tools will all be used within the con- fines of the building. THE CHAIRMAN: Any noise would be confined to the building? MR. BAGSHAW: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Is it brick construction? MN. BAGSHAW: It has a brick facade on the front. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? (There was no response.) On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that decision on Appeal No. 1963 be postponed until 7:30 P.M., December 5, 1974. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1964 - 7:45 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon applicstion of Thomas A. Duffey, T.A.D. Auto Sales, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70 B.4 for per- mission to conduct a used car sales business, and a special exception Go erect a second sign. Location of property: Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the North by Main Road; east by Marratooka Lane; south by J. Brooks & R. Polhemus; west by Sunset Avenue. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: We have found that the notification of your application was improper. The description applies to Mattituck and not to Cutchogue. We will have to postpone your hearing until 8:00 P.M., December 5, 1974. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- November 14, 1974 MR. THOMAS DUFFEY: I came down and spoke to Mr. Terry and gave him a survey. He said to come tonight. Mr. Aliano held this open for me. I have a lease and if you would grant this to me tonight I would put a check in the mail to him. I am not taking the whole thing. I am just taking 100 feet and 35 feet back from the road for my used cars. There is an overhead door on the east side. I can just get enough room inside. There will just be a display of used cars. There will not be any work done there at all. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't believe we can conduct a hearing here tonight because of the incorrect notification. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the hearing on Appeal No. 1964 shall be postponed to 8:00 P.M., December 5, 1974, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1965 7:55 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon aPPiication of Steven Born, Leeward Drive, Southold, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-34 and 100-35 for permission to install decorative entrance wall with light- lng in front yard area of lo-s on new Private Road. Location of property: Oregon View Estates, Cutchogue, N. Y., bounded on the north by lands of applicant; east by lands of applicant; south by Middle Road (CR 27); west by land of applicant. Fee paid $15.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the applica- tion for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? GARY F. OLSEN, ESQ.: I am an attorney with offices at Main Road, Mattituck, New York. I represent the owner of the property, Louis Hodor. I did not prepare this application. The basic position of my client is that he hired a local contractor to install the pillars ~n the two entrances to Oregon View Estates which has gone through public hearings. Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- November 14, 1974 GARY OLSEN, ESQ. (cont'd): I have a copy of the subdivision map here. The pillars in question are on the west main en- trance of the subdivision. You will see that there is a long, narrow piece of property separating the east and west entrances. I have some photographs for your file that show the structures that have already been built. As you can see, they are extremely attractive. What my client plans on doing is to put the name of Oregon View Estates on both entrances. THE CHAIRMAN: I believe you have to have this Board's p~rmission to do so. MR. OLSEN: Apparently the contractor was unaware that permission was necessary. They were built at some expense because they are well done. There are numerous subdivisions that have identifying entrances, perhaps not built out of stone, but located at the same position on entrances. Also, I think the main issue is whether or not these entrances obstruct vision. I think these clearly do not obstruct vision for cars coming in or out or cars on County Road 27. I did not have a chance to measure it but as far as setback is concerned it looks as if it is within the 30 feet distance required. There is only westbound traffic on the County Road. I was told that each block is 8" high. The middle section is about 40" and the pillars on the side have 6 blocks. These things are already up and Town officials have been back and forth. They had been up for almost a month before we had any idea that there was a problem with them. I don't think it serves any purpose to have the owners of the property take it down. MR. ROBERT BERGEN: The view will be obstructed if you are in one of those new cars where you sit so low.., sports cars and County cars. THE CHAIRMAN: We have measured it. MR. OLSEN: This picture indicates that they are set back a considerable distance from the Middle Road. This is looking eastbound which is the only direction traffic comes from. Vision could not possibly be obstructed. THE CHAIRMAN: We have sat there in the road which is being prepared and it does obstruct your vision, which was the original purpose of this 30", 30' radius. I think the Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- November 14, 1974 ~oard would be remiss in creating a precedent for other sub- divisions. It appears to us that he will have to take three blocks off the piers and two off the wall. 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 applicant requests permission to install decorative entrance walls with lighting in front yard area of lots on new Private Road, Oregon View Estates, Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that structures have already been installed at the westerly entrance and it is the opinion of the Board that to leave the walls and piers at their present height would be a hazard to traffic as they obstruct the view. It will be necessary for applicant to take three blocks off the piers and two blocks off the wall to meet the required height of 30" above ground level. The Board also finds that applicant plans to install similar entrance walls with piers at the easterly entrance. The same restrictions will prevail for these structures. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hard- ship; the hardship created is not unique and would be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the sa~e use district; and the variance will change the character of the neighborhood, and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. - On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, Steven Born, Leeward Drive, Southold, New York, be DENIED permission to maintain walls and piers constructed at westerly entrance of Oregon View Estates, Cutchogue-at their present height. The Board stipulates that applicant reduce the height of these structures to 30" above ground level , and that this be done by reducing the pillars by three blocks, and the walls by two blocks. It is further RESOLVED that the Board GRANT permission to applicant to erect structures at the easterly entranceway similar to the ones at the westerly entrance, at the same distance to the lot lines, and no higher than 30" above ground level. Sou%hold Town Board of Appeals -13- November 14, 1974 It is further RESOLVED that applicant be permitted to place the name OREGON VIEW ESTATES on all four of these structures subject to the requirements of the Sign Division of the Building Department as to size of sign and size of lettering. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1966 - 8:-10 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon application of Robert L. Hyatt a/c Joseph Cornacchia, Skunk Lane (Bay Avenue), Cutchogue, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 C (3) & 100-32 C for permission to construct accessory building (private garage) in front yard area. Location of property: N/S SkunkkLane (Bay Avenue) & Peconic Bay, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Joseph Cornacchia, Jr.; east of Peconic Bay; south by Skunk Lane (Bay Avenue); west by Joseph Cornacchia, Jr. Fee paid $15.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a sketch. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MR. ROBERT L. HYATT: I think you are familiar with the type of roof on the building. It will be conducive to a nice appearance because of the hedge which runs along the far area. It is a very nice piece of property and I think the type of construction will look well. The roof would tend to he low. It would be made of vertical rough pine or cedar which is what the house is built with. I don'.t think anyone could object because there is no one to object except people in cars on the other side of the big hedge. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you seen this flooded? MR. HYATT: Honestly, I have not seen it but in a hurricane the entire highway would be flooded. The building, itself, would have a concrete block foundation and floor. If a foot of water came up there would be no damage to the garage, there might be to the house. Sou%hold Town Board of Appeals -14- November 14, 1974 After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to construct accessory building (private garage) in front yard area on the north side of Skunk Lane (Bay Avenue) & Peconic Bay, Cutchogue. The findings of the Board are that the land on the east is in a flood area and on the north a similar situation exists. The Board finds because of these factors that the proposed location is probably the most desirable. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. 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 all 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 neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, Robert L. Hyatt a/c Joseph Cornacchia, Skunk~k Lane (Bay Avenue) Cutchogue, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct accessory building (private garage) in front yard area on the north side of Skunk Lane (Bay Avenue), as applied for, subject to the following condition: That the garage be placed 10 feet from the property line on Skunk Lane (Bay Avenue). Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1967 8:25 P~M..(E.S.T.) upon application of Walter G. Kapp, Esq, a/c Louise O. Day, 360 West 22nd Street, New York City, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 & Bulk Schedule for permission to set off lot and buildings with insufficient area and width. Location of property: W/S Peconic Lane - N/S Long,Island Railroad, Peconic, New york, bounded on th~ no~ by other land of applicant; east by Peconic Lane; south by A. Blaschack & Long Island Railroad; west by other land of applicant. Fee paid $15.00. Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- November 14, 1974 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ~ WALTER GEORGE KAPP, ESQ.: This is what we are trying to do. (referring to map) Mrs. Day owns all this property in here. Frances was Mrs. Day's sister. She sold her place to McGlynn. THE CHAIRMAN: (referring to map) There are two houses, here and here. MR. KAPP: This is her old homestead. This is a little house. Mr. Blaschack is interested in buying this property. On this lot here there is an antique shop. It covers almost the whole lot. Actually, Blaschack is interested in buying the land behind but she can't sell him just that. If we can get approval to setrthis lot off, we can file a minor subdivision. That is the reason we included 10 feet, it was to get 150 foot frontage. It's big enough for the area. To give us the area this will go with this lot. It's well over 40,000 sq. ft. THE CHAIRMAN: So, you would have four lots. MR. KAPP: I talked to one of the Planning Board members, informally. Their idea was to divide it into four lots. The only way we can do it is with a variance. We can't ask until we get a variance. We have to get permission from the County for curb cuts too. THE CHAIRMAN: We are being asked to set this lot off. MR. KAPP: This, according to Van Tuyl, is about 24,000 sq. ft. THE CHAIRMAN: I think the request is entirely reasonable as far as this Board is concerned. The part that we are leaving, you will go to the Planning Board about. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) So~thold Town Board of Appeals -16- NoVember 14, 1974 After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to set off lot and buildings with insufficient area and width on the west side of Peconic Lane, north side of Long Island Railroad, Peconic, New York. The findings of the Board are that the lot to be created is considerably larger than most properties in the general area. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. 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 all 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 neighborhood; and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, Walter G. Kapp, Esq. a/c Louise O. Day, 360 West 22~ Street, New York City, N. Y., be GRANTED permission to set off lot and buildings with insufficient area and width on the west side of Peconic Lane, north side of Long Island Railroad, Peconic, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. ' PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1968 - 8:40 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of Cynthia Kaminsky, WoOdcliff Drive, RFD 1, Box 133j Mattituck, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct building on premises with insufficien~ setbacks. Location of property: Mill Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Mill Road; east by Mo Phillips; south by M. Phillips; west by Mattituck Creek (Inlet). Fee paid $15.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. The Chairman read letter received from Mar]orie D. Phillips, dated October 24, 1974, and notarized, as follows: So~thold Town Board of Appeals -17- November 14, 1974 "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be advised that I have no objection to the building construction permit applied for by Cynthia Kaminsky on her property adjoining my property on Mill Road, Mattituck, New York with a reduced side yard setback on the southeast corner of the building." THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MRS. CYNTHIA KAMINSKY: I think the application is fairly explanatory. The lot is not square, it is an odd shape. The size of the building would over-run the required side yard in the back corner. ~ MR. ROBERT BERGEN:~ That would be the southeast corner. MRS. KAMINSKY': There is about 5 feet or 6 feet involved in that back corner. I forgot to bring a survey in. THE CHAIRMAN: How big is the building going to be? MRS. KAMINSKY: 40' x 56' THE CHAIrmAN: The only difficulty is in the southeast corner in the back. How close would it be? MRS. KAMINSKY: I believe it is supposed to be 15 feet in, and it's 9 feet. The front corner clears it. THE CHAIRMAN: When you come to the southwest corner toward the creek, do you have 15 feet? MRS. KAMINSKY: That would be back of the building. We have sufficient setback there. It will be a storage building. My husband is a commercial fisherman who will be storing nets, cartons, etc. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) (It was noted that the Phillips property surrounds the Kaminsky property. They are the only neighbors adjoining the property). Sou%hold Town Board of Appeals -18- November 14, 1974 After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to construct building on premises with insufficient setback on th9 southeast corner. The Board finds that this is an odd shaped Niece of property and is smaller than other B-1 properties in the vicinity. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or ulnnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would ~ot be shared by all p~operties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the var!lance will not change the character of the neighborhood; and wi!ll observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, Cynthia Kaminsky, Woodcliff Drive, RFD 1, Box 133, Mattituck, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct building on premises with insufficient setback on the southeast corner, subject to applicant locating building approximately 9 feet from the building line, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1969 - 8:50 P.Mo (E.S.T.) upon application of Craig A. Richter a/c Nickalas Casamisina, 10 Island View, Greenport, New York for a variance in accord- ance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk and Parking Schedule for permission to construct addition to existing dwelling resulting in reduction in side yard. Location of property: 10 Island View Lane, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by G, Zelenski; east by Creek (Fanning Point); south by C. Krepp; west by R.O.W. Ext. of Island View Lane. Fee paid $15.00. The Chairman opened the hearinq by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hea~ing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a sketch indicating that the applicant proposes a 12' x 20' addition on the westerly side of the present structure on a narrow lot which was created before the Zoning Ordinance. Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -19- November 14, 1974 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MR. CRAIG RICHTER: I think it explains itself pretty well. I don't think it would cause any eyesore to the surrounding properties. It is a necessity for the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: It's pretty low ground. MR. RICHTER: (Referring to sketch) It goes out to that creek in that area. What I have on the survey is a jog. THE CHAIRMAN: It looks as if there is a jog in that hedge. MR. RICHTER: An existing porch is on the front. That leaves us 8 feet from the property line. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else wish to speak for this application? MR. HOWARD TERRY, Building Inspector: Ail these lots were laid out years ago. They are narrow. MR. ROBERT BERGEN: It will have about 750 sq. ft. MR. TERRY: That will still be short of the maximum. 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 applicant requests permission to construct addition to existing dwelling resulting in reduction of side yard at 10 Island View Lane, Greenport. The findings of the Board are that these lots were created many years ago prior to zoning, and the lot is irregular in shape and area. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. 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 all 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 neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -20- November 14, 1974 On motion by Mr. Hulse, seconded by Mr'. Grigonls, it was RESOLVED, Craig A. Richter a/c Nickalas Casamisina, 10 Island View, Greenport, New York be GRANTED permission to construct addition to existing dwelling resulting in reduction in side yard at 10 Island View Lane, Greenport, as applied for, subject to the following condition: That applicant place the addition no closer than 7 feet to the property line from the northwesterly corner of the addition. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. Mr. Louis Komorek came in for a discussion with the Board regarding public use of the restaurant and bar at the Island's End Golf and Country Club. He said that by special exception only stockholders and golfers are supposed to be able to use the restaurant and bar. They would like to obtain permission to open it to the public so that people coming in from the street could use the restaurant and bar. The Chairman told Mr. Komorek that the Board of Appeals would not have the authority to do this as they would be creating a new zone. He suggested that Island's End might be able to get a change of zone for part of the property. The Chairman said that he thought they would have to go to the Town Board because, in effect, if the Appeals Board acted on it they would be creating something that is not permitted in a residential area. Mr. Komarek pointed out that there is a restaurant on each end of the golf course. Mr. Terry said that Brown's Snack Bar is Business and Skipper's is an ex- tension of non-conforming use by the Appeals Board. The Chairman said he would not advise making the whole thing Business, only the restaurant. He suggested they make a study as to how many people walk in off the street. Mr. Komorek said they would like to find some way of advertising so people will know that they can come in. He said that a lot of golfers go to Porky's. The Chairman said the proper procedure would be to go to the Town Board, probably to have an informal discussion first. Southold Town Board sof Appeals -21- November 14, 1974 Mr. James Kavanagh, owner of Crescent Beach Motel, and Mr. Rudolph Bruer, his attorney, came in for approval of Appeal No. 1920 for permission to set off existing motel units as separate dwellings or lots. A hearing was held and recessed on June 13, 1974. A pzevious hearing for permanent condominiums~ Appeal No. 1819, was held on August 9, 1973, and approved subject to site plan approval of the Planning Board: The following Resolution was passed by the Planning Board at a regular meeting held October 7, 1974. "RESOLVED that the following be required on the site plan of Crescent Beach: The Covenants and Restrictions prohibit development of the open space in perpetuity for other than recreational purposes. The lot upon which the house stands which will be retained by Mr. Kavanagh shall be ~0,000 sq. ft. The Planning Board will then approve the map and submit it to the Board of Appeals." In a letter dated November 7, 1974 the PlanNing Board secretary stated that Mr. Rudolph Bruer has presented the Planning Board with the Covenants and Restrictions as requeste~ and you will note on the map thaH Mr~ Kavanagh has designated an area of 40,000 sq. ft. for his homestead. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything to add that is not in these files? We spent an hour with Bob Tasker talking about your problem. The proposal under consideration is to do something that can't be done. I don't know how this Board can act to help you. It looks like a blanket variance. A blanket variance, in effect, changes the zone. The Board of Appeals acts on individual situations. The proposal is to create 21 separate parcels plus the owner's 40,000 square feet. We don't think there is any way this canbbe done except by condominiums. The Planning Board can't approve a subdivision map for private residences which are less than 40,000 sq. ft. This Board can't act on a blanket variance. I think the action we took originally was to permit the creation of condominiums. MR. BRUER: It's impossible with respect to buildings that are there. THE CHAIRMAN: We even discussed whether it could be done by combining each unit into a single house. .Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- November 14, 1974 MR. BRUHE: I think we meet minimum requirements for multiple residence. They are multiple units with a common area. I think there has been a precedent set by this Board within the last eighteen months for this type of action, specifically in connection with the developers, George Penny and Stan Waimey. It was two and a half acres on Westphalia Road which was allowed to be divided. We have Multiple Zone there and we want to create it into permanent use. This has been approved by the Planning Board. MR. HOWARD TERRY: It is zoned "Multiple" now. What they are looking for is to change transient to permanent. It is something that is existing° The other one you acted on was Hamilton which is single occupancy. This is double.~ This is what causes the bind/~ Hamilton was in a residential zone. MRo BRUER: I think this is a better use. ~. TERRY: They would be changing from transient to permanent. THE CHAIRMAN: Now, Counsel feels there is no way that this could be operable except by filing a subdivision map. I would suggest that you see Mr. Tasker. MR. BRUER: The other idea would be to incorporate and I don't think that's in the best interests of the Town. We have been coming in here over two years regarding this matter. I spent six months before the Planning Board at the direction of this Board. The condominium aspect is not practical from a financial consideration because this is an existing situation. This is not something that has been created. I don't know if the six months spent before the Planning Board was necessary. We are here for a change of the Certificate of Occupancy. THE CHAIRMAN: It would be change of use to permanent occupancy as opposed to transient occupancy and for seasonal use. MR. BRUER: That's all in the Covenants and Restrictions. The only difference is the technical use of the word "condominiums" and the requirements of the Attorney General's office with respect to specifications. They want to know the type of every nail. We don't even know where the cesspools are. THE CHAIRMAN: If this went to the County Health Department you would have to create sewage disposal. ~ Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -23- NoVember 14, 1974 MR. JAMES KAVANAGH: I am restricting this to Senior Citizens. There is a cesspool for every four units. There are plenty of cesspools and I have never had any trouble with them. MR. BRUER: We are talking about a new situation. This is an existing situation. I think if Mr. Kavanagh took this to court he would be successful. Based upon what has occurred for the past two years and then you turn around and say we are barking up the wrong tree. A public hearing was held. I would like to refer the Board to what was recommended on August 9, 1973. The Chairman read the following action: "THEREFORE IT WAS RESOLVED, James P. Kavanagh, Main Road, East Marion, New York, be GRANTED permission to convert existing motel, known as Crescent Beach Motel, to permanent condominiums. Location of property: south side of Main Road, East Marion, New York. Granted as applied for, subject to the following conditions: Subject to Site Plan approval of the Planning Board, including location of tennis courts, new access road, adequate parking under present Ordinance, and other common facilities. Subject to setting off the residence of the applicant on a 40,000 sq. ft. plot in such a way that the bulk regulations of the Ordinance will be met. There shall be no enlargement of the outside dimensions of any of the proposed condominium units. (20 units). Occupancy shall be seasonal, limited to the period from April 1 to November 1. Se Ail of the land area between the buildings shall be common land subject to control and maintenance by a properly constituted Property Owners Association. 6. Access shall be as set forth in the site plan as approved by the Southold Town Planning Board°" MR. BRUER: If I am not mistaken, "subject to" has been complied with. THE CHAIRMAN: The way I understood Mr. Tasker today is that it might be illegal for the Planning Board to approve it. I think you should see Mr. Tasker. I went to see hi~mto see what action the Board should take in response to the letter from the Planning Board. ~ Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -24- November 14, 1974 MR. BRUER: We got site plan approval. The map that was before the Board at that time did not set off 40,000 sq. ft. A new map was drawn g~ving them the 40,000 sqo ft. Is it not a fact that you have already acted? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. But, it was based on counsel's advice at that time. MR. BRUER: You said the words "blanket variance". It's the Board that acts, not Mr. Tasker. THE CHAIRMAN: We take the advice of the Town Attorney. There is nothing personal in this. We went down to see if our Board could act on what the Planning Board recommended. MR. BRUER: We are really coming in for a change in the Certificate of Occupancy. We have to come here for a change of use. MR. TERRY: That Bulk Schedule covers the whole thing. MR. KAVANAGH: If the Board of Appeals can't give me an answer, who can? MR. BRUER: For the record, the Board has okayed subject to several conditions which we have met. THE CHAIRMAN: Counsel has said that it is illegal to act on this. MR. TERRY: The only change of site plan which the Planning Board had to act on is the 40,000 sq. ft. It is an existing fact. That's what is required by the Ordinance. It has existing buildings and roadways. THE CHAIRMAN: There ought to be a way out of it in your favor. He is thinking in terms of 40,000 sq. ft. under the present Ordinance. MR. BRUER: That is correct if you are thinking of vacant laneo This has multiple use. Someone is off on the wrong road. The Board has already acted on this and until proven otherwise, the Board has acted correctly. He is saying that a legislative body has acted improperly. THE CHAIRMAN: We are not a legislative body. We're called quasi-judicial. MR. BRUER: I don't think anyone objected at the time of the hearing. I will be glad to talk to Mr. Tasker. We can not 4 Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -25- November 14, 1974 waive the fact that the Board has already acted and we have comPlied with their requirements. I think the Building Inspector would be required to issue the required C.O.'s. MR. BRUER: I agree that certain metes and bounds have to be put in. I will try to work this out with Mr. Tasker. THE CHAIRMAN: I have made the statement that the Board can't grant.the applicant a variance. The Board has acted without changing the zone. MR. HOWARD TERRY: You can have private residences in any zone. MR. BRUER: Multiple residence an ticipates private use and private residences. The multiple zone is not for commercial ~ uses, it's for private residences. MR. TERRY: M zone is intended for apartment use. In ~,1 you have a commercial use as well. MR. TERRY: I think you are dealing with an existing fact here. The only thing the Planning Board was asked to do was to set off Mr. Kavanagh's building on 40,000 sq. ft. and that is legal. THE CHAIRMAN: I am perfectly willing to admit that we made a mistake if you can get Mr. Tasker to admit bhat he made a mistake. He says, now, that the only way this can be handled is with condominiums. MR. BRUER: BUt it,s too late now. MR. KAVANAGH: I would like to be able to pull myself out. I believe that in 25 years that place can be lovely, better than it is today. There are not many places where that will happen. I have been offered a chance to sell out and get out but I don't want to get out. That open space can be maintained until long after I'm gone. Some guy can come in and everything can go down the drain. I want it to be a nice place. MR. BRUER: I don't know what the answer is here? THE CHAIRMAN: I can only suggest that you both talk to Mr. Tasker. "S~u%hold Town Board of Appeals -26- November 14, 1974 Mr. Boris Shaskin came in for an informal discussion with. the Board on Appeal No. 1960. He said there is a garage on Zena Road and Central Avenue 3 feet away from the curbside. It's 1 foot away from the house. It's a corner lot too. The name is Chalomdides. (Mr. Terry said that the court said he could keep it. He applied for a .permit so long after he built it that the court said he could keep it. This is a 100' x 120' piece of property.) Mr. Bergen said that Mr. Shaskin has plenty of room on the east side of the house on which to put the garage. The Chairman said that he doesn't know any way the Board can act favorably based on the average setback, 300 feet each way, the difference from the front yard to the street. The average is established by the line on your side of the street. If this garage can be incorporated with pour house and it does not decrease the front yard setback, it might be a solution. Mr. Shaskin said that the contractor found the cesspools with a divining rod. I am limited to a 100 foot area. Mr. Shaskin asked "how about carports?" The Chairman said that that would be the same thing. Mr. Shaskin also complained about another neighbor who parks his car and boat on the driveway and limits the view. He said that he is retiring and would like to have a garage. If it's attached he would not have 15 feet. The Chairman said that a variance on that would be much more readily attainable. Mr. Shaskin said it would block off his windows. He also said that he did not want the garage on the other side because he would have to walk all around to get his car, particularly in bad weather. The Chairman said that the Board could not consider it. The Board discussed Appeal No. 1954, Reginald Hudson a/c Brody & Others, for permission to construct docks and storage buildings on premises with insufficient width and area located on the east side of Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. The Chairman read letter from the Planning Board, dated November 7, 1974, as follows: "In regard to the letter from the secretary of the Board of Appeals dated October 4, 1974 re. the above captioned matter, the Planning Board does not look favorably on any development of this property. We have discussed this with the Board of Health and they feel that since this is fill pumped in over very heavy bog, %here is no possibility of getting good water or any sewage disposal and even boat storage buildings would presumably ha~e to have some sanitary facilities. Also, boat storage buildings (commercial) should only be in a "C" District." ~ Sbuthold Town Board of Appeals -27- November 14, 1974 Mr. Terry said that these are for private boats. There are four or five lots. They are asking that a ma~ncan maintain his boat there. The Chairman said that "we can only act on one lot at a time" Mr. Terry said that you can't put any kind of structure on the land. Mr. Hulse said that you would probably have to bulkhead close to the shore. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. HUlse, it was RESOLVED that applicant bring in separate applications, not over four lots, with metes and bounds descriptions. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, ~oyen. The following letter was written to Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. Re: Mattituck Telephone Building "Dear Mr. Olsen: In response to your request and after a discussion with Mr. Terry, we concur that no variance is needed for the use you propose, namely, single business occupancy. The total parking, as outlined on the plan by Young & Young, dated October 18, 1974, appears to be adequate. Mr. Terry informs us that under our current Ordinance he would issue a Certificate of Occupancy as a pre-existing, non-conforming, business building. Our files covering past applications for variance for a higher use (two or three businesses in the same building) of this property shall now be closed. s/s R. W. Gillispie, Jr. Chairman The Chairman directed the secretary to write a letter to Mr. Helmut Hass asking that he send the Board a current survey showing all buildings and types of businesses on his property. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the minutes of the Southold Town Board of Appeals dated October 17, 1974 be approved as submitted subject to minor correction. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- November 14, 1974 10 Sign Renewals were reviewed and approved. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that the next regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals will be held at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, December 5, 1974, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen, On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.), December 5, 1974, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place of hearing upon application of Thomas A. Duffey, T.A.D. Auto Sales, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70 B.4 (a) for permission to conduct a ~sed car sales business, (b) to erect a second sign. Location of property: Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road; east by Pequash Avenue; south by M. Barteau; west by Fleet Estate. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 8:15 P.M. (E.S.T.), December 5, 1974, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place of hearing upon application of Walt Whitman Federal Savings &-Loan Association, Main Road & Bay Avenue, Mattituck, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60 C (3) (b) for permission to erect sidewall sign. Location of property: Main Road & Bay Avenue, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road; east by Bay Avenue; south by E. & H. Wilsberg; west by J. McCarthy. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. ~S~t~old To wn Board of Appeals -29- November 14, 1974 On motion by Mr. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 8:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) December 5, 1974, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place of hearing upon application of William Heins, Main Road, Orient, New York for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 B.1 for permission to convert existing one family dwelling to two family dwelling. Location of property: S/S Oregon Road & Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, bounded on the north by Oregon Roadl east by Elijah's Lane; south by F. Deerkoski; west by M. Sidor, Jr. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 8:45 P.M. (E.S.T.) December 5, 1974, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place of hearing upon application of James A. Davis, Harbor Lights Drive, Southold, New York for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance; Article VII, Section 100-70 B.4 for permission (a) to operate a used car business, (b) to erect sign. Location of property: S/S Main Road, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road (Rte. 25); east by Robert Brown; south by Robert Brown; west by A. Campbell. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Hulse, oit was RESOLVED that the Southold T own Board of Appeals set 9:00 P.M. (E.S.T.) December 5, 1974, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place of hearing upon application of Helmut Hass, North Road, Peconic, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 B. C1 for permission to use existing house as two family dwelling. Location of property: S/S North Road, Peconic, New York, bounded on the north by Middle Road (CR 27); east by Hingle & Suffolk County; south by Long Island Railroad; west by K. Case. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. ~o~t~old T~wn Board of Appeals -30- November 14, 1974 On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 9:15 P.M. (E.S.T.) December 5, 1974, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place of hearing upon application of ~loria & Edward J. Praetz, 53750 North Road, Southold, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-34 and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct addition to dwelling with reduced setback. Location of property: North Road (CR 27) and Beverly Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by North Road (CR 27); east by D. Brady; south by R.O.W. Meissnest; west by Private Road - Beverly Road. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board sof Appeals set 9:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) December 5, 1974, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place of hearing upon application of George Ahlers Builder, Inc. a/c A. & R. Usatch, Nassau Point, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate accessory building (garage) in front yard area. Location of property: Lot Nos. 184 and 185, Map of Nassau Point No. 156, N/S Broadwater Road, Cutchogue. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. On motion by Mr.. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. HUlse, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 9:45 P.M. (E.S.T~) December 5, 1974, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place of hearing upon application of James O. and Joan A. Maxwell, 51 Village Lane, HaUppauge, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient sideyards. Location of property: S/S Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by FleetWood Road; east by A. Weiss & Ors; south by M. Dalton; west by M. Driver~ Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- November 14, 1974 On motion by I~r. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 10:00 P.M. (E.S.T.) December 5, 1974, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place of hearing upon application of Joseph Cherepowich & wife, Main Road, East Marion, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off lot with insufficient area. Location of property: Main Road & Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road (Rte 25); east by other land of applicant; south by J. Rhode; west by Shipyard Lane. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~P~ovE~} Marjor'~ie McDermott, Secretary Robert W. Gillispie~ Jr., Chairman