Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZBA-09/30/1971
$o. thold Town Boa -rd of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. Telephone 765-26'60 APPEAL BOARD ME'~BER Robert ",Y-/. gillispi¢, .Jr., Chsirmsn Robert B~r~¢n Charles Griflonls, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Fred Huls¢, Jr. MINUTES S~TE~ T~ B~D ~ ~PEAL~ ~pte~er 30, 19?l A re~la~ meeting of the So~thOld Town Board Of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M., Thm~sday, ~eptember 30, 19?l, at the Towm~ 0ffiee, ~Iain Road, ~outhold, New York. The~e were present: Nessrs: Robert W'. GillisDie, Jr., Chairman; Robert Bergen~ Charles Grigenis, Jr.; Fred Nnlse, Jr.; Eerge Doyen, Jr. Also present: ~o Howard Terry, Building Inspector. PUBI~- C HEARING: Appeal~ No. 1461 - 7:30 P.M. (E.~.T.), upon application of Alice M. Burden, Orient, New York, £or a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Ar~'icle Iii, Section 303, and Article X, Section 1000A, for permission_to divide property and create lots with less than 100 ft. frontage and eno lot 'with less than 12,500 sq. ft. o£ ares. Location Of property: north side of private road o~£ west side ef Village I~ne, Orient, New York, bounded north by G. R. Latham, Wa; E. Broderick, east by Spencer Terry, D. Dorman & Others, south-by $~ient Harbor, west by A. Enex. Fee paid $5.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by ~eading the application for a variance, legal notice ef hearing, a~£idavit attesting to its publication in the e~ficial newspapers, and notice te the applicant. TEE C~AIR~N: i have rece~ve~ several letters which I will read Into the record: The Chairm~n read letter received from George R. i~tham, Or'lent, NeW'york, dated September 27, 1971, in which Nr. Latham respectfmlly requested the denial eF the application for the reason that it wo~ld not be in the best interests o~ the area; and ~the additio~ of any residences e~ this private road would Eouthold Town Boa~ off Appeals -2- Eeptember 30, 197i in my opinion increase an already serious tra££ic problem,f~ THE CHAIF~N: I s~ould call your attention to the fact that the application does not call for any addition. The Chairman read letter received From ~)aniel B. Dorman, Orient, New Tork, dated Septem~oer 27, 1971, objecting to any variance that would permit further sewer drainage into this concentrated area. (~ietter also signed by I)orothy M. Dorman). The Chairman read letter received From Edgar J. Smith, Jr., Asst. General Counsel, General Signal Corp., 280 Park Ave., N.Y.C., who owns a cottage and 1/3 acre of land at the westerly end of the private road off the west side of Village Lane. I~. Smith noted that the notice of appeal requests a variance to ~divide property and create lots~, lots being in the plural, and was disturbed that this langmage,would permit the Burdens to create a multiplicity of small lots. The Chairman read letter from F~. Arthur M. Van De Water, Herbert L. Jamison & Co., N.Y.C., dated ~eptember 27, 19?l, in which he referred tO telephone conversation with ~¢r. Gillispie the previous ~unday; and confirming his understanding that the request for this variance deals solely with the contemplated sale of the parcel of land, with dwelling, located to the east of ~s. Burden's main dwelling. He stated in his letter that ~iF my ~nderstanding is correct, that this v~riance is specific, as above referred to, I have no objections, iF~ however, i am in error, and this could be damaging to the community, I would wish ~or myself and others to present the strongest possible objection." THE CHAIRMAN: I explained to M~. Van De ~ater that the proposal here was to.recognize an existing situation. T~ property was acquired many years ago. The three houses were erected prior te zoning. The proposal is merely to ease the burden of Alice M. Burden by selling off part eF it. Zt would in no way create a precedent for small lots or indicate that there would be Fishing shacks there. It recognizes an existing situation and will not change the character of the area. It would not create a precedent. No two variances are exactly alike. THE CHAIRMAN: Isthere anyone present who wishes to speak in favor of this application? .MR. ~L~T BURI~: There is a misunderstanding in the wording of the applioation~-in that ~lots" was used. This made some people believe that this was going to be divided up into ~merous lots. Coming south of the Family house, ten Feet From the driveway, they have dragon a line straight down; and they have entered into contract with a purchaser who is going to retire and make this his home, with no intent ef entering into any business. To deny is to put a burden en the family For no reason. ~outhold Town Board of APpeals Eeptember 30, 1971 There a~e any number eF homes adjoining this property that have less than lO0 Feet; se nothing detrimental would be done to the THE G~IRi~N: Are there any questions? ~S. GERTRUDE ~YER: Are the people who are p~chasing the property purchasing beth he~ses? Would it be eno purchase? Would this mean there would be me mere buz~dzng? THE 6NAiP~MAN: It womld be one purchase. It would be my recommendation that the Beard should include conditions as te variance en sideyards and em additional str~ctures en an mn~er- sized let, which is somethir~ we ~sually do if someone has a let that is tee narrow er tee long. They ~e~t all conform, and that is the reason For the Beard ef Appeals. When a let is ~oo narrow, we restrict mse ef lot and there will be i~stances when we can't consider an application for a garage. In this case, there should be ne addition er alteration ef the outside dimensions. It would net add to pollution? THE GHAIRF~: No' it weald net. A~e there any ether questions? · f ne~ is there anyone present who wishes te speak against this application. (There was no response.) THE GHAIR~N: I think ~here has been a let ef misunderstanding, even by lawn-ers, in connection With the wording ether lawyers think mp. This would not ehao~e the character eF the neighborhood. It draws a linet~eugh the property enabling the new b~yer te buy. the property; it does net downgrade er ~ncrea~e the water er sewage requirements. ~E. M~YER: It was the way in which it was Worded "Divide property and create le~s~. Y~f that is net the case, if ~o mere buildings can be put up,~I weul~ agree. After investigation and inspection the Beard finds that applicant requests permission te divide property and create lets with less than lO0 Ft. ~rentage and~ one let with less than 12,%0G sq. Ft. ef area en property located north side ef private read cfr west si~e of Village Lane, Orient, New York~~ The Beard finds that applicant has. contracted tc sell (subject te obtaining variance) the southerly%% Feet of premises and requires a variance tc divide the premises. The parcel has an area of approximately ll,000 square feet. A prlvate~read extends along the waterfront affording access to Village Lane. The portion proposed to be sold will be of the same size as many of the lets in the vicinitY. The Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. Eouthold Town Board of Appeals -- Eeptember 30, 1971 The Board Finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or u~uecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shamed 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 ~. Grigonis, it was RESOL~EDAlice M. Burden, private road off N/S Village I~ane, Orient, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property and create lots with less than 100 ft. frontage and one lot with less than 12,500 sq. ft. of area on property located north side of private read off west side ef Village Lane, Orient, New York, subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no Further reduction of sideyards as established in this action. 2. There shall be no enlargement er alteration of outside dimensions of the two dwellings on the southeast lot. No additional outbuildings may be constructed en the southeast lot except that an accessory garage building (not to exceed 5G0 sq. Ft.) may be constructed in the rear yard area provided that the three accessory buildings presently located in the rear yard area of the southeast lot are removed, and provided that a Building Permit for said accessory garage building is secured within two years of the date of this action. Vote of the Board: Doyen. Abstaining: Ayes:- Messrs: Bergen, Grigenis, Hulse, Nr. Robert ~. Gi!lispie, Jr. PUBLIC ~ING: Appeal N~. ii!~60 - 7:~% P.M. (E'~.T.), upon application efPaulHa~ry ~10wski, G~eve Road, ~uthotd,.~New York, For a variance in accordance with the Honing ~diuance, Article III, ~ection 303, and Amticle X, ~ctien 100@A, for pe~miSsi~n~te divi~e property and set off let with less than 12,500 s~. ft. of area~ Location ef property: southeast corner of MillCreek Drive and GroVe'Read, ~outhold, New York, bounded north by Mill Creek Drive, east by Mill Creek Drive, A. Gordon Bm~th, & J. G. Havens, soutn b~.P.0Bzm ns, & A. Gordon-Smith, west by. Grove Road. Fee paid ~5,0 · Eoutheld Town Beard~Sf Appeals - ~ September 30, 1971 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. THE C~QMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes te speak for this application? R~OLPH~H. BRUER, ESQ.: (e~_f~ce of ~e£ferts P' Edsen) As you can see from the survey, it is the best argmment for the variance. THE CHAIF~MA~N: When was the property bought? dated 19?lo ~ , The survey is ~o BRI~ER: F~, Orlewski owns the property immediately to the north, where his house is. He bought it Drier te the Ordinance. THE G~w~: These lets have been there for a long time. an eld.community. MR. BRUER: We ~0 have it unde~ contract for sale, and to satisfy the 12,~00 sq.~ft, would require an addition ef land around the garage. Mr. Wickham advised his client not to buy, plus, it.~s an inconvenience to have his garage surrounded by someone else~s property and serves ne value. THE CHAIRMAN: is t~h~re anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no ~esponse.) THE CHAPMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes te speak agains~ this. applicat ion? (There was no response.) A~er investigation and inspection theBoard finds that applicant requests permission to divide property and set ef~ let with less than 12,~00 sq. ft. ef area on the southeast corner of Mill Greek Drive and GrOve ROad, ~o~thold, New York. The Beard finds that in order to convey 12,~00 sq. ft. the applicant would have to surround his garage with another persen~s property, which w~ld result in problems of la~n maintenance and garage maintenance for beth the put-chaser and the seller. The road frontage is ll~.O~ feet and the square £eotage ef the land to be conveyed would be within 9~% ef the reG~irement of 12,~00 square feet. The Beard is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. ~ou~hold Town Board o£ Appeals -6- September 30, 1971 The Board finds that strict applicabion o~ 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 eF the Ordinance. motion by F~. Grigenis, seconded by ~. Bergen, it was R~OLVED Paul Harry Orlowski, Grove Road, ~ou~hold, New York, be granted permission to divide property and set ef£ lot with less than 12,500 square feet of area on southeast corner of Mill Greek Drive and Grove Road, ~outhold, New York, as applied for. Vote ef the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigenis, Doyen. PUBLIC ~ING: Appeal No. ].1162 - 8:00 P.M. (E.~.T.), upon application or.Dr. James P. Tierney,~36 ~pruce ~treet, Garden City, New Yerk,~or approval o£ access over private right-of-way in accordance with the ~tate of New York Town Law~ ~eotion 280A. Location of property: private right-of-way o£f east end of North Parish Drive, ~outhold, New York, bounded north by Peconic Bay, east by H. &'F. Reese, south by Harry G~nliffe, wes~ by H. ~ayre & North Parish Drive. Fee paid $5.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for approval of access, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesti.ug to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. T-~ GHAiR~AN: is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ~. WA~T~R P. I~JCE: Dr. Tierney could not be here tonight. Z wo~ld like to speak in favor~ of the application. The land contains two and a quarter acres With~%0 feet ef waterfront. There will only be two homes places on this two and a quarter acres. (2~. Lute and the Board discussed the Map). The only way this.co~ld be utilized is to have this access~going into this property. ~ am certain two nice hemes could be put there. THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, some o~ this property is marshland and the dotted line separates it from upland. ~MR. I~CE: Referring to map: The idea is to divide this up so one home could, be placed here, and one here. The home te the west would have about 85 feet o~ ~seable land. Somthold Town Board of Appeals September 30, 1971 THE OHAIRF~N: 85 feet. This lot should be 100 feet instead !~R. LUCE: That would not make any difference. THE CHAiRF~N: It would be a little mere conforming although the new ordinance calls for 135 feet. Our present ordinance is still in effect so 100 feet would be satisfactory. After investigation and inspection the Beard finds that applicant requests permission for approval of access over private right-of-way in accordance with the State of New York Town Law, Section 280A off east end of North Parish Drive, Southeld, New York. The Beamdfinds that applicant owns land on a dead-end piece ef property containing two and a quarter acres with'450 ft. of waterfront and wants to place two homes en the property, one with a private drive. The property has 95 feet of roadfront. The other homes in this location are situated on half acre parcels. The Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties er mnnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity ef this property and in the same use district; and the variance will net change the character ef the nei~hberhoed, and will observe the spiritiof the Ordinance. On metion~ M~. Gillispie, secoEied by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED Dr'. James Po Tierney, 36 ~pr~ce Street,'~Garden City, New~York, be GRANTED approval of access off east end of North PariSh Drive, Southold, New York, subject t~ approval of the Building Imspecter, and subject to the following cendltion: The westerly lot to be enlarged by 15 feet, making it at least 100 feet in width parallel to the westerly line of the property; the division ef property ~o provide 100 feet width from the westerly line en North Parish Drive. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Eessrs: Giltispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigenis, Doyen. Decision of the Beard on Appeal Ne. 1457, Charles T. McDonough, 1775 Pembroke Read,~ Birmingham, Michigan; Pablie Hearing h~ld 7:30 P.M., September 9, 1971, upon application ef Charles T.~ & Ju~e L. McDonou. gh, for a vari. ance in accordance with t.he. Zonmng 0r~inance, Article m~iI, Sectzen 303 and Article X, Section 100GA, for permission to.set off lot with less than l~ feet read frontage and insufficient area. Location of ~outheld Town Board~Of Appeals - 8 - $&~tember ~0, 1971 property: west side of Bay Shore Road, lot no. 9~, and southerly one half ef let no. 94 on Amended ~p "A~ ef Peconic Bay Estates, ~Iap No. ll~, Greenport, New York. . , T~ GMAIRI~N: The result of this investigation is as fellows: After investigation and inspection the Beard finds that applicant requests permission te set off lot with less than 100 feet r~ad frontage and insufficient area on property located on west side ef Bay Shore Road, Greeuport, New York. The Beard finds that the let and a half sold to ~. McDonough in February ef 19%8 was surrounded by other owners. Thereis no way to enlarge the property. Te be technically correct, N~v. Ech~eeder, who has since passed away, should have sold in 100 x 12% feet parcels. However, the area has a long list of undersized lets. Ne can net. correct the error tha~'~was perpetrated by 2~. Schroeder by p~nalizing ~. McDonough. It is the recommendation of Counsel that ~. McDonough has the.right te ~se his lot and build upon it. The Boa~dfinds that Greenpert ~$ater will shortly be available lessening any difficulties as far as water is concerned. The Board'finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or ~nnecessary hard~hip; the ha~dship created is unique and would net be shared by all properties alike in the i~media~e vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and '~ll observe the spirit e~ the Ordinance. On motion by ~ir. Hutse, seconded by F~. Bergen, it was RE~oLVED ~rles Y. & June L. McDonoUgh be GP~N~ permission' to set off let with less than 100 feet of read frontage~ and insufficient area en west side of Bay ~ore Road, Greenport, New York, subject te the following condition: That there shall be no redmction of side yards now or in the future. Vote of the Board: Hulse, Doyen. Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, · POB~IC HEARl~G:~ Appeal Nee 1464 - 8:30 P.M. (E.B.T.), upon application eF Philip Ma~riner, Rd i, Deep Hole D~!ive, ~Iatt~tuck, New York, for-a varianee'~n accordance with the Zoning ~dinanee, Article III, ~ectton ~00, Subsection 6, ~nd ~r~icle ~,'Section ~09, permission to construct accessory building (garage) in ~ront yard area. Location e~ Droperty;'seuth side ef Deep Hole ~ive, Nat$i~ck, New Yenk, bounded north by Deep Hole Drive, east by ~. Baar, Deed Hole Creek, west by Thcs. 0~EeeFe. Fee paid ~.00. The Chai~n opened the hearing by ~eading the application Fe~ variance, legal notice ef hearing, affidavit attesting te its p~blicatien in the e~ficial newspapers, and ne~ice to She applicant. T~ C~M~N: Is the~e anyone present who wishes $o speak this application? Eouthold To~n Board of Appeals - 9 - ~eptember 30~ 197i ~wr~o PHI~IPMA~RI~: I have a photostat of the property. (The~Board and M~. Mariner studied the Map). When they dr~dged the creek they left a mud bank. It was a meadowland that was Filled in. THE 0HAIRNAN: I thinkwe would be in a better position to consider the-application if you comld attach the garage in some way to the house. It would be better than having a series of detached garages on-waterfront property. Ir'will detract from all of our waterfront property if garages are not attached to the houses. ~MR. I~W~I~: i have no objection to attaching if the garage can extend to the road side of the house. THE CHAIRMAN: i dentt think we would be concerned with how yom attach it aS long as you keep the same setback as the other houses, i dontt believe yen will have any difficulty in main- taining that setback. MR. I~a°d~iR~R: I can do it with a~breezeway as long as I can come to the read.side of the house. THE 0NAiR~N: ~s there anyone present who wishes to speak agains~ this~applioatlon? (There was no response.) After investigatiOn and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to ceustruet accessory building (garage) in front yard area of property located on somth side of Deep. Hole Drive, Mattltuck, New York. The Board Finds that applicant has a low ground problem and side clearance problem. Applicant is agreeable to attaching the garage to the house. The Beard is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of th~ O~dinance would produce practical dff~icultles or unnecessaz~y 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 N~. Hulse, it was ~w~SOLVED PhilipN~riner, Ed l, Deep EoIe Drive,'Mattituck, New York,.~be~GR~NTE~ permission to construct accessory building (garage) in ~ront yard area of property on south side ef Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck, New York, subject to the following~ condition: ~o~thold Town Boa~d t~tAppeals - i0 - g~._~.~ember 30, 1971 Tb~t garage be attached to present dwelling, and maintain the setback which is established by neighboring hemes. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillisple, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PU~!~IC I~EARI~G~ Appeal· No. 146~ ' 8:4~ P.M, (EcS.T,), upon application of TheodOre Gh~istianson, 9 Dudley Avenue, ~taten island, New Terk, For a variance in accordance with theEoning Ordinance, A~ticle III, ~ction 30~, and ~tiCle X, Section~1000&, For per- mission te divide p~ope~ty and create lots with less than lO0 ft. frontage. Lecatio~ er p~eperty: we~t side eF ~eep Hole ~iv~, ~attituCk, New Ye_k, bomnded north by Tolanda RObbins, east by Deep Hole Drive, south by Mathaias Brewi, west by Beep Hole Creek. Fee paid $~.00. The Chairman opened the hearing bY reading the application For a variance, legal notice of he~ing, af_~dav~t attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice te the applicant. T~ C~~: ~is the~e anyone present who wishes te ~peak in favo~ o~ this application~ i~. T~R~ C~T~$ON: I think everything has been ceve~ed in the paragraphs ~n the aPPlzoa$~on. I ~o~t s~e how it wo~_m hurt any property nearby~ We bemght i~ good~fait~ hoping te have two separate lots. That was done before 1949-~0. Th~ C~~: The lots ~un abomt 2~0 Feet in depth, 60 feet on Deep Hole Creek and ~0 ~eet em She road. ~. ~HRISTiANSON: They are on a curved read. TH~ CH~IR~L~N: Do yo~ want to divide this Fo~ the record? ~. ~iSTIA~SON: ~ventually, I may want to sell. THE CHAIRMAN: ZS there anyone present who wishes to speak against ~hzs ~ application? (There was no response.) THE CHAiR~tAN:~ if this were granted' I am sure you would mot be adverse to o~r includi~ a condition where we would net permit a side yard var~anceo The standard for side yards is l0 Feet and l~ Feet. ~. CHRiSTi~SON: That would be agreeable to me. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to divide property and create lots Southold Town Board o£ Appeals - ll - Eeptember 30, 19?l with less than 100 foot Frontage on west side of Deep Hole Drive, Nattltuck, New York. The Board-Finds that the two lots, Nos. 22 and 23 were bought separately with separate deeds. Applicant placed a summer home on one lot and expected to use or sell the other lot. The original neighborhoo~ planning was for ~0 Foot lets of varying depths. The Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board Finds that strict application of the 0rdinanc~ would produce Dractical diFficmlties or ~nnedessary 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 ~. Hulse, seconded by ~Lv. Grigonis, it was RE,SOLVED Theodore Christianaon, 9 Dmd!ey Avenue, Staten island, New Tork, be GRANTED permissien~to divide property and create lots with less than 100 foot Frontage ou property at west side of Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck, New Tork, subject to the £ellowing condition: That no side yard variance will be granted new or in the Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs. Gillispie, Bergen, Hnlse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBY~TC HEARING: Appeal No. 1463 -9:00 P.M. (E.S'.T.), upon application o£~Danlel Grattan, Eunnyside Road~'m~odtho~d, Yo~k, ~er a varian~e in aecordaDce with the Zoning Ordinance, A~ticle III, ~ection 303~ an~ Article X, Section lO0OA, for permission~$o divide property and set off lot with less than 12,50G sq. Ft. of area and~less than 100 ft. ~ro~tage on Town Road. Location OF property: north side of Sunnyside Read, So~thold, New York, bounded north by ether ~and of the applicant, east by other land of the applicant, somth by Bunnyside Road, west by Peter Grattan. Fee paid $%.00o The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application For a variance, legal notice ef hearing, affidavit attesting to its p~blication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. TEE CHAIRMAN: is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? RENSSAEEAR TERRY, ESQ.: I am here in behalf of Mr. Grattan. Eouthold Town Board of Appeals -12- Eeptember 30~ 19?l THE GHAIR~MAJ~: The map indicates that I~.~. Grattan owned-' all of the property north ef the railroad, No. 3, the lot under discussion was sold in 1947. Ne. 4 was sold at approximately the same time. This partiemlar lot is 67 ~eet x Grattants personal residence is on the northeast corner. Town CoUnsel is of the opinion tha~ this app!ieatien legitimate, ~d if ~. Grat~an~had net been ForCed by circum- stances ~e ~ereelese this mortgage, ~his he, se would p~esen~ly be em a le~ ef its ek~. ~t was his opinion th~ ~he Board should g~ant relief and assistance. Counsel. would like te echo the sentiments of Town THE GNAIRMAN: is~here anyone present who is against the granting of this application? (There was ne response.) AFter investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests pe~ission te di~le property and set off lot with less than 12,500 sq. ft. of ar~a and less than lO0 ft. frontage on Town Road located en the north Side of ~nnyside Road, ~outhold, New York. The Board finds that premises were originally held in single and separate o~*nership pursuant to Deed dated Novembe~ 3, 1947, and consist efa parcel of ~preperty with dwelling thereon. Applicant was compelled to reacq~ire premises mnde~ mortgage foreclosmre proceedings. Applicant's acquisition ef property was necessitated by default e£ owner on mortgage held by applicant. The other houses in the vicinity were all built on undersized lets prior to the enactment ef the zoning ordinance. The Board finds that strict application eY the Ordinanc& would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would net be sha~ed 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 o~ the neighbo~hood, and will observe the spirit ef the Ordinance. On motion by I~r. Grigonis, seconded by I~. Doyen, it was REBOLVED Daniel E, Grattan, Horton~s ~a~e, Southold, New York be GRANTED permission to divide property and set ef£ lot with le~s than~li,500 sq. ft, of area and less than~lO0 Ft. front~g~ on To~nEoad, located n~rth side of Bunnyside Read, Southetd, New. York, as applied for. Vote of the Boa~d: Ayes:- Nessrs: Grigenis, Bergen, Doyen. Abstaining: Messrs Gillispie and Hulse. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -13- S~ptember 30~ 1971 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 14~9 - 9:15 P.M. (E~*~.T.), upon application of Anthanasios & Helen ~pinthomrakis, Main Road, ~East Marion, New York, For a variance in according With the 'Honing Ordinance, Article 1-ii, ~ection 307, and A~ticle ZIi A, Sections 357 & 358, for permissio~ to maintain motel units, and buildings with insufficient side~ yards. Location of property: s~th Side of Main ROad, East M~rion, New. York, bounded north by Main Road, east by A. G. Doyle and other Iands of applicant, south by G. Arbold & Others, ~west by R. Peterson & Others. ~ee paid $5.00. The Chairman epened the hearing by reading the application £or a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the of£icial newspapers, and notice te the applicant. THE OHA~N: Is~there anyone present who wishes to speak in £avor of this application? NICHOiA~D. tqYELYS, EBQ.: This building is located in a motel area, M zoned use For.mctel bms~uess. ~The building has been there for a long time, over fifty years; and was there when the property was purchased in 1957. It had a three room apart- ment above and~. Spintho~rakis created a recreation room below. At the time he converted the recreation room into two efficiency apartments, he didn't know he should make application for doing this. He operates two efficiency apartments beneath the three apartments. The enly thing he could do now is to put back the recreation room but there would be no benefit to putting it back. TM~ GHA~d~N: This was originally a barn. It's close to the fence eF the~adjoining farmland. Did it have an apartment in it originally? MP~. SPiNTH~O~J~iB: It did have one in 1957. TP~ CHAIRNAN: In th~ earlier days you made the lower part or'the building inte~a recreation room, with two bathrooms and a kitchen. Then, when you converted this to two efficiency apartments on the £irst fleer, at that time you built anothe~ bmilding which you use for recreation with kitchen a~d dining room. ~ith all o£ these things, were O.O.~s received? F~. TEP~Y: They received permits. THE OHAiR2~: ~hat we are asked to do is~to expand resi- dential ~se~in that building. There is a question as to whether this is a l~sser or a higher use. It wo~ld seem to me that this might be a considerably higher ase. MR. YS~: It was their intention te create two apartments. The fact that they.did ~ot make application was an error that was not pointed o~t until th~ work was acne. Southold Town .Board c .Appeals -14- ~ ~?tember 30, 1971 THE CHAIRMAI~: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) THE CHA~I~N: I might say that this whole area has been changed to M zone. As far as the rear yard is concerned, this building is attached to the old one. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to maintain motel units and bmildings with insufficient side yards on property located sou~h side ef Main Road, East ~Iarion, New York. The findings of the Board are that the building under application was erected over fifty years ago and was used for apartments when the property was purchased in 19~?. The entire area has been zoned M zone. The Board, therefore, is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties er unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would net be sh~ved 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 ~. Gillispie, seconded by Fm. Hulse, it was RE$OLVED Athanaslos Splnthourakis & Helen ~pinthourakis, Main Road, East Mar~on, New York, be GRANTEDpermission to maintain motel units and buildings with insufficient sid~ yards on property located south side of Main Road, East Marion, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gitlisple, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. PUBLIC HEAzRING:-i Appeal No, 1tt.66 - 9:30P~. (E.~.~T~), upon appliCa.tion of BayvieW Development Corp.,.d/b/a ViCtoria ~MOtel and Gottages, Bayview Road, ~o~tnol , New Yort~, ~or a special exception in accordance with the zoning Ordin~nce, Artmcle iz A, section ~0, Subsection ~, f°r permiSslen te expand existing marina. LOCation of propertY: south Side of Bayview Road, ~outhold, New York, bounded north by Bayview Read, east by ga~es Bitses, south by Corey Creek, west by A. & F. Koke. Fee~paid ~.00. The Chairman opened~the hearingby reading the application for a special exception, legal notice of hearing, af_~davmt attesting to its Publication In the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. $outhold Town Board of Appeals -l~- Eeptember 30, 19?l THE CHAiREd: Is'~there anyone present who wishes to speak in favor of .this application? ~- Richard Caplan, P~esldent; and-N~. Eurt Jensen, Vice a ' P~eside~it and Manager ~f B y¥'~ew Development Corp. were present to speak for the applieati~n. T~ GHALR~N: The deck weald extend in"a southerly direction into Gorey Greek slightly west of the entrance to the present boat basin, and it shows several slips. What is the length of the dock? ~' 1~R' RiCHARD GAt~N: The proposed length is l~ feet. The dock application is. an~ ex_penSion of the eXistibg permission which was issued For a 100 feet dock and it would be located in the same place. THE CHAIRMAN: You have an amende~ application on file? ~. CAPLAN: 'Yes, we 'do. It is also possible te meet boats in our own beat .basin ove~ private D~operty. THE GHA3RMAN: 9Yas a special exception granted by this board? ER. CAPLAN: Th~ question Was ~what is a marin~?~ i would say it is not a marina by the'spirit of the ordinance. We never rented slips. ~% do not launch beats. Permission was obtained by Victoria Cottages. The Chairman read the definition of a marina. NLq. G~=T~N: In that sense, we do not comply as a marina. THE CHA3RNAN: The proposal is to put this dock 124 feet from the shore line,.from the existing high wate~ mark. Would you have side slips? ER. C~wT~AN: it woald be'designed exclusively for 3~ foot, 12 foot beam. They are designed for this special purpose. TEE GE~!AN: '~hat weald be the number of vessels? ER. G~PI~N: We"~ould have a maximum of ten vessels or houseboats. ~We, a~ the present time, don~t envision more than eight; four on one side, fear on the other side, and two on the end. ~e a~e negotiating with Ch~Is Graft. This concept has been used before. The maximum occupancy would be six people per house- boat. THE CMAIRMA~N: ~e are talking about ten boats with a maxi~_~m of sixty people. Wha. t is the present ~mbe_~ of units in the mot e l? ~outhold Town Board of ~ppeals -16- September 30, 19?l t~R. CAPLAN: Twenty-four, with about ll~ people. We have fourteen two~bed~oo~ accomodationS desk°ned to hold fou~ people, and ten units for two guests each. increase of ~0%. Roughly, we are talking about a maximum l~q. OAPLAN: The area of the part of the property we operate is nine and a~h.alf acres. THE CHAIFd~tiN: The Creek is described as a boat basin. ~. OAP~z~N: It is owned half by us and half by ~. Victoria. Maintenance falls to both parties... ~vedging, bulkhe~ding.., the cost is split. THE CHAIRMAN: You are asking for permission te expand an exlstingma~ina. /~R. CAFLAN: It's been in existence since 1966. It:s a com- plicated legal question. Corey Creek'~i~ a navigable waterway. The Suffolk County dredge dredged this channel and, in a sense, obviously recognized the acceptance Of this mooring channel by dredging the mouth of it. There must have been an acceptance that this was navigable water. The Town, itself, by doing nothing has accepted the fact that this is a navigable waterway. Our feeling is that, legally speaking, any boat that comes into Oerey Creek can moor, in f~ct, live indefinitely on their vessel on Corey Creek. This principle has been upheld on Sheltem Island. Se, our theory is this, we would like to take advantage of recent developments with fully equipped houseboats to provide rental accomodations. These boats would not be equipped with moto~s and would not be rented as vessels. Because of the fact ~hat they a~e highly seasonal, they would be there in season, and would be ferried down to Florida in the winter. It is far more appealing than building a lot of other buildings on cur property. This would be a lease situation. THE CHAIRNAN: Tou purchase them and lease them back for nine months~of the year. MR. CAPLAN: We use them for a period of time and then they are used in another location. 'THE CHAIRM~N: If t~is were granted, you would have no objection ~o a seasonal permission? ~. GAPDAN: In principle, ne. I don~t think they would. be comfortsble in the winter. ~$e have a unique location in respect to waterway and view. It is a better way to aocomodate guests. %fie feel that this is the way to develop on a slow aud gradual basis a unique form of accomodation that will be esthetic and safe and not form a permanent blot on the homizon. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -l?- Eeptember 30, 19?l THE CHAI~t~N: One of the things i have read is thqt 50 Foot and 100 Foot houseboats pay no real estate taxes, which is a key to this bei~ successful, and I believe it's been upheld by the courts. · MR. CAPY~AN: Ne have no intent, it would be against our philosophy, to have outside boats moored in our dock Facilities. T~E CHA~I~N: This is eno of the first applications of this type on the.eastern seaboard. I am s~e we are all trying to ~nderstand it. FAq. OAPI~LN: ~$e are prepa~ed~to waive claim to ~ervices of a commercial~marina, .including fuel. ~e don~t have any objection to elimination of rental of slips fo~ money~ Ton would still consider us non-commercial. These boats would be For accomodation. ~nen a boat ceases to have a motor, is it a boat or a ho~se? ~e have no firm committment to commercial marina activity. ~e ~r~ concerned about the expansion of e~ motel business. ~ C~IR~L~N: Is there anyone present ~no wishes to speak against this a~Dlication? ~. Wi~,T,TAM~T.~i~TON: Are we to assume that they can go ahead and Dut. a~lot oF~buildings on there if they are denied this application? Could they go ~head and do this? THE CHA~'~: i would think that the ~otel could be expanded, considerably. The Building Inspector could give us a better answer. They only have 24 u~its on nine acres. MR. H~L~D TERRY, Building Znspector: He could mo~e than triple the ~mount of buildings that he ha~ on the property now. THE CHAI~M~: ~t~s related to density, so his motel units comld be considerably expanded. The newest concept in zohing is not a grid pattern o£ a hal~ acre or an acre. P~obably, with the great n~mber of people we s~e expecting to co~e here in the next ten years, we will be forced into planned unit developments. That is the wave of the future. What is to say because we divide into 40,000 sq. ~t. lots that the wate~ is pure? The only thing that does is minimize density. A planned~unit ~evelopment would leave open space. When you consider the water useage itXs minimal. Because it happens to run contrary to the grid type development doesn:t necessarily mean itSs bad. This is the way we will have to live. Itc try to control as long as we can. ~. VAN TAGGERT, Lamghing ~aters Home ~ners Assoc.: ! was asked by the association to co~ here to File an objection. They feel these changes~are endangering the ~se of our beaches. W~ have had a little trouble with the ~tter disregard For speeding in boats golug over to Victoria. ~ was called and asked to come here. tt may be ignorance of what the.situation is. I envision the dredging that would have to be done. ~very time a dredge comes into ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -18- September 30, 19?l Corey Creek, we lose our water. There is low water there new. I doubt whether we have three Feet in the channel, the entrance to ~orey Creek. MR. CAPI~N: I have taken Four Foot sailboats in several ' THE CHAIRNAN: As Far as the d~pth of the water here is concerned we~have.no control. As Far as house boats being located here, iris hard to see how they~could impinge on £reedom. MR. VAN TAGGERT~ They must come through here and they must cross.our beach. THE CHAIR~N: Koke BrOs. o~n that spit out there. Some . . ~revelant. of the objections are '~ ~. VAN TAGGEE~: Is it not conceivable that people who rent ho~seboats~will also,rent boats? MR. CAPLAN: We-'are legally allowed to build 40 more units. ~nat is the dif~erence? MRE. [~YCUEEY: I think they have the right to'teach people how to use boats and to tell them not to race around. There is a Five mile an hour speed limit which they ignore. I~R. ALFRED W. BITZ: How many do you expect to put in there? · MR. CAPI~N: Ten. I~R. BITZ: Yo~ would have to drive them out to take them to Florida. MR. CAPI~[: The waterway is navigable, the draft is ~0 inches. if we could, net.take them tbmough channels, we would take'them overland by railroad car or by trailer truck, tt would appear because o£ the 30 inches that we would have no difficulty in taking them through the County dredged channels. W~ would give a week,s warning and would take all safety precautions. I don~t see this qnestion as being anything but a consideration for the Coast Guard. THE CHAIFd~N: A public hearing often wanders. ~%uat we hope is that some~Few facSs will emerge that we don~t already know. There may be pertinent questions. ~. BITZ: I~aat about toilet Facilities. ~ilt they have to go off the~h~useboats? THE CPJ~MAN: There will be a connection on the dock facilities leading directly into the houseboats so the~ will have facilities like any lan~ faczl~ty and sewage wall be dzsposed of~proper±y. Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- ~epvember 3©, 1971 I~. JACQUES: Is this to be a commercial operation.* THE CHAiR~Z~N: in a petition like this, they ask for whatever they can get; and itt is the obligation of this Board to impose restrictions to safeguard the lives of the people of ~outhold. M~. Caplan has been kind enough te reveal his hand. He has said that he does not need fuel. One ef our problems has been where people have had gasoline facilities on docks. ~E. JAC~E~: It is heavily wooded down' there. ~e had one fire on the spit not long ago. THE CHAiRi~N: It is not heavily wooded in this location. I~. H0~;A~D TERRY, Building inspector: i think the people who are here. are more concerned with existing dock facilities and small beats that are tied up to them, and guests who bring boats and launch them. i thluk they are more concerned with that than they are with semi-boats that are tied to the dock. Possibly you could find out about the channel to the north. THE CHA~I~7: How many boats are customarily in there? _.MR. CAPLA~: I don~t think we have more than twelve, of which five are rowboats that could never go more than five miles an hour. t would say we have eight to ten. Twenty-four families don~t have.their o~n boats at the same ti~e. .We would like te enforce all Coast Guard rules and are concerned_ about those things because we have swimmers, and we have roped off an area. It's not within our province to chase these people so, t would say, our hearts go o~t to the concerns of the residents~and we will post signs to the effect that the exlstlug speed limits should be maintained. This little creek marina was established so people could use rowboats. We have tried to accomodate them as a service. They can bring their boats, launch them, and keep them at our dock. We derive no revenue from that at all. THE CNA~d~2~: The Town provides some faciiZtles for launching boats. ~S. HELEN H~ENZG: tf these people rent houseboats they will be more~affluent people as the houseboats will be expensive. If you are going to be on a houseboat for two or three weeks, most men want a boat for fishing. They will be trailing boats and asking where they can get gas and oil. ~. CAP-~N: We have never had a problem o£~ gas and oil. if everyone in a~houseboat had a boat that would add ten to that area. THE CHA~i~IAN: 't~e are talking about an area which is beyond this Board,_.We certainly are not going to solve this tonight. Eouthold Town Board of Appeals - 20 - September 30, 197i - MRE. n~NIG. This is going to be off by itself and i think it would be a pretty thimg if it~'did not interfere with ms. Ten · m~st have had iS in the back eF your mind that you would sell oil. ~. CAPLAN: We would rather net go into the selling eF gas or oil. F~o VA2~ TAG~T: I£ N~. Caplan was granted this petition there is ne guarantee that.he would not build 40 motels anyway. ~2. CAPL~N: ! a~restri?t~d by parki~ rules, etc. ~ TEE cHAIp~MA~: There iS nothing that i k~ow of that can preven~ a mote'l~r~m~ growtH. ~-je can.~t .do tha~ here. If there are no Other questions, i woul4 $~ggest tha~ we r~serve decision on this. There are a lot~of problems and I certainly don~t know all the answers. We all want to study it as Fully as posSible. On motion byN~. Grigonis, seconded by 2~. Hmlse, it was RESOLVED to ~eserve decision on Appeal No. ~15~66, application Bayview Development Ce~p., ~/b/a V~ct0ri~ Metel~and Cottages, Bayview Read, $o~thold, New York, for ~ special exception. Vote of the Board:- Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispi~, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. F~BEIC HEARING: ApPeal No. 1467 - 9:45 P.M. (E.$oT.), upon application of.Bertha Davis, Basin Read~ Southo!d,.~Ne~ York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Eecti0n 300, ~ubs~ction 6, an~ Article III, Eectien 309, permission to locate accessory buildzng_(garage) ~n Front yard are . Location of property: north side of Basi~ Read, westerly 1~2 of lot no. 2 and all Of let no. 3 on subdivision map of eParadise Point~, Sec. i, Map 3761. Fee paid $5.00. The Chairm~n opened the hearing by reading the application For a variance, legal notice o~ hearing, affidavit attesting to its pmblication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. THE CHA~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak For this application~ FA~. EEh~ETE Y~NG: i am the architect. The original layomt shows the..constr~ction in.three stages. (~. Young discussed the drawing with the~Board). There was a~garage on the side. l~s. Davis authorized movi~g the garage back lO feet ~rom the road. Through a misunderstmnding ~he builder ~nderstood that the corner o£ the living room was to be in that particular spot, i was Eouthold Town Board of Appeals -21- Eeptember 30, 1971 not present. The building was built 19 feet further east than it was intended and was so close to the lot line that yen could not put a garage on the amended plan. It's 8~ ~eet From the street. THE CHAIR~N: How mmch is already constructed? MR. Y~JNG: The house. Th-E O HAIR,N: It's a very odd'situation. The ho~se was not located even remotely in the location he originally obtained approval for. MR. TERRY, Building Inspector: They are not in violation. THE CHAI~M~N: ~t~s a 19 foot'miss. ~. T(~NG: The ow~erZs husband did not believe it. ItZs a big let, lots of room, but the plans won't work out that way. THE CHAIR~J~: What's the average setback? ~. YOUNG: 8% Feet. THE OHAIR~AN: It's customary to attach garages but the lots are so deep.on Peconic Bay Blvd. that, in this subdivision, there are several garages which were granted permission to be built in the Front yard. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicant requests permission to locate accessory building (garage) in front yard area of property on north side o~ Basin Read, ~euthold, New York. The ~indings of the Board are ~hat through a misunderstandi~g the builder placed the house 19 feet ~urther east than was intended which would put the garage, in question, in an undesirable location for the ow~ner and his neighbors on each side. The residence is located on the water, and the lot, being wooded, nearly screens the garage from view. The Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board Finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or ~nnecessaryhardship; 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 F~. Grigonis, it was ~$OLVED~Bertha DaVis, BasinRoad, $outhold, New York, b~ ~RANTED permission, under Building Permit, to locate accessory $onthold Town Board of Appeals .22- ~ptember 30, 1971 baildir~ (garage) in Front yard area 'of property located north side oF Basin Road, $outhold, New Terk, as applied For. Vote of the Beard: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis ~ Doyen. PUBY~IC ~G: Appeal No. ]..it6'8 10:00 P~M. (E.~,T.), upon application ofArthur E. & Ruth ~ingate, Pecenic Bay Blvd., LaUrel, New Tork, for a variance~in accordance with the Zoning 6rdlnan~e~ Article ZIi, ~ctlon 300, ~bsection i, Article VII, ~ections ?0~ & ?03b,.andArticle X, ~ection t000A, for permission to convert accessory building into dwelling withinsm£ricient living area. ~ Location ofpr~perty: south side or Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel,.New ¥or~, bounded north by Peconic Bay Blvd., east by ~. Fi, Osler, Jr., south by Peceni¢ Bay, west by Dorothy Farleyo Fee paid ~.00. The Chairman opened the hea~ir~ by reading the application for a variance, legal notice er hearing, affidavit attesting to its pmblication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. The Chairman read letter received from DerethyE. Farley, dated September 21, 1971, stating that she and her hmsband are aware of th~ application and have no objection te it. WAs a next doom mei~bo~ and owner ef adjacent proPerty I ~o~ld consent te the granting of same." ~HE OHAi~: ~s there anyone present who wishes to speak in ~avo~ o~ this application? ~. RUTEWINC-ATE: The main house was b~ilt in 1899. T~ CHAi~M~N: The main house is 80 feet 2 inches in size. It's 5 £ee~ nine inches from a rail fence. ~. ~l~GATE: The fence is jointly owned by ou~ neighbors. RICHAR~ CRON, ~S~,: i am here in behal£ e~ ~s. and ~@s. Wingate. I don~t suppose ther~ is any need to reiterate the reasons set forth in the application for the granting of the variance. I thinkyou can determine from the map and the pictures that we are looking at two very nice buildings. I think iF any point would be made it would be Far more important to peint out ~h~t the onl~reasenable use oF the second dwelling is as a guest cotbage. I never understood the reasenlng why a kitchen unit would, make it into a second dwelling. People living in it would make it a dwelling. A ~veat deal oF time, money and ef£ert has gone into the conversion of that building and a kitchen Facility was added. It:s a very attractive uni~. I realize that EOuthold Town Board of Appeals -23- ~eptember 30, 19?l popularity has nothi~g to do with it but I would like to submit a number of letters from adjoining neighbors, all of whom have been made aware of this application, i donlt submit on a quantatative basis, but rather for the reason that people don~It object. THE C~IE~: Yc~ have very aptly stated that this is not a p pumar~ty contest. I~R. CEON: Z am submittir~ ~hem to show that all of the people who would.be vitally interested in this application are not opposed but are in favor of the granting: Jam~s & Marguerite M~s.'Stephen'A. Chilian, James Mo ~tew~t Evelyn A. ttewar~ (ne~ Chilian) Joan & ~allace A. Bmith ~flbur F. Osler, Jr. Janet E. Pullman Margaret W. Roache THE GHAZF~N: I am sure that you are aware that two dwelling units is contrary.to o~r Ordinance. ~e have denied the creation of a kitchen unit'in the past. Ne ha~e not denied guest cottages. Eo the situation we are in is untenable as far as reachir~ a favor- able decision on this application unless many steps are taken that wo~ld be quite costly, it would seem tO me that the simplest solution would be to remove the kitchen unit. F~q~. WINGA'igE: What wemld it entail? THE CHAPMAN: The minimum s~z~ of a dwelling unit is 850 Eq. Ft. Another thing would, perhaps, be moving the dwelling far enough from the line so you would have a minimum side yard. I~. WrNGA~-~: It is solid concrete block. THE G~IA~: As the building stood there and was a pre- existing use, and as long as it~s used in that way, the zoning l~w has to overlook it. That's why we have a Board o~ Appeals to try to attempt to resolve difficulties and differences between theory and fact and future zoning. As l~, Cron pointed out the other night, future enlargement of lots will have to be related to what's happened in the past. in order to tom, cfm to two dwellings you have to divide the property formally so that in future the lots would be l~,O00 sq. ft. and 12,~00 sg. ft. The small house would have to be moved offf the line to a distance of l0 feet if you plan to rent the second dwelling. This wo~ld not affect you, it would affect the future. Eventually this might be bought. WINC=&TE: W~nat constitutes a kitchen? Bldg.- Inspector: Cooking facilities. ~outhold Town Board oF Appeals -24- Eeptomb~r30, 1971 MRS. WINGATE: Lots eF people use hot plates. Cooking Facilities make a kitchen. MR. TERRY: Zt violates the Housing Code... window area, room ~fze, etc. MR. CRON: It seems yen a~e not look~ng ~t She S~b~tance the thing. ~at ~yo~ have is a p~e-ex~st~ng building. All that has been done is te make it a guest cottage. Up te the ti~e they pmt a kitchen ~nit in ~he~e it was a perfectly legitimate mse. T~ C~N: ~eviding yom had a C.C. ~. ~ON: So really a kitchen unit is oF no consequence because iF yo~ ~ve a building with inadequate square Footage, etc. ~. ~E: ~ ye~ asked ~e~ a C.O. new yen wouldn't get ~S. W~GA~: Te~ could only get a C.O. as a ~tflity building? ~. ORON: Unlems i~ is established that the b~ildlng was used Fe~ that purpose p~ier te the e~dinance. T~ C~~: If yom had a n~n-cenfermi~ use prle~ te 19~7 it could be continued. ~. ~ON: ~uppese you added a small type of kitchen that would change that~ use? Ten have not changed the mse, you have added a f~rt~r facili~ty. Tom can't s~y that would have changed the ~se. ~. ~T: You have changed f~e~ an acc~sse~ bmilding te a dwelling ~t. ~leeping ~oems, barrooms, etc., that,s an accessory b~ilding. ~. ~ON: Not unde~ the ~B. ~NGA~: ~ husband is going te reti~e, I~e hope ~e mse that ce~tage, we c~u~t use the ethe~ house in ~he win~e~, . x~ s net D~eDerly fnsml~ted. The inside eF the small he,se has a la~ge studio ~oom, two twin beds; a ~separate bat~eem, and a ~mall kitchen mnit. We had hoped we cemld ~se i$ beeamme it's heated. MR. ORON: the winter? THE C~]~IN: small.. ~. WINGATE: Would it be a vzolat~on if the owner uses it in ~hat~ s too Yom would be occupying a dwelling ~ t What if we put a room on it? Southold Town Board of Appeals -2~- September 30, 1~7: THE CtiAIRI~N: Yen still need a variance. I don.:t know how the Bo~rd feels about it being one £eot off the line. t~A~. TERRY: l0 feet is the minimum side yard. THE CHAIRMAN: You have a pre-existing building. I would say that is one thing that could be overlooked. The building would certainly have te be enlarged, and the let would have to be divided. MR. CRON: You would have to enlarge the building to 850 sq. ft. and make application to overlook the one foot side yard. i~. WINGATE: Are yen agreeable to oar increasing the size the house? ~e do not want to close it, and not nee it. MR. TE~P_RY: If it meets all requirements yon can rent it. THE GHAlq~MAN: The division of the lot wo~ld be in whatever way you wish~bnt do it so yen would have at least 12,~00 sq. ft. in this lot. MR. ?ER~Y: There are certain heights and window areas involved in the Building Code. F~. WINGATE: kTe have windows on four sides. a two stoz~y building? MR~.~WiNGATE: ~e would have to change the whole ~oof line. Where de we get all these spec~zzcatzons of what we may bmild? MR. TEP~T: The Housing Code and the Zoning Code tell yen what you may have. MR. ~iNGAT~: W~ are perfectly willing to add en 4~0 ~e square feet. bum~amng, division of lot to have at least ~,%00 sq. ft. for accessory dwelling. If yon ever sold the big house, it has to be sold providing for a rzght-oz-way. ~. CRON: You could still sell it as a parcel. ~ter investmoatzon and inspection the Boardfinds that applicant requests permission to convert accessory building into dwelli~ '~ wm~n insufficient living area on property located south side of Peconic Bay Blvd., L~rel, New York. The findi~s of the Board are that applicant is ~he e~er of a let with appro~i~tely 30,870 sq. ft. en which there are two dwellings, the smaller o~ which is presently used as a guest house and is approxi~tely located at a point 1 foot fr'em the easterly side line. Southold Town Board of Appeals - 26 - September 30, 1971 The Board finds that strict application of.the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship cre~ted is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity ef this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit ef the 0rdi~nce. Gzl_zsp~e, seconded by FM,~ Hulse, it was On motionby ~M. · l' ~ · EESOL~EDArthur H. & Ruth Wfngate, Peconic Bay Blvd,, Laurel, New York~..(apPlication as amend0d), be GRANTED permission to SonVert accessory building into dwelling With_insufficient living area on south side of Peconic BayBlvd., ~aurel, New York, providing the fellowlng conditions are ffulfilled: 1. That the property be divided so as to provide at least 12,~00 square feet on the lot upon which the guest house is presently situated; and the remaining property shall also be not less than 12,~00 square feet. The side, rear and front yards are not to be varied under the minimum provided by the present zoning laws except en the eastern side yard on which the lines are established. The present guest house must be enlarged te conform to the present zoning ordinance, and must not be less than sq. ft. in size. 4. This permission is GRANTED for a period of one year. a proper division of property and_to apply for buildin9 permits to enlarge the present 9ue~t house. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. Abstaining: ~. Robert Bergen For the record: Correction of August l~, l??l minutes re. Edward F. & Frances E. ~l~tt, Bray Avenue, ~aureI, NeW York, Appeal No.~l~0, dated July 29, 19?l. Correction of name from Francais E~ Klett to Frances E. Klett. The action to read as follows: The Board finds that resulting from this division the lot on which the owner has his house will have l~0 feet on Bray Avenue and the depth varies from ?0 feet to 10~ feet (corrected from ?~ feet to 10~ feet). The remaining lot will have a minimum depth of 91.~ Feet (corrected ~rom 161.3~ feet), and will have a frontage of ?3 feet on Wells Road. Each lot will ~ve an area of ll, 000 square feet. Somthold Town Board of Appeals -27- September 30, 1971 On motion by ~. Bergen, seconded by ~. Grigonis, it was ~OLVED that the minutes of the ~o~tholdT0wn Board of Appeals dated ~eptember 9, 1971, be approved as~submitted, subject to minor correct,on. Vote ef the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. ~ign I~tters were approved as submitted. On motion by ~r. Grigonis, seconded by N~. Hulse, it was ~TESOY~VED that the' next regular meeting of the ~outhold Town Board of Apoeals will be held ao 7.~ P.M., Thursday, October 21, 1971, at the Town Office, Main Road, Eouthold, New Vote of the Board: Ayes:-Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, H~lse, Grigonis, Doyen. motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by ~Lv. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that ~he ~euthold Town Beard ~f Appeals set 7:30 P.M. ~E.~.T.), Thursday, 0c~ober 21, 1971, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, NeW Tork, as the time and place of b_earing upon application of Frank & Gertrude Gehring, Jackson Street, New~mf£e~_k, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article Iii, ~ection 300, Subsection 6, and Article Il-Z, Section 305, for permission to locate accessory building ~garage) in front yard area. Location ef property: south s~de of Jackson ~treet, New Suffolk, N*w York, bounded north by Jackson ~treet, east by E. Marvin, south by ?eoenic Bay, west by g. ~. Oonnor. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grlgonis, Doyen. 8oatheld Town Board of Appeals - 28 - September BO, 1971 On motion by ~. Grigonis, seconded by ~,L~. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that the ~ohtheld Town Board of Appeals set 7:45 P.M. (E.S.T.), T~rsday, 0c~ober~ 21, 197t, at the To~n~ (4~.£ice, Main Road, Se~thold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of Fred Bohlke, Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New YOrk, For a variance' in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 30~, for permission te Construct priVate one Family dwelling with reduced Front yard setback. Location eF property: private right-cz-way off east side of ShiPyard Lane~ East Marion, New York, bounded north by Jos. Cheropowicz, east by Robert Clark, south by L. lo ~ster Farms, west by Russell Il. Reeves. Vote o£ the Beard: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, itulse, Grigonis, Doyen. On motion by Mr. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the Southoid'Town Beard of Appeals set 8:00 P.M., (E.S.To), Thursday, October 21, 19?l, a~the Town OFFice, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of NilliamKanz, Village Lane & Fletcher Street, Orient, New York, For a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, A~tiCle III, Section 306, and Article III, Section 3©9, For permission to loca~e accessory building in Front yard area with insufficient Front yard setback. Location ef property: northeast corner ef Village ~ane & Fletche~ Street~ Orient, New York, bounded north by J. Leddy & Oyster~ Pond Historical Society, east by ~ster Pond Historical Society, south by Fletcher Street, west by Village Lane. Vote o~ the Board: ~yes:- Messrs: Gillfspie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, Doyen. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr, D~yen, it was RESOI~VED that ~he ~outh01d Town Board of Appeals set 8:1~ P.M. (E.~.T.), Thursday, OCtober. 21, 197I' a~ the Town Office, N~in Road, $outhold, NeW York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of Charles King, Mill Road' Mattltuck, New york, For a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, ~ction 300, Sub~ec~ion 6, and Article I~, Sectlon.3OO, for permission to locate accessory bulldi~ in.front yard area. Location ef property: private-right-of-way off south side of Mill Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded north bY H. Ackerman, east by E. Fox, south by J~ King, west by Creek. ~ Vote of the Board: AyeS:- Messrs: Giliispie, Bergen, Hulse, Gr igonis, Doyen. * * * Southold Town Board of Appeals 29 - September 30, 1971 On motion by ~. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that the Sou~held Town Beard ef Appeals 'set 8:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, October~ 21, 1971, at the Town Office, Ma~n Read, Semthold, New York, as the ~ime and place oF hearing upon applic~tien ef Burr G.~wis, Main Road, Bou~hel~, New To~k a/e Samuel ~. & Madeline L. Meelfus,~ l~ ~geeks Read, No~th Babylon, New York, for a special exception in acceptance with the Zoning ~dinanoe, Arttcle for permission to re-instate use-el two (2) family d~lling as a Read, ~outhold, New York, bounded north bY L. I. Railroad, east by E. Preethl, south by Main Road, west by J. Nieredzik. Vote ef the Beard: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, H~lse, Grigonis, ~eyeno The Meeting was adjourned at 11:55 P.M. APPROVED, Respectfully submitted, Marjorie McDermott, ~oreta~y Seutheld Town Board of Appeals