HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/16/1972 $ uthold Town oard o£ Appeals
.~nuTHoiD, L. I., N.Y. 119.1
Telephone 765-2660
APPEAL BOARD
MEMBER
Robert W. Gillispi¢, Jr., Chairman
Robert
Charles GriBo,is~ Jr.
Scrg~ Doyen, Jr.
Fred Hulse, Jr.
M~THOLD' TOWN BOARD OF APPEAL~
Ma~ch 16, 1972
A regulammeeting of the ~outheldTewn Beard of Appeals was
held at 7:30 PiM., Thursday, Mamch 16, 1972, at the Town Office,
Main Read, Seuthold, New York.
There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Giltispie, Jr., Chairman;
Fred Hulse, Jr.; ~erge Doyen, Jr.
Also present: M~. Howard Terry, Building Inspector.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1501 - 7:30 P.M. (E.~.T.), upon
application ef Joan Schneider, 72 Willow Street, Brooklyn, New
York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning O~dinance,
Article III, Section 301, for permission to divide property and
set elf lets with insufficient area. Location ef property:
private read elf south side ef Main Road, East Marion, New York,
bemnded north by I. M. Rogers - W. P. Merrill, east by ~rivate
read, south by Marion Manor ~ubdivi~ien, west by Marion Manor
~ubdivislen. Fee paid-S15.00.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting te
its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the
applicant.
~ CP~IRN~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application~
~LiAM WIOKMAM, E~Q.: I am 'he~J'~'~W~epresent the applicant.
(Mr. Wickham presented a copy ef the final survey of the proposal
te the Chairman). It is an awkward parcel because of it's long
frontage en the road lea~ing te Gamdiners Bay Estates, and the
rather narrow depth. We have been at a ~iess to knew what $o de
with it. Our first thought was to try to divide it into four lots
and have each of the lot owners at Marion Manor buy a strip. One
of them refused te do it se there was no way out and we had to ask
to have it divided this way.
Beutheld Tewn Beard of Appeal~
-2-
March 16, 1972
T~E CHAIRM~N: Is there anyone else present who wishes te
speak for this application?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIPdW~: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
(There was ne response.)
After imvestigaticn amd inspection the Board finds that
applicamt requests permission to divide property and set off
lots with insufficient area located en private read off south
side of Main Read, East Marion, New York. The Board finds that
the long frontage and narrow depth of the parcel make it im-
practical fur a erie family house and agrees with the reasoning
of the applicant that dividing it into two parcels would be an
improvement to the area.
The Bosmd finds that strict application of the Ordinance
would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hsmdshiD; 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 nut change the character of
the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance.
On motion by ¥~. Gillispie, seconded by ~. bIulse, it was
RE~0LVED, Jean ~chneider, Pvt. Road off south side of Main
Road, East Marion, New York, be GB~NTED permission te divide
property an~ set off lots with insmfficient area on property
located on private road off south side ef Main Road, East Marion,
New York, as applied for.
Vote cf the Board: Ayes:- Messrs:~Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1~9 - 7:~0 P.E. (E.~.T.), upon
application ef Nichael Zukas, Bayber~ Road, ~outhold, New ~erk,
f~ a vamiance im accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, A~tfcle
III, Section 301, for permission to divide property and set off
lots with insufficient area, and for approval cf access ever
private right-cf-way in accordance with the Etate ef New York Town
Law, Bection 28GA. Location of property: north side of ¥~in
Bayview Road, EoutJaold, New York, bounded north by West Creek,
east by Geese Neck ~ubdivisien, south by ~Main Bayview Road, west
by West Creek Development Sub. Fee paid $15.00
Somthold Town Board of Appeals -3-
March 16, 1972
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
applisant.
Tw~ CNAIRMAN: The map of the proposed minor subdivision
was approves by final resolution of the Planning Board on February
7, 1972. (Preliminaz~ approval 19691.
TR~ CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this applioatien~
MR. MICNAELZUEA~: The lots run about 30,000 sq. ft., some
a little larger than others. I Son,t believe I have anything to
aSS to what has already been stated in the application.
THE CNAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
(There was no response.)
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the
applicant requests ~ermission te divide property and set off
lots with insufficient area, and for approval of access over
private right-of-way on property located en the north side of
Main Ba~view Rea~, S~utheld, New York. The findings of the
Board a~e that this is a minor subdivision approved by the
Planning Boa~d. The a~cess requested is a 30 foot right-of-way
which stems from Main Bayview Road and runs in a northerly
direction for between five and six hundred feet. The Board
agrees with the reasoning of the applicant.
The Boars finds that strict application of the Ordinance
woulS predmee.praetieal difficulties ~_~nnecessaryhardship; the
hardship created is mnique amd would net be sha~ed by ali properties
alike i~ the immediate vicinity of this propert~and in the same
use ~istri~t; and the variance wili~ net change the character of
the ~eighborhoed, and will ebse~ve the~pirit of the Ordinance.
Om motion by Iim. Hulse, secended byI!m. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED, Michael Zukas, Bayberry Read, Southeld, New York,
be GRANTED permissio~ to divide property a~d set off lets with
i~mfficient area, and approval of access over p~ivate right-el-
way located on the north side of Main Bayview Road, Southol~, New
York, as appliefl for, subject to approval of B~ilding Inspector.
Vote of ~he Boa~d: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen.
~emthold Town Board of Appeals -4-
March 16, 1972
PUBLIC NEARING: Appeal No. 1502 - 7:50 P.M. (E.B.T.), upon
application of Lloyd Terry, Main Road, Orient, New York, for a
special exception in accordance with the Eenfng Ordinance, Article
III, ~ection 300, ~Bsectien B-8, for permission to renew farm
labor camp permit granted on April l, 1971. Location of property:
south side of Main Read, Orient, New York, bounded north by Main
Rea~, east By B. Koreleski - Latham Bros., so.ruth By other land
of Lloyd Terry, west By E. Latham. Fee paid $15.00.
.The Ohairman opened the hearing By reading the application
for a special exception, legal notice of hearing, affidavit
attesti~g te its pabileation in the official newspapers, and
notice to the applicant.
TEE 0NAIRMAN: The applicant could net be here to speak for
this application as he is in the hospital as the result of an
autemeBile accident.
~. EOWARD TERRY, Building Inspector: The Health Department
required him to enlarge the kitchen area, about 7 feet. He has
put in another~ sink and there is space for another refrigerator.
TEE CNAIRN~N: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for
this application? (There was no response.)
T~ CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who w~shes te speak
against this application?
(There was no response.)
After investigation and inspection the Beard finds that
applicant requests ~pe~missfen to renew farm labor camp permit
granted on April 1, 1971 for camp located en the south side of
Main Read, ~ie~t, New York. The Be~ fi~s that the buildings
mee~ car~emt ~equi~ememts an~ tha~ applicant will enl~ge cae of
the ~mildi~s Se ~et Rea!th Dep~tme~t requirements, for increase
in kitchen area.
The Be~d fi~s t~t the public convenience amd we~e and
J~stiee will be served and t~ legallY es~abiished er permitted
use of neighberhoe~ p~o~e~ty and adjoining ~se districts will not
be pe~nen~ly er subs~am~ially injured and the spirit of the
0rdina~ee will be e~served.
On motion by Mr. Gitlispie, seconded'by Mr. Hulse, it was
REBOLVED, Lieyd E. Terry, Main Road, Orient, New York, Be
GRANTED permissiom te renew farm labor camp permit gra~ted on
April 1, 1971. Loca~ie~ of property: seuth side ef Main Road, ~ient,
New York.
Town Boa~d of Appeals -5-
March 16, 1972
PUBLIC HEdgING: Appeal No. 1503 - 8:00 P.N. (E.S.T.), upon
a~plicatiem of William & Evelyn Meffat, Oaklawn Avenue, Southold,
New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 301, for permission to divide property and
se~off lets (with existing dwellings) with insufficient frontage
and area. Location ef property: east side ef Beisseau Avenue,
S~theld, New Ye~k, ~omndea north ~y Si~ik, east by Flerence
Meffat. se~th ~y Florence Me2fat, west by Beisseau Avenue. Fee
$15.0o.
T~ Ohai~n epe~e~ the he~img by ~eading the applicatien
fe~ a v~lam~e, legal m~ti~e ef hearing, ~ffdavi~ at~esti~ to
i~s publication im ~he official mewspapers, ~d notice te She
applicant.
TEE ONAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a survey
indicating the sizes of the three lots owned by William and
Elizabeth Moffat: Lot Ne. 1, 15,000 sq. ft.; Lot No. 2, 15,000
sq. ft.; Lot No. 3, 17,200 sq. ft.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
RUDOLPH E. BRUER, E~Q.: I am here to represent William and
EVelYn Neffat. i believe the application speaks for itself. By
observing the survey yom would see that the dwellings would have
te be destroyed if this condition were corrected. These were
built prier to the Zoning Ordinance. They have been there since
1945 and families are living in them.
TEE CNA~: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this a~plicatien?
After 'investigation and inspection the Board finds that
applicant re,meats permission te divide property and set off lots
(with existing dwellings) with insufficient frontage and area on
the east side of Boisseau Avem~e, Southold, New York. The Board
recogmizes an existing situation and 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 net be sha~ed by all properties
alike in the immediate vicinit~y ef this property and in the same
use district; and the variance will net change the character ef
the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance.
On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was
RE~OLVED, William and Evelyn Moffat, Oaklawn Avenue, Southold,
New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property and set elf lots
(with existing dwellings) with insufficient frontage and area on the
east side of Boisseam ~venue, Southold, New York, as applied for.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie,~ ~Eulse, Doyen.
~outhold ~own Board of Appeals
-6-
Ma~ch 16, 1972
PUBLIC REARING: Appeal No. 150~ - 8:10 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon
al~plicatien of Julius Juttner, Westview Drive, Mattituck, New York,
for a variance in accordance with the Zoning 0rdinanee, Article Iii,
Section 300, Subsection C-2, and Article III, Section 302, for
permission to locate accessory building in front or side yard
area. Location of property: northwest si~e of Westview Drive,
~ttituck, New York, ~eunde~ neath by J. Tagliavia, east by
Westview D~ive, so~h ~y Jean Scuily, west by ~ttituck Creek.
Fee pai~ $15.00.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, letal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to
its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the
applicant.
T~E CtL~IRNAN: The application is accompanied by a survey on
which the proposed location ef the accessory building is pencilled
in by the applicant.
TEE CN~IRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for
this application~
MR. JULIUS JUTTNER: Not having an accessory building is a
considerable hardship. I can not use the laundry room because it
is filled with material that I would like to move to an accessory
buil4ing.
TNE CNAIRNAN: Have you thought about building a garage?
MR. J~TTNER: The Building Inspector says I would have to
a~%ach it to the building, itself, and the way the windows are
located does not make it feasible.
THE CNA~MAN: You might be able to put a breezeway between
them.
F~. J~TTNER: That would not be satisfactory for storage. The
way I wish to do it will not be detrimental to my own house or to
the neighborhood. (Mr. Juttner and Board discussed the survey).
THE CNAIRMAN: What is the size of the building that you propose
to build?
MR. JUTTNER: 9' x 12~.
TEE 0HAIRF~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
(There was no response.)
Southold Town Boa~d ef Appeals
-7-
March 16, 1972
After investigation and inspection the Beard finds that applicant
requests permission to locate accessory building in front or side
yard area om property located on the northwest side of Westview
D~ive, Eattituok, New York. The Board finds it preferable to
locate the accessory building in the side yard area and agrees
with the reasoning of the applicant.
The Boa~d fin~s that strict application cf the Ordinance
would produce practical difficulties er 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 dtstrict~ and the variance will not change the character of
the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance.
On motiomby N~. Gillispie, secemded by Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED, Jmlius Juttner, Westview Drive, Mattituck, New York,
be GRANTED permission te legate accessory building in side yard
area on property located on the northwest side of Westview Drive,
Mattituck, New York, subject te the feilowing conditions:
That the building be no la~ger than 9 feet by 12 feet; that it
be at least 5 feet from the side llne; that it be no closer than
105 feet from Westview Drive.
Vote ef the Beard: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen.
PUBLIC EEARING: Appeal No. 1506 - 8:20 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon
application ef Philip W. Druhl, 115 N. Fulton Avenue, Lindenhurst,
New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zening Ordinance,
&rtiele IIi, ~eetion 301, for permission to divide property and
set elf lets with insufficient area. Location of property: south
si~e ef West Drive, Seutheld, New York, Minor gubdivision # 22,
bounde~ nerth byWest Drive and land of Lyons, east by Great Pond,
south by Suffolk County (formerly Pineereat Dunes, Inc.), west by
Uzmann. Fee paid $15.00.
The Ohairman epene~ the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notioe ef hearing, affidavit attesting to
i~s publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the
applicant.
TEE CHAIRN~N: This is an approved Minor Subdivision. It was
approved Jam~a~y 22, 197~, long before the present Ordinance went
into effect.
TEE CHAPMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
ER. PHILIP W. ~EUEL.- I am here to speak for the application.
Seathold Town Beard of Appeals
-8-
March 16, 1972
T~E CNAIRMAN: The proposed access is to the north.
~. DRUNk: There is just erie access.
T~ CNAIRMAN: I see you have a 50 foot private right-of-way.
~. DRUW~.: That was required by the Planning Boa~d.
THE CEAIRMAN: I think this is really a formmlity but there
should be an approval on access.
TEE CNAIRNAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
(There was no response.)
After investigation and inspection the Beard finds that
applicant requests permission to divide property and set off
lots with insufficient area on property located en the south side
of West Drive, Somthold, New York. The Board finds that this is
an approved M~or ~ubdivision which was approved before the
present 0r~i~ance went into effect. The Board agrees with the
reasonir~ of the applicant.
The Bear~ finds that strict application of the Ordinance
weald produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the
hardship created is unique and would net 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, amd will observe the spirit of the Ordinance.
On motion by Er. Gillispie, seconded by Er. Doyen, it was
RE~0LVED, Philip W. Druhl, 115 North Fulton Avenue, Linder~hurst,
NewYork, be GRANTED permission to divide prepe~*cyand set elf
lots with ii,sufficient area on property located on the south side
of West Drive, Sout~ld~ New York, as applied for; and approval
of access to Lots Nos. 4 and
5'
Vote ef the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyem.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1507 - 8:3~ P.M. (E.S.T.), upon
application of ~tuart E. Staples, 35 N. Montgomery Avenue, Bayshore,
New Ye~k, for a variance in a~c~dance wi~h the Z~ning 0~dinance,
~ticle ~, ~ec~ien 900, Bubsectiens 8 & 12, and bu~ schedule
ef ~r~i~ce as te let area, frontage, and side yards, fe~ per-
mission te censtrmct private one family ~welling and operate
b~slness fr~m same em let with insufficient area, frontage, setback,
an~ si~ey~s in "C-I~ General Industrial District. Location of
p~epe~ty: west si~e ef Cox Lane, Cutchogue, New Ye~k, bounded north
by F. J. McBride, east by Cex~s Lane, south by L. B. Glover, Jr.,
west ~y L. B. Gleve~, J~. Fee paid
Semthold Town Board of Appeals -9-
March 16, 1972
The Chairman opened the hea~ing by reading the application
for a varianoe, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to
its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the
applicant.
T~ECHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application:
RICHARD J. CRON, E~Q.: I am here to represent M~. Staples.
T~E CNAIRMAN: I see that Nr. Staples had an option to buy
that c~ald only be exercised between O~tober 15, 1972 and November
1972.
~R. CRON: That was a condition imposed by the seller.
T~ CEAIRNA~N: The applicant had an option to buy under the
old Ordinance and u~er the eld Ordinance the business c~ald have been
established on 12,500 sq. ft. However, subsequently, mnder the new
Ordinance Mr. ~taples was in a zone which required 200,000 sq. ft.
althemghthe type ef business he is operating should be classified
as Light I~dustrial. In Light Industrial 40,000 sq. ft. is sufficient
and Mr. Staples has 90,000 sq. ft.
RICHARD J. ORON, ESQ.: The Board apparently is somewhat familiar
with the circumstances in view of the fact that a prior application
had been brought for a special exception. There just is not any
plaoe for Mr. Staples to go. I was always under the impression that
if we were going to have industrial areas in Town it would be de-
mere xs no "C" Light Imdustrial a~ea in Cutchogue. With the type
of business that ~. Staples wishes to conduct he has te be close
to a sandpi$. I thimk it would not be unjust to provide for Light
Industrial in the ~C-1e Industrial area. The point I am trying to
make is that we have "C-l" Industrial area and if the provisions
for ~his a~e strietly.emforcled as te the applicant or for any other
small busimess operator, there is a complete ban and foreclosure of
small business i~ the industrial zoned a~eas. What we don't have
is am a~ea for a smaller ty~e operator and the only way we can do
this ether ~ham z~i~g ~C" is te provide through a variance to
bring in a smaller type operator.
THE CNA!R~: Yen are suggesting that part of this be upgraded
and done en an i~ividual basis.
MR. CRON: I'am suggesting that t~is Board thromgh the powers
of variance decide each application en an individual basis and
determine whether the epera~iongwhich normally would be in a
area could be allowed to be in a "C-1~ area. I think it is better
for us to have a business like Mr. Staple's than a larger one. I
~hink it shoui~be done by variance en an individual basis.
TNE CNA~MAN: We have been ever this a couple ef times with
the Tewm Attorney.
-~outhold Town Board of Appeals -10-
March 16, 1972
MR. CRON: The ty~e of business he desires to conduct should
be looked upon favorably.
Tm CNAIRNAN: The public has already been notified that he
plans te put a dwelling on the prope~y.
MR. CRON: The Board in initially gra~ting that special exception
com~lie~ with the la',. Without any public hea~ing the Boa~d reversed
their decision so I would ask them to de the same thlmg wtthou~ a
hea~img an~ reinstate.
TEE CNAIRN~N: The public has been sufficiently notified and
this would be the lesser of two evils.
~RS. ~ TIEDEE, League of Women Voters: You mentioned a
concrete supply business.
TEE CNAIRI//~: This is an unusual type of business. All he
plans to do is to assemble materials (sand and gravel) which will
be piled in the rear of the dwelling. He will have a large tank
which will receive bulk cement. When he obtains a Job to pom~ a
couple of yards of concrete he will take his truck up to the sand
and g~avel, load it en the concrete mobile truck, and then proceed
to ~he Job amd mix om the job.
MR. JAME~ KNOWLES: May I ask if such a GRANT can be called
back if the property should be sold to anothe~ person?
TEE CNAIRMAN: This would be granted in connection with the
use of property. A~yene who wante~ to use the property for something
else would have to apply to the Boa~d of Appeals. Nothing can be
done in a "C-l" zone except by special exception. Also, you have to
get site plan approval.
NI~ VIRGINIA N00RE: Disregarding practical considerations, if
such a permit were to be gramted woul~ this business look in character
with the neighborhood? It does~nt sound like the sort of thing that
neighbors would like to see.
TEE CHA~NAN: There won't be any neighbors on the same side
of the street because it's all zoned Industrial. The material will
be i~ the rea~ of the property. The house will be se~ back l~O feet
in the woods. Tho sideyards t~t he will be asked to maintain are
40 feet even though he is in an Industrial zone. It's zoned
Industrial on both si~es of him.
~Ui~MOORE: It's adjacent to a disposal area.., about 1,000
feet away.
TEE CNAIRNAN: This is a far less unpleasant use than a plumbing
supply business. Ail he will have is 100 yards of sand and gravel.
He will assemble it om his truck and ~ake it away. It's a very
light type ef use for the highest Industrial zone.
~outhold 2own Board of Appeals
-Il-
Ma~ch 16, 1972
T~E CNAIRNAN: Are there any ether questions?
(There was no respease.)
THE CNAIR~: 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 te construct private cue family
dwelling and operate business from same en lot with insufficient
a~ea, frontage, setback, and sideyards in "C-l" General Industrial
District located on west side of Cex,s Lane, Cutchegue, New York.
The findings of the Board are that applicant had an option to
buy property before i$ was zoned Eeavy Industrial and that at the
time he took ~his option ou~ the business could have been conducted
ena site of 12,500 sq. ft. The applicant has 90,000 sq. ft.,
seven times larger than he anticipate~ needing in April, 1971. The
Beard is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant.
The Beard finds that strict application of the Ordinance
wemld produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the
hardship create~ is unique and would not be shared by all properties
alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same
use district; amd the variance will not change the character of
the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance.
0n motion by Me. Gillispie, seconded by Me. Hulse, it was
RESOLVED, ~tua~t E. Staples, 35 N. Montgomery Avenue, Bayshore,
New York, be GRANTED permission to construct private one family
dwelling and operate business from same on lot with insufficient
area, frontage, so,back, and sideyards in PC-l" General
District cnw est side of Cex:s Lane, Cutchogue, New York, subject
to the following conditions:
1. That residence be 100 feet from Cox's Lane.
2. That sideyards of ~0 feet be maintained throughout the site.
3. That bUilding materials shall be stored at least 150 feet
from Oox~s Lane.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gilltspie, Hulse, Doyen.
PUBLIC ~ING: Appeal No. 1509 - 8:~0 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon
application ef Adam Chetel, ~2~ Ocean Avenue, Malverne, New York,
for a variance in accordance with the Zonimg Ordinance, Article III,
Sec$ion 301 (~ticle II~, ~eCtien 307 of old Ordinance), for
permission ~o construct private eno family dwelling with insufficient
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-12-
Ma,.ch 16, 1972
sideya~d a_~ea. Location of propert~y: north side of private road -
Aquaview Avenue Extension, East Marion, New York, bounded north
by East Marion Stars Beach Association, Inc., east by D. Hammerstrom,
south by Aquaview Averme Extension, west by East Marion Stars Beach
Association, Inc. Fee paid $1%.00.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for
a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its
publication in the official newspapers, and notice te the applicant.
TEE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to spe~d~
for this application?
~R. ADAM OHETEL: It will not change the character of the
neighborhood.
THECHAIRMAN.- The application is accompanied by a Van Tuyl
survey dated.February 1~, 1972 indicating that the applicant is
the owner of an irregularly shaped trapezoidal let 228 feet iu
length on the easterly side, 89.8 feet on Long Island So~nd, 228 ft.
on the westerly side and 86.78 feet along the 50 foot prlvate
right-of-way extending to Aquavtew Avenue.
THE CN~IRMAN: What.s the size of the structure?
MR. CHETEL: 2~ ft. x 60 ft.
MR. HOW&RD TERRY, Buildiug Inspector: If you will leek at
the Health Department approval you will see that they have,ad to
do a lot of juggling to meet requirements.
TEE CHAIRMAN: How long have you had this lot?
MR. CHETEL: ~ince 1965.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any way to enlarge this lot?
MR. C~ETEL: No.
TEE 0MAIRMAN: What,s the square footage?
MR. C_M~TEL: Approximately 20,000 sq. ft. The sideyards are
feet on the easterly side and 60 feet on the westerly side.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
MRS. TERRY~: I don~t want to speak for or against, I
Just want to ask if a mobile home is on a temporary or permanent
basis?
MR. CHE~I~EL: Permanent. It's not moveable.
$outhold Town Bosmd of Appeals
March 16, 1972
Mrs. Jean Tiedke: Is it split down the middle?
E. CHETEL: Iris in two parts, a total ef about 1,~1}10 sq. ft.
E~. ~IRL~ BACHRACH: Is there any restriction against
putting mobile hemes in Southold Town?
THE CHAPMAN: None whatsoever.
T~ C~IRMA~N: Is there anyone else present who wishes to
speak for er against this application?
(There was no response.)
After investigation and imspectien the Board finds that
applicant requests permission to construct private eno family
dwelling with insufficient sideyard area to be located on the
north side of private road - Aquaview Avenue Extension, East
Marion, New Ye~k. The Beard finds that the ground is insufficient
te place a 60 feet mobile home om property with the required
sideyard footage,and te change the locatlen ef the mobile home
would destroy the panoramic view. The Beard agrees with the
reasoning of the applicant. There is no way to enlarge the
property, there is a 40 foot right-of-way that gives access to
the beach, and the mobile home is an FHA approved unit.
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 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 ef
the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the 0rdinance.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was
RE~0LVED, Adam Chetel, 424 Ocean Avenue, Malverne, New York,
be GRANTED ~ermission te construct private one family dwelling
with insufficient sideyard area on property located on the north
side of private road - Aquaview Avenue Extension, East F~rion, New
York, subject te the fell~ing condition:
That applicant place structure no closer than 10 feet te any
side yar~.
Vote of the Boa~d: Ayes:- N~ssrs: Giltispie, Hulse, Doyen.
PUBLIC I~J~RING: Appeal No. 1508 - 8:50 P.M. (E.E.T.), upon
application ef Charles Hall a/c Joseph Stepnoski, Main Road,
~outhol~, New York, f~ a variance in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance, Article Iii, Section 300, Article VII, Eectien 700,
A~tiele XII, Section 1204, ~ubsec~ions (b) & (c), and Article XI~I,
Seuthold Town Board of Appeals
March 16, 1972
~ectiom 1301 B, for permission to expand existing non-conforming
business use in excess of 50% of present capacity by erecting
new building. Location of property: somth side of Main Road,
~outheld, New York, bounded north by J. Nieredzik, east by J.
Nierodmki, s~uth by Main Road, west by J. Nierodzik. Fee paid
$15.00.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to
its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the
applicant.
THE CHAIRM~N: The application is accompanied by a sketch
showing that the applicant has 190 feet on the northerly side,
and the present existing electrical business is in a small shop
en the~westerly side ef the premises. The depth of the property
is 135 feet and the existing house is occupied by Joseph Stepneski.
The proposal is to build a building 30' x S0' on the easterly side
of t~e premises, 15 feet from the side line, in which the old
electrical shop will be incorporated with a similar busineSs which
is repairing. The inventex~y for this business was bought from
M~. Vincent KumJian. At the time the applicant made these
negotiatioms the property was zoned Business.
THE CHAI~NAN. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
2. OHARLEEHALL: I am here to speak for the application.
We need the building and~we have bought the electrical service
inventory from Mr. EumJian.
THE CHAIPd~/~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
~. JEAN TIEDEE: I have read this Zoning Ordinance through
and through. In~tho advertising for this hearing it says "in excess
of present capacity" and in the Ordinance it says "50% cf fair value
of building, etc."
THEGNAIRNAN: It is suppose~ to relate to existimg facilities.
· don~t believe there is any intent under the Ordinance to control
how much ~usi~ess there is. Somebody slipped up en that but I
~on~t thimk it chamges the basic meaning of the legal notice.
MRS. ~HtRLEY BACHRACH: Is this the Nassau Renewal Parts business?
TNE ON~EMAN: Yes. The applicant bought the inventory.
MISS VIRGINI~ M00RE: I am wondering about the pa~kfng facilities
in f~on~. If ~his ~usiness is e~an~e~ it weu~d eot do~ t~emendeu~ly
en p~kimg facilities. Ail I want te ~ew is will the~e be enough
room to get in the~e f~om fast t~affic?
Southold Town Bea~d ef Appeals
-15- March 18, 1972
It meets requirements.
Do you propose to take the eld building down?
MR. ~OW/~RD TERRY, Building Inspector:
T~ CNAIRMA~:
MR. E/~: Ne,
Wharfs the bulk parking requirement?
MR. HO. WARD TERRY, BUilding Inspector:
sq.-ft, of sales area.
0~e car for each
TEE CN~F~N: Are there any other questions?
(There was no response.)
After investigation and inspection the Beard finds that
applicant requests permission te expand existing men-conforming
busi~ss use in excess of 5G% ef present capacity by erectimg
new ~uildi~g enpr~erty located on the south side of Main Read,
Southeld, New York. The findings ef the Beard are that applicant
has acquired imventox~y of a similar type ef business a~d is moving
this invemte~y te his present business. There will be no change in
the character of the use of the premises.
The Board finds that strict application ef the Ordinance
would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the
hardship created is unique and would net be shared by all properties
alike in the immediate vicimlty of this property and im the same
use district; and the variance will not change the character ef
the neighborhood, a_Kd will observe the spirit of the 0~dinance.
On motion by 1/v. Hulse, seconded by M~. Doyen, it was
~LVED, Charles Hall a/c Joseph Stepnoski, Main Read, Southold,
New York, be GF~ANTED permission te expand existing non-conforming
business use on excess of 50% of present capacity by erecting new
building on property located on the south side of Main Road, Somthotd,
New York, as applied for.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen.
P~BLI~ P~/ING: Appeal No. 1500 - 9:10 P.M. (E.B.T.), upon
application of Peter T. Neyland, ll5 Broadway, Rockville Centre,
New York, fe~ a vat-lance in accordance with t~ Zoning 0~dinance,
~tcle III, ~ec~fem 301, fo~ permission te construct p~ivate one
family dwelli~ wi~h t~sufficient let ~ea, f~entage, sideyards,
~ea~ y~d, etc. Lecatie~ ef property: east side of Ceda~ Lane
(private read), Subdivision Map of Gardiners Bay Estates, Section
~Z, b~ed north bY Lot ~ 126 of G~dfners Bay Sub., Sec II,
and ~ri~g Pond, ezs~by ~p~img Po~, south by Lot ~ 127 ~f
G~dine~s.Bay ~b., ~ec. ~I, and 5~ring Pond, west by Cedar Lane.
Fee paid $i%.00.
Southold Te~m Board of Appeals
-16-
March 16, 1972
The Chairm~n opened the hea~img by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to
its publication in the efficial newspapers, and notice te the
applicant.
TEE CEAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a survey
indioatimg that the applicant has 100 feet on Cedar Lane which
is a private road; that the southerly dimension of the lot is
19 feet and it then takes a new direction and runs for 62 feet
and is ma~ked by bulkheadi~g which intersects with new bulk-
heading which runs for 76 feet tea point near the northerly
line of the.property. The northerly line is 47 feet. It would
appear that the square footage would be about 5,0G0 sq. ft.
THE CHA22/MAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
PETER T. NEYIAND: ~he property is approximately ~,300
THE CNAIRNAN: The previous application was withdrawn.
1~. NEYIAND: A hearing was held and then the application was
withdrawn in order to present a mere realistic proposal.
THE CNAIRMAN: We have received a number of letters which
e~phasizo the small size ef the lot..~This let is less than one-
half the required size...the construction of a house would detract
esthetieally, etc."
For the resord: The following, people have letters em file
with the Southold Town Board of Appeals eh jesting to the application
of Peter T. Neyland:
Ca~l H. Pihl, 2O6Derby Street, East Willisten, N. Y. - Dated,
Rmth'H. Burr, Bayview Dr., East Marion, New York. - Dated 3/1G/72.
DatedJames ~. 3/ll/72.T°dd' N.D., 3~8 Beechwood Road, Ridgewood, New Jersey,
Nm~garet V. ~altus, Knoll Circle, East Marion, N.Y. - 3/10/72.
~s. A. Bullwinkel, Bayview Drive, East Nation, N.Y.-
Rev. P- Geo- Bremer, Grace Lutheran Church, Jamaica, N.Y.,3~9/72
Samuel L. Frey, 50 Franklin Ct., Garden City, N' Y. - 3/10/72
HarOld J. Schaller, Gardiners ~ay Estates, N. Y. - 3/9/72
Goley T. Brown, 360 Bayview Drive, East Marion, N.Y. - 3/7/72
John'F. Terwilliger, Miami, Florida, (owner Lots 131, 132, 133)
Dated - 3/3/72.
Fred Wtr~ett, Gardiners Bay Estates (Lots 93 & 94)- East Marion, N.Y,
TEE ¢~IRMAN: I assume when we have a turnout this big it's
msma~ly~eeause people are "against". They rarely come when they
a~e for . I might say that We a~e net going te make a decision
tonight. We will t~y to get the evidence that may not be en file
er that we don't knew of. If anYone wishes to speak for the
Soathold Town Board of Appeals
-17- March 16, 1972
application, speak new. An opportunity for a brief rebuttal will
be afforded you later im the meetly.
2~. PETER T. NEYLAND: I weald like te add that as far as
setting a p~eoedent is concerned the precedent was set in 1927
with lots ~ a small size. To mention a few homes in the a~ea
there are the Lennox and Stewart homes which are one-eighth acre
lets. The homes bordering my property are these homes and there
is one on ~he right that is in the water, has no setback, has a
10 foot front yard and is one-eighth acre. The piece of property
to the south is one-eighth acre and is under ~he area variance
which was granted te Gardiners Bay Estates making all lots buildable
in the area. This implies that all that is needed is front and
rear and sideyard setbacks. There are lots with less area than I
have. There is one with 4,000 sq. ft. and the gentleman who owns
that lot is present tonight. My let is net the smallest. It is
unique as it deesnlt have a number. Prier to my filling there was
fill added a~d bu~?~eadimg done. I repaired rte bulkheading and
increased everyone's property value because prior te my purchase
the property was am eyesore. It was a health hazard.
I have been accused of filling land unlawfully. My Deed
grants me title te the exact property line I have bulk headed.
My Deed reads exactly as my property runs. I have in my possession
the Deed outlining my property. I have not filled any property
that deesnlt belong to me.
There are homes that have cesspools very close to the water
and they are contaminating, net me.
TEE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a cesspool set up now?
MR. NEYLA~D: Ne. After the first hearing it was brought to
my attention that you could not m~ke a decision based en the fact
that the property was too small for a cesspool. I went to the
Board of Eealth who said I could install a septic tank and two
shallow peels. I was able to put a well on another piece ef
property on a lot across the street. It runs under the road.
I have an easement from Gardiners Bay Estates to run under the
road.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do yen own lots across Cedar Lane, directly
opposite the property under discussion?
I~. RrEYI~AND: Yes. As far as changing the character of the
land, there was one home recently built just 200 feet from me of
a size and character simila~ to my land. Also, Mr. Frey is using
two lets to build his home. Ee only required one lot to build
upon due to the a~ea variance. The fact that my lot doesn't have
a number excludes me. ~n the Ordinance it doesn't state that a
lot has to be n~mbered. The other homes in the area are mostly
used Just in the summer so the area is a summer resort area, and
there are other.parcels that are simila~ in size and if sold could
be Built upon wzth a proper variance. The idea of my contaminating
~outheld Tow~ Board cf Appeals -18-
Ma~ch 16, 1972
with a cesspool designed by the Health Department is ridiculous.
It does meet public health requirements. I am willing te go to
g~eat expense to meet the requirements ef the Board of Health.
In o~de~ to get proper drainage I would be required to bring in
sand and gravel becanse after going down a certain depth the
proper soil condition was not reached so sand would have to be
t~cked in and pmt in ~he hole. I would be willing to reduce the
size of the dwelling to 850 sq. ft., one storey, to accomodate
anything that is necessary. The people who govern the area sold
me this property with the intention ef building a one family
dwelling and they approved of this.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do yen have a full warranty Deed.
~R. NEIrLAND: I have a fall Warranty Deed and a Quit Claim
Deed. Some things were not explicitly stated se we had that
verified and clarified.
TEE CF. AIRMAN: A point was made that ether residents had some
rights to launch beats, te use this a~ea.
MR. ~: It is not shown on the map. Everyone I have
talked to has told me that when they have used the property they
have asked per~isstom e£ Gardimers Bay Estates. Itts never been
in the Deed.
THE C -
HAIRMAN. What is the width of Cedar Lane?
MR. NEYLAND: 25 feet. The only question is the fact that
the let was not numbered. There is approximately 150 feet ef bulk-
heading.., llO or ll5 feet existed prier to my a~rival. The new
bulkheading fellows the old line. Filling was done to even the
land becamse the bulWheading had deteriorated.
TI~E~ CHAIRMAN: The filling was done prior te the passing of
the Wetlands O~dimanee.
MR. NEYLAND: S~z~ing Pond is owned by the Gardiners Bay Estates
Company so, in other words, the proper authority was granted.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else wish to speak for this appl~caticn~
(There was no response.)
T~ CHAIRMAN: We all know what the main objections are so
please limit yourself and repeat as little as possible. This is to
acquire info,mat!on, it's no~ a popularity contest.
TBE CHAIEM~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
~ANLEYS. OORWIN, ESQ.: I am here as the at~orney representing
M~s. ~tewart, N~. Frey (~o is here), and M~. Harder who has
property immediately te the north. Since there are sc many people
Southold Town Board of Appeals -19-
March 16, 1972
here from Gardiners Bay Estates who wish to be hesmd I will Just
suggest some of the technical reasons for objecting te this
appli~at i on.
The first thing is that the permit to construct a private
sewage disposal system is quite illegible and there ame some mis-
statements on it which might have led a person in the Suffolk Health
Depsmtment to grant on the basis of representations made regarding
t-he size of the lot and the depth of the lot. The average depth
of the let is not anywhere near 55 feet, it's a little over 40 feet.
I daresay that if the application had been accompanied by the map
that is before this Board it would have been denied. In my capacity
as Assistant aoun~y A%torney representing the Board of Health from
time te time, I think there was misrepresentation.
Let me say, too, that this business of hardship being unique
because of ~he smea vsmiance does not apply to an un-numbered lot.
N~. Neyland said that the width ef Cedar Lane, the distance
from ~he easterly line to the Gardiners Bay property, is 25 feet.
The width of ~he read is 2/~ feet te prevent the owners of the
property to the west from coming contiguous se the mere fact that
he owns land on the ~her side of Cedar Lane deem no~ allow him te
cross that one foot strip.
Nm. Neyland said he had a full covenant Deed. The second Deed
which was made to existing property lines, Quit Claim Deed, comes
about as a result of the following facts:
I assume that this Board will take notice of the map on file.
You will see that this lot was not as large as it is now. This is
a dmainage a.rea. I dontt think there is any validity that the
site was ever intended te be used for construction. I am going to
defe~ to some of the other people here because of the late hour.
I am givi~ you a copy of the survey. ~. Neyland has represented
to you ~hat ~he bu~eads were in the same place and I call to your
a~tention that ih 1955 ~his shows as ~2 feet and it now shows as
~7 feet, and there ~ve been other changes. I submit that the
a~plioa~ion shoml~ be ~enied.
THE CHA~RI~N: We have a survey here dated March 16, 1970, which
sh~ws the area.
MR. CORWIN: I grant that Gardiners Bay Company owns ~pring
pond but it has been opened up to the Bay for some time and has
become navigable in fact. So, I submit that Gardiners Bay Company
does not have the right to give anyone on upland the right to bulk-
head fmrther o~t than the present line of navigable water.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else present who wishes to
speak against this application?
~outhold TowmBoard of ApPeals -20-
March 16, 1972
MR. ~M~EL L. FREY: ~n November of 1970 I purchased two
lets, eno of which is adjacent to N~. Neylandts property. When
I came'out here to buy the property it was my understanding
that Mr. Neyland would never be able to build a house. I kmew
it had beem ~mrchased by Mr, Neyland but there were hearings going on
and I understoe~ that nobody womtd ever be able to build on that plot
that he had purchased from GardtnersBay Estates so I went ahead.
My purchase was LoSs 125 and 1E6 to the north. The i~stallimg of
bulkheading might have t~fringed on ~ aqmaria~ rights because
the measurements were 42.5' an~ t~ most ~ecent ~p shows 47'.
Beth surveys are ~y Van Tuyl. My feeling is that I leek at the
purchase ef p~ope~ty a little ~ifferent~ fromm. Neyland. I am
a little el~er am~ i leek at it as a place I will retire to. I
thou~t I was protected by zoning laws. I ~ow there are plenty
of houses in G~tners BayEstates that are mot conforming to
te~ay~s zoning regulations, an~ I ~ew there are new regulations,
and I ~em~t ~ow what they ~e made for.
That was excepted from the zoning ordinance.
~. FREY: All ~ am saying is that the present ordinance doesn't
seem te protect, or correct errors.
TEE C~IRi~N: The Ordinance Will not correct the past. ~ome
people will not thi~k they were errors, I don't think you can expect
zoning to necessarily protect property. There are many situations
where it is impossible to impose the 40,000 s~. ft. required in the
mew ordinance.
MR. ~REY: I was here about a year ago and was amazed to see
bulkheadtng going in. i talked to Mr. Neyland and he assured me he
ha~ ne intemtiom ef building. He said he planned to landscape the
area and build on the two plots across the street.
MR~. DOR~TNY~. LONGWORTH: ~y husband and I owm Lots 116 and
117 on Bayview Road. My husband has the flu and couldn't be here.
I think I can speak for almost everyone that one of ou~ concerns
is that althdugh it is not in our Deeds when we purchased we were
told that this was designated as an access means to the lake. Also
to our knowledge ~s. Stewart endeavored to buy the whole right-of-
way and was told she coul~ not buy as it was public land. The size
may not be unprecedented but ~t is not true of the houses bordering
Spring Lake. They are quite spacious, they are properties of real
substance, between $50,000 and $100,000. The majority of our houses
are year round and this would be permitting a strictly summer
cottage.
TEE CEA~RM~N: We dontt have any control over that.
I~R~. L~NGW~RTE: The smaller 'houses are not anywhere ne~ this
a~ea. We are greatly concerned with contamination because we have
eels and shellfish and children go swimming there. I think the
~oimt was made that Mr. Neyland was aware of the shortcomings, sort
of "caveat emptor~. I re~uest that adjourn
a~sent residents can have their day ~noucourt. until Nay so the
Southeld TewmBeard of Appeals
-21-
March 16, 1972
THE CNAIR~N: We would net be able to entertain that motion.
gearings are held as the applications are made.
NRS. TERRY EARNED: If there is already ownership of two lots
across the road why doesntt ~ae ~uild ~e and ~se ~he o~r let
for his boa~?
THE O~IRMAN: That is irrevelant.
MRS. JEAN TIEDEE: I would like it clarified when the bulk-
heading was built. If this is tidal how can it be owned by an
estate?'
THE CHAI~: Perhaps Nr. Neyland woUld care to reply through
MR. NEYL~ND: I don't believe I am qualified~to answer.
MR. CORWIN: The ownership ef under~ater land (tidal waters)
simply hasthe right ropier and bulkhead. The Co~ps of Engineers
im Greenport has established pier and bulkhead lines in the ha~bor.
Eere ~here is nothing. It is am individual right in this case.
MR~. TIEDEE: When was this bulkheaded?
MR. NE~AND: In the ~.pring of 1971. One of the dimensions
which has ~een questiomed is as te the old bulkheading. The
original smrvey shows 47 feet but the ether map that Mr. Freyhas
shows 42 feet.
THE OEAIRNAN: I had a 1900 survey of my property and one.made
recently and there is an ll degree difference. In 1900 they were
using a magme~ie North Pole and ~oday it is based om ~rue North Pole.
MI~ VIRGIN~ MOORE: I am still concerned about the wetlands
aspect of t~s. Was the more recent bulk~heading built after the
passage of the Wetlands Ordinance.
THE 0NAI~: Were yomaware that they were going to pass a
Wetlam~s 0r~imanoe?
MR. NEYLAND: No, I was not.
MR' FREY: In this recent storm I think this whole property
was under.wa~er to a~out 1 foot. Do I understand that what is
excepted im the ordinancehas nothing to do with Ga~di~ers Bay
Estates No. 2. I domtt see anything in the new Ordinance that has
any exceptiom.
MR. EOWARD TERRY, Bmilding Inspector: Mr. Neytand bought when
the Old Or~imamce was in effect. ~ection 2 is net listed today.
MR. FRET: I don~t know whether a septic tank or a cesspool
has been imstalled in there. It has been disapproved by the
Somtheld Town Board of Appeals -22-
March 16, 1972
Boa~d of Health and M~. Neyland got a letter to that effect.
I~. NEYLAND: There is no cesspool on the property. When the
test hole was dug we threw some sand and gravel in and threw the
ring in. You could say it is a dry well. I have no cesspool there,
I have a dr2well.
MR. FREY: It's 6 or 7 feet in diameter.
MR. NEYiAND: It was not subject to approval since it is not
a cesspool. ~ will explain. I received a letter inquiring what
it was and stating that if it were a cesspool it does not meet the
standards ef the Health Department.
THE CEAIRI~N: It has no bea~ing on the application. He has
approval to construct a cesspool.
MR. ~REY: Maybe ~hat situation with the Board of Health should
be reviewed because they may mow be able to get down to sand and
g~avel.
THE ONAIRI~N: The Board of Health is out of our province.
~. t~REY: The record states that this has been approved.
TEE CHAIRMAN: ~f that is the impression that was given it has
been corrected by your remarks which a~e:~:.b~eing taken do~,m verbatim.
MR. NEYLAND: I have approval te construct a system which has
net been constructed.
MR. I~REY: Where is the southerly line? It doesntt show on
this survey, the present survey. I would llke to point eot that I
dontt think this survey is in relation te title of property. I don~t
think Van Tuyl has the slightest idea what the Deed provides. We are
looking at something that reflects an existing condition.
TEE CHAIRMAN: This is a survey of the property Mr. Neyland
bought with the exceptions that have been made here in the area to
the south.
M~. FREY.* i think the bulkheading has been put up and then a
survey has been made as to what has been done there.
MR. NEYIAND: The survey was drawn prior to the installation of
the bulkheading. I think the survey that you have in y~ur records
does not shew the line of the shore that existed.
MRS. DOROTHY 8, LONGWORTH: i occurs to me that with the April
1st date for more strict Boa~d of Health rules, that this is just as
much a danger now as it will be on April 1st.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are calling attention to the fact that he
would have to pm~ a cesspool in raPidly. As more people move out
Southeld Tow~ Boa~d ef ~ppeals
-23-
March 16, 1972
here there will be more regulatiens. I dontt know what their position
weald be on the April 1st deadline.
MR. GEORGE BAEER: There has been a lot ef talk about cesspools.
I have seen where cesspools have been less than 25 feet from the
lagoon.
CHAIRMAN: The old cesspools ran into the Bay.
MR. NEYIAND: There would not be any change in drainage. I
have reduced erosion. This is the Quit Claim Deed map byVan Tuyl
shewi~g I gave up a portion of the property. (Mr. Neyland discussed
map with the Beard). This is a Quit Claim Deed to substantiate the
present line.
MR. I~REY: If he gave up proper~y how did he gain square~ootage?
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you give more than you got?
MR. NEYLAND: I gave a cp~ple of hundred square feet. I don't
know hew much sand has built ap.
MR. PREY: That was ma~shland and should have been preserved.
MISS VIRGINIA MOORE: I wish I were a lawyer~because I keep
coming back to the Town owned wetlands, if this were a creek and
fresh water ran down it soands like Town property.
THE CHAIRMAN: I was told that was not the case by the Town
Attorney.
MR. NEYLAND: I presented maps to the Health Department similar
te the enos you have in you~ possession. They a~e fully ¢ognizent
ef the situation. I don't feel that there was any intent te mislead
anyone at the Eealth Department. The width ef Cedar Lane is 24 feet.
I have a legal easement to crass that property.
On me$ion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Eulse, it was
RESOLVED that hearing onAppeal No. 1500, Peter T. Neyland,
llS Breadway, Rockville Centre, New York, be closed. The Boa~d
will make a decision at a later date when all the information has
been reviewed.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hu!se, Doyen.
~outhoid Town Board of ~ppeals -24-
March 16, 1972
PUBLi0 ~ARING: Appeal No. 1505 - 9:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon
application of Bayview Development Corporation, Bayview Road,
Southold, New York, for a special exception in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section 500, Subsection B - 3,
for permission to construct multiple residence apartments
(permanent occupancy). Location of property: south side of
Bayview Road, ~outheld, New York, bounded north by Bayview Road,
east by James Bitses, south by Corey Creek, west by A. & F. Koke.
Fee paid $15.00.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for
a special exception, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting
to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the
applicant.
TEE CHAIRM~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
(Mr. Richard Caplan and ~. F~rt Jeusen indicated their
presence to speak for the application).
THE CN~.IRM~N: The application is accompanied by a Sewage
Disposal Plan map.
MR. RICEARD CAPLAN: We have brought in final survey and plans,
and copy of a letter from the Planning Board. We were instructed
by the Planning Board to request a second variance.
TEE CNAIRMAN: There is a fifteen apartment motel building and
ten cottages. We granted permission for ten houseboats, two ef
which were transient and eight permanent.
MR. CAPLAN: We dropped that idea. We have rearranged our
plums.
THE CNAIRMAN: What is it that we are supposed to consider now?
ME. CAPLAN: Essentially we intend to develop the property this
year and next year within the context of transient use. The buildings
are intended te fullfill requirements for permanent and transient.
We intend to build one b~ildi~g this year as rapidly as we can get
permission, tf the building is successfully received we will follow
suit up to the m~ximum number allowed by the zoning laws. Our first
variance is for an increase in the number of units from four to six.
(I brought plans to shew yea). The impact of that is essentially
both aesthetic and functional. (Mr. Caplan and the Board studied
the plans). We are looking at this unit building with respect to
t~e site, the treatment of sewage, recreational areas- tennis courts,
swim~ing pool, etc. ~f we are forced to build four to a unit it
woal~ look something like the horrible cottage colony we have now.
You get a very poor land use. In the new concept you get a feeling
of privacy, views, and the maintenance problems are redmced, the
~re~essi~g of sewage and the handling of heat. What we want to do
s to remove and pIace ~uildings in a more imaginative way. That.s
~outhold Town Board of Appeals
-25-
March 16, 1972
the rationale for our variance request No. 1. It doesn't affect
the number of units. If you are going to have 36 or 30 in five
buildings, itts better than eight buildings.
0mr second variance is complex. The special exception concerns
itself with the use of property.
TNE CNAIR~AN: 400A says that I can build a multiple dwelling
but if I want more I need a special exception. You are applying
under 500.
MR. CAPLAN: If we are denied this we will do it under 400A
and have nine buildings but we think it will be uglier with nine
than with six buildings.
TEE CHAIRMAN: Yea have dropped the houseboat idea?
MR. CAPLAN: Yes for various reasons.
THE CNAIF~MAN. This application is made under Section 500.
(mmltiple dwellings reqmire special exception).
MR. C~PIA~N: We have Health Department approval. We are prepared
to conform. I dontt think it's in the best interests of the property
to have nine little buildings. I think it's better to have six
bigger buildings. It seems to me that it's to the advantage of
the community to make as few buildings as possible. That's position
Ne. 1.
T~E CHAIRMAN: None of that is stated in the application. We
are net goimg te decide this tonight. It's subject to site plan
approval.
ER. CAPLAN: On the second variance~we have to provide access
and need a variance. This particular access road is new but there
is one that has existed for fifteen years. We would prefer to
have the entire p~operty zoned M-1 as the land will be used as
a resource for s~tic and wate~ supply. It has no impact on the
number of buildings we buil~. It has an impact on the renovatien
ef the existing motel build,nE. What we would plan te do would
be to keep the numbe~ ef buildings to five ra~her than six.
THE CNAIRMAN: You would require a zoning change.
MR. OAPIA~¢: How do we do that?
T_~g~. CNAIR~: Through the Town Board.
MR. C~LAN: We do need to make legal the existing access road
which has been the~e fe~ fifteen years. That has been there in
hem-conforming use. If the whole property is zoned M-1 we are
allowed ~1 units based on 9,000 sq. ft., that's without water and
THE CHAIRMAN: 6,500 sq. ft, is the minimmm density.
Seuthold Towr~ Board ef Appeals
-26-
March 16, 1972
MR. OAPI~: We are zoned for 41 units and our feeling is that
we will build five newbuildings. There are two things we are
requesting:i A. To considerthe question ef whether we can go te
6 units rather than four. B. Btnce you can,t consider the question
ef upzoning; we would like to get from you a variance which will
allow us tolcross this pr~er~y te allow access. The whole thing
is centingen~ on this first buildi~ but we have to apply for the
full plum new.
TR~ C~IRi~N: Yen probably know that apartments are a dime a
dozen in BrOokbaven. They are going big for condominiums.
MR. CAPLAN: Thatts what we are interested in. This is a
condominium project.
TEE CF~IP~MAN: De you propose to sell the apartments as
condominiums.
MR. ApLAN, Yes. Each apartment is pretty l~ge. We would
like to have y~ lo~k at the'plans f~r the proposed buildings. We
have ~ee ~fffe~en2 site plans. (~. Caplan pointe~ out the
mine b~il~i~g plan an~ $he six building plan). I think this shows
that fewer Buildings are mere attractive. We have a bmildi~ height
ef 18 feet, 38 feet between each buzlding. We think we can co, cfm
wi~h the sep~ation rules.
(Mr. Caplan and the Board discussed Plans).
THE CHAIRMAN: Who would be responsible for maintenance?
MR. OAPLAN: We will maintain and will charge a monthly fee.
We can have the Association form a corporation to maintain or we
cam provide the service. There will be a centralized maintenance,
insurance and heating cost. There has to be maintenance or you
could not sell these units. We have to provide a maintenance
package and that has te be acceptable to the Town.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are requesting to go to six living units
which requires a variance. You are now permitted four units
and yom are permitted on the available acreage area about ~0 or
41 units. ~ifteen o£ those are being used by your apartments.
Another thimg you request is access to the property.
MR. CAPL~N: As seen as we desire to convert we must legally
obtain a variance. (Mr. Caplan read letter he received from the
Planning Board stating that if he is ge!rig to sell the units he
must get a variance with regard to crossing the property). That
request for six units instead of four is for next year. What we
want Se do this year is build a single building and operate as a
motel building. If we decide te go ahead and build ether buildings
we will eliminate the 10 cottages at "one fell swoop~.
T~E C~AIRNAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this applica%ion?
Southold Tewm Beard o£ Appeals
-27 -
March 16, 1972
MRS. GEORGE BROW~N: Hew do you get six units in one building,
do yen go up?
(Mr. Caplan shewed pl~u to M~s. Brown, pointing out the front
and back elevation, two stories, flat roof. He stated that if
there were fou~ units, because of the separation rules, you would
have to have buildings all over the site.)
MRS. JEAN TIEDEE, League ef Women Voters: i appreciate
cluster zoning but it seems to the League that there is a fresh
water problem in any area where property has been filled, and I
understand that one quarter or eno third is filled wetlands.
MR. CAPIAN: An acre and one-third represent fill. We are
required to remain 150t from waterfront. We have no problems as
far as Suffolk Gounty is concerned. We have three wells and could
have six wells as long as we don~t get too close to the brackish
/~. TIEDEE: This many units will obviously increase seepage
from the sewage system since it's all on a slope.
THE ONAIRF~: That is a Board of Health determinatiou.
MRE. TIEDEE: I umderstand this but there is some question
as to whether the application was specifically transient or
permanent.
MR. OAPLAN: tt is permanent.
tanks, etc.)
(Mr. Ca, tan discussed septic
MRS. TIEDEE: Itts within the realm of the public citizen.
The Beard ~f ~alth has no choice in grantimg this because it's
in a multiple use area.
MR. CAPLAN: We s~e only planning to increase by 15 units.
We are going from25 to 40.
MR. JAMES ENOWLES: Those waters are used for clamming and
scalloping.
MR. CAPL~N: We have been told what to dc and how to conform.
can't attack us for conforming.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have made elaborate water studies here.
In M-1 zone they are allowed ~0 or 41 units based on 9,000 sq. ft.
and this is based on studies of the total water table. I would
assume the Board ef Eealth has had enough experience.
MRtENOWIES: The Victoria Mctel has operated on a transient
basis f~r many years.
THE CNAIRFAN: I believe the areas here are adequate.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-28-
N~mch 16, 1972
For the record: The Chairman read letter received from
HerBert J' Curry and Lillian~Cewan, Laughing Water PrOPerty
Owners Asstn., Inc., ~euthold, New York. (Copy of letter in
file).
THE CHAIRMAN: This letter is couched in general terms and
represents a point ef view. The function of the Board of Appeals
is not to stop peeple from cemfng out here. We can only try to
control. We a~e aware of many of the things you have mentioned
here. I would feel the same way. I would say that "special
exception" is really a misnomer in the new Ordinance. It should
be stated~as erequired exception". Where the applicant meets all
the requirements the Beard would be arbitrary if it denied a
spe¢iat exception. A variance is a more difficult thing to justify.
I am not arguing for these people.
MR. ED KATEE: How many persons are allowed to live in each
unit~
MR. HOWA~RD TERRY, Building Inspector: It would be limited to
the square footage of the unit, 80 sq. ft. per person. One occupant-
80 sq. ft. ~er room; two occupants- 120 sq. ft.; three occupants-
180 sq. ft.~or more. In a dormitory, you would have to have 50 sq. ft.
1,/. CAPLAN: The average square footage would be between 900 and
1,000 sq. ft.
T~E C~N: When yen give a building permit you have to check
as to who is.going to live in it.
MR. EATKE: How are we going to know that~ They could bring in
a Whole slug of people.
MR. CAPIAN: Nobody asks when somebody builds a single family
home.
I~$. T!E~_~: I think there is a need for apartments for young
people and for old people, retired people. I would like to know
how many are one bedroom and how many are two bedroom apartments.
MR, C~P~: They are all two bedroOm apartments; four would be
on one floor for people who ca~t climb stairs, and two would be
duplexes.
MRS. T~EE: Even though this is within the limits of 9,000
sq. ft. it would be better if it were less buildings. I think it
is too dense.
MR~. ~IRLEY BA¢~ACH: A~e they going to be in the medium price
range?
MR. CAPLAN: We will try te keep them in the medium price range.
It w~id be premature to say now what they would cost. The main
Southeld T~wn Board of Appeals -29-
March 16, 1972
point is that we have a unique location and we thought it would be
better to make it for more people. Generally speaking, it is
pretty clear to us that for fifteen years or so this won't be used
on a yea~ round basis. They will be second homes, for weekends,
and ultimately for retirement. We are not going after retired
couples. It's not within walking distance ef the town. It will
appeal to people who want a second summer home so we don~t think
an impact on ecology should be feared.
~$. TIEDEE: What about laundry rooms and fully equipped
kitchens?
~. C~PLAN: They will be as luxurious as we can make them.
We dentt think this will look like an institution.
MR. HEWLETT: ~at about fresh water~ There are people down
there now that have brackish water. You will have mauy families
in one unit. This will affect the water supply that we drink.
THE CNAIRMAN: Where are you located?
MR. EEWIETT: Right across the road, on the north side of
Ba~view. I don~t have problems new but there are people who do.
The people on the road down on the creek, Waterview, have trouble.
A lot ef them have to bring in their ~ water. You will get
more people coming in and drawing off more water. What about wild-
life? That's a vex~y good a~ea for wetlands.
~R. CAPLAN: We don~t plan to fill anything. Over the last
fifteen years since 1962 during the season there have been about
130 to 140 people. That property has been 99% occupied and we
have never found that there was any claustrophobia problem. The
only problem has been with a few reckless boaters. An eight and
a half acre property is a large piece of property. I think we
have to defer te the ~uffolk County Health Department.
2~. HEWLETT: There is not much water here now and yon will
be drawing eot fifty times as much as what was drawn out.
~. CAPLAN: It will be ena seasonal basis, net full time.
MI~ VIRGINIA EOORE: We are stuck with multiple dwelling
zoning here.
TEE CN~IRMAN: When this was zoned M-1 nothing was projected
about cluster zoning. It is zoned M-1 and the type ef zoning you
are talking about is permitted in M-1.
MI~ MOORE: I thimkwe are stuck with undesirable density,
50 families eneight acres which is no part of the Village or the
town so may I ask what the Board has te decide?
TEE CNAIRMAN: We have been asked here tonight to approve
access te the property. We have bee~ asked to vary the requirement
~outhol~ Town Board of Appeals
-30 -
March 16, 1972
with regard to four units to permit six units in one building,
the same number of apartments. We have also been asked to rescind
the aquatel permission which the applicant received last Pall.
This was a very complicated decision. There were going te be
ten h~useboats. Each would be considered as a unit and would
have used up 9,000 sq. ft. per unit just as a house on land
would. It also would have involved elaborate sewage facilities.
MRS. TERi{YHtj~NED: I did make a special study of water
supply. I distinc%ly remember that safe water useage was considered
one family per acre. What worries me is that we are beginning to
allow multiple zoning that is rapidly going to use up this one
acre thing and that is not fair to other buildings. One family
per acre was highly recommended.
TEE CHAIRMAN: M~. Lee Koppelmam, Director of the Planning
Department, will dispute that vigorously. (The Chairman and N~s.
Harned discussed the water study). When you have high land you
have the possibility of accumulating fresh water.
MRS. EARNED: Does anyone keep a count of the number of families?
TEE CHAIRMAN: This is the first time we have ever been asked
to approve apartments and it is something that is coming along all
the time and we will have to do it many more times. There is a
development in Eouthold on 20 acres. Obviously they will use public
water and that will be taken from all the rest of us so your point
is well taken that eventually there will have te be a count.
MRS. H~j{NED: I think we should start keeping track.
(N~. Ed Bage discussed approval of water and sewage with the
Chairman).
T~, CHAIRMAN: (addressing Mr. Bage) What you are asking is
do we have the power to overthrow the Boa~d of Health. We had
some Board of Health people here when we had~2,500 sq. ft. zoning
and they said we should have 20,000 sq. ft. I asked if there was
any appeal from their edicts. I asked if anyone had ever appealed
a decision. Nobody knew the answer.
MR. BAGE: Perhaps this is the time to do it.
TEE CHAIRMAN: I think there is an appeal through the Supreme
Court.
MRS. TIEDEE: Is this property eight and one half acres?
MR. CAPLAN: It's nine and one half acres.
MR. BAGE: After making your decision, if the Board decides
for them, where does it go from there?
THE CHAIRMAN: Site plan approval by the Planning Board.
Boutheld Town Beard of Appeals
-31-
March 16, 1972
Anyone who isaggrieved, can appeal to the ~upreme Court.
(Mrs. Tledke presented statement from the League of Women
Voters te the Chairman for the file.)
THE eNd, MAN: We will close the hearing now and make our
decision when we have studied all the information.
Om motion by Mr. Gillispie, secomded by Mr. Hulse, it was
RE~0LVED that the minutes of the Southold Town Board of Appeals
dated February 17, 1972 be approved as submitted, subject te minor
O Orro ot ion.
Veto of the Beard:
Ayes:- Messrs: Gitlispie, Hulse, Doyen.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Nr. Hulse, it was
RE~OLVED that the minutes of the ~outheld Town'BOard ef Appeals
dated Febx, Aary 18, 1972, be approved as submitted, subject te miner
cer~ectien,
Veto ef the Beard: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Ho!se, Doyen.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by ~. D~yen, it was
RESOLVED that the next regular meeting of the flouthold Town
Board of ApPeals will be held at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, April 6,
1972, at the Towm Office, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Vote of the Beard: Ayes:- Y~ssrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen.
Sign Renewals were reviewed, approved, and signed.
On motion by Mr. Doyen, seceded by Mr. Gillispie, it was
RE~LVED that the ~o~tholdTown Board of App~alsset 7:30
P.M. (E.$.T.), Thursday, April 6, 1972, at the Town Office, Mai~
Read, Bouthol~, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon
applioatiem of H. M. Demarest & ~ons, Main Read, Orient, New York,
~outhol~l To~ :Board of Appeals
-32 -
March 16, 1972
for a special exception in accordance with Article iii, ~ectien
300, ~bsection B-8, for permission to renew farm labor camp permit
for year 1972. Location of property: south side Main Road, Orient,
New York, bounded north byRodden, Miller & others; east by other
land of the applicant; south by Narrow River Road; and west by
Freeman and ethers.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen.
0n-motion by M~. Gillispie, seconded by M~. Hulse, it was
RE~0LVED that the ~euthold Town Board of Appeals set 7:~0
P.M. (E.E.T.), Thursday, April 6, 1972, at the Town Office,
Main Read, ~omthold, New York, as the time and place of hearing
upon application of Robert A. Hunter and Grace M.'Hunter, Main
Street, ~outhold, New York, for a variance in accordance with
the Zonimg Ordinance, A~ticle III, ~ection 301, for permission to
divide property and use am single lSts. Location of property:
Main Road and ~outh Harbor Road, ~outhold, New York, bounded north
by Main Road; east by South Harbor Read; south by A. Goldsmith;
and we.st~by M. ~urezenski.
Yore of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Mulse, D~yen.
On motion by M~. Hulse, seconded by M~. Doyen, it was
RE~0LVED that the Eouthold Town Boa~d of Appeals set 7:50
P.M. (E.~.~.), Thursday, April 6, 1972, at the Town Office,
Main Road, Seuthold, New York, as the time and place of hearing
upon application of 01tie M. 0verton, Main Road, Southold, New
York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Article IIi, Section 301, for permission to set off lots of 100 ft.
frontage and less than ~0,000 s~. ft. area. Location of property:
south side Terry Lane, ~outheld, New York, bounded north by Terry
Lane; east by E. La~reniere; south by Semthold Bay; and west by
other lands of the applicant.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen.
On motion by M~. Gillispie, seconded by M~. Doyen, it was
RE~OLVED that the ~outhol~ Town Board of Appeals set 8:00
P.M. (E.~.T.), Thursday, April 6, 1972, at the Town Office,
Main Road, ~outhold, New York, as the time and place of hearing
u~on application of Nicholas DeChiaro an~ another, 3~ Brunswick
Avenue, Willist~n Park, New York, for a variance in accordance .
with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 3G~, ~ per~Isszon~
to ~ivide property into two lots of less than requ~re~ area ret each.
Southold.Town Boa~d of Appeals
-33-
March 16, 1972
Location of property: Lake Drive and Lake Court, Southold, New
York, boum~ed north by Lake Drive; east by Lake CoUrt; south by
Grea~ Pond; and west by land now or formerly ef Fischer.
Vote ef the Boa~d: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen.
0n~motion by 1~. D~yen, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was
RESOLVED that tb~ Southold Town Board ef Appeals set 8:10
P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, April 6, 1972, at the Town Office,
Main Road, Southeld, New York, as the $ime and place of hearing
upon application of Jernick Moving and Storage, Inc., ~ys Road,
Shel%er Island, New York, for a variance in accordance with the
Zoning. Ordinance, A~ticle XII, Section 120~F, for permission to
rebuild a non-conforming business building. Location of property~
east side Moores Lane, Greenport, New York, bounded north by
Village of Greenport property; east by land of School District
$10; south by Kalin amd Herzog; and west by Moores Lane.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen.
On motion hymn. Gillispie, seconded hymn. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED that the Seutheld Town Board of Appeals set 8:30
P.M. (E,S.T.), Thursday, April 6, 1972, at the Town Office, Main
Read, Semth~ld, New York, as the time and place ef hearing upon
application of Peter Grippe and wife, llg0 Boylston Street, Newton
Upper Falls, Massachusetts, for a variance in accordance with the
Zoning Ordiman~e, Ar$iele III, Section 300C-(f), for permission
te convert an existin~ non-cenformimg business building into a
dwelling with over 30% floor a~ea devoted te studio. Location of
property: south side Main Road, Orient, New York, bounded north by
Main Road; east by Sabine; seuth byDroskeski; and west by Droskoski.
Vote of ~he Boa~d: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen.
The Meeting was adjourned at 11:%0 P.M.
Res' submitted, ~
j McDermott, ~ecretary
Southeld Town Board ef Appeals