Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/06/1972 $ uth Id Town oard of Appeals Telephone 765-26~0 APPEAL BOARD MEMBER Robert W. ~illispie, Jr., Chairm~n Robert BerBen Charles gri~onis~ Jr. Ser~c Doyen~ Jr. Fred Huls~, Jr. MINUTES TOWN BOARD OF APPEAI~ JanUary 6, 1972 A regular meeting o~ the South01d'TownBoard of &ppeals was held at ?:30~?.M., Th~rsday~ Jarmary 6, 1972, at the Town Office, MAin Road, ~outholds New York. There were present~· Mes~srs: RoBert ~. Gtllispie, Jr., Chairman; Robert Bergen; Charles Grigouis, Jr.; Fred H~lse, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr. Also present: M~. Howard Terry, Building Inspector. PUBLIC ~Rl~G: Appeal NO. ~[82 - 7:30 P.M. (E.D.$.T.), upon application of George"Capon, Jr.,"509 - 7th ~treet, Greenport, New York, for a variance in a~co~dauce with the Zoning 0~dtnance, Article Iii, '~ction 300, ~Ab~ectton (6), & Article Iii, Section 309, forpermission to erect accessory strmctmre (swimming pool) with insufficient side yard and rear yard setback. ~ocation of Property: west side cf-Tth Etreet, Greenport, New York, bounded no~th byE. & A. Richter, east by 7tH ~treet, south by A, Etanttaus~ west byE. Dingleton & others. Fee paid The Chairman opened the hearing by reading tD~ application 'n ~o~ avariance, legal notice of hearz g, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. T~n~ OH~IRM~N: A letter has been s~bmitted, dated~Deeember 10, 1971, addressed to the ~outhold Town Board of Appeals, as follows: ~e, the undersigned, being neighbors of George Capon, Jr., %09 Seventh Et~eet, Greenport, Town of ~thold, New~'York, have no objections for there being erected on his property an above ground swimming PoOl.~ (~igned) Mr. & Mrs.-H. Singleton, Alexander Stanilaus, Thelma R. Richter, Ernest F. Richter. Town Board of Appeals -2- ~anuary 6, i972 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MR. GEORGE CAPON, JR.: The swimming area is 16 feet by 32 feet. The length, with the patio and'the walk-around, would be 43~6 feet; the width would be 24 feet. There will be a 2 foot deck on the east and west sides. All told, with the deck, the length will be 43.6 feet. MR. BERGEN: Could you cut the deck off on one end? MR. CAPON: I~ am going to hav~ a slide and I wouldn't be able to put it on if i cut the deck off. MR. BERGEN: On which end will you have the slide? ~. CAPON: The deck end. (The Board and Mr. Capon studied sketch). MR. CAPON: I have diagrams that I forgot to bring with me. Mrs. ~tantlaus is on the south side, Mr. and MrS. Richter on the north side and F~. and Mrs. Singleton on the west side. THE CHAI~LMAN: How long will the pool be when yo~ get the deck on? MR. CAPe_N: It will be 432 feet all-told. There will be an 8 foot deck at the south end and a 2~ foot deck on the other end. THE GHAL-~I~J~N: T don~t thin~ yom have enough rOOm fo~sa~ety factors such as fire uses. I think what you will ~have to do is eliminate one of these decks. A~e yea going to have a deck towards the garage? M~. CAPON: All there is is a walk-around a~ea. T~HE CHA~: I think you will have to eliminate the deck at the shallow end. The walk is 2 feet wide. Does that have a fence? MR. CAPON: There .is a fence ali the way around. THE CHAIP~MAN: ~ believe you will have to eliminate one deck. Even that is~only going to give you % feet all told. F~. BERGS: Co~Id you get a pool a size smaller? THE CEA!R~_A~: krnen you come down 1 foot~ from the fence, that is too close. We are all for a pool, it~s a wonderful thing for kids. I have a pool that is 16 feet by 34 feet. I wanted l0 feet of concrete all aromnd but we have found that we don~t mse the side to the west at all. What wo~ld help you would be to widen the deck on SoUthold Town Board of Appeals -3- January 6, 1972 the east and take the other deck off. You wc~ld then have two sides to use the pool from. It would give you-one deck on the short side and one on the long side. You only have 45 feet to work with,.. ~ou might ~get a s~ller pool as people who swim in these pools a~e not Olympic swimmers... You could make the pool a little shorter. MR. CAPON: lay-away plan. have put a down payment on it already. It's a TEE CHAIEM~M: You dontt have to change the size of the pool but you could cut off one end of it. (The Board discussed the size of the property and the size of the pool). THE CHAIF~W~: I would suggest~ that you take 2 feet and put it on the other side, make it wider on one side, so that you have a deck area on Just two sides. MR. UAPON: ~e have to keep it a foot from the back line. Right directly in back of the garage is my cesspool. You can go through the garage to get to it. Iris 2 feet from the garage. THE CHAIRMAN: I think it should be 3 feet from ~he back linen (Referring to sketch) You can dO this by eliminating this deck. ~hat size is the deck at the north end of the pool? CAPON: About 2 feet. TEE CHAIRMAN: Ton might just as well not have it. MR. CAPON: They cantt .make it square because of the braces. ~THE GHAI~tWAN: You have angle braces that Come in under the pool. ~ dontt think i foot clearance is enough. How soon do you have to know about this? MR. GAPON: The deep end'is excavated, it's 7~ feet deep. I want to put the pool up In March. THE CH&IRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) . ~ THE ~HAIP~MA2~: i believe we should recess this hearing until our next meeting, January 27th. Bring in diagrams and we will try to help you as mmch as we can. ~outhoid Town Board of Appeals -4- january 6, 1972 On ~otion by M~.. Bergen, seconded by F~. Grigonis, it was RE~OLVED that hea~tng on Appeal No. 14.82, application of George Capon, Jr., 5G9 Seventh~t~eet, Greenport, New York, be recessed until 7:30 P.M., Thursday, January 27, 1972. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillisple, Bergen, Grigonis, Hulse, Doyen. P~BLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1~84- 7:~5 P.~- (E.D.S.T.), upon application cf Thomas~ ~Ancy, 35 Jefferson Street, Garden City, New York, for a variance in accordance with the ~enlng Ordinance, Article III, ~ectton 300, ~absection (6), for permission to locate 'e * accessory building in front yard area. .Location of prop rty. west side of Bayberry Road', Lot No. ll9 on Map of Nassau Point Club l~operties, Amended N~p.~"B~ No. 789, Cutchogue, New York. _Wee paia $5.00. The Chai~man opened the hearing by ~eading the application for a variance, legal notice of hea~ing, affidavit attesting to ~ts publication in the official newsoapers,_ and notice to the applicant. THE O~IRNAN~ Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ~. GEORGE ~: I would like to speak f~r this application for all the reasons ~ntioned in the application. There are many garages in Nassau Point that a~e built in the front yards. I don~t think it we~ld change the ~haracter off_the neighborhood. TH~ CHAndLer: is it a two or tD~ee oar garage? 2~R. ~: It is a two car garage with two garage doors on it. THE CHAIP~MAN: ~hat is the size of the garage? 1~. AHIER~: 3~ feet by 24 feet. THE CHAIRNAN: ~Uaat is the distance from the side yard? 2~. AHLm~RS: We would have the 3 feet that is required for an accessory building. The garage would be set 250 to 300 feet back from the road. . THE CNAIR~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (Ther~ was no response.) Eouthold Town Board o£-~Appeals -~- Jal~uary 5, 1972 After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to locate accessory building in £ront yard a_wea~ on property located on the west side of Bayberry Road, autchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that topographical conditions on the southwest portion of the lot make it impractical to construct a garage in the legal rea~ yard aves; and that the garage would be located in a heavily wooded area and would not be seen from the road. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hard- ship 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 tb~ neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by ~. Bergen, seconded by !~v. Gillispie, it was RE~.OLVED Thomas Mmncy, 35 Jefferson Street, Garden ~Oity, New York, be GRANTED permission to locate accessory building in front yard area on property located on the west side of Ba~berry Road, Cutchog~e, New York, subject to the following conditions: 1. Garage shall be located at least 200 feet from Bayberry Road. 2. Garage shall be located at least three feet from the southerly line of the property. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Hulse, Doyen. PUBLIC P~RING~:'~ $.ppeal No. 1~85 - 8:00 P.M. (E.D.$~T.), upon appli~ation of ThOmas' ~zala, Box 299 B, Eouth~ld, New.~York,. for a variance in a~ccordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article iii, ~ectton- 303, and Article 1~, Reef!on 1000A, for permission to.divide property and set off lots ~with insufficient frontage. Locatio~ of property: east side O~ private road (WilliamSburg D~ive), off south side of' Bayview Road, ~outhOld, ~New York, bounded~ north by Stanley Peters, east by canal, south by J. F. Grathwohl, west by private road (Williamsburg Drive). Fee paid $5.00. by reading the application The Chairman opened the hearing.n for a variance, legal notice of hear~ _g, affidavit attesting to its publication in the officiaI newsPaPers, and notice to the applicant. THE aPL~IHMAN: Is there anyoue present who wishes to speak for this application? ~outhold Town Boa~d of Appeals -6- January 6, 1972 GE(~{GE STANEE~)iCH, ~-~.: I"represent I,~. ~zala en this application,~ .At-the time F~) Ezala pUrchaSed th~s land they built a house on the northeast lot, the northerr~most let, and they contemplated that at some future time they would sell the southern portion of their land. They have not as yet done so and I suggested that tD~y come before you to see if t~ey could utilize this southern half of their property, i think it is a unique situation. They have a wedge shaped lot .which lacks frontage. THE OPLAI_WJ4AN: Does anyone else wish to speak for this application? (There was ne response.) THE CHAIRMAN:~ Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against thms appl~catien? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to divide property and set off lots with insufficient frontage located on the east side of' private read (Wi!liamsburgD~ive), off south side of Bay~iew Read, Somthold~ New York. The findings of the Boa~d are that applicant is the owner of pie-shaped lots. The land has been divided so that the frontage of each lot is about 8~ feet, plus or minus and the rear of each lot is 100 feet, plus or minus. The a~ea of each let is over /4,000 sq. ft. which was more than the minimam required at the time the application was made. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant who is applying under the old Ordinance. The'Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the im~aediate 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 Ordinance. On motion by 2~. Grigonis, seconded by i~. Bergen, it was ItESOL~' Thomas Szala, Box 299 B, Southold, New York, be GR~TED permission as applied for~to divide proper~y and set off lets with insufficient frontage on the east side of private road (~ill~msburgD~ive), off south side of Bayview Road, Bouthold, New York. Vote Of the Boa~d: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillfspie, Bergen, Grigonis, H~lse, Doyan. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -7- January 6, 1972 PUBi~C B~A~ING: Appeal No. 1486 - ~:15 P.M. ~E.D.E.T.), upon application of Stam_ley & Catherine Peters, 41-02 Vernon Blvd., Queens, New York, for a variance in~ accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, ~ection 303, and Article X, ~ection 1000A, for permission to divide property and set off lots with insufficient frontage, l~ocation of property: east side or'private road- (Mmlliam~burg Drive) off south Side of Ba~iew Road, Eouthold, New York, bounded north by Robert Berg, east by canal, south by T. Szala, west by private road (~illiamsburgh Drive). Fee paid The Chairman opened the hearing by read_ng the application for a variance, legal notice of hea~tng, affidavit attesting to its publication in the offici~l~ newspapers, and notice to the applicant. THE CPIAI~M~: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ..... GEC~GE ST~EEVICH, E~.: I am representing ~tanley and Catheri~_e Peters. ~ speak for the application for the reasons stated in the application.., that the division of propert~y would be proper under the old Ordinance. THE CEA!F~J: Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak for ~his application*. (There was no response.) THE CHA~F~M-~: ' Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and ~nspec~on the Board Finds that applicant requests permission to divide property and set off lots with insufficient frontage located on the east side of private road (Williamsb~rg Drive) off South side of Bayview Road, Southold, New York. The findings Of the Board are that this is an equitable division of property as both of the 1.ors have more than the mzntmum szze required .under the old O~nance. The area of each lot is over 24,000 sq. ft. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant, who is applying under the old Ord inanc e. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary har~=h~p, 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 vs~ianoe will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. ~outhoid Town Board of Appeals -8- January 6, 1972 On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by ~. Hulse, it was RE~LVED ~tanley & Catherine Peters, 41-02 Vernon Blvd., Q~eens, New York, be GRANTED permission as applfedfor to divide property and set off lots with insufficient frontage on property located on the east Side of private road (Williamsburg Drive~ off south side of Bayview Road, ~outhold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Hulse, Doyen. THE CHAIH¥~N: It has been brought to my attention that there ws.s a typing error iu Minutes of"Ja~ary 2?, 1966, Appeal No. 824, William Wickham, Esq. a/c Margaret V. Braatz, Nassau Point, New York. Appl-icant was granted permlssiou to create two lotsin a proposed~subdivision to be known as Harbor Cove, Nassaa Point, East Cutchogue, New York, with insufficient frontage of 78~ feet on a turn-around circle to be 10G feet in-diameter. It was typed ~ll0 feet~. Also, further in the paragraph ~aid right-of- way will have a~t~rn-aro~nd circle of 100 feet in diameter, it was typed ~110 £eet~. As ~110 feet~ womld throw off the frontage of these lots, I believe a~motion is in order to correct these Minutes. ~n motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by l~. Hulse, it was RE~VED that Minutes of January 27, 1966, Appeal NO. '824; ~illiam ~fckham, ~sq. a/c M~garet V. B~aatz, N~ssam Point, New Yo~k, be co~ec~ed as ~ellews: ~wlth insufficient frontage of 7~ ~eet on a tu~n-~e~nd circle to.be ll0 feet in dia~te~~ corrected to ~ead w~th tnsuf~fe~en~ f~entage of 7~ ~eet on a tu~n-a~o~nd circle te be 100 ~eet in diamete~~. Also, ~Za!d ~ight-of-way will have a ~n-~m'nd circle ef ll0 feet in diamete=w co~ected to ~ead ~id right-of-way will ha~ a tm~u-~omnd circle of 10G feet In diameter~. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grfgonls, Hulse, Doyen. PUBLIC i~AR~G: Appeal No. ~87 - 8:30 P.M. (E.D4E.T.) upon application of ~ammel Frey, ~ifth Avenue, Greenport, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Artic!~ iii, ~ection 306, for permission to construct private one family dwelling with insufficient front yard setback. Locatiouof property: ~outheast corner o~ Bayview Drive and Cedar'I~n~, Lots 12~ ~ 126 ohM ap ef Gardiners Bay Estates, ~ection II,.~East ~arion, New York. Fee paid $%.00. 8outhold Town Board o£ Appeals -9- January 6, 1972 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, application attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIRMAn,: is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MR. FREDERICE E. G~HDON: I am rep~e'senting Mr. Frey. I think the ~reasons. stated .in the. apptaI cover it quite well. THE CHAIRMAN: The survey indicates that the proposed house at the closest point would be l0 'feet from Cedar Avenue and 21 feet from B ~vzew Drive. Two intersecting roads form an acute angle. Applicant owns two lots which are part of the original zoning Ordinance. This is one of the approved maps that is part of the ~dinance. Do you have water and sewage? ~l~.~ GOHDON: Yes. The Board' of Health was there yesterday. A well has been.put in to their satisfaction. THE CHAIFJ~L~N: I assume you have studied the site carefully. MR. Gt~D0~: Yes, in order to position the house sc that he maintains a view and to keep the house back from the water because of high tides. THE CHAIR~N~N: ~ill there be a garage? MR. G(IRDON: Yes, a single car garage. the southwest corner. It would come in from THE CHAIR}~{: you have-15 feet on one end for a ~.ideyard and l0 feet on the other end which is normal on a 100 foot lot. The only problem is that you are close to Bayvtew Drive. MR. GORDON: Both reads are private roads. THE CHAIRMAI~: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this..application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to construct private one family dwelling with insufficient front yard s~tba~k on property located on southeast co~ner of Bayview-Drive and Cedar Lane, East Marion, New York. The Board finds that applicant is the owner of-two lots on Map of Gardiners Bay~'Estates which are part of the original Zoning Ordinance; the roads making it a corner lot are not at right angles and the lot falls off very sharply from the road to the creek. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. ~outhold Town Board oF Appeals -lC- January 6, 1972 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance w~!d 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 and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by I$. Bergen, it was ' RESOLVED ~el'Frey, !~ifth Ave~e, Greenport, NeW York, be GR~NTED permission to construct private eno family dwelling with insufficient front yard setback en Property located en the southeast corner of Bayview Drive and Cedar Lane, as applied for, subject to the following conditions: 1. That there be no further reduction of sideyards er front yards. That there be ne expansion to the northeast or the west. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gtllispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Hulse, Doyen. ~0 ~ARl~:! ~Appeai .~o, i~8~'-8:4% P'M. (E,D.s.T,)., upon apPlication ofi~thleen & ~alter PotoCki,. 90Page Lane, Lake Ronkonkoma, New~ York, for a v~i~ce~in accordance With the Eoning Ordinance, A~tlo~ III, ~ ctlen~303, ~tioleX, ~ctfon !O0~, and ~ticlo.X, 2nd ~eotion 1008, For permission ~odiVide property and set off ~ltipie Residence with less t~n ~equi~ed ~ area per ~nit. ~cationof property: east side~of Kerry s Roa~, ~o~thold, New York, bounded north~P- Ol~veri, east by Ralph Glever, somthbyBu~ns - K~arns, west. by ~e~s Road. Fee paid $~.00. The O~ir~n opened ~He he~i~ bY~eadi~ ~he application for a variance, legal notice of he~ing, affidavits attesting to proof of publication in the official newspapers, notice to the applicant. ~ C~N: The application is acco~anied by correspondence. The Chair~n ~ead: ~tter f~om Ma~Y ~ar~s McG~an (i~s.'Gebrge McGowan),89 D~tmouth ~$reet, Ree~ilte Oentre, N. Y.- requesting t~t t~ v~ianee be denied. ~outhold Town Boa~d of Appeals -11- January 6, 1972 The Chairman read: ~etter signed by Ann M. P~lse and Walter T. ~lse, Rockville Centre, N. Y.- strongly urging that the variance be denied at this time. (Dated Jan. 3, 1972) Letter signed by John J. Jazwa, 465 North ~ea Drive, Southold, New York- requesting that Zoning Board of Appeals disapprove the request. (Dated Jan. 2, 1972) Letter from Helen Jazwa- requesting the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the request. (Dated Jan. 3, 1972) Telephone call received from Western Union (Jan. 6, 1972) notifying Board of Appeals that they are in receipt efta telegram from Robert'J. Rev!rob, P~es. Of Kenney!s Beach Civic Assoc.- registering opposition to the granting of the variance application of Wal~er & Eathleen Potocki. ~Telegram sent o~t today wall not be received until tomorrow- Jan. 7th). (Mr. John J. Jazwa produced copy of telegram which had not as yet been delivered to the Boarder Appeals re. Walter & Kathleen Potocki from Robert Ravttz- strongly urging Board of Appeals reject said application. ~Contrary to total residential character of neighborhood - master plan provides for no m~ltiple residence in this area. ~$e are already beset by eyesore on adjacent Oliveri lot - abandoned snack bar - proving area not suitable for commercial ventures. Area has problems with sewage and water. Exterior examination of present Potocki hotel shows property not maintained up to residential character of neighborhood. Urgent that y~ inquire if variance is granted whether Potocki plans to expand multiple use himself or whether this is prelude to sale to third party." Telephone call from F~. Stanley Possess, 9~ $oundview Ave., stating that he could not reaeh'~stern Union and wished to register his disapproval. (Jan. 6, 1972). THE CHAIP~WL~N: The p~operty is on Kenne~s Road. The depth of the p~optrty on the north side is 202'feet, aD~ 2%0 feet on the southern dimension. The easterly di~nsion 352.02 feet and the frontage on Kenney's Road is 330.34 feet. The lot gets wider as you go south and it is irregula~ in shape. The average di- mension is 22% ft. x 340 ft. The northern end of the property is zoned ~ultiple Residence. Usually we hear from people who are for an application before we hear from those who are against it but in cases like this we read everything that is in the files first. THE CHAIP~L~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MRS. EAT~ POTOCKI: I guess it would only be myself. husband was not able to be here. ~outho!d Town Board of Appeals Pg. 12 jar~ary 6, 1972 THE CHA~: This is not a popularity contest. If everyone is against your,application and you a_we right we would act in your favor. i~. POTOCEY: I feel that all of these people p~ed into the neighborhood during the time we had Business zoning. Now we have Multiple zoning and they a~e still compl~Ining~ T~CHAL-~M~: You bought this property in 1960. ~. POTOCKI: It was zoned Business, the whole area. Instead of dividing it we took~one Deed. ~e had been under contract for sale. The day this contract was to be signed (I think it was the end of November or early December) one o£ the local lawyers out here heard that M~ltiple zoning was being changed. Business zoning was lifted three years ago and cha~ed to M zoning. THE CHAIRMAN: ~nat improvements do you have? ' i ~. POTOCKI: i have four apartments in one build ug. W~at I wanted to do was to divide the property into three plots of land. THE OHA~M~N: You understand that under the old Ordinance you needed 12,500 sq. ft. per apartment mnit. That's one reason why the area is not littered with apartments. In Broo?d~aven you can have 400 apartments on 12 to 15 acres but out here you would have to have 100 acres for that m~ny apartments, so, in that way, we kept our open space. Applied to you, %0,000 sq. ft. would be required under the old Ordinance. ~ F~. HC~AED TERRY, Bldg. Inspector: ~he has 7?,066 sq. ft. in all. ~. POTOCEI: i would like to divide it into 3/% or 2/2 acres. This was a security for ~s. THE CHA~E~M~: You would like to divide %0,000 sq. ft. out and sell the re~aining two lots. ~. POTOO~2i: I wanted to have a double unit on each plo~. I may still be able to sell it to the same man that I was under contract with. THE OHAIR~J~: This application comes under the old Ordinance and was initiated before the passage of the new Ordinance which is a break for you as it reduces the requirements on lot size. A double house under the old ordinance required 25,000 sq. ft. You would be permitted one aouble unit. You are usi~50,O00 sq. of the 77,000 sq. ft. that you have for the four units that you now have. The requirement was for 12,500 sq. ft. per unit. in a double family situation you require a double amount than is required for a single unit. This property could be sold in two lots for single houses or one lot for a double house. gouthold Town Board of Appeals -13- January 6, 1972 MRS. POTOCKI: How m~ch Footage do I have to leave on that first lots , ~ T~ CHA~: ~Under the new Ordinance you ~would only have to leave~ 36,000~ sq~ ft. ~without seWage and water, but yen would be required to leave 40,000 sq..ft, for a new single family dwelling. Fmlt iple ~ll~ng, j I have not been notified that it was not was advertised. It became effective on December This is the second time this has happened. MRS. POTOCKi: family residences? ~S. POTOCKI: new O~diuance. Could I have the three plots and two single At 12,~00 sq. Ft. each, that would work. I would have to have 36,000 sq. ft. under the How do you think I would make out betters ~%~. POTOCKI: I would like you to help me in some way. I am at your mercy, THE CHAIRMAN: If'we permitted mo~e than one double family residence we.would be changing the law which has been in effect since 1966. The Ordinance was changed at that time to require 2~,000 sq. ft. for a two family residence. THE GHAIE)~T: 'i would assume that you could apply under the old Ordinance and you could get permission to put in a double family unit on the southern portiontol this property. That is one option. Unde~ the new Ordinance you would be at a disadvantage. You would only require 36,000 sq. ft. to be retained on this non- conforming use but that only leaves 40,000 sq. Ft., which is one lot, and you could not put a two family house on it. This whole lot is not enough under the present Ordinance for two-family but you have the advantage of applying under the old Ordinance. if you wish, we cs~u deny this and we can suggest to you what we think yOU can do. THE OHAIRMAN: This is a change of zone. MRS. pOTocEI: These people who a~e complaining should not ~ have movedthere underBUsln6ss zoning. Every penny that my husband and I saved was put in there. My husband is retiring. If we want to sell this property it is worthless. I think ou~ house was one of the nicest houses there. If there were any building to be done in the future it would be new construction. Even if it was two- family, it would not be an eyesore. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals January 6, 1972 THE CEXIRMA2~: Two single family residences would be better. ~, POTOOF_I: Then I wo.dld leave 130 feet on the house I have now. Iris 2%0 feet deep. ~ CHAIR~: Your b~st bet wOuld be two lots, 100 ft. x 12% ft. each, single family residences on Kenneyts Road. The remaining part would be the area requirement £or your four family residence. We would be glad to recess the hearing. This is a preliminary suggestion. We will have to D~ar from the people who are against your appeal. 0~r discussion may have helped the people here to understand it. THE C~IRMAN~ Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this..application? · MR. ~LD. ESi~k$ITO: I own the property on the southwest corner directly across the street. I am erecting a building there and I strongly object to 2~ltiple other than what the Ordinance provides. I am using the place as a summer residence and I donlt want anything to detract from getting peace and quiet. ~y second concern is about the quality of water as a result of all the additional people that might be there. THE C~MAN: ~ understar~ that if you have 80,000 sq. ft. you can build a double family residence? Under the old Ordinance you or I could build a two-family~ · dwelli~ug on 2%,000 sq. ft. MR, ~EPO~ITO: I dOntt object if she builds according to what- ever the Ordinance cohforms to. ~ MR. JOHN J. JAZ~. Mrs. Potocki said the entire area was zoned Business. It was business ~rom North~eaDrive to Kenney~s Road... Dogwood Lane, 209 feet on her side and 208 feet on Dogwood Y~ane south of the P0tocki property-~ The entire a~ea outside of that was Residential and Agricultural. THE CHAIR2~N: What was on the corner? ~. JAZ~A: There was a luncheonette. It was used for abomt one week ~hi~ year. ~hen i bought my property ! was not notified by the real estate people that there was any business property in the area. ~. PCY20C~: 2~y sign was outside. MR.~JA~A: We just did not buy there k~_owing that there was Business. It ~s mufOrtunate that in 1957 this happened to be one piece of spot zoning. THE C~L~: Usually there was Business zoning because iu each community you did need some Business such as~a country store. ~Guthold Town Board of Appeals -l%- Janual~y 6, 1972 I~R. J~A: I am not finding fault with the original zoning. Unfortunately we bought and did not know it was Business. A lot of people bought there. We invested our life savings also. I want to keep the one Family character of this area. Asking for a variance now with the new N~ster Plan and the new Zoning Ordinance is like downzoning in the sense of increasing the density of houses and is not in conformance with the present Zoning Ordinance. if we have a new zoning ordinance, why don~t we uphold i~? ~q~at ! am confused about here is that the applicant put an application in on December4th and on the 17th the new Ordinance was adopted. THE CP~IR~N~ You can't change everything that has happened in the past. That has to be taken into consideration in the new Ordinance. It doesn't mean that every lot will grow to 40,000 sq. Ft. ~R. JAZWA~' ~ny is there a request for Article III. This takes into consideration the area of lot and frontage on the road. M~y I ask you if this frontage is cut doe to 130 feet for ¥~ltiple I~elling with four units with 200 feet depth in back would this be ~he required area? ~hen this division is made the ~ltiple residence will have an L-shape that will go in back of the other two lots. THE C~IR~: Article III, EeCtion 303, concerns the area. These two lots would have 12,500 sq. ft. and 100 f~i frontage. Article X, Eectton lO00A ~No lbts, etc. of less than that prescribed~. ~ec. 303 controls the area and ~ec. 1000A controls the remainder of the property on which ~s. Potooki has a four unit apartment. You can't set of~ lots so that the part remaining is less than it should be. ER. ~PO$ITO: BO, it would~be I~shaped and there would be two lots for single family dwellings. 'Would this be used in conjunction with the motel or would they be pri~ate? ~R. TEFAX: They could, be rented to one family. THE CHA!E~J~N. ~vs. Potooki could ~e~l the lots first and someone else could build single family houses there. MR. JA~A: ~nat about sewage? THE C~aN: That's covered by the Board of Health. I~R. JAZZ: I have heard of cases where a zoning Change was ~de after people started to build and there was hard~hip, and they did not abide by the *~uffolk County Health Department. Tit~ CHALRI~.* We are only covering what we are authorized to do which is to act on the Zoning Ordinance although we consider many things in our deliberations. There is a new agency, the Environmental Control Agency. I~any subdivisions have to go t~ough the Board of Health 's. nd the Environmental Control Agency. ?Ye don~t control them. We are a much lesser cog in the wheel. Eouthold TOwn Board of ~opeals January 6, 1972 MR. JAZWA: There is a h~gh water table in that ~rea. The luncheonette had to operate with paper ~ervzce because the water did not meet the Water I~epartment"requirements. Last year the sewage system was~worked on twlce~ MRZ. POTOCEi: ! have ver~' good w~ter at ~ p~operty. I~R, jAZZy: ~Does this have to abide bY the new zoning ordinance as f~ as pa~kzng~mfacilztze go?! TBE CHA~M~: This WOuld be under the old Ordinance but I don~t see any i~equity because the old C~dinance required ~0,000 sq. ft. MR. JAZWA: On ~ m~p it shows that on the south side is Burns, Hulse, and Kearns. ~hy was not i~. Hulse~s name mentioned as bordering on the south smGe.. ~ MR. ~A~TER kwo~-SE: ~e own that property. We bought it from l~elin. He. sold it. to me about seven years ago.~ ME. JAZ~A: i w~ld like to keep the Gens~ty of the bumld_ngs ~n this area as.lOW as possible in accordance with the new or old Ordinance simply because~of the type of buildings we have there. I~ lot is 3/~ o~ an acre~ MR. EEPOS_vTO: My lot is 3/~ of an acre. MR., W~R ITGI~E: ! have 123 Feet on D°g~ood, 108 feet on Kenney' s Road and 133~ feet on Dixon. THE ~I~N~ This will not decrease the size of lots in that area. MR.~$~J~ER ~U$~: I have no objections except to N~ltiple dwe lllng ~ THE CHAIPj~N: I assume You want us to act as favorably as We can. ~ I w~ld ~spe0ifY that the'se two lots be used for single family residences whether ~s. Potocki builds them or sells them. i~S. POTOC~: At l~ast I would have frontage. ~ I~R~ ~J~i~ER HUtA~E: Can' they build anything on the part belonging to where the four apartments are? E. TERRY: Nothing other than a teo~Is court or something for recreation. ~. pOT-ocF~I: The old Ordinance is the most~£avorable for me. I lost $%0,000 last month because I couldn't sell. I~R'. ESPOSIT0: I~ t. erms of what.i paid for 'my property last year and what you paiG in 1959 you wmll Probably do all right. Southold Town Board of Appeals - 17- January 6, 1971 MR~. POTOCi~i: If I wanted to add on to m~ four family building could I add on?. FRED HUv~E, JR.: You could not add another unit. THE CHAIRF~W: You could not make it larger in the direction of Kenney~s Road. You could m~ke what you have larger but you could not add another unit. You can not have more than four family units. You weald not have enough square footage. i~R. _~ERRY: You could build a utility room or a garage. THE CHAIR~: Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Boa_rd finds that appli- cant requests permission to divide property and set off M~ltzp_e Residence with less than requir~d area per unit on east side of Kennevls Road, Southold, New York. The Board finds that applicant's lot i~ 77,066 sq. ft. and that applicant requests permission to divide and sell three separate plots ~nd=v~dually. Applicant has a multiple dwelling on the property comprising fou~ apartments in one building which requires 50~000 sq. ft. of land under the old Ordinance. Applicant wishes to have two double units on the two · S remaining plots. The Board f~nd that the remaining property com- prising 27,066 sq. ft. could be sold in two lots for single houses or one lot £or a ~double house ~nder the old Ordinance which required 12,500 sq. ft. for a single dwelling and 25,000 sq. ft. for a double dwelling. The findings of the Board a~e that the best solution for the applicant would be to divide the southerly portion into two lots for single family residences on Kenney~s Road. The remaining property' would be the area requirement for the four family residence. -Applicant applied for variance before the new Zoning O~dinance took effect. The Board finds that strict application of the O~dinance would a~ not produce practlc ~ difficulties or unnecessa~Y hardship; the hardship created is not unique and would be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and iu the same use the neighbor- distr~c , and the variance will change the character of hood, and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by ~. Grigonis, seconded by 2~. Bergen, it was RE~OLVED Kathleen & Walter P0tocki, 9 0page Lane, Lake Roukonkoma, New York, be DEN~ED permission to divide property and set off Fmltiple Residence with less than required area, as aoplied for. - The Board GRAnTeE permission to create two new lots fronting on Eenneyls Road, each 100 feet by 12% feet in depth, ou the Southold Town Beard of Appeals -18- January 6, 1972 southerly end of the Potocki property line. The remainder of the property, as described in survey of Van Tuyl (10/19/62), shall be considered as part of the lot on ~ich the four family Multiple Residence is located. This'leaves 135 foot frontage for the M~ltiple Residence plus about 52,000 sq. ft. The property which becomes part of the four family lot may not be improved with other major buildings. Ayes:- F~ssrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Vote of the Board: Eulse, Doyen. On motion by M~. Gillispie, seconded by 2~r. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Southold Town Board of Appeals dated D~cember 9, 1971, be approved as submitted, subject to minor correction. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Hulse, Doyen. On motion by ~. Doyen, seconded by M~. Hulse,~ ~t was REEOLVED that the ~outhold Town Board of Appeals set 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, Jar~ary 27, 1972, a~ She To~ Office, Main Road, ~outhold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of George Oapon, Jr., 509 7th ~treet, Greenport, New York, for a variance iu accordance with the zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 309, ~or permission to erect accessory structure (swimming pool) with insufficient side yard and rear yard setback. Location of property: west side of 7~h'St~eet, Greenport, New York, bounded north by E. & A. Richter, east by 7th Street, south by A. Stanilaus, west by H. Zingleton & ethers. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- I~lessrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Hulse, Doyen. On motion by ~. Huise, seconded by M~. Grigonis, ~t was EE$OLVED that the ~outhold Town Board of Appeals set 7:45 P.M. (E.E.T.~,'Thursday, JanUary 27, 1972, a~ the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place o~he~ring upon application O~ Hilton L. ETop, Birch Read, BoUthold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zontng Ordinance, Article Iii, ~ection 303 & Eectio~ 306, and A~ticle.X, ~ection lO00A (Old Ordinance) (New ~dinauce - Article III~ ~estion 301 & ~ection 304), for permission to construct private one family dwelling with insufficient lot area and front yard setback. Location Eouthold Town Board of Appeals -19- January 6, 1972 of property: northeast corner of C hesthu~ Road and Maple Road, ~oUthold, New York, bounded north by Joseph Ca!laban, east by ~. B. ~tern & others, south by Chestnut Road, west by Maple Road. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Ealse, Doyen. On motion by F~..~Grigonis, seconded by ~. Bergen, it was RE~OL~that the Eouthold Town Board of Appeals set 8:00!~ P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, januarys27, 1972, at the Town Office, F~in Road, Southold, New ~'ork, as' the time and place ofhearing upon application or-Richard & ~haron Brooks, Enollwood Lane, Mattituck, New YOrk, for approval of access over P~ivate right-el- way'(for mv~s~on of lot) in accordance with the ~tate of New To~u~Law, Section 280A - (New Ordinance - Article II!, Section 301~. ~ocation Of property: south side of K~ollwood Lane, Mattituck, New York, bounded north by Enollwood Lane, east by~Aurelin T. Dwyer, south by W. A. Hupprecht, west by-Clement Brown. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie Bergen, Grigonis, Hulse, Doyen. ' On motion by N~. Bergen, seconded by ~. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Eouthold TOwn Board of Appeals set 8:I% P.M. (E.$oT.), Thursday, Jar~ary. 27, 1972, at the Town 0ffioe, Main Road, Eouthold, New York, ~s the time and place of hearing upon application of Edgar Wiufield & Helen Hildegarde Hawkins, Main Road, East Marion, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article Iii, Section 301 & Section 304 (New Ordinance), for permission to construct private one family dwelling with insufficient front yard setback and rear Yard area. ~ocation ~f p~operty: south side of ~in Road, East Marion, New York, bounded north by Main Road, east by private road, south by private road, west by L. T. Vail. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, t~lse, Doyen. On motion by ~i~. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was REE~ that the Sou~hold Town BOard of Appeals set 8:30 P.M' (E,S.T.), ThursdaY, January 27, 1972, at the Town Office, Main Road, $outhold, Mew York, as the time andPlace of hearing EouthOld Town Board of Appeals -20- Januaryo, ~ 1972 upon application of Myron & Joy Finkle, Main Read, Orient, New York, For a variance in accordance~iwith the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, section 1007 (d)- Old OrdinanCe, (New~.Ordihance - Article XII, Section 1204 (d), for permission to re-instate use (restaurant) which has been discontinued for a Period of over two yearS. Location o£ property: north side~o-* Main Road, Orient, NeW York, bounded north by H. ~cl~midt, e~st by H. ~chmidt, south by Main Road, west by H. Terry Estate. Vote of the Bos~d: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigenis, Hulse, Doyen. The Meetlng was adjourned at 9:~ P.M. Respeot£ully submitted, Marjorie t~cDermott, gecreta~y Southold Town Board of Appeals