HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/27/1972Southold Town Board als
SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Telephon¢$OS-9660
APPEAL BOARD
MEMBERS
Robert W. Giliispie, Jr.j Chairman
Robert Bergen
Charles Gregonis, Jr.
Serge Doyen, Jr.
Fred Hulse, Jr.
MINUTE. S
SOUTHOLD TO~N BOA~W~ OF ~PPEAL$
January 27, 1972
Aregular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was
held at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, January 27, 1972, at the Town Office,
Main Road, Southo!d, New York.
There wer~ present: Messrs: Robert ~. Gillispie, Jr.,
Chair:mn; Robert Bergen; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Fred Hulse, Jr.
Also present: ~ir. Howard Terry, Building inspector.
Absent: Mr. Serge Doyen, Jr.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1~,82 - Recessed from 7:30 P.M.
(E.D~S.T.) January 6, 1972 ~o 7:30 P.M. [E.D.S~T.) January 27,
1972; upon application of George Capon, Jr., %09 - 7th ~treet,
Greenport, New York, for a variance in accordance with the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, ~ect~on 300, S~bsection (6), &
Article III, Section 309, for permission to erect accessory
structure (swimming pool) with insufficient side yard and rear
yard setback. Location Of property: west side of 7th Street,
Greenport, New York, bounded ~orthby E. & A. Richter, east
by 7th Street, south by A. Stanilaus, west by H. Singleton &
others. Fee paid $5.00.
T~ CPi~.IH~: (~ddressing ~. Capon) Did you bring a
diagram of the swimming pool?
[~. George Capon presented a diagram of the swimming pool
to the Board for study).
TB~ CHA~¥~M: [studying diagram) WZth the fence on three sides
and only i foot away from the p0ol, there seems to be a dangerous
situation for children. W~ile ju'mpiug aro~nd they could Fall on
the surrounding picket ~ence.
i~L~. 0APON: It is not a picket fence, but I would be willing
to take the fence down.
Seuthold Town Board of Appeals -2-
January 27, 1972
THE Ci*~IRMAN: ~at is the distance between the edge of the
structmre and the ~fence?
MR, C~WON: 1 foot.
T~ C~: How hi~n is the deck str~ct~e?
~. C~ON: About 5 feet.
T~ CP~I~ The deck ~s roughly the same height as the
back fence Do yo~ need a fence on the back line?
~.~ C~ON: I had a fireman o~er ~nd he said he prefers the
I foot distance to 3 foot distance. He said if the fences were
moved it womld be more dangerous as tt wo~ld close the yard in.
(The Board and ~. Capon discussed sketch in regard
location of cesspool).
T~ C~F~N: (Referring to diagram) W~ould you be w~llino to
remove these two Fences.
~. CAPON: yes. M~s. Etanilams would be willing to change
the positron of her fence, and come te the garage with he~ fence.
TP~ C~I~N: Y~ are Willing ~o eliminate fences at the
northerly and southerly ends. ~as there a reason ~or fences s~ch
as children or dogs?
~. OAPON: It's the area.
~ C~N: Is this a board fence?
1~. cAPON: It's a stockade fence.
TB~ C~~: ~at~s on the top edge?
i~. O~N: A two by
T~ C~N: ~nis gives ye~ a foot from the deck at either
end. Do yo~ get steel bea~?
~. CAPON: Steel tie-reds.
~. ~: Do the stairs pull down?
2~. C~WON: Yes, it~s se~-closing and se~-lockiug.
T~ C~I~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this a~lication?
(There was ne response.)
~outhold Town Board of Appeals
-3- January 27, 1972
~_~ter investigation and inspection the Board finds that
applicant requests permission to erect accessory structure
(swimming pool) with insufficient side yard and rear yard set-
back on property located On the west side of 7th Street, Greenport,
New York. The Board Finds that applieantts neighbors on adjacent
properties are agreeable to the erection of an above ground
swimming pool on applicant's property, rear yard area. The Board
agrees with the reasoning of the applicant subject te restrictions.
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will
pr?duce practical difficulties o~gnnecessary hardship; the hard-
sh~p created ms unique and would,be shared by all properties alike
in the i~J~diate vicinity of this property and in the same use
district; and the variance does observe the spirit of the Ordinance
and will not change the character of the district.
On motion bY M~- Hulse, seconded by l~ir. Grigonls, it was
REEOL~ED George Uapon,' Jr.~ 509 - 7th Etreet, Greenoort, New
York, be GR~;h~D PermisSion as applied for to erect accessory
structure (swim~ingpool) on property located on the west Side
of 7thgtreet, Greenport, New York, subject to the following con-
ditions:
1. No part of this structure (swimming pool) shall be closer
than I Foot to any property llne.
2. The Fence to the north o£ the po$l structure shall be
removed prior to the erecting of the pool; and the fence to the
south shall be rearranged to eliminate hazard.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: G~llmsp~, Bergen, Grigonis,
Hulse.
~LIC BEARING:- Appeal No. ~90 7:45 P.M, (E~,'D.S.T.), upon
application o£Hilton L~ Epp, Birch Road, Southold, New York~ for a
variance in accordance?with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
~ectiOn 303, & Section 306, and &rticle X, Section~1000A ~Old
Ordinance} - (New Ordinance - Article III, Sedtion 301 & Section 304}
for permission to construct Private on~ Family dwelling with in-
sufficient lot area and front yard setback. ~ocation o~ property:
northeast corne~ of Chesthut Road and Maple Road, Southold, New York,
bounded north by Joseph Callahan, east by ~. B. Stern & others,
south by Chestnut Road, west by Maple Ro~d. Fee paid $%.00.
T he Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a
variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attestio~ to its
publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant.
~outhold Town Boa~d of Appeals -4-
January 27, 1972
THE CHAI-~T: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
~. HILTON L. EPP: The land surveyor, 27 years ago, made
a mistake. ~nen the Town took over the roads in this area they
re-s,~rveyed and Found that the original surveyor had made a mis-
take on Chestnut Road. All of the owners on the north side of
Chestnut Road had to sign over to the Town a ~it~Claim
approximately 7~~ feet, which leaves ths combined square foot
total slightly less than Zoning Requirements. On this particular
lot it amounted to about 900 sq. ft. that we gave away on the other
side.
THE CHAIR~&~2~: i was in the Town Attorney's office and ! saw
an easement that you signed in 1951. The i~oortant consideration
here before us now is that we have had an ~rdinance in Town which
requires a minimum of 12,500 sq. ft. for each lot. On December 17th,
1971 the minimum went to 40,000 sq. Ft. under the new Ordiuanee. It
was the Town Attorney, s opinion after reading some of the pertinent
decisions that the Boa~ of Appeals would have to be guided by the
surrounding area in granting or denying. ~e have looked up the tax
map and found that some of the 10ts are ~0 ft~ x 140 ft. and across
Chesnut Road some are 3/4 of an acre. The two lots on ~Iaple, which
I believe you sold, were 100 feet by 130 ft. After you sell this
lot yo~ will still have a lot in between of 100 ft. by 120 ft.
~. EPP: That's on option.
~EE CIL~IRM~IN: The most inter~sting thing is what you intend
to do with yo~r property across the street.
MR. EPP: We will stay there. ?~e don't plan to sell, we are
very contanted. We originally boug~t this corner for protection.
i reforested and the trees have grown up to a s~Fficient height
so we don~t need any Further protection. As long as the taxes were
reasonable I kept the lot. s. This is just an estimate but I believe
the ~ncr~ase in taxes this year was 25~. However, we have no
thonght of selling the property which is our home.
THE CEAIRM~: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
agains~ this application?
(There was no response.)
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that appli-
cant requests permission to constr~ct private one family dwelling
with insufficient lot area and front yard setback on the northeast
corner of Chestnut Road and Maple Road, Sc~thold, New York. The
Board finds that due to an error made by a land surve~yor 27 years
ago all of the owners of property on the north side of Chestnut Road
had to sign pver to the .Town (at the ~ime the ~Town took over the roads
in this area~ a Quit Clazm for approximately 7~ Ft. which left the
Southold Town Board of Appeals
January 27, 1972
combined square total slightly less than the Zoning requirements.
The Chairman discussed this area in detail with the Town Attorney
and it was decided that the Board of App~a~ should be guided by
the s~ze o£ the lots in the surroundiDg area. After studying
the tax maps and other data the Board finds that it is in agreement
with the reasoning of the applicant.
The Board finds that strict application of the ordinance will
produce practical difficult~s or ~nne~ssma~y hardship; the hardship
created is unique and would,be shared~5~y all properties alike in'the
immediate vicinity of this ~roperty ~nd in the same use district;
and the variance does observe the spirit of the Ordinance and will
not change the character of the d~st~ ~c~.
On motion by i~. Giilispie, seconded by Mm. Hulse, it was
RESOL~D Hil$on L. Epp~ Birch Roa~, Southold, New York, be
GR~fED permission te.:construct Private one family dwelling with
insufficient lot area and front yard setback on Property located
on the northeast corner of Chestnut Road a~d Maple Road, Southold,
N~w York, under the old Ordinance because of the fact that ~. Eppp
negotiated the sale prior to December l?th, 1971. The appeal is
granted as applied for.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: G_ll~sp~e, Bergen,
Hulse.
PUBLIC ITEkRi~-NG: Appeal No. 1488- 8:00 P.M, (E.D.$.T.), upon
application of Richard& Sharon Brooks, Knollwood Lane, Mattituck,
New York, for approval of access over private right-of-way (fOr
division of lot) in accordance with the State of New York Town r~aw,
Section 280A ~ (New Ordinance -Article iii, Section 301). Location
of property: south side of Enollwood Lane, Mat:tituck, New York,
bounded no~th by Enollwood ~ue, eastby Aurellz T. Dwyer, south by
W. A. Rupprecht, west by Clement Brown. Fee paid $~..00.
T~ CP~IR~i~N: The applicant called this afternoon to wire,aw
his Appeal. ~ He did not realize there was a Deed restriction against
dividing his property. I see that there are quite a few people who
have come to discuss this application and i invite you now to remain
and to give your opinions.
Points brought out' in the ensuing discussion: ~,~e feel threatened
by this activity.., it would alter the character Of t~he neighborhood
a Van Tuyl survey was mmde in 19~l .... (The sizes of lots in relationship
to that of applicant were discussed with the following dimensions
noted: !10 ft. x 300 ft.; l~O ft. x 200 ft.; 100 ft. by 2~ ft.;
100 ft. by 290 ft,; 96 ft. x l~O ft.; a prooerty on the north side
of Knollwood Lane, 100 ft. on the road by l~O feet deeP.)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6-
Jaunty 27, 1972
THE CHJiIP34A~N: As you know we have a new Zoning Ordinance that
has become effective which increases the size of a lot to 40,000
sq. ft. Our problem is what to do with older lots. If the new
Zoning Ordinance were adhered to a man would be required to have
two or three times the size of the surrounding lots. Your lots
are approximately the same size as Mr. Brooks~s lot. However,
apparently, ~. Broo__s is going to withdraw his application.
i~R. CI~MENT BRG~f: This is my Deed. I think they were all
drawn up in the same manner.
~. H~WAiqD ~F~q?~, Bldg. Inspector: i brought Article No. 2 to
P~. Brooks~s attention. He did not realize it was in the Deed.
THE C~IPd~: ~nank you all for coming in. %~e have enough
information to make a decision if it were necessary, and my decision
would be against granting a variance.
PUBLIC EE~R~G: Appeal I~o. I}19! - $:l% P.M. (E.D~S.T.), upon
application of Edgar %finfield & Helen Hildegarde Hawkins, ~l~ain
Road, East }~arion, 'New l~ork, for a variance in accordance with the
Zoning 0rdinauce, Art'icle III, Section 301 & Section 304 (New
Ordinance), for permission to construct private one family dwelling
with insufficient frontyard setback and rear yard area. Location
of property: south side of Main Road, East Marion, New York, bounded
north by l~ain Road, east by private road, south by private road,'~
west by L. T. Vail. Fee paid $%.00.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of b_earing, affidavits attesting to
its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the
applicant.
(The Chairman read letter received from Stanley $. Corwin, Esq.,
Co,win & Glickman, Attorneys at Law, ll~ MainStreet,~Greenport,
New York, addressed.~to the Bo~d~of Appeals, Town of S0uthold,
New York, dated January 26, 1972.) ~ ~,
T~CHA~I~N: The problem is occasioned by a lot owned by
Gardiners Bay EstateS. It is 290 feet in length, 82 feet on the Main Road,
and 77~ feet in thereat. The'l~in Road reaches an e~aement on the
west entrance to eardiners. Bay, more acute than a right-angle. Stric~.lY
interpreted, the lot has three front yards. The problem is location of
the house. A sketch accompanied the application. It is proposed that
the long diemnsion, 46~8", would parallel Gardlners Bay easement and
the 33 foot dimension would be on the road. A terrace is sketched on
the west side.
l~. BER~N: The setback from the r~ght-of-~ay causes trouble.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7-
January 27, 1972
]~o T~W~E~[, Bldg. inspector: ~[ou would ihave to take the
average setback. Vail!s has a 35 ft. to 40 .ft. setback. They
have been appealing under the Old Ordinance ~bu~ it has not been
signed so they could cow under the new Ordinance.
THE CHA~]~A&N: It should be at least 3.~ feet back from the
Main Road. The visibility at that point is 'very difficult.
(The Board discussed the dimensions of 'the property).
THE CHAI~: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this app_,~cazzon.
(There was no response.)
After ~nves~mga~on and inspection the Board finds that
applicant requests permission to construct private one family
dwelling w~th insufficient front yard set'back and rear y~a~farea
ou property located on the sou~h side of Main Road, East Marion,
New York. TheBoard finds that applicant has a contract to purchase
lot of such size that it will not admit of tlhe erection thereon of
the residence they wish to build and such si.~e lines as are reqafred
by the Ordinance. However, a setback from the Main Road of the
required footage can be arranged and the east and south sides are
an existing right-of-way. Moreover, the lot adjacent on the west
is large and there is an existing east side 'yard in excess of
50 feet.
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will
p~oduce p~actlcal dmfficult~ or unnecesssry hardship; the hardship
created is unique and wOuld^De shared by all properties alike in the
immediate vicinity of this property and in the sa~e use district;
and the variance does observe the spirit of the Ordinance and will
not change the character of the district.
On motion by ~. Gtllispie, seconded by ~. Bergen, it was
RESOLYED Edga~ ~infi~ld Hawkins and Helen~ Hildegzrde Hawkins,
~in Road, Eas~ MariQn, ~w york, be GRAETED permission to
construct private one family dwelling with insufficient frontyard
setback and rear yard area oh property located[ on the south side
of Main Road~ East Marion, New York, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The house shs. ll be no closer to the northerly line than
35 feet and shall adl~ere to the average setback.
2. The house sh~ll be n6 closer than 30 feet to the easterly
line of theproper~y,~ - no closer ths. n ~0 _eet~ to the
southerly line of the property; no closer than l0 Feet to
the westerly line of t?.~e property.
.,o~,rd~ Ayes.-Messrs~ Gillispie,~ergeu,Gr!gonls,Hulse.
Vote of the ~ '~ ' ~
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8-
January 27, 1972
i~dBLIC ~RING: Appeal No. 1~89- 8:30 P.M,
upon application of Myron & joy Finkle, Main Road, ~ Orient,
New York, For a Variance in accordance With the Zoning 0rdinance,
Article X, Section 1007 {d) - Old OrdinanCe, (Ne~ OrdinanCe -
Article XII, Eection 1204 (d), for perm~=s~on to reinstate use
(restaurant} which has been dicontinued For a period of over two
years, Location of property: north side Of Main Road, Orient,
New York, bounded north by H~ Schmid~, east hy H. Echmidt, south
by t~tn Road, west by H. Terry ~state. Fee paid $5.00o
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to
its p~blication in the official newspaper, and notice to the
applicant.
THE CHA~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
For this application?
MR. ~[XRON FI~LE: We are the owners. We have no desire to
trespass or infringe on the rights of others. We don~t want to
change what we found. ~'e hope to improve the p~ope~ty. We only
want to make a small coffee stop and will close down early, at
two or t~ee o~clock.
The Chairman read letters as £ollows: From ~tanley Corwln,
~sq., dated January 26, 1972 ..... from ~o & ~s. A. Nelson Chapman,
Orient, New York, dated January 2?th, against variance being granted.
... From ~. William Y. Terry, Orient, dated January 26, 1972,
objecting to the granting of this variance.
THE CHAIR~r~N: Would you serve coffee at tables or would you
dispense it out o£ machines? ~nnat do yo~ mean by restaurant?
i~. PIN2~.: We would, like to have six tables with four chairs
each. A person could stop for a short time er i£ they wished they
could take the coffee with them. People who stop in do ask for
coffee and a doughnut, and we understand that there was a restaurant
there previously.
THE C~L~IH>La~M: There were a couple of tables there. Is that
where you plan to locate your tables?
~Lq. FINi{IE: Tes.
MR. P~LSE: Will there be cooking?
I~. FINk-~E: We dOn~t know what the Board of H~alth would
require From us. If their rules are too strict, maybe we won't open
up. .
THE CHAIR~L~: Apparently the Board of Health has permitted a
marina to operate a Stewart frozen sandwich machine.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- Ja~.ary 27, 1972
~. PIN~: We want to make the property better and would
like to see it fit into the surrounding area.
TB]~ C~iRi~La~N: I am sure you mean that. What is the size
of the property.you bought? ·
~. FI-~K~EE: 1%8 feet on the Front by 106 feet. it's a
rectangular lot.
THE CHAIHI~N:
Do you own that?
~ere used to be a right-of-way at Tabor's.
FA~. F~f~: We don't have it yet.~
THE C!~L~: Did Schmidt put a fence down there?
~o HOWAR~TERRT, Bldg. Inspector: I~ would have out off the
space that Joe used. The position of the~building is s~ch that
the northeast corner of his property is pretty close to the line
and would only have given him l0 ~eet east. It was ~y understanding
that that piece east o£ the garage was swapped for the part with
the growth of trees.
~. ~INEY.~: i will bring you the paper. Joe has a piece of
property that he wants to trade even-up but he and Mohmidt can't
come to an agreement. They decided that Joe would swap his
proPerty down the street for the piece that has a 2% foot right-of-
way. He would get 1%0 ft. for the 2~ ft. that we would like to have.
We have $10,000 in escrow. It was found out that he did not have
title to. the land.., something like ~intestate~.
T~ CPL~L°~4A~M: He doesn't have title to what he sold to you?
MR. FINKLF~: He doesn't have title to the land down'the stree~
so they can't excD~nge. Now, we have an agreement that if Joe can come
up with the land he will get that money. ~e have given him two years.
IF not, he will have to turn back the money. This is between him,
~chmidt, ~chmidt's la°~ryer and the real estate man.
THE CHAl~2&~J~: One of the problems is parking, in the new
Ordinance a requirement is one parking space For eachfive seats in
a resta~ant. ~ith 24 chairs, we would require five parking spaces
and I don't thfnkyou have the room. i£ a big trailer was in there
nobody could get in or out. The storage tanks are fairly close to
the State highway and that is illegal under the old or the new
Ordinance. It was never zoned Business because it is in a
residential area and it was not conte[~plated in the original Znning
Co~ission, of which I was a me~oer, that it should be Business there
because it's a non-conforming ~se in a residential area and the site
is really too small even for a garage.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-10-
January 27, 1972
t~. I~OYD TE~RR_~: There is adequate room for the cars that
are brought to the garage for repairs. Usually to the east of
the garage there are two or three cars as the result of a wreck.
If I may say, at this time, I make frequent trips to the garage
and i can't recall at any one time where trucks were coming in
that I did not have room to park my vehicle off the highway.
If a person were going out to dinner they would not go to eat where
there is z garage adjacent, but it is nice if you are stopping for
gas to be able to get coffee. My wife and i, after m~.ch discussion,
can find no reason to oppose. We feel it would be a good idea.
I canlt see any objection from the standpoint of traffic, certainly
not nearly the hazard that the Barn Auct~ion was last year. I saw
cars from 9:30 A.M. t 4 P.M. pa~ked double on both sides, and
people crossing back and forth, and i donlt recall seeing a
policeman. An objection was raised from the standpoint of not
having adequate parking facilities but where was the concern at
the time of the auction? This is a thing that was a threat to all
motorists.
THE CHAIRMAN: I don~t believe the auction has any relevance
to this application.
PR. LLLOYD TEPuRY: ~e are in favor because we can see no
threat as far as propert~ devaluation is concerned.
THE C~LRlz~N: The Board has to consider that a re~aurant
has to be located in a Business zone~ and it has to have a minimum
amount of parking with it. 'This is not ~B~ zoned, it's a non-
conforming area. That's why ~ brought up ~he subject of parking.
This ~se has been abandoned. I don~t thihk this Board could
entertain the idea of a restaurant in a non-conforming area even
if the area were large enough.
The Board of Appeals considers hardship cases (variances and
special exceptions). The Town Board legislates Business Zones,
M Zones, so it seems to me that this is going a little further
afield than we should go. You already have a non-conforming
business. If the purpose is to serve sandwiches and coffee~ and
you do that in a stand-up way where sandwiches come out of a
machine, that's one thing, but to establish tables.., the first
thing you know you could serve dinners. There is no way we can
control it once you have put in tables.
(For the record: TWo long distance calls from Eric Schmidt.
a '
He and MrS. Schmfdt are unable to attend the he r~ng. They have
objections and they will mail a letter.)
I~. LLOYD TEP~R . I think this is more of a SnackBar.
It's my feeling that orient doesn't have much to offer. Greenport
has a lot more, they will even have an excursion boat. These
people consider this Snack Bar to be necessary to their economy, and
I don~t see any reason for any objections. %Je have lots of non-
S~thold ~Town Board of Appeals
-ll-
Janmary 27, 1972
conforming businesses.., carpenters operate in their cellars,
etc. I think we can bend a little.
THE C~IRMAN: There is no hardship here.
I~. FINER: We don~t want to cause any trouble with the
townspeople. ~e~ would· like to have this coffee shop or
~estamrant but .if we don~t get it, it won't hurt us. We will
abide by the law and will not push. Does our business belong
where it is now or will we run into F~.rther problems?
~ C~: There are no ~rther problems if you operate
tt as a garage bmr yom have asking for different ~ses. The
reason you are in here is not in connection with the garage.
If you abandon it for two or three years you would have to come before
the Board to get a reactivated use. (The Chairman read: ~W~aerever
non-conforming use, etc.,.., a non-conforming building may not be
al~ere~ ). The use involves cars, parking. The Board o~
Health will take ca~e of what you do inside the buzlmi__g.
~. FIN~: ~et~s say that in the future we come up with
what Joe and Schmidt are working on and we would have plenty of
room to park cars, could we come back then?
THE CHA~M~: it is the policy to discourage business uses
on a State highWay, County road, or through road. I thank this
is what Supervisor M~rtocchia and t~. Terry were discussing,
particularly as it applies to the Main Road. They have been very
careful about granting business on the Main Road. The County has
control over anything within 500 feet of a major highway, in~ order
to have local control a local Board can over-r~le the County by a
majority plus one. i don~t think we could approve where part of
the property is in dispute.
After investigation and Znspection the Board finds that
applicant requests permission to reinstate use (restaurant)
which has been discontinued for a period of over two years.on
property located on the north side of ~6ain Road, Orient, Hew Tork.
The findings of tb~ Board are that applicant is not sure of
ownership of property which he needs to increase the size of his
present property; a restaurant or coffee shop with six tables
(4 chairs each} would require five parking spaces; applicant's
property is close to the State highway.
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will
not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary h~dship; the
hardship created is not unique and would~ be shared by all
properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in
the same use district; and the variance does not observe the
spirit of the Ordinance and will change the character of the
district.
~outhold Town Board of Appeals
-12-
January 27, 1972
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by I~. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that application of Myron & Joy Finkle, }~in Road,
Orient, New York, be DEN/ED as applied for, without prejudice
to future application.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, erigonis,
Hulse.
On motion by ~. Hulse, seconded by ~. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED that the minutes of the Southold Town Board of
Appeals dated January 6, 1972, be approved as submitted, subject
to minor correction.
Vote of the Board:
Hulse.
Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis,
On motion by F~. Grigonis, seconded by R~. Bergen, it was
RESOL'~UD that the next regular meeting of the Southold Town
Board of Appeals will be held at 7:30 P.M., T~narsday, February 17,
1972, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis,
Hulse.
On motion by 1~. Bergen, seconded by ~. Gillispie, it was
RESOL'VED that the Southold Town Board of gppeals set 7:30
P.M. (~.S.T.), Thursday, February l?, 1972, ~t the Town 0ff~ce,
Main Road, 8outhold, New York, as the time and place of hearing
upon application of Stuart ~. Staples, 3% N, Montgomery Avenue,
Bay Shore, New York, for a special e~ception in aCCordance with
the Zoning Ordinance, Article i/~, Section 900, S~bsections 8 &
12, £or permission to erect private one-family dwelling and
operate cem~ent mix business. Location of property: west side of
Cox~s Lane, Cutchogue, New York, bounded north by F. J. McBride,
east by Cox~s Lane, south by L. B. Glover, Jr., west by L. B.
Glover, Jr.
Vote of the Board:
Hulse.
Ayes:- Messrs: Gitlispie, Bergen, Grigonis,
S'outhold Town Board of Appeals
-13-
January 27, 1972
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by ~. B~ise, it was
RE~OL~D that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 7:4%
P.M. (E.S.T.~, Thursday, February 17, 1972, at the Town Office,
Main Road, Bouthold, New York, as the time and place of hearing
upon application of Leeward Acres, Inc., 217 Osborne Avenue,
Riverhead, New York, for approval of access over private right-
of-way in accordance with the State of ~ew York Town Law, Section
280A. Location of property: private right-o£-way off south side
of North Bayview Road on east side of lot no. ll on subdivision map
of ~Leeward Acres at Bayvtew~, Southold, New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gil!ispie, Bergen, Grigonis,
Hulse.
On motion by Mr. Hmtse, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED that the Sou~ho!d Town Board of Appeals set 8:00
P.M. (E.S~T.),~Thursday, February 17, 1972, at the Town Office,
Main Road, Southold, New York, as the ti~e and plac~ of hearing
upon application of the Archaeological ASsociation of New York, Main
Bayview Road, Southold, New York, for a special exception in accord-
ance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIi, Section 300 ~, Subsection
6 (f), and Aeticle XI, Section ll00~ Smbsection I, for permission to
erect an off -premiSes directional s~gu. Location of property: land
of Southold Park District, located between north side of Main Road,
and south side of Lower Road, Somthold, New York, bounded north by
Lower Road, east by H. A. Goldsmith, south by Main Road.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Me sots: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis,
Hulse,
On motion by M~. Grigonis, seconded by ~. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that' the So~thold ToWn Board of ApPeals set 8:1%
P.M. (E.S,T.), ThursdaY, .~ebruary 17, 1972, at the Town Office,
Main Road, ~outhold, New Yo~k, as the time and place of hearing
upon application~ of W~, Perry Hukill, 11760 Main ROad, East Marion,
New York, for a varianc$ in accordance with the Zoning 0rd~nZnce,
Article Iii, SectiOn 301, for perm~ss~ n to divide property and
set off lots with i~sufficient area, and for approval of access over
private right-of-way in accordance with th~ State of New York Town
Law, Section 280A. Location of property: south side of Main (State)
Road, East Marion, New York, bounded north by Main (State) Road,
east by Gioscia, pizzarelli~ & Wecker, south by Orient Harbor, west
by David Parks.
Vote o£ the Board: ~yes:- Messrs. ~z!lispz , Bergen, C-r~gon ,
Hu ! se. * * *
So~thold Town Board of Appeals
-14- Janmary 27, 1972
'~)n motion by ~lr..Be~gen, .seconded by i~. Gilliepie, it was
iTE$OLVED that the ~omthold Town Board of ApPeals Set 8:30
P.M. (E.~.T.) , Thursday, February 17, 1972,~at' the TOwn Office,
Main Road, Somthold, New York, as the time and placel of hearing~
upon application of Herbert & Louise '~a '
M comber, 250 Anglers Road,
Greenport, New York, for a v~r~ance in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, ~ectton 301, for permission to set Off lot
and build private one family dwelling with insufficient frontage
and area. Location of p~operty: east slde of Angiers Road,
G~eenPort, NeW York, bounded nOrth by Maria Mu~kel-G~idice, east
by Wm. R. Poll IIi, south by Herbert Macomber, west by Angiers
Road. .
Vote of the Board: ~.yes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis,
Hu lse.
The ~eeting was ac~ourned at 10:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
MarJori~ McDermott, gecretary
Semibold Town Board of Appeals
rm~n