Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout278875 Second St., New Suffolk I17 /0 A-construct a deck add. with a setabck of not less than 6' 6" from the front property line. Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11cj71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI TO: Edward Hindermann, Building Inspector FROM: Jerry Goehringer, Z.B.A. Chairman DATE: October 4, 1985 SUBJECT: Your Inquiry Re: Appeals No. 1597 and 2922 Property Now or Formerly of Frank E. Brophy 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, New York This letter will confirm that it is the opinion of the board members at a Regular Meeting held last evening that any change of the construction of the deck addition granted under Appeal No. 2922 will require an application for a variance to the Board of Appeals. The basis for this determination is new construction is being proposed and the deck addition granted under Appeal No. 2922 is still in effect, which may or may not affect the lot coverage limitations for this zoning district. lk APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROA~- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 April 27, 1981 William H. Price, Jr., Esq. 828 Front Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Appeal No. 2788 (2693 and 2725) Frank E. and Mary L. Brophy Dear Bill: Please be advised that the following action was taken by the Board of Appeals at a regular meeting held April 23, 1981 concerning the above entitled appeal: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, ...Appellants' attorney appeared before the Board to present arguments for a rehearing. No evidence or information was presented which was not previously presented in the two previous appeals concerning this property; and accordingly, the application for a rehearing is denied .... This resolution was unanimously adopted. CG:lk Yours very truly, CHARLES GRIG~NIS, ~R. CHAIRMAN APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. TEKR',' TUT;;;LL. ROBERT 3. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Joseph H. Sawicki Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATI=' ROAD 25 SOuTHr"ILD, L.l., N.Y. TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 March 26, 1981 William H. Price, Jr., Esq. 828 Front Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Appeal No. 2788, 2693 and 2725 Frank E. and Mary L. Brophy Dear Bill: In reply to your recent request of March 19, 1981, this letter will confirm that an appointment has been set for Thursday, April 2, 1981 at 10:00 p.m. in order that you may be allowed to address the Board giving the reasons why the Board should reconsider its previous decision. Yours very truly, CHARLES GRIGON/IS, JR. ~,~ CHAIRMAN CG:lk ATTORNEY AT I~.W 828 FRONT STREET GREENPORT. N.Y. 11944 Charles Grigonis, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 March 19, 1981 Re: Appeal No. 2788 - Frank E. and Mary L. Brophy Dear Mr. Grigonis: Please consider this letter my application to the Board to reconsider its prior decision in the subject appeal. I would like to be scheduled to address the Board concerning this application to reconsider. As you recall, the Board's prior decision stated, in part: "Appellant in this appeal has set forth the practical difficulties in removing the deck and the reasons for locating the deck as applied for rather than in the rear yard or other side areas." "Upon personal inspection of the premises, the Board finds that the existing structure and deck would exceed 20% of the lot coverage of the total lot area; and it is the feeling of the Board to grant a variance herein technically (emphasis added) would not warrant justification. Accordingly, the variance is denied." The building inspector denied the applicants' application for a permit based upon violation of set-back requirements. It was the decision of the building inspector, based solely on set-back violations, which was appealed from. An appeal from a decision based upon lot coverage violations could not be made because no such decision was made by the building inspector. The original application was for an area variance and not for a use variance. A recent New York State Supreme WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR. Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chairman -2- March 19, 1981 Court case has dealt with burden of proof and considerations to be made concerning an area variance (Matter of Link, Westchester County, N.Y. Law Journal, March 18, 1981, p. 14). While the facts in that case are distinguishable from the subject appeal, the decision stated: "In deciding whether to issue a [area]variance, a zoning board must determine whether strict compliance with a zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties .... In view of the fact that area variances do not involve a change in the character of a zoning district prohibited by the zoning ordinances, neighborhood consider- ations are not as strong as in use variances .... The term "practical difficulties" means that 'petitioner must show that as a practical matter he cannot utilize his property or struct- ure located thereon' without coming into conflict with certain of the restrictions of the [zoning] ordinance ..... It is also noted that the fact of a self-created hardship does not in and of itself justify denial of an application for an area variance by a zoning board .... The basic inquiry at all times is whether strict compliance in a given case will serve a valid public purpose which outweights the injury to the property owner." In that the Board did find practical difficulties and in that the subject appeal was for an area variance from the determination of the building inspector, I respectfully request that I be allowed to address the Board to argue why the Board should reconsider its decision. WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR. WHP/dg March 5, 1981 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Please be advised that I am one of the adjoining property owners of Frank E. and Mary L. Brophy. I am absolutely in favor of the deck on the front side of the Brophy house. In my opinion it enhances the appearance of the neighborhood, in general, and the Brophy residence in particular. I do not feel that the deck over- crowds the lot, nor do I feel that it is obnoxious in any way. If the Brophys were required to remove the deck and reconstruct it in the rear yard, I feel that no useful purpose would be served. In fact, that would appear to cover more of the open space in the open area behind my house and the Brophys. I reiterate that I am fully in favor of the deck and want to express my strong support for the Brophy applica- tion. V~ry truly yours, ~ Grathwohl Southold Town Board of Appeals IVlAIN ROAD- r~TATE RnAD 25 SI3UTHOLD, [..I,, N.Y. llg?l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, ,JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER doseph H. Saw~ck~ March 4, 1981 William H. Price, Jr., Esq. 828 Front Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Appeal No. 2788 - Frank E. and Mary L. ~[ophy Dear Bill: Your new purported appeal to this Board dated February 17, 1981 was discussed by the Board with the Town Attorney~ The Town Attorney has advised the Board that there appears to be no legal procedure for the "renewal of a prior appeal." The only remedy that is provided by Town Law is an application to the Board to reconsider its prior decision. Accordingly, we are returning to you herewith your appli- cation dated February 17, 1981. Yours very truly, CG:lk CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. CHAIRMAN JUDITH T. TERRY . TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 To: February 19, 1981 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals From: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Transmitted herewith is Appeal No. 2788, application of Frank E. and Mary L. Brophy for a renewal of Appeal No. 2693 and Appeal No. 2725. Also included is notice to adjoining property owners, short environmental assessment form, land-use form, letter from William H. Price, Jr., and photocopy of letter from Edward F. Hindermann, Building & Housing Inspector to the Board of Appeals dated February 10, 1981. ATTORNEY AT LAW 828 FRONT STREET GR. EENPORT, N.Y. 11944 February 18, 1981 Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Appeal of Frank E. & Mary Lo Brophy Appeal No. 2693 & A~peal No. 2725 Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith please find:. 1. Application in triplicate 2. Notice form with certified mail receipts 3. Environmental Assessment Short Form 4. Wetlands letter 5. $15.00 filing-fee check Upon searching this file again, I have noted that contained therein is a letter from the Building Inspector, Edward F. Hindermann, dated February 10, 1981, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. ' I believe that Mr. Hindermann in the second paragraph of this letter accurately sets forth part of the gist of the renewal of the appeal. However, I strenuously object to the third para- graph and the fourth paragraph of Mr. Hindermann's letter° As an enforcement officer for the Town of Southold, he has the duty to deny applications to his department when the criterion for the zoning ordinance has not been met. If Mr. Hindermann wishes to present views to the Board of Appeals concerning an on-going appeal, I would suggest that he be r quired to testify before the Board of Appeals as all other witnesses must. I would like to have the opportunity to cross examine Mr. Hindermann concerning this letter of his dated February 10, 1981 submitted in opposition to my client's appeal. Board of Appeals -2- February 18, 1981 If necessary, I respectfully request that the Board of Appe~als subpoena Mr. Hindermann to testify before the Board at the scheduled hearing on the enclosed papers. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, William H. Price, Jr. WHP:kam Enclosures cc : Mr. Edward F. Hindermann Mr. & Mrs. Frank E. Brophy TOWN OF $OUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, lq. Y. 11971 TEL. 765-1802 February 10, 1981 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Main Road, Southold, New York Re: Frank E. Brophy, Appeal #2693 & 2725 Gentlemen: I have enclosed herewith a copy of letter received from William H. Price, Jr., who has represented the above. It is my understanding that to date, an application as he has suggested, has not been made to date. At this point I am in a quandary. The Appeal #2693 was denied by the Board. The resolution set a time limit of 60 days to remove the illegal structure. Subsequently another appeal was made, #2725, for the same relief sought after in Appeal #2693, however, this appeal was denied because the total area of structure exceeded 20% of the total lot area. This would indicate to me that if the structure would now meet criterior for area, it would now be approved for insufficient set back, it appears that Mr. Price plans to proceed this way. Since a hardship did not exist until the deck was constructed, requiring a building permit, in my opinion, a variance would condone this practice. It is very difficult now for the Buitfling Department to keep pace with the numerous illegal structures being erected, therefore, approval of this illegal structure under another appeal, ! am afraid, would set the trend for others to do the same. It has gotten back to our department that there are many who have adopted the "wait until they catch you", attitude already. ~~Yo,~s truly, ~EdwMrd/F .' H~Y~dermann Building & Housing Inspector EFH:jd ATTORNEY AT LAW 828 FRONT STREET GREENPORT, N.Y. 11944 October 27, 1980 Mr. Edward Hindermann Town of Southold Building Department Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Brophy Property 75 Second Street, New Suffolk Suffolk County Tax Map No. : ::1000-1'~7:~1'0'-'201.:? : ' ' ' : : : : : : i Dear Mr. Hindermann: As you are aware, I am the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Frank E. Brophy and have received from them a copy of your order to remedy violation dated October 20, 1980. Mr. and Mrs. Brophy received your order on or about October 22, 1980 and brought it to me at my office on October 25, 1980. As you are aware, Mr. and Mrs. BrophY applied for a variance for the deck on the subject premises to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The application was denied for the stated reason: ...The Board finds that the exist- ing structure and deck would exceed 20% of the lot coverage of the total lot area; and it is the feeling of the Board to grant a variance herein technically would not warrant justi- fication .... Mr. and Mrs. Brophy have instructed me to attempt to renew the variance application to deal specifically with the lot coverage issue. To renew this application will require time for me to make further investigations and to have maps or sur- veys prepared by a surveyor. I am to be on vacation and will not be in this area from November 1, 1980 through November 17, 1980. Upon my return, I plan to con~ence the investigation and to order the necessary surveys and/or maps. Mr. Edward Hindermann -2- October 27, 1980 Therefore, I respectfully request that the Building Department of the Town of SouthOld take no further action in respect to the subject premises until the renewal of the variance application or rehearing, as the case may be, has been completed. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, William H. Price, Jr. WHP:kam cc : Mr. and Mrs. Frank E. Brophy Robert W. Tasker, Esq., Town Attorney Town of SouthOld Zoning Board of Appeals TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. DATE .~e..b...z~.....a~......]:.7..:..,~'.981 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. Frank E. and Mary L. BroDhy ~f Secon~ Street (We) ................................................. : .............................................................................................. Name of Appellant Street and Number New Suffolk New York ~4~D~R%' APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ...................................................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) ( ) (x) Frank E. Brophy Name of Applicant for permit of 75 Second Street New Suffolk New York Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT DECK l. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..~-e..s..t....s..:i:~e...,?.~...Di.e..°..°..n..c!:..,~.t.~.e.?..t...i ....... ~?..s.~.e..n..t.~.a..]:..A. .......... Street 'Use District on Zoning Map Suffolk County Tax Map NO. 1000-117-10-P/O 20 Map No. Lot No. , ' ': ' ' 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) ARTICLE III - Section 100-31 Bulk Schedule 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for ( X ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map . ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) ~ been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit (x) request for a variance and was made ih Appeal No. 2693 & No..2..7..2..5....Dated 4/18/80 & 7/25/80 respectively REASON FOR APPEAL [ ) A Variance.to Sectibn 280A Subsection 3 (x) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance (x) A renewal of Appeal No. 2693 and No. 2725 Js requested for the reason that the previous appeals addressed the issues of the location of the deck, i.e., setback violation, raised by the Building Inspector in his denial for a building permit. This Board thereafter raised the issue of lot coverage which appellant now wishes to address to show: Form ZBi (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce proctical difficulties or unneces-' sar~ HARDSHIP because to remove the deck would be a practical difficulty in that the deck is a substantial structure and an unnecessary hardship would result in the cost of removing same and the loss of the materials used to construct the deck. In addition, to reduce the size or to remove the deck would also-make ingress and egress to and from the dwelling more difficult and would make access to the portion of the dwelling adjoining the deck more difficult. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because the subject parcel is a substandard size lot with the dwelling constructed very close to the front lot line as a prior non-conforming building. To construct the deck on the rear would obstruct the waterview of the adjoining and other landowners to the north, who currently have an unobstructed waterview over applicant's rear yard. Because of the narrowness of the applicant's property, it is impractical to construct a deck on either side yard. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the spirit of the ordinance can be ascertained by applying the general provisions of the Zoning Ordinance contained in ~100-10 of the Code of the Town of Southold. It appears difficult to find a reason that the con- struction of the deck has adversely affected the general purpose of the zoning, i.e., protection and promotion of the public health, safety and welfare, §100-10(A). The facilitation of the efficient and adequate provision of public facilities and ser- vices "is not violated in that the deck will have no negative impact on the public part to the east of the subject parcel.." Sections 100-10(B) and 100-10(I) are in- applicable. Section 100-10(C) is promoted by having the deck in the front yard as opposed to either side yard. Section IO0-10(D) is promoted in that the deck affords easier access to the dwelling unit which will be important to the safety tel the applicants as they grow older and to older guests of the applicants. Section iO0-10(E) is supported in having the deck in the front yard which overlooks a public park but - which is shielded by a hedge .a~d again aids in the access to the residential.dwelling on the premises. Section 100 lC(F) is inapplicable in that the premises are used solely as a private, one-family dwelling, the permitted use. Section iO0-10(G) is ~romoted in that the deck constr9c~ed is attractive. Section iO0-10(H) is promoted in hat the natural and scenic qualities of open lands are preserved for adjoining land- owners, whose view would be o~Dstrueted if %he deck wer~ ~j~s~ed in~ rear yard. COUNTY OF, SUFFOLK ) , , WIL~~e~ePR!CE' JR'' ESQ. AttorneY/Agent for Applicant · Sworn to this ............. /~...~... ..................... Hnu nf February · v-. .......................................................... 1981 BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Petition of : FRANK E. and MARY L. BROPHY to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold : TO: ESTATE OF CHARLES E. PUGSLEY MR. and MRS. THOMAS MARTIN MR o and M.RSo EDWARD V. WETZEL MR. WILLIAM WOODARD NOTICE YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: I. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a (Variance~c:~la~aoi:a:k~:ltat~va~ ' ' 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: Bounded on the North by lands now or for~erly of Estate of Charles E. Pu~sley; Bounded on the East by Second Street; Bounded on the South bv lands of Wetz~l & lands of Woodard and others; Bounded on the West by lands now or formerly of Martin. Suffolk Cour~ty Tax Map No. 1000 - 117.00 - 010.00 - 020.007. 3. That the property which is the subject of suc.h Petition is located in the following zoning district: A Residential and Agriculture D~strict 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: R certificate of occupancy for the existing deck in the front yard and building permit for same° 5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are: Article III Section 100-31 Bulk Schedule 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you ma)' then and there examine the same during regular off. ice hours. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be.heard at such h~aring. Dated: February 17, 1981 ~ ~ By: WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR., ESQ. Post Office Address 828 FRONT STREET GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 P19 4029092 RECEIPT FO[:{ CERTIFIED MAll. NO INSURANCE EOVERAGE PROVIDED-- NOT FOR iNTERNATiONAL MAIL (See Reverse) SENT TO ~ro William Woodard AND NO. _~Brandy~. Roa~d STATE AND ZIP CODE [untington, N.Y. 11743 I SHOWTOWfl0M AND ~, DATE ~EUVERED ~ SHOW TO WHOM. DATE, ~ DELIVERY ~ SHOW TO ~OM AND DATE 4 POSTMARKORDATE ey .zel PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICF ADDRESS New Suffolk, New York 11956 Jackson Street, New Suffolk, New York 11956 90 Nassau Road, Massapequa, New York 11758 4 Brandy Road, Huntington, New York 11743 2/18/81 STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) SS.: Kathy A. Mazzaferro ' , residing at Chestnut Road, Southold, New York 11971 , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the day of February ,19 81 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that 5aid Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at Southold ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) ~ mail. Sworn to before me this ./'~' day.o~ February ,19 81 Nd~'a ry Public D0,~IS [?. GABLE NOTARY PUBt C .~: 01 New Y0~ Suffolk C0~ .~ . .a. 470[§94 Term Expires Uarch 30, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING II',ISPECTOR TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 February 10, TEL. 765-1802 1981 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Main Road, Southold, New York Re: Frank E. Brophy, Appeal #2693 & 272~ Gentlemen: I have enclosed herewith a copy of letter received from William H. ?rioe, Jr., who has represented the above. It is my understanding that to date, an application as he has suggested, has not been made to date. At this point I am in a quandary. The Appeal #2693 was denied by the Board. The resolution set a time limit of 60 days to remove the illegal structure. Subsequently another appeal was made, #2725, for the same relief sought after in Appeal #2693, however, this appeal was denied because the total area of structure exceeded 20% of the total lot area. This would indicate to me that if the structure would now meet criterior for area, it would now be approved for insufficient set back, it appears that Mr. ?rice plans to proceed this way. Since a hardship did not exist until the deck was constructed, requiring a building permit, in my opinion, a variance would condone this practice. It is very difficult now for the Building Department to keep pace with the numerous illegal structures being erected, therefore, approval of this illegal structure under another appeal, I am afraid, would, set the trend for others to do the same. It has gotten back to our department that there are many who have adopted the "wait until they catch you", attitude already. Yo.~rfs truly, / ~E~w'~rd/FJH'~dermann Building & Housing Inspector EFH:jd .$1' :'.": ST. DISTzoo' ' NEW "SUFFOLK :. sCHOOL. -DIST, ~ :I,4A{ ¢) · ST. ST. ST. · ::'", 9 2.0A( c ) · ' i 19 .~ '3,3A[ c · OF SOUTHOLD