HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961
TOWN OF sOUTH OLD, NEW YORK
9'/
AP,~ N~. 1-;0
/0 .~7
DATE....... ....... .....~.
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN ~ SOUTHOlD, N. Y. _
c"/1/,L v: t3,f'4-"/l?b,j(/KJ r//lS-SAv r7; dAO
1, (We) ...................................................,..............of ............................................................................
Name of Appellant Street and Number
CU"T'C,yor:Fv6 dv
......................................................1.......................... ............ ..............:.I...........HEREBY APPEAL TO
Municipality State
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF Bl,IllDING INSPECTOR
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUilDING INSPECTOR ON
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO. .................................... DATED ......................................................
WHEREBY THE BUilDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO
c /)/<('/- Y; e-<?/lrYoc;/.3(/-<V
......................................................06.........................
of
Name of Applicant for permit
/ /d:., 5/1(/ ,;::'T" ~ <9. C t/iC'/(c; (- u E
dY
....St~~~t.~~d..N~~b~;........................M~;;i~.iP;;iitY....................st;;t~.......................
) PERMIT TO USE
) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY
)
1, lOCATION OF THE PROPERTY .....................................................................................................
Street Use District on Zoning Map
.............................................................n..................
Map No.
lat 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 Do not quote the Ordinance.)
3. ..:P'I'E OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for
(11' AVARiANcE to the Zoning OrJfl1Ol'lce or Zoning Map . '. . .
,-: "-',"-'.;""\
( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town law Ch<Ip. 62 Cons. Laws
Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3
4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (has not) been made with respect to this'decision
of the Building Inspector or with respect ta this property.
Such appeal was ( ) request fo.r a special permit
( ) request for a va rlance
and was made in Appeal No. ................................Doted ......................................................................
REASON FOR APPEAL
( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3
(0 Ii. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
( )
is requested for the reason that
Form ZBl
(Continue an other side).
~'~~7~~Wi!h','\'?,~;';"li!!'}",,_,. '^.__
,","__,. '_'=""""'''''~__'':::::''~~_~._~':.:.::_':::'~ .. ...~~c~~"'''''~~''"",",''''''''=''''''''~''''"'"''.''''
',.',:'z."'t'."",<.>.".~,-..~,,,",,-,,;,.-7,--"
REASON FOR APPEAL
Continued
1. STRI~T APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce-practical difficulties or unneces-
. ~"""""'.~7~/ J~;;;/ t/ ";~-7~q
1>._ "'7~ //A~Z ~ e~ ~~7J 7/a:;;-~.~~ /1:&/ . .
~.t2ff;~=:;ff~~ ~~~
2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate
vicinity of this property a in this use district because
C /, k.... Af'.?;.':Ii~.f';'& ", ;f:.9'/:.'i<?~. V;7. ~.' .'~ C~/ /
;2-t~?/_.e= :r;,./;.,t::,,/., (- ,p L~7 --0/ '?~V
a, 4'xt: < _ . /;,,;;;, ", vE. ~" ~, '0' h;d <,,--;t::=,/, z2;'
/, ufl ~~./ /'
,,~~'f. .ct.".. "<,j'J~6'( '--?~'/.? """,.
3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE
CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because
7}{d./h ~. ,~ ! <-{'r / /J,~ WhEC7
idl:~~ ~v/ (U?~~~//<V~.
/1 L-~ -- ~ . Ylh~e. --~//l-a.~4P~cf -&~4f
/ Z/V,. . .('../2.r ...a ~r ct__~ ~'/z!4h/~?-r 4
fjf:-..:(7' 7 k; ,r-~~-; ~ --
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss
COUNTY OF )
d/~~..
..~Z~ii~~~"""'" ........... .........
Sworn to this ............~&:&................ day of.......(R.~...... 19 ""u
.................... /r
.....~=~~d~.
MURIEL BRUSH
NOTARY PUBLIC, Stole of N_ York
No. 52.+522026 . Suffolk Coun~.?
Cemmilllon Explr.. Marth JO, I 'u.~"'
October 18, 1974
Mr. Carl V. Brandebury
Nassau Point Road
Cutchogue, N. Y. 11935
Dear Mr. Brandebury:
We are in receipt of your application No. 1961
dated October 2, 1974 wherein you propose to place a
fence on the public highway and we find, after conferring
with Town Counsel, that we have no jurisdiction over lands
on the public highway where the applicant proposes to
place private structures.
Accordingly, we are returning your application
and fee herewith.
Yours vary truly,
RWG:mm
cc: Building Inspector
Robert W. Gillispie, Jr.
Chairman
October 18, 1974
Mr. Carl V. Brandebury
nassau Point Road
Cutchogue, N. Y. 11935
Dear Hr. Brandebury:
We are in receipt of your application No. 1961
dated October 2, 1974 wherein you propose to place a
fence on the public highway and we find, after conferring
with Town Counsel, that we have no jurisdiction over lands
on the public highway where the applicant proposes to
place private structures.
Accordingly, we are returning your application
and fee herewith.
Yours very truly,
RWG :mm
cc: BUildi~~ I;SPector
.... i ~
O( ~
" 1}
i I J I ' l.-
f' I V .ll I;.
i {u71J'
l(jC \' !,-i, 'f'Y0 '1
1[;
Robert W. Gillispie, Jr.
Chairman
. ; (~
1 \,,--':L
i l
'V'
O'Y\
tV \
\
,
",
,.
October 10, 1974
The Memo from Mr. Carl Brandebury to the Nassau Point
Property Owners Association was brought to my attention
since I am the Inspector mentioned in the second paragraph
of his statements.
There are some inaccuracies in Mr. Brandebury's Memo
which are as follows:
1. The fence was erected in 1973, not 1972. On
January 30, 1973 during the course of my work
day with the Southold Town Building Department
I was traveling on Nassau Point Road and noticed
William M. Beebe's workmen erecting a fence.
2. The subject of my conversation with Mr. Beebe's
men pertained to a building permit for this
structure, something they claimed to be unaware of.
I left applications for a permit with one of the
workmen. Location of structure was not discussed.
3. We have in our files a Building Permit #6358Z dated
February 5, 1973, applicant Carl V. Brandebury, for
a fence. Accompanying the application for a permit
is a plot survey of property showing location of
split rail fence on the front yard property line
of Lot 88 (Map of Property surveyed for Carl V. and
Anne B. Brandebury at Nassau Point, New York).
Mr. Brandebury's Memo is dated September 20, 1974 and
in his last paragraph states he has just been advised of
fence being on the Town's property. According to survey,
monuments exist on property wherfrlProperty lines intersect.
(
Respectfully. submitted,
~;t*,J~t? I;~~ tl/lk---
Building Inspector
EH:mm
October 10, 1974
The Memo from Mr. Carl Brandebury to the Nassau Point
Property OWners Association was brought to my attention
since I am the Inspector mentioned in the second paragraph
of his statements.
There are some inaccuracies in Mr. Brandebury's Memo
which are as follows:
1. The fence was erected in 1973, not 1972. On
January 30fi 1973 during the course of my work
day with t e Southold Town Building Department
I was traveling on Nassau Point Road and noticed
William M. Beebe's workmen erecting a fence.
2. The subject of my conversation with Mr. Beebe's
men pertained to a building permit for this
structure, something they claimed to be unaware of.
I left applications for a permit with one of the
workmen. Location of structure was not discussed.
3. We have in our files a Building Permit i6358Z dated
February 5, 1973, applicant Carl V. Brandebury, for
a fence. Accompanying the application for a permit
is a plot survey of property showing location of
split rail fence on the front yard property line
of Lot 88 (Map of Property surveyed for Carl V. and
Anne B. Brandebury at Nassau Point, New York).
Mr. Brandebury's Memo is dated September 20, 1974 and
in his last paragraph states he has just been advised of
fence being on the Town's property. According to survey,
monuments exist on property where property lines intersect.
Respectfully submitted,
EH:mm
Edward Hindermann
Building Inspector
NASSAU POINT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
P. O. Box 346
CUTCHOGUE, L. I., N. Y. 11935
October tr, 1974.
I-Ion. Albert Martocchia, SUDervisor,
Southold To tom ,
GreenD0rt, N. Y.
Dear Mr. Martocchia:
We have reviewed the enclosed J1lemo T)reT)ared by Mr.
Carl V. lirandebury, a member and director of our
association, concernin~ a snlit rail fence on his
nroDerty. Based on the facts covered in the memo,
we urge that Mr. ilrandebury's request for an exception
to the zoning ordinance be made in this case.
Very truly yours,
L/
Ve
0~LI (
.'
!
,,"-,
,
)I
cJ
C ',,--
'-
~
- -------
George L. Nohe, President.
Nassau Point Property
In the fall of the year 1971 the undersigned purchased the Curry
property on Nassau Point Road. Shortly thereafter arrangements were made
for Mr. William Beebe to undertake major construction work on the house
and this commenced shortly after the property was acquired. The work
proceeded from time to time and in January 1972 a split rail fence was
erected along the road. 'lbe undersigned quite innocently and inadver-
tently arranged to have the fence aligned with the hedge on one side on
the Norris property and the end of the fence on the other side at the
UbI property, assuming that our property line extended to almost the road.
'lbe inspector from Southold Town appeared when the fence was
being installed and assured Mr. Beebe's men that the line was far enough
back from the road and that they could proceed assuming that the writer
undertook to obtain a permit. I negotiated with ~~. Fisher and this was
accomplished. It would seem at this point that it did not occur to anyone
at that time to check on the property lines.
The fence has now been installed for going on two years and
according to all of our neighbors it has represented an attractive addi-
tion to the property, and certainly from a practical point of view does
not interfere in any way with the flow of traffic. I have taken pictures
of the fence from various positions and prints are attached hereto.
Mr. Fisher has now advised me that the fence is, at least to
half its length, on Southold Town property and in view of the fact that it
was built after the relatively new Zoning Ordinance I was put into effect,
the fence is subject to removal unless the circlli~stances and its nature,
particularly with respect to the properties on either side, can justify an
exception. We fervently hope that this may be the case and it would be
greatly appreciated if the authorities could properly and reasonably grant
such a request.
7~Y<
d~~~7
II
I
'71A(yIu---Iw cI
urt~
I
I
1'1
II
,
I,.
,,,
"I .../
1~7~ a7h';;;~_;;::; J~
lr4( >f~..d/C;>/~~:C~.-e~> .--4-7A..; t;fu ~--(,(./-
:: . 7ttL / ,;d!,-# 0&/1-<</-,<<-0
III~ .
I"
ill 2Jl-,,-UA'/~ ~--;;/'vGI~ /f/)A~fCl>tA',""..UA/.e/.--d/.'..J ,..d/l~
IrI)l(/o ~t__u.LJ/u/) ;V ~m~ /-Y7/~~J
II'. ) ..-----7.. . )
Ii ly..Lu/~ (~~ v(/--<f/ '-
Ii /, yZ Ju/ ;&-<UJ~ /74Ad~/d2dLi
II A.-1~ / /7 -s / 7c* / 'I 7,02 -
II: >rf1/f1'#~ f. ~7 /;-f-t..t/--k - U2 .' .
'Ii $~':Yj!;;k;^ ;:)J!Jt~
il #>(~/ /(;~ u4L ..y~~~/Zl2
ii /J!. 6/../:Y!..- $-' /'""r~~ J~L<-"
i A Y
~~ I ~
, )f4"{~....L - ~fi/
III J~ 7-k ~<'~ ;/~,/l~. fi..../
II ~ )LpAd-a/~..d-1/'- ~2i1 ?;t~ '. :eA-4
I: . /Ji..t'A/- /pa,,:-d 12 td/ ;i,tJdfq..
I t:'/Jfj{jt-k:;~ J;P. ;a;~; 'La.'~' -
Iii il1U; 1) ~! ~ -I!- ~tU4AJ--a~
~I; ~ _ 12- ,. fALl 'Yr'u<i;w",; - ?~
/J1~ . :;: i..u_/ t1 / . /'- .
i
'I
I,
I'
, I
I
I
I!
II
II
Ii
i i
II
I!
Ii
, ,1/ 'I
(~ I" , ~- %' ;{/' -:
.J-' ';b ~ /d-U ~ ~~, ~L, ~444tfl
Ir# ,{-,~<f' C<<rd ~~~- 0~, /r;7.5,'
~ I!~ ' vr; (ldd J/. ,::5/d~:d-d/u-, /'~
",rL- ~'4r:<~~ ~
. j ~~ 60 g#AuvYkJ7
~ I, ~~/(~~~~~S~ d):'
IW~//~,~ (A/~ ~
I _. ~/Y~ /xh fi~ ??i
' (n;~'::f d'-7~ - duA ~ ~b--" &d
,I j/ I ~A~/~ 12/ ~ 'at-/~ p/-
i ~eb~ ~f ltlJ 7
It /IU, .c;~:'</U:t; 'n~/vUJ A4" tbJ;..J!,
, ~';<"/ /'J rl IA4~ h~, fiu ,IMF
~vi:t:.~.w/ ~ 74U ,<4 ','
~if-~~~/ ~ ~ "~ _ ~-<?
#-r~ P/61 ~.L0~ jA~/~~ -, P;.u4~
I, A3 ffiv),~, //~_ULU;;& ~f." ~d.---
I r~ .~;r;~p?__ d//d/2~7 ~~
, ~vbJ.j- (/ ,"
Ii ,/
,I
I
II
e:)/~ ~<~M 1hU. t,;r/jp, '
, }It/we y~ _ /Ct--t'~-'"___ d7
~/iZZU2j.) /r~ /~ ' ~--u..P~'
);if ~