Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/02/1972 ~~ $~u th~ o Id Tow n Bo a rd ~ of App ea Is SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 119~1 Telephone 7~5-~50 APPEAL BOARD MEMBER Robert ~(/. Gillispi¢, Jr.~ Chairman Robert Bergen Charles GrJgonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Free{ Huls¢, Jr. · ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD 01~ APPEAT~ November 2, 1972 A regalar meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.N., Thursday, November 2, 1972, at t~e Town 0fftee, Main Road, ~emthold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairmam; Robert Bergen; Charles Grlgonis, Jr.; Fred Hulse, Jr. Absent: ~. ~erge Doyen, Jr. THE OEAIRMAN: The BOard of Appeals is required to make its deCisI.ons before the~public. We have set 7:30 P.M. tonight as the time for rendering a decision o~ Appeal No. 1679, H. Alvla ~mith, New Suffolk Arcane, Mattituek, New York. A public hasting was held om this appeal on October 12, 1972 at 9:~5 P.M. We Will be t~flue~eed by the letters we have received, which I will read into the minutes tonight, as well as by previous testimony and l~ve st Igat i om. GEORGE'C. ~TANEEVICR, ESQ. (representing Dr. Thomas Wi~sohi): believe .that I could.prove that certain things cen~alaed l~ a lette~ I received are e~eaeous. The~e was so~thi~ b~ght up to the effec~ ~ ee~ai~ ~uild~ng line ~es~io~'t.ons prevents ~. ~i~ B. Paus~ asser~e~ ~his. Tae 0hairman read letter dated 0etcher 20, 1972 addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals and signe~ by Ei~ar B. Paust, as folle~m: At the hearing ea the reference appeal (Appeal of ~. Alvi~ ~mith, New ~uff~lk Avenue, Nattitmek, New T~rk) Thars~ay eye,lng, October 12, 1972, I was advised by the Ohai~mam and by N~. Cro~, Southold Town Boa~d of Appeals -2- Novembe~ 2, 1972 the attorney representing PM. Smith, as follows: 1) That the g~anti~ of this &pplication would not directly or indirectly result in a division of the 40,000 sq. ft. lot in question into two lots which could Be sold off as separate lots. 2) That the so-called "accessory building" or "guest housee would not be a second dwelling since it oould no~ and would not contain a kitchen with the usual cooking facilities such as a Sto~e~ etc. On these statements, I then advised the Boa~d that I had ao objection to the 10 foot side yard next to u~r property or to the location of the garageas shown on 2he Plot Diagram in the Build- ing Permit application dated ~eptembor 22, 1972. If any part of the statement in Item I o~ II above is incorrect then I register n~ objection to ~he entire application. T_here was a suggestion, I believe by tho attorney for PM. Wttschi, that the main house be moved further easttowa~ds Hall~s Creek and a ~0 foot set~ack from the ~oad ~equi~ed. I pointed out that this was not possible. A Building line deed rest~lctio~ running north and south, affectingpM..~mlth's lot as well as m~ own, prohibits the e~eotion or maintenance of any building ~etween that llne and Hallts Creek. I have ~nderstood from~ conversations withpM. ~mith that his p~oposed house will be within a foot or two of that restrictive line, But not over it. I, of course, would object to a~y violation of this ~estricted deed covenant, whish runs with the land, and would~e entitled to a permanent injunction against such violation. Oneftnal matter~ PM. ~mtthts appeal papers state under Item of "reasons fo~ Appeal" that his is the "'on~ lot on the this area to be b~ilt on". This is not quite accurate. I own a la,ge lot ~mmediatel~ north which is'also on the e~eek and, if the present applleatton is g, ean%ed, I would want the same consideration shown me on an application fo~ variance as is given to pM. I appreciate the opportunity to make these written reu~_.rks for the record singe, as I advised the Boa~d, I.WiI1 be unable to attend the adjoined meeting on November 2, 1972. (Signed) Etna~ B. Paust Copies to l~. ~a~tln~2ter, PM. George O. Stankevich, PM. Richard Cron. THE CHA~: PM. Paust has made no ob Jostles to a 10 foot side yard or.to the location of the garage. It seems to me tha~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- November 2, 1972 we should preserve a 15 foot sideyard. There is another point that was not made too clearly a~d that is that the established front yard setback (in line setback) has already been established by the'30.2 foot setback of the Paust house. As I understand lie. Uhlts application, in behalf of Ne. Smith, he proposed that the outbuildings be set back 31 feet, and the main house be 40 feet from the property line; either of which dimensions is in excess of the established setback. ~y feeling is that it would be much more desirable to place the outbuildings or accessory buildings out of the front yard and into the side yard. I feel that the main house should be 40 feet from the property line, which is in~ excess of the established line, and that the side yard should be maintained at 15 feet, even though M~. Paust is willing to have it reduced to 10 feet. Mr. Paust is ih the wrong court as far as deed restrictions are concerned but in ar~ case the deed restrictions that have been placed on this property seem to be in the interest of the Town. By prior deed restrictionMr. ~mithhas agreed not to build more than 130 feet from the westerl~ property line. I have also received a letter ~omMr. H. Alvin Smith dated October 19, 1972, as fellows: I understand that there has been some confusion regarding the request made in m~ behalf by Mr. Walter Uhl fora side yard v~riance. Perhaps the following will help clarify m~ position: 1. Original discussions regarding my property with the Planning Board elicited the suggestion, "ours was a natural for clustering" and if I would consider a "negative easement"' on the beach front areas they would suggest a zoning board variance. This was agreeable to me. 2. We completed contracts for the sale of the westerly half of o~r land to Dr. Thomas Witschi who A. Did not want the guest house but provided us twelve months for its move across the private road, and B. Requested a building restriction on the land so that o~r building would be in the north half of the 40,000 square foot area and tb~s not obstruct their view. This approach paralleling the "negative easement" idea was likewise agreeable and has been done b~ deed restriction. 3. Meantime we learned of the difficulties of obtaining a "clustering variance" - the alternative being to connect all three buildings and increase the guest house to 850 square feet. So~thold Town Boa~d of Appeals -4- November 2, 1972 Simce this was not economieall~ practical £er a facility used only occasionally (seven wee~ ~ t~ ~st two ye~s) we ~sse~ th~s ~pp~oaeh ~o~ the cosve~t$onel a~d aceeptab~ ~o~-cook~ ~est facility. 4- 1/~. Uhl has a plo~ plan showing the proposals: A. Foil.wing Re. Terry's information "in line setback" from the p~tvate ~d; ~. Paust~s house is 30', will ~e 31' to 40'. A me~h side setback of 15~ is mecessa~ which is a~eeable. B. ~ ~a~l~g with ~. Paust this is a~eeable with him. As a ~tte~ of fact, 10' ~ his lime is a~o agreeable a~d he is ~itl~ yov - subject of c~se te ~et ~eaeh- ~ lo~ esta~lishe~ (Bef~e zoni~) east set~aek 130~ ~om p~tvate 0. D~. Witsc~i is ee~ce~ wit~ appe~a~ce am~ ~eslres locating all buil~imgs as f~ east as possible. a~ t~ ~i~ of ~ sa~ to ht~ he did ~ ~ pla~s, ~ew t~ guest ~se ~as involved of e~se, amd hi~ ~esi~d eluste~i~ as fa~ ~orth (am~ east) as possible. D. Ft~, t~ stye has a~a~ ~en ~emeved f~om the cottage. E. Needless te say, we'd 1~ to ~il~ the ~lm ~se fact~ "t~ view" ~d ~ve the ~est cottage-g~a~ i~ Back a~d mot easte~ f~ em~gh to Be close t~ the c~eek, ob- struct t~ Paust view, o~ ~ ta~aimg into t~ g~age too aw~ard. I am se~dtng a eo~y of this to ~. Cron, m~ attorney, and to 9. Uhl so t~y will be f~li~ wl~h these detai~. ~ t~re Is a~tht~ e~e I earn de to ~lp resel~ this ~tter, please let ~ ~. (Si~d) H. Alvin Smi~h I regret ~ot being able to handle this tn person, but Dr. Witschi was anxious for eceupamey for school reasons and se we had a much earlier departure from Nattituck than we ~ould have desired. T~E CNAIRNAN: He orlgimally had a plan to divide the Witschi lot f~to several lets. That buyer fell t.h~ough amd D~. Witschi has not aske~ for a division of the property. He had something in his mind about "clustering", im connection with putting several residemces em his property. We disabused him cf this idea. It was w~ thought that there be mo further improvement of the property remaining to N~. Smith--~:':.~t~ev amd a half acres of beach front south of the southerl~ lime. One of our feelings was that if he were~/comtimme the use of the guest house it should be 850 sq. ft. in ~rea. He says in his Semthold Tow~ Board of Appeals -5- November 2, 1972 letter "simce this was not economically practical for a facili~' used only occasionally (sevemweeks in the last two years~ we passed this approach for the conventional and acceptable non- cocking g mos% facility". Ny suggestie~ is that we grant access to this property. "Access" is sti~ulated im the legal motiee amd also im the Building Inspector's Demi~.t ofapplieatio~ but it is mot tn l/~. UhlWs application. I believe that it is covered as fa~ as a~y legal aspect is concerned but I thi~k it should be inserted im the applicatiom. RICEARD J. CRON, ES2.: I only saw this applicatiom after it had been filed. ~ 0~AtRNAN: We will amend the application to include 280A, ~STICE ~IN ~TER: A~e yo~ g~anti~g this with mo p~ovision TEE CNAIRNAN: This is access for H. Alvim 5mith*s property. ER, ~I~TER: It's a 20 foot right of way. What do you do about fire t~cks~ There is no provtsio~ fe~ a tv~m a~cm~d. Tw~ CEAIRNAN: We never have provided fe~ a tufa a~ound. You Just drive i~and turn aee~md. ER. ~ER: I have moticed that yom h~_ve asked the question as to whether fi~e trmcks cam get im or out at ether hea~tngs. CRON: Theoretically, the State law reads 1% feet. ER. ~TER: I am also learning.., you say that Paust's dwelling establishes the setback. It's a single dwelling. THE ONAIRNAN: Ail I am saying is ~hat we have a precedemt for, in this area. N~. Terry probably told. you that it takes two buildings to give you am average. ER. ~RON: I doubt if there is anything im the Ordinance that says "two Oz' more",, The Chairman read Section 303 of the Ordimamce - Established Front Yard ~etbaek: "Where property im the vicimity is improved with permanemt dwellings with a front yard a~ea of mo~e or less tham that required by the p~ovisioms of this Ordinance, the front yard setback shall be the aYerage setback of the existing dwellings withim 300 feet of the proposed ~welling, on the same side o~ the street, withim the same block, a~d the same use district". THE CHAIRMAN: i would interpret "precedent" to mean the first house there. I thtmk the 0rdimamce should be changed; suppose you have a subdivision with 400 foot deep lots. ~outhold Tow~ Board o£ Appeals November 2, 1972 t~R. S~ER: Ou~ o~dimance e~phasizes 50 feet. ~ 0~~ The f~ O~i~ce set 35 feet. ~mever a peasen wa~ts to d~ d~m to 35 fee~ they co~ im here fo~ a v~ian~e. With ~wo a~Joinl~ h~ses - one se~ back ~ fee~ amot~ set ~aek 52 feet, t~ average setback is ~7 feet. ~e~ti~s t~e is a ~e~dshtp ~f the ~e~ y~d slopes s~p~. To get ~ack to this a~lieatte~, im ~eadi~ ~e~ t~ mi~es, i~ ~ epimie~, ~ signatu~ e~ the application is t~ The 0~i~nee s~s "~yo~ ~ith a substantial im2e~es2 prope~2y". This applicati~ is fu~ ~ei~ced ~y letter amd ~. O~o~s p~esemce at t~ ~a~i~. '~. ~UTER: I will mot accept an applicatiom that is mot sig~ed by E. Alvin S~ith. H~wever, if 1~. Cron is representing him, that is sleight with me. THE CHAiRmAN: The Board is mot bound By deed restrictions. The sideya~d should be 15 feet - mot 10 feet. ~e elose~ t~ 4~ feet to the p~ope~y lime. I tht~k he will teem emcugh to a~e~e to the 130 foot set~ack. I~ is amique as t~ applicant ~s addi~Io~l beach p~ty adjacent to ~0,000 sq. ft. 1~. ~ this v~tanee is gra~ed, I belie~ the~e should ~e ~e ~e~ i~o~m~ ef ~ha~ ~eaeh ~ea to the sou~h ef ~he ~0,000 sq. f~. le~, a~J~em~ t~ ~all~s Greek em Pecomic B~; amd I belie~ ~ha~ ~he~e shou~ ~ me f~ dXvisie~ the ~in p~pe~ty wi~h~t app~oval ef the B~d of Appeals. I~R. SUTER: I thi~ that condition is superficial becaase it is Ro~ buildable. YOU have aB Ordinance which says yo~ ~uild within a hu~red feet of the water. THE Ot~A~RNAM: I think I weald like to P~t it im anyway. I think he intends to seek a megatlve easement. This would help the Planning Board who have saggested that something like this be dome. I~R, 3UTER: I have ~ade so~e metes on the hea~lmg of October which I weald like te ~ve entered into the record: Gentle,em: ~y marne is I~a~im Surer. I ~esi~e at New Suffolk Ave~e, ~t~i~ck, im the a~a of p~e~ty before y~ upoa ~ich ~ ap~al is bei~ ~de by H. Alvin ~th fo~ ~iamees as advertised, lma ~gal motlee publtshe~ i~ ~he Th~sd~, 0etobe~ 5, 1972 editl~ ~ ~ Le~ Isled Travele~-~t~i~ck Wa~c~. A~ ~ ~img I o~Jec~e~ ~o~y~ur eve~-~uli~ ef ~ To~ Buildi~ ~speetor In ~eg~d to ~he ~la~ces ~eques~e~ By ~he app~cam~ From the mimutes of the ~eetl~g¥ou held c~ this ~atter om October 12, 1972, I fimd certaim items were mot included amd since you adjourned this matter to November 2, 197~, I would appreciate entering i~to the record ef this applicati~ so~e things I feel should be moted for your ~o~side~atiom a~d determination. Southeld TeWmBoard of Appeals -7- November 2, 1972 Under your Beard of Appeals ~eEulations the Board is ~equi~ed to decide that the mse will ~et p~evem~ the e~der~ a~d ~ease~able use of adJaeen~ ~epe~ty. Please ~ote ~t all ef 2~ ~m~ o~ers in t~ ~a ~fee~e~ a~e oBJectt~ to ~he ~an~tng of a v~iance am~ they a~ Pla~t~g Boa~d. U~der A~tiele VLYI, B-l,"the B~ shall detex~mlne t~at t~ c~aete~ ~f ~ existi~ a~d_p~obab~ develop~n~ of use~ In ~ district a~ t~ peeuli~ suitability o~ such dis~ric~ f~ t~ location of a~ ~ such ~isslve uses"as ~e bef~e yc~r B~;~.. Again, a~ othe~ p~ope~ty ~s im t~ a~ea ~e om ~ec~d as e~Jec~l~ s~ee this ts ~he first v~iance ~q~este~ ~ t~ ~amti~ wi~ have su~stamt~l affect o~ future development. ~eat c~e sh~ld ~ given to the patter~ tha~ will Be e~c~d for 2he future use of t~ adJoimi~g ~e~y. Under A~tiele VIII, B-4, "the BOa~d shall consider t~e avail- ability ef adequate ~ewage disposal f~ t~ site u~de~ eomsideratie~." This is, ad~tted~, fi~ed ia 1~ land, bel~ flo~ plain levels established by t~ Federal Go~mt foe i~amce p~poses within the past mo~th i~ the Tow~ of S~thold; it is ~i~ 190 feet of ~ll~s C~eek ~d, at best, will ~ d~ficulty disposimg of a ~ni~m of se~e. Under _a_wticle VIII, B-9, "the Beard shall consider hazard due to floodi~g"; ~he applicant has further exposed this area te flooding by bull-dozimg the dunes s~u~h ef %he property facimg Peeenie Bay. U~er A~tiele VIII, B-10, "the Board shall consider the over- crowding ef the lard muter eensideratio~"; am~ the best test is te view ~me site and te cheek the Tewm Planni~gBea~d Minutes amd letter to un~ersta~ wh~ they felt this site was , as the applicant also stated tn his appeal, "the rea~ yard waterfront is not a buildable a~ea". Te provide amy kind of additional living quax~ers ~st ove~'this lot fo~ t~e is bo~ a wate~ p~lem' amd, of e~se, a se~ ~isposal p~e~lem im a~ ease. U~der A~tiele VIII, B-II, "th· Boa~d m~st decide if the plot a~ea is sufficient for double use"; and an application accesso~ ~ui~i~ uae~ fo~ lfvi~ qu~e~s as befe~e this Bc~d is a ~e~est to ~em t~ ~ea f~ simi~ ap~licatie~s based ~ch ~tte~ wate~ a~d sewage disposals amd w~ld, of the Planmi~ Bo~, T~ Bo~d a~ B~d of Healt~ ll~t t~ use ef ~w developers te sidle ~0,000 squ~e feet use. I petition the Beard of Appeals to demy the variances requested since the applicant ewmed all of t~ property surrounding his present pamcel and set his owmboundamies. He c~ claim ne h~dship o~ igne~amce of t~ ~ws and ~u~s of o~ To~ Ple~m~ Bo~d simce ~ appea~ed before ~m as y~ce~d shes. Application of ~ Town 0rdima~ce will met p~ce amy p~actical difficul~ies that the applicant dl~ no~ c~ea~e hi~e~. He ~rew his o~ b~mnda~ies, ~ed Southold Town Boo~d of Appeals -8- ~ovember 2, 1972 all of the su~ounding p~ope~ and, within the past six months, sold off sufficient p~ope~'ty to give himself a good bulldable so, the~e is no hsmdehip that is not self-c~eated; the~e is unique about this ponce1 that is not self-e~,eated; the shomacter of the a~ea will be affected as all adJoiD/n~ property owners do p~otest; and the spi~t~ of the Tow~ Pla~tmg Board will be violated as evidenced by their letter to the Board of Appeals da~ed 26, 1972. ER. CRON: Oo~fusion was caused by the legal notice stating "permission to divide p~operty". Tha~ was established to be in e:mror by 1~. Smith. How does Dr. Witschi feel about that? ~R. ~TANI;E~IOH: We object to the application as originally made a~ that you,-as O~hair~am, said you w~uld fave~ it. Ne. 1- I ~hlnk t~t w~t you ~e all~img he~e, w~n y~ say 40 feo~ setback, Is tn ~ealty a 30 foot setback. The O~dinanee calls for a 50 foot setback. We object to t~ point t~t ~. Paust's house sots a p~eedemt. I don't ~lie~ t~t's legal~ co~reet. We also object to the ap~al bet~ ~amted on the basis t~t it w~ld be i~ a co~i2~on ~Bat ~o building be do~ at the end of ~he 0,000 sq. ft. pa~eel. The~e e~ be mo ~uil~img s~th of the ~oat basin ~hieh is consi~e~a~ mo~th ef ~e~e the To~ h~es to ~t a ~gative caseinS. So, he is givi~ y~ morbid. THE G~AIRMAN: I would agree with Yzm. Surer that this condition is unnecc 8samy. · 1,E~. SUTER: I told him I would have him a~ested if he somtt~ued bull-dozing. It is mot buildable an~ not useable and he is net giving anything. ~R. ~TANEE~CH: You are allowing the setback line to be cut back by two-fif%~a. You a~e all=wim~ him to build within 30 feet of the edge of that read. T~ O~A~R~AN: This is a private right of way which ends at his p~opert~y. ~. STA~t~VIOH: The plans he shows show a d~tveway. It's mot his land in fee without emcu~rances. I think this is substamtlal depreciation. What does it ~o to the sharacter of the neighborhood? It will not improve it, certainly mot from D~. Witschi's point of view. A~e the~e alternatives to ~amting? He could easily abide by the Ordinamce. T~ CHAIRI~__N'. I think the practical difficulty is that this is fairly low land. There is a danger of flooding. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- November 2, 1972 I~R. STAN~ICH: I think you ~entioned the variance in grading is about a foot, and that could be filled. The most important point is the ~anner tn which the diffi~ulty a~ose. The difficulty arose because I think the applicaut has beau shaving corners. TItE CI~AiR~: I think the applicant thought that h~_ving ~ and a half acres left was enoughto ~ulld en and I believe the Planning Board agreod with that. 1~. STANZ~VICH: The fact is that letters have been w~itten to N~. Smith telling him that I, as Dr. Witschits attorney, told him to go to the Planni~gBea~d am~ ge~ this straightened out. THE CHA.IRI~N: The Town Attorney takes the position that this is an occasional sale of property. Ha made an occasional sale before zoning amd built after zoning, about six or seveh yea~s ago. I think the~ is a gray area as fa~ as subd~visions a~e concerned. I ran into a ~an who was ~01~ ~ had to ge~ a =imo~ ~divisi~ em two lots o~ ~ No~th Rea~. MR. STANEEVZON: D~. !~ttschl does Object to catting back on setback ~equl~emnts. I~e~e inconvenience is not a basis for the g~antlng of an a~ea va~ance. Re could set it back 50 feet from the edge of the road and keep everubody hapl~. He would Just have to tilt his house at a diffe~ent a~gle. TEE CNAIRNAN: 1~. Cron, do you have anything to a~d? ~R. CRON: I fall to see wharea~ a~JaCent prope~ties a~e affected by this.applieatlon. We a~e speaking of everything no, th'of the existing ~ight of way, ~unning from east to west, anything that ts done to ~ land ~img no~h of Dr. Witschi~s MR. SUTER: I am the other half eWmer of that p~ope~ty. MR. CRON: I would think if you wanted to sell lu occasional sales you.co~ld do it. I think you have to look at the intent. There is-no intent to subvert subduv~si~a lots of the Towm of Southold. He was left with all the remaining land. Y~ do have 1~. ~aust~s. residence to the no~th. You have an established set- back by v~t~e of N~. Paust~s house. I know some qmestioms have Been raised eo~cerning sewage disposal a~d watch. Water will not constitute any problem. We have a water easement over Dr. Witschi's laud. The Board of ~ealth has already approved the location of the bmlldfngs and the l~catton of ~eespools and septic tanks for this pa~ticular parcel. MR. BERGEN: Water and cesspools have nothing to do w~th us. Town Board of Appeals -10- 1972 ~. CRO~: We are not taA~tng about a piece of land that does not ~eet zoning requi~e~ents. The pa~eel we are dealing with ia, by itself, [~0,000 square feet. Whom you take the other land, we have a large acreage here. Basically, you h~ve a parcel which is far g~eater than ~0,000 square feet. Basically and feasibly and aesthetically, I can't see the great obJeetic~ of Dr. Wltschi in respect ~o the location with relatiom to the private ~ad. If h_e is comeorned about the view, I think if you ~ove anothe~ 9 o~ 10 feet to the east, the view will be the same. I can't see where a~y object'ions amc substantial in nature, i think the view is what activated Dr. Wit:chi. THE OHAIP~: You can't relate the view. It would be nine if everyone had a view. ~IR. GRIGO~I~: Where the~e had been omo house on the we have been guided by the dwelling that is already there. THE CHAIRI~AN: The Building InSpector has been requiring a variance where a hOUse is ~0 feet back and two other houses amc 60 or 70 feet back. ~R. HUL~E~ As far as setback goes I can't reme~er 2akimg an average amd I don~t see where he has a hardship. As fan as accessox,y buildings go, I am opposed to the guest house 100%. I am in fave~ of the garage but I think it coul~ be located better. THE CHAIRi~A~N: Do you think, Mr. ~ut®r, that none of the property is buildable? ~R. ~UTER: Why does he come in with a ~0,000 square foot applieat THE CHAIRNAN: I assume it is to establish the lot for tax l~lrposes, I don~t k~ow. If he has negative easement on the beach p~operty it is assume~ that he will ask for a reduction in taxes. I~R. CRON: W~ether we are formelly given negative easement or not we are bound no~ to construct im an a~ea south of the given line. ~R.'HU~: This ex~ra land could belong to "Joe Blow". Ail he has as far as we are comcermed is a ~0,000 square foot lot. We have to deter~ine whether he has a hardship on this lot. 'THE OHAIP~MAN: I view the hardship on the fact that it is low land. MR. CRON: I think as you go down towards the creek it gets lower. MR. ~TANEE~IC~H: It's all low. MR. 3UTER: He Just brought in forty loads of fill. He can use it where he wa~ts to. Is the h~rdship because he has to spend more So~thold Town Board of Appeals -11- November 2, 1972 money? T~E C~AIRNAN: Don't you think that's a ha~dshlp? Itts m~ view that this variamce should Be g~anted subject to the following c end it i ohs: That no Building shall Be sloser than 1% feet to the northerly side line of this property. That no Building shall be placed closer than ~0 feet to the property line which divides D~. Witschi's property and ~L~. ~mith's property. That approval of access on this property shall be g~anted under 2§OA of the Tow~ Law, subject to approval of the Bu'ilding Inspecto~. That the guest house is a permitted use, without cooking fac ilttie s. Apparently the nearest neighbor %o the north has no objection at all to a guest house, without cooking facilities, being om the ~IR. SUTER: He has objected to it, about five years ago. You people turned it dowm. THE 0HAIRMAE: A~e the above eemditlons acceptable to you, F~. Cron? I~R. CRON: I can't speak for l~. Smith as to whether moving the BaildiagBaek 9 feet is acceptable or not. I don't have any choice. After investigation aad tmspect~on the Board finds that .ssion to divide property, put two in front amd side yar~ areas, i~Su~fficient and approval of access on pr~oper~Y loeated~: Right of way, south side of New SuffoXk Avenue, Hattituck, New York. The Board finds the applicant was ~he owner, earlier this year, of apProximately 6 acres of waterfront property on Pecontc Ba~ and Hall's Creek, Ma2tituck. The applican~ sold the westerly improved 3.83 acre portion ~o Dr. Thomas Witschi, retaInimg ~he easterly 2 plus acrs portion and a small guest house to be moved from the westerly lot. Prior to the Witschi purchase, preliminary discussuons wi~h the Planning Board related to subdivision of the westerly acreage into three lots with the applicant re2ainfng the easterly acreage for his own use, and the Planning Board indicating concern for the preservation of the barrier beach area. Wi2h the westerly por2ion of the property sold as a single lot ~o Dr. Wi~schi, and restrictions on improvements to the easterly per, ion, 2he Planning Board has informally withdrawn its objections to the over-all division of the original acreage. Southold Town Board of Appeals November 2, 1972 Applicant proposes construction of a residence, accessory detached garage, and accessory relocated guest house without cooking facilities; all buildings to be grouped in the northerl~ portion of the designated 40,000 sq. ft. lot. Access is requested over a 20 foot right of way described in survey of Van Tuyl dated December 9, 1964. This uniquely situated lot includes most of the buildable portion of the a~plicant's property, is 215'± on the northerly boundary extending 34%'± between Hall~s Creek on the east and Witschi on the west, with a southerly width of 90'± bordered by applicant's beach property upon which building restrictions have been placed. The applicant's attorney states that Board of Health requirements as to water and sewage h~_ve been met. The applicant's ow~ deed restrictions limit the building area to the northerly half of the 40,000 sq. ft. lot and restrict im- provements east of a line 130 feet from the Witscht property. The Board is not guided by these restrictions; h~ever, they appea~ to be in the interest of the ToWn and confine the building a~ea to the highest portion of the applicant's property. Adjoining l~proved property of Paust to the north is set back from the property line a distance of 30t2". A barrier beach on Pe~onic Bay provides considerable flood protection to the entire area. The highest portion of the applicant's lot is the portion to be used for the applicant's building, with the accessory buildings in the side yard area to the north. A majority of the Board finds that the topographical situation described here justifies granting a variance permitting the location of accessory buildings in the side yard area, not less than 15 feet from the northerly line, aud not less than 40 feet from the westerly property line, with the same setback to apply to the main residence; permission to relocate an accessory guest house without cooking facilities; and access as requested. 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 immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the nelghborhoed, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by M~. Gillispie, seconded by M~. Bergen, it was RE~OLVEDH. Alvin Smith, New S~ffolk Avenue, Mattituck, New York, be GRANTED a variance permitting the location of the accessory buildings in the side yard area (not less tb~n 15 feet from the northerly line, and not less than ~0 feet from the westerly property line); with the same setback to apply to the main residence; permission is granted to relocate an accessor~ guest house without cooking facilities; and access as requested. L~cation of premises: south side of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, New York. Vote of the Board: ~ves:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grlgonis, Voting "No":- Mr. H~lse. Southold Tow~ Board of Appeals -13- November 2, 1972 PUB,'LIC HE~RING: Appeal No. 1681 - 8:00 P.N. (E.$.T.), upom applieatiom of Joamne Schlferholz, 2925 ~441e Road, Nattituek, New Ye~k, fo~ a v~ta~e im accordance with ~he Zo~t~ ~tiele III, Seetle~ 301 a~ ~e21o~ 302 fo~ pe~miasiom g~age amd reduce require~ si~e y~ amd ~tback. Location of p~ope~ty: ze~th sl~e of Mi~dle'Road, ~tt~tuek, b~nde~ ~o~th R. M~a~an; eas~ by ~. ~dere~; south By ~dle Road; west by R. ~mb~ust. Fee paid $1~.00. The Chairman opened the heari~gBy reading the application for a. variance, legal notice of heart~g, affi~avit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and motice to the applicamt. TX C~AIR~N: Is the~e a~one present who wishes to speak for this applicatiom? ~. A~DI~RS. F~HLIERHOL~Z tadteated they were presemt to speak for the application, T~E CHAIRI~AN: The property is trapezoidal ia shape amd the existing dwelling ls.~2 feet from ~iddle Road. The ~arrow potmt is 12 feet from the lime om the easterly side. It is 20 feet from the li~e on the westerly side. It is proposed to put this garage 31 feet from the fromt propex~cy line. ~R. ~C~L~RI~OLZ: It is a single ca~ garage, ~' x 2~'. T~ ~N: ~r i~ves~ga~ion shes ~ you ~ve pave~ f~o= ~!~le R~d ~o y~ po~eh a~d tha~ t~ pavi~ is ~wo wide. As I understand it you ~n~end ~o pave all the way to t~ ~oad again. ~. ~0t~Li~RHOI~: Yes, we 40. THE C~AIR~AN: One of our thoughts would be to eomnect ~hese two pa~ki~g lo~s so tha~ when you eo~ ~t y~ eau ~ack on to the oo~o~ete of you~ ot~ d~ve~ay so you ~o~ ~ ~aeking omto ~ road, which is h~gh~ undesirable. ~, 6CHL~HOLZ= You dean to connect the t~o driveways past the trees. We ~o have about a 1~ foot shoulder. THECHAIRNAN= IS there amyona present who wishes to speak ~ainst this applieatio~? (There was no ~espomse.) Southold T~Board of Appeals -1~- November 2, 1972 After investigation and inspee%lon the Board finds side yard and se~baek om p~erty located on the no~h side of M!~le Road, ~i~uek, Ne~ Ye~k. The fi~dimgs of t~ Board ~e ~Bst ~ 1~ ts t~apezoidal im shape and ~hat i~ Would be i~ossible ~o build a g~age wi2him the requt~ed st~e yard amd setback s~ic~toms. The Board finds that strict applioation of the 0~dtnance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the ~rdship created is unique and would not be'shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use distric%; and the va~lanse will not change the character of the neighboffhood, and will observe ~he. spirit of t~e 0~dinance. On ~lonby 1~. Bergen, seconded ~ ~. Grtgo~is, it was RESOLVED Joanne SChlierholz, 2925 Middle Roa~, Nattituck, New York, be GRANTED permission to build garage and reduce required side yard amd set~ack on property locate~ o~ the north side of ~Iddle Road, Nattituck, New York, as applied fo~, subject to the following eouditlon: the two paved driveways be connected in o~der to give a~lieant a turning surface. Vote ef the Boa~d: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Hulse. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1682 - 8:15 P. 1/. (E.~.T.), upon appllcatlem eft. lie, and_Hrs. J. F. Font, Deep Hole Drive, ~ttituck, New Ye~k, for a variamce i~ accordance with t~ Z~mi~g Ordinance, ~t1=~ 'III, ~ctten 300, ~bsee~lon C-3 an~ Seette~ 302, pe~ssiom ~e ~ accessory ~ulld~ng in front y~ ~ea. Loea~io~ of property: s~th side of ~ep Hole ~ive, ~t~l~uck, mo~'by ~ep Ho~ ~ive; east By M. O.~efe; south By Deep Hole 0~eek; ~s~ by~ K. ~thill. Fee paid $15.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice ~o the applicant. TBE CHAIRMAN: Is the~e a~yone present who wishes to speak for this application? ~. DOUGLA3BEEBE (Builder): I am here to represer~ F~. and ~tvs. Font. Somthold Town Board of Appeals -15- Novembe~ 2, 1972 T~E CHAIRNAN: Do you have a beach a~ea in front of house~ 1/R. BEEBE: Yes. We have difficulty with tides. We will raise the house 16". It was up about four feet and we still had trouble with high tides. The front was sleight but it co~s ~ound f~om the sides. TNE CHAIRNAN: The dredged area is about 5 feet higher. TNE ONAIRNAN'- Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this applioation? (There was no response. ) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant ~equests pe~mission to put aecessox~y building in front yard a~ea en property leoated en the south side of Deep Hole D~Ive, NattitUck, New York. ~ fimdtmgs of the Beard are that the legal '~1~ yard area is unuseable for purposes of a garage. The Board finds that s%rtct applleation of the 0~dinance would preduoe practical difficulties or a~eeess~ ha~dship; t~ ~sh~p e~ea~ed is unique amd wou~ ~ot be s~d by a~ p~ope~les alike in ~ i~dia~e vicinity of ~$ property a~ i~ t~ sa~ use district; a~ the va~ianoe will mot eha~e ~ ob~raete~ of the ~i~o~h~, a~d will observe the splri~ of t~ 0~dinanoe. 0n metionl~y Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RE~OLVEDMr. and Mrs. J. F.'Font, Deep Eole Drive, Nattituek, New YOrk, beGRANTEDpe~mission to put accessory buildimg in front y~d a~ea on p~pe~ lo~ated on the south side ef~ep Ho~ D~ive, ~ttituck, Now Yo~k, as applied fo~, smbJeet to t~ followi~ That this garage be located no closer than 70 feet to the front yard line, and mo closer tham 5 feet to the side llne. Vote of the Board: AFes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Nmlse. P~BLI0 NEARING: Appeal No. 1683 - 8:30 P.M. (E.~.T.), upon application of George A. Kophen, ~unset Lane, Seuthold, New Yo~k, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Southold To~a Board of Appeals -16- November 2, 1972 300, Subsection 0-3 and ~ection 302 for permission to garage and ~o~uce ~oqui~e~ side y~d and se2Back. ~ea~ion Die~son; east ~y J. ~vlts; s~ ~y P~ivate R~ad The Chairman opemed the hearimg by reading the apl~lication for a radiate, legal notice of hea~ing, affidavit 'attesti~g to its publleatiom ~ the official newspapers, a~ notice to the T~E CHAIRMAN: Is there a~yone present who wishes to speak for this applieatiem? ~R. GEORGE A. KOPI~I~': I am here te speak for ~ application. TH~ O~AIRNAN: lghat is the size of your lot? ~R. E~PI~N: 100~ x 150~. TI~ CEAIRNAN.'. The applicatiom says something abo~t an addition ~. XOPI~N: It ~ight be. T~ OBAIRNAi~: This application is ~rely to locate the accessory b~ildi~g in the side. yard area? ~R. KOP~EN: Yes. T~E OI~AIR~N: Is there a~ything you wish to add to what you have already stated? I~R. EOt~E~: ~o, I have nothimg ~o add. T~E ¢I~A~s Is the~e anyone present w~e wishes to speak against this applicatlo~? (There was mo ~espense.) ~. ROBERT BERGEN: I looked it over and I saw no hardship. saw ~o reaso~wh~ ~t ea~ be located l~ t~e.baek yard area. don~t see any reasom for it Being located im the side yard area. THE 0HAIRMA~: I have to agree with that. I have learned in 'talking te builders that so~e of these sheds that are put up are i~properly a~eho~ed. You h~ve a 1%0 feet lot amd a goo~ ~ear yard. the O~di~anee. The wind in ~ur a~ea is very, very strong. Southold Town Boa~d ef Appeals -17- Novew~oer 2, 1972 THE CttA~: It could Be anehore~. This is a hardship common to eve~ome. I would hate to agree with ~l~. Bergen. ~. KOPNEN: I would n~t put it in the back. I dom't eare h~w it is anchored de~. I k~ew the te~itory. THE C~A~RFA~N= This ~uildi~g will have to be reloeated in the rea~ yard area within a reasonable length of time. l~S. KOPI~N: What is the reason? THE O~A]2LMA~: The Zoning Ordimamse states that aceesso~y buildings be located im the rear yard a~ea, and you have no hardship. I~RS. KOPHEE: 1~hat weul~ happen if there was a severe wind and our ~uildt~g did damage to so~eo~e sleets property? BERGEN: ~f it's properly anehored, that won't happen. THE OHA~I~: This is not an u~usual hardship. You have to have a unique hardship. If aecesso~y bmildings were permitted, except im unasual eases, in the fromt or side yard areas, it would eausea cluttered up appearance to the neighborhood. I~RS. EOPHEN: I think it should be based on what people thi~k is ~est. Sometimes Ordinances are very ~ach in the wrong. That's the way X feel about it. I have seem many of these sheds that a~e s~at~ere~ all over the property. I will make a list of the~ a~d I expect something to ~e ~one. There are many mobiles that a~e s~pposed to ~e i~ the rear yard so I will make an inventory of T~E CNA~: :Any complaints you h_~_ve should ~e signed amd given 2o %he.Building Inspector. ~amy of these accessory buildings existed prior to z~mi~g. After i~vestigatt~m amd inspection the Boar~ fi~s that applicant ~equests permissiom to bml~ g~ and ~e~ueo reqmi~ed si~e y~d aa~ setback on p~erty locate~ em the ~or~h st~e ~f ~td~le Re~,' ~tituek, New Ye~k. The fi~dt~s of the Bo~d a~e t~ applicant ~s a~le ~oom ~n ~ rea~ ya~ ~o locate the aeeesso~ bul~i~, t~t ~omg wimd~im this a~ea a~e a co~e~ h~s~p, a~ ~t the aeeesso~y ~ildimg cam be p~ope~ anchored. The Boa~d finds that strict application of the Ordinance would, not p~_uee pra~tleal diffie~l~ios or unnecessary hardship; the hardship oreate~ is mot umique and would be sha~ed by all proper~les alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and im the same use district; amd the variance will c~_emge the character of the neighborhood, amd will not observe the spiri~ of t~ Ordinance. Southotd TOWn Boam, d of Appeals -18- November 2, 1972 Om motion By ~. Gilttspte, seconded By H~. Bergen, it was RESOLVED George A. Eophen, Sunset Lane, Southold, New York, be I~ENIED permission to Build garage and reduce required side yamd and setback on property located on the nox~h side of l~lddle Road, Mattituck, New York. The Boa~d also stipulates that the accessory Building ($arage) ~e relocated to the rear yard withim ninety days (90 days) from November 2, 1972. Vote of the Besmd: Ayes,-- Messrs: Gillispte, Bergen, Hu lse. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 168~ - 8:~5 P.M. (E.$.T.), upon application of Valentine Ruth, Rueh Lane, Southold, New Yo~k, for a variance in accordance with the Zonimg Ordinance, Amttcle III, Section 301, for permission to set off'lot with less than required area left over from filing a minor subdivision with two full size lots. Location of propex~y: west side of-Ruth Lane, Scuthold, Bounded north ~y other land of V. Ruoh; ~s% By I~ivate Road ch Lane); south By Valerie Rueh; west By Mill Creek. Fee paid The 0hairman opened ~he hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIRI~AN: This lot is left ever from two full sized lots which have bee~ created om the west side of Rueh La~e. These two lots face on the Main Road. They consist of 43,000 squame feet. The re~aining property OWned ~y Rueh comsts~s of a piece 80 or 90 feet wide on Ruch Lane. THE OHA~: Is there anyome present who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) T~ CNAIRMAN: Mr. Ruth is not trying to get an extra lot out of it. It ts agreeable-with him to ~es~l~t a~ i~e~nt on ~his V-s~pe~ t~2. He woul~ like to ~ep i% as a p~ of his own lot a~oss t~ p~iva~e ~ead. I~ ~gh~ Be t~ ~hat 1~ to ~he s~h o~ ~ 1~ to 2he ~o~th w~d~wa~t pa~ ~f this lot. ~ t~ case, t~ s~th lo2, ~ d~sm~ want ~e ~ild a house. ~ Believes ~ he 'ah~ld die his wife em~ sell tM p~ope~ mo~e easily if had access to Mill Creek f~ S~thold Town Boa~d of Appeals November 2, 1972 THE CHAIP~F~N: is there arlene present who wishes to speak against this applicatiom? (There was no response.) After investigation amd inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to set off lot with less than required a~ea left over from filing a minor subdivision with two full size lots em property located on the west side of Ruch Lame, ~euthold, New York. The findings of the Board are that the small piece left over from a minor subdivision dc~s not have frontage and area en~gh for a third let; that the appli- cant does mot wish to build a house; and that applicant is agreeable to restricting amy improvement on this lot. The Boa~d agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical-difficulties or unnecessary hardShip; the hardship created is unique and would net be sha~ed by all properties alike in %he immediate vicinity of this property and im the same use district; amd the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, amd will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. Om motion by Nr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RE~OLVED Valentine Ruch, Ruch Lane, ~outhold, New York, be GRANTED permission to set off lot with less than required area left over from filing a minor subdivision with two full size lets om property located on the west side of Ruth Lane, ~emthold, New Ye~k, as applied for, subject to the following cond itl on s: That the lot to be set off shall become part of house lot of almpltcant whose residence is across a private road to the east. That t~ to~ ~o ~e set off ~y ~tu=e ti~ fo~ the reason ~hat ever, f~ ~ be co,eyed in whole no~er~ amd seuthe~y lots on Ruch ~ne. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grtgomis, Hulse. Semtheld Tew~ Boax~ of Appeals -20- November 2, 1972 P~BLIG EEARING: Appeal No. 1685 - 9:00 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon application of William Wickham, Esq., e~ account of ~y Ze~eski, Ou~ehogue, New Yo~k, fe~ a v~lamce im acce~amee WiSh ~ctio~ 280A, ~bseetie~ 3 of the ~ta~e of New Yo~k To~ ~, for approval oE access to in~e~io~ le~. Location ef p~e~y: east si~e Little Neck Road, Omteho~e, b~mded north by o~ ~md of applicon; east ~ No~al~ ~b~ivistom$ ~h by ~fe~; west by K. Dmn~fer a~ H. An~ski. Fee paid $15.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting its publication in the offiei&l newspapers, and notice to the ~L~NAIRNAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? WILLIAN WICENAN, E~Q.: I Just want to repeat that the purchaser wants this for a building let although it is rather large. We a~e selling the property as a building lot and giving him the maximam access. THE OEAIEN~: Do you propose to establish an access for a subdiwision eventuall~ ? MR. WIOK~A~: There ia nothtmg in N~s. Zemeski's Imtent to TH~ ON~IRNAN: Would it be satisfactory to you that this plot may not be changed at am~ future date except by approval of the Bee~d of Appeals? MR. WIOKNAN: Yea. THE CHAIRNAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? ~R. EANE amd MRS. BERE~ stated that they are beth property owners in the No~wal~ ~bdivlsiom and aske~ to see the map of the property. The Ohairman read the w~ding used by the Tewm of Hunting~en on their subdivision maps to prevent alteration of lot limes with- out authorization, as follows: "Ne plot may be subdivided or changed in amy manner at any ~futu~e date unless by special action of the Planning Board of the T~a of Itumtington." MR. EANE: Will that property be able to be split up again? How about the othe~ side of the road? Is float one acre zoning? Somthold ToWn Boa,vd of Appeals -21- Nove~er 2, 1972 T~E CHAIRI/A1/: It would have to be one acre zonimg. This is a right of way subjec~ ~o the approval of the Building Inspector. HR. ~/ICEHM/: The owner owns it. We are giving this persom a right of way. THE OBAIRNAN: It will have to be approved up to 15 feet when he builds. Iris mot a public street. HRS. B~%R~: They told ~e the rest of the lamd was subdivided. T~E C~AIRNAN: Wh_~_t we a~e discussing is a four acre parcel. HR. EAUE: Thatts in the middle of it. Why couldntt they put the road down the other emd if they omly want it for that o~e piece? HR. I/ICE]IAI/: way right the~e. TEE C~IRNAN: ~hts applicat lent The Plamning Board told us to put the right of Does a~yone else wish to speak for or against (There was mo response.) After imvestigation smd inspection the Board fi~/s that applicant requests pe~aission for approval of access to in~erior lo$ om pro~rty located e~ the eas~ sl~e ef Little Neck Road, Outcho~e, New Y~k. The Boa~d ft~s ~hat the p~cel eo~tses to build his ~esidence o~ ~ p~o~ty a~d utilize all of i~ as p~ of his ~esidemce property. T~ Board agrees ~ith ~ ~easomimg ~f ~he applicam~. The Board finds that strict applicatiem of the 0rdtmance would produce p~acticaI difficulties or ummecessary ha~dship; the hardship created is unique amd would mot be shaved by all propex~ies alike in the i~aediate vicimity of this peope~ty and in the same use district; and ~he variance will mot change the character ef the neighborhood, amd will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. motion by Nr. Gilllspie, seconded by I/e. Bergen, i~ was RE3OLVED William Wtckham, Esq., on accoumt of Ma~y Zeneski, Outehogue, New Yo~k, ~ G~ ~missio~ fo~ a~oval of access to im~e~ie~ I~ located o~ t~ east side of Little Neck Road, 0utcho~e, as applied for, subject to the following That the right of way shall meet all requirements of the Building Imspe ¢~o~,~ Tha~m~pl~ mayAbe subdivided or changed in ar~v mamner a~ Southold Town Board ~of Appeals -22- November 2, 1972 any future date unless by special action of the Board of Appeals of the ToWn of Z~uthold. Vote of the Boa~d: Ayes:- Nessrs: Gtllispie, Bergen, Grtgonis, Ha lse. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1686 - 9:15 P.M. (E.$.T.), upon application _of Allen W. Ovsianik, Little Neck Road, Cutchogue, New York and Reload W. Bellman, Beebo Drive, Outehog~e, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, A~tiele 'VII, Seetlon 700, SubseCtion B-4, for permission to operate a used ca~ lot. Location of property: scathe_asr eo~mer of Euge~s Road a~d Main Road, Cutehogue, New York, b~mded no~h by ~in Read (R~te 25); east by P. Abate~i; s~$h by N. Pi~; west by Eugeme's R~d. ~ee paid $15.00. The Chairman opened the hearimg by reading the application for a special exception, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, amd notice to the applicant. THE CHA~: ~ application is accoml~anted by a sketch indicating that the property is located at the souSheast coz, her of Eugene ts Road and Main Road. The property has 129.39 feet on Eugene's Road, 136.1J: feet on the Maim Road, 120 feet on the easterly ~imenstem, and 95.47 feet on the southerly dimension. It is 'presen$ly being operated as a service s~ation. The applicant proposes to sell used ~a~s. THE ONA~MAN: Is there anyor~ p~esent who wishes ~o speak fo~ this applioation? ER. ROLAND W. BOLLMAN: I w~ul~ like to put a restriction on the number of ears on th_~_t lot. the ~mber of ca~s. THE OK~IRI~A1/: Does anyone else wish to speak for this applicat ion? (There was no ~esponse.) THE OHAIR1A~N: Is there auyoms p~esent who wishes to speak against this application? I might state that as nesml~ as I figure the area Itts about 25,000 square feet. The Ordinance has a bulk ~equirement under B-1 Business of 30,000 s~ua~e feet so, in effect, this woul~ be an area variamce Im addition to y~r use pex~mitted only by special exception. Southeld Town Board of Appeals -23- November 2, 1972 ~ TUTHILL: I have here a copy of Article XIV, Section which states "no motor vehicle sales, used car lots, gas service or repair shops or similar businesses are to be located 300 feet of a church, hospital, public lihrarT, school, orphanage or home, or within 300 feet of a~y residence district". We are within 300 feet of that district and residenses on Eugene's Road amc within 300 feet. This is from page 8, SectiOn 2, Article VII. I also believe the Town Board has turned d~wm a similsm application. THE OHAIRI~: This Board has. We have also approved cme but that was ima business zoned amen. ~R. BO~: This is a gas station per se now. I~R. R. TONNEFER: I thi~k that corner is very dangerous, with the big floodlights. I~R. LELA.~DB. FRA~ER: It is a very busy corner. It always seems that three ears out of.five tarn down Eugene's Road, eve~yone from Indian Neck to Broadwaters 0eve, but if you are not extending it past the present lot it would not bother me. It's very small. THE CHAIR~AN: The Bulk requirement is 30,000 square feet so the lot area is under-sized to start with but the thought occurred to me that this is the onl~Board that can impose conditions. I am not arguing for this. I think the Board should decide agaimst it unless they feel this~easoning Justifies it: it occurs to me that over the years I h~ve noticed a bunch of wrecks in the back of 2hat p~ope~ty. It always seemed to me to be a permanent mess. I only saw one car back the~e today an~ that may have belonged to an employee. Ail gas stations seem %o accumulate wrecks. If ~his were granted the Board could ~equi~e a 6 foot stockade fekce which would fence off the entire resm of the property. Perhaps it would ~mke it better. I~R. ~0H~EOKPEPER: Regarding the point about wrecked cars that was brought UP; about two years ago there were quite a ~umber of wrecks there. It was nc~ taken care of the way we thought it should be, particularly introducing ~Jaose wrecked cars. THE CHAIRMAN: We ha~ a difficult situation on the North Road. We ~id not require a stockade fence, we Just required sc~eenimg. But he did put up a stockade fence am~ that improved it. ~S. TUT~T~.= Opposite that corner we have another gas station. They ~ve put..on a ~iee, mew front but the east side and the back side is a sorry sight. A short distance up Oox~s Lane we have all sor~s of road equipment and' fa~ equipment which is mot a pleasant sight. # Amticle VIII, b., Dismamtle~ automobiles, parts or supplies shall be located within a building." THE 0~N= I recall going into a gas station amd sugges~img that the fellow clean it up. I counted nime vehicles. Ho'said "I own them all and ~heF all ~un a~ the~ are o~ m~ property". Some of these things are difficult to cAear ub in a rew wor~s. So~theld Town Board of Appeals Movember 2, 1972 ~R. PRAS~R: Woul~ it be possible fo~ a~y of that proper~y Further down Cox, s Lane to be leased - that is zoned against bust~essT X think it would be extremely difficult. There would have to be a cha~ge of zone. I~. ALLEN~ OV~IANIX: ~hen I ca~e in the~e were a lot of w~ecks back there. I had them taken out. I intend to keep the place clean. I wo~ld not need as many as 20 'used ca~s. We are very lin~ited as to space. ALLEN OV~IANIX: We live im the saw a~ea ourselves. ~. FRASER: There is a danger that this could grow to something else. A variance could be requested for fu~her growth of that sort of business. T~ CEAIRI~AN: This is one of the types of Instances where if ,this were g~anted it would have to be reviewed by the County Plannimg Conm~ssion amd they are against strip com~ercial zon~g. T~is would, in effect, be ~he creatim~ ef ~wo co~e~elal Businesses om one u~er-size~ plot. I ~om'~ thimk we ca~ do it ~u~ I theft I ~1~ get the reac~io~ fo~ a stoc~de fence. I a~ral~ I ~ve to ~eeo~em~ agai~t these two Businesses om ome u~der-size~ business lo~ u~e~ ~he present zoni~ o~dinance which s~a~es "within 300 feet of a ~esiden~tal dts~ict~. ~ eonstitu~es unw~an~ed proltfe~a~ion~of s~ip zomimg. TRE CHAIR~AJ~: Does a~yone else wish to speak for or against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and fnspect$on the Beard fimds that applicant requests permission to operate a used car let locate~ on the southeast corner of Eugenets , Cutchogue, New York. The Board fimds that according to the ~dinance there is a bulk requirement under ~B-l" Business of 30,000 square fee~ amd the area of the property unde~ consideration is approxi- mately 25,000 square feet. Also, according to the O~d~nance there shall be no used car lots located within 300 feet of any residence district. The Board finds that this ~o~Id, in effect, be the' c~eatton of two businesses on one under sized plot (serviCe station and use~ car lot), and would constitute unwarranted Proliferation. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and Justice will not be served and the legally established or permitted use of neighbo~hood p~operty and adjoining use districts will be permanently or substantially injured amd the spirit of the Ordinance will not be obse~ed. On motiom b~ ~. Gillispie, seconded by M~. Bergen, it was ~outhold TOWn Board of Appeals -2%- RF=~OLVED Allen W. Ovstanik, Little Neck Road, 0utehogu$, New York, amd Roland W. BOll_-~_~m, Beene Drive, 0utchogue, New York, be DEN~ED permission to operate a used car lot on premises loeat®d on the southeast so~ner of EUge~e,s Road amd l~aim Road, Gu%ohogue, New York, for the reasons stated. Vote of ~e Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gilllspie, Bergen, Grigomis, H~lse. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1687 - 9:30 P. 1~. (E.S.T.), upon applioatiom of Felix Lasko~ski, Anne Laskowski, Framoes Bor~inko, 47-%2 189~h ~ee~, F~shimg, New Y~k, f~r a variance i~ accordance wi~h the Zomi~ ~ima~ee, Article III, ~ection 301, fo~ pe~aisslOn to divide pr~e~ty lm~o two lo~s with less t~m ~equired ~ea and f~oatage. ~cation of p~ope~y: west side of B~ ~e ROad, A~sho=e~que, New Yo~k, Lots ~10i, 102, 103, of Peeemim B~ Estates, ~s~momaque, New York. ~ee paid .00. The Ghair~an opemed the hearing by reading the application fo~ a variamce, legal motice of hearimg, affidavits attesting to its publication im the offlotal mewspapers, amd motioe to the applicazts. THE 0~: The appltoation is aceo~panied by a sketch of Van Tuyl dated September 7, 1972 imdicati~g that this property fronts on Bay She~e Road. It consists of 150 feet by 125 feet. It is proposed to divide i2 down the middle. This o~igina!ly was three lots referred to as L~ts #101, 102, 103. Is there amyono presemt who wishes to speak for this application? T~0~A~R. O0~TELLO, ESQ.: I ask that you give this applioatiem your earnest oomsideratlon for the reasoms stated. T~E CH~IRNAN: D~es amyone else wish to speak for this application? (There was mo response.) T~E Ol~AIR_MAN: Do you have this under contract? l~. OOSTELLO: No, there is no coat,act to sell or build. 1~ clients a~e in one fa~il~. ~ranoes B~A~imko would like to ~uild on SOutheld Tow~ Booed of Appeals -26- }Tovember 2, 1972 one side and the other brothers and sisters would like to build ~ the other lot. It has been held in single and separate ship for the last tea yea~s. The Deed is dated November 3, 1962. T~E CEAIR~AN: There were Deed restrietloms in the original Deed moms of which sonflict with the Ordinance. TBE Ct~AIRNAN: Is there anyone presemt who wishes to speak against this application? ~. JOSEPH G. RIEI~ER, Jr.: With m~ wife I own Lo~s ~96, 97, 98 an~ ~ of 99 so the P~ty in question Is sep~ated By ha~ ef 99 and all ef 100. I thi~, om t~ ~face, it deserves ~e ~e ~u~d ~o~. ~ this p~operty was ~rc~se~ f~ve and a ~ yea~s ago it was ~te~ ~ To~ ~dinance ~est~icting p~o~r~y to 100 feo~ frenT~e. This application fo~ a ~img s~ates "2o divi~e p~er~y". If this were ea~ble ~o ~ ~ilt om, w~ ~e he~img? T~ ~ari~ Is to divide p~oper~ se you wi~ ch~e the O~ima~. T~ Town in its wizdo~ saw ~t~ ~o enact ~ ~inanee ~d i~ we~t Imte a la~ge~ effo~ ~st Dece~er. The~e is a d~ala om ~ter plus the fac~ t~ sewage ~e ts a g~at ~eble~ It ~aims tm~o ~ water. The fewe~ h~ses t~t ~e built, ~ bette~. T~e is ~o h~dship. It was b~gh~ as a piece ef p~epe~ty. Omo house ca~ be built. I~ ts a rea~i~ sa~able piece of p~ty ~ which a ~at p~efi~ can ~ ~de. I Shi~ t~ Ordi~amees ef this T~ sh~u~ ~ loo~d on with ~a~OP. CAROL BOLG~R: I am on ~he easterl~ side of Bay Shore Read. · f the 0rdinamee was passed, why was it passed if not to be adhered to? There are people down the road who do hate additional property. ~ coal~ met they eeme and ask for a variance? T~E O~AXRFAN: There are p~eperties across the street too. There is ne way ~e ea~ ce~eet a~ of t~ s~ll lo~s ef ~ or ~ lets ~h~ ~e lef~ In betweem l~ge~ lots. This lot is u~e~sized um~e~ ~ p~e~t O~dimamce. ~t's a~ 15,750 squ~e fee~ ~u~ t~e ~ le~s t~dta~e~ a~Jacea~ ~e this ~h~ have 75' f~enta~. I am met ~i~ fo~ ~ivislon of this lot But I am Just s~img wha~ ~ courts ~ sai~ In the past. ~ conversa- tions with ~ To~ At~aey indicate t~t we ~ve to ~ ~ided by su~i~ ~ea, ~ise t~'s u~sual h~d~Tp. There ~e ma~ lots t~t eea~ m~ ~e used at a~. ~fle we don't like f~equem~ we have ~o d~vide p~ope~ty ~t Is umde~size~. We ~d omo t~t was 30' x 1~O'. We ha~ ~o g~an~ as mo~ ~o do so woa~ ~aki~ aw~ ~he ~l~ $o use prierS. I~R. PAUL &. IIEFFERNAN: He has no ha~dship. He has 150 feet. Ee is':a~ead of the game. I think he is in te make ~oney. ~ did ~u pass a zoning ~egulatiom? What happens when the guy down the street does it;? T~E C~: Y~u cantt correct mistakes of the past. Where the predomimamt 1~ size is umdersized it is a hardship to matmtai~ a la~ge~ lot size than is p~evale~t im the a~ea. Am area variance Southol~ To,tm Beard of Appeals -27- Nove~er 2, 1972 to %he co~s is far less impe~amt than a use variance. ALIGE OtBRIE~: Nest of the houses at that emd of the road a~e on a large piece of property. The smaller ones are at the other e~. They are like Coney Isla~ bumgalows. For the taxes you pay, it's a shame. I am talking about Bay Shoe Road. DOROTH~ DAIS: I have 100 feet directly opposite. I object as I don't, see where they have an~ h~dship whatsoever. T~ey a~e within thei~ rights for one house. A~other thing is sewage. was advised by m~ plumber that at any time someone builds across the street to make sure the cesspools a~e fa~ emough away. THE OHAIRNAN: That comes under the jurisdiction of the Board of Health. ~S. DAIS: They do have emoughp~eperty to comp!~ with the Ordinance. They have enough for one house. MRS. BOLGER: We mew have city water. It was installed this summer. I wouI~ like to make this statement: The people who live on either side of this property a~e not p~esent tonight. Both of them contemplate retirimg im the nea~ future. One is in the hospital, He,ever, he ~id approach the owners of the lot im question about buytn~ some additional footage. Both times they ~efused to sell. He wanted f~ feet amd the people on the ether side wanted 25 feet. ~en the water came down the ~oad they asked for a va~iance. They were awa~e when they purchased this property, I assume, that they had to h~ve 100 foot frontage a~d that they were buying a piece of property ~hat would not support two houses. If they bought in 1967 they knew they could not put two houses on it. TEE OHAI~d~AN: This is a famil~. MR. OOE~ELLO: It was sold by one of ~he daughters. They bought it in 1962. GIADYS OSJ~AK0: Nas a Semthold Town Zoning 0rdi~anoe ever bee~ b~t to a~ ceu~t?_ I ~am where Sou~hold T~ Zeroing O~di~mce. ~ C~~: ~'We ~ve won eve~ ease but one. Back in 1960 the~e~ were a~let of eld h~ses bei~ abamdene~. We reek it ~sel~s to ~t two f~i~ use insSea~ abandoned ~s. T~ Lo~ O~t up~ ~s. T~y c~ied it to A~a~ Oe~t of Appeals and t~Y ~se~ t~ l~e~ e~s sayi~ ~he Bea~d ~ Appea~ was assu~ a legfs- ~tive ~metto~,a ~metion which is ~ese~ve~ to the To~ Bo~d. ~hts is mot~ e~orcl~ ERS. ¢SJAKO: ~s arlene everappealed the ordina~ee when yo~ say they mast have a eertaim mumbe~ of feet. Has amyone ever said Ordinances is no geed. ~euthold Town Boa~d of Appeals -28- November 2, 1972 THE CHAIRMAN: Not im this Tows. There was a case in Southampton. This was a case where the Tow~ of Semthamptom suddemly increased the lot size from 20,000 sq. ft. to 40,000 sq. ft. The Board of Appeals attempted to mediate between the two. You are asking for references to cases which might guide us. I dom't have one in front of me. HRS. CSJAK0: t was Smst wondering if you tell this gentleman that "you can't d~vide", has anyone ever said that the 0rdimamce is mo.good and you dom!t really kmow if the courts will uphold it. T~E CHAIR~: Not in the Town of Southold. I don't consider it lucky because we want good public relations. These legal dis- putes are costly to the Tow~. There is a lawyer on both sides of these cases, MRS. CSZAKO: Do ye~ tend to give variances rather than have them go to court? MR. BERGEN: We don't decide that way. THE CHAIRMAN: M~. Tasker, the Town Attorney, deesm,t handle individual cases. We are guided by his interpretations. TEE CNAIRI~N: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for or against this application? MRS. RIEMER: I object for the reasoms previously stated. MR. RIEMER: There is no objection to building one house on the property with common ownership. Then it becomes one piece of property. THE CNAIRNAN: M~. Costello, do you wish to refute? MR. CO~TELLO: I would say that the reason they are asking to divide the property into two lots is because there are many lots in the immediate vicimity of lesser footage than the proposed divisiem. I think it would be prohibitive use not to grant. What use would-'they have for their property? At the time of purchase the Ordinance permitted a dwellimg on each lot. It is for those reasons that they submitted an application. MRZ. BOLGER: They still have their valuable piece of property. They can sell 25 feet on each side. Theycan put up a lovely home or sell the property. MR. RiEMER: I have in excess of 125 feet. MR. C. BOLGER: This is one road that is a dead end. A let of the houses that have less than 100 feet are set back om the property so it does net give a crowded appearance from the read. Ilm afraid it will look llke Rockaway. Southold To'~ Bo~'d of APl~als -.:~9= November 2, 1~72 I~RS. D~EE: Because they a~e a siste~ a~d a ~rother is irrelevaet to the a~plication. ~t doesn't matter ~ho ~ses the let s. MRS. O."BRIEN: Eamy of t~e lots that have been built on were establ~he~~ before they needed a variance. Will it not set a precedent if this is allowed to be split? There are others. THE 0NAIRNAN: Each vavia~ce is am individual operation. I, personally, feel that this should mot be g~anted. Each lot would be one quarter ~he present ~equired lot size. At the time the applleamt purchased this property he had enough for one building lot and a half. The 0rdi~amee then stated 12,500 sq. ft. It. is m~ belief ~.~h~t this property is too snail te be divided. After investigation amd inspection the Board finds that applicant reqaests permissuom to divide property into two lots with less than required a~ea amd frontage en premises lOcated om the west side of Bay Sho~e Road, ArShamomaque, New York. The findings of the Board are that the let is undersized under the p~esent O~dinamee and that to divide it would create two lots with a frontage of 75 feet each. The Board feels that to grant would set a p~ecedent that would be Injurious to the character of the neighborhood. The Board finds that strict application of the 0rdinanee would Ret produce practical difficulties er unnecessary h~a~dship; the hardship created is mot unique and would be shared l~y all propex~ies alike i~ the immediate vicinity of this property and iR the same use district; and the variance will cha~ge the character of the nei~orhoed, and will not observe the spirit of the O~dt~ance. On motion by F~. Grigonis, seconded by Me. Hulse, it was R~SOLVED Felix Laskewski, A~ne Laskowski, Frances Bavdinko, 47-52 189 Street, Flushing, New York, be DENIED pex~mission to divide ~rope~ty- into two lets with less than required area amd frontage eR the west side of Bay ~hore Road, A~shamomaque, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispte, Bergen, Grigonis, Nmlse. -~outhold Town Board of Appeals -30- Movember 2, 1972 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1688 - 9:40 P.M. (E.$.T.), upon applicatiom of ~ Giella, Hob~ Road, $~hold, New Ye~k, for a v~ianee In acco~d~e with t~ Zeni~ O~dimanee, A~ticle III, ~cti~n 300, ~sec~lon 0-3, am~ ~eetiem 302, fe~ ~missien to ~ild accesse~ bui~i~ in front y~ a~ea. L~atlen of ~e~ty: west side ef Heb~ ROad, ~eld, ~ew Ye~k, Lots 118 a~ ~9, ~p of F~nde~s Estates, Beut~eld, ~ew Ye~k. Fee paid $15.00. The Ohairmam opened the hea~imgby reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hea~i~g, affidavit attesttmg to its publicatiom im tbA offlcial~ewspapers, amd notice to the applicant. THE 0HA~: The l~voposal is to place the garage in the front yard a~ea with the garage doe~s faeimg on to the ewmer.s proper~y se that ca~s woul~ egress facimg toward ltoba~t Road. THE CHAIRNAN: Is the~e anyone present who wishes to speak fo~ this application? I~R. ART~R GIELLA: The application mentions another garage in the a~ea which is a neighboring garage. I don't think mine will conflict with the surreumding a~ea. THE 0NAIRNAN: It co~flicts with the requirements in the Ordi~$.nee that accessory buildings be in the rea~ya~d area. YOU have la,ge oak trees em this property. There is another accessory building om this property in the rear yard a~ea. I~R. 6IELLA: The Ordinance says the rea~ is the fror~. TBE ONA~: At what distance do you propose to set this off fro~ Hob~t Read? believe 15 feet is the minimum. Tig~ CNAIRNAN: 20 feet might be better. I~. GI~.TA: The one next doo~ is in a rough spot because he backs oat en to the road. Unfortunately, that road is becoming mezm amd mo~e damgerous every yea~. THE OHA, I~: Is there anyone p~esent who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.} After i~vestlgatiom and inspecti~ the Boa~d finds that applicant requests permission to ~uil~ accessory building in front yard area en the west side ef Hobart Read, Southold, ~ew York. The fi~di~gs of the Board are that applicamt has a tec~ical difficulty im the legal back yard as the property falls away towards the creek. Also, that the neighboring property to the south has a garage in the front yard area. ~omthold Town Boa~d of Appeals -31- November 2, 1972 The B~a~d finds that strict application of the Ordima~¢s w~uld 'p~uce pr~ieal diffical2ies ~ a~mecess~ ~rds~p; the ha~d~ip c~eated is unite amd w~ld ~ ~e sh~e~ by all p~e~les ali~ lm ~ i~dia~e vicinity ~f this p~ope~y amd in the sa~ use district; and t~ v~ianee will n~ cha~e the c~ac~er ef the ~l~be~he~, a~ wi~. observe t~ spt~t of t~ 0~in~ce. O~ mo~icm by N~. Grigonis, seceded by N~. Hulse, it was RESOLVED A~thur Giella, Hobart R~ad, Seuthold, New York, be GRANTED pez~aission to build aceessox-y building in front yard area, as applied for, on propex~y located on the west side of Hobart Road, S~thold, subject to the following conditions: That the garage shall be ~o sloser than 20 feet to Hobart Road and it shall face southeast. That ~he garage shall be at least 5 feet from a~y property line. Vote of the Boa~d: Ayes:-Messrs: Gtlltspie, Bergen, ~lse. PUBLIC ~ING: .Appeal No. 1689 - 9:50 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon application of Nattituck Shopping Center, Inc., 504 Wal$ Road, ~ntl~on $~atton, New York, fe~ a spec~l exception in acco~mce wt~h the Zoning O~i~ance, ~tlcle VI, Section 600, ~bseCtt~ O-3a ~d ~i~ XI, ~c~i~, ~ubsec~ion 2a, fo~ pe~missi~ ~o e~c~ ove~ size ~ound sign (~opptng center identification si~); loca~i~ of p~er2y: co~ne~ of ~aim Road and ~ae~o~ Avenue, ~i~uck, housed mo~h by Betha~ Ce~e~ Assoc.; eas~ by Bet~ Ce~tery Assoc.; south by Main R~d (R~e 25) ~d ~d P~ope~ty, I~c.; wes~ by ~ ~o~ty, Inc. and Fa~o~A~e. Fee pai~ $15.00. The Ohairmam opened the hearing by readi~ the application for a special exception, legal me, ice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, amd notice to the applicant. TEE CNAIRNAN: This proposal acco~dimg to the bluepriut suggests a double-faced sign, the lower edge will be 7~6" above ground level, amd the 'sign a~ea, itself, will be 15 feet in width including the structural supports. The A & P sign is 3' x 15~; W. T. G~ants is 3~ x 15'; Theatre is 3'X 15~; and ~he si~m at the bottom which is left bla~k is 6' x15'; a total ef 31~ sq. ft. TEE CIM,~d~J~: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for ~his application? SoutholdTownBoard of Appeals -32- November 2, 1972 MR. JOSEPH ZIPOLETTE: This weul~ be in on an island surrounded by parkimg ameas, 10 feet from t~ inte~io~ curb line, ~5 fee~ no~th of ~atn Read p~epe~y lt~e. T~ 0~~: ~ w~ld the total heigh~ ~. ZIP~: 30 feet finished. T~ C~~: ts it y~ understandi~ t~t this is t~ on~ ~nd sigm t~t ~ applicant ~equests? ~. ZIP0~TE: Yes, we are om~ conceded with f~ ~ C~~: ~t w~td ~ a~ea t~t is crossed ~ used for? ~. ZIPO~TE: We jus~ ~nt ~o list tbs na~s of the ~Jor tenam~s. T~ O~~: So, this w~ld be divided i~o ~. Z~O~: T~e would om~ be f~ ~Je~ tenants other ~m the ~ltuck Sho~tmg Oem~e~ sign. ~ ~~: ~a~ I/m inquiring ab~ is - you ha~ 90 feet here. MR. ZIPOLETTE: it would remain empty unless a major tenamt comes in. The other three signs would be divided equally to match the fourth sign. THE CHAIRNAN: What would you consider a major tenant to be? MR. ZIPOLETTE: 20,000 square feet or mere. W.-T. G~ant is 52,000 square feet; A & P is approximately 29,000 square feet; the theatre is approximately 20,000 square feet. THE OHAiEHAN: In that case, if you got a major tenant, it would equalize these signs. MR. ZIPOLETTE: They would be approximately 3 and 3/4 feet each with spacimg i~ betweem. THE CHAIRMAN: The N~ttituck Shopping sign is large. The maximum allowed is 81 squeme feet. If you were permitted to confine amd put all advertising on omo sign would you be amemable to elimin- ating all other signs? MR. ZIPOLETTE: We have no others except wall signs. We amc not pe~mitted ~eof signs with the exception of A & P which has a psmticulam type of roof. Grantts has a brisk fro~t with letters on the face of the buil~ing. Southold Town Beard ~f Appeals -33- NOvember 2, 1972 THE CNAIRNAN: Y~u a~e aware of our restrictions as to signs on the face of buildings an~ on the roof. There a~e limits as to the height of letters. This la, ge s'~gn would be the only sig~ for advertisimg? MR. ZIPOLETTE: Yes, unless you a~e speaking of parking lot signs. TEE CHAIRMAN: How ma~v stores will there be? MR. ZIPOLETTE: There are a~eas where the stores can be broken down to a point of m_~king smaller stores. We have three majors now and could have six small stores, 50' x 1~' deep. We coul~ divide them into two or m_~_ke them lOOt x 142 deep. THE OHAIRNAN: How long do these leases ran? I~R. ZIPOLET~: They vary. A & P, Grant's ar~ the Theatre are pretty close to 50 years - 20 years with an option for renewal. THE CHAIRNAN: A~e there any questions that the rest of the Board would like to ask? MR. BERGEN: Yom realize this sign is mmeh bigger than any we have ever granted. The only reason we would consider it ~s that the advertist~gwould be all on one sign. W. T. Grant requested a sign of 35~ x 50~. We rejected the sign altogether. MR. ZIPOLETTE: They like trememdously big signs. T~E CHAIR~N: I understand that the application would be limited to~'f~ur major signs combined underneath a sign which notifies people t~t this is the Mattituck ~hopping Center. I have a letter from N~. Charles R. Caddy, Marratooka Road, Nattttuck, New York,-dated Novembe~ 1, 1972, re. ~ig~ Va~iAmce Application Premises Bounded on the South by Main Road (Route an~ on the west by Faeto~,y Avenue, as follows: "I amwriting on behalf of m~ wife and m~self and several of our neighbors. We oppose the applicatiom for a variance as sought in connection with a sign to be erected at the shopPing center in Mattttuek. Because of other obligations I am not able to appear at the hearing scheduled for November 2, 1972; and I ask that this letter be made a Part of the record. We have admired the Town's regulatio~ for signs for advertising purposes and have noted that the~own h~_s virtually elminated billboards. It was, therefore, distressing to learn ~hat the operators of the shoppimg center, above refer~ed to, are seeking a variance to e~ect a sign different from those permitted throughout the Town of Southeldo We are particularly concerned that the operators of the shoppimg center are not permitted to erect a sign ~outhold To.ua Board off Appeals -34- November 2, 197a which will initiate a neonville similar in effect to many of the la~ge shopping centers in western Suffolk and Nassau County. We submit that a variance here may set a precedent for other applications, and the provi~ions of the ordinance designed for safety, and to protect community appearance, as well as the general contentment and com~ort off the com~mnity would be thwarted. We, therefore, ask that the uniformity ~_tch the present ordinance dictates be maintained and that the Board not permit a sign differing in size, kind, or degree from that new requi~ed." TEE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? MR. K. W_~, Laurel: It looks like if they build it they would n~t have a parking a~ea. I think a sign that size sh~ld be denied. There is a shopping center down the road from me and the sign is on the store, itself, and it can be seen from the road. I think it would be an eyesore. THE CHAIRNAN: You understand that each one of these stores is permit~ed a standing sign of 81 square feet. In the past we have t~ied to confine signs on one larger sign rather than proliferate all fo~ or five signs at an intersection. JUSTICE NARTIN SUTER: The Town of Seuthold has spent thousands of dollars in taking t~ese sign cases to the Court of Appeals. They made us ~emove all billbo~ds. I thi~ pe~tti~ this sign to be so high wi~ one.rage ethos to attest to do t~ sa~. Cutcho~e ~s one ~ound sigm which is of legal size; Mattituck has ne signs. I see ~o ~easo~ te change c~ ~o g~ant. It will affect enti~ c~ac~e~ ~f the ~ea. TEE CEAIRNAN: Are there a~y questions, or does a~yone else wish to speak? (There was ~or®sponsse.) THE CHAIR.MAN: In ~iew of the statements t~b~t were made here tonight · am convinced that my idea of confining a few signs to one slgm~instead of having a lot of signs is w~ong. Under zoning each establishmemt is permitted a wall sign and a roof sign and a standimg sig~, 6'6" x i2~ maximum. It was m~ thOught that somewhere in the Town we could comfine the signs by putting four signs on one large sign amd obtain an agreement from the owner not to require any; more ground signs. If this is refused he will be limited to wall signs and ground signs ar~l that is a legal, permitted use. The applleant would be limited to a legal size sign advertising onlY Mattituck ~hepping Center which weald be in the public interest. Of coarse, this opems the door for everybody to apply for their own individual sign in front of their store. Southold Tow~ Board of Appeals -35- November 2, 1972 MR. ZIPOLETTE: That's why we have tried to limit it to four major temants. It would ~am north amd south and would not be any wider than the pa~ki~g line sign between two cars. It would be illuminated until closing time. THE CHAIRMAN: I have to agree with-Mr. Surer. We ~h~d many meetimgs on how to get rid of signs. This c~uld be considered as opening the door to future large signs. After Investigatiom and imspection the Board fimds t~-t ~pplicant requests permissiom to erect oversize ground sign shopping cemter tdemtificattom sign) on premises located at the cormer of Main Road and Factory Avemue, Mattituck, New York. The Boa~d finds that as the maximum legal size ground sign is 6'6" x 19,, no higher than 15'6", amd 7'6" from the greamd, the sign as proposed in the application weald be exceptionally oversized and that granting this appeal could set a precedent fe~future applications for la~ge signs. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and Justice will mot be served and the legally' established or permitted use of neighborhood property and adJoing use districts will be permanently or substantially injured amd the spirit of the 0rdinanee will net be observed. O~ motion by Mr. Gillispte, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RE~OLVED Mattituok $hopping Center, Inc., 50~ Walt Whitmam Road, Huntington Station, New York, be DENIED pe~mlssion to erect oversize gre~z~ sign (shopping center identification sign) on premises located on the corner of ~in Read and Factory Avenue, Mattituek, New Ye~k, as applied for; lm~t is GRANTED permission to e~ect a legal size sign (shopping center identification sign), subject to the following conditions: That the maximmm size of the sign be 6'6" x 12'6"; no higher than 15'6": and at least 7~6" from the ground; at least ~5 feet ffrom Main Road property lime. That there be mo flashing lights. That this sign shall be governed by all rules and.regulations governing stgme in the ToWm of Se~thold. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Glllispie, Bergen, Grigo~ts, Hulse. Board of Appeals -36- November 2, 1972 PUBLIC _W~ARII~G: Appeal No. 1690 - 10:00 P.N. (E.S.T.), upon application ef Earl T. Wilson, 160 Ceda~ Birch Road, Orient, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, A~ticle III, Section 300, Subsection 0-3 and Section 302 for permission to build a garage in front ys~d area. Location of proper~y: south side of Main Road (Route 25), 0~ient, bounded north by Main Road (Route 25); east by Private Read (Ceda~ Birch Road); south by W. Taylor; west by N. Chapman. Fee paid $15.00. The Chai~ma~ opened the hea~ing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. THE OEAIRNAN: The application .is accompanied by a survey indicatimg that applicant is the o~mar ef property on a private read running south ef Main Read amd also fronting ~ Main Road. The depth of this property is 200 feet, it has 150 feet on the southerly lime and two courses on the private road ef _1)!2 feet and 82 feet. It appea~s te be close to 20,000 sq. ft. in area. The proposal is to place the garage 46' from the Main Road in the front yard area. The house is about 30 feet from the seutherl~ line. THE CHAIRNAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MR. EARL T. WILSON: I would like to point out a couple of features on the map. (F~. Wilson and the Board discussed location of house, cesspools, etc. ) I de not want to crowd the fellow on the other side. He has a garage attached to his house and has built a garage in the back as well. T_~W~ ONAIRNAN: The cesspools are in you~ rear yard area preventing the locatiom of this garage in your normal rear yard. MR. WIL~ON: I am trying to face it so it will face south instead of the easterl~ direction se when I back out of the garage I will have a small turning area. Garage doors which face the street a~e n~t aesthetic. T~E CHAIP~MAN: Yen halve two front yards. MR. ~ON: I am 46 feet back. TEE ONAIRNAN: N~. Bergen suggests that you come back another 20 feet towards the house. You would still have room to get out. I think that would help us a little bit as we have a lot of problems with outbuildings in front yard areas. I believe you could move back 20 feet. It's now 46 feet. You could move to 66 feet and maybe go f~ther west. MR. WII~0N: I would rather not go west, Part of m~ idea is to get that garage in front of that northwest wind. Southold ToWn Board of Appeals -37- November 2, 1972 ~ Ct~P, EAN: We suggest you move it south 20 feet. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a~yone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no~espomse.) After imvestigation and inspection the Beard finds that applicant re.quests permission to build a ga~age in front yard a~ea on premises located e~ the south side of Natn Road, Orient, New York. The findings of the Boa~d are that ~esspoots a~e in the rear yard area preventing the location of the garage in the normal rear yard. The applicant proposes ~o place the garage461 from the Maim Road. The Board find~ that the applicant cam place the garage 20' closer ~o his house making the distamce 66! from the Nain Road. The Board agrees with this location. The Board finds that strict application o2 the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship'created is unique amd would net b~ sh~ed by all p~operties alike in t.he immediate vic~nlty of this property and in the same use distrzet; an~ the variance ~ill not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit ef the Ordinance. On motion by N~. Gillispie, seconded by M~. Grigonis, it was RESOLVEDEarl T. Wilson, 160 Cedar Birch Road, Orient, New York, be G~NTED permission to build a garage in front yard area om premises located on the south side of Main Road (Route 25), Orient, New York, subject to the following conditions: That this ga~age shall be placed no closer than 66 feet to Main Road om the ~o~th an~ no closer than42 feet to the Private Road om the east. Vote of the Boar~: Ayes:- Messrs: Gilllspie, Bergen, Grigenis, Eulse. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1691 - 10:15 ~.M. (E.S.T.), upon application of Jotma and Plo~nce Batter~feld, 51 Judson Place, Rockville Center, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning 0rdinanoe, Artiole III, Seotion 301, for permission to divide prop.erty with lessthan required width a~d a~ea. LoCation of property: south side Pecomi~ Bay Boulevard, ~L~u. rel, bounded north by Pecomtc Bay Bouleva.wd, east by P. Wa~-~;e~, south by Peconic Bay; west by Arch Davis. l~ee paid $15.00. Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- November 2, 1972 THE CNAIRNAN: The application is accompanied by a smrvey dated September 18, 1957 indicattmg that applieamt owms a piece of property em Peconic Bay Boulevard, %18t on omc side and 100.84' om Peoonic Bay Boulevard. THE CHAIRMAN: Is the_re amyome presemt who wishes to speak for this applicatiom? GAP~Y F. 0I.~N, EZQ.: I am here to represemt John a~d Floremce Battenfeld. (F~. Olsen pointed out on the smrvey the location of the beach amd bulkheading). These a~e two separate proposals, two altermatives to the same end. THE OHAIRNAN: What is the amomnt of the entire area? MR. OLDEN: 55,000 sclmare feet. THE CHAIRt~N: The proposal is to sell the northernmost piece and to provide assess along the easterly side to the waterfront parcel. Is this under comtract? MR. 0LSEN: Itts Just a proposal. I would like to point out that the property immediately to the east (N~. Warren) has f~ lots ef 15,000 sq. ft., and beyond to the east there are four lots also1 divided-by Domgherty om the north, south by'Ola~k; amd another smbdivisiom - north, Kendall; south, Stevens. To the west it leeks as if there is amother subdivisiom of four lots of a similar size. I thimk the~e has beem a precedent for doing this. I domtt thimk it would disrupt. As you cam see the lot is extremely long amd the northernmost portion is a valmable piece of Dreperty amd serves very little use to the Battemfelds because of its depth. The adJaeemt property to the east has been subdivided by Warren. (M~. Warren showed map to the Board imdieating hls~property- survey of Van Tuyl, 1970). MR. W~RREN: All the lots are the same. M~ lots are now 15,000 square feet. If you check this over closely you will see that this was split up at one time before. Ail the major pieces are alx~adY divided. I did dlvido mime and went before the Planning Board amd conformed to the zonimg. I am afraid of the type of house that might go up if this is approved amd I'm al=aid of what might happem if everyone of these narrow pa~eels do the same thing. I am comcerned about the type of house and the square footage. Each one of m~ houses has 1,500 square feet. You kmow what 850 sq. ft. looks like. TNE 0NAIRMAN: Does amyone else wish to speak for this application? MR. OLEEN: I would like ~o give you a general idea of what lots have been divided. ~~'s three lots to the west have been split in half. Mr. Battenfeld would have two lots which would be approxiw~tely a half acre apiece whereas M~. Wa~ren's are in the ~eighborhood of 15,000 square feet; and on the east four lots a~e the same az we have lm mind. Semthold TOW~ Board ef Appeals -39- November 2, 1972 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? MRS. DORIS CARPENTER: We owe property two properties to the west. This has no~ been divided. There is Battenfel~- them comes Davis, Carpemter, Orabtree to the west. Mr. Moore divided his. I~R. P. WARREN: Sizewtse, I am against this narrow lot. If the Board is thinking of it I feel they sh~ald look at the entl~e area.., what is divided, sizes, amd what's there; and also to realize that yea could put trailers on these narrow lots. There was one trailer that went in and then they added on an audition tO COI~i~ opm,, THE ONAIRMAN: There is no prohibitiom against mobile homes. We a~e in an awkward stage because the~e are many places in Tows where some of the lots in the area are 75 feet wide. We had a case tonight where the people wanted to divide one let into two 9,000 sqaare foot parcels. I am going to take this whole concept back to the Town'Attor~ey as to the legal procedures on farther division of lots. MR. WARREN: I kmow th~_t the people down here have owned these lots fo~ a long time but I do not want to do anything to hurt the area. I canlt understand why these people did not do this before. If I bought this today and it was 40,000 sqaare feet, as it is under the Ordinance today, I could have gottem four pieces out of it. THE ONAIRNAN: You are sayir~g that your density is 40,000 sqaare~ feet although three of the pieces are 15,000 sq. ft. and one is 30,000 sq, ft. WARREN: When we moved a garage, I weald net let them tree. MRS. CARPEN~gR: We are concerned about .an unsatisfactory type of house. It would be almost on top of us. The Davis proper~y is even ~ar~owe~. ~ h~se is nea~ ~he ~oa~. MR. OLEAN: I don~t have the authority to act for my client tonight. THE CNAIRNAN: This is a difficult area to decipher. It wealdlbe ~ suggestion that we need more legal advice. MR. CItrON: Mr. Warren is concerned that a trailer might go im there. Oomld I speak to m~ client to see that there be a prohibition in the Deed that mo trailer or mobile home be placed there? $outhold Town Boa~d of Appeals November 2, 1972 MR. WARREN: The whole area has to be taken into consideration. 1/R. OLDEN: Dr. and N~s. Battenfeld h~_ve a vested interest in keeping the value of their front piece and will do everything in their power to keep the back part as attractive as possible, as N~. Warren did. THE CHAIRMAN: Does a~yone else wish to speak for er against this application? (There was no response.) On motion by N~. Gillispie, seconded by Hr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that action of the Board of Appeals on application of John and Florence Batte~feld, 51 Judson Place, Rockville Center, New York, be postponed until the mext meeting of the Board of Appeals at 7:30 P.N. (E.S.T.), November 16, 1972; and that this hea~ing be adjoux,aed. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Nulse. PUBLIC HE~ING: Appeal No. 1692- 10:30 P.H. (E.B.T.), upon application ef Thomas Cagey, 646 Parkside Drive, JerichO, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zont~ Ordinance, Article III, ~ectton 301, for permission to construct dwelling on divided lot with insufficient area. Location of property: south side of Park Avenue, Mattituck, bounded north by Park Avenue; east by Private Road; south by P. Hanlon; west~ by O. H. Wickham Estate. Fee paid $15.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and not,ce to the applicant, TEE CNA_IRNAN: Is there anyone prose, hr who wishes to speak for this application? GARY F. 0~N, E~Q..: I am here to represent N~. Carey. TRE CNAtEMAN: The Van Tmyl survey shows 257.86 feet en Park Averse, 170.§8 feet to thc west, 255.97 feet on the southerly bOmndS~Y and 139.74 en the Private Road. The proposal is te take this lot whiCh adds up to 40,000 sq. ft. and create a lot of 26,685 sq. ft. leaving a lot of 13,069 sq. ft. where ~he cottage is located, on the private road. Access would be from Pa~k Avenue wb~re the new parcel to be created is located. The roadends JUst past the Carey house and t~en it becomes ~ddy. Apparently the~e is some drai~ge there. ~o t~ere is a hardship. The big question here Southold T~W~ Board of Appeals November 2, 1972 is the size of the adjoining properties. MR. OL~FN: The adjoining properties have mot been divided. MR. ROBERT BERGEN: Chase has a good size piece of property and Hanlon has about ah all an acre. MR. OLDEN: He purchased A and B in two sepsmats parcels. T_~ey were equally divi~ed so our division would create about a half acre piece which would be the same as the property to the south. The reason he wantsto move the lime over is that when the Town created the ~unway there was some run-off on the northwesterly corner. By moving the line over it WOUld still give 28 feet from the site of the cottage to the west boundary line. The survey shows the lots when originally purchased. He wamts to do this because of run-off created by asphalting the run~ay. It would give a good side yamd for the cottage. MR. H~ARD TERE~, Building Inspector: The orchamd further up the road has been broken up into one half acre lots. MR. 0LaE~N: Nm. HanlSn has ah all an acre. THE CHAIRNAN: This is unusual because of the manway. It seems to me tJaat this is in chsmaoter with the sumrounding neighborhood. The question we are involved with is when does 40,000 square feet ever THE CHAIRNAN: Is there at,yens present who wishes to speak against this.application? (There was no response.) After investigation~and inspection the Boa~ finds that applicant requests permission to const~wA~t dwelling om divided lot with insufficient area on p~emises located on the south side of Psmk Avenue, Nattituck, New Yo~k. The findings of the Beemd are thatapp!icamt has a hardship because of drainage due to run-off oreated by asphalting the runway; density will not be increase~ except by the additiom of one building; the a~ea across Park Avenue to the n~th is subdivided into eno half acre parcels; the property directly to the south (Hanlon) is approximate!F one half acre. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the O~dinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessar~ hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not besha~ed by all properties alike in t~e immediate vicinity ef this property and in the sam~ use distr~ct; and the variance will mot charge the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. Southold TOWn Boa~d ~of Appeals -42- November 2, 1972 Oh motiom ~oy F~. Bergen, seconded by F~. ~ulse, it was RES0LtrgD Thomas Oarey, 646 Parkside D~ive, Jericho, l/ow York, be C~RA~2ED pez~w~Issiom to comstrue~ dwelli~ on divided ~t with t~ufficie~ ~ea on pre~ses locate~ on t~ s~th side of Park Ave~e, ~%tituck, New Yo~k, as applied fo~. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigomis, ~ulse. For the record: Six (6) Sign Renewals were approved as submitted. On motion by Me. Gillispie, seconded by Me. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the minutes of the Se~thold Town Boa~d of Appeals dated 0ctobe~ 12, 1972, De approved as submitted, subject to correction .o~ page 2 (re. Appeal ~o. 1671, Andrew Dzemkowski), changing 25,000 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- ~essrs: ~illispie, Bergen, Grigomis, On~otton~¥ Me. Gilltspie, seconded by Me. Bergen, it was RE~0LVED that the next regular meeting of the ~outhold Town Board of Appealswillbe held at 7:30 P.H., Thursday, ~ovember 16, 1972, at the Town Office, Hain Road, ~outhold, New York. 0m motion by Me. Bergen, seconded by M~. Hulse, it was RESOLVED'that the Southold T~Boa~d of Appeals set 8:00 P.H. (E.S.T,), Thursday, ~ovem_ber 16, 1972, at the Town Office, Hai~ Road, Beathold, ~ew Yo~k, as the time and place of hearing upon application of ~eorge Ahlers, Builder, Inc., 250 Cox Lane, Outchogue, ~ew York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning 0~dinan~e, Article VI, ~ection 600 C, Subsection 3a Seuthold Town Boa~d of Appeals -43- November 2, 1972 for permission ~e erect an oversize sign. Location of property: east side of Cox Lane, Cutchogue, New York, bounded north by Cox Lane Associates; east by R. Halikias; south by Lewis, Thompson amd others; wes~ by Cox Lane. Vote of the Boa~d: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, H~lse. On motion by ~Iv. Gillispie, seconded by M~. Grigonis, it was RE~OLVED that the Southold Town Boa~d of Appeals set 8:20 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, November 16, 1972, at the Town Office, Maain Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hea~fng upon application of George Ahlers, Builder, Inc., a/c A. J. Armstrong, Mill Creek Drive, Seuthold, New York, for a variance in accord- ance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article Iii, Section 300 C-3, and ~ec~ion 3G2, for permission to put accessory building in front yard a~ea. Location of p~operty: south side of Mill C~eek Drive, Southeld, New York, b~unded north by Mill Creek D~ive; east by R. Nullen; south by Arshamomaque Creek; west by N. Strauss. Vote of the Boa~d: Ayes:- 1/essrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Hulse. On motion by 1/~, HUlse, seconded by ~. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the Eouthold Town Board of Appealm set 8:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, Nevembe~ 16, 1972, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New Yo~k, as the time and place of hearing upon application of 0~to and Bernice Nacomber, Pine Avenue, Southold, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, ~ection 301, for permission to divide property with less th~n required area and frontage. Location of property: east side Pine AvemUe, Southold, New York, Lots 11 through 15 inclusive, Map of Geese Bay Estates. Vote of the Board: ~es:- Nessrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grtgcnis, Hulse. Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- November 2, 1972 On motion by N~. Gillispie, secomded by F~. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the Seuthold Town Board of Appeals set 8:45 P.M. (E.S.T.), Ttmmrsday, November 16, 197._2, at t~ To~ Office, ~im R~d, Southold, New Yo~k, as the ti~ amd place of he~i~ upon application of Rensselaer G. Te~y, a/e P~i J. Burnside, 6 ~ve~e~ Place, G~den City, New Ye~k, for a variance in accordance with ~he Zomlng ~dlmanee, ~tfcle III, Section 300 0'3 a~ Sec~i~ 302, fe~ ~mission ~o put accesso~ building in f~ent y~ ~ea. Location ef probity: east side Nassa~ Peimt Road, Omtch~e, New York, Let ~70, Map ef Nassau Point P~epe~tfes. Vote of the BOard: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Hmlse. The Eeeting was adjourned at 12:15 P.E. Respectfully submitted, Ma~jor~e McDermott, Seoretar~ Southeld Town Board of Appeals