Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/12/1972 £App Southold Town Board o eals SOUTHOLD; L. I., N. Y. 119"?'1 Telephone 765-26~50 APPEAL BO.AED MEMBER Robert W. Gillispi~, Jr.~ Chairman Rob~t Bergen Charles Gri~onis~ Jr. SCrg~ Doyen, Jr. Fred Huls~, Jr. MINUTES SOUTHOLD TOW~N BOARD OF APPEALS October 12, 1972 A~ regular meeting of the ~.outhold Town Board of Appeals . w? Thursday~ October 12, 1972~ at the Town was held at 7.30 P.z~.~ ~ '~ Main Road, ~o~.thold~ New York. Offz~e, There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman; Fred Hulse, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr. Also present~ I~r. Howard Terry~ Building inspector. Absent: Messrs: Robert Bergen and Charles Grigonis, Jr. PUBLIC ~.~RZNG: Appeal No. 1671 - 7:30 P.M. (E.DoS.T.), upon application of Andrew Dzenkowski, Rocky Point Road, East Marion, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article Iii, ~ection 301, for permission to divide ~roperty with less than 40,000 ft. Location of property: Map Aqua View Park, East Marion, New York. Fee paid $1~.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 to the applicant. THE CHAIRI~N: The application was disapproved by' the Building Inspector for the reason that the lots do not have 40,000 sq. ft. in area. The application is accompanied by a survey indicating that the lots in question range from 32,319 sq. ft. to 36,9~0 sq. ft. Lots across the street From this property range in size from 41,7~8 Sqo ft. to ~O,~72sq. Ft., all larger than the mlni~nm required at the present time. T~ CH~QMALN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for t ~ hzs application? ~outhold TOwn Board of Appeals -2- October i2~ 1972 ~OSEPH J~ ~NELLE~URG, E~Qo: ! appear here iu the same capacity that I appeared before the Pia~ning ~oardo My only question has to do with a blanket waiver. Unfortunately~ ther~ coul~ not b~ a change of zone as ther~ ar~ no zones to change ~o. The lots cau~t be changed. The map was not Included in the exempt llst and was the only part of the map that did not meet the 40,000 square foot requirement as pro- posed in D~cem~er~ 1971. Th~se parcels were co~~ at the time~ ~ _~ ~./~ ~ TH~ C~N: Iu so far as ~Town was concerned, at that ti~e Sur ~e uf~ement was 2~000 sqma~e veer. The s~llest of th~se lots is 32~519 sq~ Ft~ The ~oard 0f Health and the Planning Board approved this sub~ivlsiou. Does anyone else wish to speak for th~ applicant who is asking for a blanket waiver ou th~se smaller lots in the subdivision? MR. ~CH~OE~D~R: I would like to speak for it. I had a similar application in here and it was %abiedo THE CH~.IRM~N: Does it concern this application? F~. SCHR,O~D~R: I think it does. MR~ HOWARD TER2~Y, Building Inspector~' You are appearing before the wrong Board. This is the Board of Appeals. Your application belongs at the Planning Board. They are waiting for a map from you. TEE C~IPa~N: Our Town Attorney is of the opinion that we can't give a blanket waiver. This opinion is reinforced by a decision made at Southampton~ the basis of wh~c__ is that the Board of gppeals can not assume the legislative fmnction o£ the Town Board which would, in effect, change the zone. This would limit the action of the Board of gppeals to one lot at a time. MR. ~L~URG: I would tend to agree with the Town ~ttorney except that the Town has no lower zone to change this to. THE Ci~IRM~N. It seems that this ~mtmat. iou is not comparable to the one in Southampton. The Board of gppeals, there, made a compromise of 2~,000 square feet which was ~n their ~'B*~ residential Z one. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -3- October 12, 1972 ~. ~I.~LLE5~BUP~G: They had a ~B~ and a ~'C~. ~HE C~i~N: There is another decision in ~v files that would indicate that you don~t have to come before the Board of Appeals if you. have had approval of the Town and the County. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to divide property with less than 40,000 sq. ft. Location of proparty: Lots l, 10, ll, 12, 13, 14 and l~, Map of Aqua View Park, East Marion, New York. Th~ Board finds that the s~ven lots of the fifteen lots on the filed map became substandard by' virtue of the December, 1971 amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The lots, in question, range from 32,~19 sq. ft. to 56,9~0 sq. ft~ in area. The map was approved by the Planning Board, the Department of Health, and the Department of Environmental Control, in ~uly, 1971. Health Depa~tment approval has been extended to September 197~. It was not included in the exempt map list. The Board finds that there could not be a change of zone as there are no lower zones to which it could be changed. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardshlp~ the hardship created is mnique 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 neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by M~ Gillispie, seconded by I~Ir~ Hulse, it was RESOLVED Andrew Dz~nkowski, Rocky Point Road, East Marion, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with less ~han 40,000 sq. ft. Location of property: Lots l, 10, ll, 12, 13, 14 and i~, Map of Aqua View Park, East M~ion, New To~k, as applied For. Vote of the Board: ~yes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse~ Doyen. PUBLIC HEAR_Th?G: Appeal Nco 1673 - 7:4% P.M. upon application of Edna Bennett, Rocky Point Road, East Marion, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article !ii, ~ection 301 and ~ection 280A of the Town Law for perr~ission to divide property' with less than 40,000 sq. ft~ lots and approval of access° Location of property: Right of way, west side of Rocky Point Road, East Marion, New York, bounded north by Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- October 12~ 1972 E. Ben~et~ east by right of way ~nd Raymond; south by 0sgood~ and west by F. _.osenoergo Fee pa~d 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 to the applicant. THE CP~IR,.~.~]. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? EDNA BEhq~ETT.~ Yes, I am the applicant. THE CHA_LRMAN: Are you the sole owner of this property? MISS BE~R~ETT: Yes, I a,m. I own 2, 3, 4, ~ and 6. Lots and 4 would be kept as one plot. THE CH~iR~I~: Did you sell Lot l? MI~ BEI~TT: No, I never owned Lot 1. That belonged to McCann. I bought my property in 1962 from ~y sister, P~s. Raymond. It was then in tl%ve~ parcels. I D~.ve the tax records. I requested that it be kept in t?~ee separate parcels but it was not. THE CHAIRF~%N: The access is over the right of way leading from Rocky Point Road? Rocky Point Road is not shown on this map. (Miss Bennett indicated the location of Rocky Point Road and the location of her sister's property). ~nen I purchased from her I purchased the _zght of way to my pr~oerty. ThE CHA~..~IRMA~N: This would be recognition of an existing situa- tion where you own a house on three lots. MISS BE~H~ETT: The whole p~oporty is about I and 3/,~ acres. My property would re~ain an acre and a half with shore front property. It's entirely woodland. It would not be chauged in any Cha~acte~ whatsoever. THE CHA~,IRFI~: Does anyone else wish to speak for this application? ~So GRA~CE RAYM01~,VD: I am for it. THE CH~IR~I~..N: The right of way' is not shown on the survey. MIng BE!~TT: The o~iginal map shows the might of way. I don~t know who owns it. I would assuage that I own half and that my sister owns the other half. ~.outhold Town Board of Appeals -5- October 12, 1972 ~LP~E~. ~MOND: I own it. ~fhen I sold the prope~.ty i gave my sister the right to use the right of way. THE. CH~IRM~T: _rs there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) THE CH~L~N: I think we can approve subject to approval of the right of way by the Building Inspector. That sim~ply in- volves clearing to 15 fe~t.~ I guess the rock is an inescapable fact. complained. THE It's been there since 1926 and uo one has Can a fire t~uck get in there? Yes, After investigation and inspection the Board Finds that applicant requests permission to divide property with less than 40,000 square Foot lots and approval of access on premises located on the west side of Rocky Point Road~ ~ast Marion, New York. The findings of the Board are that in approving the division of the Bennett property~ the Board is recognizing an existing situation. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board Finds that strict application ~ the Ordinance wo~ld produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the i~mediate vicinity of this property aud in the same use district~ and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the 0~dinanceo On motion by ~o ~m±.zsp~e, seconded by N~o Hu!se, it was RE~OLVED Edna Bennett, Rocky. Point Road~ East Marion, New York~ be GR~R~ED permission to divide property with less thau 40,000 s~j~are Foot lots and approval of access on property located: right of way, west side of Rocky Point Road, East Marion, New York, as applied for, subject to the Following conditions: Southold Town Board of &ppea!s -6- October 12, 1972 That there shall be no further subdivision of the Bennett property. That right of way' shall be subject to approval of the Building Inspector. Vote of the Board: ~yes:- Messrs: Gillispie~ Hulse, DoyeUo ~JBLiC P~RING: Appeal No. 1674 - 8:00 PoM. (E.DoS.T.), upon application of Joseph Quinlan, 109 Stevens Avenue, Hempstead, New York, for a variance in accordance with th~ Zoning Ordinance, Article iiI~ Section 301 f~ perr~ission to divide property with less than 40~000 square foot lots. Location of property: Lots 76 and 77, Matt~tuek Park Property~ Mattituck, New York. Fee paid $15.00. l~e 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 to the applicant. ~h~E CH&~M~N: is the~e anyone present who wishes to speak for this~~~~ion? ~R~ JOSEPH QU_~I~N: We would like permis~sion z_ om the Board to build a retirement home or, if we can't do that~ we ~loulm llke permission to sell the property. TA~E CP~ IRI~N: cut that in two. on 50 foot lots. ! see the area is i00: x !40~. You want to I see that most of the surrounding property is MR. QUl~JIAN~ The lot next door to us is 50 feet wide and there are two right across the street. THE C~LR~N. Is there anyone presenv who wishes to speak against this application. (There was no responses) After investigation and inspection the Board z~nds that applicant requests permission to divide property with less than 40~000 square foot lots: Lots 76 and 77~' Mattituck Park Property', Mattituck, New York. The findings of the Board are that surrounding properties are built up on %0 foot lots. It would be an unusual hardship for the Quinlan's to maintain 100 fee~. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -7- October 12, ~972 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 neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. 0n motion by t~v. Gzil_sp~e~ seconded by }~m. Hulse, it was RE~0L~ZED Joseph Quinlan~ 109 Stevens Avenue, Hempstead, New York~ be GRANTED permission to divide property with less than 40,000 squame foot lots: Lets 76 and 77, Mattituck Park Property, Mattituck, New York, as applied for, subject to the following condition: That the property comprising Lots 76 and 77 shall be divided do~. the middles leaving two lots measuring 50: x ]~!0~ each. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen. PUBLIC HEA~ING: Appeal No. 1672 - 8:15 P.M. (E.D.E~T.), upon application of Alvin Jo Blenk, Reeve A_ven~e, Mattituck, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section 301 for permission to divide property with less than 40,000 square foot lots. Location of property: Lot #7, Map of Saltaire Estate~ Mattituck, New York. Fee paid $15.oo. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the apPllcatiou for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and no~zce to the applicant. THE C~}~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ~. ~LVIN J. BLENK: I am the applicant. The area does also contain a recreation lot and an access lot to the beach which, we feel, does give au advantage to those who have a half acre. ()~. Blenk discussed with the Board the location of the property). TA~ CK~IR~: The surrounding properties have houses built on one half acre lots. Is there auyoue present who wish~s to speak against this application? (There was no response.) Southold Town Board of &ppeals -8- October 12~ 1972 After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to divide property' with less than 40,000 square foot lots on promises located : Lot #7, Map of Sa!taire Estates, Mattituck, New York. The Board finds that most of the surroundi~ properties have ho~ses built on half acre lots, and agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary b~rdship; 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 neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by N~. Hulse, seconded by }~o Doyen, it was R~SOLVED Alvin J. Blenk, Reeve Avenue, Mattituck~ New York, be GR~A. NTED permission to divide proporty with less than 40,000 square foot lots. Location of property: Lot #7, Map of Saltatre ~states, ¥~ttituck, New York. Permission is granted as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- ~ssrs: Gillispie~ Hulse, Doyen. PD~LIC HE&RiP, G: &ppea! No. 1670 - 8:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of ~ililam Bayha, Founders Path, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III~ Section 300 C-3, and Section 302, for permission to build an accessory building in side yard area. Location o£ property: Lot #70, Founders Estates, Southold, NewYork~ Fee paid $1 .00y 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 to the applicant. THE C~IR~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ~. STE~VE TSOIxV~O~, !~T Corp.: I prepared the Sketch showing the location of the proposed garage. THE C~L~iRt~5~J~: The garage should be no closer than 25 feet from Landon Lane. (addressing i~o Terry) Do you suggest 5 feet off the line? ~. HOW~ARD TERRY, Building Inspector: The Ordinance allows 3 feet. ~outho!d Town Board of Appeals -9- October 12, 1972 I~.. ~!LLI~V~iB~:We would llke to put the garage 4 feet from the easterly' line. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to build an accessory building in side yard area~ The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. Location of property: Lot #70, Founders Estates, Southold, New York. 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 dlstrict~ and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe time spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by i~o Gillispie, seconded by' t~o Hulse, it was R~0LVED ~[illlam Bayha, Founders Path~ ~outhold~ New York, be GRgNT~ permission to build an accessory building in side yard area of Lot ~0, Founders ~states~ Southold~ New York~ as applied for~ subject to the following conditions: That the garage shall be located no closer than 4 feet to the easterly line of the property. That the garage snal_ be located no closer'than 2~ feet to Landon Lane. Vote of the ~oarm. ~j'es:- Messrs: Giilispie~ Hu!se: Doyen° PUBLIC ~R!t~G: Appeal No. 167~ - 8:40 P.M. (EoDoS.To), upon application of Leeward ~cres~ Inc., 217 Osborne Avenue, Riverhead~ New York~ for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, ~ection 301 and Section 280A of the To~ Law for permission to divide property with less than 40~000 square feet and approval of access. Location of ~ ~ 50 property': one-_~a~f of Lots and 51, Map of Leeward Acres, ~outhold, New York. Fee paid $1~.00o The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a Variance, l~gal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. TB_~ CH~IRM&N~ is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? Is the applicantmere~ ~ RICi~llRD J. ?R.0N, E~Q.: No, he is not. He had to attend a meeting~ I rolm h~m I would come mto represent hi'~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -!0- October 12, 1972 THE CHALR~L&N: We understand that the Board of Health disapproved of the original plan. ~. CRO~!: It was a poor layout. l~q. HOW~RD TERRY, Building Inspector: It did not save them a street. They had it laid out with a reserve sor~p and the Health Department would not approve it. A map was sent to them twice with revisions and they would not accept anything but this. Now, it~s worked out very well. ~ CRON: ~at we are taking is two of the lots to fullest depth and piggy-backing the lots~ Th~ C~IR~N~' You are dividing property' on a filed 'map for the reasons stated. THE CPj~IRi~L~N: Is there anyone present who ~z=hes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to divzm~ property with less than 4~0,000 sq. ftc and approval of access on one half of Lots ~0 and ~l~ Map of Leeward Acres, 2outhold~ New York. The fznding~ of the Board are that this division will. increase the value of surrounding properties and that the proposal of the applicant is one on which the Board has acted favorably in the past. 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 prope~y and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the nelgh~orhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by ~. Gil!ispie, seconded by ~. Hu!se~ it was RE~OLVED Leeward Acres, Inc., 217 0s'corne Avenne, Riverh~ad, New York, ~e GRANTED permission, as applied for, to divide proper~r with less than 40~000 square feet, and approval of access, on one half of Lots ~0 and ~l~ Map of Leeward Acres, Southold~ New York. Vote of the Board: Ay'es:- Messrs: Gillispie, F~lse, Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals October !2~ 1972 PUBLIC HEAR1-NG: Appeal Nee 1676 - 8:~0 P.M. upon application of Otto Macomber, Pine Avenue, Southold, New York, for a var~anc~ in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article IZI, Eection 301~ for permission to divide property with less than 40~000 square foot lots. Location of property: Lots ~16~ l?, 18, 19 and 20~ Map of Goose Bay Estates, Southold and bounded north by land now or formerly of Davis; east by Private right of way~ south by other lands of Macomber; and west b~ Goose Bay Estates, Southold, New York. Fee paid $1~.00. T~he Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of he~ing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. THE C~P~: The applicatio~ is accompanied by a copy of a survey of Van T~yl~ dated Nove~foe~ 8, 1961~ which shows property of Macomber as having approximately 275: on the northerly dimension, 283' on two courses on the southerly dimension~ 248' on the westerly dimension, and 28~ feet plus or minus on the right of way. ~w~o Macomber~s house is in the soutb~esterly corner of the property and he proposes to sell approximately' 27,000 sq. ft. from Pine Avenue on the. west to the right of wa~ on the east (27~~ in depth by 100~ in w~dth)~ This leaves him With au area of 148~ x 28~o THE CHAR~ ~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? RUDOLPH H. BRUF~R, ESQ.: I speak in behalf of the application. We would like to split the property up into three pieces. Macomber would keep the larger piece to the south and split the upper portion into two halves: 12~ x 100~ and l~O~ x 100~. The alternative would be a lot i00~ x 275~. We are aware that this is not in accordance with the O~dinance but from my' understanding of the area it would conform to what is in acceptance in the area. The only justification for our appeal is that everything else in the area is of the size ! am reco~n~ending. Perhaps Mr. Macomber could come in at a future date and argue for this appeal~ T~ CF_~L~N: You are asking for something different than what is specified in the application. 1~ BRUER: I would be perfectly' willing to have this one piece separated. TITE Ci~IRi~N: I think that is all we would care to do. ~. BRUER: The only reason I asked is that everything else in the area is of that character. TH~ CH&LR~2~: This is Undeveloped land here so it would not be right to start this new area with undersized lots. I assume that you have an option to buy. I think the only way we could go would be to divide this property into two lots with a conditlou Southold Town Board of Appeals -12, October 12, 1972 that there be no further subdiv~sien of either one of the lots~ without permission of the Board of ~ppeals. THE CH~IRM~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was uo response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests pe_mzss~on to d~v~de property with less than 40,000 sq. f~. lows - Lots #16, 17, 18, 19 and 20,~ Map of Goose Bay' Estates, ~outhold, New York. The Board finds that it does not agree with the suggestion as stated at th~ hearing that the property be split into three pieces but does agree with the request specified in the application tb~t the property be divided into two lotso The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship~ the hardship created is unique and wou~d not be shared by all properties alike in the Im~r~diate vicinity of this property and in the same use district~ and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by M~. Gi!!ispie, seconded by I~ro Hulse, it was RESOLVED (without prejudice to future application) that Otto Macomber~ Pine Avenue, ~outhold, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with less than 40,000 square foot lots. Location of property: Lots #16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, Map of Goose Bay' Estates, Southold~ NewYork. · ~1-' ~ Doyen. Vote of the Board: Ayes.- Messrs: ~_±msp~e, Huise, PUBLIC BEARinG: Appeal No. 1677 - 9:05 P.M. (E~D~S.T.), upon application of Hertha Fraser, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article Iii, Section 300 C-3, and Section 302 for permission to build an accessory building in front yard area. Location of property: Lot #5%, Map of Nassau Point, Cutchogue, New York. Pee paid $1%.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 to the applicant. TP~E CF~IRM&z~o Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ~outhold Town Board of ~,ppeals -13- October 12, 1972 FA~. L~LA~D Bo PRA~ER: I think it would be hard to see the building with all the trees on the loto It's going to be an attractive building. THE C_W_~LRMA~,T: ! think it's too close to the road. I sympathize with your need for an acdessory building. Ton also have an accessory building - a child's playhouse - on the north side. The same principle occurs here as applies to farm labor camps where a person wants to locate the farm labor camp as Far from his house as possible. A farm labor camp can be located no closerto a neighbor's house than to the owner's house. We would want you to move it back further. ~e had a situation like this~ recently', where the property across the street was not deve loped. MR. PR&~ER: I own the property across the street. I had the accessory building laid out wher~ the playhouse is but the Nassau Point ~Property Owners hold their meetings there° It fits between four oak trees~ it's l0 feet by 14 feet iu size° Tb~t curving driveway cuts the lawn. (~[r~ and Mrs. Fraser and the Board discussed possible locations for the accessory building). TEE C~L~IR~N: k~e don~t approve of an accessory building being way' out on the road. ~o ~-~ER: i would have to take some trees down. If you point it towards the drain you would have to drive over the drain, and if you point it the other way' you run into some trees. TP~E 0H~&i~,~N: is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) TH~ CF~: if it's satisfactory' with the rest of the Board Z will make an appointment with you to see how far b~ck this building can be located. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that appli- cant requests permission to build an accessory building in the Front yard area on property located: Lot ¢~, Map of Nassau Point, Cutchogue, New York. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant that there is a hardship involved. 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 neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by M_v. Gillispie~ seconded by ~. Hulse, it was R~SOLVED Hertha Fraser, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York, be GRANTED permission to~bulld an accessory building in front yard area on Lot ~, Map of ~assau Point~ Cutchogue, ~, Y. subject to the £ollowiug conditions: Southold Town Board of Appeals -]-4- October 12, 1972 *That the location o£ the accessory building shall be at the discretion of the Chairman of the Board of Appeals who will meet with the applicant at the subject property to set the location of the accessory building as far back from the road as feasible. ~fote of the Board: A~yes~- Messrs~ Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen. *With respect to the foregoing public hearing: Appeal NCo 1677, Hertha Fraser~ Nassau Point Road~ Cutchogue, N. T. - the Chairman of the ~outhold Town Board of Appeals met with Mr. Leland B. Fraser at the subject property on Friday, 0ctgber 13, 1972 to determine the proper 10cation of the accessory building. ~s a result of the further inspection~ permission is GRANTED subject to the following cord it ions: That the accessory building be located no closer than 60 feet to the front yard line- Nassau Point Road~ and that the accessory building be located at least 5 feet from the somtherly side yard llue~ PUBLIC HEARinG: ~ppeai No. 1678 - 9:!/ P.M. (E.D.S.T.), noon appilcatio~ of Robert and Annette Rider, c/o Riverhead Apartments, Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York~ for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article ZII, Section 301, for permission to d_v~de property with less than 40,000 sq~ ~t. Location of property: Lot ~34, Map of Eastwood Estates, Cutchogue~ N. ¥. Fee paid $15o00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading th~ application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the pplzcant. TH~ CHAT_R~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? G~A}I~ F. O~N, E~Q.. I am here to speak in behalf of this applicat ion. THE CH~ Do you have a map of the property? ~. OL$~L~': Yes~ (Mr. 0isen discussed the map of the property with the Board). All other lots within the subdivision are in single and separate ownership° ~s. Rider purchased two lots and, unfortunately, had both Deeds in the same name. TH~ CHAIR~N: How large are the lots? ~. 0r~N: &bomt one half acr~. This was approve~ by the Department of Health and the · lann~ng Board. _ THeE ~I~AiR~ IS t~er~anyone present ~ho ~ishes to speak against Southoid Town Board of Appeals October 12, ~72 ~fter investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to divide property with less than 40,000 square feet- Lot #34~ Nmp of Eastwood Estates, Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that Map of Eastwood Estates, gection Two, was filed on November 30, 196~; that the subdivision has been approved by the Planning Board and the Department of Health; most of the lots in the area are one half acre in size~ the applicants have a merged title which they wish to separate. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicants. 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 o£ this prope~Ay and in the same use district~ and the variance will not change the character o£ the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On mormon by M~. ~!Izs~ze, seconded by Mr Huise, it was RESOLV~D Robert and Annette Rider, c/o.Riverhead Apartments, Roanoke Avenue~ Riverhead, New York, be G~0.~TED permzsszo_ to divide prope, rty with less than ~0,000 square feet, as applied for. Location of property': Lot ~4, Map of Eastwood Estates, Cutchogue, New Tork. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gi!lispie, Hu!se, Doyen. ~LIC PT~Ri'NG: gppeal No. 1680 - 9:25 P.M. (E.D.~.T.), upon application of Lyle Meredith~ 01d Shipyard Lane and Landon Lane, Southold~ New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning 0rdinance, Article iii, ~ection ~00 C-3, and Section 302 for permission to put accessory building in side yard a~ea. Location of property.: Lot #89, Map of Founders Estates, Southold, New ]fork. Fee paid ~l~.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by' reading the application for a variance~ legal notice o£ hes~ing, af£idavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. T~,~_~,~,~=~voW~.. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this apolication~ I~. HOW~R~ v~ ~R., Bu~!diu~ Inspector: ~Let~ ~Ibertsou was here to speak on this application but had to leave. ~outhold To~ua Bo~rd of Appeals -16- October 12, 1972 THE CHA. IR¥~N: The garage will be 23 feet From the street line. THE CHALR~AN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this apolication? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to put accessory building in side yard area - Lot ~89, Map of Founders Estates~ ~outhold, New York. The findings of the Board are that applicant has two front yards thereby reducing the rear yard area substantially. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board Finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships the h~dship 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 neighborhood and wi ll observe the spfrit of the Ordinance. 0n motlon by ~. Gii!ispie, seconded by' I.~, Hulse, it was RESOLVt~D Lyle Meredith, Old Shipyard Lane and Landon Lane~ Southold, New Tork, be GRANTED permission to put accessory building in side yard area~ as applied for~ on premises located: Lot #89, Map o£ Founders ~states, Southold, New Tork, subject to the following conditions: Tna~ to.e accessory buzlding shall be located 23 Feet from Lanaon Lane and 5 feet from the westerly ~ _~ne of the property~ Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gil!ispie, Hulse, Doyen. P0~LIC HE~R~G: Appeal No. 1679 - 9:4% P.M. (EoD~$oT.), upon application of Ho Alvin Smith~ New Suffolk Avenue, Mattltuck, New Tork, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III~ Section 300 C-3, Section 302, Section 301 and Section 280A of the Town Law, for permission to divide property, put two accessory buildings iu front and side yard areas, insufficient setback in Front yard and approval of access. Location of property: Right of way', south side of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, New York, bounded north by Paust~ east by Hollis Creek~ south by other lands of ~ app_mcant, and west by right of way and T. Witscn~. Pee paid Southold Town Board of &ppea!s -17- October 12, 1972 The Chamrma~ 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 to the applicant. THE CI~!R~: The application is accompaniedI by a survey indicating that applicant has sold property to Dr. Witschi to the west and has kept the land to the south and east of the right of way which adjoins the easterly border of the Witschl property. Applicant proposes to set off a 40,000 sq. ft. lot. His whole property has considerable beach area. The land is fairly low. I thought it was, perhaps~ 4 feet above high ~ide. The house is on the high portion which ison.~y~,' a ~oo~ or two hlgh~r than the low portion and it extends o~t to the beach 100 feet to the east° The property under application is 40,000 squa~ feet° TITE CH~.~--qI~i~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to spesJ~ for this application? RICPA&dRD J. CRON, ESQ.: I would like to indz~ao~ that I got into this by accident. ~s the Board can see I did not prepare the application and }~. Smith did not sign it. It was prepared by the builder, Walter Uhi. These papers were dropped on my' desk with a copy of the proposed drawing indicating the main . ~s~ zoge~he~ w!~= the ~wo accsssor~ buzldz~s (one garage and one guest house). 0bvzously', sauce ne does own a large piece of property~ somewhere In the vicinity of four and a half to five acres~ we have to have permission to divide that into two basic parce lc. We also need the Board's approval for recognition of access as it runs along the right of way. ~e, further, need a variance from the Board with respect to locating the guest house and garage. THE CH~LR~]~: The right of way is a straight line between Witschi and -Smith? ~o CRO~ That's right. The right of way has 20 feet so l0 feet is owned by each of the adjoining owners. ~e need a variance with respect to where the garage and guest house are to be placed on the premises. We have insufficient front yard area under the present Ordinance for locating the two accessory' buildings in the front yard area. ! can:t tell you ~ch about the geographic characteristics of the land. ~ C~L~]i~I~N: I have.been there several times and have had a telephone conversation w~th ~,~. ~mith. He originally started with a subdivision of this property and that buyer dropped out. At that ~ ~ ~.me he was oalking to the Planning Board about subdivision° ~outhold Town Board of ~ppeals -18- October 12~ 1972 I saw a map that had this divided into several lots. In our conversation he indicated that he had no desire to develop furtne, but was talking about getting a negative easement. CRON: That may yet be done, THE CH~.IR~L~.~T: l'fe could impose a condition that there be no further subdivision south of the existing property and no improvement of the beach lands. ~o CRO_~I~ -We are restricted with respect to building ou that lot to the south. T~E Cp!~m!R~N: I received a letter from ~..wLvo John Wickham~ Chairman of the Planning Board, as follows: ~Please be advised that H, &lvin 2mith has been to the Planning Board with a map of his property which he proposed for a minor subdivision. Apparently he has decided to abandon the plan for a minor sub- division and is going ahead without Planning Board approval to divide the property which is in violation of the Subdivision Laws of the ~tate and the Town. The Planning Board recommends that no consideration be given to this applicatlon.~ (Letter dated ~eptember 26, 1972). ! have also discussed this matter with the Town attorney and one of the questions he asked was ~what law?e. It is permissible for a man to make an occasional sale of property. F~o Smith sold to i~ Paust and to Dr. Witschio He now proposes to keep what is left and has no intention of subdivision. In discmssing this matter with Mr° Wickham, I asked if he was con- cerned about the beach area. He said he was, and I said that we could impose restrictions. That was satisfactory to him. ~o CRON; ~e are restricted by virtue of the Deed conveying premises to Dr. W~itschi south of the subject parcel. He is restricting his own lando MR~ PAU~T: i have restrictions on his lando He offered to sell me half of the beach. THE CHAIRMA~N: ! think the beach should remain ~as is~. Flq~ CRON: That would not prohibit him from selling another portion of the beach but they could not build on it. THE CH~r_R~N: I think what the Planning Board was concerned about is the generally low area there~ There was so~e discussion as to whether it was low lands or wetlands. ~. E. Bo PAU~T: What does the application here concern? THE CHAIRMAN: The location of the accessory buildings. ~outhold Town Board of ~ppeal~ -19- 0ctobe~ 12, 1972 !~. CRON: He is dividingl south of your land into two parcels. One is 40,000 sq. ft. TEE CH&LR~N: in the To~ of ~outholdo He ha 40,000 sq. ft. is the minimum size lot allowed three or four acres left. ~. 'P&UST: He is bunchi~ (t~ Faust discussed the map was there before he filled the the buildings are clustered o~ going to be under water any w~ the garage. I had to attach objecting to that. The guest kids so you will have two res~ TEE CH~.~IHM~N~ if this will have to be removed. MH. CRON: That was somet Ordinance. MR~ P&US~T: Mr. ~mith lef he didn~t say anything to me~ That's what happened with the whem he tried to build a cotta granted, i want to make the sa him° all his buildings into one area. ~ the property with the Board). land. I can't understand wb~v all my line. In a hurricane, it's all %o I am not saying anything about Z garag? to ~4v hous~ but Z am house wmll be a reszdence for h~s dences on that piece of property° granted, all cooking facilities hlng that predated the present For Florida about a month ago and Z read about it in the newspaper~ last application which was withdrawn Ee on my frout stoop. If this is ~e application ou my lot north of THE CH~iRF~N: Does anyon~ else wish to speak for or against this application? GEORGE ~T~NKEVICH~ E~Q.: ~outho!d. t am representing D with the setback of the primar with the accessory dwellings. because the setback is measure setback on the cottage will be or 21 feet from the edge of th location of any building being with the Zoning 0rdinance~ Th a unique problem and i think, has a lot and can make an iden garages in all front yards. ~LR. P~U~T: I am going to this in writing. MR. ST~EEVICH: The prob simil~rly located. ~s the I am an attorney with offices in . Witschi. His prime concern is residence to be constructed and It's really 30 feet from the road d~from th~ center of the road The 31 feet zrom the center of t~e road ro~do Dr. Witschi objects to the closer than 50 feet iu accordance question turns on whether we have ~s F~o zaust brought out, M~. Faust ical appllcation~ so, we can have ask for the privilege of putting lea is not unique as his lot is comes in there are a number of ~outhold Town Board of 4ppeals -20- October 12, 1972 lots that will be created. We will face the same problem. We would have a road that would be littered with garages and guest houses. Mr. ~mith is asking to have buildings closer to the road than is normally permitted and also to put them in the front yard area. Dr. Witschi has to look at it. ~. ~mith would rather look at the water and he has a dilemma. He says the land is low but he can fill it. We have uo objection if he fills or bulkheads. The lina from the Witschi property to the water is 190 feet; ample room to locate his house and accessory buildings. There is sufficient depth back from the road° From Dr. Witschi~s point of view, he has to look at this garage o TITE CHAIR~..N: You made a point about other property in this area° MR. S~ANEEVICH: I think we would be setting a precedent here. M~. Paust can come in and ask to put a garage in his front yard, and you have more properties. Each of these people are going to want to look at the water but their neighbors have garages iu the front yards. THE C.~L~M~N: In one of the cases that was heard here tonight- locating au outbuilding way down on the road strikes me as being inhospitable ~ MR~ STANHEViCH:· There are ways that he ca~ minimize by p~cing~ the buildings further back. THE CHALR~: I tried to suggest that to him. The point he made to me was that the location of these outbuildings closer to the road was because of the danger of high tides. MR. PA~J~T: There is no danger from high tides. You have to have a gale storm. We had one the other day and we did not have any water on our laudo It could only happen if you have gale force winds for three or four days. TH~ CWL~:IR~:N: What is the highest you have above mean high tldeT ~. ~t~TIN.. S{YTER: We had 6 to 7 feet above in 19~'~3~,' up to his front porch. THE CH~IRI~.~N: ~.o it is no advantage for M~ ~mith to have these buildings in this particular position. He would not be harmed. MR. STANKEVICH: According to the Ordinance a building should not be any closer than ~0 feet to the road nor should accessory build~ngs be in the front yard area. Southold To~n Board of Appeals -21- October 12, 1972 ~Aq. P~UST: He can't go beyond a certain building line down there. ~I~E CH~IRND. N: You are not recognizing .in your argument the unusual character of this lot~ t~. ~TANKEVICH: I have the latest survey. This is a survey that was recorded in the Deed to Dr. Witschi. It shows it to be 190 feet to the stone marker, 90 feet at the base° I can see his point of view° He wants to have his front yard face the water° It's not a unique hardship. THE CP3iIRM~N~ The accessory buildings in the front yard are I0 feet from the !iue. If they were in the side yard~ under the present Ordinance, he would have to have l~ feet from the liue~ Zf the garage is not attached it can be in the rear yard and be 3 feet from the liue~ If the house were placed ~0 f~et from the property' divlsiou and the accessory buildings were placed in the side yard, the only reason he would hav~ to appear here would be for ~accessory buildings in the side yard area~o M~. ST~NEEViCH: Dr, Witschi only objects to the location of the~ accessory buildings. Y~q. CRON: I would like to point out that observatious made with respect to a situation developing north of the Witschl property has ~o application and has no meaning. I think ~. ~tankevich said something about land north of the Witschl property (co-owned by Justice Surer and Mm~. ~mith) but this has no bearing on any property that's north of the Witschi property, it is not water view property and it would be governed by a~ rules that apply to subdivisions. The Board would not be setting a precedent by setting buildings in the front yard area. ~. ST&~E~VICH: As you go out of the road going up to New Suffolk ~venue is a pomtion of J,~0 acres. This is the land i am talking about, to the north that ruus down to the water. There could be casual sales there. The same reasoning applies. THE CHkLR}~: When a person fills out one of these applica- tions, there are certain things that we ignore° For Instance~ aesthetics, it is not part of our legal reasoning° &poiut has been mmde that the garage can not be located in the rear yard because of ~torm damage and that it would spoil the view. We ignore '~spoil the view~. Does anyone object to accessory buildings being l0 feet from the side line? (There were no ob- jections), Wb~t ~. Paust and Dr. Witschi are concerned with is the main building being at least ~0 feet from the property line. Southold Town Board of &ppeals =22- October 12, 1972 MR. P&UST: My problem was in the division of property. I understand it was an _nozrect way of d~v~d~m~ so he could have a ~0,000 sq. Ft. plot which he now could sell off. ~omeone else is going to buy this some day. THE C~IR~D~N: If this is granted there can only be one residence on the whole ~mith property. t~q. ST&NA~JICH: Dr. Witschi would like to have the buildings moved back. I~R~ CRON: Obviously, Dr. Witschi:s reasoning is based on his view of Hall~s Ha~bor. I can't see where there is a sub- stantial difference in having a dwelling 40 feet or 50 Feet from the property line. I can't even see his reasoning With respect to accessory buildings. All of these are still going to obstruct whether you place them 40 Feet or 50 feet From the property line. If that is the reasoning behind the objection, I think it~s arbitrary. ! think It:s unreasonable. THE CPi~IR~N: I think, in this particula~ situation, one of the reasoo~ for this application is that this is not a lot that's on a prairie iu Kansas; it's on the waterfront a~d is not a perfect lot. ~ ~JTER: The applicant owned ~ll of the property at one time. The applicant set the lines himself since he ~ned all the property surrounding this particular parcel. (The Chair~r~n read From the Ordinance with respect to front, res~v and side yards. ) FLR. STANEEV~CH: More than 7%% of 2~, ~mith~s lot is deeper than 12% feet. I think that Dr. Witschi has a legitimate right to send his attorney here and to ask that spacing be kept in accordance with the Ordinance unless hardship can be shown~ ~nis hardship is not unique. Flooding can be minimized. l~q. CRO~7: i am set. what at a disadvantage simply' because I don~t know who made the spacing of the buildings on the drawing. I don~t ~now the reasoning. Perhaps ~,~. Uhl _has sound reasoning for placing these buildings at these pzrticular distances. I don~t k~aow whether this was done at the direction of ~. Smith. !r~. D~hl instituted the application. T~E CI~t~I~N: I~. ~mith located tb~ house and also the accessory buildings. It seems to me that there is no reason why the house should not be 50 feet from the dividing line. Z can see some reason w~v the accessory buildings should not be in the rear yard area. MR. P~U~T: T.~ can't move that building 50 feet in toward the creek. Southold Town Board of Appeals THE CF-k~_~N: It is now at 40 f another l0 feet. ~R. P~335T. ! have a bui_d~ng !i bring that any furthem rna_ he has it (~. Stanzev~ch, }~. Cron and }~R. PAUST: He told me he paced ~. FRED ~, JR.: I am again being piggy-backed. I think it looks ~. SUTER: Ithink what you going ~o upset the ordinary and be setting a precedent if you grant with a minor subdivision. Then, as I sales you can avoid a subdivision. Ti case before tb~ Board. Most of the p~ The applicant has peculiarly signed not notarized by him and it's not his the decision of the Building iuspect~ the Building Inspector. It's ~. Uhl application. THE C~IR~N: (addressing t~. CR0~: it doesn't say ~ho -23- October 12, 1972 ~et. He has to move ~e rest.~ctzon. He can't Paust examined the map), ~his off. the two accessory bu~ld~.gs terrible. ~ld consider is t.hat you are ~able use~ and you~would ~is. First, we start out understand ~ applicant has made his ~opie concemned are here. ~e application but it's signature. He is appealing an~ I urge that you uphold ~s szgnature on the )n) Do you have any' response? to sign the application. F~q. CR0.%!: "I, H. a v,n Smith, notarized signature. ~51. ~T~R: Does he have ti%e There is nothing to show that he has ~5q. CRON: to the facts. MR. 5~ITER PLR o CRON~ How does it start of~ -please read it. m." It could be ~tv. ~a!:s It's a notarized slgn~ !-~q%o is ~mkfng theapi The application is no~ have said "I, Walter uhi~ in T~ C~./_RI~N: Hundreds of appli~ FAR. ~. As the buz~de_~ I ~t to sign for ~h~. Smith? ~ower of attorney. ~ture. Y~. Uhl is swearing ~ea!? ~ a work of a_~t. He should ations are made oy builders. L~ accept tn t. THE C~.~N: We try not to grant to a person who doesn't apply. ~. ~UT~R: There is nothing in the file to show that Walter Uhl has the right to Sign for ~. ~mith. · Southold Town Board of ~ppeais October ~ ~m~ 1972 ~. ~TA!~EEVICH: I would Just like to read you the definition of a front yard: ~An unoccupied ground ares. fully open to the sky between the street !ine~ or by the street line ~stab!ished by the Official Map of ~he To'~, or an approved Subdivision Plat, and a line drawn parallel thereto~. There is nO substantial or unique hardship. Z don~t see wb%v he can't comply with the setback restrictions or ~ny' he can't comply with the front yard restrictions. It gives him 130 feet from the center of that road to build his house on. If you take off ~0 feet, it gives him ample room. THE ClqA~}~L~: I would be inclined to agree with that~ There is rea!~ no reason w~ he can't ~nta~n ~0 feet from the property line. AS far as aethestic reasons are concerned~ I reai~' don~t like to see buildings in the front yard. If the house is set back ~0 feet~ and if the out buildings are set back ~0 feet, they would be in the side yard. Does a~one object to that? ~. PkUST: you mean nearer to the creek? i don~t think he eau do ~a~. M~. ~JT~R: He could have set any' lines that he wanted to. The Ordinance says ~0 feet back from the curb line. ~. 5T~Ntr~VZCH: In terms of defining front yards, it refers to street line so I think that ~0 feet should be set from the site of the right of way. That's why the front yard ~definitlon is as i'- is. b THE CHAIR~W~: if Mr. S)u. ter and ~. Paust and l~. Stankevich object to the signature, we can postpone our decision. ~. SUTER: I object to the way it was done. I we. ut to be on record as objecting, and i want you to note that I don~t think it was the proper way to do it. THE CtD.~N: I think that the Board will have to make a determination at a later date. We will have to reinvestigate. t~. CRON: Let the record show that the rear yard area is not a buiidable area. It is waterfront~ On motion by ~. Giillspie, seconded by }~h~. Huls®, it was RESOLVED tlmat the hearing on Appeal No. 1679, H. Alvin Smith, New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue, ~ew York, be adjourned; and that decision be postponed until 7:30 P.M.~ Nove~oer 2, 1972. Vote of the Board: Yjes:- I~Iessrs: C~lllispie, Hu!se, Doyen° ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -25- October 12, 1972 On motion by !~. Gi!lispi~ seconded by M~. Hulse, it was RE~OLVED that the minutes of the Southo!d Town Board of Appeals dated Septe~oer 28~ 1972,. be approved as submitted, subject to minor correction. Vote of the Board~ ~yes~ Messrs: Giiilspie~ Hulse, Doyen. On motion by Mr. Hulse~ seconded by F~o Doyen~ it was R~SOL-~ED that the next regular meeting of the ~outhoid Town Board of Appeals will be held at 7:30 P.Mo, Thursday~ November 2~ 1972~ at the Town Office, Main Road, ~o~thold, ~ew ~ork. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Giilispie~ Hulse, Doyen. On motion by M~ Gillispie, seconded by If~. Hulse, it was RESOLVE~D that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 8:00 P.M. (Eo~.T.), Thursday, November 2, 1972, at the Town Office, Main Road~ 2outhold, New Yo~k, as the time and place of hearing upon application of Jeanne 5chlierholz, 292~ Middle Road~ Mattltuck, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, 2ection 301 and S.ection 302 for permission to build garage and reduce required side yard and setback. Location of property: north side of Middle Road, Mattituck, bounded north by R. Monahan~ east by' G. Anderer$ south by Middle Roads west by R. Armbrust. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen. On motion by ~ Hulse, seconded by ~. Doyen, it was RE~OLVED that the ~outhold Town Board of Appeals set 8:1~ P.M. (~oS.To), upon application of ~h~ and F~s. J~ F. Font~ Deephol~ Dmive~ Mattituck, New York, Thursday, November 2, 1972, at the Town 0ffice~ Main Road, aouthold, New York~ as the time and place of hearing for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, ~ection 300~. Rubsection C-3 and Sectio~ 302, for permission to put accessory~ building in front yard area. Location of property: south side~of Deep Hole Drive~ Mattituck, bounded north by Deep Hole Drive~ east by' M. 0~Keefe; south by Deep Hole Creek; west by K. Tuthillo Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen. ~outhold To~n Board o£ Appeals October 12, 1972 On motion by Mm. Doyen, seconded by M~. Gi!lispie, it was RESOLVED that the ~outho!d Town Board of Appeals set 8:30 P.M. (Eoa. T.), Thursday, November 2, 1972, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of George A. Kophen~ ~unset Lane, Southold, New York~ for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 300, ~ubsection C-3 and Section 302 for permission to build garage and reduce required side yard and ~etbacko Location of property: north side of Middle Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded north by M. Dickerson; east by J. Zevits; south by Private Road (West Lane); west by F. Hancock. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie~ Hulse~ Doyen. On motion by M~. Gillispie, seconded by M~ Doyen, it was RESOL~FED that the 2outhold Town Board of ~ppeals set 8:45 P.M. (E.SoT.), Thursday, November 2, 1972, at the Town Office, Main Road~ Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of Valentine Ruch, Ruch Lane, $outhold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, ~rticle iii, Section 301, for permission to set off lot with less than required area left over from fill~g£a minor subdivision with two full size lots. Locationof property: west side of Ruch Lane, ~outhold, New York, bounded north by other laud of Vo Huch; west by Private Road (Ruch Lane)~ south by Valerie Ruch~ west by Mill Creek. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie~ Hulse, Doyen. On motion by Mm. Hulse, secondsd by ~. Gil!ispie, it was REgOL~ED that the .5outhold Town Board of Appeals set 9:00 P.M. (~oS.To), Thursday, November 2~ 1972, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold~ New York, as the time and plac~ of hearing upon applicatio~ of ~illfam ~fickham, ~sq., Main Road~ Matt!tuck, New York~ on account of Mary Zeneski, Cutchogue~ New Yo~k~ for ~ variance in accordance with ~ection 280&, Subsection 3 of the State of ~!ew York To%~ Law~ for approval of access to interior lot. Location of property: sast side Little Neck Roa~, Cutchogue, New Tork~ bounded no~th by other land of applicants east by l~orvzald Subdivisiou~ south by Duuhufer~ w~st by K. Dun~ufer and H. &udrusk!. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hu!se, Doyen. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -27- ' October 12s 1972 On motion by ~. Giiiispie, seconded by ~. Hulses it was RESOLVED that the ~outhold Town Board of Appeals set 9:1~ P.Mo (E~oT.)~ Thursday~ November 2s 1972, at the Town Offices Main Road, Southolds New Yorks as the time and plac~ of hearing upon application of Allen W~ 0vszauz~, Little Neck Road~ Cutchogue, New York and Roland W. Bollman, Beebe Drives Cutchogue~ New Yorks for a special exception iu accordance with the Zoning Ordinances ~rticle VII~ Section 700, Sub~ectlon B~4s for per- mission to operate a used car lots Location of property: south- east corner o£ ~ugenes Road and Main Roads Cutchogue, N~w York, bounded north by Ma~n Road (Rout~2D~, east by' P. ~batelli°~ south by M. Fills; west by ~ugene~s Road° Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Giiiispie, Hu!se, Doyen. 0n motion by P~. Hulse, seconded by }~. Doyen, it was R~.OLV~D that the ~outhold Town Bos~rd of Appeals set P.M. (E.E.T.), Thursday', November 2, 1972, at the Town Orifice, Main Road, 2omthold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of Felix Laskowski, Anne Laskowski, Frances Bordiuko, 47-~2 189 Street, Flushing, ~ - ~w York, for a variance in accordanc~ with the Zoning Ordinance, Article II!, ~ction ~01, for permission to divide property into two lots with less than required ar~a and frontage~ Location of property: west side of Bay ~hors Road, ~rshamomaque, ~ew York, Lots ~101~ 102~ 103, Map of Peconic ~ay Estates, &rshamo~que, New York. Vote of the Board: ~yes:- Messrs: G~llz~pze, ._ulse, Doyen. On motion by ~. Doyen, seconded by F~. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Southoid Town Board of Appeals set 9:40 P.Mo (E.S.T.), Thursday~ November 2, 1972, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of Arthur G~e_la, Hobart Road, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning 0rdlnance~ Articl~ !I~, Section 300, ~bsection C-5, an8 Section 302~ for permission to build accessory building lu front yar~ area. Location of property~ west side of Hobart Road, SoutholS, Lots ll8 and llg, Map of Founders Estates, ~outhold, New Tork~ Vote of the Board': Ayes:- Messrs~ Giilispie~ Hu!se, Doyen. Southo!d Town Board of Appeals -28- October 12, 1972 On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by ~. ?lulse, it was RESOLVED that the $outhold Town Board of Appeals set 9:50 P.M. (E.a.T.), Thursday, November 2, 1972, at the Town Office, I~min Road, Southold, New York, as the ti~e and place of hearing upon application of Mattituck Shopping Center, Inc., 504 Walt ~hitman Road, Huntington Station, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI~ Section 600, Subsection C-3a and &rticle Xi, ~ection ll00, Subsection 2a, for permission to erect oversize ground sign (shopping center identification sign); location of property: corner of Main Road and Factory ~venue, Mattituck, New York, bounded northby Bethany Cemetery Assoc.; east by Bethany Cemetery Assoc.~ south by Main Road (Route 25) and Ard Property, !nc.~ west by Ard Property Inc. and Pactory Avenue. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen~ On motion by M~. Hulse, seconded by ~. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that the 2outhoid Town Board of Appeals set i0:00 P.M. (E.2.T.), Thursday, November 2, 1972, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of Earl T. Wilson, 160 Cedar Birch Road, Orient, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 300, Subsection C-3 and Section 302 for permission to build garage in front yard area. Location of property: south side Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, New York, bounded north by Peconic Bay Boulevard; east by P. Warren; south by' Peconic Bay'~ west by ~rch Davis. Vote of the Board: ~yes:- Messrs: Gi!lispie, Hulse, Doyen. On motion by ~. Doyen~ seconded by M~, Hutse, it was REBOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals s~t I0:15 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, }~ovember 2, 1972, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of John and Florence Battenfeld, 51 Judson Place, Rockville Centre~ New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article Iii, Section 301, for permission to divide property with less than required width and area. Location of property: south side Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, New York, bounded north by Peconic Bay Boulevard; east by P. Warren~ south by Peco~Ic Bay~ west by Arch Davis. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen. ~outhold Town Board of &ppeals -29- October 12, 1972 On motion by ~i~. Ga_iaspze~ seconded by !,~. Huise, it was RESOLVED that the $outhold Town Board of Appeals set 10:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), T~b~rsday~ November 2, 1972, at the Town 0ffice~ Main Road, $outhold, New ¥ork~ as the time and place of hearing upon application of Thomas Casey, 646 Parkside Drive, Jericho~ New York~ for a variance in aocordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article !ii, Section 301, for perm. ission to construct dwelling on divided lot with insufficient a~ea. Location of property: south side Park Ave~e, Mattituck, New York, bounded north by Park &venues east by Private Road; south by P. Hanlon; west by C. Ho Wick_ham Estate. Vote of the Board: &yes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen. ~ne Meetlr~g was adjourned at ll:30 P.M.