HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/29/1973$outhold Town Board pp als
~nlITHnI_D, L. I., N.' Y.
Telephone 765-2660
APPEAL BOARD
MEMBER
Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman
Robert Bergen
Charles Gri~lonisj Jr.
Serge Doyen, Jr.
Fred Huls¢, Jr.
SOUTEOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
March 29, 1973
A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals
was held at 7:30 P.M. (E.5.T.), Thursday, March 29, 1973, at
the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York.
There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman;
Robert Bergen; Fred Eulse, Jr..; Serge Doyen, Jr.
Also present: Mr. Howard Terry, Building Inspector.
Absent: Mr. Charles Grigenis, Jr.
PUBLIC BEARING: Appeal No. 1740 - 7:30 P.M. (E.$.T.), upon
application of Gordon G. Bishop, 600 Clearview Avenue, Southeld,
New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning 0rdinamce,
Article III, Section 300 C4, and Section 302, for permission to
construct private garage in front yard area. Location ef property:
west side Gardiners Lane and south side ¢learview Avenue W~st,
Seuthold, bounded north by Clearview Avenue West; east by
Gardiners Lane; south by Dart; west by John Mulhall. Fee paid
$15.0o.
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.
Southeld Town Board of Appeals - 2 -
March 29, 1973
T~P~ 0HAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
MR. GORDON G. BISHOP: I am here to speak for the application.
TEE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a pond in back of you which
causes flooding? Is that the Town disposal area?
MR. BIS~/0P: Ye s.
TEE CHAIRMAN: As I understand it you wish to place the
garage partly in the front yard area on a dead-end street.
MR. BI~OP: Yes. I have a corner lot.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
(There was no response.)
After investigation and.inspection the Board finds that
applicant requests permission to construct private garage in
front yard area en premises located on the west side of
Gardinors Lane and the south side ef Clearview Aveuue West,
Southold, New York. The findiugs of the Board are that the
applicant is the owner of a corner let with two front yards
and also has a topographical hardship as a result of flooding
from the Town d~ainage area.
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance
weald produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship;
the b~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 district; and the variance will not change the
character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of
the Ordinance.
On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by 1/v. Doyen, it was
RESOLYED, Gordon G. Bishop, 600 Clearview Avenue, $outhold,
New York,~be~GHANTED permission to construct private garage in
front yard area on the west side of Ga~dtners Lane and the south
side of CLearvtew &venue West, Southold, New York, subject to the
following, e o~d it ion~
That applicant place garage no closer than 20 feet to
Gardtners Lane.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gil!ispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyen.
Seuthold TOWn Boa~d scl Appeals - 3 -
Ma~ch 29, 1973
PUBLI0 HEARING: Appeal Ne. 1733 - 7:40 P.M. (E.S.T.),
upon application of James F. Murray, Vansten Road, Nassau Point,
Outchogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with the
Zoning Ordinance, A~tiele III, Section 301 and the Bulk
Schedule, for permission to divide property with less than
required area and frontage. Location of property: Lots 4 and 5,
Map of Pecontc Bay Properties, Inc. Fee paid $1~.00.
The Ohairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hea~ing, affidavit attesting to
its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the
applicant.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
GARY F. 0LSEN, ESQ.: I am an attorney with offices in
Mattltuck amd I am here to represent the applicant. I would
argue in behalf of granting this variance. I went through the
tax maps amd it appea~s that almost all the lots on Fisherman's
Beach are in single and separate ewn~ership. Lots #l, 2, 3, 6,
$8, 9, lO seem te be in single and separate ownership. Lots
and 5 are the subject premises. Lots #ll, 12 and 13 on the
Creek side have houses on them and seem to be in single and
separate ownership. They have all been developed. The sizes
of the' lots en the Creek side is less than those ou the Bay side.
T~e subject premises is on the Bay side. The same owner took
t~tle te Lot #~ and Lot ~5 and there is a technical merger of
title. When the premises was divided originally these lots were
approved as good, valid buildtmg lots. George, Kenneth and James
Murray took title from George and Eunice Murray in 1958.
ROBERT BERGEN: Don~t Lots 1 and 2 belong to the same man?
I~R'. OVEN: Lot No. 1 belongs te Feberhart, Lot No. 2 belongs
to &mira. Samuels and Lot No. 3 belongs to ThOmas Samels. It's a
Well developed area. &ceo~ding to the tax maD there is a little
strip 20 feet wide which leeks like part of Lot No. 31 which is
now ewmed by Eamuels.~ ~t is access te the Creek. The Murray's
also have a strip which is access to the Creek. The house on
Let No. 4 is owned by the Nurrays now. I don't know how it is
used.
ER. BERGEN: Lot Ne. ~ is closer than the others to the road.
~. OL$~N: 1~. Sam~eis has built ~ut quite a bit on Lot No.
3 so that might give the illusiem ef Lot No. 4 being close to 2he
road.
Bouthold TOWn Board ef Appeals
- 4 - ~a~ch 29, 1973
T~E CHAIRMAN: What is the water situation down there?
~LR. OI~EN: There is a community common water supply that
all the houses have been using. ~Iv. Homart has a new house on
Let No. 28 and Let No. 29 is owned by Mr. Praus.
TRE ~.F~.IRNAN: Is there anyone else present who wishes to
speak for this application?
(There was no response.)
TEE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
(There was no ~esponse.)
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that
applicant requests permission to divide property with less
than required area and frontage, Lots 4 and 5, Peconic Bay
Properties, Inc. Tho findings of the Board are that this is
a well developed subdivision which was created in 1931 and
that most of the ~o~s are occupied. The Board finds that it
would be an unusual hardship te deny the use of vacant Lot No. 5.
Lot Nos. 3, k, %, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ll and 12 appear to have 65 feet
on Eaywaters Road and 75 feet on the Bay. The lots on the north
side of Eaywaters Road are smaller in area. The Board agrees with
the reasoning of tho applicant.
The Board finds that strict application ef 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 ~se dis%riot; and the variance will not change the
character ef the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of
the Ordinance.
On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was
RE~0LVED, James 7. ~rray, Vanston Road, Nassau Point,
0utchegue, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property .
with loss than required area amd frontage, Lots k and 5, Peconzc
Bay PrePerties,'Inc., as applied for.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyen.
Southold Town Board sol Appeals - ~ -
March 29, 1973
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1734 - 7:50 P.M. (E.S.T.),
upon application ef Dante ~. Catullo, 15Rossiter Avenue,
Yomkers, New York, for a variance in accordance with the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 301 and Bulk Schedule,
for permission to divide property with insufficient area and
frontage. Location of property: north side Bailey Beach Road,
Mattituck, bounded morth by other land of applicant; east
by Right of way and Gatz; south byBailey Beach Road; west by
J. Little. Fee paid $15.00.
The ahatz~aan 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 CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
GA~F. OLSEN, ESQ.: I would like to recommend that this
application be granted. The applicant wishes to divide subject
premises into two panels, each parcel having a frontage of~
118.81 feet. The square footage for each erie would be somethimg
less than 40,000 sq. ft'., about 37,000 sq. ft. for each parcel.
M~. Little has a parcel of a similar size and shape. I think it
would be in keeping with the community. The applicant has a la~ge
piece and this is like a dogleg off it and it would be the most
convenient and reasonable way of cuttiug it off and dividing it
into two parcels. 0~ the east side there is a right of way and
on the west there is a 20 foot strip from Reeve Avenue. That
would not be included in the two parcels we have in mind.
TME. CHAIR2~N: Who owns the easterly driveway or road?
MR. OLSEN: The applicant may, I don~t kmow.
T~ CHAIRMAN: Do other people use it?
MR. 0L~EN: It appears so. I believe the people on the
Sound use ~t. The applicant gets.in and out of his ow~ subject
premises f~em the driveway on the east. The feeling was that it
weald be u~wise to include the 20 foot wide strip from Reeve
Avenue ~p to the major portion of the premises. No one uses it
at this point. He has a pump house on it. Chances are it would
never be used.
TEE CHAIRMAN: His access is over the easterly portion which
appears tebe about ~00 feet im length.
MR. 0I~EN: He has a pump house to supply water for irrigation
and he would have pipe lines. The present driveway cuts in where
these two p~oposed lots end se it would mean He would have te
move his driveway. It's the logical cutoff point.
Seuthold TOWn Board ef Appeals - 6 -
March 29, 1973
TEE C~IRM~N: When a man has sufficient property to create
40,000 square feet the Board usually' requires that he do so.
ER. 0~: May I ask my client if he wishes to include
the 20 foot strip on the west er lengthen the .proposed let
to give 40,000 square feet? I dontt know what his feeling
would be.
THE C~IR~N:Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
agaimst this application?
(There was no respomse.)
After investigation amd inspection the Board finds that
applicamt requests permissio~ to divide property with insufficiemt
area and frontage oB premises located on the north side of
Bailey Beach Road, Mattituck. The findings of the Board are
that applicant wishes to create two parcels of approximately
37,000 square feet in each lot. The applicant owns sufficient
property comtigueus to subject property to create the required
40,000 square feet in each lot.
The Board finds that strict application ef 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 tR the same use district; amd the variance will not change
the character of the n~ighborhood, and will observe the spirit
of the Ordimance.
Om motion by M~. Gillispie, seconded by M~. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED, Dante H. Catulio, 15 Ressiter Avemue, Yomkers,
New York, be GRANTED permission to divide lots im such a way
as to fnrnish at least 40,000 square feet in each lot em property
located em the Berth side of Bailey Beach Road, Mattituck, New
York, subject to the followimg conditioms:
That applicamt shall advise the ~eutheld TOWn Board of
Appeals as to whether he will furmish the 40,000 square
feet by including t~e westerly right of way or whether
he will meet this requirememt by extemdimg the two
proposed lots north to other property of the applicant
which is eomtiguous te these lets.
That applicamt shall advise the Building Inspector as
to the exact dimensions of these lots within 60 days
of today's date, Narch 29, 1973.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyen.
Southold TOWn Board of Appeals - 7 - March 29, 1973
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1735 - 8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.),
upon application of Joseph and Nary Kirwin, Bay Avenue,
Cutchogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, ~ection 301 and Bulk Schedule,
for permission to divide property with less than required area
and frontage. Location of property: Lots 118 and 119, Map
of Nassau Farms, Peconic, New York. 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 to
the applicant.
T~E CHAIRMAN. Is there amyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
GARY F. 0L~EN, E~Q.: As attorney for the applicant I would
like te urge the Board to grant this variance. In Checking the
tax maps of sene of the lots that are around the subject premises
it would appear that many of them are in single and separate
ow~ership~ Lot No. 106 on Bay Avenue, north Of Kirwin's house,
seems to be in single and separate ownership. Lot No. 107 is
in stngleand separate ownership, Lots 108 and 109 - Scheers;
Lot No. ll0 seems to be in single and separate ownership;
Lots lll and 112 - De Lalla, appear to have a merger problem.
Lot ll3 is in single and separate ownership; Let ll~ - single
amd separate ~wnership. Going up ~terling Avenue, Lot 120
which is adjacent te Lot ll9 and has a house en it is in sihgle
and separate ~wmership. Lots ll8 and ll9 are the subject premises.
Let 1!7 is also in single and separate ownership. Lots ll5 and
ll6 are owned by the same owners. Across Lilac Avenue is a
property owned by Boyd, at the cermet of Lilac and Sterling.
~bject premises are bordered on the south a~d the north by lots
of similar size amd shape. This variance is necessary due to
the fact that there has been a technical merger of property.
There are a number of lots in the subdivision to the west that
are in single and separate ownership.
T~E CHAIRMAN: Across Sterling Avenue the lots are substantial.
MR. OLDEN: I feel that granting this variance would be in
general agreomemt with the cha~acte~ of the subdivision particularly
as immediately adjacemt on ~either side of the s~bject property are
lots that would be eomsistent with the lots that would be approved
if the variance were g~anted. A denial of the varian~e would
require that applicamt retain a lot that would be twice the s~ze
and value of the lots that are i~mediately adjacent on the north
and south sides. Lets te the west front on Bay Avenue and most
are in single and separate ownership.
Seuthold TeW~ Board ef Appeals - 8 -
~reh 29, 1973
THE GHAIRNAN: When were these lets purchased?
MR. OLDEN: In May of 1961.
THE O~IRNAN: Is there arlene else who wishes to speak
for this application?
(There was no respomse.)
THE CNAIRNAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
MR. WITJ~D L~WRENCE: I live on Sterling Road across from
Boyd. He has a geed size piece, 150' x 200'. The lot diagonally
across the street is owned by Maline. I think these two properties
are behind Maline~s property. Does he want to combine them?
MR. OLS~N: He wants te sell separately.
MR. LANRENOE: I would say in view of the way things are
developing that Mr. Kirwin should sell the two lets in one
piece.
THE CNAIP~N: It seems te me that this is a case where the
Board could go either way. The Beard should be guided by the
surroundimg area. However, I believe, that wherever possible
the Beard should net ge down to a 14,000 square feet lot.
There are cases where there is one remaimimg let a~d it really
doesn't make much difference what size it is as it w~uld be an
unusual hardship to require that the let be ~ept vacant. In
this case there is me house involved.
MR. OLSEN: Nay' I withdraw the application se we will met
be faced with time limitations?
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by F~r. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that the Seutheld TOw~Board of Appeals grant
permission to applicant, Joseph and Mary Klrwin, Appeal No. 1735,
to withdraw the application as submitted.
Vote of the Beard: Ayes:- Nessrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyen.
~outhold TeWm Board of Appeals
-9-
March 29, 1973
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 17~3 - 8:05 P.M. (E.S.T.),
upon application cf Carl and Frances Chapman, Mattituck, New
York, for a variamce in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, 8ec~tem 303 amd Bulk Bchedule, for permission to
construct.al.welling with less than required setback. Location
of property. Lot //12, Map of Salt Lake Village, Mtttituck,
New York. Fee pa~d $15.00.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a vartamce, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attestimg
to its publication in the official mewspapers, and motice to
the applicant.
T~E 0HAIRMAN: Is there amyene present who wishes to
speak for this application?
GARY 0LSEN, ESQ.: I would like to speak in behalf of
this application. This lot is in single and separate ownership.
The applicamt is u~der contract te purchase the lot. What we
are askimg for is a change from 35 feet to 25 feet of setback
reQUirement. I have been informed that Let #ll is developed
and the setback is approximately 22 feet which is less tham
what the applicant is seeking, and at the end of Sailors Needle
there is a garage. I do net believe that gramtimg this variance
would alter the character ef the neighborhood. I urge acceptance.
MR. ROBERT BEE EN.
are close to the street.
little traffic.
I ge along with that. All the houses
~It's a private road and there is very'
THE CNAIRFAN: When I looked at the area I noticed that
Let No~ 11. had less frontage. The applicant is requesting
25 feet. Are there any other questions?
(There was ne response.)
TEE CNAIRMAN: Is there amycne present who wishes to speak
against this applicatiem?
(There was no respemse.)
After i~vestigatien and imspection the Board finds that
applicant requests permission to construct dwelling with less
tham required setback en premises located: Lot Ne. 12, Map ef
Salt Lake Village, Mattituck, New York. The findings of the
Boa~d are that a 25 foot setback would not alter the character
of the neighborhood. The Bemrd agrees with the ~easenimg of
the applicant.
TOWn Board of A!opeals
- 10 - March 29, 1973
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance
would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship;
the hardship created is unique and would uot be sh~red 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 0rdtnamee.
On motion by Nr. Bergen, seconded by M~. F~lse, it was
RESOLVED, Carl and Frances Chapman, Mattituck, New York,
be GRANTED permission to constBuct dwelling with less than
required setback on Let No. 12, Map of Salt Lake Village,
Matt!tuck, New York, as applied for.
Vote ef the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillfspie, Bergem, Eulse,
Doyen.
PUBLIC ~EARING: Appeal No. 1736 - 8:15 P.M. (E.S.T.),
Elizabeth~A. A!len and Jame Chambers, 280 Henderson Street,
Jersey City, New Jersey.
MR. HOWARD TERRY, Building Inspector: I had a telephone
call asking if the applicants could postpone the hearing until
the next meeting of the Board. The call came from the office
of Cerwim & Glickman, attorneys.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was
RE~OLVED that the hearing om Appeal No. 1736, Elizabeth A.
Allen and Jane Chambers, be postponed until 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.),
~pril 19, 1973.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
D~yen.
PUBLIC NEARING: Appeal No. 1737- 8:3G P.M. (E.S.T.),
upon application of Edcho aerporation, 320 Front ~t~eet, Greenpert,
New York, for a special exception in ace~dance with the Zoning
Ordinance, Article VII, Section 700 B4, for permission to operate
public garage. Locatie~ ef property: north side Sound Avenue,
Mattituck, be~mded north by L.I. Railroad; east by A. T~uthill;
south by ~ound Avenue; west by A. Palkovieh. Fee paid ~15.00.
Southold TowmBoard of Appeals - 11 - Narch 29, 1973
The C~airman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a special exception , legal notice of hearing, affidavits
attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and
metiee to the applicant.
TNE CNA~IRF~N: The applicatiom is accompanied by a survey
ef Van Tuyl dated July 26, 1972 indicating that the property
is on Soumd. Avenue and backs up against the Long Island Railroad.
It's an irregularly shaped piece of property, zoned B-1. There
is a large two story frame house on the property. In the rear
there are a number of buildings which were at one time used for
agricultural purposes. The property has 170 feet on Sound Avenue,
177 feet on the easterly dimension and 77.91 feet om the westerly
dimension. Using average dimensions, we come up with less than
15,000 square feet.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this applieatie~
~R. JOHN ONR'ISTIE: (President of Edcho Corp.) The unusual
layout or.this property along the Railroad tracks requires some
sort of bu~er. We request that a portion of this garage be
utilized amd also that a buffer be created between the railroad
tracks amd the two story structure that is there. This is an
unstable type ef structure. We would like to enhance the
property, itself, but we have te have something which would
be economically feasible other than the present buffer.
T~E CN~IRMAN: The propesa! is te erect a public garage
for repair services?
MR. CERISTIE: Yes, Just repair services. The size ef the
buildimg is 75~feet by 25 feet to be placed so that it would be
up agaimst the railroad tracks and the only access would be from
the eno roadway we h~ve which is west ef the building.
TEE CHAIRF~N: What is the total area?
MR. CHRISTIE: i believe it is better than a half acre.
TRE CNAIRNAN: There is a three family dwelling there now,
in the two~ Story frame house, and the building to the west is
used as a garage for the tenamts of the building.
MR. CERISTIE: A portion of it is being used as a garage.
It is garage-and storage.
MR. RICHARD MOREET~, tenant: It's Just an old wooden
building, tk~eequarters of it is ready' to fall down. I have
two boys who play outside and I think the building is dangerous.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12-
March 29, 1973
E. ANTHONY GEORGI (tenant): ! think it is a fire hazard.
I would like to see it improved a let better than the condition
it is in right now.
MR. ROBERT BERGEN: Do you think a public garage would be
less attractive te children?
MR. GEORGI: The garage would be a new building. What we
are talking ab~at is that eld structure. Children go in there
and feel areumd and something might happen. Also the building
would probably burn faster than we could get out of our house.
THE CEA'IRMAN: F~v. Christie, are you planning to build a
new buildtmg?
MR. GN/~I~TIE: Yes, a whole new structure.
MRS. ~UN~INE: I believe it would increase traffic.
MRB. MoRELLI (temant): As the mother ef two ehildrem
living there, I~go,aleng with a new building. I thimk it
would be a lot safer.
I~RS. GEORGI (temamt): I agree for the same reasons. I
have a little girl. There are three small children livi~g l~
this house.
T~E GN~IRMAN: Is there anyone presemt who wishes to speak
against this,applicatiem?
N~s. Sunshine: Who will supervise the traffic? Is it
going to be a body work shop?
MR. CERISTI~: It will'be automobile repairs, tune-ups.
I dent% umderstamd what Ns. Sunshine means by traffic.
TEE CNAIF~N: I presume she is referring to customers.
MR, ONRIBTIE: They could only come in through one area
which would be the driveway.
MRS. SUNLINE: I understamd that the mothers claim the
present building is dangerous te their children~ If this is
granted there will be traffic of ears coming in.
Tw~ CE~IRMAN: Yom are saying that the eld building is an
attractive nuisamee.
Southeld Tow~Board ef Appeals - 13 - March 29, 1973
MRS. MORELLt: The old building is dangerous to children,
amd it's a fire bRzard. The new building would be a let safer
as far as danger of fire and falling down are concerned.
I~RZ. ALBERT SUNSHINE: The old building doesn't have any
business beimg carried on in it so the problem of the old
building is that ef being a firetrap. That is not the reason
for creating the new business.
MR. ROBERT BERGEN: Are you going to run this garage
yourself?
MR. CHRISTIE: I am going to rent it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have to speak against this application
because, basically, a public garage has many requirements in
the Ordinance as a matter of law. The lot is undersized among
ether things and, also, the Board feels that the lot is
Pretty well tenanted now. There are three dwelling units on
it and this would be excessive use for an undersized parcel.
Also, we would be involved in creating a new business cna
parcel which is already' occupied. The remedies for firetrap
objections are net within the province of this Board to solve.
MR. CNRISTIE: What are the requirements for a public
garage?
TEE CHAIRMAN: It is defimed in the Ordinance Under Article
VII, B,1 Gemeral Business District, Section 700 B-4. (The
Chairman read from the Ordinamce). We are also guided by
Bulk Requirements.
MR. CERI~TIE: What we are hoping to do is to utilize one
third of this garage, inside the garage, and be able te come
back to this Board at a later date'to hang a sign outside. We
are net looking for gasoltme tanks. We thought we could stay
within the bounds of what is ia the Ordinance.
TR~ GN~IRI~N: Yen are trying te utilize every available
partof this property. You are already' utilizing a three family
residemoe which is in excess of the ~0,000 sq. ft. requirement
of the TOWn for-residence use. 'Our objection is en the intensive
development of a small area, mere intensive than is permitted.
The Board doesn!t have the tight'or the power to grant where
the area required is reduced by approximately' one-third, and
where the area is presently used for a three family dwelling.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against thisrappllcatiem?
Southold TOW~ Boa~d of Appeals - 1~ - March 29, 1973
~. PETER WARREN: I take the stand that another public
garage would be tee m~oh especially om a small piece of
property'.
MR. EENRY ALEC: I go along with you. They are trying to
do away with a fire hazard but PUtting that type of business
in I think Would endanger children. It's too small a piece
of property. There have been a couple of places which have
been closed up which were gas stations.
MRS. $1~N~IE~: t am against the proposal. My husband
is going to open a medical office adjacent te this property.
We feel the ~noise level would be annoying. It's a very
pretty street and in a part of the village that people could
walk to, and I domtt thimk there should be a business there
like a public garage.
(The Chairman read letter received from Mr. Frank Anderson,
Executive Vies President of the North Fork Bamk & Trust Company
dated March 29, 1973, expressing the opinion that such a public
garage would have the affect of dowm.grading the area and that
tho property in question does mot have sufficient area te
adequately support such a garage.)
After tnvestigatiOm and tnspectiom the'~Board fimds that
applicant reqmests permission to operate public garage on
premises located om the morth side of Bound Avenue, Mattituck,
New York. The findimgs of the Board are that this is am
undersized parcel already tenamted by three families and that
it would be tee intensive a use for the a~ea involved, which
is approximately omc half aero. The Board does mot agree that
the proper remedy for~a fire hazard is to create a new business.
The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare a~d
Justice will mot be served and the legally established or
permitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use
districts will be permanently or substantially injured and the
spirit of the 0rdtnanee will mot be observed.
0n motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by F~. Gillfspie, it was
RESOLVED, Ed~ho COrp., 320 Front Street, Greenport, New
York, beDENIED permiSsiom to operate public garage on the
north side of ~ound Avenue, Mattituck, New York, for the
reasons stated.
Vote ef the Board:
Doyen.
~les:- Messrs: Gilltspie, Bergen, Hulse,
Southold TOWn Board ef Appeals - 15 -
March 29, 1973
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1738 - 8:~0 P.M. (EoS.T.),
upon app!ieation of Williams Construetimg, Ime., 320 Fromt
Street, Greenport, New York, for a variance im accordance
with ~tie~ III, ~eCtien 303 of ~he Z~ning 0~dinance, fo~
per~ssi~m te coms~ruct dwelling with less t~n average
setback. ~catiem ,f p~epe~ty: east side Cerey O~eek Read,
B~theld, b~ed me,th by E. Ha~; east by A. Meyer; south by
J. ~m~; ~st by PriVate Read, Cerey C~eek Road. Fee paid
The Chaix~aam opemed the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearimg, affidavits attesting
to its pmblication in the official newspaperS, and notice to
the applicant.
TNE CHAIRMAN: Is there amyene present who wishes to speak
for this applicmtiom?
MR. EDE E. WILLI~: I am here to speak for the
applicat i on.
g THE CHAIRNAN:
MR. WILLIAN~:
deep ....
What is the size ef the property?
It has 120 feet en the road and is 125 feet
THE G~tRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
THE CHA IRF~N:
How big a house is it geimg te be?
It will be a small Cape Ccd.
It would have to be ~%0 square feet in size.
After investigatie~ amd imspectiem the Board finds that
apPlicamt requests permission to construct dwelling with less
t~ average setback on ~he east side ef Gorey Creek Read,
Seutheld, New York. The fimdiugs ef the Beard are that the
two adJeinimg hcmses have excessive setbacks. The Beard agr. ees
with the reasoning of the applicant.
The Beard finds ~hat strict application of the O~dinance
would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary' hardship;
the hardship created is unique and would mot be shared by all
T~g GHAIRNAN: The properties to the north amd south are
presemtly occupied amd those people built their houses way
bask from Oorey C~eek Road so they have front yards of 70 or
80 feet. As your lot is im between these two I think that
explaims the problem.
~euthold TOWa Board of Appeals - 16 - Narch 29, 1973
and in the same use district; and the variance Will ne~ change
the character o£ the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit
of the Ordinance°
On met!on by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. H~lse, it was
RESOLVED, Williams Constructing, Inc., 320 FrontStreet,
Greenport, New Yo~k, be GRA~NTED permission~o construct dwelling
with less tha~ average setback o~premises located on the east
Side of Corey Creek Road, Beuthold, New York, as applied for,
subject to the felIewi~g condition:
That dwelling be set back at least 35 fe~t from Corey Creek
Read to meet the present requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Vote of the Beard: Ayes:- Messrs: Giliispie, Bergen, H~tse,
Doyen.
PUBLIC NEARING: Appeal Ne. 1742 - 9:00 P.M. (E.S.T.),
upom apDlicatten~of Robert ~. Levy, Harbor Lights Drive, Southold,
New York, for a variance tn accordance with A~ticle III, Section
300 C3 and Section 302 ef the'Zonimg Ordinance, for permission
te construct garage in front yard area. Location ef property:
Let #8, Map of Harbor Lights Estate~, Section One, Southold.
~ee pai~
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal metice ef hearing, affidavits attesting
te its pmblieatien in the official newspapers, and notice te
the applicant.
T~tE CN~IR~: The application is accompanied by a s~rvey
indiea~ing~ that the applicant is the owner of a pieSshaped
let, 29~.80 feet en one side and 332.63 feet en the ether side.
The narrow emd of the property is near the water And is 104.56
feet. It is bulkheaded em the water. The dimensibn of the
southerm boundary is 133.09 feet. The property' is reached from
a private read.
T~ CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone p~esent who wishes te speak
for tNuis auplicatiem?
NR. ROBERT LEaVe: I really have nothing to add except that
the front is the back and the back is the fro~t.
Seutheld TOWn Board of Appe~!s
- 17 - March 29, 1973
THE OHAIRNAN: From a Zoning point of view the front yard
is the yard from which you have access, usually it's a highway.
The area tewa~dS the water slopes down to the water sharply
and the proposal is to place the garage in the middle of the
easterly lime. What size is the garage?
LEVY: It's a two car garage, about 2~ square feet.
THE CHAIRNAN: In backing emt you would net back out en
a through public high, ay er a private driveway?
MR. LEVY: No.
TI~ CHAIRNAN: How fa~ from the southert~ line of the
property would it be?
LEVY: All,ut 75 er 80 feet.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is Harbor Lights Drive a private road?
LEVY: Yes.
TEE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
(There was ne response.)
After investigation and inspection the Board finds
the applicatiom requests permissio~ to construct garage
front yard area on premises located : Map #8, Map of Earbor
Lights Estates, Section Omc, Southold. The Board finds that
due to the fact that this is waterfront property the road
side ef the property is the rear ef the property and what is
normally considered te ~hethe rear cf the property is the
front. The Board agrees with the reasonlmg of the applicant.
The Beard fimds 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
ef the 0rdimamce.
On motion by Mr. Doyen, seeemded by Mr. H~lse, it was
RE~OLVED, Robert E. Levy, Harbor Lights Drive, Eouthold,
New York,~be GRANTED permission to erect a 24' x 24' garage
in the fromt yard of property, Let #8, Map of Harbor Lights
Estates, Seetiem One, Southeld, as applied for, subject to
the following conditions:
~outhold TOWn Board of Appeals
- 18 - MarCh 29, 1973
1. That the garage be located at least 8 feet from the
easterly line of the property.
2, That the garage be located at least 75 feet from the
southerly line of the property.
Vote of the Board:
Doyen.
Ayes:- Nessrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
PUBLIC HEA~ING: Appeal No. 1739 - 9:10 P.M. (E.S.T.),
upon application of Dorothy' M. Robohm, N~tn Road, Seuthold,
New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,
~rticle III, ~ection 301 and Bulk Schedule, for permission to
divide property with less than required area. Location of
property: northeast side of Youugs Road, Southold, bounded
north by C. Schwarz; east by Midfarm Road; SOuth by H. Conroy
and J. Frass; west by Etll Road. Fee paid ~15.00.
The Chairman opened the hea~ing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting
to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to
the applicant~
TEE CNAIRNAN: The application is accompanied by' a sketch
which shows Parcel I which is vacant, and Parcel ti which is
occupied by Mrs. Prass.
THE C~IP~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
L_~FERT~ P. EDSON, ESQ.: I have a contract which provides
for the sale ef Parcel I bY Lillfan Frass to Dorothy Robohm,
the purpose being to allow l d rs. Robohm to PUt a new house on
that property. Parcel I has always been in single and separate
ownership. There is a technical merger of II and I by reason
of the death of Mr. Frass. The vacant one was in her hame alone.
We have to make this application as it would leave less than one
acre.
THE GH~IR~N: This is larger tham surrounding parcels.
TEE CN~.IRM~N: Is there anyone present who wishes te speak
against this.application?
(There was no respomse.)
After investigatiom and inspection the Board finds that
applicant requests permission to divide property with less
than required area on premises located on the northeast side of
Youngs Road, Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are
Seuthold TOWn Board of Appeals
- 19 -
March 29, 1973
that Parcel I as described in the survey ef Van ~=y! da~ed
~eptember 21, 1960 is larger than surrounding parcels. The
Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant as set forth
by the applicant's attorney. Thedescription of this Parcel I,
as cemtaimed in the survey, imcludes a pie-shaped piece which
is separately designated on the survey.
The Board finds that strict application ef the 0rdinamce
weald produce practical difficulties er unnecessary hardship;
the hardship created is unique and weald not be shared by all
properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property amd
im the same use district; amd the variance will not change
the character of the meighborhood, and will observe the spirit
of the Ordinance.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. H~lse, it was
RESOLVED, Dorothy M. Robohm, Main Road, $outhold, New
York, be GRANTED permissiom to divide property with less than
required a~ea en premises located on the northeast side of
Yeungs ~venue, Southold, New York, as applied for.
Vote of the Beard: Ayes:- Messrs: Gtllispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyen.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal Ne. 17~1 - 9:20 P.M. (E.S.T.),
upom aPPli~cattom_of Sarah E. Gillespie, Smith Drive North,
South01d, New York, for a variance in accordance with the
Zoning 0rdimamce, ~rticle III, ~ection 300 C1 for permission
to use building as doctor's office, doctor ~oes not live in
same building. Location of property: east Side Fmple Lane,
Bouthold, bounded ~orthby B. Hellman; east by L. EdsOn;
south by D. Pettit, west by Maple &venue (Private Road).
Fee paid $15.00.
TheChairman opemed the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting
to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to
the applicant.
T~E CEAIRM~N: The application is accompanied by a survey
of Van Tuyl indicatl$g that property of Sarah E. Gillespie is
approximately 184 feet in depth, 70 feet on Maple Avenue and
69 feet plus at the rear line.
Southold Town Board of Appeals - 20 - March 29, 1973
TM~. CEA~IRMAN: Is there arlene present who wishes to speak
for this application?
LEFFERTS P. EDSON, ESQ.: I have a contract for sale of
this property by Sarah E. Gillespie to Dr. Barry Hellman. The
contract is subject to obtaining a variance to allow him to use
the premises as a medical office to serve the people of
Southold. He will not reside in it because he lives next door.
I believe that the application states the situation.
THE CEAIRN~N: Does anyone else wish to speak for this
application?
DR. BAREYHEIiLMAN: I am interested in the property
because I feel there is a need. I must open an office in
Southold meat m~ home. I have m~.main office in Greenport
and Put in four full days there. Those days require about
twelve hours a day. Because of the demand cn me at this
point I have to expand m~ office hours. I am in Greeuport
on MOnday, Tuesday, Thursday amd Friday and I need additional
time. I will use the building just for myself in Southold.
There are several reasons for obtainimg an office. There are
a number of perseus who find it difficult to get to Greenport,
they can't find transportation.
My major office will stay in Greenoort. It is hard to
get to Greenpert in the middle of the n~ght. Those people in
Southold can walk down to Maple Lane. Because of having to
increase my office hours, ~ would like to be nearer home. As
lam as making a change in the area, it will not make much
difference. I used to practice eu~ of my office.
THE CN~!RMAN: That is a permitted use.
DR. EELLMJ~N: That house of mine was rented to a doctor
who did not livepin the building.
THE CHAIRMAN: &¢cessery uses are limited to the following:
"Home occupations shall be understood to include the professional
office or studio of a doctor, dentist, teacher, artist, architect,
engineer, musician, lawyer, magistrate or practitioner of a
similar character PROVIDED that the office, studio or occupational
rooms are located in a~dwelling in which the practitioner resides,
etc." What I am saying is that when you used your residence
as a~dector,s office you were doimg what is permitted.
DR. HELLMAN: However, what I am saying is that it was used
for mamy years by a doctor who did mot reside in the house. If
I built em to my house and used it as an office there would be the
same traffic, same parking problems as if I used the building mext
door to me as an extension of my house and a place to practice
medicine.
Southeld TOWn Beard of Appeals - 21 - March 29, 1973
If parking is the major concerm the whole thing could be
answered by a telephone call. There is plenty of room for
parking en the driveway or the grass. The amount of traffic
might come te eight or ten hours a week plus emergencies that
occur at night. I don't think it would be that ~uch of an
imposition. I think it is important to try to practice good
medicine for m~ patients. I don't think there will be any
%remendeus amount ef profit made. I need a place where I
can Just get e~t ef bed and go nearby and practice. I cantt
de it in m~ home. I have four kids and the house is too small.
I would rather have the building ~ext door than to build on to
m~ house as it will make a confusing mess. It would do nothing
te change the Characteristics ef the neighborhood. I don't
imtend te rent. I w~uld be perfectly willing to state that in
All I want te do is to practice medicine there a total of
about ten.hOurs a week. Eventually the house will probably net
be an office. It would probably be turned over te m~ mother.
I am talking about ten years in the future.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else wish te speak for this
application?
LEF~ERTS P. EDSON, ESQ.: I might suggest that the building
when acquired would become an accessory building on the part
that it merged and would have a valid use in the 0rdinanee.
E. HOWARD TERRY, Building Inspector: That would be an
accessory building in the side yard instead of the rear yard
area.
THE C~RNAN: Does amyone else wish to speak for this
application?
(There was ne response.)
TEE CHA~IRNAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this.application?
RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ.: I represent a rather large group
of people ia t~e area ef the subject property: John Byrne,
D. Pettit,'Richmemd Corwin, Arthur Joost, Coleman, Debler.
This is rather a ticklish situation in that the type of use that
is requested is certainly not one that would be considered to
be detrimental te the p~blic welfare but I dem't think that is
the issue. I would like to make it clear in behalf of the
people I represent that there is no amtmosity but rather
oppesitiom stemming from the concern of the people in the
immediate area as te what effect it might have on their
enJe~memt and aisc tha~ it deviates from the Ordinance. The
use intended is a prohibited use.
~outhold TOW~ Beard of Appeals - 22 - March 29, 1973
The Ordinance does not permit this use in an "A" Residential
area unless the individual is also a resident. I think yen have
to view the application for what it is. I view it as a use
variance. I think the most important thing yen have to note
is te define the particular basis for granting a use variance.
If you view the application itself in terms of a use variance
you h_-.ve te have practical difficulties er unnecessary hardship.
The courts have defined these matters which deal with areas,
sideyards, etc. That is what they mean by "practical difficulties".
In the. case of unnecessary hardship where the restrictions a~e
so burdensome that an individual would suffer a substantial loss,
that's the sole limitation. I think, in all honesty, that there
is ~o~hing in the application te demonstrate "unnecessary hard-
ship". If yen ap~ly the term as it is defined by the courts
in determining whether a variance for a particular let shall
be given, you have te shew some smbstantial loss. I think it is
clear that "practical difficulty" does not apply, se yen are i~
the area cf."unnecessary hardship".
You have to shew that the particular hardship is unique and
net shared by all ether prepertles. Nothing could be further
from the truth here because all other properties are of like
nature and'burdened with the same type of restrictions. It is
net unique. It is surrounded by residential dwellings. If
there were business areas you might ~not~arg~e that this hardship
is unique te this piece. The entire area is similar se it is
not unique.
Im terms ef the affect on the character of the area while
it is. true there will not be any change physically, that is net
the Sole criteria. I am sure the Beard is familiar with this
particular area. Yo~ are dealing with a single, private,
residential dwelling. It's on a private read with a rather
marrow width, 18 feet wide. If you park en beth sides of the
read it would be impossible for another car te pass through
there. I would like to present to the Beard pictures of the
area anti_also a picture ef the good doctor's residence.
TO get somewhat legal I would like te cite cases in New
York which deal with this type of thing. (Nm. Cron read from
the text efa Court ef Appeals ease -Olark vs. Zoning Board
of Appeals - where a variance had been granted and it was
reversed. "~ection 267 ef Town Law -Beard of Appeals to vary
applieatien~ ef TOWn Zoning Ordinance - Where there are practical
difficulties er unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out
the strict letter of these regulations, the Board ef Appeals
shall have the power to vary er modify the application of such
regulations so that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed,
public,welfare and safety secured and substantial Justice done.")
Our variance position in the Ordinance uses the same language.
Southold TOWn Beard of Appeals - 23 - March 29, 1973
In other cases M~. Cron quoted "there mast at least be
proof that a particular piece of property suffers singular
disadvantage." The Board may decide to amend when "bhe plight
of the owner is due to unique circumstances". If there be a
I submit that the type of situation you are dealing with
here could only find relief through a zoning change. This
application is contrary to the general scheme of the Ordinance.
Under the section Rome Occupations consideration was given to
this type of situation. It expressly sets for.th requirements
that are necessary in order to conduct this particular type
of use. Further down there are some substantial restrictions.
I would like to read into the record another court
procedure which I think is pertinent: 282 New York - "Before
the Board may exercise its discretion and g~ant a variauce
the record m~st show that the land can not yield a reascuable
return if used only for the purpose allowed in that z~ue, and
that the plight of .the owner is due to unique circumstances,
and that the use authorized by the variance will not alter
substantially the character of the neighborhood".
What I am saying is that there ~as been no demonstration
of unnecessary hardship in this case; there has been no
demonstration that it is unique to the subject parcel. If
you g~ant, you open the deer te similar applications and~will
destroy the entire general scheme. If you grant you defeat.
As the Court of Appeals said, you have to go through a zoning
change to do this. Ko, I would have to submit to the Board
that because of all the reasons that are stated, a use variance
would have to be denied.
T~ CHAIRMAN:
applicat ion~
Does anyone else wish to speak against this
I~R. PETF~R WARREN: I have to agree that you could be open-
ing up a Pamdora~s Box..~ lot ef doctors could open up office
buildings. We don~t need doctors in residential areas. There
are business sections. I have a doctor next door to .me. What's
to stop him from buying my house and opening up a medical center.
Just in the back of my mind there is the possibility of a break-
dow~ in the Ordinance which would bring an influx cf medical
centers in residential areas.
MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to express my opposition to
this on the grounds of the last speaker. It opens the way for
amything that can happen. On that basis, we are the eries who
will suffer, not the doctor ~o wants to expand. I should think
there should be a demonstration by the applicant that there is
no ether way he ca~ do this. Within a few hmndred feet of the
property there is a public highway where it is completely zoned
Southold TeWU Board of Appeals - 24 - March 29, 1973
for business and there are places he can find to build or rent.
There has been no attempt made to demonstrate that he can't do
this. We are all against a variance.
LEFFERT~ P. EDSON, ESQ.: I think Mr. Cron's statements
would have a good deal of validity if we were talking about
omo structure. We are talking about accessory use which would
be a merger om omo property, which would be permitted under the
Ordinance.
RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ.: This has not'been proposed as an
accessory use but by no stretch of the imagination can this
be considered accessory use. It meets mono of the requirements.
There are accessory buildimgs on the principal residence of
Dr. Hellmam as it now exists. It would not be in the rear yard.
There is no appltcattom before the Board which would allow the
Board to cemstder this.
THE C~L~IRMAN: Do you care te rebut that Mr. Edsen?
~. ~SO -N. No, I will stamd.
THE CH~IRM~ . I am not sure whether everybody here is
aware, that~ the Board of Appeals has to make its decisions im
public which is not true of many other Boards. So, the
decision on the appeal before us has to be made now or at
some later public meeting. Since yo,~ are all present, I
think the proper time is now.
I have discussed the various aspects of this application
with the ToW~ Atterney~as to his opinion. We are guided to
some extent by his opintom as to the legal aspects. It seemed
to me, and our TOWn Attorney agreed with me, that we could not
entertain this applicatiom. Yen really should not have appeared
here. Of course, amyome cam ask for an application om anything.
I don'~ thimk it is withim the power of this Board to take a
residential building and designate it as an accessory building
to the existimg residemtial building. Furthermore, the Ordinance
has provided for doctors practicing im their homes. Of course,
the tremd is away from that today.
We do have im our Ordimance Light Business which would
probably be the place for a professiomal office of a doctor
or lawyer if his business is mot comdueted in his residence.
I believe that is the type ef office Dr. Hellman is using mow
im Greemport. We agree that there is a shortage of doctors
but I dom~tthimk the Board ef Appeals cam properly ~ascribe
hardship as applyimg im this case. Many people think that
because of some finameiaI hardshi~ that their variances should
be allowed by this Board but that is net regarded as legitimate
grounds for granting a va~iamce as it applies to the use of land.
Seuthold TOWn Board ef Appeals
- 25 - March 29, 1973
For these reasons I would have to be against this application
without prejudice to w~atever Dr. Hellman wishes to do with
his own property im the future. It we~ld be usurping the
legisla~ive functions ef the TOWn Board, and the only case
we have lost in the last fifteen years was for that type of
situation. The TOWn Beard represents the whole TOWn and
provides the Ordinance umder which we work here on this Board.
LEFFERTS P. EDSON, ESQ.: 0~r thinking was that this
would met disturb the neighborhood any more than if Dr.
Hellmam used the first fleer of his residence.
TEE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else present who wishes
te speak?
(There was no response.)
After i~ves~igatien amd inspection the Board finds that
applicant requests permissiom te use building as doctor's
office on premises located om the east side of Maple Lame,
Southcld, New York. The fimdings of the Board are that
the use proposed is a. prohtblted use in an "A" Residemtial
area according to the Seutheld TeWm Zoning Ordinance which
stipulates that "Home occupations shall be understood to
include the professional office or studio of a doctor, dentist,
teacher, artist, architect, engineer, musician, lawyer,
magistrate er practitioner efa similar character PROVIDE~D
that the office, studio or occupational rooms are located in
a dwelling in which the practitioner resides, and in a building
accessory thereto." The Ordinance has provided for doctors
practicing in their owm homes. It is not within the power of
the Board to designate a residential dwelling as an accessory
building to an exis~img residential dwelling.
The Beard finds that strict applieatiom of the Ordinance
would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship;
the hardship created is not unique and would be shared by all
properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property
amd in the same use district; and the variance will change the
character of the neighborhood, and wull not observe the spirit
of the 0rdimamce.
Om motion by M~. Bergen, seconded by ~. Gillispie, it was
RESOLVED, Sa~ahE. Gillespie, Smith Drive North, Southold,
New York, be DENIED permission to use building as doctor's office
en premises located on the east side ef Maple Lane, Seuthold,
New York, without prejudice to any future applications.
Veto ef the Beard: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyen.
Southold Town Board of Appeals - 26 -
March 29, 1973
For the Record: The Board conducted three informal
hearings with the following persons:
David Horton re. house on corner of 3rd Street and
Orchard Street. Mr. Horton asked if his client could tear
down an old house and replace it with a new house. As there
is also a bungalow en the premises, Mr. Horton was told that
there could only be one house on the lot.
George Bird re. auction sale. The Chairman asked Mr.
Terry to accept the application subject to a hearing at the
earliest date.
George Ahlers re. special exception for multiple residence.
On motion by Mr. Gtllispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that the minutes of the Southold ToWn Board of
&ppeals dated March 8, 1973, be approved as submitted subject
to minor correction as follows:
That the condition "subject to all rules and regulations
governing signs in the Town of Southold" be added to the
Actions of &ppeal No. 1725 amd Appeal No. 1726, Mattituck
Inlet Marina and Shipyard.
Vote of the Beard: ~yes:- Messrs: Gitlispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyen.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 7:30
P.'M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, ~pril 19, 1973, at the TOWn Office,
Maim Road, Seuthold, New York, as the time and place of hearing
upem application of Elizabeth A. Allen , and Jane chambers, 280
Hendersom Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, for a variance in
accordance with the Zonimg 0rdinamce, Article III, Section 300,
for permissiom to use existing accessory building as dwellimg.
Location of property: west side Stars Road, East Marion, bounded
north by Stars Read West; east by Stars Road; south by Philip
l~umemti; west by Balders, Weiss amd others. (See l~egal notice
for Public hearing to be held on March 29, 1973 at 6:15 P.M.
By request of the applicant the hearing was Postponed by
resolution of the Beard until 7:30 P.M., April 19, 1973.)
Vote of the Board: Ayes:-Messrs: Gillispte, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyen.
Southold TOWn Beard of Appeals - 27 - March 29, 1973
On motion by N~. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was
RESOLVED that the Seutheld TeW~ Beard of Appeals set 7:~5
P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, April 19, 1973, at the ToWn Office,
Main Road, SoUthold, NeW York, as the time and place ef heariug
upon application'of Eugene D. McElrey, ~65 Topsail Lane, Southold,
New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct attached garage with
insufficient Side yard. Location ef property: east side Topsail
Lane, $outhold, Let ~43, Map ef Leeward Acres, Seuthold, New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:-Messrs: Gillispte, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyen.
On motion by Mr. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold' TeWm Beard of Appeals set 7:55
P.N. (E.S.T.), Thursday, April 19, 1973, at the. Town Office,
Maim Read, Semthold, New York, as the time and place of hearing
upon application of ~rcheelogical Association of New York,
Haim Bayvtew Read, Southold, New York, for a special exception
in accordance with the Zemimg Ordinance, Article III, Section
300 C 6(f) and Article XI, Section ll00, subsection l, for
permission to erect off Premises directional sign on property
of Semibold Bayview Corp. Location of property: corner ef
Hain Bayvtew Read and Route 25, Southold, New York.
Vote of the Beard: Ayes:- Messrs: Giliispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyen.
On metiom by Mr. Doyem, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was
RESOLFED tb~t the ~outhold TOWn Board ef Appeals set 8:05
P.M. (E-$-T.), Thursday, April 19, 1973, at the TOWn Office,
Main Road, Southold, NewYork, as the time abd place of hearing
upo~ application of Elsie Mastresimone, 355 Riviera Drive,
South Massapequa, New York, for a variance in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, SectiOn 301 and Bulk Schedule,
for permission to divide property with insufficient area and
frontage. Location ef property: east side of Inlet Lane
Extension (priVate road), ~reenpert, bounded north by-M.
Mastrosimone; east by Gull Pond; south by Carl Schaub; west by
P~ivate Road.
Vote of the Board:
Doyen.
Ayes:-Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Southold Town Board of Appeals
- 28 - March 29, 1973
On motion by M~. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that the Beuthold TOWn Board of Appeals set 8:15
P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, April 19, 1973, at the TOWn Office,
Main Road, $outheld, New York, as the time and place of hearing
upon application ef William E. Werthimgton, Sound Avenue,
MattituCk, for a variamce in accordance with the Zening
0rdinamce, Article III, Section 300 C5, amd Article III, A 2(c),
for permissiom to comstruct stable and keep horse with less than
required area. Location of property: south side of Sound Avenue,
Mattituck, bounded north by Eeumd Avenue; east by E. R. Johnson;
south by Jack Driscoll; west by Jack Driscoll.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyen.
Om motion by M~. Hulse, seconded by Fr. Gtllispie, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold TOWn Board of Appeals set 8:35
P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, April 19, 1973, at the TOWn Office,
Maim Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing
upon application of Jules Adriaenssens, 1225 August Road,
North Babylon, New York, for a variance in accordance with the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 303 and Bulk Schedule,
for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient setback or
rear yard. Location of property: north side Lupron Point Read,
Mattituck, bounded north by Elmer Ruland, Jr.; east by T.
Dougherty; south by Lupron Point Road; west by Elmer Rulaud, Jr.
Vote ef the Board:
Doyen.
Ayes:-Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Nutse,
On motiom by M~. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Yergen, it was
RESOLVED that the gouthold TOWmYOard' of Appeals set 8:45
P.M. (E~S.T.), upon application of Lloyd Terry, Main Road, Orient,
New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 300 BS, for permission to
operate farm !abet camp. Location of property: so~th side Main
Road, Orient, New York, bounded no~thby Main Road; east by
Terry Estate; south by Terry Estate; west by Edward Latham.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyem.
Southold TOW~ Board of Appeals - 29 - March 29, 1973
On motion by M~. Bergen, seconded by' F~r. Hulse, it was
REBOLVED that the Eeuthold TOWn Board of Appeals set 9:00
P.~. (E.S.T.), Thursday, April 19, 1973, at the TOWn Office,
Main Road, Seuthold, New York, as the time and place of hearing
upon application ef Framk Knispel, Mill Road, Mattituck, New
York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Article V, Section 500 B and Article VIII, Section 800 B, for per-
mission te erect four unit motel. Location of property: south side
01d Mill Road, Eattituck, bounded north by 01d Mill Road; east by
Stanley Naugles; south by Alonzo P~ Robinson; west by Alonzo F.
Robimson.
Vote ef the Board:. Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyen.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 9:15
P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, April 19, 1973, at the Town Office,
Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing
upon application ef Edmond Bekina, 4505 Main Road, Laurel, New
York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 300, B-8, for permission to
operate farm labor camp. Location of property: north side of
Main Road, LaUrel, bounded north by School District #9 line;
east by Oecil T. Young; south by Main Road; west by School
District #11 property and Aldrich Lane.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Doyen.
On motion by ~. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that the Seuthold TOWn Board of Appeals set 9:25
P.M. (E.S.T.~, Thursday, April 19, 1973, at the Town Office,
Main Road,.Seuthold, New York, as the time and place of hearing
upon application of Mattituck Inlet Marina & Shipyard, Inc.,
Mill Road, Mattituok, New York, for a special exception in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 300
C-6, for permission to erect off premises directional sign on
property of Eugene C. Sullivan. Location of property: south side
~outhold Town Beard of Appeals - 30 -
March 29, 1973
of Cox NeCk Road, MattituCk, New York, bounded north by Cox
Neck Road; east by P. Cerrite; south by Mattituck Creek; west
by Cox Neck Road and Herman.
Vote of the Beard: Ayes:, Messrs: GillisPie, Bergen, Eulse,
Doyen.
On motion by Mr. Gtllispie, Seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that the next regular meetimg of the ~outhold
' 0
TeWm Board 0f ~pPeals Will be held at 7.3 P.M. (E.S.T,),
Thursday, April 19, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, Seuthold,
New York.
VOte ef the Board:
Doyen.
The Meetimg was adjourned at ll:20 P.M.
Ayes:-Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Re spec tfu~lly submitted,
Mmrjorie McDermott, Secretary
Southold To~ Board of Appeals
Robert' ~. Gilllsp~"~ ~r., Chairma~ ,