Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/09/1973Southoltl Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. !., N.Y. 119'71 Telephone 765-c'6'60 APPEAL BOARD MEMBER Robert ~(/. Gil[ispie~ Jr., Ch~irm~n Robert Bergen Charles {~rigonis~ Jr. Serge Doyen~ Jr. Fred Hulse, Jr. MINUTES SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS A~gust 9, 1973 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of ~peals was held at 7830 P.M., Thursday, August 9, 1973, at the Town Office, Nain Read, Southeld, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairmanl Robert Bergen~ Charles GrzoonZs, Jr.l Fred Hulse, Jr. Also present8 N~. Howard Terry, Building Inspector. Absent: Nr. Serge Doyen, Jr. There was a discussion of Appeal No. 1799, George Ahlers and Barry Hellman. The Board decided to postpone the reading of the decision until after the scheduled Appesls had been heard. PUBLIC 5~ARING: Appeal No. 1813 - 7,45 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon application of Richard and Shirley Clark, 306 Sixth Street, Greenport, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 304, for permission to construct dwelling with less than average set- b~ck. Location of property: east side Rocky Point Road, south side Aquaview Avenue; east by Rocky Point Road~ south by land of Farmakidis and 18~d of ~lardikos~ west by Brown. Fee paid $15.oo. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- August 9, 1973 The Chairman opened 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. NR. HOWARD TERRY, Building Inspector: There is a dis- crepancy in the location of the lot accordi~ to the legal notice, On motion by N~ Gillispie, seconded by ~ro Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the corrected description of the property should ready'bounded on the west by Rocky Point Road", Vote of the Board: Ayes~- ~essrs~ Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. THE CHAI~AN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? M~, RICHARD CLARK~ If the setback is 35 feet or more there will be trouble with drainage. The foundation will require extra fill. I am concerned about drainage in the cellar, If we faced the house towards Rocky Point Road, we would be in a worse place, THE CHAIRMAN: Even 25 feet would be difficult. Because you have a corner lot, you have two front yards here. M~. ROBERT BERGEN: His g~age will be on the corner of the foundation. I don't like the idea of backing out on to the highway. THE CHAIPJ~AN: Cam you construct the driveway so that y,u don't back out on te Aqua View Avenue? MR. CLARK: The driveway would have to be put en an extreme angle or slant, Otherwise, I will have to bri~ in a lot of fill, The driveway will be two car widths wide. TP~ CHAIRNAN: You would need l0 or 15 feet more on the high side Or the low side so you would have enoch room to turn around ~itheut backing right out. This is a precautionary measure of the Board. MR, CLARK: That land is o~e continuous slope. You could dig a little out of the high side and put it en the low side. The only way I coul~ de it woul~ be to put it on the low side. MR. HOWARD TERRY, Building Inspector~ Quite a bit of fill will come out ef the high side, and there will be quite a bit mere when you dig your cesspools. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- August 9, 1973 THE CHAIR~N: You won't need the extra l0 feet for the whole length of the driveway. THE CHAIRNAN: Is there ~nyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection The Board finds that applicant requests permission te construct dwelling with less than average setback on the east side of Reeky Point Road, East Marion, New York. The findings of the Beard are that applicant has a severe hardship caused by a~nusually area on this lot. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties er 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 districts and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. 0n motion by ~. Gillispie, seconded by Nr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED, Richard and Shirley Clark, 306 Sixth Street, Greenport, New York, be GRANTED pez~mission te construct dwelling with less than average setback en the east side of Rocky Point Road, East Narion, New York, as applied for, subject te the following conditions: That dwelling be constructed no closer than 50 feet to Aqua View Avenue, and no closer than 25 feet to Rocky Point Read. That applicant shall furnish a~ area exiting from his garage of at least 30 feet to provide room for t~rning his car ~ud to avoid b~ckir~g out on to Aqua View Avenue. 3. That this permission is subject to the approval ef the Bmilding Inspector. Vote of the Beard~ Ayes:- Nessrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigenis. PUBLIC HEARiNG~ Appeal No. 1816 - 8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon application of Patricia Hecker, lll6 Main Street, Greenport, New Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- August 9, 1973 York, for a variance in accordance withthe Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 301 and the Bulk Schedule for permission tc convert existing garage and storage to dwelling~ building has insufficient side and rear yards for dwelling. Location ef property: west side Stars Road, East Narion, bounded north by stars Road West~ east by Stars Road; south by Philip Frumenti~ west by Balders, Weiss and others, Fee paid $15.0~. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, ~ffidavits attesting to its publication in the efficial newspapers, and notice te the applic~ut. THE C~AIRMAN~ The application is accompanied by a Van Tuyl survey indicating the location of this building on the lot which is 240 feet long on Stars Road by 105 feet in depth. It is a corner lot, THE CHAIRNAN: Is there anyone present who wishes tc speak for this application? STANLEY CORWIN, ESQ.~ I would like te address myself te the application. I am counsel for a firm that represents the applicant as contract vendee. The use of the property has been proscribed by existing conditions although the Assessor assessed it as a residential piece of property. The building can't be used for that purpose a¢cordir~ te the Building Inspector. If it is a residence, of course you can't build another one on this property. There is the element of self-imposed hardship to a degree, and there are other factors. I wou~d lik? to call your attention to the let on which this building exists, and the adjacent lot owned by Philip Frumenti~ He originally put this building in as an accessory buildim~. At the time this was going on he was the owner of property immediately to the south, which he sold te his son. There really~ is not any reamS, need here for the application except for the artificial lines that were drawn for front and back and rear. There is nc problem of access for police, ambulance, or firemen. Thi~ building takes up about one-fiftieth ef the lot, which is more than 20,000 sq. ft. It's a small buildinE and not intended tc be used for all year round living. According to strict application ef the Ordinance, the Building Inspector had no alternative but I think this Board should grant the application, THE CHAI~!AN: Is this not the same application that was presented here a few months ago (Elizabeth Allen and Jane Chambers), where the owners were living in it, The Board Southo!d Town Board of Appeals -5- Aagust 9, 1973 denied that application, Appeal No. 1736, because it was in violation of the Ordin~uce in all respects. It would be diffic~ultfer me to see how this application differs in its relationship~ whether it's the original applicant er the present applicant. NR~ CORWIN~ On occasion this Board has granted~ applications to build close to the line. There is the Levinson property on the Sound. THE CHAIR~d~: That particular situation did not come before this Board. It did net have to, beinga let in si~le and separate ownership prior to the passage of the Ordinance, ~. CORWIN: There are other instances, of course, involving these artificial front and rear lines. THE CHAIRMAN: I believe this is a self imposed hardship without, as I understand it, a Certificate of Occupancy. It has no building permit. I would have to be against the granting of this vari~uce for those reasons. The same reasons apply as applied to the previous application. What isthe size of the building? ~. CORWIN: 20t x 24'. THE CHAIR~N: That is undersized. MR. CORWIN: If the Board wemld make some sort of limita- tion. e. no ~e wants to use it for au all year remud residence. It's like camping cut in the summer time, yo~ can if you wamt THE CHAL~¥~N: In our situation, we cannot enable s~yone to put up a temporarY building and liv® in it for seasonal use. THE CHAIrmAN: Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRN~: Is there a~one present who wishes to speak against this application. NR. PHILIP FRU~NTi: I am the neighbor to the south. I am against it for many reasons, a lot of them personal. Any- time I have done ~uything on .my property I have asked whether I could de it or not. I do not do ~hing unless it is approve~. I wanted a garage in the front ofmy property. I was told I could not have it se I built it in the back ef my property. I use it for storage. I feel that if I have te go along with the Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- August 9, 1973 law, so does everyone else. ~. CORWIN~ We agree that everyone has to go along with the le~w but we are appealing to the variance board to exercise its discretion. We are prohibited from doing ~uything. NRS. FR~ENTI~ It also causes depreciation of our property and it really is an eyesore. It's right on top of us, three feet to the line. THE CHAI~N: How close is your garage to the line? How far apart are the two buildings? MS. FRU~NTI: Six or eight feet. 5iR. CORWIN: Nr. Frumenti's garage was built several ~years after this building was constructed. I would like to file photographs showing the exterior and the interior of the building. I would submit that the tendendancy of the Board to turn this down out of hand is a mistake. Certainly the hardship is not imposed on the present applicant. It was created a long time ago. THE CHAIRNAN: Would you not say it was a self imposed hardship if someone bought the lot with a building on it? MR. CORWIN: 5~. Frumenti was not obliged to draw a line when he sold it to his son. THE CHAIR~N~ The present applicant is not obliged to buy it. ~R.. CORWIN~ It is a lesser eyesore today than it has been before. THE CHAIRN3~N: i would not deo~v it on that basis. THE CF~IR~L~N: Are there any other questions? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to convert existing garage and storage to dwelling; building has insufficient side and rear yards for dwelling. Location of property~ west side Stars Road, East Marion, New York. The findings of the Board are that there is no reason to change the decision of the Board which was rendered on April 19, 1973 on Appeal No. 1736. The Board finds that the application is in violation of the Ordinance in all respects. It would be permissible for the applicant to apply for a buildi~ permit to move the dwelling to a location on the property that would meet the requirements of the Ordinance. Use of a building, without a Certificate ef Occupancy, is not permitted. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 9, 1973 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships the hardship created is not unique and would be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use districts and the variance will change the character of the neighborhood, and will not obsez-¢e the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by ~. Gillispie, seconded by~r. Bergen, it was RESOLVED, Patricia Hocker, lll6 Nain Street, Greenport, New York, be DENTED permission to convert existing garage and storage to dwelling on the west side of Stars Road, East Narion~ New York, as applied for, for the reasons stated. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Nessrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal upon application of Kurt Koehler, Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 302, for permission to construct garage in front yard area. Location of property: east side Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, Lot #16, Nap of N. So H~ud. Fee paid $15o00. The Chairman opened 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. THE CHAI~MAN~ is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? NR. KURT KOEBT~ER: ~ere am I going to put a garage with this situation of the house being so close to the water? This lot has been vacant, in oL~ name, for ~0 years. I am paying taxes on the property~ why can't I build on it? THE CHAI~N~ The Building Inspector denied your application because of the Zoning Ordinance but the reason for the existence of this Board is that there are a lot of situations where we can grant relief to people. Not everything fits the rules. I notice that you spoke of this as being vacs~t land. Do you own two lots there? MR. KOEHLER: Yes. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 9, 1973 THE CHAIR~L~d~ As far as our purposes are concerned you have one lots If you had bought three of them that would still be one lot, The applicant has a situation in which his house is practically on the water~ he is unable to put a garage in the legal rear yard area, THE C~w3~I~AN~ Does anyone else wish to speak for this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRM~N~ Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? GARY 0LSEN~ ESQo~ I represent Nro Ernest Goodell who is a neighbor immediately to the north of the applicant, We understand his problem as far as attempting to put aD. accessory building there as his technical backyard would be in the water. We would like to brir~g to the Board's attention the location he has picked out in the front yard~ Where the building is presently going up it blocks the complete view of my client, They were taking advantage of the view through the back yard of that area~ The garage is quite large, about 36' x 24' and is directly to the side of my client's home so that when they look out their living room window all they can see is a huge garage~ They can no longer take advantage of the view that they had before, The applicant has about 163 feet from Stillwater ~venue and plenty of room to put it someplace else, The location is a most undesirable spot because it is an eyesore, It's not particularly attractive and also I feel that it very severely devalues my client's property, It's just a case of location~ if it were closer to the road it would be better. Ny client has twoviews and it definitely devalues their property to have this garage right along side and adjoining their property, Ny client's property is about 4 feet lower than the applicant's property, N~w£. G00DELL: Our property is so low that the base of the building starts at about our window level and that will make it so much more unbearable to look at, The empty lot is on ~n incline. ~. ERNEST GOODELL: It's going to devalue ourproperty ~ since it's going to be a cement building, There are none in our neighborhood. It's larger than our house. If we were to build our house today it would cost $40,000, Our taxes will be $750 so why should we have a garage in the front of our window? Our house is on 50 feet and the empty lot is 47 feet. I have another building, a little shingle building. THE CHAIR~N~ This lot is between your ho~se and the proposed garage and it's about 4 feet lower and the whole thing is in the woods. You are back roughly about the same distance as the proposed garage. Southold Town Board of Appeals August 9, 1973 THE CHAI~M~ The attoz~ey for ~. Goodell brecht up the question as to whether this could be located anywhere elseo ~o KOEHI.~R~ The location I picked is almost in the middle cf the property. I don't w~ut the garage too far away from the house in bad weather~ THE CHAIR¥~N: You have two buildings on your property, one is going to be demolished. M~. KOEHLER: This building is a garage but it has no use as a garage. THE CHAIP~: That is in the front yard area of your property so you are going to demolish that and use the let you have owned for.40 years, and put a new garage in the center of it. It ms 36~ x ~4' for two cars and accessory area. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: We are not really arguing about pro- hibiting the granting of some sortef variance. It's just a case of where it should be placed. It's the least attractive area for my client, if it was just moved back towards the road a little bit so they would not have to stare into a cement block wall, they would be satisfied° THE CHAIR~_AN~ In situations like this where you have a garage in the front yard area, to s~me extent we have tried to place them in the least ~udesirable ~rea but where a man wishes to place a garage somewhere near his home, and where the adjoining property has an accessory buildingwhich is closer to the road than this is, it's sort of a case of the "pot calling the kettle black"° N~, Goodell has an accessory building which is closer to the road than this is. NRS~ G00DELL: But it's not an eyesore. THE C~IRNAN~ We have no Architectural Review Board. NRS. G00DELL: The situation of our house and the huge garage which is longer than our house, and starts higher than our house, will be a black eye to us, Why did he choose that spot, is it because it's im the middle of the property? N~. KOEHLER~ I do not want it too far away from the house, THE CHAI~L~ I can see why you might not want it further back because there is a stand of trees to the east of this. MRS. GOODELL: There was a tremendous tree that~.Koehler took down, a two tr~_uk tree. We realize that a lot of work was do~e, Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- A~gust 9, 1973 THE C~IRN~d~': Our decision would not be related to whether he has begun work. GARY OLSEN, ESQo: In light of the fact that there are some aecessorybuildings that are on the property of my client, as well as in front yards ef other property owners to the south of it, I believe that they are averagely set back, I am not hero to argue against there doing it but to find out what would be a fair way, in view of the fact that you have the power to grant variances. As lor~g as there are other accessory buildings, maybe they should be kept in line. There is one window in my client's living room. If the garage could be moved 20 feet or so, they wouldn't have to look smack into it. It could be kept a reasonable distance from ~. Koehler's home and would not jeopardize the economic property value. THE CHAIRN~h~: I am going to suggest that the Board grant this permission to erect this garage at any Point between 125' and 175' from Stillwater Avenue on the west, and ~pe these two neighbors can come to some agreement~ GARY OLSEN, ESQ,: Does ~r. Koehler have a survey of the property? THE CHAIRMAN: On the sketch, it's 163 feet from the water. There are accessory buildings much closerto the road than this one. ~. Koehler will have a leeway of 50 feet. THE CHAI~tAN: Are there az~y questions? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to construct garage in front yard area, Lot #16, on the east side of Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue~ New York. The findings of the Board are that applicant wishes to erect garage approximately in the center of the lot which he has oa~ed forgo years, which is adjacent to his residence lot. He finds it impossible to locate the garage in his technical rear yard area because his house is toe close to the water. The Beard agrees that applicant may locate his garage on Lot #16 at any point between 125' and 17~' from Stillwater Avenue on the west~ The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship~ the hardship created is u~ique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the sa~e use district~ and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- August 9, 1973 On motion byNr. Grigonis, seconded by ~. Hulse, it was RESOLVED, Kurt Koehler, Stiltwater Avenue, Cutchogue~ New York, be GP~NTED permission to construct garage in front yard area, Lot #16, Nap of M. S, H~ud, east side of Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, as applied for, subject to the following condition: That the garage may be located at ~uy point between 125' and 175' from Stillwater Avenue on the west. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. PUBLIC ?KEARING: Appeal No. 1818 - 8:30 P~M. (E~S.T~), upon application of Miriam Hitchcock, l~ Greenway Street, Hamden, Connecticut, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article Iii, Section 301, the Bulk Schedule and Section 280A of the Town Law, for permission to construct dwelling and divide property with insufficient area and frontage, and approval of access. Location of property: right of way off Grand Avenue, Mattituck, bounded north by William Black; east by W. Black and H. Krause~ south by C. Ely~ west by Mattituck Creek. Fee paid The Chairman opened 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. The Chairman read letter from William Wickham, Wickham & Lark, P.C., Mattituck, New York, as follows: "I regret very much I have to advise you that the application of Miriam R. Hitchcock is withdra~n~, and I apologize for any inconvenience which you may have been caused." For the record: Appeal No. 1818, Miriam Hitchcock, l0 Greenway Street, Hamden, Connecticut, scheduled for 8:30 P.M., August 9, 1973, hearing has been withdrawn. PUBLIC BLARING: Appeal No. 1817 - 8~45 P.M. (E.SoT.), upon application of George Ahlers, 250 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Southold Town Board of Appeals August 9, 1973 ~mtic!e iii, Section 301 aud the Bulk Schedule ~ud Section 280A of the Town Law, for permission to divide property with insufficient area and frontage and construct two dwellir~s, and approval of access. Location of property~ right of way off south side Bayview Road, Southold, bounded north by Clemens~ east by Bayview Development Corp,~ south by Corey Creek! west by right of way. Fee paid The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesti~ to its publication in the official newspapers~ and notice to the applicant, THE CH~_iR~N: The application is accompanied by a Van Tuyl survey indicating the proposed location of these lots and showing that on the easterly side there are two dimensions~ 480+'aud 263' of beach area, There are two courses on the westerly line, one of which diverges a little from being parallel to the easterly line, making it a little wider on the beach end, THE CH_&I~&~: Is'there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? NR~ GEORGE AHLERS: I feel that the lot in question, being almost 2 acres, would not change the character of the neighborhood. It abuts on an area that is zoned ~ultiple Dwellings, which has a much higher density than what we are as~ing. Surrounding areas to the west have a much higher density than what we are asking, Nost of them are one half acre in size, (The Board and Nr. Ahlers discussed the measurements as shown~n the survey)~ THE CH~IR~N: It seems to be a lot more than 78~000 sq. ft. ~ ABV~RS~ This is a survey by Van Tuyl, They have a Deed from the To~, on land which was filled in, and that may be what adds to the lot size~ The upper lot, if you go from the north down to where the sand starts~ would probably be 200' to 220' in length. We would like to have ~70 foot frontage which would take us three-quarters of the way down that slope. The map t was shown is not a filed map. When I started to buy this I talked to ~. Terry. The official map does not show this but it was on the map I saw. ~ would assume you would ultimately set a boundary as to how you would split the lot. The natural terrain should be taken into consideration, The lower lot is a very flat lot, probably 4 or 5 feet above the high tide line overall. At 170 feet, that lower lot would have some upland. If a house were put on it, it would not be so vulnerable to storm tides, Southold Town BOard of Appeals -13- $~ugust 9, 1973 THE CH_AIRMA~J: I think you could get an acre of upland. MR, AHT~RS: In looking at the subdivision, in general, the lots are all rather small. MR. HOWARD TERRY, Building Inspector: They were on a 120' to 125' basis. MR~ AHLERS: I just want to put two houses on the two lots~ one on the upper and one on the lower, It is about 2 and 2/3 acres, THE CHAIRN~N: You said something about access. MR, TERRY~ It's a map the same as a filed map but it has neverbeen recorded. The roads were established prior to the Ordinance. It's recognition of an existing fact. THE C~IRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? ~R. ROBERT CLEM~NS~ I have the adjoining property up the hill from this area. I think the map shows a l?O' lot on the original piece, I would not want to quibble with the surveyor but he measured it off and did not quite come to 2 acres, and a good part of that, the beach laud, has been flooded at times, It has been flooded up that hill. (Mr. Clemens indicated on the map how far up the flooding had come). About two years ago it flooded up as high as that area. We have no objection to a house on the original lot but it seems to me it would be some sort of endsngerment. It's about 2 feet above high water. We are thinking of cesspools and the creek, itself, because there is a canal that goes up to the right of way. MR. ROBERT BERGEN: That comes under the Health Department's jurisdiction. MR. CLE~NS~ I have a petition signed ~F~ilthe area residents, just stating our case with everyone sitting down ~nd talking it over~ THE CHA!k~AN~ I will read it as it s~mmarizes your objections: "We, the undersigned, homeowners in the vicinityof the property for which the above hearing is to be held, urgently request that the above petition be denied, for reasons, ~mong others, as follows: 1. The original map sets forth this site as one lot, suitable for one dwelling. This should so remain, The later acquired additional Southold Tow~ Board of ~peals -l~ August 9, 1973 sandy filled in area should not now be considered as additional building area, and should not be a factor in determining or changing zoning. 2. The rural atmosphere which the present property owners sought in p~rchasing their property should not now be further disturbed by dow~zoning what was a very generous decision on the part of the To~a~ to allow these existing small plots to staud as they were under the old maps. 3o There are seven additional dwellings planned for this one road area, which will alone severely tax the existing water right of way, now shared by the m~uy homes already constructed. 4. The old zmm~g under the old map is so far short of the present one acre minimum declared desirable by the Tov~n that' no f~ther downzoning should be permitted. 5. The sewerage problems involved would be overwhelming in housing so close to the bay, and would adversely affect existing dwellings. 6. The ingress and egress on the private road leading into this areafrom Bayview Road will barely bear the burden of the now contemplated additional bUildio~. Any additional downzoning would harshly affect traffic patterns on this road and on to Ba~¢iew. 7. On general ecological grounds, at this stage in the history of overcrowding,.ins~ufficient area and frontage should be sufficient reason for delayi~ this petition." Petition signed by: Robert J. Clemens, Nary E. Clemens, W. R. Boily, Dorothy K. Boily, Thomas N. Craig, ~arjorie D. Craig, Lawrence J, Saybern, Helen NcPartland, Eugene J. NcPartland, Walter Gless, Janet Dur~r, Violet Sauer, John Clemens, Nary Clemens, Hana Shaw, Robert W. Greene, Helen Greene. Th~ CF~iR~tN: We can not deny on ecological grounds. Sewage problems are not related to this Board. NR. CLEANS: We are not trying to prevent the developer from building one house but do not think there should be two houses with the way the water comes up that hill. This is my own opinion. THE CHAIR~k~N: we have never been able to get the Tow~ to agree to flood ple~ zoning. People still buildhouses where it floods every high tide. Where something is not stipulated in the Ordinance, it is beyond this Board. If a m~u wants to build a house on mean one foot high tide it's up to him. ~. CLE~NS: You mean he could build on the beach? Southold Town Board of Appeals August 9~ 1973 N~o CLEMENS (cont'd): The beach portion is a good portion of that two acres. He is asking to change one acre zoning to put up two houses. He is asking to cha~e that 170 foot lot because of the front portion.., because it is unbuildable. Actually, he is not going to build a hsuse on each acre. THE CH~.!RM~N~ I think he can. Frequently in this type of situation, to help the Town, we would prefer that you don't increase the density of the whole acre. If this were held to a half acre and one and a half acres went to the other lot, we would not be increasing the densitye ~LR. CLEMENS: But, I am saying that you ~re virtually takingthe 170' lot and putting two houses on it. You are not putting it on two acres. THE CHAIR~LAN: He projected this to 220'~ ERr CLEMENS: I am saying 170' to the water line.., from a practical point of view, where the water has come up to. I am giving him the benefit that there is laud beyond that is dry. My point is that you are basing your zoning on two acres and there is not two acres of buildable land. TP~ CHAIR.MAN: The way the Ordinance reads we have no control over hurrica~_es or storm tides. MR. WALTER GLESS: This gentleman (N~. Bergen) said he is not interested in the amomut of sewage that goes into the creek~ ~R. ROBERT BERGEN: We have nothing to say about it. That would be a consideration of the Health Department. NR. GLESS~ I am one of the owners in that area. If this Board approves, could the Health Department cancel it out? NR. HOWARD TERRY, Building Inspector: This BOard could approve and the Health Department could deny a permit. TEE CHAIPJ~AN: I ~m not sure a variance is required as to size. I think we will have to determine the acreage. We assume that when a variance is applied for all the factson the applica- tion state the situation accurately. NR. CLEMENS~ When I checked this over, fill was put in this area around here (indicating map). This was tidal marsh. There is a canal that comes in short of the right of way~ All the rest of this has been filled in..o about 8 or 9 years ago. The County put it in. Southold Town Board of ADpeals -16- August 9, 1973 THE CN~IRM_AN: Were you happy to have it put in? CLEMENS: No one asked us. It did not make any difference~ NM. HOWARD TERRY, Building Inspector: Since that map was made in 1958 I don't think they resur~e~ed that piece of property. THE CHAIRMAN: We won't make a decision tonight. We will. try to get all the i~ormation we cE. MR~ CLEMENS: If you check this with a rulert it falls short of two acres. Measuring it down - scale l" to 100' - it still doesn't make it. MR. CLES~NS: I understand they have a 40,000 sq. ft. acre° MR. HOWARD TERRY: That's a builders acre. MARJORIE CRAIG: I thought the Town Board at one time made one acre zoning, THE CHAIRMAN: An acre is 43,560 sq. ft. but a builder's acre is 40,000 sq. ft;80~00Sq, ft, would be two acres. There are one or two towns in the west that use the exact acre figure. NkARJORIE CRAIG: ~. Ahlers said he was going te face one house facing the right of way. MR. AHLERS~ I don't recall saying that. This is not really my intention. It is not what I meant, Obviously, with the two lots there, one would become a waterview lot and the other a waterfront lot. Basically, we would face the houses toward the water. ~3~RJORIE CRAIG: How are the houses going to be faced if he has two houses? Before he said he would have one house facing west of the right of way; and second, he talked about a house on the north end. THE CHAIRN~N~ Perhaps ~, Ahlers can explain. 5~o ~3U~E~: I would face them beth to the south~ the view area would face south. The reason I suggested 170 feet for the upper lot is that it would take you three quarters of the way down that hill, I can ~nderstand Mr, Clemen's objections. I don't want to eat up the view. My projection would be for a lo~ silhouette house. MR. CLEMENS~ I presumed that some day that property in front of us would be sold. Southold Tow~ Board of Appeals -17- August 9, 1973 ~R. ~IERS~ I was talking with my architect and I told him that if there is any way possible of retaining your view, I would situate the house so you don't lose it. ~LR~ CLEMENS: ~y thought here is final lot size. I have no objections to that l?0' lot. I knew there was a 170' lot in front of me. Saving the view is of great interest to me, it's a natural thing... I would be kidding myself, MR, W, BOILY~ I have adjoining property to the road, directly opposite. My question would be if he builds on 170' going~down, what does it do to the zoning regulations~ is it an acre? THE CHAIRMAN~ If he built on 17~' x llS' he would have approximately half aD. acre, MR, CLEMENS: I beg your pardon, it's 103 feet. THE CHAI~JuN: There is a 15 feet right of way~ NR~ ROBERT W~ GREENE~ I think on the easternmost part of that map there is a right of way r~nning from Ba~¢iew, a 12 foot right of way~ I own that right of way going back to all those pieces of property. That acco~uts for the difference of 103' and llS'. I don't think you could include the 12 feet that I own, ~Nebody can build on it, THE CPLAIR~&AN: Do these other people have permission to use it? NR ~ GREENE ~ No o THE CHAIR~N~ How wide is the area called Koke Drive? ~. CLEmeNS: 30 feet, THE C~AIRNAN~ This would be about 18,000 sq, ft. which is a little less than half ~u acre, RH{. CLER[ENS~ You answered my question but it wo~d pose a problem since you talk about acre zonir~. You are now talking about 18,GO0 sq. ft. which doesn't make sense. DOROTHY BOiLY~ Ny question~ On the priVate read ,~gnt of way) how many feet in would he be off the right of way? THE CF3,I~RNAN~ Within zoning regulations. ~RS. BO!LY: Also, there is the cesspool problem. Southold Town Beard of Appeals August 9, 1973 THE CHA!R~AN~ That is a Bo~rd of Health matter. Terry can tell you approximately What they require. MR. HOWARD TERRY: You have to have 100 feet from ~uy well or pool, They measure from your wellpoint ~ud your cesspool. The fellow who wants to build across the way has to be 100 feet from your well, You can put cesspools side by side and back to back. ~S, BOILY: How many feet from the road? TERRY: l0 feet, within the boundaries of his own lot. ~, CLEMENS: The way he is surrounded there by cesspools, I dontt know whether he would get his water there~ He would have difficulty finding his water, THE CHAI~N: This is one of the major reasons we have advanced from 12,500 sq~ ft, to 40,000 sq. ft, NARJORIE CRAIG: Did I hear you say that this was turned down by the Building Inspector? THE CHAIRMAN: That's an automatic procedure before coming to this Board. NARJORIE C~AIG: Why would he turn it down? THE CHAIR~N: We should be using the words "80,000 sq. ft~ for two lots". ~ARJORIE C~AIG: W~y would the Building inspector t-~rn it down? THE CHAIR~N~ He had 78,000 sq. ft~ in the application. NR~ CLE~ENS: I would like toget back to the original question where we talked about 40,000 sq. ft. ~ud 18,0O0 sq. ft. We were rezoned in one acre zoning, What does he do about his last house on the hill? He may have an acre but he has the length of a house between the bottom lot and the water, Let's make the assumption that he has two lots, split it in half and he has one acre zoniug on the top half, ~ud on the other he has mostly beach, THE CHAIPd~L&N: We have urged the Town to de something about this, In the mei~utime we can Only act under the Ordinance that we have, Othe~ise~ we would be overturned, NR~ CLE~NS~ Doesn't the Couuty have some sort of regu- lation on building within 500 feet of the shoreline? Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- August 9, 1973 MR~ TERRY: Any variance within 500 feet has to go to the County for review before this Beard makes it final. Whether they pass it or deny it, the recommendatio~ go to the County for review. ~. GEORGE ~TLERS: I would say that I suggested l?0 feet because it made it feasible to build a conventional style home on the lower part. Obviously, you c~u build a house on stilts which I don't think anyone in that area would like to see. I don't care if the Board wants to make both lots one acre. i am sure i eau meet all regulations~ 100 feet away from mean high tide with cesspools. Ny original suggestion of 170 feet would allow me to put a house on the lower lot closer to the higher one. I am looking for two lots~ whether they are one acre lots really makes little difference to me, ~hR. CLEmeNS ~ i don't want you to bunch both houses on that 170 foot lot. THE CHAIR~bN~ Does ~uyone else wish to speak at this time? (There was no response.) THE CHAIR~iAN: Are there ~ny questions? (there was no response.) On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by ~. Bergen~ it was RESOLVED that the decision of the Board bepostponed ~til the next regular meeting of the Board which shall be held on August 30, 1973, for the purpose of gathering mere information on the area involved. No further testimony shall be taken at the time the decision is rendered by the Board of Appeals, Vote of the Board~ Ayes~- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. PUBLIC HE~ING, ~ppeal No~ 1819 - 9:00 Po~. (E.S.T.), upon application of James P. Kav~nagh, Main Road, East ~arion~ New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section ~00 B-3 and Article XV, Section 1504 la, for permission to convert existing motel, known as Crescent Beach Motel, to permanent condominiums. Location of property: south side Main Road, East Marion, bounded n,rth by Main Road$ east by Rudkoski and Dav~ Est~tes~ south by Gardiners Bay~ west by Dawn Estates, Fee paid Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- ~ugust 9, 1973 The Chairman 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 notioe to the applicant~ THE CHAIR~iAN: The application is accsmpanied by a sketch which indicates that applicant is the owner of a parcel of 5.32 acres on which are situated, in the northeast corner and the southerly area of this 5.32 acre plot, ten (10) buildi~s, each of which is a duplex, comprising twenty (20) apartment u~its~ THE CHAI~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? RUDOLPH BR~R, ESQ.~ I think what we a_~e basically asking for is upzoning, THE CHAIR~*~N: This is the first application we have ever had for condominiums, and the word doesn't appear in our Ordinance. ~R. BRUER: The area is presently zoned Nultiple Residence, N~-l. What you have here are buildings that are not, as a practical matter, suited for all year round residence. The purpose of the owner would be to sell the buildings if he could get permission from the respective State authorities, THE CHAIR~N~ Our counsel indicated that that might take two to three years. NR. BRUER~ Mr. Kavanagh has informed me that he would like to restrict occupancy to four to seven months. THE CHAIrmAN: You are suggesting condominium ownership with restricted seasonal use. MR. BRUER: This is fortified by the fact that the buildings are not suited for all year round use in terms of heat. NR, JA~S KAVANAGH: The buildings have electric heat but it would be very expensive heating them without insulation. i have the intention of selling the~ to senior citizens. MR. BRUER~ The apartments are basically one bedroom, living room, kitchenette, and bathroom, NR~ KAVANAGH: The apartments are approximately a 500 sq. ft. ~area~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- August 9, 1973 THE CHAIR~N~ You say that you wish to sell these buildings to senior citizens. NRc KAVANAGH~ Fifty years of age or over. THE CHAI~N~ I don't think we can, under our Town laws~ restrict the use of property as to the age of the individuals. MR. BRUER~ It would be in the by-laws. TP~ CHAIR~N: fifty years or over. to seven months? You would have Deed restriction as to age, Do you think you can limit this to four NR~ M~VAN~AGH: ~y intent is to sell to people who probably go to'Florida for six or seven months of the year. ~Ro BRb~R~ They are designed for seasonal use~ He would be limited by the size of the buildings he has. Th~ CHAI~¢~N~ We can restrict any enlargement of the outside dimensions. ~R. BRUER: i think in terms of size it would not en- courage relatives or in-laws to visit as there is only one bedroom and one living room. I think it's a natural situation where you would not have overcrowdiD~. THE C~&IRMAN~ ~en we were there the other day there were couple of children on the gro~uds. NR~ KAVANAGH~ We have a lot of children there now. It's an ideal place for them. We have high-risers in the living room so that four or five people can sleep comfortably there. THE CHAIRM~N~ You are going to restrict that? MR. F~VANAGH: I will sell each one to a couple~ on the order of Leisure Village. THE CHAIRx¥~N~ I think it would have to be no more than two people in that size apartment. Nd{. BRL~R: I think the application speaks for itself. ~R. KAVANAGH~ There is one correction~ the 5.32 acres doesn't take in that barn. i o~ one barn and it gives me a half acre additional included with my home. It will be owned in common. They will have a Sun Deck, Shuffle Board Court, and I intend to put in a Tennis Court. I would change the existing roads, I would not go around my house ~nd I would eliminate the road in front of the beach houses. Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- August 9, 1973 Th~ CHAtRNAN~ The land e~ea would be common land subject to control and maintenance of a properly constituted property Association, MRo BRUER: It's in the statute, it specifies a common area. We would have to provide the State in detail every part that is common to the nth degrees what exactly is common area that they would be responsible for, I believe the rights of au Association are fairly well spelled out. There is a specified procedure to enforce whatever rights they do have under a special section of the law. It's not a typical Property Association by a group of people getting together~ TP~ CHAIPd~N: It becomes a lien by agreement. MR. B~JER~ This is something that's worked out on condomini'~m homes. I have not become 8n expert in this field, MR. E~VANAGH~ I believe on Shinnecock Canal, the Seabreeze Cottages were sold as condominiums, MR~ BRUER: If I may further state, it definitely has to go to the State~ THE CHAIR~iAN~ It has to have site plan approval of the Planning Board. I covered this part with Town counsel. MR. BRUER~ It's already sited. ~R~ HOWARD TERRY, Building Inspector: He may want to show the tennis court, and where the roads are being changed. TH~ CHAI~IAN: You have to have parking, one space per unit. After you have taken the lot out for your house, you will have about 5 acres left, It looked to Us as if the maximum density is 9,000 sq. ft. per unit. Twenty units will give you something to spare. THE CHAIR~N~ Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? RUTH 0LIVER: In upzoning, would this be upzoned from THE CHAI~TAN: the word "upzoned". upgraded? There would be no change, ~, Bruer used What makes you say that this would be MR, BRUER~ Just a feeli~ going from transient to permanent occupancy ena seasonal basis and without enlarging would seem to be upgrading. Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- August 9~ 1973 ~AR. KAVANAGH: In a motel you get people who are good, bad and indifferent~ This way, it would be a little more selective~ TH~ C~&IRNAN: As I understand it, three or four couples want to come back to your place. HR. KAVANAGH~ I would buy the other four~ THE CH_~I~tAN~ In other words, the Property Owners Association would start out with 20 in your hands. MR. KAVANAGH~ I would have to have a minimum of 14 in addition to my own before I could go ahead with it. I would want at least 14. I think you have te have a certain percentage sold before they accept the application. MR. BRUEE: With respect to the Pla~ing Board and site plan, would this be done by regular application to the Plar~ning Board? THE CHAIPJ~N~ This has to be done by special exception. in the Ordinance requires Site Plan approval by the Plighting Board. TH~ CH~I~b~N~ Does anyone else present wish to speak for or against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to convert existing motel, k~.own as Crescent Beach Notel, to permanent condominiums~ located on the south side of ~ain Road, East ~arion, New York~ The findings of the Board are that applic~ut is the owner of a parcel of land comprising 5°32 acres on which are situated ten'(10) buildings, each.of which is a duplex~ comprising twenty (20) apartment un~tso The area is zoned Nultmple Residence~ M-1. The units have one bedroom, living room~ kitchenette, ~ud bathroom~ &nd the applicant proposes to sell the units to senior citizens on the basis of restricted seasonal use. The land area would be common land subject to control and maintenance of a properly constituted Property Owners Association. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and justice will be served and the legally established or Southold Town Board of Appeals -2'4- August 9, 1973 permitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use districts will not be permanently or substantially injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. On motion by ~r. Gillispie, seconded by Nr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED, James P. Kavanagh, Main Road, East Marion, New York, be GRANTED permission to convert existing motel, known as Crescent Beach Motel, to permanent condominiums. Location of property~ south side of Main Road, East Marion, New York, as applied for, subject to the following conditions: e Subject to Site Plan approval of the Planning Board, including location of tennis courts~ new access road, adequate parking under present Ordinance, and other common facilities. Subject to setting off the residence of the applicant on a 40,000 sq. ft. plot in such a way that the bulk regulations of the Ordinance will be met. There shall be no enlargement of the outside dimensions of any of the twenty (20) proposed condominium Knits. Occupancy shall be seasonal, limited to the period from April i to November 1. All of the land area between the buildings shall be common land subject to control and maintenance by a properly constituted Property Owners Association. Access shall be as set forth in the site plan as approved by the Southold To~ Pl~uning Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs~ Gillispie, Bergen~ Hulse, Grigonis. Seuthold Town Board of Appeals -25- August 9~ 1973 The Manager of the new W, T~ Grant Department Store in Mattituck discussed with the Board the possibility of having a "Grand Opening- sign on a temporary basis for their opening on August 13th. He said they would like permission to put a sign in the front of the store for a period of ten days. The Chairman stated that the whole thrust of the Ordinance is to eliminate streamers and signs of this type, He said he can't recall any special exception being given except in the Case of things that are customary to the Town~ such as Church Fairs and Bazaars, Service Organizations, and Fire Department L~'affairs, We do not mean to be unfriendly but we have never done anything like this. In a further discussion it was determined that W. T. Grant has a garden center which is a part of the store but is open to the street and the question came up as to whether they could put a sign there as the garden center is inside their building line. Mr, Terry said that Grant's paid for the square footage when they bought the building, it was bu_lt for a display area. The Ordinance says you can't have outside displays, It's paid for as part of the building to get open space. They did not apply for a sign on that. r~. Grigonis said he thought if you had a sign inside a glass window it would look just as bad, The Manager of Grant's said that they did away with a glass front because of that, The Chairman said that he understood their position but that it would open the way for others to put a fence outside where they could display a sign, Mr. Bergen and ~, Hulse agreed with the reasoning of the~Chairman. Decision of the Southold Town Board of Appeals on Appeal No. 1799, George Ahlers and Barry Hellman, Cutchogue and Southold, New York, respectively. (A public hearing was held on June 28, 1973). The Chairman read letter from George Ahlers, dated Nay l?, 1972~ addressed to the Southold Town Board! and letter from George Ahlers and Barry H. Hellman, N,D,, dated June 19, 1972, addressed to the Southold Town Board. THE CH~iR~N: These letters indicate that the applicants expect to install a sewage treatment plant. It is understood by several Boards of the Town that applicants propose to install such sewage treatment plant~ The Board finds by investigation and public hearing that change of zone on applicants, property was recommended by the Southold Tow~ Board of Appeals -26 August 9, 1973 Southold Town Plan~ing Board to the Town Board on ~arch 23, 1972. The zone was ch~ged from "A" Residential and Agricultural on Nay 9, 1972 to ~-l~, ~ich permits ~ultiple D~ellings by Special Exception of the Board of Appeals~ and site plan approval of the Planning Boards The site ~consists of 22e842 acres on which it is proposed to erect thirteen (13) buildings~ not over 12 apartments psr building, not over 132 feet in length (See Variance Appeal No. 1800), with a total ef~ 105 one bedroo~ apartments of approximately 825 sq. ftc, 32 two bedroo~ apartments of approximately 1,005 sq~ ft.~ and 16 Efficiency apartments of approximately 625 sq. fto Also, a swimming pool and community building, two tennis courts, shuffle board court, playgro~n~d court, ~ud sewage treatment plant with public water. At a number of public hearings, the problems of character ~_d appearance, compatibility, development policies r~lationship, community facilities relationship, traffic generation (approxi- mately 933 vehicular trips estimated at completion), access~ drainage, design standards, and a sewage treatment pl~ut, have been carefully considered° The applic~ut is presently having an engineeri~ study made to determine the best Sewage treatment pl~ut for the project, after which the design must be presented to the Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control and the Suffolk County Board of Health for approval. The several Boards of the Town are concerned by the nitrates problem. However, it is felt that the solution of the denitrification problem, as it applies to this project, lies with the Suffolk County Board of Health. Gallonage estimated by the applicant to make sewage plant operable is variously estimated from 10,000 to 30,000 gallons per day. The Board finds that the public convenience ~ud welfare and justice will be served and the legally established or permitted use of neighborhood property a_ud adjoining use districts will not be permanently or substantially injured and the spirit o~ the Ordinance will be observed. On motion by ~. Gil~spie, seconded by ~. Hulse~ it was R~SOLVED, George Ahlers and Barry Hellman, Cutchogue ~ud Southold, New York, respectively, be GRANTED permission to erect 13 buildings~ as originally applied for, subject to the following conditions: 1. Site plan approval by the Planning Board of the Town of Southold. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued by the Building Inspector unless a Sewage Treatment Plant, subject to the approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health and the Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control, is installed and certified operable by these two -Agencies. $outhold Town Board of Appeals ~27~ August 9, 1973 3. The construction of the sewage treatment plant shall also be subject to any applicable local, County, State or Federal law. Vote of the Board: Ayes~- Nessrs~ Gillispie~ Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. Decision of the Southold Town Board of Appeals on Appeal No. 1807, John Divello, Soundview Avenue, Fmttituck, New York. (A public hearing was held on July 19,1973 at 8:00 P.~.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to const~ct garage in front yard area of property located on the north side of Souudview Avenue, F~ttituck, New York. The findings of the Board are that ~r. Divello's neighbors are concerned with the possible use of this facility as a commercial building, a use which is not permitted in a residential area. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant as to hardship. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships 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 districts and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will obse~¢e the spirit of the Ordinance. 0n motion by F,~. Gillispie, seconded by Nr. Hmlse, it was RESOLVED, John Divello, Sound View Avenue, Nattituck, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct garage in front yard area of property located on the north side of Sound View Avenue, 51attituck, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the garage shall be 24' x 30'~ and that the garage floor shall be constructed at ground level. That the garage shall be located at a distance of at least 25 feet north of the property line on Sound View Avenue~ and at least 5 feet off the west side line. 3. That this garage, located in a residential area, may not be used for commercial purposes. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. So~uthold Town Board of Appeals -28- August 9, 1973 On motion by Nr. Gillispie, seconded by N~. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the minutes of the Southold Town Board of Appeals dated J~y 19, 1973, be approved as submitted, subject to minor correction. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Nessrs: Gilltspie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. On motion by ~. Gillispie, seconded by Me. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the next regular meetir~ of the Southold Town BOard of Appeals will be held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, August 30, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Read, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Grigonis. Ayes:- Nessrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, For the record: 12 Sign Renewals were reviewed and approved as submitted. On motion by N~. Bergen, seconded by Nr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 7~45 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, August 30, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of M.S.T. Construction Cor~., Middle Country Road, Mattituck, for a variance in acc,rdance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 303 and 304 for permission te reduce ~verage setback on corner Iot~ Location of property~ Lot #2, Saltaire Estates, Mattituck, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Nessrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. On motion by ~. Gillispie, seconded by ~. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 7:55 P.M. (E.S.T,), Thursday, August 30, 1973, at the Town Office, Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- August 9 ~ 1973 Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of Ke~ueth Watson, Nidland Place, East Marion, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance~ Article Iii, Section 305 for permission to erect part of 6' fence in front yard area (lot has 3 (three) front yards)~ Location of property: Lot #48, ~arion Manor, East Narion. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Huls~ Grigonis. On motion by ~. Hulse, seconded by ~, Grigonis~ it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 8~10 P.~. (E.S~T~), Thursday~ August 30, 1973, at the To~m Office, Nain Road, Southold, New York, as the time ~d place of hearing upon application of Edward Cielatka, S~it Road, Southold, New York, for a variance in accord~uce with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 300 C-2 & Section 302 for permission to have swimming pool in side yard. Location of property: Lots # 27 ~ 28~ Bayside Terrace, Southold. VOte of the Bos~d~ Grigonis. Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, On motion by Nr. Grigonis, seconded by ~. Bergen~ it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 8~25 P.Mo (E.S~T.), upon application of Witli~m Grefe~ New Suffolk Avenue, New SUffolk, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning 0rdine~uce, Article IX, Section 900, as refers to Article VIII, Section 800 B-4, 3 and Article IX Section 900-8 for permission to operate building contractor yard and to m~uufacture and store concrete products. Location of property: New Suffolk Avenue, New Suffolk, bounded north by L.B. Glever, Jr.; east by Cox Lane~ s~uth by B. Harris~ west by L. Glover, Jr. Vote of the Board~ Ayes:- Nessrs~ Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. SoutholdTown Board of Appeals -30- August 9, 1973 On 'motion by ~Ir. Bergen, seconded by ~. Hulse, it was RESOLV~F~D that the Southold To~vn Board of Appeals set 8:40 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, August 30, 1973, at the Tow~_ Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of Arthur J. Bujnowski, 6 Surryhill Place, Huntington, New York, for a variance in accord~uce with the Zoning Ordinance, Article iii, Section 300 C, ~ud Article iX, Section 900-46, for permission to operate airfield and airplane storage in "A" Zone District. Location of property: S/S ~ain Road, Pec~nic, New York, bounded north by Main Road~ east by P. Wenzel~ south by Leslie Road~ west by A. Krupski. Vote of the Board~ Ayes:- Messrs~ Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis, On motion by N~. Gillispie, seconded by l~r. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Tew~ Board of Appes~s set 9~00 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, August 30, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York~ as the time and place of hearing upon application of Vito Randazzo, 54 James Street, Patchogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning 0rdina~.ce, Article Iii, Section D01 and the Bulk Schedule for permission to divide lots with less th~n required area. Location of property: Lots #3, 4 and 5, Cedar Beach Park, Southold. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Nessrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. On motion by ~. Hulse, seconded by ~. Gillispie, it was RESOLV~D that the Southold To'~n Board of Appeals set 9:10 PoN. (E.S.T.), Thursday, August 30, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of ~lattitUck Inlet Marina, Mill Road, Nattituck, New York, for a soecial exception in accordance with the Zoning 0rdin~uce, Articl~ Vi, Section 600 C, and &rticle XV, Section 1501 for permission to maintain roof sign on building. Location of property: W/S of ~attituck inlet, Nattituck, bounded north by J.R. Holmes! east by Nattituck inlet~ south by Lot P, Shore Acres~ west by J. Leo Grande and N. Chudiak. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- ~essrs. Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- August 9, 1973 On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by ~. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 9:25 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, August 30, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of Henry Walsh, Private Road, Fishers Island, for a variance in accordance with the Zoni~ Ordinance, Article III, Section 301 and the Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with less than required area. Location of property: Right of way off S/S Ave. B, Fishers Island, bounded north by Lands of Henry Zabohonski & Another~ east by Jane DuPont~ south by Land of Henry Zabohonski & Another~ west by G. Repanti & 0thers~ Vote of the Board~ Ayes:- Nessrs~ Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. On motion by ~ Bergen, seconded by N~. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that the~Southold Town Board of Appeals set 9:40 PoM. (EoS.T~), Thursday, August 30, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of Guido Ciacia, Main Road, Gree~ort, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 301 and the Bulk Schedule as applies to Article IV, Section 600A for permission to set off single lot with less than required area. Location of property~ Lot #176, ~unended Map of Peconic Bay Estates~ Greenport, New York~ Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Nessrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. On motion by ~. Gillispie, seconded by F~. Bergen, it was RESOLVEDthat the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 9:50 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, August 30, 1973, at the To~ Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of Brian Lynch, R.D.1, Box 21E, Nattituck, for a variance in accord8mce with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 300 C, sm_d Article IX, Section 900-46 for permission Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- August 9, 1973 to operate Aireal Spraying service in "A" District. Location of property~ N/S of Oregon Road, Nattituck~ bounded north by L. Io Sound~ east by Rose H, Baer~ south by Oregon Roads west by Grafic Arts Management Corp. Vote of the Board~ ~yes~- Messrs~ Gillispie~ Bergen~ Hulse, Grigonis. The Meeting was adjourned at ll~20 PoM, Respectfully submitted ~ ~¢~0~ // ~ ~arjor:~e McDermott, Secretary // /~~~~Southold Toval Bo~d of Appeals Robert W. G~ll_sp~e, Jr., Chairman