Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2773
CA-coas~ruc% new nsuff, front and rear ~rds and 'f~r- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ACTION OF THE ZONI~G BOAKD OF APPE~LLS AppealNo. 2773 Application Dated December 22, 1980 ACTIOZV OP TI~S ZONING BOARD OF A~EAX-.S OF ~nE TOVOV OF Sou~rZ~OLD To Richard F. Lark, Esq., as attorney for .Mr. JosePh D. Posillico, Sr. Appellant at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on J a n u a ry 2 2, 1 9 81 , was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your (X) Request for variance due to lack of access to property ( ) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance (X) Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance Art. III, Sec. ( ) the appeal lO0-31, Art. XI, Sec. lO0-118E 1. )t~l~l~aJLX~ltO~q~ ~ ~tX<~Yo~ ;Otvejq)~Xig Y~Ya~ Xcl~Fov~iii~X ~nl~g ~X ~t)l~ev, a~i XeV*x~eption ( ) be ~a~ed ( ) ~ denied pursuant to ~ticle .................... Section .................... Subsect~n .................... para~aph .................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of ~e Building I~pect~ ( ) be revers~ ( ) be co~irmedb~au~ Public Hearing: 8:35 p.m. Application of Joseph D. Posillico, Sr., Hemlock Drive, Farmingdale, NY 11973 (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for Variances to: (a) the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31, and Art. XI, Sec. 100-118E for permission to construct new dwelling with insufficient front and rear yards; and {b} New York Town Law, Sec.'280-a for approval of access. Location of property: Camp Mineola Road (a/k/a Reeve Avenue), Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Corwin; west by Private Road and Corwin; south by Bay; east by McNahon; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-123-6-12.4. (SEE REVERSE SIDE) 2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (wo~uld not) produce practical hardship because difficulties or (SEE REVERSE SIDE) (b) The hardship created (is) (is not)-unique end (would) (would not) be shared by all properties alike in the Lmmediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because (SEE REVERSE SIDE) (c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) (would not) change the character of the district because ' ' (SEE REVERSE SIDE) and therefore, it was further determined that the requeSted variance ( ) be granted ( ) be denied and that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) be confirmed ( ) be reversed, FORM ZB4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance for permission to construct a one-family dwelling with a setback from the westerly property line of l0 feet and from the easterly property line of 15 feet. The premises in question is approximately 90 feet in depth and an average of 200 feet in length. Existing on the premises is a one-story framed bungalow, which applicant intends to remove entirely, and which is presently approximately three feet from the westerly property line. Upon inspecting the general area, the Board finds many of the existing dwellings to have substantial insufficient frontyard and sideyard setbacks and that the granting of insufficient setbacks in the front~ and rear yard areas would not change the character of the distr_ict. The Board finds th'at the relief requested in relation to the Code requirements is not substantial; that if the variance is granted no substantial detriment to adjoining properties will be created; that no adverse effect is produced on available goveKnmental facilities of any increased population; that no substantial change is produced in the character of the neighbor, hood; and that the interests of justice will be served by grant- ing the variance with certain conditions, specified below. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. be ~ranted a vari- ance to the zoning ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 ~ Art. XI, Sec. lO0-118E for permission to construct dwelling SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, and be granted approval of access: That the dwelling not be constructed closer than 17) feet to the westerly property line [frontyard line], and that the dwelling not be constructed closer than 17½ feet to the easterly property line [rearyard area]; (2) (3) That the dwelling be constructed so t~at it does not protrude forward towards the Bay [south] of the easterly neighbor's existing dwelling; That compliance be met of the regulations of the Flood Damage Prevention Law f the Town of Southold. Location of property: Camp Mineola Road (a/k/a Reeve Avenue), Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Corwin; west by Private Road and Corwin; south by Bay; east by McMahon; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-123-6-12.4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. ? CEIVED AND FILED BY oun z Town Clerl~, To-~ of Sffuthold LEGAL NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE Town Law and of Southold, IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town the following matter will be held for public hearing by the Southold Town Board of Appeals in addition to those previously scheduled, on Thursday, January 22, 1981 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY: ,,, 8:35 p.m. Application of Joseph D. Posillico~ Sr., Hemlock Drive, Farmingdale, NY 11735 (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for Variances to: (a) the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 and Art. XI, Sec. lO0-118E for permission to construct new dwelling with insufficient front and rear yards; and (b) New York Town Law, Sec. 280-a for approval of access. Location of property: Camp Mineola Road (a/k/a Reeve Avenue), Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Corwin; west by Private Road and Corwin; south by Bay; east' by McMahon; County 'Tax Map ID. No. 1000-123-6-12.4. Dated: January 6, 1981. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN Instructions to newspapers: January 15, 1981 and forward on or before January 21, 1981 Board of Appeals, Main Road, Please publish once, to wit, one affidavit of publication to: Mrs. L. Kowalski, Secretary, Southold, NY 11971. (765-1809). 1/8/81 Copy to: Applicant's attorney Richard F. Lark, Esq. Town Clerk Bulletin Board Supervisor LEGAL NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended Cede of the Town of Southold, the following matter will he held for public hearing by the Southold Town Board of Ap-~ peals in addition to those previously scheduled, on Thursday, January 22, 1~1, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY: 8:35 p.m. Application of Jo- seph D. Pas[Il[co, Sr., Hem- lock Drive, Farmingdale, NY 11735 (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for Variances to: (a) the. s Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 and Art. XI, Sec. 100-11SE for permission to construct new dwelling with insufficient fronl and rear lards; and (b) New York Town Law, Sec. 2~0-a for approval of access. Location of property: Camp Mineola Road (a/k/a Reeve Avenue)~, Matt[tuck, NY; bounded north by Corwin; west by Private Road and Corwin; south by Bay; east by McMahon; Coun- ty Tax Map ID. No. 1000-123-6- 12.4. Dated: January 6, 19~1. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS~. CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN 1TJ15-3600 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, | STATE OF NEW YORK, ? ss: David H. Walker being duly Sworn, says that . .h.e. .... is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK WEEKLY TIMES, a newspaper published at Greenport, in said county: and that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the said Suffolk Weekl~r Times once in eoch week, for . .o.n.e. ...................... weeks successively commencing on the . .1.5..t.h. ................... ..... J..a~..u. a~y. ....... 19..8.1. day of /'1 Sworn to before me this .... ,1.~.$.h.. I I day o! . ,~Tant~a~y ........ 19. ~1. ! ............ ..... HELEN K DE VOE NOI~,R¥ PUBLIC ,,,ate o N~, York Nc* 4707878, S~]lfotk lerm E~pnes Ma[ch 39, LEGAL NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of Southold, the following matter will be held for public hearing by the Southold Town Board of Ap-;~ peals in addition to those previously scheduled, on Thursday, January 22, 1981 at the Southold Town Hall, Main ~Road, Southold, NY: 8:35 p.m. Application of Joseph D. Posillico, Sr., Hem- lock Drive, Farmingdale, NY 11735 (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for Variances to: (a) the/ Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 and Art. Xl, Sec. 100-118E for permission to construct new dwelling withi insufficient front and rear, yards; and (b) N~w York Town Law, Sec. 280-a for appi~val of access. Location of property: Camp Mineoin Road (a/k/a Reeve.~ Avenue), Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Corwin; west by Private Road and Corwin; south by Bay; east by McMahon; County Tax Map ID. No. 1000-123-6-12.4. Dated: January 6, 1981 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEAL~ CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., Chairman 1T, 1/1S/81 (14) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: STATE OF NEVv' YORK Patricio Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Isl.and Traveler-Watch- # man once each week for .............. [ ........................ weeks successively, commencing on the .... /.~."" ........................ dc~'"~m~..~ , 19~ Sworn to before me this ........ ........................ day of ................ , 19....~.~... CLEMENT j. THOMPSON NOTARY PU~3LIC, Slate of New York ~':o, 52-9321725 Residing in Suffolk County Commission Expire~ I~rch ,~!, I~ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING (516) 360-5513 ' B'oar of ,R sa!s L£1~ £. KOPP£LMAN Towl% of Southold Board of Appeals February 10, 1981 Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the following applications which have been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Comm~ssion are considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. Applicant Municipal File Number Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. 2773 Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning CH:EF PLANNER APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS ~oRARD P.GOEHRINGER seph H. Sawicki Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOI-D, L.I., N.Y. llCJ?l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 February 10, 1981 Richard F. Lark, Esq. Main Road, Box 973 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Appeal No. 2773 Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. Dear Mr. Lark: Please find enclosed copy of the decision concerning the above appeal which was filed with the Town Clerk's Office on February 6, 1981. Please destroy the copy that was previously mailed to you inasmuch as it contains a typographical error. Yours very truly, CG:lk Enclosure Linda F. Kowalski Secretary 0 TOWN CLERK 765-3783 Building Dept. Ptanning Bcl. 765-2660 Board of Appeals 765-1809 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD C L-" .~..".'~ C.~,=~C-~ Main Road Southold, N. Y. 11971 Pursuant to the General Municipal Law, Chapter 24, of the Consolidated Laws, Article 12-B, Sections 239-1 and m, Board of Appeals Southold the ..................................... of the town of .............................. (agency involved) hereby refers the following proposed zoning action to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: (check one) ................ New and recodified zoning ordinance ................ Amendment to the zoning ordinance ................ Zoning changes ................ Special permits XX Art. III, ................ Variances Appeal No. 2773 Joseph D. Posiltico, Sr. by Richard F. Lark, Esq. Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Sec. lO0-31, Art. XI, Sec. lO0-118E L=tion of affected land: ........... within 500 feet of: (check one or more) ~ 0 0 0 - 1 2 3 - 6 - 1 2 · 4 XX Town or village boundary line, or shore line Peconic Bay ................ State or county road, parkway or expressway ................ State or county park or recreation area ................ ~ream or drainage channel owned by the county or for which the county has es~blished channel lines. ................ ~a~ or county owned pardi on which a public building is situa~d Commen~: Public Hearing was held 1/22/81, and ZBA approved front and rearyard setbacks, and approved access, subject to conditions as shown on the attached photocopy of decision. Date: 2.Z'5/81 (signed) Llnda F. Ko~alskt, Secretary Title Date received by Suffolk County Planning Commission ................................ · .................................................... File No ................................. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- January 22, 1981 matter of Charles A. Brautigam, Appeal No. 2775. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2773. Application of Joseph D. Posillico, Sr., Hemlock Drive, Farmingdale, NY 11735 (by Richard F. Lark, Esq.) for Variances to: (1) the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 and Art. XI, Sec. lO0-118E for permission to construct new dwelling with insufficient front and rear yards; and (2) New York Town Law Section 280-A for approval of access. Location of property: Camp Mineola Road (a/k/a Reeve Avenue), Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Corwin; west by Private Road and Corwin; south by Bay; east by McMahon; County Tax Map ID No. 1000-123-6-12.4. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:50 p.m. by reading the appeal application in its entirety, legal notice of hearing and affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official news- papers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property showing the present building and showing the proposed location of the new dwelling, and a section of the County Tax Map showing this property and the property in the surrounding areas. Is there anyone to speak in favor of this application or add to it? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Speaking on behalf of Mr. Posillico, Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. As indicated in the application I do represent Mr. Posillico, who couldn't be here tonight. He's on vacation. The application is three-fold; one to review the determination of the building inspector, which is going to become a legal issue that you'll have to decide. The second one is the factual issue on granting a sideyard variance, which is practical difficulties under the zoning ordinance. And then the third one is granting access under 280-A of the Town Law's--as indicated hasn't been done. As for the first one, when Mr. Posillico decided to become interested and buy. this property, he wanted to purchase it but he wanted to knock down the existing house, which I think the Board has seen that's on there and build a modern structure that would be more in keeping with his needs. And originally he thought he would just knock down the struc- ture that's there and build right where it's in its place. And I approached the building inspector to find out what we would have to comply with to update the house in that fashion. You know, knock it down, and put in a foundation and build a new one in the same spot. And it was the building inspector's recommendation rather ironic that the house be moved back so it would conform with the existing shall we say !'setback lines" off the Bay with the other houses that were generally on both sides. You know, to keep it somewhat in the same vain, because this house as it presently stood owned by Miss Detner was a little 'closer to the bulkhead and he thought that that would be best, especially considering the flood plain laws and the other laws © Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Lark continued): that have now been, environmental laws that have come on, that you need certain heights and so on and so forth; and as it turned out when the survey was done, there was enough height, 7 or 8 feet, where if you moved it back about 25 or 20 feet it would be in conformance. So, you said initially that that would have to be done. But then after it was decided to move it back, he was very candid, he said, "you would have to get a sideyard variance if you do that because I'm going to view what you consider your frontyard--your sideyard as the frontyard, and therefore you're going to need a variance." He says, "I realize that you're going to build the house facing the Bay, but technically the way the lot is laid out by the Planning Board," and since this did receive Planning Board approval -- we have a copy of the Planning Board map there--so we don't get into the size of the lot question, because it did have an existing house on it-- he says, "I'm going to view that as being your frontyard and therefore you're going to have to get a variance for that." And that after we applied for a building permit to move it back to start the chain of events to come before the Board for the sideyard variance, he came up with the fact that this was really a nonconforming use, and he got hung up on that, and that's why he issued the Notice of Disapproval. And when you read the zoning ordinance, and I checked into this quite a bit, under nonconforming use, was that section that he quotes there, lO0-118E, that only applies where the use is not compatible with the zoning district. Here we have an A-Residential zone which the use is resi- dential. And nonconforming use is defined in our statute as any use whether of a building, tract of land, or both, existing on the effective date of this chapter, and here are the key words, "which does not conform to the use regulations of the district in which it is located." So my first point, as I say and a legal one that you'll have to check with the Town Attorney on, is that this is not in any way, shape or form.with the use variance application, nor does Section 100-118 in any way apply. Because the use has always been conforming; it is now. The old house is still there and the proposed new house would be the same -- A Residential. So if you would review that with the attorney, I trust that you will find that I'm correct on my analysis of the law on that point. Now I won't burden the record with the application portion for the sideyard variance. I think you can see the lot width there is according to the survey which you have, is approximately for the pur- poses of this discussion about 90 feet. Now what makes this lot different from the other lots surrounding it is this one faces on the right--only on one right-of-way; that's the one running north and south as you see on Exhibit A. So the building inspector con- strues that as the frontyard, and it would be impossible under our zoning to locate any kind of house there with a 50~yard, frontyard, and a 50-yard rearyard when you only have 90-feet to begin with, ok? But he also recognizes that all the houses in the neighborhood are facing, you know, towards the Bay, the ones that have the bayfront Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- January 22, lg81 (Mr. Lark continued): property. So as for the practical matter, the frontyard as most of them is facing the Bay and the rear, either towards their access areas as to the properties to both the east and the west have a~right-of-way that they can obtain access. But this is the only right-of-way that runs north and south there, which the petitioner will have. So the request then is to, if you will, technically under the zoning ordi- nance, to get a frontyard variance to locate his house within as shown there, approximately 10 feet from.the right-of-way, which should give sufficient space to the neighbor on the other side of the right- of-way to the west, and then it would leave 15 feet to the neighbor on the east. And under the half-acre concept that we had before we went to acre, that was the normal sideyard, l0 and 15, both of them 25. So it would be compatible with precedence on that nature. And by moving it back rather than building on the same spot, it would conform to the existing flood plain regulations that we have and so on and so forth because: (a) we got a bulkheaded property and (b) the elevation in that area as you can see on the map where the survey has located it runs approximately eight feet, a little bit better in some and then it goes down in the back. Ok. So that's a practical difficulty which is being requested for the sideyard, and as I indicated when the building inspector then issued the determination disapproving the relocation of the house, it was his opinion that no one, in spite of all the houses that are in that neighborhood, I found it hard to believe, ever got approval of Camp Mineola Road from the Board of Appeals. So again the third phase of the application is a clean-up, is to get approval. That road as I have indicated, ~n other neighbor'S presence, has been here for many, many years. Apparently it doesn't have any official sanction and it only can come from one party, or one Board, under the Town Law and that's the Board of Appeals. So that's the third phaseof the appli- cation. I think, as I said, the first one is a legal question which you'll have to get an interpretation from the attorney, and the second one is in your province on practical difficulties using the criteria of how substantial the request is. Again, it's an existing house, the Planning Board gave approval for the lot with the house as it was because that was nonconforming as to area and not as to use, and as to sideyards and rearyard, it was there many years prior to the zoning ordinance. So when they divided that property up into four lots as you have on Exhibit B there, the house was down there. There will be no increase in the density population as indicated; it's still going to remain a one-family use. So it will still be the same. And there will be no change in the character of the neighborhood. In fact it should be an upgrading because the house there was,'really the whole reason we're here, Mr. Posillico found it would cost far too much for ~what it was worth in relationship to the property, to try to renovate the existing house, and as I say, there were all kinds of games that could Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Lark continued): be played as you build the house around the existing house and then he wouldn't have to come here, but the cost of doing that when you get into the Code requirements as to the electricity, the plumbing and things of that nature, that was not only feasible, he wasn't kidding anybody by doing that. So that's why he wanted to tear down the old structure rather than even try to move it. His builder told him that he couldn'.t even move the structure. It didn't warrant it. It wasn't substantial enough with its underpinnings. And I don't believe there will be any substantial detriment to the adjoining properties created, because again it's a one-family situation moving it back with the existing setbacks that the houses enjoy on the creek; and with all the factors taken into consideration' I respectfully request that you grant the area variance for a front- yard--here as requested, and that you give consideration under 280-A to the access, not only to that lot but to all the lots till it gets to the nearest public road in the neighborhood, and then to give me a legal review as to the Building Inspector's determination--this is a nonconforming use. Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why you selected the west side, actually the frontyard in this particular case, to be set off at 10 feet rather than the east side of the-- MR. LARK: No, it could go the other way. That was kind of, you might say, arbitrary.. Probably on my part after talking with Mr. Fisher intially, as I say it's my neck to. the Building Department here, because the other house to the east is almost virtually right on the property line as you see on the drawing there on Exhibit A, on the survey. And by putting itel5 feet off of that one would create a little wider separation between two adjacent dwellings and it was felt by, you wouldn't gain.anything by moving that five and making the other 15. Another consideration was, that the driveway to the house would be further north on that right-of-way, in order words it's not contemplated that that right-of-way become improved all the way down the actual-- as you see the jog out in the house, in the back, in that area, would be where the garage entrance, the driveway would be. And so it was felt by, if you had a choice whether to put that lO or 15 feet, that was the reason for it. It was primarily the house separation in the back, and then you were right on the existing right-of-way. In other words that right-of-way is a dead-end there. It's not going anywhere. You know, as a thoroughfare. I thought of that originally, maybe we should be 15 feet back off of it--after viewing the property and going down there and looking at it, it was basically my advice to Mr. Posillico to move it a little bit further east. The Building Inspector thought that was a good choice considering the two things. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there also, do you have any idea or does your applicant have any idea how heavily traffic that right-of- way is in the summertime? Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- January 22, 1981 MR. LARK: I imagine it would be quite heavily, you mean, the end of the old road itself? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. The end of it. MR. LARK: It's basically, there's now a number of year'round homes in there, but I suppose the population would probably double or better than that in the summer. It would be much more activity in the summer. There's no question about that. But again there will be no increase in density--it will still be one family.for the lot. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Isn't that right-of-way still in dispute over who has a right over the top of it? MR. LARK: As to the northerly portions of it when it runs out, I understand there is some dispute. But as to. this area here, I don't believe there is any. This property as I understood it came out of the Howell family, and they clearly had the -- he owned the whole thing at one time. I don't think there's been any dispute as to this property using it, but I know there is a dispute as you go further north on it and in fact some portions of it aren't used at all, or very little have used it to go directly north and they take the spur--I believe it's Pray Ave-- Kraus Road, that's what it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Kraus Road. MR. LARK: But I know that portion of it has been a big bone of contention for some time. But down in this area I don't think so, as to these owners on this particular property when it was subdivided. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?' Is there anyway that man would consider maybe shortening the house a few feet? MR. LARK: Yes. He's not married to that particular plan at all, and in fact when I talked to him, I have a, I guess you,d call it-- I'll talk into the microphone like you want me.to-- like a builder's sketch, and it wasn't submitted as part of it because he wasn't really going to be married to it. This shows if I can show the Board just what he had in mind, if anybody else wants to look at it. But as I indicated he's not married to this particular one, and in fact as a practical matter I believe he is going to shorten it up, because this didn't work out exactly the way he wanted. What he calls here his rear elevation would face the Bay, this would be the general layout, where he would have a deck. In other words we're looking if you were standing in the water looking north that way. And that's the--that would be the floor plan layout there, the second sheet there, and then the first sheet if you were to stand on the north of the property and look to the south, as I indicated to you Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Lark continued): the garage area would be over in that area, and he wasn't exactly married to the actual dimensions of the length of the house, but that was the general schematic that his builder, Mr. Pontino, had come up with, and as I say he was thinking when he talked to me of shortening up some of these rooms and over inthis area, over in here, which would would by necessity shorten up the house a little bit. MEMBER DOUGLASS: That would give you more frontyard, what- ever you want to call it there. MR. LARK: Yeah. Whatever way you want to look at it, yeah, That was what the builder had come up with with the architect when they looked at the property. After Mr. Posillico looked at it for what he wanted for his use, he says, "I don't need all that space." And he wanted to condense it because he wanted to make one common deck because the way that was going to be you'd have like two decks, and he wanted to be able to go out from the kitchen and from the bedroom area, you know, using the Bay as the back drop as a front- yard area. It has one deck, so he could squeeze together that easterly portion, make it shorter in other words--the house. But I was generally what was envisioned, that type of layout. MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually this here sketch would, if this were into scaling, would show the house at about 65 feet. MR. LARK: Sixty-four I think is what came up for the answer. (The Board members reviewed the floor plans brought by Mr. Lark, and then the plans were returned to Mr. Lark.) UNKNOWN GENTLEMEN: May we look at the plans? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. CORWIN: Here on the side on the scale, the side showing 30 feet. That Would leave 65 using that scale. MEMBER DOUGLASS: It's 30 in here plus this little kick-out.~ MR. DENERI: The plans shows 34 here, 42 here, and 65 this way. (At this time several persons were speaking at one time and the conversations were not clear.) SECRETARY: May I have your name, please? MR. DENERI: D-e-n-e-r-i. I'm here to speak-- MR. LARK: That's why that wasn't presented as an exhibit, that was just made for the architect and the builder. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- January 22, 1981 MR. DENERI: --for Mrs. McMahon, who is the door neighbor. I live next to Mrs. McMahon-- like from the piece of property. immediate next 55 feet away MR. LARK: As I say, he indicated to me that it was too long for his purposes--for living purposes, because he thought that, it's just he and his wife now and then the grandchildren will be visiting, he says, "I don't need as this space." Ok? But that's generally what he had in mind. Ok? MR. CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Dick. You seem to always come up with accesses nobody has record of--the Gajeski thing where for years we thought it was a town road. MR. LARK: I couldn't believe that--because he's issued many, many building permits there. (A gentleman from the audience asked Mr. Lark a question, which was not clear because it was not through the direction of the chairman.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else wishing to speak for this? (Negative). Is there anyone here to speak against this? RICHMOND CORWIN, JR.: My name is Richmond Corwin, Jr. I am the owner of the right-of-way that's in question to the west, and the property that is to the west of that right-of-way. As a point of information on that right-of-way, the parcel that's in question here has right to Camp Mineola Road from that right-of-way to that parcel, not to the Bay. There is a restrictive clause on that. They have the right to enter off of the right-of-way onto that parcel, and that's the extent of their right--not to the Bay or anything of that nature. Speaking from the general view and having read the application--coming down and having read the appli- cation, there were a number of questions that I looked at and felt were in error. One on the Environmental Conservation ques- tionnaire concerning the bulkhead that the bulkhead is in good condition. It does not take a marine engineer that that bulkhead is not in good condition. The EAF form on question 8, will the project have a major effect on the visual character of the com- munity or scenic views that known to be of importance to the community. Again, looking at the community as it has been struc- tured both in the older buildings and the newer buildings you will find that this house far exceeds the norm for the area as far as size, both in width and length, and as--I'm now speaking for my wife who is the owner of the parcel due north, a house of this size taking up that much of the width of the property as is so constructed or proposed to be constructed would have a delusory effect on the value of the property to the north as far as having the view of the water. These are purely subjective observations, but I would like to be on record as having stated them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else? CHARLES HUMMELL: My name is Charles Hummell; I live directly Southold Town Board of Appeals -l~- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Hummell continued): north of the proposed building that you're speaking of. I just want to say that I put my life savings into my home, and I built my home because it had a beautiful view of the Bay. Now from the proceedings I see here, that view is going to be taken away. Now if everyone here was in my position for just one minute and thought how hard I worked for my money to put up this house because of the view that we see, and now that everything is going to be lost, so. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hummell. EUGENE DENERI: My name is Eugene Deneri. I live two houses east of this plot that we're talking about, but I'm here to speak for a Mrs. McMann who lives in the plot right next to the proposed Posillico plot. I've lived in Camp Mineola for, it's going on 14 years I've owned by house. Prior to that I've been coming there since before World War II. I know every house on the beach. There isn't a house on the beach that is the size that this house is being proposed at. Abou.t the widest house on the beach starting at the Norris property, that is Bruce Norris' property and going west to James Creek, the widest house facing the beach and there~ are approximately 25 houses facing the beach, is 48 feet wide and it's on at least a 95-foot plot or a lO0-foot plot. The rest of the houses average somewhere below 30 feet on plots going anywhere from 50 feet to 95 to 100 feet. I think the plan for this house at 60, 65, 64 feet is excessive for that size plot of ground. It will, one thing for Mrs. McMann, shut out every bit of daylight that comes into her house for a good 65-70% of the day, this is it being built on the west side of her house, it will make a narrow tunnel between the two houses that Mr. Hummell, if he gets into the right room of his house may be able to see below water- front. I just can't understand why they want to build a house at least sprawled out that wide. There must be another way to build the house--turn it around sideways or make a two-story house out of it. All of this is feasible and plausible. There are other two story houses along the beach in either direction. On top of it all, I have to agree with Mr. Corwin, the bulkhead's in bad shape--it's lowest than my bulkhead is 55 feet away, and when we get a bad storm, the back end of her property is lower than the front end of the property at the bulkhead and the backyard floods. NOw does Mr. Posillico plan to fill in the backyard? Is that going to be permitted? Because if that is permitted, then the properties on either side of that plot of ground, the smallest one around it incidentally are going to be overflowed because his property will be higher than everyone else's. The terrain naturally runs downhill westerly towards James Creek. Nobody's objecting to Mr. Posillico or anybody else building a house there. We would love to have a fulltime neighbor there. But we'd like to have a house that conforms with the rest of the neighborhood. We're not mad at him because he wants to build a 65-foot wide Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- January 22, 1981 house, but I wouldn't do it on a 95-foot plot of ground. I can't understand why he wants to do it. I don't think it makes any sense. It is going to just make the place look like parts of the world most of us, except natives, escaped from a long time ago. This is what we're trying to avoid; we just don't want to see another condition where you have an alley-way between houses barely wide enough for people to fit through. And 15 feet isn't really a devil of a lot of room. Now my house was built in about 1925. I have at least 20 feet on my west side and much more on my east side. The McMahon house was built shortly after mine or maybe at the same time as mine; it's built almost on the property line--there's no two ways about it. I just can't-- I think the big bone of contention here is the width of that house, the size of that house. If he were planning a different kind of house, none of these questions would be before the Board of Appeals right now because there wouldn't be any need for them. It's because he wants to put a house on it that doesn't first of all conform to anything else in the neighborhood, and does- n't conform sideyard-wise, or front or back-wise, however we're going to call this, because this is kind of peculiar change of events. My frontyard faces north, but I get taxed from the south, because it faces the Bay. This is our objection, this is what we want you to take into consideration, that the house is much too large for the plot of ground. It really is postage stamp with the size of the house that Mr. Po$illico wants to put on the piece of property. The other thing is I may have misunderstood Mr. Lark, but I understood that the jet-back in the house on one of the plans there may be the garage that would be right in McMahon's bedroom window. I don't think I'd like to have that in my bedroom window. We come out here for the peace and quietJ So please, give some consideration to the size of the house to the size of the plot. That's the problem. It's much too large for the size of the plot. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Do you have any questions you would like to ask? I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision until we can check it and maybe, like Mr. Lark, there's a possibility the man may be changing his house around a little bit somewhere or way, along the way. MR. LARK: Before you vote on your motion to adjourn, the ques- tions before the Board is zoning here. We don't have an architectural review committee in here. Eight-hundred fifty square feet is the minimum, and I think this is house is only 1300 or 1400. But that's not the issue here. The issue here is under the zoning, and the zoning is the sideyard and the practical difficulties on the sideyard, number one, ten feet off the right-of-way. I don't want to get all hung up on vistas or anything like that because that's not what we're here for. Maybe we should pass another ordinance, like we don't have enough of them. Like communities have, an architectural review as to Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- January 22, 1981 (Mr. Lark continued): what can go there. But that's MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just a is in excess of 1800 square feet. MR. LARK: I'm not talking--it was exclusive of which you don't include for -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Living quarters. MR. LARK: Yeah, right. MR. CHAIRMAN: I make the motion decision. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. MR. eluding It's 20 come to it's an MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When we approximately 2300 square feet. MR. DENERI: I was agreeing Mr. Lark. not the purpose that we're here. point in passing, I think the house the garage area, to close the hearing and reserve DENERI: The only thing that I wanted to direct was the to 1300 square feet. The garag6 is only 400 square feet. by 20, roughly speaking 400 square feet, and my calculations 2200 square feet including the garage. Take 400 off that 1800 square-foot house, not 1350. calculated Mr. Deneri, we calculated with you. Just not agreeing with MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we're aware of that, you know, and that it's going into the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: There's been a second on it. for coming in. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve the Thank you Goehringer, decision in Sr., Appeal No. 2773. Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, matter of Joseph D. Posillico, Vote of the Board: Ayes: Goehringer and Sawicki. very much Douglass, 0 0 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- ¢ITATI~ ROAD 25 SOU'i'HOLD, L.I., N.Y. llcJ?l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER doseph H. Saw~cki TYPE II ACTION DESIGNATION NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFPECT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act {SEQRA}, Article 8 of the Environmental Conser- vation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, the South- old Town Board of Appeals has determined the following-described project is classified as a Type II Action, not having significant adverse effects upon the environment. Pursuant to Section 617.5(a} of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, no further determination or procedure is required herein. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other depart- ment or agency which may also be involved or any other project not covered by the within application. Applicant has submitted an environmental assessment in the short form which indicates that no adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment. Constructed along the water-lying edge of the subject property is a functional bulkhead at least 100 feet in length. Ap..p~icant's Name: Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. Appeal No. 2773. Description of Project: To construct new dwelling with insufficient front and rear yards, and for approval of access. Property located at Camp Mineola Road {a/k/a Reeve Avenue), Mattituck, NY. 1000-123-6-12.4. Date and Place of Public Hearing: Jan. 22, 1981, 8:35 pmat the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Documents on File: Appeal Application, Notice to adjoining prop- erty owners with mail receipts, Surveys or Sketches of the proposed project, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, Notice of Hearing, Environmental Assessment in the short form, photocopy of the County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding area, and other documents as may be required. Person to Contact for Additional Information: Linda Kowalsk~, Secretary to the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Telephone (516) 765-1809, or 1802 {Building Inspector}. Dated: January 6, 1981. Copies to: Applicant or his agent. Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. Supervisor, Town of Southold. Re: Posillico Loc~C~on of Property: R-O-W Advised on 12/31/80 by neighbors to the north: atOld of Camp Mineola Rd, Matt 1. Bulkhead is in very poor condition and would not withstand water from entering. 2. Neighbor's house to the east is approximately three feet from property line. 3. Proposed house would be protrusive the way it would be situated, and not in character with nearby homes. 4. Proposed house as situated on lot would block waterviews of neighboring lots to the north. 5. New cesspools may be needed. Asked that the Board consider the layout of the property, being almost 200 feet long and only 90 feet wide. Perhaps the house could be situated lengthwise. O O JUDITH T. TERRY . TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971 December 24, 1980 To: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals From: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 2773 application of Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. for a variance. Also included are notification to adjoining property owners as follows: Eleanor Corwin, Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, N.Y. 11952; Patrick McMahon, 324 Burn Street, Forest Hills, New York 11735. JTT/bn Town Clerk ~' Enclosures O O RICHARD F. LARK December 24, 1980 Mrs. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Town Hall - Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. - Variance for Reeve Avenue, Matti'tuck,' New York Dear Mrs. Terry: In connection with the above-captioned matter, the following: I am enclosing 1. Application for Variance in triplicate. 2. Exhibit A: Map of premises dated November 11, 1980 amended December 11, 1980 prepared by Young & Young. 3. Exhibit B: Copy of Minor Subdivision Map of Lena F. Howell, Minor Subdivision No. 15. 4. Exhibit C: Excerpt from Building Zone Map. 5. Notice to Adjacent Property Owners with proof of mailing together with certified mailing receipts attached thereto. 6. Notice of Disapproval from Building Inspector. 7. Short Environmental Assessment Form. 8. Wetlands letter. 9. Two (2) additional copies of survey of premises. 10. My check payable to the Town of Southold in the amount of $15.00 If all is in order, please place this matter before the Board of Appeals so a date may be set for a public hearing. RFL:bc Enclosures Very~r~ly yours, cc: Mr. Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL File No ................................................................. Date ...~....~...~.~.~ ...... :./.....ZT........, 19..~.~... / '[ '~,ir ~,,,~,..-~'-~ ~ . ! ~ . PLEASE TAKE NOTICE tl~at your-~l~doted ............... ~......~ ............... , ~9 ........ ~..~~...~,~. ............... ~,-(~~ ~ ~ ~,~,,~. Map ..... ~.~.~...~.L~.~... Bilk ........ ,~.~..: ......................... Lot ....... ~..¢..~.:..~. ................... is returned herewith and disapproved on the follow;rig grounds Z~;(.~J.~..~~~ ~....~~...~ ~.~.....~....~.~..... ~,.,'~~ ~ ~z~...~....~....>~.~>~..= ~.~....C~ ~.~.~.5...*~ .~.=..J~co~.~.~.~.~...~.c~......~.~o....~..~.~ ......... ~ilO~0 ~nspe~tor' SHORT'ENVIRON~tENTAL ASSESSI~ENT FORI~ (a) Zn order %0 answer %he questions in %his short EAF it is assumed %ho{ %he preparer ¥,ill use. currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is no~ expected that additional s~udies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a completed Environmental Assessment ~orm is necessary. (c) If ~11 questions have been answered. No it is likely that project is not slgnificont. -. ' (d) E'nvironmen~al Assessment ' ' '' .. ~. Will project resul{"'in o large physical change %o the project site ar physically alter more than 10 acres o~: land? ........................ Yes x No 2. %';ill there'be a major chenge to any unique or .unusual land form found on the sit&? .......... Yes x NO 3. %~ill project alter or hove a large'effect'on . existing body of ~ater? ........ ............... ¥gs.x No '4.. %';ill project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? ....................... Yes X:No 5. ¥;ill project significantly effect dro%noge flow on adjacent sites? ' Yes X 6. %?ill project affect any threatened or d pl 1 ? Y N endangere ant or chime species ............ es., x' o 7. Will project result in o major adverse effeb% · . an air quality? .............. · ................. Yes X No 8. %?ill project have o major effect on visual character of the community or scenic vie~s or. vistas known to:be important to the community?. 9. Will project adversely impact any site or .- structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance or any site designated as a critical envlronmentol oreo by o local agency? · - .............. ~. Yes X No 10. %~ill project hove a major effect on existing or fu%ure recreational opportunities? ......... Yes '11. Will project result in.major traffic problems o~ cause a major effeci %o existing transportation systems? ....................... Yes X No 12. %~ill project .regularly cause objectionable odors, noise,' glare, vibration, or electrical. .. disturbance as a result of the project's operotlon? ' Yes No . x 13. %~ill Project hove any impact on public health or.safety? .................................... Yes x No 14. %~ill p~oject affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent : population of more than 5 percegt over o one year period Pr. hove o major negative effect on the character of ~he community or neighborhood? .................................. Yes X No 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? .... , ................................. .. Yes. x No PREPARER'S SIGNA!URE REPRESENTING ~oseph D. PosiZZico, $~. DATE Decembe~ 22, Z980 December 22 , 1980 (Today's Date) To: Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appeal Application of Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. Location of Property: Reeve Avenue, Mattituck, New York Dear Sirs: In reference to the New York State Tidal Wetlands Land-Use Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Part 661, and Article 25 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, please be advised that the subject property in the within appeal application: (please check one box) ix] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead in very good condition and at leas~ 100 feet in length.* May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead in need of (minor) (major) repairs, and approximately feet in length. [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead less than 100 feet in length. [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; and there is no bulkhead or concrete wall existing on the premises. [ ] Is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands to ~he best of my knowledge.* [Starred items (*) indicate your property does not appear to fall within the jurisdiction of the N.Y.S.D.E.C.] ~/os~ph D. Posillico, Sr. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING iNSPECTOR APPEAL NO. ~' '~ ~'~ DATE ,, ,D, .e,.c, .,e., ,m~.. ,e, ,r., ,,2, ,2, :,., ,1. 9 8 0 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. ]. (~a~x....q.q~.e.P.h..~.'...~.°..s.~..i..c..°..',...s,.r..: .............. of ..!?.....~.!.,¥e..m.½.?..c_k...~.r..i,~?. .................................. Nome of Appellant Street and Number Farmingdale N.Y. 11735 ......................................................................................................................... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ....p..e..c..e.~..b..e.~..~.2.,...~9..8..0. ................ WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ) ) (x) Name of Applicant for permit of (No ~) Hemlock Drive, Farmingdale, New York 11735 Si'rear and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW DWELLING Cam Mineola Road (Reev~ ~venu~) , . 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ~`~v~1;~`~Q~e.~X.~.~/~.~A.~g~..%.~.'.~.]:~.u.~.a~'1.~T~'~%~&1 D£str~ ~. Street Use District on Zoning Map 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do. not quote the Ordinance.) Article III, Section 100-31; Article XI, Section 100-118E; section 280-a of the Town Law. 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (X) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map (×) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal ~ (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such ~ppeol was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and wes made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL (X) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (X) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance To review that portion of the Notice of Disapproval of the Building Inspector dated (X) December 12 1980 reouirino a SD~cial ExceDtion for a non-conforminQ use urs~ant · to Ar~;~c~e ~I, Se~t%o~ 100-I18E ~f the Zon~hg Ordinance. ~s requestea tar rna reason that Petitioner wishes to tear down the existing one family house on the premises and construct a new one family house which will result in insufficient front and rear yards under the current Zoning Ordinance. Form ZB] (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because your Petitioner is the Contract Vendee of a parcel of land rectangu- lar in shape which contains approximately 90 feet fronting on Peconic Bay and a depth of 195 feet along the easterly side of a right-of-way known as "Reeve Avenue", also known as "C~mp Mineola Road." The property is rectangular in shape, contains approximately 18,000 square feet on which there is presently located a one story bungalow. Your Petitioner desires to remove the bungalow and construct a modern year round house on the premises. (See Exhibit A showing the property with its size and shape and the proposed location of the new house.) The property is presently located in a neighborhood known as "Camp Mineola", which is an old established residential neighborhood in Mattituck' serviced by a meandering right-of- way interchangeably known as "Reeve Avenue" and "Camp Mineola Road". In some places this right-of-way is 50 feet in width and in other places it is 25 feet wide. Although hard to believe, your Petitioner has been informed by the Building Department that this right-of- way has never received recognition of access under Section 280-a of the Town Law. The right-of-way itself is maintained by the residents in the neighborhood, is in good condi- tion, and will accommodate any rescue, fire and police vehicles in an emergency. At one time this parcel of land was part of a larger tract and on September 15, 1969,th~ owners received approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for its subdivision into four building lots. The property which Petitioner is purchasing is Lot 1 on that minor subdivision. (Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a copy of the Minor Subdivision of Lena F. Howell (Minor Subdivision #15,) September 15, 1969) (Continued on Rider Attached hereto as #1) 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shored by oH properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because the access to this property runs along the easterly side of the right-of-way known as "Reeve Avenue" or "Camp Mineola Road." Due t~ the strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance the building is required to front on this right-of-way and to have the required 50 foot front yard setback whereas in reality the present structure as well as the proposed one family house and, parenthetically, all the houses in this neighborhood which are adjacent to Peconic Bay face the Bay which is a technical side yard of this particular piece of property. To require the applicant tc build a house facing on the right-of-way will adversely affect the value of Petitioner's property. (See Exhibit C for the excerpt of the Building Zone Ordinance.) 3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISZRICTbecause the residential neighborhood known as "Camp Mineola" has been established a long time prior to the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold and the majority of the existing building lots thereon are non-conforming in some respect under the current Town of Southold zoning standards. The granting of this variance to enable the construction of a modern house on this parcel will not change the residential character of this neighborhood, and in 'fact, it will enhance same. Further, the granting of recognition of access to the lot will not increase vehicular traffic due to the fact there is already a one family dwelling presently located on the l~t and the density will remain the same. STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ; ,,' ' .............................................. Signature ' ........... ' .......... Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. Sworn to this ........... .2..2.,n.d. ........................... day of ........... P~9..mi2..~' ............................. 19 80 Notary Public TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N.Y. JOSEPH D. POSILLICO, SR. REASON FOR THE APPEAL: #1 continued: To take advantage of this lot's configuration, si.~e and its waterfront features, the Petitioner has decided to tear down the existing dwelling and to construct a modern home in its place. To conform to the existing zoning regulations the front of the proposed house whould have to be 50 feet from the right-of-way and the rear yard 50 feet from the adjacent property from the east. This is physically impossible when applied to this particular parcel of land. Further to lay out the house facing this right-of-way would defeat the purpose of purchasing a building on a waterfront lot. To conform to the existing neighborhood, Petitioner wants to build his house taking maximum advantage of the view of Peconic Bay. The rooms in the house will be located to make maximum view of the bay and the structure itself would be approximately 25 to 30 feet from the existing bulkhead. In order to construct the house at this location your Petitioner will locate the westerly side of the house 10 feet from the existing right-of-way on the westerly side of the property and 15 feet from the adjoining property owner on the east. Therefore, it is necessary to obtain front and rear yard variances to allow construction of Chis proposed building. It is your Petitioner's position that the Building Inspector's requirement for your Petitioner~Dalso obtain a Special Exception under Article XI, Section 100-118E is incorrect. This particular section of the Zoning Ordinance applies only to non-conf0rmin< uses. The building presently on the property conforms to the use regulations of an "A" Residential and Agricultural District, and the proposed one family dwelling will also conform to the use regulations of this district. The fact that the existing building will be torn down and a new'building constructed will not change the use of this property. Therefore, your Petitioner also requests in addition to granting the requested variance determination directing the Building Inspector to issue a building permit for a one family dwelling without obtaining a Special Exception. Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Petition of : JOSEPH D. POSILLICO, SR.~ : to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold : NOTICE TO: Eleanor Corwin Camp Mineola Road Mattituck, New York Patrick McMahon 324 Burn Street 11952 Forest Hills, New York 11375 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a (Variance) (~Ve~ ~'-~3('__~J{~rYa~l~ (the following relief: Pez~tssion to tear down existinq dwellinq on the premises and to construct a one family dwellina on the pr~m~ ~e~, 2. That the property which is the subiect of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: North by Corwin, East by McMahon, South by Peconic Bay, West by Camp Mineola Road. 3. Thattheproperty whichisthesubjectofsuch Petitionislocatedinthefollowingzoningdistrict: "A" Residential-Agricultural District -4. Thatbysuch Petition, theundersigned willrequestthefollowingrelief: Permission to teaT down existin~ dwellina on the premises and to construct a one family dwellina on the premises. $.Thatthe provisions ofthe Southold Town Zoning Code applicabletotherel!efsoughtby the under- signed are: Article III, Section 100-31; Article XI, Section 100-118E, Section 280-a of the Town Law. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you ma)/then and there examine the same during regular office hours. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: December 22, 1980 o/sttion~ Joseph D. Posillico, Office Address (No #) Hemlock Drive Sr. Farminqdale, New York 11735 PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE NAME ADDRESS Eleanor Corwin Camp Mineola Road Mattituck, New York 11952 Patrick McMahon 324 Burn Street Forest Hills, New York 11735 og UJ z STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ); ss.: Barbara Diachun , residing at School House Roadr Cutchoque, New York 11935 . being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 24th day of December ., 19 80 ., deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- rice at Cutchoque, New York ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (l~lJ~ mail. Sworn to before me this 24th / Notary Public ~--L~-.~-~ BABETTE CORNINE NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York Suffolk County No. 52-579:2800 ~ Commission Expires fRarch 30, 19.~-'~ Barbara Diachun '4 I~4, /-~ TT'I -fUCK ONIC ) ,': ® 5 6 8 9 ~5 I ! SEE SEC NO.II5 N 281 ,¢O0'MATC H o~, LINE Z MAT_ FOR PA.'t.C. EL NO, SEE SEC. NO. II5 5.2 4.5 6 6.1 5.2Nc)// , 44.2 $.0A(¢) ?o 8 7.0A(c) ~ ~ ~ now or formerly ~ Mot~fi PECONIC ;h SU~Y F~ AT M~TTI~CK OA~E: NOK II, I~0 ~WN ~ SOUTHO&D SC~E: I" ~ 30' .C~IES ~ mis MVEY NOT ~Rme THE LAND ~T N CONIIO[KOTOKAVALIO TRUK C~Y N~AR~[S m0I~TED ~KON ~L ~N ~Y ~ HE~ DEPARTMENT-DAT~ ~ A~R~ ~ C~STRUCT ~ ~ ~R w~ ~E SUMY IS P~ARED YOUNG YOUNG AND ~D S~VEYOR N.Y.S. UCENSE NO. NOWARO W. YOUNG~ L&ND SURVEYOR TDY POS? E0494 . '., "-'~' EXHIBIT