HomeMy WebLinkAbout2815
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 Ei0UTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 119'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
Joseph H. Sawicki
May 2, 1981
Richard F. Lark, Esq.
Main Road, Box 973
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Re: Appeal No. 2815 - Request for Rehearing'
Application of Charles A. Brautigam
Dear Mr. Lark:
Please be advised that the following action was taken at
a Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals held
Thursday, April 23, 1981 concerning the above-entitled appeal:
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer,
WHEREAS, Appellant has applied to this Board by application
dated April 15, 1981 for a rehearing; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1981, this Board was serVed with a
petition in an Article 78 proceeding to review the determination
of this Board made on March 19, 1981 in Appeal No. 2775;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, under the circumstances,
the application for a rehearing is denied.
Vote of the Board:
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
CG:lk
Yours very truly,
CHARLES GRIGDNIS, .
CHAIRMAN
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
X X
In the Matter
of
W.'; HARRY LISTER,
Pe ti tione r, NOTICE
~ -agains t- OF
ROBERT GRIGONIS, Jr., SERGE PETITION
DOYEN, Jr., ROBERT J. DOUGLASS,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, JOSEPH H.
SAWICIKI, constituting the
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,
Respondents.
X
SIR:
Index No.
X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed verified
petition sworn to on the 17th day of April, 1981, .and the
exhibits annexed, an application will be made to the Court at
a Special Tern% Part I thereof, to be held at the Count~Qourt
House., Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York, on the// day of
May, 1981, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter
as counsel can be heard, for a judgment granting the relief demand-
ed in the petition, and that a verified answer, and supporting
affidavits, if any, must be served at least five days before
such time.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to Section
7804 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules you are directed to
file with the Clerk of the Court your answer, .and answering
affidavits, etc., together with a certif%ed copy of th~ transcript
of the record of the proceeding, together with the entire official
file containing the records of the petitioner herein held by the
respondents and referred to in said hearing as being in the record
as official records kept by the respondents herein.
Suffolk County is designated as the place of trial on
the basis of: Petitioner's~residence is in the county and the
real property which is the subject matter of this action is with-
in the county.
DATED: April 17, 1981
RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ.
Attorney for the Petitioner
Office & Post Office Address
Main Rd.
Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935
(516) 734-5i00
TO: ROBERT GRIGONIS, Jr.,
SERGE DOYEN, Jr.,
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
JOSEPH H. SAWICIKI,
constituting the ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
X ' X
In the Matter
of
W. HARRY LISTER,
Petitioner~
-against-
ROBERT GRIGONIS, Jr., SERGE
DOYEN, Jr., ROBERT J. DOUGLASS,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, JOSEPH H.
SAWICIKI, constituting the
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, ?
PETITION
Respondents.
Index No.
X
The petition of W. HARRY LISTER, by its attorney,
RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ., respectfully alleges:
1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, petitioner
owns and stills owns, in fee simple, certain real property sit-
uate at West Road, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County,
New York, affected by the proceedings before the aforementioned
Zoining Board of Appeals in the Town of Southold, hereinafter
more fully set forth.
2. That Charles A. Brautigan is the owner in fee simple
of premises situate at West Road, Cutchogue, Town of Southold,
County of Suffolk and State of New York adjacent to petitioner's
premises, separated by a Right of Way.
3. Respondents, ROBERT GRIGONIS, Jr., SERGE DOYEN, Jr.,
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, and JOSEPH H. SAWICIKI,
at all times herein mentioned constituted and still constitute the
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD.
4. That on August 30, 1978, said Charles A. Brautigan
applied to the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold for a
permit to construct a carport as an accessory structure in other
than his rear yard, which permit was denied in accord with a
notice of disapproval of the same date a copy of which is annex-
ed hereto as EXHIBIT "A".
5. On or about the 31st day of August, 1978, said
Charles A. Brautigan applied to the said Zoning Board of Appeals
for a variance to construct a carport in other than the rear yard
of his premises, acopy of said application being annexed hereto
as EXHIBIT "B".
6. That the aforementioned application of Charles A.
Brautigan came on for a hearing before said Board on September
28, 1978, and that a public hearing was had on that date.
7. That the Zoning Board of Appeals on Thursday, Sept-
ember 28, 1978, granted said application in accord with the re-
quest of the applicant, to wit: to construct a three(3) stall
carport of a size 25'x25' to house two(2) antique cars and a family
car. A copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals decision is annexed
hereto as E~JBIT"C".
8. That Wednesday, October 3, 1978, said Charles A.
Brautiga~ or his duly authorized regent, submitted to the Build-
ing Inspector an application for a building permit.to construct
a carport in accord with the variance granted by the Zoning
Board of Appeals under appeal ~2471.
9. That on or about said date of October 3, 1978, upon
information mnd belief, said application was amended by the
applicant, or his duly authdr~zed agent, to provide for a garage
with rooms (no kitchen) on line 2(b) of said application and a
set of plans were submitted~ to the Buildin:g Inspector, which
substantially and materially did not conform to the variance and
approval that was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for
construction of a carport on September 28, 1978. A copy of said
application and plans submitted are annexed as EXHIBIT"D".
10. That on said date of October 3, 1978, the Building
Inspector issued a building permit to construct a carport as
approved by the Zon£ng Board of Appeals ~2471, a copy of which
is annexed hereto as EXHIBIT "E".
11. That on or after October 3, 1978, said Charles A.
Brautigan commenced to construct a building which was in substantial
and material violation of the variance granted by the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
12. That petitioner herein received no notification of
the application to construct said carport before the Zoning Board
of Appeals, notwithstanding~ that same substantially affects
petitioner's property rights and values.
13. Tha~ it was sometime after construction had com-
menced that petitioner learned of the building and its non-con-
formity with the variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
14. That numerous complaints were made by your petitioner
and his attorney to the Board of Appeals, the Building Inspector,
the Town Attorney and the Southold Town Board
15. That finally,~! on or about J~ly 15, 1980,~ the B~ild-
lng Inspector was compelled to issue a "stop order" on the construc-
tion and a revocation of the building permit issued on October 3,
1978.
16. That since no action was taken by the Building
Inspector to compel construction in accord with the variance grant-
ed by the Zoning Board of Appeals #2471, a letter addressed by my
attorney seeking such relief (Augus.t 29, 1980) was sent to the
Building Inspector and the Town Board, a copy of which is annexed
hereto as EXHIBIT "F".
17. That the action of the Building Inspector and/or
other parties in amending the variance of the Zoning Board of
Appeals was and is illegal, void and of no force and effect, and
and that the applicant should have restricted construction of his
building to that defined in the building permit granted on October
1978.
18. That on or .about December26,1988aid Charles A.
Brautigan brought an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals
seeking to amend the prior variance granted under Appeal #2471,
vacate the stop order and revocation of building permit by the
Building Inspector, and permission to construct a garage with
rooms, a copy of which is annexed hereto as EXHIBIT "G".
19. That said applica,ti.on came on for hearing on
January 22, 1981, before the Zoning Board of Appeals, and a public
hearing thereon was had on that date, a copy of the minutes of
said hearing being annexed hereto as EXHIBIT "H".
20. That your petitioner by his attorney appeared at
said hearing and objected to the granting of the relief requested.
21. That subsequently and on March 19, 1981, the respond-
ents herein, in their capacity as members of the Zoning Board of
Appeals, granted the application subject to certain conditions
therin imposed, a copy of said decision being annexed hereto as
EXHIBIT "I".
22. That your petitioner 'claims and asserts that the
decision of said Zoning Board of Appeals in granting the application
of said Charles A. Brautigan to maintain his building as a garage
with rooms is in derogation of the following requirements :
Article III, Section 100-30(A)(1) which allows only one(l) single
family residence on each residential lot( Zoning Ordinance of the
Town of Southold).
b.) Article III, Section 100-32(A) which does not
permit an accessory building to exceed eighteen(i8) feet in
height.
c.) ArticleXII, Section 100-121(B) permits a variance
to be granted only on proof of practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship.
23. That the applicant failed to establish at the hear-
ing before the Zoning Board of Appeals, on January 22, 1981,.. that
there were practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in seek-
ing the relief requested; that on the contrary, the matters, facts
and evidence presented clearly established that there was no hard-
ship at all, in that, it was the applicant's decision to voluntar-
ily to do that which was contrary to the variance that was previously
granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals; and the Board of Appeals
itself made no finding of hardship, and in fact, determined that
the "good faith" of the. applicant was questionable; and therefore
the findings of the Board of Appeals should be set aside as being
made without any evidence to support same, and as being against the
weight of evidence.
24. Petitioner also claims and asserts, that the grant-
ing of said variance, was, is, and will be detrimental to the
health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the
community and the petitioner and his family for the following
reasons:
'a.) That said structure is not in substantial conformity
with other accessory buildings in the area, and stands as an
"eye-sore" in the community;
b.) That said structure is extremely close to the pet-
itioner's property, and in light of its size and height constitutes
a "second dwelling" on the applicant's property in violation of
the building requirements of the Town of Southold as defined in
itd Zoning Ordinances;
c.) That the granting of the application permitting the
structure to remain was and is against the public interest and merely
to satisfy the purposes and desires of the applicant;
d.) That said variance instead of enhancing and con-
serving surrounding property values tends to and does decrease,
impairanddestmoy such values;
e) That permitting such illegal structUre to remain, said
Board of Appeals encourages and fosters others to'commit similar
illegal acts against the Zoning Ordinance, with full expectation
that upon seeking relief for such illegal acts, the applicant may
indeed be granted such relief.
25. That the granting of the variance by the Board of
Appeals constitutes a gross abuse of such discretion as may be vested
in the Board,~ if any, which has resulted in a substantial hardship
and detriment to your petitioner, who as an adjacent property
owner is aggrieved and injured.
26. That the variance granted by the Board of Appeals
on March 19, 1981 should be reversed, annulled and set ~aside,
the application of said Charles A. Brautigan with respect thereto
denied, the revocation of the Building Permit be reinstated in
accord with Art. X1V, Section 100-142 of the Zoning Ordiance, the
st~p order be reinstated pursuant to ArtoX1V, Section 100-140 of
the zoning Ordiance, any certificate of occupancy, if one has been
issued, cancelled and revOked, and that Said Zoning Board of Appeals
be directed to order and cpmpel the Building Inspector to have the
applicant undertake, forthwith, a modification of said structure
so as to be in strict compliance with the variance that had previously
been granted the applicant .~o construct a carport under Zoning Board
of Appeals # 2471.
27. No previous application for the relief requested herein
has been made to any court or judge.
WHEREFORE, petitioner 'respectfully request~ that a final
judgment be made and entered herein~ for the following relief:
(1) rever~ing, annulling and setting aside the decision
that respondents made on Marc~ 19, 1981;
(2) that respondents be directed to order and compel the
Building Inspector to have the applicant undertake, forthwith, a
modification of said structure so as to be in strict
compliance with the variance that had previously been granted
the applicant to construct a carport under Appeal #2471; and
(3) ~or such other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
Dated: April 17, 1981
W. Ha r r v Li f t e~,.,~P~ti~io~
~/~:: ~/~dyC~, a~.~ttorney
0 0
I~ ~e ~de~igned, ~ ~ ~ome~ a~d ~ p~ce ~ ~e cou~ ol New York S~ ~d
~ ce~fy ~a~ ~e ~exed
~.~. has been compared ~y me ~ ~e o~g~1 ~d ~ouM to be a ~e ~d c~mp~ copy ~e~eoL
c-~--,~--,~-~Y ~at: I ~ ~e a~omey of reco~ or of counsel ~ ~e a~omey(s) of record, for ~ .
VeeiJcatlon ~OW ~e co~ent~ereo~ ~d ~e same ire tree to my knowledge, exce~ 'tho~ ~rs ~ere~ which a~ su eo to be
sr alleged on ~[ormation and be~ef, ~d ~ to ~ose matters I he,eve ~em to be tree. My beef, ~ ~ ~o~ ~e~ ~ere~
-,
:.,
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF m
being sworn says'. I am
[] in the action herein; I have read the annexed
Individual know the contents thereo{ and the same are true t'~m~-'rchowle g~-e~'~pt thb~'tfflR~s~s therein which are stated to be
V~ificagion
alleged on information and belief, and as to thos~imatters I believe them to be~ true.
C~a,. a corporationr one of the l~ttles to the action; I have re~d the annexed
v. iao~ioa know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except those m~tters therein wh/ch are stated to be
alleged on information and belief, ~nd as to those matters I believe them to be tree.
My belie{, as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon the following:
Sworn to before me on
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF
age and re'de a~
Service
BT /~lail
being sworn says: I am no~ a pan7 to tha actloa, am over 18 yea~s of
On ,19 . I served a true cop~ of die annexed
ia the foRowing
by ma~ing the same in a sealed envelope, with postage prepa/d thereon, in a post,office m of FEial depository of the U.S.
Postal Service within the State of New Yorkr addressed to the 'last known address of the addressee(s) as iml/cated below:
by delivering the same personally to die persous ~ud at the addresses indicated belows
Sworn to before me on
,19
(Pr/nc sigu~s name below siguao~0
In&x
STATE OF NEW YORK
COURT
ye~ 19
COU~ OF
P,,IC~ J. CRON
To:
Attomey(O .{or
Service of a copy of the within
¥: q~ ?. ,~,.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
NOTICE OF
ENTRY
[]
NOTICE OP
S~T~, ~,EMENT
uua:.,iU!il
that the within is a (cenitled) true copy o{ a
entered in the office of the clerk o{ the within named court on
19
that an Order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the Hon.
one of the judges of the within named Courtt
19 , = M.
Da~:cl:
To:
Attorney(s) for
RICHARD 3. CRON
A~omey
K
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
April 16, 1981.
TO'
Southold Toqn Zoning Board of Appeals
From' Judith T. Terry, ;TDwn Clerk
Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal ~o. application of Charles A. Brautigam
for a re-hearing on a variance(Appeal No. 2775). Also included are notification
to adjoining property owners, short environmental assessment form, and wetland
questionnaire,,and notice of disapproval from the Building Inspector.
~'Jhdith T. Terry
jTT/bn Town Clerk
Enclosures
RICHARD F. LARK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
MAIN ROAD - P. O. BOX
CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK
TELEPHONE 5]6 734-6807
April 15, 1981
Mrs. Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
RE: Application for Re-Hearing of Charles A. Brautigam
Dear Mrs. Terry:
In connection with the above-captioned matter, I am enclosing
the following:
Petition of Charles A. Brautigam to the Zoning
Board of Appeals, Town of Southold with attached
exhibits and three sketches of the property.
Notice to Adjacent Property Owners with proof of
mailing and certified mail receipts attached
thereto.
3. Short Form Environmental Assessment Form.
4. Letter to Board of Appeals regarding Tidal Wetlands.
My check in the amount of $15.00 payable to the
Town of Southold representing the filing fee.
If all is in order, please present the above to the Board of
Appeals so a date may be set for public hearing. Kindly keep me
advised.
RFL:bc
Enclosures
SHORT'ENVIRONk{ENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
to answer tile qUestions in this short EAF it is assumed
currently available information concerning the
~cts of the action. It is not expected that
ch or other investigations will be undertaken.
has been answered Yes the project may be
d Environmental Assessment Form is necessary.
have been answered No it is likely %hot this
sessmen¢
resUl~""in o large physical chonDe ''
project'site Or physically alter more
10 are of 1 nd?' Yes
there'be a major change to any unique or
al land form found on the sit&? .......... Yes x NO
project alter or have a large:effect'on
lng body of water? ' Yes x
project have o Potentially large impact
on groundwater quality? ....................... Yes X'No
5. Will project significantly effect dro~na.ge
flowon adjacent sites? ..................... ;... Yes x Nq
6. Will project affect any threatened or
endangered plant or animal species? ........... Yes x' No
7. Will project result in a major adverse effect
o. .... .... x No
effect on- ua1
8. Will project hove o mo3or vis
character of lhe community or scenic views or.
vistas known to-be imporlont to the community? ...... '¥es.X..'_~o
9. Will project adversely impact any site or . .-
slructure of historic, prehistoric or
poleonlologicol impatience or any site
designated os o crilicol environmental area
by o local agency? ........... '.~...~;-.v..-.-.'~.~..-< :¥esX.. No
10. Will project have o major effect on existing
or future recreational opportunities? ......... Yes x NO
"11. Will project result in .major traffic problems
oK cause o major effecl to existing
t sportation systems? Ye X No
ran .............. .-- · ---- o=: ~ S
i2. Will project .regularly cause objectionable
odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical '
disturbance as a result of the project's
operation? ' ' Yes X No
13. Will'Project have any impact on public health
or. safety? .................................... . .~YesX__N°
14. Will p~oject affect the existing community by
directly causing o growlh in permanent
population o~ more than 5 percent over a one
year period or have o major negative effect
on the character of the community or
neighborhood? ................................. .. Yesx . ,Ne
'th
Is there public controversy concerning e .
project? ...................................... . . YesX,.N°
-----~'--r~order
that the preparer will use
project and the likely imp
additional studies, reseor
(b) If any question
$ignificont and o complete
(c) If all questions
project is nol signi~icont
(d) E~vi'ronmenfol As
~. Will project
to the
than
2. Will
-UDUSU
· ' 3. Will
exist
'4.. Will
15.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE
Charles A. Brautigam, Petitfoner
DATE April 13., 1981
April 13, 1981
(Today' s Date)
To:
Re:
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Appeal Application of Charles A. Brautigam
Location of Property: West Road, C~tchOque, 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 o~ 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.]
urs,
Charles A. Brautigam
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS : TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
-X
In the Matter of the Appeal of
:
CHARLES A. BRAUTIGg2Ul,
Petitioner, :
:
to the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
-X
Appeal No. 2775
APPLICATION
FOR RE-HEARING
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,
NEW YORK:
The Petition of CHARLES A. BRAUTIGAM, residing at
46 Benson Road, Glen Rock, New Jersey 07452, respect-
fully shows:
1. On or about December 26, 1980, your Petitioner
filed an application for a variance to the Code of the
Town of Southold, Chapter 100 (Building Zone Ordinance),
Article III, Section 100-32, for permission to complete
the construction of an accessory building in the front
yard area of your Petitioner's property. A copy of said
variance application is attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit 1.
2. A public hearing was held on Petitioner's
variance application by the Zoning Board of Appeals on
January 22, 1981 at the Southold Town Hall, Southold,
New York, and the Zoning Board of Appeals subsequently
issued a written decision dated March 19, 1981, a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
3. By its decision the Zoning Board of Appeals
revoked the Stop Order previously issued by the Southold
Town Building Inspector dated December 18, 1980, and per-
mitted the completion of the construction of the acces-
sory building subject to certain conditions. One condi-
tion prohibited the use of the accessory building for
sleeping and the installation of such facilities.
Another condition included the adoption of the recom-
mendations of the Suffolk County Department of Planning
which provided among other things "There shall be no
renting or leasing of the accessory and main buildings
on the premises."
4. Enforcement of the aforesaid decision of the
Board of Appeals places your Petitioner in a far more
difficult position than existed prior to the variance
appeal. The reason is the decision in its present form
has the effect of prohibiting your Petitioner from ever
renting his property to a third party for a lawful use.
It is respectfully submitted this is an unconstitutional
invasion of your Petitioner's property ownership rights
and therefore exceeds the power of the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Further, in its decision the Zoning Board of
Appeals has treated your Petitioner's appeal as a use
variance request. The Petition and testimony before the
Board centered around treating your Petitioner's appeal
as an area variance which requires the proving of practi-
cal difficulties, which is a lesser standard than unneces-
sary hardship as required for a use variance. Your
Petitioner seriously questions the characterization of
this appeal as a use variance; however, in fairness,
your Petitioner requests the opportunity to present
to the Board "dollars and cents proof" concerning
economic hardship imposed on your Petitioner and
unique circumstances in which he now finds himself.
5. Your Petitioner is requesting a re-hearing
in order to present proof to demonstrate hardship
and to amend the Board's prior decision'to allow your
Petitioner to utilize this accessory building for its
intended purpose.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests a
re-hearing so he may obtain a variance for the proper
utilization of his accessory structure.
Charles A. Brautigam
Sworn to before me this
13th day of April, 1981
~otary Public
lJOTARY PUlL. i,';, State ef New York
~. 52-10~b~ Su~ C~u.ty
OWN OF SOU'~ "IOLD, NEW YORK
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INS'ECTOR
APPEAL NO.
DATE .D~.q~,tl%b.¢.[ .... .2...6.., 19 8 0.
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
1, (TV~ ..... .C..h..a...r..1..e..s....A.......B..r..a...u..t.~..g..a..m. ................... of 46 Benson Road
Name of Appellant Street and Number
Glen Rock N.J.. .................HEREBY APPEAbSTO
Municipality State
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF' .THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON
WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ~ REVO}Q3D BUTT,D]]X1G P~T NO. 9961Z
DECEMBER 18, 1980 OF
...... .c..n..a..r..z..e..s.., ..................................
Name of Applicant for'permit
of
....................................................
Street and Number Municipality State
( ) PERMIT TO USE
( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY
(X) For construction of accessory building in front yard area of property
West Road
LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..Cutchogue.,..~.e.w...Y. orlq ...... '.'~'.'...~gr. kg.U.1..t..u.[.a.~..~.R..e..s..i..d..e..n..t..i..a. 1 Distri~
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 100-32
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 Law Chop. 62 Cons. Laws
Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3
4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (:~xg~lkbeen made with respect to this decision
of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property.
Such sppeal was ( ) request for o special permit
(X) request for a variance
and was made ,n Appeal No ..... .2..4..7..1. .................... Dated .... .A..u.g.u..s..t....3..1./....1..9..7..8. ....................................
REASON FOR APPEAL
( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3
(X) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance to amend previous appeal No. 2471 (September 28,
(X) To review a determinatio~ by the Building Inspector issuing stop orders and
revoking previously issued building permits.
is requested for the reason t.Hat Petitioner has been advised by the Southold Town Building
Inspector that he needs Board of Appeals approval for the accessory building which
includes a garage with rooms that is partially constructed on his property on West
Road, Cutchogue, New York since the building does not conform to the original varzance
granted by the Board of Appeals.
FmTn ZB1
(Continue on other side)
EXHIBIT/
REASON FOR 'APPEAL_ Cr,~tinued
1 STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE'would produce practical difficulties or unneces-
sary HARDSHIP because Petitioner was granted a variance by the Southold Town Zoning
Board of ~ppeals to construct an accessory building in his front yard area by
Appeal No. 2471 dated October 11, 1978, which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit A. The original purpose of the. variance request was for permis-
sion to build an accessory building to house and store two antique cars as well as
the family car. The Board granted your Petitioner permission to build this acces-
sory structure provided the building shall be: no closer to West Road than the
adjoining carport on the Lister property and no closer than five feet to the
westerly line of Petitioner's property. After receiving the variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals, your Petitioner realized that the accessory structure
would have to'be completely enclosed in order to properly house and protect the
above-mentioned motor vehicles. Since, the cost of building an enclosed garage
according to the requirements of the Building Inspector was considerable, your
Petitioner decided to take advantage of the construction and place a couple rooms
on top of the garage, Your Petitioner inquired of his builder, William Beebe, and
the Building. Inspector as to whether this could be done. Your Petitioner was told
it would be alright as long as his building plans were amended and the building was
located in the area designated 5y the Board of Appeals. Accordingly, the building
plans were drawn and approved by the Building Inspector and your Petitioner re-
ceived a Building Permit for its construction, Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a
(.CONTINUED ON RIDER ATTA~]ED HERETO)
2 The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by oil properties alike in the immediate
vicinily of th~s property and in this use district because Petitioner, in good faith reliance
upon the B~ilding Permit, completed the exterior of this structure to blend in with
the existing dwelling on his property, Due to the size and topography of Pe%i-
tioner'S property, the yard adjacent to West Road, although under the Zoning Ordi-
nance is the front yard, for all practical purposes it is the back yard of Peti-
tioner's property, whereas the land adjacent to Peconic Bay is in effect the front
yard instead of the back yard, The point is that this accessory building as con-
structed.is unobtrusive, and is an asset to Petitioner's property, not only as to
design and looks, but as to utility purposes,
3 The'Var,once would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE
CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because granting this variance would enable Petitioner to
complete the construction of this accessory building and will not change the resi-
dential character of this district, This residential neighborhood has been estab-
lished for a long time prior to the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of
Southold, and the existing lots thereon are non~conf0rming in some respect under the
current Town of Southold zoning standards, The majority of the residential proper-
ties on the southerly side of West Road are smaller in size than your Petitioner's
property and contain more than one building, Attached hereto as Exhibit H is an
excerpt from the Building Zone Map, Most of the "accessory" structures are either
converted carriage houses or have residential units built thereon so ~hat the
erection of a garage with living space overhead is entirely consistent with the
existing pattern zn this particular neighborhood. Due to the size and slope of
your Petitioner's property from the road to the bay, this accessory building blends
in quite nicely and is an attractive asset, and in no way adversely affects any
properties in the neighborhood. The granting of this variance to enable the con-
struction of this accessory building will not chang.~ the residential character of this
neighborhood and'will in fact enhance it, /1~ '
STATE OF. NEW YORK )
ss .............. ' '
COUNTY OF SUPPO~K ) Signature .......... ~ .........
Charles A. Brautigam
Sworn to this ................ ~ ........ i .............day of ........ ~e~9..mb..9~ ................................ 19 80
RIDER TO APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWqq OF SOUTHOLD, N.Y.
CHARLES A. BRAUTIGAM
#1 continued:
copy of the Building Permit # 9961Z dated October 3, 1978 together with a set of
building plans approved by the Building Inspector on October 1978 marked as
Exhibit C.
Your Petitioner's reasons for changing the plans from a simple garage to a
garage with rooms overhead was due not only to the cost of the garage construc-
tion, but also because your Petitioner%s house on this property is a very old.
and large summer home and not insulated, nor does it have any heating plant,
which requires your Petitioner to close up and winterize same in the fall of each
year. It was your Petitioner's intention to be able to utilize his property on
weekends during the fall and spring. In order to accomplish this, Petitioner's
idea was to construct one small bedroom/living room/bathroom combination over the
garage. The total living space would be approximately 672 square fee which your
Petitioner would be able to use on weekends. The living area itself Would be
heated by electric heat and a wood burning stove. Your Petitioner was not
knowledgeable in the Zoning Ordinance and therefore left all building matters
to the builder and Town Building Department, During the construction it was
recommended by the builder to raise the roof in the front of this accessory
building from a slant to a hip roof type so it would architecturally match the
existing roof of the large summer dwelling. Your Petitioner agreed, as it not
only would be more presentable from the exterior but would increase the living
space in the area over the garage. The Building Inspector apparently agreed and
gave approval of same. The building was then framed and a roof placed thereon
according to the plans shown in Exhibit D which is attached hereto.
For some reason the Building Inspector on July 15, 1980 decided to suspend
all construction work on this accessory building. Attached hereto is a copy of
a letter of George Fisher dated July 15, 1980, as Exhibit E. Apparently your
Petitioner's builder was unable to resolve the difficulties with the Building
Inspector because on October 31~ 1980 the Building Inspector again wrote to Mr.
Beebe stating that a Stop Order which was previously issued would remain in
effect until the builder complied with the permission previously granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals. A copy of the letter of the Building Inspector dated
October 31, 1980 is attached hereto as Exhibit F.. Finally, the Building Inspec-
tor on December 18, 1980, revoked the previously granted Building Permit but
cited no reason, A copy of the revocation letter is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
From what your Petitioner can understand, the reason the Building Inspector
revoked the Building Permit is because the accessory structure was not built
according to the approval granted by the Board of Appeals in that the' Board had
only previously granted a "carport". The first time Petitioner learned that any-
thing was wrong with the construction was during the summer ~t980. Prior to that
time, Petitioner was operating under the assumption that all rules and regula-
tions of the Town had been met and complied with in the construction of this
building. Your Petitioner also learned that the Building Inspector has stated
this accessory building was built too 'high. As your Petitioner understands it,
an accessory building cannot exceed 18 feet in height, With a hip roof, the re-
quirements are that you measure the height of the building from the front where
it measures 16 feet high so it is well within the accessory building heig[£re-
quirements. The practical difficulty and hardship now encountered by the Petiticner
as a result of the Building Inspector's actions are obvious. In good faith reliance'
on the Building Permit and Building Department inspection approvals during con-
struction, the building was built to its present state. To date Petitioner has
spent in excess of $28,000.00 on this accessory structure and to tear same down
would cause extreme hardship, not to mention its unfairness. The location of the
building is attractive and does not detract from any of the surrounding properties.
Due to its size and age, to insulate and install a heating system in the main
dwelling would be prohibitive in that Petitioner only uses his property as a vaca-
tion and summer home. The amended variance as now being requested is not substan-
tial considering this neighborhood in relation to allowing accessory buildings in
the front yards. The variance will not increase the population density as the
use is solely for Petitioner and his family on weekends. A view of Petitioner's
property and this accessory building demonstrates it will not change the character
Of the neighborhood or create any detriment to adjoining properties. Other than a
RIDER, PAGE 2, TO APPEAL FROM THE DECISIOTI OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N.Y.
CHARLES A, BRAUTIGAM
#1 .continued;
variance, there is no practical way that your Petitioner can resolve his present
difficulties. Further, considering the manner in which your Petitioner's diffi-
culties arose, and taking into consideration all of the facts of this matter, the
interests of fairness and justi6e will be served by allowing the amended variance.
Your Petitioner requests permission from the Board of Appeals to amend the
prior variance to allow this accessory building to remain so that Petitioner .can
complete same. Your Petitioner will agree to all reasonable conditions imposed
by the Board such as: no cooking facilities to be contained therein, the build-
ing to be used by Petitioner and his immediate family, the property is nOt to be
subdivided in the future so as to create two lots, and the Petitioner will also
agree to an annual inspection by the Southold Town Building Inspector to insure
compliance therewith, along with any Other reasonable restrictions imposed by
the Board. Further, your Petitioner requests the Board to revoke the Stop Order
issued by the Building Inspector on July 15, 1980 and direct the Building In-
spector to issue a Building Permit in accordance with the Plans as set forth in
Exhibit D.'
Charles A. Brautigam
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. NEW YOI~K
ACTION OF THE ZONqO-;G BOAI%D OF APPEALS
Appeal No. 2471 Dated August 31, 1978
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TITE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To
Charles A. BraUtigam
46 Benson Road
Glen Rock, New Jersey
07452
DATE ..O....C...t...:......1...1., 1978
Appellant
at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on September
was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your
( ) 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
( )
28, 1978 the appeal
1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be
granted ( ) be denied pursuant to Artlcle .................... Section .................... Subsection ....................paragraph
.................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Building Inspector ( ) be reversed ( ) be
confirmed because 7:50 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Charles A. Brauti-
gem, 46 Benson Road, Glen Rock, New Jersey, for a variance in accordance
with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission
to construct an accessory building in the front yard area. Location of
property': West Road, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by West
Road; east by Gustave Buckert; south by Bay; west by George H. Fleet
Estate.
2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined that
(a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce
hardship because
practical difficulties or urmecessary
SEE REVERSE
(b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared- by all properties
alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because
SEE REVERSE
(c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would)
change the character o[ the district because
(would not)
SEE REVERSE
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.
SEE REVERSE APPRO/VED
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the
applicant requests permission to construct, a 3 stall carport to be
located partly in the side yard and partly in the front yard to
house 2 antique cars and his family car. The size of the carport
will be 25 feet by 25 feet.
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would
produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship
created is unique and would not be. shared by all properties alike in
the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district;
and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood
and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass,.it was
RESOLVED that Charles A. Brautiqam, 46 Benson Road, Glen Rock,
New Jersey, be GRANTED permission to construct a carport in the front
yard area. Location of property: West Road, Cutchogue, New York,
bounded on the north by West Road; east by Gustave Bickert; south by
the Bay; west by George H. Fleet Estate, subject to the following
conditions:
(1) The carport shall be no closer to West Road than the
adjoining carport on the Lister property.
(2) The carport shall be no closer than 5 feet to the westerly
line of the property.
Vote of the Board:
and Douglass.
Ayes: Messrs:
Gillispie, Grigonis~, Tuthill
FORM NO. 2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTH'OLD, N. Y.
BUILDING PERMIT
(THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL
COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED)
No. 9961 Z
Permission is hereby granted to:
.~.~.~.~...~. ......... .~ ......... ~.5..~..v...~..L~0 ~1
...... ~.~. ..... ..2...e..~! ~.&~. ......... ~.~.~.~ .......... ~...Cfi.
..... ~.?..~,L.-Ld..C...~ ............ ~.YZI ....................
at premises located at ........
...................................................................... ~..u...
pursuant ,o application dated .......................... : .......... ,(~.~.~C.....~.../.., 19../...~..., and
Building Inspector.
Fee $...1..~. ...............
/~oo - /~ o - '~-~,
approved by the
Building Inspector
E~tI~zIBIT ~T~
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR,
TOWN HALL
-~ ~L~. 765-1802
SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971
July 15, 1980
Mr. William Beebe, Builder
New Suffolk Lane,
Cutchogue, New York 11935
Dear Bill:
You shall suspend all work being done on the
accessory structure in the front yard of Charles Braughtigam
at 675 West Road, Cutchogueunder Building Permit #9961 Z.
You shall suspend all building activities until this stop
order has been rescinded.
Work may be 'resumed after the building inspector is
satisfied that the building is in compliance with the Code of
the Town of Southold, Chapter 100 Zoning.
The building does not conform to the plans submitted and
approved. Please submit an up dated ~set of plans of the
structure to include floor plans, elevations and cross sections.
Also, a plot diagram of the location of the building on the
property.
Yours truly,
George H. Fisher
Senior Building Inspector
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971
TEL. 765-1802
October 31, 1980.
Mr. William Beebe, Builder
New Suffolk Lane
Cutc.hogue, New York 11935
Re:
Charles Brautigan
Accessory structure
675 West Road
Cutchogue, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Beebe:
The Stop Order addressed to Mr. William Beebe,
builder, on July 15, 1980, remains until you
comply to the per~nission the Zoning Board of~
Appeals granted.~ (~.ppeal No. 2471, Charle~
Brautigan)
A copy of that permission is enclosed.
The amended Building Permit-No. 9961Z is
hereby revoked.
Very truly yours,
GEORGE H. FISHER
Sr. Building Inspector
encl.
GHF/mw
xc: Charles Brautigan
EXHIBIT
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971
'~ TEL.~ 765-1802
December 18, 1980
Mr. Charles Brautigam
West Road.
Cutchogue, New York 11935
Dear Mr Brautigam:
This is to inform Mr. Charles Braughtigam that the
Building Permit #9961Z issued to him on October 3, 1978
is null and void.
0nly What Zoning Board of Appeals approves can be
bUilt in the front or side yard.
CC
Richard Lark
William,Beebe
Yours truly,
Senior Building Inspector
EXHIBIT
Wickham
creek
EXHIBIT
TOWN OF ~iOI~THOLD
SHOQ ENVIRON.ENTAL ASSESSt~ENT~OR~'
INSTRUCTIONS:
(a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed
that the preparer wiII use currentIy avaiIabie information concerning the
project and the IikeIy impacts of the action. It is not expected that
additionaI studies, research or other investigations wiII be undertaken.
.(b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be
significant and a compIeted EnvlronmentaI Assessment Form is necessary.
(c) If aII questions have been answered No it is IikeIy that this
project is not significant.
(d) Ehvironmenta! Assessment
~'.'' Will project resul't in a large physical change
to the project site or physically alter more
than 10 acres of land? ............... · ......... Yes × No
2. Will there be a major change to any unique or
unusual land form found on the site? .......... Yes x No
3. Will project alter or have a large effect on
existing body of water? ....................... Yes × No
4. Will project have a potentially large impact ,
on groundwater quality? ' · ................ Yes x No
5. Will project significantly effect drainage
flow on adjacent sites? ........................ Yes × No
6. Will project affect any threatened or
endangered plant or animal species? ........ .... Yes × No
7. Will project result in a major adverse effect
on air quality? ............................... Yes × No
8. Will project have a major effect on visual
character of the community or scenic views or
vistas known to be important to the community?. Yes x No
?. Will project adversely impact any site or
structure of historic, prehistoric or
paleontological importance or any site
designated as a critical environmental area
by a local agency? ............ -.; ......... · ..... Yes X No
la. Will project have a major effect on existing
11.
12.
or future recreational oppor
Will project result in major
or cause o major effect to e
transportation systems? .....
Will project regularly cause
odors, noise, glare, vibrati
tunities? ......... Yes X No
traffic.p~gblem~..''m.,. ''
xistin~~
.................. Yes × No
objectionable '' ~
on, or electrical
disturbance as a result of the project's.
operation? .................................... Yes X No
13. Will project have any impact on public health
or safety? .................................... Yes × No
14. Will project affect the existing community by
directly causing a growth in permanent
population of more than 5 percent over a one
year period or have a major negative effect
on the character of the community or
neighborhood? .................................. Yes X No
15. I.s there publ~ controversy concerning the - '
.project? ......................// ~ ....... ' ....... Yes. X No
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE_ ~:z.~.~-~ ~ · _
-- Chg~les A. Brautigam,-Petztloner
R£RR£~~ DATE December 26, 1980
December 26 1980
(Today's Date)
To:
Re:
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Appeal Applica. tion of
Location of Property:
Charles A. Brautigam
West RoadL Cutchogue, 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 bo>[)
Ix]
[ ]
51ay be located within 300 feet o~ tidal wetlands;
however, constructed along the wa'ter-lying edge
of this property is a bulkhead in very good
condit'ion and at least 100 feet in length.*
~4ay 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 wenlands;
however, constructed along the water-lying edge
of this property is a bul'khead 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 fe~t of tidal wetlands
to 'the best of my knowle¢tge.*
[f;tarr(:d .itcqr,.~_: (*) J]~,]]¢:,' to: your pro[¢,)~'t), dcc. s
not appear to fall within the jurisdiction of the tl.Y.S. D.E.C.]
:re].y yonrs,
Charles A. Brautigam ) ~
TOYVN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YOHK
Appeal No. 2 7 7 5
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Application Dated December 26, 1980
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
· To Richard F. Lark, Esq.
Attorney for Charles A. Brautigam
Main Road, Box 973, Cutchogue, NY
11935
Appellant
at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 12, 1981,
was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your
( ) 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. 100,32
( )
the appeal
graded ( ) be de.ed pursuant to Article .................... Section .................... Subsection .................... para~aph
.................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of He Building I~pector ( ) be reversed ( ) ~
co~med b~ause Application of Charles A.
Brautigam, 46 Benson Road, Glen Rock, NJ 07452 (by Richard F. Lark,
Esq.) for Variances: (a) to amend a previous decision of this Board
made on 9/28/78 in Appeal No. 2471 to permit the construction of an
accessory building (garage) with rooms, and (b) to review deter-
minations made by the Building Inspector concerning this accessory
building which includes a garage with rooms; Art. III, Sec. 100-32.
Location of property: West Road, Cutchogue, NY; more particularly
designated as County Tax' Map Item No. 1000-110-7-6 and bounded north
by West Road; west by Lister and G. Fleet Estate;. south by Cutchogue
Harbor; east by Bicker. (SEE ATTACHED)
2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined that
(a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardship because .
(SEE ATTACHED)
(b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by. all properties
alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because
(SEE ATTACHED)
(c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (Would)
change the character of the district because
(would not)
(SEE ATTACHED)
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
EXHIBIT
Appeal No. 2775 - Charles A. Brautigam
The following are the findings and determination of the Board made
aZ a Regular Meeting held March 12, 1981:
This is an appeal from a stop order of the Building Inspector
which directed the suspension of all work on an accessory structure
under Building Permit No. 9961 Z, dated October 3~ 1978. Appellant
seeks the following relief: (1) the amendment of a variance granted
by this Board on September 28, 1978 [Appeal No. 2471]; (2) a review
of the Building Inspector's action in issuing a stop order and revok-
ing a previously issued permit.
The facts leading up to this Appeal are as follows:
By application dated August 30, 1978, Appellant applied to
the Building Inspector for a building permit to construct an open
carport on his property (1.1 acres) located on the south side of West
Road at Cutchogue. The application stated that the carport would be
25 feet by 12 feet in size and 7 feet in height, to be used for two
or three cars. The estimated cost was $1,000.00. The Building
Inspector disapproved the application upon the grounds that "Accessory
(carports) are only permitted in a rear yard. Not permitted in a
front and/or side yard as you propose."
By appeal dated August 31, 1978, Appellant appealed to this
Board seeking a variance to Section 100-32 of the Zoning Code to
permit the location of the carport in the frontyard area. This
Board, after a public hearing, granted a variance "to construct a
carport in the frontyard area." Thereafter, on October 3, 1978, the
Building Inspector issued Permit No. 9961 Z to "build a carport as
approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals #2471."
It would appear from the plans on file that the 'Building
Inspector approved one or more amendments and/or .revisions to the
plans for the accessory structure, either by mistake, or upon the
belief that he had the authority to permit such revisions. There
appears to be no dispute that the structure, as built, does not
conform to the type of structure specified in the original appli-
cation for a'building permit and upon which this Board relied when
it granted the variance on September 28, 1978. The Board members
have visited the premises and viewed the structure which is sub-
s~antially completed. The carport as originally applied for and
upon which the Board acted in September 1978 has now evolved into
a two-story structure 24 feet by 28 feet in ~size, 18 feet high
(applicant apparently proposes to raise the grade along the front
of the structure [street side] to comply with the 16-foot maximum
height requirement of the Code). The first floor has two 9-foot
door openings for two cars. The second floor contains a 24-foot
long living room, a complete bathroom, and one bedroom. A 28-foot
long by 5-feet 4-inch wide outside deck extends across the
front (waterfront side) of the second floor, access to which is
gained by two 8-foot sliding doors, one from the bedroom and one
from the living room. A brick chimney is erected for a stove on
the second floor. Access is gained to the second floor by an
outside stairway. The construction cost to date exceeds $28,000.00.
Except for the installation of cooking facilities, the second
floor of this accessory structure presently has all of the house-
keeping facilities to qualify it for a dwelling unit as defined in
the Zoning Code (Sec. 100-13)' If it complied with all other
applicable provisions of the Zoning Code, and if cooking facilities
were added, it could be used for single-family dwelling uses.
However, this is not the case. The Bulk Schedule forming a part
of the Code requires 850 sq. ft. of .living area. The second floor
of the structure contains only 672 sq. ft. and thus does not meet
Appeal No. 2775 - Charles A. Brautigam (continued)
this requirement. The Code does not permit accessory buildings
to be used for dwelling purposes (100-30C). The Code also
allows only one, one-family dwelling on each lot [100-30A(1)].
To pe'rmit the second floor of this accessory building to be
used and occupied for dwelling uses would have the affect of
permitting two dwellings on one lot, a use which is not per-
mitted by the Zoning Code, and a use which the Building
Inspector has no authority to allow.
The Appellant, in this appeal, requests that the Board
amend its previous decision to allow the accessory structure,
as built, to be completed and to revoke the Building Inspector's
stop order. Appellant co~ncedes that the building does not con-
form to the 1978 variance granted by this Board. Appellant
also admits that his plans were changed "from a simple garage
to a garage with rooms overhead." Appellant's reason for such
change in plans was "to construct one small bedroom/living
room/bathroom combination over the garage." Appellant claims,
as a hardship, that the main house is not insulated and has
no heating plant and that the construction of heated living
facilities over the garage would permit the use of the premises
during that portion of the year when the main house is closed.
No cost figures were presented as to the expense of installing
heat and winterizing the main house. However, Appellant claims
he has already expended in excess of $28,000 on the new accessory
building.
Appellant in his petition and at the hearing on this appeal
claims that his present plight was caused by the actions of the
Building Inspector in approving his revised plans and that he,
in good faith, relied upon the acts of the Building Inspector.
However, the fact that completely revised plans were presented
to the Building Inspector for his approval five days (3 working
days) after this Board granted the original variance, casts doubt
on such claim. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the
actions of the Building Inspector, to some degree, may have
contributed to the circumstances in which the Appellant finds
'himself.
It is the determination of this Board that to permit the
second floor of the accessory structure to be used for living
facilities would, in effect, allow a use not permitted by the
Zoning Code, since the result would be to permit two dwellings
on one lot. A use variance may only be granted upon proof of
hardship, which has not been demonstrated by the Appellant.
It is also the determination of this Board that an economic
burden would be imposed on the Appellant, if he were required to
alter the structure to conform to the original application for a
building permit. ·
Accordingly, on motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, IT IS RESOLVED, that the structure shall be allowed
to be completed, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The accessory structure shall not be used or occupied
as living quarters, which~shall be construed as prohibiting the
use of the building for sleeping, cooking or eating purposes,
or the installation of facilities for such purposes.
2. The Appellant shall comply with the recommendations of
the Suffolk County Department of Planning contained in its
letter dated February 5, 1981 (S C.P.D File No. SD-81-2) as
follows: ' ' · ,
Appeal No. 2775 - Charles Brautiqam (continued)
(a) Accessory building shall have no kitchen facilities;
(b)
There shall be no renting Or leasing of the accessory
and main buildings on the premises;
(c)
An application for renewal, shall be submitted annually
subsequent to inspection by the Town Building Department;
(d) There shall be no subdivision of the premises.
3. Appellant shall permit the Building Inspector to make
such additional inspections of the premises and accessory build-
ing as he deems appropriate.
The stop order issued by the Building Inspector is revoked
and the Building Inspector shall permit construction to be com-
pleted, consistent with this determination.
Location of property: West Road, Cutchogue, NY; bounded
north by West Road; west by Lister and G. Fleet Estate; south
by Cutchogue Harbor; east by Bicker. County Tax Map Item
No. 1000-110-7-6.
Vote of the Board:
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass,
Absent was: Mr. Doyen (due to illness).
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE
~Oo ~..,~.OLD TO ~,VI:,I·
APPROVED '"'"'
Chairman Board o~Appea!=j g
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TO~N OF SOUTHOLD
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STATE OF NEW YORK
In the Matter of the Appeal of
C~ARLES A, BRAUT~G~34,
Petitioner,
to the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
APPLICATION FOR RE-HEARING
RICHARD F. LARK~ ESQ.
Attorney for Petitioner
Main Road ~ P.O.Bo~x 973
Cutchogue, NY 11935
~16~ 734~6807
BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Petition of
CHARLES A. BRAUTIGAM
to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold
TO: Mr. and Mrs. Gustave C. Bickert
George H. Fleet Estate
NOTICE
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: I
I
1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold
to request a (Variance) (:~[~[~¢3~I[::F,~(i:~9]:i]~I~X{~)KOI~IA'~I~NI~j3[) (the following relief: Request a re-_h_.earing
to present additional evidence to allow completion of construction of ).
accessory building in front yard area.
2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des-
cribed as follows: #675 West Road, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County,
New York, bounded on the North by West Road, on the East by land of Mr.
& Mrs. Gustave C. Bickert, on the South by Peconic Bay and on the East by.
a right-of-way owned by the George H. Fleet Estate.
3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district:
"A" Residential and Agricultural District.
4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: to obtain a varianc~
to complete construction of a garage with rooms overhead in the f~o~t-[~
yard area.
5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable tothe relief sought by the under-
signed are: Article III, Section 100-32
6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will
he filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may 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: April 13, 1981
Petitioner Charles A.
Brautigam
PostOffice Address
46 Benson Road
~]~n Rn~k~ New
.T~r.q~y n7452
NAME
PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE
ADDRESS
Mr. and Mrs. Gustave C. Bickert
George H. Fleet Estate
511 Union Avenue
Wood Ridge, New York
Cutchogue, New York
z
Z
9L61 '
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
9L6l 'ddv '00§£ tUa%l Sd
SS.:
07075
11935
Babe~_~_~ Cornine , residing at 335 Sunset Avenue t Mattituck,
N~_w York , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 15th day
of April ,19 81 ., 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 Cutchogue, New York ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by
( ce rt ified) ~I~I~-'R:~ mail.
Sworn to before me this 15th
day of APril ,19 81
Notary Public
Babette Cornine
BARBARA DIACHUN
No[ary Public, State of New York
No. 52-4635190 Suffolk County
_Oommission Expires March 30, 19~2~
.oo
SE[ SEC
NO. 'J3~, 1~4
./
?L/.'/
9~CUPANCY OR
~"~' B UNLAWFUL
t~i~T CERTIFICATE
OCCUPANCY
APPROVED AS NOTED
FEE _ BY: .,~
NOTIFY BUILDING DEPARTMENT AT
765q802 9 AM TO 4 PM FOR TH~
FOLLOWING INSPECTIONS.
1. FOUNDATION . ~/O R~QUIRED
FOR POURED CONCRETE
3 INSULT GN
/.2 ~
I/
,/