HomeMy WebLinkAbout2775
HOWARD M, FINEELSTEIN.
PIERRE G. LUNDBERG
FR/~NCIS ti. YAEABOSEI
ROBERT C. CRII~IMINS
FRANK A. ISLER
WILLIAM F. BATES
SIISAN POST ROGERS
SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, CRIMMINS AND YAKABOSKI
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
456 GRIFFING AVENUE, CORNER OF LINCOLN STREET
'. P.O. BOX 389
RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901
": ~: (516) 72T- 4100
Board of Appeals
Town of Sout ld
July 24, 1981
REGINALD C. SMITH
OF COUNSBL
Mr. Charles Grigonis, Jr.,
Chairman
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Main Road, State Road 25
Southold, New York 11971
Re:
Lister v. Zoning Board of
Appeals - Southold
Dear Mr. Grigonis:
I enclose photostat of Decision in connection
with the above captioned, received this date.
Please call me regarding this Decision during
the coming week.
Very truly yours,
FRANCIS J. YAKABOSKI
Enclosure
FJY:mo
Fo.,%
¢ou,,. sufFOLK
In the Matter of W. HARRY LISTER,
Petitioner,
-againSt-
ROBERT GRIGONIS JR. , SERGE DOYEN,
JR., ROBERT j. DOUGLASS, GERARD P.
MEMORANDUM
INDEX NO. 81/8804
Motion No. 8,978
O June 4, 1981
SP£C~AL T£,M PART I
BY MC INERNEY J.S.C.
DATED July 22, 1981
GOEHRINGER, JOSEPH H. SAWICIKI,
constituting the ZONING BOARD OF · uoaruozappeals
APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,
Respondent/ 'FINKE ' ?O~/~C.Ot SO~o~d
RICHARD J.. CRON, ESQ. 'SMITH, LSTEIN,LUNDBERG,CRIMMINS and YAKABOSKI
Attorney for Petitioner Attorneys for Respondents
Main Road 456 Griffing Avenue, P.O. Box 389
Cutchogue, New York 11935 Riverhead, New York 11901
This petition is denied in toto.
Respondents have served and filed all instruments necessary in this pro-
ceeding.
This is an Article 78 proceeding brought by a neighboring property owner
to review the Southold Town Board of Appeals decision of March 19,~1981,
permitting 'the completion of an accessory structure on property owned
by Charles A. Brautigam, subject to enumerated conditions.
The Brautigam property is located in an A Residential Zone (one-acre
development) in Cutchogue in the Town of Southold. In 1978, Mr.
Brautigam sought an area variance to locate an accessory structure
partially in his front yard and partially in his side yard. Such a
variance was necessitated by the fact that Section 100-32 of the zoning
code required accessory buildings to be located in the rear yard. The
structure sought was to be used as a carport.
The variance was granted by the Board in October of 1978 subject to two
conditions as to the location of the building. It was to be no closer
to West Road than the adjoining carport on the Lister property and no
closer than five feet to the westerly property line.
A building permit was issued to Mr. Brautigam pursuant to the Board's
decision. Plans for the accessory structure were approved~by the building
inspector as were later modifications. These approvals were given since
the structure complied with the area variance granted since it was located
where approved by the Board. As appears from the building plans, the
structure approved was to be a garage with rooms above.
~ ~ I ~COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY
;~' - '"' BY
~ot-ion ~o. 8,978
SPECIAL TERM
J. S. C.
VS. DATED 19
PAGE 2 --
Between October of 1978 and the summer of 1980 construction progressed
to the point that the building was substantially completed at a cost in
excess of $28,000. While the construction conformed to the plans approved
by the building department, it became apparent that the accessory structure
was larger than originally contemplated in the Board's grant of the area
variance back in 1978. Furthermore, questions arose as to whether the
structure exceeded the eighteen-foot height limitation imposed by the
zoning ordinance on accessory structures. (Section 100-32 of the Code). "'
As a result of these questions, the building inspector issued a stop order
on July 15, 1980 and ultimately revoked the building permit on October 31, 1980
These actions prompted Mr. Brautigam to seek relief from the Board.
Specifically he sought to have the revocation overturned and to have the
1978 variance clarified to allow the completiOn of construction of the
accessory building.
The Board by decision dated March 19, 1981 determined to re-affirm its
1978 grant of an area variance permitting placement of an accessory structure
partly in Mr. Brautigam's front and side yards. The Board merely altered
its previous decision to allow completion of the accessory structure as
it presently exists, a garage with rooms above. In so acting, the Board
imposed strict conditions on the use of the structure to insure that it
would be accessory to the principal dwelling on the premises and not
become a separate, independent dwelling, a use not permitted under the
zoning ordinance. The Board expressly found no hardship warranting a
variance from the use provisions of the ordinance and therefore, to the
extent sought, denied any such use variance.
Mr. Lister, a neighboring property owner, has now commenced this Article
78 proceeding, contesting the Board's decision of March 19, 1981.
It should be noted that the Board has only modified a previously granted
area variance which permitted location of an accessory structure partly
, L~L)LZ. ~10, ,5..L/~bU,:.t- ..................... MotLo~ ~o, 8,978
O MEMORANDUM ~une 4, 1981
SUffOLK COUNTY SP£CIA1 TERM
VS.
BY
DATED
J. S. C.
19
PAGE 3 --
in the front yard and partly in the side yard of the subject premises.
This proceeding invokes a review of the grant of the area variance. The
Board adopted and imposed strict conditions recommended by the Suffolk
County Department of Planning. No review of the denial of the use variance
was sought in this proceeding.
We must start with a presumption that the Board's decision was correct
unless the Court finds that the Board's action was arbitrary, contrary
to law or not supported by substantial evidence. The determination of
the responsible officials should be sustained if it has a rational basis
and is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Cowan v. Kern,
41 N.Y.2d 591, 394 N.Y.S.2d 579.
See Carter v. Zonin8 Board of Appeals, 46 A.D.2d 184, 361 N.Y.S.2d 444.
I
To obtain an area variance, it must be demonstrated that strict compliance
with the ordinance would result in practical difficulties, Cowan v. Kern,
.supra; Conley V. Brookhaven Zonin8 Board of Appeals 40 N.Y.2d 309, 386
N.Y.S.2d 681. '
The record showed that any order directing modification of the structure
at this date would result in severe economic harm to Mr. Brautigam.
This alone indicated practical difficulties warranting the relief granted.
The ~xpenditures of over $28,000 were made in reliance on the Town's
approvals. Matter of Jayne Estates Vo Raynor, 22 N.Y.2d 417, 293 N.Y.S.2d
75; Reichenback v. Windward, 80 Misc.2d 1031, 364 N.Y.S.2d 283, aff'd.
48 A.D.2d 909, 372 N.Y S.2d 985.
Settle judgment.
J. S. C.
SUPREM~ COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
X X
In the Matter
of
W. HARRY LISTER,
-against-
Petitioner,
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,
Respondents.
X
SIR:
X
NOTICE
OF
PETITION
Index No.
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 Coun~urt
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 certified 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- 5~00
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
X COUNTY OF SUFFOLK X
In the Matter
of
W. HARRY LISTER,
-against-
Petitioner,
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,
Respondents.
X
PETITION
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}M~BIT"C".
8. That Wednesday, October 3, 1978, said Charles A.
Brautiga~ or his duly authorized agent, 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 and 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 Building 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 JUly 15, 1980, ~the Build-
ing 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 (August 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
3, 1978.
18. That on or about December26,198~aid 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(18) 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
ltd 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,
impairanddest~oy 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
stgp order be reinstated pursuant to Art. X1V, Section 100-140 of
the Zoning Ordiance, any certificate of occupancy, if one has been
issued, cancelled and revoked, and that i~aid 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 request8 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
FOR)! NO. 3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
File No ................................................................... Date ........................................................ ,
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your aRpligation dated
¢~rc :eoTeT,i (~r~ ~~3' .................................. ' ........
for permit to construct .............................. ~ ....... at the premises located at ....................................
~ 7~ ~7 ~O~treet
Mop .................................... Block ............................................ Lot ................................................ is
returned herewith and disopproved on the follow~n~ Orounds ........... ~.~(:.~..~.~..~..~.~ff. .............
.... .~.~i~'5 ..... ~.~...~ ........ .~.~..~ ......... ~..~.~. ........... 3~.'E.?...~.~..~. .... ~..~ ....... ~ ......
.~.~.~. ........... ~.E~ ...... : .................... ~q; ~~'~
//
..~~:,..-. ....... ~.../..~...~.~.
Building Inspector
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
I I
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL.S, TOWN 'OF SOUTHOLD' N. Y.
,, (~)~...L4.~.~.~.-2.. ...... .~..~.~..::.c.<.~...4..~.of ~'? ~' ~..c.:~:~ ...... ~.o...4..~. ...... · ....
................... ~';;'~";~'d Number ·
Name of Appellant
~ I~.L,1-C ~O..~...~>..c~.' ......... ),...~..&..~...~...?..O....~...!..: ...... , ...... ..~....! .... :. .... :.. EREBY APPEAL TO
.................. ."'. Municipality
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON
~ ~ ~ DATED ....................................................
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO .....................................
WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO
............. ~;;~;";;¥' ~'~'~Ti';;;;;~"~;;;"~;;';;;{i .............
.~T,, ~ ~ .......... : ........................ ' ............................................. t' ........
~'"~" .............................. Municipality ~ State
Street and Number
( ) PERMIT TO.USE
(. ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY
1.. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY .~..::-.: ........... ~r~;~" 'i ........ 0'~e District on
Map No. Lot No.
2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the A~ticle Section, Sub-
section and Paragraph of the Zoni.ng O?inance/~by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.)
3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made he~'ewith for
("i4~ A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance.. or Zoning Map
( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws
Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 .
4. PREVIOU'S APPEAL A' Previous opp;al O/es) (h'as'not) been made with respect to this decision
of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property.
Such ~ppeal was ( ) request for a special permit, . .
( ) request' for a variance
and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ......................................................................
REASON FOP, APPEAL
( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3
(~, A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
¢ )
is requested for the reason that
FmTn ZB1
(Continue on other side)
I I II
REASON FOR APPEAL (f'. Continued C"
!. ' ~TR!CT APP..L!CATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces-
2. The hardship created is&UNIQUE and is,~shared by oil
vicinity of this property and in this use district because
properties alike in the immediate
CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because
The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE. THE
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss
COUNTY OF S6~'~'oZ./<: )
Signature
of ~"-'/--~',~. ~' 7~'
Sworn to this "~ / ~-~/' day ................ ~/., ................................. 19
'"'--' JANE FLATLEY
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York
No. 52-4665418, Suffolk
~Ommis$ion ,Expirc~ March 30, I
~ I&~r ~
"'..-~OUTHOLD TO~rN BOARD 'OF APPEALS
_16a September 28, 1978
no objection whether or not you have the house. No one h objected
about that. That is all you are asking for in this a :ation. These
other matters have been brought up at a public hearJ , and I think they
should be assessed.
We have no objection to delay. Will we have to
MR. DE RIGGI:
come back.
THE CHAIRMAN: Personally, it is opinion ~that this should be
granted to Mr. Shybunko. Whether we ~_xtend our area of competence
to... I do not think any court would ~ld a Board of Appeals that
denied you a variance to decrease the front yard requirement
on an undersized lot.~ It is the ha st thing to prov~ .in court is
.whether or not the house is locate a foot this way or 10 feet that Way
is going to change the ch an area, and effect the safety,
health and welfare of the Town Southold.
MR. BEAR: This doe fect the safety, health and welfare of at
least one part of the Southold.
THE CHAIRMAN: as to the area of whether it is 10 feet Or
35 feet or 50 feet from the Road. I do.n°t think that would make
any difference. Or at would change the character of the neighborhood.
If there is a house .here at all, that may effect the water supply.
Presumably, we are ~tent to judge. This is what I want to take
up with Town Coun:
On motion by Mr. Gillispie seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was
RESOLVED to RESERVE DECISION on Appeal No. 2469 until October
19, 1978, at 7:30 P.M.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Tuthill
and Douglass. · ~ · .~
eel No 2471 Upon appllc l~n~o~f Charles
PUBLIC HEARING: App - - ' ~
A. Brautigam, 46 Benson Road, Glen Rock, New Jersey, f~a~ variance in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec ion 100-32 ~
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 Bickert; south by Bay; west by
George H. Fleet Estate. ~,~ ~ ~h~
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for
a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits of publication attesting
to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval from the
Building Inspector. The Chairman also read a statement from the Town
Clerk that notification by Certified Mail had been made to: George H.
Fleet Estate and Gustave Bickerto Fee paid $15.00.
THE CHAIR~LAN: The applicant is the owner of approximately 1.1
HOLD TO~%~ BOARD-OF APPEALS. .-17- September 28, 1978
acres, and he proposes to put a carport partly in the side yard and partly
in the front yard on the westerl~sid~-~of the property. This car_~_9~ will
be further away from the road than an adjoining carport to the west. Is
there anyone who.wishes to speak for this application?
CHARLE~ A. BRAUTIGAM: If there are any further questiOns, I
will be happy .to answer
THE CHAIRMAN: Bill Beebe cal~edme today and said he was going
to build it, and that y~'~I-d'not b~ able to be here.- The proposal is
to put 3 cars in. the carport, antique Cars. DO you collect antique cars?
MR. BRAUTIGAM:
THE CHAIRMAN:
grow on?
MR. BRAUT IGAM:
I am starting to. · I have 2 cars already'.
That is ·a good start. You will have one place to
I Will use the ~hird place for my regular.car.
THE CHAIRMAN: '%Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this
application? (there was no response). What size is the carport.going
to be?
MR. BRAUTIGAM: That was decided after I applied. It will be
25 feet by 25 feet. ~,-~ ~
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 ~hat 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. Brautigam, 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 Wegt Road; east by Gustave Bickert; south by
the Bay; west by Ggorge H. Fleet Estate, subject to the following condi-
tions:
(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.
..?.oLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
September 28, 1978
Vote of the Board:
and Douglass.
Ayes: Messrs:
Gillisp~e, Grigonis, Tuthill
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2473 - Upon application of Robert
Wacker, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York, (Peter Stoutenburgh,
as agent),, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to add 10 feet to present
garage located in front yard area.i~ Location of property: Lots No. 7 and
8, Nassau Point Properties, Cutchogue, New York.
The Chairman opened'the hearing by reading the applica~ion for
a variance; legal notice of hearing, affidavits of publication attesting
to its publication in the official newspapers, and disapproval'from the
Building Inspector.' The 'Chairman also read a statement from the Town
Clerk that~notification had been made by certified mail to: Fred F.
Faulkner and Felix R.. Palmeri. Fee paid $15.00. '.
THE CHAI~LAN: ~he County Tax Map indicates this property is on
Nassau Point Road on the easterly side and consists of approximately 1.4
acares Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application?
PETER J. STOUTENBURGH: Pretty much what you have read is the way
the Wackers would like to have it. It's only a 10 foot addition on the
front of the garage. The garage is in need of repair, and when they
had it repaired they wanted to have 10 feet added on due to the fact thi~-
was originally built during the time when cars were smaller. .Now they ~
want to store lawn mowers and such.
THE CHAIRMAN: How narrow are those opening for the doors?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: In that garage?
THE CHAIRMAN: The one that is sitting there now.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: 'It is barely 16 feet 6 inches for the outside
dimensions of the garage. They.are making most garage doors 16 feet now.
THE CHAIRMAN: It doesn't look as though those doors are that big.
MR. STOUTENBURGH:
front on it.
It is pretty small.
They want a whole new
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you going to widen it at the same time?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak for
this application? (there was no response). Is there anyone who wishes
to speak against this application? (there was no response).
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
Approved ................. ~. ... ..~.. ... 3. .... , l~Permit No..~.~..~..~. ...........
Disapproved a/c .......... : .............. ~......................... ............................
.... ..... ...... .....................
. '. ........ ..... ...............
f ~ ~O ~LO~L~ ~ ~o l~7 (Building Inspector)
d ~E~~ ~A ~ ~- APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PE~IT
INSTRUCTIONS
Date. ~'7c,- "~ /
............
J J JJ J JJJ JJ JJJ J JJ JJ J J JJ J JJ J JJJJJJJJJ j jj j jjjjJjj
o. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted in triplicate to the Building
Inspector, with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule.
b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets o~
areas, and giving a detailed description of layout ofproperty must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this application.
c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit.'
d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit
shall be kept on the premises available for inspection th'roughout .the work.
e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any'purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy
shall have been granted by the Building InSpector.
B'APPLICATION' IS. HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the
ulldmg Zone Oral,nonce of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Lows, Ordinances or
Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described.
The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, end regulations, and to
admit authorized inspectors on premises and ir~ buildings . sa~,.~nspectlons.
for necessa inspections.
licant, or name, if a co~porationl
(Address of applicant)
State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder.
Nome of owner of premises ......... .~.../.'..~'....~...~....../'t...~...-..~. ......... ...~..: ........... ~....~.,~...~...f....~.....~....~. ...........................................
~f applicant is a corporate, signature of duly authorized officer.
(Name and title of corporate officer)
Builder's License No ....................... ~ .............................
Plumber's License No .................................................
Electrician's License No .............................................
Other Trade's License No ...............................................
1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. Map No.: ....... ~.~. ..................Lot No...~
Street and Number~7.~./..__ .... ~.~?..~'~i'...~. ..... ..~......~...~ .................... ..~....~...~....~...~.f?..~.~!
Municipality
2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction:
a. Exisiting use and occupancy
b. Intended use and occu~ncy
"3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New* Buiidir~.." '/' '
.................. Addition .................. Alteration ...............
Repair .............. Removal : .......... j. ..
........ Demolitior.: ~.....; .......... Other-Work ................................................
' I . (Description)
4. Estimated Cost ....................... : .................................... tee ..................... ; .................................. ; ................................
(to b~ paicl on filittg~this application)
5. if dWelli;;,: number of dwelling units ......... ~ ...... ~ .... ::.;NUmber of.dwelling units On eachlYJo~r ...........................
If garage,
6.~ if 'business, commerctal 'or mixed occu~ specify riCe'and'eXtent of each'~:Of use ...................... - ....
7. Dimensi°ns of existing structures, if any:FrOnt ,..... ....................... Rear ................................ Depth
Dimensions of same structure with alteratior~ or ~.clditions: Front ..............................~ ..... Rear ......... ~ ...... ~ ..........
8. !'~ I~t~ensio~4 of. entire new construction: Front. ..........:~.,;; .................. ear .......... ,..;: ............. epth .......................
, Height ....... ~.:.. ....... Number of Stories ...................... ~. ...........................................................................................
Rear ......... /.~.. ................... ~ .....
9. Size of lot:. Front .. ......./.'..~,:-/....'...~ ............................... ~ ' ' ~' ,-' '/ '
Depth ....... :~ ......................
10: Date of Purchase.. ..~ ................. ~".-.~. '.'; -'- .. Name of Farmer Owner .;.'.;';:~../.~.../:~....~.'.~.:.'.~,~.'.~...X~.~.... .........
1 I.' Zone' or Use district In which premises are. situated ................... ;.;:.r:. .......... :,~..~...'. ............ ~ ................... '.~ ...................
12.' Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ';~
13L' ~il':'lot'be regracled ........... ~....-0..., ..... Will excess fill be r~moved from premises: ( ) Yes · ( ) No
Name. of Architect .... ,...~ ...... : .............. ~ ............. , ........ ~ ...... Address ........... ~.~ ......... ,..."~.. Phone No..~.,;;; .............
.. Name of Contractor ...... ~ ............................................ ' ........ Address ............................. Phone No.
COUN~,~OF ..... ~.;. .................. ;; ' : ,
above named~
He is the.
of said owner" ·
this' applicati~
thaz the work wilt be performed in the
Swam to before me this
· deposes and says tl~t .he is the opplicc: '
the' best at
therewith.
and -fi;
CS gnature of applicant)
i
DATE:
765-1802 9 AM ~n ~ Z ......
=e COMPLETE FnR ~ n ......
ALL CONSTRUCTION oH.ALL ME~
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE N.Y.
STATE CONSTRUCTION & ENERGY
CODES. NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR
DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION ERRORS,
b
: " ., ~, ,. _ ~. " ' '-' , ',' , 4,· ~,
-- ...... ; .... ~~..~..Z..;..~..~ ....... ;;.'.
Building Inspector
George H. Fisher, Building Inspector
SouchOld,' New York 11971
Re: Charles BrauCtganAppltca~lon
CarpOrt (AccesaorM So.cause)
. We have been in ¢ontac~ with you on a number of occasions
inb~half of our client, ~rry L~sCer, ~here~n ~e have ~nd~caced
~hac remedial action ~as necessary Co co~ecc a
boding lands o~ Charles BrauCt~an ~n a ~nner tha~ ~ent beyond
~hat ~hich ~as au~hog~zed by the Zoning Board o~ Appeals.
A stop Order ~as issued by your De~gtment a~Cer the ~tte~
had proceeded Co substantial construction. Thereafter, ~e are
advised that no ~u~the~ const~ct~on ~d taken place buC t~t the
o~er ~n ~acc ~as occupying the premises w~thout benefit o~ a
CegtificaCe o~ Occupancy.
The ~in~shed structure is not in confo~icy ~i~h oche~ ca~-
ports tn the ar~, a~ tn ~rticular, that in existence on the
Lister pro~rty. The structure is beyond the height pe~itted
for an accessory building under the Southold Town ~nlng ~dinance,
a~ appears to contain an area above ground flbor unnecessary for
a carport.
In the light of the fact that no action had be~ taken to
re~dy the situation, my client respectfully r~quests that i~ed-
late steps be taken to compel the owner of the structure to m~tfy
same so as to be tn accord.with that which was granted as an acces-
sory structure by the Southold To~ Zoning Board of Appeals.
George H.
Fisher, Building Inspector - Z- Augus~t29..'~ 1980C
~:~';l~y' we~,:reques~ .au ~ .m.~edtste::reply so that we nmy advise our
~:tienes~ask~o Wha~:action is intended to be undertaken to resolve
Richard J. Cron
' ' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YOR~~
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
APPEAL NO.
26
~O THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN oF SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
! ~ Charles A. Brautiaam '~ 46 Benson Road
Name at Appellant Street and Number
Glen Rock N. J
........................................ HEREBY APPEALS TO
Municipality State
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON
WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ~ _Rb-RK)~j:) BUTr,~ZNG P~RMZT NO. 9961Z ON
DEC~CBER '18, 1980 OF
Charles A. Brautigam
Name of Applicant for permit
of
46 B'enso~ Road,' Glen Rock, ~ew Jersey
( ) PERMIT TO USE
( ) · PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY
(X) For construction of accessory building in front yard a~ea of property
1980
West Road ·
1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..~u.tchQg~e .... ~.e.w...Y. ozl~ ....A JSg[~lt~[a~.-Reszdentzal DistrJ
Street Use District on Zoning Map
Suffolk County. Tax M.a~. No. 1000~110-7-6
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 oJ New York Town Law Cha"pi'~2 Cons. Lows
Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3
4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (X~Xg~k been mode with respect to this decision
of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property.
Such appeal was ( )'request for a special permit
(X) request for a variance
and was made in Appeal No ..... .2..4..7...1 .................... Dated August 31~ 1978 '
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 determination by the Building' Inspector issuing stop o~ders and
revoking previously issued building permits.
is requested for the reason that
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 variance
granted by the Board of Appeals.
Form ZBI
(Continue on other side)
197
REASON FOR APPEAL
Continued C,.'" '
I III
· I. 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 Appeals 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 accesso structur
would have to be comnletelv ~-,~-~ · _ · ry e ~
above-mentioned motor vehicles. Since. the cost of building an enclosed garage -
according to the requirements of the Building Inspector was considerable, your
~ ......... zn oraer ~o properly house and Protect thems .1
Petitioner decide~ to take advantage of the construction and place a c6u 1
on top of the garage. Your Petit~ioner inquired of ~ ~..~ ........ ~ e. too
= . ~,~ ~u~u~r, wz£~am ~eeoe, 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 by 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 ATTACHED HERETO~
2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shored by oil propertie{ alike in the immediate
vicinity of this property and in this use district because Petitioner, in good faith reliance
upon the Building Permit, completed the exterior of this structure to blend in with
the existing dwelling on his property, Due to the size and topography of. Peti-
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 ~s.that this accessory building as con-
structed is unobtrusive, and is. an asset to Petitioner's property, not only as to
design and looks, 5ut as to utility purposes.
3. ~he 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-conforming 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 "accesso~" structures are either
converted carriage houses or have'residential units built thereon so that the
erection of a garage with living space overhead is entirely consistent with the
existing pattern in 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 change the residential character of
neighborhood m~d will in fact enhance it. //. _ this
STATE OF NEW YORK
) 'ss ........... //,,.
. . .' ....... i ........... ..................... .........
Charles A. Brautigam
Sworn to this 26th
.... ~ .................................... day of December
............................................................. 19 80
...... ....
,~otory Public
RIDER TO APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF T~LE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TO THE ZONI~]G BOARD OF APPEALS, TO?~ 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 ~ara~e construc-
tonf but also because your petitfoner"s
and !.ar~e summer home ab~.~ot insulated, nor dO~%.__~A_hav~ ~ny h~e(ng ~l=qt,
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
w~eekends 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 Qood burning stove. Your Petitioner was not
knowledgeable in the Zoning Ordinance and therefore left all building matters
to the builder and To%~ 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 w~ich 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 '. copy of
a letter of George Fisher dated July 15f 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 Inspe.ct6r dated
October 31, 1980 is attached hereto as Exhibit F. Finally, the Buiidin~ 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 1980. 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 ~nd hardship now encountered by the Petitioner
as a result 6f the Building Inspector,s actiohs 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 ~e
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 accessor~ building demonstrates it will not change the character
of the neighborhood or create any detriment to adjoining properties. Other than a
C
RIDER~ PAGE 2, TO APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF.APPEALS, TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, N.Y.
CHARLES A. BRAUTIG~.!
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 ~nto considerat£on all of the facts of this matter, the
interests of fairness and Justice 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 Peti't.ioner 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
s~bdivided in the future so 'as to create two lots, and the Petitioner will als0
agree to an annual inspection by the Southold Town Building I~spector'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
~~_.-~i~ Town Board of Appeals -7-
January 22,, 198i
~.ESOLVED, to reserve decision in Appeal No. 2774, application
-~ ~nice Lettieri aha that the ~earing be declared closed.
~'ote of the Board:
-~~r~nger and Sawicki.
Ayes:
Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
~ne Chairman callmed a five-minute recess and the meeting
~.-~:r~-~ened at 8:I5 p. . , , ,
~UBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2775. Application of ~harles A.
~-~i~am 46 Benson Road Glen Rock, NJ 07452 (by Richard F. Lark,
~ for Variances:- -{1) to amend a previous dec~sion of this
~-~ made on 9/28/78 in Appeal No. 2471 to permit the construction
~_~ accessory building [garage] wit'h rooms, and (2) to' review
~.~_r'~inations made by the Building Inspector concerning this acces-
muilding which includes a garage with rooms, Art. III, Sec.
~-~-~£. Location of property: West Road, Cutchogue, NY; more
~i:uiarly. designated as County Tax Map ID. No. 1000-110-7-6
bounded north by West Road; west by Lister and G. Fleet Estate;
~,~ Dy' Cutchogue Harbor·- east by Bicker.
The Chairman opened the.~ hearing at 8~16 p.m. by reading the
~=_~_~ application in its ent~irety, legal notice of hearing and affi-
~ayi~: attesting to its publication in the 'local and official news-
~a~e~-_-, letters of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter
-he Town Clerk that ~-~tification to adjoining property owners was
Feo paid $15 O0
~. CHAIRMAN: We have a section of the tax m~ showi~ this and
s,~rrounding properties Is there anyone here at wou like to
speak for this appi~:ation?
.~;~..ARD F LARK ESQ.:
New York·
Mr. Chairman, Richard Lark, Main Road,
CHAIRMAN: Would 'y~u mi nd speaking into the mike?
~.~. LARK: Speaking o~ behalf of the applicant, Mr. Brautigam.
As yo~ can see the application is being brought primarily for amend-
~ent of the prior variance :ranted by the Board, and I'm not going
to burden your time here w--~h what went on. I think most of you,
if not all~ of you have see~ the property, so you see what is there.
A~parently the origins- confusion came on as the applicant
himself applied for a carp~.-t, and there was a great deal of con-
fusion:_~-~- to what a carpor~ ~nd a qarage were. Because when they
went t~ build a carport, i-- you will read the first application in
whi,:h you granted him a vam=~nce, it was inconsistent with building
~ ¢.~rp~rt to keep it in ar~---itectural harmony with the other build-
~.n~: with the main buildin~ ~n the property. So you heard the
:.:.'~ry there in the appli~=_:ion. And I'm a little, or have been
right from the begf'~ming since I've been involved here,
month or so, as to wh,_~ ~he Building Inspector revoked his permit
uthold Town Board of Appeals -8- January 22,,198~.
r Lark continued):
since he had knowledge right from the beginning what was going on,
and I have both Mr. Brautigam here and the builder, Mr. William
Beebe, in case there's any questions. Because it's my understand-
ing he only wanted to build a garage and then add these rooms on
that was indicated, and went down and saw the building inspector
and he said, "Yeah, that would be fine." And then it was only
after the thing was constructed and framed that he decided to stop
the work, and originally the builder was told the roof was too high,
and then after that was measured the building inspector as you can
read from the exhibits, that's all I have, is more confused--and
then doesn't~State a reason as to. Why he then outright revoked the
permit, except that you take hi.s one reason there, that it is
true that the variance'that was granted was strictly for a carport
or a garage. Carport is not defined in our~zoning ordinance;
garage is. And this is a. little bit more than. that.
And so therefore I think the originai variance application had
to be amended because it is an increased accessory building than
just a pure carport or garage. So that's the reason for the appli-
cation, and then for yoqr to review the stop orders because I
think you have the plans in one of the exhibits--they're built
plans, that's what's down there now, and I think it does conform
to the building code and to the zoning ordinance.
The structure with the restrictions placed by the Board origi-
nally not to be further than the carport on a~neighboring property
have been complied with, the setback off the line has been complied
with. So the site location and everything is ok. I think the use
was increased and since the use was increased from.a simple garage
or carport, I talked to Mr. Brautigam, as I said who is here, and
if the Board feels that it would be necessary and incumbent upon
them to impose restrictions such as subdivision, further sale and
so on and so forth, and I bring that up because about seven of the
neighboring properties on the south side of that road where the
petitioner owns, have been exactly that. They either have subdivided
the properties or as I indicated have converted garages into summer-
type apartments and'stuff like that.
So what the petitioner is requesting is really no different
than exists on the south side of that road in that neighborhood,
and as I indicated in the application, I don't feel with what has
been built--it is there right now--it is not substantial, what's
being requested--the variances being requested is not substantial
since most of the properties do have accessory buildings in what
is technicallY called under our zoning ordinance is the frontyard--
that which faces the street--even though all the houses are built
facing the bay. The property as the Board probably knows, with
most of them in that area, are bulkheaded and they really--the
front of the house does face on the bay. So I don't think there
will be--as I indicated in the application, any increase in density
]:ii~i~]ii'~ 'Southold Town Board of Appeals
r. Lark continued):
-9- January 22, 198.1
since it still is a one-family and the petitioner intends in it
and will also covenant with the Board.to keep it that way--he has
no desire at all to subdivide.the property, and as I said will
covenant accordingly and will definitely not produce any substan-
tial change in the neighborhood for the reasons that I indicated
that the properties along the south side of the road have existing
or similar situations.
It's not really a case of self-induced hardship here because
here the owner is caught in the middle. .He.came down, got a variance
a couple of years ago, and then construction went on for a year and
a half there,.and all of a sudden when it was framed in and virtually
completed was when the building inspector decided to do something
about it. Bu~t I think to'be in technical.compliance with the ordi-
nance he should have an amended variance, and I think we're also
reviewing, if that's what the building inspector means, if the
building is built too high for you to reverse his determination,
which you have the power under the Code to do, that the 16 feet
which is measured from the front of the building to the average
line of that. hip roof as shown on the plans there that you have
does conform. So his--I don't know what his interpretation is.
I take it he was measuring it, from what I could gather from the
builder. And again he's here' to answer the question--he measured
it from the back of the building to the top of the roof, and as I
read the Code it's from the front of the building to the mean--
which is halfway up the roof line.
So considering all the factors involved, I respectfully urge
you for a variance for'this accessory structure with any reason-
able conditions that you impose and to make an affirmative deter-
mination on the height of the building if that is what the
building inspector's problem is. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to speak in favor of
this? Do any of you fellows have. any questions you would like to
ask either Mr. BrautigamlOr Mr. Lark?
MR. BRAUTIGAM: May I inject, a few sentences?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Surely, Mr. Brautigam.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the mike if you would, Mr. Brautigam.
We're trying to tape this.
MR. BRAUTIGAM: Oh, I see.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It becomes very difficult, Mr. Lark, unless
you have everybody speaking into the mike.
MR. BRAUGTIGAM: I'm Chuck Brautigam. I just wanted to inject
a few sentences to what Dick said. I have a very patient attitude
l(jfouthold Town Board of Appeals
'ames Cron continued):
-ll- January 22~, 19~l
drawings which he submitted were quite detailed, and they were detailed
in that they were not a carport. It is our contention that Mr. Brauti-
gam had at no time the intention of building a carport, but building
exactly the structure that stands there now. Mr. Brautigam has men-
tioned in his application that there's hardship. Yes there is hardship,
but it's intentionally inflicted upon himself. He disregarded the
variance that this Board consented to. He did so ex parte, unilaterally,
and without in any way coming before this Board to request' a confirma-
tion, a clarification in any respect. He mentions'he spoke with the
building inspector, and that his builder spoke with the building inspector.
The building inspector, George Fisher at one time worked for Mr..Beebe.
I don't think he was completely without emotion in granting this, and
also in light of the fact it happened five days after his proposed carport
was granted. I think it's highly suspicious.
Furthermore, the building is obstrusive. Gentlemen, if you have
seen the building, it is a two-story building. It has a deck.. It has
a chimney for a fireplace. It has room for a bedroom, living room and
bathroom. It's hardly a carport. It's a two-story structure. It does
caus-e quite a bit of notice by anybody passing on the road. Mr. Lister
is opposed to it because it stands basically right on his boundary line,
and it is something that this Board did not grant that man the right to
do. I keep reiterating that because it is this Board and only this Board
that had the authority to grant what Mr. Brautigam built. ~..
For those reasons I believe that the Board should turn down this
application without further undo. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
members have any questions?
Anyone el se?
Do any of the Board
'MR. LARK: I would just. like to phrase one pOint to Clarify the
record. Mr. Lister is not the adjacent owner. The Estate of Catherine
Fleet is'.
MR. CHAIRMA'N: There is a 15-foot right-of-way--
MR. LARK: Twent'y-foot right-of-way, and then the building is
some 6½' further east of that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Well if there is no one else, I'll
close the hearing and reserve the decision when we get this thing
settled. We have a lot of going through before we can really write
something either way on it. So, thank you very much for coming in
· and we'll get to it as soon as we can.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
,/
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
ut.I. hold Town Board of Appeals -12-
matter of Charles A. Brautigam, Appeal No. 2775.
January 22~ 198,1
Vote of the Board:
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Ayes:
Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
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. lO0-31 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 Chairmgn 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 notificati.on 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
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF
I, ~ ~e~ig~d, ~ ~ ~om~ a~
~ ce~f~ ~at ~e ~ex~
~-~, ~s ~en comparad b~ ~ ~ ~ o~g~
c~e~,,~ uy ~at: I ~ ~e ~o~y of teton, or of co~el ~ ~e a~o~y(s) of ~ecord, for ~ .
Vui~e*tion ~OW ~e co~en~ereof ~a ~e ~me are tree
~r ~eged on ~or~ff~ ~d beef, ~a ~ to ~ose ~ers I he'eve ~em to ~ tree. My beef, ~ to ~o~ ~ ~ere~
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ~
being sworn says: I ~m
[] in the action herein; I beve read the annexed
~-alvia~ know the contents thereof and the same are true t~m~-~nowle~r~e,~t th~-t~e~rrs therein wh/ch are stated to be
~lleged on/nformation and belief, ~ as to thos~ matters I believe them to be true.
[] of
Corem a corporation, one of the parties to the action; I have read the annexed
v..~--.oa know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledger except those matters there/u wh/ch are stated to be
alleged on informat/on and bel/ef, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
My be[/ef, as ~o those ma~ts therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon the following:
Sworn to I~efore me on
(P~ia~ si~'s mm~ ~ ,iSa,.-~e)
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF
· ~e lad teside at
Servico
being sworn says: I lm ~o~ a party to the lc~ioa, am over 18 years of
On s 19 s I served a ~rue cop~ of the annexed
in the following m.~en
by n~u~ing the same in a sealed em, elope, with postage prepa/d thereo~, in a post,otSce or of]ichl depOSkory of the U.S.
Postal Serv/ce withh~ the State of New York, addressed to the Iasc known address of the addressee(s) as ind/cated below:
by delivering the same personally to the persons and at the addresses indicated below:
Sworn to before me on
,19
(Prht d~n~r's name below dsnamre)
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 BOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y.
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
May 2, 1981
RiChard F. Lark, Esq.
Main Road, Box 973
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Re: Appeal No. 28~~- Request for Rehearing
Application--6-fCharles 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: Ayes:
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Yours very truly,
CG:lk
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
Joseph H. Sawicki
Southold Tow. Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
April 22, 1981
Richard F. Lark, Esq.
Main Road, Box 973
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Re: Appeal No. 2775
Application of Charles A. Brautigam
Dear Mr. Lark:
Please be advised that the following action was taken
at a Regular Meeting of the $outhold Town Board of Appeals
held on Thursday, April 2, 1981 concerning the above appeal:
...IT IS RESOLVED, that the Sixth Paragraph, Fourth
Sentence (Page 2) of this Board's decision in Appeal
No. 2775 as filed with the Office of the Town Clerk
on 3/19/81 be amended to read as follows:
...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, 16 feet high (applicant appar-
ently proposes to raise the grade along the
front of the structure [street side] to comply
with the 18-foot maximum height.requirement of
the Code) ....
Also, please be aware that the minutes of the April 2, 1981
Regular Meeting have not yet, as of this date, been officially
approved by the Board.
Yours very truly,
CG:lk
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR4
CHAIRMAN
$outhold Boara of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN
SERGE DOYEN, .IR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
Joseph H. Sawicki
April 20, 1981
Francis J. Yakaboski, Esq.
456 Griffing Avenue
Riverhead, NY 11901
Re: Board of Appeals Appeal No. 2775 ~?
W. Harry Lister v. Grig6nis, et al. ~
Dear Mr. Yakaboski:
Please find enclosed the follOwing documents which I
have been asked to forward to you:
(a) Notice of Petition, Petition and Exhibits, which
were served upon myself as Secretary of the Board
of Appeals on Friday, April 17, 1981 at 4:43 p.m.
(b) Photocopies of the Board of Appeals fil~and~
minutes regarding this appeal.
If we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to
call.
Yours very truly,
Linda Kowalski, Secretary
Enclosures
P.S. The captions show respondent as Robert Grigonis, Jr.
rather than Charles Grigonis, Jr. (in case it should
make any difference.)
Joseph H. Sawicki
April 10, lf~81
Mr. Gerald Newman, Chief Planner
Suffolk County PlanninU C ora ~mission
Veterans ~vlemorial I-li0hway
Hauppauge, NY 11787
Re: Appeal No. 2775
Variance of Charles A. f~rautigam
Dear Mr. Newman:
Enclosed herewith for your file is a copy of the Board' s decision
filed March 19, 1981 concerning this matter (in the event same has
not already been forwarded to you).
Yours very tru{O',
Enclosure
Linda F. Kowalski
Secretary
0
.O
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
(516) 360-5513
LEE E. KOPP£LMAN
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
Town of Southold
Board of Appeals
February 5, 1981
oI$o old
Applicant: Charles A. Brautigam
Mun. File No.: 2775
$.C.P.D. File No.: SD-81-2
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County
Charter, the above referenced applicatiom which has been submitted to the Suffolk
County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination.
A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval
or disapproval.
Comments: The following warrants consideration: (1) The accessory building shall
have no kitchen facilities; (2) there shall~be no renting or leasing of the acces-
sory and main buildings on the premises; (3) an application for renewal shall be
submitted annually subsequent to inspection by the Town Building Dept.; and (4)
there shall be no subdivision of the premises.
VETERANS MEMORIAl. HIGHW AY
Very truly yours,
Lee E. Koppelman
Director of Planning
2;-_ _
CHIEF PLANNER
HAUPPAUGE, L.I.,NEW YORK
TOWN CLERK
Building Dept.
Planning Bd.
Board of Appeals
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Main Road
Southold, N. Y. 11971
765-3783
765-2660
765-1809
Pursuant to the General Municipal Law, Chapter 24, of the Consolidated Laws, Article 12-B, Sections 239-1 and m,
the ...B.o. ~. ? .d..0. f...A.p.p.e..a .~ .s. ............... of the town of. S o u t h o 1 d
(agency involved)
hereby refers the following proposed zoning action to the Suffolk County Planning Commission:
(check one)
................ Newand recodified zoning ordinance Appeal No, 2775
................ Amendment to the zoning ordinance Charles A. Brautigam
46 Benson Road
................ Zoning changes Glen Rock, NJ 07452
................ Special permits
...... .~..X. .... Variances Art. III, Sec. 100-32
Location of affected land: ...~.I~,~.~....~0..Q.~.-,...~.U.I~..C.~I.~.§.~[~., ...... ]..0..Q..0..-...1..!.0...q.?..q.6. .....................................
within 500 feet of: (check one or more)
XX Town or village boundary line, or shore line Cutchogue Harbor
................ State or county road, parkway or expressway
................ State or county park or recreation area
................ Stream or drainage channel owned by the county or for which the county has established channel lines.
................ State or county owned parcel on which a public building is situated
Comments: Public Hearing was held and closed on January 22, 1981.
No decision has been rendered as of this date. Copies of both
files, minutes, etc. enclosed for your review and consideration.
Date: ....2./...2../...8..]. .................................
Date received by Suffolk County Planning Commission
File No .................................
(signed)
.k..t.n..d...a.....F. .............
Title
o0 O0
Southold Town Bvard of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I,, N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
TERR'; TUT;;;LL
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
Joseph H. SawJcki
February 4, 1981
Richard J. Cron, Esq.
Main Road
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Re: Appeal No. 2775 Charles A. Brautigam
Dear Mr. Cron:
Enclosed herewith is a complete copy of excerpt from
minutes of the January 22, 1981 regular meeting concerning
the above application, for which I understand you will be
forwarding a $1.50 check made payable to the Southold Town
Clerk.
Yours very truly,
- Lfnda Kowalski
Secretary
Enclosure
c~-~ 7o c/ q
SOuthold Town Board of Appeals
-7-
January 22, 1981
RESOLVED, to reserve decision in Appeal No. 2774, application
of Bernice Lettieri and th'it the hearing be declared closed. ~'
Vote of the Board:
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Ayes:
Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
The qhairman c~!~d a five-minute recess and the meeting
rec ~venea at 8:15~.__ , , ,
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2775. Application of Charles A.
Brautigam, 46 Benson Road, Glen Rock, NJ 07452 (by Richard F.. Lark,
Esq.) for Variances:. .(1) to amend a previous de'c~sion of this
Board made on 9/28/78 in Appeal No. 2471 to permit the construction
of an accessory building [garage] with rooms, and (2) to review
determinations made by the Building Inspector concerning this acces-
sory 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 ID. 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.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:16 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, letters 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 section of the tax map showi~ this and
the surrounding properties Is there anyone here that wou like to
add or speak for this application?
RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ.:
Cutchogue, New York.
Mr. Chairman, Richard Lark, Main Road,
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you mind speaking into the mike?
MR. LARK: Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Brautigam.
As you can see the application is being brought primarily for amend-
ment of the prior variance aranted by the Board, and I'm not going
to burden your time here with what went on. I .think most of you,
if not all of you have seen the property, so you see what is there.
Apparently the oriqinal 'confusion came on as the applicant
himself applied for a carport, and there was a great deal of con-
fusion as to what a carport and a qarage were. Because when they
went to build a carport, if you will read the first application in
which you granted him a variance, it was inconsistent with building
a carport to keep it in architectural harmony with the other build-
inq, with the main building on the propertv. So you heard the
history there in the application. And I'm a little, or have been
baffled right from the beginning since I've been involved here,
last month or so, as to why the Building Inspector revoked his permit
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-8-
January 22, 1981
-(Mr. Lark continued):
since he had knowledge right from the beginning what was going on,
and I have both Mr. Brautigam here and the builder, Mr. William
Beebe, in case there's any questions. Because it's my understand-
ing he only wanted to build a garage and then add these rooms on
that was indicated, and went down and saw the building inspector
and he said, "Yeah, that would be fine." And then it was only
after the thing was constructed and framed that he decided to stop
the work, and originally the builder was told the roof was too high,
and then after that was measured the building inspector as you can
read from the exhibits, that's all I have, is more confused--and
then doesn't state a reason as to why he then outright revoked the
permit, except that you take his one reason there, that it is
true that the variance that was granted was strictly for a carport
or a garage. Carport is not defined in our zoning ordinance;
garage is. And this is a little bit more than that.
And so therefore I think the original variance application had
to be amended because it is an increased accessory building than
just a pure carport or garage. So that's the reason for the appli-
cation, and then for your to review the stop orders because I
think you have the plans in one of the exhibits--they're built
plans, that's what's down there now, and I think it does conform
to the building code and to the zoning ordinance.
The structure with the restrictions placed by the Board origi-
nally not to be further than the carport on a neighboring property
have been complied with, the setback off the line has been complied
with. So the site location and everything is ok. I think the use
was increased and since the use was increased from a simple garage
or carport, I talked to Mr. Brautigam, as I said who is here, and
if the Board feels that it would be necessary and incumbent upon
them to impose restrictions such as subdivision, further sale and
so on and so forth, and I bring that up because about seven of the
neighboring properties on the sou'th side of that road where the
petitioner owns, have been exactly'that. They either have subdivided
the properties or as I indicated have converted garages into summer-
type apartments and stuff like that.
So what the petitioner is requesting is really no different
than exists on the south side of that road in that neighborhood,
and as I indicated in the application, I don't feel with what has
been built--it is there right now--it is not substantial, what's
being requested--the variances being requested is not substantial
since most of the properties do have accessory buildings in what
is technically~called under our zoning ordinance is the frontyard--
that which faces the street--even though all the houses are built
facing the bay. The property as the Board probably knows, with
most of them in that area, are bulkheaded and they really--the
front of the house does face on the bay. So I don't think there
will be--as I indicated in the application, any increase in density
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-9-
January 22, 1981
(Mr. Lark continued):
since it still is a one-family and the petitioner intends in it
and will also covenant with the Board to keep it that way--he has
no desire at all to Subdivide the property, and as I said will
covenant accordingly and will definitely not produce any substan-
tial change in the neighborhood for the reasons that I indicated
that the properties along the south side of the road have existing
or similar situations.
It's not really a case of self-induced hardship here because
here the owner is caught in the middle..He.came down, got a variance
a couple of years ago, and then construction went on for a year and
a half there, and all of a sudden when it was framed in and virtually
completed was when the building inspector decided to do something
about it. But I think to be in technical compliance with the ordi-
nance he should have an amended variance, and I think we're also
reviewing, if that's what the building inspector means, if the
building is built too high for you to reverse his determination,
which you have the power under the Code to do, that the 16 feet
which is measured from the front of the building to the average
line of that hip roof as shown on the plans there that you have
does conform. So his--I don't know what his interpretation is.
I take it he was measuring it, from what I could gather from the
builder. And again he's here~to answer the question--he measured
it from the back of the building to the top of the roof, and as I
read the Code it's from the front of the building to the mean--
which is halfway up the roof line.
So considering all the factors involved, I respectfully urge
you for a variance for this accessory structure with any reason-
able conditions that you impose and to make an affirmative deter-
mination on the height of the building if that is what the
building inspector's problem is. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else to speak in favor of
this? Do any of you fellows have any questions you would like to
ask either Mr. Brautigam or Mr. Lark?
MR. BRAUTIGAM: May I inject a few sentences?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Surely, Mr. Brautigam.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the mike if you would, Mr. Brautigam.
We're trying to tape this.
MR. BRAUTIGAM: Oh, I.see.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It becomes very difficult, Mr. Lark, unless
you have everybody sPeaking into the mike.
MR. BRAUGTIGAM: I'm Chuck Brautigam. I just wanted to inject
a few sentences to what Dick said. I have a very patient attitude
Southold Town Board Appeals
-10-
January 22, 1981
(Mr. Brautigam continued):
but my patience is running real short lately, and finally between
Bill and I decided we had better go to Dick to find out what in
the world is going on by not being allowed to continue or finish
this structure. And I'm in New Jersey, and I'm on the road travel-
ing and I have very little contact with the day-to-day activities
of the builders and the town inspectors and the building inspectors,
whatever. And I felt and still do that I was doing the right thing
and that my structure is an enhancement rather than a deterrent to
the neighborhood; and I really -- I don't know if any one of you
have seen it, but if you haven't please go down and look at it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We've all been down there.
MR. BRAUTIGAM: I'm quite embarrassed about it. And I admit
it looks a lot more than a carport even thought of being, but what
is a carport; and as Dick said, 'as we progressed the money was
being spent and dozers were in there and putting the driveway in
and all that, and then while we're spending all this money we
might as well make it something a little more useful. That's about
how it all happened. From there on as to which plan was accepted
by Mr. Fisher and which was not and which was objectionable, I'm
really not aware of that particular detail. If there are any fur-
ther questions about Mr. Fisher, Beebe and whatever, I don't know.
Please ask them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got it pretty well covered here I think.
MR. BRAUTIGAM: I'd appreciate it if you'd give us serious
consideration and let us complete the building. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, thank you.
to speak against this?
Anyone else?
Anyone
JAMES CRON: My name is James Cron. I'm with the law offices
of Richard j. Cron and we represent Mr. Harry Lister, who will be
speaking in opposi~tion to this tonight. Gentlemen, I think it's
necessary to point out at the outset that the actions which Mr.
Brautigam relied on -- that is, the actions of George Fisher, the
building inspector, were null and void. They were illegal. He
had no power to change the determination of this Board by granting
an amendment. I think that is necessary to point out at the outset.
Furthermore, Mr. Brautigam states in his petition that he
has very little knowledge about these matters. However, he appeared
before this Board on September 28, 1978 to ask in person for the
variance. He knows a little more than possibly he's leading on. I
would also like to cast back your minds to September 28, 1978 when
he appeared before the Board. The Board specifically granted him a
variance for a carport. Approximately five days later, that is,
October 3rd, a Tuesday, this being a Thursday night September 28th,
he applied for a building permit and submitted his drawings. The
: O0
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-11-
January 22, 1981
(James Cron continued):
drawings which he submitted were quite detailed, and they were detailed
in that they were not a carport. It is our contention that Mr. Brauti-
gam had at no time the intention of building a carport, but building
exactly the structure that stands there now. Mr. Brautigam has men-
tioned in his application that there's hardship. Yes there is hardship,
but it's intentionally inflicted upon himself. He disregarded the
variance that this Board consented to. He did so ex parte, unilaterally,
and without in any way coming before this Board to request' a confirma-
tion, a clarification in any respect. He mentions'he spoke with the
building inspector, and that his builder spoke with the building inspector.
The building inspector, George Fisher at one time worked for Mr. Beebe.
I~don't think he was completely without emotion in granting this, and
also in light of the fact it happened five days after his~proposed carport
was granted. I think it's highly suspicious.
Furthermore, th'e building is obstrusive. Gentlemen, if you have
seen the building, it is a two-story building. It has a deck. It has
a chimney for a fireplace. It has room for a bedroom, living room and
bathroom. It's hardly a carport. It's a two-story structure. It does
cause quite a bit of notice by anybody passing on the road. Mr. Lister
is opposed to it because it stands basically right on his boundary line,
and it is something that this Board did not grant that man the right to
do. I keep reiterating that because it is this Board and only this Board
that had the authority to grant what Mr. Brautigam built.
For those reasons I believe that the Board should turn down this
application without further undo. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
members have any questions?
Anyone else?
Do any of the Board
MR. LARK: I would just like to phrase one point to clarify the
record. Mr. Lister is not the adjacent owner. The Estate of Catherine
Fleet is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a 15-foot right-of-way--
MR. LARK: Twenty-foot right-of-way, and then the building is
some 6½' further east of that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Well if there is no one else,'I'll
close the hearing and reserve the decision when we get this thing
settled. We have a lot of going through before we can really write
something either way on it. So, thank you very much for coming in
and we'll get to it as soon as we can.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-12-
January 22, 1981
matter of Charles A. Brautigam, Appeal No. 2775.
Vote of the Board:
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Ayes:
Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
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 i~ 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
LEGAL NOTICE
OF HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GI-
VEN PURSUANT TO Section
267 o'f the Town Law and the
Provisions of the Amended
'Code of the Town of Southold,
that the following matters will
be held for public hearings by
the Southold Town Board of
Appeals at the Town Hall,
Main Road, Southold, N.Y., on
Thursday, January 22, 1981:
7:35 p.m. Application of Wil-
liam C. Mercurio, Nancy J.
Rodiiosso, and others, c/o
Nancy J. Rodilosso, 28 Chest-
nut Street, Garden City, N.Y.,
11530 for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Art. III,
Sec. 100-31 for approval of
insufficient area and width of
two proposed parcels at the
east side of Bay Avenue,
Mattituck, N.Y.; more parti-
cularly designated as County
Tax Map ID. No. 1000-144-4-4
and bounded northeast by
James Creek; west by Yanke
and others; southwest by Bay
.-Avenue, east by Halligan.
7:50 p.m. Application of
Florence A. Evans, 3940' Or-
chard Street, Orient, N.Y.,
11957 for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordhlance, Art. III,
Sec. 100-31 for permission to
construct dwelling with an
insufficient frontyard setback
off Brigantine Drive. Location
of property: 2355 Anchor Lane
(a/k/a 650 Brigantine Drive),
Southold; Harbor Lights Sub-
division Map No. 4363, Subdiv-
ision Lot No. 24; County Tax
Map IDF. No. 1000-079-04-35.
8:00 p.m. Application of Ber-
nice Lettieri, 1430 Arrowhead
Lane, Peconic, N.Y., 11958 for
a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31
and 100-32 for permission to
construct tennis court with an
insufficient setback from pro-
perry lines, occupying more
than 40 % of rearyard area,
and construct sideyard area at
1430 Arrowhead Lane, Pecon-
lc, N.Y.; more particularly
designated as County Tax
Ma~) ID. No. 1000-98-02-10 and
bounded north by Kappes;
west by Kull; south by Abel-
son; east by Arrowhead Lane.
~ ~-L1-5-P-~-._A_Eplication of
~ goad, Glen Rock, N.J.
~452 (bY l~i~h~rd i~.-L~rk]
~2sq.i for' ~a-rfan(~es-: (a i
'-Em ~nd"~ ypi~qb~s i_dec~s~f
dltI~aLN_o_._2_!7 ! lo .permik_.~m.
construction of an accessory
'Wailding(garage) With too ,
" ' (b ms.
ava_ ) to review determina-
Ii.ohS made bY the ~_Ui!di_ng
jn_spector .concerning this ac-
cessory building which in-
cludes a garage with rooms;
~ictYl W~I R~oa~f,--Cut-
chogue, N.Y.; mOre
iarly, designated .as County!
Tax. Map ID. No. 1000-110-7-6f
and bounded north by West'
l~'di West~ bY LiSter arid
,El.e~qt_ Estate; south by
c~h0gue Harbor; east _by
· Bi~ker. .......
'D~tbd~ December 29, 1980
BY ORDER OF THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
OF ZONING APPEAL.q
CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR:
CHAIRMAN
IT 4Afl 3592 Jr
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, !
STATI~ OF NEW YORK, ? ss:
David lga lker
...................................... being duly Swor;
he
stays that ........ is Printer and Publisher o! the SUFFOL
WEEKLY TIMES, a newspaper published at Greenport, in sat
county; and th-t the notice, of which the annexed is a print¢
copy, .has been published in the said Suftolk Weekly Tim:
once in each week, tor ....... .o.n.e. ................. weel-
successively commencing on l~he ...8.~.h ...................
day o! January ~9 81
Sworn to before me this . .8.~..h ......
............
HELEN K DE VOE
NOI'ARY PUBLIC, State of New York
No. 4707878, SufR)lk County
lerm EXpIFeS March 30, 19~/
LEGAL NOTICE
OF HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN, pursuant to Section
267 of the Town Law and the
Provisions of the Amended
Code of the Town of Southold,
that the following matters will
be held for public hearings by
the Southold Town Board of
· Appeals at the Town Hall,
Main Road, Southold, NY on
Thursday, January 22, 1981:
7:35 p.m. Application of
William C. Mercurio, Nancy J.
Rodilosso, and others, c/o
Nancy J. Rodilosso, 28 Chest-
nut Street, Garden City, NY
i1530 for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Art. III,
Sec. 100-31 for approval of
insufficient area and width of
two proposed parcels at the
east side of Bay Avenue,
Mattituck, NY; more particul-
arly designated as County Tax
Map ID. No. 1000-144-4-4 and
bounded northeast by .lames
Creek; west by Yanke and
others; southwest by Bay
'Avenue; east by Halligan.
7:50 p.m. Application of
Florence A. Evans, 3940 Orch-
ard Street, Orient, NY 11957
for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-
31 for permission to construct
dwelling with an insufficient
frontyard setback off Brigan-
fine Drive. Location of proper-
ty: 2355 Anchor Lane (a/k/a
650 Brigantine Drive), South-
old; Harbor Lights Subdivision
Map No. 4363, Subdivision Lot
No. 24; County Tax Map ID.
No. 1000-079-04-35.
8:00 p.m. Application of
Bernice Lettieri, 1430 Arrow-
head Lane, Peconic, NY 11958
for a Variance to the Zoning
'"Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-
31 and 100-32 for permission
to construct tennis court with
an insufficient setback from
property lines, occupying
more than 40% of rearyard
area, and construct 'tennis
court in sideyard area at 1430
Arrowhead Lane, Peconic, NY;
more particularly designated
as County Map ID. No. 1000-
98-02-10 and bounded north by
Kappes; ~west by Kull; south
by Abelson; east by Arrow-
head Lane.
..... 8~!,15 p:m. Application Of
,._.._C,~h_a.r!es A:. B,~a~t_i~m, 46
___B_e~.spn Road, Glen RgC~,_.BJ..~
__0.7__452 _(by _Ri.chard .:Fr. L._a. rkLk_~
,__ Esq:) for Variances: ..(a).t.~..~
c,~end a pr~vi~og, s~,, _d.~d~,i9_~.._9~~
tll~.~_oar_d, m__a_d~e on ~/2,~/_7._8 in ....
A~,e..a! No. 2471 to permit the
_ e~n st r ucti6n'-'6f' 'iin-- ~d~o~-
~and (b) to review determin-
in, EEE.e..ct~o_r .?n_~e~_in_2~._this ac_____._&
· ~.c~sar~...buiLding_~t~
· of property: West Road,
arly designated as County Tax
west by Lister and G. Fleet
Harbor~ e~a st__~,_Bic_k_e_ r_~
Dated: December 29, 1980.
BY ORDER OF
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF
ZONING APPEALS
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.,
Chairman
1T, 1/8/81 (6)
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK'
STATE OF NEW YORK
ss:
Patricia 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 Island Traveler-Watch-
man once each week for ................. 1. ..................... weeks
successively, commencing on the ........................................
...............
Sworn to before me this ....~. .................. clay at
Notai~ Public
LEGAL NOTICE OF HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town
Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of
Southold, that the following matters will be held for public
hearings by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at the Town Hall,
Main Road, Southold, NY on Thursday, January 22, 1981:
7:35 p.m. Application of William C. Mercurio, Nancy J.
Rodilosso, and others, c/o Nancy J. Rodilosso, 28 Chestnut
Street, Garden City, NY 11530 for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insufficient
area and width of two proposed parcels at the east side of
Bay Avenue, Mattituck, NY; more particularly designated as
County Tax Map ID. No. 1000-144-4-4 and bounded northeast by
James Creek; west by Yanke and others; southwest by Bay Avenue;
east by Halligan.
7:50 p.m. Application of Florence A. Evans, 3940 Orchard Street,
Orient, NY 11957 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art.
III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with an
insufficient frontyard setback off Brigantine Drive. Location
of property: 2355 Anchor Lane (a/k/a 650 Brigantine Drive),
Southold; Harbor Lights Subdivision Map No. 4363,'Subdivision
Lot No. 24; County Tax Map ID. No. 1000-079-04-35.
8:00 p·.m. Application of Bernice Lettieri., 1430 Arrowhead Lane,
Peconic,·~NY 11958 for a Variance ~o the Zoning Ordinance, Art.
III, Sec. 100-31 and 100-32 for permission to construct tennis
court with an insufficient setback from property lines, occupying
more than 40% of rearyard area, and construct ~ , ~
sideyard area at 1430 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic, NY; more particu-
larly designated as County Tax Map ID. No, 1000-98-02 10 and
Legal Notice of Hearings - Page 2 of 2
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting to be Held January 22, 1981
bounded north by Kappes; west by Kull; south by Abelson; east
by Arrowhead Lane.
/~i15 p.m. 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 determinations
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 particularl
designated as County Tax Map ID. 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.
Dated: December 29, 1980. BY'ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN
Instructions to newspapers:
Please publish once, to wit, the week of 2/8/81 and forward four
{4) affidavits of publication to: Mrs. Linda Kowalski, Board of
Appeals, Town Hall, Southo!d, NY 11971. (765-1809).
Copies mailed on 1/5/81 to:
Mrs. Nancy J. Rodilosso, 28 Chestnut St, Garden City, NY 11530
Ms. Florence A. Evans, 3940 Orchard St., Orient, NY 11957
Mrs. Bernice Lettieri, 1430 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic, NY 11958
Richard F. Lark, Esq. for Mr. Charles A. Brautigam, Cutchogue, NY
Southold Town Board o£Appeals
MAIN ROAD ~ STATE ROAD' 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. llg'T1
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
T-'",q ,", Y TUT::', LL
ROBERT J. DOUG[ASS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
doseph H. Sawicki
TYPE II ACTION DESIGNATION
NOTI'CE OF NO~'S'I"GN)FICANT EFFECT
UPON THE ENVIR'ONMENT
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.
Applicant represents there is a substantial, functional bulkhead
-constructed along the water-lying edge of this property at least
100 feet in length.
Applicant's ~ame: CHARLES A. BRAUTIGAM. Appeal No. 2775.
Description of Proj.ect: To review Building Inspector's determination
issuing stop orders and revoking previously-issued building permits, for
an accessory building which includes a garage with rooms since same does
not conform to original variance granted by the Board of Appeals 9/28/78.
Date andlPlace of Public Hearing: THURSDAY, Jan 22., '81at the
South'old TownI Hall, Ma.in Road; Southold, New York.
Documents on File: Appeal Application, Notice to adjoining prop-
erty owners wi'th 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 Kowalski,
Secretary to the Board of ApPeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold,
New York l1971. Telephone (516} 765-1809, or 1802 {Building Inspector}.
Dated: December 29, 1980. By Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary
Copies to:
Applicant or his agent.
Town Clerk's Bulletin Board.
Supervisor, Town of SouthOld.
TOWN OF SOUTIiOLD, NEW YORK
ACTION OF THE ZONI~O BOttI1,D OF ~PE~S
Appeal No. 2471 Dated August 31, 1978
ACTION OF T~ ZONING BOARD OF APPE~ OF ~ TOWN OF SO,HOLD
To Charles A. Brautigam
46 Benson Road
Glen Rock, New Jersey 07452
Appelant
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
( )
2 8, 19 7 8 the appeal
1. SPECIAL F_~XCEPTION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be
granted ( ) be denied pursuant to Article .................... Section .................... Subsection ....................paragraph
.................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Building Inspector ( ) be reversed ( ) be
conf/rmed because 7:50 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon application of Charles A. Brauti-
gam, 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 'unnecessary
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 of 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
FORM ZB4
REW. RSS APPRO ED
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. Brautigam, 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
FROM:
RICHARD F. LARK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
MAIN ROAD - P. O. BOX 9?3
CUTCHOGUE, 'NEW YORK !
TELEPHONE (~J6) 734-6807
F- -']
DATE: D.e~e~. 29,. !.98 0
ATTENTION: .Mrs Linda.Ko~alski,
Secretary
TO:
S0~h0!d Tgwn.B0ard 0f APpe~!s
SUBJECT: ~ariance for. Charles
Main Road - Town Hall
Brautigam, West Road,
J S0~th0.!d, NeW york 11971 J
Cutchogue, New York
MESSAGE
Dear Mrs, Kowalski:
I am enclosing three sketches
of Mr, B~a~igam, s prQpe~y showing
all setbacks and distances for the
the above-captioned application.
REPLY DATE:
(bc) encs.
SIGNED:
~i'c~rd F. Lark
HISTACOUNT CORP., MELVILLE. N. Y. 11746 FORM NO. SK-2
SIGNED:
THIS COPY FOR PERSON ADDRESSED
Very truly yours,
JUDITH T. TERRY ·
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
December 26, 1980
To' Southold Town ZOning Board of Appeals
From' Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 2775 application of Charles A.
Brautigam for a variance. Also included are notification to adjoining
property owners as follows: Mr. & Mrs, Gustave C. Bickert, 511 Union Avenue,
Wood Ridge, N.J. 07075; George H. Fleet Estate, Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935.
JTT/bn Town Clerk
Enclosures
RICHARD I~. LARK
ATTORNEY AT lAW
MAIN ROAD - P. O. BOX 9?3
CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK !193B
TELEPHONE 516 ?34-6807
Deceimber 26, 1R80
Judith. T. Terry, Town Clerk
Main Road
Southold, New York llR71
Charles A. Brautigam.,-Variance
675 West Road~ Cutchogue~ New York
Dear Mrs. Terry
In connection with the above-captioned matter, I am enclosing
the following:
1. Application for Variance in triplicate (Form ZB1}.
2. Exhibit A: Action of Zoning Board of Appeals on Appeal No. 2471.
3~ Exhibit_B; Building Permit $9961Z.
Exhibit C: Building plans approved by Building
Inspector, October 1R78.
5. Exhibit D: Building plans as amended.
o
Exhibit E: Letter of George H. Fisher, Senior
Building Inspector, dated July 15, 1980.
o
Exhibit F: Letter of George H. Fisher, Senior
Building Inspector, dated October 31, 1980.
Exhibit G; Letter of George H. Fisher, Senior
Building Inspector, dated December 18~ 1980.
9. Exhibit H: Excerpt from Building Zone Map.
10..~~ Notice to Adjacent Property Owners with proof of
mailing and certified receipts attached thereto,
11. Short Environmental Assessment Form.
12. Wetlands Letter.
13. My check in the amount of $15.00 payable to the
Town of Southold for the filing fee.
If all is in order, please present the above to the Board of
Appeals so that a date may be set for a public hearing. Kindly
keep me advised.
RFL/mld
Enclosures
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SHOR~I1FENVIRON~ENTAL ASSESSMENT
INSTRUCTIONS:
(a) ' In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is
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 EnvironmentaI Assessment Form is necessary.
(c) If aII questions have been answered No it is likeIy that this
project .i.s not significant.
(d) Environmenta! Assessment
1. Wi'l'l' 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 × No
3. Will project alter or have a large effect on
existing body of water? ....................... Y.es × No
4. Will project have a potentially large impact ,
on groundwater quaIity? ....................... Yes × No
5. WiII project significantIy effect drainage
fIow on adjacent sites? ........................ Yes × No
6. WiII project affect any threatened or
endangered piant or animaI species? ..........., Yes × No
7. WiiI project resuIt in a major adverse effect
on air quaiity? ............................... Yes × No
8. WiII project have a major effect on visuaI
character of the community or scenic views or
vistas known to be important to the community? .... Yes ×·,No
9. WiII project adverseIy impact any site or
structure of historic, prehistoric or
paieontoIogicai importance or any site
designated as a criticaI environmentaI area
by a iocaI agency? ............ -.~........~...... .... - Yes × No
IO. WiII project have a major effect on existing
or future recreationaI opportunities? ......... Yes..× No
ll. Will project result in major traffic.pr..gblem~., n~'.~
or couse o mo jot effect to existin~~
tronsportotion systems? ....................... Yes .× No
12. Will project regulorly couse objectionoble
odors, noise, glare, vibrotion, or electrical
disturbance os a result of the project's.
operotion? .................................... Yes × No
13. Will project have ony impoct ~on public heol%h
or sofety? .................................... Yes × No
14. Will project affect the existing community by
directly cousing a growth in permonent
populotion of more thon 5 percent over o one
yeor period or hove o major negotive effect
on the chora'c'ter of the community or
neighborhood? ................................. Yes × No
15. I~ there publ~ controversy concerning the
................. ' ....... ' ....... .o
//
PREPARER
S
SIGNATURE~'chg~les A~, Brautigam, P~t~tioner
££RI~£~t]~]~ DATE December 26, 19~0
assumed ~
December 26 1R80
(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, 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 box)
IX]
May be located within 300 feet oB tidal wetlands;
however, constructed along the w~ter-lying edge
of this property is a bulkhead in very good
condition and at least 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~]
rely yours,
,. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YOR)r
/
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
DATE .D~.f;~;;n.b.e.]¢ .... .2...6.., i9 8 0.
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
Charles A. Brautigam A, 46 Benson Road
1, (X~l~ .................................................................. u, .............................................................................
Name of Appellant Street and Number'
Glen Rock
Municipality
~.'.~.'. .................... HEREBY APPEAL~ TO
State
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON
WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
D~ 18, 1980 OF
REVOKED BLT~,DING PERMIT NO. 9961Z ON
( )
(
(x)
Name of Applicant for permit
of ....C6...~.e.~.o.~..?.~.,... ~.. ?~.,....,..e. ~.. ~.e.~..~.e.z ....................................................
Street and Number Municipality State
PERMIT TO USE
PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY
For construction o[ accessory builcling in ~ront yard. area o[ property
West Road
LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..Cutchogu~.,..~.e.w...Y.oxl~ ...... '.'~%?..Ag[~.t.q[.a.~..~'.R..e..s..i..d..e..n..t..i..a. 1 Distri~
Street Use District on Zoning Mop
.s...u..f..f.o...Z.k....g_o..u..n..t.z' ..T..a..X...~.a~...B.a. :....% .0..0.9 Z .% .% .0.=7. Z.6...
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 TZT, 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 Chap. 62 Cons. Laws
Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3
4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (,~jj~ been made with respect to this decision
of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property.
Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit
(X) request for a Variance
and'was made in Appeal No ..... .2. ~.7. .1.. ................... Dated .... ~.u. cj.q.s.~...3...l:;...~.9..?...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, 197;
To review a determination by the Building Inspector issuing stop orders and
(X)
revoking previously issued building permits.
is requested for the reason that 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 nQt conform to the original variance
granted by the Board of Appeals.
Form ZB1
(Continue on other side)
·
RIDER TO APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N oY.
CHARLES A. BRAUTIG3~I
#1 continued:
copy of the Building Permit # ~961Z 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, i~SQ, 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, 198Q 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 1980, Prior to that
time~, Petitioner was operating under the assumption that all rules and regula-
tions of the Town had been met and complied w~th 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 Petiti~r
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 ~nd 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 DECISION 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 justice 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 a~ree 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
FOR APPEAL O Continued
1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces-
sary HARDSHIP because Petitioner was granted a ~ariance by the Southold Town Zoning
Board of Appeals 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 P~titioner 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 by 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
(~ONTINUED ON RIDER ATTACHED HERETO)
2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by oil properties alike in the immediate
vicinity of this property and in this use district because Petitioner~in good faith reliance
upon the Bnilding Permit, completed the exterior of this structure to blend in with
the existing dwelling on his property, Due to the size and topography of Peti-
tionerls property, the yard adjacent to West Road, although under the Zoning Ordi-
nance is the front yardr 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 Variance 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-conforming 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 that the
erection of a garage with living space overhead is entirely consistent with the
existing pattern in this particular neighborhood, Due to the.size and slope of
your Petitionerts 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, //
.'z-- . .
) ss ..............
COUNTY OF $~PO~ ) Signature ~
Charles A. Brautigam
'Sworn to this ................ .2..6..t..h. ...................... day of ........ [~f~g.f~..m~...e.~ ................................ 19 80
ACTION OF THE ZONq~N'O BO,~ED OF
Appeal No. 2471 Dated August 31, 1978
ACTION OF THE ZONING. BOARD OF. APPE;~LS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
T°. Charles A. Brautigam
46 Benson Road
-Glen Rock, New Jersey 07452
DATE ..O...C...t...........1...1., 1978
AppeHant
at a meeting of the Zoning Board of ApPeals on September
XVas 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 Article .................... Section .................... Subsection .................... paragraph
..................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Building I~spector ( ) be reversed ( ) be
con/~med because 7:50 P.M. (D.S.T.) UP0n application of Charles A. Brauti-
gam, 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. VARIA.NCE. By resolution of.the Board it was determinkd that
(a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce
hardship because
practical difficulties or unnecessary
SEE REVERSE
(b) The hardship created (is) (is not)unique and (would) (~vould 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)
dhange the character of 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
FORM ZB4
APPROVED zoniNG
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. Brautigam, 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
SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
BUILDING PERMIT
(THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL
COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED)
N? 9961 Z
Permission is hereby granted to:
. . . .......... ......... .u. . . .L . '. . .
...... Z(~.~ ..... ~.~.~.~(.~ ......... ~.~..~.~ .......... ~.~ ...... ~.~.~.L::.d..c...~ .... .~...&.~ZI ....................
at premises located at .~.~. 7or' ~E'-~ 7 ~r~ ~ ~_/~
...................................................................... ~..~... ~ ~..#...~..r::...q,....¢.~. .................................................
pursuant to application dated . ....... K~.~.....~.../..,
Building Inspector.
Fee ,...l..~..~ .......
/~,~ - / ~ ~ -
19Z..~.., and approved by the
Building Inspector
EXHIBIT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971
TEL. 765-1802
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, Cutchogue under 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 iBclude 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
[EXHIrIT
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
Cutchogue, 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 permission the Zoning Board of
Appeals granted. (Appeal No. 2471, Charles
Brautigan)
A copy of that permission is enclosed.
The amended Building Permit No. 9961Z is
hereby revoked.
Very truly yours,
/ ..// ,, ,- :.:~ - / --~,-/' ,.
encl.
GHF/mw
xc: Charles Brautigan
EXHIBIT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
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
0
Wickham
creek
/
/
/
/
EXHIBIT '~-
FORM NO. 2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
BUILDING PERMIT
(THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEP~' ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL
COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTt-IORIZED)
.No. 9961 Z
Dote ~C r ,~ 978
Permission is hereby granted to:
.C~..q.f..~...~. .......... ~. ......... .(:.C.~.u...Z..r...~..~ .l
at premises located at ~7-s~ ~,"~_s. 7 "~'~o ,~/~
.......................................... ~ ~. -i-~ ~ o c, t,, t:.- . ...................
~.~ ?/
pursuant to application dated .................................................. ,
Building Inspector.
Fee $.../.~.~ .......
lac, o - I ~ O -
19Z..~.., and approved by the
Building Inspector
EXHIBIT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971
TEL. 765-1802
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, Cutchogue under 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 $outhold, 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
EXH B T
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971
O TEL. 765-1802
October 31 , 19'80
Mr. William Beebe, Builder
New Suffolk Lane
Cutchogue, New York 11935
Re:
Charles Brautigan
Accessory structure
675 We st 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 permission the Zoning Board of
Appeals granted. (Appeal No. 2471, Charles
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 SOUTHOLD
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.
Only 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
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. & Mrs. Gustave C, Bickert
George H. Fleet Estate
NOTICE
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE:
~.Thatitistheintenti~n~ftheundersignedt~petiti~ntheB~ard~fAppea~s~ftheT~wn~f~~uth~~d
torequesta(Variance)~We~l~K~e~~~l~TzX~(thefollowingrelief:,permission to amend
existing variance #2471 to allow conStruction of a garage with rooms
overhead in fron~ 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
a right-of-way owned by the George H. Fleet'Estate.
3. Thattheproperty whichisthesubjectofsuchPetitionislocatedinthefollowingzoningdistrict:
"A" Residential and Aqricultural District
4. That bysuch Petition, the undersigned will request the following r~iefg:a Pac~erm~l~O~ otz0n~mend
existing variance ~2471 to allow construction of r o
overhead in front yard area.
5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the 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
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 26, 1980
Petitioner Charles A. Brautigam
Post Office Address
46 Benson Road
Glen Rock, New Jersey 07452
NAME
PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICF
ADDRESS
Mr. & Mrs. Gustave C. Bickert
511 Union Avenue
Wood Ridge, New Jersey 07075
George H. Fleet Estate Cutchogue, NeW York 11935
9/.6I '~dv 'OOgg m~oA ~ i
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
SS.:
Barbara Diachun
New York , residing at School House Road, Cutchoque,
, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 26th day
of , December ,19 $0, 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 ~;0~,thold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of-
fice at Cutchogue r New' York ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by
(certified)~HA~ mail.
26th
Sworn to before me this
day of December,n 19 80 __
- ~lo%¥y Public
~arbara Diachun
MA,RY LOU DORO,8.KI
NOTARY PUBLIC, Stats of New Yort
No. 52-1000~53 Suffolk Ceunty
~om~issi0. Expires f&al'ch 80, 1~' oU~/
CHARLES A. BRAUTIGAM
Appeal No. 2775
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 revoking 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 structure on his
property (1. I 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 2 or 3 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 front yard area. This Board, after a public hearing, granted a
variance "to construct a carport in the front yard 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
buil~:: dSes not conform to the type of structure specified in the original applica-
tion 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 substantially 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 con-
iai_ns 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 (water-front
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 out-
side 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 housekeeping 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.
of living area. The second floor of the structure contains only 672 sq. ft. and,
thus, does not meet 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 permit lhe 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 permitted 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
1978 decision to allow the accessory struclure, as built, to be completed and to
revoke the Building Inspector's stop order. Appellant concedes that the building
-2-
does not conform 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, 000.00 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 thai 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 delermination 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, motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr.
~awickil the structure shall be allowed to be completed, subject to the
o£±owlng conul=~ons:
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
-3-
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)
The stop order issued by the Building Inspector is revoked and the
Building Inspector shall permit construction to be completed, consistent with
this determination.
-4-
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:
(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 Depart-
ment. ''
(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 building as he
deems appropriate.
The stop order issued by the Building Inspector is revoked and
the Building Inspector shall permit construction to be completed,
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: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. Absent was: Mr. Doyen (due to illness).
TOWN CLERK
Building Dept.
Planning Bd.
Board of Appeals
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
Main Road
Southold, N. Y. 11971
765-3783
765.2660
Pursuant to the General Municipal Law, Chapter 24, of the Consolidated Laws, Article 12-B, Sections 239-1 and m,
the ..... ]~Oa~d · o~..~,1~;~pe,~ls ............. 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
Charles'A. Brautigam
West Road, Box 456
Cutchogue, New York
Appeal No. 2471
11935
...... · , ...... Variances
Location of affected land: ...~e.~.t..~o~,~.;...~.~t(~¢N~uf~.,...No~..~'~r~ ................................................
within 500 feet of: (check one or more)
................ Town.or village boundary line, or shore line
Comments:
State or county road, parkway or expressway
State or county park or recreation area
Stream or drainage channel owned by the county or for which the county has established channel lines.
State or county owned parcel on which a public building is situated
Applicant was granted permission to construct a carport
side yard area for 3 cars.
in
Date: ..... .S~e]~ezxxb~z::...2..q.,...],,9.7 8
Date received by Suffolk County Planning Commission
File No .................................
.............. · C~A~n ..............................................
T/tie
I
{
~fown~'~f S~uthoid,-NEw York,
public hezrln~.Wtli be~!d'by
~ at'~e,T~ ~I,'M~ R~,
~u~d, N~ Y~k,"~
". ~7:~ P.M;/(D.S.T~) U~
applic~ ~ ~:' ~d
.- Hden J~; ~, Ruth
~,- M~New' y~k,
f~_ a'. v~'~ ~.
~ic~ IH,. ~ 1~31
~ent ~ ~d '~."~
~t~n of ~: ~ N6.74,'
Map ~. ~3, Sun~ K~lz,
MaCtut, New Y~k~ :~.
,~ 7:~ P,M. (D.S,T.),.U~
. ~plication '~of. ~lel :.od
.. ~ura Shybunko,' 5 ~top
~, H~d of ~e H~, St.
. J~s, New York, (An~y P.
~i, ~.), ~ a v~o~
~ ~ce ~th the
Or~, ~e HI,. S~
and 1~-36, ~r ~~ to
r~u~ ~nt ~d sl~ y~d
~tb~cks. ~at~n of
Map No. 5126, Nunn~oma
Water, ~ No. 5, ~u~d,
New Y~k.
.6:50 P.Mi "(D.S.'T.) Upon
application of Charles A~ Brau.
~46 Benson Road, Glen
'Rock, New Jersey, for .a
variance in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance, .~cle
III, Section. 100-32 for pea. mis..' '
sion to construct an aCCessory
Ro~d, ,.~,umhc~ue; :; new ~,York~. ·
bounded mi- the tmr~l~ by/West~
Road; east by Gustave Buc-
kerr; south by Bay; west by
George H. Fleet Estate.
~:00 P.M, (D.$,T.) Upon
application of Robert Wacker,
Nassau Point Road, Cut-
chogue. New,' York,. (Peter
Stoutenburgh asagent), for a
variance in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance, Article
!11. Se~ion 100-;32 for permis-
sion to add 10 fe~t to present
garage located in front yard
area. Location of property:
Lots No. 7 and 8/Nassau Point
Properties, Cutchogue, New
York.
· 8:15 _.P..M..._(D..~$.Ti)..~u_~.__n~
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STATE OF NEW YORK
O
SS:
Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the
Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TP~VELER-W^TCHMAN,
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 Island Traveler-Watch.
man once each week for ........ ./.. ....... ..................... weeks
successive.
day of ~
.~~orn to before me this '~'~"'~
.~..L~ ........................ day or
CI.EMENT J. THOMPSON
NO1ARY PUBLIC, State of New York
No. 52-9321725
ResiJin~. in Sulfi)tk County
Commi';sion Lxpires March 30, 1980
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
Pursuant t; Section :~7 of"
the Town Law and the
provisions'of the Amended
Building Zone Ordinance of
the Town of Soathold, New
York, public hearings will be
held by the Zoning Board of
App~a, ls at the Town Hall,'
Maifi Road, · Southold, New
'York; on .Thursday, Sep-'
variance in aecorOance with
the Zoning Ordinance, Article
IH, Section 100-~, for per-
mission to construct a garage
in the front yard area.
Location of property: Private
Road (Hyatt P,~ad) Southold,
-.New York, bounded on the
n~ch by Long_ Island ~tS~mh ~!.
east by A. Gina; soum y
right-d-way; west by R. A.
Brown and P. R. Bie.
8:~0 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon
tember 28, 1978, on the application of Sandra Rave
and Mary Tloczkowski, 22
following appeals~ _,';~: ,, -n Edison Lane, Bayville~ New
~a~;~.0c~.tF~'diD~'~d~Ual~nd~-'' York, tGary. F. Olsen,..Esq.)
Helen Jaskowiak, RF-D, Euth ~. fa°crc0ra~:".~i ~ex~h~Tni~~
wi~ the Zon~..g ~ ..... 2 '* operate ~) tenni/and racke, t
Location d property North
to. divide property ..with.?.n-~ ',, Pead PeC°~-ic,- New?York,
sufficient ~area ana w~atn.~ boun~le~ '.on the north by
Locat,on of p~.p~rt~: tI~nto~l~: Middie ~d; east by Haas;
4, MapNo.~01~..S~ns,e · south ~by' Long Island
Mattituck, New ¥onl. . 'Railroad; West by Case. '.
7:40 P.M. (D.S.T.) Upon
application of Daniel and
Laura Shybunko, 5 Hilltop
Court, Head of the Harbor, St.
James, New York, (Anthony
p DeRi/gi, Esq.), for a
v~riance in accordance with
the ZonJ~ OF(:Unance, A.r~..~.
III, Sections 100-~1,100-IL-% 1
~4 and 100-~6, for permission to
reduce front and side yard
setbacks. Location ~ o!
property: Map No. 5116,
Nunnakoma Waters; Lot No.
5, Southold, New York.
._~_LS0 P,M. (D.S.T.) U~on
application o! Charles-
Braufi~sm, 46 Benson ~
Glen Rock, New Jersey, for a
variance in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100-~ for per-
mission to construct an ac-
cessory building in the front
yard area. Location of
property: West Road, Cut-
chogue, New York, bounded
on the north by West Road;
east by Gnstave Buckert;
south by Bay; west by George -
H. Fleet Estate.
8:00 P.M.' (D.S.T.) Upon
application of Robert Wacker,
Nassau ·Point Road, Cut-
chogue, New York, (Peter
Stoutenburgh as agent), for a
variance in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100-~ for'per-
mission to add 10 feet to
present garage located in
front yard area. Location of
property: Lots No. 7'and
Nassau Point Properties,
Cutchogue, New York.' ·
I):15 P.M.- (D.S.T.) Upon
application of Pein Narma,
1000 Private Road, (Hyatt
[toad), Soathold, New York,
(Robert C~.Wertz, Esq.) for a
Dated: September 18, 1978
BY ORDER OF
THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD
OF APPEALS
1TS21-3062
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK. ]
} ss:
STATE OF NEW YORK, j
.... T~.oy..~tavaon ................. being duly
scrys that .. b.~..., is Printer and Publisher of lhe SUa
WEEKLY TIMES, a newspaper publish~i ~xt Gr~n~rt,
county; and ~at the noti~, of which ~e ~e~ is u
~py, ~s ~en published in the ~d Suf~lk W~k~
once in each w~k, ~ .. 9~..(~) ..................
suc~ssiv~ly ~mmencing on ~e . .~.~Y.~ ~..
d~ of SeptembeP ...... ~. ~.
...... ...........
Sw~ to ~re me ~hi, l.]. ~.~...,
'~?u.., . C, St~e ot Ne York
~Z~on E~:~es M~ 30, lg..~
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971
September 1, 1978
To: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 2471, application of Charles
Brautigam for a variance. Also included are notification to adjoining proi
owners as follows:Geroge H. Fleet Estate, Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935; Gustave
Bickert, 512 Union Avenue, Woodridge, N.Y.07075
Judith T. Terry
Town Clerk
JTT/bn
cc:file
Enc./
BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
:
In the Matter of the Petition of :
:
to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold :
TO:
NOTICE
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE:
1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of $outhold
to request a (Variance) (Special Exception) (Spec!al Permit) (the following relief: )f-e ~e~-~, ,t'~,~.~e.~r~
2. That the property which is the subjecI of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des-
cribed as follows:
3. That the propert~w~ch is.lLhe subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district:
4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief:
$. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under-
signed are: ~,n.. 1'~ r~te~_ ~ .~_~, ,.,~'~ ~ / o~, '- ~' z_
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 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: ~' "~i "q A>
Petitioner
PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE
NAME
ADDRESS
499673
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIOED-
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
(See Raver
CERTIFIED FEE
SPECIAL DEUVERY
RESTRICTED DEUVERY
~ ~> DA~OE,UVE.ED
ANO ADDRESS ~:~ '
~ ~ ~ TO W~ AND DATE
[ ~ ~LIVER~D WI~ RES~IC~D
~'0 ~ ~IVERY
~ ~ ~W TO W~, DATE AND
J ~ A~ss ~ mUVE~y W~
~ ~ ~S~ICTED ~LIVERY
SgRANCE COYERAGE
NO ~N~l"~ ~ iNIT. R#AllO#AL MAIL
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
SS.:
C~ ~_'t- c f. o q u ~-- , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the '~ I day
of I/!d~.' ,19 '/- ~ , 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-
fice at C: ,~.~ c Lu 'i ,.,.e,_ t PJ ~ ~ ' ; that said Not/~s were mailed to each of said persons by
(ce~rtified) (registered) mail.
Sworn to before me this -~ / ~
day o~ ...~ ,19 2X'
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New york
o 52 466,5418, Suffolk County--
No ° ~
Cafaml#lofl E,,cplf'el March 30,_ ! ~1~_
D° - .
FOR~ NO. 3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
PLEBE TAKE NOTICE thet your oppli~tion doted
................. ]9 ........
for perm't to construct ....................................... at the premises I~oted ot ....................................
"~'~';"'7~ ~'z~;'~' ..............................
~ep .................................... Bilk ............................................ Lot ................................................ is
returned herewith end disepproved on the following grounds ........... ~.~.~.~.~.~..~.~. .............
· ~.A~ ........... Z.~.~ ...... ~ .................... ~ff.T ........ '~E~.~..~.~..~ ....... L~ ....... ~.~.~ .....
Building Inspector
t
t
IPO]L]~[ NO. 1
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
Jg~..~Permit No....?...~....~..../...~
II
Disapproved a/c ......................... ~....i.............._..........~...'.~ ................·
'"~f~' .... ~'~'~:'~ .... '~'? ..... ~~~_ ,.-~ --~ , o,.-/-~/;~:-/'> ......................... ~ '
; - ~o ~o~ ~> ~ ~' ..... ~'~ ............. ~Z~"i~;~ .............. ~ ............
APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PE~IT
INSTRUCTIONS
a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter o~. in ink and submitted in triplicate to the Building
Inspector, with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule.
- b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or
areas, and giving a detailed description of layout ofproperty must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this application.
c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit.
d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit
shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work.
e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy
shall have been granted by the Building Inspector.
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the
Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or
Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, os herein described.
The applicant agrees to comply with all aPplicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to
inspections.
admit authorized inspectors on premises and in buildings for necessa~/)
(Signature of applicant, or name, if a coJporation)
State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder.
Nome of owner of premises .... i .... .C.L~....~....~....~...~ ......... 6.: .......... ~....~...~...~'.../....~.....~....~. ....................... : ...................
If applicant is a corporate, signature of duly authorized officer.
(Name and title of corporate officer)
Builder's License No ....................... ~ .............................
Plumber's License No.
Electrician's License No .............................................
' Other Trade's License No ...............................................
1.
. /oo0- //o- 7-- G
Locotion of ~ond on which proposed work will be done. M~p No.: ........ ~--~ ................... Lot No.
Street ond Number(~.~.~.. .... ~...1~'~...~.. .... ..~."o.~_..~i .................... .~.~/..~ ~ ...................... ,
· · Municipality
State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction:
a. Exisiting use and occupancy ~ o~ ~
.......... . ..... i .........................
3. Nature of work (check which apphcable): New Building...................~J Addition .................. Alteration ................ -;.'
Repair .................. Removal ............ t .....Demolitior. .................... Other Work .............................. , ......................
'~ (Description)
4. Estimated Cost ........... '..:..:..:...' ..................................... Fee
(to be paid on filing this application)
5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units ............................ Number of dwelling units on each floor ............................
If goro§e, number of cars ............................................................. . ..... ~ .............................. ; ........................
6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ............................
7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front ............................ Rear ................................ Depth
Height ........................ Number of Stories ' '
Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ' ' ' Rear '
Depth ................................ Height .'; .......................... Number of Stories " '
8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front ............ ;~..:..~..' .............. Rear ' - :' ' ' Depth ..../......~....~. .........
Height 'z ' Number of Stories '- ' .... ' '
9. Size of lot: Front ~ / -./ ' /.~,~ ' ' : ---.~ ~' '"' :"
........ r...- ............................................ Rear Depth ....... ~...~ ....................
10~ Date of Purchase ..................... ;:.:~...~i'.: ....................... Name of Former Owner ';:' '/ i. -~-~', ,,~',~;
11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated ................... "'2. r:. .......... ; ..... ~...' ............. ~ ................... ~..,. '
12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation:
13. Will lot be regraded ............ :.4...~. ........ Will excess fill be removed from premises: ( ) Yes ( ) No
14. Name of Owner of premises ..../...!.;.V.E.[J...L ..... ;£<,..~..':!.L'..[.: .... ;:,'Address ................................Phone No."t..~;~(.:;.~..~.:.(
Name of Architect .............................................................. Address ,Phone No.
Name of Contractor ............................................................ Address ................................ Phone No .......................
PLOT DIAGRAM
Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and indicate all set-back dimensions from
property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate
whether interior or corner lot.
i
· !
STATE OF NEW' YORK, '.
COUNTY OF .............................. ~.~ S.S.
............................................... ' ................... ~.~ .... ; ....................... being duly sworn, deposes and soys tl~t he is the applicant
(Name of individual signing contract0
o-5ove hashed.
He is the '
(Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.)
of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or hove performed the said work .and to rn~ke end file
this' application; that oil statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and
that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith.
Sworn to before me this
· day of ............................... ' ............. , 19...:T... .-". / . ! ../~,~ '
,., , > /..-/.~ ,.:'.~ .... : / ~, ,,~..* ~/,., ,,.-
Notary Public, ....................................................~,.oumy . ..................... :. ..... ;...;...' ........... ;. ............. /. ...............................
· (Signature of applicant) " '
OTARY PUBLIC. State o! ~ow ~or~
Suffolk Count~ ~o. 52-5792880 ~ ,,
COMMISSION
Seth A. Hubbard
Chairman
L~e E. Koppelnuzn
Director of Plannin~
Suffolk County Department of Planning
JOHN V.N. KLEIN. County Executive
Veteran~ Memorial Highway Hauppauge, L. L, N. Y. 11768
979-2918
October 4; 1978
Town of Southold
Board of Appeals
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
Commission are considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of
local determination should not be coBstrued as either an approval or a disapproval,
Applicant Municipal File Nnmher
Charles Brautigan
Rein Narma 2471
Robert Wacker 2472
Sandra P. Rave, Et. Al.
2473
2474
GGN:jk
Very truly yours,
Lee E. Koppelman
Director of Planning
CHIEF PLANNER
o~
SEE
SEC
ii
AP?ROYED AS NOTED
NOTIFY BUILDING DEPARTMENT AT
1. FOUNDATION - TWO REQUIRED
FOR POURED CONCRETE
3. INSULATIC N
/.2 ~
I/
,/