HomeMy WebLinkAbout4526
175,qQunt~ Rd. 48 35
O8
TheodOre & Marie Petikas 93389 7/31/85
vari~hce for resturant or business in ~
residential sone
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
George Homing
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064
Telephone (516) 765-1809
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMIf
REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 19, 199!
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
Appl. No. 4526-V THEODORE AND MARIA PETIKAS
TAX MAP PARCEL 1000-35-1-8
STREET & LOCALITY: Corner of Routes 25 and 48 and Sound
Road, Gmenport
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: March 23, 1998 and May 14, 1998
I. REQUESTS MADE BY APPLICANTS, THEODORE AND MARIA PETIKAS, for
A) Area Variance to Article III, Section 100-30A.3, to the Bulk Schedule for
Residential Districts, and to the Density and Lot Size Schedule for Residential Districts of the
Code of the Town of Southold for permission to construct and establish a detach~ two-
family dwelling on an undersized nonconforming lot containing 21,483 sq. ft. in a R-40
Residential Low-Density instead of 80,000 sq. ft. minimum as required for two-family
dwellings (R-40 Zone requires a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. for single-family residence).
B) Area Variance to Article XXlII, Section 100-231 of the Code of the Town of $outhold
for permission to erect a (6) six-foot height fence in a front yard area instead of the code-
limited (4) four-foot height, beginning at the west front corner of the property and extending
easterly 100 feet in length along the front property (along County Route 48).
C) SPECIAL EXCEPTION under Article Ill, Section 100-31-B(1 ) of the Code of the Town
of Southold for pem~ission to establish two-family use in a proposed two-story dwelling on
an undersized 21,483 sq. ft. lot in the R40 Low Density Residential District. This request is
addressed in a separate decision
HOUR
Town Clerk, Town o! Soulhold
II. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION:
The property is located in a R-40 Residential Low Density District on the northwest comer of
County Route 48 (North Road), (State Route 2!5) and Sound Road, Greenport, Town of
Southold. The subject property contains a total area of 21,483 sq. ft. The lot size as exists is
substandard and nonconforming for this R-40 Low Density District, meeting only 52% of the
lot size requirement.
Applicants' proposal is to erect a 48 ft. by 28 ft. two-story, two-family dwelling on an
unimproved lot which has frontages of approximately 200 ft. on Route 48, and 100 ft. on
Sound Road. The proposal calls for a single point or driveway for vehicle access from Sound
Avenue, a front yard building setback of approximately 110 feet from Sound Road, a
minimum front yard setback at 40 ft. from the County Route 48/North Road, and a minimum
Page 2 May 19, 1998
Appl . # 4526V : i 000 35-1-8 (Pet./kas Variances)
Southold Town Board of Appeals
of 20 ft. from the closest (rear) northerly property line.
The May 5, 1985 survey, amended May 9, 1985 and June 6, 1985,submitted under this
application shows that the property was vacant in 1985 with the exception of a small shed,
located approximately 24 feet from the property line on Sound Road,. This shed was at one
time used to sell farm produce and no longer exists today. The property is unimproved.
The 1985 survey also indicates that an easterly portion of the property ,approximately 9,776
sq. ft., was zoned 'B' Business, and the larger westerly portion of the property (11,707 sq. ft.)
was zoned 'A' Residential. The easterly portion of the property was mzoned in January 1989
to R-40 Low Density Residential under the town's comprehensive update of its master plan
and zoning regulations. Since January 1989, the entire lot was zoned Residential (R-40 Low-
Density) in which a single-family residence on 40,000 sq. ft. minimum is required. Prior to
1989, the record shows that the entire 21,432 sq. ft. parcel was not business zoned as
indicated by the applicants' attorney in her recent testimony before the Board.
III. CODE PROVISIONS/BASIS OF APPLICATIONS:
Building Inspector's February 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which reads:. "..the
proposed fence exceeds four(4) feet in height, Article XXlII, Section 100-231, fences shall
not exceed four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard of a residential zone."
2. Chapter, 100 "Zoning" under Article III, SECTION 100-31-B(1) which reads as follows:
"Uses permitted by Special Exception" upon receiving approval from the Board of
Appeals:
"Two family dwellings not to exceed one such dwelling on each lot."
3. Section 100-30A..3 and Bulk, Area and Parking Regulations reads:
"No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be
erected or altered in the Low-Density Residential R-40 Zone District unless the
same conforms to the requirements of the Bulk Schedule and the Parking
Schedule, with the same force and effect as if such requlations were set
forth herein in full. (Emphasis added).
4. Article III, Section 100-30A.1 provides for the purpose of the Low Density Residential R-
40 District as follows:
"The purpose of the Low-Density Residential District is to provide areas for
residential development where existing neighborhood characteristics, water supply
and environmental conditions permit full development densities of approximately one
(1) dwelling per acre and where open space and agricultural preservation are not
predominate objectives."
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT:
The Board of Appeals has reviewed all information and evidence brought before it and based
upon all testimony, documentation, personal knowledge and other relevant evidence, the
Board of Appeals finds the following facts to be true and relevant:
The applicants propose to construct and establish as a new principal use a two-family
dwelling on An undersized nonconforming lot containing 21,483 sq. ft. in a R-40
Residential Low density District (minimum requirement for a single family residence is
40,000 sq. ft., and for a two-family 80,000 sq. ft. is required).
Page 3
Appl . #4528V : t 000~5-1-8 (~tik~s Yari~es)
So~lthold Town Board of Appeals
The minimum lot size required for two-family dwellings in the R-40 district is 80,000 sq. ft.
Applicant's contend that the footnote "NA" in the "Density and Minimum Lot Size
Schedule for Residential Districts" means that the 80,000 sq. ft. lot size requirement is
not applicable (NA) if provisions of community water or water and sewer am made.
Applicants' position is incorrect.
A clear reading of the Town Code and as applied by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the
Planning Board, and the Building Department, indicates that the minimum lot size
requirement of the specified district are not further reduced simply because town water
and sewer are available. This intent of the code to double the lot-size requirement for
two-family dwellings in the residential districts, AC, R-40, R-80, R-120 R-200 R-400, is
clear and consistent in the Schedules of the Code. There is no reduction ( NA Not
applicable) in the minimum lot size requirements in these districts. This point is further
illustrated in the Schedule, which provides for specific lot-size reductions for two-family
dwelling with utilities in the Hamlet Density Residential District and the Resort
Residential District.
On April 5, 1985, when applicants purchased the properties, the entire parcel was split
zoned: the smaller easterly portion of the promises (9,776 sq. ft.) was zoned 'B'
Business, and the larger westerly portion (11,707 sq. ft.) was zoned A-Residential.
Although applicants state that the property "was purchased as a business-zoned lot for
$80,000 and it was greatly devalued by the subsequent rezoning in 1989," Town records
confirm that more than half of the 21,483 sq. ft. lot was residentially-zoned at the time of
applicants' purchase, and the residential zoning has continued for more than 13 years.
According to the Board of Appeals File No. 3389, on July 31, 1985, three months after
Theodore and Maria Petikas purchased this lot (under one deed/metes and bounds
description) they applied for a variance to use a portion of the residential-zone of this lot
for a proposed or possible business. After the public hearing on October 3, 1985 under
Appl. No. 3389, the hearing was recessed by applicants' attorney and the application
abandoned and discontinued by applicants.
On, January 10, 1989, the Town of Southold adopted a comprehensive update of its
zoning regulations and master plan. The easterly business-zoned portion (9,776 sq. ft.) of
the applicant's property was rezoned to R-40 Residential Low Density, and the westerly
11,707 sq. ft. portion was renamed or reclassified from A-Residential to R.40 (with no
change in minimum lot size requirement).
5. The applicant's 21,483 sq-ft, lot size meets only 26 percent of the 80, 0000 sq. ft. of the
requirement for establishment of a two-family dwelling use.
The minimum lot-size requirements in the R-40 Residential Low Density Districts for two-
family dwellings, and the intent therein, was noted by town's legislative actions in 1989
and clearly stated in Section 100-30A.1:
"The purpose of the Low-Density Residential District is to provide areas for
residential development where existing neighborhood characteristics, water supply
and environmental conditions permit full development densities of approximately one
(1) dwelling per acre and where open space and agricultural preservation are not
predominate objectives."
V. REASONS:
On the basis of testimony heard and documents submitted, and after personal inspection of
the property, the Board further finds, and determines, as follows:
Page 4 Nay 19, 1998
Appl . # 4526V : 1 000- 35-1-8 (Petikas variances)
Southold Town Board of Appeals
I. Grant of the area variance for the lot size will produce an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because the degree of the
variance is so great -- a 74 percent reduction in the 80,000 sq, ft. minimum lot size
requirement -- that it constitutes an unwarranted over-crowding of an undersized
nonconforming lot,
2. The benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible for the
applicants to pursue other than area variances because the applicants can build a single-
family residence on the lot without variances. Although the applicants seek to recoup a
perceived financial loss incurred in 1985 when the applicants purchased this land for a
business purpose at a cost of $80,000, the record demonstrates that the applicants knew at
that time that the code required a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. of land area for each. In
addition, when the applicants purchased the property, the Zoning Code required a minimum
of 160,000 sq. ft. for a two-family dwelling.
3. The requested variances are substantial. Applicants' request for a lot area variance
represents a 74 percent reduction in the minimum code requirement of 80,000 square feet.
4. The difficulty has been self created because the applicants were aware of the status of
the zoning of the property when they purchased it as a split-zoned business and residential
zoned parcel, and that it was substandard and nonconforming in size for any permitted use
in either district. The applicants could have z%quested a determination from other municipal
applications (such as a use variance or a change of zone) if the intent were to recover a
financial hardship, during any time period since 1985).
5. The difficulty is further self-created because the applicants, by this special exception and
variance project, seek to recoup losses from 13 years ago. While this Board recognizes that
a two-family dwelling may yield a more profitable return than a single-family residence, no
financial proof has been submitted to substantiate applicants' claim that the property cannot
be sold for any other permitted use such as a permitted single-family residential use, or
income derived from such permitted use.
6. The proposed variance will have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and
environmental conditions of the neighborhood because a two-family dwelling on an
undersized lot (21,483 sq. ft.) will double traffic, will double impacts to groundwater from a
dual septic system, and double the intensity of land use, which in turn affects the
neighborhood and is contrary to the stated purposed of the R-40 Residential Low Density
District.
VI. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member
Dinizio, it was
RESOLVED, to DENY the Variance requested as to lot size of 21,483 sq. ft. for a two-
family dwelling use, for the reasons noted above, and BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, to GRANT the Variance as to fence height for a maximum of six feet for a
100 ft. length, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: That all fencing along C.R. 48/North
Road is limited to this 100 ft. length along or within the applicant's front property
line/yard.
VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: GOEHRINGER, DINIZIO, TORTORA, COLLINS. (Member
Horning of Fishers Island was absent and e_y,r.,us~ This RpsO'TEt'i'~l-wa.~d~ly adopted
(4-0 of the members present)). ~ ~..~/
//.~ERARD P. GOEHRII~G~ER, CI:IAIRMAN
~" Approved for Filing
N
Th±s ls only to show
Orig±nal map for
original seai and
surveyors info at time
of mapping.
Do NOT use in variance
application for two-
family use - this is
not a proposed subdiv.
Attorney for applicant
asks we ignore subdiv.
lot lines and ignore
the old zoning designa-
tions.
11/3/971k
~q
,/
] [
I I
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
ROBERT J. GAFFNEY
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECLBVE
STEPHEN ~4 JONES, A.I.C.P.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
June 22, 1998
Town of Southold
Zoning Board of Appeals
Applicant:
Municipal File No.:
S.C.P.D. File No.:
Petikas, Theodore & Maria
5426 & 4525 SE
SD-98-02
Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative
Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning
Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination as there is no apparent significant
county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be
construed as either an approval or disapproval.
Comment:
Appears inappropriate as premises could be reasonably developed for single family
residence purposes.
Very truly yours,
Stephen M. Jones
Director of Planning
S/s Gerald G. Newman
Chief Planner
GGN:cc
C:1111CCIZONING',ZONING\WORKING\LDS\JUN\SD98~02 WPD
LOCA~ON MAILING ADDRESS
H. LEE DENNISON BLDG, - 4TH FLOOR · P. 0 BOX BIO0 · (516) 853-51D0
I O0 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY I 1788-0099 TELECOPIER (5 I 6) 853-4044
To
FORM NO. 3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Soo'rHOLD, N.Y.
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
· ?~y%~%~.~.. ~e~r~. AZq.%hqqqq~q.~q~.M.a.~ia Petikas
· ~15. ~kalia ~aa4 ...................
..~.~ci.r..u,c,k,, ~ X~k..ll~2 ............
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ...P~g..e~b.~!. ~ ....... I~? ....
for permit to erect a fence
Location of Property ..~ ..... ~:~:.~ ...................... P YFMP?Y? ...........
House No. Street Hamlet
County Tax Map No. [000 - Section ..~ ....... BLOCK ..J ........ LOT .~ ...........
Subdivision ............................... Filed Map No ........... Lot No ........
is raturned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds .~.~.~Y~ ..........
, ............
..6~q~.~nq~[~.~.~q~+~.~?9[~.?~.~PPPf~: ...............................................
RV ]/80
R£C£1VFn
OCT 2 7 1997
10wn Clerk 5outl~01cl
TOWH OF $OUTIIOLD, NEW YORK
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING iNSPECTOR
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N, Y.
1, IWel Maria E Theodore Petikas of 225 Stewart Ave ~ ~..~..~.r;c~r~C..~fe t~
Street and Number ~Fn ~
Nome
of
Appellant
Bethpage, NY 11714 ............................ HEREBY APPEL TO
Municipality State
TNE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ......................................................
WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO
Name of Applicant for permit
of
" Municipality State
Street and Number
) PERMIT TO USE
) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY
I. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ~S~.~.n....d.~.~...d.~:.~.C...~.~.~.8.~..~..S..~..t1...t.h..~...];.d.. ....... .~..~-.~.0. ..................
Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Map
District 1000 Section35 Blockl Lot8 Petikas
.............................................................. Current Owner
Map No. -Lot No. Prior Owner
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 IIIA Section 100-30A.3
3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box)
(X) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop
( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap. 62 Cons. Laws
Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection' 3
()
4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (has not) been made with respect to this decision
of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property.
Such appeal was (x) request for o special permit simultaneously with this appeal
( ) request for a variance
crud was made in Appea! No ................................. Dated ............................. , ........................................
REASON FOR APPEAL
( ) A Variance to Section 2BOA Subsection 3
(X) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
( )
is requested for the reason that parcel is on a busy 'intersection, previously
zoned business, 2-family house is a residential use with some
commercial benefit with no change to character of the area.
Form Z~I (Continue on other side)
FORH NO. I
TOI~N ()lt SOU'FIIOLD
BUI I.D1NG DEPARTNENT
TOWN IIAL1.
$OWflIOLD, N.Y. 1197 I
TEl.: 765-1802
Approved ...... ~..,,./~_,. ~· 19.~,. Pemdt No .................
, pp ed a/c ... / .....
OF IIEAI.TII ...............
~ s~s o~s ...............
c.~c~ ./.. .... 1~$ ~:. .......
SEPTIC FORH ...................
NOTIFY:
CALl ...................
HAIl. TO: ....................
APPLICATION FOR 8UILDING PERHIT
Date ................ , 19 ....
1 NSTRUCT IONS
a. 'lhia application mint be c~)letely filled in by typewriter or in ink aed md~itt~ to tbe ~dhliag hm~ctor will:
3 ~ta of pl~s, ~rate plot plm to ~ale. F~ according Co ~lle.
b. Plot plm ~miq l~atlm of lot ~ of ~ildi~a ~ pr~i~s, relati~sip to ~joini~ pr~i~s or ~)lic
atr~ts or areas, ~ ~ivi~ a ~tail~ ~ripti~ of layout of pro~rty ~at ~ dr~ ~ the diagran M~idl is I~rt off
this appl icati~.
c. '11~ ~ c~ ~ fids applicatico otay i~t I~ coa~ed I~Fore isle of ~ildi~ Pe~it.
d. II~ a~al of ~sia a~licatico, tim ~ildi~ ]ns~ctor will is~ a ~filding Pemit to the a~licant. ~h
i~tmit ~mll ~pt ~ d~ ~i~s avail~le for insl~ti~s tlsro~t the s~rk.
~. ~ la~ildi~ ~mtl ~ ~o~pied or u~l in M~Ie or in ~rt for any ~l~ ~lat~er ~til a C~rtificate of
~c~tms~y fltall h~e I~n gr~t~ by tbe I~ildit~ lns~tor.
. ~.ICA'FI~ I8 Ig~ ~ to tbe ~ihli~ l~arta~ot for the ia~e og a Ikdhli~ ~mit ~rmmnt to the
I~ailtli~ ~ ~di~ of fl~ ~ o~ ~tl~ld, ~folk C~mty, ~ Yo~, a~ otl~r a~lic~le l~a, ~dis~ea or
~flati~, for fl~ mt~tim of Imildi~a, ~iti~a or alteraCi~a, or for r~al or ~liti~, as I~rein
~scril~. 11~.a~li~t ~a to ~ly wi~ all a~li~ble l~a, ordi~ea, ~ilding c~, ~ing c~e, ~
red,latium, mfl to ~it ma~rl~ i~tora on pr~i~a a~ in I~ildlng for ~cea~ ins~ti~a.
(Si§nature of applicant, or ~me, if a ,~orporation)
(Hailing address of applicant)
State ~hether applica~st is o.n~er· lessee, agent, ardfitect, engis~eer, geeeral ccotractor, electrician, plmt)er or builder.
................. ....................................
(aa co tl~e tax roll or latest deed)
If applicant is ~ corporation, signature of chfly authorized officer.
(Nam~ mx] title of corporate officer)
J. If Izmh~ss, ~rcial or mi~l ~oqmt~, sl~cify ~tur~ a~l vytent o[ each ty~ of u~ ......................
'. 1)h~nni~m of ~i~ting ~tn~t~re~, if ~ny: Fr(~t ................ ~ar ............. ~. ~pth .................
l)]netmi~s of sa~ atn~t~re with nlterati~m or mMitlona: Front ............... ~ar ...............
gi~ of lot: Fm~t .................... ~ar .................... ~pth ....................
(L l~Le of ~wdm~ ... ~..~ .............. ~ o[ For~r ~er ........................................
~m of r~tr~tor ................................... hhlrens ............................... B~e ~ ...............
5. la this p~rty within ~ [~t o~ a thhl ~tlmxl? * W3 .......... ~ ..........
PI.OT l) IAGRAH
~tl~r interior %~ co~r lot.
~ Of i~Hv~d~ml, nl~nJng c(n~l;rnct)
(Cxn~trnctor, n~ent, corl~rnte officer, etc.)
E nnld ~r or ~rn, nr~l in duly ~tl~rlx~ to ~rft~m or h~ I~rro~ 1.1~ ~hl ~tk taxi Lo rake taxi file Lid,
Iqd icathn~; U~nt nil ~t~t~.t~ c(mto{~l in thi~ nl~llcnti~m nr~ tr~ to Ole I~nl: o~ h[n k~l.~ m~ I~[]~f~ rani
hnt the ~rk vitl I~ ~rro~l j, 1.1~ ~1.~[ ~t forth in the nl~licntj~
. ....
MARIA AND THEODORE PETIKAS
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
~/~Y I 2 t,;98
To:
Southold Zoning Board of Appeals (one copy of memo with cases and 4 prints of memo)
Town Attorney, G-reg Yakaboski, Esq. (one copy of memo with cases)
From: Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971
(516) 765-4330
FACTS
The applicant proposes to construct a Two-family residence on a single and separate
parcel created in 1952. The Two-Family residence is a permitted use by special permit. This
parcel is a pre-existing lot in the R-40 zoning district, previously zoned Business. The parcel is
located on the Northwest comer of County Route 48 and Sound Road, directly across from the
parking lot for "Porkys" restaurant.
The parcel, as a single family lot, has been greatly devalued by the residential zoning. The
applicant purchased this parcel as a business zoned lot for $85,000.00. The lot, as a residential lot
has been on the real estate market for several years for construction of a single family home
without generating any interest. The grant of a special permit for the two family residence would
provide some value to the owner, provide quality alternative housing for a small family, and the
property will be developed more in character with the area.
The design of the house and size will be the same as a single family home, the only
difference in this use is that the occupants can be unrelated. Whether one family occupies four
Bedrooms or two families occupy four bedrooms does not impact the residential use of property.
LAW
The use is consistent with the Special Permit standards of Southold Town Code, section
100-264:
A. The use is in character of the district in that the Town Board legislated this use in the
district and the appropriateness is presumed. Framike Realty_ Cob.. v. Hinclc 632 N.Y.S. 2d 177,
220 A.D. 2d 501 (2nd Dept., 1995) This parcel is double the acreage of almost all the developed
parcels along Sound Road. This parcel is located within 1000 feet ora proposed multifamily long
term care facility at the "Breaknock Hall" property.
B. The use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established
uses in this R-40 district or in adjacent use districts. The use remains residential and the size,
character and design of the residence will be no different than a single family residence. M0,tt~r
0f C~th~rine P.Mason v. Town of Clit~on Park, 422 N.Y.S.2d 166, 72 A.D. 2d 889 (3rd Dept.,
1979)
C. The safety, the health, the welfare, the comfort, the convenience or the order of the Town
will not be adversely affected. The house has been located to face Sound Road in order to
promote the proper development of this parcel. A higher fence is proposed along County Route
48 to provide privacy and safety to the residents of the house. However should the height
variance be denied, the property will be fenced in accordance with the Town Code to protect the
occupants from the noise and vehicles traveling along County Route 48.
D. The use is in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this chapter.
By the use being deemed a special permit use, the Town de~ermined that the two-family use is in
harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this chapter. Framike Realty Coro..
v. I-Iinck. 632 N.Y.S. 2d 177, 220 A.D. 2d 501 (2nd Dept., 1995).
E. The use will be compatible with its surroundings. The design of this residence will be
identical in exterior design as a single family residence. The visibility, scale and overall
appearance will be the same as a new single family home on a parcel which is double in size to
most of the homes on Sound Road. Sound Road contains neatly kept homes which are
predominantly preexisting nonconforming structures on undersized lots.
F. All proposed structures, equipment and material will be readily accessible for fire and
police protection. This will be a new home in compliance with New York State Fire Prevention
and Building Code.
The Zoning Board will further consider section 100-264:
A. The character of the existing and probable development of uses and the particular
suitability of this district for the location of any such permitted use. The use permitted is
residential, the only difference between the proposed two family and single family use is the
relationship of the occupants. The size of the house will remain the same, the only design
difference of the house will be the need for two kitchens. Matter of Catherine P.Mason v.
Town of Clifton Park, Supra., 422 N.Y.S.2d 166, 72 A.D. 2d 899 (3rd Dept., 1979)
B. The conservation of property values and the encouragement of the most appropriate uses
of land. The property was zoned Business when the owner purchased this property, he is trying
to maintain the value of the property with a two family residence. The use remains residential.
C. The location of the proposed use, etc., the front of the house will be Sound Road and the
ingress and egress will also be maintained on Sound Road.
D. The availability of adequate and proper water supply, sewage, refuse, etc.
While the application was being processed by the Zoning Board, the application was submitted in
October 24, 1997, the Suffolk County Water Authority acquired the Village of G-reenport water
system and imposed a moratorium on new hookups. The water main runs adjacent to this
property and the applicant has a right to connect to public water when the water moratorium
terminates. The moratorium is awaiting the Town and Water Authority completion of their water
management plan. This parcel cannot presently get public water whether it is a sinele family
residence or two-family residence. The applicant wishes to proceed with the application and
make the special permit approval may be conditioned on public water hookup.
E. Not applicable.
F. Not applicable
The use will not cause interference with parking or recreational facilities.
H. Not applicable
I. No hazard to life, limb or property will be caused by this residential use.
No overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population will be caused by this use.
The plot area is sufficient, appropriate an.d adequate.. ~ ~: L~f'~'t~; ~./'
No ore~ v~rlan~g~ are reouired.fsee Pmnt ~/I o . .~o- ~-.~-~"~ ~
Not relevant, in that the use is residential. ~ ~- C//¥/~f ~, ,.~,,~.v-~.~
M. The proposed site is particularly suited for a two family residence in that the location is
near the Cn'eenport Village shopping district, public transportation is available by bus and train,
and the property is near the Long Island Sound public beach.
N. There is adequate buffer yards for the residential use, the applicant has requested a 6 foot
fence along the County Route 48 to give the occupants a nice private and secluded sideyard. In
the event the 6 foot fence is denied the applicant will place a 4 foot fence along County Route 48
to buffer the occupants from the highway.
O. Adequate provisions will be made for storm water runoff, sewage and refuse.
P. The natural characteristics of the site will not be disturbed any greater than a single family
residence.
POINT II
The parcel is recognized by the Town as a "single and separate" parcel pursuant to Town
Code Section 100-24. "The purpose of single and senarate ownershin exceotlon clauses to
zoning amendments is to nrotect Iomt-term ~rooertv owners from amendments that render
useless their nrevlouslv ennformin~ orooertv, thus ~reventinff restrictive zonln~ ordinances
from h~ving possible unconstitutional confiscatory effect". Andrew P. DeTroia v.
Schweitzer, 87 N.Y.2d 338, 639 N.Y.S. 2d 299 (Ct of Appeals, Jan. 16,1996)
Therefore, no area variances are required with regard to the proposed use on the subject
parcel.
POINT III
The Chairman raised the issue of whether the "Density and Minimum Lot Size Schedule
for Residential Districts"schedule requires two acres for a two-family use in R40 (one acre
zoning). The Schedule states that where community water is available the schedule is "NA" ( not
applicable). Conflicts between sections of the town zoning ordinance regarding whether the
parcel size is doubled by the proposed two-family use must be resolved in favor &the applicant.
It is a well established principle in Zoning law that "zoning regulations, being in derogation of the
common law, must be strictly construed against the municipality which has enacted and seeks to
enforce them, and any ambieuity in the language used must be resolved in favor of the
nrooerty owner" Hess Realty Corp. V. Planning Commission &the Town of Rotterdam, 603
N.Y.S.2d 95. 198 A.D.2d 588 (Third Dept. 1993~.
The schedule is in conflict with the English language, as well as the text of the chapters
referring to Nonconforming lots, section 100-244 and with the text of the chapter which allows
this use by Special Permit. Such conflicts must be resolved in favor of the applicant.
The Petikas parcel will be developed with public water. The applicant will have to wait
for water availability in the Fall. This requirement is applicable for a single family residence and
two family residence. Mr. Petikas understands that he will be waiting for water availability in
order to obtain a building permit.
CONCLUSION
In light of the facts of this case and the law the Special Permit for a two-family residential
use should be granted.
Reason for Appeal Continued
Zoning Board of Appeals
re: Maria & Theodore Petikas
Pursuant to Town Law section 267b-3 the Southold Town Zoning
Board of Appeals is to analyze and asses the personal benefits
anticipated by the applicant against the potentially deleterious
effects that a grant of the relief requested would have on the
health, safety and welfare of the effected neighborhood or
community. In ~erforming this balancing test, the Zoning Board is
charged with the responsibility to consider the five factors
enumerated in Town Law Section 267b-3(b). The variance should be
granted for the following reasons:
1. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if the variance
is granted.
The parcel is located on the corner of County Route 48 and Sound
Road. This corner was formerly zoned business because of the
commercial character of the area. The proposed two family home
will appear from the outside as a single family home, will be
modest in size with a proposed footprint of 50 feet by 30 feet, and
will use Sound Road as the front property line. The applicants
would also request a fence along CR 48 of 6 feet in order to
preserve the privacy of the side and rear yard.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by
some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an
area variance.
The applicant purchased this parcel for $80,000 in 1985 because the
property was commercially zoned, he would not have otherwise
purchased a residential lot on a busy corner for that price. The
two family residence will generate a greater return than a single
family residence, and provide rental opportunities in the Town of
Southold.
3. The area variance is not substantial The application of the
balancing test weighs in favor of the grant of the variance.
The property was at one time two lots which merged into one 21,483
sq.ft. Lot.
The property has been single & separate since, at least, 1985 when
the applicants purchased the property. The proposed building
envelope of the residence will comply with all setbacks.
4. The variance will have no adverse'~effect or impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district.
The two family residence will have no greater effect or impact on
the physical or environmental conditions than a similarly sized
single family residence
5. The alleged difficulty was not self-created. After extensive
research to be sure that they had a commercially zoned parcel the
applicants purchased this property not a residentially zoned
property. The lot size was created in conformity with the other
properties in this area.
6. The variance requested is the minimum variance practicable
given the personal benefits anticipated by the applicant. Even
with the lot size of 21,483 sq. ft. The applicant has located a
structure which conforms to the R-40 area regulations. The lot has
been less than the required one acre minimum since , at minimum,
1985.
The applicants have suffered a significant loss with the rezoning.
Even at today"s values, a residential lot at this location is not
valued at $80,000.
We respectfully reguest that the appeal be granted, together with
any further relief that is deemed necessary and reasonable.
State of New York )
)ss
County of Suffolk )
Sworn to this ~ day
617-3.1
Appendix C
State ~,~vironmerttal Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For tJNMSTE~ AC'T~ONS Only
=ART I--PROJEOT INFORMATION (To be comoleted by Aol2dcant or Proiec! s~aonsor)
SEQR
If the ac*,ion is in the Caastal Area. and '/ou are a state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form before Croceeciincj with trois assessment
OVER
I (Continued on reverse s de)
(b) If any quest-ion ha~ been answer--d Yes the orojec-~ may be sig-
L. Will project result in a large ~hy=ical change
~uC~m =e~sa~onal opport~i~es? ~es /No
(1-516) 765-1809 tel.
OFFICE OF
BOA.KD OF APPEALS
53095 W.-{- Road.
Southold, NY' 11971
(1-516) 765-1823 fax
X Variance from the Zoning Code, Article_~ , Section
Variance from Oetermination of Southold Town Building Inspector
Special Exception, Article
, Section
__ Special Permit
Appeal No: 4526 Applicant: Theodore & Maria Petikas
Location of Affected Land:
Southold,N.Y.
County Tax Map Item No.: lO%%BneBN~'8m
Within 500 feet of:
11971
Town or Village Boundary Line
Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary)
x
State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway
Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Owned Land
Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or other
Recreation Area
Existing or Proposed Right-of-Way of any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by
the County or for which the County has established Channel Lines, or
Comments:
Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant
Within One Mile of an Airport
Applicant is requesting permission, to
I nt'g'ize. Bulk ~ched,,le
Copies of Town
Dated: ~
file an~ related ~ocuments enclose~ for your review.
1998
Maria T. Petikas
Theodore P. Petikas
225 Stewart Avenue
Bethpage, NY 11714
October 17, 1997
Patficia C. Moore, Esq.
31 $ Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Dear Ms. Moore:
We, Maria T. Petikas and Theodore P. Petikas, residing at 225 Stewart Avenue,
B~hpage, NY 11714 hereby authorize you to make an application to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, Town of Southold on our beh~.
Very truly yours,
Maria T. Petikas
Theodore P. Petikas
AP['LTCANT
TItANSACTXONAL DXSCLO~URE FOlt~
Tile Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts oF
interest on tile part of town officers and employees. The
purpose of this form is to provide information which can
alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow
it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same.
YOUR NAHE:
(Last name, first name, middle Initial, uti.less
yon are applying in the name of
other entity, st]cb as a company.
the other person's or company's
If so, indicate
NATURE OF APPLICATION.- (CLeric all that apply. )
'Fax grievance
Variance
Change of zone
Approval of plat
Exemption from plat or official map
Other
(If "other,- name the activity. )
parent, or child) bav~ a relationobip with any officer or
employee of th~ Town of Soutbold? 'R~latlon~hip- ~nulude~
by blood, marriage, or bu~ine,, int~re,t.
wbfcb the town officer or employee has even a partial
ownership of (or employment l)y) a corporatton In vhicb
tile town officer o~ employee owng mote than 5% of tile
YES NO
If you answered 'YES," comp.l_ete tile balance of tills form and
date and sign where indicated.
Name of person employed by tile Town of Southold
Title or position of that person
Describe tile relationship between yourself (tbs applicant)
and tile town officer or employee. Either check tbs
appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space
provided.
Tile town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling,
parent, or child is (check ali. that apply).
A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the
corporate stock of the applicant (when tbs applicant
is a corporatlon)~
, B tile legal or benefic~al owner of any interest in a
noncorporate eutity (when the applicaet is not a
corporation):
__C an officer, director, partser, or employee of the
applicantl
__D tbs actual applicant.
DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSIIIP
Signature
/~;~o-.~--/-- TOWN OF $OUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD
OWNER STRE~ b q q ~ 5 V,~,. ~,S~SU,.
5 W ~PE OF BUILDING
RES.-~ , S~S. VL. ~"ll FARM COMM. CB. ~M~Mkt. Valu.
N~ NOR~L BELOW ABOVE
FARM Acr. Valu. P~r ' Valu.
"Acre.'
Ti~ 1 -'
Tillabl.
Woodlaqd .
Swampland FRONTAGE ON WAT~ ',
Brushland FRONTAGE ON ROAD
House Plot DEPTH
~ ~ ~. , .~ ~ BULKH~D
COLOR
TRIM
M. Bldg. Foundation
Extension . . Basement
Extension
Extension
Porch
Breezewoy
Potio
,!
TOtal
Ext. Walls
Fire Place
Type Roof
{ecreation Roor
Dormer
Drivewoy
I-I I I/ III IIIIIIII
1/ I I I I I I I I I II I IIIIILI_J_I 1_1
Bath ~inette
Floors ,' ·
Interior Finish LR. /
-loot
Rooms 1st Floor
Rooms 2nd Floo,
DR.
BR.
FIN. B.
PROPERTY RECORD CARD
.,~ · ~.% , _,:~, _~ W TYPE OF BUILDING
~,~_ ,.-,-~-. :,~ !:: ':~0~ - :-~- - :-
~ND ' ' IMP. I TOTAL DATE R~RKs
' -'~ ~1':/, - V ~'t~ ~ .,~
> - .... ~ ~ ~. J .......................
- A(~E .......... BUILD1NG CONDITION
NEW- :7 -Nb~A~L- - !- - B~EL-OW .... ABOVE ......
Value Per _V_a l~u.~ _
Acre.
tillable
~rushland
-louse Plot
Fatal
FRONTAGE ON WATER
FRONTAGE ON ROAD
DEPTH
BULKHEAD
DOCK
SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY
STATE OF NEW YORK
....
...............................
Theodore Petikas and Maria Petikas,
Petitioners,
for a judgment pursuant to
Article 78 of the CPLR
-against-
NOTICE OF PETITION
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman,
James Dinizio, Jr., Lydia A. Tortora,
Lora S. Collins, and George Horning
constituting the ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,
Respondents.
SIRS:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the annexed Petition, duly
verified the 16th day of June, 1998, the undersigned will move
this Court, at IAS Part II, to be held in and for the County of
Suffolk, at the Supreme Court, Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New
York, or at such other place as the assigned Justice shall
designate, on the ~! day of ~u~ ~ 1998 at 9:30
o'clock in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard, for a judgment, pursuant to Article 78 of
the civil Practice Law and Rules, (1) finding the respondent
arbitrary and capricious, and reversing and annulling the
decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals made on May 19, 1998 and
filed with the Town Clerk on May 27, 1998 denying the Special
Exception use, and (2) directing the respondents to grant the
Special Exception use without condition; and (3) annulling the
area variance determination in that the respondents acted without
legal authority, except with regard to that part of the decision
which grants an area variance for the height of a fence (not
before this Court) ; and (4)grant such other and further relief
as to the Court is just and proper.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a verified answer and
supporting affidavits, if any, must be served at least five (5)
days before the return date of this application.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to Section 7804 of
the Civil Practice Law and Rules, Respondent is directed to file
with the Clerk of the Court its answer-and answering affidavits,
if any, together with verified transcripts of the records of the
proceedings, together with the entire official file containing
the records of the hearings herein held by Respondent, including
the decision, application, testimony, exhibits, and all other
papers and documents submitted for consideration thereof.
This Proceeding is commenced in Suffolk County on the basis
that the subject decision was made and issued by the Respondent
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals in the said County.
Dated:
southold, New York
June 16, 1998
Attorney for Petitioner
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
(516) 765-4330
')~\~' RICHARDG WARD
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
TO:
FROM:
Gerard P. Goehringer
Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer~-~
RE:
Request for comments:
T. Petikas
Riverhead Building & Supply
M. Rosen Radio Tower
Nextel Communications
AMAC/ Former Empire Service Station
~T. Petikas
· Recommend that Suffolk County Department of Public Works be
notified as we understand that road work is planned for Route
48.
Riverhead Building & Supply
See attached memo dated April 1, 1998·
Rosen Radio Tower
· Board feels that Town Code Article XVI, 100-160, Wireless
Communication Facilities applies to this use.
Nextel Communications
· Board favors this collocation of antenna.
AMAC/former Empire Service Station
· See attached memo dated March 10, 1998
Attachments
June 26, 1985
Southold Town Bldg.
Southold Town Hall
Southold, NY
Re: C.O. for
C.O. for
Dept.
11971
Donald C. Delalla
Theodore Petikas (Spartan Holding)
Dear Dot and Helen:
Enclosed please find affidavit of Donald C.
the correct lot number.
I have also enclosed affidavit of Theodore
my check # 1037 in the amount of $10.00,
C.O.s for the above matters
Please issue
convenience.
MJI{: 6~~.,'
enc.
Sincerely,
Michael
Delalla with
Petikas and
at your earliest
J. Hall
TOWN HALL
SOUT HOLE~EW YORK
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
NONCONFORMING PREMISES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the
/--_x! Land
!x/ Building(s)
C'_/ use(s)
located at 175 C.R. 48 & 55 Sound Rd.
Pre C.0. #- Z13598
Date- ~
Greenport
Street Hamlet
shown on County tax map as District 1000, Section 035 , Block 01
Lot 008 , does{not,conform to the present Building Zone Code of the
Town of Southold for the following reasons:
Insufficient total area. Shed has insufficient set-backs.
On the basis of information presented to the Building Inspector's Office,
it has been determined that the above nonconforming /~/Land /--_X/Building(s)
/Z/Use(s) existed on the effecllve date the present Building Zone Code of the
Town of Southold. and may be continued pursuant to and subject to the appli-
cable provisions of said Code.
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that, based upon information presented to
the Building Inspector's' Office, the o~-cupancy and use for which this Certifi-
cate is issued is as follows: Property contains shed & table, property
situated in the A-Residential-Agricultural & BJLight Business
Zone with access to Sound Rd. a town maintained Rd. & CR 48 a
state maintained Rd., ( and County )
The Certificate is issued to SPARTAN HOLDING C0.
(owner,
of the aforesaid building.
Suffolk County Department of Health Approval N/A
UNDER~q{ITERS CERTIFICATE NO.
N/A
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the owner of the above premises PLUS
NOT CONSENTED TO AN INSPECTION of the premises by the Building Inspes-
tor to determine ff the premises comply with al! applicable codes and ordin-
ances, other than the Building Zone Code, and therefore, no such inspection
has been conducted. This Certificate, therefore, does not, and is not intended
to certify that the premises comply with all other applicable codes and regula-
tions.
Buiidin~ inspector
473889
35. -1-8
55 SOUND RD
SOUTHOLD ~
21 ·
: OWNER & MAILING INFO ==:I:MISCt ?~4~$~9~
==DIMENSIONS
ACRES
=======TOTAL
CODE AMOUNT PCT
Fl=NEXT PARCEL
75.10- 03-050
NYSRPS ASSESSMENT INQUIRY
SCHOOL ERE IPORT SCHOOL
RES
DATE : 10/01/2001
ROLL SEC TAXABLE
TOTAL RES SITE
TOTAL COM SITE
ACCT NO 17
~= ASSESSMENT DATA ===========
'** RES PERCENT
3,300 COUNTyTelcph°n¢(631) 765~05200
TOWN 3,300
1,100 SCHOOL 3,300
TOTAL 1,100
===1======= SALES
· 49 IBOOK 9777 ~T~-~j~SALE PRICE ' 80,000
I PAGE 00577 PR'O~NER-SPIRT-A~--PFOLDING CO
EXEMPTIONS 0 =============~== TOTAL SPECIAL DISTRICTS 3 =====
INIT TERM VLG HC OWN CODE UNITS PCT TYPE VALUE
IFD031
IWW020
ISW011
F3=NEXT EXEMPT/SPEC F4=PREV EXEMPT/SPEC
F6=GO TO INVENTORY F9=GO TO XREF F10=GO TO MENU
FORM NO. 6
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
Building Department
Town Hall
8outhold, N.Y. 11971
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
In~'uctions
A. This application must be filled in typewriter OR ink. and submitted in duplicate to the Building Inspec-
tor with the following; for new buildings or new use:
1. Final' survey:Df property with accurate location of all buildings, property lines, streets, and unusual
natural or topographic features.
2. Final approval of Health Dept. of water supply and sewerage disposal-(S*9 form or equal).
3. Approval of .electrical installation from Board of Fire Underwriters.
4. Commercial buildings, Industrial buildings, Multiple Residences and similar buildings and installa-
tions, a certificate of Code compliance from the Architect or Engineer responsible for the building.
5. Submit Planning Board approval of completed site plan requirements where applicable.
B. For existing buildings (prior to April 1957), Non-conforming uses, or buildings and "pre-existing"
land uses:
1. Accurate survey of peoperty showing all property lines, streets, buildings and unusual natural or
topographic ~features.
2. Sworn statement of owner or previous owner as to use, occupancy and condition of buildings.
3. Date of any J~ousing code or safety inspection of buildings or premises, or o~ther pertinent informa-
tion requiredito prepare a certificate.
Fees:
1. Certificate of occupancy $5.00 .
2. Certificate of occupancy on pre-existing dwelling or land use
3. Copy of certificate of occupancy $1.00
$5.00
Date ..
May 30, 1985
New Building ............. Old or Pre-existing Building(X) . r Vaca n ...- .........
Location of Property 175 County Road 48 and' 5.5 Sound..R.o,a..d.:.Green~ort
Houze NO. $~/eet Hamlet
Owner or Owners of Property . (The°dare & Ma..r.~re Petikas.~:~)~'~(C~C~(~f~
Co nty Tax Map NO 1000 Section ,035. Block 01. Lot .08
Subdivision Filed Map No Lot No
Permit No Date of Permit Applicant '
Health Dept. ApprovAl ........................ Labor Dept. Approval ............ ~..
Underwriters Approval .................... -.. · Planning Board Approval .................. - "
Request for Temporary Certificate ..................... Final Certificat~ ....X,..
Fee Submitted $ ........................
C.?~ns, I~f~tig~.~n a_~boye described building and permtt~ meets all apptipable~,ode~ and regula~i0n%.
AFFIDAVIT
Re: Theodore petikas
Premises: 175 County Road 48/55 Sound Road
Greenport, New York
STATEOF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ss.:
Theodore Petikas, being duly sworn deposes and says:
That I am one of the owners of premises described on Suffolk
County Tax Map as 1000-035-01-08. That I believe that the
premises have been used continuously since April 23, 1957
for business purposes and is suitable for continued business
use and Certificate of Occupancy for same.
THEODORE I~ETI KAS
Sworn to
day of J~
before me this 1vi~~
tne, ~985. ~'~
~ publiC, ~tato ol N~ Yorg
No. Z0~723436 O/
Q ' ' Gs r~ar 30i'19J
Memorandum from...
BUILDING INSPECTORS OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TOWN HALL, BOX 728, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
765-1802
FOLLOW-UP and UPDATE FOR YOUR RECORD:
TO: All ZBA Members
FROM: ZBA Chairman via ZBA Office
Attached is an (original)~ of/~ ~/a.~) 7~r/r~ ~'/~/(hew
inforrm~tion added to the original Town ZBA~f~e)
re: Pending Application of ' ~ .
Piacmd in Member' office nm. il boxes lot' update on 51/2[0~ b~ff~
Board. Tr-ans
Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt.
works
632 N.Y.S.2d 177, 220 A.D.2d 501, Framike Realty Corp. v. Hinck,
(N~Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1995)
· 177 632 N.Y.S.2d 177
220 A.D.2d 501
In the Matter of FI~AMZKE REALTY CORP.,
v.
Robert W. RINCKv Br., et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department.
Oct. 10, 1995.
Village board of trustees denied application for special
exception permit for proposed drive-in restaurant. Those seeking
permit'sought review. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, Robbins,
J., dismissed proceeding, and appeal was taken. The Supreme
Court, Appellate Division, held that: (1) unlike variance,
special exception permit classification is tantamount to finding
that, if conditions are met, use is in harmony with general
zoning plan and will not adversely affect neighborhood and
surrounding areas, and (2) generalized complaints by residents as
to increased traffic and insufficient parking were insufficient
to counter evidence that roads were able to handle any increase
'in traffic and, thus, there was no basis for denial of special
exception permit application.
Reversed.
ZONING AND PLANNING k482
414 ....
414IX Variances or Exceptions
414IX(A) In General
414k482 Variance and exception distinguished.
[See headnote text below]
1. ZONIN~ AND PLANNING k483
414 ....
414IX Variances or Exceptions
414IX(A) In General
414k483 Permit, variance and alteration of
regulations distinguished.
N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1995.
Unlike variance, special permit or special
exception permit allows owner to use subject property in manner
expressly permitted by law.
2. ZONING ARD PLANNING k378.1
414 ....
414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals
414VIII(A) In General
414k378 Grounds for Grant or Denial
~ 414k378.1 In general.
N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1995.
Special permit or special exception permit
classification is tantamount to legislative finding that, if
special exception conditions are met, such uses are in harmony
with general zoning plan and will not adversely affect
neighborhood and surrounding areas.
3. ZONING AND PLANNING k387
414 ....
414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals
414VIII(A) In General
414k384 Nature of Particular Structures or
Uses
414k387 Amusements and restaurants.
N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1995.
While board of trustees of village was free to
consider matters related to public welfare in determining whether
to grant or deny special exception permit for proposed drive-in
restaurant, it was impermissible to deny special exception permit
solely on basis of residents~ generalized objections and concerns
about increase in traffic, which amounted to community pressure.
e
ZONING AND PLANNING k387
414 ....
414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals
414VIII(A) In General
414k384 Nature of Particular Structures or
414k387 Amusements and restaurants.
2 Dept. 1995.
Generalized complaints of residents as to
increased traffic and insufficient parking for proposed drive-in
restaurant, which were uncorroborated by any empirical data or
expert opinion, were insufficient to counter evidence submitted
by experts that area roads were able to handle any increase in
traffic from drive-in restaurant~ thus, there was no basis upon
which board of trustees for village could properly base denial of
application for specf~l exception permit for the proposed
restaurant.
· 178o Forchelli, Schwartz, Mineo & Carlino, Mineola (Peter
R. Mineo, of counsel), for appellant.
Spellman & Walsh, Garden City
counsel), for respondents.
(John P. Gibbons, Jr., of
Before O~BRIEN, J.P., and JOY, ALTMAN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a
determination of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mineola,
dated January 19, 1994, which denied the petitioner's application
for a special exception permit for a drive-in restaurant, the
appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County
(Robbins, J.), dated August 29, 1994, which dismissed the
proceeding.
ORDERED that the Judgment is reversed, on the law, with
costs, the petition is granted, the determination is annulled,
and the proceeding is remitted to the Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mineola for the purpose of issuing the special
exception permit requested by the petitioner, subject to such
appropriate conditions and restrictions as may be imposed.
[1] [2] [3] Unlike a variance, a special permit: or special
exception allows an owner to use the subject property in a manner
expressly permitted by law (see, Matter of North Shore Steak . ~
House v. Board of Appeals, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645, 282
N.E.2d 606; Matter of C.B.H. Props. v. Rose, 205 A.D.2d 686,-613
N.Y.S.2d 913). Such a classification is tantamount to a
legislative finding that, if the special exception conditions are
[220 A.D.2d 502] met, such use is in harmony with the general
zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood and
the surrounding areas (see, Matter of Robert Lee Realty Co. v.
Village of Spring Val., 61 N.Y.2d 892, 474 N.Y.S.2d 475, 462
N.E.2d 1193; Matter of North Shore Steak House v.>Board of
'Appeals, supra; Matter of C.B.H. Props. v. Rose, supra ). While
the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mineola (hereinafter the
Board of Trustees) was free to consider matters related to the
public welfare in determining whether to grant or deny a special
exception or permit (see, Cummings v. Town Bd. of North Castle,
62-N.Y.2d 833, 477 N.Y.S.2d 607, 466 N.E.2d 147; Matter of C & B
Realty Co. v. Town Bd. of Town Oyster Bay, 139 A.D.2d 510, 526
N.Y.S.2d 612), it was impermissible to deny a special exception
or permit solely on the basis of generalized objections and
concerns of.the neighboring or adjoining community expressed by
members thereof, which, in effect, amount to mcommunity pressure"
(Matter of Robert Lee Realty Co. v. Village of Spring Val.,
supra, at 894, 474 N.~..S.2d 475, 462 N.E.2d 1193). Further,
generalized complaints about traffic from local residents
duscribing existing conditions are insufficient to counter an
expert opinion based on empirical studies that "the existing
street system could handle the projected increase in traffic"
(Matter of Oyster Bay Dev. Corp. v. Town Bd. of Town of Oyster
Bay, 88 A.D.2d 978, 979, 451 N.Y.S.2d 796; see also, Matter of
Triangle Inn v. Lo Grande, 124 A.D.2d 737, 508 N.Y.S.2d 240;
Green v. LoGrande, 96 A.D.2d 524, 464 N.Y.S.2d 831; see also,
Matter of Old Country Burgers Co. v. Town Bd. of the Town of
Oyster Bay,
160 A.D.2d 805,
553 N.Y.S.2d 843).
[4] In this instance, the generalized complaints of the
'residents as to increased traffic and insufficient parking, an~
the, summary recommendation of the Village of Mineol& Plan~ing .~
Board, were uncorroborated by any empirical data or expert
opinion. Therefore, there was insufficient evidenceto counter
the evidence submitted by the appellantts expertethat the area
roads were able to handle any increase in traffl=.'?~Thus,~there
-~'wae-no basis in the record upon which the Board of Trustees could
'~properly base a denial of the application and the petition should
have been granted.
Copyright (c) West Publishing Co. 1997 No claim to original U.S.
Govt. works.
422 N.Y.S.2d 166, 72 A.D.2d 889, Mason v. Zoning B~. of Appeals
of Town.of Clifton Park, (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 1979)
· 166 422 N..Y.S.2d 166
72 A.D.2d 889
In the Matter of Catherine P. MASON, Respondent,
v~
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF CLIFTON PARK, AppslXant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
Nov. 29, 1979.
Property owner instituted Artiole 78 proceeding seeking
order directing zoning board to issue special permit. The
Supreme Court at Special Term, Saratoga County, Harold R. Soden,
J., granted the property owner's application, and zoning board'
appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that: (1)
proper standards were not applied by zoning board in denying the.
property owner's application for a special use permit; (2)
reasons submitted by the zoning board for denying the application
were inadequate; and (3) property owner was not entitled to award
of costs absent showing that the zoning board acted with gross
negligence, in bad faith, or with malice.
Affirmed as modified.
ZONING AND PLANNING k391
414 ....
414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals
414VIII(A) In General
414k384 Nature of Particular Structures or
Uses
414k391
trailer parks.
N.Y.A.D., 1979.
Multiple dwellings, lodgings and
Fact that neighborhood consisted of one-family
residences was not proper standard to apply as basis for denying
application for special use permit for sale as duplex of
previously modified h6use where such special use would not affect
character of the neighborhood since the physical structure of the
house would not be altered and only change which would result was
that occupants of the two units in the house would not have to be
related.
e
ZONING AND PLANNING k391
414 ....
414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals
414VIII(A) In General
414k384 Nature of Particular Structures or
Uses
414k391
trailer parks.
N.Y.A.D., 1979.
Multiple dwellings,
lodgings and ~.,
· Where two-family dwellings were use permitted by
special exception under specific zoning classification, purported
fact that duplex was not use of residence allowed under such
classification was not proper standard upon which tobase denial
of application for special use permit to permit sale of house'as
duplex.
ZONING AND PLANNING k378.1
414 ....
414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals
414VIII(A) In General
414k378 Grounds for Grant or Denial
414k378.1 In general.
Formerly 414k378
N.Y.A.D., 1979.
Special permit, unlike variance,
showing of hardship.
did not require
o
414VIII(A)
414k384
Uses
414k391
'trailer parks.
N.Y.A.D., 1979.
ZONING AND PLANNING k391
414 ....
414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals
In General
Nature of Particular Structures or
Multiple dwellings, lodgings and
Financial benefit owner would reap from sale of
residence as duplex was not proper criterion in zoning ordinance
for granting special permit.
5. ZONING AND PLANNING k436.1
414 ....
414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals
414VIII(C) Proceedings to Procure
414k436 Hearing and Determination
414k436.1 In general.
Formerly 414k436
N.Y.A.D., 1979.
Unanimous vote by zoning board against special
permit constituted act of rejection and not reason for rejection.
.6. MANDAMUS kl90
250 ....
~' . .........250III Jurisdiction, Proceedings, and Relief
~ ~ 250k190 Costs.
N.Y.A.D., 1979.
In Article 78 proceeding in which order directing
zoning board to issue special permit was-sought, petitioner was
not entitled to award of costs absent showing that zoning board
acted with gross negligence, in bad faith, or withmalioe. Town
Law Sec. 267, s~bd. 8.
Kevin M. Dailey, Clifton Park, for appellant.
Robert M. Jacon, East Greenbush, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and GREENBLOTT, MAIN,
MIKOLLand HERLIHY, JJ.
· 167 MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term,
entered November 13, 1978 in Saratoga County, which granted
petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR
article 78, for an order directing the issuance of a special
permit.
Petitioner obtained a building permit from the Town of
Clifton Park in 1971 to construct an addition to her house. The
addition, consisting of two bedrooms, a living room, kitchen and
bathroom, had a separate entrance and was used as a residence by
petitioner's son and his wife. Because two-family dwellings are
a use permitted by special exception in the R-1 residential
district in which her house was located, petitioner, now desirous
of selling her home as a duplex, applied to the Tow~ Zoning Board
of Appeals in 1978 for a special use permit. The application was
referred to the Town Planning Board which recommended that the
special permit be denied because (1) the neighborhood consisted
of one-family residences, (2) .a duplex is not allowed in an R-1
zone, and (3) denial of the permit would not cause an u~due
hardship. After a public hearing, the zoning boarddenied
petitioner's[72 A.D.2d 890] application due to the'fact that (1)
the area is zoned for single-family homes, (2) petitioner would
reap a substantial financial benefit if allowed to'sell the house
as a duplex, and (3) the zoning board's vote against the permit.
· was unanimous. Petitioner then'instituted this article 78
proceeding ~or an order directing the zoning board to issue her a
special permit. The zoning board appeals from a determination<of
Special Term granting the relief requested and awarding~¢osts to
petitioner.
[1][2][3] Proper standards were not applied in'denying
petitioner's application for a special use permit.~ The local~
zoning law provides'the criteria to be utilized by,the planning
board, which is authorized to consider "among other~things,·the.~>.r
need~for the proposed use in the proposed location~the~existl
of the neighborhoo~ in which the use would b e-:located
and'~the safeguards provided to minimize possible ~detrimental>.'i
~effeots of the pUrposed use on adjacent property. W~?Contrarv to
the first reason given by the planning board for recommending /'
denial of the special use permit, petitioner's application will
not affect the character of the neighborhood since the physical
structure of the house will not be altered and theonly~ohange
contemplated is that the occupants of the two units will not have
to be related. The planning board's second ground for denial is
inv$1id.-since uses permitted by special exceptionare expressly
allowed in an R-1 zone (Matter of North Shore Steak House v.
Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 331
N.Y.S.2d 645, 282 N.E.2d 606~ Matter of l(night v. Bodkin, 41
A.D.2d 413, 344 N.Y.S.2d 170). In addition, a special permit,
unlike a variance, does not require a showing of hardship (Matter
of Pleasant Vel. Home Constr. v. Van Wagner, 41 N.¥.2d 1028, 395
N.Y.S.2d 631, 363 N.E.2d 1376).
[4][5] Moreover, the reasons submitted by the zoning board
for denying petitioner's application are also inadequate. The
first reason given has already been disposed of. The second
reason advanced, that petitioner would reap a financial benefit,
is not a criterion in the zoning ordinance for granting a special
permit and thus not relevant to the zoning board~e decision (eee
Matter of Pleasant Vel. Home Constr. v. Van Wagner, ~eupra I
Matter of Knight v. Bodkin, supra ). The final reason, given by
the zoning board is that its vote against the special permit was
unanimous. This vote constitutes the Act of rejection and no= a
Reason for rejection. The finding of the zoning board is,
therefore, not supported by any evidence and SpecialTerm
properly ordered the zoning board to issue the special permit
(see Matter of Ouderkirk v. Board of Appeal of Town of Bethlehem,
58 A.D.2d 667, 395 N.Y.S.2d 525).
[6] Special Term was not, however, Justified in awarding
Costs to the petitioner absent a finding that the zoning board
acted with gross negligence, in bad faith, or withmalice (Town
Law, s 267, subd. 8). Accordingly, the judgment of SpecialTerm
· 168. should be modified by striking the provision awarding costs
to petitioner (Matter of Franciscan Missionaries of Mary v.
Herdman, 7 A.D.2d 993, 184 N.Y.S.2d 104, affd. 7 N.Y.2d 829, 196
N.Y.S.2d 705, 164 N.E.2d 723).
Order modified, on the law and the facts, by striking
therefrom the provision awarding costs to petitioner, and,
modified, affirmed, without costs.
as so
Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt.
works
639 N.Y.S.2d 299,
1996~)
87 N.Y.2d 338, DeTroia v.
*299 639 N.Y.S.2d 299
Schweitzer, (N.Y.
87 N.Y.2d 338, 662 N.E.2d 779
In the Matter of Andrew P. DeTROIA st al., Appellants,
Vo
Joseph SC~w~ITZER et al., Constituting the Zoning Boar~ of
Appeals of the Village of Farming~ale, Respondents.
Landowners brought action for judicial review of decision by
village zoning board of appeals to deny building permit. The
Supreme Court, Nassau County, Robbins, J., annulled determination
of village zoning board of appeals. Appeal was taken. The
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 206 A.D.2d 370, 614 N.Y.S.2d
325, reversed. Landowners were granted leave to appeal. The
Court of Appeals, Levine, J., held that scope of single and
separate ownership exemption to zoning restrictions was not
limited to lots substandard in total square footage area, but
included lots substandard in width and frontage.
Reversed.
N.Y. 1996.
ZONING AND PLANNING k254
414 ....
414V Construction, Operation and Effect
414V(B) Architectural and Structural Designs
414k254 Area and frontage requirements.
Scope of single and separate ownership exemption
to zoning restrictions was not limited to lots substandard in
total square footage area, but included lots substandard as to
width and frontage; use of phrase "any plot smaller in area than
herein required" did not refer solely to lots substandard in
total square footage area.
N.Y. 1996.
ZONING AND PLANNING k254
414 ....
414V Construction, Operation and Effect
414V(B) Architectural and Structural Designs
414k254 Area and frontage requirements.
thus preventing?~estrictive
ordinances from having possible unconstitutional confiscatory
effect.
APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals,
fro~ an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in
the Second Judicial Department, entered July 5, 1994, which (1)
reversed, on the law, a judgment of the Supreme Court (Alfred S.
Robbins, J.), entered in Nassau County in a proceeding pursuant
to CPLR article 78, granting the petition, annulling a
determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of
Farmingdale that denied appellants~ application for a building
permit, and directing the Zoning Board of Appeals to issue the
building permit, (2) confirmed the determination, and I3)
dismissed the proceeding.
*300 [662 N.E.2d 780] Matter of DeTroia v. Schwei~zer, 206
A.D.2d 370, 614 N.Y.S.2d 325, reversed.
[87 N.Y.2d 339] Anthony B. Tohi11, P.C., Riverhead (Anthony
B. Tohill, of counsel), for appellants.
James L. Breen, Farmingdale, for respondents.
[87 N.Y.2d 340] OPINION OF THE COURT
LEVINE, Judge.
Appellants are the owners of a vacant lot situated in a
residence AA zoning district in the Village of Farmingdale,
Nassau County. The lot has remained in an individual ownership,
separate from any adjoining lots, at least since 1899, and had
that status on December 7, 1942, when the first Farmingdale
Zoning Ordinance was enacted. The Zoning Ordinance, as amended
in 1959 and 1988, provided for building restrictions on
dimensionally substandard lots in an AA zoning district as
follows:
"Lot area.
"No principal building and accessory buildings shall be
erected upon a lot that has a street frontage and minimum lot
width at the front and rear wall of the principal building of
less than seventy-five (75) feet and a lot area of less than
seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet (Code of
Village of Farmingdale s 105-39)."
The Zoning Ordinance, however, contains a "single and
separate ownership" clause (see, i Anderson, New York Zoning Law
and Practice s 9.43, at 473 [3d ed] providing for the relief of
lots which became substandard as a result of the subsequent
adoption of zoning restrictions:
"Existing.nonconforming lots.
"Any plot smaller in area than herein required in which the
ownership at the time of the adoption of this ordinance
differs from the ownership of all adjoining plotslmay be
improved with buildings which shall comply ~o faras
~racticable with the provisions of this ordinance (Code of
Village of Farmingdale s 105-154)."
[87 N.Y.2d 341] Appellants! lot has a frontage and width of
63.55 feet and an over-all area of 10,804 square feet. In March
1991, they applied for a building permit to construct a single-
family residence on their property. Their lot is subject to
various covenants and restrictions preventing any'development of
the property other than construction of a single-family
residence. Appellants claimed entitlament to a building permit
without applying for and being granted a variance from the
dimensional requirements of Village Code s 105-39 rudder the
single and separate ownership exemption of the Zoning Ordinance.
However, the Village Zoning Hoard of Appeals (ZBA),to whom the
matter was referred, denied their permit application without
explanation. After appellants commenced this proceeding to
challenge that determination, the ZBA rendered a decision that
the single and separate ownership exemption only applied to lots
substandard in total square footage area, not as to width and
frontage. The ZBA, thus, ruled that, since the total area of
appellants~ lot exceeded the minimum of 7,500 square feet in
section 105-39, they were not entitled to the exemption,
notwithstanding that the lot was rendered substandard by
subsequently enacted minimum frontage and width restrictions.
[1] Supreme Court rejected the ZBA~s restrictive
interpretation of the single and separate ownership exemption and
annulled its denial of appellants~ building permit application.
The Appellate Division reversed, on the ground that the ZBA~s
determination had a rational basis (206 A.D.2d 370). We now
reverse, concluding that the ZBA's narrow construction of the
single and separate ownership exemption in the Zoning Ordinance
is unsupportable.
As quoted above, the ordinance sets forth all minimum
dimensional requirements (frontage, width and square footage) for
building lots under the generic heading "Lot area". The ZBA~s
interpretation violates the canon of construction that "8 term of
greater comprehension"includes a lesser term. The axiom that the
whole includes all of its parts is properly applied in the
construction of statutes" (McKinney~s Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 1,
Statutes s 237, at 403). Under that canon of construction, the
reference to a "plot smaller in area" (Code of Village of
Farmingdale s 105-154 [emphasis supplied] ,301. [662 N.E.2d 781]
in the single and separate ownership exemption, rather than
specifying an exemption based solely in terms of square feet,
should be interpreted as subsuming all of the dimensional
restrictions included in "Lot area" under section 105-39.
[2] [87 N.Y.2d 342] The ZBA~s confined interpretation also
manifestly undermines the purpose of the single and separate
ownership exemption and gives rise to arbitrary and inconsistent
applications of it. The purpose of single and separate ownership
exception clauses to zoning amendments is to protect long-term
property owners from amendments that render useless their
previously conforming property, thus preventing restrictive
zoning ordinances from having a possible unconstitutional
confiscatory effect. These exemptions are a part of most zoning
codes, and they serve an important and fair purpose (see, 1
Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice s 9.43, at 472-479 [3d
ed]. Farmingdale~s exception provision is typical. Indeed it is
indistinguishable from the "representative provision" cited by
Anderson (op. cit., at 473) insofar as both that provision and
Farmingdalets Code s 105-154 use the generic inclusive term
"area" rather than merely specify particular components of area.
Under such typical provisions "when the frontage or area
restrictions become effective * * * the owner of a substandard
lot need not seek a variance. He is entitled as of right to an
exception" (Anderson, op. cit., at 473 [emphasis supplied].
Here, the ZBA~s narrow interpretation of the exception
provision frustrates the ameliorative purpose of the ordinance.
Lots rendered substandard as to width or frontage by a zoning
ordinance are deprived of value in the same way as ones rendered
deficient as to square footage. Under the Boardts
interpretation, however, the exception clause is only effective
to prevent restrictive zoning amendments from having a possible
confiscatory effect if the land is deficient in square footage~
.property owners whose land is sufficient in square footage but
deficient in other components of area, i.e., width and or
frontage, are unprotected. No rational purpose is served, and
none is cited by the ZBA, by giving lots rendered nonconforming
as to frontage and width and square footage automatic exemptions,
but excluding previously conforming lots rendered nonconforming
only as to width or frontage. Thus, the ZBA~s interpretation
arbitrarily forces landowners such as petitioners into litigation
to protect their rights, despite an ordinance designed to protect
them as a matter of course.
.Cons.]
Finally, the ZBA's interpretation violates the rule of
construing zoning ordinances enunciated by this Court, which we
have already applied in construing a single and separate
ownership [87 N.Y.2d 343] exception provision: "Any ambiguity in
the language used in such regulations must be resolved in favor
of the property owner" Matter of Allen v. Adami, 39 N.Y.2d 275,
277, 383 N.Y.S.2d 565, 347 N.E.2d 890. Thus, the ZBA
incorrectly, construed the meaning of the term area--whether it
means only square footage or the dimensional components of length
and width in addition to square footage--against the landowner.
Because the ZBA~s construction arbitrarily undermines the purpose
of the clause, promotes unconstitutional takings, and violates
established rules of construction, it should not stand.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be
reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court
reinstated.
Order reversed, etc.
KAYE, C.J., and SIMONS, TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH and
CIPARICK, JJ., concur.
Page 30 - Hearin~'~l~ranscripts
May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals
7:56 P.M. - T. PETIKAS
Carryover hearings from March 23, 1998: Proposed two- family use
on a 21,000+- sq. ft. parcel in this R-40 Residential Zone District.
Location of Property: Corner of the Westerly side of Sound Road and
the Northerly side of North Road (C.R. 48), a/k/a Northerly end of
Main Street). Greenport; 1000-35-1-8, which requires approval from
the Board of Appeals for the following:
(a) Special Exception Application No. 4525 as provided by
Article III-A, Section 100-30A.2 for a two-family use/occupancy; and
(b) Variance Application No. 4526 as provided under Section
100-31A.3 for the reason that the substandard lot size of 21,483 sq.
ft. does not conform to the requirements for a two-family dwelling
use in this R-40 Zone District; and
(c) fence in excess of four feet height limitation within or
along front yard aro~s, based upon the building inspector's
February 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, Article XXIII, Section
100-231.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore how are you tonight?
MRS. MOORE: Fine, thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us.
MRS. MOORE: Well I had a, I didn't want to put together some
additional paperwork for the Board. I have for the last hearing
but, didn't have a copy of it, I had gone to the Accessor's office
and looked at all the properties, the surrounding properties in this
area and identified the name of the owner as well as the square
footage of the parcel and there are probably 25 names here. I
would say 90% of the parcels that are on the Sound Road on the
easterly side of Sound Road are half the size of this parcel. In
fact, this piece was, you can tell from the survey that the old Van
Tuyl survey was two parcels put together with regard to the size.
I had submitted to the Board and I want to make sure it's being
part of the record a Memorandum of law, I gave a copy with cases to
the Town Attorney and I gave one full set which included the cases
for any of the Board Members who wanted to review cases, otherwise
it was just a Memorandum with a citation. The other thing we have
tonight is a plan of the house. Mr. Petikas went to Penny Lumber
and got a design of the type of house that he intends to build on
this site. It's a standard two story house with one entrance, it is
approximately, it's within the footprint of 50 foot wide by 30 foot
deep. So, it wili probably end up being 48 x 28, Mr. Petikas tells
me that, so we have a general footprint that's the design. Here we
have five prints of the diagram and a tax map with ali of the
identified property. Really the oniy outstanding issue and I know
Page 31 - Hearing ~nscripts
May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals
that you're aware of it is that we did check the Suffolk County
Water Authority. The water main runs right in front of this
property. You can't get any closer. We are obligated to hookup to
the public water and we have submitted the letter to Suffolk County
Water Authority but, they've written us back saying, until the time
that the Town and the Water Authority complete a study which they
anticipate will be done by the fall that we can't hookup our water
whether it's a single family house or two family house, there's no
hookup right now and I think they share the same problem as most
people right now that are looking for building permits that
unfortunately now when you're with public water it use to be an
advantage and you got taxed with that advantage in mind, now it's a
disadvantage because of the moratorium. But, the Suffolk County
Water Authority I know is pursuing getting this moratorium lifted
and the town is working actively. I explained to Mr. Petikas this
project can't go without water and he's prepared if the Board should
grant the approval then, it can be conditioned on public water
because that is something that is necessary, both under the code
and under the health regulations. So, we're prepared to do that.
The only issue that seemed to be that was surprising to me, was the
issue of the height of the fence. Mr. Petikas thought that a 6 foot
fence made sense as part of the rear yard. Only for the rear yard
and maybe that needs to be clarified. The rear yard is the back.
If you face the house, the house in back wili be facing Sound
Road. The rear yard will be right behind the house so that you w-iii
actually have a side yard fence because the code is considered front
yard. But, the side yard will be on Sound Avenue 48, a rear yard
will be one of the neighbors and then another side yard. He's
agreeable to something less than 6 feet. He certainiy believes that
4 feet is not sufficiently high to block out the noise and the light
that comes on Route 48 and I know that the Board is certainly aware
of the traffic on Route 48 and this will provide a nice secluded back
yard with some fencing. He's allowed to have a 4 foot fence, but
really, that won't cover the lights that shine by cars that go by and
the noise. So, he's willing to take less than 6 feet, but certainly
4 feet is just not appropriate in this case. We're here to answer
any other questions ~gou may have.
MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely.
MEMBER COLLINS: Mrs. Moore, I was looking at the drawing as you
were talking about the fence and the side yard and the rear yard.
MRS. MOORE: Which one, the survey?
MEMBER COLLINS: No, this is the survey with the project drawn in
on it. We've had this for quite a while.
MRS. MOORE: Yes, it's in your file.
MEMBER COLLINS: Could you just
taiking about.
say again, what fences we're
Page 32 - Hearing ~!~nscripts
May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE: Sure, let me come up. Can I come up and just show
it?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely.
MRS. MOORE: Sound Road is right here, North Road is right
here. The house will be facing Sound Road, the rear yard is back
here, OK, the fence will actually, Mr. Petikas tells me he only wants
about 100 feet of fence. The property is 200 feet long. But, he
only needs to fence the rear yard and he'd be happy to take that as
a condition that the fencing of the rear yard up to 100 feet. So,
we're talking about really the height requirement being imposed on
this portion of the fence.
MEMBER COLLINS: That portion of the fence that is adjacent to
what is literally the rear yard of the house.
MRS. MOORE: The side yard, well, the back yard.
MEMBER COLLINS: That's why I was getting confused about it.
MRS. MOORE: Technically, it's the side yard.
MEMBER COLLINS: And then from that point down towards the
Sound Road corner -
MRS. MOORE: Sound Road, it'll be opened.
MEMBER COLLINS: It'll be opened.
MRS. MOORE: Yes, there's no-
MEMBER COLLINS: This drawing shows a fence all the way down.
MRS. MOORE: OK, he's willing to modify that.
MEMBER COLLINS: The fence he cares about is the one that gives
privacy in the back yard.
MRS. MOORE: Mr. Petikas here? Let me show the drawing cause
that was the original plan that was submitted in the -
MR. PETIKAS: Good evening.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you?
MRS. MOORE: See we had put in the fence like this.
MR. PETIKAS: Oh, no, that's wrong. I'd like 100 feet from the
north side of the west side of the house.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so I'm going to draw a line right
here.
Page 33 - Hearing ~nscripts
May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE: Yes, we can modify it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right there,
line is drawn.
MR. PETIKAS: That's has to be ail the
have 200 feet to the front of Route 48.
feet just to cover you know, the house area.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: From the road?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 100 feet from the
property line.
MR. PETIKAS: Because when you're a couple people,
lights are going to heat right on the house that's why.
MEMBER TORTORA: Parallel to the front property.
alright, that's where the
way uniformed becaus~ I
I'd like to have just 100
west, west of the
you know the
MRS. MOORE: I'm glad you pointed that out because he had a, we
went back and forth on where the location of the house would go.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, because that's what we're working with.
MRS. MOORE: The problem here, is that this property is
sufficiently large that there's some flexibility on where the house
can go and we can certainly say that the fence won't go beyond 100
feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, now if as you know, we're
missing a Board Member. He was excused for a specific reason and
he'll be back. But, one of the questions was asked, do you still
want the fence if we do not grant a two family house?
MRS. MOORE: Do you still want the fence if it's only a single
family? Yes, yes. If they say no to a two family, you have a
single family house. You still want a fence?
MR. PETIKAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
done?
Right, good. Ms. Collins are you all
MEMBER COLLINS:; Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Mrs. Tortore, questions?
MEMBER TORTORA: Have you withdrawn your application for a area
variance?
MRS. MOORE: On the record, no, because it's of legai opinion that
I think that the Board can determine that it's not necessary in this
case.
Page 34 - Hearing ~nscripts
May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER TORTORA: Alright, thank you. So, that's in tact?
That's all.
MRS. MOORE: I mean that was my position from the beginning and
in writing I stated it. But, in order to move this application
forward I submitted it. We didn't want to delay that.
MEMBER TORTORA: That was the only question.
MRS. MOORE: OK.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So the area variance is still in tact?
MRS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing?
MEMBER HORNING: I'm all set.
MRS. MOORE: As soon as you can get to this decision, we would
appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:Alright, thank you.
MRS. MOORE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Is there anybody else
would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against?
Hearing no further comment I'li make a motion closing the hearing
reserving decision until later.'
MEMBER COLLINS: Second.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
41- Page Transcripts
March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals
8:15 P.M. - THEODORE and MARIA PETIKAS
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a request for a two-family
use at the corner of W/s Sound Road and N/s Main or North Road (C.R.
48), Greenport; 1000-35-1-8, which requires approval from the Board
of Appeals for the following:
(a) Special Exception Application No. 4525 as provided by
Article III-A, Section 100-30A.2 for a two-family use/occupancy;
(b) Variance Application No. 4526 as provided under Section
100-31A.3 for the reason that the substandard lot size of 21,483 sq.
ft. does not conform to the requirements for a two-family dwelling
use in this R-40 Zone District;
(c) Variance Application NO. 4526 for permission to locate fence
at a height above four feet within/along front yard areas based on
the Building Inspector's February 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval,
Article XXIII, Section 100-231.
Alright, Ms. Moore, we're going to open both at the same time and you
can address both at the same time.
MRS. MOORE: Ail three?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Two variances and a Special Exception.
MRS. MOORE: Just to be clear for the Board. In my last letter to
the Board, I know that the Board has requested an interpretation from
the Building Department or a Disapproval from the Building Department
and the Building Department reviewed the file and in light of
100-244B determined that a variance is not required for the size of
the parcel and that was based on a single and separate search (Change
of Tape) is grandfathered with respect to the size. Area variances
would on the other hand be required that we could not meet setback
requirement for the structure whether it be a two-family structure or
a single family structure. Both would meet the requirements of the
code. Nonetheless because the Board has interpreted it that in an
R-40, the 40,000 sq. ft. need require an area variance from the size,
the lot size. I will present the arguments with regard to an area
variance but I would submit that they are not applicable in this
case. No variance is required for the size of the parcel. That
being said, I will go through the standards for an area variance and
I do have some of the presentation will be overlapped into the
Special Exception.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The size of the parcel in the respect that the
size of the parcel will support at the 21,000+, a one-family
dwelling. Is that what you're telling me?
MRS. MOORE: I'm saying that under 100-244, there is a grandfathering
of the size of parcels as well as setbacks per parcel. Whether it be
42- Page - Hear~ Transcripts
March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals
a single family residence, or a two-family residence, as long as you
can meet, as long as, one, the parcel was created prior to the zoning
so it meets the standards of 244, and you meet the setback
requirements in that provision, then, there should be no need for
this particular area variance. That's the Building Inspector's
interpretation as well as my reading of the code. However, the Board
I believe in past experience has requested area variances of the R-40
or whatever the zoning criteria is that R-40 is 40,000 sq. ft. If it
were R-80 it'd be completely different standards. So, I'll go over
the area variance but I would submit that I don't believe that this
would be applicable. I will nonetheless present the argument so we
don't have a, what's that, Mrs. Tortora, did you have a question?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I think it's appropriate to say that ( ). We
had some discussion about this, Mr. Chairman and I, and I confess
that I was a little naive about the total requirements of this until
he did call it to my attention, the Bulk Schedule -
MRS. MOORE: Correct, yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: The Bulk Schedule in the residential districts for a
two-family detached dwelling, in the R-40 district requires an area
of 80,000 sq. ft.
MRS. MOORE: No. I have the same code in an R-80 it requires 120. I'm
not aware of the R-40 requiring 80,000 sq. ft.
MEMBER TORTORA: It's a rather an amazing thing, but, it a -
MRS. MOORE: Well then it's inconsistent with the language in the
code itself. So you understand though that you have the language in
the code and then you have the Bulk Schedule. If there's
inconsistencies between the two, the language in the code overrides
the Bulk Schedule. I'd like to see the Bulk Schedule that you refer
to because I don't recall seeing that.
MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing is, he called it to my attention. I
was totally unaware of it and you know he's been~on the Board a lot
longer than I have, but it does say that a two-family detached
dwelling R-40, 80,000 sq. ft. and then there is a ( ) it says, three
little iii, after it says, Roman numerical ( ), applicable, ( ) in
a Residential Bulk Schedule, you go to that and you come up with the
Bulk Schedule under R-80 and there is some kind of consistency here
because it also discusses that for a two-family detached dwelling in
a R-80 District it's the requirements 160,000 sq. ft.
MRS. MOORE: I'll review that.
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just letting you know rather than you know,
going off in that direction. That is something that has been
MRS. MOORE: OK, well I will, I will go over the, with respect to the
area variance, the same standards. This parcel was created in 1952.
These requirements came in long after the lot was created. With
43- Page - Heari~T~ Transcripts
March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals
regard to whether there will be an undesirable change in the
character of this neighborhood, I will point out to the Board what
you already know and for the record that this parcel will meet the
setback requirements of the foundation. The footprint will meet all
the required applicable setbacks of 244, which is the applicable
section. With regard to the fence, the reason for the 6 foot high
fence is that this parcel is right on Sound Avenue and requires the
privacy as well as the security of having that road buffered. I
think someone else mentioned today, this evening, that the noise from
the vehicle, no different here on Route 48, there's certainly a great
deal of noise as well as traffic that's generated by that, the noise
is generated by the traffic. With regard to the benefits sought by
the applicant, it cannot be achieved by a method feasible for the
applicant. The Pet~kas purchased the property in 1985. That the
parcel was purchased is on the Assessor's Record and they're here
today to confirm it. If you have any doubt for $80,000. The parcel
was zoned business at the time. During the period of time, from the
time that they acquired title to the time that they completed their
site plan, I have a site plan in the file, this zoning changed to
R-40. So it was during that period of time that a significant
financial hardship was created for Petikas. It certainly made a
two-family residence would lessen the impact, the financial impact on
that, in that at least as a rental unit with two-family rental, it
can generate a return and be a much more desirable parcel than as a
single family residence. This parcel has been there vacant and there
has been, I don't know if you've actually marketed the parcel? Yes,
it's been marketed for quite some time and never had generated any
interest as a single family residence. I'll point out to the Board
that you've got across the street, it use to be the Porky's, you
still call it Porky's parking lot that's directly across from this
parcel, you've got the entrance to Greenport, that's a very busy
corner and it's on Route 48. So, it was appropriate as a business
zone parcel but the Town Board at the time determined that they
wanted to take business off Route 48, so be it. But, they did leave
a two-family as a permissible use by special permit. With regard to
the area variance it's not substantial. Again, this parcel had at
one time been two separate lots. Up through 1984, it was sold as
separate parcels. In 1985 when Mr. & Mrs. Petikas acquired it, they
acquired it as one deeded parcel. So, at that time, it was merged as
one piece. It was also business zoning, so there was certainly the
development of the piece of two parcels made more sense. All of a
sudden when the business zoning came off, now you've got an oversized
residential parcel, oversized for this particular area. I can submit
to the Board and I have my tax map but, I will transfer it for the
Board so it can be more legible. All up and down Sound Road you have
.25 acre parcels. You've got about 12-1/4 acre parcels. Right on to
the north of Petikas is a parcel that is approximately 1700 sq. ft.
and adjacent to the west of Petikas is another parcel. It's
approximately 1200 sq. ft.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 12,000.
MRS. MOORE: 12,000 sq. ft.
44- Page - Hear~ Transcripts
March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right and 17,000.
MRS. MOORE: And 17,000, I'm sorry. Again across the street is still
a restaurant where the parking facility, the parking facility
directly across from the proposed residence and that further down the
property that's known as LBD Properties is the proposed Brecknock
Hall Development which is going to be a Senior Multi Care Facility.
So, you're talking about an area that is for the most part
commercial. Well, on Route 48 it remains commercial. This area was
developed long ago and you've got parcels that are on average 1/4
size of this parcel. So, this is an oversize parcel for this
vicinity for the character of this area. There will be no adverse
impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the
neighborhood or district. Again, this two family residence from the
outside, be no different than a single family residence. They can
certainly come into that if you place that as a condition of the
property that and I discussed it with Mr. & Mrs. Petikas would there
be any objection to having a one opening front door with the internal
foyer going into the two dwelling units. They would have no
objection to that. So, from the outside there would be no
difference. Certainly this difficulty was not self created. Again,
the parcel was purchased as a business parcel. It was up zoned
during the time that they owned it. Shortly after they acquired it
and it has remained in their ownership since the 1980s as a
residential lot and there it remains as a vacant residential lot. I
requested from Century 21, an idea of what the, in the opinion of
Robert Scalia, what this parcel would be worth if it were simply a
single family residence. He has presented me with an opinion letter
that he states that the' value from $40 to $45,000 would be what this
parcel could generate as far as a resale. So, you're talking about a
( ) when the parcel is up zoned, it's lost half of its value and
right now this letter comes to me February of 98. The values of
properties certainly have stabilized and are increasing, but again,
the location of this parcel is not conducive to a single family
residence. Certainly not one to generate $80,000 return, which even
losing some money that's a significant loss. Half the value of the
property. With regard to the special permit conditions, again the
use will not prevent orderly or reasonable use of the adjacent
properties or properties in adjacent use districts. This parcel is
R-40 which is a higher density zoning classification. It is across
from the restaurant, down the street from the Brecknock Hall
Development, and double the size of most of the parcels that are
developed on this street and up Sound Road. The second criteria that
the use will not prevent the orderly use of 'permitted or legally
established uses in the district. Well again, these are uses that
have been established, that don't necessarily conform to the zoning
and we have a restaurant across the street, that would of, probably
is preexisting at this point. But without any evidence of going
away. We have quite a large parking area. That the use will be in
harmony and promote general purposes intended of this chapter. The
footprint that's being proposed is one that again meets all the
setback requirements and is a ( ). The proposed footprint would be
approximately 50 feet by 30 feet. We might create a footprint that
can be a reasonable footprint to construct a comfortable two-family
45- Page - Hear~ Transcripts
March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals
home, again looking the same as a residential, as a single family
residence but, with the only difference being that instead of four
bedrooms for one family, it would be two bedrooms per family. Use
will be compellable with surrounding, with its surroundings, the
character of the neighborhood. Again the same criterias that were
applicable with the area variance are standards that we should
consider for special permit. The Town Board in legislating that
two-family use, recognized that this use would be appropriate in
R-40. If you have any questions Mr. & Mrs. Petikas are here and I
have the letter from Century 21 for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know Mr. & Mrs. Petikas very well from prior
applications. I just want you to review that section that we were
concerned' about because this is an area that in 1989 when they
constructed the master plan Mrs. Moore that I had objected to. I had
asked them to lessen the square footage of two-family houses in both
R-40 and R-80. I specifically asked for 60,000 sq. ft. in 1988-89
for R-40 and I asked for 120,000 sq. ft. for R-80, meaning not
doubling it, taking another 40 and putting on, excuse me, another 20
in the 40 and another 40 in the other and the reason why we locked at
this, is, we had a special meeting last week and we looked at the
criteria at that time and that's when we arrived at that particular
judgment.
MRS. MOORE: If I could just interrupt you for just one moment.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MRS. MOORE: I believe that the wrong classification has been pointed
out to you. We have community water. R-40 says here, residential
low density, one acre, two-family detached dwelling. Two-family
dwelling without utilities, that meaning without sewer, without water
would require 80,000 sq. ft. This particular unit has public water.
Therefore two-family dwelling with community water, it says not
applicable. So that I don't believe that that 80,000 sq. ft. would be
applicable in this particular instance because you do have public
water and I would refer you back to 244 which deals with the setbacks
as well as the standard schedule R-40 which deals with lot size.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have never excluded anything though for
public water and I just don't know.
MRS. MOORE: I mean that's the way I read it and it seems to be
pretty -
MEMBER TORTORA: Usually when it says not applicable it means that a,
unless, because it says public sewer and water and in some cases it
drops the ( ),
MRS. MOORE: Well it would make sense that your -
MEMBER TORTORA: But they didn't, they didn't in this case so that's
why -
46- Page - Hear~5'g Transcripts
March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE: I think not applicable means that that particular
section does not apply.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
MRS. MOORE: It would make sense 80,000 sq. ft. would be necessary if
you had to provide potable water for essentially two units in an
acre. But, it doesn't make sense if you've got public water, you
don't have a Health Department constraints that a
MEMBER TORTORA: The other part of that -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question?
moratorium on water in the Village of Greenport.
Is there still a
MRS. MOORE: Well, it's, well the Suffolk County Water Authority has
now purchased lt. There has been a on going application process
where an individual applicant comes forward to the Suffolk County
Water Authority and they deal with each applicant on an individual
basis. So, they said moratorium, however, there have been applicants
that have been granted water as I said individually.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, go ahead you have something else?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want to give us a brief on your opinion in
re~erence to what, I know you've scaled it, but, give it to us so we
can review it with the Town Attorney prior to.
MRS. MOORE: Sure, which part of -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Indicating the
reference to what you just stated
water as opposed to public water.
fact of what your opinion is in
on the availability of potable
MRS. MOORE: That's fine I'll go back to that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright and we'll review it with her. So we'll
close the hearing as per verbatim testimony tonight. When you give
us the brief, we'll review it with her, and then close it as a matter
of record on April 16th.
MEMBER TORTORA: Because it does make a difference only because not -
MRS. MOORE: I looked at that section and that to me is not
applicable, so.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you get us a letter from Suffolk County
Water Authority?
MRS. MOORE: What that they're -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That they can offer water here.
47- Page - Hear~ Transcripts
March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE:
so.
But you do have your public water in front of the site,
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's what I'm saying.
MRS. MOORE: I mean you can't build, you can't get a Building Permit
without public water.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I mean but, can you just give them a call
and ask them if they -
MRS. MOORE: Yes, sure, I mean I can give them a call.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright.
MRS. MOORE: But without a specific application I mean -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean I find this, please in no way am I, I
know these people very well, in no way questioning this. We had
never made a determination except under business aspects a potable as
opposed to public water. I just don't ever remember doing that. Do
you know what I'm saying? In other words, I'm saying that
MRS. MOORE: Oh, a two-family is single -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That that has never been a justification for
granting more relief, or less relief, or granting a special permit
unless we're dealing with a condo project, unless we're dealing with
you know, a resort residential project, or we're dealing with, you
know some other type of more intense project.
MRS. MOORE: I know what you're saying, but I look at the code and it
says under R-40 two-family, and in fact, the Building Inspector said,
ooh, if you were in an R-80, you'd have 180 sq. ft. of, 180,000 sq.
ft. But, that's not the case in this a, in R-40. At least the
Building Inspector looked at that as well and we all looked at it
together, But, I'll be happy to put it in writing and submit to your
Board.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I have a little bit of a problem with a 6 foot
fence in that corner. I was late tonight and the reason why I was
late is because I had to wait for that ferry traffic. You know,
there was many a time I thought, well maybe I'll just pull out
MRS. MOORE: And risk your life.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd hate to hit that fence after someone hit me in
the rear. But, I'm just wondering if the fence can be somehow scaled
back. I mean it's almost right at the corner now.
MRS. MOORE: The height of the fence reduced down? Is that what you
said?
48- Page Hearl~5'g Transcripts
March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
MRS. MOORE: I think we just started wherever the house, the rear of
the house would begin. I think once you put the foundation in, we
would put a 6 foot fence where the rear of the property. If you want
to scale it in, you know, start it at 4 feet and bring it up to a
certain level, do you have any problem with that?
MR. PETIKAS: No, we have no problem.
MRS. MOORE: Yes, I think that's the least. They would have no
problem with a, 6 foot fence it just seemed that, that was a good way
of creating a buffer, but, if you want to grant a 5 foot fence.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What about a garage?
MRS. MOORE: The garage is going to be detached garage, in the rear
of the yard. So, it would have to meet whatever the accessory
setbacks.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But it looks like it's in the front yard to me.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, it's the rear yard.
MRS. MOORE: It's going to be located at least 50 feet from Sound
Avenue. So it'll meet the 50 foot front yard setback of the ( ).
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 50 feet from the north road, you mean.
MRS. MOORE: Yes, the north road.
MEMBER COLLINS: You may have two front yards?
MRS. MOORE: Yes, we have two front yards and as long as we meet that
50 foot setback there's no need for a variance. When we mapped out -
MEMBER DINIZIO: Could you say that again please?
that. Could you say that Just one more time?
I don't understand
MRS. MOORE: Sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: About the garage.
MRS. MOORE: The garage is going to be
MEMBER DINIZIO: The 50 feet.
MRS. MOORE: The 50 feet, OK. The garage is going to be in the rear
yard. But that, this property because it's a corner, has two front
yards being Sound Road and 48. The front yard is the setback
requirement. We have two front yards, so therefore, we have two
front yard setbacks, 50 feet. So that means that this garage is
going to have, rather than be located closer to Sound Avenue, it has
to be closer to the other side. So whether it's right behind the
49- Page - Heari~J' Transcripts
March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals
house at 50 feet, or over some. The parcel is somewhat of an L
shape, so there's room to put the garage over on the other side and
they had no problem with where to locate the garage.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I also noticed in fact talking about the
traffic on the corner, that the fence is in fact drawn in a way that
does comply with the code's requirements about fences on corners.
MRS. MOORE: Oh, yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: So I think it is back a bit out of the way. Let me
ask you a question about the lot creation because your argument rests
really very squarely on the provisions in the code for nonconforming
lots that predate zoning and they're two dates that are floating
around in this record. One, is 1952 and the other is 1985, and I
sought of went back and forth as to which date was which, and you
said something tonight that suggested that the two lots had merged
only in 1985. That the two lots individually had been created way
back before the war probably.
MRS. MOORE: Correct, correct.
MEMBER COLLINS: But that they had only merged in 85 and I think that
the language in the code about recognition of these old nonconforming
lots speaks of the identical lot and I'd just like your views on that
issue.
MRS. MOORE: Right. We have, at the time I made the application,
Petikas, I only had their deed and the property card. So what we did
is, said that based on the code that says after certain date, if two
parcels were next to each other and they were in the same name, they
would be considered one. So with the application as it was
submitted, we said, well we know we've got one parcel and we're not
even, you know, we're certainly not arguing that fact. When the
Building Inspector said, well when this lot was created as
significant, because it'll depend, the law will depend on when this
lot was created. We did a single and separate search and we
discovered that the property card says this and I think the single
and separate search is already in your file, I just don't have it in
front of me. But, in 49, Scolly conveyed to King. King is really
the relevant owner. King in 52 conveyed his interest to Straussner.
So in 52, Straussner by separate deed you ended up having, it says
here in the property card, easterly parcel 100 feet and westerly
parcel 100 feet were combined in 52. Then from 52 on even though in
84 Sfaelos Realty conveyed to Sfaelos two separate lots. At that
point they had merged. So they had deeds that were conveying the
parcels as separate parcels but, even at that time the parcel had
merged. And then Petikas acquired the parcel in 85, certainly as one
parcel. In fact, I have a site plan or the survey that you probably
have, Van Tuyl, the old Van Tuyl survey identified it as two, shows
the separate property dimensions. It shows the line between them.
50- Page - Hear~'g Transcripts
March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals
However, back from 52 on this parcel was one legally recognizable
parcel.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, thank you. That confirms what I thought I was
reading on the property card, but, I was getting a little lost and
that is important that the parcels were treated as one since 1952.
MRS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was the
easterly piece?
entire business zoned, or just the
MRS. MOORE: To my knowledge, it was the entire parcel. I mean we
have a site plan. In fact, I have it my file. If it will be helpful
to the Board, I can certainly submit it to the Board. It's not
useful to Petikas anymore. A site plan that showed a foundation
pretty much straddling the property, the old property lines
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I remember seeing that.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have it in our file.
We never went into
or not submitted, it
MRS. MOORE: Oh, you have it in your file? OK.
the details of when, whether it was submitted,
seemed irrelevant at that point.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nothing? Mr. Horning?
MEMBER HORNING: Nothing at this time.
So, you're going to give us that
the Town Attorney. If need be, and
have to readvertise, but if we have
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright.
brief we're going to review with
we have to readvertise, we don't
to reconvene, alright,
MRS. MOORE: Why don't we hold the hearing open?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright.
MRS. MOORE: OK, so that way it's clear we don't have to readvertise
notice to all the neighbors. That way, if you have any questions
with regard to the memo, I can certainly be here to answer them.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. We are inundated on April 26th, so it
may have to be the early May meeting.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It will have to be May 14th.
MRS. MOORE: OK, so be it, sure.
51- Page - Hearm Transcripts
March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just make a comment?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd really like you to consider that fence and just
where it is, and how far west you can take the end of that fence,
away from Sound Road. How far away from Sound Road that fence can be
located. I'd really like you to consider.
MRS. MOORE: I mean we'd be willing, I mean if you have a particular
idea in mind you can certainly
MEMBER DINIZIO: My preference would be, not to see the fence at
all. So we'll start from that point and work our way to -
MRS. MOORE: Mr. Petikas would like to address that.
MR. PETIKAS: Well the ( ) I'd like to have 100 feet from the west
side of the property from Route 48. Also on the back of the property
another 100 feet from north side of the property just to hide the
house. I don't want to put any fence on the corner of Sound Avenue,
on side of road.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about,
it looks like there's a fence on the north road. Is that right?
MRS. MOORE: On 48. Yes, that would be the reason for the fence.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what I'm concerned about.
going to be 6 feet high? That's what he's proposing?
That fence is
MRS. MOORE: Well, they'd like to have it 6 feet high.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. That's why I'd like you, you know, between
now and the next time we meet, to consider -
MRS. MOORE: Well 4 feet is legal.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, yes, I agree.
MRS. MOORE: I mean would there be any problem with that with them
seeing the outside? (I believe she was asking the question to her
clients).
MEMBER DINIZIO:
site.
No, I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about
MRS. MOORE: But if you put arborvitae or some kind of bushes on the
outside on Sound Avenue -
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not worried about how it looks.
about seeing over or not being able to see over.
I'm worried
MRS. MOORE: Not being able to see over.
52- Page
March 23,
Hear~g Transcripts
1998-Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. So that's why I'm saying if you get -
MRS. MOORE: I think that's why they want the fence, you can't see
over.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, but they're asking for trouble.
MRS. MOORE: OK.
Someone asked if they can speak?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just one second Sir, I'll be right with you.
Is there anything else you wanted to say.
MRS. MOORE: No thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes Sir. Would you state your name for the
record.
MR. RAYNOR: Yes. Charles Raynor.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do?
MR. RAYNOR: Sophie Raynor's husband. Both parcels at one time use
to be Krzyminski and the corner was Mobile on Sound Road corner.
Natsoulis' property, right next to this property, and we can't see
having a 6 foot fence, can't see over the top of it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, don't worry, we'll take care of that. No
question about that. 'Don't worry about that, one bit.
MR. RAYNOR: If you hit that road on 48, forget it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're absolutely correct. Don't worry about
it, we'll take care of it. I assure you, alright. Hearing no
further comment I'll make a motion, oh, I'm sorry, ma'am.
MRS. NATSOULIS: Yes, my property is right next to their property and
I have some concerns about it -
BOARD SECRETARY KOWASLKI: Can I have your name?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we need your name.
MRS. NATSOULIS: I'm Annette Natsoulis. I'm north of the Petikas'
property and one of my main concern is the fence. Going on to the
north road, the main road, is very difficult with the ferry coming
through to make a left turn to go eastbound. Especially when you're
pulling a trailer behind you also. I'm not sure as to what they were
saying, going for setback of the house. It'll be further back from
Sound Road, is that correct?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. Have you seen the site plan
at all?
53- Page - Hearl~ Transcripts
March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals
MRS. NATSOULIS: Yes I have. The way I see it, with the house being
built over here, my house will be this way to it. I feel that my
privacy with a two-family dwelling will be inconvenience because they
will have to ( ) access in going directly into my patio which I
spend most of the time there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to caution you, that we haven't
gotten to the two-family yet, alright. We're still working on that.
MRS. NATSOULIS: Well the fence I'm concerned, that is one of my
biggest concerns.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. We promise you that on May 14th, that
we will do a siting ourselves and tell you because Mr. Dinizio, we
have the luxury of having him live down in that area and he fronts
that road sometimes 4 times a day making right and left turns and so
we will do a siting and we will tell you what our opinion is in
reference to the setback of the fence.
MRS. NATSOULIS: OK, because I come in from Queens.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Can you make the May 14th hearing.
MR. RAYNOR: Definitely.
MRS. NATSOULIS: No problem.
MR. RAYNOR: Even a three foot fence by the corner would be too much
because the cars sit and they look out, you're not able to see.
Impossible.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. The new cars are lower and lower and it
makes it more difficult to see.
MR. RAYNOR: Even a three foot fence would be too much. Even a six
foot fence from outside of the property, then they block our view to
the main road.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, what we do in some cases and what we have
done before is clip the corners of the fences and made them put them
on angles. As I said, we're not quite there yet. We do appreciate
your coming and you know, we're going to review this whole matter and
we'll get back.
MR. RAYNOR: What day did you say?
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: May 14th.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: May 14th.
MR. RAYNOR: Are you going to inform us or do we have to
54- Page - Heart~5'g Transcripts
March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
approximately a week
is. (765-1809).
We're not going to inform you, but call us
before and we'll tell you exactly what the time
MR. RAYNOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir.
Hearing no further comment I'll make a
to May 14th.
Anybody else like to
motion recessing the
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
speak?
hearing
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
George Homing
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064
Telephone (516) 765-1809
May 4, 1998
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
Moore & Moore
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Re: Applications (Petikas)
Dear Mrs. Moore:
This is just a reminder that the Beard has not received the
Memorandum requested at the March 23, 1998 hearing which outlines
your legal opinion and basis of law. The hearing was expected to
be finalized on May 14, 1998, with poasible member questions
following review of your Memorandum.
Thank you.
Very t~uly yours,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
cc: Beard Membere
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, New York 11952
Tel: (516) 298-5629
Fax: (516) 298-5664
Margaret Rutkowski
February 25, 1998
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Mr. Goehringer, Chairman
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re:Petikas Special Use Permit
Dear Chairman and Board of Appeals:
The above referenced application was filed with the board on
or about October 22, 1997. At your request, on or about November
17, 1997 I submitted to the building department a building permit
application for the above referenced matter together with a single
and separate title search. The single and separate search stated
that the subject property was created in 1952 and was owned by
Edward H. King.
The building inspector, Gary Fish questioned why I would
submit the building permit application for a denial since on a
Special Permit application the Zoning Board has original
jurisdiction pursuant to Town Law 274-b. Nevertheless the building
department issued a denial of a building permit for the fence
height on February 10, 1998.
In the opinion of the building inspector, Gary Fish, since the
subject property was created in 1952 (prior to zoning), is a
legally created nonconforming lot, the principal building is
required to conform to 100-244 (B). The proposed structure will
conform to the setbacks in the bulk schedule of 100-244(B).
Therefore no area variance is required other than for fence height.
The two-family structure will be no different in size and use
than a standard single family residence. The Building Department's
position with regard to the issuance of a building permit
application with Health Department approval is irrelevant to this
application since the Special Exception use should be made
directly to your board.
If you have any questions, or request any additional documents
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
/ ~ Moore
cc: Mr. & Mrs. Petikas
Gary Fish
Page 2 - Minutes
SpeniRI Meeting of March 3, 1998
Southold Town Board of Appeals
RESOLUTION: AGENDA ITEM II.
A. MARCH 23, 1998 HEARINGS. On motion by Chairman
Goehringer, seconded by Member Dinizio, it was
RESOLVED, to authorize advertisement of the following ten (10)
/~__~ applications for public hearings to be held March 23, 1998:
Appl. No. 4550.1t - RUTH MILLER. This is a request for a Vari-nee
based upon the Buli~ing Inspector's Notice of Disapproval to locate a
proposed dwelling addition with reduction in sideya~ds. Looation of
Property: 6400 Indian Neck Road, Peconie; County Parcel 1000-
Appl. No. 4549 CAROL and ANTHONY LOSQUADRO~ JR. and
DONALD TUTHILL. Variance based upon two Notices of Disapproval for
housing and corral location for up to two horses. Location of Property
owned by Losquadre and Tuthill, 3125 Boisseau Avenue, Southold;
1000-55-5-12.2.
Appl. No. 4547.1t - RIVERHEAD BUILDING SUPPLY. Variances for
width of new building/warehouse areas and fence height. Front Street,
Greenport.
Appl. No. 4551.1c I~AYLA B. STOTSKY. Variance regardlng
proposed six ft. fence height. Osprey Neck Road, G~eenpo~t.
Appl. No. 4548.1c - JEFFREY WORTHINGTON. Variance for garegs
location. 1025 Long Creek Drive, Southold.
Appl. No. 4553.1t - CHET ORLOWSKI. Var4nnee for replacement of
two windows with garage door regarding nonconforming use based upon
Building Inspector's 2/20/98 Notice of Disappreval 100-241-A.
N/s l~nln Road, Cutchogue.
Appl. No. 4552.jd G. and MADELINE LIVANOS. Varlnnce for
proposed setback/portion of garage area at 555 Sound Beach Drive,
Mattituck.
Appl. No. 4068.jd - ELEANOR SIEVERNICH. Carryover for final
hearing. Variance regarding proposed division at 3200 Cox Neck Road,
Mattituck. 1000-113-8-5.
Appl. No. 4562.1t and 4525-SE.id - THEODORE PETIKAS. Va~nce
under Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3 (bnlk schedule) as to lot area of
21,483 sq.ft, in this R-40 Zone for a two-fgmily occ~tpanc~ var;ance under
Article XXIII, Section 100-231 based on February 10~ 1998 Notice of
Disapproval by the bufldin~ inspector re~r~ing proposed fence height, and
Special Exception for a preposed two-fnmily dwelling. Location of
Property: Corner of 69435 C.R. 48 and Wis Sound Road, Greenport.
1000-35-1-8.
VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: GOEHRINGER, DINIZIO, and
COLLINS. (ABSENT WERE: MEMBERS TORTORA AND HORNING.) This
RESOLUTION was duly ADOPTED (3-0).
AGENDA ITEM II, Continued:
B. Other ZBA New AppHoations Confirmed (Pending Inspections,
reviews, etc.) and tentatively calendared for April 16, 1998 public hearings
subject to receiving the information on or about 3]20:
*Appl. No. 4544.1t - H. ROSEN (site owner: Booker). The
Chairman indicated he reeentiy visited the site. He was told by Mr. Rosen
recently that he has a business in or near Oce~n;ide and will be sendfng a
cel)¥ of hi; FCC license and other req.u, ested. ~f. or.m~tio..n., through his~
Page 4 - Minutes
Special Meeting of March 3, 1998
Southold Town Board of Appeals
AGENDA ITEM V. NEW ZBA FILING PROCEDURES EFFECTIVE 2/26/98:
The Chairman read and confirmed the following new ZBA
procedures:
a) Submissions by applicants must include current written
Notice of Disapproval (before assigning board member or
file number). Incomplete ZBA applications in future will
also be returned to applicant;
b) After assignment of Spenlal Exceptions to Assigned
Members, projects will now involve preliminary review by
Assigned Member and RESOLUTION eenfilwning Sections of Code
and type of area variance(s) to be included which may be
necessary, before authorizing advertisement.
filing
AGENDA ITEM VI.
1. Assigned File #4542.1c (Walter Fink/Ken Swanson by Suffolk
Environmental Consultln~) has been ineemplete since January 28, 1998, due
to laek of a written Notice of Disappreval by the Building Inspector.
However, based on the new policy of the Building Department, the
application has been incomplete with their office; therefore, a Notice of
Disapproval will not be issued until all other agency approvals are
submitted for the proposed dwelling to the building department. The Boar~
Secretary said Mr. Anderson called the ZBA office on Friday, February 27,
1998 and advised that he lost the project (the buyer was not interested in
going through the extra expenses involved to obtain a notice of
disapproval). A letter was drafted for return of the variance papere to
Mr. Anderson. There was no objection or further discussion.
' 2. Assigned File ~4526.1t - T. PETIKAS. The Board eenfirmed that
/the variances authorized for adverti~..in~ were for the lot area and the fe?.ee
height. The attorney for the applicant eeufirmed through the ZBA office
that the setbacks would conform to the appropriate bulk schedule for a
two-family use, if the special exception were to be granted. There .w~ no
o~jeetio.n to the wording as noted in the agenda, and adopted m the
"~l~esolution above at Agenda Item II-A.
DELIBERATIONS: Re: Appl. No. 4538 MICHAEL RAND. The
Board decided to hold further deliberations and decision until a full Board
was prosent (3/23). Agreement was not reached at this time. There were
diseussions about a possible denial, and then about possible conditions ff
Page 7 - Minutes
Regular Meeting - February 26, 1998
Southold Town Board of Appeals
*REMINDER 'for Resolution at next meeting for draft
Minutes:
January 15, 1998
January 22, 1998
February 4, 1998
February 26, 1998.
* New procedures of the Building Department as per letter
stating that all agency approvals before ~eeeiving applications for
disapproval. (Exceptions are proposed lot line cbAnges or new
subdivision projects. )
* NEW ZBA FILING PROCEDURES EFFECTIVE 2[26:
1) Submi-~sions by applicants must include current written
Notice of DisaPproval (before assigning board member or file
number). Incomplete ZBA applications in futuro will also be
returned to applicant;
2) After assignment of Speais! Exceptions to Assigned
Members, project will require prelimlnr~ry review by Assigned Member
and RESOLUTION confirming Sections of Code and type of area
variance(s) which may be necessary, beforo authori~ng
advertisement.
* Assigned File #4542.1c W. FINK and KEN SWANSON,
contract vendee. Proposed letter as drafted to Bruce Anderson
regarding eepy of letter received from Building Department (copies
attached for board members). 1390 Willow Terraee Lane, Orient.
1000-26-2-25.
/~ * Reviews. New applicatio.ns: Appl. #4525.jd - T. P.ETIKAS
/Spe~Al Exception and Appl. #4526.1t - T. P~.-r[KA. S Area va~A..nces~,
(Carryover to next meeting for Board's review and eol~..l~n, eu
wording of advertising rogarding area variances, before advertising.
(Recent Noiice of Disapprov~! fu_,mt~hed addressed fence po~ti.o.n of
project but did not address ether zoning areas because applicant
filed Special Exception.)
* OTHER REVIEW: New proposed Local Law regarding Site
P!nn~. (Copy in board member boxes 2/25);
* OTHER REVIEW: Await status from attorney for application
regarding pending application of TonYes/Citgo., For update at next
meeting.
The Ch~i~mmn declarod the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
SOUTHOLD TOWN
]BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY,
MARCH 23,1998
NOTICE IS HEREBY
}IVEN, pursuant to Section 267
,fthe Town Law and the Code
the Town of Southold, th~
bllowing applications will be
teld for public hearing by the
;OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
)F APPEALS, at the Southold
Cown Hall, 53095 Main Road,
;outhold, New York 11971, on
vlONDAY~ MARCH 23, 1998
it the times noted below (or as
;oon thereafter as possible):
6:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4550-n,~
?~UTH MILLER. This is a re/r
:luest for a Variance based upon
:he Building Inspector's January
Zt, 1998 Notice'ofDisapprova!
.o locate a proposed dwelling ad-
dition with reduction in total side
yards. Location of Property:
5400 Indian Neck Road,
?econic; County Parcel 1000-86-
7-2.2.
6:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4549-
CAROL and ANTHONY
LOSQUADRO, ~JR. AND
DONALD TUTHILL'.' Varl-
~ upon an application'
to erect a corral to an existing
barn, and February 13, 1998
Notice of Disapproval which
reads "...horses shall not be
housed within forW (40) feet of~I)
any lot line· Article III, Section/'
100-31 C(8); and Notice of Dis:
approval dated February 18.
1998, Article III, Section 100-
31A2Co), that'the vacant property
located in a General Business {B)
dis~ict, requires 10 acres or more
for keeping of horses, Afficle III,
Section 100-3 IA-2(b)..." (Also
ref. Sections [00-10IA-1 and
100-101C.) Applicants are pro-
posing corral location, including
existing barn, for up to two
horses as an accessory to their
residence of Carol and Anthtny
Losquadro located at 2855
Boisseau Avenu&, Southold,
NY; Parcel 1000-55-5-12.1. A
portion of the cOrral/fencing
would extend ontoa portion of .~
vacant property of Donald?
Tuthill, known as 3125 Boissead
Avenue. Southold, 1000-55:5-
12.2.
6:45 p.m. AppL NO. 4553 -
CHESTER ORLOWSKI. This is
~ variant6 based
Estate; 1000-99-1-23.
6:55 p.n~pl. No. 4068-
ELEANOR'~I EVERNIC I~.
This is a carryover hearing re-
garding a request for varihnce(s)
in this pending division project
(proposed two Iota), Article
XXIII, Section 100-239 and Ar-
iicle III, Section 100-32, as to.
total lot size in this R-80 Zone//\
District. Location of Property:
3200 Cox Neck Road, Mattituek;,
1000-113-8-5 containing 163,
997 sq. ft.
7:00 p.m. Appl. No. 4551-
KAYLA B. STOTSKY. This is
a request for a Variance based
upon: the building inspector's
February 9, 1998 Notice of Dis-
approval, Article xxm, Section
100-231 -A, Applicant is propos-
ing a fence at a height in excess
of four feet along the front yard
area(right-of-way/property line)
at 335 Osprey Nest Road,
Oreenport; !000-3576-33; alsb
known as Lot #6, Seoti0n 1, Mop
of Cleaves Point.
7:05 p.m. AppL No. 4548-
JEFFREY WORTHINGTON.
This is a request for fi variance/
based upon the' 'building
inspector's Januory 20, 1998
Notice of Disapproval to con-
struct an accessory building (ga-
rage) on the "as built" founda-
tion, which is located in a side
yard area, Article III?A, Section
100-33. Location of Propefff:
1025 Long Creek Drive,
Southold; 1000-55-3-28; also
known as Lot 12. Map of
Yennecotl Park.
7:15 p.m. THEODORE and
MARIA PETIKAS. This is a
request for a two-family use m
the comer of w/s Sound Road
and n/s Main or North Road
(C.R. 48), Greenport; 1000-35-
1-8, which requires approval
from the Board of Appeals f_or/'
the following:
a) Special ExeepQon Appli-
cation No..~,5 as provide~l by
Aaicle III-A, Section 100-30A.2
for a two-family use/occupancy;
and
b) Variance Application No.
~ as provided under Section
100~31A.3 fo~the reasorfthat tho
substandard lot size of 21,483 scl.
ft. dot~ nOt 6bnform io the re-
quiremen[s for ~' ~t~vo~family
dwelling'use in th~s'R40,zone
District~; and
c.) ,fene,¢;in, exCeSs o. ,fo~r:[.
upon the Buildi~g.~impector'$ heighl~m!t~iorDVithi~.oiidong
Feb~ 20, 1~8~ of D~ front, -- o~ u on ~e
a royal ror,m p ~ ....
pP .... bmldm~Ps Feb~ 10;
tof~ow ~aw~m ....
~nine a nonco~omin~ Uso UClO.~ll, ~tion 1~231.~~
Artic~.XXiV;=S~tio~l~2 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4~7-.
241A. 35315' Main Road,
Cutchogue; 1,000-97-1 - 14.
6:50 p.hl. Ai/~l. No 4552-
GEORGE LIVANOS. This is a
request for a Variance .Based
upon the Building Inspector's q9
February I t: 1998 Notice of/p
Disapproval Article IliA. Sec-'
tion 100-30A.4, fora reduction
in the proposed sideyard setback
at a comer portion of proposed
accessory building (garage). Lot
Size and Zone: 7500y, sq. ft.: R-
40 Zone District. Location of
Property: 555 Sound Beach
Drive. Mattituek; also known as
RIVER}IEAD BUILDING
SUPPL ,Y,. This i~ a Teqh~bt f61' ~
variance b~ed' up6n ~e B6ild-
ing l~p~offa J~o~ ~, 1~98
Notic.g..0f Di~ppd~al; which
ma~. m ~ollows: ?~,l).~p~-
posed stmc~e ~ boated in
an LtO DisMct is ~miRed to
have a m~imum of 60.{,et of
~nmge on one s~t:.Tbe pro-
pos~ building is approximately
115 f~t facing Rt. 25, A~iele
XHI. Section 100-133C;' 2)
When fences ~e'locmed in or
along s~de ~d'~ yar~, ~y
shall not exceed 6~ feet in
height, pumu~t to 1~-231B..."
COUNTY OF~FFOLK
STATE OF NEW YORK ss:
Patricia C. Lollot, being duly sworn, says that
she is the Production Coordinator, of the TRAV-
ELER WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed
at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the no-
tice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in said Traveler Watchman
once each week for
/
., . ..-. weeks
successively, commencing on the ....../...~......'~..
day oJ., .............. ...~....,~..~.e...~.. ........ ~. .............. ,19..~..g.
· r~
Sworn to before me this ...... ../....~.. ............ ,day of
...................... ..P2.....8:.R.~ .............................. ,19.2..g.
Notary Public '
BARBARA k SCHNEIDER
NOTARY PUBUC, State of New York
No. 480t~4~
Qualified in Su~olk Cou_n~' /
Location of Property: 746i0 and
74500 Main Road, Oreanport,~
NY; 1000-46-'1-1 and 221, eom-
bined as a single lot. _
The Board of App,,eals will at.
said time and place hear any and
all persons or representatives
desiring to be heard in the above
applications or desiring to sub-
mit written statements before tho
end of each hearing. The heart
ing will not start earlier than d~-
ignated. The file is available for
review during Town Hall busi-
ness hours (84 p.m.) If you have
questions, please do no~ hesitate
to call 765-1809.
Dated: March 6, 1998.
BY ORDER OF THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN
.BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. ~
GOEHRINGER, Chairman
By: Linda Kowalski
IX-3/l 2/98(5 l)
Pending building p/~nit No.
24632Zwas issued 2/3/98. Lo-
cation of Property: 695 Shore
DriVe, Greenport; 1000-47-2-
18,,,
BAYVIEW/SOUTH, HAR-
~ Variance under Ar-
hc-~l~ection 100-33, based
upon the February 10,. 1998 No-
tice of Disapproval issue~by the
BUilding Inspector, to locate a
R-g0,Zone_DisUict, in an area
LocefiOn of Prope~:~lung thc
~terl~ Sidc of South I-I~or
Road (also extending near the
end of Grange Roed)~ SoUthold;
10000.?5-4,22.6 (formerly par-
cel of 22.4)..
7:00p.m, Can'yover Hearings
from Maroh 23, 1998:
T PETIKAS. Proposed two-
family use on a 21,000~ sq. fi.
parcel in this R-40 Residential
Zone Disui~ Locatiunof Prop-
erty: Comer:of the~ Wasterly
Side of, Sound Road and the
NOrtherly Sid~ of North Road
(C;~.,48)'(a/k/a Northerly End
of'Main Street),,Greenport;
1000~35,14, which requires ap-
proval for the Board o fAppeals
forth~following: ~ ..,, .
a) Special,Exception Applien-
tiun. No~4525 as provided by
Article;41I!,% SectiOn- 100-
30A.2 fo~.a two4amily:use/oc-
b)-¥ariance'~li~atioT~ No.
4526 as provided tmder:Sei:fion
100-3 IA.3 for the reason ~ the
. substandard lot~ size'of .21,483
sq: ff. does not conform to.the
we~ use in this:R 4¢ Zon~
e)ffance.in excesS of four,fi.'
ball,lit limitation within oralong
fromyard:areas, based upon the
Btlilding Inspeetor'~ ~February
1 O~'99SNotice~of Disapproval,
Arti¢leXXIH~ SectiOn 100-231.
. 7:10 p.m. AppL NoJ~4560-
ROBERT~ SHANK.
ICerryover, he~ aring ~h:un.~Aprit
6, J99'$.f6¥ Contln~ati,on~: ~20
Fisli~m//n~st: ;B/e~/ch - RSad,
Cutchogue; ~lO00.d l~'~-J %19. L,
' RIVEI~HE'A~ z' BUI E, DING
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STATE OF NEW YORK ss:
Patricia C. Lollot, being duly sworn, says that
she is the Production Coordinator, of the TRAV-
ELER WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed
at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the no-
tice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in said Traveler Watchman
once each week for
/
........................................................................ weeks
successively, co.(nmenfing on the .~....../~... .......
d ay ..................... 39
Sworn to before me .this ......... ..?......~.. ....... :day of
...................... · ...........................
Notary Public ..
BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER
NOTARY PUBUC, State of New York
No, 4806846
Qualified in SuffolkCou_n~lf !
Commmion [xpires
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1998
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town
Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following applications
will be held for public hearings by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF
APPEALS, at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New
York 11971, on THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1998 at the time noted below (or as
soon thereafter as possible):
6:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4565 - STEVEN ZUHOSKI. Variance under
Article XXIV, Section 100-244, based upon the Buil~l~ng Inspector's
March 30, 1998 Notice of Disapproval for a proposed garage addition with
an insufficient side yard setback at property known as 1090 Gold Spur
Street, Cutchogue; 1000-95-4-18.12.
6:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4566 - FRANK BERTETTO. Variance under
Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based upon the Building Inspeetor's
April 7, 1998 Notice of Disapproval for an ~as built" garage addition.
Pen~lfng bui]rllng permit No. 24632Z was issued 213/98. Location of
Property: 695 Shore Drive, Greenport; 1000-47-2-18.
6:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4564 - BAYVIEW]SOUTH HARBOR~ L.P.
Variance under Article III, Section 100-33, based upon the February 10,
1998 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, to looate a
proposed accessory garage in an R-80 Zone District in an area other
Page 2 - Legal Notice~
Hearings for May 14, 1998
Southold Town Board of Appeais
than the required rear yard. Location of Property: Along the easterly
Side of South Harbor Road (also extending near the end of Grange
Road), Southold; 1000-75-4-22.6 (formeriy parcel of 22.4).
7:00 p.m. Carryover Hearings from March 23, 1998:
T. PETIKAS. Proposed two-family use on a 21,000+- sq. ft. parcel in
this R-40 Residential Zone District. Location of Property: Corner of
the Westerly Side of Sound Road and the Northerly Side of North Road
(C.R. 48) (a/k/a Northerly End of M~in Street), Greenport;
1000-35-1-8, which requires approval from the Board of Appeals for the
following:
a) Special Exception Application No. 4525 as provided by Article
III-A, Section 100-30A.2 for a two-f~mily use/occupancy; and
b) Variance Application No. 4526 as provided under Section
100-31A.3 for the reason that the substandard lot size of 21,483 sq. ft.
does not cenform to the requirements for a two-family dwelling use in
this R-40 Zone District; and
c) fence in excess of four-ft, height limitation within or along
front yard areas, based upon the building inspector's February 10, 1998
Notice of Disapproval, Article XXIII, Section 100-231.
7:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4560 ROBERT AND ANN SHANK.
(Carryover hearing from April 16, 1998 for continuation).
820 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue; 1000-111-1-19.1.
7:25 p.m. Appl. No. 4547 - RIVERHEAD BUILDING SUPPLY.
This is a request for a variance based upon the Building Inspector's
January 2, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which reads as follows:
Page 3 - Legal NoticeO
Hearings for May 14, 1998
Southold Town Board of Appeals
"...1) the proposed structure being located in an LIO District is
permitted to have a maximum of 60 feet of frontage on one street. The
proposed building is approximately 115 feet facing Rt. 25, Article XIII,
Section 100-133C; 2) When fences are located in or along side and rear
yards, they shall not exceed 6-1/2 feet in height, pursuant to
100-231B .... " Location of Property: 74610 and 74500 Main Road,
Greenport, NY; 1000-46-1-1 and 2.1, combined as a single lot.
The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all
persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above applications
or desiring to submit written statements before the end of each
hearing. The hearing will not start earlier than designated. The file
is available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4
p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call 765-1809.
Dated:
AprH 20, 1998.
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman
by Linda Kowaiski
7:10 p.m. Carryover Hearing from March 23, 1998:
BUILDING SUPPLY CO.
RIVERHEAD
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Atm,~ at Law
315 Westphalia Road
P.O. Box 483
Mat6tuck, New Yo~k 11952
Tel: (516) 298-5629
Fax: (516) 298-5664
March 19, 1998
Southold Town
Board of Appeals
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Att: Ms. Linda Kowalski
RE: Theodore and Maria Petikas Application
Hearing Date: March 23, 1998
Dear Linda:
Enclosed please find an additional return receipt card for the
Affidavit of Mailing for the above referenced matter.
Very truly yours,
Patricia C. Moore
By: Margaret Rutkowski,
Legal Secretary
~; SENDER:
.~_ · Complete items 1 and/o~' 2 for additionaJ serv;ces. I also wish to receive the
~ · Complote items 3, 4a, and 4b.
~-Pcad~t~Yoo~ameanda~nmson~erevemeo, this~n~sothetwecanrotum,N, fdlowingse~4¢os(foran
~ · At[ach this form to the fro~t ~f the maJrplece, or on the heck if space does not extra fee):
~ permit. 1. [] Addressee's Address --~
· .~~WTh~ 'RotumRe~ipt~equested'c~themal~plecebelowthea~tidenumbsr. 2. [] Rastdcted Delivery e~
. !~ir~m Rec~pt w~ll show to whom the article was doiivered and the date ~;
· o "~A~cle Addressed to: Consult postmaster for fee. ~-
~ ~ 4a. A~cle Number _~
Ms. Sophie Raynor Z 286 590 302 E
17 Sound Road ~tb. Service Type ~
Greenport, NY 11944 [] Registered [~ Certffied =:
[] Express Mail [] insured ._=
[] RetumReceiptforMerchanclise [] COO =
7. Date of Delivery ~
5.~ P,~e~eived By: (Print Nam~e) ~ ~
./J~ ~ ~_~c./2.~ ~_..~ ~/~j~..~ 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requasted .~
~ and fee is paid) ~-
6. Signature: ~Addressee or Agent) · ~
X I,,,ll,,,lll,l,,,I,,I,l,,I,,,lll
PS Form 3811, December 1994 102sgs-gz s o,z9 Domestic Return
NOTI OF HEARI,,,
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,
Southold, New York, concerning this property.
OWNER(S) OF RECORD:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
If you have an interest in this project, you are invited to view the Town file(s)
which are available for inspection prior to the day of the hearing during normal
business days between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS · TOWN OF SOUTHOLD · (516) 765-1809
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY~ MARCH 23~ 1998
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town
Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following application will
be held for public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF
APPEALS~ at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 l~lnin Road, Southold, New
York 11971, on MONDAY, MARCH 23~ 1998 at the time noted below (or
as soon thereafter as possible):
7:15 p.m. THEODORE and MARIA PETIKAS. This is a request for
a two-family use at the corner of W/s Sound Road and N/s Main or North
Road (C.R. 48), Greenport; 1000-35-1-8, which requires approvai from
the Board of Appeals for the following:
a) Special Exception Application No. 4525 as provided by Article
III-A, Section 100-30A.2 for a two-family use/occupancy; and
b) Variance Application No. 4526 as provided under Section
100-31A.3 for the reason that the substandard lot size of 21,483
sq. ft. does not conform to the requirements for a two-family
dwelling use in this R-40 Zone District; and
Page 2 - Legal Notice~
Regular Meeting of March 23, 1998
Southold Town Board of Appeals
e) fence in excess of four-ft, height limitation within or along
front yard areas, based upon the building inspector's February 10,
1998 Notice of Disapproval, Article XXIII, Section 100-231.
The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all
persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above application
or desiring to submit written statements before the end of each
hearing. The hearing will not start earlier than designated. The file
is available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4
p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call 765-1809.
Dated:
March 6, 1998.
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman
by Linda Kowals~
OFFICE OF
BOARD OF APPEALS
53095 Main Read
Southold, NY 11971
(1-516) 765-1809 tel.
(1-516). 765-9064 fax.
-{-++~- I ! [ t-+++ ! ! ! {-+-I-I-+ ! ! ! [-+++-I~+ [ ! ! ~-~ ! I I ++++ I I i -' i t-+++++-I-+-I-++++t ! ! I I-+++-~-+~ |::: -
March 6, 1998
Re: ZBA AppHeation
Hearing Date: Monday, March 23, 1998
Dear Sir or Madam:
For your records, please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice
which will be published by our office in the upcoming issue of the L.I.
Traveler newspaper.
Under the requirements of Chapter 58 of Town Law, we are
requesting that you send a copy of this Notice at this time by certified
mail~ return receipt requested~ to the all sur~oundlng property owners.
Please include a copy of a map or sketch describing the setbacks and
bui]dlng(s) with your m~ilings and your telephone number. These m~illngs
must be postmarked by 3/11 if possible, and be forwarded to all owners, as
listed on the Town Assessment rscords, of vacant or improved IRnds across
streets and along all sides abutting the boundaries of the subject lot.
Please also post the enclosed Poster in the location described by
Ch. 58 of the Code (that is, wilhin ten (10) feet of the front property line
facing the street, for a period of not less than seven (7) days). The sign
may not be posted later than 3/15. If the sign is torn or removed due to
adverse weather conditions, let us know and we will provide another.
Please return the Affidavit of Mailing with the white certified mall
receipts (postmarked by the post office) for our file prior to the hearing
Page 2 - Instruction
Meeting of March 23, 1998
Southold Town Board of Appeals
date by mail or in person. The return receipt green
returned at the hearing (or before).
If you have questions, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
cards
may be
Enclosures
IAnda Kowalski
Board Secretary
~S400/lnag.98/appl.ln
(1-516) 765-1809 tel.
Inter-Office Ext. 223
OFFICE OF
BOARD OF APPEALS
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
(1-516) 765-9064 fax.
February 17, 1998
FAX TRANSMISSION and REGULAR MAIL
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
315 Westphalia Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Re: Appl. No. 4526.1t and 4547.jd - Petikas Applications
Dear Mrs. Moore:
Our department has recently received notification from the
Building Inspector that a variance is required for fence height above
four feet (ref. Notice of Disapproval issued February 10, 1998).
With respect to the proposed dwelling, Mr. Forrester has also
confirmed that the building department will not address applications
for a new dwelling on a vacant lot when the application lacks Health
Department and other approvals. He has indicated he would contact
you regarding this.
In the interim, the Board is expected to update their review of
the application at our February 26, 1998, and determine the next
step (possible hearing date for March 23, 1998). It is our
understanding that two variances are now requested: one, under
section 100-31A.3 for a lot size variance for a nonconforming lot in
this R-40 Zone, and two, for fence height at 6 ft. from natural
grade, along the front yard area property lines.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Office of the ZBA
cc: Mr. Ed Forrester, Department Head (Building Dept.)
-~t~
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD _ _,
TO:
FROM:
Zoning Board of Appeals
Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer~
RE:
Request for comments from the ZBA
DATE: February 24, 1998
The Planning Board reviewed your request for comments at yesterday's
work session. Please find the Boards comments in regard to the items
scheduled on the Zoning Board's February 26, 1998, meeting below:
R. Leonard
SCTM# 1000-78-7-38 & 39
The Planning Board does not have any records on this property.
M. Spiro & Others
SCTM# 1000-110-6-11.2 & 5
The Planning Board has a file showing the approval on November 8, 1979,
of a three lot minor subdivision. Lot # 11.2 is lot # 2 in this
subdivision.
T. McCarthy
SCTM# 1000-70-2-8
The Planning Board had received a request of site plan waiver from the
contract vendee, (Patrioa & William Moore). The Board has agreed to
the waiver request ff the applicant will pave and mark the handicapped
parking space and install bumper stops in the parking lot.
T. Petikas
SCTM# 1000-35-1-8
The Planning Board has a file on this applicant. The file references a
Zoning Board action of August 22, 1985 & Planning Board correspondence
regarding a preliminary site plan.
Tonyes Realty Corp.
SCTM# 1000-61-4-23
The Planning Board does not have a site plan application for the proposed
addition. This is a non-conforming use in the Hamlet Business (HB)
District.
The Zoning Code does not allow a non=conforming use to be enlarged.
Section 100-241 (A.) of the Zoning Code specifically states that a
non-conforming use may continue indefinitely, except that "(it) shall not
be enlarged, altered, extended, reconstructed or restored.., nor shall
any external evidence of such use be increased by any means whatsoever."
The Planning Board is not in favor of this request.
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
George Homing
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064
Telephone (516) 765-1809
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
{x}
( }
{ }
Planning Board
Building Department
Town Trustees
J. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals
February 23, 1998
Request for Confirmation of ~'~ h~ i ~ History and
Preliminary Comments
Please confirm whether there is any history of action(s) by the
Planning Board for the property identified below, or any part
thereof:
1000-78-7-38 and 39 currently of R. Leonard
1000-110-6-11.2 and 5 currently of M. Spiro and others
1000-70-2-8' currently of T. McCarthy
1000-35-1-8- currently of T. Petikas
1000-61-3-23- currently of Tonyes Realty Corp.
Also, please furnish communications of record that applicants*
may have had with respect to the general site plan layout and
possible changes to parking location discussed or any other
areas which would assist in this planning project.
Thank you.
Enclosures: Copies of preliminary maps for the above
applicants*.
' ~ ~t~E~LS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1809
November 20, 1997
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
315 Westphalia Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Re: Applications of Theodore Petikas
Dear Mrs. Moore:
This will confirm that in checking with Gary Fish, Building
Inspector, today their office has confirmed that you will need to make an
application directly to the~ before a Notice of Disapproval reviewing the
areas of zoning may be issued.
Thank you.
CHAirmAN
Enclosure
Fax Transmission to 298-5664
cc: G. Fish, 8uildin§ Inspector
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1809
November 3, 1997
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
Moore & Moore
P.O. Box 483
Mattituck, NY 11952
Re: Appl. #4525 & 4526 - Petikas Project at Greenport
Dear Mrs. Moore:
This will confirm that Board Members have requested that the
applicants or their attorney make application to the Building
Department and obtain a written determination by the Building
Inspector confirming the areas in which zoning is not in conformity
for this project. Upon receipt of the Building Inspector's
deterndnation, the file is expected to be deemed complete and by
board resolution, calendared for a public hearing at the foilowing
meeting.
Very truly yours,
Linda Kow~ski
cc: Building Department
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
TO:
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: JUDITH T. TERRY, SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
RE:
ZONING APPEAL NO. 4526
DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1997
Transmitted is application for a variance
Patricia Moore on behalf of
Disclosure Form; Short
and Survey.
submitted by
THEODORE PETIKAS together with
Environmental Form; Deed;
~--' Jud[tt~: T'. 'Te~;~y~
Southold Town Clerk
(Added I-lb . · L.I~ No. 1-198§]
LIO
LB lib B Light Industrial LI
Llmitod Hamlet Genernl M-I M-Il Pnr~JPlinned Ughl
Bu~lne~ Bu~inem Bualne~ Marine I Marine Il Office Park lnduMrial
20,(.~0 ivli) NA 40.000 40,000 (v~i) NA NA
~,0~0 (vii) NA 2O,(]O0 20.000 (~ii) NA NA
10,000 (xi) NA 10.0~0 10.000 (x{) NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NOTES:
~ Roman numerR[~ refer to the applicable c~umn in the Residential Butk ~:hedule.
...... Refer to the Residential Bulk Schedule for total lot size.
Town of Southnld
NA NA NA NA ~000 NA
NA NA NA NA 6,000 NA
NA NA NA NA 4,000 NA
R-80
isLAND
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR~
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
3 0
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Zoning Board Office
Planning Board
Request for comment
December 29, 1997
Appl. #4525 & 4526 - T. Petikas
Sound Road & Main/North Road, Greenport
SCTM# 1000-35-1-8
This property is located at a busy intersection. The proposal is to increase
intensity of use, and the level of traffic on this parcel which is undersized. From
a traffic safety perspective, this is not a good idea. The house size does not
show on the property card (attached).
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Serge Doyen
James Dirdzio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Maureen C. Ostermann
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1809
FOR BOARD AND STAFF USE
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
George Homing
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
May 27, 1998
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064
Telephone (516) 765-1809
Patrieia C. Moore, Esq.
Moore & Moore
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Applications for Variances and Special Kxception
Parcel 1000-35-1-8 (Owners: petika.~)
Dear Mrs. Moore:
Following our communications with you, we enclose copies of the
Board's May 19, 1998 Determinations legal'ding the above
applioation~.
Very truly yours,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
Enclosures
Copies of Decisions to:
Building Department
planninE Board
Suffolk County plonning Commlgsion
(within 500 ft. of a county/state road)
I ~:~"~' ] ' ] (~) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK J~'~'L~U'
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ~m~OUTHOLD