The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4739J APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning o�OSUFFO(� e0 o� y` C#* = BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1999 Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Appl. No. 4739 - JOAN AND WILLIAM RICH III 1000-25-2-20.17 (and ref. 19.1) STREET & LOCALITY: 1105 Orchard Street, Orient DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: September 30, 1999 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS: The subject property is a corner lot with 253.24 feet frontage along the west side of Tabor Road and 113.93 feet frontage along the north side of Orchard Street, Orient. The parcel is improved with a swimming pool and a storage building. A survey dated February 2, 1990, submitted by applicant, shows a combined area of 48,408 sq. ft. which includes the subject lot and the adjacent lot to the west (1000- 25-2-19.1, which measures 80 feet along Orchard Street and 251.28 feet deep and is improved with a dwelling). The 1990 survey indicates that the line between the two lots is the "former property line." (Applicant in this application to the Board of Appeals states that the two lots are separate and not merged as one.) BASIS OF APPEAL: Notice of Disapproval dated July 28, 1999, denying a Certificate of Occupancy for the pool because it is not a permitted structure "pursuant to Article III Section 100-31CA which states ... Garden house, tool house, storage building, playhouse, wading pool, swimming pool or tennis court incidental to the residential use of the premises and not operated for gain ... subject parcel does not contain a principal residential use. Original permit for pool (#18782) was issued based upon a survey indicating that this lot had been merged with the neighboring residential lot, these lots were separated by ZBA in Appeal #2104 dated March 26, 1976 and have not merged." RELIEF REOUESTED: Although the Notice of Disapproval refers to a CO only for the swimming pool, the Board understands that applicant seeks COs for both the pool and the storage building, and that both are denied for the reason that such structures are permitted only as accessories to a principal use, and there is no principal use on the subject property. Applicant states that he does not wish to merge the lots. The appeal presented to this Board does not expressly request a variance, but simply asks for issuance of the COs, presumably pursuant to this Board's authority under Section 267 of New York Page 2 - October 14, 1999 ZBA Appl. No. 4739 - W. Rich 1000-25-2-20.17 Town Law to reverse decisions of the administrative official charged with enforcement of zoning laws. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION. DESCRIBED BELOW On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findings: (1) Applicant purchased lot 1000-25-2-19.1, improved with a dwelling and garage, in 1976, and lot 1000-25-2-20.17, which was then unimproved, in 1981. The two lots have been held in different names and have not merged. (2) In February 1990, applicant obtained Building Permit No. 18782 to construct a swimming pool and storage building on the easterly part of the property. Under Code section 100-31, such structures are permitted only as accessories to a principal residential use on a parcel. The building permit application appeared to request authorization to build the two structures on a single parcel that also contained the existing dwelling, making the two structures accessories: (A) the building permit application gave the lot size as 193.93 feet (front), 191.74 feet (rear) and 250 feet +- (depth), which are the dimensions of lots 19.1 and 20.17 combined for a total area of 48,408 sq. ft.; (B) the building permit application gave the existing and intended uses of the premises as, respectively, "private one -family dwelling w/ detached garage apart- ment' and "private one -family dwelling w/ detached garage apartment, detached barn and swimming pool'; (C) the building permit application included a survey on which a line is shown between lots 19.1 and 20.17 and is denoted "former property line." (3) Certificates of Occupancy were not issued for the pool and storage building at the time the projects were completed. When applicant applied for the COs, the Building Inspector issued the Notice of Disapproval cited above, dated July 28, 1999. (4) Applicant states that the Building Department made a mistake in issuing Building Permit No. 18782 and that he relied on that Permit to build the pool and storage building, and he asks this Board to direct the Building Department to issue COs for the two structures. Applicant contends that unless the COs are issued, he will be harmed by his reliance on the Building Permit. However, the Board concludes that the Building Department issued Permit No. 18782 not in error but in the belief that the two lots had merged, and that this belief was reasonably based on the information submitted in the Building Permit application. Because that permit record showed the lots as merged, the Permit properly authorized construction of two accessory structures on the property with the existing dwelling as the principal residential under Section 100-31C(4). It would be Page 2 - October 14, 1999 ZBA Appl. No. 4739 - W. Rich 1000-25-2-20.17 inappropriate for this Board now to direct issuance of COs for those structures as located on the unmerged lot 1000-25-2-20.17 without a principal residential use. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: (1) The swimming pool structure is not a permitted accessory use on a lot which does not contain a dwelling. Section 100-31C(4) of the Zoning Code states that Accessory Uses are permitted limited to the following: "Garden house, tool -house, storage building, playhouse, wading pool, swimming pool, or tennis court incidental to the residential use of the premises..." (Emphasis added) (2) Swimming pools under Section 100-31C(4) of the Zoning Code are permitted accessory to a principal residential use. (3) Applicant created his own difficulty by providing the "information" to the Building Department, for reliance in issuing a building permit, constructing a swimming pool and now, nine (9) years later, states that the building permit was not issued properly. The 1990 Building Permit record does confirm that the survey amended February 2, 1980 indicates a single lot area of 48,408 sq. ft., and the Applicant relied upon the same Building permit to construct the pool. (4) More than nine (9) years has passed since the Building Permit was issued (February 16, 1990). (5) Alternatives are available for applicant to pursue by: (a) Joining the two tracts of land, as submitted at the time of issuance of the building permit; or (b) make application for a Use Variance; or (c) remove the pool; or (d) build a principal dwelling use (after obtaining all permits). RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Members Dinizio and Collins, seconded by it was RESOLVED, to DENY the request Certificates of Occupancy for the swimming 25-2-20.17. that this Board direct the issuance of pool and storage barn located on lot 1000 - VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Goehringer, Dinizio, Tortora, and Collins. (Member Horning of Fishers Island was absent during this Resolution.) This Resolution was duly ado � (4-0),._ RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE /% 5f��/ HOUR /.'3 0 ?M`� GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, ,FFV ,�� ' ,� For Filing October 28, 1999 Town Clerk, Town of Southold Garage It 3. Nature of Work (check which applicable): New/Building .. XX ..... Atfd run .......... Alteration .......... Repair .:............ Remi ` :............. Demolition .... Other Work XX ; f rbQ.1k.. . (Description) 4. Estimated Cost lq, ;cT?T?7.. . ? :OcT?J.............. Fee . 1 5--P .............. (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units ........... . :.. Number of dwelling units on each floor ........... , Ifgarage, number of cars........2..........................................................' 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use .................:... 7( Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front ............... Rear ..:...... :.... Depth ............... Height ............... Number of Stories .............................. ...:.......:........ ..... Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ................. Rear ........ . Depth ........ .........:... Height ... ... ... Number of Stories .... 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front'.$Q.'...1. �� ..: Rear . 50', , , f, 20' , Depth 26' .. Height Number of Stories ........1..: ........................................... . 9. Size of lot: Front .....1 3:•.93.......... Rene .......191; 74 ........ Depth .... 10. Date of Purchase ....... ...... ........ . ................ ...NameofFormerOwner ................... I ......... 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated ....A -Residential 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ...... No . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . 13. Will lot be regraded ..... ... Will excess fill be removed from premises: Yes No 14. Name of Owner of premises illiam Rich IYI. Address ..........:.....:..Phone No...........:. . Name of Architect ........................... Address ................... Phone No................ Name of Contractor ......... .. .... . Address .................. Phone No..... . PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposedi and. indicate all set -back dimensions from ' property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deeds and show street times and indicate whether interior or corner lot. See Attached STATE OF NEW YORK, S.S' COUNTY _ WILLIAM H _ PRICE, JR., being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above nm cd. , El is the .. ............Agent.: .........` `. (Contractor, age, t, corporate officer,otc.) 3f said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perforn or have perforated the said work and to #nakegondifileCthis application; that all statements eontttined in this applicatio tie true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the cork will be performed in the 'Wannertot forth in tier ^plir on filed therewith. ;worn to before me this J3 da of .... Januar 19 y y` 90 rot 61&L Jotary Public..... - Suffolk , . County HM K DE YOE NOTARY PUBLIC. State of New Yank ......... . . .p788,Soloo ... Tamxat f (Signature of applicant) • TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. '_'7 JUL 3 0 $� 9 Cj4 _ f I? DATE .............................. nntcat l � SUZat1'17 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOVASFt' ��oo rHES�'U,. Y tfi,6� 7$` n ,rtg 1, (We) Md%tIfi:n .....a .... . .........of 10J.Vk ©rck ............ `f Name of Appellant Street and Number ........................................................................ ..... Iy,)'.:YRaC HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ...................................................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ......... `.WA\M:0L ......\� 4 ..................... Name of Applicant for permit of ....,..qVx.& ti)`�:..................h-A............ t. Street end Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY .�O►irk.a.,!G.4.t.c�X�................................................... Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Map District 1000 Section Block Lot ..........Current Owner[ Mo No. �. +�_ o i1 ot�o.lq ` Prior Owner, �rpc C 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 !!t Section 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check.appropriate box) ( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Lows Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal 0"9) has not been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a vorionce and was made in Appeal No.................................Dated...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that r'orm zst (Continue on other side) ',moi 4✓� Reason for Appeal In 1990, after having received a valid building permit for the construction of an agricultural storage barn/garage and a 20 x 40 foot swimming pool [exhibit 1] 1 proceeded to build both, the cost of the pool including the deck and landscaping was approximately $25,000. And the cost of the storage barn was approximately $45,000. Although the pool area is landscaped as part of the main house I did not want to merge the two tax lots for reasons involving income and estate tax planning. The pool and storage barn were completed in 1990 [exhibit 2 land I have paid real estate taxes on the two separate lots to and including 1999. In September of 1998 the Orchard Street property was listed for sale. I checked the records in the building department and discovered that no Certificate of Occupancy had been issued for the pool and the storage shed I applied for a C of O and paid the fee in October of 1998. Two subsequent inspections were made[exhibit 31 as well as an inspection by the electrical underwriters which resulted in a certificate of approval by the underwriter[ exhibit 41. In May of 1999 a Contract of sale was entered into for the sale of the property [exhibit 51. The buyers were attracted to the property for reasons that included the fact that there were two separate tax lots. The buyers specifically included language in the contract permitting them to utilize a tax swap as part of the purchase and were willing to pay a premium for the property because of the existence of two tax lots. In July of 1999 the Building Department discovered that they made a mistake in issuing the permit in 1990 and were not allowed to issue a permit for a pool on a lot that did not have a primary residence. The Building Department indicated that if I filled in the pool there would be no issue or I could merge the two lots. i Merging the two Iots would cause me to not be able to perform on a contract of sale and would result in a substantial discount for the loss of buyers inability to utilize the two lots for their tax planning: I have relied on building permit to construct the pool I have relied on the existence of the two lots to offer them for sale and in fact sign a contract of sale. Neither I nor the contract buyer has any intention of using the properties as any other than a single family dwelling. The existence of 2 separate tax lots however does provide benefits to the owner for tax planning purposes and, with the proper restrictions on subdivision of the 2 lots poses no harm to the Township of Southold. Although the law in New York State is clear as to a "Municipal permit issued,.. by mistake...." Case law has established that "Because of the recognizable harsh nature of this rule, exceptions were inevitable:"_.. The so-called "vestedrights" exception is. simply stated in the following manner:" A vested right to complete a nonconforming building matures when substantial work is performed and obligations are assumed in good faith reliance on a permit legally issued":(Reichenvbach v. Windward at Southampton, 90 Misc tad 1031 1034, affd 48 In the present situation there is also the " doctrinal exception of "equitable estoppel " ..which comes into play when the permit is not, technically, legally issued in the first glace -either because of a mistake of fact or law on the part of the issuing uthori,ty....When a government *** subdivision acts-orcomports itself wrongfully or pgliageptly, inducing reliance by a party who is entitled to rely and who changes his )osition to his detriment or prejudice, that subdivision should be estopped from asserting . riot of defense which it otherwise could have raised" (Rosbar Co. v Board of Appeals, Courts have continued to expand the doctrine of equitable estoppel in cases far more extreme than the present "the doctrine of equitable estoppel shall be allowed to apply.. Though in may in fact be true that the original permit was issued in the face of certain violations(i.e., insufficient front yardage or improper elevations) and may therefore be considered technically unlawfully, because of petitioner's good faith reliance, substantial expenditures... (MTR Perrottav, City of NY, 122 Mise 2°d 647) "Additionally, compliance with mere technical matters shall be viewed as curable irregularities..."( Matter of Baywater health Related Facility v Karagheuzoff, 37 NY2nd 408) REASONS FOR AREA :VARIANCE ONLY (to be completed by applicant): Do not use these standards for "use variance" or "special exception." (Also attach sheets if necessary, with signatures.) 1. An undesirable change will NOT be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if granted BECAUSE: 2. The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some F' method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance BECAUSE: 3. The amount of relief requested is not substantial BECAUSE 4. The variance will`'NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district BECAUSE 5. Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( ) Yes. ( ) No. 6. This is the minimum that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve an rotect thof the neighborhood and the health, safety and are of a commun Y. �PrV► c `� �J� ' STATE of 4W COUNTY OF ) ( pp ican Agent must attach written pconsent from owner. H Sworn to before me this(p day f4��l9�fi) ��_ _ NOTARIAL BEAL VELEM V. MMTOCOI, Notary Pubk tx t l k /form . v a r/ temp City of AfthOwn, "high County MyCornin*w1onExpinn July 4, 2002 UNDA1 4, Suffolk Tim Expiros Decetrt6ee 31,W /I/I 4 — 1 C r l- / 9'. 1 r %0 VV IN vr jJ#ftrur r 1Y1 %016L► M" A,,0 &K I r 1' "%.#KAd %i,04K1 OWNER STREET � d VI L,-; E DIST. SUB. LOT O 12 X � � s 0 -- FORMER OWNER N E AC)2. CC. 1 L?� E. , f �-6 I is l�(� RNleeK� S - . h!'..v �l.i1>/�' W TYPE �OF BUILDING J ✓ ova UG N I.r'a h, e :ES.,r �D SEAS. IVL. FARM COMM. Ce, MISC. Mkt. Value LAND IMP, TOTAL DATE REMARKS�1 S/V , ca,LX'?,P- 7l. FaJ'/�fv l6 CA ) ��a 0 DOD I w Ada��ow fd far awe Fc �3doo, 5'6 d 7 d0 0 Lpslalq -� ' i g a GiJ� A�� ;�u �� s � Apu ce n o $aa. i 1P,5'nc cc 538a� 1l�i S" AGE BUILDING CONDITION NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FARM Acre Value Per Acre Value tillable 1 Tillable 2 Tillable 3 Noodland swampland FRONTAGE ON WATER 3rushland FRONTAGE ON ROAD louse Plot DEPTH v %. BULKHEAD otal DOCK 4 maw w4G wwtt idwS±e+R+twvwMa.sn...a a. IN :r OWN OF SOUTHOL6 OROPERTY RECORD CARD OWNER VILLA E DIST.1 SUB. LOT FORMER OWNER N LcS ETAi.014 2L�'5 G(vS RES. SEAS, C:�ftc E l AC2 b S`t' VL- � + � .'.. FARM W TYPE OF BUILDING W cu COMM_ CB. MICS. Mkt. Value LAND tMP. _TOTAL . ' DATE REMARKS L . 'IC� , ` C'µ2i _Vt l io UZ, L-`P1U4 �C�o 3�Oa�d.AZ 45de� c 9 — Ch /M %�i�lj Tillable FRONTAGE ON WATER Woodland FRONTAGE ON ROAD Meadowland DEPTH House Plot BULKHEAD Total 1'- 5 M. Bldg.Bath tens 3o'vv5o � 15oca �— 5025" Foundation Basement slc��, Floors Extension Ext. Walls C Interior Finish Extension Fire Place Heat — Porch �a.7,�, Pool ; q 0 d Attic Deck \ems 17b FodCOw ', 2 (o Z, Patio Rooms 1st Floor Breezeway l 3 /�syp Driveway Rooms 2nd Floor Garage 0. 6. 1'- i 9/. 74 N. 87° f •. IIS -75 78.99 1 , gr f—cr zt 20 2y? i'X o QQ V u Q�; i I 1 I -u QIZGHA/L 17 :S y -,Q E F_;' F i I � e , h ,A I� I t Suffolk County rax Parcels : Aolendad Feb Al 1990• l D G 0 d Z .S^' x' { `1, / y 2 Q. 1-7 Man. nn °n"troy • 99 p1 oration !•ow. • � Tn,+„ ^'SAa ,�o^"•. M th!9 anrrsy ma.? not C^ .; ;.,: io °tT•roYM's irtiefr e°o{ a r.'xax^e snai enan nat tramnairs�. :Yid�P.d GC7t'4bdr' Z3� /% Cn a v£Ii0 Moo °qpy, C.0 amaxya lnCicatue h°raor. r,; •: .�..C/ er�ctc I/drt '1'1/5(1, P C. . *:4 to tno -.moo To, wd. - ?� -r dank bctn C.T� ,�'_ -' „ Grcerrsed ;and �5urvt�e'rs. A, APPEALS BOARD MEMBER;, — Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning BOARD*OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 28,1999 William Rich III, Esq. P.O. Box 95 Orient, NY 11957 Re: Appl. No. 4738 : Use of Pool Dear Mr. Rich: Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Enclosed please find a copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals' determination rendered October 14, 1999. A copy has also been furnished to the Building Department for their permanent record-keeping. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Enclosure Copy of Decision to: Building Department Page 2 - October 14, -_ 99 ZBA Appl. No. 4739 - W. Rich 1000-25-2-20.17 inappropriate for this Board now to direct issuance of COs for those structures as located on the unmerged lot 1000-25-2-20.17 without a principal residential use. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: (1) The swimming pool structure is not a permitted accessory use on a lot which does not contain a dwelling. Section 100-31C(4) of the Zoning Code states that Accessory Uses are permitted limited to the following: "Garden house, tool -house, storage building, playhouse, wading pool, swimming pool, or tennis court incidental to the residential use of the premises ..." (Emphasis added) (2) Swimming pools under Section 100-31C(4) of the Zoning Code are permitted accessory to a principal residential use. (3) Applicant created his own difficulty by providing the "information" to the Building Department, for reliance in issuing a building permit, constructing a swimming pool and now, nine (9) years later, states that the building permit was not issued properly. The 1990 Building Permit record does confirm that the survey amended February 2, 1980 indicates a single lot area of 48,408 sq. ft., and the Applicant relied upon the same Building permit to construct the pool. ' (4) More than nine (9) years has passed since the Building Permit was issued (February 16, 1990). (5) Alternatives are available for applicant to pursue by: (a) Joining the two tracts of land, as submitted at the time of issuance of the building permit; or (b) make application for a Use Variance; or (c) remove the pool; or (d) build a principal dwelling use (after obtaining all permits). RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Members Dinizio and Collins, seconded by it was RESOLVED, to DENY the request that this Board direct the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the swimming pool and storage barn located on lot 1000- 25-2-20.17. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Goehringer, Dinizio, Tortora, and Collins. (Member Horning of Fishers Island was absent during this Resolution.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE, SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE"/—M/F,7 HOUR 1.30 Town Clerk, Town of Southold. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, i For Filing October 28, 1999 L' 5:37 P.M. - Appl. No. 4739 - JOANN and WILLIAM RICH III This is a request for a Variance under Article 111, Section 100-31 CA for the use and location of an accessory swimming pool, constructed under Building Permit No. 18782, at 1105 Orchard Street, Orient; Parcel Nos. 1000-25-2-20.17 and 19.1. This appeal is based upon the July 28, 1999 Notice issued by the Building Department, disapproving an application for a Certificate of Occupancy, for the following reasons: "Swimming pool or tennis court incidental to the residential use of .the premises and not operated for gain... subject parcel does not contain a principal residential use. Original permit for pool (#18782) was issued based upon a survey indicating that this lot had been merged with the neighboring residential lot, these lots were separated by Zoning Board of Appeals in Appeal #2104 dated March 26, 1976 and have not merged." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening. Sir. Could you state your nre the record, please. MR. RICH: My name is William Rich. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER' How do you do? MR. RICH: I am the owner of the property. Mr. Chairman, Members of Board, we- have an issue here that's truly I think on the verge of getti out of hand. The background is, in 1974 1 purchased my primary residence on Orchard Street, 1045 Orchard Street. On the maps that I provided everybody is, 19.1. In 1981 1 purchased an adjacent lot from William Schrieber after the Zoning Board of Appeals permitted a separation of his lot from his adjoining lot, your notice indicated that it may have been separated from lot 19.1 but, in fact it does not separate it from that lot. I purchased lot 20.17 which is on the corner of Tabor Road and Orchard Street for the specific purpose of preventing somebody else -from building a house on that location. Although I did purchase the lot never intended to merge the -title for estate planning purpose or income tax planning purposes. I wanted to keep separate title and in fact I took the property under separate title. In 1990; January of 1990, 1 applied for a Building Permit to improve that lot for a swimming pool and a utility building. I was given the permit and spent over $110,000 in putting the pool, landscaping on the building end. The property, the Building Department indicated that there was an intent to merge. The concept of merger never came up. The map that was submitted, really it did show a border that was they call a prior border but, it mentioned two separate specific tax lots. And, a merger isn't a landscaping concept. A merger is a legal concept where the both owners get together and take it under one new title and one new tax map number. I continued to pay real estate taxes on two improved lots since 1990. In fact, in 1996 that lot 20.17 was in fact 3 traded for my own internal tax purposes to my wife which was confirmation that maintaining the two separate titles was useful for income tax planning purposes. As I said, there was no mention although the code may have indicated, there was no mention when I got the Building Permit that it would be a merger. If there had been a request or a notification .that the lots had been merged, I-would have put the pool and spent the money on a different part and not spent the money on the adjacent lot. Certainly, there was no request for a variance. There was no indication that the pool project, you're going to have to discuss with the neighbors. There's been a letter submitted that indicated that the neighbors were advised that there would be a merger and that's absolutely ludicrous, the neighbors didn't even know about -it. Up until the notice was posted they probably couldn't even describe what a merger was.. There was no forum that would have required neighbors be notified or a conforming pool. In 1999, May I had accepted an offer to purchase the property for frankly a very high premium price. The buyers were interested. , Certainly not in subdividing or building anymore structures on that property, but, they had a need for a tax lot and were ready to pay me a premium and increase the value of the property because there were two separate tax map numbers. They had no interest in. subdividing, no interest in building a house, but, it did. A high net person recognized that it was an advantage of having two separate tax map numbers. When the Building Department refused the Certificate of Occupancy, the offer was withdrawn and basically I got stuck on what would have been a very, very attractive offer. After that, I did a little research and found that under the circumstances there is a law in New York State called the Law of Vested Rights which in essence developed through case law which indicates that the property owner relies on a valid. Building Permit and spends money, and improves the property which I did. I spent over $110,000 ten years ago and now there's ,an indication that I will not -get a Certificate of Occupancy unless I merge the lots which will decrease the value of the property. Now the merger of the lots really accomplishes nothing. Nobody is going to pay the, premium price for these two lots is going to put up a small shack on a half acre. I presented pictures and books that I gave to various Members of the Board. It's a very attractive piece of property. It's a compound that's landscaped. As I said, it took me well over a $110,000 dollars and it's absolutely improbable that anybody would pay that price and sell off the adjacent lot and be squeezed in. So, as I said, based on my reliance on the Building Permit I continued to improve the property. I pay taxes every year for the past 9-11 years and lost a very, very attractive purchase. I have another buyer who is again interested in buying. They want two building lots, have no interest in developing the property and I'm on the verge of losing another one because I'm unable to get this. Building Permit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Rich are you an attorney? MR. RICH: Yes, I am. 2 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What was the. -purpose and the reason why I ask that question, you're both an applicant and an attorney and of course there's no reason to swear you in because you're an Officer of the Court, OK., and that's the reason why I asked the question. What was the purpose of .building a garage that size on that piece of :property? MR. RICH: For my equipment? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean two stories on that side? I mean it's an extensive, extensive garage. MR. RICH: It certainly is and there were many times over the past year I kind of wish it was bigger. I have a lot, I bought a boat, I have a lot of equipment for the orchards and maintaining the property and cars. It is a full, full barn and it's not rented out to anybody. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you at any time ever realize that the Building 'Department was in error in granting you a•Building Permit for the construction of the swimming pool and the construction of the garage storage building? MR. RICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You were. When did you come to that realization? MR. RICH: In June.of 99 when the a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean there was no time subsequent, immediate subsequent the issuing of the granting of these Building Permits? MR. RICH: Absolutely not. In 1997, 1 transferred title from the title that I took in 1981 to my wife's name. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On that lot? MR. RICH: On that lot. I continued to pay taxes separately. Never, never even comprehened that.' There was no mention anytime that there was a need for a merger. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: These are unique circumstances. These are circumstances that this Board is somewhat akin to. and I probably can count on my right hand the amount of times that applications of this nature have come before us. But I'll yield to my colleges and I'll start with Mr. Dinizio, Do you have any questions of the applicant Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't. 5 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins MEMBER COLLINS: One is just a point of fact. The pool is sought of mentioned in various of these documents. But, the issue at hand I gather is C of Os for . both the pool and the barn garage? MR. RICH: Based on my understanding, there's no problem issuing the C of Os for any of the other buildings. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, I'm sorry go ahead. MR. RICH: I've been told by the Building Department through my partner who, is really out here more often than I, that they had it ready to go but, they wanted to wait and issue them all together, so they were holding them_ off. But, I, have not been advised that there's a problem with the storage barn. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, my.understanding of this case is, the Building Permit that was issued back in 1990 of which you were kind enough to .give us a copy, refers both to the pool and the building - MR. RICH: It does. MEMBER COLLINS: And indeed there's a notation on it, two C Os will be necessary and as I understand it, your problem now is you realize you don't have those C Os, you went into the Building Department and asked them for them, and said, they can't issue them, and the reason is that these are accessory uses on a property with no principal use. Is that a good nutshell of the situation.? MR. RICH: That's a nutshell. MEMBER COLLINS: So I think probably both of the C Os are in the picture. The Building Department memo refers to the original pool permit, but, I think that's just a shorthand. The way I read this is, of course this is a -complicated situation, but, I think it sounds like a use variance request and -that's a very difficult road to hoe because really what you're asking us to do, as I understand it, is to grant a variance that says, it's OK for these accessory structures, the barn and the pool to be used on a property with no principal use. MR. RICH: But in fact, there is, it is part of a principal use. It's just that it's - MEMBER COLLINS: Not -on my property Sir. Not on, that, that's the issue MR. RICH: It didn't say that on the Building Permit. L MEMBER COLLINS: Well going back to the building, let me tell you something that sought of troubles me a little about this. You have emphasized the Building Department was in error in issuing the Building Permit for accessory structures on a parcel with no principal use and you said they were in error and that's why you're citing the Doctrine of the Law of Vested Rights and Equitable Estoppel and that sought of thing. But, going back and looking at the Building Permit Application in 1990 not only did it have that survey that we've all seen that shows a line that says, former property line between the _two .lots implying that they're all one lot. But also, the Building Permit Application gives the size of the property on which the activity is to be conducted as the total size of the -two lots and it also says, the current use of the property before the construction is residential with a small barn, and after the construction the use of the -property will be residential with a small barn, a big new barn and a pool. All of which was telling the Building Department it was only one lot and I don't think that they were in error, I just think they just had inadequate information that you gave them. MR. RICH; But that doesn't constitute a merger. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, no Sir; absolutely not. That's your problem. Your lots aren't merged and you don't want them merged. Of course not. MR. RICH: But it reduces the value of the property. I've already lost a premium price. MEMBER COLLINS: I understand that, but, I'm trying to give you my reading of this case. You have two lots. They never merged. You never wanted to merge them. You built accessory structures on one of them that has no principal structure and that's a violation of the Zoning Code. It's a violation of the Use Rules and now you want us to fix that and I think to fix it -we've got to give you a Use Variance and those are extremely hard to get. That's where I come out. MR. RICH: What appears on the New York Law Vested Rights and I jeopardized it -right up to the last minute. It's expanding and I didn't make any distinction between a use variance application: It's more of a formality and there is all kinds of language in a half dozen cases cited. Judge Lazer provided the most significant face case vested rights on estoppel and this certainly seems to say where a property owner relies and 1 certainly relied. I continued to pay taxes. I changed title and I was never informed until I tried to sell the property and I was deprived of a sale. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? One second Lora. MEMBER COLLINS: 'Sure. 7 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The title to this property was originally ,in your name and that's when you changed it from your name into your wife' name? MR. RICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, excuse me. MR. RICH: The primary residence is in joint names. MEMBER COLLINS: I lost my train of thought. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry. MEMBER COLLINS: No, my concern is that the Building Permit upon which Mr. Rich relied in 1990, was issued based on information'that told the Building Department that the situation was other than what the situation was and for him now to say, that he has vested rights and equities against the authorities because he relied on that permit just bothers me and further more I don't think that we admittedly I don't anything very much about the law, the administrative procedure in New York, but I don't think that we are the formed argue vested rights and equitable estoppel to. I think that's what you argue in court when you're suing under 78 asking, telling them they've got to issue your permit. I've spoken too long I think. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I do not agree that's a use variance, There were a lot of oversights to give you a background on this a little bit that occurred in the seventies for lack of communication. The Board's ruling on this is suppose to be permanently attached in the Building Department to that file in the Building Department. So to just say they didn't know and therefore they just went ahead, don't think that's accurate. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry Lydia you're rebutting something I .said, and I don't understand what you're saying. MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, I do not believe it's a use variance. I do not agree with your statement that the Building Department had no other information to go on. The Zoning Board of Appeals made a decision in 1976 - MEMBER COLLINS: Letting them set-off the lots. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, creating this. Our department is not somewhere off in the moon. We're here in Southold Town, Building Department is down there. When that decision was made, this is automatically, was automatically made E:3 part of their file and that information goes with that file. So, when he went in 1990 and filed an application to build a swimming pool, that information should have been in that file. So, I do not absolve them and say, no they had no way of knowing better. They're not up in the moon, they work in our town. As far as a use variance, I don't see it as a use variance anymore,than allowing a - structure that is required to be an accessory structure that is to be required to be in a rear yard that and we allow it to be in a side yard. The issue here is the location. So, I don't really agree with that at all, that it is a use variance. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I mean it's good to argue this on record because I think we need it on the record. Obviously we don't want to take up a lot of time with this. I think you're totally wrong in your interpretation of use variances verses area variance, "but, I stop. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: The applicant had started to tell us what he thought the principal use was. Could you tell us now? MR. RICH: The functional generic use of the entire property is, residential. There's no distinguishing a, line of demarcation between the two lots. ( ) the two properties were landscaping -purposes. There's absolutely very little possibility that anybody would pay the kind of money they would have to pay to buy this property and not continue that in a greater landscaping and use of the property. Maintaining the two separate tax lots simply enhances the value because it's a more flexible asset for state and income tax plan. It's not, it doesn't pose any threat to (a) create a precedent or (b), create an opportunity. Certainly somebody could damage the property. The two pieces taken separately are certainly technically less valuable than the whole according to appraisals that .I've had. The whole with two separate tax lots provides an enhance value. I don't understand what the opposition would be to have premium prices secured in Orient when it's not going to increase density, it's not to have any negative impact on anybody except to -increase the tax rates. It is a residential use. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO:- I have'a question if I could, from your last statement. Would you be willing then to sterilize that lot so it would not be a buildable lot? MR. RICH: Sterilize it? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah. 7 MR. RICH: I'm not familiar with that. MEMBER DINIZIO: Say to us, you won't sell it as a buildable lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the whole purpose of the hearing though. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you're saying to us, no-one would possibly do it, no- one would possibly, well? MR. RICH: Right, but, in order to ( ) the buyer that I lost in May for example, wanted to do a tax swap on some early complex real estate swaps that they had and needed was going to pay a premium for the two separate tax lots. As long as they're able to maintain the two separate tax lots for income and estate plan purposes, I don't care what restriction is placed on it. But to force the merger 'basically says that I can't sell the property at a premium. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not asking you to merger. You're saying that no would possibly buy that to build a house on it. MR. RICH: No, that's a subjective valuation on my part. If you look at the property, people are'not going to pay you know over a half a million dollars and then sell half of the property and let somebody build 50 feet from their front yard. Close off the pool, close off the entire length, somebody might, but, I don't, I don't, certainly the offer is to buy the individual pieces have been a fraction of the whole. So why would somebody pay, you.k now X and then convert it to being fraction tax. Technically they could and if there is such a legal concept as sterilization, I'd be happy to entertain it. I just never heard of such a thing. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I mean just that particular statement doesn't seem to fit in any of the. argument if you're saying to me, that it's not worth. The value is gained from it being a separate parcel. MR. RICH: That's right. A separate tax lot would permit certain tax - MEMBER DINIZIO: Buildable, buildable parcel. I mean the value of that parcel Js that it's a buildable piece of land. MR. RICH: I don't think based on the people that I've been interfaced with, the value is ,not as a subdivided piece to put another building on: It provides additional flexibility. One specific situation I needed,, it had tax swaps. In fact I'm still waiting to here because if they can swap two pieces of real estate into these two pieces of real estate, they prefer to gain on that. They have no interest in building. The enhance value is because of the deferral of their primary realized gain on another piece of property, not on the ability to dig,a hole and plan another house. 10 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Interesting, thank you. We'll see what develops. We appreciate it. ' Is there anybody like to speak in favor of the application? Is there anybody like to speak against the application? Sir? I should point out that we do have letters in the file from residence and I assume Sir that you are one of those residence. MR. ROCK: Yes, my name is Ted Rock. I live across Tabor Road adjacent to t his property and the other signatures, Judith Nigro and Donald Boerum are also CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear that the information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? MR. ROCK: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. ROCK: I agree with Mr. Rich who has created beautiful property there. There wonderful neighbors. The problem is that it's not a property. It wasn't a valid Building Permit because I think you're arguing at us because the information that she said the Building Permit, Building the original permit group didn't have was that it was in fact not merged. They thought it was merged based on what was provided them. The total square footage and the so-called former bounty lines. So it was issued on incorrect information. The previous history of the lot I don't think was the issue there. How they could have been presented,this information mistakenly is a question that I have. They would never have, they would have needed a variance at that time if in fact, they knew it was a separate lot. So clearly for whatever reason I'm sure it (changing tape) Mr. Rich said he needs it as two separate tax lots for flexibility and as the gentleman said, the only flexibility ( ) matters .that one could be sold. separately. I believe that Mr. Rich never had that intent. Inr fact, his wife, Joann Rich, told both Donald Boerum and Judith Nigro, at the time that the pool was built, at the time they purchased this corner property, that they purchased to keep it both an open space and historic district is key there. However, she could promise whoever buys it in the future wont' do that and to say no-one will built a little shack on half an acre, his beautiful, gorgeous house in the existing ( ) building around. The other smaller part of the two pieces and that half acre is bigger than just about every other lot in the historic district of the village and I wish I could believe that no-one else will. I'm sure it's not his intent to build there. But, someone could put up a tall hedge, separate the pool and build a beautiful house on the corner there and then the density would increase and I believe that in terms of the value of the overall property it isn't you know, the purpose of the property is residential. He referred to it as an entire property. It is not an entire 11 property, it's two pieces still and until it is not two pieces there is that risk of building. That risk of building is our concern. If there were another way to sell the building rights, or to for all times make sure that there could be no other building on that property, then I have no problem with it being a separate tax lot. However, I don't think it's the purpose of anyone here to be building and to their action of the Zoning Board some potential buyer's tax will cause and I think that should be a side issue. I agree with Mr. Rich, that the value of the property as a whole as a beautiful landscaped home. It's wonderful, the pool is beautiful, I have no objection to the pool as such, to where it's located as such. The objection is to the potential that it has to be sold as a separate lot. with then, whoever purchases it as a single lot and that's what we have to, that's what we're up against. And, as the neighbors on that corner, we absolutely resist that other corner. I think that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak against? OK, any questions from anyone at this point? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 12 'k Southold To j* -.t Hall — a Zoning Board of Appeals Fax Cover Sheet 765-1809 Office 765-9064 Fax TO FAX. 7 7 FROM DATE. 9 L q /I 11 VI PAGES. I '1,/ rlj Comments. 53095 Main Road 6 P.O. Box 1179 6 Southold NY 11971 e. — — J Town of Southold Board of Appeals 5305 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Chairman and Members: September 29, 1999 As owners of property bordering on the residential lot discussed below, we are writing in response to the Notice of Public Hearing on September 30, 1999, addressing Appl. No. 4739 by William Rich III and Joanne Rich requesting a Variance for the use and location of an accessory swimming pool (see attached). We strongly object to the application and appeal for the following reasons: • At the time of the original application for building permit No. 18782 at 1105 Orchard Street, Orient, the adjacent property owners were told that the pool was being built on a lot (parcel No. 1000-25-2-20.17 ) that would be merged with the existing residential lot (#-19.1). The application for permit was not contested at that time only because the adjacent property owners believed the applicants would be faithful to their word and were not misleading them. • The adjacent property owners expected that the lots would be merged as stated above, although they were aware at the time of the original application that the lots had not yet been merged. The presentation for the original building permit apparently showed a survey indicating a merged lot (see attached), which was disturbingly misleading at best, and again calls the applicants' credibility into question. The current application for Variance to allow for a swimming pool on a lot without a residence can only be for the purpose of financial gain, in that it would allow the owner to sell the lot as a separate piece of property with a swimming pool in place, thus with enhanced value, despite the prevailing zoning. If the intent were not for financial gain, then the simple solution would be to merge the lots as originally planned and the pool would be covered under the existing C. of O. We have no objections to the pool as long as it is on the merged properties as originally understood before it was built. • We absolutely object to the awarding of a Variance in this instance for, in addition to the purpose being financial gain after misleading neighbors and the zoning board, such variance would allow for a separate house to be built in a Historic District on a busy traffic corner, thus increasing housing and traffic density in the stable Historic District to the detriment of neighboring quality of life and property values. Again, we have no objection to the pool if the properties are merged as originally understood, but otherwise we object strongly to a variance that would support an originally misleading application and ultimately allow for the properties to be separated for gain to the detriment of neighboring quality of life and property values. Thank you for your consideration. Theodore Rock 1 5 Orchard St. and Tabor Rd., Orient (parcel -21.1) ;-�WA-NL'G(-t�o0 O, Orient a 1-10) na d Boerum 1000 Orchard St., Oriebt (parcels -13.5 and -11.5) Yo sincerely, r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, .1999 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 Town Hall, 53095- Main Road, Southold,, NY 11971, on THURSDAY; SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter is possible): 5:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4739 - JOANNE and WILLIAM RICH III. This is a request for a Variance under, Article III, Section 100-31C.4 for the use and location of an accessory swimming pool, constructed under Building Permit No. 18782, at 1105 Orchard Street, Orient; Parcel Nos. 1000-25-2-20.17 and 19.1. This appeal is based upon the July 28, 1999 Notice issued by the Building Department, disapproving an application for a Certificate of Occupancy, for the following reasons: "Swimming pool or tennis court incidental to the residential use ofthe premises and not operated for gain ... subject parcel does not contain a principal residential use. - Original permit for pool (#18782) was issued based'upon a survey indicating that this lot had been merged with the neighboring residential lot, these lots were separated r. by ZBA in Appeal #2104 dated March 26, 1976 and have not merged." The Board of Appeals will at same time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above application or to submit written statements before the hearing is concluded. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regulation Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (516) 765-1809. Dated: September 16, 1999. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By L. Kowalski tl I / 9 /.74 i II Z.7S � n h Y 0 + p w 1+j Y o ' o � ��S+l:l �,o,a 1 h r N 7 N aC z T ✓� I L/CEPl1tGl 4wad �jLI'V��OY'd Breer>r�ia.�; ly, Y. xs;,t4 I . w ' o � ��S+l:l I- 1 h r N 7 N aC z � ✓� R>:+.a +w"a!�y�,�cswu.y L/CEPl1tGl 4wad �jLI'V��OY'd Breer>r�ia.�; ly, Y. 113.93 �. 5.88'-P7'3o••w. _ 198.93 1 OP- CHAILD } Ion �F,A2E' U �e'o 2 ��*tOP Nfka I WIL-LlAlel/Cy 3rQD - 4JZEA: 48 ,14 f'o County rdx Parols,,: /000 —az v -191 4 zo.17 ;��;�•-„ A!�fLaded F'eb _$i!99op , ' o � ��S+l:l Mel�ed Octobil• Zd, /9� aeon,�`y♦' 77 R>:+.a +w"a!�y�,�cswu.y L/CEPl1tGl 4wad �jLI'V��OY'd Breer>r�ia.�; ly, Y. I . 0 ' � f n M �. 5.88'-P7'3o••w. _ 198.93 1 OP- CHAILD } Ion �F,A2E' U �e'o 2 ��*tOP Nfka I WIL-LlAlel/Cy 3rQD - 4JZEA: 48 ,14 f'o County rdx Parols,,: /000 —az v -191 4 zo.17 ;��;�•-„ A!�fLaded F'eb _$i!99op , ' o � ��S+l:l Mel�ed Octobil• Zd, /9� aeon,�`y♦' 77 R>:+.a +w"a!�y�,�cswu.y L/CEPl1tGl 4wad �jLI'V��OY'd Breer>r�ia.�; ly, Y. T9 - S, MIR 4.M 7 ORCVjARD -93 7;,- 2 IN -to 61 Is 6 144 Is, Iv a N. 4., 14 . EI a ifBkiPPER LA.) 6 e ,PO Qu 16.1 4A(.) . . . . . .ES oRc NAF?D '12 A lo "A 27,, Sr ORCVjARD IN 144 a N. 4., 14 . 6 16.1 4A(.) '12 A CYST CRPO "OS ..A. HISTORICAL IT to NO `6A I-qA e SOCIETY -S '494 F4.Er-CNZ 1.19A W 14 19 20 NYD. K 028-04-006 04 ICMA "KER JR. Leg.nd KEY UP COUNTY OF SUFFOLK To"oF SOUTHOLD F, ------ IN I... Z=�� Real Property Tax Service Agency YILLgcE Rod.. .... P.—I'll. 4M1 Damn I.I. .14 1'.1. —LE IN FEET courity--qsmver� 0'. L'. 1000 Riverhead, L. I., Now York PROF n • William Rich III, &q- 598 Madison Avenue 212 758 7102 New York, N.Y. 10022 wrich220WaoLcom July 30, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York Gentlemen, As a result of a building permit being issued in 1990 I constructed a swimming pool and garage on a lot contiguous to my house and proceeded to landscape the area around the pool. The landscaping integrated the two lots but for estate and income tax planning purposes I did not merge title to the two lots. In 1998 I listed my house and contiguous lot for sale. In April of 1999 a Contract of Sale which included language permitting a tax swap was negotiated. The buyer paying a premium because of the existence of two separate, which permitted them to maximize their tax swaps and other income tax planning techniques. As indicated in the Application, there were at least two inspections of the property in order to satisfy the building department of the completion of the pool and buildings in order to issue a Certificate of Occupancy, a requirement for the closing of the sale, scheduled for October 15, 1999. I am advised that as the C of O was being typed the clerk noted the pool was on a separate tax lot and as a result the C of O was refused. The Building Department indicating that the original building permit had been issued in error and I could either fill in the pool or file an appeal. I, in good faith, relied on the building permit to not only build the pool and garage but to negotiate a legally binding contract of sale, which is now in jeopardy. As indicated in accompanying Application, New York law as a set forth in Appellate Division and Court of Appeals decisions seems quite clear on the concept of "vested rights" and "equitable estoppel". Failure to grant an exception in this case will result in substantial damage to me and may cause the buyer to abandon the contract. In view of the fact that I am forced to file this application as a result of an error on the part of the Building Department I respectfully request that that the normal filing fee be waved. Sincerely, �(�} William Rich III, Esq. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 7/3 47 7UC el Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 q 'f nnwm .i1999;Nqt4q ;Depa "'Pol cati*6M�'76i oc6upanpi, 'c Ind 'court . use of thc dog§ ARt, ential,u Ij t a i on . ... ..lob eke poi h?t 70 6.45. i'Thist.ls'8Ti Notice' of 40 20W'114 Shore Road;AGriii NY; Parcel 14 ;a to 7 Ke P To ,A f �n a. CHRISTOPHER, I � ... 1. 1—, 'A "kit afit'�xoJq-�g, We upuo"j" �.,ApplW q,;�evut qua .ty e1 "based-4oh'-'the, INS, Adgus W 'v a on ��tidh I;fl enu!!g accessory; tui 16I.W, 0004 propose, Io6 " - ' a oo;n "*i ii4PO-4.49ay . jwit' 0'ard- s td v�Ii .0 a setback of less than IL 40 Ar 44 aui 411 f' 6, -the jQ_ "of.Lthe 'fig P, 74 1% he R _9 '.AbQy lable'ior Hall, p, ant .14 'you:,., . . . . . . . . . Special Exceptigo n44 . 6111 Ray$ �m7f "YA01 Ilesi ._,Section.100-311 (b.�P&app r USM3 A . -4se, use. a in c. XOP =&QFJHF� 01 �gowi� locatdtx` 13 0,WAM EA 'P_ _�NGE .Aav' '�'j 0ER N CA -.GOE - 97 V15 4 54 B RAYNOR-SUTgR kLARI1 ,Teoue W, J INC`- "' , 2. ce --k�4plican ',Tequeq ap _und 'Se ti er:.,,,.��icl.o,..��ILX,',�$qiqti%...�00- 4.K"f;� Q 1"p 'U I I _%�.. _,1999 ZQ W.'W D prQv ".115 "N' .4 J 'A of . MA g r, d 0t 1 4g; 1 .4 6r0d,", Ak*e q nt, 1"Z, _4 29'.tl STATE OF NEW YORK) 1000 :Teason.: stated ,'bRh6-N6tk 'M )SS: Ob Oh as's. kPOR IF SUFFOLK) -�6nd:-", ditho Wf " . . . . . . . . . . . . . th, !;;Z"Ptoposed-alteration fli�' 110y'k an t 1. h.Vld"�§.. — 1.4.?" % `--ki�lor-'Peisona :!v r U _. . "b pxvw, yi7�'� of Mattitu d county, being duly sworn, says tha . . . . . . WR stitutesta secoRi 'us 14�5'0044.7 'U V. Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK 113 'g "�il, inateli-S; s weekly newspaper, published at M 1W Artlic_la.�Jx: fq g the Town of Southold, County of building or:pro ON. .0 err tRy_pp i, Zjt.�qie'6 State of New York, and that the Noti shall-.-be1�crecjeqpvalte t 0�i p JR4 piny� the annexed is a printed copy, has I IN In"T OA"'Ro' 4" ZICOR re, Rot, larly published in said Newspaper d rkin pnd h d th6y week for weeks st -•c c a X R p7rr�W%k A R' - PS2 IF. M, the commencing on 9 W. 19 of ��" Wzlt T T WW'A TRY; t 51Q01','s tsuatut tq4a o* Princi IN, ued-$e'_to "b Ili this 175C A �;;,gjoqeggg W'. ith 9 Sworn to bef me tl F 19 ep 's day of z R- _�: . . I tRk ill 7ul 1'a 98bg"' Wo' V'. ST M MARY D an ;$ot 1000 jt,." M Q1eeti:andjotA�ld 37-4- , — __ '. 'r.. _44, 'W' - . ?___0_ NOTARY PUBLIC 44 , '_'i ", ��i 7'5435'errc460 7ttti.44� A N0.52 405524 Pine• dace, East`x - — jug op-ofly-E - " P AP 1 (12 COMMISSION EXE '�rj,A, ML IWALk p . . . . . aug, I ttion"' 'of . .4 z. ae d IEILH AIBIETIEIL A. N EVH LIL.IE TOWN OILIERX REGISTRAR, OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road F.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-6145 Telephone (516) 765-1800 FROM: ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK RE: ZONING APPEAL APPLICATION #4739 William Rich III DATED: July 30, 1999 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 44739 - submitted by Wllli,am Rich III together with the Southold Town Building Department Notice of Disapproval, Southold Town Building Inspector Notice to Applicant, Southold Town Building Department Application for Building Permit, Questionnaire for filing with ZBA application, letter indicating reason for appeal, Southold Town Building Permit issued 2/16/90, Southold Town Property Record Card, New York State Fire Underwriters' Certificate for the pool, Building Department Inspection of pool dated 11/30/98, New York Board of Fire Underwriters certification of the garage -bath house, Contract of, Sale of premises, photographs of project, map of property. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk FORK NO. a TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZEW NE 18782 z Date .. ...... / .... .............. Nk-&A .( ................ Ig..?4? \1) Permission Is hereby granted to: ............ * .............................. ........................... A to.... . ...... ... - .... A ..... we ".. .......... ........... . . ................... at premises located at A&AT .. .......... d5d ........ ae,; .... ... .. ............................................. e .................... ................................ ................... 0 ........................... z1z.............................. ...... o ..................... i ................................................... County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ..Q..AT;;: ....... Block ...... q; . . ....... Lot pursuant to application dated ..... 112... wn. .. ...... !.-? ....... 1930, and approved by the Building Inspector. Fee........ P" Rev. 6/30/80 50, ROUGH PLB a►SULATION F MAL I -1% D,%TR INSPECTOR ROUGH PLBG. FRNAL THE NEW YORK BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS PA�;F ! 1025023 BUREAU OF ELECTRICITY 85 .JOHN STREET. NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 038 N k 2°)120 MAX 17 ,1991) SK'lti,.b . t.. 90 - Date Application No. on file THIS CERTIFIES THAT only the electrical equipment as described below and introduced by the applicant named on the above application number in the premises of RT.CH, 1045 ORCHARD STREET, ORIENT, N.Y. _ OUT Section Block [,ue in thefollowing location- Basement El 1st Fl. El 2nd Fl. MAI �' 9yl} and found to be in compliance with the requirements of this Board. se®s examined un FIXTURE PIkT,URES RANGES COOKINGOECKS OVENS DISH WASHERS EXHAUST FAN'. OUTLETS ECEPTACLES SWITCHES INCANOESCENT FLUORESCENT OTHER AMT. K. W. AMT. K. W. AMT K.W AaT. K. w AMT. H. P 1 2 1 DRYERS FtJRP[ACE MOTORS FUTURE.APPUANCE FEEDERS SPECIAL REC'PT TIME CLOCKS SELL UNIT HEATERS MULTI -OUTLET YTDIMMERS AMT. K. W. OIL H. P GAS H. P AMT. NO. A. W. G. AMT. AMP AMT. AMPS. TRANS. AMT. H. P NO. OF FEET AMr. wAtTs • 1 2Q 1 QI) SERVICE DISCONNECT NO. OF 5 E R V 1 C E (METER NO.OP CG COND. A. W. G. NO. NI -LEG A. W. G' NO. NEUTRALS OF NEUTRAL AMT. AMP. TYPE EQUIP. ?W I SW '� 7 dW PER 9 Of CC. COND. OF N1 -LEG 10 OTHER APPARATUS: PANELBOARDS:1-2 t 'TR . 100 G. F.C.1:-1. *(SWIMMjN(; 1?00T ) This covers compliance 3t the date Of i.nsgection only: Be�,�use L7f I.�nusitaI environments it is advisable tl) b -ave f requent test and/or rapai r. s a made by a qual-ified rerson. HANK'S Fj,FCTRTt`: L1:C.X26'15-E 12.1 SHEEP PASTURE RD GENERALi436�BdA9rIR SETAUKET, MY., 1.173.3 Per may 11: This certificate must not be altered in any manner; return to the office of the Board if incorrect. Inspectors bei' ;identified by their credentials. THE NEW YORK BOARD _®F FIRE UNDERWRITERS PAGE 1- 807 3231 8073231 BUREAU OF ELECTRICITY F 40 FULTON STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10038 Date NOVEMBER 09,1998 Application. -No. on file 17108598/98 H 062034 THIS CERTIFIES THAT - only the electrical equipment as described below and introduced by the applicant named on the above application number is in the premises of WILLIAM RICH III, 1045 ORCHARD STREET, ORIENT, NY in the following location; ❑ Basement ® Ist Fl. ® 2nd Fl. GAR Section Block Lot was examined on NOVEMBER 02 , 1998 and found to be in compliance with the National Electrical Code. FIXTURE RECEPTACLES SWITCHES FIXTURES RANGES COOKING DECKS OVENS DISH WASHERS EXHAUST P OUTLETS INCANDESCENT1 FLUORESCENT OTHER AMT. K.W AMT. K.W. AMT. K.W AMT. K.W. AMT. H.r DRYERS FURNACE MOTORS FUTURE APPLIANCE FEEDERS SPECIAL REC'PT TIME CLOCKS BELL UNIT TRANS. HEATERS MULTI.OUTLET SYSTEMS NOrOF FEET DIMMERS AMT. K.W. OIL H.P. GAS H.P. AMT. I NO. A. W G. AMT. AMP. AMT. AMPS. AMT. H.P AMT. WATTS SERVICE D19CONNECT NO. OF S E R V I C E AMT. _ AMP TYPE METER,. EQUIP. 1 0 2W 1 0 JW J 0 JW NO. OF CC COND.- 9 0 4W PER 0 A. W. G, OF CC. GOND. NO. OF HI -LEG A. W G. OF W LEG NO. OF NEUTRALS A. W: G. OF NEUTRAL OTHER APPARATUS: - GARAGE -BATH HOUSE -1 *NO VISUAL DEFECTS: "An electrical survey -has been made of the exposed electrical equipment in the premises indicated." "No obvious unsatisfactory condition was found. WIL-LAIM RICH III P. O. BOX 95 GENERAL MANAG ORIENT, NY, 11957 ' Per This certificate must not be altered In any manner; return to the office of the Board it Incorrect. Inspectors may be Identified by their credentials. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION A.. Please disclose the names of th individuals (and entities) having subject premises and a description (Separate sheet y be attached.) e owner(s) and any other a financial interest in the of their interests: o � V11,C ✓_ bW vc.T— B. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale or being shown to prospective buyers?, o^ yes { } No. (If Yes, please ttach copy of "conditions" of sale.) C. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? 56 { } Yes {ate}'' No D. 1. Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? No 2. Are the wetland areas sh wn on the map submitted with this application? , 3. Is the property bul)AN ed betw en the wetlands area and the upland building area? 4. If your property contains wetl as or pond areas, have you contacted the Office of the. Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed con traction at or below five feet above mean sea level? (If not applicable, state "N.A.") F. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences which exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting?C, If none exist, please state "none." G. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? -� If yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department. If none, please state. H.. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? If yes, please explain where or submit copies of de eds I. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel G ci,y�b LW kim VVL � and proposed use per„ 3/87, 10/9'OIk Date APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM ry The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts interest on the 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 NAME: (Last name, first name, middle i you are applying in the name of other entity, such as a company. the other person's or company's nitial, unless someone else or If so, indicate name.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Variance Change of zone Approval -of plat Exemption from plat or official map Other (If "Other," name the activity.) LptC G'O U1 Do you personally (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO If you answered "YES," complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a noncorporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, partner, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submi this day o 199 Signature Print name 1 �� t__�3- Illy 1 1_ ELIZABETH A. r_ LLE, TOWN CLERK RECEO � 0 7 4 8 3 0 n of TowSouthold Southold, New York 11971 Phone: 516-765-1800 DATE—/d 1 g� RECEIVED OF:- /Siris �Q-t-ex/% $ '7' FOR:-.. ❑ CASH ,H�CHECK `-7 ------------ BY: 'd l/ P411*1_. r� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING-, SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 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 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971, on THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter is possible): 5:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4739 - JOANNE and WILLIAM RICH III. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-31C.4 for the use and location of an accessory swimming pool, constructed under Building Permit No: 18782, at 1105 Orchard Street, Orient; Parcel Nos. 1000-25-2-20.17 and 19.1. This appeal is based upon the July 28, 1999 Notice issued by the Building Department, disapproving an application for a Certificate of Occupancy, for the following reasons: ""Swimming pool or tennis court incidental to the residential use of the premises and not operated for gain... subject parcel does not contain a principal residential use. Original permit for pool (#18782) was issued based upon a survey indicating that this lot had been merged with the neighboring residential lot, these lots were separated by ZBA in Appeal #2104 dated March 26, 1976 and have not merged." The Board of Appeals will at same time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above application or to submit written statements before the hearing is concluded. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regulation Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (516) 765-1809. Dated: September 16, 1999. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By L. Kowalski i \` fi ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUT.HOMNEW YORK x In the Matter of the Application of (Names of Applicants) Parcel 1D #1000- - - ------------------------------------------x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) �/—. C� AFFIDAVIT OF MAILINGS I, residing ati New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the qday ofAl. ,19 , I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in ®{®,lh,� , New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the ( ) Assessors, or (OrCounty Real Property Office property which abuts and is across a public or private street, of.%eLhicular right- -way of record, surrounding the applicant's prope,60;t,— Sworn to before me this ,30 day of Se,p f , 19 4'Z(�Nota Public) (signature) UNDA P Bt®WALSKI noway Public, Sute of mmuyofft HO. 62-462477T ®us9fed 6n Suffolk CoaunW Commission EVoP68 Nov. 30. �?ood PLEASE list, on the back of this Afftdai�it or on a sheet' of Imper, the lot numbers next to. -the owner names and addresses for which notices ivere,mailett c Thank you. I ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLMNEW YORK ------------------------- . ---------------x In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAVIT OF (Name of Applicant) POSTING Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as 1000= - - COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) -- STATE OF NEW YORK) %C.%N 1 residing at 10 or ®IL V�-% , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the Aa day of ,19 , I personally placed the Town's official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of'my application, in a secure position upon my property, located ten (10) feet or closer from the street or right-of- way - facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way abutting this property;* and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remain lace forseven days prior to the date of the subject hearing date, earing date shown t be (Signature) _ Sworn to before me this 1-3® day of5e�o- NOav Public, S8m f jV.. No. 62462479 Quelled in Suft®oa cou, W 1 Carr mleslon mares 8y®a! 3, * od (Notary Pub ic) *near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passersby. OFFICE OF _ ZONING BOARD OFAPPEAL5 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-1809 fax 765-9064 September 16, 1999 Re: Chapter 58 — Public Notice for Thursday, September 30, 1999 Hearing Dear Applicants: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Suffolk Times. Pursuant to Chapter 58 of the Southold Town Code (copy enclosed), formal notice of your application and hearing must be mailed and shall include a map or sketch showing the new location with the setbacks and use noted. Send this Notice CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, as soon as possible, with the map to all owners of land (vacant or improved) surrounding yours, including land across any street or right-of-way that borders your property. Use the current addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office (765-1937) or the County Real Property Office in Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. Please submit your Affidavit of Mailing to us by the Friday before the hearing date, with the post affice receipts postmarked. Later, when the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us. If any signature card is not returned-, please advise the Board at the hearing. You must post the enclosed sign no later than 9/23/99. Post the sign facing the street, no more than 10 feet from your front property line bordering the street. (If you border more than one street or roadway, a sign is enclosed for the front yard facing each one.) The sign(s) must remain in place for at least seven (7) days, and if possible, should remain posted through the day of the hearing. If you need a replacement sign, please contact us. After the signs have been in place for seven (7) days, please submit your Affidavit of Posting to us for the permanent file. If you do not meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. It may be necessary to cancel your hearing if the required steps are not followed. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, ZBA Office Enclosures NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by th'i SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Roac" Southold, New York, concerning this property. mi IMP-` Ixl Amis �' I BOARD OF APPEALS o TOWN OF SOUTHOLD * (516) 765-1809 FOR BOARD AND STAFF USE U da d New Information ZZ X -z; ///ZO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTIIOLMNEW YORK T at the Matter of the Application of William Rich III (Names of Applicants) Parcel ID #1000- 2 5 - 2 - 20.17 and 1901 ----------------------------------------- x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILINGS I, William Rich III residing at 11,045 orchard Street, Orient , New Fork, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the 31st day of August , 19 99 , I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in Allentown 'PA , by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official' records on file with the ( ) Assessors, or (X.) County Real Property Office for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the applicant's prgerty. Sworn to before me this 3 , Y Baa of 197p (Notary Public) (signature) [ ASML BEAL HELEN V. MATOCCi, Notorr P City o9 Win, Lehigh CounW RA Cion E rw Ju 4, 2002 PLEASE list, on the back of this Affadae,at or on a sheet. oftaper, the lot numbers next to the owner nanaes and addressesfor which notices were mailed Thank yoga. 2.06 OA(d Z a =tie .4 OW 7-5. 7- 10 a., If 20.20 4 13 3.0 -61 V�Z. of I a. I,0 al I Is, Is Wo 20 SrAre ST, 1,0.11 0. 8363 2f �Lb010.06cM 20.0 Sr ORCHARD 13 94 6 4 14, a til 1 of L4A 4 12 Is. 01 4q,, CYST '"PORDS HISTORICAL 17 0— S SOCIETY 'o LaA L84 a F -L Is I sr 'a. 14 Y le Y1 "glA to ad 41 Is QL 20 1360 E FOR PARMILkO. CY BC[9CG 0 -04-ove Legend .ICMIEL '�XER A. P— C—yL- 01�01*111.1- �W 6r "P Real T03M OP COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Property Tax Service Agency IZA IMR I EV C—rity C.M.O. IIAW 0" I., Now York William Rich III 1045 Orchard Street Box 95 Orient, NY 11957 Z 394 963 344 US Postal Service Recce pt for CoMM MaH Richard Gillooly 397 Carriage Lane Wycoff, NJ 07481 I- ®—V —0 Richard Gillooly �� 397 Carriage Lane Wycoff, NJ 07481 LO 0) Cl) m Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ® Print your name and address on the reverse as E U. Cr. a Postage $ 1.33 Certified Fee O Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt S owing to Whom 8, Q gIivetp0 � Retum ,ngtoJNhgr�, Date, A dr s dr ss TO osta- f -F s I = " 7 Po tmi o';M = A. Received by (Please Print Clearly) I B. Date of Delivery so that we can return the card to you. C. Signature to Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, El Agent or on the front if space permits. ❑Addressee Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: El No El Complete items 7, 2, and 3. Also complete &TQ C item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. A ceiv d" ❑Print your name and address on the reverse s, y /ease ri tCl rl so that we can return the card to you. T ' ) B. Date of Delivery y ,1 Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, C Si nature I or on the front ifs ," pace permits. � � I [I Express Mail + 1 Articl Addressed to: Agent Return Receipt for Merchandise I D Is delivery address different from item 1 Addressee J ❑ C.O.D. If YES, entteerr delive ❑ Yes C delivery address belo ❑ No ery. (Extra Fee) ❑Yes Richard Gillooly 397 Carriage Lane r Wycoff, NJ 07481 i 102595-99-M-1789 3• S rvice Type � + ZCertified Mail - — ❑Express Mail i — ❑ Registered , o ❑ Insured Maile 8' �'� ❑ C.O.D ? d O (� n 2. Article Number 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) Irl (COPY from service label) ❑Yes - ! Z''.224''.9,631 344; Is � a y IT ° W W PS Form 3811; JUly� 1999 ' ' ' ' ` ' ti ; _ ` ` ` ' i m �' "' rn Domestic Return Receipt .. i 102595-99-M-1789 t7-4 p m —0 W U' ®o W W r Z 394 963 345 William Rich III us Postal Service 1045 Orchard Street Recsipt lor Ceatfied -Mafi Box 95 Orient, NY 11957 Donald C. Drott 925 Orchard Street 11, L,; -f & JM6 _ �G - a, , k 8 Donald C. Drott 925 Orchard Street P.O. Box 537 Orient, NY 11957 P.O. Box 537 Orient, NY 11957 $ 3-3 Postage Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee LO Return Receipt S to ;2 Whom & D Retum ei < Date, dr ee's Addresslr. C� TOT P sfrob- m Post . E LL U) a — 1 - 7��,- `T- - — -------- - --z— Eq Corn mems AIS complete A. Received by (Pica Pribi Delivery [X),� R, Date of elive P4 -fRestricted Delivery is desired: Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. C. Signature a Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, X 0 Agent or on the front if space permits. El Addressee 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item I? IJ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below 0 No El Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. ceived item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. B. D, e of Delivery El Print your name anda dress on the reverse - —9 . . El Express Mail so that we can return the card to you. C na ure EJ Return Receipt for Merchandise Attach this card to the of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. Agent C.O.D. Addressee jery? (Extra Fee) 11 Yes juro's 1 Article Addressed to: D. Is livery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below El No Donald ��- Drott 102595-99-M-1789 925 Orchard Street P.O. Box 537 3. Service Type Orient, NY 11957 Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑ Registered e El insured Mail 0 C.C.D. 4 Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) El Yes 2 Article Number (Copy from service label) Z 394 963 345 PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-99-M-1789 M 4 a) 0 C,) rn Q ;-.4 r1- — 0 9! LE -(:J rf) LT -a -XD > Er, U) 4- C, R1 > CL rn y e C) LL W Cr cr, Z ni G EE N4 (D 0 M -16 0 U) M CD W�c ONO 0 W Cc a: a: s661 jjjdV'()()8S Lujoj Scl William Rich III 1045 Orchard Sheet Box 95 Orient, NY 11957 Theodore Rock 450 East 63`d Street Apt. l OC New York, NY 10( ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, .J31. °�X Com plete items y = " �:. a.-�,� •"r; item 4 if Restricted 2' and 3, glso Print your n Delivery is desired plate LD so that we an return theress on the reverse El Attach this card to the b and to or on the front if back of the °u. Pace permits. Mal/Piece, 11• Article Addressed to: JT- heod re Rock 4Est rd 6 3 11 AptStreet New York, NY 10021 " 'Y4 96-1 46m service label) Form 3811, t� r viii i r!i July 7999 n u �> Z 3-94 963 346 US Postal Service RecMpt for Certified MaH Theodore Rock J 450 East 63`d Street Apt. l OC New York, NY 10021 Postage $ g 3 Certified Fee ✓L( Special Delivery Fee LO Restricted Delivery Fee o°)i Return Receipt r to Whom & [)at€ QeJidl�re ! ' 91 ri �)1� CO a A. Received by (Please Print Cleady)' I B.' Date of' Dell C. Signature X ❑ Agent ❑ Addre b. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes enter delivery address below: ❑ No A. Received by (Please Print `C/ear/y) B. Date ,y f D Iver C. Sig X pt D• Is delive &-Agent rY address different fro Il Addressee If YES, enter deliverym item 1? ❑Yes address below: No A Certified �_ MailCJ Registered Express ail =- ❑ Insured Mail 4• Restricted D C•O.D e elivery? (Extra F ee) L1 Yes ail ❑ Express Mail XReturn Receipt for Merchandise ' 4ail ❑ C.O.D. jelivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 102595-99-M-1789 Domestic Return Receipt r " j i s _ 102595-99-M-1789 , S M M a� o • ® ilnl �`.0 E q�t o o d ...N }W CD L C„) d LL O! a ,C - y m G i �, N • Cr - .. Q-. 0, N 0 -E ^ w LL il- N ' r� � � H _ o- O a m CM �.. A - � 1• _ � M ,yd c' CL .1: � d o a m Jri a s • 0 Q� m N N® a O O Q W LL a, v m :� G 5 0 c riot' a Eo r a Q .E € o• N .. i�. d U to ¢' cc t Q o 0 a �R E ct Q�Z 9661 Iljdy'flfl8£ lujod Sd . s i e William Rich III 1045 Orchard Street Box 95 Orient, NY 11957 4 0 Lo`ik woo 1A Richard Anderson 333 East 30t1i Street, 1 New York, NY 1001 E Z 394 � X147 US Postal Service Reeeuptk for Certified Mail Richard Anderson 333 East 30t1i Street, 19 N New York, NY 10016 Lf. a 0 `c a cc V C U 0 Postage $ 33 Certified Fee a Special Delivery Fee 0 Restricted Delivery Fee Return R to Who at 'el' �2 Ren R pt ing D el. ddres r O T TA Po t� s W< �/ Po nia or Da J• SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE j*�ZEd,TION ON DELIVER7r ■Complete iterris 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Received by (Please Print Clearly) B. Date of Delivery VM 1 ❑ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. I ❑ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ❑ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: 4 II' Ricliaid Anderson 333 East 30th Street. 19 N New York, NY 10016 I. A. Received by (Please,~..,1y) early) 6 !ry addredifferent from item enter del very address below - 3. S rvice Type Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Registered TT a s>r El Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes C ❑ Agent �t I ❑ Addressee �ess different from item 1? ❑ Yes lelivery address below: ❑ No ❑ Agen ❑ Addressee ❑ Yes ❑ No f it ❑Express Mail AReturn Receipt for Merchandise I11 ❑ C.O.D. iivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number (Copy from service label) Z 394 963 347 jPS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-99-M-1789 z S 0 0 fel O C N Er m - � �z Q �� ( �+ Q rr) `r4 m y � O tV C M r!1 z 2. Article Number (Copy from service label) Z 394 963 347 jPS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-99-M-1789 0MMMMMKO z S 0 0 fel O C N Er m - � �z Q �� ( �+ Q rr) `r4 m y � O tV C M r!1 z 0MMMMMKO 0661 1udv'00,9S wjod Sd 102595-99-M-1769 S i -r-1 M —0 a- 117 M 0 0 0 N C N m LL d Q �� rc E* EE = =a }"' E H ILI v co rr s 3 Q o O� ao 0661 1udv'00,9S wjod Sd 102595-99-M-1769 S i -r-1 M —0 a- 117 M 0 William Rich III t 1045 Orchard Street Box 95 Orient, NY 11957 9 00b _)-5 -a -I 6 Judith Nigro 77 Seventh Avenue Apt. 6L New York, NY 1001 Z 394 963 348 us Postal Service HSCL.apt for CeAffied 1MaH Judith Nigro 77 Seventh Avenue I; Apt. 6L New York, NY 10011-6618 Postage Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee LO Return Receipt Showing to t Whom & Date Delivered f Q Return Recei Whom, Q Date, re $� r 0 T stage E 1 yrtgak r € Cn co 21. U_ �c . rL '?0-i n ® CoRlplete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Received by (Please Print Clearly) B. Date of Delivery ' itnm-d..,if�inc� i..re.a noliun ,a�cirnd-, , --sz= ® _°; _ " ❑ Agent P Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Received by (Please Print Clearly) B. Date f e' ery ❑ Addressee item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. dress differentfrom item 17 ❑ Yes ❑ Print your name and address on the reverse C�A Signalure delivery addles.. below: ❑ No so that we can return the card to you. ❑ Agent ❑ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. [I Addressee fr 't 1 ❑ Yes 1 Article ddressed to: Judah Nigro 177 Seventh Avenue Apt. 6L New York, NY 10011-6618 I 2. Article Number (Copy from service label) Z 394.963 348 IPS Form 38:1111, July 1999 - , , • , D. Is delivery ess reran om i em If YES, enter delivery address below- ❑ No rd. ail 13Express Mail A Return Receipt for Merchandise jail ❑ C.O.D. A. 3. S(rvice Type delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes Certified Mail, _ ❑ E_xp_ress Mail_ ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes Return _102595 -99 -M- 102595 -99-M-1789 a e �lQ °OT • S � I o CO o ras m rpt C O �— z C" d t ' Toth ,0 < � � > M �.r y, I LL a� A .o U y p a m y 0 cc LD E E U a. U U) rt CC 2 o h a ,_. 9661 10V '008£ resod Sd ti Q z r K. in Z 394 963 49 >; a �- William Rich III v d o 1045 Orchard Street CD US Postal Service T1 l 7 Receipt for Certified Mel9 -n WT_n Box 95 m f T m Orient, NY 11957 W mco Donald Boerum CL Box 794 '� 3 0 Orient, NY 11957 Lb`s - - ➢ ©OCA Donald Boerum o , s g Postage � � 3 3 794 Certified Fee / .. `LI aBox Orient, NY 11957 Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee LO Return Receipt Showing to i r Whom & Date Delivered Q Q Retum R iptSlml. �as whom, AQd 0Z Date faasee's # a r l {1 E e�*i CL ■ER: COMPLETE THIS SECTIOOMPLETEe ON DELIVERY s COirtpfete items 1, 2, and'3. Also complete A. Received by (Please Print Clearly) B. Date of Delivery item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. _ ■ Print Your name-and-address-on-the-raucrm ® -_ iii_ -a, w,.w.._�4,�,�- - ❑ Agent i ❑ Addressee 179 Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. eceived by Please Print Clearly) B. to oDe'v�e�y �j k from item 1? ❑ Yes i item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Ll ess below: ❑ No ® Print your name and address on the reverse C. gnatu e so that we can return the card to you. Agent r3 Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, Addressee or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address di from item 1?—tE'Yes I 1 Articl Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No -- O. /3 �7� ressMail Donald Boerum oy��oh f /V //�� rn Receipt for Merchandise D. Box 794 Fee) ❑ Yes Orient, NY 11957 3 . Service Type Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Registered A41e��ise - - - - -- - - -- ❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D. 102595-99-M-1789 4 Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes + 2. Article Number (Copy from service label) `I Z 394 963 349 p bU d PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-99-M-1789 "• X C) : M C w M C)0 N r K. in <3. >; a �- m �o v d o g 3. CD T1 l 7 • • -n WT_n .o m f T j o in <3. O a m ; m �o v d o g 3. CD T1 • • -n WT_n .o m f T m W W mco CL , '� 3 0 o , s g am' W CCDCID `° 0 .o W W CL '� r0 - Southold TBoard of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. 11971 s APPEAL BOARD MEMBERS Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman Robert Bergen Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Fred Hulse, Jr. M I N U T E S Southold Town Board of Appeals March 26, 1976 Telephone 765-4660 A special meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was field at 12:00 o'clock Noon, Friday, March 26, 1976, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Fred Hulse, Jr. Also present: Sherley Katz of the Long Island Traveler- Mattituck Watchman; Mr. William Schriever; Mr. Howard Terry, Building.Inspector. Absent: Mr. Robert Bergen and Mr. Serge Doyen, Jr. A public hearing on Appeal No. 2104 was scheduled for February 26, 1976. After some discussion it was recessed to March 18, 1976. On March 18, 1976 at a regular meeting of the Board of Appeals the decision of the Board,was postponed until today's date, March 269 1976. The legal notice for this appeal reads as follows: "Upon application of William Schriever, Main Road, Orient, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30/31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off lot with insufficient width and area. Location of property: NIS Orchard Street, Orient, New York, bounded on the nprth by other land of applicant; east by W. Wysocki; south by Orchard Street; west by Vail." The decision of the Board is as follows: Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- March 26, 1976 By investigation and public hearing the Board determined the following facts pertinent to the decision: The applicants William Schriever, purchased several years ago a tract of approximately 13.89 acres generally located in the interior of an area bounded by Village Lane and residential properties on the west; Tabor & Sons on the north;'Tabor Road and other land of Schriever on the east; and bounded on the south by residential properties as well as Orchard Street in the hamlet of Orient. The property under application in Appeal No. 2104 might be described as a vacant lot similar in size and character to the median range of all lots in the block referred to above, Arid described as to lot acreages in letter of Van Tuyl of - - February 69 1976. The subject property is part of the 13.89 acres purchased by Schriever and assembled by a prior owner. This perimeter lot was offered to the Town Board to be included in the cluster zoning -:which has been approved by the Town Board. However, the area under application consisting of 25,000 sq. ft. approximately, roughly 96' x 2651, was excluded from the clustere< area which the Town approved. Their action was followed by a Planning Board recommendation that this perimeter lot be granted a variance from the bulk requirements of the Ordinance. The perimeter lots, if included in the clustered area, could have been used for residences without variances. In the opinion of the Appeals Board, since the area under application could have been used for residential purposes in the original cluster concept presented to the Town, its eliminati from the clustered area presents unusual, unique, and practical hardship to the applicant since it would leave the applicant with a 25,000 sq. ft. area which could not be used for residential purposes unless granted a variance; nor by reason of its size and isolation could it reasonably be used for agricultural purposes. Use of the area under application for residential purposes would be in keeping with the character of the area, which is largely residential on lots of the same or lesser size.. In considering the arguments advanced in the public hearing by William Rich III, and in two briefs submitted as part of the record, we find reference to Mr. Schriever's past actions in matters in which the community is concerned to be of interest but not relevant to the decision. We further find that Dr. Moor - Jankowski is In -litigation with the applicant and that Mr. Rich is actively attempting to purchase land described in Appeal No. 2105. It is obvious,as confirmed by the appraiser, that land unsuitable for residential or agricultural use is far less valuat than if such uses were permitted. In addition, we are informed that granting of this variance will not increase the density facf as applied to the 13.89 acre tract, and that Dr. Moor-Jank6wski'e property is several hundred feet from the site. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- March 26, 1976 We do not agree that title to the substandard parcel appliec for here was merged by the applicant, since the parcel under dis. cussion was all part of the original Schriever purchase, nor has he elected to combine this property with adjoining property; rather, he is in the position of having to set off this parcel -ac a result of an administrative action of the Town Board relating to perimeter lots of the applicant. Nor is this situation a self- imposed hardship but, instead, we find the hardship created is forced on the applicant, and it has been suggested to us by the Planning Board as a matter for relief. We do not find that a landowner's plans have been frustrated by a zoning ordinance. On the contrary, we _find the landowner, in this case, has sub- mitted his entire acreage to the Town Board for clustering (as outlined in black on Van Tuyl survey of April 229 1975) resulting in practical difficulties about what to do with perime lots, such as this one, which would, in effect, be condemned for ordinary residential and agricultural use. In .the last generati, Orient farmers have been reduced from about thirty to less than ten, and the"agricultural demand for isolated one-half acre lots is minimal. We do not find the situation similar to Cowan, 1/26/76, Appellate Div., 2nd Dept., Cowan v Kern 378 NYS2D 746. Variance. bave not been granted to adjoining lots; hardship is not self- imposed. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will,not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the -spirit o the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Air. Grigonis, it wa RESOLVED, William Schriever, Main Road, Orient, New York, be GRANTED permission to set off lot with insufficient width and area which is located on the north side of Orchard Street, Orien New York, bounded on the east by Wysocki and bounded on the west by Vail, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Hul Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- March 26, 1976 A public hearing on Appeal No. 2105 was scheduled for February 26, 1976. After some discussion it was recessed to March 18, 1976 because of a technical error in 210tificatton. On March 18, 1976 at a regular meeting of the Board of Appeals the decision of the Board was postponed until today's date, March 26, 1976. The legal notice for this appeal reads as follows: "Upon application of William Schriever, Main Road, Orient, New York for a varin ace in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100/3031 and.Bulk Schedule for permission to set off lot with insufficient width and area. Location of property: North side Orchard Street and west side,Tabor Road, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by other land of applicant; i. east by Tabor Road; south by Orchard Street; west by W. Rich."----- The ich."-- The decidi'on of;the Board is as follows: F -By investigation and public hearing the Board determined the'following facts pertinent to the decision: The applicant, William Schriever, purchased several years ago a tract of approximately 13.89 acres generally located in the interior of an area bounded by Village Lane and residential properties on the west; Tabor & Sons on the north; Tabor Road and other land of Schriever on the east; and bounded on the south by residential properties as well as Orchard Street in the hamlet of Orient. The property under application in Appeal No. 2105 might be described as a vacant lot similar in size and character to the median range of all lots in the block referred to above, and described as to lot acreages in letter of Van Tuyl of c February 6, 1976. The subject property is part of the 13.89 acres purchased by Schriever and assembled by a prior owner. This perimeter lot was offered to the Town Board to be included in the cluster zoning which has been approved by the Town Board. However, the area under application consisting of 28,530 sq. fte approximately, roughly 1131 x 2531) was excluded from theclustered area which the Town approved. Their action was followed by a Planning Board recommendation that this perimeter lot be granted a variance from the Bulk requirements of the Ordinance. The perimet lots, if included in the clustered area, would have.been used for residences without variances., i In the opinion of the Appeals Board, since the area under application could have been used for residential purposes in the original cluster concept presented to the- Town, its elimination, We do not agree that title to the substandard parcel applied for here was" -merged by the applicant, since the parcel under dis- cussion was all part of the original Schriever purchase, nor has he elected to combine this property with adjoining property; rather, he is in the position of having to set off this parcel as a result of an administrative action of the Town Board relating to perimeter lots of the applicant. Nor is this situation a self- imposed hardship but, instead, we find the hardship created is forced on the applicant, and it has been suggested to us by the Planning Board as a matter for relief. We do not find that. - a landowner's plans have been frustrated by a zoning ordinance. On the contrary, -we find the landowner, in this case, has sub- mitted his entire acreage to the Town Board for clustering (as outlined in black on Van Tuyl survey of April 22, 1975) resulting in practical difficulties about what to do with peri- meter lots, such as this one, which would, -in effect, be condemned for ordinary residential and agricultural use. In the last genera tion Orient farmers have been reduced from about thirty to less than ten, and'the agricultural demand for isolated one-half acre lots is minimal. We do not find the situation'similar to Cowan, 1/26/76, Appellate Div., 2nd Dept., Cowan v Kern 378 NYS2D 746. Variances have not been granted to adjoining lots; hardship is not self- imposed. A _ Y t=; Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- March 26, 1976 from the clustered area presents unusual, unique, and practical hardship to the applicant since it would leave the applicant with a 28030 sq, fte area which could not be used for residential pur- poses unless granted a variance; nor by reason of its size and isolation could it reasonably, be used for agricultural purposes. Use of the area under application for residential purposes would be in keeping with the character of the area, which is largely residential on lots of the same or lesser size. In considering the arguments advanced in the public hearing by William Rich III, and in two briefs submitted as part of the record, we find reference to Mr. Schriever's past actions in matters in which the community is concerned to be of interest but not relevant to the decision. We further find,tha't Dr. Moor - Jankowski is in litigation with the applicant and that.Mr. Rich is actively attempting to purchase land described in Appeal No. 2105. It is obvious, as confirmed by the appraiser, that land unsuitable for -residential- or agricultural use is far less valuabl than if such uses we're., -.Permitted. In addition, we are informed that granting of this variance will not increase the density facto as -applied to the 13.89 acre tract, and that Dr. Moor-Jankowski's property is several hundred feet from the site. We do not agree that title to the substandard parcel applied for here was" -merged by the applicant, since the parcel under dis- cussion was all part of the original Schriever purchase, nor has he elected to combine this property with adjoining property; rather, he is in the position of having to set off this parcel as a result of an administrative action of the Town Board relating to perimeter lots of the applicant. Nor is this situation a self- imposed hardship but, instead, we find the hardship created is forced on the applicant, and it has been suggested to us by the Planning Board as a matter for relief. We do not find that. - a landowner's plans have been frustrated by a zoning ordinance. On the contrary, -we find the landowner, in this case, has sub- mitted his entire acreage to the Town Board for clustering (as outlined in black on Van Tuyl survey of April 22, 1975) resulting in practical difficulties about what to do with peri- meter lots, such as this one, which would, -in effect, be condemned for ordinary residential and agricultural use. In the last genera tion Orient farmers have been reduced from about thirty to less than ten, and'the agricultural demand for isolated one-half acre lots is minimal. We do not find the situation'similar to Cowan, 1/26/76, Appellate Div., 2nd Dept., Cowan v Kern 378 NYS2D 746. Variances have not been granted to adjoining lots; hardship is not self- imposed. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- March 26, 1976 The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit " of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED, William Schriever, Main Road, Orient, New York, be GRANTED permission to set off lot with insufficient width and area which is located on the north side of Orchard Street and the west side of Tabor Road, and bounded on the west by W. Rich III, as applied for. Vote of the Boards Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Hulse. On motion by Mr. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 9:25 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, April 8, 1976 at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place of hearing upon application of Samuel & Betty Jane Copin, Albertson Lane, Southold, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Town Law Section 280A, for approval of access to interior lot. Location} of property: west side of Albertson Lane, Greenport, N. Y., bounded on the north by Guranaschelli; east by Albertson Lane; Cassidy & Giaranaschelli; west bu Guranaschelli. Vote of the Boards Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Hulse. The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 P.M. PPROVED 1Q176 aha Bo2�d of Appeals Respectfully s mitted, CL Marjo ie McDermott, Secretary Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman S-uthold Town Board of Appeals -7- February 261976 The Board finds that strict application of e Ordinance would roduce practical difficulties or unnec sary hardship; the har hip created is unique and would no e shared by all propertie alike in the immediate vicinit of this property and in the s e use district; and the v iance will not change the character the neighborhood, an will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr Bergen, RESOLVED, Fred Helf, ay be GRANTED permission to iv� width and area locateZn the the east side of Wallace, for, subject to th following bonded by Mr. Grigonis, it was Avenue, Mattituck, New York, e property with insufficient uth side of Bray Avenue and Ma ituck, New York, as applied condi That the ne commencing at the nort asterly corner of applicapt's property running in a weste.ly direction 77° 0 10" shall extend to a point of in ersection at app 'cant's westerly property line. ote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Berlgen, Gr' onis. THE CHAIRMAN: In connection with the William Schriever hearings, Appeal No. 2104 scheduled to be heard at 7:50 P.M., and Appeal No. 2105 scheduled to be heard at 8:00 P.M., we have a technical error concerning Appeal No. 2105 with the notification to adjoining neighbors. This is the first time this has happened since the citizens in Southold decided that all adjoining neighbors should be notified. The notification was sent to William Rich, Jr., Box 95, Orient, New York, and, he, I presume, has nothing to do with this property. He is the father of William Rich III of 454 Fort Washington Avenue, New York. Apparently, Mr. Rich, Jr. lives on an island in the East River and by the time Mr. Rich III received this notification he objected to the delay among other things. The Chairman read the following letter dated February 25, 1976 received from William Rich III: "As the owner of record of property on Orchard Street in Orient, I would like to express my objections to the Zoning Variance sought by William Schriever. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- February 26, 1976 Because of the improper notice afforded me for this hearing I have been unable to arrange to appear before the Board personally. In view of the fact that my request for a postponement has been refused, I request.that my memorandum be read at the hearing and be made part of the record for appeal, which will obviously be the very next step in this procedure." THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rich III called me last Monday, the 23rd, to say that he just received the notification. I explained to him that the Ordinance that the Town passed does not require that the Board of Appeals assure that every notification is made. In some cases, people are out of the country. The ordinance was written to permit the applicant to certify to the Town Clerk that within five days of filing he is notifying the owners of adjoining properties that he is applying for a variance. MR. WILLIAM SCHRIEVER: We sent the notification to Orient. THE CHAIRMAN: You have to send the notifications to the address shown on the tax rolls. As I told Mr. Rich the Board would not have to be guided by this, and it is not going to influence us. However, in view of the complexity of this long and protracted negotiation with the Town Board and the Planning Board, we believe we should postpone these hearings until March 18, 1976. (The Chairman directed the secretary to write to Mr. William Rich III to inform him of the postponement to March 18, 1976.) Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. was present to.represent Mr. William Schriever. He said that he did not see any reason why the other appeal, Appeal No. 2104 should be delayed. The Chairman said that he, personally, would not mind making a decision but as the two appeals were more or less inter -related, he felt that it would be better if they were heard the same evening after the Board had time to make further investigation. The Chairman stated that Mr. Rich III enclosed a brief with his letter stating his various ob fictions. He had also given the Chairman some background over the telephone. Dr. Moor -Jankowski was present to speak against the applications. He said that he felt, with due respect, that the Board would be putting the cart before the horse if they made a decision before any definite plan was made. He said "we don't know what Mr. Schriever will do with the property; once this is determined it will be in a better light". Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- February 26, 1976 There was a general discussion regarding clustering. The Chairman said that from an imaginative standpoint it could happen that a person could pick up all the back lots in a hamlet along .with vacant lots on streets, and we would be setting a precedent unless the total area so acquired is used to compute cluster density. Mr. Cuddy said that all of the lots in the subdivision would be one half acre, so, each of the lots would be approxi- mately the same size. The -lots inside would have open space area. Mr. Schriever said that one of the reasons for this clustering application was the difficulty of developing, using the ordinary system,,because there are two lots. They won't meet one acre zoning. We did not need a variance the way we originally made our application to the Planning Board. The Chairman asked why Mr. Schriever bought two half acre lots. Mr. Cuddy said that this parcel has been that way for years. So, when it was sold, it was sold that way. Mr. Schriever said that Tabor bought those pieces.and added it to his farmland. When he sold it, he sold it as a package, and when I bought it, I bought it as a package. Dr. Moor -Jankowski said that it was his un derstanding that the Planning Board could not rule on the part that is under litigation. Mr. Cuddy said that he would also notify Mr. William Rich III of the change of date for the hearing of applicant, Mr. William Schriever. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that hearing on Appeal No. 2104, William Schriever, Orient, New York, be postponed from 7:50 P.M. (E.S.T.), February 26, 1976 to 8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.), March 18, 1976. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis. * * * On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that hearing on Appeal No. 2105, William Schriever, Orient, New York, be postponed from 8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.), February 26, 1976 to 8:15 P.M. (E.S.T.), March 18, 1976. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis. * Southold Town Hall PO Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Yr - Swim King Pools Attn: Eve or Erin 471 Route 25A Rocky Point, NY 11778 BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall PO Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 so Voll"W, Mr. Bob Grigonis Box 1611 NY 11971 Southold, N BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall P0 Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 5 Hahn Realty Attn: Suzanne BOARD OF APPEALS Southold TOWU Hall PO BOX uthold, a'nRoad NY 1 97 Mr. and M'Is' Ed Dart P.O. BOX 11958 NY Pec onic BOARD OF APPEALS Southold 3095 Hallr7Q 5Main Road PO Box Is -, Southold, NY 11971 UJOW1310W Ms. Mary JO Peters Birch Lane 6 white 94. N Wantagh,Y 11793 BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall po Box 11799 53095 Main RoadSouthold,NY 11-971 OFFICE OF - - -' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-1809 fax 765-9064 August 25, 1999 Re: Chapter 58 — Public Notice for Thursday, September 16, 1999 Hearing Dear A r (44, Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Suffolk Times. Pursuant to Chapter 58 of the Southold Town Code (copy enclosed), formal notice of your application and hearing must be mailed and shall include a map or sketch showing the new location with the setbacks and use noted. Send this Notice CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, as soon as possible, with the map to all owners of land (vacant or improved) surrounding yours, including land across any street or right-of-way that borders your property. Use the current addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office (765-1937) or the County Real Property Office in Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. Please submit your Affidavit of Mailing to us by the Friday before the hearing ,date, with the post office receipts postmarked. Later, when the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board at the hearing. You must post the enclosed sign no later than 9/8/99. Post the sign facing the street, no more than 10 feet from your front property line bordering the street. (If you border more than one street or roadway, a sign is enclosed for the front yard facing each one.) The sign(s) must remain in place for at least seven (7) days, and if possible, should remain posted through the day of the hearing. If you need a replacement sign, please contact us. After the signs have been in place for seven (7) days, please submit your Affidavit of Posting to us for the permanent file. If you do not meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. It may be necessary to cancel your hearing -if the required steps are not followed. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, ZBA Office Enclosures � � f NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1999 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 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971, on THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter is possible): #506at 4 6:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4739- WILLIAM RICH III. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-31C.4 for the use and location of an accessory swimming pool, constructed under Building Permit No. 18782, at 1105 Orchard Street, Orient; Parcel Nos. 1000-25-2-20.17 and 19.1. This appeal is based upon the July 28, 1999 Notice issued by the Building Department, disapproving an application for a Certificate of Occupancy, for the following reasons: "Swimming pool or tennis court incidental to the residential use of the premises and not operated for gain ... subject parcel does not contain a principal residential use. Original permit for pool (#18782) was issued based upon a survey indicating that this lot had been merged with the neighboring residential lot, these lots were separated by ZBA in Appeal #2104 dated March 26, 1976 and have not merged." The Board of Appeals will at same time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above application or to submit written statements before the hearing is concluded. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regulation Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call 765-1809. Dated: August 25, 1999. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By L. Kowalski