HomeMy WebLinkAbout3544
Southold Town Board of Appeals
I~AIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2.5 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 119'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
ACTION OF THE ZONING BO~RD OF APPE~S
Appeal No. 3544
Application Dated Ju]y 31, 1986
TO: J. Kevin McLau§h]in, £sq.
as Attorney for JAMES F. WARWICK
828 Front Street, Box [
Greenport, NY 11944
[Appellant(s)]
At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on 0ctober ]0, ]986,
the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken
on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property
New York Town Law, Section 280-a
[ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance
Article , Section
["]Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
Article , Section
[X] Request for Lifting of Condition, Appeal No. 1729
Application of JAMES F. WARWICK for a Variance to lift Condition
of prior Z.B.A. Appeal No. 1729 rendered March 8, 1973 to allow new
construct of a single-family dwelling at premises located along the
south side of Fasbender Avenue, Peconic, NY; Bailey Park Map filed
September 26, 1932, Subdivision Lot No. ll; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-67-6-7.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on September ll,
1986 in the Matter of the Application of JAMES F. WARWICK under Appeal
No. 3544; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and
documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. By this application, appellant requests relief of
condition rendered on March 8, 1973 by the Board of Appeals
under Appeal No. 1729 concerning Lots #11, Map of Bailey
Park, and #9, Map of Blanche T. Dickinson, at Peconic, to
allow construction of a new single-family dwelling.
2. The premises in question is referred to as Parcel
II as conveyed to the appellant on December 13, 1976 at
Liber 8158 cp 334 from James DeVito and Robert Clark, and
more particularly shown on the Suffolk County Tax Maps
as District 1000, Section 67, Block 6, Lot 7. The subject
premises, described as Parcel II contains a lot area of
7,022 sq. ft., 50 ft. lot width and 140.45 ft. lot depth.
premises is vacant.
The
(CONTINUED ON PAGES TWO AND THREE)
DATED: October 12, 1986.
Foz~n ZB4 (rev. 12/81)
CHAIP~IAN, SOUTHOLD TO~N ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS
Page 2 Appeal No. 3544
Matter of JAMES F, WARWICK
Decision Rendered October 10, 1986
3. After reviewing the records concerning the prior
Appeal, No. 1729 filed by Patrick and Margaret Walsh, it
was the owners intent to sell a 50' by 140' strip of
land to James Clark and Robert DeVito~ for uses accessory
to their residence (1000-67-6-14). Both the existing
residence lot and the vacant lot in question did not meet
the minimum lot area, width and depth requirements of the
Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code. In 1976, a minimum lot
area of 40,000 sq. ft., lot width of 150, and lot depth of
175 were required. No approvals have been received to
date from the Southold Town Planning Board for a subdivision
or set-off division of land concerning these premises.
4. The records are clear that it was the intent of
the owners of the premises in question and the Board of
Appeals that this 50' by 140+' portion of land was substn-
tially less than the zoning requirements, and that the
owners wished to dispose of it by selling to the contiguous
property owners, who would have better enjoyment of the
property for accessory residential purposes.
5. On May 7, 1985, Certificate of Occupancy for vacant
land #Z13411 was improperly issued for Property located at
305 Fasbender Avenue, Peconic, 1000-67-6-7; and by memorandum
of the Building Inspector dated March 25, 1986, the Certificate
of Occupancy was declared null and void.
6. Applicant has submitted copies ~f a credit memo from
Acorn Structures Inc. describing Job #7935 for an added deck
and 36" casement with an approximate shipping date of 3/31/86,
and unpaid invoice #1516 dated 12/9/85, Job #7935, with an
approximate shipping date of 1/6/86 of a prefabricated house
shell. No evidence has been submitted as to pre-payment of
the shell or acceptance in writing by Acorn Structures. It
appears that appellant canceled his order and his deposit was
refunded after deducting $385.00 for design time.
7. It is also noted for the record that no building
permit application has been filed or issued concerning the
subject premises to date.
8. In viewing the character of the immediate area,
parcels adjoining this portion of land on the east contains
an area of 20,000± sq. ft., to the west an area of 14,000±
sq. ft., to the southwest an area of 14,000± sq. ft. (County
Tax Map Parcels 1000-67,6-9.1, 6 and 15, respectively).
9. The percentage of the lot area required in the zoning
code requested by this ~pplication is 90+ percent, which is
substantial.
In considering this application, the board also finds
and determines that: (a) the difficulties claimed are not
sufficient to warrant a granting of the relief requested,
(b) the character of the immediate area would be adversely
affected by the granting of the variance; (c) the percentage
of relief requested is substantial in relation to the require-
ments; (d) this parcel will not be within the character of
Page 3 - Appeal No. 3544
Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK
Decision Rendered October 10,
1986
those existing in the immediate area; (e) the variance will
in turn cause a substantial effect on the safety, health,
welfare, comfort, convenience, order of the town; (f) in
view of the manner in which the difficulties arose, and in
consideration of the above factors, the interests of justice
will best be served by denying the variance applied.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No.
3544 in the Matter of the Application of JAMES F. WARWICK
BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED.
Vote of the Board: Ayes. Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was
absent.) This resolution was duly adopted.
lk
GQEHRINGER,
October 12, 1986
'"RECEIVED AND FILED BT
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
DATE/~-/w'~ HOUR 9, po ~,~
Town Clerk, Town of Sout!~o!J
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the
Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following
public hearings will be held by the SOUTEOLD TOWN' B'OARD' OF
APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY
at a Regular Meeting commencing at 7:30 p.m. on ~THU. RSDAY,
SEPTEMBER 1'1,.'1986, and as follow:
7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3540 - MARK AND LO'RR~INE LaROSA.
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-
119.2(B) for permission to construct deck addition at rear
of ekis~ing dwelling within 75 feet of ordinary highwater
mark along "Horton Creek,"
of Albo Drive~ Laurel~ NY;
126-2-12.
located along the north side
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-
7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3541 - RIAL1 REALTY CORP. Variances
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk
Schedule, for approval of insufficient lot width of three
proposed parcels in this pending minor subdivision located
at the northerly end of proposed right-of-way extending from
the north side of Oregon Road, Mattit~ck, NY; County Tax Man
Parcel No. 1000-95-1-3. Containing 47.0520 acres total.
7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3533 -JOH~ BREDEMEYER.(Recessed
from August 14, 1986). New dwelling with an insufficient
setback from ordinary highwater mark along Orient. Harbor.
7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3477 -WILLI~{ AND' KATHERINE HEINS.
(Recessed from August 14, 1986). Insufficient area, width and
depth of two proposed parcels'. North Side ~{ain Road, Orient,
NY; ~000-19-2-5 and 6o
Page 2 - Notice of Bearings
Regular Meeting of September 11,
Southold Town Board of Appeals
8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3544
NY; Bailey Park Map filed
County Tax Map Parcel No.
8:10 p.m. Appeal No.
1986
- JAJ~ES F. WRRWICK.
Vari~ance to ~
lift Condition of prior Z.B.A. Appeal No. 1729 rendered March 8,
/
1973 to allow new construction of a single-family dwelling at
premises located along the south side of Fasbender Avenue, Peconic,i
September 26, 1932, Subdivision Lot ~11;
1000-67-6-7.
3534 - ROBERT WADDINGTON. Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule,
for permission to construct addition to existing building with
insufficient side and rear yard setbacks, at 13175 Main Road,
Mattituck, NY; County Tax ~{ap Parcel No. 1000-140-03-038. "B-l"
General Business Zoning District.
8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3550 - JOSEPH ANU ~IND~ S'CKOENSTEIN.
Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Articles: (a) VI, Section
100-60 for permission to expand nonconforming use of welding
business in this "B-Light Business" Zoning District; (b)
XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to construct new building
and expand nonconforming welding business use within 75 feet from
wetlands area, at premises located along the south side of Main
Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-53-2-12, 13
and 15; Lots 172, 173, 174, Peconic Bay Estates Map No. 658, and
Map No. 1124 as Amended.
8:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3538 - JEFFREY BETTANCOURT. Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2(A) for
permission to construct inground swimmingpool with fence enclosure
and gazebo within 100 feet of top of bluff or bank along Long
Island Sound, at premises known as 2410 Grandview Drive, Orient,
NY; Grandview Estates Subdivision Lot ~5, Map NO. 7083; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-14-02-3.9.
Page 3 - Notice of Hearings
Regular Meeting of September 11, 1986
Southold Town Board of Appeals
8:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3513 - STEPHEN SHILQWITZ. (Recesed
from August 14, 1986). Condominium cOnstruction within 75 fee~
of bulkhead and tidal water. West Side of 6th Street, Greenport,
NY; 1000-49-01-25.1.
The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all
persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the
above hearings. Written~mments may also be submitted prior to
the conclusion of the subject hearing. For more information,
please call 765-1809.
Dated: August 22, 1986.
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
Linda Kowa!ski, Board Secretary
ATTENTION NEWSPAPERS: Please publish THURSDAY,' AUGUST '28,''1~86
and forward two a~fidavits of publication on or before Septem-
ber 2nd to: Board of Appeals, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971.
Copies to the following 8/22/86:
Personal Delivery:
Suffolk Times, Inc.
L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc.
By Mail 8/22/86:
Mr. and Mrs. Mark LaRosa, Box 431, Southold, NY 11971
Mrs. Sophia Greenfield, as agent for Rial Realty Corp.
P.O. Box 1505, Southold, NY 11971
Rial Realty Corp., 20 Audrey Avenue, Oyster Bay, NY 11771
Anthony B. Tohill, Esq. as Attorney for Mr. and' Mrs. W. Heins
P.O. Box 744, Riverhead, NY 11901
Mr. James Warwick, Box 367, Peconic, NY 11958
Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Kelly, 145 E. 27th St, NY, NY 10016
Mr. Peter C. Walsh, Rill Road, Peconic, NY 11958
Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. as Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. J. Bredemeyer
Box 1424, Main Road, Mattituck, NY 11952
William Moore/Richard Lark, Attorneys, for Mr. Robert Waddington
Box 973, Cutchogue, NY 11935
Richard J. Cron, Esq. for Mr. and Mrs. James Navas
Stephen R. Angel, Esq. for Mr. and Mrs. J. Schoenstein and'S. Shilowi
Box 279, Riverhead, NY 11901
Swim King Pools, Inc. as agent for Mr. J.
Route 25A, Rocky Point, NY 11778
Mr. J. Bettancou~t, 2410 Grandview Drive,
Bettancourt
Orient, NY 11957
Lawrence Storm, ~sq. for Cove Circle Association (Re: S.
33 West Second Street, Box 398, Riverhead, NY 11901
Shilowitz)
FO R~'; NO, 3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDiNG DEPARTMENT
TOIYN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD. N.Y.
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ... ~)..Cji..~..c~.'...~..~) ........ , 19.9 (~..
~cation of ProperW.. ~ ~ ~T.. ~. ~... ~ ..... 0. ¢. ~. ~ ...........
Hou~ No, S,reef Ham/er
. No. 1000 Section ....... Block .. ~t
County T~ Map * . ................................
Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No ..................
is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds..~...c~.. ~......0Da....~. ~ %...
Building Inspector
RV 1/80
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF 5OUTHOLD, N. Y.
1, ('ggM .J.~,~.~..F..,..~.~;~;Jf. ................................ of P.O. Bo× ,%67
Name of Appellc~nt Street and Number
................. ~).e~.o~&g .............................................................. ..............................-.---]~Tew York, taI:R~R¥ 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
(
(
(x)
1
section 67 block 6 lot # 7 £.~n+ 0~ner
Map No. Lot No.
Name of Applicant for permit
of
305 Fasbender Avenue Peconic New York
Street and Number Municipality State
) PERMIT TO USE
PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY
Granted a C.O. (then-Later) rescinded; based on covenant #1729
(May 7, 1985) (March 27,1986) ('March 8~ 1973)
LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY 3.0..5...~.a..~.b..e~.d..e.~...A.Y..e.~.q.e. ............................................................
Street Use District on Zoning Map
James F. Warwick
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.)
Board of Appeals Decision (March 8, 1973) ~1729-Covenant
( )
( )
TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for
A VARIANCE fo the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map
A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Co,s. Laws
Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3
Lifting of Covenant #1729
4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal ¢bx~) (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 variance
and was made in Appea~ No ................................. Dated ......................................................................
REASON FOR APPEAL
) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3
~ A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
)
~s requested for the reason that
1. Covenant is out of character for area; 1. area is (and does have, contrary
to statements noted in covenant- sufficient fron~.e and acreage)2.
Covenant states re; population density (but, at least three homes have be~n
buil~within 500 feet). 3. Covenant grants accessory residential buildings;
(which 'could' change the character of the neighbQrhood), a residential
porto ~.1~1 (Continue on other side)
would not.
REASON FOR APPEAL
Continued
1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical dJf~i~}ti~S ~r ~'~neces-
sary HARDSHIP because
1. Based on C.O. granted May 7, 1985 Applicant 1o applied for~ and got
2nd mortgage, a building loan, contracted for House, plans, contracted for
land graders, local contractors, etcetc. Further applicant has been
paying two separate tax bills; the deed nones two separate land parcels,
~nd the quite normal presumptzon is that the applicant could build-and to
that end made plans and expended considerable sums of money to do so.
The covenant is /was a complete surprise. The lot~according to the covenant)
would allow an enormous variety of ~other~ uses; none of wbich would be as
esthetically pleasing, and revenue gaining as a simple small(lO0~ sq ft)
home ·
2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not sqared by ali prope~ies aJike in the immediaCe
vicinity of this property and in this use district because
The character of the neighborhood (in contrast to the language of the
covenant has been altered (i.e 2 new homes in the past 5 years, another
rebuilt essential]y). And in an least one instance a variance was
granted in order that one of these homes could be built.
3. The Vonance wou!d observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE
CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because
It would not change the character of the district. I live in the
district year round, no abuttingneighbor does, and noone within 500 feet
lives in the homes year round.
STATE OF NEW YORK
~ m,- ' ) ss
Sworn to this .............. ,~....~.L:: ............. day o{
................. _~ .................................. 19 % (-~
LOT 6
FA SBENDER AVE.
( PRIVATE ROAD )
LOT 7
LOT 8 CO
I00. O0 '
Ia
IOO. OD
LOT II
N /0/ F LAND OF CONICK
, /I-'f./g ~j~. '~ ¥o
Y. S . LIC .
p~co~c ~URv[~o~s
~ 516) 765 - 5020
P, 0. B OX 909
~AIN ROAD
SOUTHOLD ~ N . Y. 1197 I
. ,SURVEY OF
LOTS 9 8~ I0
"M~P OF BZ~ILE¥ PZ~RK"
FILED SEPT. 26 ~ ~932 FILE NO. 1097
,AT PECONIC
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY , N.Y.
]tO 0 0 067 06 I 06
SCALE I" = 30'
AUG. 25,.198 6
NO. 49668
ENGINEERS , P.C.
Prepered [r~ accordance with the minimum
standards for title surveys as established by
{'h~ t_.LA:LS, and approved and adopted
{%r such use by The New York State Lane1
Title Association.
86 485
` - • CdUNTY OF SUFFOLK
d
Michael A. LoGrande
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING LEE E.KOPPELMAN
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
360-5513
August 26, 1987
Town of Southold
Zoning Board of Appeals
Re: James F. Warwick
#3544
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative
Code, the above referenced application is not within the jurisdiction of the
Suffolk County Planning Commission.
Very truly yours,
Lee E. Koppelman
Director of Planning
S/s Gerald G. Newman
Chief Planner
GGN:mb
VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
HAUPPAUGE,L.I.,NEW YORK 1179E
1316I 360-5192
6�
ni
Southold Town Board of A
PP
eals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI October 12 , 1986
J . Kevin McLaughlin , Esq .
828 Front Street , Box E
Greenport , NY 11944
Re : Appeal No . 3544 - James F. Warwick (Variance )
Dear Mr . McLaughlin :
Transmitted herewith for your record is a copy of the
recent findings and determination rendered by the Board of
Appeals in the above matter .
Yours very truly ,
GERARD P . GOEHRINGER
CH IRMAN
rd2 o%.ru�1-1-
Linda K walski
Enclosure
Copy of Decision to :
Building Department
Planning Board
Rudolph H . Bruer , Esq .
'` A C O R N STRUCTURES INC
October 23, 1985
Mr . James F. Warwick
Box 367
Peconic , NY 11958
Dear Mr . Warwick:
Thank you for your order for an Acorn materials package .
A formal acknowledgement will be mailed to you shortly,
along with a tentative delivery schedule .
Would you please review the lines below for incomplete
information which could hold up the processing of your
order . If circled , please mail the information to Acorn as
soon as possible .
Also , we would like to bring to your attention Acorn' s last
minute change policy. Please see attached sheet.
We look forward to working with you on building an Acorn
structure .
Sincerely,
N ncy hony
Sales epartment
Deposit
Approved Plans
Signed Specs
Shingle Color
Finished Wall Thickness
Shipping Instructions/
Site Directions
BOX 250 CONCORD MASS 01742 • (617)369-4111 • FACTORY: ROUTE 2A ACTON MASS
T .T
� z6�
9144G
✓ o �
A
, ✓�� wt�&
•
•
Q�o��FFo>x�o� • •
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 2S SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS September 11 , 1986
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN "
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. -
SERGE DOYEN, JR. S.E.Q.R.A.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3544
PROJECT NAME: JAMES F . WARWICK This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X ) Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To lift condition of prior ZBA area/lot-
line variance #1729 rendered 3/8/73 which prohibited construction of
new dwelling , allowing only accessory building (s ) .
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly known as: South Side of Fasbender Avenue , Peconic ;
Bailey Park Map Filed 9/26/32 , Lot #11 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The relief requested is not directly related to new
construction; refers to prior area/lot-line variance action rendered 3/8/73.
(3) The premises is at an elevation of 10 or more feet above mean sea level .
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowalski, Secretary,
Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516-
765-1809 or 1802 .
Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted
on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board.
ZeW
August 28, 1986
Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Re. Appeal #3544
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Mr. Goehringer:
Thanks for sending along a copy of Mr. Kelly's Letter, and the packet
of related materials. The packet contains some information I had not had before.
I note, among other thing the lot was defined on September 26, 1932. The
is to say it is a 'preexisting condition' .
But it is to Mr. Kelly's letter I feel particularly obliged to respond.
It is replete with a number and variety of errors. Ironically, among his
listed objections he cites the covenant ( ! ) .
Mr. Kelly says: 1. The property is too small for a residential house. . .
Reply: Reference to the survey, reference to the Deed, and reference to the
tax maps of 1932, or 1973, or 1986 tend to refute this. Further he and I
shre acommon boundary, and he knows this is misleading. Thelot is in
fact as large as, adnin at least one instance much larger than lots
within 200 feet on which homes have been built within the past 3-4 years.
In one instance a much larger house was constructed by a local builder on a
lot for which he received a variance (i.e it was, and is smaller than my lot) .
The following year he constructed a second house on the adjoining lot.
Mr. Kelly says: 2. A residential house on the property would add to the
density of thearea and change in a negative way the character of the neighborhood.
Reply: That is of course Mr. Kelly's personal opinion. Thehouse is for me.
I presently live in the neighborhood year round; this is my principal area
of residence, andhas been for over 10 years (indeed, Ihave owned property
in the area for over 15 years). I am as concerned wit the neighborhood as he
is. Mr. Kelly spends less than-offhand 60-75 days per year, and for 30 of
those he rents his house out (thereby increasing the densityof the neighborhood).
Andmuch the sameholds true for fir. Walsh. For boththis is a seond residence.
For neither is it their principal residence.
Mr. Kelly says: 3. Both our well and cesspool are quite close to the property
in question. We donot want to pollute or be polutted.
Reply: My well and cesspool would be more than 100 feet apart, andmuch
more than that from his well and cesspool. I will not pollute him, and I doubt
if he could pollute me. However it is more likely he will pollute himself.
His well and cesspool are within 50 feet ❑f each other, indeed, 38 feet would
be more precise, Mr. Kelly hada well dug within the past thQree years. He
fu
Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer (cont. ) -2-
made the placement.
Mr. Kelly says: 4 When we purchased our house (November 1980), we were
informed by the realtor's (Sharpe-sic) representative that no house
could be built on the adjacent lot in question.
Reply. Untrue. Anyone who knows Debbie Sharp's reputation forhonesty and
ethical behavior knows this verges on the defamatory. She denies it, and
will no doubt write to you directly to refute this. I think it fair to
say she deeply resents the allegation. She does recall numerous stipulations
made by Mr. Kelly -which had the effect of reducing the price of the house,
and none of which, to my knowledge have as yet been corrected. This
stipulatioons make no mention of the adjoining lot.
Mr. Kelly says: S. This information was confirmed by the previous owner.
Reply. Untrue. Mr. Twohey(sp) has no recollections of any remark or any
such assertion. He was not aware of who owned the lot. He does recall the
stipulations and the 'engineer's ' report.
Mr. Kelly says: 6. moreover, Mr. James Warwick himself told us on many occasions,
over a five year period, that he could not use the adjacent property for
anything bu 'access' and accessory use.
Reply: Unture. I categorically deny ever making any such remark(s). I am
frankly piqued that he saw fit to include among (his) objections remarks he
attributes to me. I am surely a better judge of what I said , or did notsay-
and I did not say that.
The only times I remll Mr. Kelly and m,e talking about property was on those
occasions he asked meif he could run a hose from his house to mine to gain
water before.te turned his on for the season(or after his water was turned off)
Or, the numerous times he asked if he and his wife could use my hot showers.
Or, the times he borrowed my power tools. Or, the times he borrowed mypower
mower, Or, when he would borrow my soldering tank and torch. Or, when he would
call me from the city asking me to check for windows left open. Or, when
he would call fromthe city and ask me to dump trash he left on back step (or he
would leave it on my step with notep-or on some occasions no note. Or, . he
would call asking me to check his mailbox and forward -items like car registration,
or insurance or first class mail etc. or, when he would take 'spare' wood
from the lot he is now so concerned about.
Mr. Kelly says: 7 The Walsh Family sold their property to the previous
owners of the Warwick property with th limited use covenant. The town approved
the sale and limited use on march 8, 1973.
Reply: This is of coure the covenanct, and theissue. I was wholly unaware of
any such restriction. And the covenant it self seems confusing (read
original board meeting minutes).
Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer (cont. ) -3-
Mr. Kelly says: 8 It was only due toa bureaucratic error and Mr. Warwick's
reproachful ( !added) behavior that the town gave Mr. Warwick initial approval
to build a residence on Lot #7. When the facts became known. . . .. . . . .
Reply. The bureaucratic error Mr. Kelly accuses Mr. Lissard of making is
considerablymore complex than that simple remark. Ihave now for ten years
paid taxes on 305 Fasbender Avenue (i.e on .16 of an acre of land). The lot
ios decribed on the Deed as a separate parcel. It is shown on the tax maps
as a separate parcel. It is shownon the country records as a separate
parcel. Teh title compay informs me that it is shown as a separate parcel (i.e
the covenant was never recorded in the county) .
I feel I undertook what any reasonable person might have on the evidence assumed.
Namely, that I could build (a house not a garage) . I applied for a C.O.,
and well over a year later began tomake specific preparations to build.
I will not attempt to recount the time and monies spent. But if I was
trying to 'pull a fast one' as Mr. Kelly allows me to infer- then I went about
it in a surprisingly casual, slow fashion. I might add parenthetically I am
stillreceiving separate tax bills.
Finally Imust take note of Mr. Kelly's sweeping generlization when he
says that' . . . .along with our neighbors plan to take all legal action. . . ' The
only other neighbor I am aware of joining him in hisobjection is Mr. Walsh.
it might be closer to the mark to note that the neighbors tht have been
opportuned not only do not agree with him, but resent the 'pressure' . None,
other than these two have expressed any objection that I am aware of.
Please feel free to send copies of this note to Mr. Kelly- and as well
to Mr. Walsh, and Mrs. Moore.
Sincerely, f )
James F. Warwick
POBox 367
Peconic, New York
305 Fasbender Avenue
Peconic, New York 11958
Office: (516) 765-5333 • _ '
Home: (516) 734-6397
AkTHUk I :.FIAkP r
L _ REALTY J ' REALTOR
Route 25, Southold, N.Y. 11971
August 25, 1986
Gerard Goehringer, Chairman
Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Dear Mr. Goehringer,
Dr. Jame: Warwick has brought me a copy of a letter
sent to you by Eugene & Barrie Kelly Re: Opposition to
James Warwick 's appeal for relief of convenants (#1729)
placed by the Board March 8, 1973 stating that Sharp
Realtor's representative stated that the property next
door could notbe built on. This statement is rediculous
as Sharp Realty had no information about said property
and could not possibly have made any statement with re-
gard to said property.
Mr. Kelly bought the property subject to an engineers
report, subject to obtaining a mortgage and subject to some
repairs being made to the roof by owner. That was all the
responsibility Sharp Realty negotiated for. There were no
other representations made by this office.
Very truly yours, y1�kzv,e'"- tt S4S
Devora Sharp, Realtor
ARTHUR J. SHARP REALTY
DS:ds
n �_
August 7 , 1986
Gerard Goehringer, Chairman RE : Opposition to James Warwick' s
Board of Appeals appeal for relief of convenants
Town of Southold (#1729) placed by the Board on
Main Road March 8 , 1973 .
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Chairman Goehringer:
We are opposed to Mr . Warwick' s appeal for the following reasons :
1 . The property is too small for a residential house (50 x 140 -
insufficient area and frontage) .
2 . A residential house on the property would add to the density of
the area and change in a negative way the character of the neighborhood .
3 . Both our well and cesspool are quite close to the property in
question . We do not want to pollute or be polluted .
4 . When we purchased our house (November 1980) , we were informed by
the realtor ' s (Sharpe) representative that no house could be built
on the adjacent lot in question .
5 . This information was confirmed by the previous owner of our house .
6 . Moreover , Mr . James Warwick himself told us on many occasions , over
a five year period, that he could not use the adjacent property for
anything but "access" and accessory use .
7 . The Walsh family sold their property to the previous owners of the
Warwick property with the limited use convenant . The Town approved
the sale and limited use on March 8 , 1973 , #1729 (copy attached) .
8 . It was only due to a bureaucratic error and Mr . Warwick' s reproachable
behavior that the Town gave Mr . Warwick initial approval to build a
residence on Lot #7 . When the facts became known , Mr . Victor Lessard
promptly and properly rescinded the C . O . (March 25 , 1986 -copy attached)
and merged lots #7 and #14 into one contiguous lot .
We strongly support the existing convenant , and along with our neighbors ,
plan to take all legal action necessary to uphold it .
We thank you for the opportunity to state our position on the Warwick
Appeal .
EFK/enc . Sincerely,
�vaa r Q a teat
145 East 27th Street
New York, New York 10016 Eugene and Barrie Kelly
a 71- (V- ash
I( !/
49„C
p {Fri e d yGe 1aww ,
C F /��t7�a ore S
TT %s !3 y %tTpNriok, /v 0,4 0010 1 l<)CI N.-y o �
16-C OC)o4.,aAr &S 5-71740d %w7ce pfo<<rroL o
IgP�Onc -7T F f-v
l� SGlMial r1� of Mom ) D�Oprx i`�jc� 7yg 4
Echoed h.y �� Srp �/Q�i Per of7le Re,
Y-( rtC7- 6,0p /t`<o7ic, r ZQ vk�fd
t4,OLl d n,. T tj h o --6-Z
wo � C/ q/
t CO.SUFFOLK -
°@Ul�ii HEALTH DEPT. APPROVAL 1
QEZ.iDENCEI PLACE / 20� �fLESIJFNGE I H. S. NO.
kp
sow .
�Ap I-
�D
FAQ BEND[ .� AVE! Jl}� MAP OF Pf{ OPEF21- T STATEMENT OF INTENT
5-02VEYED FQf;_1 THE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL
"— -------- SYSTEMS FOR THIS RESIDENCE WILL
N,62 S E, 50.0„- 200 TO MIC L IlAU t r` � .A I H� F CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE
4 l.jAA j � � � � � ��� SUFFOLK CO. DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES.
-- - —
- -- (S)
APPLICANT
Q Q a I �E:CO�,j SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT. OF HEALTH
SERVICES - *FOR 1'- TOWN 'JF :�1C)il 0, D NY. CONSTRUCTK)NONLY APPROVAL OF
_— -- - - --- DATE:
01,
`\ H. S. REF. NO.:
APPR_ OVED:
1 � JACANT SUFFOLK CO. TAX MAP DESIGNATION:
----
HOUSEC ! \ DIST. SECT. BLOCK PLL.
IHOU5E
loco 067 P, �
OWNS S ADDRESS:
0 BUx 3(+7
PECON1c N.Y.I 1-95a.
`tl / DEED: 1.-M71 P. 550 M.
' Q °� $ l'.Vo�At 1l )
na. V
' - C C 1
_ 55 1 AREA•70-22 �.F otL _r;tY:«kR
5,b22¢5 W.- -50.01. q. # ror�s
1. sm
J\ MONUMENT LOAM .:t vr.•eurr^y ms}r trt hme4q
_ rill"E•I
l - t_CE GESSSPDOt.,. Cflly w thn rA� surrey
1 - _
`LEAiG ryas ,tem his iehalf w
' ) kQESIDEt4C:j 5EPTIC TMHG tflu r rny,go rtttIll Bfya ai
aAhQ lmr,nnC invz!tutton listed heraen tttd
,to the asr+gnasa of the lenditq wwd'
wv�,col rantaaa We trot tram
SEAL
HOUSE - --
_�- OF NEI,y
_ HOUSE I SAND
NO (
CJNT(DU125 QE'r L Ic 770 MF A v St7RYEL y a�a ti�9t
QLkp MA_Q- 1 i '
_ ROf?E1t1�lC VAN TyYL• P.C.
,Q V � ;r
- -!:! IS 2611ty
J LICENSED LAND SURVEYORS {7 FOtANDSJ
GREENPORT NEW YORK
RtFDYN[10fT tJaRA 1 - _
BOARD OF APPEALS
• Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
��- P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
1LDITH T.TERRY TELEPHONE
TowN CLERK
(516) 765-1801
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
January 22, 1986
Dear Linda:
The attached letter from Eugene & Barrie Kelly is self-explanatory.
Please submit all pertinent data requested in their letter, as well as a written
explanation which may be transmitted to them.
Thank you.
RECEIVED,
21,
January 14 , 1986
Town Clerk Southold
Town Clerk
Town of Southold
Town Hall — Main Street
Southold New York
Dear Sir :
It has come to our attention that lot #11 on the attached map , which
corresponds to Lot #7 , Block 6 in Section 067 , Peconic , on the town ' s
map , has been issued a certificate of occupancy (C . O . ) by the Zoning
Board of the Town of Southold .
We have been advised by a neighbor that there is an appeal variance
on record that permits only access to a building existing presently
(see attached map) and that an additional building could not be built
on Lot #11 (lots 7 and 14 on town map) .
We are the owners of Lots 9 and 10 on the enclosed map , which corresponds
to Lot #6 , Block 6 , Section 067 on the town map .
Please advise us of our rights to enforce the existing "Ruling on
Record" (copy enclosed) . We are opposed to any new building because
of the existing appeal #1729 , dated February 5 , 1973 and because of
health concerns and codes affecting wells and cesspools .
We would also like the complete record of the February 5 , 1973 hearing
and the ruling made by the Zoning Board . Please send us a bill if
there is any charge for the requested transcript .
Many thanks for your assistance .
Sincerely,
end .
"Barrie E ene & ,Ba Barrrie Ke111y
145 East 27th Street
New York, New York 10016
r t; 2so to;Miit 122i,—�. r 1
%j A
y r
_ t r
+ a �rC.rI, 1 o h4C •. MAP O�
�;
t. hFS �
. ^
mom
I : T1 le_ N- I?_Q r�Qt63
r r
�Ula VQ11-t'rfG)L'Ct'�'{,y-'.]�'Cf
'� Goir.par, t ;'to:+ke, � 0i0i1 crviti
fi
F ' Q4NI(•-�•US-:SU*vvcy 3G1._DCC.;i ji`w,Gobi':
,
''..{ Ic4 rr' ,7rIrN' qC� 'ZirQJ�tt �� �Y (0•����f4 Gl•F.., .r � r � t •5 `"f!/� 'y� /rj. ../�J .; '� r, r`+
1 I ti `� r I _C'f iH 'r t• a -.�U't Cp�rJ �Ul"fir ��. �: 4 ✓/'/.:.� /:rt'-li v..."°''yY—= ,, , r.-.
t-. . 9 .
TOWN OF 60UTIIOI.D, NEW YORK DATE -VlarCh- b e 1973
,1. ..r-
4 ACTION OF THE ZOtaN(: WIARO OF APPEALS
s Dated February 5, 1973
Appeal No. 1729
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS uF -111Di TURN OF SOUTHOLD Appellant `
K'
To Patrick• L. r;srEarea Walsh
Mill Rd'Ad
Peconic yew York
the appeal
at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on Naroh Be 1973
was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your ,
( ) Request for variance due to lack of access to properly
( ) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance -
(K) Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance
resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be
I. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By Section paragraph
Subsection ...................
granted ( ) be denied pursuant to Article ................... �..... be reversed ( ) be
,.,,.,..... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Building Inspector ( )
confirmed because 8:30 P.M. (E.S.T• ) e upon application of Patrick and
Margaret Walsh, Mill road, Peoonic, to Article III,for aSect ion c301,
accordance with the 'Zoning Ord inanwith insufficient area and
for permission to divide property
frontage . Location of property: Lot till, 21ap of Bailey Park, and
Lot / 9, Map of Blanche T• Dickinson, Peoonic, Ncw York. Fee paid
w15.00•
2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board 'I was determined that
practical difficulties or unnecessary
(a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) L -
L ....J.1.:.. .......Ilse
Southold Town Board of Appeals - 10 - March 8, 1973
to maintain accessory building in front yard area and with
insufficient side yard on premises located on the south side
of Maple Avenue (Private Road) off east side of Grand Avenue,
Mattituck, New York, as applied for.
It is the decision of the Board that the garage must be
moved to conform with the original building application, and
that the blacktop must be moved from the adjoining property to
the east.
The garage after bein attached to the house shall be no
closer than forty-nine (1�9 feet to the front yard property line,
and at least ten (10) feet from the property line to the east, as
originally projected.
The Southold Town Board of Appeals sets a sixty (60) day
period from todayls date, March 8, 1973, in which the applicant
shall conform with the original building application.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Hulse.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1729 - 8:30 P.M. (E.S.T. ) , upon
application of Patrick & Margaret Walsh, Mill Road, Peconic,
New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 301, for permission to divide property with
insufficient area and frontage. Location of property : Lot #11,
Map of Bailey Park, and Lot #9, Map of Blanche T. Dickinson,
Peconic, New York. Fee paid $15.00.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to
its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the
applicant.
THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a sketch
indicatin that applicant is the owner of Lot #9 (50, x 2001 on
Mill Road, and is also the owner of Lot #11 (501 x 140, plus on
Fasbender Avenue) . Lot #9 is contiguous to Lot #11.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
M- PATRICK WALSH: The only reason we want to dispose of this
lot is that it is of no use to us. Mr. Clark and Mr. Devito own
adjoining property and it is much more valuable to them.
Southold Town Board of Appeals - 11 - March 8, 1973
MR. CLARK: We bought the property from Mrs. Walsh' s mother.
(Mr. Clark & Mr. Devito discussed map with the Board)
MRS. WAISH: Would there be anything against our selling
the lot?
THE CHAIRMAN: No. However, it could only be used as an
accessory use. It is less than one-fifth of the present
requirement.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
against this application?
(There was no response. )
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that
applicant requests permission to divide property with insufficient
area and frontage. The findings of the Board are that this
division will not increase the density of population and this
transfer will facilitate access to and from the property of
Mr. Clark and Mr. Davito, a joint ownership.
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. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, Patrick and Margaret Walsh be GRANTED permission
to divide property with insufficient area and frontage on
premises: Lot #11, Map of Bailey Park, and Lot #9, Map of
Blanche T. Dickinson, Peconio, New York, and permission to sell
Lot #11 to Mr. Clark and Mr. DeVito, a transfer to joint ownership,
on condition that this property shall not be used for residential
Purposes. However, it may be used for accessory residential
purposes to their existing lot.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Grigonis, Hulse.
For the record: The Chairman gave a brief explanation of the
decision of the Board on Appeal No. 1715 to a representative of
The Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Company who, because of weather
conditions, was unable to be present when the decision was iven
at 7:30 P.M. g
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.1., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765.1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time and date
of the public hearing concerning your recent application is
a copy of the Legal Notice as published in the L . I . Traveler-
Watchman , Inc. and Suffolk Weekly Times , Inc .
Someone should appear in your behalf during the public
hearing in the event there are questions from board members
or persons in the audience . Please be assured that your
public hearing will not start before the time allotted in
the Legal Notice .
If you have any questions , please feel free to call
our office , 765-1809 .
Yours very tr�Jly,,,�
G RARD P . GOEHRfNGER
CHAIRMAN
Linda Kowalski
Secretary and Board Clerk
Enclosure
NOTICE OF HEARINOS
NOTICE IS ttHEREBY • •
GIVEN, pursuant to Section COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
267 of the Town Law and the STATE OF NEW YORK ss:
Code of the Town of Southold,
the following public hearings
will be held by the SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD OF AP-
PEALS at the Southold Town Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the
Hall, Main Road, Southold, Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN,
me c aRegular30 p. . on a public newspaper printed at Southold in Suffolk County;
mencing at 7:30 p.m. on '
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
11, 1986, and as follow: has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman
70- Appeal No.
3540-MARK AND LOR-
once each week for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . weeks
RK
RAINE LaROSA. Variance to �
the Zoning Ordinance, Article successively, commencing on the
XI, Section 100.119.2(B) for • . • • • • • . .
permission to construct deck ad-
dition at rear of existing dwell- day c 19 .
ing within 75 feet of ordinary
highwater mark along"Horton —
Creek,"located along the north - -"-
side of Albo Drive,Laurel,NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. "
1000-126-2-12.
7:40 p.m. Appeal No.
3541-RIAL REALTY CORP. 611
Sworn to before me this . . . . . . . . . . .
Variances to the Zoning Or- . . . . . . clay of
dinance, Article III,-Section
�., 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for ap- 8:20 p.m. Appeal
proval of insufficient lot width • • • ' • • ' ' ' • • . • • • . 19 . . . . . . 3550-JOSEPH AND LINDA
of three proposed parcels in this SCHOENSTEIN.Variances to
.pending minor subdivision I the Zoning Ordinance,Articles!".,'a
located at the northerly end or ;. (a)VI, Section 100-60 for per+
proposed right-of-way exten- mission to expand nonconform+ I
ding from the north side of (/1¢-�R-,.n- -,..�✓ ing use of welding business in
this"B-Li h „Zoning'
Oregon Road, Mattituck, No. Notar Public District;e b) X, Stion
County Tax Map Parcel No. Y ( )
1000.93.1.3. Containing BARBARA FORBES 100-119'2(B)for permission to -
1000.0 acres total, construct new building and eyka
7:50 prey Appeal. No. Notary Public, State 6 New York I pand nonconforming;welding -
3533-JOHN BREDEMEYER• Qualified in Suffolk Count business use within 75 feet fr", ..
(Recessed from August 14, Commission Expires y wetlands area, at premises
1986).New dwelling with an in- p �"7 j/ 19�� located along the south side of
sufficient setback from ordinary Main Road, Greenport, NY:
highwater mark along Orient County Tax Map Parcels No.
Harbor.,.. _,., ,,,. _ 1000-53-2.12, 13 and 15; Lots
7n 55-o.m....Appeal:..No, 172, 173, 174, Peconic Bay
'3477-WILLIAM•, ' AND, Estates Map No.658,and Map
KATHERINE'HEINS.(Recess- No. 1124 as Amended.
ed from August 14, 1986). In- 8:35 p.m. Appeal No. ,
sufficient area,width and depth 3538-JEFFREY BETTAN-, ",
of two proposed parcels. North COURT. Variance to the Zon--'.
side Main Road, Orient, NY;" ing Ordinance,Article XI,See-
1000-19-2-5 and 6. tion 100-119.2(A) for permis-
8:00 p.m. Appeal No. sion to construct inground
3544-JAMES F. WARWICK. swimmingpool with fence
Variance to lift Condition of enclosure and gazebo within 100
rior Z.B.A. Appeal No. 1729 feet of top of bluff or bank
rendered March 8, 1973 to allow along Long Island Sound, at
new construction of a single- premises known as 2410 Grand-
family dwelling at premises view Drive,Orient,NY;Grand.
located along the south side of view Estates Subdivision Lot
Fasbender Avenue, Peconic, No. 5, Map No. 7083; County
NY; Bailey Park. Map riled Tax Map Parcel No.
September 26, 1932, Subdivi- 1000-14-02-3.9.
sion Lot No.11; County Tax 9:40 p.m. Appeal No.
Map Parcel No. 1000-67.6.7, 35)3-STEPHEN SHILOWITZ.
8:10 p.m. Appeal No. (RecesSrd from August. 14.
3534-ROBERT WAD- 1986).Condominium construe-' "
DINGTON. Variance to the tion within 75 feet of bulkhead
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, and tidal water. West Side of"-
Section 100-31,Bulk Schedule, 6dh Street,. Greenport, NY;
for permission to construct ad- 1000 49-01-25.1.
dition to existing building with The Board of Appeals will
insufficient side and rear yard t hear at said time and place all
setbacks,at 13175 Main Road; persons or representatives desir-
Mattituck, NY; County Tax ing to be heard in each of the
Map Parcel No., above hearings. Written com•
1000-140-03-038r "B-1"- ments may also be submitted.:
General Business Zoning prior to the conclusion of the '
District. subject hearing.For more infor-
mation; please call,765-1809.
Dated: August 22; 1986.
BY ORDER OF THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN
'BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P."GOEHRINGER,
' CHAIRMAN
Linda Kowalski,
S Board Secretary
IT-8/28/86(6)
Page 20A/TheSutfolk Time&Augusi 28,1986
Legal Notices sed from August 14, 1986). In. 119.2(A) for permission to con- STATE OF NEW YORK I
sufficient area,width and depth struct inground swimmingpool
of two proposed parcels. North with fence enclosure and gazebo I St
Side Main Road, Orient, NY; within 100 feet of top of bluff or COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I
00-19-2-5 and 6. bank along Long Island Sound,
NOTICE OF HEARINGS 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3544 -- at premises known as 2410
NOTICE IS HEREBY DAMES F. WARWICK. Vari- Grandview Drive, Orient, NY; Katherine Bondarchuk of Greenport, in
GIVEN,pursuant to Section 267 .ante to lift Condition of prior Grandview Estates Subdivision
of the Town Law and the Code of Z.B.A. Appeal No. 1729 re- Lot #5, Map No. 7083; Countv said County, being duly Sworn, says that he/she is
the Town of Southold,the follow- ndered March 8, 1973 to allow Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-14-02-
ing public hearings will be held new construction of a single- 3.9. Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly
by the SOUTHOLD TOWN family dwelling at premises lo- 8:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3513 - Newspaper, published at Greenport, in the Town •
BOARD OF APPEALS at the Gated along the south side of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ. (Re;
Southold Town Hall,Main Road, FasbenderAvenue,Peconic,NY; ceased from August 14, 19861. of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New
Southold,NY ataRegular Meet- Bailey Park Map filed Sep- Condominium construction York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is
ing commencing at 7-30 p.m.on tember 26, 1932, Subdivision within 75 feet of bulkhead and
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER Lot#11;County Tax Map Parcel tidal water. West Side of 6th a printed copy, has been regularly published in
11,1986,and as follows: No.1000-67-G7. Street,Greenport,NY; 1000-49- said Newspaper once each Week for 1
7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3540 -- 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3534 01-25.1.
MARK AND LORRAINE ROBERT WADDINGTON. The Board of Appeals will weeks successively, commencing on the 28
LaROSA. Variance to the Zon- Variance to the Zoning Ordi-- hear at said time and place al}
ing Ordinance, Article XI, Sec- nance, Article III, Section 100- persons or representatives desir. day of Av an c t 19�6
tion 100-119.2(B)for permission ' 31, Bulk Schedule, for permis- ing to be heard in each of the
to construct deck addition at sion to construct addition to above hearings. Written com-
rear of existing dwelling within existing building with insufi- ments may also be submitted /j
75 feet of ordinary highwater - cient aide and rear yard set- prior to,the conclusion of the /d/ .I_� _, 1�-�1„ -
mark along"Horton Creek,"lo- backs,at 13175 Main Road,Mat- subject hearing. For more infor- '
Gated along the north side of tituck, NY; County Tax Map mation,please call 765-1809. Princlpal Clerk
Albo Drive,Laurel,NY;County Parcel No. 1000.140-03-68. "B- Dated:August 22,1986.
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-126-2- 1"General Business Zoning Dis BY ORDER
12. trict. OF THE SOUTHOLD Sworn to be re me this419
a
7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3541 = 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3550--- - TOWN BOARD
RIAL REALTY CORP. Vari- JOSEPH AND LINDA - OF APPEALS. day Of
antes to the Zoning Ordinance, SCHOENSTEIN. Variances to GERARD P.GOEHRINGER, rl MARY K.DEGNAN Yolk
Article III,Section 100-31,Bulk the Zoning Ordinance, Articles: CHAIRMAN %l, '�// iCTARY PUBLIC.Sute of NEW
Schedule,for approval p oposed (a) VI, Section 100-60 for per- Linda Kowalski, ���C� / ����ultolk County N0.4849a609 qJ .
dent lot width of three proposed mission to expand nonconform- Board Secretary ;erm Etpites fehl0a OD
parcels in this pending minor ing use of welding business in 1TA26-5333
subdivision located at the north- this "B-Light Business" Zoning
erly end of proposed right-of-way District; Ibl XI, Section 100-
Oregon Road, Mattituck, NYC
extending from the north side of 119.2(B) for permission_10 con-
struct new building and expand
County Tax Map Parcel No. nonconforming welding business
1000-95-1-3.Containing 47.0520 use within 75 feet from wetlands
acres total' area, at premises located along
7:50 P.M. Appeal No. 3533 — the south side of Main Road,
JOHN BREDEMEYER. (Re- Greenport,NY;County Tax Map
ceased from August 14, 1986). Parcels No.1000-53-2-12,13 and
New dwelling with an insufli- 15; Lots 172, 173, 174, Peconic
cient setback from ordinary Bay Estates Map No. 658, and
highwater mark along Orient Map No.1124 as Amended.
Harbor. 8:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3538 —
WILLIAM
7: M" Appeal No. 3479-- JEFFREY BETTANCOURT.
- AND Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
KATHERINE HEINS. (Recess nance, Article XI. Section t012 -
0
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF JAMES F. WARWICK - APPEAL NO. 3544
THURSDAY , SEPTEMBER 11 , 1986
8 : 02 p .m. Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of Appeal
No . 3544 for JAMES F. WARWICK for a Variance to lift condition
of prior ZBA #1729 rendered 3/8/73 to allow construction of
a new dwelling at the south side of Fasbender Avenue , Peconic .
Bailey Park Map Filed 9/26/32 , Lot #11 .
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map showing Lot #11
as a 50 by 140 .45 ft . lot . from Roderick VanTuyl , P . C . on
March 14, 1986 , who was the surveyor . And I have a copy of
the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding
properties in the area . Is there somebody that would like to
be heard in behalf of this application?
J . KEVIN McLAUGHLIN , ESQ . : If it may please the board . My
name is Kevin McLaughlin , and I ' m appearing in behalf of
Mr. Warwick ' s applications . Back in 1973 , there was an appli -
cation by a Patricia and Margaret Walsh for a variance to
allow them to subdivide certain property that they own , and
sell a portion of that , being the subject lot , to a Mr . DeVito
and Mr . Clark . That application was granted with the condi -
tion that the subdivided lot--theilot ' in question tonight--
be used for residential accessory purposes only . There is
some question as to how that application back in 1973 was
made because there was indication that at the time Patrick
and Margaret Walsh owned the property but in fact their mother
did and that ' s who DeVito and Clark bought the property from.
But be that as it may , there was a decision rendered and the
variance was granted on the condition that I just stated . In
1976 , my client , Mr . Warwick purchased the property , and then
the deed , he got two parcels of property , one of which his
current residence is located , and the subject property .
Mr. Warwick indicates to me that he had absolutely no know-
ledge of the restriction on the vacant property , and back in
1975 he made application and in fact received a vacant land
Certificate of Occupancy on that property . In reliance on
this C .O . that had been issued , he went out and applied for
and received a second mortgage on his present home . He
contracted to buy a package type of house . He made various
other inquiries regarding contractors , et cetera . He spent
a considerable time and money in good faith reliance on this
Page 2 - Public Hearing •
_Matter .of.'JAMES 'F, WARWICK
September 11 , 1986 ZBA
MR . McLAUGHLIN (continued ) :
C .O. On March of this year , that C . O . was rescinded on the
basis of the 1973 decision , stating that this lot could only
be used for accessory residential purposes . Mrs . Sharp , who
is a realtor , is here tonight and she can explain basically
the value of the property as a separate building lot verses
the value of that lot , if any , as an accessory use to my
client ' s other lot . I do have a letter from her today which
I would like to hand up to the Board . It indicates that as
a separate lot , that property would be worth somewhere
✓ between $55 ,000 and $75 ,000. It ' s my further understanding
in talking to Mrs . -Sharp , that the value of that property as
an accessory residential use to the other parcel is virtually
nothing . I ' ve also brought this evening copies drawn to scale
of the surrounding neighborhood , and if I could hand up a
couple of copies to the Board -- (copies were given to the
Chairman and Board ) . I think that by referring to the
exhibit that I just handed up , it becomes evident that this
neighborhood is very much a neighborhood of small lots with
houses on there . Many of the lots in the neighborhood are
of substantially similar sizes to the lot in question .
Several of these lots have been built upon since my client
purchased his property in 1976 , in fact , the two parcels
directly to the west of Mr. Warwick ' s property have been
built upon since 1976 . In fact , I believe in about 1980
or 1981 by Mr. Waddington . There are also several other
lots within the immediate neighborhood of substantially
similar sizes on which houses of at least equal size have
been built , and included in that is a house directly to
the west of Mr. Kelley ' s house on which there is a house
substantially larger than the house that my client intends
to build . I believe there has been some question and by
reviewing the file as to the location of my client' s well
and cesspools . Should there be a variance granted and
building taking place . Mr. Kelley has raised a concern
about this . In fact , both our cesspool and our well in
the event we are given permission to build on this lot
would be substantially further away from Mr . Kelley ' s water
than his own cesspool . His own cesspool and well are
approximately 40 feet away from each other . Ours would
be at least 100 feet from his . So I don ' t really think
that ' s a legitimate concern at this point .
Page 3 - Public He*ng
Matter of JAMES F . WARWICK
September 11 , 1986 ZBA
MR . McLAUGHLIN (continued ) :
If we ' re not allowed to get this variance and build pursuant to
our plans , the only uses we have left are to leave the lot as it
is , and it ' s virtually useless , or put in another type of
structure , a garage-type accessory use or perhaps some kind
of big plastic building back there which I understand would
be within our rights under the zoning ordinance . It ' s my
position that neither one of these or any of those uses to
leave it vacant or to build according to the accessory use
would be more harmful to the neighborhood than in fact the
building of this house would if anything enhance the neighbor-
hood . It is a small lot but it ' s a small house that we ' re
talking about , and it ' s definitely in keeping with the character
of the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you .
CHAIRMAN : Before you sit down , just let me ask you a couple
of questions . Do we have any plans for that house in the file?
MR . McLAUGHLIN : I don ' t believe so , but I do have plans that
I can hand up to you this evening. My understanding is that
the house that ' s being planned is approximately 24 by 28 feet
and would be a one and one-half story house . (Handed Chairman plans . )
CHAIRMAN : Was there at any time when Mr . Warwick went into
contract and has the physical existence of a contract that
he could give to this board indicating that he has signed a
contract based upon the vacant land C . O . he received and/or
a building permit indicating that he has expended a sizeable
amount of money?
MR . McLAUGHLIN : I believe there was at least a deposit made
on the basis of the plans that I just handed up . I do have
a copy of a letter from Acorn Structure , Inc . , which is an
acknowledgment of the receipt of the order for the building
package . I believe there was a downpayment of somewhat over
$3 ,000 .
CHAIRMAN : Do you have a copy of that or could we see that?
MR . McLAUGHLIN : If we don ' t have that this evening we will
provide it for the board .
CHAIRMAN : Fine . If that ' s an original --
Page 4 - Public Hearing
Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK
September 11 , 1986 ZBA
MR . MCLAUGHLIN : Could I furnish you with copies , this is an /
original ?
CHAIRMAN : Yes . Can I just see it . I won ' t write on it .
It ' s dated July 30 , 1985 . I ' m going to read the letter into
the record , or you can read it.
MR. McLAUGHLIN : This is a letter from Acorn Structures Inc .
dated July 30 , 1985 addressed to James F . Warwick , Box 367 ,
Peconic , New York.
" . . . Dear Mr. Warwick :
I am returning your check and purchase order to you
marked void . We received your cancellation notifica-
tion the same day that we received your deposit check
and purchase order from Joe Mangle , so it was a simple
matter of not processing your order . I ' m sorry that
you find yourself unable to proceed with your build-
ing plans at present , but we will be able to assist
you when the timing seems better . . . . "
CHAIRMAN : Thank you . And you ' ll furnish us with a copy of
that? ,
MR . McLAUGHLIN : Yes .
CHAIRMAN : Is there anybody else that would like to speak in
favor of this application? Is there anybody that would like
to speak against the application? Kindly speak your name
for the record.
PATRICIA MOORE : My name is Patricia Moore from the Office
of Edson and Bruer , and Mr . Bruer is here . We represent
Mr . and Mrs . Kelley , who are seated here , Mr . and Mrs .
McGuire and Mr. and Mrs . Walsh . Mr , and Mrs . Walsh
unfortunately had car trouble in Queens , and they called
me at 6 :00--they had been in the process of trying to get
a tow and a rental car , so if they run in halfway through
the meeting , you will know who they are .
The first thing I would like to do is read the minutes of
the 1973 hearing , which I believe is the strong argument
against rescission of this condition in light of the code
Page 5 - Public Hearing
Matter of JAMES F . WARWICK
September 11 , 1986 ZBA
MRS . MOORE (continued ) :
existing in 1973 , and even more strongly in the code that
exists today , because the conditions are only tougher to
meet now than they were in 1973 .
Mrs . Walsh states , "would there be anything against our
selling this lot?"
It was the understanding that the Board understood at
that time that this was going to be a set-off and the lot
that was being set-off was going to be sold to Mr . DeVito
and Mr. Clark. The Chairman stated , "No ; however , it could
only be used as an accessory use . It is less than one-fifth
of the present requirements . " One fifth of the 40 ,000 sq .
ft-acre . It was one-acre zoning at the time , and this lot
was one-fifth of that. So as you see , for a 40 ,000 sq . ft.
it doesn ' t get any better .
The findings of the board are "that this division will
not increase the density of the population. " So at the
time because it was going to be used as an accessory lot ,
accessory to a main lot presumably , otherwise it would be
no accessory--that consideration was made and the density
to the population was considered. It was resolved through
Patrick and Margaret Walsh to grant permission to divide
and permission to sell what was considered Lot 11 at that
time to Clark and DeVito on the condition that it not be
used for residential purposes . This was clearly stated in
the Zoning Board ' s records--had any effort been made it
would have been seen immediately.
In 19-- my records reflect in 1980 that he purchased
this particular lot-- I ' may uhclear from the Assessors Card
when exactly the lot was purchased , whether it was pur-
chased together with the other lot or at a different time .
But in any case , he claimed that he did not know the
condition of this parcel , however , Mr . Kelley who pur-
chased the lot in 1980 , Mr. and Mrs . Kelley were well
aware of the condition . Mr. and Mrs . Walsh were aware
of it obviously because their family had been involved
Page 6 - Public Hearing
Matter of JAMES F . WARWICK
September 1 , 1 86 ZBA
MRS . MOORE (continued ) :
in the set-off of this parcel , and Mr. and Mrs . McGuire knew
of this condition . It just raises doubts as to the-- if
any effort had been made , it would have immediately been
seen in the Zoning Board records . If he did not know, it
should have known . That is our contention .
Also , the condition creates a lot -- assuming it ' s a
separate lot from the other--that it hasn ' t merged-- it ' s
a lot that ' s . 161 acres . That ' s a little over 7 ,000 sq . ft .
That is a postage stamp size lot that hardly permits a
residence on it . When I went back to the Assessors Office
and I have a list of all the subdivision lots--all the lots
in that subdivision , and there are only two lots of that
size . Those are the two smallest lots . The other lot is
again Mr. Warwick ' s lot which is adjacent to his and
contiguous with his , which again is also . 161 acres . So
the only two lots which are the smallest lots in the sub-
division in ' that particular subdivision are Mr . Warwick ' s .
He is really requesting that you waive the condition
so that he builds-- assuming that as we believe , the
Building Department is correct that the properties have
merged--and that they are ,two contiguous lots , Mr . Warwick
wants to build a nonpermitted use . That ' s two principal
structures on one lot . Lot 7 and 14 together create a
reasonable size lot for one house , and Mr . Warwick has
on that parcel , whether he bought it at the same time or at a
separate time , he has a house and he has a garage . That is
using the lot to its furthest--to the most of its benefit .
This leads us to the determination by the Building
Inspector . On March 25 , 1986 , the Building Inspector
rescinded the C .O. that was issued--pulled back the C .O . --
and determined that the accessory lot merged with the main
lot . That ' s pursuant to the 1973 ZBA decision .
We also believe that it merged for the following reasons :
When two-acre zoning came into effect in May 20 , 1983 , all
contiguous lots in the same name were merged . Both these--
Mr . Warwick owned both these lots--assuming that he had
bought them separately , now they were together and now they
had merged. The Town Board did not specifically exempt
Bailey Park Subdivision. His lots are in Bailey Park
Subdivision and this subdivision was never grandfathered ,
Page 7 - Public HeaPng •
Matter of_ JAMES F . WARWICK
September 11 , 1986 ZBA
MRS. MOORE (continued ) :
so it was never really recognized as a subdivision . And I
believe Mr. Lessard would agree with me on our finding .
Also , according to New York State Town Law , 265-a , a filed
map is protected for three years upon upzoning . So assuming
that this was a legitimate subdivision that was grandfather
from the time that Mr . Warwick-- from the time this lot was
created assuming by the Zoning Board by that time--they had
three years in which they could go and grandfather it and
any parcel that was in the same name that could then go and
checkerboard it , or somehow get into someone else ' s name so
that he would be protected from merging . Assuming that is
that the ZBA decision did not merge it , which we don ' t believe
occurred .
Although he has been receiving separate tax bills and we
have had several applications to you where the tax" bills had
been--they were never combined . The Assessors Office does
not determine the legal status of a parcel . The Building
Inspector is the one who determines whether a parcel has
merged or not . And rightly so , he determined that the
parcel had merged . When he bought the property and assuming
it ' s 1976 , he had not requested a vacant land C . O . at that
time . For that separate parcel . In 1985 or 1980 he comes in
and says , "Well I want to build a house there . I want a
vacant land C . O . " It kind of falls through the cracks and
one was issued. However , he did not buy in reliance on that
vacant land C .O .
Assuming at best for Mr. Warwick that he is permitted to--
if the condition is allowed to be taken off the lot , he still
cannot do it . He has to come before you and the Planning
Board , assuming the lot ' s merged--he has to go to the Planning
Board to get a set-off , he has to come before you because they
are undersized parcels--presumably he has to come before you
for setback requirements , and further bulk and parking
schedule requirements--so he ' s creating one application after
another . Really it ' s a self-imposed hardship . He bought
what should have been knowingly that this was the lot that
was unbuildable .
As far as the Health Department application is concerned ,
I called the Health Department and I found out what stage his
application is in . The Health Department could tell me over
the phone that he has--the application is in , however , the
Page 8 - Public Hearing
Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK
September 1� , -1986 2BA
MRS . MOORE (continued) :
Health Department has returned a notice to him stating that he
needs further information as to cesspool and wells of adjoining
properties . The Health Department has been very strict on a
40 ,000 sq . ft. lot with a private cesspool and well . I can
only imagine how strict they are going to be on a 7 ,000 sq . ft .
parcel . This is a very small parcel .
He states that the cesspool and well on Mr. Kelley' s
property is very close to each other . That ' s not the issue .
The issue is how far the cesspool and well is from other
properties . Mr . McGuire states in the letter of September 6 ,
1986 that the well is going to be approximately 40 feet from
his building line . That ' s quite close . That ' s closer than
100 feet -that the Health Department permits . Mr . Walsh has
estimated that it ' s approximately 70 feet , and most importantly
Mr. Walsh has determined that it ' s a downgrade so that even if
the distance is proper , the downgrading will contaminate his
well . So one way or another his parcel does substantially
impact on adjacent property owners .
Mr . Kelley has presented a survey to me at the hearing
that states where his cesspool and well is , and I ' d like to
submit it to you . (Submi,tted original survey dated 8/25/86
prepared by Peconic Surveyors . ) That is an approved house .
The distance is proper ; it was approved by the Health
Department , otherwise the house wouldn ' t be there . But
it also shows the distance to Mr. Warwick ' s property , and
it is quite close . Thirty-five feet. So we really predict
and really hope , and will send correspondence to the Health
Department informing them of the distances to the cesspools
and our opposition to the granting of a Health Department
approval . And we only hope that the Health Department will
also consider this .
Mr. Warwick also claims that the other properties have
been built on . I went back to the Assessors Office , and I
checked the property cards . The only one that I found in
that subdivision which was built is of Brooks and that ' s
tax lot #15. That lot is . 321 acres . That ' s almost three
times the size of Mr . Warwick ' s lot--or given the benefit
of the doubt , twice the size of Mr . Warwick ' s lot . That ' s
the only one I could find . I can stand corrected because
Page 9 - Public Hearing
Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK
September 11 , 1986 ZBA
MRS . MOORE (continued ) :
there may be others . That ' s the only one that the Assessors
had of record right now. The only ones that I could see that
were built very recently .
As far as when he bought it in the lines--just briefly ,
the title company will not insure against ordinances , zoning ,
or otherwise . I have a typical from Chicago Title but all of
them have the same thing--they say that they won ' t insure
title except for any laws , ordinances , or ordinances including
but not limited to zoning , building and environmental protection .
They ' re not about the insure property that the zoning--that the
town has been involved in . They say , "Ok , it ' s a buildable lot
and fine , you own it . " But that ' s about all a title company
will insure . And I present that to you. ( Submitted copy of
title insurance schedule of exceptions . )
Mr. McLaughlin made some statements in his presentation
and I ' d, just -Like to respond to them. He says the lots were
bought at the same time and in reliance on the C .O. Well ,
there may have been a C.O. for the house and the garage and
a vacant land C .O. , but still the vacant land C . O. still says
that it ' s subject to any ordinances . And there you are . The
variance was clear and apparent and if it had just been
researched , it would have been found .
I believe that you ' ve read into the record that the
contractor returned the check , so he did not--he has not
paid the contractor--he informed the contractor he was having
problems in getting this house built , and the check was
returned , so there is no reliance between as far as paying
out the contractor . Sure there are a lot of costs involved
in this , but we have lots of applications like that.
RUDOLPH H . BRUER , ESQ . : Mr. Chairman , Mr . Kelley has pointed
out to me I should mention to the Board that if you go back
to the 1973 application , that was an application with respect
to road frontage and area based upon the 1973 Code . We now
have a 1986 code , which is a two-acre code , and the bulk and
parking schedule as applicable today for lots under 40 ,000
sq . ft . really shouldn ' t be considered here because they had
a definite bulk and parking schedule at that time in 1973 .
He also noted to me that we do have an upzoning here and that
Page 10 - Public Hearing
Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK
September 1 , 1986 ZBA
MR . BRUER (continued ) :
the coda--what was granted then there ' s no application now.
This was a piece of property that was never developed . During
that period of time . It is now subject to and is included in
the 80 ,000 sq . ft. area and it should be subject to the
requirements , so he ' s asking to have a 7 ,022 lot in an 80 ,000
sq . ft . zone today . I don ' t think you can take the based value
or the application here and just apply it to a lifting of the
1973 covenant. The 1973 covenant dealt with the 40 ,000 sq . ft .
area. This is not the situation today. This is an 80 ,000--
that has merged . That is as if like you were dealing with
Cedar Beach. Cedar Beach is not exempt from the code in terms
of merger . If it hadn ' t merged in 1976 , it merged in 1973 with
respect to the upzoning . This property has been upzoned .
Definite upzone . The whole application is more than just a
lifting of that covenant which was the only reason that
covenant , that application was granted . I think a review
of that file will determine that was done on a basis of a
swap so that the new owners would have access to their
existing property and to use it as storage . And it was
explicit at that time . that it was not to be used as a
residence . It ' s not like various applications that were
made over the year where the board said , "Well if you ' re
going to make any further, changes with respect to putting
a building there , come back and talk to us . " "This was one
of these things , don ' t come back and talk to us . This is
the way it is , Pal . You can sell it but you can ' t build on
it . You can put a barn . You can grow vegetables . Whatever
you want . " "But no you cannot put a residence on it. "
And they were very explicit in that and they were very
happy with that . And you can read it in the minutes , this
will not increase the density because we ' re not adding a
building--a residence .
MRS . MOORE : Just reference--Wissman , the last condition I
think you ' ve seen is the Wissman application . And that was
by the zoning variance created in 1975 , and the language
there said that the residence-- prohibiting this property
for residential use without prior approvals of the Board of
Appeals . So they left the door open that if for some
reason there ' s a change in the community , you take new
Page 11 - Public Hoing •
Matter, of JAMES F. WARWICK
September , 1986 ZBA
MRS . MOORE (continued ) :
factors into consideration , come back to us and maybe we ' ll
consider allowing you to build a residence . This one did not
allow any back door , front , side door , in getting back into
the Zoning Board of Appeals .
In the passing , I guess we would like to raise that in
the Town Law , the Zoning and Planning , Section 267-Section 6 ,
it does state that upon motion :- * it states as a rehearing
that it ' s a possibility that this is a rehearing , which means
that upon motion initiated by any member and adopted by
unanimous vote of the members present , so on and so forth ,
the Board of Appeals shall review at a hearing held upon
notice given as upon an original hearing , any order , decision
or determination of the Board not previously reviewed . Upon
such rehearing and provided it shall then appear that the
rights vested prior thereto in persons acting in good faith
and reliance--that means adjacent property owners--Mr . and
Mrs . Kelly , McGuire and Walsh , were there prior to the 1973
decision , they were living there--prior and after . Acting
in good faith and reliance upon the order decision or
determination reviewed will not be prejudiced thereby .
We believe the adjacent property owners will be prejudiced .
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN : No , thank you . Is there anybody else that would like
to speak against the application? (None )
MR . McLAUGHLIN: I think a couple of points have to be made .
First of all , I think you ' d be hard pressed if you look at
the tax map . to find any parcels in there that are going to
be the two-acre , 80 ,000 sq . ft . If we had 80 ,000 sq . ft . ,
we wouldn ' t be here this evening , and the purpose of a variance
is to vary the zoning ordinance . Obviously , we don ' t have any
where near that amount . Secondly , if you get an opportunity to
review the map that I handed up tonight , I think you will find
that there are substantially more lots in the immediate area
that are very similar in size on which parcels have been built ,
specifically , parcel 16 which is two parcels directly west of
Mr. Warwick' s house--it has a house built on it-- it is identical
in size to the subject lot that we are talking about tonight
and a house was built on that lot I believe in 1980 or 1981 by
Page 12 - Public Hearing
Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK
September 11 , 1986 ZBA
MR . McLAUGHLIN (continued ) :
Waddington Builders .
MRS. MOORE : Would you repeat the name of the property owners ?
MR . McLAUGHLIN : I believe the property owner is Buckley , which
is directly west of Brooks . The Brooks parcel is approximately
twice the size of the subject parcel , but on which there is a
much , much larger house has been built also by Mr . Waddington .
As to the house and garage that -- let me go on from there --
the fact of the matter is , there ' s no question the check was
returned to my client ; however , approximately I think $300 or
$400 in expenses were deducted , so we did incur those expenses
including the drawings that we had submitted up tonight were
deducted from the return check that he received . The fact is
that both Mr. Warwick ' s garage and his house are within the
confines of what is known on the tax maps as Lot #14 ; Lot #7
is totally vacant ; and again there are several other lots in
the immediately surrounding neighborhood on almost identical
sizes . In fact the house directly to the west of the Kelley ' s
is built on a lot only very marginally larger than the subject
lot we are talking about . And on this basis , my contention is
that there is no adverse affect to the neighborhood . There
are already many houses Within the neighborhood built on lots
of similar size or larger houses on slightly larger lots .
Thank you .
CHAIRMAN : Thank you , Mr . McLaughlin . Mrs . Moore , is there
something else you would like to say? Mr. Bruer .
MR . BRUER : Very briefly . You have to take into consfderation
that these lots when they were put together they were put
together into two separate--two separate subdivisions . One
I believe in 1929 before we even had a Health Department ,
and I think one in Dickerson or whatever-1933 . I think the
board is supposed to consider the relief as requested with
respect to the ordinance that we have here . In 1973 when
they originally granted this with the strict stipulation that
there would never be another residence there , the relief
granted was the difference between 7 ,022 sq . ft . and the 40 ,000
sq . ft . requirement was like 17% =-now in terms of the 80 ,000
sq . ft. , you are going to have a lot that ' s 11 % that ' s required
in the ordinance ; and even looking back to 1973 , it was 17%.
It was a great relief at that point . It was substantial in
terms of what was asked for . This is a 40 ,000 sq . ft . require-
ment . And this is 7 ,022 sq . ft . You know yourself going back
Pa9d 13 - Public He Ong .
Matter of JAMES f.._ WARW_I_CK_
September._1.1 , .1986 ZBA
MR. BRUER (continued ) :
to the history at the time , one of the reasons the town was
pushed to go into the 40 ,000 sq . ft . other than development
at that time was the Health Department when we had quarter
acre zoning up until that point . It wouldn ' t have proved
anything unless it had at least a half acre going back to
1971 . So even in those days you had a Health Department
problem , they would accept anything if I recall correctly
at less than 20 ,000 sq . ft. And now you have your Article
6 here and your merger here . If the Health Department knew
other than going by their reliance on the tax map , I ' m
sure they would consider that this is a merged lot too .
And I believe there are two reasons to consider it merged .
One on the basis of the hearing itself , if you delve into
it and two , the upzoning in 1983 .
CHAIRMAN : Thank you , Mr . Bruer. Is there anybody else to
speak on either side? Mr. McLaughlin .
MR . McLAUGHLIN : Just one statement . The Buckley lot , which
is Lot 16 , two lots west of my clients lot , is in fact
smaller . It ' s a 47 by 100 ft . lot. In 1980 or 1981 , I ' m
not sure which , a variance was granted to allow a house
that is bigger than the house we propose to put on our
lot to be ' built on that lot . At that time it was my
understanding there was a •one-acre or 40 ,000 sq . ft .
requirement and a house larger than the one we ' re talking
about was allowed to be built on a smaller lot.
CHAIRMAN : Can I just ask you , was that lot in single and
separate ownership?
MR . McLAUGHLIN : I ' m not sure on that. My understanding is
that the builder may have owned both that lot and Lot #15
which is immediately to the east , but again a house was also
built on Lot 15 which is 100 by 140 and a much , much larger
house than we ' re talking about tonight .
CHAIRMAN: If you have a chance , would you--since you are
bringing that into the record--placing that into the
record , maybe you could investigate that and also return
that investigation along with the other information that
you ' re going to return to us .
Page 14 - Public Hearing
Matter of JAMES F. WARWICK
September 11 , 1986 ZBA
MR. BRUER : Just to point out that Buckley a two-story house ,
and remember for the record here-- I don ' t think it has been
clearly stated , that this lot is 50 by 145-140 . What he is
citing here is 100 by 150 . It definitely is a case of merger
here . The man had these--he could have bought it in separate
names . He bought it separately . He could have protected
himself if he knew what he was doing , and that ' s what you
have . You have merged property there .
MR . McLAUGHLIN : The fact of the matter is Lot #16 is 47 by 140 ,
which is smaller than the lot at issue tonight and on which
there is a house that had been built in 1980 or 1981 that is
larger than the 100- sq . ft . house that we ' re requesting to
build .
CHAIRMAN : 1 ,000 sq . ft.
MR . McLAUGHLIN : Right.
CHAIRMAN : Thank you everybody . Hearing no comment , I ' ll make
a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later .
MEMBER SAWICKI : Second.
The hearing was declared concluded at 8 : 47 p .m.
Respectfully submitted ,
Linda F . Kowalski , Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
September 16 , 1986
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
SCHEDULE B
�2
Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions as to items I through 6,inclusive(without c mge or modif-
ication),and to all subsequent matters unless the latter are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company:
1. Defects and incumbrances arising or becoming a lien after the date of this policy,except as herein provided.
2. Consequences of the exercise and enforcement or attempted enforcement of any governmental,war or police powers over the
pr s.
3/ Any laws, regulations or ordinances (including, but not limited to zoning, building, and environmental protection) as to the use.
arc upancy,subdivision or improvement of the premises adopted or imposed by any gmernmental body,or the effect of any noncompliance with
or any violation thereof.
4. Judgments against the insured or estates,interests,defects,objections,liens or encumbrances crated,suffered,assumed or agreed
to by or with the privity of the insured.
5. Title to any property beyond the lines of the premises,or title to areas within or rights or easements in any abutting streets,roads,
avenues,lanes, ways or waterways,or the right to maintain therein vaults,tunnels,ramps or any other structure or improvement,unless
this policy specifically provides that such titles, rights,or easements are insured. Notwithstanding any provisions in this paragraph to
countrary,this policy,unless otherwise excepted,insures the ordinary rights of access and egress belonging to abutting owners.
6. Title to any personal property,whether the same be attached to or used in connection with said premises or otherwise.
BLANKET POLICY
7. If the application is for insurance under a master of blanket policy all of the tollowing items under this Schedule B will be excepted
from coverage in the Commitment of Title Insurance to be issued hereon unless disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company on or
prior to closing.
IDENTITY PARTIES
8. The identity of parties at the closing of this title should be established to the satisfaction of the closer.
SECTION 13 OF LIEN LAW
9. Deeds and mortgages must contain the covenant required by Section 13 of the Lien Law and such covenant must be absolute and
not conditional.The covenant is not required in deeds from referees or other persons appointed by a court for the sole purpose of selling
property.
ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE OR OTHER LIENS
10. When the transaction is an assignment of a mortgage or other lien,an estoppel certificate executed by the owner of the fee and by
the holders of all subsequent encumbrances must be obtained.When the transaction is a mortgage,the amount actually advanced should
be reported to the Company.
MATTERS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF COMMITMENT
11. Defects, liens,encumbrances,adverse claims or other matters, it any,created, first appearing in the public records or attaching
subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or
mortgage thereon covered by the Commitment. '
CORPORATE GRANTOR
12. If the present transaction consists in whole or in part of a conveyance or lease by a corporate grantor or lessor,there must be com-
pliance with Section 909 of the Business Corporation Law.We will require the written consent to such conveyance or lease by ail of the
holders of the outstanding shares of the said corporation and the instrument on closing should so recite.In lieu thereof the consent of
the holders of two-thirds of all of the outstanding shares entitled to vote thereon obtained at a meeting duly noticed and called for the
Purpose of obtaining such consent in the manner provided for in Section 605 of the Business Corporation Law is required and the
instrument on closing should so recite.
If neither of the above is obtained, then, the proofs, showing the basis upon which the conveyance or lease is to be made must be
submitted to counsel prior to closing.
CORPORATE MORTGAGOR
13. If the present transaction consists in whole or in part of the making of a new mortgage there must be compliance with Section 911
of the Business Corporation Law.We will require a certified copy of the resolution of the board of directors of any corporate mortgagor
authorizing the making of said mortgage.
Proof must also be shown that the consent of stockholders of the mortgagor corporation is not required by its certificate of incor-
poration or amendments thereto for the making of said mortgage.
The mortgage should contain a recital showing that it was made and executed pursuant to the resolution of the board of directors
of the mortgagor.
CONTRACT
14. If this commitment requires a conveyance of the fee estate and the contract therefor has not been submitted to the Company,it
should be furnished for consideration prior to closing.
PROOF OF NO OTHER NAME
15. Prdof is required to show that the persons certified as owners herein have not been known by any other name in the 10 years last
past. If they have been known by another name,all searches must be amended and run against such name and title is subject to returns,
if any,on such amended searches.
MORTGAGES
16. Mortgage(s)and assignment(s)thereof as described in the schedule(s)annexed.
TAXES
17. Taxes,assessments,water rates and sewer charges as set forth in the schedule(s)annexed.
PARTIES IN POSSESSION
18. Rights of present tenants,lessees or parties in possession.
F-10458
Fo(�-�o
s
��y�• Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
JUDITH T.TERRY TELEPHONE
TowN CLERK
(516) 765-1801
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
July 31 , 1986
To : Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Judith T . Terry , Southold Town Clerk
Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No . 3544 application of James F .
Warwick for a variance . Also included is notification to adjacent property
owners ; Short Environmental Assessment Form; Letter relative to N .Y . S . Tidal
Wetlands Lan-Use ; Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department ; and
other pertinent correspondence relative to this application .
Judith T . Terry
Southold Town Clerk
ATTORNEY AT LAW
828 FRONT STREET P.O. BOX E
GREENPORT,N.Y. 11944
PHONE(516)477-1016
September 17 , 1986
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Appeal #3544
Hearing Date - September 11 , 1986
Gentlemen:
I have enclosed a copy of the letter dated July 30 ,
1985, from Acorn Structures Inc. to my client, James F. Warwick,
which as inadvertently omitted from my letter to you dated
September 15 , 1986 .
As you can see from the additional materials sent to
you, while this original order was cancelled, Mr. Warwick did
re-order the building package. A deposit of $3 , 184 . 00 was given
to Acorn. When the certificate of occupancy was revoked in
March, 1986 , Mr. Warwick was forced to cancel his order. Acorn
refunded his deposit to him after deducting $385 . 00 for design
time.
I hope this information clarifies any questions regarding
the order for a housing package.
Vead .
S,
,
WHP/lg
Enclosure
ACORN STRUCTURES I N C
July 30, 1985
Mr. James F. Warwick
Box 367
Peconic, Ny. 11958
Dear Mr. Warwick ,
I am returning your check and purchase order to you, marked
"void" . We received your cancellation notification the same
day that we received your. deposit check and purchase order
from Joe Nangle, so it was a simple matter of not processing
your order.
I am sorry that you find yourself unable to proceed with your
building plans at present, but we will be happy to assist you
when the timing seems better.
Sincerely ,
Nancy Mahony
Sales Dept.
BOX 250 CONCORD MASS 01742 • (617)369-4111 • FACT, Ofjy: RQLTF 2p Ar.-M i nnnec
ACORN
STRUCTURES INC. P U RCHASE OR DE R
P.O.Box 250,Concord,MA 01742,(617)369-4111
FROM: (BUYER)_ JOB#
STREET DATE
Reference:
CITY STATE ZIP Proposal dated
OWNER', NAME �rn. tJAgW /!')CK STREET ( 07 /791Ar+ 1 /4'Jt
MAILING / q
ADDRESS CITY iCIA j IC STATE ZIP
BUYER HEREBY ORDERS AND AGREES TO PAY FOR, AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, THE FOLLAING HOUSE PACKAGE:
MODEL S SIZE 1000 STANDARD REVERSE
AS PER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, EXCEPT FOR FOLLOWING SPECIAL MODIFICATIONS: PRICE
S A2c A, T5M4/C Io00 Z. G7
S1Y?A<o 4 rr !dC/ 337�
CA 10 A4r s r S _'jc r Sr
1
TERMS: tr
CASH IN ADVANCE n TOTAL a $ 3 O
NAME OF BANK: 0
ADDRESS:
LOCATION+OF LOT: (INCLUDE STREET NO./LOT NO.) n. SALES TAX_ /a
ST.
rAS �IA_-4OEq. HVIL TOWN ► f(uPrC `.� 090
COUNTY S U `r COC(C STATE nl FREIGHT_ LOAD(S) q C 7
SHIPPING DIRECTIONS: TOTAL
DESIGN DEPOSIT — CJ
OTHER DEPOSITS r 6 O p �—
PHONE CONTACT FOR TRUCKER r BY g�9ar
DESIRED DELIVERY DATE BALANCE DUE
WHEN ORDER IS FOR MULTIPLE UNITS OR WHERE WINTER DISCOUNT APPLIES, V lV
SPECIFY LATEST ACCEPTABLE DELIVERY DATE:
THE PRICING OF THIS PURCHASE ORDER IS VALID FOR 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY ACORN STRUCTURES,INC.(ACORN)IN THE EVENT OF
AN ANNOUNCED PRICE INCREASE DURING THIS SIXTY DAY PERIOD,THE ABOVE PRICING WILL BE ADHERED TO FOR DELIVERIES MADE DURING THE SIXTY
DAYS OR DURING THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT,WHICHEVER IS LONGER.
THE SIGNING OF THIS AGREEMENT ACKNOWLEDGES ACCEPTANCE BY BUYER OF THE DETAILED CONDITIONS SET FORTH ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS FORM,
ALL OF WHICH CONSTITUTE THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND ALL OF WHICH BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES HE HAS READ AND FULLY UNDERSTANDS.
THIS ORDER SHALL BECOME BINDING ON BUYER AND ACORN ONLY WHEN ACCEPTED BY ACORN. I /1
ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO
ACORN STRUCTURES, INC.
BUYER S�SIGNATURE
/
BY DATE DAT om1SI d I L'
ATTORNEY AT LAW
828 FRONT STREET P.O. Box E
GREENPORT,N.Y. 11944
PHONE(516)477-1016
September 15, 1986
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Appeal $3544
Hearing Date - September 11, 1986
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request, I have enclosed copies of correspondence
from Acorn Structures, Inc. to James Warwick regarding the purchase of a
house materials package. This package was ordered on the basis of the certifi-
cate of occupancy issued to my client on May 7, 1985. I believe that Mr.
Warwick is sending a letter to you which details the expenses he has incurred
regarding the subject property.
As stated to you at the hearing, it is our sincere belief that the
construction of a small (1000 sq. ft.) house on the subject lot (50' x 140')
would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. In fact, it would
be in general keeping with the present nature of the surrounding lots. For
example, the Booth lot (Sec. 67 Block 6 Lot 5) measures only slightly larger
than the subject lot and contains an 1120± sq. ft. house. This lot adjoins
the Kelly lot immediately to the west.
Even more persuasive is the fact that there is a 1440 sq. ft. house
on the Buckley lot (Sec. 67 Block 6 Lot 16) which measures only 47 feet by 140
feet and is directly to the southwest of the Kelly lot. This house was built
only after the builder, Mr. Waddington, obtained a variance from the Board
(Appeal #2655-V dated January 22, 1980) .
A review of the drawing submitted to the Board at the hearing
clearly illustrates that this is a neighborhood of small houses built on small
lots. Allowing Mr. Warwick to do what so many others in the area have already
done will not negatively impact on the neighborhood.
Very truly yours,
IAWIM J n M Lau
JKM/lg
i
BOARD OF APPEALS. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter or the Petition of
.lamas F_ Warwick NOTICE
� to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold TO
i
TO: PROPERTY OWNER
Peter & Carol Walsh
15 Devon Way
Hastings on Hudson, New York 10706
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE:
II _
1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold
to request a (Variance) (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) [circle choice)
1Relihf of covenants placed by board #1729 (march 8, 1973) 1.
2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des-
Sribedasfollows: 50 x 140+ , facing Fasbender Avenue (i.e 50' frontage)
i
3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district:
4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief:
Lifting of covenant -from 'accessory residential purposes' to residential purposes
5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under-
signed are Article Section
[ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way.
6. That within five days from the date hereof,a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will
be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road Southold, New York and you may then and there
examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 745-1809.
7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the
Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such
hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the
Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices;that you or your representative have the
right to appear and be heard at such hearing.
Dated:
Ur
' Names James F. Warwick
e Address
Park Avenue
j Port Washington, New York 11050
(Tel . )
(or Note)
P.0 Box 367
Peconic, New York 11050
516 765 1544
I
I
1
PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE
ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS
NAME ADDRESS
1. P.etet and Eatot Walsh P 328 759 187
15 Devon Way
Hastings on Hudson, New York 10706
_; P D28 759 186 j
2. Gene and Barrie Kelly
East 27th Street 6C P 328 145 Ea 7 5� 9 188
i -
New York, N.Y. 10016
- HECEfPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
3. Edward H. McGuire & wf 0 )IR IN lINANnueL MAIL o
N% ion NI!NNAIIOLL PMAIL
338 74th Street ° _�_'s
Brooklyn, New York
4 mes . W wic 7
67 P k enu j o ,
P t shin on, New rk 50 a V ��
not ad ass on rol -in r ct) e "
(a,Yo t , P.O. Bo 367
Peconic, Ne York 1 8
_ {
t
•' GCS _ AZ
IT
a
_ a
T i
STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss.:
COUNTY OFSUFFOLK )
.Tamar F_ Warwi rk . residing at 067 Miami Avenue; Peconic, NY 1195E
being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the _10 day
of f? 19 deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re-
verse side here f, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective
names;that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on
the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold;that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of-
fice at Peconic, New York 11958 ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by
(certified) (registered) mail.
r
-Fh
Sworn to before me this ew��
day of T_119 911
Notary Public
(This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining
property owners . )