Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3437Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2,5 SOUTHOLD. L.I., N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE {516) 765-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3437 Application 'Dated November 26, ]985 TO: Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. as Attorney for MR. AND MRS. FRANK E BROPHY Main Road Southold, NY 11971 [Appellant(s)] At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on February 6, ]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 Rescission of Previously Issued Variance under Appeal No. 2922 rendered December 17, 1981. Application of FRANK AND MARY BROPHY - Request to rescind a previous conditional variance granted under Appeal No. 2922 for the construction of a deck at premises known as 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 117, Block 10, Lot 20.7. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on January 9, 1986, in the Matter of FRANK E. AND MARY L. BROPHY under Appeal No. 3437; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation entered into the record concerning this application, including numerous letters in opposition and three in favor of this application; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question as well as its surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is known and referred to as 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, Town of Southold, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 117, Block 10, Lot 20.7. 2. By letter dated NoVember 26, 1985, a request is made for rescission of a previously issued variance under Appeal No. 2922 (rendered December 17, 1981).for the appellants. 3. The relief granted under Appeal No. 2922 was for the construc- tion of a 10' by 12~ deck addition with a setback of not less than 6'6" from the front property line and approximately 10'6" setback from the southerly side property line. 4. The zoning code requirements during 1981 for the frontyard setback of the addition was 14½ feet, which was the existing structure's setback at that time, and the sideyard setback requirement was 11'6". 5. For the record it is noted that the zoning code was amended by Local Law #9-1983, adopted August 9, 1983, permitting a minimum (CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO) DATED: February 25, 1986. Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page 2 - Appeal No. 3437 Matter of FRANK AND MARY BROPHY Decision Rendered February 6, 1986 sideyard setback at lO feet. (The restriction as to the minimum front yard has not changed since the 1981 variance.) 6. Also noted for the record are the prior decisions of this board rendered: (a) under Appeal No. 2693 on May 22, 1980; (b) under Appeal No. 2725 on August 28, 1980; (c) under Appeal No. 2788 on April 23, 1981, all as described in each record. 7. It is the opinion of the board that appellants' request to rescind the action which approved the construction of a 10' by 12' deck addition will reestablish the property's conformity as to its front yard setback as existed previously at 14½ feet. 8. It should be noted that future construction, including bedroom additions~ decks, roofed patios, accessory buildings, etc. are restricted to the maximum-permitted 20% lot coverage requirements as well as all other setback and zoning requirements of the code; and that by allowing this variance for the permanent removal of the deck and rescission of Action taken under Appeal No. 2922, the deck will not be reconstructed. In considering this application, the board has determined: (a) the relief requested is unique; (b) the relief requested is not substantial, being in relation to the zoning requirements since the dwelling~s frontyard setback will be reestablished at 14½ feet; (c) by removing the deck, there will be no substantial change in the character of this district; (d) the public health, welfare and safety of the town will be served by upholding this application; (e) there is no other method available for the appellants to pursue other than a variance; (f) the spirit of the zoning ordinance will best be served by allowing the variance, as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the relief granted under Appeal No. 2922 resolution of this board rendered December 17, 1981, BE AND HEREBY IS RESCINDED, and the deck construction be REMOVED PERMANENTLY, as requested under Appeal No. 3437. by Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. (Absent was: Member Douglass.) This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the four members present. lk · GOE RINGE~, CHAIRMAN February 25, 1986f 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 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY at a Regular Meeting commencing at 7:30 p.m. on THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1986, and as follows: the for width and depth. Premises known as 224 Bridge Street, District 1000, Section 34, 7:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3406 RICHARD L. DUCHANO. Variance to Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections lO0-30(A)[1] (and 100-31) permission to, reseparate lots which have insufficient lot area, known as 715 Champlin~Pl~ace and premises Greenport, NY~ Suffolk County Tax Map Block 3, Lots 37 and 53 (53.1).  7:35 Appeal No' 3437 - FRANK AND MARY BROPHY. Request to '~ p.m. cind a previous conditional variance granted under Appeal No. 2922~-- ed 1/19/82 for construction of a deck at premises known as ~ Second Street, New Suffolk~ NY; Suffolk County Tax Map District. ) O, Section t17~ BlOck 10, Lot 20.7. ~ 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3432 - JOHN AND JOYCE HOLZAPFEL. Variance from the conditions rendered under Appeal No. 2784 dated 10/15/81 (and 688 dated 7/9/64) and/or to waive the improvements required under Appeal No. 2784 concerning Private Road #10 known as "Old Woods Road" located at the east side of South Harbor Road, Southold, NY, identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 87, Block l, Lot 23.1, and approving access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a, from the east side of South Harbor Road to the premises in question, identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District lO00, Section 87, Block l, Lot 23.8. 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3429 - H. NORMAN McCULLOUGH III and ANTONE E. BERKOSKI~ Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section t00-31, for approval of insufficient depth of parcels in this pending three-lot minor subdivision, located at the corner of Oregon Road and Cox's Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 83, Block 3~ Lot 3. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3435 ~ NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-30(B) for permission to reestablish and rebuild country club building Page 2 Legal Notice of Hearings Regular Meeting of January 9, 1986 which will include a restaurant, kitchen facilities, bar, pro shop with sales and various support rooms such as locker rooms and lounges, existing 18-hole golf course and existing two tennis courts, at premises located at the corner of Main Road and Moore's Lane, Cutchogue, NY; Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 109, Block 4, Lots 1, 3, 4 and 7. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3434 - NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance: (a)iArticle III, Section tO0-30(B)[6](a) to establish and continue existing and new parking area within 100 feet of street line, (b) Article XI, Section iO0-112(A) to vary number of parking spaces to less than that required by parking schedule. Location of Property: Corner of Main Road and Moore's Lane, Cutchogue, NY; Suffolk County Tax Map District i000, Section 109, Block 4, Lots l, 3, 4 and 7. 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3382 - MATTITUCK HARBOR ASSOCIATES and BAY VIEW VENTURES. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient upland area of four lots in this pending major subdivision located at the South Side of New Suffolk Avenue, (llO±l.f. east of Deep Hole Drive), Mattituck, NY; Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 115, Block 17, Lot t7. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3436 CHARLES AND SYLVIA WILD. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30 and 100-31, Bulk Schedule "A" for permission to construct addition~ to dwelling with an insufficient sideyard setback, premises known as 250 Lake Court, Southold, NY;'Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 59, Block 5, Lot 6. 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3354 LONG ISLAND SHORES. (Recessed from December 12, 1984) Variance for insufficient area and width of parcels in this pending minor subdivision. N/s C.R. 48, Greenport; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 40, Block O1, Lot 20. The Board of Appeals will hear at Said time and place all persons desiring to be heard in each of the above matters. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing in question. For more information, please call 765-1809 (alt. 1802). Dated: December 12, 1985. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL ............. PLEASE 'FAKE NO'FICE that your application dated ~.~T..~.'~....~..~.~"~....~ ....... , 19~ for permit to construct~C~~Z~.at the premises located at .................................... ~.~....~~..~ .......................... ~ ~ ~z~ ~P~'"~'"'~'Z'" Block .......... ~.~ ........................... Lo~ :.~.~.~..:..~.~ .................. is returned herewith and d~sapproved on the following grounds ..~.~.~.~.~."..~ ~ .... ~. ~......z.~......~~...~z~~. ~ ~ ......... ~1~.~.~ ~...~..~.....~..:~..?.....~ ......... :x~.:~x~cc::~.-~::... ~ Bui[ Jing Inspector 0:- 'FORM NO, 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 'i-~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT" TOWN HALL $OUTHOLD. N.Y. 11971 EiLDG. DEPT. TOWN OF $OUTHOLD TEL.: 765-1803 Examined. ~l.~...~?.' ........ t .9~.~. ................ Disapproved a/c ........... (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date ............ Received ........... ,19. INSTRUCTIONS a. Tiffs application must be completely filled in by typewriter Or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, witl sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. ' ' b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship ,to adjoining premises or public stre or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this cation. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such pen shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shat1 be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupm~ shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to Bulld'~g Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. and other applicable Laws, Ordinances Regulations, for the construction of buddings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as heroin describ The appSeant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and admit author/zed inspectors on premises and in building for nec~-lh~sp~c~ons,~>,_ c~ (Signature of applicant, or n'sme,'if a corporation) · . (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or buil& ............ ..... ' :~5's on the tax roll-or Patest deed) -ifap~-~i~t is a corEoration, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title o"f-c-"orx~brate officer) Builder's License No.. ~..-~. ,~,.CS~D ........... Plum her's Lice n se No... Electrician's License No. o ~ t* Other Trade's License No ...................... 1. Location ofland on which proposed work will be done ........................................... House Number Street ,, Hamlet sion ...................................... Filed a ......... (Name) 2, State existing use and ~c~upancy ~f premises and int~nded use and ~ccupancy ~f pr~p~sed c~nstructi~n:~ : : I0. 11. 12. 13. 14. 3: Nature of Work (~b~k wMch applicable): Ne~v Bhflding ..... ' ..... Addition .. :.~. ..... Alteration .... Rep~ ~ .~. ~ ...' Remov~ :...-:.,: '-5..; ;. Demolition .............. Other Work .......... 4. E~mated Cost ....................... Fe~ ............................... ~ (to be p~d on filing thi~ applicafion~ 5. If dwelling, number of dwe~ng units ............... Number of dwelling units on each floor ........... If garage, number of cars ................................................................... 6. If ~usiness, commerci~ or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ................ 7. D~ensions of existing structures, if any: Front ............... Rear .............. Depth ........... Height ............... Number of Stories .................................................... Diman~ons of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ................. Rear .............. Dep~ ..................... HeiSt ..................... Number of Stories .................. 8. D~an~ons of entire new construction: Front ............... Re~ ............... Depth ........... H~igb* ...... ~,,mber of StvEes..: ............................................. SNe of tot: Front ...................... Rear ...................... Depth .................. Dat~ of Purchase ............................. Name of Foyer Owner ......................... Zone or use district in which premises are situated ................................................. Does proposed construction violate any zomng law, ordinance or re~lation: ........................... W~I lot be regraded ............................ Will excess fiI1 be removed from premises: Yes Nme of Owner of premises ................... Address ................... Phone NoY~ 7. Nme of Mchitect ........................... Address ................... Phone No ............ Nme of Contractor .......................... Addre~ .................. Phone No ............. PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicate all set-back d/mensions fr property lines. Give strebt and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whet interior or comer lot. STATE OF NEW YORK, S.S COUNTY 1~-~ .......... .~. (Name o£ individual~ia'°~;°' --signing cofftract-') above named. : ........ ........ H~ is the ........................................................ (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) >f said owner or owne~, ~d is duly authorized to perfom or have perfo~ed the said work and to m~e and file th .pplication; that ~1 statements contorted N this application are tree to the best of his ~nowledge and belief; and that t~ ~ork will be perfomed in the m~ner set forth in the application filed therewith. ;worn to before me this ..... ........... day of ~ ..... ,1 ~TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. ~ TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHO~D, N. Y. (we) .~..~.....~,.~,..~,...~.:,~..A~..........'..of ,.Ae~.. ~eA~e,~..: ............................................. Name of AppeHc,nt Street and Number ~ ~ ~' ' ,...~..~.,.~'~ ...... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR pERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ......................................... ~ ........... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Name of A~plicant for permit of Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMtT TO, USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY t. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY~ ~.~.~....~..~.~...~...e~..~..~.~.~..~..~..~.*t...~..~7~.~"~.~.2.~ ......... Street ' Use District on Z6ning M'ap Mop No: Lot No. 2 PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Parogro~: ~ of the Zoning Ordir~ance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance,) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (~:33 ' A X(ARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( '} A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws ~rt. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4~ PREVIOUS APPEAL ~, [~revious appeal (has)~een made with respect-t~ this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such. appeal'was ( ) request for a special perm~ (~ request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ..... ~.3. ......... .. Dated REASON FOR APPEAL ( ~ ' A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (ZZ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is requested for the reason that Form ZB1 (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued I~ STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practicaJ difficulties or unrteces- sary ~t~ARDSHIP because 2. The narasmp created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all ~roperties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because ~ . 3 The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER~._~_ OF THE DISTRICT oecause STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss .. ~..../v../ .................................................................... COUNTY OF ~ ) ~ Signature TOWN OF ~O~THOLD, ~EW YORK ACTION OF ~HE ZO~G ~OA~D OF APPEAL~ Appeal No. 2725 Application Dated July 25, 1980 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To William H. Price, Jr. Mr. and Mrs. Frank E. Brophy AppeHant at a meeting of the ZonLug Board of Appeals on August 28, was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your ( ) Request for variance due [o lack of access to property ( ) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance (X][ Request for a variance lo the Zoning Ordinance Art. III, ( ) 1980, the appeal Section 10~-31 ~a~ed ( ) be de,ed p~suant ~ Article .................... Se~n .................... Subs~tion .................... paragraph .................... of the Zoning ~mance and me decis~n ~ the Building Inspe~or ( ) be reversed ( ) ~ co~irmed b~ause 8:15 p.m. Application of Frank E. and Mary Brophy, 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY (by William H. Price, Jr., Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of the construction of additlon with insufficient front and side yard setbacks. Location of property: 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Pugstey and Grathwoht; west by Martin; south by Wetzet, Pugsley and Grathwoht; east by Second Street; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-10-20.7. (SEE IAEVERSE SIDE) 2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined thai (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce hardship because (SEE REVERSE SIDE) practical difficulties or unnecessary (b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because (SEE REVERSE SIDE) (c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of tda~e Ordinance and (would) change the character of the district because (SEE REVERSE SIDE)_ (would not) and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( ) be denied and that the prewous decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) be confirmed ( ) be reversed. FORM ZB4 ZONING BOA. RD OF ~-PPEAL~ After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds as follows: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance to approve the construction of a deck to existing dwelling in side and front yard areas, leaving approximately three feet between the deck and the front property line. The premises in question is a parcel of land located on the westerly side of Second Street, New Suffolk, more particularly known as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 117, Block 10, Lot 20.7r having an area of 7~231 square feet. There is presently erected on the lot a private one-family dwelling with porch and the deck under consideration. The dwelling without the deck has a frontyard setback of approximately 14~ feet from Second Street. Appellant previously applied to this Board for approval of the subject deck in Appeal No. 2693, which was denied. The relief requested in this application is synonymous to the previous appeal. Appellant in this appeal has set forth the practical diffi- culties in removing the deck and the reasons for locating the deck as applied for rather than in the rear yard or other side yard areas. Upon personal inspection of the premises, the Board finds that the existing structure and deck would exceed 20% of the lot coverage of the total lot area; and it is the feeling of the Board to grant the variance herein technically would not warrant justification. Accordingly, the variance is denied. On motion by Mr. Douglass~ seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Frank E. and Mary L. Broph~, be denied the relief requested in Appeal No. 2725 as applied for. Location of property: 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Pugsley and Grathwohl; west by Martin; south by Wetzetw Pugsley and Grathwohl; east by Second Street. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-10-20.7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and ~Goehringer. APPROVED C~irm~n Bom~/~f P CE VED AND LED BY To~vn Clerk, To~n o~ Scuihold P. ON PIP6 LEC~.L NOTICE NOTICE IS It~REBY GIVEN, p~t ~ ~~e To~ ~w ~ ~e ~ ~ To~ of ~uthold, the follo~ng public hea~ ~11 ~ held by the ~O~ TO~ BO~ OF ~PE~ at the ~u~old To~ Hall, ~in ~ ~uthold, ~ at a ~ M~ lng ~mmendng at 7:30 p.m. on ~DAY, J~Y 1~, and ~ follows: gBROPHY, l~luest to rescind a' prevto~ oo~litionai v~an ~ ~r Ap~l No. 29z da~ 1/1~2 f~ ~on of d~k at p~ ~own ~ 75 ~ S~t, New S~o~ ~; S~olk Co~ T~ Map ~ 1~0, ~ion 117, BI~ 7:40 p.m. Appel No. ~2 -- ~ ~d JOYCE HO~- ~ V~ from ~e ~- ~o~ ~nde~ ~der Ap~l No. 7:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3406 -- 2784 dated 10/15/81 (and 688 RICHARD L. DUCHANO. datod7]9/64)and/ortowaivei~e Variance to the Zoning Ordi. improvements required mader ~ ~, Article Ill, Sections 100- 'Appeal No. 2784 concerning Pri- k)[ll (and 100-31)for permit- rate Road #10 known as "Old to raseparate lots which Woods Road" located at the east ~ insufficient lot area, width iside of South Harbor Road, [ depth. Premises known as ~outhold, NY, identified on the Champlin place and pram- Suffolk County Tax Maps as Di~ known as 224 Bridge Street, trict 1000, Section 87, Block 1, npert, NY; Suffolk County iLot 23.1, and approving access Map District 1000, Section Ipursuant to New York Town lock 3,Lots 37 and 53 (53.1). ILaw, Soction 280-a, from the east ~5 p.m. Appeal No. 3437 -- !side of South Harbor Road to the ~NK and MARY premises in question, identified ~ ~ - ~on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 87, Block 1, Lot 23.8. 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3429 -- H. NORMAN McC~UGH III and ANTONE E. BER- KOSKI. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IH, Section 100-31, for approval of insuffi- cient depth of parcels in this pending three-lot minor subdivi- sion, located at the corner of Ore- gon Road and Cox's Lane, Cutch- ogue, NY; County Tax Map Dis- trict 1000, Section 83, Block 3, 7:50 p.m, Appeal 1~=~43~~ NORTH FORK COUNTRY Section 100-30(B) for permission try club building which will in- facilities, bar, pro shop with sales as locker rooms and lounges, NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB. Variance to the Zoning Main Road and Moore's Lane, and area of four lots in this pend- ng major subdivisioh located at ;he South Side of New Suffolk Avenue. (110-+1.f. east of Deep Hole Drive), Mattituck, NY; Suf- folk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 115, Block 17, LOt 17.' 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3436 -- CHARLES · and SYLVIA WILD. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IH, Sections STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) 11000, Section 59, Block 5, Lot 6. 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3354 -- LON~ ISLAND SHORES. (Re- ~.December 12, 1984) Vari~i~e for insufficient area and width of parcels in this pend- ing minog subdivision. N/s C.R. ~8, Greenpert; County Tax Map District 1000, Section :40, Block 01, Lot 20. The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all persons desiring to be heard in each of the above matters. Written com- ments may also bo submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearin~ in question. For more in- formation, please call 765-1809 (alt. 1802). Dated: December 12, 1985. BY ORDER OF BOI~I~) OF APPEAL~ GERARD p. GOEHRINGER, t1TJ2-5116 CHAIRMAN 100-30 and 100-31, Bulk ~hedule "A" for permisSion to Mar K De an ~tru~t addition to dwelling y . gn of Greenport, in ~ an insuffcient sideyard set- beck., premises known as 250 ga,. ~.oun.y, .e,ng -u.~ ~kn Court, Southold, NY; Suf- Principal Clark of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, folk CoUnty Tax Map District Newspaper, published at Greanport, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed la a printed copy. has been regularly publls, had In geld Newspaper once each week for weeks auccesalvely, commencing on the dayof January 19 86 Swo" t'~befora me t~'lg ~C~31'_/~_ ~UBLiC; State of New Yor, NOTICE I~ HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the' Town Law and the Code of the Town of Sm/thold, the following lmblie hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road~ S~mthoid, NY ai a Regular Meet- ing commencing at 7:30 p.m. on THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1~6, and as follows: ~7:30 p.m. Appeal Ho. 3406 -- RK~HARD ,~. DUCHANO. Vm~mce to ~ Zonl,g Ordi. ~.-mce, Article 1/II, Sections 100- BROPHY. Request to rescind a previous conditional variav, ce granted under Appeal No. 2925 dated 1/19/82 for construction a deck at premises known as 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, i%~; uffolk County Tax Map Di~trigt 1000~ Sectio~ 117, Bloclt 10, Lot /0.7. 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3432 - JOHN and JOYCE HOIjT, AP- FEL. Variance from the condi- ~ions rendered under Appeal No. 2784 'dated 10/15/81 (and /ated 7PJ/64) and/or to WaiVe the improvements required under- Appeal No. 2784 concerning~P~[ - rate Road #10 known as Old ..J area of four lotain thispend- ~ major sd'od~/sion located at ,¢he South Side of New Suffolk ~Avenue, (ll0±l.f. east of Deep Hole Drive)~ Mattituck, NY; Suf- folk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 115, Block 17, Lot 17. 8:10 p.m. Appeal No. 3436 -- CHARLES and SYLVIA WI/.D. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article IH, Sections 100-30' and ~ 100-31, Bulk Sehedu~e "A" for permission to construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient sideyard set- 30~/~)[1 ] (and 100-31) for permis- ~sion to ~te lots which W°°ds Rond' located at the east lmve insufficient lot area width side of South Harbe~' Road, and d~-th '~-m' ~' Southold NY identified on the 715 Chamoli~ Place and rem Suffolk County Tax Maps as Dis- -- P ' ' ' 1 isesknswna~24Brido~R~t trict 1000, Section 87, Block , Greenr~rt 1~/'. Suffol~VC~oun'' v~., Lot 23.1, and approving access Tax Map Dis~a~t 1000, Section pursuant to New York Town 34, Block 3, Lo~37 and 53 (53.1). Law, Section 280-a, from the east 7:35 p.m. Al~eal No. 3437 -- aldeofseuthHarber Roadtothe FRANK ~md MARY .premises in question, identified ~lon the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 87, Block 1, Lot 23.8. 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3429 -- H. NORMAN McCULLOUGH IH and ANTONE E. BER- KOSKI. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IH, Section 100-31, for approval~ ct' insuffi- cient depth of parc~ti' in this pending three-lot minor subdivi- sion, located at th~ ~omer of Ore- gon Road and Cox's Lane, Cutch- ogue, NY; County Tax Map Dis- trict 1000, Section 83, Block 3, Lot 3. 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3435 '- NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30(B) for permission to reestablish and rebuild coun- try club building which will in- clude a restaurant, kitchen.- facilities, bar, pro shop with sales and various support rooms such as locker rooms and lounges, existing 18-hole golf course and existing two tennis courts, at premises located at the corner of Main Road and Moore's Lane, Cutchogue, NY; Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 109, Block 4, Lots 1, 3, 4 and 7. 7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3434 -- NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance: (a) Article III, Sec- tion 100-30(B)[6](a) to establish and continue existing and new parking area within 100 feet of street line, (b) Article XI, Section 100-112(A) to vary number of parking spaces to less than that required by parking schedule. Location of Property: Corner of Main Road and Moore's Lane, Cutehogue, NY; Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 109, Block 4, Lots 1, 3, 4 and 7. 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3382 -- MA'VFITUCK HARBOR AS- SOCIATES and BAY VIEW VENTURES. Variance to the Zooing Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient up- back, premises known as 250 Lake Court, Southold, NY; Suf- folk County Tax Map District 1000. Section 59, ~lock 5, Lot 6. 8:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3354 -- LONG ISLAND SHORES. (Re- cesasd from December 12, 1984) Variance for insufficient area and width of parcels in this pend- ing minor subdivision. N/s C.R. 48, Gr~enl~rt; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 40, Block 01, Lot 20. · , The Board of Appeals willhear at said time and ple~ all persons desiring to be he, a~d in each of :the above matterg~ Written com- ments m~y also'be ,u~m/tted prior to the conclusion of the ;hearing in question. For more in~ fOrmation, plgase call 765-1809 ' (alt. 1802). Dated: December 12, 1985. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN ,1TJ2-5116 ~TATE OF NEW YORK ) ! COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) Mary E. Degnan of Greenport, in meld County, being duly ,worn, may* the* he/she Ig Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, · Weekly New*paper, published et Greenport, In the Town of Sou*hold, County of Suffolk end State of New York, end that the Notice of which the annexed le · printed copy, he* been regularly published In · aid New,paper once each week for 'o~e week* auccemeively, commencing on the ~ ' .~; [~i~NN M. ABATE Sworn tq/before me thl* ~!C, State of New York JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Nov~nber 26, 1985 TO: SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: JUDITH T. TERRY, SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 3437 of Frank E. Brophy & Mary L. Brophy for a variance to rescind previously issued variance under Appeal No. 2922, dated 1/19/82, for deck construction and front yard reduction setback. Also included is notification to adjacent property owners; Short Environmental Assessment Form; survey; and other correspondence pertinent to this variance. Southold Town Clerk ~O TCHOGUE HARBOR p.£CONlC GREAT BAY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE 360-5513 March 10, 1986 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Re: Mr. & Mrs. Frank E. Brophy #3437 Gentlemen: Pursuant to Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the above referenced application is not within the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning GGN:gcc S/s Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner November 26, 1985 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Appeal No. 2922 Frank E. Brophy and Mary L. Brophy Dear Mr. Goehringer, This letter is a formal request to you and the zoning Board of Appeals for a rescission of the previously issued variance under Appeal No. 2922, dated 1/19/82, for deck construction and front yard reduction setback. The Brophys wish to rescind the front yard reduction setback. At the same time, the Brophys will remove the front deck, for which the setback variance was granted. Once the variance is rescinded, the Brophys intend to build an addition in the rear of their property which will conform to the 20% lot size coverage requirement. The variance should be rescinded for the following reasons: 1. Recission of the variance is not substantial. Moreover, it will re-establish the property's conformity with the zoning ordinance by eliminating the setback variance. 2. The circumstances are unique. The building lot area of this parcel is 7,232 sq. ft. The 20% lot coverage allows a building area of 1,446.4 sq. ft. If the front deck remains, the proposed addition to the rear would exceed the permitted coverage by 113.6 sq. ft. Removal of the front deck and rescission of the variance will bring the proposed addition well within the existing lot coverage requirements. 3. Recission of the variance creates no substantial detriment to adjoining properties. In fact, the underlying purpose of the request for rescission of the variance is to improve the area. 4. The difficulty to Mr. and Mrs. Brophy cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellant other than a recission of the variance because the appellants wish to conform their property within the 20% lot size requirement. G.P. Geohringer -2- November 26, 1985 5. No adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities nor any increase in population. Furthermore, the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning and the interest of justice will be served by granting the recission of the variance. Your authorization to permit this request falls under Section 267, Subsection 6) of the Town Law. Upon recisslon of the said variance, the following relief is requested: 1) Allow Mr. and Mrs. Brophy to remove the front yard deck. 2) Direct the building department to recind the stop-work order pursuant to Section 100-143 of the Southold Town Code. 3) Direct the building department to release the building permit #143197, held in abeyance pending this action. Please schedule this matter on the board's agenda for its next meeting. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Patricia C. Moore Legal Assistant PCM/df cc: Robert W. Tasker, Esq. Mr. and Mrs. Frank E. Brophy APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RnAD-STATE Rr'IAD 25 BnUTHI3LD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 October 28, 1985 Mr. Frank E. Brophy 75 Second Street New Suffolk, NY 11956 Re: Your Letter Dated October 8, 1985 Dear Mr. Brophy: This letter will confirm that the following action was taken by the Board of Appeals at a Regular Meeting held October 24, 1985 concerning your letter dated October 8, 1985: RESOLVED, that any ch'ange of construction concerning the relief granted under Appeal No. 2922 and any construction which would affect the 20% lot coverage limitations and any other limitations of the zoning code, or change which would affect the prior condi- tions rendered by this Board., Will require a formal application for Board of Appeals' consideration prior to the issuance of a building permit. This resolution was unanimously adopted. Please be aware that no action was taken by the Board relative to your request to 'Jwithdraw the variance" under Appeal No. 2922 dated 1/19/82 for a deck frontyard-reduction setback. It is our understanding that the building permit has not been officially released by the Building Department to the applicant and will be held in abeyance until further notice. Yours very truly, Enclosures(~ cc: Building Department GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski October 8~ 198~ Gerard P. Goehr4n~er, Ohatr~ 3outhold To~n Zont~ Board of Appeals M~- Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Goehriager: I request to have the variance (for deck front. Nard re- duction set-back) under Appeal #2922, dated 1/19/8~ithdra~n. The purpose of this request is to reduce lot coverage and permit construction of an addition to the rear of build~ des- cribed in said appeal. As required by zo-~ regulations, lot coverage will not exceed 20%. I recently retired and intend to use this dwe11~ as my principal residence. The purposed addition is to m~e the dwell- lng more suitable to my needs as a senior citizen. The house (over 60 years old) was built before zo-~-~ ord~-~ces existed in this area and is badly in need of improvement. ~y question is whether a variance is necessary under condition #2 of Appeal ~1597, dated 6/20/72 when lot coverage does not exceed 20% ? I feel that this condition is ambiguous and requires clarification by the board. 75 Second Street New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 Respect~,~y, Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOI-D, L.I., N.Y. ]19'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD January 9, 1986 MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN S. E. Q. R. A. CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H, SAWICKI Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3437 PROJECT NAME: FRANK AND MARY BROPHY 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 cant adverse effect on the below. the within project not to have a signifi- environment for the reasons indicated 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 simi].~r project~ TYPE OF ACTION: [; ] Type II IX] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Varianc9 request to rescind prior conditional variance to reduce ]0t coverage to less than 20% for future pr0p0sa] of bedroom addition in rear. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Soutl~old, particularly known as: 75 Second Street, New County of Sbffolk, more Suffolk. 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. FOR FURTIIER INFORFIATION, 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 un the Town clerk Bulletin Board. 't TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR . P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL. 765-1802 October 29, 1985 TO: FROM: DATE: Gerry Goehringer Chairman Zoning Board of Ed Hindermann October 29, 1985 Appeals SUBJECT: Frank E. Brophy At the request of Linda Kowalski I shall attempt to clarify what Mr. Brophy is proposing on his property in New Suffolk. The plans Mr. Brophy submitted included an addition to the rear of the existing building-the lot area of this parcel is 7232 sq. feet, 20% maximum lot coverage allows a building area of 1446.4 sq. ft. The deck on the front of the building that was the subject of Appeal #2922 dated 1/19/82, if it were to re- main as part of the dwelling, would with the proposed addition exceed permitted lot coverage, ie: Building area would be 1560 sq. ft. which exceeds permitted coverage by 113.6 sq. ft. In order to expedite the issuance of a building per- mit Mr. Brophy decided to remove the portion of the front deck which was subject to the front yard variance which is 152 sq. ft. in area. This brings the total lot cov- erage to 1408 sq. ft., well within maximum allowed. The remaining portion of front deck would remain. Although at the time the appeal was made it was subject to a side yard variance. However subsequent amendments were made to zoning laws relative to side yard set backs. The side yard requiremets that apply to this lot new are; total side yard 25'-0", one side yard not less than 10'-0". Gerry Goehringer October 29, 1985 ?age 2 I have enclosed herewith a survey dated July 24, 1978. ?ortion of deck remaining is shaded in red. To verify set back from outside corner of deck to property line I asked Jack Sherwood to work set back out from this survey. Based · on the 11'-0" set back shown& angle of southerly property line from the southeast corner property monument the set back works out to 10'-0" plus~ enclosed is a copy of Jacks calculations. Therefore the total side yard set backs total 29.5' plus, which ¢ompl±es to requirements for this lot. While this is a non conforming size lot the only non- ¢onform±ng set back is the front yard, all other zoning requirements will be met with the issuance of a permit for the proposed addition and alterations. The only remaining factor would be the approval of Mr. Brophy's request to withdraw the previous variance grant- ed under Appeal #2922, so that in the future a building per- mit will not be mistakenly issued to replace deck, this makes sense. Gt..:A. TH~40',.iL¢ ~"J ..:4 ;. b. ~ ,. .. ..- X .... · .................... ~, ILTON PIPE JHSTRU'CT]OHS: ' -- (o) Jn order to answer tile questions in this short E^F it is assumed that the preparer %~ill use. currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts oF the act£on. It is not expected that additional studio:, research or other investigations ¥,i~l be undertaken. (b) ~£ any question has been ons~ered Yes the project may be s~gni£icon¢ and a completed Env~ronmento~ Assessment Fozm &s necessary. (c) I£ all questions have been ans¥,ered No it is ~ik~ly ~ha% projec¢ is not significant.' ' (d) Env~ronrnenta! Assessment '. · '"' Z. t'/±ll project result in a large physical change . " to the project site ~r physically alter more than lO acres of-land? .................. 'Yes X No : ¥;i l there be o a3or change any -unusual land farm found on the site? .... Yes X 3. ¥1 Zl pro3ect alter or have a lorgderre t';;'" existing body of %voter? ................... Ye~ X No 4. Will project have a potentially large imp~ ' ' ' " .5. ¥1ill project slgnificontly effec.t_dro~noge.... _.~. flo~ adjacent 5i~es? · ' Yes X' No 6. %?ill pro3ect affect any threatened or ~ cndongercd plant or animal species? ...... .. Yes X' No . / on air quoli~y? ........... ~.....~'. ............ Yes'X No / . 8. ¥/ill project have a major effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas kno%vn to:be important to the community? 'Yes X'No ~. ¥1ill project a'dverse!y impact cny site or .- · structure of historic, prehistoric or / paleontological importance or any site designated us a orifice! envi~onme %~ol area lO. %'1ii1 projec~ hove o major effect on existihg or future recreational opportunities?.' ....... Yes X No 11. Will project result in.major traffic problems at caus.e a major effec% to ex-istin9 ~ronsportation ~ystems? ....................... Yes X No 12. ¥1ill pr6jec~ .regularly cause objectionable odozs,.nolse, glare, vibration, or electrical '. disturbance as o result at ~he project's : opera,ion? ' '- " Yes X No 13. %~ill project hove on), impact on public health '" or.safety? .................................... _ Yes X No 1~ %/ill p? j'ec Ffi t th ~ ti ity by - · ' o ~ o ec ~ ex s ng commun . directly causing a growth in permanent population of more ti%an 5 percegL over o one ycor period or hove a ~ojor negative e£fect '·- on tile charo'cter of the community or '..' neighborhood? ................................. Yes X No I5. Is there public controversy concerning the ~ro3ect? Yes X No Southold Town Board of Appeals APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please find enclosed herewith copy of the Legal Notice as published in the local and official newspapers of the Town of Southold, to wit, L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Weekly Times, Inc. indicating the time and date of your recent application with the Board of Appeals. Someone should appear in behalf of the applicant at the public hearing in the event there are questions from board members or persons in the audience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our secretary, Linda Kowalski, at 765-1809 (or if no answer, 765-1802). Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN lk Enclosure APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 2S SOUTHOLD, l.l., N.Y. ll~?l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 Copies of the notice of hearings and transmittal letter were forwarded to each of the below-named parties by mail 12/24/85: Mr. David E. Kapell as agent for R. Duchano Mr. and Mrs. Frank Brophy Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. as attorney Mr. Paul Leary as an opponent for the Brophy's Mr. and Mrs. John Holzapfel Mr. H. Norman McCullough III Mr. Donald Denis for the North Fork Country Club Mr. Lewis Edson for the North Fork Country Club North Fork Country Club, Moore's Lane and Main Anthony T. Conforti, Esq. for Mattituck Harbor Mr. and Mrs. Charles Wild Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. for Long Island Shores Road, Cutchogue Associates ZBA Members Town Clerk Bulletin Board posted 12/24/85 Victor Lessard for the Building Dept. ZBA Office Bulletin Board posted 12/24/85 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- BTATE ROAD 25 SDUTHOLD, 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 Pursuant to Article XIII of the Suffolk County Charter, Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, New York, hereby the following to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: Variance from the Zoning Code, Article , Section the refers Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector Special Exception, Article , Section x Special Permit Request for Rescission of Previously Issued Variance under Appeal No. 2922 rendered December 17, 1981 Appeal No.: 3437 Applicant Mr. & Mrs. Frank E. Brophy Location of Affected Land: 75 Second St., New Suffolk, NY County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- Section 117, Block 10, Lot 20.7 Within 500 feet of: Town or Village Boundary Line Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary) State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Owned Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Pork or Other Recreation Area or Existing or Proposed Right-of Way of Any Stream or Urainage Chonnel Owned by the County or for Which The County Has Established Channel Lines, Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of An Airport. COMMENTS: Applicant is requesting for construction of deck permission to_re.a~ni~:t Ap~e~al~#2922 Copies of Town file Dated:March 4, 1986 and related documents enclosed for' your review. Secretary, Board of Appeals APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals I~IAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.h, N.Y, 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 February 26, 1986 Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. Main Road Southold, NY 1t971 Re: Appeal No. 3437 - Frank and Mary Brophy Dear Rudy: Enclosed please find a copy of the official findings and determination recently rendered by the Board of Appeals and filed this date with the Office of the Town Clerk concerning your application. In the event your application has been approved, please be sure to return to the Building Department for their authoriza- tion of any new construction, or for other written documents as may be applicable. If you have either our office (765-1802). any questions, please do not hesitate ~o call (765-1809) or that of the building inspector Yours very truly, Enclosure Copy of Decision to: Building Department Mr. and Mrs. Frank Brophy Mr. Paul D. Leary Suffolk County Planning Commission GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN. Fl- Kowal ski Secretary Southoid Town Board o£Appeais MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGFR, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI February 5, 1986 Mr. and Mrs. Paul D. Leary 2 Pennsylvania Boulevard Bellerose, NY llO01 Re: Request for Photocopies Matters of Frank and Mary Brophy Dear Mr. and Mrs. Leary: In accordance with your request and $10.00 check #5317, transmitted herewith are the photocopies of the transcript of the public hearing under Appeal No. 3437 of January 9, 1986, copies of the documents in Appeal No. 2788, and communications in behalf and in opposition to the rescission of No. 2922 filed under No. 3437. There are a total of 40 copies, which came to exactly $10.00. Also, for your information, a decision as of today has not yet been rendered. Please don't hesitate to call if additional copies are needed. Yours very truly, d~a Kowa~~ Secretary Enclosures Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11973 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEI'IRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI February 5, 1986 Mr. and Mrs. Paul D. Leary 2 Pennsylvania Boulevard Bellerose, NY llO01 Re: Request for Photocopies Matters of Frank and Mary Brophy Dear Mr. and Mrs. Leary: In accordance with your request and $10.00 check #5317, transmitted herewith are the photocopies of the transcript of the public hearing under Appeal No. 3437 of January 9, 1986, file under Appeal No. 2788, and incoming communications under Appeal No. 2922. Yours very truly, Secretary Enclosures January, 1986 ~r. Goehringer Board of Appeals Southold, N. Y. Re, Appeal #3437, Mr.-~rs. Brpphy Adter following the Brophy appeal in the legal notices, I ~m concerned about the rescinding of an appeal that has already been granted and acted upon,--~ Once granted, an appeal should not be rescinded upon the whim of a change of plans. The existing variance ahould ~e used as a basis for expansion. Yours truly, A CONCERNEO CUTCHOGUE TAXPAYER~!~! January 13, 1986 Mr. ~Robert W. Tasker, Esq. Southold Town Attorney 425 Main Stree~ Greenport, LI NY 11944 Re~ Brophy Appea~ #3437 to rescind Variance Appeal #2922 Dear Mr. Tasker: Enclosed please find two copies of letters addressed to Mr. Goehringer regarding the above Appeal. Since Edson and Bruer, attorneys for the appellant had sent a letter to Mr. Goehringer, on November 26th, with a copy to you, I feel that these letter should be in your file as well. V~ry truly yours Paul Leary 2nd Street New Suffolk Enc: Leery letter of January 7th W.S. Gardner letter of January 6th January 10, 1986 Mrs Linda Kowalski Board of Appeals Town of Southold New York 11971 Dear Linda; Enclosed please find my ~heck for $10. to cover the cost of a transcript of the Brophy Appeal ~3437, along with the letters written in behalf and in opposition to the rescission of Variance Appeal #2922. Please also include the Boards decision regarding the appeal. Thank you. ;\ Very~trull vours; Pa 2r~d Street ~_. _~ New Suffolk, 11956 Mr. George Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 January 7, 1986 Subj: Appeal # 3437 - F. Brophy Dear Sir: In Appeal #3437, 5~. F. Brophy has requested that the Board of Appeals rescind his variance for an already constructed extension to his property so that he can receive a variance for a proposed extension to the other side of his house. I am concerned that this request makes a mockery of ~uthold Town zoning laws if variances are issued and rescinded aT will without regard to impact on neighbors and neighborhoods. I hope that the Board of appeals will consider all of the ramifications of Mr. Brophy's request. Sincerely, Philip R. Marriner Sailor's Needle Road Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL. 765-1802 January 7, 1986 Mr. Paul Leary 2 Pennsylvania Boulevard Bellrose, NY 11001 Dear Mr. Leary: In response to your letter of January 3, 1986, in which you request access to a file and copies of contents. I am enclosing herewith an application for you to complete and return to the Town Clerk who is the Freedom of Information Officer for the Town of Southold. If you hav~ any questions regarding this application you may contact the Town Clerk's office. Yours truly, Edward F. Hindermann Building & Housing Inspector EFH:ec xc: Gerald Goehringer, ChairmanhJ Zoning Board of Appeals Enclosure '~Aff'. S. Garclncr Vanston Roa,l Cut0hogu~, N. Y. 11935 January 6,1986 Mr. Gerard ?. Goehringer, Chairman The Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Appeal No. 3437 Dear Mr. Goehringer: Frank and Mary Brophy Last nigh~, a friend of ~i~e, Mr. Paul Leafy of New Suffolk telephoned me and asked for my support in objecting to a variance requested by his neighbors, Frank and Mary Brophy to rescind a previous variance granted by your Board. I imagine that he called me because in the past we have discussed various positions I have taken on Board of Appeals cases as they affect Nassau Point. I explained to him that the strongest effort to object to this current Brophy appeal should be made by himself as well as other immediate neigh- bors whose property rights would be affected if this appeal would be granted, and that I couldn't see howlcould comment on the case as it was not near my property. He agreed that that the neighbors had started their program of objection a wh~e~te~rtier~ but thought that I might be interested on the basis of a principle that this appeal might establish. I agreed that I would review the papers at ~ the Town Hall. ~ I did review the papers today and I agree that there is an important principle of appeal in this case which could affect future decisions in other areas as well as Nassau Point. It is for this reason that I wish to place in your file an objection to rescinding the previous variance to allow a deck in front of the house ( not in the rear) and the planned consequent building of an extension to the property by the applicant Brophy. In the rather large file on this case, I gave particular attention to the request for variance to your Board (Appeal No. 2788) dated February 17,1981 in which Brophy asked for a variance to allow him to keep a deck on the street side of his home which apparently had been built illegally. In this appeal he cited and I quote -" the practical difficulty to remove the deck (on the front of the house) would cause unneocesary~hardship, i.e. cost of removing, loss of materials, and that such removal would make ingress and egress more difficult for the applicants as they grew older and for older guest&" The applicant also deposed" that a deck in they rear of the house (as opposed to the deck already built in in the front) would obstruct the waterview of the adjoining and other landowners to the north who currently have an unobstructed waterview over the applicants rear yard" -2- So quote the February 17,1981 appeal further _ "Section 100-10 (H) is promoted in that the natural and scenic quality of open land are preserved for adjoining landowners whose view would be obstructed if the deck was constructed in the rear yard" It is my understanding that Brophy's neighbors agreed with his then position and urged the Board of Appeals to grant the variance for a deck in the front of the house thereby retaining their waterviews. Apparently the applicant over the five years since 1981 has changed his thinking 180~~ o~ -1) the high cost of removing the f~ont deck, 2) his ~billty (even though~ five years older) to enter and leave his house,and 3) his expressed consideration and kind thoughts for his neighbors' waterview and the preservation of the natural and scenic quality of open land. The principle involved here is one that allows an applicant to obtain a variance with the help of his neighbors and then turning around completely to ask for a variance that would involve tearing down a deck he at one time desparately needed and to build an extension on the rear of the building that would obstruct the neighbors'waterview with a solid wall - all this while claiming that the removal of the previously desired deck would return the area to its more attractive original condition. If honesty in applications for variances means anything - this application must be denied. This is the principle for the entire Town of Southold that must be defended. With best personal regards, Sincerely, \ Mr Edward Hinderman~ Building Department Town of Southold New York, Long Island, D~ar Mr Hinderman; 11971 January 3, 1986 In November of 1981, Mr Frank Brophy was de~ied a Variance application #2922, to keep as built a deck constructed, with- o~t a building permit, to close to front and sideyard setback requirements and exceeding lot coverage by more than ~0% Following ~his denial Mr Brophy was allowed to keep a scaled down version of the noncQnforming deck. Will you please send me a copy of the letter that would have given him this permission. Very truly yours, Paul Leary 2 Pennsylvania Blvd. Bell~ . CC~or a~ r~dA~ a~ nge r, C~~ December 30, 1985 Ms. Linda Kowalski Board of Appeals Town of Southold New York, NY 11971 Dear Linda; Enclosed is my letter to Mr. Goehringer, with a copy for each of the other members, regarding the ~applicatio~ to rescind Variance ~2922. Would you please be kind enough to prepare a copy of the Brophy letter, of October 30tk, for each of tke members for their reference. Thank you. 2~-d Street New Suffolk, NY 11956 December 30, 1985 Mr. Gerald Goehringer, Chairman and Members of the Board of Appeals Town of Southold New York, NY 11971 Dear i~. Goehringer; Please be advised that I am oppossed to the request of Mr.& Mrs. Frank Brophy to rescind their Deck Variance #2922, for a number of reasons: 1. Variances are granted at the request of a petioneer, appealing for rights, or relief not allowed by existing zoning. 2. Variances are granted after due consideration, and in some cases after a public hearing. 3. Variances are granted to last forever, they go with the property and are passed onto subsequent owners and generations. 4. No one objected to the construction of the deck in Variance #2922. With the above in mind, it is important to realize that a variance once granted, can not be wished away at the whim of those who possess the variance. More importantly, my objection is based on the atte~pt by the Brophys to deceive the Board as to their intent re~arding the 10'x12' deck covered by Variance ~2922. In his letter of October 30th, to the Board, Mr Brophy states: "My request for the permit was based on removing the existing deck from the front yard (see enclosure "B") and thereby returning front yard setback to its original state (see enclosure "A") Enclosed are copies of the plot plan showing original front yard setback and subsequent additions, and proposed deletions. If you will examine enclosure "C" attached to the Brophy letter, and my enclosure ~4, you will note that it is not their intent to remove the 10'x12' deck in its entirety. Since Variance #2922, created the 10'x12' deck, a request to rescind the Variance should return the plot to its original state. Therefore I request the application to rescind Variance #2922 be denied, and the existing decks remain as is. Very~ tr,~,ly~ yours, P~ul Le ary- 2nd Street New SuffolR, NY 11976 t'IAI~TIN ~UCbOSOP. D L~F?~4)v4 L- if /! Mr Gerard Goehringer Board of Appeals Town of Southold New ~ork, 11971 Re Brophy Appeal # 3437 to rescinded Appeal #2922 Dear Mr Goehringer: From the information in the information in the prior appeal it is evident that the Board of Appeals and the Building Department have been more than fair in granting variances and building permits to Mr. Brophy. Variances and permits that allowed exceptions to existing zoning restrictions regarding, front yard setbacks, lot coverage and side yard setbacks. In fact this hearing seems to be an abuse of the appeal process. The time period for hearing for appeals is 30 days following the original decision of the Board. The Board may have made a mistake in allowing this hearing. Four years after the variance and permit was issued tke appellant wants to rescind all that which had been allowed. The appellant should be denied the appeal to rescind tke variance. Your authority to do so is Section 267, Subsection of the Town Law. ~6) Very truly yours; FREDEriC B. ENDEMANN 495 EUGENE'S ROAD. BOX 745 CUTCHOGUE. NEW YORK 11935 J~nuarv 6 1986 P~sr i,~r. Goehrin~r, Conc~rnJn~ th~ a~oal of ?r. and ],,~rs. in ~ff~ct ~hich ~ill ~iv~ ^ vari~nc~ is already th~ !~roohvs roop tO '~ine~r~lv, Fred ~nd biancU January 5, 1986 Mr. Gerard Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals Town Clerk's Office Southold, New York 11971 Dear Sir: As neighboring property owners, we wish to go on record as opponents of Appeal #3437 which has been requested by Mr. Frank Brophy of Second Street, New Suffolk, N.Y. It is our opinion that when a variance has once been granted, said variance should not be rescinded. James W. & Vivian T. Fugsley Jackson & Second Streets New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 Very truly your~w~ M~o Gerard Goe~m. inger, Chairman $outhold Town Board of Appeals Town Rall Main Road Southold, RoY. llg?l 3 ~anuary, 1985 New Suffolk,~ 11956 Dear Mr. Ooeh~inger= ! ~lieve that mT neighbora, Mary and l~ankBrophy, are planning to demolieh their houee Just aouth of ua on Second Street with a view to enlarging their dwelling. ! underatand that, to make a co~lieated matter simple, their wiah ia to extend their etruatu~e ao~e eight feet wear and to make it higher aa well. The proposed building will obatruat ou~ view of Peaonio Bay and will di~iniah the value of our property, and ! ~ope that you will denT their appliaation. $inoerely yours, Thomaa ~wr7 ref: AppealS922 Mr. Gerard Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals Southold, New York 11971 January 7, 1986 Re: Brophy Appeal #3437 to Rescind Appeal #2922 Dear Mr. Goehringer: The only variances in existence at the time of Mr. Brophy bought his house were in Variance #1529 which imposed con- ditions on all lots within the development. Two pertinant conditions are: "No improvements can be made without approval of the Board of Appeals by the provision of the or- dinance relating to lot coverage". "Any prospective purchaser of any of these~six parcels shall be shown the decision of the Board of Appeals and shall acknowledge recognition to the Board". After buying the property, Mr. Brophy proceeded to build a deck ignoring the pre-existing restrictions. The deck was built as follows: 1. Without a building permit. 2. In excess of the 20% allowed lot coverage. 3. Too close to the front yard line. His first appeal to keep the non-confronting deck was denied #2693, May 22, 1980. His second appeal to keep the illegal deck was denied, #2755. During the second appeal which went to publio hearing, neighbors and friends spoke or wrote in favor of allowing the illegal deck to remain. During the hearing Mr. Price, attorney, for Mr. Brophy said: (page 5, Para. 2) "As I said in the appeal itself, these adjoinlng~land- owners, they have an unobstructed waterview down behind the property and in the event this deck were to be con- structed in the rear of the property the adjoining pro- perty owners would suffer". The Board of Appeals had claimed the illegal front yar~ deck could be moved to the rear of the house. The 3rd Appeal #2788, to keep the illegal deck was denied. Each denial gave Mr. Brophy 60 days to take the deck down. Sometime following the 3 denials, the Building Department, with the Board of Appeals cooperation, in the spirit of conciliation, issued a building permit allowing a reduced size deck to remain. Following the above, Mr. Brophy came to the Board with his 4th appeal to build a deck over his driveway. The Board granted him a variance as follows: Appeal 92922... Resolved, that the application of Frank Brophy for a deck addition to the dwelling with an insufficient front yard and side yarn setback, be3 GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR, December 17, 1981. In September of 1985, Mr. Brophy applied directly to the Build- ing Department for a permit to add a 24' X 8' ($40,000) addition to the rear of his house. Totally ignoring the restrictions set- forth in Variance #1529, the restrictions which went With the house when purchased. Since the application you are aware of the 15 o~ so letters that have changed hands between you, my husband, Mr. Brophy and the Building Department. This brings us to tonights hearing. Ms. Patricia Moore, writing for Edson and Bruer, attorneys for Mr. Brophy, uses the same language and terminology in seeking recission, as was used by the Board of Appeals in their defense of granting Variance Appeal ~2922. Her reasoning is a contra- diction. The same reasons cannot be used for and against the Variance. Appeal #2922... In considering this appeal, the Board determines that the variance request is not substantial; that the circum- stances herein are unique, that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any in- creased population; that the relief will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. The Variance Appeal #2922 should not be rescinded for the following reasons: 1. Recission of the variance is substantial. Brophys intent is to allow a portion of the deck to remain, not restoring the original setback lines. The circumstances are NOT unique. The difficulty in which Mr. Brophy finds-~-~mself is of his own doing. He created the variances that now exists. Recission would create substantial detriment to the adjoining properties. Recission is the first step in a process leading to the elimination of priceless views of Robins Island and Peconic Bay now enjoyed by the neighbors, lowering the value of surrounding pro- perties. -3- The difficulty to Mr. Brophy can be obviated by a method feasible to the appellant other than a rescission to conform to the 20% lot coverage. The $40,000 addition begins with tearing the house down. A new foundation can be dug to con- form to the existing dimensions on the front of the house using the existing variance and build- ing permit in effect. In addition, if Mr. Brophy was to use the 24~X8' cathedral ceiling area on the second floor of the new construction, as sleeping space, the 24' X 8' planned extension to the rear would not be needed. In your letter of November 7th, to Mr. Brophy you say: "Accordingly any new construction will require an application to the Board". Ms. Moore is misguided in asking you to: "Direct the building department to rescind the stop- work order, and release the building permit". We are not here tonight to hear a request for a building permit. In summary, neither Mr. Brophy, nor his attorney, has shown there are practicle difficulties or unnecessary hardships in keeping the structures that he has at present. I ask you to deny Appeal further deny the removal ing permit. Mrs Barbara ~e~y~~ 2~ Second St. New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 #3437, to rescind Appeal #2922 and of the deck area allowed by the build- 90 Nassau Roac[ /'v1,~s~pequ,~, New York 11758 Jan. 9, 1986 M~. Jerry Goehcinger, Boacd of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, N.Y. ] 1971 Chairman Dear Jercy, Opo n ~/isiting with F~'ank B-ophy who owns a house on 25 Second St. Ne~v Suffolk, it is my understanding that a vaciance was granted some time back under appeal ~ fo r a deck on Mc. Br >phy's 1font yard prope Mr. Brophy who no longer ~ wishes to have the pleasure of such deck, would like to rescind such appeal granted, in order to conform with Southold Town Code and would enable Mr. Brophy to upgrade a 65 year old plus home to meet with New York State Code. I feel that this would enhance the value of neighboring property owners as well as Mr. Brophy's principal home where he plans to reside. January 8, 1986 Gerard P. Goehrt~-~er, Chair.~n Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall Seuthold, F/ 11971 Dear Mr. Goehringer: As a mortgagee of both the adjoining Brophy and Leary properties located on Second Strret, New Suffolk, NY, I wish to go on record as supporting Frank and Mary Brophy's Appeal #3437 to rescind the previous variance granted under Appeal #2922. I understand that the purpose of this appeal is to conform their property within 20% lot size requirement to construct an addition to their rear yard. Mr. and Mrs. Brophy have shown me their proposed building plans for the alterations -~ addition and they have my approval for this construction. Sincerely yours, F.n.~.~ Road New Suffolk, NY 11956 Florence P. Grathwohl /~ ppea!s Town of Southold December 2, 1985 Mr Gerald Goehringer Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, New York Dear Mr. Goehringer: Iam in .receipt of notice, Mr Frank Brophy's request to rescind his variance appeal #2922. There is no valid reason why the Board of Appeals has to grant such a hearing. If you do grant the hearing, please do not schedule it for the week of December 9th, as I will be out of town. In addition if you do grant the bearing, expanded to include: "persons aggrieved not~jTt adjoining property owners. Paul Leary ~ Second Street New Suffolk, NY 11956 those notified be nearby residents" ~t-}-~'/~?A Chairman/~¢mbers COpieS ~ ) r.~ ~ ~. ( )-~. ............. ..~' lgen~ ~ommento cr R~.ply Requested November 26, 1985 Gerard P. Goehringer, chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Appeal No. 2922 Frank E. Brophy and Mary L. Brophy Dear Mr. Goehringer, This letter is a formal request to you and the Zoning Board of Appeals for a rescission of the previously issued variance under Appeal No. 2922, dated 1/19/82, for deck construction and front yard reduction setback. The Brophys wish to rescind the front yard reduction setback. At the same time, the Brophys will remove the front deck, for which the setback variance was granted. Once the variance is rescinded, the Brophys intend to build an addition in the rear of their property which will conform to the 20% lot size coverage requirement° The variance should be rescinded for the following reasons: 1. Recission of the variance is not substantial. Moreover, it will re-establish the property's conformity with the zoning ordinance by eliminating the setback variance. 2. The circumstances are unique. The building lot area of this parcel is 7,232 sq. ft. The 20% lot coverage allows a building area of 1,446.4 sq. ft. If the front deck remains, the proposed addition to the rear would exceed the permitted coverage by 113.6 sq. ft. Removal of the front deck and rescission of the variance will bring the proposed addition well within the ex~sting lot coverage requirements. 3. Recission of the variance creates no substantial detriment to adjoining properties. In fact, the underlying purpose of the request for rescission of the variance is to improve the area. 4. The difficulty to Mr. and Mrs. Brophy cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellant other than a recission of the variance because the appellants wish to conform their property within the 20% lot size requirement. G.P. Geohringer -2- November 26, 1985 5. No adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities nor any increase in population. Furthermore, the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning and the interest of justice will be served by granting the recission of the variance. Your authorization to permit this request falls under Section 267, Subsection (6) of the Town Law. Upon recission of the said variance, the following relief is requested: 1) Allow Mr. and Mrs. Brophy to remove the front yard deck. 2) Direct the building department to recind the stop-work order pursuant to Section 100-143 of the Southold Town Code. 3) Direct the building department to release the building permit #143197, held in abeyance pending this action. Please schedule this matter on the board's agenda for its next meeting. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Patricia C. Moore Legal Assistant PCM/df cc: Robert W. Tasker, Esq. Mr. and Mrs. Frank E. Brophy APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J, DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RnAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.h, N.Y. ll~JT1 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 TO: Building Department, Attn: Edward Hindermann FROM: Board of Appeals, Jerry Goehringer, Chairman DATE: November 8, 1985 SUBJECT: Appeal No. 2922 Rendered by ZBA 1/19/82 Property of Frank E. Brophy, 75 Second St, New Suffolk Please find attached for your information a copy of our response to Mr. Brophy's letter received 11/1/85. We have been advised that we are revoke prior decision(s) without hearing, etc. without authority to withdraw or proper application and public Any and all new construction into any of the yard areas ~ill require an application to this board without a formal applica- tion and public hearing concerning the request for a withdrawal of Appeal No. 2922. It is requested that the building permit be voided pending formal application by Mr. Brophy to this department for whichever relief he desires to apply for. Thank you for your past assistance and cooperation. lk APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- -qTATE ROAD 25 SDUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11~71 TELEPHONE (616) 765-1809 November 7, 1985 Mr. Frank E. Brophy 75 Second Street New Suffolk, NY 11956 Re: Appeal No. 2922 Rendered 1/19/82 Dear Mr. Brophy: In consulting town counsel concerning your requests to withdraw Appeal No. 2922, we have been advised that the board is not permitted to revoke any decision without an application formally made by you, after public hearing, et cetera. Also enclosed for your perusal is a copy of a recent request of Mr. Paul Leary, an adjoining property owner, requesting a revoking or nonissuance of any building permit concerning your property, and our response thereto. Accordingly, any new ~onstruction will require an application to this board. Please don't hesitate to contact us if we may be of assistance. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN lk cc: Building Department Mr. Paul Leary October 30, 1985 Gerard P. Goehri~er, Chair~- Zonf~fl Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 M~- Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Goehr~n~er'. ~r. Hinderm~-, your build~-~ inspector issued me a permit #143197 to construct an addition on the rear of my house located at 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY. ~y request for the permit was based on removing the a~st~ deck from the front yard (see enclosure "B") and thereby retur~8 front yard set back to its orig~-I state (see enclosure "A"). Reducing the present front yard coverage would permit construction of res~ yard addition (see enclosure "C") so that total lot coverage will not exceed 20% as required by town zo-~-~ regulations. I feel that this explRn,tion should clarify ~ answer paragraph two of your letter (cop~ enclosed) to Mr. and remove the necessity of a variance for purposed construction as granted by B.P. #143197. Respectfully, Frank E. Brophy 75 Second Street New Suffolk, NY 11956 Enclosures (4) Enclosure "A" J~ ~ Original front 2ard set !~ck 3700 ]~,]a¢'l 0 ~]2-e "Bu Ir- J 7 J~ Enol o~ure "C" October 30, 1985 Gerard ~. Ooehr~yer, 0hat~n Zon~ Board of Appeals Torn of Southold Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Goehr~er: Mr. ~r~erm~-, your ~,,41ding inspector issued me a permit #143197 to construct an addition on the rear of my house located at 75 Second Street, New S~ffolk, NY. ~y request for the permit was based on removing the existing deck from the front yard (see enclosure "B") and thereby retur~ front yard set hack to its original state (see enclosure "A"). Reducing the present front yard coverage would permit construction of rear yard addition (see enclosure "C") so that total lot coverage will not exceed 20% as required by town zo~4-2 regulations. I feel that this ex-p]--~tion should clarify --~ answer paragraph two of your letter (copy enclosed) to Mr. ~ re~ve the necessity of a variance for purposed construction as granted by B.P. #143197. Respectfully, Frank E. Brophy 75 Second Street New Suffolk, NY 11956 Enclosures (4) Ea~oloau.re "~" 1 OI'tg~-'l fromt 2ard set ~ok G~Ar:'' ~,'."0'~4 L :J PUGL;t r: ,/ -,.85 37 O0 r:-, CO I .V I .l~,/~_Jy~-, 0 5'5.0 F~nclo st~e "B" Emelosure "C" ~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD-~TATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11~'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 October 29, 1985 Mr. Paul Leary Second Street New Suffolk, NY 11956 Re: Your Letter dated October 28, ]985 Premises of Mr. Frank Brophy, 75 Second St, New Suffolk Dear Mr. Leary: In reviewing your letter received today concerning premises of Mr. Frank Brophy known as 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, we were advised by town counsel that your requests to the Board of Appeals to rescind the cqrrent building permit after a public hearing are incomplete without a formal application and proper notice to the adjoining land owners and the landowner of the subject premises. Enclosed for your convenience is a complete set of forms required with instructions. If you have any questions, =please don't hesitate to call our. office. Yours very truly, Enclosures Copy to 2 Pennsye GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski Boulevard, Bellrose, NY llO01. TO~rN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR · P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL. 765-1802 October 29, 1985 TO: FROM: DATE: Gerry Goehringer Chairman Zoning Board of Ed Hindermann October 29, 1985 Appeals SUBJECT: Frank E. Brophy At the request of Linda Kowalski I shall attempt to clarify what Mr. Brophy is proposing on his property in New Suffolk. The plans Mr. Brophy submitted included an addition to the rear of the existing building-the lot area of this parcel is 7232 sq. feet, 20% maximum lot coverage allows a building area of 1446.4 sq. ft. The deck on the front of the building that was the subject of Appeal #2922 dated 1/19/82, if it were to re- main as part of the dwelling, would with the proposed addition exceed permitted lot coverage, ie: Building area would be 1560 sq. ft. which exceeds permitted coverage by 113.6 sq. ft. In order to expedite the issuance of a building per- mit Mr. Brophy decided to remove the portion of the front deck which was subject to the front yard variance which is 152 sq. ft. in area. This brings the total lot cov- erage to 1408 sq. ft., well within maximum allowed. The remaining portion of front deck would remain. Although at the time the appeal was made it was subject to a side yard variance. However subsequent amendments were made to zoning laws relative to side yard set backs. The side yard requiremets that apply to this lot now are; total side yard 25'-0", one side yard not less than 10'-0". Gerry Goehringer October 29, 1985 Fage 2 I have enclosed herewith a survey dated July 24, 1978. ?ortion of deck remaining is shaded in red. To verify set back from outside corner of deck to property line I asked Jack Sherwood to work set back out from this survey. Based on the 11'-0" set back shown & angle of southerly property line from the southeast corner property monument the set back works out to 10'-0" plus, enclosed is a copy of Jacks calculations. Therefore the total side yard set backs total 29.5' plus, which complies to requirements for this lot. While this is a non conforming size lot the only non- conforming set back is the front yard, all other zoning requirements will be met with the issuance of a permit for the proposed addition and alterations. The only remaining factor would be the approval of Mr. Brophy's request to withdraw the previous variance grant- ed under Appeal #2922, so that in the future a building per- mit will not be mistakenly issued to replace deck, this makes sense. (31dAT~q~O;.iL~, ~.. '..?4 ;. '~ ' ~. ,, , v 1' T'E'-'"GUA,9-ANT'YCOt4PANY :. L)O..nE2'!C',< SAN TgVL,.__ . [PC. LICC; ;CE L; t.cX~'L, 5tJk.',"U't'C,~¢ , Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RDAD-STATE RE3AD 25 SDUTHI3LD, L.I., N.Y. 11g71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI October 29, 1985 Mr. Paul Leary Second Street New Suffolk, NY 11956 Re: Your Letter dated October 28, ]985 Premises of Mr. Frank Brophy, 75 Second Dear Mr. Leary: New Suffolk In reviewing your letter received today concerning premises of Mr. Frank Brophy known as 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, we were advised by town counsel that your requests to the Board of Appeals to rescind the current building permit after a public hearing areincomplete without a formal application and proper notice to the adjoining land owners and the landowner of the subject premises. Enclosed for your convenience is a complete set of forms required with instructions. If you have any questions, 'please donLt hesitate to call our. office. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski Enclosures Copy to 2 Pennsye Boulevard, Bellrose, NY llO01. Mr, Gerald Goehringer Board of Appeals TOwn of Southold Southold, New York, 11971 October 28, 1985 Dear Mr. Goehringer, Mr. Frank Brophy, of Second Street, New Suffolk, 5as applied for a building permit to expand his house above and beyond the existing dimensions. The permit has been granted by the building department. Mr Brophy's property was created by a variance in June of 1972, eight years prior to the purchase of the property by Mr. Brophy. According to the 1972 variance, permission for improvements must be granted by the Board of Appeals. It seems to us that the Board of Appeals should have been asked for approval or disapproval prior to the building permit being submitted to the building department. The theme of the original variance relates to "existing dwellings," "existing situation," meaning no changes are contemplated without Board of Appeals approval. A request to change lot coverage would set in motiQn the following; adjoining neighbors would be notified, proximity to the water (less than 300 feet) must be considered, and an enviornmental impact state- ment will ask: "will the extension block any views. Further to the above the Brophy property is on a nonconforming lot as to front and side yard setback. The 10 foot right of way across lot #5 has never been establisked or used as it exists only on paper. The right of way being used by Bropky and tke lots to the south, #'s 5 & 6 is actuallyacross the southeast corner of the Brophy property (as per enclosed drawing). This usage diminishages the Brophy lot to 6425 sq. ft. giving him an allowable 20% coverage of 1285 sq. ft., far less than indicated on the building permit. We as neighbors to the north whose scenic views of Peconic Bay, and R0bins island will be lost forever ask you to rescihd the building permit. We further request that a proper hearing be scheduled to consider the request for improvements. Enc: 1. 2. Suffolk Right of way as shown on tax map. Right of way as it actually exists. '.F I~'ECOt,4 lC. B~y N S th Id To B d lapp Is MAIN ROAD- GTATE ROAD 25 GI3UTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONtS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI TO: Edward Hindermann, Building Inspector FROM: Jerry Goehringer, Z.B.A. Chairman DATE: October 4, 1985 SUBJECT: Your Inquiry Re: Appeals No. 1597 and 2922 Property Now or Formerly of Frank E. Brophy 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, New York This letter will confirm that it is the opinion of the board members at a Regular Meeting held last evening that any change of the construction of the deck addition granted under Appeal No. 2922 will require an application for a variance to the Board of Appeals. The basis for this determination is new construction is being proposed and the deck addition granted under Appeal No. 2922 is still in effect, which may or may not affect the lot coverage limitations for this zoning district. lk Mr./Gerald Goehringer Board of Appeals TOwn of Southold Southold, New York, 11971 Dear Mr.~ Goehringe~z ~r. Frank Brophy, of Second Street, New Suffolk, has appti~d for a building permit to expand his house abov~ and beyond the existing dimensions. The permit has been grante~ by the bUilding department. October 28, 1985 Mr Brophy's property was created by a variance in June of 1972, eight years prior to the purchase of the property by Mr. Brophy. According to the 1972 variance, permission for improvements must be granted by the Board of Appeals. It seems to us that the Board of Appeals should have been asked for approval or disapproval prior to the building permit being submitted to the building department. The theme of the original variance relates to "existing dwellings," "e.xlsting' situation," meaning no changes are contemplated without Board of Appeals approval. A request to change lot coverage would set in motion the following; adjoining neighbors would be notified, proximity to the water (less than 300 feet) must be considered, and an enviornmental impact state- ment ~ill ask: "will the extension block any views. Further to the above the Brophy property is on a nonconforming lot as to front and side yard setback. The 10 foot right of way across lot #5 has never been established or used as it exists only on paper. The right of way being used by Brophy and tke lots to the south, #'S 5 & 6 is actuallyacross the southeast corner of the Brophy property (as per enclosed drawing). This usage diminishages the Brophy lot to 6425 sq. ft.' giving him an allowable 20% coverage of 1285 sq. ft., far less than indicated on the building Permit, We as neighbors to the north whose scenic views of Peconic Bay, and Robins'island ~iii be lost forever ask ~ou to resc±]~d the buildin~ ' We further request that a proper hearing be scheduled to consider the request for improvements. y~r~y, y~ur.s ~h~ _1. R.i~ay as shown on tax map. · 2. Rig~ay as it actually exists. lapp Southold Town Board o eals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11~71 TELEPHONE (516) 785-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI October 28, 1985 Mr. Frank E. Brophy 75 Second Street New Suffolk, NY 11956 Re: Your Letter Dated October 8, 1985 Dear Mr. Brophy: This letter will confirm that the following action was taken by the Board of Appeals at a Regular Meeting held October 24, 1985 concerning your letter dated Oct. ober 8, 1985: RESOLVED, that any ch'ange of construction concerning the relief granted under Appeal No. 2922 and any construct.ion which would affect the 20% lot coverage limitations and any other limitations of the zoning code, or change which would affect the prior condi- tions rendered by this Board., will require a formal application for Board of Appeals' consideration prior to the issuance of a building permit. This resolution was unanimously adoPted. Please be aware that no action was taken by the Board relative to your request to "withdraw the variance" under Appeal No. 2922 dated 1/19/82 for a deck frontyard-reduction setback. It is our understanding that the building permit has not been officially released by the Building Department to the applicant and will be held in abeyance until further notice. Yours very truly, Enclosures cc: Building Department GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski October 8, 1985 Gerard P. Goehr~-~er, Ohairm~- Senthold Town Zoning Board of Appeals M~- Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 I request to have the variance (for deck front,~ard re- duction set-back) under Appeal #2922, dated 1/19/8~ithdrawn. The purpose of this request is to reduce lot coverage and permit construction of an addition to the rear of build~-~ des- cribed in said appeal. As required by zoning regulations, lot coverage will not exceed 20%. I recently retired and intend to use this dwell~ as my principal residence. The purposed addition is to -~e the dwell- ing more suitable to my needs as a senior citizen. The house (over 60 years old) was built before zoning ordinances existed in this area end is badly in need of improvement. MY question is whether a variance is necessary under condition #2 of Appeal #1597, dated 6/20/72 when lot coverage does not exceed 20% ? I feel that this condition is ambiguous and requires clarification by the beard. 75 Second Street New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 Respect~,lly, Mr. Gerald Goehringer~ Chairman and Members of the~.Board Of Appeals Town of Southold New York, NY 11971 December 30, 1985 Town of $outhold Dear Mr. Goehringer;~ Please be advised that I am oppos~ed to the request of Mr.& Mrs. Frank Brophy to rescind their Deck Variance ~2922, for a number of reasons: Variances are granted at the request of a petioneer, appealing for rights~ or relief nOt allo~ved b} existing zoning. Variances are granted after due consideration, and in some cases after a public hearing. 3. Variances are granted to las~ forever, they go with the property and are pa~sed onto subsequent owners and generations. 4. No one objected to the construction o~~ the deck in Variance '~2922. 'With the above in mind, it is important to realize that a ~variance o~ce granted,' can not be w~$hed away at the whim of those who possess the variance. More importantly, my objection Ls' ba~e~::! on 'the attempt by the Brophys to deceive the L%oard as to t~leic intent re%'arding the 10'x12' deck covered by Variance ~2922. In his letter of- October 30ti], to the Board., Mr Brophy states: "My request for the permi~ w~ base~ on removing the existing deck from the front ~ard (see enclosure. "B") and thereby returning front yard setback to its ©r~i'.3inal state (see enclosure "A") Enclosed are copies of the plot ?lan showing original front yard setback and subsequent additions~ and ~ropQsed deletions. If you will examine enclosure "C" at,+.aci,~d to tile Brophy letter, and my enclosure #4, you will not<~ ~i~at [t is not their intent to remove the lO'x12' deck in [ts .nti~.t~.· ~ ~ , Since Variance #2922, created ti~e 10'x12' deck, a request to rescind the Variance should retnrn th~~ £3iok to its original +tate. Therefore I re[/uest the applicatJo~ ~o rescind Variance #2922 · be denied, amd the existing.decks ~:~_u~in ~s is. ~tru~ yours, h New Suffolk, NY .[1976 GP. Ar H¥!O;4L ~' f'gO'J,l E ":' { ,~' 7& 5.3 Ocr &, lq~5' Ige2m ~- ~ I'q:5iq'7 November 26, 1985 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Appeal No. 2922 Frank E. Brophy and Mary L. Brophy Dear Mr. Goehringer, This letter is a formal request to you and the Zoning Board of Appeals for a rescission of the previously issued variance under Appeal No. 2922, dated 1/19/82, for deck construction and front yard reduction setback. The Brophys wish to rescind the front yard reduction setback. At the same time, the Brophys will remove the front deck, for which the setback variance was granted. Once the variance is rescinded, the Brophys intend to build an addition in the rear of their property which will conform to the 20% lot size coverage requirement. The variance should be rescinded for the following reasons: 1. Recission of the variance is not substantial. Moreover, it will re-establish the property's conformity with the zoning ordinance by eliminating the setback variance. 2. The circumstances are unique. The building lot area of this parcel is 7,232 sq. ft. The 20% lot coverage allows a building area of 1,446.4 sq. ft. If the front deck remains, the proposed addition to the rear would exceed the permitted coverage by 113.6 sq. ft. Removal of the front deck and rescission of the variance will bring the proposed addition well within the existing lot coverage requirements. 3. Recission of the variance creates no substantial detriment to adjoining properties. In fact, the underlying purpose of the request for rescission of the variance is to improve the area. 4. The difficulty to Mr. and Mrs. Brophy cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellant other than a recission of the variance because the appellants wish to conform their property within the 20% lot size requirement. G.P. Geohringer -2- November 26, 1985 5. No adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities nor any increase in population. Furthermore, the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning and the interest of justice will be served by granting the recission of the variance. Your authorization to permit this request falls under Section 267, subsection (6) of the Town Law. Upon recission of the said variance, the following relief is requested: 1) Allow Mr. and Mrs. Brophy to remove the front yard deck. 2) Direct the building department to recind the stop-work order pursuant to Section 100-143 of the Southold Town Code. 3) Direct the building department to release the building permit #143197, held in abeyance pending this action. Please schedule this matter on the board's agenda for its next meeting. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Patricia C. Moore Legal Assistant PCM/df cc: Robert W. Tasker, Esq. Mr. and Mrs. Frank E. Brophy BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Petition of FRANK E. BROPHY to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold TO: NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a ~a~r,~ (S~b~ (~e%~ll~n$~ (Other) [circle choice] .' a recission Variance Appeal No. 2922 ). 2. That the property which is the. subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: Street address. 75 Second St., New Suffolk, N.Y. Tax map desiqnation: Dist. 1000, Sec. 117.00, Blk. 10.00, Lot 020.007 3. Thattheproperty whichisthesubjectofsuchPetitionislocatedinthefollowingzoningdistrict: "A"-Residential/Aqricultural 4. ThatbysuchPetition, theundersigned willrequestthefollowingrelief: permission to remove front yard deck, and recission of previous variance for reduction qf front yard set-back. 5. That the provisions of the $outhold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article Section Art. 267, Subsection (6) of NYS Town Law 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) 765-1809. 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: November , 1985 . Frank E. Brophy Petitioner ,by: Rudolph H. Bruer, Atty. PostOffice Addr~s Main Road, P.O. Box 1466 $outhold, New York 11971 NAME Mr. Newton Robbins PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICF ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS ADDRESS New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas M. Martin Mr. & Mrs. Edward V. Wetzel Mr. & Mrs. Paul Leary Mr. William L. Woodward & ors. Jackson Street New Suffolk, N.Y. 11956 90 Nassau Road Massapequa, N.Y. 11758 2 Pennsylvania Blvd. Bellrose, N.Y. 11426 4 Brandy Road Huntington, N.Y. 11743 STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OFSUFFOLK) Mary Di ana Foster ,residingatMcCann Lane, Greenport, NY , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on theTM day of November ,19 85 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at Sou thold ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by certified ~re~) mail. Sworn to before me this day of Novemb~er Notary Public · 1985 ary Diana Foster TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, ~EW YORK ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Application Dated July 25, 1980 AppealNo. 2725 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OFTHETOWN OFSOUTHOLD To William H. Price, Jr. Mr. and Mrs. Frank E. Brophy Appellant at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 28, was considered and the action indicated below was t~ken on your ( ) Request for variance due to lack of access to property ( ) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance (X~ Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance Art. III, ( ) 1980, the appeal Section 100-31 ~a~ed ( ) be de~ed pursuant to Article .................... Sect~n .................... Subsection .................... para~aph .................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decis~n of the Building I~pector ( ) be reversed ( ) be co~irmed b~a~e 8:15 p.m. Application of Frank E. and Mary Brophy, 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY (by William H. Price, Jr., Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of the construction of addition with insufficient front and side yard setbacks. Location of property: 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Pugsley and Grathwohl; west by Martin; south by Wetzel, Pugsley and Grathwohl; east by Second Street; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-10-20.7. (SEE REVERSE SIDE) 2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce practical hardship because (SEE REVERSE SIDE) difficulties or unnecessary (b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because (SEE REVERSE SIDE) (c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) change the character of the district because (SEE REVERSE SIDE) _ (would not) and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( ) be denied and that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) be confirmed ( ) be reversed. FORM ZB4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS After as follows: investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance to approve the construction of a deck to existing dwelling in side and front yard areas, leaving approximately three feet between the deck and the front property line. The premises in question is a parcel of land located on the westerly side of Second Street, New Suffolk, more particularly known as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 117, Block 10, Lot 20.7, having an area of 7,231 square feet. There is presently erected on the lot a private one-family dwelling with porch and the deck under consideration. The dwelling without the deck has a frontyard setback of approximately 14% feet from Second Street. Appellant previously applied to this Board for approval of the subject deck in Appeal No. 2693, which was denied. The relief requested in this application is synonymous to the previous appeal. Appellant in this appeal has set forth the practical diffi- culties in removing the deck and the reasons for locating the deck as applied for rather than in the rear yard or other side yard areas. Upon personal inspection of the premises, the Board finds that the existing structure and deck would exceed 20% of the lot coverage of the total lot area; and it is the feeling of the Board to grant the variance herein technically would not warrant justification. Accordingly, the variance is denied. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Frank E. and Mary L. Brophy, be denied the relief requested in Appeal No. 2725 as applied for. Location of property: 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Pugsley and Grathwohl; west by Martin; south by Wetzel, Pugsley and Grathwohl; east by Second Street. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-10-20.7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tuthill, Douglass and.Goehringer. APPROVED Cliairman ~oa~ ~ ApI~I~ RECEIVED AND ~LED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLm~K HOU /.' Town Clerk, Town of Southolcl P 637 497 856 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR tNTERNATIONAL MAiL (See Reverse) P.O.' State and ZiP Code / Postage $. ~.~ ~,~ Certified Fee ~. Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing Io whom and Date Defivered Return receipt showing to whom, Date, and Address of Delivery TOTAL Postage and Fees $. ~f~ Postmark or Date P 637 497 854 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO ~NSDRANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Postage · · Special Delivery Fee =Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered Return receipt showing to whom, Date, and Address of Delivery TOTAL Postage and Fees Postmark or Date P' 637' 497 853 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Return Receipt Showing TOTAL Postag~ and Fees Postm~k or Date P 637 497 ~52 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MA~L NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Postag, Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing lo whom and Date Dshvered Return receipt showlIr~ to whom, Date, and Address of Delivery TOTAL Postage and Fees Postmark or Date PS Form 3800, Feb. 1982 * U.S.Q.I; ,.1983-403-517 75 Second St., New Suffolk 12/12/8I A-construct a deck add. with a setabck of not less than 6'6" from the front property line. SOUTHAt~PTON LUMBE~ COR~', .~-., .: MAiN ROAp klAl~lfUa~. ~IEW yORK !1~'52 . 296 t, 4711 ['iv