Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3232 Southold Town Board of Appeals HAIN RrlAD- STATE ROAD ~:, 5rlUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. llg'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEkLS Appeal No. 3232 Application Dated March 22, ]984 (Public Hearings May ]7, ]984 & June 2], ]984) TO: Richard T. Haefe]i, Esq. as att0rne3 [Appellant(s)] for MR. AND MRS. BERTRAM WALKER ]30 05trander Avenue, Box 757 Riverhead, NY ]]90], At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on August ]4, ]984, 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 III , Section 100-3l, and interpretations [ ] Request for Application for BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, by Richard T. Haefeli, Esq., Box 757, Riverhead, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for: (a) an interpretation that the existing cottage and garage are valid preexisting nonconforming uses and structures; (b) approval of a wooden deck as an accessory structure in the sideyard; (c) approval of a reduction of liable floor area of a proposed dwelling con- version to 500 sq. ft. and approval of insufficient sideyards. Premises located at Edgemere Park, MacDonald's Path off Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; County Tax Map No. 1000~145-4-014. This is an appeal to Article III, Section lO0-31 and Notice of Disapproval issued March 8, 1984 by the Building Inspector requesting the following: (a) an interpretation that the existing cottage and garage are valid preexisting, nonconforming uses and structures; (b) approval of a wooden deck as an accessory structure in sideyard; (c) approval of a reduction of livable floor area of a proposed dwelling conversion to 500 sq. ft. and approval of insufficient sideyards. The premises in question is knownand referred to as Lots 15 through 18, "Map of Edgemere Park,'~ filed July 2, 1931 as Map #742 in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk. Survey amended March 21, 1984 prepared by Young & Young for the applicants depicts the following: (a) Parcel A consisting of Lots 18 and 17 having an area of 16,857 sq. ft. and an existing one-family house set back 12.9 feet from the "roadway"and 13.2 feet from the northeasterly side property line of Lot 17; (b) Parcel B consisting of Lots 16 and 15 having an area of 16,118 sq. ft. existing one-story frame structure denoted "cottage and garage" set back 13.8' (exclusive of deck) from the southwesterly side property line of Lot 16, and 7.6' by 8' and 8.5' by 12.2' frame sheds along the northeasterly property line of Lot 15 and "roadway." For the record it is noted that "Edgemere Park" Subdivision Map is listed in Section lO0-12 as "excepted from the lot area and lot width requirements"(Local Law No. 5-1973). The board members are familiar with the sites in question as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Also, the board members have considered the testimony and documentation submitted during the public hearing both in support and in opposition to this appli- cation. DATED: September ll, Fo~ ZB4 (rev. 12/81) 1984. HAIP~VlAN, SO~NI~G BOARD OF APPEALS ~ Pa~e 2 - Appeal No. 3232 Matter of BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER Decision Rendered August 14, 1984 Article III, Section lO0-31 of the Zoning Code allows setbacks in this "A" Residential and Agricultural District for lots contain- ing less than 40,000 sq. ft. in area as follows: (a) minimum sideyard 10 feet; (b) minimum total sideyards 25 feet. By this application, a variance is required to allow a setback of 5.7 feet from the wooden deck from the southwesterly property line of Lot 16 and total sideyards of 13.1 (21.2 feet exclusive of deck), as shown on the March 21, 1984 survey. Applicant has requested in the application total sideyards of 16.40 feet, which does not include the stoop 4.8' reduction. The wooden deck is located within inches from the cottage/garage structure for which a build- ing permit has not been obtained and is required. It is the opinion of the board that although sufficient evidence has been presented for an intepretation as to the valid nonconforming use and setback of the principal cottage/garage structure, the applicants have not shown that they would suffer "significant economic injury" by the application of the area standard for the insufficient sideyard setback reductions for the wooden deck as exists, and the evidence supplied is not sufficient to warrant the sideyard relief as requested. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 15' setback, or that established which is 13.8 (stoops exclusive) feet. The relief requested is substantial, being 60% of the requirements. An insufficient setback of nine feet would be less substantial, approximately 30% of a variance, and which the board feels sufficient under the circumstances. Also, the applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to warrant approval of the reduc- tion of the livable area of the structure to less than the required 850 sq. ft. in a conversion to a one-family dwelling; and accordingly, that relief cannot be granted as applied. It is also the interpretation of this board that the structure referred to as "cottage and garage" was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning in 1957, that the one-story building in question was and has been used, although on a seasonal basis, as sleeping quarters since prior to the enactment of zoning, its use for sleep- ing quarters is validly nonconforming and the building as exists without the deck is a valid nonconforming structure. This inter- pretation is based on the evidence and testimony submitted in the record. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that: (1) that the one-story building in question was and has been used as sleeping quarters since prior to the enactment of zoning and therefore this board interprets its use for sleeping quarters to be a valid preexisting, nonconforming use; (2) that the one-story building in question was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning and therefore this board interprets same to be a valid preexisting "Structure"; (3) that the deck in question is in fact within inches from the subject building and is not accessory but is interpreted to be a part of the principal structure, and that the applicant has not shown "unnecessary hardship" or"practical difficulties" sufficient to warrant the granting of the sideyard reduction and therefore the reduction of the deck to less than nine feet from the side property line is not granted; (4) that the use of the one-story building as a one-family residence is questionable and therefore is interpreted not to be a Pa§e 3 - Appeal No. 3232 Matter of BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER Decision Rendered August 14, 1984 valid preexisting, nonconforming use; and this structure with a reduction to 500 sq. one-family dwelling use is not granted. accordingly, the use of ft. of livable area for Location of Property: MacDonald's Path off Peconic Bay Boule- vard, Laurel; Edgemere Park, Lots 15, 16, 17 and 18; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-145-4-014. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. GG:lk RECEIVED AND ' Town Ci*,r~ 'q,~n o[ ~outhol8 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of Southold, a Regular Meeting and the following public hearings will be held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on Thursday, MaS 17, 1984, commencing at 7:30 p.m. and as follows: 7:35 p.m. Application of VINCENT GRIFFO, 280 Basin Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory building in an area other than the rear yard, at 280 Basin Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-081-01-019. 7:40 p.m. Application of JAMES ANDERSON, 16 Waverly Place, New York, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section lO0-118(D) for permission to use of building in this B-1 Business (a/k/a Linden Ave.), Cutchogue, NY; 1000-109-03-008. reinstate nonconforming dwelling District, 300 Moore's Lane County Tax Map Parcel No. 7:45 p.m. Application for JOHN WICKHAM, by Wickham, Wickham and Bressler, P.C., Main Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60 for permission to use premises as a business office for marine contracting, with accessory use for storage and repair of contractor's own at 67576 Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax vehicles and equipment, Map Parcel No. 1000-052-05-058. 7:50 p.m. Application of JOSE V. RODRIGUEZ, Box ll3, Fishers Island, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Sections lO0-70(A) and lO0-71, for permission to construct dwelling in this B-1 Business District. Location of Property: West Side of Fox Lane, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-012-01- 001.002. 8:00 p.m. Application of JOSEPH FISCHETTI, Hobart Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section lO0-50(C)[1] for permission to erect sign with less than four-foot clearance from ground, at 52800 C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-051-05-002. 8:05 p.m. Application of ROBIN E. CARR, 811 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct inground swimmingpool in the sideyard area, at 315 Brown Street, Greenport, NY; County Pag~ 2 - Legal Notice~'f Hearings So~thol'd Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of May 17, 1984 Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-048-03-042.3. 8:10 p.m. Application of ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, III, Box lll2, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section lO0-60(C) for permission to erect sign with insufficient setback from the front (street) property line, at North Side of Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-061-02-07 and part of 05. 8:15 p.m. R.F. Lark, Esq., Zoning Ordinance, construct office Application for GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL, INC. by Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Article IX, Section 100-93 for permission to building with an insufficient frontyard setback, at 1515 Youngs Avenue, Southold, NY ("C-l" General Industrial Zone); County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-60-1-6. 8:25 p.m. Application for GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL, INC. by R.F. Lark, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Sections!lO0-90, lO0-91, and Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B) for permission to construct office and storage building in this "C-l" General Industrial District, at 1515 Youngs Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-60-1-6. 8:35 p.m. Application for GERTRUDE Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to Article III, Section 100-32 for permission which places accessory storage building in Location of Property: County Tax Map Parcel M. ALI by R.F. Lark, Esq., the Zoning Ordinance, to construct new dwelling the frontyard area. South Side of East Road, Cutchogue, NY; No. 1000-110-07-018. 8:45 p.m. Application for KATHRINE FARR by S.S. Corwin, Esq., 634 First Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Sections lO0-80(B) and 100-81, for permission to construct building for marina office in this "C-Light Industrial" District, at 1100 Manhanset Avenue, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-034-05-021. 8:55 p.m. Application for KATHRINE FARR by S.S. Corwin, Esq., First Street, Greenport, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Sections lO0-80(B) and 100-81 for permission to construct building for marina and brokerage office use in this "C-Light Industrial" District, at llO0 Manhanset Avenue, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. llO0 Manhanset Avenue, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-034-05-021. 9:00 p.m. Application of KEVIN AND LESLEY MILOWSKI, Box 134, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to New York Town Law, Article 16, Section 280A, for approval of access over a private right-of-way at ~Pa~e'3 - Legal Notice~mm~ Hearings Southol'd Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of May 17, 1984 the west side of Cox Neck Road, Mattituck, NY; (now or formerly W. Chudiak); County Tax Map Parcel No. lO00-113-7~part of 12. x~ 9:05D T w p.m. Application for ~ERTRA~M AN~D MARGER~Y WAILKE~R, by R.T. Haefeli, Esq., Box 757, Riverhead, NY for a Variance to the / Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for: (a) an inter- pretation that the existing cottage and garage are valid preexisting, nonconforming uses and structures; (b) approval of a wooden deck as an accessory structure in the sideyard; (~ approval of a reduc-/ tion of livable floor area of a proposed dwelling conversion to 500 sq. ft. and approval of insufficient sideyards. Premises located at Edge~ere MacDonald's Path off Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; County Tax Map No. 1000-145-4~4. Persons having an interest in any of the above matters may appear and be heard at the time and place specified above. For additional information, please contact our office, 765-1809 (or 765-1802). Dated: May 4, 1984. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Park, NOTICE TO NEWSPAPERS: Please publish once, to wit: May 10, 1984 and forward 14 affidavits of publication to: Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971; (516) 765-1809, on or before May 15, 1984. Copies to the following May 7, 1984: S.J. Perricone for V. Griffo Mr. V. Griffo Mr. James R. Anderson A.A. Wickham, Esq. for John Wickham R.F. Lark, Esq. for J.V. Rodriguez for Goldsmith & Tuthill for G.M. Ali Mr. Jose Rodriguez Mr. Joseph. Fischetti Mr. Robin E. Carr Mr. Robert W. Gillispie III S. S. Corwin, Esq. for Kathrine Farr Mrs. Kathrine Farr Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Milowski R.T. Haefeli, Esq. for Mr. and Mrs. B. Walker Mr. and Mrs. Bertram Walker L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. Supervisor Suffolk Times, Inc. Town Board Planning Board Town Attorney Building Inspectors FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT ToWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL File No ................................ To . .~...~.¢'~Ay~.''~.'~A4~. · .~..a,~ .... .qS..*..~. ~ ~ ............. .~~.~ ~..~. ~.~ .... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated..~ .~. for pe~it to construct .... ~ ~ ~. ~ ~.~ ................................ at Location of Property ~s~ ~o] ......... ' ~' ~ ....... ~$e~ ' [ ~ ....... ti Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ... ]. ~ ..... Block ..... Subdivision ~g ~ ~k~ .~ ~ FUed Map No ..... ~.q~ ..... Lot No. is returned herewith and disapproved on the follow~g grounds. ~ .~ .... ~ .~.. .... ....... m~~..t.~o .... ~. ~..~.. A~&..~.*.~,... Building Inspector RV 1/80 'FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL ~OUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 765-1802 xamined ................. 19... Received ........... ,19... 4~proved ................. 19 . . . Permit No ............ ~isapproved a/c ..................................... (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date...~.~...~ .... 19 ~.~. INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 3 ~ts of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets r areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli- ~tion. 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 permit mil be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy mil have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the uilding Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or egulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described. he applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building col;ge, housing code, and~egulation.s, and,to 1mit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary i$~ion~ ~/ ___,/ ,~//] // (Signature of applicant, or name, if a corporatgon) (Mailing address of applicant) / 4ate whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. ................................................................................ ~a nc of owner o remises ·. .' ................................. (as on the tax roll or latest deed) £ applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No .......................... Plumber's License No ......................... Electrician's License No ....................... Other Trade s License No ...................... Location of land on which proposed work will be done...~..d7 .~.~.../..c~...?./~/~f...//~....~.q~g~. <~, ~'~'.. ~ ... ....... ..................................... House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section J .~ ~ Block .~ Lot .Z~Tff~./~. Subdivision .~~W~7.. ~ ........... Filed Map No. ~ ........ Lot ./~ .......... (Name) State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy .- ~ ~~. b. Intended use and occupancy ... · · · ',. Nature of work (check which apl~ New Building ..... ' ..... Additio~ ........ Alteratio!L .......... Repair .... : ......... Removal .............. Demolition .............. Other Work...~...~. ¢6.../~. .... · (Description) Estimated Cost ~5~g') .~./~/~.~ ..................... Fee ...................................... °" (to be paid on filing this application) · If dwelling, number of dwelling units ............... Number of dwelling units on each floor ................ If garage, number of cars ........................................................................ If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ..................... · Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front ............... Rear .............. Depth ............... Height ............... Number of Stories ........................................................ Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ................. Rear .................. Depth ...................... Height ...................... Number of Stories ...................... Dimensions of entire new construction: Front ............... Rear ............... Depth ............... Height ............... Number of Stories ........................................................ ~. Size of lot: Front ...................... Rear ...................... Depth ...................... ). Date of Purchase ............................. Name of Former Owner ............................. Zone or use district in which premises are situated ..................................................... ~. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: .............. . .................. · Will lot be re raded Will excess fill be removed from premises: Yes~ No i. Name of Owner of premises 1~.~. ~/'Z.",z~Ld"~6g'... Address ,~-:ff'./~'.,42.~..Z': ...... Phone No. ~,'/'~ .d~'.. ~/,'~. ~ · · Name of Architect ........ .5'.,q~.~ ............ Address .. ,~ff,~')q .~3 ......... Phone No ................ Name of Contractor ....... ,,q,,q,-,~.~rT. ...........Address .. ~%Sz, r'~ ~. ......... Phone No ................ PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and indicate all set-back dimensions from ~operty lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether :terior or comer lot. ;'FATE OF NEW YORK, S.S ;OUI4TY OF ............ ,,..~. · . ~. ~-~/~.., .~..~'~.. ~..,-/.~?..~....~. .............. being (Name of individual signing contract) bore named. 'that he is thff-applicant (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this ,pplication; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the york will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. 5wom to before me this ............ &. ~L: ...... day of.. :~.3T/. a~¢~. ........ , 19 .o?.~/ Notary Public, · .~g...~. · ~ D-6' t&-~ County . .~~ ~,,, .,, .. (Signature of,~plicant) RECEIVED 1984 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APP~ I~N~mI~JSION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. ',,3~,..~o~,,/ DATE ,.~..~.~..,...~.984 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, N. Y. [~ (we) .B~.P, TAA~..~..ZA~,Og~Y...~ALKg~ ...... af ....(~.9...JD.....P..e...c..°..n..i..c.....B...a.Y.....B..Z...v..d..: ................ Name of Appellant Street and Number ...... · .M.a..t..,t.,i..t.u..c..k..; ................................................................ ..N..e...w....Y...°...r,.k..;.....HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION DATED: 3/16/84 FOR: Addition WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) (x~ Bertram Walker Name of Applicant for permit of ...Q'~.o....JD....~..e.c..gnic Baz. B.kv...d.,....~a...t..t...i..t...u..c.k.., Ne~ ¥or.k ..................... Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( ) PERMIT TO BUILD 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY .Mq~q~A~d.~'~A~a`~1~*~.~.~d.~`~e~m~e~e~?..~a.~..k~.~.~.u~.'~ - A Street ~ Hamlet Zone ..k0.gp./.%.~/..4. f. L4.. ................ , ............................. O~ER (s): P,eAt. r..a.m.A..~.a.rj~e, .=n .W.a.%.k.er Map No. Lot No. DATE PURCHASED: .J..u.n.e.,..1~.7.~ ........ 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article III , Section 100-31 (Bulk Schedule) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (x) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (JK~t(has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property, Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (×) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance (x) An interpretation is requested~~xJ~x~~x SEE RIDER ANNEXED Form ZB! (Continue on other side) RIDER TO APPLICATION The applicant requests the following: 1. An interpretation that the one-story cottage and garage was used as a residence prior to April, 1957, the effective date of zoning in the Town and therefore consti- tutes a valid pre-existing, non-conforming use. 2. An interpretation that the structure in ques- tion was constructed prior to April, 1957 and therefore con- stitutes a valid pre-existing structure. conversion of and garage: That the following variances be granted for the the structure into a one-story frame cottage 9 feet; to ~z feet; feet to 500 (a) Reduction of one side yard from 10 feet to (b) Reduction of both side yards from 25 feet (c) Reduction of livable area from 850 square square feet; (d) Permit a wooden deck as an accessory structure in a side yard. Pursuant to Section 100-12 of the Code, Lot 16, on which the cottage is located, is considered a separate lot and does not have to meet the lot area or 1pt width require- ments of the Code. In view of the narrow width of the lot and the fact that the structure in question has been located at the same place on the lot since prior to the effecitve date of zoning, the applicants have a practical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship in convertint the structure to a dwelling. The structure cannot be placed in a conforming location anywhere on the lot. The requested variances are not substantial and are similar to the reduced set backs of the other houses in the area and therefore the character of the area will not be ad- versely affected by the granting of the relief requested. · RE~SON FOR APPEAL Continued ; 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties 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 CtlARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) Sworntothis ................... ..'~...~.. ................. day of .................... ~.~h ........................ 1984 ............ ~..-;~//'....~Z'. ~i~notur~",""~'', .................. ......, ..... M2kRGERY WALKER RICHARD T. HAEFELI No. 52.1618207. Suffolk Co~j~,~;~' Term F.~T)irO$ March 30. 19.~.~.~ /oo~ -/¢.c- ,¢-/4 TOWN OWNER FORMER OWNER OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD STREET VILLAGE LAND W j COMM. CB. MISC. CARD SEAS. FARM DATE REMARKS FARM Tillable 1 VL IMP. , TOTAL BUILDING CONDITION NORMAL ! BELOW ABOVE ] Value Per Value Ac re Tillable 2 Tillable 3 ~Voodland ~wampland Brushland ' 4ouse Plot TYPE OF B~ILDING Mkt. Value---: :~"~"~~-' ~" FRONTAGE ON WATER FRONTAGE ON ROAD DEPTH - Total BULKHEAD COLOR TRIM M. Bldg. ! //' ? 3~- ,,~,~Ot/ ,Foundetion ~ ~ Bath ~tension ~ >~; ?;~. ~.~' ~Z~o'jBese~ent /~'~ Fl*rs O~-/( K. ~tension I~ / ~' ~ [Ext. Wails y ~-~Z, Interior Finish )2~,t~ LR. xtensl~ ~ ~,,~, _ Heat /~,c~~q~f / -~ ~ / ~ = I ¢~ A~ ~ ~Type Roof ~ ~/~ Rooms Ist Floor BR. ~/~ /~ecreation Roo~ Rooms 2nd FI~ FIN. B. Porch j ~ ormer ~y ~ ~F~ ~O = .~~ ~o~ ~ ~( Driveway ~,C~ _ _ O.B. BRUSH'S CREEK N.87°42' 10.78' -- ~J r~ N.67o34'30"W II .76' N. 16°47'30"W. 13.83' N.81o38'OO"W 18.51' N. 3,3°17'40"W. I 0.00' L~ot 18 NOTE;a:MONUMENT ~=STAKE i 106.97' LINE Porce Aree = 16,857 S. 51o07'00"W Lot 14 .. SUBDIVISION MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUFFOLK COUNTY ON JULY 2, ~931 AS FILE NO. 74~. ALONG WOOD 159.93' -- ---~ A sq, ft Sm 48o38'50"E. 6, 78' $8.8' Lot 17 SPLIT RAIL FENCE Lot 13 Lot 16 Porcel B Areo : 16_,1 18 sq ft. Lot 15 / 0 50.00' R :15.98' L: 24.09' 194.18' I T= 15.00' -o ~ "ROADWAY" Lot 12 SURVEY FOR BERTRAM W WALKER ~ MARGERY M. WALKER LOTS 15 THRU 18, "MAP OF EDGEMERE PARK" MAR. 21, 1984 APR. 20, i983 SEPI~ ~, 1981 AT LAUREL DATE ~ FEi). 9, 1978 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCALE: I"= 30' SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK NO. : 78-22 *U.AUTHO.,ZED ALT.AT,O. O. AOG,T,ON TO T..S SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OETHE .Ew YON. STATE EOUCAT, ON LAW. / ~ COPIES OF THIS SURVEY NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYOR IS IN EEO SEAL OR E MSOSSEO SEAL SHALL .oT DE CO.SIGE.EOTO SEA VAL,O TRUE CO. ~GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED, AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY, GOVERN- MENTAL AGENCYANO LENDING iNSTITUTiON LISTED HEREON,AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEQUENT OWNERS. TO EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PROPERTY LINES OR FOR THE ERECTION OF FENCES. RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK ALDEN W YOUNG,PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND LAND SURVEYOR N.Y.S. LICENSE N0.12845 HOWARD W. YOUNG, LAND SURVEYOR NY.S. LICENSE N0.45893 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BERTRAM W. WALKER, : Petitioner, : - against : GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, : Respondent. : Before : HO~. PAUL T. D'A/4ARO Supreme Court Judge App e a r a n c e s : May 7, 1986 Riverhead, New York McNULTY, DiPIETRO & HAEFELI Attorneys for Petitioner 130 Ostrander Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 BY: JAF~S SPIESS, ESQ. SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, CRIF~INS & YAKABOSKI Attorneys for Respondent 456 Grilling Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 BY: FRANCIS J. YAKABOSKI, ESQ. Stephen G. DeFoto, R.P.R. Official Court Reporter * * * 2 THE COURT: All right. The facts in this particular case are relatively undisputed. I don't think there is any serious conflict with respect to the method in which service was effected here or attempted to be effected. All right. in fact, purposes Now, Mrs. Akscin did, go to the Town Hall for the of effecting service with respect to the papers that were involved in this litigation, specifically, for the purposes of effecting service on Linda Kowalski who was, in fact, the secretary of the Board of Appeals. She did, in fact, see Mrs. Kowalski on the premises and there was some sort of an acknowledgment. Whether it was a wave or what it was, it was not-- it is not really important but some sort of acknowledgment on the part of Mrs. Kowalski that she was there. She then sat down and, apparently, at some point, after waiting for approximately 15 minutes, she was either approached or she approached 3 Mrs. DeVoe and the Court fails to see that there is any great significance as to who approached whom. In any event, the papers ended up in the hands of Mrs. DeVoe with the under- standing that Mrs. DeVoe would, in fact, deliver those papers to Mrs. Kowalski. Now, I don't think that there is any real dispute as to those facts. The only case that has been presented by Counsel, which seems to support the Petitioner's position, namely: That there was, in fact, effective service, is the Shedlin case, which frankly, seems to be the case that's gone far afield from the requirements of the strick compliance with the requirements of the statute, as any case that at least I have looked at up to this point in time, and one of the fundamental requirements, even in that case, was that there must be a good faith effort made to effect service. Now, I understand that we are dealing with a person here who is not a professional 4 process server and may have not been particularly familiar with all the nuances and requirements with respect to service but this Court can not find that there was a good faith effort to effect service if, in fact, the process server who is waiting there knew that the person to be served was, in fact, present and decided for best reasons, best reasons known to herself, whether she became impatient, whatever the reasons, to leave them with someone else, if for the purposes of effecting service, so that under those circumstances even that criteria set forth in Shedlin, which certainly seems to be the furthest extension of the general requirements, with. have been complied So, for the foregoing reasons the Court is making a determination at this time that there has been no effective service granted. and the motion to dismiss is Please submit an Order. going to return your papers, 5 Counsel, and I believe these are Petitioner's papers. I believe these are Respondent's papers. ~CERTIFICATION is hereby given that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcription of my stenographic notes in the above-named matter. / ,.__ ~'1/ STEPHEN G. DeFOTO, R.P.R. official Court Reporter TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N. Y., Dr. To....s..~...~..,.. ~ ~ .~....~.,..=~!~.q,..c. ~.~.!~.~...~.. Claimant 456 Griffing Avenue, P.O. Box 389 Address.~.~?..~.??J:..~.!°.F~ ...... .~?..~. ................ : ..... i ............. ~. Fed. I, D. No...,1..1. T.,1.9..9.T,.3..7..3.,7. ............ TOWN OF SOU2HOLD ZQNING BOARD adv. WADE or Soc. Security No ......................... For services rendered from June 12, 1985 through 6892 October 15, 1985, rega/ding defense of Article 78 ~_o ~c~ding b~rou~ght against the Zonin~ Board of review of t~tition; preparation of return and answer- 0~ L~; rcvzew of. zntervent_ionpapers; revmew of nne courn' s Gec~slon~ toLaillnq- £~. D parnner .hours and 7.7 paralegal hours $1,918 50 The undersigned :N3Act59~iEX(Actin, g on behalf of above named Claimant) does hereby certify that the (Cross out onel foregoing claim is true and correct and that no part thereof has been paid, except as therein stated, and that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing. Dated ....... . .. hlo.~..~'~r..8.~ ............19.B5 ....... FRANCISCO. YAKABOSKI Riverhead 'N V November 8, ~o 85 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N. Y., Dr. TO SMITH, FINKELSTE]LNr LUNDBERG, ~S AND YAKABOSKI ~1,:~,.~ 456 Griffing Avenue, P.O. Box 389 ~' Address .......... r~d,. ~. ×o~....~9~.~ ............................... Fed. I. D. No. 11-199-3737 WALKER, B~'RAM & MARSE~f V. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS or Soc'. Security No ........................ For servioes rendered frcm October 11, 1984 through 66948 September 20, 1985 in defense of Article 78 prooeedi] including review of the matter; pret~Lratmon o~. a~2l- davits for zoning men6ers and secrenary regarding lack of service; preparation of attorney af~zznnatzon ~n~ m~t~n~ ~a~ to dismiss the p~Qceedinq; arrang~t$. ~or traverse he~r_ing ~n~d adjournments ~a~e znc±uo~n~ an~earances at ~pecLa± Term~ prepara- tion for t~verse hearing includinq conferences with ~tn~ses and attendance at Judqe D'Amaro's part~ totalling 12.2 partner hours and . 6 associate hours $1,573 00 DISBURSEMENTS: Suffolk Cotmty Lawyer Service $32.00 photocopies 3.90 35 90 TCr2AL: $1,608.90 The undersigned (]~(Acting on behalf of above named Claimant) does hereby certify that the (Cross out one) foregoing claim is true and correct and that no part thereof has been paid, except as therein stated, and that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing. .......... ..N.q~..r...8..¢ ............. 19...8..5. ...... Dated FPJ~NCIS J. YAKABOSKI 10/10/84 12:10 Linda: _This~:as-h~ougb~t-in-by-Mrs--Ak£in, she sai_d shoe_was d~'live~inr~ it, for Mroo. _~la.iker__and_~he _as]cad ~__t~ ..... gi. ve -& ~-to-.you, - ........... ........................................ 78 : NOTICE Index ,on the annex( on October ~ application ~ 't I, at the { SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SU~LK In the Matter of the Application of BE~/RAM W. W;J_KER and MARGERY WALKER, Petitioners, against C~i~RD P. ~OEHRINGER, et. al., const±tuting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Southold, Respondents. lndexNo. 84-24078 Calendar No. JUDICIAL SUBPOENA eople of 'ew TOL~A K~, a/k/a L~ ~E: GREETING: WE COMMAND YOU, That all business and excuses being 1afd aside, you and each of you appear and attend before the H~OP&~ PA~ T. D'~PD, o~e o~ the~J~t~ces of the Supr~ ~t at the ~th~e th~eof, lo~ted at 145 ~iff~ Av~, ~verh~d, N~ York, ' on the 7th day of ~Y I9 86 at 9:30 o'clock, in the fore noon, and at any ~ecessed or adjourned date to give testimony in this action on the part of the Petitions. Failure to comply with this subpoena is punishable as a contempt of Court and shall make you liab]e to the person on whose behalf this subpoena was fsau ed for a penalty not to exceed t~fty dollars and all dam- ages sustained by reason of your failure to comply. WITNESS, Honorable PAUL T. D'AMARO, one of the Justices of said Court, at Riverhead, New York the 5th day of May, 1986 Mc/qULTY & DiPIE~'gO, ESQS. Attorney(s)ior Petitioners O~Wce and Post OfiSce Address 130 Ostrander Avenne - P.O. Box 757 Riverhead, New York 11901 Telephone: (516) 727-8200 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Index No. 84-24078 SUPREI~ COURT COUNTY OF SUFkl.)[K In the Matter of the Application of BERTRAM W. WAIKER & MARGERY WALKER, Petitioners, GERARD P. GOE~GER, et al., con- stitnating the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Southold, Respondents. Judicial Subpoena McNULTY & DiPIETRO Attorney(s) for Petitioners Ott~ce and Post 0ttJce Address 130 Ostrander Avenue P.O. Box 757 Riverhead, New York 11901 Telephone: (516) 727-8200 ~] SERVI(;E ON CORPORATION a corporation, tile witness therein of said cor- It is stipulated that the undersigned witness is excused from attending at the time herein provided or at any adjourned date but agrees to remain subject to, and attend upon, the call of the undersigned attorney. Dated: ................................ Witness A ttorney(s) for ~0/10/84 12:10 Linda: ~TK£s~aa- hr_ough_t_in_by_~Mns.~-Aksin~ -- she sgi_d___she w_as~_d, el_ive~ring it for Mrs.~3~@]ke~_and_she__asked me to -gi-ve-4 t~bc~-y ~ u-, : NOTICE : Index 78 · ,on the annex( on October application % 't I, at the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of the Application of BERTRAM W. WALKER and ~LL.~JC.~iE M. W KER, Petitioner, -against- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., SERGE DOYEN, JR., ROBERT J. DOUGLAS and JOSEPH A. SAWICKI, constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Southold, Respondents. For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules NOTICE OF PETITION Index Number SIRSz PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Petition of~M. WALKER, duly verified on October 9, 1984, and upon the exhibits annexed hereto an application will be made to this Court at a Special Term, Part I, at the Courthouse thereof located at Grilling Avenue, Riverhead, New York on December 12, 1984, at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for an Judgment pursuant to Article 78, CPLR annulling and setting aside the determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Southold which determination denied that part of the Petitioners' application requesting an interpretation that a wooden deck detached from the main structure was an accessory structure, together with a variance for an accessory struc- ture in a side yard, and denial of the Petitioners' request that the structure in question was a pre-existing, non-con- forming dwelling, and/or a variance reducing the liveable area of said structure to 500 square feet on the grounds that the Respondents' action was illegal, unconstitutional, arbi- tary, capricious, discriminatory, and constituted an abuse of discretion and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that answering affidavits, if any, must be served upon the undersigned within five (5) days of the return date of this Petition. DATED: October 9, 1984. Yours etc., McNULTY, DiPIETRO & HAEFELI, Attorneys for Petitioner Office & Post Office Address: 130 Ostrander Avenue P. O. Box 757 Riverhead, New York 11901 Telephone: 516-727-8200 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of the Application of BERTRAM W. WALKER and !~AL3 _iE M. WALKER, ,~ ~ Petitioner, -against- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., SERGE DOYEN, JR., ROBERT J. DOUGLAS and JOSEPH A. SAWICKI, constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Southold, Respondents. For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules PETITION Petitioners, by ~ M. WALKER, as and for their Petition, respectully allege: 1. Petitioners are residents of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York. 2. Petitioners are the owners of Lots 15 through 18, Map of Edgemere Park, which map was filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk on July 2, 1931, as Map No. 742. (Annexed hereto, made a part hereof and marked EXHIBIT A is a true and exact copy of the survey of the property owned by the Petitioners.) 3. The Respondents are the duly constituted Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Southold. 4. The Petitioners made an application to the Respondents requesting a number of variances with respect to 16. Hearings were held on May 17, 1984, and June Lots 15 and 5. 21,1984. 6. The Respondents granted part of the requests of the Petitioners but did not request all of the requests of the Petitioners. 7. Specifically, the Respondents did not grant the Petitioners a redDction in the liveable floor area of the one-story dwelling located on Lot 16 to 500 square feet. 8. The Respondents failed to grant some of the requested variances and/or interpretations of the Petitioners, specifically the following: (a) The structure located on Lot 16 was a valid pre-existing, non-conforming dwelling; (b) In the alternative, that the Petitioners be granted a variance in the livealbe floor area of the dwelling from 800 square feet to 500 square feet; (c) The wooden deck was detached from the main dwelling and therefore was an accessory structure; (d) A variance permitting the wooden deck to be located in the side yard. (Annexed hereto, made a part hereof and marked EXHIBIT B is a true and exact copy of Petitioners' application). 9. The Respondents rendered their determination in writing dated September 11, 1984. (Annexed hereto, made a part hereof and marked EXHIBIT C is a true and exact copy of the determination of the Respodents.) 10. The determination of the Respondents to the extent that it is appealed by the Petitioners herein was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and was not based upon substantial evidence. 11.- As a result thereof, the determination of the Respondents to the extent that it is being appealed herein by the Petitioners should be reversed and the Court should direct that the Petitioners are entitled to maintain the one- story cottage and garage on Lot 16 as a valid, pre-existing, non-conforming dwelling and/or in the alternative, that the requested variances to permit same to be used as a one-family residential dwelling be granted by reducing the liveable floor area from 800 square feet to 500 square feet; the pres- ent interpretation that the wooden deck is an accessory structure be granted; and that the variance be granted per- mitting the wooden deck in the side yard. WHEREFORE, the Petitioners request that a judgment be entered anulling and setting aside the determination of the Respondents and rendering a determination that the struc- ture located on Lot 16 is a valid, pre-existing dwelling and/or in the alternative, granting the Petitioners a reduc- tion in the liveable area for a one-family dwelling from 800 square feet to 500 square feet; granting to the Petitioners an interpretation that the deck is an accessory structure; granting to the Petitioners a variance to permit said access- ory structure to remain in the side yard and for such other to this Court may seem just and and further relief as proper. ~ M. WALKER, Petitioner STATE OF NEW YORK)' COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Verification ~RJORIE M. WALKER, being duly sworn, deposes and says: deponent is one of the Petitioners in the within action; deponent has read the foregoing Petition, and knows the contents thereof; the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged and as to those matters deponent on information and belief, believes it to be true. Sworn to before me this WALKER 9th day of October, /J NOTARY PUBLIC 1984. JOHN R. McNULT¥ Notary Public, State of New Yo~'ll No. 52-2637425. Suffolk Count/ / Commission EXpires 64arch 30, 19_~ BRUSH~ CREEK Parce I A 5296' Lot 14 "ROADWAY" YOUNG ~YOUNG .O00STRA.O~.AVE..E RIVERH£AD ~ NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. D~TE ..~'[i~T, ch..~.~.....~984 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, N. Y. ~ (we) Z,~-~.,~,A~..,~..r,.~B.C,S~,¥..UA.t,K~-....of ..,,(~..q.,J~.).,.Le..,c.,q~.Lc.,...s.,,a~,..~.%.Y.~.: ................ Nome of Appellant Street and Number ...... ..H,.a.~.~..~..u..c...~..; ................................................................ ..~..e...w..,.¥.9.~...k:.,...,HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION DATED.' 3/16/84 FOR: Addition WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Bertram Walker Name of Applicant for permit o,f /j.~ p...~'D....~'.~;.q~!.q .. _s.~.x ..~.Lv..d., ..,~e~ %L ~_u.c.~.,... ~..e.~...Lo.~-.k.. ...................... Street and Number Municipality Store PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY PERMIT TO BUILD I. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY .MqPgO~.~...~.~,..~g~..~...~.~.,...~ - A ..~.qgP~.~/.4/.%~ ................ ~ ............................. o~,~R(s): P~A~.a~..A.~.rY.~%~Pr DATE PURCHASED: .~.~ ........ 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (indicate the Article Section, Sub* section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article III ~ Section 100-31 (Bulk Schedule) 3, TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is mode herewith for (~) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chop. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (l~Tr.(hos not) been mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for o variance and was mode in Appeal No ................................. Doted ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (x) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance (x) An interpretation is requested~x~:~g~K~~x.'l~dSa~xt~L~x SEE RIDER ANNEXED Form zsl (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because 2, The hardship createc~ is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike .in the immediate vicinity of this property and in thi~ use district because 3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE C~I^RACTER OF THE DISTRICT because STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOL~. ) Signature MARGERY WALKER Sworn to this .............................................. day of.,...... ............. ~[x3,3;.c,h ........................ 1984 ................. ............................. Southold Town Board of Appeals ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPE~S Appeal No. 3232 Application gated March 22, 1984 (Public Hearin9s May ]7, ]984 & June 2], ]984) TO: Richard T. 8aefeli, Esq. as attorney [Appellant(s)] for MR. AND MRS. BERTRAM WALKER 130 Ostrander Avenue, Box 757 Riverhead, NY ll901, At a Meeting of the Zoning BOard of Appeals held on August ]4, 1984, 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 [X] ' Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ~ticle III , Section 100-3l, and interpretati0ns~. · ..[ ] Request for ' .... ' " ' ..... ~[[3 Application for BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, by Richard T. Haefeli, Box 757, Riverhead, NY for a Variance to the Z6ning Ordinance, Article I~!J Section 100-31, for: (a) an interpretation that the existing cottage a~l garage are valid preexisting nonconforming uses and structures; (b) approval of a wooden deck as an accessory structure in the sideyard; approval of a reduction of liable floor area of a proposed dwelling con-)D) version to 500 sq. ft. and approval of insufficient sideyards. PremiseslKy located at Edgemere Park, MacDonald's Path of~ Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; County Tax Map No; 1000-145-4-014. This is an appeal to Article III, Section lO0-31 and Notice of Disapproval issued March 8, 1984 by the Building Inspector requestin§ the following: (a) an interpretation that the existing cottage'and garage are valid preexisting, nonconforming uses and structures; (b) approval of a wooden deck as an accessory structure in sideyard; (c) approval of a reduction of livable floor area of a proposed dwelling conversion to 500 sq. ft. and approval of insufficient sideyards. The premises in question is knownand referred to as Lots 15 through 18, "Map of Edgemere Park," filed July 2, 1931 as Map #742 in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk. Survey amended March 21, 1984 prepared by Young & Young for the applicants depicts the following: (a) Parcel A consisting of Lots 18 and 17 having an area of 16,857 sq. ft, and an existing one-family house set back 12.9 feet from the "roadway"and 13.2 feet from the northeasterly side property tine of Lot 17; (b) Parcel B consisting of Lots 16 and 15 having an area of 16,]18 sq. ft. existing one-story frame structure denoted "cottage and garage" set back 13.8' (exclusive of deck) from the southwesterly side property line of Lot 16, and 7.6' by 8' and 8.5' by 12.2' frame sheds along the northeasterly property line of Lot 15 and "roadway." For the record it is noted that "Edgemere Park" Subdivision Map is listed in Section 100-12 as "excepted from the lot area and lot width requirements"(Local Law No. 5-19731. The board members are familiar with the sites in question as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Also, the board members have considered the testimony and documentation submitted during the public hearing both in support and in opposition to this appli- cation. DATED: September ll, 1984. Fo~ ZB4 (rev. 12/81) HAIRMAN, SOU~OLD T0~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ~ RIDER TO APPLICATION The applicant requests the following: 1. An interpretation that the one-story cottage and garage was used as a residence prior to April, 1957, the effective date of zoning in the Town and therefore consti- tutes a valid pre-existing, non-conforming use. 2. An interpretation that the structure in ques- tion was constructed prior to April, 1957 and therefore con- stitutes a valid pre-existing structure. 3. That the following variances be granted for the conversion of the structure into a one-story frame cottage and garage: (a) 9 feet; (b) to 12 feet; (c) feet to 500 square Reduction of one side yard from 10 feet to Reduction of both side yards from 25 feet Reduction of livable area from 850 square feet; (d) Permit a wooden deck as an accessory structure in a side yard. Pursuant to Section 100-12 of the Code, Lot 16, on which the cottage is located, is considered a separate lot and does not have to meet the lot area or lot width require- ments of the Code. In view of the narrow width of the lot and the fact that the structure in question has been located at the same place on the lot since prior to the effecitve date of zoning, the applicants have a practical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship in convertint the structure to a dwelling. The structure cannot be placed in a conforming location anywhere on the lot. The requested variances are not substantial and are similar to the reduced set backs of the other houses in the area and therefore the character of the area will not be ad- versely affected by the granting of the relief requested. of BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER ~Decision Rendered August )4, 1984 Article III, Section lO0-31 of the Zoning Code allows setbacks in this "A" Residential and Agricultural District for lots contain- ing less than 40,000 sq. ft. in area as follows: {a) minimum sideyard l0 feet; (b) minimum total, sideyards 25 feet. By this application, a variance is required to allow a setback of 5.7 feet. from the wooden deck from the southwesterly property line of Lot 16 and total sideyards of 13.1 {21.2 feet exclusive of deck), as shown on the March 21, 1984 survey. Applicant has requested in the application total sideyards of 16.40 feet, which does not include the stoop 4.8' reduction. The wooden deck is located within inches from the cottage/garage structure for which a build- ing permit has not been obtained and is required. It is the opinion of the board that although sufficient evidence has been presented for an intepretation as to the valid nonconforming use and setback of the principal cottage/garage structure, the applicants have not shown that they would suffer "significant economic injury" by the application of the area standard for the insufficient sideyard setback reductions for the wooden deck as exists, and the evidence supplied is not sufficient to warrant the sideyard relief as requested. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 15' setback, or that established which is 13.8 (stoops exclusive) feet. The relief requested is substantial, being 60% of the requirements. An insufficient setback of nine feet would be less substantial, approximately 30% of a variance, and which the board feels sufficient under the circumstances. Also, the applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to warrant approval of the reduc- ' tion of the livable area of the structure to less than the required 850 sq. ft. in a conversion to a one-family dwelling; and accordingly, that relief cannot be granted as applied. It is also the interpretation of this board that the structure referred to as "cottage and garage" was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning in 1957, that the one-story building in question was and has been used, although on a seasonal basis, as sleeping quarters since prior to the enactment of zoning, its use for sleep- lng quarters is validly nonconforming and the building as exists without the deck is a valid nonconforming structure. This inter-. pretation is based on the evidence and testimony submitted in the record. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that; (1) that the one-story building in question was and has been used as sleeping quarters since prior to the enactment of zoning and therefore this board interprets its use for sleeping quarters to be a valid preexisting, nonconforming use;. {2) that the one-story building in question was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning and therefore this board interprets same to be a valid preexisting "structure"; (3) that the deck in question is in fact within inches from the subject building and is not accessory but is interpreted to be a part of the principal structure, and that the applicant has not shown "unnecessary hardship" or"practical difficulties" sufficient to warrant the granting of the sideyard reduction and therefore the reduction of the deck to less than nine feet from the side property line is not granted; {4) that the use of the one-story building as a one-family residence is questionable and therefore is interpreted not to be a SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of the Application of BERTRAM W. WALKER and ~LL?.-*C.~.i.". M. WALKER, Petitioner, -against- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., SERGE DOYEN, JR., ROBERT J. DOUGLAS and JOSEPH A. SAWICKI, constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Southold, Respondents. For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules NOTICE OF PETITION Index Number SIRSz PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Petition of ~AF~3ORIW M. WALKER, duly verified on October 9, 1984, and upon the exhibits annexed hereto an application will be made to this Court at a Special Term, Part I, at the Courthouse thereof located at Grilling Avenue, Riverhead, New York on December 12, 1984, at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for an Judgment pursuant to Article 78, CPLR annulling and setting aside the determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Southold which determination denied that part of the Petitioners' application requesting an interpretation that a wooden deck detached from the main structure was an accessory structure, together with a variance for an accessory struc- ture in a side yard, and denial of the Petitioners' request that the structure in question was a pre-existing, non-con- forming dwelling, and/or a variance reducing the liveable area of said s~ructure to 500 square feet on the grounds that the Respondents' action was illegal, unconstitutional, arbi- tary, capricious, discriminatory, and constituted an abuse of discretion and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that answering affidavits, if any, must be served upon the undersigned within five (5) days of the return date of this Petition. DATED: October 9, 1984. Yours etc., McNULTY, DiPIETRO & HAEFELI, Attorneys for Petitioner Office & Post Office Address: 130 Ostrander Avenue P. O. Box 757 Riverhead, New York 11901 Telephone: 516-727-8200 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of the Application of BERTRAM W. WALKER and-~E M. WALKER, /~ f~5~ Petitioner, -against- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., SERGE DOYEN, JR., ROBERT J. DOUGLAS and JOSEPH A. SAWICKI, constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Southold, Respondents. For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules Petitioners, by ~ M. WALKER, PETITION as and for their Petition, respectully allege: 1. Petitioners are residents of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York. 2. Petitioners are the owners of Lots 15 through 18, Map of Edgemere Park, which map was filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk on July 2, 1931, as Map No. 742. (Annexed hereto, made a part hereof and marked EXHIBIT A is a true and exact copy of the survey of the property owned by the Petitioners.) 3. The Respondents are the duly constituted Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Southold. Respondents Lots 15 and 16. 5. Hearings were held on May 17, 1984, 21,1984. The Petitioners made an application to the requesting a number of variances with respect to and June 6. The Respondents granted part of the requests of the Petitioners but did not request all of the requests of the Petitioners. 7. Specifically, the Respondents did not grant the Petitioners a reduction in the liveable floor area of the one-story dwelling located on Lot 16 to 500 square feet. 8. The Respondents failed to grant some of the requested variances and/or interpretations of the Petitioners, specifically the following: (a) The structure located on Lot 16 was a valid pre-existing, non-conforming dwelling; (b) In the alternative, that the Petitioners be granted a variance in the livealbe floor area of the dwelling from 800 square feet to 500 square feet; (c) The wooden deck was detached from the main dwelling and therefore was an accessory structure; (d) A variance permitting the wooden deck to be located in the side yard. (Annexed hereto, made a part hereof and marked EXHIBIT B is a true and exact copy of Petitioners' application). 9. The Respondents rendered their determination in writing dated September 11, 1984. (Annexed hereto, made a part hereof and marked EXHIBIT C is a true and exact copy of the determination of the Respodents.) 10. The determination of the Respondents to the extent that it is appealed by the Petitioners herein was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and was not based upon substantial evidence. 11.- As a result thereof, the determination of the Respondents to the extent that it is being appealed herein by the Petitioners should be reversed and the Court should direct that the Petitioners are entitled to maintain the one- story cottage and garage on Lot 16 as a valid, pre-existing, non-conforming dwelling and/or in the alternative, that the requested variances to permit same to be used as a one-family residential dwelling be granted by reducing the liveable floor area from 800 square feet to 500 square feet; the pres- ent interpretation that the wooden deck is an accessory structure be granted; and that the variance be granted per- mitting the wooden deck in the side yard. WHEREFORE, the Petitioners request that a judgment be entered anulling and setting aside the determination of the Respondents and rendering a determination that the struc- ture located on Lot 16 is a valid, pre-existing dwelling and/or in the alternative, granting the Petitioners a reduc- tion in the liveable area for a one-family dwelling from 800 square feet to 500 square feet; granting to the Petitioners an interpretation that the deck is an accessory structure; granting to the Petitioners a variance to permit said access- ory structure to remain in the side yard and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper. ~ M. WALKER, Petitioner STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Verification ~M. WALKER, being duly sworn, deposes and says: deponent is one of the Petitioners in the within action; deponent has read the foregoing Petition, and knows the contents thereof; the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. / ~ lq. W/~KER Sworn to before me this 9th day of October, ~/ NOTARY PUBLIC 1984. JOHN R. McNULTY Nolory Public, State of New No. 52-2637425, Suffolk County COmmt~lon EXpires M~rch 30, BRUSH~ CREEK "ROADWAY" R= 598' L=2409' T=IS.00' SURVEY FOR ~ERTRAM W. WALKER t~ MARGERY lYE WALKER LOTS 15 THRU 8, MAP OF EOGEMERE: PARK AT LAUREL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK YOUNG ~YOUNG ~O00ST.A.OE"AVE"UE RIV£RHEAO, NEW YORK ALDEN ~ YOUNG, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL PROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. DATE ,.~,~: h ..,1,,~.,... ~,.984 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. K (we) .BE~,.~.~..~..~C,E~¥...~.~v..E,~,......of ...~:~.9...~)....~.e...c.°.~.~.c....~..a.7....~.l...v..4.: ................ Nome of Appellant Street and Number Mattituck New York ...... y AppEAL Tn THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION DA?ED: 3/16/84 FOR: Addition WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Bertram Walker Name of Applicant for permit of .(L~.o. jl..Le..c.o..n..~,c... ~ .a. ~ .. ~.~ ~ ...t~a.~ .%~.~ ~.~ k,...~.~..~n~.,. .................... Street and Number Municlpolity State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY PERMIT TO BUILD I. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY .McD.~`~.a~'~.'~.~.~.~h~.~.c~.e.m.e.r.?.~.~.~..~`~.~L.~r~¢.~.~...~:Y - A Street and H~let ~one ..!9.~g.L!~.~.~L.~ ................. , ............................. o~E~ (si t .~.eF.c.r..~.. A..~.~F~e..~. ~.Z..~.er Mop No. Lot No. DATE ~URCHASED: .~.up.~..~.~ ........ 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- sectJo~ and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Art:icle IT]: ~ Section 100-3]- (Bulk Schedule) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (~) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access {State of New York Town Law Chop. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (k~(hos not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such oppeol was ( ) request for a speciot permit ( ) request for o variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (X) A Variance rD Ihe Zoning Ordinance (x) An interpretation is reques~ed~mx. Rm~l<x~x SEE RIDER ANNEXED (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL I. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sar,/HARDSHIP because 2. The hardship create~ is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike .in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district b~cause 3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CtlARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because .STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS ................................................................ Siqnature COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) MARGERY WALKER Sv, ofn to this .............................................. day of......, ............. Mar.c,h ........................ 1984 ................ ............................. RIDER TO APPLICATION The applicant requests the following: 1. An interpretation that the one-story cottage and garage was used as a residence prior to April, 1957, the effective date of zoning in the Town and therefore consti- tutes a valid pre-existing, non-conforming use. 2. An interpretation that the structure in ques- tion was constructed prior to April, 1957 and therefore con- stitutes a valid pre-existing structure. conversion of and garage: That the following variances be granted for the the structure into a one-story frame cottage 9 feet; to 12 feet; feet to 500 (a) Reduction of one side yard from 10 feet to (b) Reduction of both side yards from 25 feet (c) Reduction of livable area from 850 square square feet; (d) Permit a wooden deck as an accessory structure in a side yard. Pursuant to Section 100-12 of the Code, Lot 16, on which the cottage is located, is considered a separate lot and does not have to meet the lot area or lot width require- ments of the Code. In view of the narrow width of the lot and the fact that the structure in question has been located at the same place on the lot since prior to the effecitve date of zoning, the applicants have a practical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship in convertint the structure to a dwelling. The structure cannot be placed in a conforming location anywhere on the lot. The requested variances are not substantial and are similar to the reduced set backs of the other houses in the area and therefore the character of the area will not be ad- versely affected by the granting of the relief requested. Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD ° STATIr ROAD 25 SOUTHDLD, /.I., N.Y. 11cJT1 TELEPHONE (516) 765-180g ACTION OF TNE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal NO. 3232 Application Dated March 22, 1984 (Public Hearings May 17, 1984 & June 21, 1984) TO: Richard T. Haefe]i, Esq. as attorney [Appellant(s)] for MR. AND MRS. BERTRAM WALKER 130 Ostrander"Avenue, Box 757 Riverhead, NY llgO1, At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on August ]4, 1984, 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 IX] ' Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article III , Section 100-31, and interpretati0ns~, .[ ] Request for ' ·~1~ Application for BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, by Richard T. Haefeli, F~r~q., Box 757, Rtverhead, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article Section 100-31, for: (al an interpretation that the existing cottage garage are valid preexisting nonconforming uses and structures; approval of a wooden deck as an accessory structure in the sideyard; (c~_., approval of a reduction of liable floor area of a proposed dwelling con-~I version to 500 sq. ft. and approval of insufficient sideyards. Premisesl~' located at Edgemere Park, MacDonald's Path of~ Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; County Tax Map NoJ 1000~146-4'014. This is an appeal to Article III, Section lO0-31 and Notice of Disapproval issued March 8, 1984 by the Building Inspector requesting the following: (a) an interpretation that the existing cottage and garage are valid preexisting, nonconforming uses and structures; (b) approval of a wooden deck as an accessory structure in sideyard; (c) approval of a reduction of livable floor area of a proposed dwelling conversion to 500 sq. ft. and approval of insufficient sideyards. The premises in question is knownand referred to as Lots 15 through 18, "Map of Edgemere Park," filed July 2, 1931 as Map #742 in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk. Survey amended March 21, 1984 prepared by Young & Young for the applicants depicts the following: (al Parcel A consisting of Lots 18 and 17 having an area of )6,857 sq. ft. and an existing one-family house set back 12.g feet from the "roadway"and 13.2 feet from the northeasterly side property line of Lot 17; (b) Parcel B consisting of Lots 16 and 15 having an area of 16,118 sq. ft. existing one-story frame structure denoted "cottage and garage" set back 13.8' (exclusive of deck) from the southwesterly side property line of Lot 16, and 7.6' by 8' and 8.5' by 12.2' frame sheds along the northeasterly property line of Lot 15 and "roadway." For the record it is noted that "Edgemere Park" Subdivision Map is listed in Section lO0-12 as "excepted from the lot area and lot width requirements"(Local Law No. 5-1973). The board members are familiar with the sites in question as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Also, the board members have considered the testimony and documentation submitted during the public hearing both in support and in opposition to this appli- cation. DATED: September 11, 1984. Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) HAIRMAN, SOU~OLD TO~W~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ~ Pa~)~ - Appeal Ne. 3232 Matter of BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER ~Decision Rendered August 14, 1984 Article III, Section 100-31 of the Zoning Code allows setbacks in this "A" Residential and Agricultural District for lots contain- ing less than 40,000 sq. ft. in area as follows: (al minimum sideyard l0 feet; (b) minimum tota~ sideyards 25 feet. By this application, a variance is required to allow a setback of 5.7 feet. from the wooden deck from the southwesterly property line of Lot 16 and total sideyards of 13.1 (21.2 feet exclusive of deck), as shown on the March 21, 1984 survey. Applicant has requested in the application total sideyards of 16.40 feet, which does not include the stoop 4.8' reduction. The wooden deck is located within inches from the cottage/garage structure for which a build- ing permit has not been obtained and is required. It is the opinion of the board that although sufficient evidence has been presented for an intepretation as to the valid nonconforming use and setback of the principal cottage/garage structure, the applicants have not shown that they would suffer "significant economic injury" by the application of the area standard for the insufficient sideyard setback reductions for the wooden deck as exists, and the evidence supplied is not sufficient to warrant the sideyard relief as requested. The Zoning Ordinance requires a lB' setback, or that established which is 13.8 (stoops exclusive) feet. The relief requested is substantial, being 60% of the requirements. An insufficient setback of nine feet would be less substantial, approximately 30% of a variance, and which the board feels sufficient under the circumstances. Also, the applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to warrant approval of the reduc- tion of the livable area of the structure to less than the required 850 sq. ft. in a conversion to a one-family dwelling; and accordingly, that relief cannot be granted as applied. It is also the interpretation of this board that the structure referred to as "cottage and garage" was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning in 1957, that the one-story building in question was and has been used, although on a seasonal basis, as sleeping quarters since prior to the enactment of zoning, its use for sleep- ing quarters is validly nonconforming and the building as exists without the deck is a valid nonconforming structure. This inter-. pretation is based on the evidence and testimony submitted in the record. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that: (1) that the one-story building in question was and has been used as sleeping quarters since prior to the enactment of zoning and therefore this board interprets its use for sleeping quarters to be a valid preexisting, nonconforming use; (2) that the one-story building in question was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning and therefore this board interprets same to be a valid preexisting "structure"; (3) that the deck in question is in fact within inches from the subject building and is not accessory but is interpreted to be a part of the principal structure, and that the applicant has not shown "unnecessary hardship" or"practical difficulties" sufficient to warrant the granting of the sideyard reduction and therefore the reduction of the deck to less than nine feet from the side property line is not granted; (4) that the use of the one-story building as a one-family residence is questionable and therefore is interpreted not to be a ~ppeal No. 3232 ~4a{ter of BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER Decision Rendered August 14, 1984 valid preexisting, nonconforming use; and accordingly, the use of this structure with a reduction to 500 sq. ft. of livable area for one-family dwelling use is not granted. Location of Property: MacDonald's Path off Peconic Bay Boule- vard, Laurel; Edgemere Park, Lots 15, 16, 17 and 18; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-145-4-014. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. GG:lk Southold Town Board of Appeals APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. ,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICK[ September 12, 1984 Mr. Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner Suffolk County Department of Planning Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11787 Re: Appeal No. 3232 - Bertram and Margery Walker S.C.P.D. File No. SD-84-8 Dear Mr. Newman: For your records, we have enclosed herewith a copy of the decision recently rendered by the Board of Appeals in the above matter. Thank you for your consideration. Yours very truly, Enclosure (s) GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski Secretary 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 25 SDUTHOLD. L.I.. N.Y. 11¢~'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 August 28, 1984 Mr. 'Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner Suffolk County Department of Planning Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11787 Re: Appeal No. 3232 Bertram and Margery Walker Your File Reference #SD-84-8 Dear Mr. Newman: This letter will confirm that at a Special Meeting of the Board of Appeals held on Tuesday, August 14, 1984, the board adopted the following resolution, by unanimous vote of all the members, concerning the above matter, and overriding your agency's August l, 1984 action: RESOLVED, that: (1) that the one-story building in question was and has been used as sleeping quarters since prior to the enactment of zoning and therefore this board interprets its use for sleeping quarters to be a valid preexisting, nonconforming use; (2) that the one-story building in question was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning and therefore this board interprets same to be a valid preexisting "structure"; (3) that the deck in question is in fact within inches from the subject building and is not accessory but is interpreted to be a part of the principal structure, and that the applicant has not shown "unnecessary hardship" or "practical difficulties" sufficient to warrant the granting of the sideyard reduction and therefore the reduction of the deck to less than nine feet from the side property line is not granted; Pa~e 2 - Appeal No Walker Mr. Gerald G. Newman Suffolk County Department of Planning August 28, 1984 (4) that the use of the one-story building as a one-family residence is questionable and therefore is interpreted not to be a valid preexisting, nonconforming use; and accordingly, the use of this structure with a reduction to 500 sq. ft. of livable area for one-family dwelling use is not granted. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members present. Yours very truly, lk GERARD P. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER Southold Town BOard of Appeals MAIN ROAD- ~TATE ROAD 2m, BOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11=J71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI September 12, 1984 Richard T. Haefeli, Esq. McNulty, DiPietro and Haefeli 130 Ostrander Avenue, Box 757 Riverhead, NY llgO1 Re: Appeal No. 3232 Bertram and Margery Walker Dear Sir or Madam: Attached herewith is a copy of the formal findings and deter- mination recently rendered 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 approval of any new construc- tion in writing, or for other documents as may Re applicable. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either our office (765-1809) or that of the building inspector (765-1802). Yours very truly, Enclosure Copy of Decision to Building Department County Plannin§ Commission GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda F. Kowalski Secretary 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- BTATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. llg?l TELEPHONE {516) 765-1809 INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Office of the Town Clerk DATE: September 12, 1984 SUBJECT: Appeal No. 3232 Bertram and Margery Walker Transmitted herewith for filing this date and determination in the above.matter. GG:lk is the original findings · . Southold Town Board ~ppeals June 21, ~84 Regular Meeting RECESSED PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3232. Application for BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, by R.T. Haefeli, Esq., Box 757, RIverhead, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for: (a) an interpretation that the existing cottage and garage are valid preexisting, nonconforming uses and structures; (b) approval of a wooden deck as an accessory structure in the sideyard; (c) approval of a reduction of livable floor area of a proposed dwelling conversion to 500 sq. ft. and approval of i. nsufficient sideyards. Premises located at Edgemere Park, MacDonald's Path off Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-1.45-4-014. . ...... 'MR."CHAIRMAN: Mr. Haefeli. RICHARD T. HAEFELI, ESQ.': I think you asked for a copy ~f the subdivision map as.filed in the Suffolk.County Clerk's Offi. ce. I've obtained a cory of.that for you. .(Mr. Haefeli handed the chairman a copy of the.Edgemere Park subdivision maR as filed under File No. 742 on ~uly_2, 1931~ Abstract No. 1067.for th~ recqrd.) · MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very'much: MR. HAEFELI: I'd l~ke Mrs.~ Beatrice Wasson to come up. She was the lad~ ~ wanted tq bring the last time and who was not available at the 1. as~ time, and she can give~a history as to her knowledge of · the cottage. MR. 'CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Wasson, can I ask you to raise your right hand please? (Mrs. Wasson raised her right hand.) Do you solemnly swear .that everything you're going to say in thiE testimony i~ fact? MRS. WAs~oN: True. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MRS. WASSON: I was asked to come here tonight and before, to speak about'an attached cottage which belonged to Mrs. MacDonald when I knew her in 1948 or '49. It was in that area. And now there!s a question as to Mr. and Mrs. Walker mother being sent out of the house that is now being made livable. She is 84 years old. And this is something I can't understand where neighbors can do this to one another. However, that's neither here nor there. What I'd like to say is that I knew that t~ be a livable cottage. In 1949, her sister Molley lived in it when they didn't.get along. Mrs. MacDonald, her name was Bertha but she wa~ called Bea, and we were very good friends, and I knew Mr. MacDon~ld-- his name was Stuart C. MacDonald, and once in awhile her sister and she wouldn't get along, so she would go over and live~in the cottage. And then she had a maid. She was~a black girl who wore a black uniform. My children all knew her. My nephew, Roger Fleshutes (spelling?) was the chauffeur for Mrs. MacDonald. Took.Mrs.. MacDonal~ and~the maid back and forth to New York, but the maid lived in that cottage. There was heat ppeals June 21, 84 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board (Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MRS. WASSON (continued): There was light. There was water. There was a stove. There was sleeping facilities. There was everything there available. So I'm sure nothing was done after that. Then it was sold to Mr. Fulcher. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you give us some time period when that might have been, Mrs~ Wasson? ~ MR.,CHAIRMAN: When the MacDonalds had owned this premises? MRS. WASSON: Sure. Between-- I built my home in 1950. My brother built in 1949. And that house waq bui. lt the year 1948,'1949 before that~. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. JAMES CRON, ESQ.: M~ Chairman, ~ince it is a sworn witness-- may ) ask the witness a few questioQs? MR. CHAIRMAN: If you use that mike. Do you have any objection, Mr. Haefeli? M~. 'HAEFELI: No, I don't. I was under the impression that ques- tions came through the attorney-- MR. CHAIRMAN: I was jus{ going to say that-~ you're welcome · use the mike, but you're going.to have to.addres~ th9 question~ to the board. to MR. CRON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would request that the board ask Mrs. Wasson if i.n fact the MasDonalds used the property more than on a s. easonal basis? MRS. WASSON: No. They didn't live there all winter. MR. CRON: And di-- excuse me. MRS. WASSON: in the summer, and of the year. No'.' They didn't live t~ere in the winter. It was fall, and spring. It was probably six months out MR. CRON: Mr. Chairman, in particular, was the me, the structure which is the su. bject matter in this during that six month period that they were there? dwelling--excuse app. lication used MRS. WASSON: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: And for six months it was not used? MRS. WASSON: Well 'I didn't go over to check on it. ''~ou(hold Town Board ppeals June 21, ,~84 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. CRON: Well you checked on it for the six months it was used. MRS. WASSON: Please, sir, I knew them very well and we were very friendly. They came weekends, and what they did all the time I wouldn't know. But I know it was available. MR. CRON: Mr. Chairman, would you ask the witness if in fact the two structures on the property were winterized and closed for the winter. MR. CHAIRMAN: What do you mean by that? MR. CRON: That the buildings were not used for six months out'~f the year. That the people who lived there during the seasonal use of the buildings packed up~and lived elsewhere. MRS. WASSON: I ~an't answer l~hat truthfully because they came weekends. MR. CHAIRMAN: Weekends all yearround, Mrs. Wasson, do you know? MRS. WASSON: Not during'~he winter. MR. CRON: Thank you, M~. Chairman-and Mrs. Wasson. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you again, Mrs. Wasson. Mr. Haefeli, do you have any other witnesses? MR. HAEFELI: Yes. I'd like Mr. Walker to come up so he can testify please? MR. CHIARMAN: Mr. WAlker, would you raise your right hand please? (Mr. Walker raised hi~ right hand.~ Do you solqmnly swear that ~he te~timqny that you're abqut to gi~ve is the trqth, ~he whole truth and nothing but the truth? MR. WALKER: I do. MR. HAEFELI: Just give them the h,~story. MR. WA~]KER: We moved into the house -, the cottages on the property in 1976. And we used~he cottage, the children used the cottage. My one son lived there during the winter, and in the Year 1980, my mother came out and we remodeled and made a beautiful studio apartment out of it, which it was before, but we remodeled it, and she's living there ful~ time, yearround, as we are. Now what I want to say is that the house and cottage both weren't a yearround residence. It was a summer resi- dence. We made a full year residence out of the house and we did the cottage. Oh, and I'd like to show you the picture of the cottage before we did the remodeling. (The picture was passed to the board members through the Chairman.) MR. HAEFELI: Would you tell them about when that picture was taken? MR. WALKER: AroUnd the 1976-77, soon after we moved in. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Haefeli? Southold Town Board ot~"Appeals (Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY June 21,~m~'84 Regular Meetin~ WALKER, continued:) MR. HAEFELI: I have only one other thing, gentlemen, and that is that the deed from Virginia Fulcher to John Kelly. I believe last time when Mrs. Kelly testified that she at one point tried to obtain or put additional buildings on the property that she owned, which I believe Mr. Ziedler owns now, and I think you wilt see in that deed there's a covenant restricting the ability to construct so that you could--a person could not construct on the Kelly property to block the view from the Fulchers' house. Maybe that was the reason why she could not do any additional expansion on her piece of property. Other than that I have nothing further. (Mr. Haefeli handed the Chairman a five-page deed recorded at Liber 6994 page 127 dated August 20, 1971, for the reco~d.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Cron? MR. CRON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I would like hand up a certified copy of the decision of Justice Tedeschi on October ll, 1983. I would also like to hand up the affidavit~ of Ann L. Kelly, Mabel and John Costanza, who were the prior owners before the Careys., (Letter dated December 5, 1981 signed by Ann L. Kelly and witnessed by Joan A. Jacobs, and twolseparate affidavits notarized DecemberlO,~ 1981 of John S. Costanza and Mabel Costanza, were all submitted and made part of the record.) MR. CRON: Gentlemen, in particular, I draw your attention to page two of the decision of Justice Tedeschi. The last paragraph specifically refers to an accessory structure on the prqperty. Obviously there would have to be a merger of use for an accessory structure to be on the property. In other words, it has to be accessory to something-that would be the dwelling that is on the property. to On page three of Justice Tedeschi's decision, he mentions that the second dwelling on the premises was illegal. Obviously, the entire four building lots would have to be considered one premises to have two dwellings on it, and therefore be illegal. Gentlemen, the legalities.in this particular case have been established. This matter has been litigated, all_pertinent witnesses were called at the time of trial and subject to cross-examination by defense counsel, who is in the exact same law ~yirm that is representing the applicant tonight. What I'm saying to you is that this board should not determine legalities. The .legalities have been estab- lished. Do not sit as an Appeals Board. Do not review what somebody has already been cQnvicted of. Al'~o, gentlemen, I'd like to direct your attention to the purpose of building permits and certificates of occupancy. Many times in the paper transit that goes on, we fail to realize what- the purpose is. The purpose is to insure that the dwellings involved are safe and that the health of the neighbors are insured. These individuals decided that their neighbors' welfare was not of paramount concern and that their own particular individual interests were of paramount concern. Therefore, they took themselves "~ou~hold Town Board oeAppeals June 21, Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. CRON (continued): both above the neighbors who reside in that subdivision with them, the laws of the State of New York, and are open tonight to come before this board tonight, and say, "Gentlemen, sanction what we did wrong. Allow us to keep what is illegal. Allow us to break the law. And allow us to step on the neighbors." I think, gentlemen, in some summation, this board can plainly see this application is devoid of any merit. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to speak against the .~ application? Mr. Ziedler. RICHARD ZIEDLER: I have just handed the board a map of Edge- mere Park, that I got yesterday at the County Clerk's Office. It's dated July 2, 1931. If you look at the little subdivision that it is, if you look at Lot 19. Lot 19 is a rather large lot, ~ut it has two buildings on it. One where a man lives in it. Number two, a cottage. Or a playhouse. Or a tool shed. Whatever it is, it's there. If you look at lot 137, 159, 149, there's a man who has a house, he has a two-car garage, separate from the house. They too have had people sleep in it at various times. But you go down to the Lot #8, #8 has a house; it has a separate two-car garage that can be used for any of the things you're being asked to use. Lot #9 and #10 have a house and a separate garage. Lot #11 not only has a house, it has a garage, and it has beds in it where the kids sleep. I don't know whether they've had chauffeurs or not. But · it's there. I own Lot 12, 13 and 14. I have a house. Lot 14' has an easement view. And I' would think that if you passed some- thing like being asked to be passed here tonight, some place you could sneak a little something in there for me. I say to you that this little subdivision can't stand six or seven more little dwellings. Drive down the road--it's full of holes. The water comes from out on the street 900 feet away--that's where the wells are because you could not get a well ( ) for our homes. Sewage -- let's not even talk about that. That has become such a tremendous problem. I think most of us that live there don't want to hurt anybody. But we don't want to see any profit here. We don't want to see land split. We just think this is Wrong. A lot of us have a big investment. A lot of us would like to live yearround, and it just upsets to have to stand in front of you and plead. If you grant this, you got to grant the neighbor. You got to grant the next one. Let's not mess up this little place. It's nice. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Anything you would like to say in rebuttal, Mr. Haefeli? - MR. HAEFELI: This board's purpose is to grant variances. This board's purpose is also to interpret this code. I'm not disputing what Judge Tedeschi said. I'm not disputing what Judge Tedeschi did. But if you take the logic of Mr. Cron, it means that if a person goes Southold Town Board .ppeal s June 21 384 Regular Meeting '~' (Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. HAEFELI (continued): out, does something without a building permit, and is found guilty of that, they can never under any circumstances come to this board to ask for relief. I admit we built the extension or we expanded that room--that area without a building permit. We're here tonight to correct the situation. And the fact that there was a prior decision in the Justice Court should not have bearing on this board tonight or take away from this board's right, obligations and dutie-s to pass upon the application. You have the jurisdiction. The Justice Court made a determination in a criminal nature. Yours .~ is the jurisdiction as to what the code says, what the code means, and what relief you can give to this applicant and to every other applicant in this town. This was a summer cottage back in 1948. It was a summer cottage up until 1980. It's the same as many other summer cottages in this town, that at some point,in time they went from being a-- from a seasonal nature to a yearround nature.~And many other people have converted homes that have initially started out for summer use only, winterized them, and have been using them on a yearround basis. This particular cottage is being used by the mother of Mr. Walker. He's providing a place for her to live. There are too few people today that are providing for their parents. This is a way that it can be done. We have a 500 sq. ft.--approxi- mately 500 sq. ft. apartment with two small bedrooms. You people have been in it. A living room and a kitchen. On a lot that under your code -- that's a single and separate lot. All of the testimony-- there isn't a person that came in here tonight or at the last hearing, that said that that structure was not there prior to the effective date of the zoning code of this town. So at the very least, we have a summer cottage with an attached garage going back to 1948. That structure has remained in the same location from 48 to today. And if this board makes that interpretation, this board would then find that no variances would be needed as far as the location of the structure, and that the only variances that would be needed would be as to the size of the residence itself. But if this board finds that it was a residence in '48 and continued until the present time, then that interpretation would eliminate the need for the granting of any variances. We would then come down to one final ting--and that is the deck. And I don't think that deck really affects anybody. We're asking for a variance because it was put in the sideyard, because that's where the main door in and out is, and it just makes it convenient to use it. So in conclusion, gentlemen, the lot is a legal single and · separate lot, has been used for residential purposes since prior to the effective date of the zoning code in this town, and I believe my clients are entitled to an interpretation to that effect, an~ that they are entitled to maintain that cottage and the garage as it is, or at least in the alternative, that they're entitled to the necessary variances that they've requested so that it can remain. And that's all I have. "~ ~h Sou old Town Board ppeals June 21,e984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) (At this time Mr. and Mrs. Walkers consulted with their attorney, Mr. Haefeli, for a few moments.) MR. CRON: In the interim, may I respond to that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. CRON: There are a few points which I would like to take issue. Counsel has mentioned that many of the residents in the Town of Southold have converted what once might have been garages and cottages~ ~nto livable dwellings. Granted, gentlemen. But what did they do ~o convert them? They became before this board if necessary. They definitely obtained building permits, which are necessary. And they obtained Certificates of Occupancy, which are necessary before someone can live in the building. Secondly, as concerns Justice Tedeschi's decision which convicted the petitioners in this particular case, Justice Tedeschi in his decision interprets the zoning ordinances. It is a criminal conviction based on reasonable doubt. A conviction which bore a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, something which you gentlemen are not being asked to consider, therefore, a higher burden of proof. Finally, gentlemen, there's one other issue which I would like to take point with. The petitioner is not asking that his parent remain in this building. The petitioner is asking for this board to determine that that particular lot could be sold to a third party. That is quite a distinction between the emotion heard tonight. He is saying that this is a separate building lot with a separate structure on it which I can legally sell to a third party, that is a far cry from his 84-year-old mother living'in the garage. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: As long as'we don't get into personalities, Mr. Haefeli-- MR. HAEFELI: I really don't want to belabor the point. I'm going to doubly emphasize the fact that this board has jurisdiction over the zoning code, irrespective of what Judge Tedeschi said. But number two, Judge Tedeschi also gave them a conditional discharge, the Condition being that they come before this board and request the relief that we're requesting. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further comments? Questions from board members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a · motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Messrs. Douglass a~d Grigonis, the hearing was declared closed and decision reserved until later in the matter of BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, Appeal No. 3232. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote. Southold Town Board ppeals May 17, ~84 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3232. Application for BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, by R.T. Haefeli, Esq., Box 757, Riverhead, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for: (a) an interpretation that the existing cottage and garage are valid preexisting, nonconforming uses and structures; (b) approval of a wooden deck as an accessory structure in the sideyard; (c) approval of a reduction of livable floor area of a proposed dwelling conversion to 500 sq. ft. and approval of insufficient sideyards. Premises located at Edgemere Park, MacDonald's Path off Peconic Peconic Boule'- vard, Laurel; County Tax Map Par. cel No. 1000-145-4-014. ~ The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:48 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have letters in the file that the board has read and I will not read at this time. I have a copy of the map indicating two lots, Parcel A, which I will refer to as the ho~se lot which is 16,857 sq. ft. and it does not appear to be the nature of this application, and Parcel B, 16,118 sq. ft., which appears to be the nature of this application.produced by Howard Young, most recent date March 21, 1984. Parcel B indicates a one-story frame cottage garage of approximately 24.4' by 32.4' -It includes the garage. A deck of various quantities. An existing storage building. It appears that the location wants to be changed. Of approximately 8.5' by 12.2' and an existing it appears to be and I hope you don't mind my saying this -- delapidated shed of 8.0' by 7.6' And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Haefeli, would you like to be heard? RICHARD T. HAEFELI, ESQ.: You've read the application, Mr. Chairman, and in support of the first part of that application I have two affidavits and a letter from various people. I have an affidavit from Beatrice Fechtig, which indicates that the property with this particular building was used for residential purposes as early as 1953, and from Frank Fulcher and Virginia Fulcher, an affidavit stat- ing it was used for residential purposes prior to 1955; they are the prior owners of the property. The Walk~rs purchased the property from them. We also have a letter from a Walter Dohm, who is in the plumbing and heating business and is familiar with the property, and again indicates that the structure in question was used for resi- dential purposes prior to 1957. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to supply those? MR. HAEFELI: Yes. (Mr. Haefeli handed the Chairman the affidavits for the record.) - MR. CHAIRMAN: In any one of these affidavits, has anything been addressed Mr. Haefeli concerning seasonal and opposed to yearround use? MR. HAEFELI: No. Just that it has been used for residen~ttal purposes. I don't know if there's a distinction in your code or a Southold Town Board ppeals May 17, 1 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continuedi) MR. HAEFELI continued: distinction in the zoning law generally, as between a residence used on a seasonal basis verses a residence used on a yearround basis-- provided it's a residence. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, there have been in the past C/O's issued by the Building Department on the basis of a seasonal dwelling. MR. HAEFELI: No. I don't believe that he has a C/O in existence for either a summer or yearround. ' The applicants' position is simply that at the time they pur- chased the property they purchased the piece of property that had a separate residential dwelling on it. According to your code, the lots in this particular filed subdivision map are considered, do not have to meet under the bulk, area or the width requirements of the code. And in essence they're single and separate lots. We have got-- Mr. and Mrs. Walker own four lots, two of them -- the main dwelling is on, that's Lots 17 and 18. Lot 16 is covered by the cottage and the garage, and Lot 15 is a vacant piece of property, as to which there is a shed that is going to be moved to a different location and put it into a conforming location as to which we've received a building permit. Since, we are really directing ourselves to Lot 16 The question comes down--there is insufficient evidence to establish a preexisting residential nature of the cottage prior to 1957, whether or not the Walkers are entitled to variances on the basis of practical difficulty. Lot 16 being a separate lot would entitle the Walkers to put a" house on it. .The only question then is, is there any place on that particular lot that a house could be put in a conforming location without requiring variances. And I think the answer is fairly simple. In looking at Lot 16, it's not totally impossible, but to do it, you would have to have a house that is 15' in width, and it's reasonable to have a house that's 20 to 30 feet in width. To have a house of that size, you would require variances. Number 3, the actual buildingit'~elf, whether this board finds it was used as a yearround residential dwelling prior to 1957, summer residential dwelling prior to '57, was in existence at this location since prior to 1957. And the conversion or creation of a yearround dwelling in this building, as a yearround dwelling, to move it anyplace on this particular.property, to make it conforming we cannot do, and we created a hardship for us to have to take this particular buildin~ down and come in with a building that would conform which would be approximately 15 feet in width. And that based upon either the affidavit and letters that have been introduced establishing the preexisting, residential character of this particular structure, and/or the fact that we are entitled as of right to have a structure put on here, has been on here, and we have a practical difficulty in putting any other structure on it reading the requirements, we would be entitled to a vardance. Southold Town Board ppeals (Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. HAEFELI continued: As far as whether or not this is going to have any adverse impact upon the neighborhood, I think the board may have some familiarity of the houses in the area; but I would like to point out that directly across the street, Mr. Ziedler owns three houses, I believe, 12, 13 and 14, and then in 1982 he applied for and I believe received a building permit to add onto his existing dwelling. In doing so, he brought his existing dwelling to within eight feet of the sideyard. It looks like approximately 14 or 15 feet of the front yard. Now that's the house directly across the street and is has a similar setback situation as we're requesting here. ~ Across the street on the other side, Mr. Carey owns Lot 7 and Lot 6. His house is situated on Lot 7, and as to one of the sideyards, it's approximately 2.1 feet from the northerly side yard. Again, the house itself cannot meet the current zoning requirements of the code. ~ Right next to the Zeidler property is Chitham's. They're on a single lot having a width of approximately 40 to 41 feet, and I'd have to say they have little or no sideyards with respect to the westerly side and approximately 15 to 16' sideyards on the east side. And Mr. Gannon owns a house down the street and as far as his is concerned, he has a sideyard setback of about 5.2, 5.3 feet. Therefore most of the homes, if not all of the homes in this area have substantial setback reductions from what the code would require. And the request that they are making is similar to any of the other setback requirements of the other homes in the area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything else you would like to say? MR. HAEFELI: Not at this time. be other people that may speak. I believe there are going to MR. CHAIRMAN: I have one question that I want to ask you, but I'll wait at this particular time until some time at the latter part of the hearing. I have more than one question, but one in particular. Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf of the application? (No one.) Would anybody like to speak against the application? JAMES CRON, ESQ.: Good evening, gentlemen. My name is James Cron. I'm with the Law Offices of Cron and Cron, Main Road, Cutchog~e, New York. I am speaking on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Frederick S. Carey in opposition to this particular application. I would also at this time hand up the affidavit of Frederick S. Carey (Exhibit B1). That exhibit, Mr. Chairman, sets forth the construction which took place in 1980. As the board is aware, the application concerns a preexisting nonconforming use which is alleged to have taken place prior to the present zoning ordinance, which was instituted in 1957. As I'm sure the board is aware, a preexisting, nonconforming use entitles that user Southold Town Board ppeals May 17, Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. CRON continued: only to what preexisted zoning. It cannot be expanded upon. Therefore, if in 1957, this particular structure which is a garage, was a two-car garage with a small bedroom and a small bathroom, if that preexisted zoning, that would be the entirety of the usage which would be exempt from the zoning board requirements. Anything constructed subsequent to 1957 would have to comply with the zoning as it existed at that time. We submit and I think the affidavits of Mr. Carey and the testimony which you will hear later, will indicate that the particular structure which was a garage and is a garage have only a seasonable ~use and was used only during the summer time as the main house on the property was only summer usage also. Prior to 1976, no one lived on that property yearround. It was not until the Walkers moved in and Mr. Walker did substantial alterations to both the housein putting a heating system and the garage in putting a heating system that yearround occupancy became available. ~ Prior to that time, there was -- and I'm talking about 1957 -- and also prior to 1980, a smaller two-car garage with a small bedroom, small bathroom and a common sewer with the main household. The structure which now exists and which is the subject matter of this particular application and which is reflected in the map the board has before it, is the structure that is completely different from the one in 1957, with a completely different use from the one in 1957. And approximately in the Year 1980, substantial renovations .were made in this particular building. The renovations consisted of in squaring off the building, raising the roof, rai~ing the foundation approximately three feet, adding a living room, two bedrooms, a full kitchen, and also a full bathroom. The living area in particular, well as stated in the application is 500 feet, that a substantial variation of the living area required by the zoning ordinances in 1980 and also prior to that time. There's been mention that Lot No. is a buildable lot. In fact, Lot No. 16 is not a buildable lot. All four lots are in common ownership, and as you gentlemen are aware, a merger would have taken place. Furthermore, gentlemen, if you look at the map, you will see Lots 15, 16, 17 and 18, those lots were con- veyed to the Fulchers to the present owners, the Walkers. At one time the Walkers also owned, excuse me -- the Fulchers, also owned Lots 12, 13 and 14, at the time Mr. Fulcher sold to the Kelly's, who were the predecessors to th Zeidlers -- I believe, gentlemen, he requested a minor subdivision and set-off. If that is the case, gentlemen, I'm sure you are aware that one of the conditions of that would be that there be no further subdivision of any of the lots. t That would also include Lot 15, 16, 17 and 18 which were in common ownership at that time and in common ownership at the present ti~e by the Walkers. 16 Reference has been made that the requested variances are not substantial, and obviously gentlemen we contest they are substantial. In particular, it is to be noted that this issue was litigated in the Town Justice Court. The petitioners here were defendants in an action which Mr. Lark prosecuted as Special Assistant District Attorney on (Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. CRON continued: behalf of the town. The applicants were found guilty, and I would like to read to you--the board may obtain a copy of the decision of Justice Tedeschi, People v. Walker, decision dated October 11, 1983~ The.~elevant portion,"With respect to Docket No. 421, this court finds that the testimony and evidence presented at the trial herein, the Defendants did in fact alter and convert a detached two car garage accessory structure in the front yard by installing a bathroom, kit- chen facilities, two bedrooms, a living room, a wooden deck, and that same were being occupied as a second dwelling on the premises without first obtaining a Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy .... This decision was not appealed from, gentlemen, and it stands as a conviction against the applicants. What the applicants propose to do here tonight, gentlemen, is to ask you to exempt them from the zoning laws of the Town of~Southold. They were found not to be in conformity with those zoning laws; they were convicted after a trial; they did not appeal that conviction. They, however, wish you to reward them, reward them for violating the law. The applicants here tonight have steadfastedly refused to obey the zoning requirements. All these alterations took place not in 1957, but in fact, in 1980. And in fact, gentlemen, I believe you have a map in front of you by Mr. Young dated 1984. I also have a map from Mr. Young dated 1978. That map shows a garage on Lot 16. That map also shows a dwelling--excuse me, a structure substantially different from the one in front of you. It shows'a garage which is not rectangular as is the particular structure in fr~ont of you, and it shows a structure without a deck on it. We content, and I think the facts will prove it out, this particular structure was a garage, was used as a garage, was converted illegally as a garage, and now the applicants are asking that you set if off, make it a legal structure after having been found guilty after trial that it is not a legal structure, and somewhat exempt them from not only the laws of New York State but the zoning requirements of the Town and the State of New York. I would at this time offer the map of Young & Young dated February 9, 1978 (Exhibit~B-2). Mr. Chairman, at this time, I have nothing further; however, I believe there are some other individuals who have other pertinent , information as to the particulars as to the particular use of that structure. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're representing Mr. Carey? MR. CRON: That is correct. (End of Tape 2.) (Mr. Cron submitted the affidavit of Frederick S. Carey for the record - marked Exhibit B-1.) MR. CRON: I think the affidavit sets forth all the pertinent facts. (Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir. MR. CRON: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Mr. Zeidler. RICHARD ZEIDLER: I am Mr. Walker's neighbor, and I have seven letters here from the neighbors which I will give you. We would li~ to see the garage go back to being a garage like it was five years ago when I bought my home. If you have been down there the location, you'll notice it's a gravel road. We all kind of feel that we don't want to see anybody else split their property up or anybody convert their gar- ages into dwellings. And I think if out of being kind, everybody would like to see, well I would and several for Mrs. Walker to live there until s this thing convert back to a garage. there's a problem with sewage. There boat basin and the water is all white don't know whether it's Walkers', the there. other people, if it's pg~sible he no longer lives there, that There's a problem with water; are times you can stand on the from the cesspools running, I mother's, or somebody; but it's This whole thing has become a mess and we'd like to see it revert back to a garage. I'll give you these letters. (Mr. Zeidler handed the chairman a letter from each of the following for the record: Dorothy Gannon, letter and envelope postmarked 4/24/82; Elizabeth C. Jessup, letter and envelope postmarked 5/23/83; George F. Kendall, letter and envelope postmarked 5/4/83; Julian M. Bayuk, M.D., letter and envelope postmarked 4/22/83; Arthur L. Smith, Jr., letter dated April 22, 1983; iEdward M. Cummings, D.D.S., letter and envelope postmarked 4/23/83.) MR. ZEIDLER continued: These are people that couldn't be here tonight who have all sent letters. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Yes, ma'am. Kindly state your name when you use the mike. ANN KELLY: My name is Ann Kelly and the Fulkchers sold us the property. When we moved there, the structure that they're referring, to was a garage with a very small bedroom and a bathroom. We had offered Mr. Fulcher and Mrs. Fulcher many times to use our water off season, and as long as I was there, it still was a garage. We moved there in 1979; it was a garage. I know that they had no facilities at that time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Southold Town Board ppeals May 17, Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. HAEFELI: You said they had a bathroom and a bedroom there? MRS. KELLY: It was a room -- at the time I saw it they had no bedrooms; it was empty. MR. HAEFELI: But it was a room that people were living in. then MRS. KELLY: Not at the time I saw it. ~ MR. HAEFELI: That's how you saw it. You weren't there in-season to see all of it and how it was being used. ~ MRS. KELLY: Well I lived there all yearround. MR. HAEFELI: But in-season, were you in structure to see how it was being used? MRS. KELLY: No I don't recall being in that particular there then. MR. HAEFELI: It was jsut at off-season? MRS. KELLY: Yes. MR. HAEFELI: And it had a bathroom in it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Haefeli, you have to address question to the board first so we can take it down, and then the · problem of question and answer-- : the MR. HAEFELI: I thought she said a bathroom and a bedroom and I wanted to clarify it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok, so just ask the question forward and then we'll have her answer it ,- just so we can get it. Go ahead. MR. HAEFELI: I would like to know if she did say she saw a bathroom in the structure. MRS. KELLY: There was bathroom facilities. The room I saw I would assume was a bedroom because Mr. Fulcher said they used it as a guest room during the season. However, it was not furnished at that particular time that I saw it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? MR. HAEFELI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much (to Mrs. Kelly). Would you like to say something in rebuttal, Mr. Haefeli? I do want to say this--that it was the chairman's option of not swearing in any witnesses at this particular time. When we start to get into more conflicting testimony, it may be required. May 17, 1~4 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board ppeals (Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. HAEFELI: The first thing I would like to do is hand up copies of the surveys of the Gannon's property, which I referred to earlier as to what their setbacks are. The Chisholm's property. The Zeidler property. And the Carey property. MR. CHAIRMAN: By the way, the statement was made for both parties, not just-- MR. HAEFELI: I assumed that. (Pause.) (The Chairman marked the exhibits in blue ink.and made them part of the file.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If you wish you're very welcome to do so. In anybody in that. to caucus with your applicants, no way am I trying to restrict MR. HAEFELI: I'm just waiting for you. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. MR. HAEFELI: A couple of points I would like to bring out at this time--there's no question that there was a Justice Court proceeding. There's no question of the decision that's on file. There's no question that you can go read that decision. (There 'was another conversation going on in the audience.) There's also the fact that a building permit for the shed which is shown on this survey has been issued after the date of those proceedings. Also, the fact as far as the proceeding affect this part of the application of this building, there are additional proceedings pending in the Justice Court. I'm not familiar with them because my partner is handling them. But it has been put over for an additional period of time. One of the reasons for it is to allow the applicant to make an application to this board. Unless I'm wrong, the Law of the State of New York and the Code of the Town of Southold gives this board the jurisdiction to determine ques- tions arising under the zoning code. And the fact that there may have been a conviction in the Justice Court does not preclude an applicant to come into this board and request either appropriate variances or appropriate interpretations of the code which this board has the power to give. So I don't want the board to become totally colored by the fact that there was a Justice Court pro- ceeding. I will have to, between now and the next hearing date, find out the exact statUs of that proceeding as it relates to this part of the application. - MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Haefeli, we're aware of that--this has happened many, many times, not only in this particular instance; we are exactly aware that there are sometimes court proceedings prior to applications. Sometimes court proceedings a~e held up Southold Town Board ppeals May 17, Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3232 , BERTRAM AND'MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: prior to applications. MR. HAEFELI: As far as what is existing there, and assuming the worst on behalf of the Walkers, that they don't have a preexisting one-family residential dwelling as that term is supplied in your Code today, what they do have is the protection of your Code with.respect to the lots that they purchased. Not only the Walkers have it, but~ the Zeidlers have it, the Careys'have it,.and ~he.Chisholms have it.' There's a specific exception in your Code as to whether these lots have to meet the area and the width requirements; and they do not. '~ They have to meet the area and width requirement of the lots as they were filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office. In this case, you've got one and I believe it's 50 feet in width, approximately. It gets a little bigger down on the bulkhead side. Therefore, they are entitled to place a dwelling on that lot provided they can meet the other provisions of the code, and if they can't meet the other provisions of the code, they're entitled to come before this board based upon a practical difficulty and ask for the requisite variances. And that's exactly what the Walkers are doing here tonight. I think they have established the fact that they're entitled to a variance based upon a practical difficulty, based upon the size of the lot, based upon the existing nature of the structures that are on the property. And the fact that it would be more expensive to take that structure down, which I think this board can accept offhanded, than to convert what may already be there than to put up a new~ structure. No structure can go on that lot that can be in a con- forming location, Number One. Number Two, every other house in this subdivision has variance problems of the same or similar nature because of the size of the lots. They're all entitled to have homes placed on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you a quick question before you lose that train of thought. Are you referring to Lot No. 16 and Lot No. 15 as being in single and separate ownership? MR. HAEFELI: In single and separate ownershiP? No. They're not in single-- they're in the same name. What I'm saying is, there's a specific exclusion in your Code with respect to these lots because they're part of this particular filed subdivision. If they weren't, then they would have to either meet their current area requirement, or be held in single and separate. And what I'm saying to you is your Code provision in essence creates single and separate lots with' respect to all the lots Within this subdivision. We do have another person that we were going to have come here to testify tonight with respect to the status of the use of that cottage prior to 1957. Unfortunately, due to an illness in the family, she was unable to be here, and therefore I'm going to ask that it be put over at least until the next meeting so I have an opportunity to do so to further testify as to what was in existence on the lot prior to 1957. Regular Meeting Southold Town Board ~peals May 17, (Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: This board prior to closing or recessing this hearing will caucus to discuss that request. Do you have any objec- tion to that (to J. Cron, Esq.)? JAMES CRON, ESQ.: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I also would like to clarify a couple of the things raised by counsel. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's just take the first objection first. MR. CRON: Well, I would object to it being put over without disclosure who this witness is and what the alleged illness is. .~ Obviously, I can say that I have a witness, too, but that doesn't make it the case. I think the board should go into who this person is, what the relationship to the property is, and what the particular illness was rather than there being an adjournment. MR. HAEFELI: Beatrice, Featig, is her sister is in criJical condition, and I believe it's in Pennsylvania. She left within the last several days to be down at her side. She submitted an affidavit and I wanted to bring her in to further clarify that affidavit. There is one other point in reference to the fact that this is a nonconform- ing use. I don't think this use is nonconforming at all. It's a residential use.from the start, always has been. So we've got a · proper use. The question is"do we have a use on a proper size piece of property, a preexisting piece of property, or do we need variances in order to permit the conformity with the area requirements of the code." This is not putting a business use in a residential district. · That's a nonconforming use. This is a residential use, a permitted use in a residential district, MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to continue, Mr. Cron? J. CRON: Yes, Mr. Chairman; The first thing that I would like to address, Counsel has stated that there is a building permit for an accessory building, and that isn't correct. There was a building permit which was withdrawn on March 27, 1984, and I submit now that withdrawal by Mr. Lessard. (The Chairman marked the 5-page exhibit as Exhibit "E.") MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. CRON: One other point that I wish to address--there has been reference made to the other members of the subdivision, that being I believe the Chisholms, the Walkers and the Gannons, and also, the Zeidlers. No reference has been made to the square footage of those particular buildings. As you gentlemen are aware, they're asking for a substantial deviation from the 850 sq. ft. requirement of a residential dwelling. They're asking for a 500 ft. use of this particular structure. I think that is substantial. I think it's something that the board should~v~very heavily. u Furthermore, the board, while the variance application is before it, does not have to grant it. It's solely within your discretion. A number of things which are to be considered which~ Southold Town Board ppeals May 17, l~J~4 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3232 , 'BERTRAM AND MARGERY ~WALKER, continued:) MR. CRON continued: this board should take Ynto accou~it is discretion of the health of the neighbors. If you have a common sewage system here obviously it does pose a health hazard. They are very low to water there, I believe the water table--there's water abutting this particular piece of property. As far as the sideyards are concerned, I believe the application is only asking as concerns the lot on which the structure is on. They're talking about a 16-foot on one side and nine foot on the other, obviously, if the other parcel was being considered there. is a. greater sideyard than 16 foot, so I believe the example in the exhibits before the board is inaccurate. We're only talking about -~ this particular lot, not Parcel B as shown on your map. I believe all of these reasons are enough for the board in its discretion to turn it down. This was a garage in 1957. It continues to be a garage with extension modification--illegal modification. I will not re-hash again what I've already put before the board. Yes, Mr. Chairman? ~ MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't understand, originally you said to me that you felt that Lots No. 15 and 16 were merged. MR. CRON: I believe all of those lots were merged under common ownership, 15 through 18. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. But now you're addressing your statements to Lot No. 16 only. MR. CRON: Yes, sir. I'm doing that because in the application itself, on Number 3 on the rider,"that the following variances be granted." They were talking about reduction of one sideyard from l0 feet to nine feet. They're talking about reduction of both sideyards from 25 to 16.40 feet. If both those lots were taken into account, obviously there would be a larger sideyard than nine feet and 16.40 on the other. I believe we're only talking about that one particular lot. Counsel may clarify that, but I think that it's something that the board should look into because it would obviously be a mistake to consider both lots when there are only asking for a variance on one particular lot--in which case they could, build--according to counsel's ~rgument, on the other lot that's vacant. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Haefeli. MR. HAEFELI: Yeah. As to the letter that you have that was submitted by Mr. Lessard--I haven't discussed it with Mr. Lessard, a~d maybe we will either have to get. Mr. Lessard in here or an affidavit from Mr. Lessard to explain it to me--the background to this board. But a building permit was issued for that accessory structure by ~r. Lessard on the basis that there were three separate and distinct lots here. Pursuant again, pursuant to the provisions of the code and these lots being exempted from the area requirements of the code. One of the lots contained a main dwelling--the second one contained a garage and apartment, and a third was vacant. Based upon that, Mr. Southold Town Board peals (Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY MR. HAEFELI continued: Lessard May 17, 1~)'4 Regular Meeting WALKER, continued:) issued a building permit for that, for the one structure. It was subsequent to that that apparently certain people, he came to the conclusion that the Walkers were claiming they had only two lots. One being Parcel A shown on the survey, and the other being Parcel B. I informed Mr. Lessard both in person and by letter that the Walkers are not giving up their right to having three separate and distinct lots-- Parcel A being one,.Lot 15 and 16 being the other, and Lot 17 being' the other. And to answer the prior question--yes, it is our position that Lot 16 alone constitutes a separate building lot. Lot 15 consti- tutes a separate building lot, and Lot 17 and 18 which were not par[~ of this application would be a separate lot; and we're directing ourselves specifically with respect to Lot 16 and a request for variances on Lot 16 as far as the sideyards are concerned, because it's obvious that if 15 and 16 were together we would have two problems, the first of which we would have a corner lot which would require two frontyards, and Number Two, we would only have on, side- yard, therefore we wouldn't be making the same request for sideyards as we are in fact making. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Zeidler. Oh, excuse me--go ahead. MR. HAEFELI: I just wanted to further point out that one of the witnesses came up and said to this board the fact that there was a bathroom and there was a bedroom or living accommodations in that garage apartment MR. ZEIDLER: After listening to the attorney, I feel real, real sad tonight. I moved to your town five years ago and built a very nic~' home, in a very nice area, not with the idea of splitting my lots to sell them for profit some time.in the future; and I think there are other people that split those lots also. But this man sad we're dealing with Lot 16, not the other lots. To me I'm kind of said that maybe this is being done so they can sell them for a lot more than what they have, and I think you should take that into consideration. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I'm sorry to ask you to do that, are taping this at the same time. Yes, could you use the mike please. I know."it's out of the way, but we ANN KELLY: When we bought the three lots in Edgemere Park-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have your name please? MRS. KELLY: Oh, yes. Ann Kelly.- When we bought the property it consisted of three lots--we were told we can only build one hc~use-- that it was one property. At no time did anyone ever give any indica- tion that we could possibly build three different houses on three different lots. They abut the water--just after we bought it I think the new rule was that you have to be lO0 feet away from the water-- the cesspools, et cetera. But never did anyone indicate that it was anything less than one piece of property--in no way would we have Southold Town Board peals May 17, 1~4 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MRS. KELLY continued: gotten a Permit to build three houses. Mr. Fulcher in fact wished to split that lot--the three lots in half, and sell a lot and a half from the lot and a half, and they would not allow that in the subdivi- sion, of the conversations he mentioned. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Kelly. Mr. Haefeli, could I ask you two questions please? MR. HAEFELI: Yes, sir?. MR. CHAIRMAN: The existing storage building that's on the property which appears to be on Lot No. 15 at this time--that particular storage building is to be moved to a new location closer to the adjacent cottage that we're referring to in this application, is that correct? ~ MR. HAEFELI: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. You are also substantiating that the deck is not attached to the house and that it is an accessory structure. MR. HAEFELI: That's correct. That there is no actual physical attachment of the deck to the house, and as such it would constitute an accessory structure which would be permitted in the rearyard but would not be permitted in the sideyard. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. would like to say? Is there anything ~lse that you MR. HAEFELI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything in rebuttal, Mr. Cron, before we make a decision here one way or another? MR. CRON: No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, Mr. H~efeli, I could ask you this later, ~-. if we so grant this extension, could you address the cottage please and tell us what's in there now? MR. HAEFELI: Kitchen, two bedrooms, bathroom, living room, or I guess kitchen-living room together, or kitchenette. ~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any questions of any board members before we caucus? - MEMBER SAWICKI: None. Everything haslbeen covered. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions from anybody in the audience? (None) All right. I will take approximately five minutes recess to discuss the extension. I will address though Mr. Cron and I will tell him that usually it has been the nature of this board in situations like this to grant at least one recess. I am not in any way influencing my board to do so. I am going to speak to them and that's the issue at Southold Town Board ppeals May 17, 1~4 Regular (Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: Meeting hand, and see what they so desire. Do you have any MR. CRON: Not until you make your decision, MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. comments about that? Mr. Chairman. time On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was. RESOLVED, to recess for approximately five minutes, at which this hearing will be reconvened. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen, Sawicki, Goehringer. This resolution was unanimously adopted. The board took a recess a~d left the room to caucus for ~proxi= mately 10 minutes. RECONVENED HEARING: On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the public hearing in the matter of BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, BE AND HEREBY IS RECONVENED. Voteof the BOard: Ayes: Messrs. Gr~gonis, Douglass, Doyen, Sawicki and Goehringer. This resolution was unanimously adoPted. The public hearing reconvened at 10:52 p.m. MR. CHAIRMAN (GOEHRINGER): As I had mentioned to Mr. Cron, we'll grant the extension. We can't give you the exact date of the next meeting--we haven't voted on it yet. We only uniquely grant one extension. Secondly, I'll be perfectly honest with you-- both gentlemen, both attorneys. The time that we spent in there in the caucus was not specifically timed--it was devoted to the nature of granting the extension and not granting the extension. There are several issues in this particular case which seem to be somewhat difficult to grasp and we implore you to clear them up either with expert testimony or whatever at the next hearing. That does not mean any of the testimony that we've received was not taken, in the sense that it should have been taken, and that is of course we are considering expert testimony, but we would like more. Ok? Thirdly, we will be dealing with sworn testimony, at the next hearing on everybody's part. I have received affidavits from people. I would assume that's just as good as swearing someone in. And fourthly, I would like to commend everybody fo~ a very well presented way in which this particular group handled themselves. Fifthly, we have been very, very successful in the past and in caucusing, within a meeting, this was not the last application--sending the entire group out into the hall and hammering out something that they would be happy wit~. I think the one thing that we all have to be aware of is we are all Southold Town Board ppeals May 17, ~84 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: property owners and for some right in this particular town; and cer- tainly the hamlet of Edgemere Park is a unique subdivision. I'd like to see if there could be some agreement, and I'm not specifically talking about major changes--asking something, and you say, "Well, we do agree on this particular point" or "We don't agree on that particular point." And I realize there may be litigation involved here. I guess that's all I have to say. Mr. Zeidler? ~ MR. ZEIDLER: On the seven letters that I brought you from the property owners in Edgemere Park considered the same as that sworn testimony? MR. CHAIRMAN: I certainly will consider them as such, sir; however, you have to understand that we are unable to question these people, so if anybody would like to come forward, it would certainly be well appreciated. ~ MR. ZEIDLER: All right. One more thing. Will we get a notice of the next meeting? We did not get a notice of this meeting except in the newspaper. And I'm an adjoining property owner. (sic) MR. CHAIRMAN: No. You will have'to call the town hall, but we'll certainly, be rest assured, that both attorneys will be aware of when the next meeting will be. We run into a major problem with that, and that is if you don't call one person, then they get upset and so on and so forth. Unfortunately, this board has only really one full-time and one part-time person for the summer, and it's very,.. very difficult to do that continuously. MR. ZEIDLER: Well, I came in front of your board--and when came in front of your board for my variance, I had to notify my neighbors by registered mail. This was not done in this case. MR. CHAIRMAN: What we will do in this particular case, is, we will hammer out a date tonight prior to your leaving, ok, and we will do that for the sole purpose that we will not have to readvertise this hearing. MR. HAEFELI: Mr. Chairman--just one point? MR. CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. HAEFELI: That on March 21st, notice of this application was sent to Mr. Zeidler and to Mrs. Chisholm by certified mail; and I think it's on the back of the application. - MR. ZEIDLER: Do you have a receipt that I signed for it? MR. HAEFELI: We didn't have to. MR. ZEIDLER: Well, I never received it. Southold Town Board ppeals May 17, ~m~'84 Regular (Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) Meeting MR. HAEFELI: Well, then, it must have gotten lost in the mail. MEMBER DOUGLASS: They didn't have to notify them by certified mail because they're across the road. MR. CHAIRMAN: The law, Mr. Zeidler, as Mr. Douglass had men- tioned, only requires those Property owners that are within that area of the road confines, so therefore, I don't know where the ~ ownership of the creek is and so on and so forth, in respect to this ting--so that's probably the reason why. They can do it gratuitously, but they're not required to so it, Ok? Are there any further questions, counsellor? (None) MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to recessing this to the next regular monthly meeting, it was brought to my attention that Mr. Esseks is going to be out of the country on the Truckenbrodt application, and the only physical time that we could get together bearin~ in mind he's coming back on the 21st would be Friday night of the 22nd. And I realize, Mr. Douglass, Friday night is extremely difficult for you, do you think that would be a problem, and Mr. Sawicki? SECRETARY: That is court night. the schedule of meetings. I would have to check MR. LESSARD: Friday is court night. That's out. MEMBER SAWICKI: Why don't you leave that open, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, at this particular time ~or the purpose of not readvertising this hearing, we'll go along with the 22nd unless there's some conflict with one of the Judges. Is that all right? MEMBER SAWICKI: Well, do we have to make a dare,right now? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Well, we don't. SECRETARY: The 21st is Thursday,.. ~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Esseks will not be back on the 21st. He's -- SECRETARY: The letter said until the 21st. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh. All right. MEMBER DOYEN: Excuse me, Jerry. I don't understand why we have to wait for Mr. Esseks. - MR. CHAIRMAN: Because he is representing one of the applicants in the Truckenbrodt application which will be the nature of the next regular meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. It appears that the 21st of June, which is a Thursday evening. So at this particular time I'll make a motion Southold Town Board Appeals May 17, 4 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN continued: scheduling the next Regular Meeting as June 21st, unless changed. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to recess the hearing of Appeal No. 3232, matter of BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER until the next Regular Meeting of THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 1984,.unless changed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Haefeli, Could"you present us with a~ copy.of the original filed map of "Edgemere Park," that was filed with the Suffolk County Clerk. Thank you very mu~h. Mr. Haefeli nodded affirmatively. The Chairman thanked everybody for coming in, and indicated to the audience that the time will probably be in the area of about 9:00 o'clock p.m., prior to the last hearing that night. Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- BTATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L,I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGI~, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, .IR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI August 28, 1984 Mr. 'Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner Suffolk County Department of Planning Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11787 Re: Appeal No. 3232 - Bertram and Margery Walker Your File Reference #SD-84-8 Dear Mr. Newman: This letter will confirm that at a Special Meeting of the Board of Appeals held on Tuesday, August 14, 1984, the board adopted the following resolution, by unanimous vote of all the members, concerning the above matter, and overriding your agency's August 1, 1984 action: RESOLVED, that: (1) that the one-story building in question was and has been used as sleeping quarters since prior to the enactment of zoning and therefore this board interprets its use for sleeping quarters to be a valid preexisting, nonconforming use; (2) that the one-story building in question was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning and therefore this board interprets same to be a valid preexisting "structure"; (3) that the deck in question is in fact within inches from the subject building and is not accessory but is interpreted to be a part of the principal structure, and that the applicant has not shown "unnecessary hardship" or "practical difficulties" sufficient to warrant the granting of the sideyard reduction and therefore the reduction of the deck to less than nine feet from the side property line is not granted; 'Page 2 - Appeal No. 3~32 Walker Mr. Gerald G. Newman Suffolk County Department of Planning August 28, 1984 (4) that the use of the one-story building as a one-family residence is questionable and therefore is interpreted not to be a valid preexisting, nonconforming use; and accordingly, the use of this structure mith a reduction to 500 sq. ft. of livable area for one-family dwelling use is not granted. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution of all the members present. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, was adopted by unanimous vote Yours very truly, lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING LEE E. KOPPELMAN Mr. Gerard P. Goehrtnger, Chairman Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 , 1984 Re: Application of "Bertram and MarJorie Walker" (#3232), Town of Southold (SD-84-8). Dear Mr. Goehringer: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on August 1, 1984 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation Resolved to disapprove it because of the following: 1. The relief requested is substantial in relation to zoning ordinance requirements; 2. It would further alter the character of the area and establish a precedent for the continuance of such land development patterns in the locale; 3. It is inconsistent with water supply limitations in the locale; and 4. A self-improved hardship appears evident as a detached two (2) car garage was altered and converted for residence purposes in contra- yention of zontn§ requirements. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Directo[ o~ Plannin~ Chief Planner GGN:Jk COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ~1) PETER F. COHALAN 5UFFOLKCOUNTYEXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING LEE E. KOPPELMAN DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Application of "Bertram and MarJorie Walker" (#3232), Town of Southold (SD-84-8). Dear Mr. Goehringer: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on August 1, 1984 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation Resolved to disapprove it because of the following: 1. The relief requested is substantial in relation to zoning ordinance requirements; 2. It would further alter the character of the area and establish a precedent for the continuance of such land development patterns in the locale; 3. It is inconsistent with water supply limitations in the locale; and 4. A self-improved hardship appears evident as a detached two (2) car garage was altered and converted for residence purposes in contra~ ventton of zoning requirements. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Directo~ o~ Plannin~ Chief Planner GGN :Jk Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD. L.I.. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI August 3, 1984 Richard T. Haefeli, Esq. McNulty, DiPietr~ and Haefeli 130 Ostrander Avenue, Box.757 Riverhead, NY llgO1 Re: Appeal No. 3232 Dear Mr. Haefel"l. Bertram and Margery Walker Please find enclosed a copy of the August 2, 1984 letter from the Suffolk County Department of Planning disapproving the above-entitled matter for the reasons stated therein. As of this date, a determination has not been rendered by the Board of Appeals, 'but is expected soon. EnclosureI cc: Building James J. Department Cron, Esq. yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER C~IR~AN ./ , Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- BTATE ROAD 2.5 SOUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11g71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 Pursuant to Article XIII of the Suffolk County Charter, the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, New York, hereby refers the following to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: x~ Variance from the Zoning Code, Article III , Section I00-3I Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector Special Exception, Article , Section -- Special Permit Appeal No.: 3232 Applicant: BERTRAM &. MARGERY WALKER Location of Affected Land: Mac Donald's Path off Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel County Tax Map Item No.: t000-i45_4_0i4 Within 500 feet of: Town or Village Boundary Line xx Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary) State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway __ Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally- Owned Land ~ Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or Other Recreation Area __ Existing or Proposed Right-of-Way of Any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by the County or for Which The County Has Estab- lished Channel Lines, or Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of An Airport. COMMENTS: Applicant is requesting permission to (a) interpret that existing cottage & garage are valid for preexisting, nonconforming uses and structures~ (b) approval o~ a wooden deck as accy. in s'ideyard; (c) approval Qf reductiQn Qf livable floor area to 500 sq. ft. & in~uff, sideyd. Copies of Town file and related documents enclosed herewith for your review. Public Hearing May I7, I984. No A~..~ Dated: June 28, I984 Temp. ~ecre~ary, Board of Appeals Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- BTATE ROAD 25 -~OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11g'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI May 14, 1984 Mr. Arthur L. Smith, Jr. P.O. Box 214 New Canaan, CT 06840 Re: Appeal No. 3232 Bertram and Margery Walker Dear Mr. Smith: Concerning your letter received this morning, we are enclosing a copy of the legal notice of hearing which describes the requests of the applicants, and the date and time of the hearing in the event you wish to have someone appear in your behalf. Your letter has been made part of the file. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call our office. Yours very truly, Linda Kowalski Secretary Sm. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the visions of.the Amended Code of the Town of Southold, a Regular Meeting and the fol- lowing public hearings will be held by the Southdid Town Bos~l of Appeals at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on THURSDAY. JUNE 21. 1984, commencing at 7:30 p+m. and as follows: 7:35 p.m~ Application for JOHN D~, 333 Warwick AVenue, Tea Neck, NJ 07666 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, A~ticle HI, Section 100-32 for persmission to con- struct accessory garage build- i~g in the f~ontyard area at premises, 1255 Private Road #1 (Ooose Creek Lane), South- old, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-078-08-009. 4-10 containing app~Oxhuately 7.2 acres. ff 8:55 p.m. Application for~ r BERTRAM AND MARGERY ~ recessed f~om Ma3 17, 1984 for Variances for (a) interpretation, {b) appwva .of deck in sideyard, (¢) ap- proval of reduction of livable floor area and insufficient sideyards of dwelling conver- sion. Peconic Bay Blvd., Laur- el; 1000-145-4-014. 9:15 p.m. Application of ARTHUR R. TRUC~.r Orient, NY for a reversal of the interpretation of the building inspector concerning a Certifi- cate of Occupancy No. Zl1736 issued June 21, 1983 to E. Loucopoulos and H. Damianos for a one-family dwelling and four accessory cottage struc- tures at Private Roa. d No. 7, (a/k/a Diedericks Road), Or- ient; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-18-03-00S [Current Owners~D.L Abbott and J.T. Swanson], Persons having an interest in any of the above matters may be heard at the time and place specified above. For additional information, please contact our office, 76.5-1809 (or 1802). Dated: June $, 1984. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS CHAHIMAN eup pa~. 1T-6/7/84(7) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK Potricia Wood, being duly sworn, soys that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- man once each week for .......................... ./.. ........... weeks successively, commencing on the 7 &¢ ........................... Swam to before me this ............... : ................day of .............. .................. ,, with reduction of sideyard b ~ set ack at premises located 0F ~ ' at 860 Main Bayview Road, ?~~N~t "~' ~ Sonthold County Tax Map '~::~'.~"'i~%, ' Parcel NO. 10000704174)16.2. ~'-~'~t to ~*~'~ 8.20 p.m. Application for ~"~ * ..... ,~ ,.. PATRICK CARRIG and tim Am*~ded MARK S. McDONALD ~,~.~,~,~,~,.,,~..~,~ ' (Owners. Eric and Nancy ~%~..~..~.~r~.~ .... ~.~_ Maim), Richmond Road, ~m~n~ ~uu ~n~ ~U~ 1~ ~~~._ f0 approval of ace,s, New ~'~~at ~ ~ Y~rk To~ ~w~ ~tmn ?:~L~ ~--*~ A, ov~ a p~vate ~t~-way Y~m~av n~** ' ~ated at the north sxde of ~han~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Avenue, Mattl~, i~Ji~iti~ for Tax Map Pa~l No. 1~1~ ~~~,~o, 1-18, containing ~~:~:L~ ' 8'~ u m APPlication for ~ ........ ' :*~ ~ for a Variance for t r ~ garage ~~~ ~ approval of ~~,{,l~g ~Fivate York To~ ~w, ~ion No.. 1~ Lane" and one as "Laurel ,~ ~ . Way" located at the South Side of Sound Avenue, ~:40 p.,m.~ Application of .:~EORGE R, TUTHILL, Box '~,'.19, Cutchogue, NY for a ~fariance, to the Zoning ~}/'dinam2 Article HI, Section ".[00~1~,:~ for, approval of ~Ufficient area and width of Arc,Is located at the north ldO, of' Bay Avenue, tRchngue,' NY; Nassau 'arms Subdivision, part of ~bt 140; County Tax Map ~arcel N~: ~:45 p~. Application for AVID . AND JEANNE ~BRAWNER, Main Road, ~heent,, NY for a Variance to he ~ Ordinance, arUcie ~ Section 100-31 for approval ~ insufficient area of parcel to M seboff from an 4.066 acre ndrCel at the South Side of ain ROad, Orient; county Map Parcel No. 10~0-20-3- part o~ 11.2. 7:56D.m. Application of ~! KRNSgT -,AI~D JEAN ~; ~I'UMPF. 107 Roxbury Road !:,/[~outh, Gar~n City, NY 11530, for a, Varim~ce to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec- ~ion 100-82 (and/or Section 100- $!) for permission in consiruct raised deck with an insufficient aetlmek in tho side ~'~ and rear yards at the West Side of S. Oa~wood Drive, Laurel; County Tax Mop Parcel No, l~oo, iia. o~am. 8~05 p,m. Application for EUSTACEC, ~..RIKSEN, 1085 ,Wsetview Drive, Mattituck. NY for a Variande to the Zoning Ordinance, appealing of the building l~spector in order to permit the conversion and renovation of a "guest cottage" or second dwelling structure at premises known -as 1085 West View Drive, Mattituck; County Tax Map Parcel No: 1000-139-1-3. ~:15 p.m. Applicatl~on of JOHN GRIGON_IS, 950 Bay- view Road, Souffiold, NY for a Variance .to the Zoning Ordinance, Article HI, Section 100-31 for approval of the '~onstructinn of new dwcil~g Mattituck, (near Laurel), to premises identified as County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-121- 4-10 containing approximately 7.2 acres. B8:55 p.m. Application ERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER recessed from May 17, l~i for Variances inr: (a) interpretation, (b) approval of deck in sideyard, (c) approval of reduction of livable floor area and insufficient sideyards of dwelling conversion. Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel; 1000-145-44)14. 9:15 p.m. Application of ARTHUR R. TRUCKEN- BRODT, et al,, Private Road, O~ient, NY for a reversal of the interpretation of the building inspector concerning a Certificate of Occupancy No. Zl1736 issued June 21, 1963 to E. Loucopoulos and H. Damianes for an one-family dwelling and four accessory cottage structures at Private Road No. 7, (a/k/a Dtedericks Road), Orient; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-18..03-{~5 [Current Owners: D.I. Abbott and J.T. Swanson]. Persons having an interest in any of the above matters may be heard at the time and place specified above. For additional information, please contact our office, 7~F~-1809 (or Dated: JUen $, 1~4. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER 1TJ7.4587 CHAIRMAN STATE OFNEWYORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) SUSAN W. ALLAN of Grannport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for one weeks successively, commencing on the 7 th dayof June 19 84 Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this 7th dayof June 19 84 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended Cede of the Town of Souihold, a Regular Meeting and the following public hearings will be held by the Souihold Town Board of Appeals at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on Thursday, May 17, 1984, commencing at 7:30 p.m. and as follows: 7:35 p.m. Application of VINCENT GRIFFO, 2~0 Basin Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100- 32 for permission to construct accessory building in an area other than the rear yard, at 280 Basin Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-081-01-019. 7:40 p.m. Application of JAMES ANDERSON, 16 Waverly Place, New York, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-118(D) for permission to reinstate nonconforming dwelling use of building in this B-I Business District, 300 Moore's Lane (a/k/a Linden Ave.), Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 10O0-I09- 03"00~. 7:45 p.m. Application for JOHN WICKHAM, by Wickham, Wickham and Bressler, P.C., Main Road, Mattituek, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60 for permission to use premises as a business office for marine use for storage and repair of contractor's own vehicles and equipment, at 67576 Main Road, Greenpert, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000"052- 05.05~. 7:50 p.m. Application of JOSE V. RODRIGUEZ, Box 113, Fishers Island, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Sections 100-70(A) and 100-71, for permission to construct dwelling in this B-I Business · District. Location of Property: West Side of Fox Lane, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-012-01-001.002. 8:00 p.m. Application of JOSEPH FISCHETTL Hobart Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Ar. ticle V, Section 100-~50(C)[1] for permission to erect sign with less than four- foot clearance from ground, at 52800 C.R. 48, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-051"0~002. 8:05 p.m. Application of ROBIN E. CARR, 811 Roanoke Avenue, Riverheed, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct inground swimmingpool in the sideyard area, at 315 Brown Street, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~048.03- 042.3. 0:10 p.m. Application of ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, III, Box 1112, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-60(C) for permission to erect sign with insufficient setback from the front (street) property line, at North Side of Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000061-02-07 and part of 0~. 8:15 p.m. Application for GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL, INC. by R.F. Lark, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Section 100-93 for permission to construct office building with an insufficient frontyard setback, at 1515 Youngs Avenue, Southuid, NY ("C-1' General Industrial Zone); County Tax Map Parcel Nu. 1000-60-1-6. 8:25 p.m. Applination for GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL, 1NC. by R.F. Lark, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Sections 100-90, 100-91, and Article VIII, Section 100-80(B) for permission to construct office and storage building in this "C-1' General Industrial District, at 1515 Youngs Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel NO. 1000-60-1- 6. 8:35 p.m. Application for GERTRUDE M. AL1 by R.F. Lark, Esq., Main Road, Cutohogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct new dwelling which places accessory storage building in the frontyard area. Location of Property: South Side of East Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-110-07"019. 8:45 p.m. Applic'ation for KATHRINE FARR by S.S. Corwin, E~q., 634 First Street, Greenpart, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordlnanca Art cie VIII, Sections 100- 80(B) and 100-81, for ~ermiaslon to construct uilding for marina office in this "C-Light Industrial" District, at 1100 Manhanset County Tax .._..p Parcel No. 10~0-034-05"021. 8:55 p.m. Application for KATHRINE FARR by S.S. Corwin, Esq., First Street, Greenpert, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Sections 100-80(B) and 100-81 for permission to construct building for marina and brokerage office use in this "C-Light Industrial" District, at 1100 Manhanset Avenue, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel' No. 1100 Manhanset Avenue, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-034-05. 021. 9:00 p.m. Application of KEVIN AND LESLEY MILOWSK1, Box 134, C~tchogue, NY for a'Variance to New York Town Law, Article 16, Section 200A, for approval of access over a private right-of-way at the west side of Cox Neck Road, Mattituck, NY; (now or formerly W. Chudiak); County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000ql3-7-part of 12. ~9:05 p.m. Application for,I BERTRAM AND MARGERY [ WALKER, by R.T. Haefeli, ~ Esq., Box 757, Riverhead, NY I for a Variance to the Zoning I Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for: (a) an ~ interpretation that the I existing cottage and garage i are valid preexisting, f nonconforming uses and~ structures; (b) approval of a wooden deck as an accessory structure in the sideyard; (c) approval of a reduction of livable floor area of a proposed dwelling conversion to 500 sq. ft. and approval of insufficient sideyards. Premises located al Edgemere Park MacDonald s Path off Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel;~ County Tax Map No. 1000-145- I ~ 4-014. Persons having an interest in any of the above matters may appear and be heard at ,the time and place specified above. For additional information, please contact our office, 765-1809 (or 765- 1802). Dated: May 4, 19~4. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN 1TM10-4564 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) SUSAN W. ALLAN _ of Greenport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for one weeks successively, commencing on the [0th day of M ~Z, 198 4 Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this ~ dsyof May 19 84 Article VIH, Sections 100-80(B)' and 100-81, for permission to ~ construct building for marina ~. office in this "C-Light Indus- ~ trial" District, at 1100 Man- hanset Avenue, Greenport, ~! NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-034-05-021. 8'.S5 p;m. Application for KATH~INE~FARR, b~ S.S. Corwin, Esq,. First Street, Greenport, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordin- anco, Article V1H, Sections 100-80(B) and 100-81 for per- mission to construct building for marina and brokerage office use in this "C.Light Industrial" District, at 1100 Manhanset Avenue, Green- pert, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1100 Manhanset Avenue, Greenport, NY; E County Tax Map Parcel No. j 1000.034-05-021. : 9:00 p.m. Application of n KEVIN AND LESLEY M1- s; LOWSKI~ Box 134, Cut- io cbogue, NY for a Variance to New York Town Law, Article ~ 16, Section 280A, for approval o! of access over a private Df rigin-of-way at the west side of oq Cox Neck Road, Mattituck, ~g~ NY; (now or formerly W. li~ Chudink); County Tax Map i~ Parcel No. 1000-113-7-part of i~l 12. · ~,9:05 p.m. Application for q'8 ~BERTRAM AND MARGERY ~!c WALKER, by R.T. Haefeli, ns Esq., Box 757, Riverhead, i ~ for a Variance to the Zoninl t~ Ordinance, Article m, Sectiot ,pa 100-31, for: (a) an interpre- I o~ : ration that the existing cottage ,oi~ and garage are valid pre- t u existing, nonconforming use~ ~q and structures; (b) approval of ~m a wooden deck as an accessory structure in the sideyard; (d) u!l approval of a reduction of liv- I~; able floor area of a proposed ~ dwelling conversion to 500 sq. ft. and approval of insuf- ~q~ 5cient sideya~ds. Premises ~u! located at Edgemere Park, MacDonald's Path off Peconic ~- Bay Bouleavard, Laurel; Coun- ty Tax Map No. 1000-145-4- ~ 014. ! ~ Persons have an interest m any of the above matters may appear and be heard at the time and place specifted {-o.' above. For additional informa- 3'~' tion, please contact our office, [ ! 76~-1s0~ Ior 76S-lS02~. Dated: May 4, 1984.  BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN ~!'1 '~ 1T-5/10/84(17) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVEL£R-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in, Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- man once each week for ......................... ./. ............. weeks successively, commencing on the .............. .~...~. ................ ......... ........................... Swam to before me this ............. /-...~....~. .......... day of ............... ................... , Notar~Public Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 50UTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 .. TELEPHONE (516) 7651809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGOflI$, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKt TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Concerning your recent application filed with our office, please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice as published in the local and official newspapers of the Town of Southold, to wit, the Suffolk Times and the L.I. Traveler-Watchman indicating the date and time of your public hearing. Please have someone appear in your behalf at the time specified in the event there are questions brought up during the public hear- ing and in order to prevent any delay in the processing of your application. If you have any questions, or if you would like to review your file prior to the hearing, please do not hesitate to either stop by our office at the Southold Town Hall, or by calling our secretary, Linda Kowalski, at 765-1809 (or, if no answer, 765-1802). Yours very truly, Ik Enclosure GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RDAD- STATE ROAD ?-5 SOUTHOLD, L.I,, N.Y. 11c:J'71 TELEPHONE {516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRiGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Notice April 5, 1984 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATI~rE ENVIRONbIENTAL DECLAP~TION of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3232 PROJECT NAFLE: BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER 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 Envirorumental Conservation Law and Local Law 944-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Interpretation: (a) for existing cottage and garage to be valid, preexisting uses and structures; (b) approval of wooden deck as an accessory structure in sideyd.;(c) reduction of livable floor area* LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Edgemere Park, MacDonald's Path off Pec0nic Bay B0u]evard, Laurel; ]000-145-4-14. REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (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 premises is bulkheaded seaward of existing structures the total length of the rope t ; , ..~,3) ]Fha, relief r~eq~e~tedj~ r]ot.dir, e,ctly ,related to new construction. *of DUl/olng aR(] approval or lnSUTT1Clen[ sleeyarus. FOR FURTHER INFOP~TION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowals~i, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. ZON!!':G [~O&RD OF APPEALS MA!':,/ I~OAD . S.R. 25 ,50UTHOLD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of Southold, a Regular Meeting and the f~llowing public hearings will be held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 1984, commencing at 7:30 p.m. and as follows: 7:35 p.m. Application for JOHN DENNY, 333 Warwick Avenue, Tea Neck, NO 07666 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory garage building in the frontyard area at premises, 1255 Private Road #1 (Goose Creek Lane), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-078-08-009. 7:40 p.m. Application of GEORGE R. TUTHILL, Box 719, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels located at the north side of Bay Avenue, Cutcho§ue, NY; Nassau Farms Subdivi- sion, part of Lot 140; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-104-04-33. 7:45 p.m. Application for DAVID AND JEANNE BRAWNER, Main Road, Orient, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area of parcel to be set-off from an 4.066 acre parcel at the South Side of Main Road, Orient; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-20-3-28 and part of ll.2. 7:55 p.m. Application of ERNEST AND JEAN STUMPF, 207 Roxbury Road South, Garden City, NY 11530, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 (and/or Section I00-31)for pePmission to construct raised deck with an insufficient setback in the side and rear yards at the West Side of S. Oakwood Drive, Laurel; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-145-03-005. 8:05 p.m. Application ~r EUSTA~CE C. ERIKSEN~ 1085 Westview Drive, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, appealing~the December 12, 1983 decision of the building inspector in order to permit the conversion and renovation of a "guest cottage" or second dwelling structure at premises k~own as 1085 West View Drive, Mattituck; 8:15 p.m. Application Southold, NY for a Variance Section 100-31 for approval with reduction of sideyard Bayview Road, County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-139-1-3. of JOHN GRIGONIS, 950 Bayview Road, to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, of the construction of new dwelling setback, at premises located at 860 Main Southold; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-070-07-016.2. Page 2 Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of June 21, 1984 8:20 p.m. Application for PATRICK CARRIG and MARK S. McDONALD, (Owners: Eric and Nancy Malm), Richmond Road, Southold, NY for a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law, Section 280-A, over a private right-of-way located at the north side of Bergen Avenue, Mattituck, to premises identified as County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-112-1-18, containing approximately 3.9 acres. 8:40 p.m. Application for DOUGLAS MILLER, Montauk Highway, Quogue, NY for a Variance for approval of accesses, New York Town Law, Section 280-A, over two private rights-of-way, one known as "Kirkup Lane" and one as "Laurel Way" located at the South Side of Sound Avenue, Mattituck, (near Laurel), to premises 'identified as County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-121-4-10 containing approximately 7.2 acres. f 8:55 p.m. Application for BERTRA~M_~ ~ER. Y .~A~LKE~R recessed from May 17, 1984 for Variances for: (a) interpretation, (b) approval of deck in sideyard, (c) approval of reduction of livable floor area and insufficient sideyards of dwelling conversion. Peconic~ . Bay Blvd., Laurel, 1000-145-4-014. 9:15 p.m. Application of ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT, et al., Private Road, Orient, NY for a reversal of the interpretation of the building inspector concerning a Certificate of Occupancy No. Zl1736 issued June 21, 1983 to E. Loucopoulos and H. Damianos for an one-family dwelling and four accessory cottage structures at Private Road No. 7, (a/k/a Diedericks Road), Orient; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-18-03-005 [Current Owners: D.I. Abbott and J.T. Swanson]. Persons having an interest in any of the above mat~ers may be heard at the time and place specified above. For additional informa- tion, please contact our office, 765-1809 (or 1802). Dated: June 5, 1984. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN NOTICE TO NEWSPAPERS: Please publish once, to wit: Thursday, June 7, 1984 and forward l0 affidavits of publication to: Mrs. L. Kowalski, Secretary, Board of Appeals, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971, on or before June llth. Thank you. ~ Copie~ of Legal Notice m~iled 6/5/84 to the foll ng: Mr. John Denny Environment East, Inc. Mr. George R. Tuthill Irving L. Price, Jr., Esq. Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Stumpf Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Stumpf Mr. Edward Tobia -' -~ ~ · Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. Mr. John Grigonis George O. Guldi, Esq. Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. Richard T. Haefeli, Esq. McNulty, DiPietro & Haefeli James Cron, Esq. William W. Esseks, Esq. Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel Howard E. Pachm~n, Esq. Pachman, Oshrin & Block, P.C. Richard F. Lark, Esq. JUDITII T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAROI VITALS[\IISI'ICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (5/6) 765-1801 March 22~ 1984 To: Southold Town Zohing Board of Appeals From: Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 3232 application of Bertram & Margery Walker for a variance. Also included is Short Environmental Assessment Form; Letter relative to N.Y.S. Tidal Wetlands Land-Use; Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department; and survey. Judith T. Terry ~ Southold Town Clerk JOHN R, MCNULTY ARTHUR DiP)ETRO R)CHARD T. HAEFELt JAMES SPlESS McNULTY, DiPIETRO ~ HAEFELI SOUTHAMPTON OFFICE 273 HAMPTON ROAD SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK il968 516 - 283.8899 PAT FRANK NESC~ OF COUNSEL March 21, 1984 Board of Zoning Appeals Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Bertram & Margery Walker Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith find following relative to the above: 1. Three copies of Zoning Board application; 2. Three copies of survey; 3. Short form Environment Assessment form; 4. Notice of Disapproval; 5. Tidal wetlands questionnaire; 6. Our firm's check to your order in the amount $5O.00. Please advise the undersigned which this application will come before the Board. Very truly yours, RTH:lmw Enclosures BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter oT the Petition of totheBoardofAppealsoftheTownofSouthold TO: Mr. & Mrs. Richard Zeidler Ms. Joan R. Chisholm NOTICE TO ADJACENT ~£ PROPERTY OWNER YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That Jt is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to requesta (Variance) (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) [circle choice] and an interpretation of the Zoning Code. 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: Lot #16, Edgement Park - Tax Map ID: 1000/145.00/04.00/014.000 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: A-Residential 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: An interpretation of the Zoning Code and/or variances of the Bulk Schedule $. That the provisions of the $outhold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article III Section 100-31 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516} 7~'5-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: March 21, 1984 Bertram& Margery Walker Petitioner Post Office Address (No ~) Peconic Bay Blvd. Mattituck, NY 11952 NAME PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICF ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS ADDRESS Mr. & Mrs. Richard Zeidler Ms. Joan R. Chisholm Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel, NY 11948 Edgemere Park, Laurel, NY 11948 E 263 386 967 P 263 386 968 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED-- NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED-- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL SENT TO (See Reverse) ~M Richard Zeidler (see Reverse) lsat°Joan R. fhisholm STREE~AND NO ~P%%E~nic BaI Blvd. STREETANDNO ~dg~emer~ ~ark ¢70 STATE AND zip CODE P.O STATE AND ZiP CODE I%~el, N~ 11948 I%~:~el, [CZ 11948 ! CERTI/;~D FEE t$ . 20 CERTIFIED FEE 74 ~ 03/21/8~ 03/21/84 STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) SS.: LYNN M. WANAT , residing at 1378 West Main Street. Riverhead, New York , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 21st day of March , 19 84 , 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 5outhold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- rice at Riverhead, New York (certified) (~6i~1~ mail. Sworn to before me this 21st rch . ~n, 19 84 ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by ~7 LYN~ ii. WANAT Notary Public RECEIVED ~JAR:g ~ 1984 TOW. OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL I~;i~Nv~j~l;[E,~l~ OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL, NO.~..jD~.~ ~,~ DATE ,.l'~f'cb,..~,,~.,...],.984 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. (We) .BE. ILTi~,.M..~,..F~R.GE.RY...~ALKE. R. ...... of ....(N. ,o...J~.).....P..e...c..o.,n,.,i.,c...~..a.y.....B..1...v..d.,: ................ Name of Appellant Street and Number ...... .,M..a..t...t..i...t..u..c...k..,. ................................................................ ..~..e...~...!.°..r...k..~.....HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION DATED: 3/16/84 FOR: Addition WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) (x~ ( ) Bertram Walker Name of Applicant for permit of ..ENo...~'~ ..P..econic. Bay. .B.[.v...d:..~,...~.a.t~.$.~.g.g.k,, New. yqr..k_ ..................... Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY PERMIT TO BUILD 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ~C.]).Q~..a..~.~..?..~?..~``[)~*.~.d.g.e..~'~e'.~..~e.~.~.~'~.~.~.?.~.~..~ - Street and Hamlet Zone ..,1...0..0...0..J..1...4_5.../..4./..1..4. ................. , ............................. OWNER (S): .B.e~.C?..e~t...&...~.~.~.~e..~7..~.~..1.k.er /v~op No. Lot No. DATE ~U~¢~$~.D: .~.~.~.e.,..Zg.7.~ ........ 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article III , Section 100-31 (Bulk Schedule) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is mode herewith for (x) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 A 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (~(has not) been mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this p'roperty. Such ~ppeol was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (x) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance (x) An interpretation is requested~mxt~l~:x~r~e~Xt~x:~X~X~ SEE RIDER ANNEXED Form ZB! (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties 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 CttARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because / ~ ~BERTRAM WAt~.E, R STATE OF NEW YORK ) ~ ~-/~.', .... ~ ~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ~ ,/ ,/ Signature ~R~RY ~AL~R Sworn to this ................ ~.~..~. ......... day of .................... ~.~h ........................ ]98t RIDER TO APPLICATION The applicant requests the following: 1. An interpretation that the one-story cottage and garage was used as a residence prior to April, 1957, the effective date of zoninq in the Town and therefore consti- tutes a valid pre-existing, non-conforming use. 2. An interpretation that the structure in ques- tion was constructed prior to April, 1957 and therefore con- stitutes a valid pre-existing structure. 3. That the following variances be granted for the conversion of the structure into a one-story frame cottage and garage: (a) 9 feet; ~.90 (b) to .1~2~ ee t ;~ (c) feet to 500 square Reduction of one side yard from 10 feet to Reduction of both side yards from 25 feet Reduction of livable area from 850 square feet; (d)-Permit a wooden deck as an accessory structure in a side yard. ~ ~ · ~ ~ Pursuant to Section 100-12 of the Code, Lot 16, on which the cottage is located, is considered a separate lot and does not have to meet the lot area or lot width require- ments of the Code. In view of the narrow width of the lot and the fact that the structure in question has been located at the same place on the lot since prior to the effecitve date of zoning, the applicants have a practical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship in convertintlthe structure to a dwelling. The structure cannot be placed in a conforming location anywhere on the lot. The requested variances are not substantial and are similar to the reduced set backs of the other houses in the area and therefore the character of the area will not be ad- versely affected by the granting of the relief requested. 0 ,.~ 0 0 0 0 .C 0 0 0 0 .SHORT ENVIROh'M~ENTAL ASSESSM~ENT FOP~M INSTRUCT!OIlS: (a) In order to answer the questions in this short gAF is is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action, It is not exloected that additional studiest research or other investigations will be undertaken,' (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a ccmpleted EnviroNmental Assessment Form is necessa~/, (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is not significant. (d) Envircr~ental Assessment Will project result in a large physical cbmnge to the project site or physically alter more than l0 acres of land? ....... Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site? 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on an existing body of water? . · · · o &. Will project have a potentially large impac~ on gro,~ndwater quality? · , · · · · · Will project significantly effect drainage flow 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or anLmal species? . . . . . . . 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? . · · · · , · 8e Will project have a mmJor effect on visual char- acter of the community or scenic views or vistas kno.,m to be important to the community? . . . Will project adversely impact any site or struct- ure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological importance or any site designated as a critical enviror, mental area by a local agency? · · . 10. Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? · · . 11. Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturb- ance as a res,~t of the project's operation? . 13. Will project have any impact on public hea~th or safety'? , , , . , , , , , , , . 1L. Will project Affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent popula- tion of more than 5 percent over a one-year period o__r have a major negative effect on the character Of the com.~unit¥ or neighborhood? ~ Yes X No Yes X No Yes X No Yes X No Yes X No Yes X No Yes x No X Yes No Yes X No Yes X No Yes X No Yes X No Yes X No Yes 15. is there public~.4;ontrcversy concerning the project? Yes R~PR~SE,;TIJG. Bertram & Margery Walker DATE: M~rob 16, ~ No X , No 1984 QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND FILED WITH APPLICATION TO THE Z.B.A. The New York State Tidal Wetlands and Use Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Part 661, requires an application to the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, Environmental Analysis Unit, Building 40, S.U.N.Y., Stony Brook, NY 11794, (tel. 516-751-7900), if you have checked Box #1 and/or Box #6 below. Please either call their office or personally visit them at their Stony Brook office for instructions and application forms. Once you have received written notification of approva please provide our office with a copy (with the conditions) as early as possible in order that we may continue processing your Z.B.A. application. [ ] I. [ ] 3. [ ] 4. [ ] 5. [ ] 6. [ x×] Waterfront without bulkheading Waterfront with bulkheading in good condition [~ ] the full length of the property [ ] at least 100' in length Not located within 300' of waterfront or wetlands area May be located within 300' of waterfront or wetlands area; however, the following structure separates my property from this environmental area: [ ] 50' existing road [ ] existing structures [ ] bluff area more than 10' in elevation above mean sea level This proposed addition/expansion of an existing building will be more than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands/waterfront areas. This proposed addition/expansion of an existing building will NOT be more than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands/waterfront area. 7. Structure in existence prior to effective date of law. Please be aware that any and all subdivisions and new dwellings will also require an application to the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation for their review and approval. If you are able to provide them with recent photographs of the project and wetland areas, it would help expedite the processing of your applica- tion. This questionnaire is made to explain the requirements of this State Law and to prevent any unnecessary delays in processing your application(s). 10/831k "' STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK LOCAL CRIMINAL COURT : TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK : PETITION against : Docket Nos. ,419 BERTRAM W. WALKER and. MARGERY M. : 420 WALKER, 421 Defendants. TO: TOWN JUSTICE FREDERICK J. TEDESCHI The Petition of Richard F. Lark respectfully represents to the Court: 1. Your Petitioner is Special Assistant District Attorney for the Town of Southold and has acted in that capacity since April 3, 1981. 2. By a Decision After Trial, So Ordered on October 11, 1983, the above named defendants were found guilty of: Under Docket No. 419, violations of Section 100-32B, 100-141 and 100-141A(1) of the Code of the Town of Southold; under Docket No. 420, violations of Section 100-30C(5), i00-32B, 100-141 and 100-144(A) 1 of the Code of the Town of Southold; under Docket No. 421, violations of Section 100-30A(1), 100-141 and 100-144(A) 1 of the Code of the Town of Southold. A copy of the Decision After Trial, So Ordered, dated October 11, 1983, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. Defendants were sentenced by the Court on November 18, 1983, and placed on a conditional discharge for a period of six months from November 18, 1983, wherein the Court imposed the following conditions upon the defendants: (1) Defendants to apply to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals to legalize shed and garage apartment by January 16, 1984; (2) As to the structure designated "chicken coop" (Docket No. 420) the de- fendants will no longer utilize it for domestic animals as per Town Code; (3) defendants to pay fines totaling $100.00. A copy of the Order and Conditions of Conditional Discharge is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4. Upon information and belief the defendants have not com- plied with condition (1) of the conditional discharge in that de- fendants have failed to apply to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals on or before January 16, 1984, this Petition. 5. The sources of your Petitioner's and up to the date of information and grounds for his belief as to the facts alleged above are: The books and records of the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals and state- ments from Victor G. Lessard, Executive Administrator of the Building Department of the Town of Southold. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the above named defendants be directed to appear before the Court for such further proceedings as the Court may deem appropriate. Dated: February 24, 1984 ~ichard F.VLi~k STATE OF NEW YORK: : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: RICHARD F. LAP, K, I ss.: being duly sworn, deposes and says: am the Petitioner in the foregoing Petition; that said CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE .PENAL LAW 65.05 and 65.10 FORM NO. 265 Defendant ' ' o, ,h~ UII . o o~L -, 19t~ ,you were convicted in this Court Pursuant to Sections ~.05 and ~.10 of the Pen~ Law, this Court places Defendant on a condition~ discharge The Court 5reposes the following conditions on Defendant: A. GENERAL CONDITIONS (Section 65.10-2-a-h Penal Law) 1. Refr~n, from frequenting un~fi]'~l or disreputable places or consort ng with disrel:n~able persons; 2. Work'~it~;fully at a suitable.emp'I~ment or faithfully pursue a~rse of study or voc~onal train ng; 3. Suppo~ his dependants and m~et o~r family responsibilities; 4. Make r~titution of the fruits of his off~ or make reparation for thews or dama9e caused thereby.~ _ B ~PECIAL~ONDITIONS (Section 65.10-2-i ~1 Law) ~ _ __ -- ". ]n its discretion, the Court may modify or enlarge the conditions. If you commit an additional offense other than a traffic infraction or violate one or more of the above conditions at any time bede th~cond~tion~l discharge expires, the Cour~may r~vo~ this sentence and return y~ for rese~te~n..) I have read or had read to me the above conditions imposed and I thoroughly understand the conditions im~sed. ' ' I ackn°wledge ¢~av~Sc°py °f this order an~he conditions, i.osed on me. / , STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD : LOCAL CRIMINAL COURT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK : against BERTRAM W. WALKER and MARGERY M. : WALKER, Defendants. : INFORMATION ACCUSATION BE IT KNOWN THAT, by this Information, EDWARD F. ttINDERMANN, Building Inspector of the Town of Southold, as the Complainant herein, accuses BERTRAM W. WALKER AND MARGERY M. WALKER, Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck, New York, with violations of: Count #1: Count #2: Count #3: Section 100-32B of the Code of the Town of Southold Section 100-141 of the Code of the Town of Southotd Section 100-144A(1) of the Code of the Town of Southold FACTS On or about September 15, 1981, and May 17, 1982, EDWARD F. HINDERMANN, Building Inspector of the Town of Southold inspected the premises owned by the defendants, Bertram W. Walker and Margery M. Walker, known as Lots 15 to 18 inclusive on a certain map entitled, "Map of Edgemere Park" and filed in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk on July 2, 1931, as Map No. 742 and found the defendants had placed upon their property in the front yard area a wood frame structure which was being used by the de- fendants as a storage shed without first obtaining a Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Department of the Town of Southold all in violation of Sections 100-32B, 100-141 and 100-144A(1) of the Code of the Town of Southold. The above allegations of fact are made by the Complainant herein on direct knowledge and upon information and belief with the sources of the Complainant's information and belief, and the grounds for his belief being facts contained in the files of the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold. WHEREFORE, Complainant prays that a criminal summons be issued directing the defendants, BERTRAM W. WALKER and MARGERY M. WALKER, Edward F. Hindermann,- Complainant Building Inspector Subscribed~ sworn to before me this~' day of.~une, 1982. Town of So~thold Suffolk County, New York STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK LOCAL CRIMINAL COURT : TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK : against : BERTRAM W. WALKER and MARGERY M. : WALKER, Defendants. INFORMATION ACCUSATION BE IT KNOWN THAT, by this Information, EDWARD F. HINDERMANN, Building Inspector of the Town of Southold, as the Complainant herein, accuses BERTRAM W. WALKER and MARGERY M. WALKER, Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck, New York, with violations of: #1: Count #2: #3: Count #4:' Section 100-30C(5) of the Code of the Town of Southold Section 100-32B of the Code of the Town of Southold Section 100-141 of the Code of the Town of Southold -- Section 100-144A(1) of the Code of the Town of Southold FACTS On or about September 15, 1981 and May 17, 1982, EDWARD F. HINDERMANN, Building Inspector of the Town of Southold, inspected the premises owned by the defendants, Bertram W. Walker and Margery M. Walker, known as Lots 15 to 18 inclusive on a certain map entitled, "Map of Edgemere Park" and filed in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk on July 2, 1931, as Map No. 742 and found: the defendants had reconstructed and restored an 8 foot by 6 foot building on the property lin~ in the front yard area and were using same as a "chicken coop" without first obtaining a Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Department of the Town of Southold all in violation of Sections 100-30C(5), 100-32B, 100-141, and 100-144A(1) of the Code of the Town of Southold. The above allegations of fact are made by the Complainant herein on direct knowledge and upon information and belief with the sources of the Complainant's information and belief, and the grounds for his belief being facts contained in the files of the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold and the Sup.~rting Deposition of Frederick S. Carey, sworn to on June~/¥~ 1982, which is attached hereto. WHEREFORE, Complainant prays that a criminal summons be issued directing the defendants, BERTRAM W. WALKER and MARGERY M. WALKER, to appear before this Court. Subscribed ~L~ sworn to before me this~ d~v of June, 1982. Town of So~thold Suffolk County, New York E~l~ard F. Hind~rmann, Complainant Building Inspector STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD : LOCAL CRIMINAL COURT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK : against : BERTRAM W. WALKER and MARGERY M. : WALKER, De fendants. SUPPORTING DEPOSITION FREDERICK S. CAREY, as and for a Supporting Deposition in connection with an Information to be filed with this Court against the above-named defendants, does hereby make the following alle- gations of fact: I own lots No. 6 and 7 on a certain map entitled, "Map of Edgemere Park" which map was filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on July 2, 6 on February 2, utilize the same 1931, as Map No. 1961 and lot No. as my residence. 742 having purchased lot No. 7 on December 30, 1960, and Across the private road to the west of my property is land owned by Bertram W. Walker and Margery M. Walker, who purchased the property in 1976. At the time the defendants, Bertram W. Walker and Margery M. Walker, purchased their property there was located on this propert a one story house located on the southerly portion of the property along with a detached two car garage situated in the front yard area on the northerly portion of the property. In addition there was also located in the front yard a small, abandoned structure which had been previously used as a child's "playhouse" by the children of Virginia Fulcher. During 1980 the ~defendan~s, Bertram W. Walker and Margery M. Walker, converted it use to a "chicken coop", which is what it is utilized for at the present time. The above allegations of fact are made under direct know- ledge. repaired the child's "playhouse", added to it, and being NOTICE (Penal Law, Sec. 210.45) It is a Laws of the instrument to knowingly make a false statement, or to make a statement which such person does not believe to be true. crime, punishable as a Class A Misdemeanor under the State of New York, for a person, in and by a written Notary Public JUDITH T. TERRY Notary Public. ~ ~e of New YO~ ~o, 52.034,~953 Suffolk ~u~ ~n ~pires March 30, Frederick S. Ca~ey~ Sworn to before me this ~/-~day of June, 1982. STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD : LOCAL CRIMINAL COURT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK : against : BERTRAM W. WALKER and MARGERY M. : WALKER, : Defendants. INFORMATION ACCUSATION BE IT KNOWN THAT, by this Information, EDWARD F. HINDERMANN, Building Inspector of the Town of Southold, as the Complainant herein, accuses BERTP~AM W. WALKER and MARGERY M. WALKER, Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck, New York, with violations of: Count #1: Count #2: Count #3: Section 100-30A(1) of the Code of the Town of Southold Section 100-141 of the Code of the Town of Southold Section 100-144A(1) of the Code of the Town of Southold FACTS On or about September 15, 1981, and May 17, 1982, EDWARD F. HINDERMANN, Building Inspector of the Town of Southold, inspected the premises owned by the defendants, Bertram W. Walker and Margery M. Walker, known as Lots 15 to 18 inclusive on a certain map entitled, "Map of Edgemere Park" and filed in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk on July 2, 1931, as Map No. 742 and found the defendants had altered and converted a detached two car garage accessory structure in the front yard area by installing a bathroom, kitchen facilities, two bedrooms, a living room, a wooden deck, and were occupying same as a second, detached dwelling on the premises without first obtaining a Building Permit and Certificate of'Occupancy all in violation of Sections 100-30A(1), 100-141, and 100-144A(1) of the Code of the Town of Southold. The above allegations of fact are made by the Complainant herein on direct knowledge and upon information and belief with the sources of the Complainant's information and belief, and the grounds for his belief being facts contained in the files of the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold and the Supporting Deposition of Frederick S. Carey swo~n to on June~/, 1982, and ,¢ Ann L. Kelly, sworn to on June~ 1982, which are attached hereto. WHEREFORE, Complainant prays that a criminal summons be issued directing the defendants~ERTRAM W. WALKE~and MARGERY M. \! ! WALKERv to appear before thi~~~ Building Inspector Subscribed ~orn to before his ~ "~ of June, 19~. Town Just~e Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK LOCAL CRIMINAL COURT : TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK against BERTRAM W. WALKER and MARGERY M. WALKER, Defendants. SUPPORTING DEPOSITION FREDERICK S. CAREY, as and for a connection with an Information to be the above-named defendants, gations of fact: Supporting Deposition in filed with this Court against does hereby make the following alle- I own Lots No. 6 and 7 on a certain map entitled, "Map of Edgemere Park" which map was filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on July 2, 1931, as Map No. 742 having purchased Lot No. 6 on February 2, 1961, and Lot No. 7 on December 30, 1960~ and utilize same as my residence. Across the private road to the west of my property is land owned by Bertram W. Walker and Margery M. Walker, who purchased the property in 1976. At the time the defendants, Bertram W. Walker and Margery M. Walker, purchased their property there was located on this property a one story house located on the southerly portion of the property along with a detached two car garage situated in the front yard area on the northerly portion of the property. The two car garage contained a small unheated bedroom and lavatory. During 1980 the defendants, Bertram W. Walker and Margery M. Walker, converted and reconstructed the two car garage into a second, single family dwelling by installing two bedrooms, living room, full bathroom, full kitchen and large sun deck. This was accomplished by elevating the building by three feet, recon- structing the interior, of the garage area, and adding an exten- sion to the westerly portion thereof. The building formerly used as a two car garage is now occupied by the mother of the defendant, Bertram W. Walker, and used for her year round residence so there are now two complete residences on this property. The above allegations of fact are made under direct know- ledge. NOTICE (Penal Law, Sec. 210.45) It is a crime, punishable as a Class A Misdemeanor under the Laws of the State of New York, for a person, in and by a written instrument to knowingly make a false statement, or to make a statement which such person does not believe to be true. F~derick S. Carey ~/ Sworn to before me this c~/~-~ day of June, 1982. tary Public JUDITH T. TERRY Notary Public, S~3te of New Yo~k No. 52.0344963 Suf;olk County?~ Commission Expircs March 30, 19P. c~ OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD : LOCAL CRIMINAL COURT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK : against BERTRAM W. WALKER and MARGERY M. : WALKEI{, Defendants. SUPPORTING DEPOSITION ANN L. KELLY, as and for a Supporting Deposition in connec- tion with an Information to be filed with this Court against the above-named defendants, of fact: From August, 1971 to May, 1979, I owned lots No. 12, 13, and 14 on a certain map entitled, "Map of Edgemere Park" which does hereby make the following allegations map was filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on July 2, 1931, as Map No. 742. During the summer of 1975, I personally visited the premises owned by Virginia Fulcher at Edgemere Park, which was lots No. 15, 16, 17 and 18 on "Map of Edgemere Park". The premises con- tained a main house, garage and a small building in the approxi- mate center of the front yard area near the road which was used by the "Fulcher children" as a child's "playhouse". During 1975 and prior thereto the property owned by Virginia Fulcher at Edgemere Park also contained a one story house and a two car garage located in the northerly portion of the front yard area. The two car garage also contained a small guest room which was used in the summer months as it did not contain any heat or cooking facilities. The above allegations of fact are made under direct know- ledge. NOTICE (Penal Law, Sec. 210.45) It is a crime, punishable as a Class A Misdemeanor under the Laws of the State of New York, for a person, in and by a written instrument to knowingly make a false statement, or to make a statement which such person does not believe to be true. Ann L. Kelly / Sworn to before me this ~day of June, 1982. ~ ogary Public ( JUSTICE COURT OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, NEW YORK THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK~ + -against- + DECISION AFTER TRIAL BERTRAM W. WALKER and + MARGERY M. WALKER, + DEFENDANTS People of the State of New York by Patrick Henry, District Attorney, Richard F. Lark, Special Assist- ant District Attorney, of Counsel. Defendants by Mc Nulty, Gilmartin, DiPietro, Nesci & Haefeli, Arthur Di Pietro of Counsel. This case was commenced by the service of Criminal Summonses (Docket numbers 419,420 &421) on each of the Defendants here~n on July 8, 1982. Thereafter, Defendant's attorney filed a Notice of Appearance dated July 30, 1982 with this Court. The Criminal Summonses aforestated were returnable July 30, 1982. Following adjournments requested by the parties to September 10, 1982, October 8, 1982, November 5, 1982,November 19, 1982, December 17, 1982, J~nuary 28, 1983, February 25, 1983, April 8, 1983 and finally to June 3, 1983 the trial of this case finally took place on the latter date. After trial before the Court, Defendants rested without offering any affirmative case, but requested time to furnish a Memorandum of Law and to secure a transcript of the testimony. It was agreed between both litigants and the Court that Defendants would furn- ish their Memorandum of Law by serving a copy of same upon the People and filing the original together with a copy of the transcript with the Court by July 29, 1983. Thereafter the People were to have until August 12, 1983 to serve and file a Memorandum of Law in reply. This Court has been advised by Mrs. Myrtle Kiefer, the Court Reporter in this trial,that she furnished the transcript of the trial to Defendants' attorneys on or about July 18, 1983. No copy has ever been furnished to this Court. The Clerk of this Court has also contacted the Defendants' attorneys', office relative to this matter and the Court has not received any response whatsoever. (1) PEOPLE V. WALKER-BERTRAM, WALKER-MARGERY Decision after Trial page 2 The Court has also been in contact with the Special Assistant District Attorney Lark and he advised that since no Memorandum was submitted by Defendants' attorneys, he did not wish to submit any. This Court is of the opinion that both sides herein have had ample and sufficient time for all purposes, in fact, it may be characterized as excessive time and patience throughout the entire process of this case and there is nothing remaining to be done, except for the Court to render its decision based on the facts and the Law as brought out in the trial of this action. With respect to Docket no. 419, this Court finds that from the testimony and evidence presented at the trial herein, the Defendants did in fact place a wood frame structure upon their property and that same was being used as a storage shed, without first obtaining a Building permit and Certificate of Occupancy in violation of Sections 100-32B, 100-141 and 100-144 A(1) of the Code of the Town of Southold. Accordingly, this Court concludes after due deliberation that the People have proven its case against the Defendants beyond a reasonable doubt as to the charges set forth in Docket no. 419. With respect to Docket no. 420, this Court finds that from the testimony and evidence presented at the trial herein the Defendants did in fact reconstruct and restore an 8 foot by 6 foot building on the property line in the front yard area and were using same as a chicken coop without first obtaining a Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Department of the Town of Southold in violation of Sections 100-30C (5), 100-32B, 100-141 and 100-141 A(1) of the Code of the Town of Southold. Accordingly, this Court concludes after due deliberation that the People have proven its case against the Defendants beyond a reasonable doubt as to the charges set forth in Docket no. 420. With respect to Docket no. 421, this Court finds that from the testimony and evidence presented at the tria~ herein the Defendants did in fact alter and convert a detached two car garage accessory structure in the (2) · ~ PEOPLE V. WALKER-BERTRAM, WALKER-MARGERY page 3 Decision after Trial~ front yard by installing a bathroom, kitchen facilities, two bedrooms, a living room, a wooden deck and that same were being occupied as a second dwelling on the premises without first obtaining a Building Permit and Certif- icate of Occupancy from the Building Department of the Town of Southold in violation of Sections 100-30 A(1), 100-141 and 100-144 A(1) of the Code of the Town of Southold. Accordingly, this Court finds after due deliberation that the People have proven its case against the Defend- ants beyond a reasonable doubt as to the charges as set forth in Docket no. 421. Defendants are directed to appear at this Court on Novermber 18, 1983 at 9:30 AM (fore-noon) for sentencing. SO ORDERED: October 11, 1983 Southold Town FREDERICK ~./TEDESCHI, SOUTHOLD TOWN JUSTICE Copies to: Richard F. Lark, Esq. Arthur DiPietro, Esq. Southold Town Building Department Bertram Walker Margery Walker CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE PENAL LA 65.05 . , ' ' -- _ ..... ' .._ '"' ~~__..~~~ ............ :._~ ...... ~ ~ ~. rS/ I I l( ~CCI OIlS 65.[~ ~1[1~ 6S.11) O[ thc ~cnal [,a~x, I us Cour[ plnc~.s I)c[t'mlanl Oil ii co,Il ~- ,,,~__../.~ ......... ,,,~ o,. ..... .............. Thc Court imposes the follmxi,g c,ndhions on Dcfcudant: A (;ENILR&I, CONIIITI(INS (~ecGtm 65.10-2-a-h Penal I,a~) 1. Refrain from [r~tltle~xli~lg tmla~xful o] di~rcputabl~' places or conso,~ing ~xilh dlsrcputublc 2. $~ml, faidffully at a suitable cmpio>mcnt or faithfull5 pursue a cmn'sc of stud3 or ~ocalloual ~rahdug: 3. S~ppoit his dependents a,d meet other family responsibilities: 4. Make restitution of H~c fruits of his offense o~ make reparation for thc loss or damage caused tb~reby. lu its discrctlo., tile £7ourt nla5 modit'x or enlarge d~t conditions. If }ou commit ifil additional offc,se other Ihnn a traffic infractlo, on xlolate tree or more of d~e above conditions at any time before this cond.itlonal discharge expires, Ibc Com'l ma} rcxol, e riffs sentcnc~aud return )ot] to court for ~,,d: .............................................. ............... ~-:--:-~:(------- ................... ~--- I Ila'~v rc;~d o~ had read ) L, ! e abo~c ¢omlillous q~os~l al I d~oroughl) umlcrstand CO t t OIS im)tsc{. J acs oxx c gt~ thnII !UlXC reccax'O&a c~p ~[ Ih~ :~ltl thc comlhitms .... ~-r. .......................... ~ ..... i;' : :. ................ ........ ......................... ,_ State of New York, County of Franklin 20 Church Street Saranac Lake, N.Y. 12983 I, John S. Costanza, being duly sworn, depose and say: I was the owner of premises known as Lots #6 and #7 of Edgemere Park at I.aurel, ?own of Southhold, New York, which I sold to Frederick S. Carey, and Dorothy F. Carey, his wife. Lot #7 was sold on December 30, 1960, and Lot #6 was sold on February 25, 1961. At the time I sold this property and prior thereto, the property owned by Frank and Virginia Fulcher, consisting of Lots #15, #16, #17 and #18, contained only two buildings, namely, the cottage dwelling and the garage building. There was no structure to the East of the Fulcher main dwelling, close to the private road, occupied as either a children's hut or chicken coop. In fact, there were only two structures on the afore- mentioned lots. John ~. Costanza (~ ~ Sworn to before me this /~'~ day of December, 1981. MICHg~[ G. State of New York, County of Franklin 20 Church Street Saranac Lake, N.Y. 12983 I, Mabel Costanza, being duly sworn, depose and say: I am the wife of John S. Costanza, owner of premises known as Lots #6 and #7 of Edgem~re Park at Laurel, Town of Southhold, New York, which he sold to Frederick S. Carey, and Dorothy F. Carey, his wife. Lot #7 was sold on December 30, 1960, and Lot #6 was sold on February 25, 1961. At the time this property was sold, and prior thereto, the property owned by Frank and Virginia Fulcher, consisting of Lots #15, #16, #17 and #18, contained only two buildings, namely, the cottage dwelling and the garage building. There was no structure to the East of the Fulcher main dwelling, close to the private road, occupied as either a children's hut or chicken coop. In fact, there were only two structures on the afore- mentioned lots. Sworn to before me this day of December, 1981. Mabel Costanza J STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU FRANK FULCHER and VIRGINIA FULCHER, each being duly sworn, deposes and says: We were the owners of premises known as Lots 15, 16, 17 and 18 of Edgemere Park at Laurel, Town of Southold, New York, which we sold to Bertram W. Walker and Marjorie Walker, his wife in 19~76. At the time we sold the property to Mr. and Mrs. Walker there was a one family dwelling house, a chicken coop and a detached garage with apartment on the premises. The studio apartment in the garage had a full bath, cooking facilities and living quarters. The entrance was to the west and the apartment was heated. It served as the living quarters for the chauffer of Mrs. Bertha McDonald, the original owner. While we owned the property, the garage apartment was used as a guest house and summer residence for our relatives. We understand that the Building Inspector has questioned the status of the chicken coop and the garage apartment. The coop was built in 1955 to the east of the main dwelling and close to the private road where it ;has remained ever since. The garage apartment was used as such prior to the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance of Southold Yown in 1957 and was nev~er abandoned ~to our knowledae. Sworn to before me this day of October, 1981 Notary Public ~_ ,CAROL A OLIVER STATE OF NEW YORK) )SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) says: BEATRICE W. FECHTIG, being duly sworn, deposes and I have resided at (No ~) Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, New York, since /f ~/~J . I am familiar with the premises currently owned by Bertram and Margery Walker which are located directly across the creek from my home. I know of my own knowledge that the cottage located on the property was occupied for residential purposes since at least 1953. To my knowledge, the cottage has been used continu- ously since 1953 for residential purposes. ' BEATRICE W. FECHTIG Sworn to before me this /~_~day of April, 1984. Cemmi~lon Expires M~rch 30. 19.~-~ WALTER L. DOHM PLUMBING ~ HEATING 12595 MAIN STREET MATTITUCK, N. Y. 11952 April 2,?~ 1982 ~r. Bertram Walker P.O. Box 1169 Flattituck~ N.Y. 11952 Dear Idr. Walker: Regarding your inquiry as to when the garage apartment was constructed~ on the parcel now owned by jou~ I believe this goes back many years, probably around 1950~ at which time Mr. MacDonald was the owner of the parcel° The apartment consisted of a bathroom~ with toilet~ basi~ and shower~ sleeping area~ dining area with cooking facilities. A refrigerator was also in the dining area. In the garage area~ an automatic washing machine and freezer were located° Hot and cold running water were piped underground from the main residence~ as was electricty. A co:~mon septic system also served both the house and apartment° Mr. Fulcher purchased the oremises from Mr° ~acDonald and maintained the apartment. If I can be of an~ further assistance~ please do not hesitate to contact meo STATE OF NEW YORK SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK FREDERICK So CAREY, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That I co-own a residence with my wife, Dorothy F. Carey, situate on Lot #6, Map of Edgemere Park, since December, 1960, Laurel, New York. That to Peconic Bay Boulevard. That on the opposite to 18, inclusive, is Walker. said residence is situate on a private road leading side of said roadway, on Lot Nos. situ=te the residence of Bertram and Marjorie 15 That the Walkers purchased their property in or about 1976. At that time there was a two-car garage situate on the prem- ises which contained an unheated small bedroom and lavatory. During the year 1980, Mr o Walker converted the aforesaid two-car garage into a single family residence containing two bed- rooms, living room, full bathroom, full kitchen and large sundeck. That was accomplished by the elimination of a space for a car in the two-car garage and an extension to the building on its other end. In order to accomplish the foregoing, the building was elevated approximately three (3) feet except for the garage. Walker's mother Sworn ~ before me this ~C~A~ J. CRON Ilotar~ PubTTc, State of Hew York Ilo. 52-586~80. Suffolk ~o~y Frederick S. Carey The building is now fully occupied by Mr. as her year round residence. That prior to 1976, the building was not occupied as a residential dwelling since it did not have any of the facilities completed by Mr. Walker in 1980. That I am informed and do verily believe that the mainte- nance of two separate single family dwellings on Mr. Walker's premises is in direct violation of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold and should be immediately prohibited. I request the Building Inspector to promptly look into the matter and take whatever action is deemed necessary to eliminate any existing violation. George F. Kendall, P. O. Box Lat~el, New York 11948 May 4th, 1983 The Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, ~ew York. Gentlemen: Re: Edgemere Park, Laurel, ~ew York I understand that the ?~alker's have made application to split their property, to which I object as I am apposed to any further dwellings being built in Ldge- mere Park- if such is their intention! !~en Mr. ?~lker's mother ceases to occupy the present premises, the entire %~Ialker property should remain a single family dwelling. z~n'~ c erely yours /~rope~/Owner__ GFK: L~G 520 FRANKLIN AVENUE GARDEN CITY, N.%'. 11530 April 21,1983 SEARS E. EDWARDS, M.D., E A.C.S. JULIAN NI. BAYUK, M.D., EA.C.S.,P.C. ROBERT A. EDELMAN, M. D. PRACTICE LIMITED TO U~OLOG¥ 2000 NORTH VILLAGE AVeNUe ROCKVILLE CENTRE, N.Y. 11570 The Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southhold Dear Sirs: I am a homeowner in Edgemere Park and I have become aware that another homeowner by the name of Peter and Marjorie Walker have intentions of splitting their property so that a second home could be placed on that property. Please be advised that I am firmly against any splitting of property or the addition of any further homes in Edgemere Park. I am further against any development of any type in regard to a live-in dwelling. However, considering the possible reasoning behind the re- quest for any zoning changes on the Walker property, I am perfectly satisfied for Mr. Walker's mother to remain on in her present home built in the garage of their property. At the time that the Walker's mother leaves that property or should she no longer be present to live in the home, I feel that that property should revert to a single family dwelling and that no further tenants of any type be permitted to maintain a separate dwelling on that property. If there are any further indications that this matter should be reassessed, please do not hesitate to notify me. My ad- dress in Laurel is post office box 72, Laurel, New York, Edgemere Park, McDonalds Road. Sincerely yours, E r: Doctor ~r~v~.Bayuk //~JJ~ ::ad 't April 25, 1983 South Town Zoning Board of Appeals Dear Sir: I am one property owner of ten in a grouping of homes in Laurel called Edgemere Park. It has come to my attention that one owner, B. Walker, is applying for a variance to divide his property so as to allow his mother to live in a separate building on this property. I am against this change because it will disrupt the entire quality of this small community - the unwritten covenant that exists and will allow other such changes in the future. I am not against the use of the building by Mr. Walker's mother and I request that you allow her to remain in residence in the separate building until such time as she moves or expires. At that time the building should revert back to Mr. B. Walker for his use only. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sinoere~l? Edward M. ~-C~ings, '~.D.S f EMC/hb Box 494 Laurel, N.Y. 11948 April 22, 1983 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, N.Y. 11971 Gentlemen: It has recently been brought to my attention that Mr. B.P. Walker of Edgemere Park, Laurel, N.Y., has recently petitioned the Board for permission to split his property so that an additional building plot would be available. As a resident of Edgemere Park, I would like to state that I am opposed to this application and request that the Board deny any petition for variance for the following reasons: 1. Edgemere Park is the only access road running through the community and is already congested by resident and guest traffic. AddYtional families would further aggravate the situation. 2. None of the residents are able to secure potable water from their own propert~ and access to a water supply is limited. Additional residents could, conceivably, endanger the fresh water supply of existing property owners. 3. New construction would require additional cesspools, septic systems, etc. which would increase waste drainage into the Edgemere Park boat basin and into Brushes Creek. This would, eventually, contribute to an increase in coliform and fecal counts. Mr. Walker's mother, Mrs. Hazel Walker, currently resides in a small garage apartment. I have absolutely no objection to Mrs. Walker remaining in that apartment for as long as she cares to. As I~m opposed to an additional building plot, however, I would also object to expanding the use of that apartment to a landlord-tenant rental relationship if Mrs. Walker was no longer the resident, as, once again, it would increase the number of families living in Edgemere Park. Very truly yours, j Arthur L. Smith, Jr. Southold MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. llg?l TE[ FPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI April 8, 1983 Arthur DiPietro, Esq. McNulty, Gilmartin, DiPietro, Nesci and Haefeli 130 Ostrander Avenue, Box 757 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Variance Forms Bertram and Marjorie Walker. Edgemere Park, Laurel Dear Mr. DiPietro: With reference to the above forms which were reviewed by our office this morning, please be advised that same is incomplete and may be filed upon receipt of the following: ~/~ 1. Filing fee.check in the amount of $25.00 (rather than $15.00); 2. Certified receipts postmarked April 7th by the Post Office; ~ 3. Written Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Yours very truly, lk CC: Town Clerk Building Department GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL File No ................................ To /~7'7~"~....~4-....~2..~..~..~...~ .~. · ~ ./(~ ....................... .. ~ ~z~. ~.~ .... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated..~.~O. ~ ....~ ....19 ~. for pe~it to construct. ~ ~ .... ~ ~.~ ~ .............. .......................... at " ~cation of Properly ............................................................... House No. Street Hamlet Co..ty ~ax ~p ~o. ~000 S~ctio.... [N~ ...... mock ...~ ~ ....... lot 07.~ ........ S.~di~i~,on~~. ~ ~i,~a ~a~ ~o. ~.~4 ....... ~ot No. .... ,s returned herewith and d~sapproved on the following grounds. ~.Q Bulldog Inspector RV 1/80 ,JOHN R. MCNULTY DAVID ~J. GILMARTIN ARTHUR DIPIETRO PAT FRANK NESCI RICHARD T, HAEEELI McNULTY, GILMARTIN, D~PIETRO, NESCI x,, HAEFELI SOUTHAMPTON OFFICE 3~0 HAMPTON ROAD SOUTHAMPTON. NEW¥ORKIIg68 51~-283-0200 April 7, 1983 HAND DELIVERED Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Walker Gentlemen: Enclosed please find the following: 1. Varience application in triplicate; 2. Notice to Adjacent Property Owners with Affidavit of Mailing and certified receipt attached; 3. Environmental Assessment form; 4. Wetlands letter; 5. Six (6) copies of survey; 6. One (1) set of building plans; 7. $15.00 filing fee. ArVerlh~ulr U'~Pietr°~~ ADP: ida Enclosures cc: Richard F. Lark, Esq. Hon. Frederick J. Tedeschi, Town Justice TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. DATE.....A. ~.~..~..]:....7..:... ]:.? 83 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. , (We> r of ....................... Name of Appella.nt Street and Number Laurel, Town of Southold N.Y. ......................................................................................................................... HERESY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO. (~o ~) DATED October 5, 1981 WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( x~ ( x~ ( ) Bertram W. Walker Name of Applicant for permit of Same as above Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY Private Roads Nos. 2 and 3 "A" Residence Street Use District on Zoning Map No. 742 (Edgemere Park), Lots 15, 16, 17 and 18 Mop No. Lot No. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) 100-30 (Bulk and parking schedule)-Lot area, yards, coverage, habitable area; * 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for ( ×~: A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal ~ (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (~ A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is requested for the reason that l%rm Zm~ (Continue on other side) *2. (con't)- 100-32B; 100-41; 100-144(A)(!); ...... 100-30(C)(5); 100-30(A) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because the subject premises lie within the Map of Edgemere Park which is specifically exempted via Section 100-12 from lot area and lot width requirements. The surrounding area is more intensely developed than the subject premises and to deny the relief sought would be to hold the applicants to a higher standard than that imposed on neighboring property owners. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because this is a dimensional varience request. Accordingly, the question of hardship and uniqueness is in the context of the test of practical difficulty. As such, the uniqueness arises from the fact that the applicants own four (4) lots which are exempt from lot area and dimensional requirements and seek permission for two (2) residences. Also, the property is surrounded by roads and water making all yards front yards. 3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the community of Edgemere Park was substantially developed prior to the inception of zoning in Southotd Town and the relief sought for the subject premises involves the status of pre-existing structures except :for one small accessory building. Accordingly, there will be no change in physical appearance or character of the district. STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF Suffolk) SS Sworn to this ........ ](t..h. ............................... day of ............ .A..pTc.i.'.:: ................................ t9 83. ..~¢m'.. Notary Pul:fl'it ........ LUCILLE OEAUGUSTINO NOTARY ?UBL',C ~t.~te o! New NO. 4765706~ S,fMk COlPlty c,/ COMB. Expve~ Mmrch 30, BRUSH'S CREEK N.87o42' 3,0'1 ' S. 48o~8'50"E. /) 6.78' ~ TIE LINE ALONG WOOO - I Lot 18 Lot 17 Lot 16 Lot 15 = ~ T = I§.00' · , ROADWAY Lot t4 Lot 13 Lot 12 Lot II N67O34'; N. 16°47'30"W. 13.83' N.81o ~,8,00-W. 18.51' ~' I 0.00' NOTE;I=MONUMENT Q:STAKE SUBDIVISION MAPFILEDIN THE OFFICE OFTHE CLERK OF SUFFOLK COLINTYONJULY~I931ASFILE N0.742. SURVEY FOR BERTRAM ~ WALKER & MARGERY M. WALKER LOTS 15 THRU 18, "MAP OF EDGEMERE PARK" AT LAUREL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK '~UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. ~' COPIES OF THIS SURVEY NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYOR'S INKED SEAL OR EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BEA VALID TRUE COPY NGUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED1 AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY, GOVERN* MENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING iNSTITUTION LISTED HEREON,AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INSTITUTION. GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEQUENT OWNERS. YOUNG a YOUNG ALDEN W. YOUNG,PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND LAND SURVEYOR N.~S. LICENSE N0.12845 HOWARD W. YOUNG, LAND SURVEYOR NY.S. LICENSE N0.45895 SEPT 30,1981 DATE ; FEB. 9,1978 SCALE:I"=30' NO. : 78-22 400 OSTRANDER AVENUE RIVERREAD, NEW YORK :,,.. ' ][IISTP. UCT'~O,'IS: (a) .[i~' order to answer the questions in this short E^F ~t is assumed thaf the preparer ~'~i}l use. currently ovo£1ob}e information concerning the project and thc: likely impacts oF the octio'n. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations ¥;il~ be undertaken. (b) I£ any question has been answered Yes the project may be signi£icant and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) IF all questions have been answered No it is lil<ely'¢ha¢ project is not significant. .. .. (d) Environmental Assessment ' ~. ~'I£±~ projec~ result in a large physical change" to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? .................. ~.. Yes x No wilz the e be a major cho ge to any -unusual land form found on the sit&? ......... Yes. x NO 3. %'/ill pro3ect alter or have a lorfle' effect on existin~ body o~ %voter? ..................... Yes x 4. ¥1ill project have a potentially large impact on ground%,tater quality? ........ ... Yes x~ No 5. ~'/ill project significantly e a flow on adjacent sites? ...................... Yes x NQ 6. %'1ill project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? ...... Yes x No 7. %'/ill project result in a major adverse effe~'- ''. on air quality? .............................. Yes x No 8. %'/ill project have a major effect on visual charac-ter of the community or scenic views or vistas known to:be important to the community? Yes ~. %';ill project adversely ~mpact any site or structure o~ historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance or any site designated os a critical environmental area x 10. %'/ill project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities?. ......... Yes x No 11. %';ill project result in.major traffic problems '' o~ cause a major effect ¢o existing transportation systems? ....................... Yes x No 12. %'/ill pro3ect .regularly cause objectionable ' odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's tlon? ' Yes x No opera ..................................... 13. %'/ill project hove any impact on public health ' ' or.safety? .................................... Yes x No 14. %'/ill p~oject affect the existing communi%y by directly causing a growth in permanent population of more than 5 perccgt over o one year period o__~r have a major nega{ive effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? ...................... Yes x No 15. Is there public er ina project? ........................... Yes x No  Arthur DiPietro D^IE ~pr±l 6, 1983 PREPAP, ER'S S]CI'IATURE ' REPP. ESEHTtNG Bertram and Mar Walker' April 6, 1983 (Today's Date) To: Re: Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Appeal Application of Bertram and Mar~orie Walker Location of Property: Man of Ed=~m~= D ~n~ . ..~ ~ __~ ~ ~-~ ~=~ MaD No. -lUUU; ~-1~3; ~-U~;L-oi4, Laurel, New York 742 Dear Sirs: In reference to the New York State Tidal Wetlands Land-Use Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Part 661, and Article 25 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, please be advised that the subject property i~ the within appeal application: (please check one box) [xx] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetiands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead in very good condition and at least 100 feet in length.* [ ] May b~ 'located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead in need of (minor) (major) repairs, and approximately feet in length. [ ] [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead less than 100 feet in length. May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; .and there is no bulkhead or concrete wall existing on the premises. -[ ] not appear to Is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands to the best of my knowledge.* [Starred items'(*) indicate, j~our property does fall within the jurisdict~6n~f the_N.Y.S.D.E.C.] pleasel Ar th .~DiPie tro ~. Attorney for Applicants lc>z-COZ~lC /6 iA. 2 /7 /6 15 /Z // /0 V F~LED I ,I [. I'4~xAz ADPlTI~N $ II MI/IN I .4, '.,'/ T~ ~,g UN DA-'FI ~N