The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3037 7 /~- SilTER~_MA~ · TN~ ~303~_ R.O.W. South Side New Suffolk Ave., Matt. ~ t-0 ~'-2 I~/8 2 :~ appr~v~I"'~-f access pursuant-to-N';Y'iTo~n'Law. Southold Town Board o£Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE: ROAD 25 r::OLJTHOLD, L..I., N.Y. 11g'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3037 Application Dated September 20, 1982 TO: Mr. Garrett A. Strang Mr. and Mrs. Martin L. Suter At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on the above on your October 21, 1982 appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken [X] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property New York Town Law, Section 280-a [ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section [ ] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section [ ] Request for A public hearing was held on this application on October 21, 1982. Upon application for MARTIN AND ALMA SUTER by Garrett A. Strang, Box 1412, Southold, NY for a Variance for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Location: Right-of-Way off the south side of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, NY; bounded north, east and west by H. Alvin Smith & Co., and south by the Bay; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-115-17-18. The board made the following findings and determination: By this application, appellants seek approval of access over a private right-of-way extending southerly off the south side of New Suffolk Avenue approximately 1516.21 feet and thence extending in a southwesterly direction 583.25 feet along the premises in ques- tion. The first 1516.21 feet of the subject right-of-way has a legal width of 50 feet and our records show that this portion of the right-of-way was approved on November 2, 1972 under Appeal No. 1679. The additional 583.25 feet has a legal width of 30 feet and is in excellent condition. For the record it is also noted that the premises in question is more particularly known as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 115, Block 17, Lot 18 and contains an area of approximately 6.5 acres, which is vacant. In considering this appeal, the board determines the variance request will not cause detriment to adjoining properties; that the circumstances herein are unique; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellants, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance as indicated below. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3037, application for MARTIN AND ALMA SUTER for approval of access, be and hereby IS APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. DATED: October 28, 1982. Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS/~/ RECEIVED AND FILED BY I TIg~E SOUTHOLD TOWN C[.ERK [ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI 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, October 21, 1982 commencing at 7:30 p.m. and as follows: 7:30 p.m. Application for MARTIN AND ALMA SUTER by Garrett A. Strang, Box 1412, Southold, NY for a Variance for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Location: Right-of-way off the south side of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck; bounded north, east and west by H. Alvin Smith & Co. and south by the Bay; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-115-17-18. 7:35 p.m. Application for ALEXANDER GASTON by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory storage shed in the sideyard area. Location: M~nor Subdivision of Sturges, Map No. 144, Subd. Lots 1 and 2; Private'Road, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-10-6-13.1 and 14.1. 7:40 p.m. Application of RALPH L. AND JANE M. ARMBRUST, 840 Manor Hill Lane, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for permission to construct additional stable(s) and to add additional horses on this four-acre parcel. Location: 840 Manor Hill Lane, Cutchogue; bounded northwest by Schwarz; west by Cross Right-of-way; south by Sheehan; northeast by Cross; more particularly known as County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-108-3-13.11. 7:45 p.m. Application for MICHAEL AND ANNETTE COLLINS by William J. Jacobs, Builder, Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Bulk Schedule, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling reducing the rearyard setback. Location: 515 Orchard Street, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Urbanowski; west by Cusumano; south by Orchard Street; east by Tuthill; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-5-33. 7:50 p.m. Application of JOSEPH D. BURRUANO, 39 Salem Road, Rockville Centre, NY 11570 for a Variance for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Location: Ford's Road (Private Road No. 9), Southold, NY; subject parcel bounded on the north east and south by Lavinia; soutb~est by Wittmer; west by T,eoal Notice Pame 2 Southold Town Board of Appeals Public Hearings for October 21, 1982 Krupski, Comm. of Welfare, and Crane; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-1-13. 7:55 p.m. Application for ANDREW PAFITIS by Inland Homes, Inc. as agent, 315 Westphalia Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Bulk Schedule, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct one-family dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback at 1800 Gillette Drive East, East Marion, NY; bounded north by Manor Grove Corp.; west by J & M Reuter; south by Ruggiero; east by Gillette Drive East; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-38-3-22. 8:00 p.m. Application for GUS KYRKOSTAS by William B. Smith as agent, Mechanic Street, Southold, NY for a Variance for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Location Right-of-Way off the north side of Main Road, Orient, NY; subject parcel being bounded on the north by the Bay; west by Wilsberg; south by Reese; east by Demarest; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 13-2-4. ~ 8:05 p,m. Olsen, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY Ordinance, Bulk Schedule, Article III, Application for NICHOLAS W. IPPOLITO by Gary Flanner for a Variance to the Zoning Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition with reduced rearyard setback at 235 Carol Road, Southold, NY; bounded north by Stachtiaris; west by VIP Inns; south by Hass; east by Arshamomaque Pond; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-52-2-7. 8:10 p.m. Application of BRIGITTE GIBBONS, 3475 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Bulk Schedule, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient sideyard area at 3475 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Ole Jule Lane; east by Wilsberg; 122-5-20. Schiller; west by Battersby; south County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 8:15 p.m. Application for NORTH FORK BANK & TRUST COMPANY by Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C., Main Road, Mattituck, NY for a Legal Notice - Page 3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Public Hearings for October 21, 1982 Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Bulk Schedule, Article VII, Sec- tion 100-71 for permission to construct drive-in banking facility with canopy extending into the frontyard area at the Mattituck Shopping Center, North Side of Route 25, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Bethany Cemetery Assoc.; west by Factory Avenue; south by Ardprop Inc. and Main Road; east by New Bethany Cemetery; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-142-1-26. 8:25 p.m. Application for MR. AND MRS. DONALD SHAW by Environment East Inc., 3075 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY for a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Location: Rights-of-Way located off the east side of Jackson's Landing Road (referred to as Miller's, Young's and Wick's Rights-of-Way), Mattituck, NY; subject parcel known as 1080 Private Road #15 [Wick's Road]; bounded on the north by Manos; east by Manos, R-O-W, and Roundtree; south by Howard's Branch of Mattituck Creek; east by Schipani, Davis and McCarthy; and Rohren; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-113-6-15. Any persons desiring to be heard on any of the above applica- tions should appear at the time and place indicated. Dated: October 9, 1982. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary x FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL File No ................................ -~...~......~..~../~/.d ............... ..... f r P~f22OTI~thaty°u~licat~dated '~' '~ ........... 19~ co~.ty z~x May So. ~000 S~tion .... Z~g ...... ~o~ ... A7 ........ ~ot .~[./~ ....... Subdivision ..... ~ ........ Filed Map No ................. Lot No ....... '~'. ......... is retu~ed herewith and disapproved on the following gro~s .~'.~$..~.~(~ ~ . ~.&~. (~ .......... ~.... ~<~.. ~c:. ~ ~ <~.. ~.. ..... Building Inspector RV 1/80 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YOR~I) APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR DATE Sept. 1982 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N Y. Name of Appellant Street and Number .............. .S...o..g.~h...o.~.c] ................................................................... .h].,.~.~ ............ HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ..................................................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) ( ) Name of Applicant for permit of 54655 MaJ. n Rd. ~BO× 1412.) SouthoZd~ New York Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY Permit to construct one family dwelling 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ~`~.s.~.~.~?~/.:~]~jR`'~:~.A.~-..~..e~.s.~%d..e.`.n~.t.~a.~Z~9~q9~.~`a~ Street Use District on Zoning Map Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-117-17-018 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.) Article XIV Section 10Q-141-~ 3 TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is mode herewith for ( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map (X) 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 x/,~k(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 ...................................................................... X) ) ) REASON FOR APPEAL A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance *s requested for the reason that The Right of Way indicated on the survey for access to the Site has not been previously approved. Form z{{l (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued ] STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sar'~ HARDSHIP because It would prohibit my client the opportunity to construct his residence on the subject property which is in conformance with all other code requirements. 2 The hordsh,p created is UNIQUE and is not shored by all properties alike in the immediate vic~mty of this property and in this use district because Right of Ways to adjacent properties have been previously approved. 3 The Vc~nonce would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CttA~ACTER OF THE DISTRICT because The proposed development is in accordance with all other code requirements and is compatible with adjacent properties. ) ss COUNTY O ) Signature Sworn tr this ............ ...~....~ ............... day of... ~'.~:;C~.1'3~'~¢.~,'~.~ ........... . [LIA~BE.1fl AN~ ~EVtLLt ~RY PUBLIC. State of New ~, 52-8125B50, S~olk ~/ N ~c_.~/~ /,9o '~/" 0 = I~'OWl ,0 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2..5 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE {516) 765-1509 APPEALS BOARD MEMRFRS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR SERGE DOYEN, JR ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI October 28, 1982 Mr. and Mrs. Martin L. New Suffolk Avenue Mattituck, NY 11952 Suter Re: Appeal No. 3037 - Approval of Access 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 be 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 Mr. Garrett A. Strang GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda F. Kowalski Secretary NEW YORK 3TATE DEPARTHENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ~;'IERVATION Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, SIIl~--Roo~ 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 A COPY OF THIS AUTHORIZATION ~JST BE AVAILABLE ON PROJECT SITE July 2, 1982 Mr. Garrett A. Strang Main Road P.O. Box 1412 Southold, NY 11971 For: Martin Suter %~NL ~ No Number Assigned TIDAL WETLANDS NOTIFICATION LETTER OF APPROVAL Dear Sir: We have reviewed your request for approval received June 1, 19 82 and have determined that the proposal to: Construct a one family dwelling with 20'x 40' pool surrounded by 40' x 80' decking and install associated septic system; all parts of all structures to be greater than 150' from mean high water according to plans on file for 6.5 acre parcel, Suffolk County Tax Map 1000-115-17-18 at (location): between lands now or formerly Smith and Suter on west and T.H. Witschi on east approximately 230' west of right of way, 1,520 ~ 1.f. so. of New Suffolk Avenue east of Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck, Town of Southold,* meets the standards of the Tidal Wetlands Act (A~ticle 25) of the Environ- mental Conservation Law and Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations (6}~CRR), Part 661. * Suffolk County Therefore, NYSDEC hereby authorizes by issuance of this letter the above described proposal subject to the conditions listed below: This approval does not relieve the recipient of the need to obtain approvals which may be required by other State, Federal or local agen- cies. 2. There is to be no other grading, filling, excavation, clearcutting or construction by authority of this letter except as specifically stated in terms on this letter. Supplementary special conditions A thr~u J inclusive, attached. REGIONAL PERMIT ADMINISTRATO'R July 2, 1982 Date Issued cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NYSDEC Law Enforcement, Region One / September 30, 1983 Expiration Date el Southold Town Board of Appeals. MAIN R[JAD- STATE: Bt'lAD 25 srlUTHtJLD, L,I., N,Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR S.E. Q. R.A. September 30, 198 2 SERGE DOYEN, JR ROBERT J. DOUGLASS NEGATIVE DECLARATION JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3037 PROJECT NAME: Variance Application for Martin and Alma Suter This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Local Law #44-4) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law. This board determines the within project not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Also, please take 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: Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law Section 280-a. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Right-of-way located off the south side of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, NY; SCTM Parcel No. 1000-115-17-18. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be implemented as planned. (2) This application is not, in effect, a direct request for new construction but for approval of access over a private right-of-way. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Mrs. Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Telephone: (516) 765-1809. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant(s) or agent(s) and other involved agencies [if any] and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended code of the Town of Suntbold, a Regular Meeting and the followin~ l~blic heari~s ~ be held by the Soathold Town Board of Appeals at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on Thursday, Oetob~ Zl, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK. STATE OF NEW YORK, Legal Notices 1~2 commencing at 7:30 p.m. and as fqlln,.,~ · ' ,e-~t:~o p.m. Application for- MARTIN AND ALMA SUTER by Garrett A. Strung, Box 1412, Southnld, NY for a Variance for a,~proval of access pursuant t~ New York~ Town Law, Section 280-a. Location: Right-of-way off the south side of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck; bounded north, east and west by H. Alvin Smith & Co. and south by the Bay; County Tax Map Parcel No. 100~-11.~17-1S ALEXANDER GASTON by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to con- struct accessory storage shed in the sideyard area. Loca~ tiaa: Minor Subdivision of Sturges, Map No. 144, Subd. Lots 1 and 2; Private Road,e Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 13.1 and 14.1. 7:40 p.m. Application of RALPH L. AND JANE M. ARMBRUST, 040 Manor Hilt Lane Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for ~ermission to construct aud{tional stablely) and to add additional horses on this four-acre parcel. Location: 840 Manor Hill Lane, Cutchogue; bounded northwest by Schwarz; west by Cross Right-of-way; south by Sheehan; northeast hy Cross; more particularly known as County Tax Map,,' Parcel No. 1000-108-3-13.11. 7:45 p.m. Application for MICHAEL AND ANNETTE COLLINS by Willliam J. Jacobs, Builder, Depot Lane, ' Cutcbegue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Bulk Schedule, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling reducing the rearyara setback. Location: 515 Orchard Street, New Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Urbanowski; west b~' Cusumano; south by Orchard Street; east by Tuthill; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117- 7:50 p.m. Application of~- JOSEPH D. BURRUANO, 39 Salem Road, Rockvilre Centre, NY 11570 for a Variance for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Location: Ford's Road (Private Road No. 9), Southold, NY; subject parcel bounded on the north, east and south by Lavinla; southwest by Wiftmer; west by Krupski, Comm. of Welfare, and Crane; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87+13. 7:55 p.m. Appli_catinn for ANDREW PAFITIS Dy Inland Homes, Inc. as agent, 315 Westphalia Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to th~ Zoning Ordinance, Bulk Schedule, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission {o construct one-family dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback at 1800 Gillette Drive East, East Marion, NY; bounded north by Manor Grove Corp.; west by J & M Reuter; south by Ruggiero; east by Gillette Drive East; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-3~-3-22. 8:00 p.m. Application for GUS KYRKOSTAS by William B. Smith as agent, Mechanic Street, Southold, NY for a Variance for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a.,/' Location Right-of-Way off the north side of Main Road, Orient, NY; subject parcel being bounded on the north by the Bay; west by Wllsberg; south by Reese; east by Demarest; County Tax Map Parcel No, 1000-13-2-4. 8:05 p.m. Applicat:.on for NICHOLAS W. IPPOLITO by' Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Bulk Schedule, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition with reduced rearyard setback al 235 Carol Road, $outhold, NY; bounded north by Stachtiaris; west bE,,' VIP Inns; south by Hass; east by Arshamomaque Pond; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-52-2-7. 0:10 p.m. Application of BRIGITTE GIBBONS, 3475 ale Jule Lane, Matt/tuck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Bulk Schedule, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient sideyard area at 3475 ale Jnle Lane, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Schiller; west by Battersby; south ale Jule Lane~ east by Wllsberg; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-5-20. 8:15 p.m. Application for,-' NORTH FORK BANK TRUST COMPANY by Wick- ham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C., Main Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Bulk Schedule, Article VII, Section 100-T1 for permission to construct drive-in banking facility with canopy extending into the frontyard area at the Mattituck Shopping Center, North Side of Route 25, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Bethany Cemetery Assec ; west by Factory Avenue; south by Ardprop Inc. and Main Road; east by New Bethany C~emetery; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-1429,,,,' 1-26. 6:25 p.m. Application for MR. AND MRS. DONAI,D SHAW by Environment East Inc., 3075 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY for a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law, Section 2~0-a. Location: Rights-of-Way located off the east side of Jackson's Landing Road (referred to as Miller's, Young's and Wick's Rights-of- Way), Mattituek, NY; subject parcel known as 10~0 Private Road //15 [Wick's Road]; bounded on the north by Manes; east by Manos, R-O- W, and Houndtree; south by Howard's Branch of Mattituel~' Creek; east by Schipani, Davis and McCarthy; and Rohren; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-1134-15. Any perbans desiring to be heard on dny of the above applications should appear at the time and place indicated. Dated: Oetober 9, 1~. BY OHDEH OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHHINGEH CHAIRMAN By Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary 1TO14~1075 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provi- sions 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 Al)peals at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, N.Y. on Thursday, October 21, 1982 commencing at 7:30 p.m. and as follows: 7:30 p.m. Application for~ MARTIN AND ALMA SUTER '~ by Garrert A. Strang, BoxJ 1412, Soutbold, N.Y. for a/ Variance for approval of access[ pursuant to New York Town ~, Law, Section 280-a. Location: Right-of-way offthe south side of New Suffolk Avenue, Matti- tuck; bounded north, east and west by H. Alvin Smith & Co.~ and south by the Hay; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-115- !7-18. 7:35 p.m. Application for ALEXANDER OASTON by Rudolph H. Brucr, Esq., Main Road, Southold, N.Y. for a Variance to thc Zoning Ordin- ance, Article Ill, Section 100- 32 for permission to construct accessory storage shed in the sideyard area. Location: Minor Subdivision of Sturges. Map No. 144, Subd. Lots I and 2; Private Road. Fishers Island. o']fi~t, oJ'~el[dre, and~rane; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-1-13. 7:58 p.m. Application for ANDREW PAFITIS by Inland Homes, Inc. as agent, 315 Westphalia Road, Mattituck, N.Y. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, B u I k Schedule, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to con-- struct one-family dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback at 1800 Gillette Drive East, East Marion, N.Y.; bounded north by Manor Grove Corp,; west by Router; south by Ruggiero; east by Gillette ~)five ~zast; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-38-3-22. 8:00 p.m. Application for GUS KYRKOSTAS by William B. Smith as agent, Mechanic Street. Southold, N.Y. for a Variance for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a. Location Right-of-Way off the north side of Main Road, Orient, N.Y.; subject parcel being bounded on the north by the Bay; west by Wilsberg; south by Reese; east by Demarest; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-13-2-4. 8:05 p.m. Application for NICHOLAS W. 1PPOLITO by Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq.. Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Bulk Schedule, Ar- ticle I11, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addi- tion with reduced rearyard setback at 235 Carol R~aad, Southold, N.Y.; bounded north by Stachtiaris; west by VIP Inns; south by Haas; east by Arshamomaque Pond; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-S2- - 8:10 p.m. Application of ~'~ BRIGITTE GIBBONS, 3475 ale Jule Lane, Mattituck, N.Y. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SS: STATE CF NEW YOP, I( P~tricia Wood, being du!y sworn, soys that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, c: public newspaper printed at Southo[d. in Suffolk County; and thet the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, ::os been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- man once each week for ..................... ./.. ................ weeks successively, commencing on the ............ ../..~..,z~'.. ............. .......... ....................... Sworn to before me this ,/z/ z~j/ ................................ day of ....... .................. , Notar~Public ~ town OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YOR~ APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING ~NSPECTOR APPEAL NO.~CAJ)/ DATE ~/~.......S...e.l~..~..: ... ]. 9.8 2 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. (We) .... .................... af Name of Appellant Street and Number .............. .$..o..u..~.h.,o.]:c] ................................................................... .N..,.¥..: ............ HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ..................................................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) ( ) Name of Applicant for permit of .... :.....CB...o.x....]..4. J ..2.).....s...o..u..t...h .o...Z..d..,....N...e..w.....Y..o...r..k. .................... Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY Permit to construct one family dwelling 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..~/.~..~.V.,.~....L'.~.L..L..;..A~.~.~.~/.~9.[~.~.~.~al Street Use District on Zoning Map Suffolk County Tax Map NO. 1000-117-17-018 Map 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,) Article XIV Section 100-141-b 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. Lows Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal ~'l]l~k(has not) been mode with 'respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such ~ppeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... X) ) ) REASON FOR APPEAL A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance requested for the reason that The Rigl, L of Way indicated on the survey for the Site has not been previously approved. access to ~orm ZB1 (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1 STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sor,v HARDSHIP because It would prohibit my client the opportunity to construct his residence on the subject property which is in conformance with all other code requirements. 2 The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vlcindy of this property and in this use district because Right of Ways to adjacent properties have been previously approved. 3 TI,e Variance wnt~ld observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CI IAR,aCTER OF THE DISTRICT because The proposed development is all other code requirements with adjacent properties. in accordance with and is compatible STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) COUNTY OF~'''--~/~) SS Signature 'EUZA~£ZH ANN NEVILLJ~ NO~, RY PUBLIC, State of New Yorr Ne. 52~8125550, Suffolk T.rrn Expires March 30, BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD : In the Matter of the Petition of : : Garrett A. Strang : to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold : TO: NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a (Variance) (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (the following relief: An Approval of Rio_ht of Way access to property ). 2. That the property which is the subiect of the Petition is located adiacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: Property of Martin Suter: ~0'wide, 800'deep, Southwest of R.O.W. from New Suffolk Ave. and bounded North andWest by Mattituck Harbor Assoc.. East by Witschi. South by Great Peconic Bay 3. Thattheproperty whichisthesubjectofsuchPetitionislocatedinthefollowingzoningdistrict: A-R~i~i~l./Aqri~u]~r~l 4. ThatbysuchPetition, theundersigned willrequestthefollowingrelief: Approval of access to property via Riqht of Way as shown on the survey. $. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signedare Article XIV Sectio~ 100-141-b 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 ma)' then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 765-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: ~n September 1982. Petitioner Garrett A. Strang, RA PostOffice Address P.O.Box 1412 Southold, N.Y. 11971 NAME PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS ADDRESS Mattituck Harbor Assoc. 739 E. Main St. Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Thomas Witschi Box 183 STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) SS.: Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 C~arr~tt A. Stranq ,resldingat54655 Main Rd. Southold N.Y. , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 20 day of ~q;=ptornb~r ,19 ;~ 2 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at Southold N. Y. 11971 ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) kJq~ReAd~) mail. Sworn tp4~f.9,r,e me th/s c:Q.O~I day. Copies of Legal Notice for 10/21/82 to the following on or about 10/13/82: Mr. and Mrs. Martin Suter Mr. Garrett A. Strang as agent Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. for Alexander Gaston Mr. and Mrs. Ralph L. Armbrust Mr. William J. Jacobs, Builder for Michael and Annette Collins Joseph D. Burrano, Esq. Mr. Robert Hiltz, Pres., Inland Homes, Inc., for Andrew Pafitis Mr. William B. Smith as agent for Gus Kyrkostas Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. as attorney for N. Ippolito Mrs. Brigitte Gibbons Wickham, Wickham & Bressler for NFBTC Mr. Garrett A. Strang for NFBTC Mr. Peter Stoutenburgh as contractor for Mr. and Mrs. Donald Shaw Mr. and Mrs. Charles Ward Suffolk Times, Inc. L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. Town Clerk Bulletin Board Supervisor and Town Board members ZBA Members Individual ZBA files JUDITtt T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAROI VITALS1 \IISTI('S OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 1 t971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 September 20, 1982 To: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals From: Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 3037 application o£ Martin & Alma Suter for a variance. Also included is notification to adjacent property owners; Short Environmental Assessment Form; Letter relative to N.Y.S. Tidal Wetlands Land-Use; Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department; and survey of the property. · Terr7 JTT/bn Southold Town Clerk SiiO?,T IHSTEUCTIONS: -~[~1~ order to tho% the preparer ¥~ill use currently available information concerning the project and thc likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If an7 question has been ans~ered Yes the project may be significanL and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary.. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely %hat. this ct pr°jo(d) Environmental Assessment .. 1. Will project result in o large physical change · . . lo the project' site 6r physically alter more Yes X No %hen 10 acres of land? ..................... 2. Will there'be o major change to any unique or -unusual land form found on the site? .... _ Yes x 3. ¥/ill project alter or have a large' existing body of water? ......... .......... Yes. X 4.. ¥1ill pro3ect have o potentially large impoc , ..~ on groundvmter quality? ..................... . Yes · 5. ¥1ill proDect significantly effect droSncge flaY! on adjacent sites? .................. u.. Yes x 6. ¥1ill project effect any threatened or cndc:ngercd plant or animal species? ........ Yes X No 7. ¥/ill project result in o major adverse quality? ' Yes X No on air .............................. 8. Will project hove o major effect on visual character of the communily or scenic views or vistas known to:be important to the community? 'Yes X'NO ?. %'1ill project a'dversely impact any site or .- structure of hisloric, prehistoric or paleontological importance or any site designated os o critical environmental oreo la. ¥1ill project have o major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities?.~ ....... Yes X No 11. Will project result in.major traffic problems '' o~ cause o major effect to ex-istin~ transportation systems? ....................... I YeS X 12. Will project :regularly cause objectionable odozs, noise, glare, vibration, or eleclrlcoI disturbance as a result o~ %he project's opero~ion? : Yes X No 13. %~illproject have on), impact on public health or.safely? .................................... Yes x No 1~. Will p~oject of£ect the existing community by -- '. directly causing o growth in permanent · population of more then 5 percegt over o one year period or hove a major negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? ................................. Yes X No 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? ...................................... ~cs X..No REPRESEHTING_ ~zr~in Surer - Owner of Property DATE~ $~p~emb~r E~,/I ,,0 ,,,,L~, I,,L AS SESSh'~EN 1 answer the questions in this short EAF it ~s assumed Sept. 20, 1982 (Today's Date) To: Re: Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Appeal Application of Garrett A. Stranq Location of Property: South of New Suffolk Ave. at ~n~ n~ ~i~Iw_ - Mat~itu~k~ ~Martin Surer ProDertv) 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 iQ the within appeal application: (please check one box) [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetiands; ho~vever, 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. ~[ ] not appear to May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; and there is no bulkhead or concrete wall existing ~on the premises.**DEC approval attached. Is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands to the best of my knowledge.* [Starred items(*) indicate your property does fall within the jurisdiction of the N.Y.S.D.E.C.] Sincerely yours, (S~gnature please) Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 119~71 TcJcphon¢ 765-~6~50 APPEAL BOARD MEMBER Robert W. Oillispi¢, Jr., Chairman Ro'ocr t B~rgcn Charles grisonis, Jr. ScrB¢ Doyen, Jr. Fred I~uls¢, Jr. MINUTES SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEAL~ November 2, 1972 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board held at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, November 2, 1972, at Main Road, Southold, New York. of Appeals was the Town Office, There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman; Robert Bergen; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Fred Hulse, Jr. Absent: Mr. Serge Doyen, Jr. THE CHAIRMAN: The Board of Appeals is required to make its decisions before the~public. We have set 7:30 P.M. tonight as the time for rendering a decislom on Appeal No. 1679, H. Alvin Smith, New ~uffolk Avenue, Mattituck, New York. A public hearing was held on this appeal on October 12, 1972 at 9:45 P.M. We will be influenced by the letters we have received, which I will read into the minutes tonight, as well as by previous testimony and investigation. GEORGE C. STANKEVICH, ESQ. (representimg Dr. Thomas Witschi): I believe that I could prove that certain thlngs contained in a letter I received are erroneous. There was something brought up to the effect that certain building line restrictions prevents Mr. Smith from placing his house according to the Ordinance. Mr. Einar B. Paust asserted this. The Chairman read to the Zoning Board of follows: letter dated October 20, 1972 addressed Appeals and signed by Einar B. Paust, as At the hearing on the reference appeal (Appeal of H. Alvin Smith, New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituek, New York) Thursday evening, October 12, 1972, I was advised by the Chairman and by Mr. Cron, Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- November 2, 1972 the attorney representing N~. Smith, as follows: 1) That the granting of this application would not digectly or indirectly result in a division of the 40,000 sq. ft. lot in question into two lots which could be sold off as separate lots. 2) That the so-called "accessory building" or "guest house" Would ,ct be a second dwelling since it could not and would not contain a kitchen with the usual cooking facilities such as a stove, etc, On these statements, I then advised the Board that I had no objection to the 10 foot side yard next to m~ property or to the location of the garage as shown on the Plot Diagram in the Build-. lng Permit application dated September 22, 1972. If any part of the statement in Item I or II above is incorrect then I register m~ objection to the entire application. There was a suggestion, I believe by the attorney for l~r. Witschi, that the main house be moved further east towards Hall~s Creek and a 50 foot setback from the road required. I pointed out that this was not possible. A building lime deed restriction running north and south, affecting Mr. Smith's lot as well as m~ own, prohibits the sMection or maintenance of any building between that line and Hall~s Creek. I have umderstood from m~ conversations with Mr. Smith that his proposed house will be within a foot or two of that restrictive line, but not over it. 2, of course, would object to any violation of this restricted deed covenant, which runs with the land, and would be entitled to a permanent injunction against such violation. One final matter: Mr. Smith's appeal papers state under Item 2! of "reasons for Appeal" that his is the "only lot on the creek in this area to be built on". This is not quite accurate. I own a large lot immediately north which is also on the creek and, if the present application is granted, I would want the same consideration shown me on an application for variance as is given to Mr. Smith. I appreciate the opportunity to make these written remarks for the record since, as I advised the Board, I will be unable to attend the adjoined meeting on November 2, 1972. (Signed) Einar B. Paust Copies to Mr. Martin Surer, Mr. George C. Stankevich, Mr. Richard Cron. THE CHAIRM~N: Mr. Paust has made no objection to a 10 foot side yard or to the location of the garage. It seems to me that Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- November 2, 1972 we should preserve a 15 foot side yard. There is another point that was not made too clearly and that is that the established front yard setback (in line setback) has already been established by the 30.2 foot setback of the Paust house. As I understand Mr. Uhl's application, in behalf of Mr. Smith, he proposed-that the outbuildings be set back 31 feet, and the main house be 40 feet from the property line; either of which dimensions is in excess of the established setback. My feeling is that it would be much more desirable to place the outbuildings or accessory buildings out of the front yard and into the side yard. I feel that the main house should be 40 feet from the property line, which is in excess of the established line, and that the side yard should be maintained at 1% feet, even though Mr. Paust is willing to have it reduced to l0 feet. Mr. Paust is in the wrong court as far as deed restrictions are concerned but in any case the deed restrictions that have been placed on this property seem to be in the interest of the Town. By prior deed restriction Mr. Smith has, agreed not to build more than 130 feet from the westerly property line. I have also received a letter ~rom Mr. H. Alvin Smith dated October 19, 1972, as follows: I understand that there has been some confusion regarding the request made in m~ behalf by Mr. Walter Uhl for a side yard variance. Perhaps the following will help clarify m~ position: 1. Original discussions regarding m~ property with the Planning Board elicited the suggestion, "ours was a natural for clustering" and if I would consider a "negative easement" on the beach front areas they would suggest a zoning board variance. This was agreeable to me. o of our We completed contracts for the sale of the westerly half land to Dr. Thomas Witschl who A. Did not want the guest house but provided us twelve months for its move across the private road, and B. Requested a building restriction on the land so that our building would be in the north half of the ~0,000 square foot area and thus not obstruct their view. This approach paralleling the "negative easement" idea was likewise agreeable and has been done by deed restriction. 3. Meantime we learned of the difficulties of obtaining a "clustering variance" - the alternative being to connect all three buildings and increase the guest house to 850 square feet. Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- November 2, 1972 Since this was not economically practical for a facility used only occasionally (seven weeks in the last two years) we passed this approach for the conventional and acceptable non-cooking guest facility. 4- M~. Uhl has a plot plan showing the proposals: A. Following M~. Terry's information "in line setback" from the private road; Mm. Paustts house is 30', ours will be 31t to 40t. A north side setback of 15~ is necessary which is agreeable. B. In talking with Mm. Paust this is agreeable with him. As a matter of fact, 10' from his line is also agreeable and he is ~Ttting yOU - subject of course to not breach- ing our long established (before zoning) east setback (130' from private road). C. Dr. Witschi is concerned with appearance and desires locating all buildings as far east as possible. But at the time of our sale to him, he did know our plans, knew the guest house was involved of course, and he himself desired clustering as far north (and east) as possible. D. Finally, the stove has a]meady been removed from the cottage. E. Needless to say, wetd like to build the main house facing "the view" and have the guest cottage-garage in back and not easterly far enough to be close to the creek, ob- struct the Paust view, or make turning into the garage too awkward. I am sending a copy of this to Mr. Cron, m~ attorney, and to Mr. U~nl so they will be familiar with these details. If there is anything else I can do to help resolve this matter, please let me know. (Signed) H. Alvin Smith I regret not being able to handle this in person, but Dr. Witschi was anxious for occupancy for school reasons and so we had a much earlier departure from Mattituck than we would have desired. THE CHAIRMAN: He originally had a plan to divide the Witschi lot into several lots. That buyer fell thmough and Dr. Witschi has not asked for a division of the property. He had something in his mind about "clustering", in connection with putting several residences on his property. We disabused him of this idea. It was m~ thought that there be no further improvement of the property remainir~ to Mr. Smith--~%wo and a half acres of beach front south of the southerly llne. to One of our feelings was that if he were/continue the use of the guest house it should be 850 sq. ft. in--area. He says in his Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- November 2, 1972 letter "since this was not economically practical for a facility used only occasionally (seven weeks in the last two years) we passed this approach for the conventional and acceptable cooking guest facility". My suggestion is that we grant access to this property. "Access" is stipulated in the legal notice and also in the Building Inspector's Denial' of application but it is not in Mr. Uhl's application. I believe that it is covered as far as any legal aspect is concerned but I think it should be inserted in the application. RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ.: I only saw this application after it had been filed. THE CHAIRMAN: We will amend the application to include 280A. JUSTICE MARTIN SUTER: Are you granting this with no provision for a turn-around? fire TEE CHAIRMAN: This is access for H. Alvin Smithts property. MR. SUTER: It'S a 20 foot right of way. What do you do about trucks? There is no provision for a turn around. THE CHAIRMAN: We never have provided for a turn around. You Just drive im and turn around. MR. SUTER: I have noticed that you have asked the question as to whether fire trucks can get in or out at other hearings. MR. CRON: MR. SUTER: establishes the Theoretically, the State law reads .1% feet. I am also learning.., you say that Paustts dwelling setback. Itts a single dwelling. THE CHAIRMAN: All I am saying is ~hat we have a precedent for, in this area. M~. Terry probably told you that it takes two buildings to give you an average. MR. CRON: I do~bt if there is anything in the Ordinance that sa~s "two Or more". The Chairman'read Section 303 of the Ordinance - Established Front Yard Setback: "Where property in the vicinity is improved with permanent dwellings with a front yard area of more or less than that required by the provisions of this Ordinance, the front yard setback shall be the average setback of the existing dwellings within 300 feet of the proposed dwelling, on the same side of the street, within the same block, and the same use district". TH~ CHAIRMAN: I would interpret "precedent" to mean the first house there. I think the Ordinance should be changed; suppose you have a subdivision with 400 foot deep lots. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- November 2, 1972 MR. SUTER: Our ordinance emphasizes 50 feet. THE CHAIRMAN: The former Ordinance set 35 feet. Whenever a person wants to drop down to 35 feet they come in here for a variance. With two adjoining houses - one set back 42 feet and another set back 52 feet, the average setback is 47 feet. Sometimes there is a hardship if the rear yard slopes sharply. To get back to this application, in reading over the minutes, in m~ opinion, the signature on the application is in order. The Ordinance says "anyone with a substantial interest in the property". This application is further reinforced by Mr. Smith's letter and Mr. Cron's presence at the hearing. MR. SUTER: I will not accept an application that is not signed by H. Alvin Smith. However, if Mr. Cron is representing him, tb-t is alright with me. THE CHAIRMAN: The Board is not bound by deed restrictions. The stdeyard should be 15 feet - not 10 feet. No building should be closer than 40 feet to the property line. I think he will have room enough to adhere to the 130 foot setback. It is unique as the applicant has additional beach property adjacent to the ~0,000 sq. ft. lot. If this variance is granted, I believe there should be no further improvement of that beach area to the south of the 40,000 sq. ft. lot, adjacent to Hallts Creek on Peconic Bay; and I believe that there should be no further division of the main property without approval of the Boamd of Appeals. MR. SUTER: I think that condition is superficial because it is not buildable. You have an Ordinance which says you can't build within a hundred feet of the water. THE CHAIRMAN: I think I would like to put it in anyway. I think he intends to seek a negative easement. This would help the Planning Board who have suggested that something like this be done. MR. ~UTER: I have made some notes on the hearing of October 12th which I would like to have entered into the record: Gentlemen: My name is Martin Surer. I reside at New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, in the area of property before you upon which an appeal is being made by H. Alvin Smith for variances as advertised in a legal notice published in the Thursday, October 5, 1972 edition of the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman. At the hearing I objected to your over-ruling of our Town Building, Inspector in regard to the variances requested by the applicant. From the minutes of the meeting you held on this matter on October 12, 1972, I find certain items were not included and since you adjourned this matter to November 2, 1972, I would appreciate entering into the record of this application some things I feel should be noted for your consideration and determination. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- November 2, 1972 Under your Board of Appeals regulations the Board is required to decide that the use will not prevent the orderly amd reasonable use of adjacent property. Please note that all of the land owners in the area affected are objecting to the granting of a variance amd they are supported by a letter in the records by our Town Planning Board. Under Article VIII, B-l,"the Board shall determine that the character of the existing and.probable development of uses in the district and the peculla~ suitability of such district for the location of any of such permissive uses"as are before your Board~.. Again, all other property owners in the area are on record as objecting since this is the first variance requested and the granting will have substantial affect on future development. Great care should be given to the pattern that will be encouraged for the future use of the adjoining property. Under Article VIII, B-4, "the Board shall consider the avail- ability of adequate sewage disposal for the site under consideration." This is, admittedly, filled in low land, below flood plain levels established by the Federal Government for insurance purposes within the past month in the Town of Southold; it is within 190 feet of Hallls Creek and, at best, will have difficulty disposing of a mini~mAm of sewage. Under Article VIII, B-9, "the Board shall consider hazard due to flooding"; the applicant has further exposed this area to flooding by bull-dozing the dunes south of the property facing Peconic Bay. Under Article VIII, B-10, "the Board shall consider the over- crowding of the land under consideration"; and the best test is to view the site and to check the Town Planning Board Minutes and letter to understand why they felt this site was , as the applicant also stated in his appeal, "the rear yard waterfront is not a buildable area". To provide any kind of additional living quarters mmst overcrowd this lot for there is both a water problem and, of course, a sewage disposal problem in any case. Under Article VIII, B-11, "the Board Mst decide if the plot area is sufficient for double use"; and an application for an accessory building used for living quarters as before this Board is a request to open the area for similar applications based ou mch better water and sewage disposals and would, of course, nullify the Planning Board, Town Board and Board of Health intentions to limit the use of new developments to single 40,000 square foot use. I petition the Board of Appeals to deny the variances requested since the applicant owned all of the property surrounding his present parcel and set his own boundaries. He can claim no hardship or ignorance of the laws and rules of our Town Planning Beard since he appeared before them as your record shows. Application of our Town Ordinance will not produce any practical difficulties that the applicant did not create himself. He drew his own boundaries, owned Southold Town Boa~d of Appeals -8- November 2, 1972 all of the surrounding property and, within the past six months, sold off sufficient property to give himself a good butldable lot; so, there is no hardship that is not self-created; there is nothing unique about this parcel that is not self-created; the character of the area will be affected as all adjoining property owners do protest; and the spirit of the Town Planning Board will be violated as evidenced by their letter to the Board of Appeals dated September 26, 1972. MR. CRON: Confusion was caused by the legal notice stating "permission to divide property". That was established to be in error by Mr. Smith. THE CHAIRMAN: How does Dr. Witschi feel about that? MR. STANKEVICH: We object to the application as originally made and that you, as Chairman, said you would favor it. No. 1- I think that what you are allowing here, when you say 40 foot setback, is in realty a 30 foot setback. The Ordinance calls for a %0 foot setback. We object to the point that }~. Paust's house sets a precedent. I don't believe that's legally correct. We also object to the appeal being granted on the basis that it would be making a condition that no building be done at the end of the 40,000 sq. ft. parcel. There can be no building south of the boat basin which is considerably north of where the Town hopes to get a negative easement. So, he is giving you nothing. THE CHAIRMAN: I would agree with Mr. Surer that this condition is unnecessary. MR. SUTER: I told him I would have him arrested if he continued bull-dozing. It is not buildable and not useable and he is not giving anything. MR. STANKEVICE: You are allowing the setback line to be cut back by two-fifths. You are allowing him to build within 30 feet of the edge of that road. THE CHAIR}~N: This is a private right of way which ends at his property. MR. STANKEVICH: The plans he shows show a driveway. It's not his land in fee without encumbrances. I think this is substantial depreciation. What does it do to the character of the neighborhood? It will not improve it, certainly not from Dr. Witschi's point of view. Are there alternatives to granting? He could easily abide by the Ordinance. TEE CHAIRMAN: I think the practical difficulty is that thfa ia fairly low land. There ia a danger of flooding. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- November 2, 1972 MR. STANKEVICH: I thiak you mentioned the variance in grading is abo~t a foot, a~d that could be filled. The most important~ point is the manner in which the difficulty arose. The difficulty arose because I think the applicant has been shaving corners. THE CHAIRMAN: I think the applicant thought that having ~w~ and a half acres left was enough to build on and I believe the Planning Board agreed with that. MR. STANKEVICH: The fact is that letters have been written to Mr. Smith telling him that I, as Dr. Wltschi~s attorney, told him to go to the Planning Board and get this straightened out. THE CHAIRMAN: The Town Attorney takes the position that this is an occasional sale of property. He made an occasional sale before zoning and built after zoning, about six or saves years ago. I think there is a gray area as far as subdivisions are concerned. I ran into a man who was told he had to get a ~inor subdivision on two lots on the North Road. MR. STANEEVICH: Dr. Witschi does object to cutting back on setback requirements. Mere inconvenience is not a basis for the granting of an area variance. He could set it back 50 feet from the edge of the road and keep everybody happy. He would Just have to tilt his house at a different angle. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cron, do you have anything to add? MR. affected north of anything land. CRON: I fail to see where any adjacent properties are by this application. We are speaking of everything the existimg right of way, running from east to west, that is done to the land lying north of Dr. Witschits MR. SUTER: I am the other half owner of.that property. MR. CRON: I would think if you wanted to sell by occasional sales you could do it. I think you have to look at the intent. There is no intent to subvert subduvision lots of the Town of Southold. He was left with all the remaining land. You do have Mr. Paustts residence to the north. You have an established set- back by virtue of Mr. Paust's house. I know some questions have been raised concerning sewage disposal and water. Water will not constitute any problem. We have a water easement over Dr. Witschtts land. The Board of Health has already approved the location of the buildings and the location of cesspools and septic tanks for this particular parcel. MR. BERGEN: Water and cesspools have nothing to do with us. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- November 2, 1972 MR. CRON: We are not talking about a piece of land that does not meet zoning requirements. The parcel we are dealing with is, by itself, 40,000 square feet. W-hem you take the other land, we have a large asreage here. Basically, you have a parcel which is far greater than 40,000 square feet. Basically' and feasibly and aesthetically, I can't see the great objection of Dr. Witschi in respect to the location with relation to the private road. If he is concerned about the view, I think if you move another 9 or 10 feet to the east, the view will be the same. I can't see where any objections are substantial in nature. I think the view is what activated Dr. Witschl. THE CHAIRMAN: You can't relate the view. It would be nice if everyone had a view. MR. GRIGONIS: Where there had been one house on the road, we have been guided by the dwelling that is already there. THE CHAIRMAN: The Building Inspector has been requiring a variance where a house is 50 feet back and two other houses are 60 or 70 feet back. MR. HULSE: As far as setback goes I can't remember taking an average and I dontt see where he has a hardship. As far as accessory buildings go, I am opposed to the guest house 100%. I am in favor of the garage but I think it could be located better. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you think, Mr. ~uter, that none of the property is buildable? MR. SUTER: Why does he come in with a 40,000 square foot application? THE CNAIRMAN: I assume it is to establish the lot for tax purposes, I don't know. If he has negative easement on the beach property it is assumed that he will ask for a reduction in taxes. MR. CRON: Whether we are formally given negative easement or not we are bound not to construct in an area south of the given line. MR. ~LSE: This extra land could belong to "Joe Blow". All he has as far as we are concerned is a 40,000 square foot lot. We have to determine whether he has a hardship on this lot. THE CHAIRMAN: I view the hardship on the fact that it is low land. MR. CRON: I think as you go down towards the creek it gets lower. MR. STANKEVICH: It's all low. MR. SUTER: He Just brought in forty loads of fill. He can use it where he wants to. Is the hardship because he has to spend more $outhold Tow~ Board of Appeals -11- November 2, 1972 money? THE CHAIRMAN: Dontt you think that's a hardship? Iris m~ view that this variance should be granted subject to the following conditions: That no building shall be closer than 15 feet to the northerly side line of this property. That no building shall be placed closer than 40 feet to the property line which divides Dr. Witschits property and Mr. Smithts property. That approval of access on this property shall be granted under 280A of the Town Law, subject to approval of the Building Inspector. That the guest house is a permitted use, without cooking facilities. Apparently the nearest at all to a guest house, without property. MR. SUTER: He has people turned it down. THE CHAIRM&N: Are Cron? neighbor to the north has no objection cooking facilities, being on the objected to it, about five years ago. You the above conditions acceptable to you, Mr. MR. CRON: I can't speak for Mr. Smith as to whether moving the building back 9 feet is acceptable or not. I dontt have any choice. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to divide property, put two accessory buildings in front and side yard areas, insufficient setback in front yard, and approval of access on property located: Right of way, south side of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, New York. The Board finds the applicant was the owner, earlier this year, of approximately 6 acres of waterfront property on Peconic Bay and Hall's Creek, Mattituck. The applicant sold the westerly improved 3.83 acre portion to Dr. Thomas Witschi, retaining the easterly 2 plus acre portion and a small guest house to be moved from the westerly lot. Prior to the Witschi purchase, preliminary discussuons with the Planning Board related to subdivision of the westerly acreage into three lots with the applicant retaining the easterly acreage for his own use, and the Planning Board indicating concern for the preservation of the barrier beach area. With the westerly portion of the property sold as a single lot to Dr. Witschi, and restrictions on improvements to the easterly portion, the Planning Board has informally withdrawn its objections to the over-all division of the original acreage. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- November 2, 1972 Applicant proposes construction of a residence, accessory detached garage, and accessory relocated guest house without cooking facilities; all buildings to be grouped in the northerly portion of the designated 40,000 sq. ft. lot. Access is requested over a 20 foot right of way described in survey of Van Tuyl dated December 9, 196~. This uniquely situated lot includes most of the buildable portion of the applicant's property, is 215'± on the northerly boundary extending 345'± between Hall~s Creek on the east and Witschi on the west, with a southerly width of 90'± bordered by applicant's beach property upon which building restrictions have been placed. The applicant's attorney states that Board of Health requirements as to water and sewage have been met. The applicant's own deed restrictions limit the building area to the northerly half of the 40,000 sq. ft. lot and restrict im- provements east of a line 130 feet from the Witschi property. The Board is not guided by these restrictions; however, they appear to be in the interest of the Town and confine the building area to the highest portion of the applicant's property. Adjoining improved property of Paust to the north is set back from the property line a distance of 30'2". A barrier beach on Pecouic Bay provides considerable flood protection to the entire area. The highest portion of the applicant's lot is the portion to be used for the applicant's building, with the accessory buildings in the side yard area to the north. A majority of the Board finds that the topographical situation described here Justifies granting a variance permitting the location of accessory buildings in the side yard area, not less than 15 feet from the northerly line, and not less than 40 feet from the westerly property line, with the sam~ setback to apply to the main residence; permission to relocate an accessory guest house without cooking facilities; and access as requeste~ The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED H. Alvin Smith, New Suffolk Avenue, Matt±tuck, New York, be GRANTED a variance permitting the location of the accessory buildings iu the side yard area (not less than 15 feet from the northerly line, and not less than 40 feet from the westerly property line); with the same setback to apply to the main residence; permission is granted to relocate au accessory guest house without cooking facilities; and access as requested. Location of premises: south side of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattttuck, New York. Vote of the Board: ~yes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grlgonis. Voting "No":- ¥~. Hulse. Southold Town Boa~d of Appeals -16- October 12, 1972 Th~ cHAiR~L~N: The garage will be 23 feet from the street line. TL~ CHALR~.~T: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against ~n~s application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to put accessory building in side yard area - Lot ~89, Map of Founders Estates, Sonthold, l~ew York. Tho findings of the Board are that applicant has two front yards thereby reducing tho rear yard area substantially. The Board agrees with tho reasoning of tho applicant. Tho Board finds that strict application of tho Ordinance would produce practical ~ifficnltios or unnecessary hardship; the hardsb, ii~ created is u~iquo and wo~ld not bo shared by all properties alike in tho immediate vicinity' of this pPope~ty and iu the same use district; and tho variance will not change tho character of the neighborhood and wi ll observe tho spirit of tho 0rdinance. 0n motion by lit. Giilispie, seconded by' 1.~. Hulse, it was RESOLVED Lylo ~erod~th, 01d =h~y~-~rd Lane and Landon Lane, goathold, I~ew York, bo GRAIITED permission to put accessory building ~n side yard area, as app!iod for, on premises located: et ~89, i~lap of Founders Estates, ~outhold, New York, subject to tho following conditions: That thc accessory buildiu~ shall bo located 23 feet from ~ndou ~ano and ~ fooo ~rom the westerly line of the property. Vote of tho Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Doyen. ?UBLIC ~EARII~G: Appeal No. 1679 - 9:~!-~ P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of H. Alvin S~ith~ Yc~ Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, ],To~ York, for a variance iu accordance with tho Zoning 0rdiuauco, Article III, Section 300 C-3, Section 302, Section 301 and Section 2$0A of the Town Law, for permission to divide property, put two accessory buildings iu front and side yard areas, insufficient setback in front yard and approval of access. Location of property: Right of way, south side of ~Icw duff elk Avenue, ~k~w Yo~k, bounded north by Paust~ east by' HellAs Creek; south by other lands of ~ ~ applicant~ and west by r~ont of way and T Fee paid ~iD.00. ' Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- October 12, 1972 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the appli'cation for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to tho applicant. TL~E Ct~,IR~. The application is accompanied by a survey indicating that applicant has sold property to Dr. %;itschi to tho west and has kept thc land to tho south and east of thc right of ~-zay which adjoins tho easterly border of the %fitschi property. Applies. ut proposes to set off a 40,000 sq. ft. lot. His whole prol~erty has considerable beach area. Tho land ts fairly low. I thought it was, perhsps, ~: feet above high ' ~ - · '~ 1C, O Tho house Is on the ~ni~n~ portion ~'~-'~nzc~z' is ou]~~ a foot o~ two n~gn~r th~u tho low portion and it .... '"~ ~ ~ o~,te~u~ out to ,,1,o beach 100 feet to tile e~st. Thc p~oporty ~nde? Ipplication is 40,000 ~cl~, ~ foot. T~ CI~L~[~}~: Zs there ~nyone preterit who wishes to speak for this application? RICi-L%RD J. CR0~T, ESQ.: i would lf!.:e to indicate that I got into this by' acciclcnt, f~s tho Beard can soo I did not prepare the application and Mr. ~mith did not sign it. .Tt ;,~as propa~-od bit the builder, ~'faltor Uhl. These papers were d~,oppod on desk with a copy of the propo=cd drawing indicating thc ~ain ho~so together wi~n thc two accessory buz~azngs (o~e garage one guest house). 0bvio~sly'~ since he docs own a largo piece of property, somewhere in thc vicinity of fo~r and a half to five acres~ we have to have permission to divide that into two basic parcels. We also need the Board~s approval for recognition of access as it r~ns along the right of way. ~',c~ further, need a var~,nco from t~o Board with respect to locating the guest house and garage. TH~ CH~%L-RI~'~%~I: Tho right of way is a straight line between l~itschi and g,~ith? ~. CR0~: That:s right. Thc right of ~zay has 20 foot so l0 fcct is owned by each of thc adjoi~ing owners. %~c need a v~,rlaueo ?~ith respect to whore thc garage and gucs~ house arc to be placed on tho pre~uisos. ~e have iusufficien~ front yard aroc~ under, thc present 0rdin~nc~ for locating the two accessory buildings in thc front y~rd arco. Z can:t tell yo~ much ~bout tho geographic charactoristlcs of the land. THE CHA~iq~: Z have been there several times and have had a telephone conversation with ~. Smith. Ho originally .~ a subdivision of this property and that buyer dropped out. &t that time ho was talking to the Planning Board about subdivision. S~outhold Town Board of Appeals -18- October 12, 1972 I saw a map that had this divided into several lots. In our conversation he indicated that he had no desire to develop further but was talking about getting a negative easement.- ~LR. CROIf: That may yet be done. THE C~%IIRP~.~7: %~Je could impose a condition that there be no further subdivision south of the existing property' and no improvement of the beach lands. ~R. CRO}~: We are restricted with respect to building that lot to the south. THE CPIAIRMA~: i received a letter from ~Wlr. Jehu Wickham, Chairman of thc Planning Board, as follows: ~'Please be advised that H. Alvin Smith has been to thc Planning Board with a map of his property which he proposed for a minor ~ubdivzsion. Apparently he has decided to abandon the plan for a minor sub- division and is going ahead without Planning Board approval to divide the property which is in violation of the Subdivision Laws of the &.tare and the Town. The Planning Board recommends that no consideration be given to this application." (Letter dated aeptember 26, 1972). I have also discussed this matter with the Town attorney and one of the questions he asked was ~'what law?. It is permissible for a man to make au occasional sale of property. Mr. gmith sold to ~. Paust and to Dr. Witschi. He now proposes to keep what is left and has no intention of subdivision. In discussing this matter with Y~. Wickham, I asked if he was con- cerned about thc beach area. He said he was, and i said that we could impose restrictions. That was satisfactory to him. ~. CRO~: We are restricted by virtue of the Deed conveying premises to Dr. Wftschi south of tho subject parcel. He is restricting his own land. ~R..;.U~T: I have restrictions on his land. He offered to sell mo half of the beach. THE CHAIR~i&~I: Z think the beach should remain ~'as is". ~.~. CRO~. That would not prohibit him from selling another portion of the beach but they could not build on it. TIiE C~L!I~MAI.~: I think what the Flaunting Board was concerned about is tho ~encrally low area there. There was so~e discussion as to whether it ~as low lauds or world, nde. MR. E. B. PAUST: What docs tho application here concern? T;TE CHAIR~,T: The location of the accessory' buildings. $outhold Town Board of Appeals -19- October 12, 1972 ~R. CR0~,~. He z~ dividing south of your land into two parcels. One is 40,000 sq. ft. TIS 0PL~RI, L%I'~: 40~000 sq. ft. is tho minimum size lot al!o~.~od in thc Town of Southold. He has three qr four acres left. ~R. P~%UST: He is bunching all his buildings into one area. (Irm. Paust discussed the map of the property with the Board). I was there before he filled the land. I can't understand whv all the buildings are clustered ou my line. In a hurricane, it's all going to be under water any way'. I am not saying anything about the garage. I had to attach my garage to my house but I am not objecting to that. The guest house will be a residence for his kids so you will have two residences on that piece of property. THE CI{%]iRF~I,I: If this is granted, all cooking facilities will have to be removed. ~. CRON: That was something that predated the present Ordinance. b~. PAU~T: Mr. ~mith left for Florida about a month ago and he didn't say anything to me. I read about it in the newspaper. That's what happened with thc last spplication which wes withdrawn when ho tried to build a cottage on my front stoop. If this is granted, I want to make the same application on my lot north of him. THt~ C~RF~: Does anyone else wish to speak for or against this application? GEORGE ~TA~t~V!CH, ESQ.: I am an attorney with offices in ~outhold. I am representing Dr. Witschi. His prime concern is with the setback of tho primary residence to be constructed and with the accessory dwellings. It:s really ~0 feet from tho road because thc setback is measured from the center of the road. The set~ack on thc cottage will be ]l feet from the center of thc road or 21 feet from the edge of the road. Dr. Witschi objects to the location of any building being closer than ~0 feet in accordance with the Zoning 0rdiuance. The question turns on whether we havc a unique problem and I think, as Fm. Panst brought out, Mr. Paust has a lot and can make an identical application~ so, we can h~ve garages in all front yards. ~. P~JJgT: I am going to ask for the privilege of putting this in writing. ~. STA~EEVICH: The problem is not unique as his lot is similarly located. As the road comes in there are a number of $outhold Town Board of Appeals -20- October 12, 1972 lots that will be created. We will face the same problem. We would have a road that would be littered with garages and guest houses. Mr. Smith is asking to have buildings closer to the road than is normally permitted and also to put them iu the front yard area. Dr. Witschi has to look at it. Mr. Smith would rather look at the water and he has a dilemma. Hc says the land is low but he can fill it. We have uo obJactiou if he fills o~ bulkheads. The line from the Witschi property to the water is 190 feet; ample room to locate his house and accessory buildings. There is sufficient depth back from thc road. From Dr. Witschi~s point of view, he has to look at this garage. THE~ CH~L-RI~: You made a point about other property' in this area. I~. S,TANKEVICH: I think we would be set,'ting a precedent here. Mr. Paust can come in and ask to put a garage in his front yard, and you have more propertlcs. Each of these people are going to want to look at the water but their neighbors have garages in thc front yards. T~ CPL%LRMA~I: In one of the cases locating sn outbuilding way do~n on thc ~,hosp~tao~e. that was heard here tonight- road strikes me as being ~,~. ~TA}~KEVICH: There arc ways that he can minimize by placing the buildings further back. THE C~%IRMA}~: I tried to suggest that to him. The point hc made to me was that the location of these outbuildings closer to the road was because of the danger of high tides. ~. PAUST: There is no danger from high tides. You have to have a gale storm. Wo had one the other day' and we did not have any water on our land. It could only happen if you have gale force winds for three or four days. TH'% C~%.ZR~I~. What z~ the highest~,~o,,~ have abovc mean tide? n~s 6 to ? fc~t above in 19~4; up to his front porch. THE C~ilRP~. $o it is no advantage for Mr. gmith to have these buildings in this particular position. He would not be h~rmed. · ~T~.~K~VI~H. According to the Ordinance a building should not be any closer than ~0 feet to the road nor should accessory buildings be in the front yard area. ~o~thold Town Board of &ppeals -21- October 12, 1972 ~U~T. He can't go beyond ~ certain building line down there. THE C.~!RI~: You are not rocogui-ziug in your argument the unusual character of this lot. ~. ~TANMEVICH: I have tho latest survey. This is a curvcy that was recorded in the Deed to Dr. Witschi. It shows it to be 190 fcct to thc stone marker, 90 fcct at tho base. I can see his point of view. He wants to have his front yard face the water. It's not a unique hardship. TITE CPL~IRI~N: The accessory buildings in the front yard arc l0 foot from tho line. If they were in tho side yard, under the present Ordinance, he would have to have l~ feet fro~ the line. If the garage is not attached it can bo in thc rear yard and be 3 feet from the line. If the house wore placed ~0 fcct from thc property divlsiou and the accessory' buildings were placed in the side yard, the only reason he would have to appear here would be for "accessory buildings in the side yard area". Y2~. ~T;~.II~VICH. Dr. Witschi only objects to thc location of the accessory buildings. I~R. CRON: I would like to point out that observations made ~ith respect to a situation developing north of tho %;itschi property' has uo application and has no meaning. I think ~. 5tankovich said something about laud north of the Witschi property (co-owned by Justice Surer and ~. Smith) but this has no bearing on any property that's north of the Witschi property. It is uot watc~ view property and it would be governed by any rules that apply to subdivisions. The Board ~'~ould not bc setting a precedent by' setting buildings in the front yard area. ~. ~TANIfEVICH: As you go out of tho road going up to New Suffolk Avenue is a portion of '~0 acres. This is the land i am talking about, to the north that runs down to the water. Thoro could bc casual sales there. The same reasoning applies. THE C~%IR}5~T: When a pcmson fills out cue of these applica- tions, there arc certain things that we ignore. For instance, aesthetics, it is not part of our lcgal reasoning. ^ point has boon made that the garage can not be located in the rear yard because of storm damage aud that it ~ould spoil the view. Wc ignore "spoil the view". Does ~n~.'~one object' to acccssory %uildings being l0 feet from the ~de liue? (There ~zere no ob- Jections). What ~. Paust and Dr. Witschi are concerned ' ~ is the main building being at least 50 £oet from the property' line. Soutkold Town Board of Appeals -22- October 12, 1972 I~R. PAUST: My problem was iu the division of property. I understand it was an indirect way of dividing so he could have a l~0,000 sq. ft. plot which he now could sell off. Someone else is going to buy' this some day. T~ CPLiIR~ftN: If this is granted ~thoro can only be one residence on the whole ~mith property'. MR. STAI{I~VICH: Dr. Witschi would like to have the buildings moved back. ~. CRO~h Obviously, Dr. Witschi's reasoning is based on his view of Hall's Harbor. i can't sec where there is a sub- stantial dlfferencc in having a dwelling 40 feet or ~0 foot from the property linc. I can:t even sec his reasoning with respect to accessory buildings. All of these are still going to ~ostruct whether you place thom ~0 foot or ~0 feet from tho property line. If that is thc reasoning behind thc objection, I think it's arbitrary'. I think it,s unreasonable. THE CHAIR>~N: I think, in this particular situation, one of the reasons for this application is that this is not a lot that:s on a prairie in Kansas; it:s on tho waterfront and is not a perfect lot. >~. SUTER: Tho applicant ~nod all of tho property at one time. Tho applicant set the lines himself since he owned all the property surrounding this particular parcel. (Thc Chairp~n read from the 0rdinanco with respect to front, rear an~ side yards.) ~R. ETA~]~VICH: More than 7~'~ of ~. Smith's lot is deeper than 12~ feet. I think that Dr. Witschi has a legitimate right to send his attorney hcro and to ask that spacing bo kept in accordance with tho Ordinance unless hardship can be shown. This hardship is not unique. Flooding can bo minimized. 1~. CROM: i am somewhat at a disadvanta$o simply because i don~t know who made tho spacing of tho buildings on the drawing. I don't know the reasoning. Perhaps ~. Uhl has sound reasoning for placing these buildings at those particular distances. I don't know whether this was done at tho direction of M~. Smith. Mm. Uhl instituted tho application. THE Ci-~![~: Mm. Smith located thc house and also tho accessory buildings, it soe~ to mc that there is no reason tho house should not be ~0 foot fro~ tho dividing line. ! can cee some reason why tho accessory' buildings should not be in tho roar yard area. ~'~. PAUST: You can't move that building ~0 feet in toward the crook. L Southold To~n Board of &ppeals -23- 0ctobor 12, 1972 TITE C~ZR~N: It is now at 40 feet. Ho has to move another 10 feet. PR. PAUST: i have a building line restriction. He can't bring that any further than he has it. (~.~r. gtankevich, I,h~. Cron and ~. Faust examined tho map). PR. FAUST: He told me he paced this off. ~. FRED ~LSE, JR.: Z am against tho two accessory buildings being piggy-backed. I think it looks terrible. ~. ~UTER: I think what you should consider is that you are going to upset the ordinary and reasonable usc, and you would be setting a precedent if you grant this. i~irst, we start out with a minor subdivision. Then~ as I understand it, by occasional sales you can avoid a subdivision. The applicant has made his case before tho Board. Most of the people concerned are here. Tho applicant has peculiarly signed the application but it's not notarized by him and it's not his signature. Ho is appealing the decision of tho Building inspector and i urge that you uphold the Building Inspector. It's i~. Uhl:s signature on the applicatlou. THE C~Y~I~N: (addrosslug i.h% Cron) Do you have any response? i~R. CRON: It doesn't say who has to sign tho application. I~. SD~TER: How does it start off -please read it. ~]. CRON: "I, H. Alvin Smith, etc.'~ It could be I~h~. U~l's notarized signature. >R. SUTER: Does he have tho right to sign for I~r. Smith? There is nothing to show that ho has power of attorney. ~R. CRON: to the facts. It's a notarized signature. ~. Uhl is swearing I'~. SUTER: ~'~ho is making the appeal? ~R. CI{0N: The application is not a work of art. He should have said ~I, h~alter Uhl, iu behalf of". THE CI~Ri~.I~: Hundreds of applications are made by buildo:.s. ~R. £~UTER: :~s the builder~ I will accept that. THE CI~,~N: ~fe try not to grant to a person who doesn't apply. ~hR. SUTER: There is nothing in tho file to show that ?~o~!ter Uhl has tho right to sign for ~w~. Smith. gouthold Town Board of Appeals -24- October 12, 1972 i'~P~. STAIII~VICH: I would just like to road you tho dcfinition of a f~.~ont yard: "An unoccupied ground ares. fully open to .tho slcy' between the street linc, or by tko street !iuo established by thc Official Map of ~ho Town, or an approved Subdivision ?la~, and a line drawn parallel ~hercto". Thoro is no substantial or unique hardship. Z don~t so~ why' ho can't comply wi~h the sotbao]~ restrictions or w~u' ho can~ co~ply' with thc front yard restrictions. It gives him 130 foot from %ho oen~or of that road to build his house on. If you tako off ~0 foot, it gives him ample roo~. TIlE CtLiE°J'~I,!: I ~;ould be inclined to agree with that. Thoro ~ really' no reason wl%y' ho can't ma~o%a~n ~0 foot from ~ho ~' '~ -~ linc. As far as acthestio reasons are conccrncd~ I really don~t like to soo buildings in thc front yard. tf tho house is so~ back · co~,; and if ~ho out buildings arc set back ~0 f~et, tbcy would ~o in the side yard. Does a~,'one object %o that? 1,~. ~;~UST: You moan nearer to tho creek? I don't think hc can do that. / iq~. ~TTER: Ho could have sot any' lines that he wanted to. Thc Ordinance says ~0 feet back from the curb line. ~. ZTAI~i~VICH: In terms of defining front yards, it refers to street line so I think that ~0 feet should be set from tho site of tho right of way. That's why the front yard definition is as i'b is. T~ Ci~,~i~: if Mr. Sutor and Mr. 2aust and 1~. Stankovich object to thc signature, we can postpone our decision. I~. SUTER: I oSjoct to tko way it was done. I want to be on record as objecting, and i want you to note that i don't think it was tho proper way to do it. TIlE CI-5tlRI~AN: I think that tho Board will have to make a determination at a later date. We will have to reinvestigate. ~. CRON: Lot tho record show that tko rear yard area is not a buildablc area. It is waterfront. On motion by' ~.~r. Gillispio, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RE£0LVED that tho hoarinS on Appeal No. 1679, ti. Alvin Smith, 1;ow Luff elk Avenue, Cutchosue, ?:ow York, bo adjourned; and that decision be postponed until 7:30 P.M., Novom. bor 2, 1972. Veto of tho Board; Ayes:- Moscrs: Oillispio, Hulse, Doyen. B DR. ~.6 A(c) /:-,l: -/f- 8 CUTCHOGuE- NEW SUFFOLK PARK DISTRICT ? 5.7 A (c) , OF SOUTHOLD SEE SEC. :"JO 134- LOC ATION M "','~ X X g'lx × 9'1 4~,,,ooo 5.~. 4~.000 5.? X Z X X 9'1 g'lX X O'g z : S3.LON X O00ll~ oog o~ 3 X RECEIVED BY $IIIIIttOLI) llIW,li ?~ItllllIll BO~D O'Ct ':lS 198~2._2 _ , bATE , ' PRELIMINARY, SL AT MATTITUCK TOWN 05 50UTt-IOL9 5UFF CO. SCALE I"" I00~ AUG. 16, 198Z OCT. 11), 198~ 000 om ~01' ,,I 'J.I:IEIA ,og =, I 'Z~IOH - .a'Tg'gc:j O, qOIllFlOg 40 NMO. J_ >On.LI_LL~FJ ~.L'I qa~FllNaA M-a IA AVg ~0~ ~VIAI NOI~IAI~c::j o 0 = ~ ~ ,.~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 og G , 'D, C~VO~, OZ.'gl r~ O 0 0 0 0 0 o o o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0