Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2692 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ACTION OF THE ZONING BOAI~D OF A~EAL$ Appeal No. 2692 Dated April 16, 1980 ACTION OF T~ ZONING BOARD OF APPE~ OF ~E TOWN OF SOU~OLD To Mr. Victor E. Catalano 22 Canterbury Drive Hauppauge, NY 11787 DATE Appellant at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 2 8, was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your ( ) Hequest for variance due to lack of access to property ( ) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance ~ Bequest for a variance to the Zon/ng Ordhlance Art. ITI ( ) 1980 the appeal Section 100-31 ~anied ( ) be denied pu~uant to Article .................... Se~inn .................... Subsection .................... para~a~ .................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decis~n ~ the Building I~pecter ( ) be reversed ( ) be co~med b~au~ Application of VICTOR E. CATALANO, 22 Canterbury Drive, Hauppauge, New York 11787, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance: (a) Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of road frontage; (b) Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area due to proposed change in lot line[s]. Location of property: South side of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, New York; bounded north by Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, east by Pridgen, south by Peconic Bay and/or Catalano and Estate of A. Cardinale, west by Croce and Keller; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-6- 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3. (SEE REVERSE SIDE) 2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined that (a) Strict applicat/on of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce hardship because practical difficulties or (SEE REVERSE SIDE) (b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because (SEE REVERSE SIDE) (c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) change the character of the district because (would not) (SEE REVERSE SIDE) and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( ) be denied and that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) be confirmed ( ) be reversed. FORM ZB4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL~ After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicant is requesting approval of insufficient area due to a proposed change between proposed Lots 1 and 2 for a foot path, and approval of the existing insufficient width (or road front- age). Upon inspection of the premises, the Board has found that the dwellings on Lots 1 and 2 are preexisting of the Town zoning ordinance, and that the width has also preexisted zoning. The Board during June 1974 granted approval of insufficient area in Appeal No. 1914, and it is the feeling of the Board that to deny the area variance requested herein would cause applicant extreme hardship or practical difficulties. However, it is also the feeling of the Board that no action is necessary in regard to the width variance inasmuch as the width has been existing prior to zoning. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. -. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that VICTOR E. CATALANO, 22 Canterbury Drive, Hauppauge, New York 11787, be GRANTED a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 Bulk Schedule, approving the insufficient area as applied for in Appeal No. 2692, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That this matter be referred to the SuffOlk County Planning Commission'for its recommendations pursuant to the Suffolk County Charter, Section 1332(a). Location of property: South side of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, New York; bounded north by Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, east by Pridgen, south by Peconic Bay and/or Catalano and Estate of A. Cardinale, west by Croce and Keller; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-6-13.1, 13.2, 13.3. vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigon±s, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer. APPROVED RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK 6/6/80 at 2:06 P.M. O O NOTICE OF HEARINGS Pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of Southold, the following matters will be held for public hearings by the Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, at the ToWn Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York on Thursday, May 22, 1980: 7:35 P.M. Application of MARINO FARAGUNA, 175 Park Avenue, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey 07922, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient sideyards at property known as 5675 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, New York; Lot 113 of "Nassau Farms" filed Map #1179; County Tax Map Item No. 1000- 138-2-10. 7:45 P.M. Application of EMANUEL & VENITA LORRAS, Depot Lane, Cutchogue, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition with insufficient rearyard setback at property known as 2135 Bay Avenue, East Marion, New York; bounded north by Schwab, east by Massaro, south by Vasquez, west by Bay Avenue; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-31-17-4. 8:00 P.M. A~lication pf VICTOR E. CATALANO~ 22 Canterbury Drive; Hauppauge, New York 11787, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance: (a_~) Art~__~cle III, Section 100-31 for approv__a_~_q~.~i__nsuffici_en~t~r?~ front_ __~_aqe~ (b) Article III. Section 100'31 for approval of insufficient area due to proposed change in lot line[s]. Location of property: South side of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, New York; bounded north by Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, east by Pridgen, south by Peconic Bay and/or Catalano and Estate of A. by Croce and Keller; County Tax Map Item No. 13.2, 13.3. Cardinale, west 1000-128-6-13.1, Re: Catalano (Adelaide Cardinale) . In 1974 Boar~ of Appeal~ approved area of Lots 1, 2~nd Subject variance requests approval of road frontage for Lot 3, and due to change in lot lines, re-consideration for approval of areas in Lots 1 & 2. Lots 1 & 2 have existing dwellings. Planning Board subdivision is required. Legal Notice' (continued from page 1~_~ ) NOTICE OF HEARINGS Pursuant to Section 267 of the To~vn Law and the Provi- sions of the Amended Cede of the Town of Seuthold, the fol- lowing matters will be held for public healings by the Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Soatbold, New York on Thurs- day, May 22, 1980: 7:35 P.M. Application of MARINO FARAGUNA, 175 Park Avenue, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey 07922, for a Variance to the Zoning 'Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to con- struct dwelling with insuffic- ient sideyards at property known as 5675 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, New York; Lot 113 of "Nassau Farms" filed Map #1179; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-130-2-10. 7:45 P.M. Application of EMANUEL & VENITA LOR- RAS, Depot Lane, Cutchogue, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permis- sion to construct addition with insufficient rearyard setback at property known as 2135 Bay Avenue, East Marion, New York; bounded north by Schwab, east by Massaro, south by Vasquez, west by Bay Avenue~ County Tax Map Item No. 1000-31-17.4. 8:09 P.M. Aoolication ~f ~rICTOR E. CA~ALANO. 22 pauge New York 11787~ for ~Va/qa'nce [b the Zoning ~:d{~- ance: (a) Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insuffic- ient road frontage; (b) Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area due to proposed change in lot line(s). Location of property: South - side of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NewYork; bounded north by Great Pc- conic Bay Boulevard, east by Pridgen south fly Peconic Bay and/or Catalano and Es- tate of A. Cardinale, west by Croce and Keller; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-1284-13.1, 13.2, 13.3. 8:20 P.M. A0plication of FRANK E. BROPHY, Sec- ond Street, New Suffolk, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of the construction of addition with insufficient front and side yard setbacks at property known as 75 Second Street, New Suffolk; bounded north by Grathwohl & Pugsley, east by Second Street, south by Woedard and Wetzel, west by Martin and Third Street; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-10-20.7. 8:30 P.M. Application of RICHARD and MARY LIND- SAY, 435 Watersedge Way, Soutbold, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordin- ance, Article III, Section 100- 31 for permission to construct addition ,with insufficient fruntyard at property known as 435 Watersedge Way, South- old; bounded north by Waters- edge Way, east by Debany, south by Little Peconic Bay, wes Bourgin; County Tax Map em No. 1000-88-5-59. 8:45 P.M. Application of KENNETH STRACHAN, JR., Peters Neck Road, Orient, New York for a Variance to New York Town Law, Section ~280A, for approval of access. Location of property: Right- of-way off South Side of King Street, Orient; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-27-4-9. 8:55 P.M. Application of KENNETH STRACHAN, JR., Peters Neck Road, Orient, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permis- sion to locate aeeessory build- ing in an area other than the rearyard. Location of proper- ty: Right-of-way off South Side of King Street, Orient; part of County Tax Map Item No. 1000-274-9; also referred to as Lot 2 of Property of Margaret L. Strachan. 9:10 P.M. Application of RENE GENDRON, Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for approval of insuffic- ient area. Location of proper- ties: Lots 9, 11 and 12 at South Harbor Homes, Grange Road Extension, Southold; County Tax Map Item Nos. 1000-75-4- 9, 10, 12. 9:25 P.M. Application of FRANK and JACQUELINE WEBER, 2030 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 111, Section 100-31, for permission to con- struct dwelling with insuffic- ient sideyards at property known as 2030 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold; bounded north by Jockey Creek Dr., east by Wohlberg, south by Jockey Creek, west by Black- burn; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-70-5-21. 9:40 P.M. Application of ROBERT W. BROOKS, Holmes Road, East Lyme, Connecticut 06333, for a Var- iance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section I00~31 for approval of insufficient area, width and setbacks. Location of property: Winthrop Drive and Reservoir Road, Fishers Island, New York; bounded north by Gada, east by Reser- voir Road, south by Winthrop Drive and Cleveland, west by Silver Eel Cove; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-9-8-3. 9:55 P.M. Application of RICHARD ZEISLER, c/o Phi- lip J. Ofrias, Jr., Esq., 737 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York 11901, for a Var- iance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold, Section 46-15A, B for permission to construct base- ment below the restricted base flood elevation in a special floed hazard zone. Location of property: Jacksons Landing, Mattituck; Lot 7 of Map of Jacksons Landing; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-1134-9. Dated: May.7, 19~0. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF HEARINGS Pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Pro- visions of the Amended Code of the Town of Southold~ the following matters will be 'held for public hearings by the Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York on Thursday, May 22, 1980: 7:35 P.M. Application of MARINO FARAGUNA, 175 Park Avenue, Berkeley Heights~ New Jersey 07922, for a VarianCe to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IH, Section 100-31 for permission to con- struct dwelling with insuffi- cient sideyards at property known as 5675 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, N~w York; Lot 113 of ,,Nassau F~'ms" filed Map #1179; County Tax Map Item NO. 1000-138-2-10. 7:45 P.M~ Application of EMANUEL & VENITA LOR- RAS, Depot Lane, Cutch°gue, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IH, Section 100-31 for'permission to construct addition with insufficient rear.yard setback at property known as 2135 Bay Avenue, Fast Marion, New York; bounded north by Schwab, east bY Massaro, south by Vasquez, west bY Bay Avenue; County Tax Map Item No. 1000,31d7-4. 8:00' P:M; Applicafiqn of · VICTOR E. CATALANO~ 22 ., - t~ntervur~ Driye. ~ ~-*_~ge~ New Yo~k ~1787. - Ynriance to the Zoning Ordin- ance: (a) Article m, ~on .". --100-31 for approval of~nsuffi' ~- cient road frontage; (~) Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area due to proposed change in lot line[si. [ Drive, Southold, New York.for , a V, , ce to th _ _ZO'?g _' Ordin~, Article Ill, Section 31 _rmi~on to_~n-_J {I Map Item No. 1000-9-8-3. aW 9'55 1m M. Application of I , RICHARD ZEISLER, c/o Phi- lip J. Ofrias, Jr., Esq., 737 ~ Roanoke Avenue, Ri{erhead, ~ ' New York 11901, for a Vari-. ance to the Flood Damage i Prevention Law of the Town of Southold, Section 46-18A, B ; for permission to construct = basement below the restricted base flood elevation in a special flood hazard zone. Location of property: Jacksons Landing, Mattituck; Lot 7 of ' Map of Jacksons Landing; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-113-4-9. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Dated: May 7, 1980 " IT, 5/15/80 (206) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at C_.outhold, in Suffolk County; ;nd 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 st~ccessivety, commencing on the ./~..~. ............................... .................... , Swom to before me this /.~. .................. dc:IV o? CLEMENT J, NOTARY PUBLIC. O FORM NO, 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL File No ................................ To .... ( ..... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated .......................... ,19 ..... for permit to construct .... .~...oy~..~ .~:.....~.... ~ ............................... at Location of Property ~-~a.J'- ~'~ t.e-~ t..~..o~. ~./w'~--/. t~.~ County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ./..~-..~.. Block ~ ...... Lot l~,2 +./-~-~ Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No .................. is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds · ././~. · .~%. · ~. ~ - · -ta'X~. · · .~. · · · .~ Building Inspector RV 1/80 TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. c~ ~/' DATE ~...../'...~./..../~'d/~ TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. · 1, (We) .......... z2'. Z#4 r ..... ..... Street and Nun~r HEREBY APPEAL TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ..,~..~.p .~.]...~.....~..~..1...J..~.~.'...~. ...... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Name of Applicant for permit of Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ~ PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ' , ' THE I~)OPERTY ..~.... LOCATION OF ........ .., I. Street Use Distri~ on Zoning Map -- Map No. Lot No. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONIN~ ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zonin_g Ordinange by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) 3 /7'YPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (V) 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 appealS(has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspectar or with respect to this property. Such appeal was (krequest for a special permit (V) 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 REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shored by all properties alik~,~in the immediate vicinity o.f this property and in this use district because ~u,l~- ~eH./ .,~/~/ ~ 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRlCTbecause~~d ~ ~ COUNTY ) Signature Sworn to this .............. ~..~.,..~ .............. doyof ....... ~"'"'l'~ .......... ELtZABEI'H ANN NEVILLII ROTARY PUBLIC, S~te al N~ Y~ No. 52.8125850, S~f~k Cou~ ?e~ ~pires March ~, 1~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of VICTOR CATALANO. ANTHONY B. TOHILL ATTORNEY AT LAW 6 EAST MAIN STREET RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of : VICTOR CATAL~O. : MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION This memorandum issu!mLitted on behalf of the Croce, Pridgen, Keller, Gatehouse and Mastropolo families, each of whom are adjacent property owners to the premises which are the subject of the captioned application. Each of the aforesaid families object to the within application in the respects outlined hereinbelow. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The subject application seeks to divide a 51,264 square foot parcel of lots now improved with two residences into three residential parcels, including one parcel designated as No. 3 with a total square footage of 13,727 square feet, although the ordinance requires 40,000 square feet. Applicants also seek relief with respect to the establishment of certain foot paths relating to the residences on parcels 2 and 1. The objectants, who are virtually all of the immediately adjacent property owners, specifically object to th~ diy~SiQ~ of the pre~i~es Mo as to create a third building parce~ designated as Lot No, 3, Annexed hereto as Exhibit A is a portion of the Suffolk County Tax Map whereon the respective parcels owned by the objectants and the applicant are inscribed, The subject premises were purchased by Victor E, Cata!ano and Adelinda M, Catalano, his wife, in December, 1978, for $60~000,00. The premises were the subject of a prior application for simila~ but different area variances in June, 1974, but the application and Zoning Board action in connection therewith was subject to Planning Board approval which was never obtained. The present application with respect to the creation of the 10t designated as Lot No. 3 has been disapproved by the Southold Town Planning Board by letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated May 8, 1980, The objectants share the point of view of the Planning Board, The attached tax map shows the area as either conforming lots (with respect to the one acre requirement), or over-sized lots or lots legally subdivided without variances since the inception of zoning, or lots which are undersized and which were created prior to the inception of zoning and subdivision require- ments, The area does not depict any lots which have been created in recent memory by means of variances permitting the subdivision of lOtS equivalent or similar to the proposed lot No. 3 which has !3,727 square feet, Indeed, a recent application to divide the premises i~t~ undersized lots where the property was located a short distance easterly of the subject premises was den.ied by the Zoning Board of Appeals. And the Pridgens have been recently advised by the Building Department in connection with the construction of a new residence on their lot depicted as Lot 15 on the attached tax map that the kitchen in their existing residence on the same parcel must be gutted and removed in order to establish their existing residence as an accessory use rather as a principal use on the same 1.6 acre parcel. The Edgemere Park area depicted as Lots 16 through 20 on the tax map, all created prior to zoning and subdivision regulations, are unable to obtain independent sources of water with respect to each lo~ and this area, by reason of insufficient ground water resources, is required to obtain its water from nereby property owned, upon information and belief, by the Town of $outhold. The subject application to create Lot 3 has been disapproved by th~ Suffolk County Department of Health Services by reason of the area's "history of a limited water supply." See letter of Royal R. Reynolds, P.E., to Zoning Board of Appeals dated May 16, 1980. Lots 21, 22, 23 and map were created in 1966 as a zoning requirements 12 as depicted on the attached tax legal subdivision complying with at the time. -3- ARGUMENT The objectants respectfully request that the applicant's application to the limited extent that it seeks the creation of a third building lot known as Lot No. 3 on the application before this Board be denied forthe reasons that: 1. The creation of a 13,727 square foot parcel where the ordinance requires 40,000 square foot parcels is too substantial a variation to be justified under the particular facts and circum- stances of this case; 2. The increased population density produced by the addition of yet another house in this particular area will create unwise and unnecessary further demands on already limited ground water resources; 3. The character of the neighborhood is such that this one-third acre parcel sought by the applicant would be the only lot of its kind created by a variance and would be a lot with dimensions substantially smaller than all other adjacent lots excepting legally created half-acre lots and similar lots created prior to zoning; 4. The applicant cannot present any difficulty or practical hardship and seeks only to establish a financial gain in the nature of a windfall to the detriment of all surrounding property owners; 5. The applicant cannot prove the lack of a reasonable return on his investment; 6. The applicant purchased the premises with full knowledge of the restraints of the Zoning Ordinance with respect -4- thereto and therefore has not established and cannot establish any hardship, excepting a self-created hardship. This Zoning Board of Appeals is not bound in any way to follow any position taken on a similar but different prior application in 1974. Since then the law of this state with respect to applications for area variances has been clarified and changed. (See Cowan v. Kern, 41 N.Y~2d 591 (1977)), In that determination, the court stated in pertinent part: That the board had granted two variances in the past did not strap it to grant variances to all comers in the future automatically and without due regard for changed conditions that might require a different result. Having granted two variances in the past, the board could properly decide that additional variances would impose too great a burden and strain on the existing community. More importantly, the board, after three years'reflection, could find that previous awards had been a mistake that should not again be repeated. Certainly, the board was not bound to perpetuate earlier error." In this case, the objectants do not complain about the division of the property so as to reflect the existing residences which are established prior to zoning on this parcel. They strenuously do complain about the development of a third building parcel where the applicant purchased the property with full knowledge that it was not legally subdivided, where the applicant will clearly enjoy a reasonable return on his investment without any further subdivision of the land other than Lots 2 and 1, where the creation of Lot 3 will merely be the creation of a windfall profit without reference to the required criteria that must be established prior to the issuance of an area variance, and where the development of further undersized parcels in the -5- ~b~ec% areal gene~a!~y ~il~ obV~oqs~y and indisputably adversely affect the land values of the ~urro~nding property owners, particularly the named obJectants herein. The request for an area variance to create Lot No. 3 arises not as the result of practical difficulties, but instead in the pursuit of unwarranted financial gain. "The courts [and Zoning Boards] should not be placed in the position of having to guaranty the investments of careless land buyers" (Barby Land Corp. v. Ziegner, 65 A,D.2d 793 (App. Div., 2d Dept., 1978)). "The proper inquiry is whether the presently permitted use can yield a reasonable return even if not the most profitable return" {Matter of Crossroads, 4 N.Y.2d 39 at 46). "The petitioner must come forward with proof of significant economic injury" (Cowan v. Kern, 41 N.Y.~2d 591 at 596 (1977))~ There was no testimony and there was no proof in the 1974 application with respect to financial hardship at all. This application at this time must fail in the absence of the requisite proof of financial hardship. Strict compliance with the Zoning ordinance it is conceded would result in practical hardship with respect to the proposed parcels 2 and 1. On these parcels residences were constructed prior to zoning and the present subdivision regula- tions. Where, however, is the practical hardship with respect to proposed Lot No. 3? The applicant knew when the property was purchased in 1978 that the premises were not legally subdivided. -6- The p~operty is worth ~ore today with or without a subdivision of Lots 2 and i~ The premises are worth more today with or without the division of Lots 1, 2 and 3. The applicant cannot show any justification for the subdivision excepting that the premises, if they were to be subdivided from scratch without any residences in existence at all would be subdivided differently, with more space between the existing residences. The fact, however, is that the premises would permit only one residence if there were no homes already located on the subject parcel. Somehow, appli- cant seeks to bootstrap its way out of the difficulty presented bY the need to divide Lots 2 and 1 into not two lots, but three lots, The third lot sought by applicant, Lot No. 3, is without any reference whatsoever to the difficulties created by Lots 2 and 1, What is sought is a windfall profit and nothing more. What should be granted is relief with respect to Lots 2 and ! and nothing more. Dated~ Rive~head, New York May 22~ 1980 Respectfully submitted, ~THONY B, TOHILL Attorney for Objectants office and P, O. Address 6 East Main Street Riverhead, New York 11901 516-727-8383 Southold Town Boa:rd~of'Appeals '-7- ' M~y ~22; 80 Is there anyone here to speak against it? (There was no response.) Are there any further questions? (There was no response.) On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in Appeal No. 2685, applica- tion of EMANUEL and VENITA LORRAS, and that this hearing is declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2692. Application of VICTOR E. CATALANO, 22 Canterbury Drive, Hauppauge, New York 11787, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance: (a) Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient road frontage; (b) Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area due to proposed change in lot line[s]. Location of property: South side of Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, New York; bounded north by Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, east by Pridgen, south by Peconic Bay and/or Catalano and E~tate of A. Cardinale, west by Croce and Keller; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-6- 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:15 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners, if any, was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have surveys and a copy of the County Tax Map of the neighboring properties. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Anyone wishing to speak against this application? ANTHONY TOHILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Anthony Tohill. My address is 6 East Main Street, Riverhead, New York. I am an attorney, and I represent a number of families in the area. Before I speak, I was wondering is the hearing as far as the application, closed without the production of any presentation or evidence or testimony? MR. CHAIRMAN: Very often no one would show up. MR. TOHILL: Well, I would want to proceed with the understanding the applicant's portion of the matter is closed. I would not want to proceed otherwise. MR. CHAIRMAN: The only thing we can go by is what is in these files, and what has been read. I would like to ' ' Southold Town Boar~f Appeals -8- May 22,0)80 state maybe, if it would help you any, I cOuld read you that decision on the previous appeal. MR. TOHILL: I am aware of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, you're aware of it. You know what it said. MR. TOHILL~ Yeah. May I continue? MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. TOHILL: You had indicated that there is a tax map in the file. I represent families for numbers on that tax map, and I can state who they are by giving you the numbers as they appear on the tax map, if I can just orient everyone. Ok. I represent the Gatehouse Family, which is Lot 11, which is right here (three lots west). Ok? I represent the Croce Family, which is Lot 23 (lot to the west). I represent the Mastropolo Family, which is Lot 22 (two lots to the west). I represent the Keller Family, which is Lot 21 (lot to the west), and I represent the Pridgen Family, which is Lots 14 and 15 (lots immediately to the east). Each adjacent. So I think that we have pretty much the entire immediately effected neighbors. Now, some of my clients could not be present tonight -- the Mastropoloes at the last minute by reason of an illness could not be present. The Gatehouses, the Pridgens and the Kellers knew as of last week that they. could not be here tonight, and they provided me with letters which I would like to read into the record and to hand up to you, Mr. Chairman. The first letter dated May 12, 1980 from Arthur Gatehouse reads: ...Dear Sirs: Due to a previous commitment out of town I am unable to attend your meeting on 22 May 1980. Let it be known that I am opposed to any further subdivision or additional buildings on the subject property. This additional density will adversely effect the property values in the immediate area. I strongly object to the subdivision into 3 lots of a single lot in this area which is no larger than other single lots in the area .... A second letter, from Hilary Pridgen, who is the owner of Lots 14 and 15 on the tax map: ...Dear Sirs: Earlier this month I wrote to you in response to Mr. Catalano's petition for a variance on the Catalano/ Cardinale property on Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. Southold Town Board~f Appeals -9- May 22,~.~80 It has'subsequently come to my attention that the objective of the petition is to enable a minor sub- division of the property so that a separate lot can be sold and a third house constructed. We own the property immediately adjacent on the west and are strongly opposed to any such petition. The creation of three undersized lots on the Catalano/Cardinale property would, in our opinion, have an adverse impact on the community: beach density, water and general environment. More specifically, it would have a detrimental impact on the Value of our adjacent property .... And a third and last letter dated May 17, 1980, from the Keller Family: ...Gentlemen: I expect to be out of town on the date of the hearing in this case May 22, 1980 and therefore cannot attend. I have no objection to any enlargement of present buildings on Lots 1 and 2, but any further subdivision would I feel adversely affect the property values in the area. To permit three lots on insufficient area would establish a precedent for others to follow and present problems with water, drainage and sewage. I am sure the Petitioner will understand our stand, as we work diligently to maintain the property in order to protect our investment .... With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to hand up these three letters and ask that they be made part of the record. May I proceed? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. TOHILL: The apPlication is somewhat unfortunately inartfully stated. What we have as the survey, which is attached to the application, much more fully indicates, is an effort to subdivide and rearrange the parcel of land on the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. It runs from Peconic Bay Boulevard down to the water~ Located on the property, since p~ior to ~ zoning or at least the subdivision regulation, are two residences. One formerly served as a garage for a residence and was thereafter converted into a residence. Those two houses are depicted as Lots 1 and 2 on that map which I think Southold Town Board~f Appeals -10- is drawn by Alden Young's Office in Riverhead. The portion of the application that we object to relates not at all to Lots 1 or 2. It also does not have anything to do with the rearrangement of the rights-of-way or the footpaths. We would conceive, as I will state a little bit further, that there is a practical dif- ficulty on the part of the application with respect to Lots 1 and 2. Our sole objection and all of our objection relates to the creation of a third lot, which is attempted here but inart- fully stated in the application. The third lot is designated as Lot 93. It is a vacant beautifully wooded area. It is the front side of the property, what I would call the front side is the portion along Peconic Bay Boulevard. It's vacant land between the middle house and Peconic Bay Boulevard. That is the portion of the application that all of my ~lients have asked me to come here tonight to speak to you about. The difficulty that the applicant has which we can see is that he has an one-acre plus parcel, slightly over one-acre parcel, on which two houses were built without the benefit of modern subdivision regulations, without the benefit of a proper layout of the property. In this kind of situation as the Board well knows, the Board is generally not adverse to grant- ing of relief, a form of relief to permit the subdivision of the common ownership of the two houses. It permits the houses to be sold, it permits the owners to redeem some sense of value from the properties. Permitting that however and per- mitting some relief on account of an obvious practical diffi- culty does not mean, however, that the applican~ can success- fully ask whether this Board should grant the third portion,~ which is a creation of a third lot, which is an added starter, which has no relationship to the practical difficulty or the customary rules that the Board is familiar with, and frankly results in a windfall to the applicant. If this Board were asked today to subdivide that parcel, it would at best permit one house on it. If it were asked to subdivide the parcel into two parcels, it I think would do it. But being asked to subdivide it into three parcels is to be asked to do something that you're not under any circumstances required to do, and that the applicant has no basis in law or any of the regulations with the ordinance of this Town to permit it to dol The zoning requires 40,000 square feet. That was pointed out in 1974 during the hearing. If you permit the creation of a third lot on this parcel, even though there is 40,000-square-foot zoning, then quite frankly the Pridgen's only Lots 14 and 15 next door could just as easily come in and ask the Board for a subdivision to permit six lots. They have sufficient area, if this is going to be used as a standard to paint six lots. In fact a major subdivision 9f si~ lots oq~ two acres. I don't ~think ~the~oard u~c~r ~.!~y c~c~ances-~ grant that application, and I would applaud the denial of that application and the Pridgens obviously don't have that in mind. In fact, if I'm not mistaken and I may be, if I am I apologize, the Pridgen's Parcels 14 and 15 were once the Fanning parcel. They were subdivided by this Town within the last five or six years. Notice what they were subdivided into-- two each over- Southold Town BoardQf Appeals -11- May 22,~980 sized lots. Each of more than one acre, so that we have on the closest piece of property the most recent subdivision since 1971 into two completely conforming parcels-- more than conformi~g~ The property on the east where Croce and Mastropolo and others of my clients live is a 1966 subdivision, which is all one-half acre lots and which was conforming at that time. Further to the west, we have Edgemere Park. Edgemere Park precedes zoning and it precedes the subdivision regulations, and this Board would never under any circumstances, despite the strongest persuation of a gang of lawyers before you, grant another approval for the kind of thing that we have at Edgemere Park. There are problems there as the Board well knows. For one thing, the groundwater resources in this particular area are inadequate to serve Present housing. Edgemere Park does not have its own water supply. Edgemere Park as an adjacent property to what is proposed here tonight by the applicant is unable to obtain water on each of the lots within that subdivision, and is required to obtain water from a well, which the Town of Southold has placed on the Town property, outside of Edgemere Park, and the water is taken from the Town's property into Edgemere Park to accommodate the problem. In fact, if I could hand up a letter from the County of Suffolk Department of Health Services, Roy Reynolds, dated May 16, 1980. In this letter with reference to this particular application, it is noted Mr. Chairman that the County Health Department would not approve this application by reason of the inadequate water supply in this particular area. (The Suffolk County Department of Health Services letter dated May 16, 1980 is part of the file, and states that they do not recommend the creation of residential lots less than 40,000 square feet in areas where private wells and individual subsurface sewage disposal is planned; and information indicates that the area has a history of limited water supply.) I might also add, although it's not compelling but it is pertinent to my clients, that the Pridgens when they purchased 14 and 15, there was an old house on it, a small cottage maintained as a summer bungalow by the Fannings. They are in the process of putting in a foundation for a modern home immediately adjacent to it. As a condition to obtaining a building permit, they are required to remove the kitchen from the home that they purchased, formerly the Fanning Bungalow. It would be very difficult for me or for anybody, or anyone of you as well, to explain to the Pridgens why they must remove the kitchen from their home as a condition to building a home imme- diatly adjacent while at the same time permitting on the immedi- ately adjacent parcel the creation of a third subdivision lot, a vacant lot, for a new house where there is no compelling reason. There is no practical difficulty, there is no financial hardshiP. There is nothing, that complies with the various criteria that this Board is-I know is-completely familiar with. Mr. Chairman, with respect to that 1974 application which is interesting, and I'm sure has drawn your attention, there are three comments that I would have. One, it is not a binding determination on this Board or on my clients, and the reason is it was never completely or finally determined because it Southold Town Board~f Appeals -12- May 22,~980 expressly sent the applicant to the Planning Board. Until the Planning Board acted there was no approval. More importantly, until the Planning Board acted, we could not even appeal by means of the customary Article 78 the determination of this Board made in 1974, so that we have an unusual state of limbo with respect to that 1974 application. There is a second reason by that has no precedential value. The Planning Board of this Town when finally given the opportunity to review the 1974 application, just some weeks ago in May 1980, determined that they would not approve the creation of lot 43, the new vacant lot for a new building on the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard. And I refer to the letter of Muriel Tolman which I assume is part of the record, whereas she states it is their feeling, meaning the Planning Board's feeling that Lots 2 and 3 as shown should be on one lot. Is that part of the record? MR. CHAIRMAN: It's part of the record. MR. TOHILL: Fine. There's a third reason. In 1977, three years after the 1974 determination, and three years before this evening, there was a case determined by the New York State Court of Appeals, which is the last Board as the Board knows, in the State of New York, entitled Cowan against Kern, in which the Law of the State of New York with respect to area variances while not changed was made much clearer and a strong message was sent out to the Zoning Boards of Appeals that they could no longer grant area variances of the type requested here, in 1974, or the type requested here this evening, without certain items of proof which were not there in 1974, and surely are not here this evening. They relate incidentallY to the question of financial hardship and the inability to obtain a return from the land of the investment in the land. And obviously there is no testimony with respect to that. No other parcel, and it can be demonstrated by a quick look at that tax map in the area along the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, has ever received to my knowledge such a substantial variance from this Board as to permit a 13,000 square-foot parcel in 1980 some nine years after 40,000 square-foot parcels became the rule of thumb in Suffolk County. I think that the variance that is requested in that particular respect, not with relation to Lots 1 or 2, with which we have no objection, but with respect to Lot 3 is so substantial that it casts a particular and special burden on the applicant that would require very significant testimony and proof as to the nature of the hardship. In fact, however, and as this Board knows, there is no hardship. The land exists. The land has been built upon. There is no reason why the house has to be built in a certain fashion on the vacant parcel No. 3. What we have instead of a hardship that relates to the land, which is in fact just the application that precedes us here this evening. It's a hardship that perhaps as I was listening to it related to the size of the parcel and the effort to construct some kind of an accommodating dwelling on that particular piece Southold Town Boar Appeals -13- May 22 1980 of land. That is much more in the nature as the Board knows of the customary practical hardship that you see. But what we have here is not practical hardship relating to the land, but instead an effort quite frankly, quite honestly, to obtain a wind,al! on the sale of a thffd lot. All of us would love to be able to do that. To buy a one acre parcel and to be able to sell it off as three separate parcels, with or without houses. But it makes an enormous difference when one comes to the zoning Board of Appeals whether there are houses there already built by a common family with, as the application says, common ties. In that situation there is a significant, a com- pletely meaningful differenCe that makes the difference. But when it comes to Lot 3 and the effort to separate out a vacant parcel which now serves the front yard, which as I have indicated to you and with which ii know you would see if you were to view this parcel, is a beautiful treed, lovely parcel, and it would be absolutely inappropriate for every reason getting beyond the legalities of the situation to construct a house there. It's the fundamental premise of zoning, as the Board knows, to prevent nonconformity in area or in Use. We know that we eliminate nonconforming uses. There are sign ordinances in surrounding Towns that prevent the continuation of signs. There are all sorts of efforts. In fact the Building Depart- ment has kept, I'm sure, quite busy in an effort to prevent people from using property in an illegal nonconforming fashion. I don't think it's fair to put this Board in the position of being requested to create such a substantial nonconformity as a 13,000-square-foot parcel in 1980. The hardship simply doesn't exist. The land doesn't have to be divided into three parcels. I would concede it may have to be divided into two parcels. The two parcels on which there are now houses. One of them will have a more than customary front yard, but I don't think that it should be sacrificed in an effort to fatten one's wallet or to obtain such a fantastic return from the investment of property. It really makes a mockery of what the zoning ordinance says, and out of all the long hours you spent here on hot evenings like this. So with due respect we respectfully request that the application be denied. Now I have a broker here, a licensed real estate broker, who is ready to testify, and I will make this offer of proof that the impact of a third house, or third parcel, on that one parcel would be adverse to the property values of the surrounding parcels including my clients. He will also testi- fy that the value of this property which is the applicant's property, in all three respects, if it's three or two if it's two, has increased no matter how you look at it with the sub- division into two parcels, or without the subdivision into two parcels. The reason I make the offer of proof is that my broker, Mr. Ray Luca from Mattituck, has a difficulty speaking and I would simply ask that he stand and affirm the truth of my statements in that limited respect. RAY LUCA: They are. Yes. Southold Town BoardOof Appeals -14- May 22,~980 MR. TOHILL: Unless there are any further questions from the Board, I would stand with the matter submitted, and I would request permission to hand up at this time, Mr. Chair- man, a memorandum with respect to the application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Memorandum dated May 22, 1980 made and submitted by Anthony B. Tohill, Esq. was made part of the record.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wants to say something regarding this matter? MR. DONALD BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I own the property 100 feet east of the subject property, along side the Croce property, and I'm a registered architect and professional designer. I feel that the subdivision into three parcels is certainly inadequate and a very poor planning in this proposed subdivision. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Board members? (There was no response.) I will call for a resolution to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. Some of these people~are going to be waiting a long time. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in Appeal #2692, applica- tion of VICTOR E. CATALANO, and that the hearing is declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Goehringer and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2693. Application of FRANK E. BROPHY, Second Street, New Suffolk, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of the construction of addition with insufficient front and sideyard setbacks at property known as 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, New York; bounded north by Pugsley and Grathwohl, east by Second Street, south by Woodard and Wetzel, west by Martin and Third Street. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-117-10-20.7. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:47 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners, if any, was made; fee paid $15.00. Q COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT Of PLANNING Town of Southold Board of Appeals June 11, 1980 Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the following applications which have been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission are considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. Applicant Municipal File Number Lorne Greene 2686 Arnold D. Gardner 2689 Victor E. Catalano 2692 GG~:jk Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning CH:EF PLANNER © · O SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK cOUNTY OF SUFFOLK - X In ~he Matter of the Application of ALAN CROCE, JEANNE CROCE, HOUSE, MICHAEL MASTROPOLO, MASTROPOLO, FRANK KELLER, and H~.LARY PRIDGEN, ARTHUR GATE- JEANNE RUBY KELLER, Petitioners, ...... against- CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., SERGE DOYEN, JR, TERRY TUTHILL, ROBERT J. DOUGLASS, and GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, constituting the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, Respondents. Index No. NOTICE OF PETITION SIRS : PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed Petition of ALAN CROCE, JEANNE CROCE, ARTHUR GATEHOUSE, MICHAEL MASTROPOLO, JEANNE MASTROPOLO, FRANK KELLER, RUBY KELLER, and iHI LARY PRIDGEN, duly verified the ~day of Ju~ , 1980, the undersigned will move this Court, at a Special Term, Part I thereof, to be held in and for the County of Suffolk at the Supreme Court, Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York on the ~0 ~day of July, 1980 at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for a judgment pursuant to Article 78 of t~e Civil Practice Law and Rules reversing and annulling the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, © O State of New York, filed with the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold on the 6th day of Ju.ne, 1980, upon the grounds that the aforesaid determination is incorrect as a matter of law and is arbitrary and capricious and erroneous, and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a verified answer and supporting affidavits, if any, must be served at least five days before the return date of this application. PLEAST TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to Section 7804 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules the respondent is directed to file with the Clerk of the Court its answer and answering affidavits together with a verified transcript of the records of this proceeding, together with the entire official file containing records of the hearings herein held by the respondent, including the decision, application, testimony, exhibits and all of the other papers and documents submitted for consideration thereof. SUFFOLK COUNTY is designated as the place of trial on the basis that the real property which is the subject of this application is located therein. Dated: Ju~ ~ , 1980. Yours, etc. ANTHONY B. TOHILL, ESQ. 6 East Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 (516) 727-8383 © O SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of the Application of X ALAN CROCE, JEANNE CROCE,~ARTHUR GATEHOUSE: MICHAEL MASTROPOLO, JEANNE MASTROPOLO, FRANK KELLER, RUBY KELLER, and HIIARY PRIDGEN, Petitioners, for a judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules -against- CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR£,, SERGE DOYEN, JR., TERRY TUTHILL, ROBERT J. DOUGLASS, and GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, constituting the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, Respondents. : Index No. PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: Petitioners herein in this proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules to reverse and annul a determination of the Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, respectfully show to the Court: FIRST: That the petitioners are owners of approved real property situated on the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard in the Hamlet of Laurel in the Town of Southold, and petitioners were objectants before the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold in connection with a certain application for a variance made by the Estate of Adel~daCardinale on the 22nd day of May, 1980 which said application resulted in a determination of the Zoning © O Board of Appeals on the 6th day of June, 1980 which determination was filed with the Town Clerk on the 6th day of June, 1980 and the review, reversal, and annulment of which is herein sought. SECOND: That at all times hereinafter mentioned CHARLES ~RIGONIS, JR., SERGE DOYEN, JR., TERRY TUTHILL, ROBERT J. DOUGLASSt and GERARD P. GOEHRINGER were and still continue to be members of and during this period have constituted and do now constitute the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, the respondent herein. THIRD: That at all times hereinafter mentioned the petitioners were the owners of certain real property situate on the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, adjacent to the property of Adelinda Cardinale (Catalano). Annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A is a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map depicting the location of the properties owned by each of the petitioners as well as the Estate of Adelinda Cardinale (Catalano). FOURTH: That the application of the Estate of Adelinda Cardinale (Catalano) which was the subject of the hearing before the respondents on May 22 sought, so far as is herein pertinent, approval of insufficient area with respect to a certain undersized parcel which is depicted on annexed Exhibit A as lot 13.1. Said lot contains 13,725 square feet although the ordinance requirement is 40,000 square feet. Said lot was divided out without the required approval of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold and over the express objection of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold. -2- © O Said lot division was permitted'despite the disapproval thereof by the Suffolk County Department of Healt~ Services. Said lot division was approved despite the objection to said application by each neighboring property owner. That annexed hereto and made a part hereOf is a copy of the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (See Exhibit "B") FIFTH: That the~.'decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals granting the relief sought so far as was objected to by petitioner herein is not warranted by the facts, is in error, is illegal, unjust, void, arbitrary, capricious, unauthorized and contrary to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold and violative of the laws of the State of New York, and not in harmony with the general purpose and interest of the public health, safety and welfare and is in violation of and is an abuse of any discretion'vested in the respondent Board. SIXTH: That the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent Board in that petitioners will Suffer practicaI difficulties and unnecessary hardship in the use of their property, for the decision of the respondent Board reduces the value of petitioners' property, denies them the full use of their property for the purposes of one-family residential dwellings and limits petitioners' effective and full use of their property as a permitted use. SEVENTH: That the action and determination by Respondent under said application was and is unsupported by substantial evi- dence and is illegal, improper, arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of its discretion in that Respondent's determination is in conflict with the canons of construction, not warranted by the facts, not -3- warranted by the laws applicable to petitioners~ property, is unjust and a hardship to petitioners and in disregard of petitioners' property rights; and that said respondent had applied improper, extraneous, erroneous and irrelevant criteria, standards and rules in arriving at its decision. EIGHTH: That ther determination made as hereinbefore described was not made in a civil action or special proceeding by a court of record or a judge of a court of record; that it was not 'made in a criminal matter; that it finally determined the rights of the petitioners with respect to the matter to be reviewed; that it can not be adequately reviewed by an appeal to a court or some other body or officer. NINTH: That no previous application for a review of this decision of the Respondent Board has been made by or on behalf of the Petitioners herein to any court or judge. TENTH: That this petition is made, verified and pre- sented within a period of thirty (30) days from the 6th day of June, 1980, the date of the filing of the aforesaid decision of the said zonihg Board of Appeals with the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold; WHEREFORE, your petitioners pray that a judgment be granted herein annulling, reversing and setting aside the afore- said decision of the Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals dated the ".6th day of June ~, 1980, and that petitioners be granted such -4- © O other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. Jeanne Croce ANTHONY B. TOHILL, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioners Office and P.O. Address 6 East Main Street Riverhe~d, NY 11901 (516) 727-8383 -5- O O STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK JEANNE CROCE, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is -one bf the petitioners in this proceeding; that she has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to the knowledge of your deponent, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief and that as to those matter she believes it to be true. Sworn to before me this ! day of ~ , 1980. Notary Public. ~ $1r:-Plesse take notice that the wRhLa is · ~ duly entered ia the office of the clerk of · ~ Dated, ANTHONY lB. TOHII.L Attorne~ BOX Y~ Attorney(si for Sin--Please take notice that an order -- In the Matter of the Application ALAN CROCE, JEAnnE CROCE~ et al Petitioner, for a Judgment pursuant to Art. of the CPLR -against- CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. et al ReaDonden~s. NOTICE OF PETITION AND PETITION 78 of which the within is fi ;rue copy will b~ presented for se~emen~ to the Iio~ one of the judges of ',he within ~amed Court, at ' '? :' Yom's, e~, ANTHONY B. TOHILL Attornsy ~ Offict ~nd Post Otflcf Addr~s SOX 744 6 EAST MAIN ~TREET Auorne~s) for ANTHONY B. TOHILL. Attomt~ BOX 7~ 6 EAST MAIN STREET To Attorney(s) for Se, trice of a copy of ~he wit, bin is hereb~ admiral D~ed, Attorney(s) for O O TOWN CLERK Building Dept. Planning Bd. Board of Appeals TOWN OF S UTHOLD TOWN CLERK S OFFICE Main Road Southold, N. Y. 11971 765-3783 1809 Pursuant to the General Municipal Law, Chapter 24, of the Consolidated Laws, Article 12-B, Sections 239-1 and m, the . .~..o.a?~..0.~..~.? .D~.a.~.s. .............. of the town of. Sot~thold (agency involved) hereby refers the following proposed zoning action to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: (check one) ................ New and recodified zoning ordinance ................ Amendment to the zoning ordinance ................ Zoning changes Appeal No. 2692 Catalano, Victor E. 22 Canterbury Drive Hauppauge, NY 11787 ................ Special permits ..X~ ........ Variances Art. III, Section 100-31 Location of affected land: ......S.,/.,s....G...r..e..a...t....P~.e..c~.~..~.~.i.~.`~B..a~y.~.B.~.~..V.~.d.~.~.L..a`~.~..r.~.e..~.~:~.~...~.~.~9r~9~: l, [3, 2 within 500 feet of: (check one or more) 13.3 ..... ~.~.. ..... Town or village boundary line, or shore line Great Peconic Bay ................ State or county road, parkway or expressway ................ State or county park or recreation area ................ Stream or drainage channel owned by the county or for which the county has established channel lines. ................ State or county owned parcel on which a public building is situated Comments: Approval of insufficient area for Lots 1 and 2 due to change of foot path was approved. Width variance - Board felt no action was necessary inasmuch as it is preexisting of zoning. Secretary, /Board of Appeals ut~ Date received by Suffolk County Planning Commission ................................ .................................................... File No ................................. O O ANTHONY B. TOHILL June 5, 1980 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York Re: Estate of Adelaide Cardinale Hearing Date - May 22, 1980 Dear Madam: Would you please make certain that I of the decision in this matter. neighbors. ABT/bb receive a copy I appeared representing various Very truly yours, Anthony Bo ~oh±ll OCOUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M,D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONI~R Hay 16, 1980 Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Property S/S Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, opposite Wendy Drive, Laurel 1000-128-6-13 J /~ Gentlemen: As requested, the above referenced property has been reviewed in respect to water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Infomation indicates that the area has a history of a limited water supply. In addition, this Department does not recomnend the creation of residential lots less than 40,000 square feet in areas where private wells and individual subsurface sewage disposal is planned. Very truly yours, Royal R. Reynolds, P.E. Public Health Engineer General Engineering Services RRR:cah cc: Southold Town Planning Board Mrs. Jeanne Croce T¢ D HENRY E, RAYNOR, 3n. Chatrman FREDERICK E. GORDON JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE ~TCHIE LATHAM, Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 May 8, 1980 TELEPHONE 765- 1938 Mr. Charles Grigonis, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Grigonis: The Planning Board has made a review of the proposed area and width variances and change in lot line of Victor Catalano which is the subdivision of Adeline Cardinale. The consensus of the Planning Board was that there appears to be no problem with the proposed change of right-of-way. It is also their feeling that lots 2 and 3 as shown should be one lot. Yours truly, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Mu~riel Tolman, Secretary 12 Nay 1980 Beard cf Appeals Tcwn cf Scutbcld Scuthold~ New York Dear Sirs: Re: Estate cf Acel~¢e C~rdinale Due t¢ ~ previous ecmmltment cut ¢~ t~wn I ~m unable to, attend your meeting cn 22 May 1980. Let it be Rncwn that I ~m opposed to ~ny further subdivisi~n or additicn~l buildings cn the sutJect property. This additicnsl density will adversely affect the prcperty values in the immediate ore~. I strongly object t¢ the subdlvisicn into ~ lets of a single lot in this ~re~ vhich is nc l~rger th~n other single lots in this area. 2870 Peconic Boy Blvd. Mattituck~ Ne~ Y~rk 119~2 Very truly ycurs, ehc,lse Nay 17, 1980 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Petition Re: Estate of Adeline Cardinale Gentlemen: I expect to be out of town on the date of the hearing in this case Nay 22, 1980 and therefore cannot attend. I have no objection to any enlargement of present buildings on Lots #l and #2 but any further sub division would I feel, adversely affect the property values in the area. To permit three lots on insufficient area would establish a precedent for others to follow and present problems with water, drainage and sewage. I am sure the Petitioner will understand our stand, as we work diligently to maintain the property in order to protect our investment. Very truly yours, Route 6, Mahopac, New York 10541 (914) 628-3747 Hilary A, Pridgen Robert A. Sloat May 16, 1980 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, NY Re: Petition of V. Catalano; Estate of E. Cardinale Dear Sirs: Earlier this month I wrote to you in response to Mr. Catalano's petition for a variance on the Catalano/Cardinale property on Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. It has subsequently come to my attention that the objective of the petition is to enable a minor subdivision of the property so that a separate lot can be sold and a third house constructed. We own the property inmediately adjacent on the west and are strongly opposed to any such petition. The creation of three undersized lots on the Catalano/Cardinale property would, in our opinion, have an adverse impact on the community: beach density, water, and general environment. More specifically, it would have a detrimental impact on the valUeyoursOfour~.~gen~~.sincereladjac, at property. Hil~ HAP/fy Specialty Cookware by Mail Rout~ 6, Mahopac, New York 10541 (914) 628-3747 Hilary A. Pridgen Robert A. Sloat May 6, 1980 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, NY Re: Petition of Estate of Adeline Cardinale dated 4/16/80 Sirs: Our understanding is that Victor Catalano's petition for a Variance (Approval of insufficient area of Lots 1 & 2) is to enable Mr. Catalano to purchase Lot 1, consolidating Lots 1 & 2 into one legal entity. If this is the intent, we have no objection. However, if granting this variance might lead to the creation of Lot 1 as a separate parcel with the potential of becoming a separate home site, we strongly disapprove. Zoning in the area requires lots of 40,000 square feet; we feel it is important to the community and to the value of our adjacent property to adhere to/~is zoniBg: Standard. ¥ouv sincere,/ I/ AP/fy Specialty Cookware by Mail SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GR~GON~S. JR., Chairman SERGE DOYEn,. JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS Gerard Pi Goehringer May 13, 1980 To: N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation Re: Appeal No. 2692 - Application of Victor E. Catalano Location of Property: Dear Sirs: This Department has received the subject application for permission to obtain Certificate of Occupancy for Lot No. 3 with insufficient road frontage; for approval of area for Lots 1 & 2 due to change in lot line. Pursuant to Article 8, Environmental Conservatio~ Law; 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals.has determined that the project does not appear to have a significant, effect on the environment; and the project is classified as a Type'II Action. As an agency which may also be involved, you are hereby requested to indicate whether or not you agree with this Department's assuming lead-agency status and our initial determination of non-significance for the subject project if implemented as planned. Please let us know your co~ents and recommendations on this action not later than May.22, 1980 · We shall interpret a lack of response to mean no objection by your agency. Sincerely yours, Enclosures CG. lk CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., Chairman By: Linda Kowalski, Secretary 0 0 Southold Town Board of Appeals APPEALS OARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR.,CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER To: From: Date: Subject: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals May 2, 1980 Actions Recently Taken Which May Involve Your Department Gentlemen: For your information, please be advised that on May 1, 1980 the following actions were taken regarding matters which may be before your Board: Applicant(s) Appeal No. Action Taken PRELLWITZ, Samuel B. 2691 Approved, subject to application to Board of Appeals for approval of access and favorable decision thereof; and permitting only main house and proposed dwelling as applied herein for living quarters. No further dwellings. TIEBEL, George R. 2688 Denied. Also, the following variances have recently been filed with this BOard regarding'property which may also be under consideration before your Board. The Board of Appeals requests whether or not the proposed3Iayout~ for each appear to be in accordance with the standards of the Planning Board (excluding, of course, noncompliance of the zoning code as indicated in the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval): BROOKS, ROBERT W. 2700 Area and Width Variance for three proposes lots at Silver Eel Cove, Fishers Island. GENDRON, GENE 2698 Area Variance for Changes in Grange Road Extension, Southold. ~CATALANO, VICTOR 2692 Width Variance for Lot 3; Area Variances for Lots 2 and 3 due to change in lot line Sou~hold Town Plannin~oard ~May 2, 1980 at Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. during 1974 by Planning Board.) (Previously acted upon A response regarding the above noted three variances before May 22, 1980 will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, ~ ' . CHARLES G~~ Chairman By: Linda Kowalski o Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (616) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., Chairman SERGE DOYEN, JR. TERRY TUTRILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS Gerard P. Goehringer TYPE II ACTION DESIGNATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Pursuant to Section 617.13 of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Town Law of the Town of Southold, Section 44-4B, the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the following project is classified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environment and will not require any other determination or procedure. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Appeal No. 2692. Application of 22 Canterbury Drive, Hauppauge, NY 11787. VICTOR E. CATALANO, Location of Project: S/s Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. IUuu-£ZU-b-13.1, 13.2, 13.3. Permission Requested: Approval of insufficient area due to change in foo~ path. Approval of insufficient road frontage if applicable. Documents on File: Appeal Application, Notice to Adjoining Neighbors, Affidavit Attesting to the Mailing of said Notice, surveys and/or sketches of the proposed project, Notice of Dis- approval from the Building Inspector, Legal Notice of Hearing, Environmental Assessment in the Short Form, Section of the County Tax Map showing the subject property, & other documents as may be required. Person to Contact for More Information: Mrs. Linda Kowalski, Secretary, Board of Appeals, Southold Town Hall~ Main Road, $outhold, New York 11971; tel. (516) 765-1809. Dated: May 7, 1980. Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 119'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-180g APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. t Cha~.r~[tan SERGE DOYEN, JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS Gerard P. Goehringer NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION To: Suffolk County Department of Health Services General Engineering Services County Center Riverhead, New York 11901 Re .' Appeal No. 2692 - Application of Victor E; Catalano Location of Property: South side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. 1000-128-06-013.1 Dear Sirs: This Department has received a complete application regarding the above for approval of insufficient area of Lots 1 and 2 due to a change in the division line between Lots 1 and 2, and for approval of insufficient width of Lot 3 at premises located at the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, Town of Southold. Pursuant to'Section 617.4(c), your comments and recom- mendations on this action are requested as early as possible. A public hearing on the subject application has been tenta- tively scheduled for May 22, 1980. We shall interpret a lack of response by that date to mean there is no objection by your agency. Enclosed are copies of the complete application for your review. For further information, please contact Linda Kowalski, Secretary for the Board of Appeals, at (516) 765- 1809, or by writing to the above address. Very truly yours, Enclosures CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. Cha!r~,.~n j/ -~naa ~owa~sKi, ~ecre~ary JUDITH T. TERRY · TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971 April 16, 1980 JTT/bn cc:file Enc./ T6: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals From: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 2692 application of Victor E. Catalano for a variance. Also included are notification to adjoining property owners as follows: Mrs. Hiliary Pridgen,230 Cantitoe Ave., Bedford Hills, N.Y. 10507; Mr. & Mrs. A1 Croce, Box 326, Laurel, N.Y. 11948; Mr. & Mrs. Frank Keller, 66 The Oaks, Roslyn Estates, New York. ~e~rrY~ O'TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 0 SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM i~STRUCT[ONS: (a} ]n order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the prepare~ will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c)' [f all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is not significant. (d) Environmental Assessment 1. Will project result in a large physical' change 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? ........................ Will there be a major change to any unique or -unusual land form found on the site? ......... Will project alter or have a large effect on existing body of water? .................... Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality?..., ................ Will project significantly effect drainage flow on adjacent sites?.; .................. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or ~nimol ~pecies? .......... , Will project result zn a ma3or adverse effect on air quality? .............................. , Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community?__ Will project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance or any site designated as a critical environmental area by a local agency? ............ ~..-~.v~.~..~__ Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? ......... Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems? ....................... __ Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, gl°rev vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's operation?.. orlsofety? ............................ , ....... Will project affect the existing community by directly causing o growth in permanent population of more than 5 percent over a one year period or have a major negative effect on ~he chara~'~'er of the community or neighborhood? ................................. Is there public controversy concerning the project? ...................................... Yes/No * Yes/No ypsV/No'' Yes VNo Yes/No Yes,/No Yesi~No Yes JNo Yes /No Yes /No Yes/No Yes /No Yes ~No Yes V/No Yes'No REPRESENTING_~ATE~(7 APPEALS BOARD IVIEMBERS Gerard P. Gcehringer, Chairman Serg~ Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 17, 1993 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 William F. Andes, Jr., 224 Griffing Avenue P.O. Box 359 Riverhead, NY 11901 Esq. Re: Your Inquiries and Letter (Excepted Lots) Si~e Location: 1000-128-6-13.2,. 13.3, 13.4 Appeal No. 1914 - Adeline Cardinale 6/13/74 . Dear Mr. Andes: I am in receipt of your letter of June 14, 1993, which .follows your visit to our office and telephone conversations · with Linda concerning variances relevant to the above properties. It is also my understanding that you are in receipt of copies of'actions pertaining to the creation of these lots are listed as follows: Appeal No~ 1914 - granted by the ZBA on June 13~ 1974 Appeal No. 2692 - granted by the ZBA on May 28, 1980 Local Law adopted by Town Board Resolution September 23, 1980, also endorsed ~y the Planning Board Chairman, which grandfathered those actions rendered by the Board of Appeals between January 1, 1971 and September 5, 1979 at Section 106-53 (Subdivisions). In answer to your concerns, there is no provision proposed that I am aware of that would remove this grandfather clause or invalidate the ZBA variances. These actions are still in effect, and in my opinion these lots are excepted from being merged for the.purposes of zoning at this time. (This does not preclude the owners from intentionally merging the lots by a single tax bill and/or by single deed with combined metes and bounds description.) As you are aware, the Town of Southold does not provide for vacant land certificates of occupancy-~ however if you would like to apply for a formal determination to be rendered by the Town, you may make an application for reviews by the Board of Page 2 - June 17, 1~3 To: William F. Andes, Jr., Esq. Re: Inquiries - 1000-128-6-13.2, Catalano/Merrill Lynch 13.3, 13.4 Appeals in the normal variance process. The filing fee for such review determination is presently $200.00. Very truly yours, GERARD.p. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN cc: Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Attn: Gerard Goehringer V6qLTJ~ F. ANDES, June 14, 1993 Re: Exempted Lots/ Merger Dear Mr. Goehringer: Please confirm my Understanding that the three (3) lots identified below are presently covered by a valid variance and are accordingly the lots are excepted from being merged.: Thank you. District 1000 Section 128 Block 6 Lots 13.2, 13.3, 13.4 C: Linda Kowalski Very truly yours, William F. Andes, Jr. ~ SMITH, FINICELS?EIN, LUNDBERG, CRIMIIlN8 AND YAK~BOSKI Mr. William Pell Supervisor Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 December 8, 1980 IbU~ ,~~ Re: ~lan Croce v. The Zoning Board of Appeals Dear Supervisor Pell: I enclose herewith our statement for services rendered in connection with the above-captioned Article 78 proceeding together with photostat of Decision of the Supreme Court received this date dismissing the pro- ceeding and, in essence, affirming the action of the Zoning Board of A~..eals. -- FJY:mw Enclosures Very/_~uly yours CC: Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Town Attorney /jCopi~s ~V/'T.C. iL^dS D::~ __ File .... .3. try. Hon SUPREME COURT-STATE OF NEW YORK TR:{~;L?SPECIAL TERM, PART T, SUFFOLK COUNTY INDEX NO. EUGENE R. CA[~UDO MOTION DATE 7/30/8Q In tile matter of the application of ,%LAN CROCE, et. al. , Petitioners, -against- CHARLES GRTGONIS, JR., et. al., spondu.lts. PLT F'$/P E.T~$ ATTY: ~thon¥ 8. Tohi11, Esq. 6 East Main St. Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 ~'~ FT'S/R ESP'$ ATTY: Smi th, Finkels tein, Lundberg, Cr immins' Yakaboski, Esqs. 456 Grilling Ave., Box 389 Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 read on this motion ; (and after Upon the following papers numbe'red 1 to Notice oi' IY]otion/Order to Show CaLISO ~llld Sul)portillg papers and suppolting pal)ers ~ : Answering Affidavits ancl supporting papers Replying Affidavits and supporting Pal)ers Other hearing counsel ill support of and opjJosed to the motion)i( is, ~8,..~.~.~X ]}~(;<;th~ X u~gt~~ This motion i's made pursuant to Section ~8 CPLR asking the court to reverse and annul a determination of the resp-,.,d,,.,~ are as follows: The esta~ ¢ _-;'-'". .... ,,u~N{= ~uaFdD OF APPEALS. The pertinent facts - ~= o~ noellna Cardinale made application for approval hefore respondents ZO,~]iNG BOARD OF APPEALS for approval of insufficient area with respect to a certain under-sized parcel. This parcel contained 13,725 sq. ft. The ordinance re- quirement is for 40,000 sq. ft. A hearing was held before respondent on May 22, 1980. In a decision dated Hay 28, 1980 th~ respondent Board unanimously granted the variance. The language used is, in the court's judgment, significant and decisive of the issue herein. It reads i:~ part, "The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and the s" ' · ~r~ct application of the ordianance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and %.zill observe the spirit of th~ ordinance.', It is contended by petitioners herein, who are adjoining property owners, that the determination made by res[,o,dents }leruin wa~ arb[trari].y CaDricious and au abuse of its discretion. Tl~e contcution of ....' ' from strict, compliance with the zoning ordinance. V.here there is a rational, basis for its decision, the local zoning board should be sustained. In Natter of Cowan v. Kern, 41 N.y. 2d 591 at page 598, the court said, "The oft-stated standard by which a re- quest for an area variance is to be measured is whether strict compliance with the ~a~.~.g Or~dinance will result in t~r,~ct~,-.~, difficulties. 3he lo. cai zoninq boardS haw J. S. C. (coa~.~. ~ed nexl: page) .; Notice of Cross Motion ; discretion in considering applications for variances and the judicial function is a limited one. The courts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals illegality, arbitrariness or abuse of discretion. Phrased in another way, the determination of the responsible officials will be sustained if it has a ra~i0nal basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record." The facts herein seem cut for the standard set forth in the Matter of Cowan v. Kern. The petition is hereby in all respects dismissed° Settle judgment within 15 days of the entry herein, Dated: December 2, 1980 FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL · ~1~..¢~.. n~co.~.,.~..:..~. ~,~ . . L~.c. ~. . .~... .7. .. ........... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ~-/-~p~/'./'. ..... ~.~. ...... , 19 . .~>.O.. for ~ct.. County Tax Map No. 1000 Section .../i ~ ..... Block .. ~.~ ....... ~t ~/.~'. ~ ..... Subdivision. - - Filed Map No ................. Lot No ........ :~ '. ....... is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds.-"~7'7..~./..-~., t..~. LA:7'/..~...(~..~,O(_...- ~ ~ 7 ..... . ........... _'::'v ...... :" · ~ ~.. ,,¢~.~..~.o.~.~-~... ~..... .... ~o~... ,,,x,~..~ .,~-./.c..~../~./.~../~. ' ~' '~' '" ' "~ .......................... "7 ......... ,"?- ......... ..~--c /oo- z-~ G- , /'~;;"' ~ .~¢ /190 '-..~/ Building Inspector ~.~, RV 1/8~ BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD : In the Matter of the Petition of : to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold : TO: ~~~ NOTICE YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That,,~i~e intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a (~ (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (the folloWing relief: ). 2. That the I~r, opert¥ )vhi.ch is ~.subject of the Petition i.s located adjacent, to your, property and is des- cribed as follows: 3. That,,~h~e pj'~ op_ert¥ which is the subjec,~o~f such Petiti~n~ is located in the following zoning district: 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request .the followin, g relief~_~/~- 5. That the D_rovisions of the Sauthold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are: ./~,~',Y/~'~/~-~- ~.~'~ ·//~,d' ~'~/ 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. 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 hearingLiq~he Suffolk Times dad in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watcl~man, new~pa, pers published in the Town. o~ $outhoid anti'designated for the publication of such not.l~es; Gat you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. U ~ Petitioner ) OF MAILING OF NOTICE ADDRESS CERTIFICATE Received Fram: 0R piece of~ ~.clipary ~il add ~ee~ed 1.9: I I,MAY "E USI:D FOR DOMEs'LIrc AND l NTERNATIONAL MAILo DO~S NOT · J PRND~TDE FOR INSURANCE. - POSTMAITIER STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ss.: ~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~' ~ . '~ . being duly swo/n, d~o~ and ~ys [hat'on the ~ day of ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ' . 19 ~ ', deponent mailed a tr~ copy of the Notice set fo~h on the' ~ ve~e side ~e~f, d~rected to each of the above-named pe~ons at the addr~ set op~osi~ thor r~pective name; that the add~es~s set opposite the names of said pe~ons are the addr~ of said ~ons as shown on the current a~m~ af the To~f ~ou~d: that ~id Notic~ were mailed at the United States Post ~- rice at ~ a ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ r'~; that said Notic~ were mailed to each of ~id persons by (certified) (registered) mail. t- ' ~ Sworn to befo~re me.t~his C/ Notary Public "~ ELIZABETH ANN NEVILLIJ qOTANY PUBLIC, State of New YIIk No. 52-8125850, Suffolk Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- June 13, 1974 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1914 - 8:05 P.M.E.D.S.T., upon application of Ad, line Cardinale, c/0 Cardinal Community' Service Corp., 1884 Deer Park Avenue, Deer Park, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 A & Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with two existing buildings with insufficient area. Location of property: S/S Peconic Bay Blvd., "A" District, Laurel, New York, bounded north by Peconio Bay Blvd., east by now or formerly G. Harvey Moore; south by Peconic Bay; west by now or formerly Adams - Brown. Fee paid $15.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the applica- tion for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a survey which indicates that applicant is the owner of property on Peconic Bay Blvd. totalling 1.178 acres on which there are two structures, a stucco house and a frame house. This is one piece of property. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MR. ALAN A. CARDINALE: My father constructed the second house about 25 years ago. THE CHAIRMAN: We checked the area pretty carefully. Adjacent to the east are four lots on a parallel track 200' in width, which narrows down. MR. CARDINALH: The lots are wider on Peconic Bay Blvd. At the water they are narrower. THE CHAIRMAN: 'Has this ever been divided? a main house. As it is now, it is and more modern. back.~in 1948. MR. CARDINALE: No. THE CHAIRMAN: (Referring to survey) There must ha~e been little jog in here where you built the house. MR. CARDINALE: This was originally a garage for the the larger of the two houses There was a mistake made. That happened $outhold Town Board of Appeals -8- June 13, 1974 THE CHAIRMAN: In the area to your west there are .two lots with one house on each of them. Then, there is a whole series of small lots You are surrounded by under- sized lots. There is one other complication. We can divide one lot into two but we cun~t ~reate three lots. I think you will have to go to the Planning Board for site plan approval. We will approve subject to site plan approval of the Planning Board. MR. CAPJ)INALE: The basic problem here was lack of foresight of my grandfather, his untimely demise. We did not realize the problem until the family grew up. What Adeline Cardinale is trying to do is to straighten things out. THE CHAIRMAN: I believe what will help you is that there are small lots all around. MR. CARDINALE: The maintenance of the property is good and it will continue that way. (An adjoining neighbor asked if the third piece of property that goes to Peconic Bay would be separated where an additional third house would be built, and whether the Town had any objection to.that third piece). THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, the separation is in the proposal. If this is granted, that would be implicit in the application. MR. CARDINALE: There is no time limit. TheY just want to have foresight. THE CHAIRMAN: The Town requires940,000 sq. ft. as of now. The original zoning ordinance called for 12,500 sq. ft., later the subdivisions that went in graduated to 20,000 sq. ft. Largely, it was the Board of Health ~hat was leading us to larger lot sizes. We got to 40,000 sq. ft. in 1971 not due to any foresight on our part. The Board of Appeals is left with unresolved situations. The community is over 300 years old and we can't make everything fit into patterns. On the one hand we are trying to uphold the zoning ordinances of the Town but have to take into con sidera- tion the hardships to people living here. We are faced with picking up the pieces. I think the consensus of opinion is that this application should be granted subject to approval by the Planning Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- June 13, 1974 ¢ THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes speak against this application? (There was no response.) to After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to divide property with two existing buildings with insufficient area on the south side of Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel, New York. The findings of the Board are that applicant is surrounded by undersized lots with the exception of two on the west. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance. would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVEDc Adeline Cardinale, c/o Cardinal Community Service Corp., 1884 Deer Park Avenue, Deer Park, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with two existing buildings with insufficient ares on the south side of Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel, New York, as applied for, subject to the following condition: That applicant receives site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Hulse, Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 1915 - 8:15 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of Flora Luce, Skunk~.Lane, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off lot with less than 40,000 sq. ft. area. Location of property: N/S Pine Tree Road "A" District, Cutchogue, bounded north by proposed road and other land of applicant; east by existing right-of-way; south by Pine Tree Road; west by Robert Krupski. Fee paid $15.00. Lot 11 - Gatehouse Lot 23 - Croce Lot 22 - Mastropolo Lot 21 - Keller Lot 13 - Catalano Lots 14 and 15 - Pridgen EXHIBIT "A" Le~enc~ 24 S~WAG~' 'D?SPOSA~ SYS~ YOUNG & YOUNG I~00 OSTRANDER AVENUE, RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK )IVI$1C~ MAP J'.ARDINALE~ LOCATION MAP THE WATER SUPPLY AND SEW/~E DISPOSAL FACILITIES FOR ALL LOTS INTHIS DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. 1 SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM .~wsto..II YOUNG & YOUNG APR. ITt1980 I 400 OSTRANDER AVENUE, RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK MINOR SUBDIVlSlOR MAP pREPARED FOR