Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/07/1980 X. Southold Town Board of Appeals ' SOUTHOLD, L. L, N. Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �4�Y�,��{1At�4�.`►��XI7�X>fiFSi�{�I�N CHARLESGRIGONIS,JR, Chairman SERGE DOYEN,JR. / TERRY TUTHILL J M I N U T E S ROBERT J.DOUGLASS - - - - - - - SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 7 , 1980 . A regular meeting of the .Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 7 , 1980 at 7 :30 P.M. at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present -were: Messrs. Charles Grigonis, Jr. ; Robert J. Doug- lass; and Terry R. Tuthill. Absent was : Messr. Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Application of PHILIP LORIA, 25 Bray Avenue, Mattituck, New York for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance Article 'VII, Section 100-70 for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Easterly side of Main Road, Mattituck; bounded north by Peteco Realty Corp. , Miscioscia, Ehlers; east by Concagh, Arnold, Zebroski; south by Zebroski, North Riley Avenue, Finora, Wenk, Patchell, Ragan, Klein; west by Bout- cher, Steiner, Milowski, Mikolajczyk, Schelin, Lucas , Lewellya. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-122-003-001 . The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :32 P.M. Previous Special Exception was granted for this property at the same location as requested herein under Appeal No . 905 . This sign appears to have been exi-sting since 1966 and therefore not requiring this special exception requested tonight. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill , it was RESOLVED, that the matter of PHILIP LORIA, Appeal No. 2660 BE WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill. Absent:. Messr. Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- February 7 , 1980 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2662 . Application of CHARLES R. VAN DUZER, 120.0 ParkWAy, Southold, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article TTT; Section 100-32 for permis- sion to construct accessory structure exceeding height limitations. Location of property: 1200 Parkway, Southold; Southwood Subdivi- sion Lot No . 7 , Map No. 2141 . County Tax Map Item No. 1000-70- 10-44 . The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :35 P .M. by reading the application for a variance , legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and offi- cial newspapers , Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspec- tor and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to : Faszcewski , Callanan, Kowalski, McInerney; fee paid $15 . 00 . MR. CHAIRMAN: A copy of the legal notice was mailed to applicant on 1/21/80. Is there anyone who would like to add something to the record? MR. VAN DUZER: The tower right now on the roof, with the ham antenna, is about 45 feet, the tripod tower on the roof now and as stated in the appeal , it would be a more firm guying on the ground, an eight-foot anchor would make it more secure, and actually the total difference in the height would be just about five feet, the differential . It would be much easier as far as the maintenance on it without going up on the roof and on the antenna the way it is now. MR. CHAIRMAN: How much will this differ from the present antenna? MR. VAN DUZER: The antenna will be the same. The tower is galvanized steel , cross-braced-about the same idea that the police have in the back of their place on a smaller scale . MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to .speak in favor on this? ED FASZCEWSKI : Mr. Chairman, I spoke to Dick about this, I live right behind his house, and he said the tower was going to be directly by my house. As long as it ' s anchored properly I have no objection to the tower. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else in favor? (There was no response. ) BEN KOWALSKI : My name is Ben Kowalski; I 'm the immediate neighbor in the back. I 'd like you to read my letter into the record. I have made copies for all of you. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a letter that this gentleman wishes be read into the record: Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- February 7 , 1980 "To Zoning Board of Appeals. . . As noted in legal notices , public hearing will be convened at 7 : 35 P.M. on Thursday, February 7 , 1980 , regarding sub- ject application. Commander Benjamin J. Kowalski and Sheila C . Kowalski are strongly opposed to this variance for the following considerations : 1. Our property is immediately adjacent and shares the boundary on the west side (backyard) of the VanDuzer prop- erty. We purchased this property on 2/l/77 after careful review of all property restrictions in . our section and in the Southwood Section as well as the governing zoning res- trictions. and as a result, purchased this property as our permanent home. If , a tower had already existed on an ad- joining property, we would not have purchased this property, . nor would the sellers have been able to obtain their asking price. The installation of a 50 ' tower will have an adverse effect on the value of our home. 2 . If approved, this variance will set a precedent for other property owners to install towers for windmills , radio or TV, which applications will be difficult or im- possible to reject. 3 . We have been experiencing interference on our FM radio reception during 1979 and up to now had no knowledge of the proximity of the amateur radio transmitter. 4 . We view the tower installation as a potential falling hazard affecting our backyard. . 5 . We view the tower installation as a potential lightning hazard, no matter how well it may be grounded. 6 . We view the tower installation as a potential attractive nuisance - children may be tempted to climb the structure with serious consequences to life and limb. 7 . We view the proximity of radio transmission as a poten- tial health hazard. ("the Menace of Electric Smog" by Lowell Ponte, published in the January 1980 edition of the Readers Digest, Pages 65 through 69) . 8 . The possibility; however remote, exists that use of the tower might be -expanded to serve as an auxiliary base station for business purposes. For the foregoing considerations, the undersigned must vigor- ously protest the issue of a variance. We will be present at the hearing to read this letter into the public record. " Signed: Benjamin J. Kowalski, Sheila C. Kowalski Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- February 7 , 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this? PHILIP ANDREWS : I' raised my hand before. I 'm "for" , not "against. " I feel what Mr . Kowalski has said in his letter to you is in reference to. cosmetics as far as the area is concerned, but one of the things that Mr. Van Duzer probably set up to do for it would be if there was any type of emergency, probably within the Town of Southold, he would probably be one of the first to be called upon as far as communications is concerned. And basically that ' s some of the things -- would you like my name? MR. . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Andrews . MR. ANDREWS : That ' s correct. Philip Andrews . And he is also a member of the AREC which is the Amateur Radio Emergency Corp. , and the AWRL, and the purpose of what we have this set up for is not for our own pleasure but we also do serve the public . As you have probably read, many many times in the paper there have been people saved, lives saves, doctors , information relayed back and forth. Secondly, Mr. Van Duzer is also certified, from the Civil Preparedness of Suffolk County, to be one of the first in the Town of. Southold a member of the Civil Preparedness in reference to amateur radio. And I feel the great attributes for him to have this system here, rather than something that would be derogatory. or whether it might be a hinderance to the Town. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: While we 're on that vein of it, I had a call about an hour before the meeting from one of Mr. Van Duzer ' s neighbors that wgnld not be able to be here, and he said no objection to the antenna. That was Henry Dickerson. Do you have anything to add to it, Dick? MR. VAN DUZER: As far as the grounding of the thing goes, as far as the lightning hazard', there is no such thing as a lightning hazard. The thing would be grounded with very heavy cable as it is now from the top of the roof to an outside 2-inch pipe, which is driven 17-foot into the water. Mr. and Mrs. Kowalski have been living in back of me, I don't know how long, but there ' s been a tower on the 'roof since, I presume, they moved there. It is not something that was just put up yesterday. It ' s been up there, 3-1/2 to 4 years or so, since I 've been involved in amateur radio. Nobody even said a word about it before. MR: KOWALSKI : It ' s really a mast supported, and would be similar to a television mast. What we 're looking at right now is a separate standing tower that would be against my backyard. MR. VAN DUZER: On the application it is not by their back- yard. TERRY TUTHILL: You bound him on the west, do you not?. MR, KOWALSKI : That 's right. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- February 7 , 1980 TERRY TUTHILL: Well you're facing it about. as far away as you can get it, in a northeast corner, correct? As it' s marked with an "x, " it' s back in the corner of your-- MR. VAN DUZER: To the east of that is- where the pool, is now. MR. TUTHILL: Can you tell us anything about his objection, about the interference on his FM, number one, and on the electric smog, whatever that may be. I 'm interested because I 've never heard of it before. MR. VAN DUZER: I believe there is no such thing as elec- trical smog. I don't know what you 're referencing to on that. I 've never heard of that. MR. TUTHILL: It seems that it ' s a menace. MR. ANDREWS : In reference to the smog. Smog is smog. Interference is created by. the atmosphere. I don't see how it would bring in smog. But anyway the electrical hazard, is that the other question on that? MR. TUTHILL: FM. MR. ANDREWS : Well, this can be caused by any numerous ways. It ' s not always the fault of the radio transmitter that creates these problems. A lot of times it ' s the condition that exists and also the manufacturer of the equipment of the person using it. MRS . KOWALSKI : We have a definite loss in the fuses. MR. ANDREWS : I must agree that a lot of it could- be created by heat . Because I don't find that Mr. Van Duzer uses it all hours of the day. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please talk through here because the secretary has to get everything that you say. SECRETARY: We can 't hear you that well . MR. ANDREWS : But interference in FM or in television, most of the amateurs stuff now produced today is well "T.V. eyed, " the expression used for television interference. And some of the equipment, I 'm not saying all of it, I do not know what' the user's .been using, a lot of it is not Type FCC approved. It could be imported into this Country. And some have. And it can't be corrected, a lot of that with a service technician on some of that. And those are two questions I hope I 've answered for you. MR: CHAIRMAN: It ' s a help. Thank you, sir. MR. ANDREWS : I don't know what smog is yet. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- February 7 , 1980 MR. KOWALSKI: Let me call your attention to the fact that I referred to an item in the Readers Digest which described smog that what eminates from radio transmission. There may be some validity to it, and I call your attention to it. As far as the interference, we have applied for Cable, FM reception that the Cablevision covers, and we 've had this for four or five years. We have had interference in our reception, on the FM stereo . ED FAZCEWSKI : Talking about the interference on the FM, I don't have an antenna on the roof, we have it in the attic, and just last night I picked up an interference. There was somebody on a CB on channel 25 and I called Dick tonight and asked him was he on - CB on his radio, and he said' "no; that he went to bed early last night, and this was about 10 o 'clock. And I 've had CB ' s pop open my electric garage door on me, too. I mean they are really way out of wack. MR. CHAIRMAN: I can go along with you on that because I 've had it cut right in, loud and clear, some of them not properly installed in a vehicle. They could cut right in on anything. Dick, Bob has a question. MR. DOUGLASS : Is there any reason that rather than where you 're discussing putting the antenna, that you couldn't come up into the center of the back of your house and get away from those property lines, right up next to your house? You're on your house now. MR. TUTHILL: It would be closer to Mr. Kowalski if he did that. MR. VAN DUZER: As far as that antenna goes, Mr . Douglass there are two different types of towers that makes it possible to go up there. On a fold-over-type tower, you would need an equal swing. In other words it folds over at about 30 feet, 20 feet in the crank, and to crank it down, it would be really impossible to put that tight against the house and still have it swing about 30 feet. MR. DOUGLASS : If you run it parallel, so that it drops parallel to your house? MR. VAN DUZER: On the north, on the north side there are two great big oaks in the way there, which I 'm going to take down half of one right now to put a road there . As far as the interference - on FM, we have what we call, low pass filters into the thing which would just about eliminate it as far as ham radios. But I doubt very much it ' s a ham radio interfering with FM. It could come up closer to the north side away from the back side. I would presume the backyard is about, must be at .. least 50 feet, I guess, and could come away as possible from the property line. MR. DOUGLASS : So that you could come up nearer your house where it becomes one unit than an outstanding unit. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7-. February 7, 1980 MR., CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else have ,anything, more? Dick, if you were going to move it up, just about how far would it wind up from your house so we could put something in the description if we-- MR. VAN DUZERe Depends on where the sewer lines+_,are, possibly it . could go something like within 10 feet or so. of the house. It would be on the northeast side of the property. MR. DOUGLASS : It would fit in. closer, it would hide it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually looking over from the opposite side it would look about the same height as what you have right now. MR. VAN%, DUZER: Across the back there are black pines, wind-breakers, which quite hides the house in the back to startwith. MR. TUTHILL.: Mr. Van. Duzer, you want to get it off. the roof because you can make it more solid that it will fall down, or if it doesn't it'll pull half your roof off? What is your advantage to your moving it? MR. VAN .DUZER: Well , as far as the height goes ,it' s only going to be another five foot differential. The main thing is to get it off the roof which is much easier mainte- nance-for the antenna itself. The way it is now I have to - climb upon' the roof, climb a 15-foot tripod and shimmy up the antenna. It is also made with a take down of one leg from the three legs which then comes off the side of the roof and I have to get another ladder. It ',s very difficult to do any maintenance work at all. The separate tower is much more secure mounted in the ground, in the concrete, . with the ✓ galvanized steel: tower. MR. TUTHILL: And then you could bring a section of this tower down by hand and work on it, is that it? MR. VAN DUZER: E the_r, by hand or by crank or electric; whichever. MR. TUTHILL: Do you have a- swimming pool in the back that. would interfere with your putting the tower closer to the rear of your house? Would that-- MR. VAN DUZER: Well, the swimming pool is right in , the' center of the rear, and so the tower would be to the east .of that, which is still further from the west line actually, and toward the house, in closer to the house and the swimming pool . MR: TUTHILL: I think what Mr. Douglass is getting at is Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- February 7 , 1980 that if it looked more like, well, let's say a large home antenna rather than to have a separate structure, that it might be more acceptable, right, Bob? Because you've got the height there now. Another five feet doesn't make that much difference. As a matter of fact it might be better as far as some things are concerned. MR. CHAIRMAN: As I understand, if you're bringing it up that way, it is going to be much closer to the house than it is now. MR. VAN DUZER: In. -that little drawing there I have it in about the middle of the pool area but to the north. I would bring it east even more. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you give us an idea on this sketch • about where it would be? MR. VAN DUZER: Sure. This is a much larger -- but it ' s with the same idea. This is why it ' s very hard to put it right against the back because the crank and everything is coming on over. If I can come up towards the house there, by the pool . Where am I, yes , ok this is a fence coming back in here. It is possible .to swing it in here but I will have to cut two trees down here . MR. DOUGLASS : Can 't you swing it and drop it down this way? MR. VAN DUZER: This is all patio area right here. MR: DOUGLASS : I mean just to" work. on it? MR. VAN DUZER: Possibly. But as far as that goes I can bring it up in here and put it on some kind of an angle. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would trees or anything- interfere? MR. VAN DUZER: No. It ' s simply how wide, as you can see, you've got about a 27--foot boom. MR, DOUGLASS : How- many feet do you have in here (between the pool and the house) ? MR. VAN DUZER: . The brick patio comes- out this far, and from here to here maybe 10, 15 feet. The patio is 10 foot from here on over. And this is the cellar door right here . And this is fencing, naturally all the way around the pool area. MR. DOUGLASS : If: you could come up on this corner here, get up within five feet or so of your corner so you can up closer. MR. CHAIRMAN: See where your installations are, and-- MR. VAN DUZER: Also we have in here some cesspools and lines and stuff like this. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- February 7 , 1980 MR. KOWALSKI : Mast isto mast as power to power. The tower will give the community an industrial aspect and we don't want that. Mr. Van Duzer is a very fine neighbor and we would like to retain his relationship, and we will continue to do so. But we 're opposed to the tower because it would set a precedent for other towers. There are viable options. One option might be that Mr . Van Duzer could consider or look into the possibility of installing a tower at his business and leasing a line with his home. That way that would not have an affect on our residential community. MR. CHAIRMAN: If it were granted, one of the stipulations would be that that would be "xd" no way., The minute he did something like that, the tower would have to go, or something would go. MR. VAN DUZER: This has nothing to do with business. MR. CHAIRMAN: I mean if it ever came about, that would not be permitted. MR. KOWALSKI : I 'm speaking about a. remote type tower. If you pass them this one, he could lease his line and sell his tower elsewhere . MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, he could try it, but they get caught up on that stuff pretty quick. MRS. KOWALSKI : May I ask something? If this is allowed, then that would not stop anyone in the area from having to claim the same thing, we would have quite a number of towers . MR. TUTHILL: How many licensed ham operators are therein the area? MR. VAN DUZER: In Southold Town? MR. TUTHILL: Make it Southold. MR. VAN DUZER: Southold Village. Maybe 5 . Maybe 3 . Three that I know of . MR. TUTHILL: The difference between a licensed operator, Mrs. Kowalski, than an ordinary homeowner, I don't think if I wanted to put up a tower like that for my FM that I -could present as good a case as Mr. Van Duzer can, because these licensed ham operators have performed a great deal of service and it ' s a semi-commercial hobby and they've picked up distress signals, I 'm sure you 've read of cases where they have picked up signals from South America and other places where boats may be in trouble and so forth. It ' s a different situation than if we allowed everybody in the neighborhood to put up one for their TV set. And I believe that if you bring in cable that you won't get any interference from any source whatsoever. But I think we have to give them a little special consideration Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- February 7 , 1980 because he is licensed, and it' s the nature of a public service hobby. MRS . KOWALSKI : Well I have to stand out- my opinion and I sympathize, but I feel to put' a 50 foot tower in our backyard, in our immediate area, would distract from the residential area. MR. TUTHILL: Well, I 'll confess to being a real estate broker, and I doubt very much that it'll detract from the value of your property. (Mrs. Kowalski was making a statement but she was not speaking loud enough to be heard. ) On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing of CHARLES R. VAN DUZER, Appeal No. 2662 and RESERVE DECISION until the proper time. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill . Absent: Messr. Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2661 . Application of DAWN ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER, 14 Dawn Drive , Centereach, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcel to be established within a proposed subdivision. Location of property: Southeasterly side of Maple Lane , East Marion; bounded northeast by Kaplan and Kavanagh, southeast by Crescent Beach Condominiums, Gucer and Paulison, southwest by Maple Lane, northwest by Kavanagh. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-35-8-3 . The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :13 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and offi- cial newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspec- tor and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoin- ing property owners was made to : Crescent Beach Condominiums , Paulisen, Kavanagh, Gucer, and Kaplan; fee paid $15 . 00 . MR. CHAIRMAN: We have surveys from Roderick Van, Tuyl , P.C . and a copy of the County Tax Map. Is there anyone who wishes to add something further? TED KAPLAN: As you know there is a contract of sale with the condominium which is adjoining to it. Certainly they would not be against it because they are purchasing it. As you know also the buildings are being vandalized at this point. Kids are going and smashing things up. The condominium on their own has started to repair it already, to keep the character as it should be. That building is probably 50 , 60 years old; it would be a shame to tear it down, where this condominium could use it Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- February 7 , 1980 for meeting rooms and other uses. Otherwise if we didn't sell it- to these people, we would have to tear it down because nobody else would have any use for it. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else? THOMAS FITZMORRIS : My name is Thomas Fitzmorris and I am the President of the Crescent Beach Condominium Association, who wants to purchase the barn. We have five acres now that make up the condominium property, and this piece of property is right next to the property that we own right now. It adjoins the property that we own right now, and we need it for storage. The buildings are, the condominium units themselves are made up of one bedroom and a living room area, and there is no storage area at all, and that ' s really what we need the barn for and for a meeting room and that kind of thing. And as Mr. Kaplan mentioned we have started to do some repair work on the roof , things like that, windows and it hasn't been touched in probably 25 years , at least, so we would like to purchase the property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? Is there anyone here wishing to oppose? (There was no response. ) Do any of you gentlemen (members) have anything you would like to add? MR. TUTHILL: Which piece are they selling, the whole piece? MR. CHAIRMAN: The piece -that you are talking about is the one way up on the far end, right? MR. FITZMORRIS : Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be the undersized lot. MR. KAPLAN; The number four lot, right . Further south. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. DOUGLASS : About 18 , 000 square feet. MR. TUTHILL: And that would leave you with three one-acre lots? MR. KAPLAN: (Nodded affirmative. ) MR. CHAIRMAN: What would you propose to do with the build- ings on these other lots? MR. KAPLAN: Those other buildings, on Lot No. 1 has a very good barn on it and horses were kept there only last year. And we would sell it to the person with the idea that they fix it up. The other barn would be torn down. There is also Lot No. 2 , and young horses and young animals were kept there, and possibly that could be renovated and used again also. It , would be impractical if you tore them down. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- February 7 , 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob, do you have any thoughts on that other than what we 've heard already? MR. DOUGLASS: No, except that it should wait for the Planning Board . MR. KAPLAN: Maybe I should read part of the letter sent to the Planning Board signed by my hrrother Bernard: We have received numerous inquiries from the prospective purchasers for this property because of the existence of these buildings, and therefore would prefer to sell the proposed parcels with the existing buildings. Of course, we would advise the prospective purchaser of the non-conformities , leaving the prospective purchaser either to make them the subject of a variance before the Board of Appeals or to destroy and remove them. Yours truly, DAWN ESTATES /s/ Bernard Kaplan MR. KAPLAN: That ' s the choice on-which way we 're going to work this . Destroy some buildings or fix them in the future. But it would be a shame to take down the two big barns . MR. DOUGLASS : That barn that you're talking about is in a special zone. It ' s in an M-1 Zone. MR. KAPLAN: M-1? Well I thought it was agricultural . MR. DOUGLASS : It ' s in an M-l . MR. KAPLAN: I thought it' s the property adjoining it. MR. DOUGLASS : No, it ' s in it. MR. KAPLAN: In it? MR. DOUGLASS : Yes . MR. CHAIRMAN: On the 15th of January we wrote a letter to the Planning Board, and it ' s addressed to the Southold Town Planning Board and reads as follows : " . . .An appeal application requesting approval of an undersized lot and insufficient width within the above-mentioned proposed minor subdivision has recently been filed with this Board. The Board of Appeals is in receipt of a letter from the Planning Board dated December 18 , 1979 listing reasons why the sketch plan was disapproved, but there was no mention as to whether preliminary recommendations were considered. If not, it would be appreciated if we could have your preliminary recommendations . This matter Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- February 7 , 1980 is scheduled for a public hearing tentatively for February 7 , 1980. Please note that both an A-Residential-Agricultural District and M-1 Multiple Dwelling District are involved. . . . " MR. DOUGLASS : May I ask you a question? Does your group have any objections to a stipulation if this were granted that it could never` be. 'built on, and' of ly be used '.for_what you're talking about? MR. FITZMORRIS : Yes , that would be fine. The structure will stay pretty much the way- it ' s now. We 've already put a new roof on it. Really it was an enormous expense .to do that and we have no intentions of changing the structure. MR. DOUGLASS : The reason I ask, it' s in a special category. It ' s in an M-1 category. MR. FITZMORRIS : Let ' s limit that and eliminate the resi- dential or multiple dwelling aspect of the building. MR. DOUGLASS : Right. This is what we 're asking. MR.FITNORR.TS :Whatever restriction the Board wants to place on it we will go along 'with it. MR. DOUGLASS : . In that case I would recommend, is there anyone else-T MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else have anything more to say for or against? JOHN INGER: I 'm also a member of the Crescent Beach Condo- minium Association and would like to voice to the approval . MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else have anything more against it? Terry? Bob, are you satisfied about this?. MR. DOUGLASS : I would make a motion that we close the hearing and reserve decision until we get the notification from the Planning Board and then we would make the decision on it to coincide with them and what we 've discussed with you. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision - Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis , Douglass and Tuthill . Absent: Messr.,. Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- February 7 , 1980 RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2574 . Application of RAYMOND CIACIA, Main Road, Greenport, New York, (James Bitses, Esq. ) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80 for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels to, be established within a subdivision. Location of property: Easterly side of Main Road, Greenport; Subdivision Lots 157 to 160 inclu- sive, "Peconic Bay Estates "Map No. 1124 ; County Tax- Map Item Nos . 1000-53-002-21 & 23 . The Chairman introduced the application. MR. CHAIRMAN: This was re-advertised on the 24th day of January and I could read the recessed hearing notice if you would like to hear it? JAMES BITSES : It ' s waived. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir . MR. BITSES : Is it all right to be. heard on the subject now? I 'm in favor of the application by Mr. Ciacia here under Section 100,81. to include the bulk area and parking schedule. Mr. Ciacia lived on this parcel for quite a few years prior to 1957 . One side has: his place of business . We have entered into a conditional contract with a buyer, which is to. purchase the front portion of this lot with his business building on it, and only wants that part with his building on it. What we have is a house right next to a business . As you know, . Mr. Ciacia has- been in boatbuilding and has done a lot of fine carpentry work in that building. Mr. Ciacia would like, if it 's meets with your approval , to move his house away from that building onto the other half of the lot. The problem there is that originally this was four lots, 157 , 158 , 159, and 160. Both the house and the structure are on the front portion of the lot, 157 and 158 . Consequently our application is to divide the property, two parcels, parcel A and parcel B, both of' which have insufficient area under Section 100-81 . Oh, before I go any further I must state that this is a C-Commercial area. We are asking for a variance so that we can divide this parcel into two parcels, so that we can move the house away from the business , move the house to the rear portion of the lot on parcel B, which is Lots .159 and 160 . So the commercial part of the lot, parcels 157 and 158 can be sold pursuant to the terms of this conditional sales contract we have previously entered. Therefore we require the grant of a variance to divide this parcel into two parts , both of which have insufficient area, also under the same section of the statute 100-81 , we will require permission, or variance I should say, when moving the house from the front' parcel , parcel A, on parcel B, and place the house on this undersized second parcel with insufficient frontyard and sideyard clearance to go hand in hand naturally if the lot has sufficient area, then there will be no sideyard or frontyard problem. The problem arises from the fact that it ' s an undersized lot. Consequently, our application here is to subdivide two parcels with insufficient area and for permission to move the house from parcel A to parcel B. with insufficient sideyard and frontyard variance, to go hand in Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- February 7 , 1980 hand. If this were granted, Mr. Ciacia could sell his business and retire after a long, strenuous career as a skilled craftsman, and also.. to' move his house away from the business area, to move it away- from the Main Road where there is heavy traffic to the rear of the property, which incidentally looks out across the. street to a small group of houses, residences . It would not change the area at all . It would actually improve the area by separating the commercial portion of this lot to a residential portion. As I stated before this is a non-conforming use, C-Zone. He has been living in this dwelling house in the C-Zone, and I do not believe that we would require any further variances from this Board once this particular variance was granted because being a nonconforming use and remaining on the same lot, it can continue as a nonconforming use, and many costs for rebuilding foundations and things of that sort can be considered in the light of repairs. In this case we have a limit of 50% of the value of the house on a nonconforming use to make repairs up to 50% , and certainly the foundation will cost no more than about 12 , possibly 15% of the value of the house. We are well within the limits of use for nonconforming. Consequently, I believe that if this variance was granted, it would solve this problem very neatly, upgrade the area, Mr. Ciacia would sell the commercial part of the property, retire. And it would seem like the most logical . course to follow. And of course it would not change the area. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. TUTHILL: Mr. Bitses, is your client going to face the house toward Kerwin Boulevard? MR. BITSES : Excuse me? MR. TUTHILL: Is he going to face his house onto Kerwin Boulevard, in other words swing it around? MR. BITSES : No, exactly as it faces now. He will move it sideways 40 or 50 feet. Because it looks out on Kerwin Boulevard now. MR. TUTHILL: It does? MR. CIACIA• Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: It ' s just that the front is narrower. MR. BITSES : You see, when you drive by it on the Main Road you 're seeing the side of his house. He has a side door, that' s the side of his house. The front part of his house and the long part of his house, the long access of his house is parallel to Kerwin Boulevard. Actually, he will move the house from where it stands laterally in a southerly direction approximately 30 or 40 feet onto Lots 159 and 160, with the same frontyard setback that it presently has but which is insufficient now. It' s a nonconforming use in any event and with insufficient sideyard area. In other words, the insufficiency is about five feet in the sideyard area, it' s not too great. Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- February 7, 1980 MR. TUTHILL: It just appeared to me that the front of the house faced the Main Road. MR. DOUGLASS : It doesn 't. MR. TUTHILL: It seems to me that the whole situation is that you've got a bad situation and this may make it a little bit better. It ' s not legally wonderful not matter what you do. (Mr. Bitses showed the members how the house presently is shown on the lot and how it will look when they move it. ) MR.CHAIRMAN: The application just asks for the dividing of the property. MR. BITSES : I believe in my notice I also noted that I asked for insufficient front and side yard clearance. They go together because of the bulk schedule. Secretary checked through the file and the only application was for approval of insufficient area and width. MR: BITSES : Well we could come back on that . MR. TUTHILL: Shows. "area and width. " MR. BITSES : What we would like to do., you see, we require 50. feet from the back. MR. DOUGLASS : Couldn't you move it. here (further back from the frontyard line on Kerwin Boulevard. MR. BITSES : That should be enough then for front and back. Then we will ask for only side yard clearance. MR. TUTHILL: You°.11 have to make that a separate application. MR. DOUGLASS : Draw it up and see how it comes before you ask for it, and you'll have, 50 here and 50 there, and then you' ll just need two sideyard variances. MR. TUTHILL: All we 're . going to approve tonight is the insufficient areaand width. MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually it was- on here (Notice to Neighbors) but it wasn't in the application or in the legal notice. MR. BITSES : Well, we could move it back so we don 't have to apply for front and rear yard variances. Will do . MR. DOUGLASS : On this approval it will have to be written that the two numbered lots become one, 157 and .158 , and parcel B lots 159 and 160. MR_` CHAIRMAN: Right. Become one. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- February 7, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else have anything to say on this? MR. TUTHILL: Charlie, my , feeling is that you're making an existing bad situation a little bit better; and I will offer a resolution that. the insufficient area and width of the parcels be approved with the condition that the two where the house sits now, that together with the lot on which the business is located will be just one property -- in other words merge those two lots . (Subdivision Lots No. 157 and 158) . MR. CHAIRMAN: Lots 157 and 158 would become one parcel. MR. BITSES: Become one parcel . And 159 and 160 would become a separate parcel. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BITSES : And about the road frontage, there are three roads on the sides of that property, believe it or not.. One is, I think, Lawrence Lane.- So we have enough road frontage by reason of the fact that we have a Lane running into Kerwin Boule- vard on one side of the property there. MR. DOUGLASS : By granting you a variance for the width you're covered anyway. MR. DOUGLASS : And I think this has to go to the Planning Board doesn 't it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: He has '117 feet on one side, but he has the footage on the southerly side on that Lawrence Lane, 153 feet. (Code requires 300 foot road frontage in a C-1 District. ) MR. TUTHILL: I don 't remember if it' s stated in the motion, but I meant also that the front. two lots will be one lot and the back two lots will be separate. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we understand that. 157 and 158 become one lot, and 159 and 160 is the other lot. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting approval of insufficient area and width of two parcels to be established in a proposed subdivision of property owned by the applicant. The applicant asks that Lots No. 157 and 158 of Amended Map A of Peconic Bay Estates, Map No. 1124 (County Tax Map Item No. 1000-53-2-21) be considered one lot, and Lots 159 and 160 of Amended Map A of- Peconic Bay Estates (County Tax Map Item No. 1000-53-2-23) be considered the other lot. Applicants plans are to move the dwelling to the rear of its present location onto parcel B (Lots 159 and 160) .. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- February 7 , 1980 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 grant of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance. On motion made by Mr . Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that RAYMOND CIACIA, Main Road, Greenport, New York 11944 , (by James Bitses, Esq. ) be GRANTED a variance to the zoning ordinance approving the insufficient area and width as applied for, for the two parcels to be established within a proposed subdivision, and more particularly described- as Parcel A, Lots No. 157 and 158 of Amended Map A of Peconic Bay Estates, Map No. 1124 , and Parcel B, Lots No. 159 and 160 of Amended Map A of Peconic Bay Estates, County Tax Map No. 1000-53-2-21 and 1000-53-2-23 respectively. Location of property: Easterly side of Main Road, Green- port; Subdivision Lots 157 to 160 inclusive, "Peconic Bay Estates" Amended Map A, Map No. 1124 ; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-53-2-21 & 23 . Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill . Absent: Messr. Doyen. Re: Appeal No. 2664 . Application of RUDOLPH J. DeHAAN and FLORENCE A. DeHAAN, Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York for a variance approving insufficient area and width of par- cel to be established in a proposed subdivision. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded. by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to respond to the Southold Town Planning Board letter dated October 11, 1979 reflecting the feeling of this Board not to assume lead agency status due to the reason that the application pending for a tidal wetlands permit involves property other than that which would be involved in this appeal application. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis , Douglass and Tuthill . Absent: Messr. Doyen. On motion made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- February 7, 1980 RESOLVED, that the following Special Exception Sign Renewal Requests be approved for one year from the last effective day subject to Federal Highway Beautification Act and' Funding Laws for Highways, if applicable: Appeal No. 1013 - Silleck Agency Appeal No. 1024 - Marian Council Knights of Columbus Appeal No. 1020 - Reeve Lumber & Woodworking Co . Appeal No. 1027 - Mattituck Merchants Association Appeal No . 279 - Mattituck Merchants Association. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill . Absent: Messr. Doyen. On motion made by Mr . Douglass, seconded by Mr . Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of STANLEY AND MARTA WIEPZYNSKI , Appeal No. 2667 , . for' a variance' approving ' insufficient widths of two parcels '-to be established in a ' proposed subdivision, Article III, Section 100-31 , this Board has, after review of the Environmental Assessment Form and relative documents submitted with this application, determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environ- ment, pursuant to Section 617 .13 of the New York State Environ- mental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill . Absent: Messr. Doyen. On motion made by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of RALPH H. DICKINSON, Appeal No. 2668 , for a variance to the zoning ordinance for permission to construct with an insufficient frontyard setback, Article III, Section 100-31 , this Board has, after review of the--Environmental Assessment Form and relative documents submitted with this application, deter- mined that this project if implemented as .planned is classified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to Section 617 .13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B �of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill . Absent: Messr. Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2.0- February 7119M. ti .. On motion made by Mr . .Douglass, seconded by Mr . Tuthill , . it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of MATTITUCK FREE LIBRARY, in Appeal No. 2665 , for a variance -to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30, insufficient sideyard setback, . and Art. XI, Sec . - 100-112A , waiver of parking, this Board has, after review of the Environmental Assessment Form and relative documents submitted with this application, determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type .II Action not having a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to Section 617 .13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill. Absent: Messr . Doyen. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr . Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of MATTITUCK FREE LIBRARY, in Appeal No . 2666 , for Spec'idl .Exception- to the zoning. ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30B for .permission to use proposed addition for library use, this Board has, after inspection and review of the Environmental Assessment Form and relative documents submitted with this appli- cation, determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to Section 617 .13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill. Absent: Messr. Doyen. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of DWIGHT W. WEIST, in Appeal No . 2663 ., for a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to con- struct accessory structure in the frontyard area, this Board has, after inspection and review of the Environmental Assessment Form and relative documents submitted with this ap- plication, determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to Section 617 .13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill . Absent: Messr . Doyen. Southold Town Board of" Appeals -21-! February 7; 1980 On motion made by Mr . Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. , Appeal No. 2656, for a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for approval of insufficient area, width, front & side yards of parcel , this Board has, after review of the Environmental Assessment Form and relative documents submitted with this application, determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type . II Action not having a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to Section 617 .13 of the. New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill. Absent: Messr. Doyen. Om motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was _'RESOLVED,.- that .regarding the ..application of FISHERS ISLAND _ DEVELOPMENT -CORP. , -Appeal -No..... 2657;= for a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article VII, Sec . 100-71 and Art. XIV, Sec . 100-•114 for approval of insufficient area and. width of several parcels, this Board has, after inspection and review of the Environmental Assessment Form and relative documents submitted with this appli cation, determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action not having a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to Section 617 .13 of. the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill . Absent: Messr. Doyen. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that regarding the application of JAMES AND MARY McGUIRE, in Appeal No. 2669 , for a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III; Sec . 100-30 and 100-31 for permission to construct addition with an insufficient front yard setback, this Board has, after inspection and review of the Environmental Assessment Form and relative documents submitted with .this ap- plication, determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action not having a . significant effect on the environment, pursuant to Section 617 .13 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Section 44-4B of the Southold Town Code. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill .. Absent: Messr . Doyen. Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- February 7, 1980 On motion made by Mr. Tuthill , seconded by Mr. Douglass , it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the January 17 , 1980 meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill. Absent: Messr. Doyen. On motion made by Mr . Douglass , seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to approve the minutes of the January 22 , 1980 special meeting of this Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis , Douglass and Tuthill. Absent: Messr. Doyen. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was . RESOLVED, that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals be set for Thursday, February 28 , 1980 at 7 : 30 o 'clock P.M. , and that the following appeal applications be advertised for a public hearing at the below specified times for the next meeting: 7 : 30 P.M. WIEPZYNSKI, Stanley Appeal No. 2667 7 :45 P.M. DICKINSON, RALPH H. Appeal No . 266.8 8 : 00 P.M. MATTITUCK FREE LIBRARY Appeal No. 2665 8 :15 P.M. MATTITUCK FREE LIBRARY Appeal No. 2666 8 :30 P.M. WEIST, DAVID. Appeal No. 2663 8 :45 P.M. FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. Appeal No. 2656 9 : 00 P.M. FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. Appeal No. 2657 9 :15 P.M. McGUIRE, JAMES & MARY Appeal No. 2669 Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis , Douglass and Tuthill. Absent: Messr. Doyen. On motion made by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr. Tuthill , it was RESOLVED, that this meeting be declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass and Tuthill . Absent: Messr. Doyen. APPROVEe me"ting was declared closed at 9 : 20 P.M. Re pectfullly submitted, s. L.F . Kowalski, Secretary Ch irmnn Board of A peals AIM FIT.4�D By TE SC�1Ji` ssa�vT� lv� Town Cleric, Town of Soutl:.old