Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/18/1981 SPEC g i) Cr,yy. .i 1 C O� Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y. 11971 �l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN,JR. M I N U T E S ROBERT J. DOUGLASS — " - e - - - GERARD P. GOEHRINGER SPECIAL MEETING JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JUNE 182 1981 A Special Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, June 18, 1981 at 4:45 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 . Present were: Charles Grigonis, Jr. , Chairman; Gerard P. Goehringer; Joseph H. Sawicki; Robert J. Douglass. Absent was: Serge Do�in�., Jr. The Chairman opened the meeting at 4:50 o'clock p.m. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2826. Application of -Herbert Hoffman & wife. This hearing was reconvened at 4:50 p.m. It had 1been recessed at the meeting of this Board on June 11 , 1981 , to be reconvened on this date. Appeal No. 2826. Application of Herbert Hoffman & wf, by Mrs. Jules Adriaenssens, Box 76F, R.R. #2, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient front and rearyard setbacks- at Smith Drive, Southold, NY; also known as Goose Neck Subd. Lots 106, 107, 113 and pt. of 114,. Filed Map #1663; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-76-2-34.1 . MR. CHAIRMAN: This meeting was recessed on the eleventh. flerry and I were down there looking at' it (remainder of statement was inaud- ible as a result of interference on the tape. ) Rom. HOFFMAN: Just the five feet extra is what we're looking for, twenty five, that's about all. Nothing else that I. can think of. MEMBER GOEHRINGERr Did you say five foot extra, Mr. Hoffman? MR. HOFFMAN: Well, we were hoping that the, would grant us to go twenty five foot off the road, MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh I see. Southold Town Board or Appeals -2- June 18, 1981 MR. HOFFMAN: Rather -than thirty, as Mr. Grimm would go along with giving him twenty-one foot away from the back line. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, I thought you were talking about twenty five foot on the back where there' s a fifty foot rear yard. MR. GRIMM: That's a point that I'd like to make. I don't know if we talked the last time, but there is, I don't know what the requirements are, but there is, what I think is a frontyard variance within 300 feet and that's the Crawford property unless Mr. Crawford's just been sold but to the Ramos I think, or Lazaros, which is on the waterfront and their garage is, it looks to me within ten feet of the roadway. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's not a primary structure though. MR. GRIMM: Well it's their garage and that's what Mr. Hoffman and Mrs. Hoffman want to put up near the road too is their garage. MEMBER GOEHR.INGER: Yeah, but since their garage, the Hoffman' s garage is attached to their house it becomes a primary structure. When you have a detached garage it' s not a primary structure. MR. CHAIRMAN: The setback would apply to that as it would to a house. . MR. GRIMM: As to a house. I'd just like to make it clear that particularly because of what Mr. Hoffman_ just said, . it doesn't appear that the Hoffman' s are able to make any accommodation unless the Board is able to give them a grant, ,-front and back or one or the other. And I'd just like to say that our feeling is that we should have at least 25 feet in back from the line to their house. And having gone out there and looked at it again, I feel more strongly about it than I did even before, and it's higher than ours and it's going to over- whelm our house, and we don't have a lot of options. I don't know how that factors into all the other opportunities there are to alter the situation but that's all that I came' o say. YR. CHAIRMAN: No other comments? MRS. ADRIAENSSENS: We'll wait to see what happens. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you be unhappy, Mr. , how .do you pro- nounce it? MR.GRIMM: Grimm. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Grimm. MR. GRIMM: Like the fairy tales. MEMBER GOEFIRINGER: Would you be unhappy with a twenty foot rear- yard if we put a provision in there that there be proper shielding in the area where the house is going to be viewed from your property? f Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- June 18, 1981 MR. GRIMM: I've thought about that a great deal and I think the answer is, I wouldn't be, I would prefer the 25 feet without a fence to 20 feet with a fence. Simply because, as you all know, I come from the city and we bought this place to get away from being on top of one another and having six-foot fences and all the rest of that kind of thing, and it would be a real disappointment to my wife, and my self, all of us for that matter to have to come to that here. Obviously it's better then staring at the back wall of the house, but it isn't what I would like to see happen to my property. MR. HOFFMAN: Couldn't there be a (word was inaudible) with shrubbery or having a fence? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, if I was making the motion, and this is very highly irregular because we wouldn't :.usually have this amount of contact between the petitioners, but I would say it would either be done with stockade fence or shrubbery, and that's what I would put in. I don't know if you want. to reserve decision on this, close the hearing or not after the input. MRS. ADRIAENSSENS: Could I say something? I just, I thought about after that night because we really didn't think that anybody was going to object, you know, and you could .see that on our presentation. I got kind of upset and my ..husband refuses to stand up and do it so I got stuck with it. And afterward I thought about it, Mr.Grimm and his family bought that house knowing the size of the property and knowing full well that .someday someone was going to build next door. You know, it isn't something that we're trying to take away from him. They knew that that was, you know, the identical footage that .you had. MR. GRIMM: We also knew we'd be protected by zoning laws to keep the building. sixteen foot away from us. MRS. ADRIAENSSENS: But you had built close - to the property line, which has created a problem for us as well, you know, if you weren' t that close to the variance that some board some, at one time-- MR. GRIMM: There wasn't a variance when the house was built. MRS. ADRIAENSSENS : Well how can you build eight foot from the property line? MR. GRIMM: Those were the zoning laws at...the time. MEMBER DOUGLASS: It was built, ,probably, back when house lots . were allowed at 12 ,500. Quarter acre. And then it changed, see, went to half acre and it went to acre since that started. MR. CHAIRMAN: That' s. why we have so many problems now. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At half acre, we were what, 10 and 15? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah. Southold Town Board Appeals -4- June 18, 1981 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And now we're 35, 15 and 20 . It' s up to you, Mr. Chairman. MEMBER DOUGLASS: We also have. another thing in that, in_zoning, if you buy a lot .and you're .supposed to build a house to fit the lot, not the lotto fit the house. If you buy a small lot, that' s , you' re supposed to keep it down so that it conforms to the lot, not try to put a house on it that covers the whole lot. MRS. ADRIAENSSENS: Oh, I don' t think it' s the same. MEMBER. DOUGLASS: I 'm not saying that like this, but I'm saying-- MRS. HOFFMAN: We're not . really,:-right? We've . still got .a lot of property its just that little border. MEMBER DOUGLASS: That we have a lot of cases that come in where people try to jam a long ranch on a little narrow 75 foot lot, and it don't work. MRS. ADRIAENSSENS: No, I remember when I first came down and Mr. Hindermann figured out the square feet of the property, I don' t even know if he did that, he figured out the square feet of the house. He said that way there was plenty of `square footage of land as opposed to the square footage of the house. . It' s just the problem of when the Hoffman' s bought the property. You. know, . the shape. of it, that' s the catch, it' s just that .one little part. At one point you have far more than you:.need to fill all the 50-50. business, and just that one corner that ,you can't, you know, you can't get on there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do any -of the Board members have. any other questions? MEMBER. SAWICKI:. No,. nothing Charlie. MR. CHAIRMAN: No? Then I' ll offer a. resolution closing this and we' ll kick it around. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared. closed and decision re- served in the matter of Appeal No. 2826, application of Herbert Hoffman & wife. Vote of the Board : Ayes: Messrs . Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer, and. Sawicki. (Absent was : Serge Doyen, Fishers Island. ) t Southold Town Board (,- Appeals -5- June 18 , 1981 Special Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2826 . Application of Herbert Hoffman & wife, by Mrs . Jules Adriaenssens, Box 76F, R.R. #2, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient front and rearyard. setbacks at Smith Drive, Southold., NY; also known as Goose Neck Subd.. Lots 106, 107, 113 and. part of 114, Filed Map #1663; County Tax Map Item No . 1000- 76-2-34. 1 . After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds and determines as follows: By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct a new one-family dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback off Smith Drive North of 30 feet and an insufficient rearyard setback of 1612" at the property line joining the premises presently owned by Carway (Subdivision Lot No. 112) . The premises in question contains an area of approximately 23 ,450 square feet, but due .to its peculiar shape, the Board agrees with applicant' s reasoning that an average dwelling design could not be situated without requiring relief from a variance. The Board finds that the relief requested is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; that the relief requested is not substan- tial in relation to the code requirements; that the circumstances present are unique; that the character of the neighborhood would not be adversely affected; and that the interests of justice would be served by granting the relief subject to the below-specified conditions. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr.. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Herbert Hoffman be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance requested in Appeal No. 2826 , SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That there be a minimum frontyard setback of 28 ' from the Smith Drive North property line; (2) That there be a minimum rearyard setback of 20 ' from the rear property (presently Carway) property line; (3) That proper shielding of 25' or more as needed be main- tained for shielding the house, such as stockade fencing or hedges [not exceeding the height requirements of the code] . Location of Property: Smith Drives, Southold, NY; Goose Neck Subdivision Map No. 1663 , Subdivision Lots No. 106 , 107, 113 and part of 114; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-76-2-34.1 . Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. (Member Doyen, Fishers Island, was absent. ) Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- June 18, 1981 Special Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2831 . Application of Frank J. Abbadessa, 14 Walden Place, Great Neck, NY 11020 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III., Sec. 100-31 for permission to construct addition to dwelling with insufficient sideyard area at 1200 Maple Lane & 55 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport, NY; Cleaves Point Sec. II Subd . Filed Map #3521 Lot 40; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-35-6-1 . After investigation and personal inspection, the Board finds and determines as follows : By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct a 24 ' by 13 '6" garage addition, to be attached at the southerly side of the existing dwelling with a 4 '6" by 9 ' breezeway in the sideyard area. The setback proposed from the southerly property line is seven feet. The premises in question is improved with a one-family framed dwelling with a 12 ' by approximately 6 ' accessory building in the rearyard area and contains approximately 10 ,000 square feet in area. The premises is located at the junction of two intersecting streets. It is the opinion of this Board that sufficient hardship or practical difficulties has not been shown inasmuch as a facility as proposed by appellant may be constructed in the rearyard area under the provisions in the Code specified for "accessory buildings. " The Board does not agree with the reasoning of appellant. The Board finds that the relief requested is substantial in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief requested is not within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; that if the variance were granted the character of the neighborhood would be adversely affected; that the hardship or practical difficulty is not sufficient to warrant the granting of this relief; that the circumstances are not unique; that the relief may be obtained by a method other than a variance; and that the interests of justice will be served by denying the relief requested by this appeal. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Frank J. Abbadessa be denied a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 as applied for, Appeal No. 2831. Location of Property: 1200 Maple Lane (a/k/a 55 Snug Harbor Road) , Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-35-6-1. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Douglass, Goeh- ringer and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent) . Southold Town Board Appeals -7- -une 18, 1981 It was again brought up that it is the opinion of the Board that a Long Environmental Assessment Form should be prepared and filed with our office concerning Appeal No. 2833, Northville Industries Corporation. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No . 2778. Application of North Fork Motel, Inc. , by William H. Price, Jr. , Esq. , 52325 C.R. 489 Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. I. Sec. 100- 13B, Art. VI, Sec. 100-60B(1 ) (b) , Art. XIV, Sec. 100-144F for: (a) permission to change use of premises and (b) permission to establish single-living unit within multi-dwelling (motel) at premises known as 52325 C.R. 48 (North Road) , Southold., NY; bounded north by Soundview Ave. ; west by Main, Kemper, Zech and Larson; south by C.R. 48 (North Road ) ; east by Sound-riew Ave. and. C R. 48; more particularly known as County Tax Map Item No. 1000-135-2-23. This is an appeal by North Fork. Motel9, Inc. of two determinations of the Building Inspector dated Fabruary 13, 1980 and December 22, 1980. By letter dated February 11 , 1980, Appellant wrote to the Building Inspector and stated : "We have been builder, owner, operator of the North Fork Motel for the past 16 years . As of late (past few years ) some of our steady clientele have expressed. a desire to purchase a unit outright. Therefore, we hereby apply for approval to do same. " On February 13, 1980, the Building Inspector issued a written. Notice of Disapproval which stated that the proposed use was not a use permitted in the "B" Zone District. An appeal of the February 13, 1980 deter- mination of the Building Inspector was taken to the Board, a hearing held and thereafter on March 129 1981 withdrawn prior to=.,a determina- tion of this Board. By application dated December 17, 1980, Appellant applied to the Building Inspector for a Certificate of Occupancy for Room No. 23 within the Motel structure. The Building Inspector denied such appli- cation on December 22, 1980 upon the grounds that "conveying a living unit of existing motel to single ownership (condominium) does not keep within the definition of a motel (motor vehicle transients ) and as such would not be a use permitted under Special Exception. " By amended appeal dated December 29, 1980, Appellant appealed the December 22, 1980 Building Inspector determination as well as the pre- vious February 13, 1980 determination (the appeal of this Board having been withdrawn on March 12, 1981 ) . The premises which are the subject of this appeal comprise a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1 .3 acres located at the intersection of County Route 48 (formerly County Route 27 ) and Sound. View Avenue and. is located in the "B" Light Business District. The property surrounding the subject premises is zoned for "A" Resident- ial and Agricultural uses . There is erected upon the premises a two- story wood frame motel containing 41 motel rooms and two units with kitchens. The building was constructed. in June, 1965 at which time such use was a permitted use under the then existing Zoning Ordinance. Under the present Zoning Code a motel is a use permitted by special exception (100-50B(4) ; 100-60B(1 ) (b) ) in the "B" zone provided that the density requirements of the code are complied with. Applying the present Southold Town Board u- Appeals -8- June 189 1981 density requirements to the premises would permit 9.44 motel units on the site, rather than the 43 units presently existing. Accordingly, the present use is a pre-existing non-conforming use. In its application to the Building Inspector, Appellant stated it "wishes to convert the form of ownership from corporate to condominium. No change of use is contemplated or requested by the application for the Certificate of Occupancy for unit or room number 23 of the uc tel, " Section 100-144 A of the Zoning Code provides as follows : "A certificate of occupancy shall be applied for from the Building Inspector and it shall be unlawful to do any of the following until a certificate of occupancy is issued. therefor, to wit : (1 ) Occupancy and use of a building erected, recon- structed., restored, structurally altered or moved, or any change in use of an existing buildin (2) Occupancy, use or any change in the use of any- land, & Any change in use of a nonconforming use. " Section 100-13 defines a Motel as follows : "A building containing guest rooms, each of which, , or each pair of which, has a separate entrance leading directly from the outside of the building with parking space conveniently located to each unit, and which is designed, used or intended to be used primarily for the accommodation of motor vehicle transients , " The issue in this appeal is whether the contemplated conveyance of a single room in an existing motel from the corporate owner of the entire motel property to an individual for his sole use and occupancy is, in effect, a change of use of the premises . The Appellant contends that merely a change in ownership will occur. This Board disagrees, The premises in question are presently utilized as a seasonal motel. Und.er the Zoning Code a "Motel" is a building containing guest rooms . . , , .which is designed, used or intended. to be used primarily for the accommodation of motor vehicle transients , " Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd Ed, , defines a "guest" as "any person who lodges, boards or receives refreshment for pay at a hotel, boarding- house, restaurant, or the like" and "transient" as "passing quickly from existence; of short or uncertain duration. " If the use of a unit in the Appellant 's motel were to be owned byan individual, it is to be expected that such person could occupy said unit during such times and for such duration, and by such of his family and guests as he might wish, since he, as owner, has complete control ' of the use and. occupancy of the unit. The owner is not a "guest" and it is doubtful that he would be characterized as a "motor vehicle transients" . This type of use would differ from the present use of such unit by motor. vehicle transient paying guests, under the control and supervision of the motel owner. In the opinion of this Board, the use of a room in a seasonal motel for the accommodation of motor vehicle transients is not the same as the use of such a room by.,,.a person who is the actual owner of the motel room. The former is a use permitted by the Code. The latter is a use not permitted by the Code. Southold. Town Board — Appeals -9- June 18, 1981 Accordingly, it is the decision of this Board that the Building Inspector acted. properly in denying the application for a certificate of occupancy and such determination is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the North Fork. Motel, Inc. , be denied a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article I, Sec. 100-13B, Art. VI, Sec. 100- 60B(1 ) (b), Art. XIV, Sec. 100-144F, Appeal No . 2778. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Grigonis, Douglass, Goehringer, and Sawicki. Mr. Doyen was absent. (Fishers Island) After discussion, the Board scheduled its next inspections for Wednesday, June 24, 1981 at 5:00 o ' clock p.m. Being there was no further business to come before the Board, motion was made by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and carried, to adjourn at 6 : 10 o ' clock p.m. (approx. ) . Respectfully submitted., Eileen M. Carey, Recording Secretary Southold Town- Board of Appeals APPROVED Chairman Bo d of Appea RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD T OW14 CLEIRK DATE f 4I`1/8/ HOUR /:,2DR M. Town Clerk, Town of thold