Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/23/1981 i O Gy Southold Town Board of Appeals • t' MAIN .ROAD - STATE ROAD Z5 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN, JR. TC#t'1'RT ff 116 C L ROBERT J. DOUGLASS M I N U T E S GERARD P. GOEHRINGER REGULAR .MEETING Joseph' H. Sawicki APRIL 23 , 1981 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, April 231 1981 at 7 :30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Charles Grigonis, Jr. , Chairman; Robert J. Douglass; Serge J. Doyen, Jr. ; Gerard P. Goehringer; Joseph H. Sawicki. Also present were Mrs. Ruth Oliva, Mrs. Shirley Bachrach, Mr. Henry Lytle. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2807. Application of Thomas . Collins, 26 Trainer Court, Huntington, NY 11743 , for a Variance to,"' the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30 (A) [11. for permission 'to construct accessory. (storage) building on vacant land as principal use at 275 Dawn Drive, Greenport, NY; bounded north by Martens, west by Dawn Drive, south by Wallin, east by Dawn Lagoon; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-35-5-20 . The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :30 p.m. by reading the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building In- spector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoin- ing property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property showing- the approximate location of the proposed building and section of the County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding properties. . Is there anyone here wishing to speak for this application? THOMAS COLLINS: I am not familiar with these proceedings. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything you've got to add, or-- J MR. COLLINS: Nothing more than was in the application at the y Page 2 April 23, 1981 Southold Town Boar.d. of Appeals present time. As it .stated,.. everything is underneath the ( ) and I thought at-..:.that time I was doing it right by building a building and getting rid of this eyesore. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone here to speak against the application? Give you name please. JOE VANDERNORTH: I'm President of Cleaves Point Property Owners, and this is where that. property is located. Now .in his deed-- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May we have your name, sir? MR. VANDERNORTH: Joe Vandernorth.. And in this. deed he has a thing in here where he can't put anything on there over 1,000 square feet, under a 1,000 square feet building. That's in his deed. Now he wants to change this, and if we let him put a shack up there, there' s about six or seven more pieces of property there that will do the same thing. And then first thing .you know we' ll have a shed in town. Now .I don't think he should put that up unless he puts up a 1,000-square-feet building; and it' s not going to be used just as . a storage 'shed here. Because he lives on the boat and. he has to have some facilities there--showers - and stuff like that. And this is what it' s going to wind up, and I don't think this is. proper. There' s a fellow next door, Martens, that lives next door to him-- you got a letter on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I ' ll be reading that a little while. MR. VANDERNORTH,: Ok. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Sir? JOHN -HUGHES My name is John .Hughes. My home is separated from Mr. Collins' property by an -empty- vacant lot without any type of trees or any type of visual obstruction that would turn around and hide this building .that he wishes to put up. Mr. Collins still .has his boat there and uses that for a summer home. Now, I don't think because. people want .to .use things for summer homes that they should get a variance for any type of outhouses or storage buildings or whatever. To my knowledge there' s never. been any on the property and I live there seven-days a week, 12 months of the year. I don' t know anything about any bicycles or. personal property or anything else that' s on that property. To my knowledge the property is per- fectly vacant. I don't think the town should encourage people living on boats by granting permits to put. up any type of a supporting structure. This only encourages it. As.Mr:. Vandernorth pointed out, there as�a - three or four other people waiting to do the same thing. It would look like Hong Kong Harbor down there. Further, the declara- tion of record that is filed in Riverhead and which is an attachment to the deed to that property precludes washlines , outside buildings, Page 3 April' 23, 1981 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Mr. Hughes continued) any type of structure other than a minimum development of 1,000 square-foot or more. Now I don't think the Town should encourage this type of operation. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: . Thank you. Anyone else? BILL MANNERS: My name is Bill Manners. I live in Cleaves Point. I recently retired, and- moved to this area and am very pleased to be there. Before doing so. or in­.the,. process of doing so, I spent considerable time studying the size of the lots, the restraints that are involved, the spacing and so forth, because that obviously was going to be the environment in which I would spend whatever time. I have left. It would seem to me that approval of the application as made would . compromise the good faith decisions that some of us made, a lot of us made, based on the Codes as they currently exist, and I respectfully appeal to you gentleman to retain the quality of our little development there at Cleaves Point. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Someone else .had their hand up? BOB PANCRATZ : My name is Bob Pancratz and I live directly, almost directly across from..where Mr. Collins -has his property; and I would object to looking out my.. kitchen window what I still consider to be an outhouse, whether it had wood shingles on it or evergreens around it; it' s still an outhouse. That's the purpose for it. I think it' s being misrepresented as. a...storage shed. Lawnmowers-- this is undeveloped property. You can' t really cut weeds. And I really feel the intent is being misrepresented. I think that the intent is to find a facility for allowing his family for living on the boat, and I have nothing against Mr. Collins. Now last year his family spent considerable time on the boat, five people or a minimum of five people, and for four, five, maybe even a week, and that boat never once left the dock. Now. .those wastes went somewhere. And we're at(_.the end of .a lagoon, and I happen to be living right on the end; and I'd like to know what' s happening with those wastes. And I'd like to discourage it, because directly next to me is .a man that has a boat-- two doors up from him is another man that has a boat. There' s another empty lot inbetween us that the .man has a boat. You have one building go in, you're going to have four and five, and it' s going to look like a shanty town. I've got my life savings in my home, and I do not want it to be compromised by someone using it as a week-- if he wants his there, fine. I'm liv- ing there and the rest of .us are living there. We complied with all the requirements of the deed and I suggest Mr. Collins do the same. He' s well aware of the facts. They were in his deed when he took title. I have nothing further to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Page 4 April 23, . 1981 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. STABILE: My name is Mr. Stabile. You have a letter which I sent to you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I was just going to read it. MR. STABLE: Excuse me? MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just going to read. that in a few minutes. MR. STABILE: Everybody expressed their opinion here. My opinion is very simple. I. live across the. street from Mr. Collins property, and I would simply like the rules upheld in the town rather than grant the variance every time somebody wants to do something a little different. The rules were created with the homeowners in mind in the first place, and I don't think that they should be changed every time somebody wants .to do something wants to do something just a little out of the ordinary. I think they should be .upheld. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. . Anyone else to speak? EDNA GUARIELLO: I'm directly across. It says Dawn Lagoon, but I'm directly across-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Your- name, .ma'am? MRS. GUARIELLO: And .anything that you can do to discourage these people from living on boats-- I came from the west where this was allowed to happen. We got one-half of what we should have gotten when .we sold the house., simply because these boat people are allowed to come.. We live here.all winter. We pay out taxes. These people have their property maybe $200 , $300 is all they pay. What .we have to go through in order to get our septic tanks. . Our septic tanks had to be put in the front of the house . They weren' t allowed to be put .in the back. Two, three, five, or seven septic tanks we had to have. We congratulated ourselves when we really were able to move in and get our occupancy. Now when we have to go through all of this, all this expense and then people can come down in the summertime and live on boats, it isn't fair to us. And I hope the town .considers that and takes care of the permanent residents. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I have your name, ma'am? GUARIELLO: Yes. Guariello. Frank and Edna. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. STABILE: One more thing. This is not our intent to disparage Mr. Collins. He' s a very nice gencleman and we'd like J to have him as a neighbor, but in the traditional sense. 'Southold Town Board of —,peals -5- Ar-il 23 , 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN : I have several letters here, so I' ll start reading them. (The chairman read three letters received from the following objecting .to the subject application: Letter dated March 31, 1981 from H. . Stabile; Letter dated April 7, 1981 from Joseph N. Vandernorth, President, Cleaves Point Prop- erty Association, Inc. ; and Letter dated April 10 , 1981 from R.W. Martens. ) MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else wishing to speak at this time? Do .any .of you gentlemen have any questions you would like to ask? (Negative) . And no one else has anything out there-- I' ll offer a resolution closing this hearing and reserving decision. On .motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded .by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of THOMAS .COLLINS in Appeal No. 2807. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and. Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2804. Application. of Southold Grange, Inc. and .others, Beckwith Avenue, Southold, NY (by Rudolph .Bruer, Esq. ) for a .Special Exception to the Zoning .Ordinance, Art. VII, Sec. 100-70 (B)=[1] (a) for a Certificate of Occupancy of building for church use in a B-1 Zone at 475 Beckwith Avenue, Southold, NY; bounded north by Traveler Street and L. I.R.R. ; west by Southold Equities; south .by Mallgraf; east by Beckwith Avenue .and Traveler Street; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-61-1-25. The Chairman .opened the hearing at 7 :55 p.m. by reading the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and noting affidavits attesting to publication in both. the local and .official newspapers,. Notice . of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from ,the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00 . . MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey. of the property and section of the County Tax Map showing this property and the adjoining properties. Do you have anything you would like to add, Mr. Bruer? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ. : Rudolph Bruer on behalf of the applicants. I'd like to point out that this property has been used by the Church of the Open Door as a place of worship since January of 1978 and prior to that it' s been used by various religious organizations, groups and churches for many, many years prior to this time continu- ously. Since that time it has also been used .by the non-profit organization of the Southold Grange, and what we really would like to do is legitimize the .use by way of a Certificate of Occupancy. It is the content at this point for the Grange to sell the property i' ` Southold Town Board of _rpeals -6- Ae-il 23, 1981 (Mr. Bruer continued) to the. Church and lease it back itself for its monthly meetings. I believe on file with the Board is a letter from the Southold Town Planning Board setting forth the fact that it has no objec- tion, and that there is plenty .of parking available nearby. I would also like to point out that a denial of the application as set forth would subject the ordinance as applied in this case to being unconstitutional under Article I, Subsection 3 of the New York State Constitution. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is .there. anyone else to speak for this application?. Anyone to speak against it? If not, I' ll read into the record .the action of the Planning Board: . . .The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting he.ld .April 6 , 1981: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board has reviewed the application to the Zoning Board.. of Appeals of Southold Grange, Inc. #1036 Patrons .of Husbandry.. and Church of the Open Door, Open Door Ministries, Inc. for a special exception to use the subject premises for the operation of a house. or worship. This is an on-going non-profit use of the property, and the Planning. Board agrees with the applicant' s attorney that there is sufficient parking available for the proposed .use. Yours truly, HENRY. E. RAYNOR, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD. . . . MEMBER DOUGLASS : I' ll make. a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded. by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed and decision reserved in the matter of Southold .Grange, Inc. and others in Appeal No. 2804. Vote. of the. Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. . 2808. Application of Wilhelm Franken, 75 Carroll Street, Brooklyn, NY 11231 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-32 for permission to build garage in the frontyard area at 830 Tarpon Drive, Greenport, NY; bounded north by Starkie; west by Reese; south by Weismann; east by J Southold Shores Association. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-57-1-8 and 9. ►' Southold Town Board c- Appeals -7- Ar__1 23 , 1981 The Chairman opened the hearing. at 8 :01 p.m. by reading the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and noting affidavits attesting to publication in both the local and official newspapers, Notice. of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00 . MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey. of the property and County Tax Map showing the properties in the surrounding area. Is there anyone wishing to speak .on behalf of this application? WILHELM FRANKEN: :Chairman, my name is Bill Franken, and members of the Board. I have nothing else to add to what .we, what you have said before, just that we spent a great deal -of money for this piece of property and constructing the garage in the rearyard would really - block .everything. You know,. we had hoped not to block that whole view of the whole Peconic Bay and Shelter Island and so forth. That's all I can say. MR. CHAIRMAN: All night. Thank you. Anyone else in favor? Anyone- to speak. against this application? (None) Do any of you gentlemen have any questions you .would like to ask Mr. Franken? I' ll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision until later on. On motion by Mr. Gr.igonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Wilhelm Franken in Appeal No. 2808. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2809. Application of Mary Ann Mastroianni Grefe, 395 Tuthill Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-32 for permission to construct swimmingpool in sideyard area at 395 Tuthill Road, Southold, NY; bounded north by Sauthoff , west by Tuthill Road, south by DiLalla, east by Tuthill; Yennecott Park Subdivision Map No. 5187, Subd. Lot No. 25; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-55-4-3. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :09 p.m. by reading the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and noting affidavits attesting to publication in both the local and official .newspapers, Notice .of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter. from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15 . 00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property and County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding properties. They propose to construct a swimmingpool 18 ' by 36 ' with a minimum Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- April 23, 1981 (Chairman continued) of 25' to the backyard and 10' to the back of the house. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on behalf of this application? MARY ANN GREFE: My name . is Mary Ann Grefe, and besides reiterating what .we already put down. in the application the fact that it is considered the sideyard ,.to me it is..my backyard because my house, my front door does not face the road. All right, so it is considered sideyard; however, to me it is the backyard. Plus the fact that it is adjacent to the backyards of all my:..neighbors, plus as you probably already know that lot is heavily wooded and none of my neighbors would be able to see the swimmingpool, nor would you be able to see it from the road because of the fact that it' s heavily wooded. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else to speak for it? Anyone to speak against it?.. No questions, gentlemen. . (None) I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed and decision reserved in the matter of Mary Ann Mastroianni Grefe in Appeal No. 2809 . Vote of. .the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2803. Application of Agnes Dunn, 276 Concord Drive, Hereford, PA 18056 for a. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for approval of insuffi- cient area of two parcels and insufficient road frontage of one parcel, located at -the easterly side of Queen Street, Greenport, NY; bounded north. by .C.R. 48, west by Queen Street, south by Malinauskas, east by Conklin; County. Tax Map Item No. 1000-40-3- 9. 1 and 9. 2. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :15 p.m. by reading the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and noting affidavits attesting to publication in both the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00 . MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property and tax map showing the surrounding areas. Anyone to speak in favor of this application or have something to add that hasn' t already been said? (None) Anyone here opposed to it? (None) Southold. Town Board of Appeals -97 April 23, 1981 On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to .recess the matter of .Agnes Dunn, Appeal No. 2803 until the next regular meeting .of this Board, to wit, May. 14 , 1981. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2806 . Application of Sarah Rauch, 480 Inlet Lane, Greenpor.t., NY. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to relocate exist- ing dwelling with insufficient frontyard setbacks. Location of property: 68175 C.R. 48 (and McCann Lane) , Greenport; bounded north by Casa, .west by Burt, south .by C.R. 48 , east by McCann Lane. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-33-3-38 and 39 . The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :22 p:m. by reading the appeal application and related documents, legal notice. of hearing and noting affidavits attesting to publication in both the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property .owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a sketch of the property and County Tax Map showing this property and the properties. in the surrounding area. Is there anything you would . like to add to what is already in the application? . SARAH RAUCH: I would like just to speak. I . think I said most of what I have to say in the application. . Just to say again that if I have to do what Mr. Fisher said I have to do, . it' s rather frustrating. . My intention with this property was to res- tore an old house and it' s my interest and the interest of the community I believe to let me do -it in the best possible way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Rauch. Anyone else to speak for it? KIM DZENKOWSKI: My name is Kim Dzenkowski. I'm the general contractor . on this job. The current condition of the house is not livable. It is not treatable; it has termite.:infestation right now--severe. It' s not treatable in the present state, and basically my client wants to restore the house. I have a prelim- inary sketch here if you would like to see it, and what we want to do is make a nice dwelling out of it. The original section of the house is quite old, and it has a recent addition that will remain that does not, .in -conform with the use .there now. What she stated about the dwelling is right and the location will put it right along side the garage, to remove .the garage it will involve considerable expense, as the new regulations for a slab si dictate substantially more than is underneath the garage now. Southold_.Town Board of Appeals -10- April 23., 1981 (Mr. Dzenkowski) Would you like to .see the plans? MR. CHAIRMAN: If you would. MR. DZENKOWSKI: And there are elevations, and I think what you would be more interested in right away is the sketch of. what she proposes to do with the house now. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You don't have a copy of this, Kim, that you could give us? MR. DZENKOWSKI.: Oh, sure. That' s a preliminary at the moment, but I believe we're pretty well fixed. Here is the front location of the house now. This property line here, this is the lot that has been added to that parcel here.. This­.tr.ee here is here right now, that is the location right now--roughly 3 ' in diameter, a large tree. And I think you can see, this is what we propose to remove, we have a permit after that right now for demolition of this back. Termites infested',-.it and it' s not treatable at all. And that' s what she wants . to. do on it. This is an architect' s copy that she has. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have. a copy in here I think. MR. DZENKOWSKI: Ok. That' s basically the same thing. We've relocated it slightly from...that one, I believe. I 'm not sure what else I can add to that. I think everything is in here, and basically she wants to .restore..it and . keep. all the lines along with that dwelling. That isn' t even in the same name for one reason or other. That went in there because she added that, piece on there now, as I think you can see. I know Mr. Burt is in favor .of anything we do. And I talked to .Robert. Gillispie this week and he feels that it will add several thousand dollars to the value of the surrounding properties, I think because of the conditions. The former owner went to foreclosure .on this house because of the condition of it. He could not afford the renovations which at that time were esti- mated $15,000 to repair just what was there. I know that problem was in there when he bought it. Any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That covers it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak for this? Well, if there's no one for it, anyone to speak against this? MIKE CASA: My name is Mike Casa; I own the adjoining property right to the north of Mrs . Rauch. When Mrs. Rauch, or after she purchased the property, she called me on the phone and asked to come over and see me. Unfortunately I have been trying to get you (Mrs. Rauch) on the phone; I haven' t been able to to tell you my intentions here. But she sat in my kitchen and-explained to me that she wanted to turn the house which faces the North Road onto Southold Town Board o_ _,ppeals -11- Ar_ _1 23, 1981 (Mr. Casa continued) McCann Lane, and rather than move it closer to my property, she wanted to move it closer to McCann Lane which all the other houses down the block are 55' from the road. And she said she wanted to move it 30 . Well ,I received two letters the same day registered in the mail. One said she wanted to move it 30 from McCann Lane and 35 from the North Road, and the next one said 25 and 30 or something like that. I spoke to- my neighbors about it down on McCann Lane, and like I said, originally I didn't have any objec- tions to it, and when. I mentioned it to my neighbors, they hit the roof. They said, "Are you kidding? She can't do that. All the houses are set back 55' from McCann Lane, and she wants to come out 25 ' and she is going to be blocking the road as you go up and try and make a turn. You can't even see where the cars are, and it' s going to spoil- the symmetry of the whole block going down. " So unfortunately .that' s how .my neighbors feel. There is one other here from the McCann Lane area that also objects to ._it and I guess I have to express their views. Most of our houses, as you go down the block as you make a left turn towards the Sound going north on McCann Lane, all the houses are set back 55 ' or more from the road. Mrs. Rauch, .what she wants to do, her house is going to be way in front . of .all of the others. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN.: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak against it? CHARLES .LYE.: I 'm a neighbor of Mike' s. I'm .right down the road from there, .and ..I object to the same thing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your .name, . sir? MR. LYE : Charles Lye. McCann and Sutton. I have other neighbors too who are away that object to this also. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else to speak against this? You gentlemen want . to ask any questions while Mrs. Rauch is here? (None) I' ll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. On motion by Mr. Grigonis., seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to. .close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Sarah Rauch in Appeal No. 2806 until later. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. J Southold Town Board of Appeals. -12- April. 23, 1981 PUBLIC HEARING.: Appeal No. 2813. Application of Cybil , Koo er, South Drive, Mattituck, NY. (by Arthur Siemerling) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-32 for per- mission to construct swimmingpool. in the front and/or side yard areas at "Canoe Path, " private road located at the end of South Drive, Mattituck, NY; .bounded north ..by Skinner; west by Canoe Path; south by Mattituck Creek; east..by Northridge. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-106-11-23. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :36 p.m. by reading the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and noting affidavits attesting to publication in both the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00 . MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey and section. of the County Tax Map showing this property and. the surrounding . area. This. is. quite a piece of property. That .swimmingpool is going to be quite a way from the house but that might be a good .thing too. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak for this? Anyone .to speak against it? (None) I' ll offer a resolution closing-- MR.. LYTLE: A point of information, .the size of the pool? MR. CHAIRMAN:. I don' t think it has it here. MEMBER DOUGLASS: 18 by 36 . MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes, 18 by 36 ., It' s .not..on here, but we went down there, and we had a pool expert with us who was down there Saturday looking at the materials on hand there and it was an 18 by 36 he says. MR. LYTLE: Some gentleman just said they must be having a fire sale on 18 by 36 ' s. MEMBER DOUGLASS: That' s the most popular size pool that' s manufactured. MR. LYTLE: Just wanted to know that somebody doesn' t put in an Olympic-size pool and starts renting out space and stuff like that. MR. CHAIRMAN: No. We sympathize a little bit with the gentleman putting it where it is. No matter where he puts it over there he' s going to have a few leaves around. It' s all wooded. I' ll offer a resolution to close the hearing and reserve decision. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- April 23, 1981 RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of Cybil Kooper in Appeal No. 2813 . Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. The Chairman called a recess from 8 :44 p.m. until 8 :52 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8 :52 p.m. and the matter of North Fork Motel, Inc . , Appeal No. 2778 was the next hearing on the calendar (see next page) . Southold Town Board Appeals -14- April , 1981 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2778 . Application of North Fork Motel , Inc. , 52325 C.R. 48 , Southold, NY (William H. Price, Jr. , Esq. ) 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 estab- lish single-living unit within multi-dwelling (motel) at premises known as 52325 Cc:R. 48 (North Road) , Southo:ld,_.NY; bounded north by Soundview Ave. ; west by Main, Kemper, Zech and .Larson; south by C.R. 48 (North Road) ; east by Soundview Ave. and C.R. 48 ; more particularly known as County Tax Map Item No. 1000-135-2-23. .' . The -'Chd1rman opened the hearing at 8 :52 p.m. by reading the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in both the local and official newspapers , Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notifica- tion to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00 . MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the area and County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding properties. I guess, Mr. Price, you have the floor. WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR.., ESQ. : Thank you. I would like to start out by saying that this-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you use the mike back there, Mr. Price, maybe the people in the back can hear you better. MR. PRICE: Ok. This is not solely an appeal of a decision of the Building Inspector from December, but it is also an appeal from the prior decision of the Building Inspector dated February 13 , 1980 and I would like that Disapproval to be made part of this record as well . Are there any objections from the Board on that? MR. SCHOENDEBARE: May I ask, what was the Disapproval in 1980 for what application? MR. PRICE: You have a copy of my petition, don' t you? The original petition which was filed by my clients erroneously requested a variance to .the zoning ordinance. We're not here asking for a variance. We' re asking for the Board to review the decision of the Building Inspector to reverse that in�iproperly interpreting the zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold. And the Building Inspector twice has equated a change of ownership with a change of use. The first request to the 'Building Inspector was a letter to the Building Inspector from my clients which basically said we want to sell the units off , can we do it. And the Building Inspector said, "No. You can' t sell them off because that' s a change of use. " That was February 13th, I believe it was. The next Disapproval was when I applied on behalf of my client to the Building Inspector asking him to certify that one of the units, specifically Unit_. 23, was a legal motel room. He then refused that request, and the Notice -of Disapproval for that request has Southold Town Board , Appeals -15- April 3, 1981 w (William H. Price, Jr. , Esq. : ) been made part of the record. Now I just want the February 13th Notice of Disapproval to be made part of the record as well in that my petition before you deals with both Disapprovals of the Building Inspector. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which is the one we have? SECRETARY: Just the most current one, December 22 , 1980 . MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t think we can take it without legal counsel' s-- (At this point in time the Board members reviewed the file to see which Disapproval was filed with the appeal application and related documents. ) MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want us to keep this (February 13 , 1980 Disapproval) in the file? MR. PRICE : Well, I-- This is, -- MR. SCHOENDEBARE : Can .I come up? This is not in the notice. What he wants to do now is not in the public notice. MR. PRICE : Exactly. But I did not put the notice in the paper, and my petition-- MR. SCHOENDEBARE: Now we' re talking about condominiums, and I was here on the variance. MR. PRICE : I don' t have a variance application here. I didh',t."�.draw the notice. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Chairman, there ' s a question into the audience. MRS. KELLY: Just one question. What is this room 23, is that the suite? MR. PRICE: No. It' s just one of the units. SECRETARY: May I have your name please? MRS. KELLY: Mrs. Henry Kelly. Golden Lane. MR. CHAIRMAN: Then this is an incorrect notice? MR. SCHOENDEBARE: Yeah. The notice doesn't even incorporate what he wants to do now. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s not incorrect based upon what we have. Southold Town Board u.L Appeals -16- April 3, 1981 MR. SCHOENDEBARE: I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm just saying what he wants to do now I don't see it in the notice. Do you need it? Why don' t you do just what you wanted to do? MR. PRICE : We are going to do what .I wanted to do, but my presentation deals with both of the Disapprovals. They' re both based on the same principal that the Building Inspector has the right to control the use of the premises. The Building Inspector has the right to control the location of structures. He has the power to control setbacks and .the like, but he does not have the power to control ownership. But I am not going to be limited tonight in my presentation as to the sole issue of him denying a Certificate of Occupancy for one room. My petition which was placed before this Board is dealing with two decisions of the Building Inspector. Why I came before this Board before and I requested that the first application be consolidated with the, my subsequent appeal. It appeared that I was having a lot of difficulty having a hearing scheduled on the second petition because of the existence of the first petition. So what I did was withdraw the first petition, but this subsequent petition deals with both of the decisions of the Building Inspector. It doesn' t deal with just one of them. SECRETARY: Now when you say the notice does not cover it, do you mean the legal notice that was in the newspapers? MR. SCHOENDEBARE : Nodded affirmatively. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The .Town Attorney is in the building. We could caucus and we could ask him. MR. SCHOENDEBARE: Yeah, because if we're going to do it I want 'it -to..,go: -on--:the.-record as opposing-'-it. .-All--right. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want me to see if he' s still here? MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe we better, Jerry. SECRETARY: When these are advertised, no disapprovals are ever mentioned. And they all revert back to a disapproval usually. What was mentioned was exactly what you were asking. MR. SCHONDEBARE: That' s why I thought we got away from the condominiums and all that and what the Building Inspector does as to legal ownership of land. When I read the notice and thought what you were doing, now we' re talking about variance-- but now you' re back to the legal ownership. MR. PRICE : No. This is the petition. MR. SCHOENDEBARE : I know, I got it. But that' s not what the notice says. SECRETARY: The notice doesn' t mention disapprovals. Southold Town Board Appeals -17- Apri- _3, 1981 MR. SCHOENDEBARE: I know. That' s why I didn' t think we were getting into that, and I was surprised that you did. MR. PRICE : I'm not asking that it be worded any way, I'm asking that this be made part of the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: We' ll recess for about 10 minutes. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, and unanimously carried, it was resolved to RECESS f.or _.approxi- mately ten minutes'. (At this time the Board left the room to consult with the Town Attorney in the Town Board .Room, and returned within ten minutes. ) Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, and carried, to RECONVENE. MR. PRICE : For starters I would like to submit to the Board my memorandum concerning this appeal which I would like to be made part of the record. (Memorandum was entered into the file. ) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. PRICE: Will that be made .part of the record? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. So moved, so ordered rather. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. MR. PRICE : Next, if you would like, I will give a descrip- tion of the premises themselves but however I believe that the members of this Board have seen what exists at the applicant' s property.:. Basically it' s a two-story frame motel , and in there there are 41 units with two suites , and I would like the Board just to take , administrative notice of what is now existing there, or I will testify to it, whichever way you prefer. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you repeat that again, Bill, I was thinking and looking at something. MR. PRICE : Would you like me to testify what' s existing up there. I 'm prepared to do that, but I believe that the whole Board has seen it on numerous occasions and I would like you to take administrative notice that there is a motel existing there, there are 41 units in there, motel units, there are two suites; it' s located at 52325 now County Route 48 ; and it' s a two-story framed structure painted light green with white;.-.trim. Do you want me to go on or will you take administrative notice. MR. CHAIRMAN: We've all been there. One of the members here would just like to now what 23 is like. Southold Town Board u.L Appeals -18- April 3 , 1981 MR. PRICE : Twenty-three is like all of the other units. It' s approximately 132 feet wide and 20 .feet deep and has a bed, bathroom, what normally is in a motel unit. MR. Any kitchen facilities in there? MR. PRICE: No, not in 23 . MR. CHAIRMAN : All right, you can proceed now Bill. We've been holding you up long enough. MR. PRICE: Ok. What were, as I started before, what we' re asking for this evening is for this Board, to review the two deci- sions of the Building Inspector, to review the Town of Southold zoning ordinance and based upon that review reverse those two decisions and make a finding that the Town zoning ordinance does not control the ownership of the property. It can control the use of property; it can control the size of the structure; it can control the parking areas, the setbacks and the like. But I want to emphasize, they're not asking for a variance tonight because it' s our position that the zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold does not apply to what the applicant is proposing to do. What the applicant is proposing to do is merely to change the ownership from .a corporation to a condominium. It' s our position that the Building Inspector erroneously equated the proposed change of ownership with a change of use. The word "condominium" does not mean that there will be dwelling units in there. When this action is taken by the applicant, that being a change of ownership, you will still have a motel there. It will still be run as a motel. The only difference will be the way the motel is owned.. There will be individual owners of each particular unit, and they will have an interest in common with the other owners of the common areas of the premises. One'...thing I would like to point out too is that in the September 22nd, 1980 Disapproval from the Building Inspector. He made up the term called "a living unit. " There is no such term in the zoning ordinance. There are dwelling units in there granted but we are not proposing to have dwelling units. We are going to have .motel units. What we asked for in that particular request to the Building Inspector was merely for the Building Inspector to certify to us in writing that one of the units was a legal motel room. Not that it was a legal dwelling unit or anything like that, but merely a motel room. Now these premises were constructed under the Southold Town Building Permit #162 which resulted in a Certificate of Occupancy for the entire premises being issued under #166 on , February 27, 1965. That Certificate of Occupancy stated that these premises could be legally used as, and I'm quoting, "a multiple-residence (motel) , " with a maximum occupancy of 175 people. We will continue to live---.up to the restrictions placed upon the use of the premises by the Town of Southold zoning Southold Town Board -,-L Appeals -19- Ap__, 23, 1981 (William H. Price, Jr. , Esq. : ) ordinance, and also by the Certificate of Occupancy. I. have stated time and time again there is no intended change of use contemplated now or in the future. The owner of the premises is merely going to change the ownership. Since the Certificate of Occupancy here was issued, this structure has been continu- ously used as a motel, not as a dwelling unit, not as anything else, merely a motel. Now you will see it in the memo that I submitted to you that the Town of Southold' s power under its zoning ordinance is limited by its enabling act, which is Town Law Section 267 I believe. .261, excuse me. And in that there is no mention, whatsoever of the power of the Town to control who owns property. This , for example, let us say that our, the applicant here was going to sell the motel to General Motors. Youco.uld not jump to conclusion and say they are going to manufacture automobiles at the place; it' s merely to General Motors, the legal entity, would be the owner of those premises. Here we are going to have a condominium, a legal entity, owning those premises. Now I will point out to the Board that they have in respect to the request by the applicant they have, this Board has made two declarations pursuant to N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act. . It has been determined by this Board that this is a Type II Action. This Board is well aware. They had to make specified findings of fact to so classify the project. Now this evening, I have here to testify before your Board Mr. Richard Pellicane. He has reviewed the Town of Southold zoning ordinance. He will tell you his qualifications for speaking to you, and at this point I would like to turn the floor over to Mr. Pellicane. RICHARD PELLICANE: Mr. Chairman, do you want me to just go ahead and testify in a narrative form, is that all right? MR. . CHAIRMAN: Yeah, it' s all right with me. MR. PELLICANE: My qualifications include that I have been a practicing attorney pretty much specializing in real estate since 1959. I am a former chairman of the Real Property Law Committee of the Suffolk County Bar Association, two years. I have articles published in various professional journals, co-author of an article that appears in the N.Y. Law Journal, which has a circulation of some 40 ,000 attorneys in New York of a daily basis. I 'm President and principal owner of a title agency , and have been for about eight or nine years. . I now am one of the attorneys representing a local savings bank. I have in the past represented in real estate matters two of the local commercial banks. I 'am a licensed broker. I am involved as a builder,-'.. nvolved in the subdivision of property in the form of a personal investor, and as an adviser to other joint venturers, and I have pretty well been immersed in real estate law as I stated, for over 20 years. At the request of Bill Price, I researched this particular problem both with the Case Law and Southold Town Board Appeals -20- AE _ L 23, 1981 (Mr. Pellicane continued: ) New York State, the Opinions of the Attorney General, ,-,-the Depart- ment of State, and other administrative agencies, and also the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold. The thrust of what I am here to give an opinion on, I believe, is that the change in ownership of this motel from its current ownership into what we term as a condominium is nothing more than a change in ownership and it is not in any way, shape or form a change in use. The Zoning Ordinance of this Town does not include reference to condominiums for the simple reason I believe that it was first enacted in 1957 and condominiums were not a recognized form of ownership in this State until approximately 1966 . The same ques- tion that is before you has arisen in other Towns on Long Island; I am sure you are aware of some of them. If the Building Inspector' s decision is allowed to stand, what you would have as a result is that the form of ownership known as the condominium would be precluded anywhere in the Town; and absent a good reason for that pursuant to a Master Plan, and that would be something to do with protecting the help of the general public, that would work an unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process. That without question I believe as,-Bill Price pointed out, this ownership could go to General Motors. It could go into a cooperative. It could go to a corporation, a partnership, or a condominium, and none of those things negate the use as a motel. I read the papers on the petition, and on the rejections by the Building Inspector, and the wording of a use for transient visitors comes up repeatedly. We can still have this motel utilized by- transients if it was owned in a condominium form as is common in Florida where people buy condominium units, use them one or two weeks of the year and rent them out the rest of the year. The fact that the ordinance refers to a motel as something designed for use by transients is, I believe , a reference to the type of the zoning, that is, separate bedrooms with exterior entrances and as some of the members of the Board .I think are as old as I am, and they will remember that 35 years ago there were no motels. This is some- thing new and differs from a hotel in the effect that you have separate entities. If the Building Inspector is correct that the motel, this motel or any motel has to ..be available for transients, then a logical conclusion of that is that if it' s closed during the winter, you're violating the Code and therefore a violation should issue. And I think that we.-.al1, agfee that that would be observed. I have a brief here referring, and I will only go into it superficially because it is getting late, referring to some of the opinions that have been prevalent in the State, which basically define a condominium only as a type of ownership the way the property is held and not as a change of use. Now the condominium law was enacted as I said around 1967, and has- been revised from time to time, the latest one being in 1980. The Southold Town Board " Appeals -21- yril 23 , 1981 (Mr. Pellicane continued: ) opinions of the Attorney General and the Department of State are such that their authority precludes and preexmpts the authority of the local towns and villages, and that it is not within the capacity of the towns. and villages to consider this matter of zoning. I will go through this very briefly, as I say, I don't want to hold a lot of people up with a lot of detail . I would just like to quote a couple of things. The Town of East Hampton a while ago tried to interpret a condominium application as a change of use. The Attorney General of the State of, New York rejected that on the grounds that the conversion was not a change of use and (b) , only the Attorney General be, .specific and abling statutes had the authority to regulate conversions. It goes on with an opinion by the Department of State, which says the conversions are not changes in use. There are several cases in adjoining jurisdictions, States other than New York, that specify a condominium is not a change in use. I would like to go into three more items. It' s a general rule of law, and I don' t want to get into something esoteric because this is not a court of law. But there ' s a general law that if there ' s a question on the applica- tion of the law and then the legislature acts and does not change the law, then it is held that that action by the legis- lature in not changing the law is consent to what is going on before. And with the changes in the condominium, law 1980 , 1978 , without adding anything, is to subject it to local ordinances is in effect authority by the State Legislature that the correct interpretations have been given, and it is a change, not a use but a change of ownership only. There is a thing called the Uniform Condominium Act which is pertinent to people who pass laws on the State level as a model. And almost every law in this State in my profession and lifetime has been changed to comply to conform more with Uniform Acts, and the Uniform Condominium Act states, " . . .A zoning subdivision may not prohibit the condominium form of ownership or impose any requirement upon. a condominium. . . . " And it goes on, there is more to this brief, if necessary I can produce it to writing and submit it to the Board, or the Board' s attorney. Are there any questions .,from anyone? MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Could one of you gentlemen in the back open up the doors? It's getting very warm in here. It might help a little bit. MR. PELLICANE: Did I do that? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. It started before you did, and if there is anyone here on the Schoenhaar Hearing -- they came Southold Town Boara of Appeals -22- April 23 , 1981 with a notice, letter today that they have to have it recessed until the 14th of next month. I forgot about it before, but I just noticed it. Ok, Bill, do you have anything else? MR. PRICE : Just in summation and I realize it has been said over and over again, but all we' re talking about is chang- ing the ownership. We' re not talking about changing the use, the use as it is now conducted at that premises is absolutely legal and conducted pursuant to the terms of the zoning ordinance _and in accordance with the Certificate of Occupancy that has been issued by the Town. We are asking for an interpretation by this Board of the Zoning Ordinance, that the Zoning Ordinance does not preclude the ownership of these premises in the form of a condo- minium. We are asking this Board to reverse the two decisions of the Building Inspector for two reasons : Number (1) , that the Building Inspector erroneously equated a change in ownership with a change in use, and secondly that the Building Inspector by issuing these notices of Disapproval has acted beyond the scope of his authority. MEMBER SAWICKI: Mr. Price? You could end up with 41 separ- ate owners, right? MR. PRICE : Yes. MR. And who controls that? MR. PRICE: I assume that this is a normal small business corporation, and normally under those circumstances it would have 200 shares. of stock which would be authorized. So right now we could have 200 different owners of the property. MEMBER DOUGLASS : Mr. Price, what if any are the terms that agreed on for the new owners? MR. PRICE: Do you mean like bylaws and the like? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Nodded affirmatively. MR. PRICE: Those have. not yet been submitted to the Attorney General, the fellow that has to pass on those. if it passes before the Attorney General then they're all:,_rght. We cannot sell a single unit there before we have made the full disclosure to the New York State Attorney General, and he has approved the prospectus which is a disclosure intrument which describes each and every unit, describes what the bylaws are, what the estimated costs will be, the upkeep, the mainte- nance, how the place is going to be run and the like. But as I emphasized this, no matter what the actual particulars of that prospectus is we are going to run, and my clients rather will be running this motel as a motel. That would be set forth in the prospectus. It' s not going to be a dwelling unit. It will have to be made perfectly clear in that they are not going to be dwelling units, that they will be motel units . And that' s Southold Town .Board of Appeals--'- =23-' _,pril 23 , ' 1981 the short and long. MEMBER DOUGLASS: One other question. If it goes through up there and so on, who would be doing the renting of the rooms for the clients? MR. PRICE Under normal circumstances there is a manage- ment firm that would run the motel. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak for it? EDWARD HOFFMAN: No, .I. wanted to ask a question. MR. CHAIRMAN: May we have your name please, sir? MR. HOFFMAN: My name is Edward Hoffman and I live in Mill Colony. The question I want to ask is, they envision a manage- ment corporation. Who would that management corporation be? Would that be the individual owners, Mr. Price, the 41 units and the two larger units, or would that be a separate corporation? Who would the management corporation be? MR. PRICE : I don' t believe that that has been decided by the applicant yet, exactly how it' s going to be managed. However, no matter how it' s managed. and by whom it' s managed, they are still going to. have- to comply with the Town of Southold zoning ordinance, building code and the occupancy requirements. MR. HOFFMAN: In ;other_ words, it does differ in that respect as you see it now from the present management which you have for that unit? MR. PRICE : No more so than if we turned around and sold the corporation to someone else. MR. HOFFMAN: You mean, you would have the same managements? MR. .PRICE: If we turned around, if I sold the motel to you, -you would be the manager, or you could hire someone to go in and manage-- MR. HOFFMAN: ' With 43 owners there' s a difference. They all have a voice in the choosing in that management, don' t they? MR. PRICE: I don' t know how . it' s going to work yet or not. They.might, they might not. It' s my understanding that there is usually a management firm that is set up to the first few years. for The condominium. And they buy with that management, but that has not yet been determined by the applicant. MR. HOFFMAN: I think that 's terribly important. That was all I had to comment on. Southbld Town Board ui Appeals -24- pril 23 , 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. GASSER: I 'm Mr. Gasser of the North Road. I'd like to ask Mr. Price, that if so-_Antent on selling a unit, why don't you just sell shares in the .corporation; but by selling individual units you're actually changing the usage. If they want to leave it as a motel, sell the shares of the corporation, 41 or whatever they want. MR. PRICE: I 'm going to defer that question to Mr. Pellicane. MR. PELLICANE: What the gentleman is describing really is a cooperative, and yes I think they could do that. They could sell it to 41 different people as stockholders and you would have less control than you would under a condominium situation. Similarly they could sell it to 41 or 43 , whatever the number is individual people, each having a 1/41st or 1/43rd interest and then you would have a situation that this gentleman is afraid of . The thing here is that when you have a condominium, ,you have to be approved by the Attorney General, who is so restrictive and so particular on the things that you are concerned about, that you're going to end .up probably with due deference to the present owner, probably end up with better management, more closely controlled management by State Law with criminal sanctions than you do now where you have it owned by a corporation or an individual. MR. GASSER: Sir, I own . a condominium so I know a litttle bit about it. And there' s like over a million in Florida, but there are none that is a motel room. If they had hotels or motels, they're selling timesharing. They're not selling as condominium. I don' t know as far as you -- MR. PELLICANE: Well, the same thing applies. Timesharing concept is free...:of any regulations, and if this Board turns this owner down perhaps you will have timesharing which will be very much to the detriment of the community because then there will be no control. I don' t know what happens where you are in Florida, but in New York State there are condominiums made out of motel rooms and they work very well. MR. GASSER: I want to ask you another thing. What is to stop an individual owner from going entering into a sublease on timesharing plan with-,- MR. PELLICANE: There' s nothing to stop the owner now from doing that either. MR. GASSER: But he can do it? MR. PELLICANE: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN : Mrs. Kelly? Southold Town Board uj` Appeals 725- _ pril 23 , 1981 MRS. KELLY: I just have a question. If the Attorney General sets the specifications for what a condo should be like, what are the physical properties that a condominium should have as compared to a motel room? If they' re using the terms",.-.interchangeably, it' s a motel unit but it will be a condominium. Is a condominium only a bed and a bath? I never thought it was. I just wanted -to know what the Board had to say about what they will require condo' s to have and what the Attorney General is saying throughout New York State. what it is to consist of physically inside the roof ; to deter- mine condominium. MR. PRICE: I' d. like to answer that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Price. MR. PRICE : I believe that some people here are getting the connotation from the word "condominium" that all condominiums are apartments where people live in. That is not the case. As I've said before, a condominium is a form of ownership. You have condominium office buildings. You have condominium marinas where people own slips in the marinas. It is just the way that the property is held. There is a difference between owning property individually and owning property in the corporate form, just as there is a difference between owning property as partners or tenants in common as opposed to condominium. The word condo- minium does not mean that they' re going to be apartments. These are going to be motel rooms. They are going to be subject to all of:,the_::use restrictions of the Town of Southold, all of the occupancy requirements, everything else. And I believe that for anyone to extrapolate beyond that to assume that people are going to be living in these places, they are not going to be living in these places. When the disclosure is made to the Attorney General, they'regoing to know that they are buying a motel room. They are going to be, it is going to be disclosed to them that the Town of Southold zoning ordinance, Chapter 100 of the Code of the Town of Southold prohibits these units from being a dwelling unit. They cannot live there. I mean, it' s just like everybody owns an automobile that can go over 55 miles an hour. You know, you can go out and speed and go 85 miles an hour, it' s against the law -- and then if you get caught by the police you're in trouble. It' s the same with these units. You're not, we 're not selling them to be lived in. If someone lives in them, they' re breaking the law. They could be breaking the bylaws, everything. So once. again, they're going to be subject to the control of the Town for use and occu- pancy and everything else. But as far as how it' s owned, the Town doesn' t have the power to say how it' s owned. MEMBER DOUGLASS : Mr. Price, I 'd like to ask you a question before you sit down. Didn't your expert just say that no controls can be put on by local on a condominium? MR. PRICE: That ' s right. On the form of ownerships is what he has.-;stated. Not necessarily on the use of the premises. Southold Town Board Appeals -26- _pril 23, 1981 (Mr. Price continued: ) Do_-.you, would you want to- .explain further to him? MR. PELLICANE: Yes. _ I think he did. That' s on the form of ownership. Again I want to go back to the comparison, '::if '_, this man wants to convey the motel to you and myself, the Town has no say in that. But the usage of the motel, that is, that no ,one has a kitchen in the rooms and things of that nature, is subject to the Code of the Town and subject to policing by the police and by the Building Inspector of the Town. There' s a distinction between ownership, he can sell it to me and to you and anyone he wants, and the Town, no authority, the Town, the State can' t really control that, the control under the condominium is a very strict control over and above what you would have if you gave = ,the ownership to you and to me. The usage remains with the Town of Southold and its Building Inspector and its police department. And no one can change that. J. SCHOENDEBARE: I'm getting a little confused because what I read as far as. our notice is concerned and the request and what we' re talking about gets to be two different things. As I see the notice that was published we 're talking about for a variance for the permission to change the use of the premises and permission to .establish single-living units within multi- dwelling motel. at the premises. That' s how I read it. And as I read the sections that we're talking about in. that application, we 're talking about a variance under the definition section of the Code, and I assume we're talking about what constitutes a dwelling unit, you want a. variance for that. You want a variance for motel because that' s a definition in there also. And we talk about 100-50.(B) (1) (b) and then we' re talking about a motel again. As I read the notice we want variances for these things-- a use variance,. etc. That' s how I read the notice and that' s how I assume this is what it' s about. They' re now before the Board, and we're talking about and it' s clearly indicated they' re not seeking that. So what' s in the notice and what' s in the petition is not what we' re talking about here -this evening. And I'm not too sure we can do or you can talk about what we're discussing this evening based on what I see in,.-.this notice, and the request. They' re two different things. They said over and over again they' re not going to change the use. So if they're not changing. the use then all this request in here doesn' t follow because they' re not going to change the use. So any request should be denied. They've- indicated that constantly. They've also indicated that with regards to the ownership or establishing a condominium it' s out ,of their hands with the Zoning Board; that is , it' s in the hands of the Attorney General . Then again if it' s out of your hands we' re not too sure why we' re here. We' re indicating because the Building Inspectors denied a C/O for one motel unit, which was in his perogative to do so. But based on the notice and based on the conversation, you can' t decide what' s going to be a condominium because that' s up to the Attorney General , and they 're not here requesting usage and they told us Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- __pril 23 , 1981 (Mr. Schondebare continued: ) over and over again. So I'm .again getting confused as to what the petition is about .and what we're arguing about this evening. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak against this? MR. SCHONDEBARE: I would like to have a loaded audience back there, loaded. I would take no credit for that. (The audience had applauded at .the end of his statement. ) MR. PRICE: I would like to point out to the Board that the petition that I presented to this. Board states at the top that it is an appeal.. It does not state that it' s a request for a variance. Your . Section 100-121 of the Code .of the Town of Southold, paragraph (a) says that this Board shall listen to appeals and they say to hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Building Inspector. Here we have what is clearly an erroneous decision by the Building Inspector. To have a variance, we have to say that the zoning ordinance applies to our action. The -zoning ordinance does not apply to our action. That' s where the Building Inspector made his mistake. Now the question has been raised, why are we here. From the outset and this Board knows this, I have said that we wanted to proceed with cooperation with this Town Board, with the Zoning Board of Appeals and with the Town of Southold in this. We wanted to be up front with everything. And what we would like to do is to be able to go to the Attorney General and not have any possible clouds on what we're doing.. I'm sure that if we go ahead and proceed before the Attorney General, now this Board, or the Building Inspector, or the Town Board is going to write to them and say, "Hey, these guys are supposed to be getting some sort of relief from us. They haven 't gotten it.. " The 'Attorney General is going to write back 'and say, . "They don't need this. But we wanted to come in here and cooperate with everyone. Now what we are asking for, - what we are asking for is for this Board to .interpret the zoning ordinance to state that the zoning ordinance does not apply to the form of ownership. That' s what we're requesting to reverse those two decisions by, the Building Inspector. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Your name, sir. HENRY .GETZ : Henry Getz out on the North Road in Southold. Well , they talk about at present the occupancy rate is 175 people =rthat is wth:.a .managing agent on the premises. Now -- if;_this was sold off to 41 separate people or however many, and now it' s going to be operated by an absentee operator, .actually, in practice probably the only person that' s going to be actually a representative of that managing agent is going to be a mainte- nance man or something like that. They're not going to have somebody that will rent rooms when everybody has their own keys to come in. Now if you pull up there, and the people are actually the owners of the motel it--)p.resently is, they' re not going to rent Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- __pril 23 , 1981 (Mr. Getz continued: ) to more than 175 people. But who is to say that, how many people are going to be there when every person that comes has their own key? Who is to say how many people are going to be in those rooms? Who is going to enforce that? Maybe this man walking around with a screwdriver? Or is it going to be put on the Town of Southold, that they' re going to have to send somebody over there to go around physically to count like how many people are actually in the rooms? It doesn' t sound here like they're doing something that' s good. It sounds more like their grandmother' s going to become a public nuisance, a nuisance of the people that live around them, a nuisance that has drained on the resources of the Town to enforce something which is going to become pr:actially" .iinenforceab(le:.-.. It doesn 't sound like they're asking for something there. They 're saying there ' s nothing you can do about what we intend to do, but we have to go through this stage because we are going to go on into Albany but we will get what it is- .we..'.want in the first place. It seems like there' s a loophole in- the law because it' s something new. Something that has .never come up before. And the Town is going to remise because they don' t really have this covered in your Code. Probably the State is remise because we're talking about the present condominiums that are put up is inside the City -- we 're not talking about a rural area, wherein something like this where it' s a wooden-framed dwelling, which could become quite hazardous. Presently it' s open Memorial Day to Labor Day. Who is going to enforce that if there ' s nobody there at the different times when everybody has their own key? It sounds like what is being perpetrated-- a nuisance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mrs. Kelly? MRS. KELLY: I 'm so confused. You know. I 'm always referring to the condos over on the bayside that sold right past that Crescent Beach riding stables across from the Island's End Golf Course. Friends of ours bought a condo there, and I'm confused as to what are the requirements of this Board that tells you what consists of a condo. Greenport, is still part of Southold Town, and they have a regular little living room and a kitchen and they have, of course,. it was a motel at one time if you know which area I 'm talking about. I don 't know the name of the motel. But that' s a condo. That ' s what I consider a condo, and it' s controlled by residents themselves -- they created a Board and they have a say as to what goes on and they limit things there. I'm really afraid of what' s going to happen here, because I 'm going to take pictures of some with my polaroid camera, and I 'm going to show you there are more than 175 people there, because we have to put up with it. We have beach funds there we have to put up with it. They' re fishing poles over our heads, the boats across our toes. It' s unbelievable. The cars are parked all over, and there it is supposed to be controlled , .with . owners of the motel on the residence-- I mean living right there. What' s going to happen when they ' re all independent owners and there is no control? What concern-- is this going to be a little dumpy town? I'm just a very concerned resident. Southold Town Board W,Z Appeals -29- pril 23 , 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs— Kelly. I have a letter here that I am going to read in now that' s from one of your neighbors down there, Mr. Kempner: . . . .March 5 , 1981 . . .With respect to the hearing on appeal application (No. 2684) of the North Fork Motel, Inc. for a Variance to the zoning ordinance for permission to change the existing motel use to privately-owned units (or condominium) use in a B Zone, I would like to have the following comments noted in your final determination: I, Stanley K. Kempner, owner of a summer home that adjoins the west boundary of the North Fork Motel, do not object to the selling of the motel as a condominium with privately owned units. However, I insist on some sort of control over the transaction and subsequent operation. This means : 1 . The number of units would be limited-,-.to 15 or 20 units; with a maximum number of 20 units. 2. Each unit would have to have at least a separate bedroom, kitchen and living room area (also a bathroom) . 3 . Each unit would be limited to one-family occupancy. 4 . A fence would be provided between the motel (condominium) and the. property on the west. The fence to be a minimum of a six-foot stockade type fence or its equivalent. 5. A professional condominium management corporation would be established that was funded by the tenants and was legally responsible for: (a) Building maintenance (b) Grounds maintenance (c) Beach, deck and stairs maintenance . (d) Cesspool maintenance (e) Administering the conduct of the condominium in a manner that is in keeping with the quiet rural neighborhood that it is a part of. . Thanking you for the opportunity to comment, I am Very truly yours, /s/ Stanley K. Kempner. . . . Southold Town Board u= Appeals -30- __rril 23 , 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else here to speak against this application? ALICE LARSEN: I want it to go on record -- Alice Larsen as saying that I wouldn' t like to see anything done until you find out how the management starts or who is going to take it over as manager before they get even the first one sold. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well , if it ever should come about, I think the Attorney .General will see to that. Yes, your name please? MRS. SCHWEIWET: Mrs. Schweiwet, Mill Colony. What has the Attorney General to say sitting up in Albany about what we have to put up with down here?. He has no knowledge of what our town wants. Now why should he have jurisdiction to say so. Does he? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, he has jurisdiction. He just has to be notified of the problem. MR. R. GASSER: As far as our Town Attorney, is he well prepared to handle this case? MR. CHAIRMAN: He' s got a big smile on his face right behind you. What was your name, sir? MR. GASSER: Richard Gasser. SECRETARY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else have anything more to say on this before we call a halt? MRS... B. GASSER: B. Gasser, North Road. Is this supposed to be all year. round if they sell it as a condominium, right? Is it just supposed to be six months? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, condominium the more I read or hear about it, I understand it' s just a form of ownership actually. It could be a motel that' s only open three months of the year maybe, but it' s owned by several people. MRS. GASSER: If they have a deed though, they can come all year round, right? MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, sure. MRS. GASSER: And the heating and water wouldn' t work. MRS. Do they have heating in that motel? They would have to put heat in. But I can' t understand how they can call a bedroom and a bathroom a condominium. I have a condominium in Florida -- I can' t understand that. He doesn' t have any living room, any kitchen, how are those people going to cook. And they Southold Town Board of appeals -31- A--_ _....1 23, 1981 can' t say they're not going to have a dwelling. Bull! I don't believe that. MR. CHAIRMAN: , I ' ll offer. a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision on this. MEMBER SAWICKI: Seconded On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of North Fork Motel, Inc. in Appeal No. 2778 . Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. P.UBL'IC:-HEARING: Appeal No. 2812. Application of Roy C• Schoenhaar, 315 Wyckoff Avenue, Brooklyn, NY (by Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. ) for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 and Art. VII, . Sec. 100-71 for approval of insufficient area and width of two parcels in a three-lot proposed subdivision, and approval of access pursuant ..to New York Town Law Section 280-a. Location of property: South .side of .Main-Road (S.R. 25) , Mattituck, NY; bounded north by S.R. 25, west by Matt Agency, Jarzombek, Roth and .others, south by Mellender, east by Pumillo, Hallock, Steinhart, Jackson and Bilianos:. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-143-2-33. 2. The Chairman opened the hearing at 10c12",p.m. by reading the appeal application and related documents, legal notice of hearing and noting affidavits attesting to publication in both the local and official newspapers, Notice of .Disapproval,,-froin,the Building Inspector, and letter from. the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining,property owners was made; fee paid $15.00 . MR. CHAIRMAN.: Is there anyone here wishing to speak for this application? (Negative) Is there anyone. here wishing to speak against this application? . (Negative) On motion. by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to recess the matter of Roy C. Schoenhaar, Appeal No. 2812, until the next regular meeting of this Board, to wit, May 14 , 1981. Vote-;of .the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Motion was .made _by.,Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, and unanimously carried, to set the next regular meeting of this Board to be Thursday, May 14 , 1981 at 7:00 o'clock p.m, to be Southold Town Board oL Appeals -31- A_ . 1 23, 1981 can't say they're not going to. have a dwelling. Bull! I don' t believe that. MR. CHAIRMAN: I' ll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision on this. MEMBER SAWICKI: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter of North Fork Motel, Inc. in Appeal No. 2778 . Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2812. Application. of Roy C. Schoenhaar, 315 .Wyckoff Avenue, Brooklyn, NY (by Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. ) for a Variance to.. the Zoning Ordinance , Art. III, Sec. 100-31 and Art. VII, Sec . 100-71 for approval of insufficient area and width of two parcels in a three-lot proposed subdivision, and approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law Section 280-a. Location of Property: South Side of Main Road (S.R. 25) , Mattituck, NY; bounded north by S.R. 25, west by Matt Agency, Jarzombek, Roth and others; south by Mellender, east by Pumillo, Hallock, Steinhart, Jackson, Bilianos. County Tax. Map Item No. 1000-143-2-33 . 2. Public hearings were held on this matter April 23 , 1981 and this date. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 10 :12 p.m. and asked whether there was anyone present wishing to speak on behalf , against, or for any reason, and no one wished to make comments. The Chairman read the following letter received May 12, 1981 from Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. concerning this matter: . . . I have been authorized by my client to withdraw the variance application presently pending this Board "without prejudice. " Very truly yours, /s/ GARY FLANNER OLSEN . . . . On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 2812, application of Roy C. Schoenhaar, be withdrawn without prejudice, as requested Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- April 23, 1981 held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. APPEAL NO. 2788 - Application of Frank E. and Mary Brophy. Concerning the above-entitled matter, which which an informal presentation was made by William H. Price, Jr. , attorney for the applicants Frank E. and Mary Brophy, the following .resolution was adopted: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, Appellants ' attorney appeared before the Board to present arguments for a rehearing, and no evidence or information was presented which was no previously presented in-.the two previous appeals concerning this property; and accordingly, the application for a rehearing is denied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. APPEAL NO. 2815 - Application of Charles A. Brautigam. Concerning the above-.entitled matter, the following resolution was adopted: On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, WHEREAS, Appellant-has applied to this Board by application dated April 15 , 1981 for a . rehearing; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 1981, this Board was served with a petition in an Article 78 Proceeding to review the determination of this Board made on March 19, 1981 in Appeal No. 2775; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, under the circumstances, the application for a rehearing is denied. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded .by Mr. Grigonis, and carried, to recess the regular meeting in order to go into "closed session for deliberations, " at 10 :35 o'clock p.m. (approx. ) . J Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and carried, to reconvene the regular meeting at 10 :55 o'clock p.m. Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- April 23, 1981 On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, BE IT RESOLVED, that applicant, Agnes Dunn, in Appeal No. 2803, is hereby requested to submit six copies of an updated accurate survey certified by a licensed surveyor showing the setbacks of the existing buildings from each property line, and certifying the proposed division,1 Ines. Vote of the Board: Ayes: .Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. APPEAL NOS. 2710 and 2798 - Applications..of Dolores Strong. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the Chairman is hereby. authorized and directed to forward a .written response to Edward Hindermann., Building and Housing Inspector, concerning the above matters outlining which Conditions (No. 3, 4 and 5) of this Board' s decision dated October 2, 1980, Appeal No. 2710 .and .recommending that a "panick- lever" opening from the inside be utilized. (It was mentioned that during the entire weekend of April 18th, the front doors were being utilized rather than the entrance doors recommended by this Board, entirely in .violation. of the 'emergency-use only , condition. ) Vote of .the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Sawicki and Grigonis. Memb:er.:Goehringer abstained. APPEAL NO. 2823,.- Application. of Perrie. Pascucci. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. . Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that .applicant and/or his agent in Appeal No. 2823 application of Perrie Pascucci, submit the following concerning this application prior -to the scheduling. of this matter for a public hearing: Six copies of an accurate and certified survey (certified by a licensed surveyor or licensed engineer) showing: (a) the ground elevations above mean sea level; (b) the lowest floor elevation of the proposed structure; (c) the proposed location of the new structure with all setback distances from property lines. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- April 23, 1981 On motion by- Mr. Doyen, seconded .by Mr. Grigonis., it was RESOLVED, that the following appeals be scheduled and advertised for public hearings to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York at the next regular meeting of this Board, to wit, Thursday, May 14, 1981 : 7 :00 p.m. Woolston, Joseph and Sara. Deck with insufficient rearyard .at 27 Greenwood Road., Fishers Island. 7 :05 p.m. Fransson, .Karl .E. Approval of access. Private Road, Fishers Island. 7 :15 p.m. Pyrovolakis, Odysseas. , Dwelling with insufficient front and rear yard setbacks at 3180 Stars Road, East Marion. 7 :25 p.m. Scott, Donald. Addition to dwelling with insufficient front .and rear yard setbacks at NE/corner of Beachwood Lane and Critten' s Lane, Southold. 7 :35 p.m. Young, Alfred T. and Audrey M. To convert .preexisting nonconforming dwelling in a B-1 Zone into two-family dwelling use at 295 Beckwith Ave, Southold. 7 :45 p.m. Puric, Peter and Helen. Construct addition to dwell- ing with insufficient rearyard at 1250 Second Street, New Suffolk. . 7 :55 p.m. Franken, Wilhelm. Garage in front, side and rear yard areas with insufficient setbacks at 870 Tarpon Drive, Greenport. 8 :10 p.m. Strong, David. Sign with insufficient front and side yard setbacks at 11455 S.R. 25 , Mattituck. 8 :20 p.m. Kmetz, Stephen J. Jr. (by Gruhill Constr. ) New dwelling with insufficient front and/or rear yards at 550 Greenway West, Orient. 8 :45 p.m. Davids, Herbert W. Insufficient area and width of three proposed parcels at Seawood Acres Subdivision, Lots 25, 26 and 27, Southold. 9 :00 P.M. Ketcham, Robert. Erect off-premises-advertising sign in a B-1 Zone at 6800 Main Road, Greenport. Vote of ., Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. J Southold Town Board o�_ -_ppeals -35- -il 23, 1981 APPEAL No. 2814 - Joseph and Sara Woolston. Location of Property: 27 Greenwood Road, Fishers Island. 1000-12-1-13 .4. ENVIRONMENTAL .DECLARATION: On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi- ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva- tion Law, . and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason (s) : An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented as planned herein. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department .or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli- cation. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. APPEAL NO. 2810 , - Karl E. Fransson. Location of Property: Private Road, Fishers . Island. 1000- 3-6-4 . ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: On mo.tion: ..by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi- ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva- tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason (s) : An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were J Southold Town Board of __ppeals -36- it 23 , 1981 likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented as planned herein. The property in question appears to be, located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands but the wetland area is separated by a road or similar type of barrier. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli- cation. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. APPEAL NO. 2816 , - Odysseas Pryrovolakis. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: On motion by Mr. Doyen. , seconded by Mr. Grigonis, v Pursuant to Section 617 . 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi- ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva- tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason (s) : An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been .sub- mitted which indicates that no significant. adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented as planned herein. The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal. appli- cation. Location of Property: 3180 Stars Road, East Marion. 1000-22-2-19. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Southold Town Board oi. nppeals -37- = --il 23 , 1981 APPEAL NO. 2819 - Donald Scott. Location of Property: Northeast corner of Beachwood and Critten' s Lanes, Southold, NY. 1000-70-11-8. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: On motion by Mr. Doyen seconded by Mr. Grigonis, Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi- ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva- tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason (s) : An Environmental Assessment in the Short -Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented as planned herein. The property in question appears .to be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands but the wetland area is separated by a road or similar type of barrier. This declaration should not be considered .a determination made for any other department or. agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli- cation. Vote of the Board: Ayes.: Messrs. .Doyen, .Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. APPEAL NO. . 2820 - Alfred T. and Audrey M. Young. Location of Property : 295 Beckwith Avenue, Southold. 1000-61- 1-23. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: On motion by Mr. Doyen seconded by Mr. Grigonis, Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi- ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva- tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason (s) : Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- April 23 , 1981 An Environmental Assessment .in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented as planned herein. The property in question is not located. within 300 feet of tidal wetlands. This declaration should not be consider.ed. a determination made for any other department .or. agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not .covered by the subject appeal appli- cation. Vote of the Board.: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. APPEAL NO. 2821 - Peter and Helen Puric. Location of Property: . 1250 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY. 1000-117-7-23. ENVIRONMENTAL .DECLARATION: On motion by Mr. Doyen seconded by Mr. Grigonis, Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi- ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva- . tion Law, . and Section 44-4 . of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II Action not having a significant. .adverse .effect upon the environment for the following reason (s) : An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment should. this project be implemented as planned herein. The property in question appears to be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands but the wetland area is separated by a road or similar type of barrier. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or. agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli- cation. Vote of the Board: . Ayes : Messrs.. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, J Sawicki and Grigonis. Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- Apr.il. 2.3, 19$1 APPEAL NO. 2822 - David Strong. Location of Property : 11455 Main Road, Mattituck. .1000-142- 2-17. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: On motion by Mr. Doyen , seconded. by Mr. Grigonis, Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi- ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva- tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason (s) : . An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented as planned herein. The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject .appeal appli- cation. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. APPEAL NO. 2817 - Stephan J. Kmetz. Location of Property : 550 Greenway West, Orient, NY. 1000- 15-1-19 . ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: On motion by Mr. Doyen , seconded by Mr. Grigonis, Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of Envi- ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva- tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II Action not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason (s) : An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented as planned herein. Southold Town Board o�_ -nppeals -40- ._il 23 , 1981 The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands. This declaration should not he considered a .determination made for any other .department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli- cation. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen., Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. APPEAL NO. 2818 - Herbert W. Davids. Location of Property: Seawood Acres Subdivision Lots 25, 26 and 27. 1000-79-7-64 , 65 and 66 . ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: On motion by Mr. Doyen , seconded by Mr. Grigonis, Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y .S. Department of Envi- ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva- tion Law, . and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby .classified as a Type II Action not having. a significant adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason (s) : An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has .been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment should this project be implemented as planned herein. The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands. This declaration should not be considered .a determination made for any other department or. agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not. covered by the subject appeal appli- cation. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen., Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Southold Town Board of ..,?peals -41- it 23, 1981 APPEAL NO. 2824 - Robert Ketcham Location of Property: (Owner: Joseph Schoenstein) . 6800 Main Road, Greenport, NY. 1000-53-2-15 .001. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: On motion by Mr. Doyen , seconded by Mr. Grigonis, Pursuant to .Section 617. 13 of. the N.Y.S. Department of Envi- ronmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva- tion Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals has determined that the subject project as proposed herein is hereby classified as a Type II Action not having a significant -adverse effect upon the environment for the following reason (s) : An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been sub- mitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment should. this project be implemented as planned herein. The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands. This declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also be involved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject appeal appli- cation. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. . * * * On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it wa RESOLVED, that. Appeal No. 1919 , application for. la .:Special Exception for premises currently utilized by Peconic Antiques for a roof sign on side of building at Main Road, Peconic, New York is hereby rescinded, terminating its effect thereof, for nonrenewal and after this Board' s receiving notice that the sign no longer exists. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and .Grigonis. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, Appellant has applied to this Board by application dated April 15, 1981 for a rehearing. On April 17, 1981 this Board was served with a petition in an Article 78 Proceeding to review the determination of this Board made on March 19 , 1981 in Appeal No. 2775. Under the circumstances, the application for a rehear- ing is denied. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Southold Town Board oi- nppeals -42- Apri 23 , 1981 RESERV.ED_.DECISION: Appeal No. 2804 . By application of Southold Grange, Inc. and others , Beckwith Avenue, Southold, NY (by Rudolph Bruer, Esq. ) for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. VII, Sec . 100-70 (B) [1] (a) for a Certificate of Occupancy of building for church use in a B-1 Zone at 475 Beckwith Avenue , Southold, NY; bounded north by Traveler Street and L. I.R.R. ; west by Southold Equities; south by Mallgraf; east by Beckwith Avenue and Traveler Street; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-61-1-25 . —� The Board finds and determines as follows : By this application, applicant has requested permission to use premises for the operation of a house of worship, which is permissible in a B-1 Business District by Special Exception, subject to Site Plan approval of the Planning Board (Art. VII, Section 100-70 (B) [1] . Erected on the subject premises is a substantially large frame building, preexisting of the zoning ordinance. The property in question has approximately 38 . 26 ' road frontage on Beckwith Avenue and a depth of approximately 128 ' , with a total square footage of 4 , 700 square feet, more or less . The Board is in receipt of written approval from the Southold Town Planning Board indicating that there is suffi- cient parking available for this proposed use. The Board determines that the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent-use district; that the .use will not pre- vent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or `legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located or of permitted or legally-established uses in adjacent-use district; that the safety, health, welfare, com- fort, convenience and order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; and that the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this chapter. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Southold . Grange, Inc. , Main Road, Southold, NY (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. as attorney) be granted a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD pursuant to Article VII, Section 100-70 (B) [1] (a) . Location of property : 475 Beckwith Avenue, Southold, NY; bounded north by Traveler Street and L.I.R.R. ; west by Southold Equities; south by Mallgraf; east by Beckwith Avenue and Traveler Street; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-61-1-25. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Southold Town Board or appeals -43- April -3 , 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2813 . Application of Cybil Kooper, South Drive, Mattituck, NY (by Arthur Siemerling) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article, III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct swimmingpool in the front and/or side yard areas at "Canoe Path, " private road located at the end of South Drive, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by Skinner; west by Canoe Path; south by Mattituck Creek; east by Northridge. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-106-11-23 . By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct an in-ground swimmingpool at premises fronting on Canoe Path, Matti- tuck, approximately 105 ' from Canoe Path and approximately 85 ' . from a private right-of-way located at the north side of the property, and approximately 51 ' from the existing barn at the northeast corner of the premises. It is the feeling of the Board that this location is most feasible. The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial in::--relation to the Code requirements; that the relief requested '-is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; that the practical " difficulty is unique; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; and that the interests of justice will best be served by granting the variance as applied for and SUBJECT TO referral to the Suffolk County---Planning Commission. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded. by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Cybil Kooper (by Arthur Siemerling) be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 as applied for in Appeal No. 2813 and SUBJECT TO referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to The Suffolk County Charter. Location of property:. East side of.. Canoe Path, Mattituck; bounded -_north by Skinner; west by Canoe Path; south by Mattituck Creek; east by Northridge. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-106-11-23 . Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Southold Town Board of __ppeals -44- April 1, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2794 . By application of Victor E. Catalano, 22 Canterbury Drive, Hauppauge, NY 11787 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec . 100-31 for permis- sion to build a one-story garage with insufficient front and side yard setbacks at the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel , NY; bounded north by Catalano and Peconic Bay Blvd. , east by Keller, south by Bay, west by Pridgen; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-6- 13 . 2 . By this appeal , appellant seeks permission to build a one- story garage on premises located on a private right-of-way (also owned. by appellant herein) off the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, with an insufficient frontyard setback in line with the northeast corner of the subject dwelling and with an insufficient easterly sideyard setback of six feet at the southerly end of the proposed addition and 12 feet at the northerly end of the proposed addition. The subject dwelling has existed prior to adoption of the zoning ordinance and is situated on the lot at an unusual angle. Running along the westerly side of this premises is a 10 ' wide foot path. The Board agrees with reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief requested is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; that the variance will not change the character. of the neighborhood; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the practical difficulty is unique; and that the interests of justice will be served by granting the relief herein as noted. below. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Victor E. Catalano be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 in Appeal No. 27941 as follows : . (1) That the proposed addition be constructed with a minimum setback of 8 feet at the east side/south end, and (2) That the proposed addition be constructed with a minimum setback of 10 feet at the east side/north end, and (3) That this matter be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to The Suffolk County Charter. Location of property: Right-of-way off the south side of Great Peconic Bay. Boulevard, Laurel; bounded. no.rth by Catalano and Peconic Bay Boulevard; east by Keller; south by Bay; west by Pridgen. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-6-13 . 2 . ✓ Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and. Grigonis. Southold Town Board of 1�,,eals -45= _ ':il 23 , 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2806 . Application of Sarah Rauch, 480 Inlet Lane, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 for permission to relocate existing dwelling with insufficient frontyard setbacks. Location of property: 68175 C.R. 48 (and McCann:;..Lane) , Greenport; bounded north by Casa; west by Burt; south by C.R. 48; east by McCann Lane; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-33-3-38 and 39. Public Hearing was held on this matter same date hereof. The Board made the following findings and determination concern- ing this appeal : By this appeal, appellant seeks a variance to relocate an existing dwelling with a present frontyard setback off County Road 48 of "18 ' and frontyard setback off McCann Lane of 441 , and requesting setbacks off County Road 48 of 29' and off McCann Lane of 25' . Upon personal inspection, the Board finds that the neighbor to the north is set back 36 ' from McCann Lane, and that the neighbor to the west is setback 43 ' , approximately, from the County Road. The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief requested is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; that the variance if granted will not change the character of the neighborh000d; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the hardship or practical difficulty is unique; and that the interests of justice will be served by granting the relief requested as noted below. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Sarah Rauch be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-31 to relocate dwelling SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (a) That the dwelling .not be located closer than 30 feet from property line fronting on County Road 48; (b) That the dwelling not be located closer than 36 feet from property line fronting on McCann Lane; (c) That this matter be referred :to the Suffolk County Department of Planning pursuant to the Suffolk County Charter rules and regula- tions. Location of property: 68175 C.R. 48 (and McCann Lane) , Greenport; bounded north by Casa; west by Burt; south by C.R. 48 ; east by McCann Lane; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-33-3-38 and 39. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. l Southold Town Board oi -ppeals -46- _ .`il 23, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2809 . Application of Mary Ann Mastroianni Grefe, .395 . Tuthill Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec . 100-32 for . per- mission to construct swimmingpool in sideyard area at 395 Tuthill Road, Southold; bounded north by Sauthoff; west. by Tuthill-. Road; south by DiLalla; east by Tuthill; Yennecott Park Subdivision Map No. 5187, Subd. Lot #25.; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-55-4-3 . Public Hearing was held on this matter same date hereof. The Board finds and determines as follows: By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct an 18 ' -by 36 ' swimmingpool with a minimum sideyard setback of 25 ' and rearyard setback at its closest point of 8'.. Existing on the premises is a large one-story frame house with circular driveway. The lot in question is heavily wooded. The Board finds that the relief requested is not .substantial in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief requested is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; that the variance if granted will not change the character of the . neighborh000d; that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the hardship or practical difficulty is unique; and that the interests of justice will be served -by granting the relief . requested. as noted below. On motion. by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Mary Ann Mastroianni Grefe be granted permission to construct swimmingpool with an insufficient rearyard setback as applied for of not less than eight feet at its closest point with property lines, at premises known as 395 Tuthill Road, Southold, New York; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-55-4-3. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen_, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. J Southold Town Board _1 Appeals -47- it 23 , 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2782. Application of John and Mary Pietrodangelo, 52340 Main Road, Southold, NY (by Rudolph H:.-,.-.Bruer, Esq. ) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30 (A) , (C) for permission to operate a retail flower shop on first floor of existing building in an A-Residential District. Location of Property: 52340 Main Road (S.R. 25) , . Southold, NY; bounded north by S.R. 25; west by Charnews; south by Southold School District No. 5; east .by Terry; County Tax .Map Item No. 1000-63-6-9. Public Hearings were held concerning this matter March 5 , 1981, and March 12, 1981. The Board finds and determines as. follows: The premises consists of a .parcel of land having frontage on the south side of Route 25 of 65 feet and a depth .of approximately 200 feet. The premises are .improved with a 22-story wood frame structure, private garage in the rear, and tool shed. The premises have been prior to zoning occupied for two-family use and accord- ingly has a nonconforming use status. The Board also finds that the properties located in the neighborhood on both sides of the highway are of a character similar to the instant parcel and ac- cordingly the appellants' circumstances are similar to the cir- cumstances existing generally in the neighborhood. It is the opinion of the Board the. appellants' plight should be addressed to the Town Board with a .view possibly of rezoning the area abutting Route 25 to a business area. . It is the opinion of this Board . that although applicants have indicated that they cannot obtain a fair. return..of the investment, that this situation generally exists with all neighboring properties. Accordingly, on motion by`Mr:. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, the appeal is denied. Location of Property: 52340 Main Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-63-6-9. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. Southold Town Board o�_­ appeals -48- =aril 23, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2807 . Application of Thomas Collins, 26 Trainer Court, Huntington, NY 11743 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, . Sec. 100-30A(1) for permission to construct accessory (storage) building on vacant land as principal use at 275 Dawn Drive, Greenport, NY; bounded north by Martens, west by Dawn Drive, south by Wallin, east by Dawn Lagoon; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-35-5-20 . A public hearing concerning this matter .was held under same date hereof. By this appeal., appellant seeks permission to construct a six-foot hexagonal storage building to be located at the southeast corner of the subject premises. The lot in question is not improved with any structures. The Board finds that to grant the relief requested would result in the property in question being .the only parcel in the immediate area of this residential community with an outside storage building as a .principal building. It would be the only parcel in this area which would be used for the sole pur- pose of storing materials since the appellant .has not indicated that the property would be used for the construction of a dwelling. Further, the Board has been,. apprised .that the property is subject to covenants and restrictions which prohibit the con struction of an accessory building prior to the construction of a residence on the lot. On motion by Mr. Sawicki., seconded by. Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Thomas Collins.. be denied a variance to the zoning ordinance, Art. III, Sec. 100-30A(1) . Location of Property: 275 Dawn Drive,. Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-35-5-20 . Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki and Grigonis. i • Southold Town Board o_ _ippeals -49_ Al 1 2.3, 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal # 2798. Application of Dolores Strong, Box 1033 , Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. VI, Sec . 100-60C, 100-61, and Art. II, Sec. 100-23 for permission to con- struct fence in the side, rear and/or front yard areas at 11455 Main Road, Mattituck; bounded north by Van Ryswyk and O'Neil, east by Mileska, south by S.R. 25 (Main Road) , west by Burgon; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-142-2-17. The Board finds and determines as follows: By this appeal, appellant seeks a variance to erect a 5-foot chain link fence with three strands of wire on top (total : 616 "H) at the west side of the premises extending northerly to the rear property line, running thence along the rear property line and thence running southerly along the east property line approximately 190 feet in length, and with gates at the front end of the main building, east and west sides. The premises in question is appro- ximately 23 ,500 square feet in area, 97 feet along S.R. 25 and an average depth of 240 feet. The Board finds that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the Code requirements; that the relief requested is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance; that the variance if granted will not change the character of the neighborhood; that no adverse effect will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that the hardship and/or practical difficulty is unique; and that the interests of justice will be served by granting the relief requested as noted below. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that Dolores Strong, be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, Art. VI, Sections 100-60C, 100-61, and Art. II, Sec . 100-23 , SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the fence shall not be located south of the rear line of the main building, and shall extend north as proposed in the application in order to allow -parking to be utilized at both sides; 2. That the gates shall remain open at all times during regular business hours; 3 . That the fence shall not exceed the height applicant proposes (5-foot high chainlink fence with three strands of wire) ; 4 . That compliance is to be made with previous variances; 5 . That this decision be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to the Suffolk County Charter. Location of Property: 11455 Main Road, Mattituck; bounded ✓ north by VanRyswyk and O'Neil , east by Mileska, south by S.R. 25 , west by Burgon. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-142-2-17. Southold Town Board oi -appeals -50- April 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2796 . Application of Peconic Corporation, c/o Norris Grain Co. , P.O. Box 1058 , Ocala, FL 32670 (by Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. ) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec . 100-30 and 100-31 for permission to convert existing barn containing a one-family dwelling by adding a second dwelling (apart- ment) on second floor. Location of property: South side of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck; bounded north by New Suffolk Avenue, east by Wickham and Bagshaw, south by Bay, west by Smith, Haberman and Camp Mineola Road; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-115-9-4 . The Board finds and determines as follows : By this appeal , Appellant seeks a variance to convert the second-floor of an existing structure with a one-family apartment on the first floor to an additional dwelling/apartment. In addi- tion to this structure, the property contains a preexisting two- family dwelling, and several accessory buildings. The entire premises in question contains approximately 45. 3 acres. Upon researching. this matter, the Board finds that Section 100-30 (B) (1) of_^:the..,Code permits two-family dwellings and conversions of existing buildings by Special Exception and Site Plan Approval not to exceed one such dwelling on each lot; and that Section 100-31 (Bulk Schedule) permits a two-family. dwelling in this A-Residential and Agricultural District provided it complies with the minimum requirements of 80 ,000 square feet in area, 270 feet of lot width, 250 feet of lot depth, and.7yard setbacks, etc. The Board does not agree with the reasoning of applicant inas- much as there is substantial area available to comply with these requirements for the relief requested by appellant. The Board finds and determines that the relief requested in relation to the Code requirements is substantial; that if. the variance is granted a change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood; that hardship has not been shown and the reasons are not unique; the variance if granted will- set a prece- dent in the neighborhood; that. the relief can be obtained by a method feasible other than by variance; and that the interests of justice will be served by denying the relief requested. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Peconic Corporation, Appeal No. 2796 , be denied a variance to the zoning ordinance, Art. III, Sections 100-30 and 1.00-31. Location of property: South side of New Suffolk Avenue, Matti- tuck, NY; bounded north by New Suffolk Avenue., east by Wickham and Bagshaw, south. by. Bay, west by Smith, Haberman and Camp Mineola Road; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-115-9-4 . Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Southold Town Board o- _appeals -51- April 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2783 . Application of Thomas J. DeBorger, 93 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue, NY (Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. ) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec . 100-31 for permission to change division line between Lots 295 and 296 to run generally north and south rather than present east and west direction at 945 Broadwaters Road (a/k/a 100 Wunneweta Road) , Cutchogue, NY; Nassau Point Properties Subd. Map 156 , Lots 295 and 296 ; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-11-9. The Board finds and determines as follows : By this appeal, appellant seeks permission " . . .to change division line between Lots 295 and 296 to run generally north and south rather than present east and west. . . " direction at 945 Broadwaters Road (a/k/a 100 Wunneweta Road) , Cutchogue. The Building Inspector' s Notice of Disapproval dated January 19 , 1981 indicates his reasons for disapproving appellant' s request inas- much as " . . .the existing one dwelling is located on both adjoining lots, therefore. . .merged. . .and a second dwelling is not permitted unless the merged lots are subdivided or the dwelling is moved onto one of the lots with the required yard areas. . . . " Appellant has claimed financial difficulties apparently due to a "pending sale of the lot, " and the change in the division line 'would be to take advantage of the waterview. ' After researching the history of this property, it was found that the property in question is part of Nassau Point Properties Subdivision of 1922, Map No. 156 , which is contained on the Town' s "List of Excepted Subdivisions , " which excepts certain subdivisions from the area and width requirements of the Code. It appears, as was iterated during hearing, that the situation was created by appellant' s predecessor in title when he decided to utilize the two lots for one single-family dwelling, which was built on the division line between the two lots and thereby resulting with merged premises. .Tp.;-grant'_this variance would create two lots, the easterly lot with an area of 24 ,700 sq. ft. and the westerly lot with an area of 21, 300 sq. ft. with the property line running three feet from the corner of the existing garage (on the westerly parcel) . The Board has also found that this residential area at Nassau Point has basic water";quality problems and a relatively limited water supply; that the lots as proposed are undersized in a recommended low-density area and would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area; that the relief requested is substantial in relation to the Code requirements; that the hard- ship is not unique (circumstances which appellant faces are similar to other circumstances in the neighborhood) and would set a precedent in the neighborhood; that the circumstances imposed by appellant' s predecessor in title were chosen to devote the entire premises to a one-family dwelling; and that the interests of justice would best be served by denying the relief requested in this appeal. Southold Town Board o- appeals -52- April 1981 a (DeBorger Appeal No. 2783 continued: ) On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that Thomas .J. DeBorger be denied a variance to the zoning ordinance, Art. III, Sec . 100-31 , in Appeal No. 2783 . Location of Property: 945 Broadwaters Road (a/k/a 100 Wunneweta Road) ,. Cutchogue, NY; Nas�sau..Point Properties Subdivi- sion Lots 295 and 296 , Map No. 156 ; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-104-11-9. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. J Southold Town Board o:, ..ppeals -53- Apr 23 , 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2789 . Application of David L. Mudd, North Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Art. III, Sec . 100-30A(@) (d) to construct farm tool shed with insufficient rear and side yard segbacks at property located on the north side of C.R. 48 , Southold; bounded north by Lieblein; east by Aliano, Latham and Morris; south by C.R. 48 ; west by Doroski; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-59-9-28 . The Board finds and determines as follows : By this appeal, appellant seeks a variance for approval of the construction of a farm shed with an insufficient rearyard and insufficient easterly side yard setback of three feet on certain prem- ises_ located at the north side of County Road 48, Southold. The entire premises in question contains approximately 23 . 1169 acres. Sections 100-30A (2) (d) and Bulk Schedule requires " . . .barns, storage buildings and other related structures . . . shall conform to the yard requirements for principal buildings. . . , " 50-foot minimum rearyard setback, ..15-foot minimum sideyard, and 35-foot total sideyards. It_.is '.the_feeling of the Board that substantial land is available and that a three-foot setback from the rear and side yards is not feasible under the circumstances. The Board finds. and determines that the relief as requested is substantial; that if the variance is granted a precedent will be set for the neighborhood; that the reasons for the relief requested are not unique; and that the interests of justice will best be served by denying the relief as requested. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that David L. Mudd be denied a variance to the zoning ordinance, without prejudice, in Appeal No. 2789. Location of Property: North side of C.R. 48 (North Road) , Southold, NY; bounded north by Lieblein; east by Aliano, Latham and Morris; south by C.R. 48; west by Doroski. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-59-9-28 . Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Grigonis , Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Southold Town Board �__ Appeals -54- April 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2797. Application of Frederick Cowan and Company., Inc. , 120 Terminal Avenue, Plain- view, NY 11803 (by Richard J. Cron, Esq. ) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. VII, Sec. 100-70A, B, for permission to conduct an industrial-type business (equipment designing and fabricating) in a B-1 Business District. Location of property : Northwest corner of North Street and School House Road, Cut- chogue, NY; bounded northwest by School House Road; northeast by North Street; southwest by Baxter; southeast by Case; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-102-5-9 . 2. Please note for the record that public hearings were held concerning this matter March 5 , 1981, March 12 , 1981 and April 2, 1981. The Board finds and determines as follows : By this Appeal, Appellant seeks a variance to conduct a business which is not a permissible use in the B-1 zone, to wit, a business engineered for the designing and fabricating of equipment used in the burning, igniting and controlling the igniting and/or burning of fuels, which appears to be a use permitted in the "C Light Industrial" zone of the Town Zolling Code. Forty percent of the proposed use would be shop use and other activities of the business would be confined to engineering and administrative purposes of 60 percent of the proposed use. The premises in question contains an area of land approximately 2. 3 acres, with 202' fronting on School House Road and approximately 503' fronting on North Street. The premises is vacant and is presently zoned B-1 Business. Directly across the street from this parcel are the Cutchogue School District and. several residentially-zoned properties, and south of the School District is a B-1 Business District. Properties contiguous to the property in question are zoned B-1 Business. Appellant submits to the Board that an unnecessary hardship exists because the land in question is not specifically suitable for those uses presently permitted in the B-1 Business Zone, and for many years the owner thereof has attempted to effect a sale of the lands, without success , principally due to the fact that the surrounding area and the location of the land did not readily lend itself to the permissible uses of the B-1 Zone. Appellant also states ".to effect a sale under such circumstances would cause an obvious substantial loss in land value and extreme financial-' hardship. . . . " The Board has not been submitted proof to sub- stantiate these claims. 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 the variance if granted will change the character of the neighborhood; that no substantial hardship has been shown; that the hardship claimed is not unique; and that the interests of justice will be served • Southold Town Board of Appeals -55- April z.s, 1981 by denying the relief requested in this appeal . On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that Frederick Cowan and Company, Inc. be denied a variance to the zoning ordinance requested in Appeal No. 2797. Location of Property: Northwest corner of North Street and School House Road, Cutchogue, NY; bounded northwest by School House Road; northeast by North Street; southwest by Baxter; southeast by Case; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-102-5-9. 2. Vote of the Board: . Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. ,Y Southold Town Board of peals -56- P Ll 23 , 1981 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2808 . Application of Wilhelm Franken, 75 Carroll Street, Brooklyn, NY 11231 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Art. III, Sec . 100-32 for permission to build garage in the frontyard area at 830 Tarpon Drive, Greenport, NY; bounded north by Starkie; west by Reese; south by Weismann; east by Southold Shores Association. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-57-1-8 and 9 . The Board finds and determines as follows : By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct detached garage in the frontyard area with a setback of 30 feet off Tarpon Drive and 15 feet from the easterly sideyard property line. The premises in question is 19, 867 square feet in area and immediately abuts Southold Shores Subdivision Lot #38 also owned by appellant (s) . herein (containing area of approximately 22,000 square feet) . Existing on Subdivision: Lot1-37-,. the sub- ject portion, is a one-family wood framed dwelling. Constructed along the rear property line is a substantial bulkhead the full length of the premises. The Board finds and determines. that the relief as requested is substantial; that if the variance is granted a precedent will be set for the neighborhood; that the reasons for the relief as requested are not unique; that the spirit of the zoning ordinance would not be observed by the granting of the relief requested (the location requested is not the most feasible in the opinion of this Board) ; and that the interests of justice would best be served by denying the variance as applied for. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Wilhelm Franken be denied a variance to the zoning ordinance, Art. I.II, Sec. 100-32 as applied for in Appeal No. 2808 . Location of Property: 830 Tarpon Drive, Greenport, NY; bounded north by Starkie, west by Reese, south by Weismann, east by Southold Shores Association. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-57-1-8 and 9. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer and Sawicki. Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, and carried, to adjourn. The meeting was declared adjourned at approximately 11:35 p.m. APPROMED Respectfully submitted, LAna; F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals Chairman Board of Wij�§ F _ ,ow I i i TZECEIVED AND FIELD BY THE SOU i HOLD TOWN CLERK DATE 6 /0? HOUR 0w Cl rk, Town of. Southold