HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/17/1981 Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 S UTHOL . L.I.. N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR., CHAIRMAN
SERGE DOYEN, JR. M I .N U T E S
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS - - - - -
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER REGULAR MEETING
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
DECEMBER 17 , 1981
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was
held on Thursday, December 17, 1981 at 7:15 o' clock p.m. at the
Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971.
Present were: Charles Grigonis, Jr. , Chairman; Serge Doyen,
Jr. ; Robert J. Douglass; :Gerard P.. Goehringer; and Joseph H.
Sawicki. Also present were Mr. Henry P. Lytle.
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7 :15 o'clock p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2922 . Application of Frank E.
Brophy, 75 Second .Street, New Suffolk, New York for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule,
for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with an
insufficient front and side yard setback at 75 Second Street, New
Suffolk, NY; bounded north by Grathwohl & ano. ; west by Martin;
south by Wetzel, Grathwohl and ano. ; east by Second Street; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-10-20. 7.
The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7 :16 p.m.
and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal
application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add to
what you've said?
FRANK E. BROPHY: Mr. Grigonis, is that right?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. BROPHY: Not really, Mr. Grigonis . I think it' s cited in
my application there pretty much, and I' believe you may have some
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- December 17, 1981
F
Appeal No.. 2922 - Frank E. Brophy continued: )
MR. BROPHY continued :
papers relating to lot coverage, which I feel that I fall within the
20% including the present house ruling plus the deck addition, or
the contemplated addition.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Did you have a question, Jerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. I just wanted to ask Mr. Brophy the
exact size of the proposed deck now is how large?
MR. BROPHY: One-hundred and twenty square feet. You may have
one of these here. I filed .them with my papers.
SECRETARY: Yes, it is in the file.
MR.. CHAIRMAN: Yes , we were down there Saturday morning.
MR. BROPHY: I see.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason Why ,I asked that is you have a
cement wall here, the retaining wall going into the garage?
MR. BROPHY:. Yes, that' s right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're going to go right even with that?
MR. BROPHY: That is correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know it was 10 ' by 12 ' . Ok. Thank you
very much.
MR. BROPHY: Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Anyone else to speak for it? Anyone to
speak against it? (None) If not, I' ll offer a :resolution granting
this as applied for.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded.
The following are the findings and determination of the board:
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a
10 ' by 12 ' deck addition at the southeasterly corner of the exist-
ing one-family dwelling. Applicant proposes a setback of not less
than 6 ' 6 " from the front .proper:ty line _and approximately 1016"
setback from the southerly side property line.
The premises in question is a parcel of land located on the
westerly side of Second Street, New Suffolk, more particularly
known as County Tax Map District 1000 , Section 117 , Bock 10 , Lot
20 . 7, having an area of 7,231 square feet, road frontage of approxi-
mately 66 feet and depth of approximately 100 feet.
�L
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. 2922 - Frank E. Brophy. .continued: )
Applicant has previously applied to this board for approvals
of a deck addition along the frontyard of the dwelling with a
setback of three feet or less from the front property line. The
board found that the deck addition originally applied in Appeal
Nos. 2725 and 2693 exceeded 20% of the maximum-permitted lot
coverage required of the zoning code, and the variances were
denied.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances
herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the
difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant,
other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced
on available governmental facilities. of any increased population;
that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the
general purposes of zoning; and that the interests .of justice
will be served by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Goehringer., _ it
was
RESOLVED, that the application of Frank E. Brophy, Appeal
No. 2922, for a deck addition to dwelling with an insufficient
front and side yard setback, be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR.
Location of Property: 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-10-20 . 7.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis , Doyen, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. (Mr. Douglass was absent at the time this
resolution was adopted. )
Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. . Sawicki,
to APPROVE the minutes of the December 5 , 1981 Special Meeting.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Grigonis, Goeh-
ringer and Sawicki. (Mr. Douglass was absent at the time this
resolution was adopted. )
Member Douglass arrived.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. FL-10 .
Application of James P. Latham, Plum Island Lane, Orient, NY
for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, Chapter 46 ,
Section 46-19 for permission to construct cellar slab approximately
eight feet above mean sea level in this V-5 Coastal. Flood :Zone and
presumably without structural support and anchorage by pilings or
columns. Location of Property: Private Road (Peter' s Neck Pt. ) ,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. FL-10 - James P. Latham continued : )
Orient, NY; bounded north by G. Latham. and Gids Bay; west by
Strachan, Private Road, and Bliss; east and south by Orient
Harbor; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-32-1-12.
The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7 : 25 .p.m. ,
read the legal notice in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add to
what is in the application?
JAMES LATHAM: I just wanted to, I turned in that sketch--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we have it here.
MR. LATHAM: So it would be, because of the area down there,
,want to put in a piling and then cap it with a cement footing and
have this 12" block for a small crawl space just so the house
would be that tighter, and I think, you know, good strong construc-
tion, and the way it would be graded up against it would eliminate
the way I understand under V-5, they request .some kind of a breakaway
wall between the piles and the underground, which in this area I
don't believe that would be required. Also., going on the fact that,
and I understand that there is a proposed legislation to change that
area from a V-5 to an A-area, which would enable me to do this, so
if the board would see fit to grant me a variance before that law
is signed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Latham. Anyone else? Anyone
to speak against this? (None) Do the board members have any ques-
tions they would like to ask?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just one. Mr. Latham, this is going to
be on the outside, all the way around the exterior walls, the four
exterior walls?
MR. LATHAM: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would be in the center then, actual
pilings or would the girders be supported on the outside foundation?
MR. LATHAM: No, in the center of the house where the main
girder runs through, the piles would come right up. Instead of
cutting them off and putting a lolly column, it will just run right
up under the girders.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? (None) Are you in a great
big hurry to get started on this? Would a few days make much dif-
ference?
MR. LATHAM: Well, no.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. FL-10 - James P. Latham continued : )
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is fairly new to us. We want to make
sure we have all the angles covered, and if we went ahead and
told you to go ahead with something and thinking that it' s
right, and all of a sudden find out it' s wrong and then you
already had started something, so--
MR. LATHAM: Yes, I understand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So . I' ll offer a resolution closing the hear-
ing and reserving decision for a few days.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Seconded.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr-. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision for a
few days in the matter of James P. Latham in Appeal No. FL-10 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis,
Goehr.inger and Sawicki.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- December 17, 1981
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2927. Application of Janet A.
Davis (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. ) for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30A, B, for permission to.
operate an antique shop in an. A-Agricultural & Residential Dis-
trict. Location of Property: Corner of Main Road and Pequash
Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; bounded north by Scharadin; west by
S.R. 25; south by Pequash Avenue; east by. Carroza. _ County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-102-3-7.
The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7 :35 p.m.
and read the legal notice of hearing and application in their
entirety.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything that you would like to
add to what has ;been said in the .application?
RUDOLPH H. 'BRUER, ESQ. : I would like to read an affidavit
of Victor R. Makis, who is Executor of Helen Madzelan;_ who.is-the
owner of this property:
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ss. :
VICTOR R. MAKIS, being duly sworn, deposes and says :
That I am one of the Executors of the Estate of Helen Madzelan,
deceased, who died August 6 , 1980. I am the owner of the
premises_.:s tuate:'.at_..Southeast corner of the intersection of
Main Road. and Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, NY. The premises in
question were reported in U.S. Inheritance Tax Return Form
706 as having a value of $39 ,500 as of date of death. As
owner of the premises I believe the value to be $50 ,000 as
indicated in the Contract`.-of Sale price to Janet A. Davis.
The maintenance cost runs on this property approximately
$600 a year, and Town, County and School taxes for 1980/81
was $914.26 There are no mortgages or other encumbrances
upon the premises. At the moment there is no income whatso-
ever from this property. If the premises were to be rented
as a single-family residence, I would estimate the best rent
I: could get for it would be $200 a month unfurnished, which
would yield an income of approximately $900 a year, which is
a rate of about two (2%.)- )percent investment on the principal
involved, which I do not believe to be a reasonable rate.
/s/ Victor R. Makis
Sworn to before me this 23rd. day of November 1981.
/s/ Stephen F. Griffing, Jr. , Notary Public.
"(Mr.".,Bruer submitted copies of the affidavit for the record. )
I would like to 'submit at this time a couple surveys of the
premises, which I just received today. I would like to .submit
that based upon the affidavit and some testimony that will be
given here, that the property is residential property and will
not yield a reasonable return in its present form. Obviously,
t'
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- December 17, .1981
(Janet A. Davis Appeal No. 2927 continued: )
the property as can be seen from the affidavit . cannot be used for
agricultural purposes , and it either has to be a residence or a
business. The outfit here plans to.. use it basically as an antique
shop using approximately,. not approximately, .but two rooms of the
premises as the antique .shop, the front two rooms. I believe, if
you will hold on a minute, I had the measurements and I ' ll find it
and give it to you. But it' s basically the living room and the
dining room of the premises. Also I would like to point out to
the board that the nature of the business is basically a seasonal
one and wouldn't be used in particular at this time of year.
I 'm sure that you've all been out there. You know where the
premises are where it' s located in terms of other businesses
around. Across Pequash Avenue and zoned business and as can be
seen from the application, and I'm sure you observed, an automobile
repair shop, which is not condusive to residential living. I
point out that based upon the business use of .the property, it' s
being on Main Road, this is a hardship. of the property itself.
At this point I would like to ask a Mr. June Albertson, a
local real estate broker, to come up regarding this property.
A.W. ALBERTSON: I'm A.W. Albertson, Albertson Real Estate.
And I just want to. verify what Mr. Bruer has said. We have been
trying to sell the property, and due to the location, we haven't
been able to and it's been on the market now for two years. The
garage across the street has stopped it and being on 25 is pretty
hard. Also , I think that .we have the comparable of -- Down the
road here what we did with. the Terry House, they. .changed that so
that they let Sharp Real Estate go in there, which made a nice
looking place but it was the same type of a situation. That
house just would not sell as a residence due to its location,
and I feel it will be well to let this one be used that way.
MR. BRUER: So do you think the property could be used for
any other purpose other than some type of a business use?
MR. ALBERTSON: No, not in that location.
MR. BRUER: And you've said that you've actively had this
place. on the market for at least two years?
MR. ALBERTSON: Yes.
MR. BRUER: And have you ever gotten any offers on it?
MR. ALBERTSON: No, we haven't. We have had. any interest
shown.
MR. BRUER: And would it be a fair statement that no owner
can make a fair return on it as a residential property?
MR. ALBERTSON: Well no, and absolutely.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- December 17, 1981
(Janet A. Davis 'Appeal No. 2927 continued : )
MR. BRUER: ' And would it be fair to state that this house is
quite old and inadequately insulated?
MR. ALBERTSON: Yes.
MR. BRUER: , I would like to further elaborate on the unique
situation of the property. It is located between the 7-11, Mick-
ham' s Retail Fruit Market, and the Fish Store not too .far away,
not far away from the Keyfood Complex and the Nursery there. The
properties that' are basically there, I would have to admit there
were a couple of residential premises that are there. . The others
of Mason Creek Farms. This is a:. place .that' s particularly close
to the automobile shop. I believe the use requested here would
be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The request
here and the situation is unique enough., although I don't think
that the unique position is such that would bar the board from
ruling in favor ' of the applicant based upon the favorable showing
of a hardship here. I believe, with reference to the town .attorney
and Anderson and Zoning and the case law would show that that would
not in itself be a hinderance to it. If you like, I could quote
some -- as a matter of fact, I will read .them.
Referring to Anderson on Zoning which is a noted authority
on zoning and referring the unique situations on a use variance,
I quote the case of the Court of Appeals and Jayne Estates, Inc.
against Raynor. ; And the court said, "in any case of the general
rule where the landowner has made the requisite showing of financial
hardship and compatibility of his proposed use with the existing
land use pattern, it would .seem preferable. to grant the variance.
To deny the variance solely on- the ground that unique circumstances
had not been shown leaves open the prospect of a successful assault
on the zoning ordinance as being: confiscatory. "
With that, as again..I stated that the proposed use of the
premises as an antique store would not change the character of
the neighborhood, .and if anything would probably enhance it.
Thank you very much. If you have any questions, Mrs. Davis
is here and would be glad to answer them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wants to speak in
favor of this application? Anyone to speak against it?
Mr. Goehringer has a question, I think.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bruer, this particular. business is
going to be used now for a business purpose. What would happen
to the rest of: the house? Will that be rented, or will anything
else be done with it? Second story and such?
MRS. DAVIS : That would. be used for storage.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That habitability of the house, Mrs.
Davis, would not be used such as the kitchen area as opposed to
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- December 17, 1981
(Janet A. Davis Appeal No. 2927 continued : )
just making lunch or whatever the case might be. Thank you.
MR. BRUER.:. Mrs. Davis, I would just like to ask you a
question. Street traffic. How often do you usually get on a
main street like that, a large number of cars, in case the board
has any questions about the parking.
MRS. DAVIS: I would say two cars usually.
MR. BRUER: At a time?
MRS. DAVIS: Yes.
MR. . BRUER: And I think from the survey you can see there
is adequate parking, or it can be made available in the rear
and the side. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions from any of the members
of the board? (None) I ' ll offer a resolution closing the
hearing and reserving decision until we get this all together.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing be declared closed and decision
reserved in the matter of the application. of Janet A. Davis in
Appeal No. 2927.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass ,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2928 .
Upon application -of Peter S. Terranova, Box 77 , Peconic, NY
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-
31 and 100-34 for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling
with reduction of frontyard area and beyond property line. Location
of Property: 1170 Huntington Boulevard (a/k/a 565 Sound Avenue) ,
Peconic, NY; bounded north by Murdock; west by Sound View Avenue;
south by Huntington Boulevard; east by Hoffman.;. County Tax Map Par-
cel No. 1000-67=2-1.
The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 7 :50 p.m. ,
read the legal notice in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bruer, do you have anything you would like
to add to what you have in the application?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. 2928 - Peter S. Terranova continued: )
RUDOLPH H. ; BRUER, ESQ, : Thank you. Yes, I -would like to
point out here, I believe the board or most .of the board have
visited the property, and you can see that the way the property
was divided, the house sits approximately, the front of the house
sits approximately five feet from the frontyard line. An examina-
tion of the property will also_ keveal that the frontyard that is
being used on this property consists of an additional 20 something,
23 feet going out into the alleged road. This is a, since Novem-
ber, learned that the road I believe is not taxed to any known
owner. You will notice that the property has a stone fence sort
of speak going 'night out 23 feet and closing the aesthetic part
of the property: This fence has been there since about 1935 I've
been told. The' sideyard, on the side going down the other side
of the road, .there was other construction abutting out into that .
alleged right-of-way where the deck is,. or proposed deck would like
to be. I would like to point out the size of the lot, 50 by 92.
This is a lot that was much.. larger at one time and obviously the
house behind it was cut out of that prior to. zoning. I'd like to
show the board some photographs that were taken during the early
1960 ' s showing the continuous use of the premises extending into
the roadway as part of its natural domain. These premises were
taken approximately 1961. Her:e!s one showing a front porch going
out to approximately the property line where the proposed deck is.
Again, here is another photograph of the house showing that front
deck, and also showing construction going out into the other
right-of-way, wherein the owners consistently over the years felt
they had a claim of right to use that part of the roadway. Now
you have to remember this is not a', public road but owned by the
association if any, not even owned by the association. If any-
thing by the adjoining land owners; This is another photograph
showing the property from the rear looking at it, also showing the
side construction that was there a few years ago. I may point out
that these photographs were supplied to us by adjoining land
owners indicating and as indicated to us that they appreciate
and approve the application that is. being made here. r.. . .
. I would also like to submit a letter, a follow-up letter to
one in your file I believe, from a Dr. Haddad addressed to Mr.
Peter Terranova, dated .December 2, 1981. I believe copies were
supplied to you ; and I would like to read it:
. . . I am glad you explained the .purpose of the deck in your
house in your letter of November 28, 1981. Please be
advised that I have no objection to the way .the deck is
being constructed in your house as you specify in your
letter. Please use my letter for the Board of Appeals,
Town of Southold, and .give it to your'.l:awyer, Mr. Rudolph
Bruer. May I mention that my previous letter was written
without having seen or had any information regarding the
deck you have been constructing. I trust this will help
you in your endeavors.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Heskel M.. Haddad, M.D. . . . .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- December 17 , 1981
(Appeal No. 2928 - Peter S. Terranova continued: )
MR. BRUER continued :
I suggest that we have here a situation of practical difficulties
regarding the property. The situation is one that was created
prior to zoning and without decks these days, it' s a way of enjoy-
ing and using your property, people like to be outside, particularly
this type, this piece of property and where it' s located, to be
able to sit out there and enjoy the view in the way that house
and the original owners and the way this property was cut up and
intended them to use it.
Again, I'd like to point out the wall and the existence of
the property owners , present owners, past owners, using this as
their frontyard and always considering this as part of their
property. Again, the road is privately owned and as a matter of
fact if you look at the tax map as I stated .before, there is no
known owner.
I think this shows that the landowner cannot reasonably
develop his property within the zoning limits without having
this . It just couldn' t be properly enjoyed and we respectfully
request that the application be granted. It' s not going to
change the character of the district. Nothing new is being
added other than the deck, which all the adjoining landowners ,
and we 've canvased them, pretty much approved. We've heard no
negative voice regarding it. And it is unique, it is unique in
the sense the way it was built. It 's on a corner lot, sort of
speak, with respect to the right-of-way.
The owners are present if you have any questions regarding
it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bruer.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We asked Mr. Terranova .on Saturday morn-
ing, Mr. Bruer, if you would give us the existing square footage
of the house and the existing square footage of the proposed deck.
If you will calculate that, what dimensions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You can use the mike down there if you would
like. Doesn' t make any difference, whichever way you'd rather.
MR. TERRANOVA: The house being 38 ' by 24 ' would give us a
square footage of 912. The proposed deck, the rear deck would
be 407 square feet, and the side deck on Huntington Boulevard
or walkway would be 119 square feet. Plus a small additional
side walkway to continue to the front would be another 83 square
feet, and the extension of the front porch along the house would
be 130 square feet. So we have something like 740 square feet of
which, as a deck only 407 square feet can be used as such, as a
deck. The rest of it is purely aesthetic and to enjoy the view of
the sound, and that' s it. Appreciate it very much, sir.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12 December 17, 1981
MR. BRUER: - Thank you, gentlemen. Would you please keep in
mind the smallness of this lot, 50 by .92.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for
this application? (None) Anyone to speak against it? (None)
Do any of the board members have any other questions? I' ll offer
a resolution .c.losing the hearing and reserving decision till we
write out ..all the figures and everything to see where we're at
and come up with a decision in the near future.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER Seconded.
On motion. by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of Peter S. Terranova in Appeal No. 2928.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Grigonis., Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal .No. 2933.
Upon application of David Strong, by Richard J. Cron, Esq. ,
Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the .Zoning Ordinance,
Article XIV, Section 100-141 (D) for permission to construct addi-
tions to existing building pursuant to .Appeal No. 825. Location
of Property: 2400 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, .NY; bounded north
by Strong; .west by Wilsberg, Strong and James Creek; south by Kreh
and ano. ; east by Kreh and ano. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-
122-9-6 .1.
The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8 : 02 p.m. ,
read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli-
cation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add to
what .you have stated in. .the application?
RICHARD J. , CRON, ESQ. : If it pleases the board, I can only
again emphasize to the board that we are here this evening solely
because of the requirements of Appeal 825 .which this zoning board,
not consisting of the same members of course, imposed a require-
ment upon Mr. Strong, that if he sought to do any other improve-
ments to the marina premises such as building construction, et
cetera, that itirequired the approval of this board. This appli-
cation deals, doesn't deal at all with a use variance or. an area
variance or anything like that. It deals solely with securing
your permission to do that which he would be legally entitled to
do but for the requirement imposed by Appeal No. 825. We had
previously, I don't mean "we" , I mean Mr. Strong had secured the
approval to do the very work that we seek from the approval of
r
Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- December 17, 1981
(Mr. Cron -continued: )
this board this evening. . Unfortunately, at the time the application
was made, neither he or the Building Department had in mind the
requirement that was imposed under Appeal NO. 825 and therefore he
went ahead and did part of the work, the part that had that little
L-shape off the existing building as you see on the drawing
attached to the application. I believe you have that, don't you?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes..
MR. CRON: And he had gotten .approval to do that and unfortu-
nately as I said, neither the Building Department or himself was
aware of the imposition 'of. Appeal No. 825 as far as securing
approval from this board. The result was that .a stop order was
put on the structure, but if it had not been he would have been
able to complete not only that portion but the other portion which
constitutes office space. I would like to just indicate to the
board that if you look at Appeal No. 825, let me see what paragraph
it is, you will ' determine I am sure as I determine, paragraph third,
third paragraph; of the board' s decision on page 2. I'd-Just like to
quote to you a portion of that paragraph. In fact the last sentence
where it says " , . .The Board interprets this to mean that a marina
business may beconducted under the original ordinance together. with
a limited range .of incidental but necessary services directly
related to the accommodations of boats moored or stored in the
marina. " This decision came about on the board' s own motion to
the purpose specifically .of vilifying certain areas of use and
nonuse as far as the marina was concerned. And. I respectfully
submit to you that having an office and having sufficient work
area to conduct ' a marina as Mr.. Strong, so conducts his are neces-
sary .and incidental uses to the operation of a marine. I think
if you've seen Mr. Strong' s operation both on the Main Road and
at .the marina premises, I'm sure you' ll agree that he conducts a
very fine business and tries to do well as far as the Town of
Southold. Therefore, , in light of the requirements of that prior
Appeal No. 825 , ,we respectfully ask the board- to grant the appli-
cation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Cron. Anyone else to speak
for this application? Anyone to speak against it? (None) Mr.
Goehringer .has a question.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We, I think hastily said, Mr. Cron, that
we had a copy of the "',L" that you were referring to.
MR. CRON: You don' t?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
MR. CRON: Would you just like to look at mine, and if you
would like a copy of it I' ll be glad .to give it to you. I
thought-- Do you have this? Yes, that's it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're talking about this "L" here? Ok.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. 2933 —David S. Strong continued: )
MR. CRON: In fact it' s reference to what was basically done.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are referring to this?. This is with
the stop order?
MR. CRON: Yes. This part was .constructed here. This part
was not yet constructed. But the building permit that was granted
basically covered the whole thing, but we never got that far.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other questions from any of
the members on the board? (Negative) I' ll offer a resolution
granting this application as applied for.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: I ' ll second it.
The following are the findings and determination of the board:
By this appeal, applicant seeks approval to construct additions
at the northerly and southerly ends of the existing one-story frame
marina building, as required by the decision of the Board of Appeals
July .:8., 1971 at !'a rehearing under Appeal No. 825. Building Permit
No. 9648Z was issued by the building inspector on March 29, 1978
apparently without knowledge of the restrictions under Appeal No.
825.
Applicant intends to use the additional area for office- and
work areas. The addition at the north end is proposed to be 12 ' 4"
by 15" , and the southerly end 16 ' by 18 ' and then 24 ' by 18 ' . The
board feels that the areas chosen by applicant are the most feasible
and practical under the circumstances.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances
herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the
difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant,
other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced
on available governmental facilities of any increased population;
that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the
general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice
will be served by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that David Strong be granted a variance as applied
for in Appeal No. 2933.
Location of Property: 2400 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-9-6 . 1.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen,. Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- December 17, 1981
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal .No. 2932. Application of Jay P. and
M. Joanne Davis-Slotkin, Box 950, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for permission
to establish 'professional medical offices on premises zoned "A"
Residential and Agricultural at 50 Ackerly Pond Road (a/kJa 49725
Main Road) , Southold, NY; bounded north by Johnson; west by Baker.:
and ano. ; south by Ackerly Pond Lane; east by Main Road; County
Tax Map Parcel 1000-70-5-4 .
MR. CHAIRMAN, read the:,:legal-,.notice...,in, its:'"ent rety,:..dhd the
appeal application. The hearing was opened at approximately 8 :11
o'clock p.m.
MR. CHAIRMAN': Is there anything you .would like to add? I
have a letter here from Dr. Z. Micah Kaplan, . M.D. P.C. , chief,
Medical Staff, Eastern L.I. Hospital stating that he is in favor
of this variance. '
ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ. : Yes, Gail Wickham, for the appli-
cant. I 'd like to first give to the Board, I. took the liberty of
preparing a survey and sketch for you because the zoning map that
I enclosed with the application is a little hard to read in .xerox.'
This sets out zoning - ::I also have a revised survey, the survey
that was sent with the application was an old one. This shows the
garage".°.that apparently-'had been expanded slightly by the Lathams
and it shows the driveway coming out onto Ackerly Pond Lane. So
it' s more up-to-date and I'd like to give you that for the file.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MRS. WICKHAM: I'd just like to go through a few items for
you. The Slotkins are under contract to purchase this property,
but the contract is contingent upon them obtaining a use variance
to use the property as a professional office. Dr. Slotkin is a
board-certified internist, and he has an emphasis in care of the
elderly, which is. quite a critical need in this area. He is
starting a practice in this area and is interested in the
property in order to have a place -in which to conduct his prac-
tice. Until. it does expand, he may have the need financially
to have other medical professionals in the building. Eventually
he would hope to have this as his sole office with other people
perhaps working with him and for him. It would be a normal
private professional office practice by appointment. It would
not be a clinic-type operation. It would have normal hours of
operation. The traffic that would be used coming in in connection
with this kind of use would not be at all excessive. It would be
very moderate because of the appointment schedules. The other
factor is that the exterior of the building would not be changing
at all in terms of its appearance as a residence. And the
property is well screened in terms of fencing and other types of
vegetation, other vegetation. The difficulty that we have is
with its location!, and the problems that have encountered in
selling it as a residence, the Lathams have lived there since
1965. They've had the property on the market for quite a number
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. 2932 - Davis-Slotkin continued: )
(MRS. WICKHAM continued) :
of years and have not been able to find a purchaser. Apparently,
not too many people want to live on that type of corner where you
are surrounded on three sides by industrial and business usage.
And the fact that- it is a corner lot and the fact that some of
the business and commercial properties across the street are
elevated on the hill, sort of increases this property' s exposure
to those types of usages.
There are two residences which are. adjoining this piece, and
I don' t believe either one of them would be adversely affected by
the proposed change because the residential character or appearance
would be retained and would actually act as a shield between the
other business uses in the area.
I was expecting Mr. Smith. I had spoken to William Smith,
who as you,--all know is an experienced broker in the area, and he
apparently is very familiar with this property. He had listed it
for sale -when the .Lathams put. it on the.. market some time ago. He
showed the property a number of times. He did tell me that at
least 15 to 18 times he. would drive the people and they would not
even go into the property. They just looked at it and said, "Oh,
I don't want the property. It' s on this corner location. " And
that was the general reaction to the property that he experienced.
He felt. -that the value as a residence in that location was signifi-
cantly less than 'the value that that residence would have in some
other location. The residence is in very good shape, and it' s a
nice home and it' s nicely landscaped, but the location is a problem.
If it could ,be used as a professional office, the Value - it
would be felt would be at least $15,000 more than as a residence.
The application mentioned that :the.'.har.dship is not self-imposed.
In 1965 when the Lathams bought the property, the what is now the
clock shop adjoining that across the road was. a residence:. Hart' s
Hardware was. a very small business that has expanded considerably.
The Church was not built at that time I don't believe. And Sharp
Realty was not there, that was also a residence.
One other thing I want to add is that the quesion came up
.as to whether to ask for a rezoning of this property., or to go for
a use variance.. And it was decided to go for a use variance
because number one it is a much less drastic solution to the
hardship caused by this property. I believe a few years ago
when ,Sharp Realty asked for the property asked for a change it
was by way of a use variance. I understand they had gone to
the Planning Board and were going to'�the Town Board in connection
with a change of zone , and it was recommended by the Planning
Board that they instead go for a use variance.
When we were negotiating the contract, I called Henry Raynor
(Chairman of the Planning Board) , and explained the situation
Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. 2932 - Davis-Slotkin continued: )
(MRS. WICKHAM continued: )
to him. He also suggested that we go for a. use variance, and I
think that while a use variance if not readily granted I think
it is appropriate; in this case.
If there .are, :any questions from the board, I'd be glad to
see if I can answer them., or Dr.:. Slotkin can.
MR. CHAIRMAN': Thank you, Mrs. Wickham. Is. there anyone else
to speak for this, application? Is. there anyone to speak against
it? Mr. Stoutenburgh?
PETER STOUTENBURGH: My name is Peter Stoutenburgh. I own
the res, dence. a little further down Ackerly Pond Lane that adjoins
this and. I got .this notice a few weeks back and tried to play
around as .be.st I could,. having come, before.. this board myself, and
understanding the changes when it is considered properly. Just
really what my reactions were. First I couldn't understand why
a need in this location .would permit anything but . a zoning change.
Then ' I found out ;that it had happened to the real estate agency
across the street,. from here. And I don't really ..oppose. a doctor' s
office on the corner if the Town Planning .Board. or, if it was,
rezoned. so that it was the understanding that •it:.,•was set up in
a . special way that if ..it . s._An; intersection., there are a number of
corners .and all the other corners are some sort of business use
at the .moment., . ,I just feel ih-!.s sort of an odd changing the use,
odd, and. perhaps has a greater reaching end result that_ -- I .
don't know that much about -it, perhaps the board does, and if the
board wants .to. ,grant them, then grant it.::.a. I don' t know how much
that ties a .property up. If it is going to be a professional
building.. The. one right at the moment is Ackerly Pond right
along .side my property. Even with appointments and as mentioned
possibly a couple' of other people working in the office, if
that's two,, thr.ee, , four individuals. The building needs to be
expanded. How big is the parking lot. Where does the drainage
run -- it seems to end -up Ackerly Pond which is a relatively quiet
street. I .know the drainage would effect. my property. If it' s
something that people who know more about this than I feel it is
a proper direction to go, it certainly has, less of. an impact than
a gas station. But]: think a zoning change really is in order for
something of -this megnitude. At least if it is permitted to go
as a professional,: center. I think that possibility seems to be
left open. I leave that up to your judgment. Thank you.
MR... .CHAIRMAN,: Thank you, Mr. Stoutenburgh. Anyone ,else?
Yes, ma!am?
MRS. LATHAM: I am the owner .of the. property. And my husband
is a very sick man. He cannot take care of the property and that' s
the reason we have :to sell the property. Arid I feel there' s no
reason that that should. interfere with my neighbor' s property.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- December 17 , 1981
(Appeal No. 2932 - Davis-Slotkin continued: )
(MRS. LATHAM continued: )
That driveway .and- Ackerly, Pond Lane. There has been an awful lot
of traffic, not. in my land, .or coming down Ackerly Pond Lane. .. And
I just feel that where I am. the .owner and my husband is not well
enough to take care of this property, we have to sell it. Arid I
am.1.appealing to the board to please grant the change of zone
(use variance) . He doesn't live there now. We don't bother him.
I mean, I don' t . see;::where, this, s--:.going -,.to':hurt`.anything. We
have a great big lot that he can use for the parking, and it
isn't even going to...be near. his land.-.
MR. CHAIRMAN Thank-,you. Anyone else?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I .am not opposed to the use. I am very
leary myself of an appeal which I feel is an awkward type of a
thing to == ..if., it'.s going to be granted would like to .see it
changed to match the other corner lots and stuff. And, or, it
hasn 't. even been turned down yet, hasn' t been proposed I don't
believe, changing the zoning. I guess what I am .really looking
for is to, have that come up and - find out if that'.s something the
Town is willing to do. .I am not looking to delay the sale, but
I 'm looking for, some. consideration in that respect.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Jerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are there any plans to add on to the
building?
MRS. WICKHAM: Well, not at the moment. His practice is just
starting as a one-man operation, but- eventually he will have a
professional practice' there for. other. medical professionals,
medical professionals with him. I don't think we would want to
preclude that. Certainly it would have to comply with the building
code.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: . I was just saying in light of the new
survey that you have given us with the easement which almost cuts
the property directly in half.
MRS. WICKHAM: Well, that has been there for some time. It
was put there to eliminate a problem on the town roads. I've been
down to, speak to Ray Dean (Highway Superintendent) and he didn' t
think there would, be any problem to the property. That pipe has
been there. . It' s just an 18" underground pipe and it' s not likely
that they would have to keep digging it up.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: When wa.s that put in, _ do you know?
MRS. WICKHAM: The drainage easement was granted in 172. I
imagine it was some time after.
(Mr. Stoutenburgh asked Mrs. Wickham another question which
was not audible. )
Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- December 17, 1981
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can't hear.. you, Peter.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I was just.. questioning if that was when the
easement was granted, the water used to drain under that road and it
still does. Is that when that section which is to be the parking
lot was filled, and the pipe was laid?
MRS. LATHAM , Yes. The town was. responsible. and it had to be
dug up to put it back. That is. to help you -and everybody else.
The main trouble .is the lower road. Not my property.
MRS. WICKHAM: No, the water comes off. Ackerly Pond Lane from
north of the property, and apparently this easement was implemented
in order to remedy that problem and follow it into the creek.
MR— CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I remember .even as a kid half the town
would be down there skating sometimes in the winter. Anyone else?
No further questions? (None) I' ll offer a resolution closing the
hearing and reserving decision. _ .
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by. Mr. ..Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the hearing in the matter of Jay_.P. and M. Joanne
Davis-Slotkin, Appeal No. 2932 be closed and decision reserved.
Vote of the Board: Ayes.: Messrs. Doyen:,. Douglass, Goehringer,
Sawicki and Grigo,nis.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No.. 2934.
Upon application of Martin Nelsen, Great Peconic Bay Boulevard,
Laurel, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sec-
tion 100-31 for permission to construct addition with reduction in
frontyard area at' 2835 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY;
bounded north by Williams; west by Wendy Drive; south by Gt. Peconic
Bay Blvd; east by Blvd. and Kennedy. County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-128-5-4.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
MARTIN NELSEN: I can't add. very much. I'm Martin Nelsen, and
I live on Peconic Bay Boulevard on the corner. As you know there
is quite a, curb in that particular area there. We've had .possbly
from six to ten accidents, some of which have hit:..the trees right
where my driveway, lies, Donald Brown, the architect across the.
street where they' put the barrier. You' ll notice the Town just
recently put a barrier there because it is a very dangerous curb.
My present garage now faces Peconic Bay Boulevard, and sometimes
Southold Town Board of Appeals -.20- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. 2934 Martin Nelsen)
when you're backing out or coming in because of the curb, people
coming around that curb up above it' s quite dangerous. And for
that reason, plus the fact that we do need another garage. We'd
like to have it come in from the Private Road which is Wendy Drive
and eliminate the; driveway which is in the front on Peconic Bay
Boulevard, which.we feel is dangerous to us, and we much prefer
to have a driveway coming in from`.,-the side road, and thereby where
the blacktop is right now, we would put that all into. lawn and
eliminate that present driveway. I've talked to my neighbors and
none of them object to it. They're all in favor of it. We have
a very nice house;; and we'd like to expand to the extent of ten
feet so that we can put. the garages and have an additional garage
coming in from that road. If there are any other questions about
it, I'd be happy to answer them.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you know the. existing square footage
of the house right now, Mr. Nelsen?
I
MR. NELSEN: , Approximately 1,500 square feet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anybody else have any questions they
want to ask Mr. Nielsen? (None)
MR. NELSEN: � Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN;: Anyone else to speak for 'it? Anyone to speak
against it? (None) Maybe Mr. Goehringer would like to offer a
resolution?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll offer a resolution granting the
application as applied for.
MEMBER . SAWICKI : Seconded.
The Board made .the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a
10 ' by '36.2 '- garage addition. at the westerly side of the existing
one-story, one-family dwelling, leaving an insufficient setback
from Wendy Drive,, a private road, of approximately 24..8 . feet.
The subject premises is a corner Tot as defined by Section 100-13
of the code, with frontage along Peconic Bay Boulevard of approxi-
mately 125 feet and along Wendy Drive of approximately 125 .feet.
Because of the location of the existing dwelling and the existing
cesspool and septic tanks., the board agrees with reasoning of
applicant for this location. There is minimal other buildable
area in practicality.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request 'is not substantial; that the circumstances
herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the
Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. 2934 _ Martin and Mildred Nelsen continued: )
difficulty cannotl'be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant,
other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be. produced
on available governmental facilities of any increased population;
that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the
general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice
will be served -by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr.. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, : that the application- of Martin and Mildred Martin
for permission to construct addition with reduction . in frontyard
area, Appeal No. 2934 , be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR.
Location of Property: 2835 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard,
Laurel, NY; bounded north by Williams; west by Wendy Drive; south
by Gt. Peconic Bay Blvd. ; east by Blvd. and Kennedy. County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-128-5-4.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis , Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2926 .
Upon application of William. J. Clark, Esq. for Joseph Yaboni
and Myron Hauptman, Middle Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections. 100-30A and 100-32B
for approval of insufficient sideyard areas of existing buildings
due to location of new lot lines. Location of Property: Main_:Road
and Elijah' s Lane,, Mattituck, NY; bounded north by North Road and
Reliable Associates; west by Elijah' s Lane.; south by Tuthill; east
by Yaboni &, ano. ;County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-100-4-6 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8 :38 p.m. ,
read .the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli-
cation.
MR. CHAIRMAN:, Is there anything you wish .to add to the appli-
cation., Mr. Clark?
WILLIAM CLARK, ESQ. : No. I just like to call to your attention
the fact that the division line between Lots 1 and 2 was made because
of the existing structures, all of which were erected before the
zoning went into effect. The present Lot No. 2 is under contract to
the present tenant who is there. There' ll be no physical changes, .
and the lots will -remain--the only change will be in ownerships,
not in any physical way. As pointed out, they will comply with the
present zoning that they have an area of over 40 ,000 square feet
and 150-foot frontage. The only difference being the sideyard area
being insufficient, and therefore ask that you ask favorably upon the
application.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- December 17, 1981
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Clark.
MR. CLARK: Thank 1.--you.
MR. CHAIRMAN; Anyone else to speak for this application?
Anyone to speak against this application?
MR. SCUDELLARI : We own the land .a little further down,
Scudellari is the: name. Is this land presently zoned for farming
or can a private dwelling be built on this land.
MR. CHAIRMAN': It is .zoned presently.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s presently A-R zoning, which is
agricultural-residential. What is existing there now would nor-
mally be considered to be under the confines of residential.
However, before another lot was to be created .it. would require
probably a subdivision. Does that answer your question?
MR. SCUDELLARI : Not quite. Does that mean if this variance
goes through that', the possibilities of building private dwellings
is more possible with this sideyard change?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well this particular subdivision, sir,
involves two structures and many satellite structures around them.
.If you'd like, .I'm sure the Chairman will show you the property
of what the subdivision--
MR. SCUDELLARI: What is the hardship entail right now?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:. Sideyard.
MR. SCUDELLARI: Under the present zoning?
MR. CHAIRMAN'.: Sideyard.
MR. SCUDELLARI: What kind of restriction. does that cause,
the sideyard being two small. Is that it?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's correct.
MR. SCUDELLARI: Meaning that the individual owners between
these structures don't have enough space between their homes?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think if you were to look at this it
would give you an. idea .of what we--
MR. SCUDELLARI: We did look at it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh.
MR. SCUDELLARI: I'm still not quite sure why, the variance
is necessary.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. 2926 = Yaboni & Hauptman continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN: . Well, this is, the buildings were-all there
before these new regulations came, through, and then when they put
the lines through, it just happened to fall right by, I think it
goes through one of the buildings, a garage or something, that
straddles the line.
MR. SCUDELLARI: Why did he change . it though if it has been
there? What is their intention?
MR. CHAIRMAN: They're splitting'.-.the property, splitting them
to make it two lots out . of what was formerly considered just one
lot.
MR. SCUDELLARI : It presently stands that way. Seemingly it
doesn't --
MR. CHAIRMAN: The only thing it' s doing is putting the line
on the map. That' s what is amounts to, but it makes two different
properties out of At now.
MR.. SCUDELLARI: What is their intention after this is changed?
MR. CLARK: As I stated, there won't be any physical change.
The existing buildings. are there. The only reason they need the
variance is because dividing them created it. Insufficient area in
the sideyard. But if the variance is granted, everything will
remain there. There will be a different owner, that' s all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That' s what .the hardship is, the buildings were
there and there is no way they can put a line through there without,
if they did it any other way, they would be going right through more
buildings than what they've done here. They took the best way out.
It' s an old garage there that probably- if .anything had to be demo-
lished, that would be the best one that would be demolished.
MR. SCUDELLARI : I ' ll just. say this. It is presently farmland.
MR. - CHAIRMAN. It still is, yes.
MR. SCUDELLARI : It still is. farmland. If the buildings that
are there are obviously farm buildings with some private dwellings
as well, I would hate to see changes that bring in . any sort of two
or three private homes. Frankly, the farmland as i:t :presentl.y
stands is quite be:aut: ful1.and added value to your community. My
wife and I are New Yorkers, we' re not out here fulltime. We .bought
the house on Oregon Road three years ago. We have very little to
say; we don't vote out here. But I just think that this area is
. of value because of its farmland. Houses are being built off of
27, is it 27A. Presently some of the farmland is being lost. If
this is just an additional amount of loss of farmland I would say
that I. think it is a mistake. Naturally, we have very little to say
�' to prevent that. The Town does though. And I think, from. what I
Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- December 17., 1981
(Appeal No. 2926 '- Yaboni & Hauptman continued:.)
Mr. Scudellari continued:
understand there was some concern about this variance a . couple of
weeks ago. At least we saw that when we came out here the last time.
Was that discussed at all?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Not to my knowledge. Planning Board maybe.
MR. SCUDELLARI: Did the Planning Board come through with
any information?
MR. CLARK: Not as yet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Mr. Tyler.
CHARLES TYLER: . I'm presently living in the house. I` .have no
objection of changing anything.
MR. SCUDELLARI: Are you renting?
MR. TYLER: I 'm renting right now. I want to buy the house.
Mr. Sidor right here wants to buy the barns and they are going to
be be used strictly for agricultural. They're not, we're not going
to change anything.
MR. SCUDELLARI: Are you apt to sell some of the land for
building private ,homes?
MR. TYLER_: 'No. I 'm only getting an acre. If you have one
house on the acre now, you can't put another one.
MR. SCUDELLARI: What about the land outside . of what of you're
buying?
MR.. TYLER: 'It' s only going to be about 50 more feet outside of
what the house -is on now. And that' s not going to be changed. We're
not going to change anything. That' s not the. intent.
MR. CHAIRMAN Does that answer your' questions?
MR. SCUDELLARI: To a point.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak on this? (None) Any other
questions from the board? (None) I' ll offer a resolution to recess
this until the next regular meeting which will probably be -- do we
have a date on that yet?
SECRETARY: Possibly the 7th.
MEMBER DOYEN: January 7th.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it will probably be January 7th, and that
will give the Planning Board time to finish up.
i
Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. 2926 - Yaboni & Hauptman continued: )
MR. CLARK: I have an appointment with the Planning Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a letter here from Mr. Raynor on it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded.
On motion by, Mr. .Grigonis, seconded by. Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to recess the matter of Joseph Yaboni and Myron
Hauptman until the next regular meeting of the board.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. . 2935.
Upon application of William A. Kreitsek, 9030 Soundview Avenue,
Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule, for approval of the construction of
attached deck and pool with reduced rearyard setback at 9030 Sound-
view Avenue, Southold, NY; bounded north and east by Grattan; south
by Mudd; west by Kreitsek. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-59-7-27. 2.
The Chairman, opened the hearing at approximately 8 :50 p.m. ,
read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal .application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here to speak for this application.
Is there anyone to speak against it? (None)
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'll make a motion granting this as. applied
for.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded.
The following are the findings and determination of the board:
By this appeal, applicant. seeks.:approval of the construction of
an attached .deck and inground swimmingpool leaving a-setback from
the southeasterly property line (adjoining Grattan) of approximately
36 feet. Existing on the premises are a one-story, one-family
frame dwelling with attached deck and pool requested herein, and
small metal-utility shed. It is the feeling of the board that the
location of the dwelling lends itself to the practical difficulties
in finding adequate and feasible . buildable area in the. rear yard,
and that the circumstances are unique.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances
,/herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial
Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- December 17 , 1981
(Appeal No. 2935 William A. Kreitsek continued: )
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that no adverse
effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any
increased--population; that the relief requested will be in harmony
with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the inter-
ests of justice will be served by allowing the variance.
On motion by; Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of William A. Kreitsek, Appeal
No. 2935 be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR.
Location of Property: 9030 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-59-7-27. 2.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal .No. . 2936 .
Upon application of Richard A. Miller, 2895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel,
NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32
for permission to- construct wind generator exceeding the maximum height
requirements at 2895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, NY; bounded north and west
by Town of Southold; east by Aldrich Lane; south by Boschetti; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-125-2-1. 5 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 8 :52 p.m. , and
read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal appli-
cation.
HENRY"SAXS.TEIN: Fairway Avenue, Riverhead, New York. And I
represent Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller has an application before you to
construct a wind generator, the tower of which will be 60 feet in
height. The application before you requests a variance to permit a
total structure height of 80 feet. This is due to the fact that the
generator sits on top of the tower, and the blade of the generator
spans 13 feet. Additionally, the tower will sit on the base one foot
above the ground level. The actual minimum height necessary will be
76 feet. We have included a few extra feet in there in case designs
change for blades, which would require a..larger blade, some time in
the future. The height permissible in this district is 18 feet and
it would just be impossible to erect a generator in this area as an
accessory structure 18 feet in height. As the application has stated,
the structure would be approximately 550 feet from Aldrich Lane. It' s
in an area that is. quite heavily wooded and would not be a nuisance to
anyone. The structure would be three feet from the southerly lot line,
although the structure itself would not encroach on the property. The
design of the generator requires that it be serviced on its side, which
Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. 2936 - Richard A. Miller continued: )
MR. SAXSTEIN continued:
would require the; generator to be laid down on the adjoining property.
Because of this we .have obtained an affidavit from the adjoining
property owner on the south stating that he had no objection to this
application; he is in support of the application; and if the applica-
tion were to be granted, he would grant Mr. Miller an easement for
the operation and, repair and construction and .maintenance of this
generator, and I have the original of the affidavit and. a copy of
the proposed easement here for you, and I'd like to offer..-.that:.-at
this time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
(The original affidavit signed by Carlo Boscheeti notarized on
the 17th day of December 1981, and copy of the proposed Easement
Agreement were both placed in the appeal file .for the record. )
MR. SAXSTEIN': With me also tonight :is Mr. Miller, the applicant,
and Mr. Richards Jazombeck from Riverhead, .the gentleman who owns a
tower substantially similar to the one to be constructed here. And
Mr. Jazombeck is also a' salesman for this company and . is quite familiar
with the requirements of. the construction of the tower and the opera-
tion of the windmill, and either of these gentlemen will be glad to
answer any questions you may have.
MR. CHAIRMAN:: Thank you. Anyone else to speak for this? Anyone
to speak against this application? Any of the board members have any
questions? You've got the expert down there, and -- (No further
questions) . If there are no further questions and no one else to
speak, I ' ll offer, a resolution to close-:.the hearing and reserve the
decision, until we get a change to study this out a little bit and
come to a decision, maybe in a few days. Thank you very much for
coming in.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded.
On motion by' Mr. Grigonis, . seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of RichardiA. Miller in Appeal No. 2936 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis , Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
J
Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- December 17, 1981
PUBLIC RE-HEARING: Appeal No. 281.8. Application of Herbert W.
Davids, by Stanley S. Corwin, Esq. , 634 First Street, Greenport, NY
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31
Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area and width. of parcels
proposed to be re-.separated. : . D.escription of Property: Lots 25 , 26
and 27 of Seawood Acres Subdivision, Filed Map 2575; .bounded north
and west by Reese; south by McDermott; east by Seawood Drive: County
Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-79-7-64 , 65 and 66 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 91100 p.m. and
read the legal notice of. hearing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Your turn has come; Mr. Corwin.
STANLEY S. CORWIN; ESQ. : Well,. gentlemen, as you know my client
is disenchanted with your adverse determination. He took us into
court, which puts me in a position where ordinarily since you:'--re
somebody else' s client, I couldn't talk to you, but Mr. Yakaboski
said I could come down here and talk to you tonight. So . that' s what
I'm here for. We were exploring the possibility of working something
out, and during .the course :of numerous conversations, Mr. Davids
agrees that .we would modify the application and just spin ,one lot off.
And we propose to do that by stipulation, and have it enforced by a
moderate court but Mr. Yakaboski seems to feel that the Board will
have the power .to:'.. t-.that way. I don't quite agree with him on that,
but that' s all :beside the. point. In any event now, coming back here
as .though this were strickly a re.-hearing on the original application
and projecting the lawsuit for the moment, what we are proposing to
do now is .to .spin one lot off. And as you know from our earlier
hearing, the dwelling is situated on the middle lot, and we'd like
for the board to' give us an option about which lot went with the
house because it' doesn't make any difference. If somebody. came
along and wanted; to buy one, we just assume sell them the north
lot separately and us the south lot. If that' s too much for the
board, assuming that it'.s inclined to go along with this modifica-
tion and .you want me to be specific. about it, why we. would want
to keep the southerly ,lot separate. That' s a lot that' s 100 by
125 feet,._contains 12 ,500 square feet. The northerly lot contains
maybe another 100 square feet, but the contours of the land are
such that by itself it is not as attractive as Lot #27. We hope
that the--,board will be persuaded .to accept this modified proposal
and -grant the application in that form. I ,don't know whether Mr.
Yakaboski has indicated to you what the status of the litigation
is at present. It now;stands adjourned until the 22nd of December.
MR: CHAIRMAN: . Well, I know.we're supposed to .come up on the
1.7th and --
MR. CORWIN: It' s over a week. Of course the board' s here.
Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you very much for coming in,
Mr. Corwin. I' ll offer a resolution closing this and we' ll discuss
this a little later and come up w1th a decision and close -- reserve
decision at the moment rather.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- December 17 , 1981
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by.-Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of Herbert W. Davids, Appeal No. 2818.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis , Doyen, Douglass ,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to schedule and advertise the. following matters for
public hearing to be held at the next Regular Meeting of this board
to be held Thursday, January 7, 1982 commencing at 7 :15 o' clock p.m. :
Appeal No. 2938 - Joseph D. Posillico, Sr.
Appeal No. 2937 - Beverly Andrews
Appeal No. 2940 - Richard Mohring
Appeal No. 2939 - Mignon S. LaMorte
Appeal No. 2941 - Peter and Mary O'Hanlon
Appeal No. 2926 - Joseph Yaboni and Myron Hautpman (recessed
from earlier this evening)
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis , Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- December 17 , 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2818.
Upon application of Herbert W. Davids, by Stanley S. Corwin, Esq. ,
634 First Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the. Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient
area and width of parcels proposed to be re-separated. Description of
Property: Lots 25, 26 and 27 of Seawood Acres Subdivision, Filed Map
No. 2575; bounded north and west by Reese; south by McDermott; east by
Seawood Drive. County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-79-7-64 , 65 and 66 .
This is a rehearing of Appeal No. 2818. Appellant originally
appealed to this Board by Appeal dated April 22, 1981. Appellant is
the owner of three contiguous lots on the northerly side of Seawood Drive
at Bayview, Southold, New York known as Lots 25, 26 and 27 on Subdivision
Map of Seawood Acres, Map No. 2575 (Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000 ,
Section 79 , Block 7, Lots 64 , 65 and 66) . Each lot has a frontage on .
Seawood Drive of 100 feet. Lot 25 has an area of 12,802 sq; ft. ; Lot
26 has an area of 12, 757 sq. ft. , and Lot 27 has an area of 12,500 sq.
ft. An one-story frame dwelling is constructed on Lot 26 (the
middle lot) . Appellant acquired the three subdivision lots in 1967,
at which time the minimum size lot required by the Zoning Code was
12,500 square feet. In 1971, the code was amended to require a mini-
mum size lot of 40 ,000 square feet. The lots have, accordingly, merged
into one lot. This Board, by decision dated September 16 , 1981, denied
appellant' s request to divide the premises into three lots.
Thereafter, this Board, by unanimous vote authorized a review of
its prior action at a rehearing of this Appeal. At such rehearing held
on December 17 , 1981, Appellant requested that one of the vacant lots be
allowed to be set-off and the remaining two lots be held as one lot.
When this Board considered the original appeal , it did not believe
that it was in the public interest to permit a dwelling to be constructed
on Lot No. 25 because of its terrain. However, since the appellant is
now proposing that only one lot be set-off, this Board now believes that
it would be appropriate to allow Lot No. 27 to be set-off and that Lots
25 and 26 continue as one lot. This will alleviate the Board' s concern
about the construction of a dwelling on Lot 25. It will also not ad-
versely alter the character of the neighborhood since substantially all
lots in the subdivision are developed with a lot size of 12,500 sq. ft.
It is the finding of the board that to permit Lot No. 27 to be
set-off as a separate lot is not a substantial deviation from the code
requirements; that the circumstances of Appellant' s premises are unique
and not shared by other lots in the neighborhood; that practical diffi-
culties have been demonstrated; that the spirit of the Zoning Code will
be observed; and that the granting of the variance will serve the public
interest.
On motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr'. Grigonis, it was
Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. 2818 - Herbert W. . Davids continued: )
RESOLVED, that .Appellant be granted permission to set-off Lot
No. 27 and .retain, Lots 25 and 26 as one lot.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2936.
Upon .application of Richard A. Miller, 2895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel,
NY for a Variance, to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32
for permission td construct wind generator exceeding the maximum height
requirements at 2'895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, NY.; bounded north and west
by Town of Southold; east by Aldrich Lane; south by Boschetti; County
.Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-125-2-1.5.
The Board made the following findings and determination: .
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a 60 '
tower requiring a� total height from ground level of approximately
801 , for generating wind into electric power, to - be located in the
rearyard area approximately four feet from the southerly property line
and approximately' 26 feet from the westerly property line. It is the
feeling of the board that energy systems of this type should be
encouraged, and that it is a means of energy conservation. The
board feels that such a system will not have a detriment effect
upon the character of the neighborhood and. that it is within the
interests of justice.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the cir-
cumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no sub-
stantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that
the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method feasible to appellant
other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on
available governmental facilities of any increased population; that
the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general
purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served
by allowing the variance as applied for.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, 'that the application of Richard A. Miller, Appeal
No. 2936 be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR AND SUBJECT TO THE' EASEMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN; CARLO BOSCHETTI (neighbor) AND THE APPLICANT.
Location of Property: . 2895 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, NY; County
,/Tax Map Parcel No;. 1000-125-2-1. 5.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- December 17, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2920.
Upon application of Frank Mandaro and Nicholas. Mandaro, 269
Prescott Avenue, Staten Island, NY (by Irving L. Price, Jr. , Esq. )
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-
30A(1) , 100-118E, and 100-31, for permission. to construct addition
and alteration of two existing buildings, having been denied by
the building inspector for the following reasons: (1) two seasonal
undersized dwelling units existing prior to zoning on one lot cannot
be permitted as two (yearround) dwellings on one lot; (2) a noncon-
forming building may not be reconstructed or structurally altered
during its life to an extent exceeding . in aggregate cost 50% of the
fair value of the building unless same is changed to a conforming
use; (3) insufficient side yard. Location of Property: 2370 Bay
Avenue, East Marion, NY; bounded north by Baltz; west by Tosca Hold-
ing & Realty Corp. ; south by Orient Harbor; east by Bay Avenue (Tut-
hill ' s Path) ; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-16-7.
The public hearing concerning this appeal was held on November 24 ,
1981, at which time decision was reserved pending further deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicants seek permission to construct addi-
tions,. deck addition at the southeasterly end of the most northerly
structure 21 ' by 20 ' , and proposed addition .at the southeasterly end
of the most southerly structure approximately . 10 ' by 22 ' and deck
addition 21 ' by 22 ' , which would leave a minimal setback from the
sideyard line (adjoining premises now or formerly of End. O'Lane
Cottage , Inc. ) of four feet. The premises contains two one-family
seasonal dwelling structures which are at present raised on concrete
blocks and without basement or cellar area. The subject premises
contains a lot area of approximately 10 , 200 square feet, with 98 '
frontage along Bay Avenue. It is the feeling of the board .that the
areas chosen for improvements and additions appear to be the most
feasible in light of the shallowness, unusual character and shape
of the parcel in question, and location of the structures in the
immediate area.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
proposed projects herein will cause no detrimental effect to ad-
joining properties; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a
method feasible' to appellants , other than a variance; that no
adverse effects will be produced on available governmental faci-
lities of any increased population; that the relief requested will
be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; and
that the interests of justice will be served by granting permission
for the improvements proposed by this application.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of Frank and Nicholas Mandaro,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No. 2920 - Frank and Nicholas Mandaro continued: )
Appeal No. 2920 , be GRANTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
1. In the event. applicants (or subsequent owners) propose to
convert the existing buildings to yearround use, prior written
approval of this board must be received.
2 . No further structural changes or improvements without
approval of this board.
Location of Property: 2370 Bay Avenue (Tuthill' s Path) , East
Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-16-7.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass
Goehringer and Sawicki.
RESERVED. DECISION: Appeal No. FL-10.
Upon application of James P. Latham, Plum Island Lane, Orient,
NY, for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, Chapter 46 ,
Section 46-19 for permission to construct cellar slab approximately
eight feet above mean sea level in this V-5 .Coastal Flood Zone and
presumably without structural support and anchorage by pilings or
columns (or with fill/without breakway walls) . Location of Property:
Private Road (Peter' s Neck Point) , Orient, NY; bounded north by G.
Latham and Gids Bay; west by Strachan, Private Road, and Bliss;
east and south by Orient Harbor; County Tax .Map Parcel No. 1000-
32-1-12.
The public hearing concerning this appeal application was held
earlier this evening, at which time decision was reserved until
this time.
The Board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to anchor the
proposed new .one-family dwelling on pilings and "capping" it with
cement footings, having 12' block for a small crawl space area.
The. subject premises is .located in a V-5 Flood Zone with a minimum
elevation requirement of eight feet above mean sea level for the
lowest portion of the structural members of the lowest floor, with
all space below the lowest floor' s supporting member open so as not
to impede the flow of water and no fill used for structural support
(Section 46-19B) . The plot plan submitted to the Board indicates
that the location of the lowest floor has an elevation at or above
eight feet above mean sea level.
It is the understanding of the board that a modification
of the zone designation for this area from a V-5 zone to A-5 is
in its preliminary stages as of September 24 , 1981 , and if this
change adopted, applicant would be permitted to construct in the
Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- December 17 , 1981
(Appeal No. FL-10 - James P. Latham continued: )
manner applied for in this application without the requirement of
a variance to the. Flood Plain Management Law.
The premises in question contains .an area of 67,000 square
feet as shown on Map .dated April 2, 1981, amended August 10 , 1981
submitted with the appeal application, with frontage along a 25 '
private right-of-way of 68. 29 feet. The parcel is known as Lot 2
of the Minor Subdivision of George R. Latham approved by the Plan-
ning Board September 14 , 1981.
In passing upon this application, the Board has considered
all technical evaluations; all relevant factors; all standards
specified in the Code; and all of the applicable factors contained
in Section 46-15B, subdivisions (1) to (11) , inclusive, of the Code.
The Board further finds and determines that: . (1) There is
a good and sufficient cause for the grant of this variance; (2) A
failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship
to the applicant; (3) The grant of a variance will not result in
increased flood heights, or additional threats to public safety, or
.extraordinary public expense, or create nuisances, or cause fraud,
or victimize the public, or conflict with existing local laws or
rules or regulations.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of James P. Latham, Appeal
No. FL-10 , BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED a variance from the provisions
of the Flood Plain Management Law of the Town of Southold as applied
for and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, to wit:
(1) That prior to the commencement of construction, the
applicant apply for and obtain a Development Permit from the Town
Building Inspector, pursuant to the provisions of the Flood Damage
Prevention Law;
(2) That .there shall be no habitable (living) area below
the 8 ' minimum elevation above mean sea level, nor any utilities ,
at any time;
(3) That this project is subject to all other rules and
regulations concerning this property; i.e. DEC Tidal Wetlands
Permit #TW 578-0167 , et set. ;
(4) Suffolk County Planning Commission referral pursuant
to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter;
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions
of Section 46-16F of the Code, the applicant is hereby given NOTICE
that the structure for which this variance is granted will be per-
mitted to be built as applied for and that the cost of flood insur-
Ance will be commensurate with the increased risk, if any, resulting
Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- December 17, 1981
(Appeal No.. FL-10 - James P. Latham continued: )
from same;
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary to this Board
transmit copies of this determination to the applicants and to the
Town Building Inspector.
Location of Property: Private Road (Peter' s Neck Point) ,
Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-•32-1-part of 12;
Minor Subdivision of George R. Latham Lot No. 2.
Vote of the .Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
(Minutes continued on next page)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- December 17, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2928.
Upon application of Peter S. Terranova, Box 77., Peconic, NY for a
variance to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-31 and
100-34 for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with reduc-
tion of :frontyard area and beyond property line. Location of Property:
1170 Huntington Boulevard (a/k/a 565 Sound Avenue)., Peconic, NY; bounded
north by Murdock; west by Sound View Avenue; south by Huntington Boule-
vard; east .by Hoffman. . County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-67-2-1.
The following findings and determination were made:
By this appeal, applicant seeks approval of the construction
of decks./walkways along the westerly, northerly and southerly
yard areas attached to the existing one-family, one-story dwell-
ing. The deck/walkway along the northerly and westerly yard
areas would be constructed at or over the property lines, and
approximately 48 ; feet from the southerly property line.
The subject premises is a corner lot as defined by Section
100-13 of the zoning code and contains a total area of approxi-
mately 4,600 square feet of which approximately 917 square feet
are occupied by the dwelling and approximately 407 square feet
for proposed deck area. The maximum-permitted lot coverage for
residential parcels is 20% of the total lot, or in this case
920 square feet. -
It is the feeling of the board that the location of this
project as applied for is substantial in relation to the code
requirements and' that this location is not appropriate or
feasible in light of the closeness of the dwelling to this
intersection and, the board is concerned with safety for. all.
Applicant in his appeal has set forth the reasons for
locating the decks/walkways as applied for rather than in the
rearyard or the easterly .yard area.
. Members of the board have visited the site. and are familiar
with the structures located .thereon, including the deck applied
for herein which is constructed, as well as the terrain, imme-
diately adjacent properties and their structures, and private
road accessibilities.
In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines
that a detriment to adjoining properties will be created if the
variance is .granted as applied for, that a substantial change in
the character of the neighborhood will be produced, that the
relief as requested will not be in harmony with and promote the
general purposes - of the zoning code; however the board finds that
applicant is able to utilize decks/walkways at the rear of the
house .and considers a 407 square-foot area, which applicant states
Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- December 17, 1981
Peter S. Terranova
(Appeal No. 2928 - continued: )
is needed, to be practical if located at the rear of existing
dwelling.
On motion by Mr.. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of Peter S. Terranova, Appeal
No. 2928 , be GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
1. That a 40.7-square-foot rear deck is permitted only in
the rearyard (southerly) area -- not to encroach past the west
side of the existing house;
2 . That the deck addition never be enclosed or used for
habitable (living) area;
3 . Suffolk County Planning Commission referral pursuant to
Sections 1323 , et seq, of the Suffolk County Charter.
Location of Property: 1170 Huntington Boulevard (a/k/a 565
Sound Avenue) , Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-67-2-1.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2932.
Upon application of Jay P. and M. Joanne Davis-Slotkin, Box 950 ,
Cutchogue, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100-30 for permission to establish professional medical
offices. on premises zoned "A" Residential and Agricultural at 50
Ackerly Pond Road (a/k/a 49725 Main Road) , Southold, . New York;
bounded north by Johnson; west by Baker .and ano.. ; south by Ackerly
Pond Lane; east by Main Road; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-70-
5-4 .
The Board made the following findings and determination:
Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- December 17, 1981 Regular
Meeting
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne Davis-Slotkin continued: )
i
Appellant has applied to this Board for a use variance to permit
establishment of professional medical offices for applicant and other
medical professionals located on the northerly side of Main Road
(N.Y. Route 25) and the easterly side of Ackerly Pond Lane (a/k/a
Bowery Lane) , Southold. The premises are presently zoned "A" Resi-
dential . and Agricultural and comprises approximately . 59 of an acre
and are shown and- designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as
District 1000 , Section 70 , Block 5, Lot 4 . The subject premises
has constructed thereon lz-story frame house with accessory garage.
The property on the north side of the Main Road west of Ackerly
Pond Lane is in the "B-1" General Business Zone and extends westerly
approximately 1,500 feet. The property on the south side of the
Main Road west of Ackerly Pond Lane is also in the "B-1" General
Business. Zone, and extending westerly of this "B-1" Zone are proper-
ties zoned "B" Light Business. Properties on the south side of the
Main Road directly opposite the subject premises are zoned "C-Light"
Industrial for approximately 337 feet along the Main Road.
Section 100-30C (1) of the Zoning Code permits "Home Occupations"
in the "A" Zone as an accessory use. Under the definition of "Home
Occupation" (Section 100-13) , the professional office of a doctor is
permitted provided that the office is located in a dwelling in which
the. practitioner 'resides , or in a building accessory thereto. The
Appellant (a practicing doctor) could establish a medical office in
the dwelling on the premises or . in a building accessory thereto
provided he resided there and employed not more than one nonresident
assistant. Presumably, however, Appellant does not wish to have
only his own medical office on the premises, but instead desires to
change the use of these premises to permit the use of professional
offices. Such a use is not permitted in an "A-Residential and
Agricultural District. It is permitted in the "B" and "B-1" Business
Districts.
Since the variance applied for is a use variance, before this
board may grant such a variance the record must show that: (1) the
land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for
a purpose allowed. in that zone; (2) that the plight of the owner
is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in
the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning
code; and (3) that the use to be authorized by the variance will not
alter the essential character of the locality. The courts have held
that a claim that' the property is yielding less than a reasonable
return requires proof, in dollars and cents form, of all matters bear-
ing upon the return available under existing zoning, including proof
that no permissible use will yield a reasonable return.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- December 17, 1981 Regular
Meeting
(Appeal 'No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne Davis-Slotkin continued: )
Dollars. and cents evidence was not presented for the record,
except that the property has been on the real estate market for
some time without success, and that one of the real estate brokers
not. present ..at the hearing felt that the value of this property
for residential use was significantly less than it would have in
some location other -than a business area, and the if the residence
were permitted to._-be .used for professional offices it's value
would increase by. at ;least $15,000, , No factual written dollars
and cents proof, ';or. expert testimony was presented to show that
the property could not yield. a , reasonable return. Therefore, . this
board concludes that the evidence presented does not support the
grant of the variance applied for.
This .board does believe that there is, however,., a public need
for the type of facility proposed .by Appellant .in .the Hamlet of
Southold, and that perhaps the Town Board should consider the
extension of the present business district to embrace Appellant' s
property.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
, RESOLVED, for the reasons set forth herein, the variance
request in Appeal No. 2932 , is denied.
Vote of _the Board_; Ayes : .Messrs. Grigonis , Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
(Minutes continued on next page)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- December 17 , 1981
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2938 .
Application of Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. , 3506 Camp Mineola
Road, Mattituck, NY. Fence along frontyard area exceeding
maximum height requirements of code.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. . Goehringer,
it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Appeal No. 2938 ,
Joseph D. Posillico, Sr. :
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section . 617. 13 of the-N.Y.S. Department of
Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation 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 in this
appeal application 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
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implemented as.
planned.
The property in question is located within 300 feet 'of
tidal wetlands but the wetland. area is separated by a bulk-
head- constructed along the water-lying edge in very good
condition and at least 100 feet in length.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be 'in-
volve6, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property: 3506 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck,
NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-123-6-12. 4.
Vote of the Board : Ayes: Messrs. Douglass., Goehringer,
Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- December 17, 1981
y
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
APPEAL NO. 2937 .- Beverly Andrews. Swimmingpoo.l in sideyard
area on a corner lot at the corner of Maple Lane' and Grand Avenue,
Mattituck, NY.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by' Mr.. Goehringer,
it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Appeal No. 2937 , applica-
tion of -Beverly Andrews:
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of
Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation 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 in this
appeal application is hereby classified -as a. lype 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
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
The property in question is not located within 300 feet
of tidal wetlands area.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property: Corner of Grand Avenue and Maple
Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-107-2-10 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Goehringer,
Doyen, Grigonis ,and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals =42- December 17, 1.981'
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Appeal No. 2940 - Richard Mohring. Application for approval
of access over . a private road off the west sid&. of Arshamomaque
Avenue, Southold, NY.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr.. Goehringer,
it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Appeal No. 2940 , applica-
tion of Richard Mohring:
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the N.Y.S. Department of
Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation 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 in this
appeal application 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
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
The right-of-way in question is not located within 3'00 .
feet of tidal wetlands area.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property: Right-of-way off the west side of
Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold, NY. County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-66-2-44 .*
Vote of the Board : Ayes: Messrs. Douglass., Goehringer,
Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- December 17, . 1981
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Appeal No. 2941. Application of Peter and. Mary O'Hanlon
for permission to construct new dwellin.g .wi.th insufficient
rearyard area at 730 Greenway Way, Orient, NY.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer,
it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environm ntal
Declaration concerning the matter of Appeal No. 29.41, appelica-
tion of Peter and Mary O'Hanlon:
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the-N.Y.S. Department of
Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the .Southold Town Code,
A notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals
has determined that the subject project as proposed in this
appeal application is hereby classified as a ype 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
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
The premises in. question •is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands area.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be 'in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered 'by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property: 930 Greenway West, Orient, NY;
County Tax Map District 1000 , Section 15 , Block 1, Lot 20 . .
Green Acres at Orient Subdivision Lot 36 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Goehringer,
Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- December 17 , .1981
Vv
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2939.
Application of Mignon S. LaMorte for approval of access
over 'a private road off the west side of Arshamamoque Avenue, -
Southold, NY.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr.. Goehringer,
it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the-N.Y.S. Department of
Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation 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 in this
appeal application 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
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
The right-of-way in question is not located within 300
feet of tidal wetlands area.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property: Right-of-way off the west side of
Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel.
No . 1000-66=2-45.
Vote of the Board : Ayes: Messrs. Douglass., Goehringer,
Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki.
'.' Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- December 17 , 1981
It was the consensus of the board to table the matter of
Robert and Frank Klos, Special Exception No. 2931 temporarily
pending review of the recently-submitted parking plan.
Being there was no further business to come before the
board at this time, the Chairman declared :the meeting closed.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
APPROVED
Chairman Board of APPORI-
FED AND FILED BY
Un-JOLD TOWN CLERK{
DATE44 9. HOUR 10 �1
'•T"o old
Ao:w�n er