HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/29/1984 �oS�FFo���G
o y
Southold, Town Board of Appeals
• �' MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI M I N U T E S
NOVEMBER '29 ; '1984
REGULAR 'MEETING
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of .Appeals was
held on Thursday ; November 29 , 1984 at 7 : 3.0 .o ' clock_. p .:m.. at 'the
Southold Town Hall , Main_ Road,._ Southold , New York ..
Present were : Gerard P . Goehringer , Chairman ; Charles
Grigonis , Jr. , Member ; Serge ._Doyen , Jr Member; Robert J .
Douglass , Member and Joseph H . Sawicki , Member. .Also present
were Victor Lessard , Buil_din.g-Department " Administrator , Mrs .
Barbara Strang , stenographer of .hearings , and. approximately
20 persons in the audience at _the opening of -.the- meeting... .
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7 : 30 o ' clock p .m. and
proceeded with the first `publ'ic hearing , in the Matter of
Appeal No . 3279 , of 'ERNEST GUETTINGER4 The public hearing was
closed after receiving comments from _the ' applicant , and the
board asked Mr. Guett_inger if they could return to inspect
the subject bu.il.ding , and Mr. Guettinger had no objection .
Motion was made by Mr. Goehr_inger , seconded by Mr ..._ Douglass ,
to declare the hearing closed, pending reinspection. This
resolution was unanimously ado-pted.
7 : 43 p .m. Public Hearing in the Matter of 'JOHN 'AND MARILYN
FLYNN. Following the public hearing , the following action was
taken ; and
The board made the following findings and determination :
This is an appeal from a Notice of. Disapproval from the Building
Inspector dated August 29 , 1984 for which the applicants applied for
a building permit to construct a one-family dwelling 35 feet from.
Little Peconic Bay Road. The site plan dated August 29, 1984 , prepared
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- November 29 , 1984 Regular Meeting
. . . . .. . . . . . . . .
(Appeal No . '3285 John and 'Maril'yn -Flynn , continued : )
by Garrett A. Strang indicates that there is an existing 12 ' by 16 '
concrete-block building 7± feet off the northerly boundary line along.
Little Peconic Bay Road. It is the applicant ' s request to retain -
same as a storage building accessory to the proposedlone-family .
.dwelling .
It is the opinion of this board that it is the unusual character
of this parcel , having .frontage along three streets , which lends itself
to the practical difficulties of this cases Article III , Section
100-32 allows accessory buildings for storage purposes only in the
rearyard and having a minimum setback of three feet from all property
lines and a maximum height of 18 feet. This parcel technically has
three "front" yards .
In considering this appeal , the board finds that : (a ) the
circumstances of this appeal are unique ; (b ) no adverse effects
will be created affecting adjoining properties ; (c ) the variance
will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of this
zoning ordinance ; (d) the interests of justice will , be served
by allowing the variance , as indicated below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr .
Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, that the relief as requested under Appeal No. 3285
for permission to retain an existing 12 ' by 16 ' accessory- building
for storage purposes in the frontyard_, BE 'AND HEREBY 'IS_APPROVED ,
roVidod that 'same not be used 'for habi'tabl'e 'or sleeping .quarters
only 'for storage
Location of Property : 2250 Little Peconic Bay Boulevard ,
Cutchogue , NY ; Nas-sau Point Subdivision Part of Lot l42 and 143 ;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111 -12-001 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen ,
Grigonis , Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by
unanimous vote of all the members :
7 : 50 -.p .m. -'- Pu,blic. Hearing. was held in the. Matter .of ALFRED
AND B.ARBARA DAN.UNZIO._ At.;.:a.ppr.o_xilmat`e:ly_ 8,:10 p .m. ; 'notion_ wa—s made
by Mr Goeh'ring.er,_ seconded by Mre Grigo:nis , and unanimously
carried to caucus._ temporar.i�lye -At 8.:15 p .m. the hearing was
reconvened , on .motion by Mr. :Goeh.ringer , seconded 'by Member Grig-
onis , and .un.animously carried_.- No additional testimony was given
from the public , and motion wa.s made 'by Mr. Goehringer.,. sec.onded
_by Mr. Douglass , and unanimously carried; to close the hearing
pending deliberations .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -.3.- N.ovember 29,. 1984. Regular Meeting
8 :20 :p:.:m,. '- Pu,bl i c - H.eari ng. was held in the Matter of Appeal
No. 3286 for :JOS'EPH '.GRAS.SO. Foll.o.wtng the. public " hearing , the
following-- a.c,tion was_.taken :
. On motion by Mr . 'Goehringer, seconded by Member Douglass , it
was
RESOLVED , that - Appeal No . 3286 in the .Matter of 'JOS*EPH 'GRASSO
be and hereby. is RECESSED until December, 13, '1984 , at_ approximately
7 : 30 .p .m.
Vote of .the: Board: Ayes : Messrs .. Goehringer, Doyen ,, Grigonis ,
Douglass and_ Sa.wi.cki . This res.ol.uti on. -was adopted 'by "unanim_ous-. vote
of all the members .
The minutes of 'the public hearing have been taken electronically
by Mrs . Strang, and _are to be f.i.l ed under separate cover with the _
Office of the. Town Cle.rk..-'with these Minutes .
8 : 40 .p .m. Public Hearing was op.ened .and .rece-ssed. until
December 13 ,. 1984,._ in_ the Matter of Appeal No. - FL-15 for '.JOSEPH
GRASSO , after motion was made by Mr. Goeh_ring_er., seconded. by _Mr .
Douglass ,_ and una.nimou.sly carr.i_ed , by all the_ members . No tes.ti-
mony was given at this t_.ime , psi nce the _hearing. will be reconvened
on December 13 , 1984 . _
8:40 p .m. Public Hearing. wa.s held in the Matter of .Appeal
No . 3284 RICHARD 'W., SLEDJESKI . Comments made during this hearing
were, taken electronica,l.ly ._by Mrs . Strang and prepared under
separate cover. ` The minutes of ;the statements will be filed
simultaneou.s'ly. with this set with the Office of the Town Clerk .
Following the public hearing in this matter , t-he following. action
.was taken 'by the _board:
This is an appeal from the August 8, 1984 Notice of .Disapproval
of .the - Building Ins-pec.tor for approval to erect fencing six feet in
height along the front property. _lines,- to the south of ,the existing
one-family dwelling . The _premis_es in question contains an area of _
20 ,000 sq. ft . with frontage along two streets , 100 .feet in. length.
The lot in -,question .techni.ca,ll.y has two frontyard areas : (1 ) .north
of the existing dwelling a depth of 49 . 8 feet , and (2 ) south of
the existing dwe.11in-.g a depth. of .63± feet.. from the deck of the pool ,
as shown on survey prepared May. 25 , 1,983 by Donack Associates . .. Th_e
fencing is proposed to extend along the southerly property line along
County Road and northerly 48 to the front of .the dwelling for a
length of .150± feet.
It is the opinion of this board that the unique character of .
this parcel '`s. frontage along two streets lends itself ,to the practical
Southold Town Boara of Appeals -4- November Ly , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3284 - RICHARD W. SLEDJESKI , continued : )
difficulties ; and for practical purposes and privacy, it is the inten-
tion of the applicant to shield the property from the County Road ,
preserving its residential character .
In considering this appeal , the board finds , for the reasons
mentioned above , that : (a ) the circumstances of this appeal are
unique , (b ) no adverse effects will be created affecting adjoining
properties since no access is requested onto the County Road; (c )
the variance will be in harmony with and promote the general pur-
poses of zoning since the houses and driveway accesses face Homestead
Way ; and (d ) the interests of justice will be served , by allowing
the variance , as noted below.
Accordingly , on motion by Mr . Sawicki , seconded by Mr . Goeh-
ringer , it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No . 3284, in
the matter of 'RICHARD W. SLEDJESKI for permission to _erect fencing
six feet in height along the .property lines in the frontyard area along
C. R . 48 , BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
1 . The fencing be maintained in good condition at all times ;
2 . The fencing not be relocated to encroach further within the
frontyard area off Homestead Way.
Location of Property : N/S C . R. 48 and S/s Homestead Way ,
Greenport, NY ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-40-02-21 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , .Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members .
8 :45 p .m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of GENERAL
WAYNE 'INN , Appeal._ No . 3290 .. The ..m:i.nutes of the statements made
during the public hearing are being prepared under separate cover
by Mrs . Strang., which will be filed simultaneously herewith .
Following the public hearing, the following action was taken :
On motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it wasJ
RESOLVED, .to declare the hearing closed pending deliberations .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs, Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members .
'1
Southold. Town Board of .Appeals -.5- : November 29 , 1984 Regular Meeting
8.:55: 'p .m. ' Public. He.ari.ng Iwas held. .in the Matter of 'A.NTH.O'NY
PAG.OTO, Appeal. No_... 32.,91 . Pura_uant to a. written re.quested received
from -.Swim._ King Pool s ; agent for the applicant , the, f.o,l l owi ng action
was taken and no one was present to speak c.oncer.nin-g this matter at
this time :
On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED , -that.- Appeal. No . 32,91 , Hear..ing of 'ANT.H.ONY 'PA.G:OT0 be
and hereby is. RECESSED_ until. .the, 7.atter January. 7.985: .Reg,ul a.r Meet-
- -: _
ing , which. .is tentatively January 37st , at approxii�ate _y 730 .p .m
Vote of .the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , D'oyen ,. Grigonis ,
Dou,gl ass and_ Sawi c.ki , ' This res,ol uti on wa-s adopted 'by unanimous_. vote
of all the members .
'ADDIT.IO.NAL' SET-=UP. FOR '.PUBLIC HEARING .for December, 1 3 ,, 1 984:
-After- -r.evi ewi ng- tyre do-cu:men-ts conce-r.ni ng. the fo,l 1 o-wing matter ,
the board took the fo,llowiog., action :
. On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Sawicki., it was
RESOLVED, - that Appe.al. No. 33.06 , application. 'by Ira Haspel for
ANTH,ONY- AND SALLY 'PI.RRERA,_.'be .,_and hereby - i s - scheduled *for publ i c
heari:n-g to. _be _hel -'.THURSDAY ; DECEMBER, i3 ,, T984, i n add ti on -i o those
previously scheduled;.' and that' the Sec re_ta.ry. js hereby authorized
and directed to publish notice of .same pursuant to law in the local
and official newspapers of the town , Su_ffolk. Times _and Long Island.
Travel-_er-Watchman , Inc . _
. Vote of the. Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This- resolution _was adopted by una.nimo.us vote
of all the members . .
APPROVAL'. 'OF MT.NUTES: On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by
Mr . Goehringer _it -wa;s
RESOLVED, - that - the Minutes - of ,the. N.ovember 15 ,, 1984 Reg.ular
Meeting , "BE 'AND 'HEREBY. ARE APPROVED.
-Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen ,, Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members .
i J
3
Southold Town. Board of _Appeals -6- November 29 , 1984 Regular Meeting
AMENDED.
MENDED CON.D.ITI.ONS : Ap.pe,al No . 3117 - Special Exception - K. FARR.
The board members reviewed the court order of Hon . Joseph R. Corso ,
Justice -, Supreme Court of Suffolk County , and the following action was
taken :
WHEREAS , on October. 18 , 1984, 'under Index #84-15561 , Hon . Joseph R.
Corso , Justice , Supreme Cou_rt , _Speci,al. Term , of Suffolk County , has ordered
that the subject special exception be reissued. with.out conditions 5 , 6 , 8 .
and 12 , and _
WHEREAS , the remainder of .this board ' s decision rendered June 28 ,
1984 shall remain in full force. and effect pursuant thereto ;
NOW, THEREFORE , on motion by Mr . Douglass , seconded by Mr .
Sawicki , it was
RESOLVED , that the decision as rendered by this board BE AND
HEREBY ' IS 'RE=ISSUED; W.ITHO.UT CONDITIONS '5 , '6; 8 arid 12 , as ordered , and
re=numbered 'as fdl'l ows
1 . No lighting that will be adverse to neighboring uses ;
2 . A railing or barrier (guard rail ) shall be constructed , not to
exceed 30" above ground level , along the front property line to prevent
unsafe exiting onto street , [except. that the area for ingress and egress
within the "curb cut" remain open] ;
3 . No fencing along the front property line , except chainlink
for proper visibility ( or otherwise noted in these conditions ) ;
4 . No fencing along the north side property line less than (or
within ) six inches of front property line [except chainlink or guard
rail for proper visibility if screening is desired] ;
5 . (7 . ) Proposed future construction or changes requires approval
by the ZBA before a building permit is to be issued ;
6 . (9 . ) Existing stockade fencing along south line shall be
continuously maintained ;
7 . (10 . ) No launching ramp shall be built or permitted ;
8 . (11 . ) Building approved herein shall conform to' all set'-
backs in letter/memorandum dated June 18 , 1984 .from Stanley S. Corwin ,
P . C. , att.ached hereto for reference ;
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- November 29 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3117 - KATHRINE FARR, continued : )
Location of Property : West Side of Manhanset Avenue , Greenp.ort ,
NY ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-34-05-21 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members .
AMENDED CONDITIONS : Appeal No . 3118 - Variance = 'K. FARR . .
The board members took the following action in accordance with
the Judge ' s Order of October 18 , 1984 ,, concerning the subject Article
78 proceeding :
WHEREAS , on October 18 ,. 1984 , under Index #84-15561 , Hon . Joseph R.
Corso , Justice , Supreme Court , Special Term , of Suffolk County , has ordered
that the subject variance be reissued without conditions 5 , 6 , 8, and 12 ,
and
WHEREAS , the remainder of this board ' s decision rendered June 28 ,
1984 shall remain in full force and effect pursuant thereto ;
NOW, THEREFORE , on motion by Mr . Douglass , seconded by Mr.
Sawicki , it was
RESOLVED , that the decision as rendered by this board BE AND
HEREBY IS RE- ISSUED, WITHOUT CONDITIONS 5 , 6 , 8 and 12 , as ordered , and
re-numbered as follows :
1 . No lighting that will be adverse to neighboring uses ;
2 . A railing or barrier (guard rail ) shall be constructed , not to
exceed' 30 " above ground level , along the front property line to prevent
unsafe exiting onto street , [except that the area for ingress and egress
within the "curb cut" remain open] ;
3. No fencing along the front property line , except chainlink
for proper visibility (or otherwise noted in these conditions ) ;
4 . No fencing along the north side property line less than (or
within ) six inches of front property line [except chainlink or guard
rail for proper visibility if screening is desired] ;
5 . (7 . ) Proposed future construction or changes requires approval
by the ZBA before a building permit is to be issued ;
6 . (9 . ) Existing, stockade fencing along south line shall be
continuously maintained ;
Southold Town Board of .Appe,als ,-8- .November 29 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3118 - KATHRINE FARR, continued : )
7 . (10 . ) No launching ramp shall be built or permitted ;
8. ( 11 . ) Building approved herein shall conform to all set-
backs in letter/memorandum dated June 18 , 1984 from Stanley S. Corwin ,
P. C . , attached hereto for reference ;
Location of Property : West Side of Manhanset Avenue , Greenport ,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-34-05-21 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members .
RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No . 3288 = JOHN WICKHAM '& '.OTHERS.
The public hearing on this matter was held on November 15 , 1984 ,
at which time .the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations :
Upon application for JOHN WICKHAM, Main Road , Cutchogue , NY
(by A. Wickham , Esq . ) for a Variance to Amend Conditions 3 , 7 and 8
of the 6/28/84 decision rendered under Appeal . No . 3222 , and Article
VI , Section 100-60 in a proposal to establish business office for
marine contracting with accessory use for storage and repair of
contractor ' s. own vehicles and equipment , at 67576 Main Road , Green-
port , NY; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-052-05-058 .
The board made the following findings and determination :
Appellants , under Appeal No . 3222 , appealed a determination of
the Building Inspector which denied appellants ' application to change
use of the premises to a use permitted. in. a "C-Ligh_t Industrial " Zoning
District . On June 28 , 1984 , this board granted a use variance as
applied with, 13 conditions�. On September 11 , 1984 , appellants applied
for relief from Conditions No. 3 , 7 , and 8.; and on November 15 , 1984 ,
a public hearing was held. The board members have taken all the
statements of the hearing into consideration .
Condition No . 3 reads , "Said fencing shall be of a type that
will not allow visibility from'-the streets and other areas outside
of .the fenced area. " ,._ It is the understanding of the board that the
applicants would prefer to provide a type .of fencing similar to
"anchor post" .with plantings . It is the opinion of the board that
during winter months , some_ of the plantings may not provide sufficient
screening . The board has no objection to. a combination of landscap-
ing and solid fencing as indicated in Abigail Wickham ' s letter dated
September _11 , ' 1984 , provided it prevents visibility from the exterior .
Condition No . 7 reads , "Vehicle lifts , or pits , vehicles ,
Southold Town. Board or mppeals - 9- November c--, , .1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3288 - JOHN WICKHAM, continued: )
dismantled or otherwise , and all parts or supplies , shall be located
within a building . " It is the intent of this board that parts ,
supplies , inoperable or junk vehicles , whether dismantled or otherwise ,
shall not be permitted to be placed outside of a building . Cranes ,
crane booms , buckets , snow plows , and related accessory equipment
may be stored outside the buildings , but must be within the screened ,
fenced areas shown on the 9-13-84 site plan .
Condition No . 8 reads , "All service or repair of vehicles/equip-
ment of the contractor shall be conducted in a building . " The board
members agree that since the contractor intends to repair or service
only his own vehicles and/or equipment , that they should be permitted
to be serviced outside the buildings provided they remain in the
screened , fenced areas , and shall be typically placed in the areas
depicted on the 9-13-84 site plan . Any extensive modification of
these "service and storage areas" which may block access to these
buildings in the frontyard area will require re-application to this
board for reconsideration . One of the major concerns of this board
is access by emergency vehicles in the event of a fire .
NOW, THEREFORE , on motion by Mr . Grigonis , seconded by Mr.
Sawicki , it was
RESOLVED, that the Decision as Rendered under Appeal No . 3222
in the Matter of JOHN WICKHAM AND OTHERS , be and hereby is amended
to re-word Conditions No . 7 and 8 , as follows :
7 . Vehicle lifts or pits , any dismantled (inoperable or junk)
vehicles of the contractor shall be located within a building . Cranes ,
crane booms , buckets , snow plows , and related accessory equipment may
be 'stored outside the buildings but must be within the screened ,
fenced areas shown on the 9-13-84 site plan ;
8. Any service or repair of vehicles owned by the contractor
for which this use variance is granted shall be permitted within the
screened , fenced area , and shall not be permitted to be in any area
outside the fenced areas . The vehicles of the contractor may be
stored or parked outside the buildings provided they remain within
the screened , fenced areas and they do not block access to the
buildings ; and any extensive modification of the servicing and subject
storage areas other than permitted and typically shown on the 9-13-84
site plan will require re-application to and re-consideration by this
board ; and it was
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the remainder of this board ' s decision
and conditions rendered June 28 , 1984 , shall remain in full force
and effect.
Location of Property : North Side of Main Road , and West Side
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- November 29 ,. 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3288 - JOHN WICKHAM, continued : ).
of Albertson ' s Lane , Greenport , . NY; County Tax Map No . 1.000-052-05-58 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members .
RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No . 3290 :
Upon application of GENERAL WAYNE INN , Bayview Road , Southold , NY
for a Special Exception to t e' Zoning r inance , Article III., Section
100-30 (C ) [6] (f) for permission to erect directional sign at premises
identified -as County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-69-02-003; corner of
.C ..R.. .48 ,and .Acker.l.y..Pond .La.ne-, .Southold , NY (current owner : S. Doroski ) .
The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening ,
at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations .
The board made the following findings and determination :
This is an application for a Special Exception to permit the
placement of 4 ' by 4' directional sign for_ the General Wayne Restaurant ,
which is located quite a distance away .from the_..main _routes in the
township at Bayview , Southold. The sign is proposed to be located
on the South Side of County Road 48 , a minimum of 25 feet west of its
intersection with Ackerly Pond Lane , and a minimum of five feet from
the northerly property line along C. R. 48 . The premises in question
is located in the A-Residential and Agricultural District and contains
an acreage of approximately five acres . The present use of the
premises is agricultural sales , and a ground sign advertising the
Doroski ' s Nursery exists at this northerly section of the property .
It is the opinion of the board that the purpose of the sign
is directional and therefore will be in the public ' s interest as
distinguished from advertising and is necessary for the traveling
public . It is also the determination of the board that : (1 ) the
use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent
properties or of properties in adjacent use districts ; (2 ) that
the safety , health , welfare , comfort , convenience and order of the
town will not be adversely affected by this sign and its location ;
(3 ) this proposal will not alter the essential character of the
property or the neighborhood in this zoning -district; (4 ) the
use will be in harmony . with. and promote the general purposes and
intent of zoning .
NOW , THEREFORE , on motion by Mr . Grigonis , seconded by Mr .
Sawicki , it was
Southold Town Board of Appeals -11 - November 29 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3290 - GENERAL WAYNE INN for DOROSKI , continued : )
RESOLVED , that a directional sign for the General Wayne
Restaurant as applied under Appeal No . 3290 , BE 'AND HEREBY IS
APPROVED , SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
. 1 . The sign may continue only as the property owner ' s
consent is in effect; written permission of the property owner
(and subsequent owners ) shall be furnished to the Zoning Board
of Appeals ;
2 . The purpose of the sign 'must be directional in the
interest of the public , for the General Wayne Inn ;
3 . Said sign shall not exceed the size 4' by 6 ' ;
4. Said sign shall not be less than 5 ' from any property line ;
5 . The bottom edge of the sign shall not be less than 4 '
above ground;
6 . The sign shall not be lighted ;
7 . This sign permit may be terminable at once at the discretion
of the Board of Appeals if other legislative action were taken affecting
this decision ;
8 . This sign permit is subject to the rules and regulations of
the Federal Highway Beautification. Act and any and all other laws for
funding of highways , when applicable .
9. The sign must be maintained in good condition , or removal
may be directed.
Location of Property : South Side of C . R. 48 and West Side of
Ackerly Pond Lane , _Southold , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-
69-02-003 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members .
Southold Town Board of Appeals November 29 , 1984 Regular Meeting
RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No . 3230 :
Upon application of JEAN 'C. HOLLAND , Vanston Road , Cutchogue , NY
(by M. Hall , Esq . ) for a ..Variance to t e Zoning Ordinance , Article III ,
Section 100=31 ,., for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels
in this .proposed division o__f land known as Lots 36 and 37 on Map of
W. C . Grabie at Nassau Point , and Lots 327 and 328 on Map of Nassau
Point_ Club Properties (Section C) , Lowland Road , Cutchogue , NY; County
.Tax Map. Parcels No . 1000-111 -10-1 and 18.
The public hearing on this matter was held October 25-; .1984 , at
which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations .
The board made the following findings .and determination :
This is an appeal from Article III , Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule
of the Zoning Code for approval of insufficient area and width of two
proposed parcels , the most northerly lot of 58 ,000± sq . ft . (47 ,000 ±
east of Lowland Road and 11 ,000 sq . ft . west of Lowland Road ) and the
southerly lot of 56 , 200± sq . ft. (46 , 200± east of Lowland Road and
10 ,000± sq . ft . west of Lowland Road ) . The lot width of the southerly
parcel is to be 121 feet along Sunset Road . The northerly parcel is
a corner lot as defined under Section 100-13 and meets the requirements
of a minimum of 175 ' lot width of the current zoning c.ode . The
northerly parcel as proposed is improved with a 12-story , one-family
dwelling , which will have a setback from the southerly lot line of
15 feet , and existing at the northeasterly (frontyard ) area is an
accessory storage/garage structure 44 ' from Meadow Beach Lane . The
southerly parcel as proposed is vacant.
The board members have personally visited the site in question
and are familiar with the character of this residential neighborhood .
The board members have taken all testimony at the public hearing of
October 25 , 1984 , into consideration in rendering this determination .
For the record , it is noted that the applicants purchased the
subject premises July 17 , 1967 . Since that time , several building
permits have been issued permitting substantial renovations and
enlargement of the dwelling on these two lots , jointly.
It is the determination of. this board that : (a ) this proposal
would not be within the character of this neighborhood because of its
configurations ; (b ) the setback of the existing dwelling would
be insufficient and would not meet the requirements of zoning for
a 50-foot rearyard ; (c ) the evidence submitted is not sufficient
to justify the granting of the relief as requested ; (d ) in view of
the manner in which the difficulty arose and- in considering all of
the above , the interests of justice would not be served by allowing
Southold Town. Board of Appeals -13- November 29 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3230 - .JEAN C . HOLLAND , continued : )
the variance as applied .
Accordingly , on motion by Mr . Grigonis , seconded by Mr .
Goehringer , it was
RESOLVED , that the relief as requested under Appeal No . 3230
in the Matter of JEAN C . HOLLAND , BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as applied.
Location of Property : Lots 328 and 327 , Map of Nassau Point
Club Properties (Section C) ; Lots 36 and 37 , Map of Walter C.
Grabie Subdivision ; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 111 - 10-001 and 018 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous' vote
of all the members .
RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No . 3250 :
Upon application for JAMES AND BEULAH RICKETTS , Conklin Road ,
Mattituck , NY (by G. Olsen , Esq . for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ,
Articles I and III , Section 100-31 , (A106 ) for approval of insufficient
area and width of two proposed parcels in this division of land located
on the West Side of Conklin Road (Grant Boulevard ) , Mattituck , NY ;
County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-139-03-19 and 30 (30 . 1 ) .
The public hearing on this matter was held on November 15 , 1984 ,
at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations .
The board made the following findings and determination :
This is an appeal from Article III , Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule
of the Zoning. Code which requires a minimum of 80 ,000 sq . ft. of lot area
and 175 ft . of lot width for each parcel in a proposed division of land .
By this application , proposed Parcel No . 1 would have 15 ,681 sq . ft.
with 115 . 41 ft . frontage along Conklin Road; proposed Parcel No . 2 would
have an area of 32 ,358 sq . ft . with 154 . 19 ft . along Conklin Road. Each
of the premises are part of the 1935 Subdivision of "Mattituck Heights , "
to wit , Parcel 1 consists of Lots 69 and 70 ; Parcel 2 consists of part
of Plots D and E. Parcel 1 is vacant , and Parcel 2 is improved with
a one-story , one-family frame house , and two small accessory storage
sheds .
For the record , it is noted that the applicants purchased the
subject premises by separate deeds , on November 18 , 1965 , during the
12 , 500 sq . ft. zoning requirements of the town .
The board members have personally viewed the site in question
and are familiar with the character of this residential community . . In
viewing the neighborhood , the board finds a majority of the parcels to
be of a size larger , although only by perhaps 7 ,000± sq . ft . than
proposed Parcel 1 .
• t j
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- November 29 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3250 .- JAMES AND BEULAH RICKETTS , continued : )
The board members are also familiar with all of the facts and
statements given at the public hearing of this matter held on Novem-
ber 15 , 1984 .
It is the determination of this board that Parcel 1 is not of
an average size consistent with the majority of the lots in this
immediate area and therefore : (a ) the variance requested is not
in harmony with and will not promote the general purposes of zoning ;
(b ) the burden of proof is not sufficient to justify the granting
of the relief as requested; (c ) the relief as requested is substan-
tial in relation to the requirements of zoning ; (d ) the interests
of justice will be served by denying the relief, as requested in
this application .
Accordingly , on motion by Mr . Douglass , seconded by Mr .
Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED , that the relief as requested under Appeal No . 3250
in the Matter of JAMES AND BEULAH RICKETTS, BE AND HEREBY 'IS 'DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Location of Property : West Side of Conklin Road (a/k/a Grant
Boulevard ) , Mattituck , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-139-03-19
and 30 (30 . 1 ) .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members .
RESERVED DECIS.I.ON : Ap.peal. No . 3287 :
Upon application of "ALFRED AN-D. 'BARBARA 'D.i.N.UNZ.I.O, 6 Glenn Road ,
Southold , 'NY for a. Variance for appr.ova o access , - New .York. .Town
Law , Section 280-A concerning sigh_t-of-wa.y, located. off .the east side
_of Wells Road , Peconic , 'NY ; to _premi_s-es _identified as County. Tax
Map Parcel No . 1000-.75=06-001 .
The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening ,
at which tame decl ared cl osed pending del i berati ons_..-
The board made the following findings and determination :
By this application , appellants seek approval of access over a
private right-of-,w.ay as shown _on the survey_ ..prepared by Young &
Young , updated July 25 ; 1984 . The subject righ..t-of-way _fronts along
Wells Road 50 .feet and extends from the easterly side of Wells Road_
-in-
a southeasterly direction a .length of 94 . 00__ feet to the appel -
- lants ' property , .for, a total length of .110 .feet and a width -of _16 . 50
r
Southold Town Board c . Appeals -15- November 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3287 - ALFRED AND BARB.ARA DiNUNZIO , continued : )
feet . For the record copies of deed dated March 11 , 1982 recorded at
Liber 9156 cp 194 from Krukowski to the DiNunzios , and title insurance
policy , indicating the subject right-of-way have been submitted .
Also , deed recorded at Liber 7989 cp 536 dated February 5 , 1975 from
Krukowski to the adjoining property owners , Zaneski , was submitted
for the record which indicates the right-of-way in question .
The statements made at the public hearing in support of and in
opposition to this application have been considered . At the present
time , the subject right-of-way has been landscaped and mowed by the
Zanieski ' s , and objection has been made as to allowing use of this
right-of-way for access to the DiNunzio ' s premises when an alterna-
tive access route could be agreed to between the adjoining landowners .
It is the opinion of this board that the right-of-way is
the only legal access to the applicants ' premises , and this board
does not have the authority to relinquish that right . This is
an application for suitable improvements for access by emergency
vehicles which is required under New York Town Law , Section 280-A
before a building permit can be authorized . It is the understand-
ing of the board that this right-of-way may at some time in the
future be relocated over land presently of Charles DeLuca which
would be more suited and more practical for all involved . The
board does agree that a better access route could be obtained ,
but is without authority to require same .
Accordingly , on motion by Mr . Douglass , seconded by Mr .
Goehringer , it was
RESOLVED , that Appeal No . 3287 , application for ALFRED N .
and BARBARA H . DiNUNZIO , be and hereby is granted approval of
access in accordance with New York Town L.aw , Section 280-A ,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
1 . The right-of-way be cleared for the full 16 . 50 foot width ;
2 . The right-of-way be improved the full 16 . 50 feet width and 110 '
length as follows :
(a ) remove topsoil for 8" ;
(b ) replace topsoil excavation with 8" of 80%-sand and
20% gravel bankrun mixture ;
(c ) place a 3" top course of 3/4" stone blend ;
(d ) The finished road surface to be about even with the
grade of the Zaneski property (at the lawn area ) ;
3. The right-of-way must be maintained in good condition at
Southold Town. Board of Appeals -16- November 29 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3287 ALFRED AND BARBARA DiNUNZIO , continued: )
all times ;
4 . The improvements of the right-of-way be inspected by the
Zoning Board of Appeals , or the ZBA road engineer , prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy , and after notification for
inspection .
Location of Property : East Side of Wells Road , Peconic , NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-75-06-001 .
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous
vote of all the members .
RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No . 3242 :
Upon application of :HEiVRY-'DOMALESKI,. Oregon Road, Cutchogue , 'NY
(by A. Wickham , Esq . ) for: Variances :. _ -(a) to the Zoning Ordinance ,
Article III , Section 1.00-31 . for approval of .i nsuffi ci en_t width -of .two
proposed parcels in this division _of land , and (b) New York Town Law ,
Section 280-A for approval of access . Location of Property : Private_
Right-of-Way off .the North Side of .Oregon Road , Cutcho_gue , 'NY ;._ County
Tax Map Parcel.- 'No 1000-.095-Ol -part of_.Ol1
The public hearings concerning this matter were held on -
September 11 , 1984 and continued on October 11 ,. 1984 , at which time
the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations .
The board made the following findings and determination :
By this application , appellant seeks : (1 ) approval of access
over a 25 ' private right-of-way located approximately 570 fe'e,t west -
of "Duck Po-nd Road , ' _and. extending northe_rly' 3 ,080 ..97 feet_ to the
premises in question, and (2 ) relief .from_. the 175-foot. lot width
requirements of _the zoning `'code for approval of _145_.75-foot lot width
of two parcels in this proposed ._division of land .
The right-of-way in question is shown on survey prepared
February 28 , 1984 by Young -& Young to be along the easterly side
of a 25_. 7± acre parce-1 also of the applicant , Henry Domal_eski . This
right-of=way has a traveled width of a'.pproximately nine .feet and - is
on original_ ground with no evidence. of other materials . There are
deep ruts throughout and some parallel sections alon-g -the westerly
side are lower than the ruts . No drainage problems are anticipated
if this road is brought up to standards since Lot No . 2 appears to
Slope from north to south at a flat minus grade . Adjacent land for
Southold Town Board . , Appeals -17- November 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No . 3242 - HENRY DOMALESKI , continued : )
most of the length along the easterly side is higher than the opposite
side .
Proposed Lot No . 1 will contain an area of 2 .05 acres and No . 2
an area of 1 . 949 acres . To the east of these parcels is "Birch Hills "
'Subdivision. of July 19 , 1967 , which consists of lots substantially
smaller in area and having lot widths of 100 feet . To the west of
the subject parcels is a 25± acre farm. ' It is the opinion of the
board that the relief as requested is not unreasonable under the
circumstances .
In considering this appeal , the board finds : (a ) that by
allowing the variance , no detriment will be created affecting
adjoining properties ; (b ) that no adverse effects will be
produced on available governmental facilities of any increased
population ; (c ) that the variance will be in harmony with
and promote the general purposes of zoning ; (d ) the circum-
stances of this appeal are unique ; (e ) that the interests of
justice will be served by allowing the variance , as indicated
below .
Accordingly , on motion by Mr . Douglass , seconded by Mr .
Sawicki , it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No . 3242
concerning premises located at the northerly end of private
right-of-way , north side of Oregon Road , Cutchogue , for insuffi -
cient lot width of 145 . 75 feet for Parcels 1 and 2 , and for
approval of access , 'BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
1 . The right-of-way be improved for a width of 12 feet
centered within the right-of-way as follows :
(a ) Add 12 " of 20% stone , 10% Loam, and 70% sand
mixture for the 12-foot width and fill low areas along west side ;
(b ) Place a compacted 2" crowned top course of
3/4" stone blend on the bank run ;
(c ) Grade evenly ; no hollows ;
2 . Right-of-way shall be continuously maintained in good
condition .
3 . Any other new subdivisions , set-offs or construction on
other premises along this right-of-way shall also be subject to
New York Town Law , Section 280-A;
i
Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- . November 29 , 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3242 = HENRY DOMALESKI , continued: )
4 . An inspection and acceptance by the Zoning Board of
Appeals of these improvements , after written notice .
Location of Property : R-O-W at the North Side of Oregon
Road , Cutchogue , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-95-01 -11 and 12 .
Vote of the, Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members .
The :b.oa:rd: revi-owed the following matters and it was the
consensus of the board that same are ready for public hearings
to be held in January; however , it was recommended that they _be
held at a meeting subsequent to Appeals No. 3295 and 3302 con-
cerning the Wade property since it.. was expected they would be
very lengthy :
Appeal No . 3307 - Adele Deckinger;
Appeal No . 3309 - Henry Smith and Son ;
Appeal No . 3308 - Lauren Krug ;
Appeal No . 3310 - Gary D.oroski ;
Appeal No . 3277 - Marie Patterson (recess from 11 /15 ) ;
Appeal No . 3291 - Anthony Pagoto (recess from tonight ) ;
Appeal No . 33_ - SergphDoyen ` -(file received tonight) .
The dates and times will be determined at our next Regular Meeting ,
of December 13th .
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: Pursuant to Part 617 of the
N . Y . S . Environmenta Quality Review Act , Article 8, of the Environ-
mental Conservation Law , and Local Law 44-4 . of the Town of Southold ,
the board declared the following Environmental Declarations of
Nonsignificance :
Southold Town Board o; Appeals -19- NOVem-ber 1984 Regular Meeting
(Environmental' 'Decl-ara.tions, continued: )
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3303
PROJECT NAME: FRANK FIELD REALTY , INC . 1-
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations -pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of. the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be,
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar.:
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ j Type II [X ]. Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:. Brown Street (and Linnett Street) ,
Greenport , NY To remove two of four existing dwellings and
construct a two-family, dwelling , 'for a total of three dwellings with four
uni.tSLOCATION OF PROJECT:. Town of Southold, -County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: Brown Street , Greenport , NY; 1000-48-3- 19 , 20 , 8 , 9.
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no- significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
._-----The prremi ses in question-As not l oca-t-ed th �6 envi ronme-n-tal ly
sensitive area;
(3) This area appears to be serviced by the Village of Greenport
for septic waste and water .
t
Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- November 29 , 1984 Regular Meeting
( Environmental Declarations , continued : )
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3304
PROJECT NAME: MARGARETHE D. CLEMPNER
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated:
below.
Please take further notice that . this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [_X] Type II [ A Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: 8 ' by 12 ' accessory storage building in
sideyard area .
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: East Side of Inlet Lane Extension , Greenport ;
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2 ) The proposed 8 ' by 12.' accessory storage building is landward
of existing construction ;
(3 ) Being a setback variance , no further processing is required
under S . E .Q ..R .A. regulations .
_ i
S.uthold Town Board of Appeals -21.- November cy , 1984 Regular Meeting
( Environmental Declarations , continued : )
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO. : 3306
PROJECT NAME: ANTHONY AND SALL'Y 'PIRRERA
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y. S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental� Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated :
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: 24 ' by 32 ' accessory shed with carport
in frontyard area , approximately 160 feet north of .C . R. 48 ,. Greenport.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: N/S C . R. 48 , Greenport; 1000-.44-02-003 .
REASON (S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2 ) The proposed accessory building is landward of existing
construction ;
. (3 ) Being a setback variance , no further processing is required .
Vote of the. Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , D'oyen , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution wa-s adopted by unanimous vote
of ,all the members .
_ e
Southold Town. Board of Appeals -2.2 November 29 , 1984 Regular Meeting
OTHER. 'FILES P.END.TNG : The board members reviewed the
following matters, which a.re held in abeyance pending the documenta-
tion noted below:
Appeal No . 3294 - Peter Troyano for 280-A (await maps and
certi fi,ca_tion )
Appeal No . 3259 - Nicholas Aliano (Await Village contract )
Appeal No . 3214 - Hanuaer and Bagley (Await Co . Health )
Appeal No . 3252 - J . Charles (Await Co . Health & DEC)
Appeal No. 32,51 - Renate Riedel (Await DEC amendment)
Appeal No. 3305 - Robert Norkus (Await DEC)
Appeal No . 3293 - Harold and Josephine DeNeen (Await Co . Health) .
"HEARING PENDING : Appeal No . 3234 = ARTHUR..'TRUCKENB.RODT/SWANSON .
No action was taken by __the board at this time ; additional time was
requested by the board .
INVESTMENT BROKER ' INTERPRETATION REQUEST : Building Inspector
Curt Horton inquired as to whether an investment - broker was one of
those uses under "home occupations . " The Chairman said he will request
an opinion from the Town Attorney and advise accordingly .
Being there was no other business properly coming before the
board at this time , the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The .
meeting was adjourned at 10 :25 p .m.
Respectfully submitted ,
G��i�2c2cZ�
Linda F. Kowals i , Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
G-ERARD P . GOEHnNGER, ,ZHAIRMAN RECEIVED AND FILED BY �
,,oP'fA p p r o v e d - December 1984 THE SOUTHOLD TO V Jq CLEMI<
DATE HOUR //.'/7' #-t
0 Cl rk, Town.of Southold
November 29 , 1984
INDEX
Ernest Guettinger PP . 1 -2 22 minutes - Side 1
John and Marilyn
Flynn PP. 2-3 2z to 6 minutes - Side 1
Alfred and Barbara
DiNunzio PP . 3-8 6 to 20 minutes - Side 1
0 to 3 minutes - Side 2
Joseph Grasso PP . 8-11 3 to 15 minutes - Side 2
Richard Sledjeski PP. 11-12 0 to 5 minutes - Side 3
General Wayne Inn PP. 12-13 5 to 7 minutes - Side 3
Swim King Pools P. 13 7 minutes - Side 3
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
Thursday November 29 , 1984
#3279 At 7 : 30 p.m. - Public Hearing was held in the matter of
ERNEST GUETTINGER, for a Variance to construct accessory
garage in area with reduced sideyard setback, Suffolk
County Tax Map #1000-136-01-37 . Chairman read the legal
notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application
for the record.
ERNEST GUETTINGER: I am Ernest Guettinger .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: . Okay, is there something that you would
like to say on behalf of this application?
ERNEST GUETTINGER: No, not really.
CHARIMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you check that mike to see if
it' s on? It doesn.' t appear to be. There' s a switch on
there . Thank you. Mr. Guettinger , we now go out on in-
spections individually and a few of the Board members were
not able to come down and inspect the property: Therefore
we will have to come- back for a reinspection. Are you
available at any one time when we can go through the garage ,
the existing garage as it stands right now and you can show
us exactly where the addition is going to be , etc?
ERNEST GUETTINGER: Well, I could make myself available.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Ate you out on the weekends or
do you, live here now?
i
ERNEST GUETTINGER: I live here.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right. We will get together and
give you a call. Are you listed in the telephone book? We
will let you know when we are going to be down. It will be
sometime within the next ten days and we will investigate the
property. I beleive only two of us made it down there, the
other gentlemen thought it would start to get dark and they
didn' t get a chance to get down. to the property.
ERNEST GUETTINGER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you a couple of questions
about the application. You are going to use this proposed ad-
dition only for storage purposes?
ERNEST GUETTINGER: Yes . Garden supplies and possibly a
sailboat.
ZBA
P. 2
Guettinger Hearing - Continued 11/29/84
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will -there be any electric in the ad-
dition at all?
ERNEST GUETTINGER: I haven' t really decided, but I don':t
think so.
CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Any insulation or anything of that
nature?
ERNEST GUETTINGER: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I understand you changed the size,
it' s 10 x 14 .
ERNEST GUETTINGER: 10 x 14 (Ten by Fourteen) .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: . I thank you very much. We will call
you. Thank you . very much. Is there anybody else who would
like to speak on behalf of this application? ' Anybody like
to speak against the application? Questions from Board
Members? There being no further questions , I make a motion
closing this hearing , reserving decision until later.
#3285 At 7 :45 p.m. - Public Hearing was held in the matter of
JOHN and MARILYN FLYNN , for a Variance "to retain existing
structure, Suffolk County Tax Map #'1000-111-12-1.
Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety
and appeal application for the record.
GARRETT STRANG: Good evening. I think the application is
relatively straightforward and self explanatory. There is
an existing 12 x 16 concrete block building on the property,
it will fall in a frontyard due to the nature of the fact
that the property is bounded on three sides with roads.
We would like to maintain that building as a storage, pos-
sibly workshop. type accessory use building to the principal
building , which is a residence. And, again, to take it
down and build a new one would- be a hardship to my clients .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you' are up., you wouldn' t object
to a resttiction that it never be used as a habitable dwelling
sleeping quarters. or anything of that nature?
GARRETT STRANG: I think that there would be no problem with
that at all.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much.
ZBA
Flynn Hearing - Continued P. 3
11/29/84
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is' there anybody else who would like
to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to
speak against the application? Questions from Board Members?
Bearing in mind, Mr. Strang, we have been holding up the con-
struction of this house since August 30th, I have no objection
to 'this application and I will offer a motion granting it, with
the following condition: that it not be used for any more than
storage purposes (no habitability) . I will offer that motion
to the Board. All in favor . (Unanimous) Granted.
Thank you. (Findings and determination in official minutes
filed with Town Clerk. )
#3287 At 7.: 50 p.m. -' Public Hearing was held in the matter of
ALFRED and BARBARA DINU.NZ.IO, for a . Variance for approval
of access concerning a right-of-way, Suffolk County Tax
Map #1000-75-06-001. Chairman read the legal notice of hearing
in its entirety and appeal application for the record.
EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: My name is Edward J. DiNunzio and .I am
the owner ' s brother. I would just like to indicate to the
Board that the right-of-way as described in the application
was listed first of all in the deed from the previous owners ,
John and Margaret Grakowsky, to the applicants , specifically
set forth in the deed; secondly, the property, the right-of.
way was described in a prior deed from Joseph and Victoria
Grakowsky to John and Barbara Grakowsky in the same language
that deed is dated 1962 , and the persons whose property the
right of way affects received deeds to their properties -
there was an original deed in August 1975; followed up by
. a correction deed on February 5 , 1976 and in both. of those
deeds , the property was deeded to the owners ,-=Michael and
Georgine Zane-ski, subject to the exact same right•of.w'ay, and
reference is made to the deeds that set forth the .right of
way. The right•of. way itself has been found and the-right-of.
way insured by the American Title Insurance Company, both
by the original title policy, which was granted to Alfred and
B-arbara DiNunzio, who purchased the property and also on a more
recent title insurance report, done .just recently for mortgage
purposes. It think it' s interesting to note for the Board
simply that I am aware of a letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs .
Zaneski in opposition to the right.of.way, the use of the rights
of•way that if other access is obtained by Alfred and Barbara
DiNunzio, the .right•of .way, .immediately by its terms , becomes
extinguished. Now that possibility is being explored right
now, but the swap of land referred to in Mr . Zaneski' s letter ,
would, as I understand it, require Planning Board approval.
The building of the property is currently being delayed and
in fact, prohibited, because there is no access. The: contractor
involved has . indicated to my brother and sister-inolaw that he
sees absolutely no difficulty in moving the necessary equipment
that he feels is required for construction, in and out, without
• ZBA
P4
DiNUNZIO HEARING - Continued ,
11/29/,,84
EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: - Continued - touching any of the property
outside the right-of- way. I know that was an item mentioned
in one of the inspection reports . But I would like to submit
copies of the deeds referred to for the Board, indicating that
the right-of-way has been in existence and that the people who
. are objecting to it now, first of all knew about it when they
bought their property in 1975 and 1976 and in fact, I under-
stand they acquired their property from a . relative of Mrs .
Zaneski and its that same relative that deeded the property
to their relatives and then to my brother. So, I think that
everybody went into this thing with their eyes open. and I
think it' s rather unfair to be objecting to what they knew
existed at the. time that they purchased the land in 1975-76 .
In terms of .unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties ,
I think the situation is painfully apparent. Without the
right-of-way, the land cannot be utilized for the purpose
for which it was purchased, which is the erection of a one
family dwelling.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are' you aware of our engineer:' s report
Mr. DiNunzio?
EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: I believe that' s the report I referred to,
and I. guess that report also indicates there also is in the
Zaneski deed,: a survey, and indicates the engineer felt that
there would be a problem with certain vehicles turning. Per-
haps Mr. Cullen would like to speak on that point. He is the
contractor and he seems to think there would be no problem
in getting the necessary equipment in and out of the. property.
CHAIRMAN GIM-HRINGER: And the timing that' s involved in this
application is as quickly as we can give you a decision?
EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: Hopefully anytime within the next three
minutes , without appearing flip. Everything is being held up
because of the lack of the approval.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I cannot guarantee you one tonight, but
we will do the best we can to give you one.
EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: Thank you .very much,
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like
to speak on behalf of this. .application?
ROGER CULLEN: I am the builder. The engineer reported that
there might be some problems with getting equipment there.
I can see no problem getting bulldozers , perhaps a big transit
mixer , but we don' t have to do that. We. can go another .route.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When I had asked ;this gentleman .if he
were aware of the engineer ' s report, I was. mainly talking
about the he was asking for and the re-
habilitation of this right- of-way, although there is no
complaint about that.
ZBA
P. 5
11/29/84
DINUNZIO HEARING - Continued
ROGER CULLEN: No. complaint.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was mainly what I was concerned
about. Could I have your name for the record?
ROGER CULLEN: Roger Cullen, Gardiner ' s Bay .Construction
Company.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Would anybody like to
speak against this application?
MICHAEL ZANESKI : Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name
is Michael. Zaneski, and it' s my property that is subject to
the right of way. First -of all, I would just like to say that
I have been here since 1976 ,. and since that time, I have tried
to take, care of the right of way. It' s like a sore thumb, it
keeps on popping up. I respect Mr . DiNunz.io' s wishes for the
. construction of his house. By the same token., I value my pro-
perty and its appearance. A 162- ' right of way would . be totally
unacceptable on my part. As a matter of fact, the right of way
is about 15.' , ends up about 15 ' from the corner of my son' s
bedroom and to move heavy equipment in is totally unacceptable
at this time. There is another alternative for Mr. DiNunzio
to move his equipment in .and out and I think he is aware of
that. I would just like to see the whole matter cleared up.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What are you alluding to in reference to
the other , are you talking about the repositioning of the
lot 'line?
MICHAEL ZANESKI : Well , I am talking about another method of
access for the heavy equipment that .he needs for the construction
.of his .home. We had discussed it at one time and I thought it
was taken care of.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In other words , you don' t object to the
right of way as a means of egress and ingress to the house,
but you object to the right of way being used for heavy equip-
ment?
MICHAEL ZANESKI: . Well, Mr . Chairman, let me make my .point.
I do object to the right of way, for the simple reason there
is a. more practical and easier way for Mr. DiNunzio to gain
access to his property. I do object to the right of way.
I feel he should not be granted conditional approval to bring
.the heavy equipment .in through the right of way, when there
is an easier way for him to begin construction without the
right of way.
CHARIMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr . Hall.
MICHALE- HALL, ESQ": : What I have just handed the Zoning Board ,
is a copy of a proposed swap that has been worked out between
my client, Mr . Charles DeLuca and Mr . DiNunzio. For the record,
I am here opposed to the right of way, but I do want the
Board to know and of course, Mr. DiNunzio to know, that we
ZBA
DINUNZIO HEARING - CONTINUED P'6
11/29/84
Michael Hall: continued - have been working in a spirit of
cooperation back and forth on the phone and by letter .for about
the past six weeks . The proposed swap that you see there would
of course, eliminate the need for the right of way and give
Mr. DiNunzio a street acess off Wells Road onto his property.
There' s one new lot line that would be drawn and. that' s the
dotted line you can see on the map. That one , of course, needs
Planning Board approval., but what I 'd like the Board. to work
with us on tonight is we would like to see Mr . DiNunzio get
his biulding permit, we don' t want to hold him. up. I think
Mr. Zaneski feels the same way and I . think Mr . DeLuca feels
the same way, but we wgulo i kee to have Board condition its ,
it.' s almost the exact/oPpwshat you just suggested to Mr. Zaneski..
We would like to see them allow perhaps temporary use of that
right of way so that Mr . DiNunzio can get started on his
building and get a building permit, but subject to ultimately
the swap being approved between DiNunzio and DeLuca and eli-
minating any need for the right of way.
CHAIRMAN..GOEHRINGER: ' Legally, Mr . Hall, we cannot give a con-
ditional zpproval. We can either give approval or: not. give ap-
proval. I understand what we have done in the past in some
cases when. .the Board, and we have not discussed this application,
there has been no deliberation on it, and therefore, it' s not
incumbent upon me to ask my Board members or our Board. members
to, or to question the Board on this particular issue. We have
. in the past waived the right of' improvement to -right of ways
until a certificate of occupancy is ready to be issued. I
have no idea..if this Board is willing to do that. That is
about the only conditioning we have ever seen. At the time
this agreement has been struck, you would have to comeback.
or send us a letter indicating that once the lot lines have
been changed you not only have :to go to the Planning Board,
you would probably have to come back to us for a readjust-
ment 'of the lot line. Unless of course , we suggestea : right
of way.
MICHAEL HALL: . No, it would be an' actizal lot line.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, then you won' t have to come back
for a readjustment of the lot line to my knowledge. Is. that
correct Mr. Lessard?
MICHAEL HALL: The reason I am here tonight is not to stop
Mr. DiNunzio in his tracks but to alleviate the situation for
all three neighbors , which would ultimately ,be better for
Mr. DiNunzio to have straight access; it would, of course ,
be better .for Zaneski to have no right of way going very
close to his house and it would cause no problem with DeLuca.
And; I would like to Board to be aware of that situation, to
see if we could work it out the best way possible.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr . Hall.
ZBA
P. 7
11/29/84
DINUNZIO HEARING -Continued
EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: If I may address myself to that point
for a moment. In addition to perhaps needing Planning Board
approval and the approval of this Board, the only reason I
mentioned before we are working toward this solution in terms
of the property swap, but by virtue of the zoning change that
occurred subsequent to my brother ' s purchase of the land, his
lot is now considered undersized. The property that is sought
to be swapped would mean he would be giving away considerably
more in _square footage than he is receiving . Without checking
into the legality at this point with the Planning Board, we
would need approval ,to actually render the lot smaller than
it currently is and I don' t know whether that would be forth-
coming . For those reasons , I feel. that we really have no al-
ternative _at this time but to pursue the right of way. Surely
we are not looking to harm anybody, but by the same token we
cannot leave ourselves with no visible means with which to
develop the property. It' s kind of a catch 22 situation.
We are working toward that swap. It has been approved in
concept, subject to the approval of this Board and whatever
other municipal Boards must approve the location, but I don' t
know when it will take place or when the. approvals will be
forthcoming . We are waiting for maps for submission to the
appropriate authority.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just a quick question. If the Board
at this point did approve this application, and the application
was granted subject to the following improvements , would you
then do those improvements?.
EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: In all candor , sir , there is a possibility,
there is a third surely not a right of way situation, but there
is what appears to be a well-worn treaded path around the left
side of Mr. Zaneski' s house and approaching the property a dif-
ferent way, I believe over the .land that is owned by Mr . Scott.
If we had the right to go ahead and build, my brother has in-
dicated that he would approach Mr. Sc_ott. to see if he could
use that access for the equipment, in anticipation of the fact
that ultimately we would work out a property swap and in fact,
not disturb a blade of grass . But we don' t know whether we
will get that approval or that permission by Mr. Scott. If
the Board wishes , we would consider making no improvements
to the right of way, :.enly those necessary according to the
Board, to move the equipment in and out, and therefore make
the least disturbance, subject to the eventual swap, if that' s
what you are driving at sir?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I' am and I am not. The reason for the
280A is- this particular right of way support afire vehicle
12 months of the year . That' s basically why the engineer ' s
report so deemed the conditions that they deemed. So I
would say that there' s a definite problem in what we are going
to do here concerning this particular application and I realize
. winter is coming, etc. , so I may ask the Board' for a caucus at
this particular time to see what they want to do.
ZBA
P. 8
11/29/84
DINUNZIO HEARING - Continued
EDWARD J. DINUNZIO: Surely if there are any other questions
we can answer for the Board, we will be more than happy to.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will take a ten minute recess to dis-
cuss this
(Recess)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I make a motion to' reconvene. Is
there anybody either on the pro or the con side who would
like to. say anything? The reason basically .for the caucus
was to see if the Board wanted any additional information.
I think we are all aware and cognizant of what exists here
and we will try to take everybody' s opinions in mind here
and do the best we can. Hopefully, during the short appeal
period that we have=on this .application, if anything does
develop on the side, please inform us of it, particularly
if an agreement with Mr. Scott will help Mr. Zaneski out,
etc . Thank you very much. I make a motion closing this
hearing reserving decision.
#3286 At At 8: 20 p.m. - Public Hearing was held' in the matter of
JOSEPH GRASSO for approval of a Variance for insufficient
frontyardc_setbacks , Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-59-06-003 .
Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in .its. entirety
and appeal application for the record.
DONALD DENIS : My name is Donald Denis , I" represent---. Mr . Grasso.
There is a slight correction on the application. I stated . the
rear yard is 50' it should be 35 ' . All we want-to do is say '
that the case is fairly well stated; the property is difficult
to build on--because it has an approximate depth of 83 ' ; 34 '
is the setback "required by the DEC and 35 ' is the requirement
of the Town. You take the .front yard of 5.0 ' and there is no
buildable area. We designed a house of approximately 1600
sq. ft. on the first floor approximately 34 ' deep; we did
stagger the front of the house to fit the profiles of the curves
road, to minimize the encroachment; but we did wind up with a
request to reduce the front yard to 12 ' .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For some reason, I am lacking the actual
plans of the house. I do remember looking at them. Mr. Denis ,
what did you say the reason for the irregularity of the lineal
footage of. the house, the length of the house in question was?
What is the reason the house has such irregularity in reference
to .design,.--
DONALD DENIS : Well, we were trying to .put the profile of the
line of Great Pond, which is irregular . When you take the 35 '
from the rear yard and you take the 34 ' , which is from both
the DEC and Town, you come up with irregular shaped parcel ,
buildable parcel, assuming you don' t have a problem with the
front yard. So what we did, we tried to maximize the use of
. ZBA
P . 9
11/29/84
GRASSO HEARING - Continued
DONALD DENIS: Continued - that space by fitting the house
into that profile. What we did do is we staged the front of
the house to again fit the profile of the road and that is
the reason is is not a rectangle.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason why I ask you- that question,
is that the Board kind of feels that .the irregularity is .causing
quite .a substantial reduction of front yard area and I under-
stand what you are saying, but I think that possibly the house
could be streamlined a little more to allow for a greater re-
duction from 12 ' in the front yard area. I think the 12' is ,
and I am not talking specifically myself , but I am talking
for the Board members , I think 12 " is a very, very small front
yard area for a busy road such as Soundview Ruedue, particularly
in. the summertime. I wish you could offer us some alternatives
in reference to streamlining this house.
DONALD DENIS : Well, the only thing we could offer the Board
is that possibly we reduce the house by a couple of feet. and
perhaps the profile of the house could be compromised a little
bit by moving it over further' to the west in some of the build-
able area. But there is only a small part that isn' t used.
I mean, the width of the garage is only a normal garage, it' s
only 24 ' deep, which is a normal garage and I am still sand-
wiched betweenthe rear yard requirements and the 12 ' .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why you can' t go
.to the east a. little more?
DONALD DENIS : Well, as you go 'further to the east, the
situation gets worse by topography. Also, the greatest buildable
area is to the west, so we went to the west line and we are 15 '
off the west line , as tight as we can get there . There is a
possibility that we could build and fill up that little cor-
ner , it' s not a very large corner , it' s only 11' x 18' , but
I wouldn' t say it was impossible to do. We would be willing
to try to make an attempt to do that, if it suits the Board.
I don' t think we can reduce the front yard substantially, but
I do think .there is a front compromise here that we would lily
to . . .I don' t know if we can reduce it very much to maybe 12 ' ,
14 ' or maybe 15 ' .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Whatever , I think it would help us out.
a little bit more in understanding the concept of this par-
ticular application, but as I said to you, I am not the youngest
person on this Board; the gentlemen'.to my left has been on this
Board some 27 years and they all certainly substantiate the fact
that we have very rarely have seen a 12 ' front yard
DONALD DENIS : This may be an unusual situation where we have
a 35 ' rear yard and a 50' front yard on a lot that is only
83 ' deep.
ZBA
P. 10
11/29/8,
GRASSO HEARING - Continued
DONALD DENIS - Continued: The two lines overlap, so I know they
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, what do you suggest in this particular
case? Possibly a .re-evaluation of this plan and you can bring
it back to us?
DONALD DENIS: I. will have to consult with my client. . .
I just consulted with Mr . Grasso. We have another situation
here that presents a problem, aside from what is going on here,
and that is that we would like a decision tonight, if possible,
Mr. Grasso has a closing that is scheduled for tomorrow. He
is under contract to purchase this property, and they have to
close tomorrow. If he fails to close, he forfeits attorney' s
fees and all other legal fees involved in a closing. Mr .
Grasso did say that he would get his deposit returned, but
it does create a hardship in that respect. He would be willing
to go down to 15 ' if the Board would be so disposed.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would hate_to do that without seeing
a plan, although this is not. an architectural design situation,
in other words , we do not deal with anccitectural design. I
would like to see a plan and the Board would like to see a plan
on what you could possibly do. This is quite a predicament,
and I do not know what to suggest to you in this particular
case. We do understand the hardship to a certain degree.
DONALD DENIS : Even going to 15' is 'going to be very difficult.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would like to see him lengthen the house
a little. I hate' to suggest houses in the past that have done
this . There are several houses , one of which is on the North
Road in Greenport and it has a burm in front of it, approximately
across from Albertson Lane, that was made to conform fairly
well with the lot and it was a lot approximately similar in
depth and that' s basically what ' I am referring to., the house
that does not have the irregularities of this , and please, I
think it' s a very, very nice plan. I just question the width
of the house bearing in mind that you had almost 200 ' of road
ffontage here and again, I am not trying to force you to do
anything is not architecturally sound or whatever the case
might be, but we just have certain feelings about this particular
setback.
DONALD DENIS: It is my opinion that if . the house is lengthened,
the situation gets worse, it doen' t tend to minimize it, it
tends to make it worse . If the house is redesigned and the
garage is put -on the west side of the property , the situation
gets worse, because the house gets pushed further to the east.
As we go further to the east, the rear yard and the front
property line start to converge.. So our maximum area to
put the house , maximum buildable area is on the west part
of the property. I feel that the profile in- front more nearly
ZBA
P . 11a
11/29/84
GRASSO HEARING - Continued
DONALD DENIS: Continued: - conforms to the uniform setback.
One of the corners will proj.ec't closer to the road. I mean
we are talking about a garage here that' s . on a rear yard
and the front yard is 1,2 ' back. I guess it' s possible to put ,
a one-car garage in, that -may help a little bit, but I don' t
think it will help very much.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Lessard had a suggestion. See if you
can bear with us , Mr. Denis .
MR. LESSARD: On your west line, sir , you 16 ' . You are allowed
to go to 10' on that side. Would it be possible to go to 10'
and slide your house - away from the road a little bit and still
hold your . 35 ' setback from they.water .
DONALD DENIS : I think that would help a little.---bit. I don' t
.think it' s help substantially in the change in the character
of our application, no.
MR. LESSARD: Your garage is also designed for a two- car
garage. That would help move you away from the read if
it was a one-car garage. You have your garages on the east,
sir?
DONALD DENIS : Yes . there is a two car garage .
MR. LESSARD. They are only suggestions
DONALD : DENIS: You know, I think it' s rather a unique piece
of property and it is really unbuildable in its present
condition, unless there is a variance granted by this Board.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think by the nature .of our discussions
we have shown that we definitely would like to work with this
gentleman. I can' t suggest to him what he should do tomorrow
I personally would like to recess this application until the
December 13th meeting, as a reschedule, and have you come back
with some alternate plans so we can see what we can do here.
I think if it goes on the merits -of the case, we. are going
to have tremendous problems dealing. with it at this particular
time.
DONALD DENIS : Is it possible to get an indication from the
Beard what is an acceptable setback? I am just asking that
question, I am not trying to . . . is there some point that is
acceptable or not acceptable?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I couldn' t tell you at this particular
time, because we haven' t discussed it. We don`t discuss it
really until we deliberate on an application, as you know.
Do you see anything wrong with what I suggested, for
December 13th?
ZBA
P.11 b
11/29/84
GRASSO HEARING .- Continued
DONALD DENIS: We will give it another pass, and see if
we can come up with an alternate scheme. We didn' t do al-
ternate schemes , because this is the one we presented be-
cause we thought it was the most logical, but I will try
to take the house and move it over closer to the west
property line and see if we could make more utilization of
that northwest corner. But I think the profile on the front
of the house as we have it is pretty advantageous .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Possibly you could clip a corner to
gain a couple feet one- way or another'; because the house is
a fairly modern design, is it not?
DONALD DENIS: I don' t think "it" s that modern. Does that
mean the second part of our application here will also be
held?? There is a variance .request on the flood plain.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can close "that. W:e. will recess
this one and close the other one or we can recess both of
them.
DONALD DENIS : I would like to' recess both of them, I guess .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think that makes sense because then
there may be a little change here. Thank you. Anybody else
like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody against
the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no
further questions , I make a motion recessing this hearing
until the next regularly scheduled meeting, December. 13th
#8.
#3284 At 8: 40 p.m. —Public Hearing was held in the matter-cof
RICHARD W. SLEDJESKI , for approval of a Variance to a
fence exceeding maximum four foot height, Suffolk County
Tax Map #1000-40-02-21. Chairman read the legal notice
of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the
record.
IRVING PRICE: Mr. Chairman. Thank you, I am Irving Price,
a lawyer with offices at 828 Front Street, Greenport, NY.
I appear on behalf of Richard. W. Sledjeski as to the appeal
for permission to maintain .a 6 ' fence in what is considered
a front yard under the zoning ordinance of the Town of
Southold. It wasn' t until we had zoning that I realized
you could have two front yards. I always thought where
the front door was was the front yard and I . guess I was
further deprived, because for 24 years I lived in house .
that had no front yard, it was right on a sidewalk, had
no sideyard, but it had a front door , back door and two
side doors and we_:got along fine. We had a fence across
� l y
ZBA
SLEDJESKI HEARING - Continued P. 12
11/29/84
IRVING PRICE: Continued- the front that I had to paint every
two years , I can remember that. But seriously, we believe
that the fence that is located in the best possible location.
It is only 6 ' , .the zoning ordinance itself allows 6z ' on the
rear or the side, so we are under that requirement and then
I don' t know where it would ,be but the zoning ordinance says
when located 'other than in a front yard area or along side
or rear lot line, the same shall not exceed 8 ' , so this is
only 6 ' . I also believe one point was not brought out in
this application and that. is it is also a matter .of protection
for children ,who, might wander on to it, and it protects any-
one who wanders into the swimming pool. Therefore, I urge
that this Board upholds the right to maintain the fence .
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GGEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Price. Anybody else
like to speak .on behalf of this . application? Anybody like
to speak against the application? Questions from Board
members?
BOARD MEMBER = r What type of fence are you talking
about, a Hurricane fence, or what?
IRVING PRICE: It' s a stockade fence. The ground was not
artificially raised, it slopes
BOARD MEMBER I think with the location of the
house, I think I would like to make a motion. . .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Subject to two conditions ; that the
fence is continuously maintained along with the swimming pool
and that . they never encroach on the front yard area, I mean
the front yard of the house, front yard or rear yard,
IRVING PRICE: You lost me now. You are. talking about
Homestead Way?
CHAIRMAN 'GOEHRINGER: Yes . That' s basically what we are
looking for and I will second that motion. Thank you very
much for coming in.
#3290 At 8: 45 p.m. - Public Hearing was held in 'the matter of
GENERAL WAYNE INN , for approval of a Variance to erect
directional sign, Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-69-02-003 .
Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety
and appeal application .for the record.
WAYNE FARINA; I am Wayne Farina and I represent General Wayne.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is this sign going to be illuminated?
WAYNE FARINA: Illuminated?
'Y y
ZBA
P . 13
GENERAL WAYNE INN HEARING - Continued 11/29/84
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Illuminated.
WAYNE FARINA: It-could be, if that' s possible as a means
to advertise. Illuminated, yes , most likely.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you ask your father and ask him
to let us know if it' s illuminated, because we want toin—
corporate that into the application. So, let us know tomorrow.
WAYNE FARINA: Yeh, I am sure it is . illuminated.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That' s,what I meant, are you going to
use lighting or lettering ?
WAYNE FARINA: Lighting and Lettering. Anything that stands
out. It' s badly needed here.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Anybody else
like to speak on behalf of this application?
MRS. FARINA: I would just like to say one thing , we really
need this sign, because it is a hardship as it stands now.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are aware of that. We will do
the best we possibly can, we just haven' t disussed it, that' s
why we are not ready to make a motion. We will discuss it
after the meeting and do the best we can to give you a decision
in the very near future. Anybody like to speak against the
application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no furtbr
questions , I make a motion closing hearing reserving decision
until later . Thank you for coming in.
************************************************
#3291 At 8: 55 p.m. - Public Hearing was held in the matter of
SWIM KING POOLS . Chairman noted that application was requested to be
recessed until January meeting. Made motion for same.
Hearing ended at 9: 00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted ,
Barbara A. Strang
*These mi utes werei} fp�n� lectronically recorded
tapes . p
1:1.��5!= A1� D
i
THE SOUTHOLD 1;::"Vil•s C1,E]L�:,
DATE. /a k/ev F.O—n %D:V s/i./1
To n 1erk, Tovm of SauE`::old
t