Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/11/1984 o��FFoUr�oG o y Southold Town Board of Appeals 4F 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 O.CT.OBER 1j 1984 REGULAR MEETING A Regular Meeting of .the Southold. Town. Board of .Appeals was held on Thursday ; October 1.1 , .T984 at' 7 : 30 o ' clock p .m. 'at, -the Southold Town Hall , Main Road , Southold , New York . Present were : Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ; Serge Doyen , Jr. ; Charles Grigonis ; Robert J . Douglass and Joseph H . Sawicki , _consi_sting of all the members . Also present were Victor Lessard , Building Depart-ment Administrator , and approximately 30 .persons in the audience at the opening of .the meeting : The Chairman opened the meeting at 7 : 36 p .m. and proceeded with the first public hearing on. the agenda . The _verbatim .testimony of all the hearings held this evening are attached at the end of these minutes for reference which have been prepared by Sara Lenihan . A public hearing was held in the matter of .Appeal No. 3271 , for Schellenba.ch 'and Rojas from 7 :38 p .m. to 7 : 42 _p .m,. (Minutes attached) A public hearing was held in the matter of .Appeal No . 3289 , for James Preston from 7 : 43 p .m..- to 7 : 51 p .m. (Minutes attached) A public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal No . 3242 , which was recessed from the last regular meeting of .the._board , _September 13 , 1984 , from �7 : 52 p .m. to 7 : 55 .p'.m. for 'H.EN'RY _DOMAL'ESK.I.: (Mi.nutes attached. ) At 7 : 55 p .m. , the Chairman offered the letter of the applicant , Mrs . Patricia C . Lollot dated October 10 , 1984 in which they have requested that their application for a five-foot high fence_ be withdrawn . _1 Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting The following action was taken , after motion was made by Mr . Doug- lass , seconded by Mr . Goehringer , TO ACCEPT the appl:icants ' .Withdrawal. of ' this application in Appeal o . 3264 . Vote of .the Board: Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer, Doyen , Grigonis , Douglass and Doyen . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. A public hearing was held. in the matter of Appeal No. 3251 , for RENAT.E RIEDEL/W; "SMITH from _7 : 57 p .m. to 8: 31 p .m. (Minutes attached ) A public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal No . 3281 , for EDWARD L . "HERRMANN , from 8 :32 p .m . to 8: 48 p.m. (Minutes attached ) At ,8 : 48 :p ;m. motion was .-made �'by Mr.::•;;Goehri nger_ ; : seconded by Mr. Douglass , for a two-minute recess , ' at which time the meeting would be reconvened. This resolution was unanimously carried . At 8 : 50 .p :m. , motion was made by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Douglass ,__to reconvene the Reg.ul_ar Meeting an-d proceed -at '-th.is time with the public hearings . This resolution was unanimously carried. At 8: 50 .p .m. , a public hearing was held in the matter of .Appeal No . 3270 , for__ DR.' BALA •HARI' 'PILLAI , having. been closed at 9 :_13 p_.m."_ (Minutes of hearing. attached;. )._ At 9 : 16 p .m. , the public hearing in the matter of 'SCHELL:ENBACH AND ROJAS ,-,:Appe..al. No. • 3271 , was reconvened. There being no addi - tional comments or questions at this time , . motion was made by Mr . Goehringer , seconded - by - Mr. Grigonis , to 'CLOSE. •THE HEARING •AND - RESERVE .DECISION i•n 'the Matter 'of :Appe,al. No : 3271 . ..__The hearing was declared closed at 9 : 17 p .m. Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis , Douglass and Doyen . This resolution was. adopted by unanimo_u.s v.ote 'of all the members Southold Town Board or Appeals -3- October li , 1984 Regular Meeting The board members discussed a tentative date of Saturday morning for inspections , possibly October 23rd , for the following matters , in addition to a . few other required inspections on rights-of-way : (a ) Jean C. Holland , Vanston Road , Cutchogue; (b) Academy Printing Services , Traveler Street , Southold; (c ) Colgate Design , Corp . , Main Road (7-11 ) , Cutchogue ; (d ) Windsw'ay Building Corp . , R-O-W off North Bayview, Southold; . (e ) McKay and Greenly , Main Street , New Suffolk; (f) Southland Corp . , Main Street (7-11 ) , Southold ; (g ) Bernard R. Dempsey , Stillwater Avenue , Cutchogue; (h ) Ernest G . Curran , Rabbit Lane , East Marion ; (i ) Henry Domaleski , North Side Oregon Road (R-O-W) , Cutchogue . NEW 'HEARINGS FOR OCTOBER 25 , 1984: On motion by Mr. Sawicki , seconded by Mr . Douglass ; it was RESOLVED , that the following matters be and hereby are scheduled for public hearings to be held at the next Regular Meeting of this board , October 25 , 1984 , and that the Secretary. is authorized and directed to advertise same pursuant to law in the local and official newspapers of the town : (a ) Appeal No . 3230 - Jean C. Holland; (b) Appeal No . 3273 - Academy Printing Services ; (c ) Appeal No . 3276 - Colgate Design Corp . ; (d) Appeal No . 3282 - Windsway Building Corp . ; (e ) Appeal No . 3233 - McKay and Greenly ; (f) Appeal No . 3275 - Southland Corp . ; (g ) Appeal No . 3283 - Bernard R. Dempsey ; (h ) Appeal No . 3272 - Ernest G . Curran . Vote of .the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis , Douglass an.d Doyen . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members, Southold Town Board oT Appeals -4- October li , 1984 Regular Meeting NEW APPLICATION : Appeal No . 3298: Port of Egypt Enterprises by Allen M. Smith , Esq . to re-develop premises located at the south side of Main Road , Southold , NY for ,4Q. motel units , residential unit , existing restaurant use , marina and boat storage .uses , et cetera. In reviewing the site plan received October 9th , the board noted many items were left out and requested that the following documents and additional information be provided before this application will be considered complete under S. E .Q . R .A. : __ 1 . Topographical survey must be submitted (six copies ) showing lowest floor elevations above mean sea level as well as ground eleva- tions and varied contours , if any ; 2 . Site Plan to include the following : (a ) Setbacks of all proposed buildings , and buildings to be retained on site from all prop_er.ty 1ine.s and b_ulkhbads ; _ (b) Dimensions/sizes , sales areas , and office areas in square feet of all buildings ; (c ) Distances of road frontages ; actual lot line distances as shown on survey; deletion of areas not under consideration ; (d ) Parking areas shall be screened as approved- by the Planning Board as well as site plan approved (preli_minary ) , which is required for any use in a commercial or industrial zoning district under Article X.I , Section 100-.112 (J._) [5] ; 3 . Comments or approval from the Suffolk County Health Department; 4. Comments , approval or Letter of nonjurisdiction from the N . Y . S . . Department of Environmental. Conservation ; 5 . Submission to the --:Planning-Board and Building Inspector for thorough review and/or ,certi.fication as required .under Article XIII , and Floodplain Management regulations , Chapter 46 of the Town Code . The Secretary was directed to send a, letter to the attorney requesting this i._nformation before proceeding further, on motion made by Mr . Goehringer , _ seconded by, Mr. Sawicki , _and unanimously carried . RENEWAL 'OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION=SIGN PERMITS : On motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr . Goehrin.ger, i_t was RESOLVED , that the following sign-permit-renewal requests be and hereby are approved , subJect to Federal__ Highw_ay. Beautffication Act and Fundi_ng:_Laws for Highways , if applicable : _ .Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting (Sign-Permit-.Renewa.ls :. ) Appeals No . 2619, 2620 , 26215 2622 , 2623 , 2624 , 2625 , 2626 , 2599 , 2600 , 2601 , 2602 , 2603 , 2604 , 2605 , 2606 , 2607 , 2608 , 2744 , 2875 , 2876 , 2877 , 2878 , 2879, and 2880 . Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis , Douglass and Doyen . This resolution was,. adopted by unanimous vote of all the members APPROVAL OF MINUTES : On motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr . Goehringer , it was RESOLVED , to approve the Minutes of the following Regular Meetings as submitted : June 21 , 1984 , pages 1 - 93 . July ,26., 1 984.j pages 1 - 67 . Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis , Douglass and Doyen . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr . Douglass , seconded by Mr .. Goehringer., it was RESOLVED, to .declare the following Negative Environmental Declara- tions . on each of the followin g , as noted therein , determining each matter not to, have significant adverse effects on the environment: Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting ( Environmental Declarations , continued : ) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO. : 3291 PROJECT NAME: ANTHONY PAGOTO. 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 simildr project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Accessory structure in frontyard area . LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Bayberry Road , Nassau Point , Cutc.hogue ; REASON (S) SUPPORTING !'HIS 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 premises in question is at an elevation of more than 10 feet above mean sea level . (3) Separating the project in question from the waterfront or environmental area is a 50-foot traveled roadway . (4 ) The relief requested is a setback variance which does not require further processing under Type " II " Actions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Southold Town Board Appeals -7- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting ( Environmental Declarations , continued : ) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO. : . 3292 PROJECT NAME: K & L Properties 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 [XI Unlisted [ J DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approval' of access to the subject premises from Indian Neck Road , Peconic . LOCATION. OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: R-O-W off . Indian Neck Road , Peconic . 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 relief requested is not'"dire'ttly related to new construc- tion . . (3 ) The relief requested is landward of existing buildings . (4 ) A minor subdivision was processed and approved by the Southold Town Planning Board during 1981 concerning the premises to which this access is required. Southold Town Board i, . Appeals -8- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations , continued : ) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO. : . 3294 PROJECT NAME: ' 'PETER J . AND MARGARET S . TROYANO 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. Pleas =_ take further notice that this declaration should not be considered determination made for any other department or agency which may z,lso have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: ( ] Type II [X ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approval 'of access over a private right-of-way located at the north side of C . R. 48 , Peconic . LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold., County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: R-O-W off north side of C. R. 48 , Peconic ; 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 relief .requested is not directly related to new construction ; (3 ) The premises to which this access is required has been approved 'by the Planning_ Board July 30 , 1984. Southold Town Board i Appeals -9- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting ( Environmental Declarations , continued : ) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO. : . 3296 PROJECT NAME: JOSEPH AND ARLENE LESTTNGI 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: Accessory garage in frontyard area . LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 1150 Sound Drive , Greenport; 1000-33-471 . 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 relief requested is a setback variance which does not require further processing under "Type II " Actions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act; ' ' . (3 ) The area of the proposed accessory garage is at an eleva- tion of 10 or more feet above mean sea level . t i Southold Town Board ,, ,Appeals -10- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting ( Environmental Declarati'ons , ' continued : ) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO. : : 3297 PROJECT NAME: PETE AND DESPINA MARKOPOULOS 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: Insufficient sideyard setbacks . New dwelling . LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, Count of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 605 Sound Beach Drive , Ma tituck ; 1000-99-1 -24 . 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 relief requested is a setback variance , which does not require further processing under "Type II " Actions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act; * (3 ) Separating the project in question from the waterfront is a 50-foot traveled road . Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis , Douglass and Doyen. This resolution was.._. adopted by unanimous vote of all the members Southold Town Board of Appeals -11 - October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting REFERRALS TO SUFFOLK CO . PLANNING COMMISSION : On motion by Mr . Goehringer , seconded by Mr . Grigonis , it was RESOLVED, that the following matters be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission together with copies of their files and minutes , in accordance with Sections 1323 , et seq . of the Suffolk County Charter : 1 . Appeal No . 3267 - Constance Klapper; 2 . Appeal No . 3269 - T. Occhiogrosso ; 3 . Appeal No . 3200 - R. Entenmann ; 4 . Appeal No . 3289 - James Preston ; 5. Appeal No . 3242 - H. Domal:eski ; 6 . .Appeal No . 3251 - R. Riedel ; 7 . Appeal No . 3270 - B . H . Pillai . Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis , Douglass and Doyen . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members Appeal No . 3267 - C. KLAPPER. The board members began delibera- tions in the matter of Constance Klapper , which hearing was held and closed on September 13 , 1984 ,. and affidavit was received in accordance with the board ' s request September 21 , 1984. It was agreed that before a ' final determination is made , that the Chairman consult with the Town Attorney as to an effect same could render on a recent Article 78 proceeding. in the matter of Bertram Walker . DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS: (continued on page 12 ) . Sout.ho.ld. Town Board of Appeals -72-. . October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION : Appeal . No . 3271 : Upon application for J . SCHELLENBACH AND A. -ROJAS , 1225 Ninth Street , Greenport , NY for a Variance to t e Zoning ordinance Article III , Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule , 'for permission to construct deck addition with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks and exceeding the 20% lot cover- age requirement . Location of Property : 1225 Ninth Street , Greenport , NY ;. County Tax .Map Parcel No . 100.0-048-03-02.8 ; Greenport Driving Park Subdivi - sion Lot 4 . 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 : By this appeal , applicants seek a Variance to Article III , Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule of. the Zoning Code , for permission to construct a deck addition extending 13 feet into the southerly sideyard and deck further extending into th.e easterly rearyard area with an insufficient setback at. 15 feet as sketched on .survey of December 20 , 1982 , .and sketch drawn August 12 , 1984 , received August 14 , 1984 . The building inspector has also disapproved this project for excessive lot coverage ; the total allowable is 1162 square feet (20% of 5 ,810± lot area ) . The parcel in question is known as Lot 5 , Subdivision of the Greenport Driving Park , Map No . 369 , and is located on the east side of Ninth Street , . Greenport . The subject premises contains an area of approximately 5,810 „sq . ft .- with 56 . 46 '' frontage along Ninth Street , and is improved with a one-family, 12-story frame dwelling and accessory garage and shed structures. It is the opinion of the board that the sideyard setback from the south property line should. not be less than eight feet to allow access by emergency .and fire vehicles , particularly since the accessory garage on the n_orth. side is set back two feet from.,- the north property line . This reduction would allow a deck area to be constructed of a total of approximately 283 square feet. When adding this to the dwelling ' s coverage of 1.042 sq . ft . and accessory garage of 276 sq . ft . ,_ the total allowable would be 1 ,601.± , for a variance of 439 sq. ft . ., It should be. .. noted , however., that any additional construction would require further applications for variances as required under Sections. 100-32 (C) .a.nd 100-..31 . Southold Town. Board of .Appeals -13-: October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No . 3271 - SCHELLENBACH and ROJAS, continued : ) In considering this appeal , the board determines : (a ) that the relief as conditionally approved is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirements ; (b ) that by allowing the relief, no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created ; (c) that no adverse effects will be produced on available govern- mental facilities' of any increased population ; (d ) that the relief will be in harmony with and promote the .-general purpo.ses of zoning ; (e ) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance , as noted below. , Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr . Douglass , it was. RESOLVED, to grant a deck addition to the subject dwelling as restricted below. 1 . That the deck setback shall not be less than eight feet from the south side property line. ; 2.. . That the deck setback shall not be less than 15 feet from the rearyard property line ; 3. That the deck not be roofed or enclosed. Location of Property: 1225 Ninth Street , Greenport , NY; County Tax Map . Parcel No ._ - 1000-48=3-28 ; Lot 5 ; Subdivision Map of . Greenport Driving _Park. Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis , Douglass and . Doye.n . This resolution -was adopted by unanimous vote of all 'the members . RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No. ' 3289: Upon application of JAMES--F: AND- 'EL.L'EN M. PRE.STON , Box, 1422 , Southold , NY for a . Variance., to t e oning, r -finance; rtic1e _III, Section 100-.31 for approval of the insufficient area. and wi._dth of this parcel _ in. t.his proposed _.set=off ,of land located along Hyatt._ Road , Southold , NY; County Tax Map-- Parcel No . 1000-50-..-01. 180_3 (part of 18. 00 ). . 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 : By this appeal , the applicants seek a variance to Article III , Southold 'Town Board of Appeals - 14- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting . (Appeal No . 3289 - JAMES F. PRESTON , continued : ) Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule of the ' Zoning Code , for approval of the insufficient area of 59 ,275 . 50± sq . ft . and insufficient width of 150 feet of a vacant parcel of land in this proposed set-off division which is bounded .on its east and west property lines by private rights-of-way and bounded on itsnorth and east sides by property now or formerly of Witherspoon. The parcel in question was part- of a 1979 subdivision application before the Planning Board which has not been finalized due to certain covenants and re.strictionsw.hich were required to be filed by the applicant at that time . On August 31 , 1979 , the subject parcel was sold by C. S . Witherspoon t.o Arthur W. Rathje , Jr. . and wife at Liber 8670 cp232 . For the record it ' is noted ,that although the 1979 subdivision has not been finalized , the Planning. Board at its Meeting of September 10 , 1984 approved this parcel of land as a "set-off" provided under- Section 106-13 of the Code . For the record it is also noted that the neighborhood consists of several parcels of the same or similar size , and therefore the . granting of the requested relief will not adversely affect the character of .this neighborhood . In considering this appeal , the board determines : (a ) that the relief as approved is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirements ; (b) that by all.owing the relief, _.no substantial detri - ment to adjoining properties would be created; (c) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population ; (d ) that - the relief will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes -of zoning; (e ) ., that the interests of ,justice will be served by allowing the variance , as applied. Accordingly , on motion by Mr . Sawicki , seconded by Mr. Goehringer , it was RESOLVED., that the application of JAMES F. PRESTON for approval of insufficient area. and width of parcel in this set-off of land as .approved by .the Planning. Board ;. BE_.:AND HEREBY IS APPROVED ,AS .APPLIED and subject to referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission in accordance with Sections 1323 , et seq . of the Suffolk County Charter . Location of Property : South Side of private right-of-way known as Hyatt Road , Southold , NY; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000- 50=..00.1-18'..3 (part of 18 .00 )_. Vote of .the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Gr'igonis , Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of al ( 'the members . Southold Town Board of. Appeals -15- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION : Appeal No . 3281 : Upon application of EDWAR-D 'L ; 'HERRMANN , 1000 Marlene Drive, Mattituck , NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article ' III , Section 100-31 , for permission to construct addition with reduction of sideyard setback to. less than the requir.ed 10 feet. Location of Property : 1000 Marlene. Drive , Mattituck , NY; 1000-144-2-40 . 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 - By this appeal , applicant seeks a variance to Article III., Section 100* 31 , Bulk Sched,ul.e , of the Zoning Code for approval of an insufficient setback at. nine feet from the southerly side property. line in order to construct a nine-foot_ by 24-foot addition for expans-ion of the present living area . The_ premises in question is located at the west side of. .Marlene Lane , Mattituck and is-- more particularly identified as Suffolk County Tax Map ` District 1000 , Section 144 , _Blo_ck 2 , Lot 40 , containing. an area ' of .10 ,875 . sq . ft. with 75-foot road frontage . The subject premises is improved with a one-family , one-story frame house and accessory frame garage located in the„ rearyard area- and set back from the northerly side property line 6 . 3 feet as shown on survey sketch dated 9/7/84_, and 9/28/84._ The percentage of lot coverage -for all buildings , existing and proposed, is 19±%, whi_ch . is within that _per - mitted under the. Bulk Schedule . The total variance requested by this applicati.on is one foot , whi._ch in - the boa.rd ' s opinion _is not substantial and is reasonable considering the width of thislot. The total sideyards of this dwellin.g structure will be 34± feet , �whi_ch is more than that required under the zoning ordinance . ' The board agrees with applicant ' s reasoning under the circumstances . The board members have personally visited the premises in . question and is familiar with the buildings __a_nd immediate area . It is noted that opposition from the adjoin-i_ng property owner on .-the south has been made part of .the._ record . In considering this appeal , the board determines : (a ) that the relief as approved is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirements (10%) ; (b ) that by .allowing the relief,, no substantial detri - ment to adjoining properties would.. be created ; (c )' that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population ; (d ) that the relief will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning ; (e)_ that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance , as applied. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr . Douglass , seconded by Mr . Grigonis , it was RESOLVED , that Appeal No . 3281 , application made by "EDWARD L. Southold Town_ Board i Appeals -16_ October 11 . -1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No . 3281 - EDWARD L . HERRMANN , continued : ) HERRMANN for approval of an insufficient setback. at nine feet from the south - property - line- fora proposed addition to dwelling ; 'BE AND HEREBY 'IS APPROVED .AS "APPLIED. Location of Property : West Side .of Marlene Lane , Mattituck , NY; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-.14.4-0.2-40 . ' 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 . 3200 : ROBERT ENTENMANN . The public hearing on this matter was held on Septem er 3., 1984 . The board:`made" the following findings and determination : By this appeal , applicant seeks a Variance to Article III , Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code for approval of a 1 . 239-acre parcel - of land to be established in the subdivision application before the Southold Town Planning Board referred to as ".Parcel One :" The subject parcel . has. an average depth. of 718 . 00 feet and. a lot width of 75 .44 feet and is at the present time vacant land . Access to the subject parcel is over a private right-of-way, which is within the boundaries of the proposed division of land , and will be subject to the improvements as required by the Planning Board pursuant to New York .Town Law , Section 280-A, or by subsequent application to this board . The board members have personally vis.ited the premises in question and is familiar with the immediate area . For the record , it is noted that there .,is a parcel of land adjoining t_his . parcel on the east that is of the same size and configuration as that proposed. Although there is ample area of the premises in question being approximately 43 acres., to require the applicant to extend the lot another 300+ feet. in depth would be creating .a lot unusual in shape and character - and n.ot feasible as buildable area . The board .agrees with the reasoning of the applicant . In considering this appeal , the board determines : (a ) that the relief as approved is not substantial ; .(b ),-.that by,:.:allowing the relief, no substantial detriment to adjoining properties wo..uld be created; (c ) that no- adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any .increased- population ; (d) tha.t the relief will be in harmony, with and promote the general purposes of zoning; (e_) that_ the variance requested is the minimum necessary ; (f) the circumstances are unique;. (g ) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing th_e variance , as noted below. y Now , therefore , on motion by Mr . Goehringer, seconded by Mr . Douglass , it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal. No . 3200 = ROBE.RT 'ENTENMANN , continued : ) RESOLVED , that Appeal No . 3200 , application for ROBERT ENTEN- MANN for approval of insufficient area and lot width of "Parcel One" of .a size 737 ' by 75. 44 feet in this proposed division of land_ , BE AND HEREBY IS 'APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS : 1 . A 75 ' wide by 15 ' strip at . the end of the right-of-way along the southerly end of this parcel shall be incorporated into the area of " Parcel One " (for more control and maneuverability from the right-of-way into the parcel ) ; 2 . No reduction of east and/or west (side ) yard areas to less than that required by the zoning ordinance . Location of Property : North Side of Sound Avenue , Mattituck ; 1000-112-1 -7 . Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goeh ringer , Doyen , Grigonis , Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members . RESE.R.VED DECIS.I.ON : Appeal No. 3270 : Upon application for D-R;. 'BALA HARI PILLAI by Gary F. Olsen , Esq . , Box 706 ,, Cutcho.gue ,. 'NY , for a. ariance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , ' Section, 10.0=.3.0.(.C_)­ for permission to establish sleeping quarters in a, nonconfarming accessory building. Location of Property : 8280 Great Peconic. Bay Boulevard , Laurel.,_, NY; 1000-126-11 -019 . The public hearing was held earlier this evening , at which time the hearing. wa.s de.cl are_d ,closed.. pending deliberations . The board made the following findings and determination : This is an appeal from Article III , Section 100-30 (C) of the Zoning Code for permission to establish sleeping quarters in a nonconforming accessory._,bu.i l di'ng presently. 1 ocated _in the frontyard area of this par- cel of, ..Land , 'and. wh_i ch i s n_onconformi ng as to i ts__ frontyard 1 ocati on rather than in the required rearyard .area . The parcel in question is located on the south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard with a lot width of 97 . 50 feet and. lot area of .approximately ,32 , 500 sq . .ft . The subject premises is improved with a one_-story frame dwelling , with established .sideyards of 29 . 8 feet on the east sideand approximately 25 feet on the. ,west 'si_de . Also existing on the premises are a swimmingpool and whirlpool ; as- shown on survey most recently dated June 21 , 1982 , prepared by Y.o_ung-._& Young , L . S. The board members have personally visited the site in question and Southold Town Board of ..,dpeals -18 October 11 , 1.984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No . 3270 - DR. BALA HARI PILLAI , continued : ) are familiar with the statements presented at the public hearing in this matter . For the record it is noted that. the building contractor testified in support of this application as to the expense involved in adding to the- main house verses renovating the accessory building for sleeping quarters . Also , the owners of this parcel have a large family requiring domestic help which is one of the main reasons the relief is sought . Also, reference Kas been made to a prior variance for similar relief under Appeal No . 2486 of Richard Wall , conditionally approved on November 9 , 1978 , concerning premises in th.e Hamlet of Cutchogue . In considering this appeal , it is the opinion of the board that the relief as requested be denied for the following reasons : (1 ) Article III , Section 100-30 (C) of the zoning code limits uses acces- sory in this residential zone to home occupations as noted, garden house , toolhouse , storage building , playhouse , wading or swimming pool , as noted , private garages as noted , storage building as noted, horses and domestic animals as noted , certain signs as noted , yard , attic , garage , auction sales of the owne-r ' s personal property as noted; (2 ) the hardship claimed is personal to the current owner of the premises which will not justify the granting of this variance , which would in turn run with the land itself;l (2 ) that the evidence submitted is not sufficient to justify the granting of the relief requested; (3 ) that the relief as requested is substantial since sleeping quarters is not a permitted accessory use under the zoning ordinance; (4 ) that the difficulty could be obviated by some method , feasible for the applicants to pursue , other than a variance as applied herein ; (5 ) ' that the circumstances of this appeal are not unique ; (6.) that in view of the manner in whichlthis case arose and considering all of the above , the interests of justice would not be served by granting the requested relief. I Now , therefore , on motion by Mr . Doyen , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested in Appeal No . 3270 in the matter of DR; 'BALA HARI PI_LLAI� fo.r sleeping quarters in accessory garage structure located in the frontyard area , BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS APPLIED. Location of Property : 8280 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard , Laurel , NY ; 1000-126-11 -01.9. l Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Doyen , Grigonis , Douglass and Sawicki . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members .` it I I Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED 'DECISION : Appeal No . 3269 : Upon application of THOMA-S AND JACQUELINE OCCHIOGROSSO , 77 Vanderbilt Boulevard , Oakdale , NY (by Sclhein erg , DePetris and Pruzansky) for a Variance to the .Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-31 -for approval of the construction of a new one-family dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback of 121 feet (reduction of that granted under Appeal No . 3031 1 /27/83 ) . Location of Property : 1580 Corey Creek Lane , Southold , NY ; Corey Creek Esta.tes. Filed Map #4923 , Lot 28 ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-78-04-019 . The public hearing on thlis matter .was held on September 13 , 1984 , at which time the public hearing was declared closed pending deliberations . The board made the following findings and determination : This is an appeal from Article II.I , Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule , for approval of a_ 12Z- foot frontyard setback of a_ new ,one-family dwelling . and attached garage structure from the west side of Corey Creek Lane , Southold . The premises in question is known and identified as Lot 28 of Corey Creek Estates , Filed Map #4923 , and more particularly referred to as District 1000 , Section 178 , Block 04 , Lot 019 on the Suffolk Cou-nty Tax Map. The subject premises is a corner lot as defined under the zoning ordinance . Article IIII , Section 100-31 of the zoning ordinance as amended during 1983 requires a minimum frontyard setback at 35 feet .. On January .13 , 1983 , relief was conditionally granted under Appeal No . 3031 for a 20-foot fron"tyard setback and requiring the applicant to maintain the 50-foot, minimum rearyard setback. During April 1983 , Building Permit #12227-Z was lissued for a new one-family dwelling with a frontyard setback at 22 fee't. Subsequently, the applicants applied to. the. .Town Board for a Wetlands Permit pursuant to the notice of violation issued. 'by the buil &ing _inspector during May 1983 . During June, 1984 the building inspector issued a violation :as to the frontyard se't.ba.ck . , On: Jul.y__ 20 ,_._ 1984 , this application .was filed and a public hearing was . held on September 13 ,. 1984. A practical difficulty claimed by applicants. is that the January 1983 variance approval con,fl.itts with.. the. __New York State Department of .Envi.ronment.al Conervati_on' approv,al issued. 1 /22/79 which permitted a. loca.tion.: with. sa� 35=foot frointyard setback (and the. N . Y . S . D. E . C. approval. issued, .11./5/82 which1permitted an amended location with. a 3 l_ �foot frontyard setback) . IIt appears that subsequent to January 22 , 1979 , 'the_ size and positioninjg of. .the proposed house was changed which prompted the amendments . to each of the other agencies . For the record . it is noted that the board members are familiar with the premises in .question the neighborhood , and the testimony j I Southold Town Board o , -ppeals -20- October 11 , . )84 Regular Meeting (Appeal No . 3269 - OCCHIOGROSSO , continued : ) i and documentation presented in support of this application . In considering this appeal , it is the opinion of the board that the applicants maintain the previously-approved 20-foot minimum frontyard setback , and that the relief as requested herein be denied for the following reasons : (1 ) the dwelling structure could be changed in size and character to conform with the buildable area of this lot; (2 ) an application to the other agencies for the previously approved 20-.foot frontyard setback could be made , and that the practical difficulties claimed are self- imposed since the modification of the structure' as shown on the survey amended April 26 , 1979 , Sept . 14 , 1979 , August 23 , 1982 , February 18 , 1983 , and July 6 , 1984 , was at the option of the applicants and not an., agency requirement ; (3 ) that the relief requ.ested' is substantial , being approximately 65% of the code requirements ; (4 ) applicants have failed to show that there are no alternatives to the relief requested herein ; (5 ) literal application of the zoning regulations would not deprive the landowners of residential uses of the premises ; (6 ) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consider- ing all of the above , the interests of justice would not be served by al lowing the variance as applied. In denying the relief in this appeal , the board authorizes the applicants to construct a new one-fam ily dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback of not less. than_ 20 feet , as previously_ granted _under Appeal No . 3031 . Now ,. therefore , on motion by Mr . Douglass , seconded by Mr . Grigonis , it was RESOLVED , that the relief requested under Appeal No . 3269 for a 122-foot frontyard setback ;, 'BE 'AND HEREBY IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as applied. Location of Property : 1580 Corey Creek Lane , Southold , NY; Lot #28 of Map of_ Corey Creek, Estates_. #4923 ; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-78=04-019. Vote of the Board : Ayes,: Messrs . Goehringer ,,. Doyen , Grigonis , Douglass an_d Sawicki . Thi_s resolution was adopted by .unanimous vote of all the members . I Southold Town Board of Appeals -21 - October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting i I Being there was no otheribusiness properly coming before the board at this time , the Chairman declared the meeti.n.g adjourned at 10 : 05 p .m, Respectfully submitted , II Linda Kowalski , Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals,. i II , 'I Gerar P. Goe ing , Chairman October 25 , 984 RECEIVED AND FILE,D .BY THE SOUTHOLD TO�,trTN Ct Lili� DATE1o1,;V( HOUR I ° • Town Clerk, Toxin of Sout,'- } i I I i i I i t s i i VERBATIM .HEARINGS SOUTHOLD ' TOWN 'BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 'll 1984 REGULAR 'ME.ETING Pp . 1 -19 i i i Sourthold Town Board or Hppeal's -1 - October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting i i PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3271. Upon application. for. SCHELLENBACH & ROJAS, Ninth St. Greenport,. for a variance for lot . coverage and rear side yard set back to .construct a deck.. County Tax Map. Parcel No. 1000-048-03-028. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:38 p.m. and read the legal notice of this- hearing., in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We- have a copy of the survey by R. Van Tuyl, P.C. , dated December 30, 1982. Would..anybody like to be heard in favor of this application? ( There was no response. ) Would anybody like to speak against this application? ( There was no response. ) Dose the board members have any questions about the application? The members having no questions, I make a motion recessing the hearing to later on in the meeting until the applicant can be reached. MEMBER DOYEN: Second Vote of the Board: Ayes. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Resolution -was adopted by unanimous vote of all the board members. ) PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3289. Upon application -for JAMES PRESTON, Hyatt Rd. , Southold, for approval of lot area and width. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-50-01-1803. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:43 p.m. and read the legal notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the survey by R. Van Tuyl, P.C. , dated July 11, 1979. Mr. Preston would you have any more information to add to this application? MR. JAMES PRESTON: The application should stand on its face and if the board has any questions to ask, I would be glad to answer them. MR. CHAIRMAN: • I di dn '.:t read, the two riders with yowl ,app1J,cation , we usually:-�ust : read-:the applicat.iq.p._:, ; I,-,.wgnted :.to a`sk you how di' d this thing come to be..?. : MR. JAMES PRESTON: Upon our .consideration of the lot, consideration . of purchasing of. the lot, I came, up.:.to the town and checked to see that the lot was in accordance with the town laws that the town may have. I saw the building inspector, and was advised: into viewing the. first ::m;ap, that. seeme'd.to have the .lines drawn in to show that this is a separate lot. We then searched the Planning Boardb 'file and found the correspondence on the sub-division, to have been a request to the former owner, Charles S. Wither- spoon, now deceased, to provide covenants and restrictions on the third cut off piece of the -last of. the.min.dni- sub-division, the piece of land that holds his personal residence ; a,iis former personal residen.c.e. The Southold Town Board of ,)peals -2- October 11 , 1 4 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3289 JAMES PRESTON, continued: ) covenants and restrictions will provide that the last piece will never be further sub-divided, thats approximately 1.8 acres. I sought the assistance of the-Planning Board and the executor. of the estate. and the town attorney,. and the town attorney hadz:as*ed. us;:, or, the estate;- to consider granting• the covenants and restrictions 'as of this day. We had the publttc heacri ng of the Planning Board ,�, ,N R 60:-Id�ays 'ra"n 9' ' .4 the estate ctl-ueto mixed emotions amongst the beneficiaries°::ofthe estate failed.to provide their signaturesfor the covenants and restrictions. At that point I was told that we should apply and have been granted �subje•ctx to your approval dot^ both simultaneous set offs from the former original Witherspoon property and treat<. i<t :as°,.a wari.a:n:cez,of- theczoning :ordinanc:e ..; MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have the total acreage of the lot? MR. JAMES PRESTON: For ?my:st.: particular lot? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. JAMES PRESTON: It' s about 519, 8C0"..O.0;± square feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any immediate plans for building a a one family home yet? MR. JAMES PRESTON: That is correct, we sold our home, and have plans to begin immediately upon approval to construct our own residence° and' I doubt that we •would..have sold the house if there was going to be any problems. MR. CHAIRMAN:. _ What is your tim,e.lJ.,ness 4-6n,:-"-t,hi s? As soon as p o s s i ble? MR. JAMES PRESTON: V,�dlike to begin the constructionofthe residerce prior to the winter frost, :".I have= an i-Understandi ng`.�i�ii th v the contractors i hvol`ved 'th`at t'he�y' will start immediately, so that they will get the inside work t h r o,U g,ho u;t ,, the winter. Time is of the essence, due to the climate and just getting the house built so that we can move into it'. MR." CHAIRMAN:..1 If,:we- .don't ha::ve-:a: :decis •on.-.for.-you ":ton.isght;..we will)-swithi,n::�t�k�e next two weeks. We have deliberated as yet for several reasons. We' re aware of the situation as it stands. MR. JAMES PRESTON: Just one point that the current owner has been pressing to complete the process.,,, ,•One:.-way°.or;.another I feel that I am covered for that, but I would like to get it as soon as possible.. MR. CHAIRMAN: Our ':normal situation is a special meeting, five to seven working days- . after the normal Regular Meeting , if we don ' t get to it tonight . It depends on how lengthy the meeting is . MR. JAMES PRESTON: They have scheduled the closing for next Wednesday. -,Is it your ,;anti.zip tinn that I can get a completed application or any.in:d:ica.t; san : b.y_ _,t,h.en , .s � ncertthe,y,. wena;ah,r.:o,ughsome s;t,eps,:-: o ,g.et- ,e.veryone next Wednesday. If it is not a good idea I will have to tell them to .cancel.it . MR. CHAIRMAN: Well•,1.i.f.. you'-don'.'t­see a.-de'ca s ion ,tonigh°t; we';ll.,ga;very.ou an indica- ti on-of,:-when:•.ourt;next,:meeti-n:g�,wi l;l.;;.be, ok, and at that particular point, 'then you can-you know, we' ll see what develops. As again, I have not discussed it with the board at this particular point. Sou,thold. Town Board o ►ppea.ls . = 3- October 11 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal Noo 32891 JAMES . PRESTON,, . continued: ) MR. JAMES ..PRESTON:_ Should .I_:<return, .for-.the .discussion? I h0..ve an eight o®clock 'appointments And Lean come back . . MR. CHAIRMAN: You are. welcomed to' call nine-thirty, .but I doh t know if will-.make a decision on it tonight. MR. DAMES PRESTON: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: . Would anybody else like to speak in behalf of this application? (There was no response. ) Would anybody like to speak against the application?, (There was no response. ) Is there any questions from the board members?. Hearing no further questions I make a motion.,to close this hearing. MEMBER DOUGLASS:. Second. Vote of the Board: Ayes. RECESSED 'HEARING:.,:. Appeal, No® 3242. Upon application for HENRY DOMALESKI , Private R-O�W off: the .North Side of Oregon Rd. , Cut chogue for a variance .of insufficient width of. two parcels, and approval of road access® County Tax Map:-Parcel No-. 1000-095-01-Part of II . The Chairman- reconvened. the hearing at 7:53' p.m. and read 'the legal notice of this hearing in its entirety .and appeal application. ..MR. CHAIRMAN: - This ,application is an appeal from the last regular scheduled meeting which was recessed . rom Septem�er 1�, 1984 Miss W I c k h am , -is there anything you would- like ,toad before we close the hearing? MS. WICKHAM-: I just. wanted to make .sure that you received a road report® MR. CHAIRMAN: I have received .a road report, but. I have not discussed this road- report, the .o.r. i g, nal road report dated August 22, 1983, that was done for the Planning Board. I have not discussed this road report wi-_tK Mr:.�Dtvi,s ; I;.assume:.thaa:he h:ad not,,cha.nge�l :his., feeling5..cancerning the road report. I did not have the report i.n my particular-'file at the last meeting. MS. WICKHAM: May;.,I just review it?G,, Is',I.2"~:your normal depth for removal of topsoil ?- MR.' CHAIRMAN: Thorse. ar61:N—Is ca:n;"t;te:l l".y:o.uiiwkj.at; we would adopt at!.th]s.,:.btnt , The only one I can recollect was recently voted .on for Carri g and McDonald and I believe it was:.the board' s recommendation to remove 12". We..have not discussed. it., MS. WICKHAM: I think its a fairly well traveled farm road, obviously there ' are ruts and things that will have to be cleaned up, ' but I think excavating 12 inches might be a little e�xpensi.ve,:�.except,-,- p.e:rhaps where it really needs to be= to .have :considerable work done, Southold Tow n -,.B4,rd or Appeals =4- October 1 'j , 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No.. 3242-- ,HENRY .DOMALESKI , conti.nuted: ) MR. CHAIRMAN:. . What is the timing on, this application? Cgntract vendees? Are It pal a{r�.n��ng hto ..b. i 1A. in the-fall, .or ..when, are they going- to start? ' MS, WI CKHAM.: Vo, L don t- think the*'Ire planni ng to do i t thi s fall. They are-busy digging :potatoes., but' &s soon as ,you;,epo.ul;d make, a,. leciston we�:.wQul�:d app'reci.ate _i,t. - , MR® CHAIRMAN:.. Would anybody else like-.to speak in favor of this application? .(There was no response. ) Would anybody like to speak , against the application? (There was •no response. ) Does . any -of the board, members have any questions about the application? Hearing no further questions,, I make a motion .closing ,this hearing MEMBER SAWICKI : Second. vote of. the.,,Board:, Ayes. Resolution..was .adopted by unanimous vote of .all- the. board ,members. PUBLIC HEARING: * Appeal No. 3264®, Upon application for PATRICIA & REINER LOLLOT., Ryder Farm Lane.,, Orient, for. permission to construct a 5 foot high fence :in front yard area.. . County Tax Map Parcel No. ..1000-015-024.11. The Chairman..opened_-: the: hearing.- at 7:55 -p.m. and read-the legal notice of this ..hearing in it's entirety ,and .'appeal, application.' MR. CHAIRMAN: This. application was for a 5. foot fence 'on Ryder Farm Lane in Orient, and that.I .have. in my. possession ,a letter from PATRICIA LOLLOT., . -stating that after :reconsidering the situation, that she finds -that they could live with a 4 foot fence which meets zoning standards. MEMBER DOUGLASS: ;-1, make a motion that her withdrawl of the application be accepted. w CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Second. Resolution was adopted_bye:>,unanimous ,vote of all the board members. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal . No. 3251., Upon application for RENATE RIEDEL, Meadow ...Lane,, Mattituck,: for approval of the construction of. .a new 'one-f ami ly dwelling. with i nsuf f:i ci ant. set: back. - County Tax Map. Parcel. No.... , :10.00-05,-007 The Chairman opened the hearing- at 7:57 p.m® and read .the legal notice of this hearing=in its entirety and appeal. application. Southold Town Board or Appeals -5- October li , 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3251. - RENATE RIEDEL, continued: ) MR. CHAIRMAN:. I will ask you for the proper.. prone-rici'ation--of a your name? MRS. RENATE RIEDEL: (Gave the Chairman the proper pronuciation of her name. ). MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the survey by Young & Young Land Surveyors, dated July 5, 1984, ishdicd.ti:ng:,apr..oposed: placement of an 18 foot in width by 36 foot length house, approximately 25 feet from Meadow Lane,- and a .Suffolk County Tax Map - .f-the : s,u.rr.oundi;ng .ar,e:a% . For..,.- those of you who have �not,;�-bee-ti:.before;: this board before, I am going to ask the spokesman from the group representing the estates. , in that particular sub-division, and I will ask you speak and anybody after that, you are. welcomed_to speak. Please state your name and so forth. Mrs. Riedel would you like to speak in beha,`1fof your application? MRS RENATE RIEDEL: I really don't have anything. else to say. MR. CHAIRMAN.: Would anybody else like to speak in behalf of the application? (,There. was no..-response. ) Would anybody like to speak against the application? MR. BOB COSTANZO: Good evening, -and I am the owner of lot J.8.. I was first giving .notice back in the spring, .and my first concernF:,,i was the wild life in this area. The pond that is on lot. 42, ex.-ceptions everything .that I have seen in writing states that permit for variance for 42, . but yet: ':. Youngs & Youngs map:-• ' shows 42 and 43. There is a pond that is on 41 and 42, and that pond --. MR. CHAIRMAN:. . You are referring to lot numbers? Mr. BOB COSTANZO: Yes lot numbers, I am sorry. - Those lot numbers are the Mattituck Estate. The small pond that is on, thats addQ.Lr DD,gthose two properties, I- believe to be a nesting area, for wild life, and I have a number of pi.c.tures' t in the ,last 2--A,/27: years that I have been livingg there, to show that there are wild life there. At present I notic�ltoday I took the p.i.e.t:u.r,es;, and notice they came out poorly, there were probably in the area about 100 ducks, right in .that little pond area. There is also . her':o:.n, that feedv t-4e.,r!.e% I have spoken with.-Stony Brook, and concerning -.. -.'_, the wild life, they did ask to look, but they didn°t have the time, but. -.they asked:(tolook. for some nests. I did not see any to be _hoh6st. They are there and during spring time, the. ducks do nest in that area. If.:it goes any further I would request to see a long, form from the DEC on the envir_o--nmental. Concerning the appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector, I take ex.ceptation, probably to. most all on the "hard s.hi.p"; 3 I do believe-to be self inflicting. I am not sure that they are the. owners of the property, or the potential to buy tie property. As far as `b'e n'g ' unique, that entire street -backs 'u'p to'' marsh, in fact ..:all the property has some marsh on it. They make note on lot 18 that my house is close to the water, and this is correct. There is no marsh within 75 -feet of my home Tt'swooded area that is close.to it, and also my home was built in 1965. As far as number three, as far .as the character of the district: I take �erxception to this, in their attempt to Southold Town Board _ . Appeals -6- October 1 '. , 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 325.1 .- RENATE RIEDEL, continued: ) build a small home; the size .18 X 36, that first floor will be 648 square feet. The reason why I bring this up, that house" does belong b-r, the property--.is part of Mattituck Estates. That is covered by Covenants and Restrictions, dated October 8, 1965. It was recorded and filed in the office of the Clerk. of Suffolk County. Covenants arid. Restrictions, no dwelling may be located closer than 50 feet from the main road, from the side road,.. 35 feet, also a one story dwelling must not be less than 1160 square feet, a two-story dwelling cannot .be- less than 800 square feet, first floor of course. I do have a copy of the C® en nts and Restrictions --for your ,k�e-e p-i,n g . (Copy submitted f.o,r the file . ) MR. CHAIRMAN: In the period e],e a`d _r�g,.;u;p •et,o -h i sl,T you did call me on the phone, .did you or did you not? MR. BOB COSTANZO: I ''h !s:po=k"e,: Vao m•arry ;:::,=I.' m .'s-.orr:yf:.:°:Y."w MR. CHAIRMAN: You about the long enviro mm e=nt:aA'. a;s..s,es.s;m:e g-t:.;f o:r,m do you remember that? MR. BOB COSTANZO: Yes, I do. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know exactly what you m:e a;n i°{n .:s t;a t ;n g what you weretalking about in the beginning. of .the hearing you mentioned to me that you wanted the DEC to. do .a .l.Mang, en:v .no,mm.&nita1;.:-a;ss.e;sssme.,na is tha:ti'what,•you:'"re talking. about? Or. what `are you talking about? MR. BOB COSTANZO: I understand that there are two enviro-nmental forms, one being short-form, which I believe that the people that are regesting this variance had, filled out, . at least they signed the bottom of it. The one that came in, �fwe).11 '.:the .DEC where "they are asking for the 72 foot set back-from the marsh. I was informed that there..is also a long form that would be much more intensive study of the area, where they could go out, and I guess they haver:t f u n d s-: a-1:1 o c.a t e.d :'ao =s p e-`n.d °a i.m:e watching the wild life in the area. I don't think the short form has it, a"g.aln., the best of my knowledge. I ' m a layman at this . MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you remember what I said to you on the phone at .that particular time? MR. BOB COSTANZO: No, Im sorry I don't® MR. CHAIRMAN: , I said to you, .t.",. this particular time that we. have done and accepted the short form, that does not mean we couldn't change that, We accepted it mainly because. of: the DEC approval based upon 70 someodd feet set .back. This-particular. time .•we are. going to stay with that- particular_ form, and .we will discuss thb._.S.EQRA.,process & to answer your question, .I . have not . "t this'""time been- di-rgctedr by any board members, or my self to :.change -it. , When you-refer to a ,set back in the subdivision, are you considering Meadow.- Lane a satellite road? . Southold Town• .Board of .Appeals -7- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal..No 3251_ -_YpRENATE. RIEDEL, .-continued) , No . MR. BOB COSTANZO: / Meadow Lane according to the : d:r`aiwn' :. : , I have -a ,copy- shows a. 35, foot set back. MR. CHAIRMAN: Basically, what the applicant is asking for then is a 10'.�,.foot reduction :from that particular set-back. MR. 'BOB COSTANZO: Corrector MRa.:.CHAI-RMAN:. Thank. you. .Would anybody else like .to. speak against the application? MR. BOB COSTANZO: - Im sorry; I do have a petition from the residents of the -estates. ( Petition. submitted for the record. ) MR. CHAIRMAN:: ,Would anybody else like to speak against the application? MR. ALA.N� ,NO,RD-LI'AZE.R I am a resident of Mattituck .:Estates., and I speak generally on behalf. of .the number 'of residents .of Mattituck Estates who are here tonight, who object' to ,the application. I' am not sure of the number ,that I am. representing.,.- its...,about_teh. people.F .. I think that the. board should be. aware of. two points that are of interest. One point is that this application seeks as I understand it a zoning- variance, and it-makes no consideration . at all `.o.f the set of covenants and restrictions.,,--which govern, and control__,, all of the residents of Mattituck Estates, and I think vt-t-t h:. &J"Y, dwb respect' to the board.' s`'d>i sbreti on, they should �- :ke:..,into consideration, that fact that all of us in 'Mattituck Estates. .live in houses and in homes that conform to the covenants and restrictions which are in effect now, and will be in effect for some years. to come,, and I would also like to make a second point, And.-:.that this application in.effect seek"s .to>,change <t.het character of the neighborhood, Wei a.11live in houses that are set back a substantial dristdnce­�.frrom fesp-ect.W-e roads in Mattituck Estates. Nmtri an application«is: .made to build a home which is close,.<to the road, and which seems to'=-pie changes the character of whole area, as well ' as being in violation of the. covenants and restrictions., and it seems to me that this applicant-• :to--over.come �J-t,& burden of.:proof on these points, and I respectfully ._.request. on behalf of myself ..and other residents' of the estates, that the' application be,.denied. Thank you for your consideration. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you' sit...down Mr® Norlinger,- you do agree that the set back, w.` h._- -,-v- concerning the covenants and restrictions ast= you are aware,• I hope you do concur, with the fact that the set back should be "3.5. feet? In. this particular area, or a 50 foot set back? MR. NORLI,NGER: I believe that the covenants and r-estr- etions are a 50 foot set back, and it..is my impression that this will W.M.'matel.y- control ; but I again respectfully, dl-ig;e: the board consider very carefully besfiore the board does anything to move somebody forward, like one sticking out like a sore thumb, in the area. Southold Town Board or Appeals -8- October 11 ; 1984 Regular Meeting ( Appeal No. , 3251 RENATE REDIEL, continued) MR. CHAIRMAN.: You also object putting the minimum .:Si,Le of the house on the firsa. floor? MR. ALLEN NORLINGER: I think that this party like the rest of us should be bound. by the covenants and restrictions, thats whatt-R&Y. re for, they run with the land, they stay there, they were originally :e.n a.c t:e-d for 25 . years with automatic .renewal s� at 10 years each, and it will run into the next century; before they can. be changed. I can't see why any consideration should be given to anyone who wants to make a change, and build something small and different and protruding into the area, &nd being.-. the only one that does. I don't -think anybody should, I think that all of'.:.us should live up to the covenants and restrictions, otherwise what use would a covenant;-,-, and restriction:: be. What I was eluding to is there MR. CHAIRMAN: / seems to be some disagreement as to what Meadow Lane is, is it a satellite road, or is it the main road for the sub=division,. words is it 35 feet or is it 50 feet? Thats basically.- my concern, at this particular point . MR. ALLEN _NORLINGER: / d�� r, 000n btis.ieen�uees�t1 _what ever it is they want to move it in, and I don't think it should be allowed:"to be moved in. MR. CHAIRMAN::... .Let me ;re=phrase my question. Would you and the people that are ..here representing would be happy with a 35 foot set back? MR® NORLINGER: I don't think the people that are in our area would be happy if .they.. feel its a violation of the covenants and restrictions. I think they will have to go to court and restrain rainy violation for the restrictions. I don't. know of the difference between of what kind of road Meadow Lane is, v,,Vha.tever it is, I don°t think it should be moved- forward. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a possibility that 'I might ask you being a spokespe.ns-on- for this group to come back at some later hearing and give .me your .i.n.terprotat *n if you think that this particular set back should be 35 feet or.,: 50 feet. MR. CHESTER .BOBERG: I just like to read you one line of the covenants. " No dwelling shall be erected or placed neareV�than .50 feet to any front lot line." MR. CHAIRMAN: You are• reading from number 4, Mr. Boberg? MR. CHESTER .BOBERG: Yes sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: It reads oarer`'tha-n,35=f6etto. agny side street, too. Mr. Norlinger what -we have done• in the past is we have asked the applicant along with the _property-:o:wn. rs. __ association to..go out in the .hall, for. 20 minutes to a half hour and.-come back..with .what they can live with and what the applicant can live with. I am going to .suggest to-my board that we recess this hearing., until we really come to a determination what the set back should be at this particular point, acid I am. also going: to ask Southold Town Board u�r Appeals -9-October 11 , iy84 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 32.5.1:;.-?,. RENATE.:REDIEL,,;:continued) the applicaht-:.ta. go back to the DEC and .hold this hearing in open recess, and ask if they would,riot poss!.-U_T`y. consider a: lower reduction of the normal 70 :_plus a minus feet that the'tre asking for. That is all I can suggest to you at this time,._ and .I am referring to -you and I should be looking at the applicant at_ the same time also. MR.,. VICTOR LESSARD, BUILDING INSPECTOR This sub-division was started in 1960.,.something? Did I hear you right , Mr . Costanzo? MR. NORLINGER: You heard, but I am not familar with it. MR. VICTOR LESSARD, BUILDING.-INSPECTOR: I don't know much about your covenants, .-but °;w h em thy .ewe r e =re,ne:.we 1 -- MR: NORLINGERt They weren't renewed, they just have been in effect since then;until .now„ and are - still - in effect . MR. VICTOR- LESSARD, BUILDING INSPECTOR: Since the DEC has go-: e.i in effect since. 1976, and they put down thet:it> restrictions,: was this, considered with your restrictions? MR. NORLINGER-: You are asking a question that I cannot" answer. You have to talk.-_to the bui l&n,,-.,;, about: that. MR. CHAI RMAN:: - You have to, understand that this is being 1,t.-&P e d so it is very important that this is taken in proper testimony particular since the property- owners association has indicated that they will go for any type of restraining order and I of course will comment that I have the .right any time to swear any m.emb-e-a a;f t;h.e�: �u:d:i_E' c,e tt"iKa-t so wants to speak,., and.I will do that if I think :that there is contrary., testimony® MRS. REDI.E,L,:.... This piece of. land was supposed to be filled in. _Today you can not fill in anything on it on the wet land, so therefore I think the envirro•nmentalist are right 'p:erm.it,.a MR. CHAIRMAN..: Do you have any, questions. Mr„ Norlinger? MR. NORLI NGER No. J�h,,La'n k:­y o u . MR® JOHN B,EaR'OX&Kd:: I think the statement the person before me made regard to.,,.the., suppos: t1on;..Tthat;;`- this land . ;:;.w; is supposed to be filled on w>ho e ed". :.t+.?" l'...believe- I .always understood that . as a building lot "=:i:,ng fact that it was,.ar.non buildable, :.in fact J. you will. find its previous owners,caurld•`ftt=.°:b.ui1d; c�they` were--derii-e:d-'.aT.1 I know or believe is the name of SuWil'dt and the,young lady came by 'about a year ago, and mentioned to me that they were:.. .n •fact in contract, and they were denied. That is what I have been told from the previous owner. - I look.. at- that a property -z d`. Abi•ltz ,W,6st.the on g�ha.l�. de:t�el,o.per e ha,d., b: gFpl,ans. dFo .hart_ area sac oss the street, regards to the covenants, I think its a rblat.ant di .ren rd -for;the people F,t�;;,dp ,.anyth. -ng other than de:ny:. a fdc,.i l i.ty. on thatb.laarid, trl:°atant,d.�sre'gard to tbs�seisw.horepresent about a 100 percent-of the ..available development, ,.now who are built in it and,:were Southold Town Board Appeals -10 October 1 . , 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3251 - Renate Reidel , continued: ), MR. DEBROWSKI (continued) : subject to the rules , not only of the covenants associated with that subdivision but also the town , and set back, clauses included , et cetera , departures from wells and pools and water tables and boundaries , et cetera , with regard to the dwelling and its associated periphery . I think , for people to come into- our area , ok , with the knowledge that there ' s an insufficient parcel of land, to buy it or purchase it or consider purchasing it with the intent to come before the board and the people of the town , and consume our time , ok , so that they make the exceptions to the rule . I think that creates chaos for you to sit and dwell on it . We made rulings . We all abided by them . And adhered without coming here and giving you objection to them; and we have a development as you drive through it that subsequently looks rather appeasing to the eye . I believe a dwelling that' s 36 by 18 , and I just heard that this evening , is rather small and certainly not in compliance or with anything that we ' ve seen built there that ' s being asked--the request that ' s being asked to be built on a parcel of land that , hey- I live across from that , from that pond and from that area , and 65 ' setback from your town line , not the road , which if you wanted to include that , we ' re about 80. feet back . And the mosquitoes are quite large , ok . The next step would be , hey-after the dwelling is there , let' s get this annoyance out of the way , so let ' s start spraying , et cetera . We ccould go into pandora ' s box for this sort of thing as to repercussions and the environmental impact , et cetera , to make the dwelling and the area pleasing to the people who have purchased it and I believe - I do have your-- I emphasize with you , but I believe that the land had to be purchased , ok , with the knowledge that it was quite questionable as to whether it was i.namerable with a coventional domestic dwelling . And I don ' t think it ' s fair to us taxpayers to assume that we -are all going to abide by your rules and regulations , and then make exception for one individual . To me , that creates Routes 25 as you see them 30 and 40 miles off the road. We constantly make exception and pretty soon you ' ve got a situation that it is no longer controllable and rather chaotic in appearance . And that ' s my ..opinion on the situation , and as has been said before , I would appreciate that 'you concern yourselves very , very ( ) and then prejudiciously with a soluti-on here that ' s going to be certainly taken to mind those people who are now residents of that community and your constituents who have adhered to your rules and regulations ... Thank you . MR . CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Mr . Costanzo . Did you have a question or a comment? MR . COSTANZO : Well I did. Maybe I can help in that one question . There is a map that I have in _my possession from-- May 5th of .1965 . The covenants does state "main road ,. 50 'feet" "side road ,, 35 feet , " which you ' ll see in the covenants .. The map , to answer your question; that we ' re- trying to get to is that road 35 feet or 50 feet. The map does show it ,- This is a map of Mattituck Estates , it ' s a Map of Division for the Estates . I will show it to you . It does show that road. It ' s --.35 feet. But it doesn '.t show any road in the entire estates as a main road . It shows every road at 35 feet. So there might be a discrepancy there . I 'm not sure that there ' s another map that supercedes this one . Southold Town Board Appeals : -11 -. October 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal. No . 3251 - RENATE RIED.EL , .conti•nued : ) MR. COSTANZO (continued ) : But that is an entrance to Matti.tuck Estates'' -from the main road. of . New Suffolk Avenue . There ' s two entrances .on New Suffolk Avenue , and . there is one entrance. off of 25 . MR. CHAIRMAN : Very good. - I -thank you very 'much. This is a signed. map by the way? MR; COSTANZO : Yes . MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Is . there anybody else that would like to. speak - against . the application? Anybody like to speak against it? Do . . you have anything else Mrs . Riedel that you would like to say? (No response . ) Heari_ng .no further comment , I ' ll make a motion holding this hearing -in .open recess; and then' ask the applicant to go back to the D . E . C . , discuss with D . E . C . the' nature of this particular hearing , tell the D..E . C . ' whatever she cares to , but hopefully she ' ll tell the D . E . C . that this board does not specifically condone changes in normal covenants and restrictions , and let ' s see what the D. E . C . comes back with in' this particular case . I ' m also going to' ask Mr. Nordlinger if he ' l.l research that, and we ' ll advertise at the town ' s expense the next hearing on this application when Mrs . Riedel comes back . Mr. Nordlinger , did you have .any .comment .on that? MR. .NORDLINGE'R: No . Thank you for your consideration . MRS . RIEDEL : I went ,to the environmentalists again , and .they wo.uldn ' t give me more land , more setback. . MR. CHAIRMAN : I know you indicated that to our secretary, but . what I would like you to do is to send them a .certified letter, indicat- ing' the nature of this hearing , in fact , you ' re very welcome to , in the period of the next month or so pay for the minutes of this hearing , send them a copy of the minutes of this particular hearing , and indicate to them that we do not specifically condone - a. variance. from the normal covenants and restrictions of this subdivision . And let ' s see what they come up with . Are you fully aware of that they came out and did a field inspection on. this . parcel ? MRS . RIEDEL : I thought that they did. And I had 'to send pictures , , all kinds of shots .from all angles . MR . CHAIRMAN : Are you sure that they came out here , physically? MRS: RIEDEL : I 'didn ' t see it , but; they said they did . MR. CHAIRMAN : All right .. I thank you very much . I 'll offer that as a motion., gentlemen.. MEMBER SAWICKI : Second . On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded. by Mr. . Sawicki., it was RESOLVED, to recess_, this public hearing for. reconsideration and reapplication to the. .,-N ..Y .S.'.. D.J. C . by the. applicant ; RENATE RIEDEL . This resolution .w'as- adopted unanimously- by• all the board members . Southold Town Board _ . Appeals -12- October 1 . , 1984 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No . 3281 . Upon application for EDWARD L . HERRMANN , Marlene Drive , _ Mattituck ; NY for approval to construct addition with reduction of sideyard setback . County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-114-2-40 . The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 32 p .m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application . MR. CHAIRMAN : I have a copy of a survey for Edward Hermann dated September 7 , 1984 , indicating where •.the addition will go. Mr. .' Hermann , would you like to.. be heard in beh.alf ,of your application? EDWARD HERMANN : Yes , I thank you , Mr . Chairman . What we are intending to do ' here is to add an addition , a room onto the house , a bedroom , for our retirement home as of next year. In so in p.utting this room on , 'in order to mvoe. it over any further , if I don ' t get the variance it will create a hardship on_ the inside of the house with the interior rooms and walls : Actually , on the application , it will be two feet . . There has_ been a change . I was unaware of how much room I had on the side until the survey was prepared. I find now that all that will be necessary. would be a one-foot extension which would still leave a .9 ' sideyard . And _by putting this on , I don ' t believe there would be any .hardships going to the south. -the next dwelling to the .so.uth is approximately _ 29 ' from the line . With the 9' remainder , it would be approximately , let ' s see--38 feet between that portion of the residence and. the next-door dwelling . And I have nothing further to say other than I don ' t believe it would be a hardship , for anyone if this variance were to be granted . MR . CHAIRMAN : Did you say this was going to be a bedroom? MR. HERRMANN : Yes , sir. MR. CHAIRMAN : I thank you . Is there anybody else to speak in behalf of the application? Anybody to speak against_. the application? I have in the file a letter. I ' 11 . read the letter. It says., . . . Zoning Board of .Appeals Gentlemen : The main entrance to my house faces to the north , expands to the south side of the Herrmann house would encroach .upon the privacy of my entrance . This would diminish to aesthetic value of .my home , .Narrowing the distance between our homes would also compromise the air space between us and increase the volume of noise , Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No . 3281 - EDWARD 'L . HERRMANN , continued : ) MR. CHAIRMAN (continued) : . . . The expansion of sanitary facilities and the proposed construction necessitating the variance is likely to have environmental impact on my water supply . The precedent of granting variances on narrow lots is contrary to the philosophy of the building code for preserva- tion of water supply and waste disposal . There are obvious alternatives which a variance is not needed : 1 - The expansion to the north of their property where there is land far in excess of 10 feet., or : 2_ - To expand to the west which there is at the very minimum 50 feet of vacant property . Very -.truly yours , /s/ Helen L . Fanning . . . . (There is also another letter of objection from Mrs . Fanning .dated August 22 , 1984 in the record . ) Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Any questions from any board members ? Anybody? . (None ) Victor , do you have anything to comment on? (Nothing ) Any further , Mr . Herrmann , before I close the hearing? MR. HERRMANN : Part of that statement you read , .:was there to be an additional drain on the_.water supply? I-don ' t see how having another bedroom, an addition onto that .house is go.i.ng to require any more water usage? And the house next door , actually_.there i.s sufficient room between the two houses , if that is the concern of my neighbor to the south , which would be approximately 39 feet between houses. . MR. CHAIRMAN : Ok . Thank you . Hearing no further comments , I ' ll make a _motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was RESOLVED to declare the hearing closed pending deliberations . This resolution-..was unanimously adopted. A two-minute recess . Was_.taken to telephone Barbara Ulrich concerning the first hearing of Sche.11enbach and Rojas to bnswer inquiries of the. board. The meeting._r.econvened at .8 : 50 pram. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING : Appeal No . 3270 . Upon application for DR. B .H . PILLAI to construct sleeping quarters in accessory building . Peconic Bay Boulevard , Laurel , NY . The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 50 p .m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application . MR. CHAIRMAN : I have a copy of a survey , last dated April 27 , 1981 , from Young & Young indicating the approximate placement of the garage on the property which is the nature of this application , and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating. this and surrounding properties in the area . " Mr . Olsen , would. you like to be heard? GARY OLSEN , ESQ . : ' Yes . My name is Garry Olsen , Main Road , Cutchogue . _ I am the attorney for the ap.plicants , ... Dr. and Mrs . Pillai , who own a parcel of ,property .on the south- side of Peconic Bay _ Boulevard in Mattituck , 'NY . The property contains approximately 30 ,476 sq . .. ft . and bears Suffolk County Tax Map. No ., 1000=Section 126, Block 11 , Lot 19 . This application is for a variance permitting,- the applicants to construct sleeping quarters above an existing garage . The.. garage is presently a nonconforming accessory bu.ilding. and is located between the applicants ' present home and Peconic Bay Boulevard . The garage as I have scaled- it is approximately 90 .feet south of Peconic Bay Boulevard. As I pointed out in 'my application , the applicants find that they now need because of the 'size and. increase in the family that they need to hire a fulltime, person to help in the caring of their children . There is not,-.presently suf.ficie.nt room within .the.ir home to .give housing facilities for their help as well as providing privacy for their help and privacy for themselves . _ The applicants ' circumstances are unique in that they had until just recently four children , six weeks ago Mrs . Pillai gave birth to twin daughters . The family presently consists of a. b'oy_.nine years old , a boy seven , a boy five , a..boy one , .and twin daughters...now 6 weeks old . There present house has two bedrooms downstairs and three bedrooms upstairs . Each : i.rifant is occupying the downstairs bedroom and Dr . and Mrs . Pillai - are ut.i. lizing one bedroom 'upstairs , and then each bedroom upstairs, the remaining two bedrooms , are shared by two boys apiece . The sleeping facility which is proposed above the garage wo..ul.d'i contain a -sitting room, bedroom, clo-set._space and a bathroom , and the total area upstairs would contain .about 4.20 sq . ft. And below the sleeping facilities would be the garage facilities for the parking of cars . I do have a copy of the proposed layout , which I don ' t know if the board has , which I sought from the Building Department ; but if not , I ' ll submit it to you . Southold Town Board of Appeals 7.5- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal. No . 3270 = B .H „ 'PILLAI , co►5.ti.,nued : ) MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes , I do . I remember looking at it . Thank you . MR .. OLS.EN : I wish to state that there w.i,ll be no cooking facilities above the garage , and that the garage .sle_e.ping__ area would only be utilized,'by the applicants ' household help And All meals would be shared by that person in the main house . ... I also wish to state that the applicants do not wish to create a separate independent dwelling or residence ; and that the saild sleeping facilities would not be used for rental purposes to third parties .. It being the applicants' intention that the facilities would only be used by household help in- conjunc.tion with the main house . I further wish to point out to the board that the exterior dimensions of .the existing garage. w,i,ll not be changed. It is respectfu.l'ly submitted that to require the applicants to provide living__facilities for their help in the exist.i.ng_ house would require an extension to the house , which the way the house is laid out , it just would not work . -And, it w.o.uld cause a great deal more than providing facilities in the fashion..- we ' re recommending . .. .Accord- ingly , it would be an economic hardship . Certainly the dpplicants ' large family with six small children presents them with a practical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship , and unique circumstances if the_ sleeping facilities above the garage cannot be provided for household help , The granting of ,the variance would, not change the character of the neighborhood since no independent residence, . or dwelling is_ sought to be constructed. . For ,an intensive purposes , no new building will be constructed .. The premises will look , if the variance is granted., basically the -way_„ the premises looks at it does now. I respectfully submit that allowing sleeping facilities above the garage__ in this . day and age is. a use _ customarily incidental to and subordinate_..to the main use of .this property as a single-family residential parcel ; and that the _granti'ng of the variance wo..u_l d i n no way adversely affect the character or the value of the adjoining property owners or of the neighborhood. It has been brought to my attention by William Jacobs , the applicants ' builder , that he obtained a similar-'type_, variance back on-- November 9 , _1. 978 for a Richard Wall on Nassau Point Road , Cutchogue , your file._,. #2486 , to construct an accessory building on Nassau_ Po.int in the frontyard , which building has sleeping facilities upstairs . ' The. board granted the ap_plication_. on .the condition that the premises would only be used in conjunction with the main residence and wo.u.ld not be rented to third parties and would not have kitchen facilities . Dr . and Mrs . Pillai 'would be willing to agree to similar conditions should the board decide to grant the variance and impose restrictions , Southold Town Board of. Appeals -16- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No . 3270 - B . H . PILLAI , continued : ) MR. OLSEN (continued : ) In closing , I submit that there are practical difficulties and. unnecessary hardships in the carrying out the strict letter of the present zoning regulation , and that the board' s powe.r to vary or modify such regulations in this case is within the spirit of the zoning chapter , and there is no detrimental effect in the granting of the application to the zoning regulations , public safety, welfare of the community. That by granting this application substantial justice will be done . I do have also present tonight William Jacobs , who is the builder , and if you have any questions-- I know he has some comments that he would like to . make also , andyouu may wish to direct some questions to him if you have any . . WILLIAM JACOBS: 'My name is Bi,ll Jacobs . I ' m a builder , and I live on Depot , Lane in Cutchogue . The .garage apartment , 1_ iving quarters over the garage , is something that would cost them around $23 ,000 and it ' s. compared to extending the ,-.side of the house and ripping out the dining room and doing a tremendous job on their house in changing the whole set-up and everything . It would probably cost them anywhere between $60 ;000 and $80 ,000 . So we can ' t see that it ' s a hardship -- it ' s a hardship , 'an economic hardship to put this kind of money into something for living quarters rather_ than . do something over the garage like we ' re planning . MR. .CHAIRMAN : Mr. Jacobs? We did go down and look and the property. We ' re aware of the garage . We looked at the garage and .the playground area . -- I think .this. may be the evening of asking for different things , but before I .ask this board to comment on this application or ..deliberate on it , I think we would like to see the interior--the part of the house that faces the road to see how. extensive it really would be to put an addition on the house , .ok : As you know it has not been the _nature of this board since at least 1980 .to grant these applications , ok . MR. JACOBS : Well .the front of the hous.e that you ' re talking about is facing the road. You have the kitchen right off the front. MR. CHAIRMAN : That ' s. on the. lefthand side , is it not? MR. JACOBS: Right , And then they have their new playroom that they built with all the stone work and fireplace work . and everything in there . And beyond that you have the dining room-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Towards the water? MR. JACOBS : Towards the water more , and that would where the only place that they could--but it would be ripping out all of that dining .room and going that way , and then you ' re getting closer to the Southold Town Board ot-Appeals -17- October ll , 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 32'70 - B . H. PILLAI , continued :) MR. JACOBS (continued) : water , you ' d have foundations and stuff like that where you don ' t have it with the garage . And it isn ' t changing the garage . It is a treed lot. There are lots of trees up there in that area . We ' re not chang- ing the size of the garage. And we ' re just as far as the height is concerned , we ' d be 1.8 feet from the ground , which is in accordance with the code for an accessory building . MR. CHAIRMAN : What is the nature of the reinforcement to the existing garage based upon going up? What has to be done? How sophis- ticated do the walls have to be? Do they have to be changed? MR. JACOBS : No . The walls are all structurally good. The beams are structurally good. ' There... is a deck in there now. Floor beams , girder. And: of:'_cour.se ."wee were ripping the roof out and going up with walls and then the roof. So-- MR. CHAIRMAN : There . would be no reinforcements in the existing foundation? MR.. JACOBS : No. We wouldn ' t. need it . MR. CHAIRMAN : I thank' you-.,very much . Mr . Sawicki ? MEMBER SAWICKI : I notice on the plans there , the toilet facilities , is that going to be a separate cesspool or are they going to hook into the same one? MR. CHAIRMAN: What are' you going to do with the cesspools? MR. JACOBS: Right. The cesspools are there towards in front of the den . ..We would join into the existing cesspools and the water would come from the existing well in the house . . So it would be underground feed to it. MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you . AnythinlgEel.se? Would anybody, else like to speak in behalf . of .or against the application? Mr. Cron . RICHARD J . .CRON , ESQ . : Yes . If it pleases the board. My name is Richard J . Cron . I ' m. an attorney at Cutchogue , New York . And I am representing an adjacent . neighbo.r, a Mrs . Evelyn A. Stewart , and a landowner to the west , who i.n fact opposes this ap.plicati.on: . The reason.--,,for Mrs . Stewart opposing the application is she feels it is going. to have a detrimental effect obvio,us'ly on her property values by virtue of basically adding , and while it hasn ' t been classified as such , the safeguards to enable such not to happen do not exist . In other words , another dwelling on that frontc.single lot , ownership . You can say that it .has no .kitchen facilities , but all you need is th.e electricity and you ' ve got kitchen. facilities . The house or the addition descr.i-bed meets all of the qualifications of another dwelling with the exception of course of what' you want to classify as cooking , facilities . With the. electricity' you. can put in a hotplate and you' ve J r A i Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No . 3270 - B . H. PILLAI , continued : ) MR . CRON (continued) : got cooking facilities . But that ' s not the real reason why I would oppose the application in her behalf. I think the board is well aware of the fact that there is a distinguishing difference between a use variance and an area variance . And what is basically sought here is a use variance . And in order to enable one to satisfy a Board of Appeals as to the granting of such a variance , you ' ve got to make a determination firstly , that . the property in question or the land in question is not yielding a reasonable return under the present existing zoning ordinance . Well that obviously has not been established here . Nobody has brought forth any proof to show that the property as it is zoned is not,._ yielding a reasonable rate of return . You ' ve got to show them the hardship that the., law seeks in a use variance is an economic hardship , and it ' s not a hardship that ' s predicated on the fact that"Well I can build an extension on the garage or an addition to the garage at a cost less than I can add a desirable extension to the residence . " That ' s not the economic hardship that the law .imposes . I don ' t want to be facetious but I suppose to some extent the hardship is self-imposed . You know, the fact , what really is being spelled out is not really a hardship or an economic hardship . What is being spelled out is an inconvenience , perhaps an inconvenience . I didn ' t hear '. anything to indicate . that_ the person or the domestic being employed would necessarily have to. live, in the house or outside of the house or be working at such t.i:me. I would assume that somewhere along the line one gets 8 hours to sleep and whether it ' s done- in :,the house or whether it ' s done in the extension or the addition or it ' s done in one ' s own home , it obviously can be done . So I don ' t think that the hardship that is being brought before the board is one which the board can give legal cognizance of. Secondly , the other thing that must be established. as far as an applicant for a use variance is uniquen'ess . of ;'the ,thing , and the hardship , whatever it may be , and of course it ' s required to be an economic hardship , has to be unique to the property in question . The hardship can ' t be that which arises by the impact ofrthe zoning ordinance and would be applicable to all other properties _ in the vicinity . Because that goes - to the reasonableness of the ordinance . So that uniqueness test hasn ' t been met here . It isn ' t sufficient to say that , "Well , we have an existing garage and it wouldn ' t be convenient to- do- all of these things in the residence , i.n the principal residence . " That doesn ' t make it convenient . And frankly every time you have a- use variance , there is a corresponding effect on the character of the district. You ' re changing the use of that district and by adding more people , you ' re changing the .use within that district . So while I can be sympathetic to the applicants , I don ' t think it ' s something that this board can rely upon in granting the relief requested. I think the board is dictated by what _:the law imposes upon the board before it can grant a use variance , and I don ' t _ i Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- October 11 , 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No . 3270 - B . H . PILLAI , continued: ) MR. CRON (continued) : think any of those things have been proved to let.' the board act on that. MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you , Mr . Cron . Mr. Olsen , did you have anything else to say? MR. OLSEN : I would just like to state again that we ' re not trying to change the use of this property . The property is still to ::be used for si.ngl:e-family residential purposes . We are not trying to create a separate dwelling or residence . What we ' re strictly try- ing to do is limit it to sleeping facilities which would not be rented to third parties . I would only. be used for househouse help or other family members . My understanding i.--s-.that ..historically until fairly recently maybe , .' as recent as 1980 , _ was the comment that you made , that the town automatically allowed this sort of thing, and that there ' s . a lot of precedents,.- throughout the township where people do have sleeping facilities above a garage ; and I can ' t see that .. is going to be . of ..any negative or detrimental hardship on any adjoining landowners 'by p,ermitting this . And we ' re asking . for the board ' s consideration . MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you . Is there anybody else to speak pro or con on this application? Questions from the board. members? (None ) Victor? (None ). . Hearing no further questions , I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing and.. reserving decision until later . MEMBER DOUGLASS : Second .' On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Douglass , it was RESOLVED , to close the hearing pending deliberations until later in the Matter of Appeal No . 3270 , for 'DR. B . H . , PILLAI . This resolution was unanimously adopted. MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you very much gentlemen for coming in . The hearing was declared closed at 9 : 15 p .m. Verbatim transcription of the hearings held by the Board of Appeals on October .11 ,.. 1984 were typed by Sara.._Lenihan , editted by Linda Kowalski . 71a..._, i £'.��...�>_ .. � Respectfully submitted , 1 -�S ��I; Li da Kowal r ski , Secetary I 1 Southold Town Board of .Appeals �",9rk, Tc,an cf So. F2o,.