HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/05/1981 � ��c�VFFOI�`OG
D 41
-Southold .-Town. Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., Chairman
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI M I N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 5 , 1981
A Regular Meeting .of the Southold Town Board of, Appeals was
held on Thursday, November 5, 1981 at 7 : 20 p.m. at tYie Southold
Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971.
Present were: Charles Grigonis, Jr. , Chairman; Berge Doyen,
Jr. ; Robert J. Douglass; . Gerard P. Goehringer; Joseph H. Sawicki.
Also present was Mrs. Ruth Oliva, North Fork Environmental Council.
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7: 20 p.m. and proceeded
with the first public hearing as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2908 . Application of Isabel
DuBois by Gada Contracting, Drawer B, Fishers Island, NY 06390 ,
for approval of access, New York Town Law, Section 280-A. Location
of Property: Private Road, Fishers Island, NY; Chocomount Lot 3;
bounded north by-Musser and .Private. Road; east by F. I. Water Works;
south and west by Fishers Island Development Co. ; County Tax Map
Parcel Item No. 1000-4-5-part of parcel 5.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7: 21 p.m. by reading the
appeal application, legal notice of hearing, and related documents
in the file in their entireties. Fee paid $15. 00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here that would like to add to
what' s been said in the application?
MR....DOUGHERTY: -.Some .of. the members of the board 1iad seen it
on Sunday, and since then we've brought in running bank '-gravel, the
top section that was , you know, which we had just cut--
MR. CHAIRMAN: You just graded when we were there.
MR. DOUGHERTY: And with two inches of running bank gravel up
to the building site right now coming down to what was existing
there. That' s been done since Sunday.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER; Is that the same width as what you had
primarily down below past the -- what' s the name of that house, Serge?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- November 5, 1981 Regular Meeting
IL
(Appeal No. 2908 - Isabel DuBois, continued: )
MEMBER DOYEN: MacIntyre' s house.
MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes, it' s consistently 15 feet all the way
around the turn until ( . ) Palmer ' s property.
MEMBER DOYEN:" Isn' t it a gutter all the way down on the right
side coming down?
MR. DOUGHERTY: There is a gutter along the road.
MEMBER DOYEN: I suppose eventually somebody should improve that.
MR. DOUGHERTY: We have talked about that with Mr. Nelson.
MEMBER DOYEN: I should think that that would be desirable if you
lived up there. And then also, did you -- so you explained. ... up to
the lot lines. . .the owner,- you say, plans to macadamize?
MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes, macadamize up to the building.
MEMBER DOYEN: After the house is constructed from the lot. . .
MR. DOUGHERTY: The prefab houses are going to be 18 in there and
there ' s no sense in wrecking the road now until the thing is. . .until
the building is complete..
MEMBER DOUGLASS : You also have to tear it up for wiring, right?
MR. DOUGHERTY: We've got to dig trenches for utilities also.
MEMBER DOYEN: And then also that private road from the last lot
into the houses also 15 feet wide, right? At least it appeared to me
to be at least 15 feet wide yesterday.
MR. GADA: And we contacted the builder, and both Musser and
DuBois may have a 4 water line going up. They want a hydrant right
at that turnaround.
MEMBER DOYEN: Musser would be the one on the right.
MR. GADA: They recommended a hydrant there to service those
houses going up, and they consented to that.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: That' s a good idea.
MR. GADA: The closest hydrant is out on the main road. They
wanted three inch, and talked about four inch going up that hill.
Putting a hydrant at the top will service all the properties at the
top of the hill .
MEMBER DOYEN: If it' s at the top of the hill, how can they
get reservoir?
MR. GADA: Well, the water. . .that' s another problem. The Water
Company is going to have us tap into the line that goes by MacIntyre' s.
If we tap in there , actually it comes downhill, to tap in there it runs
back up the hill.
MEMBER DOYEN: ' You mean the level in .the reservoir is..�going to be
up and up to give them pressure—
MR. GADA: Yes, because off this. hydrant will be service lines
into the houses.
(Certain statements. concerning the water level could not be
— heard clearly. )
MEMBER DOYEN: Well anyway, they're next to the water.
C_
1 Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- November 5 , 1981 Regular Meeting
.f
(Appeal No. 2908 Isabel DuBois continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wishing to add to this? (None)
Anyone wish to --
MR. NELSON: Well, maybe you should .tie mine in with this
because mine is on the same road. I 'm Mr. Nelson here and I'm
scheduled to come on tonight later. I'm on the same road going
up the hill and you made a mistake in there, my property .is the
one on the left where the curve is running right along right now.
The present road is between 14 and 16 feet. wide, yet it' s a stone
road all the way up the hill. I'm only about 50 feet, my
property is 50 feet off the main road. There is a fire hydrant
right now about 75 feet . on the main road off my property and
if there was ever any kind of a fire or emergency or anything
like that, I mean, it would be serviced from the hard-surface
road. The main road that runs down the Island. .And I hope you
take that into consideration on this here. As far as any kind
of servicing vehicles, fo.r.�emergency, . I mean they would be ser-
viced right within 50 feet of my property. And there is a curb
running right along my property now. And a stone road.
MEMBER DOYEN: Well, maybe these remarks: -.could,:be-".either
added to this or included. His remarks could be included.
MR.'.' .CHAIRMAN Well, no one wishing to speak against it
I' ll, a resolution is in order, if--
MEMBER DOYEN: I' ll .make the motion.
MEMBER DOUGLASS : I'd like to ask them one question. Would
it be out of the way to ask your property owners to give us a
letter that after they have finished their construction before
they _get their C./O that the road can be reinspected if necessary
to see that it' s satisfactory so that you can go ahead and get
your foundations and everything in. Because you have a lot of
tearing up to do.
MR. DOUGHERTY : That' s exactly what we were looking at.
MEMBER DOUGLASS : So I will .make that a part of the motion.
Go ahead. You're making the motion?
MEMBER DOYEN: I' ll make th-e.:motion .that it be accepted
with the provision, conditions that the applicant said, the
improvements that the applicant said would be made and also
that before a Certificate of Occupancy is granted that they
furnish this Board with a letter indicating the improvements
that had been made on the road. Does that satisfy you? (All
nodded affirmatively. )
MR. DOUGHERTY: Excuse me, I just wanted to bring up one
point, that they agreed to macadam the top part of the hill
going down to the existing road. From there on it' s FIDCO, I
don't know they' ll macadam it, but they certainly --
C
L Southold Town. Board of Appeals -4- November 5., 1981 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2908 - Isabel DuBois continued: )
MEMBER.,.DOYEN: Actually, , what we're concerned is that this is
entirely stone,.. where it' s stone, where that stone bed;,road stops
and where . it. runs into the new road, sort of speak, between there
and the property line,. is what :we're talking about. Then the
other t4rite-in is your concern, but you can put that in the letter
too if you wish.
MEMBER .DOUGLASS: I would say just like we did before that
I think .you all ought to get. together with FIDCO and see that they
do something. with that stuff.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll second the motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Regularly moved and seconded, all in favor --
(all ayes) . Unanimously granted.
MR. DOUGHERTY:. Could-..z.;_just:}ask:_one question? Moyser, who
is the adjoi.ning. property owner to the DuBois property. What do
we do, what procedure do we follow for him. We cleared his lot.
It' s all . cleared, Sunday, brush-wize. Now he' s getting the plans
iniorder _and.he wants to build. Do I .still file approval of access?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: He has to have .a right .of access, yes.
MR. DOUGHERTY: It' s on the same road..
MEMBER DOUGLASS : It doesn' t matter. He still has to have it
for. his house.
MEMBER DOYEN: . Charlie, is this the procedure we're following?
It' s not clear in my mind. Once there is _a road that has been
approved, have an approved access, is that correct someone has to
come in . and ask for a reapplication? , Is that the procedure we use?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should discuss this with the
town attorney.
MR.. .CHAIRMAN: Yes, we haven't had a chance to talk with Bob
(Robert Tasker, Esq. ) about it:
MR. DOUGHERTY: It' s not immediate. It was just a question
that I had to be answered.
MEMBER DOYEN: Then you just check with the secretary and
ask them.what the. latest interpretation is.
MR. NELSON: I've got one question also. On .this motion that
was passed, does that. app-ly:-.to mine also?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. That' s next.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- November 5 , 1981 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2908 - Isabel DuBois continued: )
By this appeal, applicant seeks approval of access pursuant
to Section 2.80-a, New York Town Law, over a private road approxi-
mately 50 feet wide and extending northerly off East End Road
(also known as Oriental Avenue) , at Fishers Island. Applicant
proposes to construct a new. dwelling and without approval of access
cannot obtain a building permit for same. It is the opinion of
this board that the provide road is suitable and adequate for ac-
cessibility for fire, police and other emergency vehicles as well
as private vehicles. The road has a stone base to a width of
approximately 14 feet. It is also the consensus of the Planning
Board at a special meeting held on October 30 , 1981 that they
agree the access is rough-graded and suitable for emergency vehicles.
In considering this appeal , the Board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; . that the circumstances here-
in are .unique; that by allowing the variance no substanial detri-
ment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty
cannot be obviated by a. method, feasible to appellant, other than
a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available
governmental facilities of any increased population; that the
relief requested will be in harmony with .and promote the general
purposes of zoning; and. that the interests of justice will be
served by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Goehr.inger, it was
RESOLVED, that Isabel DuBois be granted approval of access
pursuant -to New York Town Law, Section 280-a, as applied for and
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
That the subject access road be macadamized to a minimum
width of..15 feet up to applicant' s property (approximately ' 1 , 185
feet in length) .
That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
for new construction on this property, applicant furnish the
board of appeals a letter indicating that the subject right-of-way
has been improved as indicated above.
Location of Property: Off Private Road No. 7 , Fishers Island,
NY; Chocomount Lot 3; bounded north by Musser and Private Road; east
by F.I . Water Works; south and west by Fishers Island Development
Co. ; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-4-5-part of parcel 5.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
Sawicki and Grigonis. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
` Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- November 5 , 1981 Regular Meeting
4
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2900. Application of Robert W.
Nelson, 17 Commerce Street, Chatham, NJ 07920 , for approval of access,
New York Town Law Section 280-A. Location of Property: Private Road,
Fishers Island, NY; Fishers Island Map Block 16 , Lot 12; .bounded north
by F. I . Water Works; east by Private Road; south and west by F. I.
Development Co. ; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-4-5-5. 7.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 : 33 p.m. and: read the appeal
application, legal notice of hearing and related documents in their
entireties. Fee paid $15. 00 .
MR. CHAIRMAN.: Mr. Nelson.
ROBERT W. NELSON: Well, the lot that we have is only 50 feet off
a hard-surface road. Right now the road is between 14 and 16 feet wide.
It is a stone road. There is a curb running the full length of our
property, the 239 feet; a stone curb. There has never been a problem
to my knowledge about any fire department, ambulance or anything like
that getting up and down the road because there has been a house up
behind us on the hill here for over 50 years. We are within 75 feet
of the fire hydrant right now on the hard-surface road, and I would be
willing to go along with what the previous applicant . (DuBois) has come
in with— that we will at the completion of the job we would .be willing
to meet the town standard to put a road in front of the property. Now
the previous applicant I believe mentioned . about a macadam road. . .it
seems to me that the town has had other standards, gravel or. . . I
don't want to be tied down to putting in macadam, but the one thing is
there are three new houses going to be built up above me and if I put
in a .macadam road in front with three houses. . . .. Gada' s going to do
a very fine job . . .about protecting my road. To put a macadam road in
and then have all the trucks from my property to the other new houses
would certainly tear it apart. But I'd be willing to go-along with
meeting town standards if the application is approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak for it? Anyone to speak
against this? Any questions from any of the board members? (None)
A resolution is in order.
MEMBER DOYEN: I' ll make the motion—excuse me, did you want
to say something?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: I would suggest that it have the same thing as
we had before, write it up the same as the other one so that. . . I
don 't mean macadam. I suggest that they give us a letter before a
Certificate of Occupancy so that they don' t have to have it all torn
up while they're building.
MEMBER DOYEN: Then it' s not including the "macadam portion"
because that' s beyond the lot line, and we were interested from the lot
line to approximately the area opposite the MacIntyre property to be
improved. ' So make the same resolution.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don' t you write in there excluding macadam?
Because that' s only within the lot lines.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well as Mr. Nelson says, going with the spec ' s,
just give him a copy of the spec ' s so he knows what they are.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- November. 5, 1981 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2900 .- Robert W. Nelson, continued: )
MEMBER DOYEN: I don't think we have to go to that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER It' s not subject to the specifications.
MEMBER DOYEN: It' s not subject to the specifications. As a
matter of fact it probably agrees with the specifications. . .a little
rocky but that road has about two, three or four inches of rock and
gravel already. It' s rough, but that' s already there. So that' s
not even necessary. But I don't think we should word it at this
time technically. . .I just think it should be granted as applied for.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It should be granted based upon the road' s
being placed back in its position that it' s in right now. . .
MEMBER DOYEN: Yeah, ok.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: . . .Up to the MacIntyre House, all right?
Because we haven't seen 4t past the MacIntyre House. So whatever you
tear it up. . .whatever you do in tearing it up, it will be placed back
in that position as we had seen it last Sunday. And subject to this
letter. Is that correct, Serge?
MEMBER DOYEN: Ok. The same resolution except just as far as
Mr. Nelson is concerned—to the portion it applies to him, which is
just below the MacIntyre property—so you can' t burden him with
asking him to improve the road past his property line unless he so. . . .
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We 're not asking him to improve it. All I 'm
saying is that he be placed back in the position that it' s in now.
MEMBER DOYEN: There' s no .argument there, except to the extent
of his property line that he borders the road in question, the right-
of-way in question. In other words , we can' t ask him to improve the
road beyond his. . .
MEMBER DOUGLASS : We aren' t.
MEMBER DOYEN: Well , I know. He has to maintain, he has to
see after the completion of construction that it is at least equal
to the condition that it is now. To the end of .his property line.
SECRETARY: Starting where?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From the edge of the road.
MEMBER DOYEN: His property borders that road.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Approximately 330 feet.
The board made the following findings and determination:
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- November 5 , 1981 Regular
Meeting
(Appeal No. 2900 - Robert W. Nelson continued: )
By this appeal, applicant seeks approval of access pursuant to
Section 280-a, New York Town Law over a private road approximately
50 feet wide and extending northerly off East End Road (Oriental
Avenue) , Fishers Island. Applicant proposes to construct a new
dwelling and without approval of access cannot. obtain a building
permit. It is the opinion of this board that the private road is
suitable and adequate for accessibility for fire, police and other
emergency vehicles as well as private vehicles. It is also the
consensus of the Planning Board at a special meeting held on
October 30, 1981 that the access herein is rough-graded and suit-
able for emergency equipment.
In considering this appeal, the Board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; .that the circumstances here-
in are unique; that by allowing the variance no substanial detri-
ment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty
cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than
a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available
governmental facilities of any increased population; that the
relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general
purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be
served by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that Robert W. Nelson be granted approval of access
pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a, Subsection 3 , as
applied. for and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That the .access road be maintained in good condition as exists
under same date hereof, for a length approximately 330 feet along
the private road (#7) to the end (north) of the subject parcel; and
that applicant/owner shall provide this board with a letter certify-
ing compliance herewith at or before issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
, Location of Property: Off Private Road #7, Fishers Island, NY;
Fishers Island Map Block 16 , Lot 12; bounded north by F. I. Water
Works; east by Private Road; south and west by Fishers. Island
Development Co. ; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-4-5-5. 7.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
Sawicki and Grigonis. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
` Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- November 5, 1981 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal -No. 2902. Application of Marjorie S.
Dunaway, by James V. Righter, 58 Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108 ,
for a Variance for : (1) approval of access, New York Town Law
Section 280-A; (2) for permission to construct pool in sideyard
area; (3) for permission to construct ten-foot high tennis court
fence. Location of Property: Private Road, Fishers Island, NY;
Fishers Island Map Block 25 , Lot. 9; bounded north by F. I. Sound;
east by Williamson; south by. Private Road; .west by Bagley; County
Tax Map Parcel No. .1000-3-1-3.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :41 p.m. and read the appeal
application, legal notice of hearing and related documents in their
entireties.. Fee paid $15.00 .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone to speak for this application?
Is there anyone to speak against it? Do any board members have any
questions? (None)
MEMBER DOUGLASS: I' ll make a motion granting is "as is. " I
couldn't see anything wrong with it when we were over there, and you
have pictures of it in the file.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. Subject to County Planning
referral.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks approval of access pursuant to
New York Town Law, Section 280-a, Subsection- 3 over a 40-foot
private road, and permission to construct swimmingpool . in sideyard
area, and permission to construct ten-foot high tennis-court fence
in the rearyard area. The premises in question contains .an area
of 3. 03 acres, more or less, and existing thereon are a one-family
private dwelling .and separate cottage. The topography of the land
lends itself to practical difficulties in locating accessory struc-
tures on this parcel. The existing dwelling is set back approximately
100 .feet from the road, and applicant proposes to locate the swimming-
pool in line with the front of the dwelling. The parcel is heavily
wooded and contains high bluffs, leaving minimal rearyard .area avail-
able. The board dogmatizes these areas proposed for the new structures
are the most feasible.
In considering this appeal, the board. determines that the vari-
ance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein are
unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment to
adjoining properties will be created; that no adverse effects will
be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased
population; that the relief requested will be in harmony with and
promote the general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of
justice will be served by allowing the variance.
On .motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- November 5 , 1981 Regular Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2902 - Marjorie S. Dunaway, continued: )
RESOLVED, that the relief requested in the application of
Marjorie S. Dunaway, Appeal No. 2902, for approval of access, be
granted as applied for.
Location of Property: Private Road, Fishers Island, NY;
Fishers Island Map Block 25 , Lot. 9; bounded north by F. I. Sound;
east by Williamson; south by Private Road; west by Bagley; County
Tax Map Parcel 1000-3-1-3.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
Sawicki and Grigonis.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2909. Application of Robert A. and
Bettyann Herreros, 3000 Delmar Drive, Laurel, NY for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III , Section 100-31 for permission to
construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient frontyard set-
back. Location. of Property: 3000 Delmar Drive, Laurel, NY;
Laurel Country Estates Map No. 5486 , Lot 37; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-125-4-13.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:45 p.m. and read the appeal
application, legal notice of hearing and related documents in their
entireties. Fee paid $15 . 00 .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey showing the proposed
addition to the dwelling and a copy of the County Tax Map showing
this property and the surrounding properties. Is there anyone here
to speak for this? _ .
MRS. BETTYANN HERREROS: Our feelings are in the application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone to speak against it? Any of the board
members have any questions.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Well, we were up there a couple of weeks ago
where you have your garage now, I think, is that the end of it or
are you going to build out on that?
MRS. HERREROS: Ten feet more to make it wider onto the garage.
MEMBER SAWICKI: The foundation wasn't there yet..
MRS. HERREROS: We' re using an existing foundation.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Yes.
MRS. HERREROS: They haven' t put in the footings or anything
for the addition at least until this meeting.
MEMBER DOUGLASS : For this extension they have.
4 i
Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- November 5, 1981
MRS. HERREROS: Oh no, no, we ,haven't.
MEMBER SAWICKI: That' s all I have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone to speak against it? (None)
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal , applicants seek permission to construct a 10 ' by 2713"
addition at the northwest side of existing dwelling with a frontyard
setback off Gina Street at its nearest point of approximately 30 feet.
Gina Street is a dead-end street, and the dwelling is setback off
Delmar Drive at its nearest point approximately 40 feet. The premises
is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-13. The Board agrees that
this location for the addition is the most practical, and the design
of the dwelling lends itself to the practical difficulties in these
circumstances.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the variance
request is not substantial in relation to the code requirements; that
the circumstances herein are unique; that by allowing the variance
no substantial detriment to adjoining properties would be created;
that the difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appel-
lants, other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced
on available governmental facilities of any increased population; that
the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general
purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be served by
allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of Robert A. and Bettyann Herreros,
Appeal No. 2909, be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR.
Location of Property: 3000 Delmar Drive, Laurel, NY.; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-125-4-13 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer, Sawicki
and Grigonis . This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2901 . Application of William A.
Rusch, 50550 Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32B for permission to construct
raised deck on pool with an insufficient sideyard setback at 50550
Main Road, Southold, NY; bounded north by Main Road; east by Baker;
south by Christian Science Society and Southold School District; west
by Christian Science Society; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-70-2-13.
The Chairman opened the hearing at .7 : 51 p.m. and read the appeal
application; legal notice of hearing and related documents in their
entireties . Fee paid $15 . 00 ..
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything else you want to add, Bill?
WILLIAM A. RUSCH: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone to speak against this? Any ques-
tions? (None)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- November 5, 1981
r
(Appeal No. 2901 - William A. Rusch continued: )
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks- approval of Ithe coQnstruction
of a raised deck around his in-ground swimmingpool leaves an
insufficient sideyard setback from the southerly property line
(adjoining Christian Science Society) . of approximately
feet. Along the perimeter of the subject parcel is a fence ,
at the south property line a 51 -stockade fence and along the
rear and north side line a 41 -chainlink fence. The zoning
code requires such an accessory structure to be located in the
rearyard area with a minimum setback of three feet from all
property lines. It is the general feeling that there is ample
area available in the rearyard to meet the requirements of the
code, but inasmuch as the"deck _and swimmingpool have been con-
structed and. inasmuch as there is fencing shielding same, the
circumstances are unique and the relief should be granted.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances
herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the
difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant,
other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced
on available governmental facilities of any increased population;
that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the
general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice
will be served by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of William A. Rusch in
Appeal No. 2901, be GRANTED AS APPLIED FOR.
Location of Property: 50550 Main Road, Southold, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-70-2-13.
Vote of the Board : Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass ,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2899. Application of Wilbur A.
Baldwin, by William S. Midgley, Jr. as agent, 200 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-32 for permission to construct garage in the frontyard
area. Location of Property : 1725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY;
more particularly known as Nassau Point Club Properties Lot No. 1;
County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-104-13-2 . 4 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7 :55 p.m. and read the appeal
application, legal notice of hearing and related documents in their
entireties. Fee paid $15. 00 .
Southold Town Board of Appeals . -13- November 5 , 1981 Regular Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2899 - Wilbur A. Baldwin, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketch showing the proposed
located of the garage and a copy of the County Tax Map showing the
surrounding properties. Is there anyone here that wishes to add to
this? Mr. Baldwin.
WILBUR A. BALDWIN: Yes, I'm Mr. Baldwin, owner of the property.
I still have the same problem I had back in March. I have a small
home with absolutely zero storage space for boats , lawn furniture and
such. I also have no backyard. My house is so far forward. This is
the only practical pace to -put the garage where there would be an
entrance into the house with the least amount of damage to the
property.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak for it?
WILLIAM MIDGLEY: In this particular area most of the neighbors
do have garages, existing garages, which by today' s standards is in
the frontyard. At that time they thought they were in the backyard
where the front is. In that particular situation where Bud is, I
am pretty sure you gentlemen have been down there--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, we 've been down there a couple of times .
MR. MIDGLEY:. I can remember many years ago when my previous
customer on that piece of property, Mr. Murray. . .and basically quite
a bit of the grade to the northeast .corner of Nassau Point ( )
that particular piece of property. Today it rains, it wouldn 't be
too much of a problem. If it were one of those deals when the ground
is frozen, so on and so forth, so the water does not soak down into
the ground, inthat particular area there is one spot there which
it stills has, one spot, which Mr. Cichanowicz , I used to call him
Cich . . . still left it low, right off the pond there. So if we put
for argument' s sake a garage in that .particular area now, we'd have
to fill that land in. Now we're still going to have the same water
coming. Under certain conditions. . It does not happen often. So
where we have the garage planned for at the present moment we would
not have that problem. If I filled a low spot in, maybe I 've
resolved my problem but then I. create a problem for the next door
neighbor. So this is why I have the garage planned for that
particular spot. As I 'm sure you gentlemen went down there, as .-you
went into the driveway there' s a low spot as you came in to your
.extreme right. That does occasionally, not very often, under cer-
tain circumstances, becomes flooded. And the garage is, as I see
it—it' s to my financial advantage to build a garage to make an
extra buck. . .but .if it were my piece of property that' s exactly
where I 'd put it. It' s convenient to the house and with the exist-
ing garages in that particular area, I do not think it would create
an eyesore or a problem, because we have just basically a public
bathing beach to the north side of us and a right-of-way. I myself
would be in favor of it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Bill. Anyone else?
MR. BALDWIN: One more thing. . .the location of this garage
would absolutely knock out a lot of the northwest wind and I would
use this as onebedroom and a bathroom.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- November. 5, 1981 Reg. Meeting
t (Appeal No. 2899 —Wilbur A. Baldwin, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone to speak against this? Any questions from
any board members?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would just like to ask one question.
Mr. Baldwin, this is going to be the same as the last application
except of course it' s less the deck. Now this garage will be a
two-story garage like the last one considered?
MR. BALDWIN: Just a shallow storage space across.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have any idea how far the house
and the garage would be apart? Just an estimate?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes. I would say, from my deck about three feet.
MEMBER ' GOEHRINGER: So it would be three foot from the north
property line and approximately three foot from the deck?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? (None) No further ques-
tions and no one objecting to it -- I ' ll offer a resolution granting
it subject to County Planning- and subject to the garage being used
only for storing of boats and automobiles and so forth and tools and
stuff, but no living quarters in there.
MR. BALDWIN: No water, no insulation,. I know the story.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
The board made the following findings and determination:
(Continued on page 15)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- November 5 , 1981
* (Appeal No. 2899 - Wilbur A. Baldwin, continued: )
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct an
accessory garage, 21' by '2316" , in the frontyard area with a setback
from the northerly sideyard line of not less than three feet.
Existing on the subject premises is a one-family dwelling, and due
to the location of the dwelling on' the lot, the available buildable
rearyard area is minimal. It is the feeling of the board that the
site chosen is most practical and feasible under the circumstances.
In considering. this appeal, the board. determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances
herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no . substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the
difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant,
other than a variance; that, no adverse effects will be produced
on available governmental facilities of any .increased population;
that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the
general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice
will be served by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr.. Goehringer, it
was
RESOLVED, that the application of Wilbur A. Baldwin, Appeal
No. 2899, be GRANTED permission to construct accessory building
in the frontyard area AS APPLIED FOR AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS :
1. That the accessory building will be used strictly for
storage and .not for living quarters;
2. That this matter be referred to the Suffolk County
Planning Commission for their review pursuant to Sections 1323 ,
et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter.
Location of Property: 1725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-104-13-1.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2903. Application of Richard and
Joan Zeisler. (Continued on. Page 16)
J
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- November 5 , 1981
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2903.
Upon application of Richard and Joan Zeisler, c/o Philip J.
Ofrias, Jr. , Esq. , 737 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, NY 11901 for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for
approval of walkways around the perimeter of applicants' house
with reduced frontyard and sideyard setbacks at 700 Jackson Land-
ing, Mattituck, NY; Jackson Landing Subdivision Lot No. 9 , Subdi-
vision Map No. 5280 ; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-113-4-9.
The Chairman opened the hearing at .approximately 8 :05 p.m.
and read the legal notice of hearing and . appeal application in
their entireties.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything you would like to add,
Mr. Ofrias?
PH:ILIP J. OFRIAS, JR. , ESQ. : Well, basically I think the
application pretty much sets forth what happened, although I see
you're looking at the survey submitted with the application, the
southeasterly corner .of the deck also is within 15 feet of the
property line. That' s not for the walkway I was referring to but
obviously, looking at the survey,. we need the variance for that
corner also. I indicated as it said in the application -.there is
a walkway or identical construction leading from the front of the
house all the way up to the edge of Jackson Landing. There' s no
problem with that, and in speaking with the Building Department
the problem here is that because this is attached to the house
it' s regarded as an extension. to the house. One solution would
be or might be would be to severe it from the house , but it would
sort of make sloppy construction. This is sturdy or safer and
everything stays nicely lined.
MR. CHAIRMAN:. Thank you, Mr. Ofrias. Is there anybody else
that wishes to speak for this? Anyone to speak against it? (None)
Any questions from any members of the board? (None)
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll make a motion approving the deck in
this variance based upon one particular request, and that is that
these decks never be enclosed, never be a part of the normal
dwelling unit as they exist.
MR. OFRIAS: Well, I 'm sure that' s not a problem. They don't
even lend themselves to that. It' s very narrow, about 32 feet.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Secbnded:.
The following are the findings and determination of the board :
Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- November 5 , 1981
`-(Appeal No. 2903 - Richard & Joan Zeisler, continued: )
By this appeal, appellants seek approval of the construction
of walkways or deck along the perimeter of the subject dwelling,
which have reduced the frontyard setback by approximately four
feet and reduction in sideyard area. It is the opinion of the
board that the relief requested is minimal, less than 10% percent
of a variance from the code requirements.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein
are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial detriment
to adjoining properties would be. created; that no adverse effects
will be produced on available governmental facilities of any in-
creased population; that the relief requested will be . in harmony
with and promote the general purposes of zoning; ..and that the in-
terests of justice will be served by allowing the variance as
applied for.
On motion:.by.-Mr.. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that Richard and Joan Zeisler be GRANTED a variance
to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 approving the
construction of the walkways or -deck along the frontyard and side-
yard areas as applied for and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That the decks never be enclosed or made part of the normal
dwelling as it exists;
. 2. That this matter be subject to referral to the Suffolk
County Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 1323 , et seq, of .
the Suffolk County Charter.
Location of Property: 700 Jackson. Landing, Mattituck, NY;
Jackson Landing Subdivision Lot No. 9, Subdivision Map No. 5280 ;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-113-4-9.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
APPEAL NO. 2911. Application of William and Helen Robison,
31 Rockledge Place, Cedar Grove, NJ, by Abigail A. Wickham, Esq.
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections
100-30A and Bulk Schedule for approval of insufficient area and
width of two proposed parcels. Location of Property: Northwest
corner of Wavecrest Lane and Saltaire Way, Mattituck, NY; Sal-
taire Estates Filed Map 4682, Lots 17 and 18 ; County Tax Map
Parcels 1000-100-1-14 and 15.
.The Chairman read into the record letter dated October 5 , 1981
and received November 5, 1981 from Abigail A. Wickham, Esq.
requesting to withdrawn the variance for a division of two lots
inasmuch as the amended variance to divide and for reduction of
setback covers the (subj.ect) request for relief.
r
Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- November. 5 , 1981 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2911 - Willian & Helen Robison, continued: )
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 2911, application of William and
Helen Robison be withdrawn without prejudice as requested by ap-
plicant' s attorney inasmuch as the same relief requested herein is
covered by Appeal No. 2918 , filed subsequently to this application.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
Sawicki and Grigonis. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2905. Application of William
and Margaret Killian, 5100 .Private Road off Mill Road, Mattituck,
NY 11952 , for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-32 and Article XI, Section 100-118D for permission
to construct accessory building in an area other than the required
rearyard. Location of Property: 5100 Private Road off Mill Road,
Mattituck; bounded north by Holmes; west, south and east by Matti-
tuck Holding Co. ; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-106-6-5.
The Chairman opened .the hearing at 8 :22 p.m. and read the appeal
application, legal notice .of hearing and related documents in their
entireties . Fee paid $15 . 00 .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the survey showing the location
of the proposed accessory building and. a copy of the County Tax Map
showing the surrounding area. Is there anyone here that wishes to
speak in favor of this?
MRS. KILLIAN: We would like it where it' s shown.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone against this? Any questions from the
board members? d'17( �:r:.._.;
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This will be one-story?
MRS. KILLIAN: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'll make a motion approving this as
applied for subject to the accessory building not being used
for habitable use (strictly storage purposes) .
MEMBER SAWICKI: I ' ll second it.
The board made the following findings and determination:
Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- November 5, 1981
(Appeal No. 2905 - William and Margaret Killian, continued: )
By this appeal, applicants request permission to construct
an accessory building, approximately .12 ' by 12 ' for storage.
purposes in the . frontyard area The site location and angle
of the dwelling lend to the practical difficulties of the
applicant,.;-. and it„is the feeling of the board that the area
requested is the most feasible.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial;' that the circumstances
herein are unique; that by .allowing the variance no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the
difficulty cannot. be- obviated by a. method, - feasible to appellant,
other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced
on available governmental facilities of any increased population;
that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the
general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice
. will be served by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the .relief requested in Appeal No. 2905 ,
application of William and Margaret Killian to construct accessory
structure in the frontyard area at 5100 Private- Road, (off Mill
Road) Mattituck, NY . (County Tax .Map -District 1000 , Section 106 ,
Block 6 , Lot 5) be approved SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That the accessory building not be used for habitable use
(strictly for storage purposes) .
Vote of the Board Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis , Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2906 . Application of Allan C.
Dickerson, Box 54 , Main Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 and Bulk
Schedule for permission to construct addition to existing build-
ing with an insufficient sideyard setback in a B-1 General
Business District. Location of Property : Northwest corner of
Main Road and Wickham -Avenue, Mattituck; bounded north by Case;
west by Winiarz Estate and North Fork Liquor Corp. ; south by
State Route 25; east by Wickham Avenue; County Tax. Map Parcel
No. 1000-140-3-34 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 : 30 .p.m. and read .the appeal
application, legal notice of hearing and related documents in their
entireties. Fee paid $15. 00 .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- November 5 , 1981 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2906 - Allan C. Dickerson, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the survey and County Tax Map
showing this parcel and the surrounding properties. Is there anyone
here to speak for this application?
ALLAN. C. DICKERSON: I 'm Allan Dickerson and if anyone has any
questions about it, I' ll be glad to answer it. I think it' s quite
clear with the gasoline station there we purchased, we would like to
add on to it and make it larger to house our firm. I think it would
improve the area.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else to speak for it? Anyone
to speak against this? (None)
MR. DICKERSON: The building presently is 29 ' by 42' and we want
to put a 301. addition onto. the west end so it would then be 72 ' long.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob, do you have any questions?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: No,
MR. DICKERSON: We plan to7landscape the front with greens, you
know, with the lawn and shrubbery out front and not have that black
top over there. We believe our plans will improve the area consider-
ably.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If there are no further questions, I' ll offer a
resolution granting this as applied for subject to County Planning
referral and the Planning Board approval which I understand is
coming up on the 9th on their agenda.
MEMBER .SAWICKI: Second.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Abstain.
..(Continubd-,,.on.:Pa.ge 21)..-'.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- November 5, 1981 Regular
Meeting
(Appeal No. 2906 - Allan C. Dickerson continued: )
The Board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a
30 ' by 29' addition to the existing one-story concrete-block
building with an insufficient setback from the westerly property
line of five feet. The property in question is zoned B-1 General
Business and is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-13 of the
zoning. code... The parcel in question contains an area of approxi-
mately .17,649 square feet. After investigation the Board finds
that a parcel adjoining this lot on the west Was- granted a
variance to construct a business building with a setback from
the same side line approximately three feet. It is the feeling
of this board that the location proposed by applicant is the
most feasible especially due to the fact that the premises is
. a corner lot and situated at a very busy intersection in the
village of Mattituck. The Board agrees with the reasoning of
applicant.
In considering this appeal, the Board determines that the
var.iance . reques.t is not substantial; that the circumstances here-
in are unique; that by allowing the variance no substanial detri-
ment to adjoining properties would be created; that .the difficulty
cannot be obviated by a. method, feasible to appellant, other than
a variance; that no . adverse effects will be produced on available
governmental facilities of. any increased population; that the
relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general
purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice will be
served by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded. by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested in Appeal No. 2906 ,
application of Allan C. Dickerson be. granted, SUBJECT TO THE FOL-
LOWING CONDITIONS :
(1) County Planning referral pursuant to Sections 1323 , et
seq. of the Suffolk County Charter;.
(2) Planning Board approval.
Location of Property: Northwest Corner of Main Road and
Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-140-3-34.
Vote of .the Board: Ayes : . .Messrs. Doyen, Douglass , Sawicki
and Grigonis. Mr. Goehringer abstained. .`::.
J ,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- November. 5, 1981 Reg. Mtg.
At this point in time the board moved .back into the large
meeting hall from the Town Board Conference Room.
MR.., :CHAIRMAN: This next hearing was held off from 8 :05 at
the request . of the attorney and we will hear it at this time :
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2904 . Application of Thomas J.
DeBorger, -by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. , Main Road, Southold, NY for
-
. a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31
and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct new dwelling with
insufficient front and side yard setbacks and exceeding the
maximum-permitted . 20o lot coverage. Location of Property:
North side of North Road, Southold, NY; bounded north by L. I.
Sound; west by Bloom; south by C. R. 48 ; east by McMann; County
TaxMap Parcel No. 1000-44-2-15.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :38 p.m. and read the appeal
application, legal notice of hearing and related documents in their
entireties. Fee paid $15. 00. ..
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bruer, do you have anything you would like
to add to the application?
RUDOLPHH. BRUER, ESQ. : Yes, Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen. I think
that this is a good example of where an area variance should be
granted. This is an area variance. An area variance is one which
does not involve the use, which is prohibited by a zoning ordinance,
thus an area variance involves matters such as setback lines , frontage
requirements, lot-size restrictions, density regulations, yard require-
ments , et cetera. I 'm quoting from "Anderson on Zoning" with respect
to this type of an application, the primary situation here is the
practical difficulties of this type of property. I am sure that the
board or members of the board or part of the board has been out to
the property and know. the size of the land that it is. It abuts
north of the North Road, right on the Sound. There is very little
upland and we!ve spent—the owner and I and an engineer. .have spent
the last 18 .to 24 months with the D.E.C. and the Health Department.
I think as your file will show that -we finally received -the permits
from the State Department of Environmental Conservation and the
County Health Department.
The property is serviced by city water. The cesspool require-
ments have been met and approved by the County and to deny this
application would subject the. property to practical difficulties
because it would not be usable for anything else. An examination
of the maps that you have before you or in your files will show
that this is an extremely small piece of property. I believe the
house that' s being built there would probably be under 1,000 square
feet with the deck. The application is for front yard and side
yard variances and also it:;:will exceed the 20o requirement because
of the size of the lot.
I think with respect to this application the standards that
Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- November. 5, 1981 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2904 - Thomas J. DeBorger, continued: )
MR. BRUER continued:
we_ ,have here are more than the economic one. I call and specifically
urge the board to think of the practical difficulty standard which
has been set forth by the courts. I believe I referred to Anderson
on Zoning, we have a date there that I quote the standard by which a
request for an area variance is to be measured, is whether the
strict compliance will result. in practical difficulties.
I submit that the denial of this request for this property that
is expressed in the application would be a practical difficulty.
To be granted an area—and we are talking about areas variances. . .
we 're not talking about use variances. . . I' ll.. quote .you a case; . "To be
granted an area-variance,: the application must satisfy the less
demanding standard of showing strict compliance with the zoning law. . .
will cause practical difficulties.". And that referred to the case
of Consolidated Edison Company against -Hoffman, 43 NY 2d 598, which
also cites Anderson and Zoning as an authority.
DeBronkwill against Frantis Case affirmed by the Court of Appeals
set forth the rule that an area variance could be granted J ust by
showing practical difficulties.
Again I would like to cite another case from Anderson and Zoning,
Section 18. 34 , :An application for an area variance can .satisfy
the requirements that he is expressing practical difficulty as a
result of literal application to zoning regulations by showing that
he cannot make a "reasonable use of his land due to its peculiar size,
shape or grade, which are particularly in our situation.
Again we have a situation here of substandard lots. Again with
the authority of New York Zoning Practice by Robert N. Anderson, I
would like to quote Section 18 . 39 , Substandard Lots, No Viable Use. . .
"Zoning regulations which make special provisions for an owner of a
substandard lot . . . " skip that. . . . ..Practical difficulties can- be..
proved if the applicant shows that his land cannot be used if the
regulations are literally enforced. . . . " ".If the zoning ordinance
is applied to the land and should result in sterilization of land
there is a taking without due process. . . . Not only may a Zoning
Board of Appeals grant an area variance to relieve the applicant,
but it is required to do so. "
Continuing on in that section, it states that . . . "similarly
the owner of a lot which falls short of a minimum area requirements
for which cannot be successfully developed .without. lot coverage or
maximum height requirement is entitled to a variance on the ground
of practical difficulties.
Based upon what I have just said, I know you' re experienced
with this lot having been out there. . . I would respectfully request
that you grant this application as applied for. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Rudy. Anyone else to speak for this?
Anyone to speak against it? Mr. Goehringer would like to ask you a
question.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- November. 5, 1981 Reg. Mtg.
1 (Appeal No. 2904 - Thomas J. DeBo.rger, continued: )
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bruer, with my calculations, I estimate
that the house and .deck :are .approximate_ly 276 square feet over the
200 lot coverage, maximum. Is there anyway that the deck could be
shortened so as to make up some of that 276 square feet?
MR. BRUER: The deck has already been shortened through the
various appeal processes that we've had with the D.E.C. and the
Health. Department. The deck that is going out there is only ten
feet beyond the --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 14 ' by 361 .
MR. BRUER: That' s what that survey says. But the showing of
the application that went before the Building Inspector shows that
there ' s a 26 ' long house going with a 10 ' deck. I know that survey ,
that you have there was printed prior to some of the experiences
we,'ve had with the D.E.C. and the Health Department. The deck is
ten feet out from the building, so it is shorter than what is shown
on that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have one maybe more up-to-date, Rudy?
MR. BRUER: No, not really. What I have is the application
for a building permit which shows the drawing showing the proposed
house being 26 ' wide and a 10 ' deck.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions from any of the other board
members? (None)
MR. BRUER: If I could ask the board . . . I know you're not
going to be able to make a determination tonight, but an early
determination if possible due+ to the weather on the Sound, and
assuming you grant it to be able to get something there and enclosed.
We'd like to get something going before the bad weather coming up.
Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Rudy, we ' ll even go faster than that. I' ll offer
a resolution granting this as applied for--
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Subject to County Health approval and
County Planning Department.
MR. CHAIRMAN: County Health and County Planning, both.
MR. BRUER: I believe you will note in your file, it will
show Health Department approval, based upon a telephone call from
a gentleman there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we'11 have to have something in writing
from them eventually.
MR. BRUER: All right.
The board made the following findings and determination:
Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- November 5 , 1981
By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct a
new one-family dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback
off County Road 48 of 15 feet, insufficient sideyard total of
25 feet, and exceeding lot coverage by approximately 96 . 50 square
feet. The total square footage of the proposed dwelling with
the rear deck is approximately 1296 square feet. The lot in
question contains an area of approximately 5997. 50 square feet,
with 63. 40 frontage along the county road . and an average depth
of approximately 94 feet. Applicant has submitted a copy of
the Tidal Wetlands Permit issued by the N.Y.S. Department of
Environmental Conservation (#kTW 15277-0146). which restricts
the location in which the new dwelling may be constructed to
be 15 feet from edge of the road. Applicant also notes that
he intends to construct the first floor 11 feet above mean sea
level in this V-8 Flood Area. Public water is available, and
approval was given .by. the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services for construction of a septic system on the south side
of the house (between the house and the road) . Several of the
homes in this area are constructed at a similar distance from
the county road, and it. is the feeling of the board that the
character of the neighborhood justifies the granting of the
relief requested.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances.
herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the
difficulty cannot be. obviated by a .method, feasible to appellant,
other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced
on available governmental facilities of any increased population;
that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the
general purposes of. zoning; and that the interests of justice
will be served by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that Thomas J. DeBorger be granted a variance
to the zoning ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permis-
sion to construct new dwelling with ten-foot rear deck with
a frontyard setback off County Road 48 of 15 feet and insuffi-
cient sideyard total of approximately 25 feet as applied for
and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
1. County Health Department approval;
2. Referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission
pursuant to Sections 1323 , et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter.
Location of Property : North side of County Road 48 , Southold,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-44-2-15.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
Sawicki and Grigonis. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
`v Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- November. 5, 1981 Reg. Mtg.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2907. Application of Dorothy C.
Fleet, 5 Carmel Ridge Estates, Trumbull, CT 06611, for a Variance
to the Zoning ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30A and 100-31 ,
Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient width of one parcel
in a proposed .two-lot division, premises described as Pequash Acres
Subdivision Lots No. 3 and 4 ; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-103-
12-7 and 1000-137-2-20 ; further known as 3505 and 3655 Pequash
Avenue, Cutchogue, NY.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :53 p.m. and read the appeal
application, legal .notice of hearing and related -documents in their
entireties. Fee paid $15. 00'..
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey showing the proposed
division, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map showing this
parcel and the parcels in the surrounding area. Is there anything
you would like to add to this, Miss Wickham?
ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ. : No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wishing to speak in behalf 'of this
application? Anyone to speak against it? Any of the board members
have any questions? (None) .
MR. CHAIRMAN: By this division, both the lots will still be
well over 40 ,000 square feet, which is a lot bigger than all the
properties across the street there. There are a number of very
small lots across the street compared to these. So I' ll offer
a resolution granting this as applied for. The Planning Board
has approved this. .by a letter.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded.
The board made the following findings and determination:
(Continued on Page 27)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- November 5 , 1981
(Appeal No. 2907 - Dorothy C. Fleet continued: )
By this appeal, applicant seeks approval of insufficient road
frontage (width) of 126.69 feet for Lot #p4 , Map of Pequash Acres
Map No. 5694 in this proposed two-lot division. Each of the lots
have sufficient area, and by letter . dated October 20 , 1981 the
Planning Board has approved this division. It is the feeling of
the board that denying the variance would deprive the applicant
of use of the proposed parcel which will be reasonably adapted.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances
herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the
difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant,
other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced
on available .governmental facilities of any increased population;
that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the
general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice
will be served by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of Dorothy C. . Fleet in Appeal
No. 2907 for approval of insufficient road frontage be GRANTED AS
APPLIED FOR.
Location of Property: Pequash Acres Subdivision Lots No. 3
and 4 ; County Tax Map Parcels 1000-103-12-7 and 1000-137-2-20;_
and further identified as 3505 and 3655 Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue,
New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2910 . Application of Demos
Menakis, by Richard J. Cron, Esq. for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance , Article III , Section_ 10.0-30 and Bulk Schedule, for
permission to construct new dwelling with an insufficient setback
from Circle Drive at 980 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; bounded
north by Aquaview Avenue; west by Circle Drive and Davies; south
by Davies; east. by Nicholis; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-21-3-11.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :56 p.m. and read the appeal
application, legal notice of hearing and related documents in their
entireties. Fee paid $15. 00 .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have the survey. showing the proposed location
of the new dwelling and a copy of the "County Tax Map showing this
parcel and the surrounding properties. Mr. Cron, is there anything
you would like to add?
J
RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ. : Thank you. If it pleases the board.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- November 5, 1981 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2910 - Demos Menakis, continued: )
MR. CRON continued:
As you can well . see, I think the application speaks for itself.
Although this is again one of those applications which basically
deals only with an area variance and a variance to the Bulk Schedule
of the Ordinance. From the survey that' s annexed to the application,
one can readily see that the parcel in question is only 105 by 150
feet. The proposed residence would have a width of 60 feet. Circle
Drive being a paper street necessitates meeting the zoning require-
ments as far as frontyard setback... However as I indicated for all
extensive purposes, the frontyard of this particular dwelling will
be Aquaview Avenue.
I think the practical difficulty is really self-evident from
the view of the survey and the proposed residence. In terms of
the uniqueness of the application, I don't think it need basically
be established for an area variance; however I think it' s unique in
that as far as surrounding properties or adjacent. properties in
that this was the only one that has frontage on the two streets in
question. And of course the application not being one for a change
of use, which would require different proof, I:.. believe the character
of the neighborhood obviously would not change.
If the board sees fit to grant this application., I would res-
pectfully request that it do so at the earliest possible date.
However the fact that we' re in the month of November and as I'm
sure the board well knows, when they, do.-concrete work at this
time of the year, you start to worry.
So I respectfully request that the application be granted and
that you do it as quickly as possible. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak for this application?
Anyone to speak in opposition?
DOCTOR DAVIES: I 'm Doctor Davies. Theoretically, I own about
a half. . .the western side of this property. Doctor Gary Brown owns
the other half. This is Circle Drive, formally owned by Edna Brown.
This is not a private street— this is a private street and a private
right-of-way. And it is not a street for public thoroughfare.
Those allegations that this is a street facing on two streets
is not correct. He has ten feet on his east side and he wants now
35 feet on his west side, which gives him 60 feet. Sixty feet is
a mighty big house. And I see no reason why he should get a variance
because of the fact that he has plenty of land to build on.
Now I 've been there for 50 years and I was the first person that
ever had a house on that property. This is the first time anything
like this ever came up. And I would like to see the board reject
this application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?
MR. CRON: May I respond if it pleases the board or do you want
me to wait?
X
Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- November. 5 , 1981 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2910 - Demos Menakis, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN: . If there is no one else, I guess you can rebut if
you like, Dick. Go ahead.
MR. CRON: Firstly, I don't think I indicated that this was a
thoroughfare street. I think my application clearly indicates as I
have so indicated to the board that this is a paper street. We' re
specifically talking about an area variance and probably due to the
size of this lot, being an undersized lot, he would meet the require-
ments for that particular area by having 35-foot setbacks with
respect to street frontages. So we ' re not asking for a great deal
in limiting the frontyard setback on Circle Drive to 30 feet in lieu
of a possible 35-foot setback. It' s not going to change anything as
to Mr. Davies' use of his property. It' s not going to be detrimental
to any surrounding properties to move that particular house the size
that this applicant wants five feet closer to Circle Drive, which i.s
a paper street. I can see little effect on Mr. .Davies ' property or
anybody else ' s property.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Anyone else have any questions?
(None) I' ll offer a resolution closing the hearing and then reserv-
ing decision until later on.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr . Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of Appeal No. 2910 , Demos Menakis until later on.
Vote of the Board : Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass ,
Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2918. Application- -of William and -.
Helen Robison, 31 Rockledge Place, Cedar Grve, NJ, by .
Wickham, Esq. for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance: (1) Article
III, Sections 100-30A and Bulk Schedule for approval of insufficient
area and width of two proposed parcels, and (2) Article III, Section
100-31 and Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct new dwelling
with an insufficient frontyard setback. Location of Property: Sal-
taire Estates Filed Map No. 4682, Lots 17 and 18 ; County Tax Map
Parcels 1000-100-1-14 and 15.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9 : 09 p.m. and read the legal notice
of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN : We have a copy of a subdivision map of Saltaire
Estates showing the subject Lots No. 17 and 18 , and we have a copy of
the Suffolk County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding
properties. Is there anyone wishing to speak in behalf of this
application? Miss Wickham.
ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ. : This again is a subdivision map of
past, or filed prior to the upzoning; and it was not accepted on the
list. However, these two lots are about the same size as the others
on the block and larger than those across the street. And the hardship
Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- November 5, 1981 Regular Mtg.
(Appeal No. 2918 , William Robison, continued: )
MISS WICKHAM continued:
is that they, if the variance is not granted, would be left with
significantly large property than the surrounding properties. As
to'.the .setback on Saltaire Way, the house would have to begin in
the middle of the lot in order to comply with the 50` setback. I
think that looking at the other houses in the neighborhood , it would
not at all effect the neighborhood to have- it constructed 35 feet
back.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for
this? Anyone want to speak in opposition? Board members or anybody
have any questions on it? Joe? Jerry? Bob? Serge? (None) I' ll
offer a resolution granting this as applied for. The Planning Board
gave a letter approving this .
(continued on page 31)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- November 5, 1981 Regular
Meeting
(Appeal No. 2918 - William and Helen Robison continued: )
The Board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicants seek:-:variances to the zoning
ordinance: (1) for approval of insufficient area -of two parcels
to be re-separated, approximately. 25,000 square feet each, and
insufficient width along Wavecrest Lane, approximately 100 feet
each; and (2.) for permission to construct new dwelling with
an insufficient frontyard setback of 35 feet off Saltaire Way
[Subdivision Lot 18 of Saltaire Estates.] . Applicants propose
a 50 ' frontyard setback off Wavecrest Lane. The parcel in
question for the new dwelling is a corner lot as defined by
Section 100-13 of the zoning code, which lends itself to the
practical difficulties produced, as well as the narrowness of
the lot. When personally inspecting the area, the Board found
most of the homes to be set'_:babk off Saltaire Way approximately
35 feet, a ia_:ther..char.acter of the neighborhood is lots of the
same and similar size and shape as the parcels proposed by this
variance. The Board does agree with the reasoning of applicants.
In considering this appeal, the Board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances here-
in are unique; that by allowing the variance no substanial detri-
ment to adjoining properties would be created; that the difficulty
cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant, other than
a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced on available
governmental facilities of any increased population; that the
relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general
purposes of zoning; and .that the interests of justice will .be
served by allowing the variance. By denying the variance the
property will be substantially larger than those generally in
the neighborhood.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Sawicki, .it was
RESOLVED, that William and Helen Robison be granted a
variance to the zoning ordinance as applied for in Appeal No.
2918.
The Planning Board has approved these premises being
separated into two parcels as shown on-'ithe-_�subdivision map of
Saltaire Estate and as applied for in correspondence to this
Board dated October 20 , 1981.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goeh-
ringer, Sawicki and Grigonis . This resolution was unanimously
adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- November 5 , 1981 Reg. Mtg.
FLOOD APPEAL NO. 8. Application of RONALD ROBERTS', by Glenn F.
Heidtmann, Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Flood Damage
Prevention Law, Section 46-19B for permission to construct new dwelling
in a V-4 Flood Zone with base floor below the 11-foot minimum elevation
above mean sea level. Location of' Property: South side of Cedar Point
Drive East, Southold, NY; Cedar Beach Park Subdivision Map No. 90 , Lot
151; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-90-2-10 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:11 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing and application in their entireties.
MR. CHAIRMAN• We have a copy of the survey and County Tax Map
showing this property and the properties in. the surrounding area. Is
there anyone wishing to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. HEIDTMANN: The only thing that I think should -be clarified.
As I can see there ' s many people -here. from Cedar Beach. What we're--
we 're not looking for a change in environment. As a matter of fact
we're very pleased with the decision that was handed down back in 1979.
I would also like the board to know that we do have a Board of Health
approval. I'd like the board to know that since it was brought to our
attention by Mr. Grigonis that the D.E.C. permit had expired as of
December 1980 , as of October 23 , 1981 it was updated until December 1981.
What we are looking for is for the board to overrule the federal
law, elevation 8 law. In other words, we do not want to have to use
the breakaway foundation technique. We would like to conform to the
area and proceed with slab construction. As far as hurting any of the
flood plain area, this house will be 18" higher than the house--what
would that be, to the west. . .north? Towards town, let' s put it that
way, and the house further on down. . . it will be better than two feet
higher. And the house diredctly across the street, it will be better
than three feet higher. Now I 'm referring to finished-floor elevations,
and this is why we feel that this flood law does not pertain in this
area.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else to speak for this? Anyone
wishing to speak against it? Opposition?
LEE CONTE: I 'm Lee Conte, President of the Cedar Beach Park
Association, and I'd like to read from this . I am President of the
Cedar Beach Park Association, composed of approximately 60 property
owners in the area known as Cedar Beach Park, Cedar Beach along the
road and tributaries of Cedar Beach Point Drive East and Cedar Point
Drive West. Our common concern in the application of Ronald Roberts,
who has a building permit on the south side of Cedar Point Drive East. . .
it has never been the policy of our association to oppose residential
construction just to maintain a selfish status quo. And that is not
our policy now. We do however know by actual living experience that
this area has an extremely fragile environment. It is therefore.
impervious that this building permit be examined not only from the
point of view for flood damage, vut from all established norms of
health and environmental standards. We look to the various town
administrators to carefully evaluate the health implications of this
Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- November 5 , 1981 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. FL-8 - Ronald Roberts, continued : )
MRS. CONTE continued :
application and be sure to make prudent decisions to protect the
living standards of the existing residents . Respectfully yours ,
Cedar Beach Park Association. Lee Conte, President.
And I have a letter from Mrs. Mucciolo, who owns the house right
next to the property where Mr. Heidtmann is going to build a house
for Mr. Roberts:
. . .To Whom It May Concern: . . . .
I think you received a letter on both of them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes , we have both of the letters in the file.
MRS . CONTE: Would you like to read the letters or shall I?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well,. I can read them for you. To Whom It May
Concern:
. . . I am Mrs. Mario Mucciolo of- 5 Cedar Point Drive, Southold, NY.
I have been informed that a house is being constructed next door east
of my home. I would like to enlighted you as to some of the problems
with the water.
The builder had to sink three (3) wells before one was marginally
acceptable. The reason being the high content of salt and nitrates in
the water.
I am a summer resident now for three years. The water table must
have changed. The salt content is too high; therefore for health
reasons my physician has advised me not to drink the water. . The well
was also. contaminated by temik (chemical used to kill the potato bug) .
I now have to bring in all my water for cooking and drinking.
I don't know if there is a solution to the problem. Besides being
expensive, I don 't know if there is any place on my property to put a
fourth well where the water would be more acceptable.
Because of the fragile nature of the water I now feel that my house
should not have been built there.
Yours truly,
/s/ Mrs. Mario Mucciolo. . . .
Is there anyone else?
JUNE PAPPAS: My name is June Pappas and I am a resident of Cedar
Beach Park. And I'm against it because the application for the D.E.C.
lapsed, and it was just updated and the ground was already broken
before approval was granted. It' s a violation of the Tidal Wetlands
Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- November 5, 1981 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. FL-8 - Ronald Roberts, continued: )
MRS. PAPPAS continued:
Act for excavating without a permit, a violation of the Stream Protec-
tion Act and overstepping the Board of Appeals. by commencing construction
without a building permit or a variance. On the 22nd of October, 1981,
we received a knock on our door by Phil Ovenauer from the D.E.C. He was
at the site for two days but all .the work had stopped. He was hoping
-to catch someone who was in violation` of the Tidal Wetlands Act. He
stated that his office will proceed with a hearing on possible civil
action. Excavation was done 10/5/81. Request a variance to obtain
permit. Did not appear in the paper 9/26 . As resident-taxpayers and
voters in the area, should we be penalized with an exportation
of such a fragile area. Most of us have filtration of one type or
another while others have had to put in Union Carbide temik filters .
There is no filter for salt water. The elected officials and Town
Fathers are trusted with the good of the population, are willing to
permit this type of density growth then they should be willing to
accept the inevitability of piping town water to each and every resi-
dent at the town expense. Finally, the location of the potential
cesspools and septic systems as regard our well, location of possible
contamination shall be carefully observed. And I'd like to show you
pictures. (Three photographs were submitted for the record showing
this subject parcel , Lot #151 at Cedar Beach Park. )
MR. CHAIRMAN: May we keep these?
MRS. PAPPAS: Yes.
MR: CHAIRMAN Is there anyone else? Yes. Mr. Roberts. ,
MR. ROBERTS: I think we're starting to mix apples with oranges
a little bit. We've had approval from the Health Department of
Suffolk County. (Mr. Roberts and Mrs. Pappas were conversing to each
other and their comments could not be heard. )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.. Roberts, we can 't pick it up.
MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I'm sorry. We do have Suffolk County Health
approval for the water and septic, and I don' t think that' s the issue
tonight. We're here on the flood zone. And as far as your dates on
my expiration, it wasn' t 77. It was 180. I didn't realize that
either . But I did want to bring that to the board that we' re not
-really talking about water or septic. We're talking about the flood
control
MR. HEIDTMANN: Mr. Grigonis and the Board. . I don' t think these
people in the audience realize as Mr. Roberts said. . .we' re talking a
breakaway foundation as to a slab construction. We do have the
approval to build with a breakaway foundation. If the board does not
approve our slab construction, we are going to build with a breakaway
foundation.
MRS. PAPPAS : They have a variance for this?
MR. HEIDTMANN: It was approved in 1979 . That' s not the point.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- November 5 , 1981 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. FL 8 - Ronald Roberts, continued: )
MR. HEIDTMANN continued:
We are asking the board to override the Federal rules.so we can con-
form -to what is there. I don't think you want to see something that' s
going to stick eight feet out of the ground. This is what. . . I just
don 't feel--
MRS. PAPPAS : This doesn't affect our water? Doesn' t this
affect our water.
MR. HEIDTMANN: The hearing is on the foundation. It has
nothing to do with water. This should have been done two years ago.
I failed.
MRS. RUTH OLIVA: Ruth Oliva, North Fork Environmental Council.
May I ask Mr. Roberts. . .when did he receive his ok from the County
Board of Health?
MR. ROBERTS: Gee, I' ll have to work on my memory now.
MRS. OLIVA: Has it been recently? When was the water tested?
MR. ROBERTS : 1980 .
MRS. OLIVA: That' s not even good enough, sir. Because I know
of the pace of different storms , different conditions , sometimes you
get salt water in there when you did not in the previous year because
it has happened in my own neighborhood.
MR. Can I tell you something. I've built two houses
in that area. Your water will change. You can take a sample of your
water in December and it' ll be good. You take a sample of your water
in July or August, it' s going to .be lousy.
MRS. OLIVA: Not my water.
MR. That' s a fact. Mrs. Mucillio or Mr. Hertels, and
I 'm willing to bet this lady across the street the same thing. The
quality changes within six months. As that farm there--the farmer
draws draws through his pumps. . .
MRS. OLIVA: I don' t disagree with this. I would also like to
comment. . . I know that specifically the board can only act on what is
before it today, but also in your zoning regulations , it does say
that the safety, the health, the welfare, the comfort, the convenience,
or the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the pro-
posed use and its location. Now these other people, I know it' s not
for the water table that you know, the hearing is not for that—but
if they start digging down there, the people across the street will
definitely have salt water intrusion. This is a problem, not just
for the zoning board but I think for the Town Board, because this
whole area was zoned back in. 1927 and never really updated. They
cannot support the amount of homes it has now. And if it has any
Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- November 5 , 1981 Reg. Mtg.
(Appeal No. FL 8 - Ronald Roberts, continued: )
MRS. OLIVA continued:
more, no one' s water . . . everybody is going to have salt water. And
the town could possibly have a Class Action suit against it to bring
in water, and how much is that going to cost piping in water if they
don 't try and preserve what they have now. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Oliva. Does anyone else wish to
speak on this right now? Yes , Mr. ;Bear.
FRANKLIN BEAR: My name is Franklin Bear. The reason I want to
speak is , I see no reason for speaking with a situation of this kind
based on the fact that mistakes had been made before, because we
can 't go on like this forever. It has already been proved and the
people who are living in this community. . .they're the ones who are
going to have a hardship as a result of this action, and I urge this
board to deny the request in this case.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bear. Anyone else?
BETTY SCHLOSS: I 'm Betty Schloss, and I'm a Cedar Beach resident,
actually from the old Cedar Beach area over on Paradise Point Road_.
Our main concern is that the size of this lot is less than half of
a builder' s acre. And I would ask you to seriously consider whether
or not we can afford a densely populated situation such as this
throughout that fragile area.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I ' ll offer a resolution closing the hearing and
reserving decision until later.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later
in the matter of Appeal No. FL-8, application of Ronald Roberts.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis , Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -37 November 5, 1981
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2912.
Upon application of Frank Curran, by Peter R. Stoutenburgh,
3075 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct
accessory structure in the sideyard area at 780 Fishermen's Beach
Road, Cutchogue; Peconic Bay Properties, Inc. Filed Subdivision
Map No. 286 , Lots 26 and part of 27; County Tax Map Parcel Item
No. 1000-111-1-16.
The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 9: 31 p.m. ,
and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal
application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you have anything you would like to add
to the application, Mr. Stoutenburgh?
PETER STOUTENBURGH: We felt that was really the most advan-
tageous spot or the best location, coming as close as we possibly
could toward a' backyard where it normally would be a backyard. There
is no backyard. Of course they are only a few feet from the water
and there' s a bulkhead. The location on this side, allowed at least
an area that would be tucked away, and they tried to make it as
unoffensive as possible to zoning. And something that, anyone liv-
ing in that area particularly with a growing family needs a storage
area of some sort in the yard, but not to try to get a garage in
frontyard which was the first thought because they felt it would
just offend too many neighbors. We're hoping that this will have
enough storage area.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I ask a question?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MEMBER GOEHRIIVGER: Do you have any idea how much this exceeds
the 20% lot coverage?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes, that I turned in. And I think it was
part of that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This one here, where it says possibly 22%?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes. The figures were done by VanTuyl.
It came out to 18% the way it sits right now. Twenty _percent with
this proposal on it here (addition to house) . And that' s his hand-
writing. I just noted, you know, where it was from. And this must
be the square footage here, of the lot.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: With the proposed addition 20%, right?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Right on the money.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ok. ' So the only thing that is over is
the shed?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- November 5 , 1981
(Appeal No. 2912 - Frank Curran, continued: )
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Uh-hmm.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the shed is 3442 square feet--
MR. STOUTENBURGH: That' s total--everything.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, everything. It' s an accumulative--
total.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ok. So then we have to take the difference
of 3442 minus 3130 , is that correct. Three-hundred twelve square feet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 312.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ok.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Anyone else to speak for
it? Anyone to speak against it? (None) Peter, do you know if
this bulkhead was built--
MR. STOUTENBURGH: We did get an ok from D.E.C. before we
started the other addition, which was completed, and it conformed
with everything that they needed. It. was built 13, 15 , however many
years. They checked their maps and everything else and it was fine
from what they wanted. When I called them up and asked them if I
needed another letter from them; they said, "No. " They've got a
letter that I requested of--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Evidently, it was built before 1977?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Oh, yes, for sure. Yes . I want to say 12 ,
13 , 15 , something like that. But whatever their maps were that they
checked. I think it was even prior to 1969. That is on file with
the building department.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let ' s see. Are we involved with the Flood Law
also?
SECRETARY: Yes , that' s next.
MR. CHAIRMAN: . Yes, right.. We have another application on that.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: There was also the upgraded elevations from,
a legitimate surveyor did them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, you can sit down, Pete. I' ll offer
a resolution closing this hearing and reserving decision because we
have another one tonight with it also.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis , - seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- November 5 , 1981
(Appeal No. 2912 - Frank Curran, continued: )
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Just one comment, before you close it.
I think you also have .the drawings of the shed to be constructed.
It is a slab, and one whole side opens up with doors. In effect
it' s a breakaway construction, and if you could consider that
for a shed. If it ever filled with water, the doors would just
open up and let it out, and then there's a slab. No crawl space,
nothing.
MEMBER. DOUGLASS : Seconded.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr.. Douglass, .it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of Appeal No. 2912 , application of Frank Curran and wife.
Vote . of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
APPEAL NO. FL-9.
Upon application. of Frank Curran, by Peter_ R. Stoutenburgh,
3075 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY for a Variance to the Flood
Damage Prevention Law, Chapter 46-8, Sections 46-17 , 46-18 , 46-19,
for permission to construct improvements exceeding 50% of the
market value of existing structure, with base floor below the
8-foot minimum elevation above mean sea level in a Zone A, at
780 Fishermen' s Beach Road, Cutchogue, NY; Peconic Bay Properties ,
Inc. ; Filed Subdivision Map No. 286 , Lots 26 and part of Lot 27;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-1-16 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 9 :40 p.m. ,
and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety. and appeal
application, and related documents.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to say on
this part of it?
PETER STOUTENBURGH: I think the only comment on it then,
the information on the application there is that, actually the
finished floor in a majority of the house is above the eight-foot
mean water mark, and it' s the older part that has been there for
quite some time that we would like to add on to. We just assume
the people didn' t have to step up two flights of stairs for a
half a kitchen and an entranceway with a sunporch added on. I'm
not exactly sure how the legality of this would fall since the
house is at two different elevations and what we were hoping to
do by filing this was to clear up regardless of what might be in
the future, that we were following the proper procedures in
increasing the value of the house by more than 50% is to the point
that it is minimal beyond that percentage but it is beyond the 50%
Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- November 5, 1981
(Appeal FL-9, Frank Curran, continued: )
point that they have specified. We just want to get, you know, a
decision on it so that we could proceed. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: . . All right, thank you, Peter. Do any of the
board members have any questions on this? (None) '. I' ll offer a
resolution closing this hearing and reserving decision until later.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of Appeal FL-9 , application of Frank Curran.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass ,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2913. Application of FRANCES N.
FRISBIE, 175 Clearwater Lane, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30 and 100-35 for per-
mission to construct tennis court and fence exceeding the maximum
four-feet height requirement in the frontyard area at 175 Clearwater
Lane, Cutchogue, NY; Nassau Point Filed Subdivision Map No. 156 ,
Subdivision Lot 10.6 ; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-118-5-2.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9 :43 p.m. and read the
legal notice of hearing and appeal application in their entireties ,
Notice of Disapproval and transmittal letter from the Town Clerk.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone wishing to speak for this or
add anything to it?
JIM VANDERBOHN: Gentlemen, I'm Jim Vanderbohn, nephew of the
Frances Frisbee, who is filing this. I just want .to say that I )�
think the application speaks for itself. Because it' s a waterfront
property, we obviously cannot put. it. in the backyard due to insuffi-
cient room, and we feel that with the natural wood covering that' s
providing the shelter for this court that it shouldn' t provide a
nuisance, eyesore or anything else. Our neighbors. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else to speak for this?
Anyone to speak in opposition?
ROBERT STURDY: My name is Robert. Sturdy, and our house was
built in 1928 by my grandfather. We didn't have street addresses
on Nassau Point Road then. We have Lot 104 . I believe this is eS
being built on Lot 106 . The Frisbees own Lot 105 and 106 . They
have recently built a house on. Lot 105 , which complies with the
zoning bylaws but the driveway is directly adjacent to the property
line. It also has a 3Z' chainlink fence for 300 ' or so. The house
is the minimum distance from the lot line. It' s very close to the
water, and for all practical purposes is in the field of view from
what we consider there the front of the house. Although the front
of the house is suppose legally the street side; here on the water-
0
r
Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- November 5 , 1981
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2913 - Frances N. Frisbie, continued: )
front, the front of the house is the water. They have chosen to
utilize the remaining lot on their property by building right on
the water. They are now seeking a variance to build a tennis court
which for all practical purposes would be adjacent to my house. I
don't know exactly where they intend to put it, but from the descrip-
tion given here with respect to Clearwater Lane, by the way that
statement would be incorrect. The court could not be 300 feet from
Clearwater Lane. It could be 300 feet from Nassau Point Road hidden
by forest. It would not be hidden from my house. I feel it would
seriously impair my right and ability to use the house. . .the addi-
tional traffic , the noise of the tennis court, I think would serverly
upset the residential character of the neighborhood. There. is as
far as I'm concerned no hardship here. . .tennis courts are available.
As our golf course is. :They, having made the choice to build, and
this is just in the last year , a house on Lot 105 , only 40 feet from
the water when they could have built the house nearer the road and
put a tennis court behind it. Excuse me, I believe that only would
affect the fencing. I don't believe. . .the fencing requirement I
believe is four feet. On the frontyard you could put a higher fence
than the backyard. I think the real crux of this is putting a
tennis court anywhere in a yard.. And I would object to the fence
from a visual aspect. . .it would have to be in the order of 12 feet
high. The court is large. I believe the standards of minimum size
of a tennis court is 60 ' by 120 ' . This is a fairly large and tight
of a usage. It will not be screened by trees because in the process
of building a driveway a 15 or 20 ' strip of trees had been taken down.
There are not any large number of trees beyond that, and the remaining
area in this narrow lot. And, all I can say is I came all the way
down from Boston today just to appear before you tonight. I seri-
ously doubt the viability of our residence as a summer retreat if
there is an active tennis court ( ) and I would certainly beg the
board to not grant this variance. Thank you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Vanderbohn? Can you tell us the
approximate square footage of the house. . . the house in, question. . .
the house in which the. tennis court, or the piece of parcel of
property which the tennis court--
, MR. VANDERBOHN: Ok. As Mr. Sturdy states, his lot is 104 and
the two lots which are a family to this are 105 and 106 . This is
to. be built on Lot 106 , which is approximately one lot over from his.
The square footage of the house that he ' s talking about, I can' t
honestly tell you because I don' t know. I reside in that house
presently and live there almost yearround. So as opposed to a
summer residence, I'm probably the one who is most greatly affected
by what goes in there. The square footage of that house--
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't you get that information for us?
MR. VANDERBOHN: Yeah, I can get that for you very simply.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ok.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- November 5 , 1981
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. .2913 - Frances N. Frisbie, continued: )
MR. VANDERBOHN continued :
I'd just like to say one other thing if I could in rebuttal to Mr.
Sturdy' s comments. While it' s granted that this is the entire
property of ours is adjacent to his property, the entire piece of
property that this is being put on -- I welcome Mr. Sturdy to come
over and take a . look at the place where the tennis court is going.
As it is in a clearing presently. . . . and is still, .I might add
duringthe summer months very well sheltered from the area from
where Mr. Sturdy is. As a matter of fact I would say the location
of the tennis court in relation to Mr. Sturdy' s house. . .he would
probably be the .most, excuse me. . . the least effected of any of the
neighbors on adjoining properties because. (1) it is a full lot away
from his property and (2) the viewfront of. his property would go
into the woods which are behind it, and if this were to spoil his
view he would have to be sitting at the side porch looking back
across towards the road as opposed to looking out towards the water,
which we have already put up a house in that area. And I understand
his consternation about that. . .but that was past last year. Thank
you.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Now, this is on Lot 106 .
MR. VANDERBOHN: Yes, sir.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Is Lot 106 and Lot 105 separate lots?
MR. VANDERBOHN: They are now.
MEMBER DOUGLASS : Well then it becomes a rearyard on 106 , right?
MR. VANDERBOHN: Sir,. for all intensive purposes, I . . . the way
the houses were built. . .the house on 106 was originally constructed
I would say back in the ' 20s, and what' s front and what' s back. . . I
think the determination of who is standing where and what they
consider it to be—the view of the yard, if you're considering
towards the road being the frontyard, this is actually built .in
front of the house. But the house and the tennis court are unviewable
from the road. And due to the fact the water is behind the property .
it' will be impractical to build on the other side of the house.
MEMBER DOUGLASS : Do you have. any intention of lighting this
court?
MR. VANDERBOHN: We have no intentions of lighting this court.
And. in rebuttal to Mr. Sturdy' s remarks, we are amenable to a com-
promise on the fencing if necessary.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Mr. Sturdy?
MR. STURDY: The house that we have down there is a yearround
Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- November 5 , 1981
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 2913 - Frances N. Frisbie, continued: )
MR. STURDY continued :
house. It ' s currently being used in the summertime intermittently.
It was occupied full time from I think 1932 until my mother died in
1956 . The . . . if you look at the map of the area, I don't know what
maps you have available here. . .you will see that the lots here were
made extremely narrow since they were essentially selling waterfront
property, and I would suspect that Lot 105 or 106 have an aspect
ratio of about five or six to one, if not more. So we are really
talking considering there is a complete clearing next to my house. . .
and by the way, we have a side enclosed porch with six windows that
face Lot 105 , 106 . There view would be directly towards where this
tennis court is going. There is a clearing there at the present time.
We can see through and hear through. . .winter or summer. And I feel
that the noise and the traffic associated with the tennis court would
be detrimental to our use of the property and would be visually
unattractive and I think particularly the sound. The tennis game
is not a quiet game. It' s a very active, pacing game, enough of a
sort of a thing that I don' t think you want to listen to on a hot
summer day, sitting out on the porch. And I do not see that there is
any hardship whatsoever. There are two lots involved here owned by
Frisbies. They both have a home on them. I think that' s enough.
Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. How high of a fence were you planning
to, start with? Ten feet is it?
MR. VANDERBOHN: Yeah, I believe so, sir. Let me see. I think
it ' s stated.
MR. CHAIRMAN : No, I don' t think it' s here. It didn' t say
anything.
MR. VANDERBOHN: Ten-foot fencing. On the fact that the Form 1,
it shows the dimensions of the court and the way it is to be fenced.
(The Chairman could not locate it in the file. )
MR. CHAIRMAN: All it says on the "denial" is " . . .exceeding four
feet in height. . . . " Is there anything else anyone wants to ask while
the gentlemen are here? (None) I ' ll offer a resolution closing the
hearing and reserving decision until later.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Douglass , it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until later
in the matter of- Appeal No. 2913, application of, FRANCES N. FRISBIE.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass ,
Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
L
Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- November 5, 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2910 .
The public hearing concerning this appeal was held earlier this
evening.
Upon application of Demos Menakis, by Richard J. Cron, Esq. ,
Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule, for permission to
construct new dwelling with an insufficient setback from Circle
Drive at 980 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; bounded north by
Aquaview Avenue; west by Circle Drive and Davies; south by Davies;
east by Nicholis; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-3-11.
The Board made the following findings and .determination:
By this appeal, appellant seeks permission to construct a new
one-family dwelling a length of 62 feet on a lot situated on a
corner, and thereby containing two frontyard areas. Appellant
proposes a frontyard setback off Aquaview Avenue a minimum dis-
tance as that established in the neighborhood, and a frontyard
setback off Circle Drive, •a private right-of-way, of not less than
30 feet. Appellant intends to comply with all other zoning require-
ments. The premises in. question contains frontage along Aquaview
Avenue of 105 feet, leaving an unreasonable area in. which to build the
new home if he were forced to comply with the 50-foot frontyard
setback requirement.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances
herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the
difficulty cannot be obviated by a. method, feasible to appellant,
other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced
on available governmental facilities of any increased population;
that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the
general purposes of zoning; and. that the interests of justice
will be served by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of Demos Menakis for permission
to construct new dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback
from Circle Drive of not less than . 30 . feet be GRANTED AS APPLIED
FOR AND SUBJECT-.' TO REFERRAL TO THE SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMIS-
SION, pursuant to Sections 1323 , et seq. of the Suffolk County
Charter.
Location of Property: 980 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-3-11.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town. Board of Appeals -45- November 5 , 1981 Regular
Meeting
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No._ FL-8. Application of Ronald
Roberts, by Glenn F. Heidtmann, Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY for a Vari-
ance. to the Flood Damage Prevention Law, Section 46-19B for permission
to construct new dwelling in a V-4 Flood Zone with base floor below
the 11-foot minimum elevation above mean sea level. Location of
Property: South side of Cedar Point Drive East, Southold, NY; Cedar
Beach Park Subdivision Map No. 90 , Lot 151; County Tax Map Parcel
1000-90-2-10.
The Board made. the following findings and determination.-
By this appeal, applicant seeks permission to construct a new
one-family dwelling in this V-4 Zone as .,_shown: .on The Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRM) . Applicant was denied a building permit for the
reason that slab foundations are not permitted .in any V-Flood Zone,
and the foundations .are required to. be. open. The .finished first
floor is to be 9. 1 feet above mean sea level and the flood law of
the Town of Southold requires a minimum of eight feet. Rather
than constructing the new dwelling on pilings or columns as required
by the flood law, applicant proposes, slab construction with footings
approximately 6z feet above mean sea level. Upon inspecting the
property and viewing the general neighborhood, . the Board found that
a majority of the homes were constructed with first floor elevations
at or below that proposed by applicant, and the lots are of a similar
size. The Board therefore finds that the lot in question meets the
standards Dset:'_forth6 n'_Section?_46-16.A_iof the Code since it contains
an area of less than one-half acre and is surr.6unded by lots with
existing structures constructed below the base flood level..
In passing upon this application, the Board has considered all
technical evaluations; all relevant. factors; all standards specified
in the Code; and all of the applicable factors contained in Section
46-15B, subdivisions (1) to (11) , inclusive of the Code.
The Board further finds and determines that: (1) There is a
good and sufficient .cause for the grant of this variance;. (2) A
failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship
to the applicant; (3) The grant of a variance will not result in
increased flood heights, or additional threats to public, safety, or
extraordinary public expense, or create nuisances, or cause fraud,
or victimize the public., or conflict with existing local laws or
rules or regulations.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested in this Appeal (#FL-8) be
and hereby is granted from the provisions of the Flood Damage Pre-
vention Law of the Town of Southold to construct a one-family private
dwelling on premises located at the south side of Cedar Point Drive
East, Southold, NY; Cedar Beach Park Subdivision Map 90 , Lot 151;
County Tax Map Parcel 1000-90-2-10, with the footings of the proposed
slab foundation approximately 6z feet above mean sea level, SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, to wit:
` Southold Town Board of. Appeals -46- November 5, . 1981 Regular
Meeting
(FL-8 - Ronald Roberts continued: )
(1) That prior to commencement of construction, the appli-
cant apply for and obtain a Development Permit from the Town
Building Inspector, pursuant to the provisions of the Flood Damage
Prevention Law;
(2) That there shall be no habitable (living area) ,- no
utilities and no crawl space below the eight-foot minimum eleva-
tion above mean sea level;
(3) That this project .is. subject to approval by the N.Y. S.
Department. of Environmental Conservation pursuant to Article 25 ,
of the Environmental Conservation Law and Tidal Wetlands Land Use
Regulations 6NYCRR, Part 661; and
(4) . That applicant obtain approval from the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services;
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to .the Provisions of Sec-
tion 46-16F . of the Code, .the applicant is hereby given notice that
the structure for which this variance is. granted. will be permitted
to be built with the lowest floor elevation below the base flood
elevation and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate
with the increased risk resulting . from the reduced lowest floor
elevation;
AND IT . IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary to this Board transmit
copies of this determination to the applicant and to the Town Build-
ing Inspector.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer,
Sawicki and. Grigonis.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals - 47- November 5 ,- 1981 Regular
Meeting
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2897. Application of Victor L.
L'Eplattenier,. Box 361, Peconic, NY (by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. ) for
Variances: (1) for approval of access, New York Town Law Section
280-a, and (2) to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31
for permission to build new dwelling with insufficient front and rear
yard setbacks at Lake View Avenue and Dickinson Street, Peconic , NY;
bounded north by Dickinson Street; west by Lake View Avenue; south
by Garrido; east by Garrido; further identified as Subdivision Lots
No. 57 and 58 , Peconic Shores Subdivision Filed Map 654 ; County Tax
Map Parcel Item No. 1000-67-3-12.
A public hearing was held earlier this evening concerning this
appeal .
The Board made the following findings and determination:
Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking: (1) approval of
access over Lake View Avenue, which Lake View Avenue begins at a
point approximately 95 feet easterly from the intersection of Sound
View Avenue and Huntington Boulevard, and running generally south
and running thence east to the subject premises [more particularly
known as Subdivision Lots No. 57 and .58. .of. Peconic Shores Subdivision] ,
and (2) a variance for permission to construct a new dwelling with
an insufficient frontyard setback off Lake View Avenue of approximate-
ly 22 feet at its nearest point and an insufficient rearyard setback
from the southeasterly property line of approximately 22 feet at its
nearest point. The Board finds the access road to be passable but
unimproved. The Board also finds that the premises in question is
a corner lot with approximately 115 feet road frontage along Lake View
Avenue and 95. 38 feet along Dickinson Street, both being "paper roads, "
impassable and unimproved; that the premises contains an area of
approximately 11,000 square feet. The topography of the subject
parcel lends itself to the granting-.of this' .variance and it is the
opinion of the Board that the practical difficulties are unique.
In considering this appeal, the Board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances herein
are unique and the practical difficulties have been shown; that by
' allowing the variance no substantial detriment to adjoining proper-
ties would be created; that the difficulty cannot be obviated by
a method, feasible to appellants, other than a variance; that no
adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facili-
ties of any increased population; that the relief requested will
be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of the zoning
code; and that the interests of justice will be served by allowing
the variance.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, that the .relief requested . in Appeal No. 2897, appli-
cation of Victor L'Eplattenier, be granted, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW-
ING CONDITIONS :
1. That the applicant obtain a legal right to improve the
Southold Town Board of Appeals -48 - November 5 , 1981 Regular
(Appeal No. 2897 - Victor L'Epplatenier continued: ) Meeting
access :road (Lake View Avenue described above) in view of the deeded
covenants prohibits such road improvements, supra;
2 . That such access road (Lake View Avenue described above)
shall have a width of not less than 15 feet and shall be cleared of
all trees, brush and other obstructions to a .width of 15 feet;
3. That such access road shall be improved in EITHER of the
following two methods :
(a) Surfaced with a. minimum depth of
four inches of packed three-quarter-inch stone blend so as to
afford access for emergency vehicles. Such stone blend may be
either applied to the ground surface and shaped, or the surface
may be excavated to permit the application of packed blend to a
depth of four inches; - OR
(b) Shall have topsoil removed to a
depth of eight inches and then filled with eight inches of a good
grade stone and sand .bank run. The surface shall then be covered
with a layer of two to four inches of three-quarter-inch stone
blend, or in the alternative oiled with a minimum of four-tenths
of a gallon of road oil per square yard.
4 . No building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be
issued for the construction of any buildings or structures on the
premises to which this access is referred until all of the condi-
tions set forth herein have been complied with.
5. Where the terrain of the land over which such access road
is traversed is such that drainage problems may occur, the appli-
cant shall-'be required to construct such drainage facilities as
may be recommended by the Town Engineer.
6 . That the access road be approved by the Board of Appeals,
Town Building Inspector,. or Town Engineer as to meeting the above
requirements.
Location of Property: Lake View Avenue and Dickinson Street,
Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Item No. 1000-67-3-12.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Douglass , Goehringer,
Sawicki and Grigonis.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
• Southold Town Board of Appeals -49- November 5 , 1981
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2912.
Upon application of Frank Curran, by Peter R. Stoutenburgh,
3075 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct
accessory structure in the sideyard area at 780 Fishermen' s Beach
Road, Cutchogue; Peconic Bay Properties, Inc. Filed Subdivision
Map No. 286 , Lots 26 and part of 27; County Tax Map Parcel Item
No. 1000-111-1-16 .
The public hearing concerning this appeal was held earlier
this evening, at which time decision was reserved. . . ....
By this appeal, applicants seek permission to construct
an accessory building (proposed shed) containing a square foot-
age of 312 square feet, in the sideyard area with a setback from
the easterly sideyard line of not less than three feet and a
setback from the northwesterly end ,of the rear yard property
line of six feet. The premises in question contains an area of
15 ,470 square feet with road frontage along Haywaters Road of
120 feet. The premises is improved with a substantial one-
family dwelling and newly constructed addition, containing a
total area of approximately 3 , 130 square feet. The applicant' s
agent has submitted for the record the percentage of lot cover-
age which has been provided by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. , licensed
surveyor, of which the existing dwelling with new addition covers
20% of the lot, and together with the proposed shed covers 22%.
The board does find that the premises contains no practicable
buildable rearyard area, and the location of the existing dwell-
ing lends itself to the practical difficulties in locating the
proposed shed in the sideyard area. The board agrees that the
proposed location of the shed is the most feasible and practical
under the circumstances; however, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule,
of the code requires a maximum percentage of lot coverage to be
20%. Therefore, it is the determination of this board that the
size of the new accessory building be reduced to 200 square feet,
or, that 112 square feet ofbuilding area be eliminated, from
either structure (the shed or the dwelling) , which will be within
the spirit of the zoning ordinance.
In considering this appeal, the board determines that the
variance request is not substantial; that the circumstances
herein are unique; that by allowing the variance no substantial
detriment to adjoining properties would be created; that the
difficulty cannot be obviated by a method, feasible to appellant,
other than a variance; that no adverse effects will be produced
on available governmental facilities of any increased population;
that the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the
general purposes of zoning; and that the interests of justice
will be served by allowing the variance.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it
was
RESOLVED, that the application of Frank Curran and wife,
" Southold Town Board of Appeals -50- November 5, 1981
vJ
Appeal No. 2912 be GRANTED, SUBJECT TO. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) That the shed shall not exceed 200 square feet in area
when using Roderick VanTuy.l, P.C. ' s calculations as to lot coverage;
(2) That the setback of the shed will be a minimum of 10 feet
from the existing bulkhead and. a minimum of five feet from the side
yard property line;
(3) That the shed shall not be for habitable use (strictly
storage) ;
(4) That the shed be not more than one-story;
(5) That this matter be referred to the Suffolk County
Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 1323 , et seq. of the
Suffolk County Charter.
Location of Property: 780 Fishermen' s Beach Road, Cutchogue,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-1-16 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
RESERVED DECISION:
APPEAL NO. FL-9.
Upon application of Frank Curran, by Peter R. Stoutenburgh,
3075 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY for a Variance to the Flood
Damage Prevention Law, Chapter 46-8 , Sections 46-17 , 46-18 , 46-19 ,
for permission to construct improvements exceeding 50% of the
market value of existing structure, with base floor below the
8-foot minimum elevation above mean sea level in a Zone A, at
780 Fishermen' s Beach Road, Cutchogue, NY; Peconic Bay Properties,
Inc. ; Filed Subdivision Map No. 286 , Lots 26 and part of Lot 27 ;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-1-16 .
The public hearing concerning this appeal was held earlier
this evening, at which time decision was reserved.
The Board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicants seek approval of the construction
of an addition containing square footage of approximately 270 to
be located at the southerly end of the existing one-family dwelling
with a setback of approximately 63 feet from Haywaters Road and
approximately 20 feet from the side property line (abutting Lot 25) ,
and permission to construct new accessory storage shed containing
an area of 312 square feet, both structures of which the building
inspector concludes to exceed 50% of the market value and which
M Southold Town Board of Appeals -51- November 5 , 1981
(Appeal FL-9 - Frank Curran, continued: )
should therefore comply with all constructions methods and res-
trictions in this A-4 Flood Zone. The premises in question contains
area of 15,470 square feet with road frontage along Haywaters Road
of 120 feet. The premises is improved with a substantial one-
family dwelling and newly constructed addition, containing a
.total area of approximately 3, 130 square feet. The ground eleva-
tion above.. mean sea level is 5-8 feet at the westerly side of
the existing dwelling and 8-5 feet at the easterly side of the
existing dwelling. The proposed shed will have a slab foundation
without. crawl space area at 5-9 feet above mean sea level. The
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) indicates that the property is
located in a A-4 Flood Zone with a minimum elevation at 8 feet
above mean sea level. The Board finds that there are homes in the
neighborhood of the lot in question of similar size, and the dwell-
ings ' lowest floors are constructed below, the minimum base flood
level. The Board also finds that the lot in question meets the
standards set forth in Section 46-16A of the Code since it contains
an .area of less than one-half acre and is contiguous to and sur-
rounded by lots with existing. structures constructed below the base
flood level.
In passing upon this application, the Board has -considered
all technical evaluations; all relevant factors; all standards
specified in the Code; and all of the applicable factors contained
in Section 46-15B, subdivisions (1) to (11) , inclusive, of the Code.
. The Board further finds and determines that: (1) There is a
good and sufficient cause for the grant of this variance; (2) A
failure to grant the variance would result in' exceptional hardship
to the applicant; (3) The grant of a variance will not result in
increased flood heights, or additional threats to public safety,
or extraordinary .public expense, or create nuisances, or cause
fraud, or victimize the public, or .conflict with existing local laws
or rules or regulations.
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of Frank Curran and wife,
Appeal No. FL-9 BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED a Variance from the Pro-
visions of the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold
to construct addition and accessory storage building with minimum
base flood elevations as applied for, on premises known as 780
Fishermen' s Beach Road, Cutchogue, NY; Peconic Bay Properties, Inc.
Filed Subdivision Map No. 286 , Lots 26 and part of Lot 27; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-111-1-16 , SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDI-
TIONS:
(1) That prior to the commencement of construction, the
applicant apply for and obtain a Development Permit from the Town
Building Inspector, pursuant to the provisions of the Flood Damage
'..� Southold Town Board of Appeals -52- November 5, 1981
v (Appeal FL-9 - Frank Curran, continued : )
Prevention Law;
(2) That there shall be no. .habitable (living) area at any
time below the requested minimum base flood level;
(3) That there shall be no habitable living area below the
first floor of the new addition, such as cellar,. basement, utility
or storage areas;
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the Provisions
of Section 46-16F of the Code, the applicant is hereby given notice
that the structure for which this variance is granted will be per-
mitted to be built with the lowest floor elevation below the base
flood elevation, and that the cost of flood insurance will be
commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced
lowest floor elevation;
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary to this Board
transmit copies of this determination to the applicants and to the
Town Building Inspector.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass,
Goehringer and Sawicki.
This resolution was unanimously adopted.
Richard J. Cron, Esq. and Arthur M. Schwartz, M.D. appeared
before the board tonight at the advice of the Chairman to discuss
a right-of-way which will be the subject of a variance application
for "approval of access. " Apparently, Mr. Cron -and Dr. Schwartz
misunderstand that an application should have first been filed
before discussing this matter. Mr. Cron said they will file an
application as early as possible.
RESERVED DECISION PENDING in the matter of APPEAL NO. 2893 -
MATTITUCK .AIR BASE. The board agreed to deliberate and research
this matter further, and that a Special Meeting is hereby scheduled
to be held next Saturday morning at approximately 9 :15 am.
Being there was no further business properly coming before
the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meetng adjourned
at approximately 11 :30 .p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
APPROVE
4Lia F. Kowalski, Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Chairman Board of Appeals
r
e Cl
V
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
ThlE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
TDATE 9J�7/Ko� HOUR,3.j'p1°/n
own Clerk, Town of So old