HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/19/1982 o
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR. M I N U T E S
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS - - - " - -
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI REGULAR MEETING
MARCH .19, 1982
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was
held on Friday, March 19,. 1982 at 7:30 o' clock p.m. at the
Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971.
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles
Grigonis, Jr. ; Robert J. Douglass; Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent
was: Serge Doyen. Also present were : Mrs. Ruth Oliva (NFEC) ;
Mrs. Shirley Bachrach (LWV) .
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7 :30 o'clock p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2952. Application of Daniel N.
and Carolyn K. Baird, 61 Wellsweep Drive, Madison, CT 06443 for
a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71
for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with an
insufficient rearyard setback at 11 Greenwood Road, Fishers
Island, NY; bounded north by Righter; east by F. I. Ferry District;
south by Gilman; west by Greenwood Road; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-12-1-13. 1.
The Chairman opened the hearing at .7: 32 p.m.' and read the
legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
CHAIRMAN: We have a sketch indicating the size of the
property and the type of improvement to be made, and a copy of
the County Tax Map indicating this particular property and .
properties in this district. Is there anyone to speak in be-
half of this application? Anyone against this application?
Anyone to speak at all? (None)
On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of Daniel N. and Carolyn K. Baird, Appeal No. 2952.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs . Goehringer, Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki. Member Doyen..was absent.
s
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- Marcn 19, 1982
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2943. Application of Fishers
Island Development Corp. , Fishers Island, NY 063:90 (by Richard F.
Lark, Esq. ) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, .
Section 100-41 , Bulk Area and Parking Schedule for permission to
divide existing house and lot with insufficient area and side-
yards into two, single-family dwellings and parcels at the north
side of Whistler Avenue, Fishers Island, NY; bounded north by
Gallaher; east by Horning; south by Whistler Avenue; west by
Scott; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-9-10-part of 11.
The Chairman opened the. hearing at 7: p.m. and read the
legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a current sketch of the property
indicating the- division between the two parcels,. Parcel A having
a square footage area of approximately 8,500 square feet. . .Parcel
B having a square footage area of approximately 12 ,180 square
feet. The line is drawn directly down the center of the buildings
as it appears here and through the garage, bisecting the garage.
We also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
particular property and all the surrounding properties in the area.
Mr. Lark, would you like to say. something?
RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ. : You said that you had a sketch. I'm
hoping you have an accurate survey by Shepard B. Palmer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I use the word sketch at all times.
MR. LARK: . Ok. The applicant under the current procedures had
to get a set-off approval by the Planning Board, and that was
obtained on February 8th. I have a copy of that for you, February 8th
of this year.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We should have that.
MR. LARK: Hopefully this will be FIDCO ' s last -.application
before you. I_.thoug.ht we should have an awareness of the -- oh,
this is taken from the old Army map when they laid the street out.
for officers ' quarters. The subject parcel we 're talking about is
this one right here denoted 22. As I indicated in the application,
several years ago the board granted a similar request over here,
which is denoted Lot No. 21 , and I have those minutes with me. I
thought it would be interesting also since Mr. Doyen is not present
to give you some photographs of the building in question -- I ' ll
show you so you know what the application consists of. Here' s the
building right there. And you can match that up with the survey
on the street. Here-'.s :another shot of it..right it. You can just
pass them on down. I must say that I 'm not too proud. to show you
this one, but this is the illustrious garage: The house is sub-
stantial as you can see. But the garage, which causes a lot of
the problem of this application just as you see there. This is a
rear shot of the house , and this is the house right next door to it
Y
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- Marcn 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2943 - FIDCO continued; )
MR. LARK continued:
which the .Board=.of Appeals- granted a similar application on a
slightly smaller piece of property. And there is that house in
relationship to the existing one. And this is also a shot of
the house .next door. Now to the east, right over here, that
backs up on the school property which would be right here where
my finger is approximately, this is the type of housing. It
changes as you can see. That' s the stuff that the school dis-
trict bought up and uses as duplex you know for the teachers
and stuff before they offered them for sale and everything.
And the Fort started here, and you can see the difference in
the architecture. One is a wooden frame as opposed to the
substantial brick.
As I indicated in the application, it was built originally
as a two-family and it' s been continuously used as such. FIDCO
who is the owner has decided to dispose of it. If you' ll recall
several years ago the Board got involved with granting an appli-
cation so they can relocate their maintenance workers back out
onto the golf course. This was one of the house that they had
used. Now that that is no longer . a need for it, what they've
done is they've cleaned it up and done some refurbishing and
they figure that they don't want to stay in the rental business
or be in the landlord business. And they figure that since the
experience on the house next door and the other homes that they
had a block or two away, where by selling them out and letting
individual owners have them, it' s a much better situation. So,
what they want to do is sell one to one family and one to another
family. And it' s primarily used, as:_:you know, summer residences
although they are full yearround homes there.
So that's the application, so I would hope that you would
look favorably. on it considering the neighborhood and as you can
see that the whole thing is laid out similar, except as you go
further to .the west after you get by that large storage building
there, then they made the officers ' quarters just for single
families, but they were the duplexes on'_this_.end.
So, this is the last .one. I understand as I said the Board
of Appeals did grant a split .up on the other one and this is the
other one on the block, so I would hope that you would look
favorably on the application. As I indicated the Planning Board
has approved the split off.
And the theory of it is that FIDCO is they do want to get
out of the landlord business, as I have indicated, and I think
you're aware of that from their past performance, and they do
feel that individual ownership is the way to go to maintain and
keep up the neighborhood. And that' s why;.they:.want it, you know,
the reason for it. Because with the zoning, and all 'the change in
the regulations , they're well -aware that they have to get. approval
of the various boards and agencies in order to do that.
w
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- Marcn 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2943 - FIDCO continued: )
MR. LARK continued:
And as you know for the record., there is water and sewer to
the place, so we 're not talking .about individual cesspools. . . it' s
all sewered and it' s all water by the Fishers Island Water Company.
So, unless the board:,has any questions,. I think I 've covered
it on all sides for you.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Just out of curiosity, does this one like
one of the other ones we had, have one sewer system feeding both
sections?
MR. LARK: No. I understand, and I asked that question.
Their concern was any ultimate buyers that should have to .split
everything up. No, as I understand it there are separate sewerage,
electric and water lines feeding this.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: The other one didn't.
MR. LARK: Yeah, I know. And it got to be a real hassle, too
as to who pays for it. Especially once they put in their treatment
plant and then they started really paying the price for it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lark. cr
MR. LARK: Not everybody has seen it. . .most of them I think
have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We had seen it last summer for almost the
entire day.
MR. LARK: I didh'-t`-kn-ow .if:-the Planning Board did, and I
had a hell of a time explaining just what was-.;what, so I. said
I would get pictures to. show. Apparently they weren' t familiar
with how the set up was.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak
in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the
application? (None) Hearing no further questions on either side,
I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the .
matter of Appeal No. 2943 , application of Fishers Island Develop-
ment Corp.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer., Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. Member Doyen was absent.
ti I
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- Marcn 19, 1982
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2957. Application of Walter N.
Pharr, Jr. , 360 South Harbor Road., Southold, NY (by Richard F.
Lark, Esq. ) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI ,
Section 100-60 for permission to use premises zoned B-Light for
wholesale sales (in addition to retail sales, a permitted use) .
Location of Property: North side of C.R. 48 , Southold, NY;
bounded north by Morris and ors. ; east by Charnews and ors. ;
south by C.R. 48 ; west by Mudd and ano. ; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-59-9-part of 30 . 2; also referred to as Lot 2 of Minor
Subdivision Filed Map No. 250 of N. Aliano.
The Chairman opened the. hearing at 7 :52 p.m. and read the
legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey indicating this
particular property which appears to be approximately
on County Road 48 and approximately 200 ' deep on both sides,
with a similar configuration for the rear. We.'have a copy of
the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this particular parcel
sketched in where it exists and the surrounding, I would say,
larger parcels. We also have a copy of the actual survey which
is a topographical copy indicating the position of the building
on the proposed site. They' re talking about a building approxi-
mately 46 ' on the road, 100 ' deep, 60 or better feet across the
rear. Is there anybody that would like to speak in behalf of this
application? Mr. Lark, is there a possibility of your using the
mike on -..this one? Thank you.
RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ. : When:..I first got involved with this
application, this parcel of land which youlre considering here
tonight was part of a larger parcel owned by Nicholas Aliano,
and when I first looked at it,-..and the -contract was negotiated
with Mr . Aliano , it was my understanding and my belief that
approval from the Planning Board. had to be obtained, either as
a minor subdivision or as a set-off . And the Planning Board did
give such an approval on a',meeting on October 19, 1981 approving
it. (Mr. Lark gave the Chairman a copy of the Planning Board
approval for the record. )'
You' ll see from looking at the larger maps there of the
property, this is virtually all .of the business property that
Aliano had --- it was the frontage on the road there. The rest
of it is A-Residential and Agricultural. And I had to go back
and do some more negotiations so we could get it wide enough
and take all of the business property so we wouldn't end up with
having, you know, like 20 and 30 feet of business property on the
road. So this is the last remaining end of the business property
on the north side of the road. Unfortunately, it took in a
percentage of Aliano ' s property; . but .any way we worked that out.
The Planning Board then was privy to what was going on and in
fact, I gave them at the time we met with the Planning Board a
preliminary sketch of what was going to be built there by the
applicant. And subsequent to the Planning Board' s giving approval,
the applicant.-went ahead, got his financing lined up, title report,
• Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- Mai,: ., 19 , 1982
(Appeal No. 2957 - Walter N. Pharr, Jr. continued: )
MR. LARK continued: '
title report and title search, finalized survey, and prepared .to
close title. Part of the requirements under the contract was
that .he would be able to obtain a building permit.
So he had his architect prepare a set of plans so he could
get a building permit, and to and behold, the building inspector
in approving the site plan for parking and one thing or another,
came up with the conclusion, he asked the applicant, "What were
you going to do with the building?" And the applicant told him,
Mr. Pharr who is present here tonight, you will hear from him,
told him what his business was all about. And all of a sudden
the building inspector came up and said, "Well you're going to
have wholesale sales out of there! " And he says, "Yes, and what' s
the problem?" Retail, wholesale, mail order, you know, .:and the
whole business. And the building inspector said, "Well wholesale
is not permitted. It ' s only permitted in an industrial district. "
And then I got back involved in the case and went down and talked
to the building inspector and asked him how he--arrived at that.
And he interprets the ordinance, unless it says specifically you
can do something, you can't do it. You have to start with that
premise with Mr. Fisher.
The second premise is, the only mention of the word "wholesale"
in the entire ordinance appears in the C-Light Industrial District.
And the word "wholesale" appears there in Section 100-80 , Subdivi-
sion B (3) to read, " . . .uses permitted by Special Exception of the
Board of Appeals. . . " and then (3) reads, " . . .wholesale storage and
warehousing. . . . " It doesn 't say anything about wholesale sales,
just wholesale storage and warehousing. I said, "How do you get
that interpretation? He said, "That' s my interpretation. It' s
got the word wholesale, so therefore it has to be in an industrial
district. " Well, you can well imagine I kind of scratched my head
about the whole thing, and started to think about it, started to
look around and I started at the western end of the town and then
came east. The first place I stopped at in .my mind and then I
subsequently checked, was Mattituck Auto Parts, which is known to
be B-1 Business District. They sell retail. They sell wholesale.
They sell by the phone. This , _.that and the other. Go-ing-up;
Raynor-Suter Hardware Store, sells wholesale. . . sells retail. . .
so by the time I got to Cutchogue, Tuthill ' s who sells paint
wholesale, also sells plumbing supplies and stuff retail, all
zoned Business. You got your Frohenhoeffer' s here in Southold
and it suddenly dawned on me, what is wholesale . sales? And I
started talking, I even talked to Henry Raynor:i_about this a . great
length. He says, "Yes. I don 't know. What is wholesale?"
I then went to the dictionary to find out what they. said about
wholesale, and they say it' s the opposite of retail. So, you know,
you go look in a dictionary under retail and it says, "sales of
goods and articles individually in small quantities directly to
consumer. " And there' s other definitions of wholesale in the dic-
tionary, and they're all the same. I'm just picking out a typical
t_
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- Marcn 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2957 - Walter N. Pharr, Jr. continued: )
MR. LARK continued:
one. Selling of goods in relatively large quantities. So I
talked to the applicant, and I asked him, I said, "What would
you define the difference between wholesale and retail" . :. I
said very simply. As he understands it it' s not a function of
price, but that in a wholesale sale, he doesn' t get a sales tax
whereas in a retail sale he gets a:.- sales tax.. The difference
being is that when he sells what is termed in'-his trade as
wholesale, he sells to one who has a sales-tax exemption number,
who will then either turn around and sell retail or do something,
whereas if he sells retail, he has to collect a sales tax.
It' s considered the ultimate consumer as opposed to another
in-between man. And I said, "Does it have anything to do with
volume?" "'Well , " he said, "it' s quite obvious that if I sell
to somebody who is in business, they're going to buy so many
more games or toys or whatever rather than just a retail purchaser
such as yourself or. myself who might just buy one or two toys.
Something like that. " He says, "That' s the main difference between
wholesales and retail. " And he said, "Quite obviously you sell
more units of some, then there ' s a lower price then if you sell
you know just one unit of something. " So I found that as inter-
esting distinction.
So I went back to the building inspector .and,'.discussed it
with him, and he halfway agreed with me and said, "But, well, it' s
always been interpreted. . . . " I said, ','Well have we had any more
cases or is there anything .on the books which I would .look at?"
He. says, "No. I think this is the first time become an issue. "
So I drafted the application before you in an alternative,
one as an interpretation to overrule his interpretation--.of the
zoning ordinance, and the other alternative is if you agree with
his interpretation, which I personally don' t but we' ll discuss.....,.-
that in a moment, then for a variance. Because if you do agree
with his interpretation that all wholesales sales are not allowed
in a Business District, you know, a zoned Business District, then
he ' s applying for a use variance here to use the property, arpor-
tion of the property, some of it for, you know, wholesales sales.
1, and: that--.as s_Isay go back to the first point, I am having
extreme difficulty in trying to understand since the only time
the word "wholesale" appears in the ordinance refers to wholesale
storage and warehousing in the Industrial District and when you
look at those uses that are associated in the Industrial District,
it makes complete sense. You' re talking about warehousing and
, big storage areas that are associated with it. . .not a situation
where we have here.
As I 've indicated in the application and you can talk to him
directly, he is here, as I understand, this type of operation,
you see what the building is going to be. . .you have the plans as
to actually what would be built there, what he proposes is two
small retail offices in the front and then a storage area in the
back of the building. The reason for two offices in the front. . .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- Marcn 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2957 - Walter N. Pharr, Jr. continued: )
MR. LARK continued:
the applicant also happens to be a licensed real estate . broker. . .and
he wants to make provisions to have his , you know, to able to hang
his shingle and :do real estate work out of there possibly. The
other small showroom area or retail area would be for handling
customers that would come in to show them, you know, demonstration
or models or wood . things, samples, and so on and so forth. But
what he proposes to do there is not only sell at retail but he
is admittedly selling at wholesale, and we have a caterer
which a lot of his business will be by telephone in a, which I
refer to as a mail-order situation where people will be ordering
via catalog, and there where they do not have a sales-tax exemption
number he has to charge sales tax. So a lot of it will come into
a P.O. box and so forth.
I asked him at length what his percentages of business based
on his experience, because he wants to get into this fulltime
whereas in the past he has done it more or less on a parttime
basis, and he will discuss that with you more fully. And. I also
him why he had to have such a large storage area. And the answer
to that was, "In this particular type of industry, you have to buy
at one time of the year. You buy directly from the manufacturers
and toy c.ompantes and game companies. " And then, I guess we are
all aware from television, this toy business has become a fad or
a fashion business , and certain properties or: items move, and
therefore you have a buy a large quantity of them and put in
storage areas to do it. The other thing of it is that a lot of
the electronic games and toys that are out are very expensive.
And so by having the storage area such as he has, he will be able
to internally provide necessary security, you know, cages and stuff
like that, whereas if you just had a normal thing, tend to theft
or vandalism. So that' s the reason why he has his architect lay
out the building the way it is. He doesn' t want to have a Macy ' s
Toy Department Store up in the front where people come in and
could wander around. He would just have limited dummies or
samples . And as I understand it in this business today, when
people come in to buy, it' s not like buying clothes where they
will shop and browse. The little ones, the youngsters who are
the ultimate consumers in this , have already made their request
known to their parents and grandparents and so they know what
they are buying when they walk in the door. They want a Star
Wars game, or Skywalker or certain Electronic Football Game,
and if their daddy or granddaddy -doesn' t bring that home, he' s
a bum. So it' s not a question of comparison shopping, you know,
where you would do for a lot of things.
The experience has been of Pharr that they know exactly
what they want to buy when they come in. And that' s why he
figures, that the mail order, which will be primarily retail,
retail which you and I understood as standard. retail will be
that way. But there ' s no question that a certain percentage of
his business will be n ,the wholesale nature. And I can' t for
the life of me, just because a word is omitted from a business
district, that this board or the drafters of the zoning ordinance
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- Marca 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2957 - Walter N. Pharr, Jr. )
MR. LARK continued:
intended that all. wholesale, be referred to wholesale sales, would
not be allowed.. And the building inspector should only say that
the businesses that, even though subsequent to zoning that has a
certificate of occupancies and which admittedly sell at wholesale,
whether it be the auto parts or Raynor-Suter, Brett Tuthill,
Frohenhoeffer, or any of the other ones, he did say, "Well , that
must have been another building inspector, " and so on and so forth.
I also asked him,. which I thought was another avenue of
approach, that if it is a mixed. use, the wholesale could be con-
sidered as an accessory to the retail or the retail to be acces-
sory to the wholesale. . .you know, depending on primarily what the
emphasis was. I don't profess to be an expert in the toy business. . .
that' s why I want Mr. Pharr to speak to you. But I think his
interpretation is fraud .with danger. That is, the building
inspectors , because it is a known and admitted. fact that we have
many sales at wholesale in a business district, and why he is
singling out at this particular time, I don' t know. Especially
as the board is aware, and I'm not making a federal case out of
it, but the existing businesses up there zoned in the same district
don't even have certificates of occupancy .and yet conduct manufac-
turing operations. But again, so what. . .they're high-valued
technology-type things and they're warranted in this type of use
district. There again, that' s another matter.
So at this time I would like Mr. Pharr if he would, explain
a little bit more about what he intends to do because here your
application is unique. You've seen the exact building that will
be built there because he has the plans and the financing from
the bank to do it. The last hurdle apparently as I see it is an
interpretation by you gentlemen as to whether to allow that type
of building to go up there for that type of use is what he is
going to tell you about. Mr. Pharr?
WALTER N. PHARR, JR. : I have been developing a mail-order
business. I rent space in Riverhead and in Southold. I've .
desired to consolidate my business in one location in the Town of
Southold. The retail business is undergoing many changes today. . .
catalog sales, mail-order sales, and even cable TV. sales will
.become increasingly important in the future. I would like to
build a business which can participate in these trends.
I am going to need a large. amount of storage space as Mr.
Lark said. I have to .buy factory direct in the Spring and I
need a place to store the merchandise until my main selling sea-
son, which is Christmas. I desire a wholesale capacity in order
to round out my sales and in order to enable me buying factory
direct. When I look over the Town of Southold, I see many retail
businesses daily engaging .in wholesale activities. And I can't
understand why this would be a problem for me. I chose this
particular location because it is affordable with the way real
estate prices are, it' s very easy for a local person to be priced
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- March 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2957 - Walter N. Pharr continued: )
MR. PHARR continued:
out of our whole real estate market. I consider the site not a
prime retail location as witnessed by the fact .that my three
business neighbors would be machine shops. This would not be
a problem -for me, however, because the consumer I'm seeking to
sell is basically pre-sold as to what he wants through my catalog
or through the TV ads or the manufacturers themselves.
I do think though that a store limited to retail sales alone
would have a hard time surviving that area and that it is outside
the pattern of daily shopping. They would not be able to benefit
from the traffic, and the prospect of a law not for wholesale sales
would be a serious problem. But I think a mixed use for provide a
very viable chance for a successful business. Do you have any
questions you might want to ask?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The basic questions of the board, Mr. Pharr,
are : (1) will :there be any fabricating or manufacturing on the
premises at all?
MR. PHARR: None whatsoever.
MR. CHAIRMAN :. Have you made .any provisions for cardboard,
which seems to be a tremendous problem to many retail businesses.
I 'm talking. mainly from a shopping center point of view. Will
you have a cardboard container, some way of containing the card-
board? Will the cardboard be kept in the interior of the building,
not allowing it to blow around in the wind, particularly the winter
when--
MR. LARK: Are you talking about refuse?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I'm sorry.
MR. PHARR: Yes, definitely.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You won't have one of these new cardboard
smashers or anything of that nature. You' re. not anticipating
anything of that magnitude?
MR. PHARR: No. The cardboard would be decompressed or used,
I would mention that as far as wholesaling is concerned, I would
need the boxes to repack the merchandise to be shipped.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So some of the boxes would be reused?
MR. PHARR: Yes.
MR. LARK: Has that been your experience? That' s what he is
asking.
MR. PHARR: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think maybe there may be more
Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- Marca 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2957 - Walter N. Pharr, Jr. continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
questions after we allow some one in the audience to. Thank you again.
Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anybody
to speak against this application? (None) Hearing no further comments,
I will make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the matter
of Appeal No. 2957, application of .Walter N. Pharr, Jr.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. Member Doyen was absent.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2955. Application of St. Peter' s
Lutheran Church, Main Road, Greenport, NY for a Special Exception
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30C (6 ) (f) and
Article VII, Section 100-70 for permission to erect an off-premises
directional/advertising sign upon property of F. . Murphy, 8700 Main
Road, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-07-006 . 2.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :15 p.m. and read the
legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the County Tax Map showing
the parcel of Francis Murphy Garden -Center and an "x" indicating
the position of the proposed sign. Is there anyone here wishing
to speak in behalf of this application?
PAMELA SCHINELLER: I don't know if I have to speak in behalf,
but if there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no ..basis questions, because we' ze* had.. sign
permits there before. .(There were no other comments) . Being there
are no further comments, I ' ll move to close the hearing and reserve
decision until later.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Messrs. Douglass and
Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter. of St. Peter' s Lutheran Church, Appeal No. 2955 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. )
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- Marcii i9, 1982
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2942 . Application of Paul and
Margaret Radich, 420 West Fourth Avenue, Roselle, NJ 07203 for per-
mission to convert existing dwelling use to two-family dwelling
use at 51170 Main Road, Southold, NY; bounded north by Jankowski;
east by Southold School District; south by Kahrs; west by Main Road;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-70-2-6 .
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8 :00 p.m. and read the
legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the proposed changes that
are indicated in the Special Exception ,appl_ication `.We also have
a. copy of a survey indicating this particular house on a parcel
of property approximately 78 feet on the road, approximately 330 .68
feet on the west side, and similar configurations on the other two
boundaries . We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicat-
ing this particular property and surrounding properties in the
immediate area. Is there anybody that would like to speak in
behalf of the application?
MRS. HELEN COCHRAN: I 'm Paul and Margaret' s daughter. They
plan on using the top half of the house themselves so they would
just be renting one part of it and still be confined. . .the top half
as a summer residence and weekends.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else
that would like to speak in behalf of the application? Anybody
like to speak against the application? (None) I should note for
the record that this application has been before the board for a
short period of time. Of course , longer than most applications
for the sole purpose for the fact that we are involved in Zoning
revisions at this particular time. I did and was in contact with
Francis J. Murphy, who is Chairman and Deputy Supervisor of the
Town of Southold, yesterday morning and he indicate to me that
there will be a public hearing forthcoming on two-family housing,
or one-family housing conversions. . So at that particular time
we will know more. However, we have accepted this application
and we will make a determination based upon the present zoning
as it exists . Hearing no further comments, I ' ll make a motion
reserving decision and closing the hearing until a later date.
MEMBER SAWICKI : Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of Paul and Margaret Radich, Appeal No. 2942.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. )
Southold Town Board of appeals -13- Marc.., 19, 1982
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2954 . Application of Thomas H.
Witschi , M.D. , by Swim King Pools, Route 25A, Rocky Point, NY
11778 for permission to construct inground swimmingpool in an area
other than the rearyard 'at 7670 Right-of-Way off New Suffolk
Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-116-04-031 .
The Chairman opened the .hear,ing at 8 :25 p.m. and read the
legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the survey of the parcel in
question, which is approximately four acres; and a copy of the
tax map indicating this property and the surrounding properties
in the particular area. Is there anybody that would like to speak
in behalf of this application?
THOMAS H. WITSCHI , M.D. : Well , since I am the applicant I
guess I should do that. I was instructed to give those (return
receipts) . I don't really know exactly what the problem was that
I wasn't able to determine this by talking with Mr. Fisher after
the Swim King Pools' people who had submitted the initial applica-
tion told me about the difficulty. If you have a copy of, the
survey there--
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have one. .
DR. WITSCHI: . . .or: :.a map , where the proposed location of
the pool is what would be in a normal person' s interpretation of
rearyard, first of all. Secondly, we chose that location for
aesthetic and safety reasons, i.e. , being able to view the pool
area from the kitchen, which is the most used area. There' s a
natural hedge adjoining the right-of-way, which is depicted there,
which is not a street, but it' s a right-of-way going down to Mr.
Smith' s property that we jointly own. So it is really a street.
I couldn' t make any sense out of Mr. Fisher' s interpretation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you read his disapproval, Doctor?
DR. WITSCHI: I talked with him, and I couldn't tell whether
it was because he didn't believe this was my rearyard or what the
story is. I can' t understand why there.'s such a big problem
about it. It' s in a perfectly logical location. . . it' s not encroach-
ing on anybody' s street. . .there are no streets. By your definition
of a rear/front yard from looking at the rule, the word "street" is
used. Can someone explain to me. . .because Mr. Fisher did not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well , .I ' ll read the disapproval.. It says,
"Please take notice that your application dated December 10 , 1981
for a permit to construct an inground swimmingpool, , " and then
it goes on with the location, " . . . is returned herewith a disapproved
on the following grounds : Inground swimmingpool in an accessory
structure and is not permitted in the front yard area, Article III ,
Section 100-32 . . . . " Is cannot speak for the Building Inspector
and there is no one present from the Building Department tonight,
but they are indicating that as frontyard area.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- Marcn .19, 1982
(Appeal No. , 2954 - Thomas H. Witschi, M.D. continued: )
DR. WITSCHI: Well, I'm sorry. . .but that' s completely out of
any normal, reasonable person' s interpretation. My front door,
all right. . . I mean, is whatyou would normally consider your
frontyard area. Am I correct?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, sir.
DR. WITSCHI: No? I couldn 't call my frontyard out in
front of my front door?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It certainly is your frontyard but you can
have several frontyards. If the person had a pennisula-type
parcel of property, which yours is close to that— it' s not
quite that. If you had a road on the opposite side of the
property or the west side of the property, you'd have a penni-
sula type, meaning bounded on three sides by roads. You
could in effect have three front yards.
DR. WITSCHI: There is only one access road to my property.
Would it be logical to say that this thing would be the front-
yard area? I mean. . .you see. . .you'd have to, I just don' t under-
stand what the big hassle is. There is only one way into my
property, and that way meets to the front door of my house.
Where I am proposing to put the pool is on the opposite side
of the house, which would then by any normal person' s definition
be the rear yard.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It probably would, sir , if you didn't have
that long, extended—as a point of matter, we ' ll mention it
as a right-of-way, leading down along side your property on the
one side. But I, again; I don't know how deeply involved you
want to. . .
DR. WITSCHI: Sir, that right-of-way has nothing to do with
my access to the property, or anyone's else to the property. It' s
access for Mr. Smith to get to his house.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but it' s still an access.
DR. WITSCHI: But it is not a street.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It doesn 't have to be. It.' s a right-of-way, sir.
DR. WITSCHI: Sir, if you look into the definitions of front
and rear yard and side yards , and I 'm not supposed to tell you
what the rules say. . .but it defines street. Now' a right-of-way where
that particular structure is is not a street. And if it is indeed a
street, then it would be a very interesting situation because then
I would have front lot acreage that I could subdivide. That, sir, is
not a street.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think that are two things, 'Doctor, that
you should be aware of, Doctor, and just a point in passing. Number
one, we usually deal with disapprovals from the Building Inspector,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- March 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2954 , Thomas H. Witschi, M.D. continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN .:continued :
so his interpretation and your interpretation and although. I accept
your interpretation as a point of information for this hearing, it
has no relevance as to the nature of what you' re talking about in
the respect that he has made a determination as a disapproval. You
are basically talking about that particular determination. We' re
not here really to discuss the positioning of frontyard/rearyard.
I know that you find that as a matter of annoyance, which is basic-
ally what I'm reading from what you're talking about here, but I
can't make a determination here at this point not having a building
inspector here why he determined it to be a portion of frontyard.
Do you understand what I 'm saying?
DR. WITSCHI: Yes, but then, why are we here?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well we're here because he determined it in
this disapproval on December 10th as being frontyard.
DR. WITSCHI: And I am here to plead the issue that this is
not correct. And that' s why I 'm here. And as the Building Inspec-
tor is not here for us to confront one another, I 'm terribly sorry. . .
I've taken .my time to come here and, what rules to you go by to
decide front and rear? If he' s disapproving it on.,the basis that
it ' s not rear, . then we have to define what is front and what is
rear.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You .can make a decision and actually accept
either side as being front and rear. In other words, in this
particular case if he' s considering the area which you. actually
want to place the :pool, or implant the pool as being the front yard,
then the west side of your property would be your rear yard. I
know you don't understand that. . .
DR. WITSCHI: That' s totally inconceivable. I mean, if
anybody could look at this and arrive at that particular conclu:
sion. . . if you have a street in front of your house, a road in
front of your house, that would be your front yard. That' s
exactly what the situation is ;in my location. To put the pool
anywhere else would place it in the front yards of Mr. Suter or
Mr. Morris, which would certainly not be agreeable to anyone:
What do I have to do?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I can' t tell you what to do, sir.
DR. WITSCHI: Quite frankly you're putting me in a position,
I mean, if you disapprove this, I. can' t put in a pool because
there is no other place to put it. All right?. I've been a
resident of this town, a physician serving this community for
the last 10 years and I don't understand what this hassle is
all about. Nobody ' s going to seethe thing. . .it' s hidden by
a hedge and you have to have a fence around it anyway. And I
want to put it there so I can watch and see that my kids don't
drown in it. If I put it where the Building Inspector suggested
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- March 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2954, Thomas H. Witschi, .M.D. continued: )
DR. WITSCHI continued:
I put it, it would be in front of Mr. Suter ' s .front yard, and I
couldn't see the pool. Now who makes the determination of what
is front and what is rear? If the Building Inspector has the
final say and he's not here, then I 've wasted my whole evening.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That' s not true, sir. He made the final say,
he doesn't have to appear, Doctor. He.' s made the point in question
by that determination of December loth, 1981 . Basically that
decision has been made by him to. determine that as front yard.
And that is the reason why you're here. I don't know if that' s
the reason why you' re here, but that' s that the reason why Swim
King Pools applied. . .
DR. WITSCHI : Well, I 'm sorry. I don' t want to belabor the
issue. You have other things to do. I think I 've. said all :I can
say. If there are any questions, I 'd be happy to show .you on the
map if you haven' t had a chance to look at it. I thought it was
fairly straightforward.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We were over last Saturday morning, I don' t
know if your wife mentioned it. Nobody came to the door or
anything., and we made certain measurements and we are aware of
what you're saying and of the proposed position of where you want
to place the pool .
DR. WITSCHI : Fine. Well, that' s perfect then.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope you didn't think that any of my state-
ments were derogatory. I was very simply trying to get you to
understand that that .determination .of front yard/rear yard, Doctor,
is basically not in our realm.
DR. WITSCHI: But, sir, I would like to point out that front
and rear yard is defined by streets. ' I can't remember all the
words , and it ' s a rather verbose and somewhat gener:alized :defini-
tion of what is a front yard. It.' s an unoccupied space, blah
blab, blah, founded by sky and having something .to do with the
street. Well, none of the roads in that area technically are
streets.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but they' re points of access for ingress
and egress to your fellow neighbors.
DR. WITSCHI: But by the definition of a street, those are
not town streets. Those are all privately-owned access roads.
I hate to present it in that way, but if his definition of front
and rear is based on the rules that are in the books, then we
should go by that also. And by that definition there are no
streets there and therefore you can' t have any front or rear
yard.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I just think to continue this discourse would
be counterproductive, so. . .
DR. WITSCHI: Thank you for your time.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -177 Marcrl i9, 1982
(Appeal No. 29541, Thomas H. Witschi, M.D. , continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN: . You're very welcome, Doctor.
DR. WITSCHI: I'm here if there are any questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Not right at the moment. Let' s see what
develops. Is there anybody else .that would like to speak in
behalf of this application? No .one in behalf? Does anybody
wish to speak against the application? (None) Does any member
of the board have any discussion with Dr. Witschi? (None)
Hearing no further testimony in either case, I 'll make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision until a later date.
And thank you for coming in, Doctor.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it
was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision until
a later date in the matter of the application of Thomas H.
Witschi, M.D. , Appeal No. 2954 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki . (Member Doyen was absent. )
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis,
it was
RESOLVED, to recess for approximately ten minutes.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. )
RE.CESSED._,PUBLIC HEARING: . Appeal No. 2947. Application of
Anastasios. and Anna Parianos, 43-21 Astoria Blvd, Long Island
City, NY 11105 , (by Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. ) for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30 and Bulk
Schedule, for permission to reconstruct and locate second dwell-
ing as existed prior to destruction by fire with insufficient
yard area (s) at the southwesterly corner of Peconic Bay Boulevard
and Sigsbee Road, Laurel, NY; more particularly known as Lot
108A on Amended Map of Mattituck Park Properties , Inc. , Map No.
801 ; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-126-5-13.
.. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 8:47 p.m. This
hearing was recessed from the last regular meeting of this
board, to wit, February 26 , 1982.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olsen, would you like to say something
in behalf of Mr.. and Mrs. Parianos?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- i• cu.'ch 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2947 -. A. Parianos , continued: )
GARY FLANNER OLSEN, ESQ. : At .the last meeting that was held
on February 26th, it was requested by the board that further
information be .provided concerning the history of the remain n:gr
cottage that' s on the property, as you are aware that previously
there were two structures.. on the. property, the main house and the
cottage. The main.. house was destroyed by fire and the applicant
is now seeking to reconstruct the main house. I was able to
obtain a statement from the prior owner , who is Alma-M. Granger,
who' s now. living up in New Hampshire.as to the history of the
cottage, and she indicates that the small cottage that' s still
there had originally been a garage and was converted to a cottage
with a bath, kitchen, bedroom and living room sometime around
1946 . She goes into more specifics in the affidavit and I' ll
submit this as part of the record.
(Mr. Olsen submitted a two-page affidavit signed by Alma M.
Granger and notarized on the 6th day of March, 1982. )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. OLSEN: As I 've stated at the last meeting, Mr. and Mrs.
Parianos are not seeking to have two separate dwellings on the
property. They are willing to have the board impose a restriction
that the present cottage be utilized strictly as an accessory
guest house. Said cottage would be clearly incidental and subor-
dinate to. the :main, principal house which the applicants seek to
rebuild.. We recognize that the property was zoned for single-family
use only; however, it is not to be overlooked that . the small
cottage is an existing structure which was built prior to the
enactment of the zoning ordinance and accordingly, a proper balance
must be maintained ..between the purpose of the zoning ordinance and
limiting the area of the single-family usage only, and the rights
of the individual owner. As the board is aware, when Mr. and Mrs.
Parianos purchased the subject property, it contained the main
house as well as the cottage. By agreeing to the imposition of
the aforementioned restriction, the character of the neighborhood
would be maintained and the net result -would be to limit the use
of the property by only one family. The applicants understand
that by limiting the existing cottage as an accessory building,
subordinate;.-_to,..the main house, that it could not be rented to
a separate family that I know will be a concern of the board.
I also spoke this morning with Roy Reynolds. of the Health
Department. Last time when we had ..the last hearing I spoke to
Mr. Brigham, who is not in .change- of the file but because Mr.
Reynolds was away but he is now back, and he indicated that he
could not foresee .any difficulty to obtaining the necessary
Health Department permits to rebuild the main house once the
Zoning Board. of Appeals has approved the issuance of the
Building Permit for the reconstruction of the main house.
If there are any questions that you may have, I would be
happy to answer them.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- Marcn 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2947 - A. Parianos, .continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any questions from the board?
(None) Does anybody else wish to. speak in behalf of the appli-
cation? Anyone wishing to speak against the application? (None)
Hearing no further• comments on either side, I 'll make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision until a later date.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer,- seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve. decision in the
matter of the application of Anastasios and Anna Parianos, Appeal
No. 2947.
Vote of the. Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer,, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. )
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2953.. Application of Harvey Bag-
Shaw, Inc. , in care of Philip J. Ofrias, Jr. , Esq. , 737 Roanoke
Avenue, Riverhead, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article VII , Section 100-71 for approval of the construction of
additions at the east and west sides of existing building with
insufficient setbacks and insufficient total yard areas a.t..7255
Main Road, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel. No. 1000-122-6-34.
:. TYie Chairman opened the hearing. at 8 :51 p.m. and read the
legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the County Tax Map and we
have a copy of a. survey which dates back to January 14th, 1980
showing.-this property and the surrounding properties. Is there
anybody that would like to- speak in behalf of this application?
Mr. Ofrias..
PHILIP J. OFRIAS, JR. , ESQ. : I would indicate that since
the application• was filed, Mr. Bagshaw has been in contact with
Briarcliff , and has _:entered into an' arrangement with them what
would be permanent landscaping around the entire building and has
labeled the types of trees and whatever that he suggests to be
there and we've agreed .with him. But this would be done assuming
that the building is still there.
I don't have much else to say other than what' s in the
application. I understand that the board has gone down and
looked at the .premises. . . I 'm sure that everybody has sees:::. it
anyway being on the Main Road. Back last Spring. . . I don't know
who ( ) but the driveway in the parking area had. been moved
out a number of years ago with oil and bluestone. This past
Spring in order to coordinate the color scheme of the building
which was quite attractive, Mr. Bagshaw had some red-colored
stone strucked up from Pennsylvania at a cost of some $2-;000 .
Basically, the only thing that did. was color the parking area
and the driveway area and makes the whole thing quite attractive
I would think. It appears that way. As a: matter of fact, I've
seen since he' s done that colored stone appearing in other
driveways in and about town. I 'm available for questions and
Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- Marcir 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2953 - Harvey Bagshaw Inc. )
MR. OFRIAS continued:
Mr. Bagshaw is available if you gentlemen have any questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob? Joe? (No questions. ) Let' s see if
there is anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of the
application. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in
behalf of the application? Anybody like to speak against the
application? Mr. Goodale.
ANDREW GOODALE: I 'm Andrew Goodale and I am not speaking
directly against the . application but I do have a few things ;,that-
have bothered me inasmuch as my wife and I own the property
immediately to the east of Mr. Bagshaw' s garage, and it' s the
history that I had opposed this application to put in a body
shop from the very beginning, and .over the years some of the
things Mr. Bagshaw promised that he would do he had done. Mainly
he said that he would not put any junk cars in the front of the
building and he has not. On the other hand some of the things
that relate. to the nuisance, .for want of a better word, in the
way of working in the area that is the driveway immediately to
the west of my portion and also to the fact that a certain
amount of noise eminates from the building and also due to the
fact that occasionally I have observed fumes., rubber smold fumes
coming out. Now, I went over and I spoke to Mr. Bagshaw and he
was pretty good about it. He said, "Well let' s see if we can't
stop them and they happened in my absence. " Well, the point here
is is that noise is noise and when the door is open in the summer
it is a very polluting noise. And it is a very annoying noise.
Now that is what I am basically complaining. about and I have had
some dialogue with Mr. Bagshaw that he has executed a covenant
that he would not put any salvaged cars in the front. . . so much
the better.
As far as the side is concerned, . I haven'.t had any assurance
that that would .be the case, and now we are devoting our times to
the fact, .or rather our time at this time to the fact that there
was a .building put .on the east side of the building which is as
he described for the benefit, of the tow _truck. Well that in
itself at the time he put it up, I visualized that he was going
to work further in the area and that .he was. going to have a
truck in there or he would use it for a storage or some other
thing. That has not occurred as� far as that building is con-
cerned. He has moved, as I observed, the washing of cars to
the west side of the building. . . so we are. now, shall we say, at
a point where if I can have some assurance that these things
that I have complained about will. be taken care of, then my
objection. will be negligible.
Now as far as the junk cars, and they are junk cars, there
has been mining in the past in the rear in order to take and
create a level place that he could put cars. . .that is where they
wound up. I understand that the property also to the rear all
the way to the railroad has been acquired by Mr. Bagshaw, and
Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- Marcn 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2953 - Harvey Bagshaw Inc. )
MR. GOODALE continued:
more power to him. I would like to see that he develops this
property to the extent that the Zoning Board will permit him to
so develop and that we will not have any problems because that
portion of the property is exactly to the rear of mine. Now
we 're not at that particular point yet. What we are at a point
now is that he' s asking for a legalization, for want of a
better word, on a property which was originally too small to
take care of the operation. This is the function of the Board
of Appeals to assess these items and to make a decision. To
a certain extent, the hardship has been partially of his own
making. I want to remain a good neighbor. with Mr. Bagshaw, and
I believe that' h&`-does, too. But like everything else, my
legal training tells me that you better get something down
that we won't have .these things. come up .. . ..and I ' ll be chasing
him in order to get relief. . .and that is not a very desirable
end to this because litigation brings more litigation. So
with that statement, he has quite a heavy burden here as I see
it to overcome the denial of a building permit and the fact
that he is . going to have certain things by the landscaper. . .
so much the better. I 'm also concerned with the fact that the
fence was, put:..up between. the two of us as a noise barrier by
my son; and this is something that we' re trying to keep down as
far as noise is concerned. I don't think that we have any
other things. Ordinarily, the gentleman is trying to make a
living and as such he is doing a pretty good job. As far as
I 'm concerned,. the original business was instituted and put in
and it hasn't been a nuisance recently. The things that I am
complaining about are of longstanding, shall we say, possibilities.
In the event that he should sell the building or something else,
I would like to have something in writing from him that these
will not take place.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Goodale. Is there anybody
else that would like to speak against the application? Is
there anything you would like to say in rebuttal, Mr. Ofrias?
MR. OFRIAS: Well , not so much in rebuttal . I'm not sure
if any of you gentlemen sat on this board seven years ago when
we first came for Mr. Bagshaw' s original application for a
variance. Mr. Goodale was here at that time also, and I think
as Mr. Goodale .has indicated at that time, I don't know what he
envisioned. He vehemently opposed our application I believe
because he lived next door and he had his law office next door.
Now it's seven years later , and apparently I think Mr. Goodale
agrees that what he thought might have happened has not happened
and basically it is a compatible use that he has next door with
the body shop and the way it is being maintained and run.
Incidently, when you. read the application, I saw that you
said that the distance was a blank distance there. It should
have been lOz feet. Mr. Goodale' s building is 102 feet from
Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- March 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2953 - Harvey Bagshaw Inc. )
MR. OFRIAS continued:
the property line and had not been inserted in some copies. My
copy apparently, not the one that mattered.
I neglected to mention originally that the original variance
gave a reduced sideyard- to the west of ten feet. The sideyard to
the west as it stands now with the addition that has been con-
structed is 17 feet. The 17 feet is the sideyard that exists
after. the acquisition of the triangular piece of property, and
then the erection of the addition.
I believe on the survey I think I drew a red line on the
original property line, which basically runs through--the center
of the addition.
Further, the right-of-way, .the 50 ' right-of-way which is
adjacent to this property on the west is a 50 ' right-of-way that
gives access to some 4 or 42 acres in the back abutting..-.up on
the railroad track, of which Mr. Bagshaw is 50% owner of that
parcel in the back. So while we don't own the right-of-way, or
Mr. Bagshaw does not own the right-of-way, I don't believe there
is any other, has access only to the parcel that is owned by
himself and another partner in the back. . . so while we don't own
it we probably have pretty good control over it because no one
else has any use .or interest in the use of the right-of-way. So
while we only .have a 17 ' sideyard there to the property line,
I think we can take it into consideration with the 50 ' beginning
at the 17 foot is the right-of-way to the use of Mr. Bagshaw' s
parcel in the back.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Ofrias. Anybody else like to
say anything concerning this application? Any comments from the
board members? (None) Hearing no further . comments , I' ll make a
motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until a later
date, thanking everybody for coming in.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and .reserve decision in the
matter of Appeal No. 2953, application of Harvey Bagshaw Inc.
until a later date.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. )
Southold Town Board of appeals -23- Mar_.. 19 , 1982
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2932. Application of Jay P. and
M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, by Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. , Main Road,
Mattituck, NY for a rehearing of Appeal No. 2932 for permission to
establish multiple professional medical offices on premises zoned
"A" Residential and Agricultural, varying the zoning ordinance,
Article III , Section 100-30 . Location of Property : 50 Ackerly
Pond Road (a/k/a 49725 Main Road) , Southold, NY; bounded north by
Johnson; west by Baker and Stoutenburgh; south by Ackerly Pond
Road; east by Main Road; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-70-5-4.
The Chairman opened the rehearing at 9 :11 p.m. and read the
legal notice of hearing in its entirety and letter dated Janu-
ary 14 , 1982 from Wickham, Wickham and Bressler, P.C. concerning
the reasons for requesting a rehearing. No one objected. .to
waiving the reading of the entire original application, and
therefore same was waived.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to say something in behind of
this application, Miss Wickham?
ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, ESQ. : I would like to make my opening
comments fairly- brief. Perhaps in order to save time _if' we could
incorporate what was said at the previous hearing and also the
map that was submitted at that time, the diagram that I had sub-
mitted, into this record.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no objection.
MRS . WICKHAM: Thank you. Briefly let me say that what we
intend to prove tonight is first of all that there is a practical
difficulty or hardship with the property being able to used for
is under the present zoning ordinance. And in order to prove that
we will try to show that there is a great difficulty in obtaining
a reasonable return on this property, either in terms of its rental
value or its sale value. Also that the situation does appear to
be unique compared to the other residences in the immediate vicinity
of this property, and that proposed change would not alter the
character of the district. I would like to first ask Mrs. Latham,
who is one of the owners of the property, if she could give the
board some information on the application.
Mrs. Latham, you are one of the owners of the property in
question?
MRS. LATHAM: Yes, I am.
MRS. WICKHAM: Could you give your full name?
MRS. LATHAM: Jean Latham.
MRS. WICKHAM: When did you and your husband acquire the
property?
MRS. LATHAM: September 1965.
` Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- Marcia 1.9, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-David Slotkin, continued: )
MRS. WICKHAM: And, could you .tell the board how much you have
spent in the acquisition of the property?
MRS. LATHAM: Over $45,000 .
MRS. WICKHAM:. That was in the improvement of the property
MRS. LATHAM: In the improvements. We paid $15,500 when we
first got it -- living room, kitchen, dinette and bedroom and bath.
We have done all the other work on the house, adding and beautifying
the property because of town beautification,;_:I feel.
MRS. WICKHAM: So you've expended approximately $60,000 for
the property.
MRS. LATHAM: Yes.
MRS. WICKHAM: Could .you give us an idea of what the approximate
cost of carry ng:I.,the-,�property--:.on a?:mohth ly...basis. . Let' s start with
the mortgage.
MRS. LATHAM: That' s $133 something.
MRS. WICKHAM: I see. And what is the balance on that mortgage?
Is it a low mortgage?
MRS. LATHAM: Yes, it' s about $8,500.
MRS. WICKHAM: And what is the interest rate?
MRS. LATHAM: 7 z%.
MRS. WICKHAM: A small interest. rate. What are the monthly
insurance costs on a monthly basis?
MRS. LATHAM: Well.,
MRS. WICKHAM: How about taxes?
MRS. LATHAM: Taxes $125. Utilities $125.
MRS. WICKHAM: And what about repairs and .upkeep?
MRS. LATHAM: $75.
MRS. WICKHAM: About $75 a month. Is the. so.urce of income that
you and your husband have, could you describe--
MRS. LATHAM: Well my husband is on a. retirement disability and
he doesn't make really, he doesn't get that much. In other' words
what he gets goes towards our payments and things like that, which
isn't much. ...
MRS. WICKHAM: So would you. say it' s hard for you to keep up
the house and that' s one reason you're selling the house?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- . March 19,. 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MRS. LATHAM: That' s right.
MRS. WICKHAM: Could you tell me the size of the house, in
terms of square footage?
MRS. LATHAM: The first floor has 1470 square feet, second
floor 550 square feet of living. space.
MRS. WICKHAM: Could you tell us when the property was put on
the market?
MRS. LATHAM: April 1978 . i
MRS. WICKHAM: With whom was it listed? At that time.
MRS. LATHAM: William Smith Realty.
MRS. WICKHAM: Arid have you actively tried to sell the
property since then?
MRS. LATHAM: Yes, I have.
MRS. WICKHAM: How many brokers have you listed it with?
MRS. LATHAM: About 21. in the vicinity.
MRS. WICKHAM: She has a list of. 21 brokers. I think we can
spare the board the list, but would. you say that it' s most of the
brokers on the North Fork?
MRS. LATHAM: Yes.
MRS. WICKHAM: How many people have actually come to see the
house during this three to four-year period?
MRS. LATHAM: I would say about a dozen.
MRS. WICKHAM: Arid have you received- any offers during that
period?
MRS. LATHAM: No.
MRS. WICKHAM: Just the present .offer. What was the. reason
db,,,you think that the people did not make offer?
MRS. LATHAM: Main Road and the businesses .
MRS. WICKHAM: Can you -explain what you mean by the businesses?
MRS. LATHAM: Well, Hart' s Hardware. Ulrich' s Marine.
MRS. WICKHAM: In other words, the fact that you were surrounded
by --
MRS. LATHAM: All this.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- Mar_ 19 , 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MRS. WICKHAM: Could you describe specifically by,_ listing on
the businesses that are in your vicinity. Do you want to start
with the property . across Ackerly Pond Lane?
MRS. LATHAM: Well , when:�we _,f: rst moved there the property
on Ackerly. Pond and .the Main Road..across from me was a residential.
MRS. WICKHAM: What is it now?
MRS. LATHAM: Now there's a clock shop, what was a clock shop,
and an antique shop. And that hasn't been there for maybe less
than five years and then just put that driveway a few years ago
going towards us every time.. . . I tried to stay out in my yard in
the summer and you've got strangers coming down looking in our
yard.
MRS. WICKHAM: Ok. Now as you go across the street could you
describe --
MRS. LATHAM: And then there' s Ulrich Marine, and then they
filled in and put in more boats; and if it isn't that, you've got
people out all hours of the night looking at the boats, and you
hear ears and noises and - an awful lot of lights.
MRS. WICKHAM: So Ulrich Marine has expanded significantly
since you have purchased?
MRS. LATHAM: That' s right.
MRS. WICKHAM: Can you .describe the .fact with the gas station
also?
MRS. LATHAM: There ' s a gas station on the other corner., and
we hear a lot of racket on that too at night time—my husband gets
up or I get up in the middle of the night and' we hear these awful
noises and crashes.
MRS. WICKHAM: Now continuing around, then you would get to
Ulrich' s and then from there--
MRS. LATHAM: Would be Hart' s Hardware.
MRS. WICKHAM: And what is, how has Hart' s Hardware changed
since you bought the property?
MRS. LATHAM: Well, they've enlarged their building. z:.-:,.Then
they put another garage type building further down towards Jockey
Creek Road.
. MRS. WICKHAM: And what else is --
MRS. LATHAM: And then there is the realty they put in there
after we were there and they built the church.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- Marcn 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin., continued: )
MRS. WICKHAM: At the time that you bought the property, what
was at the real estate office?
MRS. LATHAM: That was a residential also.
MRS. WICKHAM: And what about the church?
MRS. LATHAM: That was a vacant land parcel.
MRS. WICKHAM: Other than those specific properties that you
described, immediately adjacent to you there is a residence?
MRS. LATHAM: Yes.
MRS. WICKHAM: And immediately behind you is. a residence?
MRS. LATHAM.: That' s right.
MRS. WICKHAM: And that' s about it for the surrounding properties?
MRS. LATHAM: That' s. right. .
MRS. WICKHAM: The contract or the offer that you did receive
that you have accepted from the Slotkins, have-`y9ugone into con-
tract on that?
MRS. LATHAM: Yes .
MRS. WICKHAM: Yes. And could you tell me the price on the
contract?
MRS. LATHAM: $72, 500 .
MRS. WICKHAM: And were you. required to take back financing
on that?
MRS. LATHAM.: Yes, we had to take back a mortgage.
MRS. WICKHAM: Was that your original intention?
MRS. LATHAM: No, no. But in order to make the sale, we had
to do it.
MRS. WICKHAM: Did the contract or does the contract .also depend
upon obtaining a use variance?
MRS. LATHAM: That' s right. If this town doesn't grant it, then
our house isn't sold.
MRS. WICKHAM: Now, do you feel that this property that you own
is unique in this type of hardship that you described compared to
the other residences around you?
MRS. LATHAM: Yes.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- Marcn 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MRS. WICKHAM: And why would that be?
MRS. LATHAM: Well, it' s not going to change anything. You' re
going to have all the trees around. I think it' s going to be wel-
comed. We need doctors.
MRS. WICKHAM: You don't feel that:'..it .would hurt --
MRS. LATHAM: No, I don' t think it' s going to hurt. They're
not going to change the look of the home as .far as, it' s going to
be a residential area.
MRS. WICKHAM: Do you have anything else that you would like
to add?
MRS. LATHAM: It' s just a hardship for my husband and I to keep
up the land, and he' s not well enough to take care of it. He would
be here tonight but he can't. And I 'm not that well myself any more.
And I just feel to the board that you approve of it. We need
doctors today.
MRS. WICKHAM: Thank you. The next person I would like to
call is Mr. William Smith, to answer a few questions. Do you
want to use the microphone?
WILLIAM B. SMITH: I don' t think I need to.
MRS. WICKHAM: Ok. Mr. Smith, could you give the board your
name and address and office?
MR. SMITH: William B. Smith, Broker. I live in Southold,
220 Mechanic Street.
MRS . WICKHAM: How long, Mr. Smith, have you been in the real ,
estate business?
MR., SMITH: I'm been a broker since 1958 and a salesman ten
years before that.
MRS. WICKHAM: And where have you been practicing?
MR. SMITH: Southold and Cutchogue.
MRS. WICKHAM: Would you say -- what types of property . do you
handle in your real estate business?
MR. SMITH: Everything.
MRS. WICKHAM: Residential and Commercial?
MR. SMITH: Residential, commercial, vacant property, farms.
MRS. WICKHAM: About how many sales do you feel you've handled
during the time you've been in business?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2.9- MarulL 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MR. SMITH: Considering our own property, probably several
hundred.
MRS.WICKHAM: And are you familiar with the appraisals and
appraisal techniques?
MR. SMITH: I do it very often.
MRS. WICKHAM: Do you also review the sales transactions on
property that you have not handled?
MR. SMITH: I certainly do.
MRS. WICKHAM: To ascertain the price. So would you feel
you' re thoroughly familiar with property values in the Southold
area?
MR. SMITH: I believe so.
MRS. WICKHAM: Mr. Smith, when this you list this property
for sale?
MR. SMITH: Actualy it was April 18 , 1978.
MRS. WICKHAM: Did you inspect the property personally and
are you thoroughly familiar with it?
MR. SMITH: I 've inspected it thoroughly.
MRS. WICKHAM: Could you describe for us the property itself
in terms of the building and --
MR. SMITH: Well, the property, with a two-car garage and
a double driveway, which I think is a big asset to the property
because it is a double driveway and where you can access to the
property by driving in off the Main Road and go out onto Ackerly
Pond, which would be probably less dangerous than any other Main
Road property.
MRS. WICKHAM: Could you describe the zoning on the surround-
ing areas starting to the south?
MR. SMITH: Willow Hill Property and all that?
MRS. WICKHAM: Yeah.
MR. SMITH: Well that was a residence until a few years ago
and now an antique shop as you all probably know. The clock shop
I believe moved out.
MRS. WICKHAM: Is that zoned B-Business?
MR. SMITH: Yes. And that is for rent again, one part of it,
and then of course you have a gas station and beyond that Henry
Smiths Plumbing business , fuel oil.
n.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- MarG-ii 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MRS. WICKHAM: Are those properties in a business zone as well?
MR. SMITH: Oh, yes. And Ulrich is C and I believe Hart' s is
Light-Industrial. And as you all know, that has been greatly expanded,
Ulrich' s with the huge building in the back for storage of boats and
dockage. And I believe listening to the other conversation, there is
a lot of activity over there because he docks constantly during the
summer in the neighborhood of 50 boats. The people pay for their slips.
So that I thought a very, very active area.
MRS. . WICKHAM:. Can you ..describe the increase. to the Hart ' s Hard-
ware piece of property over the period since 1955?
MR. SMITH: Well, we built on Hart' s Hardware Store. . . in 1948
we started with a new office and hardware store and we've expanded
that building somewhat and Lesley Harvey expanded it more, and with
the garden building out .north. And then there was a building built
east of that, which eventually was turned into a house and Mr. Hart 's
house now is there in back of the garden building.
MRS. WICKHAM: Would you say that most of that expansion has
occurred since 1965?
MR. SMITH: Yes, they did.
MRS. WICKHAM: And continuing along the Main Road--
MR. SMITH Excuse me, I might add that we sold out in the
winter of 1963, 1964 to Mr. Hart so it had to .be all done after that.
MRS. WICKHAM:_ And then continuing along the Main Road, can you
describe the other nonresidential uses?
MR. SMITH: Well , you have a house to the-.north and all resi-
dential houses beyond that to the north. . .and set back from the road
the same as the Latham house. Going up Ackerly Pond Road, I believe
you have the Stoutenburgh house, and that'_:s.-_all for the adjacent
properties.
MRS. WICKHAM: How many times,, Mr. Smith, have you shown this
property to prospective purchasers during the four years you had it
listed?
MR. SMITH: Sadly, I only showed the house twice inside. I had
many and many a client that I would make a :List of places to show..
As I would come down? the71'hill,, so-called Willow Hill, I would say,
"Now there' s the house that I was telling you about right. overrthere
on the left. " Invariably the people say, "Don'-t bother to stop. "
They don't want to live on this busy area.
MRS. WICKHAM: Could you estimate about how many people that
might have been over the course of four years?
MR. SMITH: At least 13 as far as I 'm concerned. I don't know
how many .people who have worked for me in my office that might have
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3 1- Ma--.i 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MR. SMITH continued:
had that same experience.
MRS. WICKHAM: So there were other people in addition to
yourself, just in your office?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
MRS . WICKHAM: Did you ever have any offers made by your
clients?
MR. SMITH: I never got an offer.
MRS. WICKHAM: What were the results of the -- I'm sorry. . .
could you give us a valuation in your opinion as a real estate
broker as to the value of the parcel as it is as a residence in
that location?
MR. SMITH: Well , I've thought of comparables in the Village
of Southold, Main Road, of which there are hardly any; but Douglas
Conklin sold his house last 1981, early 1981 I believe, and that
went well below $60 , 000 as I have some recollection of .
MRS . WICKHAM: Does that house the extent of business sur-
roundings that this house has?
MR. SMITH: No, it did not. There was no business around this.
MRS. WICKHAM: Would you describe any others?
MR. SMITH: I have a house for sale on the corner of Oaklawn
and Main Road, and it has a very high price on it and every other
broker also has that house to my knowledge. I got an offer of
$63 ,000 which was refused. . . I don't think it should have been, but
it was. And to my knowledge no other brokers had gotten that much
of an offer. I have not heard of any anyway. . .A comparable house
to the Latham house. . . it has a very nice yard. There is no business
around it. But I would say it' s a busy corner.
MRS. WICKHAM: Well, based on .the two values you. mentioned, what
would you place the value of the Latham property if a buyer could be
found :as it'.is?
MR. SMITH: I think as is , I think, if they could see an offer
of around $60 ,000 they should be very happy on it.
MRS. WICKHAM: Also based on those comparables, could you give
us an idea of what the value of their house would be if it were on
the Main Road but no surrounded by all that business?
MR. SMITH: Certainly not on a busy corner and not surrounded
by a business, because it' s a very lovely house. . .the interior is
excellent—that house should go for $75 ,000 or even more.
MRS. WICKHAM: Is that on the Main Road or on another, in
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3 2iarch 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin., continued: )
MRS. WICKHAM continued:
another neighborhood?
MR. SMITH: That would be another area. On the Main Road
you could probably say $70 ,000-$72, 000 ; somewhere in there.
MRS. WICKHAM: So you feel that the discount and the value
of the house because of the .business location is somewhere in
the neighborhood of about $10 ,000 .
MR. SMITH: Right.
MRS. WICKHAM: If this application were granted, and a.,
residence could be used for professional offices, what do you
feel the- value based on your experience would be?
MR. SMITH: Thinking of what the income rental would be
with possibly three offices, if that house was renovated
properly, it would be well in $80 ,000 , I would say.
MRS. WICKHAM: Could you also give us an idea of what the
value might be on the house for any of the other uses other
than residence that are permitted in an A-District; and I think
we should perhaps start one at a time. One of the first uses
that are permitted is the farm use. Would there be any value
as a farm use in the business. . . in the property?
MR. SMITH: Couldn't consider it.
MRS. WICKHAM: What would be the value as a home office,
or is it appropriate for that?
MR.. SMITH: I wouldn't think it would make much .difference
in the . figures I 've given you.
MRS. WICKHAM: . Do you feel that the property is suitable
for a home office in light of its size? And the objections
to it as a residence?
MR. SMITH: I don't think it would increase the value just
to have an office in it to any extent at all.
MRS. WICKHAM: What about the other uses in a residential
area? Libary, school, church and any other uses?
MR. SMITH: My own house is in a business district and I
have an office in my house, and I am well aware that my house
is not worth any more just because I happen to have an office
in there.
MRS. WICKHAM Getting back to the other question about the
other uses, such as libaries, schools and the-;uses listed in an
A District. . . Is there any value for this property under those use
Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- iia-ch 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MRS. WICKHAM continued:
classifications?
MR. SMITH: I would say no.
MRS. WICKHAM: Because why would that be?
MR. SMITH: I can' t think of any use for any of the other
things that would want to be in that particular area?
MRS. WICKHAM: You mentioned the question of rental value?
As a residence,. what do you feel a rental value in the Town of
Southold would be for this type of residence, on a monthly basis?
MR. SMITH: I believe it would be about $400.
MRS. WICKHAM: And would that be based on the knowledge of
comparable rentals in the area?
MR. SMITH: You might get more than $400 . I doubt it.
Very much.
MRS. WICKHAM: On the other hand, if you were to rent it as
an office, the .type that' s being contemplated here, what would
your return be on a monthly basis?
MR. SMITH: Well, as a professional office, so forth. . .
possibly three tenants, you would probably be at $750 , $900 ,
maybe a little more.
MRS. WICKHAM:, Do you feel that the property is unique in
its hardship that we 've discussed compared to the other residences
in the immediate vicinity?
MR. SMITH: Very definitely.
MRS . WICKHAM: Can you explain why?
MR. SMITH: Well , I think we 've explained it because of all
the traffic problems and business surroundings. Being across the
street for 15 years myself and having lived within a half a mile
of that corner for 50 years, I certainly know that it' s detri-
mental to anything as a residence.
MRS. WICKHAM: Do you feel that the proposed change to
professional offices would alter the character of the neighborhood?
MR. SMITH: I can't see how. Other than uplift it.
MRS. WICKHAM: Mr. Smith, I don't have any more questions. . .
perhaps the board would like to ask a few questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen? (No questions)
4 '
Southold Town Board of Appeals -34-� march 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
.MRS. WICKHAM: Thank you very much. As a supplement to his
testimony on the valuation and the hardship question, . I would
like to ask Mrs. Sharp to also address the board briefly. Mrs.
Sharp, could you give the board your name and business address?
D:OLORES SHARP: Dolores Sharp, Main Ro.ad, .Southold. Corner
of Jockey Creek..Road:'_and Ackerly Pond Lane.
MRS. WICKHAM: And what business are you associated?
MRS . SHARP: Real estate.
MRS. WICKHAM: How long have you been in the real estate
business?
MRS. SHARP: About five years.
MRS . WICKHAM: And- how long have you been a broker?
MRS. SHARP: Two and a half.
MRS. WICKHAM: When did you list the property of Mr. and
Mrs. Latham for sale?
MRS. SHARP: August 1978.
MRS. WICKHAM: Could you tell the board approximately how
often you have shown the property to prospective purchasers
during that period?
MRS. SHARP: Myself perhaps two or three times, but for
the rest of my office I'm not -really sure.
MRS. WICKHAM: Do you suppose they have shown it approximately
ten times, a dozen times over the--
MRS. SHARP: Maximum.
MRS. WICKHAM: What was the reaction of the people to whom
you showed the property?
MRS. SHARP: Well most of them felt:1t was too busy a corner,
they objected to the fact that the-,�State had cut away part of the
property and that it' s used for drainage. They always asked me
questions about it. And although the house was nice, nobody liked
the location.
MRS. WICKHAM: Because of--
MRS. SHARP: Because of the traffic. Ackerly Pond is a
thru street to Route 48 and there is a lot of. traffic.
MRS. WICKHAM: Does the business location have anything to
Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- march 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MRS. WICKHAM continued:
do with their --
MRS. SHARP: Well, definitely.
MRS. WICKHAM: Is that one of the .major concerns of the
people?
MRS. SHARP: Yes. The Main Road, it' s business.
MRS. WICKHAM: Could you give us an idea of what you-- you
heard the testimony of Mr. Smith, as to the valuation of the
properties. What would you feel is the value of the reidence as
it is , if a buyer could be found?
MRS . SHARP: I agree pretty much with what Mr. Smith had to
say. I would say it' s about. $60 , 000 .
MRS . WICKHAM: And if the residence were on the Main Road but
not surrounded by that busy business setting, what do you feel
the residence would be worth, if you took away that business
character?
MRS. SHARP: About $68 ,000 .
MRS. WICKHAM: If on the other hand, the property, .were,_abl-e
to be used for the purposes we're requesting in this application
for a professional office, what 'do you feel the property would
be worth?
MRS. SHARP: $72 ,500. Maybe a little more.
MRS . WICKHAM: And are you generally familiar with real
estate values in Southold Town?
MRS. SHARP: Yes, I am.
MRS. WICKHAM: What do you feel the rental value of a resi-
dence such as that on a monthly basis might be?
MRS. SHARP: Between $400 and $450.
MRS. WICKHAM: And if it were on the other hand usable as
an office for medical--
MRS . SHARP: Depending upon how many doctors were in there
to around $600 I figure is comparable around.
MRS. WICKHAM: Do you believe as a real estate professional
the property as it is is unique as compared to the other residences
in the immediate vicinity by virtue of its hardship.
MRS. SHARP: Yes, because it is on the corner and because it
Southold Town Board of Appeals -36= March 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MRS. SHARP continued:
does have this drainage situation. It is exposed to the other
businesses more than anybody else. People are constantly turning
the corner and there is more traffic there, you know.
. MRS. WICKHAM: Do you feel that the property would be suitable
for the other uses that were mentioned in an A-Residential Zone,
let' s start with, for instance, a home office.
MRS. SHARP: Yeah, for a home office I think it might be
suitable.
MRS . WICKHAM: Is it big enough for that?
MRS . SHARP: Do you mean for a home and a --
MRS . WICKHAM: And a--
MRS. SHARP: No. I don't think, I mean if you're taking
part of the house, then, no. It' s not big enough for. both the
home and:'.an office.
MRS. WICKHAM: What about the other uses in a residential
district, such as a church or a library?
MRS. SHARP: I don't think it' s big enough.
MRS. WICKHAM: Do you feel that the change being proposed
would change the character of the residential district?
MRS. SHARP: Not at all . It' s a quite profession and I
don 't think they would disturb anybody.
MRS. WICKHAM: Does the board have any questions of Mrs. Sharp?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen? (No questions. ) Thank you.
MRS. WICKHAM: Finally, I would like to ask. the applicant,
Dr. Slotkin, to make a brief statement to the board to give the
board an idea to what types of uses, or what type of use he does
plan to make of the property if the application was granted?
D.R.. SLOTKIN: Just briefly. My goal is to implement a medical
practice which I feel can improve the health. of the citizens of
Southold Town. But to obtain this goal ,requikes (1) more trained
personnel who can provide that kind of quality health care and also
an office which is in a good location, is accessible and has ade-
quate space. The goal of the kind of practice that I want to
develop can only be obtained if these two conditions are met. I
would just very briefly discuss these two components of my practice.
As for the personnel. . . I 'm a board-certified internist with a
special interest in geriatrics. I 'm right now in sole practice
Southold Town Board of Appeals _, �-= march 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay : P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotk.in, continued: )
DR. SLOTKIN continued:
with a nurse practiti6n... About 66% of our patients in our practice
dare over age 65. Over the last four months we've been providing
. health care in four settings. One is a small office we rented from
Dr. Micah Kaplan. Two, for the Eastern Long Island Hospital.
Three, at the San Simeon Nursing Home. And four, in various
patients' homes in the area. But the practice is growing, and
to continue to provide quality care to which more patients can
come , we require an office which is centrally located, is access-
ible and has adequate space. This building we feel with the
variance can meet these requirements. This is because the build-
ing is centrally located in an area which I feel requires an
additional physician. The building is accessible. It' s near
the bus line. It has,--.adequate space for off-street parking, and
it has access to Ackerly Pond Lane, as -was mentioned earlier,
which would -become the main exit and entrance to the office.
Finally this building, without any major renovation can provide
space for additional providers.,only if they are needed by the
community. Initially, the building would house both the office
and a very small living area. But if .the practice grows and
additional personnel are needed, then the living quarters could
be incorporated into the office with the..variance. This would
provide additional space for which one or two other health pro-
fessionals could use the office for a limited number, of hours
each week.
There are no immediate .plans for any expansion of the .build-
ing, although of course an addition could not be ruled out in
the distant future if those kinds of services are needed by a
community.
In summary, with the variance this building has potential
to house health professionals, who can improve the health for the
citizens of Southold.
MRS. WICKHAM: I have one or two questions. Do you have any
interest in buying this property -if it could be used only as a
home office?
DR. SLOTKIN: No.
MRS. WICKHAM: And could you give us the reason?
DR. SLOTKIN: Well, I want to, as I say, try to provide
quality health care for the area, and that .means I feel in the
future additional providers, and I want to have a facility where
I will be able to have that potential space in the future. . .and if
that' s required by the area.
C
MRS. WICKHAM: Do you feel that the building as it is is
sufficiently large to house a family as well as an office?
DR. SLOTKIN: No. My wife and I have no children at this
time but hopefully in the future we will, and certainly want::a: .. _
house. that would contain the space for a full family.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3.8- March 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and. M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MRS. WICKHAM: Upon. . . if the application were granted, would
you be intending to put in adequate parking facilities for the
house?
DR. SLOTKIN: Yes.
MRS. WICKHAM: And would you be intending to construct those
facilities so as to contain any drainage within the site?
DR. SLOTKIN: Yes.
MRS. WICKHAM: I don't have any further questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Doctor, could you .stand there for one second
while I ask Mrs. Latham what the square footage of the house was
downstairs, Mrs. ,Latham?
MRS. LATHAM: 1,470 .I think.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of my question. . . I just have a
question on this one. If you have more to go, Miss Wickham, I ' ll
ask the question later but- while the Doctor is up here--
MRS. WICKHAM: Go ahead.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Doctor, under the present A-Residential Zone, the
Southold Town Zoning Code allows .up to 20% lot saturation_:. On quick
figures, at a . 59 I took a -.:>60:11.:.which is basically the square footage
.of this .particular piece of property, give or take one percent.
We' re talking basically a saturdation of 4800 square feet. Presently
you have 1470 plus the garage, so . we're assuming you .have around
2 ,000 . Would_°you presently be,. or. would you. in the future, be anti-
cipating doubling the size of that structure? I know it' s a very
difficult question, but you have to understand if you're anticipating
, two or three .or four more .offices under the -present---
DR. SLOTKIN: Well, I think the key point, which., , n the dis-
cussion, I think a number of health providers could share the
facility during the week; . and what I mean by that is part of the
services I 'm providing are in the community in the Nursing .Home.
So I thought, I 'm not in the office all--the time. . . so in fact the
same facility could be shared. .-. so, therefore, under the regula-
tions that you're talking about, which I'm not familiar with, I'm
not sure that..4 ,800 would be needed. In terms of doubling, I
really couldn't see the need for actually doubling the facility,
although I can't rule that out.
MRS. WICKHAM:. I think what he indicated, that at the present
time just starting a practice and he has no plans to expand the
building, I understand that the first floor is comprised of a
number of very small rooms, and could probably accommodate quite
a bit of people. He wouldn't want to rule out the possibility of
expanding in the future, but they are not planning it at this time.
Southold Town Board of Appeals =,39 lviarch 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 Jay P. and .M. Joanne-Davis Slotkih, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Doctor.
MRS. WICKHAM: If I could just take a minute to sum up what' s
been said here before we go on. What I believe we have shown at
the hearing is, first of all, that the land in question is unable
to yield a reasonable return to the owners if used only for the
purposes allowed in that zone.
First of all , other than a residence, the property really has
no value because it' s not appropriate for those types of uses.
Even a home office is not adequate for the full use of a home and
an home office at the same time. And as a home with a home office,
it would have the same objection to a residential use that the
residence itself has.
Secondly, based on Mrs. Latham.' s indication of her carrying
costs on the house., including the taxes which she mentioned $125 -
per month. . .that comes out to $1,500 a year. And the fact that
even her carrying costs are allot smaller than most because she
has a small lower-rate mortgage. In light of that as opposed to
the rental value .that might be expected as a residence is very
difficult, particularly with their income to sustain this type
of use.
And more importantly, the fact that they have put probably
$60 ,000 into the property and can' t even get a buyer for that.
The broker has testified that the value may be $60 ,000 if
a buyer could be found, but in the four years of actively trying
to sell this house for 21 brokers, no one has even made an offer
except this one which is contingent upon the use variance.
On the other hand, if the property, I think it' s unique
because we show that if this house, which is in a fairly good
condition were on the Main Road but not surrounded by this
extensive business usage, it would probably bring a figure of
close to $68 ,000 or $70 ,000 . .Yf:.itwirere: in another non-Main Road
residential. neighborhood, it would be considerably higher than
that. And if it were used for a professional office, it would
generate a reasonable return because. your; rental value would be
considerably higher as well as your value on the building overall.
Again, on the plight of the owner. . . is a unique problem
because this house is exposed on three sides by businesses which
does not have merely the same intensity at the time the people
purchased. the property as it does now. So the hardship is not
a self-imposed one, and the exposure is tremendous from three
sides, whereas the other residences, one really doesn't have any
direct exposure. . .the one in the back. And the one on the side
would only have it on the front, because it would have residential
surrounding it on the other three sides. . .And further away from
most of those business uses.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- March 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MRS. WICKHAM continued:
The character of the neighborhood, I think I 've indicated,
would not be changed and it would maintain a low profile in terms
of the screening of the property and also the use of the profes-
sional office which would have daytime hours, primarily, perhaps
a small number of early evening hours, limited traffic, because
it would be by appointment. The access is good for traffic
because they ' ll come in the side road. And basically it would
act as a buffer between the obnoxious business:._uses and industrial
uses on the one side or on the three sides , and the residences on
the other side.
I think the basic point is that this-property. . .the people
have tried to sell the property and nobody is interested in it
as a residence. The only. people that are interested in it would
want it,,-for azprofessional office, and we don' t feel that it
would be detrimental in any respect to the neighborhood.
In terms of the other items that have to be addressed on a
use variance. . .the title, as the purchasers ' attorney, I believe
the title is satisfactory. I have received the title report that
it does not create any problems as far as that goes.
Perhaps the board has some questions .that they would like to
ask or hear from other people.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, why don' t we continue..-with the hearing
and find out what goes on after that. Is there anybody else that
would like to speak in behalf of the application that hasn' t
spoken already? Sir, would you kindly stand up to the mike and
. state your name?
ED HALLERHAHN: I met the Doctor by accident at a dinner one
night out at the Mill Creek, and- what attracted me to him was the
fact that he made a comment and I was forced to interrupt him when
I heard it. He said that he was going to make house calls. . . and
this was something that I haven't heard of in- years. So I inter-
rupted him and I said, "I 'd like to come back to that conversation
later if you' ll agree. " And he did, and I found out that he did
definitely say he would make house calls. I have since become a
patient of his , sparsely, but the time hasn' t been too long. And
you also have here an information sheet that he has printed—and
not to make it a point of hearsay as far as house calls, he has
already it tonight to you, but it' s also printed here if you
would like -to see this , and I think a person that would kind of
fight the odds with the other doctors in the area. . .he may be and
he may not be:,:. .but I think he should be given credit and I think
maybe some consideration in the sense of the fact that I think he
is in the right direction. He is talking about taking care of
elderly people. . .well, they can use it and the direction is correct.
Everybody will gain by it. That' s all I have to say.
MR. CHAIRMAN: May I just have your name, Sir?
Southold Town Board of Appeals _41_ March 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MR. HALLERHAHN: Ed Hallerhahn. Did you want to see this?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, maybe you wanted to retain it?
MR. HALLERHAHN: I don't think I ' ll need it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. HALLERHAHN: It' s outlined.
(Mr. Hallerhahn gave the Chairman a copy of an information
sheet from the medical practice of Jay P., Slotkin, M.D. , M.P.H.
for the record. )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to
speak in behalf of the application? Anybody like to speak against
the application? Peter?
PETER STOUTENBURGH: Members of the Board, Mrs . Latham. I
was at the last hearing on this, and my position is pretty much
the same--it hasn' t really changed. I just wanted to come and
make it public again.
I have a couple of concerns, a lot of interesting things
going on over there. I 'm curious to see that the property has
been offered at $60 ,000 , and somebody decided to buy it at $72 ,000 .
But that' s something that interested me in the previous conversations
different individuals have spoken about the property.
I mentioned a water problem in that area and other . concerns
which really probably aren 't something that you people have to
deal with. The thing that bothers me most about a variance for
a use change like this is that to me it should be a zoning change.
We 're in the wrong place for some reason. If we want to change the
zoning of a piece of land, to me that's the same as changing the
use. I have trouble coming up with a use change that either iso-
lates the property around it. . . I think we.".ve__.gone ..through a lot of
trouble in this town, and hopefully there have been a:'few problems
that we 've tried to restrict and work a little bit harder, the
Planning :.Boards: and .other::people to set up very limited uses in
certain areas on account of what we-'feel it is aesthetically and
to keep the values we seem to have here.
I 'm not opposed to having an office like the Doctor would like
to have there, if it can be done in such a way that it does not
create new drainage problems and new traffic problems and other
things. If as you brought up the amount of yard space can be
tolerated in the business if it' s going to expand like I 'm sure
it would— if filled-on land can be used properly to build on
and to put parking lots and stuff like that. It is an intersection
and to me it does have activities around that should allow it to
relate to it, but the problem, probably not the right word, but
a proper process I think is important and if that means changing
the zoning or waiting for it to change, that surely should be done.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- March 19 , 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MR. STOUTENBURGH continued:
I'm sure the property would have more value at that point. It' s
surely going to have more value if it gets the status which they
have requested. I think more than has even been touched on by
some of the experts here today.
Is there any record or is there any record the board could
me an idea as to whether or not there has ever been a use change
for -,professional offices in town before, with the exception of
the real estate business that I know has?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we're at a loss today because Mr. Doyen
is not with us, and Mr. Do.yeh:;and Mr. Grigonis, who is sitting to
my left, are the original members of this board.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Ren Terry' s.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Grigonis says that Mr. Terry, Rensselaer
Terry's office was.
MEMBER GRIGONIS. Right over on .the corner of Horton' s and
Main.
MRS. WICKHAM: The property immediately across the street
was granted a use variance with a reason similar to this , that
the surrounding properties were--
MR. STOUTENBURGH: The real estate office?
MRS. WICKHAM: Yes.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes. I was wondering if there were any
along the lines of this one. . . if it is' something the board is
continuing to do, or .whether it' s something previous board' s
handled. . .I don't know that much because I haven't been to that
many o.f .:these meetings .prior to the last couple of years. And
I 've never heard -of one, with the exception of the real estate
office.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Smith has a comment.
WILLIAM B. SMITH: I would like to know what detriment it
would be to the Village of Southold or the area of the Latham
house, whether there is a use change or a change of zone? I can
see no difference. Now if you wanted,:to take three months to go
for a change of zone, that' s going to make it better? Or is it
just red tape that you just want to see? I just feel there are
certa:in :things. . . I 'm not sure. . . and I own a piece of property
next to it and own that property for investive purposes or such
things—but I wondered if a commercial-type of a zoning is put
in on the corner if that doesn't better affect the property with
a chance that that zoning might later move in that direction as
opposed to a use change of which -- it' s an odd type of an animal
Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- March 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MR. STOUTENBURGH continued:
to me that it has certain restrictions. It doesn't . . .you don' t
come in to ask for another use change next to you, they ask for
a zoning change because a zoning change as it happened next year. . .
maybe you're wrong, maybe they do that. But they._:re such an odd
animal to me, use changes seem like a way of getting in somewhat
from the back door in a situation. Like I said, I'm not particularly
opposed to this change if .it' s done in the way that the Town has
set up to do.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Miss Wickham.
MRS. WICKHAM: Are you finished with your statement but I would
like to address that point? Certainly that was also the concern of
the Suffolk County Planning Commission as to whether this application
will be usurping the function the Town Board in their zoning, rezoning
capacity. I think the point of this application is that there is a
hardship and that it' s a unique circumstance that would justify a use
variance, and that. a use variance is appropriate because it is a much
less obtrusive type of change to the neighborhood in general. And
where you do have residences on one side and business on another, a
change of zone undoubtedly would create a domino effect, whereas a
use variance for professional office I think would help stabilize
the neighborhood a little bit and act as a buffer, and be much less
intrusive and not be usurping the functions of the Town Board for
those reasons.
One of the areas whereaa use variance was recently denied up
in Cutchogue I think is appropriate to mention here because they
did not have any where near the intensity of the business use. You
had what might be called self-imposed hardship because the applicant
as I understand the property just a few months in the conditions , or
purchased it at a time when it was the same situation it is now. You
have only one gas station on that corner. You don't even have a
cross street. . .you only have 'a T-intersection. And it' s a much more
residential type of neighborhood, and I think the circumstances and
the financial hardship particularly are much more dramatic here.
There were no offers at $60 ,000 . . . there were no offers .at any other
price for four years.
And other than this application which depends on the change--
(Recording tape was changed. )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, we were changing the tape here.
Ok. Go ahead.
MRS. LATHAM:': I'd like to ask him some stuff. What is it
his business what we sell the property for?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, could I just answer that-- I' ll permit
that but I just think that when we get into more statements-I' ll
go back to the prior application. . . I think things start to become
Southold Town Board of Appeals . -44- March 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P . and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN continued:
counterproductive. Go ahead, Peter. It_-.s not that I'm restricting
anybody from answering the question, I just don' t want counterpro-
duction.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: It isn't any of my business that it was
(statement inaudible, was not facing firo.nt) . But I just had to
comment about it that it seems as though that should be the asking
price. It was just something that came across my mind as I sat
here and listened to it. It had to be a comment of mine when I
got up to have the chance to speak about something that concerns .it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any other comments from
anyone? Yes, Mrs. Johnson?
MARIE BAUER JOHNSON: Marie Bauer Johnson. I live immediately
to the north of the property in -question. I'd like to say that I
agree with .Peter. ; I guess it' s part of his objection that I did
really think we were talking about a zoning change rather than a
variance—and I think that as long as we have these various cate-
gories and departments in which things are supposed to fit, I
think they should be fit there and taken care of in the proper
scheme of things. However, my problem is two-fold, and it all has
to do with the changes that have taken place in the property as it
is right now. Originally, I think, . as Charlie (Grigonis) probably
knows, I 'm sure he doesn' t remember because I don't either, but
there used to be a bridge on the Main Road at that point over Jockey
Creek which went all the way up to the Diller Farm. Over the years
that has been successively filled. .. I remember my father talking
about ice-skating up the Creek to the. Diller Farm. I remember when
we first came back here to live permanently in 1969, there was still
a considerable little trickle of water going through the Latham
Property. That successively became filled in, and other arrangements
were made for drainage. Well , they had two very unfortunate results
as far as we were concerned here, and a few other people in the area.
The first season, Spring, that we had high water had a lot of smell
and so forth. We had water in our basement, , .three feet of it, for
the first time. Our house was built in the early 19001s. For the
first time we had water in our basement.
MRS. WICKHAM: May I ask a question--how is this relevant to
the application?
MRS. JOHNSON: Would you let me finish--I ' ll get to it. The
main house, which of course was the original homestead for that
whole: area, the basement in that house was used to store potatoes. . .
and it had water in the basement. We were all three, Latham ( )
were obliged to have the fire department pump out the basement.
There is constantly, winter after winter, a great deal of water
in the Latham' s basement. Now, clearly there is a drainage problem
in that area in the whole Lower Willow Hill area. . .the Lower Road,
Ackerly Pond Road is constantly wet, puddled in the Spring. I can
see when Mr. Slotkin said he plans to put proper parking facilities
Southold Town Board of Appeals -457 March 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MRS. JOHNSON continued:
and then said in his next statement that his clientale is 66%
geriatric patients. There. is no way he can put any other parking
area in there but blacktop, thereby -reducing the little bit of
drainage that is still left in that property. I think by using
it as it' s planned to be used by Mr. Slotkin is going to add to
the drainage problems that are already insurmountable in that
particular area. . .not to mention the mosquito problem which has
gotten worse since that little trickle which has been filled in.
Now I'd like just for the record to make a suggestion here
that I made to Mr. Dean a long time ago when I first knew the
Lathams were going to be interested in selling their property.
It is my opinion that the Town. should buy this property. . .put
the house up..:for sale contingent to moving it someplace else. . .
and then restore the drainage that was naturally there to begin
with. I think it take care a great deal of the problem on the
Lower Road and Ackerly .Pond Road, and certainly it would take
care of the drainage in our cellar. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mrs. Latham, would you like your
attorney to speak first or would you like to speak first?
1 MRS. WICKHAM: First of all I would like to say that I 'm
not sure—while Mrs. Johnson may have a drainage problem, I'm
not sure that that' s relevant to this application. Certainly,
the fact that there is a drainage easement through this property
has been mentioned as a difficulty in selling that in addition
to the other problems. I might note that that drainage :easement
was given by deed to the Town in 1972, and that the deed recites
that there was no consideration received. . . so it is something
that the Lathams in addition have granted to the Town.
As far as the parking, certainly asphalt is not the only
way that you can make .a parking area viable. You can put stone
in or some other type of thing that would produce some drainage.
And Dr. Slotkin' s patients that are coming to the office are not
exclusively that old. A lot of his geriatric patients are
already in the Nursing Home, hospital or some. place else. So
I'm: .no:t sure that that comment is at all relevant.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mrs. Latham, would you like to
say anything?
MRS. LATHAM: Yes. It' s not Ackerly Pond Lane or the
drainage that we have in our land that' s helping the people..and
those people around there. It' s the Lower Road that' s a problem.
And when the Lower Road gets flooded, and it breaks through, it
has no where else to go. . . it goes right down and then back where
the drainage is so it helps the Town so it doesn't flood.
We had all ( ) behind the Johnsons , behind Mrs. Mae and
behind Joe Faczewski, and plenty of times that water comes from
Southold Town Board of Appeals -46- March 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MRS. LATHAM_.continued:
that lot into their land.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thak you. Sir? Could you state your name
please?
AL:`.MORREALE: My name is Al Morreale and I live at 375 Ackerly
Pond Lane, which is the house located at the intersection of Lower
Road and Ackerly Pond. This is my first time before the board and
I 've learned for the first time that the Latham house was up for
sale. I think we have to consider that this whole area - of Lower
Road and Ackerly Pond Lane is to be seen as a region. . . in other
words we're all more or less linked by one element which is water,
surplus water. We have much, much water. And from what Mrs.
Johnson said, the ecology of the land has been disturbed by the
construction of the highways, elimination of a'-.bridge and from what
I understand the Lathams have also filled in some of their property
so that when, such as this winter we have a heavy snowfall followed
by heavy rain and a quick thaw, we,.-end; up with two or three feet of
water on Lower Road. It seems that the only evacuation point of
this water naturally was for the Latham property and now is still
trying to evacuate through there but cannot because of the obstacles
that have been placed in there. I personally have nothing against
their property being purchased by the Doctor. As a matter of fact
I think it' s a good idea because it will not take away from the
residential character- so far as the zoning .or the usage legal aspects
are concerned. I think Mr.:..:Stoutenburgh and other people know that
part of it. I' ll let them handle that. I wouldn:!_t:..like to see my
house become a neighbor to a business either . ._the kind of busi-
ness that would not fit into a residential area. But I would like
to have some assurances from the Doctor should he purchase this
land and....th.as property that he will keep in mind the fact that he
has a drainage problem and that he is going to suffer even more than
I do because the water that never comes into my house will go into
his. And perhaps all of you have seen the Suffolk Life newspaper
this week on the front page. There was an article written on this
problem on Lower Road and in which Ray Dean was quoted as saying
there is a problem on Lower Road. . .he recognizes it—he says that
putting in dry wells would not help because there' s too much water. . .
that perhaps digging a holding tank somewhere, purchasing some land,
the Town would do this and putting in -a holding tank might solve it.
So what I can say is we have two problems here. . .on the one
hand we have a flooding problem which really has nothing to do with
the sale of the house except to sell the house could worsen it if
a hard parking lot were put in. On the other hand we have a-group
of people here who would like to see the Town do something to solve
this flooding problem, which probably has affected Mrs. Latham' s
attempt in selling her house. It may have, because I know the
people who sold me their house had problems with the flooding. . . so
I just want to make if the Doctor purchases--that house, that the
flooding will not get worse and perhaps he will even take steps to
improve the drainage. Thank you.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -47 March 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Smith?
WILLIAM B. SMITH: . I hate to belabor the problem here, but I
think we ought to straighten out the drainage a little bit. When
we built the Hardware Store in 1948 , there was a direct drain
under the road and nowhere else. There was nothing more than a
gutter through the Latham property. The New York State Highway
Department several years after one of the floods built a big
slo.ughsway to the west of the drain, about 30 or 40 feet into
the Latham property. And that wasn't adequate for some reason.
They had. problems with it. Later.:on they whipped it out, and
now go back a little bit, when I was a child I used to crawl
underneath that road, a huge creek culvert, and they ripped that
out and they put a drain through the Latham property as big as
the drain under the road and -it can only hold .so much water, and
at certain times and .I'm sure Mr. Stoutenburgh knows that that' s
what' s there, in fact it goes almost to the end of the Latham
property as far as I know. And I'm not positive any more, some-
times debris gets in front of that drain and causes it, but the
Lower Road was not really the problem. It came down in the
winter time when -therei.was frost in the ground— it came all
the way down from Doroski ' s,:_the railroad, the whole Diller Farm,
my father' s farm, and everybody. Millions of gallons of water
came down there and just couldn't get out and the drain is, has
not been minimized. It' s not a gutter. It' s been filled in
and the pipe was put in in the middle of the summer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a minute -- Doctor, you had a question
before?
DR. SLOTKIN: Well, I just wantdd .to respond to a question
that was raised to me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it still. relevant, or do you want to wait?
DR. SLOTKIN: Well , I just want to comment I think in terms
of a water problem, when we first contemplated purchasing the
property, we had it surveyed and it was brought to our immediate
attention about other possible problems with the water. And I
think it' s self-evident that we' ll have invested interest in
trying to minimize that problem and I want to assure you that I
will plan to, you know, develop whatever parking facilities are
needed and just to minimize those in terms of not filling more
than we need, number one, and number two .to. try to build a park-
ing facility and the rest of cons.truction. to. minimize this water
problem in the area. Number three, is I very much`.. ant to -work
with the surrounding neighbors and. so forth—the part of the
attraction to the house was it' s physically a nice house, a nice
area, and hopefully work together with the people in the area to
work out this problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Stoutenburgh?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: A similar comment to what Mr. Smith has said. . .
Southold Town Board of Appeals -48a7 March 19 , 1982
(Appeal No.. 2932 - Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin, continued: )
MR. STOUTENBURGH continued:
two years ago I crawled under the road. One of the problems when
they filled, and I don' t know exactly who filled the Latham proper-
ty. . . I was under the impression that the Town had. filled it when
they put the drain through the property—they have greatly reduced
the size of the place. underneath the State Road. . .the state pipe
under there is about five, possibly six foot high or in diameter. . .
and the stuff that had been used across the Latham property was
reduced to at best three foot in diameter , and probably about 2Z' .
I 'm not sure what compensation was given the Lathams to put those
drain pipes across their property.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to say
anything concerning this hearing? (None) Do any of the board
members have questions? (None) Miss Wickham?
MRS. WICKHAM: I have nothing further to add.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Hearing .no further comments , we ' ll close
the hearing at this particular point and reserve decision until a
later date. I will say this, at the time -we closed the prior
hearing you indicated to us that there was an extreme need to
have a decision in a very short period of time. We are at a loss
tonight not having Mr. Doyen with us, and I am going to direct
the secretary to reproduce the minutes of this particular hearing
and give them to Mr. Doyen on his return trip. And so I don't
seriously see any, decision forthcoming until the next meeting.
MRS . WICKHAM: When is the next meeting?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Either the 7th of April or the 14th of April.
MRS. WICKHAM: The situation of the Lathams is still the
same.
MEMBER GRIGONIS : Second.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it
was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of Appeal No. 2932 , Jay P. and M. Joanne-Davis Slotkin
until a later date.
Vote of the Board Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer , Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent: )
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2952. Application of Daniel N.
and Carolyn K. Baird, 61 Wellsweep Drive, Madison, CT 06443 for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for
permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with an insufficient
rearyard setback at 11 Greenwood Road, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-12-1-13 . 1.
The public hearing concerning this matter was held earlier this
evening, at which time -the hearing was closed pending deliberations.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -48b- March 19, 1982
By this appeal, applicants seek permission to construct 12 '
by 34 ' deck to existing dwelling leaving an insufficient rearyard
setback of 16 feet. The premises in question contains an area
of approximately 8 , 928 square feet, with 93 ' frontage on Green-
wood Road and an average depth of 96 feet. The board finds that
the premises has minimal practical building area, and the loca-
tion requested is most feasible under the circumstances.
In considering this appeal,.. the board determines that the
variance request in 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 appellant, other than a vari-
ance; 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' mot on.:by,_.Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to approve the- application of Daniel N. and
Carolyn K. Baird, Appeal No. 2952 for a variance to the zoning
ordinance for permission to construct a deck in the rearyard
area as applied for, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
1. That the deck not protrude forward of the decks on the
neighboring parcels;
2 . That the deck not be enclosed or roofed (to remain as
open deck area) ;
3 . That the deck not be used as habitable living area.
Location of Property: 11 Greenwood Road, Fishers Island,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-12-1-13. 1.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass
and Sawicki. Messr. Doyen was absent.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -49- Marcn 19, 1982
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2955. Upon application of St. Peter' s
Lutheran Church, Main Road, Greenport, NY for a Special Exception to
the Zoning Ordinance , Article III, Section 100-30C (6) (f) and Article
VII, Section 100-70 for permission to erect off-premises directional/
advertising sign upon property of F. Murphy, 8700 Main Road, Laurel ,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 100.0-122-7-6 . 2.
The board made the following findings and determination:
Upon inspection of the property in question, the board finds
that the property in question contains an acreage of approximately
6. 2 , with 672 ' frontage on the State Route. Applicant requests
permission to erect a sign not exceeding the size 4 ' by 6 ' for
advertising the annual event "German Festival" held at St. Peter' s
Lutheran Church, Greenport. The sign is proposed to be erected
one month prior to and removed one week following this event.
The board also finds and determines that strict application
of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unneces-
sary hardship; .that the circumstances herein are unique; that the
relief if granted will not change the character of the neighborhood
and will observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance; that the relief
is not substantial in relation to the code :requirements; that if the
relief is granted no adverse effects will be produced on available
governmental facilities of any increased population; that the use
will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or
legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use
is to be located, or of permitted or legally established uses in
adjacent use districts; that the safety, health, welfare, comfort,
convenience and order of the town will not be adversely affected by
the proposed use or its location; and that the interests of justice
will be served by granting the relief requested, subject to the
below-listed conditions.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer,. seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that St. Peter' s Lutheran Church, Main Road, Green-
port, NY 11944 . be granted a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordi-
nance to erect an off-premises directional sign, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Written permission of property owner for sign erection.
Said sign shall continue only as long as the property owner ' s
consent is in effect.
2. Said sign permit is terminable at once at the direction
of the Board of Appeals.
3 . The purpose of the sign must be directional in the public
interest and said sign shall bear the words as generally indicated
in the application only.
t
Southold Town Board of Appeals -50- Mar,.:.L.L 19 , 1982
(Appeal No. 2955 - St. Peter' s Lutheran Church, continued : )
4. Said sign shall not exceed the size of four feet by six
feet (4 ' by 61 ) .
5 . Said sign shall not be erected prior to receiving, when
appropriate, Suffolk County Planning Commission recommendations;
and after such receipt said sign may not be erected prior to 30
days of the event for which it is advertised, and said sign shall
be removed within seven days after the date of said event advertised.
6 . Said sign shall not be less than five feet (51 ) from any
property line; the bottom edge of said sign shall not be less than
four feet (41 ) above ground.
7. Said sign may not be illuminated.
8. In the event the property in question is conveyed, written
notification to this board shall be made.
9 . This sign permit hereby authorized shall in no event be in
effect for more than five years, except by approval of this board
after receiving written request annually thereafter and in accordance
with all the conditions specified above.
Location of Property: 8700 .Main Road, Laurel, NY; CTMP #1000-
122-7-6 . 2 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doug-
lass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. )
NEW APPEAL. NO. 2811 . Application of Ernest E. Wilsberg ,
by Richard J. Cron, Esq. , Box 953 , Cutchogue, NY 11935 , for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31
for approval of insufficient area and width of parcels in a
proposed division of land.
The board reviewed the file concerning this matter and
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to table Appeal No. 2811 , matter of Ernest E.
Wilsberg, pending review and approval by the Southold Town
Planning Board of the proposed division pursuant to the
January 1, 1982 set of procedures of the town.
It is also requested that the survey be amended to certify
the lot line dimensions and square footage of both lots, and
the distances in between the existing house and the new division
Southold Town Board of Appeals -51- March 19, 1982
'(Appeal No. 2811 - Ernest E. Wilsberg resolution continued:
line.
Location of Property: Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY; CTM
Parcel No. 1000-122-5-12 and 13 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs., Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. )
NEW APPEAL NO. 2958 . Application of Grace Golden, by
Richard F. Lark, Esq. for permission to change lot division
line, thereby reducing area for Lot 206 of "Amended Map A"
Nassau Point, Cutchogue, NY.
The board reviewed the file concerning -this appeal and
adopted the following resolution:
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to table Appeal No. 2958 , matter of Grace
Golden (by Richard F.-Lark, Esq. ) pending review: .and approval
by the Southold Town Planning Board pursuant to the January 1,
1982 set of procedures of the town concerning all divisions.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. )
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, that the following appeals be scheduled and
advertised in the local and official newspapers pursuant to law
for public hearings to. be held at the next Regular Meeting of
this board, to wit, Wednesday, April 14, 1982 as follows :
7 :30 p.m. Ewald Karbiner and Joseph Tomitz (by I. Price)
Appeal No. 2961 . 280A, Sunset Path, Southold.
7 :40 p.m. Arthur M. Schwartz , M.D. Appeal No. 2959.
280A off Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck.
7 :45 p.m. Gerasimos Fioravantes. Appeal No. 2960 . Variance
to convert accessory building for guest use.
8220 Main Road, East Marion.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent.)
Southold Town Board Appeals -52= Marc__ 19-, 1982. :
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2961. Application
of Ewald Karbiner and Joseph Tomitz for approval of 'access,
New York Town Law Section 280A. Sunset Path, Southold, NY. . .
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr...- Grigonis ;
it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Karbiner & Tomitz.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617 . 13 of the.-N.Y.S. Department of
Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the .Southold Town Code,
notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board 'o.f Appeals
has determined that the subject project as proposed in this
appeal application is hereby classified as. a Type II'.Action,
not having a significant adverse effect upon .the environment
for the following reason (s) :
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
This particular application does not involve an applica-
tion for any type of construction, and therefore use of this
right-of-way will not have any adverse effect upon. the environment.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property: Sunset Path, Southold, NY;
CTM Parcel No. 1000-54-4-33.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass Goehringer,
Grigonis and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent.
Southold Town Boars. Qf Appeals -.53- Mari_ 19., 1982.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2959. Application
of Arthur M. Schwartz, M.D. for Approval of a New Proposed
.Acces.s off the northeasterly side .of Westphalia Avenue,. Matti-
tuck, NY.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr.. Grigonis ,
it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Arthur M. Schwartz, M.D.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617 . 13 of the -N.Y. S. Department of
Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8. of the Environmental
Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the ,Southold Town Code,
notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board 'of Appeals
has determined that the subject project as proposed in this
appeal application is hereby classified as. a Type II .Action,
not having a significant adverse effect upon the environment
for the following reason (s) : ,
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned.
This declaration should not be considered- a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved,. nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property: Right-of-way off Westphalia Avenue,
Mattituck, NY: CTM Parcel No. 1000-113-9-10. 1.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass Goehringer,
Grigonis and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. S
Southold Town Boar6 of Appeals -54- Mari__ 19., 1982.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Appeal No. 2960 . Application
of Gerasimos Fioravantes for permission to use accessory .
building for habitable guest use.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr.. Grigonis ,
it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declaration concerning the matter of Gerasimos. Fioravantes: ..
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION:
Pursuant to Section 617. 13 of the -N.Y.S. Department of
Environmental Conservation Act, Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, and Section 44-4 of the Southold Town Code,
notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board of Appeals
has determined that the subject project as proposed in this
appeal application is hereby classified as a Type II .Action,
not having a significant adverse effect upon .the environment
for the following reason (s) :
An Environmental Assessment in the Short Form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects
were likely to occur should this project be implemented as
planned
The premises in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands area.
This declaration should not be considered a determination
made for any other department or agency which may also be in-
volved, nor for any other project not covered by the subject
appeal application.
Location of Property: 8220 Main Road, East Marion, NY;
1000-31-8-1. 1.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass Goehringer,
Grigonis and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. S
Southold Town Boara of Appeals -55- march 19 , 1982
APPEAL NO. 2928 . Third request of Peter S. Terranova
concerning the board' s favorable, conditional approval
filed on .January 22 , 1982 .concerning his premises and
deck/addition to dwelling located at 1170 Huntington Boule-
vard, Pecohic.
The board discussed Mr. Terranova ' s third request for
a, rehearing and petition (s) attached therewith. It is the
unanimous agreement of the board members not to rehear their
original determination rendered December 17, 1981 and filed
with the office of the Town Clerk on January 22 , 1982 , which
had conditionally approved the deck addition to the dwelling.
It was the consensus of the board that this is a final
decision.
Vote -of %the .Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. )
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the next Regular Meeting of this Board be
held on Wednesday, April 14 , 1982 commencing at 7 : 30 o 'clock
p.m. to be held at the Southold Town Hall , Main Road, Southold,
New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis ,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. )
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2943. Application of
Fishers Island Development Corp. , Fishers Island, NY 06390
(by Richard F. Lark, Esq. ) for a .Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article IV, Section 100-41 , Bulk Area and Parking
Schedule for permission to divide existing house and lot
with insufficient area and sideyards into two, single-family
dwellings and parcels at the north side of Whistler Avenue,
Fishers Island, NY; bounded north by Gallaher; east by
Horning; south by Whistler Avenue; west by Scott; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-9-10-part of 11.
The public hearing concerning this appeal was held earlier
this evening. The board deliberated and made the following
findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks approval . of insufficient
.areas of two parcels in this proposed set-off of property,
8 ,500 square feet (Parcel A) , and 12,180 square feet (Parcel B) ,
insufficient width of Parcel A 52. 63 feet and of Parcel B
47. 37 feet, on Whistler Avenue. The location of the division
Southold Town Board of Appeals -56- Marcn 19, 1982
(Appeal No. 2952 - Fishers Island Development Corp. , continued: )
line between Parcels A and B, which was approved by the Planning
Board at a Regular Meeting held February 8 , 1982, is at the
center party wall of the preexisting two-family dwelling. Upon
information supplied to. the board, it is the board' s understanding
that each dwelling and parcel does have separate utility and
sewage facility lines. :: It.. is...=the, feeling of the board that the
relief requested is most appropriate under the circumstances and
will prbuide more. opportun.ities.:to enhance the character of the
neighborhood.
In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines
that strict application Of the ordinance would produce practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardship; that the circumstances
herein are unique; that the relief if granted will not change
. the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit
of the zoning ordinance; that the relief is not substantial in
relation to the code requirements; that if the relief is granted
no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental
facilities of any increased population; that the use will not
prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted and legally
established uses; that the safety, health, welfare, comfort,
convenience and order of the town will not be adversely affected
by the relief requested; and that the interests of justice will
be served by allowing the variance as applied for.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, the Fishers Island Development Corp, be granted
a variance to the zoning ordinance as applied for in Appeal
No. 2952.
Location of Property: North side of Whistler Avenue,
Fishers Island, NY: County. Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-9-10-part
of 11.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. )
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2957.. Application of Walter N.
Pharr, Jr. , 360 South Harbor Road, Southold, NY (by Richard F.
Lark, Esq. ) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI,
Section 100-60 . for permission to use premises zoned B-Light for
wholesale sales (in addition to retail sales, a permitted use) .
Location of Property: North side of C.R. 48 , Southold, NY;
bounded north by Morris and ors. ; east by Charnews and ors. ;
south by C.R. 48 ; west by Mudd and ano. ; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-59-9-part of 30 :2 ; also referred to as Subdivision
Lot No. 2 of N. Aliano Subdivision, Filed Map No. 250.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -57- Marcn 19, 1982
The public hearing concerning this matter was held earlier
this evening, at which time the hearing was closed pending
deliberations.
. The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal , . applicant seeks permission to conduct
wholesale storage and sales on premises zoned "B-Light
Business" and located at the north side of County Road 48 ,
Southold. The "B-Light" District permits retail sales;
however wholesale sales and storage is not a permitted use.
The premises in question contains an area of 30 ,104
square feet with approximately 152. 96 feet along County
Road 48 and 200--feet::,in..depth. The premises is a vacant
parcel, which was considered a "set-off" by the Planning
Board on October 19 , 1981..
In considering this appeal, it is the opinion of the
board that the proposed use will not be inconsistent with
the basic character of this district. The board determines
that the variance if allowed will not produce adverse
effects on available government facilities of any increased
population; that the circumstances herein are unique; that
the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote
the general purposes and intent of zoning; that the use
will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent
properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; that
the use will not prevent :the orderly and reasonable use of
permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein
the proposed use will be located, or of permitted or legally
established uses in adjacent use districts; that the safety,
health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town
will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its
location; and that the interests of justice will be served
by allowing the variance, subject to the conditions listed
below.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer,
it was
RESOLVED, to approve the application of Walter N. Pharr,
Jr. (by R.F. Lark, Esq. ) , Appeal No. 2957 , for permission
to use the subject premises for wholesale purposes (in addi-
tion to retail purposes) , SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :
1. That the subject premises be used for only one type
of business, to include wholesale and retail purposes;
2. That there shall be no fabricating or manufacturing
on the premises;
3 . That all refuse be properly contained in a screened
area in the rear yard;
T
}
t Southold Town BoarL _f Appeals -58- Marc_, '9, 1982
(Appeal No. 2957, Walter N. Pharr, Jr. , continued: )
4 . That the total structure (s) not exceed 200 of the
total lot coverage;
5. County Planning referral pursuant to Sections 1323 ,
et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter.
Location of Property: North side of C.R. 48 , Southold,
NY; b.ounded..'north..-,by Morris and ors. ; south by C.R. 48 ;
west by Mudd and ano. ; east by C.harnews and ano. ; County
Tax Map No. 1000-59-9-part of 30. 2; also referred to as
Subdivision Lot 2 of N. Aliano Subdivision Filed Map No. 250 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen, Fishers Island, was
absent. )
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2947. Application of
Anastasios and Anna Parianos, 43-21 Astoria Blvd. , Long
Island City, NY 11105., (by Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. ) for
a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections
100-30 and Bulk Schedule, for permission to reconstruct and
locate second dwelling as existed prior to destruction by
fire with insufficient yard areas) at the southwesterly
corner of Peconic Bay Boulevard and Sigsbee Road, Laurel ,
NY; more particularly known as Lot 108A on Amended Map of -
Mdttituck Park Properties, Inc. , Map No. 801; County Tax
Map Parcel No.. 1000-126-5-13.
The public hearings were held originally on February 26 ,
1982 , at which time. the hearing was recessed until March 19 ,
1982. Ear.l.ier.--this evening the hearing was declared closed
pending deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicants seek permission to reconstruct
and relocate a one-family, one-and one-half story frame
dwelling in the same previous location as the prior dwelling
which was recently destroyed by fire.
Upon inspection of the premises , the board finds that
to the southwest corner of the parcel is a small accessory
building which applicants state has been used as a family
cottage. Applicants have submitted an affidavit of Alma M.
Granger that the accessory building was prior to 1946 a.
garage, which was converted some time in 1946 into a cottage
containing a bath, kitchen, bedroom and livingroom. The
affidavit also affirms that at or prior to 1943 the premises
T
'v Southold Town Board. of Appeals -59- Marcii _L9, 1982
(Appeal No. 2947 - A. Parianos, continued: )
contained a one-family house in addition to the garage.
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 properties 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 facilities of any increased population;
that the relief requested will be in harmony with and prompte
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, to approve the application of Anastasios and
Anna Parianos, Appeal No. 2947 for permission to reconstruct
and locate second dwelling as existed prior to destruction
by fire, with insufficient yard area as shown on survey for
Anastasios Parianos dated March 5 , 1980 and SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That the accessory structure not be rented independently
of the main structure and be used only by family members and
guests.
Location of Property: Lot 108A on "Amended Map of
Property of Mattituck Park Properties, Inc. , " located at the
corner of Peconic Bay Boulevard and Sigsbee Road, Laurel, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-126-5-13.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent. )
RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2954 . Application of
Thomas H. Witschi , M.D. by Swim King Pools Inc. , Route 25A,
Rocky Point, NY 11778 for a :Variance to the zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct in-
ground swimmingpool in an area other than the rearyard at
7670 Right-of-Way off New. Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-116-4-31.
The public hearing concerning this matter was held earlier
this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed
pending deliberations.
The board made the following findings and determination:
Southold Town Board c kppeals -60- March 1982
(Appeal No. 2954 - Thomas H. Witschi , MAD. , continued: )
By this appeal, applicant seeks to construct an inground
swimmingpool, 20 ' by 40 ' in size in an area other than the
rear.yard area:-required _by statute. The 'pr.emises in question
contains an area of approximately four acres and constructed
thereon is a large, one-family dwelling with attached garage,
and separate accessory building generally north of the
garage area.
It is the feeling of this board that the circumstances
are.quite unique, particularly due to the location of a
right-of-way commencing 'at .the northerly end of the premises
in question and extending southeasterly and southerly the
entire depth of the parcel. It is the opinion of this board
that the most practical and feasible area in which to locate
the swimmingpool is in the area depicted by the applicant
and which area is located to the rear of applicant.'.s house.
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
and the practical difficulties have been shown; 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 avail-
able 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
RESOLVED, to approve Appeal No. 2954 , application of
Thomas H. Witschi , M.D. , by Swim King Pools Inc. , SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That the accessory pool structure be constructed:
(1) not closer than a line drawn in line [north and
south] with the east end of the existing attached garage, and
(2) not less than 18 feet from the south side of the
attached garage.
Location of Property: 7670 New Suffolk Avenue, Matti-
tuck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-116-4-31.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis ,
Doyen, and Douglass. (Member Doyen was absent. )
1 Southold Town Board of Appeals . -61- March 19 , 1982
Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki,
and duly carried, to approve the Minutes of the following Meetings
of the Board of Appeals held on: (a) February 26 , 1982; (b)
March 6 , 1982 Special Meeting; (c) October 15 , 1981 Regular
Meeting. .
Being there was no further business properly coming before
the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
APPRUVED
Chairman Boa of Appeals
t
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
TIDE S®UTIIOLD TOWN CLERK
DATE'S /S�
� HOUR ��38
�d--J
Town Clerk, Town of Southold