HomeMy WebLinkAbout2317
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK DATE ,Aug. Al 1977
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Appeal No. 2317 Dated July 21, 1977
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To VIP Inn, Ltd. (Gary Olsen, Esq. ) Appellant
39 ,Gehring Street
Commack, NY
at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 4 , 1977 the appeal
was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your
( ) Request for variance due to lack of access to property
( ) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance
(X) Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance
1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be
granted ( ) be denied pursuant to Article .................... Section Subsection paragraph
.................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Building Inspector ( ) be reversed ( ) be
confirmed because 8 :40 P.M. (E.D.S .T. ) upon application of VIP Inn, Ltd. ,
39 Gehring Street, Commack, New York for a variance in accordance
with the Zoning Ordinance., Article III , Section 100-30 and Bulk
Schedule for permission to set off existing buildings on under-
sized lot. Location of property: South side ,CR27 , Southold, New
York, bounded on the north by CR27 (North Road) ; east by H. Hass,
A. Stachtiaris, N. Ippolito, F. Bruch, J. Smulcheski, M. Kurner,
E. Stewart; South by Mill Creek; west by now or formerly Nassau
Steamship Agency.
2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined that
(a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardship because
SEE REVERSE
(b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties
alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because
SEE REVERSE
(c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) (would not)
change the character of the district because
SEE REVERSE
and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( ) be denied and
that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) be confirmed ( ) be reversed.
SEE REVERSE
APP ED
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FORM ZB4 ..
41
Chair an Bo App Is
0 . • •
After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the
applicant requests permission to set off existing buildings on
undersized lot, south side CR27 , Southold, New York. The findings
of the Board are that this is the first opportunity the Board has
had in 20 years to attempt to upgrade the Hass development on the
North Road in Southold.
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance
would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship;
the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all
properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and
in the same use district; and the variance will not change the
character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of
the Ordinance.
THEREFORE IT WAS RESOLVED, VIP Inn, Ltd. , 39 Gehring Street,
Commack, New York be GRANTED permission to set off existing
buildings on undersized lots, south side CR27 , Southold, New York,
as applied for, subject to the following conditions:
1. If the 12-unit motel on Parcel #1 is sold or the ownership
and control of this parcel is transferred in any way, Parcels
2 and 3 may continue as motel units under the direction of
Mr. Ippolito for the balance of 1977.
2. Starting January 1, 1978 , the structures on Parcel #2 and 3
can be used only for single family residential use. They must
donform to the Southold Town Building Code with respect to
minimum floor area.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs : Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Grigonis, Doyen.
TIM SOW110:l 137, _ CL;s:'K
DATE$4? -77 HOUR 10.60,414
.Pl
To4Am Clerk, Town of Southold
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice of Hearings
Pursuant to Section 267 of the
Town Law and theprovisions of
the Amended Building Zone
Ordinance of the' Town of
Southold, New York, public
hearings will be held by the
Zoning Beard of Appeals at the
Town Hall, Main Road, Southold,
New York, on Thursday, August
4, 1977, on the foliowi~g appeals:
7:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) Recessed
hearing upon application of
Helmut Hass for a variance for
approval of building built in
violation of the Building and
Housing Codes, east side Beverly
Rood (Pvt. Hd.), Southold, New
York.
7:40 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon
application of Virginia W. Suter,
Beachwood Road, Cutchogue,
New York (Abigail Wickham,
Esq.) for a variance in ac-
cordance with the Zoning Or-
dinance, Article III; Section 100-
30, 100-32, and Bulk Schoduie for
permission to construct ac-
cessory building with insufficient
setback. Location of property:
Beachwood Road, Cutchogue,
New York, bounded on the north
by now or formerly J. Dean; east
by R. Seh; south by Beachwood
Road (Pvt. Hd.); west by Creek
Read (Pvt. Rd.).
7:50 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon
application of James and
Deborah Navas, 30 3rd Street,
Riverhead, New York (Rudolph
Bruer, Esq.) for a variance in
accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance, Article VII, Section
10070 A (1) for permission to
construct dwelling unit in
business building. Location of
property: North side Main Road,
Mattituck, New York, bounded on
the north by G. Cuilen and W.
Krause; east by W. Winiarz;
south by Main Road; west by
W.J. Motsa.
8:00 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon
application of Gilbert and
Madeline Michaelis, Main
Bayview Rood, Seuthold, New
York (Gary Oisen, Esq.) for a
variance in accordance with the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule
for permission to set off existing
buildings .on undersized lots.
Location of property: South side
Summit Rood, Southold, New
York; Lots 29, 29A, and 30. Man
2034, Bay Side Terrace.
8:15 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon
application of William G. Raf-
ferty, 10 Farmview Drive, Dix
Hills, New York (Gary Olsen,
Esq.) for a variance in ac-
cordance with the Zoning Or-
dinance, Article III, Section 100-
30 and Bulk Schedule for per-
mission to set off lot with in-
sufficient width and area.
Location of property: North side
Pinetree Road, Cutchogue, New
York, bounded on the north by
SUFFOLK,
EW YORK, ~ ss:
.F.t..C..,...Do. ~t~n.a.tl ........... being duly Sworn,
h~. · is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK
.VIES, a newspaper published ~'t Greenport, in said
hot the notice, of which the annexed is a printed
.'n published in the s~fid Suffolk Weekly Times
one (1)
week, for ........................... weeks
~ommencing on the ....
...~ J~l¥:, ...< 197.7..
~-~. ~ ......... .~ ..... .~-.~_~ .......
Hickory Acres Subdivision; east
by L Wahl; south bY Pine Tree ..... ~ ~ ~ ~
R~; west by new or forr~3~rlX S. ,~ = '~ ........... ~' ~ ~' ~
on. ....... ......
y~~ ~ a,~ c~ ~ the ~ ~- ~b~l~gonp~l~..
v~~ ~e[ ~, ~tic~ HI, ~fi~ 1~ ~ti~ d pr~: ~t side
~ ~ce, ~ficle HI,/ 32 for ~ion to c~t ~ B~e~ ~ld,
~fi~ 1~ ~ B~ ~J a~ b~g in f~nt y~d N~ Y~ ~ on ~e n~
f~ ~on to set df ~fing[ ~. ~tion ~ pr~:~t by ~e~; ~t ~ C~y ~;
. buildings on undersiz~ lot. side ~d S~, N~ ~o~, ~ by V~; w~t by
New York, bounded on the north
by now or formerly Rogers Est.;
oost by M. Majeski; senth by now
or formerly ?-~mphir~..f; west by
Second Street.
8:55 P.M~ (E.D.S.T.) upon
application of Tennis Courts
Unlimited a-e William L~Mnste,
New York for a variance in
dinance, Article III, Seetian 1~0-
~5 C for permission to construct
tennis court with fence exceeding
maximum height. Location of
property: E~st sid~ North P,~ad
to Bayview, Sonthold, New York,
bounded on the north by Pine
Neck Road; east by Seuthold
Bay; south by North Road to
Bayview; west by North Road to
Bayview.
9:10 P.M. (E.D,S.T.) upon
application of Jean Lohn and
Loretia Vom Lehn, Mianehaha
Boulevard, Southold, Now York
for a variance in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance; Article III,
Section 100-30 and 100-~2 fur
permis?io~ to, ,construct ac-
Minnehaha Boalevurd.
9:20 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon
applicatian of Valentine Stype a-c
Lillian Van Dusell, 53/16 Westpath
Way, Washingtan, D.C. for a
Zoning Or~nce, Article III,
Seclian ~0-~0 and Bulk Schedule
with insufficient ar~a. Loeatian
of property: Dieke Point Road
and Holden Avenue, Cutchogue,
New York, bounded on the North
by Dicks Point Road; east by
Holden Avenue; sooth by now or
formerly E. Mort; west by
Haysna, Fox, and May.
9:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon
application of George B~unbrick,
46 Cedars Rood, Caldwell, New
Jersey for a variance in ac-
cordanee with the Zoning 0r-
dirmnee, Article HI, Seetion !00-
30 and Bulk Schedule for per-
mission to construct dwelling
with insufficient setback and rear
yard. Location of property: Lake
Drive and Lake Court. Southold,
New York, bounded on the north
by Lake Drive; east by Sen-
Location of property: South side
CR 27, So~theld, New York,
bounded on the north by CR 27
(North Road) east by H. Hass, A.
Stachtiuris, N. IOO°lito. F. ~t~h
J. Smulcheski, M. Fume_r_,,
west by now or formerly Na~
Steamship Agency.. ./~
8:35 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon
application of Lee and Barbara
Sire~, 3 Lee Lane, Wilbraham,
Mass., (Gary Olsan, Esq.) for a
variance in accordance with the
Zoning Ordinance, Article HI,
Seeiian 100-30 and Bulk Schedule
for permission to set off lot with
insufficient width and area.
Location of property: East side
Deer Path, Mattituck, New York,
bounded on the north by Miller
Right-of-way; east by D.
Trimmer; south by right-d-way,
Dickerson and Beierl west by
Deer Path (Pvt. Rd.).
8:45 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon
application of George Ahlers,
Builder, Inc. a-c- Julius Kinczci, 7
2nd Street, New Suffolk, New
York for a variance in ac-
daricker; south by Sondericker;
west by Lake Court.
9140 P.M. (E.D.S.T.)' upon
application of Gustav Bartra, 227
Breakwater Road. Mattitue~
New York for a variance in ac-
dirmnee, Article HI, Section 100-
39 C ami 1~0-32 A for permissiue
to construnt radio and' T.V.
towers exceeding maximum
height. Location of property:'
Right-d-way, East side Break-
water Rood, Mattituek, New
York, bounded on the north by
Stopiello and Maioue; east by
Donald Cooper; south by right-of-
way, D. Cooper; west by Can-
nane.
Any person desiring to be heard
on the above appeals should
appear at the time and place
above specifie~L
Dated: July 22, 19/7
BY oRDER OF
THE SOUTHOLD
TOWNt~OARD
OF APPEALS
~TJY2S--2771
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice of Hearings
Pursuant to Section 267 of the
Town Law and the provisions of
the Amended Building Zone Ordi-
nance of the Town of Southold,
New York, public hearings will be
held by the Zoning Board of
Appeals at the Town Hall, Main
Road, Southold, New York on
Thursday, August 4, 1977, on the
following appeals:
7:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) Recessed
hearing upo~ application of Hel-
mut Hass for a variance for
approval of building built in
violation of the Building and
Housing codes, east side Beverly
Road (Pvt. Rd.), Southold, New
York.
7:~40 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon ap-
plication of Virginia W. Suter,
Beachwood Road, Cutchogue,
New York (Abigail Wickham,
Esq.) for a variance in accordance
with the Zoning Ordinance, Art-
icle III. Section 100-30, 100-32,
and Bulk Schedule for permission
to construct accessory building
with insufficient setback. Loca-
tion of property: Beachwood
Road, Cutchogue, New York,
bounded on the north by now or
formerly 3. Dean; east by R. Seh;
south by Beachwood Road (Pvt.
Rd.); west by Creek Road (Pvt.
Rd.).
7:50 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon ap-
plication of James and Deborah
kavas, 30 3rd Street, Riverhead,
New York (Rudolph Bruer, Esq.)
for a variance in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance, Article
VII, Section 100-70 A (1) for
permission to construct dwelling
unit in business building. Loca-
tion of property: North side Main
Road, Mattituck, New York,
bounded on the north by G.
Cullen and W. Krause; east by
W. Winiarz; south by Main Road;
west by W. J. Moisa.
8:00 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon ap-
plication of Gilbert and Madeline
Michaelis, Main Bayview Road,
Southold, New York (Gary Olsen,
Esq.) for a variance in accordance
with the Zoning Ordinance, Art-
icle III, Section 100-30 and Bulk
Schedule for permission to set off
existing buildings on undersized
lots. Location of property: South
side Summit Road, Southold.
New York; Lots 29, 29A, and 30,
Map 2034, Bay Side Terrace.
8:15 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon ap-
plication of William G. Rafferty,
18 Farmview Drive, Dix Hills,
New York (Gary Olsen, Esq.) for a
variance in accordance with the
Zoning Ordinance, Article I11,
Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule
for permission to set off lot with
insufficient width and area. Loca-
tion of property: North side
Pinetree Road, Cutchogue, New.
York, bounded on the north by
Hickory Acres Subdivision; east
by L. Wahl; south by Pine Tree
Rod 'd~est by now or formerly S.
(E.D.S.T.) upon ap-~
!~j~/~t~ VIP Inn, Ltd., 3c~I
Ge~tT~ Street, Commack, New
York (Gary Olsen, Esq.) for a
variance in accordance with the
Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule
for permission to set off existing
buildings on undersized lot. Loca-
tion of property: South side CR27,
Southold, New York, bounded on
the north by CR27 (North Road);
east by H. Hass, A. Stachtiaris,
N. lppolito, F. Bruch, J. Smul-
:heski, M. Furner, E. Stewart;
outh by Mill Creek; west by now
or formerly Nassau Steamshil~
Agency.
8:35 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) upon ap-
pllcation of Lee and Barbara
Siros, 3 Lee Lane, Wilbraham.
Massachusets (Gary Olsen.
Esq.) for a variance in accordance
with the Zoning Ordinance, Art-
icle III, Section 100-30 and Bulk
Schedule for permission to set off
lot with insufficient width and
area. Location of property: East
side Deer Path, Mattituck, New
York, bounded on the north by
Miller Right-of-way; east by D.
Trimmer; south by right-of-way,
Dickerson and Beier; west by
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ( ss:
STATE OF NEW YORK j
Sherley Katz, being duly sworn, soys that she is an
Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN,
a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County;
and that the notice of which the annexed is o printed copy,
has been published in said Long island Traveler-Watch-
man once each week for ............. /. ......................... weeks
successively, commencing on the ....~.~.. .............................
Sworn to before me this .....~..!/ .............. cloy Or
..... ..................
................. ................................
Legal Notice -2 Hearings: August 4 , 1977
i . .
8 :15 P.M. (E.D.S.T. ) upon application of William G.
Rafferty, 18 Farmview Drive, Dix Hills, New York (Gary Olsen,
Esq. ) for a variance in .accordance with. the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to
set off lot with insufficient width and area. Location of
property: North side Pinetree Road, Cutchogue, New York, bounded
on the north by Hickory Acres Subdivision; east by L. Wahl;
south by Pine Tree Road; west by how or formerly S. Bourguignon. .
8 :25 P.M. (E.D.S.T. ) upon application of VIP Inn, Ltd. ,
39 Gehring Street, Commack, New York (Gary Olsen, Esq. ) for ,a.
variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article ' III, ',_
Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off
existing buildings on undersized lot. Location of property:
South side CR27 , Southold, New York, bounded on the north .by
. CR27 (North Road) ; east by H. Hass, A. Stachtiaris, N. Ippolito
F. Bruch, J. Smulcheski, M. Furner, E. Stewart; south by Mill
Creek; west by now or formerly Nassau Steamship Agency.
. 8 :35 P.M. (E.D.S.T. ) upon application of Lee and Barbara
Siros, 3 Lee Lane, Wilbraham, Massachuttes (Gary Olsen, Esq. ) .
for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,. Article .
III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off
lot with insufficient width and area. Location of property:'
East side Deer Path, Mattituck,. New York, bounded on the north
by Miller Right-of-way; east by D. Trimmer; south by right-of-
way, Dickerson and Beier; west by Deer: Path (Pvt. Rd. ) .
.8 :45 P.M. (E:D.S.T.) upon application of George Ahlers,
Builder, Inc. a/c Julius Kinczel, 7 2nd Street, New Suffolk, New
York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory
building in front yard area. Location of property: East side
Second Street, New Suffolk, New York, bounded on the north by
now. or formerly Rogers Est. ; _east by M. Majeski; south by now
or formerly Zamphiroff; west by Second Street.
r
r
FORM NO. 3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
File No. Date I
To ... .. ............: ..('.................... ...........
...........................................................................:....
PLEASE TAU 4,rU5�,application aced ..... . .... ....... ............ .. 1 for rmit constr c ................. ........... ..........a�tl; pr is �o ed at .......t............................
................................... Street
>(L X
1 ..
Map .................................... Block ............................................ Lot ........... is
re urn! e e i InI/d disapproved on the following grounds ............................................................
sd ;r Xt, Oz-y� c�`Tl� —lre cz,.cx.,... '
................................................................................ ................................................................................
.............. .y(................................. ......
Building Inspector
FORM No. Y
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
Examined /J. .... ......... .. 192.7 Application No. ............
Approved .... ............ 19Zl.:. Permit No. . O 4�0.72.......
Disapproveda/c ............................................... . ........................................
....................................................................... .... ....
............................. .. �� .. ........ ........... ....... ......
ilding Inspector)
APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT
Date ........ .... ..../S............ 19./...�� ..
INSTRUCTIONS
a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or, in ink and submitted in triplicate to the Building
Inspector, with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule.
b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets of
areas,and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this application.
c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit.
d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit
shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work.
e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy
shall have been granted by the Building Inspector.
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the
Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or
Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal* or demolition, as herein. described.
The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to
admit authorized inspectors on premises and in buildings for necessary inspections.
�7-6) ;:. Signature of applicant, or name, if a corporation)
.(
(Address of applicant)
State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder.
............................................................WA 1 �...........f.........................................................................................................
Nameof owner of premises ...........................V.J..'. ........!! l?`1 .... !P.............................................................................
If japlicant "s a corpo ;te, i ature of duly authorized officer.
... .�:. .......&f��IkEu.r
(Name and e of corporate officer)
Builder's License No. ......... ........................
Plumber's License No.
Electrician's License No. ............................................
OtherTrade's License No. ..............................................
1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. Map No.: .. Lot No. .................:
. . .... ......
Street and Number .!IA.uj!....R DI .........0;:A=.....
. °OtiT .... ...... A!�.�i ldal.. ,. ......................................
Municipality
2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction:
a. Exisiting use and occupancy ......... ..................................................................................................................
b. Intended use and occupancy ..........1.-. 1.�. .... ......... .. .....................
3. Nature of work (check which applicable): Now Building. .................. Addition .... Alteration ............
' Repair ------.,' Removal ---.--.. Oon�o|bion---.--- Other Work -------,--------.. —.
' (Description)
�f � �O/] F ^ ��
4. Estimated Cost --.-- _--�--------------.. ee .-_---.---__—.---_--------_-__---.----
' (to be paid on filing this application)
5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units --..------..Nunn6erofdweU d dwelling units on each fkoor ............................
~I- A 1R_^�
Ifgarage, number ofcars --.-...—...._--''....-.^-----'---.......................................................... .....................
«
6. If business' commercial or mixed occupancy, specify and extent of each type of Use ............................�...p�--.
`�_9 Rear '��o �d
7. Dimensions ofox�tngstructures, if any: Front ............................ ..-------.---' apt —.----..
Heioht - ) ' _' Number of Stories --i-----------_—_---'-------------_—_-______..
~ - -������ T ����
Dimensions me F Rear
---'——
~^p^' ' —'----' Height— --------''��� ����-
er of Stories
���� Depth
O. Dimensions of entire now construction: Front --_.�..r--',__-.--- �oor —��rc----_--_ ''— ..,..'�-----.
�
~��
� Height — ��
.—�---- Number of 5to,�.a .---................................................................ ------ ......................
'' Size'of lot: Front -- �°��. ............... Roor .------.--.--.'-' ...................................
u�. lC Dote of Purc _ (o ' Name of Former - � TA-1',�l'p�=i_�=�`------
~
ll. Zone o, use district in which premises are situated --_---` -_---�..:.^.—\ --------.—.-----'------..
. ' 12. Does proposed �
rucd o| i | di regulation: �� � --.--.--_.-.—..
|3. \AAU lot be regraded ' y4CJ -- VYiU excess fiU boren�ovadfronxpren�ses� ( } �'es C �' �o
\ u\ 0J �� '
^ 14. Mon�aof Owner ofpren�ises .—_���.����—./���..��_- Addres�'~..-.......'.-......~-, Rhohe.ho. ,-�.,...~..-.'^.
Name-of Architect .............................................................. Addrmoo ....-'--'..'-'..'~.....'..Phone No. '.'=.'~..--.....
~�
~ Name of Contractor —.—.��.—l��� —��� ........ Address ................................ pMone,Nho. ........................
. PLOT DIAGRAM
' Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, vvhethar'existing or proposed, and indicate all set-back dimensions from
property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate
whether interior orcorner lot.
ID
`
^ \
141
. �
/
)
. | /�C
` ~_
�
, b]
~J
L
' �J
. (4)
-
'
'
`
\
�
`
STATE OF NEW Y04
IISS
' COUNTY ^
. ~�r
' _�.. -----.�boinQ duly sworn, deposes and says that ho is the opp|iconi
`.,..~ of individdall signing contract)_ _
above nomad.
Heis the --.-------------'---��—'�'�~---'''-------'--'--'---~'-'—~-------------'---'.
(Controctnr, agent, corporate officer, etc.)
of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file
this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the'bast of his knowledge and belief; and
thor the work will be performed,in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith.
` Sworn to beforeme
—,�- °~�� ooynr
' Notary Public --_'�^�'��-=^-.wr��.�---. _—_---_---
- L (SiQnotuno~o�opp|�ont
JE
IEE BRUSH
,
wmTA;YpuxUC, a"+ of New York '
No. 5z-4a22om6 ' Suffolk Courify, `
Commission
�~ sxpirevwarch 30, /9���
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. 4,317
DATE ...7...,41..... ..
TO THE ZON1ING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN--OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
I, (We) .-.VIP. .Ltd............................................ .of ...39-..Qghrxng.srQ.o�.......................... ........
...
Name ,of Appellant Street and.Number
:........:..... . ...................................... .New.York......HEREBY APPEAL`TO
-Municipality-- _- State, -.
THE ZONING BOARD OF _APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDINJG• I/NSPECTOR ON
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO..* ... ..............................:. DATED ............. 1. ,1 : ./............
-WHEREBY THE BUILDING .INSPECTOR DENIED TO -
VZP.�x1>r� :Ltd,........................................................
Name of Applicant for permit
of 39..G.ehri.>ag..Street.................C4r.ax�a . .. ................N.... :ark.................
Street and Number Municipality State
( ) PERMIT TO USE
( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY
( x) VARIANCE
1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY North Road and,Carrol.Road A...................................ricultural/Residential
..... ..... .... .... ..... .
Street:.'- Use District on Zning' Map
.................................................................................
Map No. Lot No.
2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub-
section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.)
Article fll Section 100-30; Article V Section 100-50 and Bulk Schedule in both instances
3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for
(x ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map
( ) . A,VARIANCE due- to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws
Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3
4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal ) (has not) been made with respect to this decision
of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property.
Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit
( ) request for a variance
andwas made in Appeal No. ................................Dated .......................................................:.
REASON FOR APPEAL
( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3
( x) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
is requested for the reason that
Form zsi (Continue on other side)
REASON, FOR APPEAL Continued
1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces-
scry:HARDSHIP.because-'the subject premises was zoned a light business and used -as a
Motel business purposes and now has been re-zoned to agricultural/residential, and
accordingly, the present motel used on.a. ,"non-conforming basis". Applicant seeks
to divide the subject- premises into three:parcels with parcel one containing a 12 unit
motel and parking and having a total area of 24, 000 square feet more or less; parcel
2 contains and four unit building and would have a total area of approximately 9,.400
square 'feet; and parcel 3 contains a two unit building and would have a total area of
approximately 1.7,�000 square feet. -All the buildings above'referred to are on the
subject premi:�es,at .the present time and accordingly, ,the Variance would not in-
crease the density. The applicant has a,punccaser for parcel 1 but the purchaser
does not wish to purchase parcel 2 or 3. .Accordingly, there is an economic hardship
to the applicant, and the property would be more readily marketable if the Variance
were granted. Again it is respectfully submitted that this.is.an existing, non-
conforming situation with existing buildings and the density.would not be increased by
the granting of the Variance.
2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate
vicinity of this property and in this use district because this is a non—conforming situation,
which was- zoned-light business ands.now is:zoned-'a residential. The granting of
the Variance would not increase the density due to the fact that the buildings are
existing.
3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE
CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the density would not'be increased since the buildings
are existing and this is a non-conforming situation.
VIP Inn, Lt 1 Z _
STATE OF NEW YORK ) By: /
ss
COUNTY OFSUFFOLK ) Sig,atur"�
Gary Flan/ner Olsen, Esq.
Sworn to this c,S .................... day of........... _Gt.<.. ............................... 19 `7
. ... .. .. . . .
ELI�tiBEtTHrANN NE ILLE
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New Yo k
No. 52.8125850, Suffolk Co
Term Expires March 30, 19,fp
1
>! FORM NO. 2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTH'OLD, N. Y.
e
BUILDING PERMIT
t:
(THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL
COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED)
N° 10360 Z Date ... .. 7............................. 19.7....
Permission is hereby granted to:
...........///P......
.. . :.........
;.. .. - ..................
to ....... . ....... ... .�cf
......, .. ................... ................................._...... ........... ........_ ...
at premises located at .....� .. . Q.iC...P--...... .. , .. ..
................................................................................ ..................... �.. -
..................................................... ...:. ..............................................'......:�...................::........ .........
.pursuant to application dated ...1. ........................... 19 ,�', and approved by the
G'
Building Inspector. '
Fee :...............
..........
Bui ding Inspector
,
O O K
VA
9 s�
7UDITH T.TERRY ® TELEPHONE
TOWN CLERK (516) 765-1801
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971
July 21, 1977
To: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
Re : Application of VIP Inn Ltd. for a variance-Appeal No. 2317
I have on file in my office notification by certified mail
to:
Mr. & Mrs. Achilles Stachtiaris, 159 New Hyde Park Rd. , Garden City,N.Y.
Mr. & Mrs. Jos. Smulcheski, 12 Harvard Lane, Commack, N.Y.
Mr. & Mrs. Frederick Bruch, 37 Neptune Ave. , Hampton Bays, N.Y.
Mr. & Mrs. Frederick Hribok, 1 Arnold Lane, Commack, N.Y.
Mr. & Mrs. Manfred Kurner, 71-39 72nd P1. , Glendale, N.Y.
Mr. & Mrs. Edwin ,Stewart, 8403 Park ish Lane, Indianapolis, Indiana
Helmut Haas, Box 1115, Peconic, N.Y.
Nassau Steamship Agency, Inc. , 100 Franklin Ave. , Garden City, N.Y.
udith T. Terry
Town Clerk
TOWN CLERK 765-3783
C�VFF��C Building Dept. )
Planning Bd. } 765-2660
Board of Appeals )
r
o . Town Of Southold
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
Main Road
Southold, N. Y. 11971
Pursuant to the General Municipal Law, Chapter 24, of the Consolidated Laws, Article 12-13, Sections 239-1
and m, the .... o.ard..o.f..Appeals...:'...... of the town of Southold, N. Y. hereby refers the following
(agency involved)
proposed zoning action to the Suffolk County Planning Commission:
(check one)
............ New and recodified zoning ordinance VIP Inn, Ltd.
Amendment to the zoning ordinance 39 Gehring StreetCommack, NY 11725
............ Zoning changes (Previously filed under
............ Special permits Nicholas Ippolito)
X.... Variances
Location of affected 'land: ......S,,f.S...County...Road...27.,...S.outhioldF..NY.....................................
within 500 feet of: (check one or more)
............ Town or village boundary line
.....X..... State or county .road, parkway or expressway
............ State or county park :or recreation area
............ Stream, or drainage channel owned by the :county or for which the county has established ,channel
lines
............ State or county owned parcel on which a public building is situated
Comments:
The Board granted this application subject to the condition that
the units on Parcels 2 & 3 be converted for use as single family
dwellings.
Date: ..August..8.,...197.7.............
...............................................................I................
(signed)Robert W. Gillispie, Jr.
Chairman
................................................................................
Title
Date received by Suffolk County Planning Commission ............................................................................
File No. ................................
Suffolk County Department of Planning
H. Lee Dennison Executive Office Building
Veterans Memorial Hight�sy
Hauppauge$ New York .11787
Town of Southold
Board of Appeals
August 16, 1977
Pursuant to the requirements :of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County
Charter, the following applications.;which have been referred to the Suffolk ,
County Planning Commission are considered to be a matter for local determin
at16n. A decision of local. determination should not be construed as either
an approval or a disapproval.
Applicant . Municipal File Number
Jean Lohn 2311
William LaMorte 2313
George Bambrick 2314
VIP Inn Ltd.. 2317
James & Deborah Navas 2321
Very truly yours,
Lee E. Koppelman
Director of Planning
GGN:fp
� . GARY FLAN NER OLSEN �cLC1/
COUNSELLOR AT LAW
1�
P. O. BOX 38 • MAIN ROAD • MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 11952 • PHONE 515 298-4844
September 21, 1977
Re:.Nicholas W. -Ippolito, Minor
Subdivision-File # 1487
Gentlemen:
:Please be advised that I would like a clarification of your decision
in re the.above captioned matter. .It would appear that the owner
would have the following options:
1. Using or selling the motel as is;
2. Selling individual parcels so that upon selling, an up-
zoning action would take place as follows:
1) If front building is sold:
a)' front building would remain zoned motel; ,p
b) middle and back buildings would convert toc,
residential immediately and must be sold ,,.
as such;
2) If front and middle buildings are sold together.:
a) front and middle buildings remain zoned motel;
b) back building converts to residential immediately
and must be sold as such; AP
3) If back building only is sold:
a) back building must be sold as residential;
b) front and middle buildings would remain zoned
motel;
4) 'If back and middle buildings are sold together:
a) back and middle buildings must be sold as
residential;
b) front building would remain 'zoned motel;
5) If middle building only is sold:
a) middle building must be sold as residential;
b) back building converts to residential;
c) front building would remain zoned motel.
c '
Nicholas W. Ippolito-Minor Subdivision Page 2
I would appreciate your again reviewing this matter and
commenting on the contents of my interpretation.
I also believe that your decisionsis misleading, since condition
# 2 seems to read that after January 1, 1978, Parcels 2 and 3
can only be used for single-family residential use. As you are
aware, it was very clear that Parcels 2 and 3 would only revert
to single-family use=after Januar 978 in the event that
Parcel 1 was sold.
Very tr, ly yours
G OLSEN
GFO jmrc
Southold Town.Zoning Board of Appeals
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
cc: Nicholas W. Ippolito
• o��FFnc��o _
o�
Man Southold Town - Board of Appeals
SOUTHOLD, L. 1., N. V. 11971
Telephone 765-2660
APPEAL BOARD .
MEMBERS
Robert W. Gillispie,Jr., Chairman
October 4, 1977
Robert Bergen
Charles Grigonis,Jr.
Serge Doyen, Jr.
Fred Hulse, Jr.
Gary Olsen, Esq.
P.O. Box 38
Main Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Re: Nicholas W. Ippolito
Minor Subdivision, File #1487 .
Dear Mr. Olsen:
A discussion with the Board indicates the following answers to
numbered questions raised in your letter of September 21st con-
cerning Ippolito motel in Residential area:
1. Yes, the sale would be a continuation of a non-conforming
motel use.
2 . .' Sale of individual parcels:
1) If .front building is sold:
a) Front building would. remain as a non-conforming
motel use.
b) Middle and back buildings would have to convert to
residential use either immediately or Mr. Ippolito
could continue their current non-conforming use under
his own direction for the balance of 1977, after which
these structures must be used for single family resi-
dential use and conform to the Southold Building Code
with respect to minimum floor area.
2) Front and middle buildings sold together:
a) Front building may continue as a non-conforming motel
use. Middle building may continue as a non-conforming
motel use until 1978 after which middle building must
be converted to single family residential use.
3) If back building only is sold:
a) . Back building must be converted for single family
residential use after January 1, 1976.
b) Front and middle building would remain as a non-conforming
motel use until January 1, 1978, after which middle
building must be converted to single family residential
Page 2
use although front building would continue to enjoy non
conforming motel status..
4) If back and middle buildings are sold:
a) Back and middle buildings may continue non-conforming
motel status until January 1, 1978.
b) After January 1, 1978 , both buildings must be con-
verted to single family residential use.
5) If middle building only is sold:
a) Middle building may continue non-conforming motel use
until January 1, 1978, after which it must be converted
to single family residential use.
b) Back building may continue non-conforming motel use
until January 1, 1978, after which it must be converted
to single family residential use.
c) Front building may .continue non-conforming motel use.
In response to your last paragraph, you are correct: Con-
dition 2 would apply only in the event that a sale or transfer
of ownership and control of Parcel 01 as noted in the condition
occurred this year. If no sale or transfer of ownership occurs
this year with respect to all or any part of the premises under
discussion, it is certainly not the intention of the Board to
impose any new conditions on the current operation.
The foregoing applies to the current year. Looking forward
to a possible .similar application next year, the Board might not
be as amenable to prolonging the non-conforming use privileges
on Parcels #2 and #3 .
V tr yyy/ours,
Robert W. Gillispie, Jr.
Chairman
RWG:med
'I
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION OF VIP INN LTD.
UNDER APPEAL NO. 231.7.
This memorandum in opposition is submitted by:
Frederick J. Tedeschi
403 Main Street
Greenport, New York 11944
Attorney for the following adjoining property owners:
1. Mr. & Mrs. Archilles Stachtiaris
2. Fred R. Bruch
and
Barbara E. Bruch
3. Joseph Smulcheski
and
Amelia Smulcheski
4. Fred Hribok
and
Amelia Hribok
5. Mr. & Mrs. Manfred Kuerner
6. Edwin Stewart
and
Marie Stewart
7. Nassau Steamship Agency Inc.
The Board is respectfully referred to Appeal No. 2254
wherein an application was filed by Nicholas Ippolito covering
the instant property dated March 9, 1977 requesting exactly
the same variance. Reference is also made to the objections
filed therein and the several Petitions signed by property
owners and residents opposing the granting of the application.
POINT I
To grant the instant application would increase the density of
each of the divided parcels beyond a reasonable amount.
At the present time the parcel consists of 18 units
(12,4 and 2) located on 51,000 square feet of land (approx. )
this would figure out to 2,833 square feet per dwelling unit.
However, the applicant proposes to do the following:
1. Create Parcel 1 on the North Road with 24,000 square
feet of land with 12 dwelling units. This figures out
to 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. This Parcel
the applicant proposes to sell. Thus, the amount of
square feet per unit for this parcel is reduced by
833 square feet per unit.
Also, there must be provision made to park a mini-
mum of 12 automobiles.
2. Create Parcel 2 with 9,400 square feet of land with 4
dwelling units. This figures out to 2,350 square feet
per dwelling unit. Thus the number of square feet per
unit is reduced by 483 square feet per unit.
3. Create Parcel 3 with 17 ,000 square feet of land with
2 dwelling units. It is submitted that much of this
parcel is wetland and not usable for parking and/or
cesspool requirements. Without the square footage con-
tained in this parcel the entire property is woefully
deficient. (Even giving credit for the wetlands in
computing the total square footage present. )
Reference is made to the Bulk and Parking Schedule
which requires a minimum of 40,000 square feet for a single
family dwelling and 80,000 square feet for a two family dwelling.
In addition, there would not be the required width of 150 feet
present.
In Parcels 1 and 2, assuming a population of three
(3) persons per Nunit that would put the premises at a level of
666 square feet per person and 783 square feet per person, re-
spectively. This, I submit, is extremely poor quality zoning.
I respectfully submit that to create three separate
parcels as applicant requests would be to increase the density
of this area. I am sure we would all agree that the density at
present is high enough.
POINT II
None of the Proposed Parcels can qualify under the provisions of
e Zoning Ordinance anE the Bulk and ParFing ScRedules.
It is respectfully submitted that as to lot area,
minimum requirements, lot depth, lot width, parking and set back
restrictions, the proposed subdivision is deficient. Actually,
what this Zoning Board of Appeals is asked to approve in this
2 - -
application is a minor subdivision requiring variances from
this Board on practically every requirement of the Zoning Code.
POINT III
No, unnecessarz hardship has been shown by the a licant sufficient
to ]usti y a legai granting of a variance herein.
It is submitted to this Board that applicant has not,
set forth any unnecessary hardship as outlined by the New York
State Court of Appeals in the case of Otto v. Steinhilber, 282
NY71,24 NE(2) 851. In that case the Court of Appeals stated:
09Before the Board may exercise its discretion and
grant a variance upon the gg,ound of unnecessary
hardship, the record must ,show that (1) the land
in question cannot yield a reasonable return if
used only for a purpose allowed in that zone;
(2) that the plight of the owner is due to unique
circumstances and not to the general conditions
in the neighborhood which may reflect the unreason-
ableness of the zoning ordinance itself; and (3)
that the use to be authorized by the variance will
not alter the essential character of the locality."
In the instant case the applicant has not set forth
any hardship other than a statement that "applicant has a pur-
chaser for Parcel 1 but the purchaser does not wish to purchase
parcel 2 or 3," and that it would be more marketable if the
variance were granted. Nowhere is there a name or contract of
sale set forth to substantiate that/5roposed purchaser does in
fact exist. However, even assuming a purchaser exists (and
there is no evidence submitted that he does other than the
aforesaid statement) , it is submitted that this is no hardship
sufficient to justify the granting of a variance as herein re-
quested. At best it is a self-imposed hardship. The applicant
purchased the property as it is now constituted. He knew what
he was buying.
Strict application of the ordinance has not and will
not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. To V,
grant the .variances as requested in the instant application will
not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
ordinance, and will not be in the public interest.
_ 3 -
To grant this application would be to set a V/
dangerous precedent and undoubtedly will open the door for
other property owners to reasonably expect similar variances
for their properties.
I respectfully request that this Board deny the
instant application for the reasons hereinab6ve stated.
Dated - Greenport, New York Respectfully submitted,
August 2, 1977 Frederick J. Tedeschi
Attorney at Law
403 Main Street
Greenport, New York 11944
516 477-2048
4 -
,i
GARY FLAN N ER OLS EN
COUNSELLOR AT LAW
P. O. BOX 38 MAIN ROAD MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 11952 • PHONE 516 298-4844
November 30, 1977
Re: Ippolito - Minor Subdivision
File # 1487
Dear Mary:
I have been requested by Mr. Ippolito to obtain a copy of the
Transcript of the Public Hearing in re the above captioned
Variance, which was held on August 4, 1977. If there is
any charge for the Transcript, please advise me ahead of
time.
Best regards.
Very tru yours
� I O
ER� E� N
GFO/clr
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Attention: Mary - Secretary
o
An S®
odd T®�vn Board ® Appeals
SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. 11971
Telephone '765-2660
APPEAL BOARD
MEMBERS
'Robert W. Gillispie,Jr., Chairman
Robert Bergen October 4, 1977
Charles Grigonis,Jr..
Serge Doyen, Jr.
Fred Hulse, Jr.
Gary Olsen* Esq.
P.O. Box 38
Main Road
Mattituck, NY . 11952
Re: Nicholas W. Ippolito
Minor Subdivision, File #1487 .
Dear Mr.- Olsen:
A discussion with the Board indicates the following answers to
-numbered questions raised .in your letter of September 21st con-
cerning Ippolito motel. in Residential area:
1. Yes, the sale would be a continuation of a non-conforming
motel use.
2 . . Sale of individual parcels:
1) If front building is sold:
a) Front building would remain as a non-conforming
motel use.
b) Middle and back buildings would have to convert to
residential use either immediately or Mr. Ippolito
could continue their current non-conforming use under
his own direction for the balance of 1977 , after which,
.. these structures must be used for single family resi- .
dential use and conform to the Southold Building Code .
with respect. to minimum floor area.
2) Front and middle buildings sold together:
a) Front building may continue as anon-conforming motel
use. Middle building may continue as a non-conforming
motel use until 1978 after which middle building must
be converted to single family residential use.
3) If back building only is sold:
a) Back building must be converted for. single family
residential use after January 1, 1978.
b) Front and middle building would remain as a non-conforming
motel use until January 1, 1978 , after which middle
building must be converted to single family residential
' Page 2 .
use although front building would continue to enjoy non-
conforming motel status..
4) If back and middle buildings are sold:
a) Back and middle buildings may continue non-conforming
motel status until January . l, 1978.
b) After January 1, 1978, both buildings must be con
verted. to single family residential use.
5) If middle building only is sold:
a) Middle building may continue non-conforming motel use
until January 1, 1978, after which it must be converted
to single family residential use.
b) Back building may continue non-conforming motel use
until January 1, 1978, after which it must be converted
to single family residential use.
c) Front building may continue non-conforming motel use.
In response to your last paragraph, you are correct: Con-
dition 2 would apply only in the .event that a sale or transfer
of ownership and control of Parcel #1 as noted in the condition
occurred this year.. If no sale or transfer of ownership occurs
this year with respect to all or any part of the premises under
discussion, it is certainly not the intention of the Board to
impose any new conditions on the current operation.
The foregoing applies to the current year. Looking forward
to a possible similar application next year, the Board might not
be as amenable to prolonging the non-conforming use privileges
on Parcels #2 and #3.
V trpXy .yours,
Robert W. Gillispie, Jr. �E�)
Chairman
RWG:med
s,
{: �: `
{ f Appeals
own ®017
SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. 11971
Telephone. 765-2660
APPEAL BOARD --
MEMBERS
Robert W. Gillispie,Jr., Chairman
Robert Bergen M I N_ U_ T_ E_ S _
Charles Grigonis,Jr.
Serge Doyen, Jr. Southold Town Board of Appeals
Fred Hulse, Jr.
April 21,. 1977
A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals
was held at 7 :30 P.M'. (-E.S .T. ) , Thursday, . April 21, 1977 , at
the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York.
There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr. ,
Chairman; Robert Bergen; Fred Hulse, Jr. ; Charles Grigonis, Jr.
Also present: Steve Katz , Long Island Traveler-Mattituck
Watchman; Sam Campbell, Suffolk Weekly Times.
7 :30 P.M. (E.S .T. ) - Decision on Appeal No. 2254 , Nicholas;,.
W.,_Ippolito,,. 39 Gehring Street, Commack, New York for .a variance
in accordance with. the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section
'100-30; ..'.Article V, Section 100-50, and Bulk Schedule for per-
mission- to divide property with existing buildings. Location
of property: South side North Road (CR27) , Southold, New York,
bounded on the north by CR27 ; east by Hass and Carole Road
(Pvt. Rd. ) ; south by Mill Creek; west by now or formerly Dover
Navigation Corp.
THE CHAIRMAN: In the interim since the last hearings, we
have received one letter from .a person who I guess is one of the . . .
Stewart?
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : Yes ,.. he ' s one of the owners of
the property adjacent to the one involved.
THE CHAIRMAN: He says that he 'has been transferred to
Indianapolis and can't make the hearing.
(The Chairman read excerpts from the April 15, 1977,
letter to the Board from Edwin W. and Marie E. Stewart. )
I don't know what this man understood was going to happen,
but that is certainly not one of the possibilities .
(The Chairman continued reading the letter. )
y
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- April 21 , 1977
We have received since our first hearing on this on March 31
a letter from the Planning Commission, Suffolk County Planning
Commission indicating that they consider this is a decision, a
"matter for local determination. A decision of local determination
should not be. construed as either an approval or disapproval. "
I'm going to suggest that a decision be made along the following
lines.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI , ESQ . :. Mr. Chairman? I 'd like to be
heard in opposition.
THE CHAIRMAN: You can, although this is not a continuation
of the hearing, this is a postponed decision, but I ' ll be glad
to hear from you.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI , ESQ. : I know that. The reason I make
my request is because I represent five adjoining property owners,
Mr. and Mrs . Bruch, Mr. and Mrs. Smulcheski, Mr. and Mrs. Hribok,
Mr.. Manfred Kuerner, and Mr. Edwin Stewart and' his wife. The
reason I 'm appearing,. primarily, is because I don't think this
Board has jurisdiction over this matter. I call your-attention
to Section 100-125 A of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold.
That states, in essence, in all cases where the Board of Appeals
is required to hold a public hearing, in addition to the notice
of such hearing required by law, a written notice containing the
C following information shall be sent to every owner of property
adjoining the applicant' s property. Now, I have five clients
here who own property that abutts onto the applicant' s property.
Not one of them has .received a written notice as required in our
Zoning Ordinance . None of them have executed varified waivers .
There' s no proof in the record other than a notice to a Nassau
Steamship Agency, Inc. at Garden City, New York, and another notice
to one Helmut Hass at Peconic , New York. Now, the Town Law, State ..-
of New York, Section 267 , Subdivision 5, says, A Zoning Board of
Appeals may act pursuant to its original jurisdiction only after
notice and hearing" and. notice.As- such as -mandated in our Zoning
Code.
THE CHAIRMAN: What was that section again, Town Law 267 . . .
FREDERICK TEDESCHI , ESQ. : Town Law' 267 , Subdivision 5 . The
Court of Appeals has spoken on this question. The case of Buffalo
Cremation Code vs . March, 249 New York 531 , and they hold, in
effect, the statutory notice and hearing requirements are man-
datory, no option. The Town Enabling Act, that' s 267 - 5, provides
that notice be mailed to the parties and notice be published in the
official newspaper , as you well know. There are. some cases which
hold that failure to notify an owner of land which adjoins is not
a fatal defect, but it ' s clear that- where a local .ordinance requires
such notice , the defect then is fatal . This is our Situation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Lets see , we've postponed this three weeks-,,
we canepostpone the decision another three weeks and I ' ll call,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- April 21, 1977
in order .to avoid getting into a lawsuit about this , if possible,
I ' ll Call to the attention of the Town Attorney your remarks. I
would also ask you to look at the last section of our Zoning ordi-
nance which refers to, "failure to comply with the provisions of
this section shall not affect the validity of any action taken by
the Board of Appeals.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI , ESQ. : I 'm familiar with that.
THE CHAIRMAN: This notification process was under consideration
before we passed this law. It was my .opinion, and most of the others
who were interested in it, that unless we had this exception, in
other words, if somebody made a mistake, and I presume that this
is a mistake on the part of the Town Clerk, that it would not affect
the validity of our actions here.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : Provided there are no objections.
THE CHAIRMAN: Because . . . you 're referring to something else
that I don't know about. However, what we' ll do is to take this
up with, and perhaps you can call Tasker and explain your position,
I ' ll explain it, and we ' ll postpone it until another meeting.
r Just for, as a lot of these people are interested here, what I
l was going to suggest was that this property be permitted to be
divided and that a condition be placed on our action that no one
of the divided properties can be converted to any other use with-
out prior approval of the Board of Appeals . And that the parking
-lot on the east side of Carrol Avenue continue as the parking lot
for the three parcels. That' s debatable, whether that should con-
tinue as a parking lot for all three parcels, I think there ' s
plenty of room on the other two parcels to provide their own
parking.
FREDERICK -TEDESCHI , ESQ. : We take issue with that. There
is not plenty of room there. -
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you agree or disagree with the motel owner
that the motel people have the right to use Carrol Avenue?
FREDERICK TEDESCHI : I didn't hoar you.
THE' CHAIRMAN: Do you agree or disagree Vith the right of
the motel people to use Carrol Avenue?
FREDERICK TEDESCHI : Yes , I do. They- can only_use Carrol -
Avenue down to this point which is the last building on Parcel
#3 . Carrol Road there, if I may approach the Board , they can
only use 50 ' of it. From here south is private property belonging
l to my'"clients. We can fence that off if we- so desired.
T.-HE CHAIRMAN: Does that show in the title?
Southold Town Board of Appeals --4-- April 21, 1977
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : It does, I researched this.
That' s in our deeds, so that actually, Parcel #3 in no way meets
the requirements. Most of this is wetlands anyway, I don't know
where they'd put their cesspools, where they'd put their parking.
ROBERT BERGEN: Where is the parking area now?
THE CHAIRMAN: Here. (On map. )
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : If I may call the Board' s attention,
this is 12 units and they're reducing it to 24 , 000 sq. ft. , that' s
2 , 000 sq. ft. a unit. You've got to have a minimum of 12 parking .
spaces and if they're going to operate it as a motel ,- the employees
have to have a space also. This is going to create extremely high
density.
THE CHAIRMAN: It' s already there.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : But it' s there. on_ 51,000 sq. ft. ,.
it' s not there on 24 , 000 . You 're creating density on- 24 , 000 sq.
ft. , and similarly with the other two, you're going to create
four units on 11, 000 sq. ft. which is an average of 2 ,750 sq. ft.
My clients have an average of 4 ,500 sq. ft. for one unit. You're
going to give four units-' on 11 , 000 . I submit that' s high density
and that' s poor zoning.
THE CHAIRMAN: I 'd like to point out to you, Mr. Tedeschi,
that this was over the dead bodies of the people who were interested
in the Zoning in the Town of Southold what Hass did to that whole
area.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.. : I understand that.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is not our fault or the Planning Board ' s
fault or the Town Board' s fault.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, * ESQ. : I 'm asking you not to compound
- what was done.
THE CHAIRMAN: I 'm not sure that it-would, but I ' ll make a
motion to postpone the decision on this another three weeks in an
effort to arrive at a decision which is just and equitable, . and
in order to give Mr. Tedeschi a chance to confer with Town Counsel.
I ' ll be glad to be there.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : I 'd like to ask the Chairman;- on
what basis are you considering this subdivision, it' s really a.
minor subdivision into three parcels . Where is the hardship?
( THE. CHAIRMAN: This is a division of an existing situation.
The hardship that was explained to us is that the owner of the
property would be unable, perhaps , to sell the smaller units in
back of the -main—motel. That ' s his, argument. In general, we
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- April 21, 1977
agree, we have several of those tonight, in general we agree with
dividing the property where there will be no change in the density
and where the building ' s exist.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : That' s a self-imposed hardship,
he bought it this way. When he bought this property, he knew
what he .had.
THE CHAIRMAN: That ' s debatable. We've always considered it
here to be a hardship to the person trying to sell it.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : Those are not legal grounds for
granting a variance.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have been supported in that before..
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals RESERVE
DECISION on Appeal No. 2254 , Nicholas W. Ippolito, until May 12 ,
19771 --at. 7 :30 P.M. (E.D.S .T. ) ,
Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs : Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse ,
Grigonis.
(After -.the hearing was closed, Mr. Tedeschi presented- a
petition with 51 signatures against the variance to the
Chairman. )
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2250 - 7 :50 P.M. (E.S .T. )
resumed hearing upon application, of Agway Petroleum Corp, P.O. .
Box 705 , Pulaski Street, Riverhead, New York for a special ex-
ception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII ,
Section 100-70 B (4) for permission to operate a self-service
gasoline station. Location of property: west side Youngs Ave
nub, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by G. Miner and
George Ahlers & others; east by Youngs Avenue; south by Goldsmith
and Tuthill and Long Island Railroad; west by George Ahlers & others.
THE- CHAIRMAN : This is an adjourned hearing on Agway
Petroleum Corporation, Application 42250 , which was heard on
March loth and which was postponed for six weeks in order to
get all the information that we could on. this subject. In the
interim, we have received at
and other communications from
several town clerks, Suffolk County, Nassau County, and I asked
the secretary to summarize as well as she could the arguments
for and against self-service gas stations . I' ll read first her
summary of the statements in favor of self-service gas stations.
"A national standard for the safe operation of self-service
retail sale of gasoline has been adopted by the National Fire
1 �
o G�
z . Southold Town Board of Appea s
SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. 11971
Telephone 765-2660
APPEAL BOARD —
MEMBERS
Robert W. Gillispie,Jr., Chairman
Robert Bergen M I N U T E S
Charles'Grigonis,Jr. - — — — — — —
Serge Doyen, Jr. Southold Town Board of Appeals
Fred Hulse, Jr.
May 12 , 1977
A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals
was held at 7 :30 P.M'. '(E.D.S .T.) , Thursday, May 12, 1977 , at
the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York.
There were present: Messrs : Robert W. Gillispie, Jr. ,
Chairman; Robert Bergen; Fred Hulse,. Jr. ; Charles Grigonis, Jr. ;
Serge Doyen, Jr.
Also present: Steve Katz , Long Island Traveler-Mattituck
Watchman.
7:30 P.M. (E.D.S .T.) Decision on Appeal No. 2254 , Nicholas
39 Gehring Street, Commack, New York for a-- variance
in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, -.Article III, Section
100•-30; Article V, Section 100-50, and Bulk Schedule for per-
mission to divide property with existing buildings . Location
of property: South. side North Road (CR27) , Southold, New York,
bounded on the north by CR27; east by Hass and Carole Road
(Pvt. Rd. ) ; south by Mill Creek; west by now or formerly Dover
Navigation Corp.
THE CHAIRMAN: This .appeal of Nicholas W. Ippolito for a
variance to divide property with existing buildings , south side
CR27 in Southold, was postponed until tonight. At- five o'clock
this afternoon, the attorney for Mr. Ippolito asked that the
.application be withdrawn. The application is withdrawn without
. prejudice to further applications., . I 'm stating this for the
record.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve
minutes dated April 21 , 1977.
Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs : Gillispie., Bergen, Hulse,
Grigonis, Doyen.
i
1
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5.- March 31, 1977
4
You're going to have to move your sign, I understand. This is all
going to come under another application sometime later.
(The Board and Mr. -Levin discussed the location- of the
sign. )
THE CHAIRMAN: You can 't get into the Greenport sewage
system?
JACK J. LEVIN: I went through it with the -engineers, it ' s
too costly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you talk this parking over with Howard?
GORDON K. AHLERS : Yes . -
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to this? Anyone wish
to speak against it? . . _ . . .
(There was no response. )
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the
applicant requests permission to make an accessory business use
of Residential-Agricultural land for parking and sewage disposal,
south side CR27 , Greenport, New York.. The findings of the -Board
are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the
applicant.
The.- Board -f-inds..that .strict .-application-- of- -
the-Ordinance-would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship;
the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all
properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and
in the same use district; and the variance will not change the
character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of
the Ordinance . =
On motion by Mr. Gillispie , seconded by Mr. Grigonis , it was
RESOLVED, Jack J. Levin, North Road, Greenport, New York
be GRANTED permission to make an accessory business use of
Residential-Agricultural land for-'parking and sewage disposal,
south side CR27 , Greenport, New York, as applied for.-
Vote of the Board : Ayes :. - Messrs : Gillispie, Grigonis , Doyen.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2254 - 8 : 00 P.M. (E.S .T. )
upon application of -Nicholas., W_. „Ippolito•, 39 Gehring Street,
Commack, New York (Gary Olsen, Esq. ) for a variance in accord-
ance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, ' Section 100-30;
Article V, Section 100-50 , and Bulk Schedule for permission
to divide property with existing buildings . Location of property:
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6.- March 3l , 1977
�. South side North Road (CR27) , Southold, New York, bounded on the
north by CR27 , east by Hass and Carole Road (Pvt. Rd. ) ; south by
Mill Creek; west by now or formerly Dover Navigation Corp.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice- of hearing, affidavits attesting
to its publication in the official newspapers , and notice to
the applicant. The Chairman also read statement from the Town
Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to :
Nassau Steamship Agency, Inc . ; Helmut Haas . Fee paid = $15. 00 .
THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a survey
dated August 18 , 1976 by Van Tuyl indicating that the property
under discussion has approximately 24 , 000 sq. ft. in Parcel #1
on CR27 . The adjoining piece , Parcel #2 , has 11 , 000 sq. ft. . -
To the south is a 16 , 000 sq. ft. triangular piece which runs down
to Arshamomaque Pond .and runs along a 20 ' private road. Is there
anyone present who wishes to speak for this application?
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : I 'm the attorney for the applicant,
Nicholas W. Ippolito. Mr. Ippolito presently owns the . entire
premises. involved which totals approximately 51, 000 sq. ft.
It' s located on the south side of County Road 27 , otherwise known
as the North Road. What prompted this application was, he appar-
ently has someone that ' s interested in purchasing the 12-unit motel
immediately to the south of the North Road but they don't want to
purchase the other units . What .he would like to do is to divide
the subject premises into three parcels. The first parcel, which
would -be--facing -on --the- North Road,- would have frontage-gin- the North
Road of 258 ' , approximately, and would have 24, 000 sq. ft: That' s
a 12-unit motel which would have parking to the east of Carole
Road. The second parcel . . .
THE CHAIRMAN: The parking goes with the first parcel?
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : Right. It ' ll be part of the 24 , 000 sq. ft.
The second parcel is to the south of the first and that would have
frontage on a private road known as Carole Road containing' approxi-
mately 11,000 sq. ft. -That .contains- an existing four-unit motel.
To the south of that is proposed Parcel #3 which would contain
16 , 000 sq. ft. There ' s a two-unit dwelling there and that would
have frontage of 199 . 80 ' on Carole Road. These are all existing
buildings , the granting of the variance - would not increase the .
density. There is an economic hardship for Mr. Ippolito in that
- it would be more economically viable for him to sell these units
in separate parcels rather than as one total piece. That ' s the
purpose of the variance .
THE CHAIRMAN : How many units did you say there were?
( GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : 12 in the first parcel, four in the second,
and two in the third. The property to the east of Carole Road
Southold Town Board of Appeals . -7- March 31, 1977
contains residential units, parcels that would be of similar size,
probably smaller, than the parcels that would be created. This
was, the property in question was originally zoned, as I understand
it, Light Business . It was used for motel purposes and now has
been rezoned to Agricultural-Residential. These would be a non-
conforming use on that basis.
THE CHAIRMAN: The property to the west, wasn 't that zoned
for motel use?
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : I .don' t know. It '.s vacant property now
as I understand it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else wish to . speak for this?
(There was no response. )
Anyone wish to speak against it?
FRED BRUCH: I myself and several other people here represent
property onwers to the east.
THE CHAIRMAN: On Carole Road? Which one are you in?
FRED BRUCH: #5 ,. Carole .Road. This is directly opposite
the third unit, the triangular piece .
THE CHAIRMAN: And .your point is?. .
FRED BRUCH: According to my understanding previously, I
can't -understand how this will not increase the density because
at the moment, the three units are used all as motel units and
are restricted to certain numbers of people per unit. Now they
will become family dwellings which can have a number of more
people per unit.THE CHAIRMAN: I don 't think he said that.
FRED BRUCH: This -is what Mr. Ippolito said to me.
THE CHAIRMAN: He ' s going to sell this as a four-unit family
unit• on the 11 , 000 sq. ft. parcel and a two-unit dwelling on the '
16 , 000?
FRED BRUCH: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?
FRED HRIBOK: I 'm in Building 03 .
( THE CHAIRMAN: What are the plans for these units?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- March 31 , 1977
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : We don 't want to lose the non-conforming
use by the granting of this variance. We •don 't want to lose
the non-conforming motel use that we have now.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would you have any objection to a prohibition
against using these for a family use?
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : I should think it would be to their
advantage if we ever lose the- non-conforming use. Now, say on
Parcel 02 , we can have, there are four units for motel purposes .
On Parcel 43 , there are two units.
THE CHAIRMAN: So you would have no objection to prohibiting
these for family use?
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : Again, as I understand it, this is
presently zoned Residential. We have, in effect, an increased
use of the units on Parcels #2 and 3 for motel purposes which
we would not want to lose by the granting of the variance.
THE CHAIRMAN: In other words , your position is that when
they changed it from Business use to 'Residential, you think you
acquired . . .
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : We had a motel use at that point. I
Cthink now we are using the property on a non-conforming basis
since it' s now zoned Residential and not. Light Business. 'We
would not want to lose ,. by _the._ granting_ of the-variance,- our
motel use on all of the parcels .
THE CHAIRMAN: Then you would have no objection to a clause
prohibiting this for family, year-round use. It ' s too many for
..this area.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : I think I would.
THE' CHAIRMAN: As far as the division of the property is
concerned, I don 't think the 'Board has any objection becaiise. it
won't increase .the density, but that phrase wouldn't apply if the .
four unit became- four family units on 11., 000 sq. ft.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : But I would not want to lose the right
to use it as four motel units.
- THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think you would.
FRED BRUCH: Can I ask a question? Do I understand that they ' l:
have the right to either use it as residential or motel?
THE CHAIRMAN: That' s what we 're talking about. I think that
( the Board should prohibit for year-round family dwelling units,
there just isn 't enough space there.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- March 31,- 1977
FRED BRUCH: There ' s another point that disturbs me. Carole
Road, the private road that provides access to people lower down,
is owned by the individual property owners and not Mr. Ippolito.
Right now', the road is a mess because of it being used, by the
motel. Prior to this , I really didn't know what rights I had_ as
far as having a defined access .
THE CHAIRMAN: That would be a - civil matter for you to take
up with the owner of the motel. That has nothing to do with this
Board.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : I don 't think it has anything to do with
the application. I did not represent Mr . Ippolito when he bought
this property, but this is a situation that ' s existed for a long
time. The granting of the variance is not going to change, basically
the use or the density.
THE CHAIRMAN: . It isn't going to affect that one way or the
other, either a plus or a. minus . It may be that while Mr. Ippolito
didn 't take care of the road, maybe the new owner will.
FRED BRUCH: I 'm not talking about the condition of the road,
I 'm talking about whether they should have access . Prior to this ,
the motel property being one piece, they had access by foot. Now
C if you subdivide , they have access over our private road which
really is not part of the motel property.
THE CHAIRMAN: - How do you answer-- that?
.GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : As I .say, I did not represent him 'when
he purchased the property but I would assume he has access over
Carole Road.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are these occupied during the summer, most
of them?
FRED BRUCH: Yes.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : This is a title question, I don't think
it ' s a variance question.
THE CHAIRMAN: And they come down Carole Road and drive in
and you think they don 't have a right to do that?
FRED BRUCH: The way their property is divided . . .
THE CHAIRMAN: Don' t you all have the right to use the road?
FRED BRUCH: Yes , but we all own the total piece of the road
on the east side. The defining line was the edge of the road on
the motel side. Actually, the motel had no road. Now, they want
• Southold Town Board of Appeals -107 March 3.1., 1977
to use this as access and subdivide it into separate residential
and/or maybe motel property. -The previous owner used to keep all
the cars up in the parking lot and there was no traffic other than
the people who lived at the lower end.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well , maybe that ' s the way they'll have to
continue it, I don't know. That' s something we wouldn't be able
to iron out here.
FRED BRUCH: Well, will we have the privilege to look into
this further before you :close it?
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : I have a copy of his deed: Again, I did
not represent him so I don 't. know the title questions but I have
a copy of the deed which states , "the right to pass and repass
over Carole Road and Old Cove Boulevard, 20 ' rights-of-way, where
the same are adjacent to the above described premises . "
THE CHAIRMAN: Wasn't that deed from Hass?
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : This was a deed from Thomas McHale. Was
he the former owner?
FRED BRUCH: Yes, before that it was Hass .
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : It was subject to rights of others to
pass and repass over said rights-of-ways.
FRED BRUCH:.--.. It' s all right for property owners but as a
motel I would think this would be a different.- situation.
GARY OLSEN,- 'ESQ. : Apparently he has a deeded right. Again,
this is a title question and not a variance question.
FRED HRIBOK: _ What rights would they have in relationship
to the pond , water rights?
THE CHAIRMAN: That ' s not one of our problems , I don-'t know.
FRED BRUCH: You 'r.e just ruling on whether it is large
enough to . . .
THE CHAIRMAN: We 're just ruling on the division of the
property.
FRED BRUCH: This is allowable then as far as dividing an
existing piece of property which doesn 't fall under the present
requirements as far as square footage?
THE CHAIRMAN: It' s a non-conforming use and everything in
Hass ' development here is non-conforming , everything is too small
here according to modern standards . It was too small when we
Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- March 31, 1977
put the Ordinance in, we had some terrible arguments with Hass.
at the beginning.
FRED BRUCH: That' s why you're disapproving it at the
present?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, anyone who wants to do something which
doesn' t meet the standards of the now. Zoning Ordinance has to
come in here and make an appeal. Of course, we 're ruled by
precedent, custom and so forth of the courts and it would be
regarded as an appropriation of the Constitutional rights of
property if we denied the man the right to divide his property.
Two, it' s not going to change the density and it ' s not going
to affect the safety, health and welfare of the Town of Southold.
FRED BRUCH: Can I ask a question on the density?
THE CHAIRMAN: Well , this is all too dense, your place is
too dense.
FRED BRUCH: Mr. Ippolito came and asked if I would give
approval . . . it was my understanding that this front section
which is considered as 12 units , although they are very small,
was to become some sort of a condominium-type operation where
families would own each unit.
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think there ' s time enough, it takes
a couple.-of -years. to run one of those off, a condominium under
New York -State- law. -Mr-. Olsen can _tell you...
GARY OLSEN, ESQ . : We want to keep the motel usage.
FRED BRUCH: It will be rented out, it will not be purchased.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : That' s my understanding. Again, he has =a
purchaser for it and I would assume it would be under the non-
conforming motel usage. Anything else that he wanted to do he
would have to get approval of the Town and we 're not asking for
that, we're just asking for the division.
(The Chairman discussed a similar situation in East Marion. )
THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else have any questions? If not, I ' ll
offer a resolution granting this application as applied for and
- agreeing with the reasoning of the applicant. The findings of the
Board are that this will not change -the character of the area, this
division will not change the character of the area , and subject to
a condition that the three buildings on these three pieces of prop-
erty may not be used for year-round family dwelling units. In fact,
the use of these properties shall remain the same as has been -in
the past for the accommodation of transients . There ' s nobody there
in the winter , right?
Southold Town Board of Appeals --12- March 31 , 1977
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : No .
THE CHAIRMAN: One of the things we try to avoid in a
situation like this is somebody making year-round use of it.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : What about making year-round use of
either the motel . . . I would assume that the only thing that
prohibits the year-round use is the fact that they're not
winterized, I don' t know, but I -would assume they're not
winterized. You would have no objection to the motel units
being used on a year-round basis provided that they're properly
heated and winterized for that use. It would not increase the ,
use at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think we ' d want to prohibit 'it because .of
the density factor. You take 18 families on . . . what' s the
acreage here?
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : Total acreage is roughly 51 , 000 sq. ft.
What' s the difference if you're letting them use it March through
November if the units were winterized, I don ' t think the granting
of this .variance should prohibit a new owner or even the present
owner from winterizing these units and saying, "OK, I want to have
a year•-round operation. " That would be like what the Soundview
Motel does . It ' s not increasing the density at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes , it is . The requirements as to sewage
and-water would triple.
..FRED BRUCH: The cesspools are pretty antiquated.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have cesspools there?
BARBARA BRUCH: Yes , definitely.
THE CHAIRMAN: You don't have sewage there?
FRED BRUCH: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that clause should stay in here .
FRED BRUCH: In fact, I think there is a problem in the
motel. We 've had the Environmental people down.
THE CHAIRMAN: In -other. words , we ' ll permit the division
of the property but no change in its use.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : How about using Parcels #2 and 3 for
single family residential use?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes , I think if there was one- family on
Parcel #2 and one family on Parcel #3 it would probably be an
improvement.
• Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- March 31, 1977
FRED BRUCH: It would be more people there because where you
have two people in a unit you '-11 have families and. visitors .
THE CHAIRMAN: No, he ' s talking about converting them to
one family use.
BARBARA BRUCH: Where would they park?
THE CHAIRMAN: They'd have to park in the parking lot, I
guess.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : On Parcel #3 , there ' s plenty of parking.
BARBARA BRUCH: No there isn 't, because we own the road.
There' s room for two cars in front of it. -
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. .: From what I can see looking at the survey,
there' s plenty of room of Parcel 43 .
BARBARA BRUCH: No there ' s not, it' s adjacent to us .
FRED BRUCH: We will resist any parking or traffic , we ' ll
take. you to court.
r THE CHAIRMAN: They have a right-of-way over the road, -too.
. BARBARA BRUCH: No', I don 't think so.
THE CHAIRMAN.-'— Well ,.-this .is not .our -problem. -=
"BARBARA BRUCH: Is it possible to ask for a postponement
on the decision? We were never notified.
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think you 're neighbors .
FRED BRUCH: We are adjacent on two sides to Mr . Ippolito
and these other people are too . We thought this was just the
first hearing and it' s been going on since August.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is the first time I 've seen it.
FRED BRUCH: If I 'd known he 'd had counsel, I would have .
brought counsel myself.
- BARBARA BRUCH: Mr. Ippolito came to us in October with
a marvelous, marvelous petition that he wanted all of us to sign.
THE CHAIRMAN: A petition?
BARBARA BRUCH: Yes . And he told us all about the people he
has planned to put- in his 13 units in the front, -or 12. He told
us about the people, his clientele. We really would ..like to ask
• Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- March 31 , 1977
for a postponement until we can look into it, seriously. We 'fe
very concerned, we've been there 12 years .
FRED HRIBOK: I've been there 20 years . The place has been
going downhill ever since Mr . Ippolito ' s been there.
THE CHAIRMAN: On what grounds do you want this postponed?
So you can determine the right-of-way?
FRED BRUCH: Yes , the access . You say the density won't
be increased. They're very small motel units . This is a joke
about 12 units up front, you could put three of. them in this
room. His plan is to have a family in .each one of them and
they ' ll have visitors and you' ll have 150 people there instead
of 32 .
THE CHAIRMAN: Which is all the more reason why it should
be confined to seasonal use . But I don 't think you can prohibit
him from selling it.
BARBARA BRUCH: No, he has been trying to sell it as a
motel unit.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your objection is , basically, you think you
have rights to the road that he doesn' t for Parcels #2 and 3'.
BARBARA BRUCH: The third parcel which is. adjacent to us
which he plans to retain, at the: moment, in his own name gives
access .to Arshamomaque . Pond, .it'-s the .only water_.access:.-.- But
that does not prevent the first unit, eventually, from buying
that third unit and then they have complete access to Arshamomaque
Pond.
THE CHAIRMAN: That ' s the way it is now.
FRED BRUCH: But it' s a motel and they don 't have boats and
so forth and now you' ll have 16 people with boats.
THE CHAIRMAN: What you're saying then is that these people
are going to come down there for 'six months at a shot or three
months or something like that, is"'that your understanding?
FRED BRUCH: My understanding was that,. like I said, a
condominium-type operation where somebody was going to take it
over in the name of a group of people .who would each have a unit,
and we're concerned about the access . Right now, we don't think.
that the facilities will sustain any additional people , but that ' s
neither here nor there because that would have to be corrected.
Then each one of these families would have access. ,to the pond and
so forth and you would have many more people. then you have there
now with it as a motel. I can ' t understand how you can say it can
be separated as a motel and still be residential, I ..should think
it would have to be one or the other.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- March 31, 1977
CHARLES GRIGONIS , JR. : That' s why he says it ' s continuing a
non-conforming use now. I.f you. leave it that "A". zone, then it
opens it up to him more.
FRED BRUCH: Because we would be willing to negotiate with
him if he' s offering it for residential but he said he wants to
keep it residential but still business . You can't have your
cake and eat it too .
BARBARA BRUCH: We 're willing to make some type of
compromise.
FRED BRUCH: We would like that triangular piece of property
to' increase our own property and privacy there and -he has never
given us the opportunity to approach him because. we don 't really
know what his plan is .
BARBARA BRUCH: The Conservation man has been down. -You
see, I stay there all summer long, we live in Hampton Bays, and
if you've got a couple that is more environmentally aware of
what can happen in an area, the Conservation man is down there
every day and he ' s checked things .
THE CHAIRMAN: Well , I think the Board is perfectly willing-
to postpone the decision, but I think it' s only fair to warn you'
that, as far as the division of the property is concerned, we ' ll
be willing to go ahead. But we can postpone the decision.
On motion- by- Mr-. Gillispie, seconded by Mr.--Doyen,-.it was -_-
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals POSTPONE
DECISION upon application of Nicholas W. Ippolito; Appeal '#2254, .
until April 21 , 1977 , at 7 : 30 P .M. (E.S .T. ) .
Vote of the Board: Ayes : - Messrs : Gillispie, Grigonis , Doyen.
PUBLIC HEARING: . Appeal No. 2255 - 8 : 35 P .M. (E.S .T. )
upon application of Leander B. Glover, - Jr. , Cox Lane, Cutchogue,
New York (Richard. Lark Esq. ) for a variance in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III , Section 100-30 and Bulk
Schedule for permission to divide .property with insufficient
width. Location of property: east side Cox Lane, Cutchogue, New
- York, bounded on the north by now or formerly Pirrone; east by
other land of applicant; south by other land of applicant;. west
by Cox Lane.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting
to its publication- in the official newspapers, and notice to
the applicant. The Chairman also read statement from the Town
Clerk that notification by certified mail had .been made to
Vincent A. Pirrone; Noble Funn; James Homan; Karl Lanzer;
y r
Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- August '. 1977
1977
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs : Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
.Grigonis, Doyen.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2317 - 8 :46 P.M. (E.D.S.T. )
upon application of VIP Inn, Ltd. , 39 Gehring Street, Commack,
New York (Gary Olsen, Esq. ) for a variance in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk .
Schedule for permission to set off existing buildings on under-
sized lot. Location of property: South side CR27 , Southold,
New York, bounded on the north by CR27 (North Road) ; east by H.
Hass, A. Stachtiaris, N. Ippolito, F. Bruch, J. Smulcheski, M. .
Furner,. E. Stewart; south by Mill Creek; west by now- or formerly
Nassau Steamship Agency.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to
its- publication in the official newspapers, notice to the appli-
cant, and disapproval from the. Building Inspector. The Chairman
also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by
certified mail had been made to: Mr. and Mrs. Achilles Stachtiaris;
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Smulcheski; Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Bruch; Mr..
and Mrs. Manfred Kurner; Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Stewart; Helmut Hass;
Nassau Steamship Agency, Inc.
THE CHAIRMAN: There was another meeting on this , and I
believe that the applicant withdrew.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : Yes, we did withdraw.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have the minutes of the previous meeting of
March 31, 1977 . , The application was made under. the name of Nicholas
W. Ippolito. =
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : I didn't realize at that time that the
property was in a corporate name owned by Mr. Ippolito but it' s
the same application.
THE CHAIRMAN: So this is a fresh application.
(The Chairman finished reading .the application. )
_ The application is accompanied by a sketch which indicates
that the property owned by the applicant is on the south side of
North Road opposite Town Beach in Southold. The first plot on
which .the main part of the motel stands is on about 24:,000 sq. ft.
. The next plot on which' the four-unit section stands 'is on 9 ,400
sq. ft. , plus- or minus . The two-unit portion of this motel is on
Parcel 03 toward the pond south from the Main Road._ This is a
situation which existed prior to zoning and which is about as severe
an example as could be found and predated zoning. in this Town:' We
Southold Town Board of. Appeals -1.8 August. 4 , 1977
have a brief which I will read when. the time comes from Mr.
Tedeschi who further points out what poor zoning it is, a point
with which we hardily agree. In other words, we agree entirely
with the fact that this is poor zoning. Is there anyone present
who wishes to speak for this application?
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : This may be an example of poor zoning but
the fact is that it does exist.
THE CHAIRMAN: Lest anybody think that there isn't poor
zoning elsewhere, I was. in. Hauppauge yesterday where a fellow' s
got before the Planning Commission 12 building sites on 2. 9
acres. There' s so little room there' s no place to park the cars,
they have to be parked on the street. We're not the -only ones
with poor zoning. Go ahead.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ...:. This is an. existing situation. On Parcel
#1, proposed Parcel #1, there is presently a 12-unit. motel and .
that parcel would have 24 ,000 sq. ft. with frontage on Middle
Road of about 258 ' . Parcel #2 presently has a 4-unit building
on it and if the variance is approved, it would have an area of
5 ,400 sq. ft. Parcel 03 has a 2-unit building and, if the. vari-
ance were granted, would have an area of approximately 17 ,000 sq.
ft.
THE CHAIRMAN: I 'think Parcel #2 is 9 ,400 sq. ft. , isn't it?
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : Yes, 9,400. Mr. Ippolito, who is the owner
of the corporation who is the applicant here, has a party-'interested
in purchasing the motel unit but they're not interested in -purchasing
the 4=unit building or the 2-unit building.
THE CHAIRMAN: Could you .tell us why?
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: I really can't answer that, I guess the _
.. price is out of their reach for the three parcels.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : . The granting of the variance will not .. ..
increase the density or -change the situation.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Tedeschi ' s coming along with a
brief after you've finished . . .
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : I wish I had seen 'a copy of the brief.
THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't see it myself until 12 : 00 .
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : As I say, the granting of the variance would
. not increase the density, it would simply set off each of the units
as separate parcels.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would Mr. Ippolito continue to operate the
2-unit and the 4-unit portions of the motel on Parcels 2 and 3?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -197 August .4, 1977
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: That would . be desirable. Upon selling I
would be willing to have it dropped or up it to residential zoning.
THE CHAIRMAN: One of the buildings would have to be enlarged
to 850 sq. ft.
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: : Which means that the only direction it can
go is up.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for
this application?
(There was no response. )
Is' there anyone who wishes to speak against this application?
I know Mr. Tedeschi' s going to . speak, do you want to read the brief
or shall I?
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : You're up higher.
(The Chairman read the August 2 , 1977 , "Memorandum in
Opposition" submitted by Frederick Tedeschi, Esq. ,
on behalf of his clients, Mr. and Mrs. Stachtiaris;
Mr. and Mrs. Bruch; Mr. and Mrs. Smulcheski; Mr. and
Mrs. Hribok; Mr. and Mrs . Kuerner; Mr. and Mrs.
Stewart; and the. Nassau Steamship Agency, Inc. )
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you'd like to add to that,
Mr. Tedeschi?
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : Yes, as a correlary I would like
to add that the seven clients that I represent are all here. They
have indicated to me and, to digress a •minute, we all agree it' s
bad zoning. Perhaps we could do something to upgrade it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I 'd like to point out that this was before zoning
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : I know that. We 're not casting.
stones, but in an effort to get along with neighbors and perhaps
to upgrade the situation, my clients have indicated to me that if
a reasonable compromise could be reached whereby the two southerly
portions, Parcels 2 and 3 , were converted into residential one- -
family, they would certainly upgrade the area in that respect.
My seven people, five of them have a one-family dwelling on 4 ,500
- sq. ft. of. property. If he creates .
THE CHAIRMAN: Each of them. has _4 ,500 sq. ft.?
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : Give or take a few feet. If we
could create the same" thing. across the road . . . .
THE CHAIRMAN: They use them mostly in the summer ..,don 't they,
none of them are year-round residences?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- August 4, 1977
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : (Talking to his clients) Is Mr.
Stachtiaris a year-round resident? No? Then they'.re all summer
residences*- , Our thought is if we could create two one-family
units across the road we would certainly be upgrading the area
which would be an asset: to the entire community. I know you, Mr.
Gillispie, have been there with another member of the Board but
for those who have not been there, this is what they propose to
have for four dwelling units. ..(Mr. Tedeschi showed the Board a
picture of the building. )
THE CHAIRMAN: It's .an existing four-dwelling unit, not what
they propose.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : That' s what they propose. And this
picture- is the requested motel, which you're all familiar with.
This is the two-unit building. We submit that we could, if we could
reach such a compromise to make these two parcels one family, it
certainly would be in keeping with the rest of the community as it
is presently constituted. .' But to put four units on 9,400 sq. ft.
we may be compounding the error in zoning. I know this Board is
not that type.
THE CHAIRMAN: Then, as I understand it, you would be in
agreement with a suggestion which would involve permitting the
sale of the 12-unit part' of 24,000 sq. ft. and dividing the other
two parcels, 2 and 31 into two separate residential units, each
of which would have to have 850 sq. ft. in the residence. I think
the 4-unit may have that . 850 sq. ft.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. :. . That's what-I was saying, Mr.
Gillispie, we're saying . . .
THE CHAIRMAN: For single family use.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : Right, exactly. Now I understand -
THE CHAIRMAN: And the present use would be continued through
this year because it' s the middle of the season, and it would be
required that these be converted, if used, to single family use
anytime after next year.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : We would be in agreement with that,
they could operate their 12-unit motel as presently constituted.
THE CHAIRMAN: And I think that would improve the area. .. I 'm
not sure there would be very much difference. Those motel units
are used probably four months out of the year. If you multiply six
times four you get 24 months. If you put two families in those two
places times twelve months you get 24 months use as far as sewage
and water and so forth.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : You don't have as many people for
parking, sanitation, I have some pictures here of garbage, cars
parked all over the place . . .
Southold Town Board of Appeals . -21� August 4, 1977
THE CHAIRMAN: It would be.. one small step toward upgrading the
area. Mr. Ippolito and Mr. Olsen, you've heard the discussion, are
you in agreement with what we 've been talking?.
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: I 'm in partial agreement. What I'm trying
to do is sell each parcel off. If I sell the front parcel, I have
buyers that claim they're interested. We have gotten down to
finalities on it.. If they .agree to buy, then I agree that the
two back buildings should be turned to residential as they are
sold. Now assuming that they do not decide to buy, then I would
still want to have the motel zoning for the three units. In other
words, I wouldn't want .to change that at the end of the year.
THE CHAIRMAN: - Well, if there' s no sale you would continue
the -way you are, basically.
GARY OLSEN., ESQ. -. That' s .not the way I understood your con-
versation with Mr. Tedeschi. You said that for the interim of this
year he could continue . . .
THE CHAIRMAN: if Mr. Ippolito sells the 12-unit motel tomorrow
for $500,000 . . .
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : It' s only upon conveyance of title to -the
12-unit that the Parcels 2 and 3 would come into the picture.
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: Actually, what I desired was that assuming
that we sold the front parcel, I would have two parcels left. As
each parcel is -sold it would have to be sold as. a residential but
while.-I still possess it, it would be operating as it operates now
as a motel.
ROBERT BERGEN: For this year only.
THE CHAIRMAN: For this year only on the two parcels. If you
sell Parcel #11. Parcel .#2. and #3 which is a four-unit and a two-
unit motel, which are very small units, would still be operated by
you for the rest of the season. After this season. . . .
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : Assuming we .-sell Parcel #1 this season.
THE CHAIRMAN: Assuming you sell it. I assume from the appli-
cation that you have a buyer.
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: I have a buyer but it' s not, I don't have
the money.
THE CHAIRMAN: That ' s our position. We want to do something
to 'elevate the area.
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: I 'm in full agreement with that. The only
direction I want to go is toward higher zoning.
Southold Tbwn Board of Appeals.. -21-�1 August 4 , 1977
THE CHAIRMAN: It looks like we're walking backwards, doesn't iL
We won' t be causing you any financial inconvenience, you will. be
permitted to continue this operation the way it is until or if you
sell all or nothing.
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: The other thing that I was hoping to
receive from the Board was the right to rent the back rooms until
they're sold. Let's take Parcel 2.
THE CHAIRMAN: No, you can't have everything. We' ll let you
finish this year because you could have contracts or anything else.
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: Then what you're saying, see if I understand
it correctly. 'If I sell the front building, the back two buildings
automatically become residential.
THE CHAIRMAN: Single family residential.
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: If I do not sell the front building, am I
still able to sell the three parcels as a motel unit?
THE CHAIRMAN: That we can't prevent. That's an existing
situation. We can't prevent that, can we Mr. Tedeschi?
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : No sir. -
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: What I was hoping for was that if I did
sell the front unit that I would still be able to rent the back
units next year as four units and two units.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. That's what we're objecting to.
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: All right, I 'll accept it. I have the
option to sell either individually . . . _
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think that we would want you to sell
02 or #3 for a motel use at all, period.
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: If #1 is sold.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : Mr. Gillispie, just a technicality.
In as much as the property is owned .by a corporation, there' s a
possibility that stock could be sold and the title wouldn't be
- transferred so I would like for your consideration in the event
that stock of the corporation and/or the title is sold that this
would come about. I can envision a situation where title would
not be transferred, just- the stock sold. I think we're all looking
. for. the' same thing so just as a- technicality or precaution I would
ask that that be considered.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : I don't understand that, quite..frankly, the
selling of stock.
Southold Town Board of Appeals August 4:, 1977
THE CHAIRMAN: Who owns it -.now, Mr. Ippolite or the corporation?
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: The borporation.
THE CHAIRMAN: And you own the corporation. Entirely, 100%?
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: You own all the common stock. There' s no
preferred stock.'-' no bonds.
NICHOLAS _IPPOLITO: Right.
THE CHAIRMAN: In effect he owns it then. What--were you going
to say?.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : As long as Mr. Tedeschi, his net comment is
if the Parcel #1 is conveyed whether it be through the transfer of
stock . . . I don't know how you could do it. You couldn't just convey
part of it by selling the corporation, by selling the stock of the
corporation.
FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ. : Sure you could.
THE CHAIRMAN: If it' s entirely in Mr. Ippolito' s hands you
could extinguish the corporation, that would probably be the
simplest way.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : All right, as long we understand what the
interit` is.
THE CHAIRMAN: That conceivably would be possible, what you're
talking about.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : Mr. Ippolito, I think, understands that if
Parcel #l, which would have approximately 24 ,000 sq. ft. and contains
the 12-unit building, if that is sold as shown on the survey_ , then
Parcels 2 and 3 would then have to revert to single family residential
use, regardless of how he sells Parcel 41.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tedeschi has suggested the possibility of
selling stock in the corporation.
_ GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : As I say, regardless of how he sells it
whether it' s through selling .stock of the corporation . . .
FREDERICK TEDESCHI , ESQ. : Ownership and control.:.
THE CHAIRMAN: Sold involving ownership and control. Added to
that action, that should be the first condition. Added to that
action would be that if Parcel #1 is sold or- conveyed or changes
hands by whatever means, then Parcels #2 and 3 may continue as .
motel units under the direction of Mr. Ippolito for the balance
of 1977. Starting January 1, 1978, if the structures on either
Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- August: 4 , 1977
Parcel 2 or 3 'are used, they must be used for single family resi-
dential use and the structures on Parcel 3 and Parcel 2 must conform
particularly to the 850- sq. ft. minimum requirement of floor area
in the Southold Building Zone Ordinance.
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: I don't think they have that footage
right now.
THE CHAIRMAN: One of them doesn't. It's about 20 ' by 20 ' ,
maybe a little bigger. I .think your other one may. If you sell
it as 'is, whoever bought it would have to fix it. You don't have
to do it.
NICHOLAS IPPOLITO: I may do it but I don't want to be forced
into it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other conditions should be in there?
CHARLES GRIGONIS; JR. : I think you've covered them all.
After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the
applicant requests permission to set off existing buildings on
undersized lot, south side CR27, Southold, New York. The findings
of the Board are that this is the first opportunity the Board- has
had in 20 years-to attempt to upgrade the Hass development on the
North Road in Southold.
The Board .finds that strict application of the Ordinance
would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship;
the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all
properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and
in the same use district; and the variance will not change the
character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of
the Ordinance.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. B.ergen, it was
RESOLVED, VIP Inn, Ltd. , 39 Gehring Street, Commack, New York
be GRANTED permission to set off existing buildings on undersized
lots, south side CR27 , Southold, New York, as applied for, subject
to the following conditions:
1. If the 12-unit motel on Parcel #1 is sold or the ownership
and control of this parcel is transferred in any way, Parcels
2 and 3 may continue as motel units under the direction of
Mr. Ippolito for the balance of 1977 .
2 . Starting January 1, 1978 , the structures on Parcels. #2 and 3
can be used only for single family residential use. They must
conform to the Southold Town Building Code with respect to
minimum floor area.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2.4- August. 4 , 1977
Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse,
Grigonis, Doyen.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2318 -- 9:15 P.M. (E.D.S.T. )
upon application of Lee and Barbara Siros, 3 Lee Lane, Wilbraham,
Massachuttes (Gary Olsen, Esq.),-for a variance in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule
for permission to set off lot with insufficient width and area.
Location of property: East side Deer Path, Mattituck, New York,
bounded on the north by Miller Right-of"way; east by D. Trimmer;
south by right-of-way, Dickerson and Beier; west by Deer Path
(Pvt. Rd. ) .
The Chairman opened the hearing .by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to
its publication in the official newspapers, notice to the appli-
cant, and disapproval from the Building Inspector. The Chairman
also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by
certified mail had been made to: Daniel Trimmer; Charlotte T.
Dickerson; Pamela Steadman; Anna M. Smith. Fee paid - $15.00.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application?
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : My clients live in Massachuttes and they
are presently involved in a purchase of the subject premises from
the present owners, Klaus and .Marga Beier. . .The; parcels to be
created
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know what lot number this is on the
County map?
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : It' s at the intersection of Miller 's right-
of-way and Deer Path, Road.
THE CHAIRMAN: This indicates 2 .8 acres.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : Mr. and Mrs:- Beier also own a house which
is contiguous to the subject premises located on Mattituck Creek.
It appears to be separated from the .property in question by a
right-of-way. , I don't know whether the right-of-way is owned by . . .
ROBERT BERGEN: It says Deer Path Road right-of-way.
GARY OLSEN, ESQ. : If I may show you this overall survey of the
property, this .is the property in question. It's a `vacant piece
located on the corner of Miller ' s right-of-way, the' southerly side
of Miller ' s right-of-way and the easterly side of Deer Path Road.
BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Petition of
VIP-Inn Ltd.f NOTICE
to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold
TO:Mr. -and .Mrs. -Achilles Stachtiaris Mr. and Mrs. .Edwin Stewart,
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph-Smulch'eski' Helmet Haas
Mr., and Mrs. -Fred Bruch Nassau Steamship Agency, Inca
Mr. .and Mrs.".Frederick Hribok
Mr. and Mrs. .Manfred.Kurner
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE:
1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold
to request a (Variance) T (the following relief: To divide subject
prenli5es into three parcels. ).
2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des-
cribed as follows: North by North Road; East by, Carrol Road and H. Haas;-South by
Arsbamo-Lmague Pnnd- Road;•West by� Nassau Steamship Agency, Inc,
3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district:
Agricultural/Re sid entice 1
4. That by such Petition,the undersigned will request the following relief: To divide subject
premises auto three parcels
5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under-
signed are: Article III Sf-cfion 100-:30.; Article V Section 100-50 and Bulk Schedules in both
instances.
6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified.above will
be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there
examine the same during regular office hours.
7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be n the matter by the
Board of Appeals;that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five ys prior to the date of such
hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watch an, new papers published in the
Town of Southold and designated-for the publication of such notices;that y u or your re resentative have-the
right to appear and be heard at such hearing.
VIP'Inn:Ltd
Dated: July 20, .1977 By:
i
Petiti,�� a y ' a er.,Olsen, Es .
Post Office A ress
Main Ro ad. .P:O. Box 38
Mattituck, .New York 1.1952
Phone (516)298-4844
PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE
NAME ADDRESS
Mr, and.Mrs. ,Achilles Stachtiaris 15.9 New Hyde Park Road, Garden City, N.Y. .11530
Mr. and Mrs. .Joseph.Smulcheski '12 Harvard Lane, . Commack, New York 11725
Mr. and Mrs. -Frederick Bruch 37..Neptune Avenue, Hampton Bays, N.Y. 11946
Mr. _and, Mrs. .Frederick Hribok 1 Arnold Lane, Commack, N.Y. 11725
Mr. and Mrs. Manfred Kurner 71-39 72nd Place, Glendale, N.Y. 1122'7
Mr, and Mrs, -Edwin Stewart 8403:Parish. Lane, Indianapolis, Indiana
Helmet Haas Box 1115,' .Peconic,'..N.Y. 11958
Nassau Steamship Agency, Inc. 100 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, ,N.Y. 11530
j
STATE OF NEW YORK ) •ss.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) '
Cherie.Lynn R.uG P71 , residing at Ma t; buck
being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 20th day
of July , 1977 ,.deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re-
verse side hereof, directed to each ofthe above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective
names;that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on
the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold;that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of-
fice at Mattituck ;that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by
(certified) (R@gbRffxAkmail.
Sworn to before me this 26fb
day of u , 19 77
tary u
G F NNER OLSEN
Notar Public, State of New York
No. 52-2959600
Qualified in Suffolk County
Term Expires March 30, 1971 .
en
Fv
eft .� .._._.�,. . • •;.
zo
' rT• �f � i° ,.�rr.��,,.,.+w�•e��' � .ry �. G7/ _ �_ A L/`V..'rY • .._... ,,J.y'_�-' •+ }•�
N.'4J � �.W��✓1�i'ii �J�� I�
. .
J
rJ
r
:4
r
rr �0 90.
, c��pP L9 `` y :•2S f\
{ �C�r � ice ONy •`e, �� ' `9y O Q
;CV
s ,0
Oz.cs 2 oO sz (SO)
e ��°• 'W ° °o' I:�Z ICJ.
v J FO k 1 Psi °°�a aP sc CO - m cs L•B �` o e sc zo
z 5 C\O� o�� �s �`o / 4• _so `2�7 c tiJ �s'3 y/ z \O \\� h 5,, m�
.Nj 3° 'c \ e ��i.�° -',-' \ 2R `• ia' 29 O m� o -o a ° 'oz'
W 2 4i
° yo•�-,� O� � `'_/ 6 (\_ .. - raj R_ `` e' e.
I q9
do\�o
0 /
(UNDERWATER LAND)
\ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD .
\,,1�67.0A(c)
La
Z .
SNOB ELINEI10
I�
O
O t
ZLj
nU (/
a
w > \
w
W
.n
19.1 AM
U
F.
� II
is 1
-o
w
Znz
O J /
U h
w os
i w I eoe;
w \ 1534'