HomeMy WebLinkAbout121SACKS, AP~NOLD _ ~121
Sound Avenue
Ma%tituck, Ny January 8, 1959
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
A~TION OF THE ZONING IOAttD OF APPEALS
peol No. 121 Doted Novmmber 6, 1958
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPF~LS OF TOWN SOUTHOLD
Arnold
To Suffolk Avenue
Mattituck; New York
at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 8, 1959
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 permit under the Zoning Ordinance
( ]0 Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance
(X~ Request for removal of Notice of Violation
Appellant
· e appeal
1. SPECIAL PERMIT. By resolution of the Board it was determined that o,special permit ( ) 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
2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined that
(a) Strict application of the Ordinance (Jlial3i~(would not) produce undue hardship because .
(b) The hardship created 3la0 (is not) unique and (would) 311;ara3iXIlalr.~Cbe shared by all properties
alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because *
(c) The variance ~ (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) {llal31llll3D(~ change
the character of the district because *
and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted Q[ ) be denied
and that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector (~) be confirmed ( ) be ['eversed.
* From the testimony taken at the hearing and from visits made
to the premises by the members of the Board the findings are as
follows:
Upon the premises in question applicant has constructed a
potato storage building consisting of eight bins of which two
are utilized by applicant. The remaining six bins being rented
to others for storage.
(Con't. on reverse side)
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
~Boken
Secretary
it is thereforeapparent thatthe buildin~ was constructed
primarily for the leasing of storage space and incidentally as
storage space for agricultural products grown on applicants f~rm~.
Applicant has entered ~nt0 ag~eements'With other farmer"in
the area for the leasing of bins in the building on an ll month
basis for $1,000.00 per bin.
At the hearing the Building Inspector indicated that he
advised the applicant that he wouldbe permitted~to ocCUpy the
building fo~ the storage of his own.potatoes but if he stored
potatoes for rental it would be a commercial business and would
require a change of zone.
We are thus faced with the situation in which the applicant
knowing that he could not use the storage space for products of
others proceeding with the construction of the building and entering
into agreements with others for the leasing of 7~% of the building.
In such a situation it appears to this Board that the hardship
is self-created.
Applicant has urged that the premises cannot be used for any
other purpose. The Board does not agree with this conclusion.
The property upon which the building is erected as well as
a great portion of the surrounding area has been f or many years
and is now being utilized for farm purposes.
The Board is of the opinion that the use is not a use customarily
incidential to permitted uses in an "A" District but is the conduct
of a separate business not permitted in the district in which the
property i~ located. Further the Board is of the opinion that to
grant the variance requested ~ould in effect be granting a change
of zone which is beyond the ~thority of this Board.
Andfurthermore the Board finds that the public convenience
and welfare and Justice will not be substantially served and the
legally established or permitted use of the neighborhood property
and adjacent use district will be substantially or permanently
injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will not'be observed.
Therefore be it RESOLVED that the application of Arnold Sacks
be denied.
Location of property: South side Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York,
bounded North by Sound~ Avenue., and land of Papish; East by land of
Pylko; South by land of C. Price~ West by land of Hallock.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
STATE OF NEW YORKI ss.
NOTICE OF HEARING
i Pursuant to Section 267 of the Town
Law and the provisio~ of the Amend-
ed Building Zone Or~artc~ of the
Town of Southold, Su~t0lk Oounty, New
~ York, public hem~ngil :wl~ be held oy
;, of
~{ Town of Southold at th~vn Clerk's
,Offies, Main Street, l~ou~ld, New
~Yurk, on Janua{Cy 8, 1950'o~ t~le
lowing appeals:
7:30 P. M. (E.$.T.) upon application
icl Conrad Volinski for a variance for
~ permit to u~e premises for rezidential
purposes in accordance with the Zon-
mg Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 303,
on premises located on the east side
Shipyard Lane, East Marion, Bt. Y.
7:45 P. M. (E.S.T.) upon application
of Goldsmith Bres., for Walter Rand-
dell, roi' a special exception in 9~cord-
ance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 306, for permit to
build on property located in
Breck Estates, Bay View Road, Lot No
100, Southold, i'{. ¥.
8:0~ P. M. (E.S.T.) upon application
of Arnold Sacks for removal of No-
tice of Violation issued by Building Ill-
spector. Location of property:
Sound Ave., Mattituok, Bt, ¥. b~unded
North by ~ound Ave., and land of Pap.
lsh; Ea.~t by land of Pylko; South by
land of C. Price, west by land of Hal-
lock.
ANY PERSON DESIRING TO BE
HEARD ON THE ABOVE APPLI~'A-
TIONS SHOULD APPEAR AT
TIME AND PLACE ABOVE SPECI-
FIED.
Frederick C. Hawkins, being duly sworn, says that
he is the owner and publisher of THE LONG ISLAND
TRAVELER - MATTITUCK WATCHMAN, a public news-
paper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that
the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in said Long Island Zraveler-Mattituck Watch-
man once each week for ..... ~.:(;.:i~.".J.....~'i...~..'/.. weeks-'
successively, commencing on the ........... ; ....... : ..................
day of .~ ............... .~.....; ....... 19...)....f
...........
Sworn to before me this ......... .~ ............. day of
.......... ;
ADELE PAYNE
Notery PaHic, Sta'e ol raw Yo;k
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, NEW YORK
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
APPEAL NO, I: 1
DATE e"
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
....... ............................ of ..... .............................. : ............
Name of Appellant Street and Number
...................... .N.~.C...t.'.z.~.~..9.]f.. ......................................................... .~.,.~., ........... HEREBY APPEAL TO
Municipality State
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON
Notice of Violation
:~R .................................... DATED....~..°..~..: .. ~Z..~?.5..8. .........................
WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO
(x)
(
(
Arnold Sacks
Name of Applicant for permit
of Mattituck N .Y.
Street and Number Municipality State
PERMIT TO USE
PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY
LOCATION OF THE PR~PERTY.~...S...~...t..b.~.~.e...~.~.~...A..~...e~...~..e.~.~.e.£~...~.~..~.~.~..~...~...e- ...................
Street Use District on Zoniqg Mop
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 ~, Section 300, Subsections 4 & 7
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 (~a~t-) 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
and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ......................................................................
)
x)
)
REASON FOR APPEAL
A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3
A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
,s requested for the reason that at this late date owner will have more space in building
than needed for his own use and neighboring farms have urgent need of stor8ge space.
Variance for rentel storege spece requested.
(Continue on other side)
Form ZBI
REASON FOR APPEAL Continued
1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce UNDUE HARDSHIP because
The building was built pursuant to Section ?0~ as farm building. Application for
change of zone on premises was made some time ago and is now before the PlanninE
Board. Time is of the essence on storage of potatoes. Not to use the balance of
buil~tng would be depriving needed space to other farmers snd the proceedings be-
fore the Planning Board cannot be rushed.
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 an agrLculture~ area -~ere
many potatoes are grown and stored on other farms. The building is approximate-
ly 700 ft. from the nearest residence.
3. The Variance would obse~e the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE
CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because this is an agricult'~al and oo~erelal
section. The farms in this vicinity all have barns or storage
structures which do not compare in appearance with the modern and
nice appearing building on the premises. Adjacent to the premises
is the commerical b'usiness of Papish which deals in farm equipment
and ~utomobiles. Nearby is a transformer station of The Long Island
Lighting Company. A short distance to the west is a warehouse re-
cently used as a potato, packaging plant. It must be stressed that
none of these buildings, as well asmany of the residences in the
neighborhood, can compare in appearance to thebuilding on the premises.
Notary Public
FOI~I No. 5
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION
(owner al authorized agent of owner)
..... ..................
(address of owner or authorized agent of owner)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE there exists a violation of:
Zoning Ordinance ~'"'~z'" '~".~-'"~-'-.-'.~...~ ~-~ /q~ 7'
Other Applicable Lows, Ordinances or Regulations .........................................
at premises hereinafter described in that......~...........~.~-.~,r~..,~..~...~.n..~......~....~ ......... (state character of violation)
· ......
in,J4olotion--"~-' o f...~ .~...,..~.....c<..., .~,% .~. ....... ~ .~...~... ,..,~...(~.. i1., ,., .~.~.... ~)v....~x,~ (J~t r~,, '%
( o e section or paragraph of applicable Iow, ordinance or radiation) ~' .....
YOU ARE THEREFORE DIRECTED AND ORDERED to comply with the' law and, to remedy the
conditions abo~ve/~ntioned forthwith in or before the ......................... S.~ ........................
day of ........... ~..~..... 1 9..~... ~
The premises to which this ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION refers are situated at
............................................................. County of Suffolk, New York.
Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid and to comply with the applicable provisions of law
may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
Building Inspector/
~:M~R A N~ M
No. 281-2115159
SPECIAL TERM
SUPR~ZME COURT: SUFFOLK COUNTy,
In the Matter of the Applicttioa
of
ARNOLD S. SACKS,
Petitioner,
VS.
-aga~nlt~
BY HILL J.S.C.
DATED March
The applic~tion is denied and petition dismissed. There is no
showtn~th~t the Boardactedtnan arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable
The lmrdship of the petitioner is self tm?osed,
· Submit order.
1959
J. S. C.
COPY COPY COPY
CAMPBELL & hills
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
140 NASSAU STREET
NEW YORK 38, N. Y.
January 13, 1959
Zoning Board of Appeals,
Town of Southold,
Southold, New York.
Gentlemen:
Re: Application of Arnold Sacks
Mattituck, New York
The above matter came on for hearing before your
Board on January 8, 1959 at 8:00 P.M. At that time I attended
the hearing in company with the applicant, Mr. Arnold Sacks.
I think you will agree that such oppqsition that
was produced at the hearing seemed to be predicated upon the
erroneous belief that a change of zone would be requested
which would disrupt and change the neighborhood. No OppQsigion
was offered touching upon the general question involved in this
case, which simply phrased, may be thus stated:
Should the applicant, Arnold Sacks, who has built
a warehouse for the storage of his own potatoes be permitted to
rent the unused portion of said warehouse to other farmers who
may be in need of storage facilities?
I believe it can also be agreed that Arnold Sacks
had a perfect right to erect the warehouse without any prior
application for a permit, so long as the warehouse was being
utilized for his own purposes. Consequently, it follows that
the warehouse is there and that no person in the co...-.~nity can
object to the erection of a warehouse as such. The somewhat
extended use that Mr. Sacks desires to make of the warehouse
has brought about this controversy.
I am sure that no one disputes that the potato
farmers in the co..--,mity are in dire need of warehouse facilities.
As a matter of fact I read into the record the recommendation
of the Planning Board which stated as follows:
CAMPBELL & HILLS
Zoning Board of Appeals
Re: Arnold Sacks
-2-
"We further feel that the erection of potato storages should
be encouraged whether under individual ownership or as profit
enterprises. We believe that storing our potatoes will
substantially enhance the financial business of our fam
operations and be reflected in the best interests of the Town.
The failure to provide adequate potato storage in the past has
resulted in disastrous prices during the growing season in three
out of the past five years. The Board feels that this is a
most urgent matter and deserves prompt attention."
As you know, at the conclusion of the hearing,
the Chairman of the Board expressed what he termed the unanimous
view of the Board, that'the ~tter must be decided strictly as
a legal proposition; that since the applicant had prodded on
his own initiative to erect a warehouse, he could not complain
now if the proposed use of the warehouse was one prohibited
by the ordinance, since the hardship created was a "self-
created hardship". The Chairman also sta~ed that even if the
building inspector had in fact been aware of the several uses
to which the warehouse was to be put and had in fact advised the
applicant that he could proceed with the erection of the warehouse,
the same nonetheless did not constitute reason for the Board to
grant a variance, if in fact the ordinance was being violated.
I am fully aware of the many cases that have
expressed the principle that a self-created hardship will not
warrant the granting of a variance. On the other hand, all of
these cases rest upon the basic principle that the ordinanue
in question was clear, concise and explicit and that by reason
thereof a person erecting a building in violation of such an
ordinance must necessarily bear the burden, if in reality he is
violating the ordinance.
I respectfully submit to this Board that the
permitted agricultural uses, as contained in the ordinance
fully warrants the conclusion that the use ok the warehouse
for the applicant's own purposes, with the incidental renting
of such space as was available to others, is in no way in
CAMPBELL & HILLS
Zoning Board of Appeals
R~: Arnold Sacks
conflict with the permitted uses of the ordinance. Moreover,
it is my view that if this Board feels that a variance should
not be granted, under the circumstances involved in this ap-
plication, that nonetheless, a special exception under §267 of
the Town Law is permitted, so that applicant may make use of
his property, even though it be in conflict with the lateral
provisions of the ordinance.
I submit that in this case~ either a variance or
an exception should be permitted. The granting of a special
exception would not entail making an exception to the ordinance,
but would rather permit certain uses which the ordinance refers
to as agricultural uses.
I am sure you are aware of the fact that while
unnecessary hardship is a prerequisite to a use variance, no
such proof is necessary for a special exception permit.
I submit further that in the event that this Board feels that
a special exception permit may not be granted, nonetheless a
variance should be §ranted since I believe that the requisites
laid down by the Courts have been fully met in this case.
These requisites are:
1] That the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return
if used only for the purpose allowed in that zone;
That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances
and not to general conditions in the nei§hborhood which may
reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself.
3] That the use to be authorized by the variance will not
alter the essential character of the locality.
CAMPBELL ~ HILLS
Zoning Board of Appeal
Re: Arnold Sacks
-4
I especially direct the attention of the Board
to the fact that since no one can complain about the warehouse,
the incidental additional use, namely: the rental of storage
space in the warehouse, cannot possibly alter the essential
character of the locality.
I further respectfully submit that before making
any decision in this case predicated upon any hard and fast
rule, that this Board should very carefully consider the
facts in this case and when so considered, I am sure the
Board must come to the conclusion that relief should be granted
to this applicant.
ResPe~l~..~tted,
EH.rmr
198 Ruth Road
~attituck, ~,~w York
January ?, 1959
Town Board
Southo~
~ew York
Gentleman:
zJroJ~s~ the re-zoning of this are~, in that the
permit for the erection of the "potato house" was
misrepresented to Zoning ~oard at its inception.
December 5, 1958
The Southold Town Board
Southold, L.I.
New York
Gentlemen:
As a taxpayer in this area I am protesting a change in zoning
laws, from agriculture and residential to commercial and
industrial.
Mr. Victor E. Garsch
187 Captain Kidd Drive
Mattituck, L.I. New York
Yours very truly,
24-12 163rd Street
Whitestone 57, N.Y.
December 4, 1958
The Southold Town Board'
Southold, New York
Gentlemen:
As taxpayers of this area
tuck) we are protesting a
agriculture and residential
(Captain Kidd Estates, Mattl-
change ~n zoning laws, from
to commercial and InduStrial.
Yours truly,
Marie DeLalla
1 December 1958
N. J. Stagnitta
175 Zena Road
Mattituck, New York
Southold Tow~a Board
Southold, New York
Gentleman,
Aa a property owner of 175 Zena Road, Mattituck,
I am pretesting any zoning change from agriculture and
residential to commercial and' industrial, in the above
vicinity.
November 28, 1958
Gentlemen:
I have Just received notice that Mr. Sachs has petitioned
the Town Board of rezone the area around Sound Avenue and
Cox Neck Road.
As a resident and taxpayer (Lot #136 in Captain Kidd Estates)
of the Town of Mattituck, I must vigorously protest any
sction on your part to change any of the present zoning
restrictions.
Any attempt to rezone said area for commercial use would be
an infringement.on the rights of all the taxpayers..in the
surrounding area. Not only would it devaluate ~eur property
but would transform the countryside into a veritable eyesore,
dotted with potato storehouses and homes' for migritory workers.
I know you could not'condone any change which would further
the material gain of one individual, who does not even live
in the aforementioned section, while sacrSficing the welfare
of our whole Community.
Very truly yours,
James P. Connolly
Claire F. Connolly
196 Ruth Road
Capt. Kidd Estates
Mattituck, Long Island
New York
Tuesday, November 25, 1958
The Southold Town Board
Southold, Long Island
New York
Gentlemen:
Warehouse Rental in Violation
of Zoning Laws -
Protest of Change in Zoning Laws
As taxpayers, and high taxpayers, this letter is being
w~itten to pROTEST~A~G~A~NS~ ~__6~_~AN~_I~ ~THE ~ISTIN_~G~ ~ONING
LAWS~D-mely, from agriculture/residential to commercial/
industrial.
We feel Justified in requesting protection from such
infringement on our rights as taxpayers nbw and in the future.
After lengthy consideration of this problem confronting us and
the Board, we have concluded that there would be nothing added
to the economy if the zoning laws were altered. This type of
construction is a constant burden on taxpayers necessitating
any number of expenditures - police, fire, home relief rolls -
ultimately a slum problem and back before the Board. The statistics
against changing zoning laws such as we have now are toonumerous
to mention. Right now our purpose is to protect the economy and
the future economy by protesting against changing the existing
zoning laws. This can only be accomplished by us as taxpayers
appealing and protesting to you against the proposed change and
to give you our vote of thanks.
Sincerely~ ~. .... ~
AUGUST F. EISEFHAUE~
23 Seund Beach Dr.
Capt. Kidd Estates
Mattituck, N.Y.
The Seutheld Town Beard
Seuthel4,New Yerk
C, en%lemen~
As a taxpayer in this area I wish to be on recerd as
pretesting a change in the zening laws,fr*m a~riculture and
residential te conmerc~
Purser to Seoti~n 257 .Of ~h® To~n Lay and'the ~rovisio~ of
~e ~ed B~lding ~ne ~dina~ee of the ~ of
~i~ ~d ef ~a ef ~e Tg~ ~f ~1~ at the To~ Clerk
the folding ap~eal~ ~ · . .
[ ~t~O. P,M.' (E.S.T.)upon ap.-lieation of Conrad Volinski f~ a va~
~rper~ ~o uae p~em~ses ~k~ ~ez..i~..n~ti_~' .p.url~.se~ in aeeordance wit
the Zoning 'Ordinanea~ A~tiele ¥IAA, ~®c~xon .~oj, on pre~X~es
~BLI~H 0~, DF~ 31, 19~$~ A~D
PU~LICATIO~ I~J~DIATE~ TO THE ~OARD ON AP F. AL~,
TOWN ~L[RK'~ OP%'ICE, HA~ ROAD, 20UTHOLD,
Copies sailed ~ L, ~. Traveler-~atti'~uek ~atch~an
AJ~f l~g~80N DF~I~ TO BE HFAP~D ON T~E ABOVE APPLICA2IO~
SHOULD AP~ EAR AT THE Ti~E A~D PLACE ABOVE G~'ECIFIED,
Copy mailed to Arnold Sacks Dec. 30
#oveaber 7, 1~8
Mr. Arnold Sacks
~affalk Avenue
~atfJ~tuek~ I~.Y,
We are ia receipt of your appeal frc~ decision
of the Building Inspector posting a Notice of Violation
in connection with your property on the south side of
Soumd AVenue near Cox's Laae concerniag the use of a
potatoe storage b-~ding.
We are postponi~g fixing the time and place of
public hearing on this appeal because it is our
understanding that the Plan~iag Beard is to consider
your application for a chamge of zone to "B" Business,
including the property referred to in your appeal,
on November 7th. Since a change of ~one would give
you the relief which you are seeking in this appeal
to the 9oar~, we will await the outcome of your
application for a change of zone.
Yours very truly~
Ohairaan, Board of Appeals
RO :b
November 7, 1958
Mr. Norman Z. Xlipp
Sup. Town of Southold
16 ~outh Street
Greenport, N.Y.
Dear Norm.'
We are attaching a copy of our reply to Mr. Arnold
Sacks appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector
on Notice of Violation posted November 5th, 1958.
It is the umani~eus opinion of the Board of Appeals
that action by the Town Board in this matter should
be very prompt. We feel that any delay in reaching a
decision in this matter will inevitably defeat er tend
to defeat the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, since
this is a matter of very widespread interest to faraers
and ethers.
Yours .very truly,
Chair,~an~ Board of Appeals