Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing 04/09/2019 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING April 9, 2019 7:00 PM Present: Supervisor Scott Russell Justice Louisa Evans Councilman William Ruland Councilwoman Jill Doherty Councilman James Dinizio, Jr. Councilman Bob Ghosio, Jr. * * * * Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville Town Attorney William Duffy This hearing was opened at 7:49 PM COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold is considering the Change of Zone application of RQA Properties LLC on the property identified as SCTM#1000-102.00-003-001.000 from; and be it further NOTICED that pursuant to the requirements of Section 265 of the New York State Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, the Town Board of the Town th of Southold will hold a public hearing on the 9 day of April 2019 at 7:00 P.M. at the Southold Town Hall located at 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such application in the Suffolk Times newspaper not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to such hearing, on a proposed Local Law entitled “A Local Law to Amend the Zoning Map of the Town of Southold by Changing the Zoning Designation of a portion of the property identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-102.00-003-001.000 from R40 (Residential) to B (General Business) All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York and more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of Main Road with the westerly side of Fleets Neck Road; THENCE along the said westerly side of Fleets Neck Road South 45 degrees 29 minutes 00 seconds East, 200 feet to a monument; THENCE South 35 degrees 14 minutes 50 seconds West, 202.67 feet to a monument; THENCE North 45 degrees 29 minutes 00 seconds West, 175.00 feet to the said southerly side of Main Road; THENCE along the southerly side of said Main Road following two (2) courses and distances: 1) North 29 degrees 44 minutes 00 seconds East, 27.55 feet to a monument; 2) North 28 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 180.62 feet to a monument at the point or place point of BEGINNING. Subject property consists of 37,421square feet= 0.859 acres. RQA Change of Zone Public Hearing April 9, 2019 page 2 Any person desiring to be heard on this proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. I have the notarized affidavit here that this was in fact noticed on the Town Clerk’s bulletin board and the Town website. I also have a notarized affidavit that this was published in the Suffolk Times. I have the applicant’s affidavit of the sign posting of the property and a photo of that sign. And certified mail receipts from those that were notified. I do have a letter here of information received from the applicant on the history of the property. I have a determination from the Suffolk County division of Planning and Environment that this is to be considered a matter of local determination and there is no apparent significant countywide or inter-community impacts. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. I have a memorandum from the Planning Board office, I have two of them here. One from November 16, 2018 and one from March 28, 2019 and that’s all I have. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I would invite anyone who would like to address the Town Board on this particular public hearing to please feel free? MICHAEL KIMACK: Yes, good evening. Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant, RQA properties, LLC. I did take the opportunity to put together the history, I thought it would be helpful for the Board. If necessary, I have additional copies if you don’t have it in your packets. It has been operating pretty much as general business since 1957 which is the first year that zoning went into effect in the town and it was appropriately designated as a general business at that time. It had been subject to four zoning applications from that particular time through 1978 two of which were somewhat insignificant, they were signs but two of which 1964, 1983 basically approved the use of it as a used car business at the time and to erect a second sign but the one in 1974 and 1983 granted permission for the pre-existing business property surrounded by residential area. The use had been pre-existing for many years at this location situated less than 300 feet from the residential area, so there was a recognition at that time and that the Board felt that to prohibit this limited use would to some extent, deprive the owner of use of this B 1 zoned property. Bear in mind, obviously, this was being judged under the B zoned code so there was criteria as such but it was favorable at that particular time as long as it was B. They concluded at that point that the variance would not change the character of the neighborhood and would observe the spirits of the ordinance. In 1985, RQA properties leased the property to conduct auto sales, repair and body work. In 1989, the Town went through its master plan revision of the town code, I did a little research but it was difficult, I wasn’t able to find because I thought it would be helpful if I could find anything that would relate to any conversation that may have occurred. I did not find that. But I think relevant to that, the comments of the Planning Commission they probably almost refer to that but I will get to that a little bit later in my presentation. So after 1989 there were two appeals and now they are being judged on the (inaudible) from general business and R 40 and after that in 1990 under appeal 3907, they denied a construction of a one story masonry building for retail stores because it was now being judged under the R-40 section of the code which prohibited that. So it changed the demeanor fairly drastically. It imposed the, it wasn’t appropriate under the R-40 code and although there is never guarantee of success when applying for a variance, there is no doubt if the property were designated general B zone there would have been perhaps a different outcome. In 2004, RQA Properties bought the property and the member on that is Rich Bozsnyak, just to let you know, RQA Change of Zone Public Hearing April 9, 2019 page 3 he basically then filed under 5759 because he needed to be able to get some additional painting on the property although he did under that particular (inaudible) the Board found he didn’t qualify for use variance under sections 241 and 243-100 because since two existing principal businesses exist on the property, used car sales are no longer permitted under the R-40 code. In a sense, developing a business plan under the R-40 and being judged by the R-40 code and being, looking to the future in terms of whatever they could evolve to, is going to be very difficult. I did note that the Boards conditions represent the difficulty imposed on the property to be reviewed under the R-40 criteria rather than the general business. The benefits to the community, it’s been an ongoing business, it’s well maintained, it’s well screened. I think that people can probably recognize it as being there. I didn’t come to say that there was a general business down the street on one side, a limited business on the other because when you get into that, it’s apples and oranges when you get into that kind of argument. I just want this to stand on its own, that basically we really want to go back to what it has already been for 32 years. Now the argument they can put forth is that it’s been okay for the next 30 years but that’s not the point, the point is that it’s a functioning general business, 62 years is a long time to be operating as a garage (inaudible). My client may possibly in the future want to be able to develop a business plan that may be representative of something else other than what he is now doing and he will be extremely restricted under the R-40 zone but not under the general business. He would still have to apply, he would still have to meet those conditions under the general business. I would like to address the, I got the November 19, 2018 Planning Board meeting that recommended the zoning not be changed and number one and number two, number one is it’s a continuing operation, well it is a continuing operation use. He is running a very successful auto repair place and painting place except that things change and most businesses in general business may get involved in something else and he would like to be able to have the general business designation. He doesn’t intend to do that right away but it would be very hard for him to consider another opportunity for that property under the R-40 code. The second one of both the subject property (inaudible) which generally of those only residential uses, that’s correct. There’s no sense in making comments on that particular one. And then number three under the (inaudible) is in the general business zoning district which prevents the most intense commercial uses. He has been a repair shop, what he does, it’s really only under the special exception under the general business and he has been doing it for 62 years on that particular site. And under 4, the property located on the corner of a busy residential street, that’s true but it’s also located on the Main Road which you normally designate your businesses should be on there, hamlet business, limited business and general business on the Main Road. I think that we all know that Fleet is also Pequash, just to make sure, when they were reading the description on that. But the number 5 is the most interesting one from the Planning commission and I think this may go back to what they might have been citing in 1989, for the purpose of creating pre-existing, non- conforming (inaudible) zoning changes as was done in the 1990's, to eventually cause a shift in uses over times (inaudible), essentially is, we would like to see (inaudible) I don’t want to get into speculation on that but it would be highly unlikely to take a business that’s thriving if he is going to sell it as a business to completely knock it down and build a one family house on the Main Road. It certainly is not the best use of the property. And I doubt seriously from an economic point of view that that would ever be able to be achieved. To move back in that direction. And essentially, that is my (inaudible). There is other information here, I tried to be as comprehensive as I could, if I thought it would be helpful to the Board. To get the complete history of exactly what and the kind of zoning cases that had been applied to the property when it RQA Change of Zone Public Hearing April 9, 2019 page 4 was general business and R-40. And to develop any kind of general business plan and move forward if in fact he would like to, he would not be able to in R-40 zoning because looking forward to it being a single family home is simply just kind of like trying to fit in a square peg in a round hole. It’s difficult to apply the R-40 to not only his existing situation but if he does propose to do something else which would be subject to zoning under the general business. That’s my presentation. Are there any questions for me? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Just a question on clarity. This is actually currently a split zone, right? The property? MR. KIMACK: No, it’s R 40. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Oh, so it’s R 40, the entirety? I thought it was a split zone. My mistake. MR. KIMACK: I think I have given you all the information that is relevant to this and I don’t want to take up more time than I need to. Inaudible. We would respectfully request that the Board seriously consider this. Simply the designation would simply be a recognition of what has been for 62 years, a general business that continues to be such. COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: Can I ask a question? Because I thought I heard you say you were going to address the Planning Board’s memo? MR. KIMACK: That was. JUSTICE EVANS: He just did. MR. KIMACK: I did. The one that I had has five points but you said you had two and I only had one. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Actually they say the same thing. MR. KIMACK: Thanks. Talk about having to ad lib. COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: So you don’t think that their reasoning is fair, what’s the… MR. KIMACK: I think they look at it from their perspective and certainly I think that the salient point that they were making with number 5, the others were you know argumentative, in terms of it wasn’t on the side street, it’s on the Main Road and stuff like that. I think the overall expectation of the Planning Board and it may also have been the expectation in 1989, I have no way of knowing that because I wasn’t able to find any documentation, was that ultimately it’s surrounded by R-40 and that is true although limited business and hamlet business is across the street, Braun’s is down the street, Braun’s is really agricultural. That’s why I don’t bring it up because I don’t want to necessarily say that Braun’s fits the same category that we do, that essentially is going to change to an R-40, do the economics on it. I mean, in a sense he has maintained a thriving business, it’s clean, it’s operational, it’s well-screened and anybody, if he RQA Change of Zone Public Hearing April 9, 2019 page 5 was going to do any changes, the value of that property moving forward, is that some operation under the general business. Now, in a sense would be his operation now, someone could come in and buy it, he doesn’t want to be limited to just that and someone wants to look at that property and make a change but to pay that money, in a sense, you know what would you buy for a vacant lot, this isn’t a vacant lot, you had to pay the value of that and then knock it all down and build a residential home on the Main Road. My opinion is that probably would never happen. COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: I think that you are describing basically a use variance and it seems to me that you are saying that it would not meet that standard, the use variance standard. MR. KIMACK: Well, whatever, he would like to be able to, be able to plan, if in fact he wants to make a change in the future, the planning would come under the general business special exception. Whatever it has to do. He can’t do any planning now, he can’t look forward to any other opportunity in R-40. COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: But he certainly can keep his business for 100 years. MR. KIMACK: Yes but the expectation that businesses are sustainable in terms of their models, they change. I mean basically businesses, the garages or whatever, competition changes it. In a sense, I am sure that’s happened many, many times over, businesses come and go. New businesses come in, people come in with new ideas on the same property, come into the limited business and into the general business with those ideas but no one is going to be able to come into the R-40 with those other ideas. COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: Well, that brings me back to the memo from Planning which basically says that… MR. KIMACK: Inaudible. Stay the course, you can operate your garage for the next 40-50 years, have at it. And I am saying in the next 5-10 years that maybe there may be a reason or opportunity to do something else with a general business that he has applied for and would not be able to do it with R-40. TOWN ATTORNEY DUFFY: Under 281-21 and 281-23, you can make those applications to change to them to different non-conforming uses as long as it’s the same or more restrictive nature. And you are really only prevented from doing more intense use of the property than what’s there already. MR.KIMACK: That may well be the case. I mean, the decisions that were coming down basically that I was reading, they basically denied, I mean, I am not quite sure, the one that was denied after 1989, they wanted to do a 1,426 square foot one story masonry building for retail stores and commercial office. Now, is that more intense than a garage or painting? I don’t know. But it was denied because it was under R-40, so even though, yes, it’s still going to be viewed under R-40 under those standards. It’s a crapshoot. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: What’s the size of the property? RQA Change of Zone Public Hearing April 9, 2019 page 6 MR. KIMACK: It’s a little under an acre I think. I don’t have anything else, so if anyone has any questions of me? COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: It’s .859 acres. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: What is it? COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: .859. MR. KIMACK: It's almost an acre. GREG DOROSKI: I am Greg Doroski. We were wondering if the Board could comment on their thinking about how this change of zone application kind of fits within the land use chapter of the comprehensive plan that’s just been released? Because it does speak to these non- conforming uses. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, the issue with the public hearing is to take public comment so that the Board can consider all that comment. I don’t know that it would be appropriate for me right now to, you know, when I take action for or against it, would be the time I would explain that but I would rather take public input first to consider everything. MR. DOROSKI: Okay. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Who else would like to address the Town Board? UNIDENTIFIED: Inaudible. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, we still have the public hearing. MR. KIMACK: I have concluded my presentation. I mean, you have got all of my information and I just wanted to summarize and not take more time than I need. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Gail? GAIL WICKHAM: Good evening, Gail Wickham. 465 Old Pasture Road, Cutchogue. Does the Board expect to close the hearing tonight, would they be extending it for written comment? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I would see no objection to that. MS. WICKHAM: I would like to do that. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Who else would like to address the Town Board on this particular local law? MR. DOROSKI: I guess I will just express my concerns. RQA Change of Zone Public Hearing April 9, 2019 page 7 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. MR. DOROSKI: I wonder if by giving this a B zone designation, we are in effect going to pull the B zone either from the King Kullen area over to this side and increase sprawl in Cutchogue. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. MR. KIMACK: A quick comment on that. I don’t think that is going to happen. The thing is, it’s in existence on that one side, it’s almost been there before zoning actually occurred, so it’s not as if you have a new piece, a vacant piece of property that you are looking at, which is 99 % of all your other cases I suspect. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board? I want to see if anyone else wants to address the Board at this point? But I really don’t want to get involved in a point, counterpoint because I want everyone to give us their input. Anybody else? No response. JUSTICE EVANS: I make a motion we close the public hearing except for written comment for two weeks? This hearing was closed at 8:14 PM * * * * * * Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk