Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/21/1977 APPEAL BOARD MEMBERS Robert W. GilllsPi¢, Jr., Chairman Robert Bergen Charles Grigonis, Jr. Ser~e Doyen, Jr. Fred Hulse, Jr. Southold Town Board of Appeals SDUTHEILD, L. I'., N.Y. 11971 Telephone 765-2660 MINUTES Southotd Town Board of Appeals April 21, 1977 A regular meeting was held at 7:30 P.M. the Town Office, Main Road, Town Board of Appeals Thursday, April 21, 1977, at , 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, Commaack, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30;~rticle V, Section 100-50, and Bulk Schedule for per- mission to divide property ~ith existing buildings. Loca=ion 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 C~AIRMAN: 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. TH~ CHAI~/~AN: He says that he has been transferred to Indianapolis and can't make the hearing. (The ~hairman 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.) 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 oK~ers, Mr. and Mrs. Bruch, Mr. and Mrs. Smulcheski, Mr. and Mrs. Hribok, Mr. Manfred Kuerner, and Mr. Edwin Stewart and his wife. The reason ITM 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 following inforr~ation 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 the~ 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 §, says, "A Zoning Board of Appeals may act pursuant to its original jurisdiction only after ot~ce and hearing and_.n~t~ce~s-such.~s mandated in our Zoning Code. THE CHAIRMAN: What was that section again, Town Law 267 ... FREDE} {I, ESQ.: Town Law 267, Subdivision 5. The Court ~.has Spoken on this queS:t.ion. The case ~f Buffalo ~e vs. March, 249 New York 531 , in .effect, the statutory notice and hearing 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, adjoin's 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 can postpone the decision another three weeks and I'll call, Southold Town Board of Appeals 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 thi~ 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. Just for, as a lot of these people are interested here, what I 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 Carrot 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 TEDESC~HI, 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 hear you. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you agree or disagree~ith ~he ~igh~ of the motel people to use Carrol Avenue? ~REDERICK TEDESCHI: Yes, I do. They can only use Carrol Avenue down to this pQint which is the last building on Parcel 93. Carrol Road there, if I may approach the Board., they can only use 50' of it. From here s~uth is private property belonging to my clients. We can fence that off if we so desired. THE CHAIRMAN: Does that show in the title? Southold Town Board of Appeals April 21, 1977 FREDERICK TEDESCHI, ESQ.: It does, I researched this. That's in our deeds, so that actually, Parcel 93 in no way meets the requirements. Mos% 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 a~erage 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 TEDE$CHI, ESQ.: I understand that. THE CHAIRMAN: This is not our fault or the Planning Board's fault or the Town Board's fault. FREDERICK TEDE$CHI, ESQ.: I'm asking you not to compound what was done. THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure that it wouldl, but I'll make a motion to postpone the decision on this anobher 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 mot~. That~ has 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 ~nere 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, 1977, 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 - 7:58 P,M. (E.S.T.) resumed hearing upon application of Agway PetrOleum Corp, P.O.~ Box 7G5, Pulaski Street, Riverhead, New York for a special ex- ception in accordance with the Zoning Ordina~cle~ Article VII, Section 100-70 B (4) for permission to operate a self-service gasoline station. Location of property: west side Youngs Ave- ~U~, Southold, New York, bou~de~°n the northi~by G. Miner and George A~lerS & others;- east'~ Youngs AvenUe;,south' by Goldsmith and Tuthill and Long ISland Railroad; west by George Ahlers & others. TRECHA!R~4AN: This is an adjourned hearing on Agway Petroleum Corporation, Application 92250, whiQh"was heard on Ma~chl0th and 'which was ~ostp°ned for slxweeks'in order to get all the information that we could on. this subject. In the interim, we have received minutes and obher 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 Southold Town Board of Appeals April 21, 1977 protection Association (NFPA-30, 1973 Edition). State and local regulations which conform to th. at standard appreciably reduce the risk of the operation. On the basis of evidence .accumulated over five years of experience at of self~.Service outlets, operated under nationally ~fire prevention regulations, it is apparent that these installations can be operated safely. Consumers should be allowed to make the decision as to whether they wish to have service station attendants dispense their gasoline and render other services or serve themselves at the savings usually associated with self-service. Prohibition of gasoline self-service dispensing singles out the service station for discriminatory treatment dispite the fact that self-service gasoline stations preseRt no problem to public safety when operated under the NFPA-30 code. Self-serve is what the public wants -- figures prove it. In 1970, less than 5% of national retail motor fuel sales were self-served; in 1975, that had risen to 23% regardless of re- strictionS~ At service stations on Long Island wh~re a choice is offered between full serve and self-serve, 50% of the customers will choose to serve themselves." I read an article in a national newspaper which, on April 7th, indicated that "self-service gasoline stations are doing 30% of the industry's business in the U.S., doubling their volume of a year ago, says a Standard Oil (Indiana) survey," bearing out this information that we have here. marshalls responding to a recent official inquiry. In each of these cases, the N.F.P.A. states that the same type of accident has occurred at conventional service stations and was not unique to self-service operations. Insurance companies that write bodily injury and property damage liability coverage make no distinction in rate between a conventional service station and an attended self-service station for either area of insurance. The Southland Corporation (7-Eleven Food Stores) has testi- fied that it operates over 500 attended self-serve gasoline outlets in 17 states, most of them having been in operation for at least five years. They dispense approximately ninety million gallons of gasoline per year through these outlets. 7-11 has never experienced a single mishap, fire, loss or casualty. Furthermore, 7-11 reports that they have direct communication with twenty other companies~ in bUsiness similar to theirs and these companies report absolutely no fires, losses or casualties through over 3,000 self-serve installa- tions dispensing approximately 400 million gallons of gas a year. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- April 21, 1977 Shell Oil Company reports that there has not been a single serious fire, ever, at any one of the 196 self-service stations now operated by Shell at various places throughout the country. Of 193 service stations in one district, eight are operated by Shell. Six of these employ the self-service concept. The remaining 185 stations are dealer operated and 52 of these units are also using the self-service technique. That is to say that one island is dedicated as a self-service pump island and the other (or others) continues to provide the consumer with full service. Self-service allows the marketer to pass savings in labor costs to customers in the form of lower retail prices, generally two or more cents per gallon. How, in the name of the 'public safety and welfare' can a concept with such a proven local and national safety track record by suspect??? The survival of the self-service concept should be mandated by the people, and if allowed that choice they will mandate its survival or its failure." This is a well-phrased summary of the secretary of the Board of Appeals on all of the information in that file. These are statements against self-service gasoline stations. "The catalytic converters on new cars operate at over 1,000 degrees. They are hot enough to start a fire if the car is standing in tall grass or over dry leaves. An article in Gulf Technical News warned servicemen that they can be severely burned if they touch one when the car is running or just after it's shut off. Thus any spillage which might be caused by a malfunction of a nozzle, inexperience of the consumer, or care- lessness causes a 'time bo~o' effect for disaster. Self-service gas stations will result in loss of jobs for mechanics. AlsO, they are geared to a higher volume which results in a greater risk involving fire, accidents, and other hazards re- lated to gasoline pumping. Gasoline is not simply a flammable substance; it is an explosive substance. There are many dangers involved if this volatile substance is permitted to be dispensed by inexperienced, untrained, and in some cases, irresponsible people. The following areas have enacted the ban against self-serve retail gasoline outlets: the Five Boroughs of New York City, Kings, Queens, Bronx, Manhattan, and Richmond'; the Town of North Hempstead; the Town of Hempstead; the Town of East Hampton; the Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- April 21, 1977 Incorporated Village of Valley Stream; the Incorporated Village of Freeport; the Incorporated Village of Garden City; the Incor- porated Village of Patchogue; the Town of R~v~rhead; the Town of Southampton; the Town of Huntington; the Stat~ of New Jersey. There are no trained personnel at the scene should something go wrong. Customers are not trained to dispense gasoline and this would endanger the life of anyone pulling into a station. In the totally automated station, there is no one to guide the customers, no one to assist 'in the event of a serious problem. Self-service stations will allow people to take advantage of the lower price, but disabled, partially disabled, or older people incapable of dispensing their own gasoline will be hardest pressed to pay the extra money and use full service whether they want it or not. These are the people least likely to afford it. Several incidents have occured with self-serve stations such as gasoline was sprayed into a woman's eyes because of a leak in,the hose, a man pulled out the nozzle to put gasoline in his own car and was sprayed in the face, etc. Although automatic nozzles are prohibited, customers~wedge gas caps and anything else they can find to hold the nozzle valve open. New York State and, in particular, the east end of Long Island is in a deep recession with high unemployment in the area. Gasoline stations have a history of hiring the hardcore unemployed, the young people and minorities. If this type of operation takes holdt you'll cut back on the number of people being employed. Ini Idaho, a self-service station caught on fire burning up 700 ~allons of gasoline and doing $4,000 worth of damage to the station. This was the second fire at the same station in just nine months. There are pictu=es showing the intense heat of a gasoline fire at a self-serve in Massapequa that went out of control because of lack of an attendant. However, other people say that this:was an electric fire in the trunk of the car which just happened to ignite while the car was at the station." The examples which are given against self-service stations range from the particular incident to general. It's always true that you can find some kind of an accident against something. We have also a letter f~om William Rich, Jr., Goldsmith and'Tuthill. "We wish to express our opposition to the proposed unattended sale of gasoline at the Agway site on Youngs Avenue, Southold. Southold T~Wn Board of Appeals -9- April 21, 1977 We feel that this will add an unnecessary hazard in an already hazardous area where gasoline products are now stored, but dispensed only by trained personnel. Proximity of this proposed type of installation will surely raise our insurance rate and will create an added expense. Records will indicate that two fires occured in this area in the winter of 1976-1977, and both of these fires are under investigation for definite arson. A visual examination of this area on any evening will show that there is a concentration of young people frequenting this immediate vicinity. A self-service station will undoubtedly be an additional attraction to this group, with inevitable care- less smoking and temptation to arson." Yours very truly GOLDSMITH & TUTHILL, INC. /s/ William Rich, Jr. We also have a letter from A. W. Albertson, Jr., Chairman of the Southold Fire District. "I wish to express my concern in regards to Agway's in- tention of installing unattended self-service gasoline pumps on their premises. My understanding is that gasoline will be available on a '24 hour a day' basis. Together with the hazards that can be encountered with all-hire service, the close proximity to Goldsmith & Tuthill fuel tanks and lumber yard and the fertilizer2~ixing plant containing highly explosive chemicals, I think that this is a most unsatisfactory location. I am also concerned about unattended gasoline pumps in any location. Therefore, I wish to express my opposition to this operation." Sincerely, /s/ A. W. Albertson, Jr. I m~gh~ also say that we have a summary here of the National Fire Protection Association requirements as to self~service gas stations. "7-7.4.1 Self-service station shall mean that portion of property where liquids used as motor fuels are s~o~ed and subsequently dispensed from fixed approved dispensing equipment Southold T~wn Board of Appeals -10- April 21, 1977 into the fuel tanks of motor vehicles by persons other than the service stations attendant, and may include facilities available for sale of other retail products. 7-7.4.2 Listed dispensing devices such as, but not-limited to, coin-operated and remote controlled types are permiHted at self-service stations. 7-7.4.3 Ail self-service stations shall have at least one attendant on duty while the station is open to the public. The attendant's primary function shall be to supervise, observe and control the dispensing of Class I liquids while said liquids are actually being dispensed." Then it goes on to speak of the responsibilities of the attendant, emergency controls, operating instructions shall be conspicuously posted in the dispensing area, dispensing area shall at all times be in clear view of the attendant, and so on. "Hoze nozzle val~es used at a self-service station for the dispensing of Class I liquids shall be listed automatic-closing types without a latch-open divice. "~Warning signs shall be con~ spiouously posted in the dispensing area." "Provision shall be made in the area wh~re Class I liquids are dispensed to prevent spilled liquids from flowing into the interior of service station buildings." Is there anyone present who wishes to ad3d something for this application? Speaking for it? After anyone who wants to speak for it, we'll hear anyone who wants to speak against it.. What I've read is just bringing us up to date on what we've done and found out since the last meeting. RICHARD NOLAN: I'm speaking for Agway. The Town of River- head is on the Keytrol system that we have presently in operation at our plant location now, just to correct an e~ror earlier. THE CHAIRMAN: I seem to have been receiving some conflicting information about this. RICHARD NOLAN: I don't understand that at all. They aren!~t outlawed. THE CHAIRMAN: Wasn't Ri~erhead one of the ones that banned ... Mary? SECRETARY: I got thaH information out of that summary, I'm trying to remember where from. THE CHAIRMAN: There are some self-service stations up there now, is that correct? In Riverhead? RICHARD~OLAN: We have our Keytrol system in operation there in Riverhead and. we have the Town Board on that. Southold Town Board of Appeals April 21, 1977 ROBERT BERGEN: Is that key or card? RICHARD NOLAN: Key, private key. MR. KURIAN: If I could take a second and show what we mean by a key operation. We're looking at a panel or production unit that's attached to the pump in this fashion here. Unless a key is inserted in the hock and turned on, you cannot take product. It is locked ~cept~to ke~holders or maximum security keys. In the use of the Keytroi'by Agway, the key is attached to the ig- nition key ring of the vehicle. It forces the drivers to shut the vehicles off when they refuel, a safety factor that you don~t even get when you have an attendant on duty. Also, that prevents the man from driving away and leaving the ~ey in the lock, he has to remove that to get his ignition key back into his vehicle as far as that's concerned. So unless the key is inserted in the lock and turned on, you cannot take product, no way. THE CHAIRMAN: It's not a card then. MR. KURIAN: No, it is not a card, you are limited in that respect to the number of key positions on that particular pump. I thought it would be good to see it first hand. THE CHAIRMAN: Can I see the key? ~ 1FL~. Yes. It's the same type of key that would be us alarm system, it's high security as far as t concerned. It's practically impossible to get it duplicated or to make one to match that. BOB ROSSELL: I might say this, that this is not open to the public as stated in the N.F.P.A. situation in N.F.P.A.-30. TSE CHAIRM3kN: I noticed that they apply that to facilities which are open'to the public. Now, you would regard this as not being open to the public. That's right. A key is required and, of cQurse, people that are allowed to ha~e a key can use the pump. It isI a controlled group, you ~ have train these people .who to use a pump That ~true of an open-to- the~public service station as mentioned because you don't really know who comes up to that pump. Here we do know, and, Of course, tkese are responsible people because they are screened for credit and so on prior to being issued t.he key. FRED HULSE, JR.: How many keys will there be to each pump? RICN~RDNOLAN: We have two pumps now which have 100_~eys each. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- April 21, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: One is high test and the other regular? RICHARD NOLAN: One is unleaded and one is regular. MR. KURIAN: Our consideration inthe fact that the pump is private, it's like your home, your office and business is open to the public, but certainly is private in that regard. THE CHAIRMAN: What's the view of the insurance companies on this? RICHARD NOLAN: Well, I think it was stated in that article on proven safety as far as they're not charging more. MR. KU~IAN: There's a couple of things that I think are wortk mentioning. First of all, a credit rating is gotten on each person before they are issued a key. Like it or not, fellows, in our society today, the responsibility of a person that we're dealing with is a little bit dependent on the credit rating that he's getting. Obviously, the keys then aren't just given to any Tom, Dick, or Harry coming down the street. There is no insur- ance premium and if anyone is critical of cost or concerned about cost in the handling of it, it is the insurance companies -and they recognize the factor that it is Safe. The first article that you read about safety speaks for itself. I think it's a little bit of a shame that the thing gets into the act about lost jobs. I think that has no place in this at all because that's progress, there's no question about that. The people are trained to operate the system and trained properly. In the case of the proposed installation, there will be fire extinquishers placed there behind glass. THE CHAIRMAN: Signs? MR. KURIAN: There will be signs, "No Smoking", that's right. There will be a piece of paper that the people sign saying that they were trained how to operate that pump. THE CHAIRMAN: And lights all night? MR. K~RIAN: Yes, there will be lights. THE CHAIRMAN: You're going to operate this 24 hours? MR. KURIAN: That's right. There's something else I'd like to point out. It's interesting, in your own town here, you have other private installations. For example, you could have any in- dustry right here in town having their own pump. THE CHAIRMAN: I have one myself. Southold Tmon Board of Appeals -13- April 21, 1977 MR. KLL~IAN: And that's a private pump. You can let your neighbor, the fellow down the street, or whoever yo~ would like to, to take fuel out of that. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't like doing favors like that. MR. KURIAN: But if they paid you for that fuel, it's a favor you wouldn't mind. Take industry for an example. What you're saying a little bit here when you're voting against it is that the man filling up the company vehicle, that's perfectly alright, but yet when it comes to his own automobile without an attendant at a private pump, that's not right. We disagree with that. THE CHAIRMAN: Say that again. MR. KURI2~N: What I'm saying is, it's OK to have a pump at a plant with a man who's employed by the company, or at a farm, but when he drives into town, does that make it any different? Should not he have then the opportunity to use a private pump using a Keytrol, it's just as safe. What's the difference whether he's filling it on his farm or filling it at a key operated pump? BOB ROSSELL: It's the same as your pump at your house, even though you don't want somebody to use it. THE CHAIRMAN: How close are the tanks to Goldsmith and Tuthill? RICHARD NOLAN: Approximately ... maybe you could help me out on that. MR. KURIAN: About 35~ to 40' across the street. RICHARD NOLAN: That's the proposed site. The tanks them- selves will be further away. PAT HANDELL: The tanks will be further away beneath the dirt area behind the stores, the storage yard. THE CHAIRMAN: On this photograph, where would you loCate the pump? (Mr. Nolan showed the Chairman the p~oposed location of the pumps.) FRED HULSE, JR.: You mean the storage tanks will be inside the fenced area? PAT HANDELL: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: The pumps w~ll be right out here on the edge. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- April 21, 1977 PAT HANDELL: What we're going to do is square off this triangle. THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, you're going to put it around this corner, it won't be visible from the street. RICHARD NOLAN: I don't know. THE CHAIRMAN: These tanks, you think, are 35' away? PAT HANDELL: The pumps, and then the tanks would be sunk... THE CHAIRMAN: No, I'm talking about Goldsmith and Tuthill. Are they in the building there, in that building? RICHARD NOLAN: That's Agway's building. There would be people there six days a week. THE CHAIRMAN: Goldsmith and Tuthill's across the street here. They've got fuel tanks ... FRED HULSE, JR.: The lumber yard is across the street. THE CHAIRMAN: The~fuel tanks are on the corner of Young's Avenue and this ... PAT HANDELL: They have some elevated tanks in the yard Where they store home heating oil. Those are the ones that I'm making reference to that would be 30' or 40' across the extension of Hummel Avenue. THE CHAIRMAN: But you see, this is down a couple of hundred feet from the other ... how about explosive chemicals, where would they be? PAT HANDELL: As far as I know, the only explosive chemicals that they have are stored within confined areas that are locked inside the building to the back. That's several hundred feet, I would imagine 200+' away from the location of either the tanks or the pumps. THE CHAIRMAN: That ' s Agway' s chemicals, what about the old L.I.P.C.0..? PAT HANDELL~ In that side storage area that's elevated where they have loading docks, I believe what they're s~ring in there now Ks just crates and all their lime and stuff like that. All the fertilizer, I believe, is in the back building, but I can't be ab- solutely positive on that. THE CHAIRMAN: That's considerably a further distance, I wollld think. Southold Town Board of Appeals April 21, 1977 CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.: How about tank cars, liquids, fertili- zers, ammonias, and stuff like that? PAT HANDELL: That would be closer to Goldsmith and Tuthill. CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.: That's what I mean, if they got into Goldsmith and Tuthill, it could start a chain reaction up there. BOB ROSS~LL: That distance is considerable when you think about it being open, he's across the street. Cars ride by every day and they're certainly not blowing up or anything like that. I think there would be very littls hazard involved. MR. KURIAN: I think the safety factor that you spoke of originally in your first reading sums it up very nicely, I don't think that the safety record at all on self-service, attended or unattended, can be taken issue with, sincerely. I think a very clinching fact with safety or the proper use of the product, the proper handling of the hose and the nozzle, this type of thing, is the fact that the person fueling the vehicle happens to own that ~ehicle, he and the bank in most cases. What I'm driving at is, he is concerned about his private p~operty and will handle it in a safe manner more so than the company vehicle he would be filling up at the plant, so to speak, because it is his own. THE CHAIRMAN: This is a point that I don't think-a lot of today's driv~ers are aware of, that catalytic converters are as hot as they are.. They're really hot. ~OB ROSSELL: We don't intend to have we~s growing at the pumps. THE CHAIRMAN: But you could have fumes on a night like this, for instance, pretty foggy with high humidity. MR. KURIAN: Sure, but you have the same thing at a service station with attendants. That's what I say, the record for safety speaks for itself. BOB 1ROS~ELL: In~identialty, we have recently spoken with and visited ~heN.F.P.A. offices in Boston e with the 'phone. He across the country, and there's literally thousands of Keytro1 pumps across the country, where there's been any at all. I'm talking about Keytrol, not regular self-service, it's a private self- service. There's been no cases of any fire, explosion, or any d~fficulty at all with Keytrol installations. As you recognize there, there's very few that are really open to the public ... RICHARD NOLAN: After how many years in operation. Southold ToWn Board of Appeals April 21, 1977 BOB ROSSELL: We've had 20 years with Keytrol pumps. THE CHAIRMAN: Where? Agway, you mean? BOB ROSSELL: I'm speaking about Agway as well as right across this nation with fuel distributors and so on. THE CHAIRMAN: The Wall Street Journal indicates that 30% of all gas sold, I assume, is self-serve. BOB ROSSELL: Of course, as the product goes up in price that will keep going up also. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, with the energy program that was suggested last night, gasoline will be a lot more expensive. Anyone who can get it cheaper will want to do it. RICHARD NOLAN: This is one of the reasons that we got involved with the Keytrol, from the response that we mentioned at the last meeting from our farmer members as far as they would like to buy gas at the same price at the station from us. We can't do that, we can't deliver to the farm at the same price we can deliver to a 10,000 gallon tank. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the saving, 5¢, 4¢? Say,-delivered to my tankU~f~h~ farmer's tank? RICHARD NOLAN: At least 4¢. THE CHAIRMAN:~ What is the saving that's~oing to be ac- complished with this Keytrol? Nationwide, what do you figure it is? BOB ROSSELL: The amount of money, is that what you want? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, how much a gallon? BOB RO$SELL: I would say in that neighborhood, yes. It's hard to say depending on where we're talking ab~t. The saving is based, of course, on the fact that you have one pump and one tank that has been sitting way out on these farms. When delivering fuel, you can deliver it to one spot at a greater saving. ~HE CHAIRMAN: I can understand that, What I'm saying is, what will the saving be? BOB ROSSELL: It's hard to really honestly say, but there will be a saving. MR. KURIAN: 2¢, 3¢. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- April 21, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: If unleaded gas is selling downtown for 62¢, what will your gas be selling for, approximately? RICHARD NOLAN: I can just say this, on our Keytrol, it's 59.9¢. THE CHAIRMAN: That's unleaded? RICHARD NOLAN: THE CHAIRMAN: pensive to produce. We just adjusted it today. As I understand it, it's harder, more ex- RICHARD NOLAN: It"s a couple of cents cheaper at our Keytrol location in Riverhead than the posted price. THE CHAIRMAN: There will be some sort of saving that will be passed on and they announce 200,000 gallons a year if each customer buys 1,000 gallons apiece, right? Which is a reasonable assumption. BOB ROSSELL: There is certainly a saving and it is alrDa~¥ being passed along at locations where they're being used D.ut we're mostly talking about, I think, whether this is safe and we cer- tainly think it is and we think it's a great service, incidentially, to the public. ROBERT BERGEN: For your private customers, not the public. You just told us that. BOB ROSSELL: Yes, it's private. If you become a private use~, ~ keyh~lder, of course there's a great saving. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wants to add anything for this application? CHARLES HALL: If you look at the total energy consumption of delivered fuel of gasoline to homes, we're talking 200,000 gallons I think I heard mentioned. To deliver that to one spot takes a lot less energy right there. You heard the President last night talking about energy conservation, you could save energy right the~e, a lot of energy. CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.: But the man coming into the gas station 10 or 15 miles to get his gas, he uses that energy up. CHARLES HALL: I think it'd be good an as overall thing. The argument against, I think, is very weak as far as safety goes. CHARLES GRIGONIS, JRL: I talked to a man Upstate who had a key, he went in one night and there was a key in the pump. He Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- April 21, 1977 said like a fool he took it out and took it in the office the next day, he should have filled his tank with it. Now if you leave one there and one of those kids gets hold it it ... MR. KURIAN: That just proves the responsibility of the people who do use the key pump. THE CHAIRMAN: You said something about requiring the guy to keep the key on his ignition key ring. There's no way you can enforce that, you just suggest it, right? MR. KURIAN: It can be enforced from the standpoint that you can get a keyring and literally braze it shut as some plants'do, for the protection of the consumer as well as the operation Of the system. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me understand the nozzle Qn it, we've had considerable discussion about them being abl~ ~ be jammed open. BOB ROSSELL: There's no catch on it, no latch. MR. KURIAN: That keeps the person at the nozzle and yet it's automatic in that it kicks off when the tank fills up. BOB ROSSELL: Another safety factor. THE CHAIRMAN: And there's no way to jam that trigger? BOB ROSSELL: There are ways but people don't do that. There are ways of doing everything. MR. KURIAN: The fact is that the man is fueling that car, he's having to pay for that fuel. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wants to speak for this application? Are there any prospective customers here? CHARLES HALL: I plan on getting a key. THE CHAIRMAN: There's one prospective customer that isn't here and that'S Howard Terry who drives the ambulance. He says that frequehtly when he[goes to get the ambulance for an emergency there's no gas in it, his employer won'.t put gas in it. At two or three o'clock in the morning he's faced with a trip, he went the other night to Port Jefferson without any gas. He made it up to your place in Riverhead, I don't know who he got a key from, but he got some gas up there. MR. KURIAN: I can only say this, the number of locations that you can control compared to the fact that the,~produ~~ is in one location is certainly an advantage from the safety Standpoint. Southold Town Board of Appeals April 21, 1977 That is, if you're forcing people to put private tanks in like you have there, an uncontrolled private tank, as compared to a controlled location here. You're a heck of a lot safer because you have that under your jurisdiction at that location. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think I've ever wanted a tank for the reason of the saving in fuel so much as convenience because you've got condensation, evaporation. There's no way to figure it, all you know is the amount of gas you pay for. MR. KURIAN: I have to say this, Keytrol or self-service through Keytrol is used widely throughout the United States. It's just unbelievable, whether it's going into industry where the employees of a~company fill the company vehicles or whether it's on a private, self-service basis, it's just, they~e out there literally by the thousands. THE CHAIRMAN: And to your knowledge, there's never been an accident with the Keytrol. BOB ROSSELL: That's right. THE, CHAIRMAN: That statement would be confirmed by the ... BOB ROSSELL: By the secretary of the N.F.P.A., I'm sure. THE CHAIRMAN: Let's write to him. Do we have his address? MR. KURIAN: We can supply that information to you. BOB ROSSELL: I believe that you have an N.F.P.A. book. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wants to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Anyone wish to speak against this application? JACK POTERE: I'm a director for the Reta ciation. There seems to be~a here by saying this is not a Public customers is a fine ic and private. It's'.200 people that ... it's farmers, other people, whoever, can get a key under certain conditions. I just want to make you gentlemen ~ware that there is a New York State law banning the use of these kind of facilities, service stations that are coin operated with dispensers or self- service where there is not an attendant on duty. Now when you say an attendant, that can even be a cashier, that qualifies as an attendant. This is a 24-hour operation where there is no one, absolutely no one there. True, there will be signs directing Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- April 21, 1977 people what to do, there will be fire extinquishers. The fact remains that it is a situation where there is absolutely no control. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you of your own knowledge know of any action in the State of New York that was taken against the Keytrol station.? JACK POTERE: To. my knowledge, no. The point I.~was trying to make is that this law was written solely on a ~afety standard, safety factor, that's the only reason it was written. THE CHAIRMAN: It's probably very close to this N.F.P.A. excerpts, it's probably the same thing. JACK POTERE: It's saying that there should be one attendant on duty. Now they're saying here that this isn't public, it's private. THE CHAIRMAN: Requiring an attendant on duty would require pay for a man around the clock. As far as savings are concerned, it would cost more for their gasoline than what you pay at a pump. Presumably, that's the reason for this type of arrangement. Go ahead. I'm sure you're aware of this. JACK POTERE: I don't totally agree with you, but that's another issue. THE CHAIRMAN: We're just trying to develop information. JACK POTERE: The point I'm trying to make is that the gentleman earlier said he didn't want to bring in the economic factor inVolved in it. Now we're bringing in examples of i~, so I think we ha~e to go one way or the other or we go both ways. Taking the e~onoraic factors of unemployment, etc., and the safety factors, or do we just go one way and that's the safety factor. I'm under the impression that the important thing is the Safety and I think that's what the letters opposing it come under. The ones from the Chairman of the Southold Fire District and I believe it was the fuel oil man. MR. KURIAN: Fr~m the standpoint of safety, what makes the cashier more respon~le than the guy pumping gas? What makes him more qualified? JACK POTERE: First of all, he's trained by the company, he's always there. THE CHAIRMAN: If a fire occurres~, it wouldn't make any difference if you had 20 guys standing around. JACK POTERE: Let's assume something did happen, a flash fire, an explosion. If the person pumpimq the gas is knocked Seuthold Town Board of Appeals April 21, 1977 unconscious: if there's some one else there, he can call for help. He can assist then, that's the whole idea behind ... earlier, one thing I will say, the Town of Riverhead does not have a ban on self-service. They are considering it. To my knowledge, it's not banned. THE CHAIRMAN: As I understood it today from Mr. Terry there's three of them there in Riverhead now. JACK POTERE: I think again, the distinction's being made between self-service and this is not a self-service operation, this is a completely unattanded operation. A self-service operation has an attandant as the New York State law requires. There again, we're .comparing a private with a public, there's a fine line between the two. 200 customers, in my mind, is a public. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's something for the courts to determine, not us. JACK POTERE: The point I'm trying to make is, the law was written,on a safety factor. They didn't take any consid- eration, it~was just on a safety factor, I think this is some- way can you.force a person to keep it on his keychain. They are 's a safety factor, it's not and I don't think we naive as that to think it is. The key can be p~issed fro~.person to person. This person can go in, at any h~r of the~'d~y or night, not the original person who got the k~y through his credit rating or whatever. Let's take an ex- ample, a young ~eenager OUt for the night with his friends in ~ii~ fathe~i He didn't pay for the car, he doesn't have ' of the car. You can take it from there what can That'~s basically a re-hash of what was said la swering what these gentlemen have to say, Boar~ should strictly take this on a safety factor. I think it's a very dangerous situation that can evolve into something that can get out of hand. ~HE CHAIRMAN: I think that this type of action, if it's to be pr?hibit~d~ should be done by the Town Board. That,s what was done in all the Other instances we have in this file here. Hempstead~ North Hempstead, Brookhaven I guess and wherever else the~ came from. In other words, the legislative body of the ~own, this is the quasi-conditional here. We 'do not make law Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- April 21, 1977 or ordinances, we just interpret what we've got. What we've got says that if an applicant meets all the criteria in our Zoning Ordinance which is spelled out in here very specifically as to gas stations, that this Board is required to grant a permit for a service station. It seems to me that the Board should impose all reasonable safety requirements and act on it favorably. I'm no% sure how the rest of the Board feels, but I think that if the Board requires all of our requirements as to service stations are imposed in granting this application as well as the applicable portions of the N.F.P.A. Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code and if we review the operation within one year, those would be my suggestions. I'm just giving you what I think. Is there anyone here who wants to refu~e or combat any remarks that were made for or against? RICHARD NOLAN: I don't understand the New York State, law when we have over 50 different plants scattered throughout New York State with Keytrol operations, 24-hour service. I wish to see that law quoted. Can you state that law? JACK POTERE: I can state it right here. Before I do, I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make. If you give me a chance, I'll explain it to you. You had said, initially, that it was not a public station. Assuming that factor ... THE CHAIRF~AN: ~would say it's' like a member club. The point I was trying to make, the New York Sta' gasoline ~sold to the general public. T ~pply to them, I Understand that. The point I was to.make, the law was written strictly on a safety saw it for themselves that there should be an attend~ e. What I'm saying is tha~ii ~h.d~s~i'~ha~~ ~ it do~ PlY in this case but 200 members, or 'c~S~om~rs, whateve~ you want to call them, if not exactly a very exclusive private club who can be trained, adequately. I'm saying there's a fine line. between the two. I'm not saying it,s not a private organization, I~'m using that as an example. I never said that this law applied to you, I'm sorry if You misunderstood me. T~E CEAIRMAN: It's like a country club, not everybody tksre knows how to play tennis or gulf. JACK POTERE: If you're giving an example of that, tennis is not a dangerous situation, gasoline is certainly a very dangerous situation. I don't think we can take it as light as that. MR. KURIAN: I can appreciate your concern ... Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- April 21, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: We're in the position here of having to establish policy which really should be done by the Town Board. As I understand it, Howard Terry brought this up years~ago to the TOwn Board and he told them that someday they're going to come out here and want to put up self-service gas stations. He's always telling the Town Board what to do and, of course, they don't do it. What you should do is develop an ordinance that will permit or not permit self-service gas stations. A couple .of the members said, "Well, that will never happen here." 30% of the gas in the country is being sold this way according to the Wall Street Journal the other day. BOB ROSSELL: There are new good ideas around. Let me just say this just to rebutt a little bit, when he was talking about a couple of times, Fir. Potere, that we shouldn't judge it on economic reasons. It wasn't really our meaning to bring that upt in fac~ we didn't bring it up. We were just' answering questions. We are really concerned with the safety of this. New York State'is probably our largest market for Keytrol pumps. ~n~!~uding Agway, there's many, many other oil distributors that are using Keytrol pumps. There's never been any question on this as far as New York State goes of this being allowed. They did disallow the use of coin operated pumps, but as far as Key- trol, ho, never. Getting back to the N.F.P.A., the secretary himself sai~ that in the regulations which are really antiquated, these regulations date back a few years if you look at the books, the date from the books. As far as those regulations, th~s type of operation was never considered when they wrote those regula- tions about the self-service. THE CHAIRMAN: It says 1976 here. Is that your writing, Mary? SECRETARY: Yes. BOB ROSSELL: That is an updated version, it's been carried along for years, dating back beyond 1973, I believe. Back in 1960 somewhere, they just kept updating it. They have a lot to do also and they just haven't gotten around to doing~certain things. That was written for another purpose, really, for open- to-~he-public ~service stations available to anyone who drives down with money in their pocket. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else? Any other questions? GEORGE BERRY: I'm chief of the local ~ire Department here. Did anybody actually stop and think and survey the pi~ce~ ef prop- erty in question of where this is going to ~o? You have an oil dump from you, 30'. You've got a building full of chemicals about 8" away from these pumps. You've got a l~umber yard on the other side full of fertilizer and everything inside the building which is only a cement wall away from the pumps. Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- April 21, 1977 RICHARD NOLAN: There are no chemicals stored back there. GEORGE BERRY: The whole back is loaded with them. RICHARD NOLAN: Not next to our pumps. I don't understand. L.I.P.C.O. is in the back. THE CHAIRMAN: ~-This isn't near your building. RICHARD NOLAN: No, it isn't. THE CHAIRMAN: It looks to me like it's about 40', 50' from the building. RICHARD NOLAN: It'd have to be at least 50' from the building itself. The chemicals themselves, I would think they'd have to be at least 300 yards away. (Mr. Berry, Mr. Nolan, and the Board discussed the location of the pumps.) GEORGE BERRY: Another thing I'd like to add to this, I live in the area, if anybody happens to go down that section in the sua%mertime with all the farm trucks and everything there, you can't find a parking spot down there. They want to stick these pumps right in the middle of all these farm trucks. I'm talking about in the summertime, there's a potatoe place right in back of it. If you gohto Agway to get a package of seed, you can't find a parking place in Agway. That piece of property just can't support pumps and all those potatoe trucks down there where the farmers just flip them butts out. I can't see putting a time bomb right in the middle. This is what you're going to have if you OK this. THE CHAIRMAN: Potatoe trucks line up on this little road here? GEORGE BERRY: Both sides. PAT HANDELL: I have not been there for the height of the manuever their cars around because of potatOe trucks or anything like that. THE CHAIRMAN: How about putting these pumps back from the road 35' or something like that? RICHARD NOLAN: We could move them back. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else have anything? Southold Town Bo~ard of Appeals -25- April 21, 1977 JOSEPH SPITALERI: The only thing that I can see is, in safety, is the human factor. The only thing I've seen here to judge the human factor on is credit rating. We have had no, will there be any evidence that these people Hill be instructed, every and all members of the family will be instructed, anyone who would ever have access to that key would be instructed, not just the man who pays the bill. I can't see how you can get safety equated with credit rating. A man can have perfect credit and do really well in his field, but in terms of gasoline, I don't think so. THE CHAIRMAN: Generally speaking, you assume that a good credit rating implies a responsible character. That's what you're saying. M~. KURIAN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: It isn't always true. EOB ROSSELL: Incidentially, since you are talking about a controlled group, as I mentioned before, yo~ do.have a very good chance to instruct that person using a ke~ t© be ~ble to o the same thing ~s that service statiOn operator. Ive been zn many, many service stations, not necessaril~ self-service where .. well, I can think of one good incident in Vermont where 2 12 year old kid got o f has bicycle and did a very nice Job on filling up the car, taking the credit for it, filling that out, and I just had to ask him how old he was. He said 12 year$~!o~,. I think that what we're talking about is people in an o~ age group than that. We're ~talking about people who you can instruct and people who are responsible. Certainly that would be the job of Agway to screen those peeple and require that that key is not transferred. Nothing is absolute, of course, but you can put some control on it. RICHARD NOLAN: I certainly wouldn't want to lend my key out to someone and pay their bill. GEORGE BERRY: That's easy to say here in this room but it don't work.i It always sounds good talking about, "I'm going to put my key here, my key~s going to be on ~he ignition," in here it sounds good, but it don't work. RICED NOLAN: I personally don't and I have an employee who won't lend it to his own son. BOB ROSSELL: Most of the time they won't because they don~t want to pay the bill. FRED HULSE, JR.: Will there be duplicate keys if you own two cars or three cars? Southotd Town Board of Appeals -26- April 21, 1977 RICHARD NOLAN: Yes. FRED HULSE, JR.: So you do have a possibility of a lot more than ... BOB R©SSELL: Yes, but you could also sign and instruct those people. In other words, if you give two keys out, you are then signing those people. JOSEPH SPITALERI: May I ask who's accepting the respon- sibility for them, for the training, is it Agway or the keyholder? MR. KURtAN: The Agway Corporation is responsible for the training. JOSEPH SPITALERI: When you say a controlled situation, I have seen some forms of this operation, you fill out credit forms like for a credit card, and if I passed I assume I would get a key. In a controlled situation, if there were two on one key, that would be another 200. BOB ROSSELL: Just to go back on that 200, incidentially, that doesn't mean that there are going to be 200 necessarily customers, it could be that a customer could have a no-lead and a regula~ gas. JOSEPH SPITALERI: That doesn't necessarily hold true. The control seems to loose as it increases. The control and the safety. RICHARD NOLAN: But what is the control at a self-serve? I mean, at an attended station ... JOSEPH SPITALERI: Not someone alone at 4:00 A.M.,.5:30 A.M. BOB ROSSELL: I'm sure you know this, and we agree with this about the~7-11, I believe it was, stores and their good record. We believe that. Earlier this was cited by the Chair- man. The truth is, even though that we feel is ~ery safe and they do, evidently, too, the truth is that that man is not next to that pump when you are operating that as a self-service pump open to the public. He may be back checking in somebody or getting a box of cereal or something like that. When you talk about someone being there, I think really the person well trained who can operate the pump himself would probably do an even bet%er job. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? JACK POTERE: I'd like to say one other thing. The example of 7-11, the few I've seen with gasoline I believe in the South ... Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- April 21, 1977 BOB ROSSELL: They're all over the country. JACK POTERE: Well, I've seen it somewhere. Just the few that I've seen, the way it operates is that the customer ... it's true that the man running the store is inside the store, the ~ustomer's outside with the gasoline, but that pump cannot be turned on until the man inside the store turns it on. He also has a microphone or speaker of some sort where he can tell him to extinquish any cigarettes, shut off his engine, and then he turns the pump on. In this situation, there's no one there to tell anyone anything. BOB ROSSELL: Let me t~ll you a funny one. I wanted to take a picture of this operation at 7-11 and I stood outside and I took flash pictures right at the pumps of 7-11 and the pumps before it. The people inside didn't even know I was taking flash pictures right into the windows, so I wonder. Not that we object to that, we think we have a much safer operation than that. JACK POTERE: I just want to say that I don't see how yours can be safe when there's no one there, absolutely no control. The key in itself is not control given the human factor. At least when you have someone there, there is some degree of con- trol. BOB ROSSELL: There is activity around self-service stores other than getting gasoline. In other words, there's cars moving around. THE CHAIRMAN: I think now we'll have to halt. We've got a lot of other hearings on here tonight, all of the information that we could get together it all and heard all you people, I'm going to offer a grantin? this application as applied fo~ subject 'to the following c0nd~- tions; that the applicant place the pumps at least 35' from ... what do you call this, the extension of'Hummel Avenue? 35'-from Hummel Avenue and that all, regulations applied to gasoline service stations listed in the Zoning 0rdinance i~all be listed on this action and applied Where applicable. The same condition shall be placed on this action with regard to the N.F.P.A. Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code and that it ble qu~ed in the action starting at ParaNraph 7-7.4 Self-Service Stations to its conclu- szon, and that the Board review the operation after one year. ROBERT BERGEN: I'll second that. THE CHAIRMAN: It's been regularly moved an~ seconded. Do I hear a vote? CHARLES GRIGONIS: Being an ex-chief, I've seen many fires of tractors, trucks, lawnmowers, so I have to vote no. Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- April 21, 1977 CHAIRMAN: Ail right. Fred? FRED HULSE, JR.: As long as the provisions are observed with the safety factor with the attendant on duty, I'll vote in favor Of it. T~E CHAIRMAN: The vote is three to one in faVor. I thank you all for coming in. The application is granted but not unanimous~ subject to the conditions we made. You might also say in the findings ... Mary, you might also say in the findings that to prohibit this action after the applicant has met all the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance would not be a proper action of the Board of Appeals. To prohibit this type of use in the Town of Southold is a matter for the Town Board. Thanks a lot. Good night. (To secretary) Did you get all t~e names you wanted? (At this point, my tape was turned off and while I was getting a man's name, this conversation was going on at the Board's table. I took this off the other tape recorder which had a lot of background static.) (Either Mr. Kurian or Mr. Nolan who were both speaking for Agway): You included in the resolution then that there must be an attendant on duty? FRED HULSE, JR.: That's correct. THE CHAIRMAN: We're going to put in the N.F.P.A. Fire Protection ... (Person speaking for Agway): That said there must be an attendant on duty? THE CHAIRMAN: It says that "all self'service stations shall have at least one attendant on duty while the station is open to the public." Apparently both New York State and these people will impose that. (The person speaking for Agway asked the Board something. I couldn't make out what he said because of the static on the tape.) when JR: Maybe~.I am. There m~st be an attendant )n is operable. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I guess in view of this misunderstanding ... I thought you understood that, Fred. The vote is Mary, the vote is two to two. Mr. Hulse didn't understand. FRED HULSE, JR.: My understanding is that there must be an attendant on duty when this is operational. Any time it is being used there must be an attendant. Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- April 21, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: Well-then, you are voting no (to Grigonis) and you are voting no (to Hulse). FRED HULSE, JR.: Unless the provision is changed to that there is an attendant on duty. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that kills the operation. Your only recourse is to appeal this. (NOTE: The Chairman conferred with the Town Attorney on April 22, 1977, and it was his opinion that the original vote of three to one in favor of Agway should stand.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to operate a self-serv~ce gasoline Station, west side Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are that to prohibit this action after the applicant has met all the criteria in the Zoning Or- dinance would not be a proper action of the Board of Appeals. To prohibit this type of use in the Town of Southold is a matter for the Town Board. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and justice will be served and the legally established or permitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use dis- tricts will not be permanently or substantially injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED, Agway Petroleum Corp., P.O. Box 705, Pulaski Street, Riverhead, New York, be GRANTED permission to operate a self-se~vice gasoline station, west side Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York, as applied for, subject to the following conditions: 1. The pu~ps shall be placed no closer than 35' from the northerly si~e of the extension of Hummel Avenue. 2. The following condition from Pro- Flammable and Combu~ ids Code shall be : ,7~7.4.3 All self-service stations shall have at least one attendant on duty while the station is open to the public. The attendant's primary function shall be to supervise, observe and control the dispensing of Class I liquids while said liquids are actually being dispensed." where applicable: $outhold Town Board of Appeals -30- April 21, 1977 (a) Entrance and exit driveways shall have an unrestricted width of not less than twelve (12) feet and not more than thirty (30) feet and shall be located not less than ten (10) feet from any property line, and shall be so laid out as to avoid the neces- sity of any vehicle backing out across any public right-of-way. (b) Vehicle lifts or pits, dismantled automobiles and all parts or supplies shall be located within a building. (c) Ail service or repair of motor vehicles, other than such minor servicing as change of tires or sale of gasolin~ or oil, shall be conducted in a building. (d) The s.~orage of gasoline or flammable oils in bulk shall b~ lo~ated ~~rground and not less than thirty-five (35) feet from any property line other than the street line. (e) No gasoline or fuel pumps or tanks shall be located less than fifteen (15) feet from any street or property line. (f) No motor vehicle sales, used car lots, gasoline service or repair shops or similar businesses are to be located within three hundred (300) feet of a church, public school, library, hospital, orphanage or a rest home. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse. Nays: Mr. Grigonis. (NOTE: On April 29,~1977, the following letter was sent i~t~Agway) Agway Petroleum Corp. B.O. Box 705 Pulaski Street Riverhead, NY 11901 Att: Richard Nolan Re: Confirmation of telephone conversation with Mr. Fleischman on April 29, 1977. Dear Mr. Notan: Tow~ counsel has advised~after a review of the Ag~a'y 1hearing on April 21, 1977, that the original vote of 3 to 1 in favor of your application must stand and that I erred in permitting a~Board member to change his vote resulting in a 2 to 2 tie. Accordingly, the action on your application #2250 will be corrected at the next regular Board meeting on May 12, 1977, to show a 3 to 1 vote. Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- April 21, 1977 Very truly yours, /s/ Robert W. Gillispie, Jr. Chairman PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2259 - 9:05 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of Walter F. and Flora S. Luce, 505 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-118 E for permission to enlarge an existing, non-conforming building. Location of property: South side Main Road (Route 25), Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Route 25; east by V. Cierach; south by North Fork Bank & Trust Co.; west by North Fork Bank & Trust Co. 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 %he applicant. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Victor Cierach; North Fork Bank & Trust Co. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: A photostat of the building permit accom- panying the application indicates that the existing building Ks about 8' from the sidewalk on Route 25 and rather small in size. It's 16'6" from the side line to the east and the pro- posed addition will be approximately 15' off the easterly line and approximately 95' from the southerly line, is that correct? WALTER F. LUCE: From the southerly line, that's right. THE CHAIRMAN: This sketch is abbreviated, compressed, right? What's the total acreage, do you know? WALTER F. LUCE: I think it's 105' across the front. propose~to expand. ID there anyone present who wishes~to speak for this application? Anything to add? (Mr. Luce and the Board referred to the map and discussed the location of the proposed addition.) Anyone wish to speak against this application? (There was no response.) Southold Town Board of Appeals ~32- April 21, 1977 After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to enlarge an existing, non-conforming building, south side Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement With the reasoning of the applicant. 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 an 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. Bergen, seconded by M~. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED, Walter F. and Flora S. Luce, 505 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, New York be GRANTED permission to enlarge an existing, non-conforming building, south side Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2258 - 9:12 .P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of Ellis and Helen Hyers, ~08 ForSy~he Avenue, North Lindenhurst, New York for a variance ~n accordance with the ZO~ning Ordinance, Article III, Section i00-30 and Bulk SchedUle for permission to divide property with insufficient width.and area. Location of property: south side Oak Drive, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Oak Drive; east by R. La~gemyr; south by Thomsen and Belz; wes~ by R. Slavin. · he Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for al notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to i~s PUk in the official newspapers, and notice to the Chairman also read statement that notification by been made to: E. ThomSen; J. Langemyr; R. Slavin; A. ~riebe. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHA!R~L~N: The application is accompanied by a phOto- s~at of the area indicating that many of '%he lOts in this area are considerably under the size proposed here. Four lots to the southwest of this lot are all smaller than the proposed division. Numerous lots west and north are smaller. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? JOAN LANGEMYR: I'm going to buy the property. Southold Town Board of Appeals April 21, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: Which one are you going to buy here? JOAN LANGEMYR: The 125' and Mr. Slavin would be buying the 25' to extend his property. THE CHAIRMAN: I see. You'll be buying this to build a house on, right? JOAN LANGEMYR: I'm not going to put anything up presently but I'd like to know if I can have that sold within ten years to have someone put a house on it. THE CHAIRMAN: Slavin3s going to buy this to increase his lot and you would still ha~e 125' JOAN LANGEMYR: Mine is only 112' front and I'm next to that, but I would be buying it. FRED HULSE, JR.: YOU still would only have one more house. ROBERT BERGEN: This makes the neighbor's property much better. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wish to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Anyone wish to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicants?~$equest permission to divide property with in- sufficient width and area, south side Oak Drive, Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is ~n agree- ment with the reasoning of the applicant. Many lots in the area are smaller than the one tc be created. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would ical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; unique and would not be all propertie~ ~ the immediate vicinity ol and · n the same use ; and the variance not change ~he character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, Ellis and Helen Hyers, 308 Forsythe Avenue, North Linde~hurst, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with insufficient width and area, south side Oak Drive, Cutchogue, New York, as applied for. Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- April 21, 1977 Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2262 - 9:20 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of Robert Adipietro, Peconic Lane, Peconic, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off dwelling on lot with insufficient width and area. Lo- cation of property: Indian Neck Lane and Leslie Road, Peconic, New York, bounded on the north by Leslie Road; east by Indian Neck Lane; south by Lots 92 and 4 "East Hill" Subdivision. · he 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: John Pontino. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: This is a situation where two houses exist on a triangular piece of prop.erty at the intersection of Indian Neck Lane and Leslie Road, the southwest corner. Both houses are apparently fairly close to the proposed division line. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? ROBERT ADIPIETRO: I'm Mr. Adipietro. THE CHAIRMAN: There's no way to enlarge the Lot A, is there? ROBERT ADIPIETRO: Square footage wise, there would be a possibility of adding additional square footage. THE CHAIRMAN: It wouldn't accompliSh anything. ROBERT ADIPIETRO: Not appreciably, no. THE CHAIRMAN: You wouldn't want to closer to Lot B's ho. uSe because it looks like ct or 15' now. On plot ~, What's the acreage? ~The Chairman referred to the map.) Lot B is 39,000 sq. ft. and A is approximately 7,400. It's almost 47,000. Now here's a case of 47,'0.00, the only way to divide it intelligently point, that's the way it looks. ROBER=T BERGEN: The houses have been there for years. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wish to speak for this application? (There was no response.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- April 21, 1977 If not, is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to set off dwelling on lot with ~nsufficient width and area, Indian Neck Lane and Leslie Road, PeConic, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. 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~Y all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this pro~%y 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, Robert Adipietro, Peconic Lane, Peconic, New York be GRANTED permission to set off dwelling on lot with insufficient width and area, Indian Neck Lane and Leslie Road, Peconic, New York, as applied for. The division line shall be as determined on the survey by Van Tuyl dated March 23, 1977. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2261 - 9:25 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of Rhoda Weston, 76 Bogart Avenue, Port Wash- ington, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to construct dwelling with insufficient side-yard setback. Location of property: West side Snug Harbor Road, Greenport, New York; Lot 955, Section III, Cleaves Point Subdivision. 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 b.een made to: D. Bello; Dr. S. Simkim. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAI~N:~% This is a peculiar situation where the environmentalistspeople have aSked for 75' and then reduced that, as I understand it, to 60' and we'd have to reduce one setback from the lagoon to 45' in order to have the house ac- commodated with the 25' sum of side yards. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for th~s application? Southold Town Board of Appeals -36~ April 21, 1977 (There was no response.) The'reason I'm quite familiar with this application is because Mr. Weston came to see me about it and that is the situation. He could accommodate his proposed house to the lot except for the requirements of D.E.C. on setback which puts the whole thing on an angle. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) It may be that they will get relief from D.E.C., he tells me, he may not need the variance, but in case he does need it ... he needs 1-1/2' on each side, a total of three feet. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission~to construct dwelling with insufficient side-yard setback, west side Snug Harbor Road, Greenport, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoni~ of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardshiP-cmeated is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and an 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED, Rhoda Weston, 76 Bogart Avenue, Port Washington, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct dwelling with in- sufficient wide-yard setback, west side Snug Harbor Road, Greenport, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. Appeal No. 2263 9:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon TheOdore Andruski, Walnut Avenue/ Mattituc~, New 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: West side Walnut Avenue, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Deniz a~d Hell; east by Walnut Avenue; south by W. Corwin; west by Corwin, Yarusso, & Coutts. 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 Southold Town Board of Appeals ~37~ April 21, 1977 applicant. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made to: Mrs. L. Yarusso; Mr. and Mrs. Wilbur Corwin; Mrs. Sophie Wells. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MRS. ANDRUSKI: We need a garage. THE CHAIBdWAN: And your house is approximately on the back line. MRS. ANDRUSKI: It is. You can just step out and touch that man's fence there. It's just maybe 6' or 8' from my window there. THE CHAIRMAN: How far back are you going to put the garage? MRS. ANDRUSKI: From Walnut Avenue? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. We'd like to have it back 35'. MRS. ANDRUSKI: I don't know. THE CHAIRMAN: I think you've got 35' back there, which is standard front yard. MRS. ANDRUSKI: It probably is because it's quite back, it's almost even with the house. THE CHAIPdqAN: Is there anyone presen= who wishes to object to this application? (The~e.was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant~ requests permi~ssion to construct accessory building in front yard area, west side Walnut Avenue, Mattituck, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The applicant's house is only a few feet from the rear yard line. The BOard finds that strict application of the Ordinance would producepractical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship c~eated is unique and would not be shared'by all properties alike in t~e irmuediate 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. Bergen, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- April 21, 1977 RESOLVED, Theodore Andruski, Walnut Avenue, Mattituck, New York, be GRANTED permission to construct accessory building in front yard area, west side Walnut Avenue, Mattituck, New York, as applied for, subject to the following condition: The applicant's garage shall be placed at least 35' from Walnut Avenue and at least 3' from the side yards. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2264 - 9:35 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon appliuation of Carol and John Plock, Jr., 10003 North Bayview Road, Seuthold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct tower exceeding maximum height. Loca- tion of proper%y: Right-of-way, north side North Ba~view Road, Southold, New York, bounded on the north~a~d east by Kerester & others; south by J. Plock; west by right-of-way. 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 that notification by certified mail had been made to: John L. and Anna Plock; RJK Venture. Fee paid - $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? JOHN PLOCK: We need this. THE CHAIRMAN: Suppose, I was just thinking, suppose the highest tree in the area was 90'. JOH~ PDOCK: Well, I guess we'd have to put one up that high. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think the trees have anything to do with it. JOHN. PLOCK: One tree wouldn't, it does if you get a tre- mendous amount of trees. We are in a wooded area. It will be reflected in the screen, the leaves on the trees. THE CHAIRMAN: We went down there and looked, it's on the northeast corner of your house, is that correct? JOHN PLOCK: Yes. Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- April 21, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who wishes to add anything to this? Anyone who wishes to object? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board~finds that the applicant requests permission to construct tower exceeding maximum height, right-of-way, north side North Bayview Road, Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board find~Ltha~*Strict application of the Ordinance would produce practi~a~~ 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 mn 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED, Carol and John Plock, Jr., 10003 North Bayview Road, Southold, New York b~ GRANTED permission to construct tower exceeding maxmmum height, right-of-way, north side North Bayview Read, Southold, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis. Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2260 - 9:40 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of Spencer W. Petty, III, Track Avenue, Cutch- ogue, New York 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 and area. Location of property: west side Track Avenue, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by K. Gagen; east by Track Avenue; south by Lots 1 and 5, Pequash Acres; west by Tyte and Fior. The Chairman opened the hearing by readin~i the application for a variance; legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting t~ its pubiica~ion 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: William Carroll; Gilmo Flor; Bruce Tyte; Katheryn Gagen. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a photostat of the County Tax Map indicating that the lot in question shows up with 243' on Track Avenue with a depth of about 195' on one dimension and 192' on the other dimension. The rear lot line ms 237'. The proposed division indicates that there would be 23,000 sq. ft., approximately, in each half of the division. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- April 21, 1977 (There was no response.) I'll speak for it. We were down there and across the street there were 50' lots which were 12,500 sq. ft. lots. The proposed lots are twice as large. To the west are 20,000 sq. ft. lots. These lots are supposed to be 23,000 sq. ft. To the south, there are new acre lots and there's some described area to the north. It seems to me it would be appropriate to permit this division of property, in view of the surrounding area. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this? JAMES SLATER: I do, I live on Lot $5, Pequash Acres. When I bought this property there, I was informed that this is one acre zonlng and I feel a subdivision of this type would degrade the property value of my property. THE CHAIRMAN: You're in Lot $5 along side of this. JAMES SLATER: As indicated in there, the housing on Track Avenue toward Pequash in that area is one-acre zoning and not half-acre zoning as he indicated. The smaller lots are across the street on Track Avenue. THE CHAIRMAN: Track Avenue to the west is where the small are. JAMES SLATER: No, Track Avenue to the east are smaller houses and Track Avenue to the west is where Mr. Petty's prop- erty would be and my property is adjacent to it. THE CHAIRMAN: Across the street, there are 12,500 sq. ft. lots, is that correct? JAMES SLATER: That's correct. THE CHAIRMAN: To the west, there are 20,000 sq. ft. lots. To the south, there are some new acre lots, right? JAMES SLATER: That's correct. THE CHAIRMAN: And then there's some described property. JAMES SLATER: That's to the north~ THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wish to speak against this application? WILLIAM CARROLL: Yes, I do. I own Lot $1 which is right in back of Mr. S.~Ater's lot. I'm opposed for basically the same reasons as Mr. Slater is. THE CHAIRMAN: Lot $17 Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- April 21, 1977 WILLIAM CARROLL: Right. Also, I feel that you're setting up a requisite for anyone else who would like to subdivide any of the lots in the new subdivisions which are basically the same size. THE CHAIRMAN: That wouldn't occur. WILLIAM CARROLL: It could occur. THE CHAIRMAN: What we're up against here is the fact that you can't sit down or any planner or 'any Town Board member or any group and arbitrarily create zoning that would fit all patterns. What we have to deal with here, in our Town, is several gradually a~ce~ding acreage requirements for lots. In order to get zoning in the first place, we had to make the lots 12,500 sq. ft. Many of the people, most of the big landowners, thought that the smaller you made the lots, the more money they'd make out of it when they sold the land. In order to get this passed at all, we started out with 12,500 sq. ft. 100' by 125' We were forced into going to 20,000 sq. ft. by the Board of Health who originally decreed, along in the mid-60's, that for a s~bdivision you Would have to have half-acre zoning. Then we progressed to 20,000. As we went along, there were 12,500 sq. ft. lots, some original 50' lots, and some original 30' lots, which I think is the smallest one we've run across. One ~f the reasons for the Board of Appeals is to accommodate the different interpretations of the required size over the years. Now we're up to 40,000 sq. ft. In some towns, Brookhaven for example, they've gone to 80,000 sq. ft. as a minimum. Do you know what part of Brookhaven's being developed? The old section, the small subdivisions. They have no 80,000 sq. ft. subdivisions in Brookhaven. The tendency is to develop the smaller lots. There are many people that have hardships, we have people come in here and object about dividing an acre lot~into two half-acres when everybody on the street has a half-acre lot. WILLIAM CARROLL: Well, this isn't the case here. THE CHAIRMAN: No, but in this area I think that we are, based on our understanding of the law and 'other cases, it's necessary for us to grant this variance. thi Has there been a hardship shown or is pro$it? THE CHAIRMAN: This is considered a hardship. Oh, it's always for profit, I don't know anybody that operates, including a bank, not for profit. There are very few who just want to give away land. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak against this? JAMES SLATER: I'd like to continue on with this here. If he subdivides this, then he has a developed piece of land and an Southold Town Board of Appeals -42~ April 21, 1977 undeveloped piece of land. On a subdivision where he's paid equal to what I've paid in the purchase of my property ... THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think you can get into the equity of it. JAMES SLATER: Well, I think from the tax standpoint that he will be paying for an undeveloped lot where I am being~ because I have grass on half of my acre, I'm paying the full valuation on land. I think this is an inequity on the sub- division. I think that since he has bought this piece of prop- erty and it is one-acre zoned now, I think that it's going to degrade the character of the homes on the west side of Track Avenue. THE CHAIRMAN: How many houses are along this street, starting with 46? (The Board, Fir. Slater, and Mr. Carroll referred to the map and discussed the surrounding property.) I don't think that changes our view of what we have to do here. It would be fine if we could deny everybody any lot under 40,000 sq. ft., but We can't. The courts won't consider it. JAMES SLATER: It is changing the character of the ~omm~mmity. I bought down there because I had one acre and at the time I purchased my property I was told the adjoining properties were one acre and the whole section was one-acre subdivided and here you're changing the whole neighborhood. THE CHkIRMu~N: It doesn't show that on the tax map. JAMES SLATER: It's a one-acre zoned lot now. THE CHAIRMAN: I mean the area. These are all half here. WILLIAM CARROLL: Between Track and Fleet's Neck Road or Pequash Avenue they are all one acre except for four. THE CHAIRMAN: There are seven surrounding this lot and across the street are even smaller ones. WILLIAM ~P~ROLL: Across the street is what is an old development and mostly they were summer cottages also. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think that we'd be supported if we denied it~ WILLIAM CARROLL: Has it had County Health Department approval on Southold Town Board of Appeals m43- April 21, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: We don't get into the Health Department end of it. WILLIAM CARROLL: Well, you can't approve it without Health Department approval on it. THE CHAIRMAN: Before anybody can use it, it has to go to the Health Department. WILLIAM ELLWOOD: I live on one of thOse.small lots across the street and it is my understanding that larger acre zoning is for environmental impact because of our sewers, our cesspools and septic tanks, and we get all of our ground water, it's drinking water. My concern is not so much about this particular lot but are we setting a precedent for subdivision of the Big Green Acres. JAMES SLATER: Somebody can come in an~!simpiy~.make~the statement to you that since you've already set~a p~ec~ent here for subdividing a lot ... THE CHAIRMAN: For 10 or 15 years we've been doing this, ever since we graduated to 20,000 sq. ft, we've~had to do it in this type of situation and there's been all sorts of court precedents, all of these procedures were made with legal advise. You may not agree with them, but ... for instance, one of our decisions tonight~ there was not agreement with what we recom- mended. This is in accordance with legal precedent. There's no way tha~ you can have a zoning ordinance that bars the use of property which is oversized for it's area. By.the same token, ~there's also no strict defination of what constitutes a neighborhoodl We talk about 40,000 sq. ft. here, that was originally created by Matc.o~m ~irnie's water studies in 1967. It was determined then that the Town of Southold could sUpport, if the developable areas were developed, could support a maxi- m~m densit~y of 40.,000 sq. ft. if all of the areas were developed. That's all it means as far as water supply is concerned. Now, water varies all over, we don't get into it, the Board of Health does. There are no two places with water conditions exactly the same. Wedon't usually ~et into that although we did on Nassau Point because there is 80% intrusion in the wells there. Just as you say, since there is no way of much that can support~and since water ... for example, we're sitting ©n water and if we go than 34', we ~o through clay and mud which means which means I then have a water problem. saying is how do we know, if we continue to set this ~t in our area, in other words, how could you refuse, the person who takes an acre lot in Big Green Acres not to allow them also to subdivide. At what point, what house ... THE CHAIRMAN: Because that's controlled by ... in other words, where we have a small lot that.0 ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- April 21, 1977 WILLIAM ELLWOOD: That's controlled by you people. THE CHAIRFa~N: No, by the Planning Board . The Planning Board controls the development of subdivisions. There's no way to break up a subdivision into smaller lots. Usually if the lot in a subdivision, in fact, any subdivision in the County, are over two or three acres, sometimes they create lots of three acres apiece, they require the applicant to furnish covenants which are filed with the County to prevent any further breaking up of those two to three acre sizes that are in there. In other words, say a minor subdivision is created of four lots that are oversized, they don't let them break it up, ever. That's filsd in the County Clerk's office. The same thing applies to a 100 lot subdivision of 40,000 sq. ft. You can't develop over four lots Without creating a major subdivision, in fact you can't develop over two lots without getting into either a minor or a major. All we're doing here is dividing a single existing lot which is sur- rounded by ... WILLIAM CARROLL: A single existing lot or is that an original subdivision, those lots right there? THE CHAIRF~AN: It's existing here now. WILLIAM CARROLL: Well, so is the subdivision next door to it with six lots. If I bought the lot next door, could I come in here and subdivide it? THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know why not. We do it every day. WILLIAM CARROLL: Then where are you keeping to the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance? The purpose of the Board is to protect the Zoning laws, not to give every applicant the variance. THE CHAIRMAN: The purpose of the Board is to grant legal hardship, the courts have determined that this is a'hardship. WILLIAM CARROLL: On what basis? Where was the hardship cited in the application? CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.: You can't make a man sit on an acre or two acres when everybody around him is sitting on half acres. JAMES SLATER: In other words, what we're saying is that perhaps some of us who built new, or the~idea that you're going to go back to a 1930 and use that as a comparison to a 1970. WILLIAM ELLWOOD: In other words, our subdivision came out in the 1930's, I believe it was, and I believe this one across the street from us came from a subdivision dated in the 1960's. I believe also that Big Green Acres, that was divided into acre lots, was as late as the late 60's or early 70's. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~45- April 21, 1977 THE CHAIRMAN: Where is that located, is that north? JAMES SLATER: North off of Track onto Stillwater, they put a new road across. There's a place in there called Big Green Acres which they divided into single acre lots. WILLIAM CARROLL: You're saying by doing this one, they can do the whole works. You say not, but we could walk in next weekand you'll do it. NO matter where you go you~e going to have half acre across the street from you. (The Board, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Slater, and Mr. Ellwood again discussed the property.) THE CHAIRMAN: The courts would say that we have to grant this application, and one of our jobs is not to involve the Town in lawsuits. If this guy wanted to appeal, he certainly could, if we denied it. ROBERT BERGEN: We could put restrictions in there that he can't come in for any more variances. JAMES SLATER: We have no protection. We've all purchased one acre zoning lots. THE CHAIR/4JLN: Not unless you're in a subdivision. WILLIAM CARROLL: That's in a subdivision. THE CHAIRMAN-: It depends on the time that it was filed. JAMES SLATER: On the 1960 Town map, I think it's 100- ... THE CHAIRMAN: Well, if it was filed in 1960, it would be 12,500 sq. ft~ minimum. It shows as a one acr~ lot. Here you're lot, the Same acreage I have next door t© it, into two lots and you're degrading my pre 3hr adjacent to it. ~ property ~use I was in one acre zoned )u are crel hard'ship on me now becm~se I had to put in half an acr grass on the side of mine to comply with the one-acre g, the same as the rest of my neighbors. I think it's unf&i~~ to consider this as a hardship because he has an acre zoned, acre of land, he bought an acre same as I did. THE CHAIRMAN: I'll tell you what I'll' do. I'll go into the whcle history of this area and postpone the decision. If this is a subdivision which ~was created at the'time of 40,000 sq. ft. zoning, then you'll be on the right track. I don't see Southold To%~ Board of Appeals -46~ April 21, 1977 how it could bo because there are so many small lots in this area, on this map. There's seven here within a few feet of this. JAMES SLATER: Those properties there go back 15, 18 years. THE CHAIRMAN: 18 ~ears would take it back to 1959, when it was 12, 500 sq. ft. zoning, lot sizes. This particular lot is throe times larger than necessary. But I'll go into the whole'history of it. Anyono else wish to speak against it? On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals RESERVE DECISION on Appeal No. 2260, Spencer W. Petty, III, until May 12, 1977, at 7:45 P.M. (E.D.S.T.). Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2265 - 10:10 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of George Foster, Bayview Road, Southold, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 a~d Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with existing dwelling. Location of prop- erty: North side Bayview Road, Southcld, New York, bounded on the north by Canal (West Creek); east by Obre; south by Bayview Road; west by McCasalan. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to i~s publication in the official newspapers, and notice to tho ~Plicant. The Chairman also read ~t~tement that notification by certified mail had been made to: Paul Obre; Malcolm McAslan. Fee paid - $15.00. ~HE CHAIRMAN: The Photostat of the County Tax Map indicates that ~hi~s is'a 2'.1 , 160' on Bayview Road, and 260' the northerly end, The~e is a house Road, more or less centrally located. The to be Iocated 100' from Bayview Road a 35' strip, coming into a 40,247 sq. ft. lot and the lot which will remain with the house on it will be 43,539 sq. ft. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak ~for this application? MR. FOSTER: We want to build a house there. MRS. FOSTER: We don't intend to cut down an awful lot of trees, either. THE CHAIRMAN: Sounds like you're an environmentalist. Southold Town Board of Appeals -47- April~21, 1977 MRS. FOSTER: You've sort of got to be these days. THE CHAIRM~iN; Is there a canal or marshy area at the lower end of this? MR. FOSTER: There's a creek. FRED HULSE, JR.: Can you get in and out of there with boats? MRS. FOSTER: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (There w~s no response.) After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to divide property with existing building, north side Bayview Road, Southold, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. 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 66 this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not ~hange the character of the neighborhood, and will observ~the spirit of the Ordinance. On Motion by Mr. Hulse, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED, George Foster, Bayview Road, Southold, New York, be GRANTED permission to divide property with existing dwelling, north side Bayview Road, Southold, New York, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. Eight (8) Sign Renewals were reviewed and approved as submitted. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that the next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals be held at 7:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), Thursday, May 12, 1977, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. Southold Town Board of Appeals -48- April 21, 1977 On motion by Mr. Berqent seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that a special meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals be held at 11:8.0 A.M. (E.D.S.T.), Friday, April 29, 1977, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse Grigonis. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals GRANT permission to the Mattituck Volunteer Firemen's Association, Inc., to hold their Old Fashioned Firemen's Parade and Tournament on Saturday, July 30, 1977, subject to the condition that the posters can be erected no sooner than two weeks prior to the event and must be removed within the week following the event. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals GRANT permission to the Mattituck Lions Club to hold their Strawberry Festival and Country Fair on June 18, 1977, subject to the con- dition that the posters can be erected to sooner than two weeks prior to the event and must be removed within the week,following the event. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis. Messrs: Gillisple, Bergen, Hulse, On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was t the SoUthold Town Board of Appeals set the fol] on Thursday, May 12, 1977, at the Town Office, Main Road, South°id, New York as the time an d place of hearing upon the following application: 8:00 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) - Dr. Newton Faulkner; Appeal No. 2268 8:10 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) - Paul and Margaret Kayser; Appeal No. 2267 8:20 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) - Frank and Vera Scott; Appeal No. 2266 8:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) - Robert a~d Virginia Kroepel; Appeal No. 2270. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. Southold Town Board of Appeals -49- April 21, 1977 The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. (E.S.T.). Respectfully submitted, Ma~y~. Dawson Secretary