HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/10/1977 APPEAL BOARD
MEMBERS
Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman
Robert Bergen
Charles Grieonis, Jr.
Serge Doyen, Jr.
Fred Hulse,
Southold Town Board of Appeals
SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. 11971
Telephone 765-~660
MINUTES
Southold Town Board of Appeals
March 10, 1977
A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals
was held at 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, March 10, 1977, at
the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York.
There were present: Messrs: Robert W% Gillispie, Jr.,
Chairman; Fred Hulse, Jr.; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr.
7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) - Decision on.Appeal No. 2246, Charles
Tr~mantano, 1850.Colden Avenue, Bronx County, New York for a
special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Arti-
cl~ VII, Section 100-70 B (3) for permission to operate a used
car sales lot. Location of property: south side Main Road, east
of Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the nortk by Main
Road (Route 25); east by Horton; south by Horton; west by Schaumann.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Board has to make a decision o~ this
application tonight. I have thought about this quite a bit and
believe that the Board should vote against this.
After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that
the applicant requests permission to operate a used car sales
Lot, south side Main Roadt east of Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, New
York. The findings of the Board are that a used car lot, under
~he bulk r~equirements of the present Ordinance, requires a 30,000
sM- ft. lot. The applicant's lot is approximately 16,200 sq. ft.
in size. The propos~t is to use the premises principally as a
~olding lot for used cars to be driven elsewhere by drivers. The
~ot might occasionaily be used for the sale of cars from the prem-
ises ~nd~.the residence might be used by the owners and/or drivers,
thus involving both a residentiaI and a business use on premises
which are insufficient and undersized for either use.
Of the several uses permitted in the "B-l" district, the
used car business probably requires the most space and is the
least desirable aesthetically, as well as contributing to the
deterioration of property values. The property across the street
is zoned "Residential-Agricultural.- The applicant proposes a
S~uthold Town Board of Appeals
March 10, 1977
basic use which is the wholesale storage and sale of used cars.
However, the applicant testified that the probable, principle use
would b.e the storage of used cars until transferred to the appli-
cant's wholesale yard. Wholesale storage is a permitted use in
the "C - Light Industrial" district.
The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and
justice will not be served and the legally established or permitted
use of neighborhood property and adjoining use districts will be
permanently or substantially injured and the spirit of the Ordi-
nance will not be observed.
On ~otion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was
RESOLVED, Charles Tramantano, 1850 Colden Avenue, Bronx
County, New York be DENIED permission to operate a used car sales
lot, south side Main Roadr~-east of Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Grigonis,
Doyen.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve
minutes dated February 17, 1977.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Grigonis,
Doyen.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Appeals approve
minutes dated February 25, 1977.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Grigonis,
Doyen.
7:45 P.M. (E.S.T.) - Decision on Appeal No. 2245, Arnold
and Diana Gardner, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York for a
variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off lot
with existing building. Location of property: west side Nassau
Point Road, east side Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue, New York; Lots
~141 and 142, Map of Nassau Point Properties.
THE CHAIRMAN: Since the hearing, 1 have studied the
Malcolm Pirnie, initial water survey for the whole Town which
S6uthold Town Board of Appeals
-3- March 10, 1977
the Board of Health, with which the Board of Health survey of
1971 collaborates. The Board of Health survey shows that the
surrounding area of Nassau Point is a pennisula surrounded by
water. It seems to me that, at this point, the Board should
make a stand. I don't think that we've ever denied a lot divi-
sion here because of water because we felt that it really was
not a problem, but these elaborate water studies were made and
no one is using them. This is one place, it seems to me, where
we should do everything we can to hold down the density.
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the
applicant requests permission to set off lot with existing building,
West side Nassau Point'~Road, east side Wunneweta ROad, Cutchogue,
New York. The findings of the Board are that the lot to be created
would be undersized in a recommended low density area. Two water
studies, a general study by Malcolm Pirnie of the Town of Southold
in June, 1967, and the Suffolk County Board of Health 1971 survey
of Nassau Point in particular, updated to 1975, emphasize the finite
MAture of the available water supply which is replenished solely by
rainfall. In 1975, 80% of the wells showed evidence of salt water
intrusion according to the Board of Health letter of March 4, 1977,
which indicates that there is no change in the 1975 ~est results.
The creation of such a lot would set a precedent for the division
of many lots which are somewhat over 40,000 sq. f~ in Nassau Point
but not large enough for two lots. Many single a-nd separate ~n%
developed lots on Nassau Point, some undersized, remain to be de-
veloped and should have prior rights to the available water.
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance
would not Produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship;
the hardship created is not unique and would be shared by all
properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and
in the same use district; and the variance will change the char-
acter of the neighborhood, and will not observe the spirit of
the Ordinance.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, Arnold and Diana Gardner, Nassau Point Road,
Cutchogue, New York, be DENIED permission to set off lot with
existing building, west side Nassau Point Road, east side Wunne-
weta Road, Cutchogue, New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Grigonis,
Doyen.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2248 - 8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.)
resumed hearing upon application of James J. Murphy, 3617 Johns
Street, Wantagh, New York for a variance in accordance with the
SOuthold Town Board of Appeals
-4-
March 10, 1977
Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-118 E for permission
to enlarge an existing, non-conforming building. Location of
property: north side Horton Lane, Southold, New York, bounded
on the north by Long Island Sound; east by A. Derosa; south by
Horton Lane Beach; west by Horton Lane Parking Lot.
THE CHAIRMAN: On February 17 we adjourned the public hearing
we were holding on James J. Murphy because there was nobody here
and we couldn't find out what we wanted to know. Is there anybody
hare on Murphy's case tonight?
JAMES MURPHY: I'm here.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, you people weren't here last time, so
I'll read what transpired last time.
(The Chairman read the minutes of the last hearing;
page 23, minutes of February 17, 1977.)
At this time, I'll ask if there is anyone here to speak
for this application.
JAMES MURPHY: Before we go into it, because of internal
problems with the joint owners, I would like to revise the building
proposal that I had made for a two-story, one-family residence to
a one-story residence.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I think there are several questions
here. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this appli-
cation?
(There was no response.)
Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this
application?
ANDREW FETHERSTON: I'm just here to bring a couple of facts
to the attention of the Board.
JAMES MURPHY: Are you an attorney?
ANDREW FETHERSTON: No, I'm the son-in-law of one of
quarter owners. One of the facts you already mentioned, that the
old building has been demolished and an entirely new structure is
under construction now.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is your interest in the property?
ANDREW FETHERSTON: I'm merely speaking for one of the members.
THOMAS KELLY: He's my son~in-~a~
SOuthold Town Board of Appeals
-5-
March 10, 1977
THE CHAIRMAN: Who are the owners of the property?
ANN KELLY: We are.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can I have your names, please.
ANN KELLY: Yes, Thomas and Ann Kelly; Frank Wager~brenner;
and Kevin J. Moloney.
THE CHAIRMAN: And you and Mr. Murphy own the land j~ointly,
is that correct?
THOMAS KELLY: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: And your relationship is to Mr. Kelly?
ANDREW FETHERSTON: Yes, their son-in-law.
THE CHAIRMAN: OK, go ahead.
ANDREW FETHERSTON: I'd just like to point out that the
land is owned in common, the only individually owned property down
there are the cottage structures themselves, so that any construc-
tion that is done down there is done on common property. Each of
the four owners of record has an undivided one-quarter share.
The rules of the association that were drawn up at the time of
purchase state quite clearly that the owners of three of the four
one-quarter, undivided shares must concur in any improvement that
is made on common ground. I think that pretty well states the
objections that the other owners have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we received a letter, the Building
Inspector received a letter from Mr. Kelly that says approximately
the same thing.
(The Chairman read the ~ebruary 22, 1977, letter from
Thomas F. J. Kelly.)
Mr. Terry responded to that.
(The Chairman read the February 24, 1977, letter from
the Building Inspector to Thomas Kelly.)
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak against this
application? Any questions?
(There was no response.)
I'd like to ask some questions. Mr. Kelly, what is the
objection to Mr. Murphy's proposal?
ANDREW FETHERS~ON: I thi.~ generally the objection is tha~
it's a much larger building; t.~e original application was for a
SOuthold Town Board of Appeals
-6-
March 10, 1977
two-story; that it was done without consulting the other people
who have an interest in the property. I think the feeling was
that there was an intention there to make it something other than
a one-family house, maybe a two-family house. The floor plan was
such that it suggested that would be an inevitable development.
I might point out, I'm not an attorney and an attorney would have
to judge it, but there are covenants and restrictions that prevent
boarding houses on the property. A quick, look at' things would
seem to indicate that anyone other than a single family occupying
it would be in violation of that covenant.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the basic problem here is the'~density,
four residences on an acre, approximately. The four residences
are clustered on the southerly end of the property, which appar-
ently is divided by a right-of-way, is that correct?
ANN KELLY: The right-of-way is at the end, bordering the
Town property.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have information that it runs across here.
(The Chairman and the owners of ~he~property referred to
the map and discussed the location of the right-ofrWay.)
This site plan was created by one of the fellows in the
Building Department and that's where our information came from.
What appears to have happened here is ... how large was the
original construction, 20' by 20'?
JAMES J. MURPHY: What I had there as a layout was 24' by ...
THE CHAIRMAN: No, I mean the original house.
JAMES J. MURPHY: The house was 20' by 27'
THE CHAIRMAN: The proposal according to these plans is to
increase the size, the living area by 200 or more percent.
JAMES J. MURPHY: To build onto the cement that was there.
THE CHAI~RMAN: That in itself is a our
code. These are all non-conforming buildings, is
one down; the TOwn doesn't have to permit i~ ~o be ~
These are non-conforming structures. This to
anything that the Town permits. The whole theory of non-conforming
structures is that when they disappear, either by reason of fire
or being razed or whatever reason, they not be replaced. I think
that we would, of course, have to deny your original application
and I think that we'll also be required to deny you any opportunity
to rebuild. We already have three houses there. Everybody else in
the Town of Southold is required to live on 40,000 sq. ft.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
March 10, 1977
JAMES J. MURPHY: Even though I have a picture of what was
there before?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. When something disappears, a non-
conforming use, this Board doesn't have to recreate it. It would
be contrary to the whole theory on density in our zoning to per-
mit it. I think that what you've done here is give up entirely
your right to construct anything there. That, I think, is what
the Board's position is and should be. We would have-bad,to deny
your original proposal here anyway, for the same reasons. I've
discussed this with the Town Attorney and he thinks this is the
proper position for the Board to take. If you want to question
this decision, I suggest that you g~t an attorney, but I think
you're out in the cold as far as this Board is concerned.
JAMES J. MURPHY: Even though the foundation was there,
has not been removed?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. You can't improve a non-conforming use
or rebuild a non-conforming use in excess of 50% of the market
value at the time it was destroyed unless you obtain Board approval.
I think the Board, if the other three houses weren't there, would
grant you permission. But in view of the density that already
exists here, we would be wayward in our duty to permit this.
JAMES J. MURPHY: Even though there was an existing building
there, I couldn't put back the building that was there?
THE CHAIRMAN: You knocked it down, that's it.
JAMES J. MURPHY: Can I ask a question? Two permits were
already granted here without the consent of anybody else.
THE CHAIRMAN: I wouldn't want to get into the question
of joint ownership. I think that join~ ownershiP is Probably
very unsatisfactory, but the Board or Zoning isn't bound by
covenants or agreements. Otherwise, everybody would have their
own zoning on each piece of property. We're simply bound by
law here.
After investigationLand inspection the Board finds that the
~mission to enlarge~an non-conf~rming
Horton Lane, York. The findings
of the Board are that the applicant has an undivided interest with
three others on approximately 41,280 sq. ft. adjacent to t.he Town
Beach on Long Island Sound in Southold on which four small one-story
houses were constructed. The use of the premises greatly exceeds
the present density requirement of 40,000 sq.. ft. per residentiit
dwelling. The applicant demolished his house against the advise of
the Building Inspector and commenced the building of an enlarged
two-story, two-apartment structure without obtaining a building
permit. He was issued an order to stop construction prior to the
public hearing. The applicant's hardship is self-inflicted. Neither
public water or sewage is available. Even without the applicants
$outhold Town Boar~~ of Appeals
-8- ~ March 10, 1.977
p~oposed new house, density provided by the three remaining houses
greatly exceeds maximum density permitted. The lot is composed
principally of beach sand and gravel and is bisected by a 25' right-
of-way running east and west.
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance
would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship;
the hardship created is not unique and would be shared by all
properties a~ike in the i/~mediate vicinity of this property and
in the same use district; and the variance will change the char~
acter of the neigkbo~hood, and will not observe the spirit of
the Ordinance.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was
RESOLVED, James J. Murphy, 3617 Johns Street, Wantagh, New
York be DENIED permission to enlarge an existing, non-conforming
building or to replace the structure that was destroyed, north
side Horton Lane, Southold, New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Grigonis,
Doyen.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2250 - 8:20 P.M. (E.S.T.)
upon application of Agway Petroleum Corp. P.O. Box 705, Pulaski
Street, Riverhead, New York for a special exception in accordance
with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70 B (4)
for permission to operate a self-service gasoline station. Loca-
tion of property: west side'Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York,
bounded on the north by G. Miner and George Ahlers & others;
east by Youngs Avenue; south by Goldsmith & Tuthill and Long
Island Railroad; west by George Ahlers & others.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a special exception, legal notice of hearing, affidavits
attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, and
nQtice to the applicant. The Chairman also read statement from
the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been made
to: George Ahlers; Gilbert Miner; Goldsmith & Tuthill. Fee $15.
THE CHAIR~iAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak
for this application2
RICHARD NOLAN: I'm the manager. What we're talking about
is a key pump Operation. We had several requests in the area
from our far~er members about the high price of gas and this is
one way that we felt that we could help them out. Each individual
Will have a~kgy. This is the pump itself. (Mr. Nolan referred to
a diagram of the pump.) Each member would have a key and he alone
would have a key to that particular number.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is this "B-i" or "C Industrial"?
RICHARD NOLAN: They said i~ndustrial. This is a picture of
the type operation we have in Upstate, New York, and all over the
Northeast.
S6uthold Town Board of Appeals
-9-
March 10, 1977
THE CHAIRMAN: I can,t find that section in the code. I
don't think it matters too much.
RICHAR~ NOLAN: This is a picture of the store itself.
what we want to do is cut the fence back and put them on, move
the fence back and cut off that corner there and put the pumps
in that location. This is low land here, too, and we'd like
to raise it up a little.
THE CHAIRMAN: It's a parking area now, right?
RICHARD NOLAN: It's storage area right now for the store.
Pat Handell is the manager of the store.
PAT HANDELL: This is a private extension of Hommel~Avenue.
RICHARD NOLAN: Here's a couple of pictures. Goldsmith and
Tuthill are right over here.
THE CHAIPd~AN: We were there yesterday or the day before.
The tanks are going to be buried rightS_where they're located?
RICHARD NOLAN: No, inside the fence.
PAT HANDELL: Right across the street, Goldsmith and Tuthill
have two tanks above ground for fuel oil, I think they show in
one of these pictures.
THE CHAIRMAN: Each one of these is an individual lock?
RICHARD NOLAN: Yes, an individual customer will have one.
THE CHAIRMAN: Each customer will have an individual lock,
I see.
~ICHARD NOLAN: I'm originally from Pennsylvania and we have
these all over down there. Agway right now is the only one really
marketing it through the "keytrol" system. Anybody can get one,
though.
THE CHAIRMAN:
you have.
RICHARD NOLAN:
You're limited by the number of locks that
We have i00 on each.
T~E CHAIRMAN:
RICHARD NOLAN:
a pump.
Can you put on any number?
We're limited to 100 locks, 100 keys to
THE CHAIRMAN: So if a fellow used both regular and high test ...
SOuthold Town Board of Appeals
March 10, 1977
RICHARD NOLAN: He'd have to have a key to both pumps, two
separate keys.
THE CHAIRMAN: This registers on an individual meter?
RICHARD NOLAN: It has an individual meter and it has another
meter on the pump itself. We bill monthly, we take that reading
and subtract the month before's reading from that and bill him
that amount.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any trouble with guys with master
keys for these things?
RICHARD NOLAN: No, we haven't had any trouble at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is it all right to keep these? (referring
to literature on pumps)
RICHARD NOLAN: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: You're familiar with the requi'r~ments in
connection with a gasoline service station, a special exception
has a list of requirements in the Ordinance as to the location,
etc. Is the=~ anyone else who wants to speak for this application?
JOHN BERRY: What effect will this have on any future self-
service statiOns wanting to come into the district here? You
get something set up here and the next guy comes in and says,
"Well, Agway's got one, we want one."
PAT HANDELL: Can I point out that it's not a ...
THE CHAIRMAN: He's asking me the question. I don't know.
Apparently, you're going to volunteer some information but you
answer through me. What's your name and your interest?
JOHN BERRY: John Berry. I'm a service station operator.
THE CHAIP~AN: OK, do you want to answer now?
PAT HANDELL: I'm the manager of the Southold Agway store.
With the.~eys, it's a limited s~lf-service~ope~ai~ioh wherein
only certified Agway customers will have access to thoSe pumpsl
Transients would not be eligible to get gas, wouldn't be able to.
THE CHAIRMAN: What this gentleman is talking about is
competition, I think. If some of his customers went over to
Agway ...
JOHN BERRY: No. If another gas company wants to come in
and set up another self-service and you already have one here,
there's nothing to keep them out.
S®~thold Town Board of Appeals
-11-
March 10, 1977
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't think anybody's going to keep
them out. I don't think that this Board is the place to mediate
competition. As far as my meager understanding of this type of
station is tha~Ithere's been some trouble with them. In some
places they've been discontinued for one reason or another. I
don't think the Board is going to act on it tonight, I think
we'll get all the information we can first. Is there anyoRe
else who wishes to speak for this application?
(There was no response.)
Anyone wish to speak against this?
JACK POTERE: I'm a Suffolk Director for the Long Island
Gasoline Retailers Association, I represent in excess of 1,300
gasoline dealers in Nassau, Suffolk, and Queens. Even though
they propose an operation with a maximum 100 customers per
product, I don't think that changes the fact that I think the
point the Board should consider is the safety factor involved.
I'd like to show you some pictures of a self-service operation,
this is in Nassau County, and the dangers that are involved.
Presently, the ~owns of Hempstead, North Hempstead, Huntington,
Southampton~ and Oyster Bay, who's just about to pass it, have
banned self-service in the town in any shape, manner, or form.
I think the point the other gentleman was trying to make was,
would this open the flood gates to other companies? I don't know
if that's a question that anyone can answer yet, but the thing to
keep in mind, certainly, is the safety factor involved. Gas
stations have trained personnel who pump the gas, I myself am a
gas dealer, I sell high volume gasoline and I would say on an
average of two to three times a week we have very close situations
where accidents could occur. They say only 100 customers, you
only need one. I have an article here, if the Board is interested,
in Idaho there was an indident where in a self-service gas station
a customer pulled away with the nozzle still in the vehicle.
$4,000 worth of damage was done to the station, 700 gallons of
gasoline was burned up in the fire. They made the statement that
this is right across the street from a fuel oil depot, I think
this should be kept in mind that in case the~e is an accident,
it could end up as a catastrgphe. Another thing, I think a point
to remember is the economic impact on the community. New York
State and, in particular, the east end of Long Island is in a
deep recession, we have high unemployment in the area. Gasoline
stations have a history of hiring the hardcore unemployed, the
young people, minorities, if these types of operations take hold
throughout the entire Island, you'll cut back on the number of
p~ople being employed. I think this is something else the Board
should take into consideration. Not to make it too much longer,
but the most important factor is the safety factor involved and
I don't think there's any precautions that can be taken on a
self-service operation, this being even more dangerous than these
(in %he article), at these operations there are attendants there.
Generally they're in a booth where they collect the money, but
they are on the sceme. These other towns have seen fit to ban them.
Southold ToWn Board of Appeals
-12-
March 10, 1977
At this operation, there's no one there. The ones in the picture,
there is someone there, they're just not pumping the gas.
THE CHAIRMAN: It's all the same fire in these pictures?
JACK POTERE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN': Where was this?
JACK POTERE: Nassau County.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can we keep these?
JACK POTERE: The Association wanted them back, but I'll
let you have one. One other thing, along these lines of dangers,
not too many people realime, particularly the everyday consumer,
the 1975-76 cars and '77 cars have catalytic converters on them.
Catalytic converters, it says right here in this article and it's
a known fact to most gas station operators, the converter reaches
temperatures in excess of 1,000 degrees. If there is a spill, it
runs underneath the car, there can be an instantaneous explosion.
This is another factor the Board should consider in this applica-
tion for a self-service operation.
THE CHAIRMAN: What was the temperature before they~h~d~khese
catalytic converters?
JACK POTERE: I couldn't tell you exactly, I'm sure it'was
a lot less than ~,000 degrees. In the article here, it goes on
to mention that if a car with a catalytic converter has reached
that temperature, it has to be running for a certain length of
time, if it's over a pile of dry leaves it will start those leaves
on fire. I've never seen that done with a normal car.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wish to speak against this
application?
ROBERT DOROSKI: I can tell you about the catalytic converter.
Before, after, the car stopped, within minutes you could put your
hand on the exhaust and not burn yourself. Now, with the catalytic
converters, they stay hot so long that you can burn your hands a
half hour later. The heat is very intense in that particular area.
THE CF~AIR~AN: You get a different type of exhaust gas with
a catalytic converter, don't you?
ROBERT DOROSKI: Yes, sulfuric acid.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wish to speak against this application?
Any questions, anyone want to rebutt anything that's been said here?
RICHARD NOLAN: I would just like to mention that we do
have this keytrol operation in effect in Riverhead at our Agway
Southold Town Board of Appeals
March 10, 1977
store there, and we have never had any trouble at all there. They
are all over Pennsylvania, New York, and other parts of New England.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any special safety regulations
in connection with the pump or just what you see here, put the
key in and turn the pump?
RICHARD NOLAN: We have fire extinguishers available.
THE CHAIRMAN: What happens if a guy drops a hose? I
worked around gas tanks for at least 30 years, what happens if
a guy drops a hose on the ground?
RICHARD NOLAN:
shut off.
THE CHAIRMAN:
don't you?
The pump itself would just automatically
Yes, but you spill some gas on the ground,
RICHARD NOLAN: As soon as his hand releases from the
nozzle itself, the gas would shut off.
THE CHAIRMAN: The valve is in the nozzle.
RICHARD NOLAN: Yes, it is.
FRED HULSE, JR.: You're not going to have an automatic
nozzle, that means the~e'll be a lot more spillage.
RICHARD NOLAN: HOW can you say that?
FRED HULSE, JR.: BecauSe~everySody will run it over the top.
RICHARD NOLAN: What we do is take off, on an automatic
nozzle, there's a catch there that's illegal. We take the
catch off and the nozzle shuts off as soon as it hits the top
of the nozzle. It's the same thing as an automatic nozzle
except you don't have the catch to keep it ope~.
FRED HULSE, JR.:
and it fills up ...
RICHARD NOLAN:
Yes, but when the fellow's holding it
It'll shut off in his hand.
THE CHAIRMAN: Suppose he took it out before the tank is
full, there'll be some~spillage. You can hold the nozzle and
run it on the ground if you wanted to, rather than in the tank.
RICHARD NOLAN: Yes, if you want to, you can do that at
any kind of station.
FRED HULSE, JR.: In times of dampness, rain and so forth,
very often an automatic nozzle won't work.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
March 10, 1977
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions?
JACK POTERE: Can I answer the question on the.automatic
nozzle? I believe that is true, it is .the law to take off that
automatic catch, it's here in this particular article where
there was $4,000 damage to the station. The operator of the
station went onHto say that customers wedge gas caps and any-
thing else they can find to hold the nozzle valve open while
gas is being put into the car. So even though it's not there,
there are ways to hOld that handle open and gas continues to
come out.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you say Southampton is doing something
about this?
JACK POTERE: Southampton has already banned it, the Town
of Southampton, the Town Of Huntington, the Town of Hempstead,
the Town of North Hempstead, it's under consideration in the
Town of Oyster Bay, the Town of Smithtown, and the Town of B~ook-
haven all have it under consideration.
THE CHAIRMAN: I know people on the Boards of Southampton
and Huntington, I see them every month at the Planning Commission,
I'll try to get all the information I can about this.
JOSEPH SPITALERI: There's just one thing that came to my
mind and that's the condition of the operator and the risks of,
at the maximum, 200 customers vs. the risk of a fire. Also, a
person using a key could, more than likely, be using it at
night when he runs out or maybe after a party or after a night
out.
THE CHAIRMAN: You're talking about somebody who might be
inebriated?
JOSEPH SPITALERI: Even in the winter, with jamming things
in the nozzle, when 'you're pumping gas in the winter no one
wants to stand outside, so you jam it in the nozzle and wait
ihaide your car. And if a gas station attendant was inebriated,
he'd be fired on the spot, but nothing would keep a customer ...
THE~CHAIRMAN: If we assessed all the dangers occuring with
automobiles, we'd be here all night. One thing that kills more
people than anything else, apparsntly, is speed. I think that
the Board should get all the information on this application that
we can before making a decision.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED that the hearing upon application of Agway Petro-
leum Corp., Appeal No. 2250, be ADJOURNED until April 21, 1977.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Grigonis,
Doyen.
S~uthold Town Board of Appeals
March 10, 1977
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2253 - 8:45 P.M. (E.S.T.)
upon application of John P. and Mary F. Krupski, Depot Lane,
Cutchogue, New York (William Wickham, Esq.) for a variance
in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section
100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off lot with
existing building. Location of property: norhheast side of
Depot Lane, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north?east
and south by other land of applicant; west by Depot Lane.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting
to its publication in the official newspapers, and notice to the
applicant. The Chairman also read statement from the Town Clerk
that notification by certified mail had been made to: North Fork
Property; James D. Goodwin; Frank McBride. Fee paid - $15.00.
THE CHAIRMAN: The application is accompanied by a survey
indicating that the potatoe house is par~llet to Depot Lane
on the easterly side some 663' from Goodwin and 1,100' from
Oregon Road. It's surrounded by the property of J. and M.
Krupski. The potatoe storage house is 100' x 114.4' and a
rear yard which, tn this proposed division, is 25' Is there
anyone present who wishes to speak for this application?
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I'd just like to add that the sole
reason for the application is to effect a transfer to the Krupski
Brothers partnership for business reasons, not for any develop-
mental purpose.
THE CHAIRMAN: Who owns the potatoe storage house now,
J. and M. Krupski?
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: The land is owned by them, it was
built by the Krupski Brothers.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea what the future of
this potatoe house would be if you ever went out of farming?
JOHN KRUPSKI: I don't know.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is an accessory farm use and the only
question that comes to mind is whether or not it should he
40,000 sq. ft. This is larger than 30,000 sq. ft. which is
the requirement for.a "B-I~ business if it were ever used
for business and this would have to be zoned business if these
people ever quit farming.
JOHN KRUPSKI: I don't expect to quit farming.
THE CHAIRMAN: Presumably, if that were the case, there'd
be enough land around here so that additional
acquired. Anyone wish to speak against this application?
Southold Town Roard of Appeals
March 10, 1977
(There was no response.)
After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that
the applicant requests permission to set off lot with existing
building, northeast side of Depot Lane, 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was
RESOLVED, John P. and Mary F. Krupski, Depot Lane, Cutchogue,
New York, be GRANTED permission to set off lot with existing
b ' '
ulldlng, ~northeast side of Depot Lane, Cutchogue, New York,
as applied for~
Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Grigonis,
Doyen.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2252 - 8:50 P.M. (E.S.T.)
upon applicati0n of Stanley W. Krupski, Middle Road, Cutchogue,
New York, and Walter J, Krupski, 14.6 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue,
New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to
set off lot with existing building. Location of property:
north side CR27, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by
other land of applicant; east by now or formerly Henry Taca;
south by CR27 (Middle Road]; w~st bY other land of applicant.
'The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a notice of hearing, affidavits attesting
to its the official newspapers, and notice to the
applicant, read s~atem~nt from the ToWn Clerk
that notification by certified mail had been made to: Mar Lake
Associates c/o Mi Zelman~ Fee paid- $15.00.
THE CHAIRMAN: There seems to be two or three different
surveys here.
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I believe each time they were in-
creased slightly. There was an addition to the potatoe house
on the other one.
THE C~iAIRMAN: This one has 108.59' on CR27 with a depth on
the easterly line of 272'+ and 230' on the westerly line. 100'
$outhold Town Board of Appeals
-17-
March 10, 1977
at the rear. There's a 22' side yard on~ithe narrowest side.
Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this?
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Again, the purpose of the application
is for a transfer to the partnership. The reason that this survey
was amended was merely to show that the monuments were set.
THE CHAIRMAN: This was owned formerly by, the land was
owned by Stanley and Walter Krupski. Any other questions?
Anyone against?
(There was no response.)
After investigation and inspection the Board finds that
the applicant requests permission to set off lot with existing
building, north side CR27, Cutchogue, New York. The findings
of the B~ard are that the BQard 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 proper~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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was
RESOLVED, Stanley W. Krupski, Middle Road, Cutchogue, New
York and Walter J. Krupski, 146 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue, New York
be GRANTED permission to set off lot with existing building,
north side CR27, Cutchogue, New York, as applied for.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
Doyen.
Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Grigonis,
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2251 9:00 P.M. (E.S.T.}
upon application of Barbara A. Berdinka, Main Road, Laurel,
New York (Abigail A~ Wickham, Esq.) for a variance in accOrd-
ance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-60 A 1
and Bulk Schedule for permission to convert sxisting accessory
building to dwelling. Location of property: north side Main
Road, Laurel, New York, bounded on the north by now or formerly
Young & Scholtz; east by now or formerly D. Catalano; south by
Main ~oad; west by now or formerly Young & Scholtz.
The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the application
for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting
to its publication in the official newspapers and notice to the
applicant. The Chairman'also read statement from the Town Clerk
that notification by certified mail had been made to: Irving
Southold Town Board of Appeals
March 10, 1977
Scholtz; E. F. Scholtz; ~. J. Catalano. Fee paid - $15.00.
THE CHAIRMAN: The file indicates that the applicant's
property is 26,000+ sq. ft. with a depth of 275' on the easterly
line and 295' on the westerly line. 95' across the northerly
line and about the same distance along the road. The file also
contains the history of the early attempts to enlarge an acces-
sory building which was a garage without a permit. Somebody
noticed it and put a violation on it. A permit was acquired,
I guess, and the work was not according to what was on the permit.
An attempt was made to make it into a one-family residence. Is
there anyone present to speak for this application?
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I'd like to point out that the
State is taking steps to straighten the curve in the Main Road
at that point and this part of the Main Road will eventually
be off the main highway and, therefore, actually more suited
to residential use.
THE CHAIRMAN: Our main problem here is two residences on
one 26,000 sq. ft. plot which effectively causes us to deny this
application. "Applicant and her mother arranged the transfer of
the property long before the October 26, 1976 amendment to the
Zoning Ordinances" It doesn't make any difference when they
arranged it. The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in October,
1976 related to residential uses in business areas. It was an
effort to control the type of situation that developes when a
shopping center is abandoned. It really has nothing much to do
with this.
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: No, but that was one reason in the
Notice of Disapproval. There are a number of fairly similar
situations in that immediate neighborhood.
THE CHAIRMAN: Adjoining you to the east is Sort of a mom
use on a single piece of property. We told them at time
~o try to discover how they were going to divide it, they weren't
sure. They would have to provide at least ~20,000 sq. ft~ for
a. the light business use. A heav~ business use
)00 sq. ft. If they set off the adjoining house,
the ¢ that's on the property, theY've g~t abo~t two acres
on that corner. If they set that off, it would have to be on
40,000 sq. ft. so that it could comply with our zoning. In other
words, the purpose of this amendment in October, 1976, was not to
eliminate the possibility of an apartment over a business but
what's applied for here requires 80,000 sq. ft. A fellow here
earlier apparently was attempting a two-family apartment on about
1/10 of an acre. There were four residences now on the 40,000 sq. ft.
S~uthold Town Board of Appeals
March 10, 1977
down there next to the Town Beach. That was denied and this has
to be denied also because of the problem of density. All our
water studies indicate that we have to have 40,000 sq. ft. You
can vary that, you can have two residences on one piece of prop-
erty but there has to be 80,000 sq. ft. I'm not talking about
non-conforming houses, we can't do anything about those, but to
my knowledge, we haven't authorized any exception to this at all.
It's unfortunate this situation developed.
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Yes, we do have extreme hardship.
THE CHAIRMAN: We!ve had this come up before and I think
it's generally known that everybody's assumed to have financial
hardship and that can't be used as a reason for a zoning variance.
Our position will have to be to deny this because of two families
on one piece of property.
ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.:
trailer behind a residence.
that piece.
I believe to the west there is a
I don't have the exact acreage on
T~E C~{AIRMAN: This Board doesn't license trailers, the
Town Board does that. We don't have anything to do with the
location of trailers. I don't know why they decided to keep
that p$~rogative, but the Town Board takes care~6f individual
licenses for trailers. It wouldn't make any difference if
there were several other houses here, it,s the density that
determines it. Each residential unit in the Town is supposed
to have 40,000 sq. ft. Of course, there are many cases where
lots are divided with less than 40,000 sq. ft. but generally
that is not done unless everybody else on the street has the
same size lot or the neighborhood has been developed in small
lots.
After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that
the applicant requests permission to convert existing accessory
building to dwelling, north side Main Road, Laurel, New York.
The findings of the Board are that the applicant's property is
too small for two residences.
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance
would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship;
the hardship created is not unique and would b~ shared by all
properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and
in the same use district; and the variance will change the char-
acter of the.neighborhood, and will not observe the spirit of
the Ordinance.
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, Barbara A. Berdinka, Main Road, Laurel, New York
he ~ENIED permission to convert existing accessory building to
Southold Town Board of Appeals
March 10, 1977
dwelling, north side Main Road, Laurel, New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: ~ Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse, Grigonis,
Doyen.
Three (3) 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.S.T.), Thursday, March 31,
1977, at the ToWn Office, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Vote of the Baird:
Grigonis, Doyen.
Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse,
On motion by Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was
RESOLVED that a special meeting of the Southold Town Board
of Appeals be held at 11:00 A.M. (E.S.T.), Friday, March 18,
1977, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: Gillispie, Hulse,
Grigonis, Doyens....
The mg~ting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. (E.S.T.)
.~R~ectfull~ submitted,
Secretar7