Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1160 TOWN OF $OUTBOLD, KENV YORK ACTI,ON OF THI~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE ~.~.....~.~....1968 Appeal No. 1160 Dated January 23, 1968 ACTION OF T~ ZON~G ~ OF APPEALS OF THE ~OWN OF SOUTHOLD Rensselaer G. Terry, Jr., Esq. Oaklawn Avenue Southold, New YOrk 11971 Appellant at a mecth, g 0I the Zoning Bea~d of App.ea~s on Thursday, February 15, 1968he appeal was considered and t~e .~ct~on indicated ~ was ~ken on your , ) Request for yardage due ~0 lack of acce~ ~ pro~rty ( ) Request ~or- a ~ except~ un~e:r the Z~ing Ordinance ~ ) ~eQues9 for a va~ce ~ t~ Z~g ~d~nce ~ ) L SPEC]AL EXCEPTION. By res~ut~n of ~e Board it ~as determined that a ~pec~ exertion ( ) be gran~d ( ) be ~eni~ ~u~t ~ Art~e ............................... Section ............................ Suhsecti~ ............................ ~ragraph ............................ of the Zo~g Ord~ce, and the decision of the Building Inspector ( ) be ~ver~d ( ) be confirmed became 7:30 P.M. ~.S.T. ), Upon application of Rensselaer G. Terry, Jr., Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 300, Subsection 7, for permission to operate a professional (attorney) office in a residential area. Location of property: nort~ side Main Street and west side Horton's Lane, Southold, New York, bounded north by prope~rty now or formerly of E. Terry & Ann., east by Horton's Lane, south by Main Street, West by land now or formerly of Frank Fanning. 2. VARIANCE. B:~ resolution of the Board it was determined that fa) Strict applioation (}f ~e Ordinance, (v~ould) (would not) produce practical dffficult~s or unnec- essary hardship because SEE REVERSE (b) The ~ard~fip created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties alike m the immediate v~cinity of this property and in the sam¢ use district because SEE REVERSE (c) Th~ var."ance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of thc Ordinance and (would) chang.e the character of the disizict because SEE REVERSE (would not) and therefore, it was furth,er determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( ) .be denied and that the p.re~ious decisl~ of the Building Inspector ( ) ,be confirmed ( ) be reversed. FORM ZB4 SEE REVERSE ara C. Dittmann, Secretary After investigation and inspection the Board of Appeals finds the following: The applicant, a joint owner, proposes to use the premises, presently vacant, for the offices of a law partnership which has been active in the community of Southold for a period of 15 years and now finds itself without office space. The use proposed is a permitted use in the residential zone and the variance requested refers only to waiving the residency require- ment. Efforts to find suitable office space elsewhere have not been ~ccessfulas the record will show. % reasonable rental return on the Property would appear t~ be ap~roximatef~ $2,'006.00/ '$2,400.00 a year. The record indicates' such a retufn is not ob- taina'ble under present co~ditions in this location, and is supported by Mr.'Smith's testimony. The locatioh aPPears to be unique' by reason of several factors - proximity to a large school, a Doctor's Office, a church, and opposite a business zone. Inability to obtain a reasonable return and inability to locate suitable office space in the area served by the partnership are hardships of an unusual nature. The Board also finds that the character of the residential area described in the application will not be substantially altered and that this finding is supported by Chief Sawicki's analysis of the traffic situation. Neighbors offer no objection to the proposed used. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance does observe the spirit of the Ordinance and will not change the character of the district. THEREFORE, IT WAS RESOLVED: Rensselaer G. Terry, Esq., Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, New York· be granted permiRsion to operate a professional office (attorney) in a residential area, on property located on the north side Main Street and west side Horton's Lane, Southold, New York, as applied for, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will provide, at once, suitable off street parking for at least four automobiles. One additional off street parking space shall be required for each employee or occupant in excess of three. 2. Use of the premises is restricted to one law enterprise, whose personnel, including partners and employees, shall not exceed six persons. Present proposed personnel consists of one lawyer, one part- time lawyer and secretary. -2- Jro · NOTICE OF HEARINGS Pursuant to Section 267 of the Town i Law and the provisions of the amend- '~ ed Building Zone Ordinance of the! To~ of Southold, Suffolk County. New York, public hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the ! Town of Southold, at the Town Office, !Main Road, Southold, New York, on Fe~0ruary 15, 1968, on the followin appeals: 7:50 P. M. (EST), upon application of Rensselaer G. Terry, Jr.. Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, New York for a ar ance in accordance w~th the Zon- ing Ordtnance, Article III, Section 300, Su~bsection 7, for permlasion to operate a professional (attorney) office in a residential area. Location of property: north side M2An Street end west side Horton's Lane, SouthoId, New York,I bounded north by property now or, formerly of E. Terry & Ano., east by ~Iorton's Lane, south by Main Street, west by land now or formerly of Frank Fanning. 7:50 P. ~VL (EST), upon application ~of Harry G. Reckhart, King Street. I Orient, New York, for a variance In ~ accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, I Article III, Section 303, and Article If. ]Section 1000A, for permission to divid,~, I property into three lots with insuf~ ificient area in one lot. Location o~ property: north side King Street. Or-J ient, New York, bounded north by land now or formerly of Serge V Traube, east by land now or formerIy of S V Traube, south by King Street, west by Holtzmans. Any person desiring to be heard on any of the above applications should appear at the time and place above specified. DATED: JAN~YARY 25, 1968 BY ORDER OF x'~ SOUTHOLD TOWI~ BOARD OF APPEAL~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK C. Whitney Booth, Jr., being duly sworn, says thor he is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER - MATTITUCK WATCHMAN, a public news- paper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and thor the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Zraveier-Mottituck Watch- man once each week for ; ' ~ ~ weel~ commencing o. .............. ............. .......................................... ......... ............ / day of Sworn to before me this ........ :z .............. LEGAL NOTIGE Notice of Bearings Pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the provisions oi the amended Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York~ public hearings will be hek~ by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Sou~h- old, at the Town Office, Main Romd, So.hold, New York, on February 15, 1968, (~n fhe following appeals: 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Upon applica- tion of Rensselaar G. Terry, Jr., Oaklawn Avenue, Southc~d, ~New York, for .a variance in acordance with the Zoning .Ordinance, Article lIII, Sectii~n 300, Subsection 7, for. permission to operate a professional (attorney) office in a residential area. Location of property: north side M~in Street and west side H~r- ton's Lane, Southold, New York, ,bo%reded north by property now formerly of E. Terry & Anco, east by Horton's Lane, south 'by Main .Street, west by land now or merly of Frank Farming. 7:50 P.M. (E.S.T.), Upon appli- catic,n of Harry G. Reckhart, King Street, Orient, 5New York, fo,r a var- iance in accordance with l'he Zon- ing Ordinance, Article III, Section 303, and Article X, Section 1000A, for permission to divide proparty intc, three lots with insuflScient ,area m one lot Location of property: north side King Street, Orient, New Yc,rk, boun,~ed north by land nc, w or formerly of Serge V. Traube, east by land now or formerly of S. V. Traube, sc,uth by King Street, west by Holtzmans. Any 'person desiring to be heard m the above application should ap- )ear at the time and place above specifiecL DATED: JANUARY 25, 1968, BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ltF9 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ] STATE OF NEW YORK, ~ ss: J ...~?.,..~.~. ~.~. ~'.~..~.~....~, .,~-~.. y...~n~.. ...... being duly Sworn, says that . ~ .~.~.~..'~. is P~inter and Publisher of the SUFFOLK Wi~.EKLY TIMES, a newspaper publ/shed ot Greenport, in said county: and that th~ notice, of which the ,annexed is u printed copy, has been published in the said Suffolk Week1y Times once in ~ach week, for .......... g~.~ ............. week~ sticc~ssiv~1y commencing on the ..... ]}..{w~.~ ......... ' ...... Sworn to before me this . .~..~.t'.... ] .......... ;:: ..... z .... ~;'~'" %;'"/ ....... .... . ..... TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. / / ~ ~ TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. Re~sselaer Go T~rry, Jr. ^~ Oaklaw~ Ave~e .... ............. Name of Appeila,nt Street and Number Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILq~NG IiN/~PECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ............. /...~-....~.,~..~..~. .................. WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) ( ) Name of Applicant for permit of .... ................. ,., So tt oZd Z ew Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE as office of Attorney and Co~sellor At Law PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY .N./S Mai~-Street and "A" District W/S Herren' s L~e .................. '~"~'~" ........... i ............ O~:'l~¥~i~-"~;~"~.~i~"~ Southold Mop No. Lot No. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordi,nance.) Article III~ Sect. 300~ S~bd. 7 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (X) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (.State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (1:~) (has not) been made. with respect, to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special ~ermit '( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 X) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ) ,s requested for the reason that Subd, 7 of Article III of requires that the occupational rooms be located the practitioner resides and ,applicant is not premi.~ es. Forth ZB1 (Continue on other side) the Zoning Ordinance in a dwelling in which presently residing on the REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because applicant would be denied reasonable use o£ the structure on the premises for eFfioe purposes. Applicant has been unable to rent premises for residential p~poses'for a reasonable rent. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because property :is :immecllately acl- jace.nt-to the "B" Business District on. the east. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the proposed tzse of the premises is one frequently carried on in a residential district and would not be ene adversely affecting the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the area. STATE OF NEW YORK ) · ' ' ' : ) SS . ........................ COUNTY OF. ~UFFOLK) . Sw~orn tC; this ........ ,..o.'~r..,~. .............. .i' ........ day of.:: ........................ RENSSELAER G. TERRY, JR. June 28, 1968 Mr. Robert W. Gillispie, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Clerk's Office Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Gillispie: With reference to the resolution of your Board authorizing my use and occupancy of the premises on the northwest corner of Horton's Lane and Main Road, Southold, New York, I wish the record to reflect that the County of Suffolk has rented space on the second floor of the building for use as Chambers by the Hon. L. Barton Hill, Justice of the Supreme Court. Such use will result in the occupancy of the premises by Mr. Justice Hill and his secretary, myself and associate, and a secretary, and will consequently not exceed the limit set by your resolution. mkw Very truly yours, JOSEPH H. SAWICKI SOUTHrlLD TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT P£CONIC, LONG ISLAND, N. Y. February 14, 1968 Rensselaer G. Terry, Jr. Esq. Main Road Southold, N.Y. Dear Mr. Terry: This letter is written in response to your request, as to the effect of a proposed use of premises located on the northwest corner of Main Road and HortonTs Lane on vehicular traffic congestion and hazards. You have described the use of the existing one-family residence owned by you at the above location as a professional (attorney's) office occupied by one lawyer, one part-time lawyer and one secretary, involving traffic and parking for two, and occasionally for three, vehicles during business hours, with available off-street parking. Related traffic would involve an average movement of one additional vehicle every two hours, belonging to clients, or a total additional movement of no more than five vehicles per business day. During business days, the location in question has the usual traffic problem inherent in the intersection of a village residential street with the Main Road. Between 8:00 and 8:30 A.M. and 3:00 and 3:30 P.M. the location in question is burdened by the traffic generated by the Southold High School. The intersection of Oaklawn Avenue and Main Road, directly west, is manned by a traffic patrolman during school traffic hours. Upon the foregoing facts, any possible increase in traffic congestion or traffic hazards generated by the proposed use, over and above tta t inherent in an ordinary residential use, would on its face be minimal. There would be no noticeable increase in traffic volume or congestion, traffic hazards or dangers to persons and property resulting from the proposed use of the single family residence as a professinnal office. Very truly yours, TOWN scHOoL SHEET NO ' : '": ':" =~' SC;AL,E [00'~ [, : .-