Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1107 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE ..J~Y..2.~, 1967 Appeal NO. 1107 Dated May 26, 1967 SuffOlk OUtdoor Advertising Co?, Inc. Riverhead, New York 11901 Appellant 8t a meeting of the Z6nmg Board of Appeals on Monday, July 24, 1967 was considered and lhe action indicated be~ow ~as taken on ( ) Request for variance due to lack of access to property (X) Reque,%t for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance ( ) Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) the ~ppeul I. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolution of tbe Bo~rd it ~as determined that a special e~ception ( ) be granted ¢ ) be denied pursuant to Article ............... Section ............... Subsection ................. paragraph ............. of the Zoning Ordinance, and the xleci~l~on of the ~Building Inspector ¢ ) be reversed ( ) be confirmed because : 8:00 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), Upon application of Suffolk Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc., Riverhead~ New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article ~III, Section 300, Sub- section 10, Article IVr Section 408, :subsection (a), Arti?,te X, Section 1002, for permission to retain two t~lllboards on the lo~,ty of L. Young, described as item number one in the application. Location of property: north side Main ,Rc~d, Laurel, New York, bounded north by-Long-Island Railroad, ~st by private right of way, south by 14sin Road(Rt, 25), west by Long Island Railroad. 2. VARL~NCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce practical difficultie~ or unnec§ssary_ hardship SEE REI~ERSE (b) The harffship created (is) (is not) unique and (~vould) (would not) 6e shared by all properties aBke in the immediate vicinity of this pro~erty and in the sa~e use district because SEE .REVERSE (c) The variance (does) (does not) observ~ the spirit of thd Ordinance ankl (would) (would not) Change the character of the district because SEE REVERSE and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( ) be denied and that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) 'ce confirmed ( ) be reversed. FORM ZB4 ZONING BOkt%D OF APPEALS Barbara C. Dittmann, Secretary By ~nvest~gat~on and public hearing the Board finds the following facts pertinent to the decision. This application is for two (2) single face billboards} loaated on the ~orth side Main Road, Laurel, New York, on land of L. Young, a residential area. The billboards are twelve feet by twenty-five feet (12' x 25'), each, totaling 600 square feet of advertising area. The maximum size sign permitted anywhere in,the Town,of Southold is s/x feet, six inches, by twelve feet, six inches (6'6" x 12'6"). The billboards are pri- marily used for National Advertised Products. The billboards are located less~than 500 feet from the entrance to Camp Molloy, a children's _~mp; and near the private road leading to the Laurel Lake reside~t'i~l area. Route 25 is one of the heavily travelled main arteries leading into the Townof Southold. A Cornell University Study Survey published in 1967 indicates 82% of the visitors to Southold Town were attracted by the physical character and rural atmosphere of the Town. In April, 1957, the Zoning Ordinance prohibited off premises advertising. In our opinion ten years is more than sufficient time to permit the liquidation of a nQn~conform!ng.use;nor is the Board bound by contracts ~ade ~y the applicant,. Ten,years experience.of the Board, _ of. Appeals, .... indicates ,the majority of residents appearing before the~Boa~d ~the/civic Association conside$ off premises billboards to be a~&tion of the lettgr an spirit ~of the ~Ordinance. ~enefit ~to the ~%i6 is dgemed of greater importance than detriment ~to the applicant. Invgstment of t%e applicaDt is sl%ght compared.to the ,detr%me~tal effect of the b~llboardsigns on surrounding ~roperty values and encouragement of the residential use of property. Route 25 is a two lane highway, heavily travelled, and in our opinion large signs distract motorist and increase the traffic hazard. /n considering the above the Board determines that the use will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties; or of properties in adjacent use districts; that the safety, the health, the welfare, the comfort, or the order of the Town will be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; that the use will not be in harmony with and promote the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance, that the character and probable development of uses in the district will be adversely affected~ and that the conservation of property values will be adversely affected. Therefore, it was RESOLVED Suffolk Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc., Riverhead, New York, be DENIED permission to retain two (2) single face billboards on the property of L. Young, located on the north side Main Road, Laurel, New York. Said signs shall be removed from the premises by October 11, 1967. ~olO~y~ b~d~d no=th by ~rber j. Br~. east west 'by ~iti. ~reek. Legal Notice Page -3- 8:20P.M. (E. Do S. T.)Upon application of Suffolk Outdoor Ad~ertising Company, Inc., Riverhead, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Section 408, Subsectinn (a), Article X, Section 1002, for permission to retain three (3) billboards on the property of Driscoll, described as item number three in the application. Location of pxperty: north side Main Road and east side Factory AvBnue, Mattituck, New York, bounded north by Bethany Cemetary A~soc., east by Bethany Cemetary Assoc., south by Main Road, west by Factory Avenue. ~8130 P.M.(~--D. SoT.), Upon application of Suffolk Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc., Riverhead, ~ew York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Artic~ Section 408, Subsection (a), Article X, Section 1002, for permission to retain two (2) billbcmrds on the property of Boucher Est., described as item number four in the application. Location of pro~erty~ east side Main Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded north by Boucher-Wickham-Munn, east by Munn-James Creek, south by.Canal-Lucas-Pantello-Grak~, %~est by Main Road. 8~40 FeM. (EoD. S.T.), Upon application of Suffolk Outdoor Adver~sing Company, Inc., Riverhead, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 300, subsection 10, Article IV, Section 408, Subsection (a), Article X, Section 1002, for permission to retain two (2} billboards on the property of Begenski, described as item number five in the application. Location of property: north side Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, bounded north by district line east by James EX~H Cross, south by Main Road, west by district line. ills Legal Notice Page -4-- 8:50 PoMo(E. DoS.T.), Upon application of Suffolk Outdoor Adve~tising COmpany, Inc., Riverhead, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 300, Subsection 10, Article IV, Section 408, subsection (a), Article X, Section 1002, for permission to retain two (2) billboards on the property of Zabriski, desc~ibed as item number s/x in the application. Location of property east side Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, bounded north by Zabriski, east by Ahlers, south by ~ugene Road, west by Main Road.  :00 PoM. (E. DoSoT.), Upon application of Suffolk Outdoor tislng Company, Inc., Riverhead, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Section 408, Subsection (a), permission to retain two Witherspoon, described as Article X, Section 1002, for (2) billboards on the property of item number seven in the application. Location of property: no~th side Main Road, Southold, New York, bounded north by Long Island Railroad, east by Britz, south by Main Road, west by Lieblein Bros., lots number 19 & 20 in CoLo Sand6ord Brick~ Co., Map number 539. ~9:10 P°Mo(ZoD. SoTo), Upon application of Suffolk Outdoor AdVe~Ising Company, Inc., Riverhead, New York, for a special exception in accordance %~ith the Zoning Or~inance, Article 1~, Section 408, subsection (a), ~e~-~e~m&ee&eH Article X, Section 1002, for permission to retain two (2) ~&~ billboards on the property of Reese, described as item number 8 in the application. Location of property~ south side Main Road, Arsh~momaque, New York, bounded north by Main Road, east by Land of Sage, south by Peconic Bay, west by other land of Reese. Legal Notice Page -5- '~~PoM.(E.D.S.T.)~ Upon application of Suffolk Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc., Riverhead, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinanc~ Article 1~, Section 408, Subse~tion (a), Article X~ Section 1002, for permission to retain two (2) billboards on the property of W. Price, described as item number 9 in the application. Location of property= north side Old Main Road, Arshamomaque, New York, bounded north by King Green~Ort Associates, east by St. Peters ~utheran Church, south by Old Main Road, west by Greenport PlayhOuse, Inc. /~%~ 9=30 P.Mo(E.D. SoTo)~ Upon application of Suffolk Outdoor Adv~rtising Company, INC., Riverhead, New York, for a special exce~tion in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Section 408, Subsectio~ (a}, Article X, Section 1002, for permission to retain two (2) billboar~s on the property of King Green~ort Associates, described as item number ten in the application. Location of property~ ~ north side Old Main Road Gzeen~ort,New York, boun~ed north by land of Village of Green~ort, east by land of Village of Greenport and Old Main Road, south by Old Main Road, ~est by WoRo Pell - King Green~ort Associates. 9=40 P.Mo (E.DoSo~.) Upon applicationof Suffolk Outdoor ~dvertising Company, Inc., Riverhead, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 300, Subsection 10, Article IV, Section 408, Subsection (a), Article X, Section 1009, for permission to retain t~o (2) billboarda on the property of witherspoon, ~ ~ described as item number eleven in the application. Legal Noti¢ Page -6- Location of property: east side Main Road~ Greenport, New York, bounded north by Champlin Place east by Austin - Wllson~ south by Joegensen, west by Main Street. 9:50 P.M.(E.D.S.T.), Advertising, Company, Inc., Riverhead, New York, exception in accordancewith the Zoning Ordinance, Section 300, Subsection 10, Article IV, Section 408, Subsection (a), Article X, Section 1002, for ~ermission to retain two (2) billboards on ~e property of Cassidy, described as item number twelve in the application. Location of property: sou~ah side Main Road, Greenport, New York, bounded north by Main Road, east by Greenport,Homes, Inc., south by Andr~ Cassidy, west by Andrew Cassi~y. application of Suffolk Outdoor for a special Article III, 10:00 P.~(E.D. SoTo), Upon application of Suffolk Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc., Riverhead, New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, .~rticle IV~ Section &08, subsection (a), Article X, Section 1002, for permission to retain three (3) billbuarda on the property of Wltherspoon, described as item number 13 in the application. Location of property: west side Main Road, south side North Road, at the Traffic Circle, Greenport, New Yorkt bounded north by North Road, east by Main Street, south by Henkel, west by E. Mazzaferro and anOo Any ~erson desiring to be heard on the above applications should appear at the time and place above specified. DATED: J~NE 8, 1967, BY ORDER OF T~E SOUTHOLD ~ BOARD OF APPEALS NO. ! Ex,amined .................................. -...., 19 ........ TOWN O.F SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. Approved ........................................ , 19 ........ Permit No ................................ Disapproved .a/,c ~,. ........................................................................................ Application No ............................. (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR ~ PERMIT Dote ~y ~6~, .......... , ~9 6~ I NSTR UCTIONS a. This application m~Stbe. c0rnple~Tey filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted in'duplicate to the Building InspeCtor. b. Plot plan show ng location of Jot and of buildings on premises, -rebtionshJp to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this application. c. The'work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the .applicant. Such permit shah be kept on the premises awilable for inspection throughout the progress of the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been gr.onted by. the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of o Building Permit p~rsuont to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and'other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alteration% or for removal or demolition, os herein described. 'The applicant agrees to comoly, with ail applicable, laws,, o~~]~q¢~ _~,~.~~~i ~ o re ~ 'o.ns.. .~. ~ · .......... '.~. me~. ~..-~. '~. ~-f.,e~f~.. j.~ ........... (Address of app icont) State whether applicant iS owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. Name of owner of premises aS Se~ fOrl:h f.: artnexa.d scheehlle If ~pp{icant s a corpor~fe, s;gnature of duly authorized officer. (Name and tit~e of corporate officer) Location of land on which proposed work will be done. Mop No: ............................................. Lot No: .................... Street and Number as l>i~ ~Ilnex~cl scliellllle ........................................ L,,;,,L,:.,L,L,~ ..................... Municipal ty State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing Use and occupancy ~~ ~~[~ ' b. Intended use and occupancy o~oo~ ~~~ 3. Ne.tufa of work (check which app!ic-able): New Building .................. Additio~ .................. Alteration Repair ....................Removal .................... Demolition .................... Other Work (Describe) 4. Estimated Cost ............................................................ Fee ........................................................................................ (to be paid on fi!ing this application) 5. if dwelling, number of dwelling units .............................. Number cf dwelting units on each floor ............................ If garage, number of cars ............................................................................................................................................. 6. if business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature,a.nd extent of each type of use ................................ 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front .......................... Rear .......................... 'Depth .............................. Height ............................Number of Stories ............................................................................................................. Dimensions of same structure with alterations or c~dditions: Front ................................ IEe~r ................................ Depth ............................ Height ................................ Number of Stories ........................................ 8. Dimensions of entire new constru~hon; cront ................................ Rear Depth Height ............................Number of Stories .................................. 9. Size of lot; Front ................................ Rear . .......................... Depth ........................................ 10. Date of Purchase ............................................. ' ........ .:.Nome of Former Owner ........................................................ l I. Zone or use (~istrict in which premises are situatec ................................................................................................ 12. Does proposed.construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation? ...................................................... 13. Name of Owner of premises ........................................ Address ............................................ Phone xio ..................... " t ................. ' - ' Adaress Phone No ..................... Name of A~rcn ~ec ................................................................................. Name of COttt~actor ....................................................Address ............................................ Phone No ..................... PLOT DIAGRAM Locate dearly, and -distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and indicate 'all set-bock dimensions from ' ~tree~ names and indicate numaers or description according to deed, and show ~ property linesl 'Give street and block whether interior or corner lot. STATE OF NEW YORK, ) COUNTY OF .... [l~0~: ...... ) S.S. ..................... ~'.,.,...~....... '=~]~.~...F.~ ............' being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (N.a:me of individual signing application) above named. He is the .......... CO.~.~.l)~.~e ~:~ ....................................................................... ............................................. (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) r r of said owner or owners end is duly authorized to oer'ro m or have performed the said work and-to make and file this application; that all statements contained in t~is appli~a:~ion are true,to the best of his knowledge end belief; and that the w0rk~,~ wilt be' ee manner'; set forth m ,h~apphca,,o~z., ,,:, ~' 'filed ,herew.th.,,,,z z ~ Sworn to beforednme t~~ ~ ~f ~ ...... ':" ........................... ..... ........................ , ..........:.:_ .............. TO%?N ,OF SO~TIIOLD, NE~V ~OR~ APPLICATION FOR ~PEC;IAL E~CEPTI~ON TO TiHE ZONi/Q%G{ BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTITOLD, N. Y. Name S%~,ee,t and Number hlereby apply t0 T~ zON~G BOARD OF ~PE~LS ~o~ a SPECIAL EXC~ON in ~c,o~rdance' wi%h the S~C~ZON a~i~i~ ~o ~e lo~$ of ~ys heretofore pai~ future ~%t~. ions~ . ~.. in by the Building ~de~ ~he $ou~hold ~a~ ~ hereto iS a list,~,of ,STATE ,OF NEW YOI~K ) ~ORIH ZB2 ~IN AND LUNDB~I~O · COUI~S~O~S AT lAW J~ne 27, 1968 Robert W. In the eveat X am unable co~lm that the the Judc2aent of Suffolk county, door Adve~tfaing Co, Xna. This w~iting Since the ion We will keep you b~ telephone, X want to has unanimously affirmed SpeCial Te~a, St~rea~ CO~t~c, Appel lant~Suffolk Out- ~'s Law Jou~al, and we axe the Order. , Su£folk Out~loor cannot appeal right, but mu~t obtain leave to appeal. VeE¥ truly yours, CC~ ZoningBoa~d of Appeals Town of Southold HO~D M. FXNK~LST~XN $1~IITH. TASK~R, FINK~LSTEIN AND LUNDB~-RO x~ro~vs A~v comqs~o~s A~ LAW ~anulLr~ 19, L96G A on ~nuary 19, L968, ~n The Comet g~inted tho ~u~oLk Outdoor untLl Mr. Ju~cLce ~ we oul~Ltted gAving ~o ten,ye ~he bLLlix~rds. q~plLed ~or Leavo to foEual pq~ora, but the elpplAcation and mmmarLly to Lts orAginal docisLon. to fLto a of done. Some p4mdLGg, the mu~t ol~aAn a stay to p~ent the remOVal of the signs. Th:J~ VLi~ roqu~re putting up f, eour.Lty 8ucoeosful on tho appoal. ~MITH, TAS~r~R, 17INKELSTIglN AND LUNDD~O ~.¢.s Robor~w. Tuekor, Boq. we v~.ll J~ep you ndvLsod, Ue oh&Ll Lbo proaoed to enforce the ordinance agab~t other oAgn ovuero and vLll oho~tA~, be Ln touch vith the BuLldLng Xnopeetor. ~, Board of ;4~o~b ~ ~ T. of Southold ~ ~ Ormmport, Bev YoL~ ,~--~.~.~ ~ SCI~I)IP~ OF $IG'II $IT~S 1. N/S Main Road (Rt25) at L.I.R.R., Laurel 2. S/E Main Road (Rt25) & Old Road, Laurel 3. N/S Main Road (Rt25) & E/S Factory Ave. 4. S/E Main Road (Rt25) Mattituck 5. N/S Main Road (Rt25) W/S Manor Hill 6. S/S Main Road (Rt25) E/ Eugene Road 7. N/S Main Road (Rt?5) Southold, 8. S/E Main Road (Ri25) Arshamomaque 9. W/S Main Road (Ri25) Arshamomaque 10. N/S 01d Main Road, Greenport billboards billboards billboards billboards billboards billboa'rds billboards billboards billboards billboards 11. g/S Main Road (Rt25) & S/ Champlin Place 2 billboards - land of Young land of Huising land of Driscoll land of Bouchergst= land of Begenski land of Frezuleski or Ahlers land of Wttherspoo~ (19 & 20) land of Reese land of W. Price land of "King Greenport Assoc." or Pell land of Witherspoo, Form 91B SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY In the F. atter of the Application o£ SUF?OLK OUTDOO.~ ADVERTiSiNG CO petitioner VS. F,O~ERT ~';. GiLLiSP!E, Jr., ROBERT j~EGEN, et al, constituting the SOUT~iOLD TO?.:N DO.%RD OF APPEALS, Respondents 4EMORANDUM 9'97-67 SPECIAL TERM BY cohalan, Jr. J. S. C. DATED December 21, 1967 1~:~xx Richard J. Cron, Attorney foZ Petitioner Main 2Dad Cutchogue, ~ew York lla%~ard M. Finkelstein, Esq. Lttorney for Respondents ~56 gri£fing Avenue ~. O. Box 389 2iverhead, ~ew York 11901 The main question here presented £o~ consideration is the right of respondents to prohibit or curtail the us~ o£ thirteen non-accessory (off premises) outdoor advertising signs in the Town of Southold. The answer is Yes. By this Article 7g (CPLR) proceeding petitioner seeks a review of the action o~ tile Southold Town Board of zoning Appeals (Board) in refus- ing to permit it to continue the use al thirteen outdoor advertising sig~s now existing in ~arious places throughout the Town. All the cases will be considered as one for the purpose oi this proceeding. In April, 1957 ~e Town adopted a zoning ordinance at which time the now offending signs were already in existence. Section 1002 of the ordinance declared that: "~otwithstanding any other provisions of this ordinance, any sign in e×istence at the effective date al this Ordinance ~lich does not conform to the provisions of this Ordinance, shall within five (5) years from such ~ate be discontinued unless its continuance is authorized as a special exception by the Board of Appeals as hereinbefore provided". The subject items do not fall %Tithin the saving clause. Until 1967 tile town authorities toox no action against the o~fending signs, thus tacitly extending to ten years the five year grace period. ~ithin the second ~ive year span, wt%ile at least constructively on notice, the owners o~ the thirteen parcels contracted with plaintiff for the fur- ther and continued use of their properties. Petitioner advances three main arguments in its brief in its effort to annul the Board's determination. 1. ~%e Town Board has improperly delegated its powers to the Board of Appeals; 2. Petitioner ~ ~' a vesteo right to maintain the signs; and 3. The proh~oztlon has no relation to health, safety or welfare as mandated by Lr~icle 16 (zoning and Planning) of the Town Law. (1). An attack on the validity of the ordinance with respect to delegation of po%.;ers cannot be maintained in an Article 78 proceeding (~eddo v. Schrade, 270 R.Y.97, 103, Paliotto v. Coha!an, 6 A.D.2d 8D6 (2d Dept.) 177 N.Y.S.2d 553,554, aff'd no opinion, 8 N.Y.2d 1065~ 207 ~.Y.S.2d 281. Form 9]6 MEMORANDUM SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY SPECIAL TERM BY J.S. C, DATED 196 VS. -2- Revised Volume i965 section Zoning ordinances requiring the tcrmlnatlon of non-conforming uses within a specified period, although deemed invalid in some instances, have generally been sustained if in all respects reasonable:..." In Harbison v. City of Buffalo, 4 ~.Y.2d 553, 176 N.Y.s.2d 598, when the court remanded the matter to Special ~er:a for a trial on the issue of rea- sonableness of a three year grace period involving a long used non-conforming cooperage operation, it had occasion to say at pages 559 and 560: " .... , our approach to the problem of permissible restrictions on non-conforming uses has recognized that, while the benefits accruing to the public in terms of more co~plete and effective zoning docs not justify the immediate destruction o~ substantial · _ ~,z~,t prior to the ordinance businesses or structures developed or ~' ~ (People v. Miller, supra, 304 I;.Y. a'a.~a~o~ i0~;, the policy of un~ concept of the uit~mate elimination of non-con- zoning embraces ~ ~ " ' forming uses, and thus the courts iavor reasonable restriction of them. But %~ere the zoning ordinance could have required the cessation of a sand and gravel bus,ness on one year's notice, we have held it unconstitutional (Town of Somers v. Camarco, 308 ~.¥. 537 , . . .) . See also Town of Schroeppel (Oswego) v. Specter, 43 Misc. 2d 290, 251 ~.Y.S. 2d 233. llere we have a ~ive year grace period which actually ripened into ten before any serious attempt was made to enforce the applicable provisions el the ordinances. We also have ~e added factor that the signs are easily removable as against the discontinuance of a quarrying operation in the Camarco case, supra and the cooperage business in Harbison, supra. (3) Cromwell v. 2'errier, 24 A.D.2d 999, 2S6 ~.Y.S.2d 188, affirmed 19 ~.Y. 2d 263, 279 N.¥.S. 2d 22, is authority for the proposition that esthetic considerations may now be given considerable weight in determining that safety, welfare and health are best served by ridding the community of alleged eyesores. In expressly overruling Alid-$'~ate Advertising Corp. v. Bond, 274 (a case on which petluloner strongly relies) Breitel, J., speaklng for a divided (5 - 2) court, said at page 268: (in Cromwell v. Ferrier, supra) "On any realistic view, the ordinance involved in this case is indistinguishable in effect from the one ruled u=constitutional in Bond (supra). Consequently, a re-examination of the Bond case is required if the ordinanceat issue is to be sustained as uncon- stitutional". MEMoraNDUM SUPREMe COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY SPECIAL TERM BY J. S. C. vs. DATED 196 -3- And further, at page 269: "One important factor in tke courts' increasingly permissive treatment of similar zoning ordinances has been the gradual ac- ceptance of ti%e conclusion that a -oning law is not necessarily invalid because its primary if not its exclusive objective, is the esthetic enhancement of thc particular area involved, so long as it is related if only generally to the economic and cul- tural setting of the regulating community..." · An interesting factual feature of Cro:,~%;ell, supre, is that the peti- tioner o~,~ned real property on both sides of the same highway. He had the billkoards placed on one side to advertise his restaurant and gas station on the other, if he was not permitted ~o to do, how much more do we need to nOte how weak the case at bar is by comparison in its factual components? Finally, we deal with petitioner's alternate demand for relief, that-it be compensated for having its private property taken without just compensa- tion. As no~ed in his dissent in the Mid-State case, supra, now cited with approval in Crom%~ell, supra, Finch, J., said of this argument that "... There has been no taking of private property. ~cre has been merely a restriction on the use of the property retained by the property owner. '~is is very different from the right of eminent domain, the right of a government to take and appropriate private property to public use, whenever the public exigency requires it; which can be done only on condition of providing a reasonable com- pensation therefor.'" The decisions of the Board made in all thirteen cases are confirmed. The petition is dismissed without costs. Settle judgment. J. S. C.