Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/04/1960Southolcl Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. Telephone SO 5-96~fl0 APPEAL BOARD MEMBERS Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman Robert Bergen Herbert Rosenberg Charles Gregonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. MINUTES Southold Tovm Board of Appeals February 4~ 1960 A regular meeting of the Southold To~n Board of Appeals was held 7:30 P.M.~ Thursday~ February 4~ 1960~ at tn~ Town Clerk O££ice~ Main Road, Southold~ New York. There were present: Messrs. Robert W. Gillispie, Chairman, Robert Bergen, Herbert Rosenberg~ and Charles Grigonis, Jr. Also present: Mr. Howard M. Terry~ Building Inspector. Absent: Mr. Serge Doyen, Jr. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:30 P.M.~ Appeal No. 2~2 - Applic- ation of Edward L. Purcell, a/c Richard F. Mullen. Seeing that no one appeared for the application upon request of the Chairman }@. Rosenberg called the residence of Mr. Richard F. Mullen and was advised someone would be sent to the hearing to represent him. The hearing was recessed until Mr. Richard Mullen~ Jr. appeared. The minutes of the meeting of January 21, 1960, on motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by M~. Bergen, and carried, were approved as submitted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2' February ~ 1960 Vote of the Board: Ayes:- 5@. Gillispie~ Mr. Bergen, Mr. Rosenberg~ audM~. Grigonis. PUBLIC ~RING: 8:00 P.M. - upon the Board of Appeal'S own motion, a rehearing will be held upon Appeal No. 40, - application of Albert Zanowski~ ISause Road~ Mattituck, New York~ to a~uul its original order~ in accordance with State of New York Town Law, Section 267, Subsection 6. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading resolution of the Board of Appeals~ legal notice of hearing and affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper. CHAIR~J~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this motion? Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this motion? (There was no response.) Resolution was offered by F~. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Bergen and carried~ WHEREAS on December 20~ !9~7 a variance was granted to Mr. Albert Zsnowski~ Ifrause Road~ Mattituck as a result of Appeal No. 40~ Description-Lot No. 4 on east side of 01d Jule Lane, Ma~tituck, N. Y.: on map of 0. W. Van Tuyl dated January 29~ 1951~ revised September 13~ 19~1. Irreg-mlar shape 80/83 x 220/24~ and at this time Mr. Zanowski wishes to have the variance abrogated in order that the purchaser may increase the size of property from 83 feet frontage to 160 feet frontage and thereby increase the remaining frontage to 89 feet. Now therefore the Board of Appeals deems it to be in the public convenience and welfare and the legally established use of the neighborhood property will be improved and the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed~ therefore be it BESOL~-ED, that the variance grsmted December 20~ 19~7 be abrogated in order that the Appeal No. 251+ for permission to enlarge the lots be considered. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, M~. Bergen, Mr. Rosenberg, and ~. Grigonis. PUBLIC ~R!NG: 8:10 P.M., Appeal No. 251+ - Upon application of 'William Wickflaam~ a/c Albert Z~owski~ Krause Road~ Mattituck, New York~ for a variance in accordance with the Zoning 0r~inance, Article X~ Section IO00A~ for permission to divide a lot leaving a portion less than."prescribed by the Ordinance. Southotd To~ Board o£ Appeals -3- ~bruary ~ 1960 Location of property: east side 01d Jule Lane~ Mattituck~ New York~ part of lots 3 and. 4 on map of property of Albert Zanows~i, surveyed by Otto W. Van Tuyl & Son dated January 29~ 19~l and revised September 13~ 19~l. Fee paid $1ff. O0. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading notice of disapproval issued by the Building Inspector~ application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper. Ct~&IP~[gN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? WILLIAM WICIQ~M~ ~SQ.: Mattituck~ New York~ appearing for the applicant stated as follows: Negotiations have been going on for some time between ~. Zanowski and Mrs. Papish. She wsmted to buy this lot of 160 ft. on accoumt of the fact she was going to put up a fairly good size house. Actually that was entered into in the fall of 19~8 and they have been making payments since that time and are now ready to take the deed. we realized there was an exception on the center lot and because of the extension of 80 ft. on the center lot thought there would be no objection. I then checked to see if we had permission. The p~sition is now strengthened some- what as far as the Board is concerned. You will now have two lots there instead of three. One will have 90 ft. frontage and a general improvement will be noted due to the fact there will be two lots each of which will be larger than the original three lots. CHAIRMAN: I would think that would be a definite improve- ment. Actually~ will this house be so large it will require the full 160 ft.? MR. ZANOWgI~: I think that they plan to build an average home. However~ there is between the two lots they intend to purchase~ there is quite a bit of room. (Mr. Zanowski referred to the map appearing in the file.) Kenny Papish said he would not crowd the line~ but would shift the house over and leave enough room so it would balsn, ce in accordance with the'other lot. MR. ROSENBERG: What assurance do we have that you are going to sell this lot? MR. ZANOWSKI: he has been paying on it since 19~8. I~. WICi~iAM: I have the deed prepared and. signed~ and ready for delivery. The money has been paid. MR. ZANO~KI: As far as the Board goes~ as M~. 'Wickham pointed out~ it really is an improvement. Southold To,aa BOard of Appeals -4- February 4, 1960 MR. BERGEN: Why can't you keep 100 feet? MR. ZASTOWSKI: Mrs. Papish wants 160 feet and I cou].dn't talk her out of it. CHAI~N: Is there anyone 'else present who wishes to speak for this application? Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) MR. ROS~ENBERG: Do you have any objection to our p~tting in a condition that the variance is for this particular sale? MR. WIC~SIAM: Not as long as it does not affect the marketability of the'property. Suppose she decides not to build and Y~. Zanowski sells the 90 feet? ~_. ROSENBERG: That is all right. This condition would be put in so that ~s. Papish cannot come in here and think she can get it turned into two lots. Resolution was offered by ~. Rosenberg~ seconded by ~. Bergen and carried~ WHEP~AS application of Albert Zs~owski having been~considered at Public Hearing No. 214 on February 4~ 1960~ ~ua the Board finding that the strict application of t~e ordinance would produce undue hardship because the applicant has an opportunity to sell 160 ft. of his original three lots leaving only 90 ft.~ thus making two lots of three~ and carmot do this without the requested variance. The situation is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity because the purchaser will not buy less than 160 ft.~ thus leaving 90 ft.~ however~ this would still be a larger lot than many in the area and larger than originally laid out. The public convenience and welfare and justice wil]_ be served and the legally established or permitted use of neighborhood property and adjacent use districts would not be substantially or permanently injured and the spirit of the Ordinance would be observed because the 160 ft. lot will enhance the neighborhood because of its larger size and the 90 ft. lot will be in keeping with the other frontages in the area and the depth will be greater~ therefore be it RESOLVED that this variance be granted with the con- dition that it is for the sale of this property to Mrs. Eleanor Papish. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- ~. Gillispie: M~. Bergen: Mr. Rosenberg: and Mr. Grigonis. Mr. Richard. Mulle~ Jr. ~ having now appeared before the Board with respect to the application of ~dward L. Purcell~ Southold To~,m Board of Appeals -~- February 4~ 1960 a/c Richard, F. Mullen~ Appeal No. 2~2~ the Board resumed the hearing upon this appeal: PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2~2 - Upon application of Edward L. Purcell~ a/c Richard F. Mullen~ Main gtreet~ Southold~ New York~ for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning 0rdin~ce~ Article IV~ Section $08~ Subsection B~ for permission to erect and maintain an additional adver- tising sign on the front Of the Mullen Motor Sales building ~ocated on the southeast corner of Main Street and Cottage Place, Southold~ New York. Fee paid $1~.00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the appli- cation for a special exception~ legal notice of the hearing with affidavit attesting to.itz: publication in the official news paper. C~IE~N: Is there anyone present ~no wishes to speak for this application? MP,. RICHARD ML~LEN~ JR., Southold, New York: We are taking on a new car the Valiant and had to sign a contract which includes these signs and each dealer is required certain things to be kept in a certain way and there is a score kept on each dealer. Advertising signs are put on the list and are part of the score. To conduct business there we have to let people know we have the car. MR. HOWAZdD TERRY~ Building Inspector: first contract with Valiant? Th~ is the MR. MULLEN: Yes. They don't actually make us take the signs but $6~0 makes us worry a little bit. It goes against our record if we don't take the signs. CHAIR~,~kN: $6~0 is the cost of the signs? P~q. FI-JLLEN: It is $6~0 including installation. The small signs are $2~.00 each. The reason for the $6~0 for installation is that the brackets have to be replaced. CHAIRM~N: Signs are an extremely difficult part of the business of zoning and there are a number of sections in the Ordinance which limit signs. You are in the "B" Business district and there are certain phrases in the Ordinance which apply specifically to signs in the District. (The Chairman read Article IVy Section ~08 (a) and (b) to ~. Mullen.) Really you are conducting two businesses. An automobile and gas business as far as Zoning is concerned. I believe you have signs advertising gas~ DeSoto~ Plymouth~ Mullen Motor Sales~ also several Southold Town Board o£ Appeals -6- February 4~ 1960 signs inside the window, i presume you would consider the DeSoto~ Mullen Motor ~ales and Plymouth signs on the front of the building as one sign~ wall sign. sign MR. MULLEN: We are going to place the new/so that it shows only one side on the northwest corner of the building. MR. ROSENBERG: Place it so only one face shows on Main or Cottage Place? ~. ~JLI2hN: Main Street. It is a hanging sign. MP~. R0$~Eh~ERG: How do you feel about the signs in the window. The three neon signs. MR. ~JLLEN: Only one works, and two are transparent. They can come do~m. MR. ROSE~ERG: What about the ones that don't work? ~o. MULLEN: They can come down also. CHAIRMAN: I thi~ you could liberally interpret the face sign~ De$oto~ Mullen Motor S~ales and Plymouth as one sign~ but the other neon signs in the window are adding insult to injury. I fail to see why you need a Valiant sign in the window and one outside also. MR. ~-LLEN: outside. That could go if we could get the one CPLgIRI~iAN: the new ones? Can you take these down before you put up MR. ~3LLEN: Let's say when the new ones go up the others will come dorm. We still have to advertise in the meantime. C~IR~'La2~I: Would 24 hours be enough time to take them do~_? MR. MULI~"~N: That is entirely fair. I will have the other signs dorm within 25 hours of putting up the new signs. CHAIRI~fi~: Are there any other questions? Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak for this application? Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There w~s no response.) Resolution was offered by ~. Rosenberg~ seconded by Southold To~n Board. of Appeals 4?- February ~, 1960 ~. Bergen, and carried, ~.~_~AS the application of Edward L. Ptu~cell, a/c Richard F. Mullen, having been considered at Public Hearirg No. 2~2 on February 4~ 1960, and the Board finds that the public coiavenience and welfare and justice will be served and the legally established or permitted use of neighborhood property will not be substantially or perm- anently injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the application be granted as applied for permitting the erection of a 3 ft. by 6 ft. ~o faced illuminated sign with the word "Valiant" on each side on the north~est corner of the building so that the sign is visible from Main Road and also from Cottage Place. Also specifically permitting the replacement of two (2) circular t~o (2) ft. dimmeter signs advertising service on Cottage Place. These are also two faced signs. It is further stated that the granting of two (2) two faced signs on Cottage Place is in effect approving the continuance of a non-conforming use. It is specifically a condition of the granting of this appli- cation that the neon signs advertising Valiant~ DeSoto and P!ym~outh which appear in the~show windows on Main Street be eliminated within 24 hours azter the erection of the signs applied for in this special exception. It ~ 'the opinion of the Board that the contract for Valiant distributorship is a legitimate one and that the granting of this special exception is necessary for the continuance of this business in a successful In granting this application conditionally the Board is aware (1) that a standing sign advertising "~_ying-A" gasoline exists on the property and existed on the property prior to Zoning and (2) that this standing sign advertises the sale of a product which is in effect a separate business. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr.. Gillispie, Pit. Bergen~ Mr. R0senberg, and ~. Grigonis. Upon motion of ~. Grigonis~ seconded by ~. Bergen, and carried, it was RESOLVED that 7:30 P.M. Thursday~ February 18, 1960, Town Clerk Office, Main Road, 8outhold~ New York, be set as time and place for hearing upon application of Richard C. Whitlock, Tuckers Lane, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordm~ce with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III~ Section 300~ Subsection for permission to use for a two family dwelling the premises located on the northeast side of Tuckers Lane, Southold, New York, bozmded north bM raitroad~ east by R. P. Booth, south Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- February 4, 1960 by Tuckers Lane and. west by Tuckers Lane. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- ~. Gillispie, Mr. Bergen, Mr. Rosenberg~ and Mr. Grigonis. It was further RES.~OLVED that legal notice of the hearing be published in the official newspaper under date of February ll~ 1960. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- ~. Gil!ispie, M~. Bergen, Mr. Rosenberg, and I~. Grigonis. The Board of Appeals received an application for a = ~ New variance from Edna A. Brown~ Main Road, ~as~ Marion, York to be discussed informally at this meeting. During the discussion it was brought out that this'property ~(at ~11 Lane~ Peconic) which Mrs. Bro~n is requesting to use as a restaurant~ has been used as a residence for the past 1~ years. Mrs. Brown was forwarded a letter advising that the Board of Appeals does not have the authority to grant a variance which would in effect be a change of zone. The authority to either up-grade or dog,n-grade a ~one rests in theTown Board. The Board is not aware of any provision in the Zoning Ordinance which would permit them to facilitate Mrs. Brown's disposal of this property or use this property for business purposes. The Board. received a letter from the Southo!d Town Plan- ning Board in reply to the Board of Appeal's letter of January 22, 1960 stating that it is the feeling of the Planning Board that the dividing line for lots to be handled as a subdivision to be between four (4) and five (~). They suggested that the Board of Appeals handle cases of access involving four or less lots and the Planning Board handle cases involving five or more lots where access is concerned. The next meeting of the Southold To%mBoard of Appes~s will be held 7:30 P.M., Thursday, February 18, 1960~ at the To~m Clerk Office, Main Road~ $outhold, New York. The Board of Appeals received a letter from Joseph P. Plonski~ Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Huutington requesting that the Board advise in what districts rest homes or homes of the aged, nursing homes or convalescent homes are permitted. They were a~vised convalescent homes are permitted use in the business district and the Board of Appeals is not involved. The question was also asked about the advisability of chan$ing the County Charter requiring that applications for variances and special excePtions be submitted to the County Planning Commission when the application is within ~00 ft. of a surrotu~ding to%~n boundary. This Board replied $outhold Town Board of Appeals m9- February ~, 1960 that it would seem advisable to do this. Meeting adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Re s pe c tf~lly submit ted ~ Judith T. Boken Secretary