Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/27/1979Southold Town Board o£Appeals -mDUTHI3LD, L. !., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOAR D MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR SERGE DOYEN,JR. TERRY TUTHIL_ ROBERT J. DOUGLASS~ Acting Chairman MINUTES SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 27~ 1979 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Septermber 27, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. (D.S.T.) at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. There were present: Messrs. Robert J. Douglass, Acting Chairman~ Charles Grigonis Jr.; Terry R. Tuthill Jr. and Serge Doyen, Jr. RECESSED HEARING: Appeal No. 2574. Application of Raymond and Anna Ciacia, Main Road, Greenport, New York (James Bitses, Esq.) for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80 and Bulk & Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insuf- ficient area and width. Location of property; Lots No. 157, 158, 159 and 160, Map of Peconic Bay Estates, Map No. 1124, Greenport, New York. The smbject hearing ~as reconvened at 7:35 P.M. (D.S.T). MR. DOUGLASS: This is a recessed hearing because we needed some change.~ which only the Town Board can do in order to grant any of what they wanted. This is located as follows: Peconic Bay Estates, Lots 157, 158, 159 and 160, Map No. 1124~ Greenport, New York. We reconve~e this matter which was recessed from the August 16, 1979 meeting in order to allow the applicants to obtain approval from the Town Board for a change of zone for this property. As of present we have not received the documents requested but if there is anybody in the Hall now that can give us anymore information on itt please do so. JAMES BITSES: For Mr. Ciacia. Pursuant to your direction, Gentl~en, I brought this matter before the Town Board by submitting the required blueprints and so on. We successfully passed the envir- onmental hu~dle in giving the certificate that it would not change the environment, and the Town Board in the normal course of events SOUT~©LD TO~ BOARD OF APPEALS -2- September 27, 1979 h~s sent it on to the Planning Board for its decision; the Planning Board will meet on Monday night for its decision. The Planning Board will meet Monday night unfortunately, i had hoped that they would meet before tonight, but their schedule-they march to a different drum, sort of speak. Consequently, we will not know whether they will grant a zone change, but we anticipate that they will since there are no impediments. We will not know until Monday. Because of the scheduling, I would therefore ask that this matter be put over to the next meeting of the Zoning Board, by which time we will have the d~cision of not only the Planning Board but probably the Town Board as well. A continuance, in order words. MR. DOUGLASS: Ail right.. Thank you, szr. The notation that we have here from the Town Board is that it will take a little while longer to finish the ground work and to make the decision that they have to make. Is there anyone here that wasn,t the other night and didn't speak when this came up that wants to speak against this application? is there anybody else that wants to say anything for it? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: If not, why, I'll make a motion that this hearing be recessed till our November hearing. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the matter of the application of Raymond and Anna Ciacia, Main Road, Greenport, New York, (James Bitses, Esq.), Appeal No. 2574, be recessed till November 15, 1979. Vote of the Board: and Doyen. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonls, Tuthill PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2593. Upon application of Joan Kienath, 380 Deer Drive, Mattituck~ New York, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 Bulk & Parking Schedule for permission to construct a dwelling with insufficien~ frontyard and rearyard setbacks. Location of property: Soundview Avenue, Mat- tituck, New York; bounded on the north by Soundview Avenue, west by Kienath, south by Robinson, east by Krupski. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 7:40 P.M. by readin~ the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local newspapers, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building In- spector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoin- mug property owners was made to William Kienath and wife, John ~. Robinson~ and Joseph F. Krupski; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a survey of the property in question. We also have a section of the County Tax Map showing the property and the surrounding properties. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for this application? JOAN KIENATH: I am the owner of the property and I would just rSOUT~OLD TOK~ BOARD OF APPEALS -3- September 27, 1979 like to say that I would like to have a house built on that piece of property because there is no other way that we could put the house. The property is a half acre but we can't go any close~ to the pond area because elevation is about a six or seven foot drop, and we don't want to be close to the bottom, so we have to come up to the top and we will have to put the house up there. MR. DOUGLASS: After we were up and looked at it the other day, I looked it up in the records and it's a legal independent piece of property under your name only. When was it purchased? How long ago? MRS. KIENATH: When we purchased it? 1976. MR. DOUGLASS: Right. It was purchased separate from that other piece you own with the house on it then? MRS. KIENATH: Right. ~. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody else who would like to speak for it? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: Now in this, I'll come back to you. In this origi- nally, you asked for a 38-foot setback and that left you with about 23 feet on the back, and now you re-arranged it and you are asking for 33 feet instead of 38 which leaves you only 15 feet in the back. Can you tell me the distance of setback on the red house on your other pro- perty on top of the hill? MRS. KIENATH: I think I have the old sketch, maybe you can make it out. MR. DOUGLASS: (Mrs. Kienath brought up the old sketch for the Board to review.) Yes. That's what I thought it was. Thirty-eight feet five on one side and 37 feet 8 on the other. MRS. KIENATH: We had to change it because of the elevation. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. I read the letter from you. MRS. KIENATH: The garage was 6 feet up in the air. It was too high. MR. DOUGLASS: Right, well the other day when we were up there you didn't think you would go under it with the garage. MRS. KIENATH: Well, it was over our heads. The foundation was about this high. MR. DOUGLASS: You figured you weren't going to put the garage underneath it that time. MRS. KIENATH: No. So we moved it and had the garage up higher SOU~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -4- September 27, 1979 ~toser over here so we won't have that big drop. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, I noticed that George (Fisher) has given you a sideyard variance already. He has allowed 20%, the Building Depart- ment has allowed to give 20% in a case like that. It brings you up from 15 to 11.3. MRS. KIENATH: ~[q. TUTHILL: MR. DOUGLASS: MR. TUTHILL: MR. DOUGLASS: Right. What's the setback for the existing house? 37'8" and 38'8". It's on a little bit of an angle. What are they asking? 33. MR. TUTHILL: A bigger house. A deeper house. MR. DOUGLASS: Yeah, because they have more room in back of this. Thank you, ma'am. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the appli- cant requests a 33-foot frontyard setback and a 15-foot rearyard set- back due to the proposed house's closeness to the pond and the elevation of the lot. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would preduce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the same use district~ and the var!ance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED~ that Joan Kienath, 380 Deer Drive, Mattituck, New York, be GRANTED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III~ Section 100-31 Bulk & Parking Schedule for permission to construct a dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback of not less than 33 feet and with an insufficient rearyard setback of not less than 15 feet. Location of property: Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, New York; bounded north by Soundview Avenue~ west by Kienath, south by Robinson, east by Krupski. C@~DIT~ON FOR APPROVAL: Suffolk County Planning Commission approval. Vote of the Board: and Doyen. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill, PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2597. Upon application of the New York T&lephone Company, 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New Yomk, New York 10036 for a variance ~o the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for permission ~o install a 90-foot pole with two radio an- tennas in side yard. Location of property: Main Road, Cutchogue, New ~SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -5- September 27, 1979 ~ork, bounded on the north by Sterling, east by Imbriano and Boyd, s~uth by Main Road, weSt by S & E Realty Co. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 7:52 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local newspapers, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to ad- joining property owners Was made to S & E Realty Co., Anthony & G. Imbriano, and L.G. Boyd; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have copies of the general arrangement site plan and a copy of the County Tax Map showing the surrounding properties and the subject property. Is there anybody who wishes to speak for this application? DAVID L. SOHN: 188 Main Street, Huntington, New York, and I represent the New York Telephone Company. I would just like to correct one thing, Mr. Chairman. We kind of repeated the language in the Cutchogue and Greenport applications, in the one place where you read there, water towers with respect to Cutchogue, it should read radio tower because there is already one at the backyard of this property. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, that's right, it's the little one that's out at the back of the building there. MR. SOHN: itwas just that that got transposed the same way as the Greenport one, and the fact that the water tower does exist to the north. So we'll be talking about these tonight and I apologize also for that statement that you didn't get prior to the me,ting, but the statement that I am going to make now is really supposed to be that. We'll be talking about both of these because they both are the Greenport site and the Cutchogue site, part of the system and networth. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, but they will have to be taken up individually. MR. SOHN: Yes, but lots of the things that we'll be saying about the system and the technology that's involved in the system apply to both sites. That's the only .po3~n~t~ wanted to make. Yes, we will treat each one separately for the zoning. This is a request for an area variance from the height regulations applicable to the B-1 District, wherein New York Telephone Company owns and operates a central-office facility located on the north side of Main Road in Cutchogue. At 'this site the Telephone Company ~roposes to erect a 90-fOot steel mono-pole support structure for the two radio signal antennas. One zs an 8-foot parabolic dish, if you will, antenna; and the other is a 6-foot parabolic antenna. They're fixed pros~ pectively for, it's supposed to be fixed Drospectively on this tower 85 feet and 70 fe~t above grade. Since the Southold Zonin~ Code Bulk Schedule restricts building height to 35 feet in the ~-1 Dis- trict, the Building Inspector has ruled that this proposed structure requires a variance because of its 90-foot height. Before going into the nature of this proposal and why the variance being sought is necessary, if you would allow me I would like to state for the ~ecord a kind of a divergence of opinion that we have with the Build- ing Inspector on his interpretation of the Ordinance in respect to SOUT, HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS September 27, 1979 ~is proposal, it~s not really a serious one but it's one I think that should be stated. While · ~onld hope that the Board would agree with me in this interpretation, and if you would we could establish what I believe to be a legally correct view of this proposed use as an acces~ sory use, not requiring the Bulk Variance. Please understand that we are prepared to deal with this case as a straightforward height variance and to submit to the Board's judgment on that issue should the Board end up agreeing with the Building Inspector. These remarks apply as well to the next item on the agenda, the height variance matter relating to the Telephone Company property in Greenport. These general remarks. In short, we believe that the proposed mono~po!e support is nothing more or less than the accessory structure that is customary with and incidental to the primary structure and permitted use of the sites, both sites, as telephone exchanges. Indeed the Building Inspector does agree with this concept, the use part of the concept, but he requires that this clearly accessory structure be also subject to the Bulk requirements of the Code and Schedule as well. Ordinarily we would agree with that interpretation as in a case, for example, where a garage was accessory to a single-family home, and that still had to comply with the bulk requirements in the residence district. That makes alot of sense. But here, with the Special Ex- ception basis of the telephone exchange, both of themj include in their authorizations those accessory uses and structures related to a telephone exchange. And here where the distinction should be made. The radio-telephone antenna is clearly accessory to the telephone exchange principal use, and as such the telephone company is not permitted to use such an accessory structure above 35 feet because of the height restrictions of the Bulk Schedu!e~ it is in effect denied the right to operate the accessory use as permitted under Section 100-70(c) of the Ordinance, as we will now discuss these structures had to be at the height as proposed to be effective. These antennas will receive and code and re-transmit the~signals that are at a fre- quency of 11 gigahertz. Such a signal frequency has to have a clear and ~unobstructed path to its neighboring antenna, and in the case of such installation, the antenna to be located in Greenport, that's not correct I've just been told--what does Cutchogue have in connec- tion to--Noyack, or West Riverhead. Accordingly~ in order to, for the circuitry to operate a~ all, the antennas must be able to kind of see each other. And that word site zn there should be s-i-g-h-t. Line of sight. MR. DOUGLASS: No, it's not spelled that way. MR. SOHN: No, I noticed that. And on a direct visual basis these things have to, you know, if a guy were sitting up on top of one of the them, he could see the guide or he could see at least a mirror flash, you know 15 to 20 miles away. They have to in effect s~e each other. For this reason~ they must be raised to the heights involved~ for if they were any lower trees, hills, buildings between them would block the signal and interfere with the telephone services being rendered over the system. So what we're really saying is, is that this is an accessory use not to be subject to the Bulk require- ments as an accessory use because it is so customarily incidental to the telephone exchange, and if it had to comply with the height requirements, you would never be able to use it. That's really what we are saying. And that's the difference of opinion we have with the Building Inspector. And that's why we think it's a little bit ~SOUT~H~LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -7- September 27, 1979 ~ifferent from the accessory garage to a single-family dwelling w~ich has to comply with the Bulk. But as I say, let's go on to the regular part of the variance. I just wanted to make that point. It's a, it's not an unusual3point to make and there have been locations, and I realize none of it is binding on this Board, in- on Long Island where that exact procedure has been followed. MR. DOUGLASS~ Yeah, but accessory use for a tennis court is a fence around it when it comes into the Bulk. MR. SOHN: Sure, we agree with that. The system of which the Cutchogue installation is a vital part is best described as back-bone digital, radio-telephone network designed to serve the Eastern section of Long Island. This network will enable tAe Telephone Company to introduce and maintain the latest kinds of telephone service~ includ- ing the transml~ssion of digital data. The network will supplement, expand and in some cases replace land cables that are becoming obsolete ~ecause of sheer age and because of the cost of maintaining them. Thus there is a great economic advantage to both the Company and its subscribers in the use of this kind of tec~nology by keeping the cost of maintainance and installation of these needed facilities at the lowest available within the State of New York. The difference in cost between the radio system and the digital land cables performing the same function would be on the order over the long trended pull of a 20-year period, which is how we look at our money, our investment in this kind of thing. The difference would be on the order of about 25% and we're talking in the area of initial first costs~ between a cost of the radio system of about $7 million to a cost of the land system of about $19 million. Balancing the need, the technological superiority and~the economic benefit as well as the environmental benefit of fewer land cables strung in and over the streets against the community interests that be asserted against this variance request, the following factors are-apparent. The variance will not materially aiter the character of the use permitted already at the site; this is so because there already exists the mono-pole at the rear of the property and that is, as unobtrusive as the proposed mono-pole would be. Incidentally, that accessory pole was permitted without requir- ing a height variance. The site itself is well screened by mature tree cover on the east and on the north. To the west is the busy commercial use represented by the shopping center. Across Main Road are residents and an open field w~ere some mature tree cover exists. I spoke myself to a lady that lives in the residence across the way on Main Road and she informed me that the proposed use would be of no special concern to her. She, Ithink, was not the owner of the property, she said her son's. I bought some of her gladiolus. The extent of the variance needed is not inconsistent with the require- ment of the Telephone Company considered against the consequences to efficient telephone service without the variance. In other words, it's not an unreasonable use of the land in view of the public bene- fit ~hat will result when we enhance and improve the telephone service. So, in conclusmon, we believe that we demonstrated that a practical difficulty indeed exists and the use of this land justifies the grant of the height variance to this special purpose. A special public utility use. In the final analysis the practical difficulty is that there zs ]ust not enough high ground in this area zn such close proximity to the ~etephone exchange that is available to implement the special engineering requirements of this kind of radio network. ~SOUT~O~D TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -8- September 27, 1979 MA. SOHN (continued) : I would on the basis of these facts and the plans submitted respectfully request that, that the variance be granted to erect this accessory structure as proposed. We have with us tonight some highly expert gentlemen in respect to radio and transmission matters in case any-questions might arise in that res- pect, and we will be pleased to answer them. MR. DOUGLASS: May I ask a question. What influence does nearness to, like the situation you have in Cutchogue~ where you want to put it, if you came back towards the rear corner of the building does a distance like that influence the value of the unit any? MRo SOHN: Indeed it does. I asked the very question before we came zn here that you are asking now, and the reason for that is that you lose the integrity of the signal when you separate it by distance so far from the equipment that it is connected to at these frequencies; and there's also a problem, a technical engineering problem that involves what they call a wave guide, that is that carries the signal up to the antenna, that has to be in the kind of proximity to that exchange to that equipment inside the building where the equipment to that thing that it is connected to will be located. It has to be that close. That's the reason why the exist- ing pole out there in the backyard can operate the way it does because it is not connected to that kind of equipment and not sub- jec~ to that kind of need~ tolerance need. MR. DOUGLASS: That's just a regular radio. MR. SOHN: Yeah. It's operating at these tremendously high frequencies for a radio. You know the reason for that, that's the, the idea there is to pack as many telephone signals and calls into a small area. MR. DOUGLASS: Right. Have you anything else to offer? MR. SOHN: Not on this application, no, sir. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: As you have heard, he has technical men that can answer questions. Is there anybody that would desire to speak against this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: In that respect, we have received a letter to the"Southold Town Board of Appeals, reference variance requested by New York Telephone Company, Main Road~ Cutchogue, to install a 90-foot pole with two saucers. As out-of-'state owners of the adjoin- ing property, we have carefully studied the plans and specifications of the proposed pole installation. Mr. Boyd and I both object to the granting of a variance. With its girth, height and two saucers we feel that an installation such as this would be okay on Cape Cannaveral but not in Cutchogue. As former permanent residents of Cutchogue and Southold for the past 25 years~ we as well as others have enjoyed the rural aspect of the North Fork, We feel that thi~ ~SOUT~OLD~ TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -9- September 27, 1979 p~oposed installation does not lend itself to the rural atmosphere, It's much too commercial Again, we both object. Sincerely~ Mr. and Mrs. Robert Boyd, 54~0 Gulk Drive, Holme~ Beach, Florida 33510. I don't know when Mr. and Mrs. BOyd left Cutchogue but from their h~ndvw~ritten letter here it sounds like they left before the shopping district was built and that I don't know. MR, S©HN: They wrote to us, Mr. Chairman, and asked us for copies of the plans and we sent them on down, NANCY GILLIES: Just for information~ Mr, Chairman~ they sold their house just this summer. Yeah, i just happen to kno~, MR. ~OUGLASS: So they are not the owners next door then? MRS. GILLIES: No, no, they sold their home in South~id this summer and moved permanently to Florida, They maintained a Florida address as well as a So~ho!d address and their sons are living in Southold, they still will continue to be. MR. DOUGLASS: Would you give your name please, ma~am? MRS. GILLIES: Oh I'm sorry, Nancy Gillies. MR. DOUGLASS~ Thanks alot for the information. MR. TUTHILL: What did Boyd own? MR. DOUGLASS: i~t~ was the property adjoining it to the east. T~ · ney sold out She just said they sold out. They actually don't own it now. MRS. GILLIES': They sold their home down near Pine Tree, and this is a vacant lot. MR. DOUGLASS: This is a vacant lot. on it then, that they own? There is no house MRS. GILLIES: (Nod~ded yes.) MR. DOUGLASS: Well, we were out there and we took pictures of it and so on, and the antenna in the back that's there now I would estimate is about 60-foot high, is that correct? MR. SOHN: No, sir, that's 95. Five foot higher. MR. DOUGLASS: That's 95? It doesn't look it from the road. MR. SOHN: I know, it's decemvlng. MR. DOUGLASS: We couldn't find any reason to attempt to obstruct you in communmcations here. We have very strict rulings mn fact to go by under the State of New York rulings on Public Service Utilities, and so under this control I would reco~umend that this request for the additional height be granted.- After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that ~SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -10- September 27, 1979 %~e applicant is requesting a 90-foot pole in side yard at the New York Telephone Company premises, Main Road, Cutchogue in addition to the existing radi° pole in the backyard of the subject premises. The Board agrees 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 the property and in the same use district; and the varianceilwiii not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the New York Telephone Company, 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036, be GRANTED a Variance to ~he Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100'71 for permission to install a 90-foot pole with two radio antennas in side yard. Loca- tion of property: Main Road, Cutchogue, New York; bounded on the north by Sterling, east by Imbriano and Boyd, south by Main Road, west by S & E Realty Co. CONDITION FOR APPROVAL: Suffolk County Planning Commission approval. Vote of the Board: hill and Doyen. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tut- PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2596. Upon application of the New York Telephone Company, 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for permisszon to install a 85-foot pole in side yard. Location of property: Main Road and Moore's Lane, Greenport, New York, bounded on the north by Village of Greenport, east by Moore's Lane, south by Main Road, and Kavanagh, west by Zipkas. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 8:18 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local newspapers, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notifi- cation to adjoining property owners was made to the Village of Greenport, James Kavanagh and Andrew Zipkas Estate~ fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I also have a section of the County Tax Map showing it and the surrounding area, and we also have a complete copy of General Arrangement of the Site Plan and desire of where they are going to put it. I ask again is there anybody desiring to speak in favor of this application? DAVID L. SOHN: 188 Main Street, Huntington, New York, re- presenting New York Telephone Company. Many of the comments, as a matter of fact, a~l of them relating to the technology here we spoke of in respect to the Cutchogue application are on all fours with this. In other- words they apply equally to this application. ~SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -11- September' 27, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: You won't have to go over all th&~: MR. SOHN: And I won't. MR. TUTHILL: I have a question as a matter of curiosity, you don't have the antenna mast attached to the building. It's detached. Will you have some loss of signals then, or were you as a practical matter able to put it closer? that? MR. SOHN: You mean on top of the building or something like MR. TUTHILL: Well I've seen them in Riverhead on the top of the building, but I mean the other one is right up close, in Cutchogue to the building. This one is not. It is 20 feet away. MR. SOHN: Yeah, the idea here was we didn't want to encroach into that side area. We want to leave some room open for parking. If we stuck it right next to the building it would have eliminated the driveway on that side. That was what the designers were thinking about there. MR. TUTHILL: It's not too far in other words to be- MR. SOHN: That's right. It's close but not too far. So, I don't think it's necessary to get into that technical business we were talking about. The same facts apply. However, at this location at Main Road, Moore's Lane, Greenport where we own the Telephone Company and the existing central office as in Cutchogue, we propose to erect also in the B-1 District a 85-foot mono-pole support struc- ture attached to which would be one 6-foot diameter parabolic antenna designed for the same radio system that will serve the Cutchogue central office. The difference between the two locations is, of course, the sites themselves and the comments we had made with regard to the Cutchogue site regarding the practical difficulty as it related to a demonstration that the grant of the variance would not materially alter the character of that neighborhood, that being one of the factors. It's really the essential difference between these two applications. The character of the neighborhood at the Greenport site, I think, an examination of the site would show ought to ~be e~en less affected by the grant of the variance than that involved in the other application. This is for the reason that at the Greenport site the surrounding area is already deter- mined by the existence of comparable structures of the similar use and height. To say a similar use is not totally accurate, but for the moment that might become apparent. To the north of the site is the municipal ballfield with its many approximately 40 or 45-foot high lighting stands. To the east of the site diagonally across from the site on Moore's Lane is the stack of the municipal light- ing plant. Further to the north and it is visible is a rather large water tower. Across Main Road and to the west is an area devoted mainly to various commercial uses. Accordingly the advent of the proposed mono-pole should have very little effect on the immediate area that is so determined by existing high structures. Beyond that I don't think I have much to add in regard to the Greenport site. And we request the variance and respectfully submit to this Board that practical difficulty does exist here for the reasons set forth in the other discussion. There was an additional problem that the ~SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -12- September 27, 1979 B'~ild~ng Inspector brought up here that I discussed with him about the sideyard. And again we've go~ a little diversion because I think that's the rearyard and he admitted that and said well he really wasn't sure because of the way the definitions read in the Ordinance so he thought he would throw it over to you to see what you thought about it. MR. DOUGLASS: He threw it at us. MR. SOHN: He sure did. And I, he said it was unclear and if you do read it, it's sort of unclear, but we think that anything behind the building is the rearyard and we think that's where it is. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, you have a special problem there. You have two frontyards. MR. SOHN: Oh on the corner? I see. ~,~. DOUGLASS: And it puts you in an entirely different cate- gory than in Cutchogue. MR. SOHN: Oh. MR. DOUGLASS: With two frontyards you've got two sideyards, but the definition is where do you find the rearyard,--in a Business Zone. If this was in a Residential Zone, it's very simple because the owner of the property choses one sideyard as his rearyard. He can choose this, but in a Business Zone you cannot. However, we went over this rather thoroughly. He used it as one of the things of disapproving your application, and you did not in your application, not knowing it, you did not apply for a variance for use in a sideyard. However, we went over this today and went over it very thoroughly and if you read the ordinance and then take a corner lot, a business lot like yours, and draw it ou~, why it becomes that from going down parallel to your building and across to your side-lot line next to the ballfield, if you draw a line right down your building and then you start over on Moore's Lane and you draw a line right down your building all the way to the rear of the property line on the west, that little piece in their becomes rearyard and you happen to be sittmng mn it with your pole. So you're all right, you're mn the clear, you're mn the rear- yard. However, there was one other thing which you d~d not show us on this survey, was how far-it didn't state how far away from the rearyard line the pole would be installed. The antenna would be installed how far. But I, going over it, worked it ou~ and I think it comes out, and tell me if I'm wrong, at about 7-1/2' from the property line. MR. SOHN: Yeah, that's what we determined. MR. DOUGLASS: And you're allowed to go within three on your rear line, so you're all right there. By sheer luck. MR. SOHN: i'll tell you what threw me~!~ [ Some ordinances require on a corner lot the shortest measurement is your front yard, you know, the shortest. But you don't have-. MR. DOUGLASS: In here you have two frontyards. MR. SOHN: Yeah, I'm stuck with that - yeah, I didn't realize that. ~SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -13- September 27, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: The only variance that you turn out to need is the one on the height. Is there, is that all you have, sir? Is there anybody else wishing to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) ~. DOUGLASS: Again, I make the statement that we are con- trolled very strongly by the New York Law on Public Utilities and with that as our guidelines, again I will make a motion that this applica- tion for a height from 35 feet to 85 feet of antenna for public service ~elephone network be granted. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant is requesting a 85~foot pole antenna at the New York Tele- phone Ccmpany, Main Road & Moore's Lane, Greenport for which a variance is-~required. The Board agrees 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 the property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the New York Telephone Company, 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036, be GRANTED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for permission to install a~ 85-foot pole, ~ubjeet to the following condition: That applicant obtain approval from the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Location of property: Main Road and Moore's Lane, Greenport, New York~ bounded on the north by Village of Greenport, east by Moore's Lane, south by Main Road and Kavanagh, west by Zipkas. Vote of the Board: and Doyen. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2594. Upon application of Eileen M. ~embeck, 448 Greene Avenue, Sayville, New York 11782, for a variance ito the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section !00-31, Bulk and Parking Schedule, for permission to construct a dwelling with insufficient frontyard and rearyard setbacks. Location of property: Deerfoot Path, Cutchogue, New York; bounded on the north by Fitzpatrick, east by Deerfoot Path, south by Jester, west by Leskody. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 8:33 P.M. by read~ ing the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing as adver- tised in the local newspapers, affidavits attesting to its publication ~SOUT~O~LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -14- September 27, 1979 i~% the official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjOin- ing property owners was made ~o Mr. and Mrs. Burris T. Jester, Mr. and Mrs. Stephen F. Leskody and Mr. and Mrs. James J. Fitzpatrick; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I have a section of the County Tax Map showing the subject and surrounding properties, and we have a copy of the sketch plans of what they are desiring to do with the piece of land. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for this applica- tion? NANCY GILLIES~ Mrs. Lembeck asked me to come tonight because she no longer drives in the evening and it would be a long ride for her from Sayville. Her builder had planned to come and he unfortunately is in the hospital, so he couldn't come. Mrs. Lembeck planned the house. This is, I guess, what she figures her final home, and she said for once she was going to have a sunny kitchen and have all the things that she wanted. And in laying out the housef it was physically impossible to, with the length being 150 feet on the front and the setback in the rearyard and the frontyard, to build the kind of house that she wanted. She did make as many modifications as she could, but there was no way of doing it completely. We sort of rough-sketched, you know, mentally on the plot and it does look as though it is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, and in fact the plot looks now with shrubbery right up to the sidewalk, I think it's going to be an improvement of the area. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you, ma'am. Is there anybody else wishing to speak in favor of this application? MR. TUTHILL: There is no survey. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody wishing to speak against this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: Will you accept the sketch? MK. TUTHILL: Well, they have the number of feet they want. MR. DOUGLASS: The whole thing ms sketched out here. The sketch is to scale and all. There ms nobody else desirmng to speak on this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: We mnvestigated this and went out there, took pictures of it. It's almost a rectangle, the piece of land. It is a little narrower on one end than on the other, on one side. The reason for the applicant not being able to fit the house into the land is, because of the direction she is running the house -- she is runnmng it the t~ng part of the house with the shallow part of the lot. We measured the other homes along there and checked all the homes. Thms is in a subdivision, I can't remember what the name of it is now. 'SOUT~LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -15- September 27, 1979 MRS. GILLIES: Moose Cove? MR. DOUGLASS: Yeah, and all the homes on either side around there all run about 55 feet from the road, thereby granting of this application would change the character and would set a precedent in the area, and if anybody, any gentleman would desire, I'd ask for a motion of disapproval? MRS. GILLIES: May I say one .more thing? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, ma'am. MRS. GILLIES: The reason I got involved in this is because I sold Mrs. Lembeck, the Lembecks the lot. I work.~for Four Sails Realty, and I was embarrassed when I sold the lot, a year ago to the Oates, and when -- then they told me that they wanted a swi~ing pool or something like that and that they put it back on the market. So that's what happened, so now I had a listing and I was a beginning broker~salesman, and I don't know lots as well as I know the homes, so I thought, that's a nice lot, it's a nice area, I'll show this lady who seemed to want an established neighborhood a nice area -- this one. So I took her down and I'm really embarrassed because it turns out now that the Oates couldn't fit the house they wanted on the lot either, so I'm beginning to think that it might be a hardship that the 0ates might in turn come back to you and ask you, you know, for something on it because the corner house, the way it's located, the garages and the activity of that backyard; it's a very, very shallow backyard if you noticed. So I think w~iat she did was she moved herself as far away as she could from the backyard of the corner house, because otherwise she would be living in their backyard, you know, her activity would be right next to their backyard. She was trying to move it over that way. MR. DOUGLASS: Yeah, but what she has done, she has taken a long house and turned it on a shallow edge of the property rather than turn it the other way, lengthwise. Yes, ma'am. MRS. LESKODY: I'm Leskody, up the side of the block, and I was wondering why is she putting, what's the front setback going to be and the back setback? MR. DOUGLASS: She's requesting to-drop the front setback down to 23 fees, no, 28 feet. MRS. LESKODY: I didn't know that. The lady came to see us at our home and told us what she was going to do, and I didn't see any reason to object at all. In fact I came here with no other reason but just to listen. But now I'm finding out, why does she have to build her house in that place? Why can't she build it with the long house this way on the lot? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, to ~ay mn keeping with the neighborhood she has to. She'll have to change it. Yes, ma'am? Sir? MR. LESKODY: What is the rear dimension? MR. DOUGLASS: She wants to cut~ with the length of house ~SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -16- September 27, 1979 ~she wants to put in, she wants to cut the rear down to 33 feet and that is cutting down almOst half of what's allowable too. MRS. LESKODY: She's not using the property to any advantage that way. MR. DOUGLASS: No, ma'am. MR. TUTHILL: The fact that it's a new,house doesn't have any bearing on it. It's zoned for residential, but the setback, it doesn't make any difference whether it's an old or a new. The fact is that the older homes have an established setback which is much greater than they are seeking here, which does create a change in the neighborhood. I don't see any way that we can approve it. MRS. LESKODY: but i agree with you. MR. TUTHILL: MR. DOUGLASS: Well~ as I said, I came here with no objections don't think you have to object. Does anybody care to make a motion on it? After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicants' request for frontyard and rearyard~setbacks seems to be not Within the pattern of the neighborhood. It appears that the same size house could be placed on the lot without a variance if it were arranged differently on the plot. The Board does not agree with the reasoning of the applicants. 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 not 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 character of the neighborhood and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED~ that Eileen M. Lembeck.? 448 Greene Avenue, Sayville, New York 11782, be DENIED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk & Parking Schedule, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for permission to construct a dwelling with insufficient frontyard and rearyard setbacks. Location of property: Deerfoot Path, Cutchogue, New York; bounded on the north by Fitzpatrick, east by Deerfoot Path, south by Jester, west by Leskody. Vote of the Board: hill and Doyen. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tut- PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2595. Upon application of Delmer F. Nuhfer, 600 Cedar Drive, Southold, New York 1197~, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100~31, Bulk & Parking Schedule for permission to construct an addition with insufficient sideyard. Location of property: 600 Cedar Drive, Southold, New York; bounded on the north by Boggiano & Boggiano, east by Su~er Lane, south by Bloore & Thilburg, west by ~edar Drive. 'SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -17- September 27, 1979 The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 8:45 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local newspapers, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, Notice of Disapproval from the Building inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to Raymond Boggiano & others~ Mrs. Susan Bloore, Mr. Raymond Boggiano, Mrs. Karen Thilberg; fee paid $15~00. MR. DOUGLASS: I n6te there is no survey in the file. Is there anybody here with to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody here wishing to speak against this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: When we went out and looked at it and took pictures of it and checked the surrounding neighborhood, the way their home is built now with the garage on it, they have 11'6'~ from the present garage to their lot line. They are proposing to add another section ~n~i the garage 18' x 20', double what they already have and to encroach still farther on the property line to within 5'6". We found that they also under the same name own the lot in back of this as, so they go right through to Summer Lane, not just on the front drive. They have at present time a little dirt road around on the north side of the house to get into the back, and we found that all the neighbors along there on both roads have at least the amount of sideyard that they presently have. There is also a little shed that is in their rearyard n~, just back in the corner of where they want to put this proposed garage. There is space for them to move over in back of their house rather than encroach out on the sideyard area, and so we felt that it would be a definite change of the character of the neighborhood by allowing them to come down to 5'6'~ within 5'6" of the property line. With all this in m~nd, why I'll put out a motion that this application to encroach farther on the side property line be denied. After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant's request for a 5'6" sideyard would not be within the established pattern of the neighborhood. The Board does not agree with the reasoning of the applicant. 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 not be shared by all properties alike zn the zm~ediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will change the character of the neighborhood and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion made by ~. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that Delmer F. Nuhfer, 600 Cedar Drive, Southold, New York 11971, be DENIED a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cle III, Section 100-31, Bulk & Parking Schedule for permission to construct an addition with insufficien~ sideyard, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Location of property: 600 Cedar Drive, Southold, New York; bounded north by Boggiano & Boggiano, east by Summer Lane, south by Bloore and Thilburg, west by Cedar Drive. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. , , , ~SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -18- September 27, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2598. Upon application of Philip A. W~nzel, 39320 Main Road, Peconic, New York 11958, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk & Parking Schedule for permission to subdivide with insufficient area. Location of proper- ty: Main Road, Peconic, New York; bounded north by Main Road, east by Koraleski, south by Leslie Road, west by Bujnowski. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 8:55 P.M. by reading the application for variance, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local newspapers, affidavits attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to Rose Koroteski and Arthur L. Bujnowski~ fee paid S15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I've got a map of the subdivision as proposed and I also have a map Sh~wing the properties surrounding it. Before I go any further, tonight, the decision will not ~endered tonight. The reason being that this application has to go back before the Planning Board before we can act on it. It should have gone to the Planning Board first and gone back to us. However, if there anybody here that is going to desire to testify in either way on this appli- cation, we will take your testimony and thereby when it comes back to us from the Planning Board~ if it does, you will not have to return to repeat the same testimony. I'll first ask if there is anybody who desires to speak for this application, and start there? FRANK CICHANOWICZ: I am with Briarcliff Sod who is presently under a lease of the property for the past 20 years and the basic reason for dividing the property is that we had for the past 20 years used the outside roadways to get around the buildings and up into the field and also able to use the buildings as they stand now. Basically we are not going to change any of the character of the land, it's just the people want to exist in their own house and we're dividing the house away from the farm and the buildings. right? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, you're interested in purchasing it, MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yeah, this is subject to purchase of the property. DOUGLASS: To use it as continued farmland. MA. CICHANOWICZ: To continually use it as farmland just as it is. We~'re not going to be building any more units on it. We're just going to keep the existence exactly the way it is. The only thing we are going to do is to paint the buildings and that's ab~out all. BUt outside of any exterior changes of any roadways we don't plan on doing any if we don't have uo. But the biggest problem comes in dividing 40..000 square feet out of the parcel with the land going on a quite a diagonal, it goes out into the front of the buildings and we cannot negotiate our trucks around plus get uee of the build- lngs without either moving them, knocking them down or making new entrance around it. So this is the basic request, and it is about 4,000 or 4,800 square feet short of the necessary amount needed. .SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS September 27, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: They are requesting for a, I believe, it was a 3~,2~'~ feet rath~ than the 40,000, That's on the home p~operty, and the rest is how many acres? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, that's another 24.7 acres. MR. DOUGLASS: That other piece? MR. CICHANOWITZ: Yes the other piece stays the same. And the only reason we tried laying it out is because we have a problem with the telephone, catch basin and curbin[g on the State Highway, and we can't move that property any more and still get an access or egress to the property and still be able to utilize the hard-packed roads that we have to go up to the irrigation plus harvest the crops off. That's about all I can say. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. speak in favor of this application? speak against this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) Is there anybody else desiring to Is there anybody desiring to MR. DOUGLASS: Well, if there is nobody else that desires to say anything, we will recess this until the Planning Board comes back to us with their decision. When they do, why we will set a new date and notify everybody of the new date of the hearing; if it comes back to us. it was On motion made by Mr. Tuthil!; seconded by Mr. Grigonis, RESOLVED, that the matter of the application of Philip A. Wenzel, 39320 Main Road, Peconic, New York 11958, for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100~31, Bulk & Parking Schedule for permission to subdivide with insufficient area be RECESSED until the applicant is able to get Planning Board decision on this proposed subdivision. Location of property: Main Road, Peconic, New York; bounded north by Main Road, east by Koraleski, south by Leslie Road, west by Bujnowski. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Tuthill and Doyen. Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2608. U~on application of Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Main Road, Mattituck, New York; bounded on the north by Main Road (State Route 25), east by Elak, south by New Suffolk Avenue, west b~ Locust Avenue. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 9:05 P.M. by reading the application for a Special Exception, legal notice of 'SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OP APPEALS -20- September 27, 1979 · h~aring as advertised in the local newspapers, affidavits attesting to its publications in the official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to Mr. John Elak; fee paid $15o00. MR. DOUGLASS: We have a letter to the Board of Appeals: ...I, Alma Surer, the undersigned hereby grant permission to the Southold Town Republican Committee to erect a political sign on my premises located at the south side of Main Road, east of Locust Avenue, Mattituck, New York on a yearly basis .... Signed by Alma T. Suter. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for this application? RENSSELAER TERRY, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman? Members of the Board? My Name is Rensselaer Terry, I appear here on behalf of the Southold Town Republican Committee, the applicant in this matter, and we solicit your favorable approval of this application. This is application for Special Exception and it's for the permission to erect a political sign which would run from October 1st to November 6th, the sign would be removed within one week after the Election. MR. DOUGLASS: Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to speak in favor of this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody wishing to spgak against this application? Please give your name. BILL SCHRIEVER: My name is Bill Schriever in Orient, and I really object to this whole, the whole procedure that's involved here. You know, I would like to review first the history of this thing. Fifteen years ago, and thereabouts, nobody put up any signs of this sort because the Republicans didn't need them and the Democrats knew they couldn't get permission. So there weren't any. What happened was, there were stickers put on the telephone poles and the Town was cluttered up with little bumper stickers around on the stop signs and all that junk. And that's the way it was done for a number of years. Then there were, in one of the campaigns, I forget which campaign now, but it was about 6 or 8 years ago; all of a sudden one day there ~ppeared a Republican, the Republicans put a great big sign-up, and within 24 hours I think there were 4 big signs up. No permit, no nothing. Just put them up. And, of course, the Democrats got ex- cited, naturally, because they figured they couldn't get permission and so there was a meeting to discuss this sort of thing, a sort of informal affair, and the discussion finally resolved that both sides would be able to put up signs. So we had sor~ of an agreement, the Building, it was through the Building Department that we could put up the signs roughly a month before the Election and we would take the signs down immediately following the Election, no permit, no nothing, and everything has worked fine~-- for a number of years, and I think the Town's been better for it because we haven't had all these small signs tacked up all over the place and I think it's worked well. Now what I don't understand is why, after this thing ~SOUTHOLD TO%fN BOARD OF APPEALS -21B September 27, 1979 ~as been working along here for 6, 8 or 10 years, I forget how long, but it has been quite awhile as a result of that incident, why is it that we now need to get a permit and spend money and go through this formal procedure? And when you get, what are you going to do, you've got a whole row of Republican Committeemen up there and the Republi- cans are going to come in and apply for signs, they're going to get them. The Democrats are going to come in, what are you going to do? Are you going to deny them the signs? You mean, I just don't--it seems to me that that's a terrible precedent. MR. DOUGLASS: Let me calm you down a minute. You are stating that there are political views in this Board and there are not! This is a non-partisan board. And it will act as a non-partisan board. MR. SCHRIEVER: I asked a question. didn't make a statement that it was partisan. going to do when the Democrats come up? I asked a question. I said what are you MR. DOUGLASS: They are allowed--all political parties are allowed signs. MR. SCHRIEVER: Well then, why don't we just formalize the thing and do away with this whole application procedure? The whole collecting of money? All this-- MR. DOUGLASS: Thls sign law is on the Books and I will not name names but the flack that came to the Town last year on the pub- lishing of those signs was very strong. People were in to all depart- ments and so it was brought up amongst the departments when everybody was in it. It has been, we have the minutes and discussed, and it was decided that from then on the sign ordinance would have to be followed, in size and allowable signs. MR. SCHRIEVER: MR. DOUGLASS: MR. SCHRIEVER: Was notice given of this? Everybody was in at it. Yes. Who is everybody? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, the Boards were in on it, the Town Boards were in on it, and the Planning Board was in, all the differ- ent divisions of the Town Government. MR. SCHRiEVER: Well, that's great within the family, bUt i mean there was no notice in the paper that the rules were changed. MR. DOUGLASS: The rules weren't changed. Tt was brought up and it was done in your Board meetings, your men as well as the other parties' men were there. And it is not something that was just pulled out of a hat. JOHN BEDNOWSKY: MR. DOUGLASS: By certified mail, sir? ~m? MR. BEDNOWSKY: My name is John Bednowsky. Was the Southold Town Democratic leader informed of this, the Southold Town conservative 'SOUT~OLD TO~N BOARD OF APPEALS -22- September 27, 1979 ~ader, they weren't? MR. DOUGLASS: This is not in my category. I am not here to decide that or how anybody is notified or anything else. MR. BEDNOWSKY: Were they informed, that's what I asked? MR. DOUGLASS: Your men were there. MRS. HOGAN: Who? Who? Who? MR. BEDNOWSKY: Were they, did they get a letter to inform? MR. DOUGLASS: I don't know how it was done. It was done in the meetings. MR. BEDNOWSKY: In the meetings. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. Please give your name. Sir? John Bednowsky. JOSEPH ~ARDIA: Mr. Chairperson. Members of the Board. Fellow citizens. My name is Joseph Cardia, I'm from Southold. I urge the Board to deny this request since no special request is needed here. We're on tenuous legal ground invoking this ordinance. It's the intent of the ordinance in question relates to the permanent aesthetic violation of the public landscape by commercial enter- prises, not by political parties. And the attempt here to invoke this ordinance thwarts the First Amendment's rights of both parties, and especially of the Democratic Party in this situation. So I would urge the Board to deny this request. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, sir, Mr. Terry? MR. TERRY: I would just like to say that it's not my intention to deny the Democratic Party anything that the Republican Party gets. Mk. CARDIA: Who is this gentleman, Mr. Chairman? MR. DOUGLASS: Mr. Terry is representing the Republican Party. MR. TERRY: I think perhaps that it is something that ealls for a revision of the existing ordinance. But as it is, I'm here representing Mr. Hulse as Chairman of the Republican Committee merely to make an effort to comply with the provisions of the ordinance as we believe they are at presentr and I would be the first to agree that I think the ordinance should be modified to make special provisions for political signs. But it doesn't have it at the present time and that's the reason we are asking for it. MR. DOUGLASS: It is in our guidelines. It has been in our guidelines for almost a year. Yes, ma'am. CHRISTINA HOGAN: My name is Christina Hogan. I don't qui~e know whether I can ask you a question. MR. DOUGLASS: Through the chair you can. · BOARD OF.APPEALS -23- September 27, 1979 MRS. HOGAN: Mr. Chairman, may I please ask Mr. Terry the q~estion as to how he was notified that this was necessary? MR. DOUGLASS: You may. MR. TERRY: Well, my position was, I did not participate in the filing of the application. The Chairman himself handled this and I was, he had to be away and I was asked to represent him as an attor- ney to represent him this evening. That's my reason for being heme. MRS. HOGAN: M~. Chairman, how was Mr. Terry notified? MR. DOUGLASS: I do not know, ma'am. That's not in our realm. We're not here as a notification unit. MRS. HOGAN: I believe when you change past practices you do notify people. MR. DOUGLASS: No, we do not. MRS. HOGAN: How many letters did you get last year? MR. DOUGLASS: How many letters? We didn't get letters. We got personal people. MRS. HOGAN: How many? MR. DOUGLASS: Well that's- MRS. HOGAN: A matter of public record. MR. DOUGLASS: I can[~t tell you without going back, I know how many have come to us. I don't know how many have gone to the other departments? What other departments~have meetings- The Building Department and I know the Police MRS. HOGAN: MR. DOUGLASS: Departmenn had visits. MRS. HOGAN: MR. DOUGLASS: MRS. HOGAN: of- Do you know this by hearsay or by letter? Not by letter; nothing is done by letter. All right. What other departments? You spoke MR. DOUGLASS: I just quoted them, ma'am. MRS. HOGAN: Two, the Building Department and the Police Department. MR. DOUG~SS%~ Town Board was certainly aware of it. MRS. HOGAN: And the Town Board. And you also stipulated, or, excuse me, you said that the Town Board also acted on a resolution? MR. DOUGLASS: No, I didn't say that at all. I said that £OUT~OLD TO?~ BOARD OF APPEALS -24- September 27, 1979 · t~ey had meetings on it. I don't know how they acted. MRS. HOGAN: You said they had meetings on it. MR. DOUGLASS: Yeah. MRS. HOGAN: When? MR. DOUGLASS: I can't quote you that without going back to the Town Clerk tomorrow and finding out. ~S. HOGAN: Minutes? Then it would be in the minutes? MR. DOUGLASS: Yeah, they should be. MRS. HOGAN: Would you give me a specific or a general time? MR. DOUGLASS: No, because I wasn't on the Board at the time. MRS. HOGAN: But you are aware of these. How? MR. DOUGLASS: Because I was told that they are there by-. MRS. HOGAN: Who told you? MR. DOUGLASS: By my- MR. HOGAN: Your Republican leader. MR. DOUGLASS: No. Nothing to do with a Republican leader! MRS. HOGAN: By? MR. DOUGLASS: I was told by Town Officials that it's there. MRS. HOGAN: Who? MR. DOUGLASS: That's far enough. MRS. HOGAN: Why? MR. DOUGLASS: The Town Attorney informed me that they were all there at the meeting. MRS. HOGAN: The Town Attorney informed you. And you don't know approximately what time, when. MR. DOUGLASS: I was not on the Board at the time. MRS. HOGAN: this, approximately? MR. DOUGLASS: MRS. HOGAN: Well, when did the Town Attorney inform you of When did he inform me of it? Yeah. MR. DOUGLASS: This afternoon. 'SOU~LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -25- ~ MRS. HOGAN: This afternoon? September 27, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: When I meet with him. I meet with him on all applications before we bring them up before the Board. MRS. HOGAN: And are you telling me that this meeting only occurred after the legal ad? MR. DOUGLASS: What? I don't understand you. MRS. HOGAN: That the Republican Con~Littee placed the ads before you ever spoke to the attorney? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. MRS. HOGAN: Oh! And what you're also telling me is that you unilaterally decided to make a change of a past practice? thatl MR. DOUGLASS: No. Ail the Boards were together and decided MRS. HOGAN: There was an actual meeting of all the Boards? M~. DOUGLASS: Yes, ma'am. I stated that. MRS. HOGAN: When was there an actual meeting? MR. DOUGLASS: Ma'am, I don't know the exact time. MRS. HOGAN: When did your Board meet when you decided on thew MR. DOUGLASS: I was not on it at the time.~ MRS. HOGAN: How long have you been on it? MR. DOUGLASS: How long have I been on it. Just about a year. MRS. HOGAN: So you are saying to me that you've been on it a year, but within this year this happened, and you weren't on it. MR. DOUGLASS: No. I was the only, the only people that are at those meetings are the heads of the Board, and I was not the head of the Board. MRS. HOGAN: Oh? MR. DOUGLASS: Mr. Murdock? LARRY MURDOCK: My name is Larry Murdock. If I can help to clarify part of this issue. Now I don't know of any meetings that were held in reference to who should be notified or how anybody should be notified. These laws have been on the books of the Town of Southold for a considerable period of time. I am sure, some of you people get stopped, particularly the more you get in the public eye you get stopped in the street and people say "Why ms this allowed, why is that allowed?" Now why is it allowed that we as political beings are allowed to subvert the laws of our own Town. Aren't the rules for our Town for our convenience. Now I'm a candidate and this is my © ~SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -26- September 27, 1979 mqney that's going into these petitions. In our meeting, we had a meeting of candidates, we as candidates~don't have to call an offi- cial public meeting. If we meet in our home, it is a meeting we have in our homes as candidates. And two members of our Republican Committee, ~ I questioned them because I had been asked last year, "Was this a l~w on the books pertaining to the signs." I asked them were we legally bound to put these signs and apply for these permits. We consulted the Town Clerk; we were told the framework of time that we had. The law is there. We decided that we must follow the law. Nobody told us as candidates that we should not obey%he law. Nobody did. And I think that is as pure and simple as it can be. CY LUKEMAN: Mr. Chairman? My name is Cy Lukeman; I'm the Conservative Town Leader of Southold Town and I would like to read a statement, if I may? It's unfortunate that this Board is involved in a purely political-generated situation. It has been custom in the past practice to overlook political signs for a period of five to slx weeks. These political signs are purely temporary in nature. As everyone knows, all the political signs were removed within the week after Election Day. Neither the Conservative Town Secretary nor its Chairman were advised that this practice was no longer to be honored. Obviously, the Republican Party through its connection with Town Government was so advised. I feel it was incumbent upon ~. Homan, Republican Town Leader without portfolio and Deputy Town Supervisor Surer without credentials to advise me that the Republican Administration was no longer to honor past practices. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Well I think you are a little bit out of line in your statement but it is in the records. Yes, sir? MR. LUKEMAN: Where? ~LR. DOUGLASS: Well, you are accusing this Board and- Just for a statement, I hope some of you read the newspaper today. MRS. HOGAN: We sure did. MR. DOUGLASS: Because it was myself who discovered that you hadn't filed and told the people that they hadn't. MR. LUKEMAN: I never accused this Board of a thing~ I said it ~as a shame that you were involved in a politically-generated ~ituation. MR. DOUGLASS: It's not a politically-generated situation. I~R. LUKE~AN: It sure is. MR. DOUGLASS: It was people comp%aining, people were complaining about it. Go ahead, sir. D~.ID J. HOGAN~JR.: 1410 Leslie's Road, Vice-Chairman of the Southo%d Town Democratic Party; and I would like to read a statement with the permission of the Chair. ~. DOUGLASS: Yes, sir. ~OUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -27- September 27, 1979 MR. HOGAN: I wish to object to this application and the nine w~ick will follow. I wish to object both as an individual and party I hold in the Democratic Party. I object on the grounds that any action tonight will be a clear violation of the intent, spirit and letter of the Federal Campaign Spending Act of 1975 as amended by the United States Congress in 1976, 1977 and 197% I~ would also be a violation of the New York State Fair Campaign Practice Act of 1976 and finally the Suffolk County Fair Campagin Practice Committee Code as approved through 1978 and adopted by the Suffolk County Democratic and the Suffolk County Republican Committees. I object additionally on the grounds that any action tonight Would be a violation of the~ Federal Constitution in that it would deprive candidates of other political parties whether that be Conservative, Right-to-Life, Demo- crat, or Independent of equal justice under the law. This inequity could not be remedied by any governmental agency or any court prior to Election Day, and therefore would cause irreparable harm. I object on the grounds that any action tonight would change the past practice of over 20 years. This would constitute a violation of Article 78 in that this action would be total!y arbitrary and capri- cious without any due notification to the people concerned. In addi- tion, excuse me, may I continue, sir? I'm sorry. In addition, I object on the grounds that three members of this governmental agency that I stand before tonight are elected political officials of the Republican Party and are so certified by the Suffolk County Board of Elections as Committeemen and the Secretary of State ~f New York. I believe that it's only appropriate that those individuals who are political officials in addition ~o governmental officials disqualify themselves in.this consideration. I would urge this Board to hold these applications in abeyance until all the political parties in Town receive a fair and equitable opportunity to approach this body. I appreciate your time and your consideration, gentlemen. MR. DOUGLASS: Your quotes of the government items may be all right, but they don't control Southold Town, on~ Southold Town sign items. MK. HOGAN: Mr. Chairman? If I may? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. MR. HOGAN: The Election Law of the State of New York does apply in Southold Town. MR. DOUGLASS: It doesn't to signs. MR. HOGAN: If ! may, sir, I would, with your permission Mr. Grigonis, I would just like to read Article III, Section 106 of the New York State Election Law as amended, through 1978, sir? Where the State directs, and I quote~ "In addition to the powers and duties elsewhere enumerated in this Article, the State Board of Elections, after public hearing, shall adopt a Fair Campaign Code setting forth ethical standards of conduct for persons, poli- tical parties and committees engaged in election cam~igns includ- ing and not limited to specific prohibitions against practices of political espionage and of other political practices involving subversion of political parties and the various practices in this Article." I'd offer this to you, sir, and I say the Election Law 'SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS n28- September 27, 1979 the State of New York applies in the Town of Southoldo MR. GRIGONIS: I'm just wondering if this should be here with the makeup of this Board, this alleged conflict of interest is bothering the hell out of me. RENSSELAER TERRY: Mr. Chairman? Could I interruPt just a minute? Without denying anything that Mr. Hogan s~ys I think that he misses the point, that this is an application that is made for a Special Exception. His Party has the same right as the Repub- lican Party to make an application. Now if the law doesn't apply, if we're mistaken and if we don't have to make the application, maybe a Court would say that. But the Republican Connnittee has determined or has felt that it was bound to make the application, that the law requires it and that we're merely trying to comply with the terms of the law. Now, maybe we're mistaken --that the law doesn't apply, but again I'm seeking here tonight approval of this application and I don't think that the objections are relevant to the application as it's made. MR. DOUGLASS: The Democratic Party has already applied. MR. HOGAN: Mr. Chairman? May I respond to Mr. Terry through the chair, please? MR. DOUGLASS: Yes. MR. HOGAN: I am urging that this Board tonight hold those applications in abeyance. I think the Board would be well-advised to consult with counsel to the Town as to their status both as govern- mental officials and also political officials. And that was my suggestion to this Board. Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: You, Democrats, where's your man Pelt? (At this point the people in the audience were out of order by all speaking at the same time.) MR. DOUGLASS: I didn't mean anything wrong by that question! wanted to ask him a question. MR. HOGAN: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Do you admonish earlier speakers about raising political consideration in this room, and I thinx you are abusing the power of the chair to direct the question to somebody who is not here who happens to be a political candidate and you are abusing the power of your chairmanship! And I think you ought to disqualify yourself! You made this a political issue--no~ us. Not us, not myself. You did! MR. DOUGLASS: I wan~ to ask him a question? MR. HOGAN: He does non have to be here to answer a question on an issue that is before this Board! That's a political- MR. DOUGLASS: I'm asking if he was so I could ask him a question. ,SOUT~OLD TOWN BO. ARD OF APPEALS -29- September 27, 1979 MR. HOGAN: No, your statement was, "Where is your man Pell?" T~at's what you said! In front of all these witnesses. MR. DOUGLASS: Isn't he your man? MR. HOGAN: Sir, you said this was not a political meeting. You said that. You're the one that attacked all the speakers from the floor by getting involved in politics, sir, you were. And now you are abusing the power of this Chairmanship of Chis Co~mittee for political purposes. Yes, sir, you are. MR. DOUGLASS: No. I'm not. MR. HOGAN: And not anybody else in this room. You are. You are abusing the powers of your Chairmanship. You're acting arbitrarily and capriciously. I think you ought to disqualify your- self and go home. And the question was asked in a derogatory and defamatory fashion. There's another body of law involved here and that,s the Constitution of the United States, the First Amendment. And invoking this ordinance would violate the First Amendment and the First ~endment rights of the Democratic Party here in Southold MR. DOUGLASS: I spoke to Bill Pell, and- MR. HOGAN: Why don't we recess this and get Bill Pell here? You want to get Bill Pell here? Let's get Bill Pe!l here so we can get- MR. DOUGLASS: Just calm down or we will close you out. MR. HOGA2~: Oh, we're going to close down? MR. DOUGLASS: No, we are not going to close down. MR. HOGAN: Neither are we. MR. PANAGOPOULOUS: Mr. Chairman, I have had my hand raised for the last half an hour and you give the right for the attorney there to talk to you for the third time. MR. DOUGLASS: Please sit down. MR. PANAGOPOULOUS: I mean, you are ignoring completely the public. MR. DOUGLASS: I am not. I am taking it as I can. Please sit down. Yes, sir? MR. ~ERRY:~ Mr. Chairman? I believe that Mr. Pell i~ not relevant to this application. I think that what we may have been aware and met with the Town Board and considered ~hat the Town Board proposed to do, I don't know. But my point is that I am here merely to make ~this application, and asking your favorable consideration of it. We believe that it's a legitimate application and we believe that the Democratic Party, ~he Conservative Party, the Right-to-Life Party, or any other Party has the right to make 0 o © l..q ~SOU~T~I~LD ~OWN BOARD OF APPEALS -30- September 27, 1979 'the same application. I don't say that the ordinance is properly drawn the way it is, but we are trying to comply with the terms of the ordinance and all I'm asking is that y~u give favorable con- sideration to approving our application. MR. DOUGLASS: Well, the only reason I brought the other candidate up was to the fact that I wanted to ask him for an opinion, for his opinion on this and the fact that he has applications in that will be coming up. MR..TERRY: .I think .to br/~g, him in would make a political issue and I don't believe that he is relevant to our application, or that the permission- ~. HOGAN: I~r. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clarify something and I agreef with Mr. Terry in terms of rele- vance here. I believe those applications that are before this Board for their next meeting, I believe none of them are signed by William Pell. I believe they were all executed by John T. Cornelt of Southold. MR. DOUGLASS: Well this I don't know. I haven't seen them. MR. HOGAN: Well, ~.~. Pell is not a signatory on any of those applications so you are in error and I believe Mr. Terry's position that this extraneous Bill Pel! is 100% correct, and I would urge the Board to talk about the application and not attack political candidates. MR. DOUGLASS: I was not attacking a candidate. I wanted to ask him a question, and I thought I was within my right to ask him a question. _MR. HOGAN: If the Board wants to ask Bill Pell a question, and the chair feels that it's important, then I would suggest that you recess these matters for tonight and the Chairman send a letter to Bill Pell asking him to be present at the next meeting. MR. DOUGLASS: What I am going to do right now is ask for a half-hour's recess on this while I do some checking. MR. GRIGONIS: Recess until we get legal advice from the Town Attorney, whether our Board can vote on this. As committeemen. MR. SCHR!EVER: Before you close can I respond to what Mr. Terry said, just one-? MR. DOUGLASS: Yeah, go ahead. MR. SCHRIEVER: The point that I tried to make zn the begmnnmng and the point that I would like to make again, after this discussmon, ms that any applications before this Board can be either approved or denied. And my position is that the ques- tion of these political signs should not be before a board that can deny the applications. In order words if, to have you make an application and pay a fee and get the thing as a permitt like you get a license to drive a car or something is one thing, but SOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -31 - September 27, 1979 to bring this subject matter before this Board in my opinion is a viola- tibn of the Constitution. I just canno~ see how you can- MR. DOUGLASS: It's in the sign ordinance. MR. SCHRIEVER: Well then the ordinance is wrong. MRS. HOGAN: And you're wrong As Republicans to judge Democrats. You're wrong. Mr. Chairman? MR. DOUGLASS: I'll make a motion that we recess for a half an hour. I would like to check. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED to recess this matter for half an hour. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. (The Board moved to recess at 9:47 P.M.) EDITH CROSLY: My name is Edith Crosly and I live in Greenport. I'm sorry I don't know your name because I came in a little bit too late. I assume that you are Chairman of the Board? MR. DOUGLASS: Acting Chairman, yes. MRS. CROSLY: Well, I'll address my question to you. Is it or is it not a fact that there is a sign ordinance in the Southold Town law? MR. DOUGLASS: There is, definitely. MRS. CROSLY: That's been adopted. Can you tell me the year it was adopted? MR. SCHRIEVER: I think it was 19-- MRS. CROSLY: I'm addressing my question to the Chairman. MR. DOUGLASS: It's been in there since zoning, since they started zoning about 22 years ago on all different signs, but it has been changed as it comes up the line. So that your charitable organizations and stuff, this ordinance the way it is now, these applications that anybody makes will be automatically good for three years. MRS. CROSLY: May I continue my question, please? MR. DOUGLASS: (Nodded yes). MRS. CROSLY: Ail right, you say they have been existence, that particular statute has been in existence for 22 years? MR. DOUGLASS: The sign ordinance. Not specific parts of it. .SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -32- September 27, 1979 MRS. CROSLY: I'm talking about the sign ordinance. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, 22 years. MRS. CROSLY: In the 22-year period of time, has there been a lot of latitude as far as putting signs up are concerned? MR. DOUGLASS: No, ma'am. It's been very strictly followed as far as the signs that are up. MRS. CROSLY: Political? You've been very stern about the putting up of political signs? MR. DOUGLASS: Political signs were not apparently bothered until they had so much flack coming in on them. MRS. CROSLY: Could you advise me as to what kind of flack had come in? MR. DOUGLASS: People complaining? MRS. CROSLY: Who would they complain to? This particular Board or to. the Town Board? MR. DOUGLASS: We went through that before. They complained to all different departments. MRS. CROSLY: I have a reason for asking because if anybody becomes before a group, if it was the Town Board, then it would have to be in the minutes of the Town Board. MR. DOUGLASS: If they complained there, yes, and if they complained at the Police Department it would be there. If they complained here, it would be here. MRS. CROSLY: Oh, then ~ou do have it on record? MR. DOUGLASS: It probably would be, yes. MRS. CROSLY: Well, then, you know, what we were asking before, if you could q~Qte from that record just what the complaints were? MR. DOUGLASS: I cannot. MRS. CROSLY: You cannot? Do you mean the records are not available to you? MR. DOUGLASS: They are not available to me at this hour, no. Mr. Panagoupoulos? MR. PANAGOUPOULOS: Mr. Chairman? Do you say that people complain? I'll remind you the complaint. The last elections, that corner lot that is by the traffic circle in Greenport, was customaried for the Republican Party to go and rig a big sign without asking t~ proprietor, which is Mr. Jay (cannot understand name given). Two years ~SOUT~OLD TO?~ BOARD OF APPEALS -33- September 27, 1979 ~. ~pallis (spelling unknown & pronunciation unclear), he give the right to the Democrats to go to put a sign next to the Republican sign. And then is all the harassment that we have. The Town i_uuuediately was in an uproar with signs. The uproar it comes from your end because we had your spot. MR. DOUGLASS: We didn't put the signs there, the Appeals Board didn't put the signs there. MR. PANAGOUPOULOS: For the first time in the history all of Southold, your sign spot was raided. And Mr. Martocchia, God bless him, he told me my face. (The hearing on the application of the Southold Town Repub- lican Committee, Appeal No. 2608, was reconvened at 10:17 P.M.) MR. DOUGLASS: These applications, after the recess that I called, the application that we were just going over was Appeal No. 2608, for Southold Town Republican Committee, and we have had testimony on this that we have taken, and I'll now ask for a motion to reserve decision on this until a later date. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis and Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED that a DECISION of the Application of the Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign at Main Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road (State Route 25), East by Elak, south by New Suffolk Avenue, west by Locust Avenue, BE RESERVED on this until a later date. LADY IN THE AUDIENCE: May I make one simple observation from off the top of my head. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, ma'am. LADY: None of this would have had been necessary last year, for instance, I think if we would have been informed by the Supervisor. At this point when we finally found out about this, the first of this we~k, there was no way in hell we could have had our stuff in. MR. DOUGLASS: It's in. It's in. We have it. LADY: When was it put in? MR. DOUGLASS: It was put mn sometime yesterday and today. The fact is I helped the man do the work. Yes, Mr. Lukeman? MR. LUEE~L%2~: Mr. Douglass, t just want to again express the fact that in no way in my comments did I attack this Board. My only opening statement was that it was unfortunate that this Board had to be put into a political situation, and I think the Chair might ~SOUTHOLD TO~ BOARD OF APPEALS -34- September 27, 1979 'h~ve mis-construed that statement~ MR. DOUGLASS: I reckon so. Thank you for re-stating it. MR. LUKEMAN: Thank you. MR. DOUGLASS: Going on to the other applications, wait- MR. HOGAN: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to apologize to the Chair for losing my temper. And secondly I would like to ask the Chair if we could expect that the next nine appli- cations would be dealt with in the same fashion? DOUGLASS: Yes, sir. They will. MR. HOGAN: Thank you very much. MR. DOUGLASS: Now, in that line, by law I have to read all this, each and every one. So I will, but if you desire I think to utilize your objections and so on to it from the past one transmitted to the next one rather than everybody getting in a hassel out here and just re-stating for hours the same things over- MR. TUTHILL: Ten times. MR. DOUGLASS: Ten times, why I think-Mr. Terry, do you have something to say? MR. TERRY: Mr. Chairman, I just would like to say that as far as I am concerned I am willing to waive the reading of all of the papers. We know that there are the other ten applications and that they are all the same, and we are asking for your favorable considera- tion of all of them on the same basis, and I would expect that if you are going to reserve decision on one you are going to reserve them on all. I would just like to call your attention that nothing that I have heard so far gets to the meat of asking that you reject the ap~ plications, and I have seen no reason why the applications should not be granted; but I am perfectly willing to waive the reading of the rest of the applications and ask that you reserve decision o~ them. MR. DOUGLASS: Just so we are absolutely legal I will read them, and then we know we are absolutely legal on what we are going to do. MR. LUKEMAN: I agree with Mr. Terry. I would say you should wazve the reading. MR. TUTHILL: I don't think you can. MR. DOUGLASS: Under the- MR. TUTHILL: Especially with a separate location in each one and I think that each one, I am sorry to say it, but I think in each one you will have to go through the routine. MR. DOUGLASS: We would rather go home, too. But- 'SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -35- Septeraber 27, 1979 MR. SCHRIEVER: Can we be assured that everything that was applied to this one will apply to all the others in the same fashion? MR. TUTHILL: You have my Republican word. MR. SCHRIEVER: Ok, good. Thank you. I'll accept that. MR. DOUGLASS: Wait a minute. Don't leave because of this! Please stay, until we finish the hearing on these signs. That is a request of the Chair. Don't just leave because we are going to do this because then you are going to come back and you're going to say that you missed something that I said that you should have heard. MRS. CROSLY: MX. Chairman? You said earlier in regard to the first application that you were going to reserve decision until a later date. I assume that's what-is going to happen to the other nine? MR. DOUGLASS: Well, I just said that. MRS. CROSLY: What? One week, two weeks, the day after Election or what? MR. DOUGLASS: Be patient. This is why I asked you not to leave. One of the reasons- All right. Here. Let me go and let me get through this thing or you will all be here till two o'clock in the morning like we sometimes are. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2607. Upon application of the Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York 11944, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: County Road 27, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by County Road 27, east by Cooper, Ashton, Urist, south by Sidor, west by Westphalia Avenue. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:22 P.M. by reading the application for a special Exception, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local newspapers, affidavits attest- ing to its publications in the official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to Arnold Urist, John Sidor Jr., James Cooper and John Ashton; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: i've got a map of the property and I have a section of the County Tax Map showing the area and the surround- ing neighborhood. I have a lease, or agreement from Ray Nine granting permission to the Southold Town Republican Committee to erect a political sig~n his premises. Mr. Douglass read the letter/agreement from Ray Nine in full. MR. DOUGLASS: In conjunction with what I just said~ it seemed to be an agreement that we will utilize the voiced opinions from the ~SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -36- September 27, 1979 'last sign on this application. ~s ~lle~e q~ny0h~~ ~i~f~g t~ ~peak for this apPliCati~h? AgainS~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -i .... ~ ~ No On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it W~S RESOLVED, that a DECISION of the Application of the Southold Town ~epublican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign at County Road 27, Mattituck, New York; bounded north by County Road 27, east by Cooper, Ashton and Urist, south by Sidor, west by Westphalia Avenue, BE RESERVED until a later date. Vote of the Board: hill and Doyen. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tut- PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2606. Upon application of Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Main Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Main Road (State Route 25), east by Walt Whitman Savings & Loan Association, south by Wilsberg, west by Wilsberg. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:27 P.M. by reading the application for a Special Exception, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local newspapers, affidavits attesting to its publications in the official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to Walt Whitman Federal Savings & Loan Association and E. & H. Wilsberg; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: There is a statement in here which is sup- posed to be here, the wording of the sign will be elect, reelect one, two or several Republican Candidates. Your applications knew that, too. Mr. Tuthill, do you have something else? MR. TUTHILL: Yes, we're losing part of our audience here. I would like to say that this deferment decision is a practical solution to what has turned out to be kind~ of a political bang-bang and I just wouldn't want it construed by the press or anybody else that this is an admission of error or procedure or in any way a concession of any kind. It's a practical solution which we don't have to do but which we are doing because we think it's fair be- cause these people apparently didn't get the proper notice or did- not realize, although we know that some did, that should have been in a position to know about thms. But it's something that I would hate to see it publicized as "Board of Appeals Back down, admits error" and that sort of thing. I'm sorry the others aren't here to hear it, but i think that's the- MR. LUKEMAN: Mr. Terry, may I go out and get the others so they can hear what you have to say. Would you repeat it for them? MR. TUTHILL: Sure. ~SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -37- September 27, 1979 The Acting Chairman asked the Secretary to play back what M~, Tuthilt just Stated, and she did so. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that a DECISION on the application of Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York 11944, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign at Main Road, Mattituck, New York~ bounded north by State Route 25, east by Walt Whitman Savings & Loan Association, south and west by Wilsberg, BE RESERVED until a later date. · Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2605. Upon application of S~uthold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York 11944, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Main Road, Laurel, New York; bounded north by Laurel Properties, east by Laurel Properties, south by Main Road, west by School District 11. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:35 P.M. by reading the application for a Special Exception, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local newspapers, affidavits attest- ing to its publications in the local newspapers and official news- paper, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to Laurel Propert~es~ fee paid~$15.00~ MR. DOUGLASS: I have a map of the property and a section of the County Tax Map showing the area and surrounding neighborhood. There is property-owner permission of Brian Murphy to the applicant for permission to place a political sign on his premises. Mr. Douglass read the letter from Brian Murphy consenting to such sign erection. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone who wishes to speak for this application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? We will utilize the voiced opinions from the last szgns on this application. (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) On motion made by ~. Tuthill~. seconded by Mr. Grigonls, it was RESOLVED, that a DECISION of the Application of the Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign at Main Road, Laurel, New York; bounded north and east by Laurel Properties, south by Main Road, west by School District 11, BE RESERVED until a later date. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, ~ Tuthill and Doyen. * ~rief~y Mr. Serge Doyen left the room . SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -38- September 27, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2604. Upon application of Southold To~n RepubliCan Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a SPecial Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: Main Road, Southold, New York; bounded north by Main Road, east by Beixedon Estates (Nickles & Lewis), south by Beixedon Estates, west by DeLuca. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:40 P.M. by reading the application for a Special Exception, legal notice of hearing as ad- vertised in the local and official newspapers, affidavits attesting to its publications in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Dis- approval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to John Nickles, Grade Lewis, Herbert Lieblein, Daniel Wilson, No Charles DeLuca; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I have a map of the property and a copy of the County Tax Map showing the surrounding properties° There is a letter from Lillian Krukowski giving permission as property owner for the ap- plicant to erect the sign on a yearly basis. Mr. Douglass read the letter from Lillian Krukowski. MR~ DOUGLASS: Is there anyone wishing to speak for this ap- plication? Is there anyone wishing to speak against this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: We will utilize the voiced opinions and comments from the last sign hearings today for this application. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that Southold Town Republican Conm~ittee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, BE RESERVED ITS DECISION until a later date for the Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign at Main Road, Southold, New York; bounded north by Main Road, east and south by Beixedon Estates, and west by DeLuca. Vote ~f the Board: Ayes: Tuthill.< Absent for this hearing: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Mr. Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2602. Upon application of the Southold Town Republican ComJaittee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: S/e corner of Route 25 and Gillette Drive, East Marion, New York; bounded north by Main Road, east by Gillette Driver south by Gagen, west by Chere- powich. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:47 P.M. by reading the application for a Special Exception, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local and official newspapers, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, ~Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -39- September 27, 1979 ~e Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made %o Joseph Cherepowich and Frederick E. Gagen; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I have a map of the property and section of the County Tax Map showing the area and surrounding properties and a letter from Frederick J. Tedeschi as property owner giving his consent. Mr. Douglass read the letter from Frederick J. Tedeschi dated September 5, 1979. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone wishing to speak for this application? Is there anyone wishing to speak against this appli- cation? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: We will utilize the opinions and comments made at the last sign hearings today for this application. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York BE P~SERVED ITS DECISION until a later date for the Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permis- sion to erect an off-premises directional sign at Route 25 and GilletteEDrive, East Marion, New York; bounded north by Main Road, east by Gillette Drive, south by Gagen, west by Cherepowich. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Tuthill. Absent for this hearing: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Serge Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2603. Upon application of the Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permis- sion to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of prop- erty: Route 27, Southold, New York; bounded north by Soundview Avenue, east by Kamps & Caiola, south by Froede, Droskoski, and Wolanski, west by Sawicki. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:43~ P.M. by reading the application for a Special Exception, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local and official newspapers, affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to Richard Kamps, Sal Caiola, Harry Froede, Joseph Droskoski, Telesphore Wolanski, Leon Sawicki; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I have a copy of the section of the County Tax Map showing the subject property and surrounding area and a letter from Walter Sawicki as property owner consenting to the sign erection on a yearly basis. Mr. Douglass read the letter from Walter Sawicki. ~SOUT~HOLD TOW%[ BOARD OF APPEALS -40- September 27, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone wishing to speak for this a~plication? Is there anybody wishing to speak against this ap- plication? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. ) MR. DOUGLASS: We will utilize the opinions and comments made in the past sign hearings today for this application. On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, BE RESERVED ITS DECISION until a later date for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign at Route 27, Southold, New York; bounded north by Soundview Avenue, east by Kamas & Caiola, south by Froede, Droskoski and Wolanski, west by Sawicki. TuthilL Vote of the Board: Ayes: Absent from this hearzng: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Messr. Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2601. Upon application of Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: N/e corner of Route 25 and Albertson Lane, Greenport, New York; bounded north by Country-Wide Management Inc., east by Main Road, south by Albertson Lane, west by Corrazzinz & Whipple. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:50 P.M. by reading the application for a Special Exception, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local and official newspapers, affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official news- papers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to Country Wide Management, Inc., Anthony Corraz- zini and Beverly Whipple; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I have a copy of the County Tax Map showing the area and surrounding properties. I also have a letter consenting to the sign erection signed by Frederick j. Tedeschi. Mr. Douglass read the letter signed by Mr. Tedeschi. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody who would like to speak for this application? Is there anybody who would like to speak against this application? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: We will utilize the opinions and comments of the last sign hearings today for this application. On motion made by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it ~S~JT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -41- September 27, 1979 RESOLVED, that Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset L~ne, Greenport, New York, BE RESERVED ITS DECISION until a later date for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign at the northeast corner of Route 25 and Albertson Lane, Greenport, New York; bounded north by Country-Wide Management Inc., east by Main Road, south by Albert- son Lane, west by Corrazzini & Whipple. Tuthill. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Absent for this hearing: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Messr. Doyen. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2600. Upon application of Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permis- sion to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: S/s County Road 27, Cutchogue, New York; bounded north by County Road 27, east by Glover, south by Glover, west by Funn. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:54 P.M. by reading the application for a Special Exception, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local and official newspapers, affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official news- papers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that~notification to adjoining property owners was made to Lean~er Glover and Noble Funn; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I have a copy of the section~of the County Tax Map showing this property and the surrounding area. I also have a letter from the property owner giving consent to its erection on a yearly basis dated September 5, 1979. Mr. Douglass read the letter from James Homan dated Sept- ember 5, 1979 giving said consent. MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone against? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: We will utilize the opinions and comments of the past sign hearings today for this application. On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Republican Con~ittee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, be RESERVED ITS DECISION until a later date for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign at the southerly side of County Route 27, Cutchogue, New York; bounded north by County Road 27, east and south by Glover, west by Funn. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, TuthilL ~sent.for this hearing: Messr. Doyen. ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -42a- September 27, 1979 Mr. Serge Doyen returned to the meeting at 10:57 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2599. Upon application of the Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane~ Greenport, New York for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Greenport, New York, for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign. Location of property: N/s North Road, Greenport, New York; bounded north by Brandi & Raynor, east by Sound Road, south by North and Main Roads, west by Raynor. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 10:57 P.M. by reading the application for a Special Exception, legal notice of hearing as advertised in the local and official newspapers, affi- davits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners was made to Sfaelos Realty Corp., Sophie Raynor, Joseph Brandi; fee paid $15.00. MR. DOUGLASS: I have a copy of the section of the County Tax Map showing this and the surrounding properties and a letter from the property owner giving consent to erect said sign. Mr. Douglass read the letter of consent from Emanuel G. Sfaelos, President of Sfaelos Realty Corp. granted on the following conditions: ... (1) That you comply with all local ordinances regard- ing said advertising sign. (2) That you hold harmless and idemnify (sic) Sfaelos Realty Corp. on account of any injury to person or property that might result from the use of the premises for your purposes. (3) The sign is removed with due diligence upon the conclusion of the elections... MR. DOUGLASS: Is there anybody wishing to speak for this application? Is there anybody wishing to speak against this appli- cation? (THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.) MR. DOUGLASS: The opinions and comments made at the past sign hearings tonight will be made part of this application's hearing. was On motion made by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -42b- September 27, 1979 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Republican Committee, Sunset Lane, Greenport, New York, be RESERVED ITS DECISION until a later date for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for permission to erect an off-premises directional sign at North Road, Greenport~ New York; bounded north by Brandi & Raynor, east by Sound Road, 'south by North Road and Main Road, west by Raynor. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Tuthill and Doyen. Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the following applications be advertised and scheduled for a public hearing at the next meeting of this Board for October 11, 1979: 7:30 P.M. 7:45 P.M. 8:00 P.M. 8:15 P.M. 8:25 P.M. 8:35 P.M. 8:50 P.M. 9:00 P.M. 9:15 P.M. 9:25 9:40 P.M. 9:50 P.M. HART, Charles & Edna OCCHIOGROSSO, Thomas REICH BROTHERS AUTO McLEAN, Gertrude C. McLEAN, Gertrude C. RAEBURN, Robin A. EDEEN, Ronald J. ACUNTO, Vincent DUBON, Stuart Appeal No. 2614 Appeal No. 2610 Appeal No. 2611 Appeal No. 2627 Appeal No. 2628 Appeal No. 2609 Appeal No. 2618 Appeal No. 2617 Appeal No. 2616 MATTITUCK HOLDING CO. Appeal No. 2615 KIWANIS CLUB OF SOUTHOLD Appeal No. 2613 KIWANIS CLUB OF SOUTHOLD Appeal No. 2612 10:00 P.M. DICKINSON, Ralph H. 10:10 P.M. SOUTHOLD TO~@~ DEMOCRATIC COMM. 10:20 P.M. SOUTHOLD TOWN DEMOCRATIC CO,AM. 10:35 P.M. SOUTHOLD TOWN DEMOCRATIC COMM. 10:45 P.M. SOUTHOLD TO~ DEMOCRATIC COMM. 10:55 P.M. SOUTHOLD TOWN DEMOCRATIC COM~. 11:05 P.M. SOUTHOLD TOWN DEMOCRATIC COMM. 11:15 P.M. SOUTHOLD TOWN DEMOCRATIC COMM. 11:20 P.M. SOUTHOLD TOWN DEMOCRATIC COM3~{. Appeal No. 2629 Appeal No. 2619 Appeal No. 2620 Appeal No. 2621 Appeal No. 2622 Appeal No. 2623 Appeal No. 2624 Appeal No. 2625 Appeal No. 2626 Vote of the Board: and Doyen. Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, that the following applications be re-advertised for the November 15, 1980 meeting~ Appeal No. 2574, Raymond and Anna Ciacia; Appeal No. 2587, Stephen J. Perricone; Appeal No. 2579, Emanuel M. Kontokosta. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill and Doyen. o BObT~OLD ~TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -43- September 27, 1979 The Acting Chairman asked into the audience that the sign applications that are tonight being set-up for the next meeting of the Board of Appeals were missing the wording in general that is proposed for the signs, and that the applicants had until October !1, 1979 to file same with the Secretary of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Douglass also stated that he had advised the representative the other day but noticed i~ wasn't in one of the files. Mr. Douglass stated that another requirement was that the applicant receive and file a statement signed by the property owner giving his or her consent to such sign erection. The Acting Chairman said that when these publiC-interest sign applications may be approved, they will automatically run f°~ ~hree years provided that that piece of property is not lost in that three-year period by conveyance or termination of the property owner consent by the property owner; if that were the case then the applicant would have to apply over for another piece of prop- erty. Re-application once approved would not have to be made for three years as long as the property owner consent was still in effect. This would apply for all Special Exception applications for off-premises signs, that are approved. ~RS.'N°RKL~N~ i~I ~ake it from the conversation and your talking and from the paper today that we are to thank you for letting us know on Monday that we had to get these things in tonight. MR. DOUGLASS: Yes, ma'am. I did. MRS. N~ORKLUN: Thank you. I'm sorry we didn't know it sooner. It could have been on the agenda. MR. DOUGLASS: It was, the way it happened, I mean, I had private business with the person who happens to be making your smgns, not political business, private business. And when ! went down cellar and talked uo him I saw the work he was working on. He samd "Come over and look at this and I'll show you what I am doing." And I did, and the first thing that I spo~ted was he was making signs that you couldn't use because they were out-of-size and then I said to him, "Have you gotten proper application for these signs?" And he said, "I don't know. I don't think they have." I said, "Well you better get on the phone." He went right ~o the phone, you know who he called, I know who he called because then the man, I was up here in the office when he got a hold of me at the Town Board meeting. MRS.NORKLUN: Right. And got the applications. MR. TUTHILL: No names. MR. DOUGLASS: And got the applications. He did know and he said so if you read that article. He did know, but he thought he was going to get a written notice. Well, that is not our job. Our job is to regulate things in the community so thau they are fair and equal to all and to the bettermenu of Southold Town, not to one individual. And this is what we try to do here. It's a ~ard job sometimes, but we try to do it. SOfT.OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -44- September 27, 1979 MR. DOUGLASS: i also had the man investigate the size of his sign that he was putting on your headquarters. Because there is also a regulation on size on that. And I believe at the time that there was going to be a conflict there, and he has taken that up with the Building Department, so I know that's corrected. The Acting Chairman asked the audience whether there was anyone else who had any qUestions or co~ents they would like to make, and there was no response. Mr. Douglass then thanked the people for bearing with the Board and for coming in and apologized there were any misunderstandings. The persons returned the thank~i it was On motion made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, RESOLVED, that the decisions of the sign applications heard tonight be RESERVED until ~h~ next regular meeting of the Board of Appeals on October 11, 1979. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonis, Tuthill, and Doyen. it was On motion made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the September 6, 1979 meeting be approved. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Douglass, Grigonls, Tuthill and Doyen. The hearing was declared closed at 11:15 P.M. (D.S.T.). Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski Secretary