Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/05/1963 -~OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. Terephone SO $-2660 APPEAL I~OARD MEMBERS Roberf W, ~l]ispie, Jr. Chairm~n Serge Doyen Jr. MINUTES SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS December 5, 1963 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held 7:30 P.M., Thursday, December 5, 1963 at the Town Office, Main Road, $outhold, New York. There were present: Messrs. Robert W. Gillispie~ Jr., Chairman~ Charles Grigonis, Jr. and Fred Hulse, Jr. Absent: Messrs. Robert Bergen, and Serge Doyen, Jr. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 621 - 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), upnn application of H. Brochard~ a/c R. Joseph Wheeler, Middle Road, Southold, New York: for a special exception in accord- ance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article IV~Section 408, Sub- section (a)~ for permission to erect a pole type sign 21 feet in height at the gasoline service station of R. Joseph Wheeler, north side Middle Road, Southold, New York, bounded north by H. E. Tuthill~ east by Muriel Tait, south by Middle Road, and west by David Driscoll. Fee paid $5.00. Southold Town Board of!Appeals -2- December 5, 1963 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading application for a special exception~ legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIPAWAN: This is a standard type Shell sign. The other Shell stations, about two years ago, asked that permission be granted to raise the clearance to pre~ent the danger of large truck-trailers hitting it. This area is zoned Business. Mr. Wheeler has permission for a gas station and public garage. He may have one ground sign and one wall sign° The ground sign permitted is 15 ft. 6 in° in height. He wishes to raise the sign to 21 feet. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response°) THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? LEFFERTS P. EDSON, ESQ.: Mrs. Tait's appearance here tonight was brought about by a hope of exerting an opinion that the sign not be placed on her line. But I understand he can place it any where on the lot 5 feet from the line~ even though there is estheticalty a strong clash in the present location~ but I don't think there is anything to do or go on now. ~E~CPLAIRMAN: Mra. Tait brought that to our attention at an information discussion when she appeared at our meeting two weeks ago. However, a mad constructing a gas stroh would either put the sign in the middle or the side attracting the most attention. Because the station is on the north side of the road the present location catches the east bound traffic. MR. EDSON: It Deing on a prominent curve it would be a prominent sign on either side of the property. I do not think Mrs. Tait has any objection to increasing the height. MRS. TAIT: I do have an objection to the height of the sign. This is advertising Shell gas, and obviously a gas station is not Mr. Wheeler~s prin~business. I have already found that people have by-passed my business because they did not see my sign. Also~ this sign is so placed that no truck could go near it and that makes it a ridiculous reason for the sign. Further~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- December 5, 1963 it as a resident of the Town I think that/is quite outrageous that a sign of this type should be permitted to be erected without any permission. Tonight is supposed to be the time you are giving this permission but the sign is already up and working. It is awful that anyone should f~aunt the Board of Appeals in this manner. In addition~ this is not Mr. Wheeter's operation it is a Shell station. THE CHAIRMAN: This permission does not go to an individual~ it goes with the land. As far as the erection of the sign~ Shell was given permission to have this type of sign 21 feet in height at six other stations in this Town and I assume that is why they erected this sign prior to receiving permission. (The Chairman explained the duties of the Board of Appeals in regard to a variance or special exception.) (Mrs. Tait further stated that she is outraged by this sign~ she will have to move her sign because it is d~ezpowered by the Shell sign. She feels something should be done to correct matters of this type. ) THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak for or against this application? (There was no response.) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the application is for a pole type sign 21 ft. in height. One ground sign is a permitted use 15 ft. 6 in. in height. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant that the extra height is necessary due to the use of the gas station facilities by truck-trailers and other large vehicles. This sign would be a hazard at a height of 15 ft. 6 in. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and justice will be served and the legally established or permitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use districts will not be permanently or substantially injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. On motion of Mr. Gillispie~ seconded by Mr. Hulse~ it was Southold Town Board of Appeats -4- December 5, 1963 RESOLVED that H. Brochard, a/c R. Joseph Wheeler be granted permission to erect a pole type ground sign 21 feet in height on the service station property of~R. Joseph W/~eeler~ north side Middle Road, Southold, New York. This sign is to be located at lea~t 5 feet from any property lineo Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Grigonis, and Mro Hulse. PUBLIc HEARING: Appeal No~ 620 - 7:45 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon application of Marjorie H. Baker, Youngs Avenue, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 300, Subsecti~ 1, and Article II, Section 202, for permission to increase the occupancy of her house~o three families. Location of property: west side ¥oungs Avenue, Southold, New york, bounded north by C. F. Muller, east by Youngs Avenue, south by Mechanic Street~ and west by'Charles Turner Fee paid $5°00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? T~FFERTS P. EDSON, ESQ.: I think the application should be based on Section 1007~ Subsection (a) which empowers the Board in its discretion to extend a non-conforming use throughout a building. I think there is no question that the two family use is now non-conforming and could be continued. Also the proximity of the Bohack building~ Telephone Company building and other business buildings in the area should be taken into consideration. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak for this application? b~S. MARJORIE BAKER: Some of my neighbors are here and would be willing to speak in favor. (At least 15 of Mrs. Baker's neighbors appeared in ~vor of t2ae application. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- December 5, 1963 TP~ CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: This is certainly an unusual case. We have granted two family uses in several other cases and have lost one of them in a higher court~ However~ the point you make in this case of extension of a non-conforming use is a conclusive one in this case. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything further ? (There was no response°) After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant presently has a large home with two family dwelling units. This is a non-conforming use established prior to Zoning. She now wishes to expand the use to three families. Under Article X, Section 1007 (a) the lawful use of a building existing on the effective date of the Ordinance may be continued~ although such use does not conform with the provisions of the Ordinance and such use may be extended throughout the building lawfully acquired prior to said date. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; tt~ hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all prbperties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance does observe the spirit of the Ordinance and will not change the character of the district. On motion of Mr. Giltispie~ seconded by MroHulse, it was RESOLVED that Mar3o~ie H. Baker~ Youngs Avenue, Southold~ New York, be granted permission to increase the occupancy of her house to three families. This expansion shall be confined to the interior of the present dwelling. vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Grigonis, and Mr. Hulse. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- December 5, 1963 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal NOo 622 - 8:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon application or'Charles Bumble~ a/c Thomas Liggis, 46 Somerset Drive~ Great Neck~ New York, for a variance in accord- ance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 300~ Sub- section 1~ and Sections 303 and 307~ and Article X, Section 1000A~ for permission to convert an accessory building into a one family dwelling on a lot with a frontage of 50 feet, insufficient area and insufficient side yards, and leave a lot with a frontage of 50 feet and insufficient area. Location of property: east side Shore Road, Greenport, New York, Lot 66 on map of Peconic Bay 'Estates~ bounded north by Frank F. Csajko, east by Peconic Bay~ south by James Rosati, and west by Bay Shore Road. Fee paid $5,00. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading application for a variance~ legal notice of hearing~ affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper and notice to the applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: This construction attracted quite a lot of attention and we have several pictures of it here indicating t~'ere was a one car&garage there and to it was added a 24 by 30 residence. The application for a building permit was dated November 19, 1963~ long after constructi(~ started on this~ and as I recall the circumstances, when the work was originally commenced it was going to be an expansion of the garage to accomodate a boat and then it apparently shifted. A substantial figure is given for this dwelling which is far more than is required for an expansion of a garage. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? LEFFERTS P. EDSON, ESQ.: May I point out to the Board that Mr. and Mrs. Liggis are here tonight. I do not know that this is other than an application for the issuance of a permit regardless of the inconsistencies of the dates. I would like to point out that a drive along Bay shore Road~ keeping your eyes on the left as you go out~ there are several of these garage structures almost directly on the road, because these people in the area enjoy their rear yard as their front yard even though the ordinance state~pposite. The structure as $outhold Town Board of Appeals -7- Decen~ber 5, 1963 it exists now as a residence is not quite in conformance for a 50 fto lot. When I first heard of this being Section 303 I thought that it would not be too much to it because I thought that it was an approved filed map. It is not~ but otherwise it is the same as any other filed map in the Town of Southold, and it is older. This map was not included in Section 1013, when the Ordinance was enacted~ whether this was inadvertent~ I do not know, but this should have been included~ at least the water front side. On the east side of the street a reference to the tax map will show that the character of the neighborhood is a 50 foot neighborhood. We ask that you give permission to divide the property into two 50 ft. lots and ask for the issuance of a permit for the construction which is being built.~ It will result in the structure conforming and conforming to the neighborhood. It wilt not change the character nor derogate the property in the area. THE CHAIPAVaAN: I understand the Building Inspector was approached relative to a permit. MR. TERRY: This is not a non-conforming use, it is a permitted use and the garages were taken as the setback line on the street. THE CF~IRMAN: Th~ construction was determined to be what? MR. TERRY: A storage for a boat. MR. LIGGIS: it was the understanding we were going to put a boat there for the winter months and in the summertime it was to be used as a home° THE CHAIRMAN: There is no question about it, if it had been approached in the beginning as dividing the property and selling it, it would have been granted. It is a unique hardship to require that one out of twenty be 100 feet while the rest are 50 feet. The thing that concerns the writer of a letter of opposition is that although this was alleged to be a boat house it turned out to be a residence and the people who are irritated by that are somewhat correct° To grant someone permission to erect two residences on one lot would be gEanting them something that is denied to all others° Southold Town Board or'Appeals -8- December 5, 1963 MR. LIGGIS: I have two separate deeds for these lotso THE CHAIRMAN: That has no bearing since this is not an approved subdiviSion and therefore the two lots are considered one parcel. MR. LIGGIS: W/~en was the Zoning law put into effect? THECHAIRFLAN: April 1957o MR. LIGGIS: I had a garage at that time with two cesspools. Two separate bulkheads were installed at two separate times. ONe is cement and one is wood° THECPIAiRMAN: Why didn't you apply for a variance to divide the property so that you could erect the residence? MR. LIGGIS: I felt I had two separate tax bills so I proceeded that way. I even staked this out at different times. I even layed out the house so that the setback would not block my neighbors~ I guess it hasn't been appreciated. MR. CHAIPAWAN: You installed two cesspools, when? MR. CHARLES BUMBLE: A grease trap and cesspools were put in in 1955. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else present who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? RICHARD CRON, ESQ.: There are a certain number of facts I would like to establish. One is the ground rules as to what the application is for. I assume when they speak of an accessory building here they are speaking of accessory to the garage on Lot 66, or is it the accessory building is accessory to the main building on the adjoining lot on which the garage is now constructed? Southold Town Board of~Appeals -9- December 5t 1963 THE CHA~: My assumption was that it was accessory to his residence. MR. CRON: I must then come to the conclusion that the applicants were treating these two lots as one single loto MR~ LIGGIS: We never did. They were always two separate lots. I have tax bills to prove that. MR. CRON: Then we shall go on the assumption that the applicants treated the two lots as two separate lots. Because why would you construct a garage on one of the lots which is the only other building which it would be an accessory to? Now it has not been e~tablished what the data,of which the garage was constructed. MR. BUMBLE: October 1955. MR. CRON: I chec~%ome of the tax ~oli books and the 1958-59 tax bills were listed as vacant for Lot 66. In 1960-61 itwas improved. So from 1955 to 1961 the tax books listed it as un- improved land.z My client seems to feel it was constructed only three years ago° Assuming that we have these two separate lots~ I think we would have to agree that the garage was constructed ~n Lot 66 and became the principal building on that particular lot. THE CHAIRMAN: From a tax standpoint but not from a zoning standpoint. MR. CRON: In 1957 how did the Zoning Board treat this building on lot 66? THE CHAIPGNAN: As accessory to the main building on two contiguous lots which are considered one lot. MR. CRON: Showing the thinking of the Zoning Ordinance° If Zoning treats this as a single 100 ft. lot then to convert a so-called accessory building into a dwelling would violate Section 300 of the Ordinance and would establish two single family dwellings on a single lot. If prior to this application for purposes of Zoning this is treated as a single lot, you are saying we should discard zoning and put two residences on a single lot. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- December 5, 1963 THE CHAIRMAN: It has alway' been a hardship if you are required to stick to 100 ft. where everyone else is 50 feet. M~. CRON: But I believe one-half of them are 100 feet. THE CHAIRMAN: On the east side of the s~reet they are all 50 feet. (It was established that the greatestnumber of lots on the east side of Bay Shore Road are 50 ft. lots.) MR. CRON: If this application for a ~ variance is granted I see no reason why and how the Zoning Board would be prohibited from granting a variance to anyone in the Town of~Southold to subdivide a 100 ft. lot into 50 ft. lotso This would also depreciate the adjoining land owners property. (The Chairman explained the conditions that must be satisfied before a variance can be granted.) MR. CRON: I think there is a question as to when the garage was constructed. In 1957 my client moved into their premises and they state there~,~s no garage on the Lot 66. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that unless someone has something further to say we will have to have more time to establish proof of the date of the erection of the garage. MR. CRON: How about a cancelled check2 THE CHAIRMAN: If someone made a start prior to the enactment of'Zoning they are legally permitted to continue after zoning. MR. CRON: If in fact the garage turns out to have been constructed prior to Zoning~ to grant this variance would compound an illegality that had already existed. MR. EDSON: The date of the construction of the garage is pertinent if the lot is not going to be divided. If the lot is going to be divided as we request into two separate 50 ft. lots~°which in being done will not change the character of the neighborhood which is a 50 ft. lot neighborhood it is notpertLnent. If we were in a 100 ft. neighborhood I would not be here because it would be outrageous. Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- December 5, 1963 MR. CRON: It does make a difference when the garage was constructed because it compounds an illegal situation. Also I say that the tax bills are of some significance as to when the garage was constructed as we must assume that the officials of the Town have performed their duty. MR. EDSON: Would not that merely indicate that is the time the tax assessors s~w it? THE CHAIRMAN: That is possible. We will recess this meeting to December 19~ 1963~ if there is nothing further to add. On motion of Mr. Grigonis~ seconded by Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that the Appeal NOo 622 of Charles Bumble, a/c Thomas Liggis be recessed to 8:30 P.M.~ Thursday, December 19~ 1963. vote of the Board: Ayes:- Fir. Gillispie~ Mr. Grigonis, and Mr. Hulse. The proprietors of the East Marion grocery store, formerly owned by Charles King, appeared before the Board of Appeals for an ~nformal discussion relative to making alterations to their building. The m~n~tes of an informal meeting with Mr. King in 1959 were read. After discussing the assessed valuation and attempting to reach the fair value of the building it was determined the structure may be structurally altered up to an amount of $3~000. This was found to be satisfactory by the owners. On motion of Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr, Gr~gonis~ it w~s RESOLVED that the minutes of November 21, 1963 be approved as submitted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- December 5, 1963 vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mro Gillispie, Mr. Grigonis, and Mro Hulse. The next meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals will be held 7:30 P..M.~ Thursday, December 19, 1963 at the Town Office~ Main Road, Southold, New York. On motion of Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Grigonis~ it was RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals set 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.)~ Thursday, December 19~ 1963, Town Office, Main Road~ Southold, New York as time and place for hearing upon application of Harold Feinberg~ d/b/a Southampton Produce Distributors~ Sound Avenue, Mattituck~ New York, for a special exception in accordance with the Zoning ordinance, Article X~ Section 1003a, for permission to erect a non-farm labor camp at the south side Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New Yorkz bounded north by Sound Avenue~ east and south by~William Unkelbach~ and west by land of Prins. vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Grigonis~ and Mr. Hu lse. It was further RES~VED that legal notice of the hearing be published in the official newspaper on December 13, 1963. vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. GillispSe, Mro Grigonis, and Mro HulSeo Meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. APPkOVED Respectfully submitted, Judith T. Boken, Secretary