Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/11/1968 SPEC Southold Town Board o£ eals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. Telephone $O 5-9660 APPEAL BOARD MEMBERS Robert '~7. Gillispi¢, Jr., CMirm~n Rober~ Bergen Charles Gre~onis, Jr. Scribe Doyen~ Jr. Fred Hulse, Jr. M I N 'U'T E $ SPEC/AL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Friday'October 11~ 1968 A special meeting of the Southold Town Board of :Appeals was held at the call of'the Chairman at 12:00 P.M., Friday, October 11, 1968, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, Hew York, for the purpose .of making a decision on Appeal No. 1197, 1198, & 1199, Suffolk Outdoor'Advertising,Co., Inc. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman; Robert Bergen, Fred Hulse, Jr. The following decisions were made: Appeal No. 1197 - By investigation and public hearing the Board finds the following facts pertinent to the decision. This application i~ for a two faced, detached or ground sign 6 feet by 12 feet in a residential area, approx- imately oppoSiteMoore's Lane on the heavily traveled Route 25 one of two main highways leading through the Town, approximately 500' from'the Greenport High School. The sign, 6 feet by 12 feet, totals 144 square feet on both sides to be used to advertise and/or direct to local businesses and/or national advertisers. The Board finds that the applican{ Southold Town BoardYl~. Appeals -2- --~ctober' 11, 1968 is in the outdoor advertising business, that Suffolk-OutdOor 'Advertis~ing Co., Inca ~"urrently owns 13 billboard type sign structures 12 feet by 25 fe~t /n the Town of Southold presently in use more than ll-~ears after pas~e in April 1957 of the present Build/ng Zone,'Ordinance, which prohibited the continuance ~of non~-uonforming signs after five years unless continuance is authorized as a-special exception by the Board of'Appeals (Art .X,. Sec 1002), that ~the applicant was ~denfed continuance of'these billboards in 13 separate de~cisioas ~uly-24, t967, upheld in both the SUPreme Court mhd iater~ in the Appellate division, that fc~mal papers asking for leave to appeal to the 'Court of Appeals were prepared for presentation on 'Sept. 24, 1968. The'Boa, S-finds ~hat the 'iappliCant seeks 'permission for two signs the purpose of which is' id~nti~al to the 13 aforementioned signs which weret denied ~ July 1967..~...differing only as to size. Authority of ~he Board of Appeals to grant or deny sign applications such as the ~applicant proposes in a resident/al area is :~¢learly stated in Article 'III, Section 300,~ Subsection 10. Ten years 'of experience of the Board of Appeals indicates the majority of r~esi~nts api~aring before the Board and the Civic Associations consider ~ff-~emises billboards to bed violation of the letter and spirit of the ~Ordinance. A Cornell University study survey, published in 1967 indicates that 82% of non res/dents visiting the~Town of Southold were attracted by the physical character and rural atmosphere .of the 1Town. The ~detri- mental effect to property v~lues of billboards is very real. Early -in the administration of 'the ordinance, the Board recognized a need to ~direct visitors, non-residents, and other travelers to places 'to eat~ sleep, worship~ amusement areas,' business areas, transportation facilities and authorized the permissive use of signs for these purposes, imposing various safeguards in the public interest in the form of conditions relating to size, location, number, and wording. (Maximum size presently 4 feet by 6 feet..') These signs are regarded as being strictly in the interest of the travelling public and a minimal approach to the problem Of directing the public...similar in purpose and intently.to those permitted in rest areas on primary and interstate rout~ as outlined in New York-Law, Section 581, June 1968. '~n considering the above the Board determine? that the use will preYs=hr the orderly and reasonable use ~of adjacen~~ properties or the properties in adjacent use districts;-that the .safety, the health, the 'welfare, the comfort, or the order of the-Town will be adverse~ly affected by'the proposed use and its location; the-use will not be in harmony with and promote the general purpose and intent of the ~Ordinance and that. the dharacter and probable development of uses in the district will be adversely affected and that the conservation of property values will be adversely affected. On motion by ~ . 1 Bergen, seconded by'Mr. Hulse, it was RESOLVED that~ Suffolk Outdoor advertising 'Co., Inc., Riverhead, New York, be DENIED permission to erect a two faced ~billboard~on the south sidelRoute 25, near Moore's ~Lane, Greenport, New York~ Southold Town Board o~ppeals -3- ~ Octoberlll, 1968 Appeal No~ I198 - By investigation and public hearing the'Board finds the fOlloWing facts pertinent to the decision. This application is for a-two faced, detached or ground sign 6 feet by 12 feet in a business area approaching the main residential Cutchogue area on one of the.two main routes of the Town. The sign~ 6 feet by 12 feet,i totals 144~ square feet on both sides~ to be used on one side to direct a~d/or advertise-the North Fork Marina ~ Shipyard ~a business owned by J2Aj KenniffWho is also VjP. of SuffOlk Outdoor Advl)....the other side of the sign~to advertise and/or direct to local businesses and/or national advertisers. The Board f/~ds that the applicant is in the ~outdoor advertising business~ that Suffolk Outdoor 'AdvertisingCo.~ Inc. currently 'owns 13 billboard type sign structures 12feet by 25 feet in the Town of Southold presently in use more thanll years after passage ~nApril 1957 of the present Building Sone'Ordinance, which prohibited the continuance of non-conforming signs after 1five years unless continuance .is authorized as a special exception by the Board of Appeals ~ArtX., Sec.1002),. that the applicant was denied continuance of these billboards in 13 separate decisions~onJuly 245 1967~ upheld in both the 'Supreme Court and later~in the appelate~d~vision~ that'~ formal papers asking for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals were 1prepared for presentation on Sept. 24,. 1968. The Board finds that the applicant seeks permission for a two faced sign, the purpose of which is identical to the 13 aforementioned signs which. Were denied in July 1967j.. differing only as to sizel Authority of the Board of Appeals to grant or deny sign applications such as the applicant proposes in a business area is ~clearly stated in Article-IV, Section 408 covering signs authorized as alspecial exception in-the "B" business district. Ten years of experience of ~the Board of Appeals indicates the majority of residents appearing before the Board andCivic Associations consider off-premises billboards to be a violation of. theletter and the spirit of the~OrdinanCeo A Cornell UniversityStudySUrvey,' published in ~967 indicates that 82% of non residents visiting the Tow~ of Southold were attracted by the physical character and rua~l atmosphere ~of the Town. The .detrimental effect;~o property values of'billboards is very real. -Early in the administration of the Ordinance~ the~Board-recognized a need to direct visitors, non residents,, and other travellers to places to eat, sleep,' worship, amusement areas~ business areas,, transportation-facilities ~a~d authorized the permissive use .of signs for these purposes, imposing various-safeguards in the public interest-in the form of conditions relating to size,, location, number~ and wording. ~aximumsize presently 4feet by 6 feet.) These signs are regarded as being strictly in the interest of the travelling public and a minimal approach to the problem of ~directing the public....similar in purposeand intent to those permitted infest a~eas onprimary and interstate routes as outlined in NewYork Law~ Section 581, June 1968. In considering the above theBoard determines that the use ~ill prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties of the Southold Town Board o~Appeals -~-- ~-October 11, 1968 properties in adjacent use districts; that the safety,' the health, the welfare, the comfort, or the D~der of the Town will be adversely affected by the proposed use and its locati~ the use will not be in b~v'mony with and promote the ~eneral purpose and intent of the Ordinance and that the ~character and probable development of uses in the district will be adversely affected and that the conservation of property values will be'adVersely'affected. On motion by F~. Bergen,~ seconded by,ir. ~ulse, it was RESOLVED that Suffolk OutdoorAdvertisingCo., Inc., Riverhead, New York.,. be~DENTEDpermission to erect a two faced billboard on the north side Route 25, Cutchogue, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Bergen, Mr. Hulse Appeal No. 1199 - By investigation and public hearing ~he Board finds the following facts pertinent to the decision. This application is for a two faced, detached or ground sign 6 feet by 12 feet in a business area adjoining ~he North Fork Country Club.,. a large open area on Route 25. The sign 6 feet by 12 feet~ totals 1~4 square feet on both sides~ to be used on one side to direct and/or advertise the Galley Ho Restaurant in New Suffolk (a business owned by J~'A%~ Kenniff who is also V. Pj of S~ffolk Outdoor Adv.)~ the .other side to bemused to advertise and/o~ direct to local businesses and/or n~cional advertisers. The Board finds that the applicant is in ~he outdoor advertising business, thatSuffolk Outdoor Advertising Co~ Inc. cnrre~ly owns 13 billboard type sign structures 12 feet by 25 feet in the Town of Southold presently in use more than ll years after passage in April 1957 of the present Building Zone~Ordinance, which prohibited the continuance .of non-conforming signs after fiveyears unless continuance is authorized as a specialexception by the Board of Appeals (Art. X~. Sec. 1002)~ that the applicant was denied continuance of these billboards in 13 sepR~ate decisions on July 24a 1967~ upheld in both the SupremeCourt and later in the Appelate division~ that formal papers asking for leave to appeal to the ~Court of Appeals were prepared forl~resentation on Sept, 24, 1968. The Board finds that the applicant seeks permission for a two faced sign, the purpose of Which is identical to the 13 aforementioned signs which Were denied in J~ly ~iffering only as to size. Authority of the Board of Appeals to grRnt Or deny'sign applications such as the applicant proposes in a bus~ness area is clearly stated in Article-IV, Section 408 covering signs authorized as ~lspecial exception in the "B" business district. Ten years of experience of theBoard of Appeals indicates the majority of residents appearing before the Board and the ClvicAssociations consider off-premises billboards to bea violation of the letter and spirit of ~the'Ordinance, A Cornell University Study~SUrvey,. published in 1967 indicates that 82% of non residents visiting the Town of Southold wer~eattracted by the physical character and rural atmosphere of the Town. The detrimental effect to propertyvalues of billboards is very real. Early in the administration of the Ordinance, the 'Board recognized a need to direct $outhold T~n Board o~L~Appeals --5- October 11~ 1968 visitors~ non residents~ and other travellers to places to eat~ sleep~ worship~ amusement areas, business areas~ transportati~n facilit~s and authorized the permissive use of signs for these ~urposes~ imposing various safeguards in the public interest in theform of conditions relating to size~ location,, number~ and wording. ~aximum size presentIy 4~feet by 6 feet.) These signsare regarded as being strictly in the interest of the traveling public and a minimal approach to the problem ~f directing the public, o.similar 'in purpose and intent to those permitted in rest areas on primary and interstate routes as outlined in New York Law,. Section 581~ June i868. In considering the above the Board determines that the use will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of mdjacent properties of the properties in adjacent nse districts; that ~he s~fetY,~ the healthz' the welfare~ the comfort,! or the order of the Town will be adversely affected by the proposeduse and its location; the use will not be in harm~nywith and promote the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance and that the character and probable development of uses in the district will be adversely affected and that the conservation of property values~ill be adversely affected. On motion of Mro Bergen~ seconded by Mr~ Hulse~ it was RESOLVED that~Suffolk Outdoor ~Advertising Co.,i'~ncj~ Riverhead. New York~ be'DENIED permission to erect a two faced billb-oard on the south side Route 25~ Cutchogue~ New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:-Mr, Gillispie,~ Mr. Bergen~ Mr. Hulse. The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 Respectfully submitted~ Bet~t~~Secretary SouthoId Town Board of Appeals