Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-62.-1-1HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., Chairman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr. WILL[AM F. MULLEN, Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765-1938 August 26, 1983 Mr. Frederic P. Rich P.O. Box 1045 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Colonial Village Site Plan Dear Mr. Rich: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, August 22, 1983. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan "Colonial Village at Southold" for the con- struction of a storage building. Would you please supply our office with the application fee of $25, payable to the Southold Town Clerk. Thank you. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING B©ARD cc: Building Department By Susan E. Long, Secretary WHEREAS,. ........... .?..~...e..~...e..~...:!..q .~....lB..J,..~..h. ............................................... has made application to the Town Board for the establishment of an OPEN DEVELOPMENT AREA pursuant to the provisions of Section 280-A of the TOWN LAW, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has heretofore referred the matter to the Planning Board for its advice and recommendation, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has recommended that the application of .........~.. ~'.~ ~ ~ J,¢~ k..P,,l ~h ................................................. be granted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Town Board of the · Town of Southold does hereby establish an OPEN DEVELOPMENT AREA over the property of ........ .~...~-e.d:.e...r..Jr.e...~.....~.~..q.~. .......................... as shown forth on the map attached to the application. By Order of the Southold Town Board. Albert W. Richmond Town Clerk WALTER GEORGE KAPP FREDERIC P. RICH ATTORNEY AT LAW MAIN STREEt SOUTHOLDi NEW YORK March 5, 1966 Robert Tasker~ Esq. Main Street Greenpc~t, New York Re: Colonial Village Dear Bob: You will recall that a few weeks ago we informally reviewed the proposed application to have Colonial Village declared an Open Development Area under subdivision 4 of Section 280a of the Town Law. An application was filed shortly thereafter, and was referred to the Planni~q Board for recom- mendation as provided by the statmte. After a co~ple~ of hea~- ings, the Planning Board has filed its recommendations and report, and there is now enclosed herewith a short mew~randum diseuseing this report. You will note from the memo~and~n, as well as from the repo~titself, that the Planning Boa~dhas treated this application as though it were the filing of a map of a subdivision ~mder Section 335 of the Real Property Law, despite the fact that Walter Eapp attempted to point out that no subdivision of land was involved. And it weald seem that the proposed 20 foot roads f~nis~tng access ~t only to one, but to two separate public highways are adequate, not only as a question of fast, but as a matter of law. I am taking the liberty of sending an extra copy of this letter and of t~ enclosed memorandum to Let Albertsom for his information, as well as extra copies of the memorand~ for distribution to other me~be~e of the Board if he chooses to pass them along. If yea have any thoughts or suggestions, I should be glad, of co~rse, to stop over to discuss them with yea. Sincerely yours, cc: Supervisor Lester M. Albertson TOWN BOARD : to have certain Property on the North Side of Main Road, Village of Southold, declared Zn Open Development Area pursuant to the provisions of Section 280a, Subdivision 4, of the Town Law. T0~N OF SOL~HOLD In the Matter of the Application of : FREDERIC P. RICH : : : MEMOP~NDUM SUPPORTING APPLICATION What This Application is About By application dated January 28, 1966, filed with the Town Board and subsequently referred by it for recormmendations to the Planning Board, application was made to declare the area shown on the map annexed to the said application as an Open Development Area under the provisions of Section 280a, Subdivision 4, of the Town Law, which specifically provides that the Town Board may, by resolution, establish ~ Open Development Area within the Town, whereby permits may be issued for the erection of struc- tures to which "access" is given by right of way or easement. Subdivision 5 of this section provides as follows: "For the purpose of this Section, the word "access" means that the plot on which such structure is proposed to be erected directly abuts on such street or highway and has sufficient frontage thereon to allow the ingress and egress of fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, and other emergency vehicles, an%~ a frontage of 15 feet shall presumptively be sufficient for that purpose." This statute is designed to cover the precise situation of the circ~astances involved in the application, where the property fronts on a public highway but the buildings are to be erected some distance from the street line. Here the public interest involved is that there be adequate access to the bmildings for emergency vehicles, which applies even in the case of a single private dwelling. Annandale, Inc. v. Brienz.a, I A.D. 2nd, 78~; 148 N.Y.S. 2d, 17. In that case, the Appellate Division for this Department said (p. 18) "The purpose of the statute appears to be in the public interest and primarily to provide reasonable means of coping with fires and other emergencies. The statute does not require any particular form of physical access, merely any reasonable means." The map annexed to the application shows that the plot which is owned by applicant and which applicant seeks to have declared an Open Development Area has a frontage of 60 feet on Main Road and 27~.~3 feet on Boisseau Avenue (both existing public streets). The buildings on such lot, with respect to which it is sought to have construction permits issued, are nine in n~mber, to all of which it is proposed that access be provided by a 20~ road running both to Main Road and also to Boisseau Avenue. It is to be particularly noted that the proposal set forth in the application is not for the approval of a subdivision of the plot since the usage of the land for which approval is sought is not its subdivision into smaller lots or parcels for sale or lease of such smaller lots to the public. What applicant seeks is merely the issuance of permits to build upon o~ne single plot, held in single and separate ~ndivided ownership, a number of buildings which will be used for garden-type apartments. In this connection, Section 280a, upon which the application is based, specifically contemplates the development of an area within the Town by the erection of structures thereon, provided, and only. provided, (as decided by the Cou~ts) that reasonable access is given to these structures to allow (in the words of the statute), "the ingress and egress of fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, and other emergency vehicles". Furthermore, the statute speci- fically, and in ~o many words, specifies that in prescribing suitable access to structures to be erected for the purpose of ingress and egress of the emergency vehicles specified in the that 15 feet shall presumptively "be sufficient for that statute, purpose. As stated by Mr. Justice Hill in the case Homes, Inc. v. Dickerso~.~. l?0 N.Y.So 2d 771 (19~8); N.Y.S. 2d 215, 8 A.D. 2d 640 (Second Dept): of Reggs affd 186 "A building permit can be validly denied under this section.o~__~ when the facts will support a finding by the adminxstrative body t~t the conditions set forth in subdivision 5, supra, cannot be met; viz., fire apparatus and other emergency vehicles cannot safely and with reasonable Certainty travel to and from the proposed structure." (Underlining added} II. Discussi.on of Recommendations of Planning Board The matter having been referred to the Planning Board for recommendations, the Planning Board has considered the matter and made its report and recommendations to the Town Board d~ted March l, 1966. The applicant wishes to extend his appreciation of the prompt, courteous and considerate hearing of the matter extended by the Planning Board. It is submitted, however, that as is evident on the face of its reco~uendations that understand- ing of the Planning Board is not entirely in keeping with the facts, and that the Planning Board has considered the matter as though the application related to a proposed subdivision rather than under the criteria specified by Section 250a of the Town Law referred to above under which the application was filed. Applicant in no sense proposes or seeks approval for the sub- division of property into building lots for sale to the public or for any other purpose. There is no such application before the Board. Had this been the purpose of the application, the application would have been made under the provisions of Section 335 of the Real Property Law and ,~o~. under the Town law. Section 3~5 of the Real Property Law (which in no sense is applicable to the present application) specifically provides for the filing of a subdivision map whenever the owner property in Suffolk County into lots such lots¢~{,~for sale to the public". intends to divide real "for the purpose of offering This section of the law then requires that the written approval of the proposed layout by the Planning Board before the subdivision ~mp may be filed as provided by law. The sole purpose of the preseut application is to obtain the approval of the Town Board to the erection of "structures" upon the land. As decided by the Courts, the sole matter of public interest involved is whether suitable "access" has been provided for the i~ress and egress of emergency vehicles. The Planning Board, however, in the concluding paragraph of its report said, "The Planning Board points been a subdivision in view point to a subd~vmsion. out that this property should have of the fact that all physical features It is obvious from the report that the matter is con- sidered as though the ~uestion before the Planning Board was its approval of a subdivision map. All the conditions which the PlannimE Board reco~muends in its report to the Southold Town Board are based upon this misunderstanding. Paragraph I of these conditions states, "that a 24 foot all paved right of way" is needed to get into the parking area, especially since vehicles will be driven by elderly people. Zt is again to be pointed out (even at the risk of repetition) that the only question properly before the Board was whether or not there is suitable access to the structures provided for emergency vehicles, none of the drivers of which are (presumably~ elderly people, and whose sole interest is in getting to the structures for emergency purposes and not into the parki~ a~ea. The fact that the Planning Board has used the wro~ criteria in making recoramendations with respect to the application is equally evident from the further conditions about d~ainage and that the two proposed buildings on the North side of the Southold Fire District and the property of Bednosky should be moved farther North in order to provide adequate property line setback. It is the province of the building inspector, and not the Planning Board, to see that the Zoning Law requirements with respect to property line setbacks are observed, and the standards to be applied are the provisions of the Zoning Law and not some arbitrary requirement which happens to reflect the individual opinion of some member of the Planning Board. The comment of the Planning Board with respeot to drain- age falls in the category of something that might properly be considered if the application for a subdivision of land was what had been filed. Again, it is to be repeated that the only approval which the application seeks to obtain is for the erection of apartments in an area in the "B" mitted use muder the Zoning Law, Board is whether suitable access (Business zone) which is a per- and the question before the is provided for emergency vehicles. In the Reggs case (supra) where the Planning Board specifie~as a condition o£ a building permit, the installation of catch basins, the Court declared such conditions "invalid". III. The Recommendations of the Planning Board Are Unrealistic It has been pointed out above that the Planning Board has failed to apply the proper tests in making recommendations to the Town Board concerning the present application, and that it has sought to recommend reqmirements with respect to matters which, as a matter of law, are not properly the object of consider- ation under subdivision 4 of Section 280a of the Town Law. However, entirely apart from the foregoing, the conditions recommended by the Planning Board are entirely m~realistic. The basic condition recommended by the Planning Board for a granting of the applica- tion is that the applicant be required to constrmct a .o.ne-wa[ paved road 24 feet in width at the places where the right of way is indi- cated on the map attached to the application. It is to be borne in mind that the application show~ that the entire development will consist of only 54 families, most of whom are single people without cars. In fact, of the 12 tenants who have entered into leases to date, less than one-third of them either own or operate amtomobiles. Under the circmmstances, the requirements recommended by the Planni~ Board are entirely unrealistic. This conclusion is underscored when it is realized that the specifications pres- cribed by the Planning Board are identical in every respect to the specifications recommended for a service road for the proposed Atlantic Highway which, if constructed in conjunction with the proposed bridge over Long Island Sound, will be one of the major super highways and traffic arteries in the entire United States. (See map of profile of proposed road submitted with report of a Governor's Commission.) There is already constructed and existing a 20 foot road, such as the applicant proposes for the entire area, leading from Main Street into the interior of the plot in question. A physical inspection of this road will demonstrate that it is entirely adequate for any possible future vehicular traffic into this relatively small, proposed private development. Ftuvthermore, the additional condition that the roads be only one-way is eqmally unrealistic. In this connection, the Planning Board has made the further recommendation that such a condition be in the form of a written covenant to be entered into by the owner. The applicant states categorically that nothin~ would be more pleasing to him than to provide for one-way traffic just as soon as the entire development is completed. However, it is completely u~realistic to believe that the owner in good faith could enter into such a covenant for the simple and practical reason that there is no possible way he could enforce such a condition if people chose to disregard it. This is not a question of a public highway where an ordinance or governmental regulation can mandate that the road be one way only so that those persons usi~ the road in violation of such ordinance can be fined, or other disciplinary action taken, to assure the enforcement of the regulation. Applicant would be happy to agree to post directional signs upon completion of the project and endeavor to the extent of his ability to enforce a one way require- ment if reco~uended by the Town Board, but he obviously cannot enter into any binding undertaking ~uaranteein~ one way use only with no police authority to enforce such regulation. IV. CoDcl.usion Again, it should be stated that the spirit of cooper- ation exhibited by the Planning Board in conducting the hearings in the matter is most appreciated. Their original position was that there should be a %_.q0 foot right of way, as in the case of a road to be dedicated for public use. P~ile in a spirit of cooper- ation they have now recommended less onerous requirements, it is submitted that their approach to the situation still remains the same, and that this approach is entirely at variance with the tests and standards laid down by law and the Courts. Unlike the typical subdivision, which invariably involves the development of large undeveloped tracts of land in outlying areas, the present proposal entails the use of a small tract of land in the heart of the Village of Southold in an area already highly developed and with respect to which adequate public streets and highways already exist. The access roads which are under discussion are merely roads for the purpose of supplying private ingress and egress to Se the limited nu~aber of persons who will reside on the plot in question, which constitutes a strictly private use of such roads. The statute specifically makes the road 15 feet in width presump- tively sufficient access for emergency purposes. There is nothing relatin~ to the circumstances which would furnish any reason why the presumption of the statute should be disregarded. V® The application as filed and the access roads shown therein should be approved. Respectfully submitted, FRE~ZRIC P. RICH, Applicant. Frederic P. Rich Walter George K~pp Of Counsel ( ( Southold Town Planning Board ~OUTHDLD, L. I., N. Y. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS John '~/icld~rn, Chairman Idenry Moise Alfred Grebe Archibald You.~ ~1~/~11 Je m Unkelbech Report to: Southold Town Board 16 South~Street Greenport, New York March 8, 1966 Gentlemen: This is to certify that the following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held on March 1, 1966: In the matter of the petition of Frederick P. Rich, Southold, New York relative to an application for an Open Development Area in accordance with Section 280A of the State of New York Town Law, on property located west of the property of Southold Fire District on the north side of Main Road, Southold, New York, extending north to the Long Island Railroad and east to Boisseau Avenue, approximately 6 acres of land having the metes and bounds set forth in the survey annexed to the application~ Otto W. Van Tuyl & Son, it is hereby RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend to the Southold Town Board the establishment of said open development area on said property described above, subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be required a minimum twenty-four (24) foot one way right of way, all paved, in view of the fact that 24 feet is needed to get into the parking area especially when the vehicles will be driven by elderly people. 2. In view of the fact that some of the property in question has changed ownership several times~onp~per, a legal instrument should be drawn up to bind the minimum twenty-four (24) foot one way right of way to the land and not to the owner. Report to $outhold Town Board March 8, 1966 3. The two proposed buildings on the north side of Southold Fire District anion the north side of ~roperty of Bednosky shall be moved further north in order to provide adequate property line setback. 4. Provisions for drainage must be made on the applicant'~ property. 5. The Planning Board points out that this property should have been a subdivision, in view of the fact that all physical features and area point to a subdivision. Respectfully submitted, n Wickham, Chairman~-~''~ Southold Town Planning Board /bd ALBERT W. RICHMffIND E] FFI P'E ~,~L,. ER r TO,WN SnUTHnLD, L. I.. N. Y. February 15, 1966. Mr. John Wickham Chairman Planning Board Cutchogue, L.I.,N.Y. Dear Mr. Wickham; The original petition of Frederick Rich, Southold, New York, relative to Open Development Area under the provisions of Section 280-A of the Town Law of the State of New York is in the files in the office of the Planning Board at Southold, N.Y. You are instructed to pre- pare an official report defining the condit- ions described An the petition and determine the area so effected with the recommendation of your Board. AWR/mr Ver~y truly yours. Albert W. Ri'6hmond Town Clerk ¢ C APPLICATION TO THE TOWN BOARD (open deYelopment areo) OF ........... ~ .o..b..~r.~ ..~ ,o. ~.4. .................................. . ................. ~.o..~..ko...1.¢. ............................... ~.~,..y..o..zt..,k. (street) (municipolity) (stote) Do hereby Toke opplication to the TOWN BOARD of the TOWN OF 5OUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK to estoblish on "Open Development Areo" under the provisions of Section 280-o of the Town Low of the Store of .New York of the following described property; I. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: ....... ~.9.g..e..~...,~.o..c,.~..t..~.~..~.~..~....O.~'...~.~...~.~.O,g.~...Q~ .................... ........................................................... .b...o...u.,n. ~..s.....s..e..t....~.~..t...h... k.n.....~z:me. ~ .e.~...~...u~...v.~.~r...m. ~p....o.~...Q~..t..~...W, .. Van Tuyl & Son. 3. DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT(S) OF WAY OR OTHER MEANS OF ACCESS TO PROPERTY: ........................ 5. TYPE OF BUILDING(S) TO BE ERECTED:......U...n..i.~.,~ ..~.~.l.~.i...r~..l~.e..~..m..~..~.~....~.~,.v..e. a~.~..~7....];)..~.er~ obtained fo~ thmee buildings housing 18 of such units located on the · s ~n a~vance~ s~a~es OT' construction. O. MAP OF PROPERTY SHOWING PROPOSED LAYOUT OF LAND USE AND RIGHT(S) OF WAY OR ROADS TO BE ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION. 7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY APPLICANT: ........... ~..~.(~....a..~&D.~.7,,0.0,...~.~.~.~.O.~.~.~ ............................ STATE OF NEW YORK ) WAI. TF~ G. KAPP 7. The land described in the annexed survey map is all located on a "B" business zone and is all individually owned by the applicant who is constructing thereon individual garden-type apartment houses which are being offered for rent to persons of matare age who seek this type of housing accommodation in order to relieve themselves of the cares of house ownership. They are particularly designed for widows and retired persons whose fami- lies have grov~n up and who wish to establish themselves in quarters of this sort independently of their children, but who have reached the age where they wish to be relieved of ground maintenance and other problems incident to house ownership. It is believed that there is a definite community need for this type of housir~ accommodation in Southold which has many widows and retired persons. There is presently no other comparable facilities in the Southold area. The present main access road to the property is from Main Street, but as is evident from the survey map, the plan and design is to have the main entrance for vehicular traffic located at the place indicated on the survey map as the entrance from Boisseau Avenue, which is relatively free of any congested traffic conditions even in the mid-summer season. , It is planned that the individual buildings will be ~ constructed as demand for apartment rentals dictates, and as each building is constructed, the right of way leading to it will be surfaced with a finished paved macadam road with a minimum width of 20 feet. As the surfacing of each road is completed, there will also be a sufficient provision for paved turn-abouts~ d~_--AS SO that vehicular traffic to and from each building may be maintained entirely ove~ a paved surface as the building of the individual apartment homses progresses. However, there are presently existing unobstructed dirt roads over these rights of way which may presently be utilized as need dictates for all types of vehicular traffic, and which afford direct unobstructed access to the entire area by fire fighting apparatus, police cars, ambulances and other vehicles used for public emergencies. In fact, this past summer, when free passage to Main Street was blocked by the Block Party sponsored by the $outhold Fire Department, fire apparatus was stationed by the Fire Department (with the permission of the undersigned) on these rights of way over this same land leadir~ to Boisseau Avenue, as is shown in the survey map, in order to permit exit by this a~paratus in the event of a fire in the Southo!d Fire District while the Block ?arty was in progress. Paving in the entrance road from Main Road already is completed, extending some 320 feet with a 20 foot width to a paved parking area which is approximately 100 x 60 feet. It is to be noted that the number of families to be located upon the total acreage involved is less than one-half of the maximum specified by the Town Zoning Ordinance. Utilities have been run into the property from Main Street, including 6-inch water main. Private fire hydrants have been hooked into this water main and will be maintained for fire- fighting purposes. Contracts have also been let for the removal of snow so that the paved roads leading to the buildings will all be readily accessible for fire equipment, police cars, ambulances and other emergency vehicles. ROIIERT W I'AS 0 }:F'I CI~__~I 425 MAIN ST. GREENPORT, L.L, NEW YORK 11944 August 2, 1983 TELEPHONE (516) 477-1400 Frederic P. Rich, Esq. 52965 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Fred: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter to me dated July 29, 1983, concerning the construction of a utility building at Colonial Village. You have indicated that the Building Inspector will not issue a building permit for this building until a site plan has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Board. According to the zoning map, Colonial Village is located in a B-1 General Business District. Section 100-70 of the Zoning Code provides that all permitted uses in the B-1 District are subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board in accordance with Article XlII. Section 100-130 of Article XIII, provides that "in all cases where this chapter requires approval of site development plans by the Planning Board, no building permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector except upon authorization of and in conformity with the plans approved by the Planning Board." It is, therefore, apparent to me that under the above cited provision of the Zoning Code, that a site plan must be approved by the Planning Board before the Building Inspector is authorized to issue a building permit. In your letter and memorandum, you have referred to the fact that Colonial Village is a~n "Open Development Area" and have referred me to the case of Reggs Homes, Inc. v Dickerson. I do not believe the question of whether or not Colonial Village is an open development area or whether 280A approval is required has anything to do with the question at hand, namely, the requirement for a site plan approval by the Planning Board. I note, however, that there is no requirement in the Zoning Code that the Planning Board hold a Public Hearing for an application for a site plan apprOval. Yours very truly, ROBERT W. TASKER RWT: aa cc: Dan Smith, Contractor Miss Susan Long, Southold Town Planning Board Mr. Ed Hindermann, Southold Building Inspector FREDERIC P. RICH Robert Tasker, Esq. Town Counsel 425 Main Street Greenport, New York 11944 July 29, 1983 Dear Bob: I have made application to the Building Department to construct a 20 x 24 separate garage and utility building to store our equipment at Colonial Village, away from the garages where it is now stored, where the tenants' cars are garaged, which, I think, is highly desirable in case of fire. The Building Department has okayed the building plans prepared by Dan Smith, but will not grant a permit without first sub- mitting the matter to the Planning Board for public hearing on the site plan. My only objection to this is that I am advised by the Secretary of the Planning Board, that this procedure en- tails delay of two months. Colonial Village is not a subdivi- sion, but was declared an "Open Development Area" by the Town Board under Sect. 280A of the Town Law in 1966. Under the Reggs case, discussed in the enclosed memo, there is nothing for the Planning Board to decide. The Building Department has okayed the building plans and has indicated there is no question of suitable access. The garage also complies with all provisions of the Zon- ing Law as to setbacks, etc. Now that I have sufficient funds to construct the new garaqe, am most anxious to have it done as soon as possible as I am greatly concerned about the fire hazard mentioned above. I If you agree with me, Ed Hindermann says he will issue a permit right away, if you advise him in writing it is not necessary for him to submit the application to the Planning Board before a permit can be issued. The next meeting of the Planning Board is August 22. Since there is nothing for them to look into, could it not be arranged, in any event, to have them then pass on the matter and authorize a permit at that time, without further delay, if you should decide a hearing before the Planning Board is necessary. Best personal regards. FPR:fae CC: Dan Smith, contractor Miss Susan Long, Southold P. B. Mr. Ed Hindermann, Southold Bldg. Yours very truly, Insp. BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In re the Application of Frederic P. Rich to construct a garage and utility building on the premises at 52965 Main Road, Southold, N.Y. 11971 MEMO OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION An application has been made by Frederic P. Rich to con- struct a separate garage and utility building at the rear part of property owned by him located at 52965 Main Road, Southold, New York, known as Colonial Village. Although there has been built eight apartment houses on this property, all of it (extending on the North along the Long Island Railroad tracks and behind t~e Fire House, to Boisseau Avenue) is owned by Frederic P. Rich, as individual owner of the which in no sense has been subdivided in any entire property, manner. In short, the application is simply an application for a permit to build a garage by a property owner at the back of his property abutting the Long Island Railroad, with no other property owner being in any way affected. Despite the foregoing, the Building Department will not is- sue a permit until the site plan has been approved by the Planning Board, and has referred the matter to it to conduct a public hearing pursuant to the authority vested in the Planning Board by Section 276 of the Town Law to approve plats. The trouble with this procedure is that the application of Frederic P. Rich is not, repeat, not an application to have a plot plan approved, but simply a request for a permit to build a garage on his property. The fact that there happens to be eight apartment buildings already built on the property is entirely immaterial to the present application. These were authorized by a 1966 Resolution of the Town Board when it declared the property to be an "Open Development Area" under Section 280-A of the Town Law, after referring the Plot Plan annexed to the then petition of Frederic P. Rich (showing the eight apartments to be built) to the Planning Board. A copy of the Resolution of the Town Board dated March 22, 1966 is annexed. Later a Zoning Variance was also sought and obtained ap- proving the square foot area on which these apartments were built under an Ordinance subsequently enacted specifying the square foot area required for a multiple residence. All these matters are matters already properly passed on and are, in no way involved in the present application which (as already stated) is merely an application of a property owner to build a garage at the back of his property where the courts have held that the only public question involved is that of proper ac- cess by emergency and fire apparatus under the same Section 280A of the Town Law under which the apartment buildings were originally authorized in 1966. This question certainly requires no public hearing to determine and the Building Department raises no question on this point. In fact, it is common knowledge that the Fire Departments from all over the East End for years have used the roadways at -2- Colonial village to disperse their apparatus after the Annual Parade and Drill held annually by the Southold Fire Department. In the case of Regis Homes, Inc. v Dickerson 179 N.Y. S2d 771 (1958); affd by the Appellate Division of this Department, 186 N.Y. S2d 215, 8 A.D.2d640, it was held an owner was entitled to a building permit as a matter of right under Section 280 A of the Town Law, the only matter of interest being stated by Mr. Justice L. Barron Hill as follows: "[2] A building permit can be validly denied under this section only when the facts will support a find- ing by the administrative body that the conditions set forth in subdivision 5, supra, cannot be met; viz., fire apparatus and other emergency vehicles cannot safely and with reasonable certainty travel to and from the proposed structure.''~ The section referred to in the quoted portion of the decision is Section 280 A of the Town Law. The Building Department has indicated its approval of the building plans under the Building Code, raises n~ question con- cerning its suitability; is in agreement that the garage is not in a "front yard" and that it is 3 feet removed from the boundary, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, but still insists the site Plan be . approved by the Planning Board, after public hearings, which means a delay of at least two months before a permit can be issued. The Building Department has treated the matter as if it was necessary to obtain the approval of the Planning Board under Section 276 of the Town Law, which is the section authorizing the Planning Board to "approve plots showing---sites---within that part of the Town outside village." the limits of any incorporated city or -3- The ruling of the Court in the Re~s case is equally ap- plicable to the present case when the court held: "Here there is no application for the approval of a plat under Sections 276, 277, Town Law; this approval was already given in 1946. The only ap- plication made by plaintiff is for a building per- mit which is governed by Sec. 280-a, Town Law." In the present matter, all of the determinations necessary for the issuance of a permit are within the province of the Build- ing Department and there is no need to refer the matter for public hearing before the Planning Board. Yours very truly, Frederic P. Rich Atty pro se O & P.O. Address: 52965 Main Road, Southold, N. Y. 11971 Telephone 765-3436. -4- Frederick Rich WHEREAS ............................................................................................... has made application to the Town Board for the establishment of an OPEN DEVELOPMENT AREA pursuant to the provisions of Section 280-A of the TOWN LAW, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has heretofore referred the matter to the Planning Board for its advice and recommendation, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has recommended that the application of .............. ~'.[ .~.¢1, ~,~. ;I,.~.~.. R ;I,¢h ............................................ be granted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby establish an OPEN DEVELOPMENT AREA over the property of .................. ..~..r.,e..~...e..~..~..c.~...~.,,:L~..~.. ............... as shown forth on the map attached to the application. By Order of the Southold Town Board. D&ted= March 22, 1966. Albert W. Richmond Town Clerk JUL 8 G REC'D WHEREAS, Frederick Rich has made application to the Town Board for the establishment of an OPEN DEVELOPMENT AREA pursuant to the provisions of Section 280-A of the TOWN LAW, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has heretofore referred the matter to the Planning Board for its advice and recommendation, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reco~nmended that the application of .............. ~.~ .~.¢1, f ~. ;I,.¢.~.. ~ ~¢[h ............................................ be granted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby establish an OPEN DEVELOPMENT AREA over the property of .................. ..F.~...e..~...e..~..~...q.]f:....~..$.g..~. ............... as shown forth on the map attached to the application. By Order of the Dated: March 22, Southold Town Board. 1966. Albert W. Richmond Town clerk TOWN~ SOUTHOLD, NE~V YORK ACTION 0F THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS .Appeal Eo. I~$~ Dated ~ 2~o ].~ ~C~O~ O~1 T:~]~ ~0 BO~ O~ ~P~ OF THE TOWN or SO~O~ JUL 2 Appell~mt at a mectipg of the Zoning Board of Appeals on ~e ~ was considered and the action Indicated below was taken on your ~ ~ Request for variance due to lack of acce~ to property ( ) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance, I ) Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance the appeal l. SPEC]AL EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special e~cept~on ( ) ~ gran~d ( ) ~ d,~ P~t ~ ~ ...~. ......................... ~ectl~ ....................... Su~ .............. ~r~h ............................ of the ~ Ord~ce, ~d the d~Ion of the Bulldog ~p~ ( ) be ~r~ ( ) ~ confirmed because 8~1S P.~ ~.D. 8. T.), ~ ~l~t~ ~ ~~ ~. ~, 2. VARIANCE. B~ resolution of the Board it was determined that ia) SLri~t applioation of the Ordix~anee (would) (would not) produce practic~ dlfflcult~s or unnec- essary hardship because ih) The bard~Hp created (is) (is not) unlque and (would) (would r~t) be shared by all properties alike in the hnmediate vicinity of this preperty and in the aam~ use district becaase (c) Th~ variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) (would not) change the character ,of the district because and therefore, it was further derextolled t~at the requested varia~me ( ) be granf~d ( ) be denied and that the pr~vious decizl~ of t~e Building In%pector ( ) ,be confirmed ( ) be reversed. FORM ZB4 ZONING BOARD OF APPF-,A.L8 BaL.~a ¢. D:l.L~:mmm, Securet, l~ lptrtt ~ the oz~ttnmn~, amd ~%,11 ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ emmt by faze De~u~m~mt, mmut~ ~ M~tn momd, vemt ~ f. ~. retch. 7,, , LA¥OUT OF' "T-©wi