The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2105 !I LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Hearings Pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the provisions of the Amended Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, INew York, public hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of IAppeals, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, on February 26, 1976, on the following appeals: 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of Elizabeth A. Whalen, R.D. 3, Division Street, Ballston Lake, N. Y. for a variance in laccordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 land Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with in- I I. Broadwater Drive, Mason Drive, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the I north by Oak Drive; east by Broadwater Drive, south by Mason Drive;1 II west by Barreto & Others. I sufficient width and area. Location of property: Oak Drive, (E.S.T.) upon application of Fred Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Location of property: east by now or formerly Coutts & Walnut Place; south by now or formerly W. & A. Corwin; west by now or formerly W. & A. Corwin, now or formerly L. Yarrusso & others. 7:50 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of William Schriever, Main Road, Orient, New York for a variance in accordance with the Izoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30/31 and Bulk Schedule Ifor permission to set off lot with insufficient width and area. ILocation of property: N/S Orchard Street, Orient, New York, bounde on the north by other land of applicant; east by W. Wysocki; south by Orchard Street; west by Vail. .i NOTICE OF HEARINGS Pursuant to Sectilin 267 of the Town Land, 3Qd the pro. visions of the Amended Build- ing Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, New York. public hearings will. be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the-Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, on Feb" ruary 26, 1976. on the following appeals: 7:30 P. M. (E.S.T.) upon ap- plication of Elizabeth A Whal- en, R. D. 3, Division Street, Ballston Lake. N. Y. for a var- iance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Sched- ule for permission to divide property with insufficient width and area. Location of property: Oak Drive, Broa'dwater Drive, Mason Drive, Cutchogue, New York, bounded on the north by Oak Drive; east by Broad- water Drive, south by Mason Drive; west by Barreto & Others. 7:45 P. M. (E.S.T.) upon ap- plicatioIf of Fred Helf, Bray Avenue, Mattituck, New York J for a variance in accordance I~'with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property With insuf- ficif(nt width and area. Location of property: SIS Sound A veaue & E/S Walnut Place, Mattituck, N. Y., bounded on the north by Sound A venue and now or formerly Coutts, east by now or formerly Coutts & Walnut Pla'Ce; south by now or form- erly W. & A. Corwin; west by now or formerly W. & A. Cor- win, now or formerly L. Yar- russo & others. 7:50 P. M. (E.S.T.) upon ap- plication of - William Schriever, Main Road, Orient, New York for a variance in accordance ,with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30/31 and Bulk Schedule for per- mission to set oft lot with in- sufficient width and area. Lo- cation of property: NIS Orchard Street, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by other land of applicant; east by W. Wysocki; south by. Qrchard Street; west by - Vail. 8:00 P. M. {E.S;~.) upon ap- plication of William Schriever, Main Road, Orient, New York for a varianae m accordance with the -'Z6liing Ordinance, Article III, "SectiOn 100-30/31 and Bulk Sche'&iile for per- COUNTY or- SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK } ss: Sherley Katz, being duly sworn, says that she is an Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- man once each week for ..............1........................ weeks successively, commencing on the .....12.............................. day of ....:J.&,Jd!:!7:............, 19..7.Y. ...>.../..I?~~...l..<!;:.................... Sworn to before me this ....<J.<!.............. day of ...f/d:e.<;{;.'!:y.......... 19..7.v:.. mm..~nAL~ ~ ;J~ Kotaiy 'Publi~ ... 0~l- SU';A,N ,. ~;"".. r'.hl,<C Rf'1Pc NOTARY Ilb/ c_ .\ t-,-} .,":' ;.,~'_t.::~~o{ Now Vlj/~ c. ~'"-'-"GI~j.jDO Quc.llf;id in C:u{( 'I C C -, _ ""O'K Ounty .ornmfss;or, hp!r€s March 30, 1977 ~ LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Hearings Pursuant to Section 267 of lbe Town Law and lbe provisions of the Amended Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, New York, public hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals, at lbe Town Office, Main Road, Soulbold, New York, on February 26, 1976, on lbe following appeals: 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon ap- plication of Elizabelb A. Whalen, R.D, 3, Division Street, Ballston Lake, N.Y. for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property wilb insufficient width and area. Location of property: Oak Drive, Broadwater Drive, Mason Drive, Cutchogue, New York bounded on lbe norih by Oak Drive; east by Broadwater Drive, south by Mason Drive; west by Barreto & Others. 7:45 P.M. IE.S.T'> upon ap- plication of Fred Relf, Bray Avenue, Mattituck, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient width and area. Location of property: s-s Sound Avenue & E,S Walnut Place, Mattituck,N.Y., bounded on lbe north by SoWla Avenue and now or formerly Coutts east by now or formerly Coutts & Walnut Place; south by now or formerly W. & A. Corwin, west by now or formerly W. & A. Corwin, now or formerly L. Yarrusso & olbers. t 7:50 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon ap- plication of William Schriever, Main Road, Orient, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off lot with insufficient width and area. Location of property: N-S Orchard Street, Orient, New York, bounded on the north by olber land of applicant; east by W. Wysocki; south by Orchard Street; west by Vail. - 8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon ap- plication of William Schriever, Main Road, Orient, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30-31 and Bulk Schedule for permission to set off lot with insufficient width and area. Location of property: North side Orchard Street and west side Tabor Road, Orient, N.Y., bounded on the north by other land of applicant; east by Tabor Road; south by Orchard Street; west by W. Rich. 8:15 P.M. (E.S.T'> upon ap- plication of Karl E. and Virginia i . a ~ S ~ $ ~ a L p' N a, L PE N, a, L p' N a, L p' N a, L '" l'i Sf N $: N o P N S l'i $ ~ a L p l'i a L p ~ S ~ $ ~ S ~ $ ~ S ~ $ ~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK. STATE OF NEW YORK. 1 f ss: J Stuart C. Dorman . . . . . . .. ................ .............. being duly Sworn. he says that ....... . is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK WEEKLY TIMES. a newspaper published at Greenport. in said county: and that thE' notice. of which the annelred is a printed copy. has been published in the said Suffolk Week~ Times . One (1) once lD E'Dch week, for . . ......................... weeks Nineteenth suCceSSiVE,ly oommencing on the .......................... day of .... .F:~~_.. .. .7.6 ':-::> -;c::""-' -z---z-~~ c.-<'>-' "-.---- ~_~. . ....__:.. . z:;._...--. .-~- .\....-/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sworn to before me this . .;J.t;... ...1 day of .. l.ik<-U01'" 19.7.4. I ..... '2!4;;;:ii jZJf:';;'l~~ . NANCY 11. 00')1)1,[.:'5 1,~T}t.~y p..lilt.h" ;::"c: c! ::-,~'Vl York . '~S~~;;j_:' .. S ljL,j;~ ::( !-''-It-J:. Clks l-;f.... ,~2 ~,,.; / ;~n_nr:1:s."'iol] r...:."'".;.....-no:_ Ib't:~ 3C, H"I..?~ o . ~ , I ~ ~ o . I o FORM NO. 3 I o TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Fi Ie No. ..... ......... .... ....... .............. ....... .................... Dote .................. F..~...... /J?............., 76 19........ To ..c&.?:?.....~.~..~..............%.......~ ~ log c>: f/A~ rt, :::::::::::::::::~::~::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE thot your application dated ............E4J..9...................., 19.?.~. for permit tT;;:;!.!r/!l;..~...........at the premis~s located at...4ff..fl?~.~.:f....f!.:: ...t..0.................................~............... Street ~ Map .........~;...................... Block ...~.......................... Lot ....~............................~ 1e11:l".~J I,,,,,,wllh u"d disaj:lproved on the following grounds ...~...~..~.............. ......!..~Q.t+...W~.~...(!..H..Q"'..ctD?....:V/f...~..~........................................ .............77J.....IiilJ;......F"......................... ..........ji?...dJ...i1."[..r-:tl()'.....O;.............. .............~~ ...........~.!@..~/f/.....y......~..~......... ~// r~ .....~t~;;~~t~.;....... ! o o CLYDE TOOKEi=l: (1896-1971) ROBERT L. TOOKER WILLIAM W. ESSEKS MARCIA Z. HEFTER CHARLES R. CUDDY ANTHONY B. TOHILL STEPH EN R. ANG EL TOOKER. TOOKER &. ESSEKS COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 268 RIVERHEAD, N. Y. 11901 516 PARK 7-3277 February 1976 Town Clerk Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Sir: Enclosed herewith are two applications in duplicate, together with maps of the subject property, submitted on behalf of William W. Schriever, for lot area variances for property lo- cated at Orient, NY. Also enclosed is an application fee of $30. In addition, we have enclosed proof of mailing of notices to each of the adjacent property owners. We are also enclosing a copy of a letter directed to Mr. Gillespie by the Secretary of the Southold Town Planning Board, concerning each of the lots involved in this application. Kindly place this appeal on the Zoning Board's agenda for its next meeting and advise us of the time when the application will be heard. If there are any additional requirements which must be complied with, please advise us. Very truly yours, \ .2-IL cf ~ Charles R. Cuddy 0 CRC:rbm Enclosures l o o JOHN WICKHAM, Chairman ALFRED GREBE FRANK COYLE HENRY RAYNOR FREDERICK E. GORDON TELEPHONE 765-1313 January 30, 1976 Mr. Robert Gillispie, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Clerk's Office Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Gillispie: Mr. William Schriever of Orient has presented the Planning Board with a map for developing his property in a cluster concept. The Town Board has approved the area which can be clustered. Excluded from the area of the cluster subdivision are two lots. The first is on Tabor Road and Orchard Street and consists of 28,530 square feet. The other is on Orchard Street east of the Vail property and consists of 25,000 square feet. Mr. Schriever will be coming before_your Board in the near future to request variances on these two pieces of property. Mr. Wickham has conferred with Robert Tasker, Town Attorney, who has indicated that it would be proper for the Planning Board to recommend approval on this. The Planning Board will take official action on February 23, 1976, the date of its next meeting. Yours truly, Muriel Brush, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board Copies to William Schriever Charles Cuddy, Esq. o o ERK o .JUDITH T. BOKEN TCWN CLERK REI3ISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS TELEPHONE 765-3783 SOUTHOLD, L. I.. N. Y. 11971 :,,( f} Iv11\" ,e;; From: February 10, 1976 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Judith T. Boken, Town Clerk Application of William Schriever for a variance-Appeal No. 2105 To: Re: I have on file in my office notification by certified mail to: Mr. William Rich, Jr., Box 95, Orient, N.Y. 11957 ~T~ Judith T. Boken Town Clerk JTB/bn cc: file I V f o CLYDE TOOKER 0896-1971) ROBERT L. TOOKER WILLIAM W. ESSEKS MARCIA Z. He:F'TER CHARLES R. CUDDY ANTHONY B. TOHILL TOOKER, TOOKER & ESSEKS COUNSELORS AT LAW lOB EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 268 RIVERHEAD. N. Y. 11901 516 PARK 7-3277 STEPHEN R. ANGEL February 16, 1976 Town Clerk Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re.: William Schriever Area Variances Dear Sir: Two applications for area variances were filed by this office on behalf of William Schriever. Both variance applications are scheduled to be heard on February 26, 1976. The applica- tion involving the parcel at the northwest corner of Tabor Road and Orchard Street indicates that the reduction in area is from 40,000 to 25,000 square feet. As the map attached to the application shows, the reduction should be from 40,000 square feet to 23,270 square feet. Would you kindly make a note on the application, revising the requested reduction in area to 23,270 square feet. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~tf~ Charles~. Cuddy ct CRC IF o o , JOIrn' WICKHAM, Chairman ALFRED GREBE FRANK COYLE HENRY RAYNOR FREDERICK E. GoRDON TELEPHONE 765:1313 January 30, 1976 Mr. Robert Gillispie, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Clerk's Office Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Gillispie: Mr. William Schriever of Orient has presented the Planning Board with a map for developing his property in a cluster concept. The Town Board has approved the area which can be clustered. Excluded from the area of the cluster subdivision are two lots. The first is on Tabor Road and Orchard Street and consists of 28,530 square feet. The other is on Orchard Street east of the Vail property and consists of 25,000 square feet. Mr. Schriever will be coming before your Board in the near future to request variances on these two pieces of property. Mr. Wickham has conferred with Robert Ta5ker, Town Attorney, who has indicated that it would be proper for the Planning Board to recommend approval on this. The Planning Board will take official action on February 23, 1976, the date of its next meeting. Yours truly, .../. ..~'~ / /}/.~,,<~<~ ~/c- . . Murie'rBrus~, ~cretary Southold To~Pianning Board Copies to William Schriever Charles Cuddy, Esq. l2C;tl~e j/sfb ...f'y' t! Gc Q. =-.- -I;, /bH <<~ 7t1"j) . " /I .. , .,~. ".or." JOHN WICKHAM, Chairman ALFRED GREBE FRANK COYLE HENRY RAYNOR FREDERICK E. GoROON February 26, 1976 Mr. Robert Gillispie, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Clerk's Office Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Gillispie: When Mr. Schriever went before the Town Board for approval for his property off Village Lane to be developed in the cluster concept, the Town Board approved the area outlined in black on the attached map. ~ ___ _ ~ . ..~ left two undersized lots on Orchard Street, consistiri~ of 28,530 square feet and the other 25,000 'fee~~._~ one square ,....... The Southold Town Planning Board is in agreement that these lots be considered by your board as being outside the proposed subdivision. Yours truly, .- ?/ft~i~':P Enclosure TELEPHONE 765-1313 "-'-~.~"""""--'-~'-'"-~""-"~'~~-----.--.-.~ ."-~ ""<"'-"-<-'-"-~'----""-'-'^ WILLIAM RICH In 454 FORT WASHINGTON AVENUE NEW YORK, N. Y. 10088 (21:3) 828-'2'884 (212) 928.0086 February 25, 1976 Mr. Robert W. Gillespie, Jr. Chairman Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, New York Dear Sir: As the owner of record of property on Orchard Street in Orient, I would like to express my objections to the Zoning Variance sought by William Schriever. Because of the improper notice afforded me for this hearing I have been unable to arrange to appear before the Board personally. In view of the fact that my request for a postponement has been refused, I request that my memorandum be read at the hearing and be made part of the record for appeal, which will obviously be the very next step in this procedure. ~~ Enclosure -~"_"---'-_m=_ f F/ March 1, 1976 \ William Rich III, Esq. 33-51 80th Street Jackson Heights, N.Y. 11372 Dear Mr. Rich I We are in receipt of your letter dated February 25, 1976, and accompanying brief dated February 24, 1976. After investigation it was learned that you were not properly notified of the hearing on Mr. Schriever's appeal scheduled for 8:00 P.M., February 26, 1976. This notifi- cation improperly went to your father, Mr. William RiCh, Jr. The Board of Appeals is not required to postpone hearing. because of improper notification. However, this hearing has been postponed until 8115 P.M., Thursday, March U, 1976. It has just come to our attention that you have moved to the above address during this past week. We are a180 sending a copy of this letter to your former address: 454 Fort Washington Avenue, New York, N. Y., 10033. Yours very truly, RWGlmm RobertuK. Gillispie, Jr. Chairman CacecL e~ {Cf)J2~ "7/;;; #_, ;~'-1 F17& ~'/~7~""-~ _ ----'-"...__.p-"'""""^<,.~,".~".^.'..... c February 24, 1976 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, New York In the matter of the Petition of William Schriever (2/26/76) As an owner of property in the Township of Southold, village of Orient on Orchard Street which is adjacent to the property which is the subject of this ~c' hearing I feel that I have standing to object to the zoning variance sought by Schriever for the following reasons. First I believe the local code requires the petitioner to contact adjoining owners by certified mail. Schriever did use certified mail, but for some reason felt it appropriate to send it to my father (William Rich, Jr.) who is only a part time summer resident and has no formal arrangement to forward mail. The motive for such an error is highly questionable in view of the fact that Schriever has my proper name on file from a prior transaction '-. which involved the title to another portion of my property. ~ .N"'"_"'".........,.~_.~__...__;, ""~"""'~'"_'"'''''_''"'"''''.''<'''"'''''_'''''''''"'''"''''._''.'_'-'''''''''''~'_'''' - '- - Page 2 - The name William Rich III appears on the property deed as well as all tax records. For the purpose of appeal I want to go on record as claiming that the error was prejudicial to my case. I also want to be on record as having been denied a postponement of this hearing on the grounds that the requirement of notice to adjoining land owners is too much of a burden on the petitioner. Such an attitude approaches a violation of due process which should not be tolerated in any type of legal proceedings. Second Schriever has a long history which illustrates - - that he has no interest in maintaining the beauty and character or integrity of the community. Witness Schriever's other contributions to the community: 1) Schriever, in violation of the existing zoning laws constructed a heavy equipment shed on Taber Road. When residents complained that the area was zoned for residential use only, Schriever simply had that section rezoned commercial. One of the most beautiful and historic blocks on Long Island, now scarred by the sight of rusting bulldozers and dozens of other pieces of equipment. ,- -- ^ ~"^.'"""'~~'~~"""~-~-'"'-"""-~-'''~"",'",,,~_.~"-,_.~..-.,...,.....-~""~""'~~"'._'."_.~""""~'''~''-''~_.._'",,,-,,... - - Page 3 - The question of how this rezoning was effected is not an issue here, but I can assure you that the rezoning of the Northwest section of Taber Road has not only condoned Schrievers defacement of the neighborhood, it has created an ever present monument which reflects on the integrity of everyone involved with the retroactive sanction of the structure. The heavy equipment shed is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Not only is the shed out of character with the residential character of the f""*'\ '-. community, the building has remained unfinished for several years and dozens of pieces of heavy earth moving equipment adorn the lawn. This sight would detract from property in Long Island City, in Orient it is a disgrace and should be corrected immediately. A) Another example of Schriever's total committment to himself and disregard for the community deals with his interpretation of a planning board order that he fence in his heavy equipment as soon as he has completed his shed. In an obvious attempt to block the intent of the fencing requirement, he simply stopped work on the barn, thus he is technically ,-. '-. not in violation of the fencing requirement. ,~ - Page 4 - '- This is such a low and miserable attempt to twart the intent of the planning boards decision that Schriever should be barred from making a petition before this Board. Even if this board lacks the authority to compel Schriever to complete his equipment shed, it should question the wisdom of effectively having to rewrite the zoning laws for a man apparently incapable of completing projects he begins, a man who has no regard for the community, a man who has to be characterized as a land speculator. r - Third Schriever felt he had a right to utilize the Orient wetland as a dumping grounds for surplus fill creating a hazard to the wetlands, a hazard acknowledged by all conser- vationists who have looked at the mountain. Schriever has claimed that he does not have the financial resources to remove the dirt. This could be one of the poorest arguments to date, Schriever has enough earth moving equipment to build an extension of the Long Island Expressway. If he can't use his own equipment to do the job, he could sell any piece and raise more than enough funds to remove the pile. - - '-""""-~_~''''''______'n_._.,"_~,,-..<.~_~,__ - '- - Page 5 - I realize that Schriever's "mud mountain" is not a direct issue in this matter, but for the Board of Appeals to turn their backs on the past projects of the petitioner, projects which clearly indicate a total lack of regard for the community, has to be viewed as a violation of the public trust. The fact that the Board is appointed and not elected should not reduce the fiduciary responsibility each member has to the community. The zoning laws have been established to maintain standards of quality within a community. These standards should not be lowered every time they stand in the way of a land speculators master plan. - - Fourth Economic Hardship Schriever purchased the lot in question in addition to a larger track of land about four years ago. He paid approximately $5,000 per acre for the land. Although there are legal costs involved, the plot in question is not considered as part of the overall subdivision, thus the legal costs involved with the proposed road and cluster zoning can not be allocated to this plot. I offerred Schriever $6,500 for the half acre and that offer holds. Schriever said that he wanted $26,000 for the plot! r '- c - Page 6 - I am not arguing that Schriever should not be permitted to make a profit on his investment, in fact I am willing to pay him enough to realize a profit of over 100%. I am arguing that in light of the standing offer his argument of financial hardship has no basis. Estopple Approximately one year ago, before this same forum, Peter Luce sought a variance which would have permitted him to build a home for himself and his family on a substandard lot behind the Veil house on Village Lane. Peter Luce had limited means and pleaded economic hardship. In view of the f"'" - fact that Peter was an old line Orient resident and sought relief in order to build his family home, no one living in the area contested the petition. There was however a protest, and it came from one William Schriever, concerned citizen, arguing through counsel that: 1) granting this variance would be detrimental to the community 2) permitting such relief would establish a bad precedent 3) once you let in one substandard lot others will follow Now we have William Schriever, land speculator, arguing that he should be granted the right to build on substandard lots on the same block! r '-' How can this logical anomaly be reconciled. '---"."--'.- ,"..-",.-,"-.~..,.~~->.",,', "..... ........ - Page 7 - There are differences: 1) Schriever's case is better prepared because his resources permit him to be represented by counsel. 2) Schriever is not seeking relief for a family dwelling, he is seeking relief to permit him to realize a larger profit. Fourth Schriever purchased the property with full knowledge that zoning laws in existence at the time of purchase required 40,000 square feet (Section 100-31 of the Zoning Code). Schriever has more than enough land to provide the required 40,000 square feet but he elects to keep the substandard - - lot as a separate entity because he can realize a larger profit from building a road to be part of his planned "cluster zoning" project. Schriever should be compelled to make the lot of conforming size. If he voluntarily elects not to do so, for economic reasons, he should not then be able to seek relief from his actions. a) Schriever does not represent a property owner affected by a law enacted subsequent to purchase, he is a land speculator who purchased property with the intent of having existing laws re- written for his benefit and to increase the value of his investment. The zoning laws of the Township of Southold should not be prostituted for the economic benefit of a land speculator intent on parlaying a profit at the expense of neighboring homeowners. ~ - Denying Schriever the variance sought will not result in an economic hardship to an individual land owner, it will simply prevent a land speculator from realizing an unreasonable profit. ,-.;.~ "'............ - Page 8 - Fifth The variance is not sought for a small non-conformity, the variance seeks to reduce the size of the building lot by almost 50% from the 40,000 square feet minimum established by the Township of Southold! He further seeks to reduce the frontage from the required 150 to 96 feet. Attempting to justify a variance for such a large non-conformity on the grounds that the owner happens to have a planned development on the other side of a proposed road which happens to have just enough "open space" to permit the arbitrary measure of "population density" to conform ~ -'''''''''- to the local standards will create a precedent which favors the land speculator and seriously prejudice the individual land owner. If the land speculator can point to a nearby subdivision and say "I have enough 'open land' in the development to satisfy the density requirement", then he will be able to seek zoning variances on substandard lots almost at will. The individual however will have to seek relief without the benefit of other land. The Town Planning Board has indicated that this parcel in question is separate from the proposed subdivision and should be treated separately, yet it is to be viewed ,~ '....... together with the subdivision for determining population density. Such an interpretation appears arbitrary and should not be established as a precedent in this township. -'-~'''''''.'" "-'<"-"~'~'-~"-----~~-"'''''-~'~'-~''''''''-' - ....... - Page 9 - Sixth Granting relief in a case so substandard will undermine the confidence of purchases of conforming lots and erode the credibility of the zoning laws of the Township of Southold and the individuals who interpret them. How can we ever rely on the protection of established zoning laws if those who interpret the laws tend to hold the interest of the land speculator far above the interest of the community. Seventh c The "relief" sought in this matter is not only ironic, it is an insult to the people of Orient, for it is the people who should be awarded relief against the denagrading exploits of individual land speculators like Schriever. In this type of proceeding, as I understand, it is the petitioner who has the burden of proving the need for relief. The burden of proof is not on the concerned citizens to prove that he should not be permitted the variance. Once the petitioner has established his need for a variance the onus shifts to the adjoining land owners to refute the statement of the petitioner. There is little question that all petitioners claims have been - rebutted twice over. """IfilIIi'" c - Page 10 - If there ever was a petition for a zoning variance which should be rejected for totally failing to establish the need for relief, this is the petition. If there ever was a land speculator whos' demonstrated lack of regard for the community should be weighed heavily in rejecting an application for zoning relief, Schriever is the land speculator. The petition at hand so clearly demands denial, that any relief granted would demonstrate a questionable and arbitrary interpretation of the zoning codes established to protect the integrity of the community, and I assure ",..., '- the Board that any such decision will be challenged to the full extent of my resources in every form of appeal established in the State of New York. c c t: o o In the Matter of the Petition of William Schriever To the Board of Appeals of the Township of Southold The application for a zoning relief sought by petitioner is quite similar to many other applications made - to zoning boar~~ of appeal in our state and the issues at hand appear to fall into several clearly defined and well litigated areas which can strongly support a decision by this Board to deny the present application on such grounds as: I) merger of title with adjoining ~roperty, II) and failure to prove a "practical difficulty". I Merger of Title Strict and literal enforcement of frontage and area requirements which are superimposed on municipal land may make such land useless to owners and to the community. To avoid this result, most ordinances provide some means for the relief of an owner of a substandard lot (95 ALR2d 761,769). For example, if property is held in single and separate ownership when frontage or area restrictions became effective, such owner is entitled as of right to an exception or variance. In general, the common exception of lots in single and separate ownership is available only to owners of a o o substandard lot which is isolated. If the owner of such a lot owns another lot adjacent to it, he is not entitled to an exception rather he must combine the two lots to form one which will meet the frontage and area requirements of the ordinance. This matter is discussed in detail in a comment published in the Syracuse Law Review article titled "Substandard lots and the Exception Clau~e" (16 Syracuse Law Rev 612) (1965). Appellate division courts have sustained the merger of title concept in cases such as Vol let v Schoepflin (28 AD2d 706, 280 NYS2d 950) where they held that where a substandard lot came under common ownership with an adjoining land, it was improper to grant an area variance. Courts have further sustained this concept by approving municipal ordinances which seek to close any method of circumventing frontage and area requirements by specifically stating that the right to an exception or variance is lost if adjacent parcels are acquired by the same owner. Bonan Realty Corp. v Young 16 Misc 2d 119, 182 NYS 2d 132., Cabral v Young 14 Misc 2d 550, 177 NYS 2d 548, Bayport Civic Assoc. v Koehler 138 NYS2d 524. The Appellate Division held in Faranda v Schoepflin (21 AD2d 801, 250 NYS2d 928) that a zoning board of appeals was not unreasonable in denying an application for a permit to build on a substandard parcel adjoining a substandard lot previously owned by the applicant. The Board found that newly acquired lots merged with the previously owned sub- .' o o standard ones. This issue was discussed by Professor Anderson in 1964 and now appears to be a well established policy (Local Government, 1964 Survey of NY law, 16 Syracuse Law Rev 260 (1964)). An appellate division court stated in Johnson v Moore (13 AD2n 984, 216 NYS2d 740) that the self imposed hardship rule may be applied to a situation where applicant prepares a subgivision plot which adjoins a parcel large enough to supply the land necessary to effect compliance with the zoning regulations. In the matter currently before the Board, petitioner owns a substantial amount of acreage directly adjacent to the lot in question and could meet the area and frontage requirements. Petitioner has elected not to combine the lot with his adjoining property, and such election, in and by itself should be sufficient grounds for the denial of this application based on the case law cited above as well as the comments of Professor Anderson, one of the recognized authorities in the field of zoning law. II Failure to Prove the Existence of a "Practical Difficulty" The zoning enabling acts limit the power to vary or modify the literal language of a zoning ordinance to instances of "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships". In Bronxville v Francis (1 AD2d 236, 150 NYS2d 906) an appellate court distinguished between "practical difficulties" o o and "unnecessary hardship", and the former and lesser standard has come to be widely applied in area variance cases. Courts have not undertaken a definition of the term "practical difficulties" and no clear statement of the elements of proof has been established. Courts have nevertheless set forth examples of what is and what is not to be considered a "practical difficulty". "Practical.difficulties" have been shown in situations where the amount of the deficiency has been so small that it was, under the circumstances, not material enough to refuse a variance, such as in the case of Chasanoff v Silberstein (6 NY2d 807) where applicants lot lacked one foot of frontage or in the case of Fina Homes Inc. v Thompson (226 NYS2d 613) where applicants lot was 15 feet short on frontage. "Practical difficulty" has also been established in cases where area requirements are satisfied but there is a deficiency in the frontage. Millitis v Schoepflin 259 NYS2d 294. In the application before the Board, the applicants lot is substantially deficient in area and frontage: Required Actual DEFICIENCY Measurement Measurement Feet % Area 40,000 Sq Ft 23,270 Sq Ft 16,730 41. 8% Frontage 150 Ft 96 Ft 54 36% o o In the matter before the Board, the petitioner would have his plans for a large subdivision frustrated if the Board held that he should join the substandard lot with his adjoining property. An appellate division court specifi- cally stated in Dudley Lawrence Corp. v Eisenberg (20 AD2d 686, 287 NYS2d 487) that the frustration of a land owners building plans by a zoninggrdinance is not a practical difficulty warranting an area variance. Another appellate division court stated that a land owner cannot qualify for an area variance simply by showing that he will be inconvenienced by a literal application of the zoning restrictions; 4672 Broadway Corp. v Board of Standards and Appeals 225 AD97, 232 NYS 266 affirmed 250 NY 571, Crossroads Recreation v Broz 4 NY2d 39, 172 NYS2d 129. In the matter before the Board inconvenience is all that petitioner has been able to demonstrate. petitioner could sell the substandard lot to the adjoining landowner for a substantial profit or utilize the property the same way 80% of the surrounding land is used, for farming. Farming land produces a reasonable return in the area. The fact that he could realize a larger profit through sub- division is of no consequence. In fact, a court stated clearly in Troiano v Volz (19 Misc 2n 953) that "proof that more profitable use could be made of applicant's land if any area variance were approved is not sufficient to show "practical difficulties". o o The court in Barr v Michaelis (40 Misc 2d 968, 244 NY2d 420) found that an area variance was improperly granted where the board of zoning appeals made no finding of practical difficulties, but simply found that the requested variance was reasonable. In the matter before the Board, the fact that the petitioner has had difficulty in obtaining permission to begin his cluster zoning and the feeling of the Planning Board appears to be that this would be a reasonable way to mitigate the aggravation of the petitioner is not to be considered in making your decision. In fact, an appellate division has held that the reliance on evidence not adduced at the hearing and renders the action of the Board subject to annulment by the court (Russo v Stevens 7 AD2d 575). There have been situations in which petitioner was not compelled to utilize parcels which he owned and which adjoined a substandard lot. These are generally older cases in the area of zoning law, such as the case of Stenzler v Commerdinger (50 Misc 2d 235, 269 NYS2d865) in which the lower court found, "The right to relief is not lost where, subsequent to the enactment of a restrictive ordinance, adjacent substandard lots are acquired by a single owner". Not only are these type cases clearly distinguishable from the matter before the Board, but considered loop holes by Professor Robert Anderson. According to Anderson, o o A rule which permits an owner to develop a substandard lot, although he owns an adjacent lot which, he subse- quently acquired, provides a method of circumventing new frontage and area requirements .... municipalities are closing these loopholes by providing in their ordinance that the right to an exception is lost if adjacent parcels are acquired by the same owner. This technique has been approved by the Courts: Bonan Realty v Young (16 Misc 2d 119, 182NYS2d 132), Cabral v Young (14 Misc 2d 550, 177 NYS2d 548), Bayport Civic Assoc; v Koehler (138 NYS2d 524). One of the most recent area variance cases was decided 1/26/76 by the Appellate Division here in the Second Department (Cowan v Kern 378 NYS2d 746). Petitioner in Cowans sought area variance for purpose of permitting erection of one-family residence on substandard plot, with accompanying reduction of front and rear-yard setback. The town zoning board of appeals denied application for variance, and petitioner brought Article 78 proceeding to review such denial. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dismissed petition and denied subsequent motion of petitioner for leave to renew, and petitioner appealed. The Appellate Division in the Cowan case did permit the variance to build on a substandard lot, and I can find no fault with the reasoning of the court based on the facts presented. The court did, in reaching its decision, outline the issues underlying an area variance petition, and, in spite of the fact that the court permitted the variance based on the facts in Cowan, I think the reasoning o o behind the decision firmly supports a contrary finding in the matter before the Board. In its memorandum decision the court pointed to several issues which are also involved in the matter before the Board: 1) The actual amount of the deficiency of the parcel: In the Cowan caset the lot was substandard by 9% in front yard s~t back (frontage was conforming) and approxi- mately 24% deficient in area. In the matter before the Board, the lot is deficient by 41% in area and 36% in frontage. I am not suggesting that this is a major consideration, but I believe that it must be taken into account. 2) Similarity of adjoining lots: In Cowan, the court noted that the lot to the North had the same dimensions as lot belonging to the petitioner and the lot to the South has the same area. In the matter before the Board there is no question that several of the neighboring lots have approximately the same area and frontage dimensions, but that was not what influenced the court. In Cowans both of the neighboring lot owners were granted area variances to build on their non- conforming lots! - The property owner to the North was granted an area variance, similar to the one requested by the petitioner, in 1971, while the owner to the South received a vari- ance in 1973. The use of surrounding lots as a measure was firmly established by another Appellate Division case in the ~ o o Second Department in the matter of Ozolins v Horn (26 AD2d 555, 270 NYS2d 1001). A change in the Town of Huntington's zoning ordinance from 1/4 acre minimum plots to one-acre minimum was effected. Ozolins applied for a variance. It was denied. He proved that his property was located in a residential area composed entirely of 1/4 acre plots. After the upzoning took effect! ~ of the owners of lots adjoining his were permitted to build upon their substandard lots. Interestingly enough, all of the neighbors had bought these properties from the corporate owner who had created the substandard lots. The record there shows that some were given building permits outright; others 'were given area variances. The court is clearly stating that it is not the size of surrounding lots that should govern in an area variance matter, they are saying that it is the size of the surrounding lots that have been granted variances to permit relief similar to relief sought by a petitioner. In the matter before the Board, the adjoining lot to the West is approximately the size of petitioners' lot, but the house was built over 100 years ago! No variance was involved when it was constructed. To the South and East and North of petitioners' lot is farmland. The second house to the West is on a lot of similar dimension to petitioners, but there the owners purchased adjoining vacant land and have, through that action, made their lot conform to existing zoning regulations. o o In the matter before the Board, petitioners lot is situated on a block that has not ever had zoning relief of the type requested by petitioner. All but one home has been standing for more than 20 years, and most date to the 1800's. Ironically the one petition for an area variance in the neighborhood was denied and the primary opposition to that variance came from the petitioner. 3) Another issue discussed in the Cowans case relates to the usefulness the land absent in the event the variance is not granted. In Cowans, the court found that "the land will be useless to petitioner unless the relief 'sought is granted". In the matter before the Board, the petitioners' land is and always has been farm land. It is surrounded by land that is actively farmed by individuals who are making a reasonable profit. Petitioner can certainly not make the claim that his land would be useless unless the relief . sought is granted. In addition, petitioner could sell his lot to the adjoining land owner at a reasonable profit over his cost. 4) The court in Cowan further observed that the land was an "eyesore" to the community. In the matter before the Board it is quite clear that this issue can not be raised by petitioner. . o o 5) In Cowan the court noted "there is no corporate owner with title to adjoining lots from whom petitioner could conceivably purchase additional land to conform to the ordinance" . If the Appellate Division Second Department is raising the possibility of purchasing land to conform to the ordinance, what would they~ay to a matter in which petitioner owned several adjacent undeveloped acres? It appears, based on the evidence adduced at this hearing, that the petitioner has not sustained his burdon of proving a "practical difficulty" and that coupled with the merger of title with his adjoining land 'supports a decision to deny this application. A decision in the matter before the Board to permit the variance will be a clear signal to all those interested in developing the few remaining acres in Orient, that it is the intent of this Board to interpret the zoning ordinance of this Township in the most liberal manner possible. Such a decision would set a precedent that will be very difficult to reverse without petitioners claiming discrimination and arbitrary treatment. If it is the intent of this Board to demonstrate that it is ready to take a course which is clearly contrary to the line of developing appellate division case law and to do all in its power to permit building in Orient, then your decision is quite simple. o o If, on the other hand, the Board wants to establish that the zoning ordinance will be strictly interpreted in order to protect the few beautiful undeveloped acres which remain and leave a legacy to many generations who will someday live in this Township, a legacy which will reflect farsightedness and wisdom of this Board, then you can do so by making your decision based on the facts adduced at this hearing and the long line of case law which so strongly supports a strict yet consistent interpretation of the ordinance. William Rich III, Esq. 299 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017 '~___>"'h"~",~,_, , - ~, g o v o BOARD OF APPEALS. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Petition of William Schriever to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold NOTICE TO: Mr. William Rich, Jr. Box 95 Orient, NY 11957 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of South old to request a (Variance) (~~ (the following relief: set off undersize building lot l. 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: NortnwP"t rornpr of rnp i nrpr"prri on of Orrn-"rrl <::r O. "'-"ho">:" Rd. bOlmnpn on rnf> Norrn hy Wrn <::rnri pupr on rnp F-" "r ny "'-"no, Rrl, em t-h€, south by Orchard Street on the West by W. Rich 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: A residential and agricll1rllra1 di"rrirt 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: Reduction of area requirement of 40,000 sq. ft. to ?1,270 s~ fr Reduction of frontage requirement on road to 96 feet 5. That the provisions of the South old Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are: Bulk schedule as inc1uded-.by Sf>ction 100-11 of rnp Zonin8 rorlp 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the South old Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: January 26, 1976 {/f~AJL~- Petitioner William Schriever Post Office Address Main Road Orient, NY 11957 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL SENT TO 30( (plus postage) POSTMARK Jr. OR OAT. m\ ~J (0 CO 00 -- Mr ....T~Williarn Rich. STREET AND NO. --- _ Box 95 P.O., STATE AND lIP CODE' Orient, NY 11957 OPTIONAL SERVU::ES FOR .llDDlTJONAL FEES RETURN .1. ShDWS.tO whom and-lfaTeljejjv~----'__ RECEIPT With deli~ery to add ered ....hh... 1511' SERVICES 2. Shows 10 whom date andres~ee only. ........_... 65~ -- With de!ive'r t were dehvered 35d _~EU~_R_!~_ADDRfSSEfONfy----1~-~e--E~ ....h....:: 85d p S S;::~l O[lrV(RY(;-~-f-e~ r.~~;.;~d,::..'..'.........~.~..:...'....::.:::::....::.. _50-It- Ap,. 197 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIOEO_ NOT fOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (5.. oth., .id.) 'tI- GPO;lIlT:ll 0-4110_74' d Z ~ I I PROOF OFMAILlNG OF NOTICE NAME ~ ADDRESS Mr. William Rich, Jr Box 95, Or'ent, NY 11957 U.8. I'OSTAL NICE OffiCIAL BUSINESS ~ '- ! ., '""-' of DeIIwrIatI 0IIIc0 ~ 0 0 SENDER INSTRUCTIONS II tpnnt 10 the a.Plce below \'Our neme. addRl8l.lndudlng ZIP Code. II . H .""01 sorvlcoo 0.. dooIrod.cf1ock b1eck(ol on other lido. Z . MaIston Gummed ..... and _ to _ of 011lcl.. JOt JOt CD (W) ! II! RETURN TO TOOKER, TOOKER & ESSEKS 108 E. Main St. Riverhead, NY 11901 (CRC) {- --~~ .~_~~'''".._.w ci. SENDER INSTRUCTIONS J; Print in the space below your name, address, including ZIP Code. "L.lfspecialservicesetedesired,checkblock(s)onotherside. " . Moisten gummed ends and attach to back of article. [lLlLM#JL J ..... ..... CO C") ~ of ., .. RETURN ... TO Tooker, Tooker and Esseks Box 268 Rio rhead, New York 11901 eRe STAlE OF NEW YOR K ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) 55.: Kathy Cnclen,ood __no ______ ~ rc,iding at 410Q~t_r.i"l.n_rJer..hv~._ ______ ------------RJ~~i~~~e~a-cr: NJ~~_~ _ _ _______________ -----J being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the. _ _Ci___~ day of FS='.9:cUdr"--Y___________, 19 ?J?____, deponent mailed a true copy ofihe Notice set forth on the re- \'t:i-SC side hereof, directed to ceieh of the abo\'c-n2med persons at the J.ddre~ses set opposite their respective n,""ncs; that lhe ;'iddle~ses set opposite the narnes of said per~ons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the currcllt ;;ssc<,sr:iCilt rotl of the TO\Vll of Southold; that said Notices \vcrc mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at _ J3..~ v (':.J~_bf::-',a d2._ _lJ~_ __ _ _____.____ ___; ti1<lt s3id Notices were rr,.:lilcd 10 each of s;:;id pc'r~ons by (cer(ified) (h:'t'-k.,-d) Inail. S\yorn to bcf()re me this C"1, ~. c:..~ day of . Febru"rYn:==' 19 76 _fidZy~~1~L,.J?Z.k.~u_ . / /athy Undenwod .;,--~- c- 1- ,~~_:~-.!...~-:::.- // ,~ Notary Publ.ic_ . .,,:::. ,"~ r ~,~." '.' ':. rl--. t.".;; ~; ;::) '~; c~~, ,11 :;;-J. h'/7 ) -0 ) h(::' \',-.'{ r"~;:' ,Ie, ~~c' c_.;'; ~~ ,0' a f ~ o o FLOYD F. KING JR. ~~-J~-fjg~ ASSOCIATES MARILYN P. NOAKELUN 323-3649 22420 MAIN ROAD. ORIENT, L. L N. Y. 11957 Off.: /5161323-2570 ~ Res.: (516) 323-2413 CAROLINE M. EDWARDS 749-1121 Appraisal Of Property Belonging To William W. Schriever Appraiser - Floyd F. King Jr., Orient, Suffolk Co., N.Y. 11957 Qualifications - I have resided at the above address for the entire 51 years of my life, and have been a businessman of the community for the past 30 years. I have been in the Real Estate Brokerage business 18 years and Insurance business 19 years; and have been appraising property in relation to both of these businesses. Request - On December 4, 1975, William W. Schriever ~topped at my office and requested that I appraise this property. Reason For Appraisal - To apply to the proper Government Department for a variance from the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance. Premises - All that piece and parcel of land situate in the Hamlet of Orient, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, and outlined on the attached map. Bounded on the South by Orchard Street, on the West by Rich, on the North by Schriever, and on the East by Tabor Road, containing an area of 23,270 sq. ft. Area - The area in which this property is located is zoned "A" Residential and Agricultural, and consists mainly of middle class, one family dwellings. Most of these dwellings are on lots similiar in size to the described property If this variance is granted this would be an attractive house lot. However, its saleability would be reduced because it is a corner lot, and across Tabor Road from farm outbuildings, and a cemetery. ] would appraise the value of this lot at $8,000. If the variance is not granted this property is of much less value. The only prospective buyer would be one neighbor. He has only recently purchased his property and might be interested in adding to his property. On this basis I appraise the property for $5,000. Deponent is not related to the owners and has no interest in the property except as stated herein. ~I/~ oyd F. Jr. Sworn before me this "1 ~ day of December 1975 ,..;... 1- ....J':.l / VI'.,,' / '--.-/~" - ~.? /., i ,'f-l' :< L' ..:, '1......"- / / Il~'(.<>1 I, t' ~. <--t v<. .. ?/ Notary Public MARILYN P. NORKELUN Notary Public, State of New York No. 52-4609655, Suffolk County T "rm Expires March 30, 19 7? OTTO W. VAN TUYl Reg. Professional Engineer Licensed land Surveyor Phone 477.1487 ~ . o " i I ~ RODERICK VAN TUYL licensed land Surveyor Phone 477.1608 RODERICK VAN TUYL. P. C. FRONT STREET AT MAIN GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 1 ~~f6 PHONE 477-0170 LOT AREAS WITHIN BLOCK Lot areas of the 19 existing house lots and the 2 proposed house lots in the block bounded by the l!;ain Road, Village Lane, Tabor Road, and Orchard Street arranged in order of decreasing area: 1 . Fred Tabor 1.322 acres 2. Horton 0.795 acre 3. Carlsson 0.765 acre 4. King apllrox. 0.75 acre 5. Strachan 0.606 acre 6. j'lard Tabor 0.603 acre 7. PROPOSED LOT EAST OF A. VAIL 0.574 acre 8. Wysocki 0.558 acre 9. PROPOSED LOT EAST OF RICH 0.534 acre 10. Adriana Vail 0.517 acre 11 . Rich 0.456 acre 12. Hagrino 0.426 acre 13. Hoar-Jankowski 0.333 acre 14. Wendell Tabor 0.319 acre 15. Norklun 0.303 acre 16. Woglom 0.277 acre 17. Barra 0.256 acre 18. Soito 0.240 acre 19. Hethodist Parsonage 0.220 acre 20. Reeves 0.192 acre 21. Kripinski 0.112 acre e. v ~C;~ ,. o 0 RIDER - SCHRIEVER VARIANCE APPLICATION The applicant has received approval from the Town Board to develop the parcel immediately to the north of the subject parcel as a cluster development in accordance with Section 100-136 of the Zoning Ordinance. The application is before the Planning Board for approval and it is anticipated that such approval will be received shortly. The Planning Board has had before it the entire parcel, including the subject parcel, for two years. In that time the applicant has had innumerable meetings with both the Planning and Town Boards. Disputes between all of the parties led to litigation and ultimately to approval by the Town Board to develop the interior parcel as a cluster development while the perimeter lots, including the subject lot and two similar lots were to be separately developed. The subject parcel, with the exception of the northerly.line, i.e., the easterly, southerly and westerly boundaries, has been in existence for many years - even prior to the date of the Zoning Ordinance (April 1957). If the current area and frontage require~ents are literally enforced, then the parcel can not be used. In fact, the parcel has little if any value without a variance. It is the applicant's contention that there will be no increase in density, and no change in the character of the neighborhood by granting the requested variance, and approval of the variance will permit reasonable residential use of the parcel. - 3e'1q o Chf\S. R. C"'-'cld'-( _ 1=..."''(. lOokQ Iboker. t-s"beks TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. NEW YORK '" ol/e c: (0' , APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO, .:2 J {)..5 DATE .""."Ct,;.:-:-I...D.,,:?" t TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, 6Wall ".Wi.ll:i.am"SQl.:u;;ievez;""..""."".......of "Main.Road,,,..,,..,,.,,..,,...,,,,...,,....,,,,..,,...,,.,,. Nome of Appellant Street and Number ......"....".".~,7,~~,~~"..~...."'''"."."'''''',."'"..".,,,,.,,.. ...".".." I.'l:~~,..~.~~~..",.."HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State :::L~:A~I:: BF~:R~E~:I:P::L.~..~~~.~.~~.~.. ~~.~:~:~: ~:D ~~.~..;;l~l,y;t~~~~~.~...~.~ WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ... ..w. ~ Ut.~~.. .?,c;:,g:r;J.&Y.~:~...." ......"..... ..,............. Name of Applicant for permit of Main Road Orient New York "'" St~~~t.~.~d..N~~b~;.. ................. .... 'M~~i'~'ip~iity""" ..."..... ....St~t~........ ""'" ........ (X) PERMIT TO USE lot of less than 40,000 sq. ft. for residential dwelling ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY f25-;fooe--sq. (ft)4and ~ith frontage of less than 50 ft. 93. ft.) ( ) ~ "J!;;" 70 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY "J'!!?r.~J:1:"~.~.~~".~;."9E~~~:r:.~."~.~.7.~~.~.,,,,,,....,,'.~~~.'".P.~~t. NW corner of Orchard St. & Street Use District on Zoning Map Tabor Road "....~.."..""......".................""".."".....~.....""."...,,.. Orient /vIap No. Lot No. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Sec. 100-31 Bulk Schedule (40,000 SQ. ft. in a residential area, 150 ft. frontage) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (X) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsectio~ 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeolXl!il1ll5ll: (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for 0 special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No. """"."..""""".........Dated ."""""."......"......"."."....,..."""".."....,,.,,"... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (X) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is requested for the reason that parcel is smaller than required and cannot otherwise be utilized. Form ZBl (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL o Continued o 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sory HARDSHIP because n. atJ\RII ATl'ACDD 2. The hardship created is UNIQ~E and is not shored by 011 properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because SO UDD ATTA.CIIED 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because lots in the district are substantially smaller than required pursuant to 40,000 sq. ft. requirement of Zoning Code. STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ......,..()t"4~.. ...................................::.... (William Schrl~~~~ Sworn to this ......~~................................... day of..... Janul;lry................................ 1976 ........~"~;~mm --^ CUDDY v k C"t,i':..l '::::l 1'\. ( ,1eW ,or > L ' ,,... <:: ,. ~ \'0 c. ], NOrJS,y ryZ', ~i'5.J:.StJHo\k Cou;~~b No. 52-::.812 ~ h\arch 30. Comr.1is5ion Exp.res 1.,,:"_ 1, .n ~- ... 1 ,;-r-- : ,:~ .t""ttlltEME COURT. SUFFOLK COUNTY .' -In the Matter of WILLIAM RICH, III, Petitioner, MEMORANDUM INDEX 176-6529 MOTION 16,016 6/14/76 PART I SPECIAL TERM By DE LUCA'J. S. C. VS. ROBDT GILLISPIE, JR., et al, DATED AUGUST 30, 1976 dflCt SHITH,FINKELSTEIN,LUNDBERG,BAISLEY & Respondent, YAKABOSKI, ESQS. WILJ.lAH SCHRIEVER Attorneys for Respondent,Bd. of Appeals . . 'Respondent-Intervenor 456 Gri'ffing Avenue ---------------------------------x Riverbead, New York 11901 WILLlAH RICH, III Petitioner Pro se 299 Park Avenue, 2nd Floor New York, New York 10017 TOOKER, TOOKER & ESSEKS, ISQS. Atts.for Rcspondent-Intervenor 108 E.Main St.,P.O.Box 268,Riverhead, New York 11901 In this Article 78 proceeding the petitioner as the owner of a contisuoua lot, a smaller parcel than that owned by the respondent-inter- venor, seeks to annul the Zoning Board of Appeals' granting of an area variance to the respondent-intervenor. Rcspondent-intervenor, William Schriever, made application to the respondent, Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, for an area variance for two lots located at Orchard Street, Orient, New York. The applications were heard consecutively by the respondent Board on March 18, 1916. By its decision the respondent Board granted an area variance for each of tbe two lots. . Tbe s\1bJect lot 18 .534 of anl!cre and the second lot is .574 of aD acre. ~hepetltloner here,appeared b~fore the Board in opposition to both variance applications. This Article 78 proceeding is an appeal solely of the variance granted for the first mentioned lot - which parcel adjoins the petitioner's lot. The subject parcel is 23,270 square feet and has road frontage of 93.41 feet, while the Zoning Ordinance requires 40,000 square feet and road frontage of 175 feet. Tbe respondent~intervenor purchased the lot here in question as part of a larger parcel of approxiaately 93' x 251'. However, the lot was originally included witbin a cluster subdivision and as sucb was presented for approval to the Southold Town Planning Board as well as to the Southold Town Board. The subject lot met every requirement of the Zoning Ordinance as a cluster subdivision lot. The Town Board, nevertheless, in exercising its jurisdiction to determine the location of a cluster subdivision in- dicated that the respondent-intervenor should confine the cluster sub- division to interior lots and exclude the subject lot as well as another lot and smaller parcels from the cluster subdivision. This was cownunicated ~o the Town Planning Board. and the proposed subdivision.map excluded tbe subject parcel as well as otber small parcels from the cluster subdivision. Thus, in order to utilize the subject lot, it became necessary to obtain an aren variance - both as to total lot area and street frontage. The Planning Board recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the subject parcel be considered as separate and apart from the subdivision. , !/' /'/ '. f t k f I I f~#J~./...,~, .; 1'.0- .,. '\,~,,~;;Jr?;:f::~,', '-l~>/:f~'~~::"--- -- - .'~ J.l'IUI:;./I. r/o-o.>..t::1 MOTION 16,016 6/14/76 SPECIAL TERM PART I MEMORANDUM . s(JPREME COURT. SUFFOLK COUNTY WILLIAM RICH, Ill, Petitioner, . -against- " ROBERT GILLISP~.JR., et al, Respondents. WILLIAM SCHRIEVER, Respondent-Int DE LUCA. J. S. C. By DATED. . AUGUST 30. 1976 19XXX PAGE - 2 - enor At the public hearing on the variance application evidence was introduced to show that the petitioner's parcel, immediately to the west of respondent-intervenor's parcel, was only .456 of an acre as opposed to the .534 of an acr. for the respondent-intervenor's parcel. The respondent-intervenor's variance applications were opposed by two persons only. including petitioner. Although the circumstances were nearly identical and the Zoning Board of Appeals approved both area vari- ance.applications including the subject lot which is contiguous to peti- tioners and a second lot which is less than 250 feet from petitioner's lot. neither petitioner nor any other party has appealed the granting of the area variance to the second lot. The respondent Zoning Board of Appeals determined that the re- spondent-intervenor experienced a practical difficulty as a result of the application of the zoning regulations to the subject lot. The facts indicat. that the respondent-intervenor could not make reasonable use of the subject lot once. pursuant tu the direction of the Town Board. the lot was detached from the cluster subdivision. At the hearing before the respondent Board. it was also established that the subject lot was as large if not larger tl1a. the surrounding lots; that respondent-intervenor would suffer a severe fi- nanc1al 1088 1f the variance was not granted and that the lot's northerly l.l.D.e"..:..u1.ta.s f..:_lIhe 4acartalnaclon _de by t:he Town Board in conjunction . with the Planning Board as to the boundaries of a elw:tor Bubdivisi.on. Pursuant to Matter of Fulli"? v. Pall,umbo, 21 N.Y.2d 30. N.Y.S2d 286 N.Y.S.2<' 249 the area variance was properly granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. While it is apparent from the facts that the respondent-interveno, has not created a substandard lot by his acts. nevertheless the petitioner has argued that the area variance should not have been granted because of a self-imposed hardship. A self-imposed hardship does not. ipso facto. bar the granting of an area variance. Overhill Building Co. v. Delany. 29 N.Y.2d 221, N.Y.S.2d 933 (1971.) Sarant v. Zonin~ Board of Appeals. 39 A,D.2d 711. 135 N.Y. 724. It is merely one fact that shoumd be considered on the ap- plication for a variance. Simpson v. Kin~. 47 A.D.2d 634. 363 N.Y.S.2d 653. (2nd Dept.)(1975.) In addition. the petitioner has relied extensively upon arguments set forth in different portions of New York Zoning Lnw and Practice (2nd Ed. ,Vol. 2) by Robert Anderson. (pp.59.60.6l.) Whil(' rullny of the cases cited by the petitioner arc relevant to the question of nre:l variance. none of them precisely parallel the facts here. l'he ClHW elaborated upon at length by petitioner,Johnson v.Moor., 13 A.D.2d 984. 216 N.Y.S.2d 740. does not stand for the proposition that an applicant left with a substandard lot a. . . result of subdivision requirements is the victim of a self-imposed hardshlj In Johnson. the applicant prepared a subdivision map and included a sub- standard :10.t: as a valid lot. .. .~....'.. .W;;' ", :':'j j~~."1 i~; I ;~ ,c. , I- f I ! I I I ,I i , I' ) I i I , t I I I I I ,..... .,. '-"';;'~;~:fW$'~~"!/;:;-;'-'~~T~l~-------- "-~ MEMORANDUM ------,I,l'HJCjA-- 1f-TV-,VJ~-- '-';-~, MOTION #6,016 6/14/76 SPECIAL TERM PART 1 , r ,.s"UPREt04ECOURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY WILLIAM RICH, Ill, Petitioner, -asiin.t- ROBERT GILLISPIE ,JR. , et aI, VS. Respondents, WILLIAM SCHRIEVER, PAGE - 3 - By DE Wc.", J. S. C. AUGUST 30, 1976 ifIXXX DATED Respondent-Inte venor Here the respondent-intervenor prepared a subdivision map uhich included the subject lot as a valid lot pursuant to the clustering provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance. Because of its relationship to the remainder of the subdivision, the Town Board directed that the adjacent lot be excluded from the subdivision and be considered as a separate entity. In Johnson v. Moore, supra, the court determined that the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision was supported by substantial evidence. Likewise the decision here is fully supported by the evidence. The evidence as to the character of the lH'll\hborhood was that more than one-half of the lots in the surrounding block were smaller than the subject lot. Only 1 of 21 lots satisfied the requirements of the ordinance for 40,000 square feet. ~hus the density would not be affected by the variance. Moreover, as noted by respondent Board, the subject lot, if included in the clustered subdivision, would have been a conforming re.idential.lot - without a variance. At pa3cS 33 and 34 of the Return is a copy of the appraioal l11llde of the subject lot. 1'110 appraiser determined that the lot Ideh a variance would have a value of $8,000.00 and then indicated: "If the variance is not granted, this property is of much less value. The oniy prospective buyer would be one neighbor. He has only recently purchased his property and might be in- tereRted in adding to his property. On this basis I appraise . the property for '5,000.00." From the foregoing there can be little doubt that unless the variance was granted, the subject lot would be virtually without market value- for there would be only one prospective purchaser - the petitioner. Thus, contrary to the petitioner's assertion in his brief, the applicant (respondent-intervenor) established his lot would have little or no value absent a variance. Significantly in H:ltHc1d v~!ED2r, (2nd Dept.) 35 A.D.2d 1010, 3.18 N.Y.S.2d 754 (1970) aff'd without opinion 33 N.Y.2d 875, 352 N.Y.S.2d 443 (1973) the Court determined the landowner's economiciljury was found in the one-third difference between the values of the applicant's land with an- without the variance. In Sarant v. Zonin~ Board of Appeals, 39 A.D.2d 711, 331 N.Y.S.2d 856 (1972) the Appellate Division, Seond Department, made a similar determination as to significant economic injury, resulting from the difference in the value of the land with and without a variance. /'I . , " ":'>S"."<. ,,,,,.,.-~ '1"lI','-, ;;,. '..'~',' ''''.,.,~.,'':v''l''''".''"' -- _ ... MEMORANDUM .. INDEX #76-6529 MOTION 16.016 6/14/76 SPECIAL TERM PART I . J;(JPREME COUitT. SUFFOLK COUNTY " WILLIAM RICH. III. By DE LUCA.... s. C. Petitioner. -against- ROBERT GILLISP~I.JR.. et all Respondents. WILLIAM SCHRIEVER. Respondent-Int DATED AUGUST 30. 1976 1~, PAGE - 4 - rvenor. The standard set forth in the Court of Appeals in Fulling v. Palumbo. sppra, is applicable: 'Vhere the property owner will suffer significant economic injury by the application of an area standard ordinance. that standard can be justified only by a showing that the public health, safety and welfare will be served by upholding the application of the standard and denying the variance." Here. significant economic injury has been demonstrAted and there has been no showing that the public health, safety and welfare will be served by denying the variance. The petition is dismissed. Settle judgment. r':.:',:.", ~> r""!"~ I . \. .1" \ !., ,I 'l._! . \_,;_~_ J. S. C. AI:.!i A: Z 3, Z 70 lSf.,ft; , }$Cti!:iger?'t' l.tNE~ 0 I-Z $;S8..n',30 .W. .. 9$,-1/ 2-3 fI.Z.05'ZO"E. -2$/.%8 ;\~, 3-'" N.87."'1'30.E. - 91.~S' "" i , 4-1 S.,''s8'ZO-W.-2SZ.Sp ~ _*.1-1 r ,,~ ':1\ i'\ t .. r~, .~hli4Y"" II ~.! .~ \i r----- ."~ l: I' :~ III ~ \ \ '! ;;:IQI , , ~ \' ! ......__.- i,~\ ~ ~'Q' 'I; -. \pl "'~ ".. ~'/l:.\ ~ ~" \ t ~l \ I '> > '-" \ ,. --.' \ " ~. \, __ _-'1 ..Il-----~ I l~h n i ~ 1 i I{)ll L.J~i ~ ' " ,I II) llto\ 0 i ~ I ~Jtl~ ~\;' ~ i ~ ~ I l~ . I iii i 'L ,~f I. "()#..~i:HAIl.C ' '. .l. ". ~ ~ i .'- '-'\~:\!\~ ...\~~', i '~ .\t\~\ \ o.~~i 8""s""", ":'~ ,,\ \ ,C; 'V, ~ ! ... \ \ ... ..... ',,- ... \ .. ..' ; -_3"'.... '" L., . ..... . "._.__J \ i' ~ ...----'" \ "' VI. l;) <:> _ ______.....L..- o _r.__ 7(/., I N , I /., "'M. <ft/.I,,.;tly.~ 6'4{1 '. ~ ~ " 8 \I - r-l , ! -,,, 1 II 4.. I "'.: , I' , :.; ii I . _L-L.... -, ..-, - "1--' , \~ I I~ ..- \ 1.'111"." " f2tfSldtfJ1fM/ Z C/':J/9. exc,pr (2,:j ~bOtl.IJl. -"~". \ \ \ 05 Ct7/e.. Z. () () '.2 /" ~ :;: lZe~idqi'1ce CJ '" ACC4 is'' 01" B/~j, -,- - - ...........-.- - Nt ~p ro ACCOMP,ANY ApPI../c.A1"laN pdR:.. VA 2IAHr;e F~12. WILL/AM .sCHRIEVER. AT 012/5N r SIJ~~OL.1iC CO" N. Y. M#pj?ftd acr. Id. 197~ ~derid:. I/d.';r./I Po C. I ;2. V ~ r:...~ I L./eeH~eJ 1..:IlTd eS/u.ve'j()f"'1 $ree~fO~~ N.Y. , ; r:' t ~_. f~ IN ~C~H d Y)" " I -0 t.., I. o - ... y ",' <>.... .. do ~x .... I - _1- . 7/ . TREET /' . .-"> . A _ ~" ~ r- J> ~ ~ . :0 J> o 'v I' i / I " . Ii