Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-142.-1-27 (2)CRAIG $1RACUSA, PE REGIONAL DIRECTOR STATE Of NEW YORK DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUpPauge, N.Y. 11788 JosePH H. BOARDMAN COMMISSIONER August23,2000 Mr. Dan Ruffini Environmental Project Manager Envirotrac Environmental Services 80B Air Park Drive Ronkonkoma, New York 11779 Your August 21, 2000 Submission Citgo Route 25, Mattituck Our Case No. 00-245P Dear Mr. Ruffini: This is to acknowledge receipt of your submission on the above permit application. In all future correspondence, please refer to the subject case number. The plans must also include the County tax map number. The subject material is being reviewed by Mr. Vito Lena. He can be contacted at (631) 952-6020 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Please send all correspondence to his attention. Thank you for your cooperation concerning this matter. Very truly yours, Original Signed By A.W. BACHNER A. W. BACHNER, P.E. Civil Engineer III Traffic Engineering and Safety cc: Ms. Valerie Scopaz, Town of Southold~ Mr. Raymond Jacobs, Town of Southold AUG g 4 20UU Southold Town Planning Board AWB:JH:JS August 21, 2000 Environmental Services Vito Lena New York State Depadment of Transportation 250 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788-5518 Re: Permit Proposal ASE NO: ~W SUBMITTAL: :VISED: NO: g Objective: To enter onto the south side of State Route 25, East of Marlene Lane, Mattituck, for the purpose of installing a ground-water recovery well, a pump and treat remediation system, and three (3) dry wells. Dear Mr. Lena: I am writing in order to request a non-utility permit for the above-mentioned objective. Included with this proposal letter are three (3) copies of the site plan. The work area will be within the NYSDOT right of way and a minimum of thirty (30) feet south of the asphalt curb along the south side of State Route 25. The work to be performed is under the direction of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Please be advised that there is a potential for dissolved petroleum hydrocarbon impact to drinking water wells and therefore EnviroTrac requests that the permit be expedited. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration on this matter. If the NYSDOT has any questions or needs additional information then please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, EnviroTrac Ltd. Dan Ruffini Environmental Project Manager Attachments cc: Ed Cuccurullo, Warex '00 80 B Air Park Drive, Ronkonkoma, New York 11779 (631)471-1500 Fax: (631) 471-6363 Www.envirotrac.com WILLIAM W. ESSEKS MARCIA Z. HEFTER STEPHEN R. ANGEL daNE ANN R. KRA?Z ,JOHN M. WAGNER WILLIAM Power MALONEY THOMAS F', WHELAN CARMELA M. DI TALIA COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 ' RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 ..,' .~ (516) 369-i700 P. O. BOX 570 WATER MILL. N.Y. 11976 (51(~) 726-6633 May 18, 1998 BY HAND Gregory F. Yakaboski, Southold Town Attorney Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold Building Inspector Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Jim 1 8 1998 Southold Town Planning Board Re: Building Permit Application of Warex Terminals Corp. for Conversion of Existing Gasoline Sales/Automobile Service Facility to Gasoline Sales/Convenience Store at Northeasterly Corner of Main Road and Factory Avenue, Mattituck -- SCTM # 1000-142-1-27 Gentlemen: This letter is a follow-up to our discussion on Monday, May 4, 1998, regarding the above-referenced building permit application, which was filed on that day. The position of the Town, as expressed by you, is that site plan approval is required before a building permit may be issued for the subject application. In our opinion, that position is incorrect, since the Town's site plan provisions have been determined by Southold Town Justice William H. Price, Jr. to be unconstitutional and void in his April 13, 1998 decision and order in the case of PeoPle V. W.J.I. Holding Corp. and Walter J. Illiqasch, Southold Town Justice Court Docket No. 96070305. A copy of the decision in that case was included with my May 4, 1998 letter to the Building Inspector. In People v. W.J.I. Holdinq Corp., Justice Price specifically held that the defendant was not guilty of violating Southold Town Code Section 100-253F ("Approval of Site Plan Required"). The Court's "not guilty" determination is based on the Court's specific finding that Town Code Section 100-250 -- which is the Code section that makes site plan review EGSeK$, HeFTeR & ANGel COUNSELORS AT LAW Gregory F. Yakaboski, Southold Town Attorney/ Town of Southold Building Inspector May 18, 1998 Page 2 "applicable" in the Town -- is "void because it is unconstitutionally vague. " Justice Price's determination of the unconstitutionality of Town Code Section 100-250 was plainly within his jurisdiction as a local criminal court. Section 2001 of the Uniform Justice Court Act specifically confers on the Southold Town Justice Court "~uch jurisdiction of criminal matters as is prescribed by the criminal procedure law." Section 170.30 of the Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL"), in subparagraph "l(f)" thereof, specifically authorizes a local criminal court to dismiss an accusatory instrument or any count thereof upon the ground that there exists a "legal impediment to conviction of the defendant for the offense charged." Moreover, (a) CPL Section 170.30, in subparagraph "l(a)" thereof, specifically authorizes a local criminal court to dismiss an accusatory instrument or any count thereof when it is "defective, within the meaning of section 170.35" and (b) CPL Section 170.35, at subparagraph "l(c)" thereof, provides that an accusatory instrument or a count thereof is "defective" within the meaning of CPL Section 170.30(1) (a) when "the statute defining the offense charged is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid." (emphasis added) It should also be noted that Section 212 of the Uniform Justice Court Act ("UJCA") confers on the Southold Town Justice Court powers coextensive with the New York Supreme Court by specifically providing that, "in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the court [i.e., the Justice Court] shall have all of the powers that the supreme court would have in like actions and proceedings." It is evident from the UJCA and CPL provisions set forth above that the Justice Court possesses criminal jurisdiction, which includes the power to determine the constitutionality of statutes. Under UJCA Section 212, the Court has all the powers of the Supreme Court in exercising that jurisdiction, including the right to determine statutes or Town Code provisions to be void for unconstitutionality. Not only was Justice Price within his jurisdiction in determining the unconstitutionality of Town Code Section 100-250, but there is also no doubt that the W.J.I. Holdinq Corp. case -- and particularly the judicial determination therein that Town Code Section 100-250 is void and unconstitutional -- has a ESSEKS, HEFTER ~ ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW Gregory F. Yakaboski, Southold Town Attorney/ Town of Southold Building Inspector May 18, 1998 Page 3 preclusive effect on the Town beyond the individual criminal proceeding at issue. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel (or "issue preclusion"), a party is bound by the determination of an issue in a prior Court or administrative proceeding where that party, or a person or entity in privity with the party, had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. For the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply, it is only required that (1) the issue in question be identical to one that was necessarily decided in the prior action, and (2) there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision said to be controlling. See, for example, Kaufman v. Eli Lilly and Co., 65 N.Y.2d 449, 455, 492 N.Y.S.2d 584, 588 (1985); Couri v. Westchester Country Club, Inc., 186 A.D.2d 715, 716-17, 589 N.Y.S.2d 494, 496 (2nd Dept. 1992); and Conte v. Justice, 996 ¥.2d 1398, 1400 (2nd Cir. 1993). See also, Brown v. City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 596, 436 N.Y.S.2d 37, 38 (2nd Dept. 1981), which gave collateral estoppel effect, in a later civil action, to a "probable cause" issue determined by the dismissal of a charge in a prior criminal proceeding. There is no doubt that the W.J.I. case squarely determined the issue of the unconstitutionality and voidness of Section 100- 250 of the Town Code. There is also no doubt that the Town, which was the prosecuting party in the W.J.I. case, had a full and fair opportunity to contest the W.J.I. decision. For all the foregoing reasons, after Justice Price's decision in the W.J.I. case, there is no longer in effect in the Town of Southold any provision that makes site plan review or site plan approval applicable to the convenience store conversion proposed by Warex Terminals Corp. in the above-referenced building permit application. Since no site plan review or approval is required, and the subject building permit application is complete, we hereby demand, on behalf of Warex Terminals Corp., that the Building Department proceed immediately with (a) the processing of the above-referenced building permit application and (b) the issuance of a building permit. JMW/lmk Very truly yours, ~ohn M. Wagner~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERSO BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 2, 1998 John M. Wagner, Esq. Esseks, Hefter & Angel P.O. Box 279 108 East Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: CITGO Service Station N/E/C Main Road & Factory Avenue, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-142-1-27 Zoning District: General Business (B) Dear Mr. Wagner, The Planning Board has received your letter of March 19, 1998, concerning the above project. You request in your letter that the Planning Board proceed with the Warex site plan application. There is no site plan application from Warex Terminal s before this Board, as we had indicated in a letter to you dated March 3, 1998, (copy enclosed). Upon receipt of the requested site plan application the Board will give it its prompt review. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. Si~Reviewer Encl. cc: Laury Dowd, Town Attorney PLANNING BOAI~D MEMBER~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCI~E LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 3, 1998 John M. Wagner, Esq. Esseks, Hefter & Angel P.O. Box 279 108 East Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: CITGO Service Station N/E/C M~in Road & Factory Avenue, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-142-1-27 Zoning District: General Business (B) Dear Mr. Wagner, As discussed, enclosed is background information on the proposed convenience store for Warex Terminals. · As indicated in my letter of February 4, 1998, a review of the variance granted to Sun Oil by the Zoning Board is required for the above project. The proposed Warex plan differs from the former Sun Oil plan. The Sun Oil plan called for a 30' by 103' canopy oriented in an east west direetion, entire property was to receive new eight and one half inch butiminous paving, additional landscaping, and the removal and replacement of the gas pumps. As your project is substantially different from that of Sun Oil, whose plan has been dormant since 1990, and zoning regulations have changed since then, a new site plan and fee would be required for the Warex project. If you have any questions, or require further assistance, please contact Site Plan Reviewer Encls. cc: Laury Dowd, Town Attorney Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement Jean w. Cochran, Supervisor STEPHEN R. ANGEL JANE ANN R. KRATZ JOHN M. WAGNER ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANgel COUNSELORS AT Law 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. BOX 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 (516) 369 1700 TELeCOPlER NUMBER (516) 369-2065 Mr. Robert G. Kassner Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: WATER MILL OFFICE MONTAU K HIGHWAY P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 (516) 726-6633 Southoid Town Site Flan Application of Warex Termin~n~¢Oard-- ~ for Convenience Store at Northeasterly Corner of Main Road and Factory Avenue, Mattituck -- SCTM # 1000-142-1-27 Dear Mr. Kassner: I am writing on behalf of Warex Terminals Corp. I have reviewed your letter to me dated March 3, 1998, as well as the enclosures thereto, which included a letter to J. Scott Grupp, RA, dated February 4, 1998. I have also reviewed my files regarding the Board of Appeals' January 11, 1991 decision on Application No. 3788, which pertained to the subject property. You may recall that I was the attorney who presented that application to the Board of Appeals on behalf of Sun Refining & Marketing Co., the former owner of the subject property. Your February 4 letter to Mr. Grupp states that the currently-pending site plan application of Warex Terminals has been referred to the Building Department for "certification of the use." Your February 4 letter further refers to a January, 1969 special exception that was granted for a service station on the subject property and opines that a "modification to the Special Exception previously granted" is required for the proposed convenience store. I believe there is no need for any "certification of the use" by the Building Department, and there is also no need for any modification of the 1969 special exception or any other action by the Board of Appeals before the processing of Warex E$$EKS, HEfTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW Mr. Robert G. Kassner March 19, 1998 Page 2 Terminals' current site plan application for a convenience store can proceed. By the Board of Appeals' determination for Application No. 3788 (copy enclosed), the former owner of the subject property, Sun Refining & Marketing Co., was, among other things, granted permission, subject to several conditions, "to convert the existing principal building [on the subject property] for sales of gasoline and related items, together with an accessory convenience store." (emphasis added) The proposed convenience store use of the subject property has thus already been specifically authorized by the Board of Appeals and no other application to that Board must be made to establish the convenience store use. I request that the Planning Board proceed immediately with the processing and review of Warex Terminals' site plan application, as submitted. JMW/lmk Encls. Very truly yours, John M. Wagner APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio. Jr. TClcl>hone (516) 765- 1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Upon application of SUN REFINING & MARKETING CO. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Section 100-102: (1) for permission to establish convenience store use in conjunction with and accessory to the existing gasoline station use on this substandard parcel which contains less than 30,000 sq. ft. in lot area for each use, and (2) for interpretation as to the height limitation of accessory (canopy) structure, and (3) for approval of canopy structure in the front yard location. Location of Property: Corner of the Easterly Side of Factory Avenue and Northerly Side of the Main Road, Mattituck, NY; District 1000, Section 142, Block 1, Lot 27. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 1, 1990 and continued on November 29, 1990, in the Matter of the Application of SUN REFINING & MARKETING CO. under Appeal No. 3788; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is a corner lot with 150.0 feet along the east side of Factory Avenue and with 198.0 feet along the north side of the Main Road, in the Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, and more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 142, Block 1, Lot 27. 2. The subject premises contains a total area of 24,139 sq. ft., is located in the "B" General Business Zone District, and is improved with a 30' x 66' principal building and two gasoline service (concrete) islands, all as shown on Drawing No. · Page 2 - Appl. No.~88 ~atter of SUN REFII~gNG & MARKETING Decision Rendered January 11, 1991 13-1318 (Rev. 11) as updated October 29, 1990, prepared by Sun Refining & Marketing Company. 3. By this application, the appellant requests Variances: (a) to convert the existing principal building from gasoline sales and vehicle/engine repairs to gasoline sales and accessory convenience store for the on-premises sales of packaqed food and nonfood itemsr without on-premises food servicesr incidental to and in conjunction with the existin,t gasoline service station use, and (b) for approval of the location of a new 30 ft. by 103 ft. canopy over new gasoline pumps/islands with its closest set-backs at 29 feet from the westerly property linc along Factory Avenue and at 29 feet from the southerly property line along the Main Road, as shown on Drawing 13-1318-M (Rev. 2) dated September 14~ 1988 (also ground,revised May 7, 1990), at a height at not more than 18 feet above 4. For thc record, it is noted that under previous Action of this Board under Appl. No. 1225 rendered January 2, 1969, a Special Exception was granted for a gasoline service and indoor repair station. 5. In considering this application, it is the understanding of the Board Members that the items to be sold would include small variety store items, such as packaged and canned foods, magazines, refrigerated items, microwaved items, and the like. 6. The following information is also noted for the record: (a) the premises has continuously for the past 22 years been used as an office for sales of gasoline and other incidental merchandise, with small engine/vehicle repairs within the enclosed three bay areas of the principal building, and gasoline sales at the pumps; (b) the use as a convenience store is to be used accessory and incidental to the gasoline-service station and not as a separate principal use or business establishment; (c) the existing vehicle lifts and (three) bay areas will be eliminated and replaced with the accessory convenience store use; (d) the principal building will not be enlarged without prior approval of the Board of Appeals by subsequent application; .Page 3 - Appl. No.~88 ~atter of SUN REFI~G & MAP~KETING Dec%sion Rendered January 11, 1991 (e) also noted is the interpretation of the board, as recfuested by the applicant, in that the subject canopy structure is an accessory structure, limited to the 18-ft. maximu/a height requirement {and not the height limitation for a principal building at 35 feet}, and subject, of course, to the rules as apply to accessory structures. 7. In considering this application, the Board also finds and determines: (a) the subject parcel is surrounded by other properties to the north, west, east, and south of the Main Road which are also located and used as regulated by the General Business "B" Zone District; (b) the variance, as conditionally noted below, is the minimuun necessary to afford relief~ (c) the accessory use as authorized will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; general nature; (d) the difficulties are unique, are not due to the conditions of the neighborhood, and are not personal in (e) there is no other feasible method for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (f) the relief as conditionally granted will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of this district or of adjacent use districts; (g) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the Town will not be adversely affected by the proposed business use and its location; (h) in light of all of the above, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variances requested and as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Dinizio, it was RESOLVED, to GPJ~NT the relief requested for permission to convert the existing principal building for sales of gasoline and related items, together with an accessory convenience store, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: .Page 4 - Appl. No.~8 Hatter of SUN REFI~ & MARKETING Decision Rendered January 11, 1991 · 1. No cooking, cxcept by portable microwave; 2. No food preparation (must be pre-packaged - including cold cuts and sandwiches); 3. No table service or seating for public use; 4. No signs advertising the convenience store use, except by approval of the Board of Appeals; 5. Ail engine/vehicle repairs and/or car washing services must cease; 6. No drive-thru or drive in services; 7. Convenience store sales shall~be limited to self-service (including vending machines, refrigerators); 8. Convenience store is permitted only as an accessory use incidental to the principal use as a gasoline service station (as proposed herein) and within the principal building only, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance for the canopy structure of size 30 ft. by 103 ~ 29 feet from the westerly ~ropertv tine (along Factory Avenue) and 29 feet from the southerly property line (along the State Highway), provided that the canopy structure not exceed 18 feet in height in the front yard area, as applied. Vo~e of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Dinizio. (Absent was: Member Grigonis due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGE'R, ~iAIRMAN Locust Lane Southold, N. Y. 11971 March 2, 1998 Ms. Valerie Scopaz and Code Committee Southold Town Hall Southold, New York, 11971 Dear Ms Scopaz and Code Committee: Thank you for taking the time to explain what has happened to us on Locust Lane. We only wish we'd had mom time for open discussion as we are concerned about what can be done to rectify the mistakes that have been made. As I said at the code meeting, every problem that's facing Southold town today, we am dealing with hem on Locust Lane. 1. Ugly suburban sprawl a. Mutlen Motors and Seven/Eleven b. Surburban architecture--flat roofs, plastic signs, glass showcase c. Macadam paving d. Chain-link fences e. No trees, grass, etc. 2. Environmental Problems a. Our trees are destroyed b. Macadam runoff into nearby creek c. Garbage litter of Slurpy Cups, beer bottles, plastic wrappers d. Noise car alarms, car rep~r--hydrolic lifts, car revving night deliveriea--18 wheeler beckup beeper, dropping ramp Southold Town Planning Board 3. Traffic a. excessive truck congestion b. test driving c. blind and dangerous exiting d. illegal parking, total mad blockage dudng deliveries 4. Ughting a. Excessively bright wattage [Halogen] b. Angled directly on and toward neighbors and motorists All these disturbances are from two inapprropriately-located businesses. In spite of all this, ten years ago, Mullen Motors was allowed to expand a car lot west along scenic Rte. 25 and south, removing and demolishing homes in its path. Now, ten years later, they want to expand again. Them is never an end to Car Dealership expansion. Just look at Rte. 58 in Riverhead. But at least those dealerships are not destroying shops, homes and the hamlet stretch. At the meeting last Wednesday, I was n01 suggesting that we create a strip mall on Route 48, but we also don't want one on Route 25 alth~'-espacially blocking the entrance to Founders Landing Estates, Southotd's oldest residential ~ It seemed timely, while we am examining the codes for gas station/auto repair/convenience stores to mention the problems connected with Seven/Eleven and Mullen Motors. As the population and traffic increase, the situation in this area can only become worse and more unmanageable. Convenience stores should not be located in the hamlet competing with the nearby local daiis and beverage stores. Farming and Fishing have ail but faded out. Must we jeopardize our local small businesses with large chains such as Seven/Eleven? What's good for Seven/Eleven is not necessarily good for Southold town! rm sure the Emporium, Wayside Market, and Ughthouse Beverage would greatly benefit if Seven/Eleven was not competing with them on the same street The truck traffic drawn by the presence of Seven/Eleven congests East Main Street and negatively impacts these local small businesses. To draw trucks unnecessarily down into the hamlet, as these 2 businesses de, creates an unsafe and unpleasant village experience. People are not inclined to stop and shop in a truck-intensive environment. How can anyone enjoy the quaint village atmosphere when it is spoiled by heavy trucks and traffic? The Seven/Eleven on Locust Lane is frequented primarily by trucks of all sizes-- Highway Department trucks, fuel trucks, utility trucks, pick-up trucks, landscape trucks, car carriers, delivery trucks, 18 wheelers. These are the types of vehicles that congregate at Seven/Elevens. They even market a sandwich called "Truckstoppers"! (see enclosed) These workers take their breaks and then park on our roadsides, drive thru our neighborhood, down to Founders Landing and the Town Harbor Dead End. We am tired of them using our streets and neighborlxx)d as a playground and picnic area. One would think that the "No Parking" signs on Locust Lane read "Park and Ride" instead! All these scenarios were predicted and well documented in the 1982 opposition to Seven/Eleven led by Bill Aibertson (see enclosed papers). If Southland Corp. has enough money to set up a another store in Mattituck, they certainly have the means to relocate the Locust Lane Sevan/Eieven that was poorly situated from day one. For a possible solution, one need only to look at Southampton's handling of this identical problem. It was successfully resolved by moving Seven/Eleven out of the Hamlet and away from residences. While you are reworking the Master Plan, we request for you to consider an alternate location for this Locust Lane Seven/Eleven. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jean Senford S.T.O.P.--Watch c.c.: Southoid Town Board, Z.B.A., Code Enforcement Southold, New York May 5, 1982 William Pell, Supervisor Town of Southold Southold, New York Dear Bill, I guess bureaucracy is designed to create a confused view to the general public. Even on a local level it is hard to figure who has jurisdiction ou applications such as the 7-11 store. The latest allegation is that the issue will end up back at the town board. If this be so I want you and the other board members to realize that there is a sizable number of v~oters oppg~d t~o any type of 24 hour servic~_~ unless ~hat ~in~-'c~~y~0~ a~resis~tia~ z~n~. The ~ath t~i~~ C~ark ~rin~s to mind one of ~'~his last campaigns for ozfic~~ He'~pported our zoning ordinance ~and stated that he was willing to be~de~&~~~ ~alone. ~he whole thrust of that law and ~h~ peoole who.su~Dorted ~ lo keep SO~tho~d ~'~b~c0M~~d~iSla~d~c~arn~v~.~ ~I,~canno~ thi~ that a 7-11 ~s mn keying with the ~nteut oz our <~~u~e you and ~he o~he~ members of the board do eve~ythin~ legally within you~ powem ~o de~e~, s~op ~he application. ~y fa~ the mos~ objectionable aspects of a~[ are the 24 hour service and the kno~ problem~caused by the sale...Df..beer. ~i~ ~~hat ~hey ~o~ overly careful ~h~ir purchasers. It is a fact ~hat one way o~ another ~he beem ends up in ~he hands of the undera~ed. ~e~ bus,ness in Southo!d caused the number of calls gover~nent would certainly escula~e 8~amat~c~ly. ~y~6~evSr"help you can g~e Very sincerely yours, Willism G. Albertson P.S. I just mailed similar letters to all town board members. If possible do you know the ngxt step in the progression to try to stop this? If ultimately we fail I can see the beginning of a campaign for a noise ordinance, higher fines for littering etc. Southold, New York March 22, 1982 Henry Raynor, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold, New York Dear ~r, Raynor, Eaclosed are .655 si~natqres x~hered this w_~_ek of people in the Town of Southold who have voiced opoosition to a ,7~E]~-v~" st~e in...Southold. Enclosed,too, ~s the police reRor~ .Qf disturbances occur£Kg on the premises 8x ~ne -- Greenpo_rt and Cutc~6~e stores. We call your attention to Article 13 - Site Plan~.Approval, Section 100-131 "Objectives": T. he P%~_annin~_~B_o_ard.~sha~e into considera~io~the~ub~ic healt~__~ty__.ar~ welfare_~j~ coni~ort and ~conven~ence~ oi t~ o~!c ~n general and~ the res~id~hts of ~~ate nei~.hborhood zn part~ch~.--~ Your office has advised us that tonight's Presubmission ?~eeting is an aoprooriate time to submit these petitions. We ';:elcome your suggestions as to wha~ further oroc~dures ~re necessary to express our objections. Ylease keep us informed about discussions on this matter. Respectfully, Barbara and ~$illia~m Albertson roh~den C~ter: I there was discussion at a me~i~g of this~ome years ago atterns '~'--th~ area o1~-~ Garden Cents ~ reca]_l, flow in that location_ccmes Tro~the north side~P~AMain Road ~ventualll feeds intS~_~ond..~..d Horton Cre_ek, tr~ s~ng at least~s m~ of ~the area enc~p~a se~b~~osed development.~How has thil $'~re: As 1~' roeident~of the Founders Eslmte area~ ~would ~eom~nd that the parcel at the corner of Locust Lane and Route 25 be enn~ide~d for use as a -~m~!l professional or business office, much more in character with the nearby mostly residential area. The traffic problem is a ,~Su concern. 1) Hobart Road is a one-way stree~south from the Main Road for one block, so residents and ~,mmer traffic must use other streets to get out to the Main Road. '~) The alternatives for egress to the Main Road are: .C_o~t~_~t~ge Plac.e i~s a~r~rr, ow ~.~d a~ d~n~erous corner with ~_~]-l_stor~ a~, co_~r~_er 9pposzte Coloni_~.' ,~o~n~s will .~..a~d~._t~.~ ~.e._.st~_o~_n....a~.[~.t' ~cq~rn~r. also. _ Town Harbor Road is the only ot~ ~Xi~ f-~'Founders Estates. · At present, both Hobart Road and Town Harbor Road are soeedways for visitors at Founders Lending park. ~_?-ll st_~' constructed .one. thee Main Road, we fo~_see a g~t~ increased~amount of t.r,a~ic {n thi~-~ea-~ 'weLl as--a~-'~-~re~se in debri~ t~n~ c~ we oppose the use of this property for a 7-11 store. SoU >ld, ~:iew York 30, 1982 Henry Raynor, Chairmmu $outhold To,tm Planning Board ~ear Mr. Raynor, Enclosed is a copy of our letter sent President, The South'land Corporation, (7-11) stores. to ~r. J. P. Thompson, owners of the 7-Eleven As a steering committee of concerned citizens representing the 650 To~vnship residents who signed a petition opposing the 7-11 store in Southold, we wish to emphasize the following points for consideration when the 7-11 question comes to your attention: 1. General compliance. Does the proposed 7-11 store comply with the stated purpose and general provisions of the Zoning Ordinance? Its fundamental purpose is to protect and promote "the public health', safety and welfare" and includes the following: 100-10 F~rooses C .... privacy for families D .... prevention and reduction of traffic congestion E .... maximum protection of residential areas G .... enhancement of the appearance of the Town of Southold T100-11 Conflicts ' ~- A. "Where a provision...conflicts with...any other provision ...,the provision or requirement which lis more restrictive or j which establishes the higher standard shall govern." 2-(ZONING, Article I, General Provisions,'p. 10005) 2. Traffic conFestion. Will increased traffic on the state high- way from the entrance and exit of the proposed site, when com- bined with the traffic flow from Coloniml Corners, result in traffic congestion and a safety problem? The approximately 22 feet width of Locust Lane could elminate that road as a viable entry and exit. A___traffic count sho_uld be much more extensive th_ha.~nan a~plicant's ~tu~y and include traffic in and out of %h~ ~ side streets'. 3. Taxes. The suggestion that this business would generate $5000 to $6000 in property taxes may not be the case. How much tax is presently paid and is the difference, if any, going to cover t~e cost of police vigilance? 4. Revenue projections. In a locality where the majority of residents are Senior Citizens, who lead lives with more regular hours, are revenue projections for a third all-night store realistic? There are already two 7-11 stores about three miles to the east and west of this proposed location. Southold, ~iew York March 30, 1982 Mr. J. P. ~hompson, President The Southland Corporation 2828 Haskell Ave. DaLlas, Texas ?5204 Dear ~Ir. Thompson, We have recently learned that The Southland Corporation is negotiating the purchase of a parcel of land in the town of Southold, LonF Island, [4ew York, with the intention of locat- ing a ?-Eleven outlet there on a franchise basis. ~he proposed locatio~i_~_t_qated amon~ old historic homes '' ~ ~od a s~es of Col~al-~y.~_~hs_iq~ss structures, whlch~lves [ ~fon ~ow~ ~_~raclous, quzet, ~d ~~m. ~he ~_a~t~on o~ a 7-Eleven s~or~ . .h~ ~ea of. our to~ ~s.cer- ~tainly not ~araQ$9~ of this atmosphe~ ~ ~ At the March 22 meeting of the To~ Planing Bo~d, a number of local residents protested the olacing of ~other 7-Eleven store in Southold To.ship. There'are already'~o 7-Eleven stores three to four miles away, one in Cutcho~e and ~other in Greenport. Both these stores ~e controversal ~d pose a number of problems for the police. The majority of residents in Southold are retired senior citizens ~d school enrollment has declined in recent ye~s. A petition si~ed by several hundred Southold To. ship residents expressed disapproval for your type of store. (See attached copy of newspaper clioping covering this meeting). From a business standpoint, it seems highly improbable that a store in this location would generate enough sales to stay in business very long without community support. For eight or nine months of the year the Oooulation decreases almost three- fold. Off-season traffic is very light, requiring your two existing stores to share ~heir sales with the new store during this period. In addition, the history of chain stores in Southold Townshio has been rather unsuccessful in recent years and some have closed. ~e are bringing these facts to your attention in the hope that you will reconsider placing a store on the corner of ~ain Road and Locust lane. ~e suggest Zhat you would no doubt receive a much higher return per dollar of sales and per dollar invested elsewhere. Very truly your~/f A~l~e~r~ ~H./~S'on~e '~(~or the Concerned Citizens Group) Town Harbor .Lane Southold, New York 11971 ~o~es-ben~fit the town only when price levels are generally lower _~ than competitors. A erofessional office at this site might employ more than the six employees projected by ?-11 and at higher salaries. 5. Folice investigations. In other instances where 7-ils'exist, there have been a considerable number of disturbaances causing investigations by the police. Southold police report 41 calls for'~isturbances at the Greenport store and 17 calls at the Cutchogue store in 1981. . A 7-11 in Southampton village is requesting a chan~e o~ ~s~ 'location because 9f Similar complaint~ bY residents anm businesses. ~'~/ ~ - - n~ht establishments where beer is 6. Potential problems. All 'o . . _ sold can become ap. undesirable gathering place. A national repor~ cites an increase in drug use where electronic games are on the premises. The sale of'porbographic literature and [un~r_t~e Counter" drug sales could occur, increasing the po~en~a± ior lawlessness and vandalism in the area. 7. litter. The premises themselves are often litter-strewn, as are the surrounding areas where paper, cans and botIles are often discarded. 8. General atmosphere. Th__e co$merc%.ali~ing architecture and bright neon light s~i~np%.flfk~ap-ce the Eeneral atmosphere of t~e first English settlement of ~ew York State. T~u~i~sm-R~ a · v~lu~eo aI~ ousknesses in the town. o~hat ei~ect would a Coney lsl~d" atmosphere have on it° Nhat effect would this eventually have on land values if the rural quality and historic environ- ment are diminished? 9. Transitional districts. Area integration would be oreferrable at boundaries where a business zone adjoins the residential dis- trict. Transitional businesses and structures (such as a 9:00 - 5:00 business) bordering the residential sector would provide a more harmonious relationship. In this case, can a 24 hour drive-in store be considered up-grading the district (from B-1 to B),given the transitional context of the area? 10. Building requirements. ~ill the proposed building conform exactly to the set back requirements on all four sides? 25% of the area be landscaped? We urge you to consider these points in preserving the .ljj~fhest standards of the Town of Southold in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare, which is a defensible public puroose. Re sDec t full~ Barbara Alber~son, for the Concerned Citizens Group 2 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765~1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 3, 1998 John M. Wagner, Esq. Esseks, Hefter & Angel P.O. Box 279 108 East Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: CITGO Service Station N/E/C Main Road & Factory Avenue, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-142-1-27 Zoning District: General Business (B) Dear Mr. Wagner, As discussed, enclosed is background information on the proposed convenience store for Warex Terminals. As indicated in my letter of February 4, 1998, a review of the variance granted to Sun Oil by the Zoning Board is required for the above project. The proposed Warex plan differs from the former Sun Oil plan. The Sun Oil plan called for a 30' by 103' canopy oriented in an east west direction, entire property was to receive new eight and one half inch butiminous paving, additional landscaping, and the removal and replacement of the gas pumps. As your project is substantially different from that of Sun Oil, whose plan has been dormant since 1990, and zoning regulations have changed since then, a new site plan and fee would be required for the Warex project. If you have any questions, or require further assistance, please contact Site Plan Reviewer Encls. cc: Laury Dowd, Town Attorney Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement Jean w. Cochran, Supervisor PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLI.~I J. CREbIERS K~ENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 4, 1998 J. Scott Grupp, RA Notate Grupp Associates 99 Jericho Turnpike Suite 302A Jericho, NY 11753 RE: CITGO Service Station N/E/C Main Road & Factory Avenue, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-142-1-27 Zoning District: General Business (B) Dear Mr. Grupp As discussed over the telephone on February 3, 1998, the Planning Board referred your application for the construction of a convenience store to the Building Department for certification of the use. The Building Department's review indicates that a Special Exception was granted to the previous owner, Sun Oil, in January of 1969, for the service station. The intended use shown on your proposed site plan requires a modification, to the Special Exception previously granted. This application can be made directly to the Board of Appeals. Upon resolution of this matter the Board will proceed with its review. If you have any questions, or require further assistance, please contact ff' e. ' olSeet (l. Kassner Site Plan Reviewer Encl. cc: Laury Dowd, Town Attorney Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement CP,~O SIR~CUSA. P.E. REOIONm, L DIRECTOR January 28, 1998 Mr. J. Scott Grupp Notaro Grupp Associates 99 Jericho Turnpike Suite 302A Jeriebo, NY 11753 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTHENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OFFICE BUILDING ;~50 V~_i~.RAN$ MEMORIAl- HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788-5518 Your December 17. 1997 Submission Convenience Store/Citgo Gas Station · Route 25. Northwest Comer Factory_ Avenue Mattituek Our Case No. 97-311 Southold Town Planning Board Dear Mr. Grupp: This is in reference to the site plann for thc above noted project which have been submitted to this office for review. In conducting a review of this project, we find that the following items must be addressed prior to the issuance of a Highway Work Permit. In addition to closing the westerly curb cut, we will require that new curb and sidewalk be installed full fi-ontage of the property along Route 25. The existing curb cut at the east end of the property must also be removed and replaced in kind. The installation of interior curbing on the east side of the easterly curb cut will be required. A Maintenance and Protection of Traffic scheme to be used during construction along Route 25 must be shown on the revised plans. The enclosed booklets, "Standard Drawing For Permit Applications" and the Maintenance and Protection of Traffic are enclosed for your use. Please include all details and items number for the installation of concrete curb, sidewalk and apron. The permit fee for this project will be in the mount $200.00, check payable to thc State of New York, with the applicants Federal Identification Number indicated on the face of thc check. Notaro Group Associates page 2 January 28, 1998 The enclosed Perm 17, Certificate of Insurance, must be completed and returned, or the applicant may submit an additional fee of $175.00, which will satisfy the insurance requirements. A Surety Bond in the mount of $5,000.00 will be required. The enclosed Surety Bond form is enclosed for your use. We will require three copies of revised prints addressing Item numbers 1 and 2. When making your resubmittal, please make reference to the case number indicated above. Question concerning this case should be directed to Mr. Vito Lena of my staff at 952-6025. Very truly yours, Original Signed By THOd, AS F, O:_:_ERIbH THOMAS F. OELERICH, P.E. Regional Traffic Engineer cc: ~. Kasner, Town of Southold Planning Deparhnent TFO:VFL:BT ARCHITECTS PLANNER:; 21 November 1997 Robert G. Kassner, Site Planner Town of Southold Town Hall Main SU'eet Southold, NY 11971 Conversion of service station to convenience store comer of Main Rd & Factory Ave Mattimck Section 142, Block l; Lot 27 Dear Mr. Kassner: Attached please fred three copies of our site plan for the above referenced project. This site plan is in conformance with the originally submitted site plan that had been approved by the Zoning Board for use and had been submitted to your office for review. We were led to believe that the site plan had been approved by your office but we were never given a written notification of your approval that we have been told is required prior to filing for a building permit. If you have any questions, please call me. Thank you, in advance, for your prompt attention to our application. by: Ai~oome Express MARK P. GAYNOR 1905 MARLENE LANE MATI'ITUCK, N. Y. 11952 Southold Town Planning Board 298-9531 February 25,1998 Supervisor Cochrane and Town Board Southold Town Hall Southold,N.Y. Dear Jean and Fellow Board Members: Further to my recent letter about the proposed Mattituck 7-Eleven,and at the urging of several neighbors,I put to- gether the attached petition for your consideration. Although my signature-gathering time is limited,you'll note that,in just two days,thirty six folks "signed up". Everyone I talked to agreed on two things: 1.Mattituck has no need for another 7-Eleven type estab- lishment.We already have an ample number of convenience type outlets,including Handy Pantry and numerous delicat- essens. A 7-Eleven,or similar outlet,could only make a . / bad traffic situation along Route 25 worse. ~.A traffic light,strategically placed along the Bay Aven- ue - Factory Avenue stretch,is badly needed.The existing left turn lane arrangement is a marginal solution at best. Note: I have some hope,based on a discussion with Pat Acam- pora at Brian Murphy's fund raiser last summer,that she should be ready to push for such a traffic signal now,given the fact that she has now been successful in her quest for a full service traffic light on Route 25 in Aquebogue.You may wish to pursue this with her.Please keep me posted. By the way,one of my neighbors asked what ever happened to the study developed while Tom Wickham was Supervisor which entailed hamlet groups discussing the present needs of,and the future expectations of each hamlet.Can you shed any light on this? Jean,best wishes to you the good work! and to your entire Board. Keep up Sincerely, Mark P.Gaynor FEBRUARY 1998 TO:SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD SUBJECT: STOP PROPOSED MATTITUCK 7 ELEVEN THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF MATTITUCK AND NEARBY COMMUNITIES STRONGLY URGE THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT A 7 ELEVEN OR SIMILAR BUSINESS FROM OPENING IN SPACE ADJACENT TO THE CITGO GAS STATION ON ROUTE 25 IN MATTITUCK. THE TRAFFIC SITUATION ALONG THAT STRETCH OF ROUTE 25 IS ALREADY QUITE HAZARDOUS WITHOUT ADDING AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC MAGNET SUCH AS A 7 ELEVEN WOULD REPRESENT. FURTHERMORE,WE URGE THE TOWN BOARD TO DO WHATEVER IT CAN TO HAVE A TRAFFIC LIGHT INSTALLED AT AN APPROPRIATE PLACE ALONG THIS STRETCH. DATE ~ SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS F£B g? JEAN W. COCHRAN SUPERVISOR Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1889 OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Ms. Caroline Loschen 200 Sixth Street P.O. Box 431 Laurel, NY 11948 February 18, 1998 FEB 18 199 Dear Ms. Loschen: Southold Town Planning Board I am in receipt of your recent letter and your commems regarding the possibility of a Seven Eleven locating in Mattituck. Your letter has been forwarded to the Town Board and Planning Board for their information. We appreciate your taking the time to provide us with your experience and opinion. /rbw Town Board Planning Board Sincerely yours, W. Cochran Supervisor STUPERVI~RS OFFICE OWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANIq~NG BOARD IV[EMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman ~VILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCIq/E LATHAM, JR, RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 4, 1998 J. Scott Grupp, RA Notaro Grupp Associates 99 Jericho Turnpike Suite 302A Jericho, NY 11753 RE: CITGO Service Station N/E/C Main Road & Factory Avenue, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-142-1-27 Zoning District: General Business (B) Dear Mr. Grupp As discussed over the telephone on February 3, 1998, the Planning Board referred your application for the construction of a convenience store to the Building Department for certification of the use. The Building Department's review indicates that a Special Exception was granted to the previous owner, Sun Oil, in January of 1969, for the service station. The intended use shown on your proposed site plan requires a modification to the Special Exception previously granted. This application can be made directly to the Board of Appeals. Upon resolution of this matter the Board will proceed with its review. If you have any questions, or require further assistance, please contact Site Plan Reviewer Encl. cc: Laury Dowd, Town Attorney Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1802 MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Edward Forrester, Building Department ~',,/ / February 2, 1998 Warex Terminals/Citgo Station Site Plan Application In reviewing the attached application for permitted use (uses), it is determined that: 1) The gasoline station use requires a special exception. 2) The current owner is operating under a special exception. 3) At some time in the past an application was made for and granted to amend that special exception, in the form of a variance, based on several findings of fact. 4) Several of those facts have changed based on the proposed site plan I have reviewed. Therefore, it has been determined that the current special exception would need to be amended to incorporate these changes. CRAIG SIRACUSA, P.E. I~EGIONAL DIRECTOR January 28, 1998 Mr. J. Scott Grupp Notaro Gmpp Associates 99 Jericho Turnpike Suite 302A Jericho, NY 11753 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OFFICE BUILDING ;~50 Vk.I~RANS iVIEI~IORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE:, N.Y. 11788-5518 Your December 17. 1997 Submission Convenience Store/Citgo Gas Station Route 25. Northwest Comer Factory Avetlue Mattituck Our Case No. 97-311 JAN $ 0 1998 Southold Town Planning Board Dear Mr. Gmpp: This is in reference to the site plans for the above noted project which have been submitted to this office for review. In conducting a review of this project, we find that the following items must be addressed prior to the issuance of a Highway Work Permit. In addition to closing the westerly curb cut, we will require that new curb and sidewalk be installed full frontage of the property along Route 25. The existing curb cut at the east end of the property must also be removed and replaced in kind. The installation of interior curbing on the east side of the easterly curb cut will be required. A Maintenance and Protection of Traffic scheme to be used during construction along Route 25 must be shown on the revised plans. The enclosed booklets, "Standard Drawing For Permit Applications" and the Maintenance and Protection of Traffic are enclosed for your use. Please include all details and items number for the installation of concrete curb, sidewalk and apron. The permit fee for this project will be in the amount $200.00, check payable to the State of New York, with the applicants Federal Identification Number indicated on the face of the check. Notaro Group Associates page 2 January 28, 1998 The enclosed Perm 17, Certificate of Insurance, must be completed and returned, or the applicant may submit an additional fee of $175.00, which will satisfy the insurance requirements. A Surety Bond in the amount of $5,000.00 will be required. The enclosed Surety Bond form is enclosed for your use. We will require three copies of revised prints addressing Item numbers 1 and 2. When making your resubmittal, please make reference to the case number indicated above. Question concerning this case should be directed to Mr. Vito Lena of my staffat 952-6025. Very truly yours, Original Signed By THOMAS F. OELERICH THOMAS F. OELERICH, P.E. Regional Traffic Engineer cc: ~. Kasner, Town of Southold Planning Department TFO:VFL:BT January 24, !?gS ~outhold Totem Board Sou;thold TowD_ Hall PO Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Proposed local law to revise hamlet business for gasolineservice station use. Dear Southold Town Board: We are not in support of the proposed changes to Re Hamlet Business Zone, Section lO0-91B with regard to gasoline service stations. It has come. to our attention that Southold Automotive ,on the corner of You~gs Avenue and Main Road,has applied for a zoning variance to expand their station. We are homeowners on the north side of Mechanics St. East. Our propgrty is adjacent to the Clothes Pub parj~ing lot where SouthQld Automotive, in the past, has parked their tow truck and wrecked Vehicles. These vehicles have remained there for extended periods of time. Periodically, we have had to ask them to move these vehicles because there were so many of themTthat they were pushing into our hedge and therefore, onto our property. If they are allowed to. expand, will there be even less parking avail- able on their own property and so they will infringe even more on the Clothes Pub parking lot? Will there be increased harsh lighting, noise and fumes as well? We are very concerned about the intrusion of the gasoline station activi- ties and associated vehicles into our neighborhood. There is no buffer zone between the Hamlet/BusineSs Zone and the Residential Zone. We ask~ th$ Town Board, for the sake Of the quality of life in our neighborhoo~o not amend or revise our local law with regard to gaso- line stations./ s 85 MeChanics St. E. Sout~old, N.Y. 11971 cc:Town Planner .... Valerie Scopaz Planning Board ..... Bennett Orlowski Building Inspector%Code ..... Edward Forrester 1998 SouthoM Town Piac, nJng Board January ?~, 1975 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall PO Box 7179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed Local Law to Service Station Use JAN ?., 7 1998 Southold Town Planning Board Revise Hamlet Business for Gasoline Dear Southold Town Board, We are not in support of the proposed changes to the Hamlet Business Zone, Section 100-91B with regard to gasoline service stations. As homeowners on Mechanic Street, we are opposed to this zoning code amendment as well as the Southold Automotive Corp. (Citgo) application to expand their facility. Their application to expand was denied last year by the-Zoning Board of Appeals for the following reasons: "...under Article XXIV, Section ~00-243A a nonconforming building with a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered unless the use of the building is changed to a conforming use. The preexisting building is located in the Hamlet Business District and is not permitted use in this district. do not conform to the required yard..." a The side and rear yard setbacks 10 ft. side and 25 ft. rear With all these nonconformities, we do not think Citgo should be granted a variance. The Town Board should uphold the original law outlined in Section 100-~0~B which allows for gas stations only in general business zones under special exception. Amending our local law to permit gasoline service stations in Hamlet Business (Section 100-91B) would be a mistake. We are very concerned about the look of Main Street and the intrusion of Citgo into our neighborhood. Everyday, we hear noise from automotive repair. The lighting at night is very harsh and there's more of it, since the change from "Mobil" to "Citgo". Workers use Mechanic St. and Mechanic St. East to test out their cars and the property behind the shop is strewn with old cars, garbage receptacles and tow trucks. All these activities, discarded cars and equipment are too close to our homes already. There exists no buffer zone and our property values are being adversely affected. Afterall, this is the Hamlet/Residential zone. There are very few gas stations that enjoy the "plum" location enjoyed by Southold Citgo. The advantage Citgo has over all gas stations is location-- in the middle of our picturesque town! We would not like to see this sort of thing "springing up" all over Southold Town. Gas stations serve a function, but they do nothing to make our town beautiful and can be very bothersome to the neighborhoods they are next to. With the introduction of Multiple/row/town/attached/ dwellings to our hamlet business district, we see how gas stations--if allowed under Section 100-91B--may conflict with the interests of yet more residents. We should not be encouraging more gas stations in our historic centers or promoting nonconforming expa[nsions with inadequate setbacks. With regard to gasoline service stations, please do not amend our local law to include Hamlet Business Use District Section 100-91B. We ask the Town Board--for the sake of town residents and the beauty of our hamlets--to only uphold General Business Use District, Section 100-10lB, the original law. Yours truly, C.~.-TO~n Plann~r~-Valerie Scopaz Planning Board--Chairman Bennett Orlowski Building Inspector/Code--Edward Forrester Zoning Board of Appeals--Chairman Gerard Goehringer .~/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSICI, Chairman %rILLL~/I J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD BLDG. DEPT. TOWN Ol: SOU'I'HOLD PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1935 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Edward Forester, Building Department Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Warex Terminals/CITGO Station Main and Factory Avenue, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-142-1-27 January 27, 1998 As discussed, the above project is being sent to you for review of the use (uses) permitted in this General Business Zone (B). Attached is the variance granted by the Board of Appeals to the former owner, Sun Oil. Attached also is the site plan of Warex Terminals for their project. The original site plan that we were reviewing for Sun Oil can be reviewed at our office as we have only one copy. Several issues as I see it are the conditions that the Board of Appeals had placed on the variance, namely, no sign for the store, (the elevation drawings show a sign, possibly 711). Condition #8 indicates that the store is an accessory use to the gas station and not a primary use. Parking has been reviewed and found to be adequate on the Warex plan. I would be happy to discuss this project in more detail at your convenience. MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Kassner FROM: Town Attorney DATE: January 26, 1998 RE: 7-11 Store Query You asked for input on whether this should be considered an accessory convenience store or a separate use. I attach some court cases in which courts review Focal decisions on that issue. These decisions should highlight the analysis concerned, which depends on factors as past decisions and the specific language of the municipal ordinances. I believe that our Zoning Board has some past decisions would could be factored into the analysis. Our ordinance provides that: §100-13 Definitions GASOLINE SERVICE STATION -- A structure and surrounding land used for the storage and sale of petroleum fuel primarily to motor vehicles and for accessory uses such as the sale of lubricants, accessories or st~pplies, the incidental washing of motor vehicles and the performing of minor repairs within a building; however, a service station is not a repair garage or a body shop. PARTIAL SELF-SERVICE GASOLINE SERVICE STATION -- A gasoline service station primarily for the servicing of molor vehicles and the dispensing of gasoline by means of a qualified attendant controlling an approved console regulating the flow of gasoline into fixed and approved dispensing equipment thereafter to be operated by the customer at one (1) set of pumps on one (1) pump istand and by a quail[led attendant operating dispensing equipment at all other pump islands. ACCESSORY USE - A use customarily incidental and subordinate to the main use on a lot. whether such "accessory use" is conducted in a principal or accessory building. USE, ACCESSORY -- A use customarily incidental and subordinate to the main use on a lot, whether such "accessory use" is conducted in a principal or accessory building. § 100-101 (B) General Business Special Exception uses (12) Public garages, gasoline service stations, new and used motor vehicle lots, vehicle sales and rental, including the sale of recreation vehicles and trailers and boat sales, with accessory repair facilities, all subject to the following requirements: (13) Partial self-service gasoline service stalions, snbject to all of lhe provisions of § 100- 101 B(12) herein and the following additional requirements: §100-101(C) Accessory uses. The following uses are permitted as accessory uses and, except for residential accessory uses and signs, which are governed by Adicle XX, are subject to site ptan review: (1) Accessory uses set fodh in and as regulated by § 100-31C(1) through (8) and (10) of the Agricultural-Conservation District, subject to the conditions set forth in § 100-33 thereof. I hope this information is of use. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. · EXXON CORP. V. BE). OF STDS. [128 AE)2D 289, 515 NYS2D 768] First Department May 28, 1987 SUMMARY Appeal from an order of the Supreme Coud (Louis J. Grossman, J.), entered July 21, 1986 in New York County, which vacated a resolution of the Board of Standards and Appeals sustaining a Depadment of Buildings objection lo petitioner's application. HEADNOTES Municipal Corporations -- Zoning -- Convenience Store as Possible Accessory Use to Gasoline Station 1. The Zoning Resolution of the City of New York does not prohibil the operation of a combination convenience store/gasoline station, and accordingly, Supreme Coud properly remanded the matter to the Board of Standards and Appeals for consideration of the relevant factors in determining whether petitioner's proposed convenience store satisfies the Zoning Resolution definition of an accessory use. The resolution defines an automotive service station as a building or tract of land used exclusively for the storage and sale of gasoline or other motor fuels "and for any uses accessory thereto", and while it enumerates cedain permitted accessory uses, il does not hold the specified uses out as exclusive, and nowhere does it state that "accessory uses", in the context of an automobile service station, must relate directly lo the care and maintenance of automobiles. The Board was required, but failed, to refer to the definition of an accessory use in determining what are the "uses accessory" to an automotive service station, pursuant to lhe language of the resolution. The existence of a list of cedain prohibited uses contained in the definition of "automotive service station" militates against the argument that the list of permitted accessory uses contains the only permilted uses. Fudher, the Board, in a _ significant number of cases, granted specific permission to others to operate a gasoline station in combination with a retail store, leading to the conclusion that absent a reasonable explanation, not demonstrated in the record, such discriminatory treatment of petitioner is arbitrary, and was properly vacated. Appeal -- Appellate E)ivision -- Appeal by Permission 2. The Supreme Coud, in vacating a resolution of the Board of Standards and Appeals sustaining a Depadment of Buildings objection to petitioner's application and holding that the New York City Zoning Resolution did not prohibit a convenience store as an accessory use to an automotive service station as a matter of law, properly remanded the matter to the Board for further consideration not inconsistent with the coud's decision. Although the order of the Supreme Court is not a final determination and is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [bi [1]), since the issue presented is an impodant one, leave to appeal is granted, sua sponte. (CPLR 5701 [c].) <Pg. 290> MAJORITY Sullivan, J. P. [1] This appeal presents tb, e issue of whether the New York City Zoning Resolution prohibits the operation of a combinatibn convenience store/gasoline station. We are persuaded that il does not, and affirm the remand of the matter to the Board of Standards and Appeals for a consideration of the relevant factors in determining whether the proposed convenience store satisfies the Zoning Resolution definition of an accessory use. Exxon is the lessee under a long-term lease of premises located on Bell Boulevard in Queens· The property, a corner lot, is currently utilized, pursuant to a "variation" granted by the Board of Standards and Appeals on April 3, 1956, as a gasoline service station, with a lubritorium, an auto -repair facility, as well as facilities for aoto washing, an office, and the sale and storage of auto accessories. All four corners of Ihe inlersection are zoned 02-2, which allows commercial use service establishments. 1 The surrounding area is residenlially zoned. In 1985, tile owner of tile property snbmitted an application to Ihe Department of Buildings lo construct a new building in order to convert the use of the premises to a 24-hour self-service gasoline slation, wilhoul repair facililies and with a small retail, or convenience store. A retail store falls within a Use Group 6 under the New York City Zoning Resolution and, generally speaking, is permitted as of right, i.e., without need for prior approval, in a C2 area. The Depadment of Buildings disapproved the application on August 16, 1985, noting, inter alia, the following objection: "Proposed retail store on same zoning lot with 'automotive service station' not permitted and conlrary to Sec. 12-10 [Zoning Resolution]."2 Section 12-10 of the New York City Zoning Resolution defines "~utomotive service station" as: "IAi building or other structure or a tract of land used exclusively for the storage and sale of gasoline or other motor fuels and for any uses accessory thereto. "The sale of lubricants, accessories, or supplies, the lubrication of motor vehicles, the minor adjustment or repair of motor vehicles with hand tools only, or the occasional washing of motor vehicles are permitted accessory uses. "A public parking lot or public parking garage is not a permitted accessory use." (Italics as in original.) Section 12-10 also defines "accessory use": "An 'accessory use': "(a) Is a use conducted on the same zoning lot as the principal use to which it is related (whether located within the same or an accessory building or other structure, or as an accessory use of land), except that, where specifically provided in the applicable district regulations, accessory off-street parking or loading need not be located on the same zoning lot; and "(b) Is a use which is clearly incidental to, and customarily found in connection with, such principal use; and "(c) is either in the same ownership as such principal use, or is operated and maintained on the same zoning lot substantially for the benefit or convenience of the owners, occupants, ' employees, customers, or visitors of the principal use. "When 'accessory' is used in the text, it shall have the same meaning as accessory use." (Italics as in original.) Through their architect, Exxon and the owner appealed to the Board of Standards and Appeals from the Department of Buildings determination, and requested the Board to issue an inlerpretation of the two subsections of section 12-10 of the Zoning Resolution which define "automotive service station" and "accessory use," respectively, so as to permit the operation of a convenience store at the subject properly in conjunction with a self-service gas station. The architect argued that since the Zoning Resolution does not specifically prohibit such combined use, the Board should recognize a retail store as an accessory use to a gas station in a zone where retail stores are perrhitted. In partial support of his position, the architect relied upon a 1967 Depadment of Buildings directive stating, in regard to gas stations, that "additional uses are permitted." The architect also submitted written materials showing that the operation of a small convenience store in combination with Ihe self-se~ice sale of gasoline had become commonplace throughout the country over the last few years. At present, for instance, in excess of 70% of all sales oi' gasoline are conducted from self-service pumps, and some 55,000 2 gasoline stations, a number oi~ which are Iocaled in the City of New York, are being operated in conjunction with a coavenience store. The architect placed before the Board examples of some of the many instances in which il had expressly sanctioned such combined use tot others, including Exxon's direct competitors. [2] By unanimous vote and without making any factual findings, the Board upheld the Department of Buildings objection. In so doing, it adopted an interpretation of section 12-10 of the Zoning Resolution which limited permitted "accessory uses" to those contained in that section's definition of "automotive service station." Exxon then commenced this CPLR adicle 78 proceeding. The coud which heard the petition held, inter alia, that the Board had interpreted the Zoning Resolution Ioo restrictively and arbitrarily, vacated its resolution and remanded the matter fo the Board.3 This appeal i'ollowed. Zoning ordinances, which are in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed against the zoning authority. (Thomson Indus. v. Incorporated Vii. of Pod Wash. N., 27 NY2d 537, 539; Matter of 440 E. 102nd St. Corp. v. Murdock, 285 NY 298,304.) In construing a zoning regulation, "the issue is eot whether the use is permissible, but, rather, whether it is prohibited." (Matter of De Masco Scrap Iron & Metal Corp. v. Zirk, 62 AO2d 92, 98, affd 46 NY2d 864.) In its resolution denying Exxon's appeal, the Board declared that the definition of "automotive service station" contained in section 12-10 "sets fodh a clear list"--in effect, an exclusive list--"of the uses permitted as accessory."4 But the definition of an automotive service statioo as a building or tract of land used exclusively for the storage and sale of gasoline or other motor fuels "and for any uses accessory thereto" speaks, insofar as the expression "accessory uses" is concerned, not in terms of exclusion or limitation, but, rather, inclusion. The statute expressly permils "any" accessory uses. While section 12-10 enumerates cedain permitted accessory uses, it does not, even implicitly, hold Ihe specified uses out as exclusive. Nor does it indicale that these uses are necessarily characteristic of the only permitted types of use. Significanfiy, uowhere does it say that "accessory uses", in Ihe coatext o~' an automolive service slatiou, ~r~usl relate directly to the care and maintenance of automobiles. "Had the [city] intended to impose such a condilion il could easily have done so." (Matter of Allen v. Adami, 39 NY2d 275, 277.) Zoning regulations may not be extended by implication. (Matter of Monument Garage Corp. v. Levy, 266 NY 339.) That the Zoning Resolution provides for the inclusion of "any" use accessory 1o the main use of selling gasoline is made clear in other ways. At the very beginning of section 12-10, the definitional portion of the Zoning Resolution, the following caveat appears: "Words in the text or tables of this resolution which are italicized shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Section." (Emphasis in the original.) As is set fodh in section 12-01 (c), "tribe word 'shall' is always mandatory and not discretionary." Accordingly, whenever an italicized word appears in any pad of the Zoning Resolution, that word must be interpreted in accordance with the definition thereof provided in section 12-10. The Zoning Resolution definition of an "automotive service station", as italicized, provides, in pedinent part: "used exclusively for the storage and sale of gasoline or other motor fuels and for any uses accessory thereto." Thus, the Zoning Resolution requires that "uses accessory," as set fodh in the definition of an automotive service station, be, without exception, "interpreted in accordance with" the definition of accessory uses set fodh in section 12-10. In determining what are the "uses accessory" to an automotive service station, the Board was therefore required to refer to the definition of an accessory use. It refused to do so, however, insisting that it is "unnecessary to even address the issue of whether a retail store would fit wilhin the general definition of 'accessory use'", since it considers the list of permissible uses set fodh in the definition of automotive service station to be exhaustive. If this were so, however, the words'"uses accessory" in that definition would not have been italicized, thereby invoking the Zoning Resoiution's definition of "accessory uses". Thus. the Board's interpretation is in direct contradiction to the unambiguous language of the Resolution. 3 Moreover, the same definition of "automotive service station" includes not only the list of accessory uses which the Board claims is exhaustive and all-inclusive, but also contains two uses--parking lots and parking garages--which are prohibited. The Board never suggested that these were the only uses prohibited. Yet, if one list were an all-inclusive enumeration of permitted accessory uses, as the Board contends, there would be no reason at all to have the second list of excluded uses. The existence of such a list, of necessity, militates against the argument that the first list contains the only permitted uses. The Zoning Resolution's enumeration of two proscribed uses was apparently intended to prevent undue disturbance to surrounding areas. For instance, the Resolution permits "the minor adjustment or repair of rnotor vehicles with hand tools only", and "the occasional washing of motor vehicles", thus interdicting such activities as major overhauls and a commercial car wash. Obviously, the replacement of even lhese permitted activities with a small retail store would not undermine the intent of the Zoning Resolution. Thus, the Board's interpretation of section 12-10 effectively struck the words "and for any uses accessory thereto" from the last pad of the first paragraph. Likewise, it also deleted the last paragraph of the definition with the two prohibited uses, since, according to the Board's reasoning, anything not explicitly mentioned in the second paragraph would be automatically prohibited anyway. In so doing, the Board violated the well-established principle of statutory construction that a stalute must be viewed as a whole, and, to that end, all of ils pads, should, if possible, be harmonized 1o achieve the legislative purpose. (See, Sanders v. Winship, 57 NY2d 391, 395-396; People v. Mobil Oil Corp., 48 NY2d 192, 199; McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book I, Statutes §§ 97, 98, 130.) It is also a rule of statutory construction that "effect and meaning must, if possible, be given to the entire statute and every pad and word thereof." (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, op cit, § 98: accord, Pearson v. Pearson, 81 AD2d 291,293; Grich v. Wood & Hyde Leather Co., 74 AD2d 183, 184.) ~-- Absent an explanation for the use of the word "any" in the definition, or for the list of prohibitions in lhe third paragraph, the obvious intent of the Resolution is that any use which would fit the general defiuilion o1' an accessory use, unless prohibited, is permissible. This would include all uses which are customarily found in connection with the operation of an automotive service station, irrespective of whether they are specifically mentioned in the second paragraph of the definition, or are expressly "aulo related". Citing, inter alia, Matter of Lezette v. Board of Educ. (35 NY2d 272, 281), the Board argues that the court is bound lo uphold an administrative interpretation, even when doubt or ambiguity exists with respect to the proper construction of a statute, Yet, as already noted, zoning ordinances are in derogation <Pg. 296> of common-law rights and, accordingly, must be strictly construed so as not to place any greater inference upon the tree use of land than is absolutely required. (See, Matter of 440 E. 102nd St. Corp. v. Murdock, supra., 285 NY, at 304.) "Any ambiguity in the language used in such regulations must be resolved in favor of the property owner." (Matter of Allen v. Adami, supra., 39 NY2d, at 277; see also, FGL & L Prop. Corp. v. City of Rye, 66 NY2d 111, 115; Town of Huntington v. Barracuda Transp. Co., 80 AD2d S55.) Moreover, the Board's interpretation of what constitutes an accessory use is not entilled to unquestioning judicial deference, since the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the taw is with the court. While couds should give due consideration to an agency's practical construction of a statute over a period of time (see, e.g., Town ot Amherst v. County of Erie, 260 NY 361,369- 370), the Board admits that its determination in the instant matter was not part of any long- standing practical construction of the statute. Indeed, it has characterized the issue as "one of first impression". In fact, however, as Exxon demonstrates, lhe Board's long-standing practice has been to permit a retail store to be operated in combination with a gasoline service station. indeed, the Board recognized as much when its chairperson stated, "The fact that it's become 4 popular and many New York City service stations are equipped with Use Group 6 retail occupancies and Ihat such cases have nol had objections issued Io them, il seems to tile Board, is obvious bul not conlrolling in this case." While an adrninistrative agency is accorded broad regulatory authority, "[d]iscretionary power is not absolute; it is subject lo the limitation that it cannot be exercised arbitrarily". (Matter of Freidus v. Guggenheimer, 57 AD2d 760, 761.) Thus, an administrative agency may not rule or act in such a way as to result in inconsistent treatment of similarly siluated parties. (See, Matter of Society of N. Y. Hosp. v. Axelrod, 116 AD2d 426; Matter of Freidus v. Guggenheimer, supra.; see also, R-C Motor Lines v. Uniled States, 350 F Supp 1169, 1172, affd 411 US 941 ["Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply to decisions of administrative bodies, consistency of administrative rulings is essential, for Io adopt different standards for similar siluations is to act arbitrarily."].) The record indicates thai the Board, in a significant number of cases, granled specific permission to others, including Exxon's direct competitors, lo operate a gasoline station in combination with a retail store, among other uses. For example, under Calendar No. 914-83-A. the Board issued a resolution which states that the application sought permission, inter alia, "to erect a new brick building to contain the attendant's booth and a retail store (Use Group 6)." In response to that application, the Board specifically amended a prior resolution, and approved the erection of the said "brick building to contain attendant's booth and other conforming uses." As demonstrated by photographs in lhe record, lhat "conforming use" is a gasoline station/convenience store combination. Under Calendar No. 959-83-BZ, the Board again specifically permitted the combination of a gasoline station and a convenience store. The Board suggests, however, that, in that instance, it was only considering whether to allow "larger than permitted business signs," and that it did not focus on the fact that the site included a convenience store. This claim is belied by the language-. of the resolution, which clearly states: "WHEREAS, the proposed retail convenience store is a permitted use in the district; and "WHEREAS, the applicant has declared, in response to the community's request, that no beer or liquor will be sold in the retail convenience store "Resolved, that the Board of Standards and Appeals does hereby make the required findings and grants a Special Permit to permil the reconstruction of an automotive service station into an automobile gas and oil selling station and the addition ol~ a retail convenience slore on condition "THAT the store shall not sell beer or liquor "THAT there shall be separate employees for the self-service gasoline station and for the retail convenience store at all times." Similady, the Board asseds that Calendar No. 654-77-A merely involved an application "to install two new gasoline pump islands and to erect a new steel building." But, as the Resolution clearly states, the petitioner~ sought permission "to erect a new steel building for use as an attendant's booth and retairstore (Use Group 6)." Under Calendar No. 573-55BZ, the Resolution's descriplion of the "subject" made it clear that the purpose of the application was "to change the use of the accessory building of a gasoline service station (Use Group 16) to a food retail store (Use Group 6)" Photographs of the site clearly show the operation of a gasoline station and a retail store in the "accessory" building. Clearly, despite the Board's denial of relevancy, these and other applications have placed the propriety of the operation of a retail store as an accessory use to a gasoline station squarely in 5 issue. Whatever Ilia paramoHnl consideralion ia each of these appticalions, if Ihe operation of Ihe combinatfoa gas statlonhelail slope were illegal, the Board would not even have had to consider any other issue. Tile Board has not offered any explanalion as to why Exxon's applicalion alone has been denied; nor wily il faced a more reslrictive definilton of what is permissible as an accessory use than any olher applicant. Clearly, absent a reasonable explanation, uot demonslrated in Ihis record, such discriminatory treatment is arbitrary, and was properly vacated by the motion coud. Although we do not read section 12-10 of Ihe Zoning Resolulion as expressly permilling construction of a convenience store as an accessory use to an "automotive service station," as Exxou would have tls do, Ihere is ample evidence, on Ihe basis of the record before us, Ihal convenience slore may well fall within lhe Zoning Resolulion's general definition of an "accessory use", Exxou's p~oposal obviuusly satisfies Ihe lirst and Ihsl palls ct lire definilien, as the facility would be on Ihe same lot and would operate for the benefit and convenience of ils customers. Only the requiremeat that lhe proposed use be one customarily found in connection with, and incidenlal to, the sale of gasoline poses a factual issue for Board resolution. With respect to lhat issue, as already noted, evidence was offered that in 1985 over 55,000 stations in this country combined the sale ct gasoline with a convenience store. The sale of convenience store products could be found in close 1o one third of all stations selling gasoline, with the trend clearly toward an increase in the number of such combinations. (Daniels, Big Shift in Gasoline Retailing Is Changing Buying Patterns, New York Times, May 28, 1985, at Al, col 1 .) As the record reflects, these facts are repeated in numerous other articles highlighting what is, in fact. generally known--that the sale of some products at gasoline stations, or the sale of gasoline in connection with convenience slore operations, is becoming commonplace in this country. Nor does there appear to be any immediate danger that the incidental use will domirfate the principal use. Consumer research offered by Exxon reveals that the majority of patrons at Exxon Shops and Exxon's self-service gas stations purchase gasoline alone, while 26% purchase gasoline in combination with the purchase of another product. Only 22% limit their purchase to a convenience product solely. Facilities similar to the one proposed here generate, on average, a sales ratio of approximately 4:1 of motor fuel dollars to convenience item dollars. In any event, since we find that a convenience store is not prohibited as an accessory use by the Zoning Resolution, although it is not expressly authorized, we remand the matter to the Board for specific findings of fact as to whether Exxon's proposed use qualifies as an accessory use within the section 12-10 general definition of that term. Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Louis Gmssman, J.). entered July 21, 1986. which, inter alia, vacated the resolution of the Board of Standards and Appeals sustaining a Department of Buildings objection to petitioner's building application should be affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Asch, Milonas, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ., concur. Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 21, 1986. unanimously affirmed. without costs and without disbursements. FOOTNOTE 1 Since the subject premises is presently in a C2 zoning district, a variance is no longer necessary for the operation of a gasoline station. A special use permit is all that is required. FOOTNOTE 2 Only the objection based upon the addition of a convenience store is at issue on this appeal. The Depadment has also objected to the proposed reconstruction on two other grounds: the need for assurance that fire safety requirements have been considered and the fact that, in completely demolishing the existing gas station, which was constructed prior to the 1961 enactment of the Zoning Resolution, the owner would lose all right to operate such a facility (a nonconforming Group 16 Use) in a C2 area and would have to seek a special use permil or a 6 · variance in order to reconstruct any facility selling gasoline at the subject site. The proceeding relating to the appeal from the latter objection was adjourned sine die pending final determination of Ihe instant matter. [2[ FOOTNOTE 3 The Board argues that a remand was unnecessary since, in accordance with the coud's decision, a convenience store is an accessory use to a gasoline station as a matter ot law and, on remand, it would not have any latitude for the exercise of discretion. We do not read the court's decision so expansively. In our view, it merely held that the Zoning Resolution did not prohibit a convenience store as an accessory use as a matter of law, and remanded the matter for fudher consideration not inconsislent with that determination. Thus, the order is not a final determination and is not appealable as of righl. (CPLR 5701 th] [1].) Since the issue presented is an impodant one, leave to appeal is granted, sua sponte. (CPLR 5701 Icl.) FOOTNOTE 4 The Board also relied, in part, upon its reading of E~epartment of Buildings Directive 7-1967, dated March 23, 1967, as limiting the accessory uses ot an aulomotive service station to "uses [which] are all auto related uses." 7 BARDACH V. MAYFAIR-FLUSHING CORP. [49 MISC 2D 380, 267 NYS2D 609] The proof revealed at the hearing by uncontradicted testimony of defendants' witness Herbert H. Warman, a registered architect duly licensed to practice architecture in the State of New York and fully famitiar with the rules and regulations of the building and zoning ordinances of the City of New York, established that the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, effective December 15, 1961, forbids the use of any part ot the properly of defendant Mayfair (now property of Joseph Rubinfeld) to be used for parking of motor vehicles for the use of the plaintiffs, because said property is not owned by the same owner of plaintiffs' apartment building and, therefore, said Parcel Ill cannot be used as a permitted "accessory off-street parking" use, due to separate ownership. He furthf-=r testified and produced a copy of a summons and information indicating that there is now pending in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County, Part VI, an action entitled "People of the State of New York v. Joseph Rubinfeld" wherein Rubinfeld, as the new owner of said Parcel ill herein, is subject to cdminal prosecution for violation of "Parking cars on Lot -- No Cedil~cate of Occupancy" in violation of the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, effective December 15, 1961. The Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, effective December 15, 1961 (ch. 2, "Construction of Language and Definitions", § 12.10) provides in part: "An 'accessory use': (a) Is a use conducted on the same zoning lot as the principal use to which it is related (whether located within the same or an accessory building or other structure, or as an accessory use of land), except that, where specifically provided in the applicable district regulations, acce.$sory off-street parking or loading need not be located on the same zoning lot: and ... (c) Is either in the same <Pg. 385> ownership as such principal use, or is operated and maintained on the same zoning lot substantially for the benefit or convenience of the owners, occupants, employees, customers, or visitors of the principal use. When 'accessory' is used in the text, it shall have the same meaning as accessory use." (Italics in original.) PEOPLE V. PAGE [36 MISC 2D 840, 234 NYS2D 518] The question properly before this court is whether the placing of said "Grocerette" violated the Administrative Code of the City of New York and is an improper or illegal use. The premises herein is a multiple dwelling, the use of which is controlled by chapter 2 of section 22-00 the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York and is in the "Use Group 2", to be used for residential and accessop/uses. (§ 22-12.) An "accessory use" is defined in section 12-10 of the Zoning Resolution as follows: '"a' Is a use conducted on the same zoning lot as the principal use to which it is related ... "'b' Is a use which is clearly incidental to, and customarily found in connection with, such principal use; and "'c' Is either the same ownership as the principal use, or is operated and maintained on the same zoning lot substantially for the benefit or convenience of the owners, occupants, employees, customers or visitors of the principal use". Cleady, the vending machine in issue is designated and designed solely for the convenience of the tenants in the building in which it was placed, and not for the general public, and therefore constitutes an (c) 1997~ Alexander Treadwe~l, Sec of Slale, State of New York accessory use of st ~ The Commissioner ot the Del: gs of the City of New York has allowed and permitted Ihe installation of milk vending machines, and said ruling was upheld in Tarry. City of New York (12 Misc 2d 796 [1957]). No valid distinction can be made belween the machine at issue, which dispenses bread, bakery prod[mrs and soda, and the machine which vends milk and which is admittedly permissible. <Pg. 843> There does not appear to be any contention that the machine in issue is a fire hazard or is unsafe or that it would be more possible of use by the general public than the milk machine. Both the machine in issue and the permissible "milk machine" vend staples which are a necessity in every home. Milk, bread and bakery products are often the subject of home delivery by route salesmen. The mechanical rendition of this service cannot reasonably be held to interfere with the fundamental residential use of a building. MTR. OF LA VECCHIA V. BD. OF STDS. & APPEALS [26 MISC 2D 39, 204 NYS2D 429] It is clear that no bowling alleys are permitled in a local retail use district "other than in a hotel" tN. Y. Zoning Resolution, § 4-B, subd. iai). "The literal wording of a statute must be construed in the light of the expressed object of the law-givers." (Matter of New York Ambassador v. Board of Stds. & Appeals, 281 App. Div. 342, affd. 305 N. Y. 791,793.) The Zoning Resolution construed in this light indicates a clear intent to limit the maintenance of a bowling alley in a local <Pg. 41· retail district to use as an accessory for the convenience and entedainment of its patrons, and not for the use of the public generally. Put another way, the prohibition against the use of the premises in a local retail district for a "bowling alley other than in a hotet" was intended to limit such use to the needs of the hotel itself, and not to permit the carrying on in the hotel of a general bowling alley business for the public at large (Matter of New York Ambassador v. Board of Stds. & Appeals, supra). Petitioner contends that since the wording of subdivision (a) of section 4-B of the Zoning Resolution does not state "accessory" to a hotel, but uses phraseology "other than in a hotel", while subdMsion (j) of the same section provides that a dry-cleaning establishment is permitted "as an accessory use in a transient hotel or a department store", there is legislative intent not to make bowling alleys "accessory" to the hotel, otherwise the language used in subdivision (,i) would not have specifically included the word "accessory". This contention is without merit. It has been held that "it is the duty of the courts to give effect to statutes as they are written and that ... [courts} may not limit or extend the scope of the statute as wdften unless literal construction of the statute would produce a result which the Legislature plainly did not intend." (Matter of Russo v. Valentine, 294 N. Y. 338,342.) Moreover, subdivisions (a) and (j) were adopted at different times (subd. iai on June 6, 1940, and subd. iii on Feb. 3, 1953). The court concludes that failure to use the word "accessory" is of no consequence to change the intent of limiting the use of a bowling alley in a hotel in a retail use district. The order oi' certiorari is vacated and the petition dismissed, and the determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals is affirmed. (c) ~997, Alexander Treadwell, Sec of State, Slate o~ New York APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Ooehringer, Chairmnn Charle~ Grigonis. Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James l)i.izim Ir. '['elel)llone (516) 765-1809 Jill ,,( %o/'.' "x" ?' BOA RI) OF Al'PEA LS TOWN OF SOUTIIOI.D SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Mairl Road P.O. Box 1179 SouthoM, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TeleF, hone (516) 765-1800 ACTION O17 'FIIE BOARD OF APPEALS Upon application of SUN REFINING & MARKETING CO. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Section 100-102: (1) for permission to establish convenience store use in conjunction with and accessory to the existing gasoline station use on this substandard parcel which contains less than 30,000 sq. ft. in lot area for each use, and (2) for interpretation as to the height limitation of accessory (canopy} structure, and (3) for approval of canopy structure in the front yard location. Location of Property: Corner of the Easterly Side of Factory Avenue and Northerly Side of the Main Road, Mattituck, NY; District 1000, Section 142, Block 1, Lot 27. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 1, 1990 and-- continued on November 29, 1990, in the Matter of the Application of SUN REFINING & MARKETING CO. under Appeal No. 3788; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is a corner lot with 150.0 feet along the east side of Factory Avenue and with 198.0 feet along the north side of the Main Road, in the Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Sguthold, and more particUlarly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 142, Block 1, Lot 27. 2. The subject premises contains a total area of 24,139 sq. ft., is located in the "B" General Business Zone District, and is improved with a 30' x 66' principal building and two gasoline service (concrete} islands, all as shown on Drawing No. Page 2 - Appl. 28 Matter of SUN REF1NIMG & MARKETING Decision Rendered January 1[, 1991 13-1318 (Rev. 11) as updated October 29, 1990, prepared by Sun Refining & Marketing Company. 3. By this application, the appellant requests Variances: (a) to convert the cxi. st. ing prJ. nc.ipal, bui.ld[n[l from gasol, inc accessory convenience store for the on-premises sales of packaged food and nonfood itemq, without on-premises food services, incidental to and in conjunction with the existin~ 9asoline service :;tat:ion uscg and (b) for approwil of the location of a new 30 ft. by 103 ft. canopy over new gasoline pumps/islands with its closest set-backs at 29 feet from tile westerly property line along Factory Avenue and at 29 feet from the southerly property line along tile Main Road, as shown on Drawing 13-1318-M (Rev. 2) dated September 14, 1988 (also revised May 7, 1990), at a height at not more than 18 feet above ground. 4. For the record, it is noted that under previous Action of this Board under Appl. No. 1225 rendered January 2, 1969, a Special Exception was granted for a gasoline service and indoor- repair station. 5. In considering this application, it is the understanding of the Board Members that the items to be sold would include small variety store items, such as packaged and canned foods, magazines, refrigerated items, microwaved items, and the like. 6. The following information is also noted for the record: (a) the premises has continuously for the past 22 years been used as an office for sales of g~soline and other incidental merchandise, with small engine/vehicle repairs within the enclosed three bay areas of the principal building, and gasoline sales at the pumps; (b) the use as a convenience store is to be used accessory and incidental to the gasoline-service station and not as a separate principal use or business establishment; (c) the existing vehicle lifts and (three) bay areas will be eliminated and replaced with the accessory convenience store use; (d) without prior application; the principal building will not be enlarged approval of the Board of Appeals by subsequent Page 3 Appl. Matter of SUN REFINING & MARKETING Decision Rendered January 11, 1991 (e) also noted ls the interpretation of the board, as requested by the applicant, in that the subject canopy structure is an accessory structure, limited to the 18-ft. maximum height requirement {and not the heiqht limitation for a principal building at 35 feet), and subject, of course, to the rules as apply to accessory structures. 7. ' In considering this application, the Board also finds and determines: (a) the subject parcel is surrounded by other properties to the north, west, east, and south of the Main Road which are also located and used as regulated by the General Business "B" Zone District; (b) the variance, as conditionally noted below, is the minim~ necessary to afford relief; (c) the accessory use as authorized will not alter the essential character of tile neighborhood; (d) the difficulties are unique, are not due to the -' general conditions of the neighborhood, and are not personal in nature; (e) there is no other feasible method for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (f) the relief as conditionally granted will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of this district or of adjacent use districts; (g) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the Town will not be adversely affected by the proposed business use and its location; (h) in light of all of the above, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variances requested and as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on ~otion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Dinizio, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested for permission to convert the existing principal building for sales of gasoline and related items, together with an accessory convenience store, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Page 4 - Appl. No. 3788 Matter of SUN REFINING & MARKETING Decision Rendered January 11, 1991 1. No cooking, except by portable microwave; 2. No food preparation (must be pre-packaged - including cold cuts and sandwiches); 3..No table service or seating for pub%ic use; 4. No signs advertising the convenience store use, except by approval of the Board of Appeals; 5. Ail engine/vehicle repairs and/or car washing services must cease; 6. No drive-thru or drive in services; 7. Convenience store sales shall be limited to self-service (including vending machines, refrigerators); 8. Convenience store is permitted only as an accessory use incidental to the principal use as a gasoline service station (as proposed herein) and within the principal building only, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance for the canopy structure of a size 30 ft. by 103 ft., 29 feet from the westerly property line (along Factory Avenue) and 29 feet from the southerly property . line (along the State Highway), provided that the canopy structure not exceed 18 feet in height in the front yard area, as applied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Dinizio. (Absent was: Member Grigonis due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, {~HAIRMAN MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Bob Kassner Town Attorney January 26, 1998 7-11 Store Query You asked for input on whether this should be considered an accessory convenience store or a separate use. I attach some court cases in which courts review local decisions on that issue. These decisions should highlight the analysis concerned, which depends on factors as past decisions and the specific language of the municipal ordinances. I believe that our Zoning Board has some past decisions would could be factored into the analysis. Our ordinance provides that: §100-13 Definitions GASOLINE SERVICE STATION ~- A struclure and surrounding land used for the storage and sale of petroleum fuel primarily lo motor vehicles and for accessory uses such as the sale of lubricanls, accessories or supplies, lhe incidental washing of motor vehicles and the performing of minor repairs within a building; however, a service station is not a repair garage or a body shop. PARTIAL SELF-SERVICE GASOLINE SERVICE STATION -- A gasoline service station primarily for the servicing of motor vehicles and the dispensing of gasoline by means of a qualified attendant controlling an approved console regulating the flow of gasoline into fixed and approved dispensing equipment thereafter to be operated by the customer at one (1) set of pumps on one (1) pump island and by a qualified attendant operating dispensing equipment at all other pump islands. ACCESSORY USE -- A use customarily incidental and subordinate to the main use on a lot, whether such "accessory use" is conducted in a principal or accessory building. USE, ACCESSORY -- A use customarily incidental and subordinate to the main use on a lot, whether such "accessory use" is conducted in a principal or accessory building. §100-101 (B) General Business Special Exception uses (12) Public garages, gasoline service slations, new and used motor vehicle lots, vehicle sales and renlal, including the sale of recmalion vehicles and trailers and boal sales, wilh accessory repair facilities, all subject to the following requirements: (13) Padial self-service gasoline service stations, subject to all of the provisions of § 100- 101B(12) herein and the following additional requirements: §100-101(C) Accessory uses. The following uses are permitled as accessory uses and, excepl for residential accessory uses and signs, which are governed by Article XX, are subject to site plan review: (1) Accessory uses set fodh in and as regulated by § 100-31C(1) through (8) and (10) of the Agricultural-Conservation District, subject to the conditions set fodh in § 100-33 lhereof. I hope this information is of use. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. EXXON CORP. V. BD. OF STDS. [128 AD2D 289, 515 NYS20 768] First Depadment May 28, 1987 SUMMARY Appeal from an order of the Supreme Coud (Louis J. Grossman, J.), entered July 21, 1986 in New York County, which vacaled a resolution of the Board of Standards and Appeals suslaining a Depadment of Buildings objection to petitioner's application. HEADNOTES Municipal Corporations -- Zoning -- Convenience Store as Possible Accessory Use to Gasoline Station. 1. The Zoning Resolulion of the City of New York does not prohibit the operation of a combination convenience store/gasoline station, and accordingly, Supreme Court properly remanded the mailer to the Board of Standards and Appeals for consideration of the relevant factors in determining whether petitioner's proposed convenience store satisfies the Zoning Resolution definition of an accessory use. The resolution defines an automotive service station as a building or tract of land used exclusively for the slorage and sale of gasoline or other molor fuels "and for any uses accessory thereto", and while it enumerates cedain permitted accessory uses, it does not hold the specified uses out as exclusive, and nowhere does il state lhal "accessory uses", in the context of an automobile service station, must relate directly to lhe care and maintenance of automobiles. The Board was required, but failed, to refer to the definition of an accessory use in determining what are the "uses accessory" to an automolive service station, pursuant to the language of the resolution. The existence of a list of cedain prohibited uses contained in the definition of "automotive service station" militates against the argument that the list of permitted accessory uses contains the only permitted uses. Fudher, the Board, in a significant number of cases, granted specific permission to others to operate a gasoline station in combination with a retail store, leading to the conclusion that absent a reasonable explanation, not demonstrated in the record, such discriminatory Ireatment of petitioner is arbitrary, and was properly vacated. Appeal -- Appellate Division -- Appeal by Permission 2. The Supreme Coud, in vacating a resolution of the Board of Standards and Appeals sustaining a Depadment of Buildings objection to petitioner's application and holding that the New York City Zoning Resolution did not prohibit a convenience store as an accessory use to an aulomotive service station as a matter of law, properly remanded the matter to the Board for fudher consideration not inconsistent with lhe coud's decision. Although the order of the Supreme Court is not a final determination and is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 lb] [1]), since the issue presented is an impodant one, leave to appeal is granted, sua sponte. (CPLR 5701 lc].) <Pg. 290> MAJORITY Sullivan, J. P. [1] This appeal presents the issue of whether the New York City Zoning Resolution prohibits the operation of a combination convenience store/gasoline station, We are persuaded that il does not, and affirm the remand of the mailer to the Board of Standards and Appeals for a consideration of the relevant factors in determining whether the proposed convenience store salisfies the Zoning Resolution definition of an accessory use. Exxon is the lessee under a long-term lease of premises located on Bell Boulevard in Queens. The properly, a corner lot, is currently utilized, pursuant 1o a "variation" granled by the Board of Standards and Appeals on April 3, 1956, as a gasoline service station, with a lubritorium, an auto repair facility, as well as facilities for auto washing, an office, and the sale and storage of auto accessories. All four corners of lhe intersection are zoned C2-2, which allows commercial use service establishments.1 The surreunding area is residentially zoned. In 1985, the owner of tbe propedy submitted an application to tile Depadment of Buildings Io construct a new building in order lo convert the use of the premises to a 24-hour self-service gasoline slation, wilhout repair facilities and with a small relail, or convenience store. A relail store falls within a Use Group 6 under the New York City Zoning Resolution and, generally speaking, is permitted as of right, i.e., without need for prior approval, in a C2 area. The Depadment of Buildings disapproved the applicalion on Augus116, 1985, holing, inter alia, the following objection: "Proposed retail store on same zoning lot with 'automotive service station' not permilled and contrary 1o Sec. 12-10 [Zoning Resolution]."2 Secli~)n 12-10 of the New York City Zoning Resolution defines "automotive service slation" as: "IAI building or other structure or a tract of land used exclusively for the storage and sale of gasoline or other motor fuels and for any uses accessory thereto. "The sale of lubricants, accessories, or supplies, the lubrication of motor vehicles, lhe minor adjustment or repair of motor vehicles with hand tools only, or the occasional washing of motor vehicles are permitted accessory uses. "A public parking lot or public parking garage is not a permitted accessory use." (Italics as in original.) Section 12-10 also defines "accessory use": "An 'accessory use': "(a) Is a use conducted on the same zoning lot as the principal use to which it is related (whelher~ located within lhe same or an accessory building or other structure, or as an accessory use of land), except lhat, where specifically provided in the applicable district regulations, accessory off-street parking or loading need not be located on the same zoning lot; and "(b) Is a use which is clearly incidental to, and cuslomarily found in connection with, such principal use; and "(c) Is either in the same ownership as such principal use, or is operated and maintained on Ihe same zoning lot substantially for the benefit or convenience of the owners, occupants, employees, customers, or visitors of the principal use. "When 'accessory' is used in the text, it shall have the same meaning as accessory use." (llalics as in original.) Through their architect, Exxon and the owner appealed to the Board of Standards and Appeals from the Department of Buildings determination, and requested the Board to issue an interpretation of the two subsections of section 12-10 of lhe Zoning Resolution which define "automotive service station" and "accessory use," respectively, so as to permit the operation of a convenience store al the subject property in conjunction with a self-service gas station. The architect argued that since lhe Zoning Resolution does nol specifically prohibit such combined use, the Board should recognize a retail store as an accessory use to a gas station tlr a zone where retail stores are permitted. In padial support of his position, the architect relied upon a 1967 Department of Buildings directive stating, in regard 1o gas stations, that "additional uses are permitted." The architect also submitted written materials showing that the operation of a small convenience store in combination with the self-service sale of gasoline had become commonplace throughout the counlry over the last few years. At present, for instance, in excess of 70% of all sales of gasoline am conducted from self-service pumps, and some 55,000 2 gasoline stations, a number of which are located in the City of New York, are being operated in conjunction with a convenience store. The architect placed before the Board examples of some of the many instances in which it had expressly sanctioned such combined use for others, including Exxon's direct competilors. [2] By unanimous vote and without making any factual findings, the Board upheld the Department of Buildings objection. In so doing, il adopted an inlerpretalion of section 12-10 of the Zoning Resolution which limited permitted "accessory uses" to lhose contained in that section's definition of "automotive service slalion." Exxon then commenced this CPLR adicle 78 proceeding. The coud which heard the petilion held, inter alia, that the Board had interpreted the Zoning Resolution too restrictively and arbitrarily, vacated its resolution and remanded lhe matter to the Board.3 This appeal followed. Zoning ordinances, which are in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed against the zoning authority. (Thomson Indus. v. Incorporated Vii. of Pod Wash. N., 27 NY2d 537, 539; Matter of 440 E. 102nd St. Corp. v. Murdock, 285 NY 298, 304.) In construing a zoning regulation, "the issue is not whether the use is permissible, but, rather, whether il is prohibited." (Matter of De Masco Scrap Iron & Metal Corp. v. Zirk, 62 AD2d 92, 98, affd 46 NY2d 864.) In its resolution denying Exxon's appeal, the Board declared that the definition of "automotive service station" contained in section 12-10 "sets fodh a clear list"--in effect, an exclusive lisl--"of the uses permilted as accessory."4 But the definition of an automotive service slation as a building or tract of land used exclusively for the slorage and sale of gasoline or other molor fuels "and for any uses accessory thereto" speaks, insofar as the expression "accessory uses" is concerned, not in terms of exclusion or limitation, but, rather, inclusion. The statute expressly permils "any" accessory uses. While seclion 12-10 enumerates cedain permitted accessory uses, it does not, even implicilly, hold the specified uses oul as exclusive. Nor does it indicale that these uses are necessarily characterislic of the only permitted types of use. Significanlly, nowhere does it say thai "accessory uses", in Ihe contexl of an aulomotive service slation, must relate direclly to the care and maintenauce of automobiles. "Had the [city] intended to impose such a condition il could easily have done so." (Matter of Allen v. Adami, 39 NY2d 275, 277.) Zoning regulations may nol be extended by implication. (Matter of Monument Garage Corp. v. Levy, 266 NY 339.) That the Zoning Resolution provides for Ihe inclusion of "any" use accessory to the main use of selling gasoline is made clear in other ways. At the very beginning of section 12-10, the definitional portion of the Zoning Resolution, the following caveat appears: "Words in the text or tables of this resolution which are italicized shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Section." (Emphasis in the original.) As is set forth in seclion 12-01 (c), "ti]he word 'shall' is always mandatory and not discretionary." Accordingly, whenever an italicized word appears in any part of the Zoning Resolution, thai word must be interpreted in accordance wilh the definition lhereof provided in section 12-10. The Zoning Resolution definition of an "automotive service station", as italicized, provides, in pertinent part: "used exclusively for the storage and sale of gasoline or other motor fuels and for any uses accessory thereto." Thus, the Zoning Resolution requires thai "uses accessory," as set forth in lhe definition of an automotive service station, be, withoul exception, "interpreted in accordance with" the definition of accessory uses set forth in section 12-10. In determining what are the "uses accessory" to an automotive service station, the Board was therefore required to refer to the definition of an accessory use. It refused to do so, however, insisting that it is "unnecessary lo even address the issue of whether a retail store would fit within the general definition of 'accessory use'", since it considers the lisl of permissible uses set forth in the definition of automotive service station to be exhaustive. If this were so, however, the words "uses accessory" in lhat definition would not have been italicized, thereby invoking the Zoning Resolution's definition of "accessory uses". Thus, the Board's interpretation is in direct contradiction to the unambiguous language of the Resolution. 3 Moreover, the same definition of "automotive service stalion" includes not only the list of accessory uses which the Board claims is exhaustive and all-inclusive, but also contains two uses--parking lots and parking garages--which are prohibited. The Board never suggested that these were the only uses prohibited. Yet, if one list were an all-inclusive enumeration of permitted accessory uses, as the Board contends, there would be no reason at all to have the second list of excluded uses. The existence of such a list, of necessity, militates against the argument that the first list contains the only permitted uses. The Zoning Resolution's enumeration of two proscribed uses was apparently intended to prevent undue disturbance to surrounding areas. For instance, the Resolulion permils "the minor adjuslmenl or repair of f'aotor vehicles with hand tools only", and "the occasional washing of motor vehicles", thus interdicting such activities as major overhauls and a commemial car wash. Obviously, the replacement of even lhese permitted activities with a small retail store would not undermine lhe intent of the Zoning Resolution. Thus, the Board's interpretation of section 12-10 effectively struck tile words "and for any uses accessory thereto" from the last pad of the first paragraph. Likewise, it also deleted the lasl paragraph of the definition wilh the two prohibited uses, since, according to the Board's reasoning, anything not explicilly mentioned in the second paragraph would be automatically prohibited anyway. In so doing, the Board violated the well-established principle of slatutory construction that a stalute must be viewed as a whole, and, to lhat end, all of its parts, should, if possible, be harmonized to achieve the legislative purpose. (See, Sanders v. Winship, 57 NY2d 391,395-396; People v. Mobil Oil Corp., 48 NY2d 192, 199; McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes §§ 97, 98, 130.) I1 is also a rule of statutory construction that "effect and meaning must, if possible, be given to the entire statute and every part and word thereof." (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, op cit,§ 98; accord, Pearson v. Pearson, 81 AD2d 291,293; Grich v. Wood & Hyde Leather Co., 74 AD2d 183, 184.) --- Absent an explanation for the use of the word "any" in the definition, or for the list of prohibitions in the third paragraph, the obvious intent of the Resolution is that any use which would fit the general definilion o! an accessory use, unless prohibited, is permissible. This would include all uses which are customarily found in connection with the operation of an automotive service station, irrespective of whether they are specifically menlioned in lhe second paragraph of the definition, or are expressly "auto related". Citing, inter alia, Matter of Lezette v. Board of Educ. (35 NY2d 272, 281), the Board argues that Ihe coud is bound to uphold an administrative inlerprelation, even when doubt or ambiguity exists with respect to the proper construction of a statute. Yet, as already noted, zoning ordinances are in derogation <Pg. 296> of common-law rights and, accordingly, must be strictly construed so as not to place any greater inference upon the free use of land than is absolutely required. (See, Matter of 440 E. 102nd St. Corp. v. Murdock, supra., 285 NY, at 304.) "Any ambiguity in the language used in such regulations must be resolved in favor of the property owner." (Matter of Allen v. Adami, supra., 39 NY2d, at 277; see also, FGL & L Prop. Corp. v. City of Rye, 66 NY2d 111, 115; Town of Huntington v. Barracuda Transp. Co., 80 AD2d 555.) Moreover, the Board's interpretation of what constitutes an accessory use is not entitled to unquestioning judicial deference, since the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the law is wilh the court. While courts should give due consideration to an agency's practical construction of a statute over a period of time (see, e.g., Town of Amherst v. County of Erie, 260 NY 361,369- 370), the Board admits that its determination in the inslant matter was not part of any long- standing practical construction of the statute. Indeed, it has characterized the issue as "one of first impression". In fact, however, as Exxon demonstrates, the Board's long-standing practice has been to permit a retail slore to be operated in combination with a gasoline service station. Indeed, the Board recognized as much when its chairperson stated, "The fact that it's become popular and many New York City service stations are equipped with Use Group 6 retail occupancies aud that such cases have uol had objections issued to Ihem, it seems to lhe Board, is obvious but not controlling in this case." While an administrative agency is accorded broad regulatory authority, "[d]iscretionary power is not absolute; it is subject to the limitation that it cannot be exemised arbitrarily". (Matter of Freidus v. Guggenheimer, 57 AD2d 760,761 .) Thus, an administrative agency may not rule or act in such a way as to result in inconsistent treatment of similarly situated padies. (See, Matter of Society of N. Y. Hosp. v. Axelrod, 116 AD2d 426; Matter of Freidus v. Guggenheimer, supra.; see also, R-C Motor Lines v. United States, 350 F Supp 1169, 1172, affd 411 US 941 ["Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply to decisions of administrative bodies, consistency of administrative rulings is essential, for to adopt different standards for similar situations is to act arbitrarily."].) The record indicates that the Board, in a significant number of cases, granled specific permission to others, including Exxoo's direct competitors, to operale a gasoline station in combination with a retail store, among other uses. For example, under Calendar No. 914-83-A, the Board issued a resolution which states that the application sought permission, inter alia, "Io erect a new brick building to contain the altendant's booth and a retail store (Use Group 6)." In response to that application, the Board specifically amended a prior resolution, and approved the erection of the said "brick building to contain attendant's booth and other conforming uses." As demonstrated by photographs in lhe record, lhat "conforming use" is a gasoline station/convenience store combinalion. Under Calendar No. 959-83-BZ, the Board again specifically permitled the combination of a gasoline station and a convenience slore. The Board suggests, however, that, in that instance, it was only considering whether to allow "larger than permitted business signs," and that it did not focus on the fact that the site included a convenience store. This claim is belied by the language-. of lhe resolution, which clearly states: "WHEREAS, the proposed retail convenience store is a permitted use in the district; and "WHEREAS, the applicant has declared, in response to the community's request, that no beer or liquor will be sold in the retail convenience store "Resolved, that the Board of Standards and Appeals does hereby make the required findings and granls a Special Permit 1o permit the reconstruction of an aulomolive service station into an automobile gas and oil selling station and the addition of a retail convenience slore on condition "THAT the store shall not sell beer or liquor "THAT there shall be separate employees for the self-service gasoline station and for lhe retail convenience store at all times." Similarly, the Board asserts that Calendar No, 654-77-A merely involved an application "Io install two new gasoline pump islands and to erect a new steel building." But, as the Resolution clearly states, the petitioner sought permission "to erect a new steel building for use as an attendant's booth and retail store (Use Group 6)." Under Calendar No. 573-55BZ, the Resolution's description of the "subjecl" made it clear that lhe purpose of the application was "to change the use of the accessory building of a gasoline service slation (Use Group 16) 1o a food retail store (Use Group 6)". Pholographs of lhe site clearly show the operalion of a gasoline station and a retail store in the "accessory" building. Clearly, despite the Board's denial of relevancy, these and other applications have placed the propriety of the operation of a retail slore as an accessory use to a gasoline station squarely in issue. Whatever lhe paramounl consideration in each of these applicalioos, if the operation of Ihe combinaltoo gas stallon/retall store were Illegal, the Board would not even have had to consider any other issue. The Board has not offered any explanation as to why Exxon's applicalion alone has been dealed; nor why il faced a more restrlclive definition of whal Is permissible as an accessory use than any other applicant. Clearly, absent a reasonable explanation, nol demonstreted in this record, snch discriminatory lrealmenl is erbilrary, and was properly vacaled by lhe motion coud. Although we do nol read seclion 12-10 gl the Zoning Resolulion as expressly permitting Ihe construction of a convenience slore as an accessory use to an "automotive service stalion," as Exxon would have us do, Ihere is ample evidence, gu lhe basis of the record before us, lhel a convenience slore may well fall within the Zoning Resolution's general definilion of an "accessory nsc", Exxon's ploposal obviously salisl'ies Ihe lilsl aud lasl palls O1' Ihe dollnilion, ns the facility would be on the same lot and would operate for the benefit and convenience of its cuslomers. Only lhe requirement that the proposed use be one cuslomarily found in connection with, and incidental to, tile sale of gasoline poses a factual issue for Board resolution. With respect to lhat issue, as already noted, evidence was offered that in 1985 over 55,000 stations in this counlry combined the sale of gasoline with a convenience store. The sale of convenience store products could be found in close to one third of all stations selling gasoline, with the trend clearly toward an increase in the number of such combinations. (Daniels, Big Shift in Gasoline Retailing Is Changing Buying Patterns, New York Times, May 28, 1985, at Al, col 1 .) As the record reflects, these facts are repeated in numerous other adicles highlighting what is, in fact, generally known-that the sale of some products at gasoline stalions, or the sale of gasoline in connection with convenience store operations, is becoming commonplace in Ibis country. Nor does there appear to be any immediate danger that lhe incidenlal use will domi~l'ate the principal use. Consumer research offered by Exxon reveals that the majorily of patrons at Exxon Shops and Exxon's self-service gas stations purchase gasoline alone, while 26% purchase gasoline in combination with the purchase of another product. Only 22% limit their purchase to a convenience product solely. Facilities similar to the one proposed here generate, on average, a sales ratio of approximalely 4:1 of motor fuel dollars to convenience item dollars. In any event, since we find that a convenience store is not prohibited as an accessory use by the Zoning Resolution, although it is not expressly authorized, we remand Ihe matter to the Board for specific findings of fact as to whether Exxon's proposed use qualifies as an accessory use within the section t 2-10 general definition of that term. Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Coud, New York County (Louis Grossman, ,i.), entered ,luly 21, 1986, which, inter alia, vacated the resolution of the Board of Standards and Appeals sustaining a Depadment of Buildings objection to petitioner's building applicalion should be affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Asch, Milonas, Kassal and Ellerin, .IJ., concur. Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on ,luly 21, 1986, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursemenls. FOOTNOTE 1 Since the subject premises is presenlty in a C2 zoning dislrict, a variance is no longer necessary for the operation of a gasoline station. A special use permit is all that is required. FOOTNOTE 2 Only lhe objection based upon lhe addition of a convenience store is at issue on this appeal, The Depadmenl has also objected to the proposed reconstruction on lwo olher grounds: the need for assurance lhat fire safety requirements have been coasidered and the fact that, in completely demolishing the existing gas station, which was constructed prior to the 1961 enactment of the Zoning Resolution, Ihe owner would lose all righl to operate such a facility (a nonconforming Group 16 Use) in a C2 area and would have to seek a special use permil or a 6 variance in order to reconstruct any facility selling gasoline al the subject site. The proceeding relating to the appeal from the latter objection was adjourned sine die pending final determination of the instant matter. [2] FOOTNOTE 3 The Board argues that a remand was unnecessary since, in accordance with lhe coud's decision, a convenience store is an accessory use 1o a gasoline station as a matter of law and, on remand, it would not have any latitude for the exercise of discrelion. We do nol read the coud's decision so expansively. In our view, it merely held that the Zoning Resolution did not prohibit a convenience store as an accessory use as a matter of law, and remanded the matter for further consideration not inconsistenl with lhat determination. Thus, the order is nol a final determinalion and is not appealable as of right. (CPLR 5701 [bi [1].) Since the issue presented is an impodant one, leave 1o appeal is granted, sua sponte. (CPLR 5701 [c].) FOOTNOTE 4 The Board also relied, in pad, upon its reading of Departmenl of Buildings Directive 7-1967, dated March 23, 1967, as limiting the accessory uses of an automolive service station to "uses [which] are all aulo related uses." BARDACH V. MAYFAIR-FLUSHING CORP. [49 MISC 2D 380, 267 NYS2D 809] The proof revealed at the hearing by uncontradicted testimony of defendants' witness Herbert H. Warman, a registered architect duly licensed to practice architeclure in the State of New York and fully familiar with the rules and regulations of the building and zoning ordinances of the City of New York, established that the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, effective December 15, 1961, forbids the use of any part of the property of defendant Mayfair (now property of Joseph Rubinfeld) to be used for parking of motor vehicles for the use of the plaintiffs, because said property is not owned by the same owner of plaintiffs' apartment building and, therefore, said Parcel III cannot be used as a permitted "accessory off-street parking" use, due to separate ownemhip. He further testified and produced a copy of a summons and information indicating that there is now pending in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County, Part VI, an action entitled "People of the State of New York v. Joseph Rubinfeld" wherein Rubinfeld, as the new owner of said Parcel III herein, is subject to criminal prosecution for violation of "Parking cars on Lot -- No Certificate of Occupancy" in violation of the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, effective December 15, 1961. The Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, effective December 15, 1961 (ch. 2, "Construction of Language and Definitions", § 12.10) provides in part: "An 'accessory use': (a) Is a use conducted on the same zoning lot as the principal use to which it is related (whether located within the same or an accessory building or other s~ructure, or as an accessory use of land), except that, where specifically provided in the applicable district regulations, accessory off-street parking or loading need not be located on the same zoning lot; and ... (c) Is either in the same <Pg. 385> ownership as such principal use, or is operated and maintained on the same zoning lot substantially for the benefit or convenience of the owners, occupants, employees, customers, or visitors of the principal use. When 'accessory' is used in the text, it shall have the same meaning as accessory use." (Italics in original.) PEOPLE V. PAGE [36 MISC 2D 840, 234 NYS2D 518] The question properly before this court is whether the placing of said "Grocerette" violated the Administrative Code of the City of New York and is an improper or illegal use. The premises herein is a multiple dwelling, the use of which is controlled by chapter 2 of section 22-00 of the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York and is in the "Use Group 2", to be used for residential and accessory uses. (§ 22-12.) An "accessory use" is defined in section 12-10 of the Zoning Resolulion as follows: "'a' Is a use conducted on the same zoning lot as the principal use to which it is related ... '"b' Is a use which is clearly incidental to, and customarily found in connection with, such principal use; and "'c' Is either the same ownership as the principal use, or is operated and maintained on the same zoning lot substantially for lhe benefit or convenience of the owners, occupants, employees, customers or visitors of the principal use". Clearly, the vending machine in issue is designated and designed solely for the convenience of the tenants in the building in which it was placed, and not for the general public, and therefore constitules an (c) 1997. Alexander Treadwell. Sec of State, Slate of New York accessory use of said dwe~l'rg. The Commissioner of the Department or. tidings of the City of New York has allowed and permitted the installation of milk vending machines, and said ruling was upheld in Tarrv. Cily of New York 112 Misc 2d 796 [1957]). No valid distinction can be made belween the machine at issue, which dispenses bread, bakery products and soda, and the machine which vends milk and which is admittedly permissible. <Pg. 843> There does not appear to be any conlention that the machine in issue is a fire hazard or is unsale or that it would be more possible of use by the general public than the milk machine. Both the machine in issue and lhe permissible "milk machine" vend staples which are a necessity in every home. Milk, bread and bakery products are often the subject of home delivery by route salesmen. The mechanical rendition of this service cannot reasonably be held to interfere with the fundamental residential use of a building. MTR. OF LA VECCHIA V. BD. OF STDS. & APPEALS [26 MlSC 2D 39, 204 NYS2D 429] It is clear that no bowling alleys are permitted in a local retail use district "other than in a hotel" (N. Y. Zoning Resolution, § 4-B, subd. [a]). "The literal wording of a statute must be construed in the light of the expressed object of the law-givers." (Matter of New York Ambassador v. Board of Stds. & Appeals, 281 App. Div. 342, affd. 305 N. Y. 791,793.) The Zoning Resolution construed in this light indicates a clear intent to limit the maintenance of a bowling alley in a local <Pg, 41> retail district to use as an accessory for the convenience and entedainment of its patrons, and not for the use of the public generally. Put another way, the prohibition against the use of the premises in a local retail district for a "bowling alley other than in a hotel" was intended to limit such use to the needs of the hotel itself, and not to permit the carrying on in the hotel of a general bowling alley business for the public at large (Matter of New York Ambassador v~ Board of Stds. & Appeals, supra). Petitioner contends that since the wording of subdivision (a) of section 4-B of the Zoning Resolution does not state "accessory" to a hotel, but uses phraseology "other than in a hotel", while subdivision (j) of the same section provides that a dry-cleaning establishment is permitted "as an accessory use in a transient hotel or a department store", there is legislative intent not to make bowling alleys "accessory" to the hotel, othe~Nise the language used in subdivision 0) would not have specifically included the word "accessory". This contention is without merit. It has been held that "it is the duty of the courts to give effect to statutes as they are written and that ... [courts] may not limit or extend the scope of the statute as written unless literal construction of the statute would produce a result which the Legislature plainly did not intend." (Matter of Russo v. Valentine, 294 N. Y. 338,342.) Moreover, subdivisions (a) and (j) were adopted at different times (subd. [a] on June 6, 1940, and subd. [j] on Feb. 3, 1953). The court concludes that failure to use the word "accessory" is of no consequence to change the intent of limiting the use of a bowling alley in a holel in a retail use district. The order of certiorari is vacated and lhe petition dismissed, and the determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals is affirmed. (c) 1997, Alexander Treadwell, Sec of State, State of New York APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chaimmn Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James I)i.izio. Jr. Teh'l)hone (516) 765-1809 BOAIH) OF Al'PEALS TOWN ()F SOl TIIOIJ) SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box I 179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 ACTJDN OV TIlE BOARD OF APPEAI.S Upon application of SUN REFINING & MARKETING CO. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Section 100-102: (1) for permission to establish convenience store use in conjunction with and accessory to the existing gasoline station use on this substandard parcel which contains less than 30,000 sq. ft. in lot area for each use, and (2) for interpretation as to tho height limitation of accessory (canopy) structure, and (3) for approval of canopy structure in the front yard location. Location of Property: Corner of the Easterly Side of Factory Avenue and Northerly Side of the Main Road, Mattituck, NY; District 1000, Section 142, Block 1, Lot 27. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 1, 1990 and-' continued on November 29, 1990, in the Matter of the Application of SUN REFINING & MARKETING CO. under Appeal No. 3788; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is a corner lot with 150.0 feet along the east side of Factory Avenue and with 198.0 feet along the north side of the Main Road, in the Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, and more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 142, Block 1, Lot 27. 2. The subject premises contains a total area of 24,139 sq. ft., is located in the "B" General Business Zone District, and is improved with a 30' x 66' principal building and two gasoline service (concrete} islands, all as shown on Drawing No. Page 2 - App1. 3788 Matter of SUN REFINING & MARKETING Decision Rendered January 11, 1991 13-1318 (Rev. 11) as updated October 29, 1990, prepared by Sun Refining & Marketing Company. 3. 13y this appli(:;]t:ion, t:he app(;l, lan{: requests Variances: (a) to convert the exi. sting pri. nc.ipal, bui. ldi. m~ [rom gaso].i, ne sales and vehic]e/emjim~ repairs to qasol_ine sa.Les and accessory convenience store for the on-premises sales of packaged food and nonfood item~, without on-premises food services, incidental to and in conjunction with the existinq ~asoline service sLa[:~.on use~ and (b) [or approval of thc canopy ovelf new gasoline pumps/islands with its closest set-backs at 29 feet from the westerly property line along Factory Avenue and at 29 feet from the southerly property line along the Main Road, as shown on Drawing 13-1318-M (Rev. 2) dated September 14, 1988 (also revised May 7, 1990), at a height at not more than 18 feet above ground. 4. For the record, it is noted that under previous Action of this Board under Appl. No. 1225 rendered January 2, 1969, a Special Exception was granted for a gasoline service and indoor- repair station. 5. In considering this application, it is the understanding of the Board Members that the items to be sold would include small variety store items, such as packaged and canned foods, magazines, refrigerated items, microwaved items, and the like. 6. The following information is also noted for the record: (a) the premises has continuously for the past 22 years been used as an office for sales of g~soline and other incidental merchandise, with small engine/vehicle repairs within the enclosed three bay areas of the principal building, and gasoline sales at the pumps; (b) the use as a convenience store is to be used accessory and incidental to the gasoline-service station and not as a separate principal use or business establishment; (c) the existing vehicle lifts and (three) bay areas will be eliminated and replaced with the accessory convenience store use; (d) the principal building will not be enlarged without prior approval of the Board of Appeals by subsequent application; P~ge 3 - Appl. No Matter of SUN REFINING & MARKETING Decision Rendered January 11, 1991 (e) also noted is the interpretation of the board, as requested by the applicant, in that the subject canopy structure is an accessory structure, limited to the 18-ft. maximum height requirement {and not the heJqht limitation for a principal building at 35 feet}, and subject, oJ! course, to the rules as apply to accessory structures. 7.' In considering this application, the Board also finds and determines: (a) the subject parcel is surrounded by other properties to the north, west, east, and south of the Main Road which are also located and used as regulated by the General Business "B" Zone District; (b) the variance, as conditionally noted below, is the minimt~ necessary to afford relief; (c) the accessory use as authorized will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; (d) the difficulties are unique, are not due to the '- general conditions of the neighborhood, and are not personal in nature; (e) there is no other feasible method for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (f) the relief as conditionally granted will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of this district or of adjacent use districts; (g) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the Town will not be adversely affected by the proposed business use and its location; (h) in light of all of the above, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variances requested and as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Dinizio, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested for permission to convert the existing principal building for sales of gasoline and related items, together with an accessory convenience store, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P~ge 4 - Appl. No. ;88 Matter of SUN REFINING & MARKETING Decision Rendered January 11, 1991 1. No cooking, except by portable microwave; 2. No food preparation (must be pre-packaged - including cold cuts and sandwiches); 3..No table service or seating for public use; 4. No signs advertising the convenience store use, except by approval of the Board of Appeals; 5. Ail engine/vehicle repairs and/or car washing services must cease; 6. No drive-thru or drive in services; 7. Convenience store sales shall be limited to self-service (including vending machines, refrigerators); 8. Convenience store is permitted only as an accessory use incidental to the principal use as a gasoline service station _ (as proposed herein) and within the principal building only, and BE IT FURTNER RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance for the canopy structure of a size 30 ft. by 103 ft., 29 feet from the westerly property line (along Factory Avenue) and 29 feet from the southerly property . line (along the State Highway), provided that the canopy structure not exceed 18 feet in height in the front yard area, as applied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Dinizio. (Absent was: Member Grigonis due to illness.] This resolution was duly adopted. lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, /~AIRMAN PLANNING BOARD M~MBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman W~LLIAM J. CREMERS I<ENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Laury Dowd, Town Attorney Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer 711 Store at CITGO Service Station January 23, 1998 It has been brought to my attention that a 711 store is planned for the CITGO station on Factory Avenue in Mattituck. The question is shall we consider this an accessory convenience store to a service station or is this a retail grocery store and thus a second use at this location. I would appreciate your input. Notaro Grupp Architects[,/~ociates Suite 302A ,~ 99 Jericho Tpl~. Jericho, NY 117,53 Phone (516) 997-4374 Fax (516) 9~714373 WE ARE SENDING YOU [] Attached [] Under separate cover via [] Shop drawings ~}Prints _~ Ptans ~ Copy of leEer ~ Change order [] Samples the following items: E] Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION : SOUTHQb] TOYvii : THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] For approval [] For your use ~ [] As requested .~For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE ~ Approved as submitted [] Resubmit copies for approval '~ Approved as noted [] Submit copies for distribution [] Returned for corrections [m Return. corrected prints [] 19 [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPYTO Notaro Grupp Architects & Suite 302A 99 Jericho Tpke. Jericho, NY 11753 Phone (516) 997-4374 ~/1 Fax (516) 9~714373 ~ TO WE ARE SENDING YOU [] Attached [] Under separate cover via [] Shop drawings ~Prints [] Plans [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] [] Samples the following items: [] Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRrPTION Jill THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] For approval [] For your use ~ [] As requested .~For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections [] 19 SOUTHOLD TOW]] PLAHHNG BOARD [] Resubmit copies for approval [] Submit copies for distribution [] Return corrected prints PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO SIGNED:~ If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCRIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Tomm Hall, 53095 .~,lain Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 F~x (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOVv-N OF SOUTHOLD December 3, 1997 J. Scott Grupp, RA Notaro Grupp Associates 99 Jericho Turnpike Suite 302A Jericho, NY 11753 RE: CITGO Service Station N/E/C Main Road & Factory Avenue, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-142-1-27 Zoning District: General Business (B) Dear Mr. Grupp The Planning Board has received your letter of November 21, 1997, requesting a review of the proposed convenience store at the above location. In reviewing the file of the previous owner, Sun Oil, we noticed that a variance was granted on January 11, 1991, for a convenience store and a new canopy. The variance had eight conditions which still apply to this property. A copy of this variance is enclosed for your information. The Board would require an integrated site plan for this project showing parking and other site details for both the service station and the food store. Copies of the previous site plan are available for your review at this office in the event you wish to continue with this plan. A site plan application is also enclosed for your use in the event you do not choose to continue with the previous plan. As indicated in our consultants review, the Board recommends that the west curb cut on Route 25 be closed, (see consultants report dated June 30, 1989). The previous owner had a N¥SDOT curb cut permit #10-90-1278, however this permit will not apply to the new owner but many of the conditions may still apply. The Board recommends that you contact Mr. Vito Lena of the New York State Department of Transportation about closing the west cut and for a review of the ingress and egress to the property. Mr. Lena is familiar with the previous site plan by Sheldon L. Reieh, Licensed Professional Engineer, last dated July 9~ 1990, and could be helpful to you in this regard. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services indicated that they will want to review this project. If you have any questions, or require further assistance, please contact Site Plan Reviewer Enel. ce: Laury Dowd, Town Attorney Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 21 November 1997 Robert G. Kassner, Site Planner Town of Southold Town Hall Main Street Southold, NY 11971 Re: Conversion of service station to convenience store comer of Main Rd & Factory Ave Mattimck Section 142, Block 1, Lot 27 Dear Mr. Kassner: Attached please fred three copies of our site plan for the above referenced project. This site plan is in conformance with the originally submitted site plan that had been approved by the Zoning Board for use and had been submitted to your office for review. We were led to believe that the site plan had been approved by your office but we were never given a written notification of your approval that we have been told is required prior to filing for a building permit. If you have any questions, please call me. Thank you, in advance, for your prompt attention to our application. by: Airborne Express NOV 2 4 !997 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765~1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 8, 1997 Louis DeRonde Petroleum Associates 29 Mowbray Avenue Bay Shore, NY 11706 RE: CITGO Service Station N/E/C Main Road & Factory Avenue, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-142-1-27 Zoning District: General Business (B) Dear Mr. DeRonde, y/~r~L The Planning Board has received your letter of~r~21, 1997, requesting a review of the proposed convience store at the above location. In reviewing the file of the previous owner, Sun Oil, we noticed that a variance was granted on January 11, 1991, for a convenience store and a new canopy. The variance had eight conditions which still apply to this property. A copy of this variance is enclosed for your information. The Board would require a site plan for this project. Copies of correspondence concerning details of the previous site plan are enclosed for your guidance in developing your plan. A site plan application is also enclosed for your use in the event you do not chose to continue with the previous plan. As indicated in our consultants review, the Board recommends that the west curb cut on Route 25 be closed, (see consultants report dated June 30, 1989). The previous owner had a NYSDOT curb cut permit #10-90-1278, however this permit will not apply to the new owner but many of the conditions may still apply. Further, since the SEQRA law has changed since the previous application, and this proposed project will not involve an area of over 4,000 square feet there will not be an enviormental review under SEQRA. Also, due to the minor change to the front elevation, a review by the Architectural Review Committee will not be required. The Board recommends that you contact Mr. Vita Lena of the New York State Department of Transportation about closing the west cut and for a review of the ingress and egress to the property. Mr. Lena is familiar with the previous site plan by Sheldon L. Reich, Licensed Professional Engineer, last dated July 9, 1990, and could be helpful to you in this regard. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services indicated that they will want to review this project. If you have any questions, or require further assistance, please contact this office. ~o}~er( G. Ka~sner Site Plan Reviewer Encl. LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans SPFile Type: Project Type: Site Plans Status: Incomplete Application - In Active SCTM #: 1000- 142.-1-27 Project Name: Warex Terminals Corp. Incomplete Address: 9945 Main Road Hamlet: Mattituck Applicant Name: Warex Terminals Corp. Owner Name: Warex Terminals Corp. Zone 1: Approval Date: OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A date indicates that we have received the related information End SP Date: Zone 2: Zone 3: Location: n/e/c/o NYS Rt. 25 and Factory Avenue, Mattituck SC Filin,q Date: C and R's: Home Assoc: R and M A,qreement: SCAN Date: SCANNED Records Management THIS SITE PLAN IS IN CONFORMANC£ WITH THE APPROVED PLAN AS SUBMI1TED BY PETROLEUM ASSOCIA~S RECEIVED BY sOUTHOLO TOWNSHIP PLANNtN(~ BOARD~'~ ON JULY 22, 1997. SUEVEY I.~ORMATION IS FEOM ~~'"'~' ,- To ~N B. HO[~MAN, L.S. DATED JULY 24, 1997 SECTION t~ TOT~ E THIS SITE PLAN IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ... ~ APPROVED PLAN AS SUBMITFED BY PETROLEUM ~ ~ ~,: .-- ~i ASSOCIATES RECEIVED BY SOUTHOLD TOWNSHIP '~', . , PLANNING BOARD ON JULY 22, 1997. ,.,~_ '~ ~E~m~ 'mE~S SURVEY INFORMATION IS FROM '~ ~'rl~ \ ROBERT B. HOLZMAN, L.S. DATED JuLY 24, 1997 / ,_~__~ ~'~' ~ ,--i ~ ~ SECTION 142 ' ~.t ~ ''~- ;']"'~',-'i" i i~ / BLOCK ' 1 LOT 27 ~1'"~ -~ ,~ ~ , ~ PRE , ~ ~-- '-' ~~" '~F ENCLOSURE ~~ ~ P~ ~pH.C. ~ ; ~ ~ STORAGE AR~ ~,~ k~s.,o~ TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING 11 SPACES ~¢~ PARKING PROVIDED 13 SPACES (1 HANDICA~ EXIST, CDNC, EXIST. GRASS AREA EXIST, UTILITY POLE EXIST, CATCH BASIN EXIST, CDNC, RETAINING WALL YARD LT, --~ LANDSCAPING CURB EXIST. LANDSCAPI~ RAMP N 48 57' 3.0' E, ., / EXIST,SOLID METAL FENCE __----EXIST. RUBBISH ~ ~ ~'0' o,A. TO coo~ ~ ~ , ~ / Z ~ A~ENDEN'S AREA ND CONORETE BL~. WALKS EXIST. 3-BAY COLONIAL DESIGN SERVICE STATION TO COLONIAL DESIGN CONVENIENCE STORE - BLDG. AREA TO REMAIN UNCHANGED H.C. RAMP TO CODE "\ R'.' 24'- XIST. KIOSK TO REMAIN 31'-0' I - -- EXIST. PUMP ISLANDS W/CANOPY ABOVE EXIST, GRASS APING EXIST, CONC, SIDEWA, LK EXIST, GRASS AREA ASPHALT PAVEMENT AMp NEW 18' RED LETTERING // FOOD MART EXIST, DRAIN INLET CONNECTED TO DRYWELL II EXIST, GAURD RAIL (TYP,) TEL, BOOTH YARD LT, 198,00' E N.Y,S. RT, 25 ST. KEY MAP N.T.S. EXIST. LIGHT GREY SHINGLES WHITE TRIM RED BRICK MATCH EXIST, PROPOSED MODIFIED BLDG. FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1" -- 10' NEW ANODIZE ALUMINUIM STOREFRONT W/UV GLASS PARKING CALCULATIONS REQUIRED PARKING GROSS STORE FLOOR AREA = 1594 sq. ft.~200 = 8 SPACES STORAGE AREA = 198 sq. ft./1,000 = 1 SPACE OFFICE AREA = 132 sq. ft./100 = 2 SPACES REST ROOM = 60 sq. ft./No Requirement = 0 TOTAL = 11 SPACES PROVIDED = 11 SPACES UTILITY POLE MAIN (S,R, 25) ROAD EXIST, CATCH BASIN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATES LOUIS DERONDE · 29 Mowbray Avenue, Bay Shore, NY 11706 · 516-665-3062 HARRY ARMEN, JR, PE · 27 Jefferson Street, Glen Cove, NY 11542 · 516-671~6959 =ROJECT WAREX TERMINALS CORP. 1 South Water SI, P.O. Box 488 Newburgh, NY 12550 TITcoNVENiENCELE STORE BLDG. CONVERSION N/E/C Rt. 25 & Factol7 Ave., Mattituck~ NY 11952 Tax Map: S~hon 142, Block 1 Lot 27, Zone: Gen Bus 7 8-97 1"= 10' LRD 9729LD REVISIONS 3JI. 2 2 BgT