HomeMy WebLinkAbout723 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD~ NE~V YORK
ACTION OF THI~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Appeal No. 723 Dated October 9, 1964
ACTION OF TH],.' ZONING BOARD OF APPF~LS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
John McNulty, Esq. a/c Carl & Ethel Besch
Mattituck Main Road
New York Mattituck, New York
DATE _~e_..c_~..~.._e....r.. 17,
Appellant
1964
at a me.critic of the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 17,
was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your
, ) Bequest for variance due to lack of access to properly
(~) Request for a special exceptio0a under the Zoning O~dinanee
~ ) Requesb for a variance to tBe Zcmiag Ordinance
1964,
~nur s dayahe appeal
). SPECIAl., EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a speclal exception ( ) be
granted ( ) be denied 9%trzuant to Article .............................. Section: ........................... Subsection ...................... paragraph
............................ of the Zoning Ordinance, and the decision of the Building I.v. spector( ) be reYer~d ( ) be
confirmed be.cause
8:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Upon application of Carl & Ethel Besch,
· Main Road, Mattituck, New York, for a special exception in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 300,
Subsection 4A, for permission to operate a riding academy.
Location of property: north side Main Road, Mattituck, Mew York,
bounded north by Long Island Railroad, east by Kersnowski-Price,
south by Main Road, west by wm. Maston.
2. VARIANCE. B~ resol'uti~n of the Board it was detevrained that
(a) Sbrivt application of the Ordinanoe (~uld)(would not) p~oduce practic~ dfffic~ or u~ec-
essa~ h~ship b~u~
SEE REVERSE
(b) The hardship crea~d (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would trot) be shared by all properties
alike in the hnmediate v~cinity of this property and in the sam.~ use district because
SEE REVERSE
(c) Th~: var!ance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would)
change the ,c~mracter ,of the district because
SEE REVERSE
(would n~t)
and therefore, it was further det~ that the requested varia~]ce ( ) be granted ( be denied
and ~hat the pr£wious decislc~*s of bbc Building Inspector ( ) ibc confirmed ( ) be reversed.
Barbara h. Carroza, Secretary
After investigation and inspection the Board finds the
following:
The pr, emises, in question consist of approximately 5% acres
of land located on the north side of New York State Route 25 in
the vicinity of the Hamlet of Mattituck. The property is bounded
on the north by the Long Island Rail Road tracks and right-of-
way and on the south by the aforesaid highway which is one of
the two main highways servicing the North Fork and the Town of
Southold. Lying immediately to the east of the premises is
property owned by one Henry Kernowski upon which a farm vegetable
stand is being operated and has been so operated for ten to
twelve years last past. On the south side of Route 25 and in
the vicinity of the premises is a real estate office established
in the Spring of this year. Applicant stated at the hearing
that he acquired the property in 1962 and from the date of
purchase has used the premises for the st~bling Of horses.
Some of the horses are owned by the applicant and occasionally
other horses may be ~boarded on the premises for pay. Applicant
also stated that horses were rented out for riding purposes to
others for hire on an hourly, daily or longer periods of time.
Applicant stated that he is also in the business of buying and
selling horses and colts and that approximately twenty horses
are maintained on the premises. The buildings used for the
housing of the horses were formerly chicken houses and were
cDnverted for stable use. The applicant has had a small riding
track bulldozed on the premises. Upon inspection of the premises
the Board found that the area lying between the highway and the
buildings is completely devoid of any vegetation and consists of
bare earth which generates dust. There was testimony taken at the
hearing indicating the existence of flies and unsanitary conditions
which was confirmed by an inspection of the premises by the
Suffolk County Board of Health whose report to this Board also
indicated rodent infestation, improper disposal of manure and
poor stable conditions. Testimony at the hearing also indicated
that the fly problem was injurious to the vegetable stand business
and real estate office located adjacent to and in the vicinity
of the premises. Mr. Kernowski, the owner of the %egetable stand
testified to a reduction in the volume of his business caused by
the fly problem. There was also testimony at the hearing that
in the summer of 1964 one of the horses was killed by the Long
Island Rail Road train and that the rider of such horse narrowly
escaped injury. At the hearing the applicant testified that
persons using horses housed on the premises ride the horses on
the premises as well as on ~e premises to the north and across
the Long Island Rail Road tracks. Applicant stated that permission
to use the premises to the north was obtained from the owners of
said premises. However, upon investigation this Board ascertained
that the owners of said premises lying to the north have not given
permission for the use of their property for this purpose and
letters to this effect are on file with this Board.
Carl & Ethel Besch
Page -2- December 17, 1964
It is the position of the applicant that when he acquired
the premises he had a legal right to use the same for the stabling
of horses and that the only use requiring a special exception
permit is the riding academy use of the premises. At the time
that the applicant acquired the property in 1962, the property
was zoned "A" Agricultural and Residential District. It is
the position of the applicant that the stabling of horses is
embraced within the term "agricultural farm" in Article III,
Section 300, Subdivision 4, of the Ordinance. It is this Board's
opinion that the term "agricultural farm" permits only the
raising of crops and uses incidental thereto and does not include
the
use of premises for the raising and keeping of animal+r
for animal husbandry. When the applicant purchased the property
in 1962 the use of premises as stables was permitted in the "B"
Business District pursuant to Article IV, Section 400, Subdivision
10, of the Ordinance. This Board believes that this position is
borne out by the fact that in an amendment to Article III and
Article IV of the Ordinance adopted on July 7, 1964, effective
July 27, 1964, it a~ permitted "stables and riding academies
when authorized as a special exception by the Board of Appeals
when hereinafter provided" in the "A" Agricultural and Residential
District. Therefore, this Board believes that the applicant at
no time had a legal right to use the premises for the present
use without obtaining a special exception from this Board.
From the above, this Board hereby determines:
1) That the proposed use of the premises will prevent the
orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established
uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located.
2) That the safet~,~ the health, the welfare, the comfort,
the convenience or the order of the Town will be adversely affected
by the proposed use and its location.
3) That the use will not be in harmony with and will not
promote the genera~ purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, it was RESOLVED that Carl & Ethel Besch, Main
Road, Mattituck, New York, be denied permission to operate a
riding academy on property located north side Main Road, Mattituck,
New York.
It was further RESOLVED that the use of these premises for
a livery, for the raising and,~keeping of horses, stabling of horses,
or any other form of animal husbandry is hereby denied.