Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/08/1959 APPEAL BOARD MEMBERS Robert W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman Robert Berg~:n Herbert Rosenberg Charles Gr¢~onis, Ser~c Doyen, Jr. Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. Telephone SO 5-~bdlO MINUTES Southold Town Board of Appeals January 8, 19~ A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held at the To~ Clerk's Office, Southold~ New ~ork~ on Thursday~ January 8, 19~9 at 7:30 P.M. There were present: Messrs. Robert W. Gillispie, Jr.~ Chairman~ Robert Bergen~ Herbert Rosenberg~ and Charles Gregonis~ Jr. Absent: Serge Doyen~ Jr. Also present: Mr. Howard M. Terry, Building Irs pector. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 132~ upon application of Jessie Volinski for a variance in accordance with the Zoning 0rdinance~ Article VIII~ Section 303 for permit to use for residential purposes property located oh the east side of Shipyard Lane~ East Marion~ New '~ork. Fee paid $15.00. Chairman opened the hearing by reading application for variance; notice of disapproval ~sued to applicant by Building Inspector~ and legal notice of hearing with affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? STAArkEY CORWIN~ ESQ. (Greenport~ New York), attorney for the applicant, stated in substance as follows: This particular piece of property in question was created by the following sit- uation:- Conrad Volinski and wife owned this property for some $outhold Town Board of Appeals -2- January 8, 19~9 time. Conrad owned several hundred feet of property to the south, and as his children started to grow up he bought addi- tional land. In recent years he started conveying parcels of it to his children. After each child had his own 100 foot lot, there were only two lots left which he sold to friends of the family. He then found he had a little 67 foot piece left which he d id not need for his own dwelling. Not to lose control of it, it has been conveyed to the individual ownership of Jessie Volinski, his wife. The house in which they live, immediately to the north, is on an old lir2, close to the road, not subject to established set-backs. The houses in the neighborhood are all small houses and the house proposed to be built ~ going to be very small in lir~ with the others. We see, in view of the sub- stantial depth, and situation in the neighborhood, no reason why this appeal should not be granted. CHAIPd~kN: Are there any questions? MR. ROSENBERG: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if you shouldn't slightly amend the appeal and include Section 1000A, whereby you may not sub,divide a parcel leaving an area less than that prescribed by the Building Ordinance for the district. Resolution offered by Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Ms. Bergen that appeal be amended to include Section 303 pursuant to Article VIII, Section lO00A. MR. ROSENBERG: I believe $0 feet back would be proper. ~R. CORWIN: There is no objection to that. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this application? No one else wished to speak for or against the application. Resolution offered by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Gregonis whereas the application of Jessie Volinski having been considered at Public Hearing No. 132 on January 8, 19~9 and the Board, finding that strict application of the ¢~rdinance would produce undue hard- ship because there is no possible use for the property other than residential purposes. The situation is unique because premises are an odd lot in the middle of other lots all of which have frontage of 100 feet or more. The public convenience and welfare and justice will be substantially served, and the legally established or per- mitted use of districts would not be substantially or permanently injured ar~ the spirit of the ordinance would be observed. Be it RESOLVED that the application be granted subject to the following condition: that the front yard set-back be at least $0 feet from Shipyard Lane to conform with set-back requirements established by the Building Ordinance. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- January 8~ 19~ Vote of the Board: Ayes - Mr. Gillispie~ Mr. Bergen, Mr. Rosenberg, and Mr. Gregonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 131~ upon applic~.tion of Goldsmith Brothers~ for Wa~ter Randdell~ for a special exception in accord- ance with the Zoning 0rdinance~ Article III~ Section 306, for permit to build on property located at Goose Neck Estates, Bay View Road, Lot No. 100, Southold, New York. Fee paid ~l~.O0. Chairman opened the hearing by reading application for special exception; notice of disapproval issued to applicant by Building Inspector~ and legal notice of hearing with a ffidavlt attesting to its publication in the official newspaper. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? No one wished to speak. M~. Howard Terry showed a sketch of the property and described same. There was no one present who wished to speak for or against the appeal. On motion of Mr. Gregonis, seconded by Mr. Bergen~ the following resolution was offered: RESOLVED, that the special exception on Appeal No. 131 be granted as requested by Goldsmith Brothers for Walter Randdell to build on property located at Goose Neck Estates~ Bay View Road, Lot No. 100, Southold~ New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes- ~,~. Gillispie~ Mr. Bergen~ Mr. Rosenberg, and Mr. Gregonis. By resolution offered by ~. Rosenberg~ seconded by Mr. Gregonis, the claim of Barbara Andrade was approved. Vote of the Board: Ayes- Mr. Gill~ pie~ Mr. Bergen, Mr. Rosenberg and ~. Gregonis. By resolution offered by Mr. Rosenberg~ seconded by Mr. Gregonis, the following was added to the Southold Coop- erative G.L.F. Servicer Inc. Appeal Action No. 129: No parking Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- January 8, 1959 permitted in the 50 foot right-of-way for the 1~0 feet. Vote of the Board: Ayes- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Bergen, Mr. Rosenberg, and Mm. Gregonis. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 121, upon application of Arnold. Sacks for removal of notice of violation issued by Building In- ~ector. Location of property: south side of Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York, bounded north by Sound Avenue and land of Pap ish; east by land of Pylko~ south by land of C. Price; west by land of Hallock. Fee paid ~15.00. Chairman read application for removal of notice of violation, notice of disapproval by Building Inspector and legal notice of hearing with affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? EDGAR HILLS, ESQ., (206 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead~ New York) stated hewas attorney for Arnold Sacks. ~v~. ROSENBERG: For the record, I would like to present the following: The notice of violation was the 5th of November, 1958. Mr. Sacks filed appeal for removal of violation following the 6th of November. The Board of Appeals sent a letter the 7th of No- vember explaining intended delay as Sacks had filed application for change of zone and if granted, such change would give i.~. Sacks the relief he sought. This was satisfactory to Mr. Sacks. After the Planning Board and the Town Board had acted on i~acks' application the Board of Appeals office returned the November 5th application to Mr. William Wickhsm~ who represents Sacks, for completion, as it had never been completed for presentation as an application. This was December 20th and upon receipt of the corrected application the hearing date was set. The Board of Appeals is up to date and this apparent delay was by arrangement between the Board of Appeals and the applicant. MR. HILLS: I agree to that ~'~. RosenberE~ it is perfectly all right. Gentlemen, I would first like to point out to the Board~ unfortunately the application does not pertain to the tract of land about 20 acres. It is firs$, primarily and only with that particular building erected on the ~ acre portion that should be ~ncumbered by ¥iolation. CHAIRMAN: Could I ask you how the ½ acre plot is defined from the balance of the property? Southold Town Board of Appeals -~- January 8, 19~9 ARNOLD SACKS: It is the site of the building itself. We changed that as I remember back, we changed that 21 acres we originally ~plied for to approximately 8.~ acres. CHAIFdV~AN: The Planning Board received the first application in August, is that correct? MR. SACKS: Yes. CHALR~AN: For change of zone to Business. The Planning Board sent back the application because they thought it applied for too much land~ and it was reduced to --- MB. SACKS: 8.~. CHAIRM~ In September it was heard again? MR. SAC~: Yes. -- The building itself covers approximately 175 x 100 feet~ the building and immediate surrounding area. MR. ROSENBERG: The violation is against that building. MR. HILLS: Correct. He didn't want the other included. CHAIrmAN: It is agreed by the Board that the violation applies only to the storage building. MR. HILLS: i%~v I point out that mention has been made of the application first made to the Town Board for change of zone. I should like to point out that in the application before the Town Board, heard on November 25~ 1958, the recommendation of the Plan- ning Board was put into evidence at that time and I would like to quote from their recommendation: "The Planning Board wishes to report that a special team of members have gone over this property carefully and have talked with adjacent property owners and feel that this represents the best interests of the Town of Southold. We further feel that the erection of potato storages should be encouraged whether under individual ownership or as profit enter- prises. We believe that storing our potatoes will substantially enhance the financial business of our farm operations and be reflected in the best interests of the Town. The failure to provide adequate potato storage in the past has resulted in disastrous prices during the growing season in three out of the past five years. The B~ard feels that this is a most urgent matter and deserves prompt attention.,, Signed John Wickham, Chairman, Planning Board, r~ort dated November 7~ 1958. Town Board hearing November 2g, 1958.~ Application for change of zone was denied. Mr. Sacks consulted with me. I advised him the Town Board had exclusive jurisdiction in ruling~ an application should have been made for a variance~ and that is the present application. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- January 8, 19~9 I would also like to point out that at the same hearing, Mr. Stanley Corwin~ representing the people interested, pointed out as follows: "And as a matter of fact, he auld have un- doubtedly gotten a variance if there were a necessity for simply using the building as a quasi comJnercial to store potatoes for other farmers since there is hardly any necessity for changing and down-zoning the area when the thing could be done some other way, which would be considerably less harmful. I hope that the Board will take that into consideration." The building we are talking about is not an old shack that has been erected haphazardly. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corwin recommended that th~ be handled as a variance. MR. HILLS: The building that was erected by ~. Sacks is a storage building and cost $$7~000 to put up. Before this build- ing was put up Mr. Sacks, not knowing what his rights were under the zoning act, went to Mr. Terry, Building Inspector, and asked whether it was necessary to obtain permission for the building. fie explained to ~. Terry that the particular building that would be put up would not be only large enough for his potatoes, but for others as well, not as a business enterprise. He stated he would require about ~0~ for his own potatoes. The Chairman asked M~. Terry if that was his recollection of the substance of the conversation, whereby ivy. Sacks stated he would need approximately ~O~ of the building for himself. ~. TERRY: I do not recall any dimensions, just that it was to be built for the storage of potatoes. When I asked if it was for his own potatoes he stated, yes. An~ for the potatoes of others, he said probably. I then stated if he stored potatoes of others for rental it would be a commercial business and would require a change of zone. ~R. HILLS: Based on the interpretation from Mr. Terry, Mr. Sacks went ahead and put up a building without variance or change of zone. After the building was put up the violation came in. He applied for a change of zone, and for a variance to the Board of Appeals. In view of the possible misinterpretation between ~. Sacks and Mr. Terry I don't think Mr. Sacks would have gone ahead and invested $~7,OOO on a building if he had known it would be in violation. Then the accessory building came into play. The accessory building was part of the farm. Mr. Sacks built this build- ing with the understanding on his part that he could do it and came before this Board because of this hardship. CHAIRI¢~N: I agree with almost everything you have said. One of the things we are trying to do is establish facts as we can by asking questions of Mr. Sacks. We have been hearing rumora Mr. Sacks, before you got into this construction did you or Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- January 8, 19~9 your agents solicit from other farmers an agreement to rent any space you may not use? I warn you in advance, it has been alleged you had sold space before the building was constructed. ~R. SACKS: When the building was already in the process of construction I had several inquiring farmers ask me if there was any room left over would they be able to use it. I had not rented part of the building and I still have not. I intend to violate no zoning ordinance. I am in favor of zoning. The building was built in good faith or I would not have gone ahead with it. CHAIRMAN: Unless you had some assurarce I am sure you would not have spent $47,000 to construct this building. How many acres do you farm? MR. SAC~: Approximately 167 acres. MR. TERRY: The people asked you about storage when Mr. Reeves asked me to send you the application for a variance. MR. SACM$: When I was in contact with him on the original building of the building, before I went ahead with any construction or any plans whatsoever~ I stated I was building the building and the~extra space that ~ would not use myself I would have my neighbors use. Mr. Terry told me as long as the building was used for the storage of potatoes it would be agricultural. For the storage of any commercial items such as lumber, etc.~ I would need a permit. I had no intention of storing anything other than agricultural products. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it wasn't clear to ~. Terry that you would be storing other farmers produce. MR. SACKS: I intended using 7 -- maybe 6 bins for myself. CHAIrmAN: Mr. Terry might not have thought anything of it. The difference between your project and others that have existed for hundreds of years is that you are the first one to erect a building specifically for potato storage of others on a commercial basis. There may be others,I am not positive of that, but to my knowledge you have the only building that has been erected largely on a commercial basis. MR. HILL~: Because Mr. Sacks is forthright, is he to be penalized because of his reasons? CHAIrmAN: In gathering facts I will go further.-- Wh~u you originally planned this building had you dug any potatoes? MR. 8ACKS: First~ I constructed this building primarily~ you might say~ selfishly, as a matter of self-preservation. I was farming 167 acres of potatoes. The market was 90¢ a hundred and to sell potatoes would have been close to forced bankruptcy. Secondl¥~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- January 8, 1~9 the space I didn't use for myself my neighbors were in no better position than I was, so the room ! had left over I would have Just left it open, but I could not, I intended helping the~ out. CHAI~v[AN~ Very kind. The market was then 90¢ a hunder~ we understand it is $1.1~ today, which is still below the cost of production. MA. HILLS: I wo~ld like to have I~. Sacks describe the warehouse. CHAI~qMAN: That ~ not necessary. We have all seen it, in fact we were there the same day he got the v±olation. However~ we were not responsible for him receiving it, although you may have thought so. MR. ROSENBERG: Are you the o~er of the property? ~. SACKS: Yes. MR. ROSENBERG: When was construction started? ~. SACKS: I think ~. Terry would know as well as I would. I believe it was September. MR. T ERRI: The middle of September. M{. SACKS: Construction was started approximately the middle of September. MR. ROSENBERG: When you planned it originally, was it for eight bins? MR. SACKS: There was no definite dimensions of the building. MR. ROSENBERG: Larger than eight bins? ~R. SACKS: Yes. MR. ROSENBERG: Was the storage space offered to the farmers before the building was erected or completed? ~. SACKS: Mes~ no, I wish to correct that. I didn't offer it to the farmers. I had farmers requesting space before the build- ing w as completed. MR. ROSENBERG: Was ~ny rent basis established then? MR. SACKS: No~ at the time we were all in the same boat. MR. ROSENBERG: Would you say t he farmers asked you how much th~ ~ould cost me (the farmer)? Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- January 8, 1999 MR. SACEE: Nothing was discussed until the building was completed. MR. ROSENBERG: No definite agreement was made? MR. SACKS: Nothing definite to this d ate. It might be free. I~R. ROSENBERG: It might be free? MR. SACEB: Yes~ free. MR. ROgENBERG: If this is rent free and no costs would be assessed, were the tenants told about this and if other than the present tenants were approached were they s o informed that this was a place to store potatoes for nothing? MR. SACKS: This would not be a rent free building subject to the Zoning Board's approval or disapproval. ~. ROSENBERG: Did they know this was to be gratuitous? I understand perfectly that it is much better to rent. ~,~. SACE~: I wish to correct the record -- when t he farmers were storing potatoes in the building they approached me and asked me if we would rent the space in the building. I established rent on an ll month basis. The use of the bin for ll months for $1,000. CHAIRMAN: Why was it for only ll months. W~at about the other one month? MR. SACEE: The reason for ll months was~ after theyremoved their potatoes they had the use of the bin for storing seed, fertilizer~ and cutting seed, etc. I would then have the right to go in there and repair the building the other one month. CHAIRM32~: 'what ~ the length of the building? PEq. SACK~: I don't know~ exactly~ about 160 feet plus. CHAIRMAN: The Depth? MR. SACi~: The4epth is 61 feet~ not counting overhang. C~IR~IAN: Height? ~. SAC~: 1~ feet plus~ more or less. CHAIR?~N: How much storage space? ~. SACKS: I have storage space at the present time for at least 9200 bushels a bin minimum~ 9800 bushels a bin maximum. CHAIRMAN: There are a bout 76~000 bushels in there. The Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- January 8~ 19~9 building was constructed for a cost of ~$7~000. MR. SACKS: $~7~000 includes duct work, etc., the overall cost. ~. ROEENBERG: When you said before that these fellows might not have to pay anything, I suppose you meant that if it didn't work out you would cancel the deal? MR. SACKS: If I was in violation of zoning I was not going to collect the rent of the bins because I didn't want to be in' violation of zoning. CHAIRMAN: Do you know off hand what the usual cost of construction is for the storage of a bushel of potatoes on a unit basis? ~. SACKS: I was in contact with Walter Bean, Long Island Farm Bureau on that and he said --- CHAIRMAN: Your costs were about 61¢ or 62¢ a bushel, right? ~. SACK~: I haven't figured it out. CHAIi~AN: If a man were goingto construct a storage to hold lO,OO0 bushels he would probably spend more than a figure obtained by multiplying 62¢. ~y~. SACKS: I know of another farmer who constructed a building for potato storage. It was not near the building I have constructed and it cost $12~O00 more. CHAtR~N: I know of ~me storage lower in cost than yours. I think the Board will agree that no one would put up a storage for potatoes and rent such a storage for ~l,O00 or close to $1,000 rental figure for lO,O00 bushels. That may sound high, but actually it is not. ~. HILLS: I have a comment to m~e. I have been hearing about special exception as distinguished from a variance. I would like our petition amended if it is not in order. PR. ROSE~A~tG: The explanation of a special exception is that it must be specifically mentioned in the ordinance whereas a variance is the ~esult of an appeal. CHAIRMAN: ~ou know that a variance requires that strict application to the Ordinance would produce undue hardship; the hardship created is ~mique, and would not be shared by all properties in the immediate vieinity, and it observes the spirit of the Ordi- nance and the character of the neighborhood would not be changed. On a special exception only the first and third requirements have Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- January 8, 19~9 to be answered in the affirmative. In other words a special exception can be granted provided undue hardship can be shown and the character of the neighborhood would not be substantially changed. You do not need the unique hardship in the special exception. ~. TERRY: Most of the dealings I have had on this case have been with the builder and not with ~. Sacks. i~. ROSENBERG: Who is the builder? MR. TERRY: Harold R. Reeve & Son. MR. ROSEI1BERG: Is that the i~. Reeve of the Planning Board? TERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? M~. HILLS: I wish to point out that I aid not appear formally until now. The papers were incorrectly sent to ~M. Wickhsm who had been handling the case up to this point. CHAIR~N: That has been corrected. Is there anyone else who wishes to spes~k for the application? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? MRS. RUTH BUSCHING, (appeared for Robert Busching, President of Captain Kidd Estates Civic Association, Mattituck, New York). Mrs. Busching presented 13 letters to the Board of Appeals, all of which were addressed to the Town Board and found to be irrelevant to the matter before the Board. All of the letters protested against a change of the zoning laws. CHAIR~N: Does anyone else wish to speak against this appli- cation? MR. WILLIAm4 PETER (Marlene Lane Civic Association~ Mattituck, New York): I represent 3~ members of the Marlene Lane Civic Assoc- iation and we feel we have a nice residential community and we don't like to have it changed by having the zoning laws changed -- like the time Wasson tried to put a motel at the end of the street. You were kind not to let it happen. Right now there is too much commercial property in the Town of Mattituck. It is a nice community and we would like to~ep it that way. It might be all right in spot ~ning, then the people of Mattituck ~ould have some work, but to bring in migrant help there would be no advantage to the town whatsoever. CHAIRMAN: Do you understand the nature of the application that is before the Board? $outhold Town Board of Appeals -12- January 8, 19~9 ~R. PETER: I understand the building was built for potato storage. ! don't understand too much about the potato business as I come from the city~ and although I don't want to see a man go bankrupt~ I still don't like what he is trying to do. (The Chairman explained some of the points relative to potato storage to M~. Peter.) ~. PETER: I understand. I feel this is going into a commercial business. It is entirely for one mans ~ofit. CHAIR~N: Is there anyone else against this application? (No One wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? MR. HILLS: In answer to the last speaker~ I try to under- stand the potato business as t am also from the city~ but I might say that if Mr. Sacks had built a building only for his own purpose, no one would have objected. He had the right to build an accessory building for his own purposes regardless of how many people were against it. But the objection is that it is used to benefit others. May I examine some of the letters Mrs. Busching presented? CHAI~3~AN: I will read some of the letters. (Some of the letters presented by ~a Busching to the Board of Appeals were read by the Chairman.) MR. SACK~: This is not an accessory building. It has the same relation. MR. HILLS: Is there any question in the minds of the Board as to the fact this would have been granted if ~. Sacks had built this building for his own storage purposes? ~. ROSENBERG: No question would have arisen. CHAIRMAN: There is no question about it being an accessory building either. When people live on the property it is still an accessory building. there any other rebuttal? (No one wished to speak.) (The Chairman read another letter addressed to the Town Board which was presented by Mrs. Busching.) MR. HILLS: Ma~ I point out that is irrelevant to the present application. CHAIRMAN: That is correct~ it has no bearing on this hearing. Whether we do grant this variance the effect would be the same. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- January 6, 1959 (The Chairman continued to read several more letters.) ~. ROSENB~RG: Might I ask for clarification~ on this appli- cation Mr. Sacks requested that the notice of violation be removed and furthermore he asked for a variance, that he is appealing Article III~ ~ection 300~ Subsections $ and 7. Just what is he asking for under Section 4 and what under 7 ? What part of 4 and what part of 7 is he appealing? MR. HILL~: 7 has to do with accessory buildings, to include within the scope of accessory buildings the purpose of this building. ~q. ROSENBERG: Mr. Sacks~ is that right? MR. SACKS: les. ~v~. HILLS: Under 4 he is appealing for the right to use the building for other purposes besides farm. He is applying for the right to use the warehouse building on the farm for purposes not only for his own use but to rent out space in the building. He cannot use the entire building for himself and he should be permitted to use the building for purposes of others at a rental. In view of the acquiescence, we say we received permission before we began construction. ~S. BUSCHING: This ~ merely for using the building to rent out and to store your own merchandise? MR. HILL~: Definitely. MRS. BU$CHING: Not as a labor camp? MR. SACKS: No labor camp. (The Chairman read another letter presented by Mrs. Busching.) CHAIRF~N: Mrs. Busching, I am sure even you who are against this application will agree that this ~ an extremely unfair way to present the problem. MRS. BUSCHING: I agree. I did not read the letters. CHAI~AN: Any other questions? NR~ PETER: When the man built this warehouse he knew how much space he needed for his own potatoes. Suppose another farmer comes along and does the same~ would he get the same privileges this man received? CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sacks has 167 acres of potatoes~ equaling 83~500 bushels of potatoes, assuming a yield of 500 bushels gross per acre. Normally the farmer sells some and Southold Town Board of Appeals -l~- January 8, 19~9 doesn't put the entire stock into storage. In order to pay the bills for harvesting, after the crop is mature, he must sell as he goes along. This storage would not be too big for Mr. Sacks' use if he elected to put all his potatoes into it. ~. HILLS: ~. Sacks built it with the anticipation that he might use the entire building at some future date. CHAIRMAN: Do not lose sight of the fact Mr. Sacks has violated the Ordinance as we see it and_ what the Building Inspector said, and what Mr. Sacks told you he said are im~aterial. You could get a building permit and still be in violation of zoning. It has been done. I read a case this afternoon where this happened. The mere fact that a person has been issued a permit~ and consent by the Building Inspector has been obtained~ does not alleviate the offense, as we have found in studying the various cases which might have a bearing on this self-created hardship. If you build a house 20 feet from the road and the rest of the houses are 30 feet~ a~ you did not know what the law was does not constitute sufficient legal grounds for a Board of Appeals to grant a variance, in other words, what we are up against here~ Mr. Hills, is a self-created hardship. Whether it was with or without the Building Inspector's consent, the fact is that Mr. Sacks is in violation and there is no legal basis as we understand it, for granting this application~ but we would be happy for you to point out where we are in error. ~. HILL~: Even before this hearing began you were of this opinion. CHAIRMAN: Correct. One reason we conducted this hearing was to find out if you could present us with some precedent to enable us t o change our opinion. MR. HILLS: I understand how the Board feels about it. I csme to the conclusion some time back in the hearing that your mir~s were made up. You examined certain cases and you based your decision on those certain cases. I suggest, before you come to any conclusion a~ may go further and run into much more litigation~ you permit me to obtain some cases which might be decisive. CHAIR~N: We were interested in bringing out some points that we~ere not familiar with such as the matter of rental. We also are aware that since this will probably go beyor~ this Board it might encounter some people who are not as familiar with it as we are. We were advised by our counsel that we should hear sll appli- cations. We receive applications, consider them, and then order their publication, unless we find an application c~unot be granted~ in whichcase we are to so inform the applicant and save h~m the money of applying. However~ even though we were aware that this application would probably not be granted we were anxious to hold this hearing to obtain a complete record. Southold ~own Board of Appeals -l~- January 8, 19~9 ~R. ROSENBERG: May I correct you ivy. Hills. You stated before you gathered our minds were made up. You were completely incorrect. The whispering you observed going on up hero'was on an entirely different matter. We have tried to get all information here by looking up legal matters, and decision will be reached when we consider all facts. lv~. HILLS: I do not consider whispering -- that goes on at all of these types of hearings, but ~ a variance was to be granted, it would not go f. urther as far as we were concerned. Usually in matters of this kind taxpayers express an interest in it. ~ou had decided in advance that the application would be denied and I would take the matter further. CHAIRMAN: I thought it would go further unless some new evidence changed ~he entire case. MR. HILLS: I don't see where any handicap would be occasioned any person if you permitted me five days to submit cases involving self-created hardships. If it ~ going to be in the negative you will simply say to Mr. Sacks that he must n~ rent out to others, correct? CItAIRMAN: The Board, I ~lieve, would deay the rental variance. ~R. ROSENBERG: The reason Mr. Gillispie felt-it would go further was becanse when we considered the publication of this application the Building Inspector informed us it had not been completed. When the origianl application was filed a letter was sent explaining the intended delay and Mr. Wickham stated he wanted to ex~aust the remedies at hand. CHAIRMAN: I would be the first one to say that this does not solve the situation. MR. HILLS: The building is there and I assume Mr. Sacks is entirely free to use the building for himself, but is in violation regarding rental to anyone? CHAIR~N: Subject to interpretation. ~v~. ROSENBERG: It permits him to put up the farm building and use it for agricultural purposes. According to the 0rdinan~ the Building Inspector ~ut the violation on t here. He thought ~ was not permissable and Sacks may, of course, put up a farm building and you do not require a permit to erect a building for his own use. Chairman to Mr. Rosenberg: In your opinion, assuming a build- ing is built and Mr. Sacks permits a neighbor to use it without charge, is that a violation? MR. R C~EI~ERG: You cannot make an unauthorized commercial venture o£ any building in an "A" Zone. Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- January 8, 1999 Such as the man with the farm stand can only sell what he has raised on the premises. MR. SACKS: The farmer cannot be a dealer who buys potatoes and grades on his own property? CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is an established use. You have introduced a new factor, namely a large commercial storage. MR. SACKS: The objection had been to a labor camp only, no objection to potato storage. NR. SEPKO: When you put a fence between me and Jazombek that was the end~ that was a wall, not a fence. MR. HILLS: The suggestion I made before~hat before you people come to any concluslon~ I be given an opportunity to try and ~ove this hardship. I would like five days to file memoranda. CHAIRM~N: Our next meeting is the 22nd of January. The brief should be submitted to us by the 20th. A decision will be reached on the 22nd after receipt of the brief that Mr. Hills will prepare. On motion of Mm. Rosenberg~ seconded by i,M. Gregonis, Be it RESOLVED, that Appeal No, 12g, New Suffolk Shipyard, Inc., be corrected because in stating action of the Board~ Secretary in- advertently stated location of the sign as being New Suffolk, New York, should have been Mattituck, New York; on Appeal No. 12%, same applicant, location of sign on land of John Boucher was inadvertently described on the south by Sutter, should have been gutter. Secretary was instructed to correct actions and so notify New Suffolk Shipyard, Inc. Vote of the Board: Ayes- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Rosenberg, ~M. B ergen~ aM Mr. Gregonis. Secretary was dictated a letter to the Town Board requesting that refund be made to ivy. Eugene Puskarz, as his application was denied'~'by the Town Board for an "M" zone, but was favorably con- sidered by the Board of Appeals on a special exception, Appeal No. 12o. By resolution offered by Mr. Gregonis, seconded by PM. Bergen~ the minutes of the previous meeting held December 29, 19~8 were approved. Vote of the Board: Ayes- Mr. Gillispie, Mr. Bergen, Mr. Rosenberg, and Mr. Gregonis. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- January 8, 1959 By resolution offered by Mr. Rosenberg,~ seconded by f~. Gregonis, time and place of next meeting was fixed. Meeting to be held at the Southold Town Clerk's Office on January ~, 1959. 7:30 p.~. (E.S.T.) upon apolication of George H. Tyrrell, Marratooka park, Mattltuck, New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance Article X, Section 1000A, for permit to subdivide property located at D~srratooka Pamk on Peconic Bay, Mattituck, New York. Legsil notice of the abovementioned hearing will be published in the official newspaper on January 15, 1959. Vote of the Board: Ayes- Mr. Gillispie, ~. Bergen, Mr. Rosenberg, and }f~. Gregonis. Meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.H. Respectfully submitted, Judith T. Boken, Secretary