Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout179539. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 1795 Dated l~,ay 31, 1973 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TIlE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To Jey Fi~,kle & ~illie Resseri Main Road Orie~t~ 3~ew Yerk, DATE ....J...~...~......2.8, 1973 Appellant at a meetir~ of the Zoning Board of A~peals on JUlte 28,' 19~ was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your ( ) Request fcrr variance due to lack of access to property ( ) Request /or a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance (X) Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) the appeal 1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be /ranted ( ) be denied pursuant to Article .................... Section .................... Subsection .................... para/raph .................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Building Inspector ( ) be reversed ( ) be (T~e-out ~li) on the ~me pre~sos ~th a pu~$~.% g~e,, of pFopertyz ~th side bin Ro~, Orient~ ~ed north by Sc~dt~ east by H, Sc~dt~ south by ~in Roadl west by H. Estate. Fee p~d ~5.00. ~. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board;it was determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce practical hardship because SEE REVERSE difficulties or unnecessary (b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because SEE REFF~SE (c) The varhnce (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) change the character of the district because SEE REVERSE (would not) and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be /ranted ( ) be denied and that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) be confirmed ( ) be reversed. SEE REVERSE FORM ZB4 After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests pernLtesien to operate a second buoinqos ' (Take-out Deli) on sane preu~seo with a public giLrage en the ~rth side ef ~in Read, 0riel,, New York. ~e fiadi~s of ~e Beard ~e t~t the area is zoned A~ic~t~-Residenti~ a g~age; ~ t~t per~tti~ ~other business in a non-ce~e~- i~ business ~ea ~d e~d the u~e ef the property en ~ ~deraize~ let. ~e me.bors of the Be~d ~ee t~t it is be~end the scope ef the ~d ef Appe~s t~ ~t t~s application; ~ t~t the e~y seXution te the problem ~d Be for the appXic~ te endeavor te ~ve the ze~e c~ed ~d te acq~re a~ditie~ · he Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would not produce practical difficulties er ,m~ecessary hardship; the hardship created is not 'unique'~ m~d- wouXd- be shiLred by all properties alike[lin', t~e'innediate Vicia[~2 of-~tb~a pr0perty ~ c~acSer of the ne[~b~rhood~,~'~d~ ~12 not ~b~e~e ~he ~pirit ~~ ~T WAS ~SOL~D, Joy Fi~e ~ ~llie Mesoeri be ~ED pe~ss~on to operate a second business (T~e-out ~1~) en 8~e peewees ~th public ~e on the north s2de off h~n Road, Orient, New York, for the~aso~ stated. Vote of the Board~ Ayes~- Messrs~ Gillispie, Bergen, Rules, Grigonis. 7:50 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of James and Margaret Boylan, 11 Gedney Avenue, Smithtown, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 301, the Bulk Schedule and Article XVII, Section 1702, for permission to constmuct dwelling in subdivision Cleaves Point, Section III, which is not on approved list and lot does not have sufficient width or ~rea. Location of property: Lot ~73, Map of Cleaves Point, ~ection III. LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Hearings Pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the provisions of the Amended Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, public hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, at the Town Offioe, Main Road, Southold, New York, on June 28, 1973, on the following appeals: 7:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of John Charnews, Main Road, Southold, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning 9rdinance, Article III, Section 301 and the Bulk Schedule, for permission to divide lots with less than required area and frontage Location of property: west side Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, bounded north by School District ~5; east by Oakiawn Avenue; south by L. Boken and others; and west by L. Boken and others. 7:40 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of Philippe Maitrejean, Box 888, Sound Avenue, Mattituck, for a variance in accordance ¢ith the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 301 and the Bulk ~chedule, for permission to divide lots with less than required ~rea. Location of property: north side Ruth Road, Mattituck, )ounded north by Long Island Sound; east by B. Vreeland; south )y Ruth Road (Private Road); and west by A. Joos and ano. 5egal Notice Page 2 8:00 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of Joy Finkle and Miilie Messeri, Main Road, Orient, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 701 and the Bulk Schedule, for permission to operate a second business (Take-out Deli) on same premises with a public garage. Lo¢~tion of property: north side Main Road, Orient, bounded north by H. Sc~idt; east by H. Schmidt; south by Main Road; west by H. Terry Estate. 8:30 p.M.~(E.D.S.T.), upon application of George Ahlers and Barry Hellman, Cutchogue and Southold, New York, respectively, for a special exception in accordance with the ~oning Ordinance, Article V, Section 500,. Subsection B-l, for permission to erect multiple dwellings. Location of property: west side Youngs Avenue, Southold, bounded north by D. Charnews; east by Ycungs Avenue; south by Long Island Rail Road, Maier, Averett, Kaelin and others; and west by R. B. Grattan, Wetkowski and others. 8:45 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of George Ahlers and Barry Hellman, Cutchouge and Southold, New York, respectively, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Section 502, for permission to construct multiple dwellings with some buildings over 125 feet in length. Location of property: west side Youngs Avenue, Southold, bounded north by D. Charnews; east by Youngs Avenue; south by Long Island Rail Road, Maier, Averett, Kaeiin and others; and west by R. B. Grattan, Wetkowski a~ others. 9:00 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of Carl H. Schoof~ Hobart Road, Southold, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article Iii, Section 301 and the Bulk Schedule, for permission to divide lots with dwellings which Legal Notice Page 3 do not have sufficient area or frontage. Location of property: Hobart and Old Shipyard Lane, Southold, Lot $41, Map of Founders Estates. 9:10 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of Wilbur Kaiser, Horton Lane, Mattituck, New York, for'a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 301 and the Bulk Schedule, for permission to divide lots with less than required area and frontage. Location of property: south side of Horton Lane, Mattituck, bounded north by Horton Lane; east by C. Sanders; south by North Fork Baptist Church; west by North Fork Baptist Church. 9:20 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of Anna Maria Pfutzner Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 301 and the Bulk Schedule, for permission to divide property with less than required area and frontage. Location of property: Part Plot $124 Map of Nassau Farms, Cutchogue, New York. Any person desiring to be heard on the above appeals should appear at the time ~nd place above specified. Dated: June .15, 19~3 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JUNE 21, 1973, AND FORWARD NINE (9)AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK. NOTICE OF HEARINGS pursuant to Section 267 o! the TowI~ Law and the provisions of the Amended Building Zon~ Or- dirmn~e of the Town of ~outh- old, Su~olk County, New York, public hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeal~ of the Town of Southold, ak the Town Office, Main Road. South- old. New York, on June 28. 1973. on the foliowin~ appeals: ~':30 P. M. (EDST), upon ap- plication of John Charnews. ivl~in Road, Southold, for a variance COUNTY OF SUFFOLK / STATE OF NEW YORK~ ss: C. Whitney Booth, Jr., being duly sworn, soys that he is the Editor, oF THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER - MA'I-flTUCK WATCHMAN, a public news- paper printed at $outhold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is o printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Troveler-Mottituck Watch- man once each week for .....~,~,~....., .~..//.... weel~ successiveJy, commencing on the ............. ~..Z~ ....... Sworn to be{ore me this ...... z~.....~. .......... day of ..... .......... NOTICE OF HEARINGS Pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the provisions of the Amended Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, public hearings wili be held by the Town Office, Main Road, Southuld, New York, on Jwe 28, 1973, on the following appeals: 7:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of John Charnews, Main Road, Soutbel~d, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article HI, Section 301 and the Bulk Schedule, for permission to divide lots with lees than required area and frontage. Location of property: west side Oaklawn Avonue, Southold, boanded north by School District No. 5; east by Oaklawn Avonue; south by L. Bokon and others; and west by L. Bokan and others. 7:40 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of ~Philippe Maitrejean, Box 888, Sound Avenue, Mattituck, for a variance in accordance with- the Zonin~ Ordinance, Article 'IH, Section 301 and the Bulk Schedule, for permission to divide int~ with less than required area. Location of proporty: north side Ruth Road, Mnttituck, be~mded north by Long Island · oand; eant by B. Vreeland; south by Ruth Road (Private Road); and west by A. Jons and 7:~0 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of James and Argue, Smithtown, New York, for a variance in accordance with the~Zoulng 0rdi~onea, Article HI, .Section a01, the Bulk ~bedule and Article XVII, ~.~ction 1702, for permission to Construct dwelling in subdivision Cleaves Point, Section III, which is nut on approved list and lot does not have sufficiont width or area. ~Capption of property: Lot No. 73, of Cleaves Point, Section HI. 8:00 P.M. (E.D.$.T.(, upon i applieation of Joy Finkle and Millie Mesoari, Main Road, .Oriant, New York, for a variance m accordance with the Zoning 701 and the Bulk Schedul~e, for~ permission to operate a socond business (Take-out Deli) on same o~_.premises with n public gornge. tian of property: north side in Road, Orient, bounded by I-I. Sohmidi; east by lt. dt; south by Main Road; ~,est by It. Terry Estate. ~ ~ 8:30 P.M., (E.D.S.T.), ~ applieatin~ of George ~hlor~ and Barry Heaman, Cutchngm and Southuld, New York, rnspee- tivuly, for a ~ excepfian in accordance wD~_ ~h, __~m~m~ Ordinance, Article V, Soetinn 500, Sol~ectinn B-l, for permi~ion to erect multiple dwellings. Location of prol~orty: west side Youngs Avenue, Southold, bounded north by D~ Chamews; · east by Young~ Avanne; south by Long Island Rail Road, Mater, Avorett, Kaelin and others; and west by R.B. Grattan, Wetlmw~ki COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, STATE OF NEW YORK. ~ ss: ........ ~.~,.~.r.~ .~, .])~n .............. being duly Sworn, says that . .h.e.... is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK WEEKLY TIldES, a newspaper published ~t Greenport, in said county; and that the notice, of which the emnex~d is ~I printed copy, has been published in the said Suffolk Weekly Times once in each week, ~or ............ .o.n.e. ........... weeks successively commencing on the ........ .~¥~.n.t?:-.f.~.r.s.t. ..... day of ..... .J ~_~_~ ..... ~:~1~.7.~ . swot. to be ._ e_me this . .'?/ ..... FORM NO. 3 ~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL File No ................................................................... Date .................. ,~.. :..:..:....~ ........... :....', ...... , ~ ...~.:...~ ............................................................. PL ASE TAKE. OTICE that our a I tic dated '? / ' L ~ ~,,~-~ ~"-'"' ~ ~ ' ~ Street' z .x--.: ~:~..~..:.~ ....... ~:'..,,. ......... ~.., ..... ~,~,~,:,.~:,.....,.:~ ........ :~~..~.~ ........................................... Buildino Inspector / TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEALNO. gJ~ f~' DATE 'TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, (We) .~ ........~ ............................................. ,.of .. ~..~.....,~...~..~.~..~ ~.. Name of Appella,nt Street and Number .............................................................................................................. ', .......... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State 'THE ZONING / BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDII~G IN~SPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ........... ~~~ WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Name of Applicant for permit o, ........ ................. ..................... Street .and Number Municipality State ~) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY I. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY .... ~.....~....~..t,.N/.r.....l.~.,.~.. ........................................... i.f?...,~.. ..... .,~...r~. '~ Street Use District on Zoning Mop ........ ~ ............................................... ~ ............... o ~ c Mop No. Lot No. 2 PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordi,nance.) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is mode herewith for (.~) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordin,a.nce or Zoning Mop ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap. 52 Cons. Laws Art. ]5 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREV~OU.S APPEAL A prewous appeal ~as)(hos not) been made with respect of the Building Inspector or with respect to (~i~s property. Such appeal was ( ) request for~ special permit ~.,z~,,, (~C) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No. //?/'~.,~'. Dated ...~,).~..0..,. REASON FO~ APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection (,~) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that ~;~ (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued I. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practica[ difficu[tie,s or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because ~ :~f~.~/~ > /~/""~/~4/"~ 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties olike in the immediate vicinity of this property ~nd in this use district because ~-~/-~-:~:~_~ X~$ ~' b~z/0 ~/~-G~z/'~/~//~4(~ 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE T~E CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because S~ ~'/~e ~' Z~ ,/~7~ ~)© ~ ~ ~/~ ~/~ OF ~'~'~-. ~. ~ COUNTY ) Signature Sworn to this ............. ,..-~...~ .................. day of .................................... t9~.~'~ Nota.ry Public MARY O. KLOS ~OTAP, Y PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YO~K ~52-7305925 SUFFOLKCOUNTY ~mmissiOn Expir~ ~c~ 3~, 1~ ACTION OF THE ZONI~qO BOARD OF APPEALS ,Dec. 16, 1971 Appeal No. ]J$89 Dated ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ToMyron & Joy Finkle Main Road Orient, New York Jan. 27, DATE ....................... AppeHant 1972 at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your ( ) Bequest for variance due to lack o£ access to property ( ) Bequest for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance ~ ) Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) the appeal I. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be granted ( ) be denied pursuant to Article .................... Section .................... Subsection .................... paragraph .................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the derision of the Building Inspector ( ) be reversecJ ( ) be .... 0:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of Myron ~ Joy ~rkm~,ue~q~n Road, Orient, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Section 1007 (d) - 01d Ordinance, (New Ordinance - Article XII, ~ection 120~ (d), for permission to reinstate use (restaurant) which has been discontinued for a period of over two yea~s. Location of property: north side of Main Road, Orient,' New York, bounded north by H. Schmtdt, east by H. Schmidt, south by Main Road, west by H. Terry Estates. Fee paid $5.00. 2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce practical hardship because ~EE REVERSE difficulties or unnecessary (b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties alike ~n the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district becaus~ SEE REVERSE (c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) change the character of the district because (would not) SEE REVERSE and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( ) be denied and that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) be con.firmed ( ) be reversed. SEE REVERSE FORM ZB4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MarJorie McDermott, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals After investigation and inspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to reinstate use (restaurant) which hms been di~continued for a period of over two years on property located on the north side of Main Road, Orient, New York. The findings of the Board are that applicant is not sure of ownership of property which he needs to increase the size of his present property; a restaurant or coffee shop with six tables (4 chairs each) would require five parking spaces; applicantts property is close to the State highway. The Board finds that strict applicatfen of the Ordinance will not produce 'practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship;' the hardship created is not unique and would.j~et~be shared by all prop- erties alike in the immediate vtcinlty of this property and in the." same use district; and the variance does not observe the spirit, of the Ordinance and will change the character of the district. THEREFORE IT WAS RESOLVED that application of Myron & Joy Ftnkle, Main Road, Orient, New York, be DENED as applied for, without prejudice to future application. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gilltspie, Bergen, Grlgonis, Hulse. APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. ], (We).~...~Y_~..°.9..~.t,..k..te....~..L°.Z.~t.n..k..L%f .~.t.~..U...°.~.~,...g?.~.:...~Z ....... LL.0..%7. .......... Name of Appellon$ Street and Number ......................................................................................................................... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ..... ~zI.~..~:~,:...~.~......?L..c~...~...~:.jLr~ WHEREBY THE BUILDING iNSPECTOR DENIED TO · ~.?..~..~.t..n..k..Le...~ .n...d.. ~.gZ. E.t.~.Le. ...................... Name of Applicant for permit of .......... ..M...a..t..n....R..9.~ .d., ..9.r..i..e. ~.% ....N...¥......LL9..5..7. ........................................................ Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY · (X). P.ERMI~FOR REINSTATEMENT o~nre~existin~,use.. Pre-,existin~ use was the sale of food ~nc~uen~al~o ~ne opera,Ion ol a ~ara~e ano-.anoscap~ng ~usmess, wnlcn use was a non-con- ]. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ....... ../~,....A.!..~...g.~.. ................................................... ~..O,.r..~..T:......z..°truing one. Street Use District on Zoning Mop ......... .................................................. ............... Mop No. Lot No. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section: and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (x) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap· 6:2 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (~) (ha~s n._off been mode with ~'espect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for o special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( ), A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance (x) The applicants purchased the property the date of this application from t~e previous owne~l~k~nx~d~ a~vere told by the Building Inspector that although Andrade had sold food and ~ ~c~6~is~-fiSn on the premises that he regarded it as there having been a ces- sation of the selling of coffee and prepared foods and that it would be a violation of the ordinance at this time, by reason of the fact that the use is non-conforming, to reinstate the sale of coffee and prepared food. Form ZBI (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because (a) this garage operation in a small village is at best not much more than a margimal operation and the new owners wish to make it both more attractive and profitable. (b) In any other garage business in Southold town that was in a zone that permitted such a business; the relief sought herein could be conducted without any special permit. From the point of view of equal protection of the law and equal competitive advantage, the applicant is at a disadvantage by the strict application of the ordinance. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate'' vicinity of this property and in this use district because the use is a non-conforming'one and what is requested here is the reinstatement of a pre-existing use. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because it would be the reinstatement of a use which previously was permitted and carried on, and it would not do violence either to the spirit of the ordinance or change the character of the district. The small food service operation which was previously carried on and the reinstatement,of it which is applied for were discontinued by the former owner because of poor health and because during the period when the ser,.vice was discontinued he was continually trying to sell the business and did not realize that a new owner would not be able to reinstate the food service aspect of the business. STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) SS one of the owners/applicants S ,~,, this .......... .~.(~.~L ........ day of ................................ I~egeznb. e~.... 1971. ~ Ix)'oto r~ Public ! \ '7,'r,.! ',Ey :' CORV, I'. -: ,,,~ !;.,7 ,~,~,M~rch30,1972 ~outhold Town Board of Appealm ~ January 27, 1972 PUBLIC HEARINg: Appeal No. 1489 - 8:30 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), upon application of Myron & Joy Finkle, ?~in Road, Orient, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Section 1007 (d) - 01d Ordinance, (New Ordinance - Article XII, Section 1204 (d)~, for permission to reinstate use (restaurant) which has been dicontinued for a period of over two years. Location of property: north side of.Main'Road, Orient, New York, bounded north'by H, Schmidt, east hy H. Schmidt, south by Mmin Road, west by H. Terry Estate. Fee paid $~.00. The Chaixmmn opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and notice to the applicant. THE CNAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for this application? MR. MYRON PINKLE~ Wears the owners. We have no desire to trespass or infringeon the rights of others; We dontt want to change what we found. We hope to improve the property. We only want to make a small coffee stop and will close down early, at two or three otclock. The Chairman ~ead'letterS as followst From Stanley Corwin, .Es~., dated January 26, 1972..... from 1~.~ & }~s. A. NelSon Chapman, Orient, NewYork, dated JanuarT 27th, against variance being granted. ... from Mm. William Y. Terry, Orient, dated January 26, 1972, o~Jecting to the granting of this variance. THE CHAIRMAN: W~uldyou serve coffee at tables or would you dispense it out of machines? What do you mean by restaumant? ~. PIF~r~: We would like to have six tables with four chairs each. A person could stop for a short time or if they wished they could take the coffee~with them; People who stop in de ask for coffee and adoughnmt, and we understand that there was a restaurant there previously. THE CHAIRMAN: There were a couple of tables there. where you plan to locate your tables? Is that MR. FINFr~.: Yes. MR. HIILSE: Will there be cooking? MR. FINP~R: We don~t know what the Boa~d of Health would require from us. If their rules are too strict, maybe we won't open up. THE CHAIR}~N: Apparently the Board of Health has permitted a marina to operate a Stewart frozen sandwich machine. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -9- January 27, 1972 MR. FIN~: We want to make the property better and would like to see it fit into the su~roanding area. THE CHA~-AMAN: I am sure yom mean that. What is the size of the property you bought? ~. F~NF~F.: 158 feet rectangular lot. on the front by 106 feet. It's a THE CHAIRMAN: There used to be a right-of-way at Tabor's. Do you own that? ~,~. FINW~.: We don~t have it yet. THE CHAIRMAN: Did Schmidt put a fence d~wn there? ~. HOWARD TERRY, Bldg. Inspector: It would have cut off the space that Joe used. The position of the building is such ~hat the northeast corner of his property is pretty close to the line and would only have given him 10 feet east. It was my understanding that that piece eas~ of the garage was swapped for the part with the growth of trees. ;~R. F~U~vE: I will bring you the paper. Joe has a piece of p~operty that he wants to trade even-up but he and Schmidt can't come to an agreement. They decided that Joe would swap his property down the street for the piece that has a-25 foot right-of- way. Ee would get 1~0 ft~ for the 25'ft. that we would like to have. We have $10,000 in'escrow. It was found ou~ that he did not have title to the land.., something like "intestate". THE CHAIRMAN: He doesn't have title to what he sold to you? MR. so they up with If not, ~shmidt, FINKI~: He doesn't have title to the land down tb~ streee can't exchange. Now, we have an agreement that if Joe can come the land he will get that money. 'we have given him two years. he will have to turn back the money. This is between him, Schmidt's lawyer and the real estate man. THE CHAIR~N: One of the problems is parking. In the new Ordinance a requirement is one parking space for each five seats in a restaurant. With 24 chairs, we would require five pa~king spaces and i don't thihk you have the room. If a big trailer was in there nobody could get in or out. The storage tanks are fairly close to the State highway and that is illegal under the old or the new Ordinance. It was never zoned Business because it is in a residential area and it was not contemplated in the original Zoning Commission, of which I was a member, that it should be Business there because it's a non-conforming use in a residential area and the site is really too small even for a garage. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- January 27, 1972 MR. LLOYD TERRY: There is adequate room for the cars that are brought to the garage for repairs. Usually to the east of the garage there are two or these cars as the result of a wreck. If I may say, at this time, I make frequent trips to the garage and I cantt recall at any one time where trucks were coming in that I did not have room to park my vehicle off the highway. If a person were going out to dinner they would not go to eat where there is a garage adJacent,'but it is nice if you are stopping for gas to be able to get coffee. My wife and I, after ,=,ch discussion, can find no reason to oppose. We feel it would be a good idea. I cantt see any objection from the standpoint of traffic, certainly not nearly the hazard that the Barn Auction was last year~ i saw cars from 9:30 A.M. t 4 P.M. parked double on both sides, and people crossing back and forth, and I don't recall seeing a policeman. An objection was raised from the standpoint of not having adequate parking facilities but where was the concern at the time of the auction? This is a thing that was a threat to all motorists. THE CHAIRMAE: I don't believe the auction has any relevance to this application. MR. LLLOYD TERRY: We are in favor because we can see no tha~eat as far as property devaluation is concerned. THE CHAIRM~: The Board has to~consider that a restaurant has to be located in a Business zone, and it has-to have a mtnimmm amount of pa~klng with it, This is not "B" zoned, it,s a non- conforming area. That's why I brought up the subject of parking. This use has been abandoned. 'I don't think this Board could' entertain the idea of a restaurant in a non-conforming area even if the area were large enough. The Board of Appeals considers hardship cases (variances and special exceptions~. The Town Board legislates Business Zones, M Zones, so it seems to me that this is going a little further afield than we should go. You already have a non-conforming business. If the purpose is to serve sandwiches and coffees and you do that in a stand-up'way where sandwiches come out of a machine, that's one thing, but to establish tables.., the first thing you know you could serve dinners. There is no way we can control it once you have put in tables. (For the record: TWo long distance calls from Eric ~chmidt. He and ~Ms. £chmidt are unable to attend the hearing. They have objections and they will mail a letter.) MR. LLOYD TERRY: I think this is more of a Snack Bar. It's my feeling that Orient doesn't have much to offer. Greenport has a lot more, they will even have an excursion boat. These people consider this Snack Bar to be necessary to their economy, and I don~t see an~ reason for any objections. We have lots of non- Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- January 27, 1972 conforming businesses.., carpenters operate in their cellars, etc. I think we can bend a little. THE CHAIItMAN: There is no hardship here. MR. FINKLE: We don~t want to cause any trouble with the townspeople. We would like to have this coffee shop or restaurant but if we don't get it, it won't hurt us. W~ will abide by the law and will not push. Does our business belong where it is now or will we run into further problems? THE CHAIRMAN: There are no further problems if you operate it as a garage but you have asking for different uses. The reason you are in here is not in connection with the garage. If you abandon it for two or three years you would have to come befox~ the Board to get a reactivated use. (The Chairman read: "Wherever non-conforming use, etc.,.., a non-conforming building may not be altered, etc."). The use involves cars, parking. The Board of Health will take care of wt~at you do inside the building. ~. Fl~;Fr~: Let's say that in the future we come up with what Joe and Schmidt are wOrking on and we would have plenty of room to park cars, could we coma back then? THE CHAIRMAN: It is the policy to discourage business uses on a State highway, County road, or through road. I think this is what Supervisor Martocchia and M~. Terrywere discussing, paFticularly as it applies to the Main Road. They have been very careful about granting business on the Main Road. The County has control over anything within 500 feet of a major highway. In order to have local control a local Board can over-rule the County by a majority plus one. I don~t think we could approve where part of the property is in dispute. After investigation and inspection the BOard'finds that applicant requests permission to reinstate use (restaurant) which has been discontinued for a period of over two years on property located on the north side of Main Road, Orient, New York. The findings of the Board are that applicant is not sure of ownership of property which he needs to increase the size of his present property; a restaurant or coffee shop with six tables (4 chairs each) would require five parking spaces; applicant's property is close to the State highway. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance will not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is not unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance does not observe the spirit of the Ordinance and will change the character of the district. ~ ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -12- January 27, 1972 On motion by ~/m. Glllispie, seconded by ~-~. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that application, of Myron & Joy Flnkle, Main ROad, O~ient, l~ew York, be DENIED as applied for, without prejudice to future application. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Hmlse. On motion by MA~. Hmlse, seconded by ~. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED that the miraxtes of the Southold Town Board of Appeals dated January 6, 1972, be approved as submitted, subject to minor cor~ection. Vote of the Board: Hulse. Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by M~v. Bergen, it was RESOLVED that the next regular meeting of the Southold Town Bo~d of Appeals will be held at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, Februaru 17, 1972, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie; Bergen, Grigonis, Hulse. On motion by 1~'. Bergen, seconded by ~Lv. Gillispie, it was RESOLVED~ that the Southold Town Board of Appeals set 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, February 17, 1972, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing upon application of Stuart E.' Staples, 35 N. Montgomery Avenue, Bay Shore, New York, for a special elception in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Section 900, Subsections 8 & 12, for permission to erect private one-family dwelling and operate cement mix business. ×~Location of property: west side of Coxts Lane, Cutchogue, ~'ew York, bounded north by F. J. McBride, east by Cox~s L~ne, south by L. B. Glover, Jr., west by L. B. Glover, Jr. Vote of the Board: Ayea:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Grigonis, Hulse. June 28,1973 southold Tow~ Zoning Board of Appeals SOuthold,New York Gentlemen: In reference to Hearing Notice published in the SuffOlk Times, June 21,~973 to be held at the TOwn Office, ~outhold at 8pm on June 28, 1973 uoon ~oplication of JoyFinkle and Millle. Messeri, Main Road,Orient New York for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article Vll, Section 70t and t~e Bulk Schedule, four permission to o~erate, a sec- oz~ business T~ke Ou~ Deli , an same p~emises with a public garage, I wish to gi:e the following reasons for my opposition, to such permission: The public, garage has been given a non-conforming status~ in~ a residen- tial-Agriculture zoned arsa which indicates tkhat according to the Master Plsn , the Zoning BoardmaZld the Planning Board this a~ea is not suited fo~business. To add another business certainly does not seem justified. In addition, the major concer~ for myself as an adjoining property owner is one of very limited space. As it stauds at this time, many times "d~ring the course of business~ hours the overflow of car~ are parked in front of my house as well as the shoulders of all adjoining property owners. This creates a hazard fo~~ both trs~ffic as well as pedestrians. In other.words the garage already operating in this area is not only using his prooerty but that of others and with an additional business, I can not concieve how the additional cars could be accommodated. I strongly urge you to deny this application. Respectively submitted, E~ic~ 8chmidt~' Sou~hold Towm Zoning Board of Appeals Sou%hold, New York J~me 28, 1973 Gentlemen: In reference to Hearing Notice published in the~ Suffolk Times Jun~ 21,1~73 to be held at the Town 0ffic~, Southold at 8pm on June 28, 1973 upom applic~ation of Jo~ Finkle and Millie Messmr£, Main Rd 0rien%, New York ,, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article Vll, Sectiom 7OI and the B~lk Schedule, for permissiom to o~erate a sec- ond business ( Take 0u~ Deli ) om the same premises with a public garage, we wish to opoose the granting of such variance. It was originally zoned Agriculture-Residential with one variance to operate a garage. A second variance for a Take-Out Deli is just too much. There certainly is not enough oarking facilities at the garage for another business. Asit i~ now-cars and trucks are parke~ all over Main Road making the visibility from Platt Rd very difficUlt. Sincerly yours, Ruth and Gene 01iva Juame~ 2~ 1~'~ T~ Z~img B~ard of Appeals New Gemtl eme~ Im refere~c~ to Hearing Notice published in the Suffolk Times, June 21,1973 to be held at the Town, Office, Southold at 8pm om June 28, 1973 upon aoplication of Joy Finkle and Millie Messeri, Main Rd.,Orient, New~ York, for a variance: in. accordance with the Zening Ordimance, Article ¥11, Se,tion 701 and the Bulk Schedule, for permissiom to operate a seC- ~d business ( Take-Out Deli ) c,m same premises with a public garage, I wish to give the following reasons for the oppositiom of such variance: According to the Master Plan adopted by Southold Towm, the map indi- c~es, this area to be zoned Agriculture-Residential and this~ proper~y was given. ~ non-conforming use to operate as a garage or service station. This fact indicates that the Planning Board and Zoning Board felt that busin~ss should not be located in thim area. In addition~, ~ne of the most important aspects in this business already is a lack o.f spac~ for parking area. It is already extremely limited and wi'th another business' operating on the same premises would cause a definite hazard. Presently in the spring, summer, and fall the overflow of cars are already parked not only on the proper~ but on the shdulders oN the Maim Road both eaBt and west of the garage, acro, ss on the ~mU~J~ side of the read and on Platt Lane. On many occasions it is virtually impossible ~o see when trying to enter the Main Ro~ad from Platt Lane, as cars parked on the shoulder block the view. I resoectfully submit this letter and hope this variance will not be granted. Thank you. William Y Terry,Jr. SURVEY FOR MYRON FINKLE AT ORIENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY~ N. Y, SCALE: I°'= ,50' DEC. 14, 1971 REFERENCE: eUARANTEED TO, HOME TITLE DIVISION CHICAGO TITLE iNSURANCE COMPANY MYRON FINKLE LANO SURVEYOR N.~S. LIC. NO. ~87'~E RIVERNEAD, N.Y.