Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4062APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, .Ir. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOA~ OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOU~OLD NOTICE OF HEARINGS SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Mare Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law .and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following matters will be held for public hearings before the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971, on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991, commencing at the times specified below: (1) 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4060 - ANTHONY C. MEISEL. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30A.3 and Article XXIV, Section 100-244,~for permission to construct open deck addition (to existing dwelling) with an insufficient frontyard setback. The lot area is nonconforming in this R-40 Low-Density Residential. 1275 Fanning Road, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 117, Block 4, Lot 30. (2) 7:33 p.m. Appl. No. 4059. DOROTHY F. CAREY. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct proposed addition and deck with insufficient frontyard setbacks. The subject'parcel is known as Lot 7 on the Map of Edgemere Park, is substandard in size, and is located in the R-4Q Zone District. Location of Property: Page 2 - Legal Hearings for October 24, 19'91 Southold Town Board of Appeals Corner of Edgemere Avenue and McDonald's Crossing, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map.No. 1000-128-6-20.  (3) 7:35 p.m. Applications 'of NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNI- ~ CATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. concerning premises located in the Light-Industrial (LI) Zone District and is known as 21855 County Road 48, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-96-1-19.1. /~ (A) Appl. No. 4058. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XIV, Section 100-142 for permission to construct monopole radio tower and accessory equipment-storage building / with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks. (B) Appl. No. 4062. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XIV, Section 100-141B(1) for permission to establish public utility use and construct monopole radio towe~ and accessory equipment-storage building. (4) 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4061 - EDWARD T. ROUSE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXVIII, Section 100-281, and Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient lot area and width of two parcels, each with a preexisting single-family dwelling. Location of Property: Corner of Sterling Place and Champlin Place, Greenport, NY; Lot Nos. 60, 61 and 62 on the Map of John G. Champlin filed in the N OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK _~ .4,5 ~1 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION Date Filed: TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK: I (We), NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS of c/o Marie Ongioni~ Esq. ('Resi"de'nce', House No. and Street) 218 Front Street, P..0. Box 562, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 (Hamlet, State, Zip Code, Telephone Number} hereby apply to THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION in accordance with the ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 100-141 , SUBSECTION B(1) referring to 100-131 (b)(4) for the below-described property for the following uses and purposes (and as shown on the attached plan drawn to scale): Construction of an equipment building and monopole for cellular mobile communications. NYNEX Mobile Communications is a public utility regulated by the New York State Public Service Commission. The equipment building and monopole are public utility structures which will be utilized to enable applicant to "provide cellular radio systems for mobile communications". A. Statement of Ownership and Interest. NYNEX Mobile Communications is(are) the ~ of property known and referred to as 21855 County Rd. 48, Cutchogu~. N. Y, (House No., Street, Hamlet) identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as Dist'rict 1000, Section 96 , Block i , Lot(s) 19.1 , which is not (is) on a subdivision Map (Filed -- --, "Map of "Filed Map No. , and has been approved by the Southold Town Planning Board on as a [Minor] [Major] Subdivision). The above-described property was acquired by the owner t)n 1987 B. The applicant alleges that the approval of this exception would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of said zoning ordinance and that the proposed use conforms to the standards prescribed therefor in said ordinance and would not be detrimental to property or persons in the neighborhood for the following reasons: The property is already developed for commercial use and has parking available although no additional traffic will result as these are structures not requiring the presence of personnel. The structures will have no impact on neighboring property. C. The property which is the subject of this application is zoned L I [ Z] is cQnsi~en~ with the use(s) described in the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith. [ ] is not consistent with the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith for the following reason(s): ~ / is vacant land. ~ - ~ , . ~ e ~((S~gn~ture) ~ ~ ~y~' / / Sworn to oetore me this ~ day ~f~ , 19)7 /~~ /~ ~ m~ ( ~ / ZB2 (rev. 2/6/86} ~ / and ,,; _ _ ?,/TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD /~, ~ ~ /~/ OWNER STREET VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT FORMER OWNER ¢ N,,~oW~(i¢.(.~. ""~'D v.~ ',q E -.' ACR.,t "' -. ~g¢~ ~ ~ S w ~ ~PE OF BUILDING ' ...,, , , 'ACre Volu~ P~r %iud ' ' / ~I / J Tillable 1 Tillabl~ 2 Tillabl~ Woodland Swamplahd FRONTAGE ON WATER - e :¢/~¢, Brushland FRONTAGE ON ROAD ~~ ~ .7' ~ //~ Hou,e Plot " DEPTH X~d ~/ ~ BULKH~B Total DOCK Perch Breezeway Garage Patio O. B~ Total 3/5' Foundation Basement Ext. Walls Fire Place Type Roof Recreation Room Dormer Driveway Bath Floors Interior Finish Heat Rooms 1st Floor Rooms 2nd Floor inette LR. DR. BR. ; FI~. B. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York I 1971 Fax (516) 765-1823 January 14, 1992 Marie Ongioni Attorney At Law 218 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Amended site plan for NYNEX Mobile Communications & Arthur V. Junge, Inc. Proposed Amendment to Approved Site Plan for Arthur V. Junge Industrial Building N/s County Road 48, Cutchogue, New York SCTM ~ 1000-96-1-19 Dear Ms. Ongioni: The following resolution was adopted by the Planning Board at its meeting on January 13, 1992. BE IT RESOLVED That the Planning Board assumes Lead Agency in the environmental review of this application. A determination will be made after the Board receives the report of its environmental consultant. Payment for the environmental review was received on January 8, 1992. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Coordinating Agencies Charles Voorhis, Cramer & Voorhis Associates, Inc. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN eUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE December 17, 1991 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following application(s) which have been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Com~ission are considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. Applicant(s) Municipal File Number(s) NYNEX Mobile Com~mnicatione NYNEX Mobile Communications 4058 4062SE Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz Director of Planning GGN:mb S/s Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 scott L. HARRIS Supervisor PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 December 16, 1991 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request for NYNEX Mobile Communications & Arthur V. Junge, N/s County Route 48 Cutchogue, New York SCTM 91000-96-1-19 Inc. Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this letter is to supplement our last letter to you of December 10, 1991, pursuant to Article $ of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCP~R Part 617. That letter contained the resolution of conditional approval for the Special Exception by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Since that time, the Zoning Board's final decisions which include its findings and determinations on the Special Exception and the variance applications, both, have been completed. A copy of each is enclosed to assist you in your coordinated review. Project Name: NYNEX Mobile Communications & Arthur Junge Inc. N/s County Route 48 Cutchogue, New York Requested Action: To construct a monopole tower one hundred (100) feet in height for the purpose of installing a cellular communications transmitter and to construct an accessory equipment storage building for the tower on a Light Industrial site with an existing industrial building. SEQRA Classification: ( ) Type I (x) Unlisted Contact Person: Valerie Scopaz (516)-765-1938 cc: Building Department * Southold Town Board of Zoning Appeals ~ Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services * Department of Environmental Conservation - Ai~any APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa · Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD scoTr L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Pursuant to Article XIII of the Suffolk County Charter, Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, New York, hereby the following to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: Variance from the Zoning Code, Article , Section X Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Special Exception, Article XIV Section 100-141 .B /1) ' 100~131 (b. (4 Special Permit the refers Inspector. Appeal No.:4062SEApplicant: NYNEX Mobile Communications Location of Affected Land: 21855 County Road 48, Cutchogue County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- 96-1-19.1 Within 500 feet of: Town or Village Boundary Line Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary) State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Owned Land Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Pa'rk or Other Recreation Area or Existing or Proposed Right-of Way of Any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by the County or for Which The County Has Established Channel Lines, Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of An Airport. COMMENTS: Applicant is requesting permission to construct equipment buil.ding and monopole radio tower for use by public utility in the transmission and operation of communication exchange. Copies of Town file and related documents Dated: Dec. ll, 1991 enclosed for your review. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCO'I'r L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 76-5-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 December 11, 1991 Marie Ongioni, Esq. 218 Front Street P.O. Box 562 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Appl. No. 4062SE - NYNEX Mobile Communications Dear Mrs. Ongioni: Attached please find a copy of the board's findings and determination in the above matter. Please be sure to return to the Building Inspector (and other agencies which may have jurisdiction for issuance of other approvals of this project) before cormmencing construction activities. Copies of this determination have this date also been furnished to the Building Department and Planning Board offices for their files and update. A certified copy of the resolution was furnished several days earlier, as you know, to the Planning Board in order that they would be in a position to calendar the matter for processing at the Planning Board Meeting of Monday, December 9, 1991. (The attached findings and determination include this resolution, of course, with the same conditions of approval.) Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Enclosure Copies of Decision to: Building Department Southold Town Planning Board Suffolk County Department of Planning .,age 5 - Appl. No~ Matter of NYNEX Mobl~l~e Communications/Junge Decision Rendered November 21, 1991 application); 4. No disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, light, vibration or noise, or harmful distribution levels of radiation, as agreed. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MESSRS. GOEHRINGER, GRIGONIS, DOYEN AND VILLA. (MEMBER DINIZIO ABSTAINED FROM DISCUSSIONS AND FROM VOTE). This resolution was duly adopted. lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN RECEIVED AND FILED BY T~m SOUTh_OLD TO~W~ D~TS/~/# / ~/ ~ou~ /o ..~o ~ Town Clerk, Town o~ Southold MARIE ONGIONI ATTORNEY AT LAW 219 FRONT STREET, GREENPORT. NEW YORK 11944 (51~) 477-2048 FAX (516) 477-8919 October 30, 1991 Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Ms. Linda Kowalski Re: NYNEX Mobile Communications Applications Dear Linda, In accordance with your request enclosed herewith please find copies of the cases cited by this ,~ffice in the brief submitted in support of the NYNEX applications and in the letter to the Board regarding the consent requirements dated October 24, 1991. Please excuse the poor quality of some of the copies. They were made at the Supreme Court library in Riverhead where those case books were located and, unfortunately, the available copying machine leaves a lot to be desired in terms of a quality product. If you need any further material, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, MARIE ONGIONI Carmela L. Borrelli Law Clerk encs. ~e Stat~~ ii~ the ppehant~ J'Iorm~ce I~.ND 'r. Re t~PI'Y OF iq~W Yb~ ' ~u~.~xb~$~n~en% of the ~or- Sta:~d~ ~n~ Appeals 6f ~e City of New Yor~ Supreme Co.~rt~ Special T~fi~ ~eec. s County~ P~ L Aug. 18~ ]9~. . Adton for ~ declaralory judg~nmt seek{rig t~ haee ~ 35 of ~he Ceneral City Law d~larcd unconstitutional {n {ts appl~a~bn ~6 fl~e prop7 eriy .of plalnt{ff. Pla{nfifffi~oved for 2 summa~ judgment and the de- fendants cross m6ved fo~ ~'summary jud~umt. ~e ~u,~ prime CouP, Spedll Tern{, Samuel Rabln, J., held that were ph{ut{ff applied f& a var{an}c f0r use of her prope~y for a garage build{ng ~nd it was grant~ on cond{t{on that {n event of condemnation the cost should be amok{zed over a te~m of 10 years at ~e rate of 10 per cent per year and pro~s~ bu{ld{ng.h~d a life.of SO*years, appl{caflon of the conditions {reposed con- st{mt~ a taMng of the prope~y of pIa nt{ff w{thout jnst~ompensat{on. Plaintiff's mot{on for smnmary jud~nent granted. Defendants' cross motion denied. 1.Csns~i~u~ona~ LaW ~278(1) : ~,midpM Corporations ~1.23 re~h rated the plamh~ s use of net prope~y lying m an restricted use al{strict by attach{ng conditions ~o a var{ance that the prop- edy could not be nsed for any reasonable purpose for an ~ndefin{te of time the city acted ~yond the bounds of permlss{ve re~lat~on /he{r ~cflon const{tuted the tak{ng bf the property without due process of law. General C{ty ~w, { 3~. 2, ~minent Domain ~(1) lVhere pJa~nfiff appl{ed for a vat.ce for ihe use of her property for a garage build{ng and {t was grant~ on cond{tion ~at in event of condemnat{on the co~t tho~d b~ amort]z~ over a term of 10 years at the rate of 10 per cent'~r kerr ~ the pm~d ~u{ld~ng S0 years, appli~t{on ~ ;~k ~nd1{io~ ~ m~s~m~'a' ~ng of the prope ,ts apph~t~m to ~ pm~y r~} '~ appeals bX~rhor~ ' ' ~ -' * s - ..... . *' - -i ag dnst (.~a[m t_~zat a q,:..~iou of f'~[ ,vas pr~ seated as to wLether -:~,~ '-c qx,,:b~:,~;~s of f.s'-,"~t can ::c determined ~I1 I~1 wtion for ~ [~.,. ~ce, m!e 2t3. Thc prc~cne¢ of :~n issne of fact ceqmres a ,'X ,~al tn d~.dw ~ory jadgm,=r~t ack'on lo l~ave clty law d~laved for a. y. ~u~ ,,;n- judgment was ~',:~,xh'ed to be granted ,, hcx'e there is~e of fact prc:;c:~tcd , l,c I ~OtlId r~uire a Bpnjawin Dlamend, Forest Hills, for pla;ntiff. Peter C::, pbell Brown, Crop. Con~sel, New York C{ty, ants (Jo.eph Cal!.&an and James Hurley, New York Cky, SAMUEL RABIN, Justice. In ~h;s action for a dcclaratvry judgment ~n which have sect;on 35 of tl,e General City IlaW declared unconst;t'.~,:~at appl._a~on to her property, p~a[nl [ff now moves xvt ~,.~;~ avd dcfcnd~nts cr~ss move for smmnary jLtdgment. PlZn6ff ~s the vx~ncr of a parcel of --acant lova ~,5~ed -t 9d .4~ l~ota Street in the Com'lty of Queens. She acquired title lq,creto on J~me 1952 by foreclosing a transfer of tax lien Maich q, · I :.d the defendant City. Plaintiff's property lies in an u~,~estridted trlct in wig;ch ~e ~iecfion of a non-storage garage ~: zoning or,'[nance. On March 1, t951, the Board of E~t .... e of we City vf adopted a amp laying oat the confin~ of the proposed A Extension from Van Wyck Boulevard to L;~erty .kvcnne. eighty per cera o~ plalnt[ff's proper~ Ecs in tlae bed of said Some time ~or to December 30, 1954, pb. btiff appE,~ pxrmit for the~rcetion of a non-storage garage,, hut. cn ~;er~after, plamt~ff appefle~ to for a ~{~cc and after a hearing that Board gr;-nt~ a " ditBn~ "that the bm,umg s~II in all ~her resets ~aeet quken~cnts of all 0th~ Itws a~lkablc ~bereto; 'ork City, of o.unsel). ?: k<a~ :~i at 94 &5 i58fi~ de fl~erdo on J*ane l~e had :ge ~s pen':ii,ed by t~e of ~,n :ea, s :et ~'he ~a~c ef ten ~e~cent per .P;q sta~kh~g h-om Pla;r" ' ' ' .or ~cn ~,n p,~ _d any way'for the restric- ~;,'.qs pbc~ d ,'.n the qs~ of her prclqrty. She Bas Lcen ~J%'ing taxes on 1,1 ~"~}'(,* C Of ' ' ' ' ' .~d,._ 'it L~ a prcfcssi~ t~al '.'"ameer,' ' who.. is =lso ~ha ~=~, h~t~,'~ " ' who dc- ' s,, d ~e,',0':n, cd~. _ bmhh,~, g for the ph;nfiff. :{e_~*..~,*,'°.~ that. fBe pro- pos,=d_ b-;Iding was to be a brick and s~eel ~,,~ .* ~*_ _e ~_y~--- ~.~ age~:~ '~ 15 fret high :md 25 ~¢y lC0 feet in area. 1:~ Us ~'~': tBe ~,dn;. ;em useful life of tlc proposed Bn:!db:g. wou~d le 50 yearg. This ,.~.' ~,,.,,,~,' c is not contr~ ~exted ~n q~e oppo>;.-~g ~davit. I ~a.aaff c,~lends that the .'on,'~t~o,s ,spon wl~[ch the var?!oce was 8tn ,t,...~ ,.u,x.,n ute .~n on%tons au,t (:(,~,~scafory bm'den ~nd, hi (:,~,~t, con- s i,tte I,~ taking of t~er property witBmit jnst evmpensadc, n in viohtion of ihe F, dc:al a::tt State [1] The 5, st point ;n defendants' Brief is: "Section 35 of the Gen- eral CJ~y 1La',~ .~'ta~dinR by ftsglf is a lawfnl exerciae of the police power anddoesnotvlolatet:ieConsfittttlon". (Emphaslssuj~plied.) Assuming ne tr, la of J ~ 1~ p.,s~t on, t ~s not ~ec she etner of Ibis actmn or of this motion for C¢neml City Law, § 35, is not being co,sidered in the d~stract, bt:t in ks application to ,'Be facts o./t/~is t <.:~,'e. :f the defendant* have so rcs,~rkted plaintiff's ,se of her property k!:at it cannot be used. for any rc:s, mable pm'pose .[or an i;~definfte period ,~9e ,'Si;e, tBen they have acted beyond eke bounds of i~:mussive egt:latlcn and their action constitutes a taking of the property. Arverne Bay Con.-t:uction Co. v. Thatcher, 278 N.¥. 722, 232, 15 N.E2d 587, t17 AL.R. 1110. [2] Defenda,~ts'.. :ccond po{ne is that the restrS'~ion imposed by the Board of Si~.ndar.'ls ~nd Appeab. tines rot render the state, re ~mconstitu- t{onal with re;p~3 ia plaintiff'= prol*er{y. In suI, port of lhb ~ro~sitio~ But the Boa:d arbl,rarny f-t;[ ~h~t vaitl~ at.~.x~d~. ~ t~e ~u~ may of h~'r prope~y of New apparent. ~hat l~lain, tjff ~ b~en deprived 136 N.Y.S.2d 414. .:.....~. :; order to The Surrogate's the application,' and taken. The evidence, prese~lted that inteixmts of Decr¢ aa ~dmln~str~{or's applkatlo~ for an [ to the decedent. Anl:hony P. Savarese, J, granted to vacate, and an appeal w~ held that d(>mmentar~ with a/)plicafion to vacate, ~s'SUch ':-. - b( UGI~ ~ut fl~at hi 4ff~ct ~s exa~tlk the cc,n~t~ ~e uu'; ,;xng" if c'cndem ~ation tak~ pkce mdte completb~n tl~ereof; ~h,)ugh ~t xpzy still Lave a u~fut:li~e ~,r~i~on Wo~4d be.. dgsee to. 2 i~r tirol ' the c~nditl6ns ~mp,~ed const,~ut~ ~e ' ~' dedatatory jud~mnt. jmlgmcnt is a proper remedy available Realb~ Inc., v. ~2f~fMt Vernon, ~*)f N.Y. 493, 500, 520; Arverne.~a~ ~!:stmct~ .~. ~ ~ F ~a ~7 5~ 117 A.L.~ 1I Ddendan[~ atten~t to dlsting&~ aris c~e ance w~s de~ on ~e ~o~d mat m mrs and Appea}s granted a variance upon tTons, however, are co~scatory ~ DiI during pletely after fl~e tcn~ year. [4] Defmdm~' fourth ~{nt is ti,at a q~on as to w price 'AES a pro tenl ~tr18 this dice Act :ex of i>oscd of by court om~d of his dc, mi- ere was no aitempt slo~ of the merits. mitred to j~rlsdlc- qu~stlon is one of dent-appellant. ,t-respondent. iN'YE, McNALLY and in the exerc;se to Sp,.clal Term, hearing forthwith cile of defendant) ~sts to eltSer party, ~ bearing. Speda[ d Pra:,}ce Act~ ~); While lack o~ j dis~sed of on. 'l~ere W~ by a discnss[on of the mcrlts. While a defe~dant may be deemed to l~ave snbm;ttcd to the juri~dlciion of the Court when he becomes an actor, in the suit (l[c,~dcrs~n v. t{enderson, 247 N.Y. 428, ~32, 160 N.E. 775, ?77), the question is one of degree depending on the facts of each case. Defendant's allusions to some of lhe merits were inex- Wicably wo,'en with the question of change of domicile. There was no at*e~ :pt to participate in the action on the merits (see Odicns v. Odiens, 265 App. DD. 641, 40 N.Y.S.2d 179). 8 A..D.gd 06~ Api)~¢M~6,, of Delia PLEkfI~G, Appellant, v. AU~son C~OATE, ~n~ ~. O. ~ey, fir., G~r,~ner OilIc-p~e. Ri,~ard ~. ~cCann and Da~eI E. Ke~y, co~s~it~ing the go~i~g Beard of App~als. and ~dwa~ Y. Langelo~ Buildb~g Inspirer, cf the City of Rye, Wes~hes~r ~opm{y, ~ow ~or~, ~espomlen~s. 2ul,reme ~u~, Appella~ Division, Second DeI a~men[ : July ~, 1959. Proceeding under the Civil Practice Act to review a determlnation of the zoning board of appeals of a municipality denying an application for a variance of setback requirements. The Supreme Court, Frank H. Coyne, J., entered an order adverse to landowner and she appealed. 'D~e Supreme Coup, Appellate Division, held ~at where landowner sought a permit to erect a dwelliug on a plot located in a district where use of land was rt~icted to residenms, churches and other places of worship, a reasonable variance from setba~ requiremen~ should have been grant~ by ~e zoning hoard of aphis. Order reversed, detem~h~ation annulled, and matter rmi~ed for fu~her pr~ings ~ ac~rd~ with ~iom hack r~u{r~ents should have ~ granted ~njamM I. Tay~, Jr.. Harri~n~ for ~lla~; New York ~, of ~un~ t Counsel, Rye, {or res~nclentS- Roger Sherman, CoIp. ~ BELDOCK, Before NOLAN, P' J" and wENZEL, ~nd HALLDiAN, JJ' ' ~ *~nUM BY TICE coURT. C1¥i1 Practice Act;( . .~=ain~ ~mrsuant to article.78 ~[ ~ o~ APPeals o~ ~e In a pru~t~= o 5 ,'~- oi the Zoc~mg ~o~.~ the strict to review a dctemnnano" variance oi of Rye which denied an application ~or a tlon o~ {xont and rear yard setback requirements o{ the l~al building constmctlon of a dweBing zone ordinance with respect to a propOSed the sad ordinance, a plot which is locate4 {n a distri~ i~ x~hi~, under o~er pl~c~ on restricted to residences, dmrd~es and o is~ ae a the use o{ landis ~ worship, and (2) to direct Ge buildiug inspector of said city t building permit for con>[~cfi°n o[ a dwe~ng on said p~ot as propOSe& the appeal is from an order dismissing the croceeding- a~d ~e Order reversed, without costS, determination annulled, re~nkted to Ce respoudent zoning ~ard of appeals for fu~her p~oceed- irtgs not h:col;sistent with the views herein stated A reasonable variance should have been granted by the said board ls of Village of :Mal- (see Matter of Richards v. Zoning Bd. o£ Appea Coffey, 5 ~-erne, 285 App.Div. 287, 137 N.y.S.2d 603; Waldorf v. Misc.gd 80, 159 N.Y.S.2d 852)- Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk CountY, Fart L Sept. 11, 1959. ~lalntiff's achon ~;o - ~ ~m male ' . .... ,~t~ to net ~r~ ~ .... t~lutc divorce- I n* y~ ~, an~ar~ m {or an. au . ~c .. ~re vlmnt*a u~ rr ~vali&ty thermX ~ '~,,~ her'm p~ure ' , . MOtion tO ~'~ ' 276 i~l asi[d~~ The court erred, therefore, in setting the verdict for lack of proof of proxi- mate cause. Thus, the verdict must be ~stated without modification unless it be deemed excessive. In light of the evidence herein of the weekly assistance that testa- trix, 46 years old and unmarried, was giving to her somewhat incapacitated sister Jane, and the fact that she had another sister and brother older than she, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that it was excessive (Gross v. Abraham, 306 N.Y. 525, 529-531, 119 N.E.2d 370, 371-373; Countryman v. Fonds, J. & G. R. R. Co., 166 N.Y. 201, 208-210, 59 N.E. 822, 824; White v. Coyle Wrecking and Lbr. Corp., 279 App. Div. 822, 109 N.Y.S.PA 118; Walther v. News Syndi- cate Co., Inc., 276 App. Div. 169, 175-177, 93 N.Y.S.2d 537, 548-546; Weir v. Cosmopoli- tan Carriers Inc., 249 App. Div. 758, 291 N.Y.S. 968; Winant v. City of New York, Sup., 67 N.Y.S.2d 662 affd. 271 App. Div. 883, 67 N.Y.S.2d 485; 11 N.Y. Law of Dam- ages, §§ 1183-1184; 2 N.Y.P.J.I. 683- 684). Judgment unanimously reversed with costs and verdict reinstated. SIMONS, J., not participating. 55 A.D.2d 809 Application of MOBIL OIL CORPORA- TION, Appellant, Robert OAKS et al., Respondent& Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. 390 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Dec. 10, 1976. Article 78 proceeding was brought to review town board's denial of grant of spe- cial permit for construction of gasoline service station. The Monroe Supreme Court, Robert E. White, J., sustained town board's determination, and petitioner ap- pealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate vision, held that town board's finding that transfer of operations would have disturb- lng influence upon character of area was supported by substantial evidence that dem- onstrated that moving gasoline service sta- lion to proposed site would not be in harmo- ny with present or probable future develop- merit of land immediately adjoining pro- posed site. Affirmed. 1. Zoning ~=*$70 Approval or denial of application for special use permit is administrative rather than legislative function and action of town board in denying such a permit is subject to judicial review under Article 78. CPLR 7801 et seq. 2. Zoning ~=,483 Special use permit differs from vari- ance in that former contemplates use ex- pressly permitted by particular zoning ordi- nance while latter is authority to use prep- erty in manner which is otherwise forbid- 3. Zoning ~=,435 When ordinance sets forth conditions to be met before special permit will issue, bur- den of proof on applicant requires showing of compliance with conditions and town board's power is limited to determining whether applicant for special use permit meets standards recited in zoning ordi- 4. Zoning Where zoning ordinance did not contain legislative finding that, since gasoline fill- ing station was permitted use in commercial MOBIL OIL CORP. v. OAKS 277 district provided special permit was obtain- Road and East Henrietta Road in the Town ed, it wes per se in harmony with general of Henrietta, Monroe County, had zought a zoning plan but legislature left for body special permit to construct a gasoline ~erv- which was to determine whether special ice station upon a parcel of land situate on permit should issue to consider whether the nortbeast corner of said inter~ection. prop~ed ase would be in harmony with The subject property lie~ within an "A" existing and proposed future development Commercial District. Section 39-13(2) of of neighborhood, permit could be denied on the Henrietta Zoning Ordinance permits ground that proposed filling station wes not gaseline filling stations in "A" Commercial in harmony with neighborhood. Districts subject to the particular require- 5. Zoning ~615 ments of section 39-31 of the zoning ordi- Courts will not generally interfere with nance and provided that the applicant town board's determination in a zoning dis- tain a special permit from the Town Board pute, since such matters are best resolved following a public hearing. Section 89-13 by commonsense judgments of represents- of the Henrietta Zoning Ordinance allows tire citizens doing their best to make ac- gasoline filling stations in "A' Commercial eommodation8 between cenfiicting commu- districts provided a special permit be grant~ alty pressures, ed pursuant to the requirements of section & Zoning ~=~645 39-31 and section 39-35 of the Ordinance. . Town board's finding that transfer of Section 39-31 contains many restrictions on g~oline filling station operations would the issuance of a special use permit for a Imve disturbing influence upon existing and filling station. It sets forth building set- ~robable character of area in support of its back provisions, approach driveways, signs, denial of application for special use permit lot size and curb requirements (§ 39-31(a)); for coestrection of gasoline service station and fuel and gasellne pump set-back re- wu supported by substantial evidence quirements (§ 39-31(b)). which demonstrated that moving gasoline In addition ~ection 39-35 of the Zoning ~rvice station to proposed site would not be Ordinance provides the Town Board guid- ~ harmony with present or probable future ance in making its determination whether ~,~velopment of land immediately adjoinin to grant deny a special permit. Among _~l~opossd site. the six standards to be met before a special ~. use permit may be issued, the Town Board ~'Dutsbor, Witt, Sidoti & Richards, Frank must determine "whether the proposed use :~ 8idoti, Rochester, for appellant, will be in harmony with the existing and ~ Whltbeck, Holloran & Keigher, John J. probable future development of the neigh- -~_'gher, Rochester, for respondents, berhood in which the premises is situated" ~ (Henrietta Zoning Ordinance, § 39-35(c)). ~]~fore GARDAMONE, J. p., and SI- Following the public hearing the Town _---'OlqS, MAHONEY, DILLON and WIT- Board denied the application for a special -~I~R, JJ. permit citing four separate and di~tlnct rea- !J~MORANDUM: sons. Special Term found two of the rea- son~ not supported by substantial evidence P~titioner, Mobil Oil Corporation, appeals and a third placed an additional burden on ~ ~ judgment in an Article 78 proceed- the applicant not required by the ordinance. :~?whieh sustained the determination of Special Term, however, ocneluded that find- ~-_-_~lent, Town Board of Henrietta, de- lng numbered "2", i. e., the transfer of !:~ the grant of a special permit to peti- operations will have a disturbing influence :~ upon the existing and probable character of .~il, owner of a gacoline service station the area, to be a proper consideration, sup- ~ ~outbeest corner of Lehigh Station ported by substantial evidence and suffi- 278 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d cient for the denial of the special permit. We agree. [1-3] The approval or denial of an appli- cation for a special use permit is an admin- istrative rather than a legislative function and the action of the Town Board in deny- lng such a permit is subject to judicial review under Article 78 of the CPLR (Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Syracuse, 52 A.D.2d 731, 381 N.Y.S,2d 924). A special use permit differs from a variance in that the former contemplates a use expressly permitted by a particular zoning ordinance while the latter is authority to use property in a manner which is otherwise forbidden. Thus, when the ordinance sets forth conditions to be met before a special permit will issue, the burden of proof on an applicant requires a showing of compliance with the conditions and the beard's power is limited to deter- mining whether an applicant for a special use permit meets the standards recited in the zoning ordinance. [4, 5] Mobil contends that the inclusion of a permitted use in an ordinance, subject only to a special permit, indicates that the use is in harmony with the neighborhood. Petitioner's reliance upon Mfr. of North Shore Steak House v. Board of Appesls of Inc. Vii. of ThomasWn, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645, 282 N.E.2d 606 and Matter of Highland Brooks Apts. v. White, 40 A.D.2d 178, 338 N.Y.S.2d 709 is misplaced. In those cases the use sought by the applicant was a permitted use in the zoning district provided there existed compliance with cer- rain enumerated conditions. In those cases there was a preestablished legislative' find- ing that the requested use was in harmony with the general zoning plan, and the issue was, therefore, limited to whether the ap- plicant had sufficient proof of compliance with the enumerated conditions. Such is not the case here. As enacted, the Henriet- ta Zoning Ordinance does not contain a legislative finding that since a gasoline fill- ing station is a permitted use in an "A" Commercial District, provided a special per- mit be obtained, it is per se in harmony with the general zoning plan. Rather, as can be seen from section 39-35(c) of the ordinance, the legislature left for the body which was to determine whether a special permit should issue to consider whether "the proposed use will be in harmony with the existing and proposed future develop- meat of the neighborhood in which the premises is situated" (see, Matter of C & G Developers, Inc. v. Granito, 53 A.D.2d 612, 384 N.Y.S.2d 15). Courts will not generally interfere with the Town Board's determina- tlon in a zoning dispute, since these matters are best "resolved by the 'common-sense judgments' of 'representative citizens doing their best to make accommodations be- tween conflicting community pressures'" (Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v. Larkin, 11 N.Y.2d 20, 25, 226 N.Y.S.2d 374, 377, 181 N.E.2d 407, 409). This rationale is i~artice- larly apt in a case such as this where to interfere would be to ignore the important ingredient of flexibility which the Town Board plainly reserved to itself when it enacted the Henrietta Zoning Ordinance (see, Todd Mart v. Town of Webster, 49 A.D.2d 12, 19, 370 N.Y.S.2d 683). [6] The Henrietta Town Board mede de- tailed findings based in part upon a cempre. bensive although not formally adopted plan. The findings are supported by substantial evidence which demonstrates that moving the gasoline service station to the northeast corner of the intersection would not be in harmony with the present or probable fu- ture development of the lands immediately adjoining the proposed site (Philanz Olds- mobile v. Keating, 51 A.D.2d 437, 381 N.Y. S.2d 916). Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. SIMONS, J., not participating. ME again tared er ha ~rou~ pi'em: and i~ Appe' condu of st~ trial, phone could and ~ from 0 1, In~ er b~ coopei that i bring forts to obt titude boen~ obstru 2. Ins h burde~ ,! 113 Misc,2d 756 In the Matter of the Application of Dr. I99[ dwnrd GO STEIN nnd She Goldstein, Petitioners, .... For a Judgment Directing the Board of Zoning Appoa]~ to gcent Petitioners a sp~inl exception, Tho BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF the TOWN of HEMPSTEAD, Respondent. Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County, Part I. April 26, 1982. Article 78 proceeding was brought, seeking judgment directing that optome- trist be daclaced a physician pursuant to scetion of town zoning ordlnaace and grant- ed a spacial exception. The Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County, George A. Murphy, J., held that: (1) discretion of hoard of zoning appeals in determining whether spoeial exception shall be granted is confined to standards enacted to guide and limit board's power, and (2) review of recerd disclesed that petitioners' proof did not show by requisite "dollars and cents" evidence that subjact premises could not yield a reasonable return if used for one of purposes permitted within zone so as to justify finding of unnecessary hardship for granting of usc variance. Ordered accordingly. 1. Zoning and Planning ~=-488 Discretion of beard of zoning appeals in determining whether special exception shall be granted is confined to standards enacted to guide and limit board's power. 2. Zoning and Planning ~:~542 When standards enacted to guide and limit board of zoning appeals' power in de- termining whether special exception should be granted have been met, hoard is without authority to deny exception. NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 3. Zoning and Planning ~=~536 A special exception may not ho ~ held for failure of applicant to show that zoning ordinance as applied to his imposes unnecessary hardship or p~ difficulties or that the hardship of t~ ~ plicant was self-created. ~.~ 4. Zoning and Planning ~=.484, 667 *~- "Special exception" disputes are to~ resolved by commonscnsc judgments of ~ resentatlve eitlzons doing their best l.~ make aceemmedations between conflist~-~ community pressures, and for courts to ~ tervene in absence of clear illegality ~ be contrary to settled and practical neck* ties of zoning. 5. Physicians and Surgeons ~6(1) Practice of optometry is not practi~ ~ medicine. McKinney's Education I~2 §§ 6521, 6522, 7101. 6. Zoning and Planning ~:~502 Determination of town board of appeals that optometrist was not "p]r~ clan" within contemplation of zoning nance authorizing special exception iu residence district for premiscs used by I~ sician or dentist for conduct of his prettY- was not arbitrary, capricious or abuse discretion. McKinney's Education §§ 6521, 6522, 7101. 7. Zoning and Planning m:~539 ' Review of racord disclosed that przo~ of optometrist and wife did not show by requisite "dollars and cents" evidence that~ subject premises could not yield reascasb~i~ return if used for one of purposes permitted within residence zone sc as to justify find.~ ing of unnecessary hardship for granting o~ usc variance. Parela, Feuerstein & Gress, Wantagh, for petitioners. W. Kenneth Chave, Jr., Town Atty, Hempstead, for respondent. GEORGE A. MURPHY, Justice. In this Article 78 proceeding the petition- ers Goldstein seek a judgment directing !'that Dr. Goldstoin be declared a physician -*~rauant to Section G 20.0 of the Town of ' Hempatcad Building Zone Ordinance and granted a special exception. Petitioners are contract vendees of a one- ~ gory ranch style home located at 3448 Jeru- salem Avenue, Wantagh, New York. ~ Petitioner, Dr. Edward Goldstein, desired ~to use the premises as a non-resident doc- ~tor's (Optometrist) office. Two applications ~wers filed by petitioners. One application ~lought a special exception to use the prem- I1~ as a non-resident doctor's office. The ~other application was for a sideyard vari- ~ Both applications were denied by the !~own Building Department and the detor- ~inations of the Building Department were ~h~luently affirmed by the respondent ~*rtl. The respondent Board found that ~e area character was zoned for single ~flmily dwellings and that there was no ~dollars and cents" proof to justify a find- ~tg of unnecessary hardship for the grant- ~ of a use variance. The Board also )found that petitioner was not a physician fo~ the purposes of the special exception set q[orth in the ordinance. i~gPetitioners contend that Dr. Edward ~tein is a provider of health services as ~ Optometrist and should have been grant- ~a special exception as a non-res~dent ~.ysician. Petitioners argue that the deni- ~ of the special exception by the respon- ~nt Board was arhitrary, capricious, dis- ~minatory and centrary to law. ~ [i-41 The discretion of a board of zon- -~g appeals in determining whether a spe- ~-~-~1 exception shall be grantod is confined ~to the standards enacted to guide and limit ~Jhe Board's power (Hartnett v. Segur, 21 ~D.2d 132, 249 N.Y.S.2d 193). When the -~mdards have hcen met the Board is with- ~t., authority to deny the exception ~ltolmes & Murphy, Inc. v. Bush, 6 A.D.2d '~jil0, 176 N.Y.S.2d 188; Harrison-Warren ~lty Co. v. Spencer, 124 Misc. 783, 209 ~,y.$. 355; Larkfield Equities Inc. v. Lar- .~a 181 N.Y.S.2d 684). Unlike a variance ~leh revolves the vary'ng of a zon'ng ord'- GOLDSTEIN v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ETC. 911 Cite as, Sup., 449 N.Y.S.Id Isis nance, a special exception deals with com- pliance of the ordinance and imposes upon a board of zoning appeals the duty to grant an exception once the conditions specified in the ordinance have been met (Krast v. Hill, 212 N.Y.S.2d 981; Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning & Planning, Vol. 3, § 41.05(1), p. 41-18). Moreover, a special exception may not be withheld for failure of the applicant to show either that the zoning ordinance as applied to his land imposes unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties (c~., Syos- set Holding Corp. v. Schlimm, 4 A.D.2d 766, 164 N.Y.S.2d 890; Koch v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 54 Misc.2d 1090, 284 N.Y.S.2d 177) or that the hardship of the applicant was self-created ( Freitag v. Marsh, 2~0 App. Div. 934, 115 N.Y.S.2d 838). "Special exception" disputes are to bo resolved by the "common- sense judgments" of "representative citi- zens doing their best to make accommoda- tions between conflicting community pres- sures,'' and for the courts to intervene in the absence of clear illegality, would be "contrary to the settled and practical neces- sities of zoning" (Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v. Lufkin, 11 N.Y.2d 20, 25, 226 N.Y. S.~I 374, 181 N.E.2d 407). Section G-20.0 of the Building Zone Ordi- nance provides: "Anything in this Ordinance to the con- trary notwithstanding, in any Residence District, if approved by the Board of Ap- peals as a special exception after a public hearing and subject to the provisions of Article 12 herein, premises may be used by a physician or a dentist for the con- duct of his practice, irrespective of whether said physician or dentist resides or has resided at said premises. Such special exception shall be granted only to single practitioners, and in the event a special exception shall be authorized by the Board of Appeals pursuant to this Section, said special exception shall bo limited to an individual practitioner and shall specify that, in the event more than one practitioner utilizes the special excep- tion, it shall become null and void." The exception provided for in the ordi- nance applies only to a physician or dentist 912 449 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES aa a single practitioner, irrespective of whether said professional resides or has re- sided at the residence. Section 6521 of the Education Law defines the practice of the profession of medicine "aa diagnosing, treating, operating or prescribing for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity or physical condition." Only a person licensed or authorized by the laws of this state to practice medicine may use the title physician. (See, Section 6522 of the Education Law). The practice of optometry is defined by Section 7101 of the Education Law "as diagnosing any optical deficiency, optical deformity, visual anoma- ly or muscular anomaly of the human eye, aiding or correcting such deficiency, de- fortuity or anomaly by prescribing, provid- ing, adapting or fitting lenses, or by pre- scribing or providing orthopties or vision training." An optometrist may not use or prescribe drugs. The optometrist performs no medical function. He does not treat disease and provides corrective therapy by external mechanical means. [5, 6] In the Court's view, the practice of optometry is not the practice of medicine and the determination of the respendent Board that Dr. Goldotein was not a physi- clan within the contemplation of the ordi- nance was neither arbitrary, capricious nor an abuse of discretion (see, Silver v. Lans- burgh & Bro., 111 F.2d 518; Abel~n Inc. v. New York State Board of Optometrists, 5 N.J. 412, 75 A.2d 867; New Jersey State Board v. Kresge Co., 113 N.J.L. 287, 174 A. 353, 357; Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 70 Physicians & Surgeons, § 1. The cases cited by petitioners as repre- sontative of rospondent's purported discrim- inatery application of the special exception for non-resident physicians are clearly dis- tinguishable from the case at bar. Those cases involved two family dwellings in a business or a business-resident district and serve aa no basis for a comparison. Peri- tioner's remedy, if any, lies in convincing the Town Fathers to broaden the special exception to encompass optometrists. The special exception applies to only physicians and dentisLs and cannot even by the most strained interpretation apply to trists as a provider of health sorviesa. hold otherwise without the benefit ~ legislative hearing and an the ordinance would be to substitute Court's judgment for that of the officials charged with the enact and administer the Building Zone~ dinance, in the Court's view, have failed to demonstrate any and judicial intervention should not countenanced. Certainly, special disputes such as the one at bar should resolved by those public officials with the responsibility for doing so. [7] Based on the foregoing, the is dismissed. Although petitioners do contest the Board's denial of the ance, a review of the ~cord discloses petitioners' proof does not show uisite "dollars and cents" evideac subject premises cannot yield a return if usod for one of the purpos~ mitred within the zone. (See, beryl, 87 A.D.2d 650, 448 N.Y.S.2d (1982); Matter of Village Bd. of Vd.' Fayetteville v. Jarrold, 53 N.Y.2d 254, 440 N.Y.S.2d 908, 423 N.E.2d 385; of Otto v. S~einhilber, 282 N.Y. 71, N.E.2d 851, mot. for rearg, den. 282 681, 26 N.E.2d 811). 113 Misc.2d 861 Stanley BRETTSCHNEIDER, Vo Olivia BRETTSCHNEIDER, Olivia BRETTSCIINEII)ER, Stanley BRETTSCHNEIDER, Supreme Court, New York County, Trial Part 13. April 27, 1982. Husband and wife,sued each other f~ divorce. The Supreme Court, New York 862 tioaer demonstrated the feasibility of ad- j~usting the schedule so that she could retain '"~-'~he~ position. The case of Mntter o£ Lynch ~_v. Nyquizt, 41 A.D.3d 363, 34~ N.Y.S.2d 179, ~fd. 34 N.Y.2d 588, 354 N.Y.S.2d 948, 310 N.E.2d 544 is not to the contrary. In that case a Latin teacher was dismissed after the only Latin position was removed from the curriculum. It would have been impos- sible, therefore, for the Latin teacher to retain a teaching position in her area of certification. The problems raised by sec- tion 2510 of the Education Law in terms of class scheduling and related administrative problems are for the Legislature, and not for this court, to censider and resolve. 58 A.D.2d 672 In the Matter of Charles RICH, Appellant. The ZONING BOARD OF APPEAI~ OF the VILLAGE OF HASTINGS-ON- HUDSON et al. Rcepondent~ Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. June 2l, 1976. Article 78 proceeding was brought to review determination of village zoning board of appeals which after a hearing de- niad petitioner's application for special use permit. The Supreme Court, Wsetebester County, dismissed petition, and petitioner appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that zoning board of appeals, which erroneously considered application for special use permit as application for variance, applied stricter standard than was warranted and thus matter would be re- manded for consideration of application as one for a special permit. Reversed and remanded. 384 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Zoning ~=~726 Village zoning board of erroneously considered tion for a special use permit a~ ! for variance, applied stricter ~ was warranted, and thus matt~ remanded for consideration of a as one for a special permit, remand to consider whether met standards prescribed by since that would be tantamount t~ that special use was in harmony wit~ al zoning plan and would not affect neighborhoed. Blasi & Zimmerman, Tarrytown, T. Blancato, Tarrytown, of counsel} pellant. Martin N. Leaf, on-Hudson, for respondents. Before HOPKINS, Acting P. MARTUSCELLO, MARGETT, HAWKINS, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE ~ In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 78 inter alia to review a the respondent Zoning Board of which, after a hearing, denied application for a special use permit. I~ peals from a judgment of the Court, Wsetehester County, 1976, which dismissed the petition. Judgment reversed, on the law, costs or disbursements, and matter ~ ed to the Zoning Board of Appeals new determination in accordance The Zoning Board of Appeals considered petitioner's application for cial use permit as an application for ~ ante. The board thus applied a standard than was warranted. ly, we remand the matter to the I consideration of petitioner's one for a special permit. board shall consider use meets the standards prescribed ordinance, sinco the "inclusion of ~!_*d uae in the ordinance is tantamount ' legiztative finding that the permitted 'ii~ in harmony with the general zoning '~ and will not adversely affect the "~borhood" (see Matter of North Shore ~-J~ House v. Board of Appeals of Inc. o! 1'homaston 30 N.Y.2d 238, 243, 331 ~.2d 645, 649, 282 N.E.2d 606, 609). ~:~ 58 A.D.2d 671 ~"ln the Matter of Anthony ORZA, Petitioner, ~ R. KELLEY, Commissioner of 'PMIce of the County of Suffolk, et al. Raspondent& ~pmme Court, Appellate Division, :~ Second Department. :~ June 21, 1976. ~,~krtlele 78 proceeding was brought to ,;w determmatmn of county police com- ..~ner fimling petitioner guilty uf mis- ~-%e_ t and dismissing him from position as ;lice officer. The Supreme Court, Ap- ~te Division, held that punishment ira- ,~ on petitioner for conduct unbecoming ~ficer should be reconsidered in light of ~F punishment meted out to other police ~_~8 involved in incident which gave rise !Determination as modified confirmed ~'imatter remanded. :Where hearing officer recommended ~l~titioner be suspended from his pesi- ~1 police officer for period of 28 days~ ~mended same punishment for second =-officer involved in incident which · i~e to charges of conduct unbecoming ~deer and recommended 14-day suspen- ~,~ third officer involved, and county ORZA v. KELLEY 863 police commi~ioner, without setting forth any reason, dismissed petitioner from his position as police officer and suspended oth- er officers for ten and 20 days, penalty of dismissal would be deleted and matter re- manded for reconsideration and explanation by commissioner for difference in punish- ment imposed on petitioner. Cruser & Hills, Riverhead (Edgar Hills, Riverhead, of counsel), for petitioner. Howard E. Pachman, County Atty., Hauppauge (John N. Prudenti, Shirley, of counsel), for respondents. Before LATHAM, Acting P. J., and MARGETT, DAMIANI, RABIN and SHA- PIRO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Police Commissioner, dated January 15, 1976, which, after a hearing, found petition- er guilty of certain charges of misconduct and, inter alia, dismissed him from his posi- tion as a police officer. Petition granted to the extent that the determination is medified, on the law and in the interest of justice, by deleting there- from the penalty of dismissal imp~ed on the charge of conduct unbecoming an offi- cer. As so modified, determination con- firmed, proceeding otherwise dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements, and matter remanded to the commissioner for reconsideration of the punishment to be imposed upon the aforesaid charge in ac- cordance herewith. In our view the punishment impezed on the petitioner for the charge of conduct unbecoming an officer should be reconsid- ered in light of the lesser punishments met- ed out to the two other police officers in- volved in the incident which gave rise to the charges against the officers. The hearing officer recommended that the petitioner be suspended for a period of 28 days. This was the same punishment as was recom- mended for a second police officer involved, , NOV- 112 437 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES ,r$~-,llate Division, hehl that trial court's .~rge Imperm ss bly served to place bur- den upon defendant to prove truth of his alibi: Judgment reversed and new trial or- dered. Criminal Law ~=,778(8) In prosecution which resulted in convic- tion of two counts of attempted robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree, trial court's charge impermissibly served to place burden upon defendant to prove truth of his alibi. William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Andrew E. Abraham, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Alan D. Rubinstein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent. Before MANGANO, J. P., and GIBBONS, GULOTTA and O'CONNOR, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 15, 1978, convicting him of at- tempted robbery in the first degree (two counts) and assault in the first degree, upon a jury ~verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, as a matter of discre- tion in the interest of justico, and new trial ordered. The trial court's charge impermissibly served to place the burden upon the defend- ant to prove the truth of his alibi (see People v. Jones, 74 A.D.2d 515, 425 N.Y.S.2d 5; People v. Griswold, 72 A.D.2d 778, 421 N.Y.S.PA 400). "A defendant does not have to prove the truth of his alibi in any way" (People v. Griswold, supra, p. 778, 421 N.Y. S.2d 400). We have considered defendant's remain- ing contentions and find them to be lacking in merit. 80 A.D.2d 899 in the Matter of PLUTO'S RETREAT, INC., Appellant, Armand A. GRANITO, Chairman, et Constituting the Board of Zoning Ap- peals of the Town of Hemlmtead, Re- spondents. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. March 23, 1981. Article 78 prooeeding was brought to review determinations of town beard of zoning appeals which denied applieatlon for special use permit. The Supreme Court, Na.~au County, Derounian, J., dismissed the petition, and petitioner appealed. The Su- preme Court, Appellate Division, hehl that: (1) findings in support of denial of special use permit for animal care facility in busi- ness zone adjoining residential area, that proposed use would create disturbing noise and edors, sewage overflow, and condition where dogs arriving at premises would re- lieve themselves on the street, were not supported by the reoord, but (2) remand was required since board could impose rea- sonable conditions on the permit and there had been insufficient proof submitted at hearing with respect to applications as to parking. Petition granted; permit granted; matter remanded. 1. Zoning and Planning ~=~703 To sustain findings relied on by beard of zoning appeals in denying special use permit, it was necessary that there be a rational basis and subetantiat evidence in the record. 2. Zoning and Planning Findings in support of denial of special use permit for animal care facility in busi- ness ?~ne adjoining residential area, that PLUTO'S RETREAT, INC. v. GRANITO proposed use would create disturbing noise and odors, sewage overflow, and condition where dogs arriving at premises would re- live themselves on the street, were not sup- ported by the record. ~. Zoning and Planning In denying special use permit for an animal care facility on ground that pro- peeed use would create disturbing noise and odors, board of zoning appeals improperly relied on results of inspoctions of other ani- mai care facilities and conditions prevailing at a certain restaurant, in light of evidence that building in question would be con- structed so as to eliminate emanation of any noise and odors, and al~ence of eviden- tiary foundation to show that other facili- ties referred to were comparable in design and construction. 4. Zoning and Planning ~=~645 Mere speculation and conjecture were not enough to support findings, in support of denial of special uso permit for animal care facility, that there would be sewage overflow and dogs relieving themselves in the street upon arrival at the premises. 5. Zoning and Planning 0~382 Board of zoning appeals, upon i~suance of special use permit, may impose upon applicant any re~sonable conditions which are in conformity with the purpose and standards of the ordinance. Cohn& Foley, Baldwin (William S. Cohn, Baldwin, of counsel), for appellant. W. Kenneth Chave, Jr., Town Atty., Heml~teed (Deborah M. Martz, Hempstead, of counsel), for reepondent~. Before MANGANO, J. P., and GIBBONS, GULOTTA and O'CONNOR, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review three determina- tion~ of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hemp~tend, which, after a bearing, 113 inter alia, denied petitioner's application for a special use permit, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 22, 1980, which dismissed the petition. Judgment roversod, on the law, without costs or disbursements, petition granted to the extent that the determinations are an- nulled, the application for a special use per- mit in granted and the matter is remanded to the rezpendente for further proceedings consistent herewith. Petitioner, contract vendee of certain property, made three applications with re- npect to the use thereof. It sought: (1) permission to use that portion of the prop- erty located in the business zone sa an animal care facility; (2) a waiver of off- street parking and for permission to park in the front setback area; and (3) permission to park in the Residence "B" Zone. As to petitioner's application to use that portion of {.ha property located in the busi- ness zone as an animal care facility, such proposed use would include, inter alia, the boarding of cats and dogs, grooming and the retail sale of boutique items. It should be noted that the property immediately ad- joining that of petitioner to the rear is entirely residential It should be emphasized that a special use permit may bo granted only upon the prior approval of the Board of Appeals (see Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance, art. 7 [§§ X-LO, X 1.4] and art. 12 [§ Z-5.0, subd. c, par. 15]). Such approval, moreover, is subject to a determination by the Board of Appeals: "1. That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable uso of edja- cent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; "2. that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable uso of per- mitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use }s to be ]ocatod or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts; 114 O 4~]~NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d "3. that the safety, the health, the wel- fare, the comfort, the convenience or the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; and "4. that the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this ordinance." (Town of Hempatoad Building Zone Ordinance, art. 12 [§ Z-LO, subd. B, par. (a)]; Matter of ~'andem Holding Corp. v. Beard o£ ~,oning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 402 N.Y.S.2d 388, 878 N.E.2d 282. [l, 2J In the instant matter, after a hearing, the Board of Appeals in denying petitioner's application for a special use per- mit, determined that the standards set forth in the ordinance had not been met. Such determination was based upon a find- lng that the location of petitioner's property was neither suitable nor appropriate for u~ as an animal care facility. In reaching that conclusion, it specifically found that the propoeed use would create disturbing noise and odors, sewage overflow and a health hazard, and a condition where dogs arriving at petitioner's premises would relieve them- selves on the street. To sustain such fiml- ings, it is, of course, necessary that there he a rational basis and substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Ferman v. Board of Appeals, Inc. Vii. of Sea Cliff, Nassau County, 69 A.D.2d 882, 415 N.Y.S.2d 469). An examination of the record, however, fails to reveal any support for the findings of the Board of Appeals. [3, 4] The Board of Appeals ignored the evidence that petitioner's building would be constructed ~o as to eliminate the emana- tion of any noise or odors. Rather, it ap- parenUy relied upon the results of iespec- tions of other animal care facilities and conditions prevailing as to a restaurant near petitioner's property. We deem such rellanco to have been improper. In order to ~ the effectiveness of the proposed con- struction of petitioner's building in elimina- ting the emanation of any noise or edor, there is no doubt that comparison to similar facilities may prove beneficial. However, where, as here, no evidentiary foundation is established to show that such other facili- ties are comparable in design and construc- tion, comparisons drawn and inferences raised will be of little or no weight. We also find that the board erroneously deter- mined that there would be sewage overflow and that dogs arriving at petitioner's prem- ises would relieve themselves in the street. Such findings cannot rationally be made in the absence of any proof as to the same. Mere speculation and conjecture are not enough. [5] Accordingly, the Board of Appeals erred when it determined that the ordi- nance standards had not been met; the special use permit should have been grant- ed. We remand the matter to the Board of Appeals for two reasons. First, the Board of Appeals, upon issuance of the special use permit, may impose upon petitioner any reasonable conditions which are in conform- ity with the purpose and standards of the onlinance (see Matter of Tandem Hohling Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town o£ Hempstead, supra; Matter o£ North Shore Steak House v. Board of Appeals of Inc. Vii. of Thomasten, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645, 282 H.E.2d 606; Matter of Hubshman v. Henne, 42 A.D.2d 732, 345 N.Y.S.2d 669; 2 Anderson, N.Y. Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed.], § 18.55, p. 74). Second, there was insufficient proof sub- mitted at the hearing with respect to peti- tioner's applications as to parking. More- over, the Board of Appeals appears to have denied the application as to parking as aca- demic in view of its denial of petitioner's application for a special use permit. That basis cannot now-be sustained. ~endment the case -nesting request ~ There er viola- right to inquiry. : of the officor'a in fact, n(p. 19 led that :bile he nto the ---quired to the erment -or the identi- iastru- ~h the he de- e, the Ilegad 'ehicle -~f the ndant 'icer's edto ~lice dant. ~ts to char- ~ the Nei- ricer TOWbl OF GARD1NER v. STANLEY ORCHARD~ INC. show that th~ ~o~ie~ met the minimum stan- dard of showing an articuiable suspicion based upon objective facts that unlawful activity is afoot is fatal to this case. People v. DeBoer, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 386 BI.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562; People v. Howard, supra. [9, 10] I find the officer's hearing testi- mony concerning the defendant's alleged "speeding" to be a patent endeavor to alter the circumstances to justify the action which took place. There was no valid basis for the initial action of the police in de- mending identification. People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67, 330 N.E.2d 39; M/roms v. Pennsylvania, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.CL 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331. The defendant had the right to refuse to answer and to seek to re-enter his vehicle. The "force" he used, that is, by pushing by the officer was well within the limits allowed by the law. Section ~5.2'/Penal Law, limiting the right of the defendant to use force where an arrest is unlawful, is not a complete bar to the right of a defendant to the use of some necessary force. People v. Sanas, 37 App. Div.2d 682, 323 N.Y.S.2d 632 (1970). The purpose of that section is merely to prevent street combat as a means of determining the validity of an arrest. "A citizen may use reasonable force in aclf-defease where the force exerted by the police in effectlng an arrest is excessive." People v. Steven- son, 31 N.Y.2d 108, 112, 335 N.Y.S.2d 52, 56, 286 N.F~2d 445, 448 (1972). It is this Court's opinion that the so-called "pushing" of the officer by the defendant in trying to regain entry to his vehicle was lawful con- duct by the defendant who was being un- lawfully detained, and is beyond the pur- view of Section 35.27 P.L. This is especially true since there is no charge before the Court for any activity of the defendant preceding the alleged "pushing." That is not to say that any type of unlaw- ful police action will permit defendant to act in vindication of his rights in a primitive fashion. There are clrcumstancas which oc- cur where the action of the defendant is so free and independent of an unlawful deten- tion by a police officer as to render any connection between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery of the chal- lenged evidence so attenuated as to dimin- ish the taint. Wong Sun v. [/. $., 871 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441; People v. Townes, 41 BI.Y.2d 97, 890 BI.Y.S.2d 89~, 859 bl.E.2d 402 (1976); People v. Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 898, 418 N.Y.S.2d 352, 391 Bl.g.2d 1329 (1979). The defendant's lawful attempt to re-eh- ter his vehicle was blocked by the arresting officer. (Again, this is the oft-encountered situation of the officer attempting to vindi- cate a perceived affront to his dignity.) Though he was on active duty, the officer was not actually performing an investiga- tion or other similar police function and his action here was not justifiable. As such, the defendant's attempt to defend himself in order to extricate himself from n poten- tially combative situation was jestified. Accordingly, the arrest of the defendant for harassment is suppressed, and the charge of resisting arrest is dismissed since the arrest of the defendant was not "authorized" par- suant to Section 20530 Penal Law, insofar as it was without probable cause. People v. Lyke, 72 Misc.2d 1046, ~10 N.Y.S~d 857 (1978); People v. Alley, 76 Misc.2d 589, 8~o N.Y.S.2d 981 (1974). TOWN OF GARDINEik · Municipal Corporation. Plaintiff, STANLEY ORCHARDS, INC~ and Stanley Cobh, DefendantL Supreme Court, Special Term, Ulster County. Sept. 30, 1980. Town sought to restrain defendants from further preparation of a site located on their real cetate and from placement of 336 432 blEW YORK SUPPLEMEblT, 2d SERIES a mobile home on site. On motion of de- fendants to dismiss, the Supreme Court, County of Ulster, Leonard A. Weiss, J., held that ordinance of town requiring permission in writing from all landowners within 500 feet of boundaries of property on which a mobile home was to bo placed was unconsti* tutional as an improper dolegation of son- ing autheHty to private landowners without adequate standards to insure that they would not act in an arbitrary or diserlmina- tory manner by excluding others from us- ing their land for a trailer while permitting another seeking same general use to do so. Motion granted. 1. Municipal Corporations *=.121 Failure to make application to town board for a waiver of requirement in ordi- nance that permission bo obtained in writ- ing from ail landowners within 500 feet of boundaries of property on which a mobile home is to bo placed did not operate to preclude a challenge of constitutionality of ordinance on grounds of due process and equal protection inasmuch as challenge, based solely upon language contained in ordinance, was to he distinguished from a ehailenge to application of ordinance in a specific situation. Coast. Art. 1, §8 6, 11; U.S.C.A.COnst. Amend. 14. 2. Zoning and Planning ~648 Any party who seeks to attack the con- stitutionality of a zoning enactment has a heavy burden to overceme an exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality. 3. Constitutional Law ~t=,213.1(2), 251.3 A clanlfication scheme devised by a local legislature must he sustained against a challenge based on due procen and equal protection if it is reasonably related to some manifest evil which need only bo reasonably apprehended. Coast. Art. 1, 88 6, 11; U.S. C.A.COnst. Amend. 14. 4. Zoning and Planning t*27 If on any interpretation of the facts known or reasonably to he perceived, a zon- ing measure falls within embrace of a town's authority to regulate property as a means of promoting general welfare of community, that measure is insulated from attack. Coast. Art. 1, 88 6, 11; ConsL Amend. 14. 5. Zoning and Planning Ordinance of town requiring permhmion in writing for all landowners within feet of boundaries of property on which mobile home was to he placed was uusoasti- tationai as an improper delegation of son- lng authority to private landowners without adequate standards to insure that they would not act in an arbitrary or al'recrimina- tory manner by excluding others from us- ing their land for a trailer while permitting another seeking same general uso to do Coast. AfL 1, 88 6, 11; U.S.C.A.COasL Amend. 14. 6. Zoning and Planning The fact that local law vested town board with discretion to waive requirement in ordinance of permission in writing from all landowners within fi00 feet of bounda- ries of property on which a mobile home was to be placed did not remove roquim- meat and, hence, did not remove ceustitm tlonai infirmity which made requirement void on its face. Coast. Art. 1, 88 6, 11; U.S.(~.A.Coast. Amend. 14. Norman Kellar, Kingston, for plaintiff. Rider, Drake, Weiner & Loeb, P. (~., New- burgh, for defondants. LEONARD A. WEISS, Justice: Plaintiff, Town of Oardinsr, seeks a prs- liminary injunction under CPLR Section 6301 to restrain defendants from (1) further preparation of a site located on their real estate in the Town of On,inet for con* struction of a mobile home and (2) the placing of a mobile homo on this site. Defendants, Stanley Orchards, Inc. and Stanley Cobh, crew-move for an order dis- missing plaintiff's complaint on the gvoued~ that the Town of Oardinsr Local Law bio. 8 for the year 1972 which defendants are allegedly violating is unconstitutional under both the blew York and United States Con- areof :1 from .S.C.A. ,~i~ion in 600 hich · ~nsti- TOWN OF GARDINER v. STANLEY ORCHARDS, INC. ~tutions rendering said Local Law unen- forceable and thereby requiring this court to vacate any temporary restraining order and denying any requests for · preliminary injunction. Defendants own property in the Town of (]erdiner. On March 20th, 1980, the de- fendants filed an application for · building permit with the Town Clerk for the Town of Oerdiner seeking permission to place a mobile home on a parcel of land they own which is not part of a mobile homo park or a mobile home subdivision. The defendants never filed with the Town Clerk, or ·ny other official of the Town, "Permission in writing [from] all land owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property on which · mobile home is to be placed" which ill required under the previsions of Town of Gardiner Local Law No. 3-1972, Section 20. The Oardiner Town Board considered de- application at its May 13th, 1980 · nd unanimously refused to issue ~ th building permit. On June 10th, 1980, i lbs defendants again appeared before the Town Board and were informed that if they p4need the mobile home in · leas objections- Me place on their property, they might be iterated the permit. In July, 1980 the Su- pervissr for the Town observed that at the site where defendants had requested · ha'Ming permit, electricity was brought in, septic system was being installed ·nd · I was in the process of being built. On 16th, 1980, Mr. Justice Aaron E. Klein signed an order to show cause retaining · temporary restraining order fer the Town which enjoined the defend- ~lats from further preparation of the site ~ma placing · mobile home on the site hearing and determination of the underlying action for a permanent qJuection because defend·nts were in vie. provisions in Local Law No. $ its application for · prelimi- , injunction, the Town urges (1) it has ~ ito burden of proof that the defend·nts , acted in violation of Local Law No. 3 ~ the year of 1972 and that the prelimi- required to prevent fur- ~ter injury to the plaintiff which would 337 result if the defendants continued to act in disregard of said Law; (2) that the dele·d- ent's answering affidavit admits that he has not complied with the subject Lecal Law and has made no allegation or showing of injury becanse the defendants have been restrained from preparing the site for the installation of · mobile home; (8) that the purpcae of preasrving the status quo will be served if this court grants a preliminary injunction; (4) that there is a presumption of constitutionality which the defendants have not overcome in seeking to have Local Law No. 8 declared unconstitutional; and (5) that the defendants have failed to ex- haust their administrative remedies, mak- lng this proceeding premature, because they did not make any effort to apply for · waiver to the Town Board ns they are per- mitted to do under Section 22 of Local Law No. 3-1972 for the Town of Gardiner. Defendants urge that (1) the G~'mer Local Law is an unconstitutional violation of the defendants' right to due p _rocca___ and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Coustitu- tion and Article 1 Section 6 and 11 of the New York State Constitution because the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Gardiner is not served by the grant of authority to private landowners in the subject local law to determine wbethor another property owner can make uae of his land in · m·nner which is not potentially dangerous or offensive to other residential nses; (2) that the subject Local Law vio- lates equal protection because it provides for the possibility that one landowner who is surrounded by consenting neighbors will be able to place a mobile home on his land whereas ·nether landowner who is not sur- rounded by consenting neighbere will not be · hie to make such use of his land and that this distinction is wholly without rational basis or relationship to the Town*s police power; and (8) that the ·beence of st·no dards or guides in the Lo.ti Law which accompany the delegation of ·uthority to private citizens to block inuanec of a trailer permit is violative of the due p _roche__ clause in the Fourteenth Amendment as an uncon- 432 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES stltutional delegation of governmental pow- er to private citizens. In reply to the defendants' arguments, the Town urges that Local Law No. $, when read in its entirety, suffers from no consti* tutiooul infirmity because Section 22 ex- pressly reserved to the Town Board the authority to waive, subject to appropriate conditions, any of the requirements set forth in the Low. Defendants, in their reply to the plaintiff's main contentions, urge that they have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Local Law on its face as pert of their defense and counter- claim to plaintiff's action for injunctive re- lief and that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not bar them from seeking dismissal of the complaint as they request in this motion. [1] Initially, this court considers wheth- er the defendants' failure to make applica- tion to the Town Board for a waiver pursu- ant to Section 22 of the Local Law operates to bar tim defendants from attacking the constitutionality of the Law which they are allegedly violating. New York courts which have considered challenges to zoning enactments on constitutional grounds have distinguished hatwocn challenges to the en- actmout based solely upon langaaga con- tained in the statute which can he brought by any adversely effected property owner and challenges to the application of the enactment in a specific situation which can only be brought by an adversely effected property owner who has exhausted all ad- ministrative remedic9 provided in the son- log statute which he finds objectionable. In Levitt v. Inc. Vii. of 8ands Point, 6 N.Y.2d 269 and 273, 189 N.Y.S.2d 212, 160 N.E.2d 601, the Court of Appeals said: "We disagree, however, with the opinion of the Appellate Division insofar as it held that plaintiffs were precluded from raising the issue of coufiseatiou by their failure to apply for a variance under the provisions of the ordinance. The theory of this action is that plaintiffs are enti- tied as n matter of right to a judgment declaring the unconstitutionality of the ordinance; they do not ask for the relax- orion of an aseumedly valid regulation (citations omitted)." Also see Polak v. Kuvanah et al., 48 A.D~I 840, 368 N.Y.8.2d 568. In J'anus r. BooM, 51 A.D.2d 473 at 476, 477, 88~ N.Y. S.2d 394 the Appellate Division Fourth De- pertmout expressly found that it eouM not consider plaintiff's argument that the ~ nanre as applied to him was uncoustitution- al because he failed to exhaust his admioJ~ tcative remedies provided in the ordinance but, went on to consider plaintiff's conten- tion that the ordinance was unconstitutiou* al because it required that a "[r]equest fer Ia special] permit must he accompenicd by written approval of a majority of ndjoJaln~ property owners (including preperty owners acress the road).'* Following the priuslpis9 established in Lev/tt, supra, Polak, supra and Janes, supra, this court finds that de* fendants' failure to apply to the Town Board for n waiver in accordance with Gardinor Local Law No. 8-1972, ~lection 22 does not preclude this court from consider- ing the defendat~ts' challenge to this Local Law which is based on the contention that this law is unconstitutional on its face. cordiogly, plalntiff*s motion to dismhm the defendants* affirmative defense and coun- terclaim on the grounds that the defendants have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies is denied. The court now turns to consideration of whether the Local Law which the defend- ants are violating is unconstitutional. Tim Town of Gardiner Local Law No. 8-19TZ Article IV says, in relevant part: '%qoction ~0. Mobile Homes on Individual Lots. No mobile home shall be located in the Town of Oardlner except in n mobile home pack or mobile home subdivision approved in accordanco with the provi- sions of this ordinance unless permisziou is ~lmtod in writing from all landowners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property on which a mobile home is to be placed. However, this shall not apply to any mobile home in existence within the Town before the effective date of this Local Law sa long as it remains in the same location. Violation of the previ- TOWN OF GAl/DINER v. STANLEY ORCHARDS, INC. Cite is, Sup., 43~ N.Y.S.2d ~ sions of this soction shell be deemed to be an offense punishable by a fine not to exesed Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per week that the violation remains. Section 21. Separability of Previsions. Should any section or prevision of this Lecai Law be declared by a court of sonfldent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of this Local Law as a whole or of any part or previ~ian thereof, other than the part so declared to he invalid. ~ectJon 25. Waivers. The Town Board may waive, subject to apprepriate condi- tiom, the previsions of any or all such imprevements and requirements as in its judgment of the special circumstances of n Im'tieuiar preperty are not requisite in the interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare or would cause un- ~ usual herdship, provided that the public inter~t is pretected in a development as in keeping with the general spirit and intent of the regulations sot forth in this ~ Lseai Law. Any request for waiver of any requirements sot forth in this Law shall be reviewed by the Planning Board ,~, in conjunction with its site plan review in aeeordanco with the conditions set forth in ~ection 1L The Town Board shall revere a recommendation of the Plan- alng Board with regard to waiver of re- quirsments only by a vote of at least a majority plus one." ilafendants' main contention is that a Section 20 which requires all lsndowne~ within 500 feet of the bounds- ~ of the preperty on which a mobile home ~0 be placed to give written permi~ion, the entire Local Law becauso is an impermi~ible dele- of government authority by the preperty owners without to insure the preper exercise of authority. Defendants also soggust Section 22 of the Local Law which to give the Town Board authority ~ waive any requirement of the Law, in- requirement of unanimous con- by property owners who live within of the boundaries of land where a is to be placed, does not cure the constitutional defect contained in ~ tion 20 and, that 8eetiou 22 itself is uncon- stitutional because it doss not contain nde- quatoly defined standards to guide the Town Board in the exereise of its discretion to grant waivers frem the requirements of the Law. [24] Any party who seeks to attack the constitutionality of a zoning enactment has a heavy burden to overcome what hue been described as "... an exeeedingly strong presumption of constitutionality ..." Huntington v. Park Shore, 47 N.Y.2d 61 at 65, 416 N.Y.S.2d 774, 890 N.E.2d 282. Un- der Huntington, supra, the defendants here shoulder "... the very heavy burden of demomtrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the [Local Law is ] violative of [the Constitution] (nee Wiggins v. Town of Sore- ers, 4 N.Y.2d 215, 218, 178 N.Y.S.2d 579, 149 N.E.2d 8~9). Viewed frem another perspee. tire, the ciasoificatian scheme devised by the Local Legislature would have to be sustained if it could be said to be 'mason- ably related to some manifest evil which, however, need only he reasonably ap- prehended' (Lighthouse Shores v. ~'ov/n o! Islip, 41 N.Y.2d 7, 11, 890 N.Y..q.2d 827, 859 N.E.2d 38'/). Thus, if on any interpretation of the facts known or rouzonably to be perceived, the zoning raensure fails within the embrace of the Town's authority to regulate preperty as a means of promoting the general welfare of the community (Town Law § 261), it is insulated from attack." Huntington, supra, 47 N.Y.2d at 65, 66, 416 N.Y.8.2d 774, 890 N.P..Y,d 282. In this case, it appears that defendants have sustained their burden of demonstrat- lng thet Local Law No. 8-19'/2 ia unconsti- tutiouai. The provision in 8ectinn 20 of the Local Law at i~ue which require~ unnni- mous consent of adjoining preperty owners before a permit to place a mobile home on preperty wbeso beundnrius are within ~ feet of the adjoining landowners beundarius is commonly referred to in New York ea~s ns a "consent requirement." Good summa- riea of the prineipius with ro~ to the constitutionality of consent requirements in 34O 432 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIFS zoning enactments can be found in Janus v. Town Board, 51 A.D2d 473 at 477-480, 382 N.Y.S~d ~94 and, Rashant v. Walter, 78 Jonas, supra, a consent requirement was one of five standards set forth in a Town Zoning Ordinance governing the installa- tion of mobile homes. In $onaa, supra, the statute provided that "Request for a permit most be accompanied by written approval of a majority of adjoining property owners (including property owners across tho road) and must show location, type of mobile home, and reason for request." The Appel- late DivisJan Fourth Department found this consent requirement to be unconstitutional even though the ordinance specifically pro- vided that applications for mobile home per- mite may only be si-anted by the Bcard of Zoning Appeal and the plaintiff never ap- plied to that administrative body. In Ja* nas, sopra, at 478, 882 N.Y.S.2d 394 the court referred to the principles established by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Gon- cordia Co/I. lnstv. Miller, 301 N.Y. 189, 93 N.E~d 6~2 which held that mandatory con- cent requirements in a zoning enactment which contains no guide or standards and refers to no rule whatsoever with which to judge the propriety of withholding consent have the effect of imperm[esibly delegating to one set of owners the authority to deter- mine the kind of use another set of owners may make of their property. Significantly, the court8 in both Concordla, supra and Jonas, supra, held that consent require- mente which wholly lack standards or guidelines may be proper whon the pro- posed use to which the r~luirements at- tached is "... offensive, such as auto gu- rages and billboards ..." but, that the pro- peasd use of property as a mobile home park or for placomont of a mobile home does not qualify as an offensive use because it has been that said use is residential in nature and not potentially dangerous to other residential uses. [5~4]' Applying the principles estab* lished in Coflcordia, supra, Jonas, sopre, and BfsAfmt, sopra, this court first determines that the use, installation of a single mobile home, is not a "nuisonee' per se or "offeno sive.' In reviewing the consent requL*~ ments in the Local Law, the court finds totally lacking any standards to guide the neighboring property owners in tho with* holding of their consent. In this caM, the consent requirements are particularly strJn- Kent in that they require the unanimous consent of all property owners whom land is located within 500 feet of the property to be used for the mobile home whon com- pared to the consent requirements in Con* cordia, supra, [which held unconstitutional consent requirements by eighty percent of tho sorrounding landowners for an edmJnis* tretlve variance to erect or alter a building for education use], Jonas, soprn [which held unconstitutional consent requiremente by a majority of adjoining property owners in- cluding property owners across the rcad~ er Bashont, supr~ [which required tho consent of at least the majority of tho abutting property owners]. In view of these ense~ this court finds that the Lo~l Law at issue must be held unconstitutional as an impr~* er delegation of zoning authority to private landowners without adequate standards to insure that the landowners will net act in an arbitrary or discdmicatory nmnner by excluding these defendants from using their land for their trailer while permitting another seeking the same Keneral use to ds se. In the absence of standards to gnids the neighboring property owners in the ex- ereise of their authority the Local Law is clearly an unlawful delegation of leshlative or governmental authority to individual& The fact that Section 22 of the Local Law vests the Town Board with dim~etion to waive the r~luirements of ~8etion 20 do~ not remove thoas requirements and, them- fore, does not remove tho constitutional in- firmity which makes tho consent require- ment and the Local Law void on its fae~ After extensive rescarch, this court has been unable to find a New York case which would uphold the constitutionality of the unanimous consent requirement in the Local Law at issue merely because the leg- islative body retained the authority to waive these requirements. ~" Based eourt fi tainnd t quiremo Exercisi tlon 109 this' ncti ment a~ defenda d~mies f~otion ,hied, a[ il dinol !' All party Ph for Io98 ment* Bingha, thew J~ lacked j ent of i claim c( erning: Dis Cit HOWARD v. GOVERNMENT EMP. INS. CO. Based on the foregoing analysis, this court finds that the defendants have sus- tained their heavy burden of demonstrating the unconstitutionality of the consent re- quirements in the Gardiner Local Law. Exercising its authority under CPLR Sec- tion 108 subd.(c), this court hereby converts this action into one for a declaratory judg- merit and holds that the Local Law which defendants violated is void and not enforce- able. It follows that defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is de- nicd, and the temporary restraining order effective only until the date of this decision, is dissolved. All requests for any other relief by either party are denied. 105 Mlsc.2d 489 Kenneth HOWARD, Plaintiff, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEI~ INSURANCE CO., Defendant. City Court of Binghamton, Small Claims Part. ~ept. 30, 1980. Plaintiff brought action against insurer for loss of use of his automobile arising out as accident after plaintiff obtained a judg- merit against defendant's insured. The Binghamton City Small Claims Court, Mat- thew J. Vitanza, J., held that the Court lacked jurisdiction over insurer since there was ns notice of claim sent to superintend- ant of insurance es required by the Insur- tnre Law and since service of notice of claim ceuld not be made under rules gov- orning service of process of Small Claims. Dismissed. Canr~ ~* 175 City small claims court lacked jurisdic- ~ tion over foreign insurer since there wes no 341 notice of claim sent to superintendent of insurance ns required by the Insurance Law and since service by registered mail to in- surer in care of lecal insuranns firm through whom the policy wes obtained did not comply with jurisdictional requirement of thc Uniform City Court Act. N.Y.City Civil CL Act, § 1801; Insurance Law §§ 59, 59-a. Cberain & Gold, Binghamton (John P. Rittinger and Martin J. Kane, Binghamton, of counsel), for plaintiff. DECISION MATTHEW J. VITANZA, Jadgo. The plaintiff suez the defendant for dam- ages in the sum of $670.16, pursuant to § 167(1)(b) of the New York State Insur- anco Law, for the Icon of use of his automo- bile arising out of an accident which corred on November 8, 1979, on Lewis Street near its intersection with Fayette Street in the City of Binghamton, New York. It appears from the testimony that the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant's insured for the above amount. That subsequent to entry of the judgment, the defendant was informed of the fact that the plaintiff had obtained a judgment against the defendant's insured and a demand was made for paynmnt. Tim defendant has neglected or refused to pay the judgment against their insured and the plaintiff filed his claim in Small Claims Court. At the hearing herein the defendant de- faulted in appearance. However, the court question is whether Small Claims Court was the proper forum to bring this action pursu- ant to § 167(1}(b) of the lnsuranco Law. The defendant herein is n foreign corpora- rios. 8ervico in this case was made by registered mail to the defendant in care of Smith, Wilson Eros. Insurists, Ine~ n Icoal insurance firm through whom the policy involved in this case was obtained. There was no evidence presented that Smith, Wil- sen Bros. Insuriats, Inc. was a subsidiary of the defendant. The plaintiff in attempting to comply with the jurisdictional require- 188 ~BRoD~BIOK V, CAULDW]LL-WINO&'].'~. CO. [301 N. Y. 182] Opinion, per DYE, J. I July, view that the evidence of the conversation had with Paterno relative to proceeding without supports of any kind might well, to a jury, have constituted an assurance of safety (Zurich Gen. Accident ~ Liability Ins. Co. v. Childs Co., 2~53 N. Y. 324) ' and, 9ven more important, an assumption of direct control over the particular work in progress (Hanley v. Central Say. Bank, 255 App. Div. 542, affd. 280 N. Y. 734). Implicit in the verdict -- which followed a fair and comprehensive charge to which no material exception was noted--are findings that the conversa- tion recited by plaintiff's witness did, in fact, occur; that defend- ~ant's employee was negligent.~ in ~iv;~.n~ plaintiff a direction to ~work under an assurance of safety when he knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed; and that the t)laln- tiff, in reliance thereon, was free from contributory negligence. By the same token, defendant's contention that plainti~ was guilty of contributory neghgence as a matter of law cannot be sustairdd.~'~t appears established that when a person in the eapacRy of a superior assumes control over a workman on a job and directs him to proceed under circumstances recogniz- able as dangerous, the subordlnate workman has little, if any, choice in the mailer but to obey it and, if he stays witch the ltm~ts of the superior's instructions and is injured, he may not be pena!ized by a c!aim of contributory negligence as a matter of ~ W1fi!e, with the Labor Law aside, this issue remains in ~he case (cf. ]~oen.iy v. Patrick Constr. Corp., 298 N. Y. 313) it ~urvivcs as a question of fact for !he jury (Thomas v. Solvay L~rocess Co., 216 N. Y. 265; Zurich Gen. Accident ~ Liability ins. Co. v. Childs Co., supra). Since thc reversal in thc Appellate Division of the jud~ent against Cau}.dwc!l was on "tho law and the facts" we may order a new trial (Civ. Prac. Act, ~ 602). The jud~ents should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the even~. Lo~-o~aax, Ch. J., L~wxs, Co~w~Y, Drs_vos,, FVLO and ~0ESSrL, J~., concur. Judgulents reversed, etc. MATTER OF COlqOORDIA COL&~EOIATE 1950.] Statement of Ca~. [3~1 N, Y. ~ ~ _.~.~In th? Matter of CoscoltD~a COnUr. O~aTE INSTITUTE, Appellan' /'~st RUDOLPH N. M~LL~R, as Superintendent of Buildin~ 6' the Village of Bronxwlle, Respondent. Ar~ed May ~, 1950; decided July Il, 1950. 0o~tutio~ law--mu~cipal corpora~ona--zoning--~l (!) ~en~ent to ~age zoning ordin{n~ wMch pro~d~ for ~n{~ va~c~ in residence ~strict by hoard of appeMs ~ permit er~tio~ 9f for educa~o~ p~ose upon ~ing of consent of 80% of o~ers of ~o~ prope~y, ~d; no ~able msue of fact presen~d; app~ca~on for directing issuance of petit for erection of school buildings ~anted ~(~) ~e of ordin~ce wo~d Be that adJoint~ property owners could de~i~ ~ tioner's u~ of prope~ (3) no standards or ~ides for exercise of ~ tion of board of appea~ pro~ded~ (4) not necessary ~ seek rebel u~* ~vali~ ~en~ent or to show hardsMp ~der section 179~b of Village (5) pro~sio~ of prior ordinance per~tting erection of bu~dl~ for edue ~on p~pos~ r~tored. 1. A v~la~, in which ~ educational m~t[tufion Ired ~nfinuouMy owa~ operated ~ prope~y ~ a school and campus s~te for about for~y y~, enacted a zoning ordinance w]deh placed the school's p~perty in a r~id~ dist~ct whem:~ucational buildings were expressly permitted (art. 3, ~ 1, [bi). In 19~ ~is p~sion was repeated and the zoning o~Hn~ee to p~v~de (~t. 12, ~ 7, subd. If]) that a varMnce nd~bt be permit~d residence district by the hoard of ~ppeals ~or the erection or ntteratmn build~g for ~vcational purposes provhled cons,.n~s were fi]ed of 80~ owne~ of p~pe~y fronting on the street~ enclosing the block w thin which ~e prope~y intended for such use. This amendment is invalid. It due process clause of the Fourteenth Ammuhnent of thc Federal and section 6 of article I of the Stutu C. mt'tu~i,,n. ~ince ,m triable i~ue fact is presented, petitioner's applica6on for an order directing that a bull lng permit for the er~tion of additional school buildings ~ issued sho~d granted. 2. The effect of ~e amendment wouht be that school buildings could not ereet~ ~ a matter of ~ght in any of the ~aidenee districts, comprisi~ of the v~ ter~. The remaining 3% is not only not available for u~ but would be bnpraetical for it. A small number of adjoiniag pm~ owne~ could thus determine, hy dissent or indifference, and with no guid~{ standards, the kind of use petitioner might make of its property. Con~tpl visions may be proper wlwn de. ling with offensive n~es of property, but community. 3. The ordinate ~ ~valld also in thu~ it provides no ~tandardz or ~l for the exercise of the d~crction of tbe board of appoal~ in applying or rej~ ing cducafion~ ~.' 190 [301 N. Y. 189} Poin~ of Counsel. [July, 4. Petitioner was not required to seek relief under the 194i amendment, nor, was it required to attempt to show hardship under sccthm 179-b of the Village Law. The restriction of the ~,rdinancc is an invasion of petitioner's property rights, and it need not seek as a matter of grace and special privilege what it should have as a matter of r;ght. 5. The provisions of the 1928 ordinance permitting the erection o~ buildings for educational purposes are restored, inso£ar as petitioner's usc is concerned, upon thc determination that the amendment is invalid. There was no intention, in adding the amendment, to bar permits for educational buildings. The per- mits were merely subjected to limitations~ which are here declared to be invalid. Matter of Co*~cordia Collegiate Inst. v. :~Iiller, 276 App. Div. 872, reversed. A~,p~a:% on constitutional grounds, from an order of the Appe?.ate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judieiaI department, entered December 27, 1949, which unanimously affirmed a resettled order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Sc~4-~, J.), entered in Westehester County, (al donying an application by petitioner for ar order in the nature of man- damus under article 78 of the Civil_ Practice Act directing respondent ~o issue a building permit, and (b) dismissing the proceeding on the merits. J~aphac~ Link and Raphael Link, Jr., ~or appel[ant. I. The ordin:z,ace of the V~Hage of Bronxville, as amended February 10, 1945, ;~nsofar as it affects appeqant, violates the Fourteenth Ame,nlme,~t of the United Sta~es Coastitutio,~ and section 6 of article 2[ of the Stat,~ Constitution. (Washingto~ ex tel. Seattle Tit. T~mst Co. v. Ilober#e, 278 U. S. 1!6; Nectow v. City of Cam- bridge, 277 U. S. 183; Lacier. er v. New York, 198 U. S. 45; Village ~ Larchmont v. fi'own of Mamaroneck, 208 App. Div. 812, 239 N. 5~. 551; Yick Wa v. Hopkin% 2~8 U. S. 356; ~atholic Bishop of Chicago v. ICinyery, 20 N. E. 2d 583; City of Miami v. State cz tek Lear, 175 So. 537; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 5J~0.) II. The requirement under the ordinance that appellant obtain and file with the board of appeals thc consents of 80% of the owners of property in the block surrounding appellant's premises is unconstitutl-or, al. (Washington ex tel. Seattle Tit. ~'rust'Co. v. l~obcrye, 278 U. S. llt;; Yick Wa v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 35(;; Eubank v. City of llichmo~td, 296 U. S. 137.) III. Evcn.if appall-ant had. sought a variance from the biskrd of appeals, the baaed, would, have no powcr to grant a variance on the ground of hardship under thc v[2.aMe [aw, and any variance · so granted nnder the facts and c~rcumsSances surrounding ~rJtTT]gR OF COIqCORDIA COLIJE~,OIATE Irs'r. v. Max.aa. 19~0.] Opinion, per FRo~ss~,, J. [l~0l N. Y. 11 appellant's premises would be a nullity. (Matter of Otto! Steinhilber, 282 N. Y. 71; Matter o[ Ilickox v. Griffin, 298 lq'. 365.) IV. The ordinance is uneonstitational because it p~ scribes no guide, standard or rule by which the board of appe~ an administrative body, is to be governed, except consents owners. (Matter of Little v. Young, 274 App. Div. 1005, N. Y. 699; Matter of Small v. Moss, 279 N. Y Refi~i**g Co. v. 1~yan, 293 Lt. S. 388.) - ~l~. G. Burchard Smith, A,noId Frye and Barent L. Vissoher f respondent. I. The right to establish zones and confine speei uses to such zones is well established. Thc provision of the nance here questioned is clearly a proper exercise of sue~h (Lincoln Trust Co. v. Williams Bldg. Corp., 229 N. Y. 31 Matter of Wulfsohn v. Burder~, 241 N. Y. 288; Village of v. zlmblcr Realty Co., 272 lJ. S. 365; Baddour v. City o! Lo~ Beach, 279 N. Y. lg7~; .Matter of Fox Meadow Estates v. C~ lay, 233 App. Div. 250, 2(;1 N. Y. 506.) I1. Where l-egi~lati action is within the scope of the police power, fairly debata]~ questions as to its reasonableness, wisdom and propriety not for the determination of the courts, but for that of the tative body on which rests the duty and responsthi]ity of t decision. (Shepard v. Village o[ Skaneateles, 300 N. ¥. 11 Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 274 U. S. 325; Dowsey v. Villa. of Ker~singto~, 257 N. ¥. 221; Matter of Levy v. Board: Standards (~ Appeals, 267 N. Y. 347; Matter of Otto v. Stei hilber, 282 N. ¥. 71.) IH. Where tho ordinam;e contains 80% clause and the necessary consents calmot be obtained, board of appeals may nevertheless vary if the evidonco ests lishes practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. (People, tel. Smith v. Walsh, 2tl App. Div. 205, 240 N. Y. 606.) I Clauses similar to the 80% clause bane been sustained. (P~o~ ex tel. Healy v.-Leo, 194: App. Div. 973; Bassett on Zoning [19 ed.], p. 126; Matter of Sanders v. Davidso~, 258 App. Div. 10[ 284 N. Y. 780.) Fno~ssr~,, J. Petitioner-appellant is a nonprofit, domest educational corporation under the supervision of the Stato Ed cation Department. It has continuously owned and operated property in the village of Bronxville, New York, as a seho and campus site for about forty years. [t purchased tho pro arty with the intent of using thc whole of the site for a schc !92 ~fATTF. R OF CO-WCORDIA COLLEGIATE Ih;ST. V. MILLER. i301 . Y. 1891 Opinion, per F~togssrL, J. [July, program and of erecting thereon such buildings as from time to time it might deem necessaw. As a duly chartered preparatory sehooI and junior college, with nearly three bundrcd full-time students, its facilities have b(~eome hmdequate and it is neees- saw that it expand. It has thus far invested upwards of a lion and a half dollars in this property, and has provided addi- tional funds for the erection of new school buildings on its pres- ent campus s~te in furtherance of the requh'cments and rules of ibc State J~]ducatlon Department. When it p,,rebased the site in acreage. Thc sur,'om~db,g mhg'hborbood is now built up with private residences. 5n 1938 ~bc VU]age or Bt'onxvUle enacted a zoning ordinance d[v~A[ng the vil!a~e ~nto six residence districts and three busi- ness d[s~rXcts. PeEUoner's property was placed ~n a residence "A" d[str~ct. An "Educational or rchg]ous building" was expressly permitted by the ordinance (art. 3, ~ ~, sub& [bi) in residence distrlets. On February 10, 5941,'an amendment to the zoning ordinance was adopted, repeahng said subdivision (b), and in place thereof add~ng suM[vis[on (f) to section 7 of ar~}c~e 12 o~ the ordhnanee providing for "Variances" which m~g'h~ be permitted by thc board of appeals, as follows: "(f) Perm[~ in any residence district the erection or alteration of a bu[!db~g for oducat~ona!, relig~ous or eleemosynary pur- poses and the use of premises for such purposes urovided the petitioner files ~he consents duly acknowledged of 80% of the owners of property fronting on the streets enclosing the bio& within which lies the proper~y [n~ended for such use." As a result of this amm~dment assuming it to be valid, no educaEonal buUdin~ may be erectvd as a matter of right on pe~[~[oner's property, nor iudced b~ afiy or the residence triers which comprise 97% of the vUlage territory. The remain- :ng 3%- a very small area of about nineteen acres bordering on the tracks of ~he Ilar!cra l)]vis~on or t!m New York Central Ratify)ad m~d situated at ~]m other m~d of the village ~ is zoned for business, and no land ~s available in that area; but, even if available, [t would be qu~te hnpract~cabJe for petitioner to use any bF such property. Thus p{q.~t[mmr is b~ effect precluded from creetbmg any school buil, lh~ in the enErc village as a matter of r[g'kt, and, while boarding Itouses, mnltlfamUy houses, ~ATTEa 0~' COIqCORDIA COLLF.(UATB INST. 1950.] Opinion, per Faor. ss~l~, J. la01 N. Y. hospitals and hotels may be erected in residence district schools and churches may not. On or about July 1, 1948, petitioner filed plans and spedfle tions for the new school library, science building and auditoriu on its campus site and applied for a permit. Respondent deni, the application upon the ground that the uses o~ the propos, new buildings were~ not permitted. In this article 78 proceeding, petitioner seeks a mandam order directing respondent to issue a permit to erect the p~ posed buildings. ()n the l)]Cadings and accompanying pape Special Term, upon respondcni's motion to dismiss grounded legal insufficiency, held that no triable issue o~ Caet was rais. denied the relief sought, and dismissed the proceeding on merits; the Appellate Division unanimously aflirme& Petitioner's proposed use is dearly not a permitted ~se the amended ordinance, for, concededl~, its property a residence" A "district. There is no issue between the part as to ~e right of the village te regulate and restrict the loeat and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, induM. residence or other purposes for" the purpose o~ promoting health, safety, morals, or the geueral welfare of tbe eommunit (Village Law, ~ ~75). Petitioner, however, challenges constitutionality of the zoning amendment adopted Feb ary 10, 1941, insofar as it affects petitioner, upon the grot that it is arbitrary, unreasonable and eoufiseatory and viols the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the Uni States and section 6 of article I of our State Constitution. contends (1) t~ ~e provision r~ring of thq adjo[nlng Owners, before the boara empowered to cohsidcr an flpplicatiolL imposers on an inoffensive and legitimate nsc of property, not by a lo Iative body but by other property owners, and that such deb tion of power is repugnant to the due process clansc; (2) even ir such consents were obtained, the a,nendment woul/ bad, since the board of appeals is given no sta,,d,,rtts or gu to exercise its discretion as to what" educational, religion eleemos~ary purposes" may be permitted, aud (3) that ordinance as am~&~d diseriminMes between public aud pti schools, and vl 'tunlly bars schools as well as churches f the village. },94 _5]]/,TTER OF Colccollnli COLI, rOIATI~ INST. V. MII,Ia~a. }/~'~T'rl~a 0~' CoI,~COltDi& COLL~OI&'rI~ II~ST. V. M~'""~'5 [30I N. Y. I89] Opinion, per ~'nol~ssE~,, J. [July, We are of the opinion that the 19~I amendment of the zoning ordinance is iuvalid. Aceordh.,g to its provisions, it withdrew thc unrestricted permissiun granted under the original ordinance to use property in a residence district for educational purposes, but authorized the lanu'd of appea~s l,, g~'ant such permission "provided the petitioner files the consents duly acknowle~ed of 805~ of the owners of property fronting on the streets enclosing the block within which lies th~ property inteuded for such use." ~V[thout such consents, the board of appeals had absolutely no power under sa~d subdivision (f). A fraction over 20% of ~e adjoinin~ property owners eou!d prevent nny action by ~e board and they could thus finally determine, even by. inaction, the kind of use !hat petitioner might make of its property. Against that restriction not only petitioner but the board itself would be powerless. The acliou of such dissenting or indifferent owners is sub?c~ ~o nO guides or stem!urals and to no rule whatsoever. In Euba~.l~ v. City o.f Richmond (226 U. S. !37) where a statute required the "committee on streets" upon request of the owners of two !birds o~ the abutting property to establish a ~mi!~[ng line, the court said (pp. 14~!44): "One set of owners determines not only the extent of use but the kind of use which another set of ow~ers may make of !heir property. In what way ~s the public safety, convenience or welfare served by eon- %rrin~ suel~ power? ?he statute and ordinance, while confer- ring t}~e pow~r on sonic prm>erty he'.tiers to virtually control and d~spose of the proper rlgh~s of otb. ers, creates no stand- ard by wh;ch the power tlms ~iven ~s to be exercised; in other . . ~o. rs who desh'e and }rove the authority ~o establish !he line may do so so!ely for iheir own interest or even eapr~eiously." (See, also, Carter v. Carter Coal Co.. 298 L~. S. 238, 311.) A situation somewhat similar to the instant case was pre- sen!ed in Washi~..qton ex roi. Seattle Tit. Trust Co. v. Rober~e (278 ~. S. ~16). In that ease, plain!iff (rustee owned and main- rained a philanthropic home for a~ed poor, and desired to erect a new build~n~ in place of a smaller old bui!db:E at a cost of about'one bundred thousand doUars. Th~ local zoning ordlnanee did not permit a philan~hrop;e home %r aged l~oor in a" First ~,es[denee DSstrlct ", wherein the home was situated. The ordinance was amended in !925 by per.mi~tlng such a home 19~0d Opinion, per lYaoessz~., J. [~01 N. I "when the written coasent shall have been obtained o~ owners of two-thirds of the property withi~ four bundree[ ( feet of the proposed building." (~'. 118.) Tho tl'ustee home sought unsuccessfully to procure a permit without ha obtaiimd tho required ceuse,ts. The State courts held amen~ment valid, but they were reversed by the Sapremo C of the United States, whk.h posed a,d answered the follo~ questio~ (p. 120): "is the delegation ol~ power to owne~ adjoin~g land to make inoperative the permission, ~ 3 (c) as amended, repugnant to the due process clanse~" ;t ne a (pp. 121-122):" L?gislatu]cs may ,,et, under th~ of the poSee power, impose restrictions that are and unreasonable upon the use of private p,'operty or th~[ suit of useful activities. * ' * The facts disclosed b~ record make it clear that thc exclusion of the new hom~ first district t~ not hMispe]xaable to the geuerM zoaing~ And there is no legMattvc detcrminatioa that the pro~ building and use would be b~consiste~tt with public health, sC morals or general welfare. The cnact~ment itself plainly the contrary. ' ' ' The section purp(,rts to o~ers of less than onedmlf thc land withiu ~0 feet o proposed building auLhorily~ uncontrolled by any ~tar or ru!e prescribed by legisbttiv~ actioa -- to prevent th~ tr from using its land for the proposed borne. The superinte~ is bound by the decision or inaction of such owner~. There. provision for review undm' the ordinance; their failure to cousent is final. Yhey are not bonud hy any official duty are free to wit~old consout for selfish reasons or arbiit and may subject, the trastce to their will or caprice. The delegation of power so aLtemptcd is repugnant to th~ process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Thc court distinguished the case of Cu.saek Co. v. Ci~ Chicago (242 U. S. 526) involving billboards in resid~ districts, pointing out that billbnards were liable to end~ the safety and decency o~' s,ch districis, and that such boards or other uses which by reasnn .f their ,aturo w~re to be offensive, were quite diffnrent from a home for the In the case now before us, we are got dealiug wi~}~ blithe or garages or other offensive uses in cmmcction with consent provisions may be proper, but with an educationa which is dearly in furtherance of the health, safety, m, ~6 ~V[ATTER OF CONCORDIA COLLEGIATE INST. %). MILLER. . N. Y. !S9] Opinion, per FRozss]~, J. [July, ~d general welfare of the community, and is under the direct pervision, care and concern of the State itsflf. Zoning ~'dknanees must find their justification in the police power exer- sed in the interest of the public. (Village of Euclid v. Ambler !ealty Co., 272 U. S. 365, 387.) "The governmental power to '..;erfcre by zoning regulations with the general rights of the nd owner by restricting the character of his use, is not uulhn- '.~d, and other questions aside, such restriction cannot be ?oscd if it d~es not bear a substantial relation to the public ,a!th, safety, morals, or generat welfare." (Nectow v. City of ~ridge, 277 U. S. IS3, 188.) ~'ecver, even though S0% of the adjoining property owners resented, the board of appeals in the instant case was given ~ standards or guides to exercise ~ts discretion as to what educatimml, religious or elemnosynary purposes" may be e-m~tted, l~cspondent ~n his brief suggests numerous instances ~,ducai[onal h~stkutions which he deems objectionable, yet the ard is given no guide; to it is committed an unfettered and -restricted discretion to approve or reject proposed eduea- :m! uses. it ]uts been repeatedly held that this may not be ,me. (Matter et L~ttlc v. Young, 299 N. Y. 699; Packer Col- ',('iate Inst. v. University of State of N. ~., 298 N. Y. 184; /a~cr of Small v. Moss, 279 N. Y. 288, 295; Pa~ma Refining e. v. ~yan, 293 U. S. 388.) Th2s disposes o¢ respondent's claim that petitioner must seek nnder the ~941 amendment. His further contention that ~ner could obtain re[[cf upon a proper showing of hard- .:u (ViEage law, ~ 179-b) is likewise without validity. et;t~oncr's property is in a residence zone, and [t fra~ly ::cedes ~ wha~ ts ~n f. act evS~cnt- that [t eammt demonstrate :~5 its !and will not yield a reasonable return if used only for e ps,pose allowed in tha~ zone, name}y, for residences. There- re, k asserts, it could not obtain a variance on the ground of ?'dship under our dec[slons, such as Matter of Otto v. Stein- ~bcr (282 NYY. 71) and Matter of Hickoz v. Gri[Jin (298 N. Y. /;5) and even if the board of appeals should grant ~ts appli- qt[~n, the variance would be a nullity, and by no m~aus hnmune r'om a~tack by owners of adjo[nin~ property. 17w short, petitioner urges that ~ should ~tot be conmcl!cd to eeT~t as a matter of grace and specia! privilege what ~t best ts 1V~ATT~a or CONOORDI~ COLLEOIATr INST. v. Mn.z.~,. ~;~ 1950.1 Opinion, ~ Faoma~L, J. [801 N. Y[ an extremely unlikely result, in the face of an invalid statute that stands ih the way of relief as a matter of right; tho restrie. tion itself constitutes an invasion of its property ris~htS. (Dowsey v. Village o/Kensington, 257 51. Y. 221, 231.) Peri&n tloner's contention in this respect is sound, and we are accord ingly constrained to conclude that the amendment of Februarl 10, 1941, violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and section 6 of article. I of our State Constitution. . Thc question still remains, however, whether, with the amend- ment eliminated, petitioner is entitled to issuance of the requested, since the 1941 amendment also repealed subdivision (b) of section 1 of article 3. The precise question was presented in Matter of Little v. Young (supra) where we affirmed the lower courts, which held that since the provision requiring approval was invalid, the accompanying repealing provisions also failed, and there remained no limitation in the ordinance upon an other- wise lawful use. In other words, since the 1941 amendment is invalid, the provisions of the 1938 ordinance are restored insofar as the user hero in question is concerned. Tho local legisla- ture in adding the 1941 anlendment evinced no desire to bar permits for educational buildings, it recognized an educationa~ use as harmonious with the public interest- and who indeed could consider it otherwise -- but made it subject to the consent and approval hereinbefore outlined, which we fred invalid. t!ence, no limitation remains. It is unnecessary to consider the remaining questions pro- sented, such as the village's right to bar schools absolutely from residential districts and its right to discriminate between private and public schools. We do not reach these questions, and there- fore need not decide them. Thc orders of the Appellate Division and Special Term should be reversed, and, since no triable issue of fact is presented, ibc application of petitioner should be granted, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. The orders should be reversed and the application granted, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. LOUUHRA~, Ch. J., LEwis, CONWAY, DESPOND, DYE and FULD, JJ., concur. Orders reversed, etc. MA~mER OF WULFSOHN ~,. BURDEN. [241 N' Y. 288] Statement of c~se. [Nov., ' Of course, this error is too important to be disregarded and, therefore, the judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide event. CARDOZO~ i~'OUND, -~cLAuGltL1N, CRANE, ANDREWS and Lr~A~, JJ., co~ur. Judgments reversed, etc. In th~ Matter of M~x Wv~rso~N, Appellant, v. Jo~ Bun~, as Inspector of Buildings of the City of Mount Vernon, Respondent. Mu~c~pa! corporatlo~ ~ zoning laws- constitutional law -- ~olice power ~ statute authorizing cities to regulate height and bulk of buildings, tho area of opes spaces, and to adopt zoninK regulations ~ con~titutionality of ordinances a~tacked b~den on petitioner of overcomin~ presumption of Constitu- tionality ~ exclusion of large apartment houses from resi- dentia! districts justified ~ exercise of police power ex~nds so dealin~ wf. th conditions as to promote the grea~st welfare of the pe'op!e ~ argument that ordinances li~t the use and tha~ ~haU. ~urround them ~ additional Drovision that there shall be no display of advertis/nF fro~ street does not invalidate  ack yards ~ violation by propo~e~ buildin~ of t~ee regula- ions ~ petitioner to succeed must estab!is~ that each ~rbitr~y and unreasonable ~s to be invalid. !. By the statute hi re~atlon to cities (L. 1~9, ch. 26, as amd.), to regulate the height ~nd bulk of hurlings, to re~u~ and determine d~vide a clty into districts and to adopt various other pro~sions c~asa/fylng aud re~h~tiug t~e use of land within its borders in /~terest of ~he pubic health, safety and general welfare. ~. Wh~re no claim is made that the Le~/s!ature has not pro~dy co.erred u~n local authorities the right ~o oxerci~ ~he powers enumerate~ in the statute but the constitutional vMk{ity of zoning MA'h'r~ OF WULFSOHN V. BURDEN. 289 Statement of ~se. {241 N. Y, 2881 we nmy take judicial notice but also facts appearing in tho affidavits. uneon~titutionM and that there is no permissible interpretation of all of these facts which justifies tha adoption of these ordiuances as purpose, the limit upon oonditions held to come within this rule has impaired. 19 -~[ATTER o1' WULFSOHN V. BURDEN. ~24l N. Y. 288] Statement of case. general rules to govern them, and it cannot be said, as matter of law, that the present zoning regulations are so tmrea~onah!e that they where thtw provide that in the uso of a lot in the A reside,~tial t~ict for an apartm*nt house or a ho~cl the height shall not exceed ~;'o stories and '~hat there must be a set-back from each lot and sireet line of ~fty feet, &nd in a B residential ~strict of twcnty-fiw fee~, and ;hat there must be left in t}~e rear of the lot as used an o~n s~ace in p~r~ ~adu~ted accor~ng to the depth of the lot and h~qght of bulling. S. ~ argu~neng that because the provisions ~r~tting the erection are based upon unsas~i~ble ~sthetlc considerations, cannot upheld. The restriction rc~erred to is a re{nor ineidc~t, the ~nain no~ rend:rcd inv~Iid because consideration is ~ven to appearance of buildings as ~ minor and au~!ia~.y re~son. 9. A co~xplaint that tho regulations for set-backs a~ unreasonable aw~i!able to p~itioncr. Tho only question whleh ke is entitled to ~our a~d ~}vc stories high ~nd designed to ac(~ommo(late nearly six i0. Nor c~rx it bo su(~(~vsstully urged that an arbitrary (~scrlmlmrtion buildings pcr.~i~tcd in both A and I~ rosidontiM districts. yttrds, for sct-bac]~ of gfty feet in A residential districts and of /wez~ty-~[ve feet in B residentiM ~stricts. He can only sucqced by cs~ahlishlng, as m~tter of !aw t~t each of th,se re Matter.of }Vtdf~ohn v. Burden, 214 App. Div. g24, a~rtned. (Argued October 9, !925; d~cided November 24, 1925.) Ma~rza or WULFSOHN V. BURDEN. 2~1 ~1925.] Points of counsel. [241 N. Y. 288] ArPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 16, 1925, which reversed an order of Special Term gra~ting a motion for a peremptory order of man~ damns to compel the defendant to approve plans and issue to the petitioner g building permit and deniexi said motion. J. Henry Esser for appellant. The answering affidavits offer no justifying reason recognized by the police power for the di~crimi~mtory and uxbitrva'y provi~i~ here~ before the c~. (M~ & C~l ~ .~ ~ Turk, 129 Atl. Rep. 512; City of Ja~st,il~ v. UarI~nt~, 77 W~. 288; MaWr of Barker-Swgtzer, 209 App. Div. [51; 238 N. Y. 624; People ex roi. Wineburgh Adv. Co. v. Murphy, 195 N. Y. 126; Vernon v. Mayor & Council of Town of Westf~ld, 124 Afl. Rep. 248; Handy ~. Village of South ~ange, 118 Afl. Rep. 83~.) The provisi(ms here ~ question constitute an unlawful taking of petitioner's pro~rty, without due process of law and without com~atiom ~s~mt. of U. S., art. 14; Const. of N. Y., art. 1, ~ 6; City of St. Lo?ds v. Hill, 116 Mo. 527; Bucha~tan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 74; P~yl~nia Coal Co. v. Mahout, 260 U. S. 393.) Neither the Legislgture, nor the municip~dity, has the power to estab5sh arbitrary set-backs or building liues within private property, nor to prevent the owner from making a fu~ [egit~ate use of his land subject only to such l~tations as ~'e dictated by the public heaith, safety ~d general welfare. (Peop~ ex tel. Dilz~ v. Cal~, 89 App. Div. 503; Mater of Hecht-Dan~ Co., Inc., v. Bur~, 124 Misc. Rep. 632; People ex tel. Lankt~ v. Ro~, 90 M~c. Rep. 439; Mat~¢ of lsenMrth, 206 App. Div. 546; 237 N. Y. 617; 1 Lewis on Em. Dom. [3d ed.] ~ 227; 2 Di~on on Mun. Corp. ~ 695; Matter of Opini~ of t~'J~ti~s, 128 Atl. Rep. 181; Val Fruth v. Board of Affairs of Char~ston, 84 S. E. Rep. 105; St. Louis 202 ~/~ATTER OF WULFSOHN V. BURDEN. {24[ N. Y. 288] Points of core,sol. [Nov., v. Itill, 1!6 Mo. 527; Willison v. Cooke, 130 Pac. Rep. 828; Crawford v. City of Topeka, 51 Kan. 756; City of Grand Rapids v. Powers, !4 L. I~. A. 498; City of Janes- rifle v. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288; Northrop v. Wa&~rbury, 8! Conn. 305.) Under existing constitutional and statu- tory ~rovisions in [his State the provisiom o~ zoning ordinances which rest solely upon msthetic or econo~c bases cammt be upheld. (People ex tel. Wi~wh Adv. Co. v. Murphy, 195 N. Y. 126; Mat~ of Ba~rker v. Swirl, 209 App. Div. !51; 23~ N. Y. 624; Version v. Mayor Co?tncil of Weslficld, ~24 Atl. Rcp. 248; Lincoln Tru,~t Co. v. Williams, 229 N. Y. 313; Isenbarth v. Bartnett, 206 App. Div. 546; 237 N. Y. 617; Mat~ of Opinion of Justices, 128 At[. ~ep. !81; Stubbs v. Scott, 127 Md. 86; Spann v. Dallas, 111 Tex. 350; Stake v. McKeh,ey, 301 Mo. 1; People v. Chicago, 261 Ill. 16; P~saic v. Pat~son Postinq & Siqn Co., 72 N. J. Law, 285; Hatler Sign Works v. Physical Cultare School, 249 ~1. 436; Byrns v. Maryla~ Realty Co., 129 Md. 202.) The set-back, or buik[ing line, and ~xcessive rear yard provisions here ~nvolved, h~ving no apparen~ relation to the accepted functions of the police power, it is the duty of the court to dec,are them inwd~d. (Ma~or & Connci! of Wilming~n v. T~rk, !29 AiL Rep. 502; S~t* v. Harper, 182 Wis. 148; People ex tel. Wi~,cbuwh Adv. Co. v. Mnrphy, 195 N. Y. 126; Ives v. South Bvffalo Ry. Co., 20[ N. Y. 271; Mat~ of Stubbe v. Adamson, 220 N. Y. 459.) The Legis- lature has no~ delegated to [he city the power enact the set-back building ~ne and excessive rear yard provisO, ohs in question here. (Matter of Hecht-Dann Co., ]nc., 124 Misc. ~ep. 632; Matt~ of Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98; People v. Mark, 99 N. Y. 377; Wynehamer v. People, !3 N. ~. 378; Renssel~, e~., R. Co. v. Davks, 43 N. Y. 137; N~ York, e~., R. Co. v. Kip, 46 N. Y. ~6; M~ of Poughkeepde Bridge Co., 108 N. Y. 483; FitzgeraM v. Quan'n; ~09 N. Y. 44~.; Sharpe v. Spear, 4 Hill, 76; New York, etc., ~. Co. v. Ccntrat Union Tel. Co., 2~ Hun, 26~; MATTER OF WULFSOHN t~. BURD~.~. 29S Opinion, per Hmcocx, Ch. J. [241 N. Y. 288] People v. Wells, 181 N. Y. 252; State Water Supply Comm. v. Curtis, 192 N. Y. 319; Matter of Simmons, 206 N. Y. 577, 580; Matter of McAneny v. Board of Estimate, 232 N. Y. 377.) The net-back: and rear yard provisions in question are arbitrary and legally unreasonable. (People ex tel. Winelmrgh Adv. Co. v. Murphy, 195 N. Y. 126.) The use of petitioner's property for apartment purposes, being lawful and expressly permitted, the set-back pro- visions in question are, on the face of the ordinance, unlawfully diserinfinatory. (Lincoln Truest Co. v. Williams, 229 N. Y. 313; People ex tel. Duryea v. Wilbur, 198 N. Y. l; Vernon v. Mayor, etc., of Westfield, 124 Afl. Rep. 248.) Hugh M. Hewson, Corporalion Counsel, Arthur M. Johnson and Lester D. Stickles for respondent. Tho learned court below erred on the questimm of the burden of proof and the quality of proof. (People ex tel. Knob- lauch v. Warden, 216 N. Y. 154; People ex tel. Publicity Leasing Co. v. Ludwig, 218 N. Y. 540; Yellaw Ta~cicab Co. v. Gaynor, 82 Misc. Rep. 94; 159 App. Div. 888; Waldorf Hotel Co. v. City of New York, 212 N. Y. 97; Hartman v. Collins, 106 App. Div. 11; Namm v. Carlin, 182 App. Div. 626; Isenbarth v. Barnett, 206 App, Div. 546.) The Zoning Ordinance, in the proviskms attacked, is a proper exercise of the police power. (Story v. N. Y. El. R. Uo., 90 N. Y. 122; F6ster v. Scott, 136 N. Y. 577; People v. Priest, 206 N. Y. 274; Health Department v. Triaity Church, 145 ~N. Y. 32; People v. Ha*mor, 149 N. Y. 195; Carthaqe v. Frederick, 122 N. Y. 268; People v. Klinsk Packing Co., 214 N. Y. t21; People v. Griswold, 213 N. Y. 92; Matter of Viemeister, 179 N. Y. 235; People v. Bric- seeker, 169 N. ¥. 53; People v. Cipperley, 101 N. Y. 634; Mueller v. 0r~on~ 208 U. S. 412; Tenement Ho~e Deparb merit v. M°eSehen 170 N, V 325; 203' U S. 5~:~" '. H~SCOCK, Ch, J. The appellant Wulfsohu is seeking by peremptory mandamus to compel the respondent ~ATTFR OF W~.TLVSOI~N V. BUltDEN. [24! N. Y. 2KR', Opinion, per !ti,StoCK, Ch. J. [Nov.. Burden to approve plans and issue a building permit for az,, apartment house which he desires to erect in the City of ~iount Veruon. The refusal to issue this permit, which hzs been sustained by the court, is based u~on the ~aet that the propdsed bui'.ding will violate certain zoning regu~atious. Appellant challenges these reguia- lions as unconstitutional and voit[ and thus is framed the questiou of eonstitutionMity on which we are to y the statute in relation to cities (Laws of 1909, eh. 26, as amended), of which 5~ount Vernon is one, broad authority amongst other things is given to such municipalities to regulate the height and bu~ of build- ~ngs~ to regulate and determine the area of yards, courts and open spaces and for such purposes to ~vide a city ;nfo districts and to adopt various other provisiop~ classifying and re,relating the use of land within its borders :.n the interest of the publie health, safety and general welfare. While the appellant has made some question whether this statute authorizes a nmnieipality like the City of Mount Verno}x to adopt zoning regulatious he does this rather faintly and the statute authorizes such action so clearly and broadly that we sha!~ not take time to dis- this questiou hut shall assume without discussion i~ conferred the power upon the City of Mouut Vernon to adopt the regulations wb. ieb. have been adopted, if reasonable, i The authorities of the municipality, actin~ under this statute, have made a comprehensive classification of its territory and have divided the same into six districts, A, B and C residential districts, A and B business dist,'iets, aud indust[ial districts and have prescribed regmlations :mp!ieable to the erection and use of buildings and la~ds in these various districts. B% are o~fly concerned with these re,clarions as they create, and re~alate the erection o~[ buildings and use ef lands in, the first two districts. These fix the boundaries of these two districts, enumerate MATTER OF WULF~OHN V. BURDEN. 2~5 1925.} Opinion, per HmCOCK, Ch. J. [241 N. Y, 288] the classes of buildings which may be erected therein and, as their substantial restrictions involved in this ease, provide that in the use of a lot in the A residential district for an apartment house or a hotel the height shall not exceed five stories and that there must be a "set-back" from each lot and street Iiue of 50 feet, and in a B resi- dentlal district of 25 feet, and that there must be left in tl~e rear of the lot as used (this not being confined to these particular buildings) an open space which is in part graduated accordk~g to the depth of the lot and height of buildiug and which in the present case would be 90 feet in depth. They only affect new buildings and those which may be reconstructed. Appellant owns a lot situate .at the intersection of two streets with a frontage on one of these of 100 feet and upon the other of 300 feet and located in part itt the A residential district- and partly in the B residential district. No claim is made that the Legislature has not properly conferred upon local authorities the right to exercise the powers enumerated h~ the statute which has been eited. But we shall assmne that these ordinances were adopted under a general legislative authority aud that their constitutional wdidity w~ subject to attack by extraneous evidence (Matter of Stubbe v. Adam~om 220 N. Y. 459), and in accordance with this rule affidavits were preseDted upon appellant's motion for a nmndanms in the efforts respectively to impeach and ~o sustain the validity of the regulations. White these aflqdavits probably do nDt greatly eu!arge the scope of thc facts of which we might take judicial notice in detern&~h~g the wdidity of the ordinances from their face, there are some facts to which re;erence may properly be made. As we understand them, the territory now included h~ these residential districts, and especially the A district, was bffore the adoption of the zoning regulations in question a resid6ntial district ahnost entirely devoted to and occupied by private one-family dwelling houses. [24I .Nv. Y. 288] Opinion, per H~sCOCK, Ch. J. Therefore, the zoning rcgu!atious did not have the effect o~ working any revolution in thb ch~nracter an~ uses o~ tho territory covt,'ed by them, but it is ovidon~ that i~ was their purpose to continue a character and pu~os~ already es~ab!Lshed and to limit these ~tricts and especially the A district to_I)riv~te residences and to buildings of a character which it was thought would not greatly impair ~he character of the ~strict as a r~i- dent~a! o~e and to ' ' ~ , a~low bmldm~ such ~ hotels aud ~par~mez~t houses only under restrictions which it was though~ would prevent ~hem from endangering ~he ~ a~t~, s~e~y and general welfare o~ those ~e~mg to dwell ~ such a ~st.~c~.',- ' The wgter and sewage systems ~ the districts ~n quest.~on are so h~ted that.they wou~d be over~axed ~ apartment hous~ such as appellan~ C~esires to erect w~'e !arge!y Ioc~Sed ~hck construction will ~mpa~r the value of surrounding property ah'ca~y dcvote~ to vrivate res~dentiM DurDos~. Since ~he ordinances were ~)ted ~hey nave been obey~ by subst~m.y ~I] bu~Iders. The p]gns filed by appel- lant ~or ~he ap~r~meu~ house which he desires to erect show th~5 the bu~di~g wiL~ be four and five stories ~-.~ the excepSion open space, his c~.tire io~ and tha~ i5 w[!l accommoda~ ; each l;oor 30 fan~lies or, in ~hc aggregate, 1~ famih~ on an average of 4 persons ~o a family, nearly 600 people. The rcgnlatio~s in question will preve~t ~m from using in the neighborhood of 50 per cent of ~s lot or an apartment house bu; would no~ restric~ him in its use for many other purposes. Under ;he circumsbances of t~s procee~g akeady referred ~o, as appeJan~ seeks to gain a petit to erec; his apa.~men~ house oy attac~ng ~he zo~ng re~at}ons as confiscatory and uncons~iSutiona!, he has She harder. of overco~g ~he presumption of constitutJonahty app'icab!d to such ordinances by reference not or~y to }ac;s of which we may ~akc judicial notice but also facts Mxa'r~R OF WI~LFSOIIN V. BURDEN. 1925.] Opinion, per Hmcocg, Ch. J. [241 N. Y. 288] appearing in the affidavits. He must demonstrate that, as matter of law, these regulations are unconstitutional and that there is no permissible interpretation of all of these facts which justifies their adoption as a reasonable exercise of the broad police power of the State. If on any permissible interpretation of the facts, the court could say as a finding of fact that the ordinances could be reasonably adopted, appellant was not entitled to a per- emptory mandamus but only to an alternative one, which he did not seek. For the purpose of disposing of a minor objection ~o the ordinances hereafter referred to we shall consider the question first in the form of the query whether the zoning authorities would have had the power to create residential districts devoted to ordinary fanfily residences and exclude therefrom altogether apartment houses of a typical ch~r~,:- ter, for if they would have had this power of exclusion they would have a power of regulatiou broad enough to cover the restrictions here complained of. (People v. Rosen- he/mcr, 209 N. Y. 115.) In support of such a regulation we think the zoning authorities could assume and the courts below could have found that the orderly and advantageous development of the City of Mount Vernon and the welfare of its citizens would be Promoted by a fundamental division of the city into districts devoted respectively to businc~ and residential .purposes under which its dwellers might establish homes in the latter districts wliere they would be free from disturbing conditions and risks and depriva- tion of health conditions, such as abundant light and air, ordinaxily incident to congested business districts; that in the residential districts of Mount Vernon muulcipal facilities for sewage and water were liable to be overt~-xed if the erection of large apartment houses was pemfitted; that through the construction of apartment houses whereby there v/ould be gathered a large number of people in the space ordinarily occupied by a single family there 298 ~TTER OF WULFSOEN ?). BURDEN. !24~. ~N*. Y. 288] Opinion, per HISCOCK, C}~. J. weald result a congestion of populatioz~ increasing the ~{:~ngers of tra~c, especially to children, and multiplying the chances that through the carelessness of so,ne indi- vidual fire and coufiagraiion ~ght be started or dise:~e co~u~cated and ep~der~Scs set on their way; that the advantages and vMue of properW devoted to priw~tc residences would be impaired. And ff we are right that such facts could be found or assumed we do no~ thi~ ghat ~cOm% coul~ say as matter of law ~hat a zonb ~g reL~lation lu~ng large apartmeni houses could not be justified. There wou~.d be no o~ject in creating ~ resi~entiaI un~ess there were to be secured to those dwe~ihg therein the advantages and that immunity from risks and danger wMch wou~.d or~ar~!y be considered ~he main benefits of such residence. 0f cern'se zoning re~lations are an exercise of the po'ice power and ~s we a~)proach thc decisiou of th~s (lucstior~ we must re~lizc tha~ thc :tpp!icatiou of the police power has been grea~!y ex~ended dm.i~g a comparatively recen~ period and tha~ while ghe fmxdamental rule must be observed ~h~t there is some evil existen~ or re~o~ably to be apprehended which the police power may be iDvoked to prevent and tha~ the reD~edy ~roppsed mus~ be general~y ~ap.ec to t~a~ purpose, the ~m~t upon conditions held ~ come wilh~a this r.~.e has beep greatly enlarged. The power ~s j~ot limited to regulations designed. ~o prornoge put, lie health, public morals or public sa[c~y or to the suppression of what is offensive, disorderly or UDSun}t,.ry ~ut ~xtends to so dealing with conditions which e~st to bring out of them ~he greatest welfare of the peop'~e by promoth~g public conve~ence or general prosperl;y. (Bacon v. ?~alker, 204 U. S. 3~1, 3!7, 31S.) Being designed lo promote public couvcnience or general prosperity as we~ as pubhe health, public morals or public saY;ety ~he' validity of a police re}u?.ation must depend ~¢~on ~he c}rcumsta~ces of each case and the character of the rcgu]a~ou ~or !he purpose of detcrmb~b~g whether MAUreR OF WULFSOHN V. BURDEN, Ch. J. [24~; 299 it is arbitrary or reasonable and whether really designed to accomplish a legitimate i)ublic purpose. (C., B. ~fc Q. Ry. Co. v. Drainage Co~amrs., 200 U. S. 561.) The fie~d of regulation constantly widens into new regions. The questipn (of regulation) in a broad and defi~dte sense is. one of degree. Changing econonfic conditions, temporary or permanent, may make necessary or beneficial the right of public regulation. (Peop~el.D~rhamRealtyCorp. v. La Felra, 230 N. Y. 429; affd., in principle, 257 U. S. 665.) While the vah~ly of poSce reg~ation certaiuly is not to be rest~ simply upon pop,ar opinion it h~ been said ~hat it h~ been "put forth in ~d o~ what is sanctioned by ~age, or he~d by the prevailing morality or strqng ~;nd preponderant opi~on to be greatly aud immediately necessary to the public welfare." (Nob~ S~ Ba,~k v. HxskelI, 219 U. S. !04, 575.) Acthtg in accordance with thee general principl~ courts ou ~he whole have been consistcutly and ~nsibly progressive in adjusting the use of land in thicMy popu- lated ~stricts to the necessities and coa~tions created by congested agd complex conditio~xs by upholding ~ a constitutional exercise of She police power zoning or,Dances p~sed ~der State authority to re,ate the use of land in urban districts. What was once a nmtt.er of volunta~ sub~ssion to restrictive covenants iu graDts has become a matter of compulsory ob~ience to ordiDances having the force of'statutes. It has come about that 40 State haoe passed laws authorizbtg zoning ordinances which in one form and another had, in January, 1925, been adopted by 320 municipalities. CommeDci~, gezterally spea~ng, where restrictive covenants co~ ~monly stopped,'~th the exclusion ~rom residential districts of factories and business b~ldings, these regulatio~ have developed april as in the present c~e they create r~iden- tint ~stricts i%~ a h~rge se~e ~mited to private dwellings ~ ~stin~fished from hotels and apartment house. Thus f~ they have been ~ustaiaed as t)eb~ co~ducive to ~-~[ATTER OF WULFSOHN ~,. BURDEN. · [241 1'4. y, 2881 Opin/on, per ttmCOCK, Ch, J. INov., public health, safety and morals. With few exceptions courts have not been ready to say that they might be sustained merely because they preserved the testhetic %ppearance of a private residential district and prevented it from berg blotched by the erection of some incon- gruous structure whereby the value o~ all n~ghboring vroperty was - ~ ~ed. The Supreme Co~ of the United States has, however, gone so far as to approve in substance the views of the Massach~etts Supreme ~ourt that ~sthetic cons]deraiions ~ght be considered as am~liary of what lhus far have been regarded by the co,is as more effective and su~cien~ reasons. (We~h v. Su,~ey, 193 ~Iass. 364; Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 9I, !98.) In attempting ~o apply a~ of these or~eipl~ ~ the present case we d~m it ~ecess~y 'to resider proposition tha~ zo~_ng authorities may establish re~- d, +:, ' ~ms com'~ hks so de~tely approved ~ha~ p[oposition that we may ~ake its decision as a po.mt m the consideration of the further ouestio~ now before us.~,(Linc°ln 2'ru,¥t Co. v. Willia~ Bldg. Corp., 229 N. Y. 3~3.) ' · Having the power as we thus assume ~o establish residential dis;fiefs it seems to us that the zoni~ anthori- ,s of Moun~ Vernon. had the power ~o m&e such classifi- really er%etive by adopting such re~lations as ;omd be eondue..ve ~o the welfare, heakh and safe[y of ghose desk/rig to live in such a dis~rie~ and enjoy ~he benefits lhereof as. we ordinarily conceive [hem. Outside of large ci~ies where more or less congestion inevitable, we or~narily t~nk of a resident/al district as devoted to private hemes ra~her than to ' ' buildings..Such was apparently the character of the terrkory here involved before the zo~ng re~ations were adopted. The primary pu~ose of such a ~stric~ is safe, hea!tifful and co~ortable fanfi!y life rather O~an de;'e!o?~en~ o[ commercial instincts and the pursuk of MATTER OF WULFSOHN v. BUaDtIN. ,301 Opinion, per Hmcoc~, Cit. J. I241 N. Y. 288] pecuniary profits. Such life goes on by night as well as by day. It includes children as well as people of mature judgment and is housed in buihlings which are not ordinarily of that character most designed to resist conflagrations and l(~cated where fire protection is scantier and less effective than it would be elsewhere. (Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 91, 107.) Therefore it seems to us quite in accordance with tim decisions and principles t~ which we have referred that zoning authorities should have the right in a residential district to promote these purposes and to protect the people desiring ~o enjoy these conditions by exchiding big apartment houses like the one proposed by appellant whereby the enjoyment of light and air by adjoining property ~vould be impaired, the congestion ~md of traffic be augmented on stre~s wheri~ children ~ and the dangers of disease and fires would be incret~sed to say nothing of other ttfings such as the destruc[ion of the character of the district as a residential one and the impairment in value of property ah'eady devoted to private residences. · This view has been taken by the courts of several States and to it we give our adhereuce, notwithstanding the fact that courts of other States have decided otherwise. (Matter of Opinion of Just&e~k 234 Mass. 597; Brett v. Building Corotar., 250 Mass. 73; b'pecter v. Building Inspector, 250 Mass. 63; State ex tel. Beery v. Hc~aghb)n, [Mi~m. Sup. Ct.] 204 N. W. Rep. 569; Towa of Wi, ds¢rr v. Whitney, 95 Conn. 357; City of Des Moi~ves v. Manhattar~ Oil Co., 193 Ia. 1096; Miller v. Board of Pub. Works, [Cal. Sup. Ct.] 234 Pac. Rep. 381; West v. City of Wichita, [Kau. Sup. Ct.] 234 Pac. Rep. 978; Kahn Bros. v. Younq- stown, 25 Ohio N. P. IN. S.] 2; State ex tel. Carter v. Harper, 182 Wis. 148; State ex rel. Civello v. City of New Or/eans, 154 La. Ann. 271.) In addition we think that this view was im~lied!y adopted in the case of Peopb~ ex rel. Rosevale Realty Co., Inc., .v. Kl¢inert (237 N. Y. 580), 302 ~ATTER OF WULF$OHN V. BURDEN. ~241 N. ¥. 288] Opinion, per YImcocK, Ch. J. [Nov., decided by this court without opinion and wherein a writ er error was dismissed by the United States Supreme Court by decision rendered June 8, 1925. It is not an effective ar~mcnt against these ordinances, if otherwise valid, that they limit the use and may deprcc}ate the value of appcllanfs premises. That frequently ls ~he effect of police re~fiat, ion and the genera! welfare of ~he public is superior iu im}~ortance the pecuniary profits of thc indi~duaL (Specter v. ding Inspector, 250 Mass. 63, 70.) But even if it should be thooght lhat zoning authoriti~ would nog have the right to protect the health, safety and welfare of those desirh~g to live in a residentia! district by excluding apartment houses and which power of exe!usion if possessed would give the right to restriction, ;~ seems ~ us quite clear tha~ they have the right to re~xlahe the construction of apar[ment houses as bas been done by the zoning reguMtions now presented to ns for consideration. These regula~ions restrict the height or an apartment house and prescribe ~he opeh area which shall surround l~. ~t is to be borne in ~niud that there ~s nothing otherwise restricting the size o~' such a building. While in the present ease the desire to erect one on a lot of somewhat lh~ted ~menslons is no legal or practical bar which would preveut a person from combining two or three lots aud putting up s.n apartment house much larger than the one which appellant desires to erect. The zoning authorities had the right to cousider the d~ercnt possibilities of apartment house construction and make general rules which would govern them. When we consider this we do not t!duk the restr~ctlons which have been adopted can be said as ma~ter of !aw to be so um'easonable that they exceed the limits of discretion reposed in the zo~ng com~ssion and apl~roved by the court bebw. AJI of the reasom which we have given tending ~ sust:fin the authority of the zoning conmssion to exclude apartment houses 1925.1 MAT'rER OF WULFSOHN V. BURDEN. ~ ,Opinion, per Hmcocs:, Ch. J. [241 N. Y. 288} from such a residential district apply with even ~n.re force to the restrictive prqvisions regulating height and air space. The open spaces not only tend to nfinimize the danger of fire to adjoiai~kg buildings and thus a spreading cmfflagration, but they also afford a greater opportunity for access by fire departments to a burning building and thus increase the possibility of successfully stopping a conflagration before it spreads to other buildings. So much for the substantial question involved and we then come to certain subordinate chdms made hy appellant. Because the provisions permitting the erection of apart- ment houses provide in ~ubstance that there shall be no display of advertising visible from any street, the argu- ment is made that the zoning regulations are based upon. ~esthetic considerations and, therefore, not sustainable. Jif we are right that the erection of apartment hou~ses might be altogether prohibited it might at least be argu~,,d that as a condition of permitting their erectkm the restriction in question nfight be imposed. But the restriction of advertising matter referred to in this case is a minor incident; the main regulatkms are of height and of open spaces and these provisions are riot rendered invalid because consideration is given to appearance of buildings as a nfinor and auxiliary reason. (Welch v. Swasey, supra.) Appellant complains that the regulations for set-hacks are unreasonable because they do not graduate suc. h set-backs to the size of the building but require the same area for a small as for a large building. Such an ment is not available to him. The only que~stion which he is entitled to argue is that these set-backs are unreasm- able in the case of a building four and tive stories high and designed to ~ccommodate nearly 600 peopie. It will be time enough'tp consider whether they should not lie reduced in the case of a smaller building when somebody ~/~ATTER OF WULFSOHN V. BURDEN. [241 N. y. 288] Opinion, per }I~scocK, Ch. J. [Nov., desiring to erect such smaller building complains of them as unreasonable. Then it seems to be urgent that an arbitrary discrhni- nation is displayed in the matter of set~backs and rear yards between ~partment houses and other buildings, all located in thc same district. When we keeo iD mind that while apartment houses may be constr~ctcd with a height of five stories in A residential districts while other burial,rigs are restricted to a height of two and on+hal!' s~ories and th:,~t all non-residential buildings other th:m apartment houses and hotei~ are su[,ject to reg~ations callMg for open rear yards and sea-backs of some extent, we thLnk that it ca~ot be said ~ matter of ~aw t;~at the zonLng authoi'ities acted arbitrar~y ~ n~akM.g the d~'erentiation which they did betw~n ap:~rtment houses and other buildin~ permitted in both A and B residential districts. An examination of the zoning regul:~tions shows that the other buildings per- nfitted in A residential. ~stricts other than onmfa~n~y residences are of such an entirely ~erent character th:m a ~arge apartment house tha~ it is obvious that di!}'erent reg~ations might proper~y be prescribed for ~ the others. This particular proposition of appeliant's is ,resented for }tim most favorably by the provisioaa the erection in B residcntai d~tricts ol hospitals a.nd sanitariums for non-cont~gious ~seases, dispe~aries and charitable institutions except correctional institu- tions, and public and semi-public buildings. We think, however, that in the case of these buiJdinLm there w~ a c!e:~r basis for d~erence i~. regulations. Their. height was very !~mited, the erection of these insti~tut~onal buildings we know, as a matter of common obeervation, wonld b~ l~ited, the observation and watchfulness for . contagious ~seases wou~d~ be much greater and more wstematjc than in an. apartment house separated into the occupation of many dLfferent families, and the '?obabi~ty of fire Jm one of these Mstitut~ons or ~ a MA,I~ER OF WULFSOHN ~. BURDEN. ~0~ 1925.] Opinion, per H~scoc~(, Ch. J. [241 N. Y. 288} public building usually not occupied at night would be much less than in a building which was subject to accidents arising from the carelessness of any one of a great number of people and not apt to be detected by any systematic watchfulness. In conclusion it is to be kept in mind that appellant's proposed building violates three different regulations- the one providing for open back yards, for set-backs of 50 feet in A residential districts and of 25 feet in B residential districts. In our opinion these provisions are so distinct and severable that one regulation might survive even though others did not. Therefore, appellant can only succeed by establishing as matter of law that each of these regulations is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to be invalid. It would not be enough for hbn to establish for instance that a set-back of 50 feet on a large apart- ment house such as he proposes to erect is arbitrary and~ unreasonable, but he must go farther add establish that a set-back even Of 25 feet is invalid because of its arbitrary and unreasonable character. If we have been right in our reasoning it cannot be held as matter of law that any of these regulations ~re so arbitrary and unreaeen- able as to be invalid. But certainly it seenm to us that a requlremen~ of 25 feet of open space between an apartment house such as the one proposext and adjuining property cannot be said to be an um'easonable protection against some of the dangers! to which we have referred. Therefore, for these reasons, we are led to the clusion that the order should be aflh'mcd, with costs, and appeliant's application denied. CARDOZO, POUND~ McLAuGHLIN, CRANE, ANDREWS and LEHMAN, JJ., concur. Order ai~rmed. 2O 126 [255 N. Y. 126! State ~ ent of ca ~. {Jail, ]VI*AT'!'ER OF !{ICEI) t'. BI). oF STANI)AltDS ti' .'\PrEALs. In the Mgttcr of LxNSXr~(~ P. ]~EED Ct gl., Appellgnt:h t~gainst THE ~O~tD OF 8T~NDA~)S AND APPEA~q OF · ~ C~ OF Nsw Yo~ et ~., Rcspo~dcnts, ~d ~'ILTHAN ~E~TY CORPORATION~ Respondent. Now York city--mu~cip~ co~oratio~zo~ng law~ application go erect theatre on plot of land p~g of w~ch extended into residence district--Board of 3tand~ and AppoMs nog deprived of ja~sdic~io~ by its prior de~ of may be made to meet a specific case under eection 7 (c) of rost~cted ~st~ct ~ procood~g under s~tion 7 (c) -- question ~--~ jurisdiction ~d g~ero is e~.dence to suppo~ its decision. 2. A conVert,ion tha~ the lk}ard of Standards ami Appeals of tho in~o a residence dist:~ct, for d~c remwn that it had prex ionsb, denied an app]ica¢on upon the mine state of i'~s, cannot bt, sustained, MATURER OF REED V. BI). OF STANDARDS & APPEALS. ] 27 I9~ ,.]~.~ Statement of case. [255 N. Y. 126] j,rbdiotional p~wers by denying the applie~tion ~nd w~iting until proper plans we~ sub~tted on a now appH~tion. 3. Under ~tion 7 (c) of tbe Building Zone Re~lutioa of th~ oity of New York, authofiz~ tho B~d of Standards and Ap~s, in aiq)~pda~ ~s, ~r pubRo noti~ and hearing, ~ "~rnfit the ex~nsmn of an o~st~ or pro~ building in~, a more m~tric~d dis[riot under m~eh ~nditions ~ ~ m~oguard tho oh~r of tbe more ~sthc~ ~st~ot," a v~tioa m~y l~ m~o to m~t a s~lflo ~ in order ~ enable ~o o~er ~ make a ~nablo ami ~ofltab[e u~ of ~s pm~y, ff it c~ ~ done without violen~ to th* general zo~ng plan and without oau~ subst~ti~ ~convonien~ ~ tho imm(x~ate neigh~rh~. 4. ~tion 21 pm~&~ t~t a v~atlon may be allow~ whom it is shown that ~e ~g out of tho strict let~r of the ~dution would result in "p~tic~ ~culties or unn~ tmrdzhi~,' is au inde~ndent p~vi~on and ~0 r~e, appli~blo thereto, ~t tho Board may not ~nsider the ~v~t~e of a s~lo pro~rty owner whether the pro~rty is more suitah[e for a forbidden use th~n for a ~rmitted one, d~s not apply ~ an appli~tion m~e under ~tion 7 An argument, therefore, that tho premiss in question may bo us~ for other pur~s ~ ~vant~o is i~clvvant. 5. To enable the Bo~d ~ prod undur ~tion 7 (e) two mentM 'consideratio~ must prev~l. The goner~ pur~ of the zoning resolution must ~ ms~d and tho mom rostheh~d district question on review is whether its ~tioa is uujustiflmbh~ ~ m~tt~r of 6. In this prig, u~n e~mination of tbe n~eord, it supl~rt it. Aa it ~t~ wit~ its jumdiction, its de~rnli~t~n, therefore, cannot ~ ~t ~ide. Natt,~ o~ Reed v. Board ~ S~dard~ & Appeals, ~ App. Div. 21, a~irmed. (Argued December 4, 1930; decided January 6, 1931.) APPEAL from aa order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first iudicial department, entered June 13, 1930, which affirmed an order of ~peclal Term 128 MaTTeR or REr. n v. Bu. or S~'*~u~ums & ArrE,tt~s. [255 N. Y. 126] Points of eouusel. [Jan., comqrming on certiorari a detm'mh~ation of the Board of Standards and Appeals of the city of New 't~ork. Lawrence R. Condon for appe!lants. The motion being one to qua.~h the petitiou, all of its a!Icg:,~tions must be deemed to be true. The petkion is clcarIy su~cien~ ~ a mat~er of ~w. ~(People ex tel. Erie R. R. Co. v. Tax Com~ ~246 N. Y. 3225 People e.c tel. Poor v. O'Don~l~I39 App. Div. g3~90 N. Y. 519; People ex re~onncll v. Board of Assessors, 109 N*. Y. Supp. 99!;~2,' App. Div. 85I; I93 N. Y. 2,t~; ~lltlllec (~ (.'tJly of New York v. Nidceo~, 1!1 ~!lsc. I~ep. 244; People v~ New York Assessors, ~()9 N. Y. Supp. 99L) The 13oard of Standards and Al)peals had no right, power or ~mthority either ~o cn~crtain or to grant the applica~ion of the Wikhan ReMty Corporation, in ~he 1]gh~ of its deni~ of a prior similar ~pp!ica~ion. (People ex tel. 3{cGa~y v. !Va!sb, 2!3 :kpp. !)iv. 2$9; Pc,pie ex rel. Swed/M~ HVSldlal v. Leo, ~20 5Nsc. Rep. 355:2~5 App. Div. 696; Matter of Riker v. WaLe'h, 225 App. Div. 570; Matte¢ of Hall v. WaSh, 221 App. Div. 756; Malter ~ Ricer,side St. Clair Corporation v. ~volsb, 131 ~[ksc. ~cI). 652; 231"- X. Y. ~upp. S70.) Thc ~goard of Standards and Appeals w~ .wit.hou~ power or jm'isdic~ion ~o vary the applica- tion of the use district regulations under section 7 (c) of the Btxild%g Zone l~esolution alone, there being no evidence of practical difficulties or mmecessary }~ardships, and no evidence of any unusmd condition or emergency w~- r~tk~g the variation of the provisions of the Building Zone 5~esolution. (People ex rel. Sheldon v. I}oard e~ Standards & Appeals, 234 N. Y. 484; People ex rel. W~r v. Wa&'h, 212 App. Div. 640; 240 X. Y. 689; .~al~r of Sloa~,~ v. lVala.]l, 2t5 X. Y. 208; People ex tel. F~dlam 2a/Ianor Riformed Church v. Walsh, 244 N. Y. 2~0; People ex tel Facey v. Lc% II. 0 ~{isc. ~ep. 516; 230 '~*. Y. 602; 2lIalfer vf ]~vcr.s;dc ,~1. Clair Corp. v. '~'o~h, 131 ~e. i¢,ep. 652; 225 App. Div. 9~5.) Tho MATTER OF REEp V. BD. OF ~ANI)ARI~ & APPEALtL 129 1931.} Points of oommol. [255 N. Y. 1201 Board of Standards and APl/eals bad no right, on the merits, to grant the applicatioff, 'and in so doing the Board of Standards and Appeals abused it~ discretion and acted illegally, arbitrarily and capriciously, and it~ decision was wholly unsupported by the evidence. (Matter of Stillman, 222 App. Div. 19; 247 N. Y. 699; Matter of 4672 Broadway Corp. v. Board of Sta~utards & Appeals, 225 App. Div. 97; 250 N. Y. 571.) Arthur J. W. Hilly, Corporation Counsel (J. Joseph Lilly, Henry J. Shields and William 3'. Kennedy of cou~sel), for Board of Standards and Appeals, respondent. Thc controverted allegations of the petitioa may not be deemed to be true. (Bernstein v. Kritzer, 253 N. Y. 410; National Cash Ilegist~ .Cc. v. Remingbm Arn~s Co., 242 N. Y. 99; Newburger v. American Surety Co., 242 N. Y. 134; Schieffelin v. Itylan, 229 N. Y. 633; N. Y. Const. art. 6, § 7; Civ. Pr. Act, §§ 584, 589, subd. 2, ~304; People ex tel. I4. I. R. R. Co. v. 7'ax C~rmmra., 231 N. Y. 221; People ex tel. Colgate Inn, Inc., v. Assessors, !32 Misc. Rep. 506; Peopk ex tel. Fardham M. R. Church v. Walsh, 244 I~. Y. 280; People ex tel. Weraer v. Walsh, 212 App. Div. 635; 240 N. 3/. 689; Prendergast v. New York Tel. Co., 262 U. S. 43.) The Board of Standards and Appeals had ju~sdiction of the subject-matter of the deter- mination. (Civ. Pr. Act, § 1304, subd. 1.) No mile of law affecting the rights of the parties was violated to the preju~ dice of the appellants, in the making, by the Board of Standards and Appeals, of the determination. (Seattle Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U. S. 116; Euclid v. Ambl,~' Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365; MoJger of Wo(fsohn v. Burden, 241 N. Y. 288; Matter oflsenbarth v. Bartneg, 206 App. Div. 546; 237 N. Y. 617; City of Utica v. Hanna, 202 App. Div. 610; People ex tel. Reinert v. Miller, 188 App. Div. 113; Nectow v. Cambridqe, 277 U.S. 183; People ex tel. B~inert v. Waksh, I88 App. Div. 113; Matter of Collins v. Wal~h, 253 N. Y. 594; 254 iff. Y. 46; ,People ex tel. Hotchkiss v. 9 739 _qN]~.A'PTER OF i~EED V. BI). OF STANDARDS & APPEALS. [255 N. Y. 126] Points of ¢oaasek [Jam, Supervisors, 65 N. ¥. 222; Matter of Equitabh'~ Trust Co. v. Hamilton, 226 N. ¥. 241; People ex tel. Ortenberg v. Bales, 224 App. Div. 87; 250 N. Y. 59~; Pc,pie ex rel. Facey v. Leo, 230 N. Y. 602; Peop~ ex rel. Heh~etia Realty Co. v. Leo, 23~ N. Y. 619; People ex rel. Sheldor~ v. Board of Appeals, 234 N. Y. 4~; Peopk ex rel. We~ec v. IValsh, 212 App. ~v. 635; 240 N. Y. 689; Goldcnbc~g v. Walsh, 2~ N. Y. 575; Mater of Sloa~ v. Walsh, 245 N. Y. 20S; Matt~ of Wilk~ns v. WaSh, 225 App. Div. 774; 25[ N. Y. 5~8.) The ~c~s ne~ss~y ~ bc pcoved ~ order to ~uthorizc ~hc ma~ng of thc d~rmina~inn were amply es~t;b~ishcd by compc;en~ proof. (Matter ,,f l'las.~ v. C. N. E. Ry. Co., 226 N. Y. 449; Salvin v. My&s Real(ti Co., 227 N. Y. 51; Matt~ of Woodruff v. Howes Constr. Co., 228 N. Y. 276; People ex rel. Fordham M. R. Church v. Waks,h, 244 N. Y. 280; Peop~ ex rel. Healy v. Leo, ~94 App. Div. 97.) Y/ill]am S. Andrews, Nathan Burkan, Wilh;am Klein and Leopold Friedman for WiI~kan Re~ty Compfmy, respond- en~. ~'~egations of f~ct contorted ~n the petition ~,'c not ~dndtted. ( Peop~ ex tel. ENe Ry. Co. v. Tax Com, mis,~ioa, 246 N. Y. 322; People ex tel. Poor v. Wells, !39 App. Div. 83; Peopl~ ~ reI. Brow~ll v. Board, 127 App. Div. g51; Peopk v. French, 6 N. Y. Supp. 431 .) On the h;st appli- cation the aspects of the c~e were materially changed from ~hosc i~st p~sed ?pon. (Matter of Riversi&~, etc., C~. v. Walsh, ~31 5~sc. Rep. 652; 225 App. Div. 055; Matter of Vessel v. Wak~h, 225 App. Div. 742; Matter ~ ]fall v. WaSh, 22I App. Div. 756; Matter of Ficari v. ' Wakh, 226 App. Div. ~1; M~ter of McGa~y v. Walsh, 213 App. Div. 289; Peop~ ex rel. Swedish ltospi~l v. L~o, 120 Misc. I{cp. 355; 215 App. Div. 096; Matter of R;ker, 225 App. Div. 570.) Under section 7 (c) of the ~onh~g t{csolution the 1%ard had authoriW in its dis- crc~on to vary tM read. at]on. (People e.c tel. Ch~zcch v. Walsh, 244 N. Y. 2g'~; Peop~ ex tel. Smith v. Walsh, MATTER Or REED V. ED. OF STANDARDS & APPEAI~: 131 1931.] Opinion, ~ POUND, J. [255 N. Y. 126} 240 N. Y. 600; People ex rsl. Sheldon v. Waksh, 234 N. Y. 484.) Under section 7 (c) the Board was justified in reaci,iag its decision. (People ex tel. Church v. Walsh, 244 N. Y. 280; Matter of Larkin Co. v. Schwab, 242 N. Y. 330; People ex tel. Healy v. Walsh, 194 App. Div. 973.) POUND, J. The question is whether the Board of Standards and AppeMs of the City of New York, respond- cdt, properly granted an apphcation of Wilthan Realty Corporation intervenor¢-respomt~nt,,4or leave to erects. tla.~trc on its plot'of land Ooustitutlng the entire block h'ont on thc westerly side of Th]i'd avenue, rmudng 130 feet decI) an Seventy-second street and 133.4 feet on Seventy-first street. The proposed theatre is to have 204 fcc(, 4 inches, frontage on Third avenue, with a depth of 125 feet on Seventy-second street and 119 feet, inches on Seventy-first street. Under the Buihting Zone Resolution all property abutting on Third avenue and for 100 feet westerly on the side streets is within the business district. A portion of the prSpvsed .theatre, therefore, extends into the residence district 25 feet on Seventy- seeond street and 19 feet 8 inches on Seventy-first street. After a public hearing the application was granted under section 7 (e) of the Building Zone Resolution, which reads as folloxvs: "§ 7. U~ District Exceptions. The Boar(] of Appea]s, created by Chapter 503 of the Laws of 1916, may, in ~ppropriate cases, a~ter public notice and hearing, and subject to appropriate conditions and sa[eguards, deter~ mine and vary the application o~ the use district regnla- tim~s herein established in harmony with their genera] purpose a~d intent as follows:~ "(e) Permit the extension of an existing or proposed bu}lding i~to a more restricted district under such con- ditions as will safeguard the character of the more restricted district." MATTER OF REED V. BO. OF STANDARDS & APPEALS. N. Y. [2fil 0pinlo~a, per POUND. J. IJan., Conditions deemed suitable by the Board~ were adopted to safeguard and preserve the general character of the neighborhood and to minimize the inconvenience of having the theatre extend beyond the line of busJ~le&q This action was taken after the fair hearing to which the opposition wins entitled as matter of !aw. (People ex tel. New York dc Queens Gas Co. v. McCall, 245 U. S. 345, 348.) AAthough thc chairman of the Board displayed at times some kqxpat;.cnce towards thc counsel for the petitioner, no evidence of bias or favoritism appears on thc record. The appe~Aant ~ced, a neighboring property owner, then obtahxcd an order of certiorari to review the deter- m~atlon of the Board. Others have jokned with him as interveners. After the return had been filed to the peti- tion for the order,, a mot;_on returnable at Special Term was made on the petition, order, answer and return, for a final order "quashing .the order of certiorari issued herein, distaining the petition herein and confirming the determination of said Board of Standards and Appeals or~ the merits and for such other and furbhcr re~.icf as to the (2ourt shall seem just ahd proper." The Specie. l Term made at',. order confirming the deci- sion o{ the Board of Standards and Appeals and fur- ther ordered "that thc sal~[ certiorari order be and the same hereby is quashed and aH proceedings thereunder The appellants make the point that" thc motion being onc to quash the petition (order of certiorari), all of the allegations of the petition must be deemed to be true. The petition is clearly su~llcient as matter of law." (People ex ~ek Erie R. R. Co. v. Sto.~ T6~c Commission, 2~6 N. Y. 322.) A motion to quash is in the nature of a demurrer to the petition and is not properly made after thc return is !'i!ed. If the papers on which the order of certiorari wa~s granted arc i:-~,'u'~.!cient in '~aw upon their face, a motion MATTER OF REED V. BD. OF STANDARDS & APPE~J.8, 133 1931.] Opinion, l~er Pov~l~, J. I255 N. ¥. 1~] may be made to vacate or quash the order. The hearing at Special Term in this case was not limited to an attack on the petition. It was on the merits. Subject to certain limitations not present in this case "the return must be taken as conclusive and acted on as true." (People ex tel. Letter v. Eno, 176 N. Y. 513, 512.) The hcacing was upon the order and return and the papers upon which thc order was granted. (Civ. Prec. Act, § 1300.) The 5n~d order confirmed the determination of the Board. (Civ. Prec. Act, § 1305.) Clearly the word "quash" was inadvertently used both in the moving papers and in the order in the sen~ of tho word "vacate." Writs of certiorari are no longer granted In certiorari proceed- ings the courts formerly quashed writs where they now vacate orders. The writ nomenclature has become obsolete with the writ itself. The further point is made that tho Board hca no juris- diction to en~rtain the application because it had in July, 1927, donio~d the application of tho respondent- intervencr upon tho same state of facts and that such decision was final, and not subject to review by the Board itself. Whether or not the function of tho Board is to decide cases with f;nal~f,y on tho sallie facts once presented for its consideration, if now plans materially clqange tho aspects of the case, a now application may be made and a new determination had. (See Matter of Riker v. Boord of Standards & Appeals, 225 App. Div. 570.) The plans on which the Board passed on July 17, 1928, were not the sense as those submitted in 1927. True the Board had power in 1927 to make changes in the platm which it desired or deem~ae ~~a .dita'.~. o/ applieatlon but it did a0~!e~chaas~ ~ts jm'~dd, ctional Pcw~ by denying the applleation; !f it deemed the plans inadequate to justify favorable action thereon it might w~it until proper pla~s were submitted on a new applica- tion, or it might exercise its power to e~arge upon the plans and approve them as thus modified. ~EED ~'. B~. OF ~TANDARDS ~ ~PPEALS. Opinion, per Pou~, J. [Jan., We must assume that the new pl~s materially changed thc aspect of thc original case for they do purport to Lqtroduce numerous details which were not provided for Lq the o!SgLqat plans and which are deemed to be materiM until the contrary is dcmo~.stmted. Thc Board may "give weight to slight differences which are not d~sccrnible.' (Matter of Larkin Co. v. Schwab, 242 N. Y. 330, 330.) The chief contention of the appellant on thc merits is: "that if the premises 182 and 184 East Seventy-second street ~nd Lq3 and 185 E~t Seventy-first street are used for residence pu~oscs in conformity with thc hnprove- ments now ~ctualdy existiug, they wou!d yield a fakr return on the Luvestmcnt of thc ,npp!icmxt, and that thc event that the o~er dealed to demolish these ?em~scs, the sites upon which thc improvements now stand are most ~ckq~tcd ~o~ high chk~s ~partmcnt house pm'poses ~d not ~or any business use." tie thus sec~s to refer an application under section 7 (c) of the Building Zone gesolu~ion to the rule frequently stated where the application is made under Bu~dLqg Zone Resolution, ~,ction 2~.--that ~ to say, that thc Board m:ty not con- alder the advantage to a sh~gle prol)crty owner which wou~d come from a modkficatkon of the resolution; that whether the prope~y under consideration is more suitable for a forbidden ~c than for a pernfitted one is Lqnnatedal. (Matter of StilIman v. Board of Standar&s & Appeals, 222 App. Div. 19; affd., 247 N. Y. 599.) But sections 7 ~nd are independent provisio~ conferr~g &tinct and separate powers upon thc Bo~d. ~en thc ~ppi~catkon is made under ~c;ion 21, it must be shown that" there arc practkc~ &fftculties or ~xcce~ary hardships Lq the way of c~ry- ~g out thc strict letter of the pro~sions of this resolu- tion" w~ch j~t~y a variance ~m a spec[ftc c~sc, but the ~re fact that the property may be ?t to a more profit- amc use ~ not enough to jusUfy thc Lo~d in granting the varim~cc. If it were, the who~e scheme of thc resolution MAT'YER OF REED V. BU. O~ ~rAJ~DARDS t~ APPEALS. 135 1981.] Opinion, per Pou~t~, J. [255 N. Y. 1261 would be at the mercy of the Board. When the appli- cation is made under ~etion 7 and the appropriate sub- division thereof th~i'~ (~'{n~iry is restricted. Ij~ is not necessary to allege or prove the facts required w~ien ~he a.p~;hcat,~n m~e ~hder s' ~on 21 nor for the Board to make a decision thereon. The Board must in each case act oa eolge re~onable b~sis Lq harmony with thc general purpo~.9~_th¢ re~ol~tion. Nothing more ]~ re~5~ ~ People ex rel. Sm~h v. ~l. sh, ~11 App. Div.' 205; affd., 240 N. Y. 6~.) Under section 7 (c) the clement of "public health, safety ~nd general welfare" Ls not emphasized ~ in ~ction 2i, although it m~;y well be t~ken into consideration. The question of h~dship to thc in~viduM owner ~comes a more mate~al element in the dcterm~ation of the application. May he be ~lowcd "under such con~tio~ as will safc~ard thc character of thc more restricted district" to extend his "exktLqg or proposed building Lqto a more restricted d~tnct. Thc w~iation may bc;~nade to meet the specific case in order to enable the owner to make a re~son:~ble and profitable usc of his property if it c~m be done without violence t0 the gener~ z0n~g plan and without cansing substantial inconvenience to the immediate neighbor- hood, although the applicant h~ no right to insist upon a._decision Lq t~ favor. - A theatre ~00 feet deep would in a legal ~n~ be no Lqtrusion on the restricted district, however undesir- able it nfight be ~ a neighbor. Given the proposed extension of a legal buil~g Lq~ a more restricted ~trict, two fundamental co~ideratio~;s must prevail ~ order to enable the Board to pro,ed under section 7 (c). The general pu~ose of the zoning resolution must be respected and the more restricted d~trict must be safeguarded. It is probable, at least possible, that a theatre 150 feet deep with main exits on the streets Lq the restricted district would be, as matter of law, so out of harmouy with the general purpose of the zonLqg 136; M^T'rER OF REED V. BD. OF STANDARDS (~¢ Ae~^~. [255 N. Y. 126] Opinion, per POUND, J. [Jan., resolution as to make it impo~ible to safeguard the character of the more restricted distr~ct. If so, a decision ~ favor of the applicant might ~ he~d an arbitrary act, ~ able of d~crction. The question ~ one of degree. The 5nc m~t be dra~ somewhere. Thk c~qc may be near ~he border [~e. If the Bo~d may permit the bu[[d~g to bc crec~cd to be extended g foot or so into thc more restricted &str~ct~ it docs not follow that it may pcr~t ~he building so ~ be extended ~de~itely. Thc rule o~ re~onab!cncss mus~ be applic~ Thc Board !~'~-~5de sco~.~ thc exercise of its dbcretion whenever the dkseret~-to make Varlanees ia ~ted to it. (Mater of GoZdenbe¢'}-'}[-Wa~sh, 242 N. Y. 576; Peopte ex tel. F , or&~m ~Sf. R. Church v. k/aLqh, 2~ N. Y. 280, 289.) 5f such an appheat, lon ks denled the tuffy question for the court ~ whether the petitioner hmq been {~legalI~ oppressed. (gfatt~ of Lark~n Co. v. Schwab, supra, p. ..... ~ ~5~en the .." +' aopnca~xon ~ gr~d thc question -)ewer only ~ to be considered. Is the action of the .Board unjustifiable as matter of .aw ~cer the spemfic pr~ ws~ons of the zo~g reso~utm relied on? zk~ matter of Law it cannot be said that the action of the Board per- mitt[ag the ex~nsion of the proposed theatre h~to the more restrlcted district under section 7 (c) 2 without evidence to support R. ~ the Bos~d acted within ~ur~.sdSctlon, its de~rm~atlon is not to be set aside. The order should be a~med, with costs. Cx~oozo, Ch. J., C~xN~, L~m~, KEh~OOe, O'BRIEN Order a~rmed. BavsTE~ v.,NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY Co, 137 1031.] Si;atement of ease. [255 N. Y. 137] SA~VUEL BRUSTEIN, Respondent, v. NEW A.MSTERDA~ CAsu~vrr ~Y, AppeH~t. to person" or "perso~ ~" ~clude husb~d's lo~a of ser~ces o~ ~e ~ policy oove~ "bo~y l~u~es or d~gh" doss not include ~ ~J~ ~o pe~on ~ ~on not of ~e res~tin~ from ~ ~ her ~ policy not tnconsisteng with section ~09 of I~oe ~&w- policy must be read if it centred extended B~bfllOy clause but m~y be 1. Tho words "~ ~ ~n' include t~o hu~b~d'~ lo~s of servi~s of tho ~o ~nd no ~sti~oOon in ~s ~rd ~n between the words "~ ~ ~n" ~nd "~r~n~ ii,jury.' 2. A policy of ~bflity ~sur~ ~ve~tg ~cldonts rosultm~ ' bodily inj~ies or d.~th ' ~lnits ~o ~vor~o ~ such injures only and d~s not include ~ ~uHes ~ ~r~ or ~r~naI injuries ~ tho term is defined by ~tion 37-a of ~o Oonorsl (~o~uction (Cons. L~ws, ch. of the insilco ~w (Co~. ~ws, ch. ~) ~ r~ver from an insurer, which h~ issa~ such a ~licy, tho amount of · judgment ag~nst the insured, who w~ i~lvont, for 1~ of ~ioes, resulti~ from injures ~ the platte's ~o ~ ~ &u~mobfle ~ident, ~ion~ t~ough tho nog~ge~ ~ ~e ]~d. Tho hushed r~eived "bm~[y injures" from tho M~ of Ms ~fo's 4. A contention t~t the pokey ~ ~nsistent with tho ~qu~ taunts of ~tion 1~ ~d t~t it must bo deem~, by operatio~ of law, ~ include ~ provision insu~ the owner ~ainst liability for death or injuries t~ ~n or pro~y without limitation or qu~ifle~ tion, ~ ~ ~ ~ver pl~nt~'s o~u~ of ~tton fo~ lose of ~rviees of his or in its ~s~ for such · ~ncIu~on. tn t[to ah~aoo of s dir~ ~ast ~ such iaj~os, ~ ~ble ~netraotion of the st~tu~ that tho ~ey must ~ r~ ~ ff it oontMn~l aa extended ~abllity cl~u~, but ~t it ~y ~ M~t~ ~ mount and cov~r~ ~ tho Brus~n v. Ne~ Ams[~am Casualt~ Co., 2~ App. Div. 716, myer. (Argued Novem~r 25, 19~; d~i~d J~u~y 6, 1931.) MA.i~r~R OF VAN A~N v. Kral~g¥. 8uprome Court, December, 1930. Wll~rs there is no board of appeals, instances are' sure' to' arise which the 0curls must under the law declare unreasonable and arbitrary and, therefore, Void." With a properly cor~stituted board of appeals, the questions here presented could have been ironed out and a solution reached which, l~{isc. 117] Sapreme Court, July, 193i. He further alleges ~hat the building code anct zoning ordinance were not. legally adopted. It is too late now to question generally the constit,,.tionality cf properly adopted zoning ordinances. While in general d~e ordi- if nndue hardship existed, would tend to relieve the extremes thereof, be ' , Zoning ordinances are not intended to be and cannot long con- tkrtt~ ~ be. mere straitjackeka to be appned and held rigid b bur~i~uerat~e authority. The letter of the ordinance muSS ~jeld, il:t~l;ane~ of extreme hardship, and aceordin~ltO j tr/s~ssible grewth and development. Prope y v ~ontng ordinances do not destroy but add to values; arbitrarily x,.~ay be constRutional and a proper exercise of mur, icipai t they may in their app]icafinn to a pm'ticuhu' situation i,~;rary and unre,sonablc and work an undue hardship to an aal, to such afl extent that they may be, in fneir application cticular situation, not within thc police powers of ;he munici- and may operate to deprive a citizen of co~.stitutiona~ rights ~ect to the use and occupancy of his property. Whether th~s or not depends upon questions of fact applicable to a nistered or adopted, without regard to the proper limits of power, they become instrument.s of hardship and of tyranny Whioh can only be relieved by multitudinous applications to the eonrt. The final de~rminafion of the proper application of the rules as adopted ought not to be left. to the final determination of'an administrative officer, but a citizen aggrieved should have opportunity to appeal to g quasi-judicial body with power to uiew and study the situation, whose deterwination, in the absence of b~l faith or abuse of discretion, would rarely be disturbed upon r~View by a court. ]'n view of the circumstances, the application for an order of peremptory mandamus must be denied, for the reason that. the facts necessary to determine whether mandamus should iss~le are not sl~iently ~fore the court, q he petitioner in this event asks for ~al~ffit~rnative mandamus order. particular situation. While I f6~l that an order of t~remptory mandamus cannot ~ssue, i think thc situation is such that an alternative mandamu~ order should issue, to the end that the fact.s may be fully prescnte.; and, with ail the facts and circumstances before the court, it may be in position to psss upon the qncstions raised in the paperb sub- mitted on this appiic:i~ ion. Le; an alternative mandamus order issue, the form of which may he agreed upon by ihe parties, aad, ff not agreed upon, may be settled upon two days' notice. Ordered accordingly. In the Matter of. the Application of H~:N~¥ J. V~- A~x~x, Petitioner, for an Order of ~iandamus against ~A~;~ 13. The papers submitted upon the application consist of the petition, 'tl~ answer of the respondents, thc petitioneFs reply to s~uch answer, a~e pe~ply of the respondents t~ such reply. titioner alleges that the statutes of the State of New York, ]~[IMMEY, aS Snperinmndcnt of the Bureau of ~uilding of the City of Syracuse; W. W. WIAXD, aa Commissioner of ~biic Safety o~ tim (:ily of Syracuse, ami ~}OI,LANn ~. ~}~tViN, aB Mayor Of the City of Syracuse, ~4esponden~s. tho provisions of the charter of the city of Syracuse providing for 'the eit. y planning commission, the action taken by the city planning commission on June 10, 1925, as aforesaid, the action of the common council of the city of Syracuse on pr_about April 23, 1930, and the adopting of the building code for the city of Syracuse, arc invalid anti ineffective as against, the petitioner and in violation of ~etion 6 of article I of the Constitution of the State of New York and/or of the.Fifth and Fourth-ruth Amendments to the Cbnstitution of the United States, in that, in their operation they deprive the pe*itioner of his property without, due process of law. Thers are other allegatim~s in respect to questions of constitutional but~ th law involved, ,~ foregoing are sufficient to show that the p~itioner has raised questions of consl~itutionai right. Supreme Court, Ononda4ra County, July 27, 1931. 118 MAuu'~2 OF VAN AUKEN V. _KEY. Supreme Court, July, 1931. [VoL 141 et Syra0use, it mppeats thftt the order was made subsequent to the r~l~ssiiic~ p~ov~io~s estab~s~ s~ed "se~b~k ~" ~s ~ the strut on ~v~ch Tim ~wcr W estabhsh set b~k hues, ff any, d~ not ~se out of the ~wer om~t zo~ ordinances, for "zo~" means "dist~et~n~," and the ~ishi~ 0f" set-brink hues" is no p~t of "z~ning." The autbo~ty to establish ,, ~,t. baek lines" is in subdi~sion 24 of s~tkm 20 of tho (,(nora~ (bt,y l~w Since it does not appe~ that the "se~b~k hue" pro~sior~ of the ordin~me v~i~ace or re~ew, i~ must be held tlmt they ~e invalid. At ~he time the zo~dng ordinances b¢¢~[me effective, l~%itbmer had undisputed figh; W mMntain his gf;r~ge and gasoline stt~tion, business m the buihlings they th0n e~.sted, but the or~n~ d~s not pern2t the extension of a business by ~ay of new eonstructkon and use beyond ~he uso o~ tho pra~rty tm it existed at the ~ime of tho es;~b[ishm(mt of the dist~et in wkieh th{ property is Sb~(~ ~he petkt[oner is not being ~a~dered with in the use :[~[d occupancy of propcr~y :~s it exNted a~ tho time when ~he distdct was converted into ~PLICATION for an order o~ mndmm. Costel~o, Coon~z & Fear~, ~or the petitioner. Frank P. 2dalpass, Corporatim* Counsel, for Waiter B. Kbnmey, ms superintendent of ~he bureau of btd~ding: W. W. Wiand, commkssioner of public safe~y, ~d RoRand B. Marvin, as mayor of ;hec~y" of Syracuse. Sl~ap~o & Markowitz, for intervening respondents. S~T~r, E. N., J. I 5nd no reason to alter thc views expressed ~hc memorandum made at the time or gratt~ing t;n :dtcrnt;tive order of mandamus, ~ so far as ~hose views were rch%cd to thc effect o~ t~e ~rovisions of the ordina~ce as to set-back Unes. (See, also, !4[ Mbsc. 105.) JZeference is here m:~de to ~h:~t memorandum, which is made in so far a part hcreof. ! will, however, cmph:tsize thc views t[lerein expressed., to the effect :hat the power to est~tbbsh so~abeu sol-back hues, g any, does not arise out of thc power to en~t zonNg ordnances. "ZonNg" me~s "dNtricting," and the Misc. lt7] lVf~.x,~,=s~ oI~ Va_Iq AVKEN V. K~Y. 119 ~ ~ Supreme Co~, July, 1931. establishing of set-back lines is no part of" zoning." The authority to establish "set-back lines" finds its origin in subdivision 24 of section 20 of the General City Law (added by l,aws of 1913, chap. 483, as amd. by Laws of 1_925, chap. 394)· This provision has been quoted in the memorandum heretofore filed herein. So far as municipel power exists to establish set-back fines, within the tin,its of constitutional provisions protecting the rights of priwtte property, this power ~nnst be derived from the police power and be related to considerations of public health and public safety and general welfare. Section 20, subdivision 24, declares this base when it states:",q~ uen" regulations shall be designed to secure safety from fire and other dangers and to promote pub!lo health and welfare, including, so far as conditions may permit, provision for adequate light, air and couvenieuec of access, and shall be made with reasonable regard to the character of buildings erected in each district, the value of land and the use to which it may be nut to the end that such regulations may promote public heal~, safety and welfare and tbs most desirable use for which the land of each district may be adapted and may tend to conserve the value of bui!dinl~; and enhance the value of land tkroughout the city." The courts went a long way in extending the application of the police power so as to .include "zoning" within its seope. Con- ditions of life in cities rather compelled an exte~sion of former concepts of the police power. The courts however, have been careful to limit the scope of zoning ordimmces: they must be adopted, if to be sustained, in accordance with a well-considered and eom- prehensive plan, general in its application, and be largely based upon the proposition that upon proper application there would be no real damage caused to the individual property owner. Yarianccs may be allowed in cases of undue hardship. Arbitrariness is overcome by the setting up o~ boards of appeal- excepting in Syrac~rse, N. Y., which has no such board. The "set-back line" provisions, however, do not relate to the character of use to which property inay be put. They have be(~ome necessary largely because of the growth in the height of buihhngs, the effect of which was to shut out light and air and to create an incre~t~sc of fire hazards. '£be fact that they may operate to improve the appearance of a street from an aesthetic standpoint ks an incident and not a purpose. The question is, in every effort to establi,sh so-called "set-back lines," whether that effort is motivated by considerations of public health, of punic safety, of general welfare. Side bu.'riding lines and location of buildings in relation to the rear arc quite as, ff not more, ixnpertant from the~ standpoints. tt is quite evident that the so<ailed "set-back line" provisions Supreme Court, July, 1[)31. [VoL 141 o£ thc ord~lance of thc city of Syracuse were not enacted wit.~ regard to these questions of public health, safety and general welfare, because no general rule can be adopted which opera.s ~ike ~ respect to health, safety and general welfare h~ a particular ioc~dity; nor do they follow thc legislative authority. Widt}m of streets vary; heights of buildings wu'y; cm{ditkms of structures vary. The fact that one district nmy be classified as "A-~esidenti~" and another district as "B-Residential" would no~ authorize thc establishing of a twdnty-foo; set-back line Lq one bis~ance and a len-foo~ sea-back line ht another, based upon con- siderations of pub'ic health and safeW or of subdivision 24 of section 20 of the General Ckty Law. Moreover, the provisions are arbitrary, hx tha~ there k given no opportunRy for variance or for rev}.ew. In expressing ~hc foregoing views thc case of Go~eb v. Fez (274 L~. S. 603) h~.~ not been overlooked. Thc views here expressed are not out of harmo~!y wRh ~hc opinion in that c~e, when properly read. So that, if thk were aH there w~ involved h~ the instant c~e, ~hcrc would be no hesitation in granting the order of mandamus. In other words, the views expressed in tho memorandum already filed }rove not been altered bu~ have been strengthened by further consideratiolx of the subject. The peremptory order of mandamus was no~ granted because of the view expressed in that mcmorandmn, as follows: "It rcma~ % be considered whether or not, where a property has been used [n part for busiuess purposes prior to the establ~shment of thc block h~ which it Ls located as a B-residential district, the structm'es may be e~argcd after *he establi~ment cf the residential district so as ~ occupy more of the land for a then ~rohibited business purpose than was occupied by the origin~ structure." I~ was to a~ow for an cxanfination of this question, to~ct}xer with thc further qucs;km as to whether in ~h~s particular ~nstance such a ha'dship wt~ being worked upon the pctRioner that hks const[tutional rights to property had been invaded that thc alternative order was granted. A~ the ~ime w}mn thc zoning ord.~axces went into effect ~ the city of Syrac~e, thc pe~Rioner ~d the undisputed right to ma~tain ?tis b~sincss in thc buildings as ~hey ~bcn existed. The question !eft open was whether or not thc structm~ ceu!d be enlarged and ~he bqsiness ex~cndcd, and as to what power ~herc was in the city gove:my.~ent., under ~,hc ordinances as they existed, in reference [to ~he sRva~ion which arkscs fi'om ~he purpose of Lhe petitioner to enlarge his buildings. There is no wa'rant in ~he faef~s of this case for ~he revocatkm of the pormi~ ~an~d by the supcrb~endent of the bureau of building to the pcli;iom~r to enku'ge his buildk~gs, provideC tha~ at the t~e when the per~ w~ ~'~d he had the l~ATTER OF VAN Aurm,w v. K~mvmv. 121 Misc. 117I Supreme Court, July, 1931. power to ~ant it, becattse the conditions which under the pro- visions of the building code authorize the revocation of a permit once granted did not exist. So the inquiry here must be addressed to thc question mq to whether or not the superiutendcnt of the bureau of building had thc power ~ the lir~t into,anco to ~'aut the permit. Thc municipal authorities could have provided, by suitable ordi- nance, for a tolerance or variance in respect to the matter, so as avoid uunecessary hardship upon an owucr. The zoning ordinance of the city recognizes the right m continue a business in existence at the time when a district is changed in its cl~sification kern a business W a residenfiM district; the busina~ nmy continue, may dew,lop, may M~emm, within the structures then in existence. As thc business grows, and if it grows beyond thc capacity of exist~g structures, may those then there be enhu'gcd, and may more area bc occupied by new buddings, in order ~ a'.eommodate the b~cre~; or docs the changing of the district from business m residentiM end additiunM construction? Three of the provisions of the zoning ordh~ance bearing upon this question have ah'eady been quoted in the memorandum made upon the granting of the akcruative order of mandamus: They a,'e Art/cle V.4.2, ~tiete V.4.3 and Article V4. There is a fourth provision, which rea&: "Article 5.4.7. ConditionM ~. ~en ~ i~ jud~ent tho public convenience and we~are will be substantially ~rve{l or appropria~ ~se of neighboring property will not be substantially or permanently b~jured, the Plannh~g, Pm'ks and Recreation Cern- mission may, with the approval of the Common Council, in a specific c,;sc, authorize a conditional usc in a district wherein such ~me is prohibited. The conditions sh:dl be specified in writing in the permit and sh~l in no way be construed as allowing the property any other usc than the spccitkc usc for which the permit ~ issued." These arc the only provisions in the zoning ordinauee which gowq'n the questiou of variance, and have no rotation to the questio~m which ari~ here~. If, therefore, as a matter of law, thc ~wer to extend a nsc at the t~e authorized by way of enlargement of building structures on additionM area for a pm'pose prohibited wit~ a r~identi~ '~triot ~d not ~t, then ~e ~t wmq kqsued without authority and w~ void. ~at ~he proposes t~ do ~s ~ extend hkq b~iness by way of and the use and ~occup~cy of it beyond the n~ of the prot~rty ;~ it cxis~<~,~ at the time of the establishmei~t of the district in wtfich thc premises of the ~titioner are located as a B-residential district. As has ah'eady been intimated, there should bc provision for vt;riance or tolerance in c~es where undue hardship may be worked m,,n an h~di~dmd by reaaen of the generM omration of a' Supreme Court, July, !921. [Vol. 141 nd the action of the superintendent of buildings in such instances :hould be subject to review by a properly constituted board of t:ocal, to the end that arb;.trary action or mere politics! influence ?~[ucing such action may not bc contro[lk~g; yet h~re we have m prov~ion for variance at ML So the superintendent of the of bu~.din~ was oc his m~ motion without power to ~rant [building permit in this particular instance, and its prompt :evocation was a proper act. Its issu~cc was a nullity because wRhout authorRy, and the petitloner was bound hy thc knowledge ~that fact. The exercise of authority ~ grant such a permit hour provisions !lmithtg the conditions upon which it co~d be exerci~d, w~thout opportunity ~ those interested to be heard, with- out review by a board of appeals properly constituted and by experience especl.ally qualified to judge on the subject, would open thc way for the defeating of the very purpose of the zouing ordi- nances. Subject to a reasonable appEcation of the rule as related to ~>artic~ar eircm~%anees and conditions, the establishment of a resi{~utit2 district pursuant to the 9rovisions oc the zoning ordinance at least preserves the sittings quo i~ such a district and tends to the g~aduaJ establishment in fact of the district as a residential district .n its entirety. To allow enlargement of buildings for manu- facturing purposes or for hush,ess Durt~oses in such a district would tho very purpose for whieh ~[ district was classified as a fidential district. Therefore, the perm;t having been issued with- out authorRy, it was void and was properly revoked, and the order at mandamus must ce oen~ed. . ~'he evidence in the ease fails to disclose any set of e~reu~tances ~m which thc court cotfick conclude that an undue tnu'ds!np w~ being worked upon the petitioner by reason of thc op~ ration of tho zoning ordinance. The petitioner is not being interfered with in the u~qe and occupancy of his property :~ it existed at thc time when the district w~ks converted in+m a ~-residentia[ district. It may be that the mere erecLion of a canopy for the convenience of customers applying for a supply o~ gasokNe or oit, as a protection to them from rah~ or sunshNe, wo~d not constitute an unreasonable extension ~f use. Of course uDon the same foundaiion, upon coin- '' bu, ~ m~ code, it perhaps pliance with the general provimo~ of the , v , wo~d nov be a violation of thc zoning ordinance to increase the height of ~he structure within the same area as thc present structure upon tho premises. Reasonable im~wovemcnts would have to be .,tole-areal, and undoubtct~y they would not bo mci with objection. . ~1 the petitioner has here shown is, by an expert witness, that his ' property wou:d, be worlh S3,500 more w~ tac prlv~ego of bufldlng ' his buildin~ ont to *he street line !hah it would be with the PORTABLE MACHINERY CO., INC., V. KRAKAWKA. 123 Misc. 123] County Court, Jefferson County, July, 1931. true as to other property on the street. The restrictions of zoning ordinances become one of thc burdens of citizcnship which under the law as now constituted and upheld a citizen must endure, excepting in b~stanccs of undue hardship. There is nothing here to show the lindtations upon business as operated by thc petitioner which ,axe caused by the refusal to grant this pcrnfit. A proceeding by mandamus is essentially one in law, and, while the line where !aw ends and equity and other considerations begin is not clearly marked, the better practice seems to be to confine this proceeding to leg:d considerations. Upon some othcr proper procceding the petitioner here might be able to present a state of facts front which a court could infer that he was a sufferer from undue hardship; he has failed to do so here. The proceeding would be sinqflilied if there were established a board of appeals before whom alt parties interested might be heard, whose action, quasi-judicial, might be reviewed by certiorari. The petition for an order of mandamus is denied. Ordered accordingly. pORTABLE MACHINERY Co., ][NC., Plaintiff, v. FRANK W. KRAKAWKA and Another, Defendants. County Court, J0fferson County, July 24, 1931. Sales--pa~mont--action for purchase price of ~econd eot of chain blocks delivered to defendants--first set rejected, after payment, as ~ot in co~ormity with contract--defendants did not accept first sot of blocks (Pore. Prop. Law, § 129)- nor were they bound to return first set (Pore. Prop. Law, § 131)--complaint dismissed. In this action for the purcBase price of a second set o~ chain Blocks deliv,w~! to accept them (Pers. ~op. Law, ~ 131). ]laving paid fo~ the set sp~fi~] m the contr~t they ~mpl~d the~ p~t of the ~eement and plaint~ complot~ its part by the delive~ of the s~ond set. The f~t that defenders were ~ r~eivo credit for the ~t set when returned and that the s~ond set w~ billed ~ a sep~ate sMe did not change the Me.mN by defendants for nonsint in action for goo~ ~ld ~d delivered. OCTOBER TERMi ~920. Opinion of the ~ 274 U. S. "Th~ evidenee of record upon which a conclusion may bo reached as to the discriminatory character of the intra- ~ate rates on oottonseed and cottonseed cake, meal, and hulls now in effect in Arkansas and on all these commodi- ties applying between points in Louisiana is very meager. We are not informed as to the routes over which intrastate rates apply, and of discrimination in ~e pre~nt rates are a~ent," ' iI~' Tho l~ailroad concedes that intrasta*~e Arkansas ar?.n.o~; ,wit. h. in the terms of the order of the federal co~-~ -roms]on tn me Oklahoma ~ommission ease. Its argument :~ that~ i~ tho M. *.mphis-$o~thwestern case it was ordered '~ mat me aiemphis to Arkansas rates should not exceed the Arkansas int.,restate rates that that order has not been re- 'deluded; and hence that when the intemmte rate from Memphis to Arkansas was raised as a result Of the Okla- homa Commission case, it became the duty of the rail- roads to raise the mtrastate rates to a eqrresponding de- gree. But it appears that in the later ease the Inter- ~ sta~te Commerce Commission considered the oronriet~ of ~t0raering the Arkansas ~ntrastate rates ralsed'to~tha ~e~level, and refused to do so. There was no re ' '- terms of the former order. But when the two orders are ~re~l,. together, as they must be, it is dear that the .C~.~.m- ~s!r~,n construed it, s e.ar. lier order as requiring only ne arkansas rates ShOUld not be lower than the interstate Memphis to Arkansas rates prescribed in that ease, as loag as they should be maintained.~ ' The latest repor~ of the Inmmtate Commerce Commission ~ealing wi~ 8outhweztera rat~, April 5, 1927, appear~ not ~o apply to tbs mYmmodky ratez on eo~ton~eed and it~ produ~ here m ques~mn. GORIEB v. FOX. 603 597 Sy~abus. The intention to interfere with the state function of ~-~lating intrastate rat~ is not to be presumed, ggaere ith~re is a serious doubt whether an order of the Inter- ~s~ate Comrnerce Commi~ion extends to intrastate rates, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the state power. If, as the Railroad believed, the federal commission in- tended to include the intrastate Arkansas rates within its order, it should have taken action, fhreugh appropriate application, to remove the doubt by securing an expres- sion by that commission of the intention so to do. Com- pare American Express Co. v. South Dakota, 244 U. S. 617, 627; Illinois Cent. tg. R. Co. v/Public Utilities Com- mission, 245 -0-. S. 493, 509-510. In Virginiar~ Ry. Co. v. Un'ted State¥, 272 Er. S. 658, 675, and in Lawrence v. St. Lou~s-Sar~ Francisco fgy. Co., supra, we called attention to the Lmpo~ance to d~e parties, to the public and to this Court of m~ppo~ing the decree, in eases of this character, by an opinion which shall state fully the reasons for setting aside a conmuis- sion's order. ~ ~eversed. GOI~IEB v. FOX ~? AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COL~RT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGI.N'IA. No. 799. Submitted April 25, 1927.--Decided l~[ay 31, 1927. 1. Whc~fner a provision of a city ordinance fixing a building line relation to the location of a specified percentage of existing Louses on the block is so v~;ue in its general, or in some partienlar, plications as to ammmC to a denial of due process of law, ~ question which can not be considered in 5 case where, upon t/ne special fac~s, it was definite enough, and where the lot-owr, er had been excepted from the provision by the city council, i'. 605. 604 OCTOBER TERM, 1926. Opinion ef the Court. 274 U. S. 2. ~-~servation of authority in a city council to make exceptions, in cases of exceptional b~rdship, from a regulation coafining the con- simction of buildLugs to a building line set back from the street, et wolate t.,~e Equal Protection Clause. P. 607. 8. Arbitrary or unfair nsc of such authority is not to be presumed. P. 607 4. State ordinances requiring lot owners, when constructing new build- in~, to set them back a reasonable distance from the street lines of ' iheir lots, may have substantial relation to the public safety, health, morals, and gener~ welfare, and, not being c!car[y arbitrary or unreasonable, do no'~ deprive thc lot owners of their property with- out due process of law. ~ubank v. Richmond, 226 U. S. 137, distinguished. P. 608.. ~45 Va. 554, a~rmed. C~,a~xoaanr (273 Lr. S. 687) to a judgment of the Supreme Court of A~peals of Virginia, which afl~rmed a judg~ent denying the petitioner a writ of m~ndamus ~'~g~inst the city council, of Roanoke. ~ressrs. W. V. ~irchfield, Jr., and G. A. Wingfield were on -~c ~.~e. for pet.,~one, ~rr. I~oberi C. Yackso~ was.on the brief for respondents. o~s?XCE SuT~ra. axD dehvered the opinion of the Court. For the declared purpose of establishing building lines and regulating' and restricting the construction and loca- tion of buildings, and for other purposes, an ordinance of Roanoke, Virginia, divides the cifiy into "busJnc~" and "residential" districts. Another ordinance, as amended July I~., 1924, creates a set-back or building'line~ with rela- tion to the street, to which ~ buildings subsequently erected must conform. The line must be at lea.st as far from the street a~ ~at occupied by sixty per cent. of the existing houses in the block, the word "block ' being de- GORI~B v. FOX. 605 6/)3 Opinion of the Court. fined to mean only that portion on the same side of the street where the new building is proposed, bounded by the nearest intersecting streets to the right and left thereof. The city council by a proviso reserved to itself the author- ity to make exeeptions and permit the erection of buildings closer to the street. Petitioner owns several building lots-within the dential district upon one of which he has a dwelling house. He applied to the city council for a permit to erect a brick store building upon an adjoining lot, and, after investigation, the council by resolution gave him permission to erect a brick store thirty-four and two- thirds feet back from the street line. He thereupon sought by manda~aus to compel the council to i~ue a per- mit to occupy the lot for his building up to the street line, alleging the unconstitutionality of the set-back ordinance. The judgment of the court of first instance was against him, sustaining the v~idity of the ordinance and the ac- tion of the council. This judgment was a/tirmed by the state supreme court; 145 Va~ 554, which held that the ordinance was val. id and within the legislative grant power. Acts of the A~embly, 1922~ p. 46.' The ordinances summarized, abovt~ were, .t~ ~n when the permit was granted by the .council. and they · alone are involved in this inquiry. The attack here upon the set-back ordinance, and that is assailed as con* travening the due process of law and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal . Constitution. It is said, first, that the standard furnished is so vague and uncertain as in reality to be no standard at ali, since the houses, or sixty per cent. of them. in any block my stand at a variety of distances from the street, in which event it cannot be determined from the ordiaance whether 606 OCTOBER TERM, 1926. Opinion of lJ~e Court. 274 U. S. sixty per cent. of the houses nearest to the street or sixty per cent. of those farthest from the street or some other method of calculation is to govern. But in the present case this contention may be put aside, since (a) the per- mit was granted and the buLlding line fixed under the . proviso which reserved to the council in appropriate e~uses authority to fix the buLlding line without reference to this limitation, and (b) as to the existing houses in the block i~, question, the aetus1 differences in respect of the build- ing lines upon which more than sixty per cent. of them stood are ~ s~Jght as to be entirely negligible upon the question of eertain!y. The evidence shows that the variation in the location of eighty per cent. of the existing houses wag only one- tenth of a foot and, ignoring this inconsequent~ differ- once, tho established but!ding line was slightly over forty- two feet back. from the street. The line designated for petitioner's building was substantially more favorable to him thtm this, being more than seven feet nearer the street. Whether the provision of the ordinance, fixing the i:m,e with mlation to the location of s/xty per cent. of the existing houses, ir. its general, or in some other specific, a¢plicc~tion is so vague as to amount to a denial of due process, is a question which does not concern petitioner, si_ncc, as applied to the facts in the present c~se, it is defi-,~ite enough, and since, in any event, he has been ex- cepted from the operation of the provision; and it does not appear that the aJJ. eged unconstitutional feature of which he eomp!a~s has injured hLm or operated to de- prive him of any right under the federal Constitution. Oliver Iron Co. v. Lord, 262 U. S. 172, ~_80-181; Chicago Bbard o/Trade v. Olsen, 262 U. S. 1, 42; Dahnke~Walker C~.. v. ]~ondurant, 257'U. S. 282, 289; Jo#roy Mfg. Co. v. .~agg, 235 U. S. 571, ~76; Ply~nouth Coal Co. v. Penn- sylvania, 232 U. S. 531, 544-545. GORIEB 9. FOX. Opinion of tho Court. The proviso, under which the council acted, ~ tacked as violating tho equal protection clause on ground that such proviso enables the council unfairly to discriminate between lot owners by fixing unequal dis. tances from the street for the erection of buildings of th~ same character under like c[rcumstances. Wo oannot, of course, construe the ordinance as meaning that the power may be thus exerted; nor may we assume in vance that i~ will bo exercised by tho counoil caprioiouaIy,"' arbitrarily, or with inequality. It will be time enough to complain when, ff ever, the power shall be thus abused. The proviso evidently, proceeds upon the consideration that an inflexible.application of the ordinance may un- der some circumstances resul~t in unnecessary hardship.: In laying down a general rule, such as the one with which we are here concerned, tho practical mq~ossibility anticipating and providing in specific mrms for every exceptional case which may arise, is apparent. And yet the inclusion of such cases~ ma~ well result in grea~ and needless hardship, entirely disproportionate to tho good which will result from a literal enforeemen~ of the general rule. /Sence the wisdom and r~ftes~ity here of~ reserving the authority.~o determine whet~er; in cases of need, exceptions may be made withoat subverting the general purposes of the ordinance, We think it tirely plain that the r~servation of authority in the pres, ent ordinance to deal ~n a special manner with such ceptional cases, is unassailable upon constitutional grounds. W//so~ v. Eureka City, 173 U. S. 32, 36-37; re Flaherty, 105 Cal. 558, 562; Ex parte Fiske, 72 Cal. 125, 127. Yick We v. Hppkias, 118 U. S. 356. upon which peti- tioner relies, is not to. the contrary. The ordinanoe there involved vested un~ontr, olled discretion in the board of supervisors° and this discretion was actually exercased for tho .express purpose of depriving the petitioner in fha*, 6O8 OCTOBER TERM, 1926. Opinion of the Court. 274 U.S. case of a privilege that was extended to others. See Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 94. The remabfing contention is that the ordinance, by compelling petitioner to set his building back from the street line of his lot, deprives him of his property with- out due process of law. Upon that question the decisions are divided, as they are in respect of the validity of lng regulations generaily. But, after full consideration of the conflicting decisions, we recently have held, Euclid v. Ambler Co., 272 U. S. 365, that comprehensive zoning laws and ordinasmes, prescribing, among other things, the height of buildings to be erected (Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 91) and the extent of thc area to be left open for !i;~ht and air and. in aid of fire protection, etc., are, in their gcnerM scope, vahd under the federal Constitution. It is hard to see any control~Ang difference between reguls~ tions which require the lot-owner to leave open areas the sides and rear of his house and I~roit the extent of his use of the space above his !ct and a regulation which,re- quires him ~o set his building a reasonable distance back ~?rom the street. Xach interferes in the same way, if not (o the ~me extent, with the ewner's general right of do- minion over his property. Ali rest for their justification upon thc same reasons which have arisen in recent times as a result of the great increase and concentration of popu- lation in urban c~mmunities mud the vast changes in thc extent and complexity of the probiems of modern city life. Euclid v. Ambler Co., ~,pra, p. 226. Stat~ leg;sIatures and city councils, who deal with the situation from a prac- tic~nl standpoint, are better cuslified than the courts to determine the necessity, char~actcr and degre6 of regula- tion which these new and Perplexing conditions require; a~d their conclusions sho~Id not be disturbed by the courts unIess c!early arbitrary gnd unreasonable. Zahn v: ~9oard o~ Public Works, ante, p. 325 ~nd guthorities ci~ed. GORIEB v. FOX. 603 Opinion of the Court. The property here involved forms part of a residential district within which, it is fair to assume, permission to erect business bu~din~ is the exception and not the rule. The members of the city council, as a basis for the ordi- nance, set forth in their ~nswer that front-yards afford rotan for lawns and trees, keep the dwellings farther from the dust, noise and fumes of the street, add to the attrac- tiveness and ~omfort of a residential district, create a bet- ter home environment, and. by securin~ a greater d~sta~ee between houses on opposite sides of the street, reduce -the fire hazard; that the projection of a building beyond the front line of the adjacent dwellinss cuts off l~ht and air from. them,.and, by interfering'with the ~ew of street corners, constitutes a danger ~n the operation of automo- biles. We cannot deny .the existenSe of these grounds-- indeed, they ~eem obvious. Other grounds, of like tendency, have been suggested. The highest court of the igtate, with greater familiarity with the locai condi- ti(ms and facts upon which the ordinance was based than we l~osse~, has sustained it~'constitutionality; and that decision is entitled to the greatest respect aud. in a ease of this bind, should be interfered with only ii in our iudg- ment xtm pmmly wrong, Welch v. Swasey, s~.~.a, p..106, ~ conclusion which, upon the recor~l before us, it ia impo~ sible for ue to reach'. The courts, i.t is true as already suggested, are in holds that such reqtdrements have no fa'cecal rciatitm to the public s~fety, h~alth, morals, or general welfare, and cannot be suets/ned as ~ legitirrmte exercise of the police power. The view of the other group is exactly tq the eontrmT. In the Ett, clid case, upon a review of tho deci- sions, we rejected the basic reasons upon which the deci- sions in the first ~roup depend and ~ccepted tho~ upola which rests the opposite view of the other group. 610 OCTOBER TERM, 1926. Opinion of the Court, 274 U.S. Nothing we t~hink is to be gained by a similar review in respect of the specific phase of the general question which is presented here. As to that, it is enough to say that, Lu consonance with the prlnciples announced in the Euclid case, and upon what, in the 5ght of present day conca.mns, seems to be thc better reason, we sustain the view put forward by the latter gronp of decisions, of which the ' ' fouowmg are representative: Windsor v. Whit- ney, 95 Conn. o,~7; Jg~atter o/ Wul/sohn v. Burden, 241 N. Y. 288, 303; L/nc~r~ Truest Co. v. Wgliams Bldg. Corp., 229 N. Y. 3!3. Eubank v. Richmond, 226 U. S. 137, which is peri- tioner's ~n reliance upon this point, presented an together different question. The ordimmce them con- s.;.dered required the corrtm/ttee on streets to fix a building line upon the request of the owners of two-thirds of the property abutting on any street. T.he ordinance was held bad by this court (m 143) because it !eft no discretion in the corem/tree. "The action of the committee is deter- mined._ by two-thirds of the property ewners. In other words, rart~ of the propor*y.~ ~. owners fronting on the bloek determine the extent of use that other owners s:~a~ :maxe of their lots, and ,against the restri, etion they are impotent. This we emphasize. One set of owners determine notomy' mo extent of use but tho kind of use which smgther set of owners may make of their prop- erty.'' And Cae court expressly declined (p. !44) to con- s~der the power of a city to estabi.sh a building line or re~alate tim structure or height of bud/dings. Since upon consideration we are an~b~e to say that the ordinance under review is "clearly arbitrary and unrea- rahab!e, having no substantial relation to the public : health, safety, morals, or general welfare," we am bound · to sustain it as eonstitut3.ona2. ,~? ' J~uclid v. Ambler Co., · supra, p. 395. Judgment affirmed. MERRITT & CHAPMAN CO. v. U. S. Opinion of the Court. MERRITT & CHAPMAN DERRICK & WRECKING COMPANY v. LrNITED STATES. ERROR TO 'I'HE UlgI'I'ED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR. THE I~OUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 214. Argaecl March 10, 10ft/.--Decided May 81, The aid or benefit ~o a chip r~ulti~ incidentally and indirectly from efforts to extinimish f~e on a nearby wharf, put forth for purpose of s~mug pl~y not related to her, will not ~stain a claim for sa!va~e il~ th~ abze~lce of any roque~ for or ac0eptan0e of the ~wice on her behalf.. ,P.,Ol~. ' AflSnned. . ..;,. Error to a decree of the ~istrict Cou~ ;di~mtssin~ tho petition in a suit ~o~' salvage brought aiainst the United States unde~ the Tue.ker Act. Mr. Dudley C. Smith, with whom Mr. O. D. Dunco~ was on the brief, for plaintiff in error. Assistant Attorney General Far~urtt, with whom $olie. itor General Mitchell was on the brief, for tho United States. ~ MR. ,]'US'rICE BUTLER ~lelivered the opinion of th(Court. Plaintiff in error sued under the Tucker Act, c. 359~ 24 Stat. 505, upon a clzlm for salvage on account of servioe alleged to have been rendered the Steamship Leviathan ow~cd by :the defendant in error. United States v. nell Steamboat Co., 202 U. S. 184, 189. On defendant's motion the court, May 7, 1925, dismissed the petition on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action. The case is here on writ of error to that court. J. Homzr Fritch, Inc. v. United States, 248 U. S. 458. The petition alleges the following. August .24--2~, 1921, at Hoboken, there was a fierce and extensive fire ; - ... 7 - ~i~ ~'RONT STREET. GREENPORT. NEW YORK tl944 (516) 477-2048 November 20, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Chairman Re: NYNEX Mobile Communications Proposed Amendment to Approved Site Plan for Arthur V. Junge SCTM #1000-96-1-19.1 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Enclosed herewith please find eight copies of the revised drawings for the above captioned site as requested in your letter of November 7th. Please note that: a. the revised plans indicate the existing conditions together with the changes required for the proposed new construction; b. landscaping has been added along the rear property line to block the view to and from the landfill; c. a light plan has been included indicating the type of fixture and wattage together with a notation as to shielding to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties; d. an elevation drawing of the proposed equipment shelter has been included (page 2); e. the parking calculations have been revised based upon use and the requirements of the zoning ordinance; f. the engineers have not relocated the four parking spaces in front of the entrance to the communications building. They advise that direct access by a vehicle is not required for maintenance purposes and the maintenance worker can park in any designated parking area. They have instead used yellow striping in the area immediately in front of the building to discourage parking in a potential ingress and egress conflict area; g. the plan has been signed and sealed by a NYS registered engineer. I assume that the above complies with your request of November 7th. If you require any further changes or modifications, or if the four parking spaces in front of the communications building must be relocated, please advise and I will contact the engineers immediately. Enc. cc: Thank you for your cooperation. Ver~truly yours, ~R~E ON~ON~/ Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Zoning Board of Appeals PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 November 7, 1991 Marie Ongioni, Esq. 218 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Proposed Amendment to Site Plan for Arthur V. Junge Industrial Building N/s County Road 48, Cutchogue, New York SCTM % 1000-96-1-19.1 Dear Ms. Ongioni: The revised site plans and your cover letter dated October 21, 1991 were reviewed by the Planning Board. Although the plan generally meets with the requirements of the Site Plan ordinance, please made the following changes to the site plan so that we can proceed with your application: The four parking spaces in front of the entrance to the Radio Equipment building should be relocated so that the service or maintenance vehicl~ has direct access from the driveway. We suggest placing the four spaces on the southwesterly or opposite side of the parking lot. The site plan should show only one site layout; the existing construction with the proposed building superimposed. The proposed expansion of the existing building that was shown on the approved site plan should not be shown on this revision. The parking calculations should reflect the parking spaces per square feet of existing floor area per use. A landscaping plan for the rear yard. The landscaping should be sufficient to block the view to and from the landfill operation. The placement of evergreen species of shrubs and trees along the rear fence is recommended. Light plan, including location and type of fixtures, and wattage. Lighting should be shielded so that it remains with the property boundaries. The seal and signature of an engineer or architect registered within the State of New York must be placed on the site plan. Enclosed you will find a listing of all the information that must be placed on the site plan. Please include a copy of the elevation drawings for all four sides when you submit eight copies of the revised drawings to this office. If the NYNEX company has any questions about how to show these revisions on the site plan, I recommend that the project engineer speak with Valerie $copaz, Town Planner. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM TO: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman FROM: SCO'I-Y L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Zoning Board of Appeals Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman RE: Appeals Nos. 4058 and 4062 by NYNEX MObile Communications/Arthur V. Junge, Inc. Proposed Amendment to Approved Site Plan for Arthur V. Junge Industrial Building N/s County Road 28, Cutchogue, New York SCTM ~ 1000-96-1-19.1 DATE: November 7, 1991 The attached letter regarding the proposed addition of a Mobile Communications Station at the Arthur Junge Industrial Building incorporates the Planning Board's comments on the revised site plan. Our site inspection revealed that the site presently does not conform to a condition of your Board's Special Exception (Appeal No.3835, Decision of April 27, 1989.) which was that the vehicles stored outside must be placed behind a screened portion of the rear yard. The trees and other vegetation that had provided natural screening in the rear yard have since been removed. Accordingly, the Planning Board has asked that the revised site plan show a landscape plan for replacement of the screening. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. cc: Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 FAX NO. (516) 765-1823 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI JAMES DINIZI0, JR. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. NO.~~~~ Matter of the Application of ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. - Amendment to Special Exception Granted under Appl. No. 3705 under Article VIII, Section 100-80B of the prior Zoning Regulations for this previously zoned C-Light Industrial Zone District, now re-zoned to Light Industrial, Article XIV, Section 100-141, to include establishment of car repairs with outside storage and future occupancy of vacant building area at easterly side of building (said use to be a permitted use in this Zone District). Location of Property: 22355 C.R. 48, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 96, Block 1, Lot 19, containing 45,589+- sq. ft. in lot area. At--a_Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on :,--A~ril 27, 1989~the following action was taken: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on April 13, 1989, under File No. 3835, filed March 10, 1989; 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. By this application, applicant requests an Amendment to Special Exception Application No. 3705 to include establishment of car repairs with outside storage and future occupancy of vacant building (to be occupied with a use permitted in this Light Industrial Zone District). Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3835 - ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. decision, continued:) 2. The property in question: (a) contains a total lot area of 45,589 square feet and lot width {frontage} along the north side of County Road 48 of 168.17 feet, in the Hamlet of Cutchogue; (b) is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 96, Block 1, 19; (c) is located in the Light Industrial Zone District, as re-designated January 10, 1989 under the new Master Plan revisions; (d) is bound on the northerly side by the Southold Town Landfill, on the west by a single-family dwelling now or formerly of J. Harris Estate, and on the east by vacant land now or formerly of Gray, all of which is also located in the Light Industrial Zone District. 3. For the record, it is also noted that: (a) an Use Variance was denied without prejudice under Appeal No. 3635 on August 20, 1987, when the premises was zoned "A" Residential and Agricultural; (b) a Change of Zone was granted by the Southold Town Board on December 15, 1987, re-zoning the premises'from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "C-Light Industrial"; (c) a Special Exception for the construction and occupancy of a 7,750 sq. ft. building was granted by the Board of Appeals on March 3, 1988 under Appl. No. 3705; (d) the occupants of the building on or about January 1, 1989, are believed to be for the following uses: (1) contractor's business and shop; (2) vehicle-repair business and shop; (3) storage, parking and similar uses accessory and incidental to the established principal uses. 4. By this application, the property owner requests approval, as an amendment to the 1988 Special Exception approval: (a) for the establishment of the vehicle repair business and shop'occupying approximately one-third of the floor area of the existing building (at the center thereof) and for Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3835 - ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. decision, continued:) approval of outside storage of licensed vehicles, parked while under repair, with proper scree~%ing. The area of the proposed vehicle parking (vehicles for repairs) is that area directly in the rear yard, behind the building, with fencing and/or other screening around the periphery of the rear yard, including that area close to the northerly and easterly property lines, and squared off to the northeasterly corner of the rear of the building (if needed for reference, see subject storage area depicted in red on Drawing No. P-la dated March 10, 1987, submitted for consideration); (b) for occupancy of Bay #3 at the easterly third section of the building for a Special Exception use only as permitted under the Light Industrial Zone District regulations. It should be noted, however, that the Light Industrial (LI) Zone District provides for certain uses already provided in other zone districts listed on the previous pages of the Zoning Code {such as the "LIO" Light-Industrial Office/Park, Section 100-131B{1-11}, "B" General Business, Section 100-101A{3-5} and B{5,7,10), which includes warehouses, building material storage and sales, building contractors yards, cold storage plants, etc.). 5. Additionally, it is noted that Article XIV, Section 100-141, Subsection B(1) permits by Special Exception and site plan approval any special exception use set forth in and'as regulated by Section 100-i31B(1-11) of the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park Zone District. Subsection 100-131B{2} thereof provides by special exception and site plan approval: ...Light industrial uses involving the fabrication, reshaping, reworking, assembly or combining of products from previously prepared materials and...Such uses may include industrial operations such as electronic, machine parts and small component assembly... " It is the opinion of the Board that based on the precedents concerning permitted light-industrial uses under the previous zoning code, and the fact that the vehicle repairs will be minor or include installation of (small) electronic or mechanic parts into the vehicles, that the use is similar to other permitted light industrial uses for the purposes of this Amendment and is of the same or similar nature of a light-industrial use. Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3835 - ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. decision, continued:) 6. In considering this application, the Board also has: (a) considered Section 100-262 ~[General Standards) and Section 263 (Consideration) of the zoning code; (b) determined the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent-use districts; (c) determined the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, and order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; (d) determined that the use is in harmony with and will promote the general purposes and intent of zoning since this is a use which was permitted by special exception application (with the exception of the formality of requiring a written amendment to the Special Exception in effect at the time of the filing of this application) plan); (e) the applicant has had numerous applications before the Boards, and due to the timeliness during the procedures was not able to have the same finalized. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GR3~NT an Amendment to the Special Exception as requested (under Application No. 3835) in the Matter of ARTHUR .V. JUNGE, INC., SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Vehicles stored outside of the building must be licensed, in taxt, and located only in this screening-in rearyard area; 2. Any extended storage area outside of the building will require re-application for re-consideration by the Board of Appeals; 3. The types of screening for the enclosure of the proposed outside vehicle storage area shall be designated at the discretion of the Planning Board under its site-plan regulations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Sawicki and Dinizio. (Absent, as agreed for this Special Meeting, was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island.) This resolution was duly adopted. lk GERARD p. GOEHRINGER, ~HAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~:~...~.~j .'~ ,~-~,~)~- MAIN I~OAD' STATE ~I3AD 25 ~OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 ~ TELEPHONE (5t6) 765-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3705-SE Application Dated December 16, TO: Mr. Arthur V. Junge 6880 Nassau Point Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 1987 [Appellant (s) ] At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on March 3, ]988, the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property New York Town Law, Section 280-a [X] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article VIII , Section 100-80(B) [ ] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section [ ] Request for Application of ARTHUR V. JUNGE for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B) for permission to establish electrical shop use and construct two buildings located as shown on Site Plan dated March 10, 1987, prepared by John A. Grammas & Assoc. Zone District: C-Light Industrial. Location of Property: North Side of C.R. 48, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 96, Block 1, Lot 19, containing 45,589± sq. ft. in lot area. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on January 1988 in the Matter of the Application of ARTHUR V. JUNGE under Appl. No. 3705-SE~ and were WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard heard and their testimony recorded; and 14, 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 ~oning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is a described parcel of land containing a lot area of .975 of an acre, or 45,589 sq. ft. with frontage (lot width) of 168.17 feet along the north side of C.R. 48, in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, is vacant, and is more particularly shown on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 96, Block l, Lot 19. 2. The subject premises is located in the "C" Light Industrial Zoning District as approved by the Town Board at a Regular Meeting held December 15, 1987, and is immediately adjacent to the Southold Town Disposal Site at the north side. The premises immediately adjoining this property along the west side is a parcel of 1.2! acres improved with.a single-family dwelling and along the east side is a vacant parcel of 39,524 sq. ft.., which has also received a change of zone from "A" to "C" (Parcel 1000-96-1-20). ./CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO) DATED: March 3, 1988. Fo~ ZB4 (rev. 12/81) CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN OF APPEALS ZONING BOARD Page 2 Appi. No. 3705-SE Matter of ARTHUR V. JUNGE Decision Rehdered March 3, 1 988 3. Town assessment records indicate that the applicant -acquired the premises from Watson Gray on April 6, 1987 (see Deeds at Liber 10321 cp 162). 4. By this application, appellant requests a Special Exception under Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B) for permission to establish electrical shop use as more particularly shown on Amended Plan prepared by John A. Grammas & Assoc., Drawing No. P-1 presently under review by the Town Planning Board (and filed February 10, 1988). 5. It is the opinion of this Board that the 7,750 sq. ft. building together with all parking and other site-plan elements are consistent with the zoning requirements for this zoning district. 6. In considering this application, the Board has also determined: (a) the use proposed will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) the uses will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of p~rmitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts;' (c) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the Town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; (d) the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. The Board has also considered items Ia] through [1] of Article XII, Section 100-121(C)[2] of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception in the Matter of the Application of ARTHUR V. JUNGE under Appl. No. 3705 for the proposed electrical shop use in the proposed 7,750 sq. ft. building as shown on Site Plan prepared by John A. Grammas & Assoc. (dated March 10, 1987'), SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There be no outside storage; 2. All vehicles left licensed, for parking only permitted]. on-site must be registered and [No storage of vehicles shall be Vote of the Douglass and Doyen. resolution was duly lk Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer,,, Grigonis, (Absent was: Member Sawicki.) This adopted. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, C~YAIRMAN March 14, 1988 MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD. L.I.. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3635 Application Dated May 19, 1987 TO~ mr. ar'cnur v. dunge 6880 Nassau Point Road ' Cutchogue, NY 11935 At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on August 20, ]987, the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property New York Town Law, Section 280-a [ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article t Section [X] Request for V~iance to the Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section ]00-30(A) [ ] Request for Application of ARTHUR V. JUNGE for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section ]O0-30(A) for permission to establish elec- 'trical shop use in this "A-40" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District. Location of Property: North'Side of C.R. 98, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 96, Block l, Lot 19, con- taining 45,589± sq. ft. in lot area. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on July 1987 in the Matter of the Application of ARTHUR V. JUNGE, under Application No. 3635; and 16, 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: l. The premises in question is a described parcel of land containing a lot area of .975 of an acre, or 45,589 sq. ft., with frontage (lot width) of 168.17 feet along the north side of C.R. 48, Hamlet of Cutchogue, is vacant, and is more parti- cularly shown on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District lO00, Section 96', Block 1, Lot 19. 2. The subject premises is located in the "A-40,' Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and is immediately adjacent to the Town of Southold Disposal Site at the north sifie. The premises immediately adjoining this property along the west'side is a parcel of 1.2± acres improved'with a single-family dwelling and along the east.side is a vacant parce~ of 39,524 sq. ft. (also located in this Residential and Agricultural Zoning District). (CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO) DATED: August 20, 1987. Form ZB4 (rev..~.2/81) CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOW~N ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page 2 Appl. No. 3635 Matter of ARTHUR V. JUNGE Decision Rendered August 20, 1987 3. Town assessment records as of the date of this decision show the owner of the subject parcel to be John S. Wickham, although it is our understanding that there has been a recent conveyance to Arthur V. Junge or Arthur V. Junge Inc. (A copy of an unexecuted deed from Timothy Scott Gray to Arthur V. Junge dated April.6, 1987 has been furnished for the file.) 4. By this application, appellant requests a Variance from the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of an 4400 sq. ft. building as shown on Site Plan prepared March 10, 1987 by John A. Grammas and Associates and referred to as Building "A," with dimensions of llO ft. wide by 40 ft. dee~ and shown to be se~ back 60 set from the front propeFty line. Also shown on the Site Plan is a future Building "B" to the rear (north) of Building "A". The occupancy proposed by the appellant is a contractor's business: and_shop. 5. No evidence has been introduced as required by law.that: (a) the return if used only is located; land in question cannot yield a reasonable for the purpose of the zone in which it (b) that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions of the neigh- borhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself; ~. (c) that the use to be authorized will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; (d) there is dollars and cents proof to substantiate the unnecessary hardship claimed. This Board is aware that the proposed new Master Plan Maps depict this property for LIO, Light Industry, which would permit this use by Special Exception approval, and does s-ympathize with petitioner's plight; however, the Board find~ that the criteria set by the Courts has not been sufficiently met and therefore lacks authority to grant the relief as requested. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the Vari-ance~.requested under Appeal No. 3635 in the Matter of the Application of ARTHUR V. JUNGE BE AND HEREBY 'IS DENIED WITHOUT'PREJUDICE. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis,~Douglass and Sawicki. adopted. Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, This resolution was duly lk ~ERARD P. GoEHRINGER, gH~R-~-A-N--- September 3, 1987 MARIE ONGIONI ATTORNEY AT LAW 218 FRONT STREET, GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 {$16) 477-2048 FAX (516) 477-8919 October 24, 1991 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairperson Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: NYNEX Mobile Communications Applications Dear Mr. Goehringer: Please refer to previous correspondence with regard to the above matter and in particular to your letter of October 15th and my letters of October 16th and 21st. As you know, on behalf of my client I have submitted a consent to construction of the monopole and adjacent building by the property owner who leased the site to my client (Arthur Junge). I am attaching hereto a consent by an adjacent property owner, Joseph Schoenstein. You will note that both are consents to construction of the monopole but are not consents to restriction on the use of the land of the respective owners as a result of their consent to construction. With regard to the question of consent I submit the following: The monopole does not require a variance from the height restrictions of the zoning code as it falls within the exceptions mentioned in Section 100-230 of the code. Your Board has in fact not required submission of a request for a variance with regard to the height of the monopole. The monopole itself is a permitted use within the LI district if the Board finds our contention that it is a telephone exchange to be valid. In the alternative, the monopole is a permitted use by special exception as a public utility structure in the LI district. In either case it is a "permitted" use as that term has been construed by the courts and not a use which requires a variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals of Southold Town is empowered under Section 100-272 of the code to impose such conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary or appropriate to preserve and protect the spirit and objectives of the code itself. However, it is our contention that the requirement of consent of 100% of the adjoining property owners to construction of the monopole is not within the power of this Board nor is it, in fact, constitutional in New York. Imposition of unanimous consent requirements under the circumstances involved in this application is unconstitutional. In addition, it is our contention that in asking the adjoining property owners to consent to construction of the monopole the Board cannot additionally require that those property owners consent to a restriction on the use of their property by such consent. The courts have found that conditions must relate reasonably to the proper objectives of zoning. Reed v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 255 N.Y. 126 (1931). The proper objectives of the zoning code in Southold Town are stated in Section 100-10 of the Code none of which are reasonably related to the requirement of consent and restriction asked by this Board for this application. See also: Pluto's Retreat, Inc. v. Granito, et al, 437 N.Y.S. 2d 437 (2d Dept. 1981) where the court stated that a Board of Appeals upon issuance of a special use permit may impose any reasonable conditions which are in conformity with the purpose and standards of the ordinance. Unanimous consent by adjacent property owners coupled with restriction on the use of their land are not reasonable conditions. The Board is not authorized to impose conditions unrelated to the purpose of zoning or which are neither expressly or impliedly authorized by the zoning regulations. The use to which applicant seeks to put this portion of the parcel is a permitted use in the district and the Board has neither express nor implied power to set restrictions on the permitted use which are unreasonable. In fact, by requiring that the adjacent property owners consent to restriction of the use of their property is to confiscate that property and that is beyond the power of a Zoning Board of Appeals. Rand v. New York, 3 Misc. 2d 769, 155 N.Y.S. 2d 753 (1956). In addition, applicant has submitted a report by the engineer's who will construct this monopole that in 20 years of experience they have never known of a pole to collapse as a result of wind load. That report graphically illustrates the safety level of this structure. The topic of consent of adjacent property owners has been controversial for many years. However, in New York it has been found to be unconstitutional as an impermissible delegation of zoning power to private landowners. Matter of Concordia Coll. Inst. v. Miller, 301 N.Y. 189 The items to be considered are whether the requirements are in the code (which they are not), whether the Board can impose unreasonable conditions (unanimous consent coupled with restriction of use are not reasonable), and finally whether the use requested will constitute a nuisance (a permitted use cannot possibly be a nuisance). The court in Town of Gardiner v. Stanley Orchards, Inc., 105 Misc. 2d 460, 432 N.Y.S. 2d 335, stated that after extensive research it could not find a New York case which upheld the constitutionality of a unanimous consent requirement. In that case the requirement was in the zoning law itself while here it is being imposed without authority which applicant contends is an ultra vires act by this Board. I respectfully submit this letter for the Boards consideration and urge the Board to withdraw the request for consent of adjoining property owners coupled with a restriction of use to the consenting party. Ver/~truly yours, MARIE ONGIONI MARIE ONGIONI ATTORNEY AT LAW 218 FRONT STREET, GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 (516) 477-2048 FAX {516} 477-8919 Re: NYNEX Application October 21, 1991 To Whom It May Concern: I am the owner of property adjacent to that upon which the applicant, NYNEX Mobile Communications, wishes to build a cellular telephone antenna (a monopole) and a communications building. I have discussed this matter with the attorney for the applicant. I have viewed a sketch of the radius of the fall down area of the monopole prepared by the applicant's engineers together with a report as to its ability to withstand wind load among other things. It is my belief that the monopole does not present a safety hazard. After review of the above, I consent to the construction of the monopole. I do not believe that my ability to utilize my property should be infringed because of the monopole, and, I do not consent to any such restriction on the use of my property by my consent to construction of the monopole. Very truly yours, /JOSEPH-SC~OENSTEIN i~GE ~.8 - Appl. No. 4058 and 4062 /~ ~YNEX/!MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/A~,T]~I~ V. JUNGE, ~J/ng Transcript of October 24, 1991 INC. The Hearing opened at 7:52 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the : ~cord and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: We are opening both hearings up in concert of each other. I have a copy of the site plan, several maps, most of which are most re- cently dated in front of us indicating the exact placement of these two structures which are to the rear of the existing and I will refer to it as a commercial building which houses several uses on County Road 48 , approximately two parcels east of the landfill and the rear of which abuts the landfill belonging to the Town of Southold. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this apd surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard? Ms. Ongioni. MEMBER DINIZIO: At this time I would like to state that I work for a company that may compete with your business or perhaps even be a partner so as not to compromise the Board's decision, I am going to abstain and leave the room. MS. ONGIONI: Good evening Chairperson Goehringer and Board members. I'm Marie Ongioni with offices at 218 Front Street in Greenport. I represent NYNEX Communication in this application for approval of the variance application before the Board for the sideyard setback and also the rearyard setback. In addition, we are before the Board for a determination as to the requirement of this being categorized as a Special Exception as permitted in the Code or if the project would be exempt from the Special Exception because it qualifies as a telephone exchange. If it does qualify as a public utility structure and it has the public utility licensing from New York State and all of that has been submitted to the Board, it is our contention that this is, in addition to a public' utili.~y structure~it is a~ephn~ exchange ah'a as such '~t is a permitted use in the L~ district, rather ~han permitted as a Special Exception. I have a representative from NYNEX who will address the Board as to the definition of the telephone exchange in the industry and the fact, in his opinion, this does indeed qualify as a telephone exchange. If the Board concludes that it is a telephone exchange then it will be a permitted use as Special Exception rule would not be needed. Otherwise, in the alternative, I would argue to the Board that it qualifies as a Special Excel{ion and should be given that status. Before I turn over the presentation to Mr. Sam Ajaeb of NYNEX I have a memorandum which I would like to submit to the Board. I'm not going to review the memo in detail with you, I'm submitting it for the record. It outlines the nature of the variances that are being requested. It covers the legal case law that supports the granting of this variance and also, it briefly outlines the distinction between telephone exchange and Special Exception. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Page 9 - Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 INC. MS. ONGIONI: Does the Board have any questions of me at this time? CHAIRMAN: Well, we ask the same question when Mobile One came before us in Mattituck. I don't mean to be ignorant concerning this but I asked the question at that time and I believe Mr. Smith was repre- senting Mobile One, what is the different functionsof the two companies and I don't know if you can answer that question. My question is basically, are you both in competition with each other, is there any un6nimity between the two of you. MS. ONGIONI: I think Mr. Ajaeb W'oul'd be the proper person to answer that. Mr. Ajaeb of NYNEX. CHAIRMAN: How do you do sir. MR. AJAEB: Sam Ajaeb, Manager Real Estate NYNEX Mobile. Chairman, to answer your question. At the time of divesture, it was intended by the Justice Department and the FCC to allow 'the ~blic the .... - choice of a telephone company in a non-telephone company referred to as a non-wi~e }j'neito p~6v~de cellular service. NYNEX is the wire line telephone company. Metro One, they are now known as Cellular ONe, is the non-wire line. There are two choices. We are in the same business, two different companies. CHAIRMAN: So in other words, Metro One would be using NYNEX wires. MR. AJAEB: New YOrk Telephone, yes. In other words, New YOrk and also long distance carriers, possibly AT & T, Sprint or whatever. CHAIRMAN: That answers my question. Thank you. MR. AJAEB: I just wanted to give a brief overview. I think the Board has an understanding of who we are. We are t~e cellular subsidiary of NYNEX. New YOrk Telephone is the major subsidiary of NYNEX. What we intend to do here is we are expanding our cellular network to eastern Long Island. This would be a cellular base station, one of about 130 that are in operation now in the metropolitan area, approximately 30 of these base stations are in operation now on Long Island. They consist of a 12 x 26 building with grade storing radio equipment and 100' monolithic tower. The monolithic towe~annot be climbed, it will withstand winds in excess of 150 miles per hour which we have substantiated by the manufacturer. If we have to get to the top we use a cart. We require 200 amps of service, no other utility. There is no water. We use batteries for backup. The only utility requires telephone and electric power. The question of Exchange if I can and briefly in layma~s terms, and if you require more details we do have with us. But with the base station is we have a central station or computer in Garden City, Long Islandthat monitors the signal for Page 10 - Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 INC. MR. AJAEB: continued our subscribers. This station here, when someone is driving in the area of Cutchogue, as soon as the signal from the proposed station would be stronger than the signal from the station that the automobile is in at that time, this call will then be automatically be switched by our computer and processed to this base station. This base station then picks up the call and processes the call so the immediate area of Cutchogue I can now saysomewhere in the area of three to five miles or possibly eight miles, The processing of their call would be done by this base station in Cutchogue. The building would be alarmed, there would be a fire deterrent system in there especially designed so we would not have any problem with vandalism. If.there are any other questions I would be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN: What does the top of the antenna look like. MR. AJAEB: The top of the antenna is 12' equilateral triangle. Its 12' and 40" high. There would be two whip antennas that are 10' above that, one below. CHAIRMAN: Is there one around here we could look at. MR. AJAEB: I believe there is. We have a number of them here you could look at. CHAIRMAN: There is one over at Grumann Aircraft in Calverton. Is that a NYNEX or is that a Metro One? MR. AJAEB: That is not a NYNEX. I can give you the dimensions to gibe you an idea. It's 36" at the base, 18" at the top with the equilateral triangle at the top. It is designed that way for two reasons, one, it cannot be climbed, we use an electric cart&for th~. wind resistance for the structure. I can provide the Board with some locations if you care to loOk at some. CHAIRMAN: We would like to look at the closest one around here, if we could. MEMBER VILLA: You said the range is five to eight miles. MR. AJAEB: Depending upon the terrain. Somewhere in that area. MEMBER VILLA: That would mean you have another within five radius miles. MR. AJAEB: Yes, we have stations proposed in Greenport and Shelter Island. If the Board wishes we have some computer runs. Page 11 Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 INC. MEMBER VILLA: My concern is how many of these are we going to be looking at all together? MR. AJAEB: I don't think you will anymore from NYNEX Mobile in Cutchogue. The only reason we would have to put more in would be for volume or capacity and we don't anticipate. We would like to see it but it is not anticipated that we would require anymore monopoles in Cutchogue. I can pretty well substantiate that sir, MEMBER VILLA: The thing is are you going to need these every eight miles. MR. AJAEB: I believe this would be out only...I have to verify that if we have anymore in Southold. I'm not completely familiar with the bounderies of Southold but Long Island and especially that it is flat, the volume or capacity isn't required so I doubt if there will be more. We can reply to that. CHAIRMAN: What is the approximate cost of this project? MR. AJAEB: The cost, are you talking construction costs. The building is a quality building that cost about $40,000. The monopole is something like $60,000 and then we have a foundation , we have soil tests done and the foundation is predicated on the soil. The big expense to NYNEX is the radio equipment]and that's hundreds of thousands of dollars. I might mention too that we do monitor this from Garden City seven days a week, 24 hours a day and though it is unmanned, by monitoring it~w~ich is mandated by the FCC, we guarantee that we stay within our range and we can be sure that there will be no interfermce with anyone else, any other means of communications. I will also offer at this time for any public or municipal use, if the police require or ambulance squad, we will allow them to use it. We will also take as a condition we have these antennas solely for NYNEX use, we do not rent out tower space to anyone. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. LINDA FLETCHER: May I ask a question. I just wondered do people who now have cellular phones are not able to use them, hear with them, is that correct. They cannot use them, if they have them on in the car. MR. AJAEB: That is correct. It is very spotty. We have one in the company vehicle, very spotty. There is some service but it is very poor. MS. ONGIONI: I'd like to address the Board on one additional point. You requested an illustration of the fall down area of the pole which we have submitted. You also requested the consent of the adjacent property owners to that fall down area. I've submitted to the Board Page 12 - Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, Hearing Tra script of October 24, 1991 INC. MS. ONGIONI: continued the consent of ARthur Junge who is the owner of the site, the lessor to NYNEX. I also have the consent of Joseph Schoenstein who is an adjacent property owner. I have met with the town attorney and it was brought up to the Town Board on Tuesday and I understand that they are going to be acting on it at its next meeting. However, I do question the appropriateness of the request for the consent of the neighboring property owners. CHAIRMAN: Do you want me to answer that now? Mari.e, this started, there is nothing we do that is mysterious but this started with wind generating towers. Mr. Miller in Laurel had the first wind gnenerating tower in the Town of Southold and of course it dominoed throughout the process. We have had people who have put up all sorts of towers for all sorts of things and what we more or less wanted them to do is put them in the center of their property and basically, their own fall down area. In this particular case, because you are limited in reference to the size of the piece of property, that is basically the reason why we ask the question, impose that before the hearing because we wanted you to start work'ing on it because we knew you had at least two or three people that you had to talk to, one of which is six people, that's the Town Board so that was basically the reason. MS. ONGIONI: I have a letter which I would like to submit regarding the issue of consent and also the issue of whether those property owners would be restricting the use of their property. I do not believe that it is even legal, constitutional to make that type of request. In that regard I have a submission I would like to make but I only have one copy. This is the letter and this Mr. Schoenstein's consent. You have Mr. Junge's consent. In practicality and I have attached as Exhibit 6 to the memo submitted earlier, a report prepared by an expert in the field which indicates that it is virutally impossible for this monopole to fall down. So the li~l~ood of that happening is minimal at the most. That is Exhibit 6 on the memo. Does the Board have any other questions. We have an application pending before the Planning Board, the site plan we'll do. The site which they refer to is the same site plan that was submitted to this Board earlier this week. ! think it is dated October 18, 1991 showing the fall down area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application, anybody like to speak against it? My only question of the engineer that might be present isis there any difficulty in possibly noise or any type of filtering devices that would be required of this particular unit. The problem with cablevision, the problem with any communication that would be near this particular tower. Pa~e 13 - Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 PHIL DDRANTE: My name is Phil DQrante. I work for NYNEX Mobile also and I'm a radio frequency engineer. We operate 880 to 894 megahertz which is solely channel frequency the FCC has allocated to us for cellular business. No one else operates in those fre- quencies, just us. You can be rest assured that there will be no interference to any other type of broadcasting station or tv or what have you in the area. CHAIRMAN: Is there running or anything discomfort. any draw from the building at all with blowers of that nature which would cause anybody a PHIL DURANTE: The building that we use is a fire block building, it is virtually soundproof. CHAIRMAN: The system that either heats or air conditions that is a compressor system on the exterior of the building. PHIL DURANTE: It is on the exterior of the building. CHAIRMAN: IT wouldn't be anymore than a normal compressor noise that would come out of an air conditioning compressor that was placed next to a house?. PHIL DURANTE: That.is c~om~ect~ CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much sir. Any other further questions? MEMBER VILLA: I'm just looking at your Exhibit 6 here which is the engineering report and it alludes to the fact that the two 8' diameter microwave dishes were not installed. Is there goin'g to be two 8' diameter microwave dishes? PHIL DURANTE: I saw this for the first time. We're not microwave and we don't intend to use microwave. There are no microwave dishes. I believe the intent of that was that if you put microwave dishes that it increases wind loading factor on the tower. We are not, I repeat, not microwave and we are not going to put any microwave dishes on. CHAIRMAN: Can we strike that from the agreement? I will initial it. PHIL DURANTE: I imagine just determine that if there were microwave dishes it affects the wind loading factor. Page 14 - Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 LINDA KOWALSKI, BOARD ASST: You're referring to Item #3. PHIL DURANTE: Yes. In checking with our real estate people our closest monopole is in Valley Stream, Long Island. However, I think if you want to shorten the trip Rayndex has one in this area which is substantially similiar. CHAIRMAN: That is the one I was referring to since I work in the Brookhaven area. PHIL DURANTE: I don't want to give them a plug. CHAIRMAN: Let me just ask you a quick question before you sit down. When you say it is spotty at this particular time where would you be drawing from at this time? Would you be drawing from a Connecticut tower atlthis time or are drawing from one on the south shore. PHIL DURANTE: That is one of the problems we have. Again I can give you in layma~s terms and our engineer would know more details. Our subscribers are getting service or what we refer to as roaming service from SNET and what happens if you are a subscriber roaming charges are more expensive and our subscribers are disappointed that they have to pay the roaming charges. The other thing, Our FCC license requires us at certain times to provide service along the area that we are licensed. Also, the fact that we are a public utility, the Public Service Commission has issued the PCA, their complaints that go to the Commission also saying that I subscribe to NYNEX why should I have to pay roaming charges. So there are a number of factors. Naturally when we were building our system we had to logically do the core site before we came to eastern Long Island. CHAIRMAN: Anything else. No. Bob~ Not hearing any further questions I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until liter and we are expecting a determination from the Planning Board and a determination from the Town Board through the attorney. Although we are closing the hearing we are waiting for those two decisions. So there will no decision on this particular application until around the 20th of November and if for any reason it is required for us to reopen the hearing, we will reopen it to take that information and then close it back again. The decision on this particular hearing will then be held up until early December. That's when we will be making a determination. We thank you all from NYNEX for coming tonight. It's been a pleasure meeting you all. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. MARIE ONGIONI ATTORNEY AT LAW 218 FRONT STREET. GREENPORT. NEW YORK tt944 (516) 477-2045 FAX {516) 477-8919 OCT Z I October 21, 1991 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairperson Zoning Board of Appeals Town }{all 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: NYNEX Mobile Communications Applications Dear Mr. Goehringer: Please refer to your letter of October 15th and my initial response of October 17th. Pursuant to your request, enclosed herewith please find two copies of a revised site plan showing the projected fall-down area of the monopole. Also enclosed herewith is a letter from the property owner, Arthur V. Junge which consents to the processing of this application by NYNEX and also consents to the construction of the monopole. Please note that the indicated fall-down area does not affect the property to the west of the Junge site (Harris property). I will be meeting the property owner to the east within the week and will be contacting the Town Attorney during this same time frame. I will, of course, keep you advised of the results of those discussions. Thank you for your continued cooperation in this application. Very truly yours, · //'/? ~ ' ~RIE ONGIONI encs. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman RE: Appeals Nos. 4058 and 4062 by NYNEX MObile Communications/Arthur V. Junge, Inc. Proposed Amendment to Approved Site Plan for Arthur V. Junge Industrial Building N/s County Road 28, Cutchogue, New York SCTM ~ 1000-96-1-19.1 The Planning Board received a revised set of amended site plans for the above-referenced site on October 22nd. The Board has not had the opportunity to review these revised plans in a work session. The plans will be reviewed at our next work session, within a few days. The results of our review will be submitted to your office promptly. It would be appreciated if the Zoning Board would keep the hearing open so that our review and comments can be made part of your record of the hearing. cc: Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney MARIE ONGIONI 218 FRONT STREET. GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 1516) 477-2048 FAX (~16) 477-8919 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: October 17, 1991 Applications of NYNEX Mobile Communications for Special Exception and Setback Variance Dear Mr. Goehringer: I am in receipt of your letter of October 15th. I enclose herewith copies of the documentation received from my client indicating its designation as a public utility and its authorization to provide radio cellular telephone service. I have requested that the architects prepare sketches of the fall down radius for the monopole and in this regard I will also submit data as to the wind load capacity of the monopole and the relevant recorded winds in the area for a sample period of time. Unfortunately, this material is not as yet in my possession but I will submit it as soon as I am in receipt of the documentation. I intend to conference with the adjacent property owners to discuss the fall down radius and their possible consent to any potential hazard. However, I do not believe such a hazard exists because of the wind load capacity of the monopole and the recorded winds in the area. I intend to submit documentation to support this contention. In the interim, I would appreciate a clarification of your statement that in my dealing with adjacent property owners I should determine "whether or not they would be willing to allow their land to be restricted". Consent to a potential danger, and consent to a restriction of property are not synonymous. I will, as stated above, submit the relevant documentation together with a memorandum in support of the application shortly. I await your response to my request for clarification. enc. Ver~uly yours, C. 28513 There The following services: FCC APPROVAL Granted by the FCC on February 18, 1983. NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION Published in Commission's Weekly Bulletin on April 26, 1983. In addition, notice was published in following newspapers on April 22, 1983: New York Times, Rockland County Journal News, Newsday, White Plains Reporter Dispatch, Newburgh News, Staten Island Advance, New York Daily News, and New York Post. COMPETITORS IN THE AFFECTED AREA are no cellular carriers in operation in this State. is a list of RTU's certified to provide traditional AAT Radio Telephone Corp. Aircall New York Corp. Associated Communications of New York, Inc. Beep Communication System, Inc. Empire Paging Corp. d/b/a Radiofone Litelco Communications, Inc. MCI A/rsignal, Inc. (certified, not yet operating). Messages by Radio, Inc. Mobile Radio Message Service, Inc. New York Telephone Company - 2 - STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE June 14, 1983 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: THE COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION CASE 28513 - New York SMSA Limited Partnership - Petition for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct a High Capacity Land Mobile Radio Telecommunications Systems. NAME OF COMPANY New York SMSA Limited Partnership. DATE OF PETITION April 22, 1983. NATURE OF PETITION Petitioner requests that the Commission grant and issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to allow the operation of a cellular radio system. AREA TO BE SERVED The primary service area will be the Greater Metropolitan New York City area. More specifically, all or portions of the towns, cities, or villages that will be served are listed on Attachment I. C. 28513 Petitioner brings this application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to permit the operation of a cellular radio system in the region delineated on Attach- ment II. The Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO) will be located at Jersey City, New Jersey. Cell sites will be located in New York State at Brooklyn, Garden City, Greenburgh, Harrison, Jamaica, Locust Valley, Mt. Vernon, Plainview, and Staten Island. New Jersey cell sites will be located at Alpine, Bernardsville, Bridgewater, Fair Lawn, Fort Lee, Franklin, Madison, Newark, Oakland, Wayne, West Orange, and Woodcliffe Lake. The applicant's proposal fully meets the first of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Section 21.4 (a) by providing an entirely new service to the area to be served. In addition, the pressing demand for mobile is particularly acute in New York City, where there are waiting lists for service up to ten years. The petitioner believes that the granting of its application will relieve this backlog. CONCLUSION The proposed reliable service area of the cellular system will cover at least 75% of the New York Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA), as required by FCC's Rules. The petitioner plans to increase its coverage through the construction of - 4 - C. 28513 Page America Network Corp. Page Boy, Inc. Paging Network of New York Pocket Phone Broadcast Service, Inc. Radio Broadcasting Co. of New York, Inc. (certified, not yet operating). Radio Call Company of Long Island, Inc. Radio Relay New York Corp. Relay Communications Corp. Tel-Rad Message Center, Inc. Westchester Mobilefone System, Inc. Henry M. Zachs d/b/a Message Center Beepers and/or Massachusetts-Connecticut Mobile Telephone Company OBJECTIONS RECEIVED None. DISCUSSION The New York SMSA Limited Partnership was formed under the New York Limited Partnership Act on April 7, 1983. Its principal place of business is located in Bernardsville, New Jersey. The partnership consists of Advanced Mobile Phone Service, Inc. (AMPS), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T as General Partner, and United Telephone System, Inc. as Limited Partner. - 3 - , ' !.C., 28513 additional cell sites as demand warrants. The total population in New York State that will have coverage is 8.9 million. There are no cellular carriers in operation. Providers of conventional RTU service totaY 21. Notice of the application has been published and no objections have been received. The petitioner has been granted the wireline allotment of frequencies by the Federal Communications Commission. Construction of the cell sites will begin immediately upon this Commission's approval. Service is scheduled to commence in the summer of 1984. RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the provisions of Section 21.4 of 16NYCRR and in the absence of any objections, it is recommended that the hearing required by Section 99 of the Public Service Law be held at the public session of the Commission during which deliberation over this matter occurs. It also is recommended that the Commission grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity to New York SMSA Limited Partnership. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by,_ ~ Chief System Planner APPROVED BY: NEIL A. SWIFT Director of Communications Division - 5 Attachments Attachment I 3.2 I. II. List of Cities, Towns and Villages in New York State ~lthin NY CGSA New York City Azeas outside New York City NASSAU COUNTY Atlantic Beach (v) Baxter Estates (v) Bayville (v) Bellerose (v) Brookville (v) Cedarhurst (v) Centre Island (v) Cove Neck (v) East Hills (v) East Rockaway (v) East Williston (v) Farmingdale (v) Floral Park (v) Flower Hill (v) Freeport (v) Garden City (v) Glen Cove (c) Great Neck (v) Great Neck Estates (v) Great Neck Plaza (v) Nempstead (t) Hampstead (v) Newlett Bay Park (v) Hewlett Harbor (v) Sewlett Neck (v) Island Park (v) Xensington (v) Xings Point (v) I~ke Success (v) Lattingto~-m (v) Laurel Hollow (v) La~rcance (v) ~ns S~ch (c) L~brook (v) ~lverne (v) ~nozhaven (v) ~ssapeq~ Park (v) ~ecock (v) ~11 ~eck (v) ~neola (v) ~ey Park (v) ~C~on~ (v) ~ew ~yde Pa~ (v) ~or~h H~pscead Old Broo~lle (v) Old gestbury (v) Oyster Bay (t) Oyster Bay Cove (v) Plandome (~;' Plandome Heights (v) Plandome Manor (v) Port Washington North (v) Rockville Centre (v) ~osl~ (v) Eoslyu Estates (v) Roslyn Harbor (v) Russell Gardens (v) Saddle Rock (v) Sands Point (v) Sea Cliff (v) Sou~h Floral Park (v) Syosset (v) Tho~ston (v) Upper Brookville (v) Valley Stream (v) gestbury (v) Vtlltston Park (v) ~oodsburgh (v) WESTCHESTER COUNTY Ardsley (v) Bedford (t) Buchanan (v) Bronxville (v) Cortlandt (t) Croton-on-Hudson (v) Dobbs Ferry (v) Eastchester (t) Ehnsford (v) Greenburgh (t) Harrison Nastings-on-Hudson (v) Irvington (v) Larchmont (v) La~isboro (t) Mamaroneck (t) F~=~roneck (v) ~ount ~isco (t) Hount Pleasant (t) New Castle (t) New Rochelle (c) North Castle (t) North Tarrytown (v) North Salem (t) peekskill (c) Pelham (t) Pelham (v) Pelham Manor (v) Pleasantville (v) Port Chester (v) Pound Ridge (t) Rye (c) Rye (t) Rye Brook (~) Scaxsdale (t) So.ers (t) Ta~,ytovu (v) Tuckahoe (v) D~te Plains (c) Yonkers Yorktown (t) City (c), To~n (t), Village (v) Clarkstown (t) Grandview-on-Hudson (v) gaverstraw (v) Hlllburn (v) New Square (v) Nyack (v) PUTNAM COUFI~ Brewster (v) Carmel (t) Cold Spring (v) SUFFOLK COUN'i-I* Amityville (v) Asharoken (v) Babylon (t) Babylon (v) Brightwaters (v) Brookhaven* ORANGE COUN%~ * Greenwood Lake (v) TuxeSo (t) Orangetown (t) Ossining (t) Ossining (v) Piemont (v) Pomona (v) ~po (t) Sloatsburg (v) Nelsonville (v) Patterson (t) Head of the Harbor (v) Buntington (t) Huntimgtou Bay (v) Islip* (t) Lake Grove (v) Tuxedo Park (v) South Nyack (v) Spring Valley (v) Stony Point (t) Suffern (v) Upper Nyack (v) West liaverstrav (v) Philipstown (t) Putnam Valley Southeast (t) Liodenhurst (v) Lloyd ~arbor (v) Nissequoque (v) Northport (v) Smithto~n (t) *Partially Served Area SOURCES New York State Department'of Transportation's 1983 Four Sheet New York State Map (1:250,000 scale) and associated 1983 Gazetteer (1980 U.S. Government Census population figures included). Attachment -,.--, 8MBA 30 ~u JUL 3 STATE OF NEW PUBLIC SERVICE COH~ISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission held in t~e City of Albany on June 29, 1983 CO~ISSIONERS PRESENT: Paul L. Gioia, Chairman £dward P. LaPkln Carmel Carrinston Harp Anne Fo Head Richard £. Schuler Rosemary S. Pooler CASE 28513 - New York SMSA Limited Par~ership - Petition for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct a High Capacity Land Mobile Radio Telecommunications Service. CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY By petition filed April 22, 1983 New York SMSA Limited Partnership sought authority pursuant to Section 99 of the Public Service Law to operate as a Radio-Telephone Utility for provision of cellular radio service in the greater New York City area, The petitioner has been granted a construction permit for the proposed facilities from the Federal Communications Commission. C. 28513 - 2 - On June 29, 1983, we approve~ the request. Accordingly, CERTIFIED that, upon the effective date of appropriate tariff schedules for these facilit~es, said tariff schedules to be filed 60 days prior to commencement of service, public convenience and necessity require the construction and operation of radio-telephone facilities by New York SMSA Limited Partner- ship. The base stations hereby certified shall emit reliable radio signals within the contours defined by the directions and distances set forth fn Attachment I. If tariff schedules are not on file by December 31, 1984, this certification may be null and void. By the Commission, Attachment (SIGNED) JOHN J. KELLINER Secretary Attachment ! New York SMSA Limited Partnership Reliable Service Area STATION: KNKA 206 CELLULAR FREQ: Base 880.020-889.980 Mobile 835.020-844.980 Location D - Staten Island Location E - West Orange, N.J. N. Lat.-40°38'26" W. Long.-74°04'32" N. Lat.-40047'12" W. Long.-74'16'46" Bearin~ 39 dBu Bearin~ 39 dBu N 0° E - N 0° Z - 45 7.2 miles 45° - 90 6.8 90° 10.5 miles 135 7.0 135° 11.0 180 6.5 180° - 225 5.5 225° - 270 - 270° - 315 - 315° - .Location F - Jamaica N. Lat.-40042'45' W. Long.-73°47*16~ Bearin~ 39 dBu N 0° E 8.0 miles 45° 6.2 90° 7.0 135° 7.5 180° 7.8 2250 8.2 2700 7.2 315° 8.3 Location G - Fort Lee, N.J. N. Lat.-40°Sl*19" W. Long. 73°57'54' Bearin9 39 dBu N 0° E 9.5 miles 45° 8.9 90° 9.0 13S° 9.5 180° 8.8 225o - 270 - 315° - Location H - Oakland, N.J. N. Lat.-41003*13" #. Y,.,Ong.-74014*36- Location ! - Plainview N. ~at.-40'47'05' H. ~Ong.-73~26'58' Bear£n~ 39 dBu 8ear[n~ 39 dBu 00 E 8.8 miles 0· 7.2 miles 45° 9 45° 6.8 900 10.5 90° 7.0 135° - 135° 8.5 180° - 180° 8.7 2250 - 225° 7.0 270e - 270° 7.2 315° 315° 7.0 N Location J - Harrison N. Lat.-40058'06' W. Long.-73°42*29' Bearing 39 dBu N 0° E 6.5 miles 45° 6.0 90° 7.1 135e 7.0 180° 7.0 225° 6.8 270° 4.2 315° 5.5 Location D, £ - Newark, N.J. N. Lat.-40042*52' W. Long.-74*11'17~ Bearing 39 dBu N 0° E - 45° - 90° 6.3 135° 6.0 180° 6.5 225° - 270° - 315° - Location D, F - Brooklyn N. La~.-40'40~40- #. Long..73o$6~57~ Be&ring 39 dBu N 0' E 7.0 miles 45° 6.5 90° 6.5 135° 7.0 180° 7.0 225o 6.5 270' 7.1 315° 6.7 Location G, J - Mt. Vernon N. Lat.-40054'48- W. Long.-73'S0"39" Bear~n~ 39 dBu N 0° £ 45o 90' 135° 180° 225* 270° 315° Location F, ! - Garden City N. Lat.-40°43'49" W. ~Ong.-73'36'31' ~ear£n~ 39 dBu N 0° E 5.5 miles 45° 5.5 90° 6.5 135° 7.1 180° 7.3 2250 7.5 2700 6.8 315° 7.5 Location G, K - Alpine, N.J. N. L~t--40057~40" W. Long.-73os5,24- Bearin~ 39 dBu 4.2 miles N 0' E 4.1 miles 6.4 450 2.5 7.8 900 10.0 7.8 135° 10.5 7.5 180° 11.0 7.0 225° 270' _ 5.5 315' 10.2 Location B, K - ~oodcliffe Lake, N.J. lq. Lat.-41°02"42" #. Long.-74'04'25" Location ], J-Locust Valley N. Lat.-40*52'4?" #. Long.-73.35,03 Bearing 39 dBu Bearing 39 dBu lq O* E 45' 80· 135° 180' 225° 270° 315° 4.0 miles 8.5 8.8 9.5 Location J, K - Greenburgh N. Lat.-41'02'41" W. Long.-73o48'18' Bearing 39 dBu lq 0° E 5.0 miles 45° 6.0 90° 6.1 135' 7.0 180° 7.0 225' 6.4 270' 7.3 315' 7.5 lq 0* E 45° 90' 135' 180° 225* 270° 315° 8.0 miles 8.0 7.2 4.0 5.0 6.5 6.5 7.5 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE June 14, 1983 AP LOYLI CO SS;Ok JUN 29 1983 TO: THE COMMZSSION FROM: COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION SUBJECT: CASE 28513 - New York SMSA Limited Partnership - Petition for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Righ Capacity Land Mobile Radio'Telecommunications Systems. NAME OF COMPANY New York SMSA Limited Partnership. DATE OF PETITION April 22, 1983. NATURE OF PETITION Petitioner requests that the Commission grant and a certificate of public operation of a cellular AREA TO BE SERVED The primary New York City area. convenience and necessity to allow the radio system. service area will be the Greater Metropolitan More specifically, all or portions of the towns, cities, or villages that will be served are listed on Attachment I. C. 28513 FCC APPROVAL Granted by the FCC on February 18, 1983. NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION Published in Commission's Weekly Bulletin on April 26, 1983. In addition, notice was published in following newspapers on April 22, 1983: New York Times, Rockland County Journal News, New~da¥, White Plains Reporter Dispatch, Newburgh Island Advance, New York Daily News, and New York News, Staten Post. COMPETITORS IN THE AFFECTED AREA There are no cellular carriers in operation in this State. The following is a list of RTU's certified to provide traditional services: AAT Radio Telephone Corp. Aircall New York Corp. Associated Communications of New York, Inc. Beep Communication System, Inc. Empire Paging Corp. d/b/a Radiofone Litelco Communications, Inc. MCI Airsignal, Inc. (certified, not yet operating). Messages by Radio, Inc. Mobile Radio Message Service, Inc. New York Telephone Company - 2 - Page America Network Corp. Page Boy, Inc. Paging Network of New York Pocket Phone Broadcast Service, Inc. Radio Broadcasting Co. of New York, Inc. (certified, not yet operating). Radio Call Company of Long Island, Inc. Radio Relay New York Corp. Relay Communications Corp. Tel-Rad Message Center, Inc. Westchester Mobilefone System, Inc. Henry M. Zachs d/b/a Message Center Beepers and/or Massachusetts-Connecticut Mobile Telephone Company OBJECTIONS RECEIVED None. DISCUSSION The New York SMSA Limited Partnership was formed under the New York Limited Partnership Act on April 7, 1983. Its principal place of business is located in Bernardsville, New Jersey. The partnership consists of Advanced Mobile Phone Service, Inc. (AMPS), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T as General Partner, and United Telephone System, Inc. as Limited Partner. - 3 - C. 28513 Petitioner brings this application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to permit the operation of a cellular radio system in the region delineated on Attach- ment II. The Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO) will be located at Jersey City, New Jersey. Cell sites will be located in New York State at Brooklyn, Garden City, Greenburgh, Harrison, Jamaica, Locust Valley, Mt. Vernon, Plainview, and Staten Island. New Jersey cell sites will be located at Alpine, Bernardsville, Bridgewater, Fair Lawn, Fort Lee, Franklin, Madison, Newark, Oakland, Wayne, West Orange, and Woodcliffe Lake. The applicant's proposal fully meets the first of the Commission*s Rules and RegulatioPs Section 21.4 (a) by providing an entirely new service to the area to be served. In addition, the pressing demand for mobile is particularly acute in New York City, where there are waiting lists for service up to ten years. The petitioner believes that the granting of its application will relieve this backlog. CONCLUSION The proposed reliable service area of the cellular system will cover at least 75% of the New York Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA), as required by FCC's Rules. The petitioner plans to increase its coverage through the construction of C. 28513 and necessity to New York additional cell sites as demand warrants. The total l)opulation in New York State that will have coverage is 8.9 million. There are no cellular carriers in operation. Providers of c~)nventional RTU service total' 21. Notice of the application has been published and no objections have been received. The petitioner has been granted the wireline allotment of frequencies by the Federal Communications Commission. Construction of the cell sites will begin immediately upon this Commission's approval. Service is scheduled to commence in the summer of 1984. RECO~4ENDATION In accordance with the provisions of Section 21.4 of 16NYCRR and in the absence of any objections, it is recommended that the hearing required by Section 99 of the Public Service Law be held at the public session of the Commission during which deliberation over this matter occurs. It also is recommended that the Commission grant a certificate of public convenience SMSA Limited Partnership. APPROVED BY: Respectfully submitted, GR~QC~Y/C. PaTTENAUDE Se~j~ir~/~ystem Planner Reviewed by, Chief System Planner NEIL A. SWIFT Director of Communications Division Attachment List of Cities, Town, s and Villages in Ney York State RY CGSA Ney Tork City Areas outside Ney York City NASSAU COUNTY Atlantic Beech Baxter Estates (v) Fa~ville (v) Bellerose (v) Brool~r~11e (v) Cedarhurst (v) Centre Island (v) Cove Neck (v) Fast Hills (~) Fast Bockavay (v) East Willtstou Plorel Park (v) Plover H111 (v) Freeport (v) Garden City Glen Cove Great Neck Great Neck £ststes (v) great Neck Plaza (v) Heupsteed (t) Be~psceed (v) Hevle~g Bay Pag~ (v) Hevlect Harbor (v) Bevlett Neck (v) Island Park (v) Kensington (v) Kings Point (v) 'lake Success (v) Y~ttingt~.m (v) laurel Hollow (v) La~rrence (v) ~u~ Beech (c) L~broo~ ~nozhaven (v) ~ssapeq~ ~ttnecock (v) ~11 ~eck Muttouto~ (v) Ney Hyde ~atk North ~ps~ead (~) Nor~ Rills (v) 01dBroo~lle (v) Old Westhury (v) Oyster Bay (t) Oyster Bay Cove (v) Plandome (~' Plando~ Heights (v) Plandoue )~mno~ Port q&shingtoo North (v) Iockvllle Centre (v) Hosly~ (v) &oslyu Estates Rosly~ Herbo~ (v) lussell ~ar~e~ (v) $o~dle Rock (v) ~ands Point Sea Cliff (v) Syosset (v) Upper Dry. tile Valley Stre~ (v) Vestbu~ (v) Vtllisto~ ~atk (v) Voodsbut&h (v) ~ESTCHESTER COUH~ Ardsley Bedford (t) Buchanan (v) Broux~rille (v) Cortlandt (t) Croton-on-Hudson (v) Dobbs Ferry (v) Fastchester (t) Elusford (v) Greenburgh (t) ~arrison (t) Hestings-on-Nudson (v) Ilwington (v) larc~ont (v) Left, aborn (t) ~a~aroneck (t) ~roueck (v) Mount Ktsco (t) Mount Pleasant (t) Nev~stle (t) Ney ~helle (c) North ~s~le (t) North Sil~ Pee~ll (c) ~el~ (t) ~elhn (e) Pleasantville (v) Port Chester (v) Pound Ridge (t) Bye (c) ~ye (t) ~ye Brook (~) Scersdsle (t) Souers (t) T&rrytovn (v) T~ckahoe (v) ~fl~l~e Plains (c) Yonkers Yorktovu (t) C~arksco~ (c) Haverstrav (~) Raverstrsv (~) Hillhuz~ (~) Hey Square (~) ~yack (v) PUTblAN COUlqT~ lre~ster (v) ~rmel (c) Cold Spring (v) SUFFOLK COUNTY* Amtt),ville (v) ~Sharoken (v) Hsbylon (t) ~sbylcm (v) Bright~aters (v) Brookhaven* (t) ORAI4 G£ COUNT~* greenvood Lake (v) Tuxedo (t) Orangetow~ (t) Ossining (t) Ossining (v) ?lermont (v) ~ouo~a (v) R~mapo (t) $1ostsburg South l~ack (v) Spring Valley (v) Stony Point (t) Suffern (v) Upper ~yack (v) ~est Haverstrev (v) Kent (t) Belsonville (y) ~&tterson (t) Phillpstcr. m (t) Putna~ Valley (t) Southeast (t) Head of the Harbor (v) Huntington (t) Huntington Bay (v) lslipe (t) Lake Grove (v) Lindenhurst (v) Lloyd l~rbor (v) Nlssequoque (v) ~orthport (~) Smithtovll (t) Tuxedo Park (v) ~sr~rlck (t) *Partially Served Area SOURCES ~ev York State Department of Transportation'a 1983 Four Sheet New York State Map (1:250,000 scale) and associated 1983 Gazetteer (1980 g.S. Government Census population figures included). STATE OF NEW YOR~ PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission held in the City of Albany on April 24, 1985 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Paul L. Gioia, Chairman Edward P. Larkin Carmel Carrington Mart Anne F. Mead Rosemary S. Pooler Gail Garfield Schwartz CASE 28513 - Petition of New York SMSA Limited Partnership for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct a High Capacity Land Mobile Radio Telecommunications Service - AMENDED CERTIFICATE. By petition filed February 15, 1985, New York SMSA Limited Partnership, having received a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity on June 29, 1983; as amended March 14, 1984 and November 20, 1984, requested approval to amend its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in order to reflect a minor increase in reliable service area. This change was caused by the addition of a new site at Brentwood, New York. The petitioner also has requested that the Commission redefine the boundaries of the service area to be contiguous with the contours of the cellular geographic service area (CGSA) approved by the FCC. 3 Partnership's service territory and, in accordance with Section 21.5 of 16NYCRR, viii be approved without hearing. Therefore, it is ORDERED: 1. That an amended Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity may be issued to New York SMSA Limited Partnership to allow the operation of a new site at Brentwood, New York. 2. That, until February 18, 1986, the operating territory of New York SMSA Limited Partnership be modified to include the entire Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA). 3. That on or before February 18, 1986, New York SMSA Limited Partnership submit proof to the Commission that it is providing service to the entire CGSA. 4. That if the entire CGSA is not served by February 18, 1986, the certificate will be modified to include only the area actually served. 5. That the objections of Cellular Telephone Company are denied. 6. This proceeding is continued. By the Commission, (Signed) JO~N J. KELLIBER Secretary STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission held in the City of NeW York on May 25, 1988 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Peter Bradford, Chairman Harold A. Jerry, Jr. Gall Garfield Schwartz Eli M. Noam James T. McFarland Edward M. Kresky Henry G. Williams CASE 28513 - New York SMSA Limited Partnership - Petition for a Certificate of Public Convenience and'Necessity to Construct a High Capacity Land Mobile Radio Telecommunications Service.--PETITION TO AMEND ITS CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO EXTEND THE NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARy OF ITS CELLULAR GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA. ORDER AMENDING CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (Issued and Effective June 1, 1988) By petition Partnership, Necessity on May 28, 1986 filed March 2, 1988, New York SMSA Limited having received a Certificate of Public Convenience and June 29, 1983 as amended March 14, 1984; April 24, 1985; and February 24, 1988, sought authority pursuant to Commission rules to amend its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in order to permit the expansion of its service area. The proposed change would extend the northeastern boundary of its .Case. 28513 authorized boundary. changes by the Federal Communications Commission. At the May 25, 1988 session, the Commission the request of New York SMSA Limited Partnership. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. That this Order amends the Certificate Convenience and Necessity authorizing New York SMSA Partnership to modify its service area as defined in its March 2, 1988 petition. 2. That this proceeding is continued. service area to coincide with its Metropolitan Service Area The petitioner has been 'granted authority for the proposed decided to grant of Public Limited By the Commission, (SIGNED) JOHN J. KELLIHER Secretary 2 STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session .of the Public Service Commission held in the City of Albany on May 28, 1986 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Paul L. Gioia, Chairman Edward P. Larkin Carmel Carrington Mart Harold. A. Jerry, Jr. Anne F. Mead Rosemary S. Pooler SERVED JUN 2 1986 CASE 28513 - New York SMSA Limited Partnership - Petition to amend their Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to reflect a change in service area. By petition filed April 25, 1986, New York SMSA Limited Partnership, having received a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity on June 29, 1983; as amended March 14, 1984; November 20, 1984; and April 24, 1985, requested approval to amend its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in order to redefine the boundaries of its service area to be contiguous with the contours of the cellular'geographic service area (CGSA) approval by the FCC. 2 We will grant the request of New York SMSA Limited Partnership with the understanding that the entire CGSA will be served by December 31, 1987, which is projected to be the end of the initial licensing period established by the FCC. Therefore, it is ORDERED: 1. That an amended Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity may be issued to New York SMSA Limited Partnership. 2. That if the entir9 CGSA is not served by December 31, 1987, the Certificate will be modified to include only the area actually served. 3. This proceeding is continued. By the Commission, (SIGNED) JOHN J. KELLIHER Secretary UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION MOBILE RADIO AUTHORIZATION FCC FORM 463 COMMON CARRIER DOMESTIC PUBLIC CELLULAR RADIO TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE NEW YORK SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 2000 CORPORATE DRIVE ORANGEBURG, NEW YORK 10962 CALL SIGN: KNKA206 SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 0022 FILE NO: 09013-CL-L-91 MARKET: 0001 NEW YORK, NEW YORK ORIGINAL GRANT DATE: DATE OF ISSUE: EXPIRATION DATE: ALL PREVIOUSLY ISSUED AUTHORIZATIONS ARE VOID MOBILE UNITS PRESENTLY AUTHORIZED: 100000 AUTHORIZATION IS GRANTED FOR BLOCK B - BASE: 8B0.020 THROUGH 889.980 MHZ AND 891.510 THROUGH 893.970 MHZ MOBILE: 835.020 THROUGH 844.980 MHZ AND 846.510 THROUGH 848.970 MHZ PAGE 01 OF 15 OPERATOR: DC dUNE 15, 1984 APRIL 19, 199t OCTOBER 1, 1993 CONTROL POINT NO. LOCATION NO. 001: LOCATION NO. 002: 001 2000 CORPORATE DRIVE ORANGEBURG NEW YORK LATITUDE: 40 42 24 N LONGITUDE: 074 34 40 W 1300 FT, WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF PINE HILL ROAD LIBERTY AVENUE CITY: BERNARDSVILLE COUNTY: SOMERSET STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LATITUDE: 40 49 48 N LONGITUDE: 074 07 26 W 515 RIVER ROAD CITY: CLIFTON COUNTY: PASSAIC STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only thc use of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" Radio Services other than Broadcast. The power for mobile transmitters shall not exceed 60 watts. Thc Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction, in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion, the grantee shall, on thc forms and in the manner prescribed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of the Commission that all thc terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in the application and in this authorization have been fully met. After such showing and notification, and upon a finding by the Commission that since the granting of this authorization no cause or circumstance have arisen which, in the judgment of the Commission, makes ~r~peration of the station against the public ~st, the Commissiou will without notification sanction this authorization for operation of the station. Thereafter this authorization contains thc conditions specified in Section 309 of the Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorization shall not vest in thc grantee any right to operate thc station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the use of thc particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation- The Commission, in issuing this authorization, reserves thc right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it deems best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission, time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to the exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by the Commission on the question of marking or lighting of the antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. The permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Commission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by the grantee and received at the Commission prior to the expiration of such period, the Commission may grant an extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the grant- ce's representation that the statements contained in his applications and notifications are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith. The permittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor the right granted herein shall be assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm, company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 1934. as amended, and without the written con- sent of the Commission. This authorization shall not vest the permittee any right to operate the station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of use or control by the Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 1934, as amended. FCC Form 463 February 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION CALL SIGN: KNKA206 FILE NO: 09013-CL-L-91 PAGE 02 OF 15 OPERATOR: DC LOCATION NO, 003: LATITUDE: 40 37 33 N LONGITUDE: 074 04 28 W SW CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF CANAL AND FRONT STREETS CITY: STATEN ISLAND COUNTY: RICHMOND STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 004: LATITUDE: 41 03 56 N LONGITUDE: 074 07 12 W 600 EAST CRESCENT AVENUE CITY: UPPER SADDLE RIVER COUNTY: BERGEN STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS; NONE LOCATION ND. 005: LATITUDE: 40 5t 19 N LONGITUDE: 073 57 54 W BUDGE PLAZA dOINT VENTURE ONE BRIDGE PLAZA SUITE 100 CITY: FORT LEE COUNTY: BERGEN STATE: NEW OERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 006: LATITUDE: 40 42 13 N LONGITUDE: 073 47 lB W BO FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 170 STREET ANDLIBERTY AVENUE CITY: dAMAICA COUNTY: QUEENS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS; NONE LOCATION NO. 007: LATITUDE: 40 40 40 N LONGITUDE: 073 56 57 W t332 ATLANTIC AVENUE CITY: BROOKLYN COUNTY: KINGS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 008: LATITUDE: 40 42 52 N LONGITUDE: 074 11 182 FRELINGHUYSEN AVENUE CITY: NEWARK COUNTY: ESSEX STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 009: LATITUDE: 40 48 O0 N LONGITUDE: 074 28 54 W 3 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA CITY: MORRISTOWN COUNTY: MORRIS STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE FEDERAL ~'.)~,~, COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only tbe use of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" Radio Services other than Broadcast. Thc power for mobile transmitters shall not exceed 60 watts. Thc Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction, in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion, the grantee shall, on the forms and in the manner prescribed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of thc Commission that all thc terms, conditions, and obligations scl forth in the application and in this authorization have been fully met. After such showing and notification, and upon a finding by thc Commission that since thc granting of this authorization no cause or circumstance have arisen which, in thc judgment of thc Commission, makes I operation of the station against thc public est, thc Commission ~vill without notification sanction this authorization for operation of thc station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of thc Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorization shall not vest in thc grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the usc of thc particular frequency or thc amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. Thc Commission, in issuing this authorization, reserves thc right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it deems best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. Thc terms of said authorization as tn frequencies, power, emission, time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to thc exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by the Commission on thc question of marking or lighting of thc antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. Thc permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Commission may here- after require under thc provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by the grantee and received at thc Comminsion prior to thc expiration of such period, thc Commission may grant an extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on thc grant- ee's representation that thc statements contained in las applications and notifications are true and that thc undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith. Thc permittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to thc full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor the right granted herein shall be assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm. company, or cor- poration in violation of thc Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and without thc written con- sent of the Commission. This authorization shall not vest thc permittee any right to operate thc station nor any right in thc use of the frequencies designated in thc authorization beyond thc term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of usc or control by thc Government of thc United States conferred by Section 606 of thc Communica- tions Act of 1934, as amcnded. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION CALL SIGN: KNKA206 FILE NO: 09013-CL-L-91 PAGE 03 OF 15 OPERATOR: DC LOCATION NO. 010: LATITUDE: 40 57 36 N LONGITUDE: 073 43 O0 W NO. SIDE OF HARRISON AVE. DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM GLEASON PLACE CITY: HARRISON COUNTY: WESTCHESTER STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 011: LATITUDE: 40 47 48 N LONGITUDE: 073 27 42 W ONE FAIRCHILD AVENUE CITY: PLAINVIEW COUNTY: NASSSU STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH(S) t,3,12 & 21 OF FCC FORM 715, LOCATION NO. 012: LATITUDE: 40 30 23 N LONGITUDE: 0?4 32 27 W CEDER GROVE LANE CITY: FRANKLIN COUNTY: SOMERSET STATE: NEW UERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO, 013: LATITUDE: 40 35 03 N LONGITUDE: 074 40 13 W 312 VANDERVEER ROAD CITY: BRIDGEWATER COUNTY: SOMERSET STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 014: LATETUDE: 4t OA 02 N LONGITUDE: 073 50 58 W AXE CASTLE, 40(:) BENEDICT AVENUE CITY: TARRYTOWN COUNTY: WESTCHESTER STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 015: LATITUDE: 41 02 55 N LONGITUDE: 074 (~ 25 W ONE BLUE HILL PLAZA CITY: PEARL RIVER COUNTY: ROCKLAND STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 016; LATITUDE: 41 01 48 N LONGITUDE: OT3 45 48 W 9 LYON PLACE C[TY: WHITE PLAINES COUNTY: WESTCHESTER STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only the use of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" Radio Services other than Broadcast. The power for mobile transmitters shall not exceed 60 watts. The Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction. in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion. the grantee shall, on the forms and in the manner prescribed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of the Commission that all the terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in the application and in this authorization have been fully met. After such showing and notification- and upon a finding by the Commission that since the granting of this authorization on cause or circumstance have arisen which, in the judgment of the Commission, makes ~roperation of the station against the public est. the Commission will without notification sanction this authorization for operation of the station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of the Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorization shall not vest in the grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the use of the particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. The Commission, in issuing this authorization, reserves the right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it deems best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission, time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to the exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by the Commission on the question of marking or lighting of the antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. The permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Coaunission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by the grantee and received at the Commission prior to the expiration of such period, the Commission may grant an extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the grant- ee's representation that the statements contained in his applications and notifications are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith. The permittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor the right granted herein shall be assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm. company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 1934. as amended, and without the written con- sent of the Commission. This authorization shall not vest the permittee any right to operate the station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of use or control by the Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 1934. as amended. FCC Form 463 February 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION CALL SIGN: KNKA206 FILE NO: LOCATION NO. 017: LATITUDE: 40 54 48 N 217-225 W, LINCOLN AVENUE CITY: MT, VERNON STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LONGITUDE: 073 50 39 W COUNTY; WESTCHESTER PAGE 04 OF 15 OPERATOR: DC LOCAT[ON NO. 018: LOCATION NO. 019: LOCATION NO. 020: LOCATION NO. 021: LOCATION NO. 022: LOCATION NO. 023: LATITUDE: 40 55 24 N LONGITUDE: 074 06 56 w SW CORNER OF ROSALIE ST. BORDERING THE ERIE RAILROAD. CITY: FAIR LAWN COUNTY: BERCEN STATE: NEW UERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LATITUDE: 40 43 49 N LONGITUDE: 073 36 31W N SIDE OF COMMERICAL AVE. 100 FT. W OF OAK STREET CITY: GARDEN CITY COUNTY: NASSAU STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LATITUDE: 40 54 20 N LONGITUDE: 074 lB 43 W 45 DEMAREST DRIVE CITY: WAYNE COUNTY: PASSAIC STATE: NEW OERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LATITUDE: 40 44 12 N LONGITUDE: 074 Ol 44 W 9B RIVER STREET CITY: HOBOKEN COUNTY: HUDSON STATE: NEW OERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LATITUDE: 40 44 32 N LONGITUDE: 073 55 53 W 47-25 34TH STREET CITY: LONG ISLAND CITY COUNTY: KINGS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LATITUDE: 40 45 59 N LONGITUDE: 074 I1 44 W 23 CENTERWAY CITY: EAST ORANGE COUNTY: ESSEX STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only the use of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" Radio Services other than Broadcast. The power for mobile transmitters shall not exceed 60 watts. The Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction, in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion, the grantee shall, on the forms and in the manner prescribed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of the Commission that all the terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in the application and in this authorization have been fully met. After such showing and notification, and upon a finding by the Commission that since the granting of this authorization no cause or circumstance have arisen which, in the judgment of the Commission, makes ~l~roperation of the station against the public est, the Commission will without notification sanction this authorization for operation of the station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of the Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorization shall not vest in the grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the use of the particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. The Commission, in issuing this authorization, reserves the right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it deems best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission. time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to the exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by the Commission on the question of marking or lighting of the antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. The permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Commission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by the grantee and received at the Commission prior to the expiration of such period, the Commission may grant an extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the grant- ee's representation that the statements contained in his applications and notifications are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith. The permittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor the right granted herein shall be assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm. company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and without the written con- sent of the Commission. This authorization shall not vest the permittee any right to operate the station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of use or control by the Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 1934, as amended. FCC Form 463 February 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION CALL SIGN: KNKA206 FILE NO: 09013-CL-L-91 PAGE 05 OF 15 OPERATOR: DC LOCATION NO. 024: LATITUDE: 40 47 45 N LONGITUDE: 073 59 49 W 7800 RIVER ROAD CITY: N. BERGEN COUNTY: HUDSON STATE: NEW OERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 025: LATITUDE: 40 42 40 N LONGITUDE: 074 21 16 W 193 MORRIS AVENUE CITY: SUMMIT COUNTY: UNION STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 026: LATITUDE: 40 48 23 N LONGITUDE: 073 54 30 W 330 BRUCKNER BLVD. CITY: BRONX COUNTY: BRONX STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 027: LATITUDE: 40 48 07 N LONGITUDE: 073 920 CROOKED HILL DRIVE. CITY: BRENTWOOD COUNTY: SUFFOLK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH(S) 1,3, 17 06 W 12 & 2t OF FCC FORM 715. LOCATION NO. 028: LATITUDE: 40 50 32 N LONGITUDE: 073 01 35 W EAST SIDE OF ADIRONDACK DRIVE, 300 FEET SOUTHEAST OF MIDVALE AVENUE CITY: SELDEN COUNTY: SUFFOLK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH(S) 1,3,12 & 21 OF FCC FORM 715. LOCATION NO. 029: LATITUDE: 40 51 07 N LONGITUDE: 072 45 55 W I 1/2 MI. NNW OF EASTPORTG-MANOR RD & RT. 27 INTERS, 1/2 MI. NE OF ROCK HILL CTY CLUB CITY: MANORVILLE COUNTY: SUFFOLK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH(S) 1,3,1t & 21 OF FCC FORM 715. LOCATION NO. 030: LATITUDE: 40 58 58 N LONGITUDE: 072 19 43 W 2400 FT SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF NOYACK RD & STONY HILL ROAD CITY: SAG HARBOR COUNTY: SUFFOLK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE FEDERAL ~" COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only the use of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" Radio Services other than Broadcast. The power for mobile transmitters shall not exceed 60 watts. The Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction, in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion. the grantee shall, on the forms and in the manner prescribed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of the Commission that all the terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in the application and in this authorization have been fully met. After such showing and notification, and upon a finding by the Commission that since the granting of this authorization no cause or circumstance have arisen which, in the judgment of the Commission. makes ~roperation of the station against the public est. the Commission will without notification sanction this authorization for operation of the station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of the Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorization shall not vest in the grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the use of the particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. The Commission, in issuing this authorization, reserves the right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it deems hest calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission. time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to the exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by the Commission on the question of marking or lighting of thc antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. Thc permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as thc Commission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if thc said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to thc date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by the grantee and received at the Commission prior to the expiration of such period, the Commission may grant an extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the grant- ee's representation that the statements contained in his applications and notifications' are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith. The permittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor the right granted herein shall he assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm. company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 193a, as amended, and without the written con- sent of the Commission. This authorization shall not vest the permittee any right to operate the station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of use or control by the Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 1934, as amended. FCC Form 463 February 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION CALL SIGN: KNKA206 FILE NO: O9013-CL-L-91 PAGE 06 OF 15 OPERATOR: DC LOCATION NO. 031: LATITUDE: 40 45 13 N LONGITUDE: 073 59 19 W 1407 BROADWAY CITY: NEW YORK COUNTY: NEW YORK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 032: LATITUDE: 40 50 28 N LONGITUDE: 073 51 40 W 1705 PURDY STREET CITY: BRONX COUNTY: BRONX STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 033: LATITUDE: 40 42 59 N LONGITUDE: 074 O0 26 W 75 FRONT STREET CITY: BROOKLYN COUNTY: KINGS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO, 034: LATITUDE: 40 49 Ol N LONGITUDE: 073 55 51W 385 GERARD AVENUE CITY: BRONX COUNTY: BRONX STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 035: LATITUDE: 40 45 38 N LONGITUDE: 073 45 35 W LAKESIDE TOWERS, 220-50 46TH AVENUE CITY: BAYS[DE COUNTY: QUEENS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 036: LATITUDE: 40 36 23 N LONGITUDE: 073 57 12 W 2350 OCEAN AVENUE CITY: BROOKLYN COUNTY: KINGS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA NARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 037: LATITUDE: 40 45 18 N LONGITUDE: 073 49 32 W CARLYLE TOWERS COOPERATIVE "B", INC. 138-10 FRANKLIN AVENUE CITY: FLUSHING COUNTY: OUEENS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only the use of such transmitters as appear ia thc Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" Radio Services other than Broadcast. The power for mobile transmitters shall not exceed 60 watts. Thc Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction, in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion, the grantee shall, on the forms and in the manner prescribed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of the Commission that all the terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in the application and in this authorization have been fully met. After such showing and uotification, and upon a finding by the Commission that since the granting of this authorization no cause or circumstance have arisen which, in the judgment of the Commission, makes t operation of the station against the public est, the Commission will without notification sanction this authorization for operation of the station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of the Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorization shall not vest in the grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the use of the particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. The Commission, in issuing this authorization, reserves the right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it de,ms best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission. time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to the exercise of said reserved right, $. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by the Commission on the question of marking or lighting of the antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. The permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Commission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by the grantee and received at the Commission prior to the expiration of such period, the Commission may grant an extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the grant- ee's representation that the statements contained in bas applications and notifications' are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith. The permittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor the right granted herein shall be assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm, company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and without the written con- sent of the Commissiom This authorization shall not vest the permittee any right to operate the station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of use or control by the Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 1934, as amended. FCC Form 463 February 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION LOCATION NO. 039: CALL SIGN: KNKA206 FILE NO: 09013-CL-L-91 LATITUDE: 40 39 15 N LONGITUDE: 073 35 03 W 80 W. MERRICK ROAD CITY: FREEPORT COUNTY: NASSAU STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE PAGE O? OF 15 OPERATOR: DC LOCATION NO. 040: LATITUDE: 40 51 33 N LONGITUDE; 0?3 37 28 W LEECH CIRCLE CITY: GLEN COVE COUNTY: 'NASSAU STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO, 041: LATITUDE: 40 46 GO N LONGITUDE: 1411 3RD. AVENUE CITY: MANHATTAN COUNTY: STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE 073 57 25 W LOCATION NO. 045: LATITUDE: 41 09 07 N LONGITUDE: 073 47 10 W HAROSCRABBLE HILL ROAD CITY: PLEASANTVILLE COUNTY: WESTCHESTER STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 046: LATITUDE: 40 44 05 N LONGITUDE: 0?4 06 21W 286 CENTRAL AVENUE CITY: KEARNY COUNTY: HUDSON STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 047; LOCATION ND. 048: LATITUDE: 40 50 30 N LONGITUDE: 074 02 03 W 208 GATES ROAD CITY: LITTLE FERRY COUNTY: BERGEN STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH(S) 1,2, OF FCC FORM 715. LATITUDE: 40 55 40 N LONGITUDE: 073 53 24 W 107 VANCORTLAND PARK AVENUE CITY: YONKERS COUNTY: WESTCHESTER STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only the use of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" Radio Services other than Broadcast. The power for mobile transmitters shall not exceed 60 watts. The Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part lc. shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction, in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion, the grantee shall, on the forms and in the manner prescribed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of the Commission that all the terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in the application and in this authorization have been fully met. After such showing and notification, and upon a finding by the Commission that since the granting of this authorization no cause or circumstance have arisen which, in the judgment of the Commission, makes ~l[roperation of the station against the public est, the Commission will without notification sanction this authorization for operation of the station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of the Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorization shall not vest in the grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the usc of the particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. Thc Commission, in issuing this authorization, reserves the right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it deems best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission. time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to the exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by the Commission on the question of marking or lighting of the antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. The permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Commission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by the grantee and received at the Commission prior to the expiration of such period, the Commission may grant an extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the grant- ce's representation that the statements contained in his applications and notifications are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith. The permittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor the right granted herein shall be assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm, company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 193a, as amended, and without the written con- sent of the Commission. This authorization shall not vest the permittee any right to operate the station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of use or control by the Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 193,1., as amended. FCC Form 463 February 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION CALL SIGN: KNKA206 FILE NO: ogo13-CL-L-91 PAGE 08 OF 15 OPERATOR: DC LOCATION NO. 049: LATITUDE: 40 40 43 N LONGITUDE: 073 43 08 W NORTH END OF ARLINGTON AVENUE CITY: VALLEY STREAM COUNTY: NASSAU STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 050: LATITUDE: 40 52 IO N LONGITUDE: 072 34 38 W 1.9 MILES NORTH OF OLD COUNTRY RD & EAST END AVENUE INTERSECTION CITY: EAST QUDGUE COUNTY: SUFFOLK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH(S) 1 & 2 OF FCC FORM 715. LOCATION NO, O51: LATITUDE: 40 39 46 N LONGITUDE: 073 50 26 W 155-55 CROSS BAY BLVD. CITY: HDWARD BEACH COUNTY: QUEENS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 052: LATITUDE: 40 47 12 N LDNGITUDE: 074 40 39 W WASHINGTON AVENUE CITY: CHESTER COUNTY: MORRIS STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO, 053: LATITUDE: 40 52 16 N LONGITUDE: 074 11 46 W OVERLOOK AT GREAT NOTCH. CLOVE ROAD CITY: LITTLE FALLS COUNTY: PASSAIC STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 054: LATITUDE: 41 02 55 N 'LONGITUDE: 074 14 52 W .25 MILES NORTH OF LAKE TAMARACK CITY: OAKLAND COUNTY: BERGEN STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 055: LATITUDE: 40 52 51N LONGITUDE: 074 02 43 W 241 MAIN STREET CITY: HACKENACK COUNTY: PASSAIC STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of thc Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only the use of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" et Radio Services other than Broadcast. The power for mobile transmitters shall not exceed 60 watts. The Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction, in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion, the grantee shall, on thc forms and in thc manner prcscrihed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of the Commission that all the terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in the application and in this authorization have been fully met. After such showing and notification, and upon a finding by the Commission that since thc granting of this authorization no cause or circumstance have arisen which, in thc judgment of thc Commission, makes ii, operation of thc station against the public cst. thc Commission will without notification sanction this authorization for operation of thc station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of thc Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as thc Commission may prcscrihe. 4. During construction this authorization shall not vest in the grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the use of the particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. The Commission, in issuing this authorization, reserves the right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operatiou it deems best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission. time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to the exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by the Commission on the question of marking or lighting of the antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. The permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Commission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934. as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by the grantee and received at the Commission prior to the expiration of such period, the Commission may grant an extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the grant- ec's representation that the statements contained in his applications and notifications are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith. The pcrmittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor thc right granted herein shall be assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm, company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and without thc written con- sent of the Commission. This authorization shall not vest thc permittee any right to operate the station nor any right in thc usc of the frequencies designated in thc authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to thc right of usc or control by thc Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 1934, as amended. FCC Form 463 Febroary 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION CALL SIGN: KNKA206 FILE NO: ogoI3-CL-L-91 PAGE 09 OF 15 OPERATOR: DC LOCATION NO. 056: LATITUDE: 41 51 37 N LONGITUDE: 073 25 28 W BOXER COURT CITY: HUNTINGTON COUNTY: SUFFOLK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. O57: LATITUDE: 40 43 t0 N LONGITUDE: 074 15 28 W WALTER SCHAEFER PUBLIC WORKS CENTER CITY: NAPLEWOOD COUNTY: ESSEX STATE: NEW UERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 058: LATITUDE: 40 39 14 N LONGITUDE: 073 58 35 W 178 STEELY STREET CITY: PROSPECT PARK COUNTY: K[NGS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 059: LATITUDE: 40 44 04 N LONGITUDE: 073 51 54 W 1LEFRAK CITY CITY: ELMHURST COUNTY: 0UEENS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 060: LATITUDE: 40 45 34 N LONGITUDE: 075 58 t9 W 405 PARK AVENUE CITY: NEW YORK COUNTY: NEW YORK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. O61: LATITUDE: 40 48 03 N LONGITUDE: 074 17 12 W FORCE HILL WATER TANK, FORCE HILL ROAD (OFF MT.PLEASANT PKWY). CITY: LIVINGSTON COUNTY: ESSEX STATE: NEW UERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 062: LATITUDE: 40 44 09 N LONGITUDE: 073 59 20 W 33 IRVING PLACE CITY: NEW YORK COUNTY: NEW YORK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of thc Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only thc use of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of E, quipmcnl Acceptable for Licensing" tRadio Services other then Broadcast. Thc power for mobile transmitters shall not exceed 60 watts. The Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction, in accordance with thc terms of this authoriza- tion, thc grantee shall, on thc forms and in thc manner prescrihed from time to t/mc by thc Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of thc Commission that all thc terms, conditions, and obligations scl forth in thc application and in this authorization have heen fully mci. After such showing and notification, and upon a finding by the Commission that since the granting of this authorization no cause or circumstance have arisen which, in thc judgment of thc Commission, makes ~l~operation of the station against thc public cst, thc Commission will witheut notification sanction this authorization for operation of the station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of thc Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorization shall not vest in the grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the use of the particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. The Cmnmission, in issuing this authorization, reserves the right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it deems best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission, time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject lo thc exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by the Commission on the question of marking er lighting of the antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. The permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Commission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 6. This authorization shell hccome automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by the grantee and received at the Commission prior to the expiration of such period, the Commission may grant an extension if it finds thet the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the grant- ee's representation that the statements contained in his applications and notifications are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith~ The permittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor the right granted herein shall be assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm, company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and without the written con- sent of the Commission~ This authorization shall not vest the permittee any right to operate thc station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner then authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of use or control by the Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 1934, as amended. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION CALL SIGN: KNKA206 FILE NO: O9013-CL-L~91 PAGE 10 OF 15 OPERATOR: DC LOCATION NO. 063: LATITUDE: 40 45 50 N LONGITUDE: O?S 59 03 W 250 WEST 54TH ST. CITY: NEW YORK COUNTY: NEW YORK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 064: LATITUDE: 40 39 17 N LONGITUDE: 073 54 46 W LINDEN BLVD. AT BROOKDALE PLAZA BROOKDALE HOSPlTALMEOICAL CENTER CITY: BROOKLYN COUNTY: KINGS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH(S) t,3.21,22 OF FCC FORM 715. LOCATION NO. 065: LATITUDE: 40 45 34 N LONGITUDE: 073 39 31W S.E. CORNER OF INTERSECTION BETWEEN SEARINGTOWN AND HERRICKS ROAD CITY: SEARINGTON COUNTY: NASSAU STATE; NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 066: LATITUDE: 40 44 08 N LONGITUDE: 073 43 42 W BERNARD FINESON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER 238-01 HILLSIDE AVENUE CITY: QUEENS VILLAGE COUNTY: QUEENS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 067: LATITUDE: 40 58 t4 N LONGITUDE: 073 48 17 W 700 WHITE PLAINS ROAD CITY: EASTCHESTER COUNTY: WESTCHESTER STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARK[NGS: NONE LOCATION NO, 069: LATITUDE: 41 13 28 N LONGITUDE: 074 04 11W 2 MILES WEST OF dUNCTION PALISADES INTERSTATE PKWYAND GATE HILL ROAD CITY: STONY POINT COUNTY: ROCKLAND STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH(S) 1,3,11,21 & 22 OF FCC FORM 7t5. LOCATION NO. 071: LATITUDE: 40 38 23 N LONGITUDE: 074 12 43 W 25(30 BURNSWICH AVENUE CITY: LINDEN COUNTY: UNION STATE: NEW OERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE FEDERAL '~' · COMMUNICATIONS ~,~ COMMISSION Publb: Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only the use of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" et Radio Services other than Broadcast. The power for mobile transmitters shall not exceed 60 watts. The Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction, in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion, the grantee shall, on the forms and in the manner prescribed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of the Commission that all the terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in the application and in this authorization have been fully met. After such showing and notification, and upon a finding by tho Commission that since the granting of this authorization no cause or circumstance have arisen which, in the judgment of the Commission, makes ~operation of the station against the public est, the Commission will without notification sanction this authorization for operation of the station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of the Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorizatinn shall not vest in the grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the use of the particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. The Commission. in issuing this authorization, reserves the right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it deems best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission. time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to the exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by the Commission on the question of marking or lighting of the antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. The permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Commission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by the grantee and received at the Commission prior to the expiration of such period, the Commission may grant an extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the grant- ee's representation that the statements contained in his applications and notifications' are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith. The permittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor tho right granted herein shall be assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm. company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and without the written con- sent of the Commission. This authorization shall not vest the permittee any right to operate the station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of uso or control by the Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 1934, as amended. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION CALL SIGN: KNKA206 FILE NO: ogo13-CL-L-91 PAGE 1t OF 15 OPERATOR: DC LOCATION NO. 072: LATITUDE; 40 59 34 N LONGITUDE: 072 tO 20 W SPRINGS FIREPLACE ROAD CITY: EAST HAMPTON COUNTY: SUFFOLK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH(S) 1,3,4,13,21 & 22 OF FCC FORM 715. LOCAT[ON ND. 074: LATITUDE: 40 47 O1N LONGITUDE: 073 58 52 W 2211 BROADWAY (APTHDRPE APTS.) CITY: NEW YORK COUNTY: MANHATTAN STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 075: LATITUDE: 40 42 24 N LONGITUDE: 074 OD 32 W 50 PINE STREET CITY: NEW YORK COUNTY: NEW YORK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 076: LATITUDE: 40 42 43 N LONGITUDE: 074 2t 15 W 193 MORRIS AVENU CITY: SUMMIT COUNTY: UNION STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 077: LATITUDE: 41 09 30 N LONGITUDE: 074 IO 45 W MUNICIPAL WATER PROPERTY CORNER OF HILLSIDE ROAD AND COUNCIL CREST RD. CITY: SLOTATSBURG COUNTY: ROCKLAND STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 078: LATITUDE: 40 41 57 N LONGITUDE; 073 53 49 W 5900 DECATUR STREET AND MYRTLE AVE. CITY: GLENDALE COUNTY: QUEENS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATJ0N NO. O81: LATITUDE: 40 55 56 N LONGITUDE: 073 04 53 W 80 COMSEWOQUE ROAD CITY: STONY BROOK COUNTY: SUFFOLK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS; NONE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only the use of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" tRadio Services other than Broadcast. The power for mobile transmitters shall not exceed 60 watts. Thc Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction, in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion. the grantee shall, on the forms and in the manner prescribed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of the Commission that all the terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in the application and in this authorization have been fully met. After such showing and notification, and upon a finding by the Commission that since tile granting of this authorization no cause or circumstance have arisen which, in the judgment of the Commission, makes ioperation of the station against the public est, the Commission xvill without notification sanction this authorizatiou for operation of the station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of the Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorization shall not vest in the grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the use of the particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. The Commission. in issuing this authorization, reserves the right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it deems best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission, time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to the exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by the Commission on the question of marking or lighting of the antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. The permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Commission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper shewing, made to it by the grantee and received at thc Commission prior to the expiration of such period, thc Commission may grant an extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the grant- ee's representation that the statements contained in his applications and notifications are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith. The permittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor tho right granted herein shall be assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm, company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and without the written con- sent of the Commission. This authorization shall not vest the permittee any right to operate the station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of use or control by the Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 1934, as amended. FCC Form 463 February 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION CALL SIGN: KNKA206 FILE NO: 09013-CL-L-91 LOCATION NO. 088: LATITUDE: 40 45 44 N LONGITUDE: 074 01 t9 W LINCOLN HARBOR COMPLEX 1200 HARBOR BLVO., BLDG. B CITY: WEEHAWKEN COUNTY: HUDSON STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 087: LATITUDE: 40 51 20 N LONGITUDE: 073 31 25 W OYSTER BAY WATER TANK AT THE END OF SCHOOL HOUSE ROAD CITY: OYSTER BAY COUNTY: NASSAU STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 088: LATITUDE: 40 45 15 N LONGITUDE: 073 59 44 W 347 36TH STREET CITY: NEW YORK COUNTY: MANHATTAN STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 089: LATITUDE: 40 46 18 N LONGITUDE: 073 54 29 W WILLOW TEXT INC., 38-01 23RD. AVE. AT 38TH STREET &STEINWAY STREET, 4TH FLOOR CITY: LONG ISLAND CITY COUNTY: OUEENS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 090: LATITUOE: 41 06 49 N LONGITUDE: TKR CABLE SYTEMS, 26? EASTVIEW ROAD CITY: MONSEY ' ' COUNTY: STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE 074 04 39 W LOCATION NO. Ogt: LATITUDE: 40 54 40 N LONGITUDE: 073 47 17 W 271 NORTH AVENUE CITY: NEW ROCHELLE COUNTY: WESTCHESTER STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 092: LATITUDE: 41 02 26 N LONGITUDE: 074 23 57 W EASTERN MICROWAVE FACILITY, IN BETWEEN #353 & #484GERMANTOWN ROAD CITY: WEST MILFORD COUNTY: PASSAIC STATE: NEW OERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE PAGE 12 OF 15 OPERATOR: DC FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization p~rmits only the use of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" Radio Services other then Broadcast. The i~ut power for mobile transmitters shall not ~ed 60 watts. The Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shell not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction, in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion. the grantee shall, on the forms and in the manner prescrihed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of the Commission thet all the terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in the application and in this authorization have heen fully met. After such showing and notification, and upon a finding by the Commission that since the granting of this authorization un cause or circumstance heve arisen which, in the judgment of the Commission. makes sa~nctOperatioo of the station against the public est, the Commission will without notification ion this authorization for operation of the station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of the Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorizalion shell not vest in the grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the use of the particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. The Commission, in issuing this authorization, reserves the right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it deems best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission, time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to the exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shell he con- strued as a finding by the Commission on the question of marking or lighting of the antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. The permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Commission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall heve granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by the grantee and received at the Commission prior to the expiration of such period, the Commission may grant au extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the grant- ee's representation thet the statements contained in his applications and notifications are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will he carried out in good faith. The permittee shell, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor the right granted herein shell be assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm. company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and without the written con- sent of the Commission. This authorization shell not vest the permittee any right to operate the station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of use or control by the Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 193,;, as amended. FCC Form 463 February 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION CALL SION: KNKA206 FILE NO: 09013~CL-L-9t LOCATION NO. 093: LATITUDE: 40 43 23 N LONGITUDE: 074 O0 23 W 75 VARICK ST. CITY: MANHATTAN COUNTY: NEW YORK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 094: LATITUDE: 40 47 19 N LONGITUDE: 074 02 55 W 300 PLAZA DRIVE CITY: SECAUCUS COUNTY: HUDSON STATE: NEW UERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 096: LATITUDE: 40 36 31N LONGITUDE: 074 O? 22 W CLOVE LAKES NURSING HOME 25 FANNING STREET CITY: CASTLETON CORNERS COUNTY: RICHMOND STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 097: LATITUDE: 40 52 58 N LONGITUDE: 073 53 44 W 3135 OOHNSON AVENUE CITY: BRONX COUNTY: BRONX STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 098: LATITUDE: 40 44 59 N LONGITUDE: 073 58 33 W 630 3RD AVE, 10017 CITY: NEW YORK COUNTY: MANHATTAN STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 099: LATITUDE: 40 38 21N LONGITUDE: 074 (30 47 W OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP (PARRRISH CLUB HALL) 5721 6TH AVE CITY: BROOKLY COUNTY: KINGS STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 100: LATITUDE: 40 4? 07 N LONGITUDE: 073 42 36 W 833 NORTHERN BOULEVARD C[TY: GREAT NECK COUNTY: NASSAU STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE PAGE 13 OF 15 OPERATOR: DC FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION · m~ Pub..Uc Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only the usc of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" in the Radio Services other than Broadcast. The eU.t power for mobile transmitters shall not d 60 watts. The Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction. in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion, the grantee shall, on the forms and in the manner prescribed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of the Commission that all the terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in the application and in this authorization have been fully met. After such showing and notification, and upon a finding by the Commission that since the granting of this authorization on cause or circumstance have arisen which, in the judgment of the Commission, makes s~J~ctOperation of the station against the public est, the Commission will without notification ion this authorization for operation of the station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of the Com- munications Act of 1934. as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorization shall not vest in the grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the use of the particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. The Commission, in issuing this authorization, reserves the right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it deems best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission, time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to the exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by the Commission on the question of marking or lighting of the antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. The permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Commission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934. as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by the grantee and received at the Commission prior to the expiration of such period, the Commission may grant an extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the grant- ee's representation that the statements contained in his applications and notifications are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith. The permittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor the right granted herein shall be assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm. company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and without the written con- sent of the Commission. This authorization shall not vest the permittee any right to operate the station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of use or control by the Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 1934, as amended. FCC Form 463 February T984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION CALL SIGN: KNKA206 FILE NO: 09013-CL-L-91 LOCATION NO. 101: LATITUDE: 40 50 43 N LONGITUDE: 073 54 35 W 1760 GRAND CONCOURSE CITY: BRONX COUNTY: BRONX STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 104: LATITUDE: 40 47 55 N LONGITUDE: 073 5? 44 W 50 DUKE ELLINGTON BOULEVARD CITY: MANHATTAN COUNTY: NEW YORK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 105: LATITUDE: 41 20 40 N LONGITUDE: 073 49 40 W 1.1 MILE NE OF dUNCTION OF ROUTE 6 & TACONIC STATEPARKWAY PUTNAM VALLEY CITY: NEW YORK COUNTY: PUTNAM STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION ND. 106: LATITUDE: 40 54 04 N LONG[TUDE: 074 31 47 W 128 MT. PLEASANT AVENUE CITY: ROCKAWAY COUNTY: MORRIS STATE: NEW dERSEY ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 107: LATITUDE: 40 59 52 N LONGITUDE: WESTCHESTER COUNTRY CLUB CITY: PARK DRIVE SOUTH COUNTY: RYE STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE 073 41 56 W LOCATION NO. 108: LATITUDE: 4t 07 12 N LONGITUDE: 073 42 40 W BUS[NESS PARK DRIVE CITY: ARMONK COUNTY: WESTCHESTER STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 109: LATITUDE: 41 09 29 N LONGITUDE: 073 58 37 W 20 SQUADRON BOULEVARD CITY: NEW CITY COUNTY: ROCKLAND STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE PAGE 14 OF 15 OPERATOR: DC FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only the use of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" in the Radio Services other than Broadcast. The power for mobile transmitters shall not 60 watts. The Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction, in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion, the grantee shall, on the forms and in the manner prescribed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of the Commission that all the terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in tho application and in this authorization have been fully met. After such showing and notification, and upon a finding by the Commission that since the granting of this authorization no cause or circumstance have arisen which, in the judgment of the Commission, makes operation of the station against the public st, the Commission will without notification sanction this authorization for operation of the station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of the Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorization shall not vest in the grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the use of the particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. The Commission, in issuing this authorization, reserves the right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it deems best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission, time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to the exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by the Commission on the question of marking or lighting of the antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. The permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Commission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by thc grantee and received at the Commission prior to the expiration of such period, the Commission may grant an extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the graut- ee's representation that the statements contained in his applications and notifications are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith. The permittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein couferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor the right granted herein shall be assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm. company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and without the written con- sent of the Commission. This authorization shall not vest the permittee any right to operate the station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of use or control by the Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 193a, as amended. FCC Form 463 February 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION CALL SIGN: KNKA206 FILE NO: OgO13-CL-L-91 PAGE 15 OF 15 OPERATOR: DC LOCATION NO. 110: LATITUDE: 41 02 57 N LONGITUDE: O71 57 OO W MONTAUK MANOR, EDGEMORE STREET CITY: MONTAUK COUNTY: SUFFOLK STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LOCATION NO. 111: LOCATION NO. 112: LATITUDE: 41 20 35 N LONGITUDE: 073 55 27 W FRIARS OF THE ATONEMENT GRAYMOR RT 403/RT 9 (OLD WEST POINT ROAD) CITY: GARRISON COUNTY: PUTNAM STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE LATITUDE: 40 44 09 N LONGITUDE: 073 59 20 W 33 IRVING PLACE CITY: NEW YORK COUNTY: MANHATTAN STATE: NEW YORK ANTENNA MARKINGS: NONE SPECIAL CONDITION FOR MINOR 39 DBU CONTOUR EXTENSIONS THIS AUTHORIZATION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO ANY INTERFERENCE PROTECTION IN ANY AREAS OUTSIDE THE MSA/RSA AND IS ALSO CONDITIONED UPON COORDINATING WITH THE CURRENT OR FUTURE CO-CHANNEL LICENSEE(S) IN THE AREAS OUTSIDE THE MSA/RSA. THE LICENSEE HEREIN IS PUT ON NOTICE THAT IN THE EVENT THE CURRENT OR FUTURE MSA/RSA LICENSEE ENCOUNTERS INTERFERENCE FROM THE EXTENSION(S), THE LICENSEE HEREIN WILL HAVE TO CHANGE FREQUENCIES IN THOSE CELL(S) OR PULL BACK THEIR 39 OBU CONTOUR TO ELIMINATE THE INTERFERENCE DUE TO THE EXTENSION. WAIVERS AND CONDITIONS LOCATION #?5 IS SHILEDED BY TALBO STRUCTURE. COMMUNICATIONS [!,,A · COMMISSION Mobile Service AUTHORIZATION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Operation of this station is governed by Part 22 of the Commission's Rules. 2. This authorization permits only the usc of such transmitters as appear in the Commission's "List of Equipment Acceptable for Licensing" in the Radio Services other than Broadcast. Thc power for mobile transmitters shall not 60 watts. The Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters under Sub-Part K shall not exceed 7 watts. 3. Upon completion of station construction, in accordance with the terms of this authoriza- tion, the grantee shall, on the forms and in the manner prescribed from time to time by the Com- mission, make known to the satisfaction of the Commission that all the terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in the application and in this authorization have been fully met. After such showing and notification, and upon a finding by the Commission that since the granting of this authorization no cause or circumstance have arisen which, in the judgment of the Commission, makes ?,;i~operation of the station against the public il{est, the Commission xvill without notification sa~l~Vmn this authorization for operation of the station. Thereafter this authorization contains the conditions specified in Section 309 of the Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and such other terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. 4. During construction this authorization shall not vest in the grantee any right to operate the station, nor any right to any authorization permitting the use of the particular frequency or the amount of power, or any herein specified time of operation. The Commission, in issuing this authorization, reserves the right to assign what- ever frequency, power, or time of operation it deems best calculated to serve public interest, convenience, or necessity. The terms of said authorization as to frequencies, power, emission, time of operation, and scope of communications expressly made subject to the exercise of said reserved right. 5. Nothing contained herein shall be con- strued as a finding by thc Commission on the question of marking or lighting of the antenna system should future conditions require otherwise. The permittee expressly agrees to install such marking or lighting as the Commission may here- after require under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 6. This authorization shall become automati- cally forfeited if the said station is not ready for operation within the time specified, unless prior to the date of required completion of construc- tion the Commission shall have granted an exten- sion of time. Upon proper showing, made to it by the grantee and received at the Commission prior to the expiration of such period, the Commission may grant an extension if it finds that the grantee was prevented from completing the construction of said station by causes beyond the grantee's control. 7. This authorization is issued on the grant- ee's representation that the statements contained in his applications and notifications are true and that the undertakings therein contained, so far as they are consistent herewith, will be carried out in good faith. The permittee shall, during the term of this authorization, render such service as will serve public interest, convenience, or necessity to the full extent of the privileges herein conferred. 8. Neither this authorization nor the right granted herein shall he assigned or otherwise transferred to any person, firm, company, or cor- poration in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and without the written con- sent of the Commission. This authorization shall not vest the permittee any right to operate the station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the authorization beyond the term hereof, nor in any other manner than authorized herein. This authorization is subject to the right of use or control by the Government of the United States conferred by Section 606 of the Communica- tions Act of 1934, as amended. ONGIONI ATTORNEY AT LAW 218 FRONT STREET, GR£ENPORT, NEW YORK To Whom Re: It May Concern: October 21, 1991 I am the owner of property adjacent to that upon which the )licant NYNEX Mobile Communications, wishes to build a cellular.~?~%l':~ -telephone p :~m~..~ antenna (a mono ole) and a communications bulld~ng~.~{. I have discussed this matter with the attorney for the applicant. I have viewed a sketch of the radius of the fall down area of the monopole prepared by the applicant's engineers together with a report as to its ability to withstand wind load among other things. It is my belief that the monopole does not present safety hazard. After review of the above, I consent to the construction of pole. I do not believe that my ability to utilize my should be infringed because of the monopole, and, I do not' ~sent to any such restriction on the use of my property by my consent to construction of the monopole. Very truly yours, MARIE ONGIONI ATTORNEY AT LAW 218 FRONT STREET. GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 (516) 47'7-20,48 FAX (15161 477-8919 October 21, 1991 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairperson Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: NYNEX Mobile Communications Applications Dear Mr. Goehringer: Please refer to your letter of October 15th and my initial response of October 17th. Pursuant to your request, enclosed herewith please find two copies of a revised site plan showing the projected fall-down area of the monopole. Also enclosed herewith is a letter from the property owner, Arthur V. Junge which consents to the processing of this application by NYNEX and also consents to the construction of the monopole. Please note that the indicated fall-down area does not affect the property to the west of the Junge site (Harris property). I will be meeting the property owner to the east within the week and will be contacting the Town Attorney during this same time frame. I will, of course, keep you advised of the results of those discussions. Thank you for your continued cooperation in this application. encs. Very truly yours, /MARIE ONGIONI / PARKinG SPACES - lO'X20' PARKING SPACES AS PER 1988 APPROVED SITE PLAN 81.0¢K / SITE PLAN WITH PARKING 1988 SITE PLAN APPROVAl SCALE 1"-20' FUTURE PARKING lin ACCORDANCE WITH LOt Z~.3 LOr /7.~ ~V/F rOw,v OF 50UrHOLD j ~14 - io'x2e' /NON-DELINeATE[ PARKING SR~ACE.~ DATA BLOCK I NO. ~00© 098-1 19 JIDDLE ROAD ICOUNTY ROUTE 4B~ :UTCHOGUE, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK .OT AREA = 45,589 S,F, = 1.04 DATA* LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL REOUIRED PROVIDED ;IZE 40,000 SF 45,589 SF /lOTH I00 168~. ~EPTH 150 252t · YARD 50 75~. S[TBACF, S FOR PROPOSED NYNEX RADIO EQUIPMENT BUILDING Ldr /7 N/F row OF ~ourHo, LOt /8/ SITE PLAN WITH PARKING 1988 SITE PLAN APPROVAl SCALE 1"-20' FUTURE PARKING I IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1988 APPROVED SITE PLAN! FRONT 2 - 13'X20' HANDICAPPED STALLS 2 - lO'X20' STANDARD STALLS REAR 12 - lO'X20' STANDARD STALLS TOTAL 16 PARKING STALLS MOBILE COMMUNICATI CUTCHOGUE S SITE PLAN E: COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWL SUFFOLK COUNTY, I RICHARD E . TANGEL P. E I' '1 WELL LO? /7 I I0': SPACES 1988 APP A &or /?.~ TOWN PROPOSED SITE LOt PLAN WITH PARKING - MAY 199t SL SCALE I "=20' EXISTING PARKING FRONT 2 - 13'X20' 2 - ~O'X20' REAR 14 - IO'X20' HANDICAPPED STALLS STANDARD STALLS STANDARD STALLS TOTAL 18 PARKING STALLS PROPOSED NYNEX RADIO EOUIPMENT BUILDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS: THE PROPOSED USE IS AN SHELTER WHICH REOUIRES MAINTENANCE VISITS, PARKING IS REOUIRED. UNMANNED INFREQUENT THEREFORE NO EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT ADDITIONAL APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringcr, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 ~ ~ :.~ BOARD O~ APPEALS TOWN OF SOU~OLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 October 15, 1991 Marie Ongioni, Esq. 218 Front Street P.O. Box 562 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Applications for Special Exception and Setback Variance NYNEX Mobile Communications Dear Mrs. Ongioni: This letter will acknowledge receipt by our office of the above applications requesting: (1) a determination as to whether or not the structures and their use as proposed meet the requirements for a Special Exception in this Light Industrial (LI) Zone District, and a determination requesting approval thereof; (2) an Appeal for insufficient setbacks regarding both the proposed monopole tower and equipment storage building. With reference to the appeal for relief on the setback requirements, it is: (1) requested that the exact setbacks of both structures be given to the property lines, as well as a radius area of the fall-down area; (2) suggested that you contact those property owners of lands within the radius of the fall-down area of the proposed tower which extends over onto their lands, and whether or not they would be willing to allow their land to be restricted. It is our understanding that you will be submitting appropriate documents concerning licensing and operation of the applicant as a public utility. As you may know, the Board Members will determine whether or not this use is authorized at such time as the hearing has been held, the requested documentation received and reviewed, and the record completed. T,larie Ongioni, Esq. -2- October 15, 1991 The public hearing on this matter is expected to be held on Thursday, October 24, 1991 at approximately 7:35 p.m. In the interim, please file the above information within the next couple of days for distribution to the Board Members and the file record. Thank you. lk Enclosure Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRIN, GER CHAIRMAN / APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 TYPE II BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOU~OLD ACTION DECLARATION October SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 24, 1991 Appeal No. 4062SE Project/Applicants: County Tax Map No. Location of Project: NYNEX Mobile Communication 1000-96-1-19.1 21855 County Road 48, Cutchogue Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Equipment building and monopole radio tower This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article $ of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law $44-4 of the Town of Southold. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted with the subject application indicating that no significant adverse environmental effects are likely to occur should be project be implemented as planned. It is determined that this Board's area of jurisdiction concerning setback, area or lot-line variances determines this application to fall under the established list of Type II Actions. Pursuant to Section 617.2jj, this Department is excluded as an involved agency. This determination shall not, however, affect any other agency's interest as an involved agency under SEQRA 617.2jj. For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. tr NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIV- EN, pursuant to Section 267 of The Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following matters will be held for public hearings before the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971, on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991, commencing at the times specified below: 7:30 p.m. AppL No. 4060- ANTHONY C. MEISEL Variance to the Zoning dinance, Article Ill, Section 100-30A.3 and Article XXIV, Section 100-244, for permission to construct open deck addition (to existing dwelling) with an in- sufficient frontyard setback. The lot area is nonconforming in this R-40 Low-Density Residential. 1275 Fanning Road~, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 117, Block 4, Lot 30. 7:33 p.m. Appl. No. 4059- DOROTHY F. CAREY. Variance to the Zoning Or- Jinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to con- ~truct proposed addition and leck with insufficient frontyard ~etbacks. The subject parcel is mown as Lot 7 on the Map of !dgemere Park, is substandard n size, and is located in the R~0 Cone District. Location of Pro- ,erty: Corner of Edgemere \venue and McDonald's Cross- ag, Laurel, NY; County Tax Iap No. 1000-128-6-20. 7:35 p.m. Applications of ,'YNEX MOBILE COM- f MUNICATOII~iiiARTHUR V,~ ~UNGE, lWconcernin~ } p~emises local'S'in.the Light=/ Industrial (L1) Zone District is known as 21855 County Road 48, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-96-1-19.1. (A) AppL no. 4058. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cle XIV, Section 100-142 for per- mission to construct monopole radio tower and accessory equipmem-storage building with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks. ~-~ (B) Appl. No. 4062. Spec~l Exception to the Zoning Or~ dinance, Article XIV, Section1 100-14lB(l) for permission tot ,establish public utility use and construct monopole radio tower and accessory equipment.~l storage building· ~7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4061~ EDWARD T. ROUSE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cle XXVIII, Section 100-281, and Article IliA, SectioR 100-30A.3., Bulk Schedule, four approval of insufficient lot area and width of two parcels, each with a preexisting single-family dwelling. Location of Property: Corner of Sterling Place and Champlin Place, Greenport, NY; Lot Nos. 60, 61 and 62 on the Map of John G. Champlin filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office as Map No. 337; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-34-3-28. 7:50 p.m. AppL No. 4028- RICHARD AND LISA OL1VERI. (Amended) Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Arti- cle XXII1, Section 100-239.4 for permission to locate new dwell- ing, inclusive of deck and steps areas, with a setback at less than 75 feet from the landward edge of the freshwater wetland. Loca- tion of Property: Westerly side of Crescent Avenue, Fishers~l Island, NY; County Tax Ma~ No. 1000-006-06-20.5, contain- ing 2.5 acres. The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in each of the above matters. Written com- ments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not start before the times designated. For more informa- tion, please call 765-1809. Dated: October Il, 1991 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN I BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER I CHA1RMAN1 By: Linda Rowalsl~f 1X-I0/17/91(50) (~OUWI Y OF 5UFF~ Patricia Wood,' being duly sworn, says that she is the Edhot, of TIlE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed al Soulhold, in Suffolk County; and [bat the nolice o£ which the annexed is a printed copy, succcsswc, ly, commencing on the . . ./? ~ day o October 91 ................. 19 ..... ~',v(H'rr ltl hel(iFe me Ibis / '? · .................... d;ly oF Ool~obez' ....................... ,19 91 Nolary Public BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER NOTARY PUBLIC. si?re ol New York Ne. 4~06846 Quolilied in Suflolk Cot)nty/ Comloissio. Expires NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS IIEKEBY GIVEN. pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following mauers will be held for public hearings before the SOUTtlOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. on TIIURSDAY. OCTO- tIER 24, 1591, commencing at the umes specified below: (1) 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4060 -- ANTHONY C. MEISEL. Vadance to the Zoning Ordinance. Article Section 100-30A.3 and Article XXIV, Section 100-244, for permission to construct open deck addition (to existing dwelling) with an insufficient frontyard setback. The 1~ ama is non> conforming in this R40 Low-Density Residenual. 1275 Fanning Road, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Dis- mcr 1000, Section 117, Block 4, Lot 30. (2) 7:33 p.m. Apph No. 4059 -- DOROTIIY I( CAREY. Variance to thc Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Secuon 100-32 for permission to con- struct proposed addition and deck with insufficient frontyard setbacks. The subject parcel is known as Lot 7 on thc Map of Edgemcrc park. is sub- slandard in size. and is located in the R-40 Zone District. Location of Prop- cay: Comer of Edgemere Avenue and McDm~ald's Cr0~ing, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-128-6-20. (3) 7:35 p.m. Application* of NYNEX MOBILE COMMUN1CA~ TIONS/ARTI[UR V. YUNGE. INC. concerning prcmiscs located in the Light-lndustqaI {LI) 2~one District and is known as 21855 County Road 48, Cutchogue. NY; County Tax Map (A) Appl. No. 4058. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance. Article XIV, Sccuon 100-142 for permission to beildmg with insufficient side and mar yard setbacks. ~-(B) Appl. No. 4062. Special'~ Exception to the Zoning Ordi- 14 lB(l) for Permission to establish public utility use and construct Iy eqmpment-storage building. [~ X'~) 7:45 p.m. AppL No. 4061 EDWARD T ROUSE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance. Article X~VI- Il. Section 100-281. and Article ILIA. Section 100-30A.3. Bulk Schedule, preexisting single-family dwelling. Location of Property: Comer of Ster- ling Place and Champlin Place. Greenport, NY; Lot Nos. 60. 61 and 62 on the Map of John G. Champlin filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office as Map No. 337; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-34-3-28. (5) 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4028 -- RICBARD AND LISA OLIVERL (Amended) Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for perm ss on to ocate Avenue. Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000 006-06-20.5, con- ]'ne Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all per- prior to the conclusion of the subject before the times designated. For more information, plcase call 765-1809. Dated: October 11. 1991. BY OR DER OF TI IE SOUTIIOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS~. GERARD E GOEIIRINGER CIIAIRMAN By Linde Kowalski STATE OF NEW YORK} COUNTY OF SUFFOLK} said County, being duly Sworn~ say~ that he/she is Principal Clark of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Seu~old, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for / weeks successively, commencing on the_ /? day of Principal Clerk TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time, date and place of the public hearing concerning your recent application is a copy of the Legal Notice, as published in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Times, Inc. Please have someone appear in your behalf at the time specified in the event there are questions brought up during the same and in order to prevent a delay in the processing of your application. Your public hearing will not start before the time allotted in the attached Legal Notice. Additional time will, of course, be available. A drafted or final written copy of your presentation, if lengthy, is always appreciated. Please feel free to call our office prior to the hearing date if you have any questions or wish to update your file. Yours very truly, Enclosure GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 · ': , ';". JAN I /1 1992 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 .Tanuary 14, 1992 Marie Ongioni Attorney At Law 218 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Amended site plan for NYNEX Mobile Communications & Arthur V. Junge, Inc. Proposed Amendment to Approved Site Plan for Arthur V. Junge Industrial Building N/s County Road 48, Cutchogue, New York SCTM ~ 1000-96-1-19 Dear Ms. Ongioni: The following resolution was adopted by the Planning Board at its meeting on January 13, 1992. BE IT RESOLVED That the Planning Board assumes Lead Agency in the environmental review of this application. A determination will be made after the Board receives the report of its environmental consultant. Payment for the environmental review was received on January 8, 1992. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman CC: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Coordinating Agencies Charles Voorhis, Cramer & Voorhis Associates, Inc. PAGE 8 - A.ppl. No. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 INC. The Hearing opened at 7:52 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the :'.~cord and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: We are opening both hearings up in concert of each other. I have a copy of the site plan, several maps, most of which are most re- cently dated in front of us indicating the exact placement of these two structures which are to the rear of the existing and I will refer to it as a commercial building which houses several uses on County Road 48 , approximately two parcels east of the landfill and the rear of which abuts the landfill belonging to the Town of Southold. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard? Ms. Ongioni. MEMBER DINIZIO: At this time I would like to state that I work for a company that may compete with your business or perhaps even be a partner so as not to compromise the Board's decision, I am going to abstain and leave the room. MS. ONGIONI: Good evening Chairperson Goehringer and Board members. I'm Marie Ongioni with offices at 218 Front Street in Greenport. I represent NYNEX Communication in this application for approval of the variance application before the Board for the sideyard setback and also the rearyard setback. In addition, we are before the Board for a determination as to the requirement of this being categorized as a Special Exception as permitted in the Code or if the project would be exempt from the Special Exception because it qualifies as a telephone exchange. If it does qualify as a public utility structure and it has the public utility licensing from New York State and all of that has been submitted to the Board, }t is our contention that this is, in addition to a' pubt~' utility structure;it is a telephone exchange and as such it is a permitted use in the L~ district, rather than permitted as a Special Exception. I have a representative from NYNEX who will address the Board as to the definition of the telephone exchange in the industry and the fact, in his opinion, this does indeed qualify as a telephone exchange. If the Board concludes that it is a telephone exchange then it will be a permitted use as Special Exception rule would not be needed. Otherwise, in the alternative, I would argue to the Board that it qualifies as a Special Excel{ion and should be given that status. Before I turn over the presentation to Mr. Sam Ajaeb of NYNEX I have a memorandum which I would like to submit to the Board. I'm not going to review the memo in detail with you, I'm submitting it for the record. It outlines the nature of the variances that are being requested. It covers the legal case law that supports the granting of this variance and also, it briefly outlines the distinction between telephone exchange and Special Exception. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Page 9 - Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 INC. MS. ONGIONI: Does the Board have any questions of me at this time? CHAIRMAN: Well, we ask the same question when Mobile One came before us in Mattituck. I don't mean to be ignorant concerning this but I asked the question at that time and I believe Mr. Smith was repre- senting Mobile One, what is the different functionsof the two companies and I don't know if you can answer that question. My question is basically, are you both in competition with each other, is there any unanimity between the two .Of you. MS. ONGIONI: I think Mr. Ajaeb ~uld be the proper person to answer that. Mr. Ajaeb of NYNEX. CHAIRMAN: How do you do sir. MR. AJAEB: Sam Ajaeb, Manager Real Estate NYNEX Mobile. Chairman, to answer your question. At the time of divesture, it was intended by the Justice Department and the FCC to allow ~the ~blic the ..... ' choice of a telephone company in a non-telephone company referred to as a non-wire }j'neito p~6~de cellular service. NYNEX is the wire line telephone company. Metro One, they are now known as Cellular ONe is the non-wire line. There are two choices. We are in the same ~ business, two different companies. CHAIRMAN: So in other words, Metro One would be using NYNEX wires. MR. AJAEB: New YOrk Telephone, yes. In other words, New YOrk and also long distance carriers, possibly AT & T, Sprint or whatever. CHAIRMAN: That answers my question. Thank you. MR. AJAEB: ! just wanted to give a brief overview. I think the Board has an understanding of who we are. We are t6e cellular subsidiary of NYNEX. New YOrk Telephone is the major subsidiary of NYNEX. What we intend to do here is we are expanding our cellular network to eastern Long Island. This would be a cellular base station, one of about 130 that are in operation now in the metropolitan area, approximately 30 of these base stations are in operation now on Long Island. They consist of a 12 x 26 building with grade storing radio equipment and 100' monolithic t'ower. The monolithic to~e~annot be climbed, it will withstand winds in excess of 150 miles per hour which we have substantiated by the manufacturer. If we have to get to the top we use a cart. We require 200 amps of service, no other utility. There is no water. We use batteries for backup. The only utility requires telephone and electric power. The question of Exchange if I can and briefly in layman's terms, and if you require more details we do have with us. But with the base station is we have a central static~ computer in Garden City, Long Islandthat monitors the signal for ~ or Page 10 Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 MR. AJAEB: continued our subscribers. This station here, when someone is driving in the area of Cutchogue, as soon as the signal from the proposed station would be stronger than the signal from the station that the automobile is in at that time, this call will then be automatically be switched by our computer and processed to this base station. This base station then picks up the call and processes the call so the immediate area of Cutchogue I can now saysomewhere in the area of three to five miles or possibly eight miles, The processing of their call would be done by this base station in Cutchogue. The building would be alarmed, there would be a fire deterrent system in there especially designed so we would not have any problem with vandalism. If.there are any other questions I would be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN: What does the top of the antenna look like. MR. AJAEB: The top of the antenna is 12' equilateral triangle. Its 12' and 40" high. There would be two whip antennas that are 10' above that, one below. CHAIRMAN: Is there one around here we could look at. MR. AJAEB: I believe there is. We have a number of them here you could look at. CHAIRMAN: There is one over at Grumann Aircraft in Calverton. Is that a NYNEX or is that a Metro One? MR. AJAEB: That is not a NYNEX. I can give you the dimensions to give you an idea. I t~ 36" at the;base, 18" at the top with the equilateral triangle at the top. It is designed that way for two reasons, one, it cannot be climbed, we use an electric cart&for th~. wind resistance for the structure. I can provide the Board with some locations if you care to loOk at some. CHAIRMAN: We would like to look at the closest one around here, if we could. MEMBER VILLA: You said the range is five to eight miles. MR. AJAEB: Depending upon the terrain. Somewhere in that area. MEMBER VILLA: That would mean you have another within five radius miles. MR. AJAEB: Yes, we have stations p~oposed in Greenport and Shelter Island. If the Board wishes we have some computer runs. Page 11 Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 INC. MEMBER VILLA: My concern is how many of these are we going to be looking at all together? MR. AJAEB: I don't think you will anymore from NYNEX Mobile in Cutchogue. The only reason we would have to Put more in would be for volume or capacity and we don't anticipate. We would like to see it but it is not anticipated that we would require anymore monopoles in Cutchogue. I can pretty well substantiate that sir, MEMBER VILLA: The thing is are you going to need these every eight miles. MR. AJAEB: I believe this would be out only...I ha've to verify that if we have anymore in Southold. I'm not completely familiar with the bounderies of Southold but Long Island and especially that it is flat, the volume or capacity isn't required so I doubt if there will be more. We can reply to that. CHAIRMAN: What is the approximate cost of this project? MR. AJAEB: The cost, are you talking construction costs. The building is a quality building that cost about $40,000. The monopole ~ is something like $60,000 and then we have a foundation , we have soil tests done and the foundation is predicated on the soil. The big expense to NYNEX is the radio equipment2and that's hundreds of thousands of dollars. I might mention too that we do monitor this from Garden City seven days a week, 24 hours a day and though it is unmanned, by monitoring it]which is mandated by the FCC, we guarantee that we stay within our range and we can be sure that there will be no interference with anyone else, any other means of communications. I will also offer at this time for any public or municipal use, if the police require or ambulance squad, we will allow them to use it. We will also take as a condition we have these antennas solely for NYNEX use, we do not rent out tower space to anyone. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. LINDA FLETCHER: May ! ask a question. I just wondered do people who now have cellular phones are not able to use them, hear with them, is that correct. They cannot use them, if they have them on in the car. MR. AJAEB: That is correct. It is very spotty. We have one in the company vehicle, very spotty. There is some service but it is very poor. MS. ONGIONI: I'd like to address the Board on one additional point. You requested an illustration of the fall down area of the pole which we have submitted. You also requested the consent of the adjacent ~ property owners to that fall down area. I've submitted to the Board Page ~2 - Appl' MOBIL CO and Hearin9 Tra script of October 24, 1991 /~IHUR V. OUNGE, INC. MS. ONGIONi: continued the COnsent of ARthur Oun9e w /ess~r to NYN£ · who ]sa . X. I al ho 7s t attor.~,n adoacent .._~o have the ~_~e OWner of umm ":Y and ie - ~-uperty o~-~ ~unsent o~ ~ '": Site ~s~erstand th~ ~s brought ,,~,,~r. Z haw ~ S°seph Schn~.'2e COns~..' ~ uo ques,¢ "': goln~ ~m ~ - -own Bo~.a ', ~ne towm ~.~ of the ne~iZ~n the ao~r~ ve actina ~-¥_on Tuesda."_ _ '°. ~ ~°~ TOt the CHAIRMAN: Do You want me to there is nOthi of to~"~ the Proc~.~'e Town of ~ J? Laurel hS~.~carted wi~ them ~2'] for all s~' We have ~cnold and ~ one first ~"~ th~- ~ ao is sue .~.cs of thi- ..u People ~' course i~ ~--~u ar~'[.°~n fall~4~_~nem in the ~s. and What ~yno have Put ~-u°~n°ed io:~~m]ted in area. I~ ~ter of thoY more or le ? a~l sorts f~u~Sically t~zererence to ~n~s Part/c.~,r Property ~ ~anted ~":,nearino N~3e reason wh- ~ne Size of +~ar.case, 52~?S- uasicallv -e ~new yo~,~ause we wa~ ~e ask the .,~"e~P~ece of 2:f-se You of Whic "YY at least- 2y- you to st2:?c on, imoo i??tY, that ~ne reas~ " '~ six n~ ~.u or thru- ~'~ workin- ' "~ ~nat be._ ~n. ~°P~e, th~, :~ People ~ ~ on it b-- -ute ~ s the ~-. ~nat You ~-- ecause ~° uasically HS. ~NGIONi: ' have a lette the ~SSue of c~ O~ners Woul ~nSent and ~ ~h7ch I believe th.~ be restri^..als~ one is- would like t- , requefe ~ it is ~.~c3ng the .o_ ~e of whe,~=u.~uomit re I On~'Z ~n that .--':" ~egal ~oe of their .~-:r those-n.~arolng -'~ Nave n. -egard I ~- ' ~unstitu.¢_ mrOpertv .~-uwerty C?nsent. ¥~["~ COpy. T~y~ye a submi~]unal to marX's.~ do not attac~ ~u nave m. "'~ ~s fh~ · o:~on I , .... ~: chat -=u a · --- J -": e ,,u · by an ~-- s ~xh]bit ~ ~ Unge's co..~ tter and +~ld 1]ke to i~ of fo- ~¥~pert in eh ~ co the m~ ,~ent. I, ~n~s Mr. S~- ,,,aKe but ¢ - unTs mon~ =~,e field ,.,~.~t'''0 s~bm4** ~ wuaCtic~ ~"uenstein,o · s minim=~ -ywO~e to f~, ~-~c~ ind~ i~=e° earlio-TM and BOard ~ "' a~ the m~.~~'~ Oown. ~^'~aces that ¢~[' a repor~ the p yav? any Oth:~· That is likel~Z~ ]~ Viruta~.Pfepared refer' Yn n9 aoard~'~ues~ions. 2~n~ait 6 on'"~Y o~ that h~ 7fPOssible earl~u_ is the'_~ne S~te rtl=."~ ~ave an a-JU? memo. fall'~r Chis week. ~me Site lYYll do ~]cation pe~]? one uown are~ ~, I think ~. ?n that w--' /ne Site ..,~: _u~ng ~' ~nank v~. '~ ]s date~ f~ submitted .--~c~ they ~'~ ~ ~ uctober 18, l~It~w~r~he CHAIRMAN: Is this annie .there of there"carTon, an,,~ne else Who ~- - aOso~.engineer ~.~.uay like . .UUld li ~ :~/Y noise ~J"~ might be .o Speak a .ke to Speak i o. cnls m .... ~u any e.._ _ Presen. ~ .9a]nst it~ ,, n favor ~"rC~CUlar .~:]m~ of fil ~? ~s]s there .~ my only ~-~L. t:~]n . an ' · with any communication that WOuld be near thisParticular tower. The Probl~- g.dev~ces t~ d~ffTcultv ~ on W th cablev Y would be =m~On, the =~Ulred PrOblem Pa6e 13 - Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 PHIL DDRANTE: My name is Phil D~rante. I work for NYNEX Mobile also and I'm a radio frequency engineer. We operate 880 to 894 megahertz which is solely channel frequency the FCC has allocated to us for cellular business. No one else operates in those fre- quencies, just us. You can be rest assured that there will be no interference to any other type of broadcasting station or tv or what have you in the area. CHAIRMAN: running or discomfort. Is there any draw from anything of that nature the building at all with blowers which would cause anybody a PHIL it is virtually soundproof. CHAIRMAN: The system that either heats or air conditions compressor system on the exterior of the building. PHIL DURANTE: It is on the exterior of the building. CHAIRMAN: IT wouldn't be anymore than a normal compressor noise that would come out of an air conditioning compressor that was placed next to a house~ DURANTE: The building that we use is a fire block building, that is a PHIL DURANTE: That is c.~m~ect~ CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much sir. Any other furthe~ questions? MEMBER VILLA: I'm just looking at your Exhibit 6 here which is the engineering report and it alludes to the fact that the two 8' diameter microwave dishes were not installed. Is there goin'g to be two 8' diameter microwave dishes? PHIL DURANTE: I saw this for the first time. We're not microwave and we don't intend to use microwave. There are no microwave dishes. I believe the intent of that was that if you put microwave dishes that it increases wind loading factor on the tower. We are not, I repeat, not microwave and. we are not going to put any microwave dishes on. CHAIRMAN: Can we strike that from the agreement? I will initial it. PHIL DURANTE: I imagine just determine that if there were microwave dishes it affects the wind loading factor. Page 14 - Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 LINDA KOWALSKI, BOARD ASST: You're referring to Item #3. PHIL DURANTE: Yes. In checking with our real estate people our closest monopole is in Valley Stream, Long Island. However, I think if you want to shorten the trip Rayndex has one in this area which is substantially similiar. CHAIRMAN: That is the one I was referring to since I work in the Brookhaven area. PHIl DURANTE: I don't want to give them a plug. CHAIRMAN: Let me just ask you a quick question before you sit down. When you say it is spotty at this particular time where would you be drawing from at this time? Would you be drawing from a Connecticut tower at]this time or are drawing from one on the south shore. PHIL D~RANTE: That is one of the problems we have. Again I can give you in laymans terms and our engineer would know more details. Our subscribers are getting service or what we refer to as roaming service from SNET and what happens if you are a subscriber roaming charges are more expensive and our subscribers are disappointed that they have to pay the roaming charges. The other thing, Our FCC license requires us at certain times to provide service along the area that we are licensed. Also, the fact that we are a public utility, the Public Service Commission has issued the PCA, their complaints that go to the Commission also saying that I subscribe to NYNEX why should I have to pay roaming charges. So there are a number of factors. Naturally when we were building our system we had to logically do the core site before we'came to eastern Long Island. CHAIRMAN: Anything else. No. Bob~ Not hearing any further questions I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until liter and we are expecting a determination from the Planning Board and a determination from the Town Board through the attorney. Although we are closing the hearing we are waiting for those two decisions. So there will no decision on this particular application until around the 20th of November and if for any reason it is required for us to reopen the hearing, we will reopen it to take that information and then close it back again. The decision on this particular hearing will then be held up until early December. That's when we will be making a determination. We thank you all from NYNEX for coming tonight. It's been a pleasure meeting you all. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Attention: V. Scopaz FROM: Board of Appeals Attention: L. Kowalski DATE: December 5, 1991 SUBJECT: Site Plan Application - NYNEX at C.R. 48, Cutchogue Light-Industrial Zone District Attached as requested by your office are certified copies of the Board of Appeals resolution adopted on November 21, 1991 con- cerning the application of NYNEX and Arthur V. Junge, Inc. for a proposed public utility use, monopole tower with antennas and accessory equipment storage building. It is our understanding that these resolutions are necessary in order for your office to place this project on your upcoming calendar for Planning Board processing. Fax transmission to: Marie Ongioni, Esq. 477-8919 SCOTT L. HARRIS SUPERVISOR FAX (516) 765 - 1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765 - 1800 BOARD OF APPEALS: G~eard P. Goehringer, Ch. Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa TO: Planning Board OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 5, 1991 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 The following is certified to be a Resolution of the Board of Appeals duly adopted at its November 21, 1991 Meeting: BE IT RESOLVED, that the application for variances concerning the northerly rear yard setback and the westerly side yard setback in the proposed establishment of a public utility for the construction of a cellular telephone communications tower and accessory equipment-storage building as applied under Appl. No. 4058 in the Matter of NYNEX/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC., BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, also applicable to the Special Exception simultaneously rendered herewith: 1. No excessive (disturbing) noise levels; 2. No expansion or additional construction (with the exception of emergency, fire or police necessities which serve the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order to the town), unless further application and approvals are obtained, and for which engineering certifications will be required concerning increased loads, winds pressures and other safety considerations for such expansion; 3. No microwave dishes, as agreed by the applicants of which are proposed during the consideration of this application); (none 4. No disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, light, vibration or noise, or harmful distribution levels of radiation, as agreed. 5. The setbacks shall be not and shown on the plan dated October 18, 92-8012) prepared by Richard E. Tangel, property line. less than that applied for 1991 (Drawing No. P.E., from the northerly This resolution was duly adopted. CERTIFIED BY: ~i~da F. Kowalski, Confidential Clerk of the Southold Town Board of Appeals SCOTT L. HARRIS SUPERVISOR FAX (516) 765 - 1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765 - 1800 BOARD OF APPEALS Gerard P. Goehringer, Ch. Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa TO: Planning Board OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 5, 1991 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 The following is certified to be a Resolution of the Board of Appeals duly adopted at its November 21, 1991 Meeting: BE IT RESOLVED, that the application for a Special Exception for the establiskment of a public utility for the construction of a cellular telephone communications tower and accessory equipment-storage building as applied under Appl. No. 4062 in the Matter of NYNEX/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC., BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No excessive (disturbing) noise levels; 2. No expansion or additional construction (with the exception of emergency, fire or police necessities which serve the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order to the town), unless further application and approvals are obtained, and for which engineering certifications will be required concerning increased loads, winds pressures and other safety considerations for such expansion; 3. No microwave dishes, as agreed by the applicants (none of which are proposed during the consideration of this application); 4. No disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, light, vibration or noise, or harmful distribution levels of radiation, as agreed. This resolution was duly adopted. CERTIFIED BY: da F. Kowalski, Confidential Clerk of the Southold Town Board of Appeals Form 401 )xhibit No. 2 age 1 of ! New York SMSA Limited Partnership Is a limited partnership formed under the New York State Partnership Act tn which New York Cellular Geographic Service Area, Inc. ("NYCGSA") is both a general (40%) and a limited (14%) partner. Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc. )$ a 36% limited partner. Empire Cellular Is a 10% limited partner. NYCGSA ts a wholly-owned subsidiary of NYNEX Mobile Communications Company ("NMCC"). NYCGSA'$ principal place of business ls 2000 Corporate Drive, Orangeburg, New York 10962. NMCC Is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NYNEX Corporation, ll)l-lll3 Nestchester Avenue, White Plains, New York )0604. NM¢C's principal place of business is 2000 Corporate Drive, Orangeburg, New York I0962. A schematic diagram of the corporate structure ts included as Attachment 1 to this Exhibit. NYI~IEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY_ REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT I=~CSiMILE TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET Date Including this Page TO: Name Telephone Location, ,. Equipment Number Telephone Number FROM: Name Telephone Location Special Oranoeburg Floor_ Instructions [l~ ATTORNEY AT LAW ' :-:' .-~RONT STREET GREENPORT NEW YORK 11944 ' I { '. 1516) 477-2048 NOV 11991 November 20, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: NYNEX Mobile Communications Proposed Amendment to Approved Site Plan for Arthur V. Junge SCTM ~1000-96-1-19.1 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Enclosed herewith please find eight copies of the revised drawings for the above captioned site as requested in your letter of November 7th. Please note that: a. the revised plans indicate the existing conditions together with the changes required for the proposed new construction; b. landscaping has been added along the rear property line to block the view to and from the landfill; c. a light plan has been included indicating the type of fixture and wattage together with a notation as to shielding to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties; d. an elevation drawing of the proposed equipment shelter has been included (page 2); e. the parking calculations have been revised based upon use and the requirements of the zoning ordinance; f. the engineers have not relocated the four parking spaces in front of the entrance to the communications building. They advise that direct access by a vehicle is not required for maintenance purposes and the maintenance worker can park in any designated parking area. They have instead used yellow striping in the area immediately in front of the building to discourage parking in a potential ingress and egress conflict area; g. the plan has been signed and sealed by a NYS registered engineer. I assume that the above complies with your request of November 7th. If you require any further changes or modifications, or if the four parking spaces in front of the communications building must be relocated, please advise and I will contact the engineers immediately. Enc. cc: Thank you for your cooperation. Ver~truly yours, IE ON Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MARIE ONGIONI ATTORNEY AT LAW OCT 3 1 991 218 FRONT STREET, GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 (516) 477-2048 FAX (516) 477'8919 October 29, 1991 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road $onthold, New York 11971 Re: Application Pending Before Zoning Board of Appeals NYNEX Cellular Phone Site Dear Sir/Madam: As you know I am the attcrney for NYNEX Mobile Communicaticn~ with regard to two application~ pe,~di~9 before the Zoning Board of A?peals for the construction c~ a building and monopo]e for cel!ula~ telephuDe commun]ca~i~ns. The ZBA h~.s reque~Led that the ~pp]icant obtain the consent of i~zoperty owners within the "fall down~ radius of the monopole as indicated on a ze¥ised site plan which the Board requested. I have submitted to ~-he ~.B,~ the written consent ~f the own'er of the property on which the monopole will be ]ocated, Arthur Junge, and the owner of the adjacent property on the east s~de of the Junge property, Jcseph £choenstein. Both have consented to the construction of the monopole but have not consented to a restriction of the use of their property becaus~ of th~ In addition to the above, I have submitted uo the ZBA the report of the manufacturer of the monopole which clearly indicates that the potential of this pole falling is minimal since it can withstand wind~ that have not been encountered on the East End even during our two most recent hurricanes. Z have also submitted to the ZBA my client's objection to the ~mpos~t}on ~f a con~e~t requirement and our contention that such a req~]irem~nt is both ult~'a vires ~or the ZBA and nn unconstitutional de].eg~t~on of power to pr]rate p.~'operty ~awners. However, notwithstanding these issues, the Town of Southo]d is an adjacent property owne~ te the Junge sir~ as the Town landfill oper.~t~on abuts M.~. ,]un,].~e's pr_operty at the north side of the site. Therefore, the ZBA has requested that the Town consent to the construction of the monopole which request I made to this Board, through the Town Attorney, last week. It is my understanding that the question will be voted upon at the next meeting on November 5, 1991. On behalf of my client, I ask that the Board vote affirmatively on this request. As you undoubtedly know, cellular communications are becoming more popular with the busy businessperson. NYNEX is a public utility that has received FCC approval to supply service in the NY metropolitan and surrounding areas. As a public utility, NYNEX is committed to serving the public's telephone needs and in fact is required to supply such service. In NYNEX's behalf, I am engaged in negotiations with both the Village of Greenport and Shelter Island Town for construction of two towers in addition to the one proposed in Cutchogue. It is e×pected that with these three towers NYNEX will be able to better serve its customers and at the same time fulfill its mandate of public service. If there is any information which you require prior to the vote, please do not hesitate to contact this office. For your information, the documents mentioned in this letter are part of the ZBA file together with an extensive memorandum in support of our application all of which are available for your review at Town Hall. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, cc: Zoning Board of Appeals "'Page 3 - Legal Nos Hearings for October 24, 1991 Southold Town Board of Appeals Suffolk County Clerk's Office as Map No. 337; County Tax MaD Parcel No. 100Q-34-3-28. (5) 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4028 - RICHARD AND LISA OLIVERI. (Amended) Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for permission to locate new dwelling, inclusive of deck and steps areas, with a setback at less than 75 feet from the landward edge of the freshwater wetland. Location of Property: Westerly Side of Crescent Avenue, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map No. 1000-006-06-20.5, containing 2.5 acres. The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above matters. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. Each hearing will not start before the times designated. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated: October 11, 1991. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski TO: Times-Review Delivered 10/11/91 L.I. Traveler-Watchman For Publication Copies on / /91 to the following: Copies of legal notice for the October 24, 1991 hearings were mailed to the following 10/15/91 Mr. Anthony C. Meisel 227 Park Avenue Hoboken, NJ 07030 Samuels & Steelman Architects 25235 Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Mr. Edward T. Rouse 715 First Street Greenport, NY 11944 Stephen L. Ham III, Esq. 45 Hampton Road Southampton, NY 11968 Stephen B. Latham, Esq. 33 West Second Street P.O. Box 398 Riverhead, NY 11901 (Attorney for R. Pyle) Pamela K. Phillips, Esq. Leboeuf Lamb Leiby & Macrae 520 Madison Avenue 28th FLoor New York, NY 10022 Marie ~. Ongioni, Esq. 218 Front Street P.O. Box 562 Greenport, NY 11944 (Re: NYNEX Mobile) JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFF1CER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765 - 1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Zoning Board of Appeals Office of the Town Clerk October 4, 1991 Zoning Appeal Appl. No. 4062 (Special Exception) - NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATION Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 4062 (Special Exception)- NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATION together with the Notices to Adjacent Property Owners, the Short Environmental Assessment Form, and copies of Certificate of Occupancies, and copy of proposed site plan (See Zoning Appeal Appl No. 4058). Judith T. Terry Town Clerk ~OWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION Application No. Date Filed: TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK: I (We), NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS of c/o Marie Ongioni, Esq. (Residence, House No. and Street) 218 Front Street, P. O. Box 562, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 (Hamlet, State, zip Code, Tele~hdne Num6~r) hereby apply to THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION in accordance with the ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 100-141 , SUBSECTION B(1) referring to 100-131 (b)(4) for the below-described property for the following uses and purposes (and as shown on the attached plan drawn to scale): Construction of an equipment building and monopole for cellular mobile communications. NYNEX Mobile Communications is a public utility regulated by the New York State Public Service Commission. The equipment building and monopole are public utility structures which will be utilized to enable applicant to "provide cell. u]ar radio systems for mobile communications". A. Statement of Ownership and Interest. lesse~ NYNEX Mobile Communications is(are) the ~(~f~{{~ of property known and referred to as 21855 County Rd, 48, Cutchogue, N. y. '' ('House No., Street, Hamlet) identified on the Suffolk County lax Maps as ~istrict 1000, Section 96 , Block 1 Lot(s) 19.1 , which is not (is) on a subdivision Map (Filed , "Map of "Filed Map No. , and has been approved by the SoutholB Town Planning Board on as a [Minor] [Major] Subdivision). The above-described property was acquired by the owner 9n 1987 B. The applicant alleges that the approval of this exception would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of said zoning ordinance and that the proposed use conforms to the standards prescribed therefor in said ordinance and would not be detrimental to property or persons in the neighborhood for the following reasons: The property is already developed for commercial use and has parking available although no additional traffic will result as these are structures not requiring the presence of personnel. The structures will have no impact on neighboring property. C. The property which is the subject of this application is zoned L I [ X] is cQn$istent with the use(s) described in the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith. L ] is not consistent with the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith for the following reason(s): / is vacant land. ~- [(Sign)ture] ~'" Sworn to before me this ~ day of~k , ( No t a ry P u b ] i c }' ~M~ ~. zuz ~rev. 2/6/86) ~. _ .... and BOARD OF' APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CO. totheBoardofApp~alsoflheTownofSouthold TO Mr. Joseph Schoenstein 305 Leeward Drive NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ,uu /~ K t:' H ER EB Y "G'i 9 E N' N~¥i~'E~. ..... 1. ]hal il is Ibe inlenlion of the uodersigned Io petilim~ lhe H.ard of Appeals of Ibe Iown of Soulhold t°request a~k(Special Exception)~Ki~x~ (Other) Icircle choice] 2. 1hal lhe property which is Ibe s.bjecl of tile Peliliml is Iocaled adjacenl lo your prnperty and is des- cribed as follows: A___bui~l_d_i__ng co~p__~_e_x_ ~ith c_om_m~r__c_jLa_l_ _an~d_/_o_r _b_uus__i__n_e_s__s .e_n_t_e_r~p~rise_~. 3. lh,~l Ihe properly whiclr is the subjecl of such Petitio. is Iocaled iu Ibe followi.g zm~ing dislricl: Lig h t__I nd u s t£_i~ 1_~ LI ) 4. ] ha! by such Pedtio., tile u.dersigned will requesl Ihe followi.g ~elief: Qamsdl]tuction_~L~l~n__ ~LRM~ ~g. ~n~ _m~gpq~___~~ ~!~lgr mg~_i~ gg~icat~9~_~.~_~__ -pu bii~ _utilit~ _~gu~ed_._h~_t~ New Yazk State...P.~bli~ _Service_ Commi~i~_~ 5. [hal the provisions of lhe So. Ih(rid I own Zoniog (:()cie .Ipplicahle lo Ihe relief smJgbl by tile under- signedare /L~ticle XIV ~cLJon 100-141 B ~1) ...................... [ ] Section 280-A, New York To~n Law for approval of access over 6. I hal within five d~ys from Ihe dale he~eof, a wrillen ~elilio. feq.esling Ibe relief ~pecilied above will be filed in ~he Soudmld Town Clerk's Office al Main Road. Soulbold, New Ymk and you may then and Ihere examine lhe same dnring regular office h.ms. ~516) 765-1809. 7. [hal before tile relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held o. lhe mailer by the Board of Appeals; thai a nolice of such healing must be published al lea~l five (lays prior lo Ihe date of such hearing in tbe Suffolk Times and i. Ihe Long Island lraveler-Mallilnck Watcbma., uewspapers published in the Town of Soulhold and designaled for the publicalion of sucb nolices; Ibat ymJ or your rep~esenlative have Ihe right ~o appear and be heard at soch hearing. ~Y Pelilioner'S Attorney 8W~g'Names: Marie Ongioni Post Office Add~ess Gr een~o~t, N.Y. 11944 ~ROOF OF MAILIAJ~ _OF NO_lICE ATTACII CERTIFIED I~IAIL RECEIPTS _ADDREiS S86L eunp ~008~ ~u~o4 Sd STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) SS. 2 C~rmela L.~JLO_L~L/_ ...... Fesidineal Front Street Gremnp~lrJi~_New._.y~[k ,beth8 d~dy sworn, deposes and saYs lhal on lhe 3rd day ~J- _ Oct o ~: ,19 _. 9 1 ._, deponenl mailed a I~ue copy of Ihe Nolice scl forlh on the ~e- verse side he~e~f, di~ecled Io each ~,[ Ihe ahove-named persons al Ihe addresses SCl oppusile Iheir respeclive nantes; that Ihe addresses set oppl~sJle lite names nj said persons are the addresses ~f said persons as shown on lite cllrrenl assessmeol loll ~ll Ibc 1own {~f S,~llhold; Ihal said Nolices were mailed al liCe(cerlilie~)al O~eenpo~(~mail., ' Ne~ Yo:k ; Ihal said Nolices wele mailed I~ each ol said peas*ms hy Swm,/~. lo hcforc me Ihis _ ;3r'd Nolary I~l)lic MARIF ONOIONI NOTARy PUBLIC, Stale o~ New ~ (lhis ltl'opel' i y si(lc does noL OWllerS . ) have to be comp|eted on form transmitted Lo ad,joinin§ BOARD O1~ APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In'the Mailer o~ thi~ Petition of NYNEX MOBILE'~COMMUNICATIONS CO. Io Ihe Board of Appeals of Ihe Town of Soulhold TO Nathan Harris and Wife Box 462 --C~gue, N~Y. 11935 NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER 1. 1hal it is Ihe intention of tile m~dersigned lo petilion Ihe Board of Appeals of lhe I nwn nf Soutbold t°requestax(~/~it]~]~(Special Excepfi°n)~Ki)llxPzeXf~)~)[ (Or:her) Icircle choice] 2. ]hal the properly which is Ibc snbjecl of Ihe Pelili(.r is located adjacenl lo your properly and is des- cribed as follows: A_ 3. 1hal tile properly which is lhe sobjecl of such Pelili(m is localed in the foil.wing zoning district: Light. _ I ndu,~j: ~.a ] /L~. 4 lhatbysuchPetition, theundersJgned willrequesltbefollowinglelief: Ca~tLaction of a~__. equipment building and monotone £or ce[Ju~ar mobile communications as a ~-ulility__~egula~d_ ~ ~h~Y~k State ~.abiic So,vice CQmmissi~ 5. Thai Ibeprovisioosoflhe Soulhold Iown ZoniogCode,rpplicablelolherelic{sooghlby Ibc nnder* signed are ~ticle XIV ~ction __ [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town tau for approval o¢ access over ~ight(s)-of-way. 6. Thai within five days from lhe date hereof, a wrilten Pelilion reqnesting the relief specified above will be filed in Ibc Soulhold ]own Clerk's Office al Main Road. Soulhold, New York and you may then and there examine the same duringregnlar officehonrs. (516) 765-1809. 7. 'ihal before lhe relief soughl may be granted, a pIJI)lic bearing nr(Isl tre held (rn Ibe mailer by lhe Board of Appeals;/hal a notice of such bearing must be published al leasl five clays prior In Ihe dale of such hearing in the Suffolk limes and in Ihe Long Island lraveler-Mauilnck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Sonlhold and designaled for the publication of such notices; Ihat yon or your rep~esentalive have Ibc right lo appear and he heard al snch bearing. By Pet,miner s Attorney 8w~g~'Names: Marie Ongioni P.~I Office Address ................... 2~8--~nt Street, P~ O_ me~ 562 Gr eenR~, N.Y. 11944 -P OB--Q~LI~OTICE ATTACII CERTIFIED .M?IL RECEIPTS A_DDRESS STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SS.; F~a~mala_/~xLr3~_l_l_i__ ....... residing al Front Street -- --~[~ee~parL,~_Ne~/._.~Yo[k_ .......... being dnly sworn, deposes and says Ihal on Ihe 3rd day of_~ OctnL~_ _, 19_.~__,deponenl mailedallnecopyoflheNoticesel forlhonthc verse side here~f, direcled Io each glf Ihe abllve-named persmls al the addlesses sol opposile Iheir respcclive names; Ihal Ihe addlcsscs Scl opposile Ihe ~lames ol said persons ale Ihe addiesses nf said persons as shown Ihe cIIflelll assessmelll roll .f Ihe ] own .I S.ulhold; Ihal said Nolices were mailed al Ihe IJniled Slalcs Posl liceal - ~Eeenpo~:L,.Nev (c~ililied) ; Ihal said Nolices welt mailed I. each ol said pefs.ns I)y MA~I~ ONGIONI NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York (This side dnes not have to be completed on fnrm transmitted to adjoining properly owners. ) BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CO. to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold TO: Town of Southold Town Clerk 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER YOU ARE ftEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board .f Appeals of the lown of Southold to request a~]~a~'t~:]~((Special Exceptlon)~[i~4:~(i~ll~x~J~ (other) [circle choice] ). That the property which is the subiecf of tire Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: A building complex with commercial and/or business enterprises. 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zooing district: Light Industrial eLI) 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request tllefollowlngrelief:.Construction of an equipment building and monopole for cellular mobile communications as a ~,h]~ 1, t~]~ry r~o~,,]mr~d hy tho Now York State PU/LLif~ Ser_.~Lic~_Commission. 5. That tile provisions of the 5outhold Town ZoninR Code applicable to tire relief sought by the under- signedare Article XIV Section 100-141 B (1) [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over ~ight(s)-of-way. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you ma), then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 765-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by tire Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of $outhold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have Ihe right to appear and be heard at such hearing. ]~ Petitioner o OWning'Names: Marie Ongioni Post Office Address .................. 218 Frent Street, P_ O~ ROX 562 Greenpor t., N.Y. 11944 PROOF OF MAILING oF NOTICF ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS ADDRESS p 269 285 6118 RII~CEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR I.TERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) p tare and ZIP C e L Postage $'~ Cen~ed Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Ret i t showing ~'~ ~l~b$~ne to whom, STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) SS.: Carmela L. Borrelli , residing a! Front Street C.r~n port: New Yo_~k , being duly sworn, deposes and says Ihat on the 3r d day of October , 19 _.~1 , deponen~ mailed a ~rue copy of Ihe Notice sel forlb on the re- verse side hereof, direcled ID each o[ tl~e above-named perso.s al lhe addresses sel opposite Iheir respective names; thai Ibc addresses sel opposile Ibe names of said persons are Ibe addresses nf said persons as sbown on Ihe cu.enl assessmenl roll of Ihe Town ~f Soulbold; Ibal said N~lices were mailed al Ibe IJniled Slales Posl Of- rice al ~:ee~p~ ~ew. ~ork ........ ; Ibal said NI)lices were mailed lo each of said persons by (cerlifi~) (r~e~ mail. Sworn l~efore me Ihis 3rd dayof/?ftnh~c .~9_ 91 Nolary Public MA~Ir~ ONGIONi NOTARy PUBLIC, State of New York (This side does not have property owners.) to be compleLed on form transmitted to ad,joining Si.la Envlronmant. I Quality R~vlaw SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART ir Prelect Informallon (To be completed by Applicant oF Project sponsor) NYNEX Mobi%e Communications Mobile Communications m..,.~..,~ Cutchogue-21855 Cty. Rd. 48 ¢o..,v Suffolk Construct building foundation for communications equipment. pre-fabricated building to house See Suffolk County Tax Map photostat attached. tmtiallv . U.~ acres .03 acres The total area of parcel is - · c',, 1.04 acres Set back requirements require a variance [] R,,,d~'mfial [~ Indu~Ulal [] Comme,clal [] Ae,icultu,e I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORmArtoH PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE 9EST OF mY KNOWLEDGE If the action la In the COIiI.I Area, and you are a itate agency, complete the I thle Ilieeement I ~ Coaetal Aeaeeament Fo~ before preceding with OVEn PART II Envlronmenl.I Asselsment (To be completed by ARenc¥) PART Ill D®lelmlnltion of Significance (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each ad,,erse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise sisnJficant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) settin8 (i e. urban or rural); (bi probability of occurring; (c) duration; [d) irreversibilitV; (e) geographic scope; and (fi magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supportin~ materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addsessed. [] Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY Occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL/LONG FORM E^F and/or prepare a positive declaration. [] Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supportin~ documentation. that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any siBnificant adverse environmental impacts AND provide here. and on attachments as necessary, the reasons supportn~l this determination: FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No Z17295 Date SEPT. 13e 1988 THIS CERTIFIES that the building ELECTRIC SHOP Location of Property 22355 CTYRD. #48 CUTCHOGUE House No. Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 096 Block 01 Lot 19.1 Subdivision XX Filed Map No. XX Lot No. XX conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated FEB. 7~ 1987 pursuant to which Building Permit No. 16755Z dated MAY 27~ 1988 .-was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is ELECTRIC SHOP AS APPLIED FOR. The certificate is issued to ARTHUR V. JUNGE (owner, ~) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED N026184 AUG. 5{ 1988 N/A Building Inspector Rev. 1/81 FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No Z-18981 Date APRIL 23~ 1990 THIS CERTIFIES that the building ALTERATION Location of Property 21~55C COUNTY ROAD #48 CUTCHOGUE~ N.Y. House No. Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 96 Block 01 Lot 19 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated DECEMBER 18~ 1989 pursuant to which Building Permit No. i8708-Z dated DECEMBER 28~ 1989 -was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is INSTALL WHOLESALE BAKERY & FOOD PROCESSING FACILITY IN AN EXISTING LIGHT INDUSTIRAL BUILDING AS APPLIED FOR. The certificate is issued to LOCAL TALENT INC. (lessee) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. PENDING - APRIL 16~ 1990 PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED APRIL 18~ 1990-PECONIC PLUMBING & HEATING Building Inspector J Rev. 1/81 096 INDEX OF SHEETS: I 4 5 6 7 TITLE SHEET PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND DETAILS SITE LAYOUT AND BUILDING FOUNDATION MONOPOLE FOUNDATION AND DETAILS ELECTRICAL LAYOUT AND DETAILS GROUNDING LAYOUT AND DETAILS, BORING LOGS AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 2000 CORPORATE DRIVE ORANGEBURG, NY 10962 (914) 365-7200 CO'- COJ MUN#CA T ON$ CUTCHOGU£ SITE COUNTY TOWN SUFFOLK ROUTE 48 OF SOUTHOL D COUN.TY, NEW YORK PORTION OF USGS QUAD LOCATION MAP SHEETS MATTITUCK HILLS SCALE I" = 2_000' AND SOUTHOLD N.Y. EDWARDS AND KELCEY ~ I N C. CUTCHOGUE, N.Y. L CONSTRUCTION 12. 13. 14. NOTE~ FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SEE SITE LAYOUT SHEET $ OF 7 LOT ZO.I N/F G~AY % % '., ELEV, · 100,8 ASSUMED PROPOSED 12' x26' NYNEX RADIO EQUIPMENT PRE-FAB BUILDING AND ibex27' CONCRETE FOUNDATION PROPOSED STONE BURFA¢ PROPOSED CABLE PROPOSED I00' , WELL HE.~13 .,. LOT /7.3 N/F TOWN OF 50UTHOLD I00~ ~ NOTESI ALL SURFACES SHALL BE GRADED TO DRAIN AWAY FROM THE BUILDING FOUNDATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL SURVEY STATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND RE-ESTABLISH ANY DISTURBED STATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES AND PROVIDE PROTECTION AS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE, REPAIR OR REPLACE EXISTING ITEH5 DISTURBED OR DAHAGEO DURING CONSTRUCTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF NYNEX. DISTURBED GRASSY AREA5 SHALL BE SEEDED, FERTILIZED ~ MULCHED. CONTRACTOR SHALL DOCUMENT 'AS BUILT' LOCATION OF ALL BURIED UTILITIES INCLUDING POWER, TELEPHONE, GROUNDJNG~ ETC. GROUND NET RESISTANCE 5HALL NOT EXCEED 1.0 OHH. IHHEOIATELY AFTER FORMATION, EHBANKMENTE/SLOPES SHALL BE TEHPORARILY STABILIZED'WITH QUICK GROWING RYE GRASS UNTIL PERMANENT SEEDING CAN BE PERFORHED. CLEARED HATERIAL SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY COHPLETE REBOVAL. EXCAVATIONS AND FORHATION OF EMBANKBENT5 SHALL BE COMPLETED TO PRODUCE ELEVATIONS FOR SLOPES CONFORHING TO THE LINES, CONTOURS, AND DIMENSION5 REQUIRED BY THE DRAWING AND/OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER, TOES AND TOPS OF ALL 5LOPES SHALL BE SHAPED, ROUNDED AND TRIMMED. WORK SHALL INCLUDE SEEDING, FERTILIZING AND MULCHING OF GRADED CUT AND FILL SLOPES, DITCH LINES AND ALL OTHER SITE AREAS DISTRUBEO BY THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND REQUIRING EROSION CONTROL AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS OR AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEER, IF EROSION OR 5EDIHENT FLOW'BECOHES A PROBLEM DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SILT FENCING AT AREAS INDICATED BY THE ENGINEER. ALL CONCRETE (TYPE 11 A.P.C.) SHALL DEVELOP A MIN. 28 DAY STRENGTH OF 4000 PSI. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO ASTH AE~S, GR. BO. FORMWORK SHALL BE UTiLiZED FOR ALL CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE, UNLESS NOTED. CONTRACTOR MUST INFORH ENGINEER ~ NYNEX 48 HRS. PRIOR TO . PLACING CONCRETE, WE/DING AND BACKFiLLiNG OF GROUNDING NETWORK OR STRUCTURES. FENCE 9'-0' / UONOPOLE / / / / 5TOCEADE FENCE STRIPING [TYP) PROPOSED S' CHAIR LINK PENCE WiTH GATE N OF PAV'T(TYPJ ~ AEPHAL T pAVEMENT ~ ~. \00 BLOCK LOT 19.1 / / D~Y WELL EXISTIN6 OLDG, · M.H. COVEE LOT I~,/ N/F H4~?!5 PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE 1"=20' OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE5 SITE DATA KEY MAP CUTCHOGUE. N.Y. N,T.S. LOT 19.1 BLOCK I S.C.T.M. NO. 1000-098-I-19 MIDDLE ROAD (COUNTY ROUTE 48) CUTCHOGUE, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK LOT AREA - 45,589 S,F, = 1,04 AC,± LILCO REFERENCE NOTES' 1, TOPOGRAPHY ~ PHYSICAL FEATURE5 SHOWN HEREON ~ASED ON FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY EDWARDS AND KELCEY ON MAY 30, lggI. TRUE NORTH REFERENCE BASED ON SOLAR OBSERVATION PERFORMED BY EDWARDS AND KELCEY JNC. ON MAY 30, 1991, 2, VERTICAL DATUM BASED ON ASSUMED REFERENCE ELEVATION T.B,H. = EX/STING WELL HEAD = ~00.8. 3. BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON TAKEN FROM A PLAN FOR ARTHUR V. JUNGE INC. PREPARED BY RODERICK VAN TUYL NO. LS 25B2G, DATED AUG, 27, 199I. YC, ZONE DATA~ LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL REQUIRED PROVIDED LOT SIZE 40,000 SF 45,589 SF LOT WIDTH I00 168± LOT DEPTH 150 252± FRONT YARD 50 75± SIDE YARD 20 14±* BOTH SIDE YARD 45 L74±', REAR YARD 70 24±" SETBACKS BUILDING FOR PROPOSED NYNEX RADIO EQUIPMENT NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~, NEW YORK //,~./~o[.~:~,,~u,p~\ -- I'DATE--~ ---- dULY ~,. SHEET 2 Of 7 NOTEI SURFACING OF FINISHED SLAB LEVEL AND FLAT WITHIN SHALL BE 27'-0" EDGE OF SLAB TOP OF SLAB ELEV' I01 ,T' INSIDE FACE OF FOUNDATION WALL G*L BUILDING FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE~ ~' · I'-0' STOOP PROPOSED RELOCATED POLYETHYLENE WATERLINE W/ ELEC. POWER SUPPLY LINE )4' BELOW GRADE MIN.! PROPOSED 12' x26 PRE-FAB BUILDING 13'x27' CONCRETE FOUNDATION TOP OF CONCRETE SLAB-101.7' PROPOSED 4' STONE SURFACING WITH WOOD CURB {SEE DETAIL-I SHEET T OF 7) PROPOSED CABLE IBY OTHERS) PROPOSED PROPOSED MONOPOLE PROPOSED CHAIN FENCE 8' HIGH EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE-- ITO REMAIN} NOTEs VERTICAL DATUM BASED ON ASSUMED REFERENCE ELEVATION T,B-M. ' EXISTING WELL HEAD ' 100.8. FENCE 9'-0' 'x WELL HE,4,I;~ 101,33 N / / / / MONOPOLE / / / / / / / / ~.\~?bO\ SITE LAYOUT SCALE I" - I0' POWER ENTRANCE ~' 5?DCKADE FENCE (TO BE REMOVED) 5 ' REINFORCED CONCRETE PAD ELEV.-101.7' ~ET FENCE 6'* FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT _/0/ 12' CHAIN LINK FENCE GATE EDGE OF P/~VEMENT 4" WIDE YELLOW STRIPING 24" C. TO C. ( 18' xl8' DRIVEWAY ACCESS AREA) / / / / / / / 6' CRUSHED STONE DRIVEWAY FROM FENCE/GATE TO EDGE OF PAVEMENT (BEE DETAIL-2 SHEET'7 OF T! --TELCO ENTRANCE EXISTIN~ /~" POLYETHYLENE WATEB LINE (RELOCATE AS SHO~) TOP OF SLAB -FINISHED GRADE EXTERIOR FACE OF PRE-FAB SHELTER -#5 ~I2"O.C.,B.W., CENTER OF SLAB DIRECTION BAR~ DIRECTION CHAMFER EXCEPT AT STOOP LOCATION BAR[$ -, _SLOP__E_ FIN- EXTERIOR FACE OF SHELTER MATCH TOP OF S SLAB ELEVATION el2'O.C.,B.W. SLOPE ~"/FT. :RUSHEE MIL VAPOR BARRIER COMPACTED REINFORCED CONC COMP~ACTED CRUSHED STONE (MIN) BACKFILL FOUNDATION 5 ~12" ROCK INSTALLED WITH HILTI HEA CAPSULES ~ ~' PREMOULDED dOINT BACKFILL (TYP) FILLER,CAULK TOP OF dOINT JRBED COMPACTED SOIL .// SHELTER FOOTING ) - e4. CLEAR COVER ~ 2'-0" CENTER ON DOORWAY SECTION A-A CONCRETE STOOP DETAIL SCALE~ ~" ' I'-O" SCALE~ ~" = I'-O" MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE SITE LAYOUT AND BUILDING FOUNDATION PLAN COUNTY ROUTE 48, TO~,q~l OF SOUTHOLD  COUNTY, NEW YORK DATE JULY 31, 1991 EDN~DS z ;. I~ AS SHOWN I SCALE 70 SOUTH ORANGE AV ~, JER 039 I ~ RICHARD }EL P.E.N0. 066987-1 SHEET .3 OF 7 VARIES 6'-0"11 CONCRETE 9 ,', -0" ~ I" CHAMFER -- FINISHED 2 I/2" 2'x 2' x 2" #6 012' CLEAR #8 012" E.W. 18' x 18' ~--9" COMPACTED STONE (l") 2 1/4"~ ANCHOR BOLTS CONCRETE FOOTING i/4"e PVC DRAIN PIPES (2-REQUIRED) (BY OTHERS) BASE PLATE (BY OTHERS) /~TOP OF PIER ELEVATION =103.( CRUSHEI TOP GRADE OF FOOTING ELEV. 95.0 [ 2~'e AlS3 GR75 ANCHOR BOLTS (TO BE SUPPLIED BY NYNEXI MONOPOLE BASE PLATE OTHERS) OF BASE PLATE LEVELING NUT OF GROUT OF CONC. PIER ANCHOR BOLT DETAIL SCALE~ I' ' 4' -PLATE MAY BE TACK WELDED TO HOLD IN PLACE ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE (TO BE SUPPLIED BY NYNEXI OF CAISSON SECTION SCALE, 3/8'=1'-0'' [.FOUNDATION o /~ 24- raj; : ~----~-..~/ VERTICAL BARS '~Y SPACED 2'-0" MIN. TIES OVERLAP. WE,° TOGETHER AT 0 END OF LAP NCHOR BOLT (TYP. OF 8) 9'-0" 9'-0" ANCHOR 45o' (TYP, Ix, BOLT SETTING TEMPLATE BASE PLATE -ANCHOR BOLT/HOLE (TYP.) OF MONOPOLE BASE AND CONCRETE PIER ~BOLT PAIRS [80TTOM PLATE) ( BOTTOM ) PLATE NOTE, ANCHOR BY NYNEX PRIOR FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE= 3/8"=1 ' -0" ~ BOLT PAIRS ANCHOR BOLT ORIENTATION DETAIL SCALE: 3/32"=1 ' -0" GENERAE NOTES I. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK , LOCAL BUILDING CODES AND ALL CODES REFERENCED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DE,~g?NED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK STATE BUILDING~ODE, LATEST EDITION AND EIA-222D, BOLT ORIENTATIONI WILL BE FURNISHED TO CONSTRUCTIONI · THIS DRAWING PERTAINS TO FOUNDATION WORK~ HOWEVER, IT SHALL BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MONOPOLE AND ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS, EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AT THE PROJECT AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPER FITTING OF HIS WORK THERETO, 3. ~HE ENGINEERING OF THE BORING LOG OF THIS THLS FOUNDATION IS BASED ON A SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION, INVESTIGATION, PERTAINING TO THE MONOPOLE FOUNDATION, CAN BE FOUND IN THE SPECIFICATIONS AND ON DRAWING NO. 92-8012 DI, THE INFORMATION THEREIN MAY BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS A GUIDE IN THE PLANNING OF HIS WORK~ HOWEVER, NEITHER THE OWNER NOR THE ENGINEER GUARANTEES ITS ACCURACY OR THAT IT IS A TRUE REPRESENTATION OF THE ACTUAL SOIL CONDITION, 4. LOCATE THE ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATES ACCURATELY ON THE THEORETICAL CENTERLINE OF THE MONOPOLE AT THE SPECIFIED ELEVATION AND THE ORIENTATION AND SECURELY MAINTAIN THE SAME IN THAT POSITION THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONCRETING OPERATION, THE ORIENTATION OF THE ANCHOR BOLT ASSEMBLY SHALL BE VERIFrED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, 5. THE ENTIRE FOOTING SHALL BE POURED MONOLITHICALLY WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT INTERRUPTION IN THE CONCRETING OPERATION, PROVIDE SHEAR KEY AS SHOWN ON THE DETAILS BETWEEN THE FOOTING AND THE PIER, THE CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED IN A MANNER TO PREVENT SEPARATION OF PARTICLES. THE MAXIMUM FREE FALL SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE FEET ( 5 I. USE THE TREMIE METHOD WHERE COMPLETE DEWATERING IS IMPOSSIBLE, 6. THE CONCRETE SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY VIBRATED TO ASSURE TIGHTNESS AND BOND WITH THE REINFORCING STEEL, 7. ALL CAST IN PLACE FOR THE FOOTING AND PIER SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3,500 POUNDS PER SOUARE INCH AT 28 DAYS, MINIMUM CEMENT CONTENT SHALL BE 7 BAGS PER CUBIC YARD. MAXIMUM SLUMP SHALL BE FOUR INCHES { 4" I. ALLOW 14 DAYS OF CURING BEFORE LOADING THE FOUNDATION, 8. ALL CONCRETE WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL BUILDING CODES, ALL REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE DEFORMED BARS OF HIGH STRENGTH NEW BILLET STEEL CONFORMING TO A.S,T.M SPEC, A-6[5 GRADE 60. 9. ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY NYNEX MCC AND SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE SIZES AND LOCATION AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWING, PROVIDE THREE 131 NUTS FOR EACH BOLT, ONE BELOW THE BASE PLATE AND TWO ABOVE THE BASE PLATE. NUTS AND BOLT THREADS SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED, FOR REQUIREMENTS AT BOTTOM OF ANCHOR BOLTS, SEE DETAILS, PRETENSION BOLTS BY TURN OF-NUT METHOD~ I/2 TURN FROM A SNUG TIGHT POSITION, I0. DRYPACK MONOPOLE BASE PLATE WITH NON-SHRINK HIGH STRENGTH GROUT IEMBECO 41lA AS MANUFACTURED BY MASTER BUILDERS OR APPROVED EQUALI, II. PROVLDE BACKFILL ON TOP OF FOOTING AND FINISH GRADING IN ACCORDANCE THE SITE PLAN AND SPECIFICATION. MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM THE HOLE, IF SUITABLE, MAY BE UTILIZED FOR BACKFILL, WITH MONOPOLE FOUNDATION DESIGN LOADS @ TOP OF BASE PLATE OVERTURNING MOMENT WIND SHEAR @ BASE DEAD LOAD OF POLE 753 IOK FT. -K MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE MONOPOLE FOUNDATION AND DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE 48. TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHOLD ~LK COUNTY· NEW YORK SHEET 4 OF #2 GW TO ELECTRIC SERVICE GROUND,SEE DWG NO 92-8012,E2 3"GRS, 3-350MCM, JUNCTION BOX PENNCAST MODEL NO. 223, WITH SUMP HOLE B GROUND ROD HOLEI SQUARE HEAVY DUTY COVER T-HINGED NEENAH CAT. # R-6662-KH %,,, E~YISTIN~ BLDG. 0 5"GRS, $-550MCM, 1#2G ELECTRIC METE~ C~O I ~LIL£O PP#4ZO PROPOSED UTILITY ROUTING PLAN N.T.S. NEW EOOA SERVICE DISCONNECT (BY OTHERS) 1#2GW EXISTI~IG POLE EXISTING EXISTING PKI~A~Y LINE5 LILCO T~ANSFO~ME~ 5~"BRS, 5-550MCM, 1#2GW lUNDERGROUND SERVICE) NEW 200A METER SOCKET --NEW 200A METER BY LILCO NYNEX-RADIO EQUIPMENT BUILDING {PREFAB) AC ONE LINE DIAGRAM 4" PVC-- BACKFILL FFINISHED GRADE -TRACER TAPE (TYP) 4' 5" " SHALL BE CLEAN FILL WITHOUT TELCO GRS #2 GW (EXTERIOR GROUND NET) PROPOSED MONOPOLE- PROPOSED U/G TELEPHONE-- GW, AND ELECTRIC SERVICE SEE TRENCH DETAIL FOR CONTINUATION, SEE- PROPOSED UTILITY ROUTING PLAN A.C. MAIN SERVICE DISCONNECT NYNEx RADIO ., BUILDING NOTE~ INSTALLATION OF ELECTRICAL SERVICE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LILCO REQUIREMENTS. --4" PVC TELCO 5'-0" MIN., 6'-0" MAX.~, E~'I5TI/V6~ T~ANSFO/~ME~ \ ' ~i~ GRS, 5m550MCM,I#2GW FROM TRANSFORMER TO NYNEX RADIO EQUIP. BLDG. NYNEX ELECTRICAL SERVICE PLAN SCALE' I'=10' APPROX. 340'* NYNEX PRE-FAB BUILDING GROUND WIRE IN I"~ PVC CONDUIT FROM GROUND NET TO GROUNDING LUG IN SAFETY DISCONNECT Fl3 GRS, 5-35OMCM, ELECTRICAL SERVICE ENTRANCE DETAIL 1#2GW STONES AND .SHALL BE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED IN 6" LAYEI~S BY TAblPING OR APPROVED METHOD- NO BELLYIING OF THE TRENCH WILL BE ALLOWED. TRENCH DETAIL SECTION ,A-A N.T.S. N.T.S. N.T.S. METER SOCKET WITH LILCO METER SEE ELECTRICAL SERVICE ENTRANCE DETAIL 'EDGE OF EXISTING P~V'T NOTES ~ I. FOR GROUNDING, SEE DWG NO 92-8012,E2 qE"- MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE ELECTRICAL LAYOUT AND DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE'48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY,, NEW YORK  DATE JULY 31, 1991 EDWARDS lC. ~ F 70 SOUTH OIANGK I~[!,.~l~13~l~E~ Jill )7039 I ~ SCALE AS SHOWN ~ .~ DWG NO 92-8012~ El ____ ' ' P.E.NO. 066987-1 RICHAR{ EL SHEET 5 OF 7 )ROUND WIRES )NOTE l) (6 FEET PROTRUDING UP THROUGH FOUNDATION, WELDED TO BURIED RING GROUND) GROUND TO MAIN DISC. I" SCHED. 80 PVC (TYPi #2 SOLID TINNED COPPER-- GROUND WIRE TO EXTERIOR GROUND RING (TYP OF 2 PLACES) GROUND ROD {TYP) GROUND LEVEL 30" MIN. R NG GROUND LEVEL MUST BE 50' MIN. BELOW FINISHED GRADE) GROUND, 'GROUND TO A/C UNIT SEE DETAIL-B SIGNAL CABLE FEE SEE DETAIL #2 GW TO ELECTRIC SERVICE SEE DWG NO 92-8012. El GROUND ROD INSPECTION-- WELL. SEE DETAIL-O #2 SOLID TINNED BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE TO CABLE TROUGH MONOPOLE FOUNDATION GROUNDING DETAIL N.T.S. EXTERIOR GROUND BAR PLATE SEE DETAIL SEE MONOPOLE FOUNDATION GROUNDING DETAIL #2 INSULATED GREEN STRANDED TAP (CU) TO INTERIOR HALO GROUND C-TAP TaB a 54740 ~" PVC SLEEVE AT 45* ANGLE #2 SOLID TINNED BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE TO EXTERIOR GROUND NET WALL GROUND PENETRATION N.T.S. (4) LEGEND (D COPPER GROUND BAR, 1/4'x4'xIO", NEWTON INSTRUHENT CO. CAT. #A-GIBS. (2) ,iNSULATORS, NEWTON INSTRUNENT CO. ~CAT. #3067-4. , ES) 5/8' LOCKWASHERS, NEWTON INSTRUBENT CO. GAT. #3075-8. (4) WALL HOUNTING BRACKET, NEWTON INSTRUBENT CO. CAT. #A-BOSH. (5) S/H-11xl" H.H.C,S. HOLTS, NEWTON INSTRUNENT CO. CAT. #3012-7. GROUNDING BAR PLATE DETAIL {TYP. FOR INTERIOR ~ EXTERIOR) N.T.S SW. NEUTRAL JN INTERIOR HALO GROUND WIRE TO EXTERIOR THRU HOLE PROVIDED a CADWELD TO EXTERIOR GROUND WIRE. SEAL HOLE WITH SILICON CAULK (TYP) I ! --BRAIDED GROUND STRAP {TYP) ROD ITYP,) SEE DETAIL-R -#2 SOLID TINNED BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE ITYP. ) GROUND TO FENCE (TYP.) ~SEE DETAIL-S -#6 INS'LI~LATED GROUND WIRE TO SIGNAL~CABLE FEED-THRU (TYP. OF ~)x PLATE EXTERIOR GROUNDING LAYOUT SCALE, I '=lO' UNIT LEGEND -T" HOLE LUG · 2 AWG SOLID TINNED BARE GROUND WIRE TO A/C FRAME -~"e PVC, SECURE TO WALL AS PER CODE -.~...~ /~FIN. GRADE "T" TAP CADWELD CONNECTION GROUND ROD INSPECTION ~LL #2 AWG SOLID TINNED BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE PIG TAIL COIL - 15 FT OF ,2 AWG SOLID, TINNED BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE FOR CONNECTION TO INTERIOR EQUIPMENT DETAIL-B N.T.S. ROD GRADE x / PRECAST CO.C. COVER G.ADE% ~"//"/"'""//'~" '"'7 GROIUND WIRE - 12"e PVC PIPE [ c~ o ~[ ~CAD~WELD CADWELD---~FF~ (TYP) _~__ GROUND WIRE~ ~-GROUND WIRE FROM MAIN DISCONNECT II WELL ONLY) ~"~xlO' LONG COPPERCLAD GROUND ROD DETAIL-Q ROD INSPECTION GROUND N.T.S. WELL DETAIL-R GROUNDING ROD N.T.S. NOTES 1. ALL GROUNDING N/RE HUHT BE NO. 2 AfiG TINNED 50LID COPPER NIRES, BURIED N/N. HELO~ FINISHED GRACE. WIRES BUST HE EXOTHERBICALLY fiELDED OR BRAZED ~HERE BONDING IS REOUIRED. 2. GROUNDING ROCS BUST HE STAINLESS STEEL OR COPPER-CLAO STEEL, 3/4'x10' BIN. TOPS BURIED 30' NIH. BELOfl FINISHED DRADE, EXOTHERBICALLY ~ELDED TO BURIED RING GROUND. 3. ALL ADOVE GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL HE CAD,ELD, BOLTEC CLABP, OR SPLIT HOLT CONNECTORS. CR/NP CONNECTORS SHALL NOT BE USED ON SOLID CONDUCTORS. CABWELD BUST BE USED FOR FENCE CONNECTION. 4. WHERE GROUND CONNECTIONS ARE HADE THE CONTACT POINTS ARE TO BE CLEANED AND BADE FREE OF FOREIGN BATERIAL SUCH AS PAINT AND CORROSION, TO ENSURE AN ADEDUATE BOND. S. FOR CONNECT]ON TO ALUBINUH FACIA AND ALUBINUB GRAVEL GUARD, ALUBINUN CONDUCTORS SHALL BE USED ~JTH APPROVED BINETALLIC CONNECTORS BETWEEN ALUHINUB AND COPPER. ALL ALUBINUH CONDUCTORS SHALL BE T~O SIZES GREATER THAN THAT SPECIFIED, AN ANTI-OXiDATION COHPOUND SHALL HE USED, B. ~HERE ANY GROUNDING DCONDUCTOR PASSES THROUGH HETAL CONDUIT IT SHALL BE BONDED TO THE CONDUIT ENDS. 7. ALL GROUNDING CONNECTIONS TO THE GROUND BAR PLATE SHALL HE BADE WITH DOUBLE HOLE HYDRAULICALLY INDENTED LUGS. B. EACH SECTION OF CABLE THROUGH SHALL BE GROUNDED USING GROUNDING CONNECTOR SIHILAR TO TYPE KC-28 BY BURNDY OR APPROVED EQUAL. 9. GROUND NET RESISTANCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 7.00HN. 70. ALL BELOW GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE CAD,ELD. 71. GROUND THE INTAKE AND EXHAUST HOODS, EXACT LOCATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD. #2 AWG WIRE TO BAR 0 0 0 0 oOOOOo OOOO °OOOO° ,.SULATED G.OU.D ° MONOPOLE GROUND ~,-~ VIA CABLE TROUGH I'~ [1 /'h #2 AWG BARE GROUND WIRE . TO EXTERIOR GROUND ,.L SIGNAL CABLE FEED-THRU #6 AWG INSULATED GROUND WIRE -EXTERIOR GROUND BAR PLATE SIGNAL CABLE FEED-THRU N.T.S. NOTE GROUNDING SYSTEB 5HALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN COBPLETE ACCORDANCE EITH NBCC PRACTICE 802-001-197. "DO NOT DEVIATE" AND "DO NOT SUHSTITUTE' NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY ED~ARD/~ RICHA i CUTCHOGUE SITE GROUNDING LAYOUT AND DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNT?, NEW YORK /NGEL DATE JULY 31, 1991 SCALE AS SHOWN DWG NO 92-8012, E2 P. E. NO. 066987-I SHEET 6 OF 7 GROUND ELEVATION = 55~-+ AMSL ANTENNA PLATFOEM ,/~ " .,ELEVATION ~" DIA. CRUSHED SURFACING 4' MINIMUM (AASHTO MI4T-65 GR-C~O WITH SUFFICIENT BINDER) CHAIN LINK FENCE OF SURFACINB GRADE TO DRAIN PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE- TREATED K)OD CURB COMPACT SUBGRADE AND SURFACING~ TO PRODUCE AN UNYIELDING SURFACE GALVANIZED SPIKES-- 'xl'-6' LONG PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE-TREATED WOOD STAKE · 5'-0' O.C. MAX. STAKE EACH SiDE OF CURB JOINT SURFACING SECTION DETAILH N.T.S, m~ EDWARD5 AND KELCEY, INC, m~ EDWARDS AND K~LCEY, INC, TEST BORING LOG SHEET i OF 3 TEST BORING LOG SHEET 2 OF 3 SPOON BLOWS I CASING SAMPLE[I BAMPLE IDENTIFICATION & PROFILE CHANGE BLOWB SAMPLE NO. AEC 0/6 6/12 DEPTH DEPTH 12/18 18/24 [FEET; 3 4 6 7 ~( EDWARD5 AND KELCEY, INC. TEST BORING LOG SHEET 3 DF 3 SPOON BLOWS S~4RLED SA~IPLE NO. AEC 0/6 ~4 §EPTF $~4PLE IDENTIFICATION & PROFILE CHANGE CASXNG DEPT. 1D/X~ I ~ BLOWS I I D EH F END POST LINE POST (TYP.) CORNER POST LINE POST LINE POST GATE POST SINGLE GATE I~Oj NOTES, CHAIN LINK FENCE NOT TO SCALE NOTE' PLACE GATE KEEPER TO ALLOW MAXIMUM OPENING OF GATE AND MINIMUM HAZARD TO FOOT AND VENICLE TRAFFIC. COMPACT SUBGRADE AND SURFACING TO PRODUCE AN UNYIELDING ~URFACE GALVANIZED OF DRIVEWAY PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE- TREATED WOOD CURB "xl'-6' LONG PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE-TREATEO WOO0 STAKE · S'-O' O.C. MAX. STAKE EACH SIDE OF CURS JOINT DRIVEWAY SECTION DETAIL-2 N.T.$. DOUBLE GATE GATE ELEVATIONS NOT TO SCALE GATE POST DETAIL-A ;" MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE BORING LOGS AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK EDW&RDS A: ~ ~F AS SHOWN P,E.NO, 066987-1 RICHARD SHEET 7 OF 7 for, ~.$ . - ....... ~-~ ~ 50 WATT~DESC[NT L~ ..'' OVER DOORWA~OOP,. CUT OFF - ~ REFLECT~' TO DE-INSTALLED TO /~ ,SHIELD LICIT ' PAIN,'ED YELLOW LINES l l~, I~ONOPOLE LOT /7,~ OF 50UTHOLD NOTE" SURVEY INFORMATION PROPERTY SURVEYED INC." PREPARED BY NO, 25626 DATED REVISED 2/14/89, SITE DATA EDge OF PAV'T(FYP,) BASED ON "MAP OF FOR ARTHUR V. JUNGE, RODERICK VAN TUYL, L.Si 9/23/88 AND LAST 4 - DEL ' PARKING SPACES NON-DELINeATED PARKING Sl~ACESl , pr ~tt * CUba / xx .H. OVE~ t OVERHEAD T~LC~ 7 ~'. ~ECrgzc M~Eg u~og~OuNo ELECT, I:PRO~'OSED SITEiPLAN WI'TH' PARKING ' SCALE I"=P-O' Z~ PARKING CALCULATIONS EXISTING BUILDING ~0' X I00.' A ~-,000 S*F. PROPOSED RADIO EQUIPMENT BUILDING lIB' X EXISTING BUILDING USE~ MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR'S BUSINESS = CATERER' = REPAIR GARAGE = 26') = 312 S.F. 1,600 S.F I,~-00 S.F I, 2-00 S.F PROPOSEID BUILDING USE~ UNMANNED EQUIPMENT SHELTER = 51P- S.F. (SHELTER REQUIRES INFREQUENT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE VISTS. APPROXIMATELY I VIST PER MONTH. ) PLANT MATERIALS PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS PER USE~ MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR ' S BI~'SINE;SS CATERER REPAIRI GARAGE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES REQUI.RED PARKING SPACES~ MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR'S ~ CATERER ~ REPAIR GARAGE ~ r EQUIPMENT SHELTER~ TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING SPAC PARKING SPACES PROVIDED .PARKING SPACES PROVIDED TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVlD SPACE/EMPLOYEE PLUS SPACE/EMPLOYEE PLUS 4 SPACES/BAY 2 SPACES 2 SPACES PLUS I SPACE/EMPLOYEE SPACE/EMPLOYEE OR = GREATER OF I I SPACE/500 S.F. 5 EMPLOYEES X I SPACE/EMPLOYEE = + 2 SPACES = EMPLQYEES X I SPACE/EMPLOYEE = SPACES = 5 2 2 2 4 2 I BAY X ¢ SPACES/BAY +g EMPLOYEES X I SPACE/EMPLOYEE= I EMPLOYEE X I SPACE/EMPLOYEE 'lB STANDARD STALL I0' X 2-0' 16 HANDICAPPED STALLS 12-.5' X 20' 2 KL~,~ QTY. SCIEI~rrlFIC NAME Cgi~aON N.,M/E SIZE/ROOT ~F~ 13 PINUB STROBIFURMIS MEXICAN BORDER PINE 5'-6'/B+B '10' O.C. p~ 6 PINUS NIGRA AUSTRIAN PINE 5'-6'/B+B I0' O.C, F~ 4 PiNUB MONTANA MUBHUS MUGHO PINE B"-E4"/B+B 6' O.C. '"' MOBI E COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK LOT AREA - 45,589 S c - ~ n~ ~ .flOTE~ ~MAY BE gUPLEMENTED WITH ~ (PICEA PUNGERS, COLORADO BLUE ~PRUCE) ' ..... , ....... DEPENDING ON THE AVAILABILITY OF PLANT MATERIALS AT IMPLEMENTATION. CUTCHOGUE SITE = zo, u SITE PLAN EXHIBIT ~1 COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD REQUIRED PROVIDED ~ ~ ~ SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK ~1 LOT SIZE 40,000 SF 45,589 SF , ~ --~ F.O.T~T ~yARD ~50 I I _. I DATE OCTO.EE 18. ,9~, xl BOTH SIDE YARD 45 174~. , : ,,, I I ~,.m;~f~uo~ m~ I ~l · SETBACKS FOR PROPOSED NYNEX RAplO EQ~IPM,ENT I /IX I il/l~/Ul InEV"~EU V~ DUfnU W,,,,,,~,''oI , :. . ~ · , ,,, ' ' ' ~' " ' ' I~ ' ' sU,¢c* I nF~,~ v I B A C - GROUND EXIT SERVICE EMERGENCY POWER ENTRY PENETRATION oo\ WAVEGUIDE ENTRY TYP. 3 PLACES HATCH PLATE TYP. 3 PLACES /HVAC ~ ELEVATION B 000 EXHAUST HOOD HVAC I I __y EXTERIOR LIGHT ! - ~iNTAKE HOOD t I ELEVATION C ELEVATION A 8 5 INITIAL ISSUE 4-/';/'W ~__. Z~r.> I I I I ELEV/~ION I I I I D TIE DOWN AS REQUIRED FOUNDATION BY OTHERS 25'-0" 26'-0" RADIO iL 13'-1f UIPMENT FLOOR 1/4-" = f-O" BY OTHERS [] Al'PRE",;?3 ,.'$ DRAV/N [ '[-r [] APPROVED //~ NOTED [] NS-; A?PROVED [~EQUtRED Sh;NED ['~] ~-- ~ RECEIPF ~2' APPROVAL U,,., ,,~'~' .... .b~ C. LENS NYNEX FCS1226-6-9 1/2"=1' .5=12 4 4 4 5 2 1 '---'"-~-~-~1'" .~ 0 WATT'rN(;~,NDESCENT L~A~My .."" "~ OVER DOORWAY'.ST.OOP. CUT OFF REFLECTOR TO B'E INSTALLED TO / I00' R FROM MONOPOLE CENTER SHIELD LIGHT FROM S.PILLING -'' ' ~NTO ADJACENT PROPER~T~Y: ~ /' x LOT ZO./ N (rfp) PROleOSED WIDE PAIN~'ED YELLOW. LINES A PARKING CALCULATIONS EXISTING BUILDING 40' X I00' = 4,000 S.F. PROPOSED RADIO EQUIPMENT BUILDING (lB' X EXISTING BUILDING USE~ MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR'S BUSINESS 1.600 S.F CATERER I,ZO0 S.F REPAir GARAGE 1,200 S.F PROPOSED BUILDING USE, UNMANNED EQUIPMENT SHELTER 512 S.F. (SHELTER REQUIRES INFREQUENT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE VISTS. APPROXIMATELY i VIST PER MONTH.) N LOT' 17.~ ,v/F TOW,V OF 5OUTHQLD ~. I00' I rz66 ~[~ trrP.) ~ PARKING SPACES / Bet weti -- - I0' X2~D' NON-DELINI~ATED PARKING SR'ACES '. t BLOCK / / ~ M.H. COV~ {TYP.) _ I { ~ ~ ~ A/C uy~r M I --LZLCO PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS PER USE' MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR'S BUSK'~ESS CATERER REPAIR GARAGE SPACE/EMPLOYEE PLUS 2 SPACES SPACE/EMPLOYEE PLUS Z SPACES SPACES/BAY PLUS I SPACE/EMPLOYEE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES REQUIRED PARKING SPACES~ MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR'S CATERER, REPAIR GARAGE, EQUIPMENT SHELTER~ = GREATER OF I SPACE/EMPLOYEE OR I SPACE/500 S.F. EMPLOYEES X I SPACE/EMPLOYEE = B SPACES = EMPLOYEES X I SPACE/EMPLOYEE = 2 SPACES BAY X 4 SPACES/BAY +2 EMPLOYEES X I SPACE/EMPLOYEE= EMPLOYEE X I SPACE/EMPLOYEE 5 2 2 4 2 TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING SPACES lB PARKING SPACES ~ROVIDED PARKING SPACES PROVIDED TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED STANDARD STALL I0' X ~0' HANDICAPPED STALLS 12.5' X 20' 16 2 lB A NOTE' SURVEY INFORMATION BASED ON "MAP Of PROPERTY SURVEYED FOR ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC." PREPARED BY RODERICK VAN TUYL, L.S. NO. ~5626 DATED 9/~3/B8 AND LAST REVISED E/14/BB. SITE DATA LOT IB.I BLOCK I S,C.T.M. NO. 1000-098-1-19 MIDDLE ROAD (COUNTY ROUTE 4Bi CUTCHOGUE, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK LOT AREA = 45,589 S.F. = 1.04 AC.± ZONE DATA~ LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL REOUIRED PROVIDED LOT SIZE 40,000 SF 45,589 SF LOT WIDTH I00 168± LOT DEPTH 150 252~ FRONT YARD 50 75± SIDE YARD 20 . 14±~ BOTH SIDE YARD 45 174±~ REAR YARD 70 24±. · SETBACKS FOR PROPOSED NYNEX RADIO EQUIPMENT BUILDING PROPOSED LO? IO.l ,V/F HA.E. eZ5 SITE PLAN WITH SCALE 1"=20' PARKING PLANT MATERIALS KEY QTY. SCIENTIFIC N.~ME COMk~N NNdE $IZE/R~T IPAClNG mF~ 13 PINUS STROBIFURMIS ~E)~ICAN BOROER PINE 5*-6'/B+B I0' O,C. F~ 6 P]NUS NIGRA AUSTRIAN PINE 5'-6'/B+B lO' O.C. PM ~ PINUB MONTANA MUGHUS MUBHO PINE 18"-E4"/B+B 6' O.C. *NOTE, P~ MAY BE SUPLEMENTED WITH P~ (PICEA PUNBERS, COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE] DEPENDING ON THE AVAILABILITY OF PLANT MATERIALS AT IMPLEMENTATION. /~ ll/I9/9l REVISED PER PLANNING REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BOARD COMMENTS NY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE SITE PLAN EXHIBIT COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK IDATE SCALE DWG NO GEL RICHARD P.Ij. NO. OCTOBER 18, Ig91 AS SHOWN 92-8012 066967-1 SHEET I OF I B A REVISIONS INITIAL ISSUE DESCRIP~ON IDATE APPROVED I ' oo L EMERGENCY POWER PENETRATION WAVEGUIDE ENTRY TYP. 5 PLACES PLATE '-X GROUND ex,t .ATCH Sk TYP. ,3 PLACE sErvIcE ENTRY O O O; I o I I I I I I I I ~HVAC ~ ../ OOO :m I---1 ,L__J 0 0 O O O ELEVATION B ELEVATION D '~'N-._ EXHAUST HOOD 000 HVAC ELEVATION C HOOD yTIE DOWN AS I I I / FOUNDATION REQUIRED BY OTHERS ELEVATION A 13'-1 1/2" 7'-6" '1 ~ront · . RCF 2 r F RCF /F /F : : L --.L _ L~. _1_ _1_ ]_ ] f L ~ L BARRY STANO I 13'-1 1/2" 25'-0" 26'-0" RADIO. EQUIPMENT FLOOR PLAN ~/,~. = BY OTHERS D. FREGtA 2/25/91 C. LEWIS D~/25/91 ~1 Ah'PROW:::) ,,' % DFL~W/N [~1 APPROVED /',¢; NOTED [] Nt?'; AFPROVED NOTE: ~ANDREW EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS NYNEX ~..o. o.~..o.u..~CS1226_6_9 1/2"=1' .5=12] 4 4 INDEX OF SHEETS: I 4 5 6 7 TITLE SHEET PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND DETAILS SITE LAYOUT AND BUILDING FOUNDATION MONOPOLE FOUNDATION AND DETAILS ELECTRICAL LAYOUT AND DETAILS GROUNDING LAYOUT AND DETAILS, BORING LOGS AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 2000 CORPORATE DRIVE ORANGEBURG, NY 10962 (914} 365-7200 CO. N COMMUN#CA T#ON$ CUTCHOGUE SITE S COUNTY TOWN UFFOLK ROUTE 48 OF SOUTHOL D COUNTY, NEW YORK PORTION OF USGS QUAD LOCATION MAP SHEETS MATTITUCK HILLS AND SCALE I" = PO00' SOUTHOLD N.Y. EDWARDS AND KELCEY ~ I N C. 70 SOU?B ORANGE AVENOE, LIVINGSTON, NEW JERSEY 07039 CUTCHOGUE, N.Y. e CONSTRUCTION T.B.Mo WELL ELEV, - 100.8 ASSUMED PROPOSED 12'x26' NYNEX RADIO EOUIPMENT PRE-FAB BUILDINS AND IS'x27' CONCRETE FOUNDATION PROPOSED STONE SURFACING-- PROPOSED CABLE PROPOSED I00' MONOPOLE NOTE~ FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEE SITE LAYOUT SHEET ~ OF 7 £OT /7,.~ N/F TOI,WV OF 50UTHOLD FENCE 9'-0" NOTES' 1, ALL SURFACES SMALL BE GRADED TO DRAIN AWAY FROM THE BUILDING FOUNDATION. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL SURVEY STATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND RE-ESTABLISH ANY DISTURBED STATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES AND PROVIDE PROTECTION AS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 4. CONTRACTOR 5MALL RESTORE, REPAIR OR REPLACE EXISTING ITEMS DISTURBED OR DAMAGED DURING CONBTR~tTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF NYNEX. DISTURBED GRASSY AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED, FERTILIZED 8 MULCHED. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL DOCUMENT "AS BUILT' LOCATION OF ALL BURIED UTILITIES iNCLUDiNG POWER, TELEPHONE, GROUNDING, ETC. $. GROUND NET RESISTANCE 5HALL NOT EXCEED 1.O OHM. 7. IMMEDIATELY AFTER FORMATION, EMBANKMENTS/SLOPES 5BAL~ BE TEMPORARILY STABILIZED W/TH OUICK GROWING RYE GRASS UNTIL PERMANENT SEEDING CAN BE PERFORMED, B. CLEARED MATERIAL SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY COMPLETE REMOVAL, S. EXCAVATIONS AND FORMATION OF EMBANKMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED TO PRODUCE ELEVATIONS FOR SLOPES CONFORMING TO THE LINES, CONTOURS, ANO DIMENSIONS REDUIRED BY THE DRAWING AND/OR A5 DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. lO, TOES AND TOPS OF ALL SLOPES SHALL BE SHAPED, ROUNDED AND TRIMMED. 17. WORK SHALL INCLUDE SEEDING, FERTILIZING AND MULCHING OF GRAOEO CUT AND FiLL 5LOPES, DITCH LINE5 AND ALL OTHER SiTE AREAS DISTRUBED BY THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND REGUIRING EROSION CONTROL AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS OR AS REQUIREO BY THE ENGINEER. 12, IF EROSION OR SEDIMENT FLOW BECOMES A PROBLEM DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SILT FENCING AT AREAB INDICATED BY THE ENGINEER. 13, ALL CONCRETE (TYPE 11 A.P.C.) SHALL DEVELOP A MIN. 28 DAY STRENGTH O? 4000 PSI, REINFORCING STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM AB1S, GR. BO. 14. FORMWORK SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR ALL CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE, UNLESS NOTED. CONTRACTOR MUST iNFORM ENGINEER g NYNEX 48 HMS. PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE, WELDING AND BACKFILLING OF GROUNDING NETWORK OR STRUCTURES. ? MONOPOLE / / / / / LOT fO,I N/F GRAY OVERHEAD FENCE UTILITY LINE5 / % PROPOSED ~' CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH GATE / \ --BORING LOCATION \ / · pAVEMENT ( / ~..____~ \O0 BLOCK / LOT 19.1 / \ MH. £OVER (TYP) LOT N/F HARRIS PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE 1"=20 ' REFERENCE NOTES' TOPOGRAPHY ~ PHYSICAL FEATURES SHOWN HEREON BASED ON FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY EDWARDS AND KELCEY ON MAY 30, 1991. TRUE NORTH REFERENCE BASED ON SOLAR OBSERVATION PERFORMED BY EDWARDS AND KELCEY INC. ON MAY 30, 1991. 2, VERTICAL DATUM BASED ON tASSUMED REFERENCE ELEVATION T.B.M. = EXISTING WELL H~AD = ?O0.B. 3. BOUNDARY INFORMATION 5HOIWN HEREON TAKEN FROM A PLAN FOR ARTHUR V, JUNGE INC, PREPARED BY RODERICK VAN TUYL NO. LS 25B25, DATED AUG. 27, 1991. KEY MAP CUTCHOGUr', N.Y. N.T.S. SITE DATA LOT 19,1 BLOCK S.C.T.M. NO. 1000-09B-1-19 MIDDLE ROAD ICOUNTY ROUTE 48) CUTCHOGUE, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK LOT AREA = 45,589 S.F. = 1.04 AC.~ ZONE DATA~ LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL REQUIRED PROVIDED LOT SIZE 40,000 SF 45,589 SF LOT WIDTH I00 16B± LOT DEPTH 150 252± FRONT YARD 50 75± SIDE YARD 20 I~±* BOTH SIDE YARD 45 174±~ REAR YARD 70 24±* SETBACKS BUILDING FOR PROPOSED NYNEX RADIO EQUIPMENT NYNE'-' MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS ,COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE PROPOSED SITE PLAN Al,ID DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK EDWARDS RICHAR[ EL DATE JULY 31, 1991 SCALE AS SHOWN DWG NO 92-8012, SPI P. E. NO. 066987-I SHEET 2 OF 7 PROPOSED RELOCATED POLYETHYLENE WATERLINE W/ ELEC. POWER SUPPLY LINE (4' BELOW GRADE MIN.} NOTE" SURFACING OF FINISHED SLAB SHALL BE LEVEL AND FLAT WITHIN 27' -0" EDGE Of SLAB TOP OF SLAB ELEV- I01 .7' INSIDE FACE OF FOUNDATION WALL STOOP PROPOSED 12'x26' PRE-FAB BUILDING IS'x27' CONCRETE FOUNDATION TOP OF CONCRETE SLAB-IOhT' PROPOSED 4" CRUSHED STONE SURFACING WITH WOOD CURB (SEE DETAIL-I SHEET 7 OF 7) PROPOSED CABLE (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED PROPOSED MONOPOLE PROPOSED CHAIN FENCE 8' LINK-- HIGH {TO REMAIN) BUILDING FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE~ ~" - I'-0' EXTERIOR FACE- OF SHELTER TOP OF SLAB fFINISHED GRADE EXTERIOR FACE OF PRE-FAB SHELTER -#5 OI2"O.C.,B.W., :ENTER OF SLAB -SHORT DIRECTION BARS -LONG DIRECTION BARS #4 REINFORCED CONe FOUNDATION MIL VAPOR BARRIER COMPACTED CRUSHED STONE 5 ~,12" (MINI ROCK BACKFILL ITYP) JRBED COMPACTED SOIL CHAMFER EXCEPT AT STOOP LOCATION INSTALLED WITH HILTI HEA CAPSULES MATCH TOP OF SLAB ELEVATION p#4 el2'O.C. ,B.W. ~" PREMOULDED JOINT~ FILLER.CAULK TOP OF dOINT 5 - #4 CLEAR COVER CENTER ON DOORWAY SECTION A-A CONCRETE STOOP DETAIL SCALE: ~" = I'-0" SCALE~ ~" = I'-0" NOTE VERTICAL DATUM BASED ON ASSUMED REFERENCE ELEVATION T.B.M. = EXISTING WELL HEAD - I00.8. FENCE ~, £ROM t -.,, / / / / , / I M ONOPOL/E/ / / / / / / / / E)x SITE LAYOUT SCALE t' - I0' SHELTER FOOTING -POWER ENTRANCE -~' STOCKADE FE~C~ (TO BE REMOVED) REINFORCED CONCRETE PAD ELEV.-101.7' FENCE 6'* FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT 12' CHAIN LINK FENCE GATE ---E~VI5TI~/6 ED6E .OF PAVEMENT~ --.4" WIDE YELLOW STRIPING 24" C- TO C. ( 18' xIB' DRIVEWAY ACCESS AREA ) / / / / / / / 6' CRUSHED STONE DRIVEWAY FROM FENCE/GATE TO EDGE OF PAVEMENT ISEE DETAIL-2 SHEET 7 OF 7i TELCO ENTRANCE IRELOCATE AS SHOWN) NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE SITE LAYOUT AND BUILDING FOUNDATION PLAN COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD S COUNTY. NEW YORK EDWARDS AND DATE JULY 3l, 1991 SCALE AS SHOWN DWG NO 92-8012, SP2 RICHARD E P. E. NO. 066987-I SHEET .% OF 7 J 6'-O"¢PiERCONCRETE . ~ --3/4"¢ PVC DRAIN PIPES (2-REQUIRED) MONOPOLE BASE PLATE (BY OTHERS) (BY OTHERS) VARIES _ ~2~'~ AI53 GR75 ANCHOR SOLTS (TO BE SUPPLIED SY NYNEXI I MONOPOLE SASE PLATE I" CHAMFER -- \ ~ ~ ./ ~ F--TOP OF PIER (BY OTHERS) [ ~. m ~ m / I ; I' / ELEVATION =103-0 FINISHED GRADE ~ - TOPGRADEOF F~TING T ~m ~m ' ' ~ ~ , TO HOLD mN PLACE DGE OF SASE PLATE LEVELING NUT GROUT OF CONC, PIER PLATE MAY BE TACK WELDED ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE (TO SE SUPPLIED BY NYNEX) _... , _ -- 9" COMPACTED CRUSHED STONE Il") 2 ~/4"I ANCHOR ANCHOR BOLT DETAIL BOLTS SCALEr l" · 4" 18' x 18' CONCRETE FOOTING L#8 012' E,W. SECTION SCALE: 3/8"=1` FOUNDATION 24-#ll VERTICAL BARS EVENLY SPACED --.#6 TIES 2'-0', MIN. OVERLAP, WELD TOGETHER AT END OF LAP FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE =3/8 "--I ' -o" ANCHOR BOLT {TYP. OF 81 MONOPOLE (A56) ANCHOR 45 0'x ITYP. BASE PLATE OR ~CALE= ~_ BOLT PAIRS ANCHOR BOLT ENTATION DETAIL $/3B"=1 '-0" BOLT SETTING TEMPLATE -ANCHOR BOLT/HOLE (TYP.) OF MONOPOLE BASE AND CONCRETE PIER ~BOLT PAIRS EDGE OF CAISSON u 44 B,C. (BOTTOM PLATE) ( BOTTOM ) PLATE · GENERAL NOTES NOTE' ANCHOR BOLT ORIENTATION WIILL BE FURNISHED BY NYNEX PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, I. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK , LOCAL BUILDING CODES AND ALL CODES REFERENCED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK STATE BUILDING CODE, LATEST EDITION AND EIA-2B2D. 2. THIS DRAWING PERTAINS TO FOUNDATION WORK~ HOWEVER, IT SHALL BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MONOPOLE AND ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS, EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AT THE PROJECT AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPER FITTING OF HIS WORK THERETO. 3. THE ENGINEERING OF THIS FOUNDATION IS BASED ON A SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION. THE BORING LOG OF THIS iNVESTIGATION, PERTAINING TO THE MONOPOLE FOUNDATION, CAN BE FOUND IN TH( SPECIFICATIONS AND ON DRAWING NO. 92-8012 DI, THE INFORMATION THEREIN MAY BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS A GUIDE IN THE PLANNING OF BiS WORK~ HOWEVER, NEITHER THE OWNER NOR THE ENGINEER GUARANTEES ITS ACCURACY OR THAT IT IS A TRUE REPRESENTATION OF THE ACTUAL BOIL CONDITION. 4. LOCATE THE ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATES ACCURATELY ON THE THEORETICAL CENTERLINE OF THE MONOPOLE AT THE SPECIFIED ELEVATION AND THE ORIENTATION AND SECURELY MAINTAIN THE SAME IN THAT POSITION THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONCRETING OPERATION. THE ORIENTATION OF THE ANCHOR BOLT ASSEMBLY SHALL BE VERIFIED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. 5. THE ENTIRE FOOTING SHALL BE POURED MONOLITHICALLY WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT iNTERRUPTION IN THE CONCRETING OPERATION, PROVIDE SHEAR KEY AS SHOWN ON THE DETAILS BETWEEN THE FOOTING AND THE PIER, THE CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED IN A MANNER TO PREVENT SEPARATION OF PARTICLES, THE MAXIMUM FREE FALL SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE FEET ( 5 ' I. USE THE TREMIE METHOD WHERE COMPLETE DEWATERING IS IMPOSSIBLE. 6. THE CONCRETE SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY VIBRATED TO ASSURE TIGHTNESS AND BOND WITH THE REINFORCING STEEL. 7. ALL CAST IN PLACE FOR THE FOOTING AND PIER SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3,500 POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH AT 28 DAYS. MINIMUM CEMENT CONTENT SHALL BE 7 BAGS PER CUBIC YARD. MAXIMUM SLUMP SHALL BE FOUR INCHES ( 4" ). ALLOW 14 D~YS OF CURING BEFORE LOADING THE FOUNDATION. 8. ALL CONCRETE WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL BUILDING CODES, ALL REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE DEFORMED BARS OF HIGH STRENGTH NEW BILLET STEEL CONFORMING TO A,S.T,M SPEC, A~615 GRADE 60. 9. ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY NYNEX MCC AND SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE SIZES AND LOCATION AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWING. PROVIDE THREE 13) NUTS FOR EACH BOLT, ONE BELOW THE BASE PLATE AND TWO ABOVE THE BASE PLATE, NUTS AND BOLT THREADS SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED, FOR REQUIREMENTS AT BOTTOM OF ANCHOR BOLTS, SEE DETAILS. PRETENSION BOLTS BY TURN-OF-NUT METHOD~ I/2 TURN FROM A SNUG TIGHT POSITION, I0. DRYPACK MONOPOLE BASE PLATE WITH NON-SHRINK HIGH STRENGTH GROUT (EMBECO 41lA AS MANUFACTURED BY MASTER BUILDERS OR APPROVED EQUAL). II. PROVIDE BACKFILL ON TOP OF FOOTING AND FINISH GRADING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN AND SPECIFICATION. MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM THE HOLE, IF SUITABLE, MAY BE UTILIZED FOR BACKFILL. MONOPOLE FOUNDATION DESIGN LOADS ~ TOP OF BASE PLATE OVERTURNING MOMENT 753 FT.-K WIND SHEAR ~ BASE IOK DEAD LOAD OF POLE 12K MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE MONOPOLE FOUNDATION AND DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHOLD ~UNTY. NEW YORK F~)WAiLDS At, lB KEI ~/I ,lf~..~ VI ~ SCALE AS SHOWN RICHARD E. T P.E.NO. 08eG87'1 SHEET 4 Of 7 ~2: GW TO ELECTRIC SERVICE -~ GROUND,SEE DWG NO 92-8012.E2 :~"GRS, ~ -550tVlCM o JUNCTIC MODEL NO. 223, WITH' SUMP HOLE a GROUND ROD HOLE~ SQUARE HEAVY DUTY COVER T-HINGED NEENAH CAT- e R-6662-KH 3-350MCM, pI~OPEIE'I¥ LINE ELECT/~IC EXISTIA/G BLDG. LILCO , ~ # 4z~ TELCO PROPOSED MONOPOLE-- PP#4ZO PROPOSED U/G TELEPHONE-- GW, AND ELECTRIC SERVICE SEE TRENCH DETAIL NYNEx RADIO BUILDING PVC TELCO METER SOCKET WITH LILCO METER SEE ELECTRICAL SERVICE ENTRANCE DETAIL NEW 200A SERVICE DISCONNECT {BY OTHERS) PROPOSED UTIL1TY ROUTING PLAN N.T.S. / EXISTING POLE EXISTING P~IMA~Y LINE5 EXISTING LILCO T~A~SFO~ME~ 3~"GRS, 3-350MCM, 1~2GW (UNDERGROUND SERVICE) · NEW 200A METER SOCKET -NEW 200A METER BY LILCO EOUIPMENT BUILDING IPREFAB) AC ONE LINE DIAGRAM N.T.S. 'FOR CONTINUATION, SEE PROPOS£D UTILITY ROUTING PLAN --3'GRS, 3#350MCM,I#2GW FROM TRANSFORMER TO NYNEX RADIO EQUIP. BLDG. NYNEX ELECTRICAL SERVICE PLAN 4" PVC-- NOTE s INSTALLATION OF ELECTRICAL SERVICE EOUIF~MENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LILCO REQUIREMENTS. 3 -0 MIN,, 6 -0 MAX.~ I - ]~-iI SERVICE DISCONNECT ~ EXISTIA/G NYNEX PRE-FAB FFiNISHED GRADE BY LILCO~ ~ APPROX. 340':* ~----TRACER TAPE x~ I-- '~'~ ~1~ ~1 q I GROUND NET TO GROIUNDING - ] / I CONNECT TO ~ /~ '2'GW NET' I / G~OUND NET 4'_ l_ 5" ~ i~ {EXTERIOR GROUND ~ -'f'-O" I ~ 3 GRS, 3-.%5OMCM, ~#2GW BACKFILL SHALL BE CLEAN :ILL WITHOUT STONES AND SHALL BE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED IN 6' LAYERS BY TAMPING OR APPROVED METHOD. NO BELLYING OF THE TRENCH WILL BE ALLOWED. TRENCH DETAIL SECTION A-A N.T.S. ELECTRICAL SERVICE ENTRANCE DETAIL N.T.S. SCALE ~ I':10' EDGE DF EXI57"IA/G P/~V 'T NOTE S ~ I. FOR GROUNDING, SEE DWG NO 92-8012,E2 MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE ELECTRICAL LAYOUT AND DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK ~0~% DATE JULY $1. 1991 AS SHOWN SCALE I SXI ¢L DWG NO 92-8012, El RICHARD P,E,NO, 066987-1 SHEET 5 OF 7 I" SCHED, 80 PVC (TYPI #2 SOLID TINNED GROUND WIRE TO EXTERIOR GROUND RING (TYP OF 2 PLACES) GROUND ROD {TYP) FOUNDATION-- WIRES {NOTE I) {6 FEET PROTRUDING UP THROUGH FOUNDATION, WELDED TO BURIED RING GROUND) GROUND TO MAIN DISC. SW. NEUTRAL GROUND LEVEL 50' MIN. (RING GROUND LEVEL MUST BE SO" MIN. BELOW FINISHED GRADE) MONOPOLE FOUNDATION GROUNDING DETAIL N.T.S. GROUND TO A/C SEE DETAIL',B SIGNAL CABLE FEED-THRU SEE DETAIL #2 GW TO ELECTRIC SERVICE*- GROUND, SEE DWG NO 92-8012. El GROUND ROD INSPECTION--- WELL. SEE DETAIL-Q #2 SOLID TINNED BARE COPPER- GROUND WIRE TO CABLE TROUGH #2 INSULATED GREEN STRANDED TAP TO INTERIOR HALO GROUND C-TAP T~B # 54740 EXTERIOR GROUND BAR PLATE- SEE DETAIL SEE MONOPOLE FOUNDATION- GROUNDING DETAIL INTERIOR HALO GROUND WIRE TO EXTERIOR THRU HOLE PROVIDED ~ CADWELD TO EXTERIOR GROUND WIRE. SEAL HOLE WITH SILICON CAULK {TYP) --'BRAIDED GROUND STRAP {TYP) --GROUND ROD {TYP. I SEE DETAIL-R · #2 SOLID TINNED BARE GROUND WIRE {TYP.( GROUND TO FENCE {TYP.) ~EE DETAIL-S COPPER · #6 INS~Ii~.ATED GROUND WiRE TO SIGNAL.,CABLE FEED-THRU (TYP. OF 21,, PLATE; EXTERIOR GROUNDING LAYOUT SCALE' I '=10' ~" PVC SLEEVE AT 45* ANGLE #2 SOLID TINNED BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE TO EXTERIOR GROUND NET WALL GROUND PENETRATION N.T.S. LEGEND {1} COPPER GROUND BAR, 1/4"x4'xTO#, NEWTON iNSTRUMENT CO. CAT. #A $163. ~2) INSULATORS, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CO. CAT. #3061-4. ~3) S18' LOCKWASMERS, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CO. CAT. #3015-8. C4) WALL MOUNTING BRACKET, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CO. CAT. #A-BOSG. C5) 5/B-llxl' H.H.C.5. BOLTS, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CO. CAT, #3012-1. GROUNDING BAR PLATE DETAIL (TYP. FOR INTERIOR ~ EXTERIOR) /- N.T.S ~ UNIT DETAIL-B N.T.S, HOLE LUG #2 AWG SOLID TINNED BARE GROUND WIRE TO A/C FRAME ~"e PVC, SECURE TO WALL AS PER CODE .~FIN · GRADE pGROUND ROD GRADEI CADWELD------~ ITYP) Il GROUNDWiR---/E: GROUND PRECAST CONC. COVER IZ"~ PVC PIPE '~kGROUND WIREFROM MAIN DISCONNECT {I WELL ONLY) ~"~xlO' LONG COPPERCLAD GROUND ROD DETAIL-Q ROD INSPECTION WELL N.T,S. LEGEND TAP CADWELD CONNECTION GROUND ROD INSPECTION WELL #2 AWG SOLID TINNED BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE PIG TAIL COIL - 15 FT OF #2 AWG SOLID TINNED BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE FOR CONNECTION TO INTERIOR EOUIPMENT GRADE~, ~///~//~ / GROUND WIRE / '~CAiD~WELD DETAIL-R GROUNDING ROD N.T.S. NOTES; l, ALL GROUNDING W/RE MUST BE NO. 2 AWG TINNED SOLID COPPER WIRES, BURIED M/N. BELOW FINISHED GRADE. WIRES MUST BE EXOTMERMICALLY WELDED OR BRAZED WHERE BONDING IS REQUIRED. 2, GROUNDING RODS MUST BE STAINLESS STEEL OR COPPER-CLAD STEEL, 3/4'x10' MIN, TOP. S BURIED 30~ MIN. BELO~ FINISHED GRADE, EXOTHERMICALLY WELDED TO BURIED RING GROUND. 3. ALL ABOVE GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE CADWELD, BOLTED CLAMP, OR SPLIT BOLT CONNECTORS. CRIMP CONNECTORS SHALL NOT BE USED ON 50LID CONDUCTORS. CAD~ELD MUST BE USED FOR FENCE CONNECTION. 4. WHERE GROUND CONNECTIONS ARE MADE THE CONTACT POINTS ARE TO BE CLEANED AND MADE FREE OF FOREIGN MATERIAL SUCH A5 PAINT AND CORROSION, TO ENSURE AN ADEQUATE BOND. 5, FOR CONNECTION TO ALUMINUM FACIA AND ALUMINUM GRAVEL GUARD, ALUMINUM CONDUCTORS SHALL BE USED ~/TH APPROVED BIMETALLIC CONNECTORS BETWEEN ALUMINUM AND COPPER. ALL ALUMINUM CONDUCTORS SHALL BE TWO SIZES GREATER THAN THAT SPECIFIED. AN ANTI-OXIDATION COMPOUND 5HALL BE USED. E. WHERE ANY GROUNDING DCONDUCTOR PASSES THROUGH METAL CONDUIT IT 5HALL BE BONDED TO THE CONDUIT ENDS. 7. ALL GROUNDING CONNECTIONS TO THE GROUND BAR PLATE SHALL BE MADE WITH DOUBLE HOLE HYDRAULICALLY INDENTED LUGS. B. EACH SECTION OF CABLE THROUGH 5HALL BE GROUNDED USING GROUNDING CONNECTOR SiMiLAR TO TYPE KC~2B BY BURNDY OR APPROVED EQUAL. S. GROUND NET RESISTANCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0 OHM. 10. ALL BELOW GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE CADWELD. 11. GROUND THE iNTAKE AND EXHAUST HOODS. EXACT LOCATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD. #2 AWG WIRE TO BAR 0000 °0000° ,.SULATED GROU.D° MONOPOLE GROUND ~ VIA CABLE TROUGH .~ Ft /'~" #2 AWG BARE GROUND WIRE . TO EXTERIOR GROUND ,.L SIGNAL CABLE FEED-THRU #6 AWG INSULATED GROUND WIRE -EXTERIOR GROUND BAR PLATE SIGNAL CABLE FEED-THRU N.T.S. NOTE GROUNDING SYSTEM SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE W/TH NMCC PRACTICE 802-001-197. "DO NOT DEVIATE' AND 'DO NOT SUBSTITUTE' MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE GROUNDING LAYOUT AND DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK ~ iI DATE JULY 31. 199t EDWARDS A~ IF AS SHOWN RICHARD P.E.NO. 066987-I SHEET 6 OF.7 GROUND = 55'-+ ELEVATION ANTENNA PLATFORM ~FAA ~,ELEVATION ..... ' "N. T.S." ..~ .... END POST LINE POST CORNER POST ~C EDWARDS AND KELCEY, INC TEST BORING LOG SHEET 1 OF 3 SPOON BLOWS SAMPLE[ SAMPLE NO, REC 0/6 DEPTH SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION & PROFILE CHANGE CASIN( ~- o,- o~o ,..,r ~ ,o~ 30" ..~,o~t SINGLE GATE '-t GATE POST LINE POST LINE POST ~ EDWARDS AND K~LCEY, INC TEST BORING LOG SHEET 2 OF ~ SPOON BLOWS SAMPLED SAMPLE NO REC 0/6 6/12 DEPTH SAMPLE IDENTIF)CATION & PROFILE CHANGE CASING 2S DOUBLE GATE ROD GATE ELEVATIONS NOT TO SCALE -TURNBUCKLE GATE POST TEST BORING LOG NOTES' CHAIN LINK FENCE NOT TO SCALE NOTE= PLACE GATE KEEPER TO ALLOW MAXIMUM OPENING OF GATE AND MINIMUM HAZARD TO FOOT AND VEHICLE TRAFFIC. DETAIL-A ~" DIA. CRUSHEO SURFACING 4" MINIMUM (AASHTO Ml47-65 GR-C~D WITH SUFFICIENT BINDER) GRADE TO COMPACT SUBGRADE AND SURFACING~ TO PRODUCE AN UNYIELDING SURFACE GALVANIZED CHAIN LINK FENCE OF SURFACING PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE- TREATED WOOD CUR8 6' LONG PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE-TREATED WOO0 STAKE · 5'-0' O,C. MAX. STAKE EACH SIGE OF CURB JOINT SURFACING SECTION DETAIL-I N.T.S. SURFACING 6" MINIMUM/ (AASHTO MI47-65 GR'CBD WITH SUFFICIENT BINDER) COMPACT SUBGRADE AND SURFACING ~ TO PRODUCE AN UNYIELDING SURFACE GALVANIZED SPIKES DRIVEWAY SECTION DETAIL-2 N.T,S. T OF DRIVE~AY PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE- TREATED WOOD CURB 6' LONG PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE-TREATED WOOD STAKE WS'-O' O.C. MAX, STAKE EACH SIDE OF CURB dOINT NYNE'.< MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMP'ANY CUTCHOGUE SITE BORING LOGS AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK EDWARDS AND RICHARD E DATE JULY 31, 1991 SCALE AS SHOWN DWG NO 92-8012, Ol P. E, NO. 066987-I SHEET 7 OF 7 LU CONSTRUCTION ELEV, ' I00,8 ASSUMED PROPOSED 12 'x26' NYNEX RADIO EGUIPMEHT PRE-FAD DUILDING AND lB~x2?' CONCRETE FOUNDATION PROPOSED STONE EURFACIRG-- PROPOSED CABLE PROPOSED IOO' MONOPOLE-- LOT /7,B NIT TOWN OF 50UTHOLO \0\//./ NOTEs FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SEE SITE LAYOUT SHEET 3 OF 7 ~. MONOPOLE / / / / / ? / / NOTES' l. ALL SURFACES SHALL BE GRADED TO DRAIN AWAY FRON THE BUILDING FOUNDATION. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL SURVEY STATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND RE-ESTABLISH ANY DISTURBED STATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR 5HALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES AND PROVIDE PROTECTION AS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE, REPAIR OR REPLACE EXISTING ITEHS DISTURBED OR DAHAGEO DURING CONSTRUCTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF NYNEX. DISTURBED GRASSY AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED, FERTILIZED ~ HULCHED. S. CONTRACTOR SHALL DOCUNENT 'AS BUILT' LOCATION OF ALL BURIED UTILITIES INCLUDING PONER, TELEPHONE, GROUNDING, ETC. $. GROUND NET RESISTANCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.00HN. 7. JHHEDIATELY AFTER FORNATION, EHBANKHENTS/SLOPE5 5HAL,L BE TEHPORARILY STABILIZED RITH QUICK GROWING RYE GRASS UNTIL PERNANENT SEEDING CAN BE PERFORHED. B, CLEARED NATERIAL 5HALL BE DISPOSED OF BY COHPLETE R~HOVAL. S. EXCAVATIONS AND FORNATION OF EHBANKNENTS SHALL BE cqHPLETED TO PRODUCE ELEVATIONS FOR SLOPES-CONFORNING TO THE LINGS, CONTOURS, AND DIHENSIONS REQUIRED BY THE DRAWING AND/OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. lO. TOES AND TOPS OF ALL SLOPES SHALL BE SHAPED, ROUNDE~ AND TRINHED, Il. WORK SHALL INCLUDE SEEDING, FERTILIZINg AND NULCHING OF GRADED CUT AND FILL SLOPES, DITCH LINES AND ALL OTHER SITE ,AREAS DISTRUBED BY THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND REQUIRING EROSION ~ONTROL AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS OR AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGI~NEER. 12. IF EROSION OR SEDIHENT FLOW BECOHES A PROBLEH DURIN~ CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SILT FENCING AT AREAS I~DICATED BY' THE ENGINEER. 13. ~LL CONCRETE (TYPE 71 A.P.C.) SHALL DEVELOP A HIN. 28 DAY STRENGTH OF 4000 PS/. REINFORCING 5TELL SHALL CONFORH TO ASTN AS?S, 14. FORHWORK SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR ALL CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE, UNLESS NOTED. FENCE 9'-0" CONTRACTOR HUST INFORH ENGINEER g NYNEX 48 HRS. PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE, WELDING AND BACKFILLING OF GROUNDING NETNORK OR STRUCTURES. LOF ZO.I N/F ~4f 5TOCEADE FENCE EZI~rZN~ r~EE LINE AVEMENT DTRIPIND '-'~-'~'~.~ 263.16, ......... --'~'"-~--~, .-~- - ,~*~PROPOSED 8' CHAIN LINK / FENCE ~TH GATE LOCATION OF p,AV'T(TY'P ) BLOC/( / LOT /9./ I \ \ AS~PHAL ? \00 I COVEP ~OVE~HEAD UTILITY I N LILCO PP# 483 LINE5 LOT /8,1 N/F HAPP]5 PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE 1"=20' REFERENCE NOTES TOPOGRAPHY g PHYSICAL FEATURE5 SHOWN HEREON BASED ON FIELD SURVEY PERFORHED BY EDWARDS AND KELCEY ON NAY 30, 1991. TRUE NORTH REFERENCE BASED ~N SOLAR OBSERVATION PERFORNED BY EDWARDS AND KELCEY INC. ON ~AY 30, 2. VERTICAL OATUH BASED ON ASSUHED REFERENCE ELEVATION T.B.H. = EXISTING WELL HEAD = 100.B. BOUNDARY INFORNATION SHOWN HEREON TAKEN FRON A PLAN FOR ARTHUR V. JUNGE INC. PREPARED BY ROOERICK VAN TUYL NO. LS 25628, DATED AUG. 27, 1991. 11958 RACE KEY MAP CUTCHOGUEo N.Y. N.T.S, SITE DATA LOT 19.1 BLOCK I S.C.T.M, NO. 1000-09B-1-19 MIDDLE ROAD (COUNTY ROUTE 48) CUTCHOGUE, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK LOT AREA = 45,589 S.F. = 1.04 AC,± ZONE DATA~ LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAl REQUIRED PROVIDED LOT SIZE 40,000 SF 45,589 SF LOT WIDTH I00 i68± LOT DEPTH 150 252± FRONT YARD BO 75± SIDE YARD 20 BOTH SIDE YARD 45 174±, REAR YARD 70 24±* ' SETBACKS FOR PROPOSED NYNEX RADIO EQUrPMENT BUILDING NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND DETAILS JULY 31, 1991 AS SHOWN 92-801B, SPI COUNT~ 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD //~~OUNTY, NEW YORK SCALE RICHARD Ir, IANG[L P.F. O. 066987-I SHEET* 2 OF 7 NOTE ' SURFACING OF FINISHED SLAB SHALL BE LEVEL AND FLAT WITHIN Ar~ I - 27'-0' 5'-0" , I EDGE OF SLAB. I I I I I I ~ TOP OF SLAB I ELEV-lO, .7' I I I / INSIDE FACE OF FOUNDATION WALL I_ I i BUILDING FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE, ~" - I'-0' TOP OF SLAB FINISHED GRADE EXTERIOR FACE OF PRE-FAB SHELTER -,5 OI2"O.C.,B.W., CENTER OF SLAB DIRECTION BARS DIRECTION BARS REINFORCED FOUNDATION MIL VAPOR BARRIER COMPACTED CRUSHED STONE #5 012" (MIN) ROCK ;TED BACKFILL {TYPI STURBED COMPACTED SOIL CHAMFER EXCEPT AT STOOP LOCATION ~REBAR INSTALLED WITH HILTI HEA CAPSULES FIN. 3 - #4 CLEAR COVER SECTION A-A SCALE, '~" I ' -0" PROPOSED RELOCATED POLYETHYLENE WATERLINE W/ ELEC. POWER SUPPLY LINE (4' BELOW GRADE MIN.) PROPOSED 12' x26' PRE-FAB BUILDING I$'x27' CONCRETE FOUNDATION TOP OF CONCRETE SLAB-101.7' PROPOSED 4' CRUSHED STONE SURFACING WITH WOOD CURB (SEE DETAIL-I SHEET 7 OF 7) PROPOSED CABLE IBY OTHERS) PROPOSED PROPOSED MONOPOLE FOUNDATI( PROPOSED CHAIN LINK-- FENCE 8' HIGH EXISTING CHAIN LINE FENE {TO REMAIN) EXTERIOR FACE OF SHELTER MATCH TOP OF SHELTEF SLAB ELEVATION OI2'O.C.,B.W, SLOPE ~"/FT. CRU COMPACTED BACKFILL ~" PREMOULDED JOINT~ FILLER.CAULK TOP OF JOINT CENTER ON DOORWAY CONCRETE STOOP DETAIL SCALE, ~" = I'-0" \ \ _L NOTE= VERTICAL DATUM BASED ON ASSUMED REFERENCE ELEVATION T.B.M. = EXISTING WELL HEAD - IOO.8. WELL 'SET FENCE 9'-0" £ROM 'X IOl.S'3 101.2 / t / / / MONOPOLE / / / / / / / / ©'~ SITE LAYOUT SCALE I' - lO' i / / I01 '*~ // SHELTER FOOTING POWER ENTRANCE ~' STOCKADE FENCE (TO BE REMOVED) x§' REINFORCED CONCRETE PAD ELEV.-101.7' ;ET FENCE FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT _ I01 mE' CHAIN,LINK FENCE GATE --EXISTI~O EOOE OF PAVEMENT ---4' WIDE YELLOW STRIPING 24' C. TO C. ( lB' xIB' DRIVEWAY ACCESS AREA) ' ~- CONSTRUCT 6' CRUSHED / / / STONE DRIVEWAY FROM FENCE/GATE TO EDGE OF PAVEMENT ISEE DETAIL-2 SHEET 7 OF TELCO ENTRANCE EXISTING /~" POLYETHYLENE ~ATE~ LI~E (RELOCATE AS SHOWN) NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIoNs COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE SITE LAYOUT AND BUILDING FOUNDATION PLAN COUNTY ROUTE 48. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK EDWARDS AND )0 SOUTH OHAUU[ AV[NU~', RICHARD E DATE JULY 31, 1991 SCALE AS SHOWN DWG NO 92-8012, SP2 P.E.NO. 066987-1 SHEET ;5 OF 7 3NOPOLE 6 '-0"t 9'-0" I" CHAMFER FINISHED GPA CONCRETE PIER 2 1/2" CLEAR #6 ~'12' PVC DRAIN PIPES E BASE PLATE (2-REQUIRED! (BY OTHERSI IBY OTHERSI --TOP OF PIER ~LEVATION '103.i TOP GRADE Of ELEV. 95.0 FOOTING '#8 ~'12" 18' x 2 I/4"t ANCHOR BOLTS 18' CONCRETE FOOTING 9" COMPACTED CRUSHED STONE (l") SECTION SCALE: 3/:8"=1'-0" VARIES ~2~"e Al53 GR75 ANCHOR BOLTS (TO BE SUPPLIED BY NYNEXI MONOPOLE BASE PLATE (BY OTHERS) OF BASE PLATE ANCHOR BOLT DETAIL SCALD I" ' 4' LEVELING NUT OF GROUT OF CONC. PIER -PLATE MAY BE TACK I//~LDED , TO HOLD IN PLACE ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE {TO BE SUPPLIED BY NYNEX) EDGE OF CAISSON - el=. FOUNDATION / / /-- 24-#11 / ~~ / VERT CAL BARS' /' ~o,~oo '~ EVENLY SPACED o END OF LAP ~ ' ~ANCHOR BOLT (TYP. OF 8~ 9' -0" 9' -0" 450' I TYP. (AS6) -(8)-2Y8 DIA,HOLES (BOTTOM PLATE) ANCHOR BOLT SETTING TEMPLATE ( BOTTOM -ANCHOR BOLT/HOLE (TYP.) OF MONOPOLE BASE AND CONCRETE PIER PLATE BOLT PAIRS NOTEI ANCHOR BOLT ORIENTATION Wilt BE BY NYNEX PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. BASE PLATE FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE~ 3/8"=1 ' -0" C,_ BOLT PAIRS ANCHOR BOLT ORIENTATION DETAIL SCALE: 3/32"=1 '-0" GENERAL NOTES I. ALL WORN SHALL CONFORM TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK , LOCAL BUILDING CODES AND ALL CODES REFERENCED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK STATE BUILDrNG CODE, LATEST EDITION AND EiA-222D. 2. THIS DRAWING PERTAINS TO FOUNDATION WORK~ HOWEVER, IT SHALL BE USED rN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MONOPOLE AND ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS. EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AT THE PROdECT AND SHALL BE RESPONSrBLE 'FOR THE PROPER FITTING OF HIS WORK THERETO. 3. THE ENGINEERING OF THIS FOUNDATION IS BASED ON A SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION. THE BORING LOG OF THiS INVESTIGATION, PERTAINING TO THE MONOPOLE FOUNDATION, CAN BE FOUND IN THE SPECIFICATIONS AND ON DRAWING NO. 92-8012 DI. THE INFORMATION THEREIN MAY BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS A GUIDE IN THE PLANNING OF HIS WORK; HOWEVER. NEITHER THE OWNER NOR THE ENGINEER GUARANTEES ITS ACCURACY OR THAT IT IS A TRUE REPRESENTATION OF THE ACTUAL SOIL CONDITION. 4. LOCATE THE ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATES ACCURATELy ON THE THEORETICAL CENTERLINE OF THE MONOPOLE AT THE SPECIFIED ELEVATION AND THE ORIENTATION AND SECURELY MAINTAIN THE SAME IN THAT POSITION THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONCRETING OPERATION. THE ORIENTATION OF THE ANCHOR BOLT ASSEMBLY SHALL BE VERIFIED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. 5. THE ENTIRE FOOTING SHALL BE POURED MONOLITHICALLY WITHOUT SiGNiFiCANT INTERRUPTION IN THE CONCRETING OPERATION, PROVIDE SHEAR KEY AS SHOWN ON THE DETAILS BETWEEN THE FOOTING AND THE PIER. THE CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED IN MANNER TO PREVENT SEPARATION OF PARTICLES. THE MAXIMUM FREE FALL SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE FEET I 5 I, USE THE TREMIE METHOD WHERE COMPLETE DEWATERING IS IMPOSSIBLE. 6. THE CONCRETE SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY VIBRATED TO ASSURE TIGHTNESS AND BOND WITH THE REINFORCING STEEL. 7, ALL CAST IN PLACE~ FOR THE FOOTING AND PIER SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3,500 POUNDS PER SQUARE INC"AT 28 DAYS. MINIMUM CEMENT CONTENT SHALL BE 7 BAGS PER CUBIC YARD. MAXIMUM SLUMP SHALL BE FOUR INCHES ( 4" I, ALLOW 14 DAYS OF CURING BEFORE LOADING THE FOUNDATION. 8. ALL CONCRETE WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL BUILDING CODES. ALL REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE DEFORMED BARS OF HIGH STRENGTH NEW BILLET STEEL CONFORMING TO A.S.T.M SPEC. A-615 GRADE 60. 9. ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY NYNEX MCC AND SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE SIZES AND LOCATION AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWING. PROVIDE THREE 13) NUTS FOR EACH BOLT. ONE BELOW THE BASE PLATE AND TWO ABOVE THE BASE PLATE. NUTS AND BOLT THREADS SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED. FOR REQUIREMENTS AT BOTTOM ,OF ANCHOR BOLTS, SEE DETAILS. PRETENSION BOLTS BY TURN-OF-NUT METHODI TURN FROM A SNUG TrGHT POSITION. I0. DRYPACK MONOPOLE BASE PLATE WITH NON-SHRINK HIGH STRENGTH GROUT )EMBECO 41lA AS MANUFACTURED BY MASTER BUILDERS OR APPROVED EQUALI. II. PROVIDE BACKFILL ON TOP OF FOOTING AND FINISH GRADING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN AND SPECIFICATION. MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM T~E HOLE. IF 'SUITABLE, MAY BE UTILIZED FOR BACKFILL, MONOPOLE FOUNDATION DESIGN LOADS ¢ TOP OF BASE PLATE OVERTURNING MOMENT 753 FT.-K WIND SHEAR @ BASE IOK DEAD LOAD OF POLE 12K FURNISHED NYNE'.< MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE MONOPOLE FOUNDATION AND DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHOLD EDWARDS AND K~ RICHARD SULFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK I DATE JULY 31, 1991 SCALE AS SHOWN DWG NO 92-8012, STI P.E.NO. 088187-1 SHEET 4 OF 7 #2 GW TO ELECTRIC GROUND,SEE DWG NO 92-8012,E2 3"GRS, 3-$50MCM, dUNCTION BOX PENNCAST MODEL NO. 225, WITH SUMP HOLE B GROUND ROD HOLE~ SQUARE HEAVY DUTY COVER T-HINGED NEENAH CAT. # R-6662-KH NEW 200A SERVICE DISCONNECT IBY OTHERS} 2"C,3,3/0B 1'2GW % % EXISTI~6 8LO6. 3"GRS, 3- 350MCM, P~OPEI~I'Y LINg coo . ( 1 T~A~SFOEME~ LILCO TELCO PROPOSED MONOPOLE-- PP#4ZO / PROPOSED'U/G TELEPHONE--- GW. AND ELECTRIC SERVICE SEE TRENCH DETAIL NYNEx RADIO , BUILDING PVC TELCO PROPOSED UTILITY ROUTING PLAN N-T.S. EXISTIAI6 POLE LILCO T~ANSFO~ME~ 3~"GRS,'3-350MCM, ImEGW (UNDERGROUND -NEW 200A METER · NEW 200A METER SERVICE } SOCKET BY LILCO ~NYNEX ~ADIQ EQUIPMENT BUILDINB IPREFAB) AC ONE LINE DIAGRAM N.T.S. FOR CONTINUATION, SEE PROPOSED UTILITY ROUTING PLAN 5#550MCM,I#~GW FROM TRANSFORMER TO NYNEX RADIO EOUIP, SLDGo NYNEX ELECTRICAL SERVICE PLAN SCALE ~ I'=10' NOTE~ INSTALLATION OF ELECTRICAL SERVICE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LILCO REQUIREMENTS. 3'-0" MIN*, 6'-0" 4" PVC BACKFILL FFINISHED GRADE T~ANSFO~ME~ \ -TRACER TAPE = I '-0" ~ SHALL BE GRS #2GW (EXTERIOR GROUND CLEAN FILL WITHOUT STONES AND SHALL BE THOROUGHEY COMPACTED IN 6" LAYER, S BY TAMPING OR APPROVED METHOD. NO BELLYIN(~ OF THE TRENCH WILL BE ALLOWED. TRENCH DETAIL SECTION A-A N.T.$. NET) APPROX, ~40'~ SERVICE DISCONNECT ~ NYNEX PRE-FAB II BUILDING GROUND WIRE IN I"e PVC CONDUIT FROMm. GROUND NET TO GROUNDING LUG IN SAFETY DISCONNECT CONNECT TO GROUND NET 3" GRS, 3-35OMCM, 1#2GW ELECTRICAL SERVICE ENTRANCE DETAIL N.T.S. METER SOCKET WITH LILCO METER SEE ELECTRICAL SERVICE ENTRANCE DETAIL -EDGE OF EXISTING P~V'T NOTES ' I. FOR GROUNDING, SEE DWG NO 92-8012,E2 MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE ELECTRICAL LAYOUT,AND DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY. NEW YORK RICHARD '.'L DATE JULY 3[, 1991 SCALE AS SHOWN DWG NO 92-8012, El P. E. NO. 066987-1 SHEET 5 Of 7 WIRES (NOTE I) '(6 FEET PROTRUDING UP THROUGH FOUNDATION, WELDED TO BURIED RING GROUND) I" SCHED. 80 PVC #2 SOLID TINNED GROUND WIRE TO EXTERIOR GROUND RING (TYP OF 2 PLACESi GROUND LEVEL GROUND ROD (TYP)-- FOUNDATION--- 50" MIN. (RING GROUND LEVEL MUST BE 50" MIN. BELOW FINISHED GRADE) MONOPOLE FOUNDATION GROUNDING DETAIL N.T.S. · 2 INSULATED GREEN STRANDED TAP (CUD TO INTERIOR HALO GROUND C-TAP T&B · 54740 ~" PVC SLEEVE AT 45a ANGLE · 2 SOLID TINNED BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE TO EXTERIOR GROUND NET WALL GROUND PENETRATION N.T.S. LEGEND COPPER GROUND BAR, INSTRUBENT CO. CAT. 1/4'~4'x)0', NEWTON #A-BTB3. INBULATORB, NEWTON INSTRUBENT CO. CAT. 5/5' LOCKWABHERB, NEWTON 7NBTRUBENT CO. CAT. #3Ol5-B, WALL ~OUNTING BRACKET, NEWTON INSTRUBENT CB. CAT. B/B-77xl' B.B.C.B. dOLTS, NEWTON INBTRUBENT CO. CAT. #307;2-1. GROUNDING BAR PLATE DETAIL (TYP. FOR INTERIOR 8 EXTERIOR) N.T.S GROUND TO MAIN DISC. GROUND TO A/C ~EE DETAIL-B SIGNAL CABLE FEED-THRU SEE DETAIL · 2 GW TO ELECTRIC SERVICE GROUND, SEE DWG NO 92-8012. El GROUND ROD INSPECTION WELL, SEE DETAIL-Q · 2 SOLID TINNED BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE TO CABLE TROUGH EXTERIOR GROUND BAR PLATE. SEE DETAIL SEE MONOPOLE FOUNDATION- GROUNDING DETAIL SW. NEUTRAL INTERIOR HALO GROUND WIRE TO EXTERIOR THRU HOLE PROVIDED a CADWELD TO EXTERIOR GROUND WIRE. SEAL HOLE WITH SILICON CAULK (TYP) BRAIDED GROUND STRAP ITYP) -GROUND ROD (TYP.) SEE DETAIL-R · 2 SOLID TINNED BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE (TYP.) GROUND TO FENCE )TYP.I '~EE DETAIL-S · 6 INS~J~LATED GROUND WIRE TO SIGNAL~CABLE FEED-THRU PLATE {TYP. OF ~)~ EXTERIOR GROUNDING LAYOUT SCALE ~ I'=lO' UNIT HOLE LUG #2 AWG SOLID TINNED BARE GROUN~ WIRE TO A/C FRAME -~"e PVC. SECURE TO WALL AS PER CODE GRADE LEGEND --T'' "T" TAP CADWELD CONNECTION GROUND ROD INSPECTION WELL DETAIL-B · 2 AWG SOLID TINNED BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE PIG TAIL COIL - 15 FT OF ·2 AWG SOLID TINNED BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE FOR CONNECTION TO INTERIOR EQUIPMENT N.T.S. ROD GROUN W RE GROUND WIRE} '~-GROUND WIRE FROM MAIN DISCONNECT (I WELL ONLY) ~"~xlO' LONG COPPERCLAD GROUND ROD DETAIL-Q DETAIL-R GROUND ROD INSPECTION WELL GROUNDING ROD N.T.S. N.T.S. / .NOTES .' 7. ALL GROUNDING WIRE BUST BE NO. 2 AWB TINNED SOLID COPPER WlREB, BURIED 30' BIN. BELOW FINISHED GRADE. WIRES HUST BE EXOTHERHICALLY WELDED OR BRAZED WHERE BONDING I$ REQUIRED. 2. GROUNDING RODS HUBT BE BTAINLEBB BTEEL OR COPPER-CLAD STEEL, 3/4'x70' BIN. TOPS BURIED 30' HIN. BELOW FINISHED GRADE, EXOTHERNICALLY WELDED TO BURIED RING GROUND. 3. ALL ABOVE GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE CADWELD, BOLTED CLANP, OR SPLIT BOLT CONNECTORB. CRIHP CONNECTORB SHALL NOT BE UBED ON BOLID CONDUCTORS. CADWELD HUBT BE USED FOR~FENCE CONNECTION. ~BERE GROUND CONNECTIONS ARE HADE THE CONTACT POINTB ARE TO BE CLEANED AND BADE FREE OF FOREIGN HATERIAL BUCN AB PAINT AND CORROSION, TO ENDURE AN ADEOUATE BOND. 5. FOR CONNECTION TO ALUBINUH FACIA AND ALUN)NUN GRAVEL GUARD, ALUNINUH CONDUCTORS SHALL BE USED WITH APPROVED BINETALLIC CONNECTORS BETWEEN ALUBINUN AND COPPER. ALL ALUNINUH CONDUCTORS SHALL BE TWO BIZEB GREATER THAN THAT BPECIF)ED. AN ANTI-OXIDATION CONPOUND SHALL BE USED. B. WHERE ANY GROUND]NB DCONDUCTOR PASBEB THROUGH NETAL CONDUIT IT SHALL BE BONDED TO THE CONDUIT ENDS. 7. ALL GROUNDING CONNECTIONS TO THE GROUND BAR PLATE BHALL BE BADE WITH DOUBLE HOLE HYDRAULICALLY 7NDENTED LUGS. B. EACH SECTION OF CABLE THROUGH SHALL BE GROUNDED UBING GROUNDING CONNECTOR BINILAR TO TYPE KC-2B BY BURNOY OR APPROVED EOU~L. B. GROUND NET RESISTANCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.00HH. ?0. ALL BELOW GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE CAOWELD. ~1. GROUND THE INTAKE AND EXHAUST HOOOB. EXACT LOCATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIEO IN THE FIELD. 0 0 © 0 o0000o 0000 °0000° ' AWG,.SULA EOGROU.D° WIRE TO MONOPOLE GROUND ~ ~'~ / BAR VIA CABLE TROUGH I*~ F /*1' · 2 AWG BARE GROUND WIRE ([ . TO EXTERIOR GROUND ,L - SIGNAL CABLE FEED-THRU · 6 AWG INSULATED GROUND WIRE EXTERIOR GROUND BAR PLATE SIGNAL CABLE FEED-THRU N.T.S. NOTE; GROUNDING SYSTEB 5HALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN CONPLETE ACCORDANCE WITH NNCC PRACTICE 802-007-197. 'DO NOT DEVIATE' AND "O0 NOT BUBSTITUTE' MOBILE COMMUNIC/ TIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE GROUNDING LAYOUT AND DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK RICHA NC. IGEL DATE JULY 31, 1991 SCALE AS SHOWN DWG NO 92-8012, E2 P. E. NO. 066987-I SHEET 6 Of 7 PLAT NNA "ORM GROUND ELEVATION = 55'-e A /k .-FAA, ,E.LEVAi ION CHAIN LINK FENCE IE" ~' DIA; CRUBHED STONE~ SURF ClNG 4" MINIMUM .~=/ / LIMIT OF SURFACING 2"x6' PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE- TREATED WOOD CURB 2"x6"xl'-6" LONG P ESERVATIVE I ~-PRESSURE'TREATED ~ STAKE" S'-O' O.C, MAX. ST E EACH SIDE  OF CURB JOINT T~KE SURFACING SECTION DETAIL-I N.T.S. i~ DDW~RDS ~ND KELCEY. INC TEST BORING LOG SHEET I OF 3 SAMPLE HO. SPOON BLOWS 5AMPLEC REC 0/6 6/IE DEPTH SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION & PROFILE CHANGE BLOWS DEPTH 12/18 18/24 (FEET~ 5 7 9 i D 3 m~ EOW^RD5 AND K~LCEY, INC TEST BORING LOG SHEET 2 OF 3 SAMPLE NO, iPOON BLOWS SAJ4PLED REC 0/6 I UIB DEPTH SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION & PROFILE CHANG CASING DEPTH 12/1~ iB/24 iFEETI BLOWS 2 6 7 H So 2 3 6 0 ~ EDWAROS AND KELCEY, INC. TEST BORING LOG END POST LINE POST N /CORN. ER POST LINE POST LINE POST SINGLE GATE AIL GATE POST r ROO GATE ELEVATIONS NOT TO SCALE DOUBLE GATE GATE /~AIL GATE POST NOTESJ CHAIN LINK FENCE NOT TO SCALE NOTE' PLACE GATE KEEPER TO ALLOW MAXIMUM OPENING OF GATE AND MINIMUM HAZARD TO FOOT AND VEUICLE TRAFFIC. DETAIL-A n. L8 ~" DIA. CRUSHED BTONE~ SURFACING 6" M~IMUM/ (AASHTO MI47-65 GR-C&O/ COMPACT SUBGRADE AND SURFACING LIMIT OF DRIVEWAY ~l -~' LONS PB£SERVATIVE PRE, SSURE-TREATED ~ STAKE · 5 -0" O.C. ~X. STAKE EACH SIDE F CURB dOINT D~RIVEWAY SECTION DETAIL-2 N,T.S. NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE BORING LOGS AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD K COUNTY, NEW YORK EDWARDS RICHARD EL DATE JULY 3J, SCALE AS SHOWN DWG NO 92-8012, P,E.NO, 066987-I SHEET 7 OF 7 N/F PIET£'EWICZ £OT /7..~ N/F row/v ,/ % % FENCE I00' R FROM MONOPOLE CENTER OVEPHEAD UTILITY LINES~ (TYP) I LILCO -- ~. mo. 4 - DELINEATED~-- ' -14 - IO'X2~_~ PARKING SPACES N~N-DELINE~ATED i PARKING S~ACES . ~ 8LOC~ / / LOT 19./ ~-~PO--~ETBj£K (TXp ) ! EDGE OF PAV'T(TYP I ' -- LIL£O PP#4pO PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH PARKING - MAY 1991 SURVEY SCALE 1"=20' EXISTING PARKING FRONT 2 - 15'X20' HANDICAPPED STALLS 2 - lO'X20' STANDARD STALLS REAR 14 - lO'X20' STANDARD STALLS TOTAL 18 PARKING STALLS PROPOSED NYNEX RADIO PARKING REQUIREMENTS: EQUIPMENT BUILDING $1T[ OATA LOT 19.1 BLOCK ] S.C.T.M. NO. 1000-09B-1-19 MIDDLE ROAD (COUNTY ROUTE 48) CUTCHOGUE, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK LOT AREA = 45.589 S.F, = 1.04 AC.~ THE PROPOSED SHELTER WHICH MAINTENANCE USE IS AN UNMANNED EQUIPMENT REQUIRES INFREQUENT EQUIPMENT VISITS, THEREFORE NO ADDITIONAL PARK NG IS REQUIRED. ZONE DATA, LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL REQUIRED PROVIDED LOT SIZE 40,000 SF 45,589 SF LOT WIDTH I00 168± LOT DEPTH 150 252± FRONT YARD 50 75± SIDE YARD 20 BOTH SIDE YARD 45 174±~ REAR YARD 70 24± · SETBACKS FOR PROPOSED NYNEX RADIO EQUIPMENT BUILDING 5TOCEADE FENCE LOT -~0./ U/F UTILITY LINES- ~= ~.. __ (TYP) i/i;' !.: :'i . a63.16' t .. I I ~1- -- IDlE F~..._AP~Er8~¢~' (rFP ~ ~ .-- 1988 APPROVED SITE PLAN , . I ~ LOT 19.1 , r .... ~ I x M.H. COVEP (TYP) /7 .... ._~ _ ~._~%~. _ / .... ~ ~-i~E (~e) 7/ ~OP¢PY U~ FrYe) I ] OVERHEAD TELCO LOT /8./ SITE PLAN WITH FUTURE PARKING (IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1988 APPROVED FRONT 2 - 13'X20' HANDICAPPED STALLS 2 - lO'X20' STANDARD STALLS REAR 12 - IO'XZO' STANDARD STALLS TOTAL 16 PARKING STALLS PARKING 1988 SCALE I" =20 ' SITE PLAN SITE PLAN APPROVAL NY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY EDWARDS AND KELCEY, INC. CUTCHOGUE SITE SITE PLAN EXHIBIT COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK IDATE SCALE DW6 NO 92-8012 OCTOBER 18, 1991 AS SHOWN RICHARD E TANGEL P.E.I"q. 066987-1 O ,l MATERIALREQ'D. PER ASSEMBLY " ~' .,_~, (f'/R ~,~ GALV. WT. ITEM MK. NO. DESCRIPTION -- h //~'r ' ii--~ r I i 222,78~ Q ~SA25643 SHAFT ASSY. ~TF]P SECTI[~N~ ~ *~" ~ ~413,04~ ~ GSA25644 SHAFT ASSY. (MI~ SECTION) -- // ~ 48~7,07~ ~ GSA25645 SHAFT ASSY, (BBTT, SECTIBN) ~ / ~ ~ GS1~96~ 9' X 84~ ACCESS BPENING ' CO~,ER PLATE ASSY, , ~ PL4N VIEW ' ,~ ANTENNA PLATFOg~ -- ~ SLIP JOIblTS ArID REQD. JACKIHG ~" 14[)RIZ, ,'. :'LB BEAB P CDPNE~ BF ~ DETAIL ¢ 2 . ~ 5/8 MIN. HT. STENCILLED LETTERS ' ~oLg ~sczzo~ ~ocE~u~[s" ~v.~ FLA'[S ~ ~ 1~, FUR PBLEBRIENT, ~ ~ " "~} (TYP UA SPLICE ~ Ip ~30 gEG,/(TYP.) [ - ~B) E 5/8' nlA, RBLES BN ~.44' ~]a. a,C. - == T,OTA'L~ALV. S ¢ - ~7 L '- %. . 1" 3~A, kA3~5) JAEkZNE HEX~ ,~ ~ . ~ SZA, HBLE3 IN SHA-~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ( UT ., . (TYP EA SP'. ~CE ~ ": = /aq l / ~ ~ ~ % / & ~ / DNA 25 3/4' DIA. B.C. EACH INdIVIdUAL ASSEMBLY SHALL HAVE A METAL ' ~ ~4' ~I~,~- ~ ~ ~ 30 DEG, APART , ', ~ITH ~HE ASSEMBLY MARK NB. AS ~HB~N IN ~"~ ~J ~i ~ . , · ~ ~-.~.,,,.,,~.,,.,~,.,-~,~,, "~L~j~~''-~- ~.~T~,,~,,,~.,.,...~,,..,~.~T~,,, .. c, ~_ := ~ ' ~ ' VIEW "A A" ' SECTION "B -- B" GENERAL NO~S ~ ] ~M II ~ PL, 4' X 5/8 (A57E-GR65) I I I ~; ~1 ] I, I FLATS AlOV[ AND ~ED~ SPLICES r~ ~N6 SH~TS TB~T~E m 3 ~ < q SECTION "C- C" ~ ~]N~ ~'~l~ ~_ ~: ~ ' _._ ,' (~E, ~E%A~L, 1) ~'~'tq 7 ~:'t '. III ' < ~ / ,~ 9 X 24 ACCESS CPENING m m b~ I '" ' ' ~1 L ~ < H -' Id , DETAIL NO. 1 ~ ~ ~,7 _._ ~ J ."~'~ ~ ,, ~, 2 '~ -- ' COVER PL. DETAIL ¢ ~',' ~J I ~ % % 1 ~ !2 (N,S,) k m NELSDN STUD PL, ~ INSIDE CF PDLE ,,, ~ - ~ LC-262 EDIT. BRKT. ASSY. { - '-~ 'y of LAPP Inlulator Company ~ ~ ~ C/L DF FLATS 1 ~ 7 ( SEE DETAIL 1) ~,~ ~ 3/16' V ~ ~ ~ ' .I FURNISHE~ DNLY WHEN SPECIFIED ~ '' '-' ERECTION VIEW ~ /~ ~AFETY CUBB ATTACHUENT OE~A~LS '/.~ ~ ~'~ ~ . ._~- 100' TYPE O k,~ONOPOLE ' ~ //~ I~T - ~~~ ',, '. '..~ Rock.AY N~W ~RSEY SITE , ~~~.. .. .. ,. ,~ . .. ..-~ . , .. ~YNEX POLE STEP .AND CLIP DETAIL ~ ....~. ~¢ ~ . . . sc,~ N T.S J J , , ...... ,-?~ '~': -, . ........ _. ;-~-, ,.,. ..,/': ...... ... ,- ~- EDGE OF PAV'7 LOP /?.~ N/F tOWN EXISTING PARKING FRONT 2 2 - lO'X20' S' REAR 14 - lO'X20' S TOTAL 18 PARKING STA PROPOSED NYN PARKING REQUI THE PROPOSE % --.14 - IO'X2G' NON-DELINECATED PARKING SPACES R FROM MONOPOLE CENTER LOt ZO./ N/F 8LOQ( / SHELTER WHI[ MAINTENANCE PARKING IS R I' (rYP) I £Or N/F GRAY I 5?OC/(ADE FENCE 4 - DELIF PARKING SPACES CONCrEtE 252,68" Lt~ (rfP] N/F HA/8~[5 PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH PARKING SCALE 1"=20' ,NDICAPPED STALLS ANDARD STALLS FANDARD STALLS .LS --X RADIO REMENTS .' D USE IS EQUIPMENT BUILDING AN UNMANNED EQUIPMENT H REQUIRES INFREQUENT EQUIPMENT VISITS, THEREFORE NO ADDITIONAL --QUIRED. 263.16 ' SITE DATA LOT 19.1 BLOCK I S.C.T.M. NO. 1000-098-1-19 MIDDLE ROAD (COUNTY ROUTE 481 CUTCHOGUE, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK LOT AREA = 45,589 S.F, = 1.04 AC.~ ZONE OATA* LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAl --LILCO ", / PARKING SPACES -- 2 - lO'X20' PARKING SPACES AS PER 1 ,988 APPROVED S,TE PLA. N/F row¢t / LOT /B./ N/F SITE PLAN WITH PARKING - 1988 SITE PLAN APPROVAL SCALE ~"-20' FUTURE FRONT 2 - I$'X20' HANDICAPPED STALLS 2 - lO'X20' STANDARD STALLS REAR 12 - lO'X20' STANDARD STALLS TOTAL 16 PARKING STALLS PARKING (IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1988 APPROVED SITE PLAN) RADIO EQUIPMENT MAY 1991 SURVEY REQUIRED PROVIDED LOT SIZE 40,000 SF 45,589 SF LOT WIDTH I00 168:1: LOT DEPTH 150 252:~ FRONT YARD 50 75± SIDE YARD 20 [4±, DOTH SIDE YARD 45 174±, REAR YARD 70 24:~ · · SETBACKS FOR PROPOSED NYNEX BUILDING MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CUTCHOGUE SITE SITE PLAN EXHIBIT COUNTY ROUTE 48, TOWN OF SOUTI~)[~EY~ SUFFOLK COUNTY. NEW YORK EDWARDS AND KELCEY, INC. DATE SCALE DWG NO OCTOBER 18, 1991 AS SHOWN 92-8012 RICHARD E. TANGEL P.E.NO. 066987-1