The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1361 .--1'. ~- .-u. of ....iap ........~ .. Iecl't~ 2'7 of __ .,.,. r.. ... .. ..ov18iR11 of .. URt'lI'. 81IUAf-. .... ......v- 0' 6e 'fWD of s.tbOl.. h'tolk ca._,.. .... ..... ~1c ........... w111 ,.. Ml. __ .. ..... .... of 1'111 Ill. of __ .,... of 1Out:k01.. .. __ .,.,. Oft..... .... ..... SOdbtd.4. ... Yod. _ ....... 20. 1170 _ __ f.U..... .IitI.nl.. e.oo .... (II.D...".). ..... QIlllca..... of ~ ,. IIOJ'~....... 11.1 .......1'. .001l;Y111e ceaue. ... ~. ,. · YUhllttM .. "..1:--- witla __ aaaiat G1MtA'I7.. ~.~ UI. 1IeCt.... IOJ. 301. HI. IIeaUoa 300. ........... '. ud IIeaUoa lOt. .... ............ .. 1lu11. .... .. ~-Ul' 6Ie11", _ 10\: witla ta. tIau 12.100... ft. of ana witla ....ff1c....' ....... ... .....lf1ct_t nu ,.. ana. ... ....tIN _ .U.....,. .n..... .. ,.~ ,.... ..... LOcaUaD of 'u,....,.. ... .~ o' e......... ..... efti... ...). .... ....... .... YeCIt. II........ ..... 1ilIJ' .... . 12. of GeIf<<.n.r. ~ .... ....U. ... ...iat ..... ....1ilIJ' ....... .... .-tIa 1ilIJ' Lot . 127 of ......... ~ .... ... U. ... ...... .... .... 1ilIJ' c.~. ..... efti..... ....). ,.20 .... (a.D.......). .... QIll1ca..... of .... ....1c4. ., .... 'fne ..at. C1It:dloe._. ... 1ariI'Il:. .... . ftIra"- loa Mlllc.~rn wida tIae ..... ..1.1-.". AJrtU1e IU. ....~ 306. Ie ............. to ...tnn ......t.... to -'-tiat LEGAL NOTICE NOtice oiHearings l'11rsI1ant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the provisions of the amended Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York, public hearings will he held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, on AugllSt 20, 1970,on the following appeals: 8:00 P.M. (E.D.S.T.J, upon application of Peter T. Meyland, 115 Broadway, Rockvlll~ Cent~, New York, for a variance. In accordance with the Zomng Ordinance, Article Ill, Section 303 305 308 Section 300, Sub- section '6, a~d Section 309, for permission to build n~w one family dwelling on lot WIth less than 12,500 sq. ft. of area with insufficient setback and In- sufficient rear yard area, and, construct accessory building in front yard area. Location of property: east side of Cedar Ulne (Private Road), East MarlOn, New York, hounded D9'"th by Lot No. 126 of nardiners 'Bay Sub., Sec. II, and Spring Pond, east by Spring Pond, south by Lot No. 127 of Gardiners Bay, Sub., Sec. II, and Spring Pond, west by Cedar Lane <Private Road). 8:20 P.M. <];;,o.S.T.), upon application of }'AilneFried, 47 Pine Tree Road,'.Cutchogue, New York for a varaince in ac- corW;nce with . the Zoning Or- dinance, Articit!!Ill, Section 306, for permission to cons~ct ~d- diUon to existing dwellmg Wlth reduced fr~nt yard setback. Location of property: east side of Pine Tree Road, Nassau Farms, Map No. 1179, Lot No. 19, Cut- chogue, New York. Any person desiring to he heard on the above applications should appear at the time and place specified. DATED: JVLY 30, 1970,' BY ORDER OF THE Sm,TTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPLEAL ITau14 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK. STATE OF NEW YORK. 1 f ss: J ',' ,-r t- . . . ..0. .I' <,-<.-,q:,",~c. . ~, .'. >.. (~.c. ! ! : r', ',,~. . .. being duly Sworn. says that .. .h,>-. . . is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK WEEKLY TIMES. a newspaper published at Greenport. in said county; and that thE' notiCE. of which the ,annexed is a printed copy. has been published in the said Suffolk WeekJJy Times once in E'Qch week, far. . .... r:-.'h,.~.. ..... ....... weekS. successiv€oly oommenclng on the .. fc.~'<'" '':~-''. f h-C{<,.. . . . . . I, day of ... (."\"I~:-'.:t.~" : "., J ,--, ~17/;--;- 0'-_ .~.;V.-;-c. ;L/..... :-:-:-;<-.-"-;:~:.... Sworn to before me this .! f.c~!! , . . . 1 , . - ., . day of .. .CAi'::.;1''''dJ:-:.. 197.4.. J . T. .-;s;.~~-,.. ~.:-:'-:->:-';-~~-:--o......... ''>..'"~l~'''~''''''''' . F LANGTON CORWIN .. I'" \, I ' -: t'1 ~ ' 1\: '" 'I NOtU1V :-..., '_.."', ",~ ,",'" :..,nf':olk Cn. (.;!i_,la; N,n'.."-,;>':;'J' '1"9 -, I (' ,~"'''I'S'G'll:.X~)l!~S J:\..i...l.LLJ.<,J j '''l .( ......' - .. ~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK f ss: NOTICE OF HEARINGS Pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the provisions of the amended Building Zone Or- dinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, pub- lic hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, on August 20, 1970 on the following appeals: 8:00 P. M. (EDSTl, upon ap- plication of Peter T. Neyland, 115 Broadway, Rockville Centre, New Ycrk, for a variance in ac- cordance with the Zoning Or- dinance. Article III, Section 303, 305. 308, Section 30a, Subsection 6, and Section 309, for permis- sion to build new one family dwelling on lot with less than 12.500 sq. ft. of area with insuf- ficient setback and insufficient rear yard area, and construct ac- cessory building in front yard area. Location of property; east side of Cedar Lane (Private Road, East Marion, New York, bounded north by Lot No 126 of Gardiners Bay Sub., Sec. II, and Spring Pond. east by Spring Pond, south by Lot No. 127 of Gardiners Bay Sub., Sec. II, and Spring Pond, west by Cedar Lane {Private Road). 8:20 P. M. (EDSTl, upon ap- plication of Anne Fried, 47 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue, New York, for a variance in accord- ance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 306, for per- mission to construct addition to existing dwelling with reduced front yard setback. Location of property: east side of Pine Tree Road, Nassau Farms. Map No. 1179. Lot No. 19. Cutchogue. New York. Any person desiring to be heard on the above applications should appear at the time and place specified. DATED: JULY 30. 1970 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS IT-13 C. Whitney Booth, J r., being duly sworn, says that he is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER - MATTITUCK WATCHMAN, a public news- paper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watch- f" , , man once each week for .....i..~.......;?.L.l.......t..w'::.:... weeks / ") (l successively, commencing on the ......................\................. day of ....,...\"",L,.J.(j" -~_,,-,j."'1y_"j 9,,/,./.. mm:t"~~m Sworn to before me this ..,..,..)1/....... day of , ,,-..-' ....' ~'........(...t.. .1, ..':.;rc.... ......., 19, ... .'./.L. ) " ,": ( ..- / -- I - - ....'........ .'..-- (..,. ~....c, t;.", ~.}..,."..(.,. "S"?,,.~ I. .>;, J",.L.. Notary Public " i , ADUE PflYNE Notary rt.:,"iic. SiJ,p d f',lo:W YorK Rrsidlr~!-: ,;rJ S,I': :(~Ik Count)' r!r" 52';:["iICGO Comm:ssic1[; lxpiJf's Miirch 30, 1971 MeHf.O. FROM: TO: I L SUBJECT: -FOLD HERE- I CORWIN & GLICKMAN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW GREENPORT. N. Y. 11944 516-477-0800 "'"" v Mr. Howard Terry Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 I DATE: 7(29/70 -1 Property on Map of Gardiner's Bay Estates, ~2 Dear Howard You will recall our telephone conversation of yesterday about the application of one Nielsen to build on the un- numbered lot between lots 126 and 127. I should be grateful if you would make it a point to let me know if any variance hearing is to be held. Sincerely ck r by c o PETITION IN BEHALF OF ROBERT J. HARDER, EVELYN STEWART AND ALBERT BULL WINKEL IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION OF PETER T. NEYIAND FOR A VARIANCE UNDER TIE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE The undersigned, as petitioners, oppose the foregoing application for the following enumerated reasons: 1. Applicant's property appears as an UNNUMBERED parcel of land on the east side of Cedar Lane (24' wide) lying between Lots num- bered 126 and 127 bounded on the east by the waters of Spring Pond as shown on Map of Gardiners Bay Estates filed 9/23/1927 as Map No. 275 in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office. 2.. Numerous lots on Map No. 275 were bought many years ago, others over the years, with the understanding that the land conveyed to Applicant in May 1970 was not intended to be sold by Gardners Bay Company, Inc. and, instead, would be kept for the use of all lot owners, affording them access to the waters of Spring Pond and its beaches for the launching of boats and other recreational PUrposes. Actually, the land at issue has never been used for any other stated purpose although it has served for the Mapper a more subtle and far more significant unstated end, namely, for the drainage of surface waters from the slough of Cedar Lane to Spring Pond, thereby avoiding the searching question of a purchaser concerning the disposition of the surface waters of Cedar Lane in the event of the erection of a building or other installation on the UNNUMBERED parcel. To this day there is a drainage ditch, natural and contrived, across this property. An elevation profile will show Cedar Lane rising from its low point in front of the subject property for some 200 or more feet to the crest of a hill on the south at an angle of, say, 20 degrees; and likewise rising from its low point considerably more than 200 feet in a northerly direction at about the same angle of rise. To the naked eye a line drawn from the top of one rise to the top of the other would be from 12 to 15 feet above the lowest point of Cedar Lane which is the approximate level of the Applicant's land. Furthermore, Cedar Lane continues to rise northerly beyond Bayview Drive for an appreciable distance. The result is that sur- face waters from large areas and from long distances flow down Cedar Lane in both directions to its lowest point, whence these waters turn to flow through the ditch at times of normal precipitation, and in times of severe storms to cascade over much of the land in question to the bed of Spring Pond. Any interference with this natural flow of road surface waters must necessarily affect travel over Cedar Lane. Bear in mind that Cedar Lane is a private road, beset with all of the limitations which attend the retention of ownership by the Mapper. The proposed buildings are directly in the path of this natural drainage system. In balancing equities it is apparent that the granting of this ap- plication will confer a doubtful benefit on the Applicant and will most certainly subject the users of Cedar Lane in the affected area in times of severe weather to great hazards of life and limb and well-being, as well as to their property. - - - 2 - o ,There may be solutions to this anticipated condition, but any solution will involve intricate and expensive changes. For example, a drainage system that will carry off surface waters may simul- taneously provide a conduit for tidal storms to inundate the high- way with waters from the Bay. Or, changes in the grade of Cedar Lane or bridging the low area or whatever else will occur to quali- fied engineers as a remedy for a bad situation will result in detri- ments to the community far outweighing any benefits to the Appli- cant who most certainly must have been aware of the resulting condi- tions at the time he purchased the property. It merits repetition that this property was originally intended solely for drainage purposes, with access and boat launching rights, and as incidental to and congenial with the primary and essential purpose of drainage. And, it may be fairly assumed that the authori- ties who gave approval to the filing of this Map and the offering for sale of the lots carefully numbered thereon would not have ap- proved the filing of the Map if this UNNUMBERED parcel was shown on the face of the Map tD be a building lot instead of a drainage area coupled with the public access use noted above. J. The Gardiners Bay Estates community has happily developed ac- cording to a general plan which appears, however dimly, in the restrictive covenants set forth in the several Deeds to the following effect: No buildings other than one dwelling for not more than one family; No garage unless erected as a part of the dwelling; All building plans and building locations to be approved by the Owner- Mapper, with like approval for all alterations or additions to the dwelling; No fences or hedges over J' high; No outside toilet; No poultry house, pig sty, or kennel for more than two dogs. Not in all cases, but in general, homes in the community (with the Mapper's approval) consist of one-story, one-family dwellings with attached garages and no outbuildings of any kird. The proposed bUilding plans are not in conformity with the general development of the community and can never be made so because of the location, shape and size of the land upon which they are to be erected. The granting of this application would introduce two precedents which endanger the value of all other homes in the community. First, by appearing to approve the erection of a part of the dwelling on land now covered by water; and, Second, the erection of accessory buildings not connected with the dwelling. It is difficult to estimate the damage that such per- missiveness would cause to the property and aesthetic values of the residents of this community. 4. The application proposes the filling-in, bul~heading and building upon land lying beneath the waters of Spring Pond, which is now an extension of Gardiners Bay by virtue of a channel which is now and for many years past has been maintained by dredging and bulkheading for the free flow of the tides and the egress and ingress of large boats and water craft of all kinds. Thus, it is submitted here, that the granting of this application will permit an encroachment upon tidal waters to the diminution of public rights and interests, not to mention the private rights of the owners of property upon the Map in which Spring Pond is shown as a part of the development. - ...... - J - o 5. In respect of the lot numbered 126, owned by A. H. Bullwinkel, a stand-by well was dug many years ago at a point having about the same elevation as the instant property, and the owner of Lot 126 objects to the granting of this application for fear that the waters of his well may be rendered unusable by sewage pollution from the Applicant's property or that such waters will be siphoned off by a well or series of wells dugon Applicant's property, and he feels especially aggrieved because, at the time of the digging of his well (on Lot 126), he had every assurance from Applicant's immedi- ate grantor that the subject property would never be used for any purpose other tmaxxaxxKKBEKX than for access to the waters of Spring Pond as already mentioned and obvious but never avowed purpose of carrying off the surface waters brought down to that point by the downhill slopes of Cedar Lane. 6. The foregoing objections to the granting of this application are in addition to the objections set forth in the Building In- spector's denial of the application for a building permit, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference as objections by the undersigned. 7. Upon information and numbered lot for which a description of premises: belief, the deed of conveyance of the un- variance is sought contains the following East North South Cedar Lane Lot 126 Lot 127 The deed does not set forth the westerly boundary as Spring Pond, and thus, the grantor undoubtedly intended not to convey title to any land under water adjoining Spring Pond. In the circum- stances, the grantee can only, at best, assert a title to the edge of Spring Pond. Inasmuch as the proposed construction of the grantee seeks approval to build beyond the ordinary high water mark of Spring Pond by filling in the required land to accomplish this purpose, it is clear that at least a portion of the building would be constructed on lands to which the grantee could not establish a bona fide title. Such construction would, in fact, encroach upon the rights of other lot owners to the free and unobstructed use of Spring Pond. 8. A variance is sought with respect to numerous Sections of the Ordinance, each of which is highly objectionable. Under Section 303 a variance is requested due to the fact that the lot area is less than 12,500 square feet. To grant a variance of this requirement withvespect to an unnumbered lot which has re- mained unsold for a great number of years, when under present - - 4 - "'"' - - Suffolk County Health Department regulations the m~n~mum lot area required is 40,000 square feet, is unjust to those who must now comply with the stricter requirement. Moreover, a number of lot owners in the subdivision had heretofore been told by the develop- ers that said unnumbered lot would never be sold as it was intended for the use and benefit of lot owners in the subdivision. Section 305 provides for a front yard set back line of 35', or, in the case of a developed area, the set back line shall be the average established if more or less than 35'. The proposed construction has a set back line from Cedar Lane of 13' which, we submit, does not meet the average setback line of the area. Since this would not be in harmony with the area, this should obviously be denied. Section 308 provides for a rear yard of a minimum depth of 25', except by Special Exception it may be reduced to 15'. The proposed plans show a rear yard depth of only 12'. We submit that this variance must be absolutely denied since the Appeals Board lacks the authority under the Ordinance to reduce the rear yard requirement less than 15'. Section 300 (6) permits an accessory building in the rear yard. The proposed plans of construction show the accessory building to be located in the front yard of the premises approximately 6' from Cedar Lane. Thus, this variance must be denied. Moreover, the developed areas of the subdivision contain no such accessory buildings in the front yard area as proposed by the applicant. Such a building would in no way be in harmony with the developed areas of the sub- division. Section 309 sets forth the requirements relative to an accessory, one of which, is that it may not be erected nearer than 3' to a lot line. Under the proposed plan it would appear that such requirement would be violated, and thus, should be denied on that basis alone. 9. Other factors which should of necessity be considered by the Board are, as follows: a) The drainage problem}created by the proposed construction) to Cedar Lane might preclude any future widening of the road; b) That since the lot in question serves as a natural drainage area for Cedar Lane, by implication and necessity an easement for drainage was created when the lot was left unnumbered on the sub- division map; -- . ' - '~ - 5 - ^ .....; c) Prior approval by the Suffolk County Health Department should be secured for cesspools and well; d) The Southold Town Highway Department should report to the Board concerning the effect the proposed construction would have on drainage of Cedar Lane. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons heretofore set forth, the variance requested should be denied. Respectfully submitted, U?dt-~~ ~.J~ ~~ G~a ~~W-- ..... y' - ...: ..-.....- .... .., y , . ,,,,",,,,- GARY FLANNER OLSEN COUNSELLOR AT LAW P. O. BOX 247 . MAIN ROAD. MATT1TUCK, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 11952 . PHONE 516 298w4844 September 9,1970 Re: Neyland-Variance Gentlemen: Please be advised that my client, Peter Neyland, has instructed me to advise you,that he is withdrawing his application for a variance at this time. This withdrawal is being made without pr di~ to the possibility of the filing of a new application. / \ f)/ , ' .' .' /yo ./ GFO/mc '. Southold Town Z<lII.in.g Board of Appeals Town Clerk's Office Southold, N. Y. cc: Richard Cron, Eq. Peter Neyland // / -' -<- Jl ~ o GARY FLANNER OLSEN P. O. BOX 247 MAIN ROl\D t#l.ATIITUCK. l. I., N. Y. 11952 AUiUllt 28. 1970 Re: Peter Neyland Variance Dear Bob: Please let this letter confirm our phone conversation in wllieh you requested that I state to you my arguments as to why my cllent's parcel. located in Gardiners Bay r..states. falla within Section 1013 (b) (1) of the Southold Town Building Zone Ordin- ance. As I indicated. despite the fact that the parcel was not assigned a lot number. it stUl should fall within the sub- division so all to be accepted under Section 1013 for the following rea liOns: 1. It is physically shown on the filed map dated. July 21. 1927; :~;. It is similar in size to all the otller lota in the subdivision; 3. It was owned by tile original subdivider at the time tne subdivision map wall fUed; 4. Tllere is no notation on the parcel indicating that it was to be excluded from the subdivillion or to be set aside for community UIIe; 5. An inspection of tile subdivision map indicates that the parcel was clearly delineated from Cedar Lane and accordingly was not an extension of same; 6. Tllere is no requirement in Section 1013 that the lots must be numbered in ord.er to qualify for the exception; -1- , .... . ~.... ~ o 7. To hold that the said parcel is not given an area exception under Section 1013 would in effect, result in spot zonihg, for it would deny to just this one parcel an area exception to which the other 172 lots in the subdivision are entitled: this clearly was not the intention of the Town Board. In the event that you .hould determine that Section 1013 does not apply to the parcel in question (which parcel is located between Lots 126 and 127 on .aid map) then I would like your determination as to whether we may proceed to seek Simply an area variance without submitting proposed building plans. Thank you very much for your consideration of these matters. Very truly yours, --- -..--------- GARY FLANNER OLSEN GFol mrc Robert Tasker, Esq. Main Street Greenport, New York c.c. Richard Cron, Esq. c. c. Southold Town Board of Appeals kf#l-f RICHARD J. CRON MAIN ROAO CUTCHOGUe:. NEW YORK PECONIC 4-5100 September 1, 1970 Robert W. T.sker, Isq. Mda Str..t Qreenport, ft. Y. 11944 Res 'eter .."laad ,.,luee A~llce~ion Deer lobs We ere in receipt of . copy of l.tter forwarded to 10\1 by Gary rla..r Ollen, Isq., in connection with the above captioned, aa4 are oOll8traiaed to repl, thereto in behalf of oUr clienU, Albert B. 1u11winbl, Robert J. Barder .nd lvel1D Stewart who are in oppodt1on to the .ppl1oat1on for the variance. lasic11, Mr. Olsen's argument is to the effect thet the "WUWllbered" panel in que.t1on i. a part aa4 paroel of the Gardiner'. la, Suhdivi.lon Map, and therefore, under Section 1013 of the Southolcl Town Ordinance i. exoepted freath. area require- ..nts of Sectlon 303 of the Ordinance. In support of tbis con- tention, he ..ts forth a DUllbeI' of ob..rvatlou. all of which could U.k._ise be cOD.trued in favor of the arg-.nt of.,. cli.nts that ..lei n\11lDUllb.red" percelL. not a part of the Subdlvia10n and thu., subject to the .rea requ1r:eMl1ta of Section 303 of the Ord1unc.. We thiak it baaic that the .ubdivider never int.nd.d tbis "~red" parcel to be part of the Subdivision in queation. "batly, the parcel is situate between two numbered lota. to wits 126 .nd 127. If the subdivider intend.d the panel to be sold along with other lot. in the Subdiviaion, he would line con.ecu- tivel, nuaMred it, thereby indie.tins the parcel to be .ateebl. .nd part of the Subdivision. ~ kfllko~ RICHARD J. CRON MAIN ROAD CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK PECONIC 4-5100 Robart W. Tasker, Esq. - 2 - September I, 1970 Secondly, to support this reasoning, one has to histodcally review the Subdivision and the physical characteristic. of the area surrounding the "unllUlllbered" parcet. At the t1llle of the filing of the Mlp, the "unnumbered" parcel "as 8VlIIDp-11ke in its phyUcd a"..rance--serving principally then and at presant a. a natural drainage area into Spring Pond of the vaters draining frOll Cedar Lane, in both a noJlherl,. and southerl,. direction. It 18 o1wiou., therefore, thet when the Subdivision vas leid out in numbered lots, the parcel in qu.stion, due to its physical cher- actel'f.8t1os and its use as a natural drainage area of vaters II'ClID Cedar Lane into Spring Pond, was not condclered 881..ble a. a bulldlllg paroel, aDd thus, laft "l.1IlDUlIIbered" on the Mlp to indi- cate th1a particular fact. Finally, if the "unDUlllberecl" parcel "as to be excepted frOll the ar.. requiremeats of the Ordinance, all other "UlUlUIIlbered" areas on the MIlp would likewise have to be so excepted--a rather untenable po.itlon. W. trust that our position will be of SCllD8 assistance to you in this matter. ly yours. CroD IUC!jf co: Oary Flannel' Olaen, Esq. Soothold Town Board of Appeals Albert H. Bullwinkel I C o Dogwood Lane Gardiners Bay Estates East Marion, New York 11939 August 20, 1970 Board of Appeals Southold, New York 11971 reI Objections to granting of petition of Peter T. Neyland and wife Gentlemen: I am the owner of Lots Nos. 102 and 103 on Map of Gardiners Bay Estates, filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office as Map No. 275 -- purchased in 1947 -- and I am a year-round resident of the "Estates" community. I object to the granting of the petition of Peter T. Neyland and wife for a Building Zone Ordinance variation in respect of a parcel of land known as Item No. 313 on the Town of Southold 1969/70 Tax Bill and shown on the Tax Map to have an area of 1/8th of an acre, which property I am informed was conveyed to them by deed dated 6/18/1970, recorded 6/24/1970 in Liber 6761 of Deeds, page 322. I respectfully request that this application be in all respects denied, for the reasons stated by the Building Inspector and to be stated at the hearing this evening. In addition, I submit that the Petitioners have not and can not make a case which would justify the Board of Appeals in taking action under the several sub- divisions of Article VIII which have relevance to this application and in'accordance with the general purpose and intent expressed in the preamble of the Ordinance. Respectfully submitted, C ~r ichard ~) ~. ---- _.'_'7' _ ~<: - ,,'., ~;- '. I I t-J. ~it ~.E. .-: Z.4~ _,n_ " -/"~~ I ~. I \ '''''. . . I )./ ! ~; 0 . 0 0 ..--'- W . f ~. <1 > I [( 1 0 ....-.-/ /0' ^ ~(\.-( fOP- /~... t~ '\) / ,"-. --- Jo:- ./ , , \. \~ \11. \ '\ . '~'l.- .4,' "13 ' , W 2 <1 .-1 \ \ . \' . ...\\. / ./ / . \ \ f uc, 10 . Ii ,/ '- '/'<:- 'd-?" :.~' ., ~ \ \ iY <l o i I I , ! lJ-j -; "" ," o 10 , i"- o . ..0 N 2 31/ / / \J .n./O Df.l7f1 Ho,o ~E /. . ,.. ;' I /e> .... 7'ci: .... '" . S. b~''S~'30''W. 0, o /., . . LOT " 1'"'7 d_ / ---'-,~ l\ , .. ,F -:-- "-"-~""-' ';::<'-r~:], I'" ~ ,'(l '\i1:~: ',: 1 MAP CF PROPERTY ;~ U R" e. YP'D ~-oR --'" .,.'- ...:.,~.~" PETER NEYLAND.,. AT E~5'1" MAftf$tJ',. lOWl<4 .OF'" SoQ"j1-lOkO ~. l-J, Y. -~- ~> 5c.dle1 10'= I" {i)#kol"/ ripe ,i /oJQtoe: Lo+ "IJ~" 5~ ....... io:" ;'~ rI Secti~~"'a~~' . lf~f"Ilt.s" ..flWit .itt.~';..?~"'J-i ;~...w- d4-iQ!A~~~.2$~.. '. ;:' ',-,- . ;:-~ .. ;;:'- ..-:. ,",'_'-",' . "';:c.:..l ~"':'.",~-: ,;'-' ',_,",' ~1:_';'I:I:' _,