Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNorris, Bruce A. Amend #99WlCKHAM & LARK,~.c. April 24, 1975 Mr. Albert W. Richmond Southold Town Clerk Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Richmond: Pursuant to a Stipulation filed in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, on April 21, 1975, I am enclosing a copy of the transcript of that Stipulation which affects the rezoning of Bruce A. Norris' property at Mattituck, New York. Very truly yours, Richard F. Lark RFL/mlf Enclosure SUPRFMF COURT OF THE STATE OF NF~7 YOPK CO~INTY OF SUFFOLK LAWRENCE RFFVE, GFORGF BROOKS, ALINF DOVF, FRANK I.fHITP, OCK, GFORGE LASCFLLF, KATHFRINF LACFLLE and JOHN SIMICIO(, JR., ?laint ifps, ALBF?T M. MARTOCP, HIA, ~{AP..TIN LOrfIS f.f. DF MARF,qT, FRANP. IS T. DPYFN, JAMFS H. RICH, JR and JAME.q F. be~n~ an,~ const~tu~:ing th~ Town :' of tb~ TO~N OF S~O'WHOLD~ BRUCF A. MOP. RI.q, D~fendant s. BFFORF: THF HON. CORDON M. Index 7A-l. SP6 5 ¢,21. P°3P Aoril ~1., 1~75 H~,m~a~, N.Y. S~' I P U L A T I O N Tooker, Tooker & Fsseks 1,08 E. Main St. Riverh6ad, N.Y. By: Uilliam fsseks & Charles C,.:ddy, of Counsel. Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberz, Pa~slev & Yakabosk~ 456 Griff£ng Ave, Riverhead, N.Y. By: Pter~ Lundberg, of Counsel Wickham & Lark Main Road, ~fatt!tuck, N.Y. By: P,!chard Lark, of Counsel. Anthony T. Lovetro Off,:c~al Court Reooz' MR. LARK: Tt~e Defendant Bruce A. Norris sti~,_ lares that if the Complaint in this action is dismissed mn. that the ~remises which are the s~b~ect of ~h~ contested zoning chan~ gr~ used for mult{ole dwell~n~l r~sldence p:~r- set forth in Mr. Morr~s' Det{t~on for be constructed on ~srce! l as s~t fort~ ~n Schedule B of the The DefonHmn~ further stim.llmtes that Plaintiff in this act[on or the Town of Soutbold 5as stand- in~ to mnforce th~s Thru Defendant Norris .~:rth~ will file or cause to bo filcd Cert~fi~d CoDi~s of m trans- cripc of this st!mulacion forthwith w~ch the Bui].d~n~ I~nec- for of the Town of Southold 8nd the Town Clerk of thc Town of Southold to be included by them in che Town Records, con-. rerning the chancre of ~one which is the sub~ecc rustier of this action. And that the Court may vi~7 same on file at time ~hat it v~.ews the Dremis~, Ttae Co~rt and Plaintiffs' attorney will also be provided ~itb transcr~ots of this st{o- ~. FSS~S: Your ~n~or, I resDectf~llv thst ~t ~s Kratu~rous~ 8t be~t, sn~ Derh~ns ~ro~cr for th~ t~e of ~ti~ulat~on to b~ off~red to th~ Court. May I be heard for 5,~sc a moment on that? T'HE COL~RT: Yes. MR. TSSYKS: %~hen this ~pplication wms made by Pet{tlon to cho Town of Soutbold, pertain Reneral statements were made, and. I understand why they were made -- I don't cuest{on them at ali. -- to the Town that if the rezoning was granted, that certain thin~s would be done. There were to be only sen{or citizens on the ~roperty, for the most oart. THE COURT: Was this made as a condition of the granting? MR. ESSEKS: No, it was not. That's the point, your Honor. Many very pleasant things were said about what would be done with this prooert¥ if the Town d~d grant the reroning. And, nice things. % mean things that were desire- able for the Town in ~eneral. Now the Town did grant the application to make the ~roper~-v "l{ght multiple residene'~ which allows eondomfniums, garden a-artm~nts, cooperatives and boardinz house, your Honor. TMF CO'IRT: Isn'~ a boardi~ house a kind of out- dated term? MR.. FS,q}~]~S: I'm not rea]Iv sure what it means. THF C,O~T: Well, I know what it used to mean.' The ]~st vestiRe we }lave of it is over there f~ Flanders, the old Brewster House. F~. ESSKKS: house on this ~ acres. Fly clients don't want any boarding Now the Town adopted an ordi~nce on November ~3, ln71, and one of the permitted uses on this property rif, h~ todav are board~n2 house. nance? THF COURT: MR. FSSEKS: Is there ~ d~finition in the ordi- The ordinance is on record and Mr. Cuddy will try to find it. But, your Honor, the Town rezoned th~s property on April ?3, 1~74, and ~.t didn't -- did not -- it could have, but the Town did not -- limit the use of this pronerty to condominiums for peo.ole over 53. TH~ COI~T: And r. be only cban~e made on April lq74, affected this property? M~. FSSFKS: Yes, the ~? a~r~ in ~,~est~on. The Town did not, in any way, l~mit anyth~nq. I asked b'~r. Dena- res~ whether there were an}, ~tations, whether there wer~ any contracts, whether thero were ,~nv ~nde. nt,.~r~s, any deeds, any- thinz. T~e onl~ tb~ng that haonened that ~a~e was the reso- lution an~ all the resolution says ~s t~fac the nroperty was re~oned. Now ~n May of tb~ same year, t'.whibit ? comes into effect. The Town comes back and regrants the re~onin~. But again, the Town does not have anv conditions -- there are no explicit cond~ions involved. THF CO!.FRT: ~hat was the ouroose of re~rantine St, then? ktR. F$S~TKS: I believe, your Honor, 'it was to provide with those sections of the Suffolk Co,~ntv Charter which reouire' that when a Town Board overrides, in effect, a! veto by the County Planning Commission, that reasons must be given. The Suffolk County Charter says you have to give reasons. And Mr. N~.anan testified to that and I believe Mr. Demarest testified to that, and three purported reasons were given in Exhibit ?. We believe that they have no legal standing, but three reasons were %iven; but they are not con~ ditions, your Honor. They don't limit the use of the properj ty at all.. Now in August of 1°74, F×h~bit 3 was passed. That's the third R~esolu~ion ~n a series of three. In August of 1074, ~fter we have been ~n this lawsuit for three or fou~ months the Town still doesn't -- I'm not sure whether it caul d have -- but it didn't even try to limit the use of this Drooerty to 13o un, ts or to 13° condominiums. THF COUP. T: Let me interrupt vou for a moment, Mr. Esseks. If conditions had been annexed to this re~oning such as has been mentioned h.ere, would your clients be saris~ fied? HR. FSSFKS: I doubt it very much, your Honor. But notwithstanding that, the conditions were not granted. Now, your Honor, two of the most important conditions I haven't dealt with, yet. The conditions about public -- municipal water and se~.mge. Now these Exhibits I~-A and B talk about -- it says 'conditional". Thos~exhibits, which Mr. Raynor has testified ore part of the Comprehensive Plan together with that Map Exhibit A, re~u[re ~ublic, not privates, public water and sewage to the property. Now, your Honor, F~hibits 1, ? and 3 which granted the re~oning do not condi- tion a~roval upon the construction of public water,and sewer :. And that, ouite possibly, is one of the most important error~ that we believe that the Town did. The Town Board did not follow its Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan says you got to have water and sewaRe if you are go~n~ to have d ~ . any multiple dwelling. They d~. n t do it. And they say they're supnosed to do it, And I resnectfully submit to I your Honor a cas~. r~o~ht in ~o~.n~_ ~n the County of Westchester, I believe, where the learned Judze s{.ttin~ in Westchester County s~id: No, ~.t zees o~t because they didn't meet their own conditions. And I believm thor this ~ttemvt at this time by the Defendant Norris -- not even before trial, not at the time of the first: r~.solution., nor the second resolution, nor the third.resolution or during the almost a y~ar of litiga- tion, but now, during the trial, they come in here and they say: Judge, I'm afraid we didn't do it r.~Kht for the last year. I'.~_ afraid we had three resolutions and covenants andI a petition and we never got around to correcting our errors i and today we want to correct the error. And I say they can't, do that. I don't think the Court should hear the stipulation. They co~ld oromise, at ~-his time, anything. They could ,romise to have no more than 10. ~nit$ on the property all selling for $1q0,0Q0, only occupied by very learned mrofes- sors, but how does that do anything? How can they now, on April ?1, l~75, tell your Honor what conditions they are going to throw back on to a year ~go. It will be a year this Wednesday. They can't ao that. I think ~t's very ~rat'~ to~Is. THF CO~T: l,~e!l, this eo, l.d be done by sti~u- ]at,on. If all -art~es stioula~e. $..~.. ~f all ,~rt!es stioulate But, your Honor. o~r contention ~s that the To~,-n Ci(~ not follow ~t own o]~nn~nff, orocedt~re; its o~.~n Comnrehensive pl_an, its own ~oninz or~;nmnce. So anyth;n~ that Mr. Norris agreed to do Coday hardly clears up those oroblems. That's the thr,~st of my ob~ectfon to their statement. They can make stipula- tions all day ]onq, but they have no legal means as of a y~ar ago. THF CO~T: That was the ourpose of n~y ouestion you: If all these conditions were stipulated to, would it satisfy your ~eople? bLR. ~SS~S: I believe not, sir, ~. LARK: Your Honor, the purpose of the stipu- lation was really to clarify some confusion that had been created. No~ tlr. Fsseks' arguraent to the Court ~s really not made of whole cloth because the Southold Town Board has acted nrooer!y uO to the oresent time because all they were doin~ ~as ?oninc the use of a niece of property. The zoning regulations of the Township which your Honor has as Plaintiff's F~hi.%~t ]! c]~arly soec~f!es, ~n ~ection ].3 thereof tl~at ':f ,~h~ D~fendant Norris or any other orooerty owner ~.sh~s to develo~ his ~ro~ertv -- say ~n th~s case ~n accordaa~e ~{th a multiole c~llfn,z use -- he will have to %o aza{.n before the Plannin~ Board ~o obtain site ,lan aporoval to do var{o~s thinzs: loca[-ion of his buildings and his lavo,~t, his water-sewa~, layout, w,here it will be and what it will nroviRe for and so on and so forth, that will ~overn the actual layout and the develonment of the orooertv, and so the Town already has forseen this when they adopted their Comnrehensive 2oning Ord~_nance in November ?3, 1971. They have that right in there as Article ]-3 and other anplicable oortions of the regulations. So the Town, in rezoninR the land use is not reouired nor do they have a duty to seek conditions from an aoo!{cant that ho will or will not do certa~.n thC.nas. Because their ~onfn~ ordinsnce orov{d~s that he must do certain thin~s ~nd he m'~.st oresent s~te plans ~nd he must oresent all of,i these thin~s to the P]ann~n~ Board when h~ actually physicall~ o~ets rc~dv to d~vn]oo a o~ece of pro~erky. THE CO~.T: But is thore any orov;.sion th, t will limit g!~i~s r,ropertv to 139 uniC_s? M~. LAP, K: In the ,on~n~ orclinance no, your Honor. T'ne ¢_est~monv bcfore the Court wos chat under the zoninz ~s const~tutpd nresently, the Defendant could put 18q units in. In his initial aoplicatJon to the Town Board he stated that he -- to erect onlv 13? units. He has filedI a covenant in the ~-'ounty Clerk's Office ~o that .effect, which we felt w~s in occordance with his ~*etition. The Plaintiffs' attorney is now sa}ring that's no ~%ood. So the stipulation that I .~ust read off was to further clarify that the Defen- dant intends to be bounded by his in'~tial petition, his subseeuent covenant and restrSct~ons which were b~sically two-fold: to erect only 13~' units, and before any erection or any occupancy there would be ~ "municioal water and sewage' treatment facility to the oro~erty. Thmt was the tbr,st which the Court has in evidence before it. So the st~.~ulation, :,r~mari15~, ~.~as to clor~fy any confusion that miCht have been ere~te*]. MP.. LUNDBFF. G: I m~ght add, ~f I rr~¥, your Honor thag the stip~lations ore offered onlx.? ~_o clarify the ~mues concerning those covenants and restrictions. The oeoole, I th~nk, havt- been act~ng in good f~ith and believing every- body else has been acting in good faith and the issue has been raisec! and I don't know of any stroh%er weapon, so to 10. s~eak, ~n t~.e law than a stinulation made in eden Court %,hich can bc enforced ~y, ainst anybody who so stipulates. And that is the sole nuroose here. ~!e w~nt to remove an !ss'~e from the case. ~hich we don't think is in the case. But since the wording is in -- at least up to this argument we want to remove that ~uestion of argument. May I offer a stipulation now on behalf of the Town of Southold? THE COURT: Yes. ~.[R. LUNDBERG: The Town of Southo~d stipulates that if the Comolaint is dismissed and should the Defendant NorrS, s~r any successor apoly to the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold for a Building Permit for any m,tltiple o%~'ell~ng structure on Parcels 1 and ? other than as set forth in th~ ,~etion for a chan~e of ~one as set forth in Schedule B of the Comnla~nt, it w~ll take the following action: 1. Thro-gh th~ Town Attorney it ~?fl! advise the BuildinR :!nsnector not to imue any oermit ~n conformity with said oetition and it w~ll defend any action to the fullest brought to compel the issuance of any such permit relying ~pon the ver-~fied petition, the recorded covenants and restrictions and the stipulation made by the Defendant Norris in this action. ?. Should the Building Insoector ignore the advice of the Town Attorney and ~ssue a Building Permit not in conformity with the said petition, the Town Board of the 11. Town of Southold will immediately apoeal the action to the ?oning Board of A~peals pursuant to Town Law Section 767, subdivbion ~ and if necessary, will inst{tute and follr prosecut~ an appropriate Article 7~ ~roceedin~ pursuant to Town Law S~ction 367, subdivision 7, again relyin~ upon the verified Detit~on, recorded covenants-and restrict-ions ond stipulation made bs-.the Defendant Norris f.n tb~s avtion. 3. Immediate notice of onv mnd all notions or nra- ~eed~.n~s brought by or a~a~nst the Wox~n Board or Bu~'!dinR Insoector of the Town of Southold w~ll be g~ven to the attorneys for P!~in~ frs i.n th~.s ~ct;on so that they may .~o{n in 8n~, proceedings tm ~nsure tha~ only condominiums are constructed on Parcel 1 {f m',ltinle (lw~ll[na '1nits are constructed on Parcel I and only on Parcel !. 4. The Town w{.ll prov{de CerfiifJed Coo~es of the fi~anscript of th~s stipulation to the Court ~nd to the Plaintiffs' attorney. ~. FSS~S: Your Honor, I ask that the stimu- lat!onsbe stricken. I believe ~hat they are gratuitous, they have no effect upon the legality of the action tsken by the Town pursuant to Fxhibits l, 3 and 3. If anything -- and m not sure they have any effect -- but if anything, they would only ~ve effect in th~ future 8nd orobab~v as to the Defendant Norris. I fs~.l ro see at 811 how after the 1?. fact they can bootstrap themselves to ma]~e correct what I believe was imoroper rezoming. THF CO~PRT: All r~ght. The Cm~rt w~ll consider ~t for whatever it may }~ worth. CFRTIFIFD TO BE A TRUF AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT THE MIN~rrFS IN THIS CASF. Town Planning Board ESOLI-FHLOI__D, L. I., N. Y. 11971 [.I [ }5I U T E SOUTN'OT,O TOWN '~T ,~.NNING BOARD ' '~ · ].9'/3 C,(;,o; cr 24, Vi.,:,',; .31);: "D -: ii'r?. Fx',~tlk C,)y'].p.. State of New York I Suffolk County Office of the Clerk of the / ss: / Town of Southold (Seal) This is to certify that I, Albert W. Richmond, Town Clerk of the Town Southold in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy Sou..t..h...o.L~ ..T..o.~.~. !.z.~.~s!.n...%.~..°.~.Sd.....m..t..~..?. ~...:....°. S.E....2...4.:.....t..?.' with the original now on file in this office, and that the same is a car, and true transcript of such original .~q.Q.~.glp,.O.~.d.....~.O.h~.....l~..1.~..n..n...i..n.g....B..~ .m..~-..n..u..~.e..s.....m...O..9. g.o...b..e...r.....2..4..~....1...9..7...3. ................. and the whole there. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the s< of said Town this ............ 14...t...h. ............. day of ........... A.p...r..i_.l.~jS;~. 1~..5.. Southo]d Town Planning Board -2- October 24, 1973 have to be some fill. They have enough :square [oohage so I don'k see why it should not bo approved. It m[ght be hhat 'ho meet the Board of Health requirements for cpsspoo]s ffhat there should be some fi. ll i.n there. Whoever Lakes title Lo hhe parcels would have ko pul hhe wc. nld assume the Board would want restrictive covenants Lhat it would not be [nrbheu divided. That wo~]d not be a p¥ob]em. Mr:. Mo~sa suggested hbah ih mighh ' ,~' .... itrogen. Mr O].:sen said Ihs.'_ Lhat :;,, id ~ bat r/<~ kncu'..z '...l~.]t I'l,oir ,.'c,?,'i ,-. , :i~l ..~ , ...... ~ ' . ' ' }~q vj .,' ,_nit :~.'~.J~i cO,it_ , .,. v.,~,:d ls ,t I.i;:i'.]~ , ,~]';,:,.'~th lo ,7,.) . ,~'~,' Southold Town Planning Board 3 October 24, ]_973 saJ. d that he would assume that whoever bought it wo~{ld rc_.a]_ize that thc back end wou].d be ].oft natural. There J.s no t~_]al achion back there. Mr. Raynor asked Mr. O]sen if he had any objection to this being so. nh t.o Environmental Control. Mr. Olscn said hhat ho would ~>hjoct as he doesn't ~n3_nk I.hat Lt's u~cessary. Mr. WJ~:kh-un sa~.d that when we nend [.t tO tl~e ~epa,'ismont of Hnal~.h we will_ coument Ihat t'.h~s ]_s a 1 , .,~..,) ..I;,~,...,~ ; l~O 5 ~,-or , ,,T',)~lC' h{~ '.~)~1 ] ;tU ',;o. 'Tr'. ~)1 ' ' ' ? i ' i~l ; 1~,tt · :' 'r ,.~ }k , ,1 '~ ,,~ ~ ),', ' ~ ,1:~ J'"'~t ~.~.,r~l,] ]30 ~ · ,', ' ,,,' .. I:.:~ ~t ,.'C',' ,"~.'~ Jr~t Ir.) ~ti .-.~d ;o ~;c,~t ...~ ' o ~,...'17 , . , . . , ' ' ~_,j' ~.',~ ~ ' ~,k '.-';.; .1 ~ .,~,1 '." ' .~.~1.-~( '.'o ~',o i his , t ; .~.~ ,~, . ., ., :~1,] t ~,) :.' 'r' ~',, ri ;1,~1 ~',".'~,',{. · .? % .% Southold Town Planning Board --4- October 24, 1973 The Board of Appeals position is Lhat this proposal is a d(~sirable project and that area variances for small lots should be grantcd s~bject: to P].annJ. gg a¥)proval of hhe whole project. blr. Ra;,'nor asked h,;w long Nra. Mo:3ba~.k had held i:hls pcoperty. ~.Ir. Bruer z~i.d bhat to h~a knc~',.~lodge !~e bcl icves :;}~e h,os ~21d J_t for ~ tc. a long while. ,, U')~t_(] ()~ ~n-~2a].S al2 I-]t,OJC 1 ~Sk nt~C~.~ '~. I ,;k, b!o. 5. blt. R,,i..~c..c ,~:_q<~-:d ,:, .o fl , lit> ~l ,: <'J..~'- ' .--J :, . ,~ , ' ,. '. ~.~ , -.~,] [I-:~,~l ',,, ' ~, .~.~_ . :-l', ~i,, ," '. r', ' ' [,1 ' ' :~: ' ~ , ,1 .:~ ~ '..~.1: ~.'1 ',:',l '7.,~ ' ~' ~,~,:'1 " .,~ ,.~ ~ .'.. r'~;',,[. ;1,'. ,,'r: ·.....'* ' : ] , ~ .:,l ~ , ~. Sou.Lhold '['own Planning Board -5- October 24, 1973 fin¢t o'n.k what it has been like t:here by speaking to a nei~_fhbor, Mr. Parker, who attended the Appeals meeting. TIc spoke wit_h respect to some of the rental L~ uants. Mr. Radnor sa~d tha~ to his knowledge we have ~u vcr .jn,mtod a 5 ]_o1: mJ. qor subdivision to anyone. Mr. B~:~n:~- r~aid I:hat he wo]ll.d like bo get b;~ck to klte hh,~t tho Bo,~t-d of Appaals could U:canh a v~iciai~ce ,~nd, Soukhold Town Planning Board -6- October 24, ].973 ],~ssr:..ks or anyone in his office had [eceivcd a dc?~inil;Jon of the ].~w. Mr. Esseks said thak he ~iound ~t hard believe [:hat ever:yone J.s abrogatl, ng h~s ,~]l:horJky Lo someone sit:i:Jng in Stony '$~'ook. Hr. Wickham ]-c,~d <opy of letter daLcd Ochobar 24, 19'/3 ad~lry~ssed ho H~. ~. ~yiaolid C. Doan, Super{~lkondenk o.f I{igh~-/~[ys, re. Iqlet Eask as Eo]lows: Souhhold Town Planning Board -7- Ockober 24, 1973 Richard C~on, Esq. came before ;:tie Board wikh maps of minor subdivision surveyed [or Joseph Wicderman John Gilowski. Mr. Cron said that-]{~-l.;o~l~-' ~Sl~-~{~.s ~fi~ne down 'ko see khi:; ,nlnor subdivisi_on. '.L'h[s is hhe same layouk as I showed you before h,lt I had ~glo p:oper names of Lhe Lnf~r_shed park~ns put on khe p:[nts. Mr. Raynor .'}sked if Mr. Con's cl[enks would be 'wJ_].l. fi. ng Lo sign L:ov'cxlanks { hat hh~y wnn' t u.l~ {~tt:{:e. [4r. Cren s,~Jd Jh was ah.'oody W.t~ .,,tlc n I gok inko {;he pic ut¥o wikh Icy cl.'[_(!.~t[.s. '[ ] [kc ko geh ,~pp.~:oval. {The Boa¥.'d s[:udied ;;he ,~u,p). 24~. .~.9}i'~,t :-:,~[d '(:hat "' - ' . ~. ,.,:_:T,a ¢n I :j;: ".~s:,:.,l ly ;i ,:y ]',.'.;c :!,::1',: ',g [o ,[o '.,1; h Chi.; Southold Town Planning Board -8- October 24, 1973 that he wou].d like to take this up to the County Planning p~op].e and go over it wi[:h hhc:m and get their sl.lggest[ons. Sooner or later we will have Lo go fro them. It's one step wh(ch mi.ght save some time later on. Mr. Ct-on commenl_ed ~.h~.t overy/hing is subject Io uevi. w and that he can't in aL1 good conscience lot Lh~_s go on and on. I am jeopardizing i;he people who have ent~:ustcd this Lo me. r am trying not t'~%}ort. I ;'tiLl putting myself in a position of jeopardy. '4u. Rayn,)c .:,tid l'haL unilil you decided ?vbi_ch {'o~,/so of acl:i~_m you ../a~ll:cNl l:o i;,lke we could Coon ':,!(d lhece n.}:o two lqoai:ds; one involves a 1.egJsJahJ_ve ;~cl: and ~'tt<~ ~s a,lvir;or'y ]ult yOU will. 4eL fi',td ,:nty !aw ;~::kod iff ],e ,:o,tJd goh .:n .:n:":.:,~r l;y 14r. {';~]l~':c Lute called I:o :may l.haL he wetted not be r4r. ?,rL~.kh,m ~;[.,tled ih/il: itc2 Ta,-tp ~[1{(] ,,)k b.lvo five · ' ' -,,,'I,.,l ;:,:tk : ;~,;y ;,,ti: ,-t I i:~,: ,,~. ih ,'i.,jhL J~}hs, ,'r],t '.',' ,',nlk, ~[ ','C:ilU a ,.,),"t ,.'. '3.: r"l{'}g- ).,', · -. k 7,:$? [ ,: ?4[', ''-,,,, :..'ill. .-~ ,. :.,,~. Southold Town Planning Board -9- October 24, 1973 Application for Approval of Plat was received from Glenn F. He~dtmann for minor .'~,~bdiv{ston at Cutchogue comprising [:hree lots. A check in [:he amount of $30 was received on July 23, 1973. On motion by Hr. R,~yuor, ;ecoR]ed by ;-'It ' ' - fl:. was x.-LJO.GVIgD lb,:tt kho Soul.bolt Town Pl,nnning Boa'cd appr'ove York, ,~s s~t_,nttLLed. ¥'¢ ,']:t/'"ql¢ P,,ti~c.,or, P,~)bor;L TookeF., F, sq. ~qTne b l ~ -' ~ " - (1~-)1}(} ~ ,/:i~ld ~'Ol1 ~;,t ~.d yell '.'YON'I d k-ofer J.k Lo iNo~fi. jJ¢..~y' ' - C,_,:',,tli. i "n ~ S T (kCO . t u. Wr2 ,i~'{~ i~¢)77 L),'!:¢:;,'d ;'11e 1.,;L of :l,'p[;. ,,',hrx~ I i;~y ,txre mai l.~ rig cop;cs [.o e'v,2A'yb,}dy ''i ,- . ~y 'sty i f .'N2pl. icmtJon for a permit. Jif you ace eot wJkhi, n i.'C}~l Jonah i}.~ve t3o do {'hal: '~l-., . L._y wilt File a ,.:,p ;-,ilh ';he C,.)t.tnty Cl.~k ,.ehich def~, s who is ,~nd who is not: , ~y [: i :;,;~y {,~ ,y wi'Il. Jn.kps .:tnd wak,~r;.z.~y rqlps. 'k'NJ_s pi,':ce off prop~k'ky :;aid t'h,>y wc. uld write a 1,il_tnt [-o i-,bu sayJ. ng I ll,~t did ;loh w~::h {:o ll,'i~.'e an ,-ppl_.ic,tkTetl ',:J l.,'d, -,nd iL he ~(3 U' ',: 1.,3~. ~'l(~ ,~'(~ Rot ~]o]~g ,"~ls.'t'):i_llg t-o lite -,,c'.l 1 ,~,~. ~lf 5,,:nt 1 kc, ;[ wilt lnave y~,u a ,;'opy. [ jn:.;k ;.'-..~L I-o Southold Town Planning Board --10- October 24, 1973 Mr. Henry Raynor slated that his only question with uegard 1:o Little Neck properties is on drain~ge. He read letter received from the Super]utendcnt off Highways, as fo 1 ]ows: "I have inspected thc map lay-out o[' LITTLE NECK i~ROP;';RTINS aud recommend hhat m;ap]e dca~mtge wi. ll be made ;.Ir. ,loI]n W~c~,ham :;a{d that we will ask for a copy' of De,~d RostrickLcns. The Soil and W~ter ConscrvatAon people ~.;ay li~ak dl~rJ, ng the construction L, eriod there shall be a }PlllCI1 ~2Ctf¥/C.C'I1 ~-ho ]o[i Dild ~ie h~glR'LIy ~'tilkJl ].'tW~S ;iEe inN> a h~.ghw¢~y .,~d .'~J. so :si].hs ~tp dw.a~t~q, ge ,/,..n,.x; vuctJ.on. (-)Il dokiCll J-.,y P4r. Hoisa, :;c-con,led by i.:r. R l'0or, it was RbjSC, T,VI<D Lhat Lhe. P!aunJ. ng Boaud w~].l hold a bearing ;.lain Road, Sc,~(:}~oJ.d. Vote bit. R¢~t>,_,.~_~k. A. Kart, :u, 1)~vc:yo£, Ri. verhead, N,~w R,>aud Lo lc,0k '.}.k J_t ,~ he[]. Nim wil3. t ,;I{,,i~,j,~s }'i.',d made. He ,~ t ~ d I lh~t h(l had ,1 i sc~z:sed I 1, ~ s wJ_l:h I_hn l:,-'nd,",ik ,If l{J~jl~v.'ays. Alt Of thcse lots ar~] :10,000 ,)c over. B~'llore I ,'~:me ~n for a pr~,J. Jm~n.~.'y I wo~ld like i O p ] ail ~,ly r,l,'id (~ r',~ ~ ~.Rge . T I-. ;.~.i 1 i bo h,~cd l e,i J.'y ],,-.sins. bi~. Dean Js i.t~ ,zg}:c,(.ment wiih Uly plan. a clear title. We are ~,ot Jnierenh~d in the piece of weeds J:.a~'k there. 'Phi s La al 1 Fa cm 1 and. '[hi s J s a 1cE .,h! },n'lW. i, lC. Raynor ~sk~.d v;hy he local.cd 111(2 p,e~:_{ and of l:hc. a~R:a J~,i }.',.d 1o v.-e,.k v,~l:h, he ucuJ_d not make LJtis (u~'g,TrrJ~zg Lo :.'kef. ch) ;.rite two ]~shs ,tnd si.ill pvovi,te for ic.s.s:iblz c.:,nJd le J,;~u~ huh I .,'ol;ld ~nv(} [O :;h~Flh 1 Southold Town Planning Board -11- October 24, 1973 you remember on the Pontino subdivision I met with Mr. Dean and tie asked for part of it ho be for drainage, and this is whak I have done. I am athempting to get a sort of pre-.-preliminary okay. Hr. Raynor said khat he [bought the location for a park and playgro~md was a dangerous one. Mr. Karl said Lhat you have Lo have a rJ. ght angle cnLrance. I have 236' plus anokher 70 or 80' and I oan noL possibly ,,t.Gce 4'.wo lobs in here (r'efor/rJng lo ,sketch) ttaless I exkond hh-[.s all the way back t:o t~ere ,tad khen I wind up Would you cai.her see J.t down here? b~r. Raynor s,~id he really wouJ.d be f, :a;- [~l]_ abouL khe other location, bIr. Kart sa4.d he J_s (:cy]ng [_rD mike sqt~ac-e lots. Uou]d it be Mr.. Ra2'nor 's,lid I h4h s:;n~zt~ I ]ie (3c,,,~d ;..v~.nue Bridge has sq~a~/e ]ohs, 200 x 200, no one is bci. ng orow, lcd. ('~'l~,ce was a F,~rl:l~er discussion of lhe map). Mr. ?l~<g,:h,~,n s,~,~g,?st:ed khat J, pi-ti. ']_'}le publ. ic likes l}~(,t~. }Ir. W[cRh;u[l s.~i.d h:i',~]_'e be no LrwLlbJ. o h,_tvJng one lot 220' and t'he okher 200' ]L~st a :4]l,:lg,~skJon. (Mrs. T,orraine 'Put:hill looked aL i.he I ;~.-tt i:he~:e is a drainage :;pot I lu...,:e and park end L21.,iyU t.o]illd. al.]. I can do ~s swap. lie asked if tzh~s would be ,;ecl: of okay? bk. Raynor corn[ac, riLed khak he is ~a g~}c,d rc, f~t~tl,~pco t'o C .P.P. T,Dlld Cor. l}ot ~ttJ. Oll 4 c~,?py Of 5./hJt:h '¢?,:~s f4(lil~ [O C.P.F. r.~,3d CorpoJ/al-i.c)n. [{e s,i{.d that l'il,?y had had lbo [~sl] woll. s 1,~,11 year. Mr. ~.Jickh;:m noted khat Off khe pL'C~I ~ m~ na~ y t~:ap sul~mi_kk,'d ore :;al: } ~xt-.Ic ;7)~y." 14~. Ct,rl.,O ,;a i.d ih;iL ~',lc. Van Tuyl_ has ~.,~:.cy one. .[,-ir. h!ickl~,:m said t:he map snows hhe l~urqti,)n but i he Co~,uty has l:o h,~.ve I:1~o (_~,sks. ["Ic. Rayilor :;'_~;'..,i~t,l :.:l~,2~:e Lbo [ ,~:~lz 1.,,~1 1 s ,-tile. i,{c. NJ c?qh,' ~t ::,~ i(l ; l~,tt Southold Town Planning Board -12- October 24, 1973 This office has got to have the test well locations and the n'ap correspond. You will have to see V~n Tuyl and Norl:h Fork. The Board discussed the petition of Isadore P. Krupski re. questing a ch,~nge of ×one fr-om "A" Resident ].al .-Agr~ cultural · to 'B-i" IIeavy Busin(~ss. Mr. W[ckham said that I_his p~rcel Js on the ~orth s~de of H[dct].e Road. Noithcr this nor the County PlannJ. ng Cohm]ission wi]_l approve bus,ness development on County Road 27 in tbJs area. 't?he .qoubho].]. Town ..}_t t}old '~'own ~oard Lhe or]g~.nal petition of Isadore K~'uN.sk~ ~:o,]~,,stJ_i~g a change of zone on certain pr:opcrhy ~¢['Luat. ed at Cu'.:h ,~u.e, Now Yock, from "A" Residential ,~nd Agricultural D{sPrick I'o "B--l" CClUeral ~ ~r.-.,.~ DJ strict on co]l[a i n ueal Lt.1. pro£.'.o£ty is si tP. atcd .st CuL,:~,3,j~e, of So~l[.],o]d, CONiIIf. y of Sttffo]k, New York, and Narti(nll_str].y b(;u~3dcd ,u}d (] ~sc'ribed ,its roi loWS F,'iil. O ]'i!i}tl[.i'lg []'L(ilIC'~I [~(2i~ S,i~d point Or place of al.C. lig ]~xlld iloW or formerly of b~aLhituck (inn (!!.lib, fI1(. 51° 53 minutes 00 soconds E 756 88 J:n( .... 7U}:NCE no£th_ ,17° 30 minutes 20 seconds W. 39.62 feet :qI.O~g ].,iDd now or ['o,'.'zr~orJ. y of MattiL~lck (2un Climb, Ii!(/., Lb, trice r}c.~.-th 67° 37 min~tes east ]_08.68 feet along land now er H. 630.98 f,~et along land PoW or goLr, ler].y :Jr {?~:nl~}:ey Pstate ~f l_f169.26 [cch to a r-,-~[i.l.}:~ of 73.47 f~et b~,j[n~li~g on PoFIh 28° 43 J,lilNt[:oS 20 :;e~:ongs west 358.06 f,'ek to s,tJ.d 9..'~ 67 . ~ c r,.-: s. On m()l:.~c.n h.y ;'.Ir. :.:,..is.t, s~:o}~do] by blt. ...a,.nq , )r, .it wa.s Southold Town Planning Board -]_3- October 24, 1973 "A" Residential-Agricultural District to "B-i" Heavy Bnsiness for the reason that this cNange would not conform to the Development P]an. 'fhe Planning Board wi].l not appr:ove business development on CounLy Road 27 in this asea. VoLe of Lhe Board: Ayes:- Hr. W[ckham, Hr. Hoisa, Ndlf ~lor, ~,~r. Hr. WJ.ckham r,?.,Rd the fo.l.l.owtng l. eLher -,-c. ce:i. vcd From ,'-Ir. iR)weird T~:rry, 13~ildlng Tn~%>ector: "I,ast wink. er we had many ¢;oi~plainhs of "Nunoff hrater'' crossing private properties in r. tureZ. Prior tO devo. lo£,mc:nk of ~?o]l_]ng was p~:cLI.y ~...,ell .,!}sorbed Jn the Lnst winter, someone had regr,%d~zd the ,qoultR..'o'.~t end of th.e oNcn land nnd d]l<ed aloug the edge of the ~.,oodlnnd of ','l(':-,[-ec].y l.ot ]ines of Roi] :lng We,:]d. '('Iris ])ro~tqht a i-l. ood to Lhe )loulcvo~3d. Pay Dean ,tnd I ocd,~cod I-he dj halt filled I:o slop Phis w~nter so /hail wo (:an [.~.y [o stop this ,-unoff dair,,.je Lo ce].Jars ,~nd roads. be pa~t of the Plannfng ~,~-(t's (}e'(e.,_-,'t!l /)lall Jlor I:ho a~:ea t doubt if we can 10e h~}ld L,~:~ona]ly liable in this .,ultter b~t certainly no plan has 1h'.c.n done to Lhis d.-~t.e. you propose Lo do ] n tit; s m,xti:~,c." Souhhold Town Planning Board -14- October 24, 1973 blr. Raynor said that he would inspect this property and also the Bay Avenue property in Mattituck, and askc~d the Secretary to contact Mr. Ed Bage, P.E., to accompany him on an inspection trip. Thc Chair~aan bead letter received from Mr. Rap~ond C. Dean, Superintendent of Highways, with ~?egard to Woodhollow P~npe_rties, Inc. , Orient--by-the--Sea, Sect-ion II, as bellows: "The l{ighway Committee and myself have ag cectd that we will ,L~ccopt the h2.~ching area :~et asJ_de for a rech.t~:go ba.-~Jn, ]_coat. ed south of I,ok ~65, ~.nstead of our ..3uggesLion of Lot' ~r~64 as recommem]ed in our ]_ether of August 8, ]973." The Boa£d discussed h,-~vi~g a h,)nd estim.~t:e prepaced For WoodhoAlow Properi:~s, ~nc. (Oricnh--b y-~:he-Sea, Sec. 2), and fir. lukhill sa.id that he wouAd prefer I:haC Mr. Bage prepar:e Jt as he, b'Ir. Tuth{]l, is the o...a~er of 5% of Weodhc. llew Propnct{.es. motion by Mr. Wickham, seco~ded by Mr. Rafnor, J_t was RESOLVED that tile So~thold Town PI. arming Board r-equcst that Edward Bage, P.E., prepare a bond nst~mal:e for Woedhol]_ow P~ ope~ I_ies, inc. , Orient-by -Lhe -Sea, Section }ii. VoL'o of Lhe Bo.-~£d: ti, es:-- Mr. Wi,_:l,-ham, Mr. ;.k~i',sa, 24r. Rayno£, }.Ir. G~:~,be. t:o Mrs. Haruy E. J~vans, Oakland, Now Jeff Soy, iii ,;~:-[}c,n,~e ~;O Mrs. Evan's letter o~ October 16, 1973, ,n~:~wecing qu~;k~ons about the prop~r filing of applicat{on for a subdivision in frouking on the road, and cecreation .tr, .s. ;,Ir.-. Wi ckham read ].eLker from tile ,-gupn~,:inLe~.d,:r~_t of ~;gh,,-.,ays, dated OcL. obec,ll, 1973, wJ_l:h r,'sar.'d ko U,-~st Itill, So(: Ini on I t Pocollic, Now ~{o~fk: "I have :%;,oken wi_th the itl.gh;-:ay (2,?.~qLtt:ee and we st~ggcst that .,Uproximakely onc-ha]_f ,:in acre t)e dedAcated to Lhe Town of Soukhold from bite Park and P]ayg, om~d area for fuLure ,~se as a r,-cha£ge basin." Southold Town Planning Board -15- October 24, 1973 Mr. Wickham read the Resolution adopted by the Suffolk County Planning Co.%mission on October 3, 1973. RESOLUTION: PROCEDURAL ~qENDMENTS TO SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF PROPOSED ZONING ACTIONS AND FINAL SUBDIVISION PLATS IN AREAS AFFECTED BY "TIDAL WETLANDS ACT" WHEREAS , the SLate of New York has passed an Act known as Lhe "Tidal Wetlands Act" to protect and preserve tidal wetlands, and N!tEREAS , the said ack went ~nto ~ffect on Septnmber l, 1973, and WHEREAS, all lands lying between the one fathom line and 100 yards or more, in from the- edge of the wet]~nds will be directly affected by the act and subject bo admJnisl_cat.ive p~-o~:odures of the New York Stake Department of Environmental Conservation, and WHEREAS The Suffolk Co,reLy Planning Commission is required by the provisions of the Suffolk County CNa r'ter to review all zoning actions and laud subdivisions within 500 feet of the shoreline, and WHEREAS, it is in Lhe best interests of both the Skate and County to coordinate efforts pertaining to the review of proposed changes of land use and develop- mcnt of the tidal wetlands, Therefore, Be It Rki.c;oLVED, That the Suffolk County Planning Co~maission hereby amends its procedures ~n Informational Bulletin No. 8 as fo].lews: Thc Suffolk Co~m/y Planning Commission will not nceept for cens.iderak, ion nor review any proposed Zoning ActJ. on, V.avJdrlCe, Special Pea_mit, or Subdivision Plat in any a~'ea affected by tho "'F~dal ~-A~k]ands Act" that is ceferred puusuant to Sections 1323 elusive, of the Suffolk County Charter un]ess the referral co~ tarns a copy of a ]_etker Ct-om the New York Stake Department of ~EnvJ_ronmontal Con'so}/vat~on skating that it has no obj~ct~on to the proiposed appl{catJ, on. Mr. W'ickhsm read Ici_for from Suffol. k Counl_y P]dnning C.~mmJ. ssion wi~h rogard to Edward Gilles for a proposed change of zone from "A" residence /o--~B/~~ ~3'{~[ness District. The Snfgolk Couuty PlannJ. ng Com~n~ssion O~1 October 3, ].973,cevie~.,ed i:he above captioned z()n[ng acti_on and after due sl:t~dy and clel. ib~-.ration disapproved this change of zone boca,]se of the [o].low~ ng : Southold Town Planning Board -16- October 24, 1973 1. It would result in the unwarranted further perpetuation of corm]lercial development along the county roadway detrimental to the safety and traffic carrying capacity of said facility; 2. There appears to be ample vacant business zoned land and retail shopping facilities in the locale; 3. It would tend to establish a precedent for further downzonings in the locale; 4. It constitutes the unwacranted extensive encroach- merit of com,,lercJal develo£m'~nt into a single fatally residence district. Mr. Wickham asked the Secretary to send a copy of New York State Department of Environmental C©nservation letter dated October 1, 1973, with regard to posting laws to each member of the Planning Board and to Chief Carl Cataldo. In discussing the Robert Casola subdivision at Orient, Hr. W~ckham ~eque.~_~d that it be referred to the Department of Itealth and the Soil and Water Conservation District. On motion of Mr. Wickham, seconded by Mr. Moi sa, it was RESOLVED that the m~nutes of the Planning Board me. et ing of October 4, 1973 be approved as corrected. Vote of the Roard: Raynor, Gr-abe. Ayes:- Messrs: W].ckham, Me'sa, On motion by Mr. Naynor, sccom]c-d by Mr. G~:nl>e, it was R!,]SOLVED that the Minor Subdivision proposal off WJ~]derman & G.ilowski as sublnitted by R~:hard Cron, Esq., be approw~d for hearing on i,lovem;~er 15, 1973. Vote of the Board: Ayes:-- mess}_s: W]ckham, [~oJ. sa, Raynor, G:cnbe. Southo]d Town Planning Board -17- October 24, 1973 On motion by Mr. Moisa, seconded by Mr. Wickhhm, it was RESOLVED that the preliminary map of Major Subdivision for Cinelli and }{ornwood as submitted by Richard Cron, Esq. shall be sent to the Suffolk County Planning Co~]n~ission for preliminary suggestions. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Moisa, Wickham, Raynor, G~ebe. Mr. Wickham stated that with regard to Cricket Point subdivision as submitted by Richard Cron, Es~.',']~ ~..~;J~ ~-ake it to the County for preliminary discuss].on; and would make every effort to set up a meeting with the Supervisor of the Town, State Environmental Commission, Appeals Board as soon as possible after E]ection Day. On motion by Mr. Wickham, seconded by Mr. Moisa, it was RESOLVED that the Soukhold Town Planning Board set 7:30 P.M., Thursday, November 15, 1973, at t}]e Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, for a public hearing on the question of final-approval of plat of property owe)ed by P. J. Ventures, entitled "L. ittle Neck Properties", consisting of a parcel of land situated at East Cutchogue, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:-- Messes: Wickham, Me,sa, I~aynor, Grebe. On motion by Mr. Moisa, s~.cond~d by Mr. Grebe, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set 7:45 P.M. (E.S.T.), Thursday, November 15, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, for a public hearing on thc ques~ ion of preli.mJnary approval (~f plat of pro[3erty owned by Donald Denis, W~llian~ W. l?sseks, a~d Bennett Stark, entitled "Inlet East }Jstates", consisting of a parcel et ]and situated at Mattituck, Town of Southold, New York. VoLe of the Board: Ayes:- ;dessrs: WicktDam, Grebe. Voting No: Mr. Henry Raynor Southold Town Planning Board -18- October 24, 1973 Mr. Henry Raynor said he did not approve of Lot 10 of the. Inlet East Estates subdivision. I am not at all enthusiastic about it. Mr. Wickham said that we are posting this for a public hearing but there are some things that we don't like about it. On motion by Mr. Raynor, seconded by Mr. Grebe, it was RESOLVED that Lhe next meeting of the Southold Town Planning Bodrd shall, be held at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, Nov'ember 15, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Wickham, Raynor, Moisa, G~*ebe. Mr. Wickham stated that wit}] regard to the statement by the Trus{-ees of Lhe Town e.f Southold in regard to reported infringement, I would like t_o entertain a motion that th~s Board support the Southold Town Trustees in their concern over the infringement of the Town rights under the Andros patent by the New York State Wetlands Act. On motion by Mr. Raynor, seconded by Mr. Moisa, it was RESOLVED that 'the Southold Town Planning Board support l:he Sou/hold Town Trustees in their concern w~th regard to infringement of Town rights-under the Andros patent by the New York State Wetlands Act. VoLe of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Wickham, Moisa, Raynor, Grebe. Mr. Wickham inform(_~d the Board that he J s writing to the Speaker of the New York Skate Assembly and to Mr. Ant}~ony S. Taormina, New York State D.E.C., that this Board finds itself in a difficult position with regaled to the State Wetlands Act, which became effective on September 1, ]973, and can not accept the authority of the State over some of our wetlands. Southold Town Planning Board -19- October 24, 1973 On motion by Mr. Grebe, seconded by Mr. Moisa, it was ~ESOI.VED that the Southold Town Planning Board regrets that, it can not accept, the New York State Wetlands Act which became effective on September 1, 1973, because of the fact that it fails to recognize those privileges grant,ed ko the Town under the Andros Patent. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Wickham, ~4oisa, Raynor, Grebe. On motion by Mr. Naynor, seconded by Mr. Moisa, it, was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the estimate for a Lend for the ro,~ds and drainage at E].[jah's Lane Estates, Mattifuck, a.s prepared and ~bmit. ted by [,.twrence M. Tuthil]., P.E. Vo[:e of the Koard: Ayes:- Messrs: P.{oisa, Raynor, Grebe, Wickham. Receipt, was noted of Proposed Regulat,ions, OctoL'er 10, 1973, PART 660, TIDAL WETI,ANDS - MORATORIUM PERMITS. On motion by Mr. Raynor, seconded by Mr. Moisa, it was RESOLVED that, npon advice of our ~_~gineer, the grade of the highw~ys at Elijah's Lane Estc:tes be caised in conformity with our rcgu].a~i~--w]~][~-~-call fo~ the center of t,he highway to be ~even or above the lot grade. In this case, we will allow the highway finished crown ko be not loss than six [nches (6") be]ow the average lot grade. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: W]ckham, Rayr~or, Grebe. Soukhold Town Planning Board -20- October 24, 1973 The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Marjo'~ie McDe~'mott, S~cretary John Wickham, ChairmAn PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS John Wlckham, Chairman Henry Molsa Alfred Grebe Henry Raynor Frank Coyle Soufhold Town Planning Boar_cl ~[JYHE]LD, k. ~., N. Y. ~97~ MINUTES TOWN PLANNING BOARD October 4, 1973 A regular meeting of hhe Southold Town Planning Board was held at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, Ochober 4, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: Henry Moisa, Vice Chairman; Henry Raynor, Frank Coyle, Alfred Grebe. Absent: John Wickham, State of New York Suffolk County Office of the Clerk of the / ss: / Town of Southold (Seal) This is to certify that I, Albert W. Richmond, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy of Southold Town Planning Board minutes - Oct. 4, 1973 with the original now on file in this office, and that the same is a correct and true transcript of such original .S..~..?..t..h...~..]:..~.d....?..~..~...n.~..~.]~...a..n...~..J:.n...g.~...~..~...a.z. ...m...i..n..u..~.e...s.....-.....O.~.t...°..b...e.~....4[.'.....]:...9..7..3. ................. and the whole thereof. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seaJ · · 14th A ril .75 of sa,d Town th,s ................................ day of ............. ~...~ .... 19 ........ Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, County of SuffolF,, N. Y. Southold Town Planning Board -2- October 4, 1973 Plat of property owned by Pebble Beach Realty, Inc., entitled Pebble Beach Realty Subdivision, consisting of a parcel of land situated at East Marion, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Now York, and bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northerly side of Main (State) Road adjoining the southeast corner of land of Rutkowski Estate; running thence northerly along the several lands of Rutkowski Estate, V~llage of Greenport, F.F. King the following courses and distances: (1) North 16° 25' 30" West 272.05 feet; (2) North 16° 40' 30" West 447.07 feet; (3) North 16° 23' 20" West 127.47 feet; (4) North 15° 28' West 102.95 feet; (5) North 15° 29' 30" West 310.56 feet; (6) North 16° ]6' West 260.73 feet; (7) North 16° 29' 20" West 295.93 feet; (8) North 16° 31' 30" West 266.33 feet; (9) North 16° 29' 10" West 167.12 feet; (10) South 69° 47' 10" West 542.88 feet; (!l) North 21° 46' 00" West 692.45 feet; (12) South 66° 28' 10" West 604.90feet; (13) No~[t~ 23° 22' 40" West 1365 feet to the Long Island Sound; thence northeasterly along the highwater mark of the Long Island Sound the following courses and distances: (1) North 38° 10' 40" Ea.~t 406.74 feet; (2) North 52° 02' 40" East 317.06 feet; (3) North 59° 36' 00" East 434.78 feet; (4) North 38° 09' 30" East 623.16 feet; (5) North 32° 44' 10" East 499.30 feet; (6) North 26° 50' 20" East 697.59 feet to ].and of Birten; thence southerly along said ].and the fo]low~ng courses and distances: (1) South 15° 18' 10" East 300.0 feet; (2) South 13° 54' 10" East 816.76 feet; (3) South 13° 31' 30" East 436.67 feet; (4) South 13° 26' 40" East 557.97 feet; (5) S.-ut.h 12° 41' 40" East 314.36 feet; (6) South 13° 40' 10" East 446.72 feet; (7) South 11° 47' East 126.63 feet; (8) South 13° 00' 20" East 132.76 f~et; (9) South ].3° 01' 50" East 505.25 feet; (1_0) South 13° 56' 20" East 200.0 feet; (11) South 15° 39' 30" East 200.09 feet; (12) South 13° 36' 40" East 262.01 feet; (13) South 13° 56' 20" East 285.00 feet; (14) South 12° 37' 40" East 153.04 feet; (15) South 15° 10' East 213.04 feet; (16) South 16° 14' East 90.07 feet; (17) S--uth 16° 35' 20" East 239.60 feet; (18) South 72° 25' ]0" West 144.42 feet; (19) South 19° 47' 10" East 370.39 feet to the northerly sJde of Main Road, thence westerly along the northerly side of ~ain Road the following courses and distances: (1) South 56° 13' 40" West 255.0 Coot; (2) South 58° 06' ]0" West 339.0 feet; (3) on a curve bearing to the right having a radius of 812 feet a distance of ].20.86 feet to the southeast corner of land of Rutko%.~ski l~state the point or place of BEGINNING. Mr. Raynor also read the affidavits of p~blication in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman and the Suffolk Ti~es. ~4r. Raynor read letter receiw~d from Ray~uond C. Dean, Su[~,er]nhendent of I{ighways, as follows: Southold Town Planning Board -3- October 4, 1973 "I have inspected the plot plan and lot sketch layout of Pebble Beach Realty Subdivision, East Marion, New York, and approve of the road ends." Mr. Raynor also read letter received from the Suffolk County Department of Planning dated August 13, 1973, as follows: "Re: Preliminary Map of Pebble Beach Realty, East Harion Dear Mr. Wickham: In accordance with your request the staff of the department has considered the above captioned proposed subdivision. As brought out in the meeting with you and other n~cll~bers of the town planning board and the represen[~atives of the developer, the following points require serious consideration. 1. Final arrangement of the storm water drainage system; particularly at the state highway. 2. Reconsideration of lot line arrangement Jn certain areas. 3. Providing continuit~ to the reserved (buffer) areas. 4. Certain road intersections will require redesign. 5. The alignment of the road parallel to the shoreline should be restudied and tied into the pr'operty lines at each end. 6. No storm water should be permitted to flow over the edge of ~he bluff and down its face. 7. Can'eful control of clearing and grading on shorefront ].ets should be exercised. Restri.ctions should be placed upon lot owners of shore- front lots to prevent them from destroying the vegetation on the face of the bluff and from creating a multitide of paths and trails down the face of the bluff. 9. The setback from the bluff appears satisfactory. The sLaffi feels that the proposed use of the cluster concept for this tract is commendable and will do much Lo preserve the amenities of the town as well as preserving open space for use of the future residents of the tract. Southold Town Planning Board -4- October 4, 1973 Of course you realize that the comments of staff given above and at the meeting are only advisory and in no way do they constitute a review. When this map is in the final stage of preparation, it should be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Co~]mlission for review pursuant to Section 1333 of the County Charter. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning By Charlcs G. Lind Subdivi. sion Review Section" MR. HENRY MOISA, Vice Chairman: We will now open the hearing to anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this subdivision. MRS. JEAN TIEDKE: What about questions, when are they heard? Where and what type of sewer treatment would it be? RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: There will be a cesspool. This is based on a cluster concept. What you have here is that approximately 50% of the property is left over; meadows, buffer areas, beach area, bluff line. MRS. LORRAINE TERRY: What is the setback from the top of the bluff? MR. BRUER: 100 feet. MRS. TERRY: I think you answered me the last time we were here that 40 acres are presently being farmed and 50 acres are being left in open space. MR. BRUER: The map shows 72.76 acres of open space. It would probably be a little more ~han that. This map is being submitted after many meetings with this Board, the County Planning Board, and many County officials, and is in conformity with the present cluster ordinance. This is a preliminary hearing. MR. RAYNOR: We have not as yet received word back from the County. MR. MOISA: Do you have tes~ wells? Southold Town Planning Board -5- October 4, 1973 MR. BRUER: I believe it was felt that we had enough makerial for a preliminary hearing. MR. MOISA: tested. MR. BRUER: MR. MOISA: is concerned. MRS. TERRY: Water? MR. BRUER: We try to get developers to get the water Ih will be Greenport Waker. There won't be any problems as far as water Does this property directly adjoin Greenport Yes . MRS. TIEDKE: I am curious as to why more of your open space is wooded land. This is a park for residents; it's not to be dedicated to the Town nor will the roads be dedicated to the Town. MR. RAYNOR: That is the option of the developer. LEFFERTS EDSON, ESQ.: It's not a part of this hearing. MR. ROBERT De~tARIA: I think what she is concerned with is the nature of the organization to maintain the roads and open space. LEFFERTS EDSON, ESQ.: It's spelled out in the Ordinance. MR. DeMARIA: Yes, it is spelled out in the Ordinance but I think we would be curious to know, in this project, what arrangements are being made. MR. BRUER: The Ordinance is specific as to what must be done ii1 the case of private property. MR. RAYNOR: If you are concerned with open space being kept open, the subdivider has agreed to declare and restrict covenants in perpetuity. MR. BRUER: If the concern is about maintenance of open space, whether or not that land would be included or released so it can be further divided, the developer is responsible for developing, the mechanics for following up, and if he is not wLth~n the law, the Town has to turn him down. MR. MOISA: This will be brought up before a final hearing. It will be discussed before the Planning Board gives its final approval. Southold Town Planning Board -6- October 4, 1973 MRS. JEAN TIEDTKE: It is also possible at some future date that the Ordinance might be declared illegal. MR. BRUER: You are going beyond the scope of the hearing. MR. RAYNOR: If one section of our Ordinance is considered null and void, it does not declare the rest of the Ordinance illegal. MR. DeliRIA: I understand that there is a fairly extensive Countywide water study being made and I wonder whether any decision is going to be delayed until the County water study is made. It is being made because the area may become over- developed. It seems to me it might be premature to make a major decision before the study is completed. MR. RAYNOR: This plan of an overall study is a considerable length of time away. There is the question of legality as to how long you may hold something like ~his in abeyance. MRS. TIEDTKE: At one time there was some discuss~.on about erosion. MR. RAYNOR: We had a special meeting with the Suffolk County Department of Planning on this, and a report from the Soil and Water Conservation District. MR. MOISA: I believe this has to be sent to the State Environmental Council in Stony Brook. Any parcel of land within 300 feet of any wetland has to have their approval. MRS. TIEDTKE: This park area, for your association, that's where the natural break in the bluff is. How big is that park area? MR. JOSEPH DONOVAN: It's somewhat a little over ~wo acres; it's closer to three. MRS. TIEDTKE: They are approximately half acre lots then. MR. DeMARIA: If the formula is correct, we take a total parcel and subtract 20% for roads. You have to subtract 33 acres from 166 and if you divide that by two, if some of ~hem are larger then some of them have to be smaller. MR. RAYNOR: On the formula we have worked on, you would base it on 100 acres of property. MR. MOISA: Are there any more questions? I believe this has been gone over for a good long time. Southold Town Planning Board -7- October 4, 1973 MRS. TERRY: This County water study that is in process, is it still on the drawing boards or have they started? MR. RAYNOR: They have startcd research but it is still a very tangible thing. MRS. TIEDTKE: Does the Town have its own water study? MR. RAYNOR: We have two very workable studies. MRS. TIEDTKE: Ail we have is east of Mattituck because the next water starts west and goes west. MRS. TERRY: It doesn't matter whether you are following it from and going to. MR. HENRY MOISA, Vice Chairman: We will now ask if anyone present wishes 5o speak in favor of this subdivision. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: I would like to speak in behalf of the Pebble Beach Realty subdivision. Let me say very briefly that this map has been submitted after many conferences and meetings with various agents of the County. It's in accordance with many of the suggestions of many of the agencies of the County, and we think it is in accordance with the Ordinance and should be granted preliminary approval at this time. I think.it has been done with great thought. MR. DeMARIA: I would like to ask a question. Are there ways in which you think a project of this sort would be detrimental to this conununity? MR. BRUER: I don't think it is a germane qucstion. I think it is a very well thought out plan; it is in accordance with [he Ordinance. MRS. TIEDTKE: The public is entitled to somehhing too. MR. BRUER: It is a brand new Ordinance witl~ the public in mind and this conforms to it. MRS. TIED'£'KE: What is your thought about hhe period of time in which it would be done? Would it be done in sections? MR. BRUER: It will not be done in a particular period of time. MR. OTTO UIIL: Are people going to buy a lot and build their own homes? MR. BRUER: Yes. Southold Town Planning Board -8- October 4, 1973 MR. HENRY MOISA, Vice Chairman: Does anyone else wish to speak? Hearing no answer, I will declare the hearing on Pebble Beach Realty Subdivision closed. MR. HENRY MOISA, Vice Chairman: I will call the meeting to order on the hearing for preliminary approval of map of property known as East Hill - Section I. Mr. Henry Raynor read the legal notice of hearing as follows: Plat of propcrty owned by John Pontino, entitled East Hill - Section I, consisting of a parcel of land situate, lying and being at Peconic, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, bounded and described as fo].lows: BEGINNING at a point on the westerly line of Indian Neck Lane where it intersects with the southerly line of Leslie's Road; running thence along the said westerly line of Indian Neck Lane in a southerly direction a distance of 1127.00 feet to land now or formerly of Anton Kull in a southwesterly direction a distance of 420.0 feet; running thence along other land of John Pontino on a course at right angles to the said southerly line of Leslie's Road a distance of 170.00 feet; running thence still along the said other land of John Pontino in a northeasterly direction and parallel to the ~a~d southerly line of Leslie's Road a distance of 50.00 feet; running thence still along said other land of John Pontino in a northwesterly direction and at right angles to the said southerly line of Leslie's Road a distance of 365.00 feet to the said southerly line of Leslie's Road; running thence northeasterly along the said southerly line of Leslie's Road a distance of 985.00 feet to the point of intersection with the westerly line of Indian Neck Lane at the point or place of BEGINNING. During the reading of the above legal notice an amendment was made correcting the distance of 1127.00 feet to land now or formerly of Anton Kull to read "827.00 feet" to land now or formerly of Anton Kull. Mr. Henry Raynor also read the proofs of publication in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman and the Suffolk Times. Southold Town Planning Board -9- October 4, 1973 Mr. Raynor read letter received from the Superintendent of Highways, dated June 6, 1973, as follows: "I have inspected the Preliminary Subdivision Plan Map of John Pontino and disapprove. There is no drainage provision and a Preliminary Profile was not included." MR. RAYNOR: He disapproves of drainage provisions and a preliminary profile is not in his office. RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: has nothing to do with it. that time. With respect to Section I it really There was no Section I and II at MR. ItENRY MOISA: There will have to be a submi_ssion on Section I. MR. BRUER: At the time of the final hearing we will have Health Department approval stamped on the map. I understand that I will need a stamp from the Board of Health, and the approval of the Superintendent of Highways. I will be glad to make a copy of the Health Department report. MR. HENRY MOISA, Vice Chairman: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this proposed subdivision? There was no response.) MR. MOISA: Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this proposed subdivision? MR. BRUER: I believe the purpose of preliminal approval is to have a map submitted in accordance with the Ordinance. I w~ll submit the Health Department test [omorrow and in accordance with the talk we had at the last meeting, we will number Section II - 8, 9, 10, 11, etc. and there will be no further subdivision. We will submit a map to the Superin- tendent of Highways for his recommendations. MR. IlENRY MOISA, Vice Chairman: I will now declare khis hearing closed. Southold Town Planning Board -10- October 4, 1973 Mr. Donald A. Denis, Mr. Alden Young, and William W. Esseks, Esq. came before the board in regard to Inlet East Estates at Mattituck. Mr. Young said that Mr. Charles R. Barnett, District Conservationist, had sent a couple of co~nents. In this particular case the Superintendent of Highways referred it to Charles Barnett. Referring to the map, Mr. Young said there was a grass area that came over the recharge area and here is the way we had to change it. There is a revision. Mr. Raynor said that Mr. Barnett is asking for a 24" riser. Mr. Young said that the water drops down through a pipe in case of large storms. We have followed along with Mr. Barnett's suggestions. The last thing was sod area. This was revised; everything was incorporated on this map. Mr. Esseks sa~d that he sent a map to the Superintendent of Highways the same day. Mr. Esseks asked if the Board could set up a preliminary hearing. Mr. Coyle said that weD%ould have all the papers in for a preliminary hearing. Mr. Raynor suggested that they take the initiative and said that they are going to have to go through Stouy Brook. Mr. Young asked why they should go through Stony Brook as they are not backing into wetlands. Mr. Raynor said that any subdivision within 300 feet of wetlands should be reviewed by this body. Mr. Esseks said that as soon as the Planning Board gets word from Mr. Dean, the Superintendent of Highways, I hope that you will put us down for a public hearing. When could it be? Mr. Raynor said it would probably be close to a month. Mr. Esseks said that Mr. Dean has had the plan for three or four weeks. Mr. Raynor said that if Mr. Dean is happy with it, there is no reason why we can't go for a hearing. Mr. Raynor said that the Planning Board would need 12 copies of ]nap showing proposed new drainage. Mr. Moisa said that the Board has to have 12 copies, the latest submission. Mr. Esseks said that he had sent 12 copies of everything. Mr. Raynor said that we need details of drainage and profiles. Messrs: Richard Lark, Esq., Charles Price, and Alden Young came before the Board in regard to Bruce Norris Morea Weta snbdivision. Mr. Lark said there are two applications before the Board; one relates ho cluster subdivision, and the other is for a recormnendation of change of zone. It was thought that both applications should be put in as opposed to just asking for multiple zone. So, the residential subdivision would be put on the balance of the property and the multiple w©nld be on the 27 acre piece, plus the 10 acre piece which we have set aside for sewage. Basically, the discussion tonight will center around approval of change of zone and for tentative approval of the subdivis{on plat. Southold Town Planning Board -11- October 4, 1973 Mr. Raynor asked for an overall view of the Norris ho].dings. Mr. Lark, referring to map, pointed out New Suffolk Avenue and Maratooka Lake and said that east of the property is Mattituck Airport which is partially zoned Industrial although the airport, itself, is still "A" Residential. Where the hatch marks are is the bigger portion, 27 acres, that we are requesting be changed to "M" zoning and that is where the units you see here will be built. In regard to the 10 acre piece hooked to it, the Town Attorney has interpreted that since we have to put in a sewer treatment plant, it really is an accessory to multiple zone, and not rcsidential zone. That explains this piece being proposed as "M" down here because 5 acres are being set aside for sewage. The balance is for residential subdivision. Mr. Norris willl retain approxi= mately 15 acres where he now has his housing complex which is a swimming pool, tennis courts, ~and other amenities. He is also retaining about 15 feet on the front of that. Are ~here any questions so far as to where it is and what is intended? 10.9 acres and 27.6 acres is ~he ~_otal acreage of multiple. It will work out to 132 units which is in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. That figures out to a density of 4.6 units that is based only on the 27.6 acres. I~ would be less if you figured the 10 acre piece. On the residential subdivision which is exclusive of 5 acres for sewage, it computes out to 24.5 acres. We used a formula to come out with 21 units. That figures out on an acreage basis .85 less than one unit per acre. The 5 acres for sewage was not computed in ~his or in the 4.6. We would not be asking for multiple except that the Town Attorney says i% is an accessory use for this. It would even drive the density down lower if you added the 5 acres. We did not because in the cluster concept both~these portions here will be zoned multiple. This will be a filed map and it's computed to get 21 units, not by choice but by the legality of the sewage treatment section. We had a choice to make so 132 units was selected. It was uot contemplated in the original study but the Board of Health wants 5 acres set aside flor nothing but sewage treatment. After consulting with Mr. I.~orris we fLnd it does provide an additional buffer for his estate. Al/hough 5 acres will be set aside only the center will be used for sewage. The rest will be planters and drainage area. Mr. Young said that when you add the 100 feet from the beds and the ]00 feet where the beds would be, you come up with 5 acres. Mr. Raynor asked if there would be any question as to that 100 feet. Mr. Young sa~d that 100 fee~ will be residential. Southold Town Planning Board -12- October 4, 1973 Referring to the map, Mr. Lark said that the little jog on the land on proposed "M" zone is where the proposed water site will go. Mr. Tasker wanted the zoning to be multiple. We carried that down. There will be a common entrance for "A" and "M". That explains why the line is drawn that way as you see it. The "M" zone, itself, is presented here with the plans that you have and Lhis was laid out with topography in mind, and it does conform to existing zoning. I also have a sketch plan of what the multiple units will look like. In the lower portion is the elevation and in the upper portion is the basic floor plan layout. Mr. Price has talked to the architect more than I have. To avoid monotony the cluster is inter- changeable. Mr. Raynor noted that the inner court has a wall. Mr. Price said that this is a low wall like an inner court wall. It's a Japanese type garden. This is an Oregon architect, and they do have a lot of ~_hings like that out there. Mr. Lark said the architect has the square footage labelled A through D. "A" has 982 sq. ft.; "B" has 1,458 sq. ft.; "C" has 1,007 sq. ft.; and "D" has 1,620 sq. ft. "D" has an extra bedroom. Two car garages are contemplated and that's another 1,400 sq. ft. In the condominiums they will be buying air space which will be living space and also a court yard. He has not computed that in. He kept it separate. Mr. Lefkowitz wants it separate. The air space you are buying would run from 1500 sq. ft. to 2300 sq. ft. He did not show the garage in the living area. It will be a combination of concrete and wood. That is what they contemplate building there. He can vary these units to get different front facades. Mr. Young said you will not have that straight barracks type look. In the central portion of the condominiums they contemplate to make club house, recreation, and pool. There is no access to the Bay. There is no right of way to the Bay. This is a contained type situation. Mr. Raynor said this will have to go to the County because of its proximity to the airport. Mr. Young said that he took the liberty of sending it to Charles Lind. I have presented it to them except for additional in forma- tion in Bulletin #8. Mr. Raynor sa~d that in regard to the drainage situation you are running into quite a depression in this area. Mr. Young said this is going to be filled. Mr. Lark said that what Mr. Raynor is referring to is the general flow from the street to the Bay but in this area there is a pocket. Mr. Young repeated that it has to be filled. This drainage area is large enough based on formulas of 5" rainfall. If you want 6" we can a~range that. Southold Town Planning Board -13- October 4, 1973 Mr. Lark said that since there is a conm]on roof line, one of the things they are contemplating is dry wells. It also allows for a private road concept because the drainage problem won't be as great if we can drain the roads and the driveways. (Referring to map) We have reserved this corner piece here for an additional building for maintenance, storage of lawn mowers, etc. There is some room here to construct a recharge basin. Mr. Lark pointed out on the map other locations for recharge basins. The pipe for overflow has not been determined yet. When they start matching everything up for floor plans, it will be done. Mr. Moisa said that the road committee will give final approval. Actually ybu are asking for a change of zone now. Mr. Raynor said that we are still going to look for a turn-around. Mr. Lark said that with the granting of a change of zone, there would be filed with the Town Attorney a declaration of covenants; and the other thing will be the construction of one family detached dwellings so there will be covenants on here that we can't put on multiple units. The only reason we are asking is as accessory use. We came to the conclusion we would leave 5 acres out of all computations, 4.6 is less, I am using 5 acres for the cluster concept. Mr. Ranor said that as he looks at tho map he finds that they have relocated this road. Mr. Price said that he wanted ~o divide the road and have trees lined up down the middle but it would not work. Both roads will remain and all the trees will remain. We are not taking any trees out except for what we have to do to make a drive. Mr. Raynor said that in looking at the intersection, he feels that will have to have an uncluttered view. Mr. Price said that it just has shrubs and a hedge. Mr. Lark said that Mr. Norris wanted to retain that entranceway. Mrs. Jean Tiedtke looked at the map and asked if this road is going to be straightened out. Mr. Raynor said yes, that it would cut across Cedric Wickham's property. Mr. Lark said the upper left will be taken out. He said that Camp Mineola Road is impassable. We have no co~]trol over the 25 feet going into the property line so we moved back and will reserve the additional. This could be widened out into a 50 foot road at a later date. Some day, if this property is ever developed, it would just require widening. We don't intend to do it at the present time. There has been a dispute as to what people to the south have a right of way. Some have r~ghts and some have ~ot. Southold Town Planning Board -14- October 4, 1973 Mr. Lark said that they also have a sketch plan that Mr. Young has prepared for the proposed cluster. The property runs right up to Marratooka~ Rather than put the homes on there, it is contemplated that this will be considered part of the park and playground area. You have to do something with land so this will be a filed map and we have computed this into park and playground. (referring to map) There is a planting area here, park and playground; and here there are three areas. Rather than make it into a lot, we did this. Mr. Norris wants to keep that entranceway that he has. It will also break this up quite a bit and still allow space for the lot here. Mr. Raynor asked if they would be willing to tie this up ~n perpetuity. Mr. Lark said "Yes" 'fhis will not go with the condominiums; it's strictly a residential subdivision. Mrs. Tiedtke commented that there won't be anything left for the public around here. Mr. Lark said that this is privately held now; the people who live on this lake want to keep it private. It will just be left the way it is. Mr. Lark said that Mr. Norris, Mr. Price and Mr. Young decided on an average of about 30,000 sq. ft. per lot with water and sewage. This will also participate in the sewage system and the water system. Mr. Raynor stated that those lots will have to be covenanted that there may be no further subdivision. Mr. Price said that they did not want to split up the old house and the old barns. We are going to leave them. Mr. Moisa said that we will ask for a legal instrument. Mr. Lark said that the reason why they were stuck was that they wanted to leave the house and the barns. The buildings are quite large. We would agree that there should be no subdivision in the future. That's the intent. Mr. Norris felt quite strong about leaving them because that is the entrance to his place. Mr. Moisa asked if there were any other questions and said that the Planning Board would give it consideration later on. Mr. Lark said he would appreciate a speedy consideration. The details have to be worked in; the recharge area will have to be worked out and the road area will have to be laid out. Mr. Moisa suggested that it would be advisable to have Mr. Raymond Dean look at the proposal. Mr. Young said that they just wanted to know if the Board liked the concept and if it would be possible to do it. Mr. Lark said that the way the contour lays out, it is feasible to make a 50 foot road. We can't do that until we get sketch plan approval from you. This is strictly a sketch plan. At a preliminary hearing you would have Mr. Dean's recommendation. At this time, Mr. Dean doesn't have enough detail because he doesn't have a profile. Southold Town Planning Board -15- October 4, 1973 Mr. ~a-l-~ T.uce appeared before the Planning Board with a map of a minor subdivision at Cutchogue. The Board decided that they would need time for further review. Mr. Henry Moisa read lettcr received from Mr. R. W. Gillispie, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Appeals, dated July 24, 1973, as follows: "Evelyn Swisky, Bayview Road, Southold, New York, appeared before the Board of Appeals at 9:00 P.M., July 19, 1973, requesting a variance for permission to divide property with less than required area and frontage, and for approval of access on property located on the north side of Bayview Road, $outhold. Mrs. Swisky owns approximately 2 1/2 acres which includes the portion of property on which her residence is located. The remainder of the property runs back to a creek which has been dredged. Mrs. Swisky's application requested that she be permitted to make three lots of the frontage on this creek with an access road from Bayview Road along her west property line. We advised Mrs. Swisky that she would not be permitted to create or sell lots consisting of less than 40,000 sq. ft. }{owever, if the Planning Board is willing to create two lots to the rear of Mrs. Swisky's residence property, the Board of Appeals would grant a variance on the remainder of the property, consisting of approximately 28,000 sq. ft., on which her residence is located. The Board of Appeals feels it would be reasonable to grant a variance on Mrs. Swisky's residence lo~, permitting this lot to be approximately 28,000 sq. ft., as it is larger than the adjoining lot to the east. We suggested to Mrs. Swisky that she refer this matter to the Planning Board, and have postponed our decision until we have your recommendations." Mr. Henry Moisa said that the Planning Board had looked at this property and felt it was a reason]able request. Southold Town Planning Board -16- October 4, 1973 On motion by Mr. Raynor, seconded by Mr. Coyle, it was RESOLVED that the Planning Board grant two lots on the rear of the property of Evelyn Swisky, facing the creek. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Raynor, Moisa, Coyle, Grebe. A letter was received from Mr. Raymond C. Dean dated October 1, 1973, Re: Woodhollow Properties- Orient by the Sea, as follows: "The Southold Town Highway Committee and myself have agreed to the area set aside for a recharge bas,n, instead of our suggestion of lot ~64 as recommended in our letter of August 8, 1973." The Secretary will send a copy of the above letter to Mr. William E. deBruin, Jr., Froelich & Mahony, Mineola, New York, counsel for Woodhollow Properties. On motion by Mr. Moisa, seconded by Mr. Coyle, it was RESOLVED that the next meeting of the Planning Board will be held on October 24, 1973, at 7:30 P.M., Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Moisa, Coyle, Raynor, Grebe. A letter dated October 9, 1973 was received from Gary Olsen, Esq. requesting an informal discussion of the proposals of Leisure Greens, Inc. The Board suggested that he could come before the Board at their next meeting. Two letters dated October 1, 1973, were received from Mr. Charles Barnett, District Conservationist; one in regard to Greenfields at Southold; and one in regard to John Fellinger-Ihar. Southold Town Planning Board -17- October 4, 1973 On motion of Mr. Moisa, seconded by Mr. Coyle, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the minutes of August 28, 1973, September 4, 1973, and September 18, 1973. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Raynor, Coyle, Moisa, Grebe. On motion by Mr. Coyle, seconded by Mr. Grebe, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant preliminary approval to Pebble Beach Realty Subdivision located at East Marion, Town of Southold. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Moisa, Raynor, Grebe, Coyle. On motion by Mr. Raynor, seconded by Mr. Coyle, i% was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant preliminary approval to the John Pontino subdivision, East Hill, Section I, at Peconic, Town of Southold. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Moisa, Raynor, Grebe, Coyle. The Southold Town Planning Board received from the Southold Town Board the original petition of Bruce A. Norris, relative to a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District on certain real property situated at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, together with the instructions to prepare a report defining the conditions contained therein. This property is situated at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Southold Town Planning Board -18- October 4, 1973 BEGINNING at a point formed by the intersection of the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue with the division line between the lands of George Brooks and of Bruce Norris and running thence from said point of beginning N. 77° 02' 20" E. along the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue 78.44 feet; thence southwesterly, southerly, westerly, and again southerly through the land of Bruce Norris the following courses and distances: (1) On a curve to the left with a radius of 36.15 feet for a distance of 43.75 feet; (2) S. 7° 42' 00" W. 218.10 feet; (3) S. 7° 30' 20" W. 349.92 feet; (4) N. 82° 29' 40" W. 50.00 feet; (5) S. 7° 30' 20" W. 845.96 feet; (6) S. 7° 31' 10" E. 423.00 feet to the northeast corner of the land of Frank J0 Murphy, (the point of beginning of parcel no. two hereinafter dewcribed); thence N. 86° 47' 40" West along the lands of Frank J. Murphy and of Laurence P. Reeve 809.45 feet to the easterly line of Reeve Avenue, also known as Camp Mineola ROAD; thence northerly along the easterly line of Reeve Avenue the following courses and distances: (1) N. 7° 07' 00 E. 667.65 feet; (2) N. 7° 32' 00" E. 519.57 feet; (3) N. 16° 07' 00" E. 550.85 feet to the southwest corner of the land of Vera Cichanowicz; thence easterly and northerly along the lands of Vera Cichanowicz, of Alice Dove, of Alberta Reeve and of George Brooks the following courses and dj. stances: (1) S. 76° 27' 30" E. 312.78 feet; (2) S. 77° 45' 30" E. 91.78 feet; (3) S. 77° 53' 20" E. 96.70 feet; (4) S. 73° 38' 30" E. 121.88 feet; (5) N. 7° 42' 00" E. 224.34 feet to the point or place of beginning, containing an area of 27.683 acres. PARCEL NO. 2 - BEGINNING at the northeast corner of the land of Frank J. Murphy and running thence from said point of beginning northerly, easterly, southerly and westerly through the land of Bruce Norris the following courses and distances (1) N. 7° 31' 10" W. 183.56 feet; (2) N. 82° 28' 50" E. 450.89 feet; (3) S. 0° 47' 40" W. 106.56 feet; (4) S. 7" 01' 50" E. 994.46 feet; (5) S. 82° 27' 50" W. 426.73 feet to a point in the easterly line of the land of Thornton E. Smith; thence N. 7° 32' 10" W. along the lands of T-ornton E. Smith, of Matilda S. Haberman, Appolonia Kirchgessner, of Joseph Peters, and of Frank J. Murphy 916.44 feet Lo the point or place of beginning containing an area of 10.915 acres. The Planning Board discussed this change of zone. On motion by Mr. Raynor, seconded by Mr. Grebe, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board reconunend this change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural Southold Town Planning Board -19- October 4, 1973 District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District on Parcels One and Two. It is the opinion of the Southold Town Planning Board that this proposed change of zone should be approved because it is in compliance with the Town Development Plan. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Moisa, Coyle, Raynor, Grebe. On motion of Mr. Moisa, scconded by Mr. Raynor, it was RESOLVED that the Planning Board accept the sketch plan of the Norris cluster development and approve the ~i%o plan of Momo Weta Estates. .~'~FC.H Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Moisa, Raynor, Coyle, Grebe. On motion by Mr. Raynor, seconded by Mr. Grebe, it was RESOLVED that the Planning Board send the A. W. Albertson change of zone request to the New York State Conservation Commission for study and a report. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Moisa, Raynor, Coyle, Grebe. Mr. Howard Terry, Building Inspector, sent a message to the Planning Board with regard to the developers of Laurel Country Estates granting verbal beach rights. The Planning Board asked ~he Secretary to refer all mater~al relating to this matter to Mr. Robert Tasker, Town Attorney. Southold Town Planning Board -20- October 4, 1973 In an informal discussion, Mr. Henry Moisa said that a neighbor had called him with reference to curbing. SHe owns a piece of property that goes into Petty's Bite and there is no curb cut. None of the lots have a curb cut because it isn't known where people are going to put their garages. I told her she would have to chop it out or get in touch with the Highway Committee. Mr. Grebe said that one of the houses down at the Fort - a brick house- is owned by a man who wants to sell half of it. Mr. Moisa said their attorneys would have to figure ~hat one out. Mr. Raynor said that he will have to try to get a variance. Mr. Grebe said that it was an Army house, a two family house. Mr. Moisa said that he didn't think anyone could stop a person from buying into a condomin- ium. Mr. Grebe said that the ownership is in one name and they want to sell half. Mrs. Tiedtke said that this is done in many cities. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Marjorie McDermott, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board 'J6hn Wickham, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board SDUTHIZILD, L. I., N. Y. 11971 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS John Wlckham, Chairman Henry Molsa Alfred Grebe Henry RaynoP Frank Coyle MINUTES SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD September 18, 1973 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board was held at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, September 18, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: John Wickham, Chairman; Henry Moisa, Vice Chairman; Henry Raynor; Frank Coyle. State of New York ] I Suffolk County Office of the Clerk of the i ss: / Town of Southold (Seal) This is to certify that I, Albert W. Richmond, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy af $ 0.4 ~b..o..];...8....T..o.~p....~!..a. ~.~ j,n..g...~.qa.: d... min.~t, ~.~.....-... $.ep.t, .... 3,.8. ..... L 9.; with the original now on file in this office, and that the same is a correct and true transcript of such original .S...°.?..~.h..°...]:.c]....~.9..~...q..~..]:.a..g.P...L..q.cJ...~.9~.: m..¢.~R..~..e.~....Z....S...e.P.E.e.?..b..e...r.....Z.~.'....?:.~].3. .............. and the whole thereof. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal 14th A riL 75 of said Town this ................................ day of .......... ~;e..~..-Jr.:/~.... 19 ........ Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, County of Suffoll~, N. Y. Southold Town Planning Board -2- September 18, 1973 1. Plat of property owned by Joseph Saland, entitled "Elijah's Lane Estates, Section I", consisting of a parcel of land situated at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the point formed by the intersection of the southerly line of the Long Island Rail Road and the westerly line of Elijah's Lane and running thence from said point of beginning South 42° 38' 38" E. along the wcsterly line of Elijah's Lane 3177.62 feet to the northerly line of the land of Maston; thence westerly and southerly along the land of Maston the following courses and distances: (1) South 53° 01' 22" West 132.50 feet; (2) South 42° 38' 38" East 82.50 feet to the northerly line of land of Martin Filla and running thence westerly and southerly along the land of Martin Filla in the following courses and distances: (1) South 53° 01' 22" West 343.11 feet; (2) South 41° 21' 38" East 71.47 feet to the northeast corner of land of Neville and running thence westerly and southerly along the land of Neville the following courses and distances: (1) South 56° 15' 52" West 22.58 feet; (2) South 50° 06' 02" West 82.53 feet; (3) South 76~ 53' 22" West 49.42 feet; (4) South 21° 49' 38" East 125.00 feet to the northerly line of Main Road and running thence South 76° 53' 22" West along the northerly line of Main Road 50.58 feet to the land now or formerly Southold Town Planning Board -3- September 18, 1973 of Bergen and running thence northerly and westerly along the land now or formerly of Bergen the follow- ing courses and distances: (1) North 21° 49' 38" West 222.97 feet; (2) South 62? 15' 22" West 234.55 feet to %he easterly line of the land of Agnes Grabowski and running thence North 42° 30' 38" West along the easterly line of land of Agnes Grabowski 98.52 feet to the southerly line of land of Elijah's Lane Estates the following courses and distances: (1) North 47° 21' 22" East 276.57 feet; (2) on a curve to the left having a radius of 75.00 feet for a dis- tance of 92.32 feet;' (3) North 47° 21' 22" East 169.19 feet; (4) North 42° 38' 38" West 50.00 feet; (5) North 47° 21' 22" East 75.38 feet; (6) North 42° 14' 38" West 2955.21 feet to the southerly line of Long Island Railroad and running thence North 42° 11' 52" East along the southerly line of Long Island Railroad 250.00 feet to the point of place of BEGINNING. Containing 21.930 acres. Any person desiring to be heard should appear on the above matter at the time and place above specified. Dated: September 7, 1973 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD JOHN WICKHAM, CHAIRMAN PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, SEPTEMBER 13, 1973, and FORWARD (8) AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK. Southold Town Planning Board -4- September 18, 1973 Copies mailed to the following on September 7, 1973 The Long Island Traveler-Magtituck Watchman The Suffolk Weekly Times Elijah's Lane Estates - Joseph Saland Syloret Estates - Lorraine Hochman Oregon View Estates a/c Gary Olsen Sleepy Hollow a/c Gary Olsen Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia THE CHAIRMAN: We have a letter in the file from Mr. Robert Jewell of the Department of ttealth which reads as follows: Aug. 29, 1973 "Re. Proposed subdivision of Elijah Assoc., Mattituck This office is in receipt of the well certificates and water analyses for the three test wells located in the above referenced subdivision. Please be advised that the results are within the limits of the drinking water limits, and are therefore approved. The test holes were inspected in June of 1973 and were also favorable. Since there appears to be no problem with the sewage disposal and water supply systems, you may proceed to prepare the final plats for approval from this office. Should you have any further questions please contact this office." THE CHAIRMAN: We have also had a report from Mr. Charles Barnett of the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District. This has been discussed by this Board and the developers and the recon~endations have been, in general, adopted. THE CHAIRMAN: The affidavit of disclosure indicates that the only persons having an interest in the subject real property are as follows: Alex Kupferstein, 117 Arrandale Rd., Rockville Center, New York; Barbara Kupfer residing at 42 Indian Trail, Woodbridge, Connecticut; Earl Kupferstein residing at 280 Cornwall Road, Glen Rock, New Jersey; and Martin Harmon residing at 2055 Center Avenue, Fort Lee, New Jersey, Owners; Martin Filla, residing at Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, New York, First Mortgagee; Southold Town Planning Board -5- September 18, 1973 Richard Korngold and Helena Korngold, his wife, residing at 195-33 39th Avenue, Flushing, New York; Karl Blumenfeld and Blanka Blumenfeld, his wife, both residing at 5331 206th Street, Bayside, New York; John Fellinger-Ihar and Olivia Fellinger-Ihar, his wife, both residing at 20 East 74th Street, New York; Ruth Engel, residing at Main Road, Mattituck, New York; Edward Sussman and Lillian Sussman, his wife, both residing at 223-23 56th Street, Bayside, New York; Rhoda Epstein, residing at 91 Laurel Place, Bridgeport, Connecticut; and Inland Homes, Inc., a domestic corporation having its principal place of business at 432 Middle Country Road, Selden, New York, whose principals are Kcnneth Thurber, Jr., residing at Jacobs Lane, Wading River, New York, and Robert E. Hiltz, residing at Levon Lane, Miller Place, New York; undisclosed contract vendees; and That attached hereto and made a part hereof is a legal description of the subject premises; and That none of the foregoing names of persons or corpora- tions are employees of the Township of Southold, County of Suffolk or State of New York. (Signed) Joseph Saland (Notarized)June 20, 1973" THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak in opposition to this subdivision? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak in favor of this subdivision? MR. JOSEPH SALAND: We think we are going to make a subdivision that we can be proud of, and the Town of Southold will be proud of it. THE CItAIRMAN: Is this in the form of a joint venture? MR. SALAND: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: I would like the record to show that the names of owners, as previously read, take the form of a joint venture. THE CHAIRMAN: If no one else wishes to speak in behalf of this application, I will declare the hearing closed. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saland, I believe you know that it will be necessary for you to prepare a final map with stamps and signatures. We will have a bond estimate prepared by Southold Town Planning Board -6- September 18, 1973 our Town Engineer. It will be sent to us for approval and we will send it to the Town Board who have to act on sufficiency of the bond. Following that a final hearing will be held. We hold both preliminary and final hearings. When the bond is approved by the Town we will sign the maps. We will instruct our engineer to make an estimate. We figure on an increased cost over a three year period; they usually run about 150%. Some people prefer to have some of the work done beforehand so the total bond figure can be increased. Preliminary approval includes ~mprovement of highways, so you may proceed. MR. SALAND: We are only going to do Section I. We are not touching the road going to the main highway. Assum- ing that we post a bond, do we have preliminary approval? THE CHAIRMAN: You will have to call the office ill the morning to find out whether you have preliminary approval. THE CHAIRMAN: I will call the meeting to order on the hearing for preliminary approval for map of property known as Syloret Estates, owned by Lorraine Hoc]unan, Mr. Henry Raynor read the legal notice of hearing, as follows: 2. Plat of property owned by Lorraine Hochman, entitled Syloret Estates, consisting of a parcel of land situated at Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northerly side of Middle Road where the same is intersected by the southwesterly end of a curve connecting the northerly side of Middle Road with the southwesterly side of Bridge Lane; running thence along the northerly side of Middle Road South 70° 36' 40" West 312.46 feet to land now or formerly of Agnes D. McGunnigle, running thence along said land North 46° 23' 30" West 2516.12 feet to land now or formerly of Society for the Propagation of the Faith; running thence along said land North 45° 41' 40" East, 368.12 feet to the southwesterly side of Bridge Lane; running thence along -the southwesterly side of Bridge Lane the following three courses and distances: (1) South 45° 31' 30" East, 827.92 feet; (2) South 49° 18' 00" East, 204.23 feet; (3) South 46° 39' 40" East, 1554.51 feet to the northerly end of the curve first abovementioned; running thence in a general southwesterly direction along said curve bearing to the right having a radius of 65 feet a distance of 133.04 feet to the northerly side of Middle Road at the point or place of BEGINNING. Southold Town Planning Board -7- September 18, 1973 Mr.' Raynor also read the proofs of publication in the Suffolk Weekly Times and the Long Island Traveler- Mattituck Watchman. The Chairman read letter from Mr. Raymond C. Dean, Superintendent of Highways, as follows: Dated: August 20, 1973 "I have inspected the Preliminary Subdivision plan for Lorraine Hochman, Cutchogue, New York, and approve of the lay-out." The Chairman also read Letter of Transmittal from the Town Clerk dated August 8, 1973; and letter from Aldo Andreoli, P.E., Suffolk County Department of Health, dated September 12, 1973. Letter of disclosure reads as follows: "This is to certify that the following individuals are the only owners of the described property in Schedule A, and no other individual or individuals have any interest whatsoever in the above property: Lorraine Hochman, 2116 Vine Drive, Merrick, N. Y., Sylvia Weiss, 1200 East 53rd St., Brooklyn, N. Y., Ethel Kash, 142-05 Roosevelt Avenue, Flushing, New York." (Signed by Lorraine Hochman and notarized on the 6th day of July, 1973.) THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone wish to be heard in opposition to this subdivision, entitled Syloret Estates? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: I told Mr. Hochman that it would not be necessary to make a special trip out here as we believe that he has met all our requirements. There was a further discussion of the map. Mr. Raynor stated that access to Lots 16 and 17 will be on Bridge Lane and not on Middle Road. We have been trying to locate parks and playgrounds off highways. You will note that it borders on two other pieces of property. The Chairman said that our attorney tells us that we only have the right to demand park and playground for the lot owners in this subdivision. This is not %oo bad a location because it's readily accessible. THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no other questions, I will now declare the hearing closed. Southold Town Planning Board -8- September 18, 1973 THE CHAIRMAN: I will call the hearing to order for the property known as ~regon View Estates consisting of approximately 48 acres, and situated in Cutchogue, New York. Henry Raynor read the legal notice of hearing, as follows: 3. Plat of property owned by Louis Hodor, entitled Oregon View Estates, consisting of a parcel of land situated at Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and bounded and described, as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northwesterly line of Middle Road (C.R. 27), which point is southwesterly as measured along the northwesterly line of said Middle Road, the northwesterly line being on a curve with a radius of 5,669.58 feet, 514.73 feet from the southwesterly terminus of an arc of a curve connecting the northwesterly line of said Middle Road with the southwesterly line of Depot Lane, and running thence from said point of beginning on a curve to the right with a radius of 5,669.58 feet along the northwesterly line of said Middle Road for a distance of 382.18 feet; thence South 45° 32' 05" West still along the northwesterly line of said Middle Road 242.89 feet to the land now or formerly of Pauline Matwieczyk; thence northwesterly and southwesterly along the land now or formerly of Pauline Matwieczyk the following courses and distances: (1) North 50° 30' 35" West 1007.33 feet; (2) South 40° 56' 25" West 201.32 feet; thence South 49° 38' 25" East along the lands now or formerly of Pauline Matwieczyk and of P. Gancarz 990.72 feet to the north- westerly line of said Middle Road; thence North 45° 33' 05" West along the northwesterly line of said Middle Road 561.22 feet to the land now or formerly of Thomas McGunnigle; thence northwesterly and southwesterly along the land now or formerly of Thomas McGunnigle the following courses and distances: (1) North 47° 52' 25" West 600.0 feet; (2) South 45° 33' 05" West 150.27 feet to the land now or formerly of the Estate of J. Simcik; thence north= westerly, northeasterly and again northwesterly along the land now or formerly of the Estate of J. Simcik the following courses and distances: (1) North 47° 52' 25" West 660.0 feet; (2) North 45° 29' 45" East 669.16 feet; (3) North 49° 50' 55" West 840.90 feet to the land now or formerly of Ficner; thence North 40° 54' 45" East along the land now or formerly of Ficner 109.53 feet to the land now or formerly of Alexander Domaleski; thence southeasterly and northeasterly along the land now or formerly of Alexander Domaleski the following courses and distances: (1) South 50° 30' 35" East 438.85 feet; (2) North 38° 16' 15" East 585.44 feet to the land now or formerly of John Matwieczyk; thence South 51° 43' 45" East along the land now or formerly of John Mahwieczyk 1754.70 feet to the Southold Town Planning Board -9- September 18, 1973 point or place of BEGINNING. Mr. Raynor also read the proofs of publication in the Suffolk Weekly Times and the Long Island Traveler- MaLtituck Watchman. The Chairman read the following letters: Letter from Mr. Raymond C. Dean, Superintendent of Highways, dated June 26, 1973: "I have inspected the Preliminary Map and Profile of Oregon View Estates located at Cutchogue, New York, and approve of the layout." Letter from the Suffolk County Department of Health: Dated: July 31, 1973 - "This is to advise you that the results of the water analysis taken from two (2) test wells located on the site of the above referenced preliminary subdivision have been received by this office. The preliminary water analysis report as received at this time meets all applicable drinking water standards for potable water supply as required by this Department in conjunction with the standards of the United SLates Public Health Service." Letter of Disclosure: Signed by Louis Hodor, dated Lhe 29th day of July, 1973, and notarized. "Louis Hodor, being duly sworn, deposes and states as follows: 1. That I reside at 145 Aragon Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134, and I am the applicant in re. the above captioned subdivision. 2. That I submit this affidavit of ownership in support of my application for a major subdivision approval pending before the Southold Town Planning Board. 3. That I am the sole owner of the 46.9 acres which are the subject matter of my subdivision application and said property is held in my individual name and not in a corporate name." THE CHAIRMAN: Usually we ask, in individual ownership cases, that the applicant swear that he is not an employee of the Township of Southold, County of Suffolk or State of New York. GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: To my knowledge, that is true. THE CHAIR~N: Does anyone wish to be heard in opposition to this subdivision called Oregon View Estates? $outhold Town Planning Board -10- September 18, 1973 (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone wish to be heard in favor of this subdivision? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: I wish to speak in behalf of Oregon View Estates. As the Board is aware I have been before the Board on a number of occasions with regard to this matter, and believe we have now complied with your requests. We have all the necessary approvals in the file, and I would ask that the Board permit me to authorize the surveyor to go ahead and submit it to this Board for final signature. MR. FRANK COYLE: On Lot 23 there is a statement of possible turn-around. We should note that the County Planning Commission has indicated to us that they would not approve more than one connection. MR. OLSEN: I will have no access to Route 27. If we send the final map this way do you feel they would send it back so they don't have two accesses on County Road 27. MR. COYLE: Perhaps you could run the road straight across to Depot Lane. THE CHAIP~AN: We can, and might, overrule the County on Lh~s particular one.. MR. OLSEN: Do you want me to hold off? THE CHAIR~N: We will get in touch with the County. It takes them about six weeks Lo get back to us. MR. OLSEN: If it takes too long maybe we will put in a turnaround. MR. HENRY RAYNOR: Will it make a difference to your clients? MR. OLSEN: It will make a lot of traffic coming in and out of one exit. Let me know what you want me to do. THE CHAIRMAN: They have to approve the highway connection. Even if we overrule, they could say that they don't want you to hook up to that highway. Where it says "future road" that should be tied down better than that... for possible dedication to the Town, or at least "reserved for future road". THE CHAIRMAN: I will now declare the hearing closed. Southold Town Planning Board -11- September 18, 1973 THE CHAIRMAN: I will call the hearing to order for the property known as Sleepy Hollow, owned by Leo Kwasneski, situated at Southold. Mr. Henry Raynor read the legal notice of hearing, as follows: 4. Plat of property owned by Leo Kwasneski, entitled "Sleepy Hollow", consisting of a parcel of land situated at Southold, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the southerly terminus of the westerly line of Willow Pond Lane; from said point of beginning running across the southerly end of said Willow Pond Lane; South 74° 57' 30" East, 50.01 feet to land of Hartge- running thence along said land of Hartge, South 13° 51' 10" West, 200.0 feet; thence along said land of Hartge, and along land of Milford, and along land of Edward Downs Dart,South 76° 08' 50" East, 500.0 feet; thence along land of Edward Downs Dart, North 21° 18' 00 East, 263.27 feet to land of Howell; thence along said land of Howell the following 9 courses: (1) South 64° 10' 40" East; 40.0 feet; thence (2) South 54° 01' 50" East, 116.59 feet; thence (3) South 39° 02' 50" East, 324.38 feet; thence (4) South 38° 08' 10" East, 115.17 feet; thence (5) South 5° 18' 10" East, 110.0 feet; thence (6) North 76° 38' 20" East, 97.93 feet; thence (7) South 50° 30' 30" East, 213.36 feet; thence (8) South 24° 21' 50" East, 73.50 feet; thence (9) North 66° 41' 30" East, 56 feet, more or less, to ordinary high water mark of Goose Creek; thence southeasterly and then southerly and then southwesterly and then westerly along said high water mark, 750 feet, more or less, to Glenn Road; thence northwesterly along said Glenn Road and along Lot 27, as shown on "Map of West Creek Estates" fil( in the Suffolk County Clerk's office as Map No. 3848, North 26° 17' 40" West, 415 feet, more or less; thence along said Lot 27, Lots 28 and 29, and land now or formerly of Wilsberg, North 71° 42' 20" West, 767.97 feet; running thence southerly along said land now or formerly of Wilsberg and along Lot 32 as shown on said map, 300 feet, more or less, to the northerly terminus of the easterly line of Grissom Lane as measured by a tie line, South 2° 49' 40" East, 293.44 feet; thence westerly across the northerly end of said Grissom Lane and along Lots 33, 34, 35 and 36, as shown on said map, North 75° 09' 30" West, 404.81 feet; running thence along other land of Alfred E. Dart and Alice J. Dart, his wife, North 13° 51' 10" East, 787.36 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. Containing 17.5 acres, more or less. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- September 18, 1973 Mr. Raynor also read the proofs of publication as published in the Suffolk Weekly Times and the Long Island Traveler -Mattituck Watchman. THE CHAIRMAN: I have a comment. I believe Milford and Dart are interchanged on the map. The Chairman read the following letters: Letter from Mr. Robert A. Villa, Department of Health, dated August 20, 1973, as follows: "We have checked our files regarding test hole data and test well results-for the above referenced preliminary map. Our review indicates ~hat Health Department standards can be met for all lots within this tract, and the map will be processed for approval just as soon as a complete sub- mission is forwarded to this office." Letter from Mr. Raymond C. Dean, Superintendent of Highways, dated August 20, 1973, as follows: "I have inspected the map and approve the lay-out of the proposed road(s) at SLEEPY HOLLOW, Southold, New York. A preliminary Profile was not included with the Prelimin- ar~ Subdivision Plan." Letter from Albert W. Richmond, Town Clerk da~ed September 10, 1973, as follows: "Transmitted herewith is Application for Approval of Plat - "Sleepy Hollow", copies of the maps, together with check covering filing fee in the amount of $140.00." Letter of Disclosure: "Leo Kwasneski, being duly sworn deposes and states: 1. That I reside at North Parish Drive, Southold, New York, and I am the applicant in re. the subdivision known as "Sleepy Hollow" at Southold, N. Y. 2. That I submit this affidavit of ownership in support of any application for a major subdivision approval pending before the Southold Town Planning Board. 3. That I will be the sole owner of the 17 1/2 acres which are the subject matter of my subdivision application and said premises are presently owned by Alfred E. Dart and Alice J. Dart of Main Bay View Road, Southold, New York. I am under a Contract of Sale to purchase the subject premises" (Signed by Leo Kwasneski and notarized on the 18th day of September, 1973.) GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: Mr. Kwasneski is not related to anyone on the Planning Board or the County Board. Southold Town Plann£Ng Board -13- SeptDm~er 18, 1973 THE CHAI~N: The hearing is now open for public discussion. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak in opposition to this subdivision? MR. DONALD FREDERICK: I own Lot No. 35 which is adjacent. When we bought we bought knowing that we had private roads, and that you come out the same way you come in; and according to the map, these roads connect. Will they remain private roads? THE CHAIRMAN: The Planning Board is responsible for providing for traffic not only for the present but also for the future. We can not compel a developer to provide through access or to block it off. We assume that they will provide access but there have been cases where they did not. MR. FREDERICK: Grissom Lane has never been opened up; it's growing trees. At the end of Glen Road I see the map overlaps and it appears it will tie in directly together. I am against it as far as having through traffic there. I think the layout is fine. We pay Wilsberg an amount every year for upkeep of the roads and he has kept them up. He states in the restrictions that he holds the privilege of turning it over to us at some future time as an Association. He owns the total and we pay $25 on each lot. He has done a good job of main- taining the roads, keeping them in satisfactory condition. Some of us bought for exactly the reason that it was not a race track. Glen Road~oes to the water and there is a turnaround at the end. MR. FRANK COYLE: What you don't like is the proposed road. MR. FREDERICK: I don't like it being opened up. I think provision should be made so that Leo's roads don't come through. I think it's a very good layout but the only question I am raising is whether these roads are lined up. Is there any reason it has to be opened up so we will be forced out of the privacy we bought. THE CHAIRMAN: Our experience has been in a vast majority of cases that there comes a time when the lot owners or home owners become impatient with snow removal and say to the Town Board'"we pay highway taxes and we want the Highway Department to maintain our roads" The Planning Board has been insistent that you conform to Town Highway specifications so that in the event that the homeowners do want the Town to maintain the highway, the Town Board can and will, if they so choose, accept it. Southold Town Planning Board -14- September 18, 1973 MR. FREDERICK: I agree. I think it is very well done but it appears that Glen Road will become part of the other road. THE CHAIRMAN: Supposing we take this under considera- tion with the Superintendent of Highways. What might happen is t~at the owners on Grissom Lane or Glen Road can, or might, put a fence across. MR. FREDERICK: Grissom Lane is not passable now. THE CHAIRMAN: We will discuss this with the Super- intendent of Highways. MR. FREDERICK: I am not objecting, just bringing up a point. We like our one way traffic. THE CHAIRMAN: This proposed road would still have 20 feet of access to park and playground, and %ha~ would have 200 feet of creek frontage. Lot No. 14 would have more than adequate highway frontage. MR. FREDERICK: There should not be any problem unless it was necessary to provide room to turn around in there. THE CHAIRMAN: At this time, I will ask if there is anyone present who wishes to speak in favor of this application? GARY OLSEN, ESQ.: As the Board is aware, we have appeared many times before the Board. Mr. Kwasneski has appeared by himself to answer questions about roads. Mr. Frederick's fear is that Glen Road will become a public road. We can only control the total and work with what we have. The road was laid out this way because in the event that sometime in the future the owner on Glen Road, Wilsberg, might come to the Town and say "we want you to make it a Town road", lit might be that as Mr. Kwasneski sells the lots he will discover that the owners also want to keep the roads private. We can only control the bed of the road that we own. This will not affect whether or not Glen Road goes public or stays private. It was done with that view. If both should go public it would make sense. We have a letter approving the test holes; also a letter from the Superintendent of Highways. I am glad to hear that Mr. Frederick feels the general layout is a good one. I would like to have approval to get a final map prepared so we can submit it for signature. MR. HENRY RAYNOR: Are you prepared to come up with a name for your road? Southold Town Planning Board -15- September 18, 1973 Mr. Olsen and Mr. Kwasneski discussed a name for the road but did not make a final decision. MR. HENRY MOISA: Don't you think it would be advisable if a little land for a turnaround was made at the park and playground? TIlE CHAIRMAN: I think we should discuss this with the Town Superintendent of Highways. Mr. Kwasneski, do you intend to have primary access through Willow Pond Lane. Is that now a Town highway? MR. KWASNESKI: Yes. (Mr. Fredericks discussed the map with the Board. Referring to the map, he said "this is wooded; this is farmland. Grissom Lane has never been cleared out. Lot No. 33 has just been sold to Cliff Saunders of Mattituck. None of the lots have been built on). MR. COYLE: Is Glen Road a dirt road? MR. FREDERICK: It's a tarred road. TIIE CHAIRMAN: I will now declare the hearing closed. Rudolph Bruer, Esq. came before the Board in regard to minor subdivision "The Terrace" owned by Lucille Mosback, East Marion, New York. Mr. Wickham stated that minor sub- divisions are planned to alleviate hardships but when a man has four houses on the property and wants to create three more lots, I think we should stay with what the rules and regulations say "having frontage on Town highway". We are getting more and more requests to resubdivide large lots all over town and/ obviously, if we want to maintain the character of the Town, we have to say "no" in cases where it seems to be a chance to make money quickly. Mr. Raynor asked what the arrows on the map indicate. Lefferts P. Edson, Esq., who also attended the meeting, said that Mr. Van Tuyl included the square footage in the lot. Mr. Raynor said "you are excluding three lots that have bungalows on them". Mr. Edson said that this is our problem and we just wanted to present it to you. Mr. Wickham said that he has plenty of property but not enough frontage. The Ordinance calls for 150 foot frontage, you only have 122 feet. Mr. Raynor said that Lot No. 4 has a problem. Southold Town Planning Board -16- September 18, 1973 Rudolph Bruer, Esq., and Mr. and Mrs. John Pontino came before the Board in regard to subdivision of John Pontino, "East Hill, Section I". Mr. Bruer said it's on existing roads and we do have water approval. Mr. Raynor asked why the park and playground are located as shown. Mr. Bruer answered that it has the most access. Mrs. Pontino said it will serve both Sections I and II as it's right in the middle. Referring to the map, Mr. Raynor said they could pick up extra square footage by "flopping it over this way". Mrs. Pontino said there will be plenty of road frontage. Mr. Raynor said there would be more square footage on the first three lots. Mrs. Pontino said this is the only way we can do it. Mr. Bruer said he would like to ask for a preliminary hearing. Mr. Wickham asked if the Board was satisfied. Mr. Moisa said that the n~nbers on Section II should be 8, 9, 10 etc. rather than starting with 1, 2, 3, etc. as shown on Section I. Mr. and Mrs. Pontino agreed. Mr. Bruer said that they thought the Board would like to see the whole plan. Mr. Wickham said that we are going to insist on a stamp on the final map, particularly on Section II, that no lot in the subdivision can be resubdivided.., an engineer's stamp. Many of these are oversized lots. No lot lines may be altered. Sooner or later someone is going to say "-this is basically two lots and I want to subdivide it". Mr. Wickham said he would entertain a motion to have the preliminary hearing at the next meeting of the Board. On motion of Mr. Moisa, seconded by Mr. Raynor, it was RESOLVED that the Planning Board will hold a hearing for preliminary approval of John Pontino Subdivision, "East Hill Section I", on October 4, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, $outhold, New York, at 7:30 P.M. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Raynor, Coyle. Moisa, Wickham. Mr. Rudolph Bruer was present to represent the Crescent Beach Motel. Mr. Wickham said that some of the Board had looked the property over, and they would like to postpone a decision. Mr. Bruer said that the last time he had been before the Board on this mather Mr. Raynor had said something about the Board requiring elevations, exact distances between buildings. Before I go to the surveyor, I would like to get all your requirements. Mr. Wickham said it would be helpful to the Board if the map showed distances and contours instead of just being a sketch. Southold Town Planning Board -17- September 18, 1973 Rudolph Bruer, Esq. came before the Planning Board with regard to Pebble Beach Realty Subdivision and requested a preliminary hearing. Considering the time lapse, a hearing is in order. Mr. Wickham said I know you had a discussion with Mr. Charles Barnett; ~his is in his field. He could make recommendations as to how the growth along the bluffs should be handled. Mr. Lefferts P. EdsQn was also present, and said he thought they had had some discussion with the Board before. Mr. Bruer said that there is nothing new. Mr. Wickham said that the Board would move as quickly as possible. I will entertain a motion that Pebble Beach be posted for a ~reliminary hearing at our next meeting. On a motion by Mr. Moisa, seconded by Mr. Raynor, it was RESOLVED - that the Planning Board will hold a hearing for preliminary approval of Pebble Beach Realty Subdivision on October 4, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, at 7:45 P.M. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Moisa, Raynor, Coyle, Wickham. Mr. Ray D'Augusta came before the Planning Board in regard to minor subdivision of Clifford Manning. Mr. D'Augusta said that he couldn't obtain 20 feet unless the Board approves it because he has already subdivided to a maximum. My lot is 105' x 105' Mr. Raynor asked if there was a pond that doesn't show on the map. Mr. D'Augusta said that Soundview Avenue is very hilly and the water drains into it. Mr. Coyle asked if water is there now and Mr. D'Augusta said "yes", it dires out in the winter time. The Board discussed the map and Mr. Wickham said there is no question but what he can sell you 20 feet. Mr. D'Augusta showed the Board the 20 foot strip Mr. Manning had in mind to sell him. Mr. D'Augusta said he would like to get an additional 20 feet. Mr. Wickham said that the map would have to be redrawn in that case. Mr. Moisa asked if Mr. Kaplan were taking the same amount as Mr. D'Augusta. Mr. D'Augusta said "yes". Mr. Wickham said if Mr. Kaplan wanted another 20 foot strip it would be alright. If he doesn't, there is no reason you could not come up with another 20 feet. There is more than enough frontage. Mr. Raynor said that 50 feet could be gotten out of there with no problem. Mr. D'Augusta said that Bob Kaplan will purchase the other piece along with me. Mr. Wickham said that the Board would have no objection but he would have to redraw his map. He can sell a strip off his Southold Town Planning Board -18- September 18, 1973 property to adjoining property owners without coming to the Board but in view of the fact that he has presented this as a minor subdivision and now wants to amend it, it is proper that he should present it to this Board and we will send a letter to Mr. Manning. Mr. D'Augusta asked if he could go ahead and tell Mr. Manning that it would be approved. Mr. Wickham entertained a motion to write letter of approval to Mr. Manning. On motion of Mr. Coyle, seconded by Mr. Moisa, it was RESOLVED that the Planning Board write letter to Mr. Clifford Manning with regard to minor subdivision, stating that it is permissible to subdivide the lot for a minor subdivision subject to formal application and fee; and that the Board finds that there is ample frontage to transfer 40 feet (or more) of property to Mr. D'Augusta. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Coyle, Raynor, Moisa, Wickham. Mr. Michael Weinstein submitted a map of minor subdivision, Bayview at Southold, to the Board. Mr. Weinstein said that he is buying the property from Mr. Harris. Mr. Raynor asked if this is part of another larger parcel. Mr. Weinstein said that it has been owned for 10 years. There was a discussion as to the exact location of the property. It was found that Jacobs Lane is on the east and Cedar Avenue on the west. Mr. Wickham suggested that if Mr. Weinstein sold this to someone else and that person died and left it to two sons, they might come in and claim a hardship. How about a green belt? Mr. Weinstein said he did not have any objection to that. I would like to keep the lots as big as possible. Mr. Wickham said 60,000 sq. ft. would be fine. Mr. Weinstein said he would like to keep all the lots in the neighborhood of 60,000 to 65,000 sq. ft. Mr. Wickham said if you want to apply for use easement contract under negative easement it might be very smart to do it. Mr. Weinstein said the first lot is the nicest one as it has a little bit of height and a little bit of woods. Mr. Weinstein asked if he could go ahead with his test holes and go for a final map. Mr. Wickham said to go ahead and come back to see us, you should not have any problem. Southold Town Planning Board -19- September 18, 1973 The Board received a letter from Mr. Howard Terry, Building Inspector, with a plot plan of the former A & P store in Mattituck attached, for their comment and review. The planning Board felt that this matter did not come within its jurisdiction and instructed the Secretary to write a letter to Mr. Terry informing him of their decision. An Amendment was affixed to the proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 1974, as follows: Amendment to Annual Estimate Submitted by the Planning Board, Town of Southol~. Recommend Secretary's Salary Total $5,500 minimum, for fiscal year beginning January 1, 1974. DATED: September 21, 1973 Respectfully submitted, John Wickham, Chairman On motion by Mr. Wickham, seconded by Mr. Coyle, it was RESOLVED that the Planning Board, having by Resolution approved the amended application of Edward Gillis requesting a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-l" General Business Zone on September 4, 1973, shall send to the Suffolk County Planning Commission and to the Southold Town Board, the following recon~endation: "It is the opinion of the Planning Board that this proposed change of zone be approved because it is in compliance with the Town Development Plan." Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Wickham, Coyle, Moisa, Raynor. On motion of Mr. Raynor, seconded by M r. Moisa, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant preliminary approval to Elijah's Lane Estates, Section I, situated at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Moisa, Coyle, Wickham, Raynor. Southold Town Planning Board -20- September 18, 1973 On motion of Mr. Raynor, seconded by Mr. Coyle, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant preliminary approval to Syloret Estates, owned by Lorraine Hochman, consisting of a parcel of land situated at Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Wickham, Coyle, Moisa, Raynor. On motion of Mr. Coyle, seconded by Mr. Moisa, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant preliminary approval to Oregon View Estates consisting of a parcel of land situated at Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, subject to the following conditions: That a discussion be held with the County Planning Commission on the possibility of having a road parallel to Depot Lane to service other subdivisions in this area. That other small connecting roads running ho the east be shown on the map and reserved. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Wickham, Raynor, Moisa, Coyle. On motion of Mr. Raynor, seconded by Mr. Wickham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant preliminary approval to Sleepy Hollow, owned by Leo Kwasneski, situated at Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, subject to the following conditions: That the proposed roadway be named. That the problems with Glen Road be worked out with the Town Superintendent and the Town Highway Committee. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Moisa, Coyle, Raynor, Wickham. Southold Town Planning Board -21- September 18, 1973 On motion by Mr. Wickham, seconded by Mr. Raynor, it was RESOLVED that bond estimate for Crown Land Lane be accepted by the Planning Board; submitted by L. Tuthill, P.E. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Coyle, Moisa, Raynor, Wickham. The Planning Board accepted estimate for bond submitted by Lawrence Tuthill, P.E., and will review it at a later date. The Chairman read letter received from Lawrence Tuthill, P.E., dated September 10, 1973, as follows: "I would like to propose and recommend the use of a black top surface on the roads of the Subdivision "Crown Land Lane", Cutchogue, as a pilot project for possible use on future roads of subdivisions." The Board accepted Bond Estimate for Fairway Farms prepared by Lawrence Tuthill, P.E., dated September 18, 1973, and held it for future review. The Board had a discussion with Supervisor Martocchia regarding Harbor Homes, Wells Road. The Town had received a bill for cleaning the drainage area. Mr. Wickham said the primary problem is when silt gets into catch basins. Fairway Farms is suggesting that ~here will be a Bond for cleaning drainage area after the homes are built. Mr. Martocchia said that the roads at Harbor ttomes are broken up, in very bad condition. There was a further discussion as to where the responsibility lies with regard to Harbor Homes. Mr. Ed Bagc said that Inland Homes has not honored their agreement with us to create a burn to keep water from the lots on the highway. Letter from Mr. Richard Lark of Wickham & Lark dated September 7, 1973, regarding Petition for Change of Zone from "A" to "B" Light Bruce Norris property, Mattiquck, New York. Application for major subdivision entitled "Momo Weta" - Property of Bruce Norris, Mattituck, N.Y. Southold Town Planning Board -22- September 18, 1973 Letter received from Nassau Farms Association protesting application of Arthur Bujnowski, and referring to Board of Appeals legal notice. Letter noted and Secretary to refer it to Board of Appeals. On motion by Mr. Wickham, seconded by Mr. Coyle, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve bills received from the Long Island Traveler- Mattituck Watchman in the amount of $80.13, and the Suffolk Weekly Times in the amount of $24.14, as submitted. Vote of Board: Ayes:-Messrs: Moisa,Raynor,Coyle,Wickham. Letter from Raymond C. Dean, Superintendent of Highways, dated September 13, 1973, regarding Greenfields at Southold preliminary map dated June 27, 1973, as follows: "I have inspected the preliminary map on Greenfields at Southold and find that drainage has not been provided and therefore must disapprove. I did not receive a profile and would also request this at this time." There was a further discussion of Crown Land Lane roads with Mr. Tuthill. Mr. Wickham said that he and Larry had discussed this . This is a small subdivision. There might be a better way to handle drainage and we would like to try it. The cost might be a little bit more to the developer. Mr. Lawrence said he had also discussed this with Mr. Dean. Mr. Ed Bage said he would write ~he Asphalt Institute first and get their recommendations. The only objection I would see if that maintenance afterward has a higher cost. The nearest place to get asphalt is Riverhead. On motion by Mr. Wickham, seconded by Mr. Raynor, it was RESOLVED that recommendation of Lawrence Tuthill, P.E., regarding use of a black top surface on the roads of Subdivision "Crown Land Lane", Cutchogue, as a pilot project for possible use on future roads of subdivisions, be accepted subject to approval of the Superintendent of Highways and the Highway Committee, and upon receipt of specifications of the Asphalt Institute. Vote of Board: Ayes:-Messrs:Wickham, Coyle, Raynor, Moisa. Southold Town Planning Board -23- September 18, 1973 On motion of Mr. Raynor, seconded by Mr. Moisa, it was RESOLVED that the Chairman be authorized to write a letter of approval regarding Cleaves Point, Section III, that Cleaves Point, Section III, be included in Article XVII, Section 1702, of the Building Zone ordinance, which is the list of approved subdivisions. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Wickham, Coyle, Raynor, Moisa. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Marjorie McDermott, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board John Wickham, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board SOUTHOLD, L. I., N. Y. 11971 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS John Wlckharn, Chairman Henry Molsa Alfred Grebe Henry Raynor Frank Goyle MINUTES SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD September 4, 1973 A regular meeting of the Sou%hold Town Planning Board was held at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, September 4, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. There were present: Messrs: John Wickham, Chairman; Henry Moisa, Vice Chairman; Henry Raynor; Frank S. Coyle; Alfred Grebe. Mr. Leo Kwasneski and Gary Olsen, Esq. appeared before the Board in regard to Sleepy Hollow Subdivision. Mr. Olsen said bhev would like bo have it come up for a preliminary State of New York Suffolk County Office of the Clerk of the / ss: Town of Southold (Seal) This is to certify that I, Albert W. Richmond, Town Clerk of the Town o~ Southold in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy at Southold Town Planning Board minutes - Sept.4, 197 with the original now on file in this office, and that the same is o correct and true transcript of such original ..S..~...u.~..h..~...~..d.~.~..~...w..n..~..P..[...a..n...n..i..n..c2r~...B..~...a. · m..-i:.n...u.~.e...s.....q....S..e.P.~.e....m~....e.~....4.,.....]r..9. Z..3..r .............. and the whole thereof. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Town this ............ 1.4Jck .......... day of ............. .~.?..~..i...~.,.~ 19 75 Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, N. Y. Southold Town Planning Board -2- September 4, 1973 Mr. Wickham said that Lot No. 11 is the one that has the shortest distance to the 5 foot contour, and this is just 110 feet.., you would still have 60 feet. Mr. Olsen asked if it would be alright if they put it in their covenants and restrictions. Mr. Raynor said that we don't want to box you into a position where you have to go to the Board of Appeals. We just wanted to know if you would go along with it. Mr. Kwasneski said the best description of where Sleepy Hollow is, is "off Main Bayview Road". Utilities are in close to the entrance. Mr. Olsen said the main entrance would be coming off Grissom Lane. Mr. Kwasneski and the Board studied the map and discussed a right of way. 'Mr~ Kwasneski said that it is included only as a right of way if necessary. Mr. Wickham said that the whole thing has to be covered in your bonding and you will not get a bond release unless you do it. Mr. Olsen said that if there are no other problems, we will submit it for a preliminary hearing. On motion of Mr. Raynor, seconded by Mr. Moisa, it was RESOLVED that the Planning Board set September 18, 1973, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southold, New York, as the time and place of hearing for Sleepy Hollow Subdivision. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Raynor, Moisa, Coyle, Grebe, Wickham. Gary Olsen, Esq. came before the Board in regard to Robert Casola Minor Subdivision. The Board studied the map, and Mr. Moisa said "there's a meadow in here, we will want contours" Mr. Wickham stated that we want to tie it up airtight so it can't be resubdivided. Mr. Raynor suggested that Mr. Olsen. get "contours". Gary Olsen, Esq. told the Board that Walter Luce asked him to come before the Board as he, Mr. Luce, is not well. Mr. Olsen said that we are talking about six lots. Mr. Moisa said that it involves a major subdivision. Mr. Raynor said that it probably would involve road construction both east and west. (There was a discussion as to whether Mr. Luce wanted a major or minor subdivision). Mr. Coyle said that if they keep selling off these lots, they eliminate the chance of a major. Mr. Olsen said "let's assume that he wants to use this layout as a major subdivision". Mr. Wickham said that would be satisfactory with the Board. Mr. Olsen said he has a 25 foot right of way, and Mr. Wickham replied that it has to be 50 feet. Mr. Olsen asked Southold Town Planning Board -3- September 4, 1973 if the Board would require park and playground area. Mr. Wickham responded that that would be no problem as he has plenty of low ground. Mr. Olsen asked if they should make a new map. Mr. Wickham said "Let me suggest something different. Sooner or later this property to the north is .going to be developed. If you ran it up this way (referring to map) and put two lots in here you would have a shorter distance, and you would still get your lots. Mr. Olsen asked if there would be problems with length and width. Mr. Raynor said (referring to map) that they could pick up 25 feet down there plus the other width. Mr. Wickham said that there are six lots and he can make seven lots. Mr. Olsen said that he would send it back to Van Tuyl but said there was a possibility that they might just want to make four lots. Mr. Wickham said that we won't accept it because they have gone that route once on the same piece of property. Mr. Wickham sketched in an idea for Mr. Olsen and suggested that he see Van Tuyl. Mr. Edward J. Bage, P.E., was present at the meeting. Mr. Wickham read letter dated September 4, 1973, addressed to Mr. Raymond C. Dean, Superintendent of Highways, with copy to Southold Town Planning Board, as follows: "On September 1st in response to your request for me to inspect the grading of the road in Town Harbor Terrace, Southold, to ascertain that no water would drain from these roads onto Town Harbor Lane, I did perform this inspection and found a problem. The approved map for this subdivision shows no drainage and the developer's agent, Mr. Joseph Hoey, informed me that he must install curbing as per instructions from the Town Board Highway Con~ittee. In order to prevent drainage onto T own Harbor Lane under these conditions, Thomas Street would have to be graded to an elevation considerably lower than Town Harbor Lane. I brought this matter to Mr. Hoey's attention and he agreed to provide the following drainage: 2 catch basins at entrance to Hoey Lane; 2 catch basins at entrance to Daly Lane; 1 catch basin at junction of Daly Lane and Thomas Street; 1 catch basin on Hoey Lane in front of lot #3. The test holes show sand and gravel from the - 1.0' elevation down; therefore, the above mentioned drainage should be adequate. On September 4th I met with Mr. Thomas Daly and Mr. Irving Latham at Town Harbor Terrace. Mr. Latham will proceed immediately with the installation of the catch basins because the installation of curbing will begin today." Southold Town Planning Board -4- September 4, 1973 Mr. Bage asked if the Board had any objections. Mr. Wickham replied that sometimes we are subject to the wishes of the Highway Committee and the Superintendent of Highways. Mr. Raynor asked if construction was beginning today; and Mr. Bage said that curbs are going in. They are going to use the curb- forming machine. Mr. Wickham said the real problem is getting this on the approved list, and it's up to the Town Board. If they say "yes", we will say "yes". Make sure that Ray Dean forwards a copy to the Town Highway Committee. They have to give their approval. It takes Town Board action to put it on the approved list. Richard Lark, Esq. came before the Board in regard to Vermaelin subdivision. He said that this is a sketch plan; I have not made formal application. We need a variance and it involves subdivision of land. Mr.. Lark said he did not know whether to apply to the Board of Appeals or to the Planning Board to get approval subject to the Appeals Board. As you can see from the sketch plan there is a house and buildings on one of the proposed lots. There are very few places in that area of Bay Avenue in Mattituck that conform to the 150 foot road frontage. Mr. Wickham said that we can not give approval for undersized lots. Mr. Raynor stated that the Board of Appeals denies until some agreement is made with the Planning Board. Mr. Lark said that they have practical difficulties with the proposed lot being more than an acre. I think the Planning Board should be involved and that's why I submitted a sketch plan. Mr. Wickham said there is one reasonable way out of this and that's to put the road in here (referring to map), and to increase your frontage. You can put a spur road in from Bay Avenue. You don't have to put the road in very far, just far enough to get your frontage. Mr. Alden Young of Young & Young said that this property was left to four people and they want to split it. I thought a variance could be obtained. Mr. Wickham said that they won't give you a variance on four lots. There is no reason why.~you could not get a variance on one lot. Mr. Young said you Could have a 50 foot right of way but it would not have to be Town Highway. (Mr. Young and the Board discussed the map). Mr. Wickham said, referring to map, this garage should have side yard clearance. If you put in a spur road you would have no problem with your frontage. Another way to do it is to put it on a cluster basis. 40,000 sq. ft. would be approved immediately. You would have to go for a variance on the house with garage. The lot width is measured either at the building line or the setback line. Mr. Raynor said he understood that there is some interest on the part of the Town as to drainage area. There is going to be some question as to whether this is a natural water course. Mr. Young asked if he was suggesting that the Town would condemn Lot No. 4. Mr. Raynor said that it might be worth Counsel's time to investigate. Southold Town Planning Board -5- September 4, 1973 Mr. Wickham said that we would want to see contours on this, too. We just told a chap that we would not allow anything lower than a 5 foot contour, 5 feet above sea level. Mr. Young said that the highest in Riverhead has been 8.9 above Sandy Hook. There was a further discussion on sea level, what the average has been in tides. Mr. Wickham asked what else you can do but use an assumed elevation. I am asking you for information as we are in trouble right now in Orient. We don't have room for catch basins, the surveyor was way off. When you put on contours, what are they keyed to? Mr. Young said that most everywhere they are keyed to "assumed". Mr. Wickham said that when you get down to within 4 feet of water there are problems. Mr. Young said that he would insist that there be Itealth Department approval. It takes the burden off you. Mr. Wickham said "We want contours, and we have no alternative but to make the frontage 150 feet". Redraw the map and bring it in at our next meeting. Mr. Lark said "So, we would have to get a variance on that one lot. We would have tentative approval" Mr. Wickham said that the Planning Board would write a letter to the Appeals Board. Mr. Raynor said that he would recommend that they get a variance on Lot No. 4. Mr. Lark said they would want to keep it to one variance. The Board, Mr. Lark and Mr. Young discussed the map further. Mr. Raynor said "This is still a sketch plan; speak to the Superintendent of Highways because there is a drainage problem there" Richard Lark, Esq., and Mr. Alden Young, Young & Young, came before the Board in regard to Bruce Norris, for subdivi- sion "Momo Weta" Estates. Mr. Wickham read the letter of transferral from the Town Clerk; letter as follows from Mr. Howard Terry, Building Inspector: "Attached please find receipt for base fees (no 4% of bond fee) $175, for application of Wickham & Lark, Attorneys, A/C Bruce Norris, for Subdivision "Momo Weta Estates", North and South of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. A quick glance at the map shows all lots deficient on area and/or frontage. This Subdivision apparently ties in with a pending change of zone application for property on westerly side of this Subdivision where they intend to put in condominiums" Mr. Lark said a change of zone application was made to the Town Board which they have referred to the Planning Board for their recon~endation on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. The reason for asking for Parcel 2 in the application to be zoned Light Multiple is to take care of what the Town Attorney wants. A sewage treatment plant would be used. We are faced with a contour problem, as to where to locate it. Exhibit No. 4 is protective covenants and restrictions which would be put on Parcel No. 2. Parcel No. 2 would only be utilized for use in residential and sewage treatment plant, and that's how that ties into the cluster subdivision plan which is being made to the Planning Board. Southold Town Planning Board -6- September 4, 1973 This portion, even though it's requested that the land zoning be changed, would be covenanted and would not be multiple use. It's accessory use for condominium area. Norris will still retain 15 acres in his estate which will remain as is. That explains the two parcels and the Town Attorney wanted them contiguous. Referring to the map, Mr. Lark said that this 10 acres is not being included for density; the density is on this area of 27.63 acres. It is proposed to have 123 units. On the subdivision application we have 24.5 acres. We did not figure in park and playground area. They are computed on what is left. The reason why the road bends is that Norris' property line extends out on a skew there, and this is the entranceway. This would not be on a filed map. This would be going back to his Estate. Referring to map, Mr. Lark said this area would be park and playground on Maratooka. This is comprised of 21 lots. Mr. Raynor asked if the nature area was going to be improved. Mr. Lark answered "No", it could be considered open space on the clustering. The reason why this was selected was that it would be a minimum of expense to hook it in. Mr. Raynor asked Mr. Lark to explain the criteria he used to establish major subdivision density. Mr. Lark said that although clustering allows you to have more lots, Mr. Norris wanted the lots to be more substantial. A figure was settled on. Mr. Wickham said that the two maps don't jibe. Mr. Lark said that you can put "A" use in "M" zone with covenants. Mr. Young said that it includes the nature area and the planting area. Mr. Wickham pointed out that some of this major sub= division is, in fact, on property for which you are applying for an "M" zone. Mr. Lark replied that if the map gets filed as it is, there would only be six buildable lots on it. The main reason for %his is that the sewage treatment plant has to be in the same use district, and the Town Attorney wants it contiguous, so this is the reason it's laid out in this fashion. Mr. Young said that each one has a garage. Mr. Lark said that it's contemplated that the roads would remain private; it has a two car garage concept. The units range from 982 sq. ft. to 1,620 sq. ft., and it does not include the garage area. Essentially, three quarters of the units are single bedroom dwellings and the remaining are two bedroom. There would be four units under a common roof. There are 33 buildings, with 132 units. Mr. Wickham said that it would take some time for the Board to look the material over. Michael Weinstein, Esq. came before the Board on a Minor Subdivision. Mr. Weinsteln said that he didn't have his survey yet but it's on North Bayview Avenue on the south side, with slightly over 600 feet of frontage on North Bayview Avenue. Mr. Weinstein had sketches which he showed to the Board. The property is slightly under 7 acres, 6.9 acres, to yield four lots. Mr. Wickham said that the Board would wan~ to see a survey showing adjoining property owners. Basically, if you meet the requirements for a minor subdivision, 150 front foot and Southold Town Planning Board -7- September 4, 1973 40,000 sq. ft., you are alright unless it is the feeling of the Planning Board that there must be some provision for the development of the land behind. You might have to provide access. We would suggest you bring a map in. Mr. Alexander Fusaro, Arthur DeRosa and Vincent Curto came before the Board in regard to C.P.F. Land Corporation "Blue Horizons" Mr. Wickham read letter sent by Mr. Howard Terry, Building Inspector, to The St. Paul Companies, New York City Service Center, 160 Water Street, New York City Re: Bond 431BD 2809, as follows: "C.P.F. Land Corp. has abandoned Section I of Blue Horizons Subdivision. They are in the process of filing an entire new map. No bond has been set as of now. Kindly contact the Southold Town Planning Board regarding this matter". The Board discussed the Van Tuyl map of May 18, 1973. Mr. Wickham said that we had discussed running the road a little bit further to the east to get away from the low spot, and that has been done. We are going to need 12 copies of the map and 12 profiles. You have %o have test holes dug. Mr. Fusaro stated that they want to get this filed as soon as we can. We have been paying for eight years on this small subdivision. How long will it take? Mr. Wickham said that after the maps come to us we have to send some maps to the County, to the Town Highway Superintendent, and to the Town Engineer to have him prepare a bond estimate. We have to have the directors and stockholders of the C.P.F. Corporation. We have a letter from the Highway Superintendent dated March 23, 1972 but this is on an older map. I suggest you have the Highway Superintendent send another letter on the new map. Mr. Raynor suggested that when they redraw they should label what sections they want to do. You only have to put a bond up for the sections you want to develop. You are going in now for the whole thing, so I would suggest you get a letter from the Board of Health covering the whole thing. When we get the maps, a letter from the Superintendent of Highways, and a report from the Department of Health, we will get back to you. In answer to a question about bonding, Mr. Wickham said that bonds are usually set about one third higher than the cost of doing it. Richard Cron, Esq. came before the Board with a map of property drawn by Van Tuyl for Joshua Fierer & Stanley Cohen. Mr. Raynor asked about the topography. Mr. Cron said it is pretty level. This is a Grigonis piece, lands of An%one and Estelle Grigonis. Mr. Wickham said we require covenants and instruments saying that these lots will not be resubdivided. Aside from that I don't see any problem. Mr. Cron said he would supply the Board with maps. Southold Town Planning Board -8- September 4, 1973 Richard Cron, Esq. brought in a preliminary map for subdivision of property for Albert E. Cinelli and Carl G. Hornwood at Orient. Mr. Cron said he did not represent these people at the time of the transaction and did not know how long they have owned it. Mr. Raynor suggested that Mr. Cron leave the maps and members of the Board would go to see the property. Mr. Wickham stated that the Board would want profiles of the roads. Richard Cron, Esq. and the Planning Board discussed the preliminary subdivision map for E. W. and H. W. Wilsberg to be known as Orient Point, Southold. Mr. Wickham said that the Planning Board is at a loss to know how Mr. Cron wishes to proceed. You gave us to understand that you might be presenting two applications for the same property, two alternative ones. We don't want to accept this or come to the point of official filing unless you are sure that this is the one that you want to do. There are some people who think that this would be a better layout for the end of Orient Point because the density would be so much lower. Mr. Cron said it might be true from that point of view but he didn't think that there would be tremendous land use. If I thought there was a chance to do it the other way, then I would do it that way. Mr. Raynor suggested that the matter be held in abeyance. Mr. Wickham said that as the situation stands now, you are not officially applying. You will have to withdraw the first plan before we will work on the second. Mr. Cron said that if the Board takes a negative view and the County takes a negative view, I won't know what to do. I have two partners that I have to consult. It's a question of how much money it will cost to bring it to a final conclusion. I will get back to you soon. Mr. Philip Babcock came before the Board in the mather of Fairway Farms Subdivision. Mr. Wickham read letter received from the Superintendent of Highways dated August 31, 1973, approving of Mr. Babcock's proposal of having the overflow of water off Fairway Drive drain into the proposed Recreation area, south of Lot 17, into a sump that is to be erected. He also said that he would approve of the overflow of water off Case's Lane Extension, east of Lot 19, into a sump to be erected in the Recreation area. Mr. Wickham said that there was another thing that came up yesterday that I think I should apprise you of. In a subdivision when topsoil is removed, or sand, or gravel, this requires a permit from the Town Board. This means that you should apply to the $outhold Town Board for a permit to $outhold Town Planning Board -9- September 4, 1973 remove topsoil from your subdivision which has received preliminary approval from the Town Planning Board. I have talked to Supervisor Martocchia about this, and there will be no problem. We should have told you. We have been told that it is the province of the Town Board. We are planning to have our engineer check on the swale situation using the sections that Charles Barnett sent us. We feel this is for your protection as well as ours. There is no real problem but we don't want you, or he, or ourselves, to get too far off base. You may feel free to call in Mr. Barnett, or we will. Mr. Wickham said that we don't, as yet, have a letter from the Highway Co~mnittee. Mr. Babcock commented on the great amount of swale that comes in. Mr. Wickham said that we will have to have clearance from the County Planning Commission. The next step is to officially apply for final approval to the Town Clerk and we will set a hearing. The County Planning Commission's review usually runs six weeks. They only meet once a month. Mr. Babcock asked why we did not do this when we went to the Environmental Agency. Mr. Wickham said that we did not perform all the steps so it has to be resubmitted. We can, perhaps, set a final hearing subject to approval of the County Planning Commission. Mr. Babcock said they have the opportunity of handling two or three contracts and have people wanting to see the place. We would not want to leave that land open (that would take us to November), it should be seeded. (There was a discussion regarding a contract which is out for Long Island Lighting as to whether they would hold the contract). Mr. Wickham said that they don't have to wait for final approval to do any of the necessary things with the exception of selling the lots. We have already instructed our engineer to make a study and to prepare bond estimates. When we have his estimate, we will report to the Town Board what we think the bond should be. They have to approve the amount. We can hold ~he final hearing but the maps can not be signed until we receive word that the Town Board has received the bond. In the meantime you can do everything except sell lots. Mr. Babcock asked who he should write to at the Town Board for a permit. Mr. Wickham told him to write to the Supervisor. Mr. Wickham said "There is one other thing.., that's concerned with the fact that there is some dredging being done, and you can expect the engineer to be very much upset if any of the excavation exceeds the amount of what is shown on the proposed preliminary". Mr. Babcock said that the proposed part was purely guesswork and it might be a slightly different location. As it goes along it takes less material. Mr. Wickham referred to a conversation he had had with Mr. Barnett regarding ponds. He said his undcrstanding was that these were ponds which would be Southold Town Planning Board -10- September 4, 1973 created at a later date, specifically for drainage purposes. Mr. Babcock said that Mr. Barnett is suggesting that you cup a certain amount of land so the water could run out and recharge; you would not have to disfigure the property. There is enough land and it's in addition to a pond that Russ proposed earlier. Mr. Wickham read the observations and suggestions contained in Mr. Charles Barnett's letter of July 31, 1973, as follows: "1. The proposal that Lot No. 10 be held for two years as a possible location for a recharge basin has some distinct drawbacks and should be reconsidered. Among other things it is a location which would disfigure the subdivision and it is not located so as to be a convenient collecting point for runoff water for most of the subdivision. 2. There are two potential recharge basin locations just east of lots 17 and 20. These sites appear to have adequate size %0 accomodate two pond recharge basins each having a surface area of 3/4 of an acre. Normally it would require about 1.5 acres of area for each such pond-recharge basin. In the unlikely event that the recharged swales proposed are not fully satisfactory, the two mentioned pond-recharge basins sites could be designed to store up to a total of 5 acre feet of runoff water which I believe would be more than adequate to meet any future need. 3. I would further suggest that if the pond recharge basins are constructed that they be designed with gradual side slopes both above and below their water line, so that the ponds will not require fencing, and so that they will have the appearance and configuration of natural ponds. My recommendation is, therefore, that if land must be set aside for future runoff water storage capacity, that such storage be provided above the surface of two artificially created permanent ponds, each of about 3/4 of an acre. The ponds can be designed to provide successful fishing, serve aesthetic purposes, and provide ample emergency water storage if that should be needed. No chain-link fencing of these ponds should be necessary". Mr. Babcock referred to the map and said that he wanted to make clear for the record that these ponds are future business "when and if", and are not the two ponds shown. I think he is thinking of an ex- tension of that; this design could be wrapped around that. Mr. Wickham said that it needs to go into the record. In other words (referring to map) "This is going to be the location of the ponds that are being built now. I think you should be careful that they not exceed the size that is specified here, and that you are able to slope them as Mr. Barnett suggested. We will accept his recom- mendation.'' Mr. Russell Case said that it will slope nicely. In the meantime in order to keep the salt water from coming in... what we are taking out we are putting on a dike that is already there. It will be lower than it appears to be now. The ponds that he is talking about are the ones that are on that. Mr. Babcock said that he would get a permit. We have a pretty tight schedule. Mr. Wickham said that the only thing you can't do is to sell lots until you get final approval. (There was a further discussion on bonding procedure). Mr. Wickham said that sometimes instead of doing business with a bonding company, the Town Board will accept a passbook on a savings account. Southold Town Planning Board -11- September 4, 1973 The Board discussed request for a change of zone on property of Albert W. Albertson. Mr. Wickham said that it was his understanding that they are asking for "C" zone on 2.71 acres and leaving out a 40 foot buffer strip next to Willow Point Subdivision. On motion by Mr. Coyle, seconded by Mr. Raynor, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board shall act on the matter of a change of zone for Albert W. Albertson at another meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Moisa, Raynor, Wickham, Coyle, Grebe. Mr. Wickham read letter dated August 17, 1973, addressed to Mr. John Wickham, Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board, which was received from Mr. Albert W. Richmond, Town Clerk, as follows: "The Southold Town Board has received notification from Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. on behalf of Edward Gillis, requesting that his application for a change of zone be changed from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-l" General Business Zone, rather than "C" Industrial as indicated on the original application. You are instructed to prepare an official report defining the conditions described in the petition and determine the area so affected with the recommendation of your Board." On a motion of Mr. Raynor, seconded by Mr. Moisa, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the amended application of Edward Gillis requesting a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-l" General Business Zone. The Chairman shall prepare an official report. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Moisa, Raynor, Grebe, Coyle, Wickham. In a discussion with Mr. Ed Bage and Mr. Lawrence Tuthill, Town Engineers, Mr. Wickham suggested that an engincer should be on hand to inspect Fairway Farms as they are moving out a lot of dirt. It's not the Planning Board's business to say who should do it but on the job inspection would be helpful. Mr. Wickham asked who handled bond estimates. Mr. Tuthill said that he did, and Mr. Bage said he does a lot of field work. Mr. Wickham said that he had talked to the Supervisor and told Southold Town Planning Board -12- September 4, 1973 him that he, Mr. Wickham, felt it was very important to have this on the job inspection done. Mr. Bage said he was perfectly amenable to doing inspections for the end product to comply with Town specifications but I don't think the Town should get involved with design for drainage. That should be the bailiwick of the Consulting Engineers office. Mr. Wickham said this was done by the Soil and Water Conservation District. Young and Young are engineers, and they are consultants. Mr. Bage asked who is responsible when the swales freeze up in the winter t~me. Mr. Wickham said this is a pilot project. We think it will work. It's Mr. Barnett's design. Young & Young is doing the engineering work for it. However, we need somebody to check to make sure that the swales go down to the sand and gravel. I am concerned with drainage and unless it's really cut down, those swales are not going to work. You will be given copies of Mr. Barnett's letters concerning swales. Larry TuLhill will do the bonding; Ed Bage will do the interim inspection. I think Ed Bage should be in touch with Mr. Barnett. Mr. Bage asked if he should do this on the Planning Board's authority, and Mr. Wickham said "yes", that he had called the Supervisor today, and Mr. Martocchia said that Mr. Bage could do it any way he wants to. Mr. Tuthill said it would be double the price to use asphalt, and that Ray Dean said he would go along with blacktop with no curbs and gutters. The proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 1974, was discussed and is as follows: EXPENDITURES: Stationery, postage and printing Advertising of legal notices Telephone Association of Towns Meeting - New York and Annual Planning Institute office Equipment Transportation (Fishers Island Member) Car Expense @ 12¢ per mile Members Remuneration: Members* Chairman + $12,500 1,000 $ 500.00 1,500.00 250.00 500.00 120.00 1,200.00 250.00 13,500.00 $17,820.00 * Members will sign insurance waiver if required. REVENUES: Estimated Income (Based on 4% of Bonds - Expect one subdivision to yield $12,000 on 4% of Bonds) Dated: September 4, 1973 Respectfully submitted, John Wickham, Chairman $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Southold Town Planning Board -13- September 4, 1973 On motion by Mr. Coyle, seconded by Mr. Grebe, it was RESOLVED that the proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 1974, as prepared above, be approved. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Moisa, Raynor, Coyle, Grebe, Wickham. On motion by Mr. Raynor, seconded by Mr. Coyle, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the change of lot line of Lots #203 and #204, Old Cove Road and Wunneweta on Nassau Point, Jane Widmayer, 333 West 57 Street, New York, N. Y. (owner). Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Moisa, Coyle, Raynor, Grebe, Wickham. On motion by Mr. Coyle, seconded by Mr. Moisa, it was RESOLVED that the next regular meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board will be held September 18, 1973, at 7:30 P.M., Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Raynor, Moisa, Coyle, Grebe, Wickham. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. J~hn Wickham, Chairman Respectfully submitted, Marjorie McDermott, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board B 6~--$ubpoena Duces Tccura, Blank Court. with Witness' Stipulation SUPREME COU, . COUNTY OF SUFFOLK LAURENCE REEVE, GEORGE BROOKS, ALINE DOVE, FRANK WHITROCK, GEORGE L~SCELLE, KATHERINE · LASCELLE and JOHN SIMICICH, JR., Plaintiff(s) against ALBERT M. MARTOCCHIA, et al. constituting the TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and BRUCE A. NORRIS, Defendant(s) Index No. 74-16865 Calendar No. JUDICIAL SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM · lle Iieople of lhe -~lale of New 7'0 MURIEL BRUSII~ Secretary ~outhold To~n P1annlng Board, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold,' New York " ' ~ "': GREETING: WE COMMAND YOU, That all business and excuses being Iafd aside, you and each of you appea. and attend before the Presiding Justice o£ the Supreme Court, Equity Part, at .Veterans M.emor. ial Highway, RaupRauge, New Yor,k, . . on the 16th day ot April . 1975 at 9: 30 o cwcg, in tl~e fore noon and at any recessed or adjourneH date to give testimony in this action on the part of the Plaintiffs I .~: .:. . and that you bring with you, and produce at the time and place aforesaid, a certain Minutes of the meetings Of the s0Uthold Town Planning Board for September 1973 and October 1973. Minutes of the public hearing, Re: Application of Bruce A. Norris, of December 11,_1973'' now in your custody, ~l-,~tK, r~tocr~,~ll~i~X, evidences and writings, which you have in your custody power, concerning the premises. Failure to comply with this subpoena is punishable as a contempt of Court and shall make you llat to the person on whose behalf this subpoena was issu ed for a penalty not to exceed t~fty dollars and all da. ages sustained by reason oI your failure to cornply. WITNESS, Honorable John F. Scileppi one of the Justices o£ said Court, at SO ORDERED /s/ John F. J.S oC. Rtverhead, Scileppi New York O~ce and Post Of Nce Address 108 East Main Street P.O. Box 268 Riverhead, New York )0o, 0o~ oo0o "~-. ~0000 GREAT pEGONIG ' BAY WHEREAS, an action has been commenced in the Supreme Court Laurence Reeve and others against lhe Town Board and Bruce A. Norris with respect to the t~ezoning of a portion o1' tt~e Nm'ris p~'o~c~'t.y ['~'(,,~" Residential and Agricultural ~o "M" Light Multiple Residence Districl, NOW, THErEFOrE, BE IT RESOLVE[) that Smitl~, Fink~tstefn, Lundberg, Baisley and Yakaboski of Rived-head, New Yor'k, bc· and ~t i< hereby appointed Special Counsel to-defend the Town Board in suc[~ action. SMITH, FINKEL.~TEIN, LUNDB~ER(}, BAISLEY AND ~'AKABOSKI ATTOttNI~Y$ AJKD COUNSELORS AT LAW 456 ORI~FIi~O ikVEI~UE~ COI{14ER OF LI~4COLlq STREET RIVERHIEAD, N, Y. 11901 {816) 7~7- 4100 November 19, 1974 Hon. Albert W. Richmond Town Clerk Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Reeve v. Town of Southold (Norris) Dear Mr. Richmond: In connection with the above action, there has been an examination before trial of the Town Board through its designee, Judge Martin Suter. In connection with that examination, we stipulated to provide certified copies of certain resolutions of the Board and of the Planning Board. Would you please provide me with a certified copy of the resolution adopted by the Board in connection with the Norris change of zone on May 21, 1974 as well as a certified copy of the resolution of August 5, 1974. My research indicates that on or about May 23, 1971, the Planning Board adopted a resolution approving a "master plan". It ~ay not have called it a "master plan" but may have called it a "development plan". Whatever it was called, we would like to have a certified copy of what was adopted unless the cost of the reproduction is too great. If that is the case, I wish to make arrangements to have the attorney for the plaintiffs view the document at your office. I would certainly appreciate your getting this material to me at your earliest convenience. STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: SS: Southold, New York, being duly sworn, age of twenty-one years; that on the ALBERT W. RIC~_MOND, of Southotd, '1~o',¢~ c ~ says that he ~s ore, ~{~ 12th day of Auqus__t ...... 19 74 , he affixed a notice of which the annexed printed ~ot~. ' is a true copy, in a proper and substantial, manner, in a public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk Count'.', York, to wit:- Notice of Amendment No. 99 Amendment - Bruce A. Norris Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Town Clerk Ofiice Main Road, Southold, L.I.,N.Y. Sworn to before me this 12th day of ~ugust 19 74 Notary Public JUDITH T. BOKEN No. 52-0344963 Suffo~;; C~unt~.~-/ Commission Expires M~rch 30, ~9~~ by the intersection of the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue with the division line between the lands of George .Brooks and of Bruce Norris and running thence from said point of beginning North 77 degrees 02 minutes 20 seconds East 78.44 feet along the southerly line of the New Suffolk Avenue; thence southwesterly, southerly, westerly and again southerly through the land of Bruce Norris the following courses and distances: (1) on a curve to the left with a radiUS of 36.15 feet for a distance of 43.75 feet; (2) South 7 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds West 215.10 feet; (3) South 7 degrees 30 minutes 20 seconds West 349.92 feet; (4) North 82 degrees 29 minutes 40 second.s West 50.00 feet; (5) South 7 degrees 30 minutes 20 seconds West 845.96 feet; (6) South 7 degrees 31 minutes 10 seconds East 423.00 feet to the northeast corner of the land of Frank J. Murphy, (the point of beginning of parcel number two hereinafter described); thence North 86 degrees 47 minutes 4o seconds West along the lands of Frank J. .Murphy and of Laurence P. Reeve 809.45 feet to the easterly llne of "Reeve Avenue", also known as "Camp Mineola Road"; thence northerly along tlhe easterly line of "Reeve Avenue" the following courses and distances: (1) North 7 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds ~.ast 667.65 feet; (2). North 7 degrees 32 minutes 00 seconds East 519.57 feet; (3) North 16 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds East 550.85 feet to the southwest corner of the land of Vera Cichanowicz; thence easterly and northerly along the lands of Vera Cichanowicz, of Aline Dove, of Elberta Reeve and of George Brooks the following courses and distances: (1) South 76 degrees 27 minutes 30 seconds East 312.78 feet; (2) South 77 degrees 45 minutes 30 seconds East 91.78 feet; (3) South 77 degrees 53 minutes 20 sec~ ~ds East 96.70 feet; (4) Sou '3 degrees 28 minutes 30 se~,,,,ds East 121.f~ feet; (5) North 7 degrees 42 minutes 00 sec,--ds East 224.34 feet to the [ or place of beginning, conta, ~ing an area of ~.683 acres. PARCEL II BEGINNING at the northeast OF SUFFOLI~ cerner of the land of Frank J. I' IlS: M~,rphy and running thence from )F Jq'~--W YORK. j said point of beginning northerly, easterly, southerly and westerly $~;tla~"~ C. Doz'rrlayl being duly Sworn, 0rough the land of Bruce Norris .............................. ~ ~ollowing courses and, he is Printer and Pub!~h~r of ghe SUFFOLK ,; -tancese (1) North 7 degrees 31 ........ putes 10 seconds West 183.50 ? TIMES, a newspglper pubMahed ~t (}reenport, hi s~id .~; (2) ~l~]~.h 8~ degrees 28 ~mtes ~nds East 450,89 End ttmt the notice, of which t~e ~mne:l~d iS ~1 printed degrees ~th 0 47 NOTi(~Ol~~ ~t~~- ;~onds West 106.50s been published hi the said Suffol~ Weeir~r Times TO .1~_ ~.~,,~, 4. ;;'.~uih 7 degrees 01 ' '~-e': "mt~ [10zeconds East 994.46,¢1c, h weel~ ~ ........ .0.1~..e..~.]_) ........... wee~s  'I'~' -t; (~)!~outh 82 degrees 27 ---.~ .~.~.~ uutes ~ eecond~ West 428.73'ely ~ommencia!! on t~e ......... ~.}.h. ............. t ~o ~point in the easterly line ?~.'~]~!d of Thorton E. Smith; ..... '~orth 7 degrees 32 : ~e/~j~'se~ West along .~'~~n E. Smi~, of, ..... .'i~' ~. M~pfly 916.~ ..: / ' . .........~ ............................. · ~O~BOARD / ... / JOz,'~Pi{ LA;~RENCE TO,','NSEND , '.y:~W.~ond, To~ ,.. NOi~:~Y PUBLIC OF NEW YORK ,~ ]-'-'~rk' . / ~est ,hi .n Su/:ofk County ~, ~ D~t~: A~t 5, l~ !~...~ ~, ticularly bounded and Cl~s. No. 52-9366350 My Comm;ssion ~pires March 30, by the intersection of the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue with the division line between the lands of George · Brooks and of Bruce Norris and running thence from said point of beginning North 77 degrees 02 minutes 20 seconds East 78.44 feet along the southerly line of the New Suffolk Avenue; thence southwesterly, southerly, westerly and again southerly through the land of Bruce Norris the following courses and distances: (1) on a curve to the left with a radius of 36.15 feet for a distance of 43.75 feet; (2) South 7 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds West 218.10 feet; (3) South 7 degrees 30 minutes 20 seconds West 349.92 feet; (4) North 82 degrees 29 minutes 40 seconds West 50.00 feet; (5) South 7 degrees 30 minutes 20 seconds West ~45.96 feet; (6) South 7 degrees 31 minutes 10 seconds East 423.00 feet to the northeast corner of the land of Frank J. Murphy, (the point of beginning of parcel number two hereinafter described); thence North 86 degrees 47 minutes 40 seconds West along the lands of Frank J. .Murphy and of Laurence P. Reeve 809.45 feet to the easterly line of "Reeve Avenue", also known as "Camp Mineola Road"; thence northerly along ~e easterly line of "Reeve Avenue" the following courses and distances: (1) North 7 degrees 07 minutes oo seconds East 667.65 feet; (2)-North 7 degrees 32 minutes 00 seconds East 519.57 feet; (3) North 16 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds East 550.85 feet to the southwest corner of the land of Vera Cichanowicz; thence easterly and northerly along the lands of Vera Cichanowicz, of Aline Dove, of Elberta Reeve and of George Brooks the following courses and distances: (1) South 76 degrees 27 minutes 30 seconds East 312.78 feet; (2) South 77 degrees 45 minutes 30 seconds East 91.78 feet; (3) South 77 degrees 53 minutes 20 seconds East 96.70 feet; (4) Sou '3 degrees 3~ minutes 30 se~,~,,ds East 121.88 feet; (5) North. 7 degrees 42 minutes 00 Seco-ds East 224.34 feet to the [ or place of b~ginning, con 'fa, ~ng an area of 27.6~ acres. .- PARCEL II BEGINNING at the northeast OF SUFFOLK. ] corner of the land of Frank J. )F NEW YORK. : Mm'phy and runffmg thence from mid point of beginning northerly, e~sterlY, southerly and westerly Stuart C. Dorrrl~ being duly Sworn. .through the land of Bruce Norris .............................. ~ 'following' courses and. he is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK ,~' tances: (1)~North 7 degrees 31 ........ ,-'utes 10 seconds degrees '28' TIMES, a newspaper publislmd at GreenporL in said West 183 ~nu, tes ~conds East 450~89 ~nd that the noUc~, of which the annexed is a printed ~~th 0 degrees 47 ~onds New" 'Srk--and more tmr- tiealarly bounded and described as follows: N.OTICEOF-~~ ~ ~'- West 106.56S been published in the said Suffolk Weeki~ Times .TO~~i~¢~{~:.~f~y' 7 degrees O1 · ,t~~~~[[~[~F~'' '~: ._~t~s' ~i~seconds East 994.46,0¢h w~k, R~r ..... .o.n.~. ( .1 A,-. ~-~-.~.'.. ~.~;~-- ~.=~ ~,~; (5).~. South 82 degrees 27 ............. .,~ ~.~ .... ~Utes 5b..~sec~& West 426.7s'ely oommencing on the .......................... L' ~ ~-~ of Tborton E. Smith; ....... -9'" "::~'~'~'-North7 degrees 32 ' ~ ' '.~ E. Smith, of) before me this 8th ":;..- '"',,~ Appolonia ^ ..../' ...... Joseph Peters,....~ Ve.~.../.~49. ?.~. · _ -.,, ~ - /..// p,~,i: an area of .',/f '~ - ;' ................ Yo~;~'a- . TOWN BOARD .... .... a ~,~ ..: Zz~-,-'=':.i.,, ~_=~,,_ y.: w. Richmond, Town / - NOiA:;Y PUBLIC OF NEW YORK ~ ' 'i?'g'~k' J~ Resi 'ina ;n Su~:ofk County Z~' ~.;";3. bated: August 5, 1974 " ~ · ',-r3. ~ . . CIks. No. 52-9366350 ,; :~ My Comrn!ssion Expires March 30, 1 AMENDMENTS !'ecl I,) the southwcsl corner of the NOTICE OF ~ig]~.~l)nil~l/k~llCR ,land of Vera Cichanowicz; thence tnat ~~~' ~ k~~' -~" ', . ' ~ .... -~:.L_~'. tout'scs ano oislanccs' (i) Soulh Boa ' e ~n~.~~ 7 , :'"' " " ~~ , " ~ ..... ~. 6 degrees 27 minutes 30 =._~-.,_ ' ,_ .. 3&~ "-:: "gas~. ~g./~ feel' (2) Soulh 77 "' ~-~;"~'' k:'~0Y4 '~d the ~u~ecs q~ minutes 30 scc()nds ~m y. ~.'~ , t~ · - · ' ~Y' ....'.', ~. ~'.. % ~cca 53 mint, les 20 scc¢)nds :~;- '~:..;1 ,~;..s~ '~~.;: ~I ~;t0 feet- (4) South 7~ ame e 5..~~ lOW , n, .~., -: .~. . ' ' ' ance enut ;~ ~ e ....... old Suff~COun~, ae~~:'..r; ';,~'. ';~ ..... ' . ' ' . '.~.. ~ .... ~.C;,,_~ .... '_, ' ~'~q.~ ~t to tl~e point ()r ,, ~:~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~/~=~;,a ',p{~ce~ot~eg~ing, containing an ., dina~~-~anging ~ . . ' -~'. .--', ot the land of Frank J ' R~sident~~ Agric~ =t~ n ' ' . ~ ..... ~:'- .... ~i.~ 'u ning thereto fi'om , ~ ;..,'. '~;~ th~;~- ~ f oeginning n()rthorlv, Brue)~ N~, ~'tu tTY OF SUFFOLK ) - OF NEW YORKI ss' C. Whitney Booth, Jr., being duly sworn, says he is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND 'ELER - MATTITUCK WATCHMAN, a public news- printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that )rice of which the a:nnexed is a printed copy, has been .heal in said Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watch- ~nce each week for / /-'" :; "' ..... ,..,,; ........ :,.,;-:.... ,.... , weeks<' ..,-; '."'&~:!~ ~hy~a,]d ;sively, commencing on the '~" )~e g~,~' . .............. ' ......................... . .:.,._...:~a~oi.,,,~;l~;~ . pe.~:e., . . ,,.. , f -~.',':,.:.;:.~, __,'ia, ~therl, a,id' ,,'cstc,-Iv York..~d ...; ~a~ eu ....... ~x~ t~~{D ~th 7 degrees 31 · , ~,.q;,.,~. ,, , .... ~. , ~, . .o~.:..~.. ~.~'~.,~" ~...~' ,~~,,~,~,~. "'"' :'.....-... "" . .. '"' .,,) -' ~ ~. ~ ,~~=)~ ,~, .is~. ~o.,~= wq. ,~,~,, ~,.,, =, ......................................................................... int~s~~ ~' ':'") ~ ~fites-- 40 seconds West by the iy line ~,t;N~i;~ff~.~ I~*~':~el' {3')'~uth 0 degrees 47 wilh the ~q .'~,so r~,,; ('4) South laads"°f Ge~~' " i'""': ' Ornfinule ~OSec°nd; Hast O94:46 S~u)~~..~,~~en~:," ')¢~t: (g)S~onth S~ d,,g,'~, 2~ ................ sec~nd~~ ~4~l~..the -fee(-.t;' a<poi!)t,hi)he easterly line so~~'.~.~~.~., '.~f the land of Thorton E. Smith; ............ ' ' ' 'thence :~orth 7 ..,~rees 32 Ave~u~)~- ~~iy:'. minutes 10 ~on~t along southe~.. ~.~te.rl~,'~d. ~gain ........... i .... ' .... · . t~ ~n., or~.t°~ ~?, o~ ....... "'-~"'"'<~' .... southerly, thr~gh ~' tl~ of' .,.~ntilda S. Ha )e~ ~nia Bruce 'N6~s ~e fo~~urs, ' Kirehgessner, of J ~, ~ters, es and 4ista}nc~i;: (1) ~n'g~:L~D,~ e. to-, the leftc~i~hla'tadius of:36i for a d~tanee,'of 43:7~ feet;.(2) South 7. ~grees 42 mi~t~' seconds"'.'~est '218.10 feet; '(3) South 7 .degrees 30 minutes seconds ,West..349.92 f~t; (4)'~ North ~' d~ees ~9, minutes 40' seconds...We~l :,50.~,- feet; (5) South 7 "B~g~e$ seconds' ~. ~5,9~,r'f~t; (6) South 7 ~e~e~ seconds ~ast 423/~. fe~ to t~ northeast.~c~ner Frank J..Mur~ (~e~point beginning Of ~rcel numar tw~ hereinq~ar ~s~ribeO};: thence Nmah~ degr~7~ ni~mes 4~ sectmdS West'~g the lands o~ Frank J. M.urph~ and,~ Laure~e P. Reevc 8~.~5 feet to the easterly line of "Reeve Avenu~:', also known Road"; lhence northerly ~Id~g the ~casterly linc of "R'e~vff%Ve- ' nu~" the ~olloWing eourSc~'.and minules O0 seeOn~' Easl 'b~,6S'.'- t'cct; (2) North. 7 degrees 32 . 'minutes 00 sea)ntis East SI9.57 t'cct; (3) North J6 degrees 07 minu~cs O0 aeconds Eaal SSO.8S "and Frank J. Murp?'"~'.~!!6;44~feet "to the point of place of'~nning, containing ,an area acres. . < . .,.,w,'.-i.'.:i" SOUTHOLD ~owN BOARD .By:. Albert W. Richmond, . .. Town clerk Dated- Au, gust,...$,; 1974 1T, 8/8 Sworn to before me this ..... 5''~ day of e.e.. · 19 .~..~... /~,.,E, I: F^Y:".,'E No/ory f';~, :, .q'-tc .:,1 ;'?~,,v York ..... ~ :" :-,~,': ~ ~ 1, -~ ~"' Comm;ss;.'o;i Expires ,~,;a,'ch 30, 197 WHEREAS, at a meeting of this Board held on the 23rd day of April, 1974, a resolution was duly adopted granting the application of Bruce A. Norris for a change of zone of premises at Mattituck, Town of Southold from ".A Residential and :Agricultural" to "M Light Multiple Residence District", and WHEREAS, this Board on May -91, 1974, rea[firmed the resolution of Apr:~l ..°.3, 1974, by adopting a further resolution relating to said change of zone. which erroneously used the date of May 7, 1974, instead of April 23, 1974, NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED AS FOLLO'~S: The resolutions of April 23, 1974 and May 21, 1974 relating to the application of Bruce A. Norris, as aforesaid, are ratified and confirmed with the date "April 23, 1974" substituted in lieu of "May 7, 1974" in the resolution of May 21, 1974, and IT IS FURTH]SR I~ESOLVED, that the Town Clerk transmit a copy of this resolution to the Suffolk County Planning Commission and that pursuant to Town Law section 265, the Town Clerk publish a Notice of Amendments to the zoning ordinance in the following form: NOTICE OF AMENDMENTS TO TOWN ORDIN_iNCE REPUBLICATION OF AR'IENDMENT NO. 99 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that at meetings of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, N-ew York, held on the 23rd day of April, 1974, 21st day of May, 1974, and the 5thday of August974 the Town Board enacted the following amendment to the l'own Ordinance entitled "The Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York" together with the Building Zone Map forming a part thereof as follows to wit: Amertds the Building Zone Ordinance by changing from Residential and Agricultural District to "~" Light I~Iul~iple Residential District, the property of Bruce A. Norris, /~Iattituck, New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: PARCEL 1 BEGINNING st a point formed by the intersection of the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue with the division line between the lands of George Brooks and of Bruce Norris and running thence from said point of beginning North 77 degrees 02minutes 20 seconds East 78.44 feet along the southerly line of New Suffolk A'venue; thence southwesterly, southerly, westerly and again southerly through the land of iEruce Norris the following courses and distances: Il) on a curve to the left with a radius of 36. 15 feet for a distance of 43. 75 feet; (2) South 7 degrees .i2 minutes00seconds ~est 218.10 feet; (3) South 7 degrees 30 minutes 20 seconds V~'est 349. 92 feet; (4) North 82 degrees 29 minutes 40 seconds '~Vest 50.00 feet; (5) South 7 degrees 30 minutes 20 seconds West 845. 96 feet; (6) South 7 degrees 31 minutes 10 seconds East 423.00 feet to the northeasl: corner of the land of Frank J. ~urph3 (the point of beginning of parcel number t'~vo hereinafter described); thence North I~6 degrees 47 minutes 40 seconds West along the lands of Frank J. ~,[urph?-and of Laurence P. Reeve 809.45 feet to the easterly line of "Reeve Avenue", also known as "Camp Klineola Road"; thence northerly along the easterly line of "Reeve Avenue" the follmving courses and distances: (1) North 7 de~rees07minutes00seconds East 667. 65 feet; (2) North 7 degrees 32 minutes00seconds East 519. 57 feet; (3) North 16 degrees07rninutes )0 secortds East 550.85 feet to the southwest corner of the land of Vera Cichanowicz; ~hence easterly and northerly along the lands of \:era Cichanowicz, of Aline Dove, of Elberta Reeve and of George Brooks the following courses and distances: (1) South 76 degrees 27 minutes 30 seconds East 312.78 feet; (2) South 77 degrees 45 minutes 30 seconds East 91. 78 feet; (3) South 77 degrees 53 minutes 20 seconds East 96. 70 feet; (4) South 73 degrees 38 minutes 30 seconds East 121.88 feet; (5) North 7 degrees 42 minutes 00seconds East 224.34 feet to the point or place of beginning, containing an area of 27. 683 acres. PARCEL II BEC, INNING at the northeast corner of the land of Frank J. Murphy and running thence from said point of beginning northerly, easterly, southerly and westerly through the land of Bruce Norris the following courses and distances: (1) North 7 degrees 31 minutes 10 seconds West 183. 56 feet; (2) North 82 degrees 28 minutes 50 seconds East 450. 89 feet; (3) South 0 degrees. 47 minutes 40 seconds YVest 106. 56 feet; (4) South 7 degrees01minute 50 seconds East 994.46 feet; (5) South 82 degrees 27 minutes 50 seconds West 426. 73 feel to a point in the easterly line of the land of Thorton E. Smith; thence North 7 degrees 32 minutes 10 secouds West along the lauds of Thornton E. Smith, of i%~atilda S. Haberman, Appolonia Kirchgessner, of Joseph Peters, and of Frank J. Murphy 916.44 feet to the point or place of beginning, containing an area of 10. 915 acres. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD By: Albert W. Richmond, Toxvn Clerk Dated: :\ugust 5, 1974 At a meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold held at the Supervisor's Office. 16 South Street, Greenport, New York, on the 21st clay of May, 1974. WHEREAS, at a meetin~of this Board held on the 7th day of May, 1974, a resolution was duly adopted granting the application cfi lirucc A. Norris f~w a change of zone of premises at Mattituck, Town of Southolci ~rom "A" Residential and Agricultural Distric~ to "M" Light Multiple Residence District and WHEREAS, the aforesaid resolution adopted by this Board on May 7, 1974 inadvertently omitted to set forth therein the reasons for rejectin~ the Suffolk County Planning Commission's report with respect to such app'lication in accordance with the pro~si9ns of the Suffolk County Charter, NOW T~REFORE IT I~; RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: The aforementioned resolution of this Board adopted on May 7, 1974 is hereby amended by adding thereto this Board's reasons for rejecting thc Suffolk County Planning Commission's report disappro~ng the proposed change of zone, said reasons being as follows: 1. The Norris premises are located south of New Suffolk Avenue which is south of New York~Route 25. The Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold recommends that major residential development sho~ld be directed to the areas south of Route 25. The rezoning of the subject property to Light Multiple Residence use therefor is in conformit)~ with thc Comprehensive Development Plan. 2. The Norris property is located south~st of and in thc immediate vicinity of the established retail shopping area of the hamlet of Mattituck. The comprehensive plan of the Town of Southold recommends that ~ [7~ffimn~='~;_[ attached house developments of medium den,~ity as f>roposed in the application be located in areas in the vicinity of established shopping' centers. 3. The applicant has given assurances that a central water supply system and a tertiary sewerage system will be install, ed on the premises. The engineering report of Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell submitted to th. Board in conjunction with the application indicated (}~a~ ~he walcr sy,~cm ~o installed will be so designed as to~rovide a water supply not only for thc property in question but also to adjoining areas which presently are experienc- ing problems in obtaining water by individual wells. The planned sewerage system will recharge renovated waste water thereby conser~qng the available water supply in the general area. Such a system will also reduce the co~- tamination of the underground water supply, which ~vould not be the case if the property were developed with individual homes with individual cesspools. IT IS FIIRTtIER RESOLVED, that the Town Clcr'k transmit a cop.v of this resolution to the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote, the result of which was as folloxvs: VOTING VOTING VOTING VOT I NG V(YI'iNG VOTING May 21, 19'74 Suffolk County Department of Planning Vegerans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Re: Change of zone from "A" ResiOentia£ an~ Agricultural Di. strict to "H" Light_ Multiple Residence District on propertl- of ~ruce Norris, Matt&kuts{ Town of Southold Gentlemen: The following resolution was adopted by the Tov~ Board of tile Town of Southold at a meeting held at the Supervisor's Office, South Street, Greenport, New York, on the 21st day of Hay, 1974: "WHEREAS, at a meeting of this Board held on the Tub da 1974, a resoluLion was duly adopted grantin.] ~he application of Bruce A. Norris for a change of zone of oremises at Ma~tituck, Town of Southold, New York from "A" Residential and Agricultural Dist~icL "M" Light Multiple Residence District, anal WHEREAS, the aforesaid resolution adopted by this Boa~-d on Hay 7, 1974 inadvertently omitted to set forth therein the reasons for rejecting the Suffolk County Planning Commission's report with respect to such application in accordance with the urovisions of the Suffolk County Charter, NOW THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: The aforementioned resolution of this Board adopted on May 7, 1974 is hereby amended by adding thereto this Board's reasons rejecting the Suffolk County Planning Commission's report disapproving the proposed change of zone, said reasons being as follows: 1. The Norris premises are located south of New Suffolk Avenue which is south of New York Route 25. The Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold recommends that major residenuial develop- ment should be directed to the areas south of Route 25. The rezoning Page 2 - Suffolk Count.~' Department of Planning of the subject property to Light Mu[tipie Residence use therefor in conformity with the Comprel~ensive Development Plan. 2. The Norris property is located southeast of and in the immediate vicinity of the established retail shopping area of the hamlet of Mattituck. The comprehensive plan of the Town of Southo/~1 recommends that attached house developments of medium density as proposed in the application be located in areas in the vicinity of established shoppin~ centers. 3. The applicant has given assurances that a central water- system and a tertiary sewerage system wlll be installed o~,. the pren~s~s. The engineering report of Holzmacher, McLendon and Murreil submitted to the Board in conjunction with the application indicated that the water system to be installed will be so designed as to be able provide a water supply not only for the property in question but ats~ to adjoining areas which presently are experiencing problems i:~ obtaining water by individual wells. The planned sewerage syste,~ will recharge renovated waste water thereby conservi~g ti~e available. water supply in the general area. Such a system will also ~educe contamination of the underground water supply, which would not [,.~ t~e case if the property were developed with individual homes wi~h zndt,~ idua] cesspools. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk tra~smit a copy of ' this resolution to the S~ffolk County Planning Commission." Very truly? ~ yours, Albert W. Richmond Town Clerk WHEREAS, a petition was heretofore filed with the Town Board of the Town of Southold by ..... B...R..DT.C...E...~.,....N..Q.R..R..~ ............................................. requesting a change, modification and amendment of the Building Zone Ordinance including the Building Zone Maps made a part thereof by chang- lng from .A. ..... .R...~.~.......~.....~...g..r...~.r. ....... District to '.'..M..'.'....If..~.g...h..L....M.?..~.t...i.P...1..e.. Res. District the property described in said petition, and WHEREAS said petition was duly referred to the Planning Board for its investigation, recommendation and report, and its report having been filed with the Town Board, and thereafter, a public hearing in relation to said petition having been duly held by the Town Board on the ........ .]:...]-..t:.l)....day of .............. .D..e..~.e...m..b...e..r. ............... , 19..7...3..., and due deliberation having been had thereon NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the relief demanded in said petition be, (:nd it hereby is GRANTED. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD DATED: April 23, 1974. ,,,~.~.., ~---~_~-c.,~ _-~ /' - -..,,. 'A~lb~rt k.-RichmOnd, Town Clerk TDWN [JFFI ERK !:~[_]I.JTI-IIi]I.D, [.. I, N. Y. llgV1 Page 2 - Town Board Rcsolution-Abril 23, 1974. ].a:~ds of Frank J. Murphy and of Lau:ence P. Reeve 809.45 feet Lo I:he easl:erly ].ino of "Reeve Average", also known as "Camp H~_:qoola Road"; thence northor].y along the easterly ]~ine of "R~.~v~ A~. ~nue (L) N. .- ~ ~ ' lbo feLl. owing courses arid dj. stances: /°0/'00'fF. 667.65 feet; (2) N.7°32'00'' E. 5~9.57 feet; (3) N. ].6°07'00'' E. 550.85 feet Lo Lhe soufThvcesb ce:nor of the land ,~f Vcra C;~'hanowicz; [:bronco castor].y tad norhhecly along the ].'~n,ls of Ve:a CJc:}~anow~_cz, og Alice Dove, of h]]_borba R. covo ~]nd /6°2/'%0'' hi. .31.2.'/8 Feet; (2) S. ]/°/~5'30" H. 9].. /g .[,~eL; (3) STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: SS: ALBERT W. RICHMOND, of SouChol'~/, 't't~'..:r~ SouChoid, New 'fork, being duly sworn, says that he age of twenr..,f-one years; that on the ~4th day ~:~ 19 74 , he affixed a notice of which the an~.ex~!:] pri::'-,P~{ is a true copy, in a proper and s ~bstantial manner, ' :~ul>lzc place in the Town of Sou~held, York, ~o wit:- Amendment No. 99 - Change of Zone Bruce Norris Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Town CLerk Offi,2e Main Road, SeuthoLd, L.I.,N.Y. Sworn no before me this 14th day of May Albert W. P/~ch~ond Town Clerk 19 74 .?" Notary Public JUDITH T. BOkqiN I"Jol'ory Pt_hbo, Sla!.-~ .:( /'low Y~rk No. !2- 03 ':2:;. (4) N. 82 degrees 29'40" W. 50.00 feet; (5) S. 7 degrees 3o'2o" W. 845.96 feet; (6) S. 7 degrees 31'10" E. 423.00 feet to the northeast corner of the land of Frank J. Murphy, (the point of beginning of parcel number two hereinafter described); thence N. 86 degrees 47'40" W. along the lands of Frank J. Murphy and of Laurence P. Reeve 809.45 feet to the easterly line of "Reeve Avenue", also known as "Camp Mineola Road"; thence northerly along the easterly line of "Reeve Avenue" the following courses and distances: (1) N. 7 degrees 07'00" E. 667.65 feet; (2) N. 7 degrees 32' 00" E. 519.57 feet; (3) N. 16 degrees 07'00" E. 550.85 feet to the southwest corner of the land of Vera Cichanowicz; thence easterly and northerly along the lands of Vera Cichanowicz, of Alice Dove, or Elberta Reeve and of George Brooks the following courses and distances: (1) S. 76 degrees 27'30" E. 312.78 feet; (2) S. 77 degrees 45'30" E. 91.78 feet; (3) S. 77 degrees 53'20" E. 96.70 feet; (4) S. 73 degrees 38'30" E. 121.88 feet; (5) N. 7 degrees 42'00" E. 224.34 feet to the point or place of BEGIN- NING, containing an area of 27.683 acres. PARCEL NO. 2 -BEGINNING AT THE' NORTHEAST CORNER of the land of Frank J. Murphy and running thence from said point of beginning northerly, easterly, southerly and westerly through the land. of Bruce Norris the following courses and distances (1) N. 7 degrees 31'10" W. 183.56 feet; (2) N. 82 degrees 28'50" E. 456.89 feet; (3) S. 0 .degrees 47'40" W ~06.56 feet; (4) S. 7 degre, 01'56" E. 994.46 feet; (5) S. 82 degrees 27'50" W. 426.73 feet to a point ..~.:. ~in the easterly line of the land ~,'vem~---~ .... ' ..... ~-.:-.,- · -f , ,-~.,-~.---'i , i ..... '-~ ,-~i...,= ~,,u Thornton E. Smith' thence · . ~; ~'~' ' ~il~l. 7 degrees 32'1^'' W. along ~e lands of '1 .ornton E. .'~nith, of Matilda S. 7,?aberman, Appolonia f~chgessner, of Joseph :!~.~..~ers, and of Frank J. .;lurphy 916.44 feet to the "~'";:t or place of BEGIN- i~G containing an area of :0:915 acres. 'Z)F SUFFOLK, 'NEW YORK. } ss: ALBERT RICHMOND, TOWN CLERK 'IM£S. a newspaper pubMshed ut Greenport. in said county: and theft the n. otic~, o! which the annex~ is a printed copy. has been published in the said Suffolk Weekly 'limes once in each week, f~r ......... ~.r.~..~.~: ? .......... weeks successively commencing on the ......... ;' ?.~; ............ day of ..... ~;>; ~' .y,, t.~,. Sworn to before me this ..........."'~:~ day of ........ "-~'~ ....... /1~. ! ~ / . . ~. ,9,~.PA ~.. ,.' ~ IO'~'~I~~ .............. /f/ Clk$. ~ 5~-~ , ~,Imi~lm F..xO[res March 30, ~. , .ted: May 3, 1974 ~' $OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD. ]-:~' .. is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK .... ~,,. ~: '., ,;~ .... ~:.'. .... ,~. ..... ~::'~. of ~~g ~ ~reof ~~~ ...,'~,.. ................... .? ~~~ . ~~d as faf :d~t fo~e · ~'. of' the . ,.~~ suborn ~' '"~J':~ion line' ~,~ ~?~ of. G~rge '~~~ ' ~ "~. wester- . .~.. .0- . '. ~ of:O,.~,..'~d; "~). s.:..~~ w. so:~ ~; '"~1' s,.~'~ ~"~.?' ~" '"> · ' ~ P. Reeve of COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK SS: C. Whitney Booth, Jr., being duly sworn, says that he is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER- MATTITUCK WATCHMAN, a public news- paper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the a.nnexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watch- man once each week for ...... ~.'.~....~-£..,-,.~.Zd..~ week,~ · successively, commencing on the ................. ..~... .................. day of ........ Sworn to before me this ...... Z...~.. ......... day of ...... ...... , ADELE PAYNE Notary Public, State of New Yore Residing !t~ ?,td~oJk County Ho. b2-23-i1003 Corem?ss!on [x;:i;es March 30, 197~ (i)N. · .~) ~., ,~Yoo'" · lgoYed~; · the/'~uthavest ' Vera ;, and 312,.7j 91.78'fee~,; 96.70,, feet; (42 121.88 feet; (5) lq. 224.34.feet t0 the point, or place. ';of BEGINNING; containing an area of. '27,683 '! PARCEL #2r ''' . , · .B~0m, u~.. 'AT. 't.H£... NORTii~/~,$~..,'COImER' of.. the ,~nd' o~?~i"J:.' ~i, hY ,nd ' running thence from said' point oiL.if .t~g-um. itig i,:...: northerly,, easterly, :.::.I southerly' .and westerly through.· ~:h* ~laud./.:of,.':'Bruce . Norris the .foilOWinll.. courses' and distances" ' fli'N".'~31'}~. 1.83,56.feet; (2)° '.'hi~,'.~~.'~.**'f~t; (a)s:0 .4?q0'w, .lO~.~ feet; (4) s. 7°01'.,. ..... 50~,. 994._46 re'et;' (5).~:. 8~2.7'50" .10 W. along ~!'..gfT~ . .. £. Smith; ~~: S, · josePh. P,t,~;.. "/a..~. "~i,nt J. ,..Murphy'9i'6.d4 f~et-io the point or 'i:..'~ of s~msmG ...'.co.t,,~i.g an area of: 10.915 acres. . Datedi":M~ay '3, 1974. i S~~DT0W8 SOARD ..., .'~".i.. '~: TOWN CLERK' I'T, 5/9 · .. NOTICE OF AMENDMENTS 'TO TOWN' ORDINANCE i ii, i i , i AMENDMENT NO.. '9 9 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that at a meeting of the' Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New _York, held on the 23rd day of April, 19'74, the Town Board enacted the ~following amendment to the' Town Ordinance entitled "The Building Zone Ordinance of the TOwn of Southold, Suffolk County, NeW York" · together with. the' Building Zone Map forming a part thereof as follows to. wit: Amends the. Building Zone .Ordinance by. changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District '.to "M" Light Multiple Residential District, the property of Bruce Norris, Mattituck, New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: PARCEL # 1 BEGINNING. at a point 'formed by. the intersection of the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue with the division line betwee,n the. lands of George Brooks and of Bruce Norris and running thence from said point of be.ginning N.77°02'20'' E. 78.44 feetalong the southerly 1.ine of New Suffolk Avenue; thence southwesterly , so'utherly, westerly and again southerly thr'ough the land of Br.uce Norris the following courses and distances: (1.) on a curve to the left with. a radius of 36.15 feet for a distance of 43.75 feet; (2) S. 7°42'0.0.'' W. 218.10 feet.; (3.) S. 7°30'.20'' W. 349.92 feet; (4) N. 82°29'40'' W. 50.00 feet; (5) S. 7o30'20'' W. 845.96 feet; (6) S. 7°31'10'' E. 423,00 feet to the' northeast corner of the land of Frank J. MurphY, (t.he .point of beginning of parcel number two hereinafter described); thence 'N.86°47'40'' W. along the lands of Frank J. Murphy and of Laurence P. Reeve 809.45 feet to the easterly line 'of "Reeve Avenue", also Legal Notice Page 2 PARCEL #1 'cOnt ' d. known as "Camp Mineola Road"; thence northerly along the easterly li'ne of "Reeve Avenue" the following courses 'and distances: (1) N. 7007' 00" E. 667.65 feet;. (2) N. 7°32'.00" E. 519.57 feet; (3.) N. 16'°07.'00'' E. 550.85 feet to the southWest corner of the land of Vera Cichanowicz;'. thence easterly and northerly along the lands of Vera Cichanowicz,. of Alice 'Dove, or Elberta ReeVe and of Geo.rge Brooks the following courses and distances: (1~) S. 76° 27'30" E. 312.78 feet; (2) S. 77°45'30" E. 91.78 feet; (3) S. 77°53'20" E. 96.70 feet; (4_) S. 73°'38'30'' E. 121.88 feet; (5) N. 7042' 00" E. 224..34 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING, containing an area of 27.683 acres. PARCEL #2 BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER of the land of Frank J. Murphy and running thence from said point of beginning northe.rly, easterly, southerly and westerly through the land of Bruce 'Norris the following courses and distances (1) N. 7°.31'10'' W. 183.56 feet; (2.) N. 82°28'50" E. 450.89 feet; (3.) S. 0°47'40" W. 106.56 feet;.(4) S. 7°01 '50" E. 994.46 feet; (5) S. 82o27'50'' W. 426.73 feet to a point in the easterly line of the land of Thornton E. Smith; thence N. 7°32'10" W. along the lands of Thornton E. Smith, of Matilda S. Haberman, Appolonia Kirchgessner, of Joseph 'Peters, and of Frank J. Murphy 916.44 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING containing an area of 10'..915 acres. Dated: May 3, 1974 SOUTHoLD TOWN BOARD ALBERT RICHMOND, TOWN CLERK Legal Notice Page 3 PLEASE PUBLISH .ONCE, May 9, 1974,_ AND. FORWARD SIX '(6) AFFIDAVITS. 'OF PUBLICATION TO THE SOUTH. OLD 16 SOUTH STREET,. GREENPORT, NEW YORK. TOWN -BOARD, Copies' mailed, to. the'. followi.ng on May 3, 1974: The Suffolk 'Weekly Times' The' Long Island Tr,aveler-Mattituck Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia Wickham & Lark a/c Br.uce No.rris Van Tuyl & Son Watchman ALBERT W. RIE:HMOND r-I FFi TI _ERK Si-iUTHi-ILD, L. I, N. Y. 11971 THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTHD BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 23, 1974. Moved by Justice Suter, seconded by Councilman Rich, WHEREAS Bruce A. Norris, by application dated August 18, 1973 petitioned the Town Board of the Towuu of Southold for a change of zone on certain property situated at Ma ttituck, New York, from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence DistriCt, and ~EREAS the said petition was referred to the Southold Town Planning Board and Suffolk County Department of Planning for official recommendation and report, and WHEREAS the Town Board, pursuant to due notice, held a public hearing thereon on the llth day of December 1973 at 8:00 P.M., at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Bruce A. Norris be granted a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District on his property at Mattituck, New York, more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel 1 - BEGINNING at a point formed by the intersection of the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue with the division line between the lands of George Brooks and of Bruce Norris and running thence from said point of beginning N. 77o02'22TM E. 78.44 feet along the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue; thence southwesterly, southerly, westerly and again southerly through the land of Bruce N~rris the following courses and distances: (1) on a curve to the left with a radius of 36.15 feet for a distance of 43.75 feet; (2) S.7°42'00" W. 218.10 feet; (3) S. 7o30'20,, W. 349.92 feet; (4) N.82°29~40'' W. 50.00 feet; (5) S.7°30'20" W. 845.96 feet; (6) S.7°31'10"E. 423.00 feet to the northeast corner of the land of Frank J. Murphy, (the point of beginning of parcel number two hereinafter described); thence N.86°47'40?W- along the Page 2 Town Board Resolution-A~ril 23, 1974. lands of Frank J. Murphy and of Laurence P. Reeve 809.45 feet to the easterly line of "Reeve Avenue", also known as "Camp Mineola Road"; thence northerly along the easterly line of "Reeve Avenue" the following courses and distances: (1) N. 7°07'00~E. 667.65 feet; (2) N.7°32'00" E. 519.57 feet; (3) N. 16°07'00" E. 550.85 feet to the southwest corner of the land of Vera Cichanowicz; thence easterly and northerly along the lands of Vera Cichanowicz, of Alice Dove, of Elberta Reeve and of George Brooks the following courses and distances: (1) S. 76o27'30'' E. 312.78 feet; (2) S.77~45'30'' E. 91.78 feet; (3) S. 77°53'20'' E 96.70 feet; (4) S.73°38' 30" E. 121.88 feet; (5) N. 7°42'00~ E. 224.34 feet to the point or place of beginning, containing an a~ea of 27.683 acres. Parcel 2 - BEGINNING at the northeast corner of the land of Frank J. Murphy and running thence from said point of beginning northerly, easterly, southerly and westerly through the land of Bruce Norris .the following courses and distances: (1)N.7°31'10'' W. 183.56 feet; (2) N.82°28'50'' E. 450.89 feet; (3) S.0°47'40" W. 106.56 feet; (4) S.7°01' 50" E. 994.46 feet; (5) S.82°27'50'' W. 426.73 feet to a point in the easterly line of land of Thornton E. Smith; thence N.7°32'10" W. along the lands of Thornton E. Smith, of Matilda S. Haberman, Appolonia Kirchgessner, of Joseph Peters, and of Frank J. Murphy 916.44 feet to the point or place of beginning, containing an area of 10.915 acres. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Rich, Justice Suter, Justice Demarest, Justice Doyen. Martocchia - not voting. Councilman Homan, Supervisor State of New York Suffolk County Office of the Clerk of the Town of Southold (Seal) This is to certify that I, Albert W. Richmond, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold in the said County of Suffolk, have comRared~he foreg~oing copy cf Resolution of the Southold Town ~oara re: ~ruce Nor.~ £.a..app.%£.~.~..t.~.o..n.....~..Ap.r..i.!...~ ~.,....!~.7.~., ................................... with the original now on file in this office, and that the same is a correct and true transcript of such original .R.e..s..w.l.,.u..t...i.P...n...P.~...t..h...e...~..°..u...t..h...°..1. d. Town Board re: Bruce Norris application - ................ ~%p~'.i.]....2.3.,....1,9.7~ .............................. and the whole thereof. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seaJ · · 14th April 75 of sold Town th~s ................................ day of_~_. ....................... ,<~ 19 ........ Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, 'N. Y. ~ox 1012~ ~aHtl~ucK, ~1 . ~ · January 4, 1974 ~r. John Wickham, Ohairm~ Soutnold ~own Planning ~oard Town Clerk's Office Southold, mew York llg'll ~ear t.~. Wickham: T~is letter is pro,.~pted by the hearing on December llth on the down-zoning of the bruce ~orris property in Mattituck. what struck me was the situation that an individual in order to realize the greatest pro- fit from his land could put down a sewage treatment plant wherever he wanted to, without regard for the suitability to the surrounding area and without regard to over-all town needs and planning. This did not seem right. I al- so wondered whether people able to purchase the units would want to invest that amount of m~ney right next to a sewage treatment plant. Indidentally, I was also concerned about the down-zoning because the builder really ma~es no eom- mittment at this time to put even four units per acre. He, or one he sold it to, could put as many as six units per acre. The present situation is bad for building snd mortgaging. If the project had to wait a few years, it's possible that a higher density p~an would be adopted. It seems a risky proposition and I think we should hold to the A ~esidential zoning. To come back to the sewage situation. ~ have talked about it to a number of p~ople snd t~ese are some of the things we discussed: The question of a plan for sewage disposal be- tween the present plants at ~iverhead and Green- port. ~s there a plan for separate units in each community and would these be co-o~Rinated with an over-all town plan? There was some talk about the villa~e of ~at- tituck lster ta~ing over the morris treatment plant, but this was not mentioned in the project presenta- tion. If there is substance to this talk, it be- comes understandable why ~. Norris would go to the expense of a treatment plant, since the village would compensate him later. But would such an ar- rangement serve the best interests of the commun- ity which would be stuck with an unplanned facility~ Should suitable sewage sites be designated ahead of time in the town, while land is relatively Lascelle, 1/4/74 page 2 open, places which would dis-commode the least and which would offer the best ground conditions for re-c~arging? It is said that sewage plants are not needed here for a number of years yet. Someone advises that the means for sewage treatment are being im- proved, and present plants are in the way of being out-moded in relatively few years. This does not seem improbable and it would be too l~ad to have to take over such an older plant. In any case, with land as ecologically fra- gile as tais worth Fork is, shoulan't population growth be related directly, not only to water re- sources, but also to the ability of the land and surrounding waters to absorb sewage. ~erhaps this has already been done. It would seem then, that the very next step would be to seek out the best areas for the location of the i~ture plants. From our experience in towns elsewhere, we know that sewage lines involve horrendous ex- pense, and in addition, a horrendous distrubance of streets and sidewalks over a period of years. Can combinations of sewer~ and sesspools be worked out to minimize expense and mess? I realize that community planning, in- cludin~ such ~n~rag~Dblg, problems as sewage, isn't any easy thing. ~um w~n mn~ngs changing so ~ast these days, I do think that this sewage planning must be un- dertaken. Doing it too late could create very serious problems arising from haphazard and deletorious devel- opment. I would like to entertain ~he hope that one of our technological advances could provide a means for individuals to treat their own sewage more effectively, returning cleaner effuent to the ground... After all, we've gotten to the moon .... We homeowners recognize what aur pro- blems are, but we haven't the know-how to say how they can be handled when they cross property, come,unity and township lines. Therefore, I would appreciate your bringing ~his matter to the attention of the Planning Board. Can we work out over-all planning for sewage as was done for water? a s n ' a our Supervisor, ~..~. ~ar~o~a. copy of t~is letter to With best wishes, Sincgrely yours ,/ .. Public Hearing held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold - 12/11/73 In the matter of the changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residential District, the property of Bruce Norris~ Mattituck, New York. Present were Supervisor Albert Martocchia, Justice Martin Suter, Justice Louis M. Demarest, Councilman James Homan and Councilman James Rich, Jr. Supervisor M~rtocchia declared the hearing open at 9:00 p.m. and recessed the meeting to be continued at the Greenport High School because of the large number of people in attendance who couldn't fit into the meeting room at the supervisor's office. Before reopening the hearing at the School, the Supervisor expressed his appreciation to Mr. Wooley, the principal, for his cooperation and apologized to the group for any inconvenience they were caused. Councilman Homan read the Notice of Hearing, proof of publication in the official newspapers - Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman and Suffolk Weekly Times, a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Planning disapproving the application, and a letter from the Southold Town Planning Board recommending approval of the change of zone~ and proof of posting by the Town Clerk. Mr. Martocchia: You have heard Councilman Homan read the call of the meeting, the public notice, the description of the property involved, the proof of posting by the Town Clerk, the proof of publication in the legal papers, the recommendation of the Suffolk County Planning Board which requests disapproval of the project, the recommendation of the Southold Town Planning Board which recommends approval. At this time I will entertain anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the change of zone. Richard Lark~ Bsq.: I represent the applicant, Bruce Norris, who is the owner of this land. (Pointing to map) The outline of the land is depicted in red of his entire holdings from Maratooka Lake to Peconic Bay over to Camp Mineola Road. As was read in the legal notice, Mr. Norris is asking for a change from Residential Agricultural to Multiple Residence I. My purpose is to present to the public the reasons and purpose of why he wants the zoning changed. The entire property has been in the family many years and, as you are probably aware, the southerly portion along Peconic Bay is currently developed with substantial improvements - the house, a swimming pool and tennis court. The balance of the property has over the years been devoted primarily to agricultural use. Mr. Norris' thought is to retain ownership of the lower portion along a 100 foot driveway to New Suffolk Avenue. It is his desire to build a worthwhile t~coject. It was decided to mix condominium and one-family homes. I would like to explain each exhibit ~o the Board and to ch= puu~ic. After I do that I would like to have various people present other facets of it. (Bxhibit 2) Shows the intention of what Mr. Norris intends to do with Parce~ l and Parcel 2. Parcel 1 would comprise the actual building of the condominium. It is proposed that these will be in individual condominium ownership. What is being proposed is to build 132 condominium units in units of four dwellings per building and there wii1 be three buildings, in addition there will be a recreation facility built in approximately the center portion along with the swimming pool and sufficient Public Hearing - Change of Zone -2- December i1, 1Q73 parking area. The total building comprises on the twenty-seven acres about 18.9% of the land. The balance would be left open spaces. The reason for asking for the ten acre parcel to be 7dried along with the multiple use as weli as the twenty-seven acre piece is for sewer treatment disposal facilities. The Suffolk County Health Department and ~nviron- mental Conservation Department would require a municipal sewage treatment plant. After conferring with the Engineer and after looking at the topography and conferring with the Town Attorney it was ruled that it was the opinion of the Town Attorney that any sewage treatment plant would have to have the same zoning as the multiple use as it was an accessory use. The entire ten acre portion had to be part of the request. Five acres is to be devoted to the sewage treatment control plant and drainage. There will be restrictive covenants. It will have to be developed as one-family residences and to allow for a roadway and easements for the sewage. His intention is to limit the condominium growth to one portion, Parcel 1. The lower portion of Parcel 2 is for sewage because of the topography of the land. On the northerly portion, there is proposed the common water supply to take care of the condominium and the residential units. Under the zoning ordinance we currently have, if the applicant puts in multiple stories there he can have 6.7 units per acre. However, by packing them in in that area it wouldn't lay out to a one-story structure development. That would accommodate 185 units. Ne has agreed to cut down to 132 units. The next exhibit which I have is a topography of the twenty-seven acre portion which was necessary for the Civil Engineer to see if the units could be laid out sufficiently and it has been determined that they can. The next exhibit was prepared by Mr. Norris' planner. It shows the elevations and what a typical cluster of four units in a building would look like. (He then went on to explain the living space in each unit.) This figures out to a density of 4.67 units per acre opposed to 6.7. In addition to the proposed condominium Mr. Norris has pending before the planning board plans for the balance of the property which is twenty four acres of the total of seventy-three. That is being proposed as a residential subdivision and he has received tentative sketch plan approval of the layout. There will be twenty-one individual building plots for one-fam{ly homes and they range in area from U8 to 30 thousand square feet. Included in the subdivision are its own park and playground. Part of the problem here was the portions of the property on Marratooka Lake. The property on the boundary of the lake will be kept as a nature area for the use of the owners of the individual plots in the subdivision. The point is there are two legal entities here. One is a filed map for a subdivision and one is for a condominium area for 27 acres and 10 for municipal use. The second parcel Mr. Norris has agreed to put restrictive covenants on. There will be ~ix individual one-family plots and the balance is for the sewage treatment plant. The individual owners would also have municipal water and sewer. The condominium must receive approval from the Attorney General's office and would be a separate and distinct entity. It is felt by Mr. Norris that this layout would be the best use of his land and would be an asset to Mattituck. The Suffolk County Planning Board in ]970/71 called the tract of land across Camp Mineola Road to the west as a multiple use district. It was part of the overall development of the town. The Town Planning Board felt this area would be logical for it be- cause of its nearness to the shopping areas in Mattituck. When the Board enacted the zoning they left off this parcel to the west as a multiple use district. The proposed Norris project would be in condominium ownership Public Hearing - Change of Zone -3- December 117 1973 It is not a lease or partnership. Each one living in one will own the unit. It is private ownership. It is Mr. Norris' intention to limit the sale of the units to mature people with children over sixteen years. This has an impact on the amount of people living in the area. It is estimated that a community of this nature with one bedroom has approximately two people to a unit and a two-bedroom unit gives 2.5 people. Further statistics say this would generate to 33 pupils from the condominium area. It is a different story in the residential subdivision. The average home would be approximately three bedrooms and the statistics would be higher. The. area being proposed presently generates to the Town of Southold $1,278.75 in taxes. Checking with the Town Assessor's Office they have estimated the valuation would be $851,731 which would generage $1177113. in tax revenue. This is all without any increase on the municipa~ facilities especially the school. Mr. Norris had various planners and other people look at the project to figure out what the impact would be on the community. At this time I would like to have some of these people come forward and give the results of their analyses of the impact of the Norris application. Mr. Samuel C. McLendon, P.E. presented the Board with a copy of "Engineering Report of the Water and Sewerage Systems of the Norris Development at Mattituck, Suffolk County, New York" He explained the report to the public. Mr. Edward Curran asked if the men were going to be limited and how long they would have to stay listening to the speaches. Mr. Martocchia said it is a public hearing and they are entitled to make their presentation. Mr. John A. Jacobsen, P.E. presented to the Board "Traffic Study for Norris Subdivision, Mattituck~ New York" and explained the report. Mr. Horace D. Wells presented to the Board "Environmental Impact Statement for Condominium Complex and Cluster Realty Subdivision". He went on to explain the report and as he was reading the full seventeen page report, Mr. Martocchia interrupted him to ask Mr. Lark to come before the table. Mr. Lark went to the microphone and said: At the request of the Supervisor who refuses to let Mr. Wells continue ....... Supervisor: I did not refuse to let him go on. The presentation has been very lengthy and repetitive. I appreciate these people being here tonight. If it is going to be read off by ~. Wells, let him submit it as part of the record. Mr. Charles Price: I do represent Mr. Norris with this plan. We thought it was a very good thing for Mattituck. I have been a resident here for over 50 years. His family has had property here for longer than that. I have been very active in community affairs. I would not do anything to hurt Mattituck. I have a large investment in Mattituck as well as some of you people. We thought this was a very good program for this property. We spent alot of time. It has taken almost one year. I know it was boring but we thought we should bring out all of the points. You thought we were giving you a snowjob and you thought it was boring. I understand from a few people you would want all one-family homes in there but we felt all these homes would be more detrimental than this program with our own water system and sewage treatment. We thought it was a very good idea. We are Public Hearing - Change of Zone -4- December I1, 1073 sorry there has been so much opposition but I hope the Town Board considers it as it is a good program and I think it will be well done and an asset to Mattituck. Mr. Raymond Nine: I am a local businessman in [~ttituck. I have lived here ail my life. My home is only about 1,000 feet from where they are talking about. This man should have at least been given a chance to present this project. I don't think everyone should be for it. It could be a big mistake and maybe it isn't. The only thing I think we should do is give the man a fair chance. I have known Charlie Price since I was a kid and I will say that I never would believe that Charlie Price would do anything harmful or wrong to Mattituck. Everybody in this room should have his own opinion. The only thing I think we ought to do is think of the project and the man behind it. Is Charlie Price the kind of person who is going to do something wrong to ~ttituck? I am willing to learn and see as much as I can before I condemn it. Some people have brought petitions to my home and so they hate my guts and think I have no business standing up as a citizen. I refuse to sign anything until I know what it is. I don't think they understand the petition. Whether for or against, I think this man deserves a little respect. Supervisor: Mr. Nine, in your comments I hope you were not inferring that this board shut off Mr. Price. Mr. Nine: I didn't mean that. There were comments being made. I think we should listen to the good points. Mr. Henry Drumm: I don't believe I have seen any development in this community where the work has been as thorough as this has been. It occurs to me that there are 73 acres of land. One of my concerns would be what might happen to this 73 acres of land without a sewage treatment plant. It could well happen that 73 acres could be put up for sale and have some 65 houses or so built on it. I am considering the alternative to this proposal. What is the alternative I must face as a citizen of Mattituck. As I look at that alternative I am not sure that I like it compared to this plan because this plan does consider our water and our sewage and I ask the board to consider these facts. Mr. Terry Tuthill: I am a lifelong resident of Mattituck and I am a real estate broker. It does give me a chance to see two sides. I suspect a great many people are worried about growth and change. It has been obvious for 25 years that there is going to be growth and change. It keeps coming east. Many people want to live here for the same reason we enjoy it. We have an economic situation that already excludes a great majority of people and we don't have to worry for a long while about the hordes descending on us. You can't d~cdminate against people who want to share the spacious land, the pure water and the air. If we are not reasonable~ in my opinion~ the federal government will change some of these things for us and we will have a boomerang that has happened in other areas where change has been fought against. Ladies and gentlemen, if you fight you are going to lose the battle. If you talk reasonably it can't hurt anybody and it might benefit. It might be better to have that in the backyard than to have ranch houses~ one a piece on an acre. Mr. George: What are these going to sell for? Mr. Lark: They will range from $45,000 to $60,000 per unit. Public Hearing - Change of Zone -5- December 11, 1973 Mr. William Johnsen: On the statement saying that you want to limit the families with children of sixteen years of age and over, say someone came in with one child of 8, 9 or 107 isn't that discrimination? Mr. Lark: No. In another area there is a covenant where no one can buy unless they are a minimum age of 55 years. A similar condominium is being built in North Miami that the people who buy have to be older because it is being designed for older people because it would not be compatible for children. Mr. Johnsen: You are telling me if this was taken into court it could not be broken? Mr. Lark: Yes. Mr. Thornton Smith: What access rights will these people have in particular? Do you know whether that parcel number one has a right of way to the water? Mr. Lark: Parcel #1. There will be no access or water rights on Peconic Bay for Mr. Norris' estate blocks it off and be intends to grant no Mr. Smith: Mr. McLendon~ you gave figures for water use for agricultural and for this development. Did you say the amount of water used would be less for this development~ Mr. McLendon: Yes. Mr. John Talbot: Who will retain management of the association? Mr. Lark: The condominium management will be presently retained by the Norris interest and the Board of Governors. Supervisor: Would anyone like to speak in opposition to the proposed change of zone? Mr. Carl Schmitt: A great many things have been overlooked. Nobody ever mentioned the fire department and what it will cost us extra for a fire department for taxation purposes. The volunteers do a terrific job. You need more fire trucks and more equipment and everything to help if there is a fire in that neighborhood. I know this engineer knows something about how much irrigation is used. Suppose we have a drought and we don't get any rain water with the amount of water we are pumping here? After this Maratooka Lake gets dried out, they are pumping the water from that lake~ we don't have an indefinite supply. When they put that disposal plant in there they must have to activate a sludge system and dry it out and the smell will knock you on your head. This is going to happen to that. The flow of water is going to go down toward the beach. We have properties along that beach and alot of the people have these properties here tonight and when that water flows down our street are they going to do it after it is supposed to be filtered~ Where is the surplus water going to go? There is no discharge basin. What is to prevent Mr. Norris from putting 73 houses on 73 acres. They are doing it in Cutchogue. Everybody is happy with it the way it is. It could be the same way. I know Bruce Norris doesn't need the money. I don't think that that condominium deal is doing us any good in Mattituck or any part of Southold Town. If you let one in you will have Public Hearing - Change of Zone -6- December 11, 1973 to let more in. You have been fair and I would like to have you continue to be fair and give Mattituck a break and not have that condominium there. Mr. George Morgan: I have lived in Mattituck for about thirteen years. I happen to be the secretary of the Mattituck Environmental Preservation Association. This letter I originally intended to send to Mr. Martocchia and I will present it now: December 11, 1973 Southold Town Board Village Building South St., Greenport, N.Y. Dear Sir: Attention Mr. Albert Martocchia The Mattituck Environmental Preservation Association has learned of the application of Mr. Bruce Norris to change from "A-Residential and Agricultural District" to "M-Light Multiple Residential District" certain lands lying between Maratooka Lake and Peconic Bay approximating 3~ acres. His plan as filed is to portion out 33 enclaves on 27 acres of this prop- erty with four houses in each enclave and on the remaining acres put 20 houses making a total of 152 houses on 38 acres of land. The Planning Board in its wisdom originally stated that only one house per acre was to go on this land. Mr. Norris' plan places four times as many units per We would like to point out to you gentlemen of the Board what we see could happen if this application is approved: 1 - According to statistics generally accepted each family would have at least two children. This would put almost immediately 300 additional children in our school district which already is hard pressed. 2 - It would place at least 150 more automobiles in a concentrated area using our streets 24 hours a day. 3 - It would be an additional problem for our police department and our volunteer fire department and hospitals also. 4 - It would mean that some 600 people would be drawing water for their daily needs on a water supply which this Board and the Planning Board know very well is limited. The Mattituck Environmental Preservation Association is a group whose membership consists of 125 year round residential property owners who are very much against an influx of too many people into a relatively small area. We therefore oppose the plan of Mr. Norris and hope that this Board of ELECTED officials in whom we have placed our trust will deny his application. Very truly yours~ /s/ Morton J. Phillips, Chairman. Mr. Morgan: I have here signatures of some 465 petitioners who have signed this petition which says they are opposed to this application and pray that it will be denied. These 465 signatures together with our own membership of 125 makes pretty close to 600 people who are residents of Mattituck. You people who are politicians will recognize what 600 people means to the Town of Mattituck. I would say that from information that I have that is about 25% of the entire adult town and with those remarks I will give you these petitions and the letter. Public Hearing - Change of Zone -7- December 11~ 1973 Mr. Tim Gray read the following letter from the North Fork Environmental Council, Inc.: December 11, 1973 Southold Town Board South Street Greenport, New York re: 8:00 p.m Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 Bruce Norris~ changing A to M Light Multiple Residential District Gentlemen: In regard to the downzoning as applied for by Mr. Bruce Norris, Mattituck, New York, the North Fork Environmental Council~ Inc. feels that the efforts put forth by both the officials and residents of Southold Town in relation to the upgrading and to avoid unpatterned growth have been extensive. We do not feel that this application is compatible with the guidelines as set forth by the Raymond and May ~ster Plan, 1967 and the related Zoning Ordinances and to allow this downzoni~g is not in the best interests of the residents of Southold Town. Therefore, we urge you to deny this application. Sincerely yours, /s/ Loraine S. Terry, Pres. Richard Sarkisian: I have lived in Mattituck during the summer for over fifty years. We didn't sign a petition but we drove down tonight because we feel very strongly about this project. We do believe that the reasons given by the Suffolk County Planning Board are very logical reasons. We are for change by. reasonable growth but we do believe that the density that this would bring to the area is not necessary at this time when there is still so much open land to be developed under the present zoning. Aline Moore read the following letter: To the Southold Town Board From the. League of Women Voters of Riverhead-Southold Hearing: Bruce Norris Property, Dec. 11~ 8:00 p.m. The. proposal to develop the 27 acre section of the Norris property under M-1 zoning is not an acceptable use of this piece of land. Although the proposal as made to the Southold Town Planning Board was unusually imaginative, we think it is too dense, does not allow for sufficient open space, is not compatible with the surrounding residential area, and that the building of expensive multiple housing in the Town of Southold has a very low priority. In addition~ a sewage treatment plant, no matter how modern or well controlled, is not an ideal neighbor. We would suggest that if this piece is to be developed it should remain zoned A-R but~ within the concept of one acre~ one house~ it should be clustered to retain a maximum amount of open space. The remaining portion, the section of land not included in the AR to B-1 request, of this land should be developed in the same manner. We recommend that this proposal be denied. /s/ Jean H. Tiedke V.P. for Community Affairs Public Hearing - Cha~.oe of Zone -8- Decem._r 11, 1973 Mr. Herman Pocher: I object to this plan. I doubt very much if he will give his own private beach to their use and the sludge from a sewage system or the effluent, in any event, will be dumped into the bay and will do harm to the beaches. Mr. George Brooks: Looking at a road that is going to be access and egress will be 40 feet from my house. The pumping station will be in the building adjacent. I take great exception to this density of population in my backyard. Mr. John Lynch: I hope to raise my children out here and I would hope the water supply would be sufficient for my little dwelling on the beach. I have hit water at six feet in the Camp Mineola area. The lake is not spring fed but rain fed and when you put well points under it you will get your water from the lake as well. Mr. William Johnsen: I don't know which way I want to go. As a member of this community I can see a condominium or high density housing being required but I think this condominium is in the wrong spot. I would like to go on record as opposed to the condominium in this area. Mr. Eugene Daneri: Two years ago we went through the difficulty of a master plan. At that time enough interested citizens raised enough cain so the town board knew the feeling of its residents. Here we are two years later and the Town Planning Board doesn't seem to think for the people. On top of that we are going to have a sewage disposal plant on the highest point in the area. There are some fifty houses in here that depend on private wells. I would hate to think of my two kids and my investment ending up with my family drinking sewer water and that is what it will amount to. The wells are drawing from Maratooka Lake. Your sewers are far enough away not to disturb you. The man made a statement about a traffic survey. He should take it on the fourth of July. £bme when all the visitors are here. To think that the Planning Board would say something in favor of this when two years ago they knew how the public felt. I am bewildered. I am against it. Frances Curran: When Mr. Lark was questioned about the management he specifically said that for the present time the Norris group would be in charge but that is no guarantee of the future and there is always the possibility of people selling their apartments and when they sell they want to get out and they don't care who comes in. The following letter was presented to the Board: Box 763, Mattituck, N. Y. December 11, 1973 Supervisor, Town Board Greenport, N. Y. Dear Mr. Martocchia, I am strongly opposed to the down-zoning from "g Residential" to "Multiple-light" a parcel of land owned by Bruce Norris, in Mattituck, situated between Marratooka Pond and Peconic Bay. g great many arguments have been offered here tonight, against such a down-zoning, Public Hearing - Change of Zone -0- December i1, 1~73 all valid. I would therefore like to emphasize one point, in the interest of brevity, in my objection. Our town government, with the support of many concerned citizens of South31~ Town, has worked very hard to bring about a recent set of amend- ments to its zoning laws~ designed to encourage an orderly, planned growth to our community. Any such large down-zoning of prime residential land would make a travesty of these zoning ordinances, and invite the type of chaos they are intended to prevent. Large tracts of condominiums will in no way preserve the rural character or the recreat&onal values of Southold Town. I urgently request that the Town Board refuse this request to amend the building zone ordinance. Very sincerely /s/ Aline Dove Mr. Thornton Smith: I would like to suggest to the Board that it should give serious consideration to asking Mr. Norris to develop a plan which would perha;s be equal density to the one acre zoning, perhaps cluster housing. I have been a lifelong summer resident. I have a cottage on the bay. I am a neighbor of Bruce Norris and the new sewage treatment plant if it happens to be built. This property was in his mother's name until about a year ago. He has the resources to develop the property. The obvious alternative is one acre zoning which is perhaps sixty houses on 75 acres. This could turn out to be a one acre Levittown. The alternative is not that this land remain in agricultural use. The land values do not support agriculture use. The next question here is do you want Bruce to develop this in one acre use with the school population and the septic tank opera- tion or do you want to consider the plan he has now which obviously involves higher density than'is presently allowed or is there some other alternative and the other alternative may be to ask him to cluster the housing and and keep the rest of the land to perhaps continued agricultural use which you may not see if you don't give him an alternative. I still have an open mind. I speak only for myself and not other members of my family. Whatever Bruce does there are many other landowners who have the capability of doing the same thing. I don't think I want to see nothing but one acre homes all over the town. I am against it at this time. Catherine Simicich: We are both opposed to this plan. Mr. C. F. Allen: I am against it. I must question Mr. Norris' great interest when he doesn't supply any beach facilities for these great re- sidences. I know where they will come. Although we have been assured that this will be restricted and no families with children under sixteen admitted. I am not against children and I don't think they can make that stick and unless it is going to be strictly an old age home. I don't think that has been advocated. Mr. Tom Carey: As to the aerial maps, he is not dealing with a series of large parcels of land immediately adjacent to the property in question and you have to believe that were the town to give consideration to the development of cluster zoning that the parcel immediately adjacent to that to the west in a subsequent application has to be given equal consideration, the parcel to the east and I would clearly feel the town would not be able to deny subsequent down-zoning. I would urge strongly that this be defeated. I cannot understand how the Southold Planning Board turned against its own zoning ordinances and would advocate an exception for this property. Public Hearing - Cha~.~e of Zone -I0- D¢~ember 11, 1973 Cluster housing doesn't say triple or quadruple except for the personal grandiosement of the owner. Nothing has been said except there would be some sewage plant, no projections as to what would happen to the outgoing and I think these are really large open questions which should be answered before action can be taken on a proposal such as this. Ms. Connie Pim declared that she lives not too far from the parcel in question and submitted the following letter: RFD #1 Box lllC Mattituck~ New York December 11, 1073 Southold Town Board Greenport, New York Gentlemen: The requested downzoning of an approximately thirty-eight acre parcel lying between Maratooka Pond and Peconic Bay by Mr. Bruce Norris serves only the interests of the landowner and none of those of the citizens of Mattituck and Southold Town. Acre zoning was a hard-won goal for Southold Town and should not be put aside, especially in an area of low-density single family dwellings. The Norris land is too far from the center of Mattituck for the elderly who might live there to walk to stores and churches. Housing which might be used for retirement should be located in consideration of the fact that many senior citizens can no longer drive their cars. We do not need to copy the unplanned construction pattern of Western Long Island. The parcel of land in question in ~attituck can be better developed with acre lots or cluster built with open space adjacent. Southold Town is already zoned to a density greater than its water supply can properly support and the Town Board must not allow further down-zoning. There are no over-riding reasons to change the character of a large section of Mattituck. The proposed project would not only add to the overall burden on the village school~ the Southold Police, roads, beaches, parks and utilities; it would add to the pressure that, nationwide, is over-developing and destroying the charm of America's Villages. We and many others have chosen to live in beautiful Southold Town because of its rural atmosphere and the absence of the very kind of develop- ment that Mr. Norris now proposes. We plead for the rejection of this down-zoning application and request that in the future~ when applications of such importance are presented~ the Town Board see that the proposal receives better exposure through the media, so that the citizens may have time to consider the facts before a public hearing is held. Yours very truly~ /s/ James H. Pim Peter Warren: I have to say that in this instance I am in support of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. I think after thirty years Suffolk County is finally waking up. The master plan you worked hard for. The one acre we worked hard for. We think the Southold Town Board should look toward East Hampton in the next election. There are all kinds of condominiums in East Hampton. On both sides there are nothing but buildings that were built and the people didn't want them and the last election they had their way. I hate to see it for all the good work the Board has done in the past. I know they have worked with the people and done a good job. Public Hearing - Change of Zone -tin December 11, 1973 the law firm of Wickham and Lark have done a good job. I am against it, tOO. Ms. Virginia Moore: Did you say the water use would be about 70 per capita and the sewage effluent would be 100 gallons? Mr. McLendon: The estimate was 70. The normal requirements are that you design your treatment plant to handle 100 per person. Ms. Moore: The 21,000 gallong use of water here by this development is about 4~000 gallong less per day than the equivalent use in agriculture would be? Over how long a period? Mr. McLendon: Annual use. An average for the entire year on both basises. Ms. Moore: Year-round residents? Mr. McLendon: Yes. Ms. Moore: Two or three months of irrigation would come out using more water? Mr. McLendon: Yes, 20,000 gallons per acre per year. }~. Moore: If all the developments in Southold or the plots that are laid out and plans made were to go through what would the population of Southold Town be? Supervisor: What we have developed already would go beyond the 35,000 population figure. The Town could support 35,000 people as far as the water is Ms. Moore: concerned? Supervisor: Ms. Moore: Yes. Some of the information is baffling but it seems to support the idea that experts can't endorse the plan. I believe there is a law in New York State which mandates the governments of those to look after the 'basic needs of the people first to make sure they have enough water to drink and I would ask you to show the same kind of farsightedness you have shown sometimes in the past. I don't always agree with what you have done but it would be awfully good if you could go ahead and see your way clear to keep this a healthy, sane place to live as it is now. Mr. Peter Gray: I oppose the program. Mr. Richard F. Monahan: I am opposed to it. Don't let it happen. Mr. Peter Hanlon: If Suffolk County turned it down why is the Town Board authorizing it to go ahead¢ Supervisor: It is a recommendation. We are a hearing board to hear the applicant and the people of the Town of Southold. Mr. Hanlon: I am opposing it. Public Hearing - Change of Zone -12- December 11, 1973 Mr. Kent Smith: It was brought to my attention earlier today that four acres of land somewhere on the north side of the lake was purchased by the park commission to preserve and protect Maratooka lake. It was done in the last year. It seems incongruous to place wells in this area. It would not be protecting the lake which is not fed by underground waters. It is a runoff from rain water. I think Mr. Norris and his representatives are to be congratulated on the thought they put into this in spite of the fact that many of the people here including myself are opposed to it. There are hours and hours of work. I agree with many other people that a change is going to come. It behooves us all to have the change occur the way the people who are here would like to see it occur. I think Thornton Smith said it well. Consider the alternative plans. Certainly Mr. Norris does have a right to break up his estate which we would like to see remain the way he has it. To change the zone for thirty-three cluster houses with a storage plant located near the bay which is basically in our backyard~ it has got to have an impact on what happens to our water supply and what happens to Great Peconic Bay which is one of the finest stretches of water I know of. You cannot beat the fishing and otherwise. I think perhaps the plan should not be completely scratched from the standpoint of what work has gond into it but it should be denied in its present state and density. It does not belong in this particular area and not in that spot. We want to preserve the area as much as possible. I go on record as opposing it. Mr. Ronald Nelson: I go on record as being opposed. Mr. Smith: Mr. McLendon, I think there is confusion as regarding the effluent. Is there any effluent going into the bay and what happens to the residual sludge? Mr. McLendon: Either I didn't say what I intended to say or people aren't listening. It would be put back in the ground into the recharge basin. We have also suggested in the report that an alternative could be considered to create a lake in the recreation area of the condominium which could be supplied by this renovated waste water which places the discharge back in this area. There is no discharge plan to the bay whatsoever. Mr. Smith: This is a tertiary plant. What is the quality of that effluent compared to normal drinking water? Mr. McLendon: As related to what a normal individual private system puts out they would remove roughly 30% of the contaminants. The sewage treatment plant would remove 90% and actually after the denitrification the water is actually filtered before it is recharged. It is probably 95 to 98% of the contaminants removed. Mr. Smith: This effluent is better than septic tanks for one acre? Mr. McLendon: Yes. Mr. Smith: What will happen to the sludge? Mr. McLendon: It would be taken by truck to a disposal site and would be disposed of by the County. Public Hearing - Chat,~e of Zone -13- December il, 1073 Mr. Schmitt: How about the odor? Mr. McLendon: Two alternatives are indicated in our report - either aeration or the rotating biological disc. Mr. Schmitt: How about the odor? Mr. McLendon: Almost every sewage plant has some odor at some time. That is the reason it is going to be enclosed so if odors do become a problem they can be contained and treated. Mr. Carey: Would you build your home down from that plant? Mr. McLendon: Not if I had a choice. Mr. Carey: When you are talking in terms of traffic capacity, you consider New Suffolk to be a typical two-lane road? Mr. Jacobsen: We took into consideration typical two-lane traffic in this area. It is adjusted for New Suffolk. Mr. McLendon: I would like to point out that the plans as submitted to the town call for the water plant to be constructed in this area. I also want to point out that this lake is no more than a water table exposed because the ground is lower than the water level. Question: Is that lake spring fed? Mr. McLendon: It is an exposed water table. If you dug a hole any place below the water table you would have a lake. Ms. Jean Edwards: I live across the street from Mr. Smith's property which is downwind and downwater and I would like to say I object. Question: There is one point that baffles me. Suffolk County's recommenda- tion was in November. Southold Town Planning Board was in October. I would like a clarification. The Southold Town Planning Board gave their decision before they got the Suffolk County Recommendation? How come they don't listen to them? Mr. Martocchia: They work independently. Mr. Martocchia: Mr. Lark, do you have anything to add to the record? Mr. Lark: No. Mr. Carey: By what manner will the community be advised when the meeting will be held? Mr. Martocchia: I can't tell you we will make the decision on a certain ,late but it will be the first part of the year. Mr. Martocchia: I will submit thirty pieces of correspondence of residents of Southold Town in opposition. Mr. ~rtocchia declared the hearing closed at 12:10. ENVIRONMENTAL IYfPACT __ ! i i ~ L ' ! il · STATEMENT i , CONDOMINIUM COY~PLEX AND · , _ , · il CLUSTER RE~TY SUBD IVIS I ON for BRUCE A. NORRIS NEW" S-uff o'lk Avenue Mattituck, New York Request changes of zone from and Agricultural Dis tric t to Residence District TTr~TT Residential Light ~fultiple Zrepared by: Horace D. ,Wells 2~ River Avenue Riverhead, New York December 11, 1973 A. DESCRIPTION OF AC TI ON 1. ]_~a. me o.f..Pro~ e c.t (a) (b) Town House Condominium Comple~ and Cluster Realty Subdivisions £or Bruce A. Norris. These proposed condominiums and realty subdivisions are located south o£ New Suffolk Avenue, ~attituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York This proposal applies only to the hamlet of Mattituck, and the Town o£ Southold. · (a) Obi e c ti.ye s o,f ,t.h.e Prop...o,s.a.1 This proposal will fulfill the need for condominium housing for mature residents and individual building lots for the construction of high quality homes. At present there is no area in the western part of Southold Town between the hamlet of Southold and the Town Line in Laurel that is zoned for multiple housing or condominiums. The Southold and Greenport areas have areas zoned for multiple housing. The Mattituck area has a need for land to be zoned for such housing. The Development Plan for the Town of Southold which was prepared by the Southold Town Planning Board recommends that the property adjoining this property, just west of Camp Mineola Road, be zoned "M" Light Multiple Residence. This plan states that this general area is suitable for multiple housing. This Development Plan was revised by the Town Board before it was adopted and did not include any "~" Light Multiple Residence in the Mattituck Area. Many mature persons have been forced to leave their present homes in this and other areas because o£ urban pressures, health and age which makes it impossible for them to care for their homes. Most of Southold Town is zoned to have building lots wi th a minimum size o£ ~0,000 square £eet. Lots of this size are di££icult, and in some cases, impossible for many older persons to maintain. This project, if approved, will provide this needed housing. Because of the high quality of the housing to be provided, most of the inhabitants of this project will be mature persons who are people of substance, and many probably will be re tired. It is expected they will be responsible persons who will be beneficial to the Town. As· the major portion of the project contains 132 condominium units each with one or two bedrooms, it is not designed for families which will contribute significantly to the schoOl population. Mr. Norris plans to e×ercise the policy of not selling condominium units to families with children under 16 years of age. It has been estimated that the real estate and other ta~es to be paid by the future residents of this project will e×ceed the cost of schools and other municipal services required. In this way, this particular project will benefit the community. The covenant to keep 1.367 acres of land between New Suffolk Avenue and Marratooka Lake as open space in private ownership will be beneficial. -2- The water supply system and sewage disposal plant planned for this property will not cause any load on any water supply or sewage disposal system in operation now or in the future in the Mattituck area. In fact, the water system might be e×tended to serve additional areas in the future. Recreational and park areas will be provided and maintained in the open space between the condominiums. These will reduce the need for the residents of the project to use other recreational areas of the Town. These areas will also supply play areas for the relatively small number of children residing or visiting in the area. The project does not involve the taking nor will it have any adverse affect upon development of recreational, park lands or wetlands in the Town. (b) This proposal is not a part of a continuing or larger plan. It pertains only to Zarcel q of 27.6 acres where Mr. Norris wishes to build ~32 condominium units, Parcel 2 of 10.9 acres where the water pollution control plant is to be constructed on 5.00 acres and where 6 houses may be constructed on 5.9 acres. This plan also includes all of the acreage of Mr. Norris, which is already zoned "A" Residential and Agricultural where individual homes may be built. Description o.f..Action (a) On the area for which the zoning is being requested to be changed from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M" Light Multiple Residence, it is proposed on Parcel ~ to build q32 condominium units on 27.6 acres of land~ and on Parcel 2 to build a complete tertiary sewage disposal system on 5 acres and build 6 homes on 5.9 acres. Also by covenant on the filed map, it will maintain a parcel of 1.367 acres that is between New Suffolk Avenue and -3- Marratooka Lake as a natural area. On the Cluster Subdivision which is zoned "A" Residential and Agricultural it is proposed to build individual houses. The density of the condominums on Parcel ~ is ~.679 units per acre~o This is far less than the density of 6.7 units per acre allowed in the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance. The placing o£ the condominums on Parcel ~ has been planned so they are well within the front, side and back-yard setbacks requirements of the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance. The Cluster Realty Subdivision will contain 2~ individual living units on 2~.5 acres for a density of .857 units per acre. Si~ o£ these units will be on Parcel 2 which consists of 5.9 acres of land between the condominiums and the water pollution control plant where it is requested that the zoning be changed to "M" Ligth Multiple Residence. will be on land already zoned "A" Residential or Agricultural. (b) It is proposed that the 1.376 acres of natural area be reserved for the use o£ the owners o£ the 2~ houses that may be built on the Norris property. This parcel is so small and the environment is so fragile that its use by the families in the condominiums would seriously overcrowd and injure it. Limiting the use of this area in this way will also protect the water quality of Marratooka Lake. It is also proposed to put in a water supply system to furnish water for the condominiums and homes to be built on the property. The water supply system will be located about 550 feet south of New SuffolkAvenue. This makes it reasonably distant from the wells for the residences to the south and west of the property. It is proposed to build the water pollution control system on 5 acres on the south end of Parcel 2, just north of the area Mr. Norris has his home. This is an e×cellent site for the plant as the general slope of the property is to the south and the soil in this area is e~cellent for a sewage disposal system. Tertiary treatment will be provided which e~ceeds the requirements of the Department of Health. Ail of the treated effluent will be recharged into the soil which will be beneficial to the underground water supply. A drainage area is to be provided near the water pollution control area to recharge most of the run off from the property. This will benefit the underground water supply of the surrounding community. A report on this system and how it is to be built to provide an adequate water supply and at the same time protect the water supply of the area is being reported on by Mr. Samuel McLendon of Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell of Melville, New York. (c) There will be a temporary increase in air and noise pollution on contiguous properties because of the use of earth moving equipment and carpentry during construction. The noise coming from the condominuim area after the completion of construction will be buffered by ornamental plantings to be made at the ends of the property. The club house and swimming pool will be built near middle o£ the condominium area. The main recreational and park areas will be built near the middle of the condominium area~ just north o£ the water supply site, and near the water pollution control plant site. (d) Noise will be increased by the sound of earth moving equipment and carpentry during working hours but not at night. (e) This project will require approximately three years to complete. B. LOCATION 0F ~ROJECT AND DESCRIPTION OF THE CHARACTERISTICS AND CONDITIONS OF PRESENT ENVIRONM~NT. (a) The area involved was described in the notice o£ this hearing, in the petition for change of zoning and is shown on an aerial photograph. The boundaries of th~ property are marked in red. You will note that the area is south and east of the residential and business areas of Mattituck Village. It~ is reasonably convenient to grocery and other stores, several churches, the library and pubiic schools. To the south and west of the property there is a wooded residential area. To the east of the property is the Mattituck airport which in turn is bounded on the east by a residential area. Reeve Avenue or Camp Mineola Avenue which bounds ~arcel ~ on the west is a narrow unmaintained road that is full of pot holes and is almost impassable ~ev~n in good weather. The applicant proposes to widen this road for the length of his property which will benefit the whole area. In ~972 and ~.973 most of Parcels ~ and 2 and the area where the individual homes are to be built were devoted to the growth of rye for grain. In ~97~ and previous years, this land was devoted to the production of potatoes and other agricultural crops. The property is at least 1/2 mile from any e~tensive area devoted to agriculture. This makes it less valuable £or agriculture as it is too small an area to be profitably farmed by itself and is too distant from other land in agriculture to make it attractive £or any one to rent. Since it is surrounded by residential areas, the operation of agricultural equipment, the use o£ pesticides and the dirt and smells from agricultural operations would be ob j e c t i onab 1 e. You will note on the aerial photograph that with the e~ception o£ 2 rows of maple trees, roads and a narrow strip of brush which is on the south end of Zarcel q, the land is all cleared. The cleared land has been devoted to agriculture as stated above. The area along the roads and under the rows of Maple trees is in grass. Ail of the cleared land, with the e~ception of a small area in the southwest corner of Parcel ~ where brush has recently been cut, is presently in rye being grown for grain. There are no natural sites or historical landmarks near the property that will be affected by this project. LAND REZIEP The land relief map of Parcel ~ made by Young and Young, Land Surveyors of Riverhead, shows the highest elevation on the property to be 29.7 feet in the north east corner. The northern end of this parcel ranges from 22.~ feet to 29.~ feet in elevation. The field has a general slope to the south with about 85% of the parcel above 20 feet in elevation. There is a depression south of the middle of the field and the south end slopes off fairly rapidly to a low spot with an elevation of 12.2 feet on the south property line. -?- The U.S. Coast and Geological Survey Map shows the elevation of the proposed site for the water pollution control plant site to be about 20 feet with a small area that has a slightly lower elevation to the north o£ it. These maps are available for the Board as part of the record. 2. ~RESENT DISTRIBUTION OF ~EO~LE (a) At present most o£ the land is in agriculture. There are only 2 houses on the property in addition to the Norris estate complex. This project will provide space for 153 family units, ~2 in condominiums and 2~ in individual houses. The effect of the traffic generated by this project is being provided by John A. Jacobsen, Z.E., of John Jacobsen Associates, Inc. ~. BIOTA (LIVING ORGANISUMS) OF THE AREA (a) The present use of this area has been previously described. There are no endangered or disappearing species of flora or fauna pre sent. However, some birds frequent the area. The presence of birds will not be endangered by this project as ornamental plantings such as autumn olive, russian olive, pyracantha and bear berry which are attractive to birds will be planted around the property lines. As the area is already surrounded by residences the amount of hunting on it has been very limited. Of course, this project will prevent further hunting on the property. MINERALS Sand and gravel mining has not taken place. 5. SOILS (a) Information concerning the soils on the property was obtained from -8- Mr. Charles Barnett, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Riverhead, N.Y. and are indicated on one of the Development Plan maps. The uncolored area is a Haven Loam Soil which accounts for about 70% of the soil on the property. This is one of the best agricultural soils on Long Island. It is also e~cellently suited to the growth of lawns and ornamental plantings, it is well drained and is e~cellent for the water pollution control plant site. The area crosshatched with yellow is Riverhead Sandy Loam Soil. This is sandier than the Haven Soil and is slightly less suited to agriculture because it dries out faster. The area colored yellow is ?lymouth Loamy Sand Soil. Note that is near the south boundary of Parcel ~ and that it is mostly in a roadway rather than being farmed. Nearly all of the 1.367 acre parcel between Marratooka Lake and New Suffolk Avenue is also Plymouth Loamy Sand. This Plymouth soil is very sandy and dries out too fast to be an agricultural soil. It is not suited for water pollution control sites as it has excessive drainage and not enough filtering action. In the area of this project there is only about 50 acres of the Haven Loam Soil. In this case, as it is a relatively small area and is surrounded by the sandy Riverhead Sandy Loam and very sandy ~lymouth Loamy Sand, it is sandier than most Haven Loam Soils. 6. SOURCES OF POLLUTION Visual inspection does not presently disclose any evidence of e~isting air, water or noise pollution. COMPETING PLANS There are no competing plans for approval of condominium construction in the Mattituck area that is known at present. -9- C . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. ~robabl~. _impact of the propased action on man and . ~ i ~ i , , i i 1, i1,, nature (a) The proposed construction and resulting population will, of course, add to the traffic on New Suffolk Avenue and in the vi cini ty. John A. Jacobsen, P.E., of John Jacobsen Associates, Inc. will comment on this. The 153 family units will add to the economic growth of the Mattituck area since they will make most of their purchases locally. There will be an increase in the demand for utility services which can be handed without difficulity. This condominum project will occupy 27.6 acres of land. However, the lay out of the condominuims and the low density of structures will keep as much open space as possible. Young and Young, Land Surveyors of Riverhead, N.Y. have determined that the proposed construction on this property will leave 8~.2% open space and have only 18.8% covered by buildings. Provision for recreational and park areas will provide the greatest possible amount and best use of the open space on the property. As a swimming pool, club house, recreational and parkland will be provided on the property, it will reduce the need for the residents to use other recreational areas of the town. This project will, of course, take about 55 acres out of agriculture. This land has not been profitably operated for several years. It is some distance from any e~tensive agriculture land and is surrounded by residential areas, its loss from agriculture will not be significant. During construction there will be a temporary increase in noise pollution to contiguous properties. After the completion of construction, noise pollution will be minimized by ornamental plantings near the borders of the property. Therefore, it is e~pected that the noise level will be less than if the land was developed into single housing units because of the low number of children living in the area. Since private water and sewage systems are planned there has been careful provision for the protection of public health. (b) ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS The proposed action will have no affect on forests, woodlands ponds, streams, estuaries or air currents of the area. Mr. Samuel McLendon of Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell is reporting on the amount of water usage and its affect and on how the proposed water pollution control plant will protect the environment. This action will have no detrimental effect on the animal bird or plant life of the area. Of course, the rye being grown for grain will be replaced by buildings, lawns and roads, but this will have no significant effect on the environment. Every effort will be used to maintain as many of the maple trees as possible. Ornamental plantings which are attractive to birds will be made to encourage birds and reduce noise pollution. A visual inspection of the area does not reveal any rare or endangered species that will be endangered by this action. HISTORICAL SETTINGS AND ESTHETICS · This action will not result in physical modification or obstruction of any scenic views, vistas~ unique landscape design, monuments or historical areas~ sights and objects as far as can be determined. The action will, of course, change the view o£ the open space, but every .e££ort will be used to maintain as much open space as possible and enhance the beauty of the area. Ail electrical, telephone and cablevision and other utility connections will be below ground so they will not be objectable. DISCUSSION OF PROBLE~S'~ AND OBJECTIONS. (a) The Southold Town ~lannin~ Board, of which John Wickham is chairman, has approved this application. (b) The Suffolk Cuunty Planning Board has disapproved of this application for the following reasons:- · "While consideration of entire landholdings of the attempt should be made to allow an increased density development pattern." the clustering concept on the petitioner is welcomed, no downzone portions thereof to to effectuate such a land The portion referred to in the foregoing quote is the northern part of ~arcel 2 showing 6 single family dwellings on 5.9 acres, but which is included in the petition for downgrading to "M" Light Multiple Residence zoning. This portion is not included in the computation of the density for the condominium area. Due to the topography of the petitioner's land~ the southerly portion o£ Parcel 2 is the only practical place to construct a sewage disposal treatment facility. As shown above your petitioner is requesting a change in zone to "M" Lig~t Multiple Residence district for ~arcel 2 which contains 10.915 acres and which is contiguous to Parcel The reason for this is that this parcel of land will be used mainly as an accessory use to ~arcel ~. This is a necessary legal requirement so the area for the water pollution contro~ plant will be installed in the lower zoning use district, The balance of Parcel 2 will consist of roadways, recharge, drainage areas and single family residences. · "~ increase in density would tend to adversely affect the limited underground £resh water supply on the North ~'ork and establish an precedent for the continuance of such a prac ti c e" · The petitioner is providing a water supply system for the property to be developed. It is suggested that this system be set up as a water district so in the future the residences to the south and west o£ this property which are already having water problems might connect to this system. It is also suggested that this system be moved to within 7~ feet of New SuffolkAvenue so it would be nearer Marratooka Lake. It would also place the wells fnmther from the residences in the 01d Jules Lane area which are e~peri encing water problems. The petitioner is also providing for the recharge of the effluent from the water pollution control plant and for the recharge of the run off from the lawns and roads on the property. In this way nearly all of the water consumed by the condominuims and residences will be recharged and will cause the least possible drain on the underground fresh water supply of the area. Mr. McLendon will report on the beneficial effects of recharging the relatively clean water which has received tertiary treatment in the water pollution control plant. "It is inconsistant re sidence pattern of wi th the low density single family zoning in the locale~" It is admitted that in Parcel ~, the condominuims will cause an Increasing of the density of housing in the area. However because of the nature of this housing probably each unit will not contain more than an average of about 2 persons per unit. The Plan for Development of the Town of Southold prepared by the Town Board in 1971 recommended that a limited area of Light Multiple Housing Zoning be provided in this area. "It would tend downz onings in Avenue ~" to the establish a precedent for further locale especially along New Suffolk As each request meri t~th the £or downzoning has to be considered on Town Planning Board and the Town Board, its own there is no reason why the approval of_ this petition would set a precedent. "It is inconsistant wi th designated this area for residence development;" the Town Master Plan which low density single family The Town Zoning Ordinance has provided for "M" Light Multiple Residence Zoning in the villages of Southold and Greenport, but has not provided for any such zoning in the Mattituck area. This appears to be an inconsistancy in the Zoning Ordinance. The approval a[ this petition by the Town Planning Board indicates the need for a limited amount of "M" Light Multiple Residence Zoning in the Mattituck area. D. ALTERNATIVES One of the alternatives ~o the plan proposed is for the petitioner to sell off these tracts of land to speculators for uncontrolled development. This would be less desirable to the community than the petitioner's plan to intellegently develop his entire land so it would not only be our asset to the community, but would complement the balance of the petitioners property which ,contains 15 acres and upon which there is already a substantial investment in improvements. If this land is sold off for uncontrolled development, each individual residence will have its own well and cesspool. These individual wells will be more apt to run into problems· of getting good quality water than the system proposed by ~he petitioner which will be designed by a competent engineering firm to maintain the quality of the underground fresh water supply. Also the treated effluent from the water pollution control system will cause less contamination of the underground water supply than will numerous cesspools. Subdivision of the land into one family homes will contribute significantly to the school population. E. REC OMMENDATI ONS After e~amining the environmental effect of this proposal, I find many favorable factors and few harmful effects. Theref ore, I recommend its approval. However, I recommend that the Town Board require the petitioner to: Place a covenant on Parcel q stating that no more than ~32 condominium units be built. 2. Set up the water system as a water district or design it so it can be expanded and integrated into a larger system to serve the surrounding area when and if necessary. BIBLIOGRAPHY 11 , , Il I , , Il AGENCIES CONTACTED ' [ 11 , . I [I , It · Suffolk County Council Environmental Quality (for literature) Southold Town Building Department (for iiterature) Cooperative Extension Association of Suffolk County (for literature) INDIVIDUAL CONTACTED - , 11 i · II I , I t Mr. Robert J. Villa, Suffolk County Department of Health. (for information on water quality). Mr. Charles Barnett, U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (for soil information interpertation) REFERENCES Statements Guidelines, Quality. on ~roposed County Dec. 1971, County Ac ti OhS Afl e c ting of Suffolk Council the on Environment Environmental Checklist Statement, Quality. and Format for Content March, q972; County of of Environmental Surf olk Council Impact on Environmental Environmental Impact Statement for Cuunty Avenue May 1973, Suffolk Co~nty Department Road 99 - Woodside of Zublic Works. Raymond and Development County, New May Associates, ?lanning Consultants. Comprehensive ~lan, TOwn of Southold, Village of Greenport, Suffolk York, 1967 - part ~ Raymond and Development 1969 - Part May Associates, ?lanning Consultants, Comprehensive Zlan, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, II · Holzmacher, Mcl.endon and Murrell, Consulting Engineers, Zroposed Cut chogue-Matti tuck Water District~ Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, Engineering Report, Part ~ -June 1972. Farmland ~reservation Zrogram. Legislature, September, 1973. Report to the Suffolk County · Soil Survey Map of Suffolk Cons e rvati on S ervi c e, 1969 County made by the U.S. Soil · Soil Interpretations, by the Nassau-Suffolk Inventory and Analysis issued Regional Planning Board. in ~ 969 10. Norin Plaza -- Miami, Florida, A proposed ?lanned Unit Development, North prepared for Norin Corporation, March 13, ,, ~:o z percent 3'io?,.-.s. ,.'.qc.~ sa~d., o to ~ nercen't s~ ~-.q : .. ~ ~ .. ~ ~ -.~ sand, 8 to 1S ,',~rc "- . . ,~.,~v sa~yd 8 to ~q y:-,',--oen s opes, "y ~oamv f-;u ~ sand 3 "- · . .... , c [5 perc,~t1't s'io~es , , ':~y...~ .ear, tv. ........ "n~ 3a~':.d; :5 'tc '"..,t' p,=.,_,~, c:;,,-~":: ,: ._ -r~ a sil~y or ti-: ese soils are on or. the moraines. s' i'~ loam subsoits that grade stratum of sand and gravel. from 20 to 36 inel~es. TheSe ' ly '-' ye-,, x-a'p~d ne~,~agi e n the fairly Depth to so! ls are moder:2tely substrata. ~'t*-~c are deep, wel~ drained, .. _ ' . .medimm textured ~-o~i~ tl~',t aevelopea lo~.,,y mantle overiv~ng ,.osrse sand ando~'~'-~'~-,-~ - ~ost commonly, nearly level to gently sloping out~,'asi~ plains but may occur Slopes ~-~ '- . --,..~e z~om 0 to 12 percent :ney 3, ave.. brown to dark = .... _ .... ~..~.~ ,zo~m loam ~~f~c~* a~(l ¢';-"~~ ~ ' ' .. ab~'~dpt'y to the light yellowish brot~m sub- the sand an..:~ grave1 substratum ranges ',~ ~ in the subso51 and !,tzooing Units ,=i "en t s 1 odes, .,~.en xo~m, 0 to 2 p~- · ]gB Haven lomb, 2 eo 6 percent slopes; !2C Haven loam, 6 to I2 percon* slopes; includes 1 · ..'-,a',:',dy i rapidly sol 'is ~.n both ~.,. Fish ark br de've!e:oed Dis cribution of ':':h e ot.rtwash p loins e'r's and Pt~at islands. own '~ ' dy -o brcw:~ san !earn earn subsoils ~:qat gr.7~ gravel suYstrata Dep .... h ~o the sand and gravel ).c~eaoie ': .... ,,b" t ~ro d.gep, ..... ,. - .... ;:oeeTa'te~v coa~s~ in a coarl;,'~ 'ic, ar~:,/ mantle overlying coarse sand the:se so" ls ';$ '-"i~e wi~ ' - ,-,, .... ..,e. 1~ey occur extensively mo:cain,s A.rea:.~ of Re · , ..,.vt.~nead soils are stony Slopes .'. =- I a~,r'''-~ ~'~.",'m ~ tO * C ~.~ -: ...... , .... ...-. perce;~= ~, qney have s,_,~oces a~_ s~.ro~!~' 'bTown to vel~ow-s]~ w · Fairly abruptly to 'cl~e '5 ght yeliowish bro;~ substrata 'ranRes from t!~e suhsoi! and very ~6A River!~=ad sandy loan';, ! 6 ~ Rd.v e'rh ~ -,' , ~:'~, _, sandy ~ 6"~ :;,i.,_ v=r,had' sandy, lo~m,-- o _vet ad stony sandy . t" 6C n~ve~head st.~"', "* ..... :~ sar:ey 0 to 3 percent ... o 8 percent slones 'to 15 per.cent slopes Ica:n, 3 to 8 perce:~t slopes .- - ~.o . S .TRAFF!C STIIDY 'Prepared for '-i~. Rtchard F. Lark .,. 'prepared by John A. Jacobsen Assocs. December 1973 TRAFFIC S~)DY Prepared Mr. Rtchard F. Lark Prepared by John A. Jacobsen Assocs. December 1973 shore lane bay shore new york 11'}'06 §16mo5-7900 Deze~-,or 7, le..7S !~ickham & Lark. [sq3o Mattltuck~ Lonq Isla~J ;~ew York-, llgC~. Att~ RichJrc' ~. L&rk Re: ;~rris ~ubJivision ant C,~ange o? 7on~, Deaf ~r. Lart,: In accordanc~ ~!th y~ur r~uest, w~ have studied the qeq~r~l tbili~ circulation and traffic characteristics ?or 4eveiom'~qt of p~rty located o~ thn south side o? 4s~ Suffolk ~lvenue. rattituch. ~e acreare will h~ divided to ~rovi~ ~or a~n~exi~te~y ~! ?a~'tly r~stdenttal units a~v~ 132 tov~ >ou~" J~ .~!linn uni~. Th~ means of access to th() site i~ ?r~) ~ Su??olP Avenue fra~~, east or ~is road joiq~ ~ Yor~ State ~oute 95 ??hich l~.)s ~o Piw~d other fa jOt htQh'~ays. At present, qe~? Suffolk Av,,nuo c~n~i~ts o? ~J 1C~ foot asphalt travel lanes. No traff4c sinnal~ are l~catPd near the su{:ject pa~c~l sneed limit iq this ar~ is 3:! ~h. Y~ oth:w ?rafftc co,)~rol at the preset time. TF~,AFFIC V~l~m~ S~JDY Aut~ti~ traffic counttnq ~ut~r~t ~as ~!~ced i~ the vici.Htr subject parcel alonq qm~ Suf?ol~ Avenu. v, ftP, o.~ counter reqtsterlno ell -?. qOY, 30~" ~h~ Cff~r~s.~o~.' gccur'P~d '~'Ith v~y ~,~ino)' t~Jffic Traffic countx,I,..r,.'. taker, o.,. F~!~y, Satur4ay coumt~ lq<)icat.~ very lo'.' twaff~c local residential .... For the put.se om tni~ ~aturday to Ind;cat~ ex'st¢:, traffic A.[.L peak ~-.. ~ ..... ,..u. and t.~ larq~ct p{'-r hour for a tm'~tal t..~- 'ray Count of !:< veh'fc~rs an eastl,om)d direction: ~m- ~ ~>ta~ o~ ~ v:~h~c'i<.~ ~hAF~ I,C To dcte~:.Ine the efFect~ facility on the st~'~t syste~q 14-00 1200 ~ (:}00 800 700 500 500 400 ~O0 ~00 O0 JOHN A. JACOBSEN, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEER HOURLY VARIATION OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES COUNTS TAKEN 24 HOUR COUNT E,,4 $ ,TZ~O Ut..JO 14-00 I~00 1200 I10~ I000 900 800 7O0 6O0 5OO ~0o O0 HOURLY VARrATION OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES COUNTS TAKEN 24 HOUR COUNT JOHN A. JACOBSEN, P.E. CONSULTIN{3 ENGINEER 1500' 14-00 1200 lO00 900 .I 800 700 600 500 ~. 0{~' $00 O0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY VARrATION OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES COUNTS TAKEN 24 HOUR COUNT JOHN A. JACOBSEN, P,E. CONSULTING ENGINEER c~n~T ~500' 14.00 h~O0 ~200 I000 900 800 70 0 600 500 $00 ~0o ~00 O0 % ooooo~g go g~ 0 0 0 0 CD ~ "HOURLY VARrATION OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES COUNTS TAKEN ~4. HOUR COUNT JOHN A. JACOBSEN, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEER study the n~Jects The hasle traffic entin~r~n~ tem~ use'i in this ~.po~t a~ _., .... . (,f thds study ~nddcatet 2e~k period q.,ner~ti~n ~acto-~ for s'ar!o:~s c~ ~erclal and reside:till ~rclccts USE ;ATE A.". p ,_,... , .U To~q Itouses !Init Th~ above ,']eneratinn i'ar_ters .'~r~ dp~t!e-.$ % t~e v)riaus faclliti~ of rroocsed project i~ qu;s-tt~n. T>.n r~su!t~ e~, hi::b ar~ i~Icat,,,~ in Tah!.~ It ts t~portant to note that '..'~ h~ve aided th- ~ak nu~,~,r of tr!~.~ each use under the as~u'-'ptto), that they occurred ,:fthl:~ the ~a.~t' This Is probably not the case, howeve:~ tf ~e wo~t sttu~!oF~ fro', a traffic standpoint. :1 , ~'!l~m~!~!~Y .CA,PAC!T~. STUDY ~e results o¢ th'Js~ c~.:'putatin~s indicate4 Lh~.t u~"*~ hour for hath -')Ir~ction~ This ,-: ...... ,i .......... ~. if tra¢fi.-' is ~p'~,t ~,l,th ~'~¢ direction o~. in the extr,~*'e, 16¢q v~hicles ~e~ ~,~¢) car~ The A?. ~e~k hour total t.af¢Ic ,'-.P *'~ ,..n... 6_, .n a~,..2u.'(.s hou?. ~ts ?!qura eom {~d ut~. th~ oPesent [~c ~ay ,... of 1S6 vemtcles per hou% equals lS.'~ vehicl,~ p~- ¥.:~r. Th~ capacity ratio therefore, equals ?SS/l':q~. or 1 r.~-, .. ~r hnur ~uals ~17 vr',hfc!es Oe~ hour. m'then this total anticipated traffic vol~e is coward w4th the roads canaclty (w, lt,',~/capacity tre road durln,~ this peak period would a,?~ach t~B~ of 1ts nhys!cal ability ~ handle trmfftc. Th~, aborn analysis a~sm)~ that all w;Hcle~ ente~tn~ or leaving the ~ltt-famtly arem and those ,'~tertnn or leavln¢~ t~ ~tnRle fa~ly area A~.,t originate or a~ destined for O~ ffest of the subject proart. To lllu~te. If all vehicles o~iF!nated or we~ ~ttned for Southold the total P.f~. ~o ;~ay ~dtately ~mt o¢ the subject pro~rty would amount to h~ever tf ~o~ vehicle~ ca~ or '~ere d~ttned for etwrn~d ¢)vlo~ ~at the 2~7 vehtcl~ net hour fiffur~, is the vehtcle~ e,.-* -nuld be anticipated. ~':e actual volu~ . :~C¢,~?,:,r,..;:y ~'¥? Yr)itl.lm_/C!~pac'-"~y r~.'t.~,¢ ~;~t);-; h~: "els "-h .- Vitn all factors con~idere.i, ~--' 4, . 9oak h~)~r t~Ips ~cu~ ,-.'ith the ~nm~ ~hr, ~ ' ~' neck , 1~., ..... ~tio at 15.5% an,'{ P. ,. ~ak uf lfl.5~ are ve)ty l?-, and ,4~¢{, .%='y do not constitute ~raffic conqestion, During th~ past s,,ven {7',. years, ~ ~,. off iht has m'roar,~4 n,~qe'~ouq traff(c surveys ~.¢'Hch nav~ included t~- stud,, ~f i¢ft ('.~r-~ ~ :wm,.,nts into and out pr%~ ......-Lqd .........~ f~..,1, .i.., ~e h~,w ~)c,:ntly c~liei tho renu!ts (J~tl!~tnq the ¢,ove ~ntio~e-~ exh~htt~ and k,~i-': ~h~ naak hcur { ,. mtnuta~ of *kin peak ' C~SS!m9 oppo!fnq traffic to ~nter a curt: cut or 4rtv~tay. ~r nu~er these con,.iittens, a m~tortst wd!! not attnttut t),is ~aneuver ,~4' o~ sp~c~ ~et~een vehic!~ in t"2 e~posing tr'~ffi= is qreater ,.na, In Condition I. only tho t~stbou,d peak hour traffic velum of 13~ vehicles p~r hour ts stqnlftcant. ~e peak five {¢) minute t~fftc volume can be tenured by ~lt!Dlytnq the peak hour traffic volu,qe by a ~actor of (135 x .Il) 12 vehicles. This ll% factor was d~termtned through analysis of nu~r~s studies we have prepared over the past t9re~ years. Finding ti~e figu~ of 12 vehicles on the vortical column of chart ~S p~c~t~-~ to the _~i-~*.,... to l~)e, w~ find that a~roxin~ely ~ left turn ',~,~z':utltteS p~v]d,': n~ly ~ iF, ft turn ~p~m'.t~mii:i~ .~w~y fir,. th~ ro;-~atqfn~ eld, yen five ~,dnute p~,'..~s turn o~r, ortun!tiest t~'~ ,~,~ld a driv~av ~)r cur~', c~(t, eros~tqc a lar,~z of traffic ~leuver r~ulres a t._ a, can .. of for ~I~: Suffoll: Avenue Hurfn-,. the tht~ ~ak five :'.tnut~ interval, the entire hour ,~ould p~vt'de onl? ,~,)s~(hl~durlng the heaviest traffic vo!u::es~ ~i:- th,~ ler,~s:, cxit!~-. traffic voiuF~e Is fro,,', the subject w~'e~e ~ vr. hlcl~ ~eave do~r~ the A?4. ~ak h~u~. ?~Iml t'~,~ ':,-?,~h~:~.l'~ .~ ,...'30, whtcle~ perfor,~ed a left turn * ' be rtqht ~urn5 'yhtch sre .,uch ~ critical .~:an '~ left "mn n~nts de~crlhe% C OqCL U~ i O~ In,. v~r!cus el~ :e,'t~ of this t~aFfi~ aqal:,~i~, It that th~ construction c¢ .h_ l..provement~ ind!ca*o.)':qr~.t:), c~ate ar~ u,ldue traffic hazard or traF'Fic cong. Ftia:.., i Suffolk County Clerk's Index No. 74/16865 Appellate Division - Sevond Departmont LAURENCE REEVE, GEORGE BROOKS, ALINE DOVE, FRANK WHITROCK, GEORGE LASCELLE, KATHERINE LASCELLE and JOHN SIMICICH, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants. -against- ALBERT M. MARTOCCHIA, MARTIN SUTER, LOUIS M. DEMAREST, FRANCIS T. DOYEN, JAMES H. RICH, JR., and JAMES F. HOMAN being and constituting the Town Board of the Town of Southold, and BRUCE A. NORRIS, Defendants-Respondents. JOINT APPENDIX FOR RESPONDENTS SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG & YAKABOSKI Attorneys for Defendants-Respondents Albert M. Martocchia. Martin Surer, Louis M. Demarest, Francis T. Doyen, James H. Rich, Jr., & James F. Homan 465 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 7274.100 WILLIAM WICKHAM, P.C. Attorney for Defendant-Respondent Bruce A. .Vorris Main Road Box 1424 Mattituck, New York 11952 (516) 298-8353 (9746) South River, N.J. (201) 257-6850 LUTZ APPELLATE PRINTERS. I%C Lab and Financial Pnnting New York. N.Y. Phdadelphm. Pa 12121 563-2121 t215) 563-5587 ~"ashmston. D C 12021 8 -,- 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXCERPTS OF TESTIMONY OF VOLLGRAF ............ Pa~e RA! STIPULATIONS - THE COURT, ESSEKS, LUNDBERG & LARK .... RAS EXCERPTS OF TESTIMONY OF CHARLES A. ROGERS ....... RA27 TED VOLLGRAF Direct . Cross WITNESSES ............... RA l .................... RA4 CHARLES A. ROGERS Direct ....... RA ~ Dove - cross 500 mo~ion at the end of ~he Pla~t~fs' case ~a~ they failed to ~ a pr~ f~ ~. ESSE~: No ~ G~ Well, w~ k~ of ~r ~e ~ Eons to h~e here? Y~ ~. Volt. f, I ~l~e~ for J~ ~o or ~e or fo= m~es ~ t~n I ~will~ to ~ ~. Gl~r wa~ ~il the7 put ~e~ w~sses ~. [ ~e no obJec~. N~ Y~, h~ ~ ~du~y ~o~, tes~ff~d ~ foil,s: BY }~. ESSEX: b~. Vol~raff, what is your profession? Building contractor. How long have you practiced that business? 27 or eig. ht years. RA 2 Volgraff - direct 501 Q For h~ long have you practiced it in the Five Eastern T~ms of Suffolk County? A The pa~t tern years. An~ have you built co~rcial structures in Eastern Suffolk Country? A Yes, we have. And have you built homes? A Yes, we have. Would you give the Cour~ an estimate of the lowest value and the highest valu~ of the homes you built i~ the last ten years? A The residences from $35,000 to $350,000. q Commsrcial structures ? A From 15,000 to $300,000. q ~ave you estimated the cost -- have you, as a builder, estimated the costs of const, ruc~ion of multiple residence units? A Yes, we have. ~.~. Vo!graff ~ I ask you as a gep~ra! proposition if you are to build a housL~g unit of a thousand square feet, leC us say, as a single dwell~ u~-~it and then if you ara to build a housing unit of a thousand squc~e feet as part of a multiple residence Volgraff - dirac~ 502 unit, would you estimate the cost assuming the saa~ type of construgtion in each -- THE COURT: How can it be the s~ type ? MP.. ESSEKS: The quality of structi=n, your Honor. The differential between the one-family res~_4ence which is on a separate lot and =he multiple res/zlances which are att-ched. A We did a study on a piece of. pro~er~y that we owne4 on which we were go/ns to do just such a type Of construe:Ion upon a condominium basis. We did a very thorough breal~own. Q When did you do this, sir? A Last year, 1974. Our cost of of a level of quali~y that we use in residential houses was costin~ $35 a square foot for a single family resi- dence. We estimate4 doing 30 un!ts. That the cost par square foot for the cox~dominium were $26 a foot l~r. Vo!graff, l~$t Summu~r ho%; many employees did you have in your construction busLu~ss? A SLx =o eight. ~. ESSEKS: That's all. RA4 Vo!$raff - c~_-oss 503 CROSS-~fkM~AT 16%7 BY MR. LUNDBEP~: ~. Volgraff, were you subpoenaed to con~ here today? A ~b~. Esseks ? 1~o, I wasn't. Did you just coms to the Courtroom to see A Mo, I didn't. A purpose. q A q Did he call you up? I had met him, yes. But not for tha~ I happened to be in his office. Today? Yes. Fine. Thank you. }5l. ESSEKS: That's all. l,%r. Lark? blt. ~K: ~qo questions. ~. ESSF~KS: I am perfectly please/ tc b~ve ~he Defen.lan~s put on the ~,,~o experts ami tai~ tha~ ,Dt~ of turn, yo~ H,?nor. T]'~]~ CCUAT: Ail right. RA5 STIPULATIONS '-THE COURT, ESSEKS, LUNDBERG & LARK That's what it referred to '~ the -- T-F~_ COI~LT: District ? MP,. L~RK: Res ident ial District. I~{. ESSEKS: Light Industrial }~o. '7-f' Light ! have no other questions of the witness. THE COURT: Any other questions? ~5l. LU~DBERG: Could I recall Mr. Henry P. aynor for the purpose of making a correction? I slipped into the same mistake that P~r. Esseks did, calling it '~-1". PR{o ESSEKS: I will stipulate to that. marled ? LUNDBERG: Could we have that had it mmvked '~ 1" TPLV~,, COUXT: ~5t. LIRJDBERC: Ti~ ~. Co~-..~ . and mark it '~-~" Light. ~_s idence Distr';.ct. Ail right. There is an '~,~'-1". Jus~ taka a pencil '%.[" L~ght ,xbaltiple 1~. LA...,... Yas~ your Honor. That's RA6 6;: '--'. ho~.~ it is raf,a~zd to ~n th.~ Zoning Ordinance, 15l, LUI~DBEP, G: ALtar discussion ~i~h ~, Essek~ the T~n of SoutholR offers ~he following Stipulation: That if Alden W. Yegg ware called to testify, he ~ould ~est~y that he i~ a licensed Professi~al Enabler and licensed S~eyor; ~ha~ he had done ~he s~eys which are pa~ of e::h ib its, T~ COU%T: Does that ~clude the ~ps themselves ~ b~. L~ndberg? }%. LL%DEERG: I ~i!l tell you the exhibits that are ~ci~ad: Defen~ts' K, the Notice to Admit. TI~ CO~T: Now just a mo~nt. ~t ~ f~d that. Exhibit X? ~.~ L~DBERG' Yes ~d that he would t~stify that none of the premises which are rezoned '~.I" Ligh~ %esidential T~ COU%T: b~t's sea if I got RA 7 testify that u'.na of ti~e --~- ',~.~ as ~,~" Light l~'~ult iple Residence lie within 500 feet of Peconic Bay, a County Road or a State Road. Am I accurate on that, Mr. Lundberg ? ~l, LUNDBERG: Yes. Plaintiff so stipulates ? ~-51. ESSEKS: Yes, s ir. ~,, LU~:DBERG: Can I have Exh ib it H, please? E×hibiC G, I'm sorry. THE CO?J?~T: That's the worksheet of the P.l. anning Board. ~l. LIR.~qDBERG: Yes~ sir. If I may hand th~ up to the Court, I call the Court's attention to a copy of the transmittal letter apparently signed by John Wickham -- by sor. mbody else because there is an initial it, transmitting the application to t~ Suffolk Count}, D~partment of Planning and it checks ~' ~ it d.',-~s _,~a~ ~ lie within those 500 feet that we have just offered the Stipulation. Th~ Court will note that that is a for-.~ application and that there is nothing RA8 cn there to chec!: that it is within one mile cf an a~zport and the witness for the Planning Board has testified that it was only sent there because it lay ~itJnin mile of an airport. THE COURT: . is incorrect ? PR{. LUNDBERG: THE CO~.T: MiR. LUNDBERG: In other ~ords, this YeS . All right. N~, if your Honor please, there has been some problems with the use of language in connection ~ith some of the exhibits that have been submitted. And at this po_~nt, the Defendant Ncrris wishes to put on the record, a Mtip,x!ation, and fo!lc~ing that the To~n of Southold x~ou!d put on the record a St ip~,~!at ion. Tt~ COUiIT: Have you disc,assed fha Stip.~lati.~ :-!th P!a~.~;=f~' ~-~,. LL%YDDEP. G: ~!n, s ir. And hn~-~ that they are not b~mding on the Plaintiffs' Connsel~ but they are stimulations 666 }!-! RA9 that ~.:e ara ,~ff~rin~ to the Court and they are Stipulations bet~een the Defendants. THE CC~JP~: But it is not ~tended to b~d the Plaintiffs? }~.. L~BERG: Not ~less ha w~ts to jo~ ~ the Stipulati~. T~ C~T: ~ other words, a Stipulation as to ~. Yo~g's test~y has been stipulated to by the Pla~tiff? PS1. LUNDBERG: THE COURT: Yes o All right. If your Honor please, on behalf of the Defendant Bruce A. Norris, I wish to read into the record the foll~..~i_n~ Stipulation primarily as Mr. Lt~dberg has indicated to clarify some of the confus ion x.~ith the exhibits. Norr is -- ~LE C OU?~: The De fendant ~,~, v~ill you take it s].~ly s~ that I can make n,~tes? I.L~,. ~J,K: Yes, your I.lonor, I x'~ il!. Your ]~Ionor, for the RAIO going go have copies of these Stipulations made by the Court Stenographer and provided to the Court. Ti-~ COURT: Ail right. The Defendant I~.orris stipulat,as that if the Complaint in this action ~ dismissed and the premises, which are the subject of the contested Zoning with .or t.~alt~p,_a Dwelling Change are used = ' Residence purposes, no more than 132 ccndc~]iniu~a units and ~nit~s as set forth Ln i.~. ~7orr~' Petition for a Change of Zone,.~ill be co~tr~ted on Parcel ! as set forth ~ Schedule B cf the Comp!a~t. ~md the Defendant f~thar stipulates ~:r~y P!a~%tiff ~ th~ action or the T~n ,~_f ~ou~ac, t~. has stand~g to enforce this ~,~'[pulata~ that he will f~.L. or cause to be -Ll~d Ccrt.ig2c,J Copies ~,f drgnsaripts of 669 Inspector of the Town of Southold and the Town Clerk of the Town of So~thold to be included by them in the Town Records concermimg the Change of Zone which is the subject matter of this action. And that the Court may v~ew same om file at the ti~ that it views the premises. THE COURT: And Plaintiffs' attorneys will also be provided with tr~m~crfpts of this Stipu~_atiom as prepared by the Court Reporter. MR. ESSEKS: Your Honor, I respectfully submit that it is gratuitous, at best, and perhaps improper for that type of Stipulation to be offered to the Court. May I be heard for Just a moment on that ? THE MR. ESSEKS: Yes o Whan this application was made by Petitioner to the Town of Southold, certain general statements were made, and I umderstand why they were made -- I don't question them at all -- to the Town RA1 2 670 that if the rezoning were granted, that certain things would be done. They were to be only Senior Citizens on the property, for the most part. T~IE COURT: Was thin made am a condition of the granting? MR. ESSEKS: No, t~ warn not. That's the point, youz Honor. Many pleasant things were said about what would be dom~ with this property if ~he Town did gram~ the rezoning, and; nice things. I mean things that were desirable for the Town in general. Now the Town did grant the application to make the property Light Multiple Residence which allows condominium~, garden apartmmnts, cooperatives and boarding houses, your Honor. TH~ COLPR~: Isn't a boarding house kind of an outdated term? I,P.. ~.SSE~L5: what it means. THE COURT: ,used to mean. I'm hOC =eally awe Well, I kn~ow what it The last vestige we have of RA13 671 it is over there in Flanders, the old Brewster House. FAt. ESSEKS: My clients don't want any boarding house on this 38 acres. Now, the Town adopted an Ordinance on Novem- ber 23, 1971, and one of the permitted uses on this property right today are boarding houses. THE COUM~: Is there a definition in the Ordinance ? MR. ESSEKS: The Ordinance is on record and }~. Cuddy will try to find it. But, your Honor, the Town rezoned this property on April 23, 1974, and it didn't -- it did not -- it could have, but the Town did not -- limit the use of this property to condom~'~tum~ for people over 53. TH~ COURT: made on April 24, property? MR. ESSEKS: in quest ion. And the only change '74, affected th is Yes, the 38 acres The Town did not, in any way, RA14 anything. 672 I asked 5~. DaM-~est whe~he= there were any limita~iona, whether ~.here were tony contracts, whether there were n~ry indentures, any Deeds, anytfaing? The only th{~g~ the: happened tha~ dat~ was the Resolution and all the Resolution says is that the proper~y was rezo~ed. Now, l~ ~y of the same year, Exhibit 2 comma into e£fec~: The Town comes back and reg=ants the =ezomi~g. But again, ~e T~ d~s not h~a ~y c~d~s -- ther~ ~e no e~l~ c~d~ ~volved. ~ CO~: W~ w~ the ~pos~ of regr~t~g it, then? ~. ESSEX: I bel~ve, y~ M~, it w~ to provue wt~ thee secti~ of the S~folk Cowry Ch~ter, wh~h requ~e that when a T~ Bo~d ~e~es', ~ efface, tha~ reas~s ~t be given. The S~folk Co~ty Ch~ter sa~ yo~ h~e to give re~ons, ~d }~. New~ teethed to that ~nd I RA15 673 believe Mr. De}~rest testified to that, and three purported reasons were given in Exhibit 2. We believe that they have no legal standing, but three reasons were given, but they are mot conditions, your Honor. They don't limit the use of the property at all. Mow, in August of 1974, Exhibit 3 was passed. That's the third Hesolu~ion in a series of three. In August of 1973 after we have initiated this lawsut~ for three or four months, the Town still didn't -- I'm not sure whether it could have -- but it dicln't even try to limit the use of this property to 132 units or to 132 condominiums. THE COUP. T: Let me interrupt you for a moment, Mr. Essaks. If conditions had been annexed to this rezoning such as has been mentioned here, would your clients be satisfied? IQ. ESSEKS: I doubt it very much, your Honor, but no~withstanding that --not- ,I RA16 674 withstanding that, the conditions were not granted. Now your Honor, t~o of the most importamt conditions I haven't d~alt with, yet. The conditions about municipal water and sewage. N~ these Exhibits 10-A and B talk about -- it says "Condittonal"~ Those Exhibits, which Mr. Raynor has testified are part of the Comprehensive Pi~ together %~ith that map, Exhibit A, require public, 'not private, public water and sewa§e to the property. N~4 your Honor, it's Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, which grant the rezoning, do not condition approval upon the construction of public ~ater and sewers. And that, quite possibly, is one of the most important errors that we believe tha~ the Town did. The T~.4n Board did not follow its Comprehensive Pia~n. The Comprehensive Plan says you got to have water and sewage if you are going to bare any multiple dxca!ling. They didn't do it., and they say they are RA17 675 supposed to do it, and I respectfully submit to your Honor a case right in point in the County of Westchester, I believe, where the Learned Judge sitting in West- chester County, said, '~o, it goes out because they didn't meet their own conditions." And I believe that this attempt at this time by the Defendant Norris -- not even before trial -- not at the time of the ftrs~ Resolution, nor the second Resolution, nor the third Resolution or during the almost a year of litigation, but now during the trial, they come in here and they say: "Judge, I'm afraid we didn't do it right for the last year." .I'm afraid we ha~ three Resolutions and Covenants and a Petition and we never got around to correcting our errors and today we want to correct the And error. Amd I say they can't do that. I hope your Honor -- i don't think ghe Court should hear the ~'~,',,,~o~'~"-- '"~'"'~ could promise, at this time, anything. They could promise to have no more than ten RA18 676 on the property all selling for $100,000 and only occupied by very learned professors, but how does that do. anythin§? How can they now, on April 21, 1975, tell your Honor what condition they are going to throw back onto a year ago. It will be a year this Wednesday. They can't do that. I think it's very gratuitous. T~E COUiLT: Well, this could be done by Stipulation if all parties s t ipulat e. · ~l. ESSEKS: If all parties stipulate, but your Honor, our contention is that the Town did mot follow its own planning procedures, its own Comprehensive Plan, its own Zoning Ordinance. So anything that Mr. Norris has agreed to do today hardly clears up those problems. That's the thrust of my objection to their Saipula~ion. They can ~ka stipulations all day long, but they have no legal mmaning as of a year ago. THE COUP, T: That was the purpose of RA19 677 _~y question to you. If all these conditions were stipulated to, would it satisfy your people? Mt{. ESSEKS: I believe not, s ir. ~5l. LARK: Your Honor, the purpose of the Resolution was really to clarify some confusion that had been created. THE COURT: Of which Resolution? MR. LARK: The Stipulation that I have just -- THE COURT: You don't mean Re s o lut ion. MR. LARK: Ifm sorry, I stand corrected. Now Mr. Esseks' argument to the Court is really ~ made of whole cloth because the Southold Town Board has acted properly up to the present tiM, because all they were doing was zonLng the use of a piece of property. The of the T~{nship which your Honor has as Plaintfffs' Exhibit 1! clearly specifies RA 20 678 Section 13 thereof that if the Defendant i]orris or any other property o~ner wishes to develop his property, say in this case in accordance with a multiple dwelling use, he will have to go again before the Planning Board to obtain site plan approval to do various things: location of his buildings and h is layout; h is ~ater-sewage layout; where it will be and what it will provide for and so on and so forth. That will govern the actual' layout and the developmen~ of the property, and so, the Town already has foreseen this when they adopted their Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in November 23, 197!. They have that r~ght in there as Article 13. And other applicable portions of the regulations. So the Town, in razoning the land use is not required nor do they have a duty to seek conditions from an applicant that he will or will not do certain things. Because their Zoning £zdin~nce provides that he must do certain things and he must present site plans and RA 2] 679 he must present all of these things to the Planning Board when he actually and physically gets ready to develop a piece of property. THE COUMI: But is there any provision that will limit this property to 132 units? MR. LARK: ~10 ~ yon~lf }tonor. In the Zoning Ordinance, The testimony before the Court was that ~nder the Zoning, as constituted presently, the Defendant could put 185 units in. In his initial application to the Town Board, he stated that he would erect only 132 units. He has filed a covenant in the County Clerkfs Office to that effect which we felt was in accordance with his Petition. The Plaintiffs' attorney is now saying that's no good. So the Stipulation that I just read off was to further clarify tha~ the DefenH~n~ in~ended · ~ to be bounded by his initial Petition, his _ subsequent covenant and restrictions whzch L were basically tn~o~old: to erect only 132 RA22 680 tm. its and before any erection or any occupancy, there would be a "municipal water and sewage treatment facility," to the property. That warn the thrust which the Court has in evidence before it. So the Stipula=ion primmrily was to clarify any confusion that might have bean created. MR. ESSEKS: Your Honor asked what a boarding house is and I will read from a page, 10007 of the Zoning Ordinance which is in evidence. (reading: ) "Boarding a~nd Tourist House. A building other than a hotel where lodgingwith or witho~ meals for five or more persons is furnished for compensation." So there is such an animal. MR. LUNDBERG: I might adR, if I tomy, your Honor, that the stipulations are offered only to clarify the i~sues concerning thcs~. cc~ven~nts and fastrictions. These people I think have been acting in good faith and believing everybody else has been acting in good faith. .4.n issue has been RA 23 681 raised a~nd I don't ~a~ow of any stronger weapon, so to speak in ~he law~ than a Stipulation made in open Coumt which can be enforced against anybody who so stipulates. And that is the sole purpose here. We want to remove an issue from the case which we don't think is in the ca~e. But since the wording is in -- at least up to thi~ action -- we want to remove that question of argument. May I offer a Stipulation now on behalf of the Town of Southold? The Town of Southold stipulates tha~ if the Complaint is dismissed and should the Defendant Norris, or any successor, apply to the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold for a Building Permit for any multiple dwelling structure on Parcels 1 amd 2~ other than as set forth in the Petition for a Change of Z~e as set forth in Schedule B of the Complm int, it will take the fol!c~.~ing action. 1. Through the Tc~n Attorney it will RA 24 682 advise the Building Inspector not to i~sue any permit in conf.~r, mity with said Petition and it will d~fand any action to the fullest brought to compel the issuance of a~y augh permit relying upon the verified Petition, the recorded covenants and restrictions and the Stipulation mad~ by the Defendant Norris in this action. 2. Should the Building Inspector ignore the advice of the Tc~.~n Atto=ney and issue a Building Permit not in conformity with the said Petition, the Town Board of the Town of Southold will im~ediately appeal the action to the Zoning Board of Appeals, pursuant to Town Law, Seetio~ 267, Subdivision 2, and if necessary, will institute and fully prosecute an appropriate Article 78 Proceeding purs,~nt to Town L~, Section 267, S ~bd iv is ion 7, again ~a~y~n~ .ve~zc:~ 22~i~ion, the Recorded Covenants and %estrictio~m and Stipulation made by the Defendant Norris in th is act ion. 2. Lramadlat~_ L'otic; of any all actic, ns er p~:oc~edir.2s brough~ by or against the Town Board or B~ilding Inspector of the To~n of Southold ~.~ill be given to the atto_~neys for Plaintiffs in this action so they may join in any proceeding to insure that only condominiums are constructed on Parcel ! if multiple d~,0elling ~nits az-e constructed on Parcel 1 and only on Parcel 1. ~-~o ESSEICS: Yo~~ Ronor, I ask that the Stipulation be stricken. I believe that they are gratuitous, they have no effect upon the legality of the action taken by the T~,~n, pursumnt to xhibits 1, 2 and 3. If an}~hing -- and I'm not sure they have any effect -- but if anything, they x.:ou!d only have affect in the future and probably as to the Defendant Norris. i fail a~ sea, at ai!~ n:~?, after thg fact th._~y can '~oootstrap" the' ma".'v-es to make correct ;.'hat I believe ~.'as .~nproper rezoning. T~i-Z COU%T: Ail r f%ht. The Co~:rt ...... '"' - - ' '* ..* .... ~.~il] con£~ider it for x~hat!ver it may be ~orth. I-tR. LUNDBERG: If your Honor please I have at least one more x.;itness. I didn't anticipate we ~ould move this quickly and I left him back in Riverhead. I would lika to defer now to ~lr. Lark in some respect, and not be deemed to have rested. In fact, many of h.~ witnesses are included aa part'~ of my case. TH~ COURT: The m~o witnesses that rte Cook on Friday, they were your witnesses ? ~.'5%. LI~DBERG: TI~ COUU~: To~rn's xvitnesses? !~,. LL~NDBERG: They were Defendants ' I mean they were the They ~.mre act~m!ly . L~.~_~.., bmr ~(:-' Lark &nd I as ! indicated to you orizLna!ly -- I have nil triad to duplicate and the T~n has ad~pted thns;i ~itnass~$~ '-is. RA 27 EXCERPTS OF TESTIMONY OF CHARLES A. ROGERS ?.eyer- cross achieved. 'i:b. ey de~.l '.n one t".i~.; only, that is the yield, only, not in density. 1~. ESSEKS: ]~o further questions. 3 H A RLE S dow~. THE COURT: All r!cht, you may step ?,~. LARK: I call Mr. Rogers. A. R O G E R S, 517 Pine Acres Boulevard, Brlghtwaters~ ~[ew York~ having been first duly sworn: testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATIOM BY MR. LAP.K: ~o':rt, your age and occupation? Mr. Rogers, would you please state, for ~he A I'm fifty-six years old and I'm a realtor and appraiser. Q long have you been enraged in such capacity? I have been in the real estate management or ....... ~ or appraising business for sonethlnz over twenty-five · '~rs. For the past ten or twelve years, i've been pretty '-~ly an appraiser. Do you have a:~y spec!al tralnius as such? Yes, sir. RA 28 Re,ers - direct 312 V;hat is that? A My educational background is fro~ Hofstra $oiiege three years, a Juris Doctor's degree from Columbia. i have taken several courses from American Institute of .&ppraisers, the Society of Real Estate Appraisers and continue to attend many lectures given by those societies. i lecture for those societies. I have appeared on behalf of the New York State Bar in mock trials for certiorari proceedings and for the Suffolk County Bar and have lectured before various groups on the appraisal process. Q Would you deacrib'~ for the Court the various fields of operations where you have done your appraisal work? A Yes, sir. ,Our firm and other firms that I nave worked with or pez~ona!!y have done work for the ~q:ate cf ~ew York, County of Suffolk, most of the Townships in the U.ounty, many Villages, we did a reevaluation program in the own of Islip, ree~-aiuation progra~ in ~he '~!!!age of .'~tnampton. I have appeared in the Federal Courts, in the '~art of Claims and in the S~pre~'ae Court zany ti.~.~es on in your years of work as aT. mppraiser, how ~:~Y appraisals of re?_l prop~.rty have yc.u RA 29 ~of.;er~ - dLrec~ 813 A i00, 000. Well, appraisals of ali types, probably over What was the nature of these properties, were they improved or unimproved? A They were all types. Pretty much anything you would find in Suffolk County, i think, we have appraised. Q Have you had occasion to appraise, in your experience, any property of a general character that is involved in this present lawsuit? A I have not appraised a condominium improvement a~ such. I have appraised some'land that eventually became condomini~ms. We have appraised -- the closest to what this would be -- wait a second. I take that back. I'm forgetting -- yes, I have appraised -- four different condominlu3ns, now tha~ i Uhlnk of it in the Village of Westhampton Beach. I was ~oin:~ to say I've done quite a few "Co-ops" but I had for- ~_ntten about those four condominiums. Q Well have you, in your experience as an ~D~raiser, have you appraised property such as in the ~ener~l ~..arac~er of the neighborhood from Janes Creek to Deep Hole A Oh, yes. Many times. zhat is involved in this action? A Yes. Q And when did you first make an examination of this property? A Hr. Lark, I believe it was in Oc'hober. It --~" have been Novenber of 1974 Have you made an examination of the property ~ "he surrounding neighborhood? A Yes, sir. Dc you, in particular, hav~ you made an .:~.'~-Ination in the property referred to as the Ole Ju!ane Yes, I have. And the Mattitu~k Airporz area? A Yes. Lupron Point Bungalow Lane area? Is that on the other side of Jau. es Creek? RA~ 1 Rogers - direct T.[E COURT: 'fl-~3 on,= t.3 ti,£- r:gnt, Deep Hole. A Between the airport and Deep Hole Creek~ is that what you are referring to? Q Yes. ~ A Yes, slr, I have. Q Have you testified before in coa_~t as an expert on the value of real property? ' A ?~any times, %5~at courts have you testified in? A Testified in the _~ederal Court, Court of Claims, Supreme Court ,and on rare occasions, in other co~ts and before other bodies. Did you have occasion to examine the plaintiffs' y, ropertles in this ease? A Yes. 'Jhen did you so examine them, if you recall? ~ me refresh -- TIIE COUiIT: O~tobar or i~ovembcr, Tile '.,'I'2NESS: saw th~ properties. the firs~ time RA~ 2 RoKera - dlregt sp~cifical!y, aoo~ t:'~e p~.~,t~[- ~ .... Ls' prcuerty, your ~onor. ~: n~ . zn~ ~,~as in January of 1915 At whose request did you e;~.amine these properties, ~he plalntlffs' progerties? Did you examine them wi~h ~ybody A Yes, sir. ~]~s. Taylor: who happens to be ..fy p~rtnem ~d myself ~d ~,~. Glander: viewed these tozether. Did ~ou ar~Ive at a value %~hich ~.~e have acr~ed to term as a "Defome" rezonin% of ~he ]~orris property value of ~hese pFope~ties? A Yes, slr. Would you ~el! the Cour~ a little bit of how · .'cu arrived at that value? A They were based on the value In the market. U.:ese are all homes of some age, and my conclusion of the value '-~ ~as~d on my experience of v;hat houses u~li in the market. '..~.[ Z would agree that the market data approach that RA33 Ro~ers -. direct Q A q A testified that he used the co~t approach~ which -- the answer is yes~ I believe the narket data approach is a proper method. And a backup me~hod would be the cost approach. That is the reproduction cost plus the cost of land. This is of the plaintiffs' properties, is that Yes, that's correct. The six named plaintiffs in this litigation? That's true. Could you tell the Court how you arrived ~t valu~ of $70,000 for the Lascelle property, which is one the named plaintiffs? THE COURT: he made such a valuation? ~. LARK: It was my ~uderstanding he testified in January that he went to the property. THE COURT: He testified where in January? ~. LARK: I don't say "Testified". I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question, sir. When did he tell you tha~ RA34 Roger~ ~ ~-t 818 THE COURT: He has ~iven us no testimony about the value of any of these properties up to this point. ~0~. LARK: I'm sorry, h~ had. Q Did you appraise these properties, the plaintiffs' properties? Yes, sir. When did you appraise them? In January o£ 1975, around the 15th of A Q A J ~.n u a ry. Q ~re2orty?' A Q I thought Did you arrive at a value of the plaintiffs' Yes, sir. ~nd did Mr, Glander agree with the value that you arrived at, of the Plaintiffs' properties? A Yes. Mrs. Taylor and Mr. Olander and myself .il sane to a Conclusion as to the value, which was the value '<~'~ ~ has been previously been set forth. ~.~y question, th~n~ could you ~ell us a little ..... ~,l~ hou you valued the Lmace!le property as Mcu come ~ ~ value or $70 000 Ro~ers - direct 819 T}~ COURT: ~ me --- Just a minute. Let me see IF I understand this. Are you saying, Mr. Rogers, that you and Mr. Glander and '.~rs. Taylor all came up with the same figures? THE WITNESS: Shall we say we had a conference on each house. We went into the house and in our basic beginning, we weren't quite in agreement. But as we went back and forth, why sometimes with one point of view from each"one of the three of us, we came to a conclusion. of us. THE COURT: Between the three It was a round-table discussion and those were the values that Mr. Glander recited? I see. In other words, sometimes you came up a little and sometimes you c~me down a little. THE WITNESS~ Rixht. We were back and forth. I don'~ think~ ~t any '~ime, we were more than ten or fifteen per cent apart. That would be normal bet~.~een reasonable men, RA36 Ro~ers - dlrect 820 i believe. THE COURT: So that the figures, then, that Mr. Glander gave, was a composite? Thee WITNESS: The conclusion that the three of us reached together. THE COURT: Of the appraisal of the three of you people reached together. T~ WITNESS: For example, we discussed the various amenities, the size and condition. And one of them, there was a five-acre tract. And we allocated some of the value to the potential that that five-acre tract had for additional plots. The Simlcich property, for example, one property there was an additional piece on the lake front which, I think everyone is agreed, can be -- could not be used. And we discus~ed these various potentials and came up with one number. THE COURT: All rizht, proceed. Q Have you examined any existing condominium structures in Suffolk County that are presently standing? Yes, ~(A37 direct 921 ezamined? .... ~!d you say than you have · different condominium u{.: From thoz' situated in slngle-famlt .' A Q Approxim~ that you examined? these condominium units A There was cf any adverse or plus Q sir? A I have e~-' ~ned the sites of twenty five ~nat you examined, were any -esidentlal neighborhoods? Yes. ,M~' - of them. ~_y how many of the twenty five '~fn a t did Seventy f' .~: or eighty Der cent of them. W~at evi~ .... ..ac did'you find of the impact of -~ the surrounding neighborhoods?. .c impact. There was no evidence ~cts of these condominiums. do to derive at that statement~ Well, I - to some degree, and ta!~- cf the things we tried the fact that con,cml t.t'~e years old, in an;.-t ,ted with people in the neighborhood, ~.~!th brokers and we looked -- one · 2c is find s~les that would be adjacent ..... cbi~m~ of co~rse wl~n th~u, ~ms, as a concept, is probably only -.,~ that means anythln~ to be RA38 .r{o~ez'n - direct THE COURT: In this area? T}tE WITNESS: In Suffolk County. Because condominiums, for many years were in Florida. But I'm talking about Suffolk County. And in the three years that have followed the advent of condominiums in Suffolk County, we've had t~.~o years or at least a year and a half of very, very sparse real estate activity. I Just thirk there's absolutely no evidence that can be derived that there will be any diminution of value by virtue of these condominiums. The condominiums take on many forms. Some of them are fairly dense in their occupancy of land in the western portion of Suffolk County where this is al!o~,red. And those houses are built ten and tYzelve units to the acre, solid use. Even there, they are in pretty good residential areas, and to mS' o~'n knowledge, there has no~ been any diminution of value there. In Eastern Suffolk, there has just RA39 Eo,~ers - d!rec~ 82'$ not been enou~,q,h activity tc make any indication at all. There -are -- well, let's see -- two condominium units in East Hampton. They are both in residential areas. There is no evidence of any decline whatsoever in residential areas, although one of the residential areas is on the ,~ontauk Highway. -."iow where Montauk Highway ,.-.ay not be a residential area in Western Suffolk or considered good residential area -- although in the area between Babylon and Bay Shore, For example, it is a good residential area. Other portions of ~!ontauJ.: Highway are obviously not residential areas in Western Suffolk, but when you get into Eastern Suffolk, a lot of good houses exist on Montauk Highway, especially when you get into East H~mpton and both the Villar~es of East Hampton and the Township of East i'~1.'. COURT: THE '..;IT~E'SS: The two Which h~mpton? · 2rid,]ehampton, I don't RA40 kno~.~ c.f any con,.iorninlums there. THE COUR?: Brldgehampton and Montauk? ~.so: }~he~ you ~o out of Bridgeham. pton, going south to Eas~ Hampton, there are some fine houses along there. The houses sic back. Major highways have been, for many years, sites of good residential development In Southamoton as you go along. I'm originally from Southampton. As a matter of fact, I ~.;as born on a piece of properSy that Mr. Glander was talking about, the Bellini Duck Farm. And I know my relatives live along in that area on the Montauk Highway. And they wouId be very slighted if I said it was a bad residential area. I'm sure some of the houses along there are very fine. That duck farm Is In high And along In Water Mill -- I have lived In Water r~ll!. Very fine residences in that area on th~ ~.ior.~au'.: ~[~way. So tha~ zhe fact that these con. Xomini~ms do come up on the Hontauk ,~i, ~.~ay does not mean they are in RA41 r.,,o~ers - direct 8'25 a poor residential neighborhood. There is Just no evidence that I could find looking at any of these -- I think the best evidence that one could say about the activity of residential neighborhoods. One-family residential neighborhoods and condominiums. After all, condominiums are residences and they are owned by one person, The best evidence of the impact is going to be, I believe, is the evidence that you find in a good m~ny of the major condominium units in which they are developing, at the same time, one-family houses ad.~acent to them. This is happening in Leisure Village. Leisure Village has a great many condominium units and right across the street, in the same vicinity, they are developing one-family houses and the amenities of the condominiums are being used by thb people who are buying the one-family homes. An~i ~hls is true in the Levitt Development. That is true in the Kaufmann and Broad situation. It's RA42 T.~Eers - dlrect 826 true in Btrchwood ilomes. They are nixing these things together. Now these people are spending a lot of money building them, developing the area and they are experts in this field and are selling both condominiums and one-family homes together. It is a concept that has a lone way to go before we get any conclusive answer, but there is certainly no evidence that they diminish the value of one-family homes or adjacent to them at this p5Int. BY ?qR. LARK: Q Do you have an opinion of the proposed Norris project with 1~2 condominium units, its effect on the plaintiffs' property? A I do not think that there will certainly be any diminution of value by virtue of their water problems. It could be a beneficial effect to some of those people in the Ole Julane Development area. But certainly not going to be a dlminu~!on of value, I do not believe. The density, after all, is hardly any ~reater overall on this whole area than the old areas of Mattituck itself. Mattltuck RA43 r~oqers - cltroet 'L~'3eLf waz ,developed on much smaller p!ot~ than half-acre plots. This is a density of slightly over two to the acr~. HHE COURT: Ail the co~m~unitles throughout the County were developed on smaller plots for the most part? THE WIYNESS: Oh, yes, you~ Hono=. I think the average density in the old community in the Town are over three. Certainly closer to three per acre. And quarter acre plots, one hundred by one hundred was considered a very respect.fu! piece of property in the old communities. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: older hamlets. MR. LUNDBERG: Or sixty-foot lots. Definitely, in the I ask that the witness be shown Defendants' Exhibit L ~or Identifica- tion. I'm go!n.~.~ to ask for ?,! and ~.!. Might as well gc't all ~h:'-_~e. HHE ~ '~ ~.OUR~: This Is noZ in the nature of cross ex~mtnation, I t!ke It? MB.. LUNDEERG: It is not, Judse. DIRECT EXAMV_NATIOI; BY MR. LUNDBERG: Q Mr, Rogers, do you recognize what that picture depicts? A Yes. Does it fairly and accurately depict -- A Yes. This is a condomintuar, unit -- these a~e condominium, u~its in the Village of East Hampton called ~he VillaEe Town House. MR. LUNDBERG: evidence. THE COURT: not? I offer it in It's in evidence, is it MR. LUNDBERG: I gave them to Mr. Glander and he said he couldn't identify No objection. All right, mark it. them. MR. ESSEKo: THE COURT: (Photot~raph prevLously m~rked Defendants' Exih!bit L for identification now received and marked l~ e'~,ldence.) 3Y '.!K; LUNDDERG: I ask you to look at Exhibit M for Identifica- tion. Do you recosnlze what that is? A Yes, sir. Does it fairly and accurately represent what the picture Is? A Yes, it does. What is A This is a view of a condominium unit known as Town House East also in the Town of East Hampton, but not in the Village. THE COURT: What was the other one? "L" was Town House what? THE WITNESS: That was Village Town House. That's in the Incorporated Village. That was on Gingerbread Lane and Toylson Avenue, I believe. THE COURT: THE WiT~;ESS: Town iiouse -- Village Town House. sa~.e organiz~ltion and they used the same Town House na3.~= in it. RA46 ~.o,z~rs - di"ect :45. LUNDBERG e vi denc e. .~hq. ESSEKS: TFCZ WITNESS: I offer that in No objection. Mark it. Excuse me. I don't believe that the record shows -- did I say what this was, the Town tIouse East? (Photograph previously marked Defendants' Exhibit M for Iden~Ification now received and marked in evidence.) Is that located on Montauk Highway? A Located on Montauk Highway, east of th6 Village of East Hampton and prior to getting into Amaganse:~. Q I ask you to look at Exhibit N for Identifica- tion. This is another picture of the same complex Just shown, the Town House East. Is that a fair and accurate representation of the Town House East? A Yes; sir. MR. L~-..'DBERG: evl~ence. MR. ESSEKS: THE COURT: I offer that in No objection. Mark it. _WE~THE UNDERSIGNED,BEI~I~ RESIDENTS OF MATT~TUCK, iN ~HE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW' YORK, HAVING LEARNED OF THE AP .RL, ICATION OF MR.BRUCE N0~RIS ~0 CHANGE ID]~NTIAL DISTRICT,CERTAIN LANDS LYING BETWEEN MARATOOKA LAKE AND PECONIC BAY,DO HEREBY SUBSCRIBE OUR SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION AND PRAY THA.T IT WILL BE DENIED. NAME -- -- ADDRESS ' " :7'~ ' J~ ~ ~' ~' ' 2 ~:"1 ~ , -~,- "':. - ' I ~EW fORK, HAVING LEARNED OF T~E APPLICATIO~ OF MR. BRUC~ ~ORHI8 TO CHA~ FRO}! #A~IDENTILL AND AGRICULTUBAL DISTRICT TO eJimLIGHT }flILTIPLE RES- IDENTIAL DISTRICT,CErTAIN LANDS LYING tg~TWEEN MARATOO~ LAKE AND PECONIC BAYtDO HKREI~ 8UBSCIBE OUR BIONATI~E~J IN OP~OBITIO~ TO TI~S APPLICATIO]I // /// 1/ / j / ~T~ URDERSIGNED~BEI~G RE~IDENTS-~IN TI~ TOWN 01~' ~OUTHOLD~ NEW. YORK, HAVING; LEAF, NI~ OF THE APPLICATION OF.' MR,BRUCE NORRIS' TO CHA~GE FROM ~A"RE~IDENTI~ AND. AGRICULTUR&L DISTRICT TO eM~LIGI~T MULTIPLE RE8.. IDENTIAL DISTRICT~CI~TAIN LANDS LYING B~TWEEN MARATOOI~ LAKE &ND PECONIC ,BAY~DO ~X ~UBSCIB~. OUR 8IGN&TURF~: IN OPPO~ON ~ T~ ~PLIC~ON ' ~~ ~ IT ~ ~ ~, / ~ // · . , / I~E,T~-~ UNDER.qIG17ED, BE~NG RESIDE~TSs ?Y. _"_'_~T_-_-UZ~.IN THE TO~I~ 01~' SOUTHOLD, ~ ~ORI~,ItAV~NG; LE~I~D OF THE APPLICATION OF I~R.BRUCE NORRIS TO CH~GE I~OH "A"RES~DENTI ,~L ~D AGRICUL~ DISTRICT TO .I~LIGi~T ldULT~PLE RES- ID~I~TI~tL DISTRICT~CE~T~N L~tDS LYING B~T~EEN IIARATO01~ L~E ~D PI~OI~C. ,II~tDO t~e~! SUB~CIB~' OUI~ GIGN~TURES' IN OPPOIIIT~ON TO TI~II ~PPLIC~T~ON '1 NEW ][ORI[~HAVING LEARNED OF TIlE APPLICATION OF YJR. B~UCE NORRIS TO CHANGE FROM #A. eRES,TD~~ AND &GR.TCULTORAL DZSTI:LTCT TO "M#L.TGI]T ~IOI,TTPLli RES- ID __~'NTIAL DII~TRICTeCE~RTAIN LAL'DS L~NG ~~ ~TO~ ~ ~ P~O~C ~THE UI~DERSIGNED~BEING I~ESIDENT~ ~ ' _ __-C '-- ,.IN THE TOWN O1~' SOUTHOLD~ NEW, ZOltK~HAVIN~.. L~RI~D OF THE APPLICATION OF' I~R.BRUCE NORRIS TO CHANGE FROM "A"RESIDENTI~L AND. AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "M~LIGHT MULTIPLE RES.. IDENTIAL DISTRICT,CErTAIN T.~,_ND8 LYING BETWEEN MARATO0~ LAKE AND PECONIC .BAY~DO HEHEB~ SUBSCIBE' OUR' $IGNATURES' IN OPPO~ITION ~0 THIS APPLICATION ANII.': PRAY THAT IT WILL BE DENIED. ADDRESS WE.~THE UNDERSIGNED~BEING RESIDENTS OF MATTITUCK~IN THE TOWN O1~' ~OUTHOLD, ~ ~ORK, HAVING LEARNED OF THE APPLICATION OF MR.BRUCE NORRIS TO CHANGE FROM "A"RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTIIRAL DISTRICT TO "M~LIGP~ MULTIPLE RES- IDEi~TIAL DISTRICT~CERTAIN LANDS LYING BETWEEN MARATOOKA T.A~E AND PECONIC B~Y~DO HEREBY ~YBSCIBE OUR SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION AND PRAY THAT IT 1~ILL BE DENIED. NAME . ADDRESS AND PRAY THAT IT WILL BE DEttIED. ~ YORII~II~VING ~ OF TII~ APPL'fC.t.TIOll OF IIR. B~IDI~B ~1t TO CH~GE FIIOI,1 #~tESY. D~ ~ .4,11~CULTI]R~ DISTRICT TO ~I, lULIGIIT 1,1ULTIP~ ~ ][DENT~, DIlIT~CT,CEtlT~N ~ LYING ~ NtI, R~TOI)I~ ~ AND PECON~C II~DO ~ SUBIICIB~ OUR Ii~'IlllaTURF~ IN OPt'OIIITION TO TI:IlS .t~'PLIC~,TIOII tROM '*iqlr~ AiD A~TUltAL DXSTt~XCT TO *N#LX6HT A~YLTXPLI llifL. BLToI~' ~ fJ~SSC~ O~R 8X~ IH ~P,~X~I~toI~ I'~ TKI8 APPLI~TI~I WRoTHR UHDKRSIiIJJBDtBRIIdG R]t~IISBT8 OF HATTITUCKtZN TIlE TOWI~ OF SOUTItOLDt 1~ '~HAVING LRARIIED OF THE APPLICATION OF NR.IIJ[DIIE NORRIS TO CHAHQ~ FROIi #~ult~~ .tliD AGRICULTURAL D3'3TRICT TO UPLIGtlT ItULTZPLB RES'r- I)RHTIAL DISTRICT,CKRTAIN LAHD8 LFIIJG BETMIIEH IiAR.tT~ LAK~ iliD PRCO~C BiT,DO HBBR~ 8UB~ OIlR SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATIO]~ AND PRA~ THAT IT Id'ILL BE DRNIRDo It - ? ~,-.,,-~c~' wv BEINC, RESIDENT& 0F MATTITUCK IN 'mHE TOW~ OF SOUTHOLD~ "TLW YC~.K, HA~JING LEARNED THE AP~'LICATION 0P' MR. E, ~E NORRIS TO CHANGE [i i~'~0h~ A REf~IDEI'ITIA]- AND A~RiCULTURAL DISTRICT TO "M" LIGHT MULTIPLE '~C£:.SIDE!'T~.RL D!iTRiCT~ CERTAIN LANDS LYING BET~IEEN MARAT00KA LAKE AND ]~ECONI£ BaY? DO HEREBY SUBSCRIBE 0UP~ SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ~.~PLICATION ~ND PRAY THAT IT WILL BE DENIED. NAME II i / ~, THE UNDERSIGNED BEING P~SIDENTS OF t~TTITUCK, TOv~ OF SOUTHOLD, N~.V YORK HAVING LEAR~YED OF THE APPLICATION OF MR. BRUCE NORRIS TO CHANGE "A" P~ESID~NTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "M" LIGHT I~JLTIPLE P~SID~NTIAL DISTP~ICT, CERTAIN LANDS LYING BETWEEN i'[~RATOOK~ LAKE AND PECONIC BAY, DO HET~EBY SUBSC~IB~ OUR SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION ~D PRAY IT '~ILL ~E DENIED. / ! t ! I ! /I ,,~]~, THE UNDERSIGNED BEING RESIDENTS OF MATTITUCK, TO'&N OF SOUTHOLD, ~V~d YORK HAVING LEARNED OF THE APPLICATION OF ~,~. BRUCE NORRIS TO Ct_~ANGE "A" RESIDE~,~TIAL AND AGRICULTUP~AL DISTRICT TO "M" LIGHT I,~LTIPLE RES£DENTI_~L DISTRICT, CERTAI~I LANDS LYING BETWEEN MAR~TOOKA LAKE AND PECONIC BAY, DO HEREBY SUBSCRIBE OUR SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION AI'~D PRAY IT WILL BE DENIED. ADDRESS ! ( (! It WE? THE UNDERSIGNED BEING RESIDENTS OF MATTITUCK IN THE TOWE OF SOUTHOLD, NA~ YORK~ HAVING LEARNED OF THE APPLICATION OF MR. BRUCE NGq°~IS TO CHANGE FROM A RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "M" LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT~ CERTAIN LANDS LYING BETWEEN MARATOOKA LAKE AND PECONIC BAY, DO HEREBY SUBSCRIBE OUR SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION AND PRAY THAT IT WILL BE DENIED. ADDRESS ~$. ~R~: DNDERSlGNr<D BEING R~:6IDEN'I'S OF MA~ITUCK IN ~'H~ TO%~N OF SOU~HOLD~ WEI,:'~O~K~ H~VING LEARNED O~~ ~EE APPLICAIION 0F ~. ~UCE N~IS TO ~GE ~BO?.: ~ ~ID~'IAL AND AGRIC~IjRAL DIS~'RI~. ~0 "M" LIGHT M~'IPLE RESIDENTIAL DI~gRICT, C~?AIN LANDS LYING B~WE~ M~ATO0~ ~ ~D PECO~IC ~y, ~ N~y SUPSCRIBE OUR SIGNATDR~ IN OPPOSI2ION TO ~HIS APPLICATION At'D PRAY THefT IT ~'ILL BE DENI~. NAME . ~ .ff~" ,. ,/ .. .d ~ ,. .'" ~ ~ ~"~' ~ T~E %~DI~F'~_-.~rED k~ING I~}'~IDENTt 01~ ~ATTITUCK IN TH~ TO~ OF ~0~0~ I;]:~W Y0~ K~ lL.~I~t~ LE~Nt OF ~E APPLICATION OF MR. .~UCE NO~I~ T0 ~NG~ ]~OM A R]~ ID~L~T~]. A~-~D A~RIC~T~ DISTRI~ TO "M" LIG~ ~TI~E ~L[;ID]~ T!~-,L DiL~},iCT: C~TAIN L~D8 LYING B~~ ~TO0~ LA~ ~D PECONIC BaY, ~ HLREB~ SU~IBE 0~ SIGNAT~ IN OPPOSITION TO THIS A~PLICATIC~'A~D PP',AY ~:NAT IT WILL BE DEN~D. RFD #1 Box lllC I',~Iattituck, New York December 11, 1973 Southold []own Board ~reenport, New York Gentlemen: The requested downzoning of an approximately thirty-ei.!~;ht acre parcel lyin~ between ~,iaratooka ~-'ond and Peconic Bay by k'r. Bruce Norris serves only the interests of the landowner and none of those of the citizens of ~iattituck and Southold Town. Acre zonin.M was a hard-won goal for $outhold Town and should not be put aside, especially in an area of low-density sin.~le family dwellings. The Norris land is too far from the center of ~,'~attituck for the elderly who might live there to walk to stores and churches. Housin~ which mi~ht be used for retirement should be located in consideration of the fact that many senior citizens can no longer drive their cars. We do not need to cody the unplanned construction pattern of :~'~;estern Long Island. The parcel of land in question in ~;~.aztituck can be better developed with acre lots or cluster built with open space adjacent. Southold Town is already zoned to a density ~-~reater than izs water supply can oroperly support and the Town Board must not allow further down-zoning. There are no over-riding rea- sons to change the character of a large section of ~,,~'attiZuck. The proposed project would not only add to the over,~ll burden on the village school, the Southold Police, roads, beaches, parks and utilities; it would add to the pressure that, nation- wide, is over-developing and destroying the charm of America's village s. We and many others have choosen to live in beautiful Southold Town because of its rural atmosphere and the absence of the very kind of development that ~!r. Norris now proposes. We plead for the rejection of this down-zonin~ application and request thaz in the future, when applications of such im- portance are presented, the Town Board see thaz the proposal receives better exposure through the media, so Zhat the citizens may have time ~o consider the f~cts before a public hearing is held. Yours very truly, NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNC:IL, IN¢~. BOX 3~! c~OUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 Southold Town Board South Street Green~ort,New York '~en~:! emen: December 11,1973 re: 2:00pm Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Bruce Norri ~, chano~ing A to M Li~at ~:~esid enti al District ]Yn re.~ard to the downzoning as apolied for by Mr Bruce Norris, MattiSuck, New York, the No. rrb Fork Environmental Council,Inc. feels theft the efforts' out forth by both the officals ~d re~d..nts of So~thold T'0~ in relation to the ao.~radin~ m~d to avoid unoatterned Trowt!~ laave been extensive. '.'re do not feel t ~a~; this.~ao~licati~n is co-~a~iole with She ~uidelines as set forth by th~: Raymond m~ lay :~aster la~n, 1~67 and the 't.-~-'~ ~ .... . ."'..:.':'3 .... '" ::' .:.'. - .' .... ' Sot ~,~:.','~. ~. Thoro.re, we urge you ~o deny this a~:lication. Sinc-e~'ely yours, Lor'aine S Terry,Pres. To the Southold Towm Poard From the Lesgue of Women Voters of Riverhesd-Southold Hesring: Bruce ~crris Property, Dec. ll, 8:00 p.m. The pro.~.osal to develop the 27 ~cre section of the Norris property under N-1 zoning is not an ~ccept~ble use of this oiece of l~ud. Although the propos~] as mgde to the So'~thold To~ Planning Eo~rd wss unususlly ima. ginztive, ye think it is too dense, does not ~.llow for sufficient c~en space, is not ~nmpatible ~it~ the surrounding' reaidential ~.rea, ~nd thst the building of expensive multiple housing in the Tov~ of So~thold has a very low priority. In addition, s sewsge treatment pl~nt, no mstter how modern or well con- trolled, is ~ot ~ ideal neighbor. V~e would sug,est th~.t if this ~iece is to be developed it a?ould re,sin zoned ~-P~ but,within the concept of one scre, one house, it should be clustered to retain a maximum ~mount of open space. The remsinin~ portio~Y-of t~,is lsnd should be developed in the ssme msnner. We recommend that ~'his proposal be denied. Community ).flairs Dec. ll, 1973 Box 763, Mattituck, NY. December ll, 1973 Supervisor, Town Board Greemport, N.Y. Dear Mr. Martocchia, I am strongly opposed to the ~wm-zoning from "A Residemtial" to "Multiple-light" a parcel of land, owned by Bruce Norris, in Mattituck, situated between Marratooka Pond and Beconic Bay. A great many arguments have been offered here tonight, against such a down-zonilg, all v$~A. I would therefore like to emphasize one poilt, in the interest of brevity,in my obJectiom. Our tows government, with the support of mamy comcerned citizens of Southold Town, has worked very hard to bring about a recent set of ammendments to its zoning laws, deslgaed to encourage an orderly, plammed growth to our commumlty. Amy such large dow~-~ of prime residemtial land would make a travesty of these zon~mg ordimmmces, and Lavlte the type of chae~ t~ey are lntendeA to prevent. Large tracts of condominiums will in no Nay preserve the rural character or the recreational values of Southold I urgemtly request that the Town Board refusethis request:to ~mend the building zone.ordinance. Very sincerely, Aline Dove Morfon J. Phillips Chairman Maffifuck Environmenfal Preservation Ass'n Donald B. Branf Vice Chairman December 11,1 973 sheet # 2 continuing letter to Southold Town Board ELECTED officials in whom we have place our trust~will deny his application. Very truly yours ~ro~ton J. PhilliP~ Chairman. Morton J. Phillips Chairman Maftifuck Environmental Preservation Ass'n Donald B. Bra~ Vice Chairman December 11,1 973 Southold Town Board Village Building South St.~Greenport,N.Y. Attention Mr. Albert Martocchia Dear Sir; The~Mattituck Environmental Preservation Association has learned of the~application of Mr~ Bruce Norris to change from "A-Residential and Agricultural District" to "M-Light Multiple Residential District" certain land~ lying between Maratooka' Lake and Peconia Bay approximating 38 acres. His plan as filed is to portion out 33 enclaves on 27 acres of this prop- erty with four houses in each enclave and on the remaining acre~ put20 h~use~making a total of 1.%2 houses on 38 acres of land. The~ Planning Board in its wisdom originally stated that only one house per acre was to go on this land. Mr~Norri~' plan places four times as many units per acre. We would like to point out to you gentlemen of the Board what we see could happen if this application is approved: 1 - According to statitistics-generally accepted each family would have at least two children. Th~swould put almost immediately SO0 additional~in our s~ool district which already is hard pressed.~ ? - It would place at least 1~0 more automobiles in a concentrated area using our s~reets 25 hours a day. 3 - It would be an additiomal problem for our police depatment and our volunteer fire department and hospitals also. $ - It would mean that some 600 people would be drawing w~ter for their daily needs on a water supply which this Board and the Planning Board knowvery well is limited. Th~Mattituck Environmental Preservation Association is a g~oup whose membership consists of 125 year round residential property owners who are very much against an influxof too many people into ~ relatively small area. We therefore oppose the plan of Mr. Norris and hope that this Board of December 10, 1973 Hon. Albert Martoccia Town Supervisor' c/o Southold Town Board 16 South Street Oreenport, New York 11944 Oear Mr, Martoccia: As my home is in Mattituck, ! am very much concerned about a report that my next door neighbor, Mr. E~ruce Norris, has requested re-zoning for multiple housing. A. Ithough I am aware o.f. your o_p.~sit.i .c~_._ to this type of detrimental zoning in the town of 'Southold, ! want to take this opportunity to ask for new reassurance of your position. It occurs to me that this new whim of Mr. Norrisf follows a recent one in which he had requested per- mission to carve a very substantial deep channel out of the bay in order to accommodate his sail- boat. It is fortunate for all of us that his influence does not penetrate your office. Would you be good enough to give me your thoughts on this and let me know of any action contemplated. Thanks for your' cooperation. Si~erely, Stanley Chase President ttrieota .~. 480 Frivate Road 17 Mattituck, New ~ork December 9, 1973 Southold Town Board 16 South St. Greenport, New ~ork Gentlemen: May I ask that this letter be read into the minutes of the meeting, December ll, of the oouthold Town Board on request for a zoning change from 'iA" Re- sidential and Agricultural to "M" Light Multiple Dwell- ing for the land of Bruce Norris lying between Maratooka Lake and Peconic Bay? I am opposed to this zoning change. I am appealing to you in a very urgent way to consider the implications of this piece-meal down-zoning. It would betray the intent of the Oouthold Master Plan and would set a precedent for un-orderly development. The results of this can destroy the ability of this area to provide safe and pleas~t country living. I saw this happen very quickly in ~assau County, and ecologically our are@. is more fragile than the dark soil area at the western end of the island. It is unfortunate that developers can come into a community, milk a situation for the greatest amount of money and ~hen leave the community to solve the problems. it seems to me that right now, police protection and traffic and pollution alone are red flags in any consider- ation of disordedy over-growth, especially with so many summer people. ~ince developers aren't responsible, we have to look to our elected officials for protection. For example, a sewage tre~.tment plant is suggested in the plans for this developB~ent. The fact that the Town might later benefit by taking over this plant is a poor argument in its favor. What self-respecting Town gives someone permission to arbitrarily place a sewage plant in the middle of a large residential district? The purport of my letter is to say that citizens are looking to you -- to preserve living values by order- ly development under the Master Plan, and to see that there is strict honesty in dealing with the ethical problems sometimes caused by activities of enthusiastic developers. With best wishes, Sincerely yours, Katherine Lascelle 62O P. O. BOX ~ CAPTAIN KIDD CIVIC ASSOCIATION CAPTAIN KIDD ESTATES MATTITUCK NEW YORK December 8, 1973 Mr. AXbert ~,artocchia Town Supervisor ~31 Seventh Street Oreenport, N.Y. Deer Mr. Martocchis: The Captian Kidd Civic Association, consisting of seventy-five f~.ilies want to go on record as protest- ing verty strongly the application submitted by Mr. Bruce Norris, requesting the down-zoning of 38 acres in Mattituck, between Marratooka Pond and Peconic Bay, for the construction of a proposed condominium complex. We request that the Town Board d~ y this snplication si~ce'~this is now a fine low density residential ares and approval of this down-zoning will allow a substantial in- crease ia population, changing drastically this area. The Board's disapproval in denying this application is respect- fully requested. Sincerely~.yours, B. T. Shaskin Pre s id ent December 7, 1975 Southold Town Board South Street GreenDort, New York 1194h Gentlemen: T~e possibility of condominiums being erected in our community on t~e Bruce Norris property between Marratooka Pond and Peconic B~V is distressing news. ~ven t~oug~ my fat~er was emoloyed by t~e Norris family some time back for seventeen years, as a lifelong resident of Mattituck as well as several generations of my family before me I feel develonment of t~is kind is com~letelM against t~e best interest of t~e majority of Sout~old Town and Mattituck residents. T~ese condominiums would markedly c~ange t~e c~aracter of Mattituck and Sout%old Township. It would bring an increased and unolanned burden on our already burgeoning school system as well as additional congestion at beaches and harks and increased traffic problems. It might also drastically affect t~e water supply of the town. If t~is down zoning and construction of condominiums were aoproved it would open the door to further down zoning of t~e same type. The argument t~at t~is proposal would bring in additional tax revenue is, in my opinion, far outweighed by. the many problems and adverse affects it would create. T~erefore, I sincerely urge t~e gembers of t~e Town Board to deny t%e down zoning of t~is property. Respectfully, Eunice Aldric~ Armbrust (Mrs. Walter E. Armbrust) Oak Street, ~.0. Box 292 Mattituck, New York 11952 Salt Lake Association, Inc. Salt Lake Village, Box 400, Mattituck, N. Y. 11952 December 7, 1973 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Greenport, N. Y. RE: HEARING ON PROPOSED DOWN ZONING OF 38 ACRES IN MATTITUCK BETWE~ MARRAT00KA POND AND PECONIC BAY Gent lemen: Will you please read this at the hearing to be held Tuesday, December 11th at 8 PM. On behalf of the property owners of Salt Lake Village, Mattituck I strongly protest the down zoning of this property. Such action will be to the detriment of all residents and property owners and, in the long run, to the detriment of those bus- inesses who hope to profit from population expansion of this area. We hope the Town Planning Board will abide by the Southold Master Plan, the recommendations of the Suffolk County Planning Department, and the overwhelming desires and best interests of the residents of Southold Town and deny this request - which will benefit no one except the developer. Sincerely, A AKE AS~0CIATION By Edward A. Reynolds, President Suffolk 2veaue South Street Greenport ~ I vigorously o:~pose -:~he propo.~'q zoning ~h~.nge of the ~ruce ¥orriz yrop~rty i;: ~-attituck. I f~.el 4ha't al].otving this ~;ype cf develop- ~ ] e n l ~, ~'.o~]I~ be a fatal first st-~p toward ~,he y!'~stic ~h-~,?m of our village. Slicia V. F,.eeve BUFFALO BUILDING MATERIALS (TENCOM CORP.) LUMBER - ROOFING - PANELING 10 COMMERCIAL AVE. · GARDEN CITY, L.I., N.Y. PHONE 741-0650 (516) December 7, 1973 Town Supervisor 16 South Street Greeport, New York 11944 Dear Sir: Please be advised that I protest the proposals to amend the Building Zone Ordinance in connection with the row of houses and gerden condominiums that Bruce Norris is planning to build in the Camp Mineola area. Today, with our energy crisis, pollution and dwindling water supply, we do not need an overflow of people who will only create additional problems. Why must the few lovely areas remaining on this Island have to be desecrated? V/..~ry trul~o .,~s, JES/ms BARRETT BL/ILDI/t/G MATERIALS /~hled emical J. MYLES Hart ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW ANTHONY BUILDIN(~. 290 OLD COUNTRY ROAD MINEOla. NEW YORK iISOI PIONEER 7 4323 December 7, 1973 Supervisor Albert Martocchia Town Clerk's Office Town Hall Southold, New York Dear Supervisor Martocchia: This letter is intended to serve as the formal protest of myself and my family to the application now before the Town Board to rezone the property on Camp Mineola Road and New Suffolk Avenue from Residence A to Multiple M. As resident owners of a Camp Mineola summer home~ we favor the status quo and have no objection to the owners developing on acre home- sites as the ordinance presently allows. The rural charm which makes Mattituck and environs such a desirable residential as well as recreational area, is under risk of being lost. If the application for Zoning Change is granted, a dangerous precedent could result, the impact of which would entirely change the character of the Town of Southold. The essential question involves increasing density. Much planning and consideration went into the present zoning ordinance. Without the requested change, approximately twenty new homes could be built on the subject parcel. If the re- quested downzoning is permitted, there could be an additional eighty families. When the present ordinance was adopted, population projections allowed the Town to plan for the gradual increase. Is the community now ready to quadruple that which the present ordinance carefully considered and allowed? The resulting population increase would undoubtedly have unfavorable traffic ramifications and further burden highways. Schools would be hard pressed to maintain present high standards if population increases were greater than present zoning regulations had allowed and for which school officials have been preparing. Recreational facilities would become overcrowded. Density such as proposed, would no doubt diminish the quality of water supply, not to mention quantity. The demands for land have made North Fork property valuable. The applicant should be satisfied to comply with present ordinances and the profits which will result from such compliance. There is no hardship to the applicant in so doing. -2- December 7~ 1973 Prior commitments and distance don't enable me to be present at the public hearing and I ask that this letter be made part of the record. Our sincere thanks to you for your dedication and unselfish interest in the welfare of Southold Town. It's a fine place to liveo Let's keep it that way. JMH:vh Respectfui ly ~ 480 Private ~oad 17 Mattituck, New York December 7, 1973 Southold Town Board 16 South Street Greenport, New ~ork Gentlemen: We are opposed to the change in zoning from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M" Multiple ~welling of the property of oruce Norris lying between Feconic Bay and ~aratooka Lake. As we cannot attend the meeting on Tues- day, December llth, we request that this letter become part of the minutes of the meeting. We believe this zoning change would not be in the best interests of either the surrounding residents or the Town as a whole. It would create problems of traffic and pollution, increased pressure on schools, recreation areas fire and police protection, all leading to higher taxes for the whole town. Such high density may threaten the water supply of the surrounding area. The change is not in accord with the Town's Master Plan. To grant this request opens the way for other such down,zoning and creates a real threat to the qu~tness and beauty of the North Fork and to the adequacy of the Town's water supply. We urge that this request be denied. Sincerely yours, (Mr and Mrs George Lascelle) December 6, 1973 Town Supervisor 16 South Street Greenport, L.I., New York Dear Sir, As an owner of property at Camp Mineola in Mattltuck, I would llke to voice my objection to the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance. I would point to the effect of the increased traffic on the roads, the increase of the density in the area, a further drain on all municipal services includlng the over taxlng of the water supply which is already inadequate. I think also that we must consider the further destruction of the roadways and the effect on the already over burdened recreational facilities and the possible polutlon of the bay. I trust that these few items be considered along with the many other objections I am sure you have received and the proposed re-zoning be rejected. Sinc?rely/ ~'Michael Be|me Camp Mineola Road, Mattlfuck 135 GARDEi'. %-'~i'F-~;'r ,%A¢TD5r-, C~T'- "~E,.*, 't'C,R[-., 11530 223 Martha Drive Battle Creek, MI 49015 December 6, 1973 Town Supervisor-Southold 16 South Street Greenport, New York Dear Sir: As a property owner in Mattltuck, I was disturbed to read the article in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman of November 22nd. In this notice it appears that Mr. Bruce Norris wants to build houses and garden condominiums in an area that is basically an individual home, residential situation. There have been several discussions and reviews of this particular situation in the past, and I attended a town meeting last year in Southold discussing the same basic concept. It would appear that there would certainly be a strain on the limited water supply that is available ~f this were done in the area. It would be a real threat of pollution and the value of the properties that people have purchased in the area would certainly be reduced. As a property owner, I would llke to officially state that I am against approval and zoning changes, etc. that would allow rows of and condominiums to be built in an area that is individual home-residential section. I am sorry I cannot attend your meeting, but I am now in Michigan and therefore I am writing to let you know my feelings in this matter. Thank you for your help and consideration. Yours truly, Arthur H. Axberg, Jr.~ AHA/ndb cc: Mr. C. Edmonds Allen GORDON /¥[ACFARLANE BOX 742, MATTITUCK, NEW YORK 11952 December 5, 1973 Hon. Albert Martocchia, Town of Southold Southold, N. Y. Supervisor Dear Mr. Martocchia: ~ wife and I have read about the proposal by Bruce Norris to build multiple dwellings at Camp Mineola in ~ttituck. The zoning change involved, in our opinion, is entirely ~.at this time; and we urele the Town~oar~o reject the application. A similar remleSt by Edward Gi~lis to "downzone" on County Road 27 is another e~amnle of inconsiderate requests for lowering the zoning standards of our Town. There are adequate areas set aside for commercial and multiple dwelling use: and aDy changes in vonin~ at this time would show other developers that the zoning arrangements are merely fragile guides to be ignored. There is reallv no necessity or justification for granting to either applicant the change in zoning requested. l?espectfully, Dec. 5, 1973 Cm~p b~ineola Box 539 Mattituck, NY 11952 Town Supervisor 16 Sou[cz S~reet Greenport, LI~ NY Dear Sir: Tais is in reference to your Rearings on December llth, 1973, re a new zoning variance. As a property owner on Camp Mineola Road in Mattituck, we very strongly oppose this action. It is our understanding L..at Mr. Bruce Norris wants to put up apartments and condominiums near our property if a new zoning law goes into effect. This would certainly pose a threat to our nOw unpolluted beaches, create 9yen a bigger problem with the drinking water situation and present com~tless problems which the community is not eguapped to handle. We would like to add our vote as being strongly against any new zoning laws. Crowe JOHN R. LYNCH Camp Mineola Road Mattituck, New York December 5, 1973 Honorable Albert Martocchia Supervisor Town of Southold 16 South Street Greenport, New York Re: Norris Rezoning Hearing - December 11, 1973 Dear Supervisor Martocchia: I am the owner, with my wife Judith, of our house in Camp Mineola, Mattituck, New York, and have ascertained that Mr. Norris is requesting the Town Board's permission to rezone his property on Camp Mineola Road. We in the Camp Mineola area have always had serious water and sewerage problems and these factors have always been a serious consideration before anyone would attempt to develop their property. I understand a well point had been installed by Mr. Norris on one of his properties, and when the well pump motor was started for Mr. Norris' new sprinkler system, the water level in a pond on Ole Jule Lane receded. I further understand Mr. Norris, either individually or through others, has been assembling a large number of parcels in the Mattituck area, and we often wonder what plans he has for us. I imagine in Feudal times the "serfs" had no say as to how the feudal lands would be developed. I would hope that Mr. Norris' power and desire to change Mattituck to his own plans and ways would be controlled by the zoning as promulgated by the town fathers in not permitting him to rezone the area for multi-family dwellings. Honorable Albert Martocchia Re: Norris Rezonin~ Page -2- I would also like to point out that Suffolk Avenue, which intersects with Camp Mineola Road has a severe incline to the east as well as several roadways intersecting in close proximity, all of which presently constitute traffic hazards and certainly if compounded by multi-family development at that point, increased traffic hazards should result. Would you be so kind as to treat this letter as a voice of opposition on behalf of my wife and my children. Thank you. Sincerely, .kC /"i,--,~L John .~i~ ' Lynch JRL:cs olly Beach Limited Corporate Headquarters: Box 893, Reeve Road Mattituck, NewYork 11952 Phone (516) 298 8713 December 4, 1973 Mr. Albert Martocchia Town Supervisor 101 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Mr. Martocchia: I note in the November 15 Long Island Traveler & Mattituck Watchman that Bruce Norris has requested a zoning variance to reclassify certain property bounded by New Suffolk Avenue and Reeve Avenue from "Residen- tial-Agricultural'' to "Multiple Dwellings." I assume that this means four or more units per acre rather than one. The entire area bounded by the west side of James Creek to Deep Hole Creek and from Peconic Bay up to Main Rd., except the airport and the marina, is occupied only by one family residences. The requested change in the zoning would have a detrimental effect on this neighbor- hood of more than 200 one family homes. Such dense occuoancy would compound the very serious water and sewage problems which already exist. It is obvious that my property and the others in the Camp Mineola area would become virtual public beaches. The situation is bad enough at the present time with persons coming down picnicking, leavinE their empty beer cans, coca cola cans and trash, invading the privacy of one's own back yard, parking in our driveways, playing high decibel transistor radios under our windows, etc. When the town board adopted the present zoning plan, it acted with wisdom to preserve the present country residential community and to protect the area from get-rich-quick and speculator land developers. It is to be hoped that after the hearings on December ll the Southold Town Board will reject this zonin~ change as the County Board did. The last time the zoning variance was requested was in 1971. At that time, I submitted to the Town Board a petition with more than ll0 signatures, protesting the re-zoning of some 17 acres bounded by Ole Jule Lane, New Suffolk Avenue and Reeve Avenue. I understood that Mr. Albert Martocchia December 4, 1973 Pa~e 2. a similar petition had been sent to the Town Board by the residents of Ole Jule. I think it is safe to assume that the same property holders would all protest aEain if there were time to circulate such a petition. I will attend the hearing at 8:00 PM on December llth. With best wishes. Cordially, C. Edmonds Allen CEA/mkh J orris }:ezol~ing ~e ri,.~ - Decembez 11, De r ~u,-ervisor ~:~rtocchi~: }'y -ire, /'~t. ici~, ~r.d I ~.re the owners of our hease in ! imeol~, ~J~ttituck ~,, d b'~ve learned that requ,;st~ng t~e ~e~ission oY the · -rc~erty o~ Camp ~'.ineola ber of l~nd ~:rce~ either i'~ ~,i.: c'n ~a~e or through ofher r.'~r~es~ t.l]d the sug~l~.aticns, eJtPer rublicly cr b2; ru~or, h~ve bin' Frenzied to assemole "I ew City" in L'sttituck. ~e [roble~s ,~'hich ~r~;lti.r, le dwelling housing rresent Se,,er~je -.~!I -., ter recuire,~ents ~ould severely t:~ +}~e ~reser~t water t'~ble ~oter, ti~,l. The burden ~hicb ., "Low City" ,.~outd yrasent to the ~'ire :,nd Iolice Le~',~rt~er:ts in th~ w~y of fire wcq~ld be difficult to surmount. ,%'itFin the l~st thirty months, the residerts of ~ttJtucW the To~u ,7¢vernment met ~m. ith % problew of the very s.me n?-ture nj ~t that time ~greed th t multiple dwelling housing of descriyti,~, ,,~s not in the best interest for this I ..,culd trust that Lr. L'orris with his rower :-.nd urge to ~lter i~%tituck ~o his e'en "Low City" ~,culd be regulmted by the zoning ~,s rroclnimed by the To'-n ~o.-rd ::r~d not ~llo'-in;~ him ~o rezone to ~ulti.~le d~-elling residence. Ple::'se trs~t this letier .~; one of o~position fron J, rSo D~neri ~r;.~ nyself. December 4, 1973 Honorable Albert Martocchia Supervisor Southhold Town Building 16 South Street Greenport, New York Honorable Sir: I represent Isabelle F. Sarkisian, Virginia S. Peterson, Arthur D. Sarkisian and Dickran M. Sarkisian, the owners of property at ~ratooka Lane ~%Park Avenue on Peconic in Mattituck, New York. clients advise me that there is now pending before the Town Board an application by Bruce Norris, the owner of property on Suffolk Avenue in Mattituck, to rezone a portion of his property consisting of approximately 38 acres for multiple dwellings. My clients have requested me to go on record as ~_ this application because of the very nature an~--~cs of the property in this locality. Respectfully submitted, JF:j Jacob Fogelson CERTIFIED MAIL -- RRR 2Iar tin Dunn Box ~O8 Hattituck, i~.¥. 11953 December Dear Sir: I am writing to voice my opinion Against the chan[~ing of "A" Residential & Agricultural to "r'~" Light I[ultiple ~esidential of the Bruce l~orris pro~erty in r[atUituck for the following reasons: A. Uater ,Supply- Can the area take further strain on its water sup¥~ly? Persons residin~ ,_iust south of the area have m~rf~inal qualit? at present. B. z'a~es- I see an increase in our taxes as residents will dem~nd "services". C. '£raffic- ~ais proposal will pre~ent moua~in~ congestion of trafEic ond all the problems that this entails, mt is difficult even nov; to gain entry on to Route 25 from i~ew EufVolk .~venue. D. Uhar~cter of ~own~ ~uality o£ Life- hattituck h,~s a character and quality thst few towns possess. I thought the reason for zoning regulations ~.zas to protect this quality while providin~ for orderly ~rowth. fhis proposal is no ordinary v'~riance to offset a ~,~rdship of an individual ~roperty owner. ~his is a drastic change to benefit a speculator. If this variance is granted, the gain will not be to the property owners of [lattituck, indeed not even to rue ~roperty o,~ners of .~outhold Town, bu~ to the s~ecu~ators whom I thouEht all of Suffolk County was mobilizing to fight. MRS GREGORY M DEXTER P. O. BOX 1023 lb Smuth S~r~et ~reen~rt, fa: ~em.,est by ~ruc~ r~ .r~ds for ch.~,n£'e £rom "A" hesiaential ~ ~?ricu~tural ~istrict to "[~" Light l~,u~tiDLe Resi- nential oiazriat Zonin~ in ~iat~ituck The building: zone orai~F Sout~olm w~s DasseG to nro~eot ~ frac~ le enviro~ent fr~m the aevnstqtin~ vr~blerns cqusea by over- ~orula~ion tc w~ter suor. lT 'md waste disposal. Acco~oin~ to Mr. Anthony T~rmina of the Ne-~ York State Oe artment of ~nvironmental Consarvqt]on in ~dJresa in hattituck on January 17, 1°~ a i~nmil? of four with the r~resent sT;stema of wells end ces~'~aols re.nuires one ~nC a hslf acres of land to maintain ~n sccert~ble, mot~hle water suor. ly. This is more tb. sn the one-acre zoning rrovides. There[~ore any '~ttemnt to incresse .Jensitv of ~oeul~tion must Oe oDrosed anm the zonzng ordmn'~nce atri~zy obse~ve~ z~' eqstern Lon~ island is to gvoi~ the nroDte~s of the an~ of ~zhe st~t~ of Florida. I reaoeetfully reouest that this letter be reqO fnto the ~cor~ of 7'our meet]n~~ o£ ~ec.11 as mTr or, r. os].tion to the ~.em~ested change zoning. Va~l.r truly Mo'mrs, ALICE ~", /..!.L.[:N DAWE Rd :: I---[',c.',' 166A \Ve:,: vMw Dr. Ma'i'fifuc!t, N.Y. II952 KELLEY DRYE WARREN CLARK CARR & ELLIS 350 PARK AVENUE N EW YORK 10022 December 3, 1973 Hon. Albert Martoccia Town Supervisor c/o Southold Town Board 16 South Street Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Mr. Martoccia: My home is in Mattituck, which we dearly love. Last week, my wife and I learned that Mr. Bruce Norris is requesting a change in our zoning ordinance to have his 38 acres re-zoned for small multiple housing. We think this would be a dreadful step to take and look to you to use your good offices at the Town Board to reject it. Although we do appreciate that this is a busy time for you, this is so important for all of us in Mattituck that we would ask and be grateful for your letting us know the result of the Norris re-zoning application and your position with re- spect to it just as soon as you can. BGH:lmm Very sincerely, TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Statement Under Rule 5531 ......... A1 Notice of Appeal ............... A3 Judgment Appealed From .......... A5 Decision of Honorable Gordon M. Lipetz . . A7 Excerpts of Testimony of Newman, Welker and DeMares~ .............. A31 Excerpts of Testimony of Krudop and McClendon ................ A168 Excerpts of Testimony of Raynor and Tasker .................. A288 Excerpts of Testimony of Wells and Meyer. A312 Stipulation as to Exhibits .......... A433 WITNESSES Gerald Newman: Direct .................. A31 Cross .................. A42 Redirect ................. A73 John Welker: Direct .................. A74 Cross .................. Al04 Redirect ................. A133 ii Contents Louis DeMarest: Direct .................. P age A134 Robert Krudop: Direct .................. A168 Cross .................. A229 Samuel McClendon: Direct .................. A239 Cross .................. A259 Redirect ................. A281 Recross ................. A283 H. Raynor: Direct Cross .................. A288 .................. A294 Robert Tasker: Direct .................. A304 Cross .................. AS10 Horace D. Wells: Direct .................. A312 Cross .................. A341 Frederick Meyer: Direct .................. A349 A217 Hono~, Iirudop - diz'uct 554 THE WllrNESS: Upon treatment, your THE COURT: THE ~ ITNESS: with the excessive manganese of -- let me make sure of ~, Before treatment? No, four Honor, net tn the wa~er figures here your Honor. }~. Graeb 4.3 parts per mil. MR. ESSEKM: Your Honor, I wonder if that's a scientific determination or whether Culligan has determined that for tl'le recommended equipment. THE COUR~: Can you answer that? THE WETNESS: Well, your Honor, I have here a copy of the '~)r/nking Water Standards," of the Admfnistrative Rules and Regulations with the following limita- t ions. .MR. LARK: THE C Ot~iT: THE ',3 I/~ZSS: Of whom? Of whom? ~hese a~e of the State of New York, youz- Honor. And on this it sets the reco~ded level of manganese es 0.3 par~s per mil. This is well ir~ excess A218 Max-at ooka ? A q letter -- Krudop - direct of Ch~twhen we are Calking about of 4.3 parts per mil. THE COURT: 555 a n. ~nber What are the star~mxdm act there by thc Sta~e of Nc%; Yor%:? Are they minhl~um standards or maximum? THE ~.~I~NES$: Your Honor, this is a minLmum standard. In other words, the water must have no more than 0.3 parts p~r mil. That's basically, an answer to it, your Honor. Have you tested any wells near Lake Yes, sir. I have. ~'~ould you indicate to the Cour~ by the Let~ar '~". In Chis span of woods which is on the southwesterly corner of Maratooka Lake on the northerly side of New Suffolk Avenu~. Q ~lhen did you test the water at that si~e? THE COLrR~T: Who owns it, first? T}[C W ri~PESS: That is owned by a family Northridge. q ~}hen was that ~est dome? A219 Krudc,? direct A That tast was done on July, 1972 -- Jul), 20~h. A alkaline 55.5 ~'9~at was the result of that test? A '~H" of 7.2 which is asaJ~ .~p on the aide; iron. !.7 parts per mi!, or approximately Iix tim~s Che reco~mnded limit; manganese, 2.9 parts pr mil. It showed nitrates zinc, 1.1. A by Mara,'ook~ A A Home is a home as Mr. FelLx. A A ~r mil. of 7.5, ~nmc, mia 3.3, Was the water potable? No. It was not potable. Itave you tested any other water in that area i have. Adjacent to that, w~ had. ¥?hen you say "adjacent," to the west? !~m sorry, to the west of the Northridge owned by Mr. Skevofeli, sc~atimes known When did that test take place? That test was done on Septa~.bmr of 1972. %~'hat was the result of that ~est ? They ha~ a low '~H" of 6.!; nitrates 2.9, per roll a~d ~ar~L~tnese 4.0 parts A220 Iir~dop - d£~ect Q Was the wa~er potable? No, sir. It was not. Did you over test any water a[ Uhe }laintiff George Brooks ' Property? maybe A Yes , Q ~hon A This was Q A only three. Q 17hat ~as A present, but water. sir. I did. that? -- I do not have an exact aage. Approxhnately, if you can recall. it was approximately fc-~r or five years ago, the result of that test? The result of that tesg was there x,;as iron chore was also an objectionable odor to that mo,,~ant THC COUP~: Was it potable? Tt~ WITNESS: Your Honor, at this I do not recall the level. THE COlRtT: TI{E ~',' iTNESS: TILE COb?.T: Did 3~ou mark tha~_? I did not, you-: Honor. b~rk that with an That's for Brool~. TIDC WITI~£SS: I'm juSt trying to get A221 Krudop - direct my bearings ~n thac hole. bavin$ difficulty. I know 55~ ¥ou~ flo~or~ l~m ~ ~S on ~.he sou£h s~ of New Suffolk Avenue and I ~'s r~ht ne~x~ to M~. -- ~. ESSEI~;: I ~ ~e~b~ ~o ~. ~k shrug h~ where ~ ~. Y~ C~: Al! r~h~. C~ y~ Cell ~, ~erall, h~ ~y ~el~ y~ have tested ~e~ J~a Creek ~d ~p Ho~ Creek A Approx~ce ly 30. ~e ~he 12 wells that y~ ~e ~e~ =o~ s~, w~ld ~heme ~ ge~rally the of prob~ or non-prob~ =ha= you e~ered ~ A Th~ ~e given a ve~ excelS= =ross- seu~ion of ~he wa~er q~li=y excep~ for a =o~ which we ~ssed over ~ =~ m~dle wh~h also ~ ~re h~s~. They are higher h~s~ ~ ~he mi~. When you say "~he m~" -- A I ~m eo~y. W~ld you ~d~ate ~o ~he C~ wha~ you A222 Krudop -, dizect ~59 A 'Yes, ! can. The area which ~ ~ the ~ea~etl~ po~i~ -- ~ o~er v~ds ~ O~e Ju~ where ~ ~a a sh~p ~ ~ be~ or i{ you ~h ~o co~ so~ ~ ~C ~ld ~ whaC y~ de~d ~ ~e m~ poxt i~? A Th~ ~ t~ m~ po~i~. That t~re ~ h~d ~ l~d ~ ~h th~ ~re wh~h ~ h~d, L~t~ Po~t. ~ you ~1~ w~h the ~y ~6. by the Da~ B;~e No~? A Yes, s~. I am. B~ed ~ y~ ex~=~ o~ tbs water q~tity a~ q~lEty ~ the ~ea, do y~ h~e ~ op~i~ as to the ~a~bEl~ty o~ the k~d o~ ~er ~o~ on t~ ~o~ ~o~y~ A Yes, I do. q What ~ that op~? A ~ed ~ ~ ex~r~e ~ CeSt~ of n~r~ I w~ est~e thaC C~re ~ a of fresh wmCer no~h ~, but n~h of wells in the area, s ubstar~ ia ! volume that ts, south of the A223 Krudop - direct 560 as we progress south, we would have diminishing quant£ties. The quality would be characteristically wilch eii:i er iron or man~anese. Ful~her south would be i~creased hardness, lc~ nitrates ~nd then as we get toward the Bay we will run into more of a chance of salir~ problems. That's generally characteristic of that par~icular area, is it not? A Yes, it is. Based on your exper~enca, wh~ effect would it have on the quality and quantity of ~he water if the Norri~ Proper~y were developed into Jingle f~mily homes. A Mr. Lark, you would have problem~ if they developed that into single family homes. M~. ESSEKS: Your Ho~or, I object to his testifying as to the effect of I object to hE qualifi~stinna at all. But if be has been qual~ie.d, he~s been qualified to testify as to what he found ~hen he tested certa~_n water~. THE CmURT: Well, he~s ~estif),tng that he foumd m pattern of hard water in the A224 K_~o~op -diraet 561 left center and also over in the right center at about a similar d~stam, ce from the Bay. ~{. ESSEKS: All r~ht. Bu~ n~w he's ~een asked to hyp. othel~ as to what will occur if there is a development of 20 or 25 houses on there. THE COURT: Well, he's told us abou~ single family homes t~C he tested in that Swat across ~are from east tO west, }~. ESSEKS: THE COURT: MR. ESSEKS: Yes ~ f~om east to west. But he has not testified that -- maybe he has, bu~ he has not, as yet, testified that he's pu~ any well points into the area which is the subject of the re~o~ing or the other property owned by Norr. ts which is subject Co the rezoning. Your Honor, his testimony has pointed ~at that there are some places where there is good water and right r~xt door there cc~ld be bad water all the w&y arouu~ in a A225 n~e circle. I'm certain that's C~. go~ wa~e= ~d ~here ~ bad water. But why sh~ld we all~ h~ to c~cl~ ~ha~ tha~ r~h~ ~ ~e m~ whe=e, os~ib!y, ~ v~g~ ~e~o~, ~t Che wa~e= ~ gong to be eithe= g~d or b~. ~ ~s~ -- I aubmi~ Cha~ ~'S myme ~ C~: ~e!l, the ~en, ~ of ~hm we~h~ to give ~o h~ test~y, ~n~t ~. ESSEX: We!l, ~es t~st~e to the c~tra~z, he h~ hOC plied wells ~ ~he middle. ~ h~ tested wells f~ exist~g h~s ~ a c~cle and so~ o~ t~m are go~ ~d s~ of them b~. Y~ H~or has heard h~. T~ C~: Well, he ~hem r~ht aerie beca~ you've got test vacant farmland. MR. ESSEKS fa~ u~,ou~e has 562 good water an~ Che next houme A226 Krudop - direct 563 has bad ~ater ~ no ona knc~s what the ~a~er is in th~ m~ddle. ~ t~ ~atet al1 the ~ay ~d ~re b~ o~ ~ t~ ~aCer all the w~ ~o~d created t~ s~ b~ ~, I Ch~k we could ~bly ~s~ it m~ht ~ eye.ere even ~ the ~Cested ~ea~ ~ where i~ ~ ~d-~ ~o~-b~ or all ~he ot~r way ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ty ~ood ~ i~ ~ltl ~ b~ ~ I~s a 50-50 sho~ fr~ ~ as it will be Ch~ midd~. count o Do you have an opinion that you can state, with reasonably certainty on this, Mr. Krudop? THE WI~N~.SS: Yes, I do have suah mn opinion, your Honor. I feel that based on my experience in Chis area, Chat the individual construction of holms encou~erin~ such probLem~ will, nsturally, have to on an economical basis. Plus, you will have the ~dded deteterious effect of the emptyin~ of septic lystemS or se~al~e or A227 E. rudop - direct 564 cesspools into the ground and groumd water supply. Q Are you familiar with the proposed Norris Condomimium Project ? A Yes, I ~. Q Based on vo'~r experience, do you have opinion with reasonable certainty as to the quality quamtity of the ground water if the Nor=~s Property were developed as proposed with the 132 comdominium A Yes, sir. With a centrally treated supply of water, it can be governed. It can b~ ¢omtrolled. Il: co~s under mo~e stringent Cot~ty Re ~gula~i~ns, pl~ you have the added benefit of almost bacteri~lly pre b~ing recharged into the ground. THE, THE W E~NESS: Why ? Because ~ you~ Holl~ ~ I have st~ied the pre. ect .~ previously indicated to<la,, in tes~imomy ~d there has been a proposed tez~cia~- tre~men~ plan~. THE ~ the project? THE W ~N~SS: from the That will be paz~ As I was -- aware of proposals that I have studied a_~d A228 Krudop - direct 565 what I heard in Court today. THE COURT: Are you say~. that this tertiary treatment plant would not be feasible, economically, wi~h respect to a group of one=family ho=ms? TME W ~TNESS: would, your Honor, all, your H~aor. THE COURT: T~ W~ESS I don't believe ~ I do not. Tha~fs Well, why? W~y? ~cause even if this ter~m~y treatment ~lw, lt were to cost as 1~ as $100,000 -- ~ J~ fr~ ~e ~ea of ~he equips=, p~ps ~d sewage s~Ca~ ~ ~hey w~ld h~a to have -- ~o d~rt'o~ that cost ~gst ~ybe 25 h~s, that's $4,000 apace J~t to ~es~ the~. That's const~rably ~er what the requ~e~t of ~he Co~y ~ for J~ a sept~ s~tem ~d cesspool. I'm e~e ~, f~e~ in that $100,000 =a~u~ti~, yo~ ~no=. ~ CO~: What w~ld trea=~nt p~t cost for ~2 A229 Kru~op - direct TtF-' ':TT!.tiS£: v...~ Honor, · :.~liTia:! lc ~usw?" that. ~ CO~.T: %!! r~ht. f) no further '~.~ t::st.;4 tba Tva[tis '.'.!1, is tha~' correct? T .li.~ ~<a.~ the ~.;ater la the Tvaic~ ,'cope~y. _,f abou' h~,, ~any ~-han T'.r~ C ,;7c.- rt quLle & spread. ~ ! mil'hr gc !~k at tk_ ~p a bit, please? ^.?pro×~$~ata I:- ,',OO feet, ~ ...... l.~. Q "~..: T :~,'~.'2-" ,,se, said you fol/~ld the water A230 Krudop - cross the Tva~is House unsui~shle, A foun~ a Q Ho~$e. A Q Yes, Mr. Esseks. 'TH". is the= true? We found iron ~nd we N~, you ~esVed the wa~er at the Northrld~e Is that anywheres r~ar Lake Mara~ooka? Yes, 1~:. Esseks, i= is. C~n you est ia aha the number of £eet from the well point to the lake? A Well, I would like to bs -- if you take d~onal from ~his point over hare, i~ should be & closer. L~ we took i~ from C~ ~al po~t ~ ~ h~iz~2al ~ wh~h -- - Q The closest po~. ~ approx~ely YO0 fee~. ~ C~: ~ ~e you T~ W~S: N~hr~ge. Q H~ ~ ~he wa=er ~ ~ N~hr~ge A ~ t~ ~p~h wh~h ~hey ~d ~e~ ~. Esse~. 567 A231 Krudop - cross 568 Nc~, I~. Felix, whose name none of ua can pronounce, he~e J~ e~C o~ No~e, ~ that co~ect? Yes . I ~l~ve you fo~ h~ wa~r ~u~, A co~Tect ? A q Yes~ ~e did. No~, the closest diat~lce ~J:Om the well point to the ~ of ~ ~atoo~, abo~ h~ f~ for A ~ ~oo~ ~ ab~ 700, I would say ~ m~C ~ 100 ~t cl~er, ap~ox~ly 600 feet. Do you h~n to ~ ~ ~ere ~ ~e~t of ~s ~ay ~ d~s it go to the s~h ~ t~ e~t, the ~st? Do y~ hap~n to A Yes, s~. Wa ~ve a dom of ~aCer ~ the ~d here, whaler ~ ~ centrally l~d d~ ~ ~a R~~ ~ ~h~h ~ ~ybe 70 feat ~e aaa ~val ~ ~e a~ 1~ ~ ~ t~ee feet ~ ~ -- l~m ~k~ ~d ~ ~oo~. A ~ ~a~, ~. ~sss~, ~S, ~hara will ~ a fl~ ~ w~sr or a fl~ of ~rgro~ w~er, ~t=ally, t~ t~ Bay ~d C~ the salty ~e~. A232 Kru~op - cross In o~h~r wor~s, the water will 5e going ~ ~ ~oo~ ao~este~ly t~d J~e C=eek, soberly t~ Pec~ ~y ~ so~terly A So~erly =o ~ep ~ ~ s~rly t~d Pec~ ~y. ~ ~ the ~te~ ~e~ ~too~ ~ A Th~ wa~r ~ that ~ I~m not a~ =o ~er aC Ch~ ~C. A Well, ~ will ~er ~, ~m so~. ~ tha2 ~k. O~y? ~ ~ wa~r 2~ the So~, ~ y~ d~ a ho~ ~ it ~ a~ a~ there, you will see f~sh w~r c~ o~. S~, ~ally, h~ ~o= ~o ~o~ o~. ~C~ to the no~h fr~ ~ ~oo~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~oo~ ~ at the top i~ will do t~. ~ the do~ ~ will sa~ w~ c~ ~? 569 depleted, what will A Yes. dom~ ? A233 F, rudop - eroa~ Will you explain t:h~ phenomenon of the T~ W~'~T~S: ~ a~ best as my ability -- as ~ ~ here, tbs do~ ~ ~ ~=~tt~ of o~ ~sh wa:er eupply '~ t~ gr~ d~ Co p~c~at~ ~ the fu~'~ of ei:her ra~ ~ s~. ~d the wh~h ~e ~y re~ ~ ~o the ~o~ ~d ~ ~ c~on to t~ s~o~ sea ~el. We~r -- Professor ~e~r test~ ~d he tes:if~ ~ ~o :he ~vel of ~oo~ ~ w~ re~d ~o the ~el of J~s Creak ~ ~ep Ho~ Creek ~ ~ w~e~ of Pec~ Bay. Do y~ ~ the re~ive co~~ ~ to t~ he~t of ~ fresh w~r ~ ~ea:oo~ ~ F~sh wa~r ~ o~ ~o =he sa~ wa~r ~ J~s Creek ~ ~ep Ho~ CreekT A H~h or 1~ t~, ~. Esse~2 You tell ~. A 570 Well, a~ high Cids, which would be down I would say that: we still have Ch~t A234 K:~dop - cro~s dome of 3 foot el~vaCio~ as to Lake Over a h~h t~e o: over Low t t z la. A dome is much greater. Hr. A Esseka. q Now, if the water -- if sc~abo~ the water got ouC of Lake MaraCooka and the d~ w~ ~C w~ ~ C~ e~fec~, ~f ~? N~ ~alC water ~o ~Co ~ ~oo~? ~ld salt wa~ ~ ~ ~to A I s~pose -- ~ p~ ~y, ~ f~vel~ ~d me p~d for ~y~ ~y ~ ~d ye~s we m~ht ~ent~lly ~ all tha: fresh w~er ~o the S~ ~ h~e sea w~er. N~, you teethed ~ ~ ~e No~ ~o~y wh~h h~ ~en rez~d, Zh~ f~ ~o ~e ~ family ~el~ on :he pro~y, ~ C~ whaC you ~a~ ~ ~ ~ Cbs A ~ CesC~d that Chefs w~ld ~ prob~ relat~ ~o s~h. ~ yo~ tesC~ny Che~ will ~ prob~ ~ ~elop{-5 the N~ 38 ac~a f~ ~ ChaC A I ~ ~esC~y ~ha: way. A235 Kru~op - cross 57l Q Aha b7 "probLems," I asstuaa you ~he wa~r w~d ~ e~her ~ss ~ po=ab~ or appr~h~ not po=~ ~ tha~ co~ecc? A I d~, ~. Easeks. ~e y~ been =o~, or do you have est~ ~ to h~ ~y ~ f~ily resi~ces cou~ ~ ~ ~ 38 ~res of ~e No~ ~o~y ~ l= were zo~d ~e way ~ ~ n~, ~ ~ w~ ~ ~ of 1974 f~ ~ ~re res~=~l s~s? H~ ~y ho~es do y~ ~Ce will ~ A~e we ~a~ ~o~ P~i No. P~cel I ~ 2. A1 ~a 2 ~ -- [ ~a 2. A T~[ ~~ of ~e ~o, [ w~ld v~e ~o s~ =he7 m~= ~ ab~ a ~aa~ I~m ~=~ ~ here~ s~, 25. Tell fish= or wr~g. 38 acres for ~ f~ily res~ce ~poses A236 Kru~op -c=oss 573 have to ask you for Whe:her ir. fa 2.5 o= 30, I dc~% care. Uae A Probably -- would I be co~4e~t /n maybe rephrasin& the st~ment and say there mi&hr be aa m~ny as 30 ho=ce be~ built on that. : will accept that. A Well, on that basi~, yeS~ I feel 30 homes in that a:ea it would be a probLem. Q The wa:er woul~ be unpo~bLe ~ is that correct ? A ~m sa~n~ that they mi&hr experience these ty~es of problems, yea. And the typea of problem~ you are talkin& abou~ are the lack of goo~ quality ~r~nking var. er? A 1% talkin~ about ~ck of goc~ quality THE cour~: Bu~ it can ~e corrected, though, with equipment? TH~ WI~$: Yes. M~n~ci~aLl¥ o~ centrally -- I'm sorz%-, central supply -- forget the idea. The , I, ~ru~op - cros~ 574 such -- when we are talkin8 abou~ -- say if £here is an odor problem or corrosive problem, this romans individual ~rea~man~ on each of ~hese places. Whare, if ~his could be done /n a ~en~ral -- besides the deleterious effect of their ~m sewage going back into ghe ground un=rea~ed, as opposed to central monitoring adding a sequester whether it ts aeration or elevating ~/~e '~mH", So as to prevent this corrosive -- THE COU~: chemi=als, is it not? THE W ~NESS { This is done wi~h I~'s done, usually, in typ~s of situation wimh a high scaled dehydra~d lime ~~d ~o c~c~ ~. . Q N~, d~a Che prob~m, C~ ~poCab~ wa~r ~ob~m, ge= ~re ~o=able or more ~o~le, ~nd~g ~ w~er you ge= closer or f~er ~ay fr~ a sa~ A We h~ve a good mix~ure here, Mr. Esseks. Answer my question. We have a malt wa~r an~ ~n in=teased salt A238 Krudop - cross 575 water problem as we get down towards the Bay. The closer you get to the salt water, the Bay or the Creek, the more Iike~you are to have nitraCes, is 'Eha~ correct ? A ~xcuaa ma, t~. Eeseks? The closer you get to the wa~er, the salt wa~er, the Bay o~ the two creeks, the more like,you w~ll have unpotable A Yes, bu~ not excessive nitrates. We found bee~ Chat h ish. Is the wafer, for some reason, unpoEable~ AWhether it be due Eo chlorides, yes. Nc~, the further you get away from a sale wafer source, does the water gee more potable? A Fro~ the stan~poinE of chlorides, yes Mr. gsseks. Chis particular area from which my experience has shown ma we are runnin~ info iron and ma~Eanese or excesses o£ hmx~ss whic~ doesn~C necessarily correct potability, bu~ £E certainly does affect tn a household siEuation. oae's general well-be~-5 Ne will Ea/~ a recess. A239 Kru~op - cross (After recess .) THE COUP'- Do you have may questions of r. he witness? 1~. ESSEKS: No. 576 SAMUEL C. M C L E N O 0 N, 3812 Ml4~lm Roa~, S~aford, New York, having ~e~n firs~ duly ~orn, test~i~l aa follows: O~ EXAM~ I[~ Q A Q A 1.fl~sachuSet:ts and M~,v-~so~a. Q A Mr. MeLen4on, wha~ /s your profession, sir? I'm a l~e~ed profeasi~l e~er. By whom ~e y~ l~m~e4? I ho~ l~sea ~ ~ Y~k, N~ Jersey, Do you have a~y acacl~nic degrees? Yes. I have a Bachelor of Science and Public Health En&lueer from George Tach, a Master of Science ~n Sanitar~ Engineering from ~d. q Do y~ ~l~g ~o ~y ~of~s~l 8~~ A Yes, s~. I'm a Diploma ~ the ~r~ ~ of ~~n~l E~ers, a Fel~ ~ C~ ~r~ S~Zy of Civil ~s, a ~r of =~ A240 PkLendon - direct National Society of Professional Zngineers, a member of the American Wa~er I~or~ Association, %..'atar Pollution Control Federation and Consultant Engineers Council, Island Water Conference. Have you specialized in any branch of amd the Long e~g ineer lng ? A Yes. My specialty is Sanitary £ngineer~ng, which is water and waste water. In this capacity, have you served as an advisor to any municipalities? A Yes. Numerous municipalities. Would you list them for the Court? A The Village of Greenport, the T~n of Southold, Suffolk County, the New York State Health Departmemt, ~iverhead Water District, i~iverhead Sewer District, South Huntington Water District, Dix Hills Water District, approximately seven or eight Water Districts in Mastern Nassau County, the Huntington Sewer District. I'm not sure if I mentioned the County of Suffolk, but also the County of Suffolk. Have you ever testified before any Court of Law or administrative body? A I've testified many times before the New 577 A2~l Boards A ounty. }{cLendon - direct 578 York State Department of Environmental Conservation in their hear/ngs and their predecessor, the %Tater power and Control Commission. I have appeared before numerous on environmental water and sewage production. %;here is your office, sir? 500 Broad Hollow Road in M~lvtlle, Suffolk Have you been involved or prepared any water resource study for the County of Suffolk? A Yes. We prepared the Comprehensive Water Supply Plan, No. 24, which is a Master Plan for all of the County of Suffolk. That was a joint sponsorship by the County and the New York State Health Department. Have you been involved in the preparation of any water resource studies and reports relati~%g to the North Fork of Long Island? A Yes. %;e have done several reports for the Village of Greenport, in connection with Greenport, in connection with their expansion of their systems, the seeking of additional supply sites and also with regard to a water quality survey in the Town of Southold, with emphasis on the Greenport and related area. We also did a report and plan for the Town of Southold which was A242 Mclandc~n - dLreet to serve as a basis for a proposed Cut~hog~-~t:ig~k Water D~trict. V~en was that report remdered, sir, if you q That was 1973 -~ Ju~e '72, I'm sorry. Are you familiar with the Mattttu=k Area the Town of Sou~hold? A Yes, s ir. Have you prepared e study or a report for the proposed Norris A Yes. q Project in Matt!tusk, New York? Have you designed a water supply system for 579 this Norris Development Project? A We did a report on a preliminary design, yes. T~ this system, that you designed, adequate only for the NoZTis Property? A It was designed with the capability that it should supply some adjoining areas if it became desirable, subsequently, yes. What other areas would your system be Ible to serve? A The system as proposed could provide the fire protection for e sizable additional area. The plaid McLendon - direct 580 well capacity would be adequate to supply thc balance of the peninsula area, which would be situated between James Creek and Deep Hole Creek Area. Could you indicate to the Court on the aerial photograph on the wall, that area. A That would be this area here. (indicating) It would be a triangular section going southerly and o- well, from Maratooka Lak~, I would say. In your design and study of the water supply system for the Norris Projec'l, did you taka into account any effect that A Yes, laka ? it might have on Maratooka Lak~? What effect would it have, if any, on this MR. ESSEKS: Your Honor, I'm not sure that he's qualified to testify as to anything other than water supply -- water disposal. I don't know wb~ther the question deals with the quality of the water within Maratooka Lake. laid. THE COURT: that, Mr. Lark. No foundation has been Lay the foundation for A244 ~IcLendon - direct 581 water supply plants engineer? A Mr. McLendon ~ have you ever designed any in your duties as a professional YeB · Could you describe for the Court, in some Your Honor, I'm not questioning his ability to design water treatment plants and water supply plants. The thrust of my objection is the questioll that Mr. Lark asked as to what effect, if any, the water treatment plant that ~.~r. McLendon designed for the Norris Property might have on the water of Maratooka Lake. That's the part. THE CCLSZT: respect. qualify him in that Mr. McLendon, your design of the water supply system for the Norris Property, have you made any calculations as to the size of Maratooka Lake? A Yes. It's approximately 20 acres. Have you made any calculations as to the have designed and their }~. locations? £SSE~: detail, what plants -- what water supply systems you A2h*5 McLendon - direct withdrawal of water from Maratooka Tm'ca ~-~ng ine er lng Report? A There is -- A The percentage of water that would em!mate through the lake to the proposed well field is not a finite available number. It will be a function of the final well depth mmd the relative porosity between thru laka bottom and the well point as opposed to the porosity in the surrounding ground water strata. You stated before that you did a water study for the Town of Southold for a proposed Cutchogue- Mattituck Water District, did you not? A Yes. And in that study, did you tell the Court where you proposed that the water supply sources would be ? A The proposed three sites -- supply sites in that report. q First of all, stop for a second. Could you tell the Court what area this study encompassed? A It encompassed from East Cutchogue through 582 in yeur Have you made any calculations? We have made estimates and calculations, yes. A246 McLendon- direct .583 West Marl;; itu~k. Now, could you Cell ua where your study proposed the water supply site? A %~e proposed three supply sites, ~wo of them on existing o~ adjacent to exiSt{nE fresh water lakes, one on Laurel Lake, the south side, one on M~ratooka Lake, the north side and the third plant site was 'the existiz~ test well site owned by the VilLaEe of GreenporC on -- I don't recall the road -- Alvah's Lane, just north of the railroad. T~E C0~r~T: Thatfs by the ¥1!laS~ of Greenport, sir. THE W rrNESS: Yes, sir. in the course of that study for the Town of Sou~hold in locating these proposed water supply sites did you take into account its effect on the under,round water supply or the existing bodies of water in the area7 A Yes. The only substantial quantities of nitrate free or low nitrate water without iron or ~a~me problems found in the test studi~s were the fresh water lakes. The samples were taken from the lakes and partial chemical analysis performed on them to establish their acceptability for potable supply. %:e did not propose to A297 b~I~ndon - direct 584 take direct substances from the lake for the specific reason that there had been, I believe Ln Laurel Lake, a bacteria co.bt reported by the Health Department and we felt that it would increase the cost of the treatment s],s~em by having to filter it and to absolutely have to sterilize iC before putting in the system. What is the source of water to ~ratooka Lake, sir, if you know? A Maratooka Lake is nothing more than the ground water table exposed where ground surface is l~wer than the water table. The source of water to Maratooka is as it is in the rest of the fresh water underground resources, precipitation, rainfall, etcetera. How many inches will Lake Maratooka normally drop in the course of a year due to normal evaporation, if you know? A If there were no rechavge to the lake, the direct evaporation in a year would approximate 34 inches, based upon meteorological information. %';here would this recharge come from? A It would come from precipitation and from feed from the ground water table of which it is a part. ~dhat is the average normal annual rainfall A248 5~5 in a year in the ~%ttitu=k Area, oeen qualified as an expert -- rainfall. TH~ COU~T: you 'know, sir? I object. Re hasn't on the weather Well, he says that if there were no recharge from rain. M~I. E,S,~EK,S: Or ground water, evaporation in Lake Maratooka would be 34 inches per year. Is that per year? Your Honor, if he has a source, to give the basis of the source, I have no objection. BUt i~ it'S just a guess or ax% estimate -- if he wants to refer us to some particular source, I will accept that. THiS COU?~T: All right. Give us ~he ~asis of your statement. TH~ ~I~NES$: Well, the purporl:ed 44 inches of ratnfall as is contained in our Comprehensive Supply Plan for the County, and I believe it is repeated, the water resource studies of The direct evaporation £1gure which in most of the Town. is information I obtained from the U.$. Geological A249 McLendon Survey ~n Mineola. direct 586 How much more, if any, will the lake drop -- Lake Maratookm drop in a year dua to the water system that you designed for the Norris Project? A No~e. Not a noticeaBLe amount. ~B~ve you desl~d a aanitar7 sewage system for the Norris Project? A A Yes. Whac Cyme is it, sir? It's a Eraft collection system to a p-mpin~ station, pumping station would deliver the sewage to a treatment pla~t that wou~d be of a ter~-~'7 degree. THE COU~T: I'm afraid you will have to start over a~ain, sir. I'm tryiz~ to taka notes on this. Now the sanitary System for the Norris Property consists of what ? T~E WIINESS: A graft collection system, to a pumping station, pumping station would deliver the se~a~.e to a degree treatment plant. T}~E COUI~: ~at do you call A250 McLendon - d/rect 587 TI~ WIT~ESS: It's anything beyond eecon~ry, your Honor. T~COtPRT: treatment plant ? THE W 1TNESS: degree Yes, sir. A tertiary treatment plant i~ designed to not only re~ve the ~Jority -- that i~, 85 or ~ter of the s~n~d sol~8, ~d the c~b~ o~gen de~d ~ter~ ~ the 8~age, b~ it also, ~ ~h~ c~e, Is ~ten~d to =e~ve the ~]~y o~ the nitro~eno~ ~ter~Is which also o~en. T~ C~: Where ~o ~he nitrates ~d this ~ter~l corn from? T~ W~ESS: ~om the h~ ~aate C~ld y~ locate, for the C~t, ~here you receded that the proposed ~e~age tr~t~nt plant be located on the No~ Pro~rty? A The s~herly potion of ~ property ~dteaCed with the Roan N~ral II here which ts the -- ~d~=ely north of the re~g No~ Estate. H~ ~rge a parcel ~ =ha~, that you What kind of a mechanism -- in other words · once ~ndl~aCed to the Cour~ ? A Approx~c~tely five acres. What would be located on th~ five acres ~. ~nd~, wi~h yo~ proposed sewage =reat~n~ p~ A T~ p~E s=ati~ ~ha= I refe~ed ~o, C~ CreSCent p~C ~Cself ~d I d~'= f~h ~ ~er ~fore as f~ ~ ~he f~al disposal of the effl~n= from the pianO, that w~ld ~ thro~h a rech~ge Cy~ basin back Co the water tab~. I~ ~ ChaC Cbs full five ~res would not ~ requ~ed for the pi~t l~self ~d the per~cer are~ of the proposed p~c would se~e for dra~ge ~d for recreation p~es. T~ C~: N~, you say Nech~ge s~tem ~haC g~s fr~ the CresCent p~C ~k to the gr~d water? T~ W~SS: Yes, s~. This would ~ the p~if~d or Created effl~nt from the T~ CO~: ~ ~h~? That ~ ~t g~8 to the =rear.nC p~ the sew~e goes to the treater pl~t ~ i~ is ~reated there -- A252 M~Lendon - direct 589 THE WITNESS: You want a description of the plant itself or the final diffusion? THE COURT: We!l, very generally, at least, tell me in the treatment plant, is that treated with chemicals? THE WITNESS: Most of it is a biological activity. It will probably be what is known as an extended aeration type, activiate sludge plant, where we m~intain the proper ratio of sewage food for the bacteria, supply a great amoun~ of o~ygen for their utilization through mechanical blowers and, in effect, we wind up with healthy hugs that do the work for us. THE COUFX: chemically? THE %I ITNESS: It's not done No, sir. There are physical methods of sewage treatment, but we are not proposing that here. Is the treatment plant that you have designed for the Norris Property capable of handling the mewage effluent from the proposed new condominium and ~ndlvidual homesites? A A253 McLendon - direct 59O Yes . T~ COURT: Lee's see. I didn ~t get the answer to that q~stL~n about the recharge into the greed. mech~m is it? T}LE WITNESS: What type of course sand or fine gravel type beds that would receive the effluent from the plant and f~ltermittently get it ba~k PTobably alienate the ~e of different agents to keep them wor~ble. T~ C~: It's a ~ter of gong thro~h the gravel ~d sa~ ~ds ~d filter~, ~ a sense? T~ W~ESS: Well, a~ we d~t ex~cC it to ~ ~ ~cause it pa~ of the tert~ry s~tem, We will be ~g what ~ callad an "~obic" dee~ bed filter to get o~ nitrogen released so act~lly the ~er~l will already be filtered before it reaches s~d bed. A254 ~on- direct 591 Tlfl5 COURT: What is the purpose of the sand and gravel base? THE WTTNESS: Just to provide good %eechability into the ground. It could be do~e with cesspools, but it is somewhat more costly and it is much more costly to nmintain them than it ~s to maintain the open beds. THE COIlR~: I~ that an odor -~ a malodorous situation? THE W]XlqE$S: I~o~ sir. Not the e f fluent. You testified before that you had prepared an ~-n~ineerinE Repot-t for the water and s~age system for the proposed Norris Development, is that correct? A Yes, sir. Iv~. LA~: Your l{onor, at this time I have talked with Counsel and I believe as part of the Plai~tiffs' case, PLaintiffs' Exhibit No. 21 for identificatiozl was a Certified Copy -- THE COU~T: It's o~ly marked for ident if icat ion. ! I A255 McLemdon - d~ect 592 MR. LARK: Ri~h~, your Honor. I am drawing the Court's attention that this is a Zerox copy of ~ ~.nglneering ~po~ of water ~d sew~e system for ghe No~ ~velo~nt, ~t~it~k, S~folk Co~y, New York. A~ ~h~ t{~ I'd to sh~ the wit~ss a repo~. q Do y~ recogni~ that rep~, ~. ~d~'~' A Yes. Q ~ tha~ ~he report prepared by you? A Yes. Q ~ Cha~ the full repo~? T~ look at A Ap~s Co ~, ~s. Q I ask you co look a~ Pla~iffs' Exhibi~ 21 f~ ~n~ication ~d ask you if that's a Zerox of ~rC of that repo~? A Yes. the ~11 repor~ for P!a~fs' Exh~it for id~t~icati~ and have the C~ ~k tt as Exhibit No. 21 for s~licity. A256 McLendo~ - direct 593 Mil. ESSEKS: it as a Plaintiffs' right to offer it. MR. L;~R.K: Then I will offer THE COUI~: objection to it being }~. ESSEKS: I dom't wa~t to have Exhibit. He has tha All right, fine. it as a Defe~damts' Exhi~i~. Do you have any offered? ~Je have no objection. We don't admit the truth or accuracy of it, but we will admit if the witness were called to testify or to read it -- THE COURT: MR. ESSEF. S: called to testify -- THE COt~R~: If who were called? If the witness were This is the man who prepared it, Mr. Esseks. .x~. ESSEKS: That's my stipula~io~, your Honor. We are tr?ing to save time. agree with Mr. Lark that's what he would 8ay if he were asked to testify as to i~. That's I my statement. THE COURT: %~el!, you can ask simple quest ion. A257 McLendon - direct 594 MR. LA~K: I juSt asked that be marked for identificatiom as Defe~s' E~lbit P ~d offer it ~to evidence as s~h. ~'s agreed to, T~ C~: Why do you ~ed to ~k ~ for iden~if~a~ion if you ca~ offer i~ ~ evi~nce? ~. ~K: I offer ev~ce ~ Defenders' Exhibit P. T~ CO~: Ail r~ht. received ~ evidence. (EnE~eer~ ~po~ received ~r~d ~fend~ts~ E~ibit P ~ ev~ence.) ~. )~nd~, you stated that you are f~ll~r with the proposed Norr~ ~velo~nt ~ that co,eot? A Yes ~ sir. H~ ~y ~its are be in~ proposed to developed there, livin~ ~Its? A ~32 c~d~iu~ ~its and 21 s~ f~ily T~ C~,T: ~1 was ~ha~? T~ W~SS: Yes, A258 Mr. M~]_~ndon, are y~ f~tl~ wi~h h~ parcel of ~d where you J~t ~scr~d wi~h 132 was buil~ ~r 40,000 sq~re fee~? A We ~ 49 as =he n~'. 49? A Yes. ~. ~d~, do you h~e ~ op~i~, b~ed ~ yom ex~r~ ~d study of the ~aa, ~ to the ~C of poll~i~ or c~t~aCi~ that would be reC~,~d Co the gro~d ~ the proposed No. is C~d~i~ f~ily Si~eS se~ed by a cen=ral~d wa~r s~pLy system ~d ~e~ sewage ~rea=~= p~t ~ opposed if the ~ea w~ develo~d w~h 69 ~div~l h~s wi=h =he~ ~ ~divid~l well suppty ~d aepZ~ ~d cesspoot systems ? A A Ye~, · What is that opinion? The treatment system planned would remove from 80 to 95 percent of the pollutant~ such as nitrogen, oXygen requirement constituents and the suspended soli&ls. A259 McLendon - direct 596 If you compare these removables with an ordinary septic tank cesspool type system which would remove 15 to 50 percent of the similar contaminants, the result is tha~ the proposed development, including, the pLs~t, would return less pollutant to the ground water than the single family houses would. THE COUi~T: In other words, facilities for 132 dwell~ units and condominiums and 21 single family houses would run !ess than 49 single family homes? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: MR, LARK: quest ions · CROSS - EXAMINAT ION BY MR. ESSEKS: Q environment ~es, s:iro I have no further Mr. M=Lendon, you have testified that the on thL~ property, the Norris Property, is into a sewage disposal system and are supplied by a private, I assume, wa=er supply system, than the environment would be if there were a m,m~ber of ho~s better after the fac~ if the property is developed with 132 multiple residence units as lo~ as they are ~et A260 McLendo~ - cross allowed on 40,000 square foot ~d cesspools? 597 lots with 1~3 well points A I said that the ground water pollutants does this envisiom would be less, yes. T~E COURT: imdividual water supply system for each Yes~ sir. And it also would he of the 49 homes? THE W ~'NESS: THE COURT: for the 21 individual homes? THE WITNESS: No, si~. The 21 individual homes would be treated the as 132 eondominiunm. They would have public water supply amd public sewers. THE COURT: It would be public water supply? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Let's get that straightened out. This is a water supply system -- it's not mecessarily public water supply -- it would work either way, wouldn't it? A I'm Water supply system, private Just to the A261 }~Lendon - cross 598 NorrL~ system or whether it be public water supply system for the entire T~n of Southold, it would have the same effect. A I think we need to defina private -- THE COURT: Which definition supplies more than three families. You are talking about water supplies supply/nE more th~n three families s whether it's owned b~ a mu~icipal authority or privately owned? A That's correct. Many privately owl%ed public water systems. Now, us/nE your theor7 that this private -- the Norris Property is ecoloEically ~mproved by havin~ 132 dwellin~ units on it, with a water supply and sewa~ disposal, and haviug -- THE COU~X: Thatms in a multiple family setup. You said 132 dwellin~ units. MR. E$SEK~: Yes. Attached or semi-attached, whatever pattern they want. THE COURt: So lon~ as that's clearing your question. Now Mr. McLendon, if you took half the A262 IVlc~e~o~ - c~oss 599 propez~y or ~wo-thlrds of the property of the entire Town of Southold, and you had the sas type of density, and you had public water supply ~nd sewage disposal, from you~ experience, could the Town of SoutholdWater Supply take that type of burden? A Yes. This particular area. Q I'm talking about the entire Tow~ of Scot, hold. A So am I. Yes, sir. So that you would develop the e~tire Town Of Southoldwith 132 units per 40 acres, is that correct? A If you limit your developmsn~ to the water b~$at ~l:ea. The water budget area here is the full ~ease because all of it is about the one foot ground water contour and permits the sams yisld. The consumptive water use is less than the permissive sustained yield, mo it Abou~ ? iS self-sufficient from a water supply point of How many acres in the entire Town of Southold? A I ~e lieve in the Town. What does A 640. it's in the 40 some odd square that work out for acreage? miles · ,, I A263 ~I.,e~on - cros~ 600 THE COURT: THE ~,~ E~NESS: I believe. P~Mbe my math Ls wrcrng. 640? About 30,000 acres, A per acre A Q A How big is your wager recharge acreage? 57 acres. So what you are saying is tha~ those 57 forever ~d into this source, is that correct? Yes, sir. So what is the density? How many units Just a moment. Ig's 2.68. And there are 30,000 acres? Yes, sir. A I believe. ~ recollection there is 29,999 meres in the Town of Southold on the mainland. I think you said 30,000 -- A Acres. And the dc~nsity for the 132 units is abou~ 4.3 units per acre, is that correct? A We are talking about using a density on a smaller acreage than we are using for wa=er recharge areas, Mr. Esseks. So you are ~alking apples and e~gs. A264 McLendom - cross 601 Q So will it be your testimony you could have dwelling units that would equal the r.m~.ltiples of 2.68 t~s 30,000? A I modified that by saying within the water budget area. I don't remember how rummy of those 30,000 acres are within the above one foot contour. You your wetlands b~dget area. A -- that sort of stuff in the water Can you give me am approximation? I thought I could locate it quickly, buC I don't seem to put my hand on it, My recollection was Chat approximately 50 percent of the ~ross area of the Town wa~ in within the water supply, water budget areas one foot contour. The number of units that you testified that the Town could sustain, based upon water supply and sewage 4~sposal of a public nature, would %~ 15,000 acres tin~s 2.68, is that coz-rect? A I guess that would follow. C°n you work it out on your map more acc~ately than I can? A Well, if the arithmetic is correct, that would be about 40,000. A265 HcL~ndon - C~O~8 602 q ~be].l~n~ un:F~.a, La eha,- correct, F~. l~Idndon? ~HE CO',JR~ b t:h~o 2.68. tha~: dMelltng tmit~s pe~ acre? 40,000 unito, is that cox're~? 40,000 TH~ COU~F ~ Well, ~ would 10 room d~elliaS uai~s? am average Aa mi=d? THE COURt: What did ~hat m~Al~l:i~li~ation come tos 15,000 I:lmas 2.68? THE WI~SS: 40,260. A266 603 ~. l~cLandon, do you have an emt imate ~ha average n~r o~ ro~ ~r ~ell~ ~i~ th~ y~ ~e got~ to ~ ~o~ th~ s~? T~ C~: ~ d~er~ce It ~ ~bo~ the r~? You ~e ~. ~SE~: Z w~ go~ to go Peop~a ~ho uee ~atez amd -- l~t. I~IlE: ¥o~ Honor, I C~ to ~elev~cy o~ ~ ~c~e. ~. ~$E~: I ~d lf~ a f~ ~e m~es. H~ ~y ~ople do y~ ~e will ~ ~ ~h~e 40,000 ~11~ ~l~, ~, ~o, ~hree, ~o~, ~ive ~ ~ ~ar~e ? Would y~ ~l~iply ~0,260 by ~.2 ~ y~ calcu~ ~ ? A267 ~Lendon - cross 604 A 128,8~0, So ~ ~s your t:esCimo~f thaC Che wa~er s~ply so~ ~ ~e ~ Che T~ of S~hold for A J~C a ~nC. T~ w~ ~ ~ ~e '~11 ~ y~ ~rS~ly ~~ wiCh ~haC C~ P~ ~ of ~e T~ of So~oM pro]ecOa ~ ~a opC~ A % dm~C re~ll, ~. ~ wa~r Co e~ply ~8,~0 ~opte ~ Che T~ of A ~aC's h~r Ch~ ~e ~r I had ~ m~d. ~ I cay, I c~1~ f~ ~he s~c~ ~s or mibs ~ Che water b~geC ~aa ~ a ~k ~i ~d ~ recol~eC~ of ~ eaC~Ce of ~e ~sive a~Ca~ y~ ~ c~ T~ of S~chold w~ s~re ~ C~ 1~, 000. q 10 ~ 11 mill~ gall~ ~r ~y? A X bel~e =ha n~r w~ I0. A268 cross 605 A ~oula sustain 100,000 people? Ye~, al: 100,000 galLo~s per capita per day you defin~l;ely would ~- U~l~s people start to u~e a lot more land mate: them they do no~. Woutd r. hat also maintatn ~ult~al ~e ~ ~ pr~t~y ex.ts ~ the T~ o~ So~ho~, A No. ~ y~ h~ the 100,~ ~op~, you ~ 7~ h~ them ~ c~~ you c~ A N~ ~ you 8=ill reZa~ Zhe ~ns~y ~h~ we ~e ca~ ~. ~ ~u Itek them ~ h~ you'd ~e cou~ f~ ~ you h~ that ~y ~ophi A I d~t ~ of ~y c~d~i~ thaC ~e ~ ~opos~d to ~e the~ c[~r ~ cL~=er ~ea to ~ybe ~e ~e So~ to h~a co. ~ell, L~ we are gotn& to h~ve 128,000 people, A269 IdcLendon - cross 606 Nc~, you testi/ied, ! believe, thaC t~ ~o~ed ~Ct~k~Cchog~ ~e~ D~i~ ~aa go~ to A Y~. ~ y~ test~d ~t ~ ~e ~2 c~d~ v~r ~rom t~ ~ that you d~t ~ e~Cly h~ e~tly w~C ~~ o~ the well ~r would d~tly v~ t~ ~ as oppo~d tr~ the strata, ~ Ch~8 w~C y~ ~e ~k~ ~. N~, I ~l~e ~ sam t~ the ~8~n ~ C~ u~r ~pp[y c~ e~e other A Yes. ~e ~ 8~t~ ~ w~ ~ a~c~al~y h~ ~ so chat ~ c~ ~ c~e ~al q~l~y ~ea. A270 ~he F~re Department. TH~ WITNESS: I ~ the f~ili=y p~d for f~e protecti~. T~ rate of fl~ pl~d for f~e pro~ect~n wou~d ~ ~q~e for a y~ US~ you ~ly h~e ~ f~e rec~d o~ h~ ~y -- by ~ ~a y~ h~. ~ ~ ~he propped ~ res~nce q d~valopmant hooked up to this wa~er supply and if o~her ~sas wi=h~ =h~ ~o c~e~ hoo~ ~ to =hat wa~r I~ply, ~ ~ ~a F~e ~p~ booed ~ to the I~ply, cou~ you a~o h~e the ~o~ed A Well, O~ly ~ w~ ~ a l~it ~ to h~ b~ ~ ~ you would a~=e~= ~o eupply fr~ ~e ~d ~e ~ s~ce ~ C~ w~ fr~ ~ A No. ~ pr~ ~o~, ~o~ly would 607 A271 McLandon - cross I~m talkin$ aboui: feedin~ o£f 608 Lake Now, will there be anou~, water to serve fha Mat:itu=k-Cutcho&ua Uater D~tr~t ~d the No~ Pro~rty ~d the ax~t~ ~velo~nt ~d f~e develop- A Yes. ~oo~ ~ ~ no~ more ~ ~ w~r ~, a~poSedty. If t~ wa~r =able ~ =he correct ? A q Maratooka, we are So inE -- A I ~hou6ht you askad m~ abou~ the District. Let mm go back. The Norris Proper~y for s~re is going its water from Lake Maratooka, correct, as one i;htng? A Some percentage of ii:, yes. And Fou are =alkin& abou~ havin~ -- allowing ~et~hbors to l:ha soul:beast and soul:truest hookup to t, ha~ And t4aZ~/tuck-Cu~cho~ua lCa~er District ~ t~ ~ w~ c~ceivable wou~ ~ a certa~ ~rc~t~e of ~h~ w~er out of ~ F~oo~ ~ =ha= A272 609 the p~es~C ~ ~bly f~e po~. ~ I ~h~ i~'s ~o~ ~s~y up ~o 100, ~0. Well -- A I d~t ~k~ got th~ -- ~t ~ ~ the p=~s~ ~t~k~~ supply s~tem s~ed to A C~o~-~tt~k ~ ~ly the or ~e ~ ~e~p~ ~eas of t~. It d~'t Eo t~ S~ or to t~ sho~ fo~ its ~ e~emity. q o~ ~he ware= A A Rave you, personally, tested the qualEt¥ ~n Lake Maratooka? ~ y~ ~ a rep~ ~ Co~h~ It ~? Yes, 8~, Is t~t c~ta~ed ~ t~ ~ t~t'a ~ avid~mce? A273 McLendon - cross 610 CreaC ocher areaa ~ave lo.merit ? A No~, you Calked about the s~wa~e treatmanC Now, ia ~hac sewage CreaCment plant go~g to or Just the con~ominiuma and the cluster It'S O~ly des/~n~d Co C~eaC the 21 single £amily hc~es and 132 condominiums. XC will be designed at approximately 40,000 gallon a day caps=icy because reguLa~ions. ~e don'C believe the flo~ will exceed 30,000 gallons per day. If that is true, then it will hav~ the ability Co Cake on a f~w more customers. Now, will that proposed sewage disposal sysCem work wiCh Jusg or~ house hooked u~ to A Nog very efficiently. At what point would il; beco~ efficient CO have Che sew~e CreagmenC plAnC work? How many? Somewhere between one and 32 -- one and 132~ I A Well, t~he detail d~st4~ns ~ren'C complete, bu~ I would estimate that. And when I said, effi~ie~ly," iC would cost a lot per ~allon, obviously, to run a plan= like ghat for a small number of houses ox unills, bu~ in our d~si~n we would be required by ~ecesatty and by regulations Co spll~ the ca~a~itles up. A27~ McLmndon - cross In other words, where we would have aeration tanks or setClin~ Csnks or deni:rificaCLon filters or wha= h~ y~, C~y would v~ l~ly, ~ ~sC ~ses, ~ requ~ed will pro~bly ~ly o~ra=e ~-half =h~ p~, so s~ak, so Chat ha~ the p~C, aC a q~r ca~cy, -- I w~ say ~-e~:h of ~ a~pl~ ~ fl~ wou~ ~ ~e~d Zo ~ra:e, more or Y~ ~ed abo~ ~-e~th of 150 q A abou~ 20. q You need about 20 units functioning and people living in them and using the facilities to have cbs CreatmenC pls~r work? A 611 Yes, TH~ COURT: Were i~ economically leasable, ic will work with less, wouldn't THE WI~$S: It wouldn't work too well, your Honor. And what frequently is do~e ~ith a low fl~w plan: /s -- it's so low chat if you don~C Set to maintain proper, in effec=, food for the bu~s to operate A275 McL~ndon - cro~i 61/ up and working, you have ' effluent out. A Possibly. Obviously, we ~ry to make operate ef£ici~ntly and well without doing that. Now, how about a seasonal situation? what you do is you will take that waste and temporarily -- and until you get sufficient units on the line -- transpor~ i~ to another plant at another location until such =imm as you ara u~ -- Until there are 8bou~ 20 houses to cart the stuff out, the it If you have people Just living in these units, let's say~ in the Su~er~ims ~-d som~ of them living there in the Win~ertime~ I assun--, that Just the fact that they are built and people own them -- which is these people leaving them -- using the sinks, the showers and toiletm and tubs every day in order to mak~ the system work, is tha~ correct ? A It would require some changes in the system, yes, if that were the case. All right. But if you have a situation where there are 40 families and only 15 of them are there, what's going to happen with ~he plant? A276 HcI,en~on - c~os~ 613 ~ ~at ratio, Q ~ wh~t po~t ~ould ~ not w~k? A ~ I sa~ ~fore, ~y~ ~ you ge~ d~ =o, ro~hly, ~ e~ of q Wall, I ass~ yo~ ~s~n ca.city ~ f~ 150, so ~1~ 20 =he plan= A I= w~'= work ~ well, ~'s correct. I~'~ possible you will have to You wou~ c~ by b~C, ~ or Che ~her? A Is an operator kept there to watch, itse If ? A normal procedures oma cer~i£i~d or It will probably be by tank truck. Now, do ~hese systems have to be manned? or does it work by Ic's automatic and it's in operation under of plants this size. There would be lt£enSed operator that would handle from two to four plants and he would have like e rolling patrol to the variou~ plants. A277 l~cLendon - cross What happens like most everIthing else? A Cer~ain17. A there is one, possibly, A A A A the corner of -- in Brookhaven ? Are there ~ny in Sou~hold? Not that I recall. Any in Southampton, East M_~pt on ? meant to say? assume they can break, What happens when they break? Well =- Are there any other plants such as the Town of Sou~hold r~ght no~? A Not that I'm familiar ~ith. Is there any in the To~n of Riverhead? A Well~ ~n the Tcwn of Sou~hold you have a public supply, wh~.h is Cbs VilLage of Grmenpor~ plant. In Riverhead you have the Public Supply. You also have a sewage treatment plant in connection w~.h one of the developmer~s I he~xd talk about thee mornin~, Heathez~ood. But there is none in Sou~hold Town and A278 McLendon - cross Let's say there are 132 units and everybody is taking a shower and doing evez-fthing and it breaks, what happens ? What happens ? THE COURT: The law of probability -- A The word '%reek," may be not the best one ~o nee to describe what might -- You lust Cell me how to describe it? A I suppose the most likely thinz would be m power failure. We will have, of courses a standby generator, whiah will be set to come on au~omatically, but I suppose this is one of the most til~ly places of malfunction. What would happen would be that until someone got there and corrected the situation, the sewage being processed would be insufficiently treated. However, in the extended aeration pia.r~_ you have a 24 hour rete~ltiou time in the plant and, again, depending on the type of plan~ that is finally designed, you probably have an equalization tank either before or after your aeration tank and this gives further cushion to store material until malfunctioning is squared a~ay. And i suppose if complete -- inability to get so,eons ~here within a reasonable period of time, then the u~tremXsd A279 McLendcr~ - cross 616 waste woul~ So t0 t-he disposal a~ea, the recharge baai~ an~ ~hen would h~e to ~ subseq~n~ly c~d o~. ~, ~ I correct that y~ tastif~d for AC ~ M~. Norris at the tt,~ time of the Razonin~? of the Publi~ N. earimg? Yes, X did. A~d 4i~ you testify -- was 1973 ? it December A S ounc~ familiar. Gree~poz~ High School? Where was that? Was it A Gree~port HiEh School, yes, sir. Do you renumber bein~ asked by ~. Smi~ ab~C the s~e d~posal p~C? A I re~er ~ as~ a 1~ q A q a~a~e pian~ re~ it ~ go~ to ~ enclosed. So ~ ~ors do ~co~ a problem, they c~ be c~ta~d ~ treated." s~e else sai~ to you: 'W~ld y~ ~ild ~ h~ of questions. Do you ramember Mr. Smith a~P~ed you ab~t do you reamer whac yo~ ~er was ? ~y~ you should re.eBb ~. (re~:) '~. ~ ~: has ao~ ~or aC so~ ~, Almost every That is ~he A280 t-~=Ler, don- c=osa 617 d~ from ~hat pleat?" And do y~ re~er yo~ · ~ CO~T: D~ ~ that yo~ ~? A I ~l~ve ~he ~swe= w~ d~ w~d of the Q The ~d '~d" d~am't cp~ ~ my copy of ~he ~r~seript. T~ C~: What w~ y~r T~ W~SS: I bel~ve I said, '~oL ~ I had a ~oice". So, from ~ ~o ~i~, ~here c~ ~ odors e~E~g fr~ ~e p~t, ~ tha~ co.act? A Yes. I~'s no~ l~ly ~ a~ p~t ~ o~ra~ed pro.fly. ~t if i~'s ~c~iom~, yes, ~ poss~ ~o get so~ ~or from ii. I~ ~ mot des~d with ~aa ~ipaCi~ ~here will ~ ~ e~er there 24 ho~s a ~y, ~ correct ? A ~o. We t~ to des~ ~o ~he capability of ~ipat~g ~here will be so~e there each and eve~ ~y for seven, e~ht A q Someone will visit A Yes. q Check i~ to see A Yea, s/=. HR. ESSEKS: HR. LARK: A281 McLundon - cross Not for eight hours, bu~ each and every ~? if it'S workLn~? Tha~ 'e all. Your Honor, I Just have o~e br~af question. ~D I~ZCT ~XAMn~tT I0N ~Y ~. LAZK: cr~s-e~ti~ ~ to whether or n~ 7~ ~ tarn water suppl7 s~p~ fr~ ~raCoo~ ~, d~ he no~? A sample ? A A A And wha~ was your answer to that question? Yes. And when did you take such a water supply March 27th. l.?hat year, s ir ? 1975. Did you take th{- sample ~reonal~? ; L I[ if " ....... III II A282 MeLendon - :ed.:L=eet: Did you test this sample, personally, your laboratory? A I had t: tested in my labor~ory, yes. Do you have the results of thac sample w~:h you? A Yea, s:Lr. I do. MR. LAR.K: have iden: if teat ion. THE COURT: MR. LARK: going to have -- THE COURT: mark it for I'd lika to have this Is it ~n ev ldenee Po, your Honor. Why do you want to identification? Offer it. All right. Or qualify him. l,;hat I'm holding in my hand here is the copy of the resulCs of the water test that you took on March 2?ch, 1975, is that correct? A 619 in Yes, Sir. this was done in a certified laboratory? A283 Mc~en~c~ - redL~ect And was the laboratory certified by the Suffolk County Realth Department? A And the New York Sta~e 'I{ealr-h D~pi~rtmmnt. }~. LA~RK: I wish to offer this i~ evidence as Defez~ts' -- ~-~%. ESSEKS: .~. }~Lemdon ? THE W II%~ESS: it wasn't dome by you, I personally did not do the test, but my chemist did do it. MR. ESSEKS: I object, your Honor. }[ave you st~nad the results of this test? Y~s, I did. ~d y~ signed it ~ ~borato~ D~ec~or? I ~ the ~borato~ D~ector. Of ~M Corporati~? Yes, s~. BY MR. ESSEKS: q analys is test Is this normal procedure for a chemical to be so certified? A Yes. I am the Laboratory Director, do t%o~ do the chemistry itself. I see ~hat it's done r ~ht. 62O A284 McLendo~ - reerosa Q Were you present when this Were you standing I:here? A q one was done? I was ~aot standing over the man's shouldmr. You don't know whether he d~ it right You hope ha did it ~iSht. w~ ~e s~n it. ~. gssg~: ~po~ received ~ ~d ~ C~: T~ t~le of d~ ~ what? ~ W~SS: Wa~e~ S~ple f=om ~aCoo~ ~. ~ C~: ~e q~B~ ~ recros~. ~ C~: 3/27/75? I~m reasonably con£~lent he did It r~ght, 62! I ec~t:inue my obJect::Lon. Object ion ove~l~d o Thac is the laboratory A285 ~Len~o~ - by a m~n by the mama, Tt~ COURt: Nhat do you show, good water or poor water? T}IE ~ ]/'NESS: It shows it's an excell~mt water, your Honor. The is less than one-tenth at .07 milligrams p~r liner. }~$amese was less than the testable az, lount of .02, nitrates were lass than oma-tenth of a paz% per mil, chlorides warm 17, 'PH," was 6.3, shows a conductivi~y of 93, which would l~dicate a total solid in ~he neighborhood of 60. There were no detergents found and 13 parts per mil of eulphates. Sulphates is fairly average. ~fost of ~he other co~stitL~_n~s are low. The d~i~king water limit cn sulphates L; 250. In relation to that, it's low, yes. ,%re you acquainted with a water study done of Terry? A A A Yes, s~.r. Did he do a water study for the Towm? Yes, sir. Do you !chow what bis repcc~ was? I read his report, yes. A286 McLendon - reeross 623 Do you know what he stated as to what he estimates was to be the maximum popula~iom for the To, m? A ! don't remember his population, but I tht~k I recall his safe yield was around 10 million galloms a day. But you don't remember? A ! d~n~t remember population, no. Q You dontt remember that il: WaS 34,000? A No. No, sir. T~E COIPAT: You have that ma~y m~w, almost, haven tt you? MR. ESSEKS: I tht~k it's aroun~ 17. No f~rther questio~s. MR. LUNDBEP4~: I re~st your ~{onor to tak~ Judicial not:l~e, if you will, that du~ing the S,~m~-~ the prevailing wind is southwest and would blow ~ross p~cel ~h~ way, ~d ~en ~ ~ W~er, tf ~ d~s bl~ no~h, ~ gong to bl~ down tc where there p lsz:e s. THE COURT: is al! these Summer JuSt a minute. Going rmlr ..... ~r'J A287 MR. LL~fOBEP~: Fro~ the north. So that if you are going to build your house dowr~ind, you are talking abou~ building c~-er here, mot where ,ny of the Plaintiff~ live · THE COURT: All right. You may step down. Do the Defendants have any other witnesses after we hays completed cross-examination ~{. ZSSEKS: !~mder, I be !iave. .Redirect om Mr. I believe they have completed their examination. THE COUR~: ~,7e will conttnu~, then, on Monday at l{auppauge at 9:30 a.m. (Whereupon the trial was adjourmed to April 21, 1975 at 9:30 a.m.) THE CI~: Ca~e on trial. (At this poin: Mr. C. lamder was recal:b~d to the stand.) THE CLERM.: I w~h to remind you that you mre still u~d~r oath, sir. TIL~ W ~I~N ~SS: Yes ~ s ~. EXCERPTS A288 OF TESTIMONY OF RAYNOR & TASKER indical:ad at a Bench Conierence that have ~eserved a n~ of ~te~s ~ ~tter of 1~ for f~her ~d that y~ wou~d ~ee~e ~c~i~ B~ed up~ that, I will noC T~ COUP: Ve~ well. ~c~ rescued. ~, ~: The ~f~ ~o~ ~ the s~ ~ti~, ~ ~ ~ C~: ~c~i~ reset, ed. 639 Cardinal Drive, i.~ttL~uck, New York, DI2~CT F~%~tl/~'~T iON BY }~{. LUNDBZkG: A A ~k'. ~ap%%or, do you resLL; Yes, s J_r. ~d h~,~ ].on& hava you '~esid~d there? ~2oou~ f £-v,_~ and a ha - , A289 Raynor - direct 640 Q Are you a member of the Flanning Board of ~ T~ of Sou~hold? AYes, s ~. M~ long? AFive ~ amd e~v~ m~ths. ~d Wh~e d~ you res~ ~fore you H~ 1~ have you ~ a r~ident of the A All ~ ~e. ~. ~DB~: I w~ ~k that Will y~ re~ lt~ p~e Ca~)? AWou~ you 1~ the ~e To ~. ~or, are =hose =he S~c~l ~e=~ of =~ P~ Bo~d of ~ch 23rd, 19717 A A Yes, they are. Did you attend that meetS? Yes, sir. And there is a reference to the adoption of map) ia Chat: correct ? Cbe Him',.~es. A q A290 Chink ii;ts meat the e~nd of 641 Pla~min~ Boaxd, or & copy of ii:, om March 23, 1.971.? A Yes, air. And ii you would Look in tbs axea of MatCi~uck, doea ii: have em '%1-1" Zone7 A Yes, sir. lC does. Would you point te out: Co Cha Court7 A (indicaCl.~) The Incorpora~d Area here ixl prol~cy souCh of li~ Su~iolk A~nta~ between Ole Ju~ T~ CO~: ~ ~C the ~ly '~-1" Z~e ~ ~ THE W II~NESS: TIlE COtlRfr: Zoned property your Honor, iC is WaS ii: the only '~-1" l~ il:uck Area? be 8ho~a l)efe~_a~-Cs' ExhibiC A. 1~:. R~yllor, have you looked aC ExhibiC A? Yes, s ir. IS ~ha~ Che m~p chac vas adopt;ed by the A2~I ~Tnor ~ d~ecC THE 642 Yes, sir. IC ~s. Now, would you ~ust encircle that in red and mark it Where does tha~ piece of property lie with relation to aha property of ~he Defem~mt Norris? A This piece of prOl~rty is to the west, across C=~..-Mineola Road. Couht you ~ske whatever exhibit this aerial is and would you mark that s~-~ piece of property on Exhibit O. q THE COURT: You*Il probably need a crayotl. t~hat is the da~e, 3/13/717 3/23/71 on wherever tha~ piece of property THE COUP, T: w:LZh a pencil? THE ',~ ]TNESS: '~ COUP': Can you write Yes, st~'. Mark it '~-1" also. I'm aski~ ~-~. Rayuor to give the Exhibit A tack, THE COURT: Ju~ point ou~: to me where he ~rked it, will you pleue? A292 Rayno: - direct 643 THE WITNF~$: Youz Honor, th:L= piece proI~'ty is situated ie here THE COURT: in red? T~ WITNESS ~ ouZlined in red? THE COURT: date and the '~-l". TME COURT: Norris Property, No. THE W]ll~EM$: Has r. ha= been oui:lined No. Would you 1lk~ JJ: No, ho~ did you marked it with the Tha~ was west of the 17 Yes, sir. A Would you show now the wi~nems Exhibit iDA ~r. P.~or, are you fam/l{~z,-with those Will you show the wi~s Exhibit 8. Now, ~ my request, M~. Raynor, before you took the stand, did you read a copy of E~hibit 8? A Yes, air. And does it fairly and accurately clepic~ the discus6ion that took place on thai: daf. e concernin~ that very '~-1" Zone in the Hamletv~'-= ...~"-''~'-0, aaynor - d~recl: A Yes, s/r. I s~. by ~hz T~n o~ S~hold~ A Y~, s~. ~ ~e ~hey re~tv~ by ~ P~n~g B~ of t~ T~ of So.hold? A Yes, s~. q ~ were ~hey d~sem~d 2o v~io~ off~, ~c1~ ~he S~folk Co~==y De~ of A Yes, A Yes~ ~ ~y ~olu~ ever ~ ~op~ed A ~o~ ~o ~ ~d~e. ~e ~hey ~en ~ed -- I ~ed ~e ex~essi~ ~ ~fore -- ~ a ~k~ tool by ~he A Ye~, s~. ~ C~: Y~ ~y these ~ver ~op~ed by wh~, by ~e T~ A29~ Raynor - direc~ 645 THE WIHIiESS-. By tha PLannin~ Board, sir. Not Co my knowledge. Are ~hey generally r~ferred to as the '~)evelopmen= Plan," or the '~ompreheusive P!~n," or '~4aster Plan"? A Yes, sir. Q Ali ~h~ea terms ? A Yea, sir. ME. L/A~DBER~ ! have no further questions of this witness. ME. ESSEKS: I _tust want to sea gxhibi~ 9, I think he had ar has Exhibit 9. ~EO~S-EXAMIRAT I~ BY MR. ESSE~ ~ q Hr. Raynor, I sho~ you a copy of Exhibi~ those ar~ ~ha Hinu~as o~ ~he Plann~ Board on Harsh 23, 1971, and I call your a~tent£on to a parasx&ph in tha middle oi Pa~e 3 and I ask you to read tha parc that says '~esolved". I~ 's about 30 words THE C ODtLT: MR. ESSEKS: Would you read chaC paragraph after it mays '~.esolved" by Mr. Mosher. Just the Cox'C of the Re$olu~ion. A295 the Public Info~'u~tion Meeting on l~rch with the exception of the above no:ed chan~..~ TIlE COURT: Whose r~h/~? The T~ B~ ~ the your Honor. To~n Board adopted ii:? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE W ~FNESS: the Town of Sou~hold Pi~. No, Sir. ~ thaz adopt:ed a Development Plan for Town and the proposed Develop~w-~ as presented air the Public Inf'.'--~ o~ March 4, 1971, with the excel/' above noted chan~e." THE COUBX: What ch~-,=~ THE W I~SS: (reading hold the foll~wing area in ~> '~ A296 Raynor - cross 647 Business District: the parcel on the southwest side of Old ~bor ~e ~ no~h ~ ~o~ the e~r~ of School ~e Cr~k ~d ~ C~ e~C ~ of ~ f~st ~t or ~1 ~k a d~t~ of 300 pl~ or m~ ~ ~o ~cl~ the THE COURT: area, fa it? THE I4 ]X3IESS: Suffolk. THE COURT: second exception. relal:e ~o this area? THt~ W ~'%'~SS: Mr. Raynor, Thefts not in this This is in New There is also a Does t. he second exception call you~ al:=am~tom back to q the parat~aph that I asked you to re~td into the reco=d a~d I believe it speaks of: (reading:) '~tesolved thai; the Soul:hold Town Planning Board adopted ~he Development Plan for Soul:hold Town and the proposed Developu~nt Plan Map ." Now, M~. Lumdba=g a~kad you to td~ntlf-y gxh£bit A wh~h is entitled "Map Plato fo= D~v~lopmmr~: of A2~7 p~aynor - cross Town of Southold." And if my recoiLs=trion is correc~ you stated Cha~ ~his E~ib~ A ~ Cbs ~p refaced Co ~ C~C ~sol~, ~ that co--ct? A Yes, sir. The map was adopted. All right. N~, the first part of the a--~ clause, '~esolved ~hat SoutholA Town Planning Beard adopCed the Ik~velop~nt pl~, for S~o14 T~," ~ then ~ ~s ~ Co ~nCi~ a ~p. ~4 I ~l~ve you h~e ~C~d the ~p ~ C~ =~p ~ac ~ ~ ev~, b~ what ~ C~ ~velo~ P~, s~, ~fore you ~e~ to ~e wo~ "~d"? A That w~ld ~ yo~ ~Yb~ Book ~ ~4 2 of So w~ ~ ~e refe~ to ~a E~i=s ~e~ed by IOA and 10B which are thasa green books ~t ~mi May, is ti:mC correct? A Yes, sir. THE C0%~LT: Well, I'm somewhat comfused hera. ~e ~ ~f~ts' Exh~ A. T~t ~ ~he 648 Development Imp of the To~n of SouZhold. M~. ESSEKS: Yes, sir. Mr. Raynor is taotifytn~ that -- may I approach the A298 l~aynor - cross 649 Bench? }~. Raymor is testifying, I believe -- IIm not trying I:o p~t words in his mouth -- that by the passage of the R~solu~ion, whtah is in the middle of Pa~e 3 of Exhibl~ 9 -~ if your Honor will read ~hat ~esolu~ion, iS the wo.-d "and". you will see there THE of -- all right. Now straighten Esseks: The Development These are the Minu~es o~ this, Mr. for Sou:hold T~, are these ~wo book~ the blue amd the green book? M~. ~SE~: T~ C~: ~d the proposed THE W ITIqESS: Yes, s ir. THE COURT: Of co-~.--== believe that 'a what say ~y~h~ here ~ to the tx adoption ~ to the ~s~er P~? ~. ~SE~: I understand, your Hono=. q E~hibit Sou~hold ~d ~299 P~ynor - cross The Cour~ may refer to Mr. Lundberg's q~l;io~ of ~. ~or ~ the record where he J~= ~d h~ i~ ~hey were refe~ed ~o ~ =he Co~re~ive P~, ~velop~n~ pl~, ~ter PI~, ~ tha= c~ec~, ~. ? Honor? MR. ESSRKS: Yes, sir. ~my I proceed, your THE CO~: Yes. Now Mr. P~aynor, I show you Plaintiffs' whi=h is the Z~ing M~p of the Town of I will try ~o now -- MR. ~SSEKS: Your Honor, may the record show that I'm showing ~he witness the Zon/ng Map that was adopted by the Town and i~m showin~ him, p~x~icularly, the This is Exhibit -- Th~.'-~ is Exhibit 12, Plaintiffs 12. That's the Zon/n~ page which is en=~led Section A. THE COUP~T: MR. ESSEKS: I believe. THE CC~: MR. ESSEKS: 650 A300 Raynor ~ cross 651 of the Town and I'm call/ng the witness' attention, specifically, to Sheet A which is one of s/~ sheets of Exhibit 12. q ~r. PJ~ynor, this sheet shows Lake co:~ect tha~ it shows the Norris Property after it was resoned M',~ltiple l)wellint$, is that correct? A Yes, sir, l~ow, for the area east of James Creek ~lesC of D~ep Hole Creek and sou~h of IAka Maratooka, you tell the Court how the lands in t~at area were rezoned after the November 23, 1973 rezonin~? Am I correct that they were rezoned A~ricultural-R~side~tial? I~m not sure I A Woul4 you repeat that? Well, after the Town pla.,.,lng Board made its rec~dati~n as to the adoption of the Development Plan Map, the T~mm Planning Board reco~,,.,~nded that the property west of the Norris Propa~y, which would be east of Ole Jularm~ and west of C~-Mineola Road be is that correct? zoned for Multiple Dwellings, Xes ~ s ~r. Now, four or five months after the Pis~nin~ A301 ~ynor - cross Board made tha~ reco~mendation, the T~n adopted a new Comprehensive Zoning Ord~n--~- on November 23, is that co~4ect? 652 1973 MR. LUNDBF2~G: . Your ~ates are incorrect. It's not four or five months. MR. CUDDY: lQ. ESSEKS: THE COU~T: 1971. I'm so~y, 1971. You sa]~, lv~. Ssseks, ~he ~'ls,~mim~ Board ~de ~hat th~ pro~y, wh~ ~l~s pro~y that you ~d wh~h ~he No~ Pro~r~y -- 1'~. ESS~: No, ~ d~s not ~1~ ~he No~ ~ope~y. I~ ~ prope~y wes= of ~he No~ ~o~, y~ l.~ch 23, 1971, ~ ~= co,eot, ~or? A That w~ld ~ ~ d~ of those ~t~s. ~ I also cox~ect tha~ wh~ =he B~d ~ ~s rilc~n~ion, ~ c~ed ~o rec~d ~l=~ res~n~ for ~he pro~y ~ ~ gro~ of O~ Jul~ west of C~-M~eo~ ~ ~ so~h of N~ S~folk Av~ ~ t~t d~ not ~1~ th~ No~ Pro~y A302 Raynor - cross 653 i~ ~ch of 1971, am I correct? A That would be correct. Q Now, in November of 1971, ~ ~hm T~ ~v~ a Co~rebmn-~ve ~z~ of t~ entre T~ of S~ho~? A Yes, s~. ~n the T~ ~o~ed its Z~ of N~ S~olk Aven~, e~: of O~ Ju~ ~ wms~ of So =he T~ 4~ no= fol~ rec~~ of C~ P~E Bo~d ~ to that res~e. T~ T~ when it d~ ~opt i~ C~r~e~ive Z~ ~d~e of N~em~r, 1971, z~ed the A sir. M~. ESSEKS: No THE C C%rRT: Thi~ ~y that ~. ESSEF~: C~ect, s~. A303 P. aynor - cross THE COU~r: 654 The adJoinin~ proper~y. q correct? The prop~x~y west I~ is i~nedia~ely to the west, am I property we have been talktn~ abou~ is t~ha of the Norris Prope~l;y, across the dix~ path know~ as Camp-MineoLa Road which west boundary of the Norris Proper~Y, sir? A q is, in fact, the is thaC correcg, Yes, sir. That was the initial piece. The property was Just discussed concer~ing the Plamnir~ Board recommendation of ~rch of 1971 was Zhe proper~y west of ~here ~d y~ h~e ~d ~ha~ with ~ '~-1," 3/23/71, ~ ~ha~ c~rec~? A Yes, s~. T~ COURZ: A~r icultural-~es ident iai ? THE W[rNESS: Use District. MR. L~NDBERC: questions. THE COUP. T: You called I have no ft~rther ~. Lark? No que~tio~u~, your Yes, sim'. CombLnal:~o,~ A30~. Tasker - direct 655 R 0 B g R T W. T A S K g K, 202-Sixth Street, Greemport, New Y~k, h~ ~em f~st duly ~4o~, testtf~d ~ foll~s: BY ~. ~G: ~. T~r, what ~ yo~ occ~ion? A ~=o~y. ~d do you hold ~y T~ of So. hold? A I ~ the At~o~ey f~ H~ l~? A S~ce 1958. ~~ive or a P~ for the ~velop~nt of the T~ of. Southold? A q A q A '65 or '66. Yes , S ir. Who was retained to do that study? The firm of Raymond and May Associates' Approx{mmtely when did that occur? I believe that it was in the mid-60's, A~O5 Task~r - dLrect 656 And were Federal Funds applied for in co~nec- tion wi:h tha~ study? A They were. q Were they obtained? A Yes, they were. q And did they eventually result in a pro~u=t of som~ sor~? A Yes. What happened to that product? A Well, i/: was completed by Raymond and turned over to ~he Town, to the Town Planning Board, the Town Board and it's been used by the Town for Development Plsn as the basi~ for future planning and soning. q And are you famil{-v wi~h Exhibit A? A I believe I have seen iC. Q ~und were y~ ~volved ~ =h~ ~ c~cept? D~ you a~tend ~t~s with Ra~nd ~ ~y? A Yes. Q ~ yo~ offic~l cap~ity? A Yes. Q ~ d~ thare co~ a C~ ~ N~m~r of 1971 that t~ T~ of Southo!d ~optad a ~w Z~g ~L-~? A306 Tasker - direct 657 A Yes. Did they maP~ cha~Ees in their ex:LstinE map? Yes. Now, did they adopt all the recom~claCioms of Raymond a~d May? A No. Did they a~opt all the reco,,.,~dations of the Plamm~ Board? A No. q Did ~hey ~ ch~es ~ the offic~l ~p fr~ W~ ~ set fo~h ~ E~it A? A Yes . q ~ you familiar w~ the ~ea ~ tha T~ of S~hol4 wh~h ~ n~ z~ed '~-1" ~d 'B" refe~ed to ~ ~he gh~rs-Rel~ ~operty7 Map? A Yes. And was that adopted in 19717 In November of 19717 lq ovember. Was that a subsequent change i~ the A Yes . A.~07 Ta$~cer ~. LUNDBEP~ questions. ~ C~T: ch~e was T~ W ~ESS 1972, yo~ Honor 658 have no further Do you know when that I believe it was i~ NO , It is mot ? It is one of a series of maps prepared by ~he Plsrming Board as a result of the studims. There were several maps and there were many changes along the way. That was, I believe, near the end of the Develop~nt Plmm study, that map was prepared for the Planning Board and submitted to the Town Board as what the pl~.-~ing Board believed. THE COUf~: That ~m armexed to the the official map the Town Board? THE W ~'NESS: THE C OL~: Just what is it? THE W n'N~S S: of the Town adopted by TH~ C0~2: In other words, is this map, Defendants' Exhibit A, is that A308 Tasker - direct green and blue book is it= 107 Will you shc~ THE WITNESS: THE COURT: it to the witness. Yes. The map, is that contained THE W VrNESS: THE COURT: in those two volumes? No. I ~n what was 659 by the Planning Board and recommended to the Town Board, is that contained in those two vol~nes ? THE WITNESS: Well, I would have to say this, your Honor. These books were submitted by Raymond and May to the Planning Board and to the officials. They took these bcoks together with a colored map. THE COURT: THE W I~NESS: and the Town Board. Who is "~hey"? The Planning Board And this they worked on and they made severa~ maps and they kept changing them and restudying them. They held Joint meetings with each other and as a result, as far as the Planning Board is concerned, their nap, in 1971, in ~o~ed A309 Taskar - direct March, I believe, was what the Planning Board felt was the proper map for the future zoning. THE COURT: a large map? T]n~ WITNESS: was Board, thereafter, made changes and the changes that the Town Board made ultimately resolved in the Zoning Map of six sheets. That, together with the new Zoning Ordinance. was the culmination of the planning effort. THE COiS~.T: In o~her words, the Planning Board re¢ommmnded Defendants' ~xhibit A, this Developmant }~ap of the T~.~m of Southotd, but after thrashing it out and considering it, the Town Board adopted Exhibit L2 which consists of six pages. That's correct. Thi~ submitted to the Town Board and the Town Yes, s ir. If your Honor please~ thing so there is 660 Is that the map that's THE W~NYSS: ~. £SS£~3: I want to point c, ut one A310 Tasker - direct no misunderstanding. CROSS - EXAMINAT ION BY MR. ESSEKS: }tr. Tasker, when the Town Board adopted the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance on November 23, 1971, the six sheets you have referred to, the Norris Property was not zoned ~.iultiple Residence at that time? A No. Q So the map, the exhibit that's in evidence, Exhibit 12, the six sheets, what that reflects, if I'm correct, is the Norris Property showing the April, 1974 rezoning, is that correct? A !fe!l -- Q I'll sh~ it to you. b~,. Lb%qDBERG: We ~,~ould stipulate to that, ~.~r. Esseks. T~ COURT: Let me see if I got it straf~ht. P. epeat it, Ptr. Esseks. Exh ib it 12 ? MR. ESSEKS: Exhibit 12 shows the Norris Property rezoned for Multiple Residence. But that show~aug of '~-1" on 661 q A311 Tas?er - cross 662 Page A of Exhibit 12 reflects the rezoning as of April 23, 1974. And the sheet A that was adopted on November 23, 1971, shows the Norris Property zoned for Agricultural-Residential purposes only, not for multiple dwelling. Is that gorrect, Correct. }~ ESSEKS: }~. Tasker? ~. Lundberg, is that your understanding, al~;o? ~. IJo%qDBERG: ~. ESSEKS: i~, LUI~DBEP~: ~.~. 7_~i,~fi: slight except ion. I beg your pardon? Is that stipulated to? Yes. Your Honor, with a The stipulation is that at no ti~ was the Norris Property zoned '~?-1" under the Zoning Ordinance. Rather it was zoned '~[" Light Multiple Residence District. A_nd I think Exhibit 12 shows thi~, ~.i~. ESSEKS: I agree with that. TH~ COURT: Instead of '~M-I", what do you call it again,? '~q" Light, yeur Honor. A312 EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF WELLS & MEYER MR. ESSEKS: as to the density, THE C0%5~: 691 Withou~ any Stipulation sir. And you also stipulate with respect to the testimony of Mr. Smith regarding the Middle Road -- MR. ESSEKM: Yes, sir. Your notes should show, your H~or, as to the Broad Cove Duck Farm proposal sou~h of the Railroazl in Acqu~bogu~ it is Just a Peti~. It hasn't been acted upon by the Town. THE COURt: All right · HORACE DIRECT EXAMINAT I~ BY MR. LARK: profession, sir? A Pr immxily D. W E L L S, 24 River Avenue, Riverhead, New York, having been first duly testified as follows: Mr. Wells, what is your present business or I'm active in a dietary capacity advising the County as a member of the Select Com~ni:tee. I'm the acquarian of the development rights of farmland. I'm a member of the Regional Advisory Committee of the Wella - dt:ect 692 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. From t~-~ to tim I'm called on by the Soil and Water Conservation District of Suffolk County and by the Agricultural Divisio~ of Cooperative Extension for which I formerly worked for. I have advised the Long Is]~n_d Bee Keepers ~nd helped them proposing legislation in Islip and Oyster Bay Towns that would restrict or regulate the keep/ag of honey bees. I worked to reestablish the Township Conservation Advisory Council /n the Town of Riverhead, recently a~vised on the preservation of wet!-nds in the Town of Riverb~ ad. I have prepared some enviro~m~ntal impact statements and studies. I have also advised nature conservancy on land that should be preserved in the Town of Riverhead. How long have you been engaged in such capa~ity, ~r. Wells? A Three and a q,,a~ter years. Prior to that, what was your business? A I was the County Agricultural Agent in Suffolk County. I ended up as the Admlni~:ra=or uf Chat agency. }{ow long were you so engaged as Consultant? A Just over 28 years. A314. Wells - direct 693 Prior to that, what did you do? A For 5 and a half years I was County Executive Director of the Agricultural Cormervation Program in the County known as the Suffolk County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Did you graduate from college? A Yes. W-hat college did you graduate and what wa- your degree, sir? A New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University,. B.S. ~n Agriculture. Mr. Wells, what did your work as Consultant and Agricultural Agent for the County of Suffolk consist of? A Well, as the Administrator and Staff Chairman of Cooperative Extension, I was responsible for the 4-H and the Home Department Programs as well as a4~riculture. I was a representative of the United States Depar:ment of AEriculture and the New York State College of Agriculture in Suffolk County. I carried on and the agency carried on educational progra~u8 in all phases of agriculture. We advised fa&,~ers on agricultural matters, production, conservation, environment, soil '1 IIIIIII II .......... A315 Wells - dJ_rect. 694 problems, use of fertilizers and pesticides, farming in u~ban areas and so forth. Also helped form the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District in all ten Towns of the County. Set up advisory co~cils, served as an ex-officio member of the Suffolk County Agricultural Stabilization a~d Conservation Service Office of which I was formerly the Executive Director, and also served as an ex-officio member of the Advisory Committee of the Fish and Wildlife Regional Advisory Committee for the New York Sta~e Department of Envir~menta! Conservation. Mr. Wells, what is the aim and objective of your present work as a Consultant? A Well, I'm primarily inuerested in preserving our enviroument and conservation matter. I'm presently on the Regio~lal A~visory Co~nittee of the State Department of En~iror~tal Conservation. I'm also a member, as I said before, of the County Executive Klein's Select Committee for the acquiring of the development rights of farmland. In your present work, have you done any work involving any municipal government? A Yes, I have. What m~icipal g~vez-fnnents are they, s~r? A316 Wel~ - direct 695 A I have prepared an Environmental Impact Statement for the }~rina Science Technical Center at Cedar Beach for Suffolk Community College and also I prepared a brief statement for the Incorporated Village of Westhampton Beach. 14r. Wells, generally speaking, from your experience, are you familiar with fa~-~land in the Town of Southold? A q A Yes. Very much acquainted with it. Mr. Wells, were you in Court last Thursday? Yes, I was. Were you present in the Courtroom when Mr. John Glander testified? A Yes, I was. Do you recall his testlmo~ly involving some acreage parcels of farmland in the Town of Southold? Yes. Are you familiar with the parcel that he A testified to as Jericho Farms? A Yes, I am. Could you locate it Map for the Court~ if you can? A Shall I mark it in yellow? on the map, the Zoning A317 Wells - direct 696 shc~. THE COURT: You had better mark it THE W ~I/~ESS: Because No, yellow wouldn't in red. I'm going to be chan~ing so~ of them from where they were. It would be a difference in marking. THE C0~: Use blue. Could you locate that ~arm, if you are able, for the Court? A There is the location of that farm. That's on the s ou~h s id~. Q South side of what? A Route 25, Main Koad. It goes to New Suffolk Avenue. The west side of that property -- the west third of the property may be a quarter of the propert7 is wooded and I looked on the soil map this morninE that I have ho~ ,mad that is s~amp. Md you been on the property yourself? A Yes s I have. I've been o~ that property several times. O~e of the Jobs I u~ed to do was take soil samples and I also had a job under the Agricultural Program of measuring the potato acreage in the County under the Potato ~reage Allotment Program. So I've been A318 Wells - direct on this property and most of the properties in the County many times. Some of them many times. swamp? THE COURT: How ~_ch of it is What is the total acreaEe and how is swamp? Approximately? THE W~NESS: I woul4 -- I didn't much 697 take down notes on testimony given the other day on the acreage, so I don't know the exact acreage. You stated that you have been on this farm, is Chat correct? A ~h, yes. Did you hear }tr. Glancler testify? THE COURX: I have it. on the Jericho Farm, Cu~chogue. Mr. Glancler's testimony. Does that you? THE WITNESS: is abou~ right. TfLE COURT: you say, is swamp? THE W ~rlqgSS: 52.1 acres That's he lp Yes. I believe that How much of it, would Well, it hmsn't been farmed o Wel].~ - direct been idle 698 for the las~ couple of years. But, prior to that, I would gumss -- this is a guess -- maybe 40 acres of tt was far~ed. THE THE WITNESS: over that. It's m~asur ing. 40 acres was far, md? Right. Maybe slightly difficult without Did. you hear last Thursday Mr. Glandar testify that the Jericho Farms he used as a comparable was a level parcel of land sloping genarally from Main Road southerly to NeW Suffolk Avenue? A Yes, I did. Is this ~n accurate statement of the topography of this farm, Mr. Wells? A Well~ this farm has some problems. There are some low spots with the road going crossway of the field because there are gravely knolls in the farm. The general slope of the whole area is from north to sou~h, so it would slope somewhat to the south. Is this a level farm~ A Not exactly, no, because it goes on up into a swamp on the w~st side. Wells - direct q A Yes. next to the swamp, Is there any woodland ~a this farm? That land on the west side of is sw_mmpy woods. Now, on Thursday did you h~ar Mr. Glander testify as to the Matt£tuck Park District Parcel on RouZe 25 at Maratooka Lake? A Yes, I did. Q Did you hear him testify that this was a four acre parcel of cleared land? T~C~: ~.LARK: Which is this ? The l/atti~uck Park District Property, your Honor, which was Comparable No. 2. THE COURZ: Yes. A Yes, I did. ~ve you Been on this parcel of ]-nd? A Yes, I have. Is Mr. Glander's statez~nt an accurate characterization of the topography of this parcel of land? A q of land cons No, it isn't. Could you tell the Court what this parcel of? 699 :_ II I I III iii A Wells - direct Well, it-- Tell the Court, first of all -- Mere it is on the aerial photograph. THE COURT: use red there. THE W~rNF. SS: work pretty good. Maybe you had better I think this will Y~u have located q photograph which was Defendants' Exhibit O, is that ¢orrecC? A q 700 it in yellow on the aer/al Yes. Could you describe to the Cour~ what the topography is of this particular piece of proper~y?- A This area is abou~ six feet below the level of the road. Q What area is that, Mr. Wells? A Well, there are two acres here -- that is in woods. Q There are two acre~ that are wooded, is that correct? A Yes. Q What are the other two acres? A The other two acres are swamp. A322 Wells direct 701 Is there any cleared land on the property? No. Comparable No. 3, used by Mr. Glender on Thuraday, was the Long him testifying as A Yes, Island Vineyard. Do you recall to that Long Island Vineyard? I do. Could you locate the proper:y owned by the Lon~ Isl-nd Vineyard on =he Zoni-E Map which is attached to the wall? I believe you are using blue. A Yes, I'm using blue. Q Have yon been on the property, }ir. Wells? A Yes, I have. Q What is on the property? A Most ly grapes. THE COLqLT: Well, suppose you mark it someplace besides just that. THE WII'NE$S: It's marked "L.I.V." on here and I will mark it again, "L.I.V." THE COURT: What is that Exhibit q NO .? MR. LARK: Sheet 2 of Plaintiffs' 12, your Honor. You stated that there are grapes on the A323 Wells - d~rect 702 property? A A many t Jmes. q Yes. Cam you see these grapes from the road? Oh, yes. I have seen them from the bypass What would a motoris~ see from the road? What road goes by there? A if you know A q if he vines . q A 81 isht ly A Route 27. County Road 27. Any other roads go by the property? Oh, there is Alvah's Lane om the west of What would a motorist on Alvah's Lane see, Well, he would see trellises. He would see what? A T~ellises, and amongst those he would see, looked very closely, he would see son grape How big are these trellises? The posts are probably 6 feet high, maybe lass than that. H~ thick? In this portion? A324 Wells - d~_rect q A they are posts that are Q S ix inches 703 A Yes. H~ much of the farm is covered by these posts, would you est Janate, slr ? I~. ESSEKS: Your Momor, I think there is a misunderstanding here. I think that Mr. Lark ought to ask the witness as to when these conditions exist. Whethe~ they existed on April 21, 1974, or on the date of this sale that Mr. Gladder testified to. TF~ c(YJ~r: I don't k~ow what the date of the sale -- ~1. ESSEKS: It would show on the Deed that ' s in ev idence. THE COURT: The D~ed is in evidence. I don't have ic o~ my notes. PR{. ESSEKS: But the sale was u~ed as a comparable as of the date of sale. offered no testimony ~a~d I don't thi.".k Are you indicating the easterly portion? Easterly portion a~d the southern two-thirds, probably s~_x inches in diameter. thick, is that correct? A325 Wells - direct 7O4 was given even on cross as to the status of that property today. Now, if Mr. Lark is asking Mr. Wells about today, that should be stated or whatever date it or the date of the sale. But it shouldn't be left open and ambiguous. MR. LARK: If you would I'd have the Court Reporter read back the testimony of last Thursday~ but I bell-eve om cross-examination, your Honor, I did ask him what was the status of the property' today and he stated that he'd been by them many times and some of them he goes by every day. MR. ESSEKS: If it's a question of whether he's answering it as to the date of sale that he was inquirir~ about or as of ~oday -- put him hack on for rebuttal witness THE COURT: My notes won't help you very mu~h, but I have direct he is using as comparable a parcel located on Alvah's Lane and the railroad, 66 acres. Sold for $3400 per acre. Om cross-examination A326 Wells = direct 705 }~. Glander said he had been on the property. Just about a mile and a half from the lqorris Property, six acres sold for $3400 an acre, purchase money mortgage was given. Sold by Walter Gatz to the present owner. Is there a house located on this Long island A Yes· there is. Have you visited Long island -- the proper~y ~%ow owned by the Long Island Vineyard many times over the past ten years? Yes. Edward Zohofskie, the former operator used to be one of my acquaintances. Was that house on the land in this period A of the farm· of time? A Yes, many years. On the Mattituck Park District Property tha~ you ~ust testified to, have you been by this property in the last ten years at ali? A I have been by it many timms. This was the first t{me_ I've ever been on it. Has it always been woods to this period of time, to your knowledge? A327 Wells direct 706 A Yes. Om the Jericho Farms Property, have you bean on that property amy period of time i~n the last ten years ? A Yes. And has the woodland swamp condition existed on that property, to the best of your knowledge, in this period of time? A Yes, it has. Now, Comparable No. 4 that Mr. Glandar used, he testified it was the John Feilinger parcel of land on Duck Pond Road in Cutchogue, is that correct ? A Ye s. q Would you in blue? A You see, his would be shorter to write locate that parcel for the Court ~ast name is Ihar. Maybe it that. 'This His last name is not Fellinger? A When he called me on the phone he says, is John Fellinger Ihar." I'm not sure. THE COURT: What is that, Ih ar ? THE WITNESS: Ihar, I-H-A-R. Wells, have you been on this property? A328 Wells - direct A A Yes, s Lr. I have. What is located on this parcel of land? Well, on the north en~, up here, there is a piece of woods, slopes out very sharply to Duck Pond Road, that bends around the corner, then there is a ne~ house. Apparently it was built south of the house is an area -- down of grade that I think were set out perhaps in 1973, about there, straight that comes a year ago, perhaps two years ago. was cultivated and some of in potatoes last year. THg COU~T: sound ail right? The rest of the ground it in cabbage and some of it 24 acres, does =hat TH~ WiTNESS: Yes, I would think While you are at the wall there, could you locate for the Court the Joseph Satand Elias parcel of land which was testified as Gomparable No. 5 by Mr. G lander ? A Yes. That is north of the Main road. It only co~as down to the Main Road for a very narrow area, about 50 feet, way over in thaa corner, and then comes across to Elias Lane, goes north on ~iias Lane, west A329 Wells - direc~ of ~lias Lane ~o the railroad track and with me the dimensions and then it comes Main Road. q 705 I don't have south, back to THE COURT: 43 acres, does that mound right ? TH~ WITNESS: Yes. You heard Mr. Glander testify that he drove by that property almost on a daily basi~? A Yes, I did. And you also heard Mr. Glander testify that that property is vacant farmland, is that correct.~ A Yes, I heard him say that. MR. ESSEKS: Your Honor, I object. There are two questions: The condition of the property in April of !975 and the condition of the property when it was purchased. When he used it as a comparable. And I see no purpose to the fact that houses have been built s inc-= TP~ COtFRT: ' - ~" when the house was built? He said it's vacant. This witness testified ~hat it's it was purchased. let '= find ouc A330 WaLLs - dJ_rec~- q A west side. A £1Las Lane. vac alRt . THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Glander test iliad haven't testified You haven't? No, not fat. I ,mean that Mr. it's -- What is located on the property today? There are six probably new houses on the On the Saland Property? Yes, on the Saland Property, west side of THE COUP. T: Do you know when they were built? THE WITNESS: No, I don't. But I would guess -- because the lawns are not all complete on all of them, that it's been within two years. Comparable No. 6 refers to the Catalano :~ac-z. Could you locate that on the Yes, I can. That piece is on both maps. -- ': :~a the west side of Alvah's La~~e, north of Count7' A331 Wells direct Road 58 and goes cff and extends onto thzs other map. It was formerly the property owned by £~aicich. other, the westerly A q Cotnparable No. was the Jacobson Parcel THE COURT: the left one? }5~. LARK: %$hat sheet is the ~his is Sheet 2. I believe it's a six sheet exhibit which was Plaintiffs' Exhibit 12. ~%. ESSEKS: Sect ions A and B, your Honor. You have located this Catalano Parcel on side of Alvah's Lane, is that correct? Yes. 7 used by ¥~. Glander, which on Oregon Road, could you locate 7L3 that for the Court? A Yes. Here -- we got it right here. AL1 laid out very nicely for us. THE COURT:36.8 acres. THE U~ENESS: That's about what it looks like without measure. THE COURT: The Catalano piece is akout 14 acres ? THE ~iTNESS: Yes. A332 'Wells - direct 7!L Now }~. Wells, generally speaking and from your experience: are you familiar with real estate develop~oent and its impact and its interrelated effect on the envirorum~nt? A Yes. Are you familiar with the proposed Norris Condominium Complex which is the subject of this lawsuit? A Yes, I am. ~ connection therewith, did you make a study dealing with the impact o~ the envirorunent of the proposed condominium units of blt. Norris? A Yes, I did. What was the purpose of the study ~ A Well, this was for Mr. Norris in conjunctio~ or in connection with his application before the Town Board for a change of zone. ~L your capacity as ConsuL:ant, did you ~et paid for the preFaratlon of this study? A Yes, I did. Based on that study, do you have an opinion based on a reasonable certainty als to the effect of the proposed Norris Condominiuan Project on the environ~nt? A Yes, I have. A333 ~e!is - direc, t What is that effect? MR. ESSEKS: THE COURT: it ? I object, yo-~tr Honor. What is the basis of 712 believe he's been qualified to state the effect, if any, of a large multiple residence use district beingl placed withf~ a residence use district except perhaps as it might affect b {zds. THE COURT: la%;ns~ shrubs, plants and Wasn't there testimon? by Mr. Wells that he had prepar~_d studies for the Village of West- hampton Beach and Suffolk County Co, m~anity ce>liege and one or two other towns? Was it Huntington 7 Insecticides and perhaps even in marketing and agricultural matters, but I don't MR. ESSEKS: Your Honor, Mr. Wells is a former County Agricultural Agent. I'm sure he's knowledgeable about crops, a variety of plants and fruits and so o~, and probably knowledgeable about fertilizers A33~+ Wells - direct. 1]{E %..~ITNESS: Nc, mostly in the Town of Southcld and ~,.~esthm~pten Beach. MR. CSSEKS: Yc.~~ Honor, we have had people testify as to water supply and se%~age disposal. They have been qualified and have testified. I don't believe that this gentleman, as learned as he may be in other fields -- he's qualified to testify as to those matters. I don't believe he's qualified to testify as to construction costs -- THE COb-AT: No, he wasn't asked about co%lstru~tion costs and so forth. lie was only &sked as to the effect -- environmental conditions. ,MR. ESSZKS: Your [-lonor, that spans ma'ny areas. That spar~s -- ~e had a man testify as to sewage disposal last Friday, we had people testified as to water supply. If we are going to exc].ude water supply and sewage disposal, I will reserve further objections to see what his answer is. It's a very broad question. I don~t A335 Wells - direct 714 !a~,~ what type of answer I'm going to get. THE COUllT: Mr. Lark: I suggest you rephrase your questi-~n in the light of the objection. Pti. LUNDBERG: Could I suggest your Honor, also that if ..x~. Esseks is willfa~g to concede that he's an e×pert ~ grounds and lawns and bees, that that's ~:,-.actl:; what we are talkJa3g about in this area. We are not talking abont building. THE COUP, T: I assume he meant on ~eneral environmental conditions there, for example, noise, might re$~lt in the of your qu~st ion ! THE COURT: any contaminat ion that area. Is that the thrust Yes, your Honor. AlL right, suppose you state it more specifica~.l?. Mr. Wells, based on your ~t~dy, 20 you bave an opinion based on reasonable certainty as to the effect of the proposed Norris Project on the environment ~hich is specified a.~ noise, the affect on a~riculture, the surrounding residential neighborhood with relation to the A336 Well~ direct wildlife that would exist there present].>-, with relationship to air, water? }Ri. ESSZKS: A A water supply I object tc any testimony about the water supply~ your Honor. MR. LARK: water supply. THE COURT: didn't ~al.k about As to water suppl~, YeS . I will sustain the objection. As to waters in general, or water in the area, I will it. is that effect? Based on my studies which didn't include ~r sewage digoo£al or ~-raf~ic, I found no harmful effects. Yo~ stated previouSly that you were a member of the guffolk County Select Commi~.tee en Acquision of Farmland, is that cerrect? A Yes , I am. What, exactly, does that committee do? A 'Wei~.~ this committee has been asked by County Executive John K~.ezn --- in fact, he's one of the members of it --- to kook over the land il;at has been A337 Uel!s - dlreet 716 offered under the Farmland Acquisition Program to determine what lands should be preset~ze~ what ]and that has been offered meets the criteria of be~n~, in large tracts of viable agricultural land that would itself be viable land or in conjunction with neighborhood it would be viable agricultural land. How long have you been engaged with this How long have you been a member of this farms around committee? co~ittee? A Legis lat ute ? A Q A Since last Fall. VThen was thecomm_ttee~ formed by the County Im the Fall of '74. Have you bee~ a member simc=_ its inception? Yes . ~rd do you have an opinion, based on reasonable certainly, as to whether or not the Count?/ of Suffolk would be interested in the acquisition of the Norris Parcel as a part of the land preservation programs enacted by the. Legislature? ~{. ESSEKS: Your Honor, tha~ 's speculative. It hasn't been offered. There fs no proof it has been offered. There has A338 Well, you ~ou!.d have think it's complete[.-¢.'.-'tslde th= scope this exam~=~at £on. THE COURT: to ]ay a foundation for this question. Mr. Wells, what criteria are usea by the Select Committee in choos~n~ real properties for this land preservation program of htr. Klein's? A %7ell, we are looking for -- and the criteria is -- that we have lots of at least 200 acres, hopefully more, of good agricultural land that: is in an agricultural area, not surr.~unded by a village. Land which looks as if it might~ in the future, be profitable Have you beer on -- THE COURT: Dc you mean a group THE %~ITNESS: Property A t~= ~ COLLrSe _ _ Y-~S, I ~ave. "ou sa), 200 acres. of far:z_s ? It might b~ an ~ndividua! farm er a ~rou9 of farms, yc.~r Honor. Have you, physically, been cra the Norris preparing environmental studies? would the Norris Paccel ~;e!!.s - 4Lrect :.,.;c)~c a~ L:-:h ;_bit ii, fall withim~ al A i] :,. Ln it. It's 200 acre critozia. It is Land. It is s.aparatet of Ma~ituck. D~CT E~DI,~ iOll BY ~. L~DBiXf~: ils'. l.'eils, wouiJ you please (hand h~j) A i w ~ul.J take :i~ne now to read it, but I i~ave it in fr......:t ,~!." ,',~s and i no, ica ~.LaC it was the Minutes of tb:~ Commission, N<:,,.'e~nher 7t:,, L)73. Po the Minute3 show at that meet Ja~. ? A could v,.,. tell m:~ ti..~- :ircuniscances under which ye, :. Lappened c,-, 1,e at t'.~,ac A !:::ii., ghcra happened tn b~, under &ctarian Program, a g~oup study -- Lre'u? of slx young businessmen from A~:snralia visiting Lc.ny Island. One of them was I,~r~acc "!.np~cc.× fc'm Au~tra!ia. I had :,~%t him A340 previous ,. 5'an~er. before. He Planning Commission an.t h= ne.;'led ~ga~_,~Zr,-rta~i.o~,. Z o provided hi~. ~.lJ.t[-_. tra:tsportation. At ~hac ti..~ had you t, een ,.-~a~ed by a.~- ~o do anyth~ tn behalf ~,f Mr. Norrigf A No, I had not. ~d did tLere cc:~ a tin~ at that meetaa_ they dis,.~,.ss~d Cha p~cposa! t~ razcnm ~he Norris that Property? A [ xasr:'~. a~..a_~'~, 7 it ~:.:t'"~ interested r:c baca'~m~. I !~.ew the ar~o an:.: wh2_~-. t.'r~ .'iorris Propert ,.:az ~,.ratad. :.:xceed fly:~. mir..,ztes a~:d th~_r. Staff recom~-~..a..~r: . '.~n t'lat iust ~ "oice vet,-? it was x.e,.~:: tc adopt :20 CROSS - £XAM INAT BY MR. ESSEKL: if any, the Norris pr%,osal at any other time, A 1'_:. !',.'e:L].~,, you d,m.'t ~now ~'. ~hac e×tertt~ the m=.;burs of ~he Co~,~iss/un :.,.~ .lo yoa;' ~t, ~ act~ily ! don't. ~,~:~ c~'~id hav2 discussed meeting on ano day ? of the Petiti~.~c Noi-r~s correct? A N_r. Lark and A [~ezon lng ? ,-la>-? If they discussed i~ thamselves itu sa,.: that pak'=icular for Cha r,~z,~ 5 -_ n.,,l,.,, isn'C chat 2md befora ;'oa testifi-'d, ,lld y~u n~et +;ith l'tscv, qs %he pzoposa! r~z~h '"..i;, I did. 0~ you se.2 a 'opw of the Petition for the A r'.n, I 5 A342 ~'~el~ - cross " })'id 5'c,', se,~. a proposed '.,m condominium units on the propert,?? A Yes , I did. Did you [nquire as to hc~ ,~any units warm proposed ? A there was goinS people who wet3 A Yas. Q .~nd that of children l?r?ng ~,n Q And that ,m its ? A Definitely, I did. Did you inquire and were ;:r,u advised that to be an attempt to limit the sale to 55 mr over? there were to be a fewer number the property? there were t~ be ,'~q!v. !32 condominium That's right. "rare you ~Ivan 8~y indication of the sales prices of the ;~ondo~.uini;tm units ? A *-eneral!v, nothing definitz,. ~kat ,,~as that general. F,,r the condomSnium units something in the vicinity of "ao th.~r~ m'?rJe ,l Ls~uss ion as to the [ncome A3~'3 Wells = cross 722 status of the people who would be buying the units ? A Yes. I understood that they would generally be people retired, probably with some wealth, some money. And the Petition and Exhibits to the Petition and the layout of the properties, are they shown in Defendants' Exhibit K in evidence? I show you that. MR. LUNDBERG: No, they are not. Because we only attempted to suppl--~nt the Complaint. MR. ESSEKS: As shown in the Complaint. Your Honor, may we show a copy of the Complaint to the witness? THE COURT: Yes. Now, I show you what we represent to you, Mr. Wells, to be a true copy of the Summons and Complaint, except it has markings on it based upon pleadings, and I call your attention to the Petition which is attached as Schedule B to the Complaint. Did you have that together with the attachments to Exhibit K when you made your estimate of the environmental impact? A Yes, I had this. When you made your est,.mate, Mr. Wells, that A344 Wells - cross 723 there would be no adverse environmental impact upon surrounding properties, if you made that conclusion, did you assume that the 132 condominium units would be located in the '~ D" area? A Yes. Did you assume there would be a municipal sewage treatment plant ? A Definitely. Did you assume it would be on the parcel to the southeast of the '%! D" parcel? A Yes. A~d did you assume that there would be a public water supply system? A condominiums houses? A Yes . And did you assume that there would be rather than garden apartmants or boarding I assumed they would be condomint~uns. THE COURT: ~hat would be the relative difference between garden apartments amd condominiums so far as environment is concerned? MR. ESSEKS: I think the best way ,~. III II II I ltl A345 Wells - cross 724 to respond to that would be for m to ask Mr. Wells, if I may, hearing your question. Am I correct, Mr. Wells, that you did not assume that 841 East Main Street in Riverhead would be placed upon the Norris Property? A I was pretty sure that the type of construction here, the cost, the fact that they were going to put in sewer work and water works would he entirely within 821 East Main. By 821 East Main Street Complex, ts that the complex located across the street from the Old A & P on East Main Street in Riverhead? A Yes o MR. ESSEKS: acquainted with that THE COURT: t~1. ESSEKS: Is your Honor p~operty? In general. I think that's my units would be sold in the A living in the response to your Honor's question, in part. Now Mr. Wells, did you assume that these area of $50,000 and up? Yes. Did you assume retired people, mostly, property? A346 Wells - cross 725 A Yes. But not all of them, but most of them, probably, would be. q Did you assume, generally, few, if any, ch ildren ? A Yes. In fact, Mr. Norris said that he might limit the sale to familims without children under 16 years of age. You don't know whether that was actually done or not, do you? A I haven't seen a covenant to that effect, but I understood that that's what he was thinking about. Did you assume that the ~-ype of occupancy would not be the same type of occu~ ~ncy that exists in the Riverhead Apartments at 841 East Main Street, R iverh e ad ? A Well, ent ire ly different for $50,000, Welfare. But that is a definite pre-condition to your determination that if there would be no environmental impact, isn't it, sir? A That's right. I'm very certain that it would be type because when you sell condominiums a lot different than people living on A347 Wel~s - cross. 726 Therefore, if there were 185 units on the property, and if there were no public water and sewage disposal and if these were garden apartments and/or boarding houses, and if you had the type of occupancy on this property that you have on 821 East Main Street i~ Ziverhead, might your answer as to environment impact be different? MR. LARK: I object, your Honor. The question is phrased to set the witness up. There is ample you could not have did have water and sewer under the testimony here that 185 units unless you Southold Town Ordinance that MR. ESSEF~: MR. LUNDBERG: is presently in effect. I asked on my cross -- I will object, further, om the ground that Mr. Esseks is getting into a field of where Mr. Norris, or anybody else has any control over. MR. ,'.SSEKS: I will take that as an answer. I will ta'ke that. MR. LUNDBERG: I think you are going to start slamming people because they live at certain places. That's not a fair question A348 Wells 727 to this witness. He testified as r..o the ~llV trO~m~t%t · Mit. ESSEKS: I'm mot slamming "~yonm". I'm askin$ him whether his au~wer as to the enviro~msntal impact mi~h~ be different if the faces were chaz~ed trust that your answer would be -- MA{. LIA~DBF~: the record. THE COURT: There's nothin~ in Ask, Mr. Esseks, if this were a slum area and slum shanties were built there would h.~ answer be d if ferent? Would it, sir? THE COUR~: abou~ that, of course Hs's not testifying it would b~ different. If your Honor under- stands that as THE W IINJ-2$$: THE C OUST: the answer, I will take it. Yes, s ir. The price range of $50,000 to retired people without children. MA~. ESSEKS: Very good. THE COURT: No other. Well~ - cros~ ?28 We ~£11 recess for lunch. (After luncheon recess .) P R B D w~ R I C K F. M g Y g ~, 47 ~y~e~ Dr iv~, Smitht~, New York, havi~ ~en f~'st duly sworn, ~estified as foll~s: D~CT ~I~ BY MR. LARK: A Planning. A development 5~r. Meyer, what is your profession? I'm engaged in the practice of Municipal What, exactly, does that mean, sir? A Municipal Planner is involved in the or redevelopment of a co~nu~ity of any given size all the way from a village to a city, town, State and large areas known as Regions. Did you graduate from any schools? A Yes, I did. What schools did you graduate from? A I have a Master's Deg~.~ee in Public Administration and City Planning from New York University. How long have you been engaged as a Mun ic ipa 1 P lanne r ? A I have been engaged as a Municipal Planner A350 · Meyer direct soc let ies? A Just lately I have not been. devoting most of my free time as a mmmber Advisory Committee for the Long Island Soun,I Bi-State three and a half million dollar for approximatelM 23 years. By whom are you presently emp~,,, A I'm presently employed b7 the Smithtown as the Director of Planning and h~x~ en~aged for the past, approximately 12 year~ that I was the City Planning Director for New Britain, Connecticut. Prior to that I Senior Planner for the Nassau County Plannh::. Q Do you belong to any professio~ A I do. Q What are they? A I belong to the American Social Officials, the Regional Planning A~soctatiou. New York State Federation of planning Urban Land Institute, New York Sta:e Associm( Conservation Commission. I'm a member of Society of Real ~state Appraisers. Are you active in any of these A351 study. q ~yer - direct Have you conducted any courses or lectures in planning before A A any groups? have lectured before some groups, yes. Which ones in particular? I have lectured before the New York State Bar Association, Municipal Law Section, I have also recently lectured before a Boces Course called 'Guide for the Training of Conservation Education". Have you ever testifimd any administrative agency? A I have. A q A in Cour~ or before In what capacity? As an expert witness. In what Courts have you testified? I testified in the New York State Court of Claims, the Connecticut Circuit Ccurt, the Nassau County Supreme Court, the Nassau County District Court, the Suffolk County Supreme Court, the Suffolk County District Court. I have testified before gh~ Connectlcu= Legislature Roads and Br£dges Co~mittee. kre you familiar with a parcel of is the subject matter of this litigation? 730 land which A~52 Mmyer - direct 731 A owned by Mr. Iqorris, which this litigation? Yes, i am. Are you familiar with the parcel of land is not the subject matter of Great Peconic Bay. Have you made A Yes, I have. a study of this area? Do you have, with you, a sketch that fairly and accurately represents the area of your study ? A Yes. I have m~de a graphic representation of a study area which includes the subject prope, rty. with you? A I do. q Could I see A Certa/nly. Do you have that graphic representation it, please? A Yes, I'm familiar with that entire tract. Would you please describe the overall :tact with reference to size and topography to the Court? A Yet. The overall tract comprises approximately 73 acres. It is located on the sov£h side of New Suffolk Avenue, bounded on the west by Cam~-Mineola Avenue, on the east by the [4attituck Airport and o1% the south by what is A presentatio~ Mr. Meyer? A A353 Meyer - direct 732 Was this graphic study prepared by you? It was prepared under my direction. The graphic representation of the study area, it entitled? The title that I have placed on this graphic is 'Toning and Land Development Analysis". What geographical area does it encompass, It encompasses the subject property and it encompasses, roughly, the sub3ect extends A Tax Map, large area of which the parcel is a part, known as "a neighborhood." in a westerly direction to the vicinity of James Creek and in an easterly direction to the vicinity of and east of -- just east of the body of water known as Deep Hole Creek. And it extends, generallT, north to Main Road or State Rcute 25. Was that study prepared by you? Yes, it was. And from where was it prepared? It is based upon the official Suffolk Co,~nty and it is based upon examinations in the field and rev i aw of two aerial photographs dated 1970, I bel~eve, and updated photograph, taken ~n 1974. b~ayer - direct 732 Q I notice from that graphic analysis that you have in front of you that you have depicted thereon a series of red dots. What do the red dots denote, Mr. M~yer ? A The red dots are placed on vario~ parcels of land ~ th~ graphic presentati~, ~d those red ~pict non-compl~mce with the Res~ence A Zon~g C lam s if icat i~. ~d from when did you base this infor~ti~ ~ order to place the dots on yo~ graphic ~tudy? A I base ghat information upon the docent ~n as the BulldOg Z~e ~d~ce of the T~n of Southold wh~h depicts among other thugs -- ~ the Residence A District -- it also depicts lot area and lot width, which are ~o basic require~mts when lay~g out single family residential zoning district. I notice also on ~hat graphic representation that you have areas denoged with bl~. ~Ihat do they purport to be b~r. Meyer. A Yes. The light bl~ areas depict water A Are tho~eexisttng water areaS? Thay are. A~55 M~ye~' - dlract 73~ A zknd I notice ~hat map a color of a light brown, Yes, I have. i',~hat does that depict? you have depicted on the is that correct, or a tan? That color depicts tha subject parcel, particularly that which is the action of the case ou trial. And I notice you have some other colors on the map of purple or lavender color, what does that depict? A Yes. Well, as the title indicates, '~o~/~ ad Land Development Analysis." The Zoning is depicted in various colors. The purple in this case, for illustrative purposes, i!lustrates flat land in this neighborhood which is zoned G Industrial District Light. The yellow color is land which is now zoned B-.l, Business District Light. A~%d the balance of the map, excluding the water areas, are white or the co].or of the paper, really, and so ~hen the balance of the map is for illustrative purposes zoned ~esidence A, 40,000 square foot minimum lot size. Was that map prepared by you fa.trly and accurately and represents the area gh~ you have laid ou~ A356 Meyer direct 725 there as far as the zoning use A It does. MR. LARK: is c omcerned ? I'm show/rig this to Plaintiffs' Counsel and I would like to offer this in evidence as Defendants ~ Exhibit MR. ESSEKS: MR. LAP, K: }~. ESSEKS: VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. ESSEKS: that ]i'd like to examine. You want to voit dire? Yes. blt. P~yer, you are acqu-inted with the fact in November, 1973, there was a Comprehensive Rezoning Ordinance A of the Town of Southold, J~ that correct? I'm ~are of that fact, yes. At that time_, the Town required for much of the property on new subdivision ].ets, lot sizes of 40,000 square feet or more, is that correct? A That's true. Prior to that time, prior to November of 1973, had there been a different requirement for lot size s ? A would presume so, but: I'm not aware of A357 ~-~ayer - voit dire 736 what it was. Q You don~t P~ow whether it was 40,000 or 30,000 or 20? A I do not. Q This piece of paper that's offered fa evidence, upon which you have different lines in different colors, this was prepared .by you, is that correct? A That's true. And it purports to show tots within the is that correct? '~T!thin the study area, yes, that's correct. You ere not a surveyor, are you, l~r. Meyer? .-~O, S~-r. ~am%d you didn't prepare these lot lines from actual field work in the field, did you? A [~o, I prepared it from an accurate copy of the Official Suffolk County Land and Tax Map, the official map u.~d by the Co~mty. from was A or not ? And you assumed that the map that you copied correct? I would assume it is, yes. You have no knowledge as to whether it was A358 F~yer - voit dire 737 A No, I do not. Ncw, is it possible that some cf the -- what appears -- the lot lines, are, in fact -- were, J~ fact, lot lines on subdivision maps that were filed before l~ovember 23, !9717 A Yes. I believe you stated when you were being examined that the red dcts represent lots that are in violation ~f the A llesidence Zoning, is that correct? A Do not comply with the A Residence Zoning C las s if icat ion. lqc~ P~r. b~yer, are you acquainted with Section 100-12 of the Southeld Zoning Code? AYou tell me what it is. I may be. %~el!, it says: "~.xception. All of the lots on the following subdivision maps shall be excepted from lot area and ~t width requirements of this Chapter and the lot areas and lot widths applicable to said lots are as shown and designated on said subdivision maps." Are you acquaSnted with the perhapss 50 or 60 subdivision maps that are encompassed within Section 100-127 No, I'm not. Mou, if in fact, the subdivision lots on this A.~59 Meyer - voit dire 738 paper that you have are eneompasssd ~ithLn -- I could count them, your Honor, but for the sake of brevity, in evidence, I would say 40 or 50 subdivision maps, if, in fact, the lots shown on your proposal here are lots within those subdivision maps, then your statement will not be correct that there were any violations of A Z~ntng requirements because the zoning requirements for these subdivision maps, if they are the one in qu~stion, are permitted under the OrdLnance. A Not true. Did you lonk at the Ordinance? A I'm familiar with that section of the Ordinance tha~ you Just read. Q Did I read it accurately, as far as you A Yes, you did. q Doesn't the Ordinance state that the "lot areas and loc widths applicable to said lot be as shown and designated as subdb,ision map"? A of 1973 -- amendment areas for the maps covered by Section It does. All rish~. So by the rezon~ng of Movem~er it ~:as amended on October ?0, 1973, by said isn't it true that the lot widths and lot 100-12 are, ir% fact, A360 Meyer - voir dire 739 permitted, not in violation, but permitted -- specifically permitted. A What I am attempting to prove there does not argue with what you are saying with reference to that particu!~v section of the Ordinance. Yes. Maps that were filed prior to the last enactment of the Building Zone Ordinance are, in fact, accepted or excepted and are non-conforming. No, that isn't what it says. Doesn't say '%on-conforming". It says the "lot areas and lot widths comparable to said lots shall be those as shown and designated on said subdivision maps ." Doesn't say they are non-conforming. That's a different area. Are you going to have -- enough zoning not to affect the subdiv~ion map and have non-conforming lots -- I believe ~ if you ex-~ine it, and I offer it to you, you will find that these are not non-conforming districts, but specifically allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. A Yes, I agree with that. No~', on your proposed paper here, your proposed exhibit says '~ots violated -- MR. ESSEKS: Your Honor, agree. I can't agree Just for the first part A361 Mayer - voit dire 740 of lt. I can't agree-to anything being put in evidence that shows a violation when, in fact, the Ordin~nce, by its precise words, provides that there is no violation as to permitted lot s i~e. Permitted lot widths. heard? Tl~ COURT: Do you wish to be MR. LARK: No, your Honor. The whole purpose of offering this exhibit wa~ as par~ of his study of the area in question. And Mr. gsseks has offered no testimony to the contrary that the red dots, as indicated on this map, belong to any particul~n- subdivision which he is referring to. I think the witness has amply stated that the ].ots that he has indicated with red are those lots which are u~%der 40,000 square feet upon which there is an existing residence or, you may erect a residence. I think that was the substance of what he testified to. And this is being offered into evidence as part of his study of the A362 Meyer - voit dire 741 subject area since we are talking about zemin~ as to what the size and the uses of the various parcels surrounding the matter which is being litigated. THE COUR~: What about the expression on there that it's in violation. It's not in violation. THE W ~NESS: Perhaps that answer was an erroneous choice THE COURT: you would make in light of words, your What's the choice of this discussion? THE WITNESS: In light of this discussion, your Honor, I would indicate that those lots do not comply with the previling zoning which is not R, but which is A Residence. They are something other than those standards set forth for A, requiring 40,000 square feet feet frontage. TIiE COURT: THE WITNESS: and 100 some But are permitted? Yes, but are permitted. The purpose of that graphic presenta- A363 Meyer - voit dire 742 tion, you~ Honor, is to depot what the ~eighborhood looked like. What, in fact, is there, be it in violation or in conformance, that's immaterial, as far as I'm concerned. M~. ESSEK~: Your Honor, I would ~gree that if htr. }~yer and ~ir. Lark ca~ identify subdivis~o~ lo~$ -- subdivision maps we ca~ read into evidence the maps in quastiom aM the County Clerk's Office, of which the Court can take judicial notice will have, on those maps~ whether they are half-acre or 30,000 square foot or 40,000 square foot lots, but Mr. l~ayer hasn't measured the Lots on these maps, and he hasn't testifimd to -- he can't tell us how big they are. S~ may be u~lder 40,000, sc~ne may be more. But I'm not going to take his word for it because he doesn't even purport to k~ow wha~ their size was even if he could qualify to establish tha~. I think what they are trying to offer is soraething to the effect that there are maps A364 Mmyer - voir dire on record in the Mattltu~k Area that were 20,000 square feet THE COURT: MR. ESSEKS: or 30,000. You mean filed? Filed maps and that 743 tho~e maps continua to exist. I think -- given, that's probably t.-n~e. Bu~ if they want to prove that, they should prove it by bringing in the maps. MR. LARK: By just looking at it:, briefly, I am somewhat famili-v with the area and to the best of my recollection, the entire area encompassed on this analysis, there is only ~ne that would be a filed map. I think the rest of them are no~ filed maps. They were properties that were: just before the zoning camm into being where they were Just subdivided by ~tes and bounds description. And particularly I'm familiar with Ole Jula~lne. I know that there is no filed ~ap on that. That was strictly done by metes and bounds. believe the Camp-Min~olm section that we heard testimony, is ~he sarae way. The or~ A365 Mmyer - voir d~re 744 ~p that I am familiar with, I think, is the Map of Deep Hole Cree~ Estates, and that is over here. The rest of them, I think, were all by metes and ho'ands. MR. ESSEKS: Your Honor, there's been no offer of proof that he k~ows the exact size of each of these lots. I certainly will not voluntarily consent they be marked. THE COURT: Does it propose to tell us what the size of the lots is? P~{. ESSEKS: It does not. There aren't many marked on as to how big the lots are.. MR. LARK: There is a scale o~e inch equals 300 on it, but I think they are a correct copy. I don't want to get ambiguous, but from the Suffolk County Tax l~aps, are they not? THE WI~NESS: Yes , THE W1/qqESS: MR. ESSEY~: sir. They are. No tracings. have it with me. Yo.ar }lonor, the way to A366 Meyer - voir dire prove the size of a filed map. THE COURT: 745 lot is to being in a He's not offering it to offer the size of the map. That isn't the purpose of the offer. MR. ESSEF~: He's making a statement that these are substandard lots and he's trying to do it in this fashion and I object. THE W1TN~SS: I'm saying these lots do not comply with the prevailing zoning classification, which are 40 or Residence A, requiring 40,000 square feet. THE COURT: Just what does the map depict? THE WITNESS: That graph ic presentat ion? Those red dots depict one of two things: That the lot width is less than the required frontage of the lot, or that it's less than the 40,0C0 sq--re feet. MR. ESSEKS: your Honor ? THE COURT: May I inquire further, Yes . A367 Meyer - voit dLre 746 ~{. LUNDBERG: Could I get off on something? I can't find my copy of the Zoning Ordinance, your Honor, and I do remember coming up to the Bench and showing it to you. THE COURT: I handed it to somebody . MR. LUNDBERG: I didn't think I left it with you. I was wondering if anybody else had it. VOIR DIRE EXAMinATION BY MR. ESSEKS: (continuing) Q Mr. Mayer, you prepar~.d this yourself, is that correct? A lk~der my direction it was prepared. Q You didn't prepareit yourself? Someone pre- pared it and you oversaw that? A Yes, s ir. Q Now, you purport to show what, I assume, are a series of lots on both sides of Ole Julanne. Do you, yourself, know the measurements of any of those lots? A I can tell you the measurements of any one of them, if you ask me. lots? ~p? q A368 ~eyer - voir dir~ 747 But you didn't measure it yourself, did you? I did, yes . You went into the field and measured the A No, I measured it on the map. You measured from the Suffolk County Tax A Of course. But you didn't measure them yourself in the field, is that correct? A That's correct. And you didn't examine the mmasurements in Riverhead on a filed map, is that correct? A No. So you are relying om whoever prepared ~he Suffolk County Tax Map, is that correct? A Yes, s ir. Q Whether they prepared it correctly or incorrect ~y? A I prestm~ that MR. your Honor. -- his ESSEKS: I continua my object~ He's making his best estimate best guess that other people have A36~ 74,3 prepared some maps or s~mtches for him and based upon that, he draws a con¢lusi~n that certain lots are less than 40,000 square feet. Without, in fact, knowing it. MR. LARK: We!l, your Honor, it was prepared from the Suffolk County Tax Map. That is an official document upon which the County has relied on the assessment for real property taxation of the properties. And one of the things that -- were actual surveys from which they were prepared to get the accurate front footage of individual lots so they could be prepared on the map. The aerial photographs which are in evidence were also part of that study of Suffolk County to prepare the mon,~n~ntation in the course of the preparation of these tax maps. Since they are official documents -~ as I understand -- have been adopted by the County and are used by the Assessors in all Ten Townships, I certainly think that one going to those records could rely on those maps, could rely on their accuracy A370 for what they depict individual lots with an accurate scale and this is what this witness did to get to prepare an analysis of the neighborhood. MR. ESSEKS: Your Honor, there's been no testimony that Suffolk County has adopted the Suffolk County Tax Map. As far as I know, they haven't. As a matter of fact, there's been no proof that they have. There's been no proof shown that Suffolk County Tax Map was prepared accurately or that they were made for the purpose of Planning or anyone usf~%g a slide rule or scale on them to determine lot size or lot area. We don't know whether people bought Just one lot or people bought a lot half or ~wo lots. I can't tell. ~e doesn't know who owns the piece. He can't tell whether they bought the lot as 749 is an attempt to '"bootstrap". An attempt to come in here and tell the Court that the original owner on this map and then bought another ten or fifteen or ~enty feet. This A371 750 area is filled with what they call "sub- standard" lots and what the Ordinance says are permitted lots. And I object. There's been no foumdation at all lald for that effect. Also, your Honor, he admits, I believe, that he's r~ever measured even one lot. I guess there are several hundred lots. He hasn't measured any of those and he asks me and he asks your Honor to ass-~ his conclusion that each of these lots is less than 40,000 squ~re feet when' there is no proof at all of that. He says it's true, but I have asked him how he knows that and he said based upon examining his drawings with a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map and there is mo proof at all or anything else to rely upon the Suffolk County Tax b~ap to show the area. THE COURT: width of any of these THE WITNESS: of mo one except the the field and measures Hc'~ do you know the lots ? Your Honor, I know surveyor who goes into property. Planners A372 751 and engineers, fortunately or unfortunately I suppose, depend on what side you sit on, must rely upon documents other than their own, be they filed maps or be they an official record kept ~n a municipality. Im this case this is an official record pre- pared for the County of Suffolk for all Ten Towns known as the Official Tax Map. I have relied upon those, not my drawings. THE COURT: Does that official ~p show the dim~nsions of each plot? THE WITNESS: It does not. It was drw~n to a precise scale. If one takes a map drawn to scale and measures it with a scale or ruler, you ca~ estimate whether a lot is 40,000 square feet or whether a lot, in fact, is 10,000 square feet. THE COURT: H~w, without the Deed? THE W ITN~SS: everags width and the overall -- THE COURT: That's what By mems,,_r~_-.g the I went to How do you get the width of any paz~i- A373 752 cular lot? THE WITNESS: Y~a measure across the front of the lot, ycur Honors from s id~ lot line to side lot line. I'm not purporting that these are 38,253 square feet. I'm simply saying Lot A exceeds 40,000 square feet; Lot B THE COURT: the Tax Map? THE W ~rNESS: MR. ESSEKS: is less than 40, perhaps. As it is shown on Yes, sir. Not by measurement, your Honor, but by his scaling. VOIR DIRE EXA~I]/gA~IGN BY MR. ESSEKS: (continuing) Now, you haven't checked any Deeds, have you, Mr. Meyer -- A No, Sir. Q -- to find out whether the lot lines as drawn on the Suffolk County Tax biap ara correct or not? you don't know whether then-~ have been changes in ow~ership from lot line to lot line, do you? A I don't ~now and I don't care. If you have a copy, do you ~now, as a matter Meyer - voit dire 753 of fact, as to the Town of Southold, the Suffolk County Tax Map has been adopted? I don't know. You don ft know whether the County has adopted A it, do you? A q I don't know. You don't know whether the Town of Southold has adopted it? A I don't know. Have you eve= aeen the working drawings used to prepare the Suffolk County Tax Map? A Oh, yes. Did you check them? A Not check them. I have seen them. MR. ESSEKS: Your Honor, there is no proof there has eve~ been a Resolution approving or adopting the Suffolk County Tax Map and there is certainly no proof as to what was the basis for adopting the Suffolk County Tax Map. Was it to allow people to testify in Court as to the size of lots, or was it to try to give the Assessmrs some idea of the location of lots? A375 Meyer - voit dire THE COURT: Just some idea? ~. ESSEKS: Your Honer, there is no -- the map, as the witness just testified -- that the map does not state om it any metes and bounds. There is no courses and distance. We don't know where they are. aren't here. know ing. THE COURT: made based on the map? The people who prepared them Your Honor has no way of Aren't the assessments 754 Mit. ESSEKS: I don't knc~,:, sir. TRE UITN£SS: Yes, sir. They are. MR. ESSEKS: I think the witness has testified he doesn't know whether it's been adopted by the Town of Southold vet or not, so we don't even know what the Town of Southold had -- started making its assessments based upon that. As far as I know, the County LegisLature and the Town Boards are just no%~ being given copies of these n~tters and they haven't been adopted by anyone. I believe this is what A376 Mayer - voit dLre 755 Mr. Meyer -- this will be eventually by the County and perhaps by the Town, but as yet there is no proof that that's true. MR. LARK: Your Honor, I wish to point out that the section of the Zoning Ordinance read by Mr. Esseks is somewhat of a red herring. I invite him to point out in that section where any particular property~ within a mile of this property, is listed in the exceptions that he tried to read in. MR. ESSEKS: This is his exhibit, not mine. MR. LARK: You were volt dLring him and trying to challenge him, that there might be some exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance by virtue of Section 100-12. invite you, if you know, to point out any. MR. ESSEKS: I don't know the names of these subdivisions. there is not. MK. LUNDBERG: I submit, your Honor, On behalf of the Town, A375 Meyer - voit dire 754 THE COURT: Just some idea? MR. ESSEKS: Yeur Honer, there is no -- the map, as the witness just testified -- that the map does not state on it any metes and bounds. There is no courses and distance. We don't know where they are. The people who prepared them Your Honor has no way of aren't here. know ing. THE COURT: made based on the map? MR. ESSEKS: THE UITN£SS: MR. ESSEKS: Aren't =he assessments I don't know., sir. Yes, sir. They are. I think the witness has testified he doesn't lu~ow whether it's been adopted by the Town of Southold yet or not~ so we don't even know what the Town of Southold had -- started making its assessments based upon that. As far as I know, the County Legislature and the Town Boards are just no~ being given copies of these matters and they haven't been adopted by anyone. I believe this is what A376 Meyer - voit d~_re 755 Mr. Meyer -- this will be eventually by the County amd perhaps by the Town, but as yet, there is no proof that that's true. MR. LARK: Your Honor, I wish to point out that the section of the Zoning Ordinance read by Mr. gsseks is somewhat of a red herring. I imvite him to point out in that section where amy particular property, within a mile of this property, is listed in the exceptions that he tried to read in. MR. ESSEKS: This is his exhibit, not mine. MR. LARK: You were voir diring him and trying to challenge him, that there might be some exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance by virtue of Section 100-12. I invite you, if you know, to point out m%y. MR. ESSEKS: I don't know the names of these subdivisions. MR. LARK: there is not. MR. LUNDBERG: I submit, your Honor, behalf of the Town, A377 Meyer - voir dire 756 I make an offer of proof in connection with this. We could recall Mr. Henry Raynor, a member of the Plauning Board. He would testify that within the area south of Route 25 as depicted on that map, there is no one of these subdivision ~ps included. ~R~. £SSEKS: Your Honor, that, in no way by doing that, establishes the size of these lots. THE COURT: in the size of the MR. ESSEKS: Why are we interested lots? Because Mr. Meyer is drawing the conclusion that t_he lots are less than A0,000 sq--re feet. THE COURT: That's all done by a scaling process on the official -~ THE %7 II~NESS: THE CCU~T: THE WITNESS: MR. ESSEKS: Tax Map. Tax Map. Yes. Your Hoaor, there been no proof that there is an Official Tax ~p. I don't know of one. There's been no ~soLution brought in showtn~ that it Meyer is. Me Just says Tax Map. TKE COURT: Mr. Lark? Is there MR. LARK: A378 there is an Official 757 What do you say, or is there not? There is and Mr. Esseks knows full well there is. He tried to offer into evidence here last week an appraisal of which three pages contained lots, block numbers from an Official Tax Map. The only reason they did not get i~to evidence was because the witness who was going to introduce those comparables never visited these properties and couldn't tell us where they are. But there was no question that there is a~n Official Tax Map been adopted and I don't know the precise tim~ period. The Board of Equalization or what have you -- aT.1 Townships now have to co, form their assessments accordingly and, in fact, it will be an official requirement, as I understand it, that all Deeds at the end of the ~ete8 and description are going to have the block number and the A379 Meyer - voit dire 758 lo: number on the Suffolk County Tax Map as part of the official description before the Town Clerk will record same. MR. ESSEKS: That has not been adopted, your Honor. THE COLrR~: I don't know whether it has or not. If you two can't agree on MR. LUNDBERG: You will agree that there are, in exi~tence for each municipality, that people can purchase them -- MR. ESSEKS: They have drafted them for the various Towns. I think the first one was the Village of North Haven and they did the Town of Shelter Island. But, as far as I know, they have not been adopted by Resolution of the Co%mty Legislature nor by the £~dividual Towns. They are preliminary. They are working on such a program and perhaps, if we have this trial in a few years, that will be the fact. But it is not true as of April 21, 1975. A 8o Meyer - voir dire 759 TH~ COURT: I don't think we want to tak~ an adjournment for a few years. Are you all agreed that this Tax ~ap has not been officially adopted yet? ~IR. LUNDBERG: As far as the Town of Southold, I'm advised by Mr. Task~r it has not been officially adopted. ~hat they exist. Mr. Esseks has a set for the Town of ~iverhead which we have used for other purposes. I want to ask }ir ~Ieyer if you haven't been through this area physically? ~aven't you? THE WITNESS: Yes, I have. MR. LUNDBERG: Are you offering this as a substantial version or depiction of what the area zs like in relation to lot sizes without saying everyone is 100 percent accurate ? THC WITNESS: This is a graphic representation of the area surrounding and in close proximity to the subject property and I hereby attest to the fact that ~ha~ is a reaso~able depiction of ~ha land a~ A381 760 sukdivided by a subdivision map or by metes and bounds description, or any other ~eans. And for the purpose of preparing a base map: you have got to start with a reasonably accurate base. And I have worked with maps for many years and I would say, in all honesty, that maps usually prepared by Town Assessors or for assessment purposes, are far less accurate than that presentation which is prepared with County Funds and which purports to be and presumably will be the Official Tax Map for the Cowry and the Townships. In prior years I have testified ~n numerous occasions using, as a base rmp, particularly for the Five ?~estern Tc~ns in Suffolk County, aerial photos done for the County known as the '~ewer Map". firm known as they were And they were done by a Bill, Albertson & Walter, flown, they weran't done on the 5round, device, they were your Honor, by taking any measuring they were florin from the air and prepared at a scale of one inch A382 equals 200 feet and have been used in trial matters since they were prepared in !963. And they shc~,~ a reasonable accurate depiction of the development pattern of the area in the Five Western Towns. They were not flown for the Five Eastern Towns and the only base map of any reliability we have -- we now have to use in the Five ]~astern Towns are these. As I say, the Assessor's b~p are no~: accurate and; unfortunately, the Official Zoning Map which is -- THE COURT: What about the Atlas that they have over in the County Clerk's Office? THE WITNESS: Are you talking the Clerk's Atlas? THE COURT: They've been in the County Clerk's Office fer many years. THE WITNESS: I would say that the Tax Map is far more accurate and representa- tive than those are. THE COUItT: Certainly be more A383 correct, I think. The Atlas they have ~n the Clerk's Office is 19!6, I believe. They were quite accurate. THE ~,'ITNESS: Right. MR. ~SSEKS: May I contin~ to inquire, your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. VOIR DI~ EXAMINATION BY MR. ESSEKS: (continuing) Q 5~r. Meyer, you don't ~now the people who own the individual parcels marked with red dots, you don't know their na~s? A I don't know anyone whose land is depicted upon that representation, personally. Q Do you loaow who owned each parcel tn question? A I don't know and it's of no interest to ~, personally or in my study. Is it possible, sir, that some of the people who own a lot marl~md with a red dot may own parlor all of the adjoining lot? A Yes, it is. ~md that cou]d be true with all ~be parcels A384 Meyer -voir d~e shown here ? square feet, A particular case. Ail right. if these people owned two Instead of owning one lot of they could ~n 40 or 50,000. Could be and so much more better A b~mate r ia !. It wouldn't A Inm~,mt e r ia 1. And that wouldn't lots ? show up. ~, or 30,000 for their show up here MR. ESSEKS: Ua!l: your Honor, I ',zrge that ?.t is material. It is quite possible here that there could be ~4o 20~000 square foot lots adjoini~.g each other, a house on one, the parcel next door vacant and that wouLI be a Qerfectly standard 40,000 square ; ~ .oo~ lot. Mr. ~aycr doesn't know. THE Wi'£N£SS: I say to you it is not a perfectly standard 4C,000 square foot lot. If they had been ~-~'"~:~ ~a~,t =,,~" ~ ~ that and split a 40,000 square foot parcel into two and it shows on there as two as taken off the OfficiaT. Map, those people can A385 Meyer - voit dir,a build a second dwelling cn there becauSe they have something known as single and separate ownership presumably dating before the last amendment to the Building Zone Ordinance. MR. ESSEKS: That's your guess. You don't know that to be true, do you? THE WITNESS: a very good guess. MR. ESSEKS: I would say it's Y~ur Monor, I urge that the exhibit be denied admission. It'.s based upon his speculation. MR. LUNDBERG-: Mr. lW~yer, does th is compare, favorably, with that exhibit there as far as what you can see from the aerial ph ot ograph ? THE W~rNESS: Yes, it does. MR. LUNDBERG: In other words, you c~n take this and you can look right there is that correct? Yes. That area is is depiated and see the houses, THE WITNESS: slightly larger than that which on the photograph. 764 A387 766. maps on file in the Cowry Clerk's Office. MR. ESSEKS: Ta!*m this area. Did you go back and find the r~ material that the people who prepared this Suffolk County Tax Map or Southold u~ed in preparing what you say is this exhibit? TME WITNESS: I did not, became I didn't have to. I didn't want to. ~. ESSEK~R: Do you know who did it? Do you know who f. id the raw work for this paz-t of Southold? Do you know the m~n's THE, WI/~NESS: I don't know the MR. ESSEKS: Do you know when he did it ? THE WITNESS: I don't know when he did it. MR. ESSEKS: Do y~a kmow whether more than one ~n did it? THE WITNESS: don't care. It's }~. ESSEKS: Do you know whether A388 767 he had -- what Deeds -- THE COUP. T: Al7. right. I'm going tc cai1 a halt, htr. Esseks. !'~ ~oing to accept it not as a comp!e~e]y acct~rate t~ap with these lots, but as shc~ing the ;seneral area and the lots in that area. Even assuming that there ma7 be exceptions because of one purchaser having bought an adjoining piece of property. ~. ZSSEK~: I4ithcut any statement by the witness that he !cn~ws the size of the else? lots except by his THE COURT: '3., ~-~q S S ~rom have nc stateme~t by anyone that they knew the lot on that aerial map. bR{. ESSEKS: show boundary lines. THT~ COURT: size n f any It ~as not o~fered ~o Neither is he offering this to sh~' bo'xndary -~ That's ~. ESSEKS: He says lots violating t~zsidencc~ Zc~ae. He says it right there. the reason it's being offered, your A386 755 ?RT. ~iSSEY~: But you can't see the lot line, can you, ~. Mayer? You don't know where the lot line runs photograph, is that correct? THE W ITN~-$S: They are not as distinguishable as they are on nrf presen=at ion. MR. MSSEKS: Well, on preparation, you don ~t know where the lot line runs there eitheL'? You are re]/ir, g on the Suffolk County Tax Map which ham not been adopted by the County as as ~o~ know? THE WiTNCSS: I don't know, sir, x~hat it's been adopted on. I rely upon it for its accuracy. l'~. ESSEKS: Who ~old you those Lines were accurate? TILE ~,.~ITNESS: No one has to tell me that they are accurate. I relied upon their authenticity because they are based upon Deeds and lot spread and bonmfide subdivisiom A~85 Meyer - voir dir~ 7~ ~uild a secomd dwelling en there because they have something ~n as s~gle and separate ~ership presu~bly dat~g before the last a~nd~nt to the Build~g Zone ~d~ce. ~. ESSEX: That's yo~ g~ss. Y~ don~c ~ that to be t~, do you? THE W~NESS: a very good guess. MR. ESSEKS: I would say it's Your Honor, I urge that the exhibit be denied admission. It's based upon his speculation. MR. LUNDBER~: Mr. Meyer, does th is compare, favorably, with that exhibit there as far as what you can see from the aerial photograph ? THE WrfNESS: Yes, it does. MR. LUNDBERG: In other words, you can take this and you can look right there and see the houses, is that correct? THE W~TNESS: Yes. That area is slightly larger than that which is depicted on the photngraDh. A388 767 he had -- what Deeds -- THE COURT: Al! right. I'm going tc eSI! a halt, Mr. Esseks. I'~ ?~oing to accept it not as a comp!e~e]y acctucate t~ap with these lots, but as sh~ing the ~ieneral area and the lots 'in that area. Even assumLng that there ma7 be exceptions because of one purchaser having bought an adjoini~%& piece of property. ~. ESSEKS: M ithout any statement by the ¥.~itnass that he l~ews the size of the !ets except by his !_!uess from someone else? THE C~?JP~T: I have nc.. statero~nt by a~yone that they kne,~ the size cf any lot on that aerial map. b~{. ESSEKS' It ~,~as not offered to show boundary lines. TRE COURT: Neither is he offering this to sh,~ bo.Andary ~- ~. ESSEKS: He says lots violating ',, ~>.~zgld~nc~ Zone. He says it right there. That's the r~.~ason it's b~ing offeced, your A389 76? ilcner. If he :~ants ~'.ill agree. THE COURT: !:alee thac off. take off that these ~J pile, yes. take that off, he'S agreed to If I'_e ~.;zl! agree to logs viola~-e A ?.esidential o ~,. ~.~ ,:. St~. 1.~e it %trance that pat in '}h~t ~ compliance with". ,'~ ....... g~: I ta~ exception. TH'.i Ct.,UKT: Yes, you have an aboug this, I suppose, u?.t].l five o'cl.ock. ~',ut I ¥~ould like to ,~mkc b~l. ~SSE~: Youc Honor, ! would ii~ to hax.'u stricken off the exhibit x.~here it says, "Lots vio!atinl A T}~E CO~T: Yes . '~'i~lat~ng in comp!iapce or not. T~[i CO_~{T, ?,~ei[ we can quibbl.a TH~ CO~: Ha says this is not compliance v~ith present -- MR. ZSg£KS: Ycur Honor, he doesn't ,?eh say than he knc~.~s ~hether they are A390 ~xcept ion. (Z tm lng Aha 1/s is %xhib~t ~ and Land D~_~'e!opment received and ~:ar[~d f;efendants ' fm evidence .) (continuing) Using your graphic a~alvsis, cnuld you explain to the Court what findings you 'nave .made in your ~udy of this ar~a: A Y~s, I can. I guess it is best to say I have examined the s,.R~ject ar~a and th~ subject parcel and the area surrounding it, a~n area thac would complf with the definition known as a '%3eichborhood". A '~eighborhood" being a place where the necessary goods amd services to supply or satisfy t'~'ose people living -- that those people could find Jn close pro×imity tc their dwellings that they would f~_nd thcsa things. Such as stores and public and quasi-pub!lc land uses. And in so depictJ~g the r, eishborhced, I ~:z;t west of the subject propert~ to the eastar!y k. auk cf the James Creek and I went east of the subject prcpc:rtf co the land surrounding Dc~_,p Hole Creek an,t ~'r- southern boundary was Great Peconic Bay an,] my t~ortne~n b,,undary ,,;as 14ain Road 7.09 A391 770 or Rou~e 25. I made a more finite analysis of those areas which are depicted upon this graphic presentation which have been subdivided such as the Ole Julanne area and the Deep Hole Drive area and the Maratooka Aven~ area, and the area 'known as B~nga!ow Lane, and those areas I carefully analyzed from the Official Tax Map as prepared for the Suffolk County Legislature, these lot areas, to determine their compliance with ~esidence A Zoning Classification. And I found that the greater proportion of the area subdivided by a bonafide subdivision recorded in the County Clerk's Office or by lot split whereby someone having a large area sells, or gives a portion of his land to a relative or to a speculator or any other means of subdivision, be it legal or otherwise, those lot formations and that's what you see on this presentation. And utilizing the Tax Map, which has dimensions cn it. Incidentally, I could very easily calculate, for example, in the Ole Julanne area, what the makeup of the land as subdivided is. For example, we find in the subdivision of land in the vicknity of Ole Jukanne and Kraus Drive, that there have been a ~otai number of 68 lots of which only 4 meet the current Zonin~ c~assificatLon. A~92 771 THE COURT: Ole Julanne and what? THE WITNESS: Krau~ Drive. Only four of those six lots. 68 lots analyzed comply with the Residence A Zoning Classification. That is only four out of 40,000 square feet and/or 150 feet of road frontage. For example, I find three lots that measure 32,000 square feet plus or minus, three that measure 30,000 square feet, plus or minus, and all the way down, your Honor, without loading up the record with a lot of figures that perhaps are not that important, but the lot sizes vary from the four that are 40,000 square feet or larger, from some 32,000 square feet plus or minus, do~n to 11,500 square feet. THE COURT: 32,000 down to -- THE WITNESS: 11,500 square feet. And with lot widths goin% from the required 150 feet down to as small as 50 feet. The next area I examined, intentionally usl~ Whag's the other street? A393 772 as a basis the Official Tax Map prepared for the County Legislature, was those lots which are in the vicinity of and adjacent to -- contiguous to Lupron, and I fo~d, your Honor, in there, THE COURT: THE W IINESS: there were 26 lots. That's the peninsula? Yes, sir. It is. The 26 lots of which only three meet the prevailing overall zoning classification for this neighborhood of 40,000 square feet. The others vary between 30,000 square feet, plus or minus down to 15,000 squ.re feet. The third area I examined in detail -- THE COURT: How about the width of those lots? THE WITNESS: Those lots, your Honor -- most are 100 feet with the smallest being 80 feet. Next area I examined closer in the overall study area was those lots which Street, south of Deep Hole Creek, Maratooka Road, in th~ vicinity. were 57 front on Bu~gal~w Lane and Center east of There lots, your Honor, again only three A394 773 of which meet the prevai.ling Residence A, 40,000 square foot minimum lot area. Tm C OtHLT: meet the standard? THE WITNESS: 57 lots and how many Three. And these lot sizes, your Honor, go from a plus-minus of 37,000 square feet down to the smallest of 6600 square feet. 6,600 square feet. And so, too, with the lot widths, I find 17 that are 100 feet wide and those lot widths go down to as small as 31 feet. The next area I examined was the s~divisJ.on just east cf Deep Hole Creek and the northerly extension of the easterly area of Deep Ho].e Creek. Im other words, it fits in between the water area running south of Suffolk Avenue Street known as Deep Hole Drive, Donna Drive, and Teresa Road. In that study area I examined and measured, using as a b~ the Official Tax Map which has lot widths and depth, I examined son [52 lots. Here again I find only four that comply wt~h the prevailing A395 774 official Residence A minimum lot size 40,000 square foot require~nt as set forth by the Town of Southold. And here I find lot areas ranging from as large as 100,000 square feet down to as mmall as 6,200 sqt~e feet and lot widths with a small frontage as 39 feet -- lineal feet. And the last area I examined in depth, in order to evaluate the area surro,~d ing the subject property and its compliance with the Residence A Zoning Classification which is R 40, which is 40,000 square feet, with thos~ lots on the east and west side of M~ratooka Avenue running between the Main and New Suffolk Avenue ~nd east of Maratooka Lake. There were 39 lots examined, five of which comply with the Residence A, 40,000 square feet minimum lot area. The smalles~ lot area I found there is 15,000 square feet with a lot width of 29 feet. I find, therefore, that in the study area, more than half of the land has, in fact, been committed, not necessari'_v developed, with a A396 structure, but co~'a£ttecl ~y metes aha boua~ds description or on nigher filed or nog fiiecl .m Cne County- Cl=_rk'$ Office. And when i looked further ~o determine compliance wi~h the exiscl~g zoning, I find that the greater portion of land coamitted does not, ir, fact, comply with the Residence A Zonln~., Classification "=.nd that the typical yield or number of lcts per acre i£ ~.5 -- cou[~ l'a 'i.,: ck.~el] i~ ~mJ. ns p~_.r ac~e at scch cJ.;~ as ail ,0-- the land shown on the Offickal Tax ~5aD ~.d g~pict~d ~pon ~ny study a~;a~ parc of ~hich _~ orz the Lraphic area -- on the graphic ='cpresen~aEicn -- T;[;5 COURt': Ti,a~; last par~: agar, S [_J '.' Till ',, ITN~$S: I~, m fact, ,aev=lof, ed. T}~ COURT: H~x: ~uch is develo~d'f T}05 ~,..' ~LESS: Hor-~ :nuch ~ ac~lty .... cont-aiLs:' I don't la,?.,' precisel>', l ~, ~_, t cxa~,~,_e that. i .~;:amLn_ed the land that ha~. L..~gn b,~b,tiv/de,2 where lc't l~nes are A397 ~md~v.,.l:~ped. ~d if =e Zc. ok at the land -.~bich % ha:,e ;:xamined, '.,e see that there arn 1.:,t !ins:s, I be!~ve ac~].!? deplctad because they ~ere tal~n off the Official Tax l.~p. This land is cor,:~itted, i'm not ~':aylno tha~'e is a house on each and every one of tbo.~.e lots, but t?':: - arc. c,'mmitted. c:f whether t!;o land !s ~ .... ] % "'-0,000 squmr~ feet or _.qt. this land, ':m fact, ,..33.,! ¢,~t d.: ..... as ouT.,~. It will L~v,:l~,p as I )~a,,e reporte~! t(, ch,¢ Court 'cor art o-:cza[! 7ie].d of ~ . ck0eJ, l~g mlits fez- acre zonimz classification which ~bout .8 dtce!l~f ~,its ,,.:r acre. T!B2 CC,~T. &r _s is for the ~ntire arc. a, t~ s 1.5 ,~;.l~ing units per acre? A398 777 THE W]~rNESS: Th is is for the area that is committed. No, your Honor, it is mot for the entire area. is not -- it is not for the Mattituck Airport, which is abou~ 70 a~res. It is not for the land which was described in Gour~ early today which is co~tl~uous to the west of Camp-Mineola Avenue to th~ Norris Property which was suggested by the Planning Board for rezoning to the Town Board for Light Multi-F-mily Resid~nce District. It does not include those propert ies. ~ COURt: You are talking about what has been committed on the map, on the Tax Map ? THE WIT~ESS: That's true, yes. I must point one thing cut to your Monor. These properties that front on Great Peconic Bay, could also be further subdivided, I pressures, if the Town, through its Zoning V~a~%ce procedure wo,ald permit a horse behind a house. A399 those THE COU~T: lot $ ? THE W IINESS: 778 What is the width of Well, the width of them, but the loc Sqv~'e Boards I dare say many of them do not comply, areas are, L~ fact, 40,000 feet or perhaps larger and very often of ZonLng Appeal~ do grant var~-nces to go below the prevaili~4g zoning. That's a whole other area perhaps we shouldn't discuss. TKE COURT: That would involve fair ret~-n and a hardship? THE WIINESS: That sort of thing. If I remember correctly, I think some of those lots do, in fact, presently enjoy more than one dwelling, as a matter of fact. I can quickly see that perhaps this may have been such a holding. You see that's one lot and there appears to be a long neck or so-called flagstaff lot going down there. I'm saying the same thing might happen with these, where presumably there is a dwelling on Great Peconlc Bay and that A~O0 779 residant owner will continue to stay there, but sell the land with the road frontage on Park Avenue. Similar to what Mr. Norris proposes to do here. He's retaining his house, his hommstead on 12 acres and will enjoy a 100 foot driveway going out. But subdividing the balance of his land. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LARK: (continuing) Mr. Mayer, 'ic~ediately adjacent to the Norris Property to the east you have an area in purple. Could you tell the Court what that area depicts in your study ? A Yes. That, as I indicated earlier -~ the colors are yellow and the purple, at any rate, are zoning classt~ications other than R-40 or Residence A 40,000 square foot single family dwellings. That purple depicts Industrict Zoning Classification and that land is, in fact, u~ed a~.d developed with an industrial use. The repair of aircraft motors -- Are you familiar wi~h the proposed lqorris Condominium ProJeut ? A Yes, I am. A~01 Meyer - direct 780 From your study, do you k~ow the n~mber of units par acre that are proposed amd have been approved by the Southold Town Board and the Planning Board on the overall land -- overall Norris La.nd Development? MK. ESSEKS: 'Yo-ar Honor, I object to that question. It calls for a state of fa~ts that haven't been proven. MR. LARK: Yeur Honor, there is correction: '~ave been approved by the $o{~:hold Town Board". THE COURT: Well, the Norris -- yes , your Honor, MK. £SSEK~: the issue before the The Norris Property, that was the qu~stion. Your Honor, that is Court. The Defendant would have us believe that 132 units were approved. Now the Resolutions that are in evidence ~R. LAiR_K: I said "as proposed". MR. ESSEKS: As proposed by the Defendant Norris. Bug ~ proposed by the P]mnning Board and To~n Board, I object to that~ because there is no proof that the Meyer - direct 781 Planming Board or the Tcwn Board ever proposed or approved any particular number. TH~ COURT: Ail right. Take it just as a proposal. MR. LARK: I will withdraw it and rephrase it. THE COURT: Of the Defendant Norris. Are you familiar with the number of units ~er acre as proposed by the Norris Cc~ndominium Project om the overall Norris Property, ~r. ~'~yer? A Yes. I have seen those figures. And what is the number of units per acre? A The number of units per acre on the entJ_re holding is slightly over two. How did you arrive at '~ltghtly over two," as you testified to? A The total tract size is 72 plus acres divided by the n~mber of units proposed, 153. units ? Which would comprise how many condominium THE CC~3RT: Where did we get 153 ? A40~ M~yer - direct MR. LARK: I'm coming to that. Tell the Court how many condominium units are proposed? A Yes. The condominium %~.its proposed at 132. Q And how mar~y single family residences are proposed? A 21. Q Giving a total of 153 proposed, is that correct ? A That's correct, yes . Q As a Plata%er, could you d~fine the term "condominium unit"? A Yes, I'll be glad to. Q Would you? A Certainly. Condominivm unit is or was created -- legal vehicle for -- it was created by the Congress in 1961 with amendments to the Housing Act which permits a mew concept in financing dwellings other than single family free standing dwml!in~s. It permits the financing arrangemants so that individuals could own their ~n apartments ~ a complex, that is, instead of free 782 standing as we are all so familiar with free standing A404 ~yer direct 783 houses on individual lots wi[h private front, side and rear yards. The new concept was or enabled a prospective purchaaer to enjoy the assets, I guess you call them, or owner occupancy from the standpoint of amortization a~d tax relief, but instead of owning the land in fee, he owns the unit in fee, and the la~d parking areas, recreational facilities, for example, are owned in concert with the other fee owners of the individual condominium units. The only diffelence between a ¢omdominium unit, therefore, is that it is one unit in a group of units. And I think the T~.,~ of Southold -- I believe they indicate they shall be no more than four -- my memory serves me So that's why they are There is more than one correctly -- In any one structure. called multi-family structures. family in each structure, but no more than four. So co.unities and States permit high- ri~e condominiums with several hundred units. I Just might say one other thing. And that ~s from the planning standpoint, and I presu~ also in the eyes of lay people, the term condominium or cooperative or town house or row house is very difficult to conceive. Because they are all financing arrangements, really. You cannot zone for condomint,nms and you cannot zone for tow~ houses . A~,OS Meyer - direct 784 FS{. ESSEKS: I object. He's now testifying as to an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold. PR%. LAP, K: He said as a Planner. MR. ESSEKS: We are talking about the Town of Southold. I submit that it is improper for the witness to tell us that in the Town of Southold you cannot limit ~evelopment of this property to coudomi~ium$. As a matter of fact, your Honor, this morn Lng -- T}EC COUP, T: I don't think he said that. M2{. ESSEKS: That's just what he did say. You can't limit it to condominiums. This morning, beth Counsel were making a gratuitous St!pu~-atiou on the record that they were ~imiting -- trying to limit this property-- THE WITNESS: I didn't say that, your Itonor. I didn't say that. ~%. I,UNDBEKG: I object to the word A406 Meyer - direct "gratuitous" t ion. THE COLqLT: 785 It's a very serious Stipu.~- Why can't you zone So many cubic Yes, your Honor. Plt~ the ownership of the driveways~ it stands. T~E WITNESS: Th.~t's true, but the kind of people who live in garden apartments owns is the cubic space. feet. THE W IT~F. SS: THE COURT: common with the others garages, land on which for condominiums and to%~..~a houses? Tm WI/NESS: Your Honor, the only way that I'm familiar with Ordinances being written is that they zone for a number of u~i~.s per acre. And they ca~ say "owner o':cupied". But they cannot say how the developer of a given tract of land shall have the finances. THE COURT: WhaC difference does it make from a Zoning standpoint whether they be garden apartments, cooperatives or condominiums? All the condominium owner A~.07 Meyer - direct 736 versus condomini~, there is a difference. The person living in the condominium has a stake in the community. A long term stake, whereas the perso~ living in the apartment is there on a lease basis one year or t~4o years. THE COURT: You have seen some very fine garden apartments located in different co~,anunitles ~ h~ve you not? THE WITNESS: Yes, I have. T}{E COURT: A~d you have seen so~ po'or places ? T}LE WITNESS: Absolutely. There is a less likelihood of this with a condominium because they, in fact, c~,~n and they own their own units and they are the landlord as well in the common areas, so to speak. That's the point I was making. As a Planner, Mr. Mmyer, in your opinion is this proposed Norris Development inconsistent with the presently developed ~ighborhood f-fora the standpoint of land we and density, sir? A It is not. A408 Meyer - direct 7~7 Q As a Planners in your opinion, was the zone change as you have depicted on yo~r graphic chart there, consisten~' with good planning? A Yes. I maintain it is consistent with good planning and pursuant to the philosophy as set forth in the Town's Development PLmn. In my opinion, it complies with the basic planning concepts as to location for multi-family of condominium development type of co~n~ity becaume of its proximity to the goods and services that are supplied just one-half mile away in the Ham[et or Business District of Mattituck. The people who will live in these facilities, therefore, will be. able to walk to church, library, schools, shops. The P~ster Pla~a, in part, ~mphasizes this in depicting location for future moderate density, multi-family facilities. I believe the Town, at the present time, has such faci3ities in close proximity to the CBD or Central Business District of Greenport and has also approved one adjacent to the Business Area in Southold, a logical extension or new facility would be in the western hamlet in the Township, that being Magtituck. The density is cons~mtent with the area and is also consistent with the dictates as set forth AL 09 ~yer - direct 788 in the Master Plan. You stated that it was a half a mile, I Q believe · A Yes o From the Norris Property to the shopping area of Mattitu~k, is that not correct? AYes, that's tr%~. Ho~ do you know that? ABecause I measured it physically. ~{c~ did you measure it? AIn my automobile. From what point to what ~oint, sir? Would you show the Court? A Yes. I measure/ it from the frontage on New Suffolk Avenue to the Business Area, both the north a~d south side of ~.~in Road, State Route 25 in the l{amlet or Central Business distance is a half mile. MR. your ~{onor. District of b~ttituck. That to the Court before Mr. Esseks commences cross-examination, that on Plaintiffs' LARK.: I have nothing further, I just would like to point out his Ab. lO 789 Exhibit, I believe 22-C, the map that we had so much hassle about, the Suffolk County Tax Maps are on there, a~.d curiously enough, almost -- in fact, the entire area of Mr. Mmyer's study is also shown on the Tax l~ap and if the Court please, the widths and !emgths of the properties are listed on this exhibit which Plaintiff offered and our photocopies of the Suffolk County Tax Map. And Mr. Esseks might want that when he cross-examines the witness, since it is a Zerox of what as to size and shapes e xh db it. That ~ill be Plaintiffs' he objected to of Mz. }~yar's Exhibit 22-C. A41 I 7qo CROSS EXAMINATION ~Y MR. ESSEKS: q and paper? A many acres Exhibit O? q Exhibit O? A A A Mr. Meyer, do you want to get out your pencil I have it. I want to talk to you about density. in Parcel No. i shown on, I believe, it's ~{ow Twenty seven, I be!lev~. How many acres in Parcel No. 2 shown on Five acres. Is that correct? Only Is that the sewage? The whole of Parcel 2. The whole of Parcel 2. I see. Yes, the balance of that would be forty odd acres. MR. LARK: point out witness? MR. ESSEKS: stipulation that M~. Esseks, would you what you mean by Parcel 2 to the Well, can we have a there are thirty-eight and A~12 and a half acres, total, of Parcels 1 that were rezoned? THE COUET: Twenty seven and is it? Q resolutions. el%hr-three acres. cue-five acres. Do A six eight three. A that correct, A ~. moSm~o. Twenty seven plus is that correct, Mr. Lark? MR. LARK: or other. Well, in Exhibit The first Parcel and 2 eleven, eleven That was ten point somethin5 Number 3, that's one of the is twenty-seven point six- And the second Parcel is ten-point-nine- those to~ether? you want to add Wl~at were they? Ten point nine one five and twenty seven point THE COURT: referrin~ to them as twenty-seven acres eleven acres. Thirty-eight point five-nine-eight acres. Now, both of those parcels were rezoned, for multiple residences, sir? I don't believe so. Oh, I see you are think we have been and isn't Suffolk County Clerk's Index No. 74/'16865 Appellate Division - .~ocond Department LAURENCE REEVE, GEORGE BROOKS, ALINE DOVE, FRANK WHITROCK, GEORGE LASCELLE, KATHERINE LASCELLE and JOHN SIMICICH, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants, -against- ALBERT M. MARTOCCHIA. MARTIN SUTER, LOUIS M. DEMAREST, FRANCIS T. DOYEN, JAMES H. RICH, JR., and JAMES F. HOMAN being and constituting the Town Board of the Town of Southold. and BRUCE A. NORRIS, Defendants-Respondents. APPENDIX FOR APPELLANTS Volume 11, pp. A217 - End WICKHAM & LARK, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant-Respondent Bruce A. Norris Main Road Box 1424 Mattituck, New York 11952 (516) 298-8353 TOOKER, TOOKER & ESSEKS Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants 108 East Main Street P.O . Box 268 Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 727-3277 SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG BAILSEY & YAKABOSKI ,4ttorneys for Defendants-Respondents Albert 3'f. Martocchia, Martin Suter, Louis M. Demarest. Francis T. Doyen, James H. Rich, Jr.. & James F. Homan 465 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 7274100 (9746; South River, N J. LUTZ APPELLATE PRINTERS;, INC Law and Financial Prmnn8 New York. N.Y. Philadelphia. Pa. Washmston. DC ~2021 783-7288 ~13 Meyer - cross pointing to 2. of the Norris Q multiple A I see. property. So there are thirty-eight plus residence, is that correct? Right. True. NOW, I was mixing 2 up with the balance Yes, ~hey have been. acres zoned are you acquainted with Section 100-116 of the Southold Zoning Ordinance? A I may be. Q Would you like my copy? A No. I think I have my own, thank you. That was section what? Q Page 10052. A Yes, I have that. Now, assuming that public water and sewers are provided, how many units can you have per acre? A Six point seven if my memory serves me correctly. Q Would you multiply six point seven times the thirty eight and a half acres that you have? A Yes. How many do you get? A 254.95. Q So there is ~ ~otal possible number of multiple A414 ~.~eyer - cross 793 residence units on the property of 254, is that correct? A True. MR. LUNDBERG: I am going to object. I don't think that question fully sets forth what the facts are, your Honor. The builder is committed to build a sewage treatment plant. They are committed to build -- five acres to single-family residences. And it does not, at all, envision the use of the entire thirty-eight acres. picture. enou%h. MR. like to be THE COURT: Yes. It confounds the And we have got confusion here ESSEKS: Your Honor, I would heard on this. I have placed in evidence these three Resolutions that rezoned the property, Exhibits l, 2 and 3. And those three Resolutions refer to no conditions or limitations to make the property like multiple residence pursuant to the ordinance. And pursuant to the ordinance you can have -- pursuant to Section 100-116, six-point-seven acres per unit. A~15 Me~e~ eros~ THE COURT: per -- MR. ESSEKS: Six-point-seven acres Six-point-seven units per acre. I'm sorry. I'm really not trying to confuse the Court. When you multiply that, that means, under the ordinance as of the date of the adoption of Exhibit Number 1, it was possible to have THE COURT: MR. ESSEKS: 254.95 acres. Now we don't -- You are confusing -- 254.95 units could be placed upon this property pursuant to the direct language in the ordinance. Tt~ COURT: Does that mean that the Town Board or the Planning Board cannot demand parking space, for example, or any other conditions? MR. ESSEKS: speaks for itself as placed upon the property. THE COURT: All ri~ht. Take any ordinance in any community in any Village or any Town, it places, let :xs say in a multiple Your Honor, the ordinance to how many units can be A416 Meyer cross 7~ dwelling zone -- or any other Town, houses. MR. ESSEKS: Correct. THE COURT: Is it your contention that the Town Board or the Village Board is precluded from saying to a developer: "You must set aside a certain amount of lan4 for parking space or for turnarounds"? MR. ESSEKS: Yes, your Honor. one-fatal J Y They can do that. But what I am talking about the density. They may say to this man or to whomever Mr. Norris sells the property - if he sells it or to his heirs or whenever it is developed -- yes, you are going to put all of the units on ten acres and leave the other fifteen acres vacant. It's Just total density. It doesn't say where they are going to place thegn. They can only be placed on five acres or four acres or fifteen acres. They could have all the of it vacant. They could have -- vacant -- twenty acres a question of what is A417 ~.~eye r cros~ 796 THE COURT: You are getting into cluster zonlnz, now. ~FR. ESSEKS: No, we are not. The ordinance provides how many units they can have. People, thereafter, if they wish to, can limit it for their own development purposes. THE COURT: limit to But don't they have a the width of the lot and the area of the lot? MR. ESSEKS: No, There is no limitation. limitation ordinance at sir. They don't. There is no all. The allowed 254 dwelling units on this ordinance property. MR. LUNDBERG: Are you conceding that there is public water on this property? MR. ESSEKS: There is not. MR. LU~DBERG: Well then, I don't think your question is in order at all. At one point you take the position that there is no public water, and then the next moment, you go to the ordinance and say what is the A418 >Ieyer - cross 797 permissible use when there is public water. I think you have to be somewhat consistent. ~. ESSEKS: testified that in one point ~ix units the area. ~e says Your Honor, this witness the area there is about per acre, developed around on this property it's two units per acre, but by his own testimony and by the language of the ordinance, there could be six-point-seven units per acre because that's what the ordinance allow~ on this property. :Iow Mr. Meyer is stating, I be]ileve when I examined him fur.he_, that he understands capacity, on it. that when Mr. Norris develops it, ~. Norris is not going to develop it to its full bu~ there is no limit or construction It may be after the fact that Mr. ~orris or someone else may say I'll build fewer units. But we are attacking this ordinance as of April 23, 1974, when it was passed without limitation 5s to the tVpe of construction or the n~u~ber of units except that limltat~_on Let forth in the ordinance. A41~ Meyer cross 798 That's the thrust of our argument. And that's the thrust of my cross examination when he said it's two units per acre. It's not two units per acre. The ordinance allows six- point-seven units per acre and we don't know what Mr. }~orrls is ~oing to do with the Norris property. We don't know that he is ever going to do it. So I'm objecting. I'm cross examlnlnE the witness as to what the density is. The density is what the ordinance says, six-point-seven MR. LUNDBERG: the figure you concede that supply. By the units per acre. I object to your using o£ nine-thousand square feet unless there is a public water deposition o£ Mr. Mc Lendon, Shat public water supply can be privately owned or publicly owned. THE COURT: Well, I'll have to study the ordinance. I can no~ Give you an answer off the cuff. MR. EfSEKS: Mr. Lundberg objected to my examination and my examination was to ~420 799 bring out from the wltnezs that the ordinance calls for a maximum density on this property of six point seven. THE COURT: words? MR. ESSEKS: THE COURT: is at Does it say it in so many Yes, sir. What does it say? MR. ESSEKS: Section 100-116, which Page 10052 of the Ordinance:(Readlng) "Not withstanding any other provisions of thi~ chapter, each dwelling unit in a multiple dwelling shall have 9,000 square feet of land for each dwelling unit in the bulldln;: where public water and public provided and shall have 6,500 land for each dwelling in the sewers are not square feet of building where public water and public s~wers are provided[." And I asked the witness public sewers and public water, density be on this property as of April 23, 1974. And his answer, quite properly so, was six-point-seven units per acre could be if there were what could th- A~21 8o0 constructed. MR. LARK: whole point of Your Honor, that's the Lundberg's objection. assuming now with the questions that there public water and sewers as of this date of April 23rd. That Esseks admits that MR. ESSEKS: and he gave me the MR. LUNDBERG: You haven't referred He ' s is not the fact and Mr. it is not the fact. I asked him the question answer. There is an objection. to the bulk of the park section, which is par~ -- THE COU5~: In other words, unless all the factors are ~aken in, you can Just do the aritametic there on the Resolution alone without taking into account all the other provisions of the ordinznce such as the one I pointed out about parking areas. ME. ESSEKS: four Honor, the Guestion of parking, they have to set aside a certain amount o£ parking, but there is enough land. THE COUR~: Did they set aside enough A~22 801 land for parking there? space enough for all 5~. ESSEKS: ordinance reads. have to have so There may not be those people. That's not the way the The ordinance reads that you ~any square feet of lot area -~ lot area within the thirty-eight plus acres for each unit. It doesn't say where the unit has to be on the property. All the units can be put on one corner of the property; you can have open space and parkinx for the rest. THE COURT: Are you saying they could build twenty-story buildings? r4R. ESSEKS: No, sir. THE COURT: What is the limit? MR. ESSEKS: The ordinance says, believe, THE COURT:' MR. E$SEKS: THE COURT: ~iow many stories can you go up? MR. ESSEKS: I believe three stories. it's thirty-five feet. Thirty-five feet? In height. How high can you go up? that covers A~23 Neyer - ~ross ;.~. LARK: Two-and-a-half stories, your Honor. It's right in the ordinance which is in evidence. THE COURT: There you go, you are disrezardlng, in your question, all of this. MR. ESSEKS: I don't believe I am, sir, at all. I believe, without question, that the ordinance allows up to 254 units on this property and that's the point I want to get from the witness. MR. LU~DBERG: He wants to go through an exercise of mathematics, Judge. T}{E COURT: many units? MR. LUNDBERG: foot limit is five per cent Does it allow for that No, sir. Thirty-five two and a half stories. Twenty- lot coverage, how can you possibly ~et that many THE COURT: but I don't know. ordinance and I have not. THE WITi~ESS: in? I dou't see how, myself, You have been studying the I think I mlzht be able A424 Meyer - cross 803 to answer that. I may be able to shed some light on that. ~.~. LARK: Your Honor, also, the area which has been rezoned, as pointed out in the initialed Petition of Mr. Norris, certain portions have to be set aside for the water works, if you would, and the sewage treatment area. You heard Mr. McLendon testify that five acres had to be s~t aside to get these necessary amenities in, in order to even have the mutiple-dwelling unit concept Eo here. THE COURT: Then how can you possibly have 240 or 50 units if you got to take five at in the property, to be set aside. acres off it for your water supply and your sewage? MR. ESSEKS: Your Honor, there is no requirement that they set aside five acres for water supply and sewage disposal. If, that time in the future, when this property developed there is public water and sewage those five acres do not have You are getting to the A~25 Meyer - Cross 8o~ purpose of part of our contention in this case that when it was rezoned, there were no conditions placed in the three Resolutions approvins the rezonins. · If the Town -- and the Town could have I submit -- they could have said no more than thirty-two units on the property. No more than thirty-two units of so many square feet each. And that the units have to be on a condominium basis. And Mr. Lark stated, I believe, that at a Public Hearing that there could have been a covenant placed on 0efore the R~solution was passed April 23, 1974, that there would only be retirement people in there. That's what was presented at the Public Hearing. That was what was presented in the Petition that's before the Court, but that's not what was passed on by the Town Board on the three occasions. I'm pointing out that they are saying there are limitations, but there are no limitations in the Resolutions. THE COURT: But ~re there limitations A426 Meyer - cros~ 805 in the ordinance? 5~. ESSEKS: THE COURT: MR. ESSEKS: Forget the resolutions. ! submit there are none. I don't know. And your Honor will examine that and we'll argue it in our Briefs. ~. LAW(: Your Honor, I don't know if he's testifying or not, but as I pointed out this morning, you have to take the ordinance as a whole. That's what I'm saying. Article 13 requires sight plan approval and your IIonor has heard testimony here that of the overall project is for the condominlu~m units and part of the part 132 project is for cluster subdivision which is under the review of the Southold Planning Board. So under the ordinance as a whole, before building permits can be obtained by the Applicant or anybody else, you have to have sight-plan approval from the required agencies. You must take the ordinance as a whole. THE COURT: That's what I say. Because each application, of course, will ~o to A427 ~eyer - cro$~ 80(; the always lay down conditions. Planning Board a_nd the Planning Board can The real issue in the case :{R. LARK: is land use. MR. ESSEKS: be built under the iud how many units ordinance. That's the question that we will have to Brief for the Court. T]~ COURT: Just a moment, can Mr. Esseks. light "? You said that you could "Shed some THE WITNESS: I'd be delighted to. If the Court will peri,it. THE COURT: Yes~ I will permit you to for the edification of the Court, if not for the -- T]~ WITNESS: I will be delighted to. Building zone ordinances are written very often, without benefit of fact. That is, takln~ the specific piece of property and setting forth on that specific piece of property the permitted use or uses as set forth in the ordinance whether they be mu!title residences, A~28 ~eyer - cross ~07 industrial or commercial. In this case, if, in fact, public water and sewage are provided, the ordinance tells us we can have a yield of six-point-seven units per acre. I say to you, your Honor, that, in fact, in reality, I doubt very much whether six-point- seven units per acre THE COURT: TIlE WITNESS: could be Why? Because achieved. of the other units, ments, to call it, in one thai four units in restrictions as set forth in the ordinance. For example, the ordinance very clearly says, "There shall be no more than four dwelling self-contained, o~-mer-occupied apart- housekeeping units," whatever you want structure, shall be no more one structure. Ir[ crder to locate those structuves on the site, your Honor, they must have side yards. The side yard, as set forth in the Buildln~ Zone Ordinance in another section, not in the density secti~u, says there must be thirty- five feet between the bui!d~ngs. The Meyer - c~oss 8O8 ordinance further goes on to say the height of the building shall be no greater than two stories. Thirty-five feet is a two-story buildinG, incidentally. So you would have two up and two down, perhaps. Based upon ~y current working with condomimium facilities, I find ~ha~, in fact, more often than not, they are one-story facZlltles because they are occupied by older people whose children have gone and they don't wans the staircase situation, so they use ~he -- or in this case -- would be four ~its, side by side in one buildin,~, each provided with the side yard which is thirty-five feet each with the requirement of parking, which, I believe, is ~wo per unit, although I didn't find Shat during ~he discussion. And the public water supply will take up space and the sewage supply will take up space. So it, in fact, by standards it says six-point seven, in reality I say to you, based upon other constraints also in the ordinance plu~ the reviewing process -- A430 L~eyer - cross reviewing process the Planning Board, change and amend the density. not a God given right. THE COURT: limit? THE WITNESS: For example, the most in most Building Zone deals with commercial of the Town of Southold is they c~n always upset and The density is The density is an outside Yes, sir. It is. flz~rant density £iEures Ordinances is that which retail developments. It says, very often, the !and shall not contain more than sixty per cent ccverase with building git but today with the modern appearance that most COrLmunities are trying to set forth with a decent set back off the .hI~hway and some modlcuan Of Iandscap!n~ to~ether %~lth the required park!ns, which in most municipalities ls one parking space every 150 square feet of gross floor area In the retail establisnent, never going t, achieve the per cent coversge, ycu Just are sixty or eighty You are goin6 to get A~31 Meyer - cross 810 somewhere down around thirty, thirty-five per cent. I use that as an example because that's the most flagrant antiquity remaining in our commercial zoning classification. And so, too, the density of six point seven, I say, is Just one part of the overall package and is subject to further checks and balances and reviews by other agencies, not only in the Town of Southold, but by the Suffolk County Sewer Agency. They will detect the size of the sanitation facility -- how much open space remains around it. For example, there must be a distance of 200 feet, I Enow, from the sewage treatment facility to the closest d~elllng unit. And in my roll in the Town of $mithtown, I had a large part to play in that distance some years ago. The distance between the facility to the closest habital unit was seventy-five feet. ~/e now find that it's 200 feet. All of these thin ,s, your Honor, take up space. And these thi~]$ are required an,l, in fact, A~32 8il C II ARLE S ~,DIRECT EXAMINATION 'BY MR. LA~K: q Court, your age A and appraiser. Q achieved. They deal in one thing only, that is the yield, only, not in density. MR. ESSEKS: No further questions. THE COURT: All right, you may step do wn. MR. LARK: I call Mr. Rogers. A. R 0 G E R S, 517 Pine Acres Boulevard, Brightwaters~ ~ew York, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: Mr. Rogers, would you please state, for the and occupation? I'm fifty-six years old and I'm a realtor How loni~ have you been engaged in such capacity? I have been in the real ertate ~anagement or selling or appraising buaines~ for something over twenty-five years. For the past ten cr twelve years, !'ye been pretty strictly an appraimer. Co you have A Yes, si:'. special training as such? A433 STIPULATION AS TO EXHIBITS It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the respective parties hereto that the following numbered and described exhibits need not be printed or reproduced in the record on appeal, but may be referred to upon the argument or the submission of the appeal herein with the same force and effect (2) (3) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10a) (10b) (I1) (12) (14) (15) (2l) (22) (23) A B C D E G H J K L N 0 P R as if incorporated in the record on appeal: Rezoning Resolution -- Resolution dated 5/21/74 Resolution dated 8/5/74 Letter to Mr. John Wickham dated 8/29/73~ · ~ Letter to Southold Town Board dated 10/9/73 (transmittal letter)-~ Letter to Mr. Wickham dated 11/8/73'~ ~ ~- Letter to Mr. Wickham dated 11/8/73 (2) Minutes of Southold Town Planning Board 3/4/71 Minutes of Southold Town Planning Board 3/23/71 Part IIComprehensive Development Plan Town Southold '~ Part I Comprehensive Development Plan Town Southold ,', Zoning Code Town Southold Chapter ~00 Map . ~- Norris Map (Survey) Aerial Photo ~' ' Consultant Eng. Report - Photographs A, B, C- Appraisal Report Map - To~ of Southold Lascelle Bldg. Applic. Survey Lascelle Bldg. Permit Summons and Complaint Documents - Minutes Deeds Covenants & Restrictions Photograph Photograph Photograph Aerial Photograph ~- Engineering Report Report Analysis (Meyer) A43~ And it is further stipulated and agreed that such exhibits are to be filed contemporaneoualy with the record on appeal. Dated: Riverhead, New York /'~/c'~,,~l~ ~ ~ , 1976 'TOOKER, TOOKER & ESSEKS Attorneys for Plaintiffs- Appellants 108 East Main Street Post Office Box 268 Riverhead, New York 11901 ~4ICKH_AM & LARK, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant- Respondent, Bruce A. Norris Main Road Mattituck, New York 11952 ~SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, BA!SLEY & YAKABOSKI Attorneys for Defendant- Respondent, Town Board of the Town of Southold 456 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 A~35 STIPULATION AND AGREE>~NT CERTIFYtNC CORRJ]CTNESS OF TRANSERIPT PURSUANT TO CPLR RULE 5525 lc) It is hureby stipulated and agreed, pursuant to CPLR Rule 5525 (c), that the foregoing corrected transcript be and the same is hereby certified as correct. Dated: ]oou Em ,3~/~ 3°//~'7~. ~ICFR-IAM & LARK, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant- Respondent, Bruce A. Norris blain Road Mattituck, New York 11952 Sb[ITH, FINtiELSTEIN, LUIiDBERG, BAISLEY & YAKABOSKI Attorneys for Defendant- Respondent, Town Board of the Town of Southold 456 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 ~' ~ TOOKER & ESSEKS ~OOKER, Attorneys for Plaintiffs- Appellants 108 East Main Street Post Office Box 268 Riverhead, New York 11901 Suffolk County Clerk's Index No. 74/16S65 Appellate Diwsion - Second D.~partment LAURENCE REEVE, GEORGE BROOKS, ALINE DOVE, FRANK WHITROCK. GEORGE LASCELLE, KATHERINE LASCELLE and JOHN SIM1CICH, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants, -against- ALBERT M. MARTOCCHIA. MARTIN SUTER, LOUIS M. DEMAREST, FRANCIS T. DOYEN, JAMES H. RICH, JR., and JAMES F. HOMAN being and constituting the Town Board of the Town of Southold, and BRUCE A. NORRIS, Defendants-Respondents. APPENDIX FOR APPELLANTS Volume I, pp. Al - A216 WICKHAM[ & LARK, P.C. Attorn@'s for Defendant-Respondent Bruce A. Norris · Main Road Box 1424 Mattituck, New York 11952 (516) 298-8J53 TOOKER, TOOKER & ESSEKS Attorn©'s for Plaintiffs-Appellants 108 East Main Street P.O . Box 268 Riverhead, New York I1901 (516) 727-3277 SMITH FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG BAILSEY & YAKABOSKI Attorneys for Defendants-Respondents Albert M. 3Iartocchia, Martin Surer, Louis M. Demarest, Francis T. Doyen, James H. Rich, Jr.. & James F. Homan 465 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 727-4100 (9746) {201) 257~850 Washmglon. D C. (202} TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Statement Under Rule 5531 ......... A1 Notice of Appeal ............... A3 Judgment Appealed From .......... A5 Decision of Honorable Gordon M. Lipetz . . A7 Excerpts of Testimony of Newman, Welker and DeMarest .............. A31 Excerpts of Testimony of Krudop and McClendon ................ A168 Excerpts of Testimony of Raynor and Tasker .................. A288 Excerpts of Testimony of Wells and Meyer. A312 Stipulation as to Exhibits .......... A433 V~TN ESS ES Gerald Newman: Direct .................. A31 Cross .................. A42 Redirect ................. A73 John Welker: Direct .................. A74 Cross .................. Al04 Redirect ................. A133 ti Contents Louis DeMarest: Direct .................. Page A134 Robert Krudop: Direct .................. A168 Cross .................. A229 Samuel McClendon: Direct .................. A239 Cross .................. A259 Redirect ................. A281 Recross ................. A283 H. Raynor: Direct Cross .................. A288 .................. A294 -Robert Tasker: Direct .................. A304 Cross .................. A310 Horace D. Wells: Direct .................. A312 Cross .................. A341 Frederick Meyer: Direct .................. A349 A1 STATEMENT UNDER RULE 553) APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT LAURENCE REEVE, GEORGE BROOKS, ALINE : DOVE, FRANK WHITROCK, GEORGE LASCELLE, KATHERINE LASCELLE and JOHN SIMICICH, : JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants, -against- ALBERT M. ~RTOCCHIA, MARTIN SUTER, LOUIS M. DE~REST, FRANCIS T. DOYEN, : JAMES H. RICH, JR., and JAMES F. HO)~N, being and constituting the Town Board of: the Town of Southold, and BRUCE A. NORRIS, : Defendants-Respondents. : STATEMENT UNDER CPLR 5531 Index No. 74-16865 (1) The index number of this case in the court below is Suffolk County number 74-16865. (2) The full names of the original parties are: Laurence Reeve, George Brooks, Aline Dove, Frank Whitrock, George Lascelle, Katherine Lascelle and John Simicich, Jr., Plaintiffs, and Albert M. Martocchia, Martin Surer, Louis M. Demarest, Frances T. Doyen, James H. Rich, Jr., and James F. Homart, being and constituting the Town Board of the Town of Southold, and Bruce A. Norris, Defendants. There have been no changes in the parties. (3) The action was commenced in Supreme Court, Suffolk County. (4) The action was commenced against defendant, Town Board of the To~n of Southold, on May '22, 1974 by service of the summons and complaint; the answer of defendant, Town Board of the Town of Southold, was served on or about July 19, 1974; the A2 Statement Under Rule 5531 action was commenced against defendant, August 24, a~$wer of September (5) Bruce A. Norris, on 1974 by service of the summons and complaint; the defendant, Bruce A. Norris, was served on or about 12, 1974. The nature and object of the action is as follows: declare a certain amendment to the zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold unconstitutional, void and of no force and effect. (6) M. Lipitz December 10, 1975. (7) The appeal is on the original record; method is being used. tO This appeal is from a judgment of the Honorable Gordon entered in favor of defendants against plaintiffs on the appendix TOOteR, TOOKER & ESSEKS Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants Office and P. O. Address 108 East Main Street P.O. Box 268 Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 727-3277 A~ NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPREME COLrRT OF T~LE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFk'OLK LAURENCE REE\.5:, GEORGE BROOKS, ALINE DOVE, FRANK WI{ITROCK, GEORGE LASCELLE, KATHERINE LASCELLE and JO~E,~ SIMICICH, JR. Plainuiffs, -against- ALBERT bi. bt~\RTOCCHIA, bLARTIi~ SUTER, LOUIS M. DE~.tAKEST, tvP~NCIS T. DOYEN~ JAI~[FS' H. RICH, JR. and JAb~ES F. HOb~%S, being and constituting the Town Board of the Town of Southold, and BRUCE A. NORRIS, Defendanns : NOTICE OF A P PEA L Index No. 74-16865 S IRS: George Brooks, Aline Dove, Frank Whitrock, Katherine Lascelle and John Simicich, Jr., PLEASE TAKE I~OTICE ~ha~ plaintiffs, Laurence Reeve, George Lascelle, hereby appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department from a j-udgment entered in the Office of The Clerk of the Cout~ty of December, 1975, dismissing plaintiffs Suffolk, on ~he 10th day of the complaint herein, and said appeal from each a~ld every I,a~:L of said judgment. Notice of Appeal Dated: River[mad, New TO: Yours, eec. 700KER, TOOKER & ESSEKS, Esqs. Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Laurence Reeve, Ceorge Brooks et al. 103 East Main Street, P.O. Box Riverhead, New York 516-727-3277 Sminh, Finkelste~n, Lundberg, Attorneys for Defendants, Albert M. Martocchia, Martin Surer, 465 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, New York Wickham & Lark, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Bruce A. Norris Main Road Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 Clerk of Suffolk County County Center Riverhead, NY 11701 Baitsey and Yakaboski, Esqs. et al. 268 A5 JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM o~ t~e SL[[)F~}n~C Court of ~.he State of New York, held in an~ for the County of Suffolk at the Courhhouse thereof at Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York, on the 2nd day of December 1975. PRESENT: HON. GORDON M. LIPETZ, Justice. LAURE~CE REEVE, GEORGE BROOKS, ALINE DOVE, F~\NK WHITROCK, GEORGE LASCELLE, : KATHERINE LASCELLE and JOHN SIf. IICICH, JR., Plaintiffs, against ALBERT M. ~RTOCCHIA, M~RTIN SUTER, LOUIS M. DEl.rAREST, FRANCIS T. DOYEN, Jk~ES H. RICH, JR., and J~ES F. HO~N, being and constituting the Town Board of : the Town of Southold, and BRUCE A. NORRIS, : Defendants. : JUDGMENT INDEX NO. 74-16865 : Entered Dec. 10, 1975 : 9:34 am The issues in the above-entitled action for a declaratory j~dgment to invalidate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold adopted by the defendant Town Board re-zoning a poruion of the property owned by "A" Residential and Agricultural Res[dence Oistrict to permit the dences thereon, having duly come defendant, BRUCE A. NORRIS, from District to "M" Light Multiple erection of condominium resi- on for trial before HON. GORDON M. LIPETZ, one of the Justices of this Court, without a jury at a Special Term of this Court on the 16~h, 17th, 18th and 21st days of April, 1975, and the plaintiffs ~erein having appeared on the said trial by Tooker, Tooker & Esseks, William W. Esseks, Esq. and Judgment Appealed From Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. of counsel, and the defendants, ALBERT M. b~RTOCCIA, >~RTIN SUTER, LogIs M. DE~,~REST, FRANCIS T. DOYEN, J~4ES H. RICH, JR., and J~.[ES F. HO£,~N, being and constituting the Town Board of the Town of Southold, having appeared by Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Baisley and Yakaboski, Pierre G. Lundberg, Esq. of counsel, and the defendant, BRUCE A. NORRIS, having appeared by Wickham & Lark, P.C., Richard F. Lark, Esq. of counsel and this action having been duly tried and the Court having heard the allegations and proofs of the parties, and the Court having after due deliberation, on the 23rd day of October, 1975 made and filed a decision in writing stating the facts which the Court deemed essential and directing the entry of judgment as herein provided. NOW, on motion, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the complaint in this action is hereby dismissed on the merits. ENTER Granted Dec. 2, 1975 Lester M. Albertson, Clerk Filed Dec. 10, 1975 Lester M. Albertson, Clerk /s/ Gordon M, Limetz J.S.C. /s/ Lester M. Albertson Clerk A7 DECISION OF HONORABLE GORDON M. LIPETZ (pp. A7-A30) ~"~"'" "'" MEMOF~ANDUM SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY ~V]C, J['ANK ¥.lIl'l'kOCK, ~;.L,~:(.; LASCLL kal,' .KINv: LASC~'.LL2 and JUHN GIb~ICI( Plaintiffs ALBEtW M. ',~IARTOC~/~IA, ~i,~.:.?IN Sb'IIER, I.OUI2 ;4. O..~,IAIL2ST, F~ANCIS T. JA~ILS H. RIC:{, JR. and JAMES F. bein~ ~ constituting the Town Board the 'Iowa of Southold al~d RFU(]].[ A. Defendants. SPECIAL TERM b,~By LI,"~5 '.i, J.S.C. , Jl~. , DATED DC tober 2.%, Index No. 74-16865 of 19 75 qOOkFR, T©OKER & Attorneys for Plaintiffs 108 bast ~lain Street Hiverhead, N.Y. 11901 ~ICKHA~: g LARK, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Main Road - I~x 1424 ~lattituck, N.Y. 11952 NORRI-'; 5MI%Ii, 2'INKFLST£IN, LUNDBt~iG, BAISLaY and YAKABOSK1, ~,~. Attorneys for Defendant TOWN BOA]:D, TOWN OF SOUTI{OLD 456 Grilling Avenue Kiverhead, ~[.l. llgO1 %'his is an action for a declaratory judL;-ment to iuvalidate an amendment to ~he Zoning Ordinance of the '[own of Southold adopted b} the To~.n Board re-zoning ~ portion of thc property' owned b} dcfeudant bruce A. Norris from "A" I[esidential nnd Agricultural District to "M" Light 3.!ulCiple- 3. esldencu District to permit the erection of condominium residences there~n. The plaintiffs ar{~ individu~l land o%ncrs o~.'nin~ propert~ adjacent %0 or in th~. nearby vicinity of the re-zoncd lands. '[h~'y contend that th~: :'e-zonlng adversely affects the value and enooyment of their respective 9ropertics; that it ~'as ~ot ~doptcd in accordance ~ith the requirements of t~ Zoning Ordinance, thc Town Law, ~ ~uffolk Count}, Chaz'tur or the COmprehensive Zonin% plan of the ~own; that it constitutes "spot-zoning"; A8 and is therefore arbitrary anti illegal. material allegations of the complaint, and in forth an affirm-qtl~e def~.nse challenging The defendal~ts' ans%vers deny tho addition, defendant Norris sets plalnti£fs' standing ~o bring [his action in that they :lave failed to plead special and pecuniary damages. The case ¥.'as tried before ~.:e for fo~;r days without a jury aad cumprehei~sive memoranda of law have bsen subn~ittud o~* behalf ~f all parties. Underlying this litigation arc tho followin}~ facts. ~fendant Norris owns a tract of l~d comprising 72.~4 acres b.c,,ted approximately one-half mile southeast of the business section of the ham]ct of ~lattituck, in the ~o~n of Southold, St~ffolk Count)', uxtending from ~cw Luffolk Avenue southward to Peconic Day. It i5 bounded on the north by New Suffolk Avenue and four residence properties, including ~hose of plaintiffs Brooks and on the east by Mattituck Airport; on the south by Peconic Bay; and on the %est b} Can~p ?,lineola Koad and vacant land upon %.hich there are ~ scattered houses. At the southerly end, fronting: on Peconic Bay, is the large ~orris residence and auxiliary buildings on apprt, ximately 12 acres, ]he remainder of the tract, v.'hich is fertile and level land, has for man) y~ars been devoted to fnrming. Along the easterly side is s private dirt road running southward fr(~m ~:ew Suffolk Avenue to the ):orris residence on the Bay. The entire tract had been zoned "A" Residential and Agricultural, aaich provides for single-fan~ily dwellin;is upon one ncre plots and nir~cultural und related uses~ since the original zoning ordinance =c~pted in Al)ri], 1957. The surrounding area is zoned in the same district, c:.~cept for a parcel to the e2st upon whic~ the 'iattituck Airport hangars and maintenance shops are located, a~d ~'hlch is zoned "C" Light Industry. On August PI, 1973 Norris filed a petition with the Southold ~own ~oard to amend the zoning ordinance by re-zoning,~ two parcels of t~is said land from "A" L'esidential and Af, rlcultural to "fl" Light ~.tul~iplo-l~esid- ence. Parcel I contains 27.G8 acres; is rcctan[~ular in ~hape, and is bounded on the north by }lev,. Suffolk Avonue and the residences of plaintiffs Bruoks and Dove, and two others; on the east by other lallds ¢)f ):orris; on the south by land of plaintiff Reeve, ~hich is improved ~ith a storage barn, and a few scattered houses; and on the v, est by Can~p ~,lineola Road. Parcel II contains 10.91 acrcs~ is also rectangular in shape, and lies to tl~c sout~ and east of Parcel I, 2'he northerly portiun thereof is contiguous to the easterly side of Parcel I for about 200 feet. Upon Parcel I the Norris petition proposed a development in cluster pattern of fl3 four-family condominium buildin~,s for 132 residence units. On the southerly five acres of Parcel II a tertiary se~,er plant is to be constructed to serve the condominium units un Parcel I. l'he northerly 2.9i acres of Parcel II, to~eth~;r with I~.G acres lying to the north thereof and e~st of Parcel I, are to be developed with 21 single faz,llly ~omesites ~n 2a..5 acres, for which a separate application ~as simultaneously made [u the To¥;n Planning Board. A public water supply is to be provided to serve the entire residential complex and adjacent areas as %yell. Alon~ the easterly boundary of the entire tract is a strip of land 100 feet wide ..~ick is to serve as a road~'ay for the Norris residence un t~e Day a~d the ~'esldential complex to :~e% Suffolk Avenue. In his petition, Norris offered tu burden Parcels i a~,d I1 with covenants and restrictions to mssure the ~.~vn Eoard that the forek~oin~ proposals %ould be adhered to. AIO On August 99, 1.973 the petition wag referred to the Board, as required by 5~c. 100-150 B of t~e Zoning Ordinance, consideratio~ and recomIaendations. By loller dated ,~ctob~;r 9, To~n Planning for i ts 1973 the PlaHning Hoard advised recommending the change Planning Eoard that this it is in compliance %'ith Planning Board referred $uffolk Coumty Planning Law §239-m. Thereafter, Gerald Newn,,;an, County Department of Planning, sent a the Town Board that it had adopted a resolution of zone, and stating: "lt is thc opiuion of the proposed change of zone should bc approved because the 7o~n O.~velopment Plan." On the same day, tuc the petition and proposed zoning; actio~i to the Coramission for r~vie%v, pursual~t to Geu(,ral 5!unicipai the Chief Planuer of the 5ufft. lk letter dated i~ovemb,.,r 5, 1973 to John Wickham, ct]airman of tho 'iowa Plat~niug Board, stating that the Suffolk County Planning~ Conm~issio~l had review'ed the matter and disapproved thc chan~e of zone because it tend to adversely affect North Fork", that it is would permit an increase in density which the limited u.der~round fresh ~.ater supply on the "inconsistent ~ith the iow density' singl~ fa:ally the locale", that it resideuce pattern of zoning in a precedent for furtl~or down zonings in the locale", and wi~h the Town Master Plan which designates this area for fatally residence develops.eat". "would tend to establish it iS "inconsistent low density sinffle A£t~r a public h~,ariug was acid by tiiu ['o%n Board on D¢cumbcr 11, 1973, a resolution ~as adopged on April 23, 1[~74 by a yore of 5 to 0 {~ne menibcr uot votiug) overriding the buIfol,i County Plauning Conl~,~ission's All Parcel Ii from "A" l(esi.l~:ntial and Agricultural to ".;1" Lift. hr qultxple- [tesidence. ~)n !'.lay 21, IU74 oho ':ov, l~ i]uard amended ils prior resoluLio,~ granLing Lhc. petition~ a~ain by a vote of 5 tu U, ~ith one ,:~embur ~¢,t ruling, by addiug the rcasotls lot' its action, which are ns lollows: "l. ',he- Norris l)rel, ises are lucaLcd south (~£ Su£foik Avt~.~.ue v, hich is south of Nc~' ~o]'k l uute 2[,. CoffJl)z'ehen~ive ~aw;lop~,;cl~t ?lan of tho o~ ~,f o~uthold recomalends thnL l,;:l.j~l' residential devckop~acnts should be the subj,:ct property to l,igh[ , ultiple ;'csidc~lcc ~lstricc use therefor is i~ conformitI. ~i~n the Co:~:prei~cnsive ~ ye loph~en t Plan. 2. qhe Norris property is located southeast of and in the ih:mediate vicizlit~ of tile established r;~tall shupping area of tile hamle~ of ~iat~ituck. Tile comprehensive plan of the Tov'n of b~t, Lhuld recu~amcnds that the attact~cd nuuse dovolopn.euts of medium density as proposed in thc ltl>plicutJc, l~ centers. ,3. Thc applicant has given asYurances that a central wmter supply s},stem and a %ertiar~ sc~rag~ sys~e~, will bu installed on the preuises. The engiaeer~m[ rupert of Holzmacher, )IcLendon and '.~urrell sub:~xtLed to the L,oard ~n conjunction ~ith thc appllc*ation in~..ntcd that the ~Sstum to be installed will be so dusi,.'.:wd ;t~ %o b; abl,~ provide 9 wat,_'r ~uppl}' not ertl} for the ~]ruucrt5 i~, .)roblen.~; i~l o%~taini~l~ rater by individual ~ells. q-he plan~ud .'onsorvi[;E th, available tater supply in the 7~:.neral area. ~,C[I a s35tL'ir, %111 alpc r.~.ducc ~l{: Co[llaS~ltl~[l~..I~ el uitder~:round v, ater supply, ~hich v. ould For be the case cessp~.ols." On August $, 1974 the Town ~oard adopted a further resolutioa ccnfirming the resolutlo:~s adopted on April kD, 1[,74 and f.'~a} 21, 1974, correctin~ an error in the date of the latter r~.~-~Zut~ ~., and dtrectin~ the To~n Clerk to publish ~otice of Lhe a~.eadm~n~, f~y ag~wc::,~at of thc and by amendment of the cu;.,~laint at the trial, all three resoldtluns al~. [me sub3ect of plaintiffs' action. Al2 standing ad3acent c~mplaint 'lhe threshold question presented is Micther plaintiffs have to maintain this action. All of them own property elthcr to the N'orris premises or %'ithin 500 feet tl~ereuf. ?.'hile their docs not allege special and pecuniary damages, it do~s allel~j.. that the value and use of their respectivc properties will be adversely affected by tile do~n-zunlng. PleadiIlg pecuniary damage required ~ establish standi~g to challenge a re-zoning. Appeals in the recent ease of Dou~laston Civic Assoc. v. The Court of Galvin, 36 N.Y. 2d i, 364 ,%'.Y.$. 2d ~30, liberalized thc rules applic.~ble to "standing" in zoning cases and held that a civic associatiom or group of landowners have standing ~here their properties "may be affocted by a re-zoning". Although ouuglaston was an Article 76 proceeding, the standing required to maintain an action for declaratory judgment challenging a re-zoniD~ is based on the snme criteria required ~o institute an Article 78 proc'eedin~. Haber v. 5oard of Lst~a.te,. City uf Ne~ ',ork, 53 A.D. 2d 571, 205 2d 520. An increase of traffic and noise will undoubtedly result from thc. development of the center,plated residential project. The rural atmosphere of the area :¥ill be changed a~ld plaintiffs' enjoyment of the quiet and privac) of their respective residences may well be adversely affected thereby. : .;d~,r these circumstances the court holds that they have standing to sue, ~ re~;ardless D;'~.cedure of ~..hether their properties will be depreciated or increased in Plai[,fif£'$' initial challe~ge is directed to t'ae '|~¥m Doard's in ~nactinK the m:,endmen~. In paragraph Twenty-~fiucond of their it is ullcL;ed that the amen&:cnt ~as n.ut "made" ~n accordance %vith A13 the requirew~ents of the Town Lab' or of the ~uffolk Coun:~: ui~az':er. Although a~ither their complaint nor their bill of particulars alleges any i~ap£oper action by the Planning BoaFd, plain:if£s also urgt, ~haC the Planning Doard's To'*n Law ']2~4 stntes that the '['o~v~ Board shall provide for re~;ardinj public henrin,~g nn.l noti(:o. Lectiun 2~;.] s,_.ts forth additiuual r,zrluirck'cnt~ not pcrtihcI, t here. l;,:ction lOl}-lflr) of thc konill;[ Ordi,~%:~ce of thc ~o~n o£ Southold provides f(~r an.e[~dr..cnt and notic~ pursusnt to thc Vcqdil'cln~2h~5 Of "B. %'hr.~ 'l'ox,.n .:oard~ before thereof after a public hearing the '!'o%n 1,aw, and adds: advortisi~g fur a public hearinl,,, shall, in a written rc,lu(,st, instruct the Io%~n l'launin,j ~oal'd to prepare an official report defining ~lie c¢>ndiLiuns prescribt.~d i~, n petition and lc dcter'.;;i:,e thc~ :~.l'c.a ~o a~fectcd, wi. th .tc~, rcco:~,~nda- t ioI~S." B'~ letter' da~ed Au~:ust 29, 1973 to ~h~. (.,mtr,..an of the Planning ~ .~ard, ~ne To~n Clcl'l. ~il'cctcd h~s ut"~' " ~.~lon t,. thc ~.urris :~<~titlun in the a:. ol'iic'.al report defiz]in..; [!~e COlldiLioh.c: dc:scribed in tn,3 !)cticion and .:~tcrmzne thc area so aii:~cted ~iti~ thc ]cco:,u, tundatiot!s of ,:u;tr board." language o£ the ordinance was iollo%'ed prccisely, that thc in=-~i'uction :tc:'.ises, dc. filetS the relief sought in thc petiti,~n, recites the Plannir~g Alb, Boaz'd'~ r~solutim, r~co~.,,.~.nd~ng approval of tt]e reason for its approval. It substantially Plaintiffs' dcnu~,~in;~[i~n of th(: i'cp~rt ns "self their COntention thnt it shov. s nn absence of due co~'~id, rat Jun are unsupported by any o'/ideate and must be rcjucled, i'he t,r,iinnncc Dl'ovld.2s made. l)laintl~f~ ~,ffered no ,~videDcc, az~d induud, make 1~, claxl,~ that ~srd's ~'usolutiun araptin~ thc Norris petition and approvlnj thc chanKe ment the '~own ]los/'({ ma~. r~ovel'Lheless adopt the a~,,er,cl~,:,~i:t as originally its reason for t'eJectli,'r Ehc [)lfllllllh'~ CotliaiSSloH'S august 5, 197,1. ltll. lt: is ~o [;l'o~Jif. it.n ]11 of thc aLct,~h,lcP.~ ~aS lt:;,..lf il:%.nlld n,,d il nul[iL.~ . /,.% .~:tatc',l b'. ~isal,pruva 1 AlS Clerk of tho So%z, ,.~ .,vncln.r~,,,., ,!7.:.,,.' ' Z"d '",..,, 2;'3 · ~;.':. .: . ,:[.' ' "~. u:' 8fi. Limb: forth i~', ,li~:al)pr~.vaI nnd statin,.' 1~ r,..a~,..ns and be s~b,altt~d to the '~o~n Board as m:, offtcial directive." Since tl~ose procedure~ %~re not adh,_,r(~d to, the cimi t h~.ld that th~. Plant~ing disapproval ~:'a~ "nugatory. and inc{ f.'cllv,:". In this case tae buzlol;-; C~una} Planning.~ (.omi,:is~luu £oLlov.'c:d the same procedure as in ,,arx~ood llo].ding Corn ~ · meeting held on Nero:tuber 7, 1973 reveal tha~ no adopted. It merely disapproved the application ~ainutos of its regular for chantV~ of zone by voice vote on n motx~m~ based on a "t:ta£f Anal}sis" p'epared b? Gerald Considered for ol)l~ro~i,'atcly fiv~ c.i~utes. I[ statc.l ~,,~ r,.:aaon fur tioa received by the To%%n Doard was a letter .rrc~, :~r. Lcwman to thc chair- for the disapproval. Zuch lJ~tcr rug %vholly i~suffi('.icnt to meet t!~c requirevmnts of ~132G Of thc i'dJ'folt.: County ('[~7, r~.cl' o.d was not bindia/ ~pon tile qo%n l'loal'd. Lli:ttv:iv;(~, tn,~ buffuli. C~.u{~t? ,~la~ming Con,mission'~ and incffectiv~". Thc To%~n Eoard wag ~ea~ou~ for acloptii:~ ti',9 r(..s(~lu~i,-~, .'la,cd petition for chan'~e r. f the Planning Comn:iz:sion. 13k.::, %as "nugator) ,' ',tuii'ed to state its includi.n!f a duninl tho d0Zenda,,t i{,tc~ltlon tO mc, vd nt tile trial of tit,: nll-.:,'nti;,ns cont:tlw'd tile Cowpla i~ [, disappro v..:d opl)o$od by being Planning that th,' :Sci'lei;. L'otinL3 ;,.,~arll;'-f:,. el ?!.:]i:nillg tho [~r,~,~(:jt,l i-,'-",mJuj: and subr'itr,?d a 1.~£¢,.,:' Planni:~g !'card '~i'atJh': th' ~',,~r-s th{:loft;r. thc.' ar, te~,clr:ent ~,n ~[lc ;:'rol~,d that they gould bo The policy of the courts is to £reuly grant leave to a:,u:nd pioading~ the absence oI laches, undue prejudice and uhJair a,lvantagc. CPLJ[ 3025(b); Leutof£ v. Leutu£f, 47 f. liuc. 2d 45?, Inc. v. C. ~v. Laur. mn ~. Ct)., 40 A.D. has beet] shown here. Ibc notice of da>s alter counsel learned of tho 2.32 N.Y.C. 2d ~fO, SJlc; N.Y.J;. 2d 1~7. No laches intent!on decisioh in [-~rm¥ood {[oldine ('ol'D. v. ]own prejudice, since the}' cannot, in ally evetit, l'cl) eli tit._. ~)uJfc, II, (_c. unty Piann~ :;~ (.on,mission's disapOl'ovai, %;~lleh ha% Dt. cr. d~m,,nstlstt:d ti, bo a dlsCI't'tlon, altht>ul.~h up(..no'-It.se aha i, ~is All o"_ olatntJ '".s ' or'oc,~dura disapproval by .tJ%ll l. oald ., - is lnvnlJd iD that it %;;~s nor ndt,otcd ir{ 9L'l'~;t::*qC? of th:¢ ~(tV. li't: A17 for no ~,~ultipi.' r..:.-'iOcnc,~ us.-:, di.stric~_.~'. 'it:~ th..: ~-a/.~al cl.?lin<. prehenslve study aud ~'cm..rt o~, tht~ =own's c:.istinl: coil..[ttit~[l~ aad future ar;, pted by thc' l, laiulim,· I]uard (.r. lar¢'h 23, 1971 t~q~eth¢:r ~.itlt a "l'l'~n J'or Dcvel~,pn~etlk ;lap" bcvelopmont l>lal-~"~ ,,%hich %~a.% 1971, after (Pltfs' '.x~. 9, IUA and ~Dfts' ,;x. A). the Tov, n E,~ard adopted ~h.~ Pltfs.' .zs. i1, 12). ~(:[ivn iO(~-10 of the ~ldina,ict' provides: '"lhere Is h(~rcby established a co, prcht'hsive zoI~ing plan for the Town o~ Southold, chaptur." · ~it~ the Pla[1 f~r l)cvoloot.:cnt .:ap, :~s "~orki~: "comprehensive plah" iuclud'~s t'ae ~nin~: Ordiaancc~ ~_, '.. (See Ud~::ll v. ,{aas, 2] ';.~. Ed : " -~7L-.'7~, Al8 deter':~iine ,*hL, t[14~i' Lb' ~:4 au,,.'. ,~i zi~.,:, 1:2l',~ va~ ..u.l~ ~, ;,~ ,-. ,,,'{, ~. :..J l.i~ th. '~[lc pew 2.~l) l~/- Agricultural District a~, re-zoned "'I" Lzfu~t ui'tiolt3-}:esidar, ce. )n April 23, 1~17,i thc subJect premzses ~as re-zon,:d lro:,, "A" i.esid,,nt~rtl and A?;rzcult~ral to "'.l" t, Iultlple-i{csidence. Norris after the qro~z~ !:c:,,'d Ired considered tho Cc~.,pr,.'hchsivu Plan and enacted the new zoning ordinance was "the very antithesis of planned development" must be rejected. If that were the case of zone, save under the most egregious circumstances, %'ou]d be improper. Such was not the inten~icn of the Zoning Ordinance, which specifically provides for its amendment and raodification of the Building Zone Map, or of the Co~uprehcnsive Development Plan, ~hich anticipates changes and provides standards and guides for their implen~entation. The Comprehensive A19 Development Plan discusses the desirability of multi-I'amily land use in the Town and points out the bcuefits to be derived ~.herefrom by the community. It further states ([~ltis' Ex. IOA, p. 7): "Garden Apar[r, eat and Attached lhe Plan recommends consideration of raedium density residential uses on various sites, some time in tile future, w_hen the need and dcaiand for multi-faI,:il) units d~velops. Such uses would be strictly controlled by zoning regulations. Gpecilically, ~_l~h~lk mil;k~-bc considered potentially suitable for multi-family develop- ment are those in the immediate vicinity of retail shopping, service, and geh~{--commerof~'l areas. Zoning standards would assure low density, adequ3te landscaping, and sufficient off-street parking spaces so that the developments %ill be in harmon) ~ith the residential developraen/ In the remainder of the ?own. Approval by the Planning Board of the layout of each apartmen~ site ~ill~ required. Hence, the exact~location of all structures, facilities, and landscaping, and uf all ~uiuts ~f ingress and egress would be subject to approval by the Planning Board prior to tile issuance of any building permit." That the subject premises are "in the im~nediaEo vicinity of retail shopping, service, and general commercial areas" cannot be seriously questioned. They are located one-half mile southeast o£ the .:sin business section of Mattituck. B ing within reasonable ~alking distance, and indeed ~'lthln one-half the distance which kil,.dergarten children may be legally required to walk to school instead of having a bus provided (Education Law §36361, they are in the "immediate vicinity" of ,%latti[uck's retail shopping, service and business area. The location of the premises is not only the fair conteD%plation of the Comprehensive Development Plan, but kt is dzrectly across the street (Camp .~Iineola Road) from a vacant parcel of about PO acres shown oil the Plan for l)~velopment ~lap which %vas originally proposed by tile Planning Doard for "~.i" Light Multiple-llesidence use. A20 }'rederick ,',~e~cr, a highly qualified professional planner~ testified on behalf of the defendants that he had made a comprehensive study of tho area in the vicinity of the Norris property bounded on thc north by Route-a5, on the cast by Deep tlole Creek, on the south by Peconic Day and on the west by James Cr~ok. demonstrated that the greater part of thc comply with present zonin~ standards, and ~he area at 1.6 dwelling units per acre. Norris development,, includinu 132 condominium units on Parcel I ;:nd single-famlly.residence~ on the adjoining 24.5 ac~es, will yield a density of 2 dwelling units per acre. In Mr. ~leyer's professional opinion the chang~ of zone is consistent with the density of the area, '*i~h good planning and with the Town's cozprehensive plan. lie pointed out ~he benefits which the community ~'lll derive from the chauge of zone an~ the proposed development, such as orderly planning for the future, open space, a cenIral %;at,:r supply an efficient sewage treatment plant and living accommudations for "empty nesters" -- older p~op$e ¥.41ose children have gro~n up and left the family home, and who neither need nor want a single-family d~elling with its attendant burdens. The only other professional planner to appear at the trial was Gerald Ne~an, ~ho testified on behalf of plaintiffs that in bis opinion the re-zoning of the Norris parcels ~as not in accordance %lth the To~n's "n. astcr development plan" because the Comprehensive Develop~ent Plan p:'epared by Raymond ~ ,%~ay ~lssociates designates the area for low density deve lo pinch t. hi~ analysis ~,~ap (Dfts' Ex. R) he land in tile vicinity does not computed the present density of ile stated that the prop~;sed On cross~e×amination, however, he admitted that he had erred A21 in sever,al and }(epor t ir,:portant specified respects in preparing the staff Analysis for the Planning Commission, including tire computation or the density, that he had not visited the area and was unfamiliar with it, and that he had "assumed the worst". Under these circumstances, the court can place no weight upon his opinion or his Staff Report. ~ignlficantlk, the Comprehensive Development Plan provides (Pltfs' Dx. 10B, p. 2): "Residential densities of two dwelling units per acre or greater, proposed in these areas, is predicated upon the development of a public water supply system serving those areas." With the public water supply system ~o be furnished by Norris to serve the area, ~hich he has covenanted to provide by recorded instruments, the court concludes that the n:odest increase in density would be in conformity with comprehensive plan, and that the proposed devel¢,pment ~ill promote the general welfare. No other property in the :,!attituck area is zoned for that the chahge of zo~.e is illegal In I~odgers v. Village of. Tarryto%:..n, in that it 302 N.Y. 115, ~ultiple residence use. Plaintiffs urge c£~nstitutes spot zoning. "spot zoning" %as defined, at page 123, as "the process of singling Out a small parcel of land for a use classification from tha~ uf the surrounding area, for the benefit uf the owuer of such property and to the detriment of other owners . ..". re-zoned contiguous Norris parcels comprise 38o59S acres. Certainly area is not "small" when corapared with the Qarcel of less than PO acres the directly across the street (Camp Mlneola koad) which is shown on tko Plan Development Map (Dfts' ,:x. A) and proposed by the Planning Board for Light Multiplc-}(esido~ce usc. A22 Cases cited by plaintiffs, bur~, 135 N.Y.S. 2d 220, Freeman v. Santm~ers v. Town of ~yster Bah', 10 1N.~. 2d 661 are inapposite. The~ feet, 83 feet by 150 feet, 180 feet b) and all of tllem pertained to re-zoning business uses. In the ease at bar the such as Oe~i.~tisch v. Town of Green- City of Yonkers, 205 .'disc. 947, ~,~isc. 2d 614 and Buckle¥ v. Fasbender, involved parcels of &O fuel by 100 137 feet and lO acres, respectively~ from residential to commercial or "II" Light ~',!ultiple-Residence classification is not a "total!} different" use fro~ that of the surrounding residential area; it is, in fact, also residengial but of a slightly greater density. Furthermore, in upholding the re-zoning of a 10 1/2 acre parcel from single-family to multiple residence dse for garden apartments, the Court of Appeals in Rod~ers v. Village of Tarrytown, 302 N.Y. 115, supra, said: "If, therefore, all ordinnnce is enacted in accordance wit~{ a comprehensive zonin~ plan, it is not 'spot zoning' ~ even though it (1) si~les out and ~ffects but o],e small plot *** or (2) creat~:.~; in the center of a large zone small areas or districts devoted to a different uGe." (~mph~is supplied). Having determined that the qo~n Board re-zoned the subject p~'operty in accordance wi~h its Compre'hensive plan, the question of "spot zoninE" is rendered moot, Anderson~ ~I.Y. Zonin~ Law and Practice, Vol. 1, §S.02. Comment will be made, hov.'ever, upon plaintiffs' contention that the re-zonin~ %%as for the benefit of :;orris ~nd to their detriment. So lon[.~ as tile re-zonin~ ~as in conformance with the l'own's comprehensive plan for the general welfare of t~]e co[~.munity, it is of no c~ns~'queucu that a particular property o%ner ::ay bc~,efit thereb:'. Norris may benefit, but the general welfare of th~ community will also be enhanced. A23 ,.t~rta:[nJy~ nt, pro[Cf wu~ add,,tct.:d that th~: sole benefit. Although tho r(:-ztJri~tl~ of Multiple-Residence use would permit the l'e-zonin~ ~a:~ adopted fei' his his t~o parccts to "M" Light erection thereon of lg5 multiple residence units, Norris, in furtherance of his petition, bas recorded covenants running with the land~ snd stipulated at the trial, that not more than 13~ condolainium units will be erected on Parcel I, that a sewerage treatment and disposal plant will be constructed on Parcel Il, and that a public water supply system will be installed to serve ~hc area. He ~urther stipulated that any plaintiff in this action and tile ~own of Southold may enforce said covenants. Clearly, the aforesaid covenants and stipulation are enforceable by the Town Board (Church v. Town of Islip, ~ N.Y. 2d 254, 203 N.Y.S. 2d 866; .In re Rosedale Avonue~ Cit~ of New ~ork, 40 .51isc. 2d 1076, 243 N.Y.S. 2d 814) and by thc plaintiffs (see %tarren's ~.',eed~ N.Y. Real Propert}~, Vol. 4/%, lb_.strictive Covenants, ~§ 16.07, '16.0~). Although /lie Town Board did not require the covenants as a condition for the re-zoning, it stipulated 1~% open court that no building permit '~'ould be issued for construction upon the property unless the Norris covenants and stipulation are complied with, that it would take appropriate action in the courts if l~ecessary to enforce said covenants and stipulation, and that it ~ould give the plainti£fs herein an opportunity to join with the Town in any such enforcement proceedings. Unquestionably~ the Town and be bouhd by its stipulatioil. (See Flushin.%~ Pr(,pert¥ Planning Commission, 43 A.~. 2d 515, 348 N.¥.b. 2d its officials will o'~ners Assoc. ~ Inc. v. ~65). Samuel McLcndun, a highly qualified professional engineer spccializing in h~drology and sanitary engi~eerin~.~, testified on behalf ~f A2b,. the defendants. '~'horou!,~hly familiar ~ith the Norris property and the :,lattl- tuck area, he had prepared a cor,~prehenslve report ~hic~l his firm sub,hiLLed to thc 'ro~.n Board in co~lncction with the 5orris petition, tlis co~clu~ion~ ~ere accepted by the Town Board and %ere stated as one of its rcuso~s for adoptins the re-zoning resolution (Pltfs' ,.x. 2). ~h'. f,,:cLendon testified that the water suppl}, s}'stem and se~'erage treatment plant he had designed could serve not only t~e Norris project but the surrounding area as ~ell ~,ith %,ater for home use and fire protection; also, t~at ~-ith suci~ facilities 132 condominium units ~'ould have a losse~ adverse impact on the underground ~'ater supply than if the Norris parcels were developed m'ith single-family homes on one-acre plots a~d served by ~'ells and cesspools. H e also stated that it would be economicall), feasible to install a central %'ater supply system and sewerage treat;,%ent plant only if they ~ere to serve multiple d~elling units, and that Lake ~,farat~oka %vould not be adversely affected t~,ereb}. Robert Krudop, ~ho is engaged in the %ater conditioning business and ~h~ has had extensive experience in ~esting %ells and analyzing the underground water supply for n~any Pesidents in ~he ~,~attituck area, also testified that the construction of single-family homes on the Norris prol)er~y ~ould have a deleterious effect on the underground ~ater supply. He stated ~ha[ developr,~ent of the property v,,ith 13~ multiple residence units, served by a central water supply system a~d sc¥,,erage ~rea~2~unt plant, %ould be most ad%'antageous to the comn~t,~iry's ~'ater resourcus. The testimony of these experts made it abundantly clear that ~he ~'e-zonirlg of the premises in question {o permit thc construction of ~ahltiple residences promotes the puOllC h~alth nnd ~encral ~clfnrc of the C~umunity. A25 l;ith respect to the plaintiffs' contention that tacit respective properties have been adversely aff~;cted by the re-zeroing, only ;~,.lr. Brooks, !,Irs. Dove and Mr. Lascelle gave testimony. ,Mr. l;rooks acquiroJ title to .his property in 19GA; Mrs. Dove aad :,~r. Lascolle acqnl£ed theirs in 19GD. /'he Brooks and Dove pz'opcrt~es lie bet%eon the north,~,rly line of the re-zoned Parcel I and New Uuffolk Avenue, their lots being appruximatol~ lkO and 225 feet wide, respectively, and about 200 feet deep. :,lr. Lascelle's property lies approximately 300 feet southwest of the re-zoned Parcel II, is 44 feet wide and extends southerly frur.~ a private right of way 577 feat to l>econic Bay. I~ is improved with a 53 year old two-family house fronting on the Bay and in good condition. The Brooks with one-family residences, both over condition. Mr. ~rooks and 31rs. ~ove and f~ve properties are improved 60 years old but also in good testified that the erection of condomin- tums on the Norris property would adversely affect the enjoyment of their properties by reason of the increased traffic o:~ N~w Suffolk Avenue and the resulting noise. Mrs. Dove also felt that hep wgll ~ater supply alight be reduced, ethel' than describing their properties, and Mr. Brooks' stare- meats regarding the proxintity to the shopping area and available public transportation facilities, no further testimony %,as elicited frora these plaintiffs. John Glander, n real estate broker and appraiser ~ith 10 years ~f experience, testified on bchulf of the plaintiffs that in his opinion their properties were rednccd in value by 10% upon the adoption of the re-zoning amendment and ~ould be rcdttccd by 15% additional %ht'n construction of the A26 condomit~iums was commenced, by reason of their decreased privacy, iIowevcr, on cross-examination he displayed a l%ck of kno¥,lcdge about propel'ties ir~ the ~lattituck area and in the Town of ~ou'~hold genc~'all~ that was quite surprising'. His opinion %as unsupported by al~} sales made in areas near art) of the seven condominium projects in dastern Suffolk County and represeatod nothing more thall his personal estimate. Charles Rogers, a real estate broker and appraiser for niore than 25 },ears, was called b}. the defendants. !lo testified that he had cxa~ainud 25 condominiu~ pro.jeers in ~uf£olk County, including ~hose in kastcrn Suffolk, and that 75 percent or more of thom were located in single-famil) residence neighborhoods, lie found no evidence that the cundu~hinlums had any adverse effect on property values in the nearby single-f0mily residence areas. 3h~. Rogers had examined the I~orris including th~sc of the plaintiffs. the Norris property will cause no property and man~ properties in the area, In his opinion, condo[,~iniums upon diminution l~l ualue of any or thc plaintiffs' properties. Based upon his testimon.v, this cot, rt cannot accept khe opinion expressed by ~,Ir. Glander, unsupported as it is by nny proof cf sales (see Sa[,mels~ v. ~aiawanaca Urban R~nev, al Agrancy., 34 A.D. 2d 369, 311 N.Y.5. 2d 55B; ]~l'edenbur~h v. State uf N.Y., 26 A.D. 2d ~6G, 274 2d 708). _ssentially, plaintiffs' objection to the re-zoning is based upon their desire that the status quo be maintained i: the neighborhood. They ;:refer that its rural character be cot,tiuued. However, as the Court of Appeals stated in Rod,~eI's v. Village of Tarr~to~n, .'{02 N.Y. 115, sub)re, at A27 "b'hile sLability and regularity are undoubtedly essential to the operation of zoning plaus, zoning is by no means static. Chan_~,3d or changing conditions call for changed plans, and p~l'5~n5 ~ho partick~lar zone or use district enjoy no eter,'ally right to that clus~ificatioi, if the public int~rust design,is otherwise. Accordinglys tile p~%~er of a (town) to av:c~td its basic zoning ordinance in such promote the genera[ welfar~ cannot be questiun'.d. Just clearly, ducision as Lo h~% a conm:~ni~y sh~ll be zoned rezoned~ as to ho%v various properties shall be classified or reclassified, rests ~izh [h,~ local legislaLive body; its judgment and determination w%ll be conclusive, beyond iuter- ference from thc courts, unless sho%n to be n).'bitrsry, and the burden of establishing such arbitrariness is imposed upon him who asMert~ it." The adoption of thc ar,~endment by c:~e 7o'~'a ~3oa~'d rezoning the subject premises was a legislative act. As such, it is presm,~ed to be valid. (Levitt v. In(:. Village ,.,f k;ands Point, O N.k. 2d if{g, 1E9 N.7.S, 2d 212; see also Anderson~ N.Y. mo~in~. Law and 2ructico, Vol. 1, ~.0~ ). And as the Court of Appeals declared ill bllepard v. Villa:.~e o£ '.,kan:.,ateics, 300 N.%. 113, page 118: present rests the burden of showin~ that t!'~,, re~;ulation assailed is not justified u~der the police p~tYei' of the state by any reasonable interpretation of ~hc facts. 'If the validity of tile legislative classifica'tion for zoning purposes be ~irly debatable, the legislative judg~ sent must be allowed to control' ." (dmphasis supplied). Indeed, the burden resting upon the plaintiffs was to establish the invalidity of the a~endment beyond a reasonable doubt (l%lg~ins v. lown of y.rs, 4 N.Y. 2d ~15, 1711 N.Y.~J 2d ~,79, 592; koff v. Villn~e of Flover Hill, cd A.D. 2d 655, 286 N.~ .S. 20 63~, aff'd 28 N.Y. 2d ~}£,4, 320 N.i.$. 2d 747). -! The Town Board ~-as not l'~quired, as cu£1CeIlded by ~laintiffs, to ~,,~t , m~a~,e had been made in enacting ti~e revised ~Joning on November 23, 1971 or that a change had occurred since the enact- A28 sent thereof in the character of the area in which the re-z,~nod property is located. C,IcCabe v. 'lown of 9yster ~a,~, 13 A.D. 2d .979, Pt7 N.¥.3. 2d 163; Levitt v. Village of Sands Point, 6 A.D0 2d 701, 17,1 N.\.$. 2d 283, aff'd 6 N.Y. 2d ,o69, i89 N.Y.S. 2d 212). t, or ~ns it required to show an ii~,~.edt,~te need for multiple residence accommodations, as plaintiffs contend. Buckley v. Fasbender, 1 N.Y. 2d 6~.1, 150 N.Y.S. 2d 204, upon ~hlch they rely, dues not support their contention. 'ina. To%~n Eoard, after study and considers- lion, made a legislative determination that a multiple residence district in !~.attituck was nocessar5 to meet the present and reasonably forseeable needs of the community in accordance v. ith the cor.prehensive plan. determination will not be thwarted ualess shown to be unreasonable and arbitrary. The burden of showing same ~as upon the plaintiffs, a burden which they failed to sustain. In Udell v. Haas, 21 N.~. 2d 463, the Court of Appeals said, at page 469: "The thought behind the requirer,;ent (that zoning conform to a eo~,prchensiYe plan) is that con£iduration must act for thc bcnofit of [hu commu,lty ~ a whole fu]luwinga calm and deliberate considerat~un of thc alternatives, and not because of the whl~s of either an articulate minorit} cr even ma3ority o~ thc communi[}. (~e~ena v. Quld~, 2~ A.D. 2d 165, 265 ~.Y.S. ~d And at page 470: "Where a community, after a careful and deliberate review of 'the present and reasonably forseeable needs of the community', adopts a ~eneral development pollc~ for the community as a ~hole and amends its zoning law in accordance with that plan, courts can have some COllfid- ence that the public interest is being A29 Ample evidence has been presented that the 3own Board adopted the re-zoning amendment after careful study and consideration of the community's need., for multiple residences in ~lattituck. It referred the petition to the Town Planning Board and received its recommendation of approval. It visited the Norris propcrt> and tilt. surroundi~}g area, noted that there was no public wmter supply or sewerage s~stem nearby, and made population studies and 1)rooections (testimony of Councilmnn ~marcst).'ihe Town Board had before it and considered an environmental stud5 prepared by Horace %~ells, ~a envlrunmental consultant formerly with the New York btmte ~p~rtment of Environmental Control, who reported to it (~nd testified on tho trial) that the .Norris condominiums ~ould hav~ no harmful effect upon the environment. It also had before it the Engl?eeringf I~cpor~ on hater and Sewerage prepared by hydrology mild sewerage engineer Samuel ~cLendc~n, and a traffic study by John A. Jacobsen Associates. ~ublic ~earin~were held and more than 8 months elapsed between the,filing of the petition and the adoption of the amendment, %'lin the reasons for forth. Since the action tal:en %%'a~3 at the very the court will not interfere there¥.'lth. the Duard's action being set least "fairl} debatable':, to their thereof. and diminution Plaintiffs have failed to prove any "significant economic injury" properties or that they will be deprived of the reasunable use Intangible damages, such as noise emanatln~ from increased traffic of tile [)rivac~ and rustic atmosphere of their present noighbor- hood, merit aff'd Ierm, does not suffice to overcome the presumption of validity of the amend- (Randolph v. Town of Brookhaven, 45 A.D. 2d 1046, 358 N.Y.C. 2d N.Y. 2d , reversing a contrary unreported decision a: ~puciml Suffolk Co., dated July 26, 1973). Plaintiffs' reliance on the A~O Declsion of Honorable Gordon M. Lipetz (pp. AT-A30) unreported decision in Goodrich v. q'o~,:n of ~ou~ha:,apt~n (~up. Ct. ~uffolk Co., 2/7/75) ~ith respect to the necessity for an environmental study prior to re-zoning is misplaced, said decision havin~ been ruvcrmed on appeal (Goodrich v. Town of Uouthampton, 48 A.D. 2d 921, 3'70 I;.Y. 2d 15). Nattin Eealt¥~ Inc. v. Ludewig, 67 }~isc. 2d 828, 324 N.~.S. 2d ~Gg, aff'd 40 A.D. 2d 535, 334 N.~.U. 2d 4a3, a£f'd without opinion 32 N.i. 2d 881, 343 N.Y.S. 2d 380 is inapposite here, an environmelltal study having been made and the /'oma Board havin[~ determined that the condominiums ~ould not be harmful to the environment. Accordingly, the court concludes Ordinance was validly enacted pursuant to that the amendment of the Zoning its applicable provisions and those of the Town Law and Suffolk County Charter, and in accordance with the comprehensive plan of the 'i'own of Louthold to pron',otc its general welfare. /he Town Board's action %vas neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Judgment is therefore granted in £avor of defendants dismissinu~ the complnin~. The foregoing constitutes the court's decision pursuant to CPLR §4~lUb. Submit 3udgment. i ORDOr, I !.IP Z THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS HAVE BEEN HADE IN THE COURTS COPY A30-1 CORRECTIONS TO TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL Please note that the following listed corrections have been made to the original transcript herein, which has been filed with the Clerk, Appellate Division, Second Department. Ail of these corrections were agreed upon by the attorneys for the respective parties hereto. 1. Page 7, Line 20: 2. Page 7, Line 21: 3. Pag~ 7, Line 22: 4. Page .8, Line 21: 5. P~e 10, Line ii: 6. Page 1%, Line 16: 7. Pa~e 13, Line 19: 8. Page 17, Line 19: 9. Page 18, Line 5: 10. Page 85, Line 21: 11. ~age 88, Line 22: 12. Page 89, Line 19: 13. ~age 124, Line 6: 14. ~age 152~ Line 6: 15. Page 177, Line 22 16. page. 177, Line 23 17. ~age 192, Line 10 The words "it within" should read "not use". The word "by" should read "under". The word "had" should read "has". The word "is" should be placed between the words "or immaterial". The word "approval" should read "approved". The word "Southold" should be placed between the words "the Planning". The words "Town Board" should read "Plaintiff". The words "I didn't realize" should be deleted. The word "connote" should read "promote". The word "$eacamp" should read "Camp". The name "Leeney" should read "Aline". The name "Albert A." should read "Lawrence". The word "Forward" should read "Farwood". The words "MR. ESSEKS" should read "A.". : The name "Halsmacher" should read "Holzmacher". : The name ~'McMurro" should read "Murrell". : The words "Kettle Hole" should read "Scuttle Hole". A3O-2 18. Page 206, Line 20: 19. Page 21~, Line 20: 20. Page 220, Line 7: 21. Page 236, Li~e ~0: 22. Page 240, Line 8: 23. Page 240, Line 12: 24. Page 251, Li~e 19: 25. Page 259, Line 5: 26. Page 291~ Line 14: The word "Forrest" should read "Norris". The word "Kierney" should read "Piernie". The name "DeMarest" should read "Demarest". Change"" after the word "before" to a comma and change "_When" to "w_hen". The word "ground" should The name "Ehlers" should The word "a" should read read "grown". read "Ah lets" o "your". The word "don't" should be placed between the words "I think". The words "hay ground" should read "Hay 27. Page 292, 28. Page 329, 29. Page 343, 30. Page 343, 31. Page 358, Line 23: Line 23: The Line 22: The Line 23: The LiTe 14.: The the L~e 3: The Line 14: The Line 13: The Ground". The word "and" should read "as". word "go" should read "got". word "Mrs" should read "Mr". word "Mrs" should read "Mr". word "go" should be placed between words "can into". word "all" should be removed. word "Argonne" should read "Oregon". numbers "2,378" should read "238". 32. Page 369,. 33. Page 378, 34. Page 382, 35. Page 407, Line 36. Page 407, Line 37. Page 4077 Line Line Line 38. Page 427, 39. [~ge 455, 3' The name "Hewshug" should read "Ahlers- Hellman". 7: The name "Ehlers-Hellman" should read "Ahlers -Hellman". 12: The name "Ehlers-Hellman" should read 15: "Ahlers-He 1 lman" . 22: Line 15.: The word "to" should read "of". Line 12.: The word "McGruber" should read "Max Gruber". A~o-~ 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47. 48. 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 Page 455, Line Page 456, Line Page 458, Line Page 461, Line Page 466, Line Page 466, Line Page 496, Line Page 510, Line 6: Line 11: Page 516, Line 4: The Page 522~ Line 11: The Page 534: Line 14: The Page 552: Line 6: The Page 559, Line 10: The Page 586, Line 10: The Page 609, Line 3: The Page 622, Line 18: The Page 634, Line 1: The Page 636, Line 1: The Page 636, Line 21: The Page 677: Line 17: The Pa~e 688, Line 4: The Page 691: Line 19: The Pa.ge 691, Line 21: The "in 63. Page 692, Line 64. Page 705, Line 65. Page 707.: Line :':The word "ionized" Page 534, Line 8 21: The word "Shallock" should read "Celic". 13: The word "zoned" should read "owned". 9: The word "Saland" should read "Celic". 14: The word "site" should read "size". 9: The word "filed" should read "plead". .10: The word "file" should read "plead". 8: Insert the word "tast~'in the space indicated by "--" The name "Julanne" should read "Jule Lane". word "attempting" should read "testing". word "Julanne" should read "North". word "producing" should read "produce". name "Kreb" should read "Graeb". name "tufton" should read "Lupton". word "graft" should word "Towns" should name "Terry" should read "gravity". read "hamlets". read "Piernie". word '~We" should read "He". word "set" should read "sent". word "no" should read "not". word "not" should be removed. name "Seelick" word "dietary" words "I'm the should read "Celtc". should read "advisory". acquarian" should read the acquisition" 22: The word "Consultant" should read "County Agent". 12: The name "Zohofskie" should read "Zuhowski"o 17: The word "Elias" should read "Etijah's Lane". should read "de-ionized". A30-4 66. Page 745, Line 1: 67. Page 771, Line 7: 68. Page 772, Line 4: 69. Page 798, Line 15: 70. Page 805~ Line 10: Line 18: 71. Page 833, Line 8: 72. Page 833~ Line 15: 73. Page 833, Line 16: 74. Page 833, Line 16: The word "being" should read "bring' ". The words "out of" should read "have". The word "Point" should be inserted between "Lupton and". The word "deposition" should read "definition". The word "sight" should read "site". The name "DeMarest" should read "Demmrest". Under Cross column, add the figures "790". Add the name "Charles Rogers". Under Direct column, add the figures "811". A30-5 ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS Page 245, Line 6: Page 448, Line 1: Page 809, Line 13: The letter "A" should be omitted. The word "barter" should read "barometer". The letter "s" should be added to the word "building" and the word "pit" should be omitted. EXCERPTS A31 OF TESTIMONY OF NEWMAN, WELKER & DeMAREST rezoning shows that one of the boundaries is along the property. MR o LARK: It is contiguous, your Honor. MRo LUNDBERG: Yes, I will stipulate to that o THE COIRtT: Mark it. (Reeve Deed received and marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 20 in evidence .) 117 GERALD N E W M A N, 56 Quail Run, East Islip, New York, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: Mr. Newman, what Chief Planner with DIRECT EXAMINAT ION BY MR. CUDDY: Q A is your occupation? the Suffolk County 1966. Department of Planning. Q How long have you been engaged particular pos it ion? A Chief planner, approximately sure of the date on that. q Would you tell us your background? in that I 'm not Newman - direct 118 A De partment titles and classifications, performing many functions and duties. A great amount of those duties relate to review of zoning actions. I have a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Syracuse University and Master's Degree in Planning from the University of Mississippi. Q Mr. Newman, did there come a time in or about October, 1973, that the Suffolk County Planning Department received a request to review the Petition for Rezoning of the Norris Property? A Yes, sir. Q Now, pursuant to the did the Planning Commission take any action on that applicat ion? A Yes, they did. Q In connection -o MR. LUNDBERG: I object to the question and ask the answer be stricken. That the witness is not a member of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. THE COLRRT: Read the question° ~he last question read back by the Well, I work for the Suffolk County of Planning since February of 1963 in various Suffolk County Charter, A33 Newman direct 119 Reporter as follows:) Now, pursuant to the Suffolk County Charter, did the Planning Commission take any action 'on that application?" THE COURT: If he knows. I will allow his answer to stand. Do you know that they did? THE W~NESS: Yes, sir° I was present at that meeting. MR. LUNDBERG: Except ion. Q Mr. Newman, in connection with the action that was taken, did you make any recommendation? By "you," I mean the Planning Commission° A Yes, the staff in the Suffolk County Planning Commission did make a recommendation. Q What was that recommendation? A The recommendation was to -- was a disapproval° Q What action was taken by the Commission after you made the recommendation? A After dua study and deliberation by the Planning Commission on the matter, they decided to disapprove it. Did there come a time, on or about November 8th, A34 Newman - d±rect when you transmitted a letter to the Chairman of the Town of Southold Planning Board concerning this app licat ion? A are marked Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 your signature that appears A Yes, sir° Is each of those Mr. Newman? A Yes , original copy was Yes, sir. Would you identify, if you would -- these (handing) o Is that on those letters? exhibits the same letter, sir, except for the letterhead on the. sent to Mr. Wickham, the Chairman of the Town Planning Board. Do those letters contain the reason for q disapproval? A q Yes, sir. Mr. Newman, if you know, would you give us the reason that the Suffolk County Planning Commission disapproved the Norris Application? MR. LUNDBERG: Object ion. THE COURT: Are they in the grounds 120 MR. LUNDBERG: it is not the letter? i object on the Suffolk County Planning A35 Newman - direct 12 1 C ommis s ion. THE COURT: I'm sorry? MR o LUNDBERG: I object on the grounds that it is not the reasons of the Suffolk County Planning Commission° I'm not objecting that Mr. Newman suggested or the reason or that his staffs' reason, but I'm drawing a distinction based upon that ease that we discussed earlier on what the Commission did. TH~ COURT: Well, who disapproved. this, the Co~nission or the staff or you or whom? THE WITNESS: Planning Commiss ion. THE COURT: did they state their disapproval? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE W %%NESS: THE COURT: recite it? The Suffolk County And in the letter reasons for the Yes , s ir . Is it in the letter? Yes , sir. Why does he have to Newman - direct 122 Q disapproved ? A Q Are those the reasons that the Commission Yes, s ir, THE COURT: All right. Mr. Newman, would you please identify these exhibits which are behalf of A docuraents marked Exhibits 10-A and 10-B on the Plaintiff? Yes, sir. These are the Master Plan of the Town of Southold. Are these the documents to which the Planning Commission referred at the time that it rec ommmnded disapproval? A Yes. In particular an insert that in the jacket, in the back of one of these report? a map? THE COUR~: Is it appears reports. part of the THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: What is the document, THE WITNESS: DEVELOPMENT PLAN, Town of Southold. Raymond and May Associates, dated June 6th. Mr. Newman, in your opinion, is the rezoning A37 Newman - direct 123 of the Comprehensive Plan? A No. subject Norris Property in accordance with that MR. LUNDBERG: I object, your Honor, to this witness giving his opinion, that he hasn't been called as an expert. MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may I be heard? My name is Alfred Jackson. I'm with the Suffolk County Attorney's Office. THE COURT: Well, how is the County of Suffolk involved here? MR. JACKSON: The County is involved in that Mr o Newman represents the Planning Commission and I had been advised by Mr. Newman that it is the intention of ~. Lundberg to challenge an action of the Commission, even though we are not made a party to this proceeding. Both Mr. Cuddy and Mr o Lundberg had served the Planning Commission with subpoenas last week requiring testimony. I had talked with both of them concerning the nature of the subpoenas and the nature of the testimor~ that they A38 Newman - direct 124 were going to require. I've been told by both of them that they required Mr. Newman to identify records of the Commission and the action taken by the Commission with which I have no quarrel. I now under- stand that based upon the Forward Decision of Judge Geiler that it is the intention to challenge the action of the Commission. The Suffolk County Planning Commission has not been made a pa~:ty to this proceeding and, on behalf of the County, I object tm an action now being taken by }ir. Lundberg to challenge an act of the Suffolk County Planning Commiss ion. TH~ COURT: Do you wish to be heard ? MR. LARK: Your Honor, Mr. Lundberg'$ objection was to the witness rendering an opinion since there's been no establishment of him as an expert. That's the objection that's before the Court right now o T~E COURT: Al! right, I will A39 Newman direct 125 sustain ~the objection. MR. CUDDY: Your Honor, if I may, I had asked him how long he's been with the Suffolk County Planning Department. I had asked him how many years he's been with the Suffolk County Planning Commission. He indicated he had been -- THE COURT: I don't know whether he was just sitting on a chair all that time. I don't know what he's been doing with the Commission. There's been no tes t imony. MR. CUDDY: Your Honor, I think he also indicated that he has a Master's Degree in Planning. THE COURT: That's right. I don't know what his Master's Degree is in, whether it's in Psychology or in Planning or in what ? Mr. Newman, you testified that you have a Master's Degree. Will you tell the Court, please -- A P lann lng o -- what subject matter? Az+O Newman - direct 126 A P lann lng. THE COURT: THE W I~NESS: THE COLRIT: What kind of Planning? Comprehensive Planning. Is this Mechanical Planning or Development Planning? THE WITNESS: Development Planning, I think, would be an appropriate term. Mr. Newman, did you testify that you have been employed by the Suffolk County Planning Department for more than ten years ? A Yes o Q Would you tell us what you do in connection with your employment? A As of January 1, 1969, I review and present zoning actions that are submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission in accordance with two Sections, 239L and M of the General Municipal Law and also Article 13, Section 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Cbarter o THE COUP, T: How many applications have you reviewed? THE WITNESS: During the course of years we average approximately 2,000 applications v Sometimes less, sometimes more, Newman - direct it varies. THE COURT: did you look at? TME W 1TNESS: and every one of them.' How many of those I looked at each ~E~,.o LUNDBERG: If your Honor please, could I approach the Bench with Counsel? TH~ COUILT: Yes. (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.) MR. LUNDBERG: I would like it on the record that this is a stipulation which relates to Mr. Jackson concerning the subpoena of btr o Newman. He has relieved me of it to the extent that questions are permitted by Mr° Cuddy, is that correct? MR° JACKSON: That's correcto THE COURT: All right. Q Mr. Newman, of this property, is it 127 A No. Q Would you give us the basis for that c onc lus ion ? in your opinion, the rezoning in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan that you just lookmd at? Ab, 2 Newman - direct 128 A The Raymond and May Associates Development Plan of the Town of Southold, dated June, 1967, designates the subject property for low density, single family re s ident ia 1 deve lo pment o Q Do you have any other basis for your opinion as it is not in accordance with that particular p lan ? A Well, the plan itself is self-explanatory in that it designates the subject property and the nearby areas for low density single family residential c las s if ic at ion. MR. CUDDY: That's all the questions I have o CROSS-EXAM INAT ION BY MR o LUNDBERG: Q Mr. Newman, do you have with you a copy of the records of the Suffolk County planning Commission or Department which were subpoenaed? A Zerox copies of everything we could reproduce, excluding the map, the aerial photos, other information that might have been used at the Planning Commission Meeting. We were unable to reproduce them and I gave the original copies to Mr. Jackson -- which he has forwarded A~3 Newman - cross over to the Court. Unfortunately, it's been lost. Q As I understand it, pursuant to the subpoena you sent another copy, including all the maps, aerial photographs or Mr o Jackson did, and between the building over there on the twelfth floor of the H. Lee Dennison Building and this building over here, they have disappeared? A It's my understanding that Mr. Jackson forwarded the complete copies. What happened -- the original file plus Zerox to it, I have no idea° MR o LUNDBERG: I ask the Clerk or not he received it? I didn't receive whether THE CLERK: anything. THE COURT: A call came ~o my in Southampton yesterday inquiring received Chambers if I had received it o I have nothing o MR... LUNDBERG: I offer -- I don't really care if I offer this only for identification, your Honor° It's really no evidence, but I think just to show that there was a letter sent out by Mr o Jackson 129 A44 Newmau - cross 130 Q report that A Q is on transmitting these documents and it is addressed to you at Special Term, Part III, Hauppauge, New York, and I'm willing to proceed with what Mr. Newman has o THE COURT: This is a letter that was sent to me? MR. LUNDBERG: Yes, Siro And I know that Plaintiffs subpoenaed the same documents. But, apparently, some of them have been lost. THE COblLT: this for identification? MR. LUNDBERG: Yes, THE COURT: Mark t ion. Do you want to mark' please o it for ident if ica- (Letter sent by Mr. Jackson received and marked Defendants' Exhibit F for ident if icat ion on ly .) You have before you now, the rest of you could duplicate? Ye s, s ir o And is it file with the Department of planning, the Including the maps. a true and accurate copy of what is that correct? A45 Newman - cross 131 A Ye s, s ir. ~Rt. LUNDBERG: evidence o THE COURT: MR. ESSEKS: THE COURT: What are the MR° ESSEKS: I offer it in Show it to Counsel. No objection. Mark the documents. documents ? Your Honor, they apparently are the worksheets including copies of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, including a copy of the Petition for the Rezoning, correspondence between the surveyor and the Town Clerk's Office, the Town Planning Board, copy of the Covenants that will be discussed hereafter, just the worksheets for the County Planningo THE COURT: All right, mark it. (Documents received and marked Defendants' Exhibit G in evidence°) CROSS- EXAM IlqAT ION BY MR. LUNDBERG: (continuing) Q Mr. Newman, that file was said to you, initially, but it includes not only what includes documents sent Ab, 6 Newman cross 132 to you subsequently by the Town of Southold, correct? A Q is that Yes, s ir. Now, I ask you to look at Exhibit G, the last report, now, that that correct? A Q is a report prepared by you, is Yes, sir° And I call your attention at the very beginning where it says "Description and Analysis," and the proposal is to erect 132 condominium units, 33 buildings each containing four living units on 27.7 acre parcel at a density of 4.765 dwelling units per acre. A Yes, sir. Q That's computed 4.765? A I believe that was submitted in the plans. That was a direct quote, I believe, from the application. Apparently, when the staff prepared the report there was some minor disagreement as to what the actual density was. I see by information in the file that in the Petition submitted it indicates that the overall density was 27°6 acre parcel is 4°678 units and the staff report here we have 4°765. I believe it's a question of the exact density computation, which relates to the rounding Ab,.7 Newman - cross 133 of the acreage of the subject property. I think the difference is somewhat insignificant and minor, It's question of tenths of an acre here. Q A a THE COURT: Ordinance provide as the exhibit number ? THE CLERK: your Honor. Would you look at that Page THE COUR~: What's MR. LUNDBERG: with 1,001. It's Yes, sir. I have Do you have that Ordinance What does the to density? What is Plaintiffs' Exhibit 11, 10.,052. the Page? 10,052o It starts actually Page 52° it o in your office? Yes° We have this particular Ordinance at this time. I'm not sure whether or not we had this Ordinance at the time this application was reviewed. Q And do you know that this application calls for a Public Water System? A unit density o A Yes , Yes , s ir . And would you look at Section 100-116 dwelling sir° be ? Newman - cross 134 And tell us what the permissible use would A I have prepared some computations on that o In accordance with Section 100-116 of the Town Zoning Ordinance with water and sewage system being provided on the subject property at a permitted 6500 square foot of lot area per dwelling unit, would permit 6.2 umits per 40,000 square feet of lot area or 6.7 to use an acre which means, in this case, for the 27.683 acre parce 1, 185 dwelling units° that the maximum density permitted would be Mow many acres have THE COURT: you got? THE WITNESS: property is 27.683 and sewer. THE COURT: maximum density? THE WITNESS: I don't water. I believe the subject acres. Without water What would be the said was to Q No. The application you have have Public Water. 185 dwelling units. know if you want a figure without A49 Newman - cross 135 A Staff Report A A That's correct. Now, I ask you to and ask you Item 2 ? Report? if Item 2 TH~ COURT: (continuing) Item 2 of You say that the look at Page 2 of your is correc:? This is of the Staff ThlE WITNESS: Yes. I'm sorry. the Staff Report. erection of 132 units will exceed the permissible -- A Oh, I see you're on the second page of the' Staff Report° A I~m sorry° I thought Apparently, staff, at the time this report was interpreted using Section 100-40A2 .. said that° as relates to Item 2, the prepared, bad on Page 10,029 to mean that four per 40,000 square feet of using the Zoning Schedule dwelling units per acre would be permitted lot area° That was also thau appeared in another Section of the Ordinanceo That it has since come to my attention that since this report has been prepared, Section 100-116 is, in fact, applicable and in that particular computation is in somewhat in error. ASO Newman - cross 136 Q So that the permissible density, as proposed here, would not be exceeded? A That's correct. error Q Your report, in that. Well, I said or the Staff Report is in Q -- in that respect, it's an error? A Yes o And, that is what was submitted to the Planning Commiss ion? A Yes, s ir o THE COURT: When you are talking about -- so I will be clear -- that's 185 dwelling units per acre is incorrect? MR. LUNDBERG: Noo He said, as I understood his testimony -- the Plaintiffs can correct me -- that under the Ordinance, you could put on that 27 acre parcel 185 dwelling units. We are proposing to put 132 B THE COLRIT: Ln other words, the computation of 185 dwelling units is incorrect? ASI Newman cross 137 q that ' s book. 10-B , MR o LUNDBERG: computation° The statement that the permissible dwelling unit is exceeded incorrect. THE COURT: Ail right° You have, I th ink. Well, there is no is before you, a green book, sir, Would you look at Page 7 of that A your Staff Report? A I'm aware of set forth on Page 7. q A pr ov ide Ye s, s ir. Did you consider that at the time you made that locational criteria as Did you consider it? What it says here is there is a need to multi-family units in appropriate locations throughout the Town. We, at the staff level, were certainly aware that there is a need to provide multi- family housing. In this particular case we felt the location was inappropriateo Q Does the language say, specifically, "areas which might be considered potentially suitable multi-family developments are those in the immediate A52 ~ewman - cross service and general vicinity of retail shopping, commerciaI areas"?~ A Yes, sir° Q Does it say, the first sentence, 'The 138 Q But you then concluded that inconsistent with the low density single pattern of zoning in the locale? A Yes , s ir . Q And yet, it's within a half quarters of a mile that correct? it was family res idence mile or three- of the Mattituck Shopping Area, is plan recommended consideration of median density residence uses on various sites sometime in the future when the need and demand for multi-family units develop"? A Yes, sir. Q And did you taka that into consideration when you reviewed this plan? A We are aware of these factso Q Did you mention it at all in your report? A I don't believe -- it was not mentioned, per se, in the report o It might have been discussed in- formally at the meeting° When this application was considered° I do not recall. A We. Il, tha;: wket:her or not: this pa'::: cula::: ;;~rc:=.] lccational criteria sec .'. octh o]' opinic.n we feel that th~: s~bj~.~c:l: comply wit~ desirable L,:~a~:~ona] =~it.?t':.L fam:.ly dev,., lopment. Q Who is "ou::"'? A I'm talkinl! abcut t~e ~t~f.f, Tko. ~t:a::. f act :.on. whe~::e staff. A I jUSt When I ~:e:f~:' 'I:c the st~ff,, [~m ref~_rring t c senior ~;taff personne:., the ]:~pa~tm~n: ])i~ec:or of Planning a;~d other sen[,:~:' ~;t~ff .~ ~etE', ~]~,:~ t here applications are brought b,-':fore Q The Deputy [,irectoz A Yes, s ir o Q And how mar ?.' peolp't,: Jot a~ o)Lnicl2. of Pla~:] ~. Lng' wece =t~yi,:~ ] ~,u in t:he Department of Planning? A Just the D,:l,ut:y ])l:r¢ctor o1:. ?la~.'niag ;.nd the D~rect or, of course. findings w,,.re present:ed I:o the ]!].tn~i2_~; b)lmnJssion, And the PLmning Commis~.: :.o'n re'nc,-"re ~ ~ c[ ~.,: i_s; on on this. they agreec w:kth t:t'-- fin~J.l't~.; Newman - cross 140 Q What happened to Mr. Koppelman? I'm sorry, the Director as well. In other words, if you wanted to ignore A A criter ia, it, you would ignore it? Ignore what ? That statement on Page 7. In accordance with the established planning is the opinion of the staff that multi- development Q in the Town A A sites could be selected upon complete proposals o Well, how many areas of that type exist of Southold ? How many areas? Yes. Well, there are -- I~m certain that certain review and analysis it family development, when it is being proposed should be located in the close proximity to areas of concentrated shopping, areas of public transportation and areas where there are available and necessary community facilities. So the information set forth on Page 7 relates to general location criteria for multi-family development that could be applicable in any community. And we always consider those factors when we review multi-family ~ 7.. A55 Newman - cros s 14] of the zoning pattern, land develop'nent f,attero in t"~e Town that the staff would consider so~ewhat suitable for multi-family development. Q I'm asking how many ar~as? A I have no -- are suitable? difficult question for me to answer° That's a site , A Yes, sir, clarify this o Q Would are ? A Q Did you go down to the Town of Southold .~ A Did I go down to the T,)wn o~ Southold? Q Yes o A As far as what? Q When you were completing the Staff Report. A Did I go out and field check this particulatr is that the question? Yes . A I do not believe I did[ in this case. Q Do you know the Town of So~.thold? to a limited, exten~, let: me you tell me what the mmjor communities The major communities? Yes . A Ma t t it u c k. Q Southoldo A Q apples. A Q Newman - cross You live in what -- I live in the Town of Islip. That's a little different than the Town of Yes, sir. Absolutely. So then, we are not comparing apples and Correct . Ail right. Now, tell me, if you will, the mai or communities A know what community? A be in the Town of Southold? Mattituck, Greenport, Cutchogue. I don't you consider as a major community° I'm asking you what you consider as a major I would think that these communities would considered, relatively, of a major nature. I don't know what you mean when you say "major"? 142 THE COURT: Major in that Township. THE WITNESS: I would think those three communities would be considered major c ommun it ie s o Q How about the Hamlet of Southold? A Southold, fine, if you want to add ...~,,~t"~', AS7 Newman cross 143 Q community" o How about Peconic? Again, Ifm not sure what you mean by "major There is a number of unincorporated hamlets throughout are major or not, I don't use on that basis. the Town of Southold. Whether or not they know what criteria you would THE COURT: of New Suffolk? THE W~ENESS: or community in the Town of Southoldo or not it's considered major or not, I don Jt know. What would you think Unincorporated Hamlet Whether Q Mr. Newman, do you have an independent recollection of the -- excuse me. What time of the did the planning Commission meet on November 7th, A day 19737 The meetings are normally held at 2 o'clock. Do you have an independent recollection of that particular meeting? A Well, I would have to ~;ely on the informa- tion contained in the Minutes of the P!ann~_ng Co~-~nissiono I'm aware of the fact that I did, in fact, present the Planning Commission on this I did attend that meeti~]g and findings of the staff to the particular case for their Newman - cross 144 cons iderat ion. transpired at that particular meeti.ng me to recall. Q Did you meet a man there who was a Planner A Mr. Wells, A if he was present. Specifics or particulars about what is difficult for in Australia? I just don't know. from Australia I do not recall° The gentleman sitting in the back row there, did you see him there? I would have to rely on the Minutes to see Q But you~ own independe'~t recollection -- A I do not recall if he was there or not. I have to rely on the Minutes of the Planning Commission to see who, in fact, was present and who was not° Q So, except for the Minutes you cannot tell us what happened that particular afternoon? A Well, as I mentioned to you before, I did, in fact, present the findings of the staff to the Planning Commission on this particular matter. The matter was discussed and deliberated upon by the Planning Commission after the studies and they decided to disapprove for reasons set forth in the letter sent to the Town of Southold ~ Newman cross 145 Q How much study was given to it? A How much time was given to it? THE COURT: Study. How much study? A Ho~ much study did the staff or the Planning Commiss ion? Q By the Planning Commission. You just testified they studied it and on direct examination you said they studied it. A I do not recall exactly how much time they de 1 iberated o THE COURT: Can you tell us appr ox imate ly ? THE WrTNESS: 20 minutes, a half hour, 15 minutes. I don't knowo I just do Q A would be difficult not know o I 10 minutes ? I do not recall. do not recall° I just don't know° It for me to give you a figure on that when I just Q A would be much Q don't remember° 5 minutes? I don't know o I would certainly think it more time than that. What consideration was given to it by the A60 Newman - cross 146 C omnis s ion~. MRo JACKSON: Your Honor, at this time I believe I must object on behalf of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is not a party Defendant to this litigation. It is apparently now the intent of Mr. Lundberg to challenge the actions of the Co~nission. I think the records of the Commission speak for itself as to the action which it took and I must object. THE COURT: It itself, but that doesn't challenge it o Commiss ion noth lng may speak for say he cannot Well, the Planning is not before the Court. TH~ COURT: Then they have to worry about, have they? MRo JACKSON: They do in an action that they have taken as being challenged as to the validity of an action by them in denying zoning which is now being challenged by Mr. Lundberg° A61 Newman - cross THE COURT: We had an opinion expressed by Mr. Newman, namely, that in his opinion, the rezoning of the Norris Property is not in accordance witb the Master Development Plan. MR o JACKS ON: THE COUILT: cross-examination on THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor o And I will allow it. Again, may I repeat to clarify this? By the staff or the Planning Commiss ion? Q By the Planning Commission. A By the Planning Commission. At the time the 14 7 plan -- A Excuse meo Not 'Would be". There was -- I'm sorry, let me clarify that and aerial photo was hanging on the wall before them indicating the location of the subject property, the outline of the parcel to be rezoned tc an '~M" district application was presented to the Planning Commission= hanging on a bulletin board in front of a large table at which they sit around would be a copy of an aerial photo indicating the location of the subject property, the site A62 Newman cross 148 classification, additional land of the Petitioner, I believe there were 15 acres and I believe also that area where the Petitioner was seeking to apply for a 281 cluster subdivision, the site plan submitted by the applicant, a map indicating land use and zoning within 200 feet of the subject property, a survey of the property, beyond that, as far as visual presentation or exhibits presented to the Planning Commission, I don't believe there were any additional information. The application was available for the Commissions' perusal as they felt warranted, and the staff presented -- read the report to them and elaborated on particular points in their report. Q The staff, you, sir? A Yes ~ sir o period of discussion. No, please. And I would assume there is a How long that period of discussion Don't assume. Tell us. A I just don't recall ho'~ long they discussed it. Obviously ghey did discuss the matter. How long, I do not know. And after due study and deliberation, a motion was made to accept the Staff Report as the report of the Commission and deny it for reasons congained A6~, Newman - cross 149 Q A oral Resolutionoi Q In other words, it was that correct? in that particular report. Is that the Resolution that was adopted? The Resolution was adopted by -- it was an a voice vote, is Yes, s ir. And it was to adopt the Staff Report, is A that correct? A Accept the Staff Report as the report of the Commission and disapprove it for reasons contained in that particular report. Whether or not they modify in some fashion, the reasons, changed them or amended them or formally, I do not recall at this time. Again, I would have to compare the Staff Report with the reasons that were sent to the Town. I beliave it was a day after the Meeting, indicating the decision of the planning Commiss ion. Q What if you would do that right now? Why don't you take your letter of November 8th and Staff Report, have A you got both documents, sir? Yes, s ir. Go down to almost the last paragraph on your A6~ Newman - cross 150 Staff Report and except for where the asterisk is -- A Yes, · Q '~ow it is the belief of the staff that --" then you pick up the word '%~hile"o A Right. '~4hile consideration for clustering concept on the entire land holding of the Petitioner is welcome, no attempt should be made to downzone portions thereof to allow an increased density to effectuate such a land development pattern." Is that what it says? A Corre ct o Q And now, look at your letter, Item NOo 1, it says exactly the same words. A Same reason, correct. Q Now, would you go on and read to yourself the rest of that first paragraph and then compare it with 2, 3, 4 and 5 of your letter. THE COURT: exh ib its ? MR o Lb/qDBERG: THE COUP. T: that? Is that one of the Yes · s ir. What exhibit number is MR° LUNDBERG: I have the whole report A65 Newman - cross in -- I believe that the Plaintiffs' in the letter of November 8th. A 151 put staff were the same reasoning that were adopted by the Planning Commission and sent to the Town the next day. Q So there was no modification? A According to the documentation I have before me, there was none. But do you have the Minutes of the Meeting before you which says that that's what they resolved? Other than to approve what the Staff Report says and to disapprove the application. A Do I have the Minutes? Yes . A I have a copy of the Minutes. Q May I see them? THE COURT: This is the MinuteS of the meeting of the staff or the regular -- THE WITNESS: ~ ~ ~ ...... ~ of the Planning Commission held meeting November 7th, 1973. hmo ESSEKS: If the witness will THE COURT: .That's 6. The reasons set fort by the report in the A66 Newman - croSs 152 Q represent that this a true and correct copy of the Minutes, I will have no objection. I don't kn~ whether they are or not. He hasn't been asked to make that representation° Are they a true and correct copy? MR. ESSEKS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Mark them° (Minutes of the Staff Meeting received and marked Defendants~ Exhibit H in evidence .) THE COURT: Proceed° On page 3, the third item° Q The Minu~es don't give any reasons o A Listing of the reasons in the Minutes? Noo Q And the two people who abstained, Commissioner Gillespie and Commissioner Woods are Members from the Town of Southold, is that correct? A Well, one represents the Town of Southold, Commissioner Gillespie, and btro Woods is an At Large Member of the Planning Commission° He resides in the Town of Southold, correct~ Q Now, according to these Minutes, you did certain other business and in the period of 45 minutes you 1 A67 passed upon 1, that correct? A verify that. Q A Newman - cross 153 2, 3, 4, 5 different applications, is I will have to review the Minutes to S omeb ody, Acc ord ing fortunately, came in at 2:45% to the Minutes, that would appea~ to be the caseo Now, whether or not that's what actually happened, I do not know. In other words, if that is the amount of time that transpired when the Minutes were read, correspondence was considered and an action was taken on the items listed prior to Mr. Lee ariving here in the Minutes at 2:45 p.m. According to the Minutes it seems to indicate that, but I'm not sure whether or not that was the case or not. Q Will you go back to your Staff Report, Mr. Newman, please? Again, the second page of it, Item No. 1o Do you know how you came to that conclusion? A Well, unfortunately I don't have the file with the maps -- in other words the staff did, in fact, refer to particular maps in the fileo Unfortunately, the file is missing at this time, but apparently that particular item was brought to the attention of the Commission because the staff's opinion -- there were some A68 Newman - cross 154 questions as to whether or not in a particular area was or had been counted erroneously as far as density computations were concerned o Q But regardless, the density computation was erroneous anyhow so that it satisfied -- A The proposed density is less than the ~- permitted in accordance with Section 1t6 I believe it was in areas where water supply -~ Public Water Supply and sewage treatment facilities would be provided° Q Now, number three states, the second paragraph, "Change for that seems unwarranted." Is that correct? A We foresaw no reason why it was necessary to rezone that particular parcel of land if, in fact, the intention of the Petitioner was not to utilize the property for multi-family purposes but for uses -- there were more or less adjoining to and in some instances unrelated to the '%~" dist:.~ict classification. More particularly here I think we mentioned single family residences will be located ~n'~" ~!tip!e Residence District. Why is it necessary to r_~zone that portion of the Petitioner's property, if, in fact, the intention was to erect single family residences. We questioned A69 Newman cross that particular point. Q Did you take under Sewage Disposal Plant was not being erected Residential Zone? A it was the consideration that the in a Well, according to the plans intention of the applicant to submitted, locate it -- in an '~" after discussion of the Town Officials -- District rather than an "A" District. What the reason behind that was, I don't know. Q Did you make any effort to find out? A In the absence of any information submitteR in the application, the staff assumes the worst. Q And you never picked up a phone and asked the Town Attorney for an explanation? A If I had to phone on each of 2,000 applica- tions I get a year, I'd be on the phone day and night. You don't have time to really do this Q job, do you? A ability ~ I review each application to the best of my We have to rely on information submitted-with the application. If it is not submitted and it is unclear, the staff is being advised by the Planning Commission to assume that the worst might transpire° 155 A70 with 1323 Newman - cross 156 Q Mro Newman, how many times have you testified as an expert planner? A Approximately once a year since the inception of the Commission review procedure which was January 1, 1969. For two years we operated under Section 239 of the General Municipal Law, and January 1, 1971, the Commission assumed zoning power in accordance the County Charter provision, Article 13, Section to 1332. Q It's that correct? always in connection with a lawsuit, is Always in connection with one of these lawsuits where the Suffolk County Planning Commission has been involved~. A Well, they have been called in. When they are involved directly or indirectly, I'm the one that represents them and to clarify the file and what transpires at 'Q Have you written A No, sir° information that is in the Meeting and so forth. any treatises on planning? application was referred to C ommis s ion? A Could you tell me the reason that this the Suffolk County Planning Because of the proximity of the parcel in A71 Newman - cross 157 question to the airport. In this Airport. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Q the Airport? A particular premises in question. review. I don't believe there is in the Staff Report~ but I'm sure instance, Mattituck What? Because of the proximity to the Mattituck Airport° Now, in your report, did it also discuss believe there was some mention of the Let me refer to the any particular mention it was brought out. Q All I asked was is it in your report, sir? A It's not mentioned in the report. Q There is no mention of the effect upon an Airport ? A Effect of this rezoning on the Airport? Q Yes . A There is no mention in the report on that bas is , no. Q Now, in your records which would be, I think, Defendants' Exhibit G -- THE COURT: Staff Analysis Worksheet. Do you have a copy of the Petition filed by A72 Newman cross Mr. Norris? A Everything that was in the file, as I mentioned before, was reproduced~ I'm asking do you have it? Q A Pet it ion. Q A Q Pet it ion o self? A Q We have the referral letter, a copy of the Ail right. Now, copy of the Petition. Copy of Exhibit sheets. THE COURT: He just asked about the Pet it ion. Have you got the Petition? Yes, s ir. Would you turn to the second page of the Would you read the third paragraph to your- Starting with "do"? Is that correct? Yes. Now, had you read that at the time your recommendation in the Staff Re oort? A Yes. Isn't it Pet it ion, the reasons '~M- 1" District? you made 158 set forth, right there in the for making this second parcel an A73 Newman cross 159 Q q REDIRECT EXAMINAT ION BY MI1. CUDDY: Q Mr. Newman, at We assumed the worst. Thank you, sir. THE COURT: forth, Mr. Lundberg? Would you show it to the Judge, please? THE COURT: Page 2. MR. LUNDBERG: Third paragraph. What does that set the time that you made the Staff Report, was there Public Water to this site? A I'm not aware of any Public Water Supply System being available in this area. At the time the application was reviewed° MK. ESSEKS: No other questions of the witness, your Honor. MR o LUNDBERG: But you did testify you knew that the applicant was going to A Well, the question is as relates to Paragraph 3, this is a necessary legal requirement. When the staff read that we had no idea where that particular statement came from. You just assumed the worst? A7~ Newman - redirect 160 put in Public Water. THE WITNESS: MR. LUNDBERG: THE COUR~: step down. MR. LUNDBERG: five minute break, THE COURT: Yes, s ir. No further questions o All right, you may Could we take a your Honor? Yes . MR. CUDDY: Your Honor, call Professor Welker. P la int iffs J 0 H N R. W E L K E R, 55 Knollwood Drive, Southampton, New York, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINAT ION BY MR. CUDDY: Q Professor Welker, what is your occupation? A I'm an Associate Professor of Marine Ecology and Director of Marine Operations and Research at Southampton Collegeo Q For how many years have you been so engaged? A This will be my eleventh at Southampton. Will you tell us your educational background? A75 Welker - direct 161 A My undergraduate work was conducted at Oberlin College, graduate work at Western Reserve University, at Hofstra University with Long Island Salt Marsh Ecology, and at the University of Washington with Estuary and Fresh Water which was at and oceanic problems relating to land use q inc 1 uded ? A and South Shores What has your research Salt Marsh Ecology on both of Long Island, in the Puget Sound and pollution. the North Shore late 50's and early 60's, a really three year dredging study in the Town of Southold, of continuous work in monitoring and water quality relationship with primary productivity in estuaries and lakes that serve as the source of water -- fresh water for these estuaries, in the Pacific Northwest and, strangely enough, on Long Island. Big Fresh Pond, Kelly's Pond, Acabonic Harbor, Sagaponic and Georgica Pond, Beaver Dam Lake and other lakes that are incidental to the Peconic Streams. Q Have you conducted any research at the Norris Property? A Yes. Q Are you a member of any professional associa- on Long Island A76 Welker - direct 162 tion? A I~m a member of Limmologists and Ocean -- THE COURT: journals? A the American Society of What was that first THE WITNESS: Li~mology, the Association for the Advancement of Science of Water Pollution Control. Have you published any articles or any This past year in Limmology and Oceanography; of the presently to be Marine Biology o previous year in the United States Fisheries published within the next month in Prior to that, I had published -- with regard to our work in the West Coast, instance of the lake waters affecting we were studying here. Q Professor, were of Tooker, Tooker & Esseks ac t ion ? A Yes . Norris in the particular our estuaries that you retained by the firm in connection with this Q Are you familiar with the site of the Property and its surrounding waters? A77 Welker - direct 163 I am. Can you describe them, The immediate area is please ? located a small lake called Lake Maratooka. It has a depth of approximately 15 feet. I used a scanning fathometer with a recorder. Time did not permit a thorough bathometric study of the lake, but it appears.~t.o be of -- very similar to what one would expect of a kettle hole lake. The Mattituck Creek to the north is familiar to me as is the Laurel Creek to the southeast of the area. We have done extensive work. Our stations range from the Peconic River, that's Station '%~" for McDonald, all the way to Block Island on this particular study, Q Professor, what is the environmental significance of this particular area to the Norris Property ? A I, too, like to use a map. The aerial photograph is helpful. b~o ESSEKS: Your Honor, I wonder if we could place up on the wall one copy of the Zoning Map which is in evidence and which sho~s the property in question. And it shows the bodies o~ water that Professor A78 Welker - direct 164 We lker -- THE COURT: MR. ESSEKS: THE COUtLT: sixth page -- MR. ESSEKS: Zoning Ordinance. THE COURT: Mr. Esseks ? MR. ESSEKS: That's in evidence? Yes , s ir o This is part of that Part of the six page What exhibit is that Exhibit 12. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CUDDY: (continuing) Professor, now that that portion of the Zoning Map is o~ the wall, could you go to that and point out the various waters that surround this property? A The property is located here. Maratooka Lake is located here; that looks like an inlet out there draining into the lake. That would best, though, be considered intermittent drainage° Drainage from where? From the surrounding is a blind drainage. is no outlet from b~aratooka directly THE COURT: THE WITNESS: higher ground. This There We lker direct 165 to the Bay Waters. But very close -- from this area at the north end of the property or at the south shore of the lake near the road, there is a distance of 3,000 feet to Mattituck Creek, which is It is saline, after salinities Souald of around about 27 parts an estuary. in the per thousand salinity. The Deep Hole Creek Extension here is well back up into the land itself° But again, there is no connection. This whole creek experiences the salinities that are typical of Great Peconic Bay which are in normal years 26 to 27,000 parts per thousand. This is true of most of Jones Creek as well. So that saline bodies of water there are 3 in this area plus an extensive marsh development here and two major fresh bodies of water, Laurel and Maratooka Lake. The distance between Deep Hole Creek and the north end of the property is 2,000 feet; the distance between -- of James Creek salt water is 1500 feet and interestingly -- A80 We lker direct 166 MR. LUNDBERG: If your Honor pleases, I'm going to object to the witness reading from something thatPs not in evidence. THE COURT: If you wish to refresh your recollection, p[r. Welker, from your notes in talking about distances and such, you may do that. MR. LUNDBERG: Can we have them marked for identification. MR. CLq]DY: Your Honor, I don't really know if he's going to rely upon th~ distances anymore. I don't believe he's going to rely on the distances anymore anyway. THE COURT: I suggest you give us general information. b~{. CUDDY: THE COURT: Do you want that Mr. Lundberg ? MR. LUNDBERG: S ir . Yes o Ail right. Proceed. marked for identification the I would like to have iL, THE WITNESS: If I may, I could use scale on the map, your Honor, and show A81 Welker - direct 167 how these distances relate. THE COURT: Well, it may save some time for us to use the notes instead of working it out by scale each time o MR. LUNDBERG: Could I just take a look at it? THE COURT: Would you show that to Mr. Lundberg? MR. LUNDBERG: I'd like to have that marked for identification. THE COUR~: for ident if icat ion. ,~11 right, mark that Just stamp a separate piece of paper and clip it onto it. So you do not smudge the Professor's notes. (Professor Welker's notes received and marked Defendants' Exhibit I for ident if icat ion on ly .) THE WITNESS: Then the distance of here from Jones Creek to Matt ituck Creek from salt water to approximate ly o TH~ COURT: salt water is 2500 feet, That's from Jones Creek A82 Welker - direct 168 to Matt ituck. MR o CUDDY: I believe it's James Creek to Mattituck Creek~ 2500 feeto MR. LUNDBERG: When you said "Jones Creek," did you mean James Creek? THE WTrNESS: Yes. Q Professor, are you familiar with the present zoning of the Norris premises for multiple dwelling? A Yes , I am. Q Do you have an opinion as to the impact on the areas surrounding the Norris premises of the development on that premises of at least 132 multiple dwe 11 ings ? A Yes, sir. MRo LUNDBERG: I object to the form of the question. THE COURT: Yes. As to form, I will sustain the objection. Q Ail right, sir, have y~u formed an opinion as to the impact that the proposed multiple dwellings would have upon the property immediately surrounding that Creek. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, James A83 Welker - direct 169 area MR. LUNDBERG: . Same objection. THE COURT: Objection sustained. Professor, will there be any effect of at least 132 multiple dwelling units on the Norris Property on the surrounding area? A Yes. MR. LUNDBERG: Objection, Judge° Affect what? THE COURT: If you wish an opinion from this expert, Counsellor, you must lay a foundation. Q Professor, have you viewed the premises surrounding the Norris Property? A Yes. Q Have you made studies of water and the area around the Norris Property? A In these same notes are data sheets from a very brief look at the lake last week° the best time, perhaps to look at a lake. need a year's study° information exists. This is not You really And in most situations, little I have here a 1938 bulletin by an A84 Welker - direct 170 Ecological Survey of the fresh waters of Long Island. It's my only copy and I don't want to lose it. How do I go about holding~ onto it? THE COURT: One way is to hold onto it. THE WITNESS: But back in those days, there really considering the time and what was required for lake studies. Much of the work we do today really is very sophisticated, I guess I could say ghat. However, even in 1938 from the summer data' of the lake waters from out on the of Lake Maratooka showed that considered an advanced lake. spick it was THE COURT: What does that mean? THE WITNESS: We used the term '~trophication," meaning environment, and in this situation, you would suspect first that this would be cultural enrichment due to the activities of man. This is generally true for Lau ~el Lake; even at that time, Lake Ronkonkoma. TH~ COURT: Is there any sewage Welker - direct 171 going into Lake Maratooka? TH~ WITNESS: Probably not directly unless there were a break in a point or an overflow. One of the ways we look for sewage is by chemical analysis and bacteriologi- cal analysis. The chemical analysis for the lake waters would not indicate direct is reasonably fertile. from this data, suspect lake is mixing, at throughout the winter sewage. The lake But you would not, direct sewage. The this time, and mixes you unless it is covered by ice, and therefore, the dissolved oxygen is uniform from top to bottom throughout t_~e lake at this time. The fact of low nitrogen at this time of the year is relative to the tremendous burst of growth of organism that begins, generally, in February and the uptake by them of nitrogen compounds and phosphorus compou~ds in carbon follows a very distinct peak during the early spring and therefore would expect the nutrient level to be at their lowest following this explosion in A86 Welker - direct 172 Q residences, at area? A We 11, water, this is the within the bas in, numbers, lakes, if you look at the waters Spring and Summer in some lakes, nutrient values, the nitrogen as so to speak. So that in most in the the nitrite trinitrates, ammonia, nitrogen and phosphate values are apt to be very low. This was the case in Lake Maratooka last week. What effect, if any, would the multiple least 132 units, have upon the surrounding since the lake is fed by ground main source, plus surface runoff it's instructive to look at well water in the area and from the consultant engineering -- the engineering consultant report on the feasibility of a Water Treatment Plan and Sewage Treatment Plant for the condominium, I was able, plus from other data that was made available some years ago, three years ago, four years ago, one is able to gather a fairly good picture of at least nitrate concentration in the well water. Recently, ten years ago, eight years ago, perhaps the Public Health Department changed their nitrate requirement from 20 milligrams per liter to 10 milligrams per liter. A87 Welker - direct 173 Any concentration above this was considered harmful, particularly to infant children. In time to come, probably within very few years, that 10 milligram per liter figure will not relate simply to nitrate and nitrogen, but also all forms of nitrogen° In this case, I have checked the wells in the area, both surrounding the lake and slightly to the west and east, or the Laurel Lake, are those wells that exceed or are very close to the accepted limit of 10 milligrams per liter. The reports of the consultant included, for instance, of a well located just north of the lake, south of the road in front of Mattituck High School, the nitrate concentration of well water ~as 8.8, by their laboratories° I took samples with the kind cooperation of five wells surrounding the area -- THE COURT: Meaning the lake? THE WITNESS: Meaning the proposed condominium area. These ~.~ells showed three really ~- two that were well over the 10 milligram per liter nitrate minimum and one that was approaching it and two that were all right. But in short, what this nitrate data means, plus if you take into considera- A88 Welker - direct 174 tion the information that is readily available for the entire North Fork water supply problem, we are faced with a very critical nitrate problem in well water in this area of the North Fork. MR. LUNDBERG: ~I'm going to move to strike the entire answer as unresponsive to the question° TH~ COURT: Yes. Strike ito The question was: What effect or what impact would 132 units on the Norris Property have on the environment and ecology. Is that the question? MR. CUDDY: I think the doctor was getting to it. I asked him, I believe, what effect would those multiple residence have on the surrounding area and on Lake Maratooka and I think he was getting to that point o TH~ COURT: THE WITNESS: All right~ proceed. Then, if we admit the nitrates problem that exists in the fresh water supply of this area, the engineering A89 Welker - direct 175 consultant for the water supply suggests that the lake waters of Maratooka Lake, since they are low in nitrates be utilized as a source and that it would be advantageous to sink the Public Supply Well, that is the condominium supply well, as near as possible to the shore of the What would happen if Using the figures of A terms of consumptive use of 21,600 gallons per day, assuming recharge or 48,000 gallons per day without lake, that were to be done? the consultant, in recharge, assuming that all that water -- originated at the shore of the lake, to drop. However, if to the porousness, soils in which the well was pulling into the surrounding water table. above the mean sea level. the level of the lake would begin it did not drop, it would testify .... the porous quality of these glacial lake lies and to the fact that the lake the waters from the The lake is 3 feet in elevation And there is a balance that exists as long as overpumping does not take plac~, but what would happen if this pumping were to continua, is that nitrates would begin to accumulate in the lake to the point where the natural population which are now living AgO Welker - direct 176 there could no longer survive, and the lake would go stagnant. It would be without oxygen for much of the year° It's difficult to say, except that it would be -- it would cease to be a natural lake and would conform more physically, chemically and biologically to a sewage lagoon. Q Doctor, if the property were developed on a one acre basis -- that is the subject property was developed on a one acre basis with ~,,ells, do you foresee the same problem that you have indicated? A The key to handling problems of this kind is in light density° Q Would you compare, then, the impact of having single family one acre residences approximately 31 in number on the Norris Property with having 132 multiple residence units using Sewage Treatment Plants? A The effect of the predict. So much depends upon Public Water and tertiary tertiary plant is hard to -- frankly, little is known, as yet, about the effectiveness of the long, long pull of tertiary plants in our particular kind of soil, particularly when they are restricted in area to a small area where lagooning, for instance, is not possible. We Welker - direct 177 know what happens if Bay. We know, then, that we are fresh water out. That is not, as there is an outfall, say to the literally pumping I understand it, in- dicated in the plan of the consultant, the engineer consultant o MR. LUNDBERG: If your Honor please, could we have 'that plan put in evidence? He's referring to it quite a bit. He's talking about the plan cf the Consulting Engineer and what the Consulting Engineer has said. He's basing a lot of his testimony on that and whatever it is, I'd like to have it put in evidence. TPiE COURT: Which Consulting Engineer are we talking about? Consulting Engineer to whom? Q Would you tell the Cou~t what consultant you are speaking about? A This is the consultant, as I understand it, retained by Norris Development Corporation, or whatever. The name of the consultant is Halsmacher, McClendon & McMurro. A92 Welker - direct 178 THE COURT: are they? THE WITNESS: MR. CUDDY: Lundberg wants tion, fine. MR. LUI~DBERG: in evidence what about. MR. CUDDY: testifying from it. referring to ito THE COJB~: here ? THE W~NESS: report it ? this report, They are up in Melville, Yes. Your Honor, Mr. to use that on cross-examina- I'd like to have put this witness is testifying I don't think he's I think he's just Do you have the plan MR. I_ARK: by Halsmacher & McClendon? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. LARK: Do you have No, I do noto Have you read this a copy of THE WITNESS: Not in my possession. MR. LARK: Where did you read then, sir? Welker - direct THE WITNESS: This particular report was given to me so I could read it. MR. LARK: MR. CUDDY: MR. LARK: ava ilab le ? MR o CUDDY: one. Ail I'm saying cross-examine him on it~ fine. THE COURT: Identify it offer it. Would you identify this tell the Court what this is. Who gave it to you? I gave it to him. Do you have a copy I assume you have is if you want to and (handing). Please 179 A This is a copy of the report submitted by Halsmacher, McClendon & McMurro concerning the subject property of water treatment and waste treatment facilitieso Q As I understand your testimony so far, doctor, you have referred to this report. Have you testified from that report? A No, I have not. MR. CUDDY: 'Z. our Honcr, would you have that marked, please? THE COURT: Ail right, mark it. A94 Welker - direct 180 Whose exhibit will it be? MR. LUNDBERG: I'd like it aS Plaintiffs' Exhibit, your Honor. This man keeps referring to this report. He says that's what was in it. by the Plaintiff, mark E xh ib it. MR. ESSEKS: not offering it. it be produced. offer it marked don't wish to have If it's offered it as a Plaintiffs' MR. CUDDY: He said twice he hasn't testified from it. THE COURT: All right, for identification. (Consultant Engineer's Report Your Honor, we are Mr. Lundberg asked that Well, we are willing to for identification. We it offered in evidence. that mark it received and marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21 for identification .) MR. LARK: If I might, your Honor, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21 for identification, is that the complete report of ~he Consulting Engineer, Mr. A95 Welker - direct 18 1 McC lendon ? THE COURT: MR. LARK: witnes s. THE WITNESS: I don't know. I'm asking the I have no idea. was~ the report that was shown to me. a typical report prepared -- MR. LARK: I didn't I asked you if it was Tt~E WITNESS: I~R. CUDDY: the Town Clerk° Whatever you had on file. MR. LARK: I asked if it was a THE COURT: lcnoW o MR. LARK: Th is It's ask you that. a full report. I do not know. It's Certified by I didn't ask that. full report. He said he doesn't Does it contain any maps that you read, doctor? THE WITNESS: I didn't pay that much attention to the report other than to see what kind of water facility and waste treatment facilities they had in mind. That's all I needed to knc~. A96 : Welker - direct as to where these 182 Did you pay attention proposed water facility and sewage treatment facilities would be located ? TKE WITNESS: MR. LARK.' without a map? THE WITNESS: From the location on maps that were given me and from other S ou/~cas , MR. LARK: Yes . How could you do that of the reporu that you referred to that you are relying on your testimony? TH~ WITNESS: I'm not relying on the reports on my testimony. The only figure that I have cited was a figure of 8.8. A nitrate value which, in fact, was not originally from that report, but from another report. from? for the Town of Southold conducted some What report THE WITNESS: From a water study five · Were those maps pact A97 Welker direct six years ago. biRo LARK: Did you read that water study for the Town of Southold? THE WITNESS: Yes. FIRo LARK: Did you rely water study? THE WITNESS: I relied for what value on that on the study information I thought would be of Who did that study I do not have such a copy. Who did that study? The firm of Halsmacher, Do you have a copy of Where did you get such 183 THE I assume. FIR. LARK: THE W~NESS: McClendon & Mcblurro. PR ~ LARK: that study? THE W~NESS: personally possess biR o LA~K: for the Town of Southold? MR. CUDDY: Your Honor, what has this got to do -~ COURT: FIR. LARK: This was a voir dire, A98 Welker - direct 184 a study? THE WITNESS: That copy, is a matter of public record. I suspect, report. MR. LARK: THE WITNESS: MR. LARK: Who gave it to you, THE WITNESS: MR. LARK: MR o CUDDY: Where did you read it? I was given the Who gave it to you? s ir? From Mr. Cuddy o "~here is it now? I guess you gave it to me back. Is that the one? MR. LARK: No, no. He's talking about a water study done for the Town of Southold some five years ago, where a water test, which he has in front of him, was exterpolated from and he said he read this study and he took parts of the information that he though were relevant to the subject property in question. I asked who did the study. He said Halsmacher, McClendon. I asked him if he had a copy and if he didn't where is it, that's all I asked. Welker - direct 185 ~o Report that MR o a copy of Table? Cuddy, CUDDY: Is that the Laboratory you are referring to? LARK: Well, don't you have the study there at the Councel THE COURT: MR. LARK: Mr. Cuddy. don't you have a copy? MR. CUDDY: are talking about. MR. LARK: out what the witness He said he's relying used studies to come I'm trying to find MR° CUDDY: your Honor, if Who are you addressing? Mr. I don't know what you I'm trying to find is talking about. on these studies or to his out what conclusion. studies he used. He indicated, I think, I may, that he had come to the conclusion as to nitrate samples THE COURT: b~. CUDDY: I think that's all -- MR. LARK: come from? As to what? As to nitrate sampling. %4here did that sample AIO0 Welker - direct 186 mySe if. THE WITNESS: in front sheet I took those samples That sample you have of you? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR o LARK: You have another of paper in front of you, sir? THE WITNESS: I have three sheets of paper that include nitrate MR. LARK: Where from, sir? THE WITNESS: rThese two different reports. data. did they come are copies from I frankly don't know. and check are? If you 'know. THE WITNESS: I would went to look at the reports the date for you. I'm sure -- MR. LARK: Okay. Now, there are two different reports, is that not correct, sir? THE WITNESS: Yes. b~o LARK: Let's delineate for the Court what report and what date they A1Oi Welker - direct MR. LARK: 187 Would you like to have the opportunity to do so? ~1. CUDDY: Your Honor, is there any particular point in having him look at the report? If Mr. Lark wants to cross-examine him, fine. I'm not sure that he's getting to. THE COURT: to turn this this point. regard to this matter, this McClendon & McMurro Report. offered for identification. for that purpose only. Well, I'm not going into a cross-examination at This is a voir dire with Hals macher, It's been I permitted it DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CUDDY: (continuing) Q Professor, you have indicated the effect upon the lake of having 132 or more multiple units. THE COURT: Is this the well supply very close to the edge of the lake? MR o CUDDY: Yes. Under those same circumstances, would you tell us what the effect would be on the surrounding area ii II I II I I I III A102 Welker - direct 188 aside from the lake? A The problem with high density in reasonably low lying areas as you could describe certainly the Mattituck Inlet, Mattituck Creek Region, all the way to Peconic Bay, the difficulty there is that since there is little overlying fresh water above mean sea level, pumping causes salt water intrusion to take place from underneath and this would be -- for instance -- seen very probably within a few years at the head of the three creeks. They would begin to go salt. The estuarian environment that is so absolutely necessary for the marine organism in our water would very rapidly be changed to a very highly saline, relatively speaking environment. And these organisms then would be lost. The blue claw crab that are just beginning to come back now, would'not be able to breed as successfully in these salty conditions. Cold water and high salinity condition. THE COURT: W-hat would not be able -- THE WITNESS: The blue claw crab is an example and marine organisms that would be affected by overpumping on low lying area. Al03 Welker - direct bRt. CLrDDY: That's all the questions I have, you~ Honor. 189 Lake, what difference would THE WITNESS: would not be solved are concerned, you~ Honor, nitrate problem in so much of severe even though they might that make? Well, the problem insofar as the nitrates because the the area is pick a site where nitrates would b,~ low at the time, that the pulling in of surrounding ground water would very possibly cause high nitrates in short order. THE COURT: Would it be less or would it affect the nitrate situation less if the water supply were back from the lake a considerable distance? THE WITNESS: The whole area is a low lying area° On the Geological Survey Quadrant, all it really is is a green belt. The green, of course, is vegetation here, but it's low and it is a real aquatic environ- THE COURT: Suppose that water supply is quite some d~istance from Maratooka AlOe. Welker - direct 190 ment. The location of the well -- a deep well anywhere in this area would be a problem. It could eventually be a problem. TH~ COURT: Proceed° CROSS-EXAMINATION BY Mit. LUNDBERG: at Professor Welker~ did you go to Oberlin with Mr. Esseks? A Mr. Esseks, no. Q Would it be with his wife? A I didn't know her. I guess we were there at school the same time. Q before ? A Have you ever testified for Mr. Esseks No, THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Lundberg. I didn't get your degrees. All I heard was Oberlin College for your Baccalaureate A Degree and an A and B? Ao Bo My Masters is from Hofstra University° And all my further graduate work was -- THE COURT: Western Reserve, do you have a degree from Western Reserve? AI0S Welker - cross THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Moo The University of Wash ingt on ? THE WITNESS: Yes. That's all of my PhD course work was completed there. Your PhD from the My PhD course completed there. THE COURT: University of -- THE WITNESS: work was fou do not hold 191 THE COURT: a PhD? THE W~rNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE C OUtLT: THE WITNESS: Not yet. Is that correct? Not as yet. Long Island University? Southampton College where I~m a faculty member. THE COURT: May i ask what you teach there? You are an Associate Professor of Marine Ecology? THE WITNESS: Marine Ecology. I teach courses in Marine Ecology and Primary Productivity and Natural Resources, Marine AI06 Welker cross 192 Natural Resources utilization, Conservation, Natural Resources and Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology° THE COURT: Proceed. CROSS - EXAM ~qAT ION BY MR. LUNDBERG: (continuing) Q Would you describe Maratooka Lake as a "scuttle hole"? A Kettle. THE COURT: Kettle hole is north and south of Southampton. Q Would you tell us what a "kettle hole" is? A The term is used to describe a lake or amphitheatre formation in a glacial moraine or out~ash plain. When a glacier receded from the Ronkonkoma moraine and on the South Fork and from the Harbor Hills moraine on the North Fork, it left large blocks of ice and this ice melts and eventually covered over by sediment from the mountain waters from the glacier and after melting leaves -- and oft~_ntimes -- an almost perfect amphitheatre depression. Lake Ronkonkoma, for instance~ is an example of the "kettle hole" lakeo Laurel Lake, Lake Maratooka, Big Fresh Pond in the South A107 Welker - cross 193 Fork is a perfect "kettle hole" lake. Q Does the rainwater sort of tend to fill those lakes up? A They were waters or likelihood. originally filled up by melted And, depending on their drainage, rainwater that seeps ground water table then makes its way into the Q Now, you testified that 132 units its way down through into the lake. on th is particular area, south of the the lake stagnant, is testified to? A lake, that correct? May I clarify? is going to make Is that what you Apparently I didn't make myself clear. I said the utilization of the water of the lake by a well located right next to it, would very rapidly cause immediate changes in the nitrogen budget particularly of the lake. When will it become st.~.gnant? A It would be difficult to say. The point is it could happen within a few years. THE COURT: Well, the notes I have is that it would cause it to be more like a "sewage lagoon"° Did you use that term, doctor? A108 Welker - cross 194 THE WITNESS: Yes. I tried to, as best I can, to describe the condition of physical, chemical and biological condition that would follow such an onslaught of high nitrogen -- literally pollution -- into a basin of this kind. Q Are you familiar with the area lined to the west down in around here, near James Creek? A Yes. Q Are you familiar with the well supply there ? A I would imagine if you are speaking of the low lying land -- of none of the wells that I happen to look at were done in the low lying land there, but I would suspect they would have problemso Q Your wells were all up in the highlands? A No, they were down near the shore, to the s outhwe s t. Q Could you come and show us, sir, where the wells were that you looked at? A Wells in this area, wells in this area and wells ~n this area and also in this area (indicating). Q You looked at some down here in Camp-Mineola? AIO~ Welker ~ cross A Yes. And up right along adjoining? Yes. And you found the quality to be poor? No. I didn't say What did you find I said that three that. the quality, I'm sorry. of those wells were, if I may refer exceeded 10 milligram per reasonably of low -- Q to my notes, were high in nitrates. Two liter standard. And two were Is it common knowledge that the water in that area is bad? A A A Q A Q Do you know, around James Creek? I have no idea° No idea? I mean as common knowledge. Do you know of any studies? From those wells? Yes. No. to get public water James Creek, where, come from? Now, assuming that it would bm d~s~rab]e into that other section like around 195 in your opinion, could such a supply AIIO Welker cross 196 I would A Well, I'm not a hydrologist, and certainly, since I am interested in the fresh water-salt water relationship, I would certainly want to be assured that the origin of that water would be from the place where it was free from surface contamination. That is, preferably, it would be in the layers below the glacial strata in the so-called Magatee strata. in essence on Long Island, is still reasonably Is there anyplace in the Mattituck Area residence could be built and not harm That water, good. Q that multiple the water supply? A I'm not a Planner. I'm very interested, in the effect of what somm planning can have. Well~ didn't you look around at the rest though, Q area, upper northern area? That is a low density area. The North Fork should be iow density. So you are saying that if people want to in the Mattituck Area it must cause a problem of the A in general, live with the water? A Ye s . A!11 Welker - cross 197 Q So a choice has to be made by some people, is that correct? As to whether people have a right to live there or whether we are going to have the water -- A The people should certainly have a voice in decisions that will affect their water supply, yes, that's correct. Q Now, the Halsmacher Report that you referred to, or did refer to, that mentioned the 10 milligrams per liter -- doesn't it? A I~m sure they must have, I don't recall. MR. LUNDBERG: That's all. CROSS-EXAMINAT ION BY MR. LARK: Q You stated you do not have your PhD, is that correct? A That's correct. Q Mr. Welker, what is a limmologist? A The term limmology is a Greek term for a laka and scientists who study lake waters is described as a limmologist. Q What is a hydrologist? You used that term. A A hydrologist is usually -- has his training in engineering and is specifically concerned with water A!i2 Welker cross 198 supply, Maratooka Lake was approximately correct? A A ground water supply. On your direct testimony you stated that 15 feet deep, is that Yes, approximate ly o Did you measure the lake for depth? I used a recording fathometer -- portable recording fathometer. I also went by older record as to the depth of the lake. I found, in my study -- I found no area that was deeper than 15, maybe 16 feet. Q Where, exactly, did you measure with this' fathometer ? A I can give you those c)ordinates. I have those records. Q Roughly, could you point out, in general for the Court? It doesn't have to be latitudinal and 1 ong it ud ina i bas is. A I have those station locations. The area that we generally found to be 15 feet was in this area. That was 15 feet of depth? A Yes. Q When did you get that? A Last week° Q AlI3 Welker - cross How many soundings did you take? Recording a transect. How many did you -- A fathometer moves across the lake and this reads out on a record. Q Is it fair to say that Maratooka Lake is an exposure of the water table in that area? A Yes. Now, you said you checked five wells in the area, is that not correct? A That's correct° Q Could you state to the Court on what property these wells were so that we can have a little more def inity as to the wells that you checked. A I believe ! pointed out the locations. Q Then I missed it, if you did. You have the property owneFs name? A I have well numbers. A A the American Public Health 199 Did you check these wells personally? Yes , I did. What equipment did you use to test them? I followed the procedures as set forth in Association and American Water AI14 Welker - cross 200 Works Association standard methods o This is generally done for health related problems of this kind, micro- biological and water quality problems. I preserved the sample, followed their method and analyzed the samples chemically. Q That's fine, sir. But what did you do? You said you followed a procedure? What did you do? How did you test the water in the well? A Well, in testing well water it is important to allow the water to run for a protracted period of t ime. Q Were the~e tested at houses? A Yes. Q Okay. What house, start there. A ts this all right? I asked -- MR. ITJNDBERG: I'd like the record to show he asked his lawyer whether it was all right. MR. CUDDY: Your Honor, he was conferring about the people who he was concerned as to any confidentiality he might have with those people whose houses he went and visited to get the water° AIlS Welker - cross 201 THE COURT: What's wrong with going to somebody's house and borrowing some water? Milo CUDDY: I think that's the term Mr o Lundberg seemed to think is some- thing else. A Our Well No. 1 was Well No. 2 was the Simicich Residence; Well NOo 3 the Lascelle Residence; Well No. 4 the Dexter Residence; Well No. 5 the Peters Residence. Q Okay o On the Dove Res idence, when did you take your sample? A Precisely it was probably 1530, 1545 on the 10th of April. Q April 10th. on the water spigot and Now, what let it flow correct? A q A A procedure whereby we triple wrench the Dove Res idence; our did you do, you turned for awhile, is that That's correct. Then what did you do? For 5 minutes. Then what did you do? Then, using a triple wrench, we follow all our sampling vessels AlI6 Welker - cross 202 with double distilled water° We have very sensitive equipment because of our work in the marine environment, and we are used to concentration not in milligrams but in micrograms and, therefore, our work has to be extremely careful. Q Well, to save time, did you do some bacteria analysis, or chemical analysis? A Chemical analysis of the water. Is it important, as to the coliform content to water when you are doing a chemical analysis? A It depends on what you are looking for. My interest was in the nutrient content and choloride content. I looked at nitrites, nitrates and ammonia, nitrogen. I looked at phosphates, phosphorus and chlorides. Q What kind of testing equipment did you use to determine this? A We have a $45,000 Technicon Auto Analyzer. This instrument has been in operaticn under my supervision for three years. We run replica samples with the State University of Stony Brook; with the New York Ocean Science Laboratory with the Technicon and when I have a figure, it is a reliable figure. Q Okay. You still didn't answer the question. All7 Welker - cross 203 You said you did chemical analysis. iron on the A Q Res idence ? A A chlorides , Dove Residence ? Noo Did you test for Did you test for manganese on the Dove MOo What did you test for on the Dove Residence? I believe I pointed out I tested for for nitrites. What did you find in chlorides on the Dove Residence? A Low ch lor ides . Q Well, how many parts per million? A 19.55 milligrams per liter. Q What else was the result of your testing on the Dove Property? A The nitrite values were extremely low. Down, as you would expect. What were they? A Seven thousandths of a milligram per liter. That's 00°7, is that correct? AThat's correct o QWhat else did you find? Al18 Welker - cross 204 Q What else did you find? A The nitrate concentration -- nitrate-nitrogen concentration was 7°28 milligrams per liter. Q Did you test for anything else? A The phosphate concentration was 0.160 milli- grams per liter. Q Anything else? A The ammonia concentration was 0.008 milli- grams property? A per liter. Is that all you tested on that Yes o part icular Now, are they all within the U oS. Public Health Standards for palatable water for human consumption? A Yes, Now, you testified as to the wells on the Simicich Property, is that right? A Yes o Q Did you find that the water there was within the tolerance of the United States -- or the Department of Health criteria for palatable water? A Yes. Q And the Lascelle property? AIl9 Welker - cross 205 A High in nitrates. I would want to look again at that sample. What did you find on your initial sample there on April 10th? A 13.16. That's an average of four replicas. Q And on the Peters Property? AAgain, high nitrates. Well, what was that nitrate? A 14.7. Q Whereabout is the Peters Property on the map? The other people are Plaintiffs, I believe the Court knows where they are, but the Peters are not Plaintiffs o A That's in this area back here o Q Could you be a little bit more precise? A It's a long driveway. THE COURT: where is Dexter? MRo ESSEKS: won't show where he That must be it o How about Dexter, Your Honor, the record pointed e I think he pointed to a point approximately an inch and a half south -- THE WITNESS: Wait. Of course I did. A! 20 Welker - cross 206 It's not on this map. It's over here. No, wait, wait. This is the area. MR. ESSEKS: That would be Peters. Now he pointed to a point easterly of Reeve'and just westerly of the northerly parcel marked '%Proposed Sewage Plant," for the purposes of identifying on the exhibit -- photo exhibit the Peters Property. THE WITNESS: It's at the apex of these two areas. THE COURT: Where is the Dexter Property? THE WITNESS: The Dexter -- there is a long driveway. This, ! believe, would be it. THE COURT: Can-you identify that for the record? MR. ESSEKS: That would be easterly approximately six or 700 feet of the principal Forrest Residence on the south- easterly corner of the photo exhibit which is the aerial exhibit whicb would be 15 in evidence . A!21 We lker cross 207 Q A The chloride was low, the nitrates was want to look at again. What did you find on the Dexter Property? low, 29.56 nitrite was low and the phosphates I would Was extremely high. Q A people -- Q A Do you know the depth of the Dexter well? As I understand, it's hard when you ask it's hard for them to know exactly the point. You don't know the depth? I was given the figure of 12 feet. I can't say that I know that's the case. Q On the Peters well, do you know of that well? A Q A A Q A give me that No. They were not able to give us On the Lascelle well? the depth The Lascelle well is approximately 25 feet° And on the Simicich well? Is 27 feet. On the Dove well? Approximately -- no, they weren't able to informat ion o So the wells that you do have information on would be relatively shallow wells, is that not correct? A As are most of the wells in this area. A122 Welker - cross 208 q testified A a strata? A Now, there is the North Fork you have of this nitrate strata, is that correct? The Magateeo Does the North Fork of Long Island have such No, apparently not. Neither the North Fork or the South Fork. So it then? is not relevant to your testimony, A It's absolutely relevant. It's our water supply for the future° Q Well, if the North Fork or the South Fork don't have this strata, how is it relevant to the North Fork or the South Fork? A The area -- what we are saying is that at the depth at which this strata lies to the west of us, or here now Q A Q A Fork infiltrated with seawater° drive a well down 12, 1300 feet What do you mean by "here now"? In Hauppauge. Okay. Is in both the South Fork and the North That is, you cannot to bedrock without striking A123 Welker- cross 209 salt water Q where does A on both of the Forks. Going east on Long Island, from Hauppauge, the Magatee Strata stop, if you know? Of this kind of information -- specific information of this nature, was in the early 1900's. Where did it -- A And apparently the on both Forks of the Island. Magatee format ion underneath, fairly well worked out Magatee is intermittent There is some suspect for instance, the Bridgehampton Area, but it has not been to the best of my knowledge, borne out. What has been borne out is if you drill a well 500 feet, you hit Q Where ? A A Q salt water. In these areas o Which are? The North Fork and the South Fork. In your studies for your testimony here today, are you familiar with the study of Halsmacher, McClendon & McMurro of June of 1972 for the proposed Cutchogue-Mattituck Water District? A Yes. Q Where was the primary source of water supply A1 2~ Welker cross 210 for that Water District proposed, if you know? A From my understanding, it's difficult for me to believe, but from my understanding of what I read, they proposed Laurel Lake and Maratooka Lake. Q Whereabouts on Maratooka Lake, if you know? A I beg your pardon? Q Whereabouts was the location proposed from Maratooka Lake ? A Well, it's off the map there. The pumping station would have been right across from the high school and the mtpe would have extended down to the northwest corner of the lake. Q Would they draw directly from the lake? A Again, this is difficult for me to believe, but that was what they had in mind. Q You are sure that that report stated that they were going to put a pipe out into the the water from the lake? lake and draw A What astounded me was they were going to rely on these two lakes for denitrification. That is for a way in which potable water could be distributed through a Public Water Supply. And, of course, what this means is absolutely the obliteration of the two lakes as AI25 Welker - cross natural lakes. You didn't answer my question. I asked you if you were absolutely sure that that proposal from that study of June of '72 proposed putting a pi? out into the lake and drawing the water from the lake? A to very near the lake, in effect, from the bottom, as I understand 211 so that some Now, the important water were located lake water would be returned to the lake. point is that both sources of fresh on the two lakes in the area. Q Would your view from your testimony differ if it was a fact that Maratooka Lake was some 60 feet or more in depth? A No. Now, you also testified that if this type of Public Water Supply were to be put in the close proximity of Maratooka Lake, that, in effect, the sewage lagoon would be created, is that correct? A A in that That's correct. Where would the sewage come from, sir? I described the conditions that would prevail lake as the physical conditions, the chemical What they had in mind was, of course, a well, drawing on lake waters it, and then a by-pass AI26 Welker - cross 2 12 conditions and biological description is most akin to those of a sewage lagoon where denitrification does and can occur under proper conditions. This is one of the possible methods of tertiary treatment for nitrogen removal. It is not, as yet -- it is not trouble-free, but it is a possible means. Q My question was where would the sewage contaminants come from? A The element that I used as an example was -- nitrogen. Q In other words, you are defining sewage as nitrogen? A No, you are using the term "sewage". Q That's what you said it would be, a sewage lagoon, is that not correct? A The physical chemical and biological con- dition in that lake, once nitrates were being pumped in and nitrogen was being withdrawn in at that high rate, would then be most like that of a sewage lagoon. Q Where would the nitrogen come from? A From the ground waters. This is my point. There is a real problem on the North Fork in terms of nitrogen in the ground water already. The ground water Al27 Welker - cross 213 is really surface ground water o Q Is it your testimony, if I understand you correctly, by adding some wells in nhe proximity of Maratooka Lake, it would induce nitrification to that lake, is that your testimony? A No. What you would do, lake water out, is accelerate the rate of flow of surrounding ground waters into the lake. And this, would -- as you began to draw ground water with higher and higher nitrate concentration, particularly to the east, where would the nitrates come from? That's the They are there ° They are there presently? Yes o You know that for a fact? quest ion. A Q A Yes° Q And how nitrates are there? A Well, Kierney Study° Q A if you are pulling do you know it as a fact that the the first real study was the Malcolm When was that done? Oh, that was done, I think, in the then, early 60's. AI28 Welker - cross 214 A South o Id. Who was it done for? That, I believe, was done for the Town of However, the Public or the County Health Department has records going back for a long period of time of showing increase in nitrates. This is -- I don't have -- happen to have a clipping, but the North Fork paper had an excellent map showing the result of the County Health Department of nitrates study. Q Well, is it any different if an individual homeowner, or a farmer pumps from his irrigation well and a homeowner pumps for his domestic purposes from 'his he then is inducing nitrification into the house well, soil? A that sense° is I did not use the term "nitrification," in Yes, it is different because the homeowner pumping maybe 100, maybe 150 gallons per day per person° Q How about the farmer? A That's spread out. N~, during the time of irrigation, the farmer's irrigation wells exert a tremendous draft on the water supply and that is anothcr reason that water should be treated as such a precious commodity on the North Fork, that the prime farmland and the problem with nitrates in the water, perhaps we A129 Welker - cross could work to solve both. If the farmer were to use high nitrate water very carefully monitored so that the vegetables or the corn would not suffer, that reirrigation period -- I'm speaking a long time -- eventually maybe those crops would take up that nitrogen, and they would be transported and be the level of the nitrogen in the ground water would be eventually be corrected. Q But from your studies in this field, isn't it a fact that the nitrates are induced into the ground from human waste and also from fertilizers and other products that the homeowners use fertilizing lawns and the farmer uses fertilizing his fields. Isn't that where the nitrates come from? A Yes° Q It is~ A Okay. The high generally to show up level of nitrates began in the late 40's, early 50'So In other words, in the ground? A Oh, absolutely not. 215 Q So if you had a sewage treatment plant where you are attempting to eliminate some of these nitrates or they are not there, naturally, eventually maybe in terms of Al30 Welker - cross 216 you have a centralized water system or Public Water Supply where you are attempting to treat the nitrates and you are recharging the water back into the ground, isn't it a fact that you're putting water back in in a purer state than from when you took it? A That would depend, completely, on specifica- tions and the operation of both the water supply and sewage treatment plant and that is not a fact. That is a conjecture. A matter of conjecture. Q You say they cannot treat nitrates in removing them from water supply systems? The technology is available. The cost is A excess ive. q A induced into But it can be done, can it not? Yes. So the nitrates, in effect then, are the ground because of man, not because water is there naturally, is that not correct? A That's correct. Generally speaking° Q But it is your thesis or your conjecture if you pump water out of the ground at you are then going to induce nitrates that correct? that an excessive rate, into the ground, is Al,31 Welker - cross 217 The ground water, isnrt that what you stated? A No. I'm talking about horizontal movemant. Now, you are talking -~ when rainwater falls, it leeches out and accepts fertilizer, for instance, nitrogen on the soil and reaches down into the ground water table. When you put a pointed source well you begin to pull horizontally and that is what is called a condition of depression and water literally goes downhill towards that well, and if overdraft continues and continues, the ground water table falls, salt water comes up, if it's possible, and surrounding of water is concentrated at that point. Have you been on the Norris Property? ANo. QYou have not? ANo. Are you familiar with its present use today or in April, when you were in the area? A Yes o Q What is it being utilized as? A It's primarily residences and farmland, but I don't know whether it's being farmed. I understand that it hasn't been farmedo Ai32 Welker - cross You are not familiar as being utilized as a farm, then? I would hope so. It looks A land. A 218 to whether it is like very good You are not familiar -- No. If you had a given parcel of land where you could locate, say, 75 homes on, hypothetical situation, 'and you put down 75 wells, say, spread over the 75 acres of 80 acres or what have you, versus putting in one or two wells with a centralized monitored water supply, if I understand your testimony, it is that the centralized water supply would have more harmful effects in this area than the individual well? A If I may repeat myself ,. because this area is low lying between-- Q I was referring to this area. A Between the Sound and the Bay and there is not the fresh water underneath, so you are pumping the surface layers of the ground water and these are contaminated. I didn't ask you that. I said it is your thesis that the centralized water supply would be more Welker - cross 219 harmful than the individual well. A Any point source would be a large volume and would require a very careful study. THE COURT: Anything further? REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CUDDY: Professor, the deep well or the Public Water Supply be located near the salt water, or a distance from the salt water? A At a distance. Where, then, in Mattituck, if you could look at that map, the Zoning Map, would you locate such a well? A I would not locate a well -- now I'm -- when you say "deep well," I m~an a large well, 12 inch casing, well, I would not locate one there and pump all year and expect large numbers of people to be able to drink that water in the future. THE COURT: recess utntil tomorrow All right. We will morn ~.' .ng. Ail witnesses who have been sub- poenaed, will return tomorrow morning at 9:30. LOUIS Al DeMarest - direct 220 (Whereupon the trial was adjourned to April 17th, 1975, at 9:30 a.m.) D E M A R E S T, Orient, New York, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINAT ION BY MR. ESSEKS: Mr. DeMarest, are you a member of the Town Board of the Defendant, Town of Southold? A Yes, I am. Board? A How long have you been a member of the Town 21 years -- 22. And, therefore, you were a member of the Town Board when, on November 23, 1971, the Zoning Ordinance was amended and the new Zoning Maps were adopted, is that correct? A Yes. Q Specifically, I call your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 11 in evidence and the Zoning Maps which are in evidence as Exhibit 12. Do you recognize those, sir? A Yes, I do. THE COURT: What was the date of AI35 De~arest - direct that? t MR. ESSEKS: November 23, 1971o Q Are you acquainted with the site of the Norris Property, Mr. DeMarest? A Yes, sir. Q Have you been so for several years? A Yes. Q How was the property zoned, the Norris Property, prior to the adopt ion of the Zoning Amendment on November 23, 19717 A It was agricultural and residential° Q And, prior to November 23, 1971, had the Town Board and other parties of the Town spent a period of years studying a new Comprehensive Zoning Plan for the Town of Southold? 221 MR. LUNDBERG: Excuse me. understand that question. I don't "other parties" of the Town are. THE COU1LT: Did the Town Board, I don't know what Make it more specific. for a period of years prior to Novembmr 23, 1971, engage in a study leading to the adopt ion of a Comprehensive Zoning Plan on November 23, 19717 A136 DeMares: direct 222 A Yes. And in preparing the Comprehensive Zoning Plan that was adopted on November 23, 1971, did you visit various parts of the Town, but including the site at and around the Norris Property? A I don't know if we visited this place -- this area or not. I can't recall. Mr. DeMarest, it is tr,~, is it not, that you had visited the site and had been acquainted with the property surrounding the Norris Property and surrounding Lake Maratooka between James Creek and Deep Hole Creek. prior to November 23, 19717 A Oh, yes. Q Had you been there many times prior to that date? A t Jmes . I~ve been all over the town, many, many As a result of Plan of November 23, Norris site rezoned A Was th is when we Zoning Ordinance? the Comprehensive Zoning 1971, how was ':he property at the in November of 19717 adopted the present The present Zoning Ordinance, not the amend- I AI~7 DeMarest - direct last year that made it multiple dwelling. A It was as it was originally, agricultural and res ident ial. 223 for the change residence, was the same as is 12 ? I call your attention to one page of Exhibit 12, which is the Zoning Ordinance, and except of the Norris Property to multiple the zoning status of the Mattituck Hamlet shown on this map in evidence as Exhibit THECOURT: 23? Q Prior to November 23, 1971. A I couldn't say for sure. Q Can you recollect whether there were any changes of the Zoning Ordinance before November 23, 1971 and after November 23, 19717 A I just couldn't say for sure. Well, specifically, up until the change of zone for the Norris Property, were there any other multip~ residence parcels being zoned for that purpose in the Hamlet A When, prior to November of Matt ituck? I don't think so. Were there any Multiple Residence Zoned AI38 DeMarest - direct 224 parcels prior to the rezoning for the Norris Property, west of Cutchogue? A I don't th ink so. THE COURT: Did you have very much Multiple Residence areas in the Town? THE WITNESS: We have not too many, but we have ~- there are two Multiple Residence areas in the Town, one just outside of Greenport and one near the Hamlet of South o Id. Q Now, the first vote to amend the Ordinance with regard to the Norris Property, Mr. DeMarest, took place on April 23, 1974, and then there was a second vote on May 21, 1974, and a third vote on August 5, 1974 and those are Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1, 2 and 3, and what I'd like to do, Mr. DeMarest, is to ask you a series of questions about things that may have occurred between November 23, 1971 and April 23, 1974 and you can check, if you will, but I seem to think there were 29 months in that period of time. I'm going to be calling your attention to 29 months. period? THE COURT: What is the 29 month DeMarest - direct 225 MR. ESSEKS: From November 23, 1971, your Honor, which was the date of the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Plan which is in evidence as Exhibit 12, and Exhibit ll and the date of the first vote to rezone the Norris Property on April 23rd, 1974. THE COURT: In other words, that's between the period bet~een November 23, t71 and April 23, t74. MR. ESSEKS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. Now Mr. DeMarest, during that period of time, those 29 months, do you know whether there was a substantial population change within the Hamlet of Matt ituck? A I couldn't say for sure. There has been changes or population has been going up, but how much it's gone up and whether you would consider substantial, I couldn't say. Q Do you know how many Building Permits were issued for dwelling units within the Hamlet of Mattituck during that 29 month period, sir? AI~O DeMarest - direct A No, I don~t. Q Did you know as of April 23, 19747 the answer to that question A I didn't know, personally° I could have found out° It's on record. But I wouldn't know personally, no. period there was population A q any studies projections A do you mean? establish a change in the average age in the Mattituck Hamlet? No, I couldn't say. Do you know whether during that 29 month of the Did the Town Commission, if you know, make during this period to show population in the Hamlet of Mattituck? What Commission -- Town Commission? What 226 Well, did the Town have any studies done to its estimate of the future change in population I What within the Hamlet of Mattituck? A I think that probably there were some studies made by Raymond and May, I believe started in the middle 60's and went on for some 4 or 5 years. believe they did have some population projections. they are, I couldn't recall° I Ul 227 Q You talked about Raymond and May. Is that Raymond and May Associates, Planning Consultants, sir? A Yes. Q Did the Town of Southold, while you were a Town Board Member, retain the firm of Raymond and May to do a Comprehensive Development Plan, a study for a Comprehensive Development Plan Southold? A q for the Town of Yes, And I show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit iO-A and IO-B and I ask you if that is part of the work products produced by Raymond and May Associates (handing)? A Yes, it is. Did you and the other Town Board Members receive copies of that? A Yes. Q And a copy was filed with the Southold Town Clerk, isn't that true? A Yes. Q Was that the first study that Raymond and May did as far as you know, sir? A As far as I know, yes. A!~2 DeMarest - direct 228 MR. ESSEKS: witness, your Honor? THE COURT: Yes o I show you what purports to be a Map of May I approach the the Development Plan of the Town of Southold that was within Exhibit iO-A and I ask you whether you have seen that before (indicating)? A I couldn't say. Yes, I have seen this. No doubt I've seen it, and many others also. Q When did you, at the ti mm as a Town Board Member, first receive copies of the plan from Raymond and May? Would it be middle or late 60's? A Yes, it would be. After they had done considerable amount of study, yes. Q From time to time did Raymond and May Associates make available to you and the other Town Board Members during the late 60's and early 70's the result of their findings and recommendations? A Yes, many times. Did the Town Board, as a Committee, or as of Raymond and May Town Board, meet with representatives Associates? A Yes. DeMarest - direct 229 Did you? Did you many times? I would say so. Did you and the other Town Board Members have the benefit of the recommendations May Associates as of November 23, 19717 A and the of Raymond and Well, we had -- what they had given us idea that they had about the planning and developing of the Town. TME COURT: Did they sit down with the Town Board and discuss what their ideas were ? THE WITNESS: Yes, many times. Q I believe I asked you whether there had been any population projections that were brought to the attention of the Town Board, and I think you said there were some projections made by Raymond and May Associates, is that correct? A I can't say definitely because my memory just doesn't -- but it would seem logical that we would want population projections to plan the Town° as dated whether you, I believe the exhibits that are in evidence in the 1960's. Now, specifically, I ask you as a Town Board Member, received a population DeMarest - direct 230 projection different from the ones that are in the exhibits subsequent to November 23, 19717 A I couldn't say. Q Do you recollect any? A No, there could have been.-- we could have had them, but I have no way of being certain. · Q You have no personal recollection? A No. Q Now Mr. DeMarest, certain physical facts existed as to the nature of the properties that surround the Norris Property as of November 23, 1971. Now, I particularly ask you do you ~now whether Lake Maratooka was there prior to November 23, 19717 That's true, isn't it? A Yes, Q And as far as you can see, it's approximately the same condition, the lake today, as of April 23, 1974, as it was on November 23, 19717 THE COURT: What do you mean? The quality of the water or -- MR. E$SEKS: As far as he can see, the level. THE COURT: The size? DeMarest - direct 231 MR. ESSEKS: THE WITNESS: knowledge about riding past it. Yes . I would have no more it than anyone else just Q Now, the houses that are shown just north of the multiple development property, one of which is marked Brooks and one is marked Dove, those house were there in November of 1971, is that correct? As far as you THE COUP~T: Can you see it from where you are, Mr o DeMarest? THE WITNESS: Apparently they were. I couldn't swear to it. Now this photograph that shows the Multiple Residence properties and shows to the west of the Multiple Residence property a field. As far as you know, was that a field in November of 19717 A Yes. Q And to the east of the Multiple Residence property there is a field which is owned by Mr. Norris, then there is another field east of the row of trees that appears to be a farm field. As far as you know, was that a farm field in November, 19717 AI~6 DeMarest - direct A Yes. And further east there is the airport, and there appears to be more farms and houses. Was that the general nature of the terrain easterly of the Norris multiple dwelling property in November of 19717 A Yes. Now, I call your attention to the property south of the Norris Property, and as far as you can recollect, were the properties south of the Norris Property, which is the subject of the rezoning, approxi- mately the same condition in November, 1971, as it is shown on this photograph? MR. LUNDBERG: Objection. I don't think there is any property south of the Norris Property. That would be the Bay. You are blocking my view, so maybe you're pointing at something and I can't see it. MR. ESSEKS: a piece -- there is Lundberg, where there is a piece of with a few houses and ~.;ome fields. TH~ COURT: That looks lika trees Uell, southerly is a juncture here, Mr. land 232 and woods there. A Ib,.7 DeMarest - direct 233 MR. ESSEKS: Yes, trees . Q Now, that property as shown on this photograph, was approximately in that same condition in November of 1971, is that correct? THE COURT: aerial map? Did you get a date for that? MR. ESSEKS: I think it was part of the stipulation that it is a fair and accurate representation as the property What is the date of the exists today. THE COURT: understand. MR. ESSEKS: for the photograph. THE COURT: MR. ESSEKS: Yes, that's what I We don't have a date That's what I thought. I think the parties agreed it is a County Monument Map so it would have been made in the last two or three years. I'm not sure. THE COURT: Do you have any information, Mr o Lark? MR. LARK: It's my understanding that that was flown in the spring or April A1~8 DeMarest - direct 234 of 1970 in connection with Mr. Baker to prepare the County Tax Maps. THE C OLSLT: MR. ESSEKS: April 19707 I will accept that. Mr. DeMarest, as far as you know, during the two months in question, did the Town construct any new roads at or to the Norris premises? A No. No, I don't think so. Q Did the Town undertake to plan a new road? You were on the Road Committee -- Highway Committee for the Town? A Yes. Q As a member of the Highway Co~nittee, do you know whether there are any new Town roads planned to the area south of Maratooka Lake and New Suffolk Avenue? A I believe there is a change that has been in the works for many years to change a part of New Suffolk Avenue about oppos ire the Airport, the entrance to the Airport. Q But as of November 23, 1974, no Resolutions of the Town Board had been adopted to do that, had it? A I couldn't say whether any Resolution -- I A!~.9 235 know that it is planned and has been worked on for some time, and a change in ownership of the property has, many times, put it off, but I think that the change is imminent now. Do you know whether there are any new County Roads that were constructed or construction commenced into the Hamlet of Mattituck from the west or from the east during the 29 months in question? A No, I don't think so. I think the County Road, that's 27, was constructed before that. Q Now, do you know whether during this 29 month period any State Roads from the west or the east into Mattituck were constructed or planned? A I think that there is a plan in the works to straighten some curves in Laurel. I don't know how -~ it was planned several years ago, but economy, I think, forced the State to change their plans and I think it is now once again on the drawing board. Q What kind of road is New Suffolk Avenue? It's a Town road, is that correct? A Yes, it's a Town road. Could you describe the road to the Court? Well, it's a road that is generally maintained AlSO DeMarest - direct 236 by the Town Highway Department. with old bases and its cover is sand, I believe. put on that road. sir? A q any changes They are old roads composed of asphalt and I don't think any bluastone has been THE COURT: concrete, is it? THE W VrNESS: Are there None of it is Moo trees on both sides of the road, Yes. In various places. During the 29 months in question, were there in the form of public transportation for the Hamlet of Mattituck? Were there any new trains added, do you know? A No new trains added. I don't know whether the bus transportation, the Long Island Rail Road bus transportation, when they started the bus transportation, but I think that from the time that they started the bus transportation, that there has been more buses or more public transportation than before. When they just had the trains. During those 29 months, did any factories locate or relocate in the Hamlet of Ma~tituck? AlS1 DeMarest - direct 237 A or relocate 29 months ? A q Map, one I don't think so. Did any large employer of any kind locate in the Mattituck Hamlet area during those I really couldn't say. Now, on that map which covers that Zoning of six parts of Exhibit 12, there is no other property zoned for Multiple Residence, Mr. DeMarest ? A is there, No, I don't think so. Now, moving just to the east, I show you another page of Exhibit 12 and I call your attention to the property just north of the Hamlet of Southold and I ask you if there is any property there that is zoned Multiple Residence? A Yes, Just north of the railroad tracks, near the shopping area in the Mamlet of Southoldo be more, Who owns that property, if you know? I believe it belongs to Hellman and Ehlers. Do you know how many acres it includes? 23, I believe. My recollection° It could it could be less. Do you know when the Town Board rezoned that AI52 DeMarest ~ direct for Mult ip le Res idence, approximately ? A Well, it was sometime be~-ween the adoption of the Ordinance and now. I would say over a year ago. THE COURT: That was one of the two Multiple Residence areas in the Town, is it ? THE WITNESS: Yes. Now, I call your attention to two zones marked '~-1," northwest of the Village of Orient, and I ask you what does the title '~-1" stand for under your Zoning Ordinance? A You mean -- THE COURT: Mr. Esseks -- A -- these in here? Q Yes , siro A Well, those are the same ones that have been there for a good length of tim~. Q Those are Multiple Residence Zoning that predate -- that existed prior to the Comprehensive Rezoning of November 23, 19717 A Yes. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: 238 Th is is in Orient? No, no. This is between A!53 DeMarest - direct Greenport THE COURT: motels are up there? THE WITNESS: That's are two motels up there. THE COURT: and Southold. Is that where the right. There Is there any other Multiple Residence there motels ? THE W~rNESS: THE COURT: other than the What does '%{-1" mean? 239 Does it mean motel zoned, or does it mean Multiple Res idence Zone ? THE WITNESS: I would have to check with the Zoning Ordinance, really, to say what is allowed in the various zones. Q Mr. DeMarest, in fact, do you go by there from time to time? A Oh~ yes. Q In fact, isn't a substantial part or most of the '~-1" District up there vacant? A That is. Q For the one marked '%f-l',' that almost touche s the legend '~illage ," in the Village of Greenport, AI5~ DeMarest - direct 240 that acreage, whatever the acreage is, is vacant property at this time? A That ' s right. Q And is it farmed right now? A No. I don't think -- I don't think I can ever recall that ever being farmed. Q Is that woodland? A No, it's ground up. Although maybe -- if I go back 20, 30 years, I might recall someone farming it, but it hasn't been farmed in a good many years. Q Ail right. Now the '~-1" property owned by Hellman and Ehlers just north of the Hamlet of shopping area, that hasn't been built upon, $outhold, the has it? A Q now? A th is year A No, it hasn't. That's farmland, isn't that correct, right I don't know whether it Or not . But it is a field, at least? Oh, yes. There's nothing on it. is being farmed If I asked you, I apologize. How many acres is the property that Ehlers and Hellman own? Ai$5 DeMarest - direct 241 A of 23 acres. Q As I recall, somewhere in the neighborhood Do you know how ninny multiple residence units they may build on that property, pursuant to the existing zoning? A Q in Exh ib it you would. A No, I don't know. I don't recall. I ask you to look at the Zoning Ordinance 11 that you have, look at Page 10030, if Do you have that? Yes, Q Does it state how many units you can have there? I think you did refer to Page 10052, Mr. DeMarest, if you would. You are looking at 100-116. MR. ESSEKS: May I read it into the record, your Honor? THE COURT: ~fes. The Ordinance is in evidence. MR. ESSEKS: (reading: ) '~otw ith- standing any other provisions of this Chapter, each dwelling unit in a multiple dwelling shall have 9,000 square feet of land for each dwelling unit in the building where public water and public sewers are not Q A!56 De~arest - d:L~ect 26,.2 provided and shall have 6,500 square feet of land for each dwelling unit in the building where public water and public sewers are provided." So Mr. DeMarest -~ MR. LUNDBERG: Excuse me, Mr. Esseks. Since you are referring to '~4-1" would you also read the hotel and motel units which is permitted? MR. ESSEKS: All right. '~-1" which is the what, the Hellman-Ehlers property. THE COURT: What is it? Is it Hotel and Motel Zoned or is it a Multiple Kes idence ? MR. ESSEKS: Residence Zone, but It's a Multiple in the '~f-l" Zone you can also have, under certain conditions, a motel, hotel, or similar building. And Mr. L~dberg wants me to read that section in, so I will, with the Court's permission. THE COURT: All right. MR° ESSEKS: (reading:) Section A!57 DeMarest direct 243 100-117: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter, each room or group of rooms designed, used, or intended to be used for lodging as a unit, which does not qualify as a dwelling unit and located in a hotel, motel or similar building, shall have 6,000 square feet of land for each such unit where public water and public sewer systems are not provided and shall have 4,000 square feet of land for each such unit where public water and public sewer systems are provided." Q Mr. DeMarest, for the Ehlers-Hellman Property, if it is zoned '~4-1" as the map says, depending on whether they have public water and sewers and/or private water and sewers, you can have as many units as are shown in Section 100-116 or 100-117, is that correct? A Yes , THE feet where feet where MR. ESSEKS: COURT: That's 6,000 square it is not provided, 4,000 square it is provided. Yes, sir. Your Honor, AI58 DeMarest - direct 244 the record should show that the Hellman Properties and the properties northwest of the Village of Greenport are shown upon that page of Exhibit 12 that is marked: "Southold Bay". Thatfs the most conspicuous marking on that particular page. THE COURT: What is that, Exhibit 127 MR. ESSE~S: Exhibit 12. There is no page number, but the page is denominated by the term: "Southold Bay." Q Now Mr. DeMarest, do you happen to know who owns the '~{-1" Parcel just west of the Village of Quogue that you have testified is vacant? MR. LUNDBERG: Of what ? MR. ESSEKS: M-1 Parcel that's just west -- northwest of the Village of Greenport. I want to have some way in the record of identifying which parcel that is o QDo you happen to know who owns it? AI don~t know who owns it. Q Now, I call your attention to, yet, another page of Exhibit 12 and this page sh~r~s the Village of A! 59 2Z. 5 Greenport easterly to East Marion and the Causeway to Or lent mult ip le A and I ask you whether this dwelling parcels? Yes. MR. LUNDBERG: A Greenport, A Q a parcel page shows any I object. (continuing) If it includes the Village ~:~ they have their own Ordinance. Outside of the Village of Greenport. Yes. Now, specifically, I call your attention on the north side of North Road, and can you tell me when that parcel was rezoned Multiple Dwelling, approximate ly ? A Approximately the time of the adoption of the Ordinance. I don~t know whether it was adopted before or whether it was adopted as part of the Ordin~¢:e. Q Does that generally refer to that parcel as Brecknock Hall. I don't know how to spell it o MR o ESSEKS: Maybe you do, Judge? THE COURT: No. Q Mr. DeMarest, do you know how to spell it? A No, I don't. MR. LARK: B-R-E-C-K-N-O-C-K H.-A.-L.-:[.. DeMarest - direct 246 MR. ESSEKS: things up, Mr. Lark, many acres there are? MR. LARK: was 145 acres. MR. ESSEKS: MR. LARK: Your Honor, to speed can you tell us how The total package How many units? I believe some 52 acres got rezoned Multiple and I think 12 acres got zoned Light Business when the Zoning Amendment went through November 23, 1971. MR. ESSEKS: There are about 50 acres that are zoned Multiple Dwelling? MR. LARK: That's right. Q Mr. DeMarest, if you know, have any multiple dwelling units been constructed upon the Brecknock Hall Property? A Section D as November 23, Moo It's vacant land, is that correct? Yes. The Brecknock Hall parcel as shown on in Development. Now Mr. DeMarest, as of 1971, was there a Public Water Supply System Al61 DeMarest direct 247 sauth of Lake Maratooka at or near the Norris Property, in Matt ituck? A No. Was there a Public Water Supply System at or near the Norris Property as of April 23, 1974, the day you rezoned the property? A No. Was there a Public Sewage Disposal System serving the Norris Property at or near the Norris Property as of November 23, 19717 A No. And was there a Public Sewage Disposal System serving the Norris Property, at or near the Norris Property, on April 23rd, 1974, when it was rezoned? A No. Q Now, I call you~ attention to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, and those are the three Resolutions that I believe you voted for and other members of the Town Board voted for, which are claimed to haw=~ had the effect of rezoning the Norris Property and mu!t~pl ......... o, ---- I ask you whether there are any other Resolutions of the Town Board prior to April 23, 1974 or subsequent thereto, that deal with the rezoning of the Norris Property? A!62 DeMarest - direct 248 A at any time Public Water Supplies Norris Property? A Yes. the Fire District Not to my knowledge. Are there any Resolutions of the Town Board, in this period, 1973 or 1974, dealing with for property at or near the We had a Petition from, I believe, for the Town to look into the feasibility of creating a Water District for Mattituck and Cutchogue. Was such a Water District -- has such a Water District come into existence as of April 23, 19747 A No. Q Has it come into existence as of today, April 17, 19757 A No. Q Now, was there any Resolution of the Town Board in '73 or '74 or '75, setting up a Public Sewage Disposal System at or near the Norris Property? A No. Now, prior to the three exhibits, Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 -- that is prior to April 23, 1974, had any covenants been entered into between the Town of Southold and Mr. Norris, or anyone on his behalf ~ executed AI63 DeMarest - direct 249 covenants, providing that a Public Sewage Disposal System would be constructed at or near the property? A I believe there are covenants. My question, Mr. DeMarest is, was any covenant entered into between the Town and Mr. Norris or anyone on his behalf prior to the date of the adoption of the first Resolution? A couldn't say when it was done. THE COURT: You say there was a covenant made between Norris and the Town? THE WITNESS: I believe there are covenants that guarantee certain things. But the Judge's question and my question, Mr. DeMarest is, whether there is a covenant between the Town and Mr. Norris? A I know there are covenants with certain permits that he's gotten. Now whether -- I just can't recall whether we did or not. Q The Town rezoned the Norris Property to permit Light,lWnltiple Residence District, is that correct? A Yes. Q Now, the permit used in the Light, Multiple Residence District included boarding houses and tourist A!64 DeMarest - direct 250 houses, A q is that correct? That's Page 10029. Will you repeat that question? Under the Light, Multiple Residence District, the Ordinance permits is that correct? A q boarding houses and tourist houses, Yes . And it permits multiple dwellings designed for andoccupied by not more than four families, correct? A Q apartmeuts is that Yes. Is your understanding also that garden and condominiums are permitted within the Light and Multiple Residence District? Yes. They probably come under Multiple A Dwelling. Q Res o lut ions, your answer Now, other than Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 is no, is that correct? MR. LUNDBERG: have a clarification? I have asked you whether there were any and I believe Your Honor, could we Because -- are you referring to such things as Public Hearings and referring to the Planning Board, or are you just talking about -- A!65 DeMarest - direct 251 MR. ESSEKS: Similar to that. I'm not getting into whether there was adequate notice or not. That's not the thrust of the question at all. A I believe those Resolutions are the only ones dealing with the changing of the zone. Q You know of any covenant or contract that existed prior to November 23, 1974 which, in any way, limited -- other than the Light, Multiple Residence District permit uses, the type of construction that Mr. Norris or any purchaser from him to construct upon the property in question -- MR. LUNDBERG: I think you said November 23, 1974 o MR. ESSEKS: If I misstated, I apologize. I'm not trying to trick the witness on the quastion. MR. LUNDBERG: No. I think it's to a disadvantage. I'm talking about April 24, 1974. April Q 23, 1974. A meet ings I don't know. If I had the records of our and so forth, I would be able to find out. A166 DeMarest - direct 252 Q Would you recollect a time when the Town Board entered into any contract or covenant wherein the Town Board was named and Mr. Norris was named limiting the use of the Multiple Residence District? I should rephrase that to limiting the uses Within the Multiple Residence District. Do you remember any such contract or covenant? A No, I don't. At any time ? A No. THE COURT: Other than the Ordinance itself? MR. ESSEKS: Yes, sir. I want to find something for the witness to look at. I call your attention to Page 2 of Part 2 and May Associates which is in evidence as Exhibit 10-A and I ask you to look at Paragraph Second thereof. Mr. DeMarest, is it correct there that it states: 'That residential density of two dwelling units per acre or greater, the area upon the proposed in these areas," and that refers to south of Route 25, 'Within the Town, is predicated development of a Public Water Supply System Q of the Comprehen~;ive Development Plan prepared by Raymond A!67 DeMarest - direct serving these areas ." A Yes. Q Is that correct? And I believe you have stated that as of the date of April 23, 1974, there was no Public Water SysCem serving the land in quastion, is that correct? A JOHN Yes, MR. ESSEKS: That's all the questions I have at this time. THE COURT: Any cross-examination? MR. LUNDBERG: Not on behalf of the 253 T own . MR, LARK: Defendant Norris. THE COURT: step down, siro G'~' G L A N D E R, New New York, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINAT ION BY MR. ESSEKS: q A Not on behalf of the Ail right, you may Suffolk, Long Island, ~. Glander, what do you do for a I'm a real estate appraiser° living? EXCERPTS ROBZRT A168 OF TESTIMONY OF ~UDOP g McCLENDON Krudop - direct 50~ K R U D 0 P, Penny's &oad, ~{iverheed, New York, having been first duty sworn, testified as follows: }~. Krudop, what is your occupat ion ? I am the distributor and developer of DLR~CT EXAMINAT I~q BY MR. LARK: A Culligan Water Conditioning for Suffolk County. How long have you been engaged in this capacity, sir? A For the past six years, Do you do anything else for a living? A Yes, sir, I do. What is that? A I'm a mathematics teacher. Where is that? A Matt ituck. Prior to being involved in the water conditioninE business, were you engaged in any other bus iness ? A q A Yes, sir. I was. What was that ? That was in the well drilling business, sir. A169 Krudop - direct 505 How long were you en~aged dr illin~ b ~s lness ? A State of New A A A in Science. q A For eleven years. in the well Ouring that t/me, were you licensed by the York? Yes, sir. I was. Do you have a college degree? Yes, sir. I do. What is that degree in~ My d~gree is in Mathematics with a minor From what institution? ~t. Lawrence University. Do you conduct any courses on Public Water Control or related subjects .~' A Yes, sir. I have. And what are they? A i have spoken at the Suffolk County Water Treatment Plant -- Operators Course. Were you subpoenaed to come to Court today? A Yes, sir. I was. Approximately how many wells have you driven in your capacity as a licensed well driller, Mr. Krudop? Al70 Krudop - dtzect 5O6 A records on that at could be obtained, Approximately 200. this moment. though. ha'we not any have records that THE COLrR~: What was the name of distributorship or developer of what that kind of water? THE W I~ESS: THE COURT: Comdi: toner ? THE W 1TNESS: TH~ COURT: Culligan. Culligan Water Cond it ioning. It's not something like a Worthington Pump? Where were these wells driven, primarily, the general area? A Principally the ~las:et-a gmd of Suffolk and pr~arily on the North Shore. Have you had any experience ~n the MatttCuck Area tn the construction of drilling of wells? A Yes, sL=. I have. Have you drilled any wells for builders or homeowners in the area between James Creek and Deep Hole Creek in the Mat~ituck Area? A Yes, sir. I have. Al71 Krudop - direct 5O7 THE WITNESS: Yes. It's a franchised distributorship for the County. It's an intermational organizat ion. ~. ~: Y~ Honor, this witness is be~ tarn o~ of t~ ~d I have consulted with Pla~tiffs' Co--el ama they are will~g to stipulate amd will ~troduce th~ as a Defemd~ts' ExhiBit ~to ev~emce, an metal photograph of the general area, ~ particu~, the Norr~ Pro~rt y. N~, the difference baleen that and the aer~l photograph that ~ in evidence is it ~ tarn by the s~ group of people who flew it County, but it does a little bit more. in ~pril of 1974, the show, I fee]., the area It does show the Ja~es Creek over on here whereas that aerial does not, and it shows, more definitively, Deep Hole Creek and it does show all of ~,~ratooka Lake which has been the subject of much testimony, where that aerial does not and has located o~ it the North arrow A172 Krudop - direct 5O8 but I would agreed. and denotes, number one, which is the property which was rezoned by the Town of Southold for multiple dwellixlgs, the 27 acre piece and denotes, as number two, the 10 acre piece. I don't know the nu~ers offer that ~nd Counsel have do~ substitute this M~. LAKK: THE, COU~T: What do you want to one for that one? No, that's their aerial exhibit and they have it for their. purposes and showixlg P~aintiffs' property. Mine is to sho%; the area. THE C Oir~T: ~. LA~K: THE CnURT: ~.. ESSEKS: THE C~T: You offer it ? Yes. Any objection? No objection. All right, mark it. (Aerial photograph received and ~rked Defendants ~xhibit 0 in evidence .) THE COURT: the right ~5%. ESSEKS: What do you call the in the photograph? Deep Hole Creek. A173 D IK~CT EXAM INAT IOlq BY MR. LARK: you point Krudop - 3W~ LAiIK: direct 509 Deep ~{ele (:reek. (cont inui~g) For the Court, Mr. Krudop, if out James Creek? A James Creek is this body of water which comes up from the Bay on the west. MP~. [AR/z.: For the record, the witness is identifying the left-hand side of the photograph a creek from Peconic -- TH~ COURT: Lower left-hand quadrant. [~{. LAR/~.: Lower left-hand quadrant. q And Deep Hole~ A Deep }{ole Creek is a body of water coming up from Peco~ic Bay inUo the easterly end of the descr~ed piece of property. ~.LARK: you CMn, would Let the record show A che witness indicated on the ri~nk-ha,~ side of the photograph. Maratooka Lake. Maratooka Lake is this body of water in the center here the map ? A q please? A A1 Krudop - direct ( indicat lng) . MR. LARK: Top section of the map. And Peconic Bay? Peconic Bay is at the bottom of the map. Can you identify O~e Julanne Avenue o~ Yesj sir. I can. Wo%~ld you point it out for the Court, The Ole Julanne Avenue is the area south 510 of New Suffolk Avenue, bounded on the west by James Creek and it comprises this area down in here. MR. LARK: Let the record reflect that the witness is point to an area to the east of James Creek and the lower left-hand quadrant of the map. Mr. Krudop, can you describe what your experience has been with well drilling in the Ole Julanne Lane area? A Yes, I can. MR. ESSEKS: Your Honor, I don't want to be -- I have no objection to bis A175 krudop - dirac~ tes~ifyi,~ as ~o wells he drilled. [ am ~oitl~ to offer all objectiogl ~o the ~es~ny if he ~ries to ch~actertze q~lity of ~he water, ~eca~e, at tha~ t~, .I'm ~o~ ~o object. T~ COUld: Well, wait ~oes. Maybe lie A Yes, sir. I have. I have drilled wells ~ tha~ ~ea. I've drilled approx~ately five. Ca~ you be specific wi~ reference Cc the wells that you drilled ~ this area ~d yo~ f~d~8 ~ a result of drilli~ said wells? ~. ~SSE~: Your ~onor, I'm Co cont~ my objection. If he's ~o~ Co testify -- the ~icness is ~o~ testify as Co the chem~al baste of the wa~er, I'[:~ &o~ Co ob3ecC ~ the &rounds Chat he hasn't -- he's not properly T~ CO~: ~sseks. I don't kno~, l~r. may qualify him before he comes A to that. have drilled wells in that area, finding -- A176 q Krudop - direct Ho~ many wells have you drilled? ! have drilled five wells in Chat area. Could you point out to the Court where you drilled said wells? A Yes, sir. I cam. in 1964, apprc;~rimately 200 -- have drilled one well THE COIPR~: Why mot taka a red pencil and Just pu~ X's. A 272 feet south of the Ole Julamne. q Okay. take them one ac a ti~m. the Cou~'~ where you have }~. LARK: it will be numbered Okay. I suppose, so that l, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Well, Number 1 -~ill be approximate'ly ~n~ersection of ~iraus ~oa,~ and So that we keep them in order, letla Now, could you describe to indicated with the arabic No. 1 5 I_£ A A requirement Yes, sir. We had to drill a shall~ well. How many feet would Chat be3 That well was 18 fee~ deep, air. Go ahead. We had to go deeper because of the o~ the County, but emcou~tered salt and had as to the type of well that you drilled on that property? AI77 to come back up q of 18 feet, A depth ? ]t, rudop - di.rec~ to tha~ depth. So you drilled a well on is that correct? did you understand whaC A Yes, sir. location No. 1 Yes, sir. And did ycu find potable water at that }~-l. ,~.SSEKS: I object. The wit-ass has been qualified as a well driller. THE C£~%IT: Find out if he knows the difference between potable water and non-potable water. When I referred to the term "potable I did. We are required to Chat for people so that they may obtai~ Certificates of Occupancy so that they can move THE~ COtrRT: went 18 feet? THE W I~NZSS: into their hom~s. Why did you say you Because· s~, at a deeper depthwe enc~u~tered ....... o.~..-a .... g.a to run to that depth. Salt in excess of the recommended limit, is r. ot permitted by the State or the County. A178 Kr'udop - direct 514 g You drilled five wells that correct? A Yes, I did. q Could you locate on thaC chart? A the westerly ri.Slat at this q q in the area, is for the Court Well No. 2 Yes, sir. Well No. 2 would have been at intersection of Krau~ Road and Ole Julanne, point here. Wha~ type of well did you drill there? ~. F~SEKS: Iv~,. LARK: THE W rrN~SS: check my notes on t~at? To refresh your recollection. What year? ~o~y. sorry. You certainly I h~ve ts. I'm sorry. I'm looking in the F~y I take this over there with me? THE COURT: Yes. Wha~ year was Well No. 2 drilled? I~: was drilled in THE CO~: THE W ~NESS: in 19(%4. 1967. What year wes No. 17 ~'ell No. 1 was drilled A179 Krudop - direct 515 Q How deep was Well No. 2? A Well No. 2 was drilled first to a depth of 18 feet and then, subsequently, to a depth of 22 feet, because we encountered problems at 18 feet. What problems did you encounter at 18 feet? A We encountered soap suds coming out of the we i1 when we pumped it. What problems did you encounter at the increased depth? A In attemptin§ to Eet ~wa¥ from soap s,,~- at the increased -- aEain we Eot rid of most of them, hut we came up with very salt water in excess of 2200 parts per mil. q THE COURT: MR. ESSEKS: This is at what depth? Your Honor, I object to the witness testifying as to the amount of salt in the water. THE COURT: He didn't testify as to the amount. He said salty water. MR. KSSEKS: He said 22 parts per something or other. I don't think he's been qualified. How do you know that it was 22 parts -- A180 Krudop - direct 516 A I testified, I believe, that excess oE 2200 pa~'l:s per mil. q A it was in How would you know that as a well driller? Because we do in our attempting -- all, although it's not a bonified test, we test the water and then subsequently test the water with appropriate equipment. M~. ESSEKS: have a continuing objection to this both as to the remoteness -- I believe it's first of taste Honor, X wa~t to q remote ~nd the testimony of the quality of water ~n 1964 and 1967. He is a seller of bottled water. a well ~riller. He ts a schoolteacher. I~m s=e he d~s all of these ~s ve~ well. I fail Co see h~ that q~l~s h~ to testify as to the 8al~e c~tent ~ well T~ C~: All r~t, h~ f~her. D~ you ~d potab~ water No, s~. I did not. ~. ESSE~: Your Honor, no m~tter AISI lO.'~dop - dixect 517 how he's asked the 9uestion, it st£11 calls for a conclusion on the part of the witness and I believe that conclusion can only he H£ven by an expe~t. THE C(~: Well, he sa~d he trusted it an~ he tasted salt. He doesn*t have to be an expert to know it's salt. ~. gS$~: I2 he wants to t~stify It tasted salty, I won't object to that. TH~ COUI~: h~ard it. THE W Ill%lESS: TIiE COURT: THE WITNESS That was his test4-~ny Is that what you Sai~l? Yes, six. I did. As a result of your findings with Well No. did you attempt to find water on the property for the hcmeowner involved? A Yes, six. We did. Where did you find A We couid not find It on that property, We had to move down the road in front of a neighbor's pirate off property where we obtained potable water. So I A!82 Krudop - direct ahall I indfcaCe thaC Well? ~ ChaC Well No. 37 A Yes, a~. l~ ~. Wh~ ~p~h was Well No. 37 A ~a~, driven Co a ~pth of 18 feeC. Well No. 4, could y~ 1~ tha~ C~? A Yea, a~. I can. Well No. 4 e~erly a~ o~ Ole Ju~e. T~ C~: All q Krx~1,op ? A 1970. q A q A q A 518 for the in on the What lane? THE WITNESS: On the easte~:ly side of Ole Julanne, ycn~x Honor. What year was Well No. 4 dxilled, Mr. Well, No. 4 was drilled in the Spr:Lm$ of And to what depth? 1~4 feet. Wha~ did you find at 1S4 feet? Salt. ~alty water:. W~ ChaC well ~il~d for a ho~r? A183 Krudop - dLrect 519 from a depth and even the which bz~ugh~ you to water. tion, but his insistence that we had to try to obtain a better quality of water and we encountered salt of 19 feet on down through sand, gravel last 80 feet at the end of that was -- 154 foot l~vel, we obtained salt THE COURT: In other words, you ran into salt from 18 feet down all the way to 154 feet? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. At which point we stopped. Q Where was Well No. 5 drilled? A Well No. 5 was drilled on the same property bu~ -- in the property right near the road. Excuse me. For simplicity purposes, can identify the homeowner involved so we can refer to it? A Yes, sir. The homeowner involved was Austin Tuthill. q where you drilled ~o. THE COURT: Now, that was on both Well No. 4 and Well No. 5? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. It was. Go ahead. Could you describe or indicate 5? Al 8/,, Krudop - di~ec~ A We put No. 5 road right by the edge of the but theoretically it would be 520 in the -- the corner of the road on the man's prope~y, in the southeast portion of the man's propez~y, right abou~ in hera (indicating). q What year was that well drillad? That Well was drilled also in 1970. To what depth? That went to a total dapth of 11 amd a hal~ What was your finding at ll and a half feet. The finding at 11 and a half feet was You:~ Honor, I 'm ~%ot feet ? A good tasting potable water. MR. ESSEKS: objecting to the good taste. I'm objecting to the potable -- THE COU~r: Well, if it's good tasting, X think you can ~l~ink with it ~d cook with it. Q F~r, F, rudop, I ~l~ve you $~ated: ~ ~d~i~ to yo~ well drlll~ work ~at y~ also o~rate a Water C~diti~ C~pany, ~ that right? A ~es, s~. I do. A185 K~dop - direc~ 521 q C ompauy ? A ~/hal: is t:he name oE that: ~.,/al:er Condit::Loning I~'s Culligan Wa~er Condi~iou~n~. What, exactly, do you do ~i~h or for Cvlli- gan ~lac~r Cond~tionin$ Comt~y? A ~le ~e requi~ed I d~t ~k you A l, ~ Chi ~r of ~ b~Ss, sell, Io~, I w~l~ co.acC tha~ -- to c~c~l ~d restful appl~Zi~. ~ yo~ capac~y ~h C~di~E~ Co~y do you ~es~e prob~ A ~a ce~a~y do. ~ you, for Cul~ ~o~y, h~e you ~es~a~2d wel~ Ola Ju~e Creek ~ ~ep Ro~ Creek ~ the ~tt~k ~ea ? A q Chis Yes, sir. Wa have. C~n you d~seribe 8ou~ of yOt.W experience ~ean J~s Creek ~d ~p Ho~ Creek ~ AI86 Krudop - dLrec~ ~22 ~nvesttgatin~ water problems o A In the capacity of the Culligan man -- THE COURT: Let me ask a question. What you call '~)eep Hole Creek," is that what is ordinarily called the Mattttuck Creek ? Matt ~tuck Creel,: No, your Honor. is north. THE COUR~: M~. LARK: That 'e from the Imlmt ? That'e r£~ht. To the Sound 'back to Jularme Highway. THE CO{5{T: Where is Mattituck Creek with relation to that? Mil. LA~K: Your Honor, if I misbt, here's Maratooka Lake, your Honor. Mattitt~-k Creek is over here. The Hamlet of MatCitu~k is in between and Mat~ituck Creek is go~ ~orth to the Sound. I ferEo~ the qu~etion. (The last question was read back by the Reporter as follows:) exper ience and Deep HoLe Creek Can you describe some of your in this area between .lames Creek in fnveet [gating water A187 A Kz~ulop - direct problems ." Yes, s~. H~ ~y wells h~e you tes~d 523 in that suppose it ,~ould be si~pler to mark them with an alphabetical letter. THE COII~T: Ma~k those wt~h alpha- ~.LAP,~: t2 you know, st.r ? A Approcc ~,nate ly 30, ~prox ~te ly 307 A Yes. these wel~ t~ you ~es~d ~ y~ ~a~i=y as a Cu11~ ~? AYes, ~. ; c~. ~y. Would you locate C~, ~ o~ these wells ~hat you have tested? A ~;d better =a~ so~ of these w~h ~. ~ W~S: Shall ~ ~dicate thee, ~o~ H~or, with that ~e8 ~r aEa~? AI88. Krudop - d:LrecC 524 A betical letters instead of numbers. Beginning at the lake -- Wha~ Lake are you referring to? I'm talking about Lake ~,~tratookawhich is on the northerly side of New Suffolk Avenue, we have tested several wells, one a well for a Mrs. Verdais. Q Could you locate that well? A I will locate this one as '~". Q What did you find as a result of that Cast? A We fo~d, as a result oE Chat testtm~;, thmt :f~'on in Che w~Cer and- there was an excessive amount of low'~H." MR. ~.SS~: I will object. THE COURT: Yes, you have to qualify him. In your capacity as a Culligan Water Cond~'ion ing man, what do you do, sir? A We treat water supplies; we Cast water supplies; we are ~skmd to correct problem~ that they have encountered. What training do you have in order to perform this testing of water supplies, sir? A I attended a Seminar in North Brook, Illinois AI89 Krudop - direct: 525 which is the main office of CuLli&an Ln the United -~ta=es. I have etten4ed other technical service Seminars on this. How lon~ have you been ir. this water test ing bum irmss ? A We have been in this business for the p~st 6 years. Q And approximately hc~ m~ay walls have you tested in the past six years? Over a thousand. And where, primarily, have ~hese wails bean A testea? A Suffolk County. I~. LAILK: MR. E$SEKS: a chemist. Do you ~ant more? 1/o~r Honor~ he ts not Hers not a bioEo$ist. THE COUld: I don% know ~hat require-~nCs they nee~ for Coat ing -- ~IMM; qualifications, what tratnin&, what educat ion. l~hat test procedures do you uae, .x~. Kru~op when you test the ~ater quality o£ a well? A Ne have a ~aboratory kit ~ht~h we carry 4 We do a drop count method for obtaining '~lt". Al90 Kru~1.op - direct THE 1.! ]~NESS: 526 What i~ 'TH"? The '~1t" of the water, you: Honor, is the ~asure of the potentLal hMdrogen-iron concentration. It is a of the acidity or alkalinity of zero 14, 7 ~e~ a neutral point. THE COURT: a~d what else? THE W:I~NESS: TME COURT: THE W E~NESS: do, You tested the acidi~y Ye£ ~ you~ }k~lor, you have some kimd of a background and knowledge of chemLat~y to do that? THE W~'NZSS: Yes, sir. I indie, a~ed in my undergraduate work I had a minor in Science which included chemistry couzses. In addition to that T~E COt~RT: C oL~fse8 ? THE WITNESS: the course, at this What kind of chemistry Your Honor, the nam~ of point, I find it dLff~ult A191 Krudop - direct to remember. THE COURT: qualitative analysis ? 527 Well, was it q,~-ntitive, THE W ,~rNESS: ¢ompaxa~or. What ki~d of "comparator"? It's a color Could you 4ascribe ho~ ~hat works for the It's a plasti: pillow which coutaina a pre- measured amount of f~ee agent which, when introduced to · given sample of water -- a given sized emmple, will t~rn A TH~ %,;~I~NEMS: I took a yemx of Coll~ge Chemistry. I c~o~ Ceil you whether ~ w~ q~l~a~ive, q,,nntitattvm. ThmC ~ I ~ hOC positive of. to t~, for q~l~~, I a~ h~ f~bmr ~~ f~om Cull~ ~ ~ha ~ea~ of water ~ ~a~ o~her CesC~ equ~ do you h~ b~s that you desc~ad for m~.~ the '~H" va1~ the A ~e a~o h~e au ~ cest~ p~ce of equipmnt ~hich ~ by coloc A1~2 Krudop - dlrece 528 a color and de~endin~ upon the 4e~ree of pink or to eventually a red color as compared to a color comparative chart, we can determine with this one par~icular test we have to within ~wo-tenths of a part per mil the amoun~ of iron present in the water. q What other ty~es of =estin~ 40 you do on water ? A We also test water for chlor~es by me=hod similar in nature to what we have ]ust discussed. We also test the hardness of water, after ex~er~nce in Chis area, an~ we have been a~le to -- Itm sorry we can also test for hy~rophidas, we can =est for carbon dioxide on the spot, and if we need a more analysis than that, we merely =aka a sampl~ of that water and send lC out =o our main Laboratory at North Brook, Illinois and Eat a printout on it from ~here. A~omic Amsorptton Systems, is the name, I believe, is correct. And have you had Cra~n~ng in CesCtn procedures for the CebtinE of water at l~dividual well A A Yes, sir. We have. Do you receive a Certification? I received a Certif~cati~n by betn~ accepted AI93 Krudop - direct 529 ms a dealer ~ad having attended a DeaLer Training Program for this purpose, yes, THE C(TJRT: You are accepted by THE %~ITNESS: By ~/~e Culligan Company to he & re¢o~nized representative for m area, Suffolk County. ~s your tes~in~ s~eepted h~ ~he SuffoLk Cotmty Department of l, lealth? A The Suffolk County l)ep~m~ of Health, many times, compares results with whst we have. THE COURT: Well, answer to the question. Does the Suffolk County l)epe.rtment of Health accept your testing and your findings? TEE W~ESS: Not as e Ne~ York State reeo~lzed laberatozT, no, sir. But do they accept it for the water quality and co~u~ition o~ a given well? ~R. ESSEKSt Yo~ H~or, ! hate ans~ered that question already. Are you ever cakted upon by the Suffolk Department of Health to test wells for homeowners? A Krudop - direct 530 Not directly, no, sir. THE CO%~T: Do they compare your testinz, or your findings with their own? THE %~ITNESS: had a series on that. 13{E COURT: Yes, sir. We have Why would they compare theirs if they sent the/x expez~ down there to teat the well, why would they come Co you to compare? TH~- ~]~NESS: ~ ~l~ve they w~ted to f~d o~ ~ the ~11~ ~ fa~ to the ~op~ ~ ~he area. ~d if prob~ h~e arden wi~ differen= S~s ~ water, s!t~ti~; Cull~g~ h~ been reco~ed ~ ~ organ~aEt~ th~ ~e m~ht t~t. T~ C0~: D~s ~he De~nt Health certify you ~ any THE W ITI~ESS: the County to operate THE COURX: I em licensed trader in this capacity. When you say '%znder the County," you mean under the County Department of Health? AIg5 THE ~,~ErNESS: No, sir. Under t. he Co%~ty Department of Cousumer Affairs. And in this capacity, you test individual we ils ? Yes, sir. ~..'e do. Who do you give the resul~s of your test to? A These results I keep and are in our files · nd we give a copy cf these results to ~he homeowner. And based on the results of these tests, do you advise homeowners on their water quality and condition? A Yes, sir. in the first pLs~.e. We do. THE COURT: That's why we are called 531 What kind of a check does the Suffolk County Department of Haai~h have on when you make a test and you a~vise ~he homeowner that the water is good or fair or bad? THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe the only answer I could f :.va to that i~ where soma couple of year=, ago the Cotutty was concer~ed with the ]zvel of nitrates at q AI96 Krudop - direct 532 the east end of Long ~'s l~nd, and we had comparisons ~o these amounts of that either we h~ fo~d or that ghey fo~d and we -- ~ the~ tak~ testing ~ the ho~s, they went te r~y Cull~ H~m -- let ~ p~ It th~ way: Whare we h~e Cul[~ .equator at that t~, o~ c~to~rs the fact that ~he B~d of ~alth ~o ta~ chec~ ~d see wb~ ~he q~l~y the water would be. THE COURT: Suffolk County Departm~r~: they come in of their own Who bro,,ght in the of Health? D~ or did the homeowner want to check your work or your teat and did they ask the County Depar~mmnt of Health to come in? THE WI/NESS: It's a possibility that maybe a homeowner did, your Honor, b,d' I believe, primarily, it wa~- the~.;"----~" who said let's compare. Letls see how wa are doing. liave you done amy testln.~ for any hospitals, AI97 Eru~op - direct laboratories in Suffolk County? Yes, sir. We have. Could you give the Cuur~ a list o~ sams? Yes. We have for the Green~ Eastern ~ IsLand Hospital, where we have installed we have for the laboratory water use an~ where is equipmen~ currently going to be ~ns~alled for the entire supply for ~he hospitals of evexy purpose. We have equi~mene at the Veterans Adminis~ra~ion in No~chpox~ where they treat boiler water and make up water with this equip~ant. Q Have you tested the waCer aC these ~o hospitals ? A Yes ~ sir. ~e have ~ ~nd we have further eguip~n= ou~ whether it be in ¢o~ r¢~l establishn~u~ such as Speo~k G~rdm~ A~art-~nt Complex or Genera~ Diaper Service over in Pa~¢hogu~. You test any wa~ar supply for any doctors or physicisns in Suffolk C~unty? A We have eguipment ~nstall~d aC phy~¢~ ho~es or dentists ~ offices for =he~r produ~in~ a bet~r quality water so as to use for t~etr ionia. Yes, sly. We have. We have also been involved wiCh pr~',~--n~ A198 Krudop - ~nt tot llemodyalys ia. Q process ? A What is tha~? I~ is a treatment for kidney patients. Why would the water be lmpo~.~nC in th&= C)~ [~II't~CU1~ ~ I'm thinkir~ about had dt~ficulL-y walking, lie found his he&l~Ja was fading ~nd ~: thai: point we provided the ironLzmd ~r so C.haC the blood would be cleansed more properly. After tha~ his h~alth improved tremendous ly. Q How would you go about providing dioniz~d water ? A What we do on the dionizad is we remove That's one of the ways to measure hIsh qu~li~y water. It's resistance to el~¢tricity measured ill ohms of ~ron and producing a water w ~"h a very high res ist~nca. of the wa~er or wil:h quality incl~caCor m~Cers. Do you install these meters? A We do tnst&ll these meters. res istance. A quaIity This testin& is do~m wi~h ~ use of indicator l~hts. As far as the final quality 534 Did you do that testing yourself? A199 l~-~dop - d~.~ect 535 q q }I~. ESSEKS: Your Honor, /~ 's up to the Court, but I obJact. I dontt f!eal tha~ -- he csn tastm salt, I w£11 not object to that. ~HE CO. IX: He% operated equipment, too o he's ~ to ~ ~ f~ ~~ ~ f~ ~ ~d tot ot~r -- T~ C~: Well C~ Co~ ~ b~ o~y ~h~ ~i~ss ~ not a c~p~e ~ ~ ~ ~. ~. ESSEX: Mos~ of h~ ~ s~e ~i~h ~he -- ~.LAP. K: Let's ask the wit~es8, Let ' o find out. Is that t~, ~. Erudop? A200 I~dop - dLrect 536 You heard Hr. Esseks * sZa~emont. THE W]~ESS: Y~ ~, there ~e ~y, my t~e w~e ~ ~e ca~ed ~on ~o ~ wa~er ~d we Ze~ ~op~e why, y~ '~e be&~u~ wa~r. There ~ no ne~ ~ ~he ~n m Co c~ ~o y~ ho~. t~ ~e~ ~e ~y t~ ~h~e I ~ve ~d water primly ~o ~ a ~r~ o~ to sell s~b~y a phce o~ equi~t. ~ ~e ~y t~ vhere ~ rec~ ~ ~op~ ch~ ~ ~pth o~ the well, N~h F~k B~ ~d ~t where ~ey h~ ~oy ~d ~ cou~ y~ p~e c~ d~ ~d help ~ with ~e ~ob~. I ~ent it ~ to y~ best ~terest, at th~ po~, ~o Eo ~e~ ~d ~ the ~pth oE the well." No, I v~ ve~ ~se~h ~ Chat. T~ C~: Why do ~ople ~11 you? A201 Krudop - direct, 537 For a~-~. le, ~hy does the ~verase homec~mer cai1 an~ say: 1~ill you test my ~ater? ,Is i~ because that. houma~ner doesn't the taste of his rater or suspects som~thin~ -- Zhere~s ~n odor abou~ it, or it's dL[ferent fr~n the ~y iZ has been? THE W~IESS: There ~e a variety of rea~c~s, your Honor. You have covered mo~t of them. The other p~s:Lb£1ity m:l.~ht be Just & concern f~ thm:f.z* o~n at which time ~e can do certa/n tests there for them end the balance of those tests we reco~.~-a tha~ they take ~nother course, take a s~npLe ou~ to Illinois or if they so desire, get & New York Approved Laboratory. T~ COROT: A11 right. I will take the testimony. 1~. ESSE~: ~. LARK: ! believe we were over at the map ~i~h the letter "A" you were describ~ng · ~ell that you tested on a homeo~ner*s proper~y by the name of A202 Krudop Tvate is. THE C (~JRT: ch&c ? - d L~'ecC What woo the ntunber on and the ocher was an excess amount: of iron. in excess of =he Board of Health recom~unded where ii; was ~wo, a problem caus/ng stalu/n~ home. THE COURT: '~H" cause ? That is, Wha~ does the low I believe your Honor. THE CO~RX: W&i~ m~Cil I find it here. All right, whose place is th~:? You ~ve ~d~a~d C~C ~ ~ ~p? A Yea, a~. I h~e, ~ lC~ "A" ~ ~e no~erly s~ of N~ S~fo~ Av~ ~ ~= of ~e ~ ~e so~he~= c~r of =~ ~ -- ~a~oo~. q ~at d~ you C~C ChaC well f~, ~. ~op ? A We ~ated ChaC well -- ~ Cest~ Chat 538 MR. IAi: The l~tCer "A", A203 K_--udop - direct, 539 ~ I~'rI~ESS: Lc~ '~H" ca~es a co~os~ve s~ ~ ~ pl~ ~ t~ horn. ~y ~s ev~d by ~ ap~ o~ b~u~h ~e~ s~, ~e~rally ~ the water. ~ ~s~a t~e ~ '~H"? A ~e ~ ~ excesa~ve ~ec~d ~ o~ 0.3 o~ ev~ S~a~y ~ak~, ~ ~ ~e~, ~ enoch ~o ~e ~ ~ ~S ~ ~p~ 1~ ~h~ you say ta~ ~o~ sta~," ~ould ~&t ~d~a~ ~t to you? ~ W~S: Yes, s~ yo~ h~. ~e, you see, the ~ co~a o~ of the ~ ~ ~ sol~i~ ~o~ ~he~e the A20~ l~op - direct 54O could run absolutely claa~, bu~ allowed to at~ o~ be expoaed to ~he oxygenated a~ea, the o~an ox~s ~ ~ ~h~h sol~ ~d ~h~n ~o~ ~ ~ t~s a g~-~s of ~ate~ ~at will ~ ~Car sECt.S, that's ~e C~ ~ a S~s o~ wa~r or ~ a b~l, ~ C~: Ail ~. C~ld y~ ~scr~ ~othe~ wall ~ ~e ~ma that y~ teated? A Y~, ~,~. T~re ~e s~eral ~ there. c~ c~C~ the~e, b~ ch~ter~C~lly ~ th~ f~her, tho~h~ ~ ~ co~ ~er ~d d~ on ~atoo~ Road in there. Basically, & coupl~ of more. in ~he Lupron Point area, which is this projection into the Deep Hole Creek section, we have many horns o~e, ~o, three, four, five ~nd q Did you teat any wells in that area? Yes, ~e have. Could you be specific and indicate on the map A205 I~'udop - direct: 541 a well that you tested? A Yea, sir'. The home of Hr. ]/anus which is located aC this poinC. Should we Label Chac as '~"? As a result of the test -- when was chat test done, by the way, if you know? A That Cast was d~ne -- I have a test on Chat well, thaC test -- now, are you goin~ to ~aCch I doric Chink ChaC is one of the mo~e resent. Thac was probably back aroun~ -- ]usc shortly before 1970. But ~ have tested ochers more recently C~_~- that right ~lJ acen= to Coulcl you describe one that you have tested recently ? A Certainly. Just severa~ weeks ago the water of the h~ne d/recCly adjacent to Hr. hom~, which is lit. Loeff~er. That waCer was very in '~1". q A Could you mark ChaC on the map? X'm TI~ COU~T: (= ont inu ) Mark Chat as '%:". Ir. is hoc presently shc~a A here, but there is a patch of woods and Chac house was in that patch of woods. made? A206 Krudop - direct THE COIR~: When was that test several weeks a~o, your Honor. last week. Would that be in April of 1975 ? A Il: was made in Apr£1, 1975. What was the results of CE test? A The results of chaC test w~ six grains par gallon of hardness. That test was m~da Poss ~bly 542 When you say six grain hardness, what does I'm so~ry, there are six -- a grain is a measurement of weight. A Stain per gallon is equivalent to approxh~ately 17.12 parts per mil. In other words, a milligram per liar, same tde,. What does six grains indina~e to a layman? A Six grains indicates tha~ ~he water is under very hard r~e. water. th ft.s mean? A total of the two cat iron that are What does that indi~ate? Hax~Inass i~ a maaure of the calcium and the in the A207 Krudop - direct 543 Q Did you f~nd anythin8 else ~ a ~ault of ~a[ well ~ A Yes, s~. ~e d~. ~e f~d o~ ~here excessively 1~ '~" of ~a~er, ch~ ~e~C of poCenC~ly h~h ~ C~ y~ de~cr~ ~y ~er ~lis ~ the A Yes, s~. ~e wall ~J~n= to it ~ b~al~y the s~ ~ar~ter~=~s ~ the well ~=oss the street. So ~ d~vt get m~ '~, ~k t~n. ~i~e lC wou~ be ~ ~d E, The ~at that you c~ 1~ the~o Q '~" is d~rectly across the street. ~hen were these tests takeu? These tests were all teke~withi~ the Last W £thin the of those tests? A naa-ute thac last year7 What was the result These tests were a~ain, hard water of the I JusC previously ~ndicated, slx gra~n_~ or more, ~nd very l~w '~"H," down ar~-~4 5.5 to as h~h as maybe 6.2, bu~ still constderahly ~mdar the seven neuZral level. Continuin~ on down -- A208 Krudop - direct 544 q D/d you find any nitrates? No, s~r. I4e have no~. All right. l~ovin~ alon~, was ~here sn~ other well you have tasted ~n that area movtn~ further sou~h, say? A ~her s~h ~ ~oo~ ~, we h~e ~s~d ~1~ ~ ~h~ ~ea. ~ ~ea~ A I'm s~, s~, c~ d~ ~oo~ ~ pzo~y '~)" will he by ~he name of Cazw. q When was that ~est taken? THE C(X~: thought we h~ '~"? ~ W~SS~ ~ will ~ '~", y~ H~or. ~hen w~ cha~ test C~n, I h~e to Ee~ ~ record~ ~ th~ ~e. T~ C~: What's the name o£ q A A209 Krudop - direct How deep was the wells:if you know? The well is well under 10 feeC deep, es I When did you take this test? This was taken last Fall, I belimve. Okay. Movin~ fu~hmr ~est, have you takmn in the 01- Jula~ms Avenue? Yes, I have. Could you be specific and indicate CBs map w/Zh the A At the home -- q explain A q Just go ahead and indicate it an/ you can it Co the Co~m~. This would be right d~ here. At the Hold it juSt a second. THE COURT: is that? THE W I~ESS t Mr. Corw in. All ri~ht, whose ho~s Tha= is the home of Did you do a water test there? Yes, I did. %~{E COUlkT: Whom was that dome? 546 A210 Krudop - direct 547 THE W]~%~S$: A week ago. this pa~t Saturday, your Honor. THE C(~IRX: e×cess!vely l~w '~H". It w~ What d I foumd, A well which only abo~d; eight fee~ ~ep, They ~e over 90 ~ ~0 ~s ~r mil. Do y~ ~ wha~ the rec~d of Health ~e per mil for ~l~es A Yes, I do. T~ raced 1~ ~ 250 ~ ~r mil. D~ y~ do ~y oC~= well test~g ~ the O~ Ju~~ M~eo~ -- ~ C~: Well, w~ that wa~r of ~. Co~ sat~f~to~? sat~fa=~o~ excepC f~ the f~t that ~e well h~ been sitt~ ~d the chlor~es were a~eady ~r~t of the rec~n~d l~tt. I expressed c~ to }~. Co~ w~h the f~t that A211 Krudop - direct 548 Winter Season or S,.,.,~r Season the amount of water consumed wi~h al). these ho~es do~n /m tht~ area, increases with ~ater ~ the~ ~n ~ate~ c~pct~ ~creases ~he~r [~ ~ the ~er~ off 2he ~raas or whatever thaC he m~t exit to f~ a Ch~r~ prob~m d~ the seaa~. =he re~, ~ well ~ it's ~ly e~ht fee~ ~ep. T~y h~ =he well deep ~o pull tE back ~¢a~e t~y fo~ salt. They t~=e~ sale. T~ CO~ ~ Wha~ w~ld adv~e of ~k~E =he wel~ dee~r? T~ W~SS= ~e ~o advises ~ell, I w~t ex~Cly say Che -- yo= H~, I'll st~ with t~g to l~t t~m for you. The deeper a well, pr~rily bacter~lly should ~ ear. became ~ septic syste~ -- o~ s~e s~te~ d~pose of o~ waste r~ht ~to the EroS. ~d ~ s~ll~ are~ where t~re ~e only fo~ or five feet to water, r~ht ~to ~ro~d water supply. ~d ~ a ~eper well ~ obta~d, A212 Krudop - direct 549 it is naturally to everyone's benefit. T~ COLOr; Wha~ is the d~p~h that they usually go to? If youtre not near body of water and you don't have a problem there ? TH~ ~.7~I~ESS: The Board of Health requires that we have -.- your Honor, at Chis point -- itts been six y~ars since dr£11ed wells, bu~ as of ~haC ~ata may have mad~ the raquirema-Cs more stringent -- we had to have a minimum of !~0 f~et of water in a well and ~he well to have an o~erall depth of a~ least 50 feet ~mles$ you encountered salt previous to that. Then ~hey would permi~ a shallow well. THE C0~I~: They permitted them as shallow as eight feet? THE WITNESS: Hour Honor, I believe if the/r cesspools are kept at a maximum distance, I believe. of 100 feet. THE COUR3~: THE W IINESS: They want a mini~am 100 feet? Yes, your Honor. A213 IC_--m.~op - d.~'eet 550 A~ea th~ Fou tested? A There are. OkaT. THE COURX: AlL right. Are there any other wells in the Ole I'm trying to find my place. flere we ~ra. This is Ca~-Mtneola Road and com~C up Ca~-Mineola Road r{~bt up the road there is old house on the westerly si~e of Cam~-Mimaola Ro~ O~ed by Mr. Kreh. I will ~mrk that "I". When was ~hat test dome, Mr. Krudop? A Th~.t wa~er test was dome om September lB, 1974. %;hat were the results of tha~ test? The results of that test were, there were iron. O.1, q A effective January The State Recommended L~it is 0.3 total i, for iron ~md manganese, eombf~d . A no nitrates, there were 0.1 parts per mil of and manganese wa~ 1.5 parts per mil. THE COURT: Was that high or low? THE W~NESS: Your H~or, very high. What is the Department of }lealth I~t yo~ teste~? A214 iirudop - direct ~what? 0.3. Any other wells in the Ole Julanne area THE C OttR~: fit for THE W ITNV~SS: 551 Well, was that water Your Honor, we were q A noz~h om Cam~-Mineo!a Road we tm~erSected Kraus Road which head~ west, then directly south of .~raus Road we h~ve a home located behind that of Mr. Stein, which is req~msted to apply equipment to c~rreet the problem. ~. ESSEKM: 1[ don't thimk that's -- Itm not sure Zhat's ~espomstve. THE C0%~: We!l, i~ other woz~ls, it was not potable? THE WrrNESS: Your Honor, it was mo~ potable. THE CO~ILT: U~less you correct the condition with your equipment? THE W 1TNF~S: Yes, yo~n: Homo=. Any o~her wells in ~he O!e Julamne area? Yes. Camp-Mineola Romzl, again, coming A215 Kr-~dop - dtrec~ previously i~dfca~ed as E~hihit ~o. 1. That was the original ~e. ~:hat ? 1. This well now ia -- can you indicate THE COURT: That person's narm~ ia Ereb now he ' s t.~. LAPJi: testifying -- TH~ W ]~NESS: ~o~h Brook, Ii!~o~. These ~e d~e by the~ equ~ ~ there, whi~ When was the water tested? A July 19th, 1973. %That w~ the result of Che tes~ that you di~? "PH" of that water warn 7.4, one of 552 A The that was alkaline. The iron was 0.i a~d manganese t~at wall was 4.3 parts per mil. THE CO~ILT: Ho~ ~s the "PH," was that low or high? A216 Y~ __.' ::[op - ~H~ ~ ITN~.SS: The '~H" on the alkaline Side it was high, your Honor. The nitrates were 5.5 parts per mil. THE COURT: Is that hish or !ow? THE WII~N~.SS: That is well within the recom=~nded !im/~s~ your Honor, of 10 pares per mil. And the total hard~em~ o£ that test was 8.3 grains per gallon. 553 q side of Lake }~ratoo-ka? THE COURT: Just a m~nu~e. Let find out about this Graab Property. Was the water there satisfactory to you? THE WZr}~SS: No, your Honor. We applied equip~nt to correct the problem. 2.Rl. ESSEKS: Your Honor, I don k~%ow whether that's any kfa~d of an answer. I assume I have a continuing objection, but when the %:i~ness says that ha put in Culliga~n equipmer~:, I'm not really sure that esgablished tha~ the water potabie withLn ~he normal l~aits. Ti~ COLr~LT: Well, was it potable? Have you teated any wells near the southerly RAh7 P '~erz 831 ( Phc Exhibit :[ for ident[ft~:~t[on, now received and marked in evid~ n~e.) ~fF.. L~'iDB.... · I have no further ~. ESSEKS T~[2 CQUHT: zhat? ~,~. LUNDBERC of the Town House East. Subject to your Honor's viewing ~he premises as previously sti~ulated, the Defendant Town of Southold rests~ TH£ COURT: I;orris? MR. LARK: ycur Honor, ~ ...n.~.~,~ marked Defendants' No cross examination. ,'lns. c was the name of It was another view the Defendant How about The Defendant Norris subject to your Honor viewing the earliest practicable Any rebuttal? Ho rehut~al. the premises at date. THE CC, UET: '.IR. E%SZiiS: Ti[h: COUi':2: rests~ All ' -' * RA~8 ,,.,,~"~ L~D2ERG: Jud~,e, for the record, may I renew my r. otlon to dismiss at the e~d of the ~ ~ .',r , to Stove ~ pmlma facie case~ move to dismiss the complaint for that reason and move also to dismiss the cor~lalnt based upon 511%he evidence In the erase. ~. ESSEKS: The Plaintiffs move for Judgment~ your Honor. THE COURT: Ail r!Eht. Decision Is reserved cn all ~otions. The Plaintiffs will submit their memoranda by ~ay 19th znd the Defendants by June 2nd. And the Plaintiffs will h:ve one %.;eek, thereaI'ter, to redly. oOa MATTmTUCK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE P.O. BOX' 1056 MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND N.Y. 11952 ~ ¢~ 9 ,~,i:%lq ~ L~ %. ~*'i'->-72--~-~ ~'-''''* ~ ToWN OF SuU ~ ..... January 2B, lq82 Mr. William Pell Supervisor Southold Town Board Southold, New York 11971 Dear Bill: I am writing to you on behalf of the Mattituck Chamber of Commerce to thank the Town qoard for their help in getting the Norris property in Mattituck to be used as a park and parking lot. The Chamber woul~ also appreciate any added help that can be 2lven to have thc North Fork Lank and Trust Company drive in window relocated to allow cars using the win~ow to exit through the parking lot nn! >nto The traffic at the present time is allot<ed to exit ~n Love Lane and this has caused several problems. A~ain, I ~:ould like to thank you for your help in the past and for your support in the future. ~.o_u r s truly, Raymond F. Nine Pres tdent f[_e~e is ~o dou~.,~ i: ~.'oula bri:~ : r'n:,.,..o~·L~= long ...... d .... rd lOi~ ~% ~.r Mr. Albe~'t i~artochi~ 14 South St., ,]reenoort~ ~.Y. Dear Sir: According to the legal notice in the November 22 issue pi the Ilattituck Wntchman~ it is the intent of one Bruce Norris of ~.lattituck to request a change in the zoning of certain l~nds o~ed by him in ~attituck, irom "A'' residenti al to "M" light multi~le residential. 3uch a request~ ii' granted, is ol verVz sericus concern to this v~izer as it is to eve~,~ owner o~' property adjoininng or in close proximity to the Norris tract. First~ and Ioremost, is the threat to a continued adequate supply o£' unpolluted water which such rezoning would present. To this threat to the ~dequacy pi supply must be added the even more serious proOlen pi pollution pi the water table~ since no central sewage dis- posal system would be provided by the tevelopers. F~ther, you must consider tbz efiect of tr~ic congestion created by such development. ~ew Suffolk Ave. is a ~nding, 2 lane co~t~r ros.d~ ~th no traffic lights or blinkers~ to ~pede rapid traffic flow eas~:-west. Even now~ in the s,~mer months, this traZi'ic is iair].v hes~I. ARZ~ me~n~gful addition to b~e Suffolk Ave. traffic burden ~,~culd ~resent a dangerous situation to ~,~one travelling on si]e road feeders into Su~fotk Ave. ~r private be3ches~ for the ~>r]vilege of ~ich ~-m now Day an exorbitantly high oroperty tax~ ~ll~ most certainly be inva~te~ by a hor]~ of nevco'ners, whose re;peet ~or p~ivate o~.mershio will ve~r like- 11' be no Ere~ter than that of present"s~er~' ~.eople with whose tres- oa~sinq ~.re are only too fanilisr. Lastly~ it has been procla~eJ as the sense oY our Comnty's leadership to maintain ~ all means the bucolic chg~ ~nd character o~ this Oo~ty's open spaces, it is sreciselV that aspect of our neighbor- hood that invited so m~v of us years ago to come ~d make this o~ home. We respectfully request~ that in the light pi the foregoing you reject the proposed z~ing ~en~ent asked Ior by ~ruce Norris. 101 Cousley Drive Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 Supervisor of Southold Town Southold Town, Development & Zoning Board Re: Bruce Norris Development & Zoning Requests. Dear Sirs: A 2~' right of way know~n as Camp Mineola Road extends directly along the westerly side of the Estate of Leone D. Howell, Deceased. Section of said right of way is owned by the estate from the inter- section of said right of way with another right of way running east and west along north boundary of said estate and property ow~a- ers to the east. Problems concerning the Camp Mineola Road ri~t of way are at pre- sent beyond the conception of disinterested parties. Although certain parties only, have ~e of said right of way, it is a constant source of problems by others who use same. Until Mr. Norris can prove to the residents of Camp Mineola, and particularly to the undersigned his plans, in writing, to prevent such a tremendous addition to these problems, concerning privacy and invasion of same, we the undersigned hereby request the refusal of any re-zoning and development plans Mr. Norris may h~v .~-''~ If necessary our counsel will be glad to review and advise us of any plans Mr. Norris wishes to present for further study. Camp Mineola is a peace loving private community and we hope and pray we can perpetuate the attitude and plans of my late father, the founder of Camp Mineola, to continue this status. Very truly yours, I '~ -' Robert G. I~rendel 664 Knollwood Drive, ~(/est Hempstead, N. Y. 11552 //- 3~ - 73 Robert ~. Brendel 664 Knollwood Drive, ~,~/est Hempstead, N. Y. 1J552 Robert 6. Brendel 664 Knollwood Drive, West Hempstead, N. Y. 11552 MRS GREGORY M DEXTER P. o. BOX IO23 PARK AVENUE MATTiTUCK, NEW YORK 11952 The Bo_qrd of 'fr~=tee-s of' the ~'own of .So~thold, ..!.Y. re: Rec~]est b7~ aruce i.]orris for change from "A" :-esSdential :~ '~ricultural ~;istrict tc "M" Light Nulti/~le Resi- dential ~istrict zoning' in Mattituok 'jibe bu~10;n~ zone ordinance of Southold ~,,~s ~assed to rrotect a ~ra~ile environment from the dev~stmtinF ~roblems of ,~ter supply and w~stP ~isr, os~l caused b7 over-romul~ion. Acc,~rdin~ to Mr. Anthony Taormins of the N~-., York State ,~e~rt~ent of ~nvir~nmental Conservation in ~n ~,~,ress in N~ttituok on January 17, 1~7~, ~ fa~ilM of four wit~ the ~re- sent svatems of wells and cesspools reouires one and a half acres of lanm to maintain an ecce~-tq. Oly ,~tsble water su?,~l?. ~[I~is is more th~ the one-acre zonin~ i-rovi~es. Therefore any ~t~e~rt to ~ncrease the density of la,ion m~]st be ODrlose~ ~md the zoning ordin- ance strictl7 observed/ if e~stern Lone Island is to .~veid the moblems of the west end and of Florims. ] r~s~ectfully request that this letter be rea~ into ~he recor~m of 7our meetin~ on ~ecember 11, 1~,73. Very trm]y you Estie W. )exter ?G Denhoff Ave., Freeport, N.Y. 11520 November 28, 1973 Town Supervisor, 16 South St., Greenport, N.Y. Deer Sir: We hereby vot~. our protest_to a change in the zoning laws in connection with the hearing on December llth, by the Southold Town ~oard in Greenport pertain- ing to real property located at Mattituck, N.Y. As property owners at Mattituck (off Reeve Avenue on Peconic Bay west) we feel that there would be a tremendous strain on our water supply with an almost certain threat of pollution. Further, that we would be denied the quiet enjoyment of our private beach which we have enjoyed for many years. Will you therefore please add our voice to the manv others who will protest this zoning variance. Y~urs truly~ . Mary A. ~illigan ~ ? ~ '~ J. Elizabeth 5'~illigan STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: SS: ALBERT W. RICHMOND, Sou~ho[d, lfew York, being dull,' s~orn, age of twenty-one years; that on uhe 19 73 , he affixed a nouice of which ::.:~ is a true copy, in a proper and substan~ia!, manner, in d ,:x- public place in the Town of Souuhold, Suffolk Couhty, N~.w LEGAL NOTICE York, to wit:- Public Hearing - change of zone applications Norris & Gilles -Deeember ll, 1973 of Souchoht, ",'" says that tie is ov~i~ L. , 2lth day of the annexed prinT-:d Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Town Clerk Office Main Road, Southotd, L.I.,N.Y. Sworn to before me this 27th day of November 19 7~ ~o ~a r'_/ Pu~Ize 'AN~e~'-t Wi RichmOnd,-~own C~e~ ~. NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON PROPOSALS TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE Pursuant 'to Section 265 of the .¥ ~,.thl~l~.on lin~ bet'.;cen , rl~lOg .N. ?~.' 02' 20" E. 78.44 feet '~ff~ A~nue; thence souch- ,~ ~t~ly. ~utherly. westerly aha ...' aSatn ~[hertR ~rough the lan~ ~.~ Bruce ~ords the following ~1~2) B. 7' 42' ~" W. 218.10 ~ S. ~' 30' 20" W. 349 92 ~)TN. ~ 29' 40- w. ~0.0o ~} '(~) 8. go 30' 20" w. 865.96 cultural District to "B-I"_ -~J ~ eral Business District, t~ ~ ~!i~(6~ S. ~/* 31' 10" E. 423.00 . ~ the llgr~heast cornel' of erty of Edward Gilles. situated ~:ll~nd of ~ank J. Murphy. at North side Middle Road, .: ~.point of,beginning of parcel (Country Road No. 27), ~fl*. [ :~m~r two hereinafter describ- Murphy ~ of Laurence P. as follows: ....... ~- 1~ Of ~ve Avenue, al~o of Bull~k and from said, ~int v[3v[~[n Parcel No. 1 2--3 N. 20° 48' 20" W. 205.53 ft. {~ ~ southwest comer of the ~ N. 62~ 53' 00" E. 429.19 ft. ] ~( ~ of Vera Cichanowicz; thence o -- --,, ~ 269 51 f~ ' ~; easterly ~nd northerly along the 5--6 N. 62 ~,.~,m~,~'~ ~..~, ~ds oI Vera Cichanowicz, of 7--8 S. 38° 30' ~ ~ a~ ~ ~e Bmo~ the following ~ S. 33~ 12' 40" E. 2~6.~ ft 9---10 S. 27° 46' 40'~;E. 213.00 ft. 10~-11 S. 35~ 01"4~i},158.00 ft. 11--12 S. 45~ 25' $0" E. 199.10 ft. 12--t3 S. 31 56' 90" E. 452~41 ft. 13--14 Red.!48.85-arc 32.03 ft. endin'~'at Northerly point of 14-1 along Northerly side of Middle Road to the point or place of beginning, containing an are~ of 37.285 acres. Beginning at a point on ti~e (Country Road No. 27~ at the applicant with the property al 16 Bad. 2820.79 arc 160.27 feet; ~16-17~ North 79: 00' 40" East South 74 49' 00" West 4~8.gl feet along land now or forme'ly of Steadma~: ~19-g0) North 35 16' 00" :~est 41.30 feet t0ong Company; 120-15, North 25: 39' ~ ~aee O~ be~,:nning· containin4 al! , ~ and distances: iD S. 76 2'l' ~/ E. 312.Ti,feet; (2~ S. 77 4~' 30~ E. 91.78 feet; 13~. S; 30".E 121.88 feet; 15~ N. 7 42' pla~ of beginning, containin~ an ' p.~.EL 2 ', ~' ~I~INNINO at the northeast i~ ~0rl~r of the land of Frank J. ' ' hy and running thence from ~'P~lnt of beginning northerly, ~the land of Bruce Norris : ~lowtng courses and dis- : ' ~' 't N. 82 28' 50" E. 450.89 ~j~'point in tile easterly lilaC, the land of Thornton E. 8]~' ~/ahe lands of Thornton E. Slt~, o[ Matilda S.. Haberman, Appolonia Ktrehgessner, of J. /Murphy 916,44 feet to the point or place of beginning con- taining an area of 10,915 acres. Any person desiring to heard on the above proposed amendments should ~ppear at the time and place so specified. Dated: November 16, 1973 SCUTHOLD TOWN BOABD TOWN CLERK : SUFFOLK } ss: NEW YORK Whitney Booth, Jr., being duly sworn, says s the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND - MA-CI'ITUCK WATCHMAN, a public news- ed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that f which the annexed is a printed copy, has been ~ s~id Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watch- ach week for ....~?--.~.~'-.-.-.-~-..~.- '~'-' we..l~ , commencing on the ............... ~ ........ ..................... ........ vorn to before me this ........ ~.~. ...... day of ....... , NOTIC~ OF HEARINC~ ON PROPO~AL~ TO ~ND ZONING ORDINANCE ~rows Law/~1 Paq~-~m~ts o! County, New York, public Of the Seporvi~', 16 Soeth ~trcet, Town. ~ the llth day of ~oae Orai,~.ce (inchdin~ me B~/di~ ~e Map~) Of the Town York. 7:30 p.m. (E.S.T.)., by ~ from "A" Runidentlal 1" Geeerul Business District, the property of ~.Edward Gilles, situated at North side Mlt~ Road, (County ltoad No. Mattituck, Ne~ York, and naore particularly bounded .~nd de~rthed as follows: Be~/li~$ at a point o~ the inortherly side Of Middle ~ the intersectioa of the peep-gy Of ag}~i~cant with the property .of B~l~k/md from said point of 13'3o" W. ~ ~t.; 2-3 N. 20 51 degrees ~'O0" E. 100.00 ft.; 7-S $. 36 degre~: Z. ~,.00 ft.; ~-~ S. ~ ~ 12'40' E. 24~.00 ft.; 9-I§ degrees 46'40" E. 213.00 ~.; S 36 dej~eea. 01'40" E. 136.00 fl; 11-12 S. 45 degree~ 25'30" E. 199.10 ft.; 12-1.3 $. 31 degrees 55'~0" E. 452.41 ft.;. 13-~4 Pad. 4~.00 - arc 3~.0~ ft.: 14-1 S. 76 de~ 00'40" W. 1.M4.1g ft. ending at North~ly Of ~d to the. or place of b~i_'~nin~, cont~ an Begi~nln~ at a point on the southerly side of Midge Road (County 1~ No. ~'/) at the in- ter~ctton ~ the property o! appl/cant with. the property of Kousourous (md from said point of beginning~ning thence 15-16 Had. 2~20.~'arc 169.27 feet; (16- 17) North 76 degrees 00'40" East 297.36 fee~; (17-18) South 19 degrees 54'0F' East 194.47 feet along other property of ap- plicant; (18-19) South 74 degrees 49'00" West ~0~.Sl feet along land land of Vera Cichanowicz; ~hence easterly and northerly along the lands of Vera Cichanowicz, of Alice Dove, of Elberta Reeve and of George Brooks the following courses and distances: (1) S. 76 degrees 2T30" E. 312.78 feet; (2) S. 77 degrees 45'30" W. 91.78 feet; (3) S. 77 degrees 53'20" E. 96.70 feet; 14) S. 73 degrees 3~'30" E. 12t.~ feet: (5) N. 7 degrees 42'00" E. 224.34 feet to the point or or place of beginning, containing an area of 27.6~3 acres. now or formerly of Steadman; (19-20) North 35 degrees 16'00" West 41.30 feet along land of Long Island Lighting Company; (20- 15) North 35 degrees 38'50" West 170.24 feet along land of Kousourous to the point of place of beginning, containing an area of 1.99 acres. 8:00 p.m. (E.S.T.)., by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M Light Multiple Residential District, the property of Bruce Norris, Mattituck, New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point formed by the intersection of the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue with the division line between the lands of George Brooks and of Bruce Norris and running thence from said point of beginning N. 77 degrees 02'20" E. 78.44 feet along the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue; thence southwesterly, southerly, westerly and again southerly through the land of Bruce Norris the following courses and distances: (1) on a curve to the left with a radius of 36.15 feet for a distance of 43.75 feet; (2) S. 7 degrees 42'00" W. 218.10 feet; S. 7 degrees 30'20" W. 349.92 feet; (4) N. 82 degrees 29'40" W. 50.00 feet; i5) S. 7 degrees 30'20" W. 845.00 feet; (6) S. 7 degrees 31'10" E. 423.00 feet to the northeast corner of the land of Frank J. Murphy, (the point of beginning of parcel number two here described); thence N. 86 a,~:,, ees 4T40" W. along the lands of Frank J. Murphy and of Laurence P. Reeve 809.45 feet to the easterly line of '" 've Avenue", also known as ' .rap Mineela Hoad"; thence northerly along the easterly line of "Reeve Avenue" the following courses and distances: (1) N. 7 degrees ~OUI~TY OF SUFFOLK, 07'00" E. 6~7.65 feet; (2) N. 7 STATE OF NEW YORK, [ ss: degrees 32'00" E. 519.57 feet; (3) N. 16 degrees 07'00" E. 550.00 feet ~ tuar t C. Dorma~ being duly Sworn, to the southwest corner of the ...................................... says that .. he.. is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK WEEKLY TIMES, a newspaper published ~t Greenport, in said county: and that the notic% of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the said Suffolk Weekly Times o~e (1) weel~ once in each week, tar ............................ 9211d s~c¢~ssi~l¥ commencin~ ou th® .......................... day of Novembe ..~--~... 19 73 PARCEL 2 L'~'"'~' - '~'~' '-~"-~' .................... BEGINNING at the northeast 9 corner of the land of Frank J. Swo-~l to before me this ..... Murphy and running thence from d~ n! Novem~.e'r' ./ .%° J // northerly, ' .... easterly, somherly and westerly through the land of Bruce Norris the following courses and ............. distances (1) N. 7 degrees 3t'10" // ,~ N~,.Tj £~.~ i' W. 183.56 f~t; (2) N. 82 degrees /,/ ~'50" E. 450.~ feet; (3) S. 0 ~ ~ ,~,., d~5) -~' degrees 47'~ ' W. 1~.~ feet (4) S..7~egrees o1'50" E. ~4.~ feet; ~y Corem ~ 82 degrees ~'~" W. 4~.73 feet to a ~int in ~e easterly line uf the land of ~ornton E. Smi~; thence ~. 7 de~e~ 32'10" W. along the lands of ~orntun E. Smith, of Matilda S. Ha~an, Appolonia Kirchgessner, of Joseph Petem, ~d of Frank J. M~phy 916.~ f~t to the ~int or place of beginning conmin~g an area of 10.915 acres. ~y ~rson d~ifing to be h~rd ea the a~ve p~sed amend- ments shoed ap~r at the time and place so specified. Dated: Novem~r 16, 1~3 BY ORDER OF ~E SOU~OLD ~WN BOARD ~BERT W. RICHMOND TO~ CLERK NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON PROPOSALS TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and Requirements of the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold~ Suffolk County~ New York~ public hearings will be held by the Southold Town Board in the office of the Sup~rvisor~ 16 South Street~ Greenport~ New York~ in said Town on the llth day of December 1973~ on the following proposals to amend the Building Zone Ordinance (including the Building Zone Maps) of the Tow~ of Southold~ Suffolk County~ New York. ?:30 P.M. (E.S.T.).~ by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-l" General Business District~ the property of Edward Gilles~ situated at North side Middle Road~ (County Road ~ 27), Mattituck, New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northerly side of Middle Road at the intersection of the property of applicant with the property of Bullock and from said point of beginning running thence: Parcel ~l 1-2 N. 3~*13'30" W. 772°95 ft. ii~ N. 20'~8'20" W. 205.%3 ft. N. 51'~3'00" E. ~1~.50 ft. N. 62*53'00" E. ~29.19 ft. 5-6 N. ft. ft. 62'~3'30" E. 269.51 ~ ~ N. 55'25'50" ~. 195.56 ] S. 38*30'50" E. 85.96 ft. 8-9 S. 33'12'40" E. 2~6.00 ft. 9-10 S. 27.~6'$0" E. 213.00 ft. lO-11 S. 35'01'~0" 1%~.00 ft. ll-12 S. 45*25'30" E. 199.10 ft. 12-1~ S. 31'55'00" E. ~52.~1 ft. l~l~ Rad. ~8.85-arc 32.03 ft. 14 i S. 76.00'~0" W. 136~.18 ft. ending at Northerly point of l~-l along Northerly side of Middle Road to the point or place of beginning, containing an area of 37.285 acres. Legal Notice Parcel # 2 Page 2 Beginning at a point on the southerly side of Middle Road (County Road # 27) at the intersection of the property of applicant with the property of Kousourous and from said point of beginning running thence 15-16 Rad. 2820.79 arc 169.27 feet; (16-17) North 76~00'~0'' East 297.36 feets (l?-18) South 19~5~' 00" East 19~.~7 feet along other property of applicant; (18-19) South 7~9'00" West ~08.81 feet along land now or formerly of Steadman ; (19-20) North 35~16'00" West ~1.30 feet along land of Long Island Lighting Ccmpany$ (20-15) North 35~38'50'' West 170.2~ feet along land of Kousourous to the point of place of begi~ntng~ containing an area of 1.99 acres. 8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.).~ by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M Light Multiple Residential District~ the property of Bruce Norris~ Mattituck~ New York~ and mere 'particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point formed by the intersection of the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue with the division line between the lands of George Brooks and of Bruce Norris and running thence from said point of beginning N. 77~02'20'' E. 78.1~ feet.alonZo'.the ~o~herly linm. of New Suffolk Avenue; thence southwesterly~ southerly~ westerly and again southerly through the land of Bruce Norris the following courses and distances: (1) on a curve to the left with a radius of 36.15 feet for a distance of ~3.75 feet~ (2) S. 7~2'00'' W, 218.10 feet; (3) S. 7~30'20'' W. 3~9.92 feet; (~) N. 82~29'~0'' W. 50.00 feet; (5) S. 7~30'20'' W. 8~5.96 feet; (6) S. 7~l'lO'' E. ~23.00 feet to the northeast corner of the land of Frank J. Murphy~ (the point of beginning of parcel number two hereinafter described); thence N. 86~7'~0'' W. along the lands of Frank J. Murphy and of Laurence P. Reeve 809.~5 feet to the easterly line of "Reeve Avenue"~ also known as "Camp Mineola Road"; thence northerly along the easterly line of "Reeve Avenue" the following courses and Legal Notice Page ~ Parcel t cont'd. distances: (1) E.519.%7 feet; (3) N. corner of the land of Vera Cichanowicz; thence easterly and northerly along the lands of Vera Cichanowlcz, of Alice Dove~ Elberta Reeve and of George Brooks the following courses and distances: 91.78 feet; 121.88 feet; of beginning~ N. 7~07'00'' E. 667.6~ feet; (2) N. 7~32'00'' 16~07'00" E. 550.8% feet to the southwest of (1) S. 76~27'30'' E. 312.78 feet; (2) S. 77~%'30'' E. (3) S. 77~%3'20'' E. 96.70 feet; (~) S. 73~38'30" E. (%) N. 7~2'00'' E. 22~.3~ feet to the point or place containing an area of 27.683 a~res. PARCEL 2 BEGINNING at the northeast corner of the land of Frank J. Murphy and running thence from said point of beginning northerly~ easterly~ southerly and westerly through the land of Bruce Norris the following courses and distances (1) N. 7~31'10'' W. 183.~6 feet; (2) N. 82~28'%0" E. ~%0.89 feet; (3) S. 0~7'~0" W. 106.~6 feet; · (~) S. 7~01'%0'' E. 995.$6 feet; (%) S. 82~27'~0'' W. ~26.73 feet to a point in the easterly line of the land of Thornton E. Smith; thence N. 7~32'10'' W. along the lands of Thornton E. Smith~ of Matilda S. Haberman~ Appolonia Kirchgessner~ of Joseph Peters~ and of Frank J. Murphy 916.q4 feet to the point or place of beginning !containing an area of 10.91% acres. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendments should appear at the time and place so specified. [Dated~ November 16, 197~ B~ ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ALBERT W. RIC~MOND TOWN CLERK Legal Notice Page ~ PLEASE P~BLISH ONCE~ November 21~ 197~ AND FORWARD EIGHT (8) AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK, MAIN ROAD~ SOUTHOLD~ NEW YORK. Copies mailed to the following on November 16~ 197~: The Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman The Suffolk Weekly Times Gary Olsen a/c Edward Gilles Wickham & Lark a/c~B~uce Norris Supervisor Martocchia COMMISSION Seth A. Hubbard Chairman Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning Suffolk Count7 Department of Planning JOHN V.N. KLEIN, County Executive Veterans Memoriul Highwa? November 8, 1973 Hauppauge, L. L. 721-2500 Mr. John Wickham, Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11935 Re: Application of "Bruce A. Norris" for proposed changes of zone from "A" Agricultural and Residence District to '~" light Multiple Residence District, Tovm of Southold (SD-73-18) Dear Mr. Wickham, Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on November 7, 1973 reviewed the above captioned zoning action and after due study and deliber- ation disapproved this change of zone because of the following: While consideration of the clustering concept on the entire land- holdings of the petitioner is welcomed, no attempt should be made to downzone portions thereof to allow an increased density to effectuate such a land development pattern; e An increase in density would tend to adversely affect the limited underground fresh water supply on the North Fork and establish a precedent for the continuance of such a practice; 3. It is inconsistent with the low density single family residence pattern of zoning in the locale; 4. It would tend to establish a precedent for further downzonings in the locale especially along New Suffolk Avenue; 5. It is inconsistent with the Town Master Plan which designates this area for low density single family residence development. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner CC: A. W. Richmond, Town Clerk GGN:jt WlCKHAM & LARK, P.C. Septembe~ 7, 19/$ Hr. John WicHham, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Petition for Change of Zone from "A" to "B" Light ~Bpe...l~F.[~. property, Mattituck, New York Application for major subdivision entitled "Momo Weta Estates" - ~roperty of Bruce Norris~ Mattituck~ N.Y. Dear Mr. Wickham: As noted by you and the Plannin~ Board the other evening, the above captioned applications are interrelated from a planning anm construction point o£ view. I discussed the matter in depth with Mr. Bruce Norris and Mr. Charles Price, who will provide the over all supervision of the construction if approvals are received. They both feel that the substantial size of the condominium units as well as the individual home units along with the attractive layout will be a definite asset to fulfill the housin~ needs in the Mattituck area. After you and the Board have had a chance to review the application, there might be some questions which you would like to have answered. Please feel free to contact me as Hessrs. Charles Price end Alden Young, P.E., have agreed to make them- selves available at the Board's request to discuss the matter further. HoF. in~ to hear from you soon, I am Very qr~ly yours, . Richard P. ~ark RFL/mlf ~OUTHOLO, L. I, N, Y. 119'71 August 29, 1973 Mr. John Wickham, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Wickham: The original petition of Bruce A. Norris requestin~ a change of zone on certain property situated at Mattituck, New York, from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District is in the files in the office of the Planning Board at Southold, New York. You are instructed to prepare an official report defining the conditions described in the petition and determine the area so affected with the recommendation of your board. Very truly yours, Albert W. Richmond Town Clerk WlCKHAM & LARK August 20, 1973 Mr. Albert W. Richmond Town Clerk Town of Soutnold Main Road Southold, i~ew York 11971 RE: Petition of Bruce A. Horris For Change of Zone Dear Mr. Richmond: In connection with the above captioned matter, I Am enclosin~ six (6) copies of the Petition with Exhibits 1 through 6. Also enclosed is our check t.s the order of the Town o£ Southold in the amount of $100.00 which repre- sents the filing fee. Would you kindl~? process this Petition with ~he appropriate municipal agencies. Very t~uly ~ours, ~ichard F. L~rk RFL/mlf Enclosures Southold Town Planning Board SDUTHrlLD, L. I., N. Y. 119'71 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS John Wlckham, Chairman Henry Molsa Alfred Grebe Henry Raynor Frank Coyle October 9, 1973 Southold Town Board 16 South Street Greenport, New York 11944 Gentlemen: This is to advise you that the following resolution was passed by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on October 4, 1973: In the matter of the original petition of Bruce A. Norris relative to a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District on certain real property situated at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold. "IT WAS RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend to the Southold Town Board this change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District on Parcels One and Two." It is the opinion of the Planning Board that this proposed change of zone should be approved because it is in compliance with the Town Development Plan. JW:mm Respectfully submitted, John Wickham, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Of Southold TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE Main Ro~d Soui'hold, N. Y. 11971 TOWN CLERK 765-3783 Building Dept. I Planning Bd. 765-2660 Board of Appeals Pursuant to the GeneraJ Municipa] Law. Chapl'er 24, of the CcnsoJ bated L~'.t A.~t:cle I 2 B "- ' ~.:, L !'~ ' acJ m. tho Planning Board of '[-he tzwn of bo~thzl,j, N. Y. hereo? (acjenc¥ involved] proposed zzn[ng action fo the Suffolk County Planning New and recodifie,J zsning ordinance Amendment to the zonir~g ordinance XXX Z~ning chonges SF>e=;a[ permits .Jfe,;ted land: Mattituck, To.wn of Southold, SuffolkCount.',~ ~ .... " 7 cf: (check one c,r more) To~,n cr ,,,iffage boundary XXX State ~t.xa:~:~x~z~/s<~sd~,~Tcz~z~'4;s~'Jt'~ road. XXX State ~ x~X~ K ~x~x 9 xcX ~R~ ~x~R~ R ~ Shoreline ~c~r~m c:r drainage channe[ cwne~ b,/ the court/ cr [?r ~h[ch fh~ ccurt~ Sts~e ~,r c:~r,t; o':,r,ed parce] cn v,n;ch a ~,u~l': b,,:r:~>g ;: :[rubies Ccmment~: The Southold Town Planning Board recommends this change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District (Bruce A. Norris) on Parcels One and Two. It is the opinion of [he Southold Town Planning Board that this proposed change of zone should be approved because it is in compliance with the Town Development Plan. Date:october 9, 1973 '" (siglated) ,.' Cha.irman Title Dire recei,,ed by Suffolk Ccur, ty P!anning Commission Filo No. CASE NO: ...................... STATE OF FlEW YORK PETITION TOIVN OF SOUTLIOLD IN THE. MATTER OF THE PETITION OF FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION OR AMENDl~IENT OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDIN- ANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLk COUNTY, NEW YORK. A. BRUCE AqORRIS TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: Bruce/Norris 12100 L.E. loth Avenue, at '"'"" "~'"'"""'""- ................................. '~ ~ ~'~'~' ~''' i~ ~' ~'~'i' '~" ' ~' ~'~ ~'{'~ ~'"'~ 3161 (insert name of petitioner) , the undersigned, am the owner of certain real property situated at ~-~.~J;.J~.'~.~.~.¢.,...~'.[9):L..¥.O..r.}i, .......... and more particularly bounded and described as follows: PARCEL 1 - See attached description Schedule ~ PARCEL 2 - See attached description Schedule 2 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to change, modify and amend the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, including the Building Zone Maps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: PARCEL 1 - From "A" Residential and Agricultural to 'Tr'I" Light Multiple Residence District. PARCEL 2 - From "A" Residential and Agricultural to "r4" Light Multiple Residence District. 3. Such request is made for the following reasons: It is intended that Parcel 1 as shown on Exhibit 1 will be used for the development of individually owned condominiums. There will be a total of 33 buildings each containing four living units. The layout of the buildings as shown on Exhibit 2, Sheet 1, will be in such a fashion as to provide the individual owners with privacy and yet allow sufficient open space for recreat±onai activities, a com- munity club house and swimming pool. Each building will contain four one and two bedroom units and the mnits will range from 982 square feet to 1620 square feet of living space. As shown on Exhibit 3, each condominium would also contain a two car ~arage and have individual driveways to provide off-stre~t parking for motor vehicles. The water supply and sewerage disposal systems will be constructed in accordance with the rules and regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Suffolk County Department of Health and Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control. Due to the topography of your petitioner's land, the southerly portion of Parcel 2 is the only practical place to construct a sewage treatment faci.lity. As shown on Exhibit l, your petitioner is also requesting a ~change of zone to "M" Light. Multiple Residence District for Parcel 2 which cnntains 10.915 acres and which is con- tiguous to Parcel 1. The reason for this is that this parcel of land will be utilized mainly as an accessory use to Parcel 1. This is a necessary legal requirement so that the area for the water pollu- tion control plant w~ll be installed in the lower zoning use district. The balance of Parcel 2 will consist of roadways, recharge, drainage areas and single family residences. If your petitioner's request for the change of zone is granted, then your petitioner agrees to burden Parcel 2 with a Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions in the form which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. This Declaration limits the use of this parcel 6o the water pollution control site, drainage, park and recreational areas and single family residences. Simultaneously with this petition your petitioner is also applying to the Southold Town Planning Board for approval of a cluster realty subdivision in conformance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold in order to assure the proper development of petitioner's adjacent land. Attached hereto as Exhlbit 5 is a copy of the sketch plan for this cluster realty subdivision. Parcel 1 is bounded on the north by lands of Vera Cichanowicz, Aline Dove, Elberta Reeve and G. Brooks which contain single family residences. It is planned that the northerly portion of the condo- min~um area on Parcel 1 will be suitably landscaped to provide a buffer from these properties. Parcels 1 and 2 are bounded on the east by other land of your petitioner. The property which is adjacent to Parcel 1 is proposed to be developed in a subd±vision of one-family houses which will compliment the condominium area. Parcel 2 is bounded on the east by other land of your petitioner and adjacent to this land is the Mattituck Airport. Parcel 1 is bounded on the south by lands of Laurence P. Reeve and Frank J. Murphy which properties are presently vacant. Parcel 2 is bounded on the south by other land of your petitioner where there is located the gracious Norris estate complex. Parcel 1 is bounded on the west by Camp Mineola Road whlch is a right of way in disrepair and which is almost impassable. It is contemplated that for the length of Parcel 1 that tnis right of way will be widened and brought up to the Southold Town Highway Specifications in order to accommodate the traPfi~ in and out of the proposed condominium area. Across from Parcel 1 are residences located on lands of Booth and Schiller and a parcel of land which is owned by Kluender and Appel which is vacant. Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 as well as the proposed realty subdivision have been in your petitioner's family for many years. Rather than sell off these tracts of land to speculators for uncontrolled development, it is your petitioner's desire to intelligently develop this land as shown on Exhibit 6 so that it would be not only an asset to the community but would compliment the balance of the petitioner's property ~hich vlill contain 15 acres and upon which there is already a substantial investment in improvements. IF your petitioner's c~ange of zone aad subdivision applications are approved, Parcel 1 will contain 132 condominium'units on 27.683 acres of land for a density oF 4.678 mnits per acre. The cluster realty subdivision will contain 21 individual li~ing units on 24.5 acres for a density of .857 units per acre. In addition, the~ewill be set aside five additional acres for use mainly as a water pollu- tion control facility. The condominiums and the realty subdivision would be constructed simultaneously and would take several years to complete. Your petitioner submits that the development of the property in this manner would be a definite asset to the Town of Southold and provide highly desirable housing for the Mattituck area. This particular tract of land is well suited for this type oF development because it is located off the main arteries of travel and yet is relatively close to the existing business community, library and churches and would be in conformity with the Master Development Plan which was pre~iou$1y published by the Southold Town Planning Board. ~u,-. _xS~ ~ ~ ~ ~n~ ~ ~ ~o~ .~ .*.'~. ~Yg~ EXHIBIT 1 - Survey for Proposed M-Light Multiple Residence Zoning Use District of land of Bruce NoPFis with Location Map, by Young & Young, dated July 30, 1973. EXRIBiT o ~ o~te Plan - Town House Condominium Complex for Bruce Norris, hy Y~.ung & Young, dated Aug. 15~ 1973. - Sheet 1. Topographical Survey of Parcel I by Young & Young, dated March 6, 1973.- o~met 2. EXHIBIT 3 - Townhouse Condominium Study - Bruce Norris Property-North Corp. Four Unit Cluster Plans and Elevations by Patterson~ Langford & Stewart dated a/12/73. EXHIBIT 4 - Proposed Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions against Parcel 2. EXHIBIT 5 - Sketch Plan for Cluster Realty Subdivision for Bruce Norris, by Young & Young, dated Aug. 15, 1973. EXHIBIT 6 - Development Plan for Cluster Realty Subdivisio~ & Townhouse . (m~ ' Br mc.I/Norris ...... STATE OF NEW YORK, ) ) SS:- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ) BRUCE/NORRIS BEING DULY SWORN, deposes and says that he is the petitioner in the within action; that he has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his (h(e~) own knowledge, except as to the mat- ters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. (L. ~Jr uc e_/l~'~ r r :~ s/~ ................ A. Sworn to before me this../.~(..~day of .~..., 19...T.~. ........ ~...z.e.~...~ .... .. ~'....~...--~ ~ ....... ~ ~ ~ Notary Public. RICHARD F. LARK NOTARY PUBLIC, State el N~w Yor[~ No. 52-7~32500 - Suff,~lk Ceu~t~( ALL that being at New York, bounded Zon~ ng Use Distmic'b of le~ad of B~ce Norris ~ttituck To~ of Southo!d !,~e~,~ York certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situmte, lying and Mattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of and described as follo~s: BEG~[Z2TG at a point formed by the inbersect~on of =outherly line of New Suffolk Avenue with the d?¢ision l~_ue between the lands of George Brooks and of Bruce ~orris and mm~ thence from said poi~.~t of be _'~. g No 77° O2~ 20" along the southerly line of ~ew Suffolk Avenue 78~ feet; thence southwesterly, southerly, westerly aad again southerly through the land of Bruce ~[or~ls the following courses and distances: (1) on a curve to the left with a radius of 36.15 f~et for a distance of #3°75 feet; (2) S~ 7~ ~2' 218o10 feetS (5) S, 7* ~O' 20" W~ 3~9~92 feet; (~) N~ 82~ 29' %0" Wo 50,O0 feet; (5) S. 7~ ~O' 20" W, 845,96 feet~ (5) So 7~ 51' lO" E. ~25o00 feet to the northeast corner of the land of ~r~k J~ ['km~phy, (the point of begetting of parcel n,mmber two hereiuafter described); thence N. 86~ #7' 40" Wo along the lands of Frank Jo Murphy and of Laurence P. Reeve feat to the easterly line of "Reeve Avenue", also lamowm as "Camp Mineoia Road"; thence northerly along the easterly line of "Ree'we Avenue" th~ followi~g courses and distances: (1) I~ 7* 07' 00 ~ 667°65 feet~ (2) No 7~ 32' 00" E: fe~t$ (5) ~ 16~ 07' 00" E. 5~q0~85 feet to the so~J. thwest corner of the land of Vera Cichano,:£ioz; thence ~.~ste_l~"-~ n,~r~her~.~ -alon~ lauds Yera Cichanowi.~z~ of ?~ic~ of -'~b~=rta Reeve ~nd of ~eorge ~ ~- o, 77° ;[5' ~0:' E. g!,TB feet; (~) S:. ~5" 58' "" E~ ¢ ~0 i21~8B fas*; (5). ;~o 7" 42' C.O" '*. 224,,):::. i'~et to the ooJ~t or place of SCHEDULE ] ALL taat cert~in plou, piece or parcel of land, situ3te, lying and being at IIattituck, Town oF Southold, County of ZufFolk and State o£ ~ew York, bounded and described as ~ollow$: SCHEDULE 2 DEC~P~TION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS ~dO RESTRICTIONS by BRUCE A. NORRIS DECLARATION made this day of 197 , by BRUCE A. NORRIS, residing at 12100 N.E. 16th Avenue, North Miami, Florida 33161 hereinafter called the Declarant. WHEREAS, the Declarant is the owner in fee simple of the following described premises: ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate lying and being at Mattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeast corner of the land of Frank J. Murphy and ~nning thence from said point of beginning northerly, easterly, southerly and westerly through the land of Bruce Norris the following courses and distances: (1) North 7° 31' 10'! West 183.56 feet; (2) North 82° 28' 50" East $50.89 feet; (3) South 0° $7' ~" West 106.56 feet; (4) South 7° Ol' 50" East 995.$6 feet; (5) South 82* 27' 50" West 426.73 feet to a point in the easterly line of the land of Thornton E. Smith; thence North 7° 32' 10" West along the lands of Thornton E. Smith, of Matilda S. Haberman, Appolonia Kirchgessner, of Joseph Peters and of Frs~W J. Murphy 916.4~ feet to the point or place of begi~n~ngo Containing an area of 10.915 acres. WHEREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, for a change of zone of the above described premises from "A" Resi- dential and Agricultural to "M" Light - Multiple Residence District. WHEREAS, the Declarant desires to impose covenants sr~ restrictions on the use of the aforedescribed premises as follows: NOW THEREFORE, it is declared that said premises shall be subject to the following covenants and restrictions: 1. The premises shall be used only for the following uses and purposes: (a) The construction of roads, parks and recreation areas, recharge basin, water pollution control facility and all accessory uses in co~mection therewith. (b) The construction of one family detached-dwellings in accordance with the "A" Residential and Agri- cultural District or the cluster development require- ments of the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, as amended. 2. Nothip~ herein ~outaine~ zha!l pre~nt the Pea!arant EXHIBIT his successors or assigns, from dedicating any roadway, recharge basin, water pollution control facility to any municipal agency or Homeowners Association. 3- Enforcement of these covenants shall be by proceeding at law or in equity. Invalidation of any provision herein shall have no effect upon any other provision herein. 4. These covenants and restrictions shall be perpetual and shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Declarant, his successors or assigns. IN WITNESS ¥~EREOF, the Declarant has duly written this Declaration on the day and year first above written. Bruce A. No~is STATE OF NEW YORK: : COUNTY CF SUFFOLK: SS.: On the day of , 197 , before me personally came BRUCE A. NORRIS, who resides at 12100 N.E. 16th Avenue, North Miami, Florida 33161 to me know~ to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me .~hat he executed the same. Notary Public // ,- ¢:5" ,7>,0 I 0 EXHIBIT .~v~o~~ ¥OUN~ & ¥OUN~ 400 OSTRANDER AVENUE, RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK O~VELOPEM~N~ PLaN CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX SUFFOLK CO., N,Y. $3, o¢o~.c /0, ,,f.lZ] k EXHIBIT YOUNG & YOUNG 400 OSTRANDER AVENUE~ RIVERHEAD, NEW YORI( CLUSTER REALTY BRUCE HOWARD W. YOUNG SUB DIVISION mY TOWN O~ $OUTHOLD SUFFOLK CO., N.Y. SCALE: /u = lO0' DATE:&U~. 15, NO. 7r '6 E~EVATIONB' I 2 I ~ ": BATH LIVING ~OM : , " , 9 ~' ROOM MATTITUCK~ ~OUTHO[D~ REVISI Nb , I[}ate. By 6pPROVED , ' ..... '~ PATTERSONi/LANGFORD & STEWART ~., : ............ -- " M~'DFoRD, OREGON 97501 PHONE: 503-772 5203 -, ~ M LANt;FORD - LYI.[~ A SFEWARI . z . I,- ___ PHILIP C PATIERSON ¢, ~ 'r, . ~, ~ , ~ )' AR(HITECT A.I.A ', ~,. ~I.A~NE.R~ &"URBAN DI'MGNERS A,I P FOUFI UNIT [ Se~le ' ,chR. t SHEET NO. rt i KR~U$ ROAD C Verb tChOnowicz AVENue ~,~ ~-~ CM~yles ~- / o -~ ' Reeve ~ Broo~s /. Laurence P Reeve ........ ,~.~~ Frank j. Murphy NOTE- a= MONUMENT FOUND EXHIBI,T ~ s~-r z. YOUNG & YOUNG~ 400 OSTRANDER AVENUE, RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK SURVEY FOR: HOWARD W. YOUNG BRUCE NORI u-~o AT MATTITUCK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SUFFOLK CO., N.Y. SCALE= I" = lO0' DATE: MAR. 6, 1973 125 EXHIB:IT £ s ~ E-~T ~ "£V]SIONS YOUNG~ & YOUNG m 400 OSTRANDER AVENUE, RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK SITE PLAN ' TOWN HOUSE CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX FOR . ~I, ICE NORRIS TOWN OF SOUTNOLD SUFFOLK CO,, N,Y. Parcel I Area = 2?GBj Acres ~ rank ~ Murphx R, 0 W Parcel 2 Area= I0 915 Acres Norris EXHIB,I,T lOCATION MAP Proposed "M"light Mu~t/pie Residence D/str/~t "PARK AVE" YOUNG & YOUNG 400 OSTRANDER AVENUE~ RIVERHE^D, NEW YORK SURVEY FOR: PROPO~SED M- Light ~lulfiple Residence Zoning Use District of Lon~10f BRUCE NORRIS MATTITUCK ~-ow. oF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK CO,, N.Y. ~CAL£: i,,~ = 200' I°~T~' aUL~ :~0,~