HomeMy WebLinkAboutRoache, Margaret W. - Withdrawn WILLIAM WICKHAM
J~ly 29, 1957
Town Board of Southold Town
Norman £. Klipp, Supervisor
Greenport, New York
Re: Margaret W. Roache Application
Gentlemen:
May I advise that the Roache - Lorti contract affecting pre-
mises at New Suffolk has been cancelled. Therefore, Mrs. Roache
withdraws the application for a change in zoning, dated May 9, 1957.
Very cordially yours,
Edgar Mills, Of GoUnael
June 26, 19~?
To~n Board o£ Southold Town
No,man E. Kllpp. SupeFYisor
Oresnport. New York
Oentlemenl
On ~eaday. J~e ~th. ~ open has,ins ~aa held in ~la
~tte~ as aa to ~ive ~1 residents ~ oppo~t~it~ to p~oteot
against a ~equeat for a vari~ce ~de by the petitione~, ~a.
M~garet W. Roache.
At the t~e of t~ hearing, v~ioua persons were he~d in
co~eotion wi~ thel~ opposition ~d at the ~equest of He~
Taaker, Esq. ~o represented the Loew Estate, a further oppor-
t~it2 was grated to file additio~l papers. We ~derst~d that
auc~ papers ~ve ~w been filed, but s~e consist mealy of a
feral protest. We, aeco~dingly, feel t~t there ia ~ neceasit2
to file ~ ~awer ~e~to, but we wo~d like this oppor~ity
to oo~ent briefly by ~ay of e~risation upon the ~t~e of ~e
oral opposition to the ~plication.
1. The p~i~ opposition ~eata upon the aaa~tion that
the property in ~e vie~ity will depreciate the value by reason
of the p~poeed erection of a ~tel. We, on the othe~ h~d, con-
tend that since the ~tel will be ~de~istic in every aspect
~d will co~o~ ~o~teeturally to ~e home which la presently
on part of the pre~sea ~d certai~y f~om ~ aesthetic point of
view no harm will be oecaaloned to the su~o~ding p~opePty. In
~ie co~ection, we ~lnt out ~n that the opposition In t~t
regard f~om the Loew Satate certify ia not well t~en.
2. The ~nst~oua at,etude located on t~e ~ew property
is badly in need of ~epair itself ~d the g~ds ~ve beene
over-g~. The fe~ e~esaed ~at the depreciation in value
of pr~erty would be due to the t~e of business, ~ely~ the
~tel business, is wholly without me,it. This Board is well
awa~e of ~e fact that there are ~ n~ber of boarding houses
wi~in the immediate viei~ty aa well aa a r~t~ b~ow
colony. Certai~y if the v~ue of the p~operW ~a not depre-
ciated by reason of the conduct of the foregoing, it most certain-
ly will not In ~e furze by reason of the e~ction of a ~dern
motel ~lch will fulflX1 a vital need in the co~ty.
3. At ~e ~ea~i~, one of the protesters stated ~at if
the petitione~ was deal~ua of diapoa~g of her prope~ he was
sure that a pur~aer 9~d be fo~d wl~in a pe~fod of ten days
~d In fact offered to find s~e. To ~te, no offer has been
Edgar Hills, Of' Counsel
June 26, 1957
Page 2
Town Board of $outhold To~
received by a purchaser a~ in fact, as stated at the hea~ing, she
Has been endeavoring to sell her property for many m~nths, without
~. Any protest on the part of the adjoining owners that they
will be discommoded by tbs erection o£ the p~opossd motel has no
substance.
The house presently OCCUpied by petitioner will continue
to be so occupied by the new owner. The motel will be erected east
of the residence. This, aZld a ~ow of hedges, will completely ob-
scure the mots1 from the view of the adjoining protsstm-ts to
west.
5. It is quite t~ue that thin is the first case of this Board
a~lsing out of the new zoning ordinances.
This Justifies a variance for in our opinion it was no
doubt impossible for the f~amers of the zoning ordinance to divide
this particular community into residence and non-residence portions.
The result r~pPesented the best effort of the framers of the
nance, but they fully realiz®d that variances would be essential
and. consequently made provision therefor.
This Board appointed a three man committee who are abso-
lutely unbiased to ascertain all relevant facts with regard to the
proposed variance and to report thereafter.
We submit that this rsport should be afforded the greatest
weight since not one of the Committee has any interest whatever in
the subject p~emises, nor a~e az~V of them biased in ar_y way. ~hey
made their report with full recognition of the fact that adjoining
owners might cos~lain, but recogn/se that in the perfox~a~ce of their
duties they were required to serve the best interests of the eom-
mu~nity.
We therefore respectfully submit that their report should
be allowed by reason of the fact that numerous persona have selfish
interests, or otherwise, and have seen fit to lodge protests. Any
suggested ch~e in any o~um/ty always carries with it a certain
amount of resentment to such changes, but if zoning ordinances are
to be maintained and variances granted, full respect shou/d be
Edgar Hills, Of Counsel
June 26, 19517
Page 3
Town Board of SoutholU Town
accorded to those who are especially designated for the purpose of
reporting an~ re¢o~ending whether suoh varianQe should be granted.
We m~st rospoo~f~lly submit that ~Le varis.noe in the
stant case should be 6ranted to the petitioner and that no sub-
stantial reason has been advanced by any of the protestant! to
the ~Panting thereof.
~espectfully yours,
LAW OFFICES
WILLIAM WICKHAM
MAtTITUCK, LON(~ ISLAND
June 17, 1957
Mr. Norman E. Klipp, Supervisor
Greenport, New York
Re: Roache application for change in
zoning
Dear Mr. Klipp:
After calling your office yesterday to inquire whether any
protests have been filed in behalf of the Loew Estate, I called Mr.
Tasker's office and was informed by Robert Tasker that he had filed
in the Clerk's Office a protest in behalf of the Loew Estate and an
adjoining owner. I reminded him that it was our understanding at
the time of the hearing that we were to receive copies and that we
have reserved our right to answer these protests.
Just as soon as we receive copies of these protests, we shall
file answers and als% as reserved at the hearing, a memorandum in
behalf of Mrs. Roache.
Very co~d~ially you~j~
WW:idz ~~ ~Z~z~v
O1RIFFINO, SMITH, T~$tiE[t ~ND LUNDBERG ATTORIqt~¥$ AND COUNSELORS AT
ROBERT P. GRIFFING lggl
June 11, 1957
My. Ralph P. Booth, Town Clerk
Town of Southold
Southold, N.Y.
Dear Sir:
In accordance with the procedure adopted at the public hearing held on
June 4, 1957, we are enclosing herewith formal protest onbehalf of
Ha/~el Dumars and Elizabeth Truex protesting against the proposed
amendment to the zoning ordinance.
Will you please acknowledge receipt of the same by signing and
returning the additional copy of this letter which is enclosed for that
purpose.
Yours very truly,
HT.v
eric.
TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:-
We the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percentum or more
of land immediately adjacent to and extending 100 feet from land included in
a proposed change or amendment to the Building Zone Ordinance of the
Town of Southold, including the Building Zone Maps, and described in a
notice of hearing dated May 14, 1957, do hereby protest against and object
to such proposed change or amendment. ]
We hereby certify that we acquired title to the lands of which we are the
owners under the will of James Eugen Dumars and by deed from Gerald
Dumars. respectively.
Dated June 11, 1957 , ,---~---~-__~-__
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
On this llth day of June, 1957, before me, the subscriber, personally
appeared Hazel Dumars and Elizabeth Truex, to me persanally known and
known to me to be the same persons described in and who executed the fore-
II going instrument and they severally duly acknowledged to me that they
executed the same.
...... ......... ..........
v
CCXX
GRIFFING, SMITH,TASKER AND LUNDBERG
ATTORNEYS ~a~ND COUNSELOtt$ AT L~kW
~toi~R* w.T&sKra June 11, 1957
Mr. Ralph P. Booth, Town Clerk
Town of Southold
Southold, N.Y.
Dear Sir:
In accordance with the procedure adopted at the public hearing held on
June 4, 1957, we are enclosing herewith formal protest on behalf of
the Frederick W. Loew estate and the persons interested therein,
protesting against the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance.
Will you please acknowledge receipt of the same by signing and
returning the additional copy of this letter which is enclosed for that
purpose.
HT. v
June 5, 1957
Mr. Norman Klipp
~upervisor
Town of Greenport
L.I. , N.Y.
Dear Mr. Klipp:
After attending the hearing on June 4th concerning the
proposed changing of Mrs. Roache's property in New Suffolk
to a business zone, I should, like to have it filed in the
records that I, as a resident of New Suffolk, oppose such
a change.
I oppose such a change not only because I feel it would be
detrimental to the majority of residents of the town, but
also because it would start a precedent in breaking down
the zoning laws, which my husband and I are very much in
favor of.
Very truly yours,
(Mrs.) Frederic Glander
New Suffolk, N.Y/
Douthola '~ov~n ~.'onlng Boar~
Greenpor%, Long lalana, :~e" YoI.k
,e, the u~idersl_~nea, reslaen%e ann oroper%y o~ners
~e" bufIolk, kno'"ln~ tha'~ much consideration an~ %bough~
was $iven in the ez%ablis~en% of the nesldenuial aaa
~ricultural "a" Z$nes in t~_e to,,'uship, do not feel
that there has been any circumstance that wo~d warrant
a change, ~d do hereby vigorously orotest that such a
change should be made in the first parcel describ~ In
the ~bllc notice for this nearing: i~e. land belo.~in8
to the former John benedict ~,oache.
,/
To:- 5outhold To,,:n Zoning Board
Greenport, _ong Island
'.e, the undersigned residents and property o'~.ners of
New Suffolk. knowing that much consideration and thought
were given in the establishment of the Residential and
Agricultural ".4" ~ones in the To,,!gship, do not feel
that %~ere has been any cirCumstance t~a% wo.]la warrant
a change, ann Go, hereby, vigorously protest that such
a ch~ge shoula be made in the firs% p~rcel describea in
the public no%ice for this heari~, i.~. lana
to the former do~ =eneaic%
To: 5outhmld To',~n Zoning Board
L~reen~,ort, ~ong island
..e, the undersigned, residents an~ ~roperty o'"n~rs
of :~e'" ~u~folk, knowin~ that muCL~ consideration and
thought ,~as ~lven to the est,~blis~ent of the ~esiaentlal
and ~rlcul%ural "A " -ones In the To'~onship, do not
feel that %here has been any circumstance that would
%~arrant a ch~ge, and do hereby vigorously protest that
such a cha~e should be made In the first parcel described
in +he public notice for this henri.:-- 1.e.
belonging to the f~e~ Yohn 3enedict Foache.
Kimogenor Point
New Suffolk, New York
June ~, 1957
Statement of Carleton H. Endemann to the Town Board of Southold, New Y~rk.
My name is Carleton H. Endemann. I am the Secretary of the
Kimogenor Point Company and I appear here before you on behalf of ~y
family and o~ beha]~ of the Com~auy.
The Kimogenor Point Company, a non-profit corporation, owns the
land and the h~aes thereon at Kimogenor Point, New Suffolk, less than a
quarter of a mile west of the Roache property, the rezoning of which is
before you. There are twelve private residences at Kimogenor Point, all
o£ which are occupied by the lessee stockholders and their families. These
are occupied from six to eight months of the year. My family has occupied
one of these houses for almost 40 years and ~ew Suffolk, you can well
i,~g~e, is dear to our hearts. Our family and our neighbors were very
glad to see the To~ of Southold adopt its comprehensive zoning ordinance.
We feel that it is in the best interest and for the general welfere of all
the residents. In its present form it will provide for the orderly develop-
ment o~ the entire town including New Suffolk both residential and commercial
in a manner in keeping ~-ith present uses of the property and at the same
time preserve i~s present wonderful resources.
I understand the proposal before you is to rezone the Roache
property of approximately three acres which lies to the west of Fifth Street
between ~ew Suffolk Avenue and Jackson Avenue £rom an "A" district which
permits residences and farming to a co~amercial classification so tha~ a motel
-2-
can be erected thereon. I understand that the contract of sale is subject
to obtaining the necessary rezoniug.
I, for my family and on behalf of the Kimogenor Point Come,any,
am opposed to the proposal and I urge you gentlemen to turn it down. In
brief, my reasons sro that the proposal is detrimental to the surrounding
properties, almost all of which are residential; that the property itself
is more suitable for residential use for which it is presently being occupied;
that mo hardship to the present or prospective o~ners of the property can be
shown; that it is not in conformance with a comprehensive plan for the general
welfare of New Suffolk, but instead is for the benefit only of the present
and prospective owner, and in all probability would be spot zoning of doubt-
ful legality.
Here I would like to state that I have known b~s. Roache and her
late husband for a number of years and can easily understand her position in
seeking to obtain as good a price as she can for her property. Sympathetic
as I am with her position, however, I believe that the general welfare of
the entire area is of more importance.
First as to a description of the general area involved. Under your
zoning plan that part of New Suffolk to the east of Fifth Street or perhaps
Fourth or Third Street and extending to Cutchogue Harbor is reserved for com-
mercial development. Here we find already in existence boardir~g houses, boat
liveries, guest houses similar to motels, an oyster house, boat yards, stor~s,
a sweet shop, etc., and with considerable vacant land left for development.
To the west of Fifth Street amd running to West Creek we find the property
devoted to farming and private residential use and so zoned. Even the
greater part of the east side of Fi~th Street is vacant land. From the west
side of Fifth Street between Peconic Bay and Jackson Avenue all the way west
-3-
and including Kimogenor Point
to West Creek/the properties are exclusively residential and there are no
vacant plots. The next block north is bounded on the east by ~'tfth Street,
on the south by Jackson Avenue, on the north by New Suffolk Avenue and on
the west by the short road along the east bank of West Creek. It is a
long block running east and west. The Roache plot of approximately three
acres takes in the eastern end of this block. It has been and still is a
private residential property. Just before the large house facing Fifth
Street was demolished, a fairly good sized attractive ranch house was
erected on the western part of the plot. There is sufficient room still
on the plot for the erection of a number of other residences. The remainder
of the block to the west consists of vacant land and private residences with
the possible exception of the four or five ~uest houses on the ~gene Horton
property. Adjoining the Roache property to the west is one private residence
fronting on Jackson Avenue and one in the rear fronting on New Suffolk
Avenue. The extreme w~stern end of the block is a one acre tract of vacant
land owned by the Kimogenor Point Company. This one acre tract is to the
north of our houses I mentioned previously. All of the area bounded by New
Suffolk Avenue on the south, Fifth Street on the east, Schoolhouse Creek if
projected on the north and Wesb Creek on the west is exclusively private
residential or farming property with the exception of the ~anniug Farm, a
small boarding house at the corner of Fifth Street and New Suffolk Avenue
which is a lawful non-conforming use.
Thus it is natural that the entire area west of Fifth Street
was zoned for private residences and farming since that is its predominate
characteristic.
Since the Roache property is perticularly suitable for resideublal
purposes and is being used for that purpose and there is room for additional
residences, I see no reason to permit it to be used for an unsuitable use,
the only effect of which can be to deteriorate all the adjoining private
residential properties and foster more appeals for rezoning by those persons
having property next to the rezoned property. By its very nature, this wedge
in the door would work its way west and eventua/_ly completely cover the rest
of the block. '-
In addition, rezonin~ the Roache property would not be in the
best interest and for the general w~lfare of all of the residents of New
Suffolk. I am not prepared to say whether or not s motel somewhere in
New Suffolk would be a desirable addition. If it is, however. I think its
location should be in the area already set aside for co~aereial use and
where there are any number of sufficient large properties as adaptable
for that use as the particular one here involved.
I see no particular hardship involved with respect to the present
or prospective owner of the Roache property. In the first place, it has
been and is still being used far residential purposes. The land across
Fifth Street to the east is vacant land. That across Jackson Avenue to the
south is a private residence. That immediately adjo~_ning it on the west
has two private residences. It is true that the Fanning Farm is across
New Suffolk Avenue to the north and is used as a boarding house but its
general appearance is that of a large farm house. _The land diagonally
across Fifth Street and New Suffol~ Avende to the northeastAis vacant
land. Th~ ~ml¥ oth~ ~+~1t~h~+ ~ th~ C&~o~ }~u=~, a ~mall boa~ing
hone= M~i~h io diagonally ~cr~s3 ghm intcroc~tiu~ ~f Fifth StFcct
Ja~kso~:Avenu~ te tho ~omth=~. There are no stores or any commercial
establishments of any type near the Roache property with the exceptions
of the ones I mentioned.
Since almost the entire area surrounding the Roache property is
private residential in character, since there are no nearby commercial
establishments and since there are many other tracts of ground already in
a commercial zone to the east, it seems clear that the proposal to rezone the
Roache property would be for the benefit only of the owner of the Roache
property and would not be part of a comprehensive plan for the ~eneral welfare
of the co~unity and particularly the surrounding residents. Instead it would
work only to the detriment of surrounding residential properties. Because of
this fact I think that it is very likely that a rezoning of the Roache property
from residential to con~ercial would be spot zoning and of very doubtful
legality.
I think that the action of this Town 8oard in adopting a zoning
ordinance for the Town of $outhold was a courageous far-sighted move and was
designed to carry out a careful plan for the orderly development of the Town of
~outhold, having in mind the best interests of all of the residents. To be
sure, any plan for zoning to a certain extent ~lst please some and displease
others. I think that your p~n was adopted after nttmerous hearings and care-
ful study and was deaigned to caHse a minimum of hardship to anyone. The
present proposal, however. I believe not to he in the best interests of New
Suffolk as a whole but instead for the ~urely private individual benefit of
the present and prospective owner of this pToperty. To grant the proposal
would ln3ure other property owners and put a wedge in the door that could
very easily cause the disintegration of the zoning Drdinance.
In closing, I wish to thank you for your c6~?ideration in giving
me an opport~hity to present m~ views and those of the residents of Kimogenor
Point. who I believe will be joined by many of the other residents in the
vicinity.
TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF sOUTP/}IOLD:
I, the undersigned, being owner of 20% or more land
directly opposite to the land which is included in the appli-
cation for a proposed change or amendment of the zoning ordinance
and zoning map of the Town of Southhold and whose land extends
more than 100 feet from the street frontage of such land included
in such application and described in Notice of Public Hearing
dated May 14, 1957, do hereby protest against and object to such
proposed change or amendment.
I hereby certify that I reside at the S. W. Corner of
Jackson and Fifth Streets, New Suffolk, and that I use said
premises as a summer residence. I acquired title to the land
of which I am now the o~ner, by and under the Will of my father,
Frederick W. Loew, and under the Will of my brother, Charles E.
Loew. The Wills were probated in the Surrogate Court of Suffolk
County.
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK SS.
On this ~ day of June before me the undersigned came, Julie V.
Loew, known to be the person who executed the foregoing insJ~ument
and she acknowledged to me that she executed the same.
Notary Pl~t:i~ -'~
I, ERLING C. 0LSEN, am a co-trustee under the Will of
Frederick W. Loew, and Join with JULIE V. LOEW in the above
protest.
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK SS.
On this [p~day of June before me the undersigned came, Erli~E C.
Olsen, known to be the person who executed the foregoing i~trument
and he ac~owledged to me that he executed the same.
Notary Pm~l ic .... .
;ia, ti~e ~]ud~r ~igne2 nerchants, firmly heleivinE ta.=.t a modern ~nd attrg~ctive
f~otel ~o,~:ld bri,%g nm~er.~us o2port~mities for business to l'.~w Suffo~ ~d the
ne~by com,au~]ities, ~z'ge to To~ Board of Soutnold To~ to mpppove ~e petition
of ~argmr~=t W. Roache "or a ch~g~ of zoning.
~ z'~ ;~_, c~,~z~~.
~e~ tae nnder:i,Tsed merchants, firml~ beieiving th:,t a mod~rn and attractive
~lot 1 .~ould briu~ n,,~e:-ous o :portunities for business to Mew Suffolk ~d the
n~[~rb¥ communities, urge the Tow~ Board of Southold Town to approve the petition
of ~argaret N. Roache for ~ change ~f zoning.
~e~ the zm~ersi~_~ned, residents of Now Suffolk, fir~aly belei~ing t'2..t a
r. od~-n and attr~..ctive '~otel ~'ould brinr n~aepou.~ o~.ort~ities for business
to New .~uffo~ eh4 nearby co~i%ies, urge %o To~.~ Board of ~outhold To~
,
~e~ tee undersi:ned: ~esidant: of ~ew SuffoLk, ~'ir~mly ba7 eiving ~hat a
:nodern and attractive .~otel would bri~g au~ecous o2~urtuaities for business
to New g, uefol~ '~ad nearby co~ni~e~, urge the To~ Board of Son.old To~
to ap~ve the ~etition of ~argaret W. P~oache for a change of zoning.
~',e, the ~mder,~i~,~n_ ed, resid~nta of ~le~ o~uffolE, firmly beleiving that a
modarn a~d attr~*ctive ..~otel w~uld bring mu~srous o_>.~ort~mi~ius ~or business
to Aec; Surf oLk and nearby commmnities, urge the Town Board of Soutnold Town
to apMrove the :~etition of ~argaret %%. ~oache For a ch~nge of zoming.
le, the undersigned, residents of New Suffolk, firmin~ bel~ivin~ that a
modern and sttractive Motel would bring m~erous o~crtunities for business
to New Suffolk and nearby ctunmuntties, urge the Town ~o~r~ of Southold Town
tc a~orove the oetiti.~n of Margaret W. Ro~che for s. change of zcning.
PUBLI0 HEARING
TOWN BOARD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
June ~, 1957.
Present:
NORMAN KLIPP, Supervisor
HENRY A. CLAP, K, Justice of the Peace
LOUIS DEMAREST, Justice of the Peace
LESTER M. ALBERTSON, Councilman
RALPH W. TUTHILL, Councilman
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: We will come to order, please.
I will read the notice of hearing on the proposed amend-
ment to the Zoning Ordinance, and this covers two parcels.
Now, there is apparently a lot more people appearing
here relative to the property located in New Suffolk,
so we will conduct the first hearing on the property in
Arshamomoque. I will read the petition for the change
in zoning and this only applies to that property.
NOTICE OF REARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE
Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law, and Article
IX, of the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold,
a public hearing will be held by the Southold Town Board
at the office of the Supervisor, 16 South Street, Greenport,
New York, on June 4~h, 1957, at ?:50 P.M. (E.D.S.T.), on
the following proposals to amend the Building Zone Ordinance
(including the Building Zone Maps) of the Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, New York:
1. By changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural Dis-
trict to "B" Business District the following described
property:
All that tract or parcel of land
situate, lying and being at New
Suffolk, in the Town of Southold,
County of Suffolk, and State of
New York, bounded on the North by
New Suffolk Avenue; on the East
by Fifth Street; on the South by
Jackson Street; and on the West
by the several lands of Elizabeth
Truex and Gilbert Rorton.
3
2. By changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural
District to "B" Business District the following described
property:
All that tract or parcel of land
situate, lying and being at
Arshamomoque, iu the Town of
Southold, County of Suffolk and
State of New York, bounded on the
North by land of Sage and Garde;
on the East by land of Sage and
Garde; on the South by Peconic
Bay; and on the West by Peoon~c
Bay.
Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed
amendments should appear at the time and place above
specified.
Dated: May 14, 1957. BY OP~DER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD,
RALPH P. BOOTH, TOWN CLERK.
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE
TO THE TOWN BOARD, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK:
The undersigned petitioner ls the owner of the follow-
ing legally described property:
ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land,
with the buildings and improvements thereon erected,
situate, lying and being in the Town of Southold, Suffolk
County, bounded and described as follows:-
BEGINNING at a point on the southerly line of a
certain roadway shown on ~p of the premises and surrounding
land made by Otto W. Van Tuyl, dated March 17th, 1950,
said point being approximately seventeen hundred (l?O0)
feet in a general easterly or southeasterly direction from
the point where the southerly line of said roadway intersects
the easterly line of the main highway shown on said map,
running thence in a general easterly direction and partly
along said roadway approximately four hundred fifty (450)
feet, running thence in a general southerly direction and
along a ditch or drain a distance of approximately seven
hundred eighty (780) feet to a high water mark of Peconic
Bay, running thence in a generally westerly or northwesterly
direction along said high water mark a distance of approxi-
mately five hundred (500) feet to the easterly line of a
basin entrance, running thence in a general northerly
direction to a point where an arm of land runs into the
basin, running thence in a general westerly direction along
the southerly line of said arm and into said basin a
distance of one hundred (100) feet, running thence in
a general northerly direction to the northerly line of
another arm of land extending into said basin and thence in
a general easterly direction to an extension of the fourth
course and thence along said fourth course as extended to
the point or place of beginning.
A map of this property is hereto attached and made a
part of this petition.
5
The petitioner requ$sts that the Building Zone
Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New
York, BE AMENDED to reclassify this property from zone
"A" Residential and Agricultural District, to zone "B"
Business District.
There are no deed restrictions affecting the use of
said property.
1. Such change is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right because the
property has for years been used for an industrial or
business purpose and is so located that it is ideally
suited for such purpose and not suited for cultivation or
residence purposes. Further, if zoned "B" Business District,
it would fit into the comprehensive plan of the Zoning
Ordinance along with other property similarly situated and
presently so zoned.
II. Such change will not be materially detri-
mental to the public welfare nor the property or other
persons located in the vicinity thereof because the most
practical, ordinary and appropriate use~r this property,
as well as surrounding properties, is to be found in those
uses permitted in ~he "B" Business District of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Title to the property involved in this petition was
acquired by petitioner by deed dated the twenty-first day
6
of March, 1950, recorded in the County Clerk's 0f£ice~
Suffolk County, in Liber 3066 at Page 82~ on April 18j 1950.
(signed) FRED W. YOUNG
Petitioner.
SUPERVISOR: The petition was filed with the Town Clerk
and at a Town Board meeting by resolution the petition was
turned over to the Planning Board for their investigation and
recommendation, and I now read the recommendation of the
Planning Board relative to this property.
May 20, 1957
REPORT TO SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
RE: PETITION OF FRED W. YOUNG
This Petition requests that the Building Zone Ordinance
of this town be amended to reclassify the described property
in Arshamomoque from Zone "A" Residential and Agricultural
to "B" Business.
Upon inspection by the Planning Board, this property
proves to be a yacht basin or marina on Peconic Bay. This
property was formerly part of Sage's Brick Yard and has
been under the present proprietorship for several years.
There are 8-1/2 acres involved lying 1700 feet from Route
N.Y. 25 and having 500 feet frontage on the bay. Docking
facilities accommodate 14 boats. The distance from the
Sage bungalows is approximately 1000 feet. Other business
establishments in the general area are Mill Creek Yacht
?
Basin and "The S~a Shell."
In view of the fact that this property has been used for
business for a great many years, that it is in a general
area of other business of a not too different naturej it
would seem that this is the best, if not indeed the only,
use this property could be put to.
THEREFORE, IT WAS THE UNANIMOUS ACTION of the Southold
Town Planning Board, meeting in special meeting May
1957, that the change requested in this petition be re-
commended to the Southold Town Board.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: And that is signed by John Wickham,
Chairman.
At this time I will hear all of those that might want
to speak in opposition to this change in zone from Residenti~
and Agricultural to "B" Business, and if you would kindly
give your name and indicate where you reside, particularly
in relation to the property in question.
Is there anybody who wishes to speak in opposition?
(There was no response.)
STANLEY CORWIN (Greenportt: Mr. Supervisor, it seems
that I have no interest in this proceeding other than
that I am a citizen of the Town. It seems to me, Mr.
Supervisor, that inasmuch as the burden of establishing
this amendment sought to be granted is on those who are in
favor of it, they ought to be heard first. I think that
the proper conduct of the meeting indicates that that shodd
be the procedure here this evening. In view of what was
said about a non-conforming use existing, in view of the
relatively small area involved in relation to the larger
area that is zoned Hesidential, it seems that we are getting
into a situation that is something akin to spot zoning,
and I am sure we don't favor that. If someone had a small
residential piece surrounded by a business I doubt that that
would be considered by the Town Board to be sufficient
reason for zoning the whole area or a small portion as
~esidentlal. I feel that I would like to make some remarks
about this but I am not prepared beyond anything that I
have read in the public notice published in the newspapers
and I would ask you, if you please, to reconsider procedure
you have set up and ask those who are in favor of the
amendment to speak first.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: I have no objection to it. I
will reverse the procedure and call on ali those at this
time who are in favor of the change of zone.
WALTER KAPF (Representing the Applicant): It is
usually customary in these proceedinEs to permit the pro-
ponents to have rebuttal anyway so I don't see why it makes
too much difference, but I would like to add only one
fact to the facts that are brought out in the petition
and the report of the Planning Board. The fact that I
9
would like to bring out is this: ever since the applicant
has owned the property the Town Assessor tells me that
the property has been assessed commercially, and not only
has been assessed commercially, but it has been used
commercially or for business purposes. And as stated in
the petition, it is ideally situated to fit in. It is not
spot zoning by any manner or means. It is to fit in with
the comprehensive zoning plan of the Town of Southold,
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Is there any other person who
wishes to be heard in favor of?
(There was no response.)
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Is there any other person who wishes
to be heard in favor of, if not, we will hear th~ in
opposition.
STANLEY CORWIN: Mr. Supervisor, I think on the basis
of what I have heard here this evening that I am opposed
to the proposed use that will be taken if this amendment
were to be adopted. The petition by its very terms
indicates that the petitioners have at present an existing
non-conforming use, which they themselves characterize as
industrial, but certainly as the lowest possible chsssifi-
cation of zoning, and which apparently is affirmed mhd
concurred in by the Planning Board. If that is the case,
it seems that there is hardly any need for the Town Board
10
to grant this application to change these particular
premises from a high classification to a lower one inasmuch
as the non-conforming use exists, it is already there for
all practical purposes graded in the lowest possible
zoning classification. It is rather difficult from the
description in the paper, and from the reading of the
description of the premises from the petltion that follows
to get a proper indication of the size. ~y recollection
is you said there was about 8-1/2 acres involved. Certainly
with relation to the ares in that vicinity which is zoned
for residential that is a very small and insignificant
parcel of land, and I very strenuously urge upon you that
it would be spot zoning to the lower classification of the
particular premises. I urge you to reject the application
and let the applicant stand upon the use he now has.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Is there anyone else who wishes to
be heard in opposition hereto?
(There was no response.)
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Would the petitioner like to be
h~ard at this time?
MR. E~PP: I would Just like to answer Mr. Corwin,
if I may. I think you have the wrong idea. This property
is not being used industrially at the present time.
It is being used for business purposes, and that is the
classification we are requesting in this application.
11
I dDn't think he was listening to me, but that is all I
would like to say.
MR. CORWIN: I heard you.
SUPERVISOR KLIFP: So that everyone will have an
opportunity, is there any other person who would like to
be heard in favor of, or in opposition to, at this time?
(There was no response.)
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: There being none, I will declare
the hearing on the Droperty of Fred Young closed for further
deliberations of the Board.
~T;PE~VTMn~ '~'v too
13
Jackson Street, N. 84° 00' 00" W. 371.74 feet to
a point and land of Elizabeth Truax;
running thence along said land of
Truex and land of Gilbert Horton,
N. 5~ 49' 00" E. 300.56 feet to a
monument set in the southerly l~e
of New Suffolk Avenue; running
thence along the southerly line of
New Suffolk Avenue, S. 84° 10' 00" E.
376.57 feet to the monument and
place of beginning.
2.
I have entered into a contract, dated April 16,
1957, for the sale of said premises to Dante A. Lorti,
residing at 70 Grand Avenue, Englewood, New Jersey. This
contract and the sale of the premises are contingent,
however, on said premises being used for motel purposes.
~ Request is therefore made for a change in said premises
from an "A" Residential District to "B" Business District.
(signed) MARGARET W. ROACHE
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: That petition was presented to
the Town Clerk and was presented to the Town Board for
their investigation and recommendation, and I now read you
the report of the Planning Board:
May 20, 1957
REPORT TO SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
RE: PETITION OF MARGARET W. ROACHE
This petition requests that the described property
in New Suffolk be re-zoned from "A" Residential to "B"
Business District to permit its use for a motel.
Upon inspection by the Planning Board, this property
14
proves to be bordered on three sides by streets. Across
the street to the north is Fanning Farm, a boarding house;
across the street to the east is vacant property of the
petitioner and then the Chase House, another boarding house.
New Suffolk is a base for sport fishing and there
are at least twelve home owners who take tourists. There
seems to be a demand for a motel which would handle the
many people who are looking for over-night accommodations
and are unable to be cared for by present facilities.
The site is adequate and a motelshould be an asset to New
Suffolk.
IT WAS~E UNANIMOUS ACTION of the Southold Town
Planning Board, meeting in special meeting May 15, 1957,
that the change requested in the petition be recommended
to the Southold Town Board.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: That is signed by John Wickham,
Chairman. Now, at this time I will hear those that are
in favor o£ the change in that piece of property from "A"
Residential and AgricultUral to "B" Business District.
EDGAR HILLS, ESQ., (representing the applicant):
My name is Edgar Hills and I sm associated with William
Wickham, Mattituck, L. I.
I agreed with your original procedure, Mr. Chairman,
that the conduct of the proceeding such as this, since
15
the petition had been filed and since a planning report
was available and you had read it, that it was obligatory
upon those objecting to first voice their objections and
then may the petitioner respond and then you will allow
rebuttal, but since you have adopted this form of
procedure I have no objection whatever. I might say
this: that we have the report of the Planning Board before
us. I had assumed that the Planning Bosrd is a very
impartial body appointed and designated, appointed to in-
spect the situation from every aspect, and they made
their report and set forth reasons and recommendations
for making the report. I relied upon those reasons and
I submitted the petition of the proposed purchaser of
the property, Dante A. Lorti. I might say this: that
this property was bequeathed to the petitioner, Mrs.
Roache, by her late husband. It is a rather large home.
It is a rather large piece of property. During the past
year she has been endeavoring to obtain a purchaser for
that property and it has been impossible to obtain a
purchaser where the use would be restricted solely to
residential purposes. Shortly before the Town Ordinance
became effective, we found a purchaser who was willing
to buy the property on condition that we be permitted
to erect a motel. I think that the petitioner is an
outstanding x citizen. I think his plans with respect
16
to the motel are excellent in every aspect. We have the
builder here who is ready to testify if they wish to
ask him questions on all of the details in connection with
the proposed improvement. At this time I would like to
reserve my right to answer any objections that are made
here. I notice we seem to have attracted a full house.
I will notice the objections they make and then answer in
rebuttal.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Anyone else?
HENRY TASKER, ESQ., (Greenport): Mr. Supervisor,
I won't speak in favor of the change of zoning or against
it at this time. I represent the Loew Estate which is
the estate owner to the south, and before I speak in
opposition to this, as I intend to do at a later time
this evening, I should like to have the petitioner or
her attorney state for the record about just what the
type o£ structure is proposed to be there, supposed to
be erected, so that the plans and specifications will be
before the Board now and such discussion as we in opposition
to the change may want to enter into. As of the moment,
all of us, at least I am, and I assume everyone else may
be, that may be opposing, has no knowledge , what is proposed
to be erected there except it has been a structure which
has been characterized as a motel. We have no knc~edge of t?
number of people which are proposed to be^commodated in
the establishment of this nature, and we have ~o knowledge
l?
of where or how, or under what circumstances the structure
is to be placed. I think it would be appropriate at this
time that we be fully informed of those facts, so that we
may be able to frame our arguments more concisely so far
as the facts themselves are concerned. And I ask that
be done.
MR. HILLS: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to
Mr. Tasker's suggestion. I have the builder here, and
while the particular plans for this property have not been
concisely formulated as yet because we do not know whether
we are going to have a contract formulated, because it
is going to be contingent on a change from an "A" Residenti-
al District to a "B" Business District, but the builder
can furnish all the details Mr. Tasker is seeking.
MR. BEEBE (Cutchogue): The type structure is a
frame building with brick veneer. There w~uld be about
ten to twelve units. It is supposed to be a one-story
building and is to be erected more or less of a colonnial
design to match in with the rest of the buildings we have
around our community. Part of them are supposed to have
kitchen units to accommodate people that would come out
for a week or two weeks, that sort of a visit, so they can
do a little cooking themselves. And the other half are
going to be hotel units. The motel is supposed to be
erected back on the property far enough oack so that it will
be 100 to 125 feet back from the main road. All the
parking will be inside the property that is to be bought
and will, like I say, it is supposed to be built and
matches in the design to the community. It is a modern
design and a one-story building. It is to be an attractive
building.
MR. HILLS: Do you have a sketch or a plan with you?
(Mr. Beebe produced a sketch of a motel similar to
the one proposed to be built.)
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Is there any other person who
wishes to be heard in favor of at this time?
(There was no response.)
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: If there are none here we will
hear those who are in opposition to the change of zone.
CARLETON H. ENDEMANN (New Suffolk): My name is
Carleton H. Endemann. I am the secretary of the Kimogenor
Point Company. I have prepared a statement, Mr. Supervisor,
that I would like to have made a part of the record,
if you will, which I would like to read from.
Kimogenor Point
New Suffolk, New York
June 4, 1957
Statement of Carleton H. Endemann to the Town Board of Southold, New York.
My name is Carleton H. Endemann. I am the secretary
of the Kimogenor Point Company and I appear here before
you on behalf of my family and on behalf of the Company.
19
The Kimogenor Point Company, a non-profit corporation,
owns the land and the houses thereon at Kimogenor Point,
New Suffolk, less than a quarter of a mile west of the
Roache property, the rezoning of which is before you.
The e are twelve private residences at Kimogenor Point,
all of which are occupied by the lessee stockholders and
their families. These are occupied from six to eight
months of the year. My family has occupied one of these
houses for almost 40 years and New Suffolk, you can well
imagine, is dear to our hearts. Our family and our neighbors
were very glad to see the Town of Southold adopt its
comprehensive zoning ordinance. We feel that it is in
the best interest and for the general welfare of all the
residents. In its present form it will provide for the
orderly development of the entire town including New
Suffolk both residential and commercial in a manner in
keeping with present uses of the property and at the same
time preserve its present wonderful resources.
I understand the proposal before you is to rezone
the Roache property of approximately three acres which
lies to the west of Fifth Street between New Suffolk Avenue
and Jackson Avenue from an "A" district which permits
residences and farming to a commercial classification
so that a motel can be erected thereon. I understand that
the contract of sale is subject to obtaining the necessary
2O
rezoning.
I, for my family and on behalf of the Kimogenor Point
Company, am opposed to the proposal and I urge you
gentlemen to turn it down. In brief, my reasons are
that the proposal is detrimental to the surrounding
properties, almost all of which are residential; that
the property itself is more suitable for residential use
for which it is presently being occupied; that no h~rdship
to the present or prospective owners of the property
cmn be shown; that it is not in conformance with the
comprehensive plan for the general welfare of New Suffolk,
but instead is for the benefit only of the present and
prospective owner, and in all probability would be spot
zoning of doubtful legality.
Here I would like to state that I have known Mrs.
Roache and her late husband for a number of years and can
easily understand her position in seeking to obtain as
good a price as she can for her property. Sympathetic as
I am with her position, however, I believe that the
general welfare of the entire area is of more importance.
First ss to a description of the general area
involved. Under your zoning plan that part of New Suffolk
to the east of Fifth Street or perhaps Fourth or Third Street
and extending to Cutchogue Harbor is reserved for commercial
development. Here we find already in existence boarding
21
houses, boet liveries, guest houses similar to motels,
an oyster house, boat yards, stores, e sweet shop, etc.,
end with considerable vacant land left for development.
To the west of Fifth Street and running to West Creek we
find the property devoted to farming and private residential
use and so zoned. E~en the greeter p~rt of the east
side of Fifth Street is recant lend. From the west side
of Fifth Street between Peconic Bay and Jackson Avenue all ~
the way west to West Creek and including Kimogenor Point
the properties are exclusively residentiel end there are
no recent plots. The next block north is bounded on the
east by Fifth Street, on the south by Jeckson Avenue, on
the north by New Suffolk Avenue and on the west by
the short road elong the east benk of West Creek. It
is s long block running eest and west. The Roache plot
of approximately three ecres takes in the eastern end
of this block. It has been and still is a privete residenti-
al property. Just before the large house fecing Fifth
Street was demolished, a fairly good sized attractive
rench house was erected on the western part of the plot.
There is sufficient room still on the plot for the erection
of a number of other residences. The remeinder of the
block to the west consists of vacant lend and private
residences with the possible exception of the four or five
guest houses on the Eugene Horton property. Adjoining
22
the Roache property to the west is one primate residence
fronting on Jackson Avenue and one in the rear fronting
on New Suffolk Avenue. The extreme western end of the
block is a one acre tract of vacant land owned by the
Kimogenor Point Company. This one acre tract is to the
north of our houses I mentioned previously. All of the
area bounded by New Suffolk Avenue on the south, Fifth
Street on the east, Schoolhouse Creek if projected on the
north and West Creek on the west is exclusively private
residential or farming property with the exception of the
Fanning Farm, a small boarding house at the corner of
Fifth Street and New Suffolk Avenue which is a lawful
non-conforming use.
Thus it is natural that the entire area west of Fifth
Street was zoned for private residences and farming since
that is its predominate characteristic.
Since the Roache property is particularly suitable
for residential purposes and is being used for that purpose
and there is room for additional residences, I see no reason
to permit it to be used for an unsuitable use, the
only effect of which can be to deteriorate all the
adjoining private residential properties and foster more
appeals for rezoning by those persons having property
next to the rezoned property. By its very nature, this
wedge in the door would work its way west and eventually
9 �3
completely cover the rest of the block.
In addition, rezoning the Roache property would not be
in the best intex®t and for the general welfare of all
of the residents of New Suffolk. I am not prepared to say
whether or not a motel somewhere in New Suffolk would be
a desirable addition. If it is, however, I think its
location should be in the area already set aside for
commercial use and where there are any number of sufficient
large properties as adaptable for that use as the particular
one here involved .
I see no particular hardship involved with respect to
the present or prospective owner of the Roache property. In
the first place, it has been and is still being used for
residential purposes . The land across Fifth 'Street to
the east is vacant land. That across Jackson Avenue to the
south is a private residence . That immediatelly adjoining
it on the west has two private residences . It is true that
the Fanning Farm is across New Suffolk Avenue to the north
and is used as a boarding house, but its general appearance
is that of a large farm house . The land diagonally across
Fifth Street and New Suffolk Avenue to the northeast
and that diagonally across Fifth Street and Jackson Avenue
to the northeast is vacant land. There are no stores or
any commercial establishments of any type near the Roache
property with the exceptions of the ones I mentioned.
Since almost the entire area surrounding the Roache
property is private residential in character, since there
are no nearby commercial establishments and since there
are many other tracts of ground already in a commercial
zone to the east, it seems clear that the proposal to
rezone the Roache property would be for the oenefit only
of the owner of the Roache property and would not be part
of a comprehensive plan for the general welfare of the
community and particularly the surrounding residents.
Instead it would work only to the detriment of surrounding
residential properties. Because of this fact, I think that
it is very likely that a rezoning of the Roah~e property
from residential to commercial would be spot zoning and of
very doubtful legality.
I Just want to say one more thing that was mentioned
of the fact that she ha~ been having difficulty in selling
this property. Well, I don't know the details of that
and I suppose we all have experienced difficulties in
trying to sell a piece of property. This is ideally
situated property with a lovely house on it. It may be
a case of price; I don't know. But there are residences
around it. I Just want to close by saying the action
of this Town Board in adopting this Zoning Ordinance
was very far-sighted and was designed to carry out a
care~xl plan for the orderly development of the Town, having
in mind the best interests of all of the residents.
To be sure, any plan for zoning to a certain extent
must please some and displease others. But I think
your plan was adopted after numerous hearings and careful
study and was designed to cause a minimum of hardship
to anyone. The present proposal, however, I bel~e not
to be in the best interests of New Suffolk as a whole,
but instead for the private individual benefit of the
present and prospective owner of this property. I think
that if this proposal is granted it would injure other
property owners and certainly we believe it would injure
the Klmogenor Point property. If you look at it it is
away down to the Kimogenor Point property. I believe it
would dispell the zoning ordinance because I don't think
in this case it is one that would merit the zoning. I don't
know whether the Planning Board was aware of the possible-
objections of this. I found about it Sunday evening.
I have known John Wlokham. He was a few years ahead of me
in school, and I had a long talk with him. I don, t know
whether I succeeded in changing his mind or not, but I
think I gave him something to think about, and I hope
you gentlemen will consider it, and turn down the proposal.
I thank you for your courtesy.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: I forgot a letter I received for
a moment, and I might bring it in at this time with the
27
adJacent to the Kimogenor Point property and similar in
fashion is in the same block in which you are considering the
petition.
That piece of legislation was one of the most con-
structive pieces of legislation we have had in this
Township in many years. It was my pleasure to have just
a few words to say at the Town Meetin~ at which we were
asked to express our opinions at the meeting we held last
Fall, and I also certainly know, gentlemen, that the
future of our township is in your hmnds. And if I am
to be permitted to say so, we are very fortunate in having
the nature and kind of men that you are, sitting here to
represent us. But let me tell you, this is no simple
little matter you have right here, and you are going to have
hundreds of other~ which may or may not be important to
anyone, but you had one earlier this evening that there was
no objection to. I don't know the attorneys but you
apparently had no opposition. But, gentlemen, don't be
mislead in this case. You are tearing the heart right out
of those residents. They are slipping over on you a
misconception and distortion pf the entire zoning system,
and I will tell you my reason for saying that. We have
in the township here a number of fine residential districts.
We have Nassau Point. We have some magnificent properties
down in Southold on Paradise Point. And New Suffolk has a
2~
wonderful little residential district there. Now, gentle-
men, don't in a perfunctory sort of way, and I can't believe
that .you would do it, don't under any circumstances
just give in and~stroy one of the loveliest little sections
that we have in the township. I heard nothing about this
building until Sunday morning. I discussed it with a
number of peoperty owners, not more than @ hundred or a
hundred and fifty persons whom I assure you estimated
the damage to their particular pieces of property down
the road almost to a 100~ use. Under any circumstances,
I would certainly ask for thirty or sixty days to prepare
affidavits of appraisal telling you what they consider
the depreciation on their property would be. Mr. Floyd
Huston, whom I represent is here, and we estimated the
damage to his property as between $10,OOO and $15,000
a piece.
Now, as we come to the particular t~ing, the question
of what we call the variance, this isn't a variance. They
have really dressed this up so that it looks llke merely
a change of zone, but don't modify your zoning ordinance
within two months from the time it was passed, because it
was presented by you gentlemen in ail good faith, a
remarkable fine thing. It was to protect sections llke
this. And now you are going to have someone who comes
from I don't know where, be permitted to put a motel right
in the midst of the choicest and oldest sections t~at
we have. If you do it you have a reason for doing it
and a legal reason for doing it. There are one or two
reasons for doing it and one of those is that the State
has ~he right of eminent domain. That does not appear
here. You can override it. Another reason would be to
sell if it would~ to better public interest to everybody
concerned. You would have certainly a right without any
question at all to grant, as I call it, a variance, but
as it is called a rezonlug. Let us call it a variance,
if I may be permitted to. And the third reason you are
going to ask yourselves:is the seller damaged. Wel~, I
heard the statement made a few minutes aEo that there
was uo sale for the property. Mrs. Roache has been mis-
informed. I can assure her I will prove it to her
within ten days, if she things that property is not
saleable at anywhere the price that this property has,
but I must ask for additional time, thirty or sixty days.
I would say everyone here realizes there is a unique
quality about New Suffolk that would stand a very fine
motel. I can mention two or three owners that would
gladly to in with him in constructing a decent, modern
motel in the proper place. He has proven no necessity
whatever in coming into the residential zone and violating
our entire zoning ordinance when he has four different
places in New Suffolk where he would have no trouble at
all in building and be much better and he would not start
off with the hatred of everybody down that street against
him in trying to ruin their property. This is a serious
matter, gentlemen, and I hope after forty-seven years
you will give me the attention which I think I deserve.
Thank you very much.
I would like to submit, I have here a petition, and
of course, I did not draw it, but there are names of
seventy adjacent people who are within a mile who are
objecting to it.
"We, the undersigned, residents and property owners
of New Suffolk, knowing that much consideration and thought
was given in the establishment of the Residential and
Agricultural "A" Zones in the township, do not feel
that there has been any circumstance that would warrant
a change, and do hereby vigorously protest that such a
change should be made in the first parcel described in
the public notice for this hearing: k.e. land belonging
to the former John Benedict Roache."
(Names follow)
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Is there any other person who wishes
to be heard in opposition to?
MR. TASKER: Mr. Supervisor, I have already given
my name to the stenographer and I represent the Fred Loew
Estate. As far as the people whom I represent are concerns
31
31
we feel as do the representatives of Kimogenor Point
Association and Mr. Hearne and the people whom he
represents, that the proposed change of zone w~uld be
a violation of the rights of many of the people in the
area for the benefit of the one.
Now, I must confess that I do not have at hand all
of the details of the area with which we are dealing,
but I have prepared, and I am going to submit to the
Board when I finish, a map which is called, I think it is
the Tax Map of the Hamlet of New SuffoLk, and it gives
on it the area which is bounded on the north by the
School House Creek, on the east by Cu~chogue Harbor,
South by Peconic Bay, and west by School District #12,
or West Creek. And on this map are shown all of the
various parcels of property in New Suffolk proper and
along New Suffolk Avenue, Jackson Street, Kuros Road,
and all of the other streets in the village.
Now, what I have endesvored to do, and there are
attsched to this in pencil the assessed values of all
of the property within a radius of three or four blocks
of the proposed change of zone. I shan't bother you with
a recital of the total of the assessed values in the
area, because I haven't totalled them up. I can tell you,
however, as you proceed westerly from Fifth Street,
beginning at the Loew property which I represent, we
have an assessed value of $22,000 on your tax roll
32
is involved so far as the Loews are concerned. I might
say by way of comparison that the Roache property
directly across the street, and which is presumably
to be rezoned Business has an assessed value of $13,~00.
So that the statement that was made at the beginning that
this is a plan for the benefit of one to the detriment
of at least one other, as the one whom I represent is born
out by the figures and here we have a $13,000 assessed
valuation piece of property sold and converted into a
motel usej and I think we can all well determine the
effect it would have, or should have on our assessed value,
by reason of the diminished value, and if we take that
one step further, you have it materially affecting the
assessed valuation. The assessment should be reflected
properly in the new roll which is about to be completed.
Now, we can go on from there, and I would like to say this:
that next to it is the Gibb's property which carries an
assessed value of some $10,000,and Gehring property has an
assessed value of $7,700. The Connor property is assessed
for $5,200. The Richart property assessed for ~9,000.
The Baxter property is assessed for $19,000. The Dill
property $14,000 assessed value. The Hearne property
which carries, I think that is vacant land, no, it is not,
assessed for $5,000. Kimogenor Point carries an assessment
of $21,700. Amother parcel of Kimogenor Point is assessed
33
at $19,O00. And this is on the south side of Jackson
Avenue within several hundred feet of the area affected.
If we go onto the north side we have $700; we have
$5,OO0~ we have a vacant lot of $600. We have an im-
proved residence of $5,500. We have another one of
$6,000. We have another one of $3,300. We have another
one of $10,5OO. And we have two immediately adjacent
with a total of some
Now, all of these properties, as Mr. Hearne and as
the representative of the Kimogernor Point Corporation
hae so ably stated, those values can be and will be adverse-
ly affected by this change, and I am prepared to offer
proof of that tonight. Then across the street on the
north side of New Suffolk Avenue, with the exception of
the Fanning property which incidentally carries a $4,900
assessed value, we can start west from there and find
there is $7,000, a vacant lot, I think, I can't read my
own writing, I think it is $300 anL~ improved parcel with
$4,500, another one $3,600, another one $3,200, and
further down the road another one of $3,100. All improved
parcels of land, all within an area which can be adversely
affected by a motel or any other business structure, and
all of which are vitally interested and would be adversely
affected by this proposed change.
Now, I haven't talked about the east side of this
street because I haven't had a chance to look at it until
now, but starting on the east side of Fifth Street we have
a vacant lot which is ~ned by the Roaches which is assessed
for $1,300. I might say that there are some symbols here
which perhaps will be required to be explained "V L 9"
which I think was Vacant Land and "9" that is described
and characterized by our assessors as vacant land having
the best possible or the most desirable use for residential
purposes in V 9 which is directly across the street from
this parcel that we are talking about. There is another
parcel with the same characterization of $1,100, another
one below that owned by the people I represent, $1,200.
Now, in that block east of Fifth Street we have but
one parcel of land which is assessed on the assessment
roll for commercial purposes, and that is the property
which is known as the Chase House, Inc. It has an assessed
value of $5,100. The Fanning property I have already dis-
cussed and that, too, is the only parcel north of New
Suffolk Avenue and west of Fifth Street which is assessed
any other way than for residential. If we proceed from
Fifth Street east and south of Orchard Street we can go
over to Fourth Street where the entiPe area is completely
and solely residential. We can come over to the west
side of Third Street where again the area is completely
and wholly residential with no commercial assessments.
And it is not until we go across the next block into
Second Street that we find we are into the Business Zone.
And that leads me to this observation, so far as the
availability of sites for motels are concerned. On the
south side of Jackson Street between Second and Third
Streets, there is property of the Charles Pugsley Estate.
It is a parcel zoned for business and it has an assessed
valuation of $1~,500. It runs from Jackson Street to the
waters of Peconic Bay. It is of a sufficient size on which
a suitable motel could be erected, and it is today for
sale to any person who wishes to buy it. So that the
argument that has been advanced by the P~anning Board
that there is a crying need for a motel site in New Suffolk
can be answered in the affirmative; yes. If there is a
need, there is a site; and the site is within an area which
can be used for business purposes, and which would not
adversely affect the property of the people whom I
represent. Now, I am going to leave that here. On the
same thing I have endeavored to indicate the type of
structure that is here, and I am going to offer this map
at this time and ask that the Board take it into con-
sideration when it passes on what we have.
(The map referred to was received in evidence
without objection and marked Objector's Exhibit A.)
MR. TASKER: Now, so far as the legality of the
proposed change of zoning is concerned, I think that you
have probably been belabored to death with that, and I
don't want to take up your time and tell you any more
than that which you have already heard, except this:
we have heard a great deal about spot zoning, and we
know that spot zoning has been determined by our Courts,
and I have not attempted to read what they say. I do
happen to have with me a book and the page, and there
is a decision of the Court of Appeals which described
spot zoning a great deal more accurately and more finely
than I would be able to do it, and it is the type of spot
zoning that the Court of Appeals of this state has held
to be illegal. And it is the kind, and I am reading
from a recent decision, Rogers v The Village of Tarrytown
302 Court of Appeals llS: "It is the process of singling
out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally
different from that of the surrounding area for the
benefit of the owners of such property and to the detri-
ment of other owners. Spot zoning is the very antitheses
of planned zoning.
Now, that language, that decision, I think so far
as I am concerned, more accurately states our position
than I would be able to do if I were given an hour and a
half to talk, and I can assure you I am not going to
take that long. As far as the Loew Estate is concerned,
we regard this as an effort upon the part of this petitioner
to bring about through this Board the amendment of the
a
ordinance to create^spot zoning situation or a conSition
which we would regard as wholly illegal and improper.
It would be arbitrary to the powers of this Board, and I
think that the petition should be denied without further
adiru. Now, there is one other thing that we have, and
before I talk about this I should like to say that I told
you I had some proof as to the effect that this would have
on the valuation of these properties, and if the Board
would like to hear it, after I finish, I have wlth me
Mr. Waiter Luce, who is in the real estate business,
who is familiar with values down there, and who will be
able to tell the Board that the area which carries assessed
valuations of some $175,000 lying south of New Suffolk
Avenue and west of Fifth Street, has, in fact, an actual
market value of closer to two and a half times that, and
that is his opinion, the value of the property could be
affected, Just as Mr. Hearne has so ably stated, to the
extent of $100,000 to $125,000. And to place a burden
such as that upon my people to the exten~ that their
value would be affected as well as to place a burden
such as that on the values of all the other people in the
area would be an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of
the powers of this Board.
Now, we have heard a great deal about zoning and
what it does, and how it works, and I would just simply
like to close with this quotation by Mr. Matzeubaum, one
of the foremost authorities on zoning and who wrote a book
on zoning, and who like the Court of Appeals, is a little
bit less bothered with Eng±ish than I am. He said this:
"Zoning does no more than apply the rules of good house-
keeping to public affairs. It keeps the kitchen stove
out of the parlor; the bookcase out of the pantry; and the
dinner table out of the bedroom." Now, so far as we are
concerned, we have no kitchen stove, we have no bookcase,
and we have no dinner table, but we have, so far as my
people are concerned, a very fine piece of residential
property and we feel that we are entitled to the protection
tha~ you as members of the Town Board can give us and keep
the property residential as it should be.
MR. WALTER LUCE (New Suffolk : Mr. Supervisor,
and members of the Board, I would like to state that in
that area that is under question, you have today approxi-
mately close to half a million dollars of saleable property
right now. I think a very important factor is that if
this is allowed to be zoned for a motel, you are going to
depreciate at least 25 per cent, all of your property owners
in this particular area. I think that is a highly important
matter to think over.
I have here a petition of Elizabeth Truex, next door
neighbor of the property involved. I would like to state
almost one hundred per cent, with one exception of on New
Suffolk Avenue, that is the back road, are opposed.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: These names you have on this
petition, are they in the immediate vicinity of this pro-
posed change?
M_R. LUCE: Yes.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Within a radius of what?
MR. LUCE: ~hin a radius of three blocks.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Anyone whose name is on this
petition lives within a radius of three blocks?
MR. LUCE: Yes. And I am authorized to represent
fourteen people and I would also like to bring out to
the Board that Mr. KuroS, he owns a development, and I
believe he wants to sell it, that is property north of
New Suffolk Avenue, but west of Fifth Street. Every
single lot he sells, I am representing a couple of those
people, he has put a clause in their title that they
can not use it for any commercial purpose whatever;
they cannot keep livestock, they cannot build a house
under $7,500, even a summer cottage. We haven't been able
to contact him in the last couple of days, but I am sure
40
he should be represented, and anybody who cares ehough
about the neighborhood should be considered. I am,
of course, Mrs. Roache's next door neighbor, and closely
affected by such a thing as a motel, and my mother who
wrote you a letter, Mr. Klipp, she will be down in the
next two weeks. We feel very strongly about it. And I
believe everybody that lives there, there are quite a
few that came here tonight that would like to say something.
Thank you very much.
MR. TASKER: I don't have anything else to say, but
I would like to make this request of you. We,re not
called into this matter until this morning, and it was
impossible for us to obtain from our clients a signed
protest, and I would like to have the privilege of filing
or obtaining from them and filing on their behalf, a
written protest against a change of zone to add to the
remarks which I have placed upon the record in their
behalf.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: How much time would you need?
MR. TASK~R: I think I would need about a week,
or maybe less to obtain that. I would like to have a
week to obtain that and s week's time within which
to do it.
ROBERT CONNOR (New Suffolk): My parents' property
is just to the south of Jackson Avenue and west of Fifth
• • q 41
Street , and I don' t think I could make any additions to
the statements that have been made in opposition to it,
except my parents definitely feel strongly about it in
opposition to this proposal, and I would like simply to
voice it .
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Anyone else?
STANLEY CORWIN: Mr. Supervisor, and gentlemen of
the Town Board, this discussion had here this evening was
very illuminating and very interesting. I think: you who
are sitting and sitting in a rather detached position
are aware, however, that most of it has been somewhat
interesting. I am speaking, I hope impartially and object-
ively. I am not representing anyone here except myself, and
I don' t own any real property anywhere near New Suffolk,
although I do own property that is affected by the Southold
Town Ordinance . I don' t hearily agree with Mr . Huston
who thought this piece of legislation was about the best
thing that ever happened to the Town of Southold, and I
think you gentlemen recognize it is imperfect. I: think
that is the concensus of all of us who are affected in one
• respect or another, that it certainly can be improved upon.
But I doubt: very much the method that has been suggested
by this proposed amendment is the proper way in which
it can be corrected, Let me say first of all, that, I
would like to amplify the statement that I make, that
I am neutral, impartial, and objective. I am o member
of the American Society of Planning Engineers and a number
of other committees on planning and zoning. I also am a
member of the Village Board of Trustees which has had a
local zoning ordinance in the Village of Greenport since
1949, and I am familiar with the problem of zoning and
the problems you gentlemen have in evaluating the remarks
that you have heard this evening. I sympathize with you
because I know it is a tremendous problem to resolve these
conflicts that have been presented to you, as they have
been this evening. But I would like to say to you from
what I have heard here this evening, all of the weight
so far as necessity is concerned, is on behalf of those
who are opposed to this amendment. It seems to me in
the first place, if I remember, in connection with the
call of the hearing you heard here this evening, that we
are very definitely engaged here with a relatively small
parcel of land and land that you are zoning for something
else, and you are getting dangerously into the question
of spot zoning. I am sure that your own counsel will
advise you with respect to the law. So far as the
philosophy of zoning is concerned, it has been very
amply covered by the gentleman who preceded me in speaking
this ever~g. But I want you to understand that I am
speaking objectively, and if you permit me to say so, from
the point of view of people who live on Fishers Island,
if you will, that the demands are upon you from the people
of the communities who are not close by and who are not
lncluenced by the immediate pressures of this application
are in favor of you leaving the Zoning Ordinance as it is
and I hope that you will do so. I recognize that there are
going to be many problems, as someone else remarked earlier
this evening. There will be many applications of this
nature. I don't think that the proper way to solve those
problems and give an answer to these petitioner's appli-
cations that come before you is to say: "All right, we
will change this from Residential to Business." Rather,
I think that as these applications come in and as you have
an opportunity to discuss them and deliberate calmly in
your own Boardroom, the answer to the problem is going to tak
and
all these applications^the classifications that you quoted
in your Ordinance in the first instance, and find some
intermediate method of providing for the different
applications that will be made. You can have different
classifications of residence; you can have different classi-
fications of business. It may be possible here and there
throughout the communities that are involved by this
comprehensive Zoning Ordinance that there will be much
pressure for you to loosen it up. It is zoned very
tightly. I think it is zoned too tightly right now,
and I think you need to loosen up; but not by spot zoning
or not submitted to the pressure brought by an individual
applicant to have a petition granted. I think it is much
more practical to loosen it up rather than by going over
from residential to business and on a larger scale than
involving a few acres.
MRS. TRUEX (New Suffolk): Can I ask a question on
this zoning: Do the people in the neighborhood have any-
tb~g to say, or is the Planning Board entirely -- I mean
is it customary for them to express their opinions whether
they approve the type of zoning or not?
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Well, you all had an opportunity
to express yourselves at several public hearin~ that
were held,before the Town Board made a decision whether
to revise it or adopt it on the basis of the correspondence
they had; what people had to say about it. That was all
done. Whether you were there or not I have no way of
telling, but as far as these changes in zone, you have a
right to be heard. Anyone in the Town has a right to be
heard.
MR. HEABNE: I would like the gentlemen to reeazl
if they have been through the Village of East '~Uogue
and seen what zoning, or improper zoning, or lack of zoning,
has done to that little town on the south side of the main
road. It can be a lesson for some of the problems that
are besetting you here.
45
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Thank you. Is there anyone else
in opposition to?
(There was no response._
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: If there is no other person in
opposition to, I will give you people an opportunity to
be heard again.
MR. HILLS: May I say I am really indebted to
Mr. Corwin whom I heard for the first time tonight
for his rather lengthy and informative discussion on
zoning and spot zoning, but I honestly did not think I
came to this session to obtain a course in zoning. I
thought that what we were doing was a practical suration
where there should be a change as far as New Suffolk is
concerned and not as far as Fishers Island is concerned.
Now, to corroborate what I might say, I did not bring
is
any law books as Mr. Tasker did, who ~ a lawyer we know and
admire, because we know one lawyer reads one case, it is
very simple and supports his case, and another lawyer might
read another case, and that supports his position.
I think your attorney is sitting here and he can inforlm~
you as to the legal aspects and the legal requirements,
and what spot zoning is. If you think that you require
any written memorandum from the attorneys of the respective
parties, I am a sure we will all be very glad to submit
them to you because I did not present any of these cases,
46
because I did not think you wanted to hear what the
Court of Appeals said. I think most of the people come
up here by reason of the fact they want to say their
property will be devaluated. I have here a map which
also pertains to the locality in question, which I also
want to submit as Mr. Tasker has done. We submit it by
red shadings in the commercial use and green shadings for
the boarding houses, which are already existing.in that
immediate area. Now, I particularly want to call your
attention to the fact that Just immediately adjacent ~
the property of Huston there is what I would term a very
small bungalow colony of five or six bungalows in existence.
If they have not already devalued the property in that vi-
cinity, I am sure a motel such as we intend to put up,
modern in every aspect, willnot devalue the property.
I may state also if you gentlemen look at the Huston
property, you will notice two foundations on that property
indicating that two bungalows are to be built. And I
understand stakes were put into that property just prior
to the time this Ordinance took effect. So already there are
two more bungalows where there are already four or five
there now. Now, Mr. Tasker spoke very e±oquently about
the very fine piece of Residential property which is just
south from the Roache property. I saw it for the first
time today. I certainly admit that it is a fine piece of
orooerty as it stands today, and the type of motel we
intend to put up, I challenge that it be compared with any
other type business. I think that the motel we will put
up will be much more attractive to the Loew property to
the south that as it exists today. I heard Mr. Hearne say
he could procure a buyer for us. First he said a few days,
then ten days, and he also said sixty days. If he could
procure a buyer for us, and we are here, and I would like
to know the name of the buyer. If that would be done we
would approve, but to wait for a buyer ten or sixty days
is rather indefinite. I think most of these objections
have been that the neighborhood will change in character.
It will not change in character with boarding houses
and bungalows, and I don't think it will change in
character with tye type of motel we intend to put up.
As far as we see it, we don't think that what we propose
will be anything but good for the community. If we
wanted to put up a little shack they won't object. As
to the type of edifice we intend to put up it will be
modern, it will be landscaped, and properly shrubbed, and
be attractive. And it will be something for New Suffolk
to be proud of.
As far as written protests of Mr. Tasker are concerned,
he
since^is given a week to submit, may I ask since he has
his, that we have a copy, and submit a brief, too. I
also heard the Fanning peop±e who own and have a boarding
house there, and have no objection to the mote± that we
intend to put up. I think they are here now, and as far
as I know, they have no objection. They might be affected
and they are right across the street from us.
Now, may I also add one more point, if I may, I
received this rather late statement from ~r. Endemann of
the Klmogenor Point Company. I think that when we are
concerned with protests here we are concerned with
protests of people who will De immediately affected ay
a change, and not remotely affected by property perhaps
half a mile down.
MR. ENDEMANN: In response to Mr. Hills' statement,
we are rather closely connected there because Klmogenor
Point owns the one-acre plot at the end of the very same
block this rezoning is requested.
Mt{. HEARNE: I would llke to point out that someone
has beaten the gun on the block by driving a stake.
Either they have beaten the gun or are in ~olation of
the ordinance, and the fact is that they may or may not
have done that is no reason that you should permit him
to do it.
RUSSELL FANNING (New Suffolk): I am the one who
owns the property right across the street. And the
gentlemen, Mr. Hills, here, said we are in favor of it.
Well, we are almost on the fence because we do have farm
property that has been there for some over one hundred year~
now almost, but I think as a boarding house it is up
for sale as a boarding house. But we also have to the west
of us quite a nice residence that we live in ourselves,
and it ~s a private ~esldence. So we are almost on the
fence. If we have an opportunity to sell our farm property
the chances are that anybody that buys it may want to
expand with buildings of some kind in the part of the block
to the north of us. We have a parcel 200x300 and Quite a
large building space, so I don't know whether for one
part of my property I would say it was detrimental, for the
other part I would say it was an advantage.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Are you for or against it?
MR. FANNING: I am about fifty-fifty. I don't think
as Far as our health is concerned, it would be a detriment.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Anyone else wish to Ce heard in
favor?
FLOYD HUSTON: This is with respect to the thing
that I am worried about, and that is this: let us assume
that this motel goes up. Let us assume that it is not
all that it is cracked up to be. Pretty soon either the
Truexes or the Hortons get mad, and they want to ~et out,
and they appear before the Board with another application
or appeal to rezone their place to Business. Then we are
right under the gun. We are now within 200 feet of our
friend. When that next petition comes in to your Board
sitting in judgment, and you refuse them after giving Mrs.
Roache permission, and so that is what I am afraid is going
to happen. It is going down the line~d spread.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Actually, I don't want to cut
you off, but assumptions are not permitted at this hearing.
We can assume that they can go on and be detrimental
to the whole Town of Southold, and it is the immediate effect
that it has that we are interested in. I don't say we
are granting or denying as yet. We want to listen to every-
thing anybody has to say, and we want to do what is best
for the most people involved.
Anyone else?
MRS. FENSCH OLSEN (New Suffolk): They say there
isn't no rooms for people to come:for the last fifteen
years I have rooms, snd it is going down and the people
are not making a dollar. My place is for sale, and I
would give my place up tomorrow to get out. I have put
in twenty-eight years and nobody bother with that 300 sq. ft
of property. Mrs. Roache can sell her property for
residential. She has a lovely place. She ca~ sell it
and get more money than we have now.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: Is there anyone else that would
like to speak?
(There was no response.
SUPERVISOR KLIPP: I will declare the hearing closed ~
this time for further determination of the Board.
STATE OF NEW YORK : TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Building Zone
Ordinance, Town of Southold, Suffolk :
County, New York. :
TO THE TOWN BOARD OF SOUTaOLD TOWN:
1. I, DANTE A. LORTI, presently residing at 70 Grand Avenue,:
Englewood, New Jersey, do hereby Join in the petition of Margaret
W. Roache for a change in zoning from an "A" Residential District
to a "B" Business District of the premises more particularly des-
cribed in the said petition.
2. I am the prospective purchaser of said premises. On
April 16, 1957 I entered into a contract with the said Margaret
W. Roache for the purchase of said premises contingent upon my
being able to obtain a change in zoning as above requested.
While the contract was entered into on April 16, 1957, the actual
negotiations which led up to said contract began on or about the
14th day of April, 1957. The motel that I intend to put up will
consist of approximately twelve (12) units and will not, in any
way, be a burden upon any of the adjoining owners since all of
the parking facilities will be on the premises. The proposed
· motel will be of modern construction and will serve a distinct
'need in the community.
3. I also intend to use and occupy the house and buildings
presently occupied by Mrs. Roache and the motel will be erected
upon the remaining portion of the property.
4. I respectfully request that the Board make a change in
zoning from an "A" Residential District to a "B" Business District~
Dante A. Lorti
il
STATE OF NEW YORK:
:ss
COUNT~ OF SUFFOLK:
DANTE A. LORTi, being duly swoz,n, deposes end says that'
he is the petitioner in the within action; that he has read the
fo~egoing and knows the oon~ents thereof; that the s~e is t~e
~o his ~owledge, except as ~o the st~e~s ~he~ein s~ated ~o be
alleged on infommm~ion ~d belief, ~d thmt as to those mat~ers
he bel~es It to be t~e.
D~e I. Lo.ti
Sworn to before me this
~ ~day of June, 1957.
12 Lynwood Road
Verona, N. J.
May 29, 1957
Mr. Norman Klippe
Town of So~thold
Village H~ll
South Street In re: Dumars Property
~reenport, L.I., N.Yo adjacent $o Roach Estate
Jackson St. & New Suffolk Ave
Dear Mr. Elippe: New Suffolk
As the Dunmrs have been owners of property adjacent to the
Roach Estate for over 50 years I would like to enter my plea
against the proposed rezonlng of the Roach property for the
purpose of erecting a motel.
The character of the entire area has been established for
many years as one of large estates an~ su~nmer cottages.
~m co~inced that the construction of a commercial establishment
such as a motel would be most upsetting to this established
pattern of living°
Yours truly,
I-~ z F~ DIJ}L~:[S
SOUTH~LD TOWN CLERK S OFFICE
May l?. 1957.
Mr. John Wickham
Chairman of Planning Board
Cutchogue. New York
Dear Mr. Wlckham;
In my letter to you on
Nay 15th, 1957, relative to petition of
Margaret W. Roache, it should haws read
Article lX instead of Article X.
Am enclosing check
of Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) received
from William Wick~am.
Yery truly yours.
~lph'OP. Booth
P, PB/mr Town Clerk
12 Lynwood Road
Verona, N. Jo
Nay 29, 1957
~r. Norman Klippe
Town of Southold
Village Hall
South Street In re: Dumars Property
Greenport, L.I., N.Yo adjacent bo Roach Estate
Jackson St. & New Suffolk Ave
Dear Mr. F~ippe: New Suffolk
As the Dumars have been ov~ers of property adjacent to the
Roach Estate for over 50 years I would like to enter my plea
against the proposed rezoning of the Roach property for the
purpose of erecting a motel.
The character of the entire area has been established for
many years as one of large estates and summer cottages. I
a~ c~vinced that the construction of a commercial establishment
such as a motel would be most upsetting to this established
pattern of living.
Yours truly,
HAZEiL DUNARS
~UTH~LD, L.~., N.Y.
PLANNING BOARD
MEMBERS
~ May 2O, 1957
REPORT TO SOUTHOLD TOWN BOAP,.D
Henry ~. Moisa
Alfred R. Grebe RF~: PETITION OF ~,~RGARET W. ROACI~
This Petitio~ requests t~at tn~ described property
in New Suffolk be re-zoned Irom "A" Residential to "B" Business
District to permit its use for a motel.
Upon inspection by the t~lanr~ing Board, this prop-
erty proves to be bordered on three sizes by street. Across the
street tc the north is Fanning Farm, a boarding house; across the
street to the east Is vacant property of the petitioner and then
the C~ase House, snother boardi~g ~ouse.
New S~ffolk is a base for sport fishing and there
are at least twelve home owners w ~o take tourists. There seems
to be a demand for a motel wnic~ would handle the many people who
are looking for over-night accommodations and are unable to be
cared for by present facilities. The site is a~equate and a motel
should be an asset to New Suffolk.
IT WAS THE UNANIMOUS ACTION of t~e Soutnold Town
Planning Board, meeting in special meeting May 15, 1957, that the
change requested in the petition be recommended to the Sout~old
Tow~ Board.
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK'S OFF[CE
May l?, 1957.
Mr. John Wickham
Chairman of Planning Beard
Cutchogue, New York
Dear Mr, Wickham;
In my letter to you on
MAy 15th, 1957, relative to petition of
Margaret W. Roache. it should have read
Article 1X instead of Article X.
Am enclosing check
of Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) received
from William Wick~.
Yery truly yours,
RPB/mr Town Clerk
SOUTHOLD TOWN CL£RK'$ OFFICE
~ay 15~ 1957.
John Wickham
Chsirmon Planning Board
Cutc~-ogue, New ]fork
Dear Mr. Wickhsm;
Enclosed herewith original and
copy of Petition of Margaret W. Roache relative
to change of zone Jn accordance with Article 10
Section 901, sub-division C.
You are instructed to prepare
s~, o?fici~l report defining the conditions des-
cribed in t~e petition and determine the area
so erfected with the ~ecommendation of your
Board.
It is respectfully requested
that this be ~iven your immediate attention,
Very truly yours,
'~lp~ P. Booth
Town Clerk
P.S. Will forward check as soon as received from
Wm. V~ickham~ Esq.
NOTICE OF H~ARING ON PROPOF~L TO A~D ZONII~ ORDINANCE
Pursuit to Sectlon 265 of the Town L~w, mhd Article IX. of the
BulldOg goae GTdl~nce of the To~ of ~uUhold, m public hearing will
be held by the Southold To~ B~rd ~t the Office of the ~pervlsor, 16
Soush Street, GreenpOrt, New Yor~, on J~e 4th, 1957, st 7:~ P.~.
(E.D.S.T.), on the follo~ln~ propo~ls to ~men~ the Building Zone
nmnce (lncluOln~ gne ~lldi~ Zone ~mps) of the To~n of Sou~nol~ Suffolk
County, ~w York:
1. By ~a~lng ~om "A" Reaidentlal and Agrlc~t~al DI~gP~ct ~o
"B" Bus.ess 51s~rlct ~e following desc~'lbed property:
All that trmc~ or psrcel of l~d situate,
lying rand belng z~ New S~Folk, In the Town
of Sout~ld, Cowry of Suffolk, and
of Ne~ York, bo~d~ on ~he North by New
Suffol~ AVenue; on ~he ~st by Flf~h Street;
on the SOUth by Jmck~n Street; ~d on
wes~ by ~he sev*r~l l~ds of Ellzmbeth T~ex
rand Gll~rt Hor~n.
Z. ~ ch~l~ f~m "k" Resldentlml and Ag~l~l~ral District
to "B" ~slness Dlmtric~ the following describ~ p~opeFty:
All ~hut tPac~ o~ parcel of lsnd sltu~te,
lying ~nd ~lng at Aesh~omo~e, In the Town
of ~uthold, ~ty of S~folk 8nd S~ate of
New york, bounded on ~he North ~ lsnd of
~ge ~d Garde; on the ~st ~ lend of Binge
~nd Gmrde; on the ~u~h by Peconlc ~y~ ~d
on ~he west by Peco~c ~y.
Any per~,n desiring ~o be hemrd on the p~oposed smen~us ~ould
appear st the ~i~ snd place a~we specified.
~ted: ~y 14, 1957. ~ OKDE5 OF THE SOUTHOLD TO'iN BO~D,
~H P. BO0~, TOWN ~E~.
STA'rE OF NEW YORK:
:ss
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK:
MAHGARET W. ROACtLS, being duly sworn, deposes and says
that she is the petitioner in the wltnin action; that she has
ream the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that
the same is true to her knowledge, except as to the matters
therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that
as to those matters she believes it to be true.
Roache
Sworn to before me t~is
9th day of i~lay, 1957.
NOTICE OF HNARING ON PROPOSAL TO A~fR~R) ZONING ORDINANCE
pursusnt to Section 265 of [he Town ~w, mnd Ar~lcle IX. o~ the
Bulldin~ Lone ~dl~nce of Ina To~ of ~u~r~ola, ~ public hearln~ will
be held by 5he Southolc To~ B~rd a~ the Office of ~he ~pervlso~, 16
Sou%n S~eet, Greenpor~, New Yo~K, on J~e 4th, 19~7, st 7:~
(E.D.S.T.), on Ina follo~..ing proposEls to ~mend ~he Building Zone
nmnce (lncluClng ~ne ~lldl~ Zone Emps) of the Town of Sou~hold, Suffolk
Count2/, ~w York:
1. By chS~lng ~om "A" Re~ldentlsl snd kgrlcul~al Dis~rlc~ to
"B" Business Discreet ~e following described property:
All th~5 ~rsct or psrcel of l~d situate,
lying ~nd being 5t New S~folk, In the To~n
o~ Southola, Co'~ty of Suffolk, and State
or Ne~ York, bo~d~ on [he North by Ne~
Suffolk Avenue; on the ~ast by Fifth Street~
on the South by J~ck~n Street; ~d on the
'~'est by the sev%p~l lmn~s of EllzBbeth T~ex
and Gllber. t ~Iorton.
~. ~ chs~i~ f~ "A~ Residentlml m~d Agpl~l~r~l Dlstric~
to '~B~ ~slness Dlstric5 the following described property:
all that trsct or p~Peel of l~nd alsue~e,
lying ~nJ ~lng ~t kPsh~omo~e, in the
of ~uthold, Gouty of S~folk and State of
New York, bounded on ~he North ~ lsnd of
~ge ~d G~rde; on the Rsst Sy land of
mnd OsFde; on the ~uth by Peconic ~y; and
on the l%'es5 Dy Peco~c ~y.
Any person desiring ~o be hemrd on the proposed amen~Ss ~ould
Sppesr ~t the tl~ and plsee 5~e specified.
~ted: U~y 14, 19~7. ~ OkDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TO?~ BO~
~LPH P. BO~, TO~.~N ~ERK.
JI
STARE OF NbA4 YOP~K : TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Building Zone :
PETITION
Ordinance, Town of Southold, Suffolk :
Colmty, New York. :
TO THE TOWN BOARD OF SOUTHOLD TOWN:
1. I, MARGARET 7. ROACHE, residing at New Suffolk, SoutholdI
To~, Suffolk County, New York, the undersigned, s~ the owner of :
certain property at New Suffolk bounded as follows: On the north
Oy New Suffolk Avenue; On the east by Fifth Street; On the
sou~h Oy Jackson Street; On the west by lands of Elizabeth Truex
and Gilbert Horton.
Said premises are more fully described as follows:
BEGINNING at a concrete monument set at the
intersection of the southerly line of New Suffolk
Avenue and the westerly line of Fifth Street at
the northeast corner of the premises herein des-
cribed; running thence along the westerly side of
Fifth Street, S. 6° 44' 00" W. 301.b? feet to the
northerly side of Jackson Street; running tnenco
along the northerly side of Jackson Street, N.
84° 00~ 00" 7. 371.74 feet to a point and land of
Elizabeth Truex~ running thence along said land
of Truex and land of Gilbert Horton, N. ~o 49~
00" E. 300.56 feet to a monument set in the
southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue; running
thence along the south~y line of New Suffolk Ave-
hUe, S. ~4° 10' 00" E. 378.$? feet to the monument
and place of beginning.
2. I have entered into a contract, dated April 16, 1957,
~'or the sale of said premises to Dante A. Lorti, residing at ?0
Grand Avenue, Englewood, New Jersey. This contract and the sale
of the premises are contingent, however, on said premises being
used for motel purposes. Request is therefore made for a change
in said premises from an "A" Residential District to "B" Business
District.
Margaret W. Roache
STADE OF NEW YORK:
:ss
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK:
~ARGAPuET W. ROACH,, being Guly sworn, deposes anG say~
that she is the petitioner in the within action; that she has
read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that
the same is true to her knowledge, except as to the matters
therein stated to be alleged on inforr~ation an~ belief, and that
as to those matters she believes it to be true.
Sworn to before me this
9th day of May, 1957.