The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1000-56.-5-1.1 ~ r, ~ ~ i GAA ; ~ =---~ -=- ~r:\ P;,:;: 0 (MRY L, I?AI~J 2 'S;'-~-' :; I o . ') ( :\'4<1.,.>.c~ r 'I I '0 , 11'11 <::, O,?){ Ac. "Tb'Tf'L..- ') L rNiq, Q! I ~ I I L AD:TDIN/f'.X) Nrw CCNPnkAPIJ0 j' iK'uPG-R71"'-"S I/YE~ M~ ('~,~ f) Bf _(1~RAT70N C:F _&1'1'( hlAC!..q_I"~-:;J . ~ N 5Zo44'E TIIO.o' l\1'? gZ .0' r; v ~ ~ ~ ~ j 0, :: (i\ .!: ~ eo' t I ~ iJ"C=-. ,(\1--1 I _ ~ li' r I ~ 3~:l> tI').. ~ . ]:> -:)1 l C7 Jil. '/ I'l ~ 0 0 1- "" r' 1-1~1 ::;'~' <') ~ ~ 0, IO~~ ~ I" i,1l -\I. ~ no _1'JJ;? w~>? It'" ;1:'1-\ l..<n I .l> C (:l (l' C '3'- v" .:? 1) J> r-> '-../(l) '-"(i1 iii I-l~ )> I c. }~~V ~' ~' i )~__.,' \\'], / . t,,,.. / 06,<;' .... ~/-~ N 11;~ - --<~. ../~'f-:"{_. I ,,/ Rrd: oRDG D rll C /) W"ll F I? / ~- <>~F::~ ,;> --; 6- L..\.~ f'1 ,,/ COO2(-;.C-7'ED 4T C 7Cf-8'f IF 22.4-, ..,/ """"/ /~-~~ f'~~ / i ~. fo.-.1_ + ~,\~ ,/ V\: /./t:J.f'-,//A \\,..of. ,/, /ij /,,-:-% -<:~p.. ('" I (}II () ./ .' <.-1- 'Sf(V, .0" rO'~ , / / / ~- . "'\~) c - " .).. J/~/ k~ ~;,.~~cr~~ * ~~5 ~l C7 , 1/) -(0~ ."G lo' ~ I . ~T O'c~~?~ ~;p. ~ n:-I! ro _--------4---o I -i z: C "I I'"" ( ___ _L __ (),Et~~L-Il-.lE.:l_ .J:?~'] ~: ~ '~ I':--~- L '-' in --.5. I >- ,AfFRr;x. oc.) z:. ~ '" : .-... D-"'\1o" L I .c \7 I I'~ v.5~r;\ ENCLOS(;;,tlARE.A.) I"~I{' I, I z m ::> C l'i "'B -- \ "1 "\ '2. ) -< -<. .;.c I ~~~~\' (~\1e6f'PAST\lR"")~) ~~ I I V ~ Z z I ,q"""" ./ ~ (\> ~,F.L z:, '~ 'l1 '- au Cflt..eANf'. (/l i", <; C- l' ~ ""'^ 1'" ,""- __ V' I'i' 0 \ -'I< ,'VM " nVJ= ~ --< u' "/-- '~ /';! <!~ - , ~ \-\e1fttt /j;;i/" ^- lAWf\\S -r ~ ~:~~;~~_ ~~~~~~ 1:v,~~S\~ ~:~ '') L";)\:;"- vI' v ~... Ai'E:P- ,<t;o{~, ~ \-'I~LD "'........ ('-;. ~I\A.'NT. or- tIk'-'- c:ot<.'-' 'SG:-A _v4. ~"U'l-\) .... __ \)'NV'. OL{'~ .- .. \" f'N'DE' " c.. ie-V e,'< ,l\J J+ c,I.l-l1> ccu... . ~ oJ __':;'-~r;l--,",3:U-=-~-------1 tJ.. H'IV /' 0, '" " ~:I 5--1, II I' i( Rc.E>Gi<T 1...-. F-Ali. ,192.() " t~.' DEEO (j) ill --.) c -< z: Ii" ~ 1'J C7 ~ PLOT ':rlOWf/'/4 VACANf CAN D0 CfJNVe(ED ANi. CCCUpiED CAli/OS R.E IAINED 6"( CLARA E. LANG - "J 011 .Jl o , a , fI.I ft(;e JlilY '23/ 1'173 GIFT 77J IlIARY L. M/C' ,4-/'-.JD :JO>-(N eA/r) !-Iliii<. HlJSerlNI). {<GADWAY f'ND UTI L.{T//2;S CJ)NNGc.T I'(\A/N DWCUJNEi O=<Jf'IED 6Y DrNOR (N~:nON -rA\::'EN FRtM p..JPtILA~LE: ~ A.~\) :;'1.lR'J1:.-'Y:' BY CltV1~ Dr<AW/o.i W: /:)l;;RT c.ooP~R) fE., LS. eM' 24 D\(G?<: /3R<lO I<. R.i;> r t==A-l~FA:I, VA. 'LcD'?;,l "JUN E;;. <;D0'!1-{ DC{) I::>, 1994 BAY , 1__..__...----.-----.----.---.----.--------.......- _.'._. OJ 3 \ ::c- O ~ IT] ..--------:-- fY1.i1W) I I , -.J . '€ 14:13 o o '" 'B'703 69B 1766 B.C.COOPER Ii1J 001 Bertram C. Cooper III 8524 Overbrook Road Fairfax, Virginia 22031 March 23, 1995 Laury Dowd, Esq. Town Attorney Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 MAR 2 3 1995 RE: Proposed law for (a) blanket ratification of conform- ing and nonconforming deed-lots, and (b) new and comprehensive permissiveness in respect of previously enforced zoning laws, and (c) new exceptions to merger of adjoining non-conforming lands. Dear Ms. Dowd, I hold title as cotrustee to land identified as SCTM parcel 56-5-1.3. (See copy of SCTM enclosed.) When Clara E. Lang, the former owner, died in October of 1993, title to the subject property passed by specific devise to each of her children, Constance L. Cooper, Mary L. Baiz and Robert Lang, Jr. Mrs. Cooper then placed her one-third interest in my trust as cotrustee. As a civil engineer and land planner in Virginia, I am not entirely unfamiliar with zoning and land-use issues. This letter is in response to the Town's proposed blanket approval of deed-lots. It is my unofficial understand- ing from the real estate community that this law was drafted because a former Town official had informed certain attorneys, but not all attorneys, that, as long as a landowner wanted to create a lot which did not fly in the face of pUblic policy and which complied with the zoning standards then in effect, there was no reason for the perfunctory SUbdivision review. As a consequence of this permissiveness in respect of conforming deed-lots, many attorneys simply filed a deed in the land records of the county. Unfortunately, I also understand that some attorneys abused the Town's permissiveness and sculpted an opportunity for themselves to circumvent the zoning standards and land-use policies then in effect and create nonconforming deed-lots for their owners. As to deed-lots which conformed with zoning standards I and land-use policies then in effect, I have no problem with the J prop. osed blanket ratification. I do. however. ob;ect to the .~ (ok _t:act___that, in this proposed law, deed-lots which were noncon- -rkl:t-wu.e..>Il- f.orm.__ing when created, and Which flaunted public pOlicies then in.-~.- -,~.~.: effect, will also recelve blank~-ana-Slg1n:~unseen approval~--In~~_ tJiTs""Tetter, I wll1 be focusing on --l:liOseaee-d--lots--whicnwere ---- ,wrVUOO'T nonconforming at the time of their creation, .and.I will be using the facts of an actual case to support my obJectlons. I I , 03/2~:95 ~4:14 'B'703 698 1766 H.C.COOPER Ms. Laury Dowd March 23, 1995 Page 2 If the Town wants to ratify its past relaxation of perfunctory subdivision procedures, without also raising new issues of an unwarranted, arbitrary, comprehensive and post- facto relaxation of other pOlicies and standards, which were previously enforced, it should ratify only those deed-lots which met the published land-use policies and zoning standards in effect at the time of the deed-lot's creation. In this letter, I will be making a distinction between perfunctory subdivision procedures and critical zoning standards and land-use policies. It is one thing to ratify past non- enforcement of perfunctory procedures; it is entirely another to open whole new areas of relaxation by expanding into non-en- forcement of important standards and policies. Unlike proce- dures, standards and policies are not perfunctory. By zoning standards, I refer to such basics as (1) lot area, (2) lot trontage, (3) lot width, (4) lot depth, and (5) lot access for emergency services. And, if the property lines of the deed-lot wrapped around an existing building, it should also conform to (6) the front, rear and side yard setback and (7) the lot coverage requirements then in effect. And, in accordance with long-standing land-use policies, (8) waterfront property and other environmentally sensitive property should continue to receive their usual special scrutiny. To the extent possible, these tests for zoning conformance should apply to both the deed-lot and the remaining parent tract. Of the eight standard criteria of a zoning district, only lot area is proposed for post-facto enforcement. (See proposed section lOO-24(A) (1) (c).) The remaining seven crite- ria, which were previously enforced, are comprehensively exclud- ed. Because standard bulk schedules were tabulated with the 1971 and 1983 zoning ordinances, and because reproducing them would add only one page to this law, one is left to wonder why the Town is deciding to comprehensively nullify these previously enforced criteria for sake of approving, sight-unseen, noncon- forming deed lots. For sake of saving only one page of text, the Town is deciding to comprehensively nullify its previously enforced zoning standards and land-use policies, and adopting only an area-based standard. I believe that the Town's decision to exclude these previously tabulated requirements results in an additional and expanded, and arbitrary and unwarranted, and effectively compre- hensive nullification of previously enforced zoning standards. Because the Town has a duty to uniformly enforce its laws among members of the community, I believe this unequal enforcement of zoning standards will open this law to challenge. A prior relaxation of perfunctory subdivision procedures is not justifi- cation for a new, unwarranted and comprehensive relaxation of previously enforced zoning standards and public policies. 03/2"3;V5 . 14:15 '0'703 698 1766 B.C.COOPER ~003 Ms. Laury Dowd March 23, 1995 Page 3 By new, unnecessary, arbitrary, comprehensive and post-facto relaxation of previously enforced zoning standards, owners who "paid the price" for lots which conformed with the land-use policies and zoning laws then in effect will be penal- ized for having obeyed the law. Meanwhile, by arbitrary and unnecessary relaxation of traditionally and previously enforced zoning standards, including such fundamental criteria as lot depth and lot width, and Town policies, including such long- standing criteria as emergency access to dwellings and envi- ronmental stability of sensitive lands, the owners of noncon- forming deed-lots will be arbitrarily and unjustly rewarded for having abused a privilege of permissiveness and flaunted previ- ously enforced zoning laws and land-use policies. Hence, this new, arbitrary, unwarranted, post-facto and near-comprehensive relaxation of previously enforced zoning standards and land-use policies imposes an unfair economic penalty to all those landowners who obeyed the law, and grants an economic windfall for those powerful few who wilfully broke the law. In the case discussed in this letter, the blanket, unwarranted, comprehensive and post-facto nullification of previously enforced zoning standards and land-use policies will result in a suspicious and unjust windfall - on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars - to a deed-lot owner who ap- pears to be well connected. In addition, by the new and blanket relaxation of previously enforced zoning standards, those deed-lots which were nonconforming at the time of their creation will be sanctioned as building lots without the usual protections to the community of surrounding land owners. In other words, under cover of "correcting" past permissiveness in respect of perfunctory SUbdivision procedures, the Town will now be opening a new path for owners of nonconforming deed-lots to circumvent the long- standing procedures offered by the zoning board of appeals. This blanket sanction of deed-lots which were nonconforming at the time of their creation, and this nearly comprehensive relax- ation of previously enforced zoning standards will also work as a legalization, sight unseen, of substandard lots and other zoning nuisances in otherwise stable zoning districts. The unwarranted intrusion of substandard spot zones in otherwise stable zoning districts will reduce the integrity of the Town's zoning in general, and it will harm the many landowners who enjoy the uniformity and stability of their zoning districts. By blanket, sight-unseen, and comprehensive non-enforcement of long-standing public policies and selected zoning laws, the approval of otherwise nonconforming deed-lots would open the ? door for demands for similar relaxations within those districts. Again, it is important to understand that I differen- tiate between a blanket ratification of perfunctory SUbdivision procedures, which were previously not enforced, and to which I 03/2...3,1.95 1'4:16 '8'703 698 1766 H.C.COOPER )41 004 Ms. Laury Dowd March 23, 1.995 Page 4 do not object, and a new, blanket, unwarranted, expansive, comprehensive, and somewhat hidden relaxation of zoning stan- dards which were basic, and not perfunctory, and which were previously enforced. I can appreciate the possibility that the Town's doors may be pounded upon by a vociferous few (maybe 1 - 3 people, or even 0.001% of the population, or whatever), who have a deed-lot that was nonconforming at the time of its creation. Clearly, they want blanket and sight-unseen ratification of their abuse of the Town's past permissiveness in respect of recording proce- dures. In order to avoid having to explain how it came to be that their deed-lots were nonconforming at the time of their creation, they also want the Town to open up the areas of its past permissiveness and grant new, unwarranted, sudden, arbi- trarily comprehensive and post-facto relaxations of previously enforced zoning standards and land-use policies. The Town may also find, in addition to myself, more than a few vociferous others are interested in protecting the value of their homes and the stability of their zoning dis- tricts. The Town should not sanctify the unwarranted abuse of its past permissiveness in respect of perfunctory subdivision procedures by reducing the previously enforced 1957, 1971 and 1983 zoning ordinances to a one-paragraph zoning standard based only on lot area. By additional, and blanket and sight-unseen, and comprehensive relaxation of previously enforced zoning stan- dards and land-use policies, the Town will be improperly legal- izing otherwise nonconforming deed-lots. I believe this is unfair to those who did not abuse their privileges and flaunt the Town's land-use laws and policies. unfortunately, I am not raising these issues as a hypothetical contrivance. It has become a sad and complex issue for my family. In 1973, my then eighty-one year old grandmoth- er, Mrs. Clara E. Lang, was, by her loneliness and dependency, invited by a clever series of influences and contrivances to sign a deed that purported to gift to her daughter and son-in- law, Mary Lang Baiz and John Baiz, a strip of vacant land without improvements. The strip of vacant land (see SCTM 56-5- 1..2) adjoined a grand fathered building lot also owned by Mrs. Baiz (see SCTM 56-5-2). As originally designed, this gift of vacant and unimproved land was to be merged with the adjoining building lot, somewhat like a lot-line adjustment. In the family, the deed-lot was referred to as "the view-lot." As a vacant strip of land, this gift of vacant land was intended to protect Mrs. Baiz's view of and access to her mother's beach on Southold Bay. And, by specific limitations in her deed, this gift was intended to not convey any improvements on the land. The improvements related to the personal safety of Mrs. Lang, and to the privacy, insurability and inhabitability ,. 03/2;).1.9\5 :1'4: 17 '8703 698 1766 B.C.COOPER 1ilJ005 Ms. Laury Dowd March 23, 1995 Page 5 of her dwelling, and the environmental stability of her fragile shorefront and wetlands. The metes and bounds of this particular deed described a "view-lot" parcel that was nonconforming in a number of ways. First, it described a lot whose lot depth was grossly substan- dard at the time of its creation. (According to zoning defini- tions and requirements for the "A" Residential District then in effect, a 175-foot lot depth from the street was required, but only 110 feet was provided. It is also substandard under its current R-80 zoning.) Secondly, the last call of the metes and bounds passed through the interior of an important accessory structure, a 10' x 16' log-cabin style building on a concrete slab, referred to as the "summer house" or "cabana." (This property line created a violation of required setbacks for accessory structures then in effect.) Hence the recording of this deed-lot not only circumvented subdivision procedures then in effect, but it also flaunted specific zoning laws. Furthermore, given the 50-foot minimum front and the 50-foot minimum rear yards in effect at the time of its cre- ation, this deed-lot, with its 110 foot lot depth, was left with a net building envelope only ten (10) feet in depth. Hence, according to the regulations in effect at the time of its creation, this metes and bounds also created an unworkably shallow strip of land. In addition to the zoning issues, the metes and bounds of this deed-lot included a number of more serious irregulari- ties. This deed specifically described and delimited its grant as vacant land, and the traditional deed language which conveys "the improvements thereon erected" was cut away and redacted from the deed. But, the metes and bounds did not describe vacant lands. Being resurrected from an abandoned work effort of a prior attorney, this metes and bounds was altered without the supervision of a land surveyor and inserted into this deed, with errors, by a new attorney who was unfamiliar to the elderly Mrs. Lang. In addition to the purported unimproved and vacant land, the mathematics of this lawless and error-fraught metes and bounds surreptitiously circumscribed improved and occupied lands whiCh were essential to the personal safety of the then eighty-one year old Mrs. Lang, and to the inhabitability of her dwelling and to the environmental stability of her land. In addition to flaunting the specific delimitation of the grant to vacant land, by foreseeably interfering with the ability of the fire marshal to connect to existing fire hydrants in time of emergency, the metes and bounds used in this deed flaunted well-settled land-use pOlicies regarding the personal safety of its citizens. It also flaunted and the Town's long- standing policies for the SUbdivision review of its environmen- tally sensitive waterfronts. 03/23/85 14: 18 '0'703 698 1766 H.C.COOPER ,Il!! 006 Ms. Laury Dowd March 23, 1995 Page 6 No one has any expectation that, by past enforcement of its subdivision procedures, the Town could have eliminated all undue influence, ingenious knavery or legal malpractice in the execution of deeds. And the Town remained a third party to this deed until it proposed to adopt a law whose arbitrary and unwarranted, and surreptitiously crafted particulars appear designed to ratify exactly the unique particulars of this deed- lot. By venturing into a new, comprehensive, unwarranted, arbitrary, post-facto and blanket non-enforcement of previously enforced land-use policies and zoning standards (such as lot depth, and access by the fire marshal to his existing fire hydrants, stability of environmentally sensitive lands), the Town does open the door a little wider to these kinds of activi- ties. Again, the subject deed serves as a case in point. I refer to the Town's venture into new and comprehen- sive areas of non-enforcement as surreptitious because it is accomplished by unwarranted reduction of the lot-bulk standards of the 1957, 1971 and 1983 zoning ordinances to a one paragraph standard. This is an excessive and unwarranted cutting back of previously enforced zoning standards which could otherwise be easily incorporated into this standard. (The area-based stan- dards of proposed section 100-244(B) are not a substitute for the zoning-based standards of prior ordinances.) I believe that, had the subdivision procedures then in effect been followed for the subject deed, this view-lot would not be the problem to the Town, the courts and the adjoining owners that it stands to become. Given stated policy for subdivision review of waterfront property, the issues of sub- standard lot depth, and violation of zoning requirements for an accessory structure, and blocking the fire marshal from his only meaningful path of access between an existing dwelling and existing fire hydrants, and interference with the location of existing utility services and the continued inhabitability of a monarch dwelling, and blocking the maintenance of a critical bulkhead and shorefront defenses for the parent tract would have likely surfaced during the course of subdivision review. And, I also believe that the standard review process would have fore- seeably averted the ingenious language and malpractice of this particular deed. As it is, based on information allegedly provided by her attorney, Mrs. Baiz, the owner of this deed-lot now suddenly expects that her illegally subdivided, nonconforming and unwork- ably shallow strip of vacant land will soon be a building lot. In anticipation of a new, arbitrary, near-comprehensive and post-facto nullification of previously enforced zoning standards and land-use policies, she asserts that she will have a right to build on her otherwise substandard and unworkably shallow strip of land. It seems to me, as a civil engineer and land planner, that there is no compelling reason for a blanket nullification 03/Z:ilgS 14: 19 '5'703 698 1766 B.C.COOPER 1i!J007 Ms. Laury Dowd March 23, 1995 Page 7 of previously enforced zoning standards and land-use policies, but for a desire to surreptitiously ratify deed-lots such as this one., and I invite the Town'to show me any other noncon- forming deed-lots which warrant the comprehensive scope of this surreptitious nullification of previously enforced land-use policies and zoning standards. The owner claims that, by this sudden and post-facto nullification of exactly those previously enforced standards and policies which relate to her deed-lot, the Town will convert her merged "view-lot" into a separate building lot. By this right, which the donor did not contemplate in her gift, Mrs. Baiz claims a parallel right to block the fire marshal from his only meaningful path of access between an existing dwelling and existing fire hydrants in time of emergency. She also expects that, with this post-facto and comprehensive nullification of previously enforced zoning laws, she will acquire the right to cut off the location of existing utility lines and render Mrs. Lang's existing dwelling uninhabitable and temporarily unmarket- able. And, by blanket circumvention of the required review of waterfront properties, she asserts that, by claim of exclusive control over critical and sensitive shoreline fortifications, namely a corner bUlkhead-and-jetty, a portion of a seawall, and a made-land beach and seagrass buffer, she has the power to render defenseless, and unmarketable, the waterfront and adjoin- ing uplands of the parent tract from which this nonconforming and unworkably shallow deed-lot evolved. Based on blanket nullification of lot depth as a criteria, and based on the practical realities of this noncon- forming and unworkably shallow strip of land, and other circum- stances surrounding the execution of this deed, it is clearly possible that the owner of this deed-lot is not making these claims based only a desire to build. with blanket and sight- unseen approval of this nonconforming waterfront deed-lot, and with arbitrary, unwarranted, unexplained and comprehensive relaxation of previously enforced zoning standards, the owner of this unworkably shallow strip of land now stands to profit hand- somely. This windfall is derived from the Town's effective sanction of her nonconforming and unworkably shallow strip of land with power to confiscate the inhabitability, insurability and marketability of a pre-existing dwelling, and impede the fire marshal's access to existing fire hydrants, and threaten the environmental stability of one of the most valuable parcels on the North Fork. Thus, the blanket, i.e. the sight-unseen and comprehensive, nullification of previoUSly enforced zoning criteria, including lot depth, is not without the potential for unjust reward to the owner of this nonconforming and unworkably shallow strip of land. It also stands to increase the personal liability to the owners of the adjoining parent tract. The issue of blanket ratification of nonconforming 03/2;:;/95 14:20 'B'70J 698 1766 B.C.COOPER 411 008 Ms. Laury Dowd March 23, 1995 Page 8 deed-lots by unwarranted, arbitrary, near-comprehensive and post-facto nullification of previously enforced zoning stan- dards, and blanket approval of unworkab1y shallow deed-lots, including strips of land such as this, and blanket approval of violations of setback requirements for accessory structures, and blanket approval of cutting off the fire marshal from his only meaningful path of connection to existing fire hydrants, and blanket approval of shifting control of sensitive shorefront fortifications out of the hands of an elderly and confused woman and into the hands of an adverse and nonconforming adjoiner go to fundamental and long-standing policies regarding the Town's duty to uniformly enforce its laws and protect the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens. For those deed-lots which, but for their circumvention of perfunctory subdivision procedures, conformed in every way with the zoning standards and land-use policies then in effect, I understand and even agree with the blanket ratification proposed in this law. That would seen a practical, innocent and straight forward thing to do. It is the reduction of three and a half decades of prior zoning ordinances to a one-paragraph lot-area requirement that concerns me. This seems unwarranted and excessive, especially when it would be easy to reproduce in this ordinance a tabulation of the previous zoning standards. By its comprehensive and post-facto nullification of previously enforced zoning standards, this proposed law is more sinister than it first appears to be. The intent is good, the details are not. Under the cover of fixing procedural permis- siveness for conforming lots, this law is also proposing an additional, unexplained, sudden, arbitrary, unnecessary, and grossly expanded relaxation of fundamental zoning and land-use and policies so as to sanction nonconforming lots. The details of this proposed law effectively and comprehensively terminate and annul previously enforced zoning standards and land-use policies which go to basic protections of public health, safety and welfare in the community. The issues at stake include such things as the mainte- nance of the fire marshal's only meaningful path of access between an existing building and his existing fire hydrants in time of emergency, and the defense of shore front property from loss by erosion and flooding, the environmental stability of waterfronts, and the ratification of "spite strips" with unwork- ably shallow and substandard lot depth which harm the value of adjoining lands in the community. I believe these issues are well settled and well tried issues of public health, safety and welfare. I believe that their blanket, unnecessary, near- comprehensive and somewhat surreptitious ratification in this law reflects an unhealthy abrogation of duty by the Town. Sadly, because this substandard deed-lot was mapped 03/23/95 14: 21 'fi'703 698 1766 H.C.COOPER I<!J 009 Ms. Laury Dowd March 23, 1995 Page 9 according to a metes alld bounds which my attorney considers a malpractice, and because it was recorded without the required subdivision process, and because, as a building lot, this nonconforming and unworkably shallow strip of land would create a standing, albeit tacit, threat to the inhabitability and marketability of an existing dwelling and the personal safety of its occupants, and the environmental stability of its surround- ing lands, there is a growing probability that court action will be required to straighten things out. Although this will be expensive and will be something which the owners, who are all domiciled in different states, had been wanting to avoid, it appears that the opposing financial expectations and political pressures are mounting, and sadly, becoming more and more entrenched. For reasons of their personal liability, the owners of the parent tract have a strong personal interest in maintaining their corner bulkhead and jetty and defending their property from the hostile forces of nature along its fragile shorefront. And, for reasons of their personal safety, they are interested in preserving the fire marshal's long-standing and only path of meaningful access to existing fire hydrants in time of emergen- cy. And they are interested in preserving the inhabitability, insurability and marketability of their dwelling and keeping its long-standing connection to public utilities. They are also interested in defending the integrity of their zoning district by fending off an encroachment by blanket and arbitrary approval of a nonconforming and unworkably shallow strip of land. On the other hand, the owner of this nonconforming and unworkably shallow deed-lot now expects that, by comprehensive and sight-unseen ratification of all deed-lots, and by unwar- ranted, arbitrary and comprehensive relaxation of previously enforced land-use policies and zoning standards, this noncon- forming and unworkably shallow strip of land, i.e., the merged "view-lot," will become a new and separate building lot. By the Town's rushing into a blanket, unwarranted, somewhat surrepti- tious, comprehensive, hurried and post-facto nullification of previously enforced zoning standards, Mrs. Baiz now expects that her unworkably shallow strip of land can effectively confiscate the marketability, inhabitability, insurability and environmen- tal stability of its adjoining parent tract. As suggested above, I emphatically object to the Town's arbitrary decision to target lot depth for post-facto annulment. By annulling this prior zoning criteria, the Town will be suddenly reversing three decades of prior zoning en- forcement. This unwarranted rush into a comprehensive relax- ation of prior zoning law shocks me. Under the cover of ratify- ing conforming deed-lots for which subdivision review.would have been perfunctory, the Town will be opening up a comprehensive, new and unnecessary area of abrogation. This is a hasty and 03/23)95 14:22 '&703 698 1766 D.C.COOPER .141010 Ms. Laury Dowd March 23, 1995 Page 10 inequitable annulment of previously enforced standards and land- use policies. To avoid blanket approval of deed-lots with virtually any degree of shallowness, including "spite strips" such as this one, and in the interest of public health, safety and welfare, previously enforced lot-depth requirements should not be targeted ror a somewhat surreptitious and new, unnec- essary, arbitrary, near-comprehensive and post-facto nullifica- tion. As it is written, the law for blanket approval of deed-lots appears to cover only those parcels created by deed. It was unclear what happens to the approval of the remaining parent tract from which the deed-Iot(s) evolved. It seems the law should extend the blanket approval of conforming deed-lots to also include blanket approval of conforming parent tracts. However, as with nonconforming deed-lots, I do not think that parent tracts which were nonconforming as to the standards then in effect can receive blanket and sight-unseen approval by the Town without raising legal issues of unequal enforcement of previously enforced laws and abrogation of duty to protect public health, safety and welfare. As to the merger law, I disagree with the list of exceptions which have been proposed. There is no valid planning purpose for this new and additional relaxation. It is my under- standing that at common law in New York, as long as there was a stated public policy against the perpetuation of nonconforming land, which the Town has had, at the instant a nonconforming parcel of land fell into the same ownership as an adjoining piece of land, the intervening property line was extinguished and the two parcels merged by operation of law. There were no exceptions. Hence, the proposed exceptions (for lots of 40,000 square feet whiCh are now in R-80 zones, and for lots which have not changed ownership since July 1983) seem to be yet another unnecessary, new unwarranted and expansive non-enforcement of prior law. I also note that the merger law refers to "noncon- forming parcels" in a way that seems to suggest a meaning different from that which appears in the zoning definition of "nonconforming lots." While the zoning ordinance defines "lot" and "nonconforming lot," it does not define "parcel" and "non- conforming parcel." Because the difference between a lot and a parcel is building rights and subdivision approval, it might be important to add a definition of "parcel" or "nonconforming parcel" to the zoning ordinance. Seemingly, the merger law should apply equally to building lots (created by subdivision of land) and agricultural parcels (created by division of land). Although it has nothing to do with the particulars of my case, the draft merger law also seems to apply only to an adjoining lot which "abuts for a common course of [but not two 0~/23/95 14:23 '8'703 698 1766 B.C.COOPER ~Oll Ms. Laury Dowd March 23, 1995 Page 11 courses totalling) fifty feet or more." This language does not capture the case where a nonconforming lot or parcel abuts on ~ two courses of forty-five feet each for a total of ninety feet. Rather than allowing the Town to require a title search for those "persons seeking determination of merger" (of whom I would suspect there will be none), it seems the language would be improved if it applied to "persons seeking ratification .../ of their deed-lot in their application for a building permit." The deed-lot applicant should submit an opinion of title rathHr than a title report, and the opinion of title should address actual title and not the record title. As you know, the record II -title (which is produced by a t~tle search) is often a contriv- ance designed to disguise the actual title (which is produced by an opinion of title). Again, this is not a hypothetical situa- tion to my case. Mrs. Baiz took title to her grand fathered building lot (SCTM 56-5-2) as "Mary Lang Baiz." Then, after some discussions regarding additional gift tax exemptions, Mrs. Baiz took title to the adjoining strip of nonconforming vacant land (SCTM 56-5- 1.2) in the name of both "Mary Lang Baiz and John Baiz, her husband." with the passing of her husband in 1984, title to the grand fathered lot and its adjoining view-lot has actually been in identically the same name. (In her selectively incomplete and improper applications for the clergy exemption to her real estate taxes, Mrs. Baiz has certified to the Town's assessor that Mr. Baiz had passed away.) By some miracle, the tax records were "adjusted" to make "Mary Baiz and ... husband" read "John Baiz and wife." Due to this unexplained change, a search of the tax records would suggest that "Mary Lang Baiz" was the owner of one parcel and "John Baiz and wife" the owner of the adjoining parcel. A title search would also suggest that the two parcels were owned differently. Only an opinion of title would show that the two adjoining nonconforming parcels were owned by identically the same person. . The administration of these deed-lots will always be a problem. For what it's worth, I offer a way to avoid compound- ing the prior non-enforcement of perfunctory procedures with comprehensive and unwarranted relaxation of previously enforced zoning laws and land-use pOlicies. As an attorney, you may already know that the American Land Title Association, the "ALTA," has a standard survey called / an "ALTA-survey with zoning certificate." In this survey, surveyors are required to certify, usually to bankers, that the surveyed property complies with all zoning requirements in effect for the property. Sophisticated lenders have been requiring ALTA-surveys for complex or expensive tracts since the 1970'5, and it is a standard work product for most surveyors. Because the "Bulk Schedules" for the 1957, 1971, and 1983 03/23/95 14: 24 '5'703 698 1766 B.C.COOPER .14J012 Ms. Laury Dowd March 23, 1995 Page 12 ordinances could easily be included in this ordinance, surveyors could have a consolidated point of reference in the new law, or they could refer to their professional libraries as required. The zoning certificate on an ALTA-survey is straight forward and simple. The surveyor states something to the equivalent of "I hereby certify that the land and improvements shown hereon comply with zoning requirements in effect at the time of their creation." To document his or her analysis of zoning compliance, the surveyor will usually tabulate the particulars of the zoning schedule and how each of those partic- ulars were provided for on the property. The surveyor's certificate of an ALTA-survey covers J compliance of all zoning and subdivision issues. It requires such things as identification of wetlands and setbacks from wetlands, etc. If there are exceptions or doubts as to compli- ance with any particular, for reasons of his or her own personal liability, the surveyor will list them. If a surveyor "blows" an ALTA-survey, then he or she not only stands to eat the damag- es personally, but also to lose license to practice. ALTA- surveys are nationally standardized work products that are highly respected in the surveying and land-title communities. When Town staff are besieged with requests by owners seeking automatic approval of their deed-lots, Town staff could respond that these owners need only submit an ALTA-survey with an unqualified zoning certificate with their building permit or pre-1957 occupancy permit application. A cursory review of the ALTA-survey and zoning tabula- tion would be all that was required. Based on an ALTA-survey with an unqualified zoning certificate, Town staff could then issue their permits, keeping the Town's files complete. In this method, the building department could issue their permit in accordance with previously enforced, and not arbitrarily re- laxed, zoning standards. In addition, title companies could rely on a publicly filed ALTA-survey on any deed-lot they insure. This would eliminate foreseeable title problems related to whether or not particular deed-lots complied with the arbi- trarily selected requirements of their post-facto approval. For those few cases where the surveyor notes excep- tions in his zoning certificate, Town staff could refer the owner to usual procedures for nonconforming lots. The owner could submit the ALTA plat to the board of appeals, who, after a public hearing, would then balance public health, safety and welfare with the hardships of each case. The owner's investment in the ALTA survey and zoning certificate would not be wasted because the exceptions listed in the zoning certificate would be the exactly the kind of information needed by the board of appeals. If the board of appeals, approves the plat, the land 0~123/95 14: 25 '8'703 698 1766 B.C.COOPER 141013 Ms_ Laury Dowd March 23, 1995 Page 13 would be come a subdivided lot with exceptions approved. If the board of appeals denies the application, the nonconforming deed- lot would remain exactly what it was when it was created, i.e., a division of agricultural ground which does not carry with it a right to encroach into otherwise stable zoning districts and increase the public burdens on roads, schools, libraries, police, fire, water, refuse, etc. Land owners will always object to the expense, and surveyors the liability, of an ALTA-survey. The ALTA-survey is a demanding and precise survey, and the required zoning certifi- cate will often entail more work, and more liability, than the boundary and physical features survey that accompanies it. However, the owners of these deed-lots will ultimately have to employ the services of a surveyor anyway, and the cost of the zoning certificate would certainly be less than the cost of hiring an attorney and a planner and paying the Town its right- ful costs for review. And, the cost of the ALTA-survey with its k zoning tabulation is the rightful burden of the owner of the illegally formed deed-lot, and not the Town. I believe that requiring the owner to produce an ALTA- survey of the deed-lot for "automatic approval" would be less arbitrary than offering sight-unseen and blanket approval of nonconforming deed-lots based on a new, unwarranted, arbitrary, comprehensive and post-facto nullification of previously en- forced zoning laws and land-use policies. For those deed-lots which conformed to the zoning requirements in effect at the time of the deed-lot's creation, an ALTA-survey with unqualified zoning certificate would suffice, and also be less expensive to the Town and to the land owner and the land-title community. In summary, the property for which I am cotrustee stands to be harmed by this rushed, additional, unnecessary, and I believe nearly comprehensive and unsafe relaxation of other- wise long-standing zoning laws and public policies. I would be remiss to stand aside while I watched the Town unknowing ratify a nonconforming and unworkably shallow strip of land by a blanket relaxation of basic zoning standards such as lot depth, and land-use policies such as the fire marshal's meaningful access to existing fire hydrants in time of emergency, and the stability of sensitive waterfront properties. But for the validation Mrs. Baiz's nonconforming and unworkably shallow strip of land, and but for the Town's desire to grant to its owner a power to confiscate the existing fire protection, environmental stability, inhabitability and market- ability of its adjoining land, I can see no legal justification or planning reason that the Town should suddenly reverse three and one-half decades of prior enforcement, and grant post-facto, and sight~unseen and somewhat surreptitious, an unwarranted and comprehensive relaxation of long-standing and previously en~ 03l2:ii95 14: 26 '0'703 698 1766 B.C.COOPER ~014 Ms. Laury Dowd March 23, 1995 Page 14 forced standards and pOlicies. Three and zoning standards should not be abridged to based, instead of zoning-based, criteria. enforced lot-depth standards should not be should remain without the new exceptions. the fact parts are not hypothetical. one-half decades of a single new area- And, previously annulled. Merger In the case in point, As a correction to prior abuse of procedural permis- siveness, I hope Town will not rush into a solution which needlessly compounds a simple situation. Thank you for taking the time to consider the position of an adjoining land owner. Very truly yours, 03/.23';9'5 14:27 '6'703 698 1766 R.C.COOPER J,vt,,- ~ ~ ~ '2..~ Ie; qS- ~".""_Ir~...~.-.:__~;...y~.......... 19J015 ~-"'''If''-. .. 1- l I;) .J I ~ ~ ~ ill .. .q l - .. .. .. .. '" .~ ~ O<,.~ OCt "., 0; )~. '..o~~ ~b~ Eli? ......6- <S ~ .. !!~ .. @ 03/23/'95 r " , ,[4: 28 fi'703 698 1766 B,C.COOPER I4J 016 - ~ -, ____..a:..:U'"""'~.~ l~, "~. = ,~;=~ 4~' \;'--; ----:,~ ~ ~ g It1ARY L Mia ~ ~srr I' gl' '"1' (~~~)' .., J O,I~ ~ *1.ArTIMFOFlrsCl?Ii>417~ N'szo44-'e;: ~~IIC'Q'..':) -"09 110 ' LOr oeP1'f( 1Ib\~ . . 82.0' ~ 'C.~ ~ ,. ~, N(wCZ>iJ~{N6, ~~ '>97, '\ YJlIr"{,,.,I), . D i~eQ., (17'7/) Wt\S 17S~. ., (Jl -;:;-~ ~ ~~: ~ ~ I>> \:)~AI~ ;;~~ '" \11 D r-r: " bLOT ...) >\l ~ 't ~ ~... ~ I> ~ Iii ~ . c;c:; V I' . ()F : ~ ll> ':'\ :::."i !' ~ '/ ;p VAClWP c:,4>-l.ll LIMlr'l71o^,) ",I::'~.t II ~"'..... 0 'l; ~~ ;WI> OCCAJPIED. UlNl>5. AND nl ~ ~,~ 5' II .... ~ ~ .1 m In?! . " IMP fi/J. V(i/"""TC /lOr /o"',J'Vo.u-^ pw . J;:; '" }. ()l III Q ~.c ; '" If r- <H''' , "I"""" '-'-fl v",. "" -I . ::i; Iii :t> 'I~I ~ ~ ~, OJ'- CLARA E.. LAN G ~ ~~ i)i ~ '-<{.~: I~~ S()~TIi OLl:;;, NGWYoRK. l; ....... ~ .' iii., ~ .' \:) ~ S ~ 13'( Ht:~ ;jVt.y 2:>, Vl73 CC-t<t> OF ~tFr .~ . 1'4/ , ) . TO MARY (., &l1~, /ND' ~ ll'L'O:::---- /'""' VO<(/-J ~) ilfHl. Hl,/sO/lNI>. Lno4<;' -~......-::: ' ! .' . H:>~ =::r:.~~' I ; . Rri'CoRDGO AT <., 1'fi11 F I? ... . ~"'.,p=---,,.l4 : i .' CV/'e<Tff-{)+T '-7V'V(-IFtZ.;', ~......",v~~",,~c.1~( I~ i ~ j' "'2 - No Afrl..ICA7,()N FtRS~ePII!ISHlN .-<:.-~\\..~~-( -''''' ... ~ I):;;, I . , rll~ ct: fi$V{~Wr:;(). ./ :::-4 ">fV~~~~V- (,- r;J, r.f; ~ ~ ~\) t ./~ /' lrJ.' ,~~I "i~0\ 01 :: I~'f f~IJIDES ~ lON~l:I<L'( '. ~ .~'^.~ '. 1 f)1 D I ~I i .p...~'S .&'( ~ Eo. POl..lL-l< 5"~5 . ~"..{.o;.!. "'- ~ ~ III UHt.(f\~ fRNllili ~ -,-'" . -' . 0"", "TEJO.,~r;RVI~.~2...J1 " . LrJJ!]2 WI tt,AMA04!< PWIiiU--/Nrq '-]'. ~l<Dpi t f.Hk:NOWI-() ~ ~ ~ l\l. ~~ Vi 5 \ F€*:E-ENCJ..()SGD 4e"A ~." 0' CI ~::j -- e>'ct..USIVt<l.:f Pcf,s=<m ~ -'( II" . L 3> n-ftRr/OIJ OF M"'T~ ANP&iJ,jp.s . ~y ~OR 1'1'-1-/"'/3 ~ '" ....C:.I -1 o<c.un= ey poNeK' .\lJ~.,I\I4() .,. I.{(,,'.CA/!>~fl ). J: 12 ~ ,,, I ''''''fjJ.''W~TS QNI/t<Yt:\> f'i0171L.e,/ 17rV ~IO~ . l} ~ ~:~,P.'L f?~ T/rt-e CNI."Y IN CllN5n<:\JcnVI;;. . ~'. ~ . '. (Ii. . i1<.~T /:>Y FAAOD, Mls1'M::,-. AoJ.o/~ "'-:-"'," .<\-. .\', . .-d~ J IlNW" 11'lFU>a-l<.~. ~'s 0 "ftJ? . . I\e;~~".... Rl",I1TS, 1'-l16I<E'Srt.'~An:; .. 0" ," ~sl\"~ ~ IN cxaJP'GI> LANi:> p.,t-Jb ___ U-'l-l~? ~~~< 10:--"'" IMP/W<J':;KGI--:lTS 'l'iE?R.Gt~~\i."9 \~~. \'--;3':1:: Nb,:;,l>I'l= BY l><>~ '" ;Y::::~",6.~" ~. 4 \ DR ~1.,G~E?\l OR ~-' ,._&ifP.4t ..' s~....... -J.", ~ H,fl.W. .p.,~"D e,y 1:cN()It.. . . ~ GO. . r.'~ . ..,., w' .. . ~N!>. '......R. O~<<M. ~'. _ . fit 5 )... __ '<jANl>'( ~""A-' , '" ~ CnoP",R. 6524 CNGf<BR.<lOk /<tl, ME;AN HlUH. W"'l~...(r<UVN.) FM~. VA,.. 1,;U);;.\ 1-4 - eUl..t:Hf'AD,=TTY e; ~AWA.\..L.. M<li'i r:Jci>I()f!s 'S1'I'J,KTU/2.Al.- ' j,..qPKl>\JIOoMI<N1':> WHI4t <:e€'An ~ <;.uPf'cj<.-r Oo~o ",IS (l\~6 -1.."....[> IMl"I'lNI!';~"N15, ~""-, Jl1ey' Dr2f91C' ...-w ~f'PoR'C 111... HA11>RJ.t.. If'IJD A>JD SrtOIl.~A('~'" ""N1~DNt.1t;Nrl f't<lNENT\~ Ul'>5 f!t( '7lllR'" A>-ll> eRp.)CON, - . ~ i1j. , I I I I i b' f'.. . .. '.. ~t 'I'; ::JUNE. I'::>, 1944 INfORMAnoN \='R<>lI1 A~AIL1Ir,U; Rt:U>"-l>:, /"00 1li:;:)5 \5'iOJ 69B J.i66 B. C. COOI'Ell Bertram C. Cooper III 8524 Overbrook Road Fairfax, Virginia 22031 I4i 002 1'6 S/lfPf March 25, 1995 w ~.r;)I. , . 1/ r: Ii ;'.: "~R 2 7 ~S5 ;iJ!Jj ,-_..__._---~ . .u.....'ID '. "j J ,v'.' '.1_. ";',/1' L.._~:'l.L:.':l.:t;G BU~JW _ r--____<__._ ..~ I; ('J ~ I) " 1'1' ,-, ,) /l l.! .!~ r-~~- .' Laury Dowd, Esq. Town Attorney Town of Southo1d 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Proposed law for (a) blanket ratification of con- forming and nonconforming deed-lots, and (b) new and comprehensive permissiveness in respect of previously enforced zoning laws, and (c) new excep- tions to merger of adjoining non-conforming lands. Dear Ms. Dowd, As stated in my letter of March 23, 1995, I am cotrustee of a one-third interest in 22 acres of waterfront property shown as tax map 56-5-1.3. (Copy of map is en- closed.) As discussed at some length in that letter, parcel 56-5-1.3 is the parent tract to a deed-lot identified as 56- 5-1. 2. In addition to the issues previously raised, I would like to show that the proposed law for blanket rati- fication of metes-and-bound lots will also result in an un- wanted but automatic Subdivision of the 22-acre parent tract. It is a well settled principle of property law that, irrespective of zoning status, when two adjoining par- cels of land are described by metes and bounds, the interven- ing property lines are automatically extinguished and the two interests automatically merged at the moment the two inter- ests are owned by one in the same party. It is under this theory, I believe, that the tax assessor has been taxing assemblages of many farms in the Town as one aggregate parcel rather than as their separate metes-and-bound parts. Under the provisions of this proposed law, parcels which represent a consolidation of metes and bounds would automatically be subdivided back into their "legally created" deed-lot parts. I cannot understand why the Town would want to automatically SUbdivide into deed-lots parcels which were, under common law, already merged. I hope that the proposed law is carefully reconsidered in light of this effect. As a non-hypothetical example, the acreage of parcel 56-5-2.3 is actually an assemblage of smaller metes and bounds. (See deed plot attaChed.) These metes-and- bounds, some of which date back to 1909, meet all the tests of a deed-lot in section 100-24 of the proposed law. Because ,~" ,Id '...; / Ms. Laury Dowd March 25, 1995 Page 2 one of these pre-1957 deed-lots also meets the area exception provided in section 100-25 of the proposed law, this 191'.' metes and bounds stands to be ratified as a separate and "legally created" building lot by the proposed laws, AS another case in point, take the two parcels discussed in my letter of March 23, 1995. Both parcels 56',5, 2 and 56-5-1.2 were created by metes and bounds. Again, setting aside the issue of zoning conformance, under long standing provisions of common law, the property line which separated these two interests was extinguished and the twu interests were merged at the instant the two metes-and-bounds fell into single ownership. This extinguishment of separate identity and merger of interest occurred irrespective o[ any errors or oversight by county mapping. The merger of those interests is now a matter of history. This hard fact and done deal cannot be undone by some post-facto magic, or thH; proposed law. The merger of adjoining metes-and-bounds interests held in common ownership occurred at law and ircE spective of how the tax assessor or mapping agency had mappea the property. As an example of mapping inconsistency, comparee!'U manner in which the identical interests of the parent trd'::' were mapped with the way in which the interests of the aced, lots were mapped. The merged interests shown in deed booh 984 at page 379 (now the parent tract, 56-5-1.3) and in deed book 1461 at page 370 (also the parent tract, 56-5-1,3) dce now correctly levied and mapped as one merged parcel, Howev' er, the merged interests in deed book 4694 at page 543 (no" parcel 56-5-2) and deed book 7449 at page 17 (now parcel 56 5-1.2) are incorrectly levied and mapped and taxed as two separate parcels. These two cases are identical in circum stance, yet the deed-lot case is mapped incorrectly. Thi", ", a clear example of identical situations being mapped diffe: ently. It may seem that an easy way to prevent a separa tion of previously merged interests would be to add d pro'. sian that those metes and bounds which are now separatel., mapped can become deed-lots, while those composite meteSdI10 bounds which are mapped as parcels cannot. That would result in an undesirable situation. h... owner I s rights and interest in real property should not. b determined by how the county had mapped his ot her p~.)pel L For one thing, the county maps have frequent errors, and t:tJc county mapping agency will readily admit that their "kipS an,' not surveys of property. In addition, the county mapping agency has a duty to map rights in land as they are deter mined by law. It does not have and should not have the power I"~'"~ ib:;)/ -C'/UJ b~J8 lititi Il.C.CUUl'l\l{ I4J 004 Ms. Laury Dowd March 25, 1995 Page 3 to determine which land owners get which rights, based on how their maps were draw. This would result in a grant to the mapping agency of powers to determine rights in land when they have only a duty to depict them as best they can. Granting a right to create deed-lots from parcels which were not correctly mapped, while denying it to those parcels which were, would also result in an unequal and unfair enforcement of law. It would be inappropriate to in- clude in this proposed law a provision that those deed-lots which were mapped as one parcel (such as the parent tract in this case) cannot be disassembled into their metes-and-bounds parts, while those identically merged metes-and-bounds (such for as the deed-lots), Which were incorrectly mapped as two parcels, can. In addition to a blanket annulment of three and one-half decades of previoUSly enforced zoning standards and land-use pOlicies, this law proposes to reverse a standing legal principle for real property and centuries of common law. It proposes to re-create property lines of adjoining metes-and-bounds properties which had already been extin- guished. This law cannot suddenly separate interests in real property which long ago had been merged. As the proposed law is written, composite parcels are to be disassembled back into their metes-and-bounds parts, and then these metes-and-bounds parts are then to be ratified as "legally created" building lots if they qualify for exceptions. The above serves as a case in point. I do not believe that this is what the Town intended. For example, consider again the two adjoining metes-and-bounds parcels owned by Mrs. Baiz, i.e. 56-5-2 and 56-5-1.2. Although mapped as two separate parcels, these adjoining interests in real property had already been merged by common law. If the Town decides that centuries of common law can be set aside, then the two adjoining metes-and-bounds parcels owned by Mrs. Baiz can now to be un-unmerged back into "legally created" building lots. But, and this is where the Town should take note, if the Town ratifies as separate the already merged interests of Mrs. Baiz, then, in an exact- ly similar way, the Town must also ratify as separate the already merged interests of the owners of 56-5-1.3. If you do it for one, you must do it for all. The parent tract, along with other consolidated tracts in the county, can then be subdivided back into their pre-1957 parts. I believe that the automatic ratification of deed- lots which at common law had been previously merged into metes-and-bounds parcels is clearly not the intent of this ME:. Laury MaTCh 25, Pa,ge 4 bawd 1995 law. It is my hope that the Town will reconsider it's inexplicable blitz to adopt this law as written. Ratified'" tion of deed-lots which had circumvented only perfunctory procedures, and which had conformed with previously enforced zoning standards and land-use policies, and which had not adjoined other metes-and-bounds property of the same owner, is one thing. Blanket and comprehensive relaxation of previ- ously enforced zoning standards, or land-use policies and common law is yet another. Its draconian reduction of three and one-half decades of previously enforced zoning standards and land-use pOlicies to a single paragraph, and its unwar.- ranted and sight-unseen ratification of metes-and-bounds parcels which were nonconforming when created, including "spite strips," and its creation of substandard zoning en- croachments in otherwise uniform and stable zoning districts, and its reversal of centuries of common law on merger of interests in adjoining metes-and-bounds parcels owned by a common party would seem to me to warrant caution. Should you have any doubt, [believe that any number of surveyors or real-property attorneys will be ablE to confirm that, irrespective of hoy! t:he county may have mapped them , it is a fundamental principal o,f real propert', law that intervening property lines on adjoining metes-and- bounds parcels are extinguiShed and the interests of the par- cels merged at the instant that they fall into common oWner' ship. I believe that, in addition to the sundry of issues already raised, the blanket reversal of this long-standing legal principle has implications Which should be careful; considered before this law is adopted. position. Again, thank you for taking the time to consider my Very truly yours ~GO~~ Enclosure. 1l.C.CUU1'1,l< --~.',. ~,."A.~l.."",.......t"~ 411 006 698 1766 '5'703 lti:.:i!J '. IV! N.S-",."o.S ~ . A, '" II II II 'I "1 I, II " 'I cJr.. JI" _/ \ IC' ".._, -, \ J~~""Q"'. koo. . I "",',_~,,; '. II ) __ '_.~ l......- Fa.~ bW;I.'~) /' ,cb .,...----;;;_."-,~ - ".. ,","l'..;wo.-\L.:..::.r-':_'~,~.:~.-~-~"o,;:;;. I:< 040 sal, I - ~C"C. ~c___ ~~..,. Ill....-;::~~~y...... :"-'-1.<<0." lid........ c.--<II,...~:~.~~_~ r- :::.:::'--::~,.. - 111.....-111 ~...-.....1lft31 . . -- Iaf_~.,.. ~"'-"::'.JU"" ~.... II \IftClAI.d. ___--:::-... . -~.I"",,,IIIWlnO"" . ~ollNlIM"""" :=.o_u:.;:......-.. =-;t/ ",SS"ca', Ig- ~4 . . < u " ~ .itA, HOKflW .' o <i ~~ ..,~ - ~':-... ~.:t ,'~ '1g'll~ /4f;/('37o . ~RGIJ"n 1fiJe, trI, . I~~ro;(.. t[)i'<~,-" . R. LAN,", 1TJ/SfJO "19A/?fl<r }~~ '.:I';:'~ Ill:l.l.i; -Ili~ ,:Ix. ',,~ '~'I<i 1\\. :.~~\~ .U .~... ~ '~CQ.~ ',">:i ~ '0 " 'i 8- ....... VOl "- ~~ ~~ !iJ~"" " o..~ (~h.~ Il,,' " , . C. MNt.!{ , , W8'2J7)S/O . , (S~-6"-J.'3) '~ 7 j o. '" .. ['o.;t. " ...'" ~.. 'II <>-~ ~ :::1-60 q,;;,.;). '" C'-" ~ '--- '" I>, ;:.::-..::---:--=-.-=---=--.:..'1:t..... ,1/ \\~ c:: I, Ii I , ~// '-- - a'S;'g'O''i. . .. - i"v-C,o....C hoD. .'..... ,~.' .... j"-, .,- . J .. , !' ~ . ., De. ( ~~ - e~6\.~ /1'fr6 1?I.AN.-, ,. ~',;..- - . "'. ;.;,'. ~i(.,~' \~::'_' \ :'.; l:.>:... .~.." . ,"' ..... ~.- , .';.. \. .w J___ --~ ~.o...1<.. 0.4.0'00 .:.__ ~ ~ 5.4 - \o4\q,'" c...." ~ _,_ - ~"4"''i .~--. < ,J..H'I..s Ovd~ B,AY ,-0 .,.Sou.,......C> ..---'-- , " .. .~..-. . 03(.25/95 16:55 '0'703 698 1766 B.C.COOPER Bertram C. Cooper III 8524 Overbrook Road Fairfax, Virginia 22031 March 25, 1995 141002 ?t3 s:mr+ Laury Dowd, Esq. Town Attorney Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 MAR 2 7 /995 ,~ i ,o~---J .' ,J.__J ';1 RE: Proposed law for (a) blanket ratification of con- forming and nonconforming deed-lots, and (b) new and comprehensive permissiveness in respect of previously enforced zoning laws, and (c) new excep- tions to merger of adjoining non-conforming lands. Dear Ms. Dowd, As stated in my letter of March 23, 1995, I am cotrustee of a one-third interest in 22 acres of waterfront property shown as tax map 56-5-1.3. (Copy of map is en- closed.) As discussed at some length in that letter, parcel 56-5-1.3 is the parent tract to a deed-lot identified as 56- 5-1. 2. In addition to the issues previously raised, I would like to show that the proposed law for blanket rati- fication of metes-and-bound lots will also result in an un- wanted but automatic subdivision of the 22-acre parent tract. It is a well settled principle of property law that, irrespective of zoning status, when two adjoining par- cels of land are described by metes and bounds, the interven- ing property lines are automatically extinguished and the two interests automatically merged at the moment the two inter- ests are owned by one in the same party. It is under this theory, I believe, that the tax assessor has been taxing assemblages of many farms in the Town as one aggregate parcel rather than as their separate metes-and-bound parts. Under the provisions of this proposed law, parcels which represent a consolidation of metes and bounds would automatically be subdivided back into their "legally created" deed-lot parts. I cannot understand why the Town would want to automatically subdivide into deed-lots parcels which were, under common law, already merged. I hope that the proposed law is carefully reconsidered in light of this effect. As a non-hypothetical example, the acreage of parcel 56-5-1.3 is actually an assemblage of smaller metes and bounds. (See deed plot attached.) These metes-and- bounds, some of which date back to 1909, meet all the tests of a deed-lot in section 100-24 of the proposed law. Because 03/25/95 16:56 . '8703 698 1766 B.C.COOPER I4i 003 Ms. Laury Dowd March 25, 1995 Page 2 one of these pre-1957 deed-lots also meets the area exception provided in section 100-25 of the proposed law, this 1919 metes and bounds stands to be ratified as a separate and "legally created" building lot by the proposed laws. As another case in point, take the two parcels discussed in my letter of March 23, 1995. Both parcels 56-5- 2 and 56-5-1.2 were created by metes and bounds. Again, setting aside the issue of zoning conformance, under long- standing provisions of common law, the property line which separated these two interests was extinguished and the two interests were merged at the instant the two metes-and-bounds fell into single ownership. This extinguishment of separate identity and merger of interest occurred irrespective of any errors or oversight by county mapping. The merger of those interests is now a matter of history. This hard fact and done deal cannot be undone by some post-facto magic, or this proposed law. The merger of adjoining metes-and-bounds interests held in common ownership occurred at law and irre- spective of how the tax assessor or mapping agency had mapped the property. As an example of mapping inconsistency, compare the manner in which the identical interests of the parent tract were mapped with the way in which the interests of the deed- lots were mapped. The merged interests shown in deed book 984 at page 379 (now the parent tract, 56-5-1.3) and in deed book 1461 at page 370 (also the parent tract, 56-5-1.3) are now correctly levied and mapped as one merged parcel. Howev- er, the merged interests in deed book 4694 at page 543 (now parcel 56-5-2) and deed book 7449 at page 17 (now parcel 56- 5-1.2) are incorrectly levied and mapped and taxed as two separate parcels. These two cases are identical in circum- stance, yet the deed-lot case is mapped incorrectly. This is a clear example of identical situations being mapped differ- ently. It may seem that an easy way to prevent a separa- tion of previously merged interests would be to add a provi- sion that those metes and bounds which are now separately mapped can become deed-lots, while those composite metes and bounds which are mapped as parcels cannot. That would result in an undesirable situation. An owner's rights and interest in real property should not be determined by how the county had mapped his or her property. For one thing, the county maps have frequent errors, and the county mapping agency will readily admit that their maps are not surveys of property. In addition, the county mapping agency has a duty to map rights in land as they are deter- mined by law. It does not have and should not have the power 03 {25/95 16: 57 '5'703 698 1766 B.C.COOPER ~004 Ms. Laury Dowd March 25, 1995 Page 3 to determine which land owners get which rights, based on how their maps were draw. This would result in a grant to the mapping agency of powers to determine rights in land when they have only a duty to depict them as best they can. Granting a right to create deed-lots from parcels which were not correctly mapped, while denying it to those parcels which were, would also result in an unequal and unfair enforcement of law. It would be inappropriate to in- clude in this proposed law a provision that those deed-lots which were mapped as one parcel (such as the parent tract in this case) cannot be disassembled into their metes-and-bounds parts, while those identically merged metes-and-bounds (such for as the deed-lots), which were incorrectly mapped as two parcels, can. In addition to a blanket annulment of three and one-half decades of previously enforced zoning standards and land-use pOlicies, this law proposes to reverse a standing legal principle for real property and centuries of common law. It proposes to re-create property lines of adjoining metes-and-bounds properties which had already been extin- guished. This law cannot suddenly separate interests in real property which long ago had been merged. As the proposed law is written, composite parcels are to be disassembled back into their metes-and-bounds parts, and then these metes-and-bounds parts are then to be ratified as "legally created" building lots if they qualify for exceptions. The above serves as a case in point. I do not believe that this is what the Town intended. For example, consider again the two adjoining metes-and-bounds parcels owned by Mrs. Baiz, i.e. 56-5-2 and 56-5-1.2. Although mapped as two separate parcels, these adjoining interests in real property had already been merged by common law. If the Town decides that centuries of common law can be set aside, then the two adjoining metes-and-bounds parcels owned by Mrs. Baiz can now to be un-unmerged back into "legally created" building lots. But, and this is where the Town should take note, if the Town ratifies as separate the already merged interests of Mrs. Baiz, then, in an exact- ly similar way, the Town must also ratify as separate the already merged interests of the owners of 56-5-1.3. If you do it for one, you must do it for all. The parent tract, along with other consolidated tracts in the county, can then be SUbdivided back into their pre-1957 parts. I believe that the automatic ratification of deed- lots which at common law had been previously merged into metes-and-bounds parcels is clearly not the intent of this 03{25/95 16:58 ~703 698 1766 B.C.COOPER I4J 005 Ms. Laury Dowd March 25, 1995 Page 4 law. It is my hope that the Town will reconsider it's inexplicable blitz to adopt this law as written. Ratifica- tion of deed-lots which had circumvented only perfunctory procedures, and which had conformed with previously enforced zoning standards and land-use policies, and which had not adjoined other metes-and-bounds property of the same owner, is one thing. Blanket and comprehensive relaxation of previ- ously enforced zoning standards, or land-use policies and common law is yet another. Its draconian reduction of three and one-half decades of previously enforced zoning standards and land-use pOlicies to a single paragraph, and its unwar- ranted and sight-unseen ratification of metes-and-bounds parcels which were nonconforming when created, including "spite strips," and its creation of substandard zoning en- croachments in otherwise uniform and stable zoning districts, and its reversal of centuries of common law on merger of interests in adjoining metes-and-bounds parcels owned by a common party would seem to me to warrant caution. Should you have any doubt, I believe that any number of surveyors or real-property attorneys will be able to confirm that, irrespective of how the county may have mapped them. it is a fundamental principal of real property law that intervening property lines on adjoining metes-and- bounds parcels are extinguished and the interests of the par- cels merged at the instant that they fall into common owner- ship. I believe that, in addition to the sundry of issues already raised, the blanket reversal of this long-standing legal principle has implications which should be carefully considered before this law is adopted. Again, thank you for taking the time to consider my position. Very truly yours, ~~ Enclosure. . . , D3/25/95 . .~.:~;- '". " ~ o <i ~~ ..\~ - ~':-... ~~ ,'~ .h-~ '.:l,<::>~ u~'\i, ilij~ , x . . " ';to ,\ll,1l,j ~ . :u\\i'~ ,u~ .. ~'. ..... '~Cll~ "';:i ~ '0 u .!" '" . ,- ....,'. <;,.... ~: - . ';,,,~ ~~~_:' ~' :..' f:?;",-,.. ~'T""'" . :;.'\ '\ .~ - '~ 7 16:59 e703 698 1766 B, C. COO,:~R ~~........";o..;,,,~ N, "",,',S _ Ivl.... / N II II 'I II ", " " " I, dr'. -) i :C-' "......." -, \ j~C''''a.... he. ' g I"'.... .-: '--='-' I, ') -:.-:. --:;.,r- L...... _ F'a..... O...jldJ~ _) /" ',eb --, ! . . . u " , f:;RIiilfTS Gte. trI, , LD~i;(.. tt>l'<~ . R. !..AN<=, , C. tANG; . . W~?J7)SIO , ( 5~-6"-1,3) ~O.e.o Sa, , -- f!C"e. " ern/sO~' "i'&4/~"r - 't 'i <:> ....\1\ ~~... ~~ ~i ;:! '" ~~~ ~. " f <:>, '" .... ~~ " "N ~.....~ (>.~ ~:::""'o ~"';:;: <n "'''' ~ '- //\. ;:~'=--=-=---:"'~-::""1:t.: ,II \\b:\ C '\ J) . ~/; '-- - ::!...-+c....'f .-.,.. . i''\''ci...c hG. '" \;, ~~O i _ .W j~~ .-. ~'.~.r~--; -"'0'00 .:...- ..,.I....trc.v SAO, ......" ~l':' .....---7 0.-4 .." ~-'e'AY '.. ,-0 "" SO U-r.... n . J 1i " .- .. .., .. , . ~---:. '- ~006 , _. "';;'0 "'Sa" "', 19- '4 .- ~-v::-.;.. 'Jl It"'-;m=:::.~v.lr." G.aIIln \..10:.' ........., ::::..-;:..-~~....~ r- ~=.:....,;:,. , ~ .ollIllIIlm:... .......~_Nl..... ___ ..~.~...... ......~.h.o.::...a.... , ~~::-'=. 7 ,f~. HO~ De.I}t~ -eE-CiI,.tp /ftrb ~''AN.., I G"" ..: '.,&. TJ1c;.TI't'e. ... cd lQ GloAQVat1 e .. .. -', .' PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ., ,J ~ .~.\ (' ( ").' :c\. . .1, ,_" '\ ,..., ~' ",;~ Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Marl< S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards .'"'1.,.,....... Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New Vorl< 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Teiephone (516) 765-1938 , PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 24, 1994 Bertram C. Cooper III 8524 Overbrook Road Fairfax, Virginia 22013 RE: June 15, 1994 inquiry in regard to the 1973 subdivision of the land of Clara E. Lang SCTM# 1000-56-5-1.1 Dear Mr. Cooper: I have reviewed your letter dated June 15, 1994. Please find my comments listed below. 1. In regard to your question as to whether or not the subdivision ordinance of the time required that the owner apply to the Planning Board for approval of the creation of the new parcel and the remaining parcel: The parcel shown on the current tax map as SCTM# 1000-56-5-1.2 was created by deed on July 23, 1973. In 1973, it was required that land divisions be approved by the Town Planning Board. The Town has acknowledged that until approximately 1979, some lots were created by action of the Zoning Board of Appeals. A grandfather list was prepared containing most of the actions that were taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals during this period of time. I checked the list and did not find the subject property included. In addition, the deeded parcel (56-5-1.2) did not meet the minimum lot depth requirement (175') at the time it was created. 2. In regard to your question as to whether an application was filed by the owner with proper disclosure, and then approved by the Board, I find no record of an application before the Planning Board to subdivide the property. \ , Bertram Cooper Page 2 I hope the above information will be of help. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. SincerelY'~ %dwJA: ' Melissa Spi 0 Planner \0, Bertram C. Cooper III 8524 Overbrook Road Fairfax, Virginia 22031 ~~'(';'''''~I fB HIS June 15, 1994 Richard Ward, Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 , ;, ~ j UU j ,I 7 I ~ > , L --.l SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD RE: 1973 Subdivision of the lands of Clara E. Lang Dear Mr. Ward, I am the grandson of Clara E. Lang, who died this October last. I have power of attorney for my mother, Constance L. Cooper, who recently inherited a one-third interest in the lands of her mother in Southold. The property is now identified as 56-5-1.3. An issue has corne up as to exactly what interests in land Mrs. Lang owned at the time of her death. One of the issues turns on a deed of gift that created parcel 56-5-1.2. It was written in July 23, 1973 to create a protecting view of Southold Bay for Mary Baiz from her dwelling at 56-5-2. In this gift, the donor, Mrs. Lang, used a metes and bounds description that encompassed both vacant and occupied lands, but, in her grant she expressly restricted her conveyance to vacant land only. As the attached sketch shows, it is our belief that the lands south of the north edge of her driveway constituted occupied lands which did not convey because of the donor's express restriction to her grant. This restriction was not without reason or necessity. It protected her interests in her emergency access at 1260 Bay Horne Road, including her only point of access to fire hydrants. It preserved her interests the public utilities which serve her dwelling and which, without this restriction, would be suspended across the lands of Mary Baiz without the traditional protection of easements. This restriction also preserved her interests in a bath house, an important and attractive accessory building, which, without this restriction, would be sliced in two without regard for zoning setbacks. The restriction also preserved her interests in an area that was enclosed by fences and exclusively occupied by the donor, and it preserved her interests in a seagrass buffer and a sandy beach, and the seawall and jetty structures which support them, which structures and made-land areas constitute an essential and important improvement erected, occupied and maintained by the owner. ,J Richard Ward, Chairman ~ Planning Board June 15, 1994 I note that in addition to enclosures designed to protect the property of owners, the zoning ordinance also defines buildings to specifically include fences and walls, and presumably jetties which act as fences and walls. I agree with this. On the land in question, the fences, seawalls and jetties were certainly improvements erected by an owner to protect her property. An review of the "A-Residential" zoning in effect at the time of the lot's creation shows that the required lot depth was 175 feet. Because a depth of only 110 feet was provided, I believe that this unit of conveyance was non- conforming at its creation. (It is now zoned R-80.) Since the passing on of her husband on May 19, 1984, this non- conforming "view lot" has been in the same ownership as the non-conforming building lot which it adjoins. I would be greatly appreciative if you could please review your public record to determine whether or not the subdivision ordinance of the time required that the owner apply to the Planning Board for approval of the creation of this new parcel and the remaining parcel; and if so, was an application filed by the owner with proper disclosure, and then approved by the Board. At the time, I believe the parent tract was known as 56-5-1. It has been in the name of Clara E. Lang since 1958. I have enclosed some related material from my files which may be helpful. I appreciate that this request will take valuable staff time. If there will be any expenses involved in this search, please let me know. I will be glad to pay them. Looking forward to your response, I remain, Very truly yours, T) ~ . "- ~'-liJ~Wl!)_((t f(Y+. ~ CHRONOLOGY September 15, 1959 Mary L. Baiz buys lot 56-5-2, now a non-conforming but grand fathered lot in R-80 land. November 13 - 24, 1969 Wingate & Cullen do preliminary subdivision studies which are abandoned. The proposed lots are so cut up with rights of way that they are deemed unworkable. November 23, 1971 A new Zoning Ordinance effort was abandoned. is amended. is adopted two years after the 1969 On May 29, 1973, the Zoning Ordinance July 17, 1973 A new Subdivision Ordinance is adopted. July 23, 1973 Under pressure to create a protected "view lot" by and for her daughter Mary Baiz, and under counsel of a new attorney, Mrs. Lang executes a deed of gift four years after the abandoned effort of her attorney Wingate & Cullen. At the time of its creation, the new lot was A-Residential land which was non-conforming due to its substandard lot depth. Based on an informal search with the Town, no subdivision application was approved by the Planning Board. 1979 through 1985 Efforts to cut off Mrs. Lang from the bulk of her land and her remaining road frontage continue. In their May 19, 1982 letter to Mary, Wingate & Cullen seem more concerned about the burden caused on her by her mother's need for emergency access at Bay Home Road, than about Mrs. Lang's interest in preserving emergency access to her dwelling for her successors in title. May 19, 1984 The Reverend John Baiz dies. By operation of the deed, title in the 1973 non-conforming lot vested immediately in Mary L. Baiz. Mary L. Baiz is also the owner of the adjoining non-conforming building lot. Hence, like the lands of Anna Soros, on May 19, 1984, due to their joint ownership, the two adjoining non-conforming lots were merged by operation of law. October 1990 Mary Baiz builds a gate at 1260 Bay Home Road which closes off the emergency access to her mother's dwelling. October 12, 1993 Clara Lang dies at home at the age of 101. A few months later, Mary Baiz destroys evidence of an old fence, and for the first time enters upon lands that were enclosed by and exclusively occupied by Clara E. Lang. ;; z j ~ ~ . ~ I 17 ~ lfl o I- \ '-r,:If:i' -' _..l ~. l.,--. "/,,.. ,~;! < ~... ,_ _,":.. ,I, ,I,' 'J '. J,' -". ._-". /~ o .~. "'. o , ... o , o~ ",0 ~ci u"' o:<.i ..... .... 0:'" 0'" ..... o -;Z ~ V1 \ j @ <:;;; 8 <;;:; ~ @ ~ ~ :li ,,::\ --J - N <;'e, N ~ .. ~~ H ,f; '.. ' 1...-, ~ o ~tn Z 09 ~ ~a u 0: u .. ... .. ,. 0:'" ~~ ,y u "'; .. " .' ~ .. .. ci r. ./ .. ..~:. ,,,, / r~ .0 ,,~. . .. ,.' . ~J OOCoo' it"l 1 ... r., ,,~~ ..~" '. ~ .x .x_pt ,.iderati . than DO ~( Jocl ~o~ ......1...1 N \ " I II, ft.... :11,,1; . ! II "... ~""l" ....I ".1. I ,,",I, .. ..I., .., ."'1" "'''111 t" JOII... I ." If 1,...!'..I,,,I',,, I ,..'......1.... f'h'r ...., cONIUI.r Y_ LAWY" __ IIGI_III '"II _T_IHT-TH" . "~IHT aHOI&D.. InID.Y LAwn.. ONLY. n ~................ "'.7<'~ ,,(..., ... ): Ii; . .-. ........... ......,....... CLARA E. LUIG, r..idinq at (no n~ Main Road, Southold, 11_ York 11971 ~ ,7f~Cj~l '/Y'Y'/, /7ti" / 7 Jd~ party of the 6nt put, and .' ,,/.? . / j' -' J "/" / ). /L.L-{' C/ .A' 7// -~ MAini' LAIIlI BAIZ and .:10& BAIIl, her hu nd, th udding at 400 Shady Avenu., Pitt.burgh, Penn~l~nia 15206 p'o(.h6Yl ><-'.\ ClOt ~~ II WIth kt.t:. ~u;~<; ,a..oc"l tt"':"fVb'Ve,,^,~ party of the aec:oad put, l::he.-re.cM ~oI-c:-ol) II wrna:asEI'H, that the party of the lint put, in consideration of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration paid by the party of the second part, does hereby graiIt and release IInlO the party of the second part, the hcirs 01' SlIcoeuon &Dd usipl of the party of tbe~ forever, ALL that cerIain plot. piece or parcel o~ ~.' iraiir _ '.......... Jj" 11 . situate, lyinc aDd llciIIc'" at Southold, in the Town of Southold, County of' Suffolk and State of __ York, bound.d and de.eribed a. follow.. ~ BBGDlllJE at: . point on the .outherly boundary lina of land of Lan,. Baia dbtant South 52 deqre.. 44 minut.. 00 .eeond. w.. f.et from a point on the we.t.rly line of Bay Boll. Road which .outh...ter1y corn.r of .aid land of MIIry Lanq Baia, running thenc. frOll .aid point of beginning along .ai land Lang lab IIorth 52 deqre.. 44 lIlinutee 00 ..eond. Ea. 1.0 .aid we.tedy line of Bay Rea. Road, runniDq thacle alODg the .aid w..terly line of Bay BollI. Ro~ Sou 37 degre.. 16 ainute. 00 .econd. ...t 394.11 t.et to the ord1:try water "I'k of 8outho1d lay, running thence aloDg the .aid ordinary high water lIlIIl'k of 8o.u d Bay .outhwe.terly then .outherly along a j.tty, then .outhwe.terlr to a point vb1ch 18 South 37 deqr... 16 minut.. 00 .eeond. Ea.t abou~ 'leu. fI...... fI..... ..h.. ....iI.., "', booainftiftCl herein abc:lv. _ntioned. i .s 06134 DBV3027 PAGE232 p.aon~w.rr.ntl DHd, Two Ac~~ tor .....~ana-co.l Cl...... ~ H....I')' Htll, Inc., lndlefla".... - ~bi~ 3Jnbentufe, MADE THE 12th dati of June of .... lArd .... _ iii... AutodI'od ninety-one (1991). BETlVEEN MARY L. BAIl, widow, of the Township Westmoreland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, part, '" eM VMr of Llgonler, County of party of, the fIrst AND HARK L. GLOSSER and CARYLE R~ GLOSSBR,husband and wife, of Pittsburgh, County of Allegheny and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, parties of tA,..coM parI, WITNESSETH, tAollh, ..idpa" y. of 1M /ir.1 part, for oIId.. <ll>Mi<Ier- at;"" of tA....'" of DNB ($1. 00) DOLLAR and other valuable considerations -------------------------------------.-----------------------~~, laYII'" m.onq 01 tA, Urt.ite4 Sl4te. of AmtricG "ftto her tHU sa4 end., paid by tAe ..id pari ies of tAe ..coM pari, at ood bef... 1M .eoIio&g oIId tleli..." of u.... ........le. tA. ..ceipl ..h....f v ....by oc_lodged, haa /II'lIAled, bGrl1aMd, .old, 4lisft.ett _/eoDed, releued. corwer_ AM oon.ftnru4, aM bw tAu. prNnU does Q'rcuLt. krgaln.. .ell, a..lieft. enfeoff. relNl., conti... aM ccm/If'M uato tAl Ni4 pelrt le8 01 toW .fClOnd '"'rt, the i r Aei,." and aali'gftl, ALL that certain parcel of land located and' situate in the Townghip of Ligonier, County of Westmoreland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, being more particularly bounded and described as fallows, to witl BEGINNING at an lron pin on line of land of Jam.. W. and Ann Marie Pazio at the northerly corner of land of Mark L. and Caryle R. Gl08ser, thence by line of land of James W. and Ann Marie Fazio and by line of land formerly of B. B. Freeland and now of George A. Davidson, Jr. and Byra C. Davidson, North 33. 521 51- Bast, a distance of 250.86 feet to an iron pin "at corner of land of Howard S. Samson I thence along line of land of Boward S. Samaonc South 51. 521 41- Bast, a distance of 218.13 feet to an iron pin at corner of land of Mary L. Baizl thence by line of land of Mary L. 8&iz, South 31. 34' 03- Baat, a distance of 303.50 feet to an iron pin at corner of land of Mark L. and Caryle R. GloBBer: thence along line of land of Mark L. and Caryle R. GlosBer, North 68- 311 48- West, a distance of 505.40 feet to an iron pin on line of land of James W. and. Ann Marie Fazio at the place of beginning. ( CONTAINING 1.69 acres. No improvements. The above description is in accordance with a survey by A. K. Ross, Son, Surveyors, dated May 10, 1991. Being a part of the tract of land .which Clarissa W. Burchfield, widow, by her deed dated September 21, 1972 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book Volume 2108, page 442, granted and conveyed to John Baiz.) t and Mary L. Baiz, his wife. ~e.aid John Baia died on May 19, 1984, survived by Mary L. Baiz, his widow, in whom complete title vested. ;ERTlfllD AS .1RUE AND CORRECT COPY. AS Of AtCORO IN THE OffiCE OF RECDRDEh OF DEEDS WESTMDRElJ\ND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 4~4~ (_ RECllRDER OF OEEDS , DATED (,-M -"11- . ....""'01 ~..y. e. T U. Fw. - . ~l~iIlM- ....~. .... ,... u..... ...1. l........, ......, "",..w', ^,u_ ".........,'"! ~"''''''''w. IS'..... .....1 CORRRCTIOH DEED CClNIuLr Y- LAWY.. .-.. .....0 rH'IINITRUMINT-THlllNlrRUMINr IHOULO .. UlID.y LAWYII/S o....y. nus INDEN'IlJRE, made the 3let day of Auquet, , nineteen hundred lUId .eventy-thre. BE1WEEN ('loAM B. LAIIG, r.eiding at (no nWlber) Main Road, Southold, .." York 11911 ~~ 7-'7/">' ~ <<0(4 party of the Ant part. lUId elk 01 9 ~d ~ 3 IIAIlY LAIIG MIl aAd 070_ M1Z, her hUalland, both redding at 400 Shady AYeD~, PittallUEib, Penn.ylvania 15206 patty of the ~ put, ~ that the party of tbe lint put, ia considention of Ten Dollar. and other valuable consideration paid b1 the party of the ICCOIId part. does hereby mant and release unto the patty of the ICCOnd part, the heirs or "--"<lfl ancI uaipa of the party of the ICCOnd part forever, ALL that certain plot. piece or parcel O~~ImiW,..._ . . ._~...._ j tfll. situate, lJiacancl bciDc__ at 'outbold, in the Town of Southold, County of SuffolX eAd 'tate of .." York, DoUDded and de.cr1bed .. fol/low.. ~ IIBGDllfDG at a point OIl the eouthedy 1:l0uAdar:y line of leAd of Mary Lang "La dietant South 52 degre.. 44 ainutes 00 ..oond. Wut 110 teet frOll a point on the ",..tedy line of Bay so.. Road which ie the .outbeaetedy COrDer: of eal4 laAd of Mary Lang Ba1z, r:'WUling thence frOll Aid point of I:leginDiDg along .dd land of Mary Lang "La Borth 52 degne. 44 ainutea 00 NCOnd. Baat 110 f.et to the edd .eterly line of "y so.. Road, r:'WUlinlll theDCIII along the Aid w..t.dy line of Bay ao.. Road South 37 degreee 16 ainute. 00 .econeS. B..t 394.11 fe.t to the Ordinary high water urk of 'outholcl "y, running thence along the aaid ordinary high water mark of Southold "y aOUth.etedy then eoutherly along a jetty, then aouth",.etedy to a point wbich ie South 37 degre.. 16 .inut.. 00 eecoAde aaat about 194 '-t: ~rcw ~ DftiBt: o~ Mainnina bar.bl above -nfdoftad t I j -. . ---- '.,'_ _',: _ '_ _ _',~:. '-"",~'f..'...;'r':'~":;'~'t:,:~, _K,...,.u.__.__............._~~--_.~~,~;'{.1;;'\i..~;.~ 1'1'\.""""(11 ~ .,- ~,,',"';. .,', ,.i~i:' _~.........._____. 17 w-_.. ' _.....l'~ J~' .'" l.u1484 1lU22.& ,'/-; '2' 'A"'........;;,i,:\;J.~~ .,'.. ,..' ....c/,:,'~::..:....?<."~.:~j.'i..:'i' 'J' . . . . " . J..:\.'.. ,."lj.,v ....... ..~., ......~__... 3ht "of AuqUt. .......... . . , '.. " ''':'1 .','~./..~'~' .-,: .<..-:t _.' ~,.:.;~;\;;;;/:f7~,.~~~Ir.J,.~' , ....;'. i. ':C'.'" ,to:.,:,')'.:")"'" ',':.:.'..._....~., .t.~.:.,1J..),.I"t....'.t~.,~~.;'\i.~~!1 ...: ., . . _ '.:. _""', .'.. . , ' .- .'..) : _' _', " ,,. ..' ~ ,l ;,'I{.' ~ , c:LAM 11. LAIIG. ~..idLng at (1)0 DUllbed llainb4" '0Il .,.jjjM;,,~ . York 11971 ' , .... .i,' .";...~ ",../ J:~d?'1 . . . _',' ,~,>.,:_"t1:::.~~~~.~:.i!}~tjL,~ .;f' ..,,_..",~.{..."7'~...1'.~1'!: ....,..... _....... " ., , .' ,:t'":\';,::.'ti~ ,':"',:,, : '..... ,:,'::'<~i~: ":~..'.., :,:':"~::~.>J,;'i~'.~~ JWlr'LUG MIZ and .7om 1IUi. bu JiU........, Iootb' ".U1Dt,~t',400n:>' Shady Awnu.. PUtabur<ib. PeDlUtJ'l_nLa' 15206. /./ ,,'.",,;;j'3:: . ,,' "~~ '" '\ '::'>"~'S~;:,:,~;'~,.:~~if~,,~~ ' " .. :i,. .l.~ "~';'.' ~ :-5" ';'~( ,~,iI;' -- I" ~':)'~ .~ ,. . . __....--'_. .' . ........ ...'....:<.:. ".' ,";'.:::,.:il~I"".'(.,-:.1;;" r--,- ~'-" . . ' .' "",', .,., ". ".',' :"':':'."""'1,\,1,,;"'.401 ..... ...._.......,....._""'10:.:... ..' · .;T_Diliei...~~...:'.....'. ';f"" '....:...: :- poid ., tIlo JlOIl1.....o.-t ..... -...., .- .. - - ..,..,. .. ....., ,':7"" . ;u._ .:.:::-.:.:.::z,~t:tit~~.::.-.,.. "1.1;' JT"..~.{~~;i',,,f .,........__ .t SouV..:lld, Ln the Town of SOU1:1>014. coant,.Clf.:....tt(t~:'. - and State of Mev York, bounded aDd .s..ar1becS a. f6110lMt. ':;,l~i~\/.:;:?'~;\)\:~t. " ""',' ":" ;,>:: ;:.;~.'l::~,.,~,~~:~r::iy,Jr~i~ IIZGIIllfIE<l at a point on Ule ,outharly ))oo'''''-cy 1:lD80f"laMiO~.:I'~..'..',8il" Lang Bab d18tant Soutb 52 degre.. 44 ainut:e. 00' .econd.' -.t>tlO"'-t. · t..t fr_ a poLnt on l:ha _.terly lina of. Bay - :aOa4 ,tlII'i"h'..;,~~;!l:~ aoutlM.aterly corner of ..iA! land of '..ry, ~,"Ut' i ',': :":<:':~'<l,jyt.;~l-:f~t':~'~:,:~i.~" runnin" thence trOll ..i4 poiDt of beg:lDaiDg alO1l9 ..Ula'" .tw~! .' Lanq 1la18 Rorth 52 d.q~... << ainutA. 00 ...cond. ll..tllO'~t'.,:tO',' , .aid ...terly line of BBy Jk8e' Road, _, .' . .', .',. _ ',\;.,~';,~~;r;;f~i>f~7r ",l runnlng thance along Ule .aid _.tedy.11M of. ..,....' ....ii< .. 37 deg..... 16 .Lnut..dOO ..cond. a..t 394.11 i..t totba GI'lU.~rf~' , water ..rk of Sou.tho1 "y,., .::. ',' ''', ,.;,,1,'. . .:....,<.":~".'-;.;"~.;~~' ruJ\ftinq than08 along the .aid orisiMcy'jd.gbwater_n:7of'.'lIojt" ....1 .'. Bay lIO\1thwaaterly than lIO\1Ulerly alOll9 a jetty, ~n _tJlWbli~l"!~W . point which h south 37 deq..... 16 .:lDute. 00 ..OClIIida ..ltt"IIboIi~V{' . 394 f..t fr_ the point of bagillJlLng ha...iD &boW' -"ti....t,.\t:;..:.'.;;I,!\..~ runnLng thPnce along otMr laDd of Clara 11. LaDg.Jlorth 31./f",~t'{,fJ .. 16 .inut.. 00 ..cond. _.t about 394 fHtt,:,Ule. poUt oflllO....t..?~~.'.'i TIli. ia a co~...ctlon deed to correct dead date4' .7u1123,.1912';'. ....[l>t;' recorded in the Buft'olk Coun':y Clerk'. OfU.,. iD L!berl44..~.=:(i7~'''- 17 on July 24.1973. in wbl"h tba.fint OOCIr..... au:t(wI..tG.~'W.,[}]ffi.,;~i{j_ JIIorth 52 degr_. << .inute.OO MCOnd. aut loa. t..t.It .u.:,"'riu;/;"illl;'- '"Or...ct.d to be Rorth 52 deg~. 44 .inutell 00 ..cond. la.t .110, "'fl"~:'" to the .aid _.tnly line of Bay a... .084.,' ..""i;~ '. TOGI!TII~.R _.. ri&lol.lIdo... ~ 1I..,...Ibo....,........ part ........., ......;.'."'1 . ..- .haItmc !he ...... ilor.r1bcd __ _ .. _ _ _: TOGETHER _1110 .....' III '. .nd 011 tbo _ ond ...... of tbo part)' of... ... .... ..... _ _ "'-1 TO HAVE AND TO'\ HOLD .". .......... _. rnntod _ Ibo .. "" 01 too ... port. ... lIoIno - - .. ...... .'.-::i .he part)'...... -' part _. ." . .', ::f.'O' M.-. AND......., '" tloo ... .., 0&,..__......, of ...... ;._ .;....>.-I~;i~;.i'$ ~.... _ __........ k'M ....,.,. ......._................ 'f "": :'::':'!;'.".i:;i;.'~."'.'- AND tho part)' 01 tI.. ........ ... _. "- """ SodIalI U..... ~ 1M. _' ... ... ""W:; , .... ... .... will .-.. tloo II ' ,.. dlio )" .. ... _ .. """_ - ......., ,.~. _ u . ...... .... ... .. app&od _lor'" ..-- ef ..,..... _.. ... ...... .. ... '.' " '., ... _ '"' _'he ..,...... 01 .... _ of... 1>-r.~...4 ""'"......, fAIl..... -.... ........;~.~" __~-. " " .r", The _ ...."....... ',..<1.. III<< ... ..,.... ","-J4 ... _ ...... r' .. iii' 'T";i.:.::~ '" .... nb6 --...... tloo part)'.. ... ... ... ... ..., _....... ........ ,.i_W!lJ1.;,'ji wrtne.. , " '. ,,; '.'" ., ^',. ';,'i.~~;' f~~~~il-~ 1. _ ~ _: ' :..'/. :t' ,'r ;'J~"':':I',~,,:,,.~:',^-/_.-= J"'....~t, ",:,;v:",~j,:y.;;;}f.!i:~':.l~ ,;.. ;,', ...., ,~,.~J.ug">i$" j-. ....t(\~,. ~., ";'~.:f,~~, ", ,',~.,>..~:',;:r. ~:'f\:~yriij;t~~;~~'~ ';'41 .-;:, '" ". :::'ii(t;'~";&i1f!}f'~I' ~.. < . '.1<;"':'11' 'l';ir. lti..,~ ,.. ,",n,', '. 'c. ..'.,t..., '.' - ., " ':' ,i;!>,',; r;:~~':::.;t-;'1~",\;), " .:~~~ '.' "./.':. ;m"Y':'\::":"."'_:~;''''~Ri . ....;.l;-.. .. 'i-)'~l!''-.~ ,.~!~;~1 ~'.. .'. '. .-'.:+_.:.;'.....,.~. ,/..,';~"fi:~l~', ,'_",!':,t','", .... .', .... w... ~ ~Ii L! -~ ,- :t--I lor: .~ :."''.J~' , " {:;:,i~;:' . ~,~,.~ - ~ _..f _"~-'.''''''",,"~'r-=- . 1alIinga:f~ & QIull~n PLAn K. WIGGINS J.COURTNEY MCGROARTY JOSEPH f. KELLY ,JOHN 1". ANDERSON lULmul!-" anlI QI"lUUltU"rg C"BLE ADDRESS "WINCUL" TELEPHONE 212 e~5- 3652 142 PIERREPONT STREET "R"NK O. GALL"GHER "RANCIS ,J.I'.l!:LL.T """Nil. C. Mc LAUGHLIN, ,JR. THOMAS ,J. "O\..II!:Y BROOKLYN, N. Y. 11201 November 24, 1969 Clara E. Lang Consultation Mr. Jack Sherwood Van Tuy1 & Son Front Street at Main Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Mr. Sherwood: I have your letter of November 18th, and I am enclosing photocopy of letter received from the Office of the Building Inspector. If Mrs. Lang reserves to herself a right of way over the existing driveway to Bay Home Avenue, the question arises in my mind whether this will preclude the erection of a house on the 92 foot lot sought to be conveyed by Mrs. Lang to one of her daughters facing on Bay Home Avenue. In other words, you will have a right of way over the 2S feet in the rear on this. lot as well as Mrs. Lang's right of way over the middle of the lot. This may also affect the inside lot and limit or prohibit the erection of a one family dwell- ing on both lots. Will you please advise. Thanking you, I am, Very truly yours, ,. ~// /1. . t/;~ t{t'L; :'L'J/~'t79"'r.-~ PKW:KVL Ene!. 1lM<> d{Nt W-t0 cJ,~eJv ~ (11.(,,9., ~ to aU ~ ~ .~~. ~~. i~e. ,1~7? 4Y1~~IO~ a.fj-~ ~t0 q,.t<.L ~cL,lJ) (;'\Ov\ (J)IJN., ~ c-e... /lJVJ\y. <lV\S Ul'<O /u-.5f(vl <H5 / v~ I .&.J.. ~' ) ",8\;.;;2\;::" ,I;: ~~1{';!;::'i::~~' ..- . ".," . '. Bertram C. Cooper III 8524 Overbrook Road Fairfax, Virginia 22031 June 15, 1994 Roderick Van Tuyl 218 Front street Greenport, N.Y. 11944 Dear Mr. Van Tuyl, In the course of writing my letter to you of May 25, I began to consolidate and simplify my analysis of Clara Lang's 1973 conveyance vis a vis her restricting her conveyance to vacant land. I have since continued that effort, and I now believe that the following represents a tighter and improved point of view. At last, the various parts seem to fit together. I thought you would appreciate a copy for your file. Given the suggestion that Clara Lang, my grandmother, would knowingly and intentionally circumvent both the subdivision and zoning ordinances in effect at the time of the subject lot's creation (incredibly, some four years after counsel by her attorney, Wingate & Cullen, and in an alteration of their traditional approach); and given that this deed of gift was without for-value consideration; and given that it was done not with the intent of creating an approved building lot, but with the intent of creating only a "view lot" to be merged with Mary Baiz's dwelling lot, preserving for the latter an improved view of Southold Bay (Mrs. Baiz was the initiator, the coordinator, and the donee of this gift conveyance); and given Mary Baiz's suggestion that an eighty-two year old person would knowingly circumvent the Town's ordinances in a deed of gift so as to cut herself and her successors off from existing public utilities and the fire protection and emergency circulation available only from her long-standing point of access at 1260 Bay Home Road; I am reassured to learn that these circumstances also confirm to professionals such as yourself that, when an eighty-two year old grandmother is able to insist on a specific limitation within her granting clause by prominent modification of a standard deed form which restricts her conveyance to exactly jvacantj land, that she may have actually restricted her grant precisely in accordance with the words as they appear in her deed. In addition to inserting a prominent restriction in her granting clause by limiting it to exactly jvacantj land, an important portion of the standard granting clause was also redacted, or x'd, out. The redacted portion read: jwith buildings and improvements thereon erectedj. Areas occupied by these redactions did not convey. It is noteworthy that buildings are defined in the zoning ordinance as structures for sheltering property, and specifically include walls and fences. By segregating, supporting and protecting the made-land Roderick Van Tuyl June 15, 1994 Page 2 improvements behind them, which made-lands include a seagrass buffer and a sandy beach, the seawall and jetties on this property are buildings which function as both walls and fences. These erected jetties, walls and fenced-in enclosures, and the made-land improvements they create, segregate, support and protect, and other usual improvements, uses and occupations of an owner, including utilities, driveways, gardens, lawns, accessory buildings and their required zoning setbacks and maintenance areas, etc., were specifically stricken from this gift by the active redaction of this usual language from the granting clause of this deed. Continuing with the restriction inserted into the granting clause, a question arises as to the precise meaning of /vacant/ land. straight from the dictionary, vacant means not-occupied. Vacant land is simply land not occupied by an owner's uses and improvements. (How else does an owner occupy his or her land other than by his or her uses and improvements?) As a result, by cutting the grant down to exactly /vacant/ land, the lands occupied by Clara's uses and improvements were specifically withheld from the conveyance of this deed. There are eight specific areas within the general legal description that constituted occupied lands at the time of the conveyance. From north to south, they were (1) the long- standing and essential driveway to 1260 Bay Home Road and associated fencing, (2) the electric poles and overhead electric lines that service the dwelling, (3) the overhead telephone lines, (4) the underground waterline, (5) a fenced-in enclosure used as a sheep pasture that adjoins or encompasses the above occupied areas, which enclosed area was never entered upon by Mary Baiz until 1992 (6) a cabana bath house with its associated side yard setbacks, and surrounding lawns, hedges and fencing, (7) a concrete seawall, which is a building by definition in the zoning ordinance, and the man-made sea-grass buffer and habitat that it defines and encloses, which sea grass buffer constitutes a made-land improvement resulting from the construction of the associated seawall, and which buffer area is necessary for the maintenance of the seawall structure, and (8) a wooden sea jetty, which jetty is also a building by definition in the zoning ordinance, and the man-made beach that it defines and encloses, which beach constitutes a made-land improvement resulting from the construction of the associated sea jetties. These areas of use, improvement and exclusive occupation can be corroborated by aerial photographs for the periods 1969 through 1992. Although there are eight areas in question, this letter is urgently concerned with the driveway address. The 911 emergency system has again been changed by someone, this time to locate the physical address of this dwelling at 120 Bay Home . Roderick Van Tuyl June 15, 1994 Page 2 improvements behind them, which made-lands include a seagrass buffer and a sandy beach, the seawall and jetties on this property are buildings which function as both walls and fences. These erected jetties, walls and fenced-in enclosures, and the made-land improvements they create, segregate, support and protect, and other usual improvements, uses and occupations of an owner, including utilities, driveways, gardens, lawns, accessory buildings and their required zoning setbacks and maintenance areas, etc., were specifically stricken from this gift by the active redaction of this usual language from the granting clause of this deed. continuing with the restriction inserted into the granting clause, a question arises as to the precise meaning of /vacant/ land. Straight from the dictionary, vacant means not-occupied. Vacant land is simply land not occupied by an owner's uses and improvements. (How else does an owner occupy his or her land other than by his or her uses and improvements?) As a result, by cutting the grant down to exactly /vacant/ land, the lands occupied by Clara's uses and improvements were specifically withheld from the conveyance of this deed. There are eight specific areas within the general legal description that constituted occupied lands at the time of the conveyance. From north to south, they were (1) the long- standing and essential driveway to 1260 Bay Home Road and associated fencing, (2) the electric poles and overhead electric lines that service the dwelling, (3) the overhead telephone lines, (4) the underground waterline, (5) a fenced-in enclosure used as a sheep pasture that adjoins or encompasses the above occupied areas, which enclosed area was occupied by Mary Baiz nor entered upon until 1992 (6) a cabana bath house with its associated side yard setbacks, and surrounding lawns, hedges and fencing, (7) a concrete seawall, which is a building by definition in the zoning ordinance, and the man-made sea- grass buffer and habitat that it defines and encloses, which sea grass buffer constitutes a made-land improvement resulting from the construction of the associated seawall, and which buffer area is necessary for the maintenance of the seawall structure, and (8) a wooden sea jetty, which jetty is also a building by definition in the zoning ordinance, and the man- made beach that it defines and encloses, which beach constitutes a made-land improvement resulting from the construction of the associated sea jetties. These areas of use, improvement and exclusive occupation can be corroborated by aerial photographs for the periods 1969 through 1992. Although there are eight areas in question, this letter is urgently concerned with the driveway address. The 911 emergency system has again been changed by someone, this time to locate the physical address of this dwelling at 120 Bay Home . Roderick Van Tuyl June 15, 1994 Page 3 Road. (street numbers are apparently assigned so that the address 1260 Bay Home Road represents approximately 1260 feet down from the Main Road.) 1260 is the location of the driveway access to this occupied dwelling, not 120. At 120 Bay Home Road, there was a dwelling back in the 1920's, but only a vine- covered foundation remains there now. Because I have a heart condition, and in consideration of the age of my mother, 75, when she or I visit the dwelling, it is important that the ambulance arrive at the correct address, should need for their emergency services arise. I will not be silenced by adjoining land owners or public officials who for political or financial reasons view the emergency needs of tax-paying citizens with the frightening indifference that I have been encountering on this issue. When Mrs. Lang died at home in October 1993, the 911 emergency system was called, and the policeman responded to and recorded his 911 address on the official death certificate. It was 1260 Bay Home Road. This is also the physical address sworn to by Mary Baiz on her petition for probate of Mrs. Lang's will. Interestingly, at some time in May of 1991, the physical address of this dwelling was showing up in the 911 system as P.O. Box 726, a postal box owned by Chris Baiz, Mary Baiz's son. I cannot imagine how the 911 system would have adopted a postal box as the point of emergency access for a dwelling, nor can I imagine the kind of person who would have the emergency system show any address other than the actual point of emergency access for this dwelling. Prior to that, the 911 system showed 1260 Bay Home Road as the emergency address. As result, in the last four years the emergency address of this dwelling has been changed four times. As an aside, I do not care what address is assigned by the tax assessor to show taxable street frontage for the property. I care that the actual emergency address for the dwelling be correctly shown in the 911 system. I also care that once correct, it not be changed again without a trace of paperwork or evidence proper and official action. The long-standing and official address of this dwelling is and has always been 1260 Bay Home Road. The Town's own street card for Bay Home Road shows that even after the illegal sUbdivision, this address was shown as the official "service entrance" for the dwelling. The postmaster has also officially identified this the address of this dwelling as 1260 Bay Home Road. The driveway at 1260 Bay Home Road is the only reachable point of connection to the fire hydrants in Bay Home Road, since the maximum length of fire hose carried by a pumper is typically 500 feet. And, the driveway is the only assured means of access to the dwelling by large emergency vehicles because the horizontal and vertical geometry of the scenic , Roderick Van Tuyl June 15, 1994 Page 4 oyster-shell farm road and the heavy gate posts at its narrow entrance to Main Road are not physically suited to the critical maneuvering requirements of these larger vehicles. As an aside, anyone who knew Clara Lang knew that she modeled her life as a dedicated fiscal conservative, and it was essential to her that the expensive wear and tear on her vehicles and the maintenance on her long and narrow scenic oyster-shell farm road be kept to an absolute minimum. Mrs. Lang was also very aware of the dangerous sight distance at the curve in the Main Road just west of her entrance for the scenic farm-road. For good reason then, by confining her grant to jvacantj land only, Clara Lang explicitly cut down and restricted her conveyance so as to retain the fee in her occupied lands. As a result, she retained her fee in the driveway to 1260 Bay Home Road, and in her utility lines, and in her cabana, and in her sea-grass buffer, and in her beach, and in her jetty. since the conveyance, Mrs. Lang had continuously used and maintained her occupied lands as important improvements. As to the driveway, I have personally witnessed the bitter sarcasm and anger of Mrs. Lang in reference to the donee-daughter's repeated attempts to give her donor-mother permission to use her own driveway. There is also abundant record of Mrs. Lang having continued to use 1260 Bay Home Road as the physical and postal address for her dwelling. The driveway was never conveyed away; and it was never subsequently abandoned. As further evidence that the donee had acknowledged that her right of occupation went only to the roadway and no further, Mrs. Baiz and her son Chris build a small but commercial vineyard on only the vacant portion of the parcel. They did not extend their vine rows into the driveway or into the enclosed sheep pasture. Because the economic efficiency of a vineyard is a function of its row length, I find it curious that they would assert they had the right to extend into and occupy this area, but instead decided to limit their occupation at the driveway. The fenced in lands south of the driveway have never been occupied by Mary Baiz, nor were they ever entered upon by her until approximately 1992. By way of review, the newly made deed line was created in circumvention of the subdivision ordinance adopted on July 7, 1973, because no application had been filed with the town, as was required. This illegally created line then formed a new unit of conveyance, a lot of land, which was in violation of the zoning ordinance adopted on November 23, 1971, because the required lot depth, measured perpendicular to the street, was grossly substandard. (In the A-Residential zone at the time, the required lot depth, measured perpendicular to the street, was 175 feet, while only 110 feet were provided.) Roderick Van Tuyl June 15, 1994 Page 5 It is interesting to note that this new line also passed directly through a bath house, known to the family calls the "cabana." This was an important accessory structure to the donor because it was where the grandchildren who she so cherished stored the boating accessories and lawn chairs which they enjoyed when they came to visit her. Presumably, the potential slicing through of this important improvement was done with the full knowledge of the grantor. (This presumption is necessary because presuming that she did not know she would be slicing through one of her important accessory structures then raises questions as to whether she was properly counseled when she made this conveyance.) Mrs. Lang continued to enjoy seeing her children and grandchildren use her beautiful lawns and beach. Hence, the cabana, and its required zoning setbacks and associated fencing, hedges, lawns and beach constituted occupied land of the grantor that was never conveyed under this deed. Since the conveyance, Clara continued to maintain the cabana for the bathing enjoyment of her grandchildren and the protection of the lawn furniture for the family picnics. It is also interesting to note that this slicing through of the cabana would never have occurred had the original lot depth been recorded as prepared through Wingate & Cullen back in 1969. In 1969, a lot was designed with a 100 foot depth which would have nicely aligned with the fencing, lawns and setbacks associated with the cabana. Four years later, after major changes in the zoning and subdivision ordinances, and under direction of a different attorney, a legal description was recorded with a 10 foot bust. The first leg of the legal description called for a 100 foot lot depth while the return leg called for a 110 foot depth. Shortly thereafter, a deed of correction was filed which broke away from the original 1969 plan, and created a new 110 foot deep lot. This 10 foot enlargement resulting in a description which sliced through and divided a structure, again, presumably with the knowledge of the grantor. Hence, she again had cause to restrict her grant to Ivacantl land only. This same logic for the presumption of proper counseling also goes to the issue of the utilities that occupy lands described within the metes and bounds. The public utilities include an underground waterline service, an overhead electric service with poles, and an overhead telephone service, also hanging from the electric poles. A research of the LILCO files and maps shows that the overhead poles are privately owned and possibly covered by a private maintenance agreement with the utility. A search by a title examiner did not uncover any recorded easements for water, telephone, or electric services. Clearly, the grantor was not counseled to, nor did she intend to, cut off her overhead electric and telephone services and her underground water service by creation of this illegally formed parcel of land. Yet, there was no right of occupation, or easement, explicitly calling for the maintenance of these Roderick Van Tuyl June 15, 1994 Page 6 existing public services, other than the restriction of the conveyance to jvacantj land only. By this restriction, the lands occupied by these important uses and improvements were cut away from the conveyance and retained by the donor. The same logic for the presumption of proper counseling goes to the issue of Mrs. Lang's jetties, seawall, seagrass buffer and beautiful sandy beach. Mrs. Lang was well aware that the keys to the value of her land lie in her jetties. And the quality of the beach on Mrs. Lang's land is a function of the maintenance of, or the existence of, one jetty in particular. It is the one just downwind of the beach. It is this jetty that provides support for the remainder of the beach upwind. Mrs. Lang was well aware that the quality of her beach was inextricably linked to the action of her northern most jetty. She knew that the value of her entire 21 acre parcel depended upon the continued action of that downwind improvement. Because the quality of this beach goes to the essence of the beauty, uniqueness and value of this land to its owner, there are no circumstances under which I can imagine a reasonable person would find that Mrs. Lang was properly counseled to give away, in an unrestricted and alienable form, control over this jetty. In an unqualified form, this giving away would create a right in another to elect not to maintain a key to the value of her entire property. It would amount to giving away to a future stranger, the right to temporarily threaten and extort the giver as to the quality, or very existence, of her beach, an essential and unique improvement which goes to the value of the remainder of her entire piece of land. It is unconscionable that Mrs. Lang would, under proper counsel, give away her future control over the existence of her beach without a maintenance agreement or a support easement. (It is this jetty which supports and holds up the sands of her beach.) It is unconscionable that Mrs. Lang would give away her exclusive right to control the existence or quality of the beach which was so enjoyed by her grandchildren and her great- grandchildren. She cherished their visits, and she struggled to maintain the beach and preserve the beauty of the property for that purpose. To imagine control of this beach in the hands of another would almost force a conclusion as to the odor of undue influence, if not the presence of shameless predation and cruel and relentless harassment. Hence, I believe she was counseled to, and subsequently did, emphatically modify her grant and specifically cut down and restrict her conveyance to jvacantj lands only, that being lands not occupied and enjoyed by her uses and improvements. The jetty and the sandy beach that it holds up, and their associated seawall and seagrass buffer, constituted physical , Roderick Van Tuyl June 15, 1994 Page 7 structures and made-land improvements that were essential uses, enjoyments and occupations by Mrs. Lang at the time of her conveyance. For good reason, they were not conveyed away, nor were they subsequently ever abandoned. The presence of these utilities provides additional physical evidence which goes to the important and integral restriction of this conveyance to jvacantj land only. without the protection of an explicit easement, reservation, or restriction in the conveyance, Mrs. Baiz, or her assigns, would own the right to cut off access to the fire hydrants in Bay Home Road, as well as disrupt the electric, telephone, and water services of her mother, the donor of this gift. This is unconscionable. The donee, who by the latest will was nominated as executrix, and who by propounding and swearing to the validity of the Will, has in effect sworn that she did not control facets of the testatrix's life which would cloud the will with the appearance of undue influence. Yet the donee now claims that the testatrix's point of access for emergency services existed by only her permission, along with the testatrix's use of lights, telephone and water. Having the power to shut off a testatrix's right to emergency access, as well as her lights, telephone and water, as well as the existence of her beach, would certainly suggest the color of undue influence in a will. Clearly, that was not the intent of Mrs. Baiz, who swore to the validity and submitted the Will, and who now serves as sole executrix. Nor was it the intent of the donor and testatrix to surrender her independence so that her will would be effectively supplanted by that of her daughter. The restriction of the conveyance to exactly jvacantj land acted to withhold and retain lands occupied by Mrs. Lang's uses and improvements. By this restriction, the testatrix retained sufficient independence to write her will free of the permission of Mrs. Baiz for the continued use of her driveway for emergency access and fire protection, and free of the right of Mrs. Baiz disrupt the smooth and continuous provision of her electric, telephone, and public water services by forcing their relocation, and free of the right of Mrs. Baiz to cause damage to her beach, thereby threatening the enjoyment of the grandchildren and great-grandchildren who visited and played there. And such, due to the specific restriction of the grant to jvacantj land, and the appearance of independence that the testatrix derives therefrom, Mrs. Baiz could subsequently propound and swear to the validity of the Will, and the associated absence of her undue influence. Another way to arrive at this construction of the donor's purpose in prominently modifying the granting clause of this standard deed form and specifically cutting her conveyance down to jvacantj land only is to look at the donee's claim from her ~ Roderick Van Tuyl June 15, 1994 Page 8 own perspective. The Mrs. Baiz is now claiming that the conveyance should be construed as though the restrictive modification, the word /vacant/, had never been inserted into the deed, and the words /with buildings and improvements thereon erected/ had never been redacted out. certainly the standard deed form, without these restrictive modifications, would have adequately conveyed both the vacant and occupied portions of land encompassed by the metes and bounds description. But that is not what is within the four corners of the deed. Which raises the question: if the standard deed form without modification would have conveyed what the donee now claims was conveyed, then what is her legal basis for abandoning the prominent, restrictive and contemporaneous modifications to her granting clause? The question can also be restated as: if bold and contemporaneous modifications to the granting clause of a standard deed form were unnecessary to complete the intended conveyance, then, why was the specific and restricting word /vacant/ so prominently written in, and why were the words /with improvements thereon/ so boldly x'd out? Do these insertions and redactions have no meaning? Is a grantee allowed to pick and choose which words in a deed he or she chooses to read and which he or she doesn't? By way of the history behind this conveyance, the preliminary legal description which the donee's attorney sculpted into this modified granting clause was only a part of a total concept that was developed by Wingate & Cullen, the donor's attorney, some four years prior. Their approach to preserving the long-standing circulation pattern for the property and answering the civil need for continued access to the traffic circulation, utilities and fire hydrants on Bay Home Road was the traditional one. Their plan called for the use of a standard legal description which was to be used in conjunction with reservations of the important rights of way. As result, their standard legal description encompassed both lands that were vacant and lands that were occupied by the uses and improvements of the grantor. However, the extraction of only a part of their traditional concept, a legal description which encompassed both vacant and occupied land, and its subsequent insertion into a granting clause that was specifically restricted to exactly /vacant/ land only, has created the plausible possibility of an ambiguity, or possibly even a malpractice. The use of the restrictive and modifying word /vacant/ with a legal description that was designed to fit with a more traditional approach of some four years earlier has created the plausible ambiguity within the language of the deed. It is this ambiguity that the grantee/donee is now using to advance her financial self-interest at the potential expense of the public ~ Roderick Van Tuyl June 15, 1994 Page 9 health and safety of others. I understand the rule to be that where there is equal specificity, an ambiguity within the text of a deed should be read against the scrivener. (A writing should be read against the person who wrote it.) It is important to note that in this case, the scrivener, and the initiator, and the coordinator, and the donee, was Mary Baiz, and not the donor, as is often the case. And in any case, I believe that the explicit and restrictive modification, and the bold and contemporaneous alteration of the important granting clause of a standard deed form is more specific, declarative and forceful as to the donor's intent than is the donee's use, through her attorney, of a preliminary legal description (including gross dimensional errors) that was only a part of an intermediate work product of the donor's attorney, which work was abandoned by the donor some four years prior. The insertion of the word jvacantj to restrict the grant indicates that the grantor was aware that the general legal description included both vacant and occupied lands. It indicates that she specifically wanted to restrict her grant to those lands that were not already occupied by her uses and improvements. The restriction in the granting clause is more explicit and specific as to the vacant-land versus occupied- land issue than is the use of this general legal description taken from prior work efforts. In addition, it is my understanding that there is sufficient case law in the colonial states to assert that ambiguities involving a reservation, restriction or limitation in the grant of a deed are to be specifically read against the grantee, and not the grantor. This is because reservations and restrictions can be constructed as a reverse grant, or a giving back, by the grantee to the grantor, of the identified issues. In other words, an ambiguity as to what a grantee gives back in a grantor's restriction should be read against the grantee who, by accepting delivery, gives back, and not the grantor who, by offering delivery, retains. I believe the positive act of inserting the word jvacantj into the standard language was a prominent modification of the granting clause. It indicates a limitation and restriction of the grant which the grantee acknowledged when she accepted delivery of and recorded the deed. Reconstruction of the specific meaning of the word jvacantj as to conveyance of land is not hard to accomplish. And in this scenario, any doubts as to the meaning of this specific restriction must be read against the donee, as it was she who, by accepting delivery of this deed, accepted the prominent cutting down of her grant by this important and reasonable restriction. By accepting delivery of the deed with this restrictive modification, it is the donee who has acknowledged, and it is she who must accept ~ Roderick June 15, Page 10 Van Tuyl 1994 the exact meaning of the specific words in her grant. Under this line of reasoning, occupied lands were specifically acknowledged by the donee as not a part of her conveyance. As a result, the line of reasoning from the grantee's point of view results in the same conclusion as that made from the grantor's point of view. The grantee's acceptance of the word jvacantj as a prominent, contemporaneous and specific restriction within the granting clause effectively resulted in the grantee giving back, and the grantor retaining, those specific issues identified in the restrictive limitation. The fee in lands occupied by Clara Lang's uses and improvements were never conveyed away, nor were they subsequently abandoned. Again, I want to thank you for your consideration in this matter. My efforts are made in order to defend the interest of Constance L. Cooper, my mother, in the property, as well as to speak for the personal safety of the occupants of this dwelling. I wanted to keep you informed. I am in the process of ordering aerial photos at 100 scale to show that the fences, driveways, cabana, seawall, etc. have been an open use and continuous and exclusive occupation since at least 1969. Fortunately, I think that the conflict between the contemporaneous, prominent, restrictive and specific modification of a standard granting clause and a general legal description that was an intermediate work product which was abandoned by a different attorney four years prior can be resolved by looking no further than the four corners of the deed in conjunction with the facts as they are on the ground. It is my conclusion that the contemporaneous and prominent use of restrictive and specific words to cut down and limit the grant of this deed is conclusive as to intent. And clearly, it would have been easier on everybody concerned had the original deed been executed in compliance with the zoning and subdivision laws in effect at the time. Sincerely, .. '. . . Bertram C. Cooper III 8524 Overbrook Road Fairfax, Va. 22031 0W'JFfui f'1)'S / 16 /6 Tel. 703 698 1766 March 17, 1994 Roderick Van Tuyl P.O. Box 8 Greenport, N.Y. 11944 RE: Map of Land surveyed for Mrs. Robert Lang Plat No. 549-2 Property tax identitication 1000 - 056 - 5 - 1.3 Dear Mr. Van Tuyl, On behalf of my mother, Mrs. Constance L. Cooper, a tenant in common with a one- third undivided interest with Mr. Robert Lang, J r. and Mrs. Mary L. Baiz in the 21.5 acres of land formerly owned by Mrs. Robert (Clara) Lang, I wanted bring to your attention our position that there is in fact, but not yet on record, a right of way from the main dwelling across the lands of Mary L. Baiz to 1260 Bay Home Road for the subject property. In addition to other reasons, we feel that this is the case because 1.) The parcel across which this driveway travels was created by an eighty-one year old dependency in an illegal subdivision in 1973. This worked to deny the Fire Inspector, Fire Chief and other emergency services personnel a review of their public obligations and safety of the occupants of the remaining dwelling. 2.) The illegally created parcel was created as a non-conforming parcel that was not in compliance with the zoning on the property at the time. The parcel was created in 1973 and at that time the zoning was "A-Residential." Today the zoning is R-80. Under the A-Residential zoning in effect at the time of the parcel's creation, the required lot depth, measured perpendicular to the road, was 175 feet. The parcel was created with a substandard lot depth of 110 feet. This has been confirmed by Melisa Spiro of the town's planning oftlee. 3.) There is no other way for the dwelling on the remaining parcel to obtain the protections provided by the fire hydrants on Bay Home Road. Most fire trucks carry only 500 feet of hose, and closure of this point of ingress-egress to Bay Home Road works to effectively deny the Fire Chief suitable access to protect the occupants and property within the remaining dwelling. There arc also other hydraulic limits on fire ligh"o, ""' mok, "=" " 'h,,, Ii" ~Yd"m' ," ""'y "00 IWl 2 11994 I SOUTHOUl TOWN PlANNING BOARD " '. . . the fire protections available. By circumventing the subdivision ordinance then in effect. the Fire Inspector and Fire Chief were denied the opportunity to review this fait accompli change in his public burden to provide tire protection to this existing dwelling. The scenic oyster-shell farm road is not an alternate because it is not suitable for access to the dwelling by large emergency vehicles for reasons of the improper entrance geometry caused by the overhanging encroachment of the carriage due to the training rear wheel on a sharp right entrance turn, the irregular and hazardous vertical curvature which could hang up and damage the undercarriage of a fire engine, insufficient vertical clearancc under large overhanging branches which would interfere with access by a laddcr truck, insufficient clearance between the dwelling and large trees and 20 foot shrubs, and morc. These are highly technical issues that I believe can be confirmed by a site inspection of the Fire Inspector and Fire Chief. As a result, this point of access is a necessity. There is no other means for the Fire Inspector and Fire Chief to provide public fire protection to the occupants of this dwelling. Without this point of access, his only option would be to watch as the building and its possible occupants burn to the ground. As a general citizen, I would find it morally awkward to conclude that a then eight- one year old, and highly medicated dependency, would willingly and knowingly sign a deed that illegally created a non-conforming parcel so that she could have an adjoiner stop the Fire Chief at the gate while her building and property burned down and she and the occupants went up in smoke. The act of intentionally cutting off one's own fire protection by the device of an illegally formed and non-conforming parcel simply shocks my conscience, and I believe it would shock the conscience of other citizens in the town also also. 4.) Mrs. Jane Blados of the town's building department has on hcr ORIGINAL and HAND-WRITTEN records for this property a note that the address 1260 Bay Home Road was the town's official address for this dwelling as to public services. The computerized "911" address, which is supposed to be a physical address, was at one time changed to a post oftke box, so confi rmation should be made to the original hand-written records. The computerized address has also shown 130 Bay Home road, but this unofficial entrance onto the public highway is used only by farm vehicles while accessing a farmed ticld. This headland is often blocked by aluminum irrigation pipes, and it crosses a bog area. It is not suitable for ingress by the Fire Chief. Because of this, I am not uncomfortable in betting that the Fire Chief has not yet approved this ad hoc change in the "911" address of this dwelling. 5.) The address 1260 Bay Home Road was used by everybody when rcferring to 2 ^. ~ . . this dwelling. There are ancient and recent records showing continued use of this address on Insurance forms, Bank accounts, Life Insurance forms, Stock Certiticates, Medicare, Long Island Lighting, Brokerage accounts, and more. This was also the official address on the death certificate. This use has been continuous. There are 20 years of tire tracks and 20 inches of road bed to contirm this. In addition, there is no record that Mrs. Baiz issued twenty years of permission to her mother, wherein she retained the right to withdraw the permission and thereby deny her mother the access and security of fire protection and emergency serviccs that arc only available from the 1260 Bay Home Road entrance. 6.) The possibility of duress arises from the unexplained change in attorneys for Mrs. Lang in this suspicious scrivening. Just four years prior to the illegal creation of this non-conforming and intervening parcel, Mrs. Lang's personal attorneys recognized the need to preservc the physical and psychological safety offered by access to the tire hydrants, and in their 1969 correspondence with Mrs. Lang, they required that a reservation be made with thc conveyance. But then, four years later, and with a sudden and temporary change to an attorney chosen and coordinated by the donee, a deed was signed that omitted a reservation, but did note that the only land conveyed was the "vacant" land. It was Mrs. Lang's intent, understanding and belief that the non-vacant portion, that is the portion used and occupied by her driveway, was not conveyed in the deed. In this way she believed she had preserved her right to the protections offered by the fire hydrants on Bay Home Road. It is worth noting that this parcel was originally created as a gift for the purposes of protecting the view of the Southold Bay that was enjoyed by Mrs. Baiz from hcr dwelling at 870 Bay Home Road. It was always intended only as a "view lot," as Mrs. Baiz was concerned that without this lot she could not protect the value of her view across her mother's property. It was never intended nor was it created and conveyed as a building lot. And it is our belief that Mrs. Lang did not sign away hcr rights to the fire protections offered only by access to Bay Home Road. This is by no means a completc account, but it is intended to give you reason to review whether or not you want the liability of concluding that the driveway is not a right of way without also hcaring our point of view. What is true is that there is no recorded easement, but that does not mean that the owner of this illegally created non-conforming parcel, a "view lot," has the right to block a Fire Chief who was denied his right of review from accessing the fire hydrants on Bay Home Road while discharging his duty to protect the life and property of the occupants of this dwelling. 3 '. . . . For the above reasons and more, my mother feels that there is a right of ingress- egress at 1260 Bay Home Road for this dwelling. The reasons go to the issues of include actual intent of the deed, necessity, and open, notorious, long-standing and adverse use. It is for this reason that you might want to have another look at this plat before any additional copies are published. Very Truly Yours, tu~ Bert Cooper P.S. The property is going to be appraised next week for estate purposes by the firm of Rogers and Taylor in Happague. I do not know which copy of your survey they have been given to prepare their appraisals. Enclosures 4 -~ . . ~"'n " B!i!i i~:' J ".~~~r h.., ! ~~;~; nolO. . .'3: ~ ~~~:, :l'~li '. ~ ;I !:lir .. n 11" J :J I :'1,1 );! , ; . ~ , :'n: .- , .;,f."," " .- ,0.;'; ""4 ~;...~ 'to c.+....". "li..-::C+' ......,....'!Ii , .;~ I! !. 'II' ': I J I t ......:..1 . "-"9 r.! "!~.IT ", '. ;r q: J ~ l:...... . . . 0-, ~ "? ~ ~1t ~~~ ~ ~.~.'1 1 l~~~ ~'3~j >k ~ 1 \ '. ~ ~ ~ i ~ I , '; H O. 8 vi . c.D . ~I lCl - t;1 0 .~ ~ 01 ! ~I 8j =>1 -11 g ofl1 !l ~ ~'I ~ ~I ~I ~ j >- U C . C> ~ or.:( .. o ~ : u... .~ ~ > J ::J...; . V'J ell e Z VI . . ... v- o ~ !"-'. >- - ~~ Z t~.f :;) ell :- o g . Va: 91 '" ! , i !. ,. I' . ' , . ft" .. ~ : ; ; 0 I" .. .i '; ~ ~ ~ !,! J 'li!tl i ~ .. j J ! I ~ ! I ~~ "@'e ! ! " ~; l ~ l, I ~ I:.."'!.. ~ ~ ~ :. j i 1111 ~~~~~ "I t' ~ ;, , ! ! ! ~ ~ -; ~ i ~ ! j d .; d ~ .! J ~ I.. II! ' 1" I Iii! j " I i ~ t 1 ~ j J ;"oi' I, 'J\ ,'1,'_.('-1, I Southold, N.Y. 11971 HENRY E. RA_ YNOR, Jr., Chairman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKJ, h. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM.ir. WILUAM F. MULLEN, Jr. TELEPHONE 765.1938 ..- July 29, 1982 Mr. Joseph F. Kelly Wingate & Cullen 142 Pierrepont street Brooklyn, New York 11201 Re: Clara E. Lang Dear Mr. Kelly: As a result of your inquiry about the establishment of a private road on the above captioned property, we referred same information to the Town Attorney for a determination on whether such an access would create two lots. It is his opinion such an access road would not create two lots. The establishment of this private road would not require any permits from our office; we would however suggest that you contact the building department before proceeding with such construction. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to con- tact this office. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD -- ,....., ~'\f\.,~jJ C. t<QtyI'V01 >)(L By Susan E. Long, secreta~ ROBERT W. TASKER Town Attorney JUL 13 REC'O TELEPHONE (516) 477-1400 425 MAIN ST. GREENPORT, L.I., NEW YORK 11944 July 12, 1982 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Property of Lang a t Bay Home Road, Southold, New York Dear Henry: In your letter of July 7, you asked for my opinion on the question of whether the relocation of the access road to the Lang property would result in creating an additional lot. It would appear to me that this so called" Private Road" is nothing but an access to the Lang property in exchange for the previously used access road located to the south. Under these circumstances, 1 do not believe that the new road would create two lots. Yours ve ry truly, dZ ROBER T W. TASKER RWT:aa . ~r~~ ~> " I', ',-1,1 '~ ,.(;Y-: c.:\\ I .. LK /"'._ '-.:- Pl). '!~;,SN.,.ru~p.'.'.'B....;. Q'JR.D ::J ~ ....;;If I~;'~" '3 ~ T(i~ o~~s()p, , gLD t\"' .'+ ."" ,." B.~.... ;r."~~,;' ',,~';f:~ ~ f;j S EfFQIlL K:O:CQ !IN,J'Y '6-1".!J ,to ';\ C>,,{Y ~.J.. -r..-r', <6;':2zz:~ , Southold. N,Y, 11971 HENRY E. RAYNOR. Jr.. Chairman F'Fi:prRI~I: r:l. ~gRDOIJ JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr. William F. Mullen, Jr. TELEPHONE 765 - 1938 June 25, 1982 Mr. Joseph F. Kelly Wingate & Cullen 142 Pierrepont Street Brooklyn, New York 11201 Dear Mr. Kelly: As a result of our telephone conversation yesterday, I con- tacted our chairman and discussed your inquiry made regarding relocating the road on the property of Clara ~. 1-<\115 In order that we give you accurate direction regarding this inquiry, we would request that you submit a sketch map of the area and give a brief description of the proposed change on this property. We look forward to assisting you in any way possible. Very truly yours, ~(i~ Susan E. Long, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board .JUll 1982 JOSEPH F. KELLY PHILIP ZIERLER FRANK D. GALLAGHER FRANCIS X. BRICK FIELD THOMAS O. RICE PETER N. ZOGAS RICHARD H. FREEMAN 'JIlingatc & Qtullm JUtomI'!!S ItlTb Q)=S~UOTS 142 PIERREPONT STREET CABLE ADDRESS"W1NCUL" (212) 875-3652 (212) 875 -8925 BROOKLYN, N, Y. 11201 MICHAEL F. KING JONATHAN R. FRANK STEVEN R. FINKELSTEIN June 25, 1982 Clara E. Lang Re: Southold Consultation Property Planning Board of the Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Gentlemen: We represent Mrs. Clara E. Lang, who is and resides at property situate at the southwest Main Road and Bay Home Road, Southold, New York. is designated: Town of Southold Tax Map District Section Block Lot consisting of approximately the owner of corner of The property 1000 056 05 001. 001 21-1/2 acres. At the present time there is a driveway for ingress and egress to Bay Home Road from the main house across the property of John Baiz and Mary Lang Baiz. Mrs. Lang is seeking a permit to establish a private road 50 feet in width from a farm road that runs through her property to Bay Home Road as shown in the shaded portion of the enclosed map. We assume that the permit is under the jurisdiction of your Board and we should like to know what requirements must be met to process the application. Very truly yours, JFK: KVL Ene. , ~~ ~~NN~N~'iQ~l~P TOWN o SOU HOLD ~,'~ ". -.' ': .:.....1;.:;.:.,: ': .,."- " ~(fF Jtk'C;C Nt~ ~.. ,,5f., ,,;,~ ' ~\ . , ",<:;'1 j' :"!. ~"0 "'-'.{ . ,''r' (\ -'-~ ' - ""--: Southold, N.Y, 11971 HENRY E, RA YNOR, k, Chai,man JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKJ, k GEORGE RITCHIE LA THAM, Jf. WILUAM F. MULLEN, Jr, TELEPHONE 765.1938 July 7, 1982 Mr. Robert Tasker Town Attorney 425 Main Street Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Mr. Tasker: Please review the enclosed map of Mrs. Robert Lang and ad- vise us if the establishment of a new road (see shaded area) would create two lots. I have enclosed a copy of correspondence from the office of Wingate & Cullen inquiring about the establishment of a private road on this property. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary Ene. , . it -_.~ "" '() ..... I "jT~ ~t-_. .' _. "'J'~'" .~ ~ , ,-. . t~. \) \l ... )'~J'h -,~-. . .. ! .) L . . I ~ !4tf'H"1.'/ .,....,~ (. ~~, -- 'itI.. ...:.J"C'r , 'ir ---- ~.....;.. -, ".II , ' , "" -, 6\~' / ~ / , , ,- " c'" ',t..~/) , " i n~. . I.;. --:. J- 1 ~r"'-' i . ~"_~ . --""''''-, :-' [:.1 I- 1""'#11 ;:;-.t,J:..'<........,.... , -- ...... '- , . --. , --,-.., I L.-- L-. : . 1-1 ',-= -, c..._'""""'".............. "j ,;,.111 6': ~ ~.~ ...., ~~...: "":--'"0- ":"';;':~t ,.~:!, - ~. ~ir' -':'~7' .,," ", ~ 'J ,'. -~ "'"'-";~':" ~~. J!1!':,.,~.~,., "\~M~",.' ""f:~ ',).'" ",.,11/: ,--.....,.. ..,~.....~...J. '::' ..' ~-,"'.. . ' 1- .~'! /"z"JHffJt: "~~1'"' -I' '.) .~, ~ " ~ ta'lIIt'.-'....~.-;..:-..';,-..'."';. . .'...D'.'.:......; \". l~ .-'tl;,,'- J ~I.. : , \) '" ..... ..... , ". 't~:. .1''----- ~" . . . '"1':--' 'r';.~ . .~.p.. .,;;o..,.,.,...:_~..=.- . E"'~-"--' ....... ---.. 41 ~ a' ,.#" #.-,1 .,,- .'1..... -~,.~ ---.. " ...... ..---' . ..... <.- .1- . ----- Ill., '1 - 4-~ ..:) '--, ., , t~," '-' .:fhc.--p 11;.;7,., t"'.,,..e ---.. \' I' I I --'---'- -----.____.H._ ." , . I J .._ ,/"rwe';/' / ( I I I J t. - .~ --~+'~r'l..~~" j I ..... "'-.. /~t!!-ffq~4J-E) /"-. I ',,_ \ ~ "-~~-~,,"'-"~':" _1.___ '-- ' ....... "'< -____ C) __'. #II ...... -.- ~8;:;/1-_~ ~ -"-:- '".---. - ,:- ~-~" "'.'s~.-'::'-'-~='-'-;-::::"_;-- . ~ 0,3 I .-- i . 19j,~a"q. '=_="~c,1'- '..... /, ", t--~. ".~.l.., . -".. I - --... ,.,.~ A.,', .r'7. "-/~~~.L. ,"' /~, -." '. ...... ,.'- _...__..,..,~ ~.. " -. -----..;;::.. .... '- '- .~'- ...................- ':-... .-J,J -. I / ---- " J'~ 11:/ ' , .. t.:" ~ I ". I I ,:,' . 'r 1\1 It! {",,.,,., ".:I . _~.__ ,,_____ .. '___, . , 0 I! I j I ',l-"~," '. -;" .,. 1. -4-~~___"':._' ~~, i ;t j. t) '~ , ,. , '" , " \ '" (\ /..,.,..,,, ed .. I'. _.t' ... ":.. } , ;\ . ) ,; ::'" '0 ',' ., t<., '" ~ I .-:----- ~ , , - f .' , " Q 0; o "/ . ~; "- " €i: ,"~ I .. , ! : ,,. .~ .~ ./ ..,., . c ... 'J . flI . , , 4 " ~ t .,' i,,"1 If\. "!tI/ {, n ...Ji /tv I ~ I v ~ ., \.'" ., ~ J i. . ; I -. , ".,q"y ::.. .Bq/ ."~ -":"'-=:~=~.~ .~i ~ '.,;. ,,~ f J ';. .' 'V,SC'''",,'e 8.2. 0- J'. , , I \ \ I , ;4 It , " . '- , \ \ --.._- ,,..,~~' - r'-I~- JJ,.oI L. I / _~_____ I . ;. \ "'....- " - d'-;: - l \ - - - _',....-1#"--..1.- -. ..... I I z~ .Jr~1r'_f./l.j- - - .j' - ;-"L.i ilt <:: I . - i;";~~" -.... . l,J "._ -'-_...f :... "__._~ ... ~ ..- , , . . " ,.....,j.1~d " " r- III ~ ...... ., /1 r ..J /C)' ... --t.7-;.,-~r!,,'- --'~.- -.;"- ;':~'i ro..... ,. d ,,/,,/~:i . .- -, " ..... , I ,.., .. f} '-' ~I ...; , ~(, " \t It ).. Ill' ;, , ,-.J tQ , .~ ... ~ f I ../ Ii . ! I --1'1 ; I .. .. I , ' ,jJ: /', 1 , , ~ l- 1<. , .~ ...J (f . ,;:- /./..,- i . ,....... ..~-:'. ~ 0:'./ ..... "1""= ' ...,' . . ~,~'y:' . ~. f , , ! ~ -f' .'0. __~_ ... , . -t: l) .. ;"~-+._--~. i " , fl L .~ A .. , / , ~, ,,{I .~ I "~; , '", ~, .. : I , , ,. I . v ~. \1/ , -'-"""'-' .=....-.-- -. I ~~, - ,T- o 1'/ J--~I I, - l' j '/ '!I '\. ~- / .. I .' L . ~':. ;' ~ ... ""' ...~. t :':......J.---4. ;, "II , I , f \, I~ L'e, . :;: l 'i-' I:. r { I I r -------~'---.. --l' I \ ru-\111iOltl1m AlntAno"" O. ADomo.....i:-. o THIS SURYn IS A VIOLATION 0' ~~~,NlOn09 Of TJii NfW YOU STAff - ""LAW. i.:;PlfS Of THIS SU....'tV MAP NOt 'fA.lI/IiIG. EM LANe StJRvtYOII'~ IW.JJ ~cAL O. IOSSED StAl ~HAU 1-;0, ~ CONSIWl TO If A VAI.JD HU{ C~,.,. " CU"UN1'US It:D1CAHD HUlON 5HA ONlY '0 fm ..lac,.. '0 . U. IWf IS PlllPA1!.ED AMI ON HIS' WH'-JM 'Ht M~" flJU COM'~N' UOVb lIC11..U',0_ LEND ' """UOC)""'~w LNG 1tfS1I~ IJSTU, H~ ~ AUIGMU 0I1Hl ~.:: o c:iIJAaAIda,,-.MO' ,.. 11 .... .4,,;:::"'ClKU tNl!'lJ\IJKINI 0&....- 1 I~ .5"4-9-2 Mal' cornln'/eo' !-r<U11 1".4.,./0"'" t5tiYllef~ ~r1d ultfd-te.d t~JIt"ui' In-e-'4nf &.:JI1,hi'/t;m$ ,jtJ.rl~ 17, /P4o. 1<OOIUi!.JCK. VA'" T"'iJYJ..,P..C., ~~2~~Y :~:"':_~__' ~: . L.1c 4 ti~ e d. LPitd~d U rll&.yoli'$ ,0- ~ t'~&;1Aor I'. . ~/._y." "'.' __.__ . 1 I ! I /f I II /'" ,r~ // /I ~ II II II I .1'1' ( .~ _.~- . !____~r- ---.., 1 I T --_. -. . '_C"~"-' Ii---_ I 9 Z 0 I S, S;: . -f ' ..,.. vv. Q ,II "- ('\ r: o ,~ '" ~, ( c. ~, 'r: ,- r>'~-'.~' ..,,~_~.. . , ..I' t I ....~I ; -. !,~ ,'V1AP OF LAND -- ~'~~" .... .. 4. . ....'...........6 u. ..'5..V1Y. EO' Fot:!... ..... 0 . . ~..R.aJ!iJI!RT'- A "t .. . .' Ar OQr.lT'HOl. D, . N. Y. /!J ; Ii ;j I J I Ii II I I ,- , , . : i "~'_': .-] r--.._ r, ~ ' .- ,....,. ( 5:':'/0/';" C~. ,:7,><: /:;J~O - ~S6 - ~-. :.:. ..'71',; ~...~. I' I ~---- , , .. , . .---.-. A1AF!..OF,L.AND, ----.-.-- -.-.--.--..- ...... '\. . ... . . -. " I' " """. I I ., . - ,~. . . " . "'. ,... -. ~. "?' ....... .\....,. ..... .""]I'''~':-; rl. ..~J. ",' h:.......~-:.. L --.--- P' _._ .___. - ..___. __ ~_'__ L'".,.'I'c,'_' ,'" "" ~ 1'"1 ' 0_/ _ ....._. 1,"'1)( .-.::,"..;:.z.: :.:;C C - ':;$0 - b- - t.: \ '---- ." -I I i I I I I ---~ SUdic.E ~~ MS Twol\n:v, LATHAM, SHEA & KEJ.J,EV ATTORNEYS AT LAW 33 WEST SECOND STREET P.O. BOX 398 THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR. STEPHEN B. LATHAM JOHN F. SHEA, III CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY LAWRENCE M. STORM * MAUREEN T. LlCCIONE DAVID M. DUBIN P. EDWARD REALE RIVF.HHEAIl, NK\\~ YORK 1190] 516-727-2180 TELEFAX:516-727-1767 9 NORTH MAIN STREET EAST HAMPTON. NY '1937 516-324-1200 PETER M. MOTT t LISA C. KOMBRINK MARY C. CRONIN JOAN C. HATFIELD CJ MICHAEL A. SIRIGNANO October 30, 1991 NY. CT & Fl. BARS NY & LA BARS NY & MD BARS NY & CT BARS r;.~~, \;'.~1~~\ - . ~,q' \,. ) \ \ \ Melissa Spiro Planning Department Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Clara Lana pronertv \.)'-'. \....-soil' \ l<l\\~" Dear Melissa: Enclosed for your review is a copy of the most recent survey of the 21.5 acres owned by Clara Lang on Bay Home Road in Southold. If I have any other information which might bear on the development of this property, I will bring it with me to our meeting next Thursday at 8:30 a.m. Best regards. Yours truly, (~--=-~ () U-<<-~ . Steve Latham SL:tf Enclosure cc: Robert Lang, Jr. >\ <) " '<> " " 'l! 'll -.,J .t( ,II III ~ , " ~ I:l ... ... ... . ... "t ~ '--- .... '>7... . I" A.,,' ." "-/, 4'"."....-:: e, ,., -."'... ~r::>.,rC"~~ ~-:.;,;-, . ----: ""<: , 1 _ --'--__' _ 0 I ' 6'41.61 1"~"'6'; , : I' I' I" (~;--):: ; I r ,/ : Ill' ,,\ !Z:;ij/ Q' ' I-.~. I" 1._..,...J !Tf-.:;J I ,-" '., i I.~" 'fI/lrIlNf~1 L~~ ,. I cf--."J I I \ L J! --- , --- '\', \1, I' Ii " " I . t I ~ "'- '''-, j""~,,.,i I I, II I, I I " ,.. ~' , ' I' i I' " Il' 'l.! "1 '" II I. , I, 'i , i , i 'I /"'~"'6.1 Ii L> . -f" f ...."'.. 1 -0.8' 1 19.!! '0..... . /"'1' . ." .\~ ~ . / , , I , , , I ""6.) ! ~'4"V"d le~."<,ul!.€) ( -'-. -"-~ ""...1 " '--.... ,,," ,... /. " '" i? 'I II I, II I' I ~ , Ii ,I: ~-- .-' /II~ II -- "'- j / \ ;-:::r:.- II " . 1/\ ,-.. - -- -_ __ I, \' -- -.:-#:(7C?C~-"--_ . ,I 'I~~sf' b'~IIi1. -/' -.. I \ I z"~ -8-"" . \, - / ;to.., .,.... ) - ......--..- -.: .: , ,f ",......:1 nl. .,._......-;:.c.,~o:A'''' ::<:",':0::-' . ,,'~_~__~:':/-'-"'~';T'~"j."';c ,~...~.~-- 47... ",fjI,.ik .,.. ...,,,, ill,. :",4''''' ~6~ \1 ~,,! _ ~J ! ~I '1 'I,).. i! i.' 'l: :'"1 rr, I I, . '" , I I ..; ~i II I ~ ,.!:1f: j' 4 / '" I.~, ~t.. '...'., ;.-, .:.--...... ~!~~e,. /. I ''I: I :Ii tl, I tJl , I ~ -) . -- -79z::; 4.SZ'~~ . w. ,~ ~ Ill.' ~ ~...._. .. o Oi o .. " <>i c.J L .~ . . :". kf4Yy ~. 8t1/z '- "'-$Z'~~'iF "Z.O .' \ \ , , , \) ... .. ~ ... . ... ./"~"';" -~ r ." ~ '- j: " " , " "ti , 'I t, o 1-- -"- f I i , ,I \ '- ( Q i. 'It .' 0 " , fl:' /~ .' ,"J' ./,.~/ .Ii' / ~ X' // 6",a/6'I 100 := /" l!J . h-10tlU'lluellf " >i I _tJ../3J;'~.!.. Z I. [ Ac IU r; ~--- , . I. ,\- , 5'<J//OIk. C"'. r...x .0"4"':;"'/: /ooo-aS6-tf"-/./ IlJ ~ \) ,~ I r- .1 ,,,I .."i '. ',:. : "I,' .. . MAP OF LAND 6vRV/lYEO FOR I '! !v112~~gglfE R T_l-:,19 N(S Ar pOl.lr"iOL?Z.. N. Yo ., . Mal' co~,bi/"d ,tram I'r..v/'c<J,< durv",/4 ..".I ul.r..t-ed 1'1> ..I",,,, j>r.,S.,d' c",,,d,-t-Io"$ c.I"n<1l7, /980 1<!oOItIZICK. V,q.... Tv.,../.. P. C. /2, V""- -r -:! L./c."".d I...3nd durv.'I""" IS ".."1'(".,., w. y, _Am.".led 0.:'1: 3.199C . 1Jn...~alm"Nll\(Jr.~ Wllhl,~""'.",,lIln,""''''~~ I'<mf_ ~~-, <Jfthlt NawYork SUl~ r<1.~t'tk>nlllW. CoIl;" of thl~ "'1'V'lY m~.r> Mt t>-t"rinq """~.~;I',,,,,",,,...j"".N;'GAI.. ~""M''''X: ~~.,I gtdl "~i bft cc>nah1.,.-.d Iob"pyc/'dl""'''''lY'I l)1JprDn~~~ h,,j;"""J,~ 1'.'....011 .hJII '<.I1l ","Iv 10 m,., D' ";.,~ ,~, '~:....tv(I\ -'- - ~."~. _..-....- ~~i " ft GViJ lW w GViJ = (0 ~ ~ GViJ C-. <.---- -.:::::~ "'" -;"'~ ~. \ ;._c ~"'" ~ --4:7il f~R{ ----- . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD "Of) $L - ~ - /.3 OWNER STREET / 2- 0 /l " r j l":u Lj /olnc' 1'-' ~ N ! /" / :- l..<I+~.A .D FORMER OWNER J.. rilV 7 . S '~,rt~.L ,,! {'~((ds -D-.Il .~ PROPERTY VILLAGE S ----'-.-, / <<:/-( /,1 t lei E W ~ RECORD CARD DIST. SUB. S AC~. I tJ.~1 TYPE OF BUILDING COMM. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value ~ES. I} t; D SEAS. VL. I FARM LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE /Cj't,OO /2 Poo v I~ hI- 32 l/06~ ZS / / , / .'illabie Voodland leadowland . louse Plot otal REMARKS FRONTAGE ON WATER FRONTAGE ON ROAD DEPTH BULKHEAD _..~ . LOT ~ /1-3/ YvL' N \/' . '; ) r ' \ 1..0, V\. '. S / I t ,r ./~~ '6bo-..~--s-.../~ 3 OWNER ........ I " II ......... I -J.- '.. ":' . .:. " ~"'~': ", .",', ,#, J-TOWN~OF" SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD' CA.RD'~.1D', ~[IlRIf :ll~L6-_;v' FORMER OWNER VI LLAGE ~~,)(, DISTRICT SUB. LOT STREET e ~ LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE E i ., ACREAGE (I) <l'.. Lt1' (l ,.(<' -C'tA :J..b. t. W ;:1.\1,1(( {~>, TYPE OF BUILDING .,/It; COMM.J \ CB. I MISe. i':J, REMARKS &'l'-UL- 77 '-jfT .n, J<2r...-<.. r: )>1/1<. 4~~ /!Jc 01 "7.1 Ild';3", r~4f11i 1, ('Y,/... /I'. .9'~A<:' 1..- 79 7'- - _,"T:-f1-_'f-iLl-. ~S60. . P - 2.."1/ - c. 8 L I'l IV? "/';; R6 b I L. ~ I/IZ. +--w r- ")< . '- /d".;,! ( F4RM / VL. RES. - ----- .1~() IbO -,.- ---_.--- -z.;z..oO 12 J- 00 ~-- Farm __~UI~~ING COt~D~TION ___ ':7:2;-';J/;;~~-I--'~lfO' r"1~) NORMAL _~ _ 'ELO"'nl. _AIl0V'-_ _ 'iJ~_Fr t! 30~ ;J,"f /tiUO Acre Value Per Acre Value ----- - ---' ---- .---' -.-'-- ..----.---- /7,31 _ _~_,h?O ,,__ _U!if~-. ,.-- --------. ../ ~. -"._--_._._~...~-_.~ 'NEW Tillable 1 , Swampland - - - -- -- n_ --- - - ---~----~J;~~d ~ ~ -~;:z:~ ~ -~.r~~ ~ - -~--------------- ------ ... _= i-- -~ - 1C:'~:tj ~ -/~7~:,~= J~J:;:o~ .( Tillable 2 ---.--------- --- Tillable 3 -- _.------ .~---"--'-~--- Woodland -- ------ ----- Brushland - __u _~ -----,----.-----~------ House Plat Total. ,U.%. "2-a~7c:\ t .-1 - --- --- , , .~ ~ "~ . ."1,',. I 18.~2 (.- I , :~ .... ~> :,; .;''''- 111111 ~ . .c'~"'__"..."-.....~~:;:':;,-:.",j- ~L 17--"" -!~:n'.p . .. ~ ~ ... --T.... OWNER /, "'f;. .B Ll'ttV FORMER OWNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY 1KORD CARD /~-.iJ ~ -'- EST STREET VILLAGE .s;; I< IT; 6' lei E DIST. SUB. LOT S ,V.P.J'C'. ACR. /,(N~ TYPE OF BUILDIN~~ .-! "i I / Z. :-:-- . ~}o, ~ rf: /1IU#' <<<i. N S W RES. SEAS. VL. I FARM COMM. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value TOTAL DATE REMARKS , LAND IMP. /O(J() .(f( () 0 I;:;~tl . I%Sbt I , , : , Tillable FRONTAGE ON WATER ! Woodland FRONTAGE ON ROAD Meadowlond DEPTH HousePIat I. 06 It, /{J I' (' BULKHEAD . Total I / I;' ,'.:, .. I ~r'l ' "'llll'II! II ill..II!llllrl.'fIIII.I.i......~.. ,I ! YNt/'.: ~;~;' / . .."",.", ,~.<. ,!'., ., r ~,... . f.) -' _..",-,,~;-;,::c:,';;;;' -.,.1. o,J. '" ~ .' ,~L~""'I#lL:: ',1 " I.';' ., '. ~(, I' fr r ..~ . it .I 'ff ,,< ,r+ft....r!;' I " '_ ~~~t_' , 1 M, Bld~s 11.-/,.-' , '/ ff 2-1" ,j I;} Extensio1>,lrf -.I? -,~ -1-d I 10 n- / - 1 '" f . Exten ' - ,,/ t) 510n Garage , Q,'B , ".:': ,.:' ','\. =:.;.~,l~.:i',/~~> ;~; :' ~~-,.",.",,"--r"''''~-''' . .,........,. ,,,,,j>;.,;.:iZ!~.1;~~,., " COLbR" 'I 1 1/fl'lT:.e I eci" I ~ ,_, ' ' J c-"f?ri!iiJ,r~~ ~,lT~~, t>1 1\<11. r~~-jj5 IIsLEB1 I i'l -;;h,IZ \' I I 1 _ b ",,!-I_ I .. -r 0 1.1 --'~~t / flllli' I ,\" I I ' J' ! c,. ~trl "+H I 4~J R 1- UJ'I . ,"~ I .tiH-~, ~ .L --. f-+ F - Fiff !J<rrll....~...). 0" . >d'" f v Foundation __'J' B ~ ,gJrI~t( Bath asement " - ! } IfV _ ,_ _ Ext. Walls -- ,~ : ;--? - i Floors - .0 , P,,-~I"-P1~.; ~ I ! ~-fL ,.,.,Im FI.,,"' ::;! -~=~ t .--1 1','ll(J...; Heat __ _ Porch - - So 7 i' .'" - - - - I AHk -.'. - . . "..,. --- - ,- - 1/ _"'.- P"ID, ---". '.,m, -'" ''"'''+-- ~ - - _if! 0 .0"'",," -- - . - Room"" C1oo'I_J-- - - - --~ I . . . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD STREET ~ -; 0 VILLAGE I DISTRICT I SUB. LOT . , ,;Iii , . '()()6_S"f,,-S-L OWNER .A1-.J (! 5 ~ hJ .d{erl- ----PC! .< ACREAGE . ,t_ TYPE OF BUILDING LJ. . 11,.\1 _, RES. .,,7 / t) LAND SEAS. VL. ;/ I FARM , ~ I I COMM. CB. MISe. REMARKS ., - ~", \1 ' , ' .' . , (- I) :. /} ( " ~ , .- ,) '. , ./ IMP. TOTAL DATE Gf (5) '?.-tr/JI) (){) AGE BUILDING CONDITION . NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE Farm Acre Value Per Acre Value Tillable Tillable 2 Tillable 3 Woodland Swampland Brushland H~e..e!Pt -. -" / ,- /0 Fi2 ,cr . Total.,. t. . \ " . 'm f1iIII'If~'''''''' 'n' . ~- lXi' wl"~"1ilii'~":;~'>~'.,'; iJ:.~.'.- :, c, ,'.,;..\lti.........-..4.....,'-l.....',#"'..^H \ z ""' WArCH ,LA \' '\ ..' \ ,.0,.1 ,'" "\\ ~f;\~ ";:'<1 ~.\.\\, ~ -"/----'::. ? ". ~ ____ ._.w"'C" _ \ Z- 10....r.I<"" J> ":~""'''::::i\ ...,~o",o,...".,-- n ". \r""Q .. , <"4 " S[[,,<...,O.. "'10" "",..oAW.. .",-"...Z -_.Z--_"~'"[ "",''''' I 0","001 :1 :1 ,,,"CNOU" ."""""0" .....01 ",I ...."1 " CD ,".." .,' \ ~/ e'< , \ ". SE< 00 In OCO u<" SO , I { t' ~ ~ -f'!- ~ rj.-Q .n SfC "" oJJ ~+ 0" s !!<''P'" ~~.~,'-,~"':,.;:" ,~','''~:\.:'.:. ';,~','::'.''' ...,. ."- ,""_~L-- ......, .... --'Q. ---- ,..".- .",,, [[':S'~:o,::n::.,.:"" I ...,.."....:.,...>.,,,,..;:....,," ---_:...~~~ ~::.'~~-~~~ - ,"""'''" .",..,.,. .' ,~.: ,'::'.~., ""',.",1..,," t~:':7.'>:'-- '~ [~- ::~~~[: ~!!!.!~~ I;':""'~'~--"Cl' -c---.,' '-'..: c.,.. ",. "-....,,-,~" ;~"~:~. 0' @ ~_'.7:~:~:::::"" ........,.' .'_... '::1 ;:;:,,~.:: ~M .'!"" "', "'I" ",kl' I'" ~ ,,,'""" @ COUNTY Of SUff Reol Properly To S ,OLK 10."0' SOUTHOLD (oV""y J\(."~:,\Ir<e Agency ""'G'Of t"",~.,,d, l I, New York 0II101(!..0 1000 066 """,I f..,I"". _P~(:!~~fY ;AP , ',- "-., , . ~~:~~)_1. J- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD P!PERTY RECORD. Jf;~',!'t~~"'j,~,!"o/;6'/ " OWNER STREET 1 L D VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT ',..- ....~ Ij ,~,'.' {/ir2:'/a-... N M..,1Jt9/Z- S pee .BR '/ CJ .b . HOMe ~.b s- ACR. .ft>HN 8,q/z- '" k/ P FORMER OWNER I . LA-Nc;,. TYPE OF BUILDING RES. SEAS. VL. 3/3 FARM COMM. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS ,..:; ,ROO ~ g t>-f) , S'/3o/,"; ~fi'On7 ,...., ~D x-J3//7.3 ?:?""iJ J ..? ., 6 ,/ /Oh~~ht. / / . \ . Tillable FRONTAGE ON WATER 110' cD" 30. I'D .i',/O().- - " Woodland FRONTAGE ON ROAD vleadowland DEPTH 7'",,' ;ouse Plot . BULKHEAD ~~ d ';'0';. i . i I ! . . . , _._-- -~l:' -t:' _. L" -_.' _ _ ~',. ~~_~' ~y~_~~~~~~=~~,~.~~':~,< ~ p,- 1<-2' ~~~~~~~:,,~~-"-;,l ~,,:~'t>:,,~_ / - j. t/ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY IE'-ORD' CARD J '-~" ~i', ~.;.;;~ / /c:>~o -s-t _..5 ~ 'T . '_, ~ OWNER STREET <" r-1, VILLAGE . '- (,.I DIST. ' SUB. LOT u.f RH N 1<s."1€ . HI. -,-- ;.; /' ~OIA.TiJ 3 let.- E ,;).4 '1~6""'C ,f't:!: /?~ /1 1 ~ r-I .r-'T /VI. A-I z.. , C LAlv .s- j),e S' ACR. ,9'2- TYPE OF BUILDING ;1 $;- ),,~~/ C.l.AN S W RES. 2/0 SEAS. - VL. I FARM COMM. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS 12 () 0 12-06 . 0J/Ch~ ' 1J{"'h: ,k ./.- 7'l72- If L .$;<Jlz.-..!.jP Spit a ,...-.z?-:;~,\ p, z.-rl F/f'a", e8.iRfV't}.j{,- /(, ~ ~ I 17()~ J-700 ,i /Ohr/7!. ifh Ix? - [ I dI;J, .1./,17 "1'/.')- tx; I Z 'h A:I i? (/)~ v' ~ ((I) ) ii'hi , ( " , / I . . -iIfable FRONTAGE ON WATER . toadland FRONTAGE ON ROAD :2 () 9 +/'7- leaclowlond DEPTH 1?1./'r . BULKHEAD louse Plot otol . ~, COLOR /?e c! TRIM llf'l c.. T---~r-- ---I-~f!--T --r-~'-T-'~-i~!'r--T'--'- -- -- --i-------r--~:----I 1 I TT-~-r-i-----i--~;-- I i roo ---t- - -r--r---+----+ t---+---t---+-i---+- - +-___-l_____+______~__.~~-.-m~.~+_J--..-+---L~.-~---~----4---~- ~--+- - ",.J.-,,-~.- -, i=' +_l-+-+++-~+--'-~---...t+_J-~.i i i I. +,', -ti t' i I, _! 1 ! : I ! i i - ,i - : i ! I 'I I , +-t- 1 ' , . - - - ; ---.l... - -: -+ .'Tt-,""". [-',' I ,-li-rITl'Trr: , T ITT~T'D-i' +--, ---r---~, ~.- _.-t-t-'f!'r--I T~-- i~-' ---"t-.T--I-i--~'--:----'---+-Ti-~-_n___, ...-----~-1 t-+-- ------+- ~ - -+- +- -T -i--t -+- -<- r --t- - --t-----i---+------f- ~ - +--~--- +-_-1___-4-_ I I I 'I I I, ,I' 'I 'I -.-1- I! rT I ' l--t -;--"'~ I ! i I -ti t"'--+++' --- - - - , -t- -i-+- -t-- ~+--t-+-t-- --- -- I' -..- ------,- 1-- I - - 111:1 ,!I,-----:I,'::I+-+ i 1 I I'" T , i '++-r I, >.) "1<',. I, ',i r-j t- I I ,I i<k" ! I I: i,II'..!lJ '7 i I 1 ~ In'l,k 131" i I I i i;/'b 'i i . I ,j } -+- ~_I-' Ii; iJ i ' I <"il.. ~'<~ I ' ! I ',- ~-" i" 1 -,- , I i -4---T : '/:'~" ~ , I I ' I 1 !' J T.LL i i I,. . . - --- . , ~'~ "~ '~r . .,. -- .,<-~ I ! I I I j I i I : i I II;;' STy' - <J ' I I M,Bldg'L2J.XZ5--:::.S1S,- __...J.. .7,..I'rl1 :2D/L Extension r ~~'.~ " 7sl--.-L~.-,-- Extension I;)rrl'~;; ~ i i -J ..1:.':11_ .3 () 'L! 'L 3 ," [ J'J t. Extension [I"' it/. f 7' c 7) / I I ___.._.._.1 i 71 ;S.J... _ili~__..-L So I ' 1 Breezeway L . Gar~=] 5;0 T-'.' , Patio l' I O. B. .1 ',---'-" .TQfa'_.l i 1 ,. , I I , I ROAJ.. Bath / flf' r;/p JJfII .___..l.- I BR,~, K I'll ",-r "" .,.J. , S I dl",<-f' 5f./r, Foundation Floors Porch Q',1 Basement Ext, Walls Interior Finish IIorch Fire Place Heat /Y pr!( (,;,(/2 Rooms 1 st Floor Rooms 2nd Floor SO TyP" Roof Recreation Room Dormer Driveway , -- L /fi~ -3 0 71 ./)1- 7i'f I /7J1./ ."I11III I Dinette I I I iK, lR, DR, SR, FIN, B !