Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
47
SACKS, ~NOLD $47 ~_ NeW Suffolk Avenue .............. Ma_r~h 2_Q; 1958 ~attituck, NY April 3, 1958 DENIED ~rmiss_ign_for ~ la~9~..?a~p-_S/S .... Sound av~u~ ~t~c~_, ~. _ ..... LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Hearing Pursuant to section 267 of the Town Law and the provisions of the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold~ Suffolk County~ N.Y.~ a public hearin~ will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Tww~ of Southold at the Mattituck Fire House~ Pike Street, Mattituck~ N.Y.~ on March 20th 1998~ at 7:30 PM upon the application of Arnold Sacks for a special permit to relocate a labor camp on the South side of Sound Ave. ~ Mattituck~ N.Y. Any person desireing to be heard on the above application should appear at the time and place above specified. Dated March 3, 1998; By order of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold. Howard M. Terry, Building Inspector. Please publish once March 13, 19%8 and forward the affidavit of publication immediately to the Building Inspector. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK--' APPLICATION FOR PERMISSIVE USE APPLICATION NO. /"~' 7 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, N. Y. I, (~D Al:~I. OI,'o ,S. SAG ES.. .................................. of 8.e...w. ..................... Name Street and Number ........... · M.@.~-~--~..~..q.~. ............................................................ ~.9..w.....~..°..-~..~.. .......... Hereby applies to Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS in accordance with the ZONING ORDINANCE Article Sect~Subsection C for the permissive use of the land hereinafter described. It is proposed to remove the present labor camp from the premises North of Sound Avenue to location South of Sound Avenue, as shown on attached map. The reason for the removal is that in August, ~9~6 the applicant sold the premises where the camp is now located to William Chudiak, under an agreement to remove the labor camp within one (~) year. Later a further extension was granted for one year. Applicant believes this is a desirable location since there are no residences within close proximity, and since location is on a level belew~the street level, mhd since the location is at least 900 feet~from Sound Avenue. The Permissive Use is requested because 1, STRICT APPLICATION of the Zoning Ordinance would produce UNDUE HARDSHIP because Z The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared ,by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because 3. The permissive use would observe the spirit of the ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because COUNTY s rrol Iss 7::" Sworn to this ....~.0.t~...da/~of....~.~' .................... 1~8 ~~ Notary Public NO'/ARY PUBLIC, S'IA TE OF NEW YORK No. 52.425908.0 Forln ZB3 FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Examined ........................................ 19 ........ Approved ....... :~ ............................... 19...~ ..... Permit No ............................... Disapproved a/c .............................................................................................. Application No ............................. (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted in duplicate to the Building Inspector. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this location. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the progress of the work. e. No building slTall be odcupied or used in whole or in p art for any purpose whatever until a CertifiCate of Occupancy shall have been. grante~t by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws,.Ordincnces or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or a Iterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described. The appli.cant agrees to comply with oil applicable laws, ordinances a~nS~?~, j/~ //~ 7/~ /J(_Lgi~nature o~~ name, if a 'corporat,on) ..................... .............................. State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. Name of owner of premises ...................~...~.~9.~.c)....J$.,.....S. fl.c..~$. .............................................................................................. If applicant is a corporate, signature of duly authorized officer. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. Map No: ............................................ Lot No: .................... Street and Number .S.q.~.~.. S,~de o~. $.ound ~venue~ Mattituc.k.~ New M.,or~ Municipality 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy ...........~.~D,.d. ....................................................................................................... e oval of farm andnon-fs~m l~bo~ camp to p~rt. b. Intended use and occupancy ..... ~...~. ................................................................................................................... 3. Nature of work (check which ap~qicable): New Building .................... AddimSn .................... Alteration .................... Repair .................... Removal ..... ~. ............ Demolition .................... Other Work (Describe) .................... 4. Estimated Cost .............................................................. Fee ....... .~..?..~.....(..~..0..)....D...o..1..,1.~?..~ ............................................ (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units ............ ~,. ................. Number of dwelling units on each floor ............................ If garage, number of cars ............................................................................................................................................. 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use .............................. 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front....~.0..,,f.~.9..~ ........Rear ...~..0.....f..e..9.~ ......... Depth ......~..~...~..~. ......... Height ............................ Number of Stories ............ D~ .......................................................................................... Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ................................ Rear ................................ Depth .............................. Height .............................. Number of Stories ................................ 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front ............................ Rear ............................ Depth ............................ Height ............................ Number of Stories ............................ 9. Size of lot: Front ............................ Rear ............................ Depth ............................ 10. Date of Purchase ........................................................ Name of Former Owner ........................................................ 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated ...... ~.g~..i.g..u.~.~...t~...?.~...~.n...d....~..s..:i:.d..~.n..~.:Ir...~..1. ...................... 12F 'Does proposed ~CSr~struction'violate ~ny zoning law, ordinance or regulation? .................................................... 13. Name of Owner of premises...~.~.~9.~..d...~.~....S..a...°..k...S. Address ..,~.'g.~.:i..~.14..c.~,.....N..-e.-?...~.-°-I~lllr~ne NO ..................... Name of Architect ........................................................ Address ............................................ Phone NO ..................... Name of Contractor .................................................... Address ............................................ Phone NO ..................... PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and indicate all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give street and block numbers or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or corner lot. It is proposed to remove the present Labor camp from the premises North.of Sound Avenue t~location So~th of ~ound Avenue, as shown on ~tt~che8 m~.p. The reason for the removal is that_in ~ugust, 1956 the applicant sold the premises where the camp is now locate~ to William Chudiak, under an ~greement to ~emove the labor camp within one (1) year. Later a further extension was granted for one year. Applicant believes this is a desirable location since there are no residences within close proximity. ~nd since location is on ~ level below the street level, an~ since the locatzon is at least 900 feet from Sound Avenue. STATE OF NEW YORK, ) S S. COUNTY OF ...~k~.~'.9.],~ ....... ) A~0~I) $,. J~.g.~ ........... ; ....being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Name of individual signbg appli~ati0~) above named. He is the ............. ~ .................................................................................................................. (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) ~f ~aid ewer ar o~ers, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true ~.the ~st of his ~no~dg~nd bel~f; and that the work will be perfo[med n the manner set forth in the application fil~herewit~ ) J/ J / // Sworn tb before me this Not~ Pub c, ~~<. LEGAL NOTICE NO'PICE OF HEARING Pursuant to Section 267 of the Town ]L~w and tile provisions of the Building Zone Ordnance of ~the Town of South- old, Suffol~ County, IV. Y., a public hearing w:ill be held by the Zoning I Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold at the M~ttltuok l~re House, Pike Street, MattltUck, IV. Y., on March ~0th, 195~, at 7:30 P. M. upon the applicaticm, of. /~'nold Sacks for a :sg~l~l ~e~mit ta re. locate a laJbor camp on the 8outit side of ~ound Ave., Mat- titnsk, I~T. ¥. Any person ~esiring ta be heard cn the' above application should appear at the th~e and place above specified. Dated M~h 3 I958. By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold. I Howard M. Terry, Building Inspoctor COUNTY OF SUFFOLK [ss. STATE OF NEW YORK! Frederick C. Hawkins, being duly ,~worn, says that he is the owner and publisher of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER - MATTITUCK WATCHMAN, a public news- paper printed at Southoid, in Suffolk Caunty; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Zraveler-Mottituck Watch- man once each week for ..£,~;::~..: ......... i........{., weeks successively, commencing on the *' - ' day of ./.,¢.Z.<..~ .......... ~,; ....... 19..;;..'.. / Sworn to before me this ....... ,. .... : ........ day of . ...r:~/...f./..4..(.i,f~i./.~.,. 1 9..~;...' Notary Public MEMORgNDUM Cal. No. 820-5126153 SUPI:~ME COURT: SUFFCLK COUNTY In the ivlatter of the ,pplication of ,'~ RN()LD S. S,' CKS, SPECI,5 L TERM HILL J. 5. C. D,:~ted June 9, 19511 Petitioner, : -against- : ROBERT W. GILLESPIEo JR., ROBERT BERGEN, HERBERT ROSENBERGo CH~.RLES GRIGCNLS, JR. and SERGE D©Y?N, JR., constituting the Board of ,~ppeals of the Town of Southold, Respondents. Respondents have appeared specially to contest the jurisdiction of the Court in this proceeding on the ground that service was improperly made upon the Board of pptmls. Motion granted and petition dismissed. Service was not made as required by sec. 1289, Civil Practice ,~ct. J. S. C. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:SUFFOLK COUNTy In the Matter of the Application of : ~HNOLD S. SACKS, Petitioner, -against- : ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR. 0 ROBERT BERGEN, : HERBERT ROS~NBERG, CH ~RLES GRIGONIS, JR. and SERGE DOYANt JR., constituting the Board : of ~ ppeals of the Town of Southold, ............ Respondents. RESPONDENTS' MEMORANDUM This is a proceeding under Article 7§ of the Civil i:~ractice .~'~ct to review the decision of the Board of ~,,ppeals of the Town of Southold which den/ed the application of the petitioner for permission ~o establish a labor camp. The respondents, cbnstituting the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold appear specially herein solely to object to the Court,s jurisdiction over said Board upon the ground that the Service of the petition and notice of motion herein upon said Board was insufficient. Copies of the petition and notice oi motion Were Served Upon the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold and upon one member of the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold. Section 1289 of the Civil Practice Act provides:- Section 1289. Notiee of ~pplicatinn; service. ' ~,t least eight days' notice in writing of an application for relief under th~s article shall be served upon the respondent, unless a shorter time is prescribed by an order to show cause granted by the court to which application Is made or a judge thereof. copy of the petition and accompanying papers shall be served with the notice or order to show cause. Service shall be made m the m~nner provided for the personal service of a summons in an action, unless a different manner of service is provided by the order to show cause. Service on a court consisting of three or more judges may be made by serving a rn__-jority of them. I_f_.th~e respondent is a board or commission havin~/ a chairman or other prestdin~ officer~ secretary si" cierk; b~, t whatever ,official itle h? is ,called~ service upon one of the la. iier in~[Viduals shall' be sufficient; otherwise, service shall b_e_made.?.pon a m~jo. rit~ of the members of the board or '" comr~eston. '~ (emphasis supplied) This is a special proceeding and the procedure prescribed by the Civil Practice ~ct must be followed. The service of the petition upon the persons specified by Section 1289 of the Civil Practice ~ct is a pre- requisite to the commencement of this proceeding. The failure to effect proper se~vice upon the Board of Appeals does not brin{~ it within the Juri~diction of t'he Court, nor does the Cou~obtain Jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding. It is not ~ m~:re irre2~larity or defect whica may be corrected as contended by the petitioner. I,evine v. L en_dj~, 176 Misc. 402:~6 lq. Y. S. 2d 775. Petitioner's contention that service upon the Building Inspec~cr was service upon the'tClerk, by whatever o/'flcial title he is called", no merit. The Building hmpector is not a secretary or clerk of the Board of ~ppeals. He has no connection whatsoever with the Board of >,ppeals either officially or unofficially, nor is he in charge of the office of the Board of Appeals. In fact, the Comptroller of the State of New York has held that the offices of town building and zoning inspector and secretary of the Board of Appeals are incompatible. (Cp. State Compt. File No. 1112, 1957) In a case similar to the case at bar where a notice of claim against a board of education was not served as required by statute, the Court of Appeals stated:- ~'/~ reversal would be justified in this case only if the court were to i~nore the plain core, sand of the applicable statutes that the essential notice of claim must be served upon a 'member of the board of education. * * * (a) trustee, or the clerk thereof', Civ. Prac. ,;,ct, Section 228, subd. 6; General Municipal Law, Section 50-e. C,on.c.ede,d!}f,, there was a complete failure to ohs}, or comply with that mandate. "Mrs. Hardy, with whom the paper was left, was neither a member of the board of education nor Vthe clerk' of that board. ' * * * * "Desirable though relaxation of statutory provisions relating to service _n~_my appear, to avoid a seemingly harsh reeult, the court~ ands licit r uirements gro- omed b the , when rovidi that certain defects on the face of the notice itself could he rectified was careful to e'~clude the ccrrectton of .... ion of an}, irre~ul,.arity 'per- raining to the m=nner * * * of Service thereof'.' (emphasis supplied) Munroe v. Booth, 305 N.Y. 426. The petitioner lays great stress upon the point that his attorney was advised that the matter would be brought to the attention of the Board pf Appeals and. therefore, the Board had notice of the proceeding. In .,Ro~rs v. VilLage of P~rt Chester,, 234 N. Y. 182, the Court of ~ppeals answered such a contention as follows:- "Each claim is addressed to and was filed with the Village Clerk. The plaintiffs neglected to present their claims to the President or Treasurer of the village. It is not for the court to say that the village officials had actual knowledge of the clat~n~, that the failure to present them to the proper officer was unprejudicial to the defendant, or that technicalities should not be allowed to defeat a meritorious claim." and at page 187, 'The court has no dispensing power. Its duty is ended when it determines that the valid, indispensable preliminaries to the maintenance of these actions have been om/tted." The two cases cited by petitioner have no bearing upon the question before the cou~t, In F.o..x v.. A..da. ms, 206 Misc. 236, 132 N. Y.$. 2d 560, all that was decided was that a building inspector is a party aggrieved by a determination of the Board of Appeals and may maintain a proceeding to review a determination of said board. In fact, this decision recognizes that the building inspector is an official separate and apart from the Board of ,~ppeala. The case of _Ma. tter of Lake Mahopac Heilihts, Inc. et al v. a0nin{ Board of Apl~ea,le of the Town of Carmel,~t al, 278 ,~. D. 779, 103 N. Y.S. 2d 950 cited by petitioner does not hold that failure to properly serve the petition on respondents was a mere irregularity which could be disregarded. The opinion of the court clearly states that "the papers were served upon respondents more than eight days before the return day. ' Thus, there is no question about proper service upon the respondents. What the court stated was that the papers them- selves and not the service thereof upon the respondents were irregular and defective. ~'ur the above reasons, respondents submit that the purported service of the petition herein upon said Board was insufficient and res- pectfully pray that the same be vacated and set ~side. .Respectfully subrnitted, t~obert ~. Tasker, :ttorney for Respondents BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT, ARNOLD S. SACKS WILLIAM WICKHAM Attorney at Law Mattituck, New York BEI~ORB THE BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT, ARNOLD S. SACKS The applicant has petitioned the Board of Appeal of the Town of Southold for permission to move his labor camp from one part of his former property to another section of his farm, each being located in the same use ~'~' District, It remains uncontradicted the applicant will physically move the present barracks to another location. It is like- wise undenied that the suggested new location will be almost entirely concealed from the road by reason of the contour of the property; moreover, that it is about 1,000 feet from the nearest home. At the open hearing conducted by this Board the facts adduced convincingly established that admitting th~ need for a labor camp, the suggested location was the best possible one that could be obtained. Ail matters considere~ the applicant has also advised the Board that he is perfectl~ willing to abide by all reasonable rules and regulations imposed by the Board as a condition to the granting of approval. He has further undertaken the expense of install lng and bringing equipment and lines from the road, so that utilities could be brought to the Camp. At the hearing, many appeared to object to the removal of the Camp; others in the immediate vicinity of its present location favored removal so as to place the Camp away from their present homes. In addition, a brief has been submitted objecting to the jurisdiction of this Board to allow the present application. We address ourselves first to the personal state ments expressed as to the undesirability of a l~or camp. We are sure that no one particularly likes the thought of a labor camp near his home. But that is no answer to the problem. Nor should this Board be swayed by wel~intended sentimental expressions. The applicant serves a serious business need in this community. The warehouse at Mattituck employing the migrant laborers does business with 75 farmers P~ch as one would perhaps like to employ laborers who per- manently reside in the immediate vicinity or whose education or moral qualifications are higher, the simple bare fact is that such are completely unavailable. No answer has as yet been found to this problem of supplying labor to grade potatoes and until it has been found, business cannot be permitted to stagnate, just to satisfy the desires of person who are not directly affected in the potato business. A denial of approval by this Court would result in serious financial distress to the firms serviced by the Mattituck wa house and further depress the already existing business recession. We are sure that, if the people who have petitioned the Board or spoken against the proposed re- location of the labor camp, were themselves directly affecte~ business-wise, that their ~pposition would cease. It is simple to arouse community opposition on general grounds, but the undisputed business need remains. This Board specifically requested any one present at the hearing to substitute another location for the present desired site, bu~ none was forthcoming. We, therefore, submit, that person~ anti-labor camp feeling must of necessity be subservient to the more prevalent and important business need of the farmers. Without migrant labor help, their business would be completely ruined and before long the concomitant chain reaction would be felt by the familities of the very persons who are now so strong and strident in their opposition. The very fact that labor camps do exist in Suffolk County an~ are especially mentioned in the zoning ordinances is the bes proof of their necessity. The existence of labor camps is community necessity, until some substantional solution is found. The opposition founded on jurisdictional groundE - 3 has no merit. A reading of the brief submitted in support of such position makes it quite evident that the protagonist of such claim is floundering amidst various portions of the Ordinance to find justification for his position. No or- dinance has as yet been drawn in any community which can in precise and definitive language, outline every possible contingency. Nor are words to be seized upon and held up az illustrative of a meaning, completely unintended by the framers. At the hearing, this Board clearly and concise] found that the proposed new location was embraced within the "A~' Residential and Agricultural District. Under S~ction subd. 7, accessory buildings and subd. 8, which provides for "uses customarily incidental to any of the above uses" are enumerated. Moreover, Section 300 contains the following exception: "unless otherwise provided in this Ordinance". The Chairman of this Board expressed his views at the open hearing as to the intent and purpose of the Ordinance and the results desired to be achieved. The very fact that Section lO03a specifically relegates to the Zoning Board of Appeals the right to grant approval of labor camp locations and this application has been particularly made to this Board by reason thereof and the very fact that this Board has already had two public hearings is a sufficient Y 00, indication of its belief that jurisdiction exists. Moreover, while the brief submitted refers to "additional proof" that will be submitted at the open hearin and the socialogical reasons involved, no such proof has been presented. Not a single reason has been submitted to rebut the clear business need presented by the applicant personally. We therefore submit that the petition should be granted upon prescribed terms and conditions. Raspectfutly submitted, WILLIAM WICKHAM Attorney for Arnold S.Sac] SUPRZME CO __R_T_Or STATS OF NEW YORK . ~J~JUN?y OF SUFFOLK /n the Matter of the ~Pplicatlon : ,. : ROBERT W. G/X, LISPIE, JR., ROBERT RER . : HERBERT RO~BN GEN PLEASE TAK~ NOT/CE ttmt the r~o~dentm P, OBI~R~FW. and SERGE ~YAN. JR., ~fltut~ ~e 8~d app~r ~1~ he~ solely to ~r ~d ~rd u~ the ~ ~t ~ eeoce m~ b~ u~ ~d ~ ~a ~l~ent. Campbell & Hills , ~ttorne~e tm* Petitioner Of~ee ami Poee Otfi~e Add~eae 140 Naeoau Street Boro~h of Manhattan City of' New York Poi)eft W. ?asker Attorney for Reopondento Appeariuf SPOclall2 for the Office and Post Office Addree. 4~ Matu Street Greenport, N.Y. BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE ~TTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ARNOLD S. SACKS FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND PERMISSIVE USE MEMORA~[DUM IN ~,PPOSITION STANLEY ~. CORWlN BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS~ TOWN 0F SOUTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF HRNOLD S. SACKS FOR A BUILDI~G ~ERMIT A~D PERMISSIVE USE MEMORANDUM IN ©PPOSITIO!!~ STATE~J~!{T This memorandum is submitted on behalf of Anthony and Mary PylKo, of Middle ~oad, Mattituc~, New YorE, and others, in opposition to the ~pplication set forth ia the above title. The o~jectors are referred to herein as the respondents. THE APPLICATIONS ApParently two spplieations are before the Board. Ther~ Was filed, on behalf of Mr. Sacks~ aa appl~cstion for a ~uilding permit dated January 30, 19~8. An applic~tion for permissive use, n~mbered ~? and dated March 3, 19~5, was acknowledged January ~0, 19~8. Bot~ deal with the same premises. The respondents understand that action oa the ~uildiag permit has been deferred by the b~ildiag inspector or referred to the ~oard of Appeals for consideration simul- taneously with the application for permissive use. The respondents are by no means sure that the Board of appeals is considering the application for a b~ildi.ag permit but would point out~ if that shoul~ prove to he the case, that the application is incomplete in that the owner fails to set forth sufficient facts on which the building inspector could properly maXe a determination or graat a ~:ermit. THE FACTS Assuming (for the sake of argument and without conced- i.ng) that the facts set forth ia the application for permissive use are true, it would appear that this application can be construed only as an application for permission which is specifically prohiOited by the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance~ The statement is made that the applicant formerly owned premises north of Sound Avenue, in Mattituck, on which was located a labor camp. These premises were sold to a third party. Apparently as a part of the sale transaction there was an agreement that the labor camp would be removed within one year, a limitation which was later exteaded for a similar period. Implicit in the applicant's statement is the assumptio~ that the camp has been continued. If that is so, it is to be presumed that when the zoning ordinance took effect there ex- isted o~ premises owned by William Chudiak, north of Sound Avenue at Mattituck, a labor camp which as of that time, constituted a non-conforming use. The intended use of premises, as set forth i~ the ap- plication for the building permit reads, "Removal of farm and non-farm labor camp to part". Seemingly it is sought to convey the impression that the applicant is merely moving one aspect of his operation from one part of his own farm to another. The section set forts in the application for permissive use oalies that interpretation, however, and the applicant states that he sold, in ~ugust, 1956, that part of the farm north of Sound Avenue on which the lsbor camp was situated. THE NATURE QF THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE A?~LfCANT In the light of his own statements it is difficult to regard these applications as anything other than reqmest for permission to erect in or remove to an "A" district, a ~ilding~ the use of which is not permitted in such a district. The Board of ~ppeals ~as no jmrisdictioa to entertain or pass on such aa application. THE I~AW The respondents recognize that t~e members of the Board of Appeals are ~ho~ughly familiar with t~e zoning ordi~nance but for the purpose of relating the respondents, argument to the facts, pertinent sections of it are set forth. First, ordinaace sets safety~ morals mu~ity. it should be noted that the preface to the forth that it is ~to promote the health, and general welfare" of the people of the com- The conservation of property values is stated as 4 being one element the law. Article article is any ~eed, is. to be given consideration in interpr~tating I sets forth definitions. !~owhere in that definition given for a labor camp, nor, in- for any type of building such as a labor camp generally Section 202 in Article II states "~o building shall be erected, altered or used, and no premises shall be used for any other than a purpose permitted 2n the zone in which such b~ilding or premises is located." Article III, ~300, sets forth the uses which are permitted in an "A" district. The use such as is complicated by these applications is not permitted by that section. If, therefor, the Board of Appeals has any authority or jurisdic- tion to act on and grant the applications it must be fousd elsewhere in the law as a specific grant of power.. If a labor camp use is to ce granted under the zoning ordinance permission therefor can be found only in Article V which has to do with the "C" industrial distr]st. Section 500 reads as follows: "In the C industrial district, all buildings and premises, except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, may be used for any use except the following ~ ~ ~". Then fo±low 45 numbered specific exceptions. In connection with three of the exceptions, numbers 1, 17 and 34, which have to do respectively with abattoirs; garbage, ofi'al or dead animals, reduction or dumping; and stockyards and slaughter houses, it is indicated that special exceptions may be made by the Board of Appeals. The sectioa ends with the phrase, "And in general those uses which are authorized as a special exception by the Board of Appeals as herein- after ~rovi~ed." Since labor camps are not specifically in the exceptions it follows that thay may Be permitted ia an iadustrial distr~ct. Siace in iaterpertiag aay law it must be read as a whole to determine its ~ntent, we should ~efer again to ~202. ~eference at this stage to t~at section leads us inevitably to the coaclusion that s labor camp may not be permitted under any existing ordiaance in an "A" district. The powers of the Bo~r~ of Appea±s are set forth in Article VIII. In connection with special except~oas its powers ere fouad in ~01-C. A careful reading of ~hat section cleverly i~icates that there are insta,~ces in which the ~oard of Appeals has original jurisdictioa and that applic~tioa may be made to it in the first iastaace in cases "whenever a use, o~ the locatioa thereof, is permieted only if the ~oard of Appeals shall approve thereof ~ ~ ~". Once again, readiag the ordinance as a whole, it is obvious that this original jurisdiction applies only to the 3 exceptions set forth in ~00, to whic~ reference has ~eea made hereiaabove. Forms entitled "Applicstion for ~ermissive [~se" have Oeen prepared an~ a~e supplied to applicants. Their p~raseology admits of ao apalication othe~ taan to Article VI~! subsection c, since that is set forth ia the printed portion of the form. Admittedly, in Article X, there are some provisions that permit '~special exceptions" to be granted by the Board of Appeals. Section 1002, having to do with billboards in "A" districts, §100~, having to do with public parking places', are examples of iusta~ces of where the Board has jurisdiction of this type. Forms entitled "Application for Special Ex- ception'', are provided for use in these instances. It should be noted that t~e present application is made on an "Application for ~ermissive Use" blat the reference to Article VI!I, §~01, subsection c is crossed out and reference to ~lO03a is typed in. Section 1003a reads as follows: ~Ai! labor camps where zrovision is made for the aousing and feeding of transient help regardless of the number to be ac- commodated, shall first ~eet all require- ment of existing law. Far~ labor camps on farms shall not be located nearer to any other residence than t(; the residence of the employer except as a special ex- ception by the Board of Appeals. The location of any other labor cam~ or camps not on farms shall be subject to the ap- proval of the Zoning Board of ~ppeals." The application in the of t~e ordinance light of the foregoing sections is .now discussed. THE RESPO~fDE~T.S POSITION We have noted before the absence of s definition with respect to the term "labor camps". Section lO03a last above set forth, refers to such camps "where provision is made for the housing and feeding of tmnsient help". The respondents believe that the camp which ~as previously been maintained by the applicant is not of that type; that he does not as a general rule supply help regularly to other farmers; that the men who have been living in the camp at its present or former lo~ation, north of Sound Avenue, were laborers who worked only on the applicant's farm or in connection with his grading operations. Tae section pursuant to which the applicant appears to Oe ~akiag an application and seeking relief contains no statement granting the Board jurisdiction to establish a new lebor camp in other than an industrial district. The second sentence of that section is, if a~ything, a further restriction. It must be construed as follows: if a farm is located in an i~dustrial district~ a labor camp may ~e established thereon only i£ the nearest residence is that of the employer except as a sMecial excep- tion by the Boar~ of Appeals. In other words, if an applicant wis~ed to establish a labor camp on his own farm, assuming in the first instance that it is ~n aa industrial district, and place it ia such a location that it w~s nearer to the residence of a third party than his own, he could properly come before this Board and apply for a special e~ception. That is not the case here for two reasons: 2. The last the applicant does not reside on the farm; the premises are .not in an industrial district. sentence of the section which reads, "The location of a~y otaer labor cam~ or camps not on farms shall be subject to the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals", cannot be construed to extend either the ordinance or the Board's jurisdiction; r~ther, once again, it is a restric- tion and can only be pro~,erly construed to mean that even in an industrial district there is a general right to erect a labor camp but that if one is located other than on a farm its location must have the affirmative approval of the Boardl of Appeals. Only by an interpretation more than strained can it be reasonably a~ued t~at this ~1003a grants any authority to the ~5oard of Appeals to permit a labor camp in an "A'' dis- trict. C0]~CLU$ION The Board of Appeals lacks statutory authority to entertain the pending sp~licetion and is wholly without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the applicant. A ruling to that effect should be made, tee application should be denied. Respectfully submitted, Stanley S~ Corwin~ Attorney ~or ~ne' ~espondents. BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF S©UTH©LD IN THE M~,TTER OF T~E APPLICATIO~ OF ARNOLD S. SACKS FOR A BUILDI~IG PERMIT AND PERMISSIVE U~E This further memorandum is prepared in the ever:t the Boerd rejects the respondents'@grument with respect to its jurisdiction and holds that it can properly entertain the application. In that case the Bosrd will ~e acting on a discre- tionary matter. How it should exercise that discretion will be a proper subject for discussion at the hearing. Anticipating matters that may be raised, and by way of summing up appropriate matters that will u~douOtedly oe presented, this ~rief is submitted. Certainly it will not be gainsaid t~at approFriate m~tters for the Board's r~view are the several considera- tions set forth in Article VIII, ~801C. The mst~ers there set ~orth are ia the ~ature of standards for the guidance of the Board with respect to any interpretation of the zoning ordinance. It is pertinent to review the things to which the ~oard should give co~sideration in ma~iag discretionary determinations. There are 12 in number, many of which are appropriate to the pending appiicatioa. ~'irst is the character of existing and Fro~able development of uses in the district in general and the neighborhood in particular. There will be introduced at the hearing~ testimony which will show that the area where The labor cam~, is sought to be located is generally devoted to farming, tt is not built up or densely populated. The proposed development, however, is another story as tre~ds clearly indicate. Doubt- less the pro~osed development will be somewhat different if the application were to be graate~ but if present indica- tions can be projected~over the next few years it seems reasonable to conclude That there w~ll be considerable more residential development ia this area. Reasonable men may very well ~iffer about tae area of influence that a labor camp affects. T~ose in f~vor of the camp are inclined to restrict it. Those opposed are inclined to agrue that its iaflmence is felt considerable distance away from its loca- tion. While aoone has a right to state categorically that the people w~o will be ~oused in Mr. Ssc~s' l~bor camp will be other t~an considerate, law-abidia~ citizens, reason and com~oa sense based on our experience with these ~stablish- merits justify t~e conclusion that untoward incidents arising out of t~ese operations occur st considerable distances from them. With that thought in mind, it is not unreasonable to consider the proximity of the develo~meat aroun~ tae nearby Mattituck Lake, t~e nearness to camps Malloy and Immaculatta with sco~es of children of tende~ age roaming abo~t, and the establishment in the vicinity rece~tly of several new dwellings. Certainly aooae womld object to tae Board tsking administrative notice that the reel estate market has bee~ very active in Mattituc~, subdivisions are being developed nearby, particularly ia t~e su~mertime~ the influx of ~acationists is oa the increase. More and more farms are being ta~e~ out of ~roduction. This particular area is on a much traveled secondary highway near an intersection with a by-pass of Mattituc~ and it is not u~reasoaable to venture t~at it is the logical place for a future residential development branching out of the now crowded Mattituck municipal area. than O~e would be grossly less/candid if he were ~ot to admit that the location of this camp i~ that area could have a d~trous effect upon that ~art~cular development. The second matter that the .~oard is directed to con- sider by the standards is "The conservation of ~roperty valmes and the e~courageme~t of the most appropriate uses of land." ?rankness necessitates the obversation that tha conservation of property values does not flow I~ro~ the establishment nearby of labor camps and if that were t~e sole criteria for denying an application, it would maXe impossible the locatio~ of such a camp anywhere ia the Town. There are~ sub- however,/marginal areas in the Town; there are places where the values of adjacent property would be less adversely af- fected vhan would be the case in the vicinity where this proposed comp would locate. It would be ~ifficult to im- agine this Board granting a ~ermit for the era~tion of a labor camp anywhere in the Township where property values would be more grossly affected than in the neighborhood in question. It would require the exercise oi~ a warpe~ im- agination to sincerely allege that the most ap~ropriate uses of land would be encouraged Oy granting the application in t~e locality where its establishment is sought. Thirdly, the Board is directed to ~iive consideration to the effect of vehicular traffic. The respondents do not ~gue that there would be any undue increase in vehicular traffic. It is pointed out, however, that it is a matter of common Knowledge that the transient workers who reside in labor camps are prone to walk along the highway nearby to and from town; there are no sidewalks in t~is area; the highway is becoming more traveled almost daily; there is no proper walking place other than on the traveled portion of the road and that is relatively narrow, considering t~e existing traffic. The next item for the Board's consideration has to do with sewage and inasmuch as the establish?ent of a camp re- quires permits from County authoritJes who take s~ecial pains ~ee t~at proper sanitary conditions are maintained, that mat- ter will not be argued here. Similiarly since we are not concerned with industrial uses or in~e~'eran~ with public parking or recreational facilities the next ~ items the Board is required to consider are passed over. Whetaer we may be concerned with any hazards because of fire or because of ti~e inaccessibility of the property or s~ructures thereon for the convenient entry and operation of fire and o~aer emergency apparatus is difficult to determine, because of t~e absence of any specifications of the structure to re located on the subject ~rem~se. [~adoubt- edly the ~roposed distance of 900 feet from the main road will not help in this respect. If, as is generally ~he case with labor camps, tills s~ould be a frame ~tructure with dormitory-type slee~ in~ accommodations, and space heaters for ~eating purposes, there will be aa exposure to fire danger greater than normal. One would have no wish to denigrate the the ~owner by attributing to his camp/~eneral re~utation o~' labor camps as regards fire safety and by arbitrarily assuming that this one w~ll be no better tha~ average, but the board would be less t~an realistic if it did not seriously consider tmat the comOiaation of factors here presen~ might very definitely create a serious hazard to life and property because of t~e fire ds nger. The ~oard is also obliged to inquire waether t~e strmcture to be used will cause an overcrowding of land or mndue concentration of population. Regarded oa the ~ssis of per capita ~er s~uare mile there are probaOly few p-aces in the Township where there is less overcrowding. ~evertheless~ this is an inherent difficulty which any well-drawn zoning ordinance seeks to eliminate. Where there is to be such a multiple use of a frame structure as is reasonably to be contemalatedin this instance, while the Board may have a right to assume that it will have proper policing to insure t~at standards imposed by the multiple residence and other laws will be upheld, that should not De seized u~on as an excuse to lose sight of the fact that once these csmps are established there is a tendency to overcrowd and a condition is thereOy caused on a temporary basis which cannot adequately be policed - the damage being done before proper administrative act ion can be taken. Subdivision C of the section we are considering un- doubtedly gives the Board the right to impose such conditio.ns and safeguards as it may deem appropriate, necessary or desirable to preserve and protect the spirit and objectives of the zoning ordinance. It could, as a condition for grant- ing permission for any kind of a labor camp, reasonably, and without causing an undue financial hardship to an applicant, demand the erection of a structure which would tend to pro- m~te other than the substandard living conditions which seem to be inherent i~~ the frame d~itory type labor camp str~cture. Taking all Boar~ of Appeals before giving approval that of these allowances into consideration, the shall, under the zoning ordinanoe, determine "the use will Oe in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of" the ordins.nce, "the safety, the health, the welfare, tae comfort, the convenience or the order of the ?own will .not be ad- versely affected by the proposed use and its loestion't; "the use will not prew:nt the adjacent property", and, customary ~nd reasonable established uses." T~e melee enumeration customary and reasonable ~]se of the that "the usa will not prevent t~e use of permitted or regularly of the considerations the Board is directed to consider seem inevitably to u~hold t~e conclusions set I'orth in the first ~art of this memorandum with respect to the l~w, namely, that it was t~e intent of the l~wma~ing body to restrict labor camps to indusl:rial districts. That is so for the obvious reason that any board exercising discretionary powers would be hard put not to abuse its discretion if it were to ~rant an app±Jcation of t~e nature ~ere applied for. A favor~Ole ~etermination would re- quire an ostrich-li~e complex which bas ~o Flace in a ooard where oojectivity should be the rule. A statement made in ~.he application is indicative of the realization that this camp will be an eyesore both literally and figuravively. The application reads. "Applicant believes this is a desirable loca- tion since there ~re no resido~ces witain close proximity and since the lo~ation is on a level Oelow the street level and since the iccat]oo is at least 900 feet from !~oun~ ~veaae." 8 P~t another way, the applicant is admitting t~at here is to be a sit~ation that should be fsr removed from residences, a ~uildiag that will not bear visual obserYaticn and one that should be located a considerable distance Prom any puOlic aighway. The respondents c~te these in~ere~,t omlss of t~e ap~lica.nt as further Peasen for denial of the relief sought. CO~CLUSIOU The application should be denied. !~espectfully submitted, Stanley S. CoPwin, Attorney for the Respondents. April 28, 1958 Dear Mr. Tasker: Enclosed is ~ copy of the transcript of testimony taken at the hearing on April 3rd, application of Arnold S. Sacks~ which was requested by Mr. Sacks' attorney, Mr. William Wickham. Very truly yours, Grac~e B.B .~Meve~~' eyer elmdmtm If. &dill ir %dmlm~kmmmmmm~lmm~hm{hmmba _ .~, a .m~ u Lm ~mmm[ mhd ,dn~ tm u, dd mm, tm ~, bm m :lmdm' emi, mm- ms mmnmo, wo do m ,Umm~ lmlmm, ~mmmlm ~iiim% i! tmki~ i 'alUm ~m adhere t~ th, wtabm ed' ethmrm smm~ nmd~. ~w msmtldm, it made, t,~m .~k. x smmm~ ~ ~ Southold Town Board MainRoad $outhold} Mee York Oentle~en{ This ia to eertify that the followiag aetion was taken by the Southold Town Board off Appeals on April 10~ 1958. The Board of Appeals reoor~ends to the ?c~nBoard that the fee off $~00, whieh aoeompanied the Building Per, i% applioatiom ~ade by Arnold $. Saeke of New ~uffolk I~ne~ ~attituek~ N. Y.~ be refanded to ~r. Sacks as his appeal for Pemiseive use of the land in question has been denied. ?cry truly yours~ R. ~, 6illispie, Jr. Chairman SO~OL~ ~ ~O~RD OF APPEALS ~WOJrsgm TOWN OF SOUTHOt. D, NEW ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal I'qo /,? Dated [~ll. rllh 3 19~li~ ACTION OF THE ZON!NG BOARD OF APPEALS OFTOWN OF SOUTHOLD qr . mee'Hng cf the Zonin0 Board of Appeals on Ap~lZ ~ 19~ wes cmside~ed end the cdion indicated below was token on yaur Reques: for ~ar~nce due to lack of access to property Request for ~ s~ecio[ permit ander fl~e Zoning Ordinance Reques~ fo- c; v~H~nce to the Zonin~ Ordinance Appe ant the appeal SPECIAL PEg/V T By resolution of the Board it wes determined that a pew a a(rmt , ) be g nn~eJ i:' dcnied pursuant to Article ................... Section .... Subse ticn oa~og~sph cF the Zoning Ordinance, end the decision ~f the Building Inspector ~: V/~'R!XtN~['t[ ~:" ,{solutlcn of the Bo_nr(~ it was determined that created (is) (is not) unic~u( end (woulcl) (would n)t) be shared by ZONING l'c'x ~ -,.RD o~t~ by ~ ~p~yer or ~plOyOre o~ ~ ~ TM ~ of ~ &~lX~t lw ~t ~ the l~ for 3e ~t ~ ~mc~r off ~ ~llt~ a~ ~ble devolo~t of O:raae B. ~e~r Seere~r~ cc: Mr. R. W. Tasker , LAW OFFICES WILLIAM WICKHAM MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND NEW YORK MATT. 9' 8331 April 10, 1958 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, New York Gent lemen: In my letter of April 8, 1958 enclosing the memorandum I neglected also to forward you the letter from the Police Department, which I herewith enclose. WW;bs encl. Very cordially yours, Grace B. Neyer ~ U. fo.,_:,~ CountyI ss: Office of the Clerk of the TOWN OF .~ .o.g~.hg.l.d. ....... (SEAL) Town Clerk Certificate No. 439. Published by Williamson Law Book Co., Rochester, N* Y. This is to certify that I, .~.a~.p~...~ ........... ~o..~h ........................ , Town Clerk of the Town of........~.:~.tt.I~2.O.~.~ ................. In the said County of...~..~.l:O.~. ........................... have compared the foregoing copy ~f~!j.i.~.~¥j.~.e.~.s.~2~.P-.~..a..~:r~.~...~.~..A.~).~.a.)~ with the original now on file in this office, and that the same is a correct ~ilnutes and true transcript of such original ..................................................................................................... and the whole thereof. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the M - seal of said Town this........[.~; .................... day of .......... ~.~ .......................... 19.....~[~.. f So~tho~? d ' Town Clerk of the Town o ........................ : ....................... ~: ........................................................................... S eo · _ u,f lk County, N.Y. FOR BEST CROP RESULTS USE BAUGH'S Premium Plant Food AND Soil Builder A GROWJ#G ~ee~ e~e~he~e WESTERN UNI ON I0 JD L0a Amgelee 0alif April 4th IIS£ma Ralph Zooth Tewn Clerk Town Of Southold NY Juat reoe~ved tnfo rmatiom oonoerning Saohe ~ropoaed Sound AVenUe building we expresm atron~.opposttton. Ma~y Preeper Madeletne Ward. Cant/) Momon'eta .Jim Mul~ihill. Director Lttttrt'! Lak ', /] tltiltt£k, Lon, Is~ami Re: -- Proposed Labor Camp Mr. Ralph Booth Town Clerk Southold, N.Y. April 2, 1958 Dear ~r. Booth: A short time ago, it was brought to our attention the possibility of a labor camp within the vicinity of our boys camp° Handling sons of professional people, we are constantly aware of the enormous responsibility our position entails. Re this line, we do not consider it feasible to sanction a situation that might produce even one person who may corrupt the morels of o~lr ca, pars. Nay we also mention that we have adhered to the wishes of the commun2~y of Southold Town on numerous occasions as re laws and the like because that is the duty of every citizen. However, we consider it Just as important to adhere to the feelings of the majority, especially when it effects their environment, solely because these people have the pulse of the community in their grasp and no one person or business should have the right to under- ~i~e same. Would you, therefore, consider this letter as a fo~ of protest against the estsblishment of a labor camp at the proposed site in Mattituck? THanking you for any consideration you might give the above, I remain, JN/ab Very truly yours, ulvlhill C!INA D. tC~RT F. O?,E%iEiCH P.O. BOX 2?4 ~TTITUCK, L.i. , k~rch 22, 1958 )fr. Howard M. Terry, Juilding Insnector Zoning Board of APpeals of tbs To¥~n of Southold, Southold, L,I., N. Yo Dear }~. Terry: We read in the ~~per your L~gal Notice about a public hearing held by your Board at the l~ttituck Fire House on ~arch 20th,, but unfortunately we both were unable to attend, my wife on account of the heavv snowstorm and I on account of several heavy hear~ attacks in the past 6 ynars, which prohibits my going to any meetings or large aesemblies~ Since we are only about 150 feet away from the present location of the labor camp, you can readily understand that we are most interested in this matter and, therefore, wish to mspectfully notify you, that we would very much appreciate, if your Board would kindly decide in favor cf the a~plicatio~ of Arnold Sacks for a special permit to relocate his labor cam~ on the South side of Sound Ave, ~Jattituck, N.Y.. This new location would be much more appropriate and sensible f~r a labor cam~ than the present one, since it will be far enough e. way from all Mattituckians' residential homes and at the same time would restore the 100~ residential section of Tollewood to par again, which suffered great property value loss since the placement of the present camp. Numerous city people in the last few years, who were interested in this neighborhood have been sc~red a~ay from here solely due to the nearness of the labor cam~ and thus the safety of their wives, children ~nd families. remain, Thanks for your earnest consideration in this matter, we Sider ely you~ March 26, 1958 ~r. }%alph l~ooth Town Clerk Southold, M.Y. Dear Mr. Rooth: please consider this letter a formal protest against the proposed action of the Southold Town Zoning Board to grant permission to ~krnold Sachs to erect a labor camp on thc Souih side of Sound ~ve., ~!atti- tuck, adjacent to my property. Let it be known that my voice is one of many in this vacinity that is ob- jecting to the proposed invasion of such a fha~ you for any assistance you may render. i~,o st sincerely, 10 Calais Court Rockville Centre, New York March 29th, 1958 Ralph Booth, Esq. Town Clerk Southold, Long Island, New York Dear Sir: With regard to the petition of Arnold Sachs for a vari- ance of the zoning laws, to permit him to construct a "labor camp" upon property owned by him and located on Sound Avenue, Mattituck, on the south side of the Avenue and in the immediate vici~yof Laurel Lake: (lo) Mr. Sachs does not maintain a residence upon the property, and therefore enjoys no exemption from the regulations. (2o) To those of us who dc maintain residences in the Laurel Lake area, the introduction of a c~.~..ercial establishment of the type contemplated by the petitioner wouldrepresent a seri- ou~ deterioriation of property values. (3o) A "labor camp" previously owned and operated by the same petitioner having been generally reputed to be a public nuis- ance, f~rther aggravated by a lack of sufficient sanitary facilities, another such installation under the same management can hardlybe viewed as desirable to the village of Mattituck. (4.) Not only is Laurel Lake the site of two highly rep- utable summer camps for boys, the majority of us who own property adjacent to the lake have young children or grandchildren. The par- ents of all these children, both residents and summer campers, go to consie~able trouble and e~pense to provide a suitable and heal- thy atmosphere for the vacation periods. The introduction of a large and, alledgedly, ill-su~ervised group of itinerants into the immedi- ate neighborhood would be a grave threat to that atmosphere and to the peace-of-mind of every adult concerned. For these major reasons, I beg that Mr. Arnold Sachs be denied the variance he seeks, and the Zoning Regulations confirmed as the substantial protective agency they were designed to be. Sincerely yours, Charlotte W. Underwood (Mrs. Charles M. ~nderwood) Ira S. We~]s 54 Bennett Place ~ar 30, ]958 ~r, Pa7 oh Booth 8oothho]d Town C]erk 9outhho]d, L, !., ,N.Y. Des? Mr. Booth:- on 9otmd Ave. ? abor camp. th~s ~ction~ It ~as bben'bro~)ght to my attention that ~ ~. a ~acbs ~s eDge,voting to 5ave the so~ing changed on h~s property ~attit~c~, I..I., for the purpose of erecting a T am herelV register}ns my vigorous protest a~alnst · b}s c~,mp wm~!d be ~. great detriment to the community and wm~]d certainty effecf the value of property in the vicinity. As a ]and owner on Lat~re] I,ake, I certainly would no~ v~, co~ortab] e abo~t ~ wife and fs~]y ~en I was not present. ~so with two b~s ca~s on the ]~e, it won]d not be a ~nf]uence for them. I s~ncere]y hope that the ToE of Southho~a w~] not pe~t ~. ~achs to erect this camp. Ve~ tr~fiy yo~rs, Ira ~S. We) Is. Mrs. Clarence H. Schimpf 17Ni~anaAvenue. GreatN~k.L.I.,N.Y. Nareh ~1, 1958 Mr. Ralwh Booth, Southold Town Clerk, $outhold, L.I.N.Y. Dear Mr. Booth: ~e: Day Laborer C~-p proposed by AB~OLD 3A013 - Mattituck It has come to our attention that Arnold Saeh~ ia asking a variance of the zoning restrictions for a Day Laborer Camp to be located on the southerly side of 3oand Avenue in Mattituck. As property owners in that section we are A6AINST the erecting of such a camn. It will detract from the value of our ~roperty, and as tax-paying ~ro~erty owners we are entitled to ~rotection~ and are requesting that you do everything ~oseible to see that we are so protected. According to our knowledge and belief the former labor camp run by these ~eople was slovenly and hygienic conditions practically nil. This is our p~o..teet against such a camp on the pronosed site. Y" / ELZ 15 EAST 4OTH STREET - NEW YORK 16. N.Y. MURRAY HI~.L 2-2282 SHOOTING AND SPORT BINOCULARS AND BAROMETERS b~ar'ch thirty-£irst, I 9 5 8. V~ nav~ buen informed that Arni ,~ h. of kattltuck, I.. I. iDtends b, uJ!ding a labor c~-,~.~'-' on the south siGe of .1~'~ ~:.~o~c,~v on Sound t.,,enuc, "hie]~: ~s ~,~pro~i~ate!y 1,/Stb ,r mile from Laurel U¥ are l~ro?crty owners at Laurel Leke end ~e have 'b~en !iv~ng th~,r~, for tk~: past t.,enty years, £'sendin~ week-ends yc~,r round and our fa, miiy and children spend thc su~!,mer ~t the lake. N~edless to ~ay, ::e have had very ~any disagree~bl,~ ~zyeriences '.irk these people - ~ith drinking, carousing around, throwimg their bottles and cans all over the ~myside and this ~ when tn~y .',ere iocvted at thc north ~ort~on~ of Sachs property which is more then a mile from Laurel Lake. TL~.e J.s ~ large gr,~,ub of pro!,erty owmers around thc Lake ~nd con- down to the country for ~.~cace ~nd quiet a~~ to Ch joy ~..hatever Natu~'e has to offer us - with seclusion and privacy. If 6 such as tkis, should Le est~blished within this close radius, you are going to have a great many people leave, sell their i roperty and real estate ~ill depreciate in value in this vicinity, plus th~ loss of patronage to all your busincg~s houses in Mattituck and surrounding areas. B labor camp of this type is never an addition to any neighborbood~ but ir~ such close proximi~y to homes and boy and girl camps, %,:e thi~ it definitely unwise. It is unfortunate that tf~ ~Jority of Drof. erty o~aners who o~y come ~o the lake in thc summer are not aware'of this situation and will not have the ofFortunJty to protest this deplorable situation. We respectfully request that every effort be ~ade that this camp not be established in this vicinity. ThaWing you for your kin~ess a~nd conside~atio~ ~em~n, Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, New York Gentlemen: LAW OFFICES WILLIAH WlC:KHAH MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND NEW YORK MATT. 9- e331 April 8~ Re: Application of Arnold $. Sacks I enclose memorandum on behalf of Applicant, Arnold S. Sacks. WW:bs encl. Very cordially yours~, AprtJL ?~ 1951? Otto ~rig I~t%ltuek~ M. Y, Dear ~r. inrig! The Bard of Ippale wiahee to thank the ~attituok Fire Diatriot for the use off the ~IaL1 on March 20~ 19~8 and also for th~ u~ of the generator, Youra yery truly~ Robert Wo OPliapie~ ~ro Cha~rmn SOUTHOLD TOWll BOARD OF API~ALS A~r'l] 3, 1958 Board of A~meals Town of So~tbold Southold, New York Gentlemen: This ~s in reference to the labor ea~ of Arnold Sacks on Cow's Neck Road for which Mr. Sacks has made application to your Board for permission to move to a new location on his farm so~th of Sound Avenue. This Department has received no complaints against Mr. Sacks or against persons occupying the camp insofar as the business activities of the camp and Mr. Sacks are concerned. OL~:a f~m~ ka~ m,m ~ ~ ~m mmmmkmmeeAmm ffeeemm, m a~, 9{~0 PJ, m ~ ~o Oraoe ~. ~eyer I STATE OF NEW YORK c', ? f :~Lk County ss: Office of the Clerk of the TOWN OF .~. ~ .' .~.: .-~-~.. ...... (SEAL) Town Clerk Certificate No. 439. Published by Wilbamson Law Book Co., Rochester. N. Y. Town Clerk of the This is to certify that I,. .......... .E.~.k.i'.LL...{....t.....-..~.'.'..~:: ............... Town of.......:~ ........................................... in the said County OL.......~..~.*..~,..~.~.:. ...................... , have compared the foregoing copy of...[J~.i...ll]:l...~.~.~..i..*.....~.!2~.ff.~1~.....:2.~....:2:.~i.:2~.~.?~ with the original now on file in this office, and that the same is a correct and true transcript of such orig/nal .................. [i.:.i..!.:JJ.}..e::...s. ......................................................... and the whole thereof. In Witness WhereoL I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Town this .......... ..]...~[.!i.i.i! .......... day of.........!L[~.~.. ........................... 19...2.~:... Town Clerk of the Town o~ .......................................... ~,,.;..--:~.-~..--~-~ .......................................................... c '~t~ ~ c ~.K, County, N. Y. Seuthold Town Beerd of ~ppealo ~areh ~O, 1958 A rsfular Beerier of tho Seutbold Town BOL~ of Appeals was hol~ on ~hure~ay cronieS, Nareh 20, 1928, et 7~30 pouo it ~he J~ttitu~k Fir~ Houee, Pike Street, Jattltuck, N. Ye Therc were Robert B~r~n Herbert RoaenherE Charloo Grl~to, Jr. AbaentJ J~. ~or~o~oymn, Jr. Mr. Seward M. Terr~, Bu~ld~n~ Inspector ~JBLiC H~A~INGt &ppoLl Ho. A7 - AppLtcatlon for ~sm~ve u~ ~a~ h~ 3, 1~8, ~ A~ 8. ~ekm of N~ ~fo~ A~M, ht~tl, New Y~k, ~u~ aide oF ~ Avon~ httAtuek~ ~ ~ork. T~ we~ ~ ~r~m p~nt 'l~e Chatr~u opemo~ the m~et~ng by r~d:L~g the legal notice letter to attorney fca- &p~l~a~ adviol~g of date ~f hearing, ~haix~a~s "Ia the~e a~l~. o1~ pr~e~t wh~ wieheo to speak .f~ra thio !~il]~Lau Wield, E~q. of Hattitueko g~w York, 8~t~ t~t he ~t~ ;a~, Mr. ;Vic~ a~ ~t he ap~ ~uee of t~ feet ~t ~cke ~a aiek ~d ~, H~ls ~a ~b~ ~ get out ffr~ ~e city, He ~ t~e B~ a ~p ~ ~e ~tl~ of the ~okm ~a~. Mr, ~lekha~ "Mr. ~aeko ham e~ned thio acreage for ee~e yeare, hev~ng ~ough +- it from the Demo fa~Aly, In l~SA he placed a ~abor ea~p ia thto woad- :right across fro~ Weotpbslia ~oa~, l~ AuguSt 19~6 Mr. Saekn ~ld thio / ~theld T~m Bee~d Labor ~ the~ thr~ the 19~7 ~a~. ~m~ bo Is ~i~ ~ f~ ~ :~t~ will ~ ~ ~~ ~ w~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~t ~ ~, A~tl the m~m ~tt~~m IS Mr, ~em &~ P~Ym ~ It lm a q~mt~ of ~ ~in ~e ~ m ~ the e~ wl~ do it. the ~oard t~ ~sider ratably the application.# ¢:hairmans wis thea~ any cmo ~loo who wimhea to qmak far this s~s. ~ ~ylh~s "I wi,~ ~e .~ a~,.l~ it. I an apinst th, eas~ b~eaum~ wh~ they h~d it en t{~ e~J~r side ~ had quite a f~ disturbances a~. Authe~ 8, Pylkes eThe law aaa prate that theremm tro~blo there every day. They den't even ~tv~ IAke human beings. %~'al ve~ smeh a~aAn.-t ~r. ~/lkm~ "A~m~ ~ ~eet. ~t they ~ all ever the faro. We ~ t~b~ ~er ~e,~ ~ ~~, ?~m m ~~ out ~w. ~ylk~! m]mak~K for her aether, ~l. h ~JLleekl ul~ aethe~ maym that they e~m f~oa the other ea~ lat~ here a~ ~eat ~artbl aad make & let ef ,o~me calling the Chairaaa~ ~ y~u ha~ any other ~gge,ttea aB t~ vhere the camp might have a labo~ eamp Aa Cute~. ~,t them there." applLc.a%tael~. -- ........... thAe ~r ~ St~ ~ one ~ o~ty The h~ o~ ~t a~ ~tl~$ z~ ~ a~ ~outt~v~d To~n Bo~ar~J of Ap?~als ~ Goat, in~ !~rch 20, of sl~ne ~o be plac~i on their prol~rt! at ~:ilve~l~ C~npor~. It wa~ to erect signs ~h!ch confo~ to S~tion ~08 of the ~, l~nce~ ~n(~ a letUP to that ~ffect was ~nt to Yr. an~ Nfs. Jurze~. The meetina ~,ae mdJourn~ ~t 9115 P- ~. ,~e~pectfully submi~ted, Ann Grigonis A esistant Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK j .- ~ .... ~ County ss: Office of the Clerk of the TOWN OF ......... '-~ ...... (SEAL} This is to certify that I, ...~.2..Z../2.1.-'......~...,......~.9.ft!;.~ ...................... , Town Clerk of the Town of.......~..~.!jj~:!..~fl.~,![ ................... in the said County of.....~.~:~.~.~..(~!..]-'..~j. ........................ , have compared the foregoing copy of..~:.~.I..!:~.~t~..~..l.....~.~.~.~[~!.....~..?...!.~2~.~:.~.!.~.[-, with the original now on file in this office, and that the same is a correct and true transcript of such original ..................... !.i:.!.!.}.!..~..!..~.~ ...................................................... and the whole thereof. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of smd Town th~s ............... ~;.!,.'. .............. day of. ..:.!.X~ ............................. 19..~.T.... ............. Town Clerk of the Town of g ,.1 i:: i ~ , :~ , ~ L, C£o~ County, N.Y. ~r. William Wiekham, Attorney Mat. tituek, N.Y. ¥,n:t, eh 3, 1958 Dear Sir; There will be a public hearing held by the Zoning Boar~ of Appeals of the Town of Southold, at the ~attl~aek fire ho~se, pike St., Mattituck, N.Y., Thursday March 2Otb, 19%8, at 7130 upon the apptioation of your client, Arnold Sacks flor a s~eelal permit to relocate his labor camp on S/$ Sound Ave. Matti~uck, N.Y. Would you kindly advise ~r. Sacks of this date and location of the hearing. Yours truly Bui!dln§ Inspector. C.C., to Otto A~rig, Bd. of' Fire ¢ommis~ioners~ Mattitu~k. ./ LAW O1~ FICE~ WILLIAM WICK HAIVl ~dATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND NE~V YORK MATT. g- 8331 Howard Terry, Building Inspector Town of Southold Southold, New York Dear Howard January 31, 1958 charges. WW:bs In behalf of Arnold S. 1. 2. 3. 4. Sacks I am enclosing the following: Application in duplicate for Permissive Use. Application in duplicate for Building Permit. My check to your order for $25.00 to cover fee Map of property of Sacks farm. Very cordially yours, OTOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPLICATION FOR PERMISSIVE USE APPLICATION NO.~/ ~ DATE...~..~.,...~, .~L .~ TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, N. Y. ................................................................... of ]lev I~la~'fOlk Ave'mae,, Name ..................... ~ ~;;;['~' "~ ~ ~'; ....................... ............................................................................................................................. Hereby o~lies to Municipali~ State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS in accordance with the ZONING ORDINANCE Article ~ Sect~Subsection C for the permissive use of the land hereinafter described. at~ae~d ~d · ~a ~ t~ e~ La n~ l~at~ ~e O~imkm ~e~ mn a~ te ~ve ~e %abo~ e~ v%~ ~e (l) 7ea~. ~te~ a ~e~ ~te~lm vii ~anted far o~ 7ea~. ~l ~l~ ~ a~e~ ~e~l~. ~ e~e t~ l~a~on ~a a~ least 900 feet ~m 8~ Aveme. The Permissive Use is requested because 1. STRICT APPLICATION of the Zoning Ordinance would produce UNDUE HARDSHIP because 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because 3. The permissive use would observe the spirit of the ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT becouse STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss COUNTY OF ~'O~g ) S / worn 'to this ...3.0 ........ doy/6'f .... Nota~ Public WILLIAM WiCK!t3 ~I NOTARy PUBLIC, STATE Ci: NE'.'/YOR~ No. 52-4259~8{I Qualified in Suffolk County Term expires Marc4 3~, 1959 FOR~ NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. Examined ........................................ 19 ........ Approved ........................................ 19 ........ Permit No ............................... Disapproved a/c .............................................................................................. Application No ............................. (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and su/omitted in duplicate to the Building Inspector. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on prerr~ises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this location. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit shall :be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the progress of the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in port for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the. Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws,, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions Or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ~~~ ordinances and regulations. ~ : ~pp~(.~rnome, i ;~;i~;i'"'"'"/"' '. ' (Address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. Name of owner of premises .................. A~.J~J..~a...J~ll.g]g~ ............................................................................................... If applicant is a corporate, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. Map No: ............................................ Lot No: .................... Street and Number ~1~j~j~.~.~j~.q~g~.~.~j~M~j~j~.j~j~M~.~.~x~ ................................. Municipality 2. State existing use and occupancy of pr,emises and intended use and occupancy of proposed constr~ction: a. Existing use and occupancy .......... ~.l[I.J~Jj~l~ ................................................................................................... , .... b. Intended use and ~qcu~ncy~`~j~~1~j~j~~~~ ........... 3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building .................... Addihon .................... Alteration .................... Repair ........... ~ ........ Removal ..... ~e ............ Demolition .................... Other Work (Describe) .................... 4. Estimated Cost .............................................................. Fee ....... ~Ii~.~..~,~.I~)....D...g.~..~.~.F...I. ............................................ (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units ................................ Number of dwelling units an each floor ............................ If garage, number of cars ............................................................................................................................................ 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each tYpe of use .............................. 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front...6.0..~,.~.~.~....":.. Rear ..~.0...~'.e...e~... .......... Depth ....~..~.;~.~.e...~. ........ Height ............................ Number of Stories .... ~..[ ................................................................................................ Dimensions of some structure with alterations or additions: Front ................................ Rear ................................ Depth .............................. Height .............................. Number of Stories ................................ 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front ............................Rear .... ........................ Depth ............................ Height ............................ Number of Stories ............................ 9. Size of lot: Front ............................ Rear ............................ Depth ............................ 10. Date of Purchase ....................... ~ ................. ~ .............. Name 0f Former Owner ........................................................ 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated ....... ~[~.~[...~..~.~.~.ff~A~. ..................... 12: Does proposed ~nstruction violate bny zoning law, ordinance or regulation? .................................................... 13. Name of Owner of premises...&~g~..~..~Address ..~.~..~...~.~ne NO ..................... Name of Architect .................................. ;: ............. ~ ...... Address ......... , ................................. Phone NO ..................... Name of Contractor .................................................... Address ............................................ Phone NO ..................... PLOT DIAG~M Locate dearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and indicate all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give street and block numbers or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or corner lot. beX~ b o~et leveL, ~d a~e ue x~a~on Lo a~ Leas~ 900 reel rFmSo~udAvezme. STATE OF NEW YORK, ) S S. COUNTY OF ....~zf£olk. ...... ) .............. ~HII.0[~L.~.~..~IJ~X~. .............................................. being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Name of individual signing application) ' above named. He is :the ............................................................................................................................................ (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) o~i~.~a~, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of bL~/I/.now.~dge agd belief; andrthatonto the'ow°rketrem ,tniw[l[ be performed in the manner set forth in the opplicatioo.~i~.e~l' there,~i~// /./ // ......................... ~';~j ...... F~'~ .... ~',~;~;~;~,~ ~,~ s~.m ~a. ~ J Nota~ Public, .~..~-.~&~~''i''~ ~:'~":' s~, l~ ~r. ~rnold 5acks C/O l~.$aeke & Sons ~attituck, N.~[. December 6, 1957 Dear Sir; Enclosed please find the necessary application blank, as requested by telephone this afternoon. The location or relocation of a non farm labor camp is subject to the approval of the Board of Appeals. And each building moved or built requires a building permit. The application to the Board of Appeals should be signed by both you the building owner and the land owner. It would be well to submit a drawing of the property showing the location of the bulldings~ and their relation to surrounding dwellings ere. The fee for Chis appeal is $ 1%.00. Fees ~ust accompany the applications. The fee for each building permit will be ~ 10. O0. If we receive the applications before a ~uesday afternoon we can scedule the public hearing for the following Thursday evening. Yours truly Building Inspector. If you wish to discuss this matter lnformaly with the B~,ard of Appeals~ they will meet at ?z30 PM. Thursday Dec. l~th, at the Town Clerk's Office, Southold. PEiR~IT TEE EP~ECTION OF A LABOR C~1~P ON THE SOU~R~Y SII~ OF SOUND AVENUE, TOV~I OF SOUTHOLD, VILLAGE OF I~ATTITUCK, OE PROPERTY OI~NED BY ARI{OLD SACHS, SIGEE~ r ~ WE, THE UNDer'SIGNED, OBJECT TO (PROTEST TO) ANY CHANGE IN THE ZONING LAW WHICH WOULD P~MIT THE ~2{ECTION OF A LABOR CAMP ON THE SOUTH~LY SIDE OF SOUND AVENUE, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, VILLAGE OF MATTITUCK ON PROP~TY OWNED BY ARNOLD SACHS. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED~ PROTEST AP~Y CHANGE IN THE ZONING LAWS WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE ERECTION OF A LABOR CAMP ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SOUND AVENUE~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, VILLAGE OF MATTITUCK~ SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK, ON PROPERTY OWNED BY ARNOLD SACHS. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST ~YY CHANGE IN THE ZONING LAWS OR ANY ACTION BY THE ZONING BOARD WHICH WOULD PER~IT THE ERECTION ~tND/oR 0PERdiTION OF A LABOR CA~iP ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF SOUND AVENUE, )JATTITUCK, TOWN' OF SOUTHOI~D, ON PROPERTY OWNED BY ARaI~OLD SACHS. WE~ T~[E UNDERSIGNED~ PROTEST ANY CHANGE IN THE ZONING LAWS (OR ACTION BY TIlE ZONING BOARD) WHICH WOULD PERi, IT THE ERECTIC~ AND/OR OPERATION OF A LABOR C~:P ON THE SOUTHERL~ SIDE OF SOUND AVENUE~ kIATTITUCK, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD~ ON THE PROPERTY OWNED BY ARNOLD SACHS. WE, TIlE UNDERSIGNED, ARE PROTESTING ANY CItiNGI~ IN THE ZONING LAWS WHICH WOULD PE~iIT YHE ERECTION OF A LABOR CAMP ON THE SOUTH'~SIDE OF SOUND AVE., TOWN OF SOUTHOLD~ VILLAGE OF [~iATTITUCK, SUFFOLK CO., NEW YOi~K ON THE PROPERTY OWNED BY ARNOLD SACHS. LONING ~,A,"~H %,'!IC}i .~O%W~20 ;;~IT T}~ ,RECTION OF A Lt~BOE C~ ON ~'}~ ~:[ATTITUCK~ ON Y[~(~'~' ATY 0 w, ,l 0 ' 0 -AP_NOt;D, ...~AC KS'~ -I