HomeMy WebLinkAboutCutchogue-Mattituck Water District 1972TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
PROPOSED
CUTCHOGUE - ARATTITUCK
WATER DISTRICT
ENGINEERING REPORT
PART I
PART I - REPORT, RECOMMENDATIONS & PLANS
PART 2 - ASSESSED VALUATIONS
JUNE 1972
TOWN BOARD
ALBERT M. MARTOCCHIA,
Supervisor
Justices of the Peace
MARTIN SUTER
LOUIS M. DEMAREST
E. PERRY EDWARDS
Councilmen
JAMES F. HOMAN
JAMES H. RICH, JR.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C.
Consulting Engineers
Melville, New York
ROBERT G. HOLZMACHER, P.E., LB
SAMUEL C, McLENDON, P.E.
NORMAN E. MURRELL, P,E.
ELIAS S. KALOGERAS, P.E
HAROLD A. DOMBECK, P.E.
ROBERT H. ALBANESE, P.E
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / Consulting Engineers
500 EIROAD HOLLOW ROAD, MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11746
(516) 694-3040
June 12, 1972
Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia
Town of Southold
16 South Street
Greenport, New York 11944
Re:
Engineering Report
Proposed Cutchogue -
Mattituck Water District
Dear Supervisor Martocchia:
We enclose herewith fifteen (15) copies of our two-
volume Engineering Report concerning our study and recom-
mendations for the proposed Cutchogue - Mattituck Water
District. We are also sending two (2) copies to Mr. Robert
Villa of the Suffolk County Department of Health for his
information and file.
We will retain the other eight (8) copies for use in
filing with the State Agencies for approval.
We have not included any allowance for financial assis-
tance, but we suggest that an application be filed with appro-
priate Federal Agencies, probably Farmers Home Administration,
for a grant. This should be done as soon as the report is
accepted, not waiting until adoption.
We wish to express our appreciation to the Town Asses-
sor's Office staff and Messrs. Robert Villa and James Heil
of the Suffolk County Department of Health for their excel-
lent cooperation in making information and data available.
We will be available to you
the report and exhibits and will
in its implementation.
and the Board for review of
do all we can to assist you
Very truly yours,
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL,
S.C. HcLendon, P.E.
SCM: ym
Encl.
BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS
CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT
Curtis W. Horton,
Walter R. Kaelin,
Theodore O.
Philip G. Horton
Chairman
Secretary
Beebe, Treasurer
Frank J. McBride
Gerald Wells
BOARD OF FIRE COFIMISSIONER~
MATTITUCK FIRE DISTRICT
William Chudiak, Chairman
Arthur M.
Otto L. Anrig
Irwin Tuthill
Fanning, Secretary - Treasurer
Herbert N. Boughton
Henry Tyler
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C.
Consulfing Engineers
Melville, New York
HO~MACHER, McLENOON & MURREtI~ P.C~
CONSUl. TING ENGINEERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Scope of Work and Report
Area Characteristics
Water Resources and Hydrogeology
Consumptive Water Use
Water Levels and Salt Water Intrusion
/Water Quality
Fire Requirements
Proposed Water District Considerations
Proposed District Limits
Assessed Valuation
Proposed Water System
Construction Costs
Hydraulics
Debt Service Costs
Operation and ~aintenance
Water Rates and Revenues
Tax Rates
Conclusions and Recommendations
APPENDICES
PAGE NO.
1
2
2
7
12
14
15
23
26
28
30
32
35
42
43
44
47
50
53
LIST OF TABLES
DESCRIPTION
TABLE NO.
PAGE NO.
Long Term Average Underflow - M.G.D.
As Determined by Water Balance Method
13
II
Permissive Sustained Yield and Average
Net Yield
15
III
Relative Values and Maximum Deficiency
Points
24
IV
Estimated Buildings, Services and
Population
27
V
VI
VII-A
VtI~B
VII~C
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
Estimated Water Usage and Demands
Estimated Assessed Valuation of
Real Property
Estimated Construction Costs - Plants
Estimated Construction Costs -
Transmission and Distribution Systems
Recommended Allocation of Project
Estimated Debt Service Schedule
Estimated 1973 Operation and
Maintenance Expenses
Projected Annual Operation and
Maintenance Expenses
Rate Schedule
Estimated Revenues
Financial Forecast (1S Years)
31
33
36
38
Costs 39
45
46
48
49
51
52
ii
I
I
I
ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED CUTCHOGUE-iV~ITTtTUCK WATER DISTRICT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
JUNE 1972
INTRODUCTION
Recognizing the need for a public water supply system
to serve not only the residents of the area with a pure
and wholesome water supply now and in the future, but to
provide an adequate water supply for fire protection and
irrigation purposes, the Board of Fire Commissioners in
Cutchogue and Mattituck, and the C]~amber of Commerce in
~attituck, via the Town Board of the Town of Southold,
haye resolved that it is in the interests of the people
of the Town that serious consideration be given to the
formation and creation of a public water supply system
in the area in question and to extend such system where
feasible to provide for the public health a~ld wel;~ of
the communities.
As a result of several meetings involving
soring Fire Districts and Chamber of Copm~erce,
County Health Department~
the spon-
the Suffolk
the Southold Town Board and other
HOI.ZMACHER, Mct.£NOON & MURREU.,
CONSULTING ENQIN£E'R$
I
I
I
I
interested citizens, the Town Board, on October 12,1971,
properly adopted a resolution authorizing the Supervisor
to enter into an engineering contract for a feasibility
study and report for a proposed Cutchogue-Mattituck Water
District.
I
I
I
I
SCOPE OF WORK AND REPORT
The basic area of study included an area from the west
end of Mattituck to the east end of Cutchegue, primarily
along the Main Road (New York State Route 25) plus a few
streets near the center of Cutchogue and Mattituck. The
basic area was approximately 1986 acres, or slightly in excess
of three square miles. The study area has been expanded at
the direction of the Supervisor and Water Committee to include
additional areas in north and southwest Mattituck, such that
the total area now proposed for the original district is 2634
acres or 4.1 square miles. The study includes the necessary
details to establish the needs and components of a public
water supply system for the area, the available water re-
sources, and the ability of the existing and potential fnture
areas to support and expand such a system. If the area near
Laurel Lake is made a part of the district, an additional
208 acres would be included.
AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The study area is in the western portion of the Town
of Southold. Southold Town is a long peninsula with numerous
PROPOSED
CUTCHOGU E - MATTIT U C K soU~o
WATER DISTRICT
sou~o ~
/
- '~OU~"
PROPOSED
LOCATION MAP
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
CUTCHOGUE-MATTITUCK WATER DISTRICT
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK JUNE 1972
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
CONSULTING [NtlNEERS, MELVILLE, N.Y.
H0tZMACHER, McLENDON & MURREU., P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
minor creeks indenting the shoreline, providing Southold with
a large footage of shoreline exposure in relation to its land
area.
The'Town of Southold is the major portion of the North
Fork of the eastern part of Suffolk County, bounded on the
north by Long Island Sound, on the south by Peconic and Gardiner
Bays and on the west by the Town of Riverhead, and also in-
cludes four islands, Fishers, Plum, Gull and Robins. The
mainland portion of Southold is 21 miles long and as much as
5 miles in width, an area of approximately 47 square miles.
Most of tl~e land area is level, sloping from the Bay areas
upward to the bluffs overlooking the Sound. Adjacent to the
Sound there is a ridge of Glacial material running east-west
along the north rim of the Town. The study areas of Cutchogue
and Mattituck are in the westerly portion of the Town of
Southold.
Southold has, for many years, been primarily an agri-
cultural area, but has enjoyed a tremendous increase in popu-
larity in recent years with its wonderful tourist attractions,
especially its fine waterfront properties and water activ-
ities which are enjoyed by thousands of tourists and summer
residents. Most of the development in the Town has occurred
along the main arteries and along the shore fronts. The 1966
land use tabulation shows a total land area of $4,600 acres,
HOt I'MACHER. McLENOON & MURREt. L, PC.
CONSULTING E~IGIN£ERS
of which 2,570 are on Fisher's Island, 1,331 on the smaller
islands (Plum, Robins and Gull), and 700 acres are under
water, leaving a net mainland area of 29,999 acres. Most
of this is unoccupied potential residential property with
agricultural property accounting for 11,920 acres of this.
Other land zoning and uses are as follows:
Industrial 100 acres occupied, 170 acres vacant
Commercial 160 acres occupied, 720 acres vacant
Institutional - 120 acres
Railroads, airports, utilities 160 acres
Roads and parkways 1,470 acres
Recreation and open space - 1,709 acres
The only Incorporated Village area within the Town
of' Southold is the Village of Greenport, which contains
about 6 per cent of the Town's assessed valuation and
about 17 per cent of the population. The entire Town,
including the Village of Greenport and Fisher's Island,
is split into eight (8) school districts. The Town Board
of' the Town of Southold administers numerous special dis-
tricts to provide needed and desired services. These dis-
tricts include seven (7) fire districts; nine (9) light
districts; four (4) park districts and four (4) miscel-
laneous districts. Recently the Town of Southold nego-
tiated agreements with the Village of Greenport to initiate
HO~.ZMACHER, McLEN~ON & MURREtl,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
a Nest Greenport Water Supply District which now provides
the West Greenport and ~ast Southold areas with a public
water supply system. It is assumed that other similar
districts may be formed in the future and that these and
the proposed and subsequent water districts would become
special district subdivisions of the Town.
The comprehensive development plan of the Town of
Southold recommended that land be retained for agricultural
use as long as possible and that major residential develop-
ments be directed in the area south of Route 25 and in a
narrow strip along the north shore. It also recommended
that a public water system be extended and that dredging
and the filling of inland and wetland areas be curtailed.
Under the assumptions and recommendations made, the Town
of Southold would have a 1985 population of about 34,000.
The water study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie indicated
an available water resource total of 10 million gallons per
day. Based on existing irrigation of 5.5 million gallons
per day in 1966, and allowing 0.5 M.G.D. for summer resi-
dents, 4 M.G.D. would remain to supply permanent residents.
This 4 ~4.G.D.
with usage at
Cornell study
by 11,000 summer or
could sustain a population of about 35,000,
120 gallons per day per person. A 1964
estimated the summer population was increased
seasonal residents.
H~,ZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRE'U~ P.C.
CONSUl.TING ENGINEERS
The only long established public water system on the
mainland within the Town of Southold (excluding Fisher's
Island) is the existing Greenport Village system, which
includes the original Village system, its extension into
the Southold Village area by acquisition of the North Fork
~Vater Company and its extension into other adjacent areas
as the need has developed. The westerly limit of the
Greenport system franchise is Peconic Lane in Peconic and
extends easterly to include the existing well field area
in East Marion, west of Rocky Point Road. Much of this
10 square mile area is not yet actually serviced with a
piping system due to a lack of development intensity, but
with further cooperative efforts between the Village and
the Town, it is expected that many new areas which need
a public water supply may soon be able to have it.
A more recent water supply unit in the Town is the
Captain Kidd Water Company, supplying the northwest Matti-
tuck area. This is a small company started with a housing
subdivision. With recent environmental regulations becoming
more restrictive, additional small real estate oriented
water supply units may be proposed. In general, the Town's
best interests may be served by insisting that such projects
be accomplished under Town or Village jurisdiction, such
that these small systems can be readily integrated into a
more reliable and economical publicly operated water system.
i
!
I
!
!
I
!
!
I
I
!
I
I
!
I
I
HO~MACHER, klCLENDON & MURREU., P.C.
CONSULTING ENG~N£ERS
WATER RESOURCES AND HYDROGEOLOGY
Several reports by various government agencies and
other consultants have been prepared previously for portions
or all of the Town of Southold and reference is made to
these various reports for much of the more detailed study
information. These reports, three of which relate directly
to Southold and one to Suffolk County, contain much of the
information on geology, ground water resources, hydrogeology,
rainfall, recharge, salt water contamination, etc., which is
available and are as follows:
"Hydrology of the Shallow Ground Water Reservoir
of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Long
Island, New York"; New York State Water Resources
Commission, Bulletin No. GW-45 (Hoffman, J.F.)
"Geology and Ground Water Resources of the Town
of Southold, Suffolk County, New York"; Geo-
logical Survey Water Supply Paper No. 1619-GG
(Crandell, H.C.)
'~Investigation of Water Resources, June 1967,
Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Long Island,
New York"; Malcolm Pirnie Engineers
"Comprehensive Public Water Supply Study,
County, New York, CPWS-24, Volumes I, II
Holzmacher, ~cLendon & Murrell
Suffolk
and III~';
The predominant topographical features of the mainland
portion of the Town of Southold are the Harbor Hill moraine
which follows the shore of Long Island Sound and a Glacial
outwash plain extending from the moraine to the Bays. The
peninsula is divided into several components by salt water
HOLZMACHER, McLEN{~ON & MURREt. L,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
I
I
!
ponds and inlets, almost creating islands. The fresh ground
water is exposed to salt water interfaces on the sides as
well as underneath, with the salt water generally closer to
the surface as you extend eastward. In some areas, the salty
ground water and fresh water are in dynamic balance and
approximate conformity with the Ghyben-Herzberg principle.
In much of the westerly portion of the Town, fresh water
extends below existing clay, but any appreciable pumpage
disturbs this equilibrium and causes salt water to extend
upward.
The long shoreline exposure in the Southold Peninsula
in relation to its total area causes low ground water levels
and a low amount of available water storage. During the 1965
drought, the water levels were reduced even in the high level
areas to about 3-feet above mean sea level. The water budget
area used to calculate the amount of recharge or available
water resources was selected as the 2-foot contour as it
existed in July 1959 for the western portion of the Town and
the 1-foot ground water contour for the eastern portion of
the Town~ with ~lashamomuck Pond being the dividing line be-
tween the two portions.
As reported in the various data, there is a considerable
range of rainfall within the Town of Southold, with the aver-
age precipitation at Cutchogue of about 45 inches. The aver-
age for the Town is between 43 inches and 44 inches. Previous
HOI. ZMACH[R, McL~NDON & MURREU.,
CONSUI~TING ENGINEERS
estimates ranging from 1.4 per cent to 10 per cent of the
rainfall has been calculated to be lost as surface runoff
in the Town of Scuthold. The latest figures included in
CPWS-24 indicate 5 to 7 per cent loss by surface runoff.
Table 3-14 in CPWS-24 shows a water budget area west
of Hashamomuck Pond of 21 square miles, with a mean annual
precipitation of 43 million gallons per day, a loss by
evapotranspiration of 22 million gallons per day and a
direct runoff of 3 million gallons per day, providing a
mean annual recharge of 18 million gallons per day. Approxi-
mately 25 per cent of these amounts are west of Mattituck
Creek and 75 per cent east of Mattituck Creek. In the
balance of the Town area east of Hashamomuck Pond, the
water budget area is 6 square miles, with a mean precipi-
tation of 12 million gallons per day, an evapotranspiration
of 6 million gallons per day and a direct runoff of about 1
million gallons per day, providing a mean annual recharge
of 5 million gallons per day. These estimations show a re-
charge rate per square mile of water budget area of nine-
tenths of a million gallons per day over the 27 square miles.
Based on the total Town area of 47 square miles, the average
recharge per square mile is 0.5 M.G.D.
As noted in most of the reports, major dredging associ-
ated with the construction of harbors and canals can have
serious effects on the availability and quality of ground
HO],ZMACHER, McLENOON & MURRk'I.L,
CONSULTING ENGJN£ERS
water in shoreline areas. Such a project also removes
some of the underground storage if removing land is also
part of the project. Because of varying geological and
hydrological conditions, each project should be evaluated
individually but, in general, should certainly be discouraged
when related to fresh water supply availability.
With regard to recharge basins, they should be encour-
aged for the accumulation of surface runoff and its return
to the water table. This becomes increasingly important as
the area may develop~ causing more widespread areas of im-
pervious material subject to a higher percentage of runoff
than now exists. Recharge basins are also more economical
than major drainage systems. At least ten recharge basins
and four diffusion wells are assisting in the recharge of
water to the Glacial formation. There is no reliable esti-
mate available for the total quantity of recharge from these
sources.
The County test wells installed in conjunction with
CP~S~24 disclosed the location of the salt water inter£ace
in Aquebogue, Cutchogue and Southold. Salty water was
found in the Southold well at depths below the clay at 180
feet. Between Cutchogue and Mattituck on Alvah's Lane, the
salt water was encountered at $20 feet below grade, but
pumping tests indicated that it is not feasible to withdraw
any appreciable quantity of water from below the clay which
extends from 120 to 220 feet below grade. In Aquebogue~ on
10.
HOI.ZMACH£R. MCLENDON & MURREI,.L, P.C.
CONSULTING F..NGINE£R$
Tuthill Road, the well is drilled to a depth of 700 feet,
with salt water encountered at a depth of 520 feet. A per-
manent observation well was placed at 460 feet so that future
monitoring of the movement of salt water upward can be ob-
served at this location.
CPWS-24 projects that all future pumpage in the Town of
Southold will be from the Glacial formation, with projected
amounts of about 10 million gallons per day by 1985 and about
20 million gallons per day by the year 2010. The State De-
partment of Environmental Conservation has issued a decree or
policy that all waste water treatment plants must be prepared
by some future date to recharge at least 50 per cent of the
treated waste water. The only waste water treatment plant of
any consequence to date in the Town of Southold is that for
the Village of Greenport and some immediate surroundings,
which has a design capacity of 0.5 million gallons per day.
This plant is waiting for Federal funding in order to be up-
graded to a secondary treatment plant, but there are no im-
mediate plans for recharge of its waste. Test borings in the
vicinity of the sewage treatment plant indicated that such
attempts would be futile unless the treated waste water were
taken to other areas to the north or northeast of the sewage
treatment plant beyond present Village ownership. Such areas
are not now available for use, but may be planned in the
future.
11.
HOI,.ZMACHE:R~ M~:LENDON & MURR[~.L,
CONSULTING EI~IGINF. E~$
There are numerous research and demonstration programs
of waste water renovation and recharge being conducted through-
out the country and the world and obviously the fast developing
technology will make it much more feasible in the near future
to consider the recharge and/or reuse of renovated waste water.
CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE
As indicated in most reports,
usage in the Southold Town area is
the major consumptive water
that used for irrigation.
Most agricultural irrigation is consumptive water use unless
irrigation is practiced beyond what is needed.
The consumptive water usage as a percentage of total water
use was estimated in CPWS-24, reference Page 201, as ranging
from 82.5 per cent in 1967 to as high as 99.1 per cent in 1960.
The significance of agriculture in consumptive water use
is also indicated in CPWS-24, reference Page 205, for the period
1960~67. These estimates of consumptive water use of 71 to 473
gallons per capita per day include agricultural usage, but not
private domestic well usage. If agricultural use is also ex-
cluded, the range is estimated at only 27 to 56 gallons per
capita per day.
When water recharge exceeds consumptive water use, under-
flow takes place. The consumptive water use in the Town of
Southold is estimated at 7 million gallons per day in 1980~
8 million gallons per day in the year 2000 and 10 million
12.
HOI..ZMACHER. Mc%ENQON & MURREt. L,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
gallons per day in the year 2020, all without a major future
sanitary sewer system. For the year 2020, assuming complete
sewers, the consumptive use is estimated at 29 million gal-
lons per day. Ground water underflow in the Southold area
generally flows perpendicular to the contour lines of the
ground water table and would flow radially from the high
points or mounds of fresh water which exist. The following
table of long term average underflow is excerpted from Table
3-21 of CPWS-24:
TABLE I
LONG TERM AVERAGE UNDERFLOW - M.G.D.
AS DETERMINED BY WATER BALANCE METHOD
SOUTHOLD W/O
FiATTITUCK
CREEK
SOUTHOLD
BETWEEN
MATTITUCK
CREEK AND
HASH~qOMUCK
POND
SOUTHOLD
BETWEEN
HASHAMOMUCK
POND AND
ORIENT
HARBOR
SOUTHOLD E/O
ORIENT HARBOR
AYg. Annual
Recharge 4
14
3
Underflow
into Area 0
Avg. Annual
Consumptive
Use-1960-67
2
<5
Gauged Stream
Flow 0
Coastal Under-
flow and Un-
gauged Stream
Flow out of
Area 3
12
2
<2
Groundwater
Pickup of
Streams
Gauged
13.
As noted in Table I, most of the annual recharge
during the 1960-1967 period underflowed to the surrounding
salt water bodies.
WATER LEVELS AND SALT WATER INTRUSION
As noted in CPWS-24, the Southold area in the North
Fork is one of the areas in Suffolk County most susceptible
to salt water intrusion, since the peninsula is narrow, is
indented with many salt water inlets, and has salt water
underneath at varying depths. The thick clay layer which
was found in the County test wells, S-32590 in Cutchogue
and S-33775 in Southold, forms a restrictive barrier against
vertical intrusion of salt water, but it also forms a barrier
for recharge of the water bearing formation below the clay.
It has been indicated that ground water levels of 3-feet
above sea level are sufficient to prevent the salt water
contamination of the coarse Glacial deposits which overlie
the clay. During the drought of the 1960's, decreased re-
charge and increased consumptive use lowered the ground
water levels to a point near the minimum recommended.
CPWS-24 indicates in Volume II, Table 3-37, Page 362,
the following data related to permissive sustained y~d
and shows its comparison to the average net yield. Since
water will not be needed and not be usable at average con-
ditions in the Town of Southold because of the lack of
sufficient underground storage, the most pertinent appraisal
14.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
of the Town's water resources is permissive sustained yield
compared with dry year consumptive use.
TABLE II
PERMISSIYE SUSTAINED YIELD AND AVERAGE NET YIELD
Southold - W/O
Mattituck Creek
PERMISSIVE
PERMISSIVE SUSTAINED YIELD AVERAGE
SUSTAINED PER SQ. MI. OF NET
YIELD WATER BUDGET YIELD
(M.G.D.) AREA (M. G.D.
2 0.40 3.4
Southold - Between
Mattituck Creek &
Hashamomuck Pond
S.5 0.35 10.4
Southold - Between
Hashamomuck Pond ~
Orient Harbor
1 0.25 2.1
Southold - East of
Orient Harbor 0.5 0.25 1.1
TOTALS 9.0 17.0
These data indicate that there would be a deficiency
between 1990 and the year 2000, as demonstrated in Volume
Ill, Table 4-3 of CPWS~24, where the estimated consumptive
use is 10 M.G.D. in 2000.
WATER QUALITY
Most of the
water quantity.
as quantity is
discussions heretofore have centered on
It is obvious that equally as important
the quality of the available water supply.
15o
Water quality is generally segregated into three general
areas, bacteriological, physical and chemical. The physical
and some of the chemical constituents generally relate more
to the appearance or esthetics of the water, whereas the
bacteriological and the majority of the chemical constituents
relate to safety of the water quality. Water quality is meas-
ured in terms of concentration of numerous constituents.
Standards of quality may vary with the intended use of the
water. The most widely known and accepted standards of water
quality are those developed by the United States Public Health
Service for drinking water, which have been in effect for many
years and updated from time to time. New York State has also
more recently adopted drinking water standards which closely
relate to the U.S. Public Health Service Standards. As the
presence and knowledge of contaminants increases, there will
be further revisions in water quality standards to reflect
additional requirements.
The bacteriological standards use the coliform bacteria
group as indicators of bacteriological pollution. This is a
very convenient and simple method, and it provides a factor
of safety since, generally speaking, coliform bacteria would
be present in significant to large numbers whenever harmful
or pathogenic organisms were present. The exception to this
is that viruses~ about which we need to learn much more and
16.
HO~ZMACHER, MCLENDON & MUR#D.L, P.~
CONSULT~NG ENG~NI~ER$
for which there is a severe need for practical detection
methods.
The physical characteristics of water include turbidity,
color and odor. Obviously, some of these are further related
to chemical constituents which may cause the undesirable
appearance. The physical characteristics may not relate to
contamination, but are usually related by most people to
indices of pollution. The presence of the objectionable
physical characteristics can, of course, indicate the pres-
ence of pollutants.
Chemical constituents and their presence related to
toxicity, pollution and safety of the drinking water supply
must be reviewed with respect to the local surroundings,
such as, whether the constituents are naturally present in
the natural supply or whether the source of the constituents
is from a known or suspected local artificial source. For
many years, the nitrogen group of constituents and chlorides
have served as a pollution indicator since these were related
to human excretion. Generally speaking, the less advanced
the oxidation of the nitrogen group, the more recent the
indicated pollution, i.e., the higher the ammonia in re-
lation to the nitrates, the more recent the pollution.
This type of interpretation would not be valid for much of
the Town of Southold wherein both ammonia and nitrates, and
apparently nitrates in particular, have been introduced
17.
into the water supply by fertilization of the farmlands
in the Town. More recently, detergents have been used as
an indicator of pollution although in the future, under
the detergent ban in Suffolk County, the use of this in-
dicator will become less and less valid.
Existing drinking water standards contain a limit of
10 mg/1 for nitrates as nitrogen. Since all of the nitro-
gens are potential nitrates, future standards are expected
to contain a maximum of 10 mg/1 for all of the nitrogen
group, including ammonia, nitrites and nitrates. The toxic
significance of nitrates is related to the "blue baby" con-
dition in infants, if nitrate content is too high. Based
on information and studies with livestock, it appears that
nitrites are much more toxic than nitrates, but fortunately
are unstable and have not been found in any appreciable
amounts in Long Island's drinking water supply.
Much of the water in the Town of Southold has a nitrate
content which approaches, and in some cases exceeds, the
recommended nitrate limit of 10 mg/1.
Though not related to toxicity or safety, the presence
of iron-manganese in water supplies may impart an unpalatable
taste and cause complaints due to stained plumbing fixtures,
laundry~ etc. In the Town of Southold, the most likely lo-
cations for iron and manganese to occur are the shallow wells
18.
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
I
i
I
I
!
I
I
i
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
along or near the southerly shore.
Water which contains high dissolved solids may be
unpalatable and objectionable. In some cases, depending
upon the solids present, they may serve as a laxative,
particularly if magnesium sulfate is present. The dis-
solved solids in most of the water in the Town of Southold
are higher than most other places in Suffolk County, but
not high enough to create problems. Frequently, the high
dissolved solids are related to salinity and chlorides.
With regard to chloride content, it varies widely in
the Town of Southold waters. As indicated, the primary
source of chlorides is salt water intrusion, but may also
be present from salt applied to deiced roads or from in-
dustrial or domestic waste disposal systems, (urine is
very high in chloride content).
The principal source of sulfates is organic matter,
decaying vegetation and domestic and industrial waste dis-
charges.
Many materials may be present and vary considerably
in toxicity. Lead, cyanide, arsenic, cadmium, silver,
selenium and mercury are extremely toxic and have low
allowable limits. Other elements, such as nickel, copper~
barium and zinc, with higher limits, may also be found in
the vicinity of some industrial discharges. The major po-
tential sources of ground water pollution in the Town of
19.
HOI. ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURREIJ,~ P.C,
CONSULTING ENQINIrLC'RS
Southold include ammonia and nitrogen from fertilizers,
primarily on farms, the use of pesticides and fungicides,
primarily from agricultural use, salt water intrusion in
local areas from potential overpumpage, recharge or un-
treated.sewage via cesspools and other chemical pollution
from rain water leaching through sanitary landfill.
During the late part of 1971 and early 1972, many
wells in the Cutchogue-Mattituck area have been sampled
and tested by the Suffolk County Health Department and
the laboratory of Holzmacher, McLendon ~ Murrell, P.C.
Analyses performed included pH, nitrates, detergents,
hardness, chlorides, conductivity, iron, manganese and
bacteria. None of the wells tested for bacteria showed
any bacteria contamination. Many of the wells in the
Mattituck area showed high iron and manganese, ranging
from trace amounts to as high as 14.2 mg/1. The recom-
mended limit is 0.3 mg/1. Sixty-seven per cent of the
wells checked contained iron and manganese above the recom-
mended limit.
In the Cutchogue area, approximately 40 per cent of
the samples showed irons greater than the recommended limit.
Generally speaking, the higher iron contents were found in
areas where high organic constituents and less oxygen is
available. Nells nearer the center of the area, along the
high ground water level areas, generally contained satis-
factory iron-manganese contents.
20.
HOLZMACH[R. MCI. KNOON & MURRL~J.., P,C.
CONSULTIN~I ENGINEERS
Surveys also were made for nitrates which ranged as
high as 24.8 mg/1 as Nitrogen. Most of the high nitrate
contents were found in areas north of the Main Road, pre-
sumabl¥ in areas which woul8 be most affected by agricultural
fertilization. Only two wells in the Mattituck area were
.I
!
I
I
I
I
i
I
!
I
I
!
i
over the recommended limit of 10 mg/1 as Nitrogen, although
others were approaching the limit.
About 35 per cent of the wells checked in the Cutchogue
area had nitrate contents above the recommended limit.
The percentages stated would not necessarily apply if
all the wells in the entire area were checked. Generally
speaking, the higher nitrate wells would relate to the farm
areas or areas influenced by the farm fertilization and the
high iron contents would relate to the nearer shore areas
which would be influenced by subsurface bog and organic
materials which closely are allied to iron content.
Chloride contents ranged from 8 to 124 mg/1, with all
but two samples less than 30 mg/1.
pH ranged from 4.9 to 6.6, with the majority of samples
from 5.9 to 6.2.
Detergents were found in only one of the samples tested
and in a small amount.
Specific conductivity ranged from 72
a wide range of dissolved solids.
to 630, indicating
i
I
21.
HOI. ZMACHER, McI.ENDON & MURREI~, PC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Both Marratooka Lake and Laurel Lake were tested for
certain constituents in 1969, 1970 and 1971. The Health
Department made semi-complete analyses on Laurel Lake
water. The only significant changes in Laurel Lake quality
relate to'coliform bacteria, which was negative in 1969,
but in 1970 and 1971 had increased to 25 and 95 per 100
ml, respectively. It is also noted that the pH changed
considerably in the period from 6.7 in 1969 to 7.S and
8.5 in 1970 and 1971. The total nitrogen, as ammonia and
nitrates, for all three years was less than 1 mg/1. This
was confirmed in 1972 by the laboratory of Holzmacher,
McLendon & Murrell,
of 1 mg/1 or less,
100 to 140 on four
P.C., which showed a nitrate content
and with specific conductivity from
samples taken, two from Laurel Lake
and two from Marratooka Lake. It appears that, except
for the bacteria content, the lake water of the two lakes
is superior to that obtained from the ground water in the
area. It appears that each of the lakes is acting as a
denitrification system to reduce the nitrate to ammonia
and subsequently to free nitrogen, which is then released
to the atmosphere from the lake surface or absorbed into
aquatic growth that prevails in the lake.
A complete chemical analysis of a sample taken from
a fire well between Marratooka Lake and the Main Road south
22.
HOLZkI. A~HI~R, MeLENI~ON & MURRL~LL.
OON~ULTIN~ F,.N~IN EERS
of the Mattituck High School, and a summary of other location
tests referred to, are included as Appendices in this Volume.
Even though the well was not pumped for a sufficient period of
time to be appreciably influenced by lower nitrate water from
Lake Marr.atooka, extended pumping periods from a supply well
at this location should provide a lower nitrate content than
would be generally available in the agricultural areas of the
proposed district. We believe it is unlikely to be needed,
but feel if it becomes necessary, continual pumpage from the
ground adjacent to the land at a substantial capacity, bypassing
any unneeded pumpage to the lake as a recirculation flow, could
further reduce the expected nitrate content from the public
water supply well at this location. This method of obtaining
acceptable nitrate water appears to be much more feasible and
economical than any promising nitrate removal or reduction
method available at this time. There is a great deal of re-
search being done to obtain satisfactory nitrogen reduction
systems, but none have been proven to be very economical at
this time. Cooperative research and demonstration projects
between the County, State and Federal Agencies are being pushed
for better answers to the problem.
FIRE REQUIREMENTS
After the water system is operable, a survey by the pub-
lic protection bureau of the American Insurance Association,
23.
HOt ~'MACHER, McLENOON & MURREt. L,
(~ONS~J~.TING ENGINEERS
formerly Suburban Rating Bureau, National Board of Fire
Underwriters, should be requested and performed.
In general, this survey is a means of comparing the
community's fire defenses and physical conditions to a
"Grading Schedule" devised by the National Board of Fire
Underwriters. An ideal condition is set up under this
schedule and for each deviation from these standards,
deficiency points are assigned in accordance with the im-
portance of the item and degree of deviation. The total
number of deficiency points charged against the locality
determines its relative classification and rate.
The various features considered, as well as the value
and maximum number of deficiency points allocated to each,
is indicated in the following table:
TABLE III
RELATIVE VALUES AND MAXI~X~tlM DEFICIENCY POINTS
FEATURE
Water Supply
Fire Department
Fire Alarm
Police Department
Fire Prevention
Building Department
Structural Condition
PER CENT POINTS
34 1,700
30 1,500
11 550
1 50
6 300
4 200
14 700
100 5,000
24.
Various points in the water system are selected
for flow tests and the actual flow obtained, calculated
to a 20 psi residual pressure, is compared to the flow
recommended for the area. The recommended flows will
probably range from 500 to 3500 gallons per minute in
the proposed district, with the higher flows required
at schools and lumber yards. The relationship of the
flow is used as one input to determine the water portion
rating of the fire protection system.
The required duration of fire flows varies with the
volume of flow as follows:
FIRE FLOW G.P.M. REQUIRED DURATION - HOURS
less than 1250 4
1250 less than 1500 5
1500 less than l?S0 6
1750 less than 2000 7
2000 less than 2250 8
2250 less than 2500 9
2500 and greater 10
It is estimated that the rating for the proposed water
system would be Class 5 until the system became large enough
to have another two or three wells and a parallel trans-
mission main. After these are available, we would expect
to improve to a Class 4 or 3 rating.
25.
HOLZMACHEf~, McLENDON & MURRL'I.L, P.C.
CONSUL[lNG [hlGIN EL=~S
PROPOSED WATER DISTRICT CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed water district for the Cutchogue-
Mattituck area will provide an advantage of fire pro-
tection to all people and property within the district.
It will also offer an improved quality of drinking water
for many of the residents in the proposed district. Even
for those where no immediate improvement would be obvious,
it offers the future assurance that a public water supply
system can provide water treatment more economically and
more consistent than can be done on an individual home
basis.
The final water district limits will obviously be
subject to some considerations and changes since at least~
to some extent, the desires of people to be included in the
district would have an appreciable effect on the decisions
made by the Town Board. It is obvious, however, that the
larger the area and the greater the assessed valuation per
unit of cost included in the proposed district, the lower
the costs will be for those within the district. This pro-
vides for spreading the base items, such as storage, trans-
mission mains, well supply, etc. and the fixed or static
type operating and maintenance expenses over a wider base
since these costs would not be appreciably increased with
substantial increases in number of people served or area
covered. Our estimates of homes, population and connected
services are shown in Table IV.
26.
YEAR
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
TABLE IV
PROPOSED CUTCHOGUE-MATTITUCK WATER DISTRICT
ESTIMATED BUILDINGS~ SERVICES AND POPULATION
ORIGINAL DISTRICT
BUILDINGS
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
1330
1335
1340
1345
1350
SERVICES
300
45O
6OO
70O
8OO
9OO
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
BUILDINGS OR SERVICES
FUTURE Ex'r~NSIONS
BUILDINGS
0
0
400
405
410
815
820
825
830
84O
85O
0
0
100
150
2OO
35O
500
600
650
7OO
750
TOTAL DISTRICT
1300 300
1305 450
1710 700
1720 850
1730 1000
2140 1250
2150 1500
2160 1650
2170 1750
2185 1850
2200 1950
POPULATION
TOTAL ERVED
4800 1110
4820 1660
633O 258O
6360 3150
6400 3700
7940 4620
7980 5550
8000 6100
8030 6500
8080 6850
8140 7200
HOI. ZMACN£R, McLENDON & MURREI..L, P.e.
C~ONSU~.TING ENGINEERS
PROPOSED DISTRICT LIMITS
The proposed district limits are shown on Drawing No.
SO71-1-1. This drawing has been revised from the original
planned area to include major additions in northern and
southwest Mattituck because of reported private well pro-
blems and the need to spread the cost of fixed cost items,
both capital and operating, over a wider base. In esti-
mating the proposed costs of the district and anticipating
future extensions, segregation of costs will be made to
delineate between those related to an overall system, in-
cluding the original district and subsequent extensions,
and those costs related purely to the distribution system
for the original district, or for alternate or future ex-
tension areas. In this manner, the supply, storage, trans-
mission mains, etc. would be paid for by the entire district
as extended at any particular time. The cost of the distri-
bution system and fire protection hydrants would be paid for
by each individual area so constituted in the district. The
proposed area of the original district would consist of more
than four square miles, including properties along the Hain
Road from Bray Avenue west of Mattituck to a point east of
i~ay Avenue in East Cutchogue. Additional properties in the
basic and expanded areas include the built-up portion of
downtown Mattituck, the properties along and adjacent to
Sigsbee, Marlene, Bay and Bray Avenues in Hattituck, the
28.
HO~ZMACHER, McLENOON & MURRL'~L, P.~.
CONSULTING F. NGINE~RS
area along New Suffolk Avenue to Marratooka Avenue in
Mattituck and along and adjacent to Peconic Bay Blvd.
in southwest Mattituck to Laurel Lane. In the Cutch-
ogue area~ we have included a loop to consist of Alvah's
Lane and Depot Lane to Middle Road in the proposed dis-
trict to include a well and tank site at the northwest
corner of Atvah's Lane at the Long
port well site), with an alternate
about 0.4 miles north of ~4ain Road.
Island Railroad (Green-
site on the west side,
We have oversized
the proposed main on Middle Road to allow for future trans-
mission capacity needs. We have included a portion of New
Suffolk Avenue, Case's Lane, Griffin Street and Schoolhouse
Lane in the Cutchogue area. In the proposed district, we
have included all property which has frontage on the respec-
tive streets where proposed water mains are to be installed.
Where the depth of property exceeds 800 feet from the pro-
posed frontages, the proposed district line would only ex-
tend 800 feet in depth. This would assure that under normal
hydrant spacing, all property in the proposed district would
be within 1000 feet of a proposed fire hydrant, and therefore
benefited by the district.
Additional likely areas for inclusion in the system are
numerous. There is a very definite need to provide a relia-
ble, good quality water to the neck areas extending into
29.
I
I
!
I
!
!
!
i
I
I
I
I
!
!
!
!
!
!
i
i
I
I
Peconic Bay and around the many inlets along the south shore.
The real estate activity in these areas will encourage addi-
tional water main facilities to be installed by the developers
at their cost rather than the cost of installing private wells.
Most of t,he peninsula areas south of the Main Road need a pub-
lic supply system and, in some cases, a preliminary investi-
gation indicates that it would be financially feasible with
a reasonable water tax rate.
We have included, as Table V, the estimated water usage
and demands based on the estimated connected services through
1984.
ASSESSED VALUATION
The total assessed valuation for the proposed district,
as shown on Drawing No. SO71~1-1, and taken from available
information from the Town Assessor's books and records, is
$6,899,490. for the year 1971-1972, including $256,900. clas-
sified as "exempt", but which should not be exempt from any
water district taxation. There is under construction, sub-
stantial shopping center areas which have not been reflected
on the books for the 1971-1972 period since they were not
completed. These will reportedly increased the assessed
valuation by some $500,000. In the proposed district, there
are about 1,150 houses, over 120 businesses and some 30
churches, schools and miscellaneous buildings. A separate
30.
HOI. ZMACHER, McLEN~N & MURR~, P.C.
CONSULTING ENG~NEER~
TABLE V
PROPOSED CUTCHOGUE - MJtTTITUCK WATER DISTRICT
ESTIMATED WATER USAGE & DEMANDS
YEAR
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
MID-YEAR
NO. SERVICES POPULATION
150 550
3?5 1 400
575 2 100
7?5 2 900
925 3 400
1 125 4 200
1 375 5 100
1 575 5 800
1 700 6 300
1 800 6 700
1 900 7 000
2 000 7 400
MILLION GALLONS DAILY RATE
AVERAGE MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DAY DAY HOUR DAY + FIRE
0.045 0.12 0.24 2.28
0.123 0.30 0.60 2.46
0.173 0.46 0.92 2.62
0.232 0.62 1.24 2.78
0.278 0.74 1.48 2.90
0.338 0.90 1.80 3.06
0.415 1.10 2.20 3.26
0.475 1.26 2.52 3.42
0.510 1.36 2.72 3.52
0.540 1.44 2.88 3.60
0.570 1.52 3.04 3.68
0.600 1.60 3.20 3.76
1987 2,100 7,800
0.630 1.68 3.36 3.84
31.
HO~ 7MACHER, McL£NDON & MURRL'I..L,
(X)NSULTING ENGINEERS
Volume (Part 2) will contain a listing of the property owners
and assessed valuations as obtained from the Town Assessor's
Office. The total assessed valuation used for 1973 is
$7,400,000.
There
are no available records which would include asses-
sed valuation totals for the proposed district and for various
years. In order to predict tax rates for the Water District
for future years, estimates of valuations must be made. These
estimates are shown for the period 1973-1987 in Table VI. The
future increases are segregated between the original district
and future extensions and, obviously, most of the increase is
assigned to the future extensions. The timing of these exten-
sions will depend on the rate of water quality deterioration
and the economic climate in the area.
!
I
!
!
!
I
PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM
The proposed water supply system, as shown on Drawing No.
SO71-1-2 for the original district would consist of two plant
sites, one between Marratooka Lake and the Main Road and the
other on the west side of Alvah's Lane,
the Main Road and Long Island Railroad.
it is proposed to construct two wells,
S071-1-3 and SO71-1-4. On the Alvah's
an elevated tank are proposed.
about half way between
On the Marratooka site,
as shown on Drawing Nos.
Lane site, one well and
I
I
32.
TY P ICA L ELEVATED STEEL TANK
FIGURE
32A
The basic transmission system will consist of 57,600
feet of 12-inch main along the Main Road, Peconic Bay Blvd.
and Wickham Avenue. Connector transmission spurs are planned
to permit ready extensions to the southeast, north and north-
west, as future demands require.
TABLE VI
PROPOSED CUTCHOGUE ~ MATTITUCK WATER DISTRICT
ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY
YEAR ORIGINAL DISTRICT
1973 $7,400,000.
1974 7,425,000.
1975 7,450,000.
1976 7,475,000.
1977 7,500,000.
1978 7,525,000.
1979 7,550,000.
1980 7,575,000.
1981 7,600,000.
1982 7,625,000.
1983 7,650,000.
1984 7,675,000.
EXTENSIONS
0
0
2,000,000
2,025,006
2,050,000
4,075,000
4,100,000
4,125,000
4,150,000.
4,175,000.
4,200,000.
4,225,000.
TOTAL
$7,400.000
7,425000
9,450 000
9,500 000
9,550 000
11,600 000
11,650 000
11,700 000
11,750 000
11,800 000
11,850,000.
11,900,000.
1987 7,725,000.
4,275,000. 12,000,000.
33.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
!
I
I
I
I
!
Future planning should include a site adjacent to Laurel
Lake where a good quality water is anticipated. The Town of
Southold had the foresight to acquire property here for water
supply purposes, and it is assumed a portion of this property
can be made available to the proposed district for a major plant
site. If the nitrate problem appears to be worsening, the Laurel
Lake site should be developed first, saving Alvah's Lane for the
future when nitrate reduction may be more feasible.
The transmission and distribution system proposed will
consist of cement lined cast or ductile iron pipe. Alternate
bids may be invited for alternate materials of cement asbestos
or plastic, in order to evaluate price differences and to
consider for small lines when no additional fire flows are
required. Smaller lines may be installed in private rights-
of-way and/or easements. Some allowance has been included
in the project for some of these, pending receipt of easements
and applications for service.
It is proposed that the joints will be of the push-on
type with positive seal gaskets, with the pipe and joints
designed and installed in accordance with A.~.W.A. specifi-
cations for 150 pounds per square inch working pressure.
Fire hydrants will be installed with the mains and will
be placed at spacings approved by the respective fire districts.
Recommended spacing will be about 400 feet in the concentrated
business area, 600 feet in built-up residential areas and 1000
54.
F~GURE ~-
F
34A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
i
!
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
HOL.~M&Ct~ER, McLENDON & MURR'~.~,
CONSULTING I~NG~NEERS
feet in sparsely developed areas. It is usually possible
to place the hydrants within ten per cent of these distances
after considering local factors
interferences, etc.
It may be feasible, after
such as property lines,
the district is in operation,
to acquire and incorporate into the system, an existing pri-
vately owned new ground storage tank in the west Mattituck
area. This tank at 1S0,000 gallons, could supplement a
5-hour fire or peak demand with a 500 gallon per minute rate.
Should the proposed district not materialize, it may be
possible to show that the ~4attituck area only might result
in a lower tax rate district, but the ultimate help to the
Nassau Point and New Suffolk areas would be postponed or
deterred.
CgNSTRUCTION COSTS
The estimated costs
equipment is $575,000.,
for the two (2) plants and original
as shown on Table VII-A. The esti-
mated costs for the transmission and distribution systems is
$1,925,000., as shown on Table VII-B.
The estimated construction cost, with an allowance for
engineering, contingencies, administrative and legal expenses
for the two plant sites, the transmission and distribution
systems, and an allowance for equipment and original mater-
ials, is $1,125,000., as shown in the detailed cost estimate,
presented and allocated in Table VII-C. The debt ser¥ice
35.
HOLZMACH£R, MCt,EN~ON & MURR~LL, PC,
TABLE VII-A
PROPOSED CUTCHOGUE - MATTITUCK WATER DISTRICT
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS - PLANTS
PLANT NO. 1
Wells Two (2) 12" at 500 G.P.M.
Pumps Two (2) S00 G.P.M., 50 H.P.,
1 combination
Engine - One (1) diesel engine with
accessories
Electrical - Primary and secondary
and controls - 2 wells
Pump House 600 sq.ft. - masonry and
frame
Mechanical, treatment equipment and
piping
Paving and landscaping
Sub-Total Plant No. 1
$12 000
13 000
8 000
32 000
27 000
35 000
10~000.
PLANT NO. 2
Well - One (1) 12" at 700 G.P.M.
Pump - One (1) ~ 700 G.P.M., 75 H.P.
Engine - One (1) ~ diesel engine with
accessories
Electrical - Primary and secondary
and controls 1 well
Pump House - 600 sq.ft, masonry and
frame
Mechanical, treatment equipment and
piping
Tank 200,000 gallons - elevated steel
Paving and Landscaping
Sub-Total Plant No. 2
$7,000.
9,000.
10,000.
25,000.
27,000.
30,000.
150,000.
8~000.
LAND
Two (2) plant sites (one may be easement)
Original portable equipment - vehicles,
machines, etc.
Sub-Total Construction and Land Cost
36.
$137,000.
$266,000.
$ 30,000.
$ 32,900.
$465,000.
TABLE VII-A - CONT'D.
B.A.N. Note Interest and Preliminary Reports
Inspection
Contingencies
Engineering Design and Legal Expenses
TOTAL PROJECT COST FOR PLANTS.
37.
$22,000.
12,000.
27,000.
49~000.
.$575,000.
HO~.ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURREU., P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TABLE ¥II-B
PROPOSED CUTCHOGUE - MATTITUCK WATER DISTRICT
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
ITEM
NO.
1-A
1-B
1-D
3-A
3-B
3-D
4-A
5
6
?
9
10
11
12
13
13
13
14
15
21
21
23
28
3?
3?
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED UNIT TOTAL
QUANTITY PRICE PRICE
6" C.L.C.I. Water Main 30,100 L.F.
8" C.L.C.I. Water Main 47,600 L.F.
12" C.L.C.I. Water Main 57,600 L.F.
C.L.C.I. Special Castings 55,000 Lbs.
6" Valves and Boxes 217 Units
8" Valves and Boxes 97 Units
12" Valves and Boxes 56 Units
Hydrants 164 Units
Chlorination of Mains 135,000 L.F.
Additional Excavation 90 C.Y.
Wrought Iron Blow-offs 10 Units
Trench Compaction 133,000 L.F.
Repaving Town of Southold Roads 55,000 L.F.
Repaying New York State Shoulders 24,000 L.F.
Repaving County Roads 3,000 L.F.
Road Crossings 10 Units
Road Crossings (Love Lane) 1 Unit
Road Crossing (County Roads) 2 Units
Reseeding 49,500 L.F.
Remove & Replace Sidewalk 12,000 S.F.
Dewatering - 4"-12" 9,000 L.F.
Dewatering -12"-24" 1,000 L.F.
Rock & Masonry Excavation 10 C.Y.
Railroad Crossings 6 Units
Stream Crossing (Peconic Bay Blvd.) Lump Sum
Stream Crossing (Long Creek) Lump Sum
Total Construction Cost
USE
38.
$5.00
6.00
8.50
0.45
125.00
175.00
325.00
310.00
0.10
5.00
110.00
0.40
2.00
5.00
3.00
7,000.00
12,000.00
12,000.00
O.90
1.50
1.00
3.00
20.00
6,000.00
L.S.
L.S.
$150,500
285,600
489,600
24,750
27,125
16,975
18,200
50,840
13,500
45O
1 100
53 200
110 000
120 000
9 000
70 000.
12 000.
24 000.
44 550.
18 000.
9 000.
3 000.
200.
36,000.
15,000.
20~000.
$1~622,590.
.... $17622,500.
HOI.ZMACHER. McL~*N~ON & MURREIJ., PC.
~ONSULTING ENGINEI~R~
TABLE VII-B - CONT'D.
Transmission and Distribution Main Costs
B.A.N. Interest
Inspection
Contingencies
Engineering Design and Legal Expenses
TOTAL ~ Transmission and Distribution Systems
TOTAL - Plants
TOTAL PROJECT COST.
$1,622 500.
64 500
18 000
80 000
140 000
$1,925 000
575000
$2,500 000
TABLE VII-C
PROPOSED CUTCHOGUE ~ ~TTITUCK WATER DISTRICT
RECO~dENDED ALLOCATION 0E PROJECT COSTS
Plants
Transmission and/or
Distribution
Systems
TOTALS
ORIGINAL ENTIRE
TOTAL DISTRICT DISTRICT
$575,000.
1~925~000.
$2,500,000.
$0.
1~375~000.
$1,375,ooo.
$575,000.
500~000.
$1,125~000.
39.
HC)LZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRL~bL, PC.
CON~IJLTINGI E~,CII N K. ERS
costs generated from this work and future
mains and plant work would be paid by the
trict and all subsequent extensions. The
transmission
original dis-
estimated cost,
including engineering, legal, administration and contin-
gencies for ~he distribution system of the extension, which
would consist of 47,600 feet of 8-inch and 30,100 feet of
6-inch pipe, including 164 hydrants, would be $1,375,000.
The debt service costs of this distribution system would
be paid by the original district.
In preparing the estimated construction costs, recent
bids have been used as a base price. The streets and roads
where mains are to be constructed have been inspected with
State and Town officials and tentative locations selected.
Primary variable factors in estimating the transmission
and distribution costs include the extent of pavement and
landscape restoration required, the extent of dewatering
of trenches required and the timing of bids with respect
to other work commitments of the local contractors.
The allocation recommended for the transmission mains
is a compromise between all of the 12-inch main to the
entire district and only a pipe cost differential. The
net effect is to allocate 45 per cent of the entire pro-
ject to the entire district and 55 per cent to the original
district. Future extensions, as constructed, would pay the
40.
HO~ 7MACH~R, McLENOON & MURIIIL~.L, PC.
CONSULTING F.t~GIN£L~RS
debt service costs of each respective extension and would
share the debt service costs remaining of the plant and
transmission mains.
If the entire cost of all 12-inch mains (excluding
hydrants)I is allocated to the entire district as trans-
mission mains, the percentage allocation of all water
main contract costs would be 50 per cent to the entire
district. If only the differential cost between an 8-inch
main and transmission main is allocated to the entire dis-
trict as transmission main cost, the percentage of all
water main contract costs would be 15 per cent to the
entire district. When the plant contract costs are added
as a charge to the entire district, the allocation of the
project costs to the entire district would be 34 to 62 per
cent.
Giving weight to both methods, we recommend that the
total original project be assigned 45 per cent to the entire
district and 55 per cent to the original district. It is
anticipated that when future extensions are made, the extra
cost of mains larger than 8-inches would become a charge
against the entire district.
Plant costs have been estimated based on recent bids
and data obtained from contractors. With an average well
depth permitted in the Town and the proposed district, it
41.
HOLZMACHER, IdCI.ENDON & MURR[I.L, PC.
is more economical to utilize underground natural storage
with wells and well pumps for all storage requirements ex-
cept a small amount to provide for a basic uniform pressure
and reasonable cycles of pump operation.
If additional interest is shown to add the area further
west along the Main Road, it would only require minor cost
differences since the plant site alternate at Laurel Lake is
already owned by the Town and would partly offset cost of
larger transmission mains. The quality of water would be
more reliable for nitrates, assuming the Lake can serve as
a denitrification system.
Water requirements have been estimated based on experi-
ences of other districts and modified to include local in-
fluences. Maximum rates of supply required while the dis-
trict is growing will be dictated by fire protection re-
quirements. This may be illustrated by the fact that for
a 2,000 home district, a flow rate of 2,600 gallons per
minute would be required to provide a 1,500 G.P.M. fire
flow plus the coincident domestic flow. The comparable
peak hour domestic rate required would be 2,200 gallons
per minute.
HYDRAULICS
The proposed plants in East Mattituck and West Cutch-
ogue and the 12-inch spinal transmission main along the
Main Road, will provide sufficient supply, with one unit
42.
HOI.ZMACH~R, MC~.ENOON & MURREI. L, P.C.
(~ONSULTING ENGINEERS
out of service, for some 1,300 homes on a maximum day with
pumpage of about 1.1 gallon per minute rate for each service.
With all units operable, the system will provide more than
2,000 gallons per minute short duration fire protection in
the downtown Mattituck area, about 2,500 gallons per minute
fire flow between Mattituck and Cutchogue, with available
fire flow gradually diminishing going eastward in Cutchogue,
such that the East Cutchogue School on the Main Road would
have an available fire flow between 1,500 and 2,000 gallons
per minute. The calculated fire flow available, based on a
5-hour duration coincident with normal domestic use by 1,000
homes is 1,820 gallons per minute with all facilities and
1~320 G.P.M. with one well out of service. The weakest link
in the proposed system is the single main which would exist
from Marratooka Avenue easterly and from Bray Avenue westerly,
such that if a rupture occurred in the line, there would be
water problems until the line was repaired. As the area
develops, however, and parallel mains are installed, either
on the Middle Road or along the southerly areas, such potential
problems would be minimized.
I
I
I
DEBT SER¥ICE COSTS
In estimating annual costs for the early years of the
water system, including operating and maintenance expenses
43.
HOL,ZMACHER, M'~.ENDON & MURRE~
CONSU,.TING ENGINEERS
and debt service, the estimated revenues are first deducted
in order to calculate a revenue deficiency which must be
collected as tax revenue from the entire district. When
revenues exceed district-wide operating costs, excess rev-
enues may be used toward debt service costs.
Debt service cost estimates are included in Table VIII.
These will vary if the terms of the bond issue are not as
shown, but they should follow the pattern estimated. The
costs are based on the sale of a $2,500,000. bond issue at
6 per cent interest, 40-year term, and non-uniform .80 to
1.20 of average annual principal payments. The estimates
are also based on the $5 and 45 per cent allocation of the
first bond issue to the original and entire district, respec-
tively.
OPERATION AND B~INTENANCE
Operating and maintenance expenses have been estimated
in several ways after a review of other water system budgets,
such as St. James, Smithtown, Riverhead and Greenport. These
other system's budgets range from about $65,000. to $200,000.
per year. For the proposed district, it will be more econom-
ical to contract for operations, at least in the early years,
with one of the nearby systems or a local contractor. We
believe either the Riverhead Water District or the Village of
Greenport would be willing to work out suitable arrangements
for $25,000. to $30,000. per year, plus insurance and power,
44.
HOI. ZMACHE~R, Mc'~ENOON & MURREI.L,
CONSUl.TING
TABLE VIII
PROPOSED CUTCHOGUE - MATTITUCK WATER DISTRICT
ESTIMATED DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE
YEAR
BALANCE AT
BEGINNING
INTEREST
PRINCIPAL (6%)
1973 $2,500,000. O.
1974 2,500,000. O.
1975 2,500,000. 50,000.
TOTAL
$150,000. $150,000.
150,000. 150,000.
150,000. 200,000.
ORIGINAL
DISTRICT
(55~)
$82,500.
82,500.
110,000.
ENTIRE
DISTRICT
(45%)
$67,500.
67,500.
90,000.
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
2,450,000. 50,000. 147,000.
2,400,000. 50,000. 144,000.
2,350,000. 50,000. 141,000.
2,300,000. 50,000. 138,000.
2,250,000. 50,000. 135,000.
2,200,000.
2,140,000.
2,080,000.
2,020,000.
1,960,000.
1,900,000.
1,840,000.
1,780,000.
1,720,000.
1,650,000.
197,000.
194,000.
191,000.
188,000.
185,000.
108,350.
106,700.
105,050.
103,400.
101,750.
88,650.
87,300.
85,950.
84,600.
83,250.
60,000. 132,000. 192,000. 105,600. 86,400.
60,000. 128,400. 188,400. 103,620. 84,780.
60,000. 124,800. 184,800. 101,640. 83,160.
60,000. 121,200. 181,200. 99,660. 81,540.
60,000. 117,600. 177,600. 97,680. 79,920.
60,000. 114,000. 174,000. 95,700. 78,300.
60,000· 110,400. 170,400. 93,720. ?6,680.
60,000. 106,800. 166,800. 91,740. 75,060.
70,000. 103,200. 173,200. 95,260. 77,940.
70,000. 99,000. 169,000. 92,950. 76,050.
I
I
1991 1,580,000. 70,000. 94,800.
1992 1,510,000. 70,000. 90,600.
164,800.
160,600.
90,640
88,330
· 74,160.
· 72,270.
I
I
I
2004 670,000. 70,000. 44,200.
2005 600,000. 75,000. 36,000.
2012 75,000. 75,000. 4,500.
110,200.
111,000.
79,500.
60,610.
61,050.
43,725.
49,590.
49,950.
35,775.
I 45.
HOi. ZMACHER. M~LENDON & MURREI.L~ PC.
~ON~UI.TIN~I EN~INEER~
or a total of about $35,000. to $40,000. per year. If neither
of these is mutually acceptable, it may be possible to arrange
a service contract with a responsible contractor experienced
in water works practices. These may be plumbers or well and
pump contractors.
If the District decides to go immediately to a staff, in-
cluding a superintendent and utility men, the costs have been
estimated as follows, totaling $77,000.
TABLE IX
PROPOSED CUTCHOGUE - MATTITUCK WATER DISTRICT
ESTIMATED 1975 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
Salaries
Part Time and Overtime
Fringe Benefits
Administration
Sub-Total Salaries & Administration
Insurance
Supplies and Transportation Expenses
Utilities and Chemicals
Contract Maintenance & Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous Equipment & Expenses
Legal Expenses
Engineering Expenses
TOTAL
$26,000.
6,000.
10,000.
3~000.
$45,000.
3,000.
7,000.
6,000.
7,000.
3,000.
1,000.
6~000.
$77,000.
46.
1401,.ZMAGHER. Id~.ENDON & Mi. JRRE"t,~ P.~.
We have assumed that many capital items of equipment
would be obtained from bond funds and paid with debt ser-
vice monies. In estimating future operating budgets~ we
have increased the annual amounts each year, reaching a
budget of $150,000. by 1982. These are presented in Table X.
WATER RATES AND REVENUES
Revenues will consist of water sales, hydrant rentals
and water taxes. The most unpredictable data in the financial
forecast is that of water sales. The rate at which customers
will connect to the system is an unknown factor and many who
do hook up may continue their private well in use for irri-
gation. The district must be certain that any private supplies
are not interconnected through the plambing system. It is pro-
posed that all water services be metered and that bills be
rendered quarterly, except some consideration may be given
to less frequent billing for homes or more frequent billings
for large consumers. A one-year minimum deposit or advance
payment may be considered at the time of the original appli-
cation.
We recommend that the original water rata~ be n ~lni-
form 60 cents per thousand gallons, with a minimum bill of
$43.20 per year ($10.80 per quarter) for the standard 3/4
47.
mm mm.-- --,. mm mm m ,.m m m m mm m mm m m mm
8Lo''- IoLo" 6% VARIABLE
CURB
ROAD-7
SIDEWALK
SLACK
REMOTE READOUT-
. ~_ BOX
PROPERTY
LINE
CURB BOX ~
CURB STOP-~
GROUND LINE
.._~4L 6" MINIMUM
WATER ~ iF~BY OWNER {-BY OWNER
MAIN~co~PORA;ION ~- 3/4"TYPE "K" COPPER TUBING OR--~>
~ -STOP 3/4" POLYETHYLENE TUBING CONTINUOUS
(NO COUPLINGS OR FITTINGS)
NOTE:
I, CURB STOP AND SERVICE PIPES TO BE
KEPT 5 FT, CLEAR OF DRIVEWAYS
:>,ALL SERVICE PIPES TO BE LAID A MINIMUM
DISTANCE OF 7 FT. FROM CESSPOOLS OR
SOIL PIPE
3.THERE SHALL BE NO JOINTS IN THE SERVICE
TUBING BETWEEN THE CORPORATION STOP
AND THE HOUSE EXCEPT AT THE CURB STOP
OTE
READOUT
CABLE
TER
VALVE
TYPICAL HOUSE SERVICE
NO SCALE
HOLZMACHI~R, M~,ENOON & MURREI. L,
O:)NSULT~N~ E~G~IF.~IS
TABLE X
PROPOSED CUTCHOGUE - MATTITUCK WATER DISTRICT
PROJECTED ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
YEAR
SALARIES
& ADMIN.
CHEMICALS, INSURANCE, ENG.
FRINGE & POWER & SUPPLIES & MAINT. AND
MISC. UTILITIES MISC. MISC. LEGAL
TOTAL
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1987
$35000.
39,000.
43000.
46 000.
49 000
54 000
60 000
63 000
67 000
70 000
75 000
80 000
93,000.
$10,000.
11,000.
13,000.
14,000.
15,000,
16 000
18.000
19 000
20000
21 000
22 000
24 000
29,000.
$6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10.000
12 000
14.000
15 000
17,000
20000
22 000
24 000
25,000.
$13 000.
12,000.
12,000.
13,000.
13,000.
14,000.
15,000.
16.000.
16~000.
17~000.
19.000.
20,000.
22,000.
48.
$7,000.
8000
10,000
10 000
10000
11 000
12 000
12 000
12 000
13 000
15 000
17 000
19,000.
$6,000
6,000
7000
7 000
7 000
8 000
8 000
8 000
8 000
9 00,0
10 000
10 000
12,000.
$77 000.
83,000.
93,000.
99,000.
104,000.
115,000.
127,000.
133,000.
140,000.
150,000.
163~000.
175~000.
200,000.
i
I
!
I
I
!
!
I
!
i
!
!
!
I
i
I
!
I
!
I
!
!
inch meter and service and with higher minimums for larger
meters. The uniform rate adjusts for the extra cost assigned
to higher demand rate of the larger users. The recommended
rate schedule is as follows:
TABLE XI
RATE SCHEDULE
PER qUARTER
MINIMUM BILL
GALLONS INCLUDED
3/4" meter $10.80
1" 16.20
1-1/4" 21.60
1- 1/2" 32.40
2" 64.80
3" 129.60
4" 259 . 20
6" 518.40
18,000
27 000
36 000
54 000
108 000
216 000
432 000
864 000
Rate per thousand gallons 60{
For seasonal
service charge for
bill equivalent to
customers, the District should impose a
turning water on and off and a minimum
at least three quarters.
We have estimated that the average water bill per
customer will be $50.00 per year in preparing the financial
forecast.
For fire protection, it is recommended that an annual
charge be made to each fire district for each hydrant in-
stalled. In the early years, the amount of costs which
are dictated by fire protection would be very high until
49.
HOI. ZMACt4ER, V, eLENDON & MURREt. L,
~ONSULTINQ ENGINEERS
the number of customers increased substantially. Since
the revenue deficiency or any fire protection tax will be
raised by ad valorem taxation, it is recommended that a
reasonable hydrant rate be established at the beginning
and held consistently. We recommend an annual rate of
$60.00 per hydrant as a very reasonable amount since the
debt service alone on each hydrant, valve and branch will
approximate $40.00 per year. This leaves only $20.00 per
hydrant per year to pay for fire protection cost allocation
of plants and transmission mains and for maintenance. The
fire districts would, in turn, via the Town, impose a fire
district tax for hydrants to recover these charges.
A tabulation of estimated revenues is included in
Table XII.
TAX RATES
The required tax revenue is calculated as a tax rate
so that a property owner may estimate his water tax cost
based on his assessed valuation. These tax rate estimates
are included in Table XIII, and show a range of $2.35 to
$2.96 per hundred dollars of assessed valuation during the
first twelve years, with an average of $2.~0. As original
debt service costs decrease over the term of the bond issue,
the average rate would reduce further. As the system grows,
50.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
!
!
i
I
I
I
!
I
I
!
HOI~MACHER, McLEN~ON & MURRL~I~, P.C.
OONSUI. TI NQ ~.NGINIr IRS
TABLE XII
PROPOSED CUTCHOGUE - MATTITUCK WATER DISTRICT
ESTIMATED REVENUES
NO. NO. MISC.
YEAR SERVICES REVENUE HYDRANTS REVENUE REVENUE
1973 150
1974 375
1975 575
1976 775
1977 925
1978 1,125
1979 1,375
1980 1,575
1981 1,700
1982 1,800
1983 1,900
1984 2,000
$7,500.
18 750.
28 750.
38 750.
46 250.
56 250.
68 750.
78,750.
85,000.
90,000.
95,000.
100,000.
165
165
220
220
220
290
290
295
295
300
305
310
$9,900.
9 900.
13200.
13 200.
13 200.
17 4O0.
17 400.
17 700.
17 700.
18,000.
18,300.
18,600.
$600.
850.
1,050.
1,550.
1,550.
1,350.
1,850.
2,050.
2,300.
2,000.
1,700.
1,400.
1987 2,100 115,000.
TOTAL
$18,000.
29,500.
43,000.
53,500.
61,000.
75,000.
88,000.
98,500.
105,000.
110,000.
115,000.
120~000.
51.
320 18,900. 1,100 135~000.
TABLE XIII
PROPOSED CUTCHOGUE-MATTITUCK WATER DISTRICT
FINANCIAL FORECAST (15 YEARS)
ORIGINAL DISTRICT ENTIRE WATER DISTRICT
OPERATION TOTAL OR
DEBT ASSESSED TAX DEBT AND TOTAL ASSESSED TAX NET TAX
YEAR SERVICE VALUE RATE SERVICE MAINTENANCE EXPENSES REVENJ3E (DEFICIT) VALUE RATE RATE
1973 82,500 7,400~000 1.11 67,500 77,000 144,500 18,000 (126,500) 7,400,000 1.71 2.82
1974 82,500 7,425,000 1.11 67,500 83,000 150~500 29,500 (121,000) 7,425,000 1.63 2.74
1975 110,000 7,450,000 1.48 90,000 93,000 183,000 43,000 (140,000) 9,450,000 1.48 2.96
1976 108,350 7,475~000 1.45 88,650 99,000 187,650 53,500 (134,150) 9,500,000 1.41 2.86
1977 106,700 7,500,000 1.42 87,300 104,000 191,300 61,000 (130,300) 9,550,000 1.36 2.78
1978 105,050 7,525,000 1.40 85,950 115,000 200,950 75,000 (125,950) 11,600,000 1.09 2.49
1979 103,400 7,550,000 1.37 84,600 127,000 211,600 88,000 (123,600) 11,650,000 1.06 2.43
1980 101,750 7,575,000 1.34 83,250 133,000 216,250 98,500 (117,740) 11,700,000 1.01 2.35
1981 105,600 7,600,000 1.39 86,400 140,000 226,400 105,000 (121,400) 11,750,000 1.03 2.42
1982 103,620 7,625,000 1.36 84,780 150,000 234,780 110,000 (124,780) 11,800,000 1.06 2.42
1983 101,640 7,650,000 1.33 83,160 163,000 246,160 115,000 (131,160) 11,850~000 1.11 2.44
1984 99,660 7,675,000 1.30 81,540 175,000 256,540 120,000 (136,540) 11,900,000 1.15 2.45
1987 93,720 7,725,000 1.21 76,680 200,000 276,680 135,000 (141,680) 12,000,000 1.18 2.39
I
I
!
I
i
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
!
!
HOLZMACHER, Mct. ENDON & MURREI. L, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
additional projects will be required with corresponding
debt service costs, but usually the additional revenues
would provide for reduced tax rates. If the majority of
the people in the district connect and use the public
supply as they should, a considerable amount of the debt
service can be paid from revenue. It is proposed that
the revenne received be used first for operation and
maintenance and then debt service on district-wide improve-
ments, such that it is unlikely that there would be suf-
ficient revenue to pay any portion of the individual ex-
tensions or original district distribution debt service
costs.
If a lesser tax rate is mandatory, the alternative
is higher water rates, but the plan recommended would be
best since it would not discourage water use and would
also permit income tax savings by each consumer.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOi~ENDATIONS
It is reconrmended that the Town Board set a schedule
of two informational meetings in Cutchogue and Mattituck,
so that the recommended district plan can be discussed.
If the people affected indicate a favorable response, then
we recommend that the Town Board proceed under Article 12A
53.
of the Town Law to authorize the district. It will require
I about 18 months to complete the plan recommended.
Respectfully submitted,
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
I Project DJ. rector
54.
I
I
I
I
!
I
SUM~RY OF WATER ANA~LysEs
I 8-5 N~C, Main ~ Factory, (Sunoco) 1/20/72 ] 0.~ ~. <0.02 5 <0.1
S-27 ~ve La.~ Al's Barber Shop, MattituCk 1/25/72 3~0 6.1
HARD.
72
53
50
55
33
46
30
136
187
260
68
I
!
NOTES:
S-NOS. Sullolk County Dept. ol Health Lq[)
H-Nos. I{olzmacher~ McLendorl ~ Murrell, P.C. Lab
KEY TO COLUMN HEADINGS~
NO3 As N - Nitrate Nitrogen Fe - Iron
HOI. ZMACHER. McLENQON & MURREt. L, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS APPENDTZ ~fB~f
SAMPLE
NO.
ADDITIONAL NITRATE TEST RESULTS
(JANUARY 14, 1972)
LOCATION
NITRATE
NITROGEN
SPECIFIC
CONDUCTIVITY
H-44
H-45
H-46
H-47
H-48
H-49
H-50
H-51
H-52
H-53
H-54
H-55
H-56
H-57
H-58
H-59
H-60
H-61
H-62
H-63
H-64
H-65
H-66
H-67
NOTE:
North side Laurel Lake
South side Laurel Lake
Factory Ave. n/o Main Rd.
Mattituck High School
Pond s/o L.IoR.R. near Mill La.
Mill La. at Main Rd.
Marratooka at Sunset
Lake Marratooka, North side
Lake Marratooka, South side
Elijah 0.6 miles n/o Main Rd.
Elijah at Main Rd.
Alvahs La. 0.3 miles n/o Main Rd.
0.8
0.8
2.0
11.5
0.6
6.6
5.1
1.0
0.8
19.8
9.9
17.9
130
140
115
450
60
200
200
llO
110
400
450
630
Alvahs Lao 1.0 miles n/o Main Rd. 1.9 140
Alvahs La° 0.2 miles n/o Main Rd. 4.5 190
Depot Lao, RoC. Church 7.2 300
Depot Lao 0.5 miles n/o Main Rd. 4.2 230
Depot Lao at L.IoRoRo 19.2 300
Depot La. 0°8 miles n/o Main Rdo 5.4 350
School St. at Depot La° 10.9 300
Cox Lao 250 fro n/o Main Rd. 13.6 1050
Cox La. 800 fto n/o Main Rd. 13.8 500
Cox La. 1/4 mile s/o LoI.RoRo 6.4 450
Bridge La. at Main Rd° 12.8 400
Bridge La. 0.5 miles n/o Main Rd. 20°8 500
Above analyses by Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell,
Nitrates by Electrode Method
P.C. Lab
APPENDIX t'C"
HOLZMACHER, IvtcLENDON & MURRELL, P. C. / Consulting Engineers
LABORATORY REPORT
LAB. NO. 72~1468 CLIENT Holzmacher,McLendon & Murrell P.C. for
Firewell south Side Rt.25 Town Of S0uihbld SO 71~I
TYPE WATER opp. Mattituck High ADDRESS
SOURCE We],l SAMPLINC-, PT
DATE: COLLECTED 3/30/~72 RECEIVED 3/30/7~ REPORTED . 4/17/78 .................
BACTERIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL & PHYSICAL
Agar Pis1, Count per mL
Color ...... '~....5..... p.p~l. Carbon Dioxide 5 o3 p.p.m. Hardnell ...... ~..'~1~ __. CaCO3
....... CO2
COLIFORM TESTS ................. Si02 Calcium ....... 9.~ ............. CaCO3 Phenol AIk ......... ~ ....... "
lectose J. Confirm Odor (cold) 0 p,p.m. Totll Aik ..... 1~.~ .....
MI 24 .J 48 ~ 24 48 .... Magnesium ...... ~.0. ..... CaCO3
10 I I O~or (hot) g ............... Sodium . _1.8..~ ...... p.p.m. Ammonia (Free) Qm.~ ppm.
1 Lab. Temperature . .~.~ ..... 'F Chloride, ..._~.*.~. ........ p.p.m. Ammonia (AIb.) .... _~_... "
!
01 Tot, I Iron . ..~.,~ .... p.p.m. (~6)
j J Fe Chromium ............ Cr +6 Nitrites ............ "
~.~,.,,, <. 02 ~.p.~. ~i,,.,,, . ..8..._8 ....... "
CoHform pe~ t~ ~1 pH --6'~-~ ............. Acidity .~.~.~ p.p.m. Coppe~ ........ ~...~
Sulfate 50 . . p.p.m,
Conductivity ....... ~.q~ ..... mhos .................................. p,p.m ........... p.p.m.
REMARKS:
Samples collecfed by:
lab personnel
Water is moderately hard, high but acceptable
nitrates, sulfates and total solids; iron &
manganese are excellent. Water is typically North
Fork Well Supply.
W;th regards to the Test(s) performed this water is of a as,..~o.t~d abov~ ...... qualify.
W. Fitterer ...'. L.[:
CHEMIST / S. C, McLENDON, Director
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
PROPOSED
CUTCHOGUE - MATTITUCK
WATER DISTRICT
ENGINEERING REPORT
PART 2
PART I - REPORT, RECOMMENDATIONS & PLANS
PART 2 - ASSESSED VALUATIONS
JUNE 1972
TOWN BOARD
ALBERT M. MARTOCCHIA,
Supervisor
Justices of the Peace
MARTIN SUTER
LOUIS M. DEMAREST
E. PERRY EDWARDS
Councilmen
JAMES F. HOMAN
JAMES H. RICH, JR.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C.
Consulfing Engineers
Melville, New York
TABULATION OF
ASSESSED VALUATIONS
OF PROPERTIES WITHIN
PROPOSED CUTCHOGUE - MATTITUCK WATER DISTRICT
(REFER TO DRAWING NO. SO71-1-1 FOR LOCATIONS)
HOLZMACHER, McL£NDON and MURRELL, P.C.
Consulflng Engineers
Melville, New York
CODE
NO.
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
NAME
E. Horton
P. G. Horton
I. P. Krupski
O. Keil
ASSESSED VALUATIONS
B-2
B-3
B-4
m-6
B-7
3-8
B-9
B-10
B-il
B-12
B-13
Albert Krupski
M. Konarski
T. Klos
E. G. Horton
Richard Moore
M. V. $. Schaumann
M. T. Richmond
A. Doroski
D. Pratt
Flora Luce
F. A. Luce
H. Norkelun
W. S. Midgley, Sr.
C-1
C-Z
A. Richmond
F. Rogers, Jr,
LAND
VALUE
$1,800.
Part
Part
Part
5,500.
400.
1,000.
2,300.
600.
800.
800.
800.
1,000.
600.
1,500.
?00.
610.
600 .
900.
TOTAL
VALUE
$6,200,
1,800.
5,800.
5,800.
8 800.
2 100.
3 500.
2 500.
3 000.
3 000.
5 000.
4,500.
3,300.
600.
6,200.
6,000.
· 3,600.
3,200.
5,400.
HOI.ZMACH£R. McLENOON & MIJRI~I.~ PC,
CON&U~T~N~
CODE
NO.
C-3
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
C-11
C-12
C-13
NAME
W. Midgley, Jr.
Wm. Bauer
Lehman
I. Ross
C. D. Tyler, Jr·
Midgley & Horton
G. G. Bailey
Richard Miraglia
iV. G. Stepnoski
W. Silleck
Clara E. Tuthill
G. Stepnoski
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-S
D~6
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-il
A ~ H Wysocki
M. Wysocki
M. H. Hawkins
School Dist. No. 8
R. A. Johnson
S. Rysko
F. Pumello
School Dist. No. 8
To Have & To Hold,
R. Richmond
P. Taylor
(Exempt)
(Exempt)
Inc.
LAND
VALUE
$800.
600.
600.
400.
600.
1,500.
700.
3,000.
800.
4,700.
800.
4,000.
1,500.
500.
1,000.
2,500.
600.
600.
3,200.
Part
1,S00.
SO0.
1,100.
TOTAL
VALUE
$4,000.
4,800.
3,100.
2 800.
4 900.
1,500.
2.500.
3 000.
5 100.
11 800.
3 800.
5 100.
5.700.
2 900·
5 900.
23 200.
3 300·
1 800.
3 200.
1 300.
1~600.
3,100.
3,400.
CODE
~O.
D-12
D-13
D-14
D-1S
NA~,IE
J. P. Zabriski
M. Filla
P. Abatelli
~dcCallum
E-2
i~-3
E-4
E. E. Holland
Cemetery (Exempt)
;V. P. Tuthill
Dalchet Corp.
F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-5
F-6
F-7
F-8
F-9
F-10
F-il
F-12
F-13
A. Zaveski
John Zaveski
A. O. Davids
J. F. Szymanowski
I4enish
R. F. Tuthill
B. F. Tuthill
Sterling
H. F. Case
W. G. Stepnoski
C. P. Orlowski
S. Rysko & WF
Stanley Rysko
LAND
VALUE
Part
$2,000.
1,000.
1,300.
1,500.
1,500.
3,100.
Part
Part
500.
Part
1,500.
600.
700.
900.
Part
700.
Part
900.
1,400.
Part
TOTAL
VALUE
$3,900.
2,000.
3,100.
3,100.
4,400.
1,500.
8,800.
4,900.
7,800
500
6,500
3 800
4 200
3 900
4 300
9 600.
2 100.
1 100.
2,300.
5,400.
8,200.
HO~ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRI~ P.~..
CODE
NO.
F-14
F-iS
F-16
F-17
F-18
F-19
F-20
F-21
F-22
F-23
F-25
F-26
F-27
F-28
F-29
F-30
F-31
F-32
F-33
NAME
H. B. Robinson
D. Robinson
G. Brynda
Z. Rysko
B. & J. Pawlugzyk
i4. J. Mullen
J. Dixon
g. Thompson
G. E. Marchais
John Pietrewicz
Mary Doroski
T. Doroski
F. Doroski
F. & N. Doroski
E. A. 8oyd
B. L. Austin
New York Telephone Company
i{orth Fork Shoping Center,
S & E Construction
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
Bennett Urlowski
Glover
J. Homan
Sabetli
LAND
VALUE
Part
$8oo.
800.
1~700.
Part
1,800.
500.
500.
900.
1,500.
Part
700.
500.
1,100.
500.
600.
3,000.
Inc. 5,300.
28,300.
Part
500.
600.
600.
TOTAL
}~LUE
$8,600
3 300
3,800
6 400
7 600
1 800
1 800
2 700.
S 400.
5 000.
4,800.
3~900.
3,800.
6,100.
500.
1,600.
173,400.
8,300.
128,500.
11~500.
4,600.
4,900.
4,400.
HOI. ZMACH£R, MCLENDON & MURRL'L~ p~
~ON,.qJI.TING F. NGAN E~p.~
CODE LAND
NO. N~E VALUE
G-5 Gibbs $600.
G-6 L. Green 400.
G-? ~4. E. Parsonage 200.
G-8 W.J. Baxter 1,100
G-9 Schradin $00.
G-10 J. Madzelan ?00.
H-1
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
Edward W. Fox 300.
G. H. Fleet Est. Part
Clarence C. Fleet & O'rs. 3,600.
D'Emo 600.
Blados 700.
J. Wickham Est. 500.
John S. Wickham Est. Part
J-1 Hemyls Wickham 100.
J-2 H. Pumillo 800.
J-3 H. Pumillo 400.
J-4 I. Le¥in 500.
.1-5 W.M. Luce 1,000.
J-6 North Fork Bank ~ Trust Co. 2,000.
J-7 Cutchogue Fire District (Exempt)l,000.
J-8 E. A, Vernon 1,700.
TOTAL
VALUE
$4,200.
2,800.
1,800.
1,100.
2,800.
4,200.
6,100.
2,000.
10,200.
4,000.
S,000.
S00.
8,700.
2,400.
5,500.
2,000.
3,100.
4,200.
14~300.
1,200.
5~900.
HOi 7MACHE~R, MCLENDON & MURRLcU./PC.
CONSUI.T~NG
CODE
NO.
J-9
J-10
J-il
J-12
J-13
J-14
J-15
J-16
J-17
J-18
J-19
J-20
J-21
J-22
J-23
J-24
J-25
J-26
J-27
J-28
J-29
J-30
J-31
J-32
A. & J. Blaschack
E. F. Billard
J. P. Reeve
J. P. Horton (L. T.
Horton)
LAND
VALUE
$1,300.
800.
800.
2,600.
1,400.
800.
800.
800.
2,000.
5,000.
1,500.
1,800.
darrison Case
Teresko
H. Beebe
W. id. Beebe
~. Teresko
A. J. Rysko
C. Ron
F. Kaelin
Cutchogue Fire District(Exempt) 1,$00.
C. P. Tuthill 1,500.
Roman Catholic Church (Exempt) 1,000.
Library (Exempt)
N. G. Beebe
Oliver Williamson
Homart
Finkel
G. H. Case
Cind. Cong. Crch(Exempt)
Franke
Steele
1,000.
400.
600.
1,200.
1,300.
2,500.
500.
800.
900.
TOTAL
VALUE
$10 300.
4 700.
8,000.
4500.
4 400.
2 900.
2 800.
4 500.
5 600.
12000.
4,500.
S 600.
7 300
7 500
4 000
2,500
4 000
3 500
6 100
4 700.
2 500.
1 500.
4 100.
3 900.
HOi 7MACH£R, McLENDON & tAURREtJ~
CON.IULTINO F.N~NF.U~
CODE
NO.
J-33
J-34
J- 35
J - 36
J- 37
NAME
F. H. Case,
R. Horton
Cain
R. Case
K. Reeve
Est.
K-1
K-2
K-3
K-4
K-5
K-6
K-7
K-8
K-9
K-10
K-il
K-12
North Fork Club
North Fork Club
Presby. Parsonage
~ylie
A. Merdo
W. &arrison Case
Hoffman
F. B. Rogers
E. Sontum
J. A. Hand
Goubeano
Cut. Ind. Cong.
Soc.
(Exempt)
(Exempt)
L-1
L-2
L-3
L-4
F. Machinchick Est.
North Fork Country Club
M. Kurpiewski
C. J. Jablonski
LAND
VALUE
$3,300.
500.
600.
700.
700.
Part
6,800.
800.
2,800.
1,100.
Part
Part
1,000.
300.
600.
600.
2,400.
1,200.
800.
200.
300.
TOTAL
VALUE
$3,300.
4,000.
4,100.
4,700.
4,400.
1,900.
6,800.
4,100.
8,700.
6,000.
2,500.
2,300.
8,000.
300.
3,600.
3,400.
7,000.
3,600.
4,900.
1,000.
1,800.
I
I
I
!
I
I
!
i
I
I
!
I
I
I
!
CODE
NO.
L-5
L-6
L-7
L-8
L~9
L-10
L-il
L-12
L-13
L-14
A. T. Jablonski
M. Muzinic
tV. Wickham
Baxter
D. Andruski
B. Pace
J. Solecki
S. L. Dickerson
M. Elak
J. Elak
M*2
M~3
M~4
M-5
M-7
M-8
M-9
M-10
M~ll
M-12
R. A. Miller
Bialecki
Rosenfeld
B. L. Tomaszaewski
S. & M. Ambroski
H. H. Fleishmann
W. J. Fogarty
C. h. Zaneski
J. Zaneski
Walter Kaelin
Hetzer
R. S. Bailey
'M. E. Church (Exempt)
e
LAND
VALUE
Ssoo.
Part
600.
Part
Part
700.
1,600.
1,000.
Part
400.
600.
1,800.
1,200.
S00.
600.
400.
400.
400.
40O
9OO
7O0
5OO
1,800.
TOTAL
VALUE
$4,300.
16,500.
1,000.
7,200.
10,700.
4,900.
6,000.
4,200.
8,300.
3~400.
5,000.
4,700.
6~500.
2,500.
2 000.
4 300.
2 600.
3 000.
2 600.
4 SOO.
6,000.
3~600.
8,800.
!
I
!
I
i
I
I
i
I
i
!
i
I
I
I
I
CODE
NO.
M-14
M-iS
M- 16
M-17
M-18
M-19
M- 20
M-21
LAND TOTAL
NAME VALUE VALUE
Cemetery (Exempt) $5,000. $5,000.
A. Zaneski 4,500. 7,500.
Lappe 3,200. 3,200.
Marion Columbus Club 1,000. 1,000.
Victoria Halecki 300. 1,800.
~dnelia Kurczewski 600. 1,400.
Steve J. Doroski Part 7,100.
A. Doroski 800. 4,500.
i~- 1
N-2
N-3
N-4
N- 5
N-6
N-7
Rockville Center Diocese(Exempt)3,300.
C.g. Isaacs 600.
P. H. Horlowski 600.
;~ilhelmina Kaelin 400.
Cutchogue Polish Dem. Club,Inc. 1,000.
I. M. Young 3,200.
Antone Chituk 1,600.
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-6
3,300.
4 400.
4 000.
3 200.
1.000.
13600.
5 300.
Wm. H. Baxter 1,600. 6,500.
H. Madzelan 500. 1,800.
H. Sarnowski 300. 2,800.
Rakowitz 500. 3,400.
Sacred Heart Church (Exempt) 1,000. 4,000.
W.J.Baxter Jr. & O'rs. 7,700. 7,700.
!
!
I
!
I
!
I
i
I
I
!
I
!
i
HOLZMACH[R, McLENOON & MURR~I.J~
CON,tULT~NG
CODE
NO.
P-7
P-8
P-9
P-10
P-il
P-12
P-13
P-14
P-15
P-16
P-17
P-18
P-19
P-20
P-21
P-22
P-23
P-24
P-25
P-26
P-27
P-28
P-29
P-30
N~ME
R. C. Church (Exempt)
W. J. Baxter Jr. & Or's.
C. Tyler
A. Kurczewski
C. ~ E. Tyler
A. McCaffery
S. Starsiak
L. Diachun
Madzlen
Falco
A. Mehl
Chas. Schneider
W. J. Baxter Jr. & O'rs.
J. & A. Wickham
A. J. Terp
A. J. Terp
Old Town Arts & Crafts
S. G. Case
B. Chugin
J. & A. Nickham
H. A. Orlowski
I. Samohel
Town of Southold (Exempt)
V. Stype
10.
LAND
VALUE
$1,o0o.
100.
700.
6,500.
700.
500.
500.
700.
600.
400.
500.
100.
2,200.
1,500.
1,400.
1,800.
800.
800.
500.
300.
900.
900.
1,000.
TOTAL
VALUE
$7,500.
100.
7,200.
10,500.
3,200.
2,300.
4,500.
4,800.
4,000.
400.
5,200.
100.
2,200.
1,500.
1,400.
6,800.
1,800.
3,200.
5,400.
400.
4,900.
3,900.
4,000.
CODE
NO.
P-31
P-32
P-33
P-34
P-35
P-36
P-37
P-38
P-39
P-40
NAME
H. Wickham Est.
Shell OI1 Company
A. & B. Danowski
School District No.
G. Kloss
Pauluczyk
Unknown
W. Debowski
L. A. Knight
G. J. Mullen
Q-1
Q-4
Q-6
Q-7
Q-10
q-ll
q-12
Q-13
Gatz
Gatz
~. Gatz
Wm. Heaney & O'rs.
A. Cybulski
Buidin
Gronski
F. B. McCaffery
Ignatius Smith
W. S. Martka
F. Machinchick
A. L. Gorman
Hanna
Rettcick
12(Exempt)
11.
LAND
VALUE
$500.
2,500.
500.
4,400.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
600.
5,100.
600.
12,100.
5,800.
1,200.
1,000.
400.
300.
5OO
3OO
2,900
500
4OO
500
TOTAL
VALUE
$2,100.
6,000.
4,600.
52,000.
500.
3~400.
4,300.
4,900.
2,400.
4,500.
5,100.
3~200.
17,000
5,800
8,100
4,400
3~400
3,000
3,500.
1,000.
4,900.
2,800.
3,400.
3~400.
CODE
NO.
Q-14
q-15
NAME
Alvah's Farm Co.
Anna Ramski
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
R-7
R-8
R-9
R-10
R-11
R-12
R-13
R-14
R-15
R-16
R-l?
R-18
R-19
R-20
R-21
Slater
Louis T. Verderese
M. Horton
W. H. McAfee
Henry E. Horton
Louis T. Verderese
Grathwohl
Ed. E. Grathwohl
E. Grohoski
R. A. McCallum
Sawastyiwicz
M. E. Corey
McCaffrey
Jos. Faszczewski
Presbyterian Church (Exempt)
Presbyterian Church (Exempt)
Presbyterian Church (Exempt)
B. Greiner & O'rs.
L. Evans
P. Kaloski
J. Grohoski
12.
LAND
VALUE
$5,100.
500.
1,100.
5OO
800
7OO
2,900
2,600
8OO
1,000
6OO
800.
6,400.
2,900.
400.
700.
1,100.
12,200.
1,000.
7,800.
500.
TOTAL
VALUE
$5,100.
3,800.
2,600.
500.
3,500.
4 800.
2 900.
12 400.
4 800.
2 600.
3 500
5,300
9,400
7,800
2,300
4,100
10,200.
16,200.
5,400.
7,500.
500.
I
CODE
NO.
N;JdE
LAND
VALUE
TOTAL
VALUE
I
I
R-22
R-23
E. C. Lipnicki
M. Koloski
$600.
600.
$3,300.
5,300.
S-1
S~2
S-3
S-4
S-6
S-7
S-8
S-9
S-10
5-11
S-12
E. A. Zuhoski
E. A. Zuhoski, Jr.
J. Haurus
H. A. Pollak
J. Zuhoski
C. Chudzinsh
P. Gancarz
P. blatwieczyk
F. Machinchick Est.
J. Matwieczyk
P. Matwieczyk
J.P.Krupski
1,400
1,200
6O0
3,000
1,800
1,500
700.
Part
Part
600.
Part
Part
5 800.
6 600.
6 900.
7 400.
6 300.
4 3OO.
4 S00.
1 000.
2 700.
4 100.
1 000.
1 100.
T-2
Hallock E. Tuthill
~. E. Burns
2,100.
1,000.
5,900
4 000
T-3
T-4
T~5
T,,7
I. T. Bonkoski
Paul Kaloski
M. Koss
F. Kapustka
Zelinski ~ Koloski
A. Zelinski
5,200.
2,100.
1,000.
1,200.
800.
600.
8 6OO
5 900
4 300
4 200
4 100
6OO
13.
CODE
NO.
T-9
T-10
T-il
T-12
T-13
T-14
T-15
T-16
T-17
T-18
T-19
T-20
T-21
T-22
T-23
T-24
T-2S
T-27
T-28
T-29
T-30
T-31
NAME
E. ~dcCaffery
T. C. McCaffery
C. }4cCaffery
Kuhlman
C. Grathwohl
R. Grathwohl
F. ??. Kaelin
C. Grathwohl
R. Coyne
S. Beebe
D. Beebe
Beebe
Hagen
R. Petrash
Mary E. Marcinowski
Audrey Dickey
R. L. ~Voodhull
R. Horton
Cut. St. Venture
C. J. Alec
Cross
Con Begenski
14.
LAND
VALUE
$7oo.
800.
800.
700.
700.
1,300.
500.
700.
600.
800.
1,600.
700.
600.
300.
400.
Part
1,600.
Part
Part
1,100.
Part
Part
TOTAL
VALUE
$4,000.
4,400.
3,700
3,000
5,400
3 400
4.600
5,400
2 800
6 300
5 700
700.
3,000.
300.
2,700.
1,900.
6,100.
7,600.
2,800.
4,800.
5,400.
7,700.
(X)NSUI. TIt~IG ,rd~U N F..ER~
CODE
NO.
U-1
U-2
U-3
U-5
U-6
U-7
U-8
U-9
N~IE
Annie Zaneski
~Vesley Simchick
Amelia Simchick
Stanley Simchick
~Vheelco Prop. Inc.
McGunnigle
John Simcik
Prank Kaumeckas
Lewis Edson
V-1
V-2
V-3
V-4
V-5
V-6
Tuthill
?4atsun
F. Salter
Village of
Adell, Jr.
Tuthill
Greenport
W-1
~-2
~- 3
W-6
W-7
Baxter
W. J. Baxter
J. J. ~ici4anus
Peconic Bay Gardens
Agnes Graboski
J. J. Fleming
R. Bergen
15.
LAND
VALUE
$1,ooo.
5,400.
500.
Fart
Part
2,300.
500.
400.
500.
500.
600.
Part
700.
2,100.
6,400.
300.
Part
Part
800.
400.
TOTAL
VALUE
$1,000
12,400
4,700
5,000
5,000
6,800
Negligible
4,?00.
1,050.
500.
4,200.
2,700.
4,200.
3~600.
8,000.
21,100.
300.
2,000.
5,200.
3,800.
6,500.
HOi,ZMACH~R. McLENDON & MURRLrU./PC.
CONSUl. TiNG ENGINEERS
CODE
NO.
~9-9
~-10
~-11
~- 12
,V- 13
~V- 14
~- 15
~'~- 16
W*17
~-18
~-19
~V-20
NAME
C. Frazee
V. Graboski
Edward Rutkoski
Aenry Rutkoski
Henry Rutkoski
Barney Sidor
Ernest F. Dickerson
Gladys T. D±ckerson
Gowing
Graeb
Elmer D. Ruland, Jr.
Elmer D. Ruland, Jr.
Wm. Ruland
LAND
VALUE
$500.
700.
900.
800.
Part
Part
900.
Part
1,600.
800.
Part
Part
X-2
X-3
X-4
X- 5
K- 6
Alma Suter
Frank & Martin Sidor
Peconic Homes Sub.
Frank Billard Est.
Saland
Ruth Engel
Part
Part
3,500.
600.
1,600.
1,500.
Y-1
~vLqTTITUCK ESTATES, INC. FILE MAP NO.
600.
600.
16.
TOTAL
VALUE
$4,000.
4:100.
2,100.
6,700.
4,900.
6,300.
900.
4,000.
4,200.
4~400.
2,700.
6,300.
5,100.
7,000.
3,500.
1,900.
5,300.
1,500.
4453
600.
600.
CODE
ilO.
Y-3
¥-4
Y-6
Y-7
Y-8
Y-9
Y-10
Y-il
Y-12
Y-13
Y-14
Y-15
Y-15
¥-17
¥-18
Y-19
Y-20
Y-59
~icKay
Eliz. Tuthill
H. Edwards
Ernest Jones
Antone Adans
John Hiska
Charles Miska
Kathryn Adams
~4ileska
J. ~diska, Jr.
James Tyler
Florence Terry
Roland Marsh
Gunter ;dorchel
Frank Tyler
Mattituck Historical Society
Z-2
Z-3
Chicavowicy
Aline Dare
Elberta Reeve
~rooks
17.
LAND
VALUE
$6oo.
600.
800
3,000
8OO
7OO
1,100
7OO
Part
2,100.
1,100.
1,400.
500.
500.
600.
500.
600.
600.
500.
1,000.
1,100.
500.
100.
TOTAL
VALUE
$600.
600.
800.
6,100.
6,700.
5,400.
8,000.
5,600.
14,500.
4,700.
2,200.
1,400.
500.
500.
3,000.
4,000.
4,000.
4,000.
500.
5,000.
8,300.
500.
100.
CODE
NO.
Z-5
Z-6
Z-7
Z-8
Z-9
LAND
VALUE
AA-1
~-2
~-4
~-6
AA-7
~-8
~-9
S-10
~-11
~12
~-14
~16
AA-17
N~4E
;4arguerite Norris Part
Cedric Wickham
Wickham
J. Parker ~Vickham
Above three estimated in part at
Parker Wickham $800.
18.
i~larratooka Corp.
Bejoks
Moore
Rhoges
Thomas
Edw. A. Sawicki
Edw. ~irsing~ Jr.
Arthur 14cCaw
Russell Nine
Sobicray
Peoro
Doyle
Doyle
Reeves
Kathryn H. McCollum
Earl H. Woodhull
Helen M. Goldsmith
800.
700.
TOTAL
VALUE
$12,900.
11,100.
6,500.
8,700.
400.
4,000.
5,200.
5,100.
6,300.
5~000.
4,500.
3,100.
2,100.
600.
2~600.
2,600.
8,200.
5~600.
2,800.
7~200.
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOITMACH[R, MCLENOON & MURI~L'I.L,
~ONSU~TING F.N(~NF.E:RS
CODE
NO.
AA-18
AA- 19
AA-20
AA- 21
AA-22
AA-23
AA-24
AA- 25
AA-26
AA-27
AA- 28
AA- 29
AA-30
AA- 31
AA-32
AA- 33
AA- 34
AA-3$
AA- 36
~-38
AA- 39
~-40
W. R. ~ickham
Vaitis
Florence Buchan
Gertrude Dedrick
C. H. ~ickham
~4arguerite L. Norris
F. E. Griffith
Elberta ~l. Reeve
George L. Penny, III
~illard J. Heggen
Otto L. Anrig
Mattituck School Property
Albert Schwickler
R. Cox
Presbyterian Parsonage
Stanley Pylko
Robert E. Lindsay
Fred Siemerling
Parkin
Audrey T. Abitz
Skevo Felix
North Ridge
Starron
19.
LAND
VALUE
(Exempt)
(Exempt) $1,200.
TOTAL
VALUE
$4,800.
3,800.
2,000.
2,200.
300.
1,000.
100.
100.
8,200.
11,200.
1,700.
1,200.
3,000.
6,400.
3,600.
3,800.
600.
6,200.
7,000.
4,000.
4,000.
3,600.
HOI. ZMACH~R, MCLENOON & MURItE~ PC.
{:ON~Ui. TIN~ F. NG~N ~Z:P~
CODE
NO.
BB-1
BB-2
BB-3
BB-4
BB~21
BB-22
BB-23
BB-24
BB-5
BB-6
BB-7
BB~8
BB-9
BB-10
BB-11
BB-12
BB-13
BB~14
BB~15
BB-16
BB~17
NAME
LAND
VALUE
VILLAGE MANOR FILE ~IAP NO. 3669
W. J. Baxter, Jr.
W. J. Baxter, Jr.
McCaffery
Kettler
Sleojeski
Becker
Elmer D. Ruland, Jr. Part
Victorine Lessard
Mileska
Wilfred Ruland
Pim
Eliz. Coleman
Coleman
A. Worthington
Hudson
S. Tandy
Mattituck School Property(Exempt)S5,000.
Harold Hudson
Malcolm Tuthill
20.
TOTAL
VALUE
$5,200.
300.
300.
300.
4,500.
5,000.
4,500.
500.
1,500
3~600
5,000
5,500
4,300
6OO
3~200.
3~300.
3,300.
4,600.
5,000.
3,100.
3~800.
HOLZM~:HER, Mr..I.EN~ON & MURI~[~.,
CODE
NO.
BB-18
BB-19
BB-20
BB-25
BB-26
BB-27
BB-28
BB-29
BB-$0
BB-$1
BB-32
BB-33
BB-34
BB-35
BB-36
BB-57
BB-$8
BB~39
BB-40
BB-41
BB-42
BB~4$
BB-44
NAME
Hazel Hudson
V. F. Browne
H. E. Meyer
G. Maneri
Leon Milowski
R. Charters
Romeo
John Rose
Russell
F. Greeves
E. F. Jerome
DeFriest Funeral Homes
J. F. Eckert
G. R. Hallenback
F. J. Dries
J. H. Catrow
H. W. Gerdes
J. Woessner
A. Johnson
Sullivan
American Legion (Exempt)
Viola Kramer
F. Tyler
21.
LAND
VALUE
$1,200.
TOTAL
VALUE
$5,800.
5,700.
5,000.
3,800.
5,400.
5 700.
4 400.~
5 400
5 700
4 500
6 800
9 300
4 800
2 800
2700
3,300
8 500
4 100
4 000.
5,300.
2,200.
2,400.
3,000.
CONSU~TSNG [NG~N F..~i~
CODE
NO.
BB-45
BB-46
BB-4?
BB~48
BB-49
BB-50
~B-51
BB~52
B3~53
BB~54
BB~55
BB~56
BB-5?
BB-58
BB~59
NAME
Irma Reeve
W. L. Dohm
E. Berkoski
McBride
C. E. Stelzer
John Wilcenski
Waller
Petrowski
J. M. O'Connell
H. Jacobs
K. G. Brown Mfg. Co.
Mileska
A. Harker
T. M, Wells
Terry & Hill
CC~i
CC~2
CC~3
CC-4
CC~S
CC~6
CC~7
CC~8
John Sider
John J. Sider
County (Exempt)
Epis. Diocese of L.I.
S, J. Jurkoski
F. D, Oliver
F. Kreh
Frank Raynor
(Exempt)
22.
LAND
VALUE
$600.
500.
500.
400.
400.
5,000.
800.
1,200.
1,000.
50O.
900.
400.
TOTAL
VALUE
$1 400
4 900
3 500
3300
4 400
5 500
2 300.
300.
1,200.
11,000.
600.
2,700.
3,500.
3,400.
400.
5,000.
6,700.
6,200.
5~800.
3,800.
900.
3,600.
HOLZMACH~rR, I, qOLENDON & M~JRREU.., PC.
OON~TIN~
CODE
NO.
CC-9
CC-10
CC-11
CC-12
CC-13
CC-14
CC~15
CC-16
CC-17
CC-18
CC-19
CC-20
CC-21
CC-22
CC-23
CC-24
CC~25
CC-26
CC-27
N~E
Carmen Sweeney
Tuthill
J Duryea
Diane Fabb
Diane Fabb
Wm. Fabb
C. Price
J. Sawicki
Comisky
H. Comiskey
J. F. Comisky
F. Kreh, Jr.
Lutheran Church (Exempt)
Erich Zwinkel
E. Mather
E. Mather
E. Mather
F. & M. Kreh
F. Kreh
R. Munch
C. Hanff
R. Johnson
CC-28
R. Tuthill
23.
LAND
VALUE
$400.
400.
600.
300.
200.
300.
300.
500.
200.
4OO
30O
2O0
5OO
40O
9OO
50.
50.
160.
100.
25.
150.
150.
300.
400.
150.
150.
700.
TOTAL
VALUE
$3,200.
2,800.
3,000.
300.
200.
3,300.
4,300.
3,300.
200.
400.
3,000.
500.
4,600.
2,600.
5,700.
50.
50.
160.
100.
25.
150.
150.
300.
400.
150.
2,550.
700.
CODE
NO.
CC-29
cc-30
CC-31
CC-32
CC-33
CC-34
CC-35
CC-36
CC-37
CC-38
CC-39
CC-40
CC-41
CC-42
CC-43
CC-44
CC-45
CC,~46
NAME
Frank Nowak
J. Zulewski
G. L. Tuthill
C. Besch
H. Jeavons
R. Bittner
D. Ambrust
~. Ambrust
C. Harvey
Carl Sklezel
H. Tyler
S. Zahra
J. McMahon
S. Marcus
Geo. Taylor
Geo. Taylor
J. Ricketts
Elwin Kolbe
CC-47
CC-48
CC-49
B. Orlowski
J. Lenahan
E. Skirel
24.
LAND
VALUE
$600
1,100
300
400
200
300
300
400
7O0
500
400
400
300
5OO
400
300
2OO
200.
300.
300.
50.
300.
50.
200.
S0.
400.
S0.
TOTAL
VALUE
$7,800.
3,000.
3,000.
400.
2,500.
2,300.
300.
3,500.
Exempt
500.
1,600
1,400
300
3,900
3,400
3OO
2OO
200.
2,300.
2,500.
50.
3,300.
50.
1,600.
50.
1,050.
50.
CODE
NO.
CC-S0
CC~51
cc-5z
CC-53
CC-54
CC-55
CC-56
CC-57
CC-58
CC-59
CC-60
CC-61
CC-62
CC-63
CC-64
CC-65
CC -66
CC~67
CC-68
CC-69
CC-,70
CC-71
CC~72
N~4E
County (Exempt)
County (Exempt)
John Lee
L. B. Hill
John Flowers
Doris Stigerwald
Jack A. Van Ryswyk
~oward Cain
Helen Sidor
Ed. Sidor
John Ship
John Sidor
Richard Drake
James T. Anderson
Keith Harris
T. E. Fox
Gertrude B. Raynor
C, Rhodes
R. Myers
R. Meyers
C. Reeve
J. Bielewicz
Terry ~ Hill
25.
LAND
VALUE
$300.
3OO
400
400
4OO
600
400
700
6OO
8OO
5OO
400
400
300.
500.
350.
500.
350.
350.
500.
300.
300.
TOTAL
VALUE
$300.
300.
400.
4OO
400
1,600
4OO
1,400
6,000
3,100
5OO
3,700
4~700
300
2,100
350.
300.
350.
1~200.
2,100.
300.
300.
CODE
i40.
CC-73
CC- 74
CC~75
CC~76
CC-77
CC-78
N~qE
~. D. Goldsmith
Stanley Waimey
David Zazeski
J. Van Ryswyk
F. J. Swiatocha
G. Charland
DD-1
DD-2
DD-3
DDt4
DD-5
DD*6
DD-7
DD-8
DD-9
DD-10
DD-ll
DD-12
DD-13
DD*14
DD-15
DD-16
DD~17
A. Dwyer
R. E. Brooks
C. T. Brown
Charles Koehler
R. Bassford
F. Gudson
Dorothea Delehanty
R. Lahmann
W. Starks
M. J. Schulam
Ruth Kimmins
Geo. Lessard
Phyliss Giammarino
Wm. Rupprecht
E. Slaga
Mason Est.
B. Espensen
26.
LAND
VALUE
$600
400
600
600
100
500
8OO
5OO
5OO
8OO
50O
7OO
1,000
1,500
1,600.
1,800.
2,000.
400.
600.
S00.
900.
700.
1,600.
TOTAL
VALUE
$5,100.
400.
600.
3,800.
100.
3,100.
3,200
4.600
1 250
3 950
2 600
5 500
5 050
5 500
1 600
2 600
9 200
500
6OO
3,100
5,050.
700.
5,450.
CODE
NO.
DD- 18
DD- 19
DD- 20
DDt21
DD-22
DDt23
DDt24
DDt25
DDt26
DD-27
DD-,28
DD- 29
DD-50
DD-31
DD- 32
DD-33
DDt34
DD- 35
DD- 36
DD~3~
DD-38
DD-$9
DD- 40
DD-41
NAME
Brower's Woods Assoc.
A. Dickerson
H. Di!lingham
Martin W. Filla
Alberta Smith
Alberta Smith
E. Kelly
Geo. Morgan
F. Bigleski
F. Deerkoski
Rich. Daidone
R. Lahmann
J. Kimmins
H. Zimnoski
Robert Holfeder
W. L. Wisniewski
Paul Mamold
N. A. Brusich
Jos. Di'Lalla
Wm. Russell
David Lenahan
Ralph Osborne
D. A. Schaaff
Martha Lang
Inc.
27.
LAND
VALUE
$1oo.
600.
900
1,600
1,200
4OO
600
6OO
500
5OO
5OO
5OO
6OO
500
600
500.
600.
500.
600.
500.
600.
700.
600.
600.
TOTAL
VALUE
$100.
6,000.
4,300
8,400
8,200
4OO
6,400
4,500
4,100
2,400
4,800
500
5,800
4,200
4,900
4,600
3,700
4,000.
3,900.
4,700.
6,200.
700.
4,900.
CODE
NO.
DDt42
DDt43
DD- 44
DD-4$
DD- 46
DD- 47
DD- 48
DD-49
DD- 50
DDt51
DD-52
DD-53
DD-54
DDt55
DDt56
DD-57
DD-58
DD- 59
DD-60
DD-61
DDt62
DD-63
DD-64
DD-65
NAME
Mary A. Smith
George Boehle
Geo. Delisle
Felix Orlowski
S. Zaveski
Neal Raffe
A. Hifferty
J. Klein
Victor Ales
Wm, T. Flatley
E. Deremer
Nm. Rohrbach
Joseph Rokowski
Frank L. McCann
Roy Winterbottom
Wm. Becker
A. Heiminx
H. Zegzula
R. S. Sherwood
S. B. Jones
E. Espeland
Hiltz
E. Orlowski
J. J. Schmidt
28.
LAND
VALUE
$1,100
6OO
7OO
600
7OO
6OO
6OO
6OO
600
7OO
900
700
900
9OO
1,200
1,000
6OO
500
6OO
500
600.
500.
500.
S00
TOTAL
VALUE
$1,1oo
60O
5,500
5 800
3 050
4 900
4 800
1 250
3 700
4 150
6 400
4 200
5 500
5600
6800
6400
5000
5 100
4200
4 500
6 200
5OO
5OO
3,800
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON & MURREU., PC.
CONSULTING ENG~NEE]~
CODE
NO.
DD-66
DD-67
DD-68
DD-69
DD- 70
DD- 71
DD- 72
DD- 73
DD-74
DD- 75
DD- 76
DD- 77
DD-78
DD- 79
DD- 80
DD- 81
DD- 82
DD- 83
DD- 84
DD-85
DD- 86
DD- 87
DD-88
DDt89
NAME
E. J. Case
J. ~. Duhnowsky
Anna Hansen
R. A. Parkin
D. A. Buckley
James B. Kaminsky
James Sellers
Frank Scott
A. Bascomb
Julius Juttner
Jean Scully
A. Harker
Marcel Rebiere
R. Kennedy
J. ldollick
J. Dennis
H. Marks
Mueller
J. Moisa
M. J. Phillips
Charles Gildersleeve
R. Praetorius
Roger E. Warden
Edw. bicNulty
29.
LAND
VALUE
$5oo.
600.
500.
600.
500.
8O0
500
1 600
1 400
1 900
1 400
i 000
1 000
1 000
1 100
1 300
1,S00.
1,500.
2,500.
1,100.
1,100.
2,100.
1,600.
2,800.
TOTAL
VALUE
$3,200.
3,450.
4,300.
3,400.
3,800.
5,900.
500.
4 500.
4 300.
8 200
1 400
1 000
1000
1 000
5,500
7 400
5 800
8 500
10 300
4 200
5 600.
2 100.
5 900.
2 800.
HO~ZMACHER, Mc[ENDON & MURR~t.J~
CONSUkT;NG EN~NEERS
CODE
NO.
DD-90
DD-91
DD-92
DD-93
DD-94
DD-95
DD-96
DD-97
DD-98
DD-99
DD-100
DD-101
DD-102
DD- 103 &
DD-104
DD-105
DD-106
DD-107
DD- 108
DD- 109
DD-110
DD- 111
DD~ll2
NAME
K. Reeve
Mason Est.
F. A. Reiff
~4. J. Cassata
J. S. Sellers
J. F. Seiler
R. J. t{alliday
John D. Morrison
Mary A. Smith
Town of Southold
F. Edelmann Est.
P. V. Murphy
Jos. E. Doherty
E. Smith
Ralph Armbrust
Irene Fogarty
F. Wuensch
Fred E. Haas
Hazel E. liamann
R. Bascomb
Eloise Bowden
George Hamann
(Exempt)
30.
LAND
VALUE
$1,400.
3,000.
1,200.
1,300.
1,200.
1,200.
1,900.
2,300.
900.
1,100.
100.
1,400.
800.
1,100.
5OO
6OO
600
5OO
400
200
600
700
TOTAL
VALUE
$5,000.
3,000.
4,700.
5,400.
3,300.
4,800.
6,400.
1,400.
900.
1,100.
100.
6,0S0.
3,500.
4,900.
4,800.
3,300.
3,650
3~900
400
3,600
1,950
4,300
CODE
NO.
EE~i
EE-2
EE-3
EE-4
EE-5
EE-6
EE-7
EE,,8
EE-9
N~4E
W. Monzell
Griffin
Starks
McFarland
Bruno Brauner
A. A. Olsen
R. Lehman
Blasco
R. Muir
FF-1
FF-2
FF-3
FF-4
FF-5
FF~6
FF-7
FF-8
FF-9
FF-10
FF-11
FF-12
FF-13
FF-14
John A. Polyn
S. Simmons
L. Farro
Atlantic Homes
M. ~ P. Suter
John Young
Boufard
A. Grossenbacher
C. G. ~heatley
Brooks
F. Edelman Est.
Mary A. Smith
W, Kessler
M. & P. Suter
31.
LAND
VALUE
$zoo.
400.
1,500.
600.
900.
2,600.
1,100.
600.
700.
700.
700.
700.
2,400.
900.
1,100.
1,000.
TOTAL
VALUE
$200.
8,400.
7,600.
3,900.
5,400.
400.
3,700.
3,600.
5,500.
3,100.
5,000.
4,900.
3,600.
4,100.
600.
6,500.
4,500.
5~700.
4,500.
2,400.
900.
4,200.
1,000.
HOLZMAGHE:R. McLENDON A MURgE:L.~ PC.
CONSUlTiNG E,N~N F.~P~
CODE
NO.
FF~15
FF~16
FF-17
FF-18
FF-19
FF-20
FF-21
FF-22
FF-23
FF-24
FF~25
FF-26
FF~27
FF~28
FF-29
FF~30
FF~31
FF-32
FF~33
FF-34
N~qE
T. Heuser
N. Muttit
Beyer
Jennie Jackowski
Wm. Demchuk
N. fi L. Muttit
A. Anrig
Hopek
J. Hansen
F. Edelman Est.
M. Guertin
Yasso
M. Langone
C. T. Bergen
Geo. Daly
Volkner
A, Kassel
H. Reiter
F, Kreh
P, Kueski
GG~i
GG~2
GG-3
Anrig ~ Edelman
Town of Southold (Exempt)
J. R. Albrecht & Wife
32.
LAND
VALUE
$6oo
500
60O
6O0
9OO
2,300
7OO
300.
700.
2,400.
1,000.
600.
400.
400.
400.
300.
400.
700.
600.
400.
1,600.
1~200.
600.
TOTAL
VALUE
$5,000
500
3,000
3 000
3 000
3 600
4 000.
2 100.
3 200.
9 900.
5 500.
2 200.
2 000.
2)000.
2,600,
2,400.
2~200.
2,800.
4~100.
3~200.
1~600.
1;200.
3,500.
CODE
NO.
GG-4
GG-5
GG -6
GG-7
GG-8
GG-9
GG-10
GG~ll
GG-12
NMdE
P. J. Galgano
W. Williams
H.R.Reeve & Sons,
Heyliger
S. Zimnoski
Buckner
Shell
T. Maranges & Wf
K. G. Brown
LAND
VALUE
$700
1,500
7,400
4OO
5OO
5OO
2,900
5OO
5OO
TOTAL
VALUE
$1 800
4 200
11400
3,000
4 200
4700
8000
1,600
6OO
GG-13
GG-14
GG-15
M G. Long
Swanson
11. Reeve,
Jr.
60O
500
1,500
4,200
2,500
6,500
GG-16
GG~17
GG-18
T. Reeve
D. Hamilton
~. Gatz & ~f.
1,400
2,500
600
4,200
5~200
2,100.
GG-19
GG-20
GG-21
Mattituck Park Distr.(Exempt)
G. G. Nine
Chas. Abrams
300
500
400
800.
2~000.
2,300.
GG=22
GG-23
Chas. Abrams
Ashton
4OO
8OO
4~000.
6,100.
lilt- 1
HH- 2
iiH- 3
G. Lomaga
Wm. Guyton
P. L. Zapp
4,000.
3~500.
3,300.
33.
HOi. ZMJK:HER, Mc).ENOON & MURREU~ P,~.
CONS~TING F.N~NF..E~S
CODE
NO.
HH- 4
HH- 5
HH-6
HH- ?
HH- 8
HH-9
HH-10
HH~ll
HH-12
HH-13
HH-14
HH~15
HH~ 16
HH-17
HH-.18
HH-.19
HH~20
HH-21
HH~22
HH~23
HH- 24
HH-~2 5
HH~26
HH~27
N~qE
D. D. Reeve
S. R. Cox
M. Wines
G. Penny
J. R. Hawkins
bi. MacMillan Est.
K.G.Brown Mfg. Co.
C. M. Bell
Bell
J. Cooper
C. H. Smith
C.Bell
Sidor
W. V. Duryee Est.
H. Sacks
H. G. Charkow
Stacks
F. Siemerling
M. Sidor
J, Sidor ~ Ano.
G. L. Penny, III
G. L. Penny, Inc.
Mrs. G. L. Penny,
D. W. Parrish
Est.
34.
LAND
VALUE
TOTAL
VALUE
$3 400
3 500
3 400
2 500
3800
4 200
40600
9,500
50O
2,300
6,100
1,200
10,200
S00
6,000
2,700
3,100
2.300
1 800
2 200
5 200
11,000
2,500
1,700
CODE
NO.
HH- 28
HH- 29
HH- 30
HH- 31
HH-32
HH-33
HH- 34
HH-35
HH-36
HH-37
HH-38
HH-39
HH~40
HH-41
HH- 42
dH-43
HH-44
HH- 45
HH-46
HH- 47
HH- 48
HH- 49
HH-80
NN4E
R. Sterling
J. D. Reeve
M. Messere
H. Tuthill
S. P. Tuthill
Episcopal Church (Exempt)
N. F. Bank
Rose Grattan Est.
Barker
Charters
Besch
Platt
Conklin
C. Oliver
B. Orlowski
M. Samuel
N. F. Bank
Matt LoYelane Corp.
J. F. GildersleeYe
E. Fischer
F. J. Gildersleeve Est.
Penny
J. A. Keogh
35.
LAND
VALUE
$500.
11,700.
TOTAL
VALUE
$2,700.
5,800.
200.
6,000.
4 500.
2 000.
49 100.
15 100.
7 000.
3 200.
4 400.
3 000.
2 200.
2 .200.
6 .400.
11 500.
4 600.
6~500.
600.
1,900.
4~200.
4~000.
4,000.
CODE
NO.
HH- 51
HH-52
ltH - 53
liI{- 54
Iilt-55
~iH-56
nH- 5 7
~i11-58
iiH-59
HH-60
HH-61
llH-62
till- 63
HH- 65
1iH-66
ITH-67
HH-68
Hit-69
i;iI- 70
ifil- 71
IIH- 73
ilH- 74
N~4E
S. Oddo & ano.
E. A. Woodward
D. R. Gildersleeve
Kelleher
David Tuthill
l'.'. V. Duryee
Drum
Lutz & Long
14elville Lelsey
~. Fiore
Matt. Pk. District
Cullen
Hatt. Fire Dist.
R. E. Krause
Matt. Fire Dist.
J. Orlowski
Romanowski
Esso Standard Oil. Co.
N. Fork Liquor Co.
S. Winiarz
Lozinski
J. i, loisa
L. Dohm
~. W. Wickham
(Exempt)
(Exempt)
(Exempt)
36.
LAND
VALUE
$2,000.
600.
2,000.
TOTAL
VALUE
$300.
1,700.
3,400.
2,800.
5,100.
12,600.
2,500.
5,600.
33,600.
2,500.
2,000
3,400
6OO
2,800
25,000
4,200
2,900.
8,400.
7,300.
3,900.
5,400.
S,lO0.
6,300.
5,900.
CODE
NO.
HI-I- 75
HH- 76
HH- 77
HH- 78
HH- 79
HH-80
HH-81
HH-82
HH- 83
HH- 84
HH- 85
HH- 86
HH- 87
HH- 88
HH- 89
HH-90
HH-91
HH-92
HH~93
HH-94
HH ~ 95
HH~96
HH-9 7
HH~9 8
NAME
V. Stype
A. Rolfes
Church (Exempt)
North Fork Comm. Theatre(Exempt)
Cemetery ~ Presbyterian Church
(Exempt)
N.Y.Tel. Co.
G. Nine
F. Cortese
M. H. GildersleeYe
C. ~ H. Terpenning
A. G. Mastropaolo
A. K. Spilger
G. Locastro ~ Ano.
A. Van Ryswyk
Koch
Meyer
L. C.
Cornelius
D. Daviault
L. Cornelius
Kopf
Moore
Grabie
Popular Liquor Store, Inc.
H. Reeve
LAND
VALUE
$600.
300.
2,000.
37.
TOTAL
VALUE
$2,900.
3,900.
600.
700.
9,000.
4,600.
4,000.
4,100.
5,000.
3,500.
2~$00.
3,700.
3,100.
6,900.
1,900.
3~800.
2,800.
2,000.
2,500.
7,200.
7,200.
8,000.
2,200.
3,700.
HO~ZMACH£R, MCLENDON & MURREI.~ PC,
CODE
NO.
HH-99
HH- 100
HH-101
HH-102
HH-103
HH-104
ilH- 105
HH~106
HH-10 7
HH- 108
HH- 109
HH-110
HH- 111
HH ,, 112
HH-113
HH~ll4
HH~ll5
HH-116
HH-117
HH~ll8
NAME
A. Young & Ano.
E. Grabie
C. Howell
LAND
VALUE
Wickham
H. E. Reeve
E. Reeve
R. Nine
H. C. Bohack, Inc.
N. Koures
A. T. Glover
Reeve Lumber ~ Woodworking Co. Inc.
Mooney
M. LeValley
Matt. Library Assn. (Exempt) $14,000.
Brooklyn Diocese (Exempt) 8,000.
H. R. Reeve & Son
M. Winiarz
J. F. Parkin
A. Sacks
L. P. Reeve
J J- 1
J J- 2
J J-3
Agway, Inc.
I. Ford
W. Williams
6,100.
700.
400.
38.
TOTAL
VALUE
$600.
4,000.
2,800.
9,300.
5,000.
5,000.
9,600.
26,000.
10,900.
3,600.
25,500.
6,000.
3,400.
30,000.
30,000
300
4,000
2,400
4,700
3,600
20,700.
2,500.
1,700.
CODE
NO.
J J-4
JJ-5
J J-6
J J- 7
J J-8
J J-9
J J-10
J J-11
J J-12
J J-13
J J-14
JJ-1S
J J-16
J J-17
J J-18
J J-19
J J-20
J J-21
J J-22
J J-23
J J-24
J J-25
J J-26
J. Stovall
J. Shullman
L. Griffin
J. Mason
Frieda Rolfes
Unity Baptist Church (Exempt)
E. Wilcenski
S. Wolgo, Jr.
S. Wolgo, Jr.
A. Rolfes
Irving ~Tells
F. B. Hasslinger
L. Lessard
Newalis
Sidor
Posterard
A. Van Ryswyk
A. Van Ryswyk
S. Duke
G. L. Matthews
H. Wagner
H. Gordon
Lutheran Church (Exempt)
39.
LA:iD
VALUE
$3oo.
1,000.
1,400.
300.
600.
900.
500.
200.
300.
100.
600.
400.
400.
400.
1,000.
400.
500.
TOTAL
VALUE
$1,500.
5 900.
12.400.
i 600.
3 900.
8 200.
3 000.
200.
3,100.
100.
2,700.
2,800.
2,900.
2,400.
1,800.
3,100.
3,000.
300.
2,900.
3,100.
2,500.
2,800.
4,600.
CODE
NO.
J J-27
J J-28
J J-29
J J~30
JJ- 31
J J-32
J J-33
J J-34
J J-35
J J-36
J J-37
J J-38
J J-39
J J-40
J J-41
J J-42
J J-43
J J-44
J J-45
J J-46
J J-47
J J-48
J J-49
dacknaver
L. W. McCabe
Chester Szawinski
Fred Burgon
Pizzanelli
Jos. Mileska
Bethany Cemetery (Exempt)
Bethany Cemetery (Exempt)
Mattituck Shopping Center
Ardrop
Goode
H. Francis
H. Francis, Jr.
Sazl Ray
B. M. Mills
H. Hubbard
Drum
Tidewater Realty Co.,Inc.
Krech
R. Bergen
C. Frelik
J. Hubbard
J. Darden
40.
LAND
VALUE
$2,000.
1,200.
TOTAL
VALUE
$4 000.
4 200
4 800
3 400
7 700
4 800
2 000
1 300
11 400
13 900
100
1 300
1 600
3 000
1 100
1 100
1 500
4 600
2 000
2 000
1 600
100
1,200
HOI, ZMACHER, Mct. ENOON & MURREI.~ P~.
CODE
NO.
J J-50
J J-51
J J-52
J J-S3
J J-54
NAME
J. Hubbard
M. L. Maston
C. Lee
J. Wilson
Mattituck Assoc.
KK- 1
KK-2
KK-3
KK-4
KK-S
KKr6
KKr7
KKr8
KKr9
KK~i
KK-ll
KK~12
KK-13
KK-14
KK- 15
KK-16
KK-17
KK-18
R. Kleunder ~ O'rs.
M. King
G. G. Munn ~ Nf.
C. Todrick
N. Addy
A. Newell
L. Hallock
E. G. Bond
Commission of Welfare
Mayer
G. G. Munn
John Wickham
A ~ P Store
Peteco
A. Boutcher Est.
J. Zebroski
Grabie
S. Barnes
41.
LAND
VALUE
Part
$1,200.
700.
700.
300.
400.
400.
400.
500.
1 200
1 000
2 200
6 000
3 000
9 000
Part
1,200.
700.
TOTAL
VALUE
$2,300.
2,400.
3,300.
3,100.
11,200.
3,200.
3,300.
700.
2,400.
1,400.
1 500.
2 800.
2 500.
2 800.
4 500.
5 000.
3 900.
28 500
18 000
10 800
50O
1~600
3,800
HOLZMACHE:R, McLENDON & MURR~i,.I., PC.
GGN~J~TING F.,NG~N F. EP~
CODE
NO.
KK-19
KK-20
Ki(- 21
KK-22
KK-23
KK-24
KK-25
KK-26
KK,27
KK-28
KK-29
KK-30
KK-31
KK-32
KK- 33
KK-34
~K- 35
KK-36
t(K- 37
KK-38
KK-39
KK-40
KK-41
N~4E
~. E. Kander
Linosey
Lucas
A. Boutcher Est.
Kanden
G. W. Newell
Miller
Kron
Hoder
J. J. Klein, Jr.
Klein Sr.
W. A. Steiner
P. Lucas
J. W. Boutcher~ Sr.
Mikolajzck
F. Milowski
Pumillo
J. W. Boutcher, Jr.
O. L. Anrig
J. J. Fimora
C. D. Nine, Jr.
M. C. Raynor
J. H. Klein
42.
LAND
VALUE
$900.
3,100.
300.
(Included in
200.
600.
500.
1,000.
5,000.
800.
400.
500.
400.
400.
400.
400.
300.
400.
300.
1,100.
600.
800.
600.
TOTAL
VALUE
$3,600.
9,500.
2,700.
200.
1,700.
5 500.
3 000.
6 300.
2 800.
1 200.
1 900.
600.
400.
1,600.
4,900.
300.
4OO
3OO
2,200
3,000
1,100
6OO
HOLZMACHER, MCLEHDON & MURREL~ PC,
CODE
KK-42
KK-43
kK-44
Kk-,45
KK-46
KK-47
KK-48
KKr49
KK-50
KK-51
KKr52
KK-53
KK-54
KK-55
KKr56
KKr5?
KK-58
KK-59
KK-60
KKr61
KKr62
KKr65
KK-64
KKr65
NAME
C. Klein
Bergen
H. Boughton
Wenk
M. J. Fimora
A. H. Zanieski
R. J. O'Neill
M. Finora
H. C. Rhodes
E. Kast
M. C. Raynor
W. S. & R. A.
A. A. Titus
J. O'Brien
P. Cutajar
V. Miller
Conlon
K, Nutley
K. Nutley
Luhrs
Bochran
Miller
S. Travell
Field
43.
LAND
VALUE
$ oo
500
600
1,300
500.
300.
400.
200.
300.
300.
300
6OO
3O0
3OO
3OO
600.
400.
1,500.
300.
400.
500.
300.
500.
TOTAL
VALUE
$2,1oo.
2~600.
2,700.
4,000.
1,900.
3,100.
2,800.
1,000.
1,200.
2,100.
1~900.
3,300.
1,600.
4,400.
1,500.
2,150.
2 200.
1 500.
2 900.
2 600.
2 800.
2.500.
2,100.
CODE
NO.
LL-8
LL-9
LL-10
LL-11
LL-12
LL-13
LL-14
LL~15
LL-16
LL-17
LL-18
LL-19
LL-20
LL-21
LL-22
LL-23
LL-24
LL-25
LL-26
LL-27
LL-28
LL~29
LL-30
LL~31
N~ME
J. A. Hallock
C. Beringer
E.F. Jackson
Anna Biliunas
Wm. Shewell
Geo. Fleischman
J. A. Johnson & Ano.
O.J.F. Clinton
Theresa Nine
Lewis Griffin
G. Koop
Geo.E. Snider
F. P. Vermaelen
Hillman
F. Mahoney
A. J. Rudolph
Blum
Arranitakis
T. A. Lenahan
H. Kuck
D. Stegner
C. Bisenius
KaYaf
W. M. Gaffney
44.
LAND
VALUE
$800.
SO0.
400.
400.
400.
400.
400.
600.
300.
300.
5O0
400
1,000
7OO
500
3OO
2,800
300.
200.
100.
1,100.
1,200.
1,000.
300.
TOTAL
VALUE
3,000.
2,900.
2,400.
2,000.
2,300.
3,100.
3,300.
3~900.
1,900.
2,500.
4,400
2,600
2,000
4,600
2,000
2,700
14,600
2,200
1,100.
100.
5,000.
5,400.
3,600.
1,800.
CODE
NO.
LL-8
LL-9
LL-10
LL-11
LL-12
LL-13
LL-14
LL-15
LL-16
LL-17
LL-18
LL-19
LL-20
LL-21
LL-22
LL-23
LL-24
LL-25
LL-26
LL-27
LL-28
LL-29
LL-30
LL-31
N~qE
J. A. Hallock
C. Beringer
E.F. Jackson
Anna Biliunas
Wm. Shewell
Geo. Fleischman
J. A. Johnson & Ano.
O.J.F. Clinton
Theresa Nine
Lewis Griffin
G. Koop
Geo.E. Snider
F. P. Vermaelen
Hillman
F. Mahoney
A. J. Rudolph
Blum
Arranitakis
T. A. Lenahan
H. Kuck
D. Stegner
C. Bisenius
Kavaf
W. M. Gaffney
45.
LAND
VALUE
$8oo
500.
400.
4O0
400
400
40O
600
300
300
500
4O0
1,000
7OO
500
30O
2,800
3OO
2OO
100
1,100
1,200
1,000
3OO
TOTAL
VALUE
$3,000.
2,900.
2,400.
2.000
2 300
3 100
3 300
3900
1900
2 500
4 400
2 600
2 000
4 600
2 000
2 700
14 600
2 200
1 100
100
5,000
5,400
3,600
1,800
CODE LAND TOTAL
NO. NAME VALUE 'VALUE
LL-52 Frank Zaleski $600. $2,400.
LL-53 W. F. Wolf 300. 1,600.
LL-54 M. Lovett 200. 1,000.
LL-55 L. Weber 600. 4,400.
LL-36 Wm, Luhrs $00. 2,300.
LL-37 Mattituck Park District(Exempt) 500. 500.
LL-38 E. R. Burke 1,000. 5,800.
LL~39 W. F. Kelen 1,200. 2,400.
LL-40 C.C. Baldwin 1,600. 5,500.
LL-41 A. Hanson 800. 2,000.
LL-42 A. Martin 1,000. 3,400.
LL-45 R.A. Leighton 200. 200.
LL-44 E.A. Spaeth 700. 7,700.
LL~45 F. W. Kiendl 1,100. 6~400.
LL-46 E. Richards 3,500. 9,200.
LL~47 Brickell 3,400. 11,300.
LL~48 Mattituck Park District(Exempt) 7,000. 8,0000.
LL~49 Hilda Griffiths 1,S00. 8,500.
3LL-1
3LL-.2
3LL-3
G. W. ~ D. KILEY - FILE ~IAP NO. 186
H. Weber 600.
Barrie 700.
Ellingsen 800.
46.
2,200.
3,400.
2~400.
CODE
NO. NAME
4LL- 24 Haeg
4LL-25 Haeg
4LL-26 O'Donnell
4LL-27 & 4LL-29 Leighton
4LL-29 Robichaud
4LL~30 Robichaud
4LL-31 dard
SALT
5LL~i Simidian
5LL-2 Wendelken
5LL-3 O'Leary
SLL-4 Morse
5LL-S ~ 5LL~6 Edw. A.
5LL-7 Schauf
5LL-8 Ullrich
5LL-9 Hueglin
5LL~10 Bruno
5LL-11 Koch
SLL~12 Helbing
5LL-13 Ward
SLL-14 Ebinger
LAKE VILLAGE
Reynolds
47.
LAND
VALUE
$400.
400.
500,
600.
600.
200.
1,S00.
- FILE MAP NO. 1310
2,200.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
1,600
1,000
800
1,000
2,100
8OO
1,700
SOO
8OO
TOTAL
VALUE
$5,700.
2,100.
3,500.
4,800.
5,400.
200.
8,000.
7,900.
9 000.
6 500
8 500
8 000
5 500
4 500
5 400
7~200
5,000
1,700
500
6,300
HOOCH[R, McLEN00N & MURRE~../PC.
~ONSU~TtN~ ENG~NF..E]~
CODE
NO.
4LL-24
4LL-25
4LL-26
NAME
Haeg
Haeg
0 ' Donne 11
Leighton
Rob i chaud
Robichaud
Ward
4LL-27 & 4LL-29
4LL-29
4LL-30
4LL-31
LAND
VALUE
$4o0.
400.
500.
600.
600.
200.
1,500.
5LL-1
5LL-2
5LL-3
5LL-4
5LL-5
5LL-7
5LL-8
5LL-9
5LL-10
5LL-11
5LL-12
5LL-13
5LL-14
& 5LL-6
SALT LAKE VILLAGE
Simidian
Wendelken
O'Leary
Morse
Edw. A. Reynolds
Schauf
Ullrich
Hueglin
Bruno
Koch
Helbing
Ward
Ebinger
- FILE MAP NO. 1310
2,200.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
1,600.
1,000
80O
1,000
2,100
800
1,700
50O
8OO
48.
TOTAL
VALUE
$5,700.
2,100.
3,500.
4,800.
5,400.
200.
8,000.
7,900.
9 000.
6 500.
8 500.
8 000.
5 500.
4 500.
5 400.
7 200.
5 000.
1 700.
500.
6,300.
HOI. ZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRE~,.L., PC*.
CONSUlTiNG F. NGJNF.~
CODE
NO.
MJq- 1
MM-2
MM-3
i~1-4 & ~q-5
~4- 6
I~q- 7
~4-8 ~ ~-9
~-10 ~ 5~-11
~-12 & ~4-13
*~-14 & ~-15
1~-16 & ~q-17
b~-18 ~ ~-19
b~- 20
~-21 ~ ~-22
~M-2S ~
~<~-2S ~ i~-26
~,~- 27
~4-28 ~ ~-29
:.&l- ~0
~-S1
i~-32 ~
~-~6
;~- 37
NAME
MATTITUCK PARK PROPERTIES
LAND
VALUE
FILE MAP NO. 801
I. Fadrowski
S. Dickerson
S. Dickerson
T. P. Hale
T. P. Hale
A. Buono
A. Buono
Weithaas
Matson
Rita Haake
Mary Dietz
A. Hallock
F. Conifrey
Jas. Barry
Fetzko
M. Coyne
E. Litchhult
H. Fazio
G. Gallagher
P. Bachlor
J. L. Salomon
Roland Lemaresquier
Y. Maltese
P. D±meglio
$600.
300.
250.
600.
600.
500.
600.
600.
600.
500.
400.
600.
600.
400.
500.
300.
300.
600.
600.
350.
350.
49.
TOTAL
VALUE
$2,500.
5,000.
2,500.
3,100.
300.
250.
2,200.
2,800
1,400
5,700
3,100
3,200
3,300
400
2 400
3 200
4 200
3 900
1 900
1.700
5 500
5,000
2,100
450.
HOLZMACHER, MC~,ENDO~ & MURREI.~ P.~
CODE
NO. NAME
MM-38 G. Schmidt
i~-39 L. Epstein
MM-40 I. Bail
~4-41 F. Stern
~q-42 F. Stern
~-43 ~ ~d-44 G. Andrus
I4M-45 F. Bornhauser
MM-46 & ~d-47 G. Goehringer
MM-48 & MM-49 G. A. Ryder
iv~-SOA - P/O R. Hess
MM-50A - P/O H. McDonald
~M-52A D. Raynor
i4M-53A I. Brachfeld
~{M-S5A J.J. Dunne
M~-56 J.J. Dunne
MM-57 J. Roschelle
M_M-58 & ~-59 J. Roschelle
MM-60 & ~-61 Mahoney
MM-62 Wm. Cassidy
~-63 A. Brooks
1~M-64 F. Murphy
MM-65 &
P/O MM-66 J. Dickson
: -66 p/o
& MM-67 N. Hall
50.
LAND
VALUE
$350.
350.
350.
300.
350.
70O
350
8OO
80O
4OO
1,000
700
1,400
6OO
400.
400.
800.
500.
500.
350.
350.
SO0.
500.
TOTAL
VALUE
$2,000.
2,550.
3,850.
300.
1,700.
1~900.
2,300.
3,400
3,500
2,400
1~200
4,000
3,700
600
1~600
1~900.
3,200.
3,100.
3,800.
1,700.
2,150.
2,600.
2,300.
HOkZMACHER, McLE'NI~'~ A MURR~L~ PC.
(]ODE
NO.
MM- 68 J.
MM-69 & MM- 70 I.
;Curl- 71 H.
MM-72 A.
~vlbl- 73 & MM- 74 J.
MM-TS A.
ivlM-76 & MM-77 J.
I,~q'78 & MM-79 E.
14M-80 & 1~'4-81 J.
MM-82 J.
Mbl - 83 E.
MM- 84 M.
~/avl - 85 B
MM-86 & MM-87 E
i~34- 88 P
,~- 89 S
MM-90 S
MM- 91 F
MM-92 W.
MM-93 E.
~vl- 94 J.
MJq- 95 J.
iv~-96 & MM-97 A.
V~M- 98 J.
NAME
Nichols
Harrison
Treat
Grossenbacher
Fryer
Jagnow
Quinlan
Meehan
E. Same
Heath
Madsen
Guth
Guth
Tuthill
McMahon
C. Mickaliger
C. Mickaliger
Todrick
Gunther
Gunther
Stepnoski
Feeney
Flaherty
Kunze
51.
LAND
VALUE
$3so
700
400
300
600
300
6O0
60O
600
300
300
300
250
600
300
250
300
300
3O0
300.
300.
300.
600.
300.
TOTAL
VALUE
$2 lOO
2 500
2 100
1 600
2 200
1 800
3 300
2 700
4 500
3 300
2 300
1,900
250
3,500
1,900
25O
3 100
2 600
2 600
2 700
3 100
4 400
3 700
1 700
HOL~rJ4ACHER, McLENDON & MURRE:I.I..
GO~F):?INO EJ~IG~N F.~
CODE
NO.
MM-99
MM- 100
MM- 1.01
~q- 103
i~q- 10
MM~104
105
106
MM-lO7
MM-lO8
109
MM-110
~vl- 111
IvIiv]~ 112
MM- 113
ivlM- 114
MM-115
~- 117
MM-ll8
MM-119
MM~120
M~-122
NAME
P. Glynn
A. Moynahan
K. Reeve
F. Dziembowski Est.
R. J. Goodale
R. J. Goodale
M. Riches
A. Coletti
A. Biggs
W. Gunther
G. Moshier
Wood
Love
Keil
P. Halach
Fanning
F. Maloney
H. Buckley
G.S. Young
M. Gallagher
A, Skuro
Kropf
E. H. Stammel
52.
LAND
VALUE
$3oo.
300.
800.
500.
500.
900.
500.
450.
500.
500
500
500
1,050
500
500
500
1,400.
1,200.
800.
TOTAL
VALUE
$300.
300.
400.
4,500.
400.
21,200.
5,300.
2,500.
2,500.
900.
3,600.
450.
2,700.
4,400.
2,900.
3,300
4,300
3,400
2,900
3,800
6,800
4,300.
3,800.
CODE
NO.
MM-123
MM~ 124
14M- 125
~vl- 126
I~M- 127
~4- 128
Y~M- 129
~i- 130
~g- 132
b~- 133
~-134
]~- 135
~- 136
~131
~- 138
~-139
~-141
~M- 142
~4-143
~- 144
NAME
C. Glowacki
W. Lynch
E. C. Fay
J. Abitz
L. Brewer
J. & A. Skuro
A. Skuro
S. Skuro
E. F. Litchhult
R. W. Thompson
L. McArdle
C. Doerner
Rob't Diesenberg
A. Lee
Jas. Maclellan
Calabrese
Totoro
T. J. Lennon
J. J. McAdam
Sawicki
Clark
Geo. Canavan
Laboda
53.
LAND
VALUE
$800.
800.
800.
1,600.
1,700.
450.
1,000.
700.
700.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
500.
1,050
500.
750.
1,300.
900.
TOTAL
VALUE
$4,300.
4,400.
4,700.
5,400.
6,300.
6,700.
450.
4,200.
4,000.
4,600.
2,100.
3 100
3 000
3 000
5 200
2.000
2 500
3,600
2,400.
750.
7,200.
4,300.
HOLZMACH[R, MoLENDON & MURRE:U., P.C~
GON,~,U~TING EN~NF.E:I~
CODE
NO.
MM~146
MM- 147
MM- 148
MM- 149
~q- 150
~q- 151
~v~q - 152
NN- 1
NN- 2
NN- 3
NN-4
Nlq - 5
NN-6
Nlq- 7
NN-8
iqN- 9
NN - 10
NN-11
NN-12
NN-13
NN- 14
N~J~E
Helen Kurth
Lambert
J. Carter
A. Craz
M. Mcassey
T. T. Whittier
Wm. G, Peter
A. Lo
Bedell
W. Thompson Est.
G. Moxley
G. E. Christman
R. Wood
B. Belliner
A. Ward
A. C. Downs
A. C. Downs
DOWNS - FILE MAP NO.
D. Farley
A. H. Wingate
W. F. Olser, Jr.
B. Chilan
M. A. Kelsey
54.
LAND
VALUE
$800
1,000
1,000
8OO
8OO
1,200
1,400
21
3,200.
3,100.
3,500.
2,900.
800.
2,400.
1,100.
800.
600.
4,900.
3,100.
3,400.
3,100.
2,900.
TOTAL
VALUE
$4,600
5,500
6,100
4,400
5,200
7~300
6~200
6,200.
6,000.
12,500.
5,700.
3,800.
8,200.
2,400.
3,400.
2,500.
9,100.
6,700.
9,200.
6,900.
10,000.
HOI. ZMACHI~R, MCL~iOON & MURRE:IJ~ PC.
GONSUi~TIN~ ENGJNF..~
CODE
NO.
NN-1S
NN-16
NN-17
NN-18
NN-19
NN-20
NN-21
NN-22
NN~23
NN-24
NN-25
NN- 26
NN-27
& NN-28
NN~29
NN-30
NN-31
NN-32
NN-33
Nlq- 34
NN- 35
NN-36
NN- 37
NN-38
LAND
NAME VALUE
M. B. Pullman $3,100.
E. F. Schuler 2,200.
McDermott 2,500.
Mattituck Yacht Club 400.
Mattituck Park District(Exempt) 3,900.
Martha Husing 19,700.
W. Granger 800.
J. J. Tuffy 800.
I,I. Sawyer 600.
M. Sawyer 800.
D. Raynor 800.
Sigsbee Rd. Civic Ass'n. 1,500.
V. Boutsiokos Est. 1,000.
600.
L. Archer 1,100.
Robinson 50.
A. L. Weyer 1,000.
L. Gackenheimer 1,000.
Taylor 1,000.
Ab itz 1,200.
S. Main 1,400.
Allyn Realty Corp. 1,300.
J. J. Paris 1,100.
Mattituck Park District (Exempt)
55.
TOTAL
VALUE
$6,600.
13,200.
5,700.
1,000.
3,900.
24,800.
3,800.
2,400
3~100
3,700
3,000
1~500
1,000
3,800.
3,800.
50.
3 900.
4 000.
4 400.
1 200.
5 900.
4 700.
4 800.
HOLZMACH£R, MCLENOON & MURR~.L. PC.
CODE
NO.
PP-1
PP-2
PP-3
PP-4
PP-5
qQ-2
QQ-3
QQ-4
QQ-5
q-6
qq-7
QQ-8
QQ-9
qq-lO
QQ-11
~Q-12
RR-1
RR- 2
RR- 3
RR- 4
NAME
Warren
Nawrocki
Alrod Realty Corp.
F. & E. Murphy
Martha Husing
James O'Connell
R. D. Tuthill
Goodele
Konkel
S. Packer
D. Chew
Massaeo
New York State
Roy Graff
W. Wyche
J. Brunskill
A. Hobson
Mattituck Assoc.
(Exempt)
Wasson
M. Wasson
Anna Wright
Mary Rotberg
56.
LAND
VALUE
$1,600.
1,100.
5,800.
4,100.
22,000.
3,400
5OO
1,000
300
1,100
8OO
3,000
300.
200.
100.
4,300.
2,400.
400.
300.
300.
TOTAL
VALUE
$6,400.
3,300.
5,800.
6,600.
24,000.
8,700
5OO
1,600
1,500
1,100
2,400
3~000
300.
1,000.
800.
4,400.
2,400.
3,100.
2,100.
1,900.
HOLZMACHER, McLE~tX~t & MURREU.
~OI~U~Tk~I~ F.J~NEERS
CODE
NO.
RR- 5
RR-6
RR- 7
RR- 8
RR- 9
RR-10
RR-11
RR-12 P/O
RR-12 P/O
RR- 13
RR* 14
RR-15
RR* 16
RR-17
RR-18
RR* 19
RR- 20
RR- 21
RR-22
RR- 23
RR- 24
RR*25
RR- 26
RR-27
NAME
Jos. Claypool
Arthur Kaelin
M. Wasson
Wallace A. Smith
Benj. Edwards
T. J. Riches
Marcchino
D. J. Stack
Geo. Furboter
A. J. Mastropaolo
Hankoff
Hankoff
G. F. Bohlander
A. Johnsen
Rob't. Turner
H. Arnold
E. C. ltooghkirk
Lucille Dempsey
A. Longo
J. Longo
J. Longo
Van Marten
Ray Lerch
Marquet
57.
LAND
VALUE
$500
300
900
1,100
400
8O0
500
6OO
600.
700.
400.
300.
500.
500.
600.
1,700.
1,S00.
700.
700.
600.
800.
1,000.
800.
700.
TOTAL
VALUE
$500
3,100
4,500
4,100
400
5,300
4,400
1,800
2,400
3,300
400.
300.
500,
500.
3,300.
7,000.
7,400.
700.
2,800.
2,700.
800.
4,600.
4,900.
700.
HOI. ZMACHI~R, McLENDON & MURR~.~, P.~.
GON~J~T~NG
CODE
NO.
RR-28
RR-29
RR- 30
RR- 31
RR- 32
RR- 33
RR- 34
RR- 35
RR- 36
RR- 37
RR-38
RR- 39
RR-40
RR-41
RR-42
RR- 43
RR- 44
RR- 45
RR- 46
RR-47
RR- 48
RR* 49
RR-S0
RR-S1
NAME
Marquet
K. Tuthill
Tuthill
Brock
Stanley Fliss & Wife
J. Zimnoski III
K. Tuthill
Jack Gamble
M. Laubengeiger
Marty Tekien
Albert Casper
John Krogman
John Hawkins
Zambriski
Fessia
C. J. Barry
Wm. Schoenwald
Wm. Butterfield
John H. Reinersten
Geo. Jensen
Jas. Relyea
S. Leojeski
Louis Manzione
Rocco Mangiamele
58.
LAND
VALUE
$700.
600.
600.
700.
900.
600.
600.
400.
500.
400.
600.
500.
500.
400.
400.
400.
200.
500.
600.
500.
SO0.
SOO.
800.
400.
TOTAL
VALUE
$700.
600.
4,600.
700.
5,300.
5,200.
600.
4,800.
3,400.
3,200.
3~400.
3,100.
2,400.
4,000.
4,500.
400.
400.
2,100.
2,300
1,400
3,400
4,400
800
400.
CODE
NO.
RR-52
RR-53
RR-54
RR-55
RR-56
RR-57
RR~58
RR- 59
RR-60
RR-61
RR-62
RR-63
RR-64
RR~6S
RR-66
RR-67
RR-68
LAND
NAME VALUE
Cummings $700.
Pirko 700.
K. Tuthill
John Krogman 700
Ida Mongello 500
Margot Osborne 600
Margot Osborne 600
Helf 400.
Helf 500
K. Leety 1,000.
Brooklyn Diocesan Camps(Exempt) 500.
D. Mangiamele 500.
Doris Harkoff 500.
K. Tuthill 200.
T. Thompson 600.
Roach 1,700.
Roach 1,700.
3RR-1
3RR-2
3RR~3
3RR~4
3RR~5
TOTAL
VALUE
$5,900.
3,900.
7,300.
500.
6,200.
4,100.
400.
6,400.
1,700.
1,800.
2,600.
7,100.
200.
1,400.
8,400.
9,800.
59.
A. Kander 700. 2,800.
SECTION ONE - G. I. TUTHILL & OTHERS FILE MAP NO. 861
J. J. Olsen 200. 200.
J. J. Olsen 500. 1,400.
S. Kander 200. 200.
CODE
NO. NAME
3RR-6, 3RR-7,
& 3RR-8 K. Tuthill
3RR-9, 3RR~10,
& 3RR-11 K. Tuthill
3RR-12, 3RR-13,
& 3RR-14 Russell Tuthill
3RR-15,
3RR-16 A.F. Carney
3RR-17,
3RR-18 Jos. E. Gionet
3RR-19,
3RR-20 Jos. P. Zimnoski
3RR-21,3RR-22
& 3RR-23 Russell Tuthill
3RR~24
3RR-25 R. Tuthill
3RR-26,
3RR-27 R. Tuthill
3RR-28 C.J. Delfino
3RR-29 K. Meyers
3RR-30 K. Tuthill
3RR-31 J. Anderson
3RR-32 F. Gettinger
3RR-33 M. Tschiember
3RR-34 M. Tschiember
3RR-35 M. Tschiember
3RR-36 R. Tschiember
3RR-37 Muriel Clark
60.
LAND
VALUE
$100.
600.
400.
400.
400.
600.
400.
600.
250.
250.
250
300
300
3OO
2OO
25O
250.
350.
TOTAL
VALUE
$100.
600.
3,700.
4,100.
3,700.
600.
400.
1,600.
250.
250.
250.
2,1100.
2,200.
3,500.
200.
1,450.
1,950.
3~450.
HOLZMAGHER, McLE~DON & MURRE~L~
GON~U~TIN~ EN~NEE~
CODE LAND
NO. NAME VALUE
3RR-38 G. Kraebel $300
3RR-39 &
3RR-40 V. Mangiamele 500
3RR-41, 3RR~42,
3RR-43 & 3RR-44 R. Mangiamele 1,000
3RR-45 &
3RR-46 Jos. Rickctts 600
3RR-47, 3RR-48,
& 3RR-49 A. Mastropaolo
3RR-S0, 3RR-51,
& 3RR-52 B. Sindon
3RR-53 F. Carnabu¢ci
3RR-54 &
3RR-55 P.C. Fuller
3RR~56 C. Barry
3RR-S? S. Prakin
3RR-58
& 3RR-59 M. Everts
3RR-60 ~
3RR-61 P. Sabochik
3RR-62 Jas. McEvoy
3RR-63 K. Keough
3RR-64 K. Tuthill
3RR-65 E. Grollamund
3RR-66 P. Elson
3RR-67 &
3RR-68 K. Dimig
3RR-69 ~
3RR-70 L. Grissler
61.
700
700
375.
500.
300.
250.
450.
600.
350.
250.
100.
250.
250.
600.
600.
TOTAL
VALUE
$2,100
3,000
1,000
3,400
7O0
700
375.
6,200.
2,400.
250.
450.
2,000.
2,650.
1,850.
100.
250.
250.
2,700.
2,900.
CODE LAND
NO. NAME VALUE
3RR-71 h. i4cEvoy $250.
3RR-72 J. Vallely 250.
3RR-73 &
3RR-74 Edw. Miller 500.
3RR-75 &
3RR-76 J. Zaccaria 300.
3RR-77 R. Stapleton 300.
3RR-78 A. Hegener 300.
3RR-79 L. Lacorte 300.
3RR-80 A. Donlevy 300.
3RR-81 &
3RR-82 Chas. Birtz 600.
3RR-83 ~. Kraniak 300.
3RR-84 &
3RR-85 Tuthill 300.
3RR-86 &
3RR-87 J. St. John 400.
3RR-88 R. Krogman 400.
3RR-89 &
3RR-90 K. Vickary 400.
3RR-91 C. Riebling 400.
3RR-92, 3RR~95
& 3RR-96 J.J. Egbert 400.
3RR-93 ~
3RR~94 L. Fox 400.
3RR-97, 3RR-98~
3RR-99 and
3RR~100 Louise Fox 1,100.
62.
TOTAL
VALUE
$1,350.
1,950.
4,700.
300.
3,800.
1,400.
1,600.
2,900.
3,100.
2,200.
300.
2,800.
4,200.
3,000.
1,900.
400.
4,400.
2,000.
CODE
NO.
4RR-10, 4RR-11
& 4RR-12
4RR-13 &
4RR-14
4RR-15 &
4RR-16
4RR-17
RR-18 &
4RR-19
4RR-20
4RR-21
4RR-22 &
4RR-23
4RR-24, 4RR-25
4EE-26 &
4RR-28, 4RR-29
~4RR-30
4RR-31
N~4E
A. L. DOWNS - FILE biAP NO.
Edith Canavan
A. L. Downs Est.
A. L. Downs Est.
A. L. Downs Est.
A. L. Downs Est.
J. J. McDermott
J. F. diggins
A.J. & A.G. Mastropaolo
4RR-27 A.J. Mastropaolo
A. J. & A. G. Mastropaolo
A, L. Downs Est.
LAND
VALUE
21
$2,500.
900.
1,200.
1,000.
1,400.
200.
300.
500.
600.
500.
400.
SRR-1
5RR~2
5RR-4
5RR-6
5RR-8
~ 5RR-3
& 5RR-5
& 5RR-7
D. J. STACK
- FILE BiAP NO.
D. J. Stack
Marna Williams
Jos. Lakowitz
Edw. C. Cittus
Wm. S. Guggisberg
815
500.
700.
500.
400.
400.
63.
TOTAL
VALUE
$1o,ooo.
900.
6,000.
1,000.
1,400.
200.
2,100.
500.
600.
500.
1,800.
500.
5,400.
3,900.
2,100.
2,800.
HOL.ZMACHER, McLENDON & MI)RRDJ~ P.C.
GONSU~TIN~ EN~NED~
CODE
NO.
SS-1 thru SS~14
& SS-4§ thru
SS-53
SS-54
SS~55
SS~56
SS-57
SS~58
SS-59
TT-1
TT-2
TT-3
TT-4
TT-5
TT~6
TT-?
TT-8
TT*9
TT~10
TT*ll
TT- 12
TT-13
TT- 14
TT~15
NAME
Sub. Div. Laurel Country
Estates
H. Romanowski
Young
C. T. Young
Park 6 Recreation (Exempt)
C. Nolte
C. Koloski
Laurel Park Farms
Ciaglo
M. Liguori
J. Venteau
Huth
Jerred
Zajic
Cox
Parsons
Carlson
Bruce Levinson
Mansell
F. Martin
rrivacki
E. Schoener
64.
LAND
VALUE
$21,400.
Part
700.
Part
Part
Part
900.
400.
1,000.
1,200.
500.
500.
500.
400.
400.
400.
400.
500.
1,600.
800.
1,100.
TOTAL
VALUE
$66,800.
2,200.
5,500.
13,700.
3,000.
1,800.
900.
3,600.
1,000.
1,200.
3,700.
2~900.
2,900.
3,000.
3,600.
3,100.
3,800.
3,100.
5,600.
3,500.
2,800.
CODE
NO.
TT-16 F. Fitzpatrick
TT-17 J. Ingellis
TT-18 A. Garvey
TT-19 W.J. July
TT-20 A. Nintzel
TT-21 E. Holfelder
TT~22 W.E. Follett
TT~23 J.H. Plage
TT-24 Smith
TT-25 Smith
TT-26 J.H. Hinsch
TT-27 H. Mackenzie
TT-28 E.J. Bellis
TT-29 ~. Finn
TT-30 Catholic Daughters
(Exempt)
TT-31 M. Roache
TT-32 Catholic Daughters
(Exempt)
TT-33 S. Spinosa
TT-34 J.C. Hinsch
TT-35 J.P. Brady
TT-36 Palmer
TT-37 Rogers
TT-38 Chas. Nintzel
of America
of America
65.
LAND
VALUE
$8oo.
1,200.
1,700.
2,100.
1,100.
80O
8OO
6OO
8OO
1,400
8OO
6O0
700
9OO
2,000.
2,600.
2,000.
2,800.
3,200.
3,300.
2,600.
2,600.
3,200.
TOTAL
VALUE
$4,400.
5,600.
8,100.
4,700.
3,300.
4,100.
3,600
3,400
8OO
4,400
800
3,600
3,800
5,700
6,500.
7,500.
9,400.
3,100.
8,700.
7,900.
6,900.
7,500.
7,900.
CODE
NO.
TT-39
TT-40
TT-41
TT-42
TT-43
TT-44
TT-45
TT-46
TT-47
TT-48
TT-49
TT-S0
TT-S1
TT~S2
TT-53
TT-54
TT-S5
TT-56
TT-57
TT-58
TT-59
TT-60
TT-61
TT-62
N~qE
Graneman
J. Holfelder
G. R. Tiebel
Meany
M.E.Whittet-Thompson
W. J. O'Regan
E. K. Stalzer
P. M. Peters
J. N. Venteau
T. R. Petersen
L. Plechavicius
Plechavicius
H. Rosin
Liguori
H. Rosin
J. C. Moffat
Phyllis Moore
D. S. Raynor
Phyllis Moore
V. Catrow
A. H. Patterson
DiGeorgio
C. L. Minton
F. W. Baker
66.
LAND
VALUE
$3,600.
3,200.
4,800.
1,700.
1,700.
4,500.
2,100.
1,800.
4,100
2,400.
7,000.
3,400.
1,300.
800.
1,000.
2,500
700
6O0
2,000
1,700
3,200
6O0
6OO
1,000
TOTAL
VALUE
$6,800.
6,300.
6,400.
5,000.
7,200.
9,300.
7,700.
4,700.
10,800.
8 400.
9 300.
5 600.
4 100.
2 000.
1 000
4.400
7OO
2 100
3 200
3600
8800
2400
2 500
3 600
HO~.MACH~'R. MCI.~OON & MURI~E]J~ PC,.
CODE
NO.
TT-63
TT-64
TT-65
TT-66
TT-67
TT-68
TT-69
TT- 70
TT- 71
TT,,72
TT-73
TT.,74
TT- 75
TT- 76
TT,,77
TT- 78
TT~79
NAME
Maurice Je'zo
A. Brisotti, Jr.
Pospisil
Dillio
Ross
Theresa Mina
Connelly
M. J. McGowan
Belz
Fox
Schmitt
Connelly
McGowan
Belz
Mormille
Rhodes
Brush
LAND
VALUE
$2,000.
3,200.
900.
600.
800.
1,700.
800.
800.
800.
700.
1,400.
800.
400.
300.
700.
1,500.
1,500.
TOTAL
VALUE
$4,700.
8,200.
3,900.
2,100.
2,700.
6,400.
3~500.
4,400.
3,900.
2,800.
6,700.
3,500.
1,000.
300.
3,300.
6,700.
6,700.
UU.i
UU-2
UU~$
UU-4
UU-5
IJU-6
T. Diachun
J. J. Driscoll
T. Diachun
Rollingwood Ests.
Kenncoy
Ziring
67.
3,200.
700..
900.
1,200.
1,100.
1,200.
3 200.
4 500.
8 400.
1 200.
6 900.
4 400.
HOI, ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELI.., PP-.
~O~I,.~TIN~ ~NE~R~
CODE
NO.
UU- 7
UU- 8
UU- 9
UU-10
UU- 11
UU- 12
UU- 13
UU-14
UU- 1S
UU- 16
UU-17
UU-18
UU- 19
UU- 20
UU-21
UU-22
UU~23
UU-24
UU-25
UU- 26
UU-27
UU- 29
UU-30
UU-31
NAME
DeLisle
L. K. Smith
Buhsen & Short
A. Morrison
Hoyt
F E.
L
C
H
L
E
R.
A.
Jones
H. Carroll
F. Lampe
Steffens
Plecha¥icius
D. Templeton
A. Potdevin
J. Aten
Doherty
D. H. Clark
L. L. Munier
J. B. Corydon
C. T. Young
M. E. Powell
& UU-28 Peter Warring
Dickerson
Unknown
J. L. Battenfield
A. Davis
LAND
VALUE
$80o.
1,000.
800.
1,000.
800.
1,000
800
1,200
2.000
3,400
3 500
3 000
3 400
1 300
2 100.
3 200.
3 500.
600.
3,600.
8,200.'
2,600.
3,200.
1,600.
TOTAL
VALUE
$3,500.
4 200.
3 300.
4 000.
3 300.
4 400
4.200
8 700
6 700
5600
7 600
6 200
8 900
7 100.
5 400.
7,200.
8,500.
600.
8,600.
17,700.
2,600.
6,800.
4,600.
68.
CODE
NO.
UU- 32
UU- 53
UU- 54
UU- 55
UU- 36
UU-37
UU~ 58
UU- 59
UU- 40
UU-41
UU- 42
UU-45
UU-44
UU- 45
NAME
D. Carpenter
A. E. Crabtree
A. J. Gatehouse
Mastropoli
Croece
Keller
J. Cardinale
C. Adams
R. S. Fanning
G. ~ E. Kendal
E. Michael
J. Costanza
F. Carey
C. Heim
LAND
VALUE
$4,800
2,400
4,000
2,800
2,000
2,600
3,400
3,300.
3,700.
1,200.
800.
1,000.
800.
1,700.
TOTAL
VALUE
Ss ooo
5 900
7200
7 900
2 000
2 600
11 800.
6 600.
4 200.
4 900.
1 800.
1 000.
3,800.
4,600.
UU-46
UU~47
UU~48
E. C. Jessup
Fulcher
A. Dawe
1,800.
2,500.
1,300.
5,700.
6,800.
4,600.
UU-49
UU-50
Fulcher
E. C. Buhler
2,600.
2,200.
2,600.
5,600.
VV~i
W-$
John R. McNulty
N. J. Murray
James M. Murray
1,300.
100.
400.
8,000.
100.
400.
Elizabeth Mesrobian
900.
1,100.
900.
3,800.
69.
HOLZMACH[R, MCLENOON A MIJRRE~L~ P~..
(~ON,SU~TING [NGJN F..E:R5
CODE
NO.
VV-5
VY-6
W-7
VV-8
FV-9
W-10
VV-11
VV-12
W-13
W-14
W-16
W-17
W-18
W-19
VV-20
VV~21
V~-23
VV-24
W-27
NAME
T. Fleschutz
G. Kleinsmith
F. H. Fechtig
Knowles
Michael Malcolmson
B. Wasson
J. J. Burns
J. G. Burns
J. J. Burns
M. Weglicki
W. S. Grochowski
Barney Sidor
Martin Sidor
Martin Weglicki
Wm. A. Siebert, Jr.
Agnes R. Crossley
O. G. Marshall
Beverly Lauinger
Susan Horni
Susan F. Horni
Dorothy E. Thoet
Edwin A. Ehlers
Chas. J. McNulty Est.
Unknown
LAND
VALUE
$1,800.
1,200.
1,800.
800.
2,500.
5,000.
1,300.
1,500.
1,700.
1,000.
3,000.
1 000.
3 200.
6 400.
1 000.
2 500.
1 900.
5 300.
3 500.
1 500.
3 100.
1,000.
8,500.
TOTAL
VALUE
$5,400.
5,800.
5,000.
3,100.
7,500.
13,400.
5 900.
1 500.
1 700.
1 000.
6 100.
3 000.
8 400.
15.400.
4 800.
8 600.
7 400.
8 800.
9 900.
1 500.
11 400.
4 900.
11 300.
70.
HOLZMACHER, blCLEIIIOON & MURRELL, PC,
GOJ~U~TING ENGINF. E~S
CODE
NO.
3VV- 1
3W- 2
3W-3 &
3W- 4
3VV- 5
3FV~6
3YF~ 7
3VV- 8
3W- 9
3FV- 10
3W- 11
3W-12
3FV~ 13 ~
3VV- 14
3W- 15
3W- 16
3VV- 17 ~
3W-18
3VV- 19
3VV- 20
3W-21
3W~ 23
3W~24
3W-25
NAME
LAUREL PARK - FILE MAP NO.
LAND
VALUE
212 - FILED 10/5/25
E. M. Connors
E. M. Connors
P. A. Bossier
Fred Lackmann
Paul Bosten
Ethel Walter
John Bennett
Helen Berberich
J. Topalian
F. Fechtig
F. Daniele
Frank Henjes
A. Zagarino
A. Gulardi
G. Imperati
J M. Murray
C. J. Gottsch
E, ~ A. Holland
Marie Rushanore
Marie Rushmore
M. Mastropaolo
Johanne Wilshuesen
$1,300.
1,300.
2,500.
700.
700.
700.
700.
700.
700.
900.
700.
1,400.
700.
700.
1,400.
1,000.
700.
700.
600.
700.
800.
800.
TOTAL
VALUE
$5,000.
1,300.
7,700.
3,400.
3,700.
3,600.
3,400.
3,100.
4,100.
4,000.
5,200.
4,600.
4,200.
3,600.
5,600.
6,100
1,800
3,400
600
700
3,600
3,700
71.
HOt,ZMACHER. M~.EN~ON & MURR~ P~,
I
I
I
I
!
CODE
NO.
3W-26
3VV- 27
3W-28 ~
3W-29
3W- 30
3W-31
3VV-32
3V~- 33
3W- 34
3W-35
3W- 36
NAME
Nm. F. Engerisser
Jos. Eugster
Wiederman
Eleanor Francella
Jas. A. Christie
Jas. A. Christie
D. Nostrom
Mildred Reilly
Edw. J. Fitzpatrick
Wm. Trampel
3W-37, 3W-38,
3W-39, 3V¥-40
3VV ~ 41
3V¥- 42
3VV- 43
3V¥- 4 4
3V¥- 4 S
3W~ 46
3W-47 P/O
3W-47 P/O
3W~47 P/O
3V1/~ 48
3W-49 ~
3V~- 50
3~n]~ 51
Norman J, Murray
Ralph Merrill
Ralph Merrill
Wm, J, Hocking
John Ormsby
Mildred Koch
Naomi Baumann
Jack Driscoll
W. F. Hammel
A. Houser
Vincent Rice
R. L. Hammel
Chas. Gildersleeve
LAND
VALUE
$400.
600.
800.
600.
500.
600.
600.
600.
600.
500.
2,600
700
700
700
60O
700
1,100.
SO0.
100..
800.
700.
1,400.
900.
TOTAL
VALUE
$400.
2,000.
3,800.
2,100.
500.
2,600.
3,700.
4,000.
2,800.
1,400.
4,900.
1,600.
5,400.
2,700.
600.
2,300.
4,600.
2,000.
100.
2,200.
3,200.
3,900.
3~300.
72.
HOLZMACHI:R, McLDIOON & MIJRRIE~ PC.
(~ONSU~TING F.N(~NF.E:P.I
CODE
NO.
MAP OF
NAME
SUBDIVISION OF LOTS
MAP NO. 212 -
4vv-1 ~
4VV-2 P/0 J. Bastone
4W-2 P/0 ~
4W-3 Edw. G. Nostrom
4CC-4 Marie Dorman
4VV-5 ~ P/0
4W-6 Harry Elliot
4W-6 P/O ~
4W-7 Arthur Cato
4W-8 Geo. Heffernan
4W-9 Helen D. Cato
4VV-A Florence Dellevie
LAND TOTAL
VALUE VALUE
52 & 53~ LAUREL PARK - FILE
FILED 12/2/30
$700. $700.
800. 3,200.
500. 2,100.
800. 3,100.
800. 4,900.
500. 4~300.
500. 5,200.
1,000. 2,.400.
LAUREL WOODS ESTATES - FILE MAP NO. 5595
SW-1 thru
5W-26, Incl. Laurel Woods Estates 18,200.
18,200.
WW-1 Rasweiler Part
5,180.
73.