The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About825 Pursuant to Section 267 of the ~ Law and the provisions of the an~nded Building zone Ordinance of the Tmen of Southold, Suffo'lk County', New York. publ~tc hearings w£11 be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Tow~ of Southold, at the Town Office, M~£n Road,. Southold, New York, on the 27th day of January, 1966, on the following appeals: Wlckham, F~q. , Nassau Point, 7:30 P.M.(B.S.T.), Upon app~ication of William Mattituck, New York, a/c Margaret V. New York, for a variance in accordanc~ with the Zoning Ordinance, Article ZZX, S~tion 303, ~t~cle X, ~ct~On 1000A, ~or ~fssion to crea~ ~ lo~ insufficient fr~tage, and for rec~n~tion o~ access ~n accordance wi~ ~e S~ of ~ew York T~ ~w, S~tion 280A. ~ation of p=o~ty~ sou~ and ~st s~de of ~nston ~d, ~ssau ~int, N~ York, ~ nor~ by Vans~on ~d, ~s~ by Little Peconl~ ~y ~d, ~ou~ by Pond, west ~ ~ns=on ~d. 7:45 P.M. (B.S.T.), Upon application of David $. Strong, Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, New York, for a special exception in accordanue with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III0 Section 300, Subsection 5 (i} for permission to erect a storage building for ~oats on the premises of a marina that is now subject to a special exception use. Location Of property: Camp Mineol& Road, Mattituck, New York, bounded LEGAL NOTI C'E NOT[GE OF I[F.,AiR,INC_.~9 Pursuant to Section 267 of the ~he Amended Building Zone Or- dinance of ~e Town of Southold, Suffolk ~unty, New York, public ~eari~s will ~ held by the Zon- ing B~rd of Ap~s of the Town of ~thold, at the Town Office, Main Road, ~uthold, ~ew Yor~, on the 2~h ~y ~ ~a~ua~, 19~, 7 30 P.M:'~.T.), Upon appU- ~ttltuck, New Y~k, a/c Ma~ar- et V. Br~tz, N~u Po~t, New ~e ~th the Z~ O~ce, crea~ two lo~ wi~-'~ficlentl fj~e, ~ for ~cognition ~ S~a~te of N~ York ~w, ~tlon ~ ~. ~a$lon 0f prG~y: ~uth ~u Po~t, N~ ~k, ~unded~ ~1~ by V~n R~d, e~t by~ ~tt]e ~o~lc ~y ~, south ~n~eta Pond, w~s,t by Van- cation of ~vid S. Stro~g, ~rk, for a ,~ exception In ac~d~ce wi~ the Zoni~ Or- S~on 5 (1) for ~e~i~o~ to erect a sS~e ~ldi~ for ~ ~e pre~ ~ a mar~ that ~ ~ aubj~t ~ a s~ ex- c~ption ~. ~tion of p~r- tuck, N~ Y~k, b~n~ by Peter ~h, Jr., ~t ~ Pe~r ~eh, Jr., ,~u~ ~y Peter Kr~, Jr. ~ Allen, west by Cr~k. Any person desiring to be heard on the a~ve ~pp~catl~ sh~ld a~ar at the time and place above ~eclfied. O~ ~ ~ ~U~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ~ ss: STATE OF NEW YORK, ....~. '.. ~7~ .~..4~~ .... being duly Sworn, says that ....~..~.. is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK ~VEEKLY TIIV~RS, a newspaper published a! Greenport, in said county: and that the notice, ,of which the annexed is ~ printed copy, has been published in the .~aid Suffolk Weekly Times once in each week, fur .......... .~. [?. ~k~ .......... week~ successively commencing on the ../.~..?~:~?..,~...~.[.. d~lt of .., ,(~..~C..~-~ .... 19.[~./~. Swam to before me this . Commission Expit es March 30,196 ~ FO~M NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. Examined ........................................ , 19 ........ Approved ........................................ , 19 ........ Permit No ............................. Disapproved a/c .............................................................................................. Application No ............................. (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT / Date ............. /:..././2. ................................. , 19...~..~...... INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted in duplicate to the Building Inspector. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is port of this application. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the progress of the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLIC^TION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code and regulgtipns. p~~~ ,n~ , if a corporoti~'~) ...... (Address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engi'neer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. ........... ................................................................. . ..................................... Nome of owner of premises ~./~.~(.~... If applicant is o corporate, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. ,Map No.: ........................................ Lot No.: ........................ .././..,. ,, ................................. Street and Number ............................................................................ ~.~..~ Municipality 2. State existi.ng use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: 3. Nature of work (check which aarP ica~: ii..~ ...... I New 'Bdildi~g Addition O. ............ Alteration .................. Repair .................. R~moval ..................Demolition .................. Other Work (Describe) ........................................ 4. Estimated Cost ......... ~'z'.~....~....~...O.. ................ .................... Fee .......................................................................................... (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units ............................ Number of dwelling units on each floor ............................ If garage, number of cars ............................................................................................................................................. 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ............................ 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front ............................ Rear ................................ Depth .................... Height ........................ Number of Stories ................................................................................................................. Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front .................................... Rear ............................ Depth ................................ Height ............................ Number of Stories ................................ 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front ...... ~'.~...'. .................... Rear ............ ~.~..~ ........ Depth ..... ~...~....'. ......... Height ....J~.~...~. ...... Number of Stories ...................................................................................................................... 9. Size of lot: Front ....~....~.4].~..>,t'. ..... Rear .................................... Depth ................................ 10. Dote of Purchase ..............4(.~.~..~. ................................ I~ame of Former Owner 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated ...../~., ....................................... i"~' .............................................. 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation? ./7.~.~..~.~ ........ ~([.~.~...~../.~.4~. ............ 13. Name of Owner of premises~'~ '~./~.(LZf~.....~..~...~....~'.~..~-~..Address ....~.~.~'/..~..~..7..../j~.~..~:/.~..(../~...,/,~ Phone No. Name of Architect ........ 2~.~...~...~.~.. ............................. Address ........ ~..R.~..~..~../...~... ........... Phone No ..................... Name of Contractor ..... ~..~....~..~...~. ........................... Address ............................................ Phone No ..................... PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and indicate all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or corner lot. STATE OF NEW YO~,K, ~ 1, ¢ c COUNTY OF ...~..~' .... ....... 4<~...~......~.:.'.....~ ....................... being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Name of individual signing~applicAtion) above named. He is the ............. ~...(~<'../%~/'4- ................................................ (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements conto:ined in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this-, ~ n /~ / _ Notary Pub~~~ C,9~n~ ~EGCNT . (S'g ature o TOWN OF $OlJ'l~OI~, ~ ~ APPLICATION FOR S~]~C~AL Exurban TO THE ZON~N~ BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, N. Y. I, (We) ..~./~...~...Ld_...~-.'. ............ .~...,~.f~.~_:.._..of ........... .~.~..~:.........~.~f/o~__Z~...~.....,......~_~...~.~...~.?3 ~ Namc S~t ~d Numar ............. ~.~zz~.~ .................................................. ~/~_~ ............... .~ ~e~eby 2pply to THE ~OlqI~G BOARD OF ~PPEALS for a ~ ~C~N ~ ~d~ w~ the Z~ ~D~ ~ ~ S~N ~ u~ STATE OF COUNTY ,~m~r A. EECET'IT FORM ZB2 HENRY KOCH January 24th, 1966 BOard of Appeals - Zoning Law Town of Southold Southold, Long Island, New York In Re s Application of David Strong to build sheds or other buildings along the east side of Ja~es Creek in con- nection with the Marina located there, being opposite the real property of Irma C. Koch at Salt Lake Village, Mattituck, New York, known as Lot 11 on Map No. 3510 Salt Lake Village, Mattituck, Suffolk County, New York ~entlemen: My wife, Irma C. Koch, o~ner of the above captioned property at Salt Lake Village in Maitituck, objects to the 9ranting of a pe~tt or variance to the Zoning Law affecting the application of Dsvid Strong in the above entitled proceeding. My wife's real property is directly opposite the Marina and the erection of sheds or other buildings along Ja~es Creek will serve to depreciate the value of //rs. Kochts real property and affect the beauty of the same and our enjoyment of the open spaces and viewmhich we now en~e~. As you know, Salt Lake Village consists of a number of beautiful private one family h~nes, all painted white. The owners of the Salt Lake Village h~es are very Jealous of their appearance and hope ~hat no so-called further per--its will be granted along James Creek for coemercial purposes which would be an eye-sore, and injurious to the valuation of our Mattituck homes and our enjoyment thereof. I am sure that all of our neighbors who are unfortunately out of town at the present time would join Mrs. Koch in her objections. If it would be possible, I would like you to adjourn this matter and your decision until such time in the spring when our neighbors would return to Mattituck. I, lma C. Koch, wife of Ner~ry Koch, and owr/sr of Lot 11 on ~ap No. 3510, Salt Lake Village, Mattituck, Long Island, have read the foregoing letter, and indicate by my signature on said letter that ! agree to all of the statewlts therein contained. ~ C. ~ch Salt Lake Village Mattituck, N. Y. 26 January 1966 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, N. Y. RE: APPLICATION OF DAVID STRONG TO BUILD A BOAT STORAGE BUILDING AT MARINA ON JAMES Gentlemen: I had planned to attend the board hearing on 27th January to protest the granting of an exception to David S. Strong for building of a boat storage building at the marina on James Creek. If possible, I shall attend and pretest in person, however it now seems that I may be out of town on business. I therefore hope you will consider this written objection. My wife and I own our permanent, and only, residence on the west side of James Creek, accross and slightly south of this marina. The marina is in our full view from front and back yards and from maln rooms in our home. We object strongly to building a commercial boat storage building in this area and believe that the granting of further e~cept- ions to this marina will, in fact, convert it from a marina to a com- mercial shipyard. The majority of property owners around us are here only in summers. I feel sure that allof them would object and it seems most unfair to me to bring up this application at a time when so many taxpayers effected are known not to be here to defend their rights. May I respectfully request that this application be denied, or at least deferred until summer. Edward A.-R~~ ETTCO WIRE & CABLE C 0 R P 0 R A T I 0 N 75 OND£RDONK AVENUE . BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11237 AREA 212 HYAClrqTH 7 O360. 1.2.3 . CABLE ADDRESS 'ETTCO January 25, i966 ~Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, New York Gentlemen: It is with a strong feeling that the natural beauty o£ the inlet and creek area of Camp Mineola l~oad, Mattituck, New York remain unalter- ed, that I voice in behalf of neighbors of mine and myself, residents of Salt Lake Village, an objection to the request of Mr. D. Strong for a zoning change tn the area. There is a certain pr~st~ne loveliness about these waterways, that the construction o£ a commercial boat shed, with its attendant equipment and possible water pollu~on would forever change. Natural areas of this sort are gradually disappearing due to commercial exploitation, and it is our feeling that no good can be accomplished by altering the status ¢luo. I am writing this letter of object~on in behalf off Mrs. Florence Hueglin, Mr. Frederick W. Kiendl, Mr. Edward N. l~ichards, and of course my- self, all property owners in Salt r,ake Village, Matti- tuck. We urgently hope and request that this appli- cation for change will be denied. Very truly yours, Ettco ~e and Cable Corp,,/~Z ation i Edward A. spaet~ t Vice President sn M A N U F A C t U R E r S O F Q U A L ~ T Y W I R E A N D C A B L E S I N C E ~ 9 0 7 RDAO01 A SKAI~? NL PD=SARA$OTA FLO JAN 2~;= ~THE BOARD OF APPEALS=TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CLERKS OFFICE "~:i',-~ MAIN ST SOUTHOLD ~iY= -'RE STRON~ APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE,- HAVE ASKED ATTORNEY WICKHAM TO REPRESENT ME TO REOUEST THAT THIS APPLICATION BE DENIED. MR WlCKHAM WILL EXPLAIN THAT EVEN THE PRESENT MARIANA HAS SEF~IOUSLY DAMAGED THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY AND IS BOARDING ON BEING A NUSISANCE= -J W HELBING= I~RS. ARTHUR H. ULLRICH · 7 RUTLAND AVENUE · RO~KVILLE CENTRE, N.Y. Appeal Bls. 825 - David f. Strong Xn con~idering the above the Board finds~ 1. That the proposed storage uae would adversely effect the orderly and reasonable use of the adjacent properties. 2. That the Character of e~inting and probable development of residential uses in the area would be adversely affected. 3. That the con~ervetion of property vaXue~ and the encouragement of appropriate uses of 'lL, d wOUld be adversely effected. 4, TAft the Board finds itself in general agreement with the position advanocd by William Wiekham, Bfq., attOrney :~for fait Lake Village Association, that the J~no, 1965 ~ ~einAon~ of the Southold Town Building Zone OrdinanCe ~ concerning marina u~es permitted in the seVeral~mis'~ire a new and more limited interpretation of permitted residential ma~:i.na usu! spmotfionlly, ltulted to eouatde~inu for the Ming end mooring or ececamodation of ~et more than rain (6) non-mmreinl hts. Boat ate, rage yuxd~ are peroAtted under Art~tele IV, as revined, "B' hml,,nesm District, Section 400, subjection 19. There is sm doubt whether m storage Senility nay be permitted in a 'B-I' Businean D~triet or a 'a-2' Biasing Dintrtet, however we arm e~ir~t~ed that the linitetionf noted above must prevent favorable cen~idOra~i°n of th~'appliontion ina renidenttal zone. S. Until now, storage facilities have not been requested. The B~ard find~ that the publin eonveninnon and veXfare and JMstAcC will not be served and the legally established or perutttod use ~of neigbberhocd property and edJotnJ~ag ut dAs~rtetJ will be permanently or mubatantinll¥ injured end the mp4~tt of the OrdinaneeMllt not be observed. TherefOre, %t~ Was ~ David S. Strong, Camp M~neola Road, ~attituek, b York, be dented permission to erect a storage JMa~ldtng for boats on the preuctsec o~ a marina that ts ,now subject to a repeats! onnep,tlon use on property located on Camp mneola Road, ~attitock, ~ew York, bounded north bM Peter Kreh, Jr., mt bM peter Etch, Jr., south by Peter Etch, Jr.-Allen, west bM James Creek. ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL~ On Boemd's Hotion- ~/27/71 To David Se Stl~Oll~ Appellant 0&m~ Hlneola Road Mat~ i~uok: N~Y~k at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on ~lll~ 8, 1971 was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your ( ) Request for variance due to lack of access to property ( ~0 Request /or a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance ( ) Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance the appeal ( ) 1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be granted ( ) be denied pursuant to Article .................... Section .................... Subsection .................... paragraph .................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Building Inspector ( ) be reversed ( ) be confirmed because SEE RE%~SE 2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce hardship because REVERSE practical difficulties (b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because SEE REI~SE (c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) change the character of the district because (would not) S~E RE¥'Ett~E and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) be conf/rmed ( ) be reversed. ) be denied and FORM ZB4 SEE REVERSE APPROVED f/, f c'/ Chairnm;; i: ZONING BOA-RD OF APPEALS MarJorie McDermott, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals S, TRONO ldAR~A~ Reheartn~ on 19~8~ 19~9 and 1966 Actions, investigation and public hoa~lng the Boa~d dete~mined the followir~ facts pe~tinent to the decision: A ~ehoa~lng concerning the STRONG 14ARXNA, James Creek, ~ttituok~ New Y~k~ was ~ p~t~ ~oause ~ ~izunde~st~dl~ of f~ aot~s ~d l'~ ~e~ to ~ ole~ p~olee~ w~t activities ~ be ~itted In t~ coquet ~ t~ ~lna ~sines., In view ~ t~ ~h ~ Boatl~ ~ ~esidential c~t~uotion In t~ ~ea. T~ B~d notes t~ o~laint ad~eoed to t~ ~izo~ of t~ T~ of ~tho~ ~ t~ ~alt ra~ Yi~e Aaeo~lation~ ~. Nett~ t~ T~ B~d ~ t~ Bo~d ~ Appea~ ~e enf~ol~ agents ~ t~ Zonl~ ~lnanoe. ~ll function iz Other questions posed by tho ~alt Lake Association concern advertising and building polmits. The Boapd of Appeals does not control the advertising of the Strong Marina. At the time the second accessory buildl~ was cor~tructed, approximately 1960, a building pe~ait was not requL~ed fo~ accessory buildings. Th.is was discussed with Peter E~eh, J~.., (p~evious owner); and no, ed in tho minmtes of October 27, 1960. It is pertinent here to review b~tefl~ the histor7 of this ~a~lna. A small ms, ina-type use existed at this location pric~ to the passage of the Zoning O~dinance in 1957. This was expanded with anctlX~ facilities in 1958 and 1959. In 1966 a large structure fo~ the storage of boats was denied, an action which was supported in the higher courts. Nea~b7 marinas are aevo~al miles distant, and tho need fo~ this facility has been demonstrated by frequent Fesoue operations as a result of calls from the Bay Constable. Tho ma~lna is ~ega~ded as hetng unusually adequate in size and is wall protected f~om o~dt~A~ weather and tide conditions. A long time policy of the Town of ~outhold has been to encourage sum~ visitors and leisure activities, a policy whose Importance to the Town has been documented over the yea~s by studies conducted by Raymond & May (zoning consultants), Cornell Unive~sity, and the Suffolk County Planning DepaA'tment, among others. The policy was recognized in the o~iginal Zoning O~dinance of 1957 by pe~mitting the conduct of a ma~ina business in the A Residential and Agricultural Zone b~ ~peolal ~oeption of t~ Bo~d ~ Ap~a~ subject to t~ guid~oe c~ite~iz set f~th in t~ ~l~nce o~o~t~ ~tions of t~ Bo~d ~ Appeals. It should also be pointed out that a Boa~d of Appeals empowered to g~ant Special Exceptions is required to g~ant a special exception who~e the applicant can reasonably be Judged as having met the standards ~equi~ed fo~ such exceptions. At the ~ublio hea~lng ~hioh was well attended by an estimated 60 to 75 persons, center's was expressed by some individuals rega~dlng the extent of %usinesc and co~mercial activity" while others indicated objection to the st~age of boats. Ma others indicated substantial approval of the manner in which the ~ma~lna has been conducted, and several hundred Mattituck residents signed a petition indicating their approval. Legal Notice Page -3 east by S~. J. Doyen, Henry Zabahonsklo south by Do Gallagher, west by 8:45 PoM. (E~D. SoT~) Pursuant to Section 267, Subdivision 6 of the Town Law, of the State of New York, on the BoardZs motion, re-hearings will be h~ld on Appeal NOo 126 Peter Kreh, Jro - Appeal NOo 237 Peter Kreh, Jro - Appeal Noo 825 David So Strong - all relative to establishing and operating a marina at the north side of Camp Mineola Road, on James Creek~ Mattituck~ New York. Any person desiring to be heard on the above applications should appear at the time and place specified~ DATED: MAY 27, 1971~ BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE~ JUNE 10~ 1971, AND FORWARD SIX (6) AFF/~DAVITS OF PUBLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD~ NEW YORK~ Copies mailed to the following on June 4~ 1971: The Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman The Suffolk Weekly Times Joseph Gioscia, Peter Do Pizzarelli~ & Reuben Wecker Robert Feaker Walter Wisniewski Paul Haslach Donald & Viola Meyer Peter Kreh, Jro David So Strong SOMEONE SHOULD APPEAR AT THE HEAR/-NG STRONG ¥~A: Rehe~.ring on 1958, 1959 and ~1966 Actions. By investigation and public he~ring the Board determined the following facts pertinent to the decision: A rehearing concerning the STRONG I~L~RiNA, James Creek, Mattltuck, New York, was held partly because of misunderstanding of former actions and in order to make clea~~ precisely what activities may be permitted in the conduct of the marina business, in view of the gro~h of boating and residential construction in the area. The Board notes the complaint addressed to the Supervisor of the Town of Southold by the Salt Lake Village Association, inc. Neithe~ the Town Board or the Boa~,d of Appeals are enforcing agents of the Zoning Ordinance. This function is performed by the Building Inspector. Other questions posed by the Salt Lake Association concern advertising and building permits. The Board of Appeals does not control the advertising of the Strong Marina. At the time the second accessory building was constructed, approximately 1960, a building permit was not required for accessory buildings. This was discussed with Peter Ereh, Jr., (previous owner), and noted in the minutes of October 27, 1960. It is pertinent here to review briefly the history of this marina. A small marina-type use existed at this location prior to the passage of the Zonir~ Ordinance in 1957. This was expanded with ancillary facilities in 1958 and 1959. In 1966 a large str~cture for the storage of boats was denied, an action which was supported in the higher courts. Nearby marinas are several miles distant, and the need for this facility has been demonstrated by frequent rescue operations as a result of calls from the Bay Constable. The marina is regarded as being unusually adequate in size and is well protected from ordinary weather a~d tide conditions. A long time policy of the Town of $outhold has been to encourage summer visitors and leisure activities, a policy whose importance to the Town has been documented over the years by studies conducted byRaymond & ~y (zoning consultants), Cornell University, and the Suffolk County Planning Department among others. ' The policy was recognized in the original Zoning Ordinance of 1957 by permitting the conduct of a marina business in the A Residential and Agricultural Zone b~ Special.Exception of the Board of Appeals, subject to the guzdance crzterta set forth in the Ordinance concerning actions of the Board of Appeals. It should also be pointed out that a Board of Appeals empowered to g~ant Special Exceptions is required to grant a special~exception where the applicant can reasonab].y be Judged as having met the standards required for such exceptions. At the ~ublic hearing which was well attended by an estimated 60 to 75 persons, concern was expressed by some individuals regarding the extent of ~business and commercial activity" while others indicated objection to the storage of boats. Many others indicated substantial approval of the manner in which the marina has been conducted, and several hundred Mattituck residents signed a petition indicating their approval. In the .opinion of the Board the principal question which has been raimed concerns whether or hot the Strong Marina now has the right to store boats on marina land when not moored in marina waters. The Board denied permission to construct a storage building in 1966, a prohibition which was upheld in higher courts. However, Board believes that a special exception granting permission for a marina involving the mooring of boats in the waters of the w~ina carries with it the right to accomodate these boats by safeguarding and storing them on marina land, unless a condition has been imposed in the granting of the special exception which prohibits such a use. F~ny boat o~rners do not have adequate space on their property. No such condition was imposed either in 1958 or 1959. The word "l~arina~J is defined in the ordinance in effect in 1958 & 1959 as follows, under Article l, Section 100, subsection 17A - "M~INA OR BOAT BASINS': Any premises containing one or more piers,.wharves, docks, bulkheads, buildings, slips, basins or land under water designed, used or intended to be used primarily for the docking moorim~ or accomodation of boats for compensation, whether compensation is paid directly or indirectly." Boats have always been stored on the lands adjoining Long Island waters, and boats aro currently stored throughout the Town on the residential property of owners. The Strong Marina acreage appears unusually adequate for storage purposes. Other services which have been performed for the users of the marina are regarded as minimal conveniences; these include fresh water, the sale of gasoline, motor and boat service, fishing tackle, bait, soft drinks and sandwiches from machines housed in the two small accessory buildings. The Board finds that the policy of the To~n of Southold has been to encourage leisure activity; that the purpose of permittim~ a marina business by special exception in a residential zone is to provide a boating facility for recreational use subject, however, to controls designed to encourage marine uses reasonably compatible with the surrounding use area. The Board interprets this to mean that a marina business may be so conducted under the original Ordinance together with a limited range of incidental but necessary services directly related to the acco~odation of boats moored or stored in the marina. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and justice will be served and the legally established or permitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use districts will not be permanently or substantially injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. THEREFORE IT WAS RESOLVED David S. Strong, Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, New York, be GRANTED permission as follows: 1. The original actions of the Board in 1958, 1959 and 1966 are reaffirmed and additional specific conditions are hereby imposed to clarify what is meant by "accomodation of boats": A. Permission is hereby GRANTED for open storage of boats up to 42 feet in length in the area between the newest accessory building and the recently constructed Strong residence. No boat shall be stored closer than 25 feet to any property line, and the maximum occupancy of the ma~ina shall not exceed 100 boats at any one time, whether boats are iu or out of the water for safekeeping or other reasons. ~. B. Permission is formally GRANTED for the following minor services to be furnished to users of the mm~rina: fresh water, sale of gasoline (already permitted), minor motor and boat repair, sale of fishing tackle, bait, and soft drinks and sandwiches from the old accessory building. Permission is specifically DENIED to operate a restaurant as defined by the Board of Health. C. No building permit may henceforth be issued for additional censtruction of any kind related to marina use on this property without the specific authorization of the Boarder Appeals in writing. 2. The Board reserves the right to review and evaluate all uses which have been permitted to date in order to insure their compatibility with the surrounding use area under the reasoning set forth in this decision. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. Examined ........................................ , 19 ........ FOF~I NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. Approved ........................................ , 19 ........ Permit No ................................. Disapproved a/c .............................................................................................. Application No ............................. (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS o. This cpplication must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted in duplicate to the Building Inspector. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or creas, and giving a detailed description of layout of propertymust be drawn on the diagram which is part of this application. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue o Building Permit to the applicant. Such perm. it shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the progress of the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in pa rt for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of o Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described· The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code and regulati?~ns. (Signature of applicant, or name~, if a corporation) (Address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. .......... ...................................................................................................................................................................... Nomo of owner of premises ............. ;. ........................................................................................ If applicant is o corporate, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Location of land on which proposed work will be done. Map No: ............................................ Lot No: .................... Street ond Number .~.~./~/~.. /.¥/./../~.'d.r~. '~..~ ~~ .. Municipality State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: o. Existing use and occupancy ..... ~.~....~ ....... use occ. a.c, ' 5 ........................ ~ ..... ~ .............................. ~ ............. 3. Nature of work (check which applic~_.e): New Building ....~ ....... Addition ................ Alteration ................. Repair .................... ,Removal .................... Demolition .................... Other Work (Describe) ...................................... 4. Estimated Cost ....... ~..~ ................................................ Fee .......................................................................................... (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units ............................ Number of dwelling units on each floor ............................ If garage, number of cars ........................................................................................................................................... 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ................................ 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front .......................... Rear .......................... Depth ............................ Height ............................ Number of Stories ............................................................................................................... Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ................................ Rear ................................ Depth .............................. Height .............................. Number of Stories ........................................ 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front ....... ~.~....~ .......... Rear ........ b~q......'. ......... Depth ~"~ ~ Height .......,~..~'.i. ............. Number of Stories ............................ 9. Size of lot: Front .~..~ .......... Rear ............................ Depth ................................ 10. Date of Purchase .............. ~ ....................................... Nome of Former ~ner .~i~.~..G..W~.Z.~.<,H.:¢. .... 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated .......... ~.¢ ................................................................................ 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation? .~.....~Z.(~Z~ ........... 13. Name of Owner of premises .~.~t~.~.~Z~...Address .~..~.¢J~J.~?~.~.~... Phone ~o. ~.~,5~.~.~.' Nome of Architect ........... ~.~.d47.~ .......................... Address ..... ~.~ ~ ......................... Phone ~o ..................... Name of Contractor ............ ~.~.~. ....................... Address "~ {~ Phone No ..................... PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and indicate all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give street and block numbers or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or corner lot. STATE OF NEW yORK . COUNTY OF ,~4~.~;~/~..~.,~..J~...t.S'S' Cr ,(,.~_ .e~ .~,~ - - be n sworn, .................. g ................... r""'" .4 g duly deposes and says that he is the applicant (Name of individual signing app ic6tion) above named. He is the (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me t~ ................. ....... ...... ........ · .......... ........................... Notary Public/..).../ ................. ~ ........ ~ ........... %~.......'Z. ~.~lt~. . (S,gnature of appli~c:[t) TOV~N 'OF $0UTHOI~), ~ Y..K APPLICATION POR SPECIAL EK(CE~TION APPLICATION NO. TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTH:OLD, N. Y. Na~nc S~r,eet and Numbe~ .............. z~..~:,,,~.,~,~ ................................................................................. z'l,,~ ~ ................... ~f .~, ......................................... Municipality hereby apply to THE ZONING BOAt~k~F APPEALS fo,r a SPECLAL EXCEPTION in o. ccordance with the ZONING OEDIIVANOE ARTICLE j~._( SECTION ,"-~C (~ SLm~ECTION 5- / 5' / /' ' STATE OF NEW YOP~K ) ~ ..................... // Notal'y Public FOEM ZB2 L_ PUBLIC ~d~ING: 8:45 P.M. (E.S.T.), Pursuant to S~ction 267, Subdivision 6 of the Town Law, of the State of New York, on the Boa~d~s motion, rehea~lngs will be held on Appeal No. 126 Peter Etch, Jr. - Appeal No. 23? Peter Etch, J~. - Appeal No. 82% David S. Strong - all relative to establishing and operating a ~ina at'the north side of Camp Mineola Road, on James Creek, Mattituck, New York. 'The Chairman opened the hea~ing by reading the legal notice of hearing and affidavit attesting to its publication in the official newspaper, and notice to the applicant. The action of the Board on the first marina request was dated December 18, 19~8 and was as follows: Boa~d grants special exception to establish a marina as provided under Article III, Section 300, Subsection 3a in a residential area with mooring spaces fo~ mooring approximately 35 boats and a launching ramp tog~the~ with a parking lot in a southeasterly direction from the present structure. Services to be provided fo~ privately owned boats under 26 feet. Subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no services provided for pa~ty ' boats and/or commercial operations. 2. Bo boats will be rented or leased. Location of property: James Creek, Mattituck, N. Y. bounded on the north by J. Zsbroski, on the east by Camp Mineola Road, south by R. Makes, and on the west by J. Zebroski. A request for enlargement was acted on on date of November 27, 19%9, as follows: Resolved that the application be GRANT~ as applied for, under the following conditions: The gasoline service facilities be located at the southerly end of the made land adjoining James Creek which runs to the west of this property. Further conditions: that the original special exception permitting 3% berths be expanded to include permission for up to 100 boats of a class no larger than A-2 (26 to 42 feet). Ail of the same conditions except as to the mamber of berths which applied on special exception No. 126'also apply to the granting of this special exception. The third' application dated'Januax-y 13, 1966 was acted on on February 10, 1966 - Appeal No. 825,'David $. Strong- for permission to erect a storage building. The Board determined as follows: After investigation and inspection the Board finds that in approximately 1965, David ~eng purchased 7 acres of this 16 acre track of land. Peter Etch, ~. included all the marina facilities -9- which he formerly operated. Mr. Strong has applied for permission to build a 60 foot by 60 foot by 20 foot aluminum boat storage shed to be used solely for the purpose of physical storage of boats of local home owners. To date some accommodation of this demand has been furnished by leasing a building several miles distant on the North Road. The projected building would be located approximately 500 feet easterly of the present marina facilities building. Objections of local adjoining residents are concerned with the depreciation of property values as a result of changing the naturally attractive and highly residential character of this neighborhood by including a commercial building and other activities associated with storage and movement of boats, such as painting and trailers. (In spite of restrictions it is unreasonable to assume that a boat stored for the season would not be painted at the point of storage). The Board finds further that the location of this marina in a natural meadow area is highly visible from most of the surrounding residential areas. In considering the above the Board finds: 1, That the proposed storage use WOuld adVersely affect the orderly and reasonable use of the adjacent properties.~ 2. That the character of existing and~Probabl~ development of residential uses in the area would be adversely affected. 3. That the conservation of property values and the encouragement of appropriate uses of land would be adversely affected. 4. That the Board finds itself in general agreement with the position advanced by William Wickham, Esq., attorney fox. Salt Lake Village Association, that the June, 1965 revisions of the Southold Town Building Zone Ordinance concerning ma~ina uses permitted in the several zones require a new and more limited interpretation of permitted residential ma~ina uses; specifically, limited to considering marinas for the docking and mooring or accommodation of not more than six (6) non-commercial boats. Boat storage yards are permitted under Article IV, as revised, W~Bl' Business District, Section [~00, Subsection 19. There is some doubt whether a storage facility may be permitted in a "B-l" Business District or a "B-2" Business District, however we.are .convinced that the limitations noted above must prevent favorable consideratiou of this application in a residential zoue. 5. Until now, storage facilities have not been requested. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and Justice will not be served and the legally established or permitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use dis- tricts will be permanently or substantially injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will not be observed. Therefore, it was RE~0LVED David S. ~trong, CamD Mineola Road, Mattituck, New ¥ork,~be DENIED permission to erect a storage building for boats on the premises of a m~rina that is now subject to a special exception use on property located on Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, New ]fork, bounded north by Peter Kreh, Jr., east by Peter Kreh, Jr., south by Peter Ereh, J~.- Allen, west by James Creek. THE CHAPMAN: These are the Actions of the Board of Appeals. The Supreme Court upheld the Board of Appeals in their decision. I will now read you the Opinion of the Court- Memorandum by Getler, J.~.C., Supreme Court, Suffolk County: . · Richard ~. Cron, Esq. Dominic T. Aurichio, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs . Attorney for Defendant Action by plaintiff for a declaratory Judgment establishing the following: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold does not prohibit plaintiff from erecting a suitable boat storage facility upon the premises at which a marina is being operated as a non-conforming use. 2. That the action of the SOuthold TOwn Zoning Board of Appeals in denying plaintiff a special exception to erect a boat storage facility be declared null and void. 3. That the Court determine the validity of the Zoning Ordinance, and the extent to'which the Zoning Ordinance affects the plaintiff ts proposed use, enjoyment, improvement and develop- ment of his land The plaintiff acquired title to'a parcel of land consisting of 7 acres from Peter Kreh on May 1~, 1965. A zoning ordinance was adopted in April, 1957 and the K~eh property was placed in an 'A" Residential and Agricultural District. A' marina is pro- hibited in this district unless permitted by a special exception of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Etch, prior to the Zoning Ordinance, improved about 2 acres of his property by placing a small building thereon and dredging the same to accommodate eight boats of approximately twenty-six feet in length. On December 10, 1958, he obtained a special exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals to operate a non-commercial marina adjoining the dredged portion of his premises. The following restrictions were imposed: 1. Mooring spaces to be provided for 35 boats and a launching ramp together with a parking lot. 2. Services to be provided for privately owned boats Under 26 feet. 3. No services shall ~e provided for party boats and/or commercial operations. ~. Ho boat shall be rented or leased. On November 27, 19~9 this special exception use was expanded to permit mooring facilities for 10G boats of a class no longer than ~2 feet. On January 13, 1966 plaintiff made appllcatiou for a special exceptlou to the Zoning Board of Appeals to erect a boat storage building on the premises at which he continued to conduct the marina business of his predecessor in title. The application was denied. Plaintiff brought this action to determine what rights he possesses with respect to the conduct' of a marina business, firstly as a non-conforming use, and secondly' by virtue of his right to conduct such business as a special exception to the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance. . _ A use of land which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance although it does not comply with use re- strictions applicable to the area !u which it is situated is commonly referred to as a ,non-conforming use" (Rhyne, Mmnlcipal Law Sec. 32-26). The only non-conforming use established by the plain%iff was the accommodation of eight boats on two acres and nothing more. The right to continue a non-conformlug use does not include a right to extend or enlarge it (Van Auken v. Kimmer, 1930, l~l Misc. 105, 252 N.Y.S. 329). It is evident that Kreh realized that his non-conforming use was limited and on two separate occasions applied for special exceptions to extend his use. Plaintiff ts contention that the special exceptions granted are part of the non-conforming use and the right to dock one hnnd~ed boats automatically included the right to build storage facilities is without foundation. Justice Fred J. I~nder while sitting at gpecial Term, Supreme Court, Suffolk County, on September lO, 196% iu Hatter of .Count~ of Suffolk...., ~8 Misc. 2d 39 stated: '~oth sides have referred to this situation as one resulting in a ,non-conforming use"; but that term is applied only to a structure or.use existing at the time of the adoption of a zoning ordinance that does not conform to the new restrictive regula- tions and which hence is permitted to be continued. The subsequent creation of a non. conformance is not permitted. In other words~ a party cannot by erection of buildings or other acts in violation of a zoning restriction establish Stating the rule a legal right to a non-conforming use. somewhat more broadly~ ~non-conforming ~ uses commenced subsequent to a zoning regulation or restriction are not entitled to protection under ordinances, statutes or constitution." (S McQaillin, l~niclpal Corporations (3d ed.), Sec. 25.186. Furthermore, ptaintiff'seeks to extend the non-conforming use from 2 acres to ? a~res. An extension of a non-conforming use to land not used for that purpose-prior to the ordinance is an unlawful extension (Breed v. Clay, 21 Misc. 2d 856, 201 N.Y.S. 2d 939). Plaintiff produced an expert in the ~-~ina business who testified that a marina could not be narrowly circumscribed so as to limit the use of the present facilities to the mere dockage of boats but was required to be interpreted in its broadest aspect including the right to build restaurants and motels. The plaintiff contends that the grant of a special exception to operate a marina automatically includes the right to build any facility in connection with the ~-rina without approval of the Beard. The special exception technique was never intended to give a pa~ty unlimited rights. The theory behind special exceptions is to soften the impact of certain uses upon a~eas where they will be incompatible unless conditioned in a manner suitable to a particula~ location (see Zoning in New York State, 104 N.Y. Dept. of Commerce, 1961). Plaintiff's definition may be ideal from a commercial point of view but no~ from the facts in ~his cass. We are not concerned in this case with the operation of every facility which could possibly be embraced within the term ~'m--ina~'. The premises of'the plaintiff are not situated in a business district but in a residential area and the ordinance specifically restricts the business of operating a marina to those granted under a special exception. Consequently whether a full and complete marina business may be conducted is wholly dependent upon the particular district in which it may be conducted. It is clear that the plaintiff does not have an unlimited right to operate every facility which may be included in the broadest interpretation of the word "marina". Plaintiff~s · predecessor recognized this fact as evidenced by his two previous applications to extend his business. Thus it is clear that the business can only be extended by approval of the Zoning Board and not as of right. The plaf~tiff purchased the premises with his eyes open and well knew, or is presumed to have known that at the time of the purchase his business was.restricted to the conditions embodied in the special exceptions. The Court sympathizes with the plaintiff,s economic situation but is not a guarantor of profits..The town fathers have appointed citizens of the community to sit on the Board and this Court is not so vain as to substitute its Judgment for that of the citizens closest to the situation. The Coumt finds the Boa~d has not acted s~bitrarily er capriciously and will not upset the decision' of the Board (Re Gosden, 6~ N.Y.C. ~d ~?~ s~£~d. 2?0 ~.D. 101~, 6S The foregoing constitutes the decision of the Court pursuant to C.P.L.R. Section 4213. Settle Judgment. THE CHAIR~J: That is the record, and the reason we are here tonight is that it is perfectly appropriate to ask for a rehearing of any hearing. It should be further pointed out that this Board may reverse, modify or annull its original order, decision or determination. With all of the foregoing as background, i will also read a letter addressed to Hon. Albert ~tocchia, Supervisor, Town of Southold; written by Artemas E. Ward, President of Salt Lake Village Association, ~ttituck, New York: Dear PL~. Martocchia: The Board of Directors of Salt Lake Village has asked me to write to you to call your attention to, and to protest, the continued commercial operation of Strongts N~rina directly across Jam~s Creek Channel from Salt Lake Village. I should like to review the background of this operation. P~lor to April 27, 1957, when the Town of Southold enacted its zoning ordinance, this property was owned by Fred and Peter Kreh. It was placed in a t'A~' Residential and Agricultural district. Prior to the zoning, t~eh had improved the two acres by placing a small building thereon and dredging a former inlet for use in operating what they termed a "M~zrlna~, which, however, became limited in its scope to seven.or eight boats for no more than 26 feet in length. On December 18, 1959 the Krehs applied for a special exception pursuant to the provisions of the zoning ordinance and were granted such exception upon the following conditions: 1. Mooring space having approximately thirty-five boats of twenty-six feet in length or less, and a launching ramp~ 2. A parking lot. 3. No service for party boats and/or commercial operations. No beats rented or leased. No appeal from that decision was taken by the applicants and apparently Kreh operated under that special exception until on or about November 2?, 1959. At that time, aforesaid special excep- tion was further expanded as follows: 1. Location of gasoline facilities; 2. The space for thirty-five berths (as provided in the preceding exception) was to be expanded to include permission for 100 boats up to 42 feet in length; 3. All other conditions were continued. Ho appeal from that special exception was ever taken and it appears that both Ereh and his successor in interest, David Strong, have operated under that s~cial exception ever since the date of the decision. The Erehs, however, erected a building 30~ x 40m on the property for which we believe no permit was ever obtained. The property was sold about May 14, 196% to the present owner and operator David Strong. On January 13, 1966 Strong applied for a special exception for permission to erect a storage building for boats on the premises of a size of 60m x 60~ x 20f. This application was denied and in an extensive decision the Board of Appeals pointed out that the permitted use was in a Residential District and the boat storage yards were not permitted in said district. No appeal from that determination was made within the 30 day statutory period. There- after, Strong commenced an action in the gupreme Court of Suffolk County for a declaratory Judgment establishing the following: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of $outhold did not prohibit plaintiff from erecting a suitable boat storage facility upon the premises at which a marina was being operated as non-conforming use. 2. That the action of the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals in denying plaintiff a special exception to erect a boat storage facility be deck,red null and void. 3. That the COurt determine that validity of the Zoning Ordinance, and the extent to which the Zoning 0rdinauce affected the plaihtiff~s proposed use, enjoyment, improvement and develop- meut of his land. The Court on March 31, 1967 found the Board had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously and would not upset the decision of the Board. This decision was later affirmed by the Appellate Division on March h, 1968. 'It should be pointed out that although the Town of Southold was represented by Special Counsel, the Association retained its own attorneys to look after its interest along with other property owners and the community at large, both in the Supreme Court and in the appeal to the Appellate DiviSion. They preparedall the brief work and attended the hearings before both Judicial bodies. Strong continues to conduct the premises under a complete commercial operation i~cluding sale and repair of boats, storage of same during winter season and other services incidental to his operation, all contrary to the law. Further, he has advertised publicly as set forth in the hereto attached xerox copy of au "ad" which appeared tu the ~ursday, Septembe~ 24, 1970, issue of the L. I. Traveler. In view of the length of time which has elapsed since the decision by the Appellate Division, it is imperative and the bounden duty, pursuant to the high court decisions and the statutes, for the Board to cause this tlIegal operation to cease not only because it is at variance-with the statutory requirements covering the residential zone in which it is located but that it is detrimental to the area~and sontributing to the diminution of the valme of residences on,both sides of the channel. Further, -15- please keep in mind the' necessity for ~intatning the environment, and avoldauce of polluting the waterways incidental to this operation. Your attention is called to the ten kodakolor prints of photographs taken by me of the subject ~'Stroug Marina believe you will agree that it does not enhance the beauty of the environment - a disgrace and an imposition on the community and t own. It is suggested that a personal inspection be made in the near future by you and your associates of the Town Board in which the undersigned and Association counsel would be happy to Join. Appreciating an early reply, with regards Respectfully, A. E. Ward, President THE CHA~--q~&~N: ?I have been reading the record of this case but some of the things that ~. Strong has done are Incidental to operation. We do not consider them violations. I received copies of the ~'ads~' that were placed in Suffolk Li~e on June 9th and June 16th, 1971 advertising ~actory Authorized Service~'. At one time people came out here and saw boats riding up and down in front of them and thought it was wonderful, but later they became disillus- ioned. Today a ~uarina is not a popular activity to have in front of your house. The whole concept has changed. At one time I~. t~eh had 35 boats; prior to that it was six or eight re~oate. We put into the origlual actions what we thought was pertinent to keeping a marina residential. However, it's a contradiction in terms. There are all kinds of marinas. There are some where you can sleep, some where yo~ can eat, and some where you can buy a new boat~ O~r purpose was to maintain a residential :~rina and we have tried to cooperate as we believe that marinas are necessary. We will be glad, first, to hear from each of you who wishes to speak for the continuation of this marina. It seems to me that ~e are going to find that this Board has the power to put ~. Strong out of business, and we are not happy to have this power. W~eu you give your points against the continuation of this marina, t~y not to repeat what somebody else has said. We are aware that i~. Strong is storing boats, and we are also aware that the Supreme Court told him that he could not store boats. RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ.: I am representing ~k~. David Strong. I think there are some corrections to be made. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, never decided the issue as to whether storage was prohibited on the premises. The only thing brought to the Supreme Court was the application for erecting a building. The Supreme Court prohibited the erection of a building 60 feet by 60 feet by 20 feet. That's all the Appellate Division upheld. There was nothing determined in connection with existing storage. The Supreme Court has not decided t~hat pam. ticular factor. I donJt L~now why the application dealing with the storage building is subject to review because there h~s been no action by ~. Strong to reenact that application. We are not dealing with other types of storage. We are dealing with a particular building. The application for that building was denied. T~i~ C~L~: I take exception because the ordinance became clearer in 1965 in that storage yards are placed in business zone. He is in a residential area. ;~. CRON: Perhaps we can define, if the Board will, what it means by storage, if he is being accused of storage. T~E CHAL°J,~: You have heard the complaint which I read from the Salt Lake Association. ~R. CRON: I would like to clarify what the issues are this evening. I assume the hearing was brought ou by the Board as a result of inspection. I think we should define the areas that the Board has some ,~questions on. TL~E CIL~L~. ~?nat constitutes storage? ~a~nat doesn't con- stitute storage? bR. CRON: In what way is he viol~ting the ordinance? THE C~L~N: boats in a meadow, that's storage. ~. DAVl~D oTRO~G. As far as hauling beats to other buildings, there is no other way it can be done. Almost all of the residents are in favor of us. (~. Strong presented a petition to the Chairman containing approximately 400 names. ) THE CHAIH~L~N. The petition reads "I am iu favor of Strong's ;~riua ooutiuulng to provide the services it presently offers. They are as fellows: Gas sales, dockage, service repairs and winter storage. ~' ~,~. STRO,G. Ninety ocr cent of the people are iu favor - only the Salt Lake Association is against. TI~ CHAIR~N: I should think a solution would be to change the zone. ~. STRONG: to restaurants and motels. anything of that nature.. THE CHAI~I&~E: ~hat ~e in the past. If it becomes Business zoned it would open up My intention has never boon to build are dealing with is what has happened F~. STRONG: In tbs o~iginal application "services to bo provided for privately owned boats (26 feet to,42 feet)". I realize this is open to in~.$rpretation but the action did not say this is limited. ~. CROM: ~hen the special exception was originally granted this ~oard saw fit to enumerate items which were prohibited. In light of the fact that outside storage was in uo way a prohibited item, I think it was intended and rightfully so. You can't run a 100 boat marina with boats 42 feet in length without providing services. I dontt think that this Board ever intended that that sheuld happen. I will take the issues one at a time. I don't !onow what the specific complaints are. I am concerned that th~ Board is holding a rehearing. TH~ CHAL-~M~N: I think our Job is to try to establish the facts and also to go over the complaints as presented. ~. J~I,~S McC~qTHY: Should it not be brought to a vote the majority? Fifty percent of the people own boats. This marina has been in existence for years. of THE CHAIR~: Ygnen the Town Board passes an Ordinance you don~t get a chance to vote ou it. It is not a popularity contest. i,~. PAUL EDW~,EDS, 0lc Jule Lane, Mattituck: I live 100 yards northwest of i.~. Stroug~s marina. I have yet to see any pollution coming from ~. Strong~s marina but I l~ve many times noticed grass clippings coming from the direction of Salt Lake Village· i~S. JEAN ED>;~DS, Mattituck: i live immediately attached to that ~arina. it is about 250 feet from it, 2eeve Avenue and Craig Road, east of the marina. I see nothing wrong in that marina· Actually itts nice to see people do~m there. ~,~. OTTO P. BO0~,~IL~-ER, 0lc Jule Lane, i,lattituck: I store my boat there. I feel that it is very convenient, and I don~t think itts an eyesore. Stroug~s think it it is. JOSEPH ~. D(XYBRAVA, Old Jule Lane, Mattituck: I utilize ~rina. People are complaining about ecology and they ts an eyesore to the neighborhood. I dontt believe that THE CHAL~P~N: According to the advertisements this is a business. ~H. CRON: Woald there be an objection if he discontinues advertising sales of boats? THE CHAIFd.~N: ~,Ye have not heard from those ~agatnst". i.R. CHON: Some of the reasons for the marina are that it is convenient; that I cantt.~fford to buy.a trailer; the Town of Southold provides no facilities to launch boats; it~s a clean operation; itts a convenience because I can use it from my house; we are vex~y limited ~n being able to utilize our boats; it's a necessary service; w~ have no Town. ramps. ~e want a resort area and yet people are constantly bringing up arguments to destroy. A marina is important. We~discourage people from utilizing water facilities. _ MR. ~ETER SWAN: I have been a friend of Dave's for six years and I have stored my boat for about three years. I know i~reh who originally o~ned the property. They started with rickety docks and unpainted buildings. Dave Strong has improved the facilities 100% each year with improved bulkheadlng. One section that faces Salt Lake Village has floating docks. I don~t think that any house in Salt Lake Village faces directly toward Dave's marina. Ail the way down he has improved it ever since i have known him. i also give him credit for sinking everything he has ~ade into improvements. He has built a house ou his property and he pays taxes on that. He is a resident of the Totes. I think you should take that into con- sideration. ~. ARCHiE LIVinGSTON: I think he is doing a terrific Job. TH~ CPIAIRI,~N: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? (There was no response.) TP~ CHAL~,L~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak against this application? RZCPL~D P~LLICANE, ~SQ.: I represent the Salt Lake Associa- tion. Everything that has been said in favor of the maintenance of Strong~s marina certainly points out that i~. Strong is a nice person and is running a good operation. He,ever, the issue is something different. I won't repeat the history of the special exception which is the legal authcrity of Strong~s operation. The facts are that the special exception is being violated by the sale of food on the property. ?Shat we want is not cessation but rather that it be operated ~Ithin the authority given by this Board. The rationale that something is being done is not Justification for coutlnuance of violations. ~or are petitions, because we are not dealing with an election. The pattern in all zoning provisions is that when violations are permitted to exist it becomes a creeping paralysis until the person in violation ends up with something he is not legally entitled to. ~ feel this is a very real danger and that it will affect property values, cause increased traffic, and we feel it is a danger to the wetlands and a possible ca,se of pollution. There is a definite distinction between the storage of boats and a marina. ~e ~ould respectfully request that the Board see to it that all violations cease. If ~. Strong and the people of the Board feel that something other than that would be Justified, then the proper thing would be to change the zone. TITE CtLAIR~N: The subject has been explored for a possible change of zone. The Town Board is the authority for that. It was not favorably received. I do not know whether the Board would change their view on that. Please list your prluciple complaints. ~ ~.~. PELLICA~: The special exception has not been complied with. Commercial business ~is being carried on. T~ CHAL-E~2~': What than the advertlsements~ specific instances can you give me other I,~. PELLICA~.~E: Storage of boats and sale of food. THeE CHALRi-t~/~: He has some sort of sandwich machine and a coca cola machine. Is there more than that involved? The coca cola machine could be considered a use for a marina. ~.~. Strong told us that he was tired of goir~ down town to get a coke, so that point I think is minor. ~. HULS~: This advertisement says "Factory services', it doesntt designate ~'sale~. I~. JOHN ~i0~SE: I believe the legal definition of advertising leads to sales. ~fhat is a service but a sale? Let's take it prima facie that advertising is sale. THE CHAIR~,[~N: I believe that fishing tackle and the coca cola machine are primarily for the use of the marina. I think we should concentrate more on storage. i,~. ~LLIC£~'~: Storage and advertising for service are commer- cial operations. I would like to show pictures of the house ~. Strong ~s built. It is an outsize buildlug and amenable to the repairing o£ boats. i~. PETER SWAN: I would also like to submit a picture of ~. Strongts house. It's very nice fro~ the other side. ~. PELLIC~: Me submit that's a subterfuge and a way to get around the £upreme Court, and the Appellate division. My final remark is that we have two dozen people out iu the hall and they do want to come In. ~. ~DW~RD STEELE: Most people here are interested in one side or the other. ~y can't this hearing be held where we can all hear the proceedings? I am sure none of us would be here tonight if we were not concerned. THE C~t~i,~: if Counsel are willing we will adjourn this hearing to a larger establishment some ti~e in the futmre, probably July 8th. ~,~. CRON: On behalf of i~. Strong, I will voice an objection. TL~ Ci-L~R~A/7: Perhaps some of the people ~ho are in the room now will move out into the hall, and let the people who are waiting come in. ~R. JOH~ MORSE, ~alt Lake Village: I would like to direct try comments to the actual reasons for this hearing. According to the fncts, on ~rch il, 1967 the Court of Appeals found that the local Board was not arbitrary in refusing to grant au increase in zoning. ~ THE ~t,~,.. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of this Board in denying a storage building, l,~. MORSE: Would it not be right to examine and see if the covenant was broken? THE CI~%L~N: In ~y view, I dontt believe the Judge was too clear in what he said. I think there is roo~ for I~. Cronts side of the case in that decision. The Judge did not say that you cantt store boats on the premises. He said that you can't have a storage building. ~. CRO~: Let ~ give some of the legal background. Because uo appeal was taken in 30 days I slated it for declaratory Judgement. We had non-conforming mse. There were eight boats and it was dredged to accommodate more. We argued that under special exception. By virtue of the defiultion of the word "marina~' the only thing was the issue of whether ~e had the right to have a 60 ft. x 60 ft. x 20 ft. storage building. Anything else is not germaine. TH~ CIL~: A special exception was never intended to give a party unlimited rights. ~. HICIL~D PELLICAI~: It is true that the Judge decided against thut 60 ft. x 60 ft. x 20 ft. building and found that this Beard did not act arbitrarily. Considering that the Judge considered all the facts and clrcu~stances you can not say that the decision stands only for a 60 ft. x 60 ft. x 20 ft. building. That is not true. ~.~. CROi~: It is true. There were no facts brought fcrth about storing boats. ~,R. ~Z~LI~: A principle was what was decided, i.~. ~20~. ~e are not dealing with an Ordinance today. We are dealing with special exceptions. Ti~E C~D~: The area is ~'A~' Residential and at the tl~ they applied the ~o~rd of ~ppeals was g~ided by a long llst of rules and regulations and was required to i~ose restrictlous to make the special exception conform to the area. Then, on April 6, 1965 it was amended so that the Board could not couslder a special exception for a marina for more than six boats~ There is only one other approach, assuming you are correct about the storage of boats, i, personally, believe that the Judge has not clearly defined whether boats can be stored in the open; so, the next approach would be v~olations. ~R. CRO~: There was no reason to raise the issue of taking boats out of the water and putting them on l~nd because wh~t we wanted was a building where we could store the boats inside. ~. PELLIC~: You are Justifying because it was something that was always done. Thls"is a commercial operation. Under -21- the special exception and the conditions set forth, the storage of boats does not come into it. There should be two paragraphs; one for marina, and one for storage. }~. CRON: I am sure this Board understood that in the winter time these boats would be put on land. Where would the boats go? Prior to his asking for a storage building, the boats were a~ays taken out of the water. ~. JACK S~,~IS, Mattituck: hrhere are we going to put the boats? MR. CRON: Pulling boats Storage is a building. out of the water is not storage. ~. DAVID STRONG: We have etored boats since we were first there. Everybody is running around renting chicken barns for the purpose of storing boats. ~5. GERTRUDE REYNOLDS, Salt Lake Village: 0~r understanding was that i~. Strong was denied the exception he asked for. We are ordinary home owners. It~is our feeling that Mr. Strong has not abided by the law as such. The only reason we are here tonight is to complain about this. %Pay has he not abided by the law? ~e are not asking for any more than was agreed upon. MR. ARTE¥~S WARD, President, Salt Lake Association: I refer to the petition. The petition was left in a luncheonette and customers would come in and be asked to sign. They did not read it. They were told to ~'Just sign it'. We are not trying to put Mr. Strong out of business but we believe that the law of the land should be upheld. I will be 86 years old in August and I love ~his village we are living in, and I want to see that we will be protected not only on this marina but on other laws. I lived in East Marion for fifty years. ¥~en zoning came in, a person turned a barn into a rooming house to take care of eight families in the summer. Then he thought he would sex-ye some food. He was denied. Then he put up a sign "Lunch". He was fined. He paid a fine of $10.00 and kept on that.way until he sold the property, Just ignoring the law. All we are asking for is that Mr. Strong comply with the law. THE CHAIRi,~N: I think we are trying to determine Just what the law is. My personal interpretation would be that iu uo way could you construe anything that has happened as permitting storage of boats. That is why this hearing is being held. ~. E. ROGER, Salt Lake Village: Has it been admitted that they are selling food at the marina? ~. STROI~G: We are dispensing sandwiches from a Stewart sandwich m~ohine. ~. ROGER: You have 100 boats stored over there, some are 24 foot and 26 foot boats, On these boats, I assume they have sleeping quarters. If so, -I would like to know what happens to w~t~ materi~. - .... ~ u~ ~ -.~.~ ~,,t of that creek. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any boats that have sleeping Quarters? I,~. STR~G: We provide utility facilities. THE CHALRN3~I: That would be a matter that would be up to the Town or County to decide. I~R. WARD: Has Fr. Strong ever applied for a license to sell food? 1.5l. CROI!: He doesn't have to apply for a license to put in a vending machine. THE CHA]ltN3d~: He is trying to find out if you ever applied for a license to sell food. l~. STRONG: You are supposed to have a permit to sell Stewart saudwlches. THE CHAL/~,~%N: Technically, you did not apply. 1~. WILLIAM WAttle'ER, Salt Lake Village: I just moved to Salt Lake and I would like to make a statement. ~ enjoy seeing some of these boats go in and out of James Creek. We all like some boats but we all don~t like 100 boats. The people who have boats there enjoy having them. There are people who do not have boats and they don~t object to a few boats. They approve of moderation. %~nen do you stop? A little bit is good but finally it gets out of hand. T~C~IPj~J,;: It is not in our power to enlarge a residential marina, it's a residential area and we are only able to consider six boats since 1966. You see the concept has changed so much. According to Wesley L. ~neeler, a marine specialist, and a witness in behalf of the plaintiff at 1966 Appeal: k marina should have everything you could possibly need; b~s, cocktail lounges, iu- bo~rds~ outboards, etc. That, iu his opinion, would be the perfect marina, initially, the Zoning Board set up an arrangement whereby a distinction was made. We were thtnklug of pa~ty boats and outboards as compared to a residential marina where it is convenient for people to keep their boats. So, there were two concepts. Later, in the 0rdiuance, boat storage was fucorporated in business marinas. Our original thinking, iu granting, was that it should bo permitted to furnish gasoline at a marina as it,s a fire hazard to transport five gallon cans. N~.4 in the latest marina we are denying that. I~R. WARNER: If I may comment, I think all the people who have boats are aware that they can get gas. I would object to a big sign that says G~%%. It's a residential marina; does that mean you can't hire a boat there? Are they all privately o~ned boats? One thing we fear is having this beautiful area become so commer- cial and so crowded that it will be like Freeport. ~. Strong has a very good business going .now. How big does he want to get? THE CH.~IRMAN: The real issue is storage. MR. EDWARD BURKE: (Bay Ave. & James Creek) I consider a marina a necessity when you live on the creek. A marina should operate as a marina. THE CE~IRMAN: We have two concepts: a residential marina as compared to a marina in a business zone where all services would be provided. MR. BURKE: Gas and pulling boats out of the water would be basic facilities. I dontt see why people object to a variance that was given legally. Is there a majority that rules this? ~2~. SWA~: Sometimes it may not be the letter of the law. As a point, the fence erected out in the Bay might be because of some law. I can understand why he put it out there. TEE CHAL~N: l~hen is a line not a line? When the Ordinance said you hsd to be 35 feet back, it was later amended by a Judge in Westchester who said one or two feet didntt make any difference so, I say, we dontt always know exactly what the law is. Where speed limits are 30 or 50 miles an hour, many go a little faster. MR. BURKE: What are their objections? Is it obstructing their view? He is limited as to what he can do. He can't limit clients. Every property owner has boats. Iu our creek there must be 25 boats. ~. MORSE: It should be zoned business. ~. BUR~: ~-~. Strong feels that if he applies for Business zoning, many people would object to i~. THE CHAIRP~N: Permission is never granted to an individual. It concerns the use of land now or in the future. 2~. CRON: If ~ou are concerned about limiting the operation, a change of zone is no way to do it. MR. STRONG: The bone of contention seems to be how many boats are on land. MR, STE~IE: ~peaktng of minor violations of the law, the State contends that there has to be a certain amount of space in a public building. I believe we are violating the law tonight so I would like to back up my objection that these proceedings be held in a proper place at a proper time. THE CHAIRMAN: I question whether we would get any more pertinent information than we already ~ve. I am ihclined not to adjourn this hearing. MR. SWAJ~: There are Deople in Salt Lake Village who do llke ~Ir. Strong but they questim~ whether he should store boats there in the winter. Some people who live there store their boats there. ~. CRON: I believe it boils down to the business of storage. I would like to indicate to the Board that, in my opinion, the special exceptions that were granted to Peter Kreh and David Strong in no way prohibit his taking boats out and storing them on the land. I dontt think we are in violation of anything notwlth- standing the decision of the Supreme Court dealing with a storage building. The original special exception in no way prohibits and we are not in violation. F~. PELLICAt~: There is no authority to store boats. I~2~R. WARNER: We have only lived here a month. We eves took down a hedge so that we could see the boats but we have bees told that Mr. Strong wants to enlarge and wants to build a restaurant and motel. That's why we are here. I think it is fine the way it is now as long as it doesnlt grow. THE CHAIR~&N:/ M~ybe I cas explain. He is limited to 100 bouts and he is not up to capacity. A restaurant is out of the question, and a motel is out of the question in that area. You heard the lawyer on storage of boats on land from an esthetic viewpoint. The services provided are mostly for residents who use the marina, and are so advertised. . ~. CRON: YPnere is it illegal to advertise? There is nothing wrong. At the time the special exception was granted he contemplated a certain amount of repair work, and certainly he is in there for compensation. THE CHA~I~2-1~: It may be that what will come out of this is that we will try to establish more definitely what you can or can not do. }~. STRONG: A lot of misunderstanding has been going on about these two advertisements that were offered. There would never be any question of a restaurant or a motel. We are in a ~-~ina and intend to stay there. I fail to see from reading the exceptions where it says anything like that. It says "services", not wetlands, or restaurants. Is there a difference between a marina and a ~S. WARNER: boatyard? Tnz CHAIR~L~/~: That's where I think I~. Cron and I may disagree a little bit. I think it borders on being a boatyard. Boat storage is provided in a Business zone.' I think there is a lot that has been unclear. I~. CRON: From a practical point of view, could you say that one could operate a marina without furnishing some type of services relative to repair and pulling boats out of the water? THE CHAIRMAN: There are some but the~e is no money in it. There is one in Orient that has 75 boats. MR. CRON: Fmy I ask a question? Who are the 2outhold Town Home Owners Committee? I live there but I don~t belong to it. They have an advertisement in the newspaper. MR. PELLICA~UE: Is this pertinent to this hearing? ~E CHAIR~RXN: We will adjourn the hearing at this time, and the Board will study all the information that we have, and thaC we have heard tonight. For the Record: Letter from Suffolk County Health Dept., dated June 7, 1971, addressed to Mr. James Warner, Royal Flush Stables, RFDBox 173, Oregon Road, Cutchogue, New York: Dear Au inspection by representatives of this department of your property on June 3, 1971 revealed that you are improperly storing horse manure. The Suffolk County Sanitation Code requires that all manure be properly stored so as not to create a public health nuisance. This department recommends that all manure be kept in tightly covered containers and removed to the public dump. Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated. A reluspection will be made in one week. Very truly yours, James L. Corbin genior Sanitarian Appeal No. 1435, Robert Feaker, Cutchogue, New York: After investigation and ilmspection the Board finds that applicant requests permission to establish and operate a riding academy and pony rides on land of Agnes D. McGunnigle, north side of Middle Road (CR 27), Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that applicant desires to conduct a riding academy specifically limited to Pony Rides for children. The ponies will be housed and cared for on the premises for which the special exception is. sought. The academy will be open for riding only on weekends and holidays. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and Justice will be served and the legally established or permitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use districts will not be permanently or substantially injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed._ Eouthold Town Board of Appeals~. -9- July 8, 1971 The sign to be set back 35 feet from North Bayview Avenue; 10 feet from Brigantine Road. The sign to be reduced to a maxims size of 24 sq. ft. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- M~ssrs. Gillispie, Bergen, Grignnis. Following is the action of the Board on REHEARING (on the Board, s motion) held at 8:1~5 P.M. (E.D.S.T.) on June 17, 1971. ~TRONG MARINA - rehea~ing on 195§, 1959 and 1966 Actions. Appeal No. 126, Peter I~eh, J~., Appeal No. 237, Peter Etch, Jr., Appeal No. 825, David ~. ~trong, Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, New York: By investigation and public hearing the Board determined the following facts pertinent to the decision: A rehearing concerning the STRONG MARINA, James Creek, Mattituck, New York, was held partly because of misunderstanding of former actions and in order to make clear precisely what activities may be permitted in the conduct of the ma~tna business, in view of the growth of boating and residential constxmction in the area. The Board notes the complaint addressed to the Supervisor of the Town of Southold by the Salt Lake Village Association, Inc. Neither the Town Board or the Board of Appeals are enforcing agents of the Zoning Ordinance. This function is performed by the Building Inspector. Other questions posed by the .~alt Lake Association concern advertising and building permits. The Board of Appeals does not control the advertising of the Strong Marina. At the time the second accessory building was constructed, approximately 1960, a building permit was not required for accessory buildings. This was discussed with Pete~ If~eh, Jr. (previous owner) and noted in the minutes of October 27, 1960. It is pertinent here to review briefly the history of this marina. A small ma~ina-type use existed at this location prior to the passage of the Zoning 0~dinance in 1957. This was expanded with ancillary factlitiew in 1958 and 1959. In 1966 a lswge structure for the storage of boats was denied, an action which was supported in the higher courts. Nearby marinas are several miles distant, and the need for this facility has been demonstrated by frequent rescue operations as a result of calls from the Bay Constable. The ._~ina is regarded as being unusually adequate in size and is well protected from ordinary weather and tide conditions. A long time policy of the Town of Southold has been to encourage summer visitors and leisure activities, a policy whose importance to the Town has been documented over the years by Raymond & May (zontn~ consultants), Oomaell University, and the Stlffolk Co~lnty Planning Department, among others. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- July 8, 1971 The policy was recognized in the original Zoning Ordinance of 1957 by permitting the conduct of a m~mina business in the A Residential and Agricultural Zone by Special Exception of the Board of Appeals, subject to the guidance criteria set forth in the Ordinance concerning actions of the Boamd of Appeals. It should also be pointed out that a Board of Appeals empowered to grant Special Exceptions is required to grant a special exception where the applicant can reasonably be Judged as having met the standards required for such exceptions. At the public hearing which was well attended by an estimated 60 to 75 persons, concern was expressed by some individuals regarding the extent of 'business and commercial activity" while others indicated objection to the storage of boats. Many others indicated substantial approval of the manner in which the marina has been conducted, and several hundmed ~attituck residents signed a petition indicating their approval. In the opinion of the Board the principal question which has been raised concerns whether or not the Strong Marina now has the right to store boats on msmina land when not moored in marina waters. The Board denied permission to construct a storage building in 1966, a prohibition which was upheld in higher courts. However, the Board believes that a special exception granting permission for a marina which involves the mooring of boats in the waters of the marina carries with it the right to accomodate these boats by safeguarding and storing them on ma~ina land, unless a condition has been imposed in the granting of the special exception which prohibits such a use. Many~wners do not have adequate space on their own property. No such condition was imposed either in 1958 or 1959. The word '~.rina'' is defined in the ordinance in effect in 1958 · 1959 as.follows, under Article 1, Section 100, subsection 17A - "MARINA OR BOATBASIN": Any premises containing o~e or m~re~ piers,.wharves, docks, bu~l~eads, buildings, slips, basxns or &an~ under water designed, used or intended to be used primarily for the docking, mooring or accomodation of boats for compensation, whether compensation is paid ~irectly or indirectly." Boats have always been stored on the lands adjoining L. I. waters, and boats are currently stored throughout the Town on the residential property of owners. The Strong Marina acreage appears unusually adequate for storage purposes. Other services which have been performed for the users of the marina are regamded as minimal conveniences; these include fresh water, the sale of gasoline, motor and boat service, fishing tackle, bait, soft drinks and sandwiches from machines housed in the two small accessory buildings. The Board finds that the policy of the Town of Southold has been to encourage leisure activity; that the purpose of permitting a ms mina business by special exception in a residential zone is to provide a boating facility for recreational use subject, however, to controls designed to encourage marine uses reasonably compatible with the surrounding use area. The Board interprets this to moan that a marina business may ~ so conducted under the original Southold Town Board of Appeals .11. July 8, 1971 Ordinance together with a limited range of incidental but necessary sex~vices directly related to the acoomodation of boats moored or stored in the marina. The Board finds that the public convenience and welfare and Justice will be served and the legally established or permitted use of neighborhood property and adjoining use districts will not be permanently or substantially onJured and the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. On motion by MA'. Gtllispie, seconded by Fro. Grigonis, it was R~0LVED David S. ~trong, Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, New York, be G.W~ED permission as follows: 1. The original actions of the Board in 1958, 19%9 and 1966 are reaffirmed and additional specific conditions are hereby imposed to clarify what is meant by "accomodation of boats": A. Permission is hereby GRANTED for open storage of boats up to 42 feet in length in the area between the newest accessory building and the recently constructed Strong residence. No boat shall be stored closer than 2% feet to any property line,· and the maximum occupancy of the marina shall not exceed 100 boats at any one time, whether boats are in or out of the water for safekeeping Or other reasons. B. Permission is formally GRA/~ED for the following minor services to be furnished to users of the mamina: fresh water~ sale of gasoline (already permitted), minor motor.and boat repair, sale of fishing tackle, bait, and soft drinks and sandwiches from the old accessory building. Permission is specifically DENIED to operate a restaurant as defined by ~.he. Board of Health. C. No building permit may henceforth be issued for additional construction of any kind related to marina use on this property without the specific authorization of the Boamd of Appeals in writ lng. 2. The Board reserves the right to review and evaluate all uses which have been permitted to date in order to insure their compatibility with the surrounding use area under the reasoning set forth in this decision. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Z(essrs. Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, Grigonis. A motion was made by M~. Gillispie and seconded by Mr. Grigonis that the Board approve display of poster for the Cutchogue Fire Department Parade and Drill on July 2/~, 1971, and for the display of poster for Chicken Barbecue on August 28, 1971, and tha~ the Board reply in the same manner as in the past. . Salt Lake Village Association, Mattituck, New York 11952 May lO, 1971 Inc. Hon. Albert Martocchia, Supervisor Town of Southold lO1 Front Street Greenport, New York llga~ Dear Mr. Martocchia: The Board of Directors of Salt Lake Village has asked me to write to you to call your attention to, and to protest, the continued commercial operation of Strong's Marina directly across James Creek Channel from Salt Lake Village. I should like to review the background of this operation. Prior to April 27, 1957, when the Town of Southold enacted its zoning ordinance, this property was owned by Fred and Peter Kreh. It was placed in a "A" Residential and Agricultural district. Prior to the zoning, Ereh had improved the two acres by placing a small building thereon and dredging a former inlet for use in operating what they termed a "Marina", which, however, became lin~ited in its scope to seven or eight boats for no more then 26 feet in length. On December 18, 195~ the Krehs applied for a special exception pursuant to the provisions of the zoning ordinance and were granted such exception upon the following conditions: 1. Mooring space having approximately thirty-five boats of twenty-six feet in length or less, and a launching ramp; 2. A parking lot; 3. No service for party boats and/or commercial operations; 4. No boats rented or leased. No appeal from that decision was taken by the applicants and apparently, Kreh operated under that special exception until on or about November 27, 1959. At that time, aforesaid special exception was further expanded as follows: 1. Location of gasoline facilities; 2. The space for thirty-five berths (as provided in the proceeding exception) was to be expanded to include permission for 100 boats up to 42 feet in length~ 3- Ali. other conditions were continued. No appeal from that special exception was ever taken and it appears that both Kreh and his successor in interest, D~vid Strong, Hon. Albert Martocchia 2 Hay 10, 1971 have operated under that special e×ception ever since the date of the decision. The Krehs, however, erected a building 30' X 40' on the property for which we believe no permit was ever obtained. The property was sold about May l~, 1965 to the present owner and operator David Strong. On January 13, 1966 Strong applied for a special exception for permission to erect a storage building for boats on the premises of a size of 60' X 60' X 20'. This application was denied and in an e×tensive decision the Board of Appeals pointed out that the permitted use was in a Residential District and the boat storage yards were not permitted in said district. No appeal from that determination was made within the 30 day statutory period. Thereafter, Strong commenced an action in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County for a declaratory judgment establishing the following: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold did not prohibit plaintiff from erecting a suit- able boat storage facility upon the premises at which a marina was being operated as non-conform- ing use. 2. That the action of the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals in denying plaintiff a special exception to erect a boat storage facility be declared null and void. 3. That the Court determine that validity of the Zoning Ordinance~ and the extent to which the Zoning Ordinance affected the plaintiff's proposed use, enjoyment,improvement and development of his land. The Court on March 31, 1967 found the Board had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously and would not upset the decision of the Board. This decision was later affirmed by the Appellate Division on March ~, 1968. It should be pointed out that al- though the Town of Southold was represented by Special Counsel, the Association retained its own attorneys to look after its interest along with other property owners and the community at large, both in the Supreme Court and in the appeal to the Appellate Division. They prepared all the brief work and attended the hearings before both judicial bodies. Strong continues to conduct the premises under a complete commercial operation including sale and repair of boats, storage of same during winter season and other services incidental to his operation, all contrary to the law. Further, he has advertised publicly as set forth in the hereto attached xerox copy of an "ad" which appeared in the Thursday, September 24, 1970, issue of the L. I. Traveler. In view of the length of time which has elapsed since the decision by the Appellate Division, it is imperative and the Hen. Albert ~rtocchia - 3 - May 10, 1971 bounden duty, pursuant to the high court decisions and the statutes, for the Board to cause this illegal operation to cease not only because it is at variance with the statutory requirements covering the residential zone in which it is located but that it is detri- mental to the area and contributing to the diminution of the value of residences on both sides of the channel. Further, please keep in mind the necessity for maintaining the environment, and avoidance of polluting the waterways incidental to this operation. Your attention is called to the ten kodakolor prints of photographs taken by me of the subject "Strong Marina". I believe you will agree that it does not enhance the beauty of the environment - a disgrace and an imposition on the community and town. It is suggested that a personal inspection be made in the near future by you and your associates of the Town Board in which the undersigned and Association counsel would be happy to join. Appreciating an early reply, with regards, Respectfully, A. E. Ward President Salt Lake Village Association,Inc. By order of the Board of Directors Salt Lake Village Association, Inc. Mattituck, New York 11952 May 10, 1971 Hon. Albert Martocchia, Supervisor Town of Southold lO1 Front Street Greenport, New York 1194~ Dear Mr. Martocchia: The Board of Directors of Salt Lake Village has asked me to write to you to call your attention to, and to protest, the continued commercial operation of Strong's Marina directly across James Creek Chsnnel from Salt Lake Village. I should like to review the background of this operation. Prior to April 27, 1957, when the Town of Southold enacted its zoning ordinance, this property was owned by Fred and Peter Ereh. It was placed in a "A" Residential and Agricultural district. Prior to the zoning, Kreh had improved the two acres by placing a small building thereon and dredging a former inlet for use in operating what they termed a "Marina", which, however, became limited in its scope to seven or eight boa~s for no more then 26 feet in length. On December 18, 1955 the Krehs applied for a special e×ception pursuant to the provisions of the zoning ordinance and were granted such exception upon the following conditions: 1. Mooring space having approximately thirty-five boats of twenty-six feet in length or less, and a launching ramp; 2. A parking lot; 3- No service for party beats and/or commercial operations; 4. No boats rented or leased. No appeal from that decision was taken by the aPPlicants and apparently, Kreh operated under that special exception until on or about November 27, 1959. At that time, aforesaid special exceDtion was further expanded as follows: 1. Location of gasoline facilities; 2. The space for thirty-five berths (as provided in the proceeding exception) was to be expanded to include permission for 100 boats up to 42 feet in lengths 3. All other conditions were continued. No appeal from that special exception was ever taken and it appears that both Ereh and his successor in interest, D&vid Strong~ Hon. Albert Martocchia - 2 - May 10, 1971 have operated under that special exception ever since the date of the decision. The Krehs, however, erected a building 30' X 40' on the property for which we believe no permit was ever obtained. The property was sold about May l#, 1965 to the present owner and operator David Strong. On January l~, 1966 Strong applied for a specisl exception for permission to erect a storage building for boats on the premises of a size of 60' X 60' X 20'. This application was denied and in an extensive decision the Board of Appeals pointed out that the permitted use was in a Residential District and the boat storage yards were not permitted in said district. No appeal from that determination was made within the 30 day statutory period. Thereafter~ Strong commenced an action in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County for a declaratory judgment establishing the following: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold did not prohibit plaintiff from erecting a suit- able boat storage facility upon the premises at which a marina was being operated as non-conform- lng use. 2. That the action of the Sout~old Town Zoning Board of Appeals in denying plaintiff a special exception to erect a boat storage facility be declared ~mll and void. ~. That the Court determine that validity of the Zoning Ordinance, and the extent to which the Zoning Ordinance affected the plaintiff's proposed use, enjoyment,improvement and development of his land. The Court on March 31, 1967 found the Board had not scted arbitrarily or capriciously and would not upset the decision of the Board. This decision was later affirmed by the Appellate Division on March ~ 1968. It should be pointed out that al- though the Town of Southold was represented by Special Counsel, the Association retained its own attorneys to look after its interest along with other property owners and the community at large, both in the Supreme Court and in the appeal to the Appellate Division. They prepared all the brief work and attended the hearings before both Judicial bodies. Strong continues to conduct the premises under a complete commercial operation including sale and repair of boats, storage of same during winter season and other services incidental to his operation, all contrary to the law. Further, he has advertised publicly as set forth in the hereto attached xerox copy of an "ad" which appeared in the Thursday, September 24, 1970, issue of the L. I. Traveler. In view of the length of time which has elapsed since the decision by the Appellate Division, it is imperative and the Hon. Albert Martocchia - 3 - May lO, 1971 bounden duty, pursuant to the high court decisions and the statutes, for the Board to cause this illegal operation to cease not only because it is at variance with the statutory requirements covering the residential zone in which it is located but that it is detri- mental to the area and contributing to the diminution of the value of residences on both sides of the channel. Further, please keep in mind the necessity for maintaining the environment, and avoidance of polluting the waterways incidental to this operation. Your attention is called to the ten kodakolor prints of photographs taken by me of the subject "Strong Marina". I believe you will agree that it does not enhance the beauty of the environment - a disgrace and an imposition on the community and town. It is suggested that a personal inspection be made in the near future by you and your associates of the Town Board in which the undersigned and Association counsel would be happy to join. Appreciating an early reply, with regards, Respectfully, A. E. Ward President Salt Lake Village Association,Inc. By order of the Board of Directors FOR ©UTBOA~D INBOARD/OUTBOAi~,D BOATS TO '23 FEET. FACTORY AUTH©,RIZED SERVICE ON I~ERCURY O.UT~,OARD AHD MER.CRUISER For Prorapt ~erv~ce ~ Call CAMP MINEOLA ll. OAD MaTl ~t UCI( October 27 1971 Mr Artemas ~ Ward,President Salt Lake AssociatiQn Inc Salt Lake Nllla~e Mattituck,N.~. 1195~ STRONG MARINA (Action dated July 29 1971) Dear Art This will ,erve to aoknowled~e my personal receipt of you~ letter of October 22 1971 attachln~ a copy of your letter of the came date to the Supervisor. The letters were received yesterday. No important action of the Board of Appeals is taken without exhaustive discussions with counsel which accounts in pe~t for the delay occurrin~ between the Publio Hearin~ of June 17th and the date of the action..July 29.! believe the fllin~ date was July 30. A thirty day period is g~ranted for filin~ appeals. In order to reply fully to you~ three pa~e letter it will be necessary to confer with a number of other individuals who are concerned and who are mentioned in your letter. I might say relative to pa~e ~ first paragraph that I have always tried~l~ to discuss with interested pa~tiee any dectalon~loh 18 in prooes8 ~ich would accost fop my"l~o~i~" requests ~ y~ to me for info~ation about ~e deeimlon. I thoroughly a~ree wlthyouwlth re~ard to the inadequacy of the small office in which public hearings must be held. dGte~ further reply will be forthco~i~ at a later October 22 ~ ~97~. To~,n of Gr~por~, R. ¥. 1~944. · '~lat~m~ to oedt.nm~c,~ Dea!~ ~ Hz'. public affairs, _ Keemut s E. Sale Lake Asmociat'ien, SALT LAF'E ASSOCIATION, INC. Salt .L~.ke Village. ~lttZtuck,N.Y. 11952 Mr. Robert W. Gillispie, ~hai~man~ Zoning Boa~d of Appealss Town of Southold, Southold, N.Y. 11971. Dear Bob: October 22, 1971 Re: ReheaEing held Juno 17, 1971. Action of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold - Appeal #825-David S.Strong et al. Decision dated July 8th, 1971, Filed with To~ Clerk, on or about July e I apprciate your sending me a copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision covering the subject as above. Acknowledgment of ~ receipt ~t was delayed pending the meetng of our Boak'd of Director's only recently held, and at which the action of your Board was discussed. P~rsuant to its inst~uctions, the following is submitted. We were well a~;are of the functions .,f the Supervisor and the departments for which he is ~rsponsible as Chief F~xecutive as set forth in the lea¢ing ~arag~ap~o Hol.:ever, in view of the length of time elapsed since the date of the do.,ision of the Appellate Division. March 4, 1~8, with apparently ~o action b~ing take~ by those responsible onU~if of the interes~of the busznessmen and homeowners of the to*m, it was only natural for us to communicate with the Chief ExeCUtive as set forth in our letter of Mmy l0s 1971 Consequently, following a meeting with the Town Board on May 25, 1971, accompanied by "Ted Reynolds, a director and year- round resident of Salt Lake Village, and as suggested by the Supervisors we later had a meeting with Building Inspector Terry. He informed us that from time to time he wa~ned Dave Strong of his several viola- tions but the only res~nse he received was ~'an insulting remark emphasized by the fingering of the nose by Strgng who stated that he was advised by counsel to pay no attention to hzm (T r~)'~ It may be apropos to state that the Inspector, despite the authority invested in him, never filed a formal notice as to the ~especti~iolations. ~y? It is also pertinent to add that the Supervisor made a personal su~zey, informing me and ~thers that Strong was guilty of violations and was due to receive the same treatment as handed out to the Oregon Pc[dinE Academy. Furthers that despite the many warnings, Strong?aid no attention to ~%e~ g~o~n~%m a repeated scofflaw. '~'nzs as a result of yOtU~ own Be that as it may, the decisions of tho high cottrts were contemptuously i~nored with no action taken to see that Strong conducted his business within the privileges granted or variances applicable to a zoned residential area but in lieu therefor the Board on its own motion called for the r~%earlng which was held on the evening of June lYth, 1971, and which I Df&~o no hestitancy saying i~;as a most disgraceful proceeding and an insult to the home who desired to attend the proceedings but were prevented from voicing their opinions due to inadequate crowded facilities. As to advertising as referred to in paragraph 2, no one expects the Board to control advertising by ma~.as or others. ~e reason that copies of "ads" were submitted was to inform the Board that Strong was conducting a business restricted to a residential zone and in =iolation of the pr~visions of the ordinance and which heha_d~e~mission for the sale and se~ing of the speczfic items advertised. Robert W. Gillispie Page 2. Further, it would seem th,,t the Zoning Board of Appeals had no right to, by. a series of rulings and variances, bring a full commercial enterprise (with 100 boats, storage, repair work~ sales service, selling of foods - with Health Department permit~so I am informed, etc., in a zoned residential area. This semms to be far different from the normal action and authority of the Zoning Board. T.~e might add that a casual reference to rulings as precedents may be in order i.e. attention be~ called to one New York case before the Oourt of Appeals which so ruled on limitation of Zoning Authority to grant deviations and variances. This is Levy Vs. City of Nc~; York, 267NY347. Another from a textbook example in Metzenbaum Textbook on Zoning~ page 779, where the Zoning Board had granted variance to a home owner to operate a fill ina ~ation at his home. The higher court reversed this decision as one beyond the power of the Zoning Board. Yo~.r paragraphs B and C with respect to the specific.d.c,.iai for permission' to opiate a res~aL~..~.nt (b) and (c) th.at "no bu~ld~ng pe.r~t h ceforth for any related ?o mar= use without the specifzc au~L~mzzation of the Boar~ of Appeazs, In this co_~uection may we call your attention to ~l%e dwelling completed late last Spring with garage attached in whirl% Strong and family now reside. This 'is located on land formally part of the [.~arina tract ..'.- knd on which the storage building waa to be erected, permission for which was denied.. Later the lot was separated by deed for the purpose of erecting t/%e residence now located theron. It may be pointed out that the dwelling is so constructed that L~3¥~-~- readily be adopted for restaurant use at some futLu~e time and the garage with a high and wide door supplemented by a large cellar area with ample headroom unde~neat]~ the ~esidence may be adopted for the storin~ and servicing of boats. ?~ile you seem to stress the matter of the marina being an essential factor ~n the trend to the outdoor and leisure life~ you apparently ignore the ;~act that the marina is in a residential zone and is designated as such on the ~'~p e~d%ibited at the recent Zoning Ordinance meetin~ at the Southold Hi~% School - said map being entitled ]?lan for Development of Town of Southold. Further, we ask what consideration is being given to the impairment of the c viro ont pollution the . on .n r %rina' lagoon in which 1.00_/Y~tP o= loss, are moore~ a.t.t/le ~=r no ~ _ ~ Mooring of boats ~n the water does not necessarm-y mean roqu~r.e~ storage on land. For instance hundreds of boats are moored in the mar=nas at Townsend I.~nor Im~, ~iitchells and ¢laudios and ~J~e like - rumored storage and service othe~, th. an possible gasoline sales., NO? Y~'dJ you prefer open storage s~Jnx£ar to the Port of Egypt wzth a variety of craft exposed to the elements many of which appeared abandoned and left to rot on their cribs, an unsightly mess and a detriment to the environment similar to abandoned automobile dumps so prevalent hereabouts ? In reviewing the decision of the Board,January 1~, 1966 , it is difficult for one to understand why the Board's current decision favoring Strong is 'so contradictory to the findings of the Board as set forth in Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, page 2, on whiOh the resolution for denial was based. It would appear the same reasoning for 1966 still holds for 1971 snd would justify the building inspector serving formal notice on Strong regarding the violations, l,foreovem~as the situation now stands, it would ap pear that the Board exceeded its powers, that it acted in an arbitran~ · e ' ' or n the ener plan of zoni~ Robert W. Gillispie, Jr. Page -3- Ne note in Stem 2, page 3 of the current decision "The Board reserves the right to review and evaluate all uses wh~d~ have been permitted to date in order to insure their compatibility with the surrounding use area under the reasoni~§ as set forth in this decision". Due to lack of notice by your Board to which we were entitled as party to the action as referred to by you ~e were not aware of the decision until the thirty day period for appeal had expired as well as i~nor-'._ng requestsby me to you between July 8th, the date of the decision and July 30th, the date of filing with the Town Clerk. It would appear, therefore, as a matter of Justice and equity, also a possible constitutional right, to request you to set a date for a further rehearing or review covering violations not mentioned by you in your decision. We recognize and appreciate that the Town Board under the Supervisor has spent a great deal of time, thought and ener~ on the ordinance'situation. However, yielding to and iEno~inS violations as in this case undeL~ines the whole administrative structure and economy much to the detriment of the tax paying public comprisin§ home ~wners and businesses of ~he community.alike. An acknowledgment of the foreEoin§ would be appreciated. With best Respectfully submitted, Salt Lake Association~ Inc., Artemas E. Ward, P~esident. STRONG'S MA_TTjTUCK MARINA · ON PECONIC BAY· CA~P MIN£OLA ROAD, MATTITUCK, NEW YORK MA 9-8994 MA 9-4770 June 13, 1971 I am in favor of Strong's Marina contlnulm~ to provide the services it presently offers· They are as follows: Gas sales, dockage, service repairs and winter storage. NAME ADDRESS / · DOCKAGE STRONG'S MATTITUCK MARINA · ON PECONtC BAY · CAMP MINEOLA ROAD, MATTITUCK. NEW YORK MA 9-8994 MA 9-4770 June 12, 1971 I am in favor of $trong's Mattitmck Marina continuing to provide the services it presently offers· They are as follows: Gas sales, and winter storage. dockage, service repairs · DOCKAGE -- REPAIRS -- STORAGE · STRONG'S MATTITUCK MARINA · ON PEGONIC BAY · CAMP MINEOLA ROAD. MATTITUCK, NEW YORK MA 9-8994 MA 9-4770 June 13, 1971 I am in f~vor of Strong's ~attituck X~rina continuin~ to provide the services it presently offers. They ~re Rs follows: Gas sales, dockage, service repairs snd winter storage· RE.~AIRS -- STORAGE · STRONG'S MATTITUCK MARINA · ON PECONIC BAY · CAMP MIN£OLA ROAD, MATTITUCK. NEW YORK MA 9-8994 MA 9-4770 June 13, 1971 I am in favor of Strong's Marina continuing to provide the services it presently offers. They are as follows: gas sales, dockage, service repairs and winter storage· STRONG'S MA'TTITUCK MARINA · ON PECONIO BAY · CAMP MINEOLA ROAD, MATTITUCK, NEW YORK MA 9-8994 MA 9-4770 June 12, 1971 I am in favor of Strong's ~attituck ~arina continuin~ to provide the services it presently offers· They are as follows: Gas sales, dockag$, service repairs and winter storage. I DOCKAGE -- REPAIRS -- STORAGE Ii // /) // [ / LL ~, 4 speed, tach, tires, $1,009, ~38-2S09. with equippment, good MERCURy OU'£B 0A.,~D and ,MereCruiser factory authorized repair servi:e. Strongs Marina, Mai- ~ tituck. 298q770. 7&i3N PARKER, thirty inch la;va sweaT.~r, one year old, fits most gar~an_ ~ac,:c~, $75. 765-3337. 7832N ~ , I,]arJ, I hif. ~Oee ~, ,, SEWING MACHINEs .~ ~ REPAIRED, free estimates, Sam ~ite, '~ New Suffolk, 73t-a029, 1970'COUGAH .... Sun roof, Air ~nd., Low Mileage phone aiter 5. 7823N ~nd Ave., k]ae ~al seat c~h:on, rew~d $10, 9~ ~'~ }~ ~ / 477-0228 Rt. 25 GRaaNaOaT : WANTED: ~k i~ ';C~* .. , .:. . rn ~r~., ~ri ; ~ -m ~ ........ ~.. .'__ : MERCURY OUTBOARD a2~d ?,?ercCrtfiser fac:cry aur. horized repair service. Strongs Marina, Mat- tituck, 293-4770. 82~N SEWING 3IACHINES -EPAIRED, free ART£MA~ £. WARD 25, 1971. Mr. Robert W. Oillispie, Boat~l of Appeals, To~n Cle~k;s Office, $outhold, N. Y. It was nice to tail< with you on the phone this afternoon. Pursuant to y~u= suggestion l ~close h~t~ copy of le~Cer ~ me as ~estd~ of ~e ~lt ~e Assoc$ati~, ~c., to ~pe~s~ A1 S~o~ ~a sE~aC$~ de~$v~ ~o h~ ~ ~ ~e jo~s with best wishes to y~ ~d y~s ~ S~c~ly, ~t ~. Wa~. / ,/I