HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 PECONIC BAY ESTATES
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
P.O. Box 366 Greenport, New York 11944
January 2, 1986
Mr. Bennett Orlowski
Chairman
Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
RE: ~Hcoletti (vs) Schoenstein
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
It has come to our attention that North Fork ~lelding submitted an
application for a light industry zone. -
;~e have further been advised that the Southold ~laster Plan for this
area has been zoned heavy industry.
Our association members are greatly disturbed over these events
since it affects their property values.
Je herewith formally protest any decision to change the zoning for
;4orth Fork Helding.
2e aware that we wish to appear before the Town Planning Board
Hearing in order to voice our objections.
HC:jp
CC:
Frank t.lurphy - Town Supervisor
Victor Lessard - Exec. Admin. Bldg. Dept.
Joseph Schoenstein - North Fork Welding
Sincerely yours,
~res~dent
PECONIC BAY ESTATES
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
P.O. Box 366 Greenport, New York 11944
January 2, 1986
Mr.' Victor Lessard
Executive Administrator
Building Department
Box 723 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Nicoletti (vs) Schoenstein
Dear Mr. Lessard
Thank you for the time you spent with Mr. Bancroft and myself on
~.~onday, December 30, and for your interest in our problem.
Our association is deeply concerned that the rights of Lydia and
John ~4icoletti are being violated and that there is evidence of the
additional deterioration of their position.
The Nicoletti's purchased their property of 50 Pipes Neck Road in
good faith at a time when the neighborhood was zoned as light business.
Subsequently, a "light business" two employee welding shop has
burgeoned into a large "heavy" multi-employee industry - all this
in violation of zoning regulations.
The Peconic Bay Property Owners Association Inc. protests these
violations and insists that town authorities put a stop to them.
Although zoned light business, this is a residential neighborhood.
There are four homes to the west of Mr. Schoensteins's ~elding Plant
with the, Nicoletti's home on the immediate east.
We will greatly appreciate any assistance
protect the rights of our association and
Nicoletti.
your office can give us to
its members, Lydia'and John
i~C:jp
cc: Mr. Frank Murphy - Southold
Town Supervisor
Mr. Bennett Orlowski - Chairman
Lydia and John Nicoletti
Mr. Joseph Schoenstein
Si n ce ~el~ yo u~s,
1~icholas Carnes
President
Planning Board
JEANNE MARRI~, private citizen
I've just finished a quick review of the Master Pla- and your goals for
Southold Town -It's all very nice but you are missing the big picture. You,
in your re-zoning, are going for short-term profits without considering the
long term economic vitality of SoutaChe.
~4~&~ ~1 your'~--"~~round. On the one hand you
You have no co~/to aev op
recognize the unique character of the North Fork and that agriculture,fishin~
and tourism are the economic base .and on the other hand you zone to destr(
fishing by your concentration of building activity along the shoreline -
and you will ultimately destroy touris~when the coastal waters are polluted
and the ground water supply is gone. The owners of the large agricultur~l
tracts will also not benefit when the demand for the North Fork is gone.
We do have a~otential unifying concept - "the Unique Character for which
there is and could be a great demand.~
The North Fork could be another Williamsburg, Va. for example - at~-ract~n~
tourists and our seasonal residents year round and providing $ for our local
businessmen. I AGREE WITH THE GREENPORT?SOUTHOLD C OF C that there is
little provision for resort hotels. What there is~is concentrated on the
/
waterfront where large development is not environmentally feasible, beca%~-~
of our water problems. WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED are some large inland tracts
to be set aside for ~ or ~large resort hotels [Hilton/, Sheratorn, etc.)
Hotels that have lots of open space and attractive landscaping and INDOOR
SWIMMING POOLS~ TENNIS COURTS, RESTAURANTS, PERHAPS A THEATER, ETC. This
is the way it is done in '~ t~.urist areas. The hotels offer jitney
transportation to the hamlet boutiques and waterfront and other tourist attl
actions. Special weekends throughout the Fall and Winter as well as summer
could be arrange, perhaps in conjunction with the LIRR to a~trac~ the NYC
affluent for a "get,avway"~ Our own residents could have arrangement
through club memberships, etc. to use the hotel facilities (swimming, etc)
at off-times. There are infinite possibilities for creative thinkers.
A plan such as this with a concept!can provide a rationale for zoning
and protecting of certain areas including the waterfront from over-
development. It will keep the local business people happy, it can preserve
open space and build our tourist base while assuring our year round and
seasonal residents that the North Fork will not become another Jersey shore
or suburban sprawl. By creative planning~ you can create a really
unique get-away area - our natural features are already here and so are
some tourist attractions. It has to be carefully ~n~ but it could be
the answer,--~. ,0/[ -~ ~aa_/ ~/~3'r~c~;/'~' ~/~//~3
I would be happy to explore this concept further at another time. But at
this time I just want to urge you to think long range plans and what you
are building for the future when you consider zoning c~anges. Don't just
think of the short term profits for a few when you can benefit the whole
Town if you move carefully. I also think you would be advised to talk
with your economic advisory committee before you are pressured by the
developers into making serious mistakes with the North Fork.
LWV TO TOWN BOARD February 4, 19~
The League of Women Voters urges the Town Board to undertake a program of
public education about the proposed zoning law amendments - such as was
done for the Master Plan - before you go further with the process of enactin~
the new amendments.
The League believes that there must be well-defined channels for citizen
input and review of government policies and programs and such has not
been the case with the proposed zoning changes. We suggest that you
publish the zoning maps, with rationale in the local newspapers, and that
you xH-schedule well~publicized informational meetings for late March or
early April. The League would be willing to assist in conducting these
meetings r. perhaps with the NFEC ~ as we did for the Master Plan.
I am here today because~ as a result of the ad placed in the Suffolk Times
by the Greenport/Southold Chamber of Commerce, League phones were busy
all weekend taking calls from people who wanted to know what was going on.
These calls were from Southold Town taxpayers ~ both year round and seasonal
- who were distressed that the Town was attempting to enact laws without
fully disclosing to the public what changes were to be made. People
living in sensitive shoreline 'areas in Mattituck, Cutchogue, New Suffolk
and Southold were particularly upset
The League believes that as voters and taxpayers, Southold citizens have
a ritht to know all the.facts regarding laws that could affect their future
water supply, water quality, and indeed, the very fabric of life that th-
Master Plan proposes to protect.
The League sees no reason to delay accepting the Master Plan. It is a
guide for orderly development ? not a law. But we do urge postponement
_ ~3~P,,.~.~
of enacting any zoning cnanges%untl± we have 'had a good town-wide dialogue.
The League offers, to assist you in informing Southold Town residents in
whatever way you feel is most enlightening and appropriate.
Thank you.
HOBART ROAD
FEB 1 31986
$OUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 516-765-:~954
February 12, 1986
Southold Town Board
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York
11971
Re: Master Plan - Marine Business
and Marine Recreation Districts
Dear Supervisor Murphy and Board Members:
This letter, I hope, will clarify an inconsistency between
the intent of the Master Plan and the current Proposed
Zoning Map and Proposed Zoning Code as they pertain to
transient motels in general and Young's Marina (Southport
Development) in particular.
When Southport Development was first proposed to the Planning
BOard in May, 1985, it was consistent with the then draft
Proposed Zoning! Regulations, dated April, 1985, prepared by
Raymond, Parrish, Pine and Weiner. At that time, both the
Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts allowed
transient motels and restaurants. The Planning Board was
in favor of the project and recommended the zoning change
to the Town Board.
During the scoping session on the Enviromental Impact State-
ment for Southport Development, the Town Board notified us
that Mr. Tasker, the Town Attorney, was make possible revisions
to the Zoning Code at the Town Board's request, and that we
should coHtact him to inquire whether Southport Development
was still consistent with the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. In
discussions with Mr. Tasker, we were advised that the Marine
Business and Marine Recreation districts were, in fact, being
revised. Transient motels would be permitted only in the
Marine Recreation district, while in the Marine Business
district this use was being removed from the Code.
Southold Town Board
February 12, 1986
Page 2
We then contacted the Planning Board, through Mr. Emilita,
and were advised of the changes in the Code. It was our
understanding that the Zoning Maps were being revised to
reflect the changes the Town Board was requesting, and
that the Town Board, in support of the Master Plan, in-
tended to transfer certain properties, including South-
port Development, into the Marine Recreation district.
It seems, however, that the maps were released to the
Town Board prior to those changes being made. The Zoning
Maps as they stand now will not allow transient motels on
sites designated as Marine Business, such as Port of Egypt
and Young's Marina, but would allow motels in Marine
Recreation sites, such as Goldsmith's Marine at the end
of Hobart Road in Southold.
I therefore request that the Town Board revise the Zoning
Maps to show Young's Marina in the Marine Recreation
district to better reflect the intent of th~ Master Plan
in regard to transient motel use. It is our feeling, and
the Planning Board's feeling, that the Young's Marina site
is one of the most suitable for transient resort motels.
~4eph Fischetti.,\~ . Jr}~P.F.
JF:mdh I
cc: Southold Town Planning Board
CHAMBER
¥
Orient East Marion Greenport Southold Peconic
March 11, 1986
Southold Town Board
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
11971
Members of the Board:
My name is $ohn Berryman, I am the Treasurer of the Greenport-
Southold Chamber of Commerce.
I speak to you this day as a representative of the Board of
Directors of the Chamber.
A copy of my remarks will be given to each of you and the
Town Clerk.
In my hand I have a document entitled "Zoning Ordinance Amend-
ments for Master Plan Update presented to the Southold Town Board
on December 17, 1985".
What is unknown about this proposal is who presented it to the
Southold Town Board? Was it the consultants you hired three years
and $70,000. ago? Was it the Southold Town Planning Board? Or was
it a committee of the Town Board? An answer would be appreciated
by our 256 members and other concerned citizens.
Similarly, in my hand I have a document entitled "Proposed
Zoning Town of Southold" with your consultant's name and address
and dated December 4, 1985, stamped in the lower left corner is
an ink stamp with the caption "Received - Town of Southold -
Oan. 16, 1986". The question is, again, who prepared the maps?
A reasonable assumption would be your consultants, but, no one
can be sure, again, who was the compiler of the maps with the
zoning designations thereon?
The Directors have spent much time analyzing these two
documents, which we hope are the latest proposals, are there any
later proposals?
Southold Town
-2-
March 11, 1986
Directors attended each of the so-called community input
sessions. Frankly, they were unhappy with the format of the
meetings. They expected that the meetings would be in the form
.of a New England style "Town Meeting", with give and take between
local residents and their elected town officials.
Unfortunately, the meetings, whether by design or not, deni-
grated into allowing those most affected by the proposed legislation
to make a statement. Valid questions were forbidden, one Town Board
board member, however, was perceived as receptive to gathering addi-
tional information from speakers at the earlier meetings. The con+
sensus was that the meetings were a waste of time, attendance of 40
people at the earlier meetings would seem to buttress this impression.
Before giving specific examples of those areas of the proposals
which are viewed as (1) poor draftmanship or (2) outright expansions
of regulatory powers by local government, some concerns should be
considered, namely:
(1) Why is the "accessory apartment" ordinance included in the
zoning regulations when it has been adopted by the Town Board in
separate legislation?
(2) The Town of Southold already has a landmark preservation
ordinance in place, this legislation was adopted several years ago
after much local debate and compromise in which the Chamber of
Commerce played an active role. The concept of "architectural review"
was specifically rejected at that time. Why is this old idea being
resurrected in the proposals now? Is this a form of "back-door"
legislation?
If you are going to include every ordinance in "The Code of the
Town,of Southold" in the "Zoning Regulations", why not the "House Boat"
oridDance, the "Horse Per Acre" regulation, etc.?
Why not just restrict the "Zoning Regulations" to traditional
zoning matters and leave the rest of the "social engineering" ideas
to stand or fall on their own merits, after public exposure?
(5) In 1984, I personally wrote to the Town's Public Document
Access Officer for a copy of the then existing "Master Plan". I was
informed that there is no "Master Plan", per se, which has been
adopted by the Town Board. There is, however, a series of reports
prepared over the years by various groups and consultants, some of
these reports date back to the early 1960's. While never adopted by
the Town Board, they are quoted by planners and special interest groups
as gospel. It is sad to see a so-called "Master Plan Update" quoted
with authority, again without this board formally adopting it as public
policy.
(4) From no person, group, or board have we heard about the
economic cost of the proposals over the present regulations. Mow
much will the proposals save the local taxpayers? If the local
taxpayers are going to receive a reduction in taxes, we are sure the
announcement to that effect would be loud and repeated.
(5) A comparison of the existing zoning regulations and the
proposed regulations show a fantastic expansion of the regulations.
Southold Town Boat
-3-
March 11, 1986
Our President, Ronald Reagan, in 1980 ran on the platform of
"Getting Government Off Your Backs", apparently, his message
has not been heard in the Town of Southold in 1986.
(6) More basic and important is the concept of unelected
Town Officials exercising economic powers (through their inter-
pretation of generalized, non-specific, regulations) over the
financial plans of local citizens~ The proposed amendments contain
few standards. They do give too much discretion to appointed
officials.
Harry Truman had a desk sign that stated "The Buck Stops Here".
How do you hold unelected appointed officials accountable for their
decisions without expensive recourse to the courts? I personally
was told at a meeting of your board that you appoint the members of
regulatory boards but, they act on their own.
This, of course, is an ideal position to take, if they do good
work, you appointed them. If they foul up, they are independent of
you.
Board Members! Are you willing to bite the bullet and accept
the responsibility for the actions of the regulatory boards you
appoint? Or, will you recommend the election of such members by
the voters in the future?
(7) The Directors of the Chamber are also concerned with
(and have expressed their concerns to your Commerce and Industry
Committee) about possible conflict of interests between Town
regulators and their consulting contracts, the awarding of consult-
ing contracts by the Town Board in the planning area without formal
bidding, and the extension of such contracts, again without formal
bidding. But these concerns are for future consideration by you
and us and the public.
Before getting to the specifics of the proposed regulations
and maps, the Directors instructed me to tell you of a particularly
disturbing development. One of our members, adversely affected by
the proposed regulations, was counseled by his attorney not to make
a public statement. The lawyer's apparent logic, as related by our
member, was to the effect, "You might win the battle~ but you will
sure as hell lose the war - We will try another way to solve your
future zoning problem."
In this day and age this is a sad commentary on local govern-
ment.
We do not know which of the proposals (the proposed regulations
or the zoning maps) is the poorest in content.
However,-I will start with the "Zoning Ordinance Amendments":
(1) What is an "Historic District?" There is no definition
in the ordinance, as stated before, it shouldn't be there anyway.
(2) Why are "profit-making" golf courses (2 in our town) not
allowed? Is this merely an example of poor draftsmanship? Or are
open areas, forever green, not really needed in the town?
(3) Why does the ordinance discriminate against tennis
players (as opposed to backyard swimmers)?
(4) Why are vineyard guest accomodations not mentioned in a
Southold Town Boa
-4-
March 11, 1986
$70,000. study? Does Napa Valley exist?
(5) How does a bureaucrat decide
Are there objective standards or merely
official in power at the time?
if a use is "appropriate?"
the "feelings" of the
(6) Why are the vast majority of uses designated as a
"special exception" rather than as a "matter of right?" Should
the property right of the owner be subservient to the dictates
of a "Big Brother?"
Are the drafters of the regulations admitting that they cannot
write a future - related ordinance? One that looks to the next few
years or so? Will we be subjected to future "urgent" requests for
"moratoriums" so that the alleged "planners" can do the planning
they should have been doing all along?
(7) How many off-street parking spots should be provided at
residential yard sales? l, 2, 3, .... 187
(8) What guest house ("bed and breakfast" in the old days)
can afford waterfront property?
(9) How does a structure fit the "historic character" of the
surrounding area? As stated before the whole concept should not be
in the ordinance. But, for us uneducated mortals, please tell us
what is "historic character" and how is it determined?
(10) Are there more than two blocks in Southold Town where
the "architecture" is the same?
(11) How does a sign become an "historic sign?"
(12) What is a "cultural feature?"
(13) What are "aesthetic considerations?"
Members of the Town Board, do
that can be generated by such terms
through 13 above?
you appreciate the mischief
as questioned in-items 9
(14) If all that I can afford is a development home, as
opposed to a custom home, why cannot I have my own private backyard
with all the amenities that go with a backyard? Why must the homes
in the development be mandatorily "clustered?" Fifteen years ago
when I lived in Fort Hamilton, my neighbors were 20 feet away. Why
would anybody opt for similar spacing in Southold Town. Those who
advocate clustering should first look at the homes in the Pebble
Beach Development and then make public pronouncements about the
advantages of clustering.
If "clustering" is economical, let developers take the chance
on doing so and let them suffer the consequences if they are wrong.
But, let the "market" decide, not a bureaucrat.
(15) Why must I use the Greenport water system if I bui~ a
new home? Why must I pay $3,000. to hook up and pay water rates
expected to increase 60% over current rates. Will it be able to
supply me with water in the future?
Southold Town Boa
-5-
March 11, 1986
Please don't tell us such use is mandated by the bureaucrats
in the County Department of Health Services in the "regulations"
they wrote. If you didn't mandate it, why are these regulations
in your proposed zoning ordinance amendments?
(16) Why is the Planning 8oard attempting to shield itself
from liability suits arising in the site plan approval process?
"If they can't stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen."
(i7) Why not require Town Officials to provide written reasons
for their negative decisions? Expecially those negative decisions
that costs the local citizen more money. The proposed regulations
require such written reason from the Town Building Inspector. Why
not all officials?
Are they concerned with Article 78 worries because the boards
may be exceeding their authority?
(18) The drafter(s) of the "zoning ordinance amendments" forgot
to delete many existing sections after they inserted new sections on
the same topics. Is this just poor draftsmanship?
Town Board Members! Enough is enough. By now you must appre-
ciate that the proposed amendments were poorly thought out and
drafted. Your next step is obvious.
Let us now consider the proposed "Zoning Maps", that is, those
stamped "3anuary 16, 1986."
As a generality,
many proposed zoning
existing uses.
we can state without fear of contradiction,
designations do not conform to long-standing
Let me give you a glaring example which relates to me person-
ally as a golfer. Island's End Golf Course has been in Greenport
since 1961, 25 years. All of you have been there at one time or
another during the 25 years. For almost as many years, Cedars
Golf Course has been in Cutchogue.
Question: Why are the 110 acres shown as "R-40" rather than
"LB", in the case of Island's End?
Question: Did the person(s) who drew the maps ever go beyond
Porky's Circle, or was it more convenient to sit in Town Hall and
copy old maps?
I know of one property, originally built as a factory and now
used as a repair building/garage and storage area, which was in
existence before zoning came to Southold Town, It is proposed that
it be included in a "R-40" zone. Are the map drawers aware that
they imperil the jobs of six men in their zeal to convert the town
into a "new" town?
Let me give you some more glaring examples which have been
brought to our attention. The following are not in any particular
order of importance, but each cries out for change.
(1) Would you build a home next to the town dump?
. Southold Town Boa~ -6-
March 11, 1986
(2) Would you build a convention center/motel next to the
town dump or next to a railroad track?
(3) Many years ago, before some of you were born, Charlie
Van Duzer established a business on the North Road, currently,
the business is conforming.
On the "proposed zoning map", dated April 25, 1985, it was
designated "B-l", general business.
Under a literal interpretation of ~he current proposed map
designations and the provisions of the proposed regulations,
Charlie's business and that of his neighbors would become non-
conforming.
Should Van Duzer Gas Service or its neighbors decide to
enlarge their existing buildings because successful operations of
their businesses dictate more space'is needed, such additions would
be permitted as a matter of right under existing regulations.
Under the proposed regulations and map, as presented, they
would be prohibited - see subdivisions "A" of proposed sections
100-241 and 243.
I have searched my vocabulary for an adjective to describe
the draftin9 of this particular item. The most charitable word
I could find was "incompetent."
Members of the Town Board, since the last "informational"
meeting the Chamber of Commerce has received numerous complaints
concerning the proposed amendments and map, most of these came
on coupons attached to the Chamber's public notice in the local
papers.
Upon checking these complaints, the Chamber found that many
changed business properties were in existence before the Town had
zoning ordinances. Yet, on the proposed map they are zoned "R-40".
I need not tell you that this so-called "up-zoning" is a form of
"inverse condemnation." That is, a form of "eminent domain",
whereby the land owner is deprived of some of the value of his
property by governments, such as Town Boards.
The plight of our fellow businessmen, the farmers, is well-
known by you. The Directors know that you know how the farmers
feel about the proposed chan9ed zoning designations. They too are
affected by "inverse condemnation."
Whether done intentionally or inadvertently, the result to
the property owner, be he farmer or small businessman, is the same.
Is it possible that the map preparers redesignated the effect-
ed areas without physically inspecting the areas?
You have heard enough, so have we, it is time for re-thinking!
Your two proposals need much revision - not only in specifics,
but also in concepts.
The Directors told me not to discuss the $?0,000. you have
already spent for one consultant and the monies spent for another
alleged planner, so I won't, now.
My Directors recommend:
(1) Send the proposed "Zoning Ordinance Amendments" and the
proposed "Zoning Maps" back to the drawing board.
Southold Town Bo~
-7-
March 11, 1986
(2) Open to the public your discussion meetings at which you
revise the current proposals. Not for public input, but for view-
ing representative government at work.
(3) As a minimum, record for future inspection the votes of
each Board Member on each specific proposal. It is highly unlikely
that each and every amendment to the ordinances and map (most of
which are highly controversial) were unanimously agreed to. As
representatives of the voters, you shouid be happy to make known
your actions on matters which affect their pocketbooks. The "Heat
in the Kitchen" affects everybody in the kitchen. Are each of you
willing to stand up and be counted?
At a future "Candidates Night", conducted by the Chamber each
October, how will you respond to the question, "How did you vote
on the resolution to require the recording of the votes on each
specific change to the existing "Zoning Ordinance" and "Zoning Map?"
(4) Place a "legal" in the local newspapers alerting effected
property owners that you plan to change the use designation of their
property so they may be informed about what is going on. After
spending over $100,000., I am sure that $50. can be found to give
such information.
(5) In addition,
Not like in the recent
maps were at Town Hall,
make the changes known to the general public.
past in which the only available copy of the
not in local libraries as advertised.
(6) Conduct true town meetings before you conduct the mandatory
public hearing. The time for "gathering information" will be over.
Let those affected by your decisions question your prior decision-
making in an open forum.
(7) After the changes are made, appoint an "ombudsman" to
represent the "little guy." This person would monitor the acti-
vities of the regulatory boards and accept complaints from the
"little guy." This representative will not need formal power.
The glare of publicity is the only tool he/she will need.
Thank you.
CC:
Town Board Members (6)
Town Clerk
Town Attorney
Town Pianning Board
Zoning Board of Appeais
Daiiy News (Long Isiand Editor)
Long Isiand Traveier/Watchman
Newsday
New York Times (Long Isiand
Suffoik Life
Suffoik Times
Editor)
MAR '[ 8 1986
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VI:3TE:ES DF I~IVERHEAD/SOLITH~3LD
· Box 449, Mattituck, N.Y.
March 14, 1986
To: The Members of the Southold Town Board
From: The Board of Directors of the Riverhead/Southold LWV
Subject: The Proposed Amendments to the Southold Town Zoning Law
It has come to our attention that the Town Board may be considering
a move to discard the proposed new zoning amendments and continue with
the zoning regulations currently in effect.
The League urges you not to take this action. Much time and effort
and dollars have been expended on the revision of the Southold Town Master
Plan/Zoning. And while the League pointed out some of the imperfections
of the zoning amendments at the recent hamlet meetings, we certainly did
not intend to give you cause for totally discarding the progress that has
been made.
It is our understanding that Ruth Oliva and Jean Tiedke, as members
of the original Master Plan committee are proposing revisions to the
proposed amendments. We suggest that you permit them to complete their
revisions. We also suggest that you engage a specialist in zoning law.
Spending a few more dollars on this type of consultant would, in the
League's opinion, be a most cost-effective use of tax money.
The League is confident that the Town Board will act in a responsible
manner in this situation and carefully consider the following:
1. The revised Master Plan is a guide for orderly growth.
2. Some revision of the proposed zoning amendments is necessary to
insure the protection of the Town's voters and taxpayers from
unwise development.
3. The expenditure of a few more $ to hire an expeert in zoning to
oversee the revision process would insure the Town's future and
benefit the entire town. This expenditure would truly be money
spent in the public interest.
Again, we urge you to continue to see the Master Plan/Zoning through
to completion. Please don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Jeanne Marrlner, President
for the Board
FYI Counselor at Law, Daren Rathkopf of Paine, Wood and Littlejohn in
Glen Cove, L.I. is a zoning specialist. His law firm was responsible
for drawing up the NY State zoning guidelines. Zoning Law must be
carefully constructed by an expert, according to the guideline~ tc
protect the Town.