HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 Mrs. John Baiz
400 Shady Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15206
January 30, 1984
Frank Murphy, Town Supervisor
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, L.I. New York 11971
Dear Mr. Murphy:
Word has reached me that there is a plan afoot to rezone our property
on Bay Home Road to commercial and resort. This would also include the
property of my mother, Mrs. Robert Lang, as well as that of my Texas son,
Robert Lang Ba±z.
I can't imagine why this would come up. I am very opposed to it,
and I have been asked by my mother, Mrs. Lang, by my son and husband to
speak on their behalf.
The east side of Bay Home Road, i.e., the Willow Point development,
is a new and totally residential area. A while ago the contiguous pro-
perty came up for rezoning for a boatyard and this was turned down. To the
west of Mrs. Lang's property except for a boggy farm field the land is
totally residential. In fact, from Paradise Point to Conkling Point the
rezoning proposal for our property is the only drastic change based upon
current use of all this bayfront.
We consider the rezoning proposal to be willful and capricious on
the part of the consulting firm and the Town Board.
The Lang-Baiz property purchased by my father in 1919 has been lived
on by the same family for five generations; and it continues to be lived
on and farmed in its original life style.
We request that this letter be read carefully by you and that it
be given due consideration at Thursday night's meeting.
Sincerely yours,
Mary Lan~ Baiz
(Mrs. John Baiz)
CC:
Henry Raynor
Chairman, Town Planning Board
.FEI) 0 ? 1984
410 Homestead Way, Box 417
Greenport, NY 11944
February 4, 1984
~{r. Henry Raynor, Chairman
Town of 8outhold Planning Board
Town Hall,
8outhold, NY 11971
Dear F~. Raynor.'
~ wife and I attended your public meeting on the ev~.ning of February 2nd
and are t~m_ng advantage of your invitatiou to write to you.
We are very much opposed to the proposed widening of Route 48, as it
would mean the taking of our home to make room for the highway.
We moved here 3 years ago from the village of Elmsford in Westchester
County, ironically only a mile or so distant from F~. Turner,s present
Tarrytown office. Thirty years ago and continuing for ten years we
witnessed the tearing apart of that village by the passage through it
of three major highways. We watched as many of our friends and neigh-
bors lost their homes to the wrecking hall and the bulldozer. When it
was all over, the goal of the planners had been aceoumlisbed. Beautiful
new superhighways were available to speed through traffic past the area
without affecting or being affected by local traffic. The final destin-
ations of a great percentage of the new roods' users were often hundreds
of miles away. The new highways could cut hours off their travel times.
Now we live in the Town of $outhold, where we thought nothing like that
could ever happen because it is a dead end peninsula -- water ou three
sides, therefore no through traffic. (In our opinion, a few trucks and
oars t~k~,~ the ferry to New London do not constitute "through traffic".)
We have poured ~11 our energy, our hopes, our dreams and our money into
our new home. We do not want to lose it. We do not believe that Southold
needs a dual highway in our neighborhood any more than it needs o~ ever
needed the one running through Mattituck, Cutchogue and Peconic.
We ca~e here hoping to live in a rural marine area for the rest of our
lives. You say that you want to preserve that very aspect. But we fail
to see how the construction of a superhighway to move more traffic into
not through the town can accomplish that goal.
Very t~,ly yours, .
Ned J. Deegan
Mr. Henry Raynor
Ohairman
$outnold Town Planning Board
Main Road
Sout~old, New York 11971
Michael P~arr Distributors
Route 48
Southold, New York 11971
Pebrmary 6, 19~4
Dear Mr. P~vnor:
I am w~lting as an owner of commercial property bet-g:
nominated for upzo~ing under the propose& new master plan.
Let me make m~ee£f sleax-: no one would advosate a Jericho
Turnpike for thetownof Sou~old. However. the reality of
mixe~ use is democratic an& vital for new enterprise,. If all
commercial property were centralized in the h~.lets, ~e owners
of these properties would deman~ ransom lik~ prices t~nls stif~t~
new enterprises. Distributing commercial properties throughtu~
the town as un, er the present zoning map offers a new enterprise
a c~nce to shop fpraffor~a~ie property price~.
Tet at leas2 ~ne commercial grouping outside of the hamlets
is accepted under ~he new proposal: the development in the area
of Albe~tson l~ne and Route 25° Why is this group deemed
asceptable and not the groupings along the north side of Route 4e
in Southold and the south side in Peconic? Furthermore do these
groupings in a~v way impede the agricultural ex~r~en character
of this a~ea? As presently deYeloped, no.
Just as working farmers, working commereial'prope~2 owners
have important ft-~eial and psychological investments in th.~
properties. To enoumoer these Investments aha to lower their
value without compensation is a direct a~aek on our constitutional
ri~htSo
We all cheese to live in Southold teoause of its perceived
sharac%eristics. In order to save the ~ do we nee~ such drastic
revisions in ~e zoning map. ~h~ no~ leave it as it is.
One would imagine that a~y new $~wn plan would accept and
start with the exisming~is~ribmtion of development and nom Sly
;o roll ~ack the olosk. ! appeal to the Boar~ no~ ~o punish
existing commercial proper~v owners ~y accepting suc~ a drastic
o~e in the rules off ~he game.
390 HENRY'S LA.
PECONIC, N.Y. 11958
2-12-84
MR, HENRY RAYNOR, CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
C/O RAYNOR-SuTER HARDWARE STORE
Love LA.
MATTITUCK, N.Y. 11935
DEAR MR. RAYNOR;
I AM OPPOSED TO THE BUILDING OF A MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
IN SOUTHOLD TOWN. MY CONCERN IS FOR THE PEACEw QUIET AND
SECURITY OF OUR CITIZENS.
AN AIRPORT WILL BENEFIT FEW AND INCONVENIENCE MANY.
TODAY OUR NEIGHBORS TO"THE SOUTH IN [ASTHAMPTON~ EXPER-
IENCE 30w000 TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS ANNUALLY INCLUDING
CORPORATE JETS. A COURT DECISION WENT AGAINST OUR NEIGH-
BORS TO THE WEST IN FARMINGDALE WHO PETITIONED THE STATE
OF NEW YORK TO CLOSE REPUBLIC AIRPORT AT NIGHT BECAUSE
THE NOISE PREVENTED THEM FROM SLEEPING.
WHERE IN OUR TOWN IS A '~DESIRABLE SITE~'~ CERTAINLY
NOT NEAR MY HOME~ LETS PUT ALID ON THIS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
IDEA AND ENO THIS WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY~ BEFORE IT
CAUSES ANY MORE ANXIETY AND AGGRAVATION. TRY TO REMEMBER
WHAT ATTRACTION THE NORTH FORK HAS TO PEOPLE, IS THIS THE
ATMOSPHERE WE DESIRE IN SOUTHOLD?
WHILE I AM IN A LETTER WRITING MOOD, [ WOULD LIKE TO
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SOUNDVIEW AVE EXTENSION. WHAT EVER
HAPPENED TO THE CONCEPT THAT A DEVELOPER HAS TO BUILD HIS
OWN ROADS?
THIS ROAD WILL OPEN UP FOR DEVELOPMENT AN AREA OF OUR
TOWN WHICH SHOULD BE KEPT AS NATURAL AS POSSIBLE. ET WILL
ENCOURAGE AN ENORMOUS INCREASE IN POPULATION AND TRAFFIC
AND ALL THE PROBLEMS AND TAXES ASSOCIATED WITH THESE.
A SOUND AVE. EXTENSION WILL INTERSECT WiTH MY ROAD
AND TURN THIS AND OTHER QUIET DEAD END ROADS INTO BUSTLING
THOROUGHFARES.
URGE THE PLANNING BOARD TO RESCIND THE SOUNDVlEW AVE.
EXTENSION AND PROPOSED MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.
VE~URS~
Southold To~m Planning Board
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Gentlemen: February 6, 198~
This is in response to your invitation for wrftten com~,ent with respect
to the preliminary master plan proposal.
I expressed my basic reaction at the February 2, 198d meeting in Peconic,
namely that the plan is too complicated. It reminds me of the game of
monopoly, with players owning agricultural lands receiving development
rights which can be used to build in hamlet areas - even a bank - only
no Broadway or Park Place, and no one collects $ 200 for passing "G0".
It is a theoretically intersting co~eDt with several basic flaws, and while
it may be workable in the outskirts of Washington, D.C., perhaps Southold
is not the place to try what still amounts to an experimental concept, at
least not until it's proven to work elsewhere. We can wait. I don't know
why we are singled out, as in the case of reverse osmosis, to be the
guinea pigs.
The basic flaws include unfairness to farmland owners; the mandatory
nature of the concept; and the imposition of the cost on only one area or
group, namely purchasers or owners i~: hamlet receiving areas designated
as medium density. If farmland preservation is desirable, why does the
cost fall s~ely on the one category? '~hy must it be mandatory?
In ancient times, tribes often arranged to mate their unmarried
eli~ilil~females by auctioning off the most desirable (whether most beautiful,
strongest or most talented) to the highest bidder among the eligible bach-
elors. When no one would any longer bid as the desirable ones were taken,
the tribe would use the wealth accumulated from auctioning the more desirable
to add subsidies, so that less desirable mates would then be auctioned with
inducements, like a pig or a cow, accumulated in the course of the earlier
bidding. In this way wealth was redistributed and all or almost all
eligibles were matched. The person who got the ugliest or least talented
mate was guaranteed the most to compensate for the mate's shortcomings.
In Southold, what's wrong with the proposed system, is that the person
who pays the most also gets the ugliest mate. The proposal calls for you
to pay more to end up with higher density. This is supposed to discourage
higher density. It merely raises the price and works to the benefit of
the developer, putting all the burden on people whose economic status forces
them to buy in a receiving area.
Since farmland preservation is the desired goal, should not all of
society participate in the cost? Since "over-development" is a goal to be
avoided, should not everyone, or all development pay the cost, not just
development in medium density hamlet areas? A tax on purchases of land in
all areas, or on building everywhere, the procesds of which could be used only
to purchase farmland development rights, would be fairer. The rate of tax
(perhaps 1%) could vary depending on whether there ~ere enough rights offered
voluntarily by farmland owners to match the value of the flow of available
tax fun~s. The proposed plan puts all rights on the ~arket at one. time. How
will the cost of farmland development rights be allocated from the cost of
the land if all the rights go on the market at one time? They will be
virtually worthless initially. If the plan ~s not mandstory, and farmland
owners do not offer to sell their' rights, the fund will grow with interest
and annual additions to the point that the market place will dictate to
some owners that perhaps it will be wise to offer their rights for sale
rather than to develop their property.
FEB 10 1984
I think the concept of "public water' is quite misleading to the public.
Since it is any common water supply, it is really not a public system,
and constitutes hardly any impediment to higher density use. Either tell
the public that the word public is not being used in its common meaning,
or use it properly, and limit density to a Greenport-like standard,
where a real public water supply is available.
~ I recommend that we reject the development right transfer.to hamlet
medium density areas for the present until we study its workings elsewhere.
Since we seem to need a new plan every 1~ years, perhaps the plans ~re not
all that great to begin with, so that patching up the old plan can do
just as well.
~spect fully~-~
l~ew suffolk, N.Y, 11956
main road ~ ·
' SOuthold, long island,,new york 11971
P.O. Box 590
102 Broad St.
Greenport, N.Y. 1194~
February 13, 1984
Planning Board
Southold Town
Southold, N.Y.
Dear Planning Board:
I am writing to ask that you make a provision for the development
of shellfish hatcheries and nurseries in your Master Land-use Plan.
My interest in shellfish hatcheries and nurseries lies in the fact
that I sm planning, along with a highly competent team, a venture to
culture triploid hard clams, Mercenaria mercenaria, to market size. Tri-
pl0id 'shellfish have more carbohydrate in their cells than diploids.
They, therefore, are larger and are thought to have a better taste and
texture. Triploidy describes organisms having cells containing three
rather than the normal two sets of chromosomes. It is a condition that
can be induced by chemically treating fertilized eggs. Our effort
involves the construction and operation of a hatchery and nursery to
produce triploid hard clams.
The North Fork would be an ideal place for a shellfish hatchery
and nursery for many reasons. For one, bay waters are very productive.
Since water currents tend to be moderate, shellfish are supplied with
unusually large quantities of algae for food. Secondly, Greenport's
deep water port makes it possible to harvest cultured clams in the
middle of winter. Finally, towns on the North Fork fall right on the
route of many shellfish distributors, which makes it easy for anyone
with a steady, large supply to market his or her shellfish crop.
For the last several months, I have sought to find an appropriate
site for a shellfish hatchery and nursery on the North Fork. There are
extremely few sites which would be appropriate. Depending on your
actions, the sites may or may not be available to me.
A site for a shellfish hatchery and nursery must satisfy
certain requirements, which include: l) that it be within 500' of shore,
2) that it have access, or a right of way, to a large body of salt-water
(preferably bay water), 3) that it be reasonably removed from existing
or potential sources of pollution, h) that it be accessible by road,
and ~) that it have water from a salt-water well for use to culture
shellfish in the hatchery stage.
-2-
I ask that you consider a policy of land-use that l) establishes
shellfish hatcheries and nurseries as agricultural ventures and 2) gives
priority to water-dependent use of shore property. Shellfish hatcheries
and nurseries are considered agricultural ventures by the federal
government. Certainly they represent the kind of development that
complements an area's rural character. Moreover, of all agricultural
ventures, they probably are the least damaging to the environment. No
pesticides or fertilizers are used. Traffic associated with a
hatchery and nursery is low. We plan on having five full-time employees.
Successful hatcheries and nurseries benefit local individuals,
businesses or public governments through seed sales, and the exchange of
technical knowledge. Presently, hatcheries on Long Island could not meet
the projected seed demand. Recently, New York State announced plans to
finance a demonstration project which would require 500 million clam seed.
It is my feeling that if shellfish hatcheries and nurseries are
not given some of the same advantages as other agricultural endeavors,
and if they are not perceived as having priority over other shore uses
due to their water dependency, that they may not exist at all on the North
Fork.
I hope to be discussing this matter with you further.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Dietz
A WORLD ECONOMIC SERVICE THAT ANTICIPATES PRICE TRENDS AND BUSINESS MOVEMENTS
February 13, 1984
The Planning Board
Town Hall
Town of Southold
Southold, NY 11971
Gentlemen:
The preliminary land use plan for the Town of Southold
calls for a change in use of two properties that I own, the
land on the west side of Down's Creek and a parcel on the
north side of the Cutchogue Post office.
You are proposing to change the Down's Creek property
from residential to recreation. I do not believe this would
be in the best interests of the town at the present or in
the future. The waterfront portion of the property abuts on
marshland. With the acknowledged interests of preserving
marshlands, it would seem inappropriate to open up this prop-
erty for general recreational purposes which could have a
devastating effect on the ecology. Much of the balance of
the land is heavily wooded with no beach or waterfront and
would be of marginal interest for recreational purposes.
Please note the following passage from the memorandum
of December 15, 1983, from Raymond Parish, Pine & Weiner.
"The major emphases of the park and recre-
ation element are to assure access to
arrange passive and active recreation
areas or facilities for persons in all
areas of the town and to expand access to
the water."
Such activities would seem to be completely incompatible
with the objective of preserving the sensitive ecology
of this particular piece of property.
The woods and water view sections in the area of Down's
Creek, however, make it ideally suitable for high quality
summer and year-round homes. This raises the value of the
property well above the average per acre on the North Fork.
I believe the cost to the town of acquiring the property
would be prohibitive particularly in light of the limited
recreational use.
On the other hand, the site is highly suitable for res-
idential development. The water views in the southerly
The Planning Board
Town of Southold
February 13, 1984
Page two
portion of the property will command a premium price. The
land is high enough so that homes can be set back sufficiently
so as not to interfere with the marshlands. The heavily wooded
sections to the north provide a natural link to the Fairway
Farms housing complex surrounding the North Fork Country Club.
Here again the highlands, the mature stance of trees and the
golf club vistas will contribute to a much higher than average
value per acre.
I'm aware that the Down's property is the site of a
former Indian settlement. Our family has controlled this
land for over twenty years. We have not, in that time, taken
one shovelful of dirt out of the settlement area. I would
expect that when it is time to subdivide the property appro-
priate portions of it could be set aside to assure that the
Indian site was not disturbed.
The second property that I have referred to, behind the
post office, is scheduled to be changed from business to
hamlet density residential. I must say that I have a hard
time understanding the reasons for this change. The prop-
erty is immediately adjacent to the Cutchogue Post Office.
It is situated in very close proximity to the hamlet of
Cutchogue. According to the last Southold plan for devel-
opment and I quote from page two.
,Neighborhood business is clustered around
existing centers of population in an
attempt to avoid ribbon development.'''
The classification of my property for business development
was completely consistent with this recommendation.
It has the added benefit of diverting traffic off
of Route 25. This will relieve future congestion. It
also helps prevent our section of Long Island from be-
coming an extension of Jericho Turnpike. On the north
side of the property is a garage and a trailer park. It
is bounded on the west by land zoned for multiple residents.
It is an ideal site in all aspects for business development.
The December 15, 1983 Raymond Parish study, under the
section "Hamlet Commercial" concludes,
The Planning Board
Town of Southold
February 13, 1984
"Retail commercial uses and commercial
services are,in general, recommended
only in hamlet centers. Expansion
of "strip" retail commercial uses
along the town's major corridors,
State Route 25 in County Route 48,
will be discouraged since this type
of development can weaken existing
commercial centers which have capac-
ity for limited expansion, result in
increased traffic congestion, and
conflict and undermine the visual and
esthetic appeal of the town."
I could not have said it better and I trust that you
will not change the planned use category of the aforesaid
property.
Very truly yours,
WJB:rs
EDUCAT]ONAL CEhq~R LTD
TEST PREPARATION SPECIALISTS
EST. 1938
Manhattan
535 Madison Avenue, New York 10022 - (212) 832-1400
Brooklyn
1675 East 16th Street, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11229 - (212) 336-5300
Long llland
Roosevelt Field Shopping Ctr., Garden City, N.Y. 11530 - (516) 248-1134
Westchester
10 Mitchell Place, White Plains, N.Y. 10601 - (914) 948-7801
$outhold Town Planning Board
Southold, New York
February 3, 1984
Dear Sirs,
I have recently been sent an article and map from
the Suffold Times that discusses the proposed zoning
changes in the Town of Southold. The article was
unclear as to the possible effects of these changes
and I am writing to you to seek clarification.
I own a home in the Pipes Cove area. It would
appear from the map that the beach which the Cove
Circle Association presently owns, as well as part
of the surrounding residential land, is to be zoned
as wetlands. How would this affect our present
use and ownership of the beach and surrounding area?
Who would control the use of the beach and the
adjacent water, the Town or New York State? If
there is to be a change, will the homeowners who are
affected be notified individually?
I would appreciate an answer to my questions, as
well as a calendar of future hearings to be held on
this matter.
Yours truly,
Joan Riegel
360 Longacre Avenue
Woodmere, New York 11598
RECEIVED
FEB lgB4
Te~m C~ South~ld
Po O. Box A-F
Greenport, N.Y. 11944
February 18, 1984
Town Planning Board
Town of Southold
Town Hall
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Gentlemen:
This is a SI,mm,fy of r~.srks which I made at the public review of the
draft of the ne~ Town Master Plan held at the Senior Citizen Center in Peconic
last month, relative to the need for more realistic provision for low-income
housing in the M~ter Plan, with some amplification on house conversions.
The Town of Southold, like many other Towns, has swept the problem of
low-income housing under the carpet for many years. The draft of the he, Master
Plan is comendable in recognizing at last that there As a need for such housing,
but, as we explain below, it fails to address the need effectively.
Since the time that two-acre zoning was debated before the Town Board
last year, an article in the Suffolk Times on the scarcity of low-paid labor
in Southold demonstrated that farms, ~sh-processing plants, restaurants, and
other operations that pay minimumwages or not much above minimum wages, are
having great difficulty in obtaining an adequate and reliable body of workers.
No doubt the same problem affects hospitals, nursing homes, stores, garages,
and other employers. One of the obvious causes of this problem is that the rents
for apartments on the North Fork have risen drastically in the last five years
so that a family depending on one wage-earner paid at minim~ wage level cannot
afford to rent an apartment. Gentrification in Greenpert, and probably elsewhere,
has been converting houses that used to be available to low-income families to
summer homes of more affluent citizens, and this, of course, by reducing the
supply of rental housing drives up the demand and rents for what rental housing
remeins. This process can be expected to continue and it Mill drive many Iow-
paid workers away from the North Fork or into illegal, overcrowded housing.
The Village of Greenport has made some compensation for its loss of
low-income housing by planning a sixteen-unit project which is now under negotia-
tion with the funding authority, and it has set aside a plot of land in its own
new master plan draft (the waterfront revitalization plan) ~or additional low-
income housing, but even these steps will not satisfy the Village's own need for
such housing. Approximately seventy valid applicants for the sixteen planned
units came forth whem the plans were announced. While the Vtllage also has hopes
for some expansion of its fish-processing industry, which would reqtuire more low-
income workers, its officials feel, rightly, that there is a practical 11mtt as
to how much of its residential property can be devoted to iow-income housing, and
this is especially true in vie~ of the failure of the Town government to accept
its responsibility to provide a reasonable share of the iow-income housing needed.
The points made above tell us that we face a crippling of plans to
develop fish-processing and other industry on the North Fork as well as a deteri-
oration in the supply and quality of ,~-uy services residents require to sustain
their lives ,r~less an energetic effort is made to provide a substantial amount
of housing that low-paid workers can afford to rent.
To: Town Planning Board, Town of Southold
February 18, 1984
Page 2
There are social and h,,,,nitarian aspects to housing which need to be
considered as well as the economic ones. It is well known that the youth of the
North Fork are aware that there is not enough housing available to them to ,llow
them to rent an apartment when they get m-~rledo This inevitably generates an
impression for them ~.b,t the Town fathers have no ~=pathy for youth, and this
helps spur them to abandon the North ~rk as soon as they are able to seek employ-
ment elsewhere. NaturAlly, the best of the North Fork's youth is most easily lost
in this process, and the result is a weakening of the vitality of all enterprise
on the North Fork.
Senior citizens who reach the point of no longer being able financially
or physically to maintain a one-f-m~ly home are also hurt by the lack of ample
rental housing available at reasonable rents. They end up neglecting m-~ntenance
of their homes, skimping on food and medical attention, and ultimately may be
forced to move away from the North Fork or seek welfare aid when their incomes no
longer cover their needs.
F-m~lies and indiv/duals on public assistance because of perso_--1 calam-
ities or inadequacies must be given housing on the North Fork as elsewhere, and
the scarcity of rental housing forces the payment of exorbitant rents which, in
the end, come out of ,ll taxpayers~ pockets.
It is psychologically and socisl~y unbesttby for any Town to ,1low its
youth and its senior citizens to be driven aMayo It is also well known that where
there is a shortage of legal housing for essential workers in a mixed community
illegal housing will mushroom. This causes overcrowding end social ills, such as
crime, violence, incest, etc. It also encourages corruption of public officials
who fail to root out the illegal housing, and this breeds cynicism among the
eleotorate.
The draft for the new Master Plan for the Town of Soutbeld proposes
plots for low-income housing in the b,ml ets and sets a max~,,m density of six
units per acre. Unless speci~c plots are set aside in the Master Plan, the
ongoing develo~ent of the b-inlets may soon eliminate likely plots sc ~t the
cost of condem~-g sites for projects in the future ~ould be excessive end pro-
bably entail considerable litigation. Sites should be designated DOw in locations
that are within reasonable distance of shopping, since low-income citizens are
not likely to own cars.
The density of six units per acre is unrealistic, and, indeed, is even
lower than the density of eight units per acre which other Towns established
years age. Eight ,~ts per acre would allow eight single-f~m~ly houses with fifty-
foot lots, which is the present density of existing housing in parts of the ham-
lets. However, the present cost of constructing a single-f-rally house is rea/ly
prohibitive for a Iow-income home, end, indeed, even if such a house were given
free to some low-income r~sidents, they could not afford its heat, utilities,
upkeep, insurance, taxes, etc. Also, a single-f-rally house is not what senior
citizens need~.
The only economically practical solution for low-income housing today
is apa~-~ents, because they require less land per ,,~t, ha~e less surface per
unit for loss of heat to the exterior, end afford a number of eco~.,,~es in con-
struction compared with single-f--~ly houses. There are apar~eut complexes now
in the Town of Southold that demonstrate that apartments need not be ar~hitectur-
2
To: To~n Planning Board, Town of Southold
February 18, 1984
Page 3
ally objectionable. It wottld also be well worth the while of the members of
your board to visit the To~m of Huntington to examine the apartments built there
fow low- and moderate-income families, including the facilities for the care of
children of working parents and the services and controls set up to maintain an
acceptable level of living standards. One feature there especially ~orth investi-
gating is the use of low down paymant cooperative o~nership of apartments, which
contributes to better care of the premises by the tenants.
Naturally, apartments can and should be built at a much higher densit~y
than s~x units per acre. For that reason, the new Master Plan should not fix a
maximum for the density of low-income housing, but leave it open ~or negatiation
when actual proposals are being worked on.
It is also possible to increase the a~ount of low- and moderate-income
housing by permitting conversion of large one-family houses into t~o-f,~ly or
even a~rtment occupency. This ~ould require a Town zoning ordinance and possibly
additional ordinances if the idea is to be properly worked out. The alteration
of large one-f-m~ly houses for multiple occupancy may require fire~Rlls, fire
escapes, etc. for safety. It would be best to require the registration of all
such conversions, with stiff penalties for 2ailure to obey, and to have the con-
~ersions inspected for health and safety at, the time of reg~tio~: and at
least annually thenafter. A fee paid by the owner of such a property would pay
the cost of inspection. Houses already converted illegally could be legalized if
health and safety requirements are met. Houses with multiple occupancy that pre-
exists zoning should also be required to comply with the new standards, with due
allowance for specific situations.
A side aspect to the point made directly above is the need to crack
do~n on illegal occupancy that has developed in summer rentals, often causing
deterioration in the tranquility and safety of year around residents. Firm and
reasonable standards should be set for sum~er rentals to a~_low a s,,mmer influx
without sacrificing the rights of regular tsxpaying residents.
Your board should reco~nf ze that, if it does not address the needs for
low- and moderate-income rental housing as recomended above, and as recommended
we are sure by your p]~n~ing consultants, ~he North Fork will, like various other
communities, be turning its back on its historical acco~maodation of a m~ of
economic activities that requires the employment and housing of a substantial
body of low-paid workers. This is usually the result of the snobbishness and
racial prejudices of newcomers to an area who desire an enclave of middle- and
upper-class residences and illogically assume that the low-paid workers who ren-
der the services they desire will somehow be whisked away somewhere else at
5:00 P.M. every day. Eventually, if local government accepts this philosophy, the
social disruption is liable to lead to lawsuits against it or the intervention of
higher authority, causing tragic splits in the community. It would be far easier
to a~tend to the North Fork's housing needs today than to insert provisions in
the M~ter Plan which actually negate the chances of doing so, and have' nasty
confrontations in the future.
We enclose a copy of a letter from the Hon. Joseph Sawicki that promises
support for progressive housing action~ and we believe that the sort of Federal
program being tapped by the Village of Greenport is a possibility to be loo~d
into.
Incl: Ltr
THE ASSEMBLY
StAtE OF NEW YORK
ALBANY
February 6, 1984
Mr. Frederick S. Lightfoot
P.O. Box A-F
Greenport, New York 11944
Dear Mr. Lightfoot:
Thank you for your recent cbmments concerning the housing
situation on the East End.
I certainly agree that it's becoming more and more difficult
for middle and lower income families, especially young marrieds
to find affordable housing.
Communities must encourage the creation of attractive
affordable housing and I will support state programs to assist
in this area. I don't believe that this position is in any
way inconsistant with my opposition to the Governor's plan for
welfare housing increases.
It is the hard working members of the middle class who can
bearly afford their own housing who are being made to pay increased
housing allowences for those who are on welfare. Welfare costs
are getting out of hand, and will continue to go up, under the
present administration in Albany.
I appreciate your concern for the plight of the working
people in our community.
mbcerel~'
e~, Jr.
er of the Assembly
JS:pr
Planning Board
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, N. Y. 11971
.,, TOWN OF SOU/HOLD
February 19, 1984
Re: Preliminary Master Plan
Gentlemen:
At the public hearing on the Master Plan held February 2 in Peconic, I
mentioned that I would prefer to write my comments rather than to present
them at that meeting. And having said that, I do feel an obligation to follow
through. But I should make it clear from the outset that I do not take this
whole process seriously. It is a political process and the result ~ill be a
political document. I hold out no hope whatever that I can influence directly
any of the political decisions. So rather than to focus my attention on the
details of the Plan, I am going to focus it on the process. Perhaps in this way
I can have a positive influence on the outcome.
Without any question, we are the most adaptive creatures on earth, and
yet we have allowed ourselves to become its most endangered species. For we
are poised at the brink of a nuclear holocaust that threatens to destroy the
very civilization that our nuclear weapons are intended to preserve. What is
it in the nature of man that allows such a possibility?
The most fundamental drive of all intelligent creatures is to attain the
perception that they are competent to meet their own needs. Most of the
animals with which we are familiar live in relative isolation and so have
developed little dependence on others. But an animal that has been raised in
captivity has learned to depend on others and thus may be incapable of
surviving alone in the wild. He has become a social animal just as we have.
But man is unique in having become al~nost totally dependent on others to
meet his own needs. In part this is biological, for he is born at an earlier
stage of fetal development and faces a much longer childhood. In part it is
technological, for he needs to acquire so much more knowledge from others in
order to adapt to his environment. And, certainly, it is economic, for he must
depend on others to supply the skills and the goods that he lacks. So it should
come as no surprise that man exhibits an overwhelming desire to gain control
over others as a means of attaining this perception that he is competent to
meet his own needs.
Government is simply the means by which one group gains control over
another. So each of us will view his government either as extending his power
to control others or as extending the power of others to control him, depending
on his success in the political process. For example, we see our government
as the means by which we can control the Russians, and we see their
government as threatening to control us. That our stockpiles of nuclear
weapons ultimately will destroy both societies is simply overlooked because we
have become so preoccupied with the perception of being in control.
-1 -
As we demand more and more control over others through our government,
we will be forced to adapt to lives of ever-increasing complexity ourselves.
Consequently, there will be a growing number in our society who find it very
difficult if not impossible to adapt and who will lose ttmt precious perception
of being able to meet their own needs. Many of these economically displaced
persons will look to ~h2t same government to restore their perception of
competence by creating a new program to assist them, say subsidized housing.
The t~.xes required to support that new program will increase the burden on
those who had adapted previously thereby adding still another group to those
who require a subsidy to live in our society. Ultimately, we will have created
a society of such order and complexity ttmt communism will remain as the only
viable solution. In my observation, we have become so preoccupied with using
our local government to gain control over our neighbors ttmt we have
overlooked the fact that we are destroying our society in the process.
For example, when zoning was adopted in 1957 the approved lot size was
10,000 square feet or one-quarter of an acre. Apparently tl~t size was chosen
to provide for the practical layout of the house on the lot based on the then
Suffolk County Health Department standard for the spacing between a well and
any cesspools. As we became more concerned about polluting the water supply,
that standard was increased and the lot size was increased to 20,000 square
feet or one-half acre, then to 40,000 square feet or one acre and recently to
80,000 square feet or two acres. In the meantime we adopted an official policy
of deliberately doing nothing about providing for public water or public sewers
on the basis that to do nothing would effectively limit the overall development
of the Town. We. had already become so preoccupied with controlling our
neighbors that we were willing to overlook the only rational solution to our
real problem.
The effect of this planning was to encourage the wholesale development of
the very open space that we intended to protect. For such large house lots
required the development of inexpensive land far from the hamlet centers in
order for the price to be competitive with ttmt of the smaller lots that
remained unsold in the older developments. And this repeated upzoning
together with the continual threat of further upzoning greatly accelerated such
development within the Town, far beyond any rate that could be justified
economically. And yet, in spite of such an abundance of house lots, this plan
to restrict the supply and thus to increase the price of house lots has placed
home ownership well beyond the means of most of the young people who are
growing up in the Town and, also, of many of the elderly who wish to remain
here. So now we find ourselves having to accept subsidized housing as a means
of maintaining our perception of being in control.
One official policy we adopted was to encourage tourism and seasonal
occupancy within the Town. The argument put forth at the time was that
part-time residents would lower our tax rate since they would not add to our
school-age population. On the other hand, we adopted a wetlands preservation
plan designed to halt all development along the coastline and thus deny access
to the very asset that attracted these seasonal residents. It is one of the
miracles of the political process that both the local business community and the
so-called environmentalists could be satisfied simultaneously but each had the
perception of being in control of the other.
-2 -
Another official policy we adopted was to preserve farming as a major
economic base for the Town. Every government seems determined to gain control
over the farmers for one reason or another and yet I know of no government
that h~s ever had any success. Farming is just too dependent on the weather
and on the markets to be controlled by any government, however well-meaning.
And so, in spite of this official policy, farming as we knew it then has
virtually disappeared in just one generation. We now have more truck
gardening and some new vineyards and nurseries, but much of the farmland is
already in. the hands of speculators awaiting development. It is interesting to
note that the prime argument used to promote the adoption of this official
policy was that maintaining the land in farming would protect our water supply
from pollution. And yet, just the opposite has occurred, for the pesticides and
fertilizer essential to modern farming have polluted our water supply to an
alarming extent already. Now we are being presented with a new Master Plan
that seeks to sustain our perception of being in control by simply ignoring
these very facts.
Perhaps you have observed, as I have, that the public has a great fear of
any Master Plan that attempts to zone for the future needs of the Town.
Clearly, they want to use the government as a. means of maintaining direct
control over their neighbors. And if each new business activity requires a
zoning application, it enhances their perception of being in control. It is for
this reason that I refuse take this Master Plan seriously. Nor do I believe
that any of the public who demanded that it be undertaken ever intended it to
be anything more than a crudely disguised attempt to gain more control over
their neighbors. For they now openly oppose every aspect of the Plan that
attempts to anticipate future needs, whether it is a site for a new airport or a
new business area in their hamlet.
This new Master Plan does address the need to encourage higher density
contiguous development in and around the existing hamlets in order to protect
the farmland and open space areas. In that respect, it represents an entirely
new and, I must say, refreshing approach to the orderly development of the
Town. Had we had such a plan twenty years ago, much of our open land would
still be preserved. Or perhaps we have finally recognized that public water
and public sewers are going to be necessary eventually and that such high
density development is essential to make t~em economically feasible.
On the other hand, this new Master Plan totally ignores the need to secure
a source of water to supply not only such new development but, more
importantly, the existing areas of higher density and coastal area development.
It proposes instead the sale and purchase of development rights as a means of
compensating the farmers for the loss of development rights sustained as a
consequence of the rezoning. Certainly we must have learned by now that
farmland cannot be depended on as a source of potable water in the future.
Nor is there any logical reason why the cost of preserving this open space or
that source of water, whichever way one chooses to perceive it, should be
borne entirely by the owners of the undeveloped land for the sole benefit of
the owners of the developed land. Are we still living in that dream world in
which open space and potable water are synonymous? Or are we now ready to
accept the reality that we must acquire not just the development rights but the
controlling ownership of any land we will need for a source of potable water
-3 -
and the reality that it must be acquired quickly before the water suffers any
more pollution from pesticides and fertilizer. 'Viewed from this perspective,
the proposed Master Plan is nothing more than a politically inspired plan to
redistribute the wealth. How can we take it seriously when it completely
ignores the whole problem of the pollution of our water supply by farming, the
very crisis it was supposed to address? Here again we have become so
preoccupied with using the government to control our neighbors that we have
completely overlooked our real problems. Is it any wonder that we have
become the most endangered species on earth?
There was a time when our experts predicted that we would run out of
water so let's examine that possibility. Based on an average annual rainfall of
about 40 inches, each acre receives over a million gallons of water per year.
If only half of that were pumped, it would supply $0 gallons per day to each
of 30 residents of the Town. On that basis one square mile or 640 acres would
supply enough water for 20,000 year-around residents. Clearly there is an
adequate supply of water to support any practical level of residential
development. If we were to purchase the land necessary at a price of $$,000
per acre, the cost would be 3.2 million dollars or $160 per resident to
guarantee a supply of potable water in perpetuity. So neither the adequacy of
the supply nor the cost of the land is the problem. The real problem is to
secure and maintain a pure source. If we werentt so preoccupied with
controlling our neighbors and redistributing their wealth, this Master Plan
might have offered a solution to our problem.
Our consultants, Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc., are true
professionals so I am confident they have produced just the political document
we asked for. The fact that it doesntt address our real needs suggests that
we didn't ask them the right questions. I feel certain they can provide us with
a plan that does address our needs if we can find the courage to ask them.
S2fl~erely. ~
William W. Schriever
Box 128
Orient, N. Y. 11957
-4-
MAT ]~ O
LETTUNIOH
1984
The Town Supervisor,
Southold Town, :i
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Mr Murphy, '. ':: .
I write as :a'"concerned property owner in Souihold
the January'issues of The Suffolk Times and come across the
pla~ now, I assume, being considered, but not.yet 'in final
One quickly looks to see how bne's own property
Bay~Home Road, on the water (known formerly as the Collison"house
my water-side neighbor across~he.~zoad
the
in view of the fact that so.m.a~y half.acre.!ots.~ere sold
'those' fields wer~ made into~a subdivision'about t
But on Mrs ,Lang's.side, the designation is alarming:~esorW~C~o~erci~
And this also includes the land to,the West of the Lang propel
as far as I know, belongs to Grace Nichols Lewis;..A~, Mrs Lewis
son are realtors I can imagine that they would be in ?~av0~ ~
nation, but it is alarming to someone who has lived
residential area, along a .quiet beach
water
I write, therefore, to express my Sincere
not become final, and to voice my objecti(
larger, is now residentially used, and th~
but has it already been transferred to
I would hope that no such change could take place
surely be a wide majority view of property owners in the are
maintain residences there and had never thought .t
motel or hotel complex might be considered.
I will appreciate hearing' fro~ yo~/and am
165 EAST 72~ STREET, NEW YORE
87 Inlet Drive
Mattituck, N. Y. 11952
February 23, 1984
Mr. Frank i~urphy
Southold Town ~upervisor
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, N. Y. 11971
Dear Mr. Murphy:
We wish to go on record as opposing the preliminary Master Plan
as it relates to the following issues on the Long Island Sound
side of M attituck:
No, to residential development of the Cooper farmlands.
No, to intensive marine commercial activities.
No, to increasing housing densities per acre.
For details to supoort the above answ, rs, please refer to the
piece entitled "Alert--Your Future Is At Stake" mailed by Cleo
Tsounis, President of the Captain Kidd Civic Association to each
resident.
I Catherine Napier, am a representative f~$m the Suffolk County
Girl Scout Council to the Coalition For The Proteciion of Long
Island ~round Water, and while I am not speaking officially for
the Girl Scouts at this time, I cannot emphasize too strongly how
devastating I believe the implementation of these proposals could
be to Long Island's most precious resource--Water.
Catherine Napier
RECEIVED
FEB P. 4 1984
Town Clerk Southold
LTD
FEBRUARY 22ND, 1984
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SOUTHOLD TOWN,
MAIN ROAD
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
GENTLEMEN,
FOR TWENTY FIVE YEARS I HAVE ENJOYED SPENDING AS MUCH
TIME AS POSSIBLE IN SOUTHOLD AT MY HOUSE ON BAY HOME
ROAD. I WAS DISMAYED AND ANGERED TO LEARN THAT THE
MASTER PLAN AS COMMISSIONED BY THE TOWN FROM RAYMOND,
PARISH, PINE AND WEINER, INCLUDES A PARCEL OF RESORT
COMMERCIAL [.AND ADJOINING BAY HOME ROAD, ON THE WATER.
THIS PROPERTY IS, I BELIEVE, OWNED BY MRS. ROBERT LANG
AND MRS. GRACE LEWIS. THE FORMER, I KNOW, WAS UNPLEASANTLY
SURPRISED TO HEAR OF THIS PROPOSAL. MRS LEWIS IS, OF
COURSE, IN REAL ESTATE AND HER APPROACH IS BOUND TO BE
DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A NON-COMMERCIAL RESIDENT OF THE
AREA.
IS THIS RE-CLASSIFICATION CONTEMPLATED SERIOUSLY BY THE
BOARD? OR HAS IT ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED?
I WANT TO REGISTER MY STRENUOUS OBJECTIVE TO THIS CHANGE
CONCERNING LAND HITHERTO IN THE MIDDLE OF A QUIET RESI-
DENTIAL AREA WHICH WE ALL VALUE FOR THAT VERY QUALITY.
SOUTHOLD IS STILL A PEACFUL HAVEN ON LONG ISLAND, AND
ALREADY A PROSPEROUS ONE. SURELY THERE IS A DUTY ON ALL
OUR PARTS, TO FUTURE GENERATIONS AS WELL AS TO OURSELVES,
THAT IT NOT BE TRANSFORMED INTO A COMMERCIAL MOTEL-RESORT
AREA SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT WOULD BRING INCREASED PROFITS
TO A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE NOT PRIMARILY CONCERNED FOR
THE VILLAGE, BUT FOR THEMSELVES.
SINCERELY,
KARL SPRINGER
RECEIVED
&lO~.Youngs ~venue
Southold, New York
February 25, 1984
Southold Town Board
Town Hall
MainRoad
Somtheld, New York
Gentlemen:
Ye would like to express our opinimm.~ing certain aspects
of th~ proposed Master Plan for ~outhold T~Wm.
We feel that the Land. Bank plan as discussed puts an unfair
burden on farm owners; not only does it restrAc~ severely the use
of the land, it lowers its value, creating ~ situation whereby the
land could have a much lower value than similar land on the opposite
~'~ide of the_street. While we agree with the concept of preservation
~ open space wherever possible, we do not feel that it should be at
the expemse of the farm owner.
Ne ~lieve that the two-acre zoning ordinance is excessive,
restrictive and discriminating, making it difficult for those
people (young or old) who can not afford the purchase and upkeep
of a dwellinM on two acres. We would like to see this withdrawn.
In contrast to the sometimes hysterical sounding reactions to
the proposed a~rport, we would be in favor of a small, limit*d-use
facility on the North Fork. With.~rivate air travel likel~ to~
increase in the future, it seems.regressive tb close the dOO~ on'~
this opportunity, if an appropriate site can be arranged.
Sincerely,
Parker E. Dickerson
Betsey B. Dickerson
RECEIVED
FEB 4 lg84
Town Clerk Southold
February 23, 1984
Gentlemen:
I would like to acknowledge the tremendous effort put forth by the
Town Board, Town Planning Commission, Consulting Firm and others in
preparing an updated Master Plan for Southold Town.
My oersonal picture of Southold Town is a peninsula including several
outlying islands. The Town is about twenty-five miles long, east to
west, and from one quarter of a mile to four miles wide, plus or minus.
In traveling north, south or east, you come upon Peconic Bay, Long
Island Sound, Plum Gut and the Atlantic Ocean. To travel any distance
north, south or east requires the use of a boat, a plane or a swim.
Access is very limited. To travel west is to arrive at high density,
congested, suburban areas. Mobility in Southold Town is very restricted.
The above reason coupled with the present scarcity of drinking water and
sewage disposal availability does not lend itself to suburban development.
The best land use for Southold Town is to remain agricultural-rural.
The shoreline and creeks are already ina Deteriorated condition caused by
overUtilization. Many water areas are contaminated with a proven
deterioration of fish and shellfish life. There is a serious erosion
problem caused by abuse of the use of the land.
In short, I think the Master Plan should be revised to support Southold
Town for agricultural and rural development. Studies should be made by
Federal, State, County, Town and local groups to promote agricultural
expansion. A maximum of 1% residential growth per year in Southold Town
should be adequate.
People who prefer higher density development can settle almost anywhere
west for three thousand miles.
I would like to see Southold Town become a well planned agricultural-
rural community. Let us not abuse further what we inherited, but preserve
it for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
Sincerely yours,
/ Martin W. KruSe
P.O. Box 1054
Mattituck- NY 11952
ANDRE'~/V E. GOODALE
February 27, 1984
Mr. Francis Murphy, Chairman;
Board of Supervisors
Southold Town Hall,
Southold, New York 11971
Master Plan, Informational
Dear Sir:
At the invi'tation of the Board and League of Women Voters to meet for
discussion with the public on the propose~-adoption of the Mastez~'Plan,- I
attended the February 23, 1984 meeting at Cutchogue.
We generally now have four basic zones for property use in Southold
Town. Admittedly, the pressures by increased population and economic growth
present a problem in complexities to future available water, sewerage and
waste disposal problems, all of which are unmanageable.
Since police powers are delegated t~ the.community to regulate health,
safety~..and welfare, in my. opiniom-the ~Town Supervisors should strictl~=onv
stz~e~n=t only the existing, but also-any proposed statute. Why attempt
further expansion and demarcations in zoning to accommodate h~m!et density,
shopping centers and development rights, for example, when snfficient lend
use is present within the existing peramenters? Our big need is to supply
potable water and effective disposal of waste by intelligent planning.
TherefOre, ~.-a~voc~t~._wc~king-withinour present z~ning~l&s~lfi~one~
To consider any new Master Plan appears to invite "administrative'gri41ook".
Fremwhat I can understand about farm preservation, open space and whatever,
it recalls the story of the Indians who owned the land,the the stranger who
had the "beads". It was not long before the Indian had the "beads" and the
stranger the "land? Whether the pr6posed Master Plan with all of its ram-
ifications will work in Southold Town is debateable. Bureacracy has a tend-'
enoy to expand in inverse proportion to need. The common man or wo~anwill
be called upon to pick up the increased cost. Rather than confront the
administrative maze, the better choice may be to quietly move away.
Sincerely yours,
Andrew E. Goodale
MI. "'
ISLAND VINEYARDS
P.O. Box 552
Laurel, New York 11848
FEB 29 1984
(516) 298-5335
FebruAry 28, 1984
Southold Town Planning Board
Soutbold Town Hall
Main Road, Route 25
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Board Members,
Although I was unable to attend the town meeting concerning
the proposed Master Plan, I would like to express the views of
Island Vineyards in regard to several items.
First, we applaud the decision to retain a farmland preser-
vation program, and feel that your method of sale of development
rights to hamlet developers is a well advised proposal. Everyone
agrees that agriculture is a must if we are to retain our rural
character. The proposed TDR system, we feel, would be the best
way to accomplish this objective.
Island Vineyards currently owns producing vineyards in the
town of Cutohogue, with eventual plans for a winery facility.
In the very near future, we will be hi,lng employees to fill a
variety of positions. We feel there is a lack of adequate low-
income housing to deal with the influx of new employees which
will be the mainstay of the agricultural industries on the north
Fork. There are currently several wineries in operation in the
Town, and already over 30 vineyards on the North Fork. If this
growth continues, and there is no reason to think otherwise, the
amount of housing available to newcomers to our area in a low to
medium income group is seriously lacking. Our industry will be
a shot in the arm to the Job market situation in Southold Town.
Let's make sure adequate provisions are made to allow these people
to live comfortably and successfully in our area.
Another concern to many of the vineyard owners with winery
plans, is the need for additional accomodations for patrons of
the wineries. I can recall several instances when summer visitors
had a difficult time finding a simple overnight accomodations in
the town. During peak summer months, many motels require a weekend
stay of two nights, or are already booked far in advance.
l~ow that we have a deepwater port in Greenport, as well as
additional ferry service from Connecticut, the problem of motel
and restaurant space will be compounded. We would like to propose
the inclusion of bed&breakfast type accomodations within or adjacent
to our proposed winery buildings as a possible alternative to the
overbooked motels and restaurants. We are not talking about a large
hotel, but Just a few rooms with possible limited kitchen facilities
ISLAND VINEYARDS
P.O. Box 552
Laurel, New York 11948
(516) 298-5335
to ensure that those patrons of ours who may arrive late or have
difficulty finding rooms at the last minute can be~made welcome.
To keep the number of units within reason, perhaps using acreage
of vineyard as a basis for the number of units allowed would be
a successful method.
It is our feeling that the wine industry will be a big stim-
ulus to the economy of the Town, and we want to be certain that
our patrons are allowed adequate aocomodatlons to assure they will
return to the area again to further boost the economy. A provision
for a limited aoccmcdation such as this has been highly successful
in the Napa Valley in California, which has very similar geographic
restrictions as the North Fork. In the Napa Valley, very few of
the bed&breakfast type places have more than 12 units, and they
have successfully taken up the overflow which motels could not
handle. If the number of units is kept small enough, this system
would not compete heavily with existing motels and restaurants,
but it would allow optimum availability of aocomodations both
during the peak of the s~mmer season when many area motels and
restaurants are full, and also allow facilities for our patrons
in winter months when few motels and restaurants are open.
Again, we fully support the efforts of the Town in their
attempts to conceive a Master Plan. This highly responsible
action will serve everyone involved in both residential and the
commercial aspects of Southold Town living. It is our hope that
the Board will view our industry as a vital part of the future of
the Town economy and farmland preservation effort, and will provide
for our needs in its considerations.
Daniel Kleck
Managing Director