HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-96.-2-10.1 & 10.2 - O)e(n
0
Cktl)
Nk PAC
t Az SURVEY OF PROPERTY
AT CUTCHOGUE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y.
1000-96-02-10
SCALE.- V=100'
JANUARY 10, 2007
JAN. ::6,2007(CEPTIFICA TON)
X
z
GES THAT-FHE 0l
loo SOT tEr
D
'0'
jTlON
,,aSETFORTH IPZTA RESOL"
FALLOW REL? ACCEPTED(SEE CONDITI
ME
E PRINT NMA-
A'A
14, )C,/2
DATE
-
A
0 SIGN taulE
APP ED BY 'G
0 Ts OF S DTIJOLD PLANNIN BOARD
CHAIRPN MN D
ATF
be valid for.
a Period efcigb—(
* 18)
NOTE:,fhe approved site development plans 100-255
months from the date of approval as per code semi
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS EASEMENT
AREA-25-6936 ACRES
IFMa4 ftON
Ku
FALLOW
jl
/r
µ
o._o w.w.w...�.....wwwww....... �.� � ,�,.. w .. ,www w���w ��� .. w.�w..wwww. .,.ww.... � �w. �ww,w� � ,w
� waa.aaw ww,wwwwwa,w,ww ...
� .w..ww ��w �ww
w..aawww --111--l"11,12.aaaaww� w.. w� �ww�w��w��ww ... �www waaw
w wRRa.wwwww....wwwaa,.wuwwwww �w .wwww��w.�wawawww,.wµawawwwwww..�..wwwwwwwwa,aa�� .wwaawwwww...ww.w.w� wwwwwwwwwww.w��wwwwwwwww«.�w�w�a� .wwwww" ..a ..wwww w.w...����.www�......wo ..ww�.......w,
„w,,w www ww.w.wwwwwwwww
•�qqgg d� �''pIXk pp ...ww�nnwnwwww ...wa wow www�wwwwwww.uwwww iw xxxxxu wwww.www++.wrw ...w.u.000 w.�wwxwurwuuuowwwww.wiiuewrv»»mwwww+"'w*'*w.mw 000wo
eooww..maww oo�oowaw �w�wwwv'+own ��Ma�.wwwwww�iw. uuuuo� wwaa0000a... ooww ww.wa..w rz
ww nnwwnw�.wwwoowuwoowwww nw,rwNp..wu wwwww..wuwwow000nw..m Berme wrww � +� �.owwwwow wooer-.. w owuwww�w ou 4—j.�www.... w ';x`�wwww wew „w o...wwoo�wx 000wo nwwwwwmuuw
��,www�ww.wwww.wwwwwwwww a.wwwwwwaw.w.w..Vltl'+�WwwY4~»~�*M"ww'�000.w www, w �
w mm+«.aw.x.waa��awaaaa www. wx ..wlNmurN ..mw mw aw.m.wwrww a...ormm umonww wwwww...nwn.««+.+w.. aa. ... .away www aaoww www wwrmmaow r
� M
�wllwwwwawaa, w. a� aaaaa a,www� aw��wa.a. awahaw 'wwww ...��,�.;�""�wwwwaa ✓�,w�aawwwwww wwwaaaw.w_w.wwwwwwwww aawwaaa
waaw.wwwwawwwwrawwwww.a�..a.rwtiwaww,ww�»wwwaw. ,www .w as w w.
aaawaaww ww aaawww....wa...aa w ....aa aaawaa waaa.aaa�a,w ......,aaww .a,w
,a,a�.ww. aaaa.� wwaaaaaaa..wa� w w. .w.ww.wwwaaaww.. waaaaaww w ..aa.aw.w ..... w wwwawa,a..„w w aaaa....................................................._a aaw......w w.......... .. wa..a,awawwww wa,aaw...aaa .....awwww.waaww..
www,....wwww ..aww wwwww ..... w... .aa .
wwww.w.w.w.w.ww.. ww.w.w.wwwww.ww w w.....w�w� w w_�w� .�a�ww� www..... away wwww .. aaw w..w....waaww a w.w.www.
ww wwwwaaaawwww .�a.w� �.w ww...aw.waawa..www ...w w_aaaa www.ww..w.........ww.w_ ww.wwww wwww..�a wwww_ ww aaw ._a. .w
w,uw o�w,wwwaaaaa,aw wa.ww .. .. �.wawww w w ..www �a��«ak,a w ., w w a,w�wwww wwwwwawwa.wwaaa aww aaawww.w.w.waaaaaa.aa.w w....waaaaaaww .ww aw. aw..aw w.
. �waw.www,a, aawwwwaq�awo���w w�waw. a.w...w wa wawwwwwwaa a, w aaawwww. .a wwww ww.w .a ww.awaw.aaaaaa� w w�wwa
ww�w...w.w....w �� � ww� wwww.ww. .�w....waw wwwww�w w� �a�aw..ww.�.ww.w....�...a.a..wa wwwwwaaw wwww w aaaaa w waw aw. w ww......_aw ww w .waaaww ...a wwwww a wwww ........aaa
...w�a.... ��a�ww two ..................w www��.w��w w.www�wwww., �w.ww�w�a�ww ww�wwwww..www............a...awwww..w�www ........................................... w�...ww.w�w�_�a�w.w.............w.ww._w�w......................................�....waw�aw. ww�w.......�w. .w �,a...............
w a��w..
awa.w.wwe..... «aww.aaa,.. w.w,w.a.w.,a wwww........ ,...�.aa.aawww.ww aw«rrawwww wwwwwwwwwawaa.aaweow.wwwwwwwwwWw ..aaaa..ra aw.w,ww,w.w w.wawa.awewww as .a.aaa ...a..aaawee.w awww.a.. .wwuwaa,,.� aaa,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.ww,w�,w aw�.,ww�aaaaaaaa,.w aaaaw...,..«ww rwwwwwwww aaaw„wa„ w.a
...i.i o. ........i�i�i�i�i�wwwwwwwoiwww'.
wa.ww¢wwww..���i��i��awwia..i..ow.a�.�.�w..�.�.�.w,�.�,�,�,�,o.�.�������������������.��w�,+kwww�ww.w������������������������i«i.:«win.i.miwww..iwwww.....i.ww..w,oo�.�.�.���������.�.�.�.�www....:«w.w.wwww.,..«....�...:«..w:+wwwwwww�wiw..w.ww.w��wwwww„i�waw.w..wwwwwo�wo��������i�i�ooaniw.���wwwimw.wwwww...w��������������w,..iaa...:....w�.o..�«.oiw�..wun� •�.�.www:w.:,.www�.iw0000,�.�.��������iwiwimawww.o.����������������i�i�i�owwwawwao�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�wwwww.rrrwwiw.w:....o�wo�������00000������
CHARLES R.CUDDY"
ATTORNEY AT LAW
445 GRI FFING AV ENUE
RIVERHEAD,NEW YORK
tl,iirm.:�Eld, a TEL: (631)369-8200
P.O.Box 1547 May 16 2018 FAX: (631)369-9080
Riverhead,NY 11901 y E-mail: ehar]eseuddy@optonline.net
Heather Lanza, Planning Director
L
Planning Department Town of Southold � -`
PO Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
ti EL
RE: 8 Lands Farm-Cox Lane, Cutchogue ...
� 6 z�f si'�k Pinkrdi
Dear Ms. Lanza: ..._ w....,.,.,....a.,._a..,.,M....m ...�._.
I represent 8 Hands Farm which is owned by LIV2MAX LLC. The principal ofthe LLC and the
operator ofthe farm with his family is Torn Geppel. Mr. Geppel has received Town Code
violations (appearance tickets) in connection with his food truck which operates at the farm.
On behalf of Mr. Geppel, I'm submitting the letter dated March 28,2018 sent to Scott Russell,
Town Supervisor from.the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets by Michael Latham,
Director. The Department's letter indicates the reason Tom Geppel is submitting a simplified site
plan for the farm's food truck.
Also submitted is the Agriculture and Markets Department"Guidelines for Review of Local
Zoning and Planning Laws." We call your attention to page 5 which sets forth the simplified site
plan review process for agricultural uses, Pursuant to review process outlined, enclosed is a
sketch showing the physical features of the farm and noting the location of the food trailer
(truck). As indicated, the truck is registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles and has been
inspected by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. In addition to showing the
existing features and buildings, the farm raises lambs, pigs and chickens. The buildings are used
in accordance with the designations set forth.
As recognized by the Department, the food trailer is a permitted agricultural use. The simplified
site plan is in accordance with that prescribed by the Department of Agriculture and Markets and
should be approved.
Very truly yours,
04� �G
Charles R. Cuddy
CRC:ik
cc: Brain Cummings, Town Planner
z
{
E
ANY
NO 5A T F
200 FEET 0.-FIM-ERTIr'
.. g
1 fcL-i
EL
,
•
si �
°
�io', -
, filly'
ifiA
E-A1IUTA.P,1'5Y6"r
3
- F
ffi
r„ 45
VRO`
RR,
` Gh651Ir°:L i'c 4`�
k _ s
r N
URE:
IEA r
�tiD L Y
P,5 AREA
,•-v - __ x a' , - `• ik`i�- Y.F..- �« vI`` i _
WES 0,91
'� t -- -
' / /tip fra' IN --I '# up° '4
�
KELL TO
�K D 6E
Y-
7 � ' ..
50
XF
{
aF
� STE' tD 2
srArlr or
RTUMM
ANDREW M.CUOMO R16HARD A-BALL
Governor Commissioner
March 28, 2018
Hon. Scott Russell, Supervisor
Town of Southold
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Agriculture and Markets Law(AML) §305-a(1) Review Concerning the-Fown of Southold's
Zoning Code and its Ag plication to the Use of a Food Truck to Serve Prepaared Food that
is Prµa domina`mntty Grown on Land Owned and Rented by 8 Hands Farris, Suffolk County
Agricultural District No. 1
Dear Supervisor Russell:
am following up oil the Department's August 22, 2017 letter to You concerning a request from
Tom Geppel, owner of 8 Hands Farm, to review the Town of Southold`s Zonirig.Code, and its
application, for compliance with Agriculture and Markets Law(AML)§305-a.
Mr. Geppel owns and operates 8 hands Farm where he raises pastured livestock, Including
chlckerrs, turkeys, eggs, sheep, lambs and pigs,through rotational gra ins system on 27.5
acmes within Suffolk County Agricultural District No. 1. 8 kands also raises produce thatt is sold
in the farm store and for use in its AML 20-C approved kitchen and the food truck. Based upon
documentation submitted,the Department has determined that 8 Hands Farm is a farm
operation.
Mr. Geppel stated that in 2015, the farm pyrohased a trailer that was retrofitted to serve food
produced predominantly from crops and livestock`grown on the farm to extend the farm
marketing season beyond summer.Thefarm's business model depends upon direct Inarketing
and sales of tarrn products and time food truck would further nlaark t the fan's meats and
produce. Mr. Gepp(--I indicates that the food is prepared and cooked in the Town approved and
NYS licensed kitchen. Some foods are further prepared lrm the food truck. The food is sold to
farmcustorners from the food truck or from the kitchen during inclement weather. Seating is
avellable ln`the kitchen as well as on `several picnic tables located outside of the building,
Town Code Violations
Oil duly 24, 2017,the farm received two appearance tickets from the Town of Southold for
violating the Town's use regulations (Code §2,80-13) and site plan approval (§280-130(F)
requirements.
According to inforrnatirarm m r eiva d, the form, is located within the Town's Agriculturak
Conner ation (A-C,) 2onm rig District. "I'he pernl4ted uses within the zone include agricultural
operations and -,ICCeSSO y Mss, (§280-13(A)(2)i„ the seasonal sale of products grown on the
premises (§28013(A)(2)(aa')) arid barns, greenhouses and other related structures or uses
Hon. Scoff Russell, Supervisor
f Southold 21 P a g e
Town o So
.... . _...-------- _. . . ._ ,_ _, _... .... . ....... . ... . . . ..
[§280-13(A)(2)(c)]. Accessory uses include"[a]ny customary structures or uses which are
customarily incidental to the principal Use..."[§280-13(0)(1)].
The use of a food truck that serves food prepared predominantly from producellivestock raised
on the farm, is part of a farm operation and protected under AIVIL Section 305-a(1). Further, it
appears that the food truck is an accessory use to the parcel's principal use, which is a'farrn
operation" as defined in Town Code §280-,4, The food truck contributes to the preparation,
processing and rnarketing of crops, livestock and livestock products grown on the farm.
The Town's site plan approval process,Article "XIV, Code§280-127, provides that site plan
applies to every land use permitted in the Town except for residential homes. It further states
that any change in use or intensity of use requires site plan approval. The remaining sections of
the Code pertain to site plan associated with a building permit. `The Town's CEO cited the Farm
in the appearance ticket for violation of Code§280-130(F), which is part of the Town's building
permit application process under site plan. Cocle Section 280-130 provides, in part, that rafter
filing an application for a building permit, the Building Inspector shall make a determination as to
whether a site plan is required,
Departrrient Senior Attorney, Danielle Cordier, spoke with Assistant Town Attorney Damon
Fagan on February 28, 20,18. 'IVIr, Hagen confirmed that, in the"rowla`s view, the semi-
permanent siting of the food truck on the parcel (as opposed to Its offsite'vehicular'use)
constituted a change ill use requiring an ameridniont of the existing site plan.
-The Town's interpretation that the addition of a food truck by 8 Hands is a change of use, is not
unreasonably restrictive of the farm.
Site Plan
In general, the constructioaa of on-farm buildings and the use of land for agricultural,purposes
siaould not be sula)ect to site plana review, special use permits or non-conforming use
Iecluirenl ;rets when conducted in a county adopted,, State certified agncultural district..
Therefore„ generally, agriculkur�ll uses and the construcfion of on-farm buildings as part of a.
farm operation located, in an agricultural district should be allowed uses.The Department has
cietsrrnined, however,that stream°lined site plan review is not unreasonably restrictive and
developed ra model.site plan review process which is included within the Guidelines for R view
of 1.00 al Zoning and Planning Laws(copy enclosed).
In the Deportment's view, wh le the foal tri ack wcauid not require a 'builrwling permit," requiring a
zoning permit and a streaWned arnended site plan which showed the proposed location of the
food truck would not be unreasorarably restdotive.
Opera ion,of as t.icensed,�lmRAL �stictrb�5-.� Facility- the Parni
In Ja i`auau'y, fir. eppel inclrecatecl the lie applied to the Town to operate an AML Are tical e 5-A
ugh 6'N rm. M Geppipl stated
prod r"ing tacelrety a.ara his laref.�tawtty kc'a slawacltut�w»r chickens a�ar�nod on the fa
that "lake Veiity Town Chief BUil:linga Iia actor, tlea��a ed tour: ���llc�allon Stating that
s.laughterhorel, eps -,,re not peremltted in the zone. Mr, Geppei inciir.,at:g,1 ttarit siaughterinta of his
chickens on the farm, in Ii„re.re of making cheese in a portion of his building, would save him time
and money and he would not have to transport the girds off"Longi; Island for processing.
......._........._ Divsion.ofL�,..nd�and.W,..�........... .�__�,.�_.. �_.�.......�._...�__w�lban_.
I a a er Resources 10B Airline Dr.Albany,N.Y., 122351 5181457-37381vfww.29riculture.ny.gcv
Hon. Scott Russell, Supervisor
Town of Southold 31 P a g e
'The Department is gathering inromiation on this latest development and will advise the Town
separately. In the meantime, I have attached a prior AML§305-a review letter issued by the
Department to the Town of Copake, dated September '12, 2013,discussing Copake's denial of
an on-farm slaughterhouse,
�qo_nclusjon
The Department e!ppregiates the opportunity to work with the Town and the farm to
resolve any concerns identified above regarding the possible conflict between the local law and
its administration and AML§305-a. If the Town agrees toisiddresp the food truck through a
streamlined amended site plan review, consistent with the protections afforded by AML§305-a,
please confirm by your reply to the Department.
We look forward to resolving this matter. If you have any questions, or wobld like to
discuss the review process, please contact me at(518)457-3738, If the Mr. Hagan has any
questions he may contact Danielle Cordler, Senior Aftorn'y, at(518)457-2449.
Sincerely,
Michael Latham
Director
Enclosure
cc: Damon Hagan, Esq.,Assistant Town Attorney
*Tom Geppel, 8 Hands Farm
Ken Schmitt, Chair, Suffolk County AFPB
Robert Somers, Land and Water Resources, Dept. of A&M ,
Danielle Cordier, Esq., Dept. of A&M
Divislon of Land „„.
and Water Resources I 10B Airline Dr.Albany,N.Y.,122361 5181457-37381wvvw.agriculture.ny.gctv
M
Guidelines for Review of Local Zc�r�in aced Planninc taws
Background and Obfective
As communities adopt or amend zoning regulations, potential conflicts
between farms operations and to :al land use controls may increase. This,
coupled with continuing e urban development pressures on many of the State's
agricultural cornmunities, increases the need to Better coordinate local planning
and the agricultural districts program, and to develop guidelines to help address
conflicts which may occur. proactively, guidelines can aid in crafting zoning
regulations by municipalities with significant farming activities_
Zoning and Farm Operations: Practical Limitations and Problems
Farms are host to several discrete but interdependent land uses which may
include barns, commodity sheds,; farm worker housing, garages, direct farm
markets, silos, manure storage °facilities, milking parlors, stables, poultry houses
and greenhouses, to name but a few. The typical zoning regulation, in addition
to establishing rrlinialur a lot sizes and separations between uses, often prohibits
more than one "principal" structure on each parcel of record, la`iay zoning
devices, there, are unable to distinguish between on-farm structures as part of a
f"ar a operation from the same building when it is used for an independent,
freestanding use.
The miniMiini separration and "yard" requirements of zoning are designed to
avoid over concentration, maintain adequate spaces for light and air, and to
reduce fine hazard in rnore urban environments. The application of such
requirements to suburban and rural communities and farm operations often
results in the unintended regulation of farm operations and uses not as an
integrated whole, but as separate improvements.
-Mie rapidly changing nature of the agricultural industry does not always allow
zoning and the cornpretrensive pla,hning process to keep pace. This can result in
the application of outdated retlulatioias to contemporary land uses and gives rise
to potehtlally unreasonable restrictIions, Local governments may run afoul of the
letter and intent of file Agricultural Districts Law by limiting the type and intensity
of agrelCUltur l uses in their co °mrnunities and by narrowly defining "farm" or
Uagricultural activity,"' This is somet.in-aegis problematic even in municipalities with a
s!Ignificant bash of large, `"production" level farming operations. inadequately
defined terms also give rise to conflict between` the zoning device and farm
Operations.
Because of the inherent nature of zoning, there is essentially no discrete
administrative authority to waive, its standards, even when those standards are at
variance with the community's i2nd rise policy and what may be deemed its
"intent." A municipal zoning board of appeals may, consistent with specific tests
1/26/10 1
�4
�ry h
found in Town,Village and City;Lawi vary the use and area standards of a zoning
regulation, and reverse, or affirm determinations of the zoning administrative
official. Such a remedy: i.e., arr area or use variance„ may, however, in and of
itself be considered "unreasonably restrictive" if it is the only means available to
establish, expand or improve a "farm operation" in a county adopted, S at
certified agricultural district.
These and other limitations and problems that can lead to AML §305-a
violations may be avoided in the[first instance by sound comprehensive planning.
The Town Law, '`pillage La r, neral City Law and the Agricultural Districts Law
are designed to encourage coordination of local planning and laid use decision
making with the agricirrltUral districts program.
Agricultural Districts and County Agr.ic,ultural :and Farmland Protection
Plans: Their Influence on the Municipal Comprehensive Plan and the
Zoning Process
The preparation/, adoption and administration of a municipal comprehensive
plan and zoning regulation are raot independent actions of local government, but
should be part,of a well thougkOUt" seamless process, A zoning regulation is, in
the final analysis, simply a device to irrapletnent the community plan and, in fact,
"a.. must be in accordance with a comprehensive Calan... " [Town Law §272-a
0 i)W]
The State Legislature has codified the intent, definition and content of the
comprehensive plana (Town Law §272-•a, Village Law §7-722 and General City
iven
Law §28-a),trS lS.a. n general, and State certified agricultural disificant tricts cts an status y
doing,
"`��griculti.�ral iMi"w> �y" i g d county
agricultural aild farniland protection plans created cinder AgrrcultUre and Markets
Law Articles 25-AA and 25-AAA in particular. Town Law §272-a (g) requires
agricultural review and coordin4flon with the comprehensive planning process.
"A town con7,i rehonsive pi in arid any amendments thereto, for a town
containing all orpart of an ,,,igricultural district or lands receiving agriculture]
assessments telithin its jorisrdictirrri, shall continue to be subject to the provisions
of article t1yenty-five-,4A of the agriculture and markets law relating to the
enactment and r-arlarir"nistration of loraal to ws rules or regulations. A
raeaviy adopfed or arnended town corrprehansive plan shall take into
consideration applicable county and farn7tand protection plans as
cre"ate,d cinder article tiverity-five-AAA of the agriculture and markets law.
(The same language is found in;iVillage Law and General City Law.)
Thus, the statutory influence the Agricultural Districts Law and the Agricultural
and Farmland Protection Proclrarns have on the comprehensive planning process
and zoning regulatiai�s is signific_3nt. State certified agricultural districts and
2
x/26/10
J
county agrior»rltural and farniland protection pians are community shaping
Influbnoes in mud, th' same ay as existing and proposed infrastructure;
wetlands, floodpl ins, topographical 'features; cultUral, historic and social
amenities; economic needs; etc. are viewed. The Agricultural Districts Lair is a
valuable planning tool to conserve, protect and encourage the development and
improvement of the agricultural economy; protect agricultural lands as valued
natural and ecological resources; and preserve open space.
In addition to AML §305•-a, limitations on local authority in Town Lave §283--a
and Village Law §7-130 were enacted to ensure that agricultural interests are
taken into consideration during the review of specific land use proposals. Town
Law §233-a (1) and Village Law -739(1), as recently amended by Chapter 331
of the Laws of 2002, require local governments to "...exercise their powers to
enact local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations that apply to farm operations in
an agricultural district in, a manner which does not unreasonably restrict or
regulate farm operations in contraventlon of the purposes of article twenty-five-
AA of the aghcultu,fe and markets' law, unless itcan be shown 'that the, public
health or safety is threatened_" The recent amendments make the Town and
Village Law provisions consistent With AML §305-a regarding showing a threat to
the public health or safety. AML §805-a, subd.1 is not a stand-alone requirement
for coordination of local planning and land use decision making with the
agricultural districts program, Rather, it is 'one that is fully integrated with the
comprehensive planning, zoning and land use review process.
Application. of Local Law's to F'ar' m Operations within Agricultural Districts
In general, the construction of on-farm buildings and the use of larid for
agricultural purposes should not be subject to site plan review, special use
permits or non-c nforo-ring use :requirements when conducted in a county
adopted, State certified agricultural district. 'The purpose of an agricultural district
is to encourage the devel6pment'and improvement of agricultural Land and the
use of agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural products
as recognized by the New York State Constitution, Article XIV, Section 4.
Therefore, generally, agricultural uses and the construction of ori-farm buildings
as part of a farm operation, should be allowed uses when the farm operation is
located within an agricultural district.
Town Law §274-b, subdivision 1 allows a town board to authorize a. planning
board or other designated administrative body to arrant special use permits as set
forth in a zoning ordinance or local law. "Special use perhijt" is defined as "...an
authorization of a particular, land use which is permitted in a zoning ordinance or
local law to assure that the proposed use is in harmony with such zoning
ordinance or local lavv and will not adversely affect the neighborhood if such
requirements are met." Agricultural uses in an ag�_ic+.altural district are not,
however, "special uses." They are constitutionally recognized land uses which
are protected by AML §305-a, suOod.1, Further, agricultural districts are created
1/26110 3
and reviewed locally through a process which includes public notice and hearing,
Much like zoning laws are a(loptad and amended. -1 herefore, absent any
showing ref art overriding local concern, generally, an exemption frorn special use
permit requirements should be provided to farm operations located withial an
agricultural district.
The application of site plan and special permit requirements to ftarrn
operations can`, have significant adverse Impacts on such operations. Site plan
and spboial perrrlit, review, depel ding upon the specific requirements in a local
law, can be e iaehsive dice to the'need to retain professional assistance to certify
plana or spply to prepare the type of detailed plans required by the law. The
lengthy approval process in some local laws pati be burdensome, especially
considering a farni's need to undertake management and production practices in
a timely and 'efficient manner. Site plan and special permit fees can be
especially costly for start-up farrn operations.
Generally, farmers should exhaust their local administrative remedies and
seek, for example, permits, exemptions available under local law or area
variances before the Department reviews the administration of a local law.
However, an administrative requiremerit/process may, itself, be Lill reaso 11,ably
restrictive. The Department evaluates the reasonableness of the specific,
requirement/process, as well as the substantive requirements imposed on the
farril operation. The Department has found local laws which regulate the health
and safety aspects of the construction of farm buildings through provisions to
meet local building codes or the State Building Code (unless exempt from the
State Building Coded) and Health Departrilerit requirements not to be
unreasonably restrictive. Regt,lire'ments for local building permits and certificates
of occupancy to ensure that health and safety requirements are met are also
generally not unreasonaMy restrictive.
Site Plan Review for Farm Operations within an Agricultural District
Many local governments share, the Department's view that farm operations
should not have to t,andergo site plan review and exempt farms from that
recitairernent. However, the Del°aai tr�nent recognizes the desire of some local
g Wernmeiats to have an opportunity to review faa`r°ri operations and projects
within their borders' as well as thue need of farmers for an efficient, economical,
and predictable process. in vie%,v of both interests, the Department developed a
model stresinlined site plan review process which attempts to respond to the
fanners' concerns while ensuring the ra.bility to have local land use issi.res
examined. The process could be used to ex'arnine a parcel's current
characteristics and its surroundings in relation to any proposed activities on the
fwarrra and their potential inap,.act to neigi'it.aoring properties, and the community. For
exau'a'aple, r°aaunicil.aalitie s Muld ap(,cify that farm operations located within specific
zoning districts a&`cart atiQaa'aait to site plar°i revievv.Municipalities may also elect to
discussion of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code follows beow,
4
1/26/10
exerript farm operations, located within a county adopted, State certified
agricultural district, from their`site Plan review process.
The authorizing statutes for re-cluiring site plan review are quite broad and
under 0home rule" rnu n cipa 11 ties retain signican't flexibility in craffing specialized
procedures (e.g., the selection , of a reviewing board; uses which trigger
SUbrrdssion of site plans; whether oto have a public hearing and the length of time
to review an application). Town t`cxoj §274-a and Village Uaw §7-725--a define a
site plan as "a rendering, drawing, or sketch prepared to specifications and
containing necessary elernents as set forth in the applicable zohing ordinance or
local law which shows the arrang6ment, layout and design of the proposed use
of a single parcel of land... .°" These sections of law ftIfther OUtlirle a list Of
potential site plan elements including parking, means of access, screening,
signs,gns, landscaping, architectural features,, location and dimensions of buildings,
adjacent land Uses and physical features meant to protect adjacent land uses as
well as additional elements.
Many municipalities have also'added optional phases to the site plan review.
While a prelimin"ary conference, priaftinafy site plan review and public Clearings
may assist the applicant earlier in' the review process and provide the public an
Opportunity to respond to a project, they can result in a costly delay for the
farrhe,r.
For the sake o'f simplicity, the model site plan process and the following
guidance presume ewing authority.
p m thattheplahningbbardi� therevi
Site Plan.Process:
The applicant for site plan review and appro.Val shall-submit the following:
Sketch of the parcel on a location map (e.g., tax Mao) showing boundaries
and dimensions of the parcel of land -involved and identifij,ifig contiguous
properties
6s and any known easements or r.ights-6f-way and roadways.
Show the existing f6atpres of the site inClUding land and water are-as, water or
sewer systems and the appro'ximate location of all existing structures on or
immediately adjacent to the site.
2) Show the proposed location and arrangement of buildings and uses on the
site, including means of ingress and egress, parking and circulation of traffic_
Show -the proposed location and arrangement. of specific land uses, such as
pasture, crop fields, woodland, livestock containn-rent areas, or manure
storag-ehranure cornposting sites_
1/26/10 5
3) Sketch of any proposed building, s,trLiCtUre-, or sign, including exterior
dimensions and elevations of front, side and rear views. .Include copies of
any availabl6blueprints, plans or drawlngs:,
4) Provide a description of theJarm operation (eXisting and/or proposed) and a
narrative of the intended use and/or location of proposed buildings, structures
or signs, including ally anticipated achanges in the existing topography and
natural featLlr(:S of the parcel to accommodate the changes- Include the
narne and, address of the applicant and any professional advisors. If the
applicant is not the owner of the property, provide authorization of the owner.
5) if any new structures are going to be located adjacent to a stream or wettand
provide a copy of tile fioodplA1 'ma'p' an I d wetland map that corresponds' With
the bobndaries of the propprti
6) Application form and fee (if required)..
-nit for the StrUrtLIM, tile Code Enforcement
If the municipality issues a peri k
Officer (CEO) determines if the structures are subject to and cornply with the
local building code or New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code
prior to issuing the permit. Simlla'rly, the honing Enforcement Officer (or the CEO
in certain municipalities) Would ensure compliance with applicable zoning
provisions.
The Department urges local governments to take into account the size and
nature of the: partidular'agri(AlItUral activity, including the construction of farm
buildirlds/struct6res when setting and administering any site plan requirements
for farm operations. The review process, as outlined above, sho Iuld generally not
require professional assistance, (e.g., architects,engineers 2 or surveyors) to
complete or review and should be completed relatively qUiCkly. The Department
understands, however, that in some cases, a public hearing arid/or a more
detailed review of the project which may include- submission of 8 s0rVeY,
architectural or engineering drativjngs or plans, etc., allay be, necessary. The
degree of regulation that wiay be 'considered unreasonably restrictive depends, on
the nature of the proposed activities, 'the size and complexity of the proposed
agriC,11HUral activity and/or tile COnStrUrtinl"I of buildings or structures and whr-"thea
State agricultural exemption applies.
Time Frame for RevieW and Decision
Town Law §274-a and Villago L-a,,v §7-725-a require that a clecision on a site
plan application be made within a Maximum of 62 clays after receipt of the
application or (late of a public if one is required. 'i-own and Village Law
authorize town boards and village boards of trustees to adopt public, hearing
requirements and local [.Laws often provide plarming boards vvltl�i the discretion
2 please see disicussion of Agricultural Exemptions below,
6
1/26110
whether to held a public hearing. The Igepartrhent recommends that if the
municipality requires construction of farm buildings and structures within a state
certified agricultural drstrictatp undergo site plan review,, that the review and
decision be expedited within 45 days, with 'no public hearing. The Department
recognizes that the Town Law allows hiunfcipalittles to determine which •uses
must undergo site plata review, the time fram6 for review (Within tl�e 6 day
maximum), and whether to conduct a public hearrn protracted review of most
agricultural projects could, however, result in significant economic impacts to
farmers.
The process outlined above affords the co.mmunity an opportunity to examine
a proposed agricultural project arra to evaluate and mitigage potential impacts in
light of public health, safety 6,rnd welfare without unduly burdening farm
operations. Of course, the "Ofocess" must also be adminstered in a manner that
does not unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations. For example,
conditions placed upon an approvl or the cost and time involved to complete the
review process could be unreasonably restrictive.
Agricultural Exerriptlons
State Environmental Quality Review (S QR) - Agricultural farm
management practices, including' construction, maintenance and repair of farm
build'irigs and stalCtUres" and land use changes consistent with "generally
accepted principles of fanning" ale designated as Type 11 actions which do not
require preparation of an Environmental Assessment 1=orae (EAF) and are not
subject to compliance with State Environmental Quality review (SEQ ). 6
1`NCI R §617.5(a), (c)(3). [See In t o Matfer of Pure ,fir and Water Inc. o
Chemung County v. l avidsen, 246 ,A,.l . d ;( 6, 668 N.YZ.2d 248 (3�d rept.
1998), for application of the exemption to the manure rnariagernent,activities of a
hog farmand In the utter of luh71170 Socfef of telae Glee tett States v. Qm ire
ate eviparaert
:C—
r
aA,N�d 11'13. 63r° lL eit- 20f1L^there P 's classific�ition rat tide issuance of a :grant for theconstruction or renovatof ori-farm I)WIdings for treatment of manure and
raising livestock as a Type 11 action was LrplIeld.]
The SEQR regulations require localities to recognize the Type Il actions
contained in the statewide list.
New York Sime Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code - While
farmers must comply with local requirements wl'dch r'egWate health and safety
a, peas of than, co rlstruction of falmrn bUddinfls„ many farm buildings are exempt
fror°n the State Uni�forr°rr, Fire PiI'evention and Building Code ("Unifo Code'"). The
Uniform Corte recently undervient;major revisions and now is corriprfsed of seven
sub-codes (the Building Code, l=ire Code, Residential, Code, Plumbing Code,
Mechanical Corie, FLI'al Gas Code, and the Property Maintenance Code). The
Exemption for agricLrlturai buildings has been incorporated in the following
1126/10 7
portions of the revised Uniform Code and the Energy Conservation Construction
Code,Which b I ecOme fully effecriV:e on January 1, 2003.
•
Agricultural building is defined in §202 of the Building Code as "A structure
designed and constructed to h0LISEI farm i[TIPlements, hay, grain, poultry,
livestock, or other 1101-ftUftiral products. This structure shall hot be a place
of human habitation or a place of,employrnefit where agricultural products are
processed,treated or package d, nor. hall it be a place used by the public."
• Building Code §101.2(2) provides an 6)(emption from the Building Code for
"[aJgrIcLjltUral buildings, Used solely in the raising, growing or storage of
agriCUltural products by a farmer engaged in a farming operation."
• Section 102,1(5) of the Fire Code of New York State provides that
11[algJoultural buildings use& solely in the raising, growing or storage of
agricultural products by a farrner engaged in a farrning operation" are exerript
from the provisions of the Fire Code pertaining to construction but are subject
to applicable requirernents of fire safety practice and methodology.
• Section 101.4.2.6 of the Energy Conservation Construction Code C50CC')
exempts "nonresidential farm buildings, inckiding barnsi sheds, poultry
houses and other buildings and equipment on the orefises used directlyand
solely for agricultural purposes"frorh the provisions of the ECCC.
The above briefly highlights, the agricultural buildings exemptions. Any
specific questions regarding the, interpretation and applicability of the revised
State Uniform Fire Protection and BUilding Code should be directed to the
Department of State's Codes Division at (518) 474-4073,
Profess-JQnally $tamp6d Plans - Education Law §720.9(1) provides that no
official of the State or any city, county, town or village charged vilth the
enforcement of laws, ordinances Or regulations may accept or approve any plans
or specifications that are not Stamped with the seal of an architect, or
professional engineer, or land surveyor licensed Of authorized to practice in ti-le
State. Thus, where local laws, br6nances or regulations require that plans and
specifications for private
ivate conStRICtiOn be accepted or approved, they marry riot be
accepted or a - to the exceptions set
approved Without the reClUired Seal, Subject
forth in the statute. 1981 Op Atty Geri April 27 (Informal).
However, the exceptions contained in Education Law §7209(7)(b) include
"farm buildings, including barns, sheds, poultry' housos and other buildings used
directly Prid solely for agricultural purposes." As et result, plans and
specifications for such bufldings are not required to be stamped by an architect,
professional engineer or 1-zin(J I,,Urv(:,,yor.3
3 Sirnilar requirements and exceptions are also provided in Education Law§7307(1)and(6).
1/26/10
Against this backdrop; specifib guidelines for review of zoning and planning
y local governments and the Department can best be understood.
regulations b I . . d.
Generic Rev-ie'w Guide'llines
Generic r'e"v.iews'are those o''fentire zoning regulations or sections of zoning
regulations that impact the municipality's farrn community as ai class or several
farm opetationi in the same wa . Examples of actions.which tnkht result in a
gerferic review include the adoption or administration of an entirely new or
substantial[ amended zoning regulation that results in a material change in the
I y
use and area standards applied to farm operations in a State certified agriCUItUral
district. In s.uch cases, the Department recommends that the municipality ask
itself the following questions:
* Do the regulations materially limit the definition of farm operation, farm
or agriculture in a way that conflicts With the definition Of "farm
operaticih" in AML§341., subd.1 1?
* Do the regulations relegate any farm opeiriations in agricultural districts
to 'inon-coriforming" status?
* Is the production,
oduction, preparation and marketing of any crop, livestock or
livestock product as a commercial enterprise materially limited,
resticted or prohibited?
* Are certain classes of agriculture subject to more intensive reviews or
permitting requirements than others? For example, is "animal
agriculture" treated `differently than crop production without
demonstrated links to a specific and meaningful public health or safety
standard designed to address a real and tangible threat?
* Are any classes of agricultural activities meeting the definition of"farm
operation" subject to special permit, site plan review or other original
jurisdiction review standard over and above ministerial review?
* Are "farm operations' subject to more intensive reviews than non-farm
uses in the same zoning district?
* Are "farm 'operations" treated as integrated and interdependent uses,
or collections of independent ent and competing uses on the same
property?
* Is the regulation in accordance with a. comprehensive olari and is such
a plan crafted consistent with AML Article 25-AA as reqired by law?
I
If the answer to any of the first six questions is "yes," or if the answer to either
of the last two is "no," the zoning regulations under review are likely to be
problernatic and may be in violatiotion of AML §305-a, SL11)(1.1, Certainly such
regulations would appear to be on their "faCe" irlCorlSistent With the StatUtOry
reqUirernent that To cal governments _Shall exe'rc;ise these [:mwels in Such
manner as may realize the polic�,,and goals set for(17 in this article �-Irticle 25AA-
Agricultural Districtsj.`
1/26/10 9
y
Guidelines for Site Specific Reviews
.AML. gd-a zoning case reviews often involve application of zoning
regulations to a specilrc farr°n operation. Such cases typically result from
applying the site plan„ special use permit, use or non-conforrnin use sections,
yard requirements, or lot density sections of the municipal zoning device to an
existing farm operation.
"hese cases often evolve because althOLIgh the zoning regulation may
appear to be consistent with the agricultural districts law, its application to a.
specific issue or set of facts is not, In such rases„ the Department recommertds
that the r�rnunicipality ask itself the;following questions:
• Is the zoning regulation or restriction being applied to a use normally
and customarily associated with a "farm operation" as defined in AML
Article 25-AA?
• Does thy: regulation or restriction materially, limit the expansion or
Improvement of the operation without offering some compelling public
benefit?
• Is the regulation or restriction applicable to the specific farm operation
in question or, under the same circumstances, would it apply to Tither
farm operations in the community?
• Does the zoning regulation impose greater regulation or restriction on
a ose or farming actiVity than may alre dy be Imposed by State or
federalstatute, rule or regulation?
• Is the regulation or t.eustriction the result of legislative action that
rendered the farm op'er'ation a"non-.conforming use
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then the zoning regulation or
restriction under review is likely tto be problematic and may be in violation of the
iu
statory prohibitions against unreasonably restrictive regulation of farr"n
operations in an agricultural district, unless a threat to the public health or safety
is demonstrated.
Guidance on Specific Zoning Issues
"fhe following .are Borne speclfic factors that the Department considers when
reviewing local zoning law°��rs4:
A. Minimum and Maximum Dimensions
Generally the Department will consider whether minimum and maximum
dimensions imposed by a local !aIw can accommodate existing and/or future farm
Please see other D parte ent
a _. � guidance documents for further information on issues related to
specific types of farm buil) ngs and practices.
1/26/10 10
ft�r
needs. For example, many roadside stands aro located within existing garages,
bangs, and outbuildings that may have dimensions greater than those set by a
local ordinance. Also, buildinr�.s specifically designed and constructed to
accomt� od t s arn1 sctiviti may not rneet the local size require
(e.g,,
silos and barns which may e ce 6d maximum height limitations). Tile size and
scope of the farm olp6tatlon sh'ouki also be considered. Larder farrns, for
example; cannot effectively market their produce through a traditional roadside
stand and may require larger farms markets with utilities, parking, sanitary
facilities, etc.
B. Lot Size
Establishing a minimuhl lot size for farm operations within a zoning district
that includes land within a State certified agricultural district might be
unreasonably restrlcti& The definition of "farm operation" in AML §301(11)
does not include an acreage threshold. Therefore, the Department has not set a
minimum acreage necessary for protection under AML §3135-a and conducts
reviews on a cash-by-case basis„ For example, a nursery/greenhouse operation
conducted on less than 5 or 10 acres may be protected as a "farm operation",
under§305-a if the operation is a "conarnr:°rcial enterprise" as determined by the
Department.
For agricultural assessment purposes, however, AML §301(4) states that a
farm must have "land used in agricultural proda~tction"° to clualify (either seven or
more acres and gross sales`of an average of $10,000 or snore in the preceding
two years or have less than seven acres and average gross sales of more than
$50,000 in the preceding two years). AML §301(4) also provides for an
agr a.11tural assessment on semen or more acres which has an annual gross
sales of $10,000 or more ":.,when such land is owned or rented by a nearly
established farm operation in the first year of operation." AML§301(4)(h).
Local requirements for minirn'um lot sizes for farrn buildings raise concerns
similar to those involving minirrrur"n and maximurh building dirnensiens. A farmer
may be unable to meet a rninima4h lot size due to the configuration of the land
a SE,,cl for production or lying fallow as part of a conservation reserve program.
The need to lir.* proximate to existing farm roads, a water supply, sewage
disposal and other utilities is also esseritial. Farm buildings" are usually located
on alae same property that supports other farn°a structures. PrMirnably, minima.M
lot si%e requirements are adopted to prevent over concentration of buildings and
to assure an adequate area to install any necessary utilities. Farm buildings
should be allowed to be sited on tine same lot as other agricultural use strractures
subject to the provision of adequate water and sewage disposal facilities and
meeting minimum setbacks between structures.
1126/10 11
y
C. Setbacks
Ivlinimurn setbacks from front,'back and side yards for farm buildings have not
been, viewed s unreasonably restrictive unless'a setback distance is unusually
long. SetIbacks that coincide vAth those required for other similar structures
have, in general, beer viewed as reasonable.
A farm operation" barns,storage buildings and other facilities may already be
located within a required setback , or the farm operation may need to locate new
facilities within the setback to meet the farm operation's needs. Also,adjoining
land may consist of vacant land', woodland or farmland. The establishment of
unreasonable setback distances increases the cost of doing business for fanners
because the infrastructure needed to support the operation (e.g., water supply,
utilities and fang roads) is often already located within, and adjacent to, the
farmstead area or existing ,farm strUbtures. Setbacks can also Increase the cost
of, or make it impracticable to construct new structures for the farm operation.
D. Sign Limitations:
Whether or not a limitation on the size and/or number of signs that may be
used to advertise a farm operatiok is unreasonably restrictive of a farrta operation
depends upon the location of the farm) and the type of operation. A farmer who is
located on a principally traveled road probably will not gleed as many signs as
one whet is loba e'd on a less traveled road and who may need directional signs to
direct the public to the farm, Thai size of a sign needed may depend on whether
the sign is used to advertise the farm's produce or services (e.g., for a
commercial horse boarding operation) as part of the farm's direct marketing, or
just for directional purposes.
E. Maximum Lot.Coverage
Establishing a maAmum lot coverage that may be occupied by structures
may be unreasonably restrictive. For exarnple, it may be difficult for horticultural
operations to recoup their investment in the purchase of land if they are not
allowed to more fully utilize a lot/acreage for greenhouses. Farm operations
within an agricultural district shraarld be allowed the rnaxirmurII use of available
land, consistent with the need to protect the public health or s°afrty. generally, if
setbacks between buildings are met and adequate space is available for- interior
roads, parking areas (v�here required), and safe operation of vehicles and
equipment, health and safety concerns are minimized.
F. Screening and Buffers
Some municipalities impose buffer requirements, including setbacks where
vegetation, landscaping, a wall or fencing is required to partially or completely
screen adjacent land uses. Often, tho buffer area cannot be used or encroached
1126110 12
upon by any activities on the lot. ; Requirements for buffers or setbacks, to graze
animals, construct fences and otherwise use land for agricultueal purposes are
generally unreasonably restrictive'.
Buffers and associated setb;icks may require farmers to remove land from
prodL'Iction or otherwise remove land from use for the farrn operation. The impact
on nursery/greenhouso operations is especially significant since they are often
conducted on smaller parcels of land. Maintenance of the buffer also creates a
hardship to the landowner. If a setback is required for fencing, the farmer may
have to incur the expense of double fencing the perimeter of the property, or
portion thereof, to prevent encroachment by neighboring property owners.
requirement to screen a farm operation or agricultural structures such as
farm labor h,OUs'iPg or greenIIOU.0,6s'from view has been found by the Department
to be unroasoha
'bly restrictive. Screening requirements suggest that farm
operatjohs and associated structures are, in some way, objectionable or different
from other forms of land use that do not have to be screened. Farmers should
not be requited to bear the extra costs to provide screening unless such
6 'ise vvarrMited by special local conditions or necessary to
requirements are ' therw
address a threat to the public; health or safety. While aesthetics are an
appropriate and important cons ,
' kleratio' h under zoning and nd planning laws, the
purpose of time Agricultural Districts Law is to conserve and protect agricultural
lands by promoting the retention of farmland in active agricultural,use.
1126/10 13
i. SOUt" OLD PLANNING BOARD
i U N
SITE PLAN APPLICATION FORM
Site Plan Name and vocation
Site Plan ipme: �Gtl�
a „-
ft Application Date:
Suffolk Co linty Tax Map#1000- 67 Other SCTM#s_
StreetHamlet: r
Acyl less, �r �� ,�'=r-�r� e �..:�.��-��."�`°.��..H.._µ
}
Distance to tearest intersection: J �
r`
Type of Site Plan: Nein Amended_Residential Zoning District
Owners/ nt Contact et 1'nfornnatton
G
l'lerse listrne,> rzcrllarcdclr csµ°» crndaorze number or thee - below
Property Owner
Street. -R
city f V,t'1'H �GL State! z I`l V
4
Home Telephone 3 Zed�� �_ Other q _ )AI
Applica.nt &X5� c �r hc�S
Street
City � Q _r i .,,,.._ Stag a� _ 1p �C� Z
Home Telephone is (Sq �
.Other .. ..
Applicant's Agent or Representative: �.......w
Contact Persons)*_��,�;
StreetmtF' t ._ ��
City—JA-1- q ��, ... w State__. _ 'ip„ � `� _
Office Telephoned Other
*Unl ss otherwise requested, correspondence will be sent only to the contact person noted here.
lu
Site Plan A Flic tim Form 2/18/2olo
r
14
01EV
Proposed onstruction type: _ New >S Modification of Existing Structure Agricultural
of use
Property ptal acreage or square footage: ac./sq. ft.
Site Plan uild-out acreage or square footage: /sq. ft.
Is there an xxsting or proposed Sale of Development Rights on the property? Yes .a..__ _N..—,W®._.
o
If yes, e;xpl in:
s
Does the p rcel(s) meet the Lot Recognition standard in Town Code §280.9 Lot Recognition? Y N
If"yes", ex ,lain (and attach any necessary documentation—title report, subdivision approval, etc.) —
Building D partment Notice of Disapproval Date: 10 2-
Is an applic' tion to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals required? Yes X No
If yes, hav you submitted an application to the ZBA? Yes ° No
If yes, atta a copy of the application packet.
Show all a es proposed and existing. Indicate which building will have which use_ If more then one use is
proposed p building, indicate square footage of floor area per use.
List all e�xis i�ng property uses: ,�, � �� . , � 1a�r l yl -y �-fx-�-r,t r�_
List all p:ro osed property uses:
r04Other accessory uses:._..—,_.._,.,M.._.__.__. .._...�.v.��,.M...._.mMM�..�....,aa...—_—
Existing lotcoverage: ���, % Proposed lot coverage: %
ting structures) 4ee _ q, fl. Gross floor area of proposed structures �,
Gross floor area.of existing ( )
74
a'� k'A 1 , -�o L
0
Parking Space Data: #of existing spaces #of proposed spaces: Loading Berth: Yeses No
_.. a_..
Landscaping Details: Existing landscape coverage u % Proposed laiid cape coveraf„e 0 °/®
_..........---a_ _ ,,._. .u.__m_._.,M.._.....p.._...........
_.,.._. ...._...M._ u�
Wetlands: Is this
property within 500 of a wetland _ > Maybe
are ?
Yes No
the undersigned, certify that all
t,above infc'tttiatacat s true.
Signature of ireper '°"` �
Date:_ ,..
Site Plan Application Fonn 211812010 2
Of1t,
Proposed '�onstruction typ _ New
Modification of E. ting Structure Agricultural
..........---.................... -Change of use
Property total acreage or square footage: ac./sq., ft.
.................
Site Plan itild-out acreage or square footage-e+; ._` ./sq. ft.
................... .........---------
Is there an sting or proposed Sale of Development Rights on the property? Yes' No 'X`
If Yes, expi in:
----------
Does the parcel(s) meet the Lot Recognition standard in Town Code §280-9 Lot Recognition? Y N
If"Yes", el lain (and attach any necessary documentation-title report, subdivision approval, etc.)
.............
Building D partment Notice of Disapproval Date: 10
Is an applic it,ion to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals required? Yes X No
If yes have you submitted an application to the ZBA? Yes No
If yes, atta i a copy of the application packet.
..-..........-
Show all u es proposed and existing. Indicate which building will have which use. If more then one use is
2D
proposed p 'r building, indicate square footage of floor area per use.
propet"y?-1 rti Ive VI-vl Incks r�z,
A it YN ot t- 6 0, 0-V-V1.(f u-j:kli I C A-,0,V-0-
0
Y
Y
Showe
yes,s
s
os
h
a
e
a
t
d
v
'a
uy
L
p
a
al
0
p
r building,
s proposed
u
p
0
Idp
submitted
M0
n
g0
3-
List all e"is ing property uses; re"" . L-tIVNc� kris brrv� lcm�-t� t+1 -�,Ovrcssc- +y +,I re--
x ........
ileep ,?eV-C\
List
p 0 os property
F1 1, 4A
ist all osed property uses.- Me 1�tn L�
s' r-,1t* DYANN
v
r
t.
s o
Other acce ory uses:
—-----------------
Existing lof."coverage: % Proposed lot coverage: i %
I Lf, 0
Gross floor area of existing structuretstructureri scl.'mf
, Grbs§ floor area of proposed
tK-
...............
Parking Space Data: #of existing spaces: #of proposed spa 0.
Loading Berth- Yes No
.-Landscapipg Details: Existing landscape coverage: 0 % Proposed landscape coverage- 0 %
.......... ........
. U,.........
.
C 1,,6 CSAV�y--
Wetlands: Is this property within 500of a wetland area? Yes No Maybe
1, the under-signed, certify that all above info true.
Signature of Prepa
Date,
2
Site PlanApplicalion Form 211812010