Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-4.-5-5.9i% '%. L G U ,, DIA KNOCKOUTS 9RY WELL CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE .~KNOCKOUT INLET AND OULET OPENINGS CAST y CONCRETE COVERS PLAN IL, i,~ k LE)C__,Z-T I OLi LOCKING CASTING TO GRADER FINISHED GRADE x 4 12,6/12,6 GA. WIRE MESH x 6 6/6 GA, WiRE MESH CROSS SECTION 1000 GALLON 2 COMPARTMENT SEPTIC TANK NOT TO SCALE TEST HOLE DATA I HEREBY CERTIFY WAS MADE FROM iN:CTUAL ME ON APRIL 30, 90 AND ARE SET ~ S~ ~ [_/~r Richard H. Btrouse NOTES: COORDINATE DISTANCES ARE MEASDREO FROM U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY FRiAI'IGULATION STATION "CHOCOMOUNT 2" 2. SITE IS IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, TAX MAP 1000, SECTION 004, BLOCK 5, LOT 5,9 SITE IS TO BE SERVICED BY MUNICIPAL WATER AND ON SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4. SITE IS IN R-120 ZONE b. OWNFR. k4~ bamuel S Polk 485 Harris Road Bedford Hills, NY. ]0458 2,2)530-5352 6 BASE FOR LEVELS: NGVD 1929 (APPROXIMATE) · 36 --- EXESTIND CON tOURS SUFFOLK COUN'P( DE~:AI',T,V, EN'f OF HEALTH SERVICES l ware ¢~Dr6vkd orl the a~ove date. 'fi~e~ facilit~s must ~eform to ¢~nstru~ion ~tandards in effect at th9 time of constructi~. This apurova ~:a[ be valid cqly in the event ~id su~lvision/devel- )~ent p an's duly tiled w.th the County Ct~rk withia 6 menths ~f th~s date. Consent is hereby ~ivaa for the ~im~ of t 1 s map on whc ] ~his endat'aement appears n the Offi~ of the ~uaty Clerk in ac~r- ~an~ w~th ~revisons of t~ Pubic Health ~ ~nd the S¢olk C~. JOSEPH H. ; Dir~t~, DiviM~ ef ~-o~ ~ CMO~MOU~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennet~ Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman · ~ George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G.~Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Ed~vards Telephone~ (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 19, 1992 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supe~imr Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box H79 Southold. NewtYotk 1 I971 Fax f516~ 765-1823 Stephen L. Ham III Matthews & Ham 45 Hampton Road Southampton, New York 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision Samuel S. Polk SCTM%1000-4-5-5.9 for Dear Mr. Ham: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, 5~y 18, 1992: The final public hearing, which was held at 7:35 P.M. was closed. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Samuel S. Polk, is the and designated as SCTM$1000-4-5-5.9, Fishers Island; and owner of the property known located at Private Road on WHEREAS, this minor subdivision, to be known as Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk, is for 2 lots on 4.88 acres; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on December 9, 1991; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town hall, Southold, New York on May 18, 1992; and Page 2 I Samuet S. Polk WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the ~own of Southold have been met; and he it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize t~e Chairman to endors'e the final survey dated January 9, 1992. Enci0s~d please find a copy of the map which was ~ndorsed by the Chairman,,· The mylar maps, which were alSa endorsed by the Ch~rman~ must be picked up at this o~fice, and f~ited in the offic~ Of the County Clerk. Any~ or recor, ded wi~bai~ sixty (60) d~ys of the date 'of , Dhatl become null and voids. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~ Chairman Encl. cc: Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Scott Russell, Assessors Office September 10, 1991 Planning Board Town of Southold ToWn Hall Nain Road So~t/~,o!d, NY 11971 .Re: Minor Subdivision of Samuel S. Polk; (SCT~ ~ 1000-4~5-5.9) Dear Board Members: In connection with the referenced application for a minor subdivision, I have enclosed the following: 1, Copy of deed to Mr. Polk dated December 6, 1990. 2. Form letter regarding drainage, roads, etc. 3. Full Environmental Assessment Form, with Part I completed. 4. Application for Approval of Plat. 5. Copy of Certificate of Occupancy existing structure on the subject premises. Our check to the Town of Southold in $2,000.00. covering the the amount of duly acknowledged. of the Minor Subdivision 7. Questionnaire, 8. Twelve prints showing the proposed lots. 9. Authorization this Application on behalf of for me to act in connection the owner, Samuel S. Polk. Plan with Continued Planning Board Town of Southold Re: Polk Page 2 September 10, 1991 As you are aware, this application has some history. A similar application for minor subdivision approval creating these lots was submitted last fall on behalf of the then owners, Isabel Leib and Theodore Da~forth. After some discussions with the Town Attorne~t t~at application was returne~ to me because the lots did not mea~ the new minimum area requirement3 in ~his R~i20 Zone District. based on %he re~ent Court of the position was Sinc~ Map and when ~any new I understand that the F~DCO Map was~r~-app~ved and re- endorsed last even%ng a~d I'have tbe~r~fore bee~ ~d~sed by your staff that you will no~ consider the e~os~d application. PLease review the enclosed documents, and ~oti~y~edi~tely if any further information or documentation will be r~ired before this matter Can be placed on the calendar. Very truly yours, ' step~en L. Ham, III SLH: ja Enclosure APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT To the Planning Board of the Town of Southold: The undersigned applicant hereby appli~s for (tentative) (final)approvalof a subdivision plat in accordance 4Mth Article 16 of the Town Law and the Rules and Regxdations of the Southotd Town Planning Board, and represents and states as follows: authorized agent of the . 1. The applicant is tk~/0wner of record 'of the lar~d u~d~r apphcation. (If the applicant is not the owner of record of 'the land under application, the applicant shall state his interest in said Iand under appI~cation.) 3. The entire land under application is described in Schedule "A" hereto annexed. (Copy of deed suggested.) 4. The land is held by the applicant under deeds recorded in Suffolk County Clerk's office as follows: Liher ... 11205 Page 127 On Januar~ 15 ..~ 199.]_ Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... ; Liter ................. Page ...................... On ....................... : Liter ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... Liter ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... as devised under the Last Will and Testament of ...................................... or as distributee ....................................................................... 5. The area of the land is ...... /J,B.fl ....... acres. 6. Ali taxes which are liens on the' land at the clare hereof have been' paid. ~xxc:~lJ~x ............ 7. The land is encumbered by l~x one mortgage C~y:~3x~xV~:.~ as follows: Ca) MortTage recorded in Liter . .]:6..~.3.~. ...... Page . .g.?.3 ............. in original amount of $..~0D.~Q00 .... unpaid amount S 39.0.~QQD .... . ......... beht by . .I.Bfl, .S.?.h?.o..e.d??..B.?.n.k gr~tmg and required public improvements will be 22. The ~nplicant estimates that thff%ost of w,~ $ .......... as itemized in Schedule "E" hereto annexed and requests that the maturity of the Performance Bond be fixed at ............ years. The Performance Bond xv~ll be written by a licensed surety company unless otherwise shown on Schedule "F". 19 91 Samuel S. Polk (Name of Applicant) (Signature a~fl Title) Stephen L. }{gm, III, auth0vized agent 45 Hampvon Read, Southampton, NY 11968 (Address) SUFFOLK STATE OF NE~,¥ YORK. COUNTY OF ................................. ss: On the ..... .~..~.n..~. ...... day of ...... .~.pl?.i.]_. ................. ][9..9.]:..., before me personally came ..... ~.g.~qlT~lq..h~. gB.m. ~..5.I.5. ................ to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that .. ~ ....... executed the same. .. f.-. . ..... Notary Public ....... STATE OE NE'W YORK. COUNTY OF ............................ ss: On the ................ day ............ of .............. , 19 ....... b.efore me personally came ........................ to me known who being by me duly sworn did de- pose and say that ............ resides ar No .................................................... ................................ that .......................... is the .......... .................. Of ........................................... · ......... o .................... the corporation described in and which executed the forcgoitm- instrument; that ............ ~noxvs the seal of said corporation: that the seal affixed by order of tlm board of directors of said corporation. alid that .......... signed ............. name thereto by like order. Notary Public ' FORMNO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold~ N.Y, Certificnte Of Occupancy THIS CERTIFIES that the building ..... One. i~raily., dwelling .... ~ ............... Location of Property ~ast End Road, Chocomount Hill ...... CounW Tax Map No. I000 Section . A ......... Block ...S .......... ;Lot . :..5~ 9. ;'.. ....... Subdivision ............................... FUe~ Map No ......... Lot No .............. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated .... .M.a.y...2.I .......... , 19 .8.2. pursuant to which Building Permit No..1,1..5.0.0.g. ............. dated Iq. ay...2.17. .................... 19.8.2.. was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which tiffs certificate is issued is '. ........ The certificate is issued to . .I.s. 9.bP.1..D..u..B.q~-? ......................................... (owner. le.~see or tenant) of the aforesaid butlding, Suffolk County Department of Health Approval .. 3,1. 7 ,S,O.-~ 1..1.9 ............................. UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO ........... ?20. ................................ Rev. 1181 Building Inspector April 2~, 1991 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision of Samuel S. Polk; SCTM # Gentlemen: The following statements are offered for your consideration in the review of the above-mentioned minor subdivision and its referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: (1) No grading, other than foundation excavation for a residential building is proposed. (2) No new roads are proposed and no changes will be made in the grades of the existing roads. (3) No new drainage s~ruc~ures or alteration of existing structures are proposed. Yours truly, Stephen L. Ham, III, authorized agen~ of Samuel S. Polk SOUTP, SLD TOWN PlANNiNG ~O~AP~ APR 2 3 99i LD Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETEDAND SUBFLI~D~ WITH'YOUR APPLICATIONS FORMS' TOTHE pL~N~KG BOARD Please complete, sign and return to the Office of the Planning Board with your completed applications forms. If y~r answer- to any of the following questions is yes, please indicate these on your guaranteed survey or submit other appropriate evidence. 1. Ar'e there any wetland grasses on this parcel? (Attached is a list of the wetland grasses defined by the Town Code, Chapter 97, for your reference) Yes No 2. Are there any other premises under your ownership abutting this p~rcel? Yes No 3. Are there any building permits pending on this parcel? Yes No 4. Are there any other applications pending concerning this property before any other department or agency?(Town , State, County, etc.) Yes No 5. Is there any application pending before any other agency with regard to a different project on this parcel? Yes No 6. Was this property the subject of any prior application to the Planning Board? Yes No 7. Does this property have a valid certificat~ of occupancy, if yes please submit.a copy of same Yes No I certify that the above statements are true and will be relied on by the Planning Board in considering this applicauzon. April 1991 Signature df property o~ner authorized agent date authorized agen5 Attachment to questionnaire for:;ths Planning Board STATE On the ~n~ day of came Stephen L. Ham, individual described OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ss: ~ril , 1991, before m~ personally III to me known to be the inland who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. Pl~mnlng Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 © O Samuel S. Polk 485 Harris Road B~dford Hills, NY 10458 March 1991 Dear Sirs: Re: Proposed Minor of Premises at (SCTM # 1000 - 4 - 5 - 5.9~ Please be advised that Stephen L. Ham, III of Matthews & Ham, 45 Hampton Road, Southampton, New York, is ~uthorized to act as my agent concerning all matters relating to the referenced minor subdivision of "Lot 3 Chocomount" on the Map of Fishers Island Development Corporation, including the execution by him of all documents and the taking by him of all other required actions on my behalf in connection with my application for such minor subdivision approval. Very truly yours, Samuel S. Polk ACKNOW~E DGMENT STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss.: COUNTY OF ~ h(off.~- ) On the ~4~ day of March 1991, before me personally came Samuel S. Polk, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. ~ Publi~, Slate of Na~ ~1~1~ .~ District 1000 Section 4 Block 5 Lot 5.9 cONSULT YOUR ~J~WYER BEFORE SIGNING THIS INST~JMEN~'--THIS INS~RUMIEN~' SHOUtD BE USED BY LAWY~ERS ONLY. ' ~' nh dedan ~ IND~ ma_de the _ {a~ day of~ , BE~N I~ B~ ~, F/K/A I~ ~ ~IS, resl~g at (no n~ ~1~ Holl~ P~d, ~st~ ~y, ~ 11771, ~ ~ ~N Dk~, ~., r~i~ng at 14 Hora~o ~t, ~t. 7-E, ~ York, ~ 10014, party o/the first part, and S~MUEL S. POLK, residing at 485 Harris Road, Bedford Hills, NY 10458, party of the second part, '~ILNESSKfH, that the party o[ the first part, in consideration of Ten Dollars and other ~aluable consideration paid by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release umo the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and b~ng in the Tc~n of Southold, Suffolk County, State of New York, being formerly a part of that p6rtion of Fishers Island belonging to Fishers Island Development Corporation (which portion is hereinafter called the "Park") lying to the east of Peninsula Road, said lot or parcel of land being bounded and described on Schedule A attached hereto. TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party o£ the first part in and to any streots and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof; TOGETHER wkh the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party o£ the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done 0lXIIlIiffllliX~ anything whereby the said premises have been encumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the Ixirty of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party et~ the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consid- eration as a trust fund to be applied first {or the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any' part of the total of the saine for any other purpose. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. IN ~/ITNF_-~S ~I-IFe. REOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above written. 'Witness Isabel B. Leib and Danforth to Polk Schedule A Beginning at an iron pipe at the Westerly end of a road, said iron pipe being 110.11 feet North of a point which is 177.41 feet West of a monument marking the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Triangulation Station "CHOCOMOUNT 2"; thence running South 72" 52' 09" West 237.45 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 89° 36' 20" West 165~62 to ir0npipe; thence South 24° 56' 10" West 189.27 fe~ thence South 54~ 38' 30" East 64~ 0° 47' 20" West 49.75 feet ' 50"- East 120.25 feet to an iron pipe; 444,14 feet to a point of ' at a th~ radium'at 29' running the arc of said BErG 536~ acquired by the par~c~y ofthe first partby deed ~nd.~'r~corded~ 1Bf. 198~, at Liber Office of the of Suff6tk C~nty. 19 90 , be£ore me On the {.~t~. day o 19 90 , before ~e On me /b';* day of octobar 'p~rsonally came ISARWx. B. LEIB to me known to be the indivi~,ai described in and wha ~xecuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she ~xecuted the same. ~ot~' Public, S~ato of NO'N YOI~ Ceri ! catoJi 6d n~N~v York STATE OF N~IN YORK, COUNTY OF ss: On the day of 19 , before me personally came to me known, who, being by me duty sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No. ; that hc is the , the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the seal o£ said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that. it was so affixed by order o£ the board of directors of said corpova- · ti0n, and that he si~ncd h name thereto by like order. personally came THEODORE NEL~-agN DANFORII{, JR, to mc known to be the individual descril~ed in and' who executed th~ foregoing instrument, and acknowl~ged that he ~x~bted the~samc.. / 'Ndba~ la.~Li.q ' ' - MAUREEN J. HIR$Clt, NOTAEY I'URUC, State of N~ York No. 5Z4778603 Quargied.in Suffolk County_~ / ~mmi~si~n F.~ires ~ 31, STAT£ OF NEW YORK, COURTY OF ss: On the day of 19 , before me personally came the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No.. ' that he knows to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw execute the same; and that he, said witness, at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto. WITH COVENANT AGAINST G~.^N'I'Oa'S ACrs Tm.E NO. T1290-0711 (Ticgr Title Guamantee) ISABEL B. LEIB and TO SAMUh~ S. POLK TITLE GUARANTEE- N~WYORK A11COR COMPANY District 1000 SECTION 4 si. ooc 5 LOT 5.9 COUNTY O~ TOWN Suffolk-Southold Recorded Al Reques[ o[ Tho TiUe Guarantee Company Samuel S. Polk, Esq. M~lhank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, NY 10005 1 ~-~1 ~-2 (2187)--7c © 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL,ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR Purpose: Th& full EAF is designed to help applicants and agenc es determine, in an order ¥ manner, whether a project or action may be significant The question or'whether a~ action may be s,ignif cant s not al~vays easy to answer Fre uent- Iy, the~e~are '~sp~cts o~ pro, ect. th~;~B~ec~i~~ ~/'u,ome~s~re~b~. ~ ~l~g u'~de~tood that thos~wh~6"det~mine significance ma~ have [itt[e of,n0 f0r~AI E0o~led~ of ~ e~ironm~t or may be'technically ex~ in enviroflme0tal analysis. In addition man~ ~ho ~ave kn~ge n one pa~ cu ~r area may n ~ be ~&~Of ~e Broader cOnc~rns ~ffec~ing the ques:tion 'of'significa~c~. ' .... The full EAF is ]n~epged to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies:can be assured t~ ~he d~termination ,process ~ bin orderl~ ~omprehe.sive in n~ture; yet flekible to ~W introductJon~f in~r~tion'~o ~[t'~ ~oject or a~tion. Full EAF'C~p~ne"ts} The ful E~F' s compr sed of'three P~ 1~ ~r6~i~s bb~ec~ve data a.d information about a g yen By identifying b~s c pro ect ~i~ ~i~-~ r~e~ ~the '~aNs(s that takes place in I 3. Par~ 2: F~c~ on identifving ~he range of possible m g~d~nce asto'whether an ~mpact ~s I~kelv to be con ]~ge i~pa~ The form also 'identifies wh~her an impac: ~'an ~ , Part 3:~ t~'~ ~mp~ ~n P~t 2 ~s id~ntif ed as potentially-large, t;',~..; Pan .i i~act~ is.~a~ually {m po~ant DETERMINATION OF SI(';NIFICANCE--T.~i~e '1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: [] Part 1 -~ Pa~t 2 []Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF [Parts I and 2 and 3'if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined bv the lead agency that: [] A. The project will not result in any large and important impacffs) and. therefore. ~s one which will not have a significant impact on the enwronment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. ' A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions action. It provides Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Dare PART 1--PROJECT IN~URMATION .. Prepared Dy Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a s~gmflcant e. ffect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered_ as part of the a Dplication for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any ad~Jition~ information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currentl'v available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information'requirmg such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify NAME OF ACTION MINOR SUBDIVISION OF SAMUEL S. POLl LOCATION OF ACTION (IncluDe Street Address. Municipali[y and County) Private ~oac~ off East Enc~ Road, Fishers IsIand, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York (SCTM # 1000-4-5-5.9) NAME OF APPLICAN~SPONSOR Samuel S, Polk ADDRESS c/o Matthews & Ham, 45 Hampton Road BUSINESS TELEPHONE , 516) 283-2400 CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE Southampsoq NY 11968 NAME OF OWNER (if different) I BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION subdivision into two 2.44-acre lots of 4.88-acre parcel on which one single-family dwelling is presently located Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: I~Urban []Industrial ~Forest ~Agriculture 2. Total acreage of project area:' 4.88 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushiand (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards cropland pas[ute, etc.) Wetland {Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and olJler paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) 3 What Is predominant soil type(s) on projec[ site? a. Soil drainage: ~Well drained 100 % of site [~Commercial r~other ~]Residentia] [suburban) ~]Rural (non-farm) PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION · 55 acres .55 acres h-16 acres 4 .i6 acres · 17 acres .17 acres sand - sand E gravel ~Moderately well drained % of site -.~ F]Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY~...~ " Land Classification System? N/A acres. (See I NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? [~Yes r~No a. What is depth to bedrock? c. 600 ft. (in feet) 2 · 5...,~pg ox~mate percentage of proposed p[ t site w,th slopes: ~Oq;?% 73.6 E2110~15% , % s protect substantially contiguous m, or ~en~ ~ build.i~g~te~,~or dis~ict, listed o~ the State o~ the National Re~isters of Historic Places? ~Y~ ~No " ..... ~'. Is project substantially cont guous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? 8. What is t~e depth of the wamr table? > 3.6 £t(in feet) 9., rs gJ~e located over a~ primary, princ pa ~ or sole sburce aquifer? i~Yes E~No 10. Do hunting, f shing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? r~Yes E3Yes ~No t~]No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? F3Yes ~No According to J.M.0. Consulting Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) E3¥es []No Describe 13. Is the project site presently us~d'-by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation ~rea? E3Yes ~No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scemc views know~ to be important to the community? ~Yes I-lNo unknown 15. Streams within or contiguous to proiect area: N/A a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary N/A 16. Lakes. ponds wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name N/A b. Size (In acres) N/A 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities¢ [~Yes []No a) If Yes, does sufficient capac~w exist to allow connection? ~Yes rnNo b) If Yes. wil] improvements be necessary to allow connection? [~Yes r~No 18. Is the site located in an agricuitura[ district certified pursuant to Agricu]ture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? [~Yes [~ENo 19. ls the site located in or suostantiaJ]y contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 6~77 ~Yes [~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? E~Yes ~lNo B, Project Description I Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill n dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor q.88 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 0 acres initially; 0 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped z[ .71 acres. [until construction, if:any, rakes place on d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (If appropriate) Lot 1) e. [ the prolect is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A .; proposed N/~ g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ~/A (upon completion of project}? h. [f residential Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Famdv Multiple Family Condominium Initially one Ultimately ~o Dimensions (in feet) of larges[ proposed structure ... N/~ height; N/A width; N/A length. I. Linear feet ct frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 0 . ft. 3 2. How much natural r~at~riai (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be remov~] from the site? 0 tons/cubi~: yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? E3Yes ENo []N/A a. If ves. for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? E3Yes r'lNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? FlYes E3No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees. shrubs, ground covers) wilt be removed from site? 0 acres. 5. Will any mature forest Iover 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? fqYes l~]No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated ~eriod of construction hi//[ 7. If multi-phased: iX//A a. Total number ot: phases anticipated Inumber). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase I functiona[I,~ dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? EYes E~No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated bv this project 0 11_ Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? months. (including demolition). month year, (including demolition). month year EYes I':]No ; after project is comnlete. 0 [:]Yes ~No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes ~lNo a. If '/es, indicate type of waste [sewage. industrial etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into whicb effluent wi be discharged 13. ls subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes l~No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water bod'y increase or decrease by proposal? Explain E3Yes [:]No 15. Is project or anv portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? EYes 16. Will the project generate solid waste? EYes []No a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? EYes [~No c. If yes, give name ; location d Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain ~No EYes r-qNo 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? .. b. If yes, what ii the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? EYes [:]Yes tons/month. ~No 19. Will project routinely produce odors [more than one hour per day)? E]Yes EgNo 20. Will prolect produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? EYes 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? EYes ~No If ,/es , indicate type(s) .. 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity ~I/g gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day II//[ gallons/da~,:. 24. Does proiect involve Local. State or Federal funding? I-lyes ~No If Yes. explain r~No 6 25.. Agprifivals Req~mred: City, Town. Village Board E3~es City, Town, Village Planning Board OYes ~No City, Town'Zo, lng Board []Yes J~3No City, County,Health Department ]~Yes E3No Other Local Agencies E3Yes ~No Othe? Regional Agencies [Yes ~]No State Agepcies Z]Yes g3No Federal Agencies I-lYes ~]No Submittal Type Date M~ner Subdivision Apnroval q/22/91 Minor 2ubdi~ision A~proval (aft e~r,~tanglng plah aPPraval ) C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zomng decision? []Yes -1No I~ Yes, indicate deisision required; [-Izoning amendment I~zcming variance I~soeciaJ use permit [subdivision [~site plan I'~newlrevision of master plan ~resource management ~ [an ~other 2. What i:s the zoning classification(s)of the site? R-120 3. What is the maxi'mum potential development of the site if deveiooed as permitted by the present zoning? ~wo single-family dwellings 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? same 5. What is the maximum potent al development of the site if develoved as permitted by the proposed zoning? ~we single family dwellings Is the proposed action consistent with the recommendeC uses in adopted local land use pJans~ [~Yes ~No What are the pFedominant ]and use(s] and zoning classifications within a % mile radius of proposed action? residential; single family dwellings; R-I20 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding ]and uses within a ¼ mi]e? J~Yes -~No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? ~;wo a. What is the mimmum lot size proposed? 2.4~ acres 10. Will proposed action require any authorizationCs) for the formation of sewer or water districts? [~Yes [~No 11. Will the oroposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation. education, police, fire protection)? I~Yes ~No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle prelected demand? r-lYes I~No 12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? []Yes [~No a. If yes, s the existing toad network adequate to handle the additional traffic? I~Yes i~No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your pro'ecL If there are or may be any adverse iml2acts associated with ~,our proposal, please discuss such im oacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them E. Verification I certify that the information provided above ~s true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Samuel S. Polk Date 4/22/91 : L Signature ~r ~----~10~,/~'~i[24~, ~ Title auvhorized a~ent Stephen ~ Ham, I~I If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. ~, 2--PROJECT IMPACTS AND {. ,~EIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) · In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert enwronmentai analyst. · Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. An'/ large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 sim asks that it be looked at further. · The Examples orovided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examptes and/or lower thresholds may be appropna[e for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. · The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore the examoles are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do no[ constitute an exhaustive i/st of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. · In identifying impacts, consider long term. short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2 Answer Yes if there wiI! be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) [o indicate the potential size of the /mpa,ct. if impact threshold equals or exceeds any exarr p*e provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1, d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated bv change{s) in the proiect to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3, IMPACT ON LAND I Will the proposec action result in a physical change to the proiect site? []]NO E]YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet · Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generalk within 3 feet of existing ground surface. · Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1.000 tons of natura! material (i.e., rock or soil1 per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated flooowav. · Other imoacts 2. Will there be an effect t(....~y un,que or unusual land forms found on the site? (i,e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations etc.)~]NO E]YES · Specific land forms: 6 I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] ~ [~Yes ~]No [] [] E~Yes E]No L-'] [] ~]Yes [~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No · IMPACT ON.,WA~ER ',' ~ 3. WiU proposed action affect any Water b~dv des~gnatecl as protected.~ (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmrental Conservation Law. ~NO [qYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Developable a?a o~: site contains a protected water body. ~ · Dredging mor~'~:han 100 cubic yaro5 of ma~rial from channel of - Ex~ns~o~of u~[ity distribution faciliti~ through a protectec water body. · Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland · Other imp3cts: 4. W:ill;propo~sed action a~f~ct any nomprotecf~e~ ex[sting or new body of wa~er~ ViNO V1¥1~S Exam;Pies that would apply to.col~Jmn 2 · A ~0% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or. more than a 10, acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Othe~ impacts: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? []NO E~YES EXamples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will rec uire a discharge permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project} action. · Proposed Action requires water supply from wefts with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. · Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. · Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which 9resently do not exist or have inadequate capacity, · Prooosed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the exte;'.t that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natura~ conditions. · Prooosffd Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical productS 8rea~er than 1,100 gallons. · Proeosed Action will allow residentiai uses in areas without water and/or sewer services: · Prooosed Action locates commercial and 'or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment ane/or storage facilities. · Other impacts: 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff~ ViNO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Pro. posed Action would change flood water flows. 7 I~'~ 2, 3 Small to Potent a I Can Impact Be Moderate Large j M righted By Impact Impact' Project Change [~ [] ~]Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~es ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~ QYes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Y6s ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Y~s ~No · Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion · Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. · Proposed Action wili allow development in a designated floodway. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? I-1NO []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips m any given hour. · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. · Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's Der hour · Proposed action will allow an increasein theamount of ]and committed to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? E~NO Examples that would apply to column 2 · Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list. using the site, over or near site or found on the site. · Removal of any port;on of a critical or signif'icant wildlife habitat. ' Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes~ · Other impacts:_ Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatenec~ or non-endangered species? I-~NO E~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action wou~d substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Proposed Action reouires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest [over 100 vears of age] or other locally important vegetahon. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? [NO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural and includes cror~land, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) ~ '1 2 3 Small to Potential Can impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated 'By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] ~]Yes ~No [] [] ~Yes ~No [] [] E]Yes E~No [] ~ ~Y~ ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Y~s ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No' O' · Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profde of agricultural and. · The proppsed action would irreversibl~ convert more tha~. 10 acres of'~;gric~ltur~'l 'la~d or. if located in an Agricultural District. more th.~n 2.5 acres of agricultural land. · Theproposed act onwou d disruptor prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropp n8); or create a heed for such measures (e g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff~ ' Other impacts: · IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11, Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? E]NO [YES (if necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, A~ppendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed [and uses. or project Components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrodnding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural · Proposed land use-", or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or s~gnfficantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. · Project components that wJtJ result [n the elimination or significant screening of scenic wews known to be important to me area. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure ot historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ~]NO []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring who[iv or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facflit,, or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project ~ite. · Prooosed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Si[e Inventory. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 Will ProDosed Action affect the quanmy or Quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 [~NO [~YES · The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. · A major reduction o! an open space important to the community. · Other Impacts: 1' 2 3 Small to Potentia! 'Can Impact Be Moderate Large ~ Mitigated By Impact Impact 'Project Change [] [] []Yes []]:No [] [] []Yes []'No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes UNo [] [] []Yes []No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ J ~ ~Ye~ ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ~No IMPACT ON 3~R~,NSPORTATION 14 Will there be an effect to existing transportanon systems? inn [Z]YES Examples that would a~pI~ to column 2 · Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goners. * Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ~NO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. · Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or su 3ply system to serve,more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major comm'ercial or industrial use. · Other ~mpacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS ]6 Wilt there be objectionable odors, erase, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ENO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1.500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. · Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour Der day). · Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise ,evels for noise outside of structures. ' Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. ' Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 7 WiJ] Proposed Action affect 0ublic health and safety? []NO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosmn or release of hazardous substances fi.e. oil, pesticides, chemical-' radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow level discharge oz emission. Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form {i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reacuve, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified qatura, gas or other flammable liquids. Pronosed action may result in the excavanon or other distumance w~thin 2.000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazaraous waste. Other impacts: Small to Potential Can Impactf3e Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change ~2 [] ~]Yes r-INn ]~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Ves ~ ~ ~Ves ~No ~ ~ ~Ves ~No ~ ~ ~Ves ~No ~ ~ ~Ves ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~ves ~0 ~ ~ ~ves ~No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND ~HARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGI~/BORHOOD ~18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing communitv? E~NO E3YES Examples that woul~l apply to column 2 · The oermanent population of the city, town or village in which the pzoject is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. · The municipal budget for capital,expenditures or operating serwces will increase by more than'5% per vear as a result of this project. · Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. · ProPOsed action will cause a chan§e in the density of land use. · Proposed Acti'on will replace or eliminate exisffng facilities, structures or areas of h[s'coric importance to the community. · Development will createa demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire. etc.) · Proposed Action will set an important nrecedent for'~uture projects. · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. · Other impacts: I " 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate LArge Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] ~¥es [ZNo [] [] ['-]Yes ~No [] [] ~lYes E~N0 [] ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Y~s ~o ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~" ~ ~Yes ~o ~ ~ ~Yes ~No 19 Is there, or is there likely to be. public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? E~NO I-lYES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 _£ Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is con~;idered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified tn Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact 2 Describe Iif applicable] how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3 Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact i~important. To answer the ouestion of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, including oermanently lost resoerces of value · Whether me impact can or will 0e controlled · The regional conseouence of the imoact · Its potential divergence from local needs and goa~s · Whether known ooiections to the 0roiect relate to this imoacr. {Continue on attachmenrsl 11 ~ Appendix B State Environmental Quality Review Visual EAF Addendum SEQR This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part 2 of the F'ull EAF. (To be completed by Lead Agency) Distance Between Visibility Project and Resource (in.~laes) L Would the project be visible from: · A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or marc-made scenic qualities? · An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natura or man-made scenic qualities? · A site or str~cture listed on the National or State Registers or,Historic Places? · State Parks? · The State Forest Preserve? · National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges? · National Natura Landmarks and other outstanding natura~ features? · Nationat Park Service lands? · Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic or Recreational? · Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak? · A governmentally established or designated interstate or inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? · A site, area, lake. reservoir or highway designated as scenic? · Municipal park, or designated open space? · County road? · State? · Local road? 0-~A ~A-V2 V2-3 3-5 5 + [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] F- [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] r- [] 0 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 3 [] [] [] [] 3 [] 3 ~ 0 3 [] 3 [] [] 3 [] [] [] [] 2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (i.e., screen'ed by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) [] Yes [] No .C 3. Are any of the resources checked m question ] used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible? [] Yes [] No '\ DESCRIPTION O-F EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT~ 4. From each item checked in question 1. check those which generally describe the surrouading environment. Within '1/4 mile * 1 mile Essentially undeveloped [] [] Forested [] [] Agricultural [] [] Suburban residential [] [] Industrial [] [] Commercial [] [] Urban [] [] River. Lake, Pond [] [] Cliffs, Overlooks [] [] Designated Open Space [] [] Flat [] [] Hilly [] [] Mountainous [] [] Other [] [] NOTE: add attachments as needed 5. Are there visually similar projects within: 'I/'2 mile []Yes []No *1 miles []Yes []No *2 miles []Yes []No *3 miles i-]Yes []No ~ Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate EXPOSURE 6. The annual number bf viewers likely to observe the proposed project is NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate. CONTEXT 7. The situat on or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is FREQUENCY Holidays/ Activity Daily Weekly Weekends Seasonally Travel to and from work [] [] [] [] Involved in recreational activities [] [] [] [] Routine travel by residents [] [] [] [] At a residence [] [] [] [] At worksite [] [] [] [] Other [] [] [] [] 2 PUBLISHER'S CERTIFICATE State of Connecticut ) County of New London, ) ss. New London On this 1R~-h day of May A.D. 19 , personally appeared before the undersigned, a Notary l~ublic, within and for said County and State, J.L. Zielinski, Le.gal Adv. Clerk of THE DAY, a daily newspaper published at New London. County of New London, State of Connecticut, who being duly sworn, states on oath, that the Order of Notice in the case of Leqal Adv. ~115 is he reunto annexed, its issues of the days of a true copy of which was published in said newspaper in llth May A.D. 19 9Z sworn '{/ / Subscribed and ~bJfore me this 18th day of biav A.D. 1992. Notary Public. S~E~EN L.H~. m ~5 H~P~oN Ro~ SO~n~G~M~rON, N.Y. 11960 June 2, 1992 Planning Board Town of Southold ToWn Hall ~a~Road SO~ho~d, NY 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk (SCTM # 1000-4-5-5.9) Dear Board Members: Please be advised that the final Minor Subdivision Map for Samuel S. Polk relating to the referenced premises at Fishers Island was filed with the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk on May 22, 1992 as Map No. 9223, thereby fulfilling the condition to your approval granted on May 18, 1992. Enclosed for your records is a copy of the filing receipt. Very truly yours, Stephen L. Ham, III SLH: ja Enclosure SUFFOLK COUNTY- MAP DEPT. No. 51825 _¢-~ HOW PAID -t'/~,( % H MAI L PICK UP ,<-I~oFF. 1o~"~.1 c~ ),,A. I fEE FILE TOWN BOOK PAGE I t';/~,.J /'~ Fh', ~,~.,- -~.,'~,~ :' .. SOUTHO[ g 10WN pL~,NNING ~OARD PHONE: 852-2000 SUFFOLK 'COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Edwar~ P. Romazne, COUNTY CLERK ~TOWn of Southold Assessor own of Southold Planning Board Chief Deputy County'Treasurer To Whom This May Concern: The Subdivision Was Filed, Filed Number, ALstract Number, Township, Southold Map Owner: Very truly yours, County Clerk Map Departmenl Form No. 4 9 May 15, 1992 'planning Board ToWn of Southold Main Road Southo~ld, NY 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision Samuel S. Polk (SCTM ~ 1000-4-5-5.9) Gentlemen: I am delivering herewith six paper prints and three mylars of the final map of the referenced minor subdivision. These prints and mylars bear the endorsement of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. I am also delivering our Trust Account check to the Town of Southold in the amount of $2,000 for the park and playground fee. Please have your staff contact me when the prints and mylars have been endorsed by your Chairman and I will attend to the filing of the map with the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk. Very truly yours, Stephen L. Ham, III SLH:Ja Enclosures BY HAND COLJNTY OF SUFFO .S'I'A I'E OF NEW YOI~I'( LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant ~ Section 276 of the Town Law, a public hearing will be held by thc Southold Town Planning Board, at thc Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York in said Town on the 18th day of May 1992 on the question of the following: 7:30 P.M. Preliminary ap- proval for the subdivision for Paul Matthews (Willow Run) at Mattituck, in the town of Southold, County of Suffolk and thc State of New York. Suf- folk County Tax Map Number 1000-100-2-1. Thc property is bordered on the north by Sound View Ave- nue; on thc east by land now or formerly of Mattituck Shores Associates; on the south by Ore- gon Road and Mill Road; on the west by land now or formerly of Grace Schanz, (County of Suf- folk Development Rights), lot 1 and lots 27 thru 38 of Saltaire Estates and Wavecrest Lane. 7:35 p.m. Final approval for the minor subdivision for Samuel S. Polk on Fishers Is- land, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and the State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-4-5-5.9. Thc property is bordered on the north by land now or formerly of Bard E. Bunaes, by land now or formerly of William L. Hus- set, and by a Road turn-a-round; on the east by land now or formerly of Fishers Island Water Works Corp, and by land now or formerly of Robert W. Nel- son; on the south and west by Fishers Island Development Corp. Any person desiring to be heard on the above matter should appear at the time and place specified. Dated: May 5, 1992 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Bennett Orlowski Jr. Chairman IX, 5/7/92 (48) P,~tricia Wood,' being duly sworn, says that sl]c is the Edhoc, of TIlE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAH, a public newspaper pFinted at Soulhold, in Sufl'olk CountT; ;md Ihnl the notice of which the ~nncxc:l is n p~inted copy, day of ~iAY 19 c)2 ~' -- ' k ~~%: ' '-':~~% ;:-. ; :-.x..~.-:- Sworn h) heFore mc this .. ................... d;q, oF 9 2 Nolary Public BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER NO~[ARY PUBLIC, St~le 01 N~',' No. ,l~qOG846 Qualilied in S'lflolk Corn nissio Expires ~/,) I~GAL NOTICE l~otice of PabliC Hearipg NO~IC~ IS HER_~BY GIVBN that pursuant to Section 276 of the Town Law. a public hearing will b~ held by the $outhold Town Planning Board, atthe Town Hall Main Road. Southold, New York in said Town on question of the £ollow~ng: 7'.30 P.M. Prelkaina~ approval for (Willow Rmx) at Matlituck, in the ~TATE OF '1~ YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ,~ C0N~i ~J of Mattituck, in said County, being duly sworn, say~ that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a W~e~lY NEWSpaper, published at Mattituck, in tlxe Town, of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice ofwhlch the -nnexed is a printed copy, has been regular- ly published in said' Newspaper once ~ach week for [ weeks sUCCeSSively, cgmmenchag on the ~ dayof The property is bordered on the ~ north by land now or formerly of t~ Uard E ~una~s, by lind now or for- ~ ~,~--. m~lv of Willi~ L ~sser, and by a ~:~ :n ~ ~ ~ ~cip~ Clerk hnd now or fo~erly of Fishers Is- ~d Wat~ W~ C~, and ~ hnd s~: ~ ~e sou~ and west by F~h~s ~0~ to ~fOre me Lshnd Development Co/p. Any person desiring to be heard on the above matter should appear at the time and place specified. Date& May 5. 1992 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN pI~aNNING BOARD Bennett Oflowski, Jr. day of ~ 19~~' I~LANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairraan George Rttchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kemneth L. Edwards Telephone (516 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 28, 1992 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town ltall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (5I 6) 765-1823 stephen L. Ham III MattheWs & Ham 45 Hampton Road Southampton, New York 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk SCTM~ 1000-4-5-5.9 Dear Mr. Ham: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, April 27, 1992. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southotd Town Planning Board set Monday, May 18, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. fox a final public hearing on the maps dated January 9, 1992. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. . Chairman SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER s~-~: SUBJE CT: SCTM~: COMMENTS PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski..Ir.. Chairman George Ritchie Lathara. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edv-.ards Felepho~e 516) 765-1938 PLANNING'BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 1197 Fax 516) 765d823 April 7, 1992 Stephen L. Ham, III Mathews and Ham 45 Hampton Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk SCTM% 1000-4-5-5.9 Dear Mr. Ham: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension of sketch approval from April t, 1992 to October 1, 1992. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, J/~. ~5 Chairman Aprii3, 1992 piann~nq.~oard ~ain Roa~ ~incr S~bd&v~s~on of Sam'ual 5. Polk (SCTM ~i00073-5-~.9 Please extend for an additional six months the sketch plan a~oval that ~as gr~nte~ on September 30, 1991 for the reference~ application~ The applicant'~ a~en= for puz~osez of cbtaining the approval of the Suffolk County Department Of Mealth Services apparently used an old for~., when ~ubmi~ting the prints and mylars of t~e $~bdivisio~ ~ap and d~lay was encountered when the entire paoka~e %~a~ r~urned and had to be r~ubmitted on the new form that also re~aired the sur~yor~ signature. Final maps will be submitted pro=,,p~ly upon recelp~ of approval by the Suffolk County Oepartment cf Heatt~h Se~,~ices. Vary truly yom:rs, Step~en L. Ham, III SL~,:ja F~X ~ Phone #. Number of pages (including this ~ ~ ' Ca!~ (~16) ~S3-2400. If all ~ages are .... ~ =_~elved, ~ Plan~ing ~o~rd ~w~~ ~o~ho~ ~Y 1!971 April 3, Minor of Samuel s. Polk Dear Piea~e extend fo~ an additional six month~ the sketch p~=n'~ a~v~i~' ~~t~ -w~ gra~te~ on September 30, 1991 for the ~_~erenc~ application~ The applicant'~ a~ent for pu~'poses of obtaining the a~prova! of the Suffoi~ County D~partmen= of ~ealth Se~.~ices apparently used an old foz~ when submitting the prints and mylars of ~ S~bdlvlsion ~ap and d~lay was encountered whsn the entire paok~ge ~a~ r~turne~ an~ ~a~ to be r~submi=ted on the new fo~ that a!s~ re~ired the ~u~¢eyor's signature. Final map~ wall be $~bmitted promptly ,lpon receip: cf aDprcva! by the Suffolk Co~inty Department of H_a~tn Very truly yo~[rs, Stephen L. Ham, April 3, 1992 · d Plarmlng Boar; TO~n~ Southoid Mai~ Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision Application of Samuel S. Polk (SCTM ~ 1000-4-5-5.9) Dear Board Members: Please extend for an additional six months the sketch plan approval that was granted on September 30, 1991 for the referenced application. The applicant's agent for purposes of obtaining the approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services apparently used an old form when submitting the prints and mylars of the subdivision map and delay was encountered when the entire package was returned and had to be resubmitted on the new form that also required the surveyor's signature. Final maps will be submitted promptly upon receipt of approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Very truly yours, Ste~phen~L~~a~, III SLH: ja PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman OeQrge Ritehie Latham. Jr Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephor~e (5/6) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 10, 1991 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Halt. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179. Southold. New York 11971 Fax ~ 516'~ 765-1823 Stephen L. Ham III Matthews & Ham 45 Hampton Road SoUthampton, New York 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk SCTM~1000-4-5-5.9 Dear Mr. Ham: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, December 9, 1991. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, establishes itgelf as lead,agency, and as lead agency makes a determination of non-significance, and grants a Negative Declaration. Enclosed please find a copy ofthe Negative Declaration for your records.. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowskir Jr. Chairman Encl. Dat~: Stephen L~ Ham, III ~,=mbe~ of pages Zf all pages ara (including this page) not ~ ~ -~ call December 4, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowskl, Jr. Chairman Sonthold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road la. O2 Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Samuel Polk ~M~inor Subdivision sCTM# 1000-004-05-5.9 Dear Benny: ~ per your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced projecL Tasks and completed activities are ~dentified as follows: Review Part I I,F, AF Tt~e parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessaxy. A copy of the corrected LEAF is attached. Prepare Part II LEAF ~e~part II I,EAF checklist has .been completed and is also attached. Additional ~6rmafion concerning Our findings is included below. dvise as Necessary The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted The project is currently used for a single family residence The s~te totals 4.88 acres m s~ze. The proposal mvolves the division of property mto One 2.44 acre lot for an existing residential home (Lot 2) and one 2.44 acre lot (Lot 1) for a future residential structure. This site is zoned R-120, requiring a lot yield based upon 120,000 square foot lots or greater. Since, the proposed lots are approximately 106,286 square feet the application will need a zoning variance from the Zoning Board for lot size. Field inspection finds that the southern portion of the site has steep slopes that range approximately from 30 to 40 percent. The existing home is located on moderately flat upland terrain,,approximately 200 feet away from the top of the bank. The site (LOt 2)is subject to human impacts presently resulting from existing site uses. The remainder of Lot 2 includes a driveway and landscaped areas with accessory structures attached to the house. This lot contains vast amounts of natural vegetation leading to the steep slope and the slope is stable. Lot 1 will be a 2.44 acre lot, with a proposed single family house. This parcel is. predominantly forested. The overall topography of the site is moderately fiat wath the 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-'~455 Page 1 of 2 Samuel Polk Sub~*ision Long EA~ Review exception of the rear area of the lot which is domlnafed by steep slopes. The steep slope area in the soulhern portion of the, site ,contains n~tuial vegetation _a~,d tree ~s~es. In the ~erms pl.. project ~mpac~. the ? .of Lot 1 ~r ~e ~.m--pose o~a !subd.i,v~s~,~ iomandthe ultimate~,c0nstmction o~:a single f, amily%dwetting m?t be ~consig~re& Based upon a hypothetical house layout, in cohformance with zomg ~etb~¢ks, extensive clearing may not be ?cessary for thelomtion of a house, . ~"ial~h&agti some tree ~ecies will need to be removed. The house can be, located m, ~aCCord~mce with R-120 zor~ng setbacks, and can aim be si~ated 100 re, ct or more }from the steel)slope~:m'ea 'TJl S hypothetical building envoi'ope is nlodcratclv flat; 'therefore. mi~hhnuqn 0r no topogr[tj>hic impacts wdl occur. I. Ioaever. in thc t'trea of tlic proposed drivex~m' the slopes exceed 20 percent and will require cxtensive excavation to constm~:t. Due to this it.woukl seem pru.d, en, t tt.~ require.a Grading Site PI;m be subniittcd to thc PI:tuning Bodrd for rt rther rev cw at t ~c ti nc of t ~¢ milding pen'nit ;q~plication. in order to insure the sutbility of crodiblc soils in:thc slope area .where ~l~e proposed tl~ix twit) Js t.o be located. We.suggest I'~l( any ft~tt'J rc site use for Lot .llbe in excess o~ 10D ~eet of the steep slope tl/'e;~ J n atkfition, wc 'su o UC>l th~ a res~da be placed~i~oa~ propert~ to keep tie 1; It ra vcgc at o 1 1 le st~p~e~to;~tpo~d~fi~;eroMon,~smblH~ p'rol~lcms. I~9~,~, ,~:'s letter provides the Board ~wi~ the informa~tioCneeded to continue review /~T~naFWYCramer, ASLA enc: Part I/II I,FAF CRAMER, V CIATES ENVIRONMEN G CONSULTANTS Page 2 of 2 SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significaxtce Lead Agency: Planning Board of the Town of Southold Address: Date: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 December 4, 1991 This notice is issued pursuant to 6 NYC.RR Part 617, and local law # Chapter 44, of the implementing regulatiofis pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. .The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a s~gnfficant effect on the environment. Title of Action: SEQR Status: Location: Project Description: Samuel S. Polk Fishers Island Minor Subdivision SCTM# 1000-4-5-5.9 Unlisted Action Located on Private Road, off of East End Road, Fishers Island, Southold, New York. The project involves a request for a minor subdivision of one parcel into two lots. One house already exists on lot 2 and one is proposed on lot 1. The land is zoned R-120 low density residential. © © Reasons Supporting This Determination: This d~tern~natio~is issued in ful} consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.1i, In addition, a Long Environmental Assessment~Form parts I, II has been prepared, by the T.ov% and h.as been .flllty considered by the Planning Board in.t~he, preparation of ~.t~i.~s determination. ,This Negauve Declaration ~s issued in Corhpli ,an.c? with Part 617.8(e)(1)(ii), and in full consideration of th.e docume~ntation hnd 6ther retevg~..t information provided. The following specific reasons are offeredtn snpport of this de~erminationz ~ s~bje~: si~is~ p,.re. ~y occupied by 9,ne dwelling. T~e ~otoW0s.~.~ouf~ s~!ix ~e 4.88 acre lot into two paxcels, thereby creating a lot for ~ ex~sting~dWe~llng ~ ~e for a future unit. 2) No ~ uses ar~nroposed for lot 2; however, the applicant proposes to construct a ~ fn~ ~t~re on lot 1. The proposed project and future umt ~ fl~sity of land use. 3) .T.~n~.. pv~p~ao.~d ..project inK4 f~e lxouse w~ll not i~crease demand for services, or set an ts awar/,mted precedent, c~e m the fact that a uses presently exist on the site. 3) Tlm sith c~oc, nol contain ,'m~ tmique environmental resources. The topography is moderitte m steep, .thc softs arc well drained, the rote ~s dominated by landscaped areas ~[nd ~xo6dlot. and lot 2 is subject to human impacts presently resulting from ~t~,si~e t~se. For Further Information: Contac~t Person: Address: Phone No.: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1938 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001. Regional Director - NYSDEC, Building 40, The Loop Road, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 11794 Southold Zorfing Board of Appeals, Southold, New York Southold Town Board, Southold, New York Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Riverhead, New York Applicant PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett OiIowski, Jr . Chairman George Ritchic Latham, Jr. Richard G Ward Mark S McDonald Kenneth L Edwards Telephone (516) 765- 1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance December 10, 1991 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Law'. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk SCTM~: 1000-4-5-5.9 Location: Private Road 112 feet northwest of East End Road , Fishers Island SEQR Status: Type I (X) Unlisted ( ) Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes ( ) No (X) Description of Action: Subdivide a 4.88 acre parcel into two 2.44 acre parcels on Fishers Island. Page 2 Samuel S. Polk SEQR Negative Declaration Con't. Reasons Supporting This Determination: An Environmental assessment has been submitted, reviewed and it has been determined that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. Because there has been no correspondence received from the Department of Health Services in the allotted time, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. Because there has been no correspondence received from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the allotted time, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. The subject site is presently occupied by one dwelling. The proposal would split the 4.88 acre lot into two parcels, thereby creating a lot for the existing dwelling and one for a future unit. No further uses are proposed for lot 2; however, the applicant proposes to construct single family dwelling unit in the future on lot 1. The proposed project and future unit will not increase the intensity of land use. The proposed project and future house will not increase demand for services, or set an unwarranted precedent, fur to the fact that a use presently exists on the site. The site does nor contain any unique environmental resources. The topography is moderate to steep, the soils are well drained, the site is dominated by landscaped areas and woodlot, and lot 2 is subject to human impacts presently resulting from existing site use. For Further Information: Contact Person: Robert G. Kassner Address: Planning Board Telephone Number: (516) 765-1938 cc: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission Roger Evans, DEC Stony Brook Comm. Thomas C. Jorling, DEC Albany Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Judith Terry, Town Clerk Building Department Applicant :: 1¢-1~-2 (2-/87l--7c 617.21 Appendix a State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Purpose: Th~ full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine in )iect or ~cfion may be significant The quest o~ of whether an act on may be s gn f cant s, nota wa s y, there are aspects of a project that a.(e subje~ct~ve or unmeasureab e, tt IS also understood that those who determin~ ~i§~i~¢ahce m~y hav~ liuJe or rio formal kn6wlecJge of the environment or m~ be technically expert in environmental an~l~si~, fr~ ~ddit~on,, many who have J~owledge in one particular area may not ~e aware of the broader concerns,affecting the qbe~t on o~ silo i(' cance. ' ~e fa [ E~F $ n:tentded to prov de a method wh~reb ap cants and a enc &$ can be assur · ' ~. , . Y P g ed that the determmatlon proce~ has been orderly~ cotnpmhenswe in nature, yet flexible to ailow introduction of information to fit-a project or action. Full EAF Components: 'The full EAF is corn prised of three parts: Part 1; Pmvid,es ob ective data and infotma, tion about a g yen project and its site. By fdentifying basic project data, i~t assists a reviewer i,n the analysis t~at takes place i~ Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focu~e~ on identifying th~ range of possible impacts that may oc(Sur from ~ro]ect or act on t prov des gu:id>anco as Ix) whetheE an impact is ike v to be considered small to moderaJ ~tentialJy- large impact The form a,~so identifies whether an impact can be'mitigate ~ c "~-'~. .... impac, is actually importanL DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type 1 and Unlisteo Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ~ Part 1 3{~ Part 2 [:]Part 3 Upon.rewew of the information recorded on this EAF [Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the mag~tude and importance of each imDact, it is reasonabb, determined Dy the lead agency that: A. The project will not result in any large and important impact[s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the env~ronmen ~, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared, [] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITION ED negative declaration will be prepared.* [] C. The project may result in one or more'large and important impacts that may'have a s~gnificant impact on the environment, therefore.a positive declaration will be prepared. ' A Conditioned Negative D~cJaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name o~ Actio~ Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer { If different from respqnsib e officer} Dale '~ PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION ' Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Pa[ts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered- as part of the application for &p~roYa[ and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide ,~ny ad~ition~ intormation you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, 6esear~:h Or investigatior~ If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF Ac~rlON MINOR SUBDIVISION OF SAMUEL S. POLK LOCATION CE ACTION linc ude Street Address, Municipality and Coumty) Private Road off East' End Road, ' Fishers Is118]ld, Town of Southold, Suffolk ~o~nt~,, N~w York (SCTM # 1000-4-5-5.9) BUS~NESS TELEPHONE t 516) 283-2~00 NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR Samuel S. Polk ADDRESS' c/o Matthews & Ham, 4.5 Hampton Road cm~PO Southampton NAME DP OWNER (Jr different) ADDRESS STATE ZIP CODE NY 11968 .RUS[N ESS TELEPHONE ) CiTY/PO DESCRIPTION OFACTiON subdivision into 5wo 2.44-acre lots of 4.88-acre parcel on which one single-family dwelling is presently located STATE ZiP CODE Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: [2]Urban [2]lndustriat ~Commercial [2]Residential [suburban) E3Forest I~Agriculture [-IOther 2. Total acreage of proiect area: 4.88 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY Meadow or Brushland [Non-agricuJtural) .55 acres Forested 4.16 acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres Wetland (Fresh~aier or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres Water Surface Area acres Unvegetated {Rock, earth or fill) acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces - .17 acres Other [Indicate type). :- acres ~Rural [non-farm) AFTER CONIPLETION;~ La, '+5-acres acres acres acres acres · 17 .~ acres acre5; 3. What is predominant soil type{s) on project site? sand - sand & gravel \Vcvhatd a. Soil drainage: ~Well drained 100 % of site E]Moderately welt drained . % of site ~Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group ~ through 4 of the NY~ Laad Classification System? N/A acres (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are'there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ~Yes ~No a What is depth to bedrock? c. 600 ft. (in feet) ~0 ~O &OD · - "~" ~]15% or greater 26..32 % 6, Is project substantially contiguous to. or contain a building, site, or district. [bred on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? EYes [~No (~' ' Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the R~gister of National Natural Landmarks? [2]Yes ~No 8. What is the depth of the water table.~ > 16 ft0n feet} 9. Is site located over fi'pr/mary, principal, or sole source aquifed J~IYes [~No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shelf fishing opportunit es presently exist in the project area? I~yes '!~o P¢,i ¥'.A.~_'~ · ' 'Pe.o ¢~r 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal fife that is identified as threatened or endangered? E]Yes ~;]No According to .T.M.O. Consul'clnF~ Identify each specms 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the prolect site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) EYes B'INo Describe 13. Is the project site presently used'-by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? E]Yes ~]No If yes. explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views, known to b~ important to the community? l-lYes¢i~No unknown C~,J[ ~/ ~-'~Cc?~'~ ~.'C~ ~O~ ~O~. 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: N/A a. Name of Stream and name of River ~o whick it is tributary N/A lB. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous To project area: a. Name N/A b. Size (In acres) N/A 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? [Yes fqNo ~ t.]lq a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? []Yes ~]No b) If Yes, will imProvements be necessary to allow connection? []Yes ~No 18. 19. 20. Is the site located in an agricultura district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? [:]Yes [~No ls the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 0(1Yes [Z]No Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? f-lYes I~No C B. Project Description 1. hysical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a, Tota contiguous acreage owned or..controlled by project sponsor ti .88 acres. b. Project acreage to'.be developed: 0 acres initially; 0/,~/,&,~ '~cres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeve)oped ~:"~,4~-acres. (ungl1 oonstPuc(±on, if any, 'cakes place on ; LOt 1 ) d Length of project, in miles: N/A (t(appropriate) :. e. If the proiect is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed N//~ g. Maximum vehicu ar trips generated per hour N/A (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housir~g units: One Family Two Family Mult pie Family Condominium lnitialJ ~, one Ultimately t, wo i. Dimens,ons (in feet) of largest proposed structure N/A height; N/A j. Linear feet of frontage aloflg a public thoroughfare prolect will occupy is~ width; N/A length. 0 ft. 3 _~. How ~nuch natural ,,,~crial (i.e., 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? OYes ~No ~N/A a. If yes, for What intended pugrpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for rec[emat on? I-lYes I-1No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled, for reclamation? I-lYes (No e-/~ ~ 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees., shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 0 acres. 5. W,i[l any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other local[y-important vegetation be removed by this project? [~Yes ~No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction l~I//l, months, {including demolition). 7. If mu[ti-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated b Ar~ticipated date of commencement phase c. Approximate completion date of final phase tons/cubic yards. (number). month year, (including demolition). month year. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? d. 'Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? E3Yes l-INo 8. Will blasting occur during constrt~ct~on? ~lyes [~No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 0 , after project is. complete 0 10, .Number of lobs eliminated by this prolect 0 11 I~Yes []No If yes, explain [:]Yes ~]No 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? -E]'~es ~No a. If yes indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b, Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? E]Yes []No Type 14 Will surtace area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Exolain 15 16 17 18. 19. 20. 21. Is prolect or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? I~Yes []No Will the project generate solid waste? ,~Yes ~No ~ a. If yes, what is the amouM per month tons i~/,),dG-~-C~Nj ~.q~:.~¢. ~ ~A ~ ~ ~ b. If yes, will an existing so d waste facility be used~ ~Yes ~No c. If yes, give name ~. ~ ~E~ ~J.~ ; location ~ ' d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposaI system or intQ. a sanitary andfill? ~Yes ~No e. If Yes. exolain c' d4gLE' HAFEN/4/6 ~/[ ~ Wi] Lhe project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what [s the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? Will project use herbicides or pesticides? F-lyes I~Yes E~No tons 'month, t~No Will proiect routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? E]Yes ~No : Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ~Yes Will project result in an ~ncrease in energy use? I-lYes ~No If yes , indicate type(s) ~No 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23. Total anticipated water usage per day ' i~/A gallons/day. 2,1. Does project involve Loca . State or Federa funding? [~Yes If Yes. explain gallons'minute. r~No 'Approvals R~quired: Type SubmTttal Date City, Town. Millage Board [2Yes ~No City, Town, Village Planning Board 1C1yes [2]No City, Town'Zoning Board )~.Yes City CounW Health Department l[IYes IZNo Other Local Agencies [2Yes I~2]No Other Regional Agencies F-lYes ~No State Agencies E]Yes ~No Federal Agencies [lYes LrlNo Minor Subdivision Approval Minor SubdivLsion Aporovat ~/22/91 . (after Planning Bo=~d ok=to. plan aonroval) C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action nvolve a pl'a~nning or zo~ ng decision? r~Yes F1No If Yes, indicate decision required: i-lzoning amendment ,~oning variance ~lspecial ,use permit ~subdivision ~site plan C]new/revision of master plan [lresource management plan Elother 2. What is the zo. ning classificationCs)of: the ste? , R-120 ' 3. What is the maximum' potential development 9f the site if deve oped as permitted by the present zoning? two single family-dwellings [0 4, What is the proposed zoning of the site? same 5. What is the maximum potential' development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? ~wo single family dwellings 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use Dlans? ~]Yes 7. What are the predominant land use(s] and zoning classifications within a ~A mile radius of proposed action? residential; single family dwellings; R-120 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a *A mile? IXIYes C1No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? two a, What is the minimum lot size proposed? 2.44 acres 10.. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? [2Yes ~No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided servmes (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? -1Yes ~No a If yes, ~s existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~Yes liNc 12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? -lYes ~No a. If yes, is thetexisting road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? 12Yes liNc D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may b'e needed to clarify ygur project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please ,discuss such impacts and the measures ~vhich you propose to mitigate or: avoid them. E. Verilication I certify that the information provided above is true to the best'of my knowledge. Applicant/5 ponsor Name Samuel S. Polk Date 4/22/91 Signature ~y ~ L~'~,[~]~ ' Title authorized agent - Stephen L. Ham, I If the action is in th~ Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the CoastalAssessmenl Form before proceeding with this assessment. Responsibility of Lead Ag~ency G~enerat Information (Rea~ Carefully) · In completing the form [~ reviewer should b,e guided by the quest:ion: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable.~ The reViewe, ~ not expected to be an expert environmental analyst, · dentifyi'ng that an imp; ~ will be potentially large (column 2) does~n.ot mean that it is also necessarily~significant. ),ny large impact must b', evaluated in PART 3 to determine signific!ance. Identifying ae impact in column 2 simply asks that i~ be looked a~ Jrther. · The Examples provided to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever Dossible the. threshold of magnitude that would er a response in column 2. The examples a,r~e gemeraJly applicable throughout the State and for most situations. B;ut ~r any specific project or site other exan~l~]es and/or lower thresholds may'"" be appropriate fora Pbtentia,[ Large ]r ct response, thus requirir~g evaluation in Pkrt 3. ~' · The impacts of each pr~ct, on each site, in each locality, wil v~ry. Therefore the examples are illustrative and ~ ba~e been offered as gui~ce. They do not constitute an exhaustive listQf tmpacts and thresholds to answer each question. ~x The number of example~er question does not indicate the importafice of each question. ~,. In identifying impacts, q~sider long term, short term and cumlative effects. ~ Instrndions (Read carefully, - J. Answer each of the 19 ~estions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b, Maybe answers should ~ considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a q~tion then check the appropriate box (column I or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impa.ct. If impact thresh~JJ equals or exceeds a'ny example provided, Check column 2. If im ~act will occur gut threshoid is lower than exam pie, ~J~eck column 1. " d. tf reviewer has doubt a~Jt size of the impact then ~:onsider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large im~t checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate ~mpact. also check the ~es box in column 3: A N'o resF~onse indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in P&~:~ 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1 Wi[ltheproposedactionresuitinaphysica[changetotheprojectsite~ ~qO ~YES Examples that would apply to cblumn 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, {15 foot rise per 100 f~ot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area ~xceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. · Construction of paved parking area for.l,000 or more vehicles ° Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within :3 feet of existing ~round surface. · Construction that will c~ntinue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase Or stage, · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) Der year. · Cooslruction or expansion of a sanitar'~ landfill. ~ · Construction in a designated floodway. ' Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect t(. ,...y un,que or unusual land forms found on the site.~ ~Le. cliffs dunes, geological formations, etc~NO I-lYES · SBecific rand forms: 6 I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By impact Impact ' Project C~hange [] [] E]Yes E~No [] [] []Yes []No L-] [] []Yes []No [] ' [] []Yes []No [] [] E3Yes IDNo [] [] E3Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] E]Yes E]No [] [] E]Yes [~No [] [] []Yes []No IMPACT ON WATER 2~. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? [Under Articles 15.24, 25~ of the E nvironmental Conservation Law. ECL) /1~O I-lYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Developabl~ area of site contains a protected water body. · Dredging more than ~100 cubic yards, of material from channel of a protected stream. · Extension o~ utility distribution faciIities through a protected water body. · Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. · Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body - of Water.~ ~NO I-lYES £x~mples that would apply to coI~Jmn 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any bod'~ of water or more than a 1,0 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Othe~ impacts: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity~' .J~NOt,~ [~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will reauire a discharge permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that noes not have approva to serve proposed (project) acbon. · Proposed Action reouires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. · Construction or operauon causing any contamination of a water supply system. · Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which 0resently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action would use water q excess of 20,000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will likely cause siltaticq or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that therewil[ be an obvious visual contrast to naturai conditions. · Proposgd Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. · Proposed Action locates commercial andfor b~dustrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste trea, tment and/or storage facilities. · Other impacts: 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff~ [3YES Fxamples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action wou d change flood water flows. 7 L Smatl to Pgtential Can Impact Be Modei'ate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] []Yes I-1No. [] [] [~¥es {~No E3 ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~. ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No Y'es ~ ~ ~Yes ~No Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ~N'o ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No Action may cause substantial erosion. ed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.' Action will allow deve[opment in a designated floodway. IMPACT ON AIR Will proposed action affect air quality? ,~NO E3YES Examples that would apply I:o column 2 !~ Proposed Action wilt induce 1,0~3 or more vehicle trips in any gwen hour. Proposed Action wil) result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of Emissi6n rate o£ total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source p:roducing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed action wil] allc~w an increase in the amount of land committed to indUStrial use. Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial .areas. -... Other impacts: IMPACT ON'PLANTS AND ANIMALS Will Proposed Action affect arv threatened or endangered sDeoes? ,~NO []YES [~amples that would apply to column 2 Reduction of one or more species listed or the New York or Federa~ lisL using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application 6f pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year. other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts:. Wilt Proposed Action substantially affect non-threat~_ed or non-endangered species? . /~NO [YES [Xamples that would apply to column 2 PrOposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or mrgratory fish. shellfish or wildlife species. PrOposed Action reouires the removal of more than. 10 acres -~[ mature forest [over 100 years of age) or other }oca]iy important 'egetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 'Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land re ources?  NO ' []YES [Xamples ~hat would apply to column 2 he proposed action would sever, cross, or limit access [o agricultural ' end [induaes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) small toL~,,~ential Pan Impaot Be Mb',derat e Large Mitigated By I~pact Impact Project ,Change [] [] [:~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~ ~Yes ~ No ~ ] ~ ~Yes ~ No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ' ~ ~Ves ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~ggs ~No ~ ~ ~Ves ~No ~ ~ ~Ves ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~ ~Yes ~No C · Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land, · The,proposed action would irrever~bly convert more than 10 acres of a~ricu tufa land or f coated n an Agricu tug D strict more than 2.5 a,cres of agricultural land. 0_ The l~roP°s~d, ac;tion would c~jsrupt or, prevent insta lation of agricultura ' land ~h~a~].e~eri~ $~stems Ce,g., subs'urface drain lines, outlet dit(~hes, strip cr~p(t~g); Or crea.te a ~eed f~r such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to, dra'[n p0or[¥ due to increased runoff) · O~er ~pac~s: ; IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources.~ ,~O []YES Jif nece~sarv, use the Visual EAF Addendum in< 'Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed I~nd uses. or project components o'bvio, usl¥ different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land us~ ~atterns whether man~mace or natural. · Proposed land uses. or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which svd[ eliminate or slg'nificantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qua]ides of that resource. · Project como·neats that wi} result, in the elimination or significant screening of scemc views known to De in'portant to the area. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historii: or pafeontologica] importance? ~NO [:]YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially cbntiguous to any facility or s~te listed on the State or Na ti·hal Register of historic places. · Any ~mpac[ to an arch~aeoiogical site or'fossil bec ]·cared within the project site. · Pr·nosed Action will occur m an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impacts:_.. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportum'ties? Examples that woule apply to column 2 ~NO I-lYES L ' The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational ~pportunitv. · A major reduction of an open space ~mportant to the community. · Other re·acts: 9 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Pro[ec,t Change [] [] ~Yes r~.~o, [] [] []','es E~No [] [-]' ~Yes []]No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No 'IMPACT Oi~ Will there be an effect to ex systems? '~NO ~]YES Examples that would abply to column 2 etlon of present patterns of· movement of people and/or goods. ~'e PrOposed Actioh will result in ma]or traffic problems. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY ~;$. Will proposed action affect th~ community's sou c~s of fuel or energy supply? ~N© F-lYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the muniCipal,ity, · Proposed Actio~n y/ill require the creation or extension of an enersy transm:ss~on or supply system to se~rve F~ore than 50 stogie or two family residences or to serve a major cc~mm~rcial-or ind~striaJ use, · Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibratioh as a result of the Proposed Action? /~NO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blastin~i withi~ 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facdit¥, · Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day) ' Proposed Action will proouce ooerating noise exceeding the local am~'lent noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposecl Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH ' Will Proposed Action affect public health and safe~O ~YE$ Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action may cause a risk qf explosion or r~lease of hazardous ~ubsta~ :es fLe. oil. pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic /ow level' discharge or emission. Proposed Action may result in the bui-ial of "hazardous wastes" in any %tm (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, nfectious, etc~} ~tOrage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ~as or other flammable liquids ~tOposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance '~thin 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or Eazardous ~thot '~moacts: 10 S~nall to',.~tential Can Impact Be Mqderate Large Mitigated By I~pact Impact Project Change [] [] [~]Yes I~]No [] ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Yes , ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ~No IMP~ACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD character of the existing commuhity? (~18. Will proposed action affect the ~ I-lYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The permanent popufa~don of the city, towh or village in which the project is I.oca~ced is likely to grow by more than 5%. · The municipal budge~ for cap ta exBend tures or operating service~ w~l! increase by more than'5% per y~sr as a result of this proiect. · Proposed ~ction will copflict with officially adopted plans or goals. · Proposed action will cause a chanse in the density of land use. · Pr'oposed Action wiSJ replace or elimi~:e ex sting facilities, structures or area~ of h storic mpor~nce to the- comm~niW. · Develonment will create a demand for additional community services (e,g. schools, police and fire. etc.) · Proposed Action ~vill set an important precedent for future 9roiects. · Proposed Action will c~eate or eliminate employment. · Other impacts: I '-~' 2 3 Small, to Potential Can Impact Be ModerAte Large Mitigated By ImpAct Impact Project Change El' [] []Yes []No [] [] [::]Yes ~-]No [] [] []Yes [:]No [] [] []Yes []No [] - [] ~Yes []No [] ~ ~V~s ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~' ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No 19. Is there· or ,s there iikelv to be. public codtroversy -elated to potential adverse envi~:enmenta~ impacts? .~NO E]YES If Any Action in. Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential La[ge Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 (_ Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the ~mpact. 2. Describe Iii applicable) how the impac( Ebu[d be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide ii it is reasonable to conclude that this impac( is important. To answer the qaestion of importance, consider: · The probability of the mpact occurrm.g · The duration of the im,~ac : · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence of the im,)act · Its potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whether known obiections to the proiect relate to this impacL- (Continue on attachments) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie ~Latham. J,r, Richard G, Ward Mark S, McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516~ 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SGUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765~1823 November 22 ;1991 Stephen L. Ham,~III Mathews and Ham 45 Hampton Road Southampnon, NY 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk Zoning District: Low-Density Residential R-120 Fishers Island SCTM$ 1000-4-5-5.9 Dear Mr. Ham: You should be .aware that if the Planning Board grants final approval, the Town will require a park and playground fee of $2000.00 per vacant lot as per Town Code, Section A106~38 E (3). If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman DEPARTMENT OF' PLANNING ® PATRICK G. HALl=IN SUFFOLK cOUNTY EXECUTIVE ARTHUR H. KUN~Z DIRECTOR OF PLANNING October 3, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., C~airmam Town of So~thold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Location: Mimor Subdivision Plan - Property of Samuel g. Polk Southerly side of cul-de-sac, Private Road, 112 + feet northwest of East End Road, Town of Southold. DearMr. Orlowski: Please be advised that pursuant to Section A I4-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code that the above capt±oned plat is not within the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Plamning Commission. Comment: The parcel is outside the Special Groundwater Protection Area that is being developed. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kurtz Director of Planning S/s Frank Dowling~ Senior Planner Subdivision Revie~Division File: 1333-NJ-91-13 FD:mb C New York ,State Department of Environmental Conservation 6.. Re: SOUTHOL~ TOgZN LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE This letter responds to your communication of regarding lead agency coordination for the above-noted project, under Article ~ (State Environmental Quality Review - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617. The Department has the following interest in this project: DEC Contact Person: SEQR Classification: [ ] Type I [ ] Unlisted DEC Position: Based on the information provided: DEC has no objection to your agency assuming [ead agency status for this action, DEC wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. [ ] DEC needs additional information in order ~o respond (see comments). /~ DEC cannot be lead agency because it has no jurisdiction in this action. Comments: "[:~ see ~?~-~(~e'~ [ ] none If you do not concur with the DEC position indicated above, please contact this office to resolve designation of lead agency within the time allowable under Pars 617. Please feel free to contact this office for further information or discussion. cc: (attach distribution list) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Odowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latharn. Jr. Richard G. Ward Magk $_ McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (5/6I 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53~95 Main Road P.O. Box 1179, Southold. New York 11971 Fax (5t6) 765-1823 October $~ 1991 Cramer~ Voorhis & Associates,~Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Review of LEAF Samuel S. Polk SCTM~ 1000-4-5-5.9 Dear Mr. Cramer and Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Environmental Assessment Form for the above mentioned subdivision to your office for review. The Planning Board has received the $400.00 review fee from the applicant. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. If there are any questions, please contact Planning Staff. enc. Chairman ~OUNT¥ OF S~IJFFO~ PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE October 3, 1991 'Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision Plan - Property of Samuel S. Polk Location: Southerly side of cul-de-sac, Private Road, 112+ feet northwest of East End Road, Town of Southold. Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised that pursuant to Section A 14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code that the above captioned plat is not within the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Comment: The parcel is outside the Special Groundwater Protection Area that is being developed. s/s Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kurtz Director of Planning Frank Dowling, Senior Planner Subdivision Review Division ~PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Or owski~, Jr., Chairman George Ritchje Latham. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Ootober 1, 1991 SCOTY L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.~O. Box I179 Southotd. New York 11971 ~Fax(516~ 765-1823 Stephen L. Ham III Matthews & Ham 45 Hampton Road Southampton, New York 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision of Samuel S. Polk SCTMg1000-4-5-5.9 Dear Mr. Ham: The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board a= a meeting held on Monday, September 30, 1991. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this Type I action. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map dated April 30, 1990. Sketch plan approval is conditional upon submission of final maps within six months of the date of sketch approval, unless an extension of time is requested by the applicant, and granted by the Planning Board. Please note that five (5) paper prints and two (2) mylars of the final map containing a current stamp of Health Department approval, must be submitted before a final public hearing will be set. Please note that the Planning Board has referred this subdivision to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for their review. You will be notified should any covenants and restrictions be required. Page ~ Samuel Polk Please contact this office if you "have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski. Jr. ~5 Chairman S0~I~01~: N.Y. 11968 Planning Board Town of Southold Town Halt Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: October 1, 1991 Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk (SCTM ~ 1000-4-5-5.9) Gentlemen: In accordance with the request in your letter of September 24, 1991, I have enclosed a check to the Town of Southold in the amount of $400 in payment of your environmental consultant's fee. SLH: ja Enclosure Very truly yours, S . Ham, III PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Ir.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Marl< S;' McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 .- PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516~ 765~1823 // 199~ RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCP~R Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interes= in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Fo, rm (EA~ t~vy.t ,you in y~our response. Projec~ Name: ~, ,~ ,~ff~_~~ ~/ ~ Requested Action: SEQRA Classification: (~) Type ( ) Unlisted Contact Person: (5~6)~765-1938 The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. Plannipg Board Position: ( /This agency wishes to assume This agency has no objection status fcr this action. lead agency status fQr this action. to your agency assuming lead agency ( ) Other. ( See comments below). Comments: Please feel free ~o contact this office for further information. Sincerely, Chairman cc: ~Board of Appeals SFBuilding° Department Southold Town Board ~Suffolk County DepT. of Health Services NYSDEC Stony Brook U~. Ar~ f--~ * Maps are enclosed for your.~eview Coordinating agencies PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, J~r.. Richa~t G. Ward Mark S. McDonal~d Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~ Telephone (516) 765-1938 Suffolk County Planning Commision H. Lee Dennison Executive Office Building - 12th Floor Veterans'Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 1178~8 SCOTI'L. HARRIS Su~sor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 ,z9 ?/ Attention: Mr. Frank Dowling, Senior Planner Subdivision Review Division Gentlemen: Pursuant to Section A14-24, Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the following proposed subdivision to the Suffolk County Planning Commis.s.ioa~ S.C.D.P.W. Tope No.: S.C. Tax Map No.: Major Sub. Minor Sub. / Site Plan Cluster MATERIAL SUBMITTED: Preliminary Plat (3 Drainage Plans (1) Site Plan (1) copies) / Road Profiles (1) Topogroaphical Map (1) Grading Plan (1) Other materials (specify and give number of copies) Waiver of Subdivision Requirements - See attached sheet CONTINUED REFERRAL CRITERIA: SEQRA STATUS: 1. The project is an (Unlisted Type II)Action. 2. A (Negative Declaration) (Positive Declaration) (Determ. of Non-Significance) has been adopted by the Planning Board. 3. E.I.S. statement enclosed. (Yes) (No). 4. The proposed division has received approval from the S.C. Dept of Health. (Yes) (No). Commeats: ~ We request acknowledgement of receipt of this referral (Yes) (No) Referral received 19 by Suffolk County Planning Commission and assigned File NO'. Very truly yours, Chairman April ~ 1991 Southold Town Planninq Board Town Hal'l Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Re: Minor Subdivision of Samuel S. Polk; SCTM # 1000-~-5-5.9 The following statements are offered for your consideratmon in the review of the above-mentioned minor subdivision and its referral to'-the 'Shffolk County Plhnnin~ Cdmmission: (1) residential building ms proposed. .... (2)~ No.new ~oa~d~--aDe proposed and~ no changes the grades of the existing~roads. No grading, other than foundation excavauion for a will be made in (3) No new drainage s~ruc~ures or alteration of existing structures are proposed. Yours truly, S~ephen L. Ham, III. authorized agen~ of Samuel S. Polk $OU~HOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD !t PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennetf Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Kitchie Larham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenrieth L. Edwards Tetephone (516] 765~ 1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.'O. Box 1179 South01d. Ne~v York 11971 Fax f516) 765-1823 September 24, 1991 Stephen L. Hamm, Mathews and Hamm 45 Hampton Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk Zoning District: Low-Density Residential R-120 Fishers Island SCTM~ 1000-4-5-5.9 Dear Mr. Ham: The Planning Board has received a cost estimate of $400.00 from their Environmental Consultant for review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form. The above mentioned sum must be paid in full by your client before we can authorize our consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made payable to the Town of Southold. When the consultants complete their review, the Planning Board will consider their findings in making a determination of whether the project will have a significant environmental impact. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman ~ MEMOR~NDUMT~FILE ON FIDCO RE: Lot ~3, Chocomount SCTM ~ 1000-4-5-5.9 FROM: DATE: ' Minor Subdivision Application of Samuel S. Polk (.AKA Lieb and Danforth) Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner j~ September 17, 1991 The Fishers Island Development Corporation owns the east end of Fishers Island. Through the years, the Corporation (FIDCO) sold lots more or less in accordance~witka development map that had been drawn by Frederick Law Olmstead in 1928. In 1958, the Town Board adopted the Olmstead development map as an '.open development' area or subdiuision, pursuant to Section 280-A.4 of New York State Town Law. (A copy of the Town Board's resolution is attached (and labeled Exhibit A.). Section 280-A.4. of New York State Town Law requires the Planning Board to approve the creation of each lot. A copy of that section of the law is attached herein as Exhibit B. According to the Planning Board's records, there was a period of time during which FIDCO was creating (and selling) lots without Planning Board knowledge or approval. ~ignis practice was stopped in June of 1982, when the Planning Board adopted a set of maps for FIDCO's property. New lots that had been created without benefit of Planning Board's approval before that date were shown on this map. Exhibit C is a copy of the, Planning Board's resolution of June 1982. The Planning Board's 1982 resolution did not specify which map it was adopting. However the two maps in the file that were drawn just before and after the June resolution both show the Chocomount area as being subdivided into three lots. Lot 3 of this subdiViSion carries the notation '2 lots'. Neither map shows an actual subdivision line for these two lots. Exhibit D © is a copy of this section of the map. At this time, based on this evidence, and none other to the contrary, it seems s~fe say that Lot 3 was destined to be two lots in 1982. to However, the Board in t989. Under this area was by the Town ~the R~126 the 12, Of N.Y. in follow With this to save Since proceed was by ~ho 3 ul:~zo~g. the Town Attorney removed all proceeding w~th an application had faile~ to file the 1982 map. the Planningq Bdard couldnot its be tkey or: lot-line t/he open development area. In Septe~mber of 199!~ the 1982 map was resubmitted in a form acceptable to the S~ffolk Cou~tF Clerk's office for filing. The Pl~nin~ Board renewed its 19~2 aDpno~al of the open develoPment map and ~uth0rized its chairman to endorse it on September 9th. FI~CO has sixty (60) days from Septen~oer 9~ 1991 to file this map. Until that time, no further subdivision applications will b~ processed by the Planning Board. For further information on the subdivision of Lot 3 of Chocomount, the reader should read the subdivision file for this lot. it is referenced in the Planning Board's Master file drawer as SCT~ $ 1000-4-5-5.9, and the name Sanr~el S. Polk (aka Lieb and Da~forth). Addendum: On the issue of mergers, Section 100-32.B. of the current Zoning code extends the provisions of Section 265-a of New York State Town Law, which provides for a three year extension for those subdivisions that were approved under less restrictive zoning requirements. Section t00-32.B, of the Town's Zoning code exempts certain subdivision maps from the zoning shown on the zoning map. This extension appears to be an open-ended extension. However, there have been no discussion with the Town Abtorney as to whether the E!lington decisions will affect the traditional interpretation of Section 100-32.B. of the Zoning cod~. Exhibits F and ~ include the above noted sections' of Town an~S~ate law. cc: Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney Moved by Councilman Demarest': secodned by Justice Edwards: k~EEEAS: FISHERS ISLA~]D .~ST~T~S has made application to the Town Board for the establishment of mn OPEN DEVELOPMENT AREA pursuant to the provi- sions of Section 280-A of the Town Law, and k~ERE~S~ the To%~n Board has heretofore referred the matter to the Planning Board for its advice~ and W/iEREAS: the Planning Board has recommended that the application of FISHERS ISLA;.~D ESTATES be granted, NOW, THEREFORE: BE IT RnSOLVED. That the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby establish an OPEN DEVELOPi.~NT AREA over the premises of FISHERS IELAND~ ESTATES as shown forth on the map attached to the .~pplication~ and it is recommended that ~O feet be reserved for highway~ purposes wherever it is possible. Vote of To~n BOard: Ayes,Supervisor Klipp; Councilmen Albertson and Demarest; Justices ~uthill.a~'.Edwa=ds~..~rd~.. . Noes-Henry A. Clark. Moved b~ Councilman Demare.$~t;.~seconded by Justice Clark; %~EOEAS, at a meeting of this Board, held on Nebruary 2~: 1958, a resol- ution was duly adopted ref~rring to the Plarnuing Board of the Town Of Southold~ proposals: to amend the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York for its recommendation and report: end %~EREAS, the Planning Board did thereafter file with the Town Board its written .recommend~tZon and report on said proposals, Now:h~therefore, be it RESOLVED: that this Board ho~d. a public hearing be held at the Supervisor's Office, 16 South Street, Greenport~ N.Y. on the 8th day of April, 19~8~ at 2:~0 P.M. o'clock in th afternoon of that day, and it is further RESOLVED: Tmhat the Town Clerk cause a notice of said proposed hearing, containing a cody of the pro~osed amendments, to be published once in the Mattituck W~%chna~-Leng ~sland Traveler: the official Town newspaper at least lO days prior to the time of said hearing. Vote of Town Board: Ayes-Supervisor Klipp~Counci!men Albertson and -. Dem.arest; Justices Tuthill~ Clark and Edwards. kMoved by Justice Ralph Tuthill; seconded b~ Councilman Lester Albertson ~z?HEREAS, the Town Superintendent of Highways did~ on the 25th day. of February? 19~8, duly recommend the purchase of certain machinery pursu- ant to the provisions of Section 1~2 of the Highway Law, NOW~ THEREFO~E~ BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant: to Section 1~2 of the High- way Law the ToQn Superintendent of Highways is hereby authorized to purchase~ in accordance with:the provisions Of Article ~-a of the General Municipal Law, with the approval of the County Superintendent of Highways, the following: One Model A. S. B. S. ~/alter Sno~ F~ht~. k~-~fmt n~ftf~ TOWN LAW Art. 16 I street'3r highway is ngt yielding a ~a~r .% the board of appeals, or other similar established such a board having power to zoning regulations, shall h~%ve power in a iority of its members to grant a permit for ghway which wilt as little as practicable ch street or highway, or tend to cause a plan, and such board may impose reason- n of granting such permit, which require- t of the town. Before taking any action ard of appeals or similar board shall give a est and others shall have an opportunity to ice of the time and place of such hearing r of general circulation in such town. Any review in the same manner and pursuant :als from the decisions of such board upon 648, § 14: L. 1962. c. 310, § 4570 storleai Note 63, al Government Forms under Town Law, § 279: ming Permit for Building in Bed of Mapped oceeding to Compel Board of Appeals to Grant apped Street, see Form 2. Compel Board of Appeals to Grant Permit for ,t. ~ee Form 3. ~mpelling Board of Appeals to Grant Permit for t, see Form 4. ry References C..LS. Zoning and §§ 25, 192. 233. 60. Land Planning of Decisions permit ~s constitutional. Winepol v. Town of iIcmpstead. 1969, 59 Misc.2d 768. 300 N.Y.S.2d 197. 2. State highway rights-of-way Municipality's requirement thai party seeking building permit obtain perrmt ,re from state for construction of building alongside state highway was arbitrary 376 ZONING AND PLANNING Art. 16 '&here section 52 cfi the Highava.y Law ovJy required permit from state for work in or upon state highway, and par- ty seeking building perfrfit was entitled, to it without obtaining permit from state, where proposed work did not even require curb cuts along highway. Corra- do v. Wolf. 1962. 37 Misc.2d 89, 235 N.Y.S.2d 336. 3;. Denial of permit & particular use of land may be en- joined as in violation of a restrictive covenaot, although the us~ is permissible under zoning ordinance, and the is- suance of a permit for a use allowed by § 280-a d zoning ordinance my not be denied becadse ~he proposed use would be in vlolaffoa, of a r~trfctive covenant. Friends of' Shawang~nks, Irm. v. Knowl- ton, 1/98~,:'64 N.Y.2d 387. 487 N.Y.S.2d .54~. ~;76 N.E.2d 988. In absence of statute alVtowing bal- ancing of pub~i~c and private rights in- volved, propert~ owners were emitled to comp¢I.building inspector zo issue build. lng permit which had been denied on basis that town was in process of con- dcm:zing proper~y for swimming pool. Wiia~p~i v. Town ~f F!empstead. 1969, 59 Mise.2d 768, JO0 N.Y.8.2d 197. § 280. Municipal improvements In streets No public municipal street utility or improvement shall be constructed by the town in any street or high~vay within thru part of the town outside the limits of any incorporated city or village until it has become a public street or highway and is duly placed on the official map or plan, provided. however, that subject to the discretion of the town board, a subsurface utility or improvement operated for revenue by the town or by a special district may be constructed by the town in a private street, provided a public easement satisfactory to the town board is 6brained for such utility or improvement. (L1932. c. 634; amended L. 1938. c. 264. § 5: L. 1939. c. 590. § 2; L1949. c. 750 § 1.) Historical Note Derivation. Town Law of 1909, c. 63. § 149~1, as added L. 1927, c. 175. Library References Zoning and Planning ¢~87. 382.2. C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning §§ 25, 197. 233. Notes of Decisions I. Lighting Until the streets in a subdivision have been dedicated and accepted, a town may not assume responsibility for the costs of energy and maintenance of a street [ighiing system. Op. State Compt. 83-47. A town may not instaI1 subsurface street lights along a street which has not been dedicated to the town and which has not become a public streel by pre* scription. Op. State Compt. 81-127. § 280-a. Permits for buildings not on improved mapped streets 1. No permit for the erection of any building shall be issued unless a street or highway giving access to such proposed structure has been .duly placed on the official map or plan, or if there be no official map or plan, 377 § 280--a TOWN LAW ~srt. 16 unless such streel or highway is (a) an existing state, county or town highway, of (b) a.st~;eet showm upon a plat approved by the planning board as provided in sections two Imndred seventy-six and two hundred seventy- seven of this article, as in effect at the time such plat was approved, or (c) a street on a plat duly filed and recorded in the office of the county clerk or register prior to the appointmen~ of such planning board and the grant to such board of the power to approve plats. 2. Before such permit shall be issued such street or highway shall have been suitably improved to the satisfactio~ of the town board or planning board, if empowered by the town ~board in accordance with standards and specifications approved by the town board, as adeagmte in respect to the public health, safety and general welfare for the special circumstances of the particular street or highway. Alternatively, and in the discretion of such board, a performance bond sufficient to cover the full cost of such impr~>vement as estimated by such board shall be furnished to the town by the owner, Such performance bond shall be issued by a bonding or surety company approved by the town board oi' by the owner with security acceptable to the town board, and shall also be approved by such town board as.lb form, sufficiency and manner of execution. The term. manner of modification and method, of enforcement of such bond shall be determined by the appropriate board in substantial conformity with section two hundred seventy-seven of this article. 3. Where the enforcement of the provisions of this section would entail practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, or where the circumstances of the case do not require the structure to be related to existing or proposed streets or highways, the applicant for such a permit may appeal from the decision of the administrative officer having charge of the issue of permits to the board of appeals or other similar board, m any town which has established a board having power to make variances or exceptions in zoning regulations, and the same provisions are hereby applied to such appeals and to such board as are provided in cases of appeaIs on zoning regulations. The board may in passing on such appeal make any reason- able exception and issue the permit subject to conditions that will protect any fl~ture street or highway layout. Any such decision shall be subject to review by certiorari order issued out of a special term of the supreme court in the same manner and pursuant to the same provisions as in appeals from the decisions of such board upon zoning regulations. 4. The town board may, by resolution, establish an open development area or areas within the town. wherein permits may be issued for the erection of structures to which access is given by right of way or easement, upon such conditions and subject to such limitations as may be prescribed by general or special rule of the planhing board, if one exists, or of the town board if a planning board does not exist. If a planning hoard exists in such town. the town board, before establishing any such open develop- ment area or areas, shall refer the matter to such planning board for its advice and shall allow such planning board a reasonable time to report. 378 TOW'~ LAW ay is"(~)~ an existing ~te, coun~ ot'-~own t upo~ a plat approv~ bg,~e planing bo~d undred seve~y-six and t~ hundred seventy- ~ at the ximezuch plat was approved. Or (c) a recorded in the office of t~ county clerk or ent of such planing hoard and the ~ant to 0prove plats. I be issued such strut or highway shall have : satisfaction of the town bo~d or planning wn beard~ in accordance wi~h ~and~ds and ~ town board, as adequate in respect to raI welfare for the special drcumst~ces of ;cretion of such board, a ~r~rmance bond of ~ch im~ovemem as es~mated by suc~ ~e town by the owner. Su~ performance ng or surety company a~ro~ed by the town ariW acceptable to the town board, and board as m form. ~fficien~ ~d manner ff modification and method ~ enforcemenl :ed by the appropriate hoard in substantial ndred seventy-seven of t~s article. ~ the provisions of this section would en~il ~ hardship, ov where the circumstan~s of cture to be related to existing or proposed at for such a petit may appe~ ~om the ricer having charge of the isshe of permits '~r similar board, in any town which ~er to make variances or exceptions in ~e prowsions are hereby applied to such e provided in cases of appeals on zoning ~assing on such appeal make any r~son- ~it subject to conditions that will protect ut. Any such decision shall he subject to mt of a special term of t~ supreme cou~ nt to the same provisions as in ~ppeals upon zoning repletions. golution, establish an open development vherein permits may be issu~ for the ess is given by right of way or easement, ~o such limitations as may ~ prescribed ~lanning board, if one exists, or of the es not exist, If a planning board exists ~re establishing any ~ch open develo~ matter to such planning board for its ~ng board a reasonable time to 378 ZONING AND PLANNING § 280-~ Att. 16 Note' 5. For the purposes of this sectLon the word "access" shall.mean that the plot on which such ~ructure is proposed t~ be eiyecred directly abuts on such street or highway and has sut~fikient h-ontaie thereon to allow the regress and egrese of fire trucks, ambt~lances; police cars and oCher'emer- gency vehicles, and, a frontage ofA:ifteen f~et shall presumptively be sufficient for that purpose. (Formerly § 280 in part, L. I932, c. 634: amended L. 1938, c. 264, § 5; L. 1939, c. 590. § 2; L1942. c. 497, § 1: L. 1945, c. 741. § 1; renutobered § 2go-a and amended L, 194§. c~ 750. § 1: amended L1954, c, 750. § 1; L.195& c. 334, § I.) Historical Note Derlvatlea. Town Law of 1909, c. 63. § 149-r. as a&gad LA927, c, 175. West's McKlm~ey's Forms The following forms appear in Local Government Forms under Town Law, Complaint for Declaratory Judgment as to Legality of Requirements of Planning Board as a Condition to Issuance of Building Permit, see Form 1. Notice of Petition in Article 78 Proceeding to Review Determination of Board of Appeals Denying Permit and Variance. see Form 2.~ Petition in Article 78 Proceeding to Review Determination of Board of Appeals Denying Pertoit and Variance. see Forto 3. · Judgment in Article 78 Proceeding Annulling Determination of Board of Appeals Denying Permit and Variance, see Form 4. Library References Zoning and Planning ~=,86. 372.4, C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning §§ 25, 191, 192, Notes of Decisions Generally 6 Emergency vehicle ingress and egress 7 Frontage requirements g Improvements 9 Constitutionality Construction 2 Emergency vehicle ingress ,and egress, Access roads Subdivision plats 12 Mandatory nature of section 4 Miscellaneous considerations Official )nap Performance bonds Ill Purpose 3 Review 13 Subdivision plat Improvements 12 1. Constitutionality Provision of this section requiring that be suitably improved before building permit may be issued, merely conditions signed for protection both of ultimate purchasers of home and public, is within police power, and is not objectionable as compelling construction of roads on pensation from town. Brons v. Smith. 1952, 304 N.Y. 164, 106 N.E.2d 503. Subdivision 2 of this section requiring that street giving access to proposed 379 § 280-a Note 1 structure be suitably improved before a building permi~ may be issued is consti- tutional. Bayer v. Pugsley, 1958, 13 Misc.2d 610, 176 N.Y.S.2d 848, affirmed 7 A.D.2d 828, 181 N.Y.S.2d 781. 2. Construction Under this section provision that no building permit shall issue until roads shown on plat have been improved to satisfaction of town board and that if applicant feels he has exceptional case, be may go to zoning board of appeals which may make exception or direct is- suance of conditional permit, must be s~rictly construed, lo view of facts that provision is derogatory of common lave and that town is mumclpat corporanon of limited powers. Lunmor Homes, Inc. v. Johnson, 1953, 122 N.Y.S.2d 149, 3~ Purpose Provision of this section requiring that road giving access to proposed structure be suitably improved before building permit may be issued, is concerned with problem of community planning and is designed to secure uniform and harmo- nious development of growth. Brous v. Smith, 1952, 304 N.Y. 164, 106 N.E.2d 503. Purpose of this section requiring that road giving access to proposed structure be suitably improved before building permit may be issued is not only to pro- tect health, safely and general welfare of cammunity, but also to protect residents of proposed structure. Robinson v. Jag- ger, 1968. 57 Misc.2d 507. 293 N.Y.S.2d 258. Purpose of this section providing that building permits shall not be issued ex- cept for parcels fronting on. among oth- er things, a street shown on a map ap- proved by planning board and that no building permit shall issue until roads have been improved to satisfaction of town board, is to guarantee that before buildings on streets shown on filed map or other streets shall 0e occupied and streets used, streets shall meet certain requirements for protecnon of health, safety and general welfare. Lunmor Homes. [nc. v. Johnson. 1953, 122 N.Y. S.2d 149. 4. l~[andatory nature of section A building permit may not be Lawfully issued for the erection of a building in a TOWN LAW town not on an improved mapped street until there has been compliance xvith this section. 15 Op. State Compt. 261, 1959. See, also, 11 Op.State Compt. 181, 1955. 5. Official map Town was without an "official map" by reason of failure of town clerk to file certificate of its establishment with county clerk as required by this section and that defect was jurisdicnonal, and zoning board of appeals could not prop- erly deny building permit orr ground that dirt road on which parcei h~:t front- age and over which it had easement did not appear on official map. White v. Town o~ Pound Ridge Zoning Bd. of Appeals. 1973. 42 A.D.2d 904, 347 N.Y. S.2d 725, This section prohibiting issuance of btfilding permit unless street or highway giving access to proposed structure is on map or plan or street or highway exists or is shown on approved plat did not require o~vners and contract vendee of three lots fronting on town highway to file subdivision map to o]?tairt building permit. Jack Homes, Inc'. v, Baldwin. 1963, 39 Misc.2d 693. 241 N.Y.S.2d 487. 6. Access roads--~enerally Where contract required that fond. which vendors were to cccastruet, be of- feted for dedication to town upon com- pletion, road was prerequisite to obtain- ing a building permiL and vendors ulti- mately constructed road at their own expense, vendors had obligation to con- struct road acceptable for dedication within specified time. C. & C. BL'ashka Inc. v. Frazer, I969. 32 A.D.2d 774, 302 N.Y.S.2d 443. affirmed 30 N.¥2Zd 645. 331 N.Y.S.2d 669. 282 N.E.2d 623. One-acre plot resulting from s~bdivi- sion of two-acre tract would have suffi- cient access to improved pnblic road over strip of land 17 feet wide and 396 feet long as would warrant issuance of area variance. Mastromonaco teis, 1962. 16 A.D.2d 676. 227 Nk¥.S.2d 74, This section does not reqmre, as oandi- tion of issuance of permit for erection of building on lot abutting on an i/nlar~ved county highway, any form of ph:ysical access, but merely any reasortable means. Annandale, Inc. v, Rrienza. 1956. I A.D.2d 785, 148 N.Y.S.2d 380 ItENRY E. RAYNOR. Jr., Cl~irrr~n JAMES WALL ,]~.'*'X ETT ORLO'h'SKI. Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE L.~,~rH~M, Jr. %VlLLIA.M F. MULLEN, Jr. TELEPHONE 765-1938 A meeting of the Southold Town P'tanninq Board was called to order June 15, 1982, 11:10 a.m. at the Fishers Island Firehouse, Fishers Island, New York. Present were: Chairman Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Member G. Ritchie Latham, Jr. Member William F. Mullen, Jr. Member Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Member James Wall Building Administrator Victor Lassard Allerton Cushman - The Planning Board inspected this proper~y prior To tke meeting noting the applicant's request to split the proper~y into two sites. The board requested James Wall to supply them with a letter from the applicant stating no further subdivisions will be made on this property before taking any action. On motion made by Mr. Orlowski, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board acce~t those maps of the eas~ end of Fishers ~sland with a condition that the areas that are undesignated will fall under the present subdivision regulations~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Orlowski, Wall Annette Zabohonski - The Planning Board inspected this property prior to the meeting. James Wall was asked to supply the board with stipu- lations as to the improvements of the ri~ht-of-way and width. On motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself lead a~enc3, in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter of the minor subdivision of Annette Zabohonski, located at Fishers Island. An initial determination o~ nonsign££icance has been made. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Orlowski Abstained James Wall (interested party) i 19-ID t8- 5C 4' 18-5 Lof I' / 18-lA 16-3 15- lO Lot- 3 Chocomot~ . ~ Io~ · / FISHERS ISLAND 16 -5 / / ~6-6 16-2 Boocock 16-9 16-8 Boocock 15 -8, 15-11 / //~odion -i ./ /· ~ ~'~-~l '---_' :' ~- :£-;"t' :-" ..... 15-6 1§-12 1573 MEMORANDUM TO FILE - Fishers Island Development Corporation April 12, 1991 A meeting was held this morning from 9:00 a.m. to about 9:30 a.m. Harvey Arnoff called the meeting to discuss the status of the FIDCO subdivision map. This meeting was related to the Lieb and Danforth application that was made by Steve Ham on behalf of his clients. (See previous correspondence in the file from Steve Ham, and .proposed correspondence from the Town, whichwas never sent for t2ue background.) Also present at this meeting were: Ken Edwards, Planning Board member from Fishers Island. MarkMcDonald, Planning Board member from Southold Tom Doherty, Fishers Island utility Company Mr. Calhoun, President? Fishers Island Developmenu Co. Victor Leslsard, Principal Building Inspector V~lerie Scopaz, Town Planner At this meeting, Mr. Arnoff spoke of a court decision from December 1990, which is attached. In his opinion, this decision protected FIDCO's remaining undeveloped and unsold lots from the 1989 upzoning. The lots in question are less than three acres in area, which is the minimum lot area required by the 1989 upzoning. However, he remains concerned about the lack of a filed subdivision map. According to the records that have been found and researched, a subdivision map was never filed with the County Clerk's office. Consequently, the FIDCO subdivision map is not a recognized legal document. Harvey felt that this state Of affairs precluded the Planning Board and the Zoning Board from taking any actions on any applications. He recommended the filing of the map by FIDCO. This led to a detailed technical and legal discussion about how the map could be signed and filed. The gist of this discussion was that the matter may end up before a judge for resolution. At the close of the meeting it was decided that Messeurs Doherty and Calhoun were going to do some research. First they were going to speak with Dick Lark, Esq, former attorney for FIDCO, to see if he might have a signed copy of the subdivision map in his possession, if a copy of the map had indeed been signed. The Planning Board's records show that the Planning Board passedre$olutions approving revisions to the subdivision map. However, there is no record of any of the maps being~signed and filed with the County Clerk's office. If there is no signed map in existence, they would then proceed to have a Set of mylar'and paper maps drawn up in accordance with the filiRg reqT/irements of the County Clerk's office. The attorney for FIDCO and Harvey would then take whatever legal steps would be necessary~o prepare the maps first, for the Planning Board Qh~i-rn~an'sqignature; and second, for filing with the Co~htlf Clerk's office. Tom Doherty will keep Ken Edwards and I informed as to what the~ find out after speaking with Dick Lark. Submitted by Valerie Scopaz April 12, 1991 11:15 a.m. 2LLiNGTON CONST. v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS 1001 ~ less formidable when a the law t~t he was willing to I~w's ttrree-yenr ex~mptinn period from Penofsky, ~ho is not an" a l~-year fraud on both his zoning amendment increasing lot area or rt" and is not accountable to a~ and the public, dimension reqairemente permitted deveinl~ any ~uthority, has bee~ ~ We demean the process ~s a whole when er to seeura right to complete subdivision ]-rand Jury room. 'f~ ~ essence, fiuat the Grand Jury in accordance with existing zoning require- final analysis, I cannot concurS, vras not fatally tainted by either ments by manifesting commitment to exe- ~ would ,f admission to the Bar or cution of subdivision plan through complet- :he basis hmuddient conduct Accord- ing improvements and incurring expendi- ~ersen becanse that the indictment un- tunes in connection therewith, during ex- nromises ~ defendant was prosecuted was eruption period, sufficient to constitute ~ thereby should have been dismissed, vesting under common-taw rules, and (2) , invest its confidence in ~ I~ substantial improvements and expenditures ~ theory, the Grand J~ury is~ C.J.. and SIMONS. made by developer during three-ycar ex- m our legal concur eruption period were sufficient to confer i.J. vested right to obtain building permits in ;nm of governmen~ (seg, accordance with prov~siens of former zen- ]'nc., 49 N.Y.2d J., d~seents and votes to lng ordinance. 238, 402 N.E.2d opinion in which Supreme Court. Appellate Division, .48 N.Y.2d 589, 594,, -3.. concurs, firmed. N.E.2d 656). In Ia each ease: Order affirmed. it has come to be r a mere "investi _/f'.~J:_~%~____~ t. Statutes ~214 ecutor." (Matt~ o In construi, ng statute, Court of Ap-' ~ Gra~wl Jur~j ~. Doe, ! peals need look no further than statute ~ N.Y. S2d 950, itself if smtote ~s unambiguous and its :, J., concurring].) _~ meaning evident from language. :ned. the ~] * * * as a rubber 77 N.Y.2d 114 2. Zoning and Planning ~:~325 affinm[ing] When more restrictive zoning ord~- .n it to a~ .~tk~lln the Matter of ELLINGTON CONSTRUCTION CORP., nonce is enacted, owner will be permitted )r fail[hug] to indict Respondent, to complete structure or development )mits' that it should." ~ which amendment has rendered noncon- ~6 Mi~c.2d 729, 734 v. forming only where owner has undertaken *eh the central BOARD OF APPEALS OF substantial construction and made substan- fs role in INCORPORATED VILLAGE tial expenditures prior to effective date of be]/eve that we can, or OF NEW HEMPSTEAD. Appellant. amendmenu a proper predicate Court of Appeals of New York. 3. Zoning and Planning ~:~376 n the work product ~'e "legal adviser" was a Dec. 20, 1990. Rule of construction that zoning legis- :aniel lation which is in derogation of common ~ competent by the Stat~ law must be strictly construed against mu- Developer commenced proceeding to nicipality which seeks to enforce it would :arainers, was never V~eate decision o£ village zoning hoard of be contravened by interpreting statdtery ~ttee on Character ~imself had such ~PPeals confirming denial by village build- exemption provisions, which provide ex- ;~g inspector of application for buildin~ eruption period after filing of subdivision xpect and dismiss is not a ;~rmit. The Supreme Court, Rockland plat during which amendment increasing :usuving~heregulacityof ~G~,Unty, Rosato. J., entered judgment for lot area or dimension requirements shall )istric~ Attorney handlin ~VelOper, and hoard appealed. The Su- not be applicable te or in any way affect :nlation. including ]~l~vae Court. Appellate Division, t52 any of the lots shown and delineated on Icction of the c .'~'.D,2d 36~, 549 N.Y.S.2d 495, modified such subdivision plat, as applying to a lot off the record and. [~P~eer~ss~':~ ;fraf~rtem;.d' . ThB:~rodu2oP~le~donly when developer has actually complet- ed lot or obtained building permit for it ~t. 296 N.Y. ~15. 322, ~alS, Hancock. J., held that:. (1) Village during exe~otion perle& MeKinney's Vii- ;.;( NI.'W Y¢)RK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES ~aire ~w S 7-7,'~ .-uim. 2: [, ~n [~,'~' ~ 2{;fi-a: '-!cK.::l;ey's (hme~ Pro','~ .; ,:: ~.{' ~,'"'., {..'.,'. wGi:ch ?; ' ".' ".~ .' .. :; I... 5. Zoning and Plazmiog ~376 7. Zoning and Planning Developer made substa~l ments and expenditures durifig exemption period provided by Village La tablishes three-year e~emptio~ period after filing of subdivision pla*; during: wKw. h amendment inere~sing 10~ are~: or, dimen- sion requirement ~hail not be apPiicable to ov in any way affect any of the 10ts. shown and delineated on such subdivision plat, and thus developer had vested right to obtain building permits in accordance ~ith provisions of former zoning ordinances for proposed lots in subdivision; prior to vil- lage's amendment of its zoning ordinance, developer had installed drainage faciti~es, water and sewer lines, f~re hydrants, curbs and curb cuts, and underground telephone and electric service, and developer subse- quently, with village's knowledge, had in- stalled paved road. McKinney's Village Law § 7-708, sub& 2. h~Deris F. Ulman, Village Atty. (Frank I. Brown, Spring Valley, of counsel), for appellant. _].k~'ohn S. Edwards, New York City, for respondent. _[k~vBarbara J. Semen, Schenectady, ~or the New York State Conference of Mayors and Other Mun. Officials. amicus curiae. OPINION OF THE COURT HANCOCK, Judge. For a village having both a Planning Board and a_h.~sZening Board of Appeals, Village Law § 7-708(2) ~ establishes an dimensions of the lots thereon delineated and which said subdiv~ion plat htt~ been duly ap' proved by the planning board, if any, of the vilIage in which the land shown on said plat is situate, or approved by such other board or officer, if any, of such village, vested with aU- thority to approve subdiv sion plats, and whiC~ said subdivision plat or'the first section there0/ has been duly filed in the office of the record officer of the county in which the land show on said subdivision plat is situate, or whi~ prows~ons establish or increase side, .rear fron j~rd or set-back ~equircments in excess those applicable to building plats xtuder the pro' v~'mion of the zoning law, if any in force SERIES und Planning ~:~376 ~oer made substantial improv~- ~penditures during exemption :~ded by Village Law, which e~ ~ree-yeur exemption period after ~ubdivision plat during which ~ inereasing lot urea or dimen- -'_ment shall not be applicable to ~ay affect any of the lots shown amd on such subdivision plat, ~mveloper had vested right to 'ding~ permits in accordance with vi former zoning ordinances for :~s in subdivision; prior to vii- '.:dment of its zoning ordinance, ::ad installed drainage facilities, cower lines, fire hydrants, curbs u~. and underground telephone c service, and developer subse- !th vilIage's knowledge, had im ,ed road. 5fcKhmefs Village :)3, subd. 2. F, Ulman. Village ~y. (Frank ~pring Valley, of counsel), for :~. Edwards, New York City, for :.rs J. Samel. Schenaetady, for :ork State Conference of Mayors - Mun. Officials, arrficus curia~ iNION OF THE COU~T CK, Judge. .'illage having both a Planning ! a. jj.tsZening Board of Appeals, ,w § 7-708(2) t establishes an :s of the lots thereon delineated aaa d subdivision plat has been duly ap' , the planning board, if any~ of · vhich the land shown on said pig[ approved by such other board any, of such village, vested with -~pprove subdivision plats and whi~ i~ly filed in the office of the recording · me county in which the land ~shoiV~ ! or ~ baek.requ rcmexlts' n excess :mable to building plats under the pro- the zoning law, if any, in force empuon period of three years after ~e filing of a subdivision plat during which an ~LLINGTON CONST. v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS I00~ amendment tocroasmg [or area or dimen- sion requirements shall not 'qae applicable m er in any way affect any of the lots shown anti delqnaated on such subdivision plat" (§ 7-70812][a]). Prior te an increase in the applicable area and dimension re- qmremenm, the owner of an approved sub- division failed to complete it or to apply for building permits on all of the proposed lot~ It did. aowever, take su/ficient steps to- ward completion of the proposed subdivi- sion be/ore the exemption period expired to acqurve commorMaw vested rights. The tuesuon presented by the appeal o£ respon- dent Zoning Board is whether the Eeti_'~i0rc eLowner~L_vh~L~e of tl~-t~d rights, ~ exemv~ fr_o~.~o~p[iance wi~h_tbe new, ~p£_e__stringent~area .ap_d_d~im~ension requi~e- ~e_nm_w_hea i~.at~pii~fo/.building permits for i~s remainiugAots._ Supreme. Court and th~e_~2~eiiats_Div~sion _152 A.D.2d 365, 549 . .Y_.~,/t~05,_ba~h~held.%hat the owner is protee~d uno, er the exemption in Village. Law ~ !us7-708(2)(b), and we agree. There should, accordingly, be an affirmanco. I On April 29, .1975, ~he Town of Ramapo Plaening Bourd accepted for filing petition- er's "average density" subdivision plat (see, Tawn Law § 281). As a condition of its "average density" approval, the town quired that 12.105 acres of the 33.522 acres m the subdivision be irrevocably dedicated to it for parkland purposes. The subdivi- sion was approved for development in sections, the first to consist of 9 lots and the second of 22 lots. On July 3, 1975. petitioner's predecessor dedicated the parkland and thereafter, on effect at the time of the fiIing of the said subdi- vision plat or first section thereof, shall nor. for the retied o! time pre~mqbed in paragraph (b) o/ thi~ s~lbdivt~ion, be applicable to or in any way O~Ject any el the lotx shown and delineated on Such subdivision ~lat. ."(b) If at the time of the filing of the subdivi- sion via[ or first section thereof referred m in paragraph (al of this subdivision Ihere was in the village both a zoning board and a planning board vested with authority to approve subdivi- September 24, 1975, the subdiv~.on p~at was fried. On June 29. 1982, ~e te~m approved a revised subdivision pI~. plat, ~ed on October 14, [982. did not in any way modify the original layout of the lots. su'eeto and other improvements,z Be~veen 1980 and early i984, petitioner built seven homes on section one of the subdivision. No homes were constructed in section two which had been laid out for lots having widths of between 108 and 120 feet and areas comvlying w/th the 22,500 squure-foot minimum requirement of the Towa of Ramape ou~inanse. In 1984, when the Village of New Hemp- stead was ineortaorated, the territer~ of the tewa which encompassed petitioner's subdi- vision became part o£ the Village. On Jan- uaw 2, 1986, the V~lage amended the ap- plicable zoning ordinance to increase the minimum area roqurrement for average density lots to 35.000 square feet and the minimum width requu'emen; for such lots to I~0 feet. Prior to this time, petitioner had installed various improvements on the subdivision includLug, on gectien two, drain- age facilities, water and sewer lines, fire hydrants, curbs and curb curs. and under- ground telephone and electrie service. [er the amendment to the ordinance--and with the Village's knowledge--petitioner installed a paved road on section two. In June 1986, petitioner applied for a building permit to construe; a house on lot D-10 in section two. The Village building inspector denied the permit because tioner failed_.h~0to make certain public im- provemenrs to a county road adjoining the subdivismn, and because the lot did not mee~ the amended, mere restrictive Village stun plats, then ~he exemption provided [or such paragraph shall ~pply [ora pedod of thre~ year$ after the fili~g et the $ubdi~isio~ plat or first ~ectio~ thereof." (Emphasis adiled.) Provisions virtually identical [o those in Vil- lage Law § 7-708(2) are contained in Town Law § 265-a and General City Law § 83-a. ~L It is not disputed that thg three-year exemp- tion period at issue began to run or[ the date the revised plat was filed {Oct. 14. 1982). .:m:u'a.~ n :'.drements3 With rest)oct to this ~el'o!m r.. '::;,m. the inspector ruled ,:~'~::~'~:,,'~ :n ~'[l~ge ~w ~ 7-708 did non ~.. '~r ,.'~m:,:i.m pe~v~ Pe~ner then :ev,,w :~ ~ den{~ of i~ ~it. Supr~e (~ ~ of~m:ssed ~s proceed~g for pe~- remeai,,~ sf::ee it had not sought relief in :m a::?al 'o the ~ning Board of Appe~s. A."cordb;mv. ~:.'~on~ appealed the build- [:.:~ ::::m.,c','? e deni~ ~ the Zoninff Board . . . :,,d, ~s al~a~ve relief, ':'.'h~"~ r.~:;~,:.~ ~ning Board of A~ '.,,a)s ,:,.,,'.~.d ~:e~oner's appli~tion "..:'o,.c::;. ;: ,'mtmenced the present s~icle 7,; ?,;c,.,-: ::;:. ~preme Cou~ annulled ;w ~'>5.;:,~ ': :;~ec~r m {ssue the building . ..r:'..: f,,r '.4 D-10 and the other-lo~ in 'a,....m,m'; ..~. ,'., ~. and when perverter .... , ~ .... :.[ .;cation for same". ~e A~ :cd:.:v J,['.:-.~,n a~eed ~ 2upreme ,' :m':'~ ~',,.:.' :,.ion that petitiouer ~d ,:mr,?: ~'..,:,.: ~"gh~ ~ comple~ ~he sub~* ' ' ~ fly ppli ,,,.. '.'re o a a mble area a;.,~ ,~[:: .':.~,~,.: reqmremenM, but modified by n.q':SQ;;-: ~tioner ~ fulfill ee~in ~n- ,:;:;,,'.., ,', ,,"' q' m obmln the building p~- I I ! 'ii.:' :.: :leal turns on a question of ,u:':;',~ry ;:' rureuatien: the intended el- fie, ,,f 'n,' :anguage in Village Law {~ 7-7.b.::~ ,".':~ting the exemption. Re- :,.t,.r~ :,.u:. Z "ug Board of Appeals con- :,,:.,:., !! .L~ !.. statute affords protection ~q.'.y f.:.r d.'.,: lots in a filed subdivision 'v,.:.q: :m ~.',: :' has completed or for which ,L;;'¢'.: '.!'. .... !mption per/od. Petitioner :?; ~:~.., fi,a: :~ ~. suatute protects subdivision 564 NEW YORK SUPP~, 2d SERIES lots in which an owner has. acquired c~ mon~hw_~vested rights du~'ing the per~ In construing section 7-7~2)~ as w{~h ~ legislation, we first "look to the par~cu~ words for the/r meaning, ho~h.as they ~ used in fl~e section and in their' contex~'~ part of the entire statuteY' (Pric~ ~. ~ 09 N.Y.2d 8. 13, 511 N.Y.S.2d 219. ~ NERd 684.) Forff the uous and its meaning ev/c[ent language, as respondent con.tends, we ~ look no furfluer (se~. Sega ~, .Sfa~ta of N~ York. 60 N.Y.2d 183. 190-191, 469 51. 456 N.E.2d 1174). Y~rom the language of section 7-708(2~ ss/t applies to the Village of New.Hem~ stead, there [s no question: (1) that purpose is to create an exemption from operation of amendments imposing strict~ area and dimension requ/rements: and that the period of the exemption ts thre~ years commencing on the date of the fil~, of the subdivision plat~ But the no language which prescribes ~ conditions which must be owner tu receive the benefit of the /ion. It does not specify prerequisite for claiming the exemption a particular lot. exemption period, have comp fo ficien~ if the owner has laken steps toward completion of the subdivision under the exist/rig, more liberal z~ning quirements to have acquired vested rights in ~he remaining undeveloped lots. only statutory mandate is that the requirements of the amended ordin~nC~ "shall not * * ' be applicable lo, way affeci any of the lots shown and del~ e~tad on such subdivision plat" Law § 7-70812][a] [emphasis added]). aetly what the lots are protected from--i.e.,] wttat is meant by the phrases "be applica' ble to" and "in any way affect"---is· n0~ lage Law § 7-70S(2)--th¢ Zoning Board 6f peals lacked a rational basis for the denial petitioner's request for a variance. In lhe ligl~ of our cone us on hat peri loner was cn itlcd the benefit of the exemption provision° we not reach the varlancc issue. ~.~,~ T. 2d SERIES which an owner has acquired eom- .~'~_~xvested rights during the period. ;truing section 7-708(2). as w/th any ::on. we fkrst "look to the particular :or their meaning, both as they are _~ the section and in their eontex~ aa chi~ entire statute." (Price v. Prieq ?.2d 8. 13~ 511 N.Y.S.2d 219. 5011 .384.) For if the statute is unamb~g. _nd' its meaning ev/dent from the ge, .as responuenc contends, we need ~ £urther (see, Sega v. State of New :) N.Y.2d 183, 190-191. 469 N.Y.S.2d N.E.2d 1174). '~ ~he lsnguage of section 7-708(2)~ ;plies to the Village of New Hemp .?.ere is no question: (1) that its is to create an exemption from the .:n of amendments imposing stricter :d dimension requirements: and (2) e per/od of the exemption is three · :mmencing on the date of the filing ~ubdiv/sion plat· But the statute ~,n0 language which prescribes the ~.s which must be satisfied for an · o receive the benefit of the exemp- l~ does nor specify whether as a ~ffsite for claiming the exemption for :utar lot, the owner musu during the :on period, have completed construe the'iot or obtained a building permit n construction---or whether k is suf- ff the owner has taken sufficient ~ward completion of the subdivision me existing, more liberal zoning re nte to have acquired vested rightS ~emaining undeveloped lots. The xmtory mandate is that the stricter -ments of the amended ordinance be apphcable to or ~n any fcct any of the lots shown and delin- a such subdivision plat" (Village 7-70812][a] [emphasis added]). Ex- : mean, t, by the phrases "be applica- ,~-nd 'in any way affect"--is not ZLLINGTON CONST. v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS clear, it is necessary, therefore, co look beyond the words of the statute a~ the circumstances surrounding its adoption and to consider the policy reasons for enacting legislation ~n an area where common-law rules have long' controlled ~see. Price v. Price, supra. 69 N.Y.2d ac 13-14. 511 N.Y. S.2d 219,503 N.E.2d 684), being mindful, of course, that the "'legislative intent is the great and controlling pr/nciple' ' (id., at 14, 51I N.Y.S.2d 219. 503 N.E.2d 684: People v. ~yan, 274 N.Y. 149. 152. 8 N.E.2d 313). Village Law § 7-70812) and its counter- peru Town Law § 265-a. were enacted in 1960 (L.1960. chs. 1060. 1061), The Legls- ia:ute aaopted a similar measure for cities in t961 [General CiW Law § 83-a. L.1961. ch. 275]. Prior m these enac~menm, ques- tions concerning the rights of owners of approved subdivisions co compete their subdivisions in accordance with the regula- tions exisung at the time o£ theft' approval were go~___~rnea:s2 exclusively by the cum- tv. on law pertaining to vested rights. [2] The New York rule. both before and after the exemption statutes, has been that where a more restrictive zoning ordinance is enacted, an o~waer will be permitted to complete a structure or e development which an amendment has rendered noncon- forming only where the owner bas under- takes substantial constructfnn and made substantial expenditures prior to the effec- tive date of the amendment ~see. People v. Miller 304 N.Y. 105. 107-109. 106 N.E.2d 34: Matter of Putnam Armonk v. Town of Smetheasr. 52 A.D.2d 10. 14-15. 382 N.Y. S.2d 538:4 Rathkopf. Zoning and Planning § 50:0313], at 50-25--50-28 [4th ed.]; 1 Anderson. New York Zoning Law and Prat- ure 9 6.18. al 229-234 [dd ed.] ~. The doc- trine o£ vested rights has generally been described as an application of the constitu- Uonaliy based common-law rule protecting nonconforming uses (see, People v. Miller. Supra, B04 N.Y. a~ 107. 106 N.E.2d 34:4 Rathkopi, op. c~t.. at 50-13. n. 2). But the doctrine is also said to have been grounded on principles of equitable estoppel (see. Matter of Pokoik v. $ilsdorf, 40 N.Y.2d 709. 773. ann at 774. 390 N.Y.S.2d 49. 358 N.E.2d 874 [Breitel. Ch. J., dissenting']; ? 1005 Rohan, Zoning and Land Use Controls § 52.08[4], ac 52-7~0; 4 Rathkopf, op. ci~. § 50.04. at 50-~1--50-42). Wheth- er rooted in equity er the common law, the operation and effect of the veste,d rights doctrine is the same and: ~ has been applied alike to a single building or ~ subdivisinn (see, Matter of Putnaza Awraon,k v. T of Southeas~ 52 A.D2,d I9, 38~ N.Y:S.2d 538. supra: Elsinore Prop: Owners Assm v. Morwand Homes, 28~ App, D~v. 116,5, 1106-1107. 146 N.Y.S.2d 78; I~ard v. City of New Rochelle. 20 1W~se£d 122~ I97 S.2d 64. affck 9 A.D.2d 9Ll. ~97 N.Y.S.2d 128. tvfd. 8 N.Y.2d 895; 204 N.Y.S.2d 144, 168 N.E.2d 821: 4, Rathkop~ op. § 50.0313][d], at 50-39--5t)-41). Under the vested righ~ doctrine as it applied to subdivisions (prior t~ the exemp- tion statures), nothing curg off the period during which a developer could acquire vested rights after iuiti~l ~pproval. Onthe other hand, nothing preyed_ted ~. municipali- ry from subjecting the urzdeveloped lots in an approved subdivision to more str/ngen~ restrictions at any time after the plat was filed so long as vesting had not occurred. Protecting the owner depended entirely on the date of vesting reIative to the effective date of the amended ordirmnce. If vesting occurred first, the owner was protected. It mattered no~ when the even~ occurred with respec~ to the initial date of plat ap- proval, but only which came firsu The enacrmem of the statutory exemp- tion provisions (Vi~.age~23 Law § 7-708[2]; Town Law § 265-a[2]; General City Law § 83-a[2]) obviously supplied something which the decisional law of vested rights lacked: a specific period during which the developer could secure the right to com- plete the unfinished lots free from the quirements of the new, more restrictive ordinance and beyond which such right could not be secured. But the statutes did no~ define precisely what ti/e developer must da during the period to obtain the protection of the exemption. [3] Respondent Zoning Board of Ap- peals contenas that, under the statute, in order ro achieve freedom from the amena~ ed-ordinance for any uncompleted lot, a 564 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT. 2d SERIES developer musl; have so,ally completed the lot or obtained a building permit for it. Uader this construction, a developer which had done more than enough during the exemptmn period rd acquire eommondaw vested fights for the remain/ns undevel- oped lots in the subdivision, would be quirad, nevertheless, to comply with the amended ordinance for these Iota. Such construction, if adopted would produce an extensive change m the taw, and would deprive the developer of what. but for the effect of the statute, would be its right to achieve vesting during the exemFfmn per/- od under the common-law rule. It would. thus, contravene the established rule of construction that zoning legislation of the WPe m quesfmn whish is "in derogation of the common law ' ' ' must be strictly construed against the municipality which · ' ' seeks to enforce [it]" (Matter of Al- leu v. Adarai. 39 N.Y.2d 275, 277. 383 N.Y.S.2d 565. 347 N.E.2d 890: see. Matter q£/MO E. 102nd St. Corp. v. Murdock. 285 N,Y. 298. 304-805. 34 N.E.2d °029; 1 Anderson. New York Zoning Law and Prac- tice { I7.01, at 740-743 23d ed.]; see gener- ally~ ,~,IcKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 1. Statutes § 153, at 331-332 ["(t)he courts will not construe a statute as abolishing a commondaw right in the absence of a cIear intent on the par~ of the Legislature"l). [4-7] Contrary rn respondent Zoning Board's position, a commonsense analysis of the legislative purpose of Village Law § 7-708 and Town Law } 265-a in the light of the mreumstances surrounding [heir original enactment (L.1960. ohs. t080. 1061) does not suggest that the legislation was intended to deprive a subdivision developer of its capacity m acquire vested rights in subdivision during the exemption period. The legislative history shows that the en- actment was the culmination of a success- ful legislative compromise between the views of the developers and the differing views of the municipalities and that repre- sentatives of both groups urged [ts adop- tion lsee,_[ks.fl~Iem, of Westehester County Village Officials Assn., Bill Jacket. L.1960. cbs. 1060, 1061; Mem. of Office for Local Government, id.; Mem. of New York State Home Builder's As$'n. ic~: Mem. of Ameri- eau institute of Planners. id,: Mem. in support of A ~894. it~). Indeed, Governor Rockefeller in his memo the leg/slation stated that the "purpose of thee bills is to reconode the interests of home lm//ders and devetope~ who have made financial commitments relying on ex- ist/rig zon/ng oral/nonces, and the interests of tew-rm and villages m not being unduly restrained from upgrading zen/ns require- monte" {1960/?icKinne~s Session Laws of N.Y., Messages of Governor. at 20641. Petitioner's interpretation of the stat- ute-that it was intended to permit a devel- oper to gain vested fights during the ex- emption period--seems fully consistent with this legislative purpose of effecting a compromme in a statute which would fairly balance the conflicting interests of the velepers and municipalities. Under peti- tioner's construction, each group gains something and gives up someth/ng~ The developers gain the assurance of a definite period during which they can protect their subdivisions by securing vesting; they give up the possibility of protection under the statute after that period. The municipali- ties gain the authoriw m enforce an up- grac~ng of their zoning requirements at any time after the exemption period and the assurance that the new reqmrements will bind any developer which has not by then achieved vesting; the munimpalities g~ve up their foruxer unrestricted power m subject a subdivision re new requirements at any time before the owner has acquired vesting rights. The view of the statute espoused by re- spondent Zoning Board~ on the other hand--that a developer can derive no pro- tection for the balance of its subdivision by achieving vesting during the exemption pe- riod:--permits undeniably harsh results. Obviously, where a developer has complet- ed a substantial portion of a subdivision, it could be faced w/th large losses and unan- ticipated additional cos~ if compelled to re- structure its plans and dismantle and re- construct subdivision improvements ir or- der m complete the remaining lots. As has been observed, a rule of such stringency applying to subdivisions imposes a formid- id SERIES .nc of Planners. id.: 3~em. in .~. 3834, id.k Indeed. Governor in his memorandum approving >n stated that the "purpose of ~ m reeoncile the interests of ,~rs and developers who have '~al commitments relying on ex- ? ordinances, and the interests .d villages m not being unduly :om upgrading zoning require- 0 McKinnev's Session Laws of :Tes of Governor. ar 2064l. -s interpretation of the stat- · .':as intended to permit a devei- ,. vesmd rights during the ex- -:iod--seems fully consistent :islative purpose of effecting a :n a statute which would fairly 'onflicting interests,of the de. i municipalities. Under peri- ~struction. each group gains .nd gives ap something. The -~.in the assnrance of a definite ~ which they can protect their [~y securing vesting; they give .oiiity of protection under the r that period. The munieipali- e authority to enforce an up' [heir zoning requiremenus a: -ret the exemption period a~d cs that the new requirementS :y developer whiet~ has nor by .q vesting; the municipalities r former unrestricted power t~ ndivision ~o new reqmremenm · efore the owner has acquired ~f the statute espoused by re- L'ning Board. on the other ; developer can derive no pro- ~e balance of its subdivision by -~rmg during the exemption ~ undeniably harsh results. nero a developer has eomptet- iai portion of a subdMsion, it with large losses asa uses' mai cost if compelled to re- ~ns and dismantle and re- e remmmng lots, As has rule of such stringency sions imposes a formid' ~,, ~ 5IEDICAL TRANSPORTERS v. PERALES i007 cm. cv.0o~3], ac 50-731 and actually 'nseoes reuonai land use planning (id.. a~ .-7'2. U-,.der established rules, we mus; :.:sams ~a~ :ne Legislature could no~ ~vu tr.'~euueu responOent's lnmrpremtion [ne ,c&~ure ~vnich_l&~produces such nn- nasuname and potentially unjust cease- maces tree. Fortes v. City of New Ro- ,e. ce N.Y.~d 446. 404, alO N.Y.S.2d aT. ~ _?.zi.2~ 9'72: J!atter of ?etterson v. :v~.cr~r,,; C~r? 17 .¥.Y.2d 32. 38. 268 ,~. 21a ,-,.~.2d 329: McKinney's, ::s.zxws of N.Y, Book 1. Statutes : i-L :~o. '~ 146. a~ 280-284. 286-291]. 297- ~ cccorcmziy agree wlcn the couras - ~,~ '~'~a~ ViiD-ge Law § 7-705(2I was in- - :eoro Dern'4t a developer ro secure the :::ur re comme[e a suediv/sion in accord- nee vzicn cna existing zoning requirements ::q,n oz rne suedivisinn pia~ through eom- . - ....... r=s m conner[ion therewith, during :-;.~ exemption period, sufficient ro consti- 5foreover, our review of the record con- permn~ rhe work performed and expend- Cures made by petitioner eonfh~ms the eon- clUsion of the Appellate Division that. as found ~y ~ne Supreme Court. the substan- tial ~mprovemenm and expenditures made ,iarinz the three-year exemption period :oaferrsu a vested right to obtain building ~erm~m in accordance with the provisions ',~ [~a former zon ng ordinance," {152 .tD.2d .......... ., ass. o, I. o~9 N.Y.S.2d 405.~ rhe proer o~ the Appellate Division snouid se si'firmed,s with costs. ,, ACzlTLER. ~ ,~.J.. and SIMONS. KAYE. ALEXANDER. TITONE and z:LLLACOSA. JJ.. concur. Order affirmed, with costs. $- We havc considered responeent's remnml~ig ar[Tarnencs ann conclude that mey provide no 77 N.Y.2d 126 .~.,zsln the ~Iatter of N~W YOP~ ST,~TE .~1EDICAL TRANSPORT~tS ASSOCI- ATION, INC.. et al.. Appellants. Cesar A. PEllALES, as Commissioner of the Deparrme. n~ Iff Social Serriees of the State of New York, Respanfient. Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 20. 1990. Providers of ~ransportation servSces fried Article 78 proceeding m require De- partment of Social Serwices m prneess re*- roaenve reques~ for approval of nonemer- gency transportation service for Medicaid patients, The Supreme Cent% Nassau Counw, Loekman, J., directed commission- er re process reques* for retroactive ap- proval. Commissioner appealed. The Su- preme Court, Appellate Division, 553 N.Y. S,2d 790, held that Department had not ratified agenfs adoption of policy that would allow "retroactive prior approval." and reversed. Providers appealed, The Court of Appeals, Kayo, J_ held that: Deparnmenc was no[ estopped from adopt- ing policy that required prior approval: 12) record did no~ suppor~ providers' claim that Department ratified actions of ages[s; and 131 even if record supported claim that pertinent allowed and condoned actions of agen~ allowing retroactive prior approval. Dsparcmem could no[ ratify agent's ac[. Affirmed Alexander. J. dissented and issued an opinion in which Simons. J.. concurred. 1. Estoppel c:~62.1 Estoppel cannot be invoked against governmental agency re proven[ it from discharging its stamtor7 duties. basis for disturbing thc Appellate Division's or- © © § 100-31 ZONING § 100-32 (b) Adequate supervised parking facilities shall be provided. (c) No signs, excel~ one (1) one-premises sign not larger ttmn six (6) square feet in size displayed 'for a period of not longer than one (1) week immediately prior to the day of such sale. shall be permitted. (d) A permit is obtained rJqerefor [rom the Building Inspector upon the payment of a fee of fifteen dollars ($i~.). § 100-32. Bulk. area and parking regulations, No building or premises shall be used and no building or par~ thereof shall be erected or altered in the Agricultural-Conservation District and in the Low-Density Residential R-SO District unless the same conforms to the Bulk-Schedule and Parkin~ Schedule~ incorporated into this chapter with the same force and effect as if such regulations were se~ forth herein in full as well as to the following bulk and parking requirements: ~ A. In the case of a lot held in single and separate ownership pmor to November 23, 1971. and thereafter, with an area of less than forty thousand (.10,000) square feet. a single-family dwelling may be constructed thereon, provided that the requirements of Column vii of the Bulk Schedule and the Parking Schedule incorporated in this chapter are complied'with. B. The bulk and parking requirements for single-family dwellings as set forth in Column ii of the Bulk Schedule and the Parking Schedule incorporated into this chapter shall apply ~o the following lots: (1) All lots shown on major and minor subdivision maps which were granted final approval by the Planning Board prior to May 20. 1983. (2) All lots shown on major subdivision maps upon which the Planning Board has held a hearing for preliminary map approval prior to May .20. 1983. 10049 s- ~ - m § 100.32 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-33 ~'~" .43) Ail lots shoxvn on minor subdiv/sion maps that hxve been granted sketch plan approval by the Planning Board _ prior to May 20. 1983. (4) All lots set off or created by approval of the Planning Board subsequent to November 23~ 1971, and prior m May 20. 1983. C. The bulk and parking requirements for single-family dwellings forth in Columns i and iii of the Bulk Schedule set and Parking Schedule incorporated into this chapter shall apply m the following lots: (1) All lots shown on minor subdivision maps which have been granted sketch plan approval by the Planning Board on or after May 20. 1983. {2) Ali lots shown on major subdivision maps upon which the Planning Board has held a hearing' for preliminary map appmvaI on or after May 20, 1983. (3)All lots set off or created by approval of the Planning Board on or afgar May 20. 1983. D. The bulk and parking requiremenm for two-family dwellings set forth in Column xii of the Bulk Schedule and Parking Schedule ineorporated into this ehapmr shall appiy to the following lots: (1) All lots shown on minor subdivision maps which have been granted sketch plan approval by the Planning Board on or after May 20. t983. (2) All lots shown on major subdivision maps upon which the Planning Board has held a hearing for preliminary approval on or after May 20, 1983. (3)All lots set off or created by approval of the Planning Board on or after May 20, 1983. § 10033. Accessory buildings. [Amended 4-10-1990 by LL. No. 6-1990] In the Agricultural-Conservat/on District and Low-Density Residential R-80, R-120. R-200 and R-400 Districts. aceessory 10050 a- I - ~ the 258 TOWN LAW Art. 1b n 4~'86 has exercised ,his rights thereunder and after the town board has,ghanged the building ordinance under Whith'th~:ll~r- olved mit was [ssue~ 17 Off.~atbComl~t. ~1, IDSI,, ~hat 24. Promotion o£ general welfare ro~vn See, also, Notes o/Decisions set out m~na- tinder section 263. e ad- Generally, when change of zone, vari- vosed artce or spedial permit is sought there is ~ange specific ~roject sponSored,by part/crt[ar chert- devdIoper which, is subject of applica~ tiom hm~zever, error occurs ~vhe~e zon- : and lng legistati0n is.engctefl t',o grant single '~ and owner a dis~rict~inator~ b~efit at ex, ,7, 28 p~.n~e a~d detriment o? h~is neighbors, wit~rmt ngy pqbtic ad~,antage or justLfi- cation r~ther than purs~mLnt to cqmpre- hensive plhn~ f& welfar& o~ cpmmunity. >n~ng Kra~'tz % P!&nge, £982,84 A.D.2d 422, ,yster 446 bt~y!sg~ 807~ of a of filBividual o~ner rather ~han for gen- bdsi- emi Welf~e b~commurgt% ~Ibright v. :post- Tow~ o~?~hli/.t~ 1970, 34 A.D.2d 419 cting 31~2 N.Y;fi,~4 1~ modified on other 'than gr0urid~ 28 N~.Y.2~I. 108 320 N.Y.S.2d 50 iness 268 i~I2~.2d 785. nent, Amendment m bnildin~ zone ordi- D.2d nanc~ wfi~h' in effect reinstated zoning ied 9 of ~:ealty ~ having downgraded ~t was creed valid an~ co~gtitntionat despite public 168 meet~gs an~ picketing degigned to in- fludn~( upgrading, where town board con- adopted ailfi~a~d~nt ~pon its own judg- ~g of metltdha~ii~ ~a;s~in best interekts of gen- d ex- era we~f~re 'of community ~n zoning mu- sense, ~at~s !of W,o~dbury Co. v. Town elete of Oy~ster ~Bay, 1968 29 A.D 2d 943, 289 ming N.Y;S.2d 379. that ange 25, Spot zoning teen- See, also, Notes of Decisions set out · 148 under section 263. Amendmene of building zone ordi- may hence cllanging approxi,rn,~t,e, ly 14 acres pro- of larval froi~n resident al D district to ndusirml H dmtnct wzth condmon rapt. that ~ade be reduced to that of road on which;it fronted was void as nonstituting spot or 66ntrnct zoning, where precise changq a~xd cond tions were proposed by app ~Uts fOr town zoning ahd were adopted m toro r~ezoned parcel was first indugti-iaf intrusion in area and noncon- ZONING AND PLANNING · it. 16 forming gas station use was nor rezoned bm'wa~'ix left in residential district; Le- vln~ v. ~TowlI 6f' 0ys~r B'ayl 1966. 26 A:D.gd 583, 272 N'~Y,.S~ lYL coYlsti~ute "spo~ ~gi~ g" ab~ea~t evidence 318 N.Y~S.2d 26, Vested ~pegty wights See, also, ~tes o{ Dec[sions set under seetion Fact tl~t property has been in particu- lar zone for Iong periods of; time does not rartder ii ~l~late to change in zon- ing. Glei3 Hea~}~enwood Landing Civ- ic Co~;no~l V. T(q'~n:of Oyster Bay 1981 109 Migc~2d 3~,'~38 N.Y.S.2d 715, af- firmed 8~ A.D.~2~:484. 453 N.¥.S.2d 732. 27. Entry in mi/rotes of board See, als.o, annotations under no~e num- ber 13 of secff6~ 264. Changes in z~ning ordinances made by rowe boar& must be entered in ordi- § 265-a hence book, 60p.State Comp/. 245, 1950. 28. Maps, filing of A zoning map must be flied wkh a zoning local law only when the local law, in express terms, adopts the map or incorporates it therein, bdt there is no legal reqvdremem that the ma~ tora portion thereof) be flied w/th & local law effecting a z6ning change by metes and bounds description. Op. State Compt. 81-24. 29. Reconsideration of anxendmeut hy board Tosvn board had authoriW to "recon- sider'' its prior resolution grantmg zon- ing change, so long as the requisite statu- tory procedures for changing present zoning regulations were ~ollowed. Vizzi v. Town of Islip, 1972, 71 Misc.2d 483, 336 N.Y,S.2d .520. 30° Fees and expenses It is doubtful that a town board may charge a person who petitions for a zon- ing change an application fee and the cost of publication of the amendment. Op. State Compr. 80-60. A town may nor charge the cost of publication of a zoning change ~o the applicants who request such change. 25 Op,State Compt. 265, 1969. § 265-a. Exemption of lots shown on approved subdivision plats 1, Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of this chapter or of any general, special or local law, the provisions of a zoning ordinance hereafter adopted, and the provisions of a change or amendment hereafter adopted to a zoning ordinance, which provisions establish or increase lot areas, lot dimensions which are greater than or Lq excess of the lot areas or lot dimensions of the lots shown and delineated on a subdivision plat of land into lots for residential use and which said subdivision plat also shows and delineates one or more new streets, roads or highways in addition to lot lines and dimensions of the lots thereon delineated and which said subdivi- sion plat has been duly approved by the planning board, if any, of the town in which the land shown on said plat is situate, or approved by such other board or officer, if any, of such town vested with authority ro approve subdivision plats, and which said subdivision plat or the first section thereof has been duly filed in the office of the recording officer of the county in which the land shown on said subdivision plat is situate, or which provisions establish or increase side, rear or front yard or set back requirements in excess of those applicable to building plots under the 259 § 265-a © TOWN LAW Art~ 16 provisions of the.zoning ordinance, if any, in force and effect at the time of the filing of the said subdivision plat or first section thereof, shall not, for the period of time prescribed in subdivision two of this section, be appiica- ble to or in any way affect any of the lots shown and delineated on such subdivision plat, 2. If at/he time of the filing of the subdivision plat or first section thereof referred to in subdivision one of this secffon there was in the town both a zoning o,rdinance and a planning board vested with authority to approve subd/vision plats, then the exet~ptio~ provided for in such subdivi- sion shall apply'for a period of three years after the fil~g of the subdivision plat or f'~rst section thergof. It: at the time of the filing of the subdivision plat or first section thereof ret~erred to in ~ubdivision one of this section there was a zoning ordtnanc~ i? effect/ax/he town but there was no ~kn~ng board::,ix} S'aid town ves~d witt~ authority to' approve subdivision p~ats, then the exemption pro~de~ for in~ suck subdivision shall apply for a period o~ two yghr~:~afteC !ke'g'~;fili[rg of the sgbdivision plat or first section thereof. I,f at fire tialie of the filing ,of the ~sttbdivisiorr phi or first section thereof referre& to in subdivision One pt~ thS,s seCtSOn there was no zoning ordinance in the town hu~ there was a t:daxmix~g board vested with authority to approve subdi~?i~m plo:ts, then the exemption provided for in such subdivision sha~L alSpty for a pe~od of two ~ears after the filka~ of the subdivision plat or first section tl~ereof; 1~ at the tlme of the filing of/he subdivision plat or f~st section tlSereof referred to subdivision one of this section there was no zoning ordin, ance in the town and no planning board vested with authority to approv~ subdivision plats, then the exemption provided for in such ~ubdivision shall apply for a period of one year after the filing of said subdivJ, sion plat or first section thereof. If such period of exemption would expire within one year from the date of the filing of a section of the approved 151at. it shag be extended for that section for a period of one year from the date of the filing of such section. (Added L. 1960, c. 1060; amended L.1963. c. 978, § 13 ZONING AND PLANNING Art. 16 ments for three-year period following original final plat approval, property owners, having failed to avail themselve~ of statutory grace period, would not be heard to complain of hardship resulting from subsequent rezoning of the proper- ry. Freundlich v. Town B& of South- ampton, 1979, 73 A.D.2d 684, 422 N.Y. S.2d 215. a~tirmed 52 N.Y.2d 921. 437 N.Y.S.2d 664 419 N.E.2d 342. 2. Validity of particular exemptions Where village was created out of land lying m town and was ~nco, rporated on February 3, 1967, and towns zoning or- dinance, to be approved by town author- ities, was in effect until at least June 1. [968. which was the earliest date wher_ village ordinance could supersede town ordinance, and prior to this date town's plamfing board found that lots on pet/- tioaer's subdivision plal satisfied mini. mum area requirements of town's zon- ing ordinance and granted approval § 266. Zoning commission In order to avail itself of the powers ( board shall appoint a commission to bt m recommend the boundaries ot~ the var ate regulations to be enforced ~.herein. preliminary report and holct public hca final report and such town board shall action until it has received the final rep planning board already exists it may bc sSon. (L. 1932, c. 634; amended L1963. c. 759.) Historical Note Effective Date. Section effective Apr. 30, 1960. pursuant to L. 1960~ c. 1060. §2. Historical i Derlvatton. Town Law of 1909. c. 63. S~ § 141--c, subd. 18--e and § 349-t, Said 7~ subd. 18-e was added L. I926. ¢. 715. Llbrary References Zoning and Planning ~'44. 63. 321 et C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning seq., §§ 25; 38 to 49, 154 to 159. Notes of Decisions Failure to use exemption 1 Validity of particular exemptions 2 Where property was exempted pursu- 260 Cross ]~efer~ Village zoning commission, see Village Law ~ Llbrary Refe~ Zoning and Planning~=*35L C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning §§ 97, 177 to 185. 261 TOWN LAIg ~ if any, in force and effect at the time of >lat or first section thereo~ shall not, for ~bdivisi0n two of this,~ection, ~f the Ions shown and d6Iir~ektert.:~ SUc~ of the subdivision plat or first section one of this section there was in the town planning board vested wit?_ anihority to e exemption'provide~d for irt suc~ subdivi- -ce years after the filing,of t~e subdivision t the time of the filing of the ~division red m i~ subdivision oone of this shction n effect in the t~wn but there was no ed with authority to approve subdivision 2 for in,such; subdiMsi4~ shall app!y for a ~g of tile shbdi~visi~n plat or first ~ecfion ag of the subdtwsion plat or Chest section one off this section there was no zoning 'as a p!annir~g boax~t ;ves, ted ~ith authority en the exemption pro~ided~ ~r in such :iod of two years after the 'filirxg of the ~ereof, If at, the time ,of the filing of the uereof referred to ~ubdivisi~n one of this ~nce in the town.~d~g~ pI~x~ning board e subdivision plats, t~¢n the exemption shall apply fOr a p~d of ~ne year after or firsi section the~e~fi if stlch ,period of ~ne year from the date ~ff ~e,'fii~g of a shall be extende~ for that section for a of the filing of such section. ¢63. c. 978 § 1.) tor~cal Note § 266 thereto, petitioner's plat became exempt from operati~m of: r~e~wly enacted village ordinance, and v~,II~g~ could no~, consti- tutionally take,~ay this exemption by enactment of~.Iage ordinar~ce that was r~ore restrlcfive, t~a: tl~e pr,edecessor tbwn code~ Wesley'Chapel, Inc. v. Van D6n IClehge, 10~[ 32 ~D,nd 565. 300 T0wn~ zOning ordinance amendment e ....... - " .'. ~ of 40 feet cr~aTl~y ~tec~ iil~ t-he 6fflc~ Of colalty cler!¢~ w~a~ got hnvaiid ~on grounc[ that third wa~ ~ unla~ffil delegation to cou~ip!amfing~'domrrilssion of po~ver wSth, rr~gg~ ~ ~ts su~ sequently filed Ap~a~o~to~ ~e-l~, Const. Corp., 1962, 36 Mi~cnd 5'g& 232 N.¥.S.2d 908. § 266. Zoning connnission BI o~rcler to avai[~ itself of the powers conferred by this article, such town board sh, aii ~p~oihKa co ,m~/s~sion to be known as the zoning commission to recommend tine'boundaries of Iahe various original districts and appropri- at~ regcfiations to~ be ~,e~force~l therein. Such commission shall make a pr~I~inary ~epor~ and.~old phbli~ hearings tl~erdon before~ submitting its final report ~nd mdh i~ Board shall not hold its publf~ 15earing or take aced,on until/t ,kas received~ ~¥ final report of such' commission. Where a planning board already exists it may be appointed as the zoning commis- sion. (L.1932. c~ 634: amended L. i963, c. 759.) Historical Note Derivation. Town Law of 1909. c. 63. Said section 349-t was added L. 1926. c. § 14i-c, sub& 18--e and § 349-t. Said 714, § 1. sub& 18-e was added L.1926; c. 715. ry References et C.J.S. ~oning and Land Planning §§ 25:38 to 49. 154 to i59. ~ of Decisions Validity of particular exemptions 2 1. Failure to use exemption Where property was exempted pursu- ant to this section, from zoning amend- 260 Cross References Village zoning commission, see Village Law § 7-710. Llbrary Referenees Zoning and Planning~351. CJ.S. Zoning and Land Planning §§ 97, 177 to 185. 261 265 O TOWN LAW TOWN LAO Notes of Decisions 9. Protest against proposed change~ Generally A slng]e ]oint tenant's signature is sufficient te constitute a vote on behalf of the jointly owned property for pur~ poses o~ a p~otest petition under Tov~n ~aw ~ '265~ Op. Atty!Gem (tnf)) 8~-17. 10. Necessity of three-fourths Town board's three-to-two vo~e ap- angetewn, 1986, 125 A.D.2d 465. 509 N.Y.S.2d 394. 15. I~lsapproval of change by plan- ning board ~Vebster Associates v. Town of Web- suer, 47 'J~'.Y.~.2d 401 Imam volume] affirm~l, 85 A.D.2d 882/446 N.Y.s.3d 955 reversed 58 N.Y.2d 220. 464 N.Y. S.2d ~2,1. ~1~1 N.E.2d 189. 22. C0nd~tional changes proving application for dhange in zoning Tow9 ~zoning board could not impose was net.sufficidnt to pass amendment, condi~on on grant of variance permit- where lknd~wnar who submitted written ting us& of agricultural-residential proF objection o~rned slightly more than 20% erty ~or ~.tom(;bfle body repair shop, of lan~ area immedlatoly .adjacent to requiring phasin~ out of operation on prdperty for which zordn~ change Was in another pa~rel o~re~drt~ not subject to question, ff area lying m strget were varmneek no~st~ng contenh0n .excluded, u~nder TOW~ Law req~ ap- ~t q~}~dlt~0n w~a~ j~sl~ed b~ Vl0se re]a- proy~ of ~t least three-fourths o~ mem- fionsl~p between prpp~e~ies and by in- ber~ of town heard ~f 'l.an4 r~gulktion terre~e~l nalxa'e, c~ l'a~in the commu- changeif~e~I~ng~ei~obj~e~'~d~pbyown- airy. St ~)nga v. D0~pvan, 1988, 71 ers 6f~20~ 'or mpre of i~n~dia~ly adja- N.Y.2d 50~, ~27 ~.¥.S.2d 721, 522 cent land. ~ied~rmann v. Town of Or- N.E.2d 1019. ~ § 265-a. Exemption of lots shown on subdivision plats Notes of Decisions Commercial subdivisions 3 Local laws 4 2. Validity of particular exemptions Sections of Town I~w and VilIage Law which provide exemption from amendment to zoning ordinance increas- ing required lot size made within three years after approval and filing of subdi- vision plat or first section of plat were not intended to abrogate vested righte acquired before or during egemption pe- riod by virtue of substantial improv~ menm. Ellingten Const. Corp. v. Zoning Bdt of Appeals of Inc. Village of New Hempstea(L 1989 152 A.D.2d 365. 549 N.Y.S.2d 405. 3. Commercial subdivisions Statute providing for exemption of aF proved subdivision plate from increased lot area and lot coverage reqmrements of zoning ordinances adopted or amend- ed subsequent ~o subdivision plat proval applied ~o commercial subdivi- sions as well as residential subdivisions. Ramapo 287 L~d. Partnership v. Village of Montebello. 1990. __ Misc..2d 550 N,Y~S.2d 1021. 4. Local laws This section does not exerapt a devel- open who has filed a subdivision pia~ from the requiremente of a subsequent- ly-enacted local law governing wetlands preservation. Op. Atty. Gon. I 90-16. § 266. Zoning commission [Eft. until July 1, 1991. See. also. § 266 posL] In order to avail itself of the powe~ conferred by this article, such town hoard shall appoint a commission to .be known as the zoning commission to recommend the boundaries of the various original districts and appropriate regulations to be enforced therein. Such commission shall make a prelimi- nary report and hold public hearings thereon before submitting its fina report and such town board shall not hold i~s public hearing or take action until it has received the final report of §uch commission. Where a planning board already exist~ it may be appointed as the zomng commisston (L.1932, c. 634; amended L.1963. c. 759.) 22 Historical and Statutory Notes For applicable historical and statutory notes, Notes of Decisions, see ~ ~, as amended by L. 19~ § 266. Adoption of first zoning ordinance [Eft. July i by L.1990, c. 515. See. also: § 266 an~e.] 1. In ord,? to ava~ itself of the powers con/erred b. town board shall appoint a commission to be known as sion ro recommend the 'boundaries o~ the various appropriate regulations to be enforced ~herein. 2. Where a $1anning hoard alkeady exists it may b~ . zoning commission. 3. Such commission shall make a preliminary repot more public hearings thereon as deer~ed, appropriate before's~b.,mftt'in~ its final report 4. Th~ ~board sh~llnot hold its public, hearingor has receiV(kt.tl/e final report of such Commission. 5. Upon adoption of a,resolufion by the town board repur% such co~inissioa shall cease t~exlst as a separa Ib.t93Z, c, 63~ amended L.1~363, e: 759; L.i990. c. 615, § 13 Historical and Statutory Notes 1990 Amendmem~ L.1990, c. 515, § 1, lng the number of elf. July 1, 1991, in catehl ne substituted held as one or more reference te adoption of first zoning or- ate by commission. dinanee for reference to zomng commis- ed provision suthm sion, designated exls~ng provisions as subds. 1, 3, and 4 and, as so designated, ning board m be in subd. 3 inserted pkovlsious anthoriz- comraissmn, and ad § 267. Board of appeals West's McKinney's Forms The following forms appear in Local Government Forms und: Order to show cause (with restraining order) in article 78 p~ determination of board of appeals--denying special use per as automobile repair shop, see Form 11A. Petition in article 78 proceeding to review determination of boa: lng special use permit to use proper~y as automobile repair Notice of motion by use variwnce appIicante to intervene in anti review determination of board of appeals granting variance preprimary and elementary school for profit, see Form 26, Affirmation in support of motion by use variance applicants to proceeding to review determination of board of appeals operate a private prepriraary and elementary school for Order permitting use variaace applicants to intervene in arti~ review determination of bbard of appeals granting variance z preprinmry and elementary school for prdf t, see Form 28. Notes of De~isions Consent of adjoining landowners 93a Declaratory Rehearing 212a 209a Ripeness for judicial review, scope of judicial review 217a Scope of judicial review Ripeness for judicial review 217a 28. Practical diffic Timeliness of petition Evidence establis~ Generally 208 ~y and, thus, justifie~ 23 ~I.kTTHEWS ~ Ha ATTOI~NEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 45 HAii~oN ROAD $olrrH~PTO~. N.Y- 11968 Messrs. FROM: RE: January 23, 1991 Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Att~rne~ Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairma. n, Zoning Board'of Appeals Victor Lessa~d, Principal Building Inspector B~_~Dett 9~.owsk~_q~, Chairman, PtanningB6ard Stephen L. Ham, III Lot 3 Chocomount, Map of Fishers Island Development Corporation ~SCTM ~ 1000 - 4 - 5 - 5.9) In October I submitted an application for a minor subdivision of the referenced premises (survey attached) on behalf of Isabel Leib and Theodore Danforth. It was returned to me recently under cover of a letter from Mr. Orlowski (copy attached). I was advised to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation as to whether my clients owned one lot or two. As you are all aware, the notation "2 lots" appears on the FIDCO Map depiction of the subject property (excerpt attached). Last March, I spoke with Ken Edwards of the Planning Board who advised me that, notwithstanding the upzoning to a 120,000 square feet minimum in this area, I could apply directly to the Planning Board for subdivision approval even though each 1 of the two lots to be created would be only 106,284 square feet in area. It was his understanding, and apparently the understanding of at least some other Town officials, that the status of this property as two zoning change since it was shown as such Health Department and Planning 8oard. homesites was no~ affected by the on a map approved by the After I appli~ for a minor subdivisio~ in October (having unsuccessfully argued that the proper application Would be for a setoff), the Planning Board, contrary to the advice I received in March, advised me by letter of November 13 (copy attached) that it could not proceed with its review because the subdivision would result in the creation of two undersized lots. The application was not finally returned until January because, when I protested this decision to the Planning Board staff, it sought the opinion of the Town Attorney. To the extent that Mr. Orlowski's letter of January 11 represents the views of the Town ~ttorney, the Town Attorney apparently believes an inte~rpretation should be sought from the Zoning Board. Last week I discussed the application with Linda Kowalski of the Zoning Board staff. I believe Ms. Kowalski also consulted with Mr. Goehringer. The Zoning Board has taken the position that it will not render an interpretation. However, it would entertain an application for a variance provided I submitted the necessary Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector and otherwise complied with the requirements for giving the Zoning Board jurisdiction to hear an appeal. On January 18, I met wi§h Mr. Lessard who gave me a brief history of ~he FIDCO Map and discussed the status of this property with me. Mr. Lessard is of the opinion that I do not need~.any variances to create two lots on this parcel since the Planning Board and the Health Department have already approved it as "2 lots". He said my clients have two lots and, when the time comes, they ca~Zput their ~ine down. I do not know whether he mea,nt that Planning Board action would not even be necessary but he certainly meant that variances would not be required since he told me he would not issue a Notice of Disapproval. The purpose of this Memorandum is generally to let your offices know that the Town is not speaking with a unified voice on the issues involved in this application. These issues concern some fundamental questions about land use that certainly apply to other lots on the FIDCO Map and may apply to lots on filed maps covering other areas of the Town. Specifically, I would like to know if you can agree on a single answer to the ~ollowing questions: 1. metes and bounds, Map as being any maps? 2. occurs when and are held rezoning to Other than the fact that they must be described by does the Town consider lots shown on the FIDCO different from lots shown on major subdivision Does the Town take the position that a merger two formerly conforming lots, that adjoin one another in common ownership, are rendered nonconforming by a a greater minimum area requirement? Does it make any difference whether the two 16ts are in an approved major subdivision? \1~ 3. Must the owners of the subject property take an apDeal to the Zoning Board or will it in fact render interpretation as to whether they have one or two lots? 4. Is Planning Board action even required or may owners simply:~raw their ~wn division line? 5. If Planning Board action is application not be for a setoff rather than a (Please compare the van Hengei and Emmet-West the mid-1980's which related to properties on were treated as setoffs.) an the[ required, should the minor subdivision? applications from the FIDCO Map and If the merger doctrine applies to the FIDCO Map, then that Map no longer accurately depicts the remaining building lots on the East End of Fishers Island. That is clear from the instant application. Another example involves other clients of this office who have entered into a contract with~ FIDCO to exchange two lots they own near the golf course for Lots 13 and 14 in Block 44 (survey attached). In a conference with Mr. Lessard and Mr. Edwards in October, I was advised that a separate building permit could be issued for each of the lots my clients will acquire (44-13 and 44-14). However, if th~ merger doctrine applies to the FIDCO Map, it could be argued that these lots have merged since the total area of both, approximately 223,000 square feet, is insufficient to support two lots in the R-120 Zone District. Moreover, since other lots owned by FIDCO, 4 44-7, 44-8 and 44-12 (shown on the attached excerpt) adjoin Lots 44-13 and 44-14, further questions are raised: must FIDCO apply for setoff or subdivision approval in order to convey two lots where it owns adjoining property and must it obtain a variance to lot (4,4-14) that is only about 95,080 square feet in convey a area? ~ I ~erstand t~at the issues I raise may not be the most important on your respective ag~ndas~ However, my clients have waited two months while their application sat in a file pending a determination by the Town Attorney that has raised more questions than it has answered. I would therefore very much appreciate it if, at your earliest convenience, you would consider these questions and provide me with a response on which you all can agree. If you decide to plan a meeting, I would also appreciate being allowed to attend to present my views in greater detail. ~L~ ..- S.L.H., III ~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr~ Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall_ 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 CERTIFIED MAIL: Return ReceipL Requested. May 2, 1991 Stephen L. Ham, III M~tthews and 45 Hampton Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision application of Samuel S. Polk SCTMa 1000-4-5-5.9 Dear Mr. Ham: The Planning Board has received your client's application for the above mentioned Subdivision on Fishers Island. We find that we cannot proceed with your application because there is no filed open development map of the Fishers Island Development Corporation. When the FIDCO open development map is filed, then the Planning Board can proceed with your client's application. Your application and check for $2,000 are enclosed. If you have any questions, or requlre further assistance, please contact this office. enc. cc: Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Robert B. Calhoun, President, FIDCO LASER FICHE FORM Proiect Type: Minor /SCTM # 1000 - 4.-5-5.9 ' Proiect/Name: Polk, Samuel S. Location: private road off East End Road. Hamlet: Fishers IsJand Applicant Name: Samuel Polk Owner Name: Samuel Folk Zone 1:R~:120 Zone 2: Apl~liCaitiOn' Received Date:~,~ --'--'1 Approva Date ,~ t~,[q~ County Fil,ing Date: (~ Zone 3: ADDITIONAL SUBDIVISION INFORMATION A date indicates that we have received the related information C and R's ' Homeowners Association · R and M Aqreement: x. 'x 3 0 / ¢) ad M 0 4"~'~ ~- 8'-0" DIA DRY WELL CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE GULET OPENINGS JLa/ J CAST j CONCRETE COVERS PLAN LOCKING CASTING FINISHED GRADE IMNEY CROSS SECTION 1000 GALLON SEPTIC TANK NOT TO SCALE TEST HOLE DAT~A am familiar with the standards for mprn,% and construcbon of subsurface sewogo d,sp,, ~' systems for single family residence one ,,, obTde by the conditions set forth there~r, n!,,: on the permit to construct, APPLICANT I hereby certify that this mop was mode from dctuol surveys completed April 30, 1990 monuments ore set as shown. "A decloroUon of covenants end restrictions offectin9 -he lots in this Subdivision has been filed in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk in Liber Page NOTES: t~:)b o(J~- LETEL i lOLl COORDINATE DISTANCES ARE MEASDRED FROM U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY FRIAi'rOULATION STATION "CHOCOMOUNT 2" 2. SITE IS IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, TAX MAP 1000. SECTION 004, BLOCK 5, LOT 5.9 3. SITE IS TO BE SERVICED BY MUNICIPAL WATER AND ON SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM rN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4. SITE IS IN R-120 ZONE 5. OWNER: Mr Samuel S. Polk 485 Harris Rood Bedford Hills, NY. 10458 '2,2)530 5552 6. BASE FOR LEVELS: NGVD 1929 (APPROXIMATE) 7.- ...... ,36 ....... EXISTING CONTOURS APR 2 3 t991