HomeMy WebLinkAbout#8027-Strongs public comment S. Boscola received 8-7-25 01117,5
5106 West Mill Road•P.O. Box 587 •Mattituck,NY 11952
Receive
August 6,2025
AUG 0 7 2025
via Email—kim.fuentes@town.southold.ny.us
Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Zoning Board of Appeals
54375 Main Rd
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Re: Strong's West Mill, LLC#8027
Dear Chairperson Weisman and Members of the Board,
We are hereby commenting on the Strong's Marine yacht storage building project which proposes major
excavation and construction less than 200' from our property. Our family has been Mattituck residents
since 1961. Our house was built in 1972 and is our only residence, occupying it year-round.
The application by Strong's West Mill LLC,received by the ZBA on May 22, 2025, references reason for
needing a variance as "The Town Code was changed during the course of the application." Presumably,
the applicant is referring to Local Law 10-22 in which the word"grade" was added before alteration:
"The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the existing natural grade adjacent
to the building, before any alteration or fill... "
to:
"The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the existing natural grade adjacent
to the building, before any grade alteration or fill..."
This revision appears to constitute a clarification, not a substantive change, and therefore, any building
proposal that is now non-compliant under the new definition should have been non-compliant under the
original definition. It has been a contention of many that commented on the DEIS that the proposed
building(s)were never complaint with the height requirements. The disapproval by the building department
further reinforces that objection.
The ZBA should refer to comments submitted to the Planning Board by Joel Klein on May 15,2023,where
he notes:
First, it is unclear what "adjacent"means. The existing grade where the proposed storage buildings
will be constructed contains significant slopes and existing elevations vary by more than 30 feet. As
a result, the existing elevation of the area that could be considered "adjacent"varies considerably.
The DEIS does not indicate what elevation has been assumed to be the "average elevation of the
existing grade."
Second, and more significantly, the definition of building height calls for it to be measured "before
any alteration or fill." The applicant proposes to erect the new structures after lowering the existing
grade by more than 35 feet. Using the Town Code definition of building height, this results in the
proposed structures actually having a negative height.
Page 1 of 2
The developer has attempted to obfuscate the calculations in the submissions. This new, single, building
they are now proposing is two feet higher than the initially proposed two buildings,which would now stand
20' higher than the existing buildings on the property. The ZBA should be skeptical of an application that
is claiming to be compliant previously but now needs to be even higher than the original proposal.
Under no circumstances should any variances be granted on this property, especially while a SEQRA
process is underway and while the Town Board is examining zoning throughout the Town. The current
zoning map erroneously,and without following required review protocols,relocated the boundary between
the R-80 and M-II zones several hundred feet to the west of its original location. The original zone boundary
roughly corresponds to the top of the existing—50' bluff that separates the water adjacent portions of the
parcel from the upland portion. There is no way that any part of the upland portion of the parcel could,or
can, be considered "water adjacent" or suitable for water-related uses. The prior zoning boundary IS
identifiable and should be reinstated.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Boscola
boscola @P_mail.com
---------------
�m .....
Page 2 of 2