Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout#7498 Loria Public Comment 7-27-2021.pdf Fuentes, Kim From: Julie Saul <juliem@saulgallery.com> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 4:26 PM �F�ET\6FC- To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: Zoning Board of Appeals upcoming meeting regarding f Sbf6DVOst St. Dear Zoning Board of Appeals, ` ion"`a Board of My name is Julie Saul and I have had a home in New Suffolk for 13 years at 875 King St at the corner of first street and before that I was a renter in New Suffolk. Needless to say I have a profound love of the community and an intimate knowledge of changes that go on within the town. I am writing in regard to the proposed variances on the lot on first street, next to the large white house on the water,ort5opertv Loria. I have closely studied his proposed plans for the development of that lot and find it unacceptable in every way. First of all, it destroys the sense of scale and aesthetic beauty of that land which reaches to the Peeko Oyster farm and o developed by the New Suffolk Waterfront fund. It is proposed on a .14 acre, site and asks to be higher, wider and deeper than is currently allowed. What is the point of having any laws in place when they are not respected? I was surprised to understand that there are no size limits on residential construction, and I hope this one case will bring about a new statute that addresses scale. It would save everybody a lot of headaches. I am also concerned about the environmental impact of such a project. The property is essentially located on a flood plane and proposes putting the septic system on the side of the house on a narrow strip of land. Phil Loria illegally and without permission built a bulkhead on his property last year. I understood he paid a fine for this, but I am curious why this did not send up a red flag. I know he was part of the community for many years with Captain Marty's Fish Station, but that does not give him the right to do whatever her wants along Cutchogue Harbor. Please confine this proposal to the existing zoning laws and vote against Mr. Loria's request for variances. Thank you! Julie Saul 875 King St. New Suffolk, NY 11956 ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Fuentes, Kim From: Siobhan O'Neill <siobhan.oneill622@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday,July 2S, 2021 1:04 PM , To: Fuentes, Kim ��F�E-T�>pE.� Subject: [SPAM] - 1090 First Street - New Suffolk JUL 2 6 1e,21 Dear Kim Zoning Board of:4pueal I am writing to lodge my dismay at the possible approval of the permit variances requested by Phil Loria at 1090 First Street in New Suffolk I am not anti-variance approval - I am opposed to the scale and scope of a structure of this kind on such a tiny parcel of land, and at a height that would forever alter the aesthetic beauty of the bay view forever. A big house on the waterfront of our little hamlet is the polar opposite of what we need to keep the charm and atmosphere we are known for. Please do not approve the variances requested by Mr. loria for this structure's permits. Thank You - The Adler - O'Neill family New Suffolk, NY i Cftcit'a.af RECEIVED Lauren K. Grant JUL 2 3 2021 2980 Grathwohl Road- PO Box 648 New Suffolk,NY 11956 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 631-734-7503 Leslie K. Weissman, Chairperson Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals PO Box 1179 54375 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Re: Case#7498-Loria Dear Ms. Weissman and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals It is my understanding that the case mentioned above: Case#7498-Loria, is now before your board for variance approvals and that,upon your approval, the case would go back to the Building Department for final permits. The abundance of variances needed to build this house clearly indicate that the facts speak for themselves.With so many variances needed,It is abundantly apparent that that this is the wrong house,on the wrong property,in the wrong hamlet. It is my humble request that this request be denied by the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Thank you for your attention in this matter, Sincerely, Lauren Krug Grant r(9* V1(6-1 Vrf K July 9, 2021 �E�ETII�C Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals JUL 0 D 2021 Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 ,Zoning Boar© ,_ Southold, NY 11971 } Dear Members of the Southold Town Zoning Board, The historic waterfront in New Suffolk is a special place that all residents of Southold Town can be proud of. I'm writing this letter to urge you to help protect it by not approving application #7498 filed by Mr. Philip Loria for setback and third-story variances for a proposed house to be built at 1090 First Street in New Suffolk. Such variances were approved in the case of 1200 First Street, resulting in a house that is a blight on the New Suffolk waterfront. It's completely out of character for the neighborhood, and completely dwarfs the house next door at 1230 First Street. A three-story building is just way too tall for any structure on the historic downtown New Suffolk waterfront. Sincerely, Alec Heiner 410 Bunny Lane, New Suffolk Fuentes, Kim From: LINDA AU RIEMMA <laurie6656@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday,June 29, 2021 12:39 PM To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: Loria Application # 74-98 Dea r ZBA, We are writing to express our complete opposition to this project. To even consider building a house on a .14 acre lot in 2021 is insane. How big would this house be? It looks enormous given the size of the property. Is it 1372 sq ft. on each of the 2 floors of living space, plus a deck? The plan shows dimensions of 60 ft. X 25ft. At a height of 35 ft., the beautiful bay views we see now will be totally blocked. If this variance is approved, all we will be able to see is a big box & New Suffolk will lose a big piece of its charm & beauty. If this request is approved, the lot next to it will only ask for the same house approval at some point & we will have a long corridor of big box houses as we walk/drive/bike along First St. instead of the view of the bay we love & enjoy every day. Mr. Loria's request is for a house that is 3 stories! This is over the 2 1/2 story max, therefore, it should be denied on these grounds alone. But it doesn't meet even ONE of the setback requirements either! Why? Because this house is way too big for a tiny little lot! Please do not give approval for this application. A three story house is forbidden by code. Southold needs to uphold the regulations & codes that have been put in place. To allow a house to be built at 1090 First St. would be a terrible mistake &, with another septic system so close to the bay, not good for the environment as well. Please deny this. There is more than ample justification. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Linda & Paul Auriemma 460 Fred St. New Suffolk June 30, 2021 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 54375 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Re: Philip Loria #7498 Re nest for Variance Dear Ms. Weisman: I am writing to express my opposition to granting the above-referenced variance request. The structure Mr. Loria proposes to construct would require multiple highly significant variances. The proposed construction would violate the zoning setback requirements by a very substantial amount and permit building far closer to the front, rear and side property lines than is allowable under the town code. This is not a matter of granting a variance of a few feet; the applicant is proposing to violate the setback requirements by 60%to 75%. The variance permitting construction of a three story dwelling is particularly inappropriate since the property is located along the waterfront. A paramount concern of the zoning board should be to maintain free and open views of our waters for as many residents as possible. Allowing the zoning code to be violated to permit residents to build structures that effectively function as walls to block those views for others is wholly inappropriate. The property in question is a very small lot that is located in the Marine II zoning district. As the Board is aware, the purpose of the Marine II district is primarily to provide a waterfront location for business that benefit from or require direct access to the water. The property has been operated as a boat storage facility for decades in accordance with this purpose. It was never intended to serve as the location of a large residence, since the lot is simply too small to permit such a use. Under the town code, the Board has the power to grant variances where "there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of [the zoning] regulations". There are no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships being imposed on the ability of the applicant to continue to operate this property in accordance with its intended purpose and longtime use. Rather, the applicant is asking that the rules be waived in order for him to construct a type of structure that was never intended to be constructed on such a small lot located within this zoning district. I understand that the applicant is of the view that construction of a single family residence on this lot will somehow be better for the community than continuing to use the lot for commercial purposes as it has been for decades. This is simply not true. The lot could continue to be used as a boat storage facility, or could be converted to other marine-related uses (such as a mariculture or aquaculture facility) with far less impact on the community. This is the primary intention of the Marine II zoning district, and the zoning board should not allow that intention to be violated here. Finally, permitting this construction risks creating a precedent that other property owners and builders will invoke when they wish to build other homes on small lots in violation of the zoning code. If the board grants the requested major variances to the code in this circumstance, it will be very difficult for it to reject variance requests for other properties in New Suffolk without being accused of acting in an arbitrary manner. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Matthew J. Lyons 1125 Second Street P.O. Box 46 New Suffolk, New York 11956 go a� June 30, 2021 To the Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, I was struck by the term `bulk schedule' as I read through this application. BULK is the problem with this application,which i,roposes building a 60 foot long 35 foot tall wall, 9.5 feet from the street (the flight of stairs and landing are even closer), in this small hamlet grid. The adjacent boxy ho ise, a pre-existing 2 story house raised after Sandy, shows what we will get if the re-lief sought is granted. The west elevation drawing is a pleasant on 2 - until you consider its context and the size of the property it sits on. Dutch Gambrc I houses are seen in Southold on large properties, not in the New Suffolk grid, so t .e assertion that this building is consistent with local character couldn't be' arther from the truth. It will block views - of neighbors and of all those who walk or drive along First Street. In scale, the project is even more dramatically off the m irk- if an applicant needs relief in every direction - front, back, side, height- that s lggests that this very small parcel is not meant to have this building, as designed, of .it. It is true that residential use is less intensi- e than the M II uses the code allows. But the proposed residence would be more de.,tructive of the physical community fabric than the 2 commercial buildings on the wa terside.of First Street- Peeko Oysters runs lot line to lot line but is a small one-st ory historic building housing a working oyster business and the Galley Ho, a renovated historic structure on pilings on 2 1/2 f acres, sited with very-generous setbacks, o ffords (and guarantees through easements) water views and large open garden spaces. Whether the garage floor is paved or not cloesn't address the issue which requires the 4th variance. If it looks like a third floo r on all elevations, has windows and/or doors on all 3 floors and requires 2 full fli;hts of interior stairs to reach its top, full height floor, it is a 3 story building. Its ne;;ative impact on its neighbors doesn't depend on a paved floor or heating,it del ends on how big it feels outside. Maybe every property in every location i:; not suited to a 3 story house with 3 primary bedrooms, 2 story open spaces, '3 1/2 baths, large walk-in closets and an enclosed garage. Waterfront properties present unique cf.allenges, and if these variances are granted, there will be a precedent for several adji scent properties in this hamlet and others in Southold. New Suffolk will be walled off From the water, as so many suburban communities up and down the East coal t are. Sincerely, Barbara Schnitzler New Suffolk George J. & Lynn Krug 2 Wydler Court Garden City, NY 11530 June 29, 2021 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971-0959 Attention: Kim E. Fuentes We are writing regarding the proposed construction of a new home on the lot at 1090 First Street in New Suffolk, NY. As owners of the property at 1175 2nd Street in New Suffolk, we have a vested interest in this proposal, not only because the new building would directly block views of the harbor that we currently enjoy, but also as this represents the direction of development in our hamlet and the impact that such development would have on the quality of life for all in New Suffolk. We oppose the proposed building for the following reasons: 1) The request is for multiple and highly significant variances and a change of zoning; the requests are extensive to the point that, if allowed,would render setback and height restrictions and zoning designations meaningless, and would certainly encourage future builders as pressure mounts to convert non-buildable lots to buildable ones via similar exception requests. 2) New Suffolk is a waterfront community for the simple reason that the waterfront is visible to residents, visitors, pedestrians, and motorists alike. Each new structure diminishes that visual access, and the taller and wider the structure, the greater the impact. Taken to its logical end, such development ultimately would render our hamlet no more a waterfront community than any inland town. 3) The property is susceptible to storm damage. On July 29, 1993 a Storm Damage Permit 4209 was issued to construct approximately 100 feet of timber planking along the high water line and add approximately 70 cubic yards of clean fill. On November 13, 2019 Permit 9574A was approved to re-sheath 105 feet of timber bulkhead, replace dead-men and all hardware, cap the bulkhead, and backfill with 60 cubic yards of clean sand. Its reasonable to assume that the property and adjacent lots remain vulnerable to such damage and that the adds of such damage will likely increase. Restrictions on setbacks and height are in place for the very reasons stated above; granting exceptions for owners of properties that are not buildable within these codes will surely create precedent and stemming the tide of unchecked building- particularly waterfront-would be impossible_ Respectfully submitted, Fuentes, Kim From: Arlene Castellano <arlene.castellano@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 4:55 PM To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: Philip Loria #7498 �f r Arlene and Frank Castellano ' 1275 First Street P.O. Box 304 New Suffolk,NY 11956 r� June 28,2021 Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board Members: I am writing in opposition to Mr. Phil Loria's ZBA application(#7498)for his property located at 1090 First Street New Suffolk SCTM: 1000-117-7-31. According to the Town's zoning codes,the house that is proposed in this application is out of scale with the size and dimensions of the lot. Mr. Loria's family acquired this parcel in 1983. It was put into a trust in '89 and was placed in Mr. Loria's name in 2010. Therefore, despite what Mr. Loria and his agent, Mr. Mazzaferro, argue, zoning and setback laws apply. Whether or not the lot existed in 1923 or anytime before Mr. Loria acquired it is entirely irrelevant. For as long as I've lived across the street, almost thirty years, Mr. Loria has used this lot for commercial purposes that were consistent and permitted uses in the MII zoning district including boat servicing and storage. The lot is"vacant"in the sense that there is no structure on the property,but it is not an unused piece of land and Mr. Loria has been able to make profitable use of it for many years. Therefore, I do not believe that denying Mr. Loria permission to build an oversized three story second home on this inappropriately small waterfront lot would qualify as a hardship. The entirety of Mr. Loria's lot is located in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. Knowing what we know about sea rise, it would be irresponsible and reckless to approve a large-scale new construction project in an area of this designation. The installation of a septic system where one does not exist now, so close to the water and in a flood zone, is especially concerning. In every major storm,the bay easily breaches the bulkheads on the east side of First Street and overwhelms those properties. Improving a house that already exists in such a precarious position is one thing. But, building a new house and a new septic system in that spot defies logic. In the letter Mr. Loria wrote to his neighbors, he mentions the possibility of constructing a"beach club"and a"full scale marina"on his property. He seems to imply that he is doing the community a favor by only asking to construct a house,when he is zoned to do so much more. The reality is that the size of Mr. Loria's lot could never accommodate a beach club or a full scale marina according to Southold code.As it is, he needs substantial relief from the code to build a house. Just as Mr. Loria's property is zoned for a beach club and a full scale marina,my property is zoned for a 40,000 square foot house. That doesn't mean either of us owns anywhere near the amount of land necessary to build such things. The variances that Mr. Loria is seeking are not minor ones. The project that he is proposing would require substantial relief from the code.A 15.7 foot bulkhead setback where 75 feet is required is 79%relief from the code. The front yard setback is 73%relief from the code and the side yard is 59%. These setback laws were put in place for a reason. They are there to protect the environment and the character of the community. If granted, I believe these variances will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and, more importantly,will have a severely negative effect on the environment. 1 2c o '4 a) June 28, 2021 To the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, We are residents of New Suffolk writing to support Phil Loria's application for a variance. For 45 years, Phil, aka Captain Marty,owned and operated Captain Marty is Fishing Station here in New Suffolk where people could rent boat for fishing, d n tackle,and have their own boats repaired and maintained. Every kid in town was getting their and out of Captain Marty's,buying candy, soda and stuff to go fishing,g bicycle tires and their inflatables filled and refilled. It was an institution that contributed so much to the character and pleasure of life here,and hiring countless kids and adults over the years. Phil,whose parents bought ha me right across ally after the street, has been a wonderful neighbor,always ready hurricanes and nor'easters,with a heart as big as New Suffolk is small. We think it would be great for him to be able to build his retirement home here in community. New Suffolk where he's always made such positive contributions to our Sincerely, s�ID�� N,'1 r� l�s i-V s. lk� t as ?` From: Arlene castellano [mailto:arlen st 7o@gMail.com] Sent: Monday, June 14, ?021 3:10 PM To: lesliew@town.southold.ny.us CC: scott.russell@town,southold.ny.us; bill.duffy@town.southold.ny.us Subject: Loria ZBA application Dear Ms. Weisman, application current ZBA #7498 This morning, I rec eived a certified letter in the mail regarding Phil Loria's ta ned a copy of the one page Legal that is scheduled for a hearing on July 1, 2021. The mailing on y Notice issued by the ZBA. No other documents were included. I noticed the following errors in the Legal Notice that was based on the Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department: 1."Request from Variances from Article XII, Section 280-18." Article XII refers to Marine I District and Section 280-18 is listed under Article IV - Low Density Residential R-40 District and refers to Bulk area and parking regulations. Phil Loria's property is located in the MII District. 2. "Located less than the minimum side yard setback of 15 feet." The minimum side yard setback for the MII District is 25 feet. 3. "Located less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet." Phil Loria's property is also a waterfront property with a bulkhead. Article XXII Section 280-116B states: "All buildings located on lots upon which a bulkhead, concrete wall, riprap or similar structure exists and which are adjacent to tidal water bodies other than sounds shall be setback not less than 75 feet from the bulkhead." After noticing these errors and omissions, I called the ZBA office and spoke to,Kim Fuentes. My concerns were met with laughter and Ms. Fuentes seemed to think it was unreasonable of me to expect a Legal Notice to contain correct and factual information. Ms. Fuentes said she would look into the matter, but at the same time, belittled my concerns and implied that a few wrong numbers on a document were inconsequential. I was told "nobody's perfect." If I have learned anything in the past few years it's that details matter. My neighbors on First Street and I are still suffering from the effects of a past ZBA decision that started as a few wrong numbers on an application. I do not want to see history repeat itself and I find it outrageous that a ZBA secretary would so cavalierly dismiss a citizen's concerns. I also find it unacceptable that the Town continues to put out documents with so many errors, especially since we all know the lasting consequences of these decisions. It shouldn't be my responsibility to fact-check legal documents issued by the Town and I certainly don't appreciate being laughed at when I bring mistakes to the attention of a Town employee. I understand that these applications are long and difficult to review. But, the time for due diligence, fact checking, and verification of information, is in the application stage. If an application is riddled with mistakes and proper procedures are ignored, perhaps we should ask ourselves why. It should be noted that in 2019, Mr. Loria rebuilt his bulkhead without a permit from the Board of Trustees or the NYSDEC. Multiple complaints were submitted to code enforcement, Trustees, police, and the Town Attorney, and yet, work continued without interruption for a month. After the work was complete, Mr. Loria was issued a summons and he was granted an as-built administrative permit by the Trustees. Sincerely, Arlene Castellano 1275 First Street New Suffolk, NY 11956 Beyond Southold Trustee Wetland Permits,this application will require DEC permits ana variances from the Suffolk County Health Department. In 2019,Mr. Loria neglected to get any of the necessary permits for his bulkhead replacement. With this in mind, I would ask that the Board please ensure that all permits have been applied for and that the applicable documentation be reviewed and added to the ZBA file. I would also ask that the ZBA not permit the size of this lot to be manipulated through the use of survey tie lines or sand easements. I believe the dimensions of this lot should reflect the measurements listed in the deed and should not extend beyond the bulkhead which, in this case, is the obvious property boundary. Below is a list of errors in the Building Department Notice of Disapproval and the ZBA Legal Notice that I have shared with the Supervisor and the Town Attorney. Please add the entirety of this email to Mr. Loria's ZBA file. Thank you. Sincerely, Arlene Castellano Frank Castellano Phil Loria ZBA application(#7498) 1090 First Street New Suffolk- 1000-117-7-31 Hearing: July 1, 2021 loam MII- Setbacks 280 Attachment 4,Bulkhead Setback-Article XXII Section 280-116B The Building Department Notice of Disapproval dated February 5, 2021 contains the following errors: 1. Side yard setback of 15 feet where 25 feet is correct. 2. Rear yard setback of 35 feet where 25 is correct. 3. Maximum permitted stories of 2 1/2 where 2 is correct 4. Omission of bulkhead setback of 75 feet. 5. Omission of combined side yard setback of 50 feet. The original Zoning Board of Appeals Legal Notice dated June 17,2021 contains the following errors: 1. Side yard setback of 15 feet where 25 is correct. 2. Rear yard setback of 35 feet where 25 is correct. 3. Omission of bulkhead setback of 75 feet. 4. Omission of combined side yard setback of 50 feet. The amended Zoning Board of Appeals Legal Notice dated June 17, 2021 contains the following errors: 1. Rear yard setback of 35 feet where 25 is correct. 2. Omission of bulkhead setback of 75 feet. 3. Omission of combined side yard setback of 50 feet. Mr. Loria is proposing: 1. Side yard setback of 10.2 feet where 25 feet is allowed. 2. Rear yard setback of 15.7 feet where 25 feet is allowed. 3. 3 stories where 2 is allowed. 4. Bulkhead setback of 15.7 feet where 75 feet is allowed. 5. Combined side yard setback of 40.2 feet where 50 feet is allowed. 6. Front yard setback of 9.5 feet where 35 feet is allowed. ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 June 23, 2021 _ Attention:Southold Zoning Board JUN 2021 !I In Reference to Case#7498 Mr. Philip Loria SCTM#1000-117-7-3 Variance:Add Third Story&Yard Setbacks My name is Robert J. Puric and I am the trustee for the Puric Family Trust that resides at 1250 Second Street in New Suffolk, NY. I am writing this letter regarding the lot number 1090 which is located on First Street in New Suffolk. Mr. Philip Loria has submitted plans to build a 3-story home on this site and is requesting a variance for setback at this location. First and foremost, the property does not meet your building requirements per 280 attachment 6.The zoning code specifically states that the building has to be 30 feet set back from the street. The plans for this location show that Mr. Loria plans on building 9.5 feet from the street. I fully understand that zoning rules are set in place for reasons, and I feel in this case the exception should not be granted for the following reasons: 1. The people of this community that I have spoken to appreciate the current small-town charm and feel. We do not want yet another 3-story building right on the waterfront. This will jeopardize the look and environment of this town that has been preserved for centuries. 2. We understand that Mr. Albert Woods, owner of the adjacent to the property being reviewed, had an existing structure which was destroyed after the most recent hurricane. Mr. Woods was told he if he was to rebuild, it needed to be in accordance with new Federal, State and County guidelines for flood codes. Mr. Loria and Mr. Woods have vacant property lots which do not meet current Federal, State or DEC setbacks for new construction of a structure that is not existing and will be impossible to meet code. Additionally, if the structure is less then 10ft from the road, how does the county and town have a leeway for utilities? 3. The consensus of the year-round residents (my family included) is we DO NOT want New Suffolk to look like a metropolitan area with high rise 3-story homes. We want to keep it as how the original North Fork has always been, preserving the natural beauty and openness of the area. Can we please stick to our roots as generations before us to keep the preservation of the North Fork as it was? If you grant Mr. Loria this variance what's to stop Mr. Woods for doing the same? If this committee grants this variance I am afraid many more will follow. In conclusion, what makes New Suffolk so special and why this is the most sought-after property on the North Fork is its appeal, beauty, spaciousness, and peacefulness to the environment. Let's not start making exceptions and ruin this small town. We need to keep the charm of New Suffolk and not break zoning rules that were put in place for a reason and to protect the environment.This lot has been a boat yard, no structures were ever erected and given its small size, I don't see how anyone can build a home on it, let alone a 3-story one. It is for these reasons I and my family are opposed this variance. Sincerely, Y.✓tuck Robert J. Puric Trustee, Puric Family Trust 1250 2"d Street, POB 674 New Suffolk, NY 11956 robertjp@optonline.net (631) 312-3459 SOUTHOLD CODE 280 Attachment 6 Town of Southold Schedule for Open Space,Buffers and Setbacks for Residential Site Plans [Added 1-20-2009 by L.L.No.2-2009] Size of Property Minimum Open Space Set-Aside (as a percent of total Minimum Setback Minimum Buffer {acres) land area of project) (feet)` (feet)' <15 20 30 20 15-39 30 35 25 39 50 75 50 NOTES: 'Perimeter setback from property line to all structures, including driveways, patios and decks(includes the buffer area). Setback must be vegetated. Where open space is between the property line and the buildings,the buildings must be set back from the open space a minimum of 10 feet as measured from the edge of the structure to the nearest edge of open space. The portion of the setback not encompassing the buffer area is excluded from the open space calculation. '-The buffer is located within the minimum setback. The buffer begins at the property line and extends in towards the interior of the parcel. The area of the buffer shall be included in open space calculations. At the discretion of the Planning Board, buffers can either be non-disturbance, meaning the buffer area is left in its natural state and vegetation is not cut or removed, or a buffer can be planted and landscaped according to a plan approved by the Planning Board. E June 22, 2021 Z00109 goarc of A�p�als To The Southold Zoning Board: I am Steve Katsoulas and I reside at 1175 First Street in New Suffolk. I am writing this letter in regards to the lot number 1090 First Street in New Suffolk. The owner, Mr. Loria, has submitted plans to build a three-story framed dwelling. I am strongly opposed to this plan. The property does not meet building requirements. The zoning codes require the building to be thirty-five feet set back from the street. The plans for 1090 First Street show that they plan on building nine and a half feet from the street. Exceptions should not be made for any new construction in this town. Zoning rules are set place for a reason. The town of New Suffolk is a beautiful, spacious town. The people of the community that I have talked to would like to keep it this way. There is a lot right next to the one that Mr. Loria has purchased. What if exceptions are made to whatever new construction might be built in this area? Is this going to be the norm for New Suffolk? Mr. Loria states in his letter that the residence he is building will be better for New Suffolk. I am confused as to why this would be better for our town.The appeal and beauty of New Suffolk includes its spacious environment and views of nature. Let's not start making exceptions in this town. Let's keep the charm of New Suffolk and not break zoning rules that were put in place for a reason. Zoning codes and rules need to be enforced. This lot is simply too small to build on. Thank you for your time. If you need to contact me, my phone number is 516-428-2355. Sincerely, Steve Katsoulas 1 June 22, 2021 Board of AIPPO'S To The Southold Zoning Board: I am Steve Katsoulas and I reside at 1175 First Street in New Suffolk. I am writing this letter in regards to the lot number 1090 First Street in New Suffolk. The owner, Mr. Loria, has submitted plans to build a three-story framed dwelling. I am strongly opposed to this plan. The property does not meet building requirements. The zoning codes require the building to be thirty-five feet set back from the street. The plans for 1090 First Street show that they plan on building nine and a half feet from the street. Exceptions should not be made for any new construction in this town. Zoning rules are set place for a reason. The town of New Suffolk is a beautiful, spacious town. The people of the community that I have talked to would like to keep it this way. There is a lot right next to the one that Mr. Loria has purchased. What if exceptions are made to whatever new construction might be built in this area? Is this going to be the norm for New Suffolk? Mr. Loria states in his letter that the residence he is building will be better for New Suffolk. I am confused as to why this would be better for our town.The appeal and beauty of New Suffolk includes its spacious environment and views of nature. Let's not start making exceptions in this town. Let's keep the charm of New Suffolk and not break zoning rules that were put in place for a reason. Zoning codes and rules need to be enforced. This lot is simply too small to build on. Thank you for your time. If you need to contact me, my phone number is 516-428-2355. Sincerely, Steve Katsoulas