HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-21-5-7Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Henry Smith
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT PERMIT
Date: April 26, 2000
SCTM#21-5-7
Name of Applicant/Agent: Jill Doherty
Name of Permittee: NANCY ~ PHIL WEBER
Address of Permittee: 160 The Strand, East Marion
Property Located: 160 The Strand, East Marion
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: Construct a 4' high fence along the
bluff, 15' from the beginning of the walkway, along the first
bend.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: (apply if marked)
__ Bluff restoration through a re-vegetation plan is a
necessary special condition of this permit.
A relocation agreement is attached hereto and is a
necessary special condition of this permit.
__ A maintenance agreement as attached with application and is
a necessary special condition of this permit.
Albert J.
President,
AJK/lms
Krupski, Jr.
Board of Trustees
Telephone
(516) 765-18q2
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
SOUTHOLD TOWN
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Tuesday, April 11,
2000, the following'recommendation was made:
Motion Carried Moved by Ken Meskill, seconded by Scott Hilary, it was
RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVAL WITH A
STIPULATION of the Coastal Erosion Permit Application of NANCY & PHIL WEBER 21-5-7
for a 4' high fence along top of the bluff approx. 10' down from the bluff line.
160 The Strand, East Marion
The CAC recommends Approval with the Stipulation that any vegetation disturbance is to be
restored and that erosion on the east of the staircase is to be replanted.
Vote of Council: Ayes: All
Motion Carried
Aprflll, 2000
Southold Town
Board of Trustees
Feather Frill
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Nancy & Phil Weber
SCTM #1000-21-5-7
Dear Board Members:
Enclosed for your info/mat/on P/ease find a
above referenced site. site plan dated April 10, 2000 showing all proposed work on the
Also enclosed is a report t~orn Sod and Water Conservation District received by the Z.B.A. on April
with regard the the blu~
3, 2000
The proposed fence will be
hand, At this ' ' ' ' · ·
p/ease let me know. a chmn link fence w~th mammal disturbance to the bluffas it will be placed by
t/me a revegetat/on plan is being worked on and if you have any Suggestions or Concerns,
Thank you for your Consideration.
S/ncerely,
,~ Jill Ooherty J
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDs MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone, (5]~6) 765-1800
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDs
~N~T?U, CTIONs: Please co .
~f~ce (agency Freedom of TnP;neta .S. ectlon I of this for ....
,,J response to yOur r~,~ ..... ,-urmatlon Officer). r~__ .., o~u 'give to Town Clerk's
~.~u~t, or as an in*~- .- ~,,e copy will be returned to you
'~'"" response.
(D&p~men~
t or Officer, ff k~, that h~ ~k~ ~
has th~ ~nformation
RECORD YOU WISH TO /o~ ~,e requesting.)
INSPECT: (Describe the record SOught. If possible,
date, file title, tax map n~mber, and any other pertinent information.)SUpply
Signature of Applicant:~__
Printed Name~.~~
Mmhng Address (if different from above) :~
Telephone Number:'
Date:
[ ] APPROVED ~ ~=-'~- .... ====================-~-=====--~--~_====== ........
[ ] APPROVED WITH DELAy*
[ ] DENIED* EECEIV~n,
Freedom of Information Officer Date
* If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. ~outhold l'ow~ Cb~
I/
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Henry Smith
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-18,~2
Fax (516) 765-1823
BOARD OF TOWN 'r~USTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Office Use Only
~oastal Erosion Permit Application
----Wetland Permit Application
Grandfather Permit Application
Waiver/Amendment/Changes
~-/~eceived Application: ~]~
~,'Received Fee:$ ~
~Completed Application~/~O~
Incomplete
SEQRA Classification:
Type I Type II Unlisted
Coordination:(date seDt)~
7CAC Referral Sent:
--~ate of Inspection:
Receipt of CAC Report:'
TLead Agency Determination:
echnical Review:
~ublic Hearing Held: Resolution:
Name of Applicant {~3JAL7 ~ ~i~ L~~
Address i~d9 '~'-!,.~ ~'~Yd'~%~ ~ ~ ~[69~
[~(~ ~ g~ Phone N~ber: (~[) ~77- [q[~
Suffolk County Tax Map N~ber: 1000 ~ - ~- ~
Property Location: ~
(provide LILCO Pole ~, di~ance to~{oss street,
(If applicable)
and location)
B~Of Trustees Applicatio~
GENERAL DATA
Land Area (in square feet):
Area Zoning: ~P
Previous use of property:
intended use of property:
Prior permits/approvals for site improvements:
Agency Date
No prior permits/approvals for site improvements.
Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a
goverr~ental agency? t"" No Yes
If yes, provide explanation:
Project Description (use attachments if necessary):
COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA
Purposes of proposed activity: ~ ~C~-~Osc- yog~ f~C
Are wetlands present within 75 feet of the proposed activity?
No Yes
Does the project involve excavation or filling? ~"~' No Yes
If Yes, how much material will be excavated? (cubic yards)
How much material will be filled? (cubic yards)
Manner in which material will be removed or deposited:
Describe the nature and extent of the environmental impacts
reasonably anticipated resulting from implementation of the
project as proposed. (Use attachments if necessary)
817,21
Appendix C
State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACT[ONS Only
PART I--PROJECT INFORMATION ~o be completed by Applicant or Project soonsor)
I1. APPLJCANTISPONSOR I 2. PROJECT NAME
5. OSSCRleE PROJECT SRIEFLY:
7. AMOUNT OF ~_AND AFFECTED:
WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY With ~'(ISTING 7.QNING CR OTHER -:;(ISTING ~-:,NO USE ~ESTRICT',ONS?
~-. Yes ~No If NO. describe ~riefiy
DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTIOI4 HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
~ Yes I~o If yes. Iisi agency name and bermitlaooreval
ii{ the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this a~s, essment
OVER
!
B~ of Trustees Application0
AU'rmORIZATION
(where the~ applicant is not the owner)
(print 'owner of property)
(mailing address)
do hereby authorize
( Agent )
to apply for permit(s) from the
Southold Board of Town Trustees on my behalf.
.%ignature )
8
Board of Trustees Application
County of Suffolk
State of New York
DESCRIBED PERMIT(S) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE
TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND Tt~AT ALL
WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION
AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTh{OLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOb~fHOLD AND TRETOWN
TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FI~EE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS
ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRT~3E OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN
COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HERRRY ALViq{ORIZE THE TRUSTEES,
THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVES(S), TO ENTER ON~D MY PROPERTY
TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS
APPLICATION.
SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS
Signature
DAY OF t~yQ~ ~.~
Publi~
LINDA J, COOPER
Notary Public, State of New Yore
No. 4~22563, Suffolk C~u..Qty -,, .-~ ~)
Te~'m E~pk~$ December 3~, ~ ~-0~'
mART _oETE?,MINATiCN OF SiGNIFiCANCE(To me como~eted by Agency)
:-- .-,. ,* · :,ox ff '/au have identified one or more cotentialW large .ar significant acversa imc, ac:s WhiCh ,','IA'
ocaur. Then ~r¢ceed direc'4y to :~e FULL -ZAF ~no~or greo&re a posidv~ dec,ara:iota.
FROM : NRCS/S~CD Riv~p~ad
SOIL A~)~
CON~I~VA~ZON DISTRZCT
~AX:(631)727-3160
PHONE NO. : 5167272[~51
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
Apr. ~3 20~ 07:2~ P2
T~,~= J. l~&l~on
D$$TRZCTMANAG;R
($31)727-2315
'Gerhard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Southold Town Board of Appeals
P.O. Box 1179
53095 Main Road
southo,d.. ]1111
March 28, 2000
Dear Mr. Goehringer.
We have completed a site inspeotion at the Nanoy Weber property known as Lot 137 of
Pebble Beach Farms, The Strand, East Marion,
The front of the house lot slopes towards the road. Downspouts on the house exit onto the
ground surface. The rear yard slopes gently towards the northeast comer of the bluff. Ground
cover is dense sod in very good condition to the blufftop edge. Our measurements from the
proposed pool area that was staked out show 71' to the bluff edge on the east side and 58' to
the stairwell on the west side from the comers of the area. Itwas 28.3' to the house from the
southeast corner of the area, The staked area was laid out as in Proposal B or 2, parallel to
the house. Our only comparison to the layout shows the 58' where the plan shows 63'.
However, due to the irregular bluff top edge, they may have measured in another spot.
The bluff face is very heavily vegetated by trees, shrubs, vines and grasses. Shrubs and trees
had bean trimmed back and the cuttings left on the bluff face. These cuttings should be
removed so as not to add unnecessary weight to the face or smother any existing vegetation,
The stairwell is in excellent condition: There is no toe stabilization present on this parcel otto
either side. High fide appears to be approximately 15 to 20 feet from the toe of the slope. It
does appear that storm tides reach the toe. The bluff face appears to be relatively stable at
this time.
RIV~B/{EAD COUNTY CENTER ]00 CENTER DRIVe, ~OO~ N-Z10 B-IVEP, H~AD, NY 11901
FROM : N~RCS/SWCD RiverK~ad PHONE NO. : S1672720S1 Apr. 0~ 2000 07:29AM P3
There does not appear to be any problems with the pool location. However, the
pool should not be emptied by allowing water to flow over the bluff face.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us again.
Paul TeNyenhuis
2
Weber's Application to the Zoning Board
for a Variance to Southold's "100-foot Setback from Bluff" Code
1. Two findings are immediately evident when one examines the Weber's
application(s) for a variance to the Town's Zoning Ordinance pertaining to a pool
being built within 100 feet of the bluff at 160 The Strand.
a. The first is that the three "surveys" in the Weber's file are nearly 25 years
old. The remaining drawing cannot be considered a survey, is not dated,
and does not contain the name of the person who drew it.
b. The second is that all of the paperwork associated with the Weber's
application was processed in less than 5 weeks whereas a local attorney
needed nearly 3 months to get the Lempl's application processed.
c. It seems that someone who is intimately familiar with the workings of local
government has been able to get the Weber's building permit submitted
on March 2, get a Notice of Disapproval from the Building Dept. on March
2, submit A Request for a Variance to and get the request accepted by the
Zoning Board's office on March 6, and have a hearing for a variance
scheduled for April 6.
d. On the basis of knowledge and belief, a recently retired employee of the
Town of Southold has been instrumental in having these papers
processed.
e. That being the case, why haven't the appropriate public disclosures been
filed with the Building Permit and with the Application to the Zoning Board
for a variance?
it appears that the file does not contain all of the material that the "Southould
Town Board of Appeals INSTRUCTIONS FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS"
requires.
The required "QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A.
APPLICATION" does not answer questions F. or G, much less provide a copy of
the building permit and map of the planned additions to the existing building as
approved by the Building Department.
The file contains three (3) drawings that are being represented as "surveys."
a. One drawing - "Plan A" penciled in left edge, depicts a pool that is
situated such that its 32-foot length is parallel to the northeastern edge of
the Weber's property line. This pool is completely surrounded by a 4-foot
high fence immediately adjacent to the pool so that complete access to
the rear yard is available.
b. A second drawing, labeled "Amended B" depicts the 32-foot length of the
pool's edge to be parallel to the northern edge of the property line, e.g.
parallel to the rear of the existing house. Again, this pool is completely
surrounded by a 4-foot high fence immediately adjacent to the pool so that
complete access to the rear yard is available.
R. S. Trowbddge, Ph.D.
President
Pebble Beach Farms Lot Owners Association
4/6/00
1 of 4
A third drawing, dated March 29, 2000 depicts the 32-foot length of the
pool's edge to be parallel to the northern edge of the property line and
parallel with the rear of the existing house. This pool is completely
surrounded by a 4-foot high fence such that the entire rear yard of this
property is fenced in.
5. The fence depicted in this third drawing appears to extend a significant distance
seaward from the bluff's top. Why?
6. Not one of these drawings has the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Line on them.
Why? Doesn't the law require this to be on a I such drawings?
The three drawings are a modification of a survey prepared in 1975. This 1975
survey has been altered and has had additions made to it. Such alterations and
additions could be interpreted as violations of Section 7209 of the State's Article
145, commonly referred to as the State's Education Law.
The drawings submitted state "There are no dwellings within 100 feet of this
property other than those shown hereon." This is NOT true! There is a dwelling
on lot #136!
The drawings depict a "2 story Fr. House & Gar." That is NOT true! This property
currently contains a 2 ~-story frame wooden house with a basement. It was
modified according to a building permit #23836 issued on December of 1996. An
examination of the rear of this building shows it to have three full floors above
ground. This building is currently being prepared for further very significant
alterations according to building permit #26173 issued in November of 1999.
10. It is not clear which of these 3 drawings was submitted to and rejected by the
Building Department. Possibly the drawing labeled "Plan A?"
Which of these three drawings are to be considered in the appeal? Shouldn't the
only one to be considered be the one that was submitted to and rejected by the
Building Department on March 2?
11.The only indication that there is another alteration proposed for this property is a
copy of a drawing with "Proposed 2 Story Addition" noted on the plan. This
drawing is not dated or stamped with the information required by section 7209 of
the Education Law. Consequently, it cannot be considered a survey.
12. Not one of the "surveys," drawings.or plans submitted with this appeal comply
with the Section 7209 of the State's Education Law.
13.The submitted drawings do not show the conditions as they exist today. They
show conditions that existed in 1975.
R. S. Trowbridge, Ph.D.
President
Pebble Beach Farms Lot Owners Association
4/6/00
2 of 4
14. Two of the three submitted drawings do not show where a dry well is going to be
situated - such a dry well will be necessary to accept the fluids that are
generated when the pool's filter is cleaned by being back-flushed.
15. The third survey, dated March 29 depicts a dry well in the southeast corner of the
rear yard. Will this dry well be nearly adjacent to the cellar hole that will be dug to
accommodate the new construction that has been approved for this home? This
is the ONLY drawing to show a dry well! And this is the only mention of a "dry
well" in this proposed construction.
16.The submitted plans do not show how the septic tank, distribution box and
leaching field will be relocated and affected by the proposed new construction on
this site, their relation to the pool and its dry well, or their relation to the property's
driveway.
17.The submitted plans do not show where pool s chem'cals will be stored. Will a
separate shed be built to store these hazardous chemicals?
18.The submitted plans do not show where the pool's heater is to be located. Will
another shed be built to house the pool's heater and fuel supply? What fuel will
be used to heat this pool? How will the fuel be transported to this shed? How will
the heater's fuel be transported to the rear of the house?
19.The submitted plans do not show where the pool's pumps will be located. Will
they be placed in such a way that the noise they generate will not be a nuisance
to the neighborhood?
20.The Building Department says that the proposed construction is within 51 feet of
the bluff's top. A representative from Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation
District states it is 71 feet to the bluff's top and 58 feet to the stairwell (stairwell is
on top of and at edge of bluff). Owner's "surveyor" states the distance to be 63
feet. Who are we to believe?
21.The Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District used "Proposal B or 2,"
for comparison to what they found at the site. Assuming this Proposal B or 2 to
be the one labeled "Amended B", this drawing does not show where a dry well
will be placed.
22.A pool of this size, assuming it to have an average depth of six feet, will contain
23,000 gallons of water. That is equivalent to 91 tons. A very significant structure,
indeed!
23. How is it Suffolk County Water cannot provide new homes with water yet can
supply water to fill swimming pools?
R. S. Trowbridge, Ph.D.
President
Pebble Beach Farms Lot Owners Association
4/6/00
3 of 4
24. The Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District representative states
that the pool's water is not to be dumped over the bluff in the event the pool has
to be emptied. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GUARANTEE THIS NEVER
OCCURS?
25.What assurance do we have that these pools will never be abandoned or
neglected and thereby become a health hazard?
26.The property owners state that their pool will be surrounded with 4-foot high
fences with self-closing and locking gates. Yet a recent inspection of the pools in
the neighborhood revealed that the gates of the fences surrounding these pools
are neither self closing nor locked! Indeed, one pool in the community is only
surrounded by a snow fence, and that is lying on the ground!
27.What assurance do we have that the owners will not enclose their pool for year-
round use?
On the basis of these questions, discrepancies and observations, I request that the
Zoning Board deny the Weber's application(s) for a variance to the Town of Southold's
code governing building within the 100-foot setback of bluffs. Building a pool on the
Weber's property will represent a threat to the integrity and well-being of the bluff, will
pose both environmental and health hazards to the community and will significantly alter
the character of the neighborhood in a deleterious way.
R. S. Trowbridge, Ph.D.
President
Pebble Beach Farms Lot Owners Association
4/6/00
4 of 4
Preamble to Zoning Board of Appeals' April 6, 2000 Meeting
Concerning
Applications for Variances to Town's "100-foot Setback from Bluff" Code
I am Richard Trowbridge. I am a relatively new member of your community. I moved
here in 1997 to work at Plum Island. I lived one year in Greenport before I bought my
home in Pebble Beach Farms in East Marion. You are indeed very fortunate to have the
natural resources that make living here so enjoyable. Is it any wonder that you want to
protect them? But it must be a real challenge for you to accommodate everyone who
comes before you asking for a variance, it must be awkward at times for you to tactfully
find ways that will make everyone happy and still abide by the Town's codes. I can well
understand just how difficult it must be for you to make sure these beautiful resources
remain unspoiled for our grandchildren and their children too. I hope that what I have to
say will help make your job a bit easier.
The Board of Directors of the Pebble Beach Farms Lot Owners Association inducted
me to be their vice president three months after I moved into Pebble Beach Farms in
1998. I am now the Association's president. Many of the property owners have
contacted me about pools being built on the bluff. So I am here representing not only
myself but the lot owners too.
Pebble Beach Farms is a development containing 143 lots, each approximately % acre
in size. There are eighty-three (83) homes in Pebble Beach Farms. This development
has been experiencing significant growth these past two years. The properties on top of
the bluff overlooking Long Island Sound have been very dramatically altered by
construction during this past two years. There are thirty-three (33) lots located on this
bluff. Currently, there are twenty-five (25)homes occupying this very narrow stretch of
water front property. In this past year alone, we have seen four new houses built on the
bluff. The owners of another home on the bluff made a very significant addition to
theirs. Of these 25 homes overlooking the Sound, 7 have installed swimming pools
within 100 feet of the bluff's edge. These seven were installed prior to 1997. I have
been told that one of the lot owners who began construction this year has asked for and
received a variance to install a pool between his home and within 100 feet of the bluff's
edge. Now we have before us another two new applications for a variance to the
Town's Code concerning building within the 100-foot setback from the bluff.
So, to summarize, we'll have a total of ten swimming pools, two of which are being
applied for tonight, on a bluff containing 25 homes. All of these swimming pools will be
within 100 feet of the bluff's edge.
All of this recent construction on the bluff has had a very deleterious impact both on the
community and to the top of the bluff. People buy property abutting the Sound believing
that the bluff will not fall down, believing that the beach at the bottom of "their" bluff will
Richard S. Trowbridge, Ph.D.
President
Pebble Beach Farms Lot Owners Association
4/6/00
I of 3
remain nice and clean to sun on, to play on, and to store their boats and beach furniture
on.
Past experience has shown these to be unreasonable beliefs. What has happened to
our community's beaches during just the past two years since I've lived at Pebble
Beach Farms has demonstrated that the winter storms are relentless in their attack on
the Sound's beaches and its bluff. The community's beach has experienced significant
erosion each year. Prior to my moving to Pebble Beach Farms, contractors were able to
clean and groom the entire stretch of beach below the Pebble Beach Farm's bluff. In
contrast, only half of the beach could be accessed for cleaning and grooming last year.
A simple walk along this beach reveals that both this bluff and the underlying beach are
under considerable attack by the elements we have no control over. Property owners
are already asking how are we to restore the beaches below their bluff. They are asking
us to divert the money from what the Association has set aside to maintain the
community's private roads to reconstruct their "private" beaches. The Suffolk County
Soil and Water Conservation District's representative has stated in his March 28~ letter
to your chairman, Mr. Goehringer that "It does appear that storm tides reach the toe" of
this bluff. That is an understatement! One only has to visit the bluff during one of the
many storms out of the southwest or west to witness the devastation such tides bring.
What will happen to the bluff if it is attacked from the top too? Is it too hard to imagine a
pool breaking and emptying its contents over the bluff? After all, these pools contain at
least 90 tons of water. Indeed, just the weight of water alone in these pools make them
very significant structures. Or maybe a thoughtless and greedy pool contractor will
pump a pool's contents onto or over the bluff's edge so he can cheaply clean the pool.
He most definitely will not pay to haul this waste out in a tank truck! Would he empty
over 20,000 gallons of polluted water into the community's streets? Would that not be
like someone pumping the contents of his cesspool onto his neighbors' lawns and
streets? Where else is he to dispose of a pool's contents? After all, to him it's just dirty
water. What is it to you and me? Does he care?
It is for these reasons that I have decided to come before you this evening to speak
about these two new applications for a variance to the Town's 1004oot setback rule as
it relates to the bluff along Long Island Sound in Pebble Beach Farms.
I understand that the Town of Southold defines what a bluff is in Chapter 37 of its Code,
titled "Town of Southold Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Law." This code was adopted by
the Town Board in October of 1991. This code defines the landward limits of a bluff as
being "twenty-five (25) feet landward of the point of inflection on the top of the bluff. The
'point of inflection' is that point along the top of the bluff where the trend of the land
slope changes to begin its descent to the shoreline." Consequently, the bluff includes all
land between the top edge of the bluff and 25 feet from the bluff's edge landward.
Richard S. Trowbridge, Ph.D.
President
Pebble Beach Farms Lot Owners Association
4/6/00
2 of 3
The town's fathers have, in their wisdom, seen fit to add an additional 75 feet to this line
to thereby provide a 100-foot setback. Article XXIII, Section 100-239, 4(A)(1) states "all
buildings located on lots adjacent to sounds and upon which exists a bluff landward of
the shore or beach shall be set back not fewer than one hundred (100) feet from the top
of such bluff."
Is it possible this lO0-foot setback was created specifically to protect the bluff from
being encroached upon and destroyed by our desire to have everything built on the
bluffs? If that was their intent, why are we giving variances to it for things like swimming
pools?
I have analyzed each of these two applications for a variance to this code. My
observation of the Lempl's application for a variance will be stated at the time the Board
has scheduled for their application to be heard. My observations on the Weber's
application for a variance follow.
Richard S. Trewbridge, Ph.D.
President
Pebble Beach Farms Lot Owners Association
4/6/00
3 of 3
WEBE
RE
_R
SIDENCE
?.~,,,
LOb, tO ISLANE::> /' ' '..~e,,
sou ;> ,/ --.*.%
%
M~P OF LOT NO,
PE6E~LE 'E~EACN FARM5
51.JFFQLK COUNTY MAP NO.
,AT
~A6T MARION, NELg
'SCALE:
LICENSE NO.
'NOTE:
',/EARIF'T' LUITN 5LI~V'E"r'o~ ALL
p~ho~ TO OONST~LICTION, NOTIF"r'
A~C. NITECT OF ~N¥ I::)I$~FREPANC, IE~ P~IO~
PFRhOR TO ~ONETRLI~TION.
E×I¢TING
/
/
PFROPOEED BUILT-IN
POOL, YIN'FL LINED
4' X 4.8'
DIAMETE~
M.41NTAIN I¢' FROM
AND P~OPE~T~ LINE5
] ,~,E)P ITtON
(N,~,5 tSUILDINI~ PERMIT)
M. TortorWe Ard~ita(,'t, P.C.
ARCHITECTURE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
127 E Main Street
Rlverhead, New York il~ul
831. 208.8088
EEl, 208.8888 fax
email, mt ator t orloeepe¢onlc.net
REVISIONS,
WEBER
RESIDENCE
180 THE STRAND
EAST MARION N.Y.
PROJECT,
SITE PLAN
DRAWING TITLE,
DRAWN BY, T.L.V.
SCALE, AS NOTED
DATE, 4/10/00
SP1
DRAWING NUMBER,