Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-86.-7-5 INDIAN N~¢K ROAD N 89'21': 14-6.54' HOUSE MINORSUBDIVISION FOR PAMELA G. MOTTLEY & PATRICIA G. RUSHIN SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. SCALE: 1 "= 600' A T PECONIC 8EP 14 2081 1000- 86- 07- 05 Gouth¢~ Town OCT 29, 1999 ~. ~,, ~/(~,oj/./o~,/y/. ~ Planning Board NOV 5, 1999 (PARCELS A & B} JAN 3, 2000 (PARCELS A & [3/ MAR I0, 2000 (ADDITIONS) ~oo NECK O^x APRIL 19, 2000 OCT. 17~ 2000 (test wells~ c~.-~ -' DEC. 6, 200O(revislon) 1 0 6 9 7 #FILE No. PARCEL 'A' AREA= 1.5465 Acres or 67,367 S.F. to tie line · PARCEL 'B' AREA= 1.8755 Acres or 81,687 S.F.to tie line TOTAL AREA= 5.4218 Acres or 149,054 S.F. to tie line ZONING DISTRICT R-80 ow~E~s ..... ~ PAMELA O MOTTLEY FILED OCT 16 C/O PATRICK g~ENNAN, Al ~28 W 22nd STREET NEW YOEK, N.Y FILED ~CT 1.6_2.001 ~o,~d EDWARO O. ROCHE ~PICAL PLOT PLAN ~'~ -~ o o sw BY THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE T~WN/'~ SOUTHO.~D BY RESOLLITIQN OF APPROVAL DAT '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fl' 're % ¢ TEST HOLE DATA CON~OURx LINES x~E REFEREN(ED TO NG V D. 7~ ~ ~ X~5} ,~, ~,S°ut~°ldT°wnl '~ ,~ ,oo o ,GO ~o ' ~* nannmg Board 'APP VEDBY --~~ 8~ / PLANING BOAED ~ SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEAL TE SERVICES .= I I HAUPPAU~E, N.Y. $06 ~ TOWN ~F 5OUTHOLD J oAr~ ~S i ")M1 ~,~ _,~ ~ r~s Is TO cERrl~r :~.AT,r~ PeOPOS~ r~Ai, r~ su~v/s, oN o~ ~V~O~q~OR ~[~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I,'/ r~ ~C ~ ~ j WITH 4 ~TAL dF~ LOTS ~A$ APPROVED He~ Oeperlmen Rderence ~mber ~ ~'~ ~$' ON ~HE ABOVE DATE ~ATER 3~PLIES A~ EE~A~ DISPOSAl F~C~IT~S ~ST C~F~M TO CONS~UCT]ON STANDARDS IN ~CFffCT SCTM ~ ~ /000 Sad. 86 BIk, 07 Lot 05 50' _Ar r~ T~ ~ c~sr~ucrl~ A~ A~r SUe~CT ro SrPARArE - -- ~0~ SCAL~' F' = PE~TS PmSUANT TO ~0~ STAtAble. ~ AP~OVAL S~LL ~E Propo==d U~= of ~n9 SINGLE FA~L Y D~ELLING V~ ~L Y ~ T~ REAL TY ~1~ / DE~L~NT ~P /S DULY FIL~ ~TH ~ C~NTY CLERK ~1~ ~ YEA~ OF T~ ~ T~ ~ONS~NT I~ H~EB~ GIVEN F~ T~ ~ T~ ~P ~ ~CH : ~s ~ A~R$ ~ ~ ~F~ ~ ~ c~rY CL~ ~ Based ~on ~ ey~h~n ~d /~pechon o[ the obov~ re/erenced proper/y, /he ACC~DA~ ~ ~V~ ~ T~ ~ ~L~ ~F ~ T~ eMdi~9 ~ew~e ~d ~sl~waler supply ec///~,~, ~A,o~ Ihe $~dLK C~.~ ~MTARY C~ affached plan, have~eefi d~t~ed b~ me 1o =~q~e for ~he pro~sed use end 1o fie/fl proper worMn9 ~r. OF ENVM~.NTAL OU~LITY Atck~ecl I Eng(nee 's 5ignduru PECONIC SURVEYORS, P C (637) 765 - 5020 FAX (6J?) 765-1797 Pr/o/ N~a Dole P. 0 BOX 909 1250 TRAVELER STREET [ L/censu Number 025365 SOUTHOLD, N, ~ 11971 9~-- I PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LA. THAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGIA_NO Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 October 2, 2001 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Patricia Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Proposed Set-Off for Rushin/Mottley SCTM#1000-86-7-5 Dear Ms. Moore: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, October 1, 2001: The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, this proposed set-off is for 2 lots on 3.4218 acres, each with an existing dwelling, located on the south side of Indian Neck Lane in Peconic; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on September 10, 2001; and WHEREAS, conditional final approval was granted subject to submission of two mylars and five paper prints stamped with Suffolk County Health Department approval; and WHEREAS, said mylars and paper prints have been submitted; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the maps, dated February 2, 2001, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the maps. Enclosed please find a copy of the map which was endorsed by the Chairman. The mylar maps, which were also endorsed by the Chairman, must be picked up at this office and filed in the office of the County Clerk. Any plat not so filed or recorded within sixty (60) days of the date of final approval shall become null and void. Please contact us if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Building Dept., Tax Assessors SU'~DfVISION IS'FOR SCT;'¥I~ 1000- ON -- IN __ ACRE5 LOCAT~ ON ~ SUBDIVISION (NO ROAD) Complete ~Pplic~ion received Revised sub mission received Lead Agent/Coordination 5 z SEORA determination ' - I. fl,[ Notification ~o a~plicant ~o include on final ma - , ' " Draft Covenants and Restrictions received Draft Covenants and Restrictions reviewed Filed Covenants and Restrictions received Receipt of mylars and paper prints with Health approval , Final Public Hearing Approval of subdivision -with condkions i4 lt~ 2 (2rgT) 7( 61,7.21 SEQR Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full fAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a proiect or action may be signdicant. The rluesUon of whether an action may be significant ts not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a prolect that are subjective or unmeasureable It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knoxvledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis In addition, many who have knowledge m one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determ~natlon process has been orderly, comprehc, nsivo in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to f~t a prolect or action Full [AF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three [)arts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given prolect and its site /Jy ~dentifying basic prolect data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Pa~ts 2 aud 3. Part 2: Foct~es on identifying the range of possible impacts that mavuccur from a proiect or action It provides guidance as to whether an m~pact ~s likely to be cons*dered s~nall to moderate or whether it Is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether a~ ~mpact can be m*t~gated or reduced. Part 3: [f any impact in Part 2 is id~ntdied as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. (. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions ldenlify the Portions of [AF completed for Ibis project: [] Part I [] Part 2 J~]Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this I-AF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of eact~ impact, it is reasonably determined by 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 environment, 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 he prepared. ' A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name pt Acti(}l} ' / Name of Lead A~:ency Print or Type Name of Responsd~[e ()fiicer ,n Lead Agency Title pi Responsible Officer Signature of Responsibh! Officer in I.ead Agm~cy Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible officer) [')ate 1 'ART 1--PROJECT INFORMA; ,N Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whetiler the action proposed may have a stgnificant effect on the environment Please complete the enUre form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered -as part of the application for approval and may be subject to furtherverificaHon and public rewew Provide anyadditiona: information you believe will be needed to compiete Parts 2 and 3 It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on. reformation currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation If information requiring such additional work ~s uRavadable, so mdicateand specify each instance NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CiTY/PO STATE I ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undevelopedareas. 1. Present land use: E]Urban E]lndustrial E]Commercial L--'L~,._esidential (suburban) DForest E]Agriculture E]Other 2. Total acreage of project area: ,~ Y"~ acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) "'-~ acres Forested I~ acres Agricultural (includes orchards, cropland, pasture, crc) 0 _ .acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Article~ 24, 25 of ECl ) O acres Water Surface Area __ (~ _ acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) ~) acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces (~ acres E~Rural (non-farm) AFTER COMPLETION Other (Indicate type)~ ° Of~' acres · O~ acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s)on project sde? ~£~¢~ .~t~,~ /~ff/~ a. Soil drainage: [~ell drained _/'¢0 % of site I~Moderatel¥ well drained % of site [~Poorl,., drained % <d site bLandlf anYclassifagricuhuralcat onlandsystem.'is mvolved,t,V,//~ hOWacresmanY(seeaCresl NYC°f sod,~Rare370)( lassified within soil group !throogh 4 of the NYS 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ~Yes ~1~'o .~. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) 2 i ]15°,/o ol~l~eab,r __ _ Registers of Historic Places? [~]Yes llaNo 8. What is the depth of the water table? ~' {in feet) 10. Do hunting, fishing or shelf fishing opportumties presently exist m tile prolect area? LJYes 11 Does proiect sitecctv.co tam any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? [~Yes ~'~'o According to [~Yes L~No Describe 13. Is the project sit~,resently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreaUon area? ~Yes ~No if yes, explain 14. Does the present s~t.e include scemc views known to be Important to the commumty? ~Yes [~No 15 Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes. ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to prolect area: 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ~Yes a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? b. Size (In acres) ©Yes ~No ~Yes [~No 18 Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets La,v, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? C]Yes [~o 19. Is tbe site located in or substantially contiguou~s/b3 a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 ~]Yes F2~"No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wast~i?, g]Yes [5~o C B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Tota! contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor b. Project. acreage to be developed: ~,.~'" acres initially; c. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped ~,~-~ acres. d. Length of project, in miles: ff,ff~' (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate per(~'nt of ,'xpans.m proposed f Number of off-street I)arking spaces existinl: ?.,- ___, proposed _ 'Z~ g Maxinlum w!hicular trips generated per hour h If residentiah Number and type of housinl., units: On(, Family Two J:amdy Ultimately i. Dimens,ons(in feet} of largest proposed structure ~f height: .. t/~ w,,hh: Linear feet frontage along a public thoroughfare prolect will occupy is? of 3 acres ultimately 0,/0; (upon completion ol project)? M.Itiple I'amily '/0 I,,mgth ft 3. Will disturbed area~ be reel ? [3Yes b. Will topsoil be stockpded for reclamation~ ~JYes C~No - c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for rec[amat~on~ E~Yes ~No ~Yes ~o ~//k, e,ulll ~,[i , ~d] h,. rl,m//~,'d trl)mO~,h!? __ /~1¢~__ torl~/(:uh~c yards 6. If sing]e phase project: Anticipated period of construct,on /~//.'~' 7. If muhi phased: a Total number of phases ant~ctpated /~]J~' b Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8 Will blasting occur during construction? ~Yes 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction _ 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 11 \Vile project require relocation of any pro;ects or facilities? monlhs, [including demolition) mond] ~ear, (including demolition) [~}Yes ~No , alter prolect is complete ~o If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? E3Yes ~o a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.} and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent wdl be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? [~Yes ~ Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain '~"/~u-~-~ ~Yes [~No 15. Is proiect or any portion of project located in a 100 year.f, lood plain? ~Yes 16. Willtheprojectgeneratesolidwaste? ~Yes a. If ',,es, what is the amount per month tons b. If ,/es. will an existing solid waste facility be used? ~lYes ~No c. If yes, give name · Ioca~'bn d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain ~Yes [~No 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? E]Yes [31~o a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? _ ye;us. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ~JYes ~ 19. Will project routinely produce odors [more than on~. hour per day)? f~Yes ~ 20 Will project produce operatini,, noise ~'xceedim,. the local ambient noise h:ve[s? [~Ye~ 21 Will project result in an increa~ in mwrgy u~e? [~Yes ~ If yes , indicate type(s) ~ 22. If water supply is from w,.lls. /mbcait~ pump,uR cap.,~,ty ~ g,dhms/mmute. 23. Total anticipated wa/er usage pe~ day .. ~ gallons/day ' 24. Does p[olect involve Local, State o[ federal lunding~ ~Yes ~ I~ Yes. explain 4 C C City, To~vn, Vdtage Board i~es City, 'fown, Village Planning Board [.~s DNo City, Town Zoning Board ~ DNo City, County Health Department [~es ~]No Other Local Agencies ~]~ c s DNo Other Regional Agencies L]~ State Agencies [~Yes Federal Agencies Suhmitla[ Dale C. Zoning and Planning Information I Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ~es [~No If Yes, indicate decision required: Dzoning amendment L~zoning variance ~]special use permit ~ubdivision ~site plan [~new/revision of master plan [~resource management plan [~other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? /~'&O 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? ~ 5 What is the maximum potential development ot the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land u'se plans? ~Yes D~': 7 What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning c[assdications within a ~¼ mile radius oi proposed a~tion? 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding [and uses within a ~A mile? [~es DN( 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? /'.~'~ 'ffl~f't "/' /'t~C~ 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of~e.~er or water districts? [:3Yes ~'c 11. Will the proposed action crea~ ,a~emand for any Community provided services (recreation, education, police fire protect on)? ~Yes I~No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? DYes [Z]No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? DYes a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? OYes DNo D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any advers( impacts associated with yonr proposal, please dis( uss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate o~ avoid them. E. Verification , ce.dy t',a, ,he is Ir,,., to ,h,, I,e,, ,,t knowledge Il Ihe action is in Ihe Coastal Area. and you' are a stale agency, complele the Coastal Assessment fo~m belore proceeding wilh Ibis assessment. 5 Part 2--PROJECF t ~lf'ACTo AND THEIR MAGNITUDE General Ir~formation (Read Carefully) "- Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that ~t is also necessarily significant. An,/ large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine si~,,ndicance. Ident~f,/ing an m~pact m co[utah 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. · The Examples provided are to assist the revu!wer by showim~, wi)es of ~mpacts and where~e'r possible the threshold of magnitude t.hat would triggera response in column 2 Theexamp[es are genera[ly applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific proiect or site other examples and/or lower thresholds ma,/ be appropriate · 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 will be any ,mpact 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) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2 It ~mpact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1 d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the ~mpact as potenttallv large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mmgated by change(s) in the prolect to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box ~n column 3 A No response indicates that such a reduction ~s not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. I 2 3 Small to Potential Gan impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] ~]Yes [~No [] [] [~Yes []No [] [] []Yes [~]No [] ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Ye~ ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the prolect site? E3NO [~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 generally wilbin 3 feet of existing ground surface · Construction that will c~ntinue for more than I year or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that wotdd remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (ie., rock or soft) per year · Construction or expansion of a sanitary · Construction in a designated floodway · Other impacts the site? (ie. cliffs, dunes, geo/o~:lcal formations, etc }[~.]NO £3YES "Specific land forms: 6 IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmema[ Conservation Law, [Ct) []N() ~JYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected water body · Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of materia[ from chmmel of a protected stream, · l,xtension of utility distribution fatalities through a protected water body · Construction in a designated freshwater or !idfl wetrand · Other ~mpacts: _ 4 Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ~]NO ~YI'S Examples that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area o[ 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 · Other impacts: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? [~NO [~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) actton · Proposed Action requires water supply from wells 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 presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed 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 extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed 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 ami/or industrial uses which may facilities. · Other impacts: 6 Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterus, or %urface water runoff? I~NO ~YIS Exa~nples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would change flood water flows. '~' 7 m II to Potential Can Impact B( Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Chang~ [] [] []Yes []No ~ ~] I~Yes [~]No [] [] ~Yes []No ~ [] []¥,~s []No I: ~ []Yes ~No [3 ~ ~Yes ~No ~] ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Y~s UNo ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Y,~ UNo ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~NO · .Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion · Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns ° Proposed Action will allow development tn a designated [Ioodwav · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7 Will proposed action affect air quality? 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 per bout · Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land comrmtted to industrial use · Proposed action will allow an increase m the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or end~:ngered species? [~NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Reduction o[ one or more species listed on the New York or I:ederal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the s~te. · Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. · Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? [Z]NO E]YES Example~ that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the remowd of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action al'feet agricuhural land resources? [-]NO [~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The proposed action wou(d sever, cross (~r limit access lo a~¢ri(ultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vimryard, orchard, etc.) 2 3 II to Potential i Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] []Yes [~No [] [] [~Yes [~]No [] [] [~Yes E~No [] ~ ~Yes ~No ~ [] ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No [ i ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~Noj ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No C · Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land ~, The proposed action would irreversib[y convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located m an Agr~cuhutal District, more than 2..5 acres of agricultural ]and · The proposed action wou[d disrupt or prevent installation of a~ricu[tural land management systems (eg, subsurface_ drain lines, outlet ditches, field to drain poody due to increased FtJr;off) · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources~ C]NO ~]YES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617 21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. · Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. · Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening o[ scenic views known to be important to the area. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance~ [~NO ~]Y~$ Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the proiect site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeologica[ sites on the NYS Site Inwmtory · Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Will Proposed Action aflect the quanhly or quality oJ existing or Examples that would apply to column 2 [~NO ~YES Other imp,~c ts: ~1 2 3 Small lo Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact 'Project Change []] [] {]]Yes []]No ~,, [~] [~Yes [~]No [~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ [] ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Ye& ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ OYes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ONo IMPACT ON SPOBTATION 14 Will there be an effect to ex~stmg transportation systems? []NO F]YES [×amples that would apply to column 2 · Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods · Proposed Action will result in malor traffic problems · Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY 15 Will proposed action affect the community's sources el [unl or energy supply? [~O ~,~[] S [xamples 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 extensron of an enerqy transm,ssion or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two famdv residences or to serve a maior commercial or industrial use. · Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ' ~NO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1,500 feet of a l~ospital, school or other sensmve facility. · Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day] · Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? E]NO E]YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may b~ a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous was. les" in any form fie toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, mdioactwe, irutatinl:. infectious, etc.) · Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquffied natural gas or other flammable liquids. ~¥ilhm 2,000 feet of a site used for the d~sposal of sohd or hazardous 10 ~ 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] [~] Yes E~No ~] ~ [~] Yes E~No [~ G [~Yes [~]No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Y,'s ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTE[~ OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action aJfect tile character of the ex,sting community? DNO DYES £×amples that would apply to column 2 · The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% · The municipal budget [or capital expenditures or operatin8 services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project · Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals · Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land t~se · Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing faci[ities structures or areas of historic importance to the community · Development will create a demand for additional commumty services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment · Other impacts: 19 ~1- 2 3 Small lo Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Chang( L~ [] [~] Yes ~]No [] [~ [~Yes [~]No ~] ~] ~Yes ~No ~'! ~ ~Yes ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Ye~ ~Uo ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No Is there, or is there hkeiy to be. pubhc controversy related to potential adverse environmental ~mpacts? [~NO ~-YES 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 considered lo be pol;'~flt;-ally large, even il the impact(s) may be mil[gated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 o[ Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe(il applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small Io moderate impact by project change(s) 3. Based on the information availahle, decide if it ~s reasonable to concb~de that this impact is imporlant. To answer the question of iml~ortan(e, consider: · The probability o[ the impact occurrinl] · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, includml: permanently lost r~'~ourc,,s of vahm · Whether the impact can or will he controlled · The regional consequeme o[ the impart · Its potential diw~rgence [rom local needs and ~',oals · Whether known objections to lira prol~'~t relate to th,s impa~ t (Continue on attachments) 11 Appendix B b--tc.,te Environmehtal Quality Review Visual EAF Addendum This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question ll of Part 2 of the Full EAF. (To be completed by Lead Agency) Distance Between Visibility Project and Resource (in Miles) 0 i/~ ~A V2 V2-3 3-5 5 + 1. 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 man-made scenic qualities? · An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public [] [] [] [~ [] observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? · A site or structure listed on the National or State [] [] ~ [] [] Registers of Historic Places? · State Parks? ~ [] [] [] [] · The State Forest Preserve? [] [] [] [] [] · National Wildlife Refuges and state flame refuges? [] [] [] [] [] · National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding [] [] [] [] [] natural features? · National 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? Is the visibility of the inoject r;easonal? (i.e.. :;creem,d by summer foliage, hut vi!;ible du, ing other seasons) ~]Yes ~]No during which Ihe proi~zct '*'ill be visible? ~Yes []No DESCRIPTION OF [~S'IINQ VIS(IAL NNVH?()NMEHT 4. From each item ch'~'~cked in question 1, 4he(k'li:ose environment. y desclibe the Witbin *V4 mile *I mile Essentially undeveloped [~] [] Forested [] [] Agricultural {~ [] Suburban residential ~} [] Industrial ~] [] Commercial [-! ~] Urban River, Lake, Pond ,} [] Cliffs, Overlooks ~! [] Designated Open Space [~ [] Flat ~ [] Hilly ~ ~ /'4ountainous [] ~ Other ~ [] NOTE; add attachments as needed 5. Are there visually similar projects within: *V~ mile [~Yes * 1 miles []Yes []No *2 miles [~Yes []Pio '3 miles * Distance from project site are provided for assistance, Substitute other distances as appropriate. EXPOSURE 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate. CONTEXT 7. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is Activity Travel to and from work Involved in recreational activities Routine travel by residents At a residence At worksite Other _ __ FREQUENCY Holidays/ . Daily Weekly Weekends Seasonally [] [] Q 13 [1 Fl [] [] APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT To tile Planning Board of the T0xvn of $outhold: The undersigned applicant hereby applies for (tentative) (final)approvalo£asubdivision plat in accordance with Article 16 of tile Town Law and the Rules and Regulations of tile Southold-,Town Planning BoarS, and represents asS states as follows: /~/~xSt, a/-~e,o/~._ ,,~,~o_5~) ,,.>~ 1. The applicant is the owner of record of the land under application. (If the applicant is not the owner of record of the land under application, the applicant shall state his interest in said land under application.) 2. The name of the subdivision is to be Patricia G. Rushin/ Pamela Mottley 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 itl Suffolk County Cleric's office as follows: Liber ........................ Page On Liber ........................ Page ...................... On Liber ........................ Page ...................... On Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... I.iber ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... ; Estate of Patricia guinair as devised under the Last \Viii and Testament of or as distrib~tee 6. :\ti taxes which are liens on tile land at the date hereof have been paid except ............ none 7. The land is encumbered )v - ................ mortgag'e (s) as follows: ...................... (a) Mortgage recorded in [,il)er .............. Page .................. in original amount ~f $ .............. unpaid amount $ .............. hehI I>v ............... .............. address (b) M.rtgage recorded in l,iber ......... Pa~e .................. in originM amount of .............. uni)aid amount $ ..................... held by . .............. .............. adSress (c) ~Iortgag'e recorded in Liber .............. Page ................ in original amount of .............. unpaid amount $ ...................... held by ...................... ...................... address ......................................................... 8. There are no other encumbrances or liens a~ainst the land except ........................ none 9. The land lies in the followin~zoning-nse districts ....................................... r- 80 i0..No part of the land lies under water whether tide water, stream, pond water or otherxvise, ex* cept .................................................................................. 11. Tile applicant shall at his expense instalI all required public improvements. 12. The land 0111kT~) (does not) tie in a \Vatcr District or \Vater Supply District. Name of Dis- trict, if within a District, is ............................................................. 1.3. \Vater mains will be laid by n/a and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing' said mains. existing 14. Electric lines and standards will be installed I>v ..................................... and (a) (no) charge will be ,nade for installing' said lines. n/a 15. Gas ~nains will be installed by . .......... anti (a) (no) charge ;,,'ill be made for installin,~ said mains. 16. If streets shown on the plat are claimed I)v thc applicant to be existing public streets in the SuffOlk Coullt). tIighway svstcln annex Schedule "I~" hereto, to show sanle. I7. 1£ streets shown on ihe plat are claimed by the al)plicant to be existing public streets in the Town of Soulhrdd l[ighwav~ . system,, annex .%. ch l I (.' hereto to show same. on the plat, 19. \Vhere tile plat >hoxss ln-Oposcd stri'cts xxhich a~e exte sit ns ,,f sheets on adjoining4 sub- 20. In tilt: c~mIsc ~f these pIocecdinvs' tilt' :tlq~!icant xxill *,i£cr t~r,~t~f ,~f tith' :ts rcquirczd by ~%cc. 2.15 ~f tile l<3.al I~l'~qlcrt>- l.aw. 21. ~t!T)l!lit a copy ,>f proi)oscd deed for h)ts hov.-in:~ all ,estricti,,ns. covcn::nts, etc. .\nnex 5chedule "I)". 22. The applicant estimates that the cost of grading and required puhlic improvements will he $...0 ...... as itemized in Schedule "E" hereto annexed and requests that the maturity of the Performance Bond be fixed at .............. )'ears. The Performance Bond will be written by a licensed surety company unless otherwise shown on Schedule "F". ex~st~ng ~arch 13,2000 DATE .............................. , 19 ................................................... (S~ture aud Title) Patricia C. ~oore Esq. (Address) 51020 Hain Road Sourhold, NY 11971 STATE OF NEXV YORK. COUNTY OF .... -~'~.C~ ~:~! ~ ~ ............ ss: On the ...... /. ~ ........ day of ........ ~.~. :~C.I~ .......... ~ ....... before me personally came .... ~T.&.C...d..~7 ~.?<5~... to meknown to be the individual descrihed in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that =.f.g ....... executed the same. Notary PubSc STATE OF NE%' YORK, COUNTY OF ss' ~'<~¢'=~ ............................ ~~ ~ On the day .. of 19. before me personally came .................. to me known, who being by me duly sworn did de- pose and say that ............ resides at No. .................... that .......................... is the .......... the corporation described itl and which executed thc f~t'going instrumeut; that ............ kuows tht, ~eal ()f said ct)rp~)ration; that the seal affixed by order of the hoard ~)f directors of said c<*rporation a~:,l :h:~t ......... siMned .............. name thereto by like order. Notary Public pL AN N iNG,-"BO ARD TOWN O~ SOUTHOLD .../.-':e,v SUFFOLK :COUN:TY Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH YOUR APPLICATIONS FORMS TO THE PLANNING BOARD Please complete, sign and return to the Office of the Planning Board with your completed applications forms. If your answer to any of the following questions is yes, please indicate these on your guaranteed survey or submit other appropriate evidence. 1. Are there any wetland grasses on this parcel? Y~e~) (Attached is a list of the wetland grasses definedk-~~/ by the Town Code, Chapter 97, for your reference) No 2. Are there any other premises under your ownership abutting this parcel? Yes 3. Are there any building permits pending on this parcel? Yes concerning this property before any other department or agency?(Town , State, County, 5. Is there any application pending before any other agency with regard to a different project on this parcel? Are there any other applications pending etc.) 6. Was this property the subject of any prior application to the Planning Board? No Yes N~~ Yes -~N~o~ 7. Does this property have a valid certificate --.. of occupancy, if yes please submit a copy of same /Yos2 No I certi[E that the above statcments are true and will be relied on hy ~t~{e~la/n.n>~ Board in considering this application. S'~ature of property owner or authorized agent date Attachment to questionnaire for the Planning Board STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ss: On the /3 day of z4~J~ ,~ came ~ ;Ly/~ ~-- ~/P/~C3~_~ to me before me personally known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that 9~ executed the same. Notary ~Public Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Rushin/ Mottley 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. Existing driveway may be redesigned. (3) No new drainage structures or alteration of existing structures are proposed. Yours truly, Bo~-rSc±a C. Moore Esq. PROJECTI.D. NUMBER 617.21 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I--PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) SEQR 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR Rushin/Mottley 2. PROJECT NAME Rushin/Mottley 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Indian Neck Lane, Peconic Town of Southold, County of Municipality County Suffu Ik 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) 1000-86-07-05 set-off of parcel with existing residence on each parcel- no change to existing conditions 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: [~New [] Expansion [] Modification/alteration 6, DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: set-off of parcel with existing residence on each parcel- no change to existing conditions 7. AMOBNT OF Initially acres Ultimately 1.5465 parcelacres A; 1.8753 parcel B WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? E~Yes [] No If No, describe briefly Zoning Board granted relief from setbacks and dimensions of property 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? [~Residenttal [] Industrial [] Commercial [] Agriculture Describe: existing residences become conforming ]Park/Forest/Open space [] Other 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? r~Yes [] No If yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvals Health Dept. pending 11, DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? [~Yes [] No tf ye~, list agency name and permit/&pproval Zoning Board Approval 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? I CERTIFY TF~T THE I ORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ApplicanB,ponsor name:~_ ~-~¢ "~/ -- - Date: Patricia C. Hoore Esq. agent Signature: 3/13/2000 If the action is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 PART II--ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS~NT (To be completed by Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE [ TF;;~LD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 61712? If yes, process and use ~he FULL EAF B WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 61767 If NO, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. C COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING; (Answers may be ,~andwritten, if legible) O1 Exisbng air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic palterns, solid waste production or disposal, polenda[ for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: C2. Aeslhetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly; C3. Vegela[ion or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: C4. A community's exisdng plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain brian C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed aclion? Explain briefly. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effeols nol identified in Cl-C57 Explain briefly. C?. Other ,mDacts (including cb&nges in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly, D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? [~ Yes ~ NO If Yes, explain briefly PART Ill--DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS; For e¢ch adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability ot occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (0 magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. [] Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. ~ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed act[on WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the'reasons supporting this determinatJom Date 2 Patricia G. Rushin July 31, 1998 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Moore: I, Patricia G. Rushin, residing at 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic NY 11958 hereby authorize you to make any and all applications to the Zoning Board of Appeais and Planning Board of the Town of Southold, Health Department, DEC and any other necessary agencies on my behal£ ~Very truly yours, Pam Mottley July 31, 1998 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Moore: I, Pam Mottley, residing at 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic NY 11958 hereby authorize you to make any and all applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board of the Town of Southold, Health Department, DEC and any other necessary agencies on my behalf. Very truly yours, Tim Town of Southold's Code of Ethics p/__ohib~i_t_s_conf_ll_c~Ls__of inte[est on tile ~art of town offlce[s and enj lplo%ees. The p_u_rE_o_se o£ this form Is to Rr__ov__l_d_e_!12f_o_r_mation w~_icl__~._cgl2 ............. alert the town of possible ..... conflicts of interest a d allow iL__t_o__La~_e_whatever actio/ is ,le~'~--t~ avoi-~aa,~] - Approval of pl,~t P~ann~ng ~oar~ I~eviou-s%y filed with (If "other," name tll~ activity.) Zoning Board) r,l,,t ,,~, .... icia C Moore, as attorney SUFFOL'~WCOUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 REALTY SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (Please type or print the following information) NAME OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY TAX MAP NUMBER PROPERTY LOCATION (VILLAGE AND/OR TOWN) OWNER'S NAME (INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATION OR PARTNERSHIP OWNING PROPERTY) MAILING ADDRESS d'5'z/c~ ~,~'?_ZC/.,'~ ~'~ i"~C~_~zP_.~--- ~ TELEPHONE NUMBER Please answer all of the following questions by marking the appropriate box. 1. Are any of the following permits required? ............................................................................................ a. Wild Scenic and Recreation Rivers Permit - NYSDEC .................................................................... b. Long Island Well/Water Supply Permit - NYSDEC .................................................................... c: Protection of Waters Permit - NYSDEC ................................................................................. d. Tidal Wetlands Permit - NYSDEC ................................................................................................ e. Fresh Water Wetlands Permit - NYSDEC ......................................................... ~:: ........................ f. SEQRA Determination - SCDHS/Town ....... .~.(?..- C]~.~.t~. ('~.£~-.~..~4~,.~-..L~-¢':~'~ ............. 2. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site, physically alter more than 10 acres of land or alter any unique or unusual land form? .......................................................................... 3. Will project alter or have any effect on an existing body of water? ..................................................... 4. Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? .............................................. 5. Will project significantly affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? ................................................ 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? ..................................... 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? ................................................................ 8. Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community, scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? ........................................................................................ 9. Will project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological importance or any site designated as a critical environmental area by a local agency? 10. Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? ..................... 11. Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems? .......................................................................................................................... 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's operation? ................................................................................................ 13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety? ............................................................... 14. Will project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent population of more than 5 percent over a one-year period? ................................................................... 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? .................................................................. YES NO ~,' OWNER'S WWM-024 (6/85) 16-616:11165 Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 05/31/00 Transaction(s): Seqra Review Receipt#: 593 Subtotal $400.00 Check#: 595 Total Paid: $400.00 Southold Town Planning Board Name: Moore, Patricia 51020 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Clerk ID: JOYCEW Internal ID: 11729 Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 04/14/00 Transaction(s): Application Fees Receipt#: 576 Subtotal $250.00 Cash#: 576 Total Paid: $250.00 Name: Clerk ID: Moore, Patricia 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 JOYCEW APR 1 .~ Zuuu Internal ID: 8939 516 425 125"?, P,~i.xl~ N~iON, PO~E & VOOF.~II~ LLC FAX COVER SHEET 1'o: Melissa Spiro Phone: 765-t938 Fax: 765-3136. From: Shana Lacey Date: Jane 23, 2000 Re: Rushir~/Motley Subdivision, Peconic No. of Pages: 17 (including Cover) Comments: Melissa. Attached please find the environmental and planning review for the above referenced subdivision application, I will also mail the original. Please call should you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you. Sincerely, Shana Rushl~t,¥1ofl~y Subdlvlsl~t~ ~ ~ Pa~ ! Re~iew ENVIRO~,'bl [;NTAL ASSESSMENT I~EVIEW ]~NVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS RUSHINtq~IOTLEY SUBDIVISION ~ P£coNic Prep~d by: Molissa Spiro Town of Southold Tov,~ Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971-0959 Nelson, PoI~ & Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whi'anan Road Melville, New York 11747 Date: June 21, 2000 The Town of Southold Planning Board has retained Ndson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) for consulting services in review of the above referenced subdivision. As currently proposed, the application involves the subdivision of an /rpproximately 3.4218 acre parcel into 2 residential lots. The site contains a principle dwelling, an accesso~ dwelling, a small shed/garage, and associated land~caplng/tutf vegetation, a dirt drive, gazebo, and a wood dock. The majority of the parcel is forested, and the beach frontage is cumently bulkheaded. This document analyzes the site and area resoureas including topograOhy, soils, water, land u~e, zoning and uan~portation and other avaihblo iv_formation. The site has also been inspected/'or environmental/planning consUmnts. In addition, the full EAF Part I submit:ed with the application has been corrected and is anached herein. Location and...5, i.t.e.. Overview The pmjec! site is located on the south side of Indian Neck Road, across fi.om Parkers Landing Road m Peconio, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, The subject property can be more particularly described as SCTM number 1000-86-07-05. The property has approximately 146.54' of road frontage along Indian Neck Road, and approximately 134.30' of beach frontage along Hog Neck Bay. The site contains a principle dwelling, an accessory dwelling, a small shed/garage, and a~sociated landscapin~tu.rf vegetation, a dirt drive, gazebo, and a wood dock. The majority of the parcel is forested, and the beach/i'onlage is currently bulkheaded. The si~e also contains tidal wetlands as regulated by the NYSDI/C under Article 25 of the ECL. The Page 3UH-23-2E~O 22: i? 516 425 I25'7, P.83/1~ Rushl:l/Motl~ Subrllvl~lon ~ Pcconk E~ Pa~ 1 Rtvi~w N~&V~I~ p~p~y does not contain ~hwat~r w~tl~ or strident g~!ogic ~ea~. This renew ~ll thc Pr~oscd pro~ eot ~ irs ~tvntiai ~p~t on th~ l~d ~soumcs. Proposed Project The proposed project involves the subdivision of a 3.4218 acre parcel into 2 residential lots. The proposed lots have the following sizes: Parcel 'A' = 1.5465 a~res; Parcel 'B' "1.8753 acres. Under existing conditions, Parcel 'A' contains the principle dwelling, the shed/garage, the gazebo and wood dock. Parcel 'B' contains the remaining accessory dwelling. The dirt drive enters the site within Parcel 'B', however the majority of the drive is located within Pared 'A'. With the exception of screening vegetation proposed along the western portion of Parcel 'B' near the existing stracmre, no lot improvements will occur as a result of the subdivision at this time. The proposed subdivision will allow family m~mbers (the applicants) to enjoy the benefit of separate ownership. Parcel 'A' will mainta'm approximately 60 feet of road fi'enrage, and 82,50' of beach frontage. Parcel 'B' has approximatety 85 feet of road frontage and 51.80' of beach frontage, The proposed subdivision requites several variances, which were granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, subject to the following conditions: That the door ~nd steps on the west side would be removed from thc design; That the sereaning be consistent with the recommendations of the ~rchitect fo~ a distance of 100 feet, extandmg northerly from a point oommcneing at the dent of new construction on Parcel B. * That thc screenin$ be continuously mair, taincd in good ~ndition at all times. The granted variances for Pmcel 'A' include lot size, lot width, side yard, total side yard, and rear yard. Variances granted within Parcel 'B' include lot w/dth, side yard, total side yard, and rear yard. On May 23, 2000, Se Plarming Board granted sketch approval on the map dated April 19, 2000, with the following condition: There is one cxi.~fing driveway md curb cut providing access to the two existing dwellings. If separate driveways are created in the future, bo~h ch'ivcways shall access Indian Neck Road v/a a common cur~ our. This restriction shall be noted in a Declaration of Covenants and Restriedons, There is nO recreational area or open space associated with this proposed subdivision. Land Use and Zo.rfing The project site is located in an area that is dominated by residential dwellings. R,er*arterial areas and limited farmland exist in the vicinity. The majority of the resideiafial lots in the immediate vicinity retain large portions of forested upland, with the dwellings typically located along the beach frontage. The residential lots in the vicinity are relatively large, compared to the lots to the northwes! and farther west. The properties adjanent to the east and west are developed ~sid~tially, and the properly to the north on the north side of Indian Neck Road is vaclmt undeveloped land. Although the lots are non-conforming, the proposed residential subd/vislon is consistent with surrounding uses. ~UN-2~-2.PO~2 2.2 The site is zoned R-80 Resident/al, which requires a mimmum lot size et' $0,000 SF, or just slightly less than 2 acres. Maximum pertained lot coverage within the R-SO zoning distr/ct is equivalent to 20% of the lot area, with a livable floor area of 850 s.L per dwelling unit. As previously stated, the proposed subdivision requ/rcs sevaral dimansional reqt~remant variances, which w~re granted by thc Zoning Board of Appeals subject to thc above listed ~onditions. Under existing conditions, the development on site is also non-conforming. As the arcs variances are not a result of additional development, the approval of ~uch variances is not expected to have a significant impact on the land use and zoning in the vicinity. The surrounding ar~as contain a mix of zoning classiflcatiom, with the site and surrounding pr0p0rt:¢s zoned R-80 Residential. R-80 zoning also extends to the north side of Richmond Creek, located north and no,beast of the subject property. R-40 zoning is located further west, generally beginning on the east side of Robinson Lane. Land use in the amoral area is predominantly residential, and appears to reflect current zoning regulations. In summary, with respect to land use, the proposed subdivision of land will not create and additional dwellings, as the development on site will r~ain as under existing conditions. Subdivision of thc property will allow family members to enjoy the benefits of individual ownership, The site is similar to the developments in the surrounding area and is an allowable use within thc R-80 zoning district, ?urthermorc, the Town Planning Board has required that, as part o£ the skf. ch subdivision approval, Covenants and Restrictions be filed stating that if separate driveways are created in th~ future, both shall access Indian Neck Road via a common curb cut, The land u~e and ~oning impacts of the proposed project are expected to be minimal. Traffic Generation The proposed action would not be expected to increase traffic generation, as the site and use w~ll remain as under existing conditions. As noted above, it' separate driveways are created in the future, a common curb cut will be provided. Due to this, it is not expected that approval of the proposed subdivision will resuIt in a perceivable differenc~ as compared to e~sting conditions. Soils and Tonog. oph¥ The majority of the site is relatively flat, with all existing slopes between approximately 0-10%. However, there are relatively steep slopes associated with a small bluff along the beach. This area rises in elevation from approximately 10' to 20', as indicated on the USGS topographic map, A thnctional bullthead exists at the base of the bluff, and is double tiered; the bluff face is vegetated and does not show signs of severe erosion. The property does not contain any additional significant landforms or geological features. P~e 3 JUN-23-2E~0 22::8 516 425 125''~' P.05/1'7 Rusbin/Modey Subdlvislnn ~ P~coni¢ EAF Part ! Review NP,e,V//00144 The soil survey idcmifles the subject si~e as lying within an area characterized solely by Carver and Plymouth Sands, 0-3% slopes (CPA). A specific description of the soil found on-site is ss follows (Warner et al., 1975): Carver and Plymouth sands, 0-$% slopes (CpA~ - ~e~ soils are generally on ouch pta/ns and con~is~ of de~, cxce~ivcly d~cd, coarse-tex~ ~fls', however, ~ey ~e also on some flair ~ill~ops and ~ening &~ws on moraines. ~e ~d of erosion is slight ~ a na~lly Iow ~mtiV, ~fl is co~idered droughw. The Ca_w~' series is described within the Suffolk County Soil Survey as deep, excessively drained course-textured soil. The topography and soils on site do ilOt appear to present severe development constraints. However, a~ no additional development is planned at this time, no impacts ~re expected. As previously stated, thc site has beach frontage on Hogs Neck Bay, and eomains tidal wetlands as regulated by the NYSDEC under Article 25 of the ECL. Site specifically, the NYSDEC has jurisdiction on those activities that occur seaward of the top of the bank, a~ shown on the minor subdMsion map. Additionally, it should be noted that if *,he existing functional bul~ead has been in existence since August 20n, 1977, the jurisdictional limit of the NYSDEC would occur ~l thc seaward edge of thc bulkhead. Any subdivision of land requires a permit under Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands Act), and therefore, even though no disturbance or construction will occur on thc property, the applieam would be required to obtain a tidal wetland permit from the NYSDEC in order to allow for the subdivision of the parcel. However, the cominuation of a lawfully existing use, where as such continuance does not involve expansion or significant alternation of the existing use does not require a p~mit. Based on this, it is recommended that the applicant submit a "non-jurisdiction" request to the NYSDF. E to allow for the subdivision of l~nd, ~ no additional development will occur at this time. Water R~source$ Public water is supplied to the general area by the Suffolk County Water Authority, although the site itself is not specifically connected to public water. There is an 8" water main along the north side of Main Road, which terminates at South Manor Road. located northeast of thc site. Thc 8" mam extends to the south along the east side of South Manor Road, although it terminates at the connection with Grange Road to the east. The nearest wellfie]d is the Mill Land Well Field & Pump Station, located approximately 8,500 feet to the north, northwest o£the site. It is estimated tha~ the proposed project will utilize approximately 600 gallons of water per da5' as under existing cond/tions, Each structure is currently expected to be connected to the on-site well. Sanitary disposal within the proposed subdivision will be mtnaged by conventional on-site septic tenk-le~ching pool systems. In 1978, the Long Island Regional Planning Board pubhshed The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Study). The 208 Study identified eight (8) hydrogeologi¢ zones in N~sau and Suffolk Counties. These zones were distinguished based upon differenees in underlying groundwater flow patterns and water quality. Ru~in/Modey S~bd~i~i~n ~e ~ubje~ ~ite i~ located with~ SCDHS G~dwa~er M~em~t Zon~ VI, w~eh ac~rdlng to ~ici~ VI of th0 S~ffolk Cowry S~it~ Code, ha ~ ~[owable flow of 600 g~lo~ per day (~d) ~r acre ~ ~ ~'ed by pubhc water. Therefog. ~e allowablt m~ogen b~ni flow ibr the size is 2,053 ~d. ~e s~it~' desi~ flow is ~put~ us~g SCDHS ~1 ~ndards for ~pprovaI of Plans and Construction for ~age Da~o~al Systems for Oth~ ~an Single Family Residences. The manual establishes &e d~i~ flow as Single fhmflv dwelling 300 gpd x 2 dwellings 600~d l'herefore, the propos~ residential subdivision would conform with A~iele VI of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and would not be expected to adversely affect groundwater quality provided properly funcOoning systems are designed and installed. The elevation of groundwater beneath the subject site is estimated at 3 fe~t above mean sea level (msl) according to the 1997 SCDHS water table map, The topographic elevation on site rang~ fi'Om approximately 10-20 feet above msl, based on the USGS Topographic Map. Therefore, the minimum d~th to $roundwater is approximately 7 feet. Tl'fis is somewhat consistent with an on site test hole, indicating a depth to groundwater of approximately 11 feet; however, the minor subdivision map does not indicate the location of the ~st hole on the property. The direction of groundwater flow is towards the ~outh~t. The depth to groundwater on site is not expected to have significant constraints on the location of s~tic systems on the parcel. ~,UMMARY In conclusion, approval of the proposed m~bdivision would not be expected to significantly impact the site and/or cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. As additional davelopmcmt ia not planned at this time, the site and use will r~main as under existing conditinn~, which typically conform ~o thc character of the area The site does not appear to contain significant en~fironmenta[ features that would limit the residential subdlviaion or the existin_~ use. The proposed project will not inertmse wastewater generation, garbage g~neration, traffic or water use, The Platmmg Board has recommended that covenants and restrictions be placed on the property stating that if separate driwway$ are created in the fut,,a'e, both shall access indian N~k Rnad via a common curb cut. Once this is addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, a Negative Deciaration may be appropriate. P~ S Appendi~ A State Environmental Quality FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM purpose: The Fui~ ~AF ~ designed to ~el~ aOplic~nts ~nd agencies determino. ~n ~ crderi~ manner, whet~er ~ pro,et P,~r~ ~,; Provlde~ cbiective data a~d inlormatlon about a g;ven ~roiect and its ~:¢ fly identifying basic prolec Part 3: ,f.~nyim~aetin Pa~t2 i$id~n~lfied as ~otentiallv,large 1:hen Part ~ is used to eva[uatevYhetheror not thl DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type 1 and Unlisted Actions ~Don review cf [be reformation recorded on this EAF (Parts I and 2 and 3 if apDropria[e), and an~ o(her s~portJns ~nformauon. zqd co~siderin~ both the magi[~de and importance of each impacL it is reasonably determined by the A. The Droiec~ will na~ result i. any la,ge and important impac(~} a~d. therefore, is one which will .or B. A~thou~h the project could have ~ significant effect on the environment, there will not be a'Sisnificant effect [or this UntEsted Action becnuse the m;d~ation measure[~esctibed in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepped,* C, The project may resuZ~ in one or more larse and important impacts that m~y have a slgnitican: impact on the environmenL therefore a posil~ve dcclaratinn will he prepared. ' A Conditioeed Negedve Declaration is only valid tor Unlisted Actions N~lme ol~ Lead Title of Re~,I~oel~bltt Officer Prepared by Project Spons<)r This documcn£ is cesign~,d to .~$sfst in det.~rminin~, whe[i~er the ~¢~on proposed n~.3¥ hav~ a significant effec expected that completion o~ the tull EAF will ~,e dependen~ on, information currend;r available and will not inuolv , BUSINESS TELEP~Q~E Please Camp{eta Each Qucstlon-lndlcate N.A. it not appficable A. Site Descriptlon Physical settina of overall ptoiect, both dave{aped and undeveloped ~as~ . I Present land use: ~U~an ~[ndustrial ~Commercial ~sidential ~Forest . ~Agricu[~ure ~Other _ 2. Total ac[cage of project am~: ~ 3creL APPROXIMATE A~REACE ~ PRESENTLY Meadow or Brush]and (Hon,agriFutlural} ~ acres Forested ~ acres Agrlcul[ural {Includes or:harris, cropland, [x~sture. etc.) O ~cre5 Wetland [Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of EC{3 ~ acres Water Surface Area ~ acr~ U~vegetated (Rock, e~th or fltl] ~ ~ ~,/~ac:res Road~. buil~;ngs and :thor paved surfaces ~ ~cres [su~urban] [~Rural (non-farrr AFTER COMPLETION ~ ~ acres ~'~"~/~ acres ,~..Soft drainot,;c; a ~, e I drained % of site 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on proiect silo? ~Yes ~o ~. What is deplh to bedrock~ _ _~ (in lout) 2 JUH-23-288~J L2:£1 S16 42S i2~, P.09/i~ 8, '/v~h~4 is ;h~ depth of the wa:e' taole~ ~ ~ (in ~ee~) ~ ~-~' 11 Ooe) Dro~ect sate e~tam arv species ~t plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or ~ndan~e~ed: ~Yes~o Describe 14. Does the presm~t si~.e inciude scenic views known to be :mportent to the eommunlt¥~ ayes ~No 16 Lakes. pOqdS, wetlaqd areas withm or contiauOUS to proieCt ~re~ 17. is ~he Site ~er~ed by ext~tin8 public util~U~s? ~Yes~o a) If YeL does sufficient capacmty ex~st to allow connection? ~Yes l& b C4ze (In acres) 19, 20. b) d Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ~tYes []No ~jl~ Is Ihe site located in an egricultura~str(ct certified pursuant .to AgricuLture ant Markets Law, A~ticle 25-AA, Section 303 and 304~ ~Yes is the site ideated in or substafluaIly contfguo~ a Cdti. cal Environmental Area de~ignated pursuant to Art(cie 8 o( the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 ~Y~ ~o Has the site ever been used (or the d)sposal o~ solid or hazardous was~. ~Yes ~ C B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions .and scate of proIect (flu in dirnen,Hons as ~pprol)riate~ d, Length of ptoicct, in m.iJes. ~ (il a'ppmpr~atcl j. Linear feet of front~ alon~ ~ public thorou~hfa,~ proiec~ will occupy i~ ~ It./~. ~, 6. If simple phase prQject: ^nt;cipated period o~ construct,on ,/V"/?f 7 If multi-phased: a To~al number 0¢ =bases antlci~z~ed _., ~/~ ;nurnberJ C. A~pro~imate eOm¢letion dat~ o¢ final ~hase ~ d ',s phone 1 functionally dependen~ on subsequent phases~ 8. Wdl blasting occur during cons~rucUon? ~Ye$ .. ~ 9, Number cf jobs g~nerzted: during consUuction ~ t0. Number Oi job5 ehminate~ by this project ~/~ months, incIuding ~emol ton) month year, (including demohuon) f~,O'qth year. ~myes ~No 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involvedi' ~Yes · Ii yes, indicate t,tpe of waste (sewage, industrial, etc,} and amount b. Name o¢ waCer body i~:o which effluen: will be discharged 13. Il subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes ~ Type ~,~Y 14, Will surface area et an ~cr body ~ncrease or decrease by pr~po,aff ~Yes ~No 1S. IS project or any portion of project located in a 1~ year, end plain? ~Yes 16. Willthenrojectgenera~e,alidwaste? ~Ye, a. If yes, whac is the amouot per month ... tons b. If y~, will an e~istlng solid wa3te (acility be used~ ~Yes ~No C. ff yes, aive ~me . ; Ioca~ba d. Will any wastes noi go into a s~age ~is~s~l system or in:o ~ sani:aw landSlff ~ye~ e. If Yes, ex~lain 1}', Will the project involve the disposal o~ ::olid waste~ c1yes ~ a, If yes. ;vhat is the antlcipaled ret~ oi disposal? __ tons/mo.th. b If yes what is t~e anticipated site !ife~ yc:ius. 18, Will proloct use t~erblcldes Or posticid~si ~Yes ~ Will ~roiect routinely prcduce odors (more titan om: hour Imf day]¢ OYes Il yes, i~dicatc Iype(sJ ~_ 24. DOes P~oI~ct involve Local, Shire or I'~'deral lundinl:/ ~Yos II Yes, ex~lain JUN-23-20£~8 ]2:22 City, Town ~d,~e Ciw, Tow~ Zo~in~ 8~a'd OUmr Aeg~oo~l Agencle~ ~Ye~ ~No 516 425 1257 P. 1!717 C. Zoning and Planning Information I, Does proposed action involve a pianninlz ar zoning decision? ,~'l~s DNo · If Yes, indicate decision required: Ozonin§ ,~mendment ~zOnlr',§ variance ~pecial use perm,t ~ivrsion ~site ~new/revisioa of mas:er plan ~resource management plan ~other .., 3. V/bat i~ the maximum Do//ntia3 development of the site if developed as perm[tied by the presenl zoning~ 4. Wh~t i~ the proposed zoni.~ of the site! . ~ S Wh~ ii th~ maximum potential developme~t of the site if developed ~s.pe~mitted bv the proposed zoningl 6. Is the proposed ac:ion consistent ~ith the recommended u$es in adopted Iorat land ~e 7. What a~e the predominant land use(s) and zomng cla~sificadons within a '4 mile ~adiu~ of proposed 8, Is the proposed a~tion compatible with adioioing/~urrou~ding land uses within a '4 mHef ¢ ff [h~ PrOliOs~ .orion is th~ subdivision o~ I~nd, how many io~s are propose? a. What is the minimum I~t size proposed? /'~1 ¢ /,~ ~ ~0. Will propoi~ aC:io~ re~uir~ any authorization(s} for the formation o¢~wer or water districts? ~Yes ~. Will the pro~o¢o~ action crea~e ¢cma~ for any community providc~ s~rvlcc~ {recre~tlon. educa:ion. flee p~tection~r ~Yes a. If yes, is ex s.ing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? OYes ~No 12, Will the pf:po~ed action Jesuit in the generation of traffic significaot[v above present levelsf a. If ye~, i~ .Ihe e~istln; road network adequate lo ha~alle tho addiUonal traffic~ ~Yes ~No D. Informational Details C E. Voriffcatio~ . Signature ~~ Title ~'UN--23-20¢'_~J IZ 22 516 425 125'7 P.12/I7 asks tha.~ ~t be looked at further c. If answe¢in~ Yes to a ~uestion then cl'eck the appropriate box (column 1 or 2! tc indicate Lhe potential size of th~ is lower :hah exampie, check column 1 d. I[ revtewer has dot. bt about size of the ima~c: then consider the impact as potent.alK, large znd proceed to PART e. if a potentially large impact ch~cked in co(utah 2 c~n be mi:~:~:~d by changes) ir :he project (o a sinai; to moderate IMPACT ON LAND . Will Ihe pro~osec action resuit in ~ physical ch~n~e to tho project ~ite7 IlINO ~¥E$ EzampJ~$ tha~ wou]~ ~pply to ~olu~ln 2 Any cons[ruction on slop~ of 15% o~ greater. (15 foot the per 100 ~OOt of JengthL or where the ge, era[ slopes in thc project a~ea excet~ 10%. Construction o, land w~ete the depth to the wate~ table if less than 3 f~t. Construction of pav~ patkin& area ~or 1.000 o~ more vehicles. Construe[ion o~ land w~e~e bed(oc~ is e~pased or &enerally within Construclion lhat wifl~c[~ntlnue for me~e than I year or invol~e more than one phase ar s~age. Excavation for m;Mng purl~g~es :t~a: would rem~we more th~,~ 1.000 tons cf na[ural material {i,u,, rOc~ or soil} per Vt,ar. CO~ltuctiO~ or expansion of a ~.~nl[a~y I.mdfill ConstructiOn i~ a designated flof)[tWayr * Specific land forms; ~ 6 Small to Potential'Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact i Impact Project Change [] [] fi'lyes I'"1 No E"I [] OYes E3No [] [] L3Ye~ [~] I ~ ~¥OS r-JNo I 5LIN-23-2L~80 IMPACT ON WATER (Under Art,c;e~ 1~, 24. 25 of ~he Enwro~men~J Con~e,vation ~w. "~ C. 4. Will proposed acdo~'&f(ect any non pr•tattoo ~x;sting or n¢,v body 5. Will PrQposed Action affect suH~ace or groundwater quahty 0:' quantity? ~NO OYES Examples ~hat wou~d apply to column 2 Proposed Action wilJ require a discharge permit Proposed Acth;p requires water supply from wei~s wi~b ~rea~er ~han 45 gallons ~er minute pumping capuCi~, supply system, Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid e~fluent will be conver~J o1~ the s~te to facilities which presently do ~t exist or have i~adequate capacity. Proposed Action would bsa water in ~xcess a~ 20.0~ gallon~ per day. Proposed Action wi~! liken cause siltation o~ other discharge into an existing body of wa:er to the extent that there will be an obvlo,S visual products greater :hen 1,100 ~aHons (aciliiics W,9 let run•fit mN• OYFS · P,.~of!,Osed ACtiOn woutd chang,, flood water flows ? Modela~e Large impact Impact [] [] r'q [] Mitigated B~ Projec~ Chan~ []]Yes []N •Ye~ ON, FmYe~ []N' r-lyes ON, [~Yes ~Nc OYe~ E]Yus OY(~s F-IN• F'lYe~ r-IN• · Proposed ^cc,on is incompatible with exi.~ting drainage patterns, · Proposed Act,on will al;ow d~veJopment !n a designated IIoodwa¥11~ * Other impacts' IMPACT ON AIR Will proposed actio~ affect air q,-aDt¢? IIIN© E~a~Ple~ that would apply to column 2 hour Proposed Acdoq will result in ~he incineration of more th~n refuse per ~our Emission rate o~ tgt~ cont2minants will exceed 5 lbs per hour or a heat source producing more th~n ~O million BTU's ~er hour. Progos~ action will allow an increase m the amount o~ land to industrial u~e development within e~scing industual areas, O:her impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect =ny thio=toned or cnd~m~:eFed ~pecie~? ~NC) ~YES E~ample~ tha~ would apgly to column 2 Reduction of one or more soec es listed on the New York or I~ederal list, using the site, over or neat sit~ or found on the site. Removal o~ ~ny portion o~ a cd:ica[ or significant wildlife hnbkat. Application o~ ~sticide or herbicide more than ~ice a year, other than Ior agricultural pur~ses, O~her impact:_. Will ProDo~ Action sub~tnntlally ~fcct non,threatened or non.endangeced species? ~NO ~YES Etample~ that would apply to column 2 Propo~ed Action would ~uSstanlially intedcre with any residu~t or migratory ~sh, shellfish or wildlife Proposed Action requires ~hc removat of mote d~,m 10 heres o~ m~ture ~oro~t (over 100 ye~s of ~ge) or od~o~ loc;dlv importen[ vegelatlon IMDAOT OH A~DICULTU~AL LAND · NO ~YES 516 425 1257 Moderate Large Impact lmDact P. 14/1'7 ,,.,an impact Me Mitigated By Project Chenge ~iYes fi'lYes [-]No []Yes []No []Yes E~Yes ~-~NO I-lyes []No []Ye: C~No OYes t--]No ~Yes [~Yes i-lyes ONe OYes C~No I~¥es I-]No OYes (~ ~'es ~lNo I~NO L--lye~ I-INo Construct~on acdvlty would e~cavate or compact the soil profde of a~ricu~tu?~ land, The ~toDose~ ~¢:ion would irreversibly convert more than 10 acre~ than 2,5 accel o~ aSdcu~tural land land management systems ~e~., ~ubsurfaCe drai~ I~nes, ouUe~ ditches, strip croppinE]: or crea~e a need fcr such measures lo,;, cause a farm fi~ld ~O dtain DOOr v due to increased tuncH} C IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 will proposed action affe0t aesthetic resourees~ INO I'IYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B) Ezample~ that w~u~d ~ppiy ~o ¢otumn ~ Proposed land useL or prelect components obviously different from or ~n sharp contrast [o curr~nt surroundin~ land use pat[ems, whether ma,-made or ~8tural, PreDated land use~. or p~o~ect components visible to users of aesthetic ?e~ource~ which will eliminate or ¢~nificantly reduce their enjoyment o~ the aesthetic qualities o~ that resgurce. Froject components that will [esuh in the elimination or si~mficant sc~0e~in~ at scenic view~ known to be i~Dor[an[ to the area. Other impact; ~ IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or ~tructure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ina ~YE~ Examples that would epply to column 2 · Propo~ed Action occurring wholly or partiaUy within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on th~ State or National Register ef historic pbce~, · Any impact to an archaeological ~ite or fos~iJ b~ Ioca[~ will,in the project site. archoeoiogica[ sites on the NY~ ~itc [nvento~ · Other impacts; _. IMPACT ON OPEN ~PACE AND RECREATION E~nmpJes that ','.-ot~l~J a~ply to cuJuu~s~ L~ ~NO 5tG 425 12~m7 Small to' Potential Moderate Large Im¢~¢t Impact [] [] [] [] P,15/1~ Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change []Yes [~Yes ~Yes F"I No []Yes FINe ~mYes ~Ye~. r-]No OYes OYes E]No ~¥es [ElNa i--lyes [~Yes I--INa IMPACt' ON 'EN C_RGY energy ~up~ y~ ~O ~YES form of energy in the munic)0a[ity Propnsed Action will ~equire ~he c.eation ot ex:on,ion o~ ~ enerqv residence5 or to serve a malor commercial of industrial use Ot~el impact~: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 Will there be objectionable od~rs, no,se, or vi~,ration as a result of the Pr~posecl AcIion? ' ~NO E~amples lhat wcCd apply :o column 2 81a)ting withln 1.500 feet of a ~ospkal. school or other sensitive facility. Odors w~U occur routinely (more than one ~our Proposed Acdo~ will produce opera~in~ noise exceeding the [ocaJ ambient noise levels for noise outs)de o~ structure~ Proposed Action will remove na:u~ai barriers that would act noise screen. Other impacts: ,. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. WiJl Proposed Action affect public health and sa[etyi' JNO OYES Ezam,ples that would appJy to colum¢, 2 ~ubstances {i.e. oil, pe~ticideS~ ~hemlca)~, r:d~ation, etc.) in the (,vent of ~ischa~ge Or emissiun Proposed Action may resuit iff thc bu~-i~l ,[ ~az, dou~ wastes in any {orm (i.e (oxic, poisonous, highly re3ct~ve. ~.~dioactive. irritatina. I0 516 425 i25'7 Modera[e impact [] [] P. 16/17 Potential Can Impact Large Mitigated By Impact Project Chon~:e ~ Fl'res reno ~ ~Yes ~NO ~ ~es ~No ~ ~Yes ~No ~Yes ~Yes ~Yes ~No ~Yus ~Y~s ~No ~Yos J LLkf-2~-29E'E~ 22:24 ·., j.~, IMPAOT ON GROWfH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD ~ ~NO ~YES Examp]e~ that wou~d ap~ly to CO~Um~ 2 · The permaren~ peculation o~ ~he cltv, ~own or vi[la~e in whic~ the · The municipal b~d~e[ fat capital expend~t~re~ or operat,n~ ferv~ces (ea. schools, police a~d fire, etcJ · Ptop0sed AcriD. will set a~ imgor[~n~ ~r=c~dent for future proiec[s ' Pro~;~ed ActJen wiJ~ crezte ot eliminate employmen[, 516 425 J. 25T Small to 'i Potential Impact Impact P, Can Impact 8~ Mitigated By Proiect Chang~ 19, Is there, or i$ there ILke[¥ lo be, public controversy re',atec~ Lo potential adverse environmenta: ~m~act~? OHO ~,YES if Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If,You Cannot D~termine the Magnitude of Impact, ~roceBt~ to Part 3 L Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS ResponCblllty of LQad A~tenc¥ , Par( 3 must be prepared il one or more ;mpact[$) ls considered lo be pol~dl~alif large, e~n il the ;mpact(s) m~y bt Inslrucllo~s Discuss the foX•wing for each ~mpact identified in Column 2 o( Part 2: 1, gtielly describe the impact. 2. ~es~ribe ~if app~ica~e) h~ ~he ~mpac: c~u~d be m~ti~ated ~rreduc~ ~ ;~ ~m~ t~ m~du~a~e ~mp`1~ b~ ~ajec~ ch~n8~[s~ 3, Das~ on thc information availnh~e, decide if it is reascn,~ble to coprhlde thai (his impact is imp~rlant, (Contmue OH ~ttachm~:nt~) 11 TOTFL P. i? PATRICIA C. MOORE Attomey at Law Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Rushin/Motley SCTM #1000-86-07-05.1 & 5.2 Proposed set-off Dear Chairman Orlowski; Enclosed please find the above subdivision map filed in the Suffolk October 16,2001, file #10697. If you have any questions contact me. November 2, 2001 Marg~etRu~owski Secre~ referenced final County Clerk on please do not hesitate to ~ry-~//yours, ~ ~Patr±cia C. Moore Southold Town Planning Board PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765 -4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary September 14, 2001 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Chairman: Enclosed please find off with the Director Minei's signature. If there is anything to contact me. RE: Rushin & Mottley Set-off three mylars and four prints of the set- of Division of Environmental Health, Vito further you need, please do not hesitate Very truly yours, · Patricia C. Moore cc: $£P 1 4 200~ 3out~,~ ~'owr Planning Board PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGIANO Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 11, 2001 Patricia Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Proposed Set-Off for Rushin/Mottley SCTM#1000-86-7-5 Dear Ms. Moore: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, September 10, 2001: The final public hearing was closed. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, this proposed subdivision is for 2 lots on 3.42 acres on the south side of Indian Neck Lane opposite its intersection with Parkers Landing Road, Peconic; and WHEREAS, this proposed subdivision involves two existing dwellings; and WHEREAS, this proposed subdivision received approvals from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the creation of undersized lots within the R-80 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself lead agency, made a determination of non-significance, and issued a Negative Declaration on July 10, 2001; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on September 11,2001; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and Rushin/Mottley - Pa,qe Two - 9/11/01 WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval on the maps, last amended on February 2, 2001, subject to the fulfillment of the following condition. This condition must be met within six (6) months of the resolution: 1. Two mylars and five paper prints with the Health Dept.'s dated approval stamp must be submitted. Please contact us if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Planning Board Office Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 76~4330 Fax:: (631) 765~t643 September 6, Jr., Chairman 2001 RE: Proposed Set-Off for Rushin/Mottley SCTM: 1000-86-7-5 Dear Chairman Orlowski: Enclosed please find Affidavit of Posting, Affidavit of Mailing, six (6) Certified Mail Receipts and five (5) signed Return Receipt Cards for the above referenced matter. Very truly yours, PATRICIA C. MOORE By: Melissa McGowan /mm Encls. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING This is to serve notice that I personally posted the property known as by placing the Town's official poster notices(s) within 10 feet of the front property line facing the street(s) where it can be easily seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the public hearing on %~¢~mb(¢ {1:)~ 20o~ , Your na . ~ . ~ Signature Ad d ru~s D~t¢ Notary Public PLEA.CE REIURN 77-/15 AFFIDA VIT AND CERTIFIED MAIL £ECEIPT.,c OIV THE DAY OF. OR ,4 T TIlE PUBLIC HEARING Re: Proposed Set-Off of Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottley SCTM#: 1000-86-7-5 Oate of Hearing:Mon., Sept. 10, 2001, 6:00 p.m. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I have sent notices, by certified mail, the receipts of which are attached, to the owners of record of every property which abuts and every property which is across from any public,or private street from the above mentioned property on/q,JOUS~ d~,o?~al Your name (print) Signature ~o.~l~.n~ ~:~n;t, /')~ ~ , ~u d:, Itl)/ Address Notary Public ~ljjjm~n~ m ~j~ -OjL~' o ~ PLEASE RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT AND CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS ON THE DAY OF. OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING Re: Proposed Set-Off of Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottley SCTM#: 1000-86-7-5 Date ofHearing:Mon., Sept. 10, 2001, 6:00 p.m. · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed ~: Mark S. Lowenheim & Walter H. Chadwidk 6565 Indian Neck Lane P.O. Box 123 Peconic, NY 11958 [] Addressee [ If YES, enter delivery address below: [] No 3. Service Type [] Certified Mall [] Express Mall [] Registered [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. . 4. R~es~J~iv~'~? ~ ~ ~ 2. ArticleNurnber 7001 0360 0001 0522 949 Domestic Return R PS Form 3811, Mamh 2001 Vincent J. Freda & Carol Freda Robin Lane Alpine, NJ 07620 2. Article Number 7001 0360 0001 0522 94 ii (Transfer from service label) , , !PS Form 3811, March 2001 . Domes~c~ m SentTo ~m[ Kathleen Varano & Other! ~ ~;/~'~;'~7'~:,.' ........................................................ cmlorPOBox~o. 5 Colonial Court · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. A~so complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Pdnt your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. [~[SentTo Kathleen Varano & Other ~ F;~'~7~'~F~-g'?'~: ...................................................... r.~ lor Po Box No. D Colonial Court _ ....................................... Sent To Gregory R. Cukor 1. A~icle Addressed to: Kathleen Varano & others 5 Colonial Court East Northport, NY 11731-580 21212-2Z Mark S. Lowenheim & Walter H. C] .~o.; YSBS"%H~iR~"M~*'~'~ ..... orPO~xN~. P.O. BOX 123 NY 11958 A. Received by (Please print Clearly) C, Signature [] Agent D. Is detivery address different from item 1 ? [] Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: [] No 3. Service Type [] Certified Mail [] Express Mail [] Registered [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. Restricted Deliver? (Extra F~e) [] Yes 2. Article Number (Copy from service label) 7001 0360 0001 0522 9549 PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt · Attach this card to t.e or on the front if space permits. ~- 1. Article Addressed to: Kathleen Varano & otherS 5 Colonial Court East Northport~ NY 11731-5801 102595-99-M-1789 X// ~e: ~tem 1 ? [] Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: [] No 3. Service Type [] Certified Mail [] Express Mail [] Registered [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. 4. Restricted DeINery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes 2. Article Number (~o~P~ f~orn(~i~e I~o~l[ 8 7001 0360 UUu Domestic Return Receipt ~811, July 1999 Kathleen Varano & others 5 Colonial Court East Northport, NY 11731-5801 102595-99-M-1789 ir .,~--~?~ [] Addressee O. Is delivery address different from item 1 .-"~ If YESlenter delivery address below: [] No 3. Service Type [] Certified Mail [] Express Mail [] Registered [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. Sent To 4. Restricted Delivery? ,(,(Extra Fee) [] Yes n| Vincent J. Freda & Carol Fred.a.. 2. ArticleNumber(Copyfrom~k:elabel) ~ ......... ~;'Y-~;; ........................................................ 7001 0360 0001 0 2 9 ~/a~ree~, p. *; ~2 532 t;;t_~;;;~;~..;I--R--°---b-.i--~---L-.~-n---e------~-~-~-~-~ ............. PS Form 381'1, ,~u'ly 1~99 ~ D;rnestic Return Receipt ,02595-89 M 1789 / ......... e' ...... .................. " li~,.- . ,_ . PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED August 24, 2001 NEIGHBORS Re: Pamela G. Mottley and Patricia G. Rushin Indian Neck Road, Peconic, NY SCTM# 1000-86-7-5 Dear Neighbor: I represent Pamela G. Mottley and Patricia G. Rushin with regard to their property located at Indian Neck Road, Peconic, New York. Pamela Mottley and Patricia Rushin are proposing to subdivide the parcel into two lots. We have submitted the required application, and a hearing on this matter has been scheduled for Monday, September 10, 2001 at 6:00 P.M. Enclosed is the Notice to Adjacent Property Owners and a copy of the proposed subdivision. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very ~ yours, PCM/mm Encls. Southold Town Planninq Board Notice to Adjacent Property Owners You are hereby given notice: 1. That the undersigned has applied to the Planning Board of the TOwn of Southold for a set-off 2. That the property which is the subject of the application is Ibcated adjacent to your property and is described as follows: SC'['M~1000-86-7-5; 3. That the property which is the subject of this application is lOcated in the R-80 Zoning District. 4. That the application is for a set-off is for 2 lots on 3.4218 acres. The property contains 2 existing dwellings. Area variances with respect to lot lines, lot size and setbacks of existing buildings have been granted by the ZBA. The property is located on the south side of Indian Neck Lane, 1417' east of Robinson Lane in Peconic. 5. That the files pertaining to this application are open for your information during normal business days between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Or, if you have any questions, you can call the Planning Board Office at (631)765-1938. That a public hearing will be held on the matter by the Planning Board on September 10, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in the Meeting Hall at Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold; that a notice of such hearing will be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times, published in the Town of Southold; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Petitioner/Owner's Name(s): Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottley Date: August 16, 2001 INDIA~V ROAD N 89'21°30" E 146,54' cREEK scale: I"= 600' . ~ SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEAL TH SERVICES HAUPPAUGE, N. Y. DA TE THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE PROPOSED REAL TY SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT FOR - IN THE ...... WITH A TOTAL OF __ LOTS IS EXEMPT FROM ~OUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF TH~ SUFFOLK CO~VTY SANITARY CODE SECTION 760 WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES ON EACH LOT MUST CONFORM TO CONSTRUCDON STANDARDS IN EFFECT AT THE TI~E OF CONSTRUCDON AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE PER. TS PURSUANT TO THOSE STANDARDS. ..... ~SEPH H. BALER, P.E. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONI~ENTAL QUALITY PARCEl 'A ' PARCEL 'B ' TOTAL A; ZONNG DIST~ CONTOUR LINES PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGIANO Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Section 276 of the Town Law, a public hearing will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York in said Town on the 10th day of September, 2001 on the question of the following: 6:00 P.M. Public Hearing for the proposed set-uff of Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottley. The property is located on the south side of Indian Neck Lane, 1417' east of Robinson Lane in Peconic, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-86-7-5. 6:05 P.M. Public Hearing for the proposed lot line change of Jack Levin. The property is located on the south side of CR 48, 242' west of Chapel Lane in Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000- 44-4-5 & 45-1-9. Dated: 8/17/01 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman PLEASE PRINT ONCE ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2001 AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT TO THIS OFFICE, THANK YOU. COPIES SENT TO: Suffolk Times Traveler Watchman P.O. Box 1179 53095 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1938 Fax: (631) 765-3136 E-Mail: planning@southold.org Christina Weber, The Suffolk From.. Valerie Scopaz/caml Times Fa~c Page~: 2 Ph,.., ~,t.= 8/17/01 Re; Legal Ad for 8/30/01 Edition cc; Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply As Requested Please print the following legal ad in the August 30th Edition. Thanks. 6:00 p.m. Rushin/Mottley Set-Off 6:05 p.m. Levin Lot Line Change STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) CAROL KALIN, Secretary to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, New York being duly sworn, says that on the 17th day of August, 2001 she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. 9/10/01 Re.qular Meetin;l: 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing for the Set-Off of Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottley, SCTM#1000-86-7-5 6:05 p.m. Public Hearing for the Lot Line Change of Jack Levin SCTM~1000-44-4-5 & 45-1-9 C~rol Kalin Secretary, Southold Town Planning Board Sworn to before me this /~ day of ~, 2001. Notary Public PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGIANO Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Section 276 of the Town Law, a public hearing will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York in said Town on the 10th day of September, 2001 onthe question of the following: 6:00 P.M. Public Hearing for the proposed set-off of Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottley. The property is located on the south side of Indian Neck Lane, 1417' east of Robinson Lane in Peconic, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-86-7-5. 6:05 P.M. Public Hearing for the proposed lot line change of Jack Levin. The property is located on the south side of CR 48, 242' west of Chapel Lane in Gmenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000- 44-4-5 & 45-1-9. Dated: 8/17/01 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman I.~X~AL NOTlC~ ~ O~r Pt~LIC ~I[&IIIN~ NOTICE IS ~Y GfVI~N 0ink pursuant to Section 276 of the Town Law, a public heating will be held by the So~thold Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York in said Town on tbe 10~h day of September, 2001 on the quesllon of the following: 6.~0 p.m. Public Pmafi~ f~ ~ 1~- · Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New york. Suffolk County T~x Map Number 1000-86-7-5. 6:05 p.m. Public Hearing for the pro- posed I~ line change of Jack Levin. The propu~y is located on the south side of CR 48, 242' west of Chapel Lane in Greenpon~ Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-45-4-5 & 45-1-9. DaSd: 8/17/10 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman 2027-1TAu30 STATE OF NEW YORK) )SS: COUNTY OF SUFFO _LK) ~.]ld~ ~"~ of Mattituck, in said county, q~eing duly swom, says that he/she is PrinciPal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weeldy newspaper, pub- lished at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a pdnted copy, tm_s been regula~ pub- lished in said Newspaper once each week for { weeks successively, commencing on the ~ day e.~!ili~i~s~01~co~r~ f~( t.--k...~.Pdncipal Clerk Sworn to before me this ~0 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGIANO Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971°0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August14,2001 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re; Proposed Set-Off for Rushin/Mottley SCTM#1000-86-7-5 Dear Ms. Moore: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, August 13, 2001: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, September 10, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated April 19, 2000. Please refer to the enclosed copy of Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, in regard to the Town's notification procedure. The notification form is enclosed for your use. The sign and the post will need to be picked up at the Planning Office, Southold Town Hall. Please return the endorsed Affidavit of Posting, proof of certified mailing, and the signed green return receipts from the certified mailings on the day of the public hearing before 4:00 p.m. The sign and the post need to be retumed to the Planning Office after the public hearing. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. Southold Town Plannin.q Board Notice to Adjacent Property Owners You are hereby given notice: 1. That the undersigned has applied to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold for a set-off; 2. That the property which is the subject of the application is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: SCTM#1000-86-7-5; 3. That the property which is the subject of this application is located in the R-80 Zoning District. That the application is for a set-off is for 2 lots on 3.4218 acres. The property contains 2 existing dwellings. Area variances with respect to lot lines, lot size and setbacks of existing buildings have been granted by the ZBA. The property is located on the south side of Indian Neck Lane, 1417' east of Robinson Lane in Peconic. That the files pertaining to this application are open for your information during normal business days between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Or, if you have any questions, you can call the Planning Board Office at (631)765-1938. That a public hearing will be held on the matter by the Planning Board on September 10, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in the Meeting Hall at Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold; that a notice of such hearing will be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times, published in the Town of Southold; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Petitioner/Owner's Name(s): Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottley Date: August 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING This is to serve notice that: I personally posted the property known as by placing the Town's official poster notices(s) within 10 feet of the front property line facing the street(s) where it can be easily seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained In place for seven days prior to the date of the public hearing on , I have sent notices, by certified mail, the receipts of which are attached, to the owners of record of every property which abuts and every property which is across from any public or private street from the above mentioned property on Your name (print) Signature Address Date Notary Public PLEASE RETURN THIS AFFIDA VIT AND CERTIFIED Il,fAlL RECEIPTS ON THE DAF OF. OR A T THE PUBLIC HEARING Re: Proposed Set-Off of Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottley SCTM#: 1000-86-7-5 Oate of HeaFing:Mon., Sept. 10, 2001, 6:00 p.m. § 58-1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING § 58-1 Chapter 58 NOTICE OF pLrBLIC HEARING § 58-1. Providing notice of public hearings. [HISTORY: Adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Southold 12-27-1995 as L.L. No. 25-1995. Amendments noted where applicable.] § 58-1. Providing notice of pubHe hearings. Whenever the Code calls for a public hearing, this section shall apply. Upon determining that an application is complete, the board or commission reviewing the same shall fix a time and place for a public hearing theroon. The board or commission reviewing an application shall provide for the giving of notice: A. By causing a notice giving the time, date, place and nature of the hearing to bo published in the official newspapor.within the poried proscribed by law. B. By requiring the applicant to erect the sign provided by the town, which shall be prominently displayed on the promises facing each public or private street which the property involved in the application abuts, giving notice of the application, the nature of the approval sought theroby and the time and place of the public hearing thereon. The sign shall be set back not moro than ten (10) fees from the proporty line. The sign shall be displayed for a period of not less than seven (7) days immediately preceding the date of the public hesring. The applicant or his/her sgent shall file an affidavit that s/he has complied with this provision. C. By requiring the applicant to send notice to the owners of record of every property which 'abuts and eve. fy property which is across from any public or p~vate street 5801 ~-~-~ § 58-1 SOUTHOLD CODE § 58-1 from the property included in the application. Such notice shall be made by certified mail, return receipt requested, posted at least seven (7) days prior to the date of the initial public hearing on the application and addressed to the owners at the addresses listed for them on the local assessment roll. The applicant or agent shall file an affidavit that s/he has complied with this provision. PATRICIA RUSHIN & PAMELA MOTTLEY SET-OFF FOR RUSHIN/MOTTLEY 1000-86-7-5 SET-OFF OF 2 LOTS ON 3.4218 ACRES MON. - SEPT. 10, 2001 - 6:00 P.M. , (~IATFIIClA O. MOOFI#II ~- 51020 MAIN ROAD, BOUTI-IOLD, NY 111::171 [511~) 7~5-,4~.~0 ~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS IZ~ENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGIAN0 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 11, 2000 Patricia C. I~oore, Esq, 51020 Main'Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed Set Off for Rushin/Motley SCTM#1000-86-7-5 Dear Ms. Moore: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, July 10, 2000: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assumes lead agency, and as lead agency, makes a determination of non-significanca and grants a Negative Declaration. Enclosed please find a copy of the Negative Declaration for your records. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGIAN0 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination Non-Significant July 10, 2000 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: Proposed Set-Off for Rushin/Motley SCTM#: Location: 1000-86-7-5 South side of Indian Neck Lane, 1417' east of Robinson Lane, Peconic SEQR Status: Type I ( ) Unlisted (X) Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes ( ) No (X) Description of Action: This proposed set-off is for 2 lots on 3.4218 acres. The property contains 2 existing dwellings and is located within the R-80 Zoning District. Area variances with respect to lot lines, lot size and setbacks of existing buildings have been granted by the ZBA. SEQR Negative Declaration - Pa,qe Two Reasons Supporting This Determination: An Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted and reviewed, and it was determined that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. Approval of the proposed set-off would not be expected to significantly impact the site and/or cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The site and use will remain as under existing conditions, which typically conform to the character of the area. The site does not appear to contain sigr~ificant environmental features that would limit the residential subdivisio~i'~r the existing use. The proposed project will not increase wastewater generation, garbage generation, traffic or water use. The NYS DEC reviewed the Planning Board's lead agency coordination. The NYS DEC is an involved agency as defined in SEQR (6NYCRR Part 617) due to Article 25 Tidal Wetlands Jurisdiction. As of the DEC's initial review, no application had been received by that agency. The DEC has no objection to the Planning Board assuming lead agency for this action as the anticipated impacts are primarily of local significance. The applicant will have to comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC) and all relevant standards of water supply and sewage disposal systems. Design and flow specification, subsurface soil conditions and site plan details will have to be approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). This impact is not considered significant due to the anticipated project compliance with established requirements of the SCSC and the SCDHS and the required relevant permits. For Further Information: Contact Person: Melissa Spiro Address: Planning Board Telephone Number: (631)765-1938 cc: Roger Evans, DEC Stony Brook Suffolk County Dept. of Health Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Southold Town Trustees Applicant DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE CLARE B. BRADLEY, M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER June 29, 2000 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Re: Mottley & Rushin Subdivision SCTM #: 1000 86-07-05 Dear Mr. Orlowski: JUL 10 2000 3outhold Town Planning Board The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS; "Department") has received your letter dated May 24, 2000, concerning the above-referenced project. The Department has no objection to your designation as lead agency. Based on a review of the subject coordination, the Department offers the following comments. These comments should not be construed as an implicit SCDHS approval or rejection of the project by the SCDHS. All applications are reviewed thoroughly with respect to Suffolk County Sanitary Code concerns by appropriate departmental personnel when SCDHS applications are completed. Article VI Application Status: An application for this proposed two lot subdivision of 3.41 acres was submitted to SCDHS Office of Wastewater Management on 4-15-00, HS ref. #310-00-0008. This application has been deemed incomplete pending submission of the following: - test well results for each lot - certification from a licensed design professional regarding existing water supply and sewage disposal systems - revised plans showing existing water supply lines and sanitary system locations - covenants filed: no further subdivision/well covenant - SEQRA determination *DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY * OFFICE OF ECOLOGY * RIVEKHEAD COUNTY CENTER * RIVERHI~AD NY 11901-3397 Phone (631) 852-2077 Fax (631) 852-2743 The applicant must comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and relevant construction standards for water supply and sewage disposal. Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at 852-2741. MJR/amf pc: Walter Dawydiak Stephen Costa, P.E. Sincerely, ~ Mark J. Reuschle Environmental Planner Office of Ecology Ruskin/Motley Subdivision ~ Peconic EAF Part I Review NP&V #00144 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS RUSHIN/MOTLEY SUBDIVISION ~ PECONIC Prepared for: Prepared by: Melissa Spiro Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971-0959 Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 Date: June 21, 2000 The Town of Southold Planning Board has retained Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) for consulting services in review of the above referenced subdivision. As currently proposed, the application involves the subdivision of an approximately 3.4218 acre parcel into 2 residential lots. The site contains a principle dwelling, an accessory dwelling, a small shed/garage, and associated landscaping/turf vegetation, a dirt drive, gazebo, and a wood dock. The majority of the parcel is forested, and the beach frontage is currently bulkheaded. This document analyzes the site and area resources including topography, soils, water, land use, zoning and transportation and other available information. The site has also been inspected for environmental/planning constraints. In addition, the full EAF Part I submitted with the application has been corrected and is attached herein. Location and Site Overview The project site is located on the south side of Indian Neck Road, across from Parkers Landing Road in Peconic, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk. The subject property can be more particularly described as SCTM number 1000-86-07-05. The property has approximately 146.54' of road frontage along Indian Neck Road, and approximately 134.30' of beach frontage along Hog Neck Bay. The site contains a principle dwelling, an accessory dwelling, a small shed/garage, and associated landscaping/turf vegetation, a dirt drive, gazebo, and a wood dock. The majority of the parcel is forested, and the beach frontage is currently bulkheaded. The site also contains tidal wetlands as regulated by the NYSDEC under Article 25 of the ECL. The Pagel Rushin/Motley Subdivision ~ Peconic EAF Part I Review NP&V #00144 property does not contain freshwater wetlands or significant geologic features. This review will discuss thc proposed project and its potential impact on the land resources. Proposed Project The proposed project involves the subdivision of a 3.4218 acre parcel into 2 residential lots. The proposed lots have the following sizes: Parcel 'A' = 1.5465 acres; Parcel 'B' = 1.8753 acres. Under existing conditions, Parcel 'A' contains the principle dwelling, the shed/garage, the gazebo and wood dock. Parcel 'B' contains the remaining accessory dwelling. The dirt drive enters the site within Parcel 'B', however the majority of the drive is located within Parcel 'A'. With the exception of screening vegetation proposed along the western portion of Parcel 'B' near the existing structure, no lot improvements will occur as a result of the subdivision at this time. The proposed subdivision will allow family members (the applicants) to enjoy the benefit of separate ownership. Pamel 'A' will maintain approximately 60 feet of road frontage, and 82.50' of beach frontage. Parcel 'B' has approximately 85 feet of road frontage and 51.80' of beach frontage. The proposed subdivision requires several variances, which were granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, subject to the following conditions: · That the door and steps on the west side would be removed from the design; · That the screening be consistent with the recommendations of the architect for a distance of 100 feet, extending northerly from a point commencing at the front of new construction on Parcel B. · That the screening be continuously maintained in good condition at all times. The granted variances for Parcel 'A' include lot size, lot width, side yard, total side yard, and rear yard. Variances granted within Parcel 'B' include lot width, side yard, total side yard, and rear yard. On May 23, 2000, the Planning Board granted sketch approval on the map dated April 19, 2000, with the following condition: There is one existing driveway and curb cut providing access to the two existing dwellings. If separate driveways are created in the future, both driveways shall access Indian Neck Road via a common curb cut. This restriction shall be noted in a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. There is no recreational area or open space associated with this proposed subdivision. Land Use and Zoning The project site is located in an area that is dominated by residential dwellings. Recreational areas and limited farmland exist in the vicinity. The majority of the residential lots in the immediate vicinity retain large portions of forested upland, with the dwellings typically located along the beach frontage. The residential lots in the vicinity are relatively large, compared to the lots to the northwest and farther west. The properties adjacent to the east and west are developed residentially, and the property to the north on the north side of Indian Neck Road is vacant undeveloped land. Although the lots are non-conforming, the proposed residential subdivision is consistent with surrounding uses. Rushin/Motley Subdivision ~ Peconic EAF Part I Review NP&V #00144 The site is zoned R-80 Residential, which requires a minimum lot size of 80,000 SF, or just slightly less than 2 acres. Maximum permitted lot coverage within the R-80 zoning district is equivalent to 20% of the lot area, with a livable floor area of 850 s.f. per dwelling unit. As previously stated, the proposed subdivision requires several dimensional requirement variances, which were granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the above listed conditions. Under existing conditions, the development on site is also non-conforming. As the area variances are not a result of additional development, the approval of such variances is not expected to have a significant impact on the land use and zoning in the vicinity. The surrounding areas contain a mix of zoning classifications, with the site and surrounding properties zoned R-80 Residential. R-80 zoning also extends to the north side of Richmond Creek, located north and northeast of the subject property. R-40 zoning is located further west, generally beginning on the east side of Robinson Lane. Land use in the general area is predominantly residential, and appears to reflect current zoning regulations. In summary, with respect to land use, the proposed subdivision of land will not create and additional dwellings, as the development on site will remain as under existing conditions. Subdivision of the property will allow family members to enjoy the benefits of individual ownership. The site is similar to the developments in the surrounding area and is an allowable use within the R-80 zoning district. Furthermore, the Town Planning Board has required that, as part of the sketch subdivision approval, Covenants and Restrictions be filed stating that if separate driveways are created in the future, both shall access Indian Neck Road via a common curb cut. The land use and zoning impacts of the proposed project are expected to be minimal. Traffic Generation The proposed action would not be expected to increase traffic generation, as the site and use will remain as under existing conditions. As noted above, if separate driveways are created in the future, a common curb cut will be provided. Due to this, it is not expected that approval of the proposed subdivision will result in a perceivable difference as compared to existing conditions. Soils and Topography The majority of the site is relatively flat, with all existing slopes between approximately 0-10%. However, there are relatively steep slopes associated with a small bluff along the beach. This area rises in elevation from approximately 10' to 20', as indicated on the USGS topographic map. A functional bulkhead exists at the base of the bluff, and is double tiered; the bluff face is vegetated and does not show signs of severe erosion. The property does not contain any additional significant landforms or geological features. Page 3 Rushin/Motley Subdivision ~ Peconic EAF Part I Review NP&V #00144 The soil survey identifies the subject site as lying within an area characterized solely by Carver and Plymouth Sands, 0-3% slopes (CPA). A specific description of the soil found on-site is as follows (Warner et al., 1975): Carver and Plymouth sands, 0-3% slopes (CPA) - These soils are generally on outwash plains and consist of deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils; however, they are also on some flatter hilltops and intervening draws on moraines. The hazard of erosion is slight with a naturally low fertility, and is considered droughty. The Carver series is described within the Suffolk County Soil Survey as deep, excessively drained course-textured soil. The topography and soils on site do not appear to present severe development constraints. However, as no additional development is planned at this time, no impacts are expected. Wetlands As previously stated, the site has beach frontage on Hogs Neck Bay, and contains tidal wetlands as regulated by the NYSDEC under Article 25 of the ECL. Site specifically, the NYSDEC has jurisdiction on those activities that occur seaward of the top of the bank, as shown on the minor subdivision map. Additionally, it should be noted that if the existing functional bulkhead has been in existence since August 20th, 1977, the jurisdictional limit of the NYSDEC would occur at the seaward edge of the bulkhead. Any subdivision of land requires a permit under Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands Act), and therefore, even though no disturbance or construction will occur on the property, the applicant would be required to obtain a tidal wetland permit from the NYSDEC in order to allow for the subdivision of the parcel. However, the continuation of a lawfully existing use, where as such continuance does not involve expansion or significant alternation of the existing use does not require a permit. Based on this, it is recommended that the applicant submit a "non-jurisdiction" request to the NYSDEC to allow for the subdivision of land, as no additional development will occur at this time. Water Resources Public water is supplied to the general area by the Suffolk County Water Authority, although the site itself is not specifically connected to public water. There is an 8" water main along the north side of Main Road, which terminates at South Manor Road, located northeast of the site. The 8" main extends to the south along the east side of South Manor Road, although it terminates at the connection with Grange Road to the east. The nearest wellfield is the Mill Land Well Field & Pump Station, located approximately 8,500 feet to the north, northwest of the site. It is estimated that the proposed project will utilize approximately 600 gallons of water per day as under existing conditions. Each structure is currently expected to be connected to the on-site well. Sanitary disposal within the proposed subdivision will be managed by conventional on-site septic tank-leaching pool systems. In 1978, the Long Island Regional Planning Board published The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Study). The 208 Study identified eight (8) hydrogeologic zones in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. These zones were distinguished based upon differences in underlying groundwater flow patterns and water quality. Page 4 Rushin/Motley Subdivision ~ Peconic EAF Part 1 Review NP&V #00144 The subject site is located within SCDHS Groundwater Management Zone VI, which according to Article VI of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, has an allowable flow of 600 gallons per day (gpd) per acre in areas served by public water. Therefore, the allowable nitrogen bearing flow for the site is 2,053 gpd. The sanitary design flow is computed using SCDHS manual Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction .for Sewage Disposal Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences. Thc manual establishes the design flow as follows: Single family dwelling 300 gpd x 2 dwellings 600 gpd Therefore, the proposed residential subdivision would conform with Article VI of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and would not be expected to adversely affect groundwater quality provided properly functioning systems are designed and installed. The elevation of groundwater beneath the subject site is estimated at 3 feet above mean sea level (msl) according to the 1997 SCDHS water table map. The topographic elevation on site ranges from approximately 10-20 feet above msl, based on the USGS Topographic Map. Therefore, the minimum depth to groundwater is approximately 7 feet. This is somewhat consistent with an on site test hole, indicating a depth to groundwater of approximately 11 feet; however, the minor subdivision map does not indicate the location of the test hole on the property. The direction of groundwater flow is towards the southeast. The depth to groundwater on site is not expected to have significant constraints on the location of septic systems on the parcel. SUMMARY In conclusion, approval of thc proposed subdivision would not be expected to significantly impact the site and/or cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. As additional development is not planned at this time, the site and use will remain as under existing conditions, which typically conform to the character of the area. The site does not appear to contain significant environmental features that would limit the residential subdivision or the existing use. The proposed project will not increase wastewater generation, garbage generation, traffic or water use. The Planning Board has recommended that covenants and restrictions be placed on the property stating that if separate driveways are created in the future, both shall access Indian Neck Road via a common curb cut. Once this is addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, a Negative Declaration may be appropriate. Page 5 i4 16.2 /2,87)--7t 61.7.21 SEQR Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full CAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine. *n an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant *s not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subleative or unmeasureabte It is aIso understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the enwronment or may be technically expert m environmental analysis In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full CAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agen¢,es can be assured that the determination process has been orderty, comprehensive in nature, yet flex~bie to allow introduction of informer,on to f~t a prelect or action Full IEAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site ay identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 artd 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that mavoc(:ur from a project or action It provides guidance as to whether an ~mpact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether ~t is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mmgated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentiallydarge, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type 1 and UnListed Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ~ Part 1 [] Part 2 E3Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 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 by 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 environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [] 13. Although the project could have a signif'icant 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 COND TONED negative declarahon will be prepared.' [] C. The proiect may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will he prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Ay, ency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer ,n Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in [.cad Agm~cy Signature of I~reparer(If different from responsible officer) Date 1 'aART 1--PROJECT INFORM/ N 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, Parts A through E. Answers to these quest~onswill be considered ¢~spartoftheappIicat~nforapprovalandmaYbesub~ecttofurtherverificationandpublicrewew Provide anyadditiona: information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF witl be dependent on. information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation If information requ~rin~ such additional work ~s unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance NAME OF ACTION NAME OF OWNER (11 different) ADDRESS CITY/PO i STATE I ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION STATE ZIP CODE /¢/ 11¢7/ BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undevelopedareas. 1. Present land use: FIUrban C]lndustrial [Z]Commercial L~,._esidential (suburban) E]Rural non-farm) I-IForest ClAgricplture CIO?her 2. Total acreage of project area: !,-~ ¢'~ acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) .,~ff~.. / ~.x~ ~)~ acres ~ O acres Forested acres -~' ~"~"/~ acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) O acres ~) acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECl.) .,~-¢t2,~)~ acres .~'~ acres Water Surface Area ~ acres O acres Unvegetated (Rock. earth or fill) ~.t ~,/5'"'-.acres _~' ~o/,5"" acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces ~t'¢¢,~ acres ~ acres Other (Indicate type) ~/U~ ,~e_ ~ acres ' ~ acres 3. What is predominant soll type(s) on project sit(2? 1~ ~,~,¢ ~,~, · a. Soil drainage: I]~ell drained J~O % of ~ite EJModeratcly well drained % of site ~JPoorl,,' drained % (d sit(: b. If any agricuhural land is revolved, how many acres of so.I are classiik.d within soil group 1 tl~rough 4 of the NYS Land Classification Systemt /s//.~ acres (See 1 NYCRR 370) ' 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? LqYes ..~. What is depth to bedrock? . (in feet) 2 015% eater listed on the State or the National 6 Is project substantially cont~L;uous to, orco.91~co din a buil(hng, sds', or Registers of Historic Places? [~Yes J~No C7.-Is project substantially conUguous to a s~te listed on tile Re~tster of National Natural Landmarks~ [Yes {]~o 8. What is the depth of the water table? j/' (in feet) ~--- *'~1"'- ~-JI- ~ over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~j~Yes C~o 9. Is site located 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportumties presently exist in the prelect area? ~Yes [~o 11. Does project sitec~,t~co rain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened o~ endangered? []Yes [2~No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any uniq,2~or unusual land forms on the prelect site? (ie., cliffs, dunes, other geological formauons) EYes L~No Describe 13. Is the project sit~gresently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? []Yes UNo If yes, explain 14. Does the present s~e include scenic views known to be ~mportant to the community? L~No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes. ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name /~J~ e /V'~'"~/~_._ ~ ,,~ b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ,J~Yes ~o' a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? b) I[ Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? E3Yes ~No ~Yes [E]No 18. Is the site located in an agricultura d/istrict certified pursuant .to Agriculture and Markets Law. Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? E]Yes ~iqo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous~k~ a Critical Enviromnenta[ Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 C]Yes 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wast'~?. ~Yes C B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of proiect (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Tota! contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor /~"~°/I/~acres b, Proiect. acreage to be developed: ~'J~ acres initially; ~'/~ acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain ur,developed ~/'~ acres d. Length of project, in miles: ~/~ (il appropriate) e. I[ the project is an expansion, indicate per(~'nt el expansmn proposed ~/~ %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existim[ ~-- proposed -- g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ~ (upon comphttion h. If res,dential: Number and Wpe of housinl: units: OnJ~l-amily Tw~ I:amdy Multiple J'allliJy Condominium Ultimately j. Linear Jeer ot [[ontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy '3. Will disturbed area~ be reclau [3Yes [~o [~N/A b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for rec[amation~ [3Yes [3No - - c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [~Yes [3No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site~ /~/O/'~.~ acres S. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or Other locally-important vr'getat~on be removed by this project? [3Yes [~o 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: a Total number of phases anticipated__ /V'//~- /number) b Anticipated date of Commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? · [~Yes 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction __ 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project ~///~f . 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or faci ties? tons/cubic yards _ months. (including demolition) __ month year, (including demol tion). month year. [~]Yes E3No ; after project is complete [3Yes []~o If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [3Yes 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 nvolved~ [~Yes Type ~/~, ~7~Y 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? [~]Yes Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year,f, lood plain? ,J~Yes 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~Yes [~o~) a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? I-lyes [3No c. If yes, give name __; Ioca~'b~ d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain ~Yes [~No 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes. what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? __ 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? [gYes tons/month, 19. Will project routinely prdduce odors (olore than one hour per day}? [3Yes ~ 20. Will project produce operatini~ noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? [~Yes 21, Will project result in an increase in mmrgy t~e? [gYes ~ If yes , indicate type(s) 22. I[ water supply is from w.lk. indicate ~umpmg cap,,~ ity ~ g,dlons/n~mute. 23. Total anticipated water usagu per day .~ ~ gallons/day ~1~) 24. Does prolect involve Local. State or Federal lundim:? ~Yes ~ If Yes, explain 4 C City, Town, V,Ilage Board I~es [~o City, Town, Vitlage Planning Board E~es City, Town Zoning Board ii'es ~]No City, County Health Department [~es Other Local Agencies [~Yes [No Other Regional Agencies J~Yes State Agencies [~Yes Federal Agencies [Yes Dale #r, L C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? J~es [~No . If Yes, indicate decision required: [zoning amendment [~zoning variance C]speciaJ use permit s~ub~ivision J~]site plan [~]new/revision of master pIan J~]resource management plan [~]other 2. YVhat is the zoning classification(s)of the site? /'~ ~O 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? ~ 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? //o, 2 " 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? s [~N~ 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ¼ mile radius of proposed a~t~on? 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ~ mile? {~es lIN( 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? /',~z~'z~e' ~ /,~:7 ~_~,~ 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of",~e~:ver or water districts? ~lyes ~'( 11. Will the proposed action create a/demand for any Community provided services (recreation, education, police fire protection)? ~Yes [~Io a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~Yes ~No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significant!y above present levels? a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ~Yes ENo D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to cladfy your project. If there are or may be any advers( impacts associated with your proposal, ple;~se dis(uss sudl impacts and II~e measures which you propose to mitigate avoid them. E. Verifiealion I certify Signature If Ihe action is in Ihe CoaslaJ Area, and you'are a slale agency, c~m~plele the Coaslal Assessment Form beJore proceeding wilh Ibis assessment. ResponsihilHy pt Lead Agency General Information (Read Ca~ef '~ In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: ktnve my responses and determinations been reasonable.~ The reviewer ~s not expected to be an expert environmental analyst "- Identifyin8 that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. · ~ny large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine sigmficance. ]dentif,/in8 an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further · The E×amples provided are to assist the rewewer by showing types of ~mDacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude t.hat 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 examples and/or lower [hresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3 · The impacts of each project, on each site, in each Iocaliy. will vary Therefore. the examples are illustrat'ive and have been offered as guidance They do not constitute an exhaustive list of ~mDactsand thresholds toans~ver each question. · The number of examples per question does not indicate the ~mportance 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 will 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 I or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example 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 potentialis, large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated b~, change(s) in the prolec[ to a small to modera[e impact, also cheek the Yes box tn column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Gan Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Ohange [] [] E3Yes [-INo [] [] []Yes E~No L-] [] ~]Yes E]No [] [] E]Yes []No [] [] J~]Yes []No [] ~ ~yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the proiect site? ~NO []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 generally within .3 feet of existing ground surface. · Construction that wiJJ-c'ontinue for more than I year or involw~ more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes dlat would remove more than 1,O00 tons of natural material (i.e., [ocl~ or soil) per ye,ir. ' Construction or expansion of a sanitary I.Jndfill. · Conslruction in a designated floodway. · Other imp;icts Ihe site? (i.e., clifl's, dunes, geolol¢ical formations, etc )IIINO L]YES "Specific land forms: ,t. Will proposed action affect any water body desil;nnted as protecled? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, I~CL) ~]YES E×amples that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected water body · Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream, · Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body · Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wet[and · Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action'affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? BNO [~YES I~xamples that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area o[ any body of water or more than a 'JO acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impacts: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? J~NO 'YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source o[ water that does not have approval to serve proposed {project) action, · Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. · Construction or operation causing any contamination of a wa[er supply system. · Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed 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 extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural condit, ions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in' nreas wilbout water and/or sewer services. · Proposed Action locates commercial and/or in(h~strial uses which may facilities. · Oilier impacts: L. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patlerns, or %urface 6. water runoff? ~NO OYES Examples [hat would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would change flood 'water flows. ~' 7 1 2 3 ~ ~mall to Potemial Can Impact Bt Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Chang~ [] [] [~Yes E]No [] [] E~]Yes J~No [] [] ~Yes E]No [] ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Y~s ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Y~s ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Y~s. ~No ~ ~ ~Y~s ~No ~ ~ ~Y~ ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes · ·Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. · Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ** Proposed Action will allow development in a designated · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7 Will proposed action affect air quality~ ~NQ ~3YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than I ton of refuse per hour. · Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 tbs, per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. ' Proposed action will allow 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 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? I~NO C3YES 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 portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. · Other impacts:. 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non*endangered species? I~NO I-WES E~ample[ tbat would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of more d~an 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important Vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will /he Proposed Action a[fect agricullural land resources? lINC C]YES [xamples Ihat would al)ply to column 2 · Tile proposed actirm would sever, cross ~r limit access Io agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 1 2 IO,~aH to 3 Potential Can Impact Be R~oderat( Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Proiect Change [] [] ~]Yes E]No ~] [] [~Yes ~]No [] [] E~Yes ~]No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No · Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural [and or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land · The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g, subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need 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? ~INO OYES (if necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 61721, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. · Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. · Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. · Other impacts: II, PACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ~INO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the proiect site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory · Other impacts: C IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION lJ. Will Proposed Action affect the quanhty or quality of ex:~ling or Examples (hat would apply to column 2 IJJNo · The perman(mt foreclosure of a [uture recreational Opl~ortunity .· A major reduction of an open space importan! [o the community · Other impacts: 1 to Moderate Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Large Mitigated By Impact Project Change [] []Yes •NO 0 OYes []No [] []]]Yes ON• L~ []Yes [~No ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~Ye~. ~No ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~Yes ~No IMPACT ON INSPORTATION 14 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems,' Examples that would apply to column 2 OYES · Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods · Proposed Action wilJ result in maior traffic problems · Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY 15 will proposed action affect the community's sources of Cuel or energy supply? ~0 ~]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 supply system to serve more than .50 single or two famdv residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. · Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? - IINO []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1,500 feet of a ~ospital, school or other sensitive facility. · Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day) · Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? I~NO QYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may~cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the (!vent of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action may result 'in the burial of "hazardous was. res" in any form {i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) · Storage facilities for one million or more galluns of liqudied natural gas or other flammable liquids. svilhm 2.000 feet of a site used [or the disposal (~f sohd or ha/.~rdou~ · Otb¢!t impacts: 10 ~m~- 2 3 alt to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] E]Yes E]No [] [] []Yes E~]No ~ [] [~Yes []No g ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Ves ~No g ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ g ~Zes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Y(:s gNo IMPACT ON GR(~"H AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect tlle character of the existing community? C Examples that would apply to column 2 E]YES · The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% · The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project · Proposed action will conflict with' officially adopted plans or goals · Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use · Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community · Development will create a demand for additional commumty services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.] · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future protects · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. · Other impacts:_ ~l~m 1 2 3 all to Polential Can Impact B* Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Chang, [] [] []Yes ~]No [] [] [~Yes []No [~ [] [~Yes E]No [] ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No 19 Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? [~NO ~.YES 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 Responsibilily of Lead Agency · Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered Io be pot~ltially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitlgaled. Instrucllons Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe(if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or'reduced to ;t small to modt~rate impact by p~oiect change(s), 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable lo com-h~de that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurrinl: · The duration of the impact ' Its irreversibility, includim; permanently lost r~'~otlrc(,s · Whether Ihe impact can or will be conlrolled · The regional conscquenre of tit(! impa¢:t 11 DEPARTMENT Of PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT d. GAFf NEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECLmVE June 21, 2000 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Tax Map No.: SCPD File No.: Mottley & Rushin 1000-86-7-05 S-SD-00-04 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Pursuant to the requirements of Section A14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above captioned proposed final plat which has been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Sincerely, Stephen M. Jones, AICP Director of Planning Principal Planner APF:cc G:~CCHORN~SUBDI~LD2COO~JUN~DEX%4MAY $outhold Town Planning Board LOCA~ION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. ~ 4TH FLOOR · P. O. BOX 6 I O0 · (5 I 6) B53-5 IgO I O0 VEI~RANB MEMORIAL hIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY I I 7BB~)Og9 TELECOPIER (5 I 6) 853-4044 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Phone: (516) 444-0365 · FAX: (516) 444-0360 Website: www.dec.state.ny.us SEQR COORDINATION RESPONSE June 1, 20000 John P. Cahill Planning Board Office Town of Southold Town Hall, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attn: Me!issa Spiro Re: Facility # 1-4738-01769 Rushin/Motley Subdivision, 6850 Indian Neck Ln., Peconic SCTM# 100-86-7-5 Dear Ms. Spiro; An initial review by Department staff indicates that the NYSDEC is an involved agency as defined in S EQR (6 NYCRR Part 617) due to Article 25 Tidal Wetlands jurisdiction. However, as of this writing, no application has been received by DEC; Please be advised the DEC has no objection your agency or another agency assuming lead agency for this action as the anticipated impacts are primarily of local significance. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (516) 444-0403 for further information or discussion. Sincerely; Kevin Kispert Environmental Analyst I cc: P. Moore, Esq. JUN 0 5 2O00 Southold Town Planning Board C~'s~¥£o~& PLANNING BOARD MEMBER~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman VfILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICH~RD CAGGIANO Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ,20o0 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 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest 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 Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Q~¢~-o~ ~ "~u~.~[~/ J'~d~¥\<v SCW~ = Requested Action: ~J_~-o~' '. o~ to-~ o~ .~.H I:z~ o.¢¢~s. Two SEQRA Classification: () Type I (~) Unlisted 1516) 765-1938~ Page 2 Lead Agency Coordination Request The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (ELS) 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. Planning Board Position: (~) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. ( ) Other (see comments below) Comments: Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Sincerely, ~-~ .// Bennett Orlowski, Jr. // ~ Chairman Y Board of Appeals Board of Trustees'4 Southold Town Board Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYSDEC - Stony Brook*' NYSDEC - Albany ~' S,~,, .... r,,,,..~ .... ,,,~,,, Dernart_m.3nt.,,A~ n., ,~,,,,,-'"~;~ ,A,__,._ ......... · ...... ~ G ..... I'~'~' · I-~..I..,:-- *Maps are enclosed for your review rev. 4/94 PLANNING BOARD MEMBER~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RiC!LARD CAGG iB~NO Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 2000 Suffolk County Planning Commission 220 Rabro Ddve P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Attention: Andrew Freleng, Principal 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 Commission: Map of"~,~k~r~ I /~o~?\'~ y Hamlet/Locality S.C.D.P.W. Topo No.: Zoning '-~- S.C. Tax Map No.: 1000- ~, - 7 - 5 Major Sub. Micor Sub,/~ Site Plan Cluster Lot Line Change MATERIAL SUBMITTED: %4oo ~Plat (3 copies)/X Road Profiles (1)__ Drainage Plans (1).__ Topographical Map (1) Site Plan (1)__ Grading Plan (1) Other materials (specify and give number of copies) Waiver of Subdivision Requirements - See attached sheet Page 2 Southold Town Planning Board Referral Referral Criteria: SEQRASTATUS: 1. The project is an (~) Unlisted Action ( ) Type IAction ( ) Type II Action 2. A ( ) Negative Declaration ( ) Positive Declaration ( ) Determination 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 Suffolk County Department of Health. ( )Yes ( )No Comments: We request acknowledgement of receipt of this referral ( ( )No Referral received Commission and assigned File No. Since~ely, /~ /] Bennett Orlowski, Jr. [/ /t~ f Chairman [/ 7- ) Yes 2000 by the Suffolk County Planning rev. 6/94 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERO BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILL1AM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGG1ANO Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 May 23, 2000 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Mr. Charles Voorhis Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 Re: Review of EAF for Rushin/Motley SCTM#1000-86-7-5 Dear Mr. Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Environmental Assessment Form for the above-mentioned subdivision to your office for review. Also enclosed are: 1. Map dated April 19, 2000; 2. Planning Board resolution dated May 23, 2000; and 3. July 28, 1999 ZBA decision. The Planning Board started the lead agency coordination process on May 22, 2000. The $400. review fee has been submitted by the applicant. If all is in order, the Board will make their SEQRA determination at the July 10, 2000 public meeting. Please submit your report no later than June 26, 2000 in order for the Board to review it before the meeting date. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. Please contact this office if there are any questions regarding the above. Melissa Spiro Senior Planner enc. P~N~I?G BOARD MEMBEI BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGIANO PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 May 23, 2000 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re~ Proposed Set Off for Rushin/Motley SCTM#1000-86-7-5 Dear Ms. Moore: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, May 22, 2000: WHEREAS, the proposed set off is for 2 lots on 3.4218 acres; and WHEREAS, there are 2 existing dwellings located on the property; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 1999, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted area variances with respect to lot lines, lot size and setbacks of existing buildings subject to 3 conditions; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map dated April 19, 2000 with the following condition: 1. There is one existing driveway and curb cut providing access to the two existing dwellings. If separate driveways are created in the future, both driveways shall access Indian Neck Road via a common curb cut. This restriction shall be noted in a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this unlisted action. Rushin/Motley - Pa.qe Two - 5~23~00 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. The final maps, six (6) paper prints and two (2) mylars, must contain a current stamp of Health Department approval and must be submitted before a final public hearing will be set. The sketch plans have been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for review. The Planning Board may require additional covenants and restrictions upon review of the reports and review of the final map. You will be notified if any additional covenants and restrictions are required. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman II~ItATI=IlClA C. MOOFII~ 51020 MAIN FIOAO, MAY 17 2000 Southold Town Planning Board Submission Without a Cover Letter SCTM#: 1000- ~ -- ~-- ~ Comments: APR ~ 5 2000 $outh~ld Plannino APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Homing BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 REPLY MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Planning Board Attn: Melissa Spiro, Sr. Planner Jerry Goehringer, Chairman April 3, 2000 Your March 29, 2000 Inquiry- 1000-86-7-5 (Rushin-Motley) In reply to your inquiry, please be advised that the map does not reflect the screening or other changes under the issuance of the variance. It is suggested that the Planning Board either request that the owner add the Conditions on the subdivision map before final approval is issued or the final maps signed, or alternatively the owner may apply for a building permit and certificate of occupancy for the building alteration, before the map is signed. Thank you for coordinating this review. Southotd Tow~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBEI~ BENNETT ORLOWSK/, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Members Zoning Board of Appeals Melissa Spiro, Senior Planner Proposed Subdivision for Rushin/Motley SCTM# 1000-86-7-5 March 29, 2000 The Planning Board has received a subdivision application for the above mentioned parcel. Please review the attached map, dated March 10, 2000, and advise whether or not it is in conformance with the ZBA's July 28, 1999, determination Thank you in advance for your assistance. Encl. PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (516) 765-4330 Fax: (516) 765-4643 March 13, 2000 M~g~etRu~owsM Sec~ta~ Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Rushin/Motley SCTM #1000-86-07-05 Proposed set-off Dear Chairman Orlowski; Enclosed please application for set-off together with $250 application fee and 6 maps showing the proposed division line for a two lot subdivision of the above referenced property. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted permission to create the two lots, we are returning to your Board to complete the subdivision application. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Very t~y~ yours, ~atricia C. Moore cc: Patricia Rushin Pamela Mottley I AR 1 a 2000 Southold Town Planning Board ~PPEAI~S BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. ~ti Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Homing BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hail 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 August 5, 1999 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appl. No. 4662 - Rushin and Motley (Variances) Dear Mrs. Moore: Enclosed please find a copy of the Appeals Board's determination, with conditions, rendered July 28, 1999. We provided the Building Department with a copy today for their permanent records and processing as may be needed. Please be sure to follow-up with the Planning Board regarding this project. Very truly yours, Enclosure Copy of Decision to: Building Department~- ~Planning Board ~ Ex~ra Copy to P. Moore by Fax Decision filed 8J5 Linda Kowalski AU6 0 6 1999 Southold Town Planning Board 'APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 28, 1999 Appl. No. 4662 - Patricia Rushin and Pamela Motley PARCEL 1000-86-7-5 STREET & LOCALITY: 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: March 25, 1999 and June 24, 1999 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located along the south side of Indian Neck Road, Peconic and consists of approximately 3.4 acres. A site plan map was submitted to the Building Inspector dated August 1998, prepared by Brennan and Brennan, Architects (Project #9707001) showing an existing two-story single-family dwelling, an accessory single-family one-story house, accessory barn and two small accessory structures (gazebo and wood deck) located near the bulkheads. Later, on May 6, 1999, a July 1998 plan was also submitted for consideration which shows landscaping elements for both proposed Parcels A and B. Proposed by applicants is a division of the entire 3.4+- acres into two substandard parcels: (a) Parcel A proposed at 67,451 sq. ft. in area inclusive of the 1,732 sq. ft. beach area, 82 feet in nonconforming lot width, nonconforming side yards of the principal dwelling at 1.2 feet and 11.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 13.10 feet; (b) Parcel B proposed at 81,771 sq. ft. including the 851 sq. ft. of beach area, 77 ft. lot width, proposed nonconforming side yards at 10 feet and 16.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 26.9 feet. For the record it is noted that a Certificate of Occupancy for the Nonconforming Premises (as exists on this 3.43+- acre parcel was issued February 6, 1986 for: a one-story one-family wood framed dwelling, a guest cottage, accessory building containing a work shop, two-car garage and a carport, wood-framed shed, a bath house and metal building. (No building permits have been found of record since prior to 1961.) BASIS OF APPEAL: The Building Inspector's December 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval in this pending subdivision project with respect to: (a) Insufficient lot width for each proposed Parcel A and B, for one single-family dwelling use on each Parcel; (b) Insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel A; (c) Insufficient side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B; (d) Insufficient total side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B. (e) Proposed Parcel B - with "no safe and convenient access". (0 Bathhouse structure on Parcel A. Page 2 - July 28, 1999 t ZBA Appl. No. 4662: Motley & Ri3~'hin 1000-86-7-5 No other relief is being requested and this determination is limited as written herein, and based upon the October 26, 1998 application for a Building Permit and the December 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Department. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants are requesting variances for the following regarding the proposed subdivision of their 3.43+- acre parcel: (a) Parcel A proposed at 67,451 sq. ft. in area inclusive of the 1,732 sq. ft. beach area and 82 feet in nonconforming lot width; (b) Parcel A with proposed nonconforming side yards from the new division line, leaving setbacks from the principal dwelling at 1.2 feet and 11.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 13.10 (c) Parcel B proposed at 81,771 sq. ft. including 851 sq. ft. of beach area, 77 ft. lot width, (d) Parcel B proposed nonconforming side yards from the new division line, leaving setbacks from the main building at 10 feet and 16.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 26.9 feet. (e) Parcel A location of an existing accessory building, located 1+- ft. from the new division line. This building is noted on the August 1998 site plan as a "gazebo" located with insufficient setbacks from the new side property line and from the bulkhead. The building does not contain sleeping or living quarters, and its use will remain the same. OTHER INFORMATION: The Board notes that with respect to both lots, both lots have direct frontage on a public road. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: (1) The granting of the alternative area vadance will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because there will no longer be more than one dwelling on each lot, thereby eliminating a noqconformity use. Each of the two parcels as proposed will not contain more than one single-family dwelling. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because there is no other land area available and it would be costly to relocate the buildings and access ddve. (3) The requested area variances are substantial in relation to the code requirement. (4) No evidence has been submitted TO show that the grant of the requested variances will have an adverse effect or 'impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. (5) The alleged difficulty has not been self-created because it is related directly to the layout of the land and location of the buildings. P~ge~- - .luly 28, 1999 ZBA Appl. No. 4662: Plotley & 1000-86-7-$ In considering this application, the Board deems this action to be the minimum necessary to enable the family members (applicants) to enjoy the benefit of separate ownership of land, while adequately preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, welfare of the community. RESO~CTION: On motion by Member Dinizio, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the area variances with respect to lot lines, lot size and setbacks of existing buildings, as requested, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the door and steps on the west side (shown on the plan) would be removed from the design; 2. That the screening be consistent with the recommendations of the architect for a distance of 100 feet, extending northerly from a point commencing at the front of new construction on Parcel B. 3. That the screening be continuously maintained in good condition at all times. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS GOEHRINGER, DINIZIO, TORTORA, COLLINS. (Member Horning of Fishers Island was absent.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). 1AMES//DINIZIO, JR. / " CHAIRMAN PRO TEM For Filing about 8/5/99 BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TO: FROM: RE: PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Members Orlowski, Jr., Chairman<~ Bennett Patricla Rushin & Pamela Mottley Appl. No. 4662 SCTM# 1000-86-7-5 DATE: March 11, 1999 The Planning Board reviewed the above mentioned request for Variances at the March 8, 1999, work session. Please find the Planning Board's comments below. The subject property is located in the R-80 Zoning District. As per the December 10, 1998, Notice of Disapproval, variances are required for lot width, side yard and area for one or both of the proposed parcels. The Planning Board is not in favor of the creation of lots which do not meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning District. The February 6, 1986, Certificate of Occupancy for the property certifies that the property contains "a one story, one family wood framed dwelling; a guest cottage; an accessory building containing a work shop, two car garage & a carport. Property also contains a wood framed shed; a bath house; and an accessory metal shell building." The existing use of the property is considered a non-conforming use. The Planning Board is in favor of allowing the existing non-conforming use to continue in accordance with Article XXIV (Nonconforming Uses and Buildings) of the Town Code. The Planning Board is not in favor of allowing a subdivision of the property which will create other non-conformities in regard to lot area, width and set-back and which will allow the potential expansion of the structure, which currently has a Certificate of Occupancy for a guest cottage, to be expanded to a year-round home. In addition, please note that the Planning Board has not received a subdivision application for the subject property. Please feel free to contact me, or Melissa, ff you require any additional information in regard to the above. of NOT[CE OF PUBI..[C HEAR[NGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1999 ~;.n, ng Board NOTICE IS HEREBY GfVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town 6:30 p.m. Appl. request for a Artide III, Section Department's the following applications will held for public hearings by the $OUTHOLD TOWN at ,53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on noted below (or as soon thereafter as possible): 4652 This is a with regard to the Southold Town Zoning Code, Accessory Buildings and Structures, for an answer to the Building lnd intended to be for vehicular use - a that can be construed to be a customary structure or use that is customarily to the principal use?" 6:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4662 - PATR~ZA RUSH:~N & PAMELA I~IOTTLEY. This is a request for Variances under Article I][, Sections 100-32, 100-33, and Section 100-235A(2) based upon a Notice of Disapproval issued December 10, 1998 in this pending subdivision project, as follows: (a) Insufficient lot width for each proposed Parcel A and B, for one single-family dwelling use on each Parcel; (b) Insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel A; (c) Insuffident side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B; (d) Insuffident total side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B. (e) Proposed Parcel B - with "no safe and convenient access". (f) Accessory building on Parcel A (reference noted in the Disapproval). Page 2 - Legal Notice (Headngs)~ Regular Meeting of March 25, 1~ Southold Town Board of&ope, als Location of Property: (containing 3.43+- acres). 6:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4655 - ary 23, 1999). lin Road, Ori~ 7:00 p.m. Appl. Franken). This is a request establish a new Retail Gas Greenport, NY; 7:10 p.m. Appl. Nos. under the 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-86-7-5 :, NY. :UEL CO. (Continuation from Febru- Vendee (Owner: Wilhelm a Special Exception under Article XX, Section 100-10:LB-12 to nience Store. Location of Property: 74495 Main Road, Map No.'~0-45-4-4.! (or 4). 7 and 4670 - 3OHN and LUCTA STCA. A Variance is requested Zoning Code, Artide~V, Section 100-244B and Article XXI][I, Section 100-239.4B for permis~on to locate proposed dwelling with setbacks at less than 75 feet from the existing bulkhead a~d less than 40 feet from the front property line (facing private right-of- way). Location of Property: Private right-of-way extending off' the south side of Main Road (S.R. 25), East Madon, NY; Parcel 1000-31-14-9. 7:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4663 - DR. FRANK AND 3EAN MIRCHEL This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based upon a Notice of Disapproval issued 3anuary 27, 1999 for approval of the setback location of an "as built" addition to dwelling located at 2485 Yennecott Drive, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-55-4-16; also referred to as Lot 20 on the Subdivision Map of Alonzo 3ersey. 7:25 p.m. Appl. No. 4664 - ROBERT LUSTGARTEN (30~_nh Tavanno. Contract Vendee3. This is a request for a Variance under Artide XX~V, Section 100-244B, based upon a Notice of Disapproval issued 3anuary 19, 1999 to construct new dwelling, after demolishing existing dwelling, which building area will exceed the 20% code limitation for total lot coverage of all CUKOR 25. 47' 00'~ E VARANO 546.76' .N, y Ti~.2 2 STOCKADE FENCE CMF )ST & RAIL FR, GRAVE x CMF '"21 14..0,o 42'-4" POST OTHERS RAIL FENCE ON LINE LIMIT OF DEC. ADJACENT AREA (.D 7 0 I"1 LIMIT OF,TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I (" irl~l~TEirS; JURISDICTION . ~. REAR Y/~D, SETBACK "85 F~ - ,' 'W' , , ,'":'] , '{ ,:" ? ~.:,,'.-- ' , ; '~:.~ - '%~ " "t" ~ "~.~ 2'~-:~'"';.' -"~' '" ' '" ~ ' ~ -', .... RESJDENCff . ,'Indian Neck Rood'* P~conic, NY .~:~ . ,./. - , . ~ r':' ~¢- . . ~ ,~ , ~-. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Homing BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEe~ lNG OF JULY 28, 1999 Appl. NO. 4662 - Patricia Rushin and Pamela Motley PARCEL 1000-86-7-5 STREET & LOCALITY: 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: March 25, 1999 and June 24, 1999 FINDINGS OF FAC3- PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located along the south side of Indian Neck Road, Peconic and consists of approximately 3.4 acres. A site plan map was submitted to the Building Inspector dated August 1998, prepared by Brennan and Brennan, Architects (Project #9707001) showing an existing two-story single-family dwelling, an accessory single-family one-story house, accessory barn and two small accessory structures (gazebo and wood deck) located near the bulkheads. Later, on May 6, 1999, a .luly 1998 plan was also submitted for consideration which shows landscaping elements for both proposed Parcels A and B. Proposed by applicants is a division of the entire 3.4+- acres into two substandard parcels: (a) Parcel A proposed at 67,451 sq. ft. in area inclusive of the 1,732 sq. ft. beach area, 82 feet in nonconforming lot width, nonconforming side yards of the principal dwelling at '1.2 feet and 11.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 13.10 feet; (b) Parcel B proposed at 81,771 sq. ft. including the 851 sq. ft. of beach area, 77 lt. lot width, proposed nonconforming side yards at 10 feet and 16,9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 26.9 feet. For the record it is noted that a Certificate of Occupancy for the Nonconforming Premises (as exists on this 3.43+- acre parcel was issued February 6, 1986 for: a one-story one-family wood framed dwelling, a guest cottage, accessory building containing a work shop, two-car garage and a carport, wood-framed shed, a bath house and metal building. (No building permits have been found of record since prior to 1961.) BASIS OF APPEAL: The Building Inspector's December 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval in this pending subdivision project with respect to: (a) Insufficient lot width for each proposed Parcel A and B, for one single-family dwelling use on each Parcel; (b) Insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel A; (c) Insufficient side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B; (d) Insufficient t~al side yards for each proposed Parcel A and 8., (e) Proposed Parcel B - with 'no safe and convenient access". (f) Bathhouse structure on Parcel A. Page 2 - July 28, 1999 ZBA Appl. No. 4662: Motley &, Rushin i000-86-7-$ No other relief is being requested and this determination is limited as written herein, and based upon the October 26, 1998 application for a Building Permit and the December 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Department. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REOUESTED: Applicants are requesting variances for the following regarding the proposed subdivision of their 3.43+- acre parcel: (a) Parcel A proposed at 67,451 sq. ft. in area inclusive of the 1,732 sq. ft. beach area and 82 feet in nonconforming lot width; (b) Parcel A with proposed nonconforming side yards from the new division line, leaving setbacks from the principal dwelling at 1.2 feet and 11.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 13.10 feet; (c) Parcel B proposed at 81,771 sq. ft. including 851 sq. ft. of beach area, 77 ft. lot width, (d) Parcel B proposed nonconforming side yards from the new division line, leaving setbacks from the main building at 10 feet and 16.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 26.9 feet. (e) Parcel A location of an existing accessory building, located 1+- fl:. from the new division line. This building is noted on the August 1998 site plan as a "gazebo" located with insufficient setbacks from the new side property line and from the bulkhead. The building does not contain sleeping or living quarters, and its use will remain the same. OTHER INFORMATION: The Board notes that with respect to both lots, both lots have direct frontage on a public road. RF_.ASONS FOR BOARD ACTION. DESCRIBED BELOW: (1) The granting of the alternative area vadance will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because there will no longer be more than one dwelling on each lot, thereby eliminating a non~x:)nformity use. Each of the two parcels as proposed will not contain more than one single-family dwelling. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because there is no other land area available and it would be costly to relocate the buildings and access ddve. (3) The requested area variances are substantial in relation to the code requirement. (4) No evidence has been submitted to show that the grant of the requested variances will have an adverse effect or 'Impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. (5) The alleged difficulty has not been self-c;reated because it is related directly to the layout of the land and location of the buildings. Page~ - July 28, 1999 Z, BA Appl. No. 4662: Motley & Rusnin 100t) 86-7-S In considering this application, the Board deems this action to be the minimum necessary to enable the family members (applicants) to enjoy the benefit of separate ownership of land, while adequately preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Dinizio, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the area variances with respect to lot lines, lot size and setbacks of existing buildings, as requested, SUB]ECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the door and steps on the west side (shown on the plan) would be removed from the design; That the screening be consistent with the recommendations of the architect for a distance of 100 feet, extending northerly from a point commencing at the front of new construction on Parcel B. 3. That the screening be continuously maintained in good condition at all times. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS GOEHRINGER, DINIZIO, TORTORA, COLLINS. (Member Homing of Fishers Island was absent.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). JAME.~,/DINIZ~O, 3R. / CHAIRMAN PRO TEM For Filing about 8/5/99 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN I~Lt L L SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NONCONFORMING PREMISES THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the /Z/ Land Pre C.O. #- Z14212 /X/ Building(s) Date- Feb. 6,1986 /--/ Use(s) located at 6850 Indian Neck Road Peconic Street Hamlet shown on County tax map as District 1000, Section 086 , Block 07 Lot 005 , does~not)conform to the present Building Zone Code of the Town of Southold for the following reasons: Non-conforming guest cottage. Non-conforming accessory bu'ild- (3-buildings.) Non-conforming guest cottage in front yard. On the basis of information presented to the Building Inspector's Office, it has been determined that the above nonconforming /-X/Land /X~/Building(s) /_--/Use(s) ekisted on the effective date the present Building Zone Code of the Town of Southold, and may be continued pursuant to and subject to the appli- cable provisions of said Code.' IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that, based upon information presented to the Building Inspector's'Office,- the occupancy and use for which this Certifi- cate is issued is as follows: Property contains a one story, one family wood framed dwelling; a guest cottage; an accessory building contain- inq a work shop, two car garage & a carport. Property also contains a wood framed shed; a bath house;, and an accessory metal shell build- ing. All in an A-Residential-Agricultural Zone with access to Indian neck Road. The Certificate is issued to GUINAN~ ~ATRICIA (owner, l~x~K~ of the aforesaid building. Suffolk County Department of Health Approval N/R UNDERVq{ITEfiS CERTIFICATE NO. N/R NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the owner of the above premises H_iS NOT CONSENTED TO AN INSPECTION of the premises by the Building Inspec- tor to determine if the premises comply with al! applicable codes and ordin- ances, other than the Building Zone Code, and therefore, no such inspection has been conducted. This Certificate, therefore, does not, and is not intended to certify that the premises comply with all other applicable codes and regula- tions. Buiidin~ inspector PATRICIA C. MOORE At~rney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (516) 765-4330 r~"~%%~;~.<r/f~~ tnuary 5, Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Margaret RuCkowski 1999 Re: Patricia Rushin & Pamela Motley 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic Dear Chairman and Board members: Enclosed please find area variances for the subject property which are necessary in order to subdivide this parcel into two lots. The Special Exception application previously heard by this board will be withdrawn upon issuance of the variances. The subject property has been retained by the family, and will continue to be used without actual boundaries. The subdivision will enable the sisters to improve the second cottage to make it comfortable for their use and for estate planning. The existing parcel is oversized and contains two single family residences. The subdivision will eliminate a preexisting nonconforming condition, the area variances will not increase the degree of nonconformity since the structures are existing. cc: Patricia Rushin, & Pamela Mottley Mr. Brennan, Architect ....... , ,.,,L.~ ,-,~U~V~ I I-tk DECISION OF TFIE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO. October 26, 1998 , ' ........... DATED ....................... .......... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mo~iey by Patricia C. Moore Esq. Of Name glr Applicant for permit 51020 Main~ Road Southold, NY 11971 Street and Number Munlcl~llt¥ ........... : ...................................... ( ) PERMIT TO USE State ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( X} Area Variances 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peeonic R-80~-------'----- 7 ~ Street /lla.de~ ? Use Olstrl' :~ .................. District 1000 Section 86 Block Lot cr on Z;onlng Mop .................. · '" · ........ Curren~ Owner Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottley Map No. ~ Lot No. ~ Prior Owner. Patricia D. Guinan (mot_her) 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indlcote the Article Section, Sub- section and Porogroph gl~ fha Zoning Ordlnonce by number. Do not quole the Ordinance;) Article III Section 100-32, Article III- 33, Article XXIII, section 100-235 A2 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewiH~ for (please check appropriate box) (X) A VARIA~qCE lo the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop ( ) A VARIANCE due to lock of access (State of New York Town Low Chop. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 () 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (hos)~ been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeol wos( ~ request for o speclol permit t~o-family (open) .z/,/~,~ ~"' (,..v) request for o vorionce omd wos mode in Appeol No....~.~.~ ........ Doted ...... Sept~b~r..%~2- 9.~n REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (X) A Variance to the Zoning Orclinonce ( ) is requested for lhe reason that Property contains two existing single family residences which the owners wish to maintain as separate parcels, each house can be remodeled and renovated. Owners wish to maintain existing structures as single family residence, each sister will have their own independent and separate parcel. No further subdivision is intended or desired. (Continue on olher side) Reason for Appeal Continued Zoning Board of Appeals re= Patricia G. Rushin & Pamela G. Motley With regard to Lot A & B-insufficient lot width, and insufficient combined setbacks, Lot A-insufficient lot size,(Article III, section 32),and insufficient setback from property line (existing bath house & existing accessory buildings); Article XXIII, Section 235 A(2) existing driveway. Pursuant to Town Law section 267b-3 the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals is to analyze and asses the personal.benefits anticipated by the applicant against the potentially deleterious effects that a grant of the relief requested would have on the health, safety and welfare of the effected neighborhood or community. In performing this balancing test, the Zoning Board is charged with the responsibility to consider the five factors enumerated in Town Law Section 267b-3(b). The variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if the variance is granted. The parcel is 149,221 sq.ft. And contains two single family residences on one parcel. The proposed division of the parcel into two more conforming parcels will not change or affect the character of the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The owners had submitted a plan to convert the large single family residence into a two family in order to provide a comfortable living space for the two sisters who own the property. This application is still pending and will be ~ithdrawn upon approval of the proposed plan. 3. The area variance is not substantial The application of the balancing test weighs in favor of the grant of the variance. The proposed parcels will provide road frontage and the maximum setbacks for the existing residences. The lot line provides a proportioned split of the existing parcel, will not be further subdivided, and permits renovations to the second dwelling on the existing parcel. 4. The variance will have no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The application merely creates a line between the residences. The families will continue to live on the property as they have since the property was acquired in 1940.. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self-created. The property was developed prior to zoning, the residences and other accessory structures are in place and will remain. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance practicable given the personal benefits anticipated by the applicant. The two residences must be preserved, the two sisters have lived in these homes all their lives and wish to preserve their homes. The division of the property between the two sisters is the practical solution which will allow each home to be renovated. With regard to access, each property will maintain over 60 feet of road frontage. The applicants do not intend, at this time, to make any physical change to the driveway. The parties will execute a 'license" for the existing driveway. The driveway is a safe and adequate existing access. We respectfully request that the appeal be granted, together with any further relief that is deemed necessary and reasonable. signature State of New York ) )ss County of S~ffo~ ) Sworn to thls~T~day o~'i~9~ N0~ary ~Pub 1 ic Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Homing Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January28, 1999 Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 JAN 9 1999 Southold Town Planning Board Re: New Submission- Lot L~ne Cha~ and/or Lot Size Variances~ Rushin & Motley Lands ay86-7-5 ~ Dear Mrs. Moore: In reviewing your .lanuary 5, 1999 letter with enclosures, please note that the application must be deemed incomplete pending receipt of the following: a) seven (7) prints of the proposed subdivision map which shows the square footage of land area above the bulkhead proposed for each lot #1 and #2 (100-239) and the setbacks of the existing buildings from the new division line; b) $600 filing fee for this new project (while the former applications are held in abeyance as you suggested pending the outcome of this new application). c) copy of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval on this specific project which we understand has been issued but not furnished with your submission. Please submit the above prior to February 16 for review and calendaring by the Board Members. Thank you. GERARD P. i3OEHRINGER ' CHAIRMAN PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (516) 765-4330 Fax: (516) 765-4643 Marga~t Rutkowski September 24, 1998 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman $outhold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Rushin/Motley SCTM #1000-86-07-05 P~oposed subdivision Dear Chairman Orlowski; Enclosed please find a map showing the proposed division line for a two lot subdivision of the above referenced property. The owners of this property are two sisters, Patricia G. Rushin and Pamela G. Mottley. The property contains two dwellings and each sister lives in a dwelling. The smaller house needs to be remodeled and expanded, however because the second dwelling is considered a preexisting nonconforming use, the building department will not permit the expansion of the dwelling. The subdivision of this property into two lots will allow each dwelling to be properly improved, it will eliminate a preexisting nonconforming situation, and each sister will have a legal lot to convey to their respective children. Please schedule me for your work session Callander for discussion. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, cc: Patricia Rushin Pamela Mottley SEP g 4 ssu Southold Town Planning Board PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (516) 7654330 Fax: (516) 7654643 Margaret Rutkowski Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 September 24, 1998 Re: Rushin/Motley SCTM %1000-86-07-05 Proposed subdivision Dear Chairman Orlowski; Enclosed please find a map showing the proposed division line for a two lot subdivision of the above referenced property. The owners of this property are two sisters, Patricia G. Rushin and Pamela G. Mottley. The property contains two dwellings and each sister lives in a dwelling. The smaller house needs to be remodeled and expanded, however because the second dwelling is considered a preexisting nonconforming use, the building department will not permit the expansion of the dwelling. The subdivision of this property into two lots will allow each dwelling to be properly improved, it will eliminate a preexisting nonconforming situation, and each sister will have a legal lot to convey to their respective children. Please schedule me for your work session Callander for 4iscussion. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, CC: Patricia Rushin Pamela Mottley 8EP Z 4 ] su Southold Town Planning Board =NOTE-' LOT COVERAGE INCLUDES /M_L BUILDINGS ON LOT - 22.50' BUILDABLE AREA /10 I / / .L- / / / BUILDABLE AREA 6 \18 xx20 J22 k,,~ 23"\ 42' 40" b ~ (531.08' B- I ---R T J / / \ · . / ~ \,, ~ Ix. N/O/F RICHARD ~24 ~ S22 CMF D R I V E PARCEL A /PARCEL B /- / / 23,, 46' 50" E 1142. 25. 47' OOL' E 546.7'6'. 1142.12' CMF ,21 14-'-0" 42'-4" POST & RNL FENCE ON LINE " I LIMIT oF DEC ADJACENT AREA nc', TnW'N OFF sOUTHOLD I(~) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Real PFope~ty Tax Service Aoeflcy VEGE GARDEN -4,' 25'-0" FERRACE PROP. 1 1/2 FR. HSE STRY PORCH LAWN APE SCALE: 1" "10' APR g 5 2000 Southold Town Planning Board Patrick Brennan Architect 526 West 22nd Street New York, NY 10011 R-80 1-FAMILY NON- PROPOSED PROPOSED DETATCHED CONFORMING EXISTING PARCEL PARCEL DWELLINGS LOTS A B MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: LOT SITE (SO FT) 80,000 120,000 TO 199,999 149,221 67,451 81,771 LOT WIDTH (FT) 175 13¢ 82 77 LOT DEPTH (FT) 250 1,110 1,094 1,126 FRONT YARD (FT) 60 60 943 928 828 SIDE YARD (FT) 20 30 1.2 & 80 1,2 ~ 11.9 10 & 16.9 BOTH SIDE YARDS (FT) 45 60 81.2 13.10 26.9 REAR YARD (FT) 75 85 105 103 249 LIVABLE FLOOR AREA (SO FT 860 3,370 5,570 2,851 PER DWELLING UNIT) MAXIMUM PERMITTED DIMENSIONS~ LOT COVERAGE, (X) 20 10 3 5 3 BUILDING HEIGHT (FT) 35 27 27 27 NUMBER OF STORIES 2~2 2 2 2 DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MAIN HOUSE PORCH TO BLUFF EDGE~ 86 FT DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MAIN HOUSE PORCH TO SEAWARD BULKHEAD: 76 FT · NOTE: LOT COVERAGE INCLUDES ALL BUILDINGS ON LOT BUILDABLE AREA N/O/F RICHARD M. CUKOR ,11 63,932 SQ. FT. .1,787 SQ. FT. 23.', 42' 40" E-- ',531.08' CM'F- S 23. 47'00" E 22.50' BUILDABLE AREA D R I V E PARCEL A S ,' ,'PARCEL B , N 25, 46'50" E N/O/F KATHLEEN 1142 .!2- .............. SETBACK LINE VARANO 546.76' OTHERS NYT]"22 CM¢ ¢ STOCKADE FENCE POST ~ RAIL I'E __£ZBZ_ 2 STRY FR. --~g__ POST IN RAIL FENCE ON LINE SETBACK LINE CMF GAZEBO- LIMIT OF REAR 752 SO. FT. [IMIT /DJACENT AREA 'OWN OF SOUTHOLD TRUSTEES I JURISDICTION YARD SETBACK - 85 FT 79,965 SQ. FT. SO. FT. 851 SQ. FT. OF DEC G SITE PLAN SOALE: 1" ~ 50' BASED UPON SURVEY BY JOHN T, METZGER PECONIC SURVEYORS, P.C. 80UTHOLD, NY 28 AUGUST 1997 NOTE: THE SURVEY IS THE BEST INFORMATION CONCERNING EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE OWNER, BUT THE OWNER AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SURVEY INFORMATION AND MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS THAT MAY EXIST. Z 0 Q) w EL APR 25 2000 SouthoM PATRICK BRENNAN ARCHITECT 526 WEST 22nd STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10011 MOTTLEY RESIDENCE Indian Neck Rood Peconic, NY 9707001 SITE PLAN PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SCHEME D JULY 1998 1" = 50' OESZ~NEO eY, PB D/~A ~N eY, PB A-01 I~DIAN Ng¢E ROAD 1,46.54' MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR PAMELAG. MOTTLEY Jc PATRICIA G. RUSHIN AT PECONIC TO WN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N. Y 1000-86-07-05 OCT 29, 1999 NOV 3, 1999 (PARCELS A & B) JAN, 5, 2000 (PARCELS A & B) MAR 10, 2000 (ADDITIONS) APRIL 19, 2000 KEY MaP SCALE: 1"=600' SITE HOG NECR BAY PARCEL 'A' AREA= 1,5465 Acres or 67,367 S,F, to tie line PARCEL 'B' AREA= 1.8755 Acres or 81,687 S.F.to tie line TOTAL AREA= 5.4218 Acres or 149,054 S.F. to tie line ZONING DISTRICT R-80 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT BY THE PLANNING BOARD OF APPROVAL DATED THE SUBDIVISION PLAT HAS BEEN APPROVED OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BY RESOLUTION CHAIRMAN PLANNING BOARD r HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT WAS MADE FROM ACTUAL SURVEYS COMPLETED 1/27/98 THAT ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN THUS · ACTUALLY EXIST AND THEIR POSITIONS ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN AND ALL DIMENSIONAL AND GEODETIC DETAILS ARE CORRECT JOHN%T METZGER,' NCYt:~, L 8 LIC NO 49618 o EONTOUR LINES ARE REFERENCED TO N O VD SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAUPPALJOE, N Y DATE: SERVICES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT 7HE PROPOSED REALTY SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT FOR IN THE WITH A TOTAL OF LOTS IS EXEMPT FROM REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY SANITARY CODE SECTION 760 WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAOE DISPOSAL FACILITIES ON EACN LOT MUST CONFORM TO CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPERATE PERMITS PURSUANT TO THOSE STANDARDS VITO A MINEI, PE DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY SCALE: 1"=100' ¢06 OWNERS: PAMELA O. MOTTLEY & PATRICIA O. RUSHIN C/O PATRICK BRENNAN, A,I, 526 W, 22nd STREET NEW YORK, N.Y. 10011 05' 48' 11' TEST HOLE DATA SCALE: South, Plant N.Y.S. LIC NO 49618 PECONIC SURVEYORS, P C (651) 765 - 5020 FAX (631) 755-1797 P 0 BOX 909 ~2~0 rR,~VEL~R ~TREEr r N.~. .97~1 97-;885 SOUTHOLD, 5 21Wu 'C'=~ Id Town Boaf~ TEST HOLE N 89'21"~0" E- 146.54'. m KEY MAP sca/e: I"= 600' 0§' MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR PAMELA G. MOTTLEY & PA TRICIA G. RUSHIN AT PECONIC TO WN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. 1000- 86- 07- 05 SCALE: 1"--100' OCT. 29, 1999 NOV. 3, 1999 ( Parcels J~4N. ,5, 2000 ( Porcel~ Mar. I0, 2000 (addlflonsl THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE SUBDI~SJON PLAT HAS BEEN A~PEOVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOVfN OF SOUTHOLD BY RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL DATED BY CHAIRMAN PLANNING BOARD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT WAS MADE FROM ACTUAL SURVEYS COMPLETED 1/27/98. THAT ALL MONUMENTS SHO~N THUS ~1 ACTUALLY EXIST AND THEIR POSITIONS ARE CORRECTLY SHOICdN AND ALL DIMENSIONAL AND GEODETIC DETAILS ARE CORRECT. JOblfLT. METZGERfN.Y,6, L,S. LIC. NO. 49618 SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEAL TH SERVICES HAUPPAUGE~ N, Y, DA TE. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE PROPOSED REAL TY SURD/V/S/ON OR DEVELOPMENT FOR IN THE WITH A TOTAL OF. ~-' LOTS IS EXEMPT FROM REQL~REMENTS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY SANITARY CODE SECT~)N 760 WATER SUPPLY AND SEWASE DISPOSAL FAC/L/T/ES ON EACH LOT MUST CONFORM TO CQNSTRUC~OH STANDARDS IN EEFECT AT TIlE TIME OF C~NSTRUCT(OH. AND ARE SUBEECT TO SEPARATE PERt/TS PURSUANT TO THOSE STANDARDS. JOSEPH H. BAIER~ P.E. Ot~ECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY PARCEL PARCEL 'A' AREA = i5465Acrew 'to tieline 'B ' AREA = ZaX'56Acres to tie/ine TOTAL AREA = 34218'Acres to tie line ZONING DISTRICT R - 80 CONTOUR LEVES ARE. REFERENCED TO N.G. V.D. OWNERS' ~AMELA G. MOTTLEY & PA TRICIA G. RUSH/N CIO PA TRICt~ 8I~&'~I~IAN~ A.I.A. 526 W. 2.~nd STREET NEW YORK, N.Y. I0011 Southold Town Planning Board N. Y 5 LIC NO 49618 PECONIC SURVEYORS, (6.31.) ~65 5020 FAX (631) 765 - 1797 P 0 BOX 909 1250 TRAVELER STREET $OUTHOLO, N.Y 1197~ 97- 285 R-80 1-FN~tILY NON- PROPOSED PROPOSED DETATCHED CONFORMING EXISTING P~RCEL PARCEL DWELLINGS LOTS A B MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS= LOT SITE (SQ FT) 80,ODO 120,000 TO 199,999 149,221 67,451 81,771 LOT WIDTH (FT) 175 154 82 77 LOT DEPTH (FT) 250 1,110 1,094 1,126 FRONT YARD (FT) 60 60 9,43 928 823 SIDE YARD (FT) 20 30 1,2 tN 80 1.2 ~ 11.9 10 tN 16.9 BOTH SIDE YARDS (FT) 45 60 81.2 15.10 26~9 REAR YARD (FT) 75 85 103 103 249 LIVABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ FT 850 3,370 3,370 2,851 PER DWELLING UNIT) MAXIMUM PERMITTED DIMENSIONS: LOT COVERAGE' (Y) 20 10 3 5 3 BUILDING HEIGHT (FT) 35 27 27 27 NUMBER OF STORIES 2~2 2 2 2 DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MNN HOUSE PORCH TO BLUFF EDGE= 36 FT DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MAIN HOUSE PORCH TO SEAWARD BULKHEAD= =NOTE; LOT COVERAGE INCLUDES ALL BUILDINGS ON LOT 76 FT G_~-W (o./ '~'//~-F 22.50' /I0 BUILDABLE AREA- BUILDABLE AREA ~18 ~'S 25:,,\ 42' 40" ~' . EL- I--R N/O/F RICHARD M. CUKOR J22 (531.08' CMF D R I V E ~, ,/ PARCEL A .... S C T-MT ~0OO'-86-07--O5 ..... S 23' /'PARCEL B 24 / /22 47' O0'P E 546.76'fCYTg'*22 CMF 46' 50" E 1142.12' CMF 42'-4" N/O/F KATHLEEN VARANO OTHERS Q SITE PLAN SCALE; 1"" 50' BASED UPON SURVEY BY JOHN T. METZGER PECONIC SURVEYORS, P~C. SOUTHOLD, NY 28 AUGUST 1997 NOTE: THE SURVEY IS THE BEST INFORMATION CONCERNING EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE OWNER, BUT THE OWNER AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SURVEY INFORMATION AND MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS THAT MAY EXIST. STOCKADE FENCE POST tN R~L I'E GRA' POST ?,3 - C F/ STRY FR. -- .~---¢~-- ~- .-~-~-x RAIL FENCE ON LINE REAR OF BANK I.W[M. .q- t. LIMIT OF DEC ADJACENT AREA LIMIT OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TRUSTEES JURISDICTION YARD SETBACK - 85 FT SEP ~. 4 BRENNAN AND BRENNAN ARCHITECTS LLP NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10Dll RUSHIN/MOTTLEY RESIDENCE Indion Neck Rood Peconic, NY [~a~scr No9707001 SITE PLAN PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SCHEME D [ ~',¢ r~- AUGUST 1998 [sc,~ 1" = 50' A-01 Southold Town Planning Board