The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1000-117.-7-8CESSPOOL CESSPOOL CESSPOOL N/O/~ ~ RICHARD R. FREYHERR WELL BUILDING ZONE USE: R-40 Ks.~ US..mOMi,,2A~I . CO~CR~rE (~CESSPOOL CESSPOOL '~' OB~*~ON' ~D/OR ~TA O~"ED ~0~ OTHER~' ~D ~EOD~ DE~ IRE~=. N 89" 5' 1 0" e 50.02 ACT. w.~ 50' DEED~ ~o~ ~ ~o~ i~ . ~ ~ j ~. ~'~: EOETEO~, NEF YORK 11971 C~SPOOL I ~ ~ o · ~ II O 0 ~ I " ~ 0 THIS SUBDIVISION WILL APPEAR IN: I ~ ~ SOTIRA SHIBLEY ~ ~ DISTRICT 1000 S~CTIO~ f17 BLOCK 07 }. Z ~ c~spooe J ~a~ co~ ~ N 89~09'00E P } 100.27' ACT. ~ ~ / JJ :: 100 DEED ~ ~.~,~.- ~__ ~ , ,..~, MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR ~ ~'-~ ...... THOMAS M CARTHY SITUATED AT ~ ~ ' " ' ' ,:..~:.{{ NNW SUFFOT K N TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~ ~ ~J i - ~ ~ SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK ~ ~ J / '¢~* ~%~1 Ii 0 = ' ~ c~s.ooL ., DW E LLI N G SCALE 1" = 1 O' HO~ J ~ ~"~' ,~-,' · I FEBRUARY 28, 1992 ~ ~,o~ ./ -.,' L ' UL t;~ ~ ~.;, JULY 20, 1992 (R~ISED LOT LINES) ~ ~m' ~ TEST HOLE DATA AUG. 19, 1992 (SHOW HOUSE,WELL & C.P. TO BE REMOVED FROM THE FRONT OF LOT 3) JAN. 22, 1995 (ADDED TEST HOLE & TEST WELL) '"-'-. O~.~H~.4~ WlI~ 2 STORY FRAME HOUSE JUNE 25, 199-3 (ADDED EXISTING & PROP. WELLS & CESSPOOLS) ~1270 JULY 28, t993 (REVISED LOT EINES) LOT 1 AREA = 4,219.37 sq. ft. z ccvE,~ ~ ,~T. LOT 2 AREA = 6,783.06 aq. ft. E 0.156 ac. ,1'; CESSPOOL COVER LOT 2 LOT 3 .~ approval shall I~ valid only in the even{ ~aid LOT 3 AREA = 7,301.25 sq. ft. r 1 TOTAL AREA 18,305.66 sq. ff. ~ 0.420 ac. 1, ELEVATIONS ARE ASSUMED BUT RESTIVE, 2. EXISTING WELLS AND ~SSPOOLS ARE TO BE ABANDONED, ~N ~W' i IS ~, ~ ~ ~ B~ ~ ~ Joseph A. Ingegno Land Surveyor ~tle Surveys --Subdivisions -- PHONE (516)727-2090 OFRCES LOCATED AT One Union Squore Aquebcgue, New York 11931 Site Plans -- Conetruction Layout Fox (5'16)722-5093 MAILINO /DDRESS P~O. BOx ]931 Rlverheod, New York 11901 92-1 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 14,1994 Thomas J. McCarthy P.O. Box 62 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Minor subdivision of Thomas J. McCarthy SCTM# 1000-117-7-8 Dear Mr. McCarthy: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, June 13, 1994: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to m-endorse the final surveys dated July 28, 1993. This subdivision was approved and endorsed on January 31, 1994. However, as the time to file the maps in the office of the County Clerk lapsed, it was necessary that the maps be re-endorsed by the Chairman. 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 (60) days of the date of final approval, shall become null and void. Page 2 Thomas J. McCadhy June 14, 1994 Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward, Chairman enc. THIS MINOR SUBDIVISION IS FOR 3 ~ea~d' (~ /c~ ~'~ ~ LOTS ON ° ~"~ ACRES LOCATED MIN~R SUBDIVISION (NO ROAD) Complete ap~ication received ApPlication reviewed at work session Applicant advised of necessary revisions .'h$ Revised submission received Sketch plan approval -with conditions Lead Agency Coordination SEQRA determination Sent to Fire Commissioner Receipt of firewe'll location Notification to applicant to include on final map Sent to County Planning Commission ReceiPt of County Report Review of SCPC report 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 (~f For ,2~,/~,,) Approval'of sub division -with conditions APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT To the Planning Board of the ToWn of Southold: " The undersigned applicant hereby applies for (tentaflve) (final) app~toval of a subdivision plat in accordance with Article 16 of the Toxvn Law and the Rules and Regulations of the Sonthold Town Planning Board, and represents and states as follo~vs: 1. The applicant is the oxvner of record of the land under application. (If the applicant is not the o~vner 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 .................................................. -.- 3. The entire land under application is described in Schedule "A" hereto annexed. (Copy of deed suggested.) 4. The land is held by the applicant under deeds recorded in Suffolk County Clerk's office as follows: Liber ..... ........... P ge. Liber .................... Page ..... / I 0 On 5'-c:~ --73 Liher ...7. S3~.. ............. Page .... '../.~. ........... On. tt':l~-Za Liher ........................ Page ...................... On ..... Liber ........................ ]?age ...................... On .................... as devised under the Last \Vill and Testament of ....................................... or as dlstHbutee .................... , .................................................... : .............................................. 5. The area of the land is . · " .. · acres. 6. All taxes ~vhich are liens on the'land at the {late hereof have been' paid except . . ........................................... mortgage (s) as follows: ". (a) Mortgage recorded {n Liber .............. Page · ................... m original amount of $ .............. unpa{d amount $ ............ · ......... held by ...................... .............. address ... (b) Mortga~'e recorded in Liher .. Page ....... ' ....................... in original amonnt of .............. uopaid amount $ ...................... held by .............. address ............ (c) Mortgage recorded in Liber .............. Page ................ in original amount of .............. unpaid amount $ ........ .:-: ......... he .... ...................... address ................................ . ......................... 8. There are no other encumbrances or liens against the land except ................ 10. No part of tbe land lies under Water wbether tide water, stream, pond water or otherwise, ex- I1. The applicant shall at bis expense install all required public improvements. 12. The land (does) Glle in a Water District or Water Supply District. Name of Dis- trict, if witbln a District, is ...... ..~.. [~.~. .................................... and (a) charge will be made for installing said mains. 14. Electric lines and standards w/Il be installed by ........ /~...~......~.~...~. ................. lines. · ............ and (a) charge xvill be made for installing said and {~ cbar~,e wdl be made for installing said mains. ' ......................... 16. If streets shown on the plat are claimed by the applicant to be existing public streets in the Suffolk County IIighway system, anuex Schedule "B" bereto, to sbow same. 17. If streets shown on the plat are claimed by the applicant to be Town of Southokl lIighwav system, annex Schedule "C" existing public streets in tile ,18. There are no exlstiu,ff buildings or strnctures on the land which are not located and shown on the plat. 19. \Vhcre the plat shmvs proposed streets which are extensions of streets on adjoining snb- di¥is!on maps heretofore filed, there are no reserve strips at the end of the streets on said 20. In tile conrse of these proceedhlgs, the api~lica,t Il'ill offer proof cfi title as required by Sec. ,335 of the Real Property Law. 21. Snhmit a copy of proposed deed for lots -~hov,'in;,, all restrictions, covenants, etc. Annex Schedule "D". 22. Tbe applicant estimates that the cost of grading and required public improvements will be $ .... -Q.. as itemized in Schedule "E" hereto annexed and requests that the maturity of the Performance Bond be fixed at . (~ years. The Performance Bond will be written by a licensed surety company nnless otherwise shown on Schedule "F" (Signature and Title) v .... ~ ...... (Address) STATE OF NE\¥ YORK, COUNTY OF . .~..~.') .~..~.. [~. · ' ................. , SS: Onthe .............. day o f.. ?.~. '.~..(,.~.. ................. 19- · -~,., before me personally came ..... '~~; ~'~ ....... to me knoxvn to bethe individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that .. ~ .....executed the ~ame. Notary Public ~ ~1~ ~e ~ N~ ' o~ ~ ..~,~ ...... ~? ............ o, .~ ..... , ,~..?~., ~,o~ ~, ~,~,o~,,~ ,~ ............... ~ ...... ~ ....................... iS the ....... ~ like or~eF ~Totary Public S U~FFD,L Ky-4~O ~D ~(~LD }TY Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTEi; 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? Yes (Attached is a list of the w~tland grasses defined by the Town Code, Chapter 97, for your reference) 2. Are there any other premises under your ownership abutting this parcel? Yes 3. Are there any building permits pending on this parcel? Yes 4. Are there any other applications pending concerning this property before any other department or agency?(Town , State, County, etc.) 5. Is there any application pending before any other agency with regard to a different project on this parcel? 6. Was this property the subject of any prior application to the Planning Board? 7. Does this property have a valid certificat~ of occupancy, if yes please submit.a copy of same No Yes ~ I certify that the above statements are true and will be relied on by the P~ing Board in co~sidering this application S/qnature of prope~y~y rized age~ date Attachment to questionnaire for~/the Planning Board STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ss: On the ~ _day of J~l~ ' 19~, before me personally came__~~ ~. ~¢C~ to me known to be the individual described in'and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that .~ executed the same. Y ublic Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Re: 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: No grading, other than foundation excavation for a residential building is proposed. (2) No new roads are proposed and no changes will be made in the grades of the existing roads. (3) No new drainage structures or alteration of existing structures are proposed. Yours truly, sEQR 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality RevieW FULL ENVIRONMENTAl- ASSESSMENT FORM in an orderly manner, whether a proiect may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- determine Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, environmental or action may be significant. The question of whether an action Iy, there are aspects of a proiect that are subjective or unmeasureable- It is also understOod that those who be aware of the broader concerns affecting significance may have little or no forma[ knowledge of the environment or may be technical[Y expert in in one particular area may not analysis, tn addition, many who have ~,nowledge assured that the determination the question of signif cance. The full £AF is intended to prov de a method whereby appbcants and agencies cai~fb:mation to fita proiect or action. process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of Eull EAF Components: The full £AF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given proiect and its site. By identifying basic proiec~ it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. data, ~all to moderate or whether it s a potential Y Part 2: Focuses on identify ng the range of possible impacts that m Y occur from a pro ect or act on. It provide: guidance as to whether an impact is I kely to be considered s large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not th impact is actually important. C DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: [] Part 1 [] Part 2 []Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this £AF (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 proiect will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will nol have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [] B. Although the proiect could have a signif'icant effect on the environment, there will not be a significan 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 impac on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible offic Date DESCRIPTION OF ACTION PART I.--PRoj_,jT INFORMA,,ON nment. Please corn . ~a..s,~?art o! the aPphcatlon for a~,,.~P.-i.e.t ~e the, ent re form, Partsg~w~ke~t.~]er.th.e ac[ion p,opose ',,.urmabon you be~/eve,,,m ~,uval, and may be su~.ect ', ~-,uugn ~ Answers u) the~ each instance ..... uvestlgat,on, if informatio~Te%7,~dent yn. 'n~ormat,on CurrenHy avail Please Complete Each Question_ Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of Overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas· 1. Present land use: [~Urban []Industrial [~Commercial [~Forest E]Agriculture ~Other 2. Total acreage of project area: ~ ¢o')O~ APPROXIMATE ACREAGE ~ acres. Meadow or Brushland (Non agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and Other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type)__ ~Residential (suburban) ~Rural (non-farm) PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? ~ a. Soil drainage: [~Well drained /-~'- % of SJte (~]Poorly drained L~Moderately well drained b. If any agriculturall~-~:~ · , , ~ % of site ~- % of s~te Land Classification ~tr~;v°_~.z~l~°w many.~acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS~ ---~'~ ~-- acres. (bee 1 NYCRR 370) Are there bedrock outcroppings on proe t site? a. What is depth to bedrock? ~r ~Yes ~No · ~' 1 r. ~ (in feet) 2 . 5.~'Approximate percentage of prop~d project site with slopes: E]0-10% % [104 5% % E]15% or greater ,. % ,6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the Nati0nal Registers of Historic Places? I-lYes ,,~,,iNo 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? [~Yes ,j~o 8. What is the depth of the water table? ~l _ tin feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole Source aquifer? ~]Yes 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ~¢es [No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that s identified as threatened or endangered? ~]tes eNo According to. (}iSL;~C ~7.~¢,~1.C~~ Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) r-]Yes ,l~.No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? [:]Yes ~-No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? [~Yes 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 ~t~ or contiguous to project area: a. Name b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public ut t es? ,J~Yes [~No ~6/~"t'~.~2 ~ [',~l~f~ci~~') a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~;~Yes []No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? I~yes ~No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? OYes ~.].No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 ~]Yes [~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? [Yes ,,~No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project {fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor __~ ~0~)~ acres b. Project acreage to be developed: _ I ~tO~-, acres initially; c. Project acreage to remain undev(j!oped _ ~ _ acres. _ i ~'~C)~~ acr'es ultimately. d. Length of project, in miles: . ~l~J ~._~ {if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of '~xpansion proposed O %; f. Number of o'f-street parking spaces existing ~; proposed _/U~ g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ~,~- (upon completion of pr~oject)? h. If residentiah Number and type of housing units: Initially One~amily Two Family Multiple Family C Ultimately ~ ~ _ i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure -- height; j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare proiect will occupy is? Condominium 2. How much natural material (i. ock, earth, etc.) witl ~. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? [Yes [No L~N/A a. If yes, for what intend~ purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [~Yes [No c. Wili upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [Yes [~No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? acres 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this ~roject? [Yes ~No 6. If single phase proiect: Anticipated period of construction ~ months, (including demolition) 7. If multPphased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I _ month c. Approximate completion date of final phase _ month d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? [2]Yes [No 8. Wi[[ blasting occur during construction? []Yes ~[~.No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction i~ ; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this proiect _ (,? --. 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? [Yes ,J~No if yes, explain removed from t, site?_ ~ tons/c~,bic yards ,/ear, (including demolition) year 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? []Yes ~[[No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes [No Type 14. will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain [YAYes J~No ( 15. Is project or any portion of proiect located in a 100 year flood plain?~Yes 16. Will the project generate solid waste? []Yes /~No a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? E2]Yes [No -location c. If yes, give name d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain E3Yes L~No 17. Will the proiect 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? [2}Yes [Yes ~No tons/month years. ,~No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ~Yes 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will proiect result in an increase in energy use? E]Yes ,~No If yes , indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23. Total anticipated water usage per (lay __ _ gallons/day 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? [Yes If Yes, explain ~No gallons/minLite ; No ~. Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board []Yes L-INo City, Town, Village Planning Board ~Yes ~]No City, Town Zoning Boakd ~]~.Yes ~lNo City, County Health Department DYes I-]No Other Local Agencies [Yes E]No Other Regional Agencies I~Yes I~No State Agencies [~Yes Federal Agencies ~lYes I~No Submittal Date C. Zoning and Planning Information I. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ~¥es I~No . If Yes, indicate decision required: [zoning amendment ~ii[zoning variance [special use permit I~subdivision I-Isite plan E]new/revision of master plan ~resource management plan ~other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? ~ ~ 3. What is the maxi~m potential development of (he 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? 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~Yes ~No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zo~ng classifications within a % mde radius proposea action. 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoinin~/surround~n~ land use~ within a ;A mile? ~es ~No 9. If the proposed ecfion is the ~ubdivbion of land, how many lots are proposed? . ~ a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? ~ ~ ~ ' 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts~ ~Yes ~o 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ~Yes ~o a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~Yes ~No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ~Yes ~o a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ~Yes ~No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse -impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the inform_a~o~t)rovided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name~/~,.~ ,~. I'I/t~C~ il::l,~t~, If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete/he Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding wilh this assessment. Resp(,,s~0d ty of I_e d General Information (Re,~ C~mtuil · Identifying that an impact will b,: pote~ti~ll¢ i,; ,column 2 doe, ro ~em h,~ t necessarily significant. Any large impact musl be evaluated in !Vd(F 3 c determine gnifi(, .c( I,Jem r~ ag , ~pact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at fl~rther - ,~ h~r~,~ possible the threshold of · The Examples provideci are to assist the ~ev~(w~ magnitude that would trigger a respov;¢ in o)ln ~:r ~ fhe examplas ara general!v ,~ )iic fi i( throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specifi( t)rc,je(~ or ~te other e<amples a~d,'or [(~we t ~r ;~oids may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact respcmse :ires · The impacts of each ~roiect. on each ~ite. in eacf ocalit¥, ~*zll x,~r~ ~here~o ~. :~ ,' ,~p[es are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do n3t ,;o asqt~ ~e ~n exhaustwe list cf [~r pacts and thre,~ I Is to answer each question · In identifying impacts, consider long term, shc~t lerm and cumlative effects Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PAR1 2. Answer Yes if there wiil be any impa~ t b. Maybe answers should be considered a~ Yes answers c. if answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box tcolumn ~ or 2) to indic,tie 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. tf reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated 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 is not possible Fhis must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1 ~ Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ~NO E3YES 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 will c~ntinue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material {i.e., rock or soil) per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated floodway · Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect t:. -..W umque or unusual land forms found on the site? (ie, cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)C]NO E]YES · Specific land forms: 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Large Mitigated By Impact Project Change L~ []Yes ~]No [~ ~]Yes [~]No [] [~]Yes [~No [] [-~Yes ~ ~Yes ~No 1~ ~Yes [~No [~ []Yes [~No E] L3Yes ~No [~ ~Yes El]No ~ ~Yes ~No 6 NOTE: FINE LOSSES: This ~orm of contract contains no express provi~on as to r~k of loss by fire or other caSUalty · 1, po porcnoJer It title or po~emton i, ~randerred prior to THIS AGPE~MENT, made the /0' ~ dey o~ ~ mn _. ' ~nhund~a~ nlnetv~ B~EEN STEV~ T, ~ESKI (as Co an undivided 116 interest), remidi~ 3502 125ch Street, Gte Harbor, ~ashlngton 98335, PAUL J. ~ESKI (aa to an ~div~ 1/6 interest), residins at 1315 Bray Avenue, httituck, Hey York 11952, ~XS ~ESKI (as to an undivided 1/3 interest), residing at nol Ne~ Suffolk Ney Suffolk, Ne~ York and GERTR~E B0~EH (as to an undivided 1/3 in~erest), residing at nol ~icks ~ad, Ne~ Suffolk, Ne~ York berohua~ dmeribed # tb miler, and THOHA$ J. tic CAItTHY, residing at no# North Bayvisw Road, Southold, Nov York 11971 'ISTRICT 000 ECTION 17.00 ~a. O00 WITNE~q~EYH, that the seller agrees to sell and convey, and the purchaser agrees to purchase, all that with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the New Suffolk, To~a of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGI~qlNG at a point marking an intersection on the northerly side of King Street and the easterly side of Fourth Street; RaiNING THENCE along the easterly side of Fourth Street north 00° 08' 30" east 110 feet to land of Shibley; RUNNING, THENCE along said land North 84° 09' 00" east 100.27 feet; RUNNING THEHCE North 00e 17' 30'* East 35.82 feet to land of Freyherrl RI~NING THENCE along said laud North 89° 1~' 10" East 50.01 feet to land of NcGovan; ~ RUNNING THENCE along said land South 00° 17' 30" ~eat 116.00 feet Co the northerly line of King Street; RUNNING THENCE along said northerly line South 890 15' I0n ~ast 150 faec to the point or placm of BEGINNING. 29: FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. PRE EXISTING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY · 11o Z-19433 Date OCTOBER 10 t 1990 THIS C~RTIFIF~ that the building. (4} ON~ FAMILy DWF~Lr. TNGS Location of Property 1270 FOURTH ST. & 305 KING ST. NE~ SUFFOLKt N.Y. House No. Street H~d~t County T~x ~p No. 1000 Sect/un 117 Block 7 Lot 8 Sub~livis/un Filed Map No. Lot No. Confo=ms substantially to the requirements for Private One Family dwellings built prior to: .. APRIL 9~ 1957 pursuant to which C~RTIFICATE OF 0CC.,,,,..~Z-19433 dated OCTOBER 10f 1990 was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is iss~ied is.,, FOUR (4) 0~ FAMILY DWRT.r. TNGS The certificate is issued to FRANK MAJERx? & ORS. (owner) of the aforesaid building. SDFF~LK CODNTY D~PARTMENT OF HEA~TH APPROVAL UNDER~XTER.~ CERTIFICATE NO., N/A PL~9~S CERTIFICATION DATED N/A *PLEASK SEE ATTAC~ED INSPECTION REPORTS. Hey. 1/81 Building Inspector FOR: RECEIPT 0 4 7 7 7 6 JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK Town of Southold Southold, New York11971 DATE{~,~.~,. /'9 1,~ c~3 Phone: 516 - 765 -!~801 [] CASH ~CK BY: JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK RECEIPT 0 4 7 6 9 4 Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Phone: 516-765-1801 DATE RECEIVED OF: ',~/3~'.~, .~ ) ~ ~d'~ ~ ~ ,. $ ~HECK ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~' SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Edward P. Romazne, COUNTY CLERK PHONE:8 5 2--2 0 0 0 ~TOWn of Southold Assessor own of Southold Planning Board Chief Deputy County Treasurer To Whom This May Concern: The Subdivision Nap Of: Was Filed,, J~/~l_ 13-1 Filed N.mber, q52--O A} stract Number, Township, Southold Owner: Very truly yours, County Clerk Map Deparlment No. 49 SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER SUBJECT: SCTM#: 298 58]5 Doa'l bl'~ . Wa, d, I [ .... J LEGALS NOTICE Notice Of Public Hearing NOTICE IS HI~REBY GIVEN tlmt pursmmt to Sec- tion 276 of tl~ Term L~w, a public heorin~ will beheld by aoa~, at ~ Town Ha~, Main Road, Sonthold, N~w York in said ~ on the 31st January, 199~ on the question of the ?:30 P.M. Final apl~w.l of the minor subdivision for Ano notre Z~hom~i, on Fish~s Island in the Town of the nj hby Crescent Ave.; on the a by hud now or formerly of Pe~r E Nitze; on the ~outh .by Cres~nt A~; and on the v~t by Cre~mt Ave. 7:35 P.M. Final al~ of the minor' mb&~alon for Suffolk, in the Town~ of Southold, cmmty of S~olk, State of New York. Suffolk ]000-i~?,?~. the north by land [now or formerly of WilliJm & Shibl~y and hind now or formerly of Rich&rd R. F~'yherr; on the ~t by land now or form~iy of Janet Shim McOowan; on the ~onth by Ki~ ~ and on the we~t by Fourth, Street. hmrd On tl~ above matter should ~ at the time and Pin~e ~' specified. ny ORDI~R OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD . Richard O. Ward Chairman ' IX-1/20/94 COUNTY OF SU~[~OLK SI'Al'I:_ OF NEW YORK Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of. THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk Count,,,; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed cop'>,, Il.ts been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchm;m ,~qce LUlCH week for. ................... / ..... weeks successively, commencing on the ~:~O,~ day o1'.~ .... 19 . .?/¥. ~ Sw(,,'n t,, beto,e me Ibis .......... '~'..'-~..... day .......... Notary Public BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER NOTARY PUBLIC, Sta!e of ~ew York No. 480~346 Qualified in Su[Mk County Commissioll Expires ~/31/~1¥ ,J/ t 2 4 Southold Town Planning Board January 1994 Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Or]owskl, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. 7:35 P.M. Thomas J. McCarthy -- This minor subdivision is for 3 lots on 0.42 acres located on the northeast corner of King St. & Fourth St. in New Suffolk. SCTM~ !000-!]7-7-8. Is there anybody here that would like to address the Board on this application? If not, what's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. McDonald: I make a motion to close. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ed1~rds, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a further motion. WHEREAS, Thomas J. McCarthy is the contract ve~ndee, and Frank Majeski and others are the owners of the property kno~m and designated as SCTM~ ].000-117-7-8, located on the northeast corner of King St. and Fourth St. in New Suffolk; and WHEREAS, this minor subdivision, to be known as minor subdivision for Thomas McCarthy, is for 3 lots on 0.42 acres; and W~EREAS, a variance to the Zoning Ordinance for approval of insufficient lot area, width and depth was granted, subject to certain conditions, by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 30, ]992; and WHEREAS, the June 30, 1992 decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was amended on August ]8, 1993, subject to certain restrictions; and W~EREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Envir- onmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself lead agency, and issued a Negative Declaration on September ]3, ]993; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at Town Hall, Southold, New Yor'¢ on January 3], 1994; and wHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and be it therefore, ~ RESOL¥~D, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated July ?8, ]993, with the follow- lng conditions, as contained in the June 30, ]992 and August 18, ]993 decisions of the Toning Board of Appeals, to be fixed to the map: Southol. d To%~ Planning Board 4 January B1, 1994 No further reduction in lot area for Lots 1, 2, and/or 3 other than that shown on the plan prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, Land Surveyor (last revision date: July 28, ]993). Applications will be filed, processed and finalized with all other appropriate agencies of the Town and County before separating proposed Lots ~1, ~? and ~3. Only one single--family dwelling use shall be permitted for each of the three lots. Therefore, it is a requisite of this variance that the front building on the proposed Lot B3 which consists of approximately 384 square feet (depth 32.3 feet and variable width ]1.3 to 12.3 feet) shall be removed. Compliance with this condition must be confirmed within six (6) months after final approval of all Town and County agencies, or within six (6) months of the transfer of title to the applicant herein. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. Ail in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. EdwarOs, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlows~¢i, Mr. Ward Opposed? Motion carried. (CHAIRMAN ENDORSED SURVEYS) Held Over From Previous Meetings: Mr. iillcrest Estates -- Section 2 -- This major sJ3~ivlslon is for 20 lots on located in Orient. SCTM~ 1000--]37J2f--8.5. This particular subdivision has granted several extensions, a~ what is the pleasure of the Board at ~ime? Mr. McDonald: Mr. I'll ma!ce a BE IT RESOLVED that the this final hearing for an additi( Board's March 28, 199d Board continue to hold open time period to expire at the Planning the final extension. Mr. Edwards: Second the/m~ion. Mr. Ward: Motlons/ee~nded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mc~Qfiald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Mr. Ward.~pposed? Motion carried. i, Mr. Ward Richard G. Ward. Chairman George Rltchle Latham, dr. Bennett OrlowstO, Jr, Mark $. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (5161 785-1938 February 1, 1994 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTr L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 Thomas J. McCarthy Box 62 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Minor Subdivision of Thomas J. McCarthy SCTM# 1000-117-7-8 Dear Mr. McCarthy: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on January 31, 1994: The final public hearing which was held at 7:35 P.M. was closed. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Thomas J. McCarthy is the contract vendee, and Frank Majeski and others are the owners of the property known and designated as SCTM9 1000-117-7-8, located on the northeast corner of King St. and Forth St., in New Suffolk; and WHEREAS, this minor subdivision, to be known as minor subdivision for Thomas McCarthy, is for 3 lots on 0.42 acres; and WHEREAS, a variance to the Zoning Ordinance for approval of insufficient lot area, width and depth was granted, subject to certain conditions, by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 30, 1992; and WHEREAS, the June 30, 1992 decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was amended on August 18, 1993, subjection to certain restrictions; and Page 2 Thomas J. McCarthy - Minor Subdivision February 1, 1994 WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on September 13, 1993; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on January 31, 1994; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met;.and, be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated July 28, 1993, with the following conditions, as contained ih the June 30, 1992 and August 18, 1993 decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeals, to be fixed to the map: No further reduction in lot area for Lots 1, 2 and/or 3 other than that shown on the plan prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, Land Surveyor (last revision date: July 28, 1993). Applications will be filed, processed and finalized with all other appropriate agencies of the Town and County before separating proposed Lots 91, #2 and ~3. Only one single-family dwelling use shall be permitted for each of the three lots. Therefore, it is a requisite of this variance that the front building on the proposed Lot 93 which consists of approximately 384 sq. ft. (depth 32.3 feet and variable width 11.3 to 12.3 feet) shall be removed. Compliance with this condition must be confirmed within six (6) months after final approval of all Town and County Agencies, or within six (6) months of transfer of title to the applicant herein. 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. Page 3 Thomas J. McCarthy - Minor Subdivision February 1, 1994 Please contact this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman enc. cc: Building Department Tax Assessors Zoning Board of Appeals PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Rltchie Latham, Jr, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone {516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCO'IT L. HARRIS Town Ha/,I, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax{516) 765 - 1823 January 11, 1994 Thomas J. McCarthy Box 62 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Minor Subdivision of Thomas J. McCarthy SCTM~ 1000-117-7-8 Dear Mr. McCarthY: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on January 10, 1994: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set January 31, 1994 at 7:35 P.M. for a final public hearing on the maps dated July 28, 1993. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER DATE: SENDER:__..--- COMMENTS: RAYMOND L. JACOBS SUPERI~NT_VND~---NT OF HIGqtWAYS 765-3140 0F?ICE OF TEE ~-NGINE TO~-~ OF $OUT~OLD J~iES A. RICItTER ~NGINEERLNG LNSPECTOR 765-3070 SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 Richard G. Chairman Town Hall, Southold, Ward Planning Board 53095 Main Road New York 11971 Re: Thomas McCarthy Subdivision Fourth & King Street, New Suffolk SCTM # 1000 - 117 - 07 - 08 Dear Mr. Ward: As per your request, I have reviewed the above referenced subdivision. It is my understanding that the reason for my review was to verify weather any drainage improvements should be required. A recent site inspection showed no evidence standing water within the right-of-way. It recommended that no additional drainage is required of ponding or is therefore at this time. If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact my office. cc: Raymond L. Jacobs (Superintendent of Highways) ///James A. ~RichL-er, R.A. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Wani, Chairman George Rltchle Latham, Jr. Berme~t Orlowskl. Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone {516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD sco3-r L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Boxl179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 September 14, 1993 Thomas J. McCarthy Box 62 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Minor subdivision of Thomas J. McCarthy SCTM9 1000-117-7-8 Dear Mr. McCarthy: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assumes lead agency status, and as lead agency, makes a determination of non-significance, and grants a Negative Declaration. · The proposed project is not expected to cause a significant environmental impact. The project calls for a reduction of the existing density. In addition, the lots are consistent with the area. The site does not contain any unique natural or human environmental resources. Enclosed please find a copy of the Negative Declaration for your records. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman enc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward. Chairman George Rltchle Latham. Jr. Bennett Orlowskl, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination Non-Significant SCOTFL. HARPJS Supe~sor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax {516) 765 - 1823 September 13, 1993 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Minor subdivision for Thomas J. McCarthy SCTM#: 1000-117-7-8 Location: Northeast corner of King Street and Fourth St. in New Suffolk SEQR Status: Type I ( Unlisted ( X Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes No ) x ) Description of Action: Minor subdivision of 0.42 acre parcel into 3 lots. Ail lots have existing dwellings. Page 2 SEQRA Negative Declaration - Thomas J. September 13, 1993 McCarthy 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. The project calls for a reduction of the existing density. In addition, the lots are consistent with the area. The site does not contain any unique natural or human environmental resources. The Planning Board has not received correspondence from the Department of Health Services in the allotted time. Therefore, it is assumed that there are not comments or objections from that agency. The Planning Board has not received correspondence from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the allotted time. Therefore, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. For Further Information: Contact Person: Melissa Spiro Address: Planning Board Telephone Number: (516) 765-1938 CC: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Thomas Jorling, DEC Commissioner Judith Terry, Town Clerk Board of Appeals Applicant DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ¢iERVICES COUNTY OF SUFFOLKO ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE MARY E. HIBBERD, M.D., M.P.H. September 13, 1993 Melissa Spiro Town of Southold Town Hall - 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 SEP 171993 RE: Thomas McCarthy Minor Subdivision SCTM #: 1000-117-7-8 Dear Ms. Spiro: The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) bas received your letter dated August 10, 1993, concerning the above-referenced application, and has no objection to the Town's designation as lead agency. This correspondence is intended primarily to expedite the procedural requirements of SEQRA per~alning to the establishment of lead agency. The comments provided below ate, therefore, general in nature, representing several of our most common concerns regarding Suffolk County projects. The department wishes, however, to reserve its right to provide moro detailed information within the comment period(s) established for this action. I. Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC) The SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over the final location of sewage disposal and water supply systems, pursuant to the authority and requirements of Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the SCSC. Applications must comply with all relevant density and construction standards for water supply and sewage disposal. Applicants should not undetlake the construction of, or connection to, either system without Health Department approval. 2. Where applicable, the department regulates the storage, handling and discharge of restricted toxic and hazardous materials pursuant to the requirements of Articles 7 & 12 of the SCSC. If an application has not yet been submitted to the SCDHS, one should be filed at the earliest date to allow for the technical review of the proposed action. Project designs submitled to the department should be fully consistent with any acfon currently under review through the SEQRA process. Design and flow specifications, information regarding subsurface soil conditions, water supply information, and complete design details are essential to the review of this project, and are evaluated fully at the time of application review. Should the town require additional environment,al information (such as a DEIS), discussion of the compliance requirements of the SCDHS should be required. Of particular concern to the department are those areas which because of elevated groundwater conditions, or soils which are not conducive to the proper l~anctioning of conventional subsurface sanitary sewage disposal systems. Your agency should be aware that such conditions frequently require the use of fill or the excavation of subsurface soils to accommodate subsurface sanitary disposal systems constructed ig conformance with the requirements oftbe SCSC. Letter to Melissa Spiro September 13, 1993 Page 2 The department is also significantly concerned with areas where access to potable water may be constrained by unacceptable groundwater quality and the lack of an available public water supply. All private water supply systems must be consh'ucted in conformance with requirements of the SCSC. II. NATURAL RESOURCES: The SCDHS fnily supports all efforts to maximize protection of natural resources which may be impacted upon by construction and development activities. It is the position of the department that the SEQRA review process provides the greatest opportunity for comprehensive consideration of these resources, and that all practicable planning measuaes should be employed to help ensure their protection. Of particular concern to department is the adequate protection of wetlands, surface waters, natural communities, contiguous natural habitats, and rare, threatened and endangered species. In addition, effor~ to protect sensitive physical resources such groundwaters, dunes, binff~, shorelines, natural drainage channels, groundwater recharge areas, and steep slopos are fully supported and encouraged by the SCDHS. In general, the depamnent encourages the following land use measures be considered (where appropriate) to actions being reviewed pursuant to SEQRA. 1. Maximum practicable setbacks from all wetlands, surface waters, dunes, and bluffs. 2. Non-disturbance buffers between wetland limits and required slxuctural setbacks. 3. Clustering of subdivision lots to provide for maximum preservation of large contiguous areas of dedicated open space. 4. Stringent clearing limitations which can reduce potential impacts to wildlife habitats, vegetative communities, and unconsolidated soils. 5. Maximum practicable confinement of development to areas with slopes of less than 10%. 6. Maximum use of native species for landscaping purposes. 7. Conslmction of recharge areas, so as to minimize the amount of distaffoance and structural modification to the site. 8. Maximum use of land-banked parking on commercial sites. 9. Min~al use of fertilizer-dependant turf and landscaping. 10. Employment of stormwater runoff cotuxol measures necessary to maintain runoff an-site. The deparhnent appreciates the opportunity to participate in the SEQRA review of this proposal. Additional information may be provided prior to the close of the established comment period. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at 852-2078. Sincerely, Kimberly Shaw Sr. Environmental Analyst Office of Ecology KS/amf cc: Vito Minei, P.E. Stephen Costa, P.E. ~ #~zA 0 ATES CRAMER, V(~=~ 0J~/&SOC ENVIRONMENT~:~~G CONSULTANTS Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Bo.ard Town Hall, 53095-Mare Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Review of EAF for Minor Subdivision Thomas McCarthy SCrM No. 1000-i17-7-8 Dear Mr. Ward: September 3, 1993 SEPT As per the your request, we .have completed a.~re, limin,ary renew o.f th? .a.bove .referenced project in accordance w~th your request. Tasr, s ano completed activiues are identified as follows: Review Part I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the I.F~AF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. ~pare Part H/.FAF e Part II 1 .F. AF checklist has been. cQmpleted and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. Environmental and Planning Considera~. ns .... Thc parcel has been inspected a~.d emaronmental references con, ce.finn, ~g m,e slt,e.ana areaha, v.e been consulted. The site consists of.18,303.,6.6 square xeet ox lano ana xs located m the no.rt~..c.~.t comer of the .m,t. ersection of King Street and Fourth Street. The proposed subdivision involves dividing ~e parcel into three (3) !ors. The subject narcel oresentlv is developed with four dwellings. As part of the project, aha through Zoning'Board if Appeals'review, one dwelling including in what is now Lot 3 will be removed, thereby reducing the overall density of use of the lot. The site is zoned R-40 residential however, lots are less than required by zoning.. The existing use of the site, and the consistency of this use with thc surrounding are.a .m. part formed the Z..B .A.decision to approve the variances, required, for the land division. There are no subdivision roads proposed, as all access is from ex~stmg Town roads. The subiect oarcel is comprised of flat topography characteristic of the area. The depth td groundwater is in excess of 10 feet and there are no wetlands or unique flora or fauna associated with thc site. The existing uses include landscaped yards. The site is not within the North Fork Water Bu,d~.et ,Area wate.r supply is from private wells. New Suffolk is not subject to nitrate or alatcam contammauon as a result oI ~ning activities. The pr.o. posal will reduce the number of uses on the. site. a~od . erefore re.duce sewage d~sposal and water supply demand and therexore ~s xound to not have a s~gnificant impact on water resources. Page 1 of 2 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 The project calls for a less density of la~.d use, on lots that are com. istent wi~ the area. The project site does not contain an[/umque na.tural.or.h.uma~ envtr.on,m, ental resources. In .view of the f. oregomg facts, the proposea project ~, not exp.ectea ~o .cam.,e a sil/nificant emnronmental tmpach and there does .not appear to oe a ne.e? to.recjmre me , D£eparation of a Draft EI$. Therefore, the Planning Board could co .miner me ~sua~. ce o~ a Negative Declaration for this project. If you.have any.~luestious or vash any furmer input with regard to th~s matter, please do not has~tate to can. Very~ours, ~harles ~. Vo6rhis, C£P, A~CP ENVIRONMENT.~;;;~~G CONSULTANTS Page2 of 2 617,21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, ma,~y who have knowledge in 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 determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given proiect and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified 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 Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ,,~' Part 1 ~-Part 2 E]Part 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. B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* [] C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unbsted Actions PrinJ or T~De Name of,R-esponsible, O, fficer in I~ad Agency Signature of Officer in Lead A[,~ncy Responsible Date Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Title of Responsible_Ofj, i,cer ' Signature of Preparer (If/a~f r~en~ fr;~h~r~spon;ible officer) , ~1' 1--PROJECT INFORIV~,,ON v ~N_O?CE 'lTh~s document is desig~ned to assis* ;- a , .¥ roject Sportster .. ,,Prepared b P . '."' uetermnlnmg whether the action proposed may have a significant e'ffe un ~ne enwronment Please complete the enhre form, [ arts A through E. Answers to these questions will be consider: as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any addition information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not invol, new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such ~dditional work is unavailable, so indicate and speci each instance. NA~E 0]: ACTION (If difterent)~ (.)~.~ LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Munici SiN E,S TELEPHONE -- BUSINESS TE PHONE Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. i~ not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of Overall project, both developed'and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ~Urban ~lndustrial ~Commercial ~Residential (SUburban) ~Rural (non-farm) ~Forest ~A~riculture ~Other APPROXIMATE ACREAGE ~ ~ ~eadow or 8rushland (Non-agricultural) PRESENTLY Forested ~ AFTER COMPLETION Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) -. ~ acres ~ acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECLJ ~ acres Water Surface Area ~ acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fil~J ~ acres ~ - acres Roads, buildings and other paved Surfaces ~ ~ acres ~ - acres Other (Indicate typeJ~ ~ ~acres ~OO ~ acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project Site? ~~ · a. Soil dra nage- ~WeH drained ~'~ % of site ~Moderately wel] drained ~PooHy drained - If any agricultural land is im. ' ' '- ~ % of site ~ ~ % of site ,vO~v~g, now many acres of soil are classified b. ~and Classification System? _/~,,/~ acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on pro What is depth to bedrock/ ~ ~/~(in feet) ~ 7OO~ 2 ;, ~pproxm~ate percentage of pro project site witt~ slopes: [~0-10% _ .{~-/~ % ~ ~ .- , [~15% or greater Yo ,~l~ 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or th~ ~,..' Registers of Historic Places? I~Yes ~No . Nati6na] · ~. 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural l-andmarks~ [Yes ,~No 8. What is the depth of the water table? .~ I (in feet) {~ 9, Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole Source aquifer? ,~es ~No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ,~es i-INo 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered~ []Yes [~No According to {! [;~ ~ ~qC EE- P, .% .~'t30 q- fC'.N' ' Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project s te~ (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) I~Yes ,l~No Describe 13. Is the project site .presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? [Yes [~No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? I~Yes [~o ' 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 ,,~tli~ or contiguous to project area: a. Name b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? J~Yes I-1No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [~Yes [-1No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? I~yes ,~No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ~lYes ~].No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 []Yes [~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? [~Yes /~No B. Project Description Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor __~ b, Project acreage to be developed: I ~i')C:~L' acres initially; ~ c, Project acreage to remain undeveloped ~ acres. d. Length of project, in miles; _~/~f (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed O %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing I~/~...~; proposed /,~//e~. . g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour. /~//1¥ (upon completion of project)? h. If residential; Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Muhiple Family Initially Ultimately ?) ,, i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; width; __ j. Linear feet ol~ frontage along a public thoroughfare proiect will occupy is? 3 acres ultimately. Condominium ........... ~'~'"~ u ,,~uck, eartl etc) 3. Will disturbed areas be rec ed? []Yes ~]No a. if yes, for what in: purpose is the Site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~Yes DNo 1~' c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamat on? [Yes ~]No 4. Now many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground COvers) will be removed from site? 5. Will any mature forest (Over 100 years old) or other Iocally-~mportant vegetatmn be removed by this DrOlectt ~'-~---~ .~ ~.~E] Yes 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of Construction 7. If mu/ti-phased: ~ months, (including demolition). a. Total number of phases anticipated~ __ -(number). b. Anticipated date of Commencement phase 1 phase 1 funct,onally dependent on subse,~uent ~- ~- tn .... year. 8. Will blasting occur durino Con ........ '~ p-asesf [Yes DNo 9. ~ *~,ucuonf I--lYes l~No Number of jobs generated during constr ' /- uctlon ~ -; after project is complete C 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project __ ~ 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities~ f~Yes /~No If yes, explain __ 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [Yes 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 invo red? ~igYes ~No Type ~.'_x 14. Will surface area 0f an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ~Yes ~No Explain ~ 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood p ainl ~Yes ~No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~Yes ~No ~/~ ~/~~ a. If yes, what is the amount per month b. If yes, will an existin~ solid ........ ~ , ~ _ tons ~ ~1~ c. If yes, give name ~t~ ~z, i ~' ~'~* ~No d.' ..... - ' ~ ~ -' · J' vvul any wastes not go into a s ....... J' · . -, location ~~~ e. If Yes, explain ~ ~---~ uisposal system or into a samtary landfill? ~Yes~ 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? E]Yes ~No-- a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? __ b. If yes, what is the anticipated site fe~_ ~ tons/month· ~ years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pestic des? []Yes ,,~No 19. Will project routinely prdduce 20. Will project produce operating odors (more than one hour per dayJ? I~Yes noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will proiect result in an increase in ene'rgy use? [Yes ,,~]No If yes , indicate type(s) ------------- ~:~?~:~,~._ 22. If water Supply is from wells, indicate pump ng capacity 23. Tota anticipated water usage per day '"~'- galions/m~,te.,~ 24. Does project J~.O0 gallons/day. involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Yes, explain [~Yes j~No 4 'Approvals Required: City, Town, Vdlage Board [Z]Yes ONo City, Town, Village Planning Board EYes ONo City, Town Zoning Board ,[g~Yes f~No City, County Health Department DYes [ZINc Other Local Agencies [~Yes I~No Other Regional Agencies ~lYes [ZINc State Agencies E]Yes [ZINc Federal Agencies I~Yes I~No Submittal pe Date C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ~,Yes ~lNo If Yes, indicate decision required: I~]zoning amendment '~zoning variance f-ispecial use permit [~subdivision I-lsite plan ~'lnew/revision of master plan ~resource management plan ~other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site~ . 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 maximgm potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning~ 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans~ ~Yes ~No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zo~ng classifications within a z~ mile radius of proposed actionl K 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining]surrounding land uses within a % mile~ ~es ~No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed~ . ~'~ 'a. What is the minimum lot size proposed~ q~e~ ~ ~ ' 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts~ ~Yes ~No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)~ ~Yes a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle proiected demand~ ~Yes ~No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic Significantly above present levels~ ~Yes a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic~ ~Yes ~No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse -impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that tbe informatio~rff)ro~ided above i%true to the best of my knowledge. If Ihe action i¢ in the Coastal Area, and you are a Male agency, complele the Co,~slal Assessment Form buff~re proceeding wilh lhls assessmenl. 5 ~ER, V~RHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ No~h ~unt~ Road MILLER ~CE, NEW YORK 117~ ~ar~ z--~'~OJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR GNITUDE Responsil~ility of Lead AGency " General Information (Read Carefully) ' In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations bcen reasonable.~ The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. · Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. · The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds 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 locality, will vary. Therefore. the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question, · In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there 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 potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to he~oject site? Examples that would apply to column 2 ,,,J~O OYES · 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 will cgntinue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated floodway. · Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect t~....,y u:uque or unusual land ~for.~ found on the s re? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations,.et r~YES · Specific land forms: c,~O I 2 3 Small to Potentia Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] []Yes []No [] [] [~]Yes [~]No [] [] [-'~Yes [~No [] [] [~Yes F-~No [] ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~e~ ~No 6 · Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. · Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage pattems. · Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. · Other impact~: IMPACT ON ~dR ,~ 7. Will proposed action affect air qualityi' BYES Example~ that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle b'ips in any given · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. · Emission rate of total contaminant~ will exceed 5 lbs. per hour 0r 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 impact~: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMAL8 5. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or end,~ species~ . f-lYES IE~amples that Would apply to column 2 * · Reduction of on~ 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 habitaL · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. · Other impact~: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threat non-endangered species? [:]YES Examples 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 removal of morq 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 affect agricultural land ~es? · [:}YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) Impact O [] O [] [] [] [] [] O [] 0 O [] [] [] [] 2 ~otentlal Large Impact O O [] [] O O O O O [] O O [] O O 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change OYes •No []Yes CNG OYes l-lNG []Yes I']No OYes ON• OYes ON• OYes ['-]No OYes •No OYes •No OYe~ ON• []yes []No OYes I']No [-]No []Yes [-]No []No OYes J~Nc IMPACT ON WATER :3 Will proposed action affect ·ny wate~ body designated as protected~ (Under Articles 1S. 24.25 of the Environmental Conse~ti~ Law. ECL) ,/~O OYES · Examples that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site conS·ins a protected water body. · Dredsin8 more than 100 cubic yards of material'from channel of a protected stream· ~ Extension of utility distributicm facilities t,hroush · pax)tee-ted water body. · Construction in · desi8nated freshwater or tidal wetland. · Other impacts: of water~ Examples that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of .water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body ~f water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impacts: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwate~//~ qu.ality or quantity~ OYES Ex~m~k~ that would apply t~ colum~ 2 · Proposed Action will require ~ discharge I:~rmit. · Propose~ Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to. serve propo~d.(pm~ct) action. · Proposed Action 'requires wate.r supply from wells with greater thar~ 45 sallons per minute pumpini ~al~city. · Consttuctk~ o~. o~erati(m causini any contaminaticm of a water supply system. · Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conveye~ off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate cap~city. · Propose~ Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons p~r day. · Proposed Action will likel" cause siltation or other discharge into an existin~ bo~y of water ~.u the ~.>:tent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products 8reater than 1,100 gallons. :. · Proposed Action Will allow residential uses in areas'without water and/or sewer services. · Proposed Action I(~cates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or stora~,e facilities. · Other impacts:_ · Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patt~(~r surface ~'..~ water r~nofl~ ~YES Exzmpfe~ that would apply to column 2 Small to Moderate Impact 0 0 O O [] O D- O O [] [] [] 0 [] O [] D 2 Potential Large Impact [] O O O [] O O [] [] O [] [] [] O [] D Can Impact P.,-: Mitigated By PrOject Chang. l-lyes ONc OYes DNc OYes OYes r-iN, []Yes ON OYes ON OYes ON OYes OYes []Yes DYes OYes OYes [-]Yes OYes OYes OYes OYes I OYes · Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of a~.ricultural land. · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal DistricL more than 2.S acres of agricultural land. a The peop~,~ attica would disrupt o~ prevent installation of agricu~ral 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 RESOURCEEI~,/ 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources[' ~.O DYES (if necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum i~/Se~tion 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, whet~r' man-made or natural. · . .. · Proposed land uses, or project components ~ible to users of aesthetic resource~ which will eliminate o~ sign~icantly reduce their · enioyment 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: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure~of,~istoric, pre- historic or paleontological importance[' /~NO f'IYES 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 Hational Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities[' ~ . Examples that would apply to column 2 . . /~0 , [3YES }The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational e'.ppdrtunny. ,-- '-~"A major reduction of an o~en space important to the commumry. · Other impacts: Snl~to Mcx~reta Impact D D D [] 0 [] [] [] D 0 D )otentl&l Large Impact [] O [] [] [] [2) E] Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change []Yes •No []Yes []No []Yes []Ho []Yes []No []Yes •No I-lYes []No []Yes i-IN• i-lYes i-lYes []No [~Yes []No OYes I'-INo I~Yes •No []Yes [:]Nc []Yes I-'IN~ []Yes ['-1 H~ IMPACT ON TRANSP~. RTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation ~/t~j~' EYES Ezamples that would apply to column 2 · Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. · Proposed Action will result in major traffic Problems. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sou/~;f fuel or energy supply? [:}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 family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. · Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odor~, noise, or vibra~ti~;~as a result of the Prc~posed Actk~ ' /l~i~NO ' r-lYES~ Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1,500 fe~t of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. · Odors will qccur routinely (more than one hour per day). · Propo~ed Ac~:~ will produce oper':~fing noise excet,~ing the local . ambient noise levels for ~oise outside of stnJctures. · 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 h~alth and safe~NO COYES Examples that would apply to column 2 / · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or rel,~ase of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event 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 wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.) · Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. · Prc~posed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2.000 'feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous · Other impact~: Small to Moderate Impact [] 0 O [] [] [] O 0 [] [] [] 2 Potential Can Impact Large Mitigated By Impact Project C~an£ O []Yes DH. 0 DYes ON [] []Yes ON [] OYes [] OYes 0~ [] OYes [] OYes 0 OYe~ COl [] OYe~ CO [] OYes O O OYes [] []Yes [] OYes [] []Yes [] OYes [] OYes IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Will proposed'action affect the character of the existi~8,eommunityf 18. ~O OYES Example, that would apply to column 2 · The permanent population of the city, town or villase in which the project is located is likely to irow by more than 5%. · The municipal budget for capital expenditures o~ operafin8 services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. · ProPosed actJo~ will co~flict with officially adopted plans or 8DaiS. · Proposed action will cause a chan~e 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 community services (e.~. schools, police and fire, etc.) · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. · Proposed Action will Create or eliminate employment. · Other impact~: I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change D D DYes . []No O I-1 OYes [-]No D [] OYes ON• I-1 [] DYes ON• [-1 0 I-lyes I']No [] [] OYes •No [] D DYes 'O [] OYes ONo [] [] []Yes [-]No 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public contrS~rsy/,telated to potential adverse environmental impacts~ /~10 DYES If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or It You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3--EVALUATION OF '[.HE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Respon~bilih, of Lead Agency Part 3 mu~t be prepared if one or more impact,s) b cor~de~ed to b~ potentially large, even if the impact, s) may mlti~,ated. InstruCtlon~ Discuss the followine for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. De.~cribe (if applicable) how the impact c°uld be mitigated °r reduced t° a small t° m°derate impact bY pr°ject chanGc 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important: To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreverslbility, includin8 permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence bf the impact · Its potential divergence from local needs and ~oals · Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attnchments] ~PEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard R Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton Telephone (516) 765-1809 Appl. No. 4185. SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor BOARD OFAPPEALS TOWN OFSOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone~.(516) 2~1800 .... Upon Application of THOMAS J. McCARTHY (Contract Vendee). Current Owners: Frank Majeski and others. This is an appeal for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3 for permission to modify area of proposed substandard lots (prior Appeal No. 4100 rendered June 30, 1992), each with a preexisting dwelling. Location of Property: 1270 Fourth Street and 305 King Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-7-8. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 18, 1993, at which time the applicant and persons who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded (see verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover); and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present R-40 residential zoning, and the surrounding residential area; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following Findings of Fact: 1. This is an application for a variance due to the re-adjustment of lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2, and westerly lot line of Lot 3, as shown on the map prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, Land Surveyor, dated July 28, 1993. 2. Each of the lots shown are substandard in size and are requested to be re-adjusted as follows: (a) Lot 1 of 4,219.37 sq. ft. instead of 6,090± sq. ft. (b) Lot 2 of 6,783.06 sq. ft. instead of 5,340± sq. ft. (c) Lot 3 of 7,301.23 instead of 6,975± square feet. (d) Lot 1 of 45.64 ft. frontage along Fourth Street and 100.00 ft. frontage along King Street; 9age 2 - Appl. No. Application of THOMAS J. McCARTHY Decision Rendered August 18, 1993 (e) Lot 2 of 64.16 ft. frontage along Fourth Street and 64.80 feet at the principal building front setback line; (f) Lot 3 of 50.00 ft. frontage along King Street and 50.10 feet at the new principal building front setback line. 3. The following information and facts pertaining to the subject land and buildings are noted for the record: (a) This property received a denial with conditional alternative relief for proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 as rendered by the Board of Appeals on June 20, 1992 under Appl. No. 4100. (b) according to town assessment and building department records, the premises has preexisted the enactment of zoning (April 1957) with four separate dwelling structures. Specific information concerning the sizes, location and setbacks of the dwellings has been furnished on the survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno dated February 28, 1992, further noted below: (1) House %305 - 837 sq. ft.; one-story height; full kitchen/housekeeping unit with permanent heating unit for yearround occupancy; (2) House #1270 - 900+ sq. ft. at ground floor; building is at two-story height; full kitchen/housekeeping with heat for yearround occupancy; (3) Cottage at the northeast section of the premises - 504 sq. ft. (14 x 36), exclusive of 270 sq. ft. of attached garage and attached shed; (4) Cottage at the southeast section of the premises - 384 sq. ft. (12 x 32) exclusive of enclosed 68 sq. ft. front porch; one-story height; front yard setback at 9.5 feet; without a heating system per building inspection report of August 28, 1990. (c) the surveys prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno shows separate cesspool systems for each dwelling structure as well as four separate well locations (approximate locations). (d) Certificate of Occupancy #Z-19433 for Preexisting Use and Buildings dated October 10, 1990 from the Town Building Inspector has been furnished for the record; (e) the one-story frame building which presently exists 10.0 feet from King Street on proposed Lot 3 must be Page 3 - Appl. No. Application of THOMAS J. McCARTHY Decision Rendered August 18, 1993 removed, after obtaining appropriate permits from the Building Department and other agencies involved, before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for this project or building permits to renovate or expand any buildings on the premises. 4. The Board members have considered the standards set forth for "area variances" and find as follows: (a) UNIQUENESS the applicant has established unique physicial conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot compared to lots in the neighborhood. All remaining seven lots within this same residential block consist of land sizes ranging from 2850 sq. ft. to 7592 sq. ft. {i.e., parcels identified on the County Map as Lots 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12}. Each footprint of building area on these tracts range from 654 sq. ft. to 1642 sq. ft. The character of the area will clearly not be an undesirable change by the grant of this alternative variance. (b) PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES - the applicant has shown that he would not be able to reasonably use, or aesthetically improve, the subject buildings under the zoning restrictions without a variance. Virtually, any attempt to make substantial aesthetic improvements to buildings, as exist, would come into conflict with the bulk schedule and provisions of the zoning ordinance as it relates to one nonconforming lot with multiple dwelling use nonconformities. The dwelling uses are allowed in this R-40 zone district, whether it be by of a legal, preexisting nature, or by placement of lot lines for separate ownership. The Board Members are not concerned with ownership of the houses -- however, it should be noted that conveyance of at least three of the existing houses for single and separate ownership on three separate lots would not be a disadvantage under these circumstances, and would provide opportunities for affordable homes to three single families in the Town. (c) VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - The percentage of relief requested in this particular application is not substantial. Strict application of the zoning ordinance will not, in the Board's opinion, outweigh injury to the applicant and justice will be served by allowing a variance, for alternative relief and the minimum necessary to relieve the difficulty. (d) OTHER FACTORS - The difficulty alleged was not self-created and the difficulty claimed may not be avoided by means other than a variance. In view of the manner in which the difficulties arose, and in considering all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the relief requested, and as conditionally noted below, and will at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. ~age 4 - Appl. No. ~5 Application of THOMAS J. McCARTHY Decision Rendered August 18, 1993 Accordingly, on motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Villa, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested in this re-adjustment of substandard lot areas, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND NOTED AS FOLLOWS: and/or 3 Ingegno, No further reduction in lot area for Lots 1, 2, other than that shown on the plan prepared by Joseph A. Land Surveyor (last revision date: July 28, 1993). 2. Applications will be filed, processed and finalized with all other appropriate agencies of the Town and County before separating proposed Lots #1, #2, and #3. 3. Only one single-family dwelling use shall be permitted for each of the three lots. Therefore, it is a requisite of this variance that the front building on the proposed Lot #3 which consists of approximately 384 sq. ft. (depth 32.3 feet and variable width 11.3 to 12.3 feet) shall be removed. Compliance with this condition must be confirmed within six (6) months after final approval of all Town and County Agencies, or within six (6) months of transfer of title to the applicant herein. Vote of the Board: Wilton and Goehringer. lk Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Dinizio, Villa, This resolution was duly adopted. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,~AIRMAN CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT New Suffolk Road, PO Box 930, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Telephone (516) 734-6907 · Fax (516) 734-7079 August 16, 1993 Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Town Planning Bd. Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Ref. Thomas J. McCarthy Dear Mr. Ward, Reference the above estate and map. that a well is not required at this time. It is the opinion of the Board If there are any changes, please advise. Yours truly, Board of Fire Commissioners Matthew J. Martin Secretary mjm/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS R/chard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchle Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski. Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 August 12, 1993 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARR/S Super~sor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 North 'Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: Review of EAF Minor Subdivision - Thomas McCarthy SCTM~ 1000-117-7-8 Dear Messrs. Cramer and 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: 3, Copy of the map dated July 28, 1993. Planning Board resolution dated August 9, 1993. Zoning Board of Appeals June 30, 1993 decision. 4. August 6, 1993 memo from Planning Board to Zoning Board. The Planning Board started the lead agency coordination process on August 9, 1993. The $400.00 review fee has been submitted by the applicant. If all is in order, the Board will make their SEQRA determination at the September 13, 1993 public meeting. Please submit your report no later than September 3, 1993 in order for the Board to review it before the meeting date. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. If there are any questions, please contact Planning Staff. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman enc. Rkhard (3. Ward C ~ ~n ~ett Orlows~, Jr. Mark S. Men.Id Ke~e~ L. Edwards Telephone {516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P. O. Box l 179 Southoki. New York 11971 Fax {516) 765 - 1823 August 10, 1993 Thomas J. McCarthy Box 62 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Minor Subdivision of Thomas J. McCarthy SCTM~ 1000-117-7-8 Dear Mr. McCarthy: The following resolutions were duly adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on August 9, 1993: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this unlisted action. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map dated July 28, 1993, subject to the following condition: Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the lot line layout shown on the July 28, 1993 map since this layout contains an adjustment of the layout described in the June 30, 1992 Zoning Board of Appeals decision. 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 (2 mylars and 5 paper prints) must contain a current stamp of Health Department approval, and must be submitted before a final public hearing will be set. '!i~""Page 2 McCarthy Subdivision August 10, 1993 The sketch plans have been referred to the Cutchogue Fire District for their recommendation as to whether a firewell is necessary for fire protection. You will be notified under separate cover if the Planning Board will be requiring a firewell as part of any subdivision approval. The Long Environmental Assessment Form has been forwarded to the Board's environmental consultant for review. There is a $400 fee for this review. This must be paid in full before authorization can be given to the consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made payable to the Town of Southold. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman cc: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals APPEALS BOARD MEi~ S Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 July 9, 1992 Mr. Thomas McCarthy McCarthy Management P.O. Box 1266 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appl. No. 4100 - (Area Variance Application) Dear Mr. McCarthy: Please find attached a copy determination rendered at our concerning the above application. of the Board's findings and June 30, 1992 Regular Meeting It will be necessary for the applicant to return to the Building Inspector and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction on this project for issuance of appropriate permits. Copies of this determination have been forwarded to the Planning Board and Building Department (and the Suffolk County Department of Planning pursuant to the Administrative Code of Suffolk County which governs projects within 500 feet of the sounds, creeks, estuaries, county lands, etc.). Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Enclosures Copies of Decision to: Southold Town Building Departmentj Southold Town Planning Board/ Suffolk County Department of Planning ~PPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. ~ Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Appl. No. 4100. Upon ApPlication of THOMAS j. MCCARTHY (Contract Vendee). Current Owners: Frank Majeski and others. This is an appeal for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3 for approval of insufficient lot area, width and depth of parcels proposed in this four-lot minor subdivision, each with a preexisting dwelling. Location of Property: 1270 Fourth Street and 305 King Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-7-8. WHEREAS, public hearings were held on May 7, 1992 and June 30, 1992, at which time the applicant and persons who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present R-40 residential zoning, and the surrounding residential area; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following Findings of Fact: 1. This is an application for variances under the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 and Bulk Schedule as applies to the R-40 Low-Density Residential Zoning District. 2. The subject premises consists of a total lot area of 18,303.66 sq. ft. and is a corner lot as defined by Section · 100-13 of the zoning code, with 84.98 ft. frontage along the north side of King Street and 109.80 ft. along the east side of Fourth Street, near the Hamlet of New Suffolk, Town of Southold. 3. The following historical information and facts concerning the buildings and land are noted for the record: /l~ion Rendered June 30, 1992 (a) Section 100-32A, Bulk and Area Schedule of this R-40 Zone District, provides for a minimum lot area of 40,000 sq. ft. per dwelling and 150 ft. lot width (frontage); (b) according to town assessment and building department records, the premises has preexisted the enactment of zoning (April 1957) with four separate dwelling structures. Specific information concerning the sizes, location and setbacks of the dwellings has been furnished on the survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno dated February 28, 1992, further noted below: (1) House #305 - 837 sq. ft.; one-story height; full kitchen/housekeeping unit with permanent heating unit for yearround occupancy; (2) House #1270 - 900+ sq. ft. at ground floor; building is at two-story height; full kitchen/housekeeping with heat for yearround occupancy; (3) Cottage at the northeast section of the premises - 504 sq. ft. (14 x 36), exclusive Of 270 sq. ft. of attached garage and attached shed; (4) Cottage at the southeast section of the premises 384 sq. ft. (12 x 32) exclusive of enclosed 68 sq. ft. front porch; one-story height; front yard setback at 9.5 feet; without a heating system per building inspection report of August 28, 1990. (c) the survey prepared February 28, 1992 by Joseph A. Ingegno shows separate cesspool systems for each dwelling structure as well as four separate well locations (approximate locations). (d) Certificate of occupancy ~Z-19433 for Preexisting Use and Buildings dated October 10, 1990 from the Town Building Inspector has been furnished for the record. 4. The relief sought by this application are variances for approval of Map/Plan 1, 2 or 3 (slightly different from each other). Plan 2 was chosen as the reference map. The details shown on Plan 2 are as follows: (a) Lot No. 1 proposed total lot area of 4,113 sq. ft. located at the most southwest corner of the premises {containing House #305}; /cation of THOMAS J. McCARTHY ision Rendered June 30, 1992 (b) Lot No. 2 - proposed total lot area of 5,239 sq. ft. located at the northwest corner of the premises {containing House ~1270}; (c) Lot No. 3 - proposed total area of 5,700.86 sq. ft. located at the northeast corner of the premises {containing a cottage with nonconforming livable floor area; (d) Lot No. 4 - proposed total area of 3,250.77 sq. ft. located at the southeast corner of the premises; (e) proposed lot width {frontage} of 62.36 feet along Fourth Street of proposed Lot No. 1; (f) proposed lot width of 47.44 feet along Fourth Street of proposed Lot No. 2, Plan 2. (g) proposed lot width of 15.00 feet along King Street for proposed Lot No. 3 (shown as a flag lot}; (h) proposed lot width of 50.02 feet along King Street for proposed Lot No. 4. 5. The Board members have considered the standards set forth for "area variances" and find as follows: (a) UNIQUENESS the applicant has established unique physicial conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot compared to lots in the neighborhood. All remaining seven lots within this same residential block consist of land sizes ranging from 2850 sq. ft. to 7592 sq. ft. {i.e., parcels identified on the County Map as Lots 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12}. Each footprint of building area on these tracts range from 654 sq. ft. to 1642 sq. ft. The character of the area will clearly not be undesirably changed by the granting of this alternative variance. (b) PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES - the applicant has shown that he would not be able to reasonably use, or aesthetically improve the subject buildings under the zoning restrictions without many variances. Virtually, any attempt to make substantial aesthetic improvements to buildings, as exist, would come into conflict with the bulk schedule and provisions of the zoning ordinance as it relates to one nonconforming lot with multiple dwelling use nonconformities. The dwelling uses are allowed in this R-40 zone district, whether it be by of a legal, preexisting nature, or by placement of lot lines for separate ownership. The Board Members are not concerned with ownership of the houses -- however, it should be noted that conveyance of at least three of the existing houses for single and separate ownership on three separate lots would not be a disadvantage : /.Appi. NO. ~0 ' /~ation of THOMA~ J. McCARTHY sion Rendered June 30, 1992 under these circumstances, and would provide affordable homes to three single families in the (c) VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - While it is true of relief in relation to the zoning requirements the percentage of relief in relation to the existent nonconformities is not. Strict application of thc ordinance will not, in the Board's opinion, outwe~¢~h the applicant and justice will be served by allowin~ for alternative relief and the minimum necessary hardship. (d) OTHER FACTORS - The difficulty alleged ~a~ self-created and the difficulty claimed may not be ~.v ~dcd b-~~ means other than a variance. In view of the manner ~ the difficulties arose, and in considering all thc factors, the interests of justice will be served by alternative relief, as conditionally noted below, and ~il] the same time preserve and protect the character ~ neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare oi thc c~mmunity. (e) DENIAL OF FOURTH SUBSTANDARD LOT - It is th~ pDsit on of the Board that the fourth unit is "converted garage," less. The building is more of a garage type structure dwelling when viewing the structural parts and uti]_2, t~~ Permanent heat is questionnable. According to the ins~ec~ion report of the building department, the building containers no heating system. The entire building is not more thas ~4 sq ft., which is probably nothing more than a bathroom an~ living room. The "converted garage" is less than half thc siz? requirements of the zoning code {850 sq. ft. minim~n~ ~ _'e~u.~ red for dwelling occupancy}. Should this building be att.~m~t~d, to be brought into conformity with other state fire and construction codes, as well as the zoning size requirc~ents, congestion would be created. The property will, in e~£ect, be over-utilized with a fourth lot and the immediate neighborhood would be adversely affected. (f) NO PRECEDENT - it is the position of the ~k)a~d tna~ an alternative lot line layout for a maximum of three, in t,~a~ four lots as requested, would be more reasonable. A t ~rce-]ct layout would not set a precedent since the lots would ~e size and shape similar to those generally existing ~n immediate neighborhood. The applicant has been advis2~ Member Villa that the County Health Department may re~ ]i~e a relocation of the cesspool and well systems in this project. The Town has no control over the rules and ~ ~g~l~t~ons of the Suffolk County Health Department. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, secondcJ Mr. Dinizio, it was ~.ation of THO~J. McCARTHY ~-F~ ~ ill_Rendered June 30, 1992 / RESOLVED, to DENY the relief as requested for four / .subs_tand.ard lots as shown on Survey Plans 1, 2 and 3, prepared / by Joseph A. Ingegno dated February 28, 1992, and BE IT FUR?HER RESOLVED, to GRANT alternative relief approving a reduced lot area, width and depth, for THREE PARCELS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND NOTED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Parcel One, House #305 (Proposed Lot #1 as shown on Plan ~2) - the southerly front property line commencing from the easterly line of Fourth Street shall be extended to the east 20 feet (84.98 + 15.00 + 5.0 feet) for a total length of 105 feet; the northerly property line shall also be extended, on an angle; this would permit an increase of between 900 and 700+- sq. ft. over the requested 4113.01 sq. ft., more or less; 2. Parcel Two, House #1270 (Proposed Lot #2 as shown on Plan ~2) - the southerly side property line of this proposed lot, commencng from the easterly line of Fourth Street shall be extended to the east by an additional 3+- feet for a total length of 103+- feet (instead of 100.27 feet on a tie line); the lot area would be approximately 5,340 sq. ft.; 3. Parcel Three (combined old proposed Lots #3 and a portion of #4) - the lot width along King Street} shall be 45+- feet; the width at the rear of the premises 50.02 feet as shown; the lot depth 145+- feet; total lot area 6,975+- sq. ft. 4. The north-south lot division line separating Lot 3, from Lots 2 & 1, shall start at a point along King Street 4~ feet from the most southeast concrete monument shown on the survey map and shall extend in a northerly direction approximately 110 feet to i~tersect with the nearest property line at the northerly perimeter of the property {see 90-degree corner angle opposite the "concrete slab" shown on Plan B attached for reference use, if needed}. 5. A final map shall be prepared by the applicant for filing and acceptance with this Department. 6. Applications will be filed, processed and finalized with all other appropriate agencies of the Town and County before separating proposed Lots ~1, #2, and ~3. 7. Only one single-family dwelling use shall be permitted for each of the three lots. Therefore, it will be necessary and a requirement of this determination ~$ the front building the proposed alternative Lot ~3 which consists of approximately 384 sq. ft. (depth 32.3 feet and variable width 11.3 to 12.3 feet) shall be removed. Compliance with this condition must be confirmed within six (6) months after final approval of all T©wn L Appl. No. ~tion of THOMAS J. McCARTHY /~ _ on. Rendered June 30, 1992 a~d_County Agencies, or within six title to the applicant herein. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Dinizio and Villa. (6) months of transfer of Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, This resolution was duly adopted. lk ! RECEIVED AND FILED BY Tcwn Clerk, Tc:vn cf acuu.c.3~ ] PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone {516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Richard G. Ward, Chairman August 6, 1993 Minor Subdivision Thomas McCarthy SCTM$ 1000-117-7-8 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Roa, P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 The Planning Board has received the application materials from Thomas McCarthy for a three (3) lot subdivision of the above mentioned property. As you know, the proposed layout, as shown on the map dated July 28, 1993, is slightly different from the layout described in your Board's June 30, 1992 decision. The Planning Board has no objection to the minor lot line adjustments resulting in the layout shown on the July 28, 1993 map. Please note that the application is scheduled for the Planning Board's August 9, 1993 meeting to start the lead agency coordination process and to make a sketch plan determination. 617.21 SEQR Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The fuji EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in 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 EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAE Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides obiective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part3: If any impact in Part 2 isid~ntified 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 Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: [] Part 1 [] Part 2 I~Part 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. I-I 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 proiect may result in one or more large and important impacts that ma,,, have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a posilive declaralion will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of [ cad Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer i~ I.ead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer m Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Preparer (if different from responsible officer) Prepared I)y Proiect Sp, NOTICE: This document is c~ gned to assist in determining whether h On the environment. Please Complete the ontire form, Parts A through ~ ';~ ;Wzr o these questtons w~l~ as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further ' ~ ): ~r >po~ed mdt have ~ information you believe will be needed to COmplete Parts2 and 3. mbh~ review Provide m verdi:, :(,r~:mc It iS expected that COmpletion of the full EAF will be dependent on ~nrcrr ~ ~on c~r-endvava~lah/eandwill new studies, research or investrgation If information requirJr]~ such addj/o~~cr~unavadabh~, so incJicz te ,, each instance.. NAME OF ACTION NAME OF APPLiCANT/SPONsoR ~'- CITY/PO NAME OF OWNER (l! different) ADDRESS CITY/PO DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ~ BUS NESS TELEPHonE Please Complete Each Question_ Indicate N.A. if not appllcahle A. Site Description Physical setting of Overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ~Orban ~lndustria/ ~)Commercia/ ~Forest C]Agriculture ~Other [~-Residential (submban) 2. Total acreage of project area: ~ ~o30o~ APPROXIMATE ACREAGE acres. Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, crop/and, pasture, etc) Wet/and (Freshwater or tidal ,as per A~ticles 2,1, 25 of l:( / Water Surface Area _ Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buikbngs and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type)_ PRESENTLY ~Rura/(non-farm) AFTER COMPLETION ........... f~cres ..... - acros 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on proiect si ,? a. Soil drainage: f~,'V.II drained ~/~.~{} ~Poorly dra,n~ d ,-,(m~ rarely ~t'll drained ,,, ' - b. .f 2Qy:~.grm~lturaI /a.d,s Woved E 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on pro~ect a. What is depth to bedro k? ~_~ 2 .~ ~Approxm~ate percentage of proIl~d proiect site with stopes. ~0-10% % ~'15% or greater % - .6. ls project substantially conti~uous to, or contain a bu ding, ste, or district listed on th ~' Registers of Historic Places? ~Yes ~No , e State or the Natidnal . Isprolectsubstantia y contiguous to a site listed on the Registerof National NaturalLandmarkst ~Yes ~No 8. What is the depth of the water table? .~ [ (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole SOUrce aquifer? ~IYes ~No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the proiect area? ,~Yes I~No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is~ identified as threatened or endangered? [~Yes [~l~ No According to {) i S L; ~-~C ~g. ~ ~ ~,~ ~,Ti-C,.,v Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project ste? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ~]Yes J~No Describe 13. Is the proiect site .presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ~]Yes ~Nto If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? [=]Yes a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas 7Otli~n or contiguous to project area: a. Name b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public ut t es? )~Yes C]No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~Yes C3No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? I~Yes ,,~No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? [~Yes rl~No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 I-lYes [~.No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? K1yes /~No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of proiect (fill in dimensions as appropriate) -, ' a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor ~ I/~, acres b. Project acreage to be developed: I t~e~}' acres initially; ~ ~.;)C',~- acres c. Project acreage to remain undevq!oped ~- acres, ultimately. d. Length of project, in miles:. ~/~3f _(If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion indicate percent of ex?ansion pro)osed ~'~ % f. Number of off~street parking spaces existm~ /I;/~ ; )ropes trq~s generated p(r hour_ ~'~-~ (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing One.Family Two Family Multiple Family Initially ~ t./ __ Ultimately '~_~_~ -- -- i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structt~re --. height; width; j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will OCCL PV a. If ~es, for what iht · . . , ." ~:nlP°s'I ,~ tho site teing re~j.p,r)e,, ..... b. Will topsoil be stockpiled or rec amation~ ~Yes (- No ~-- ~ c Wd] upper sugsod be >h~c~pded )or reclama 4, ,,ow many acres of vegeta <)n ( r~ .... ~ t~on~ ~]Yes Wdl any mature forest (OW~r 100 ~ears old) or 6. If Single Phase project: Anticipated per~od of COnstruction ~ ~, mn be ren,ov~,d by th~s 7. If multi-phased: -~-- rnont s (inc/udm~ demolition) a. Total number of phases anticipated -~ (number) ~- Anticipated date of COmmencement ph se ~ c. Approximate COmpletion date of final phase ~ month ~-- ~ear ~ d. Is phase 1 functionallydepeedent ~ month ~ ' ' 9. ccur during COnstruction? ~Yes ~No LNO 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project ~ C~ 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities~ ~Yes ~'No If yes, explain 12. Is Surface liquid waste disposal involved~~Yes ~o~'~ a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industral etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which eff/t ent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes ~No TYpe . ~ ~ ~ .~ 14. Will surface area of an existing Water body increase or decrease by propos p r~, 15. Is project or any portion of Proiect located in a I00 year flood plain? E~Yes ~No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~Yes ~No a. If yes, What is the amount per month b. If yes, will an existing solid Waste facility be used) c. If yes, give name · ~Yes ~No d. Will any wastes no[ go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landf Il? ~Yes ~No ~; location e. I~ Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ~Yes ~No a. I~ yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? ~ tons/month. 18. Will project use hmbicides or pesticides? E3Yes ~No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than One hour per day)? [ ~Ycs 21. Will proiect result in an increase in enerl,,y u~o~ ~Yes If yes , indicale ty/)e(s) ~No 22. I~ Water Supplyis from weis imbcale mm~ m; cdp,~<atv _~_ ~ _ l~all(ms/mina(e [~ {~ ~3L'~{ 23. Total anticipated water usa/lo per dav _ ~ ~_ ~},dhms/day. If Yes, explain ~Yes ~-;No ~. 'Approvals Required: ,/:~, City, Town, Village Board y> City, Town, ViJlagePlanning Board City, Town Zoning Board ¢City, County Health Department Other Local Agencies Other Regional Agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies []Yes [No Yes []No Yes DYes [Yes ONo [Yes ONo E3Yes OYes Submittal pe Date C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? byes · If Yes, indicate decision required: f-lzoning amendment ~zoning variance ~]speciaJ use permit [subdivision r~site plan []new/revision of master plan ~resource management plan ~other 2. What is the zoning classification{s)of the site?. ~'~ 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoningl 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? ~V_~ ~ ~(~ 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the 6. Is the proposed ~ction consistent with the recommended uses in edopmd IocM bad use plans~ ~Yes ~No 7. Wh~t ~re the predominant bad use(s) ~nd zorn8 classifications within a x~ roue ramus o~ proposeu ~ction~ R ' 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a % mile? ~es ~No 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ~Yes ~No ~l. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ~Yes ~o a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~Yes ~No ~2. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ~Yes a. If yes, is the existing mad network adequate to h~n<lle the additional traffic? ~Yes D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may bo needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse · impacts associated with youc p~oposal plnase discuss such impacts ami the mnasu~es which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information nrovided above is true to the best of mV knowled~;e. , the action is in e Coas A ' ~; ~ wilb lids assessmenl. General Information fRead Carefu · Identifying that an impact will be p~ tentia/ly large (column 2) does no mean ~ [ i ' , ~c necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PARJ 3 to ch termme sigmficam ~deh I,~ ~ ~ i:-~a(~ m COlumn 2 simp[ asks that it be looked at further · The Examples provided are toassist~e rewewer by showinq type~ el m~ ~cts a I ~,~e~,,.~r oss~bh~ the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a respo~ se in column 2 for most situations. But, for any spe~ fic prelect . ~heexampN,~ are~u~(rai[., ~[p~ ~)~; H~roughout the State and for a Potential Large Impact respons~ thus requiring evaluation in Part ~ In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects Inslruclions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any ~mpac:. 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 · equalsorexceedsanyexampleprovided, checkcoiumn2 Ji~mnactwilloccurbutthreshoid ~s lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the Prelect to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction ~s not possible This must be explained in Part 3. ' IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Examples that would apply to column 2 f~NO [Z]YES · 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 will c~ntinue for more than 1 year or involve n c re than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more th,in 1,000 · tons of natural material {ie., rock or soil) per year. · Other impacts 2. Will there be ,an effect t, · Specific land forms: ' ~ []Y[S 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Larg, e Mitigated By Impact hnpact Project Change 6 SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER SENDER: T(~TM /~(/CC(.[KJF/'Iy SUBJECT: ~ubdi~" SCTM~: COMMENTS: SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER DATE: SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTM#: COMMENTS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD James Richter, Road Inspector Highway Department Peconic Lane Peconic, New York 11958 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Dear Mr. Richter: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers.the following application for your review. Application Name: Tax Map No.: Street Location: Hamlet Location: 1000- h7-'7- ~P Type of Application: Sketch Subdivision Map (Dated z / Preliminary Subdivision Map (Dated / Final Subdivision Map (Dated / Road Profiles (Dated / Grading and Drainage Plans (Dated / Other (Dated / Sketch Site Plan (Dated / Preliminary Site Plan (Dated / Grading and Drainage Plans (Dated / Other (Dated / PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Mathew Martin, Secretary Cutchogue Fire District New Suffolk Lane Cutchogue, New York 11935 SCO'UI'L. HARRIS Supe~isor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Dear Mr. Martin: ~ Enclose~please f~nd (2)surv~y~? ~ notify~ls PIease office as to whether any fire wells are needed. Please specify whether shallow wells or electric wells will be needed. Please reply by ~~ ,19~. Thank you for your cooperation. t lyhou s, enc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Rltchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowskl, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARR/S Supervisor Town Hal], 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, Hew York 11971 F,~x (516) 765 o 1823 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this ~equest 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: /~,~o~ ~u~:u(~o~ Requested Action: SEQRA Classification: ( ) Type I (~) Unlisted Contact Person: ~s~% (516)-765- The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. 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 co~tact this office fo~ ~ui~ner ln[orma~ion. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman cc: ~Board of Appeals Southold Town Board ~Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services ~NYSDEC - Stony Brook NYSDEC - Albany S.C. Dcpt. cf Public Works N.Y.S. ~=~s~-of Tran~por~=~t-i~u~ * Maps are enclosed for your review Coordinating agencies '' 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR Pu:pose: 'rke JII EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or ctmnma,, esignificant.Thequestionofwhetheranactionmaybesignificantisnotalwayseasytoanswer.Frequent- [y, here are ~)ects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine si~ ific~nce [m ;, have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental an, lysis in; : tion many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting th( question o significance. Tllefulli F is intended to provide a method whereby app[icants and agencies can be assured that the determination pr( :ess has b,, ,~ orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Comp merits: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part t: 'rovides obiective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project ~ ata, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: ! ocuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides ! uidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- I]rge impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: : any impact in Part2isid;ntifiedaspotentially_large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the npact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions hlentify th(' l'ortions of EAF completed for this project: [] Part 1 [] Part 2 I~]Part 3 I,pon revi ~.,, )f the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting i formation md considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the ! ad agencv hat: [~ A. he project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not i ave a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will he prepared. [3 B. ,' Ithough the project could have a signif'icant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant ~ ffect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, I lerefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* [] C. ~, he project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact (m the environment, therefore a posilive declaration will be prepared. * A Cor~ itioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency P ~t or Type ' amc of Responsible O~ficer in Lead Agency ~;natule , f Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Preparer (If ddferent from responsible ot ricer) -~?'~-"~?-~OJECTINFORk .,,ON NOTICE: This document is designed to ::i;tindele Initnlgwhett~er t ( ~c)n re on the environment. Please Complete th t'r(pate i by Project Sponsor as part of the application '~' ertire fo,m ~aus A throu,,k ~ ~ . P po~d may hay( a for approval and r~ay be s~b/(c t t~ further ~' *' ~nswers to these questions information you bebeve will be needed u* (omp e~ ~ ~; r~ 2 and 3 It is expected that COmpletion of the fJli lA; will h,2 dependent on information currendv available and w~, new studies, researchorinvestigati~n I~infcrmation e;t..~r~.~g such additional work is unavailable, soindica:, NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR "~ ~:~)'~*~;~ CITY/PO ~'~ '~' NAME OF OWNER (If different) ADDRESS CITY/Po DESCRIPTION OF ACTION (t-U ' [~Forest ~Agriculture ~Other 2. Total acreage of project area: APPROXIMATE ACREAGE ~ acres. Meadow or Brushland (NOmagricultural) Forested Agricultural{includes orchards, croplald pasture etc) Wetland{Ereshwater or tidal as per Articles 24 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area ' Unvegetated (Ro(~, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and Other paved stufaces Other (Indicate type)__ 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on i)roiect site? Please Complele Each Question_ Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of Overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ~]Urban ~lndustr/al ~Commercial {~Residential (suburban) PRESENTLY ~_ acres ~Rura/(non-farnl) AFTER COMPLETION a. Soil drainage: L~WeI/ drained {[~)C~, E~Poorly dralnod °~°f~lt~' -- l~~r'luled b. If anyafiricu/tura a~.i; .... , , -~ % of s~te Land Classd~cabon System~ ~ ,'{l~ o[ soil ,ire classlttod within soil 4. Are there bedrock outcropp ngs o~t s~tc'? (See 1 NYCRR 370) a, What is depth to bedrock~ ~ ~ ~(in feet) 2 ~" A, pproximate percentage of proj~d proiect site with slopes: [0-10% E~10-1 ~ ~15% or greater % 6. Is pro ect substa 6. ~ .... n~ally cont,guous to, or ~onta,n a bu,ldin~ s,te or d~,~, ';~.~ ~- -~ .... ' ~ ~e~lsters or Historic Places? ~Yes ~o ............... un me ~[ate or the National 7. [s project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Re~ister of National Natural Landmarks~ ~Yes ~No 8. What is the depth of the water table? ~ (in feet) 9. s site located over a primary, principal, or sole Source aquifer? ~Yes ~No 10 Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ~Yes ~No 11 Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered~ ~Yes ~No According to [] ~ S ~,qC n Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) DYes ~No Describe 13. Is the project site .presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? I-lyes ~No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? []Yes [~o a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16, .akes, ponds, wetland areas '~t?l/~n or contiguous to proiect area: a. Name b. Size (In acres) 17. s the site served by existing public util ties? ~J~Yes F~No k/'61~et",9-i]2, l',~[,tC'f(c,t~") ) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [~Yes DNo ) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? [~Yes /~No 18. i the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, .~ ection 303 and 304? ~]Yes /~No 19. I. the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 ¢ f the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 []Yes [~No 20. las the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? E]Yes ./~No B. Project Description 1. Ph ,sical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) i Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor ~ ac 'es ultimately. [ Project acreage to be developed I ~,~)C~?~- _ acres initially; c Project acreage to remain undeve!oped . (_~ ¢ Length of project in m.iles: .~/~)f _ (If acres. ' appropriate) e If the proiect is an expansion, indicate percent oftexpansion proposed f Number of off street parking spaces existing _. /Ij/~__; proposed ~/J~" %; g Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour__ ~t/~_~(upon completion of project)? h If residential: Number and type of housin~ units: One Fam y Two Family I itially ~. ~/__ Muhiple Family L ttma e y ]~ , i. ]imensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; width; J. -meat feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? ~(~' · ft. T-c:tO'C a. it yes, for what imf ?'~N./A b. Will topsoil be stocklnh!d ~or reclamatio ~ c Will Upper Subsod be ~tocbr, ile.4 ,: n. ~Yes ~hN~ -~ ~Yes ~o '~ y~ars oldlor Other Iocally-im~ . ,~m~ S,te~ 6. If single phase project: Anticff~ated per/od of Construction ~_. mo ~s, (includim~ demohtion) 7. If multi-phased: )o ~ bc removed by this a. Total number of phases anticq~ated ---~ (number) b. Anticipated date of COmmencement phase ~ c. Approximate COmpletion date of final phase ~m°nth ~_ ~ yea' (including; demolition) d. Is phase 1 functionalfy~ . ~month ' 8. ' · quen~ pnases~ ~Yes i Xo 9. dl blasting occur during construction~ ~y ~umber of lobs generated, d--~ esm ~No 10 Number of jobs eliminated by this project ~~; after project is ~omplete C~ 1~. Will project require relocation of any projects or facili es? ~Yes ~'N~, tf yes. expiam 12. Is surface liquid Waste disposal involved? ~¥es a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industral etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a ~00 year flood plain? f~Yes 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~Yes /~No ,~No a. If yes, what is the amount per month b. If yes, will an existing so/id waste facility be usedZ [ZlYes c. If yes, give name ~No -; location ~ d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? f~Yes e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ~Yes ~No a. If yes, What is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? ' ~-~--~-~- tons/month 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? L~Yes .~No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? E~Yes 20. Will project produce operating no/se exceeding the local ambitmt rlo~s~ /eve/s? (2Y's 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~]¥es z~No ~o If yes , indicate type(s) _ 22. If Water Supply is from Weis indicate pumph~[ cap,](:ity _ - --~----- -- _. ~3. Total anticipated Water usable per day ~ ~ ~;alhms/mi, ,re {~[~ ~('f({' ';~, - 24. Does prolect involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Yes, explain ~Yes ~No ~ Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board [Yes E3No City, Tmvn, Village Planning Board ~Yes FINe City, Town Zoning Board ,[KlYes City, County Health Department DYes [No Other Local Agencies [3Yes I-INo Other Regional Agencies [Yes U]No State Agencies UlYes [3No Federal Agencies [Yes ENo Submittal Date C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a pJanning or zoning decision? ¢~Yes reno · If Yes, indicate decision required: ~zoning amendment ~ii~zoning variance [3special use permit [3subdivision ~site plan Ilnew/revision of master plan [~]resource mantq, gement plan I-Iother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site?. K""VO 3. What is the maximum potential development of t. he site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? -{-'~"-~ ,.~',r7 ~;~t4~i~- L()'P~ 5. What is the maX~,~m potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6. is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans~ J~Y_es , Il,No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 7~ roue raolus or proposeo action~ 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mfle~ [~es I-INo 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? dJ~ ¢'~-'2~ a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? q ¢~.) ¢ ~ 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? [Yes .J~No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services Irecreation, education, police, fire protection)? []-lYes ~No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~lYes F'lNo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? []Yes ,,~No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ~Yes E]No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse -impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them, E. Verification I certify that the information nrovidod above is true to the [)est of my knowledge. If.l~e~ylson is m the Coaslal Area, and you are a slate agency, complete e C(as/al Aqsessmen for ~ [ c'fore proceeding wllh tll~s assessmenL 5 ' ~"~pons~hiiily General information (Read Carefullv~ ~ In completing the form the reviewe, sbou/, * Identifying that an impact will be p~)tentialJy large (column 2) do~s not m~,~h ; ~ r: ( ne(essardv signlJicanl. asks that it be looked at further. ~ The Examples provided are toassist therew,~wer by showim] types of ~mpa(t:~ ~'~heru~t t.ossJhle th~ threshold of magnitude that would trigger a respo ~se in column 2 1 he examples are generah '~g ~ : ~t)~ ' ]toui4hout the State and for a Potential Large Impact response, thus cuqmring evaluation in Part 3 ~ The impacts of each project, on ea(h site, in each Iocahty will vary Fherur~ , the *,,m~t ]es are i/lustratwe and have been offered as guidance They do not constitute an exhaustive list ' ~ In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumJative effects Inslructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2 Answer Yes if there will be any /mi)ct 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 ~ndicate the potential size of the ~mpact. lfimpactthresholdequalsorexceedsanyexamp~eprovided, check column 2 ]f ~mpact xvill occur but threshold is lower than exampe check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the pro/e(:t to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3 A No response indicates that such a reduction ~s not Dossibjp This must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the proiect s ie? EXamples that would apply to column 2 ~NO L~YES · 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 will c~ntinue for more than I year or involw! nlore than one pbase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (ie., rock or soil) per year · Construction or expansion of a samtary landfill · Construction in a designated flood~vay · Other impacts the site? (ie, cliffs, dunes, ~eolodica form,ltlons, etc )[~NO [~Y[[S · Specific land forms: 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact Can hnpact Be Mitigated By Project Change APPEALS BOARD MEIVlBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, .Ir. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, .Ir. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-I823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 July 9, 1992 Mr. Thomas McCarthy McCarthy Management P.O. Box 1266 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appl. No. 4100 - (Area Variance Application) Dear Mr. McCarthy: Please find attached a copy determination rendered at our concerning the above application. of the Board's findings and June 30, 1992 Regular Meeting It will be necessary for the applicant to return to the Building Inspector and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction on this project for issuance of appropriate permits. Copies of this determination have been forwarded to the Planning Board and Building Department (and the Suffolk County Department of Planning pursuant to the Administrative Code of Suffolk County which governs projects within 500 feet of the sounds, creeks, estuaries, county lands, etc.). Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Enclosures Copies of Decision to: Southold Town Building Departmentj Southold Town Planning Board/ Suffolk County Department of Planning LS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. ~ Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Appl. No. 4100. Upon Application of THOMAS J. MCCARTHY (Contract Vendee). Current Owners: Frank Majeski and others. This is an appeal for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3 for approval of insufficient lot area, width and depth of parcels proposed in this four-lot minor subdivision, each with a preexisting dwelling. Location of Property: 1270 Fourth Street and 305 King Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-7-8. WHEREAS, public hearings were held on May 7, 1992 and June 30, 1992, at which time the applicant and persons who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present R-40 residential zoning, and the surrounding residential area; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following Findings of Fact: 1. This is an application for variances under the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 and Bulk Schedule as applies to the R-40 Low-Density Residential Zoning District. 2. The subject premises consists of a total lot area of 18,303.66 sq. ft. and is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-13 of the zoning code, with 84.98 ft. frontage along the north side of King Street and 109.80 ft. along the east side of Fourth Street, near the Hamlet of New Suffolk, Town of Southold. 3. The following historical information and facts Concerning the buildings and land are noted for the record: . · /- Appi. No !00 · /l~ation of THOM~ J. ision Rendered June 3 McCARTHY 0, 1992 (a) Section 100-32A, Bulk and Area Schedule of this R-40 Zone District, provides for a minimum lot area of 40,000 sq. ft. per dwelling and 150 ft. lot width (frontage); (b) according to town assessment and building department records, the premises has preexisted the enactment of zoning (April 1957) with four separate dwelling structures. Specific information concerning the sizes, location and setbacks of the dwellings has been furnished on the survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno dated February 28, 1992, further noted below: (1) House ~305 - 837 sq. ft.; one-story height; full kitchen/housekeeping unit with permanent heating unit for yearround occupancy; (2) House ~1270 - 900+ sq. ft. at ground floor; building is at two-story height; full kitchen/housekeeping with heat for yearround occupancy; (3) Cottage at the northeast section of the premises - 504 sq. ft. (14 x 36), exclusive Of 270 sq. ft. of attached garage and attached shed; (4) Cottage at the southeast section of the premises - 384 sq. ft. (12 x 32) exclusive of enclosed 68 sq. ft. front porch; one-story height; front yard setback at 9.5 feet; without a heating system per building inspection report of August 28, 1990. (c) the survey prepared February 28, 1992 by Joseph A. Ingegno shows separate cesspool systems for each ~welling structure as well as four separate well locations approximate locations). (d) Certificate of Occupancy #Z-19433 for Preexisting Use and Buildings dated October 10, 1990 from the Town Building Inspector has been furnished for the record. 4. The relief sought by this application are variances for approval of Map/Plan 1, 2 or 3 (slightly different from each other). Plan 2 was chosen as the reference map. The details shown on Plan 2 are as follows: (a) Lot No. 1 - proposed total lot area of 4,113 ft. located at the most southwest corner of the premises {containing House #305}; · - · /Appi. No. · /cation of THOMAS J. McCARTHY ision Rendered June 30, 1992 (b) Lot No. 2 - proposed total lot area of 5,239 sq. ft. located at the northwest corner of the premises {containing House %1270}; (c) Lot No. 3 - proposed total area of 5,700.86 sq. ft. located at the northeast corner of the premises {containing a cottage with nonconforming livable floor area; (d) Lot No. 4 - proposed total area of 3,250.77 sq. ft. located at the southeast corner of the premises; (e) proposed lot width {frontage} of 62.36 feet along Fourth Street of proposed Lot No. 1; (f) proposed lot width of 47.44 feet along Fourth Street of proposed Lot No. 2, Plan 2. (g) proposed lot width of 15.00 feet along King Street for proposed Lot No. 3 {shown as a flag lot}; (h) proposed lot width of 50.02 feet along King Street for proposed Lot No. 4. 5. The Board members have considered the standards set forth for "area variances" and find as follows: (a) UNIQUENESS - the applicant has established unique physicial conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot compared to lots in the neighborhood. All remaining seven lots within this same residential block consist of land sizes ranging from 2850 sq. ft. to 7592 sq. ft. {i.e., parcels identified on the County Map as Lots 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12}. Each footprint of building area on these tracts range from 654 sq. ft. to 1642 sq. ft. The character of the area will clearly not be undesirably changed by the granting of this alternative variance. (b) PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES - the applicant has shown that he would not be able to reasonably use, or aesthetically improve the subject buildings under the zoning restrictions without many variances. Virtually, any attempt to make substantial aesthetic improvements to buildings, as exist, would Come into conflict with the bulk schedule and provisions of the zoning ordinance as it relates to one nonconforming lot with multiple dwelling use nonconformities. The dwelling uses are allowed in this R-40 zone district, whether it be by of a legal, preexisting nature, or by placement of lot lines for separate ownership. The Board Members are not concerned with ownership of the houses -- however, it should be noted that conveyance of at least three of the existing houses for single and separate ownership on three separate lots would not be a disadvantage ~ation of THO~S J. McCART~ ~ . /~ Rsion Rendered June 30, 1992 !~ E under these circ~stances, and would provide opportunit ~ affordable homes to three single f~ilies in the Town. ~'~~ (?) VALID P~LIC PURPOSE - While it' is' true the percen~~?~~~ ~ of relief in relation to the zoning requirements is s~stant~~ the percentage of relief in relation to the existing ' nonconformities is not. Strict application of the zoning ordinance will not, in the Board's opinion, outweigh injury to the applicant and justice will be served by allowing a variance, for alternative relief and the minim~ necessary to relieve the hardship. (d) OTHER FACTORS - The difficulty alleged was not self-created and the difficulty claimed may not be avoided by means other than a variance. In view of the manner in which the difficulties arose, and in considering all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting alternative relief, as conditionally noted below, and will at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. (e) DENIAL OF FOURTH SUBSTANDARD LOT - It is the position of the Board that the fourth unit is "converted garage," more or less. The building is more of a garage type structure than a dwelling when viewing the structural parts and utility system. Permanent heat is questionnable. According to the inspection report of the building department, the building contains no heating system. The entire building is not more than 384 sq. ft., which is probably nothing more than a bathroom and living room. The "converted garage" is less than half the size requirements of the zoning code {850 sq. ft. minimum is required for dwelling occupancy}. Should this building be attempted to be brought into conformity with other state fire and construction codes, as well as the zoning size requirements, congestion would be created. The property will, in effect, be over-utilized with a fourth lot and the immediate neighborhood would be adversely affected. (f) NO PRECEDENT - it is the position of the Board that an alternative lot line layout for a maximum of three, instead of four lots as requested, would be more reasonable. A three-lot layout would not set a precedent since the lots would be of a size and shape similar to those generally existing in this immediate neighborhood. The applicant has been advised by Member Villa that the County Health Department may require a relocation of the cesspool and well systems in this subdivision project. The Town has no control over the rules and regulations of the Suffolk County Health Department. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Dinizio, it was · Appl. NO.~O0 ~ · Ration of THOMAS J. McCARTHY ~~ ion Rendered June 30, 1992 / RESOLVED, to DENY the relief as requested for four / substandard lots as shown on Survey Plans 1, 2 and 3, prepared / by Joseph A. Ingegno dated February 28, 1992, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to GR3kNT alternative relief approving a reduced lot area, width and depth, for THREE PARCELS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND NOTED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Parcel One, House #305 (Proposed Lot ~1 as shown on Plan ~2) - the southerly front property line commencing from the easterly line of Fourth Street shall be extended to the east 20 feet (84.98 + 15.00 + 5.0 feet) for a total length of 105 feet; the northerly property line shall also be extended, on an angle; this would permit an increase of between 900 and 700+- sq. ft. over the requested 4113.01 sq. ft., more or less; 2. Parcel Two, House ~1270 (Proposed Lot #2 as shown on Plan 92) - the southerly side property line of this proposed lot, commencng from the easterly line of Fourth Street shall be extended to the east by an additional 3+- feet for a total length of 103+- feet (instead of 100.27 feet on a tie line); the lot area would be approximately 5,340 sq. ft.; 3. Parcel Three (combined old proposed Lots ~3 and a portion of 94) - the lot width along King Street} shall be 45+- feet; the width at the rear of the premises 50.02 feet as shown; the lot depth 145+- feet; total lot area 6,975+- sq. ft. 4. The north-south lot division line separating Lot 3, from Lots 2 & 1, shall start at a point along King Street 45 feet from the most southeast concrete monument shown on the survey map and shall extend in a northerly direction approximately 110 feet to i~tersect with the nearest property line at the northerly perimeter of the property {see 90-degree corner angle opposite the "concrete slab" shown on Plan B attached for reference use, if needed}. 5. A final map shall be prepared by the applicant for filing and acceptance with this Department. 6. Applications will be filed, processed and finalized with all other appropriate agencies of the Town and County before separating proposed Lots ~1, ~2, and ~3. 7. Only one single-family dwelling use shall be permitted for each of the three lots. Therefore, it will be necessary and a requirement of this determination is the front building on the proposed alternative Lot ~3 which consists of approximately 384 sq.' ft. (depth 32.3 feet and variable width 11.3 to 12.3 feet) shall be removed. Compliance with this condition must be confirmed within six (6) months after final approval of all Town /tion of THOMAS J. McCARTHY on Rendered June 30, 1992 / a~d_County_Agencies, or within six title to the applicant herein. (6) months of transfer of Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Dinizio and Villa. This resolution was duly adopted. lk RECEIVED AND FILED. =.BY THE SOUTHOLD T©WN D~.T~ Tcwn Clerk, Tcvm o~ ~cu..c~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Rltchie Latham, Jr, Bcrmett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516} 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD sc(yi'r L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 August 10, 1993 Thomas J. McCarthy Box 62 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Minor Subdivision of Thomas J. McCarthy SCTM% 1000-117-7-8 Dear Mr. McCarthy: The following resolutions were duly adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on August 9, 1993: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this unlisted action. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map dated July 28, 1993, subject to the following condition: Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the lot line layout shown on the July 28, 1993 map since this layout contains an adjustment of the layout described in the June 30, 1992 Zoning Board of Appeals decision. 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 (2 mylars and 5 paper prints) must contain a current stamp of Health Department approval, and must be submitted before a final public hearing will be set. Page 2 McCarthy Subdivision August 10, 1993 The sketch plans have been referred to the Cutchogue Fire District for their recommendation as to whether a firewell is necessary for fire protection. You will be notified under separate cover if the Planning Board will be requiring a firewell as part of any subdivision approval. The Long Environmental Assessment Form has been forwarded to the Board's environmental consultant for review. There is a $400 fee for this review. This must be paid in full before authorization can be given to the consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made payable to the Town of Southold. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman cc: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Benn{~tt Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone I516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (5161 765-1823 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Richard G. Ward, Chairman Kd~,~ August 6, 1993 Minor Subdivision Thomas McCarthy SCTM# 1000-117-7-8 The Planning Board has received the application materials from Thomas McCarthy for a three (3) lot subdivision of the above mentioned property. As you know, the proposed layout, as shown on the map dated July 28, 1993, is slightly different from the layout described in your Board's June 30, 1992 decision. The Planning Board has no objection to the minor lot line adjustments resulting in the layout shown on the July 28, 1993 map. Please note that the application is scheduled for the Planning Board's August 9, 1993 meeting to start the lead agency coordination process and to make a sketch plan determination. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard R C~oehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971 F~x (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: {X } Planning Board { } Building Department { } Town Trustees Board of Appeals July 30, 1993 Our Coordination Request for Comments-Preliminary Subdivision Proposal filed by Thomas McCarthy Property ID #1000-117-07-008 at New Suffolk The applicant in the above project has confirmed with our office that he has met on a preliminary level with Planning Board Members and expects to file the above application with your office within the next few days. Since the application before this Department concerns a request for an adjustment of the lot line different from the previous maps under review, we would like to provide you with an opportunity at this time to comment on those elements which may affect the lot line layout under Chapter 106 (Subdivision Regulations). You may note that the adjustment of the lot line does not create additional density. In the event you are not able to transmit your views in writing by August 17, 1993, please feel free to communicate directly either through our office or attendance by a planning staff member at the public hearing. Thank you. lk PoSo same map left with you by Mr. (The amended map on file with our office appears to be the McCarthy yesterday. ) i!!iii JUL 3 0 199'3 Thomas O. McCarthy Box 62 Mattituck~ ~Y 11952 298-5815 July 28 ~ 1993 Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Soutlnold Town Planning Board lown Hall Southold, NY 11971 RE: 10~0~'117~7-8 Dear Mr. Ward, Enclosed please find the following information regarding mM subdivision in New Suffolk: o a check in the amount of $2,405.~ ~% ~%~ o 8 site plans o legal description of the entire parcel o pre existing certificate of occupancy o application for plat approval o planning dept. questionnaire o form letter~ re: drainage o part 1 of the EAF o a copy of the tax map o SC Dept of Planning letter and canceled check I offer to you the foJlowing information to bring The 8card up to speed on this project since your last correspondence with The Board Of Appeals on May 13, 1992. I made formal application to the ZBA and was granted ar, area variance for three lots. Although the application was 'for four lots, the ZBA , with consideration to Moor recommendations~ granted the alternative relief of three i©ts. In so doing the lot lines were configured in such a wa>' to include existing septic structures with the dwellings that they serviced on each individual lot. I then applied to the Suffolk County Health Dept. for approval of the proposed individual lots and was denied. I then applied to the Board of Review and was granted a Variance. A condition of the approval ~as fo/ me to install new wells and septic systems. I am currently waiting to file my well covenants with the County and have my final plan stamped. At this particular point, I have re--applied to the ZBA in order to reconfigure the lot lines so that the are in harmony with the su'rrounding area. I am doing this because the very reason that they were approved as originally drawn was to include the pre existing septic systems. This is no longer necessary as a result of the newly imposed condition of the Suffolk County Health Department Board Of Review. It would certainly be less expensive and time consuming to proceed with the original plan, however I feel that the project, neighborhood, and Town would be better served if the lot lines were adjusted to complement the sur¥ounding area. I respectfully ask that You¥ Board proceed with my application as rapidly as possible, start the SE©RA coordination, and put my projeot, on your next agenda, Thank you for your time and attention to this matter, tim PB/maj Sincerely ,¥~~ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J, GAFFNEY July 22, 1992 Thomas J. McCarthy P.O. Box 1266 Southold, NY lt971 Applicant: Thomas J. McCarthy Mun. File No.: 4100 Town of: Southold SCPD File No.: SD-92-9 You have recently submitted a zoning action to the above referenced municipality which has forwarded it to the offices of the Suffolk County Planning Commission for review and recommendation in accordance with Section A14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code. In accordance with fee legislation (Resolution No. 809-1991) enacted by the Suffolk County Legislature/ Executive on November 19, 1991 to help defray administrative review costs associated therewith, please remiE a fee of $50.00 to the Suffolk County Dept. of Planning, H. Lee Dennison Bldg., 12th Floor, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788, Attention of Lucille Gardella (Tel. #853-5193). Payment shall be made by check or money order payable to the Suffolk County Treasurer including the Suffolk County Planning Dept. File No. If the S.C.P.D. File No. is not available, please indicate the Municipal Pile No. or the Public Hearing Date. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letteL. Failure to provide payment within the prescribed time limit could result in a surcharge for each month of delinquency or other action as deemed necessary and appropriate. Thank you. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz Director of Planning C,~N:mb S/a Gerald G. Newma~ Chief Planner COUNTY O~ SUFFOLK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES March 11, 1993 Mr. Thomas J. McCarthy P. O. Box 62 Mattlt~ck~ New York 11952 MA~Y E. HIBBERD, M.D.. M.P.H. COM,,$S,O,E, Proposed Subdivision of McCarthy #92-242, (T) Southold (SCTM 1000-177-7-8) Dear Mr. McCarthy: Your request to appear before the Board of Review of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has been received. The review of this case has been scheduled for March 25, 1993 at 11:30 a.m., in the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Conference Room, County Center, Room $-238, Riverhead. You and interested parties are requested to appear, with or without counsel, and you may produce any information or evidence concerning the above referenced property. Should you have any questions, please call 516-852-2100. Very truly yours, Dennis Moran, P.E. Chairman Board of Review DM:cah CC: Mr. James L. Corbin Mr. Robert J. Farmer Ms. Susan D. Windesheim Mr. Peter R. akras, P.E. Mr. Frank Dowling, Sr. Planner Town of Southold Planning Board APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 July 9, 1992 Mr. Thomas McCarthy McCarthy Management P.O. Box 1266 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appl. No. 4100 (Area Variance Application) Dear Mr. McCarthy: Please find attached a copy determination rendered at our concerning the above application. of the Board's findings and June 30, 1992 Regular Meeting It will be necessary for the applicant to return to the Building Inspector and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction on this project for issuance of appropriate permits. Copies of this determination have been forwarded to the Planning Board and Building Department (and the Suffolk County Department of Planning pursuant to the Administrative Code of Suffolk County which governs projects within 500 feet of the sounds, creeks, estuaries, county lands, etc.). Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Enclosures Copies of Decision to: Southold Town Building Department_t_~ Southold Town Planning Board~,-'~ Suffolk County Department of Planning APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, .Ir. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS SCO'Yr L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Appl. No. 4100. Upon Application of THOMAS J. MCCARTHY (Contract Vendee). Current Owners: Frank Majeski and others. This is an appeal for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3 for approval of insufficient lot area, width and depth of parcels proposed in this four-lot minor subdivision, each with a preexisting dwelling. Location of Property: 1270 Fourth Street and 305 King Street, New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-7-8. WHEREAS, public hearings were held on May 7, 1992 and June 30, 1992, at which time the applicant and persons who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present R-40 residential zoning, and the surrounding residential area; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following Findings of Fact: 1. This is an application for variances under the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 and Bulk Schedule as applies to the R-40 Low-Density Residential Zoning District. 2. The subject premises consists of a total lot area of 18,303.66 sq. ft. and is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-13 of the zoning code, with 84.98 ft. frontage along the north side of King Street and 109.80 ft. along the east side of Fourth Street, near the Hamlet of New Suffolk, Town of Southold. 3. The following historical information and facts concerning the buildings and land are noted for the record: ~ - No.~00~ Page 2 - Appl. Application of THOMAS J. McCARTHY Decision Rendered June 30, 1992 (a) Section 100-32A, Bulk and Area Schedule of this R-40 Zone District, provides for a minimum lot area of 40,000 sq. ft. per dwelling and 150 ft. lot width (frontage); (b) according to town assessment and building department records, the premises has preexisted the enactment of zoning (April 1957) with four separate dwelling structures. Specific information concerning the sizes, location and setbacks of the dwellings has been furnished on the survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno dated February 28, 1992, further noted below: (i) House ~305 - 837 sq. ft.; one-story height; full kitchen/housekeeping unit with permanent heating unit for yearround occupancy; (2) House 91270 - 900+ sq. ft. at ground floor; building is at two-story height; full kitchen/housekeeping with heat for yearround occupancy; (3) Cottage at the northeast section of the premises 504 sq. ft. (14 x 36), exclusive of 270 sq. ft. of attached garage and attached shed; (4) Cottage at the southeast section of the premises 384 sq. ft. (12 x 32) exclusive of enclosed 68 sq. ft. front porch; one-story height; front yard setback at 9.5 feet; without a heating system per building inspection report of August 28, 1990. (c) the survey prepared February 28, 1992 by Joseph A. Ingegno shows separate cesspool systems for each dwelling structure as well as four separate well locations (approximate locations). (d) Certificate of Occupancy 9Z-19433 for Preexisting Use and Buildings dated October 10, 1990 from the Town Building Inspector has been furnished for the record. 4. The relief sought by this application are variances for approval of Map/Plan 1, 2 or 3 (slightly different from each other). Plan 2 was chosen as the reference map. The details shown on Plan 2 are as follows: (a) Lot No. 1 - proposed total lot area of 4,113 ft. located at the most southwest corner of the premises {containing House #305}; sq. Application of THOMA~SJ. McCARTHY Decision Rendered June 30, 1992 (b) Lot No. 2 - proposed total lot area of 5,239 sq. ft. located at the northwest corner of the premises {containing House #1270}; (c) Lot No. 3 - proposed total area of 5,700.86 sq. ft. located at the northeast corner of the premises {containing a cottage with nonconforming livable floor area; (d) Lot No. 4 - proposed total area of 3,250.77 sq. ft. located at the southeast corner of the premises; (e) proposed lot width {frontage} of 62.36 feet along Fourth Street of proposed Lot No. 1; (f) proposed lot width of 47.44 feet along Fourth Street of proposed Lot No. 2, Plan 2. (g) proposed lot width of 15.00 feet along King Street for proposed Lot No. 3 {shown as a flag lot}; (h) proposed lot width of 50.02 feet along King Street for proposed Lot No. 4. 5. The Board members have considered the standards set forth for "area variances" and find as follows: (a) UNIQUENESS - the applicant has established unique physicial conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot compared to lots in the neighborhood. All remaining seven lots within this same residential block consist of land sizes ranging from 2850 sq. ft. to 7592 sq. ft. {i.e., parcels identified on the County Map as Lots 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12}. Each footprint of building area on these tracts range from 654 sq. ft. to 1642 sq. ft. The character of the area will clearly not be undesirably changed by the granting of this alternative variance. (b) PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES the applicant has shown that he would not be able to reasonably use, or aesthetically improve the subject buildings under the zoning restrictions without many variances. Virtually, any attempt to make substantial aesthetic improvements to buildings, as exist, would come into conflict with the bulk schedule and provisions of the zoning ordinance as it relates to one nonconforming lot with multiple dwelling use nonconformities. The dwelling uses are allowed in this R-40 zone district, whether it be by of a legal, preexisting nature, or by placement of lot lines for separate ownership. The Board Members are not concerned with ownership of the houses -- however, it should be noted that conveyance of at least three of the existing houses for single and separate ownership on three separate lots would not be a disadvantage [P~ge'4-- - Appl. No. Application of THOMAS J. McCARTHY Decision Rendered June 30, 1992 under these circumstances, and would provide opportunities for affordable homes to three single families in the Town. (c) VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - While it is true the percentage of relief in relation to the zoning requirements is substantial, the percentage of relief in relation to the existing nonconformities is not. Strict application of the zoning ordinance will not, in the Board's opinion, outweigh injury to the applicant and justice will be served by allowing a variance, for alternative relief and the minimum necessary to relieve the hardship. (d) OTHER FACTORS - The difficulty alleged was not self-created and the difficulty claimed may not be avoided by means other than a variance. In view of the manner in which the difficulties arose, and in considering all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting alternative relief, as conditionally noted below, and will at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. (e) DENIAL OF FOURTH SUBSTANDARD LOT - It is the position of the Board that the fourth unit is "converted garage," more or less. The building is more of a garage type structure than a dwelling when viewing the structural parts and utility system. Permanent heat is questionnable. According to the inspection report of the building department, the building contains no heating system. The entire building is not more than 384 sq. ft., which is probably nothing more than a bathroom and living room. The "converted garage" is less than half the size requirements of the zoning code {850 sq. ft. minimum is required for dwelling occupancy}. Should this building be attempted to be brought into conformity with other state fire and construction codes, as well as the zoning size requirements, congestion would be created. The property will, in effect, be over-utilized with a fourth lot and the immediate neighborhood would be adversely affected. (f) NO PRECEDENT - it is the position of the Board that an alternative lot line layout for a maximum of three, instead of four lots as requested, would be more reasonable. A three-lot layout would not set a precedent since the lots would be of a size and shape similar to those generally existing in this immediate neighborhood. The applicant has been advised by Member Villa that the County Health Department may require a relocation of the cesspool and well systems in this subdivision project. The Town has no control over the rules and regulations of the Suffolk County Health Department. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Dinizio, it was "'P~ge'5 - Appl. No.~0 Application of THOMAS J. McCARTHY Decision Rendered June 30, 1992 RESOLVED, to DENY the relief as requested for four substandard lots as shown on Survey Plans 1, 2 and 3, prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno dated February 28, 1992, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to GRANT alternative relief approving a reduced lot area, width and depth, for THREE PARCELS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND NOTED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Parcel One, House #305 (Proposed Lot #1 as shown on Plan #2) - the southerly front property line commencing from the easterly line of Fourth Street shall be extended to the east 20 feet (84.98 + 15.00 + 5.0 feet) for a total length of 105 feet; the northerly property line shall also be extended, on an angle; this would permit an increase of between 900 and 700+- sq. ft. over the requested 4113.01 sq. ft., more or less; 2. Parcel Two, House #1270 (Proposed Lot #2 as shown on Plan #2) - the southerly side property line of this proposed lot, commencng from the easterly line of Fourth Street shall be extended to the east by an additional 3+- feet for a total length of 103+- feet (instead of 100.27 feet on a tie line); the lot area would be approximately 5,340 sq. ft.; 3. Parcel Three (combined old proposed Lots #3 and a portion of #4) - the lot width along King Street} shall be 45+- feet; the width at the rear of the premises 50.02 feet as shown; the lot depth 145+- feet; total lot area 6,975+- sq. ft. 4. The north-south lot division line separating Lot 3, from Lots 2 & 1, shall start at a point along King Street 45 feet from the most southeast concrete monument shown on the survey map and shall extend in a northerly direction approximately 110 feet to intersect with the nearest property line at the northerly perimeter of the property (see 90-degree corner angle opposite the "concrete slab" shown on Plan B attached for reference use, if needed}. 5. A final map shall be prepared by the applicant for filing and acceptance with this Department. 6. Applications will be filed, processed and finalized with all other appropriate agencies of the Town and County before separating proposed Lots #1, #2, and #3. 7. Only one single-family dwelling use shall be permitted for each of the three lots. Therefore, it will be necessary and a requirement of this determination is the front building on the proposed alternative Lot #3 which consists of approximately 384 sq. ft. (depth 32.3 feet and variable width 11.3 to 12.3 feet) shall be removed. Compliance with this condition must be confirmed within six (6) months after final approval of all Town Page 6 - Appl. No. Application of THOMAS J. McCARTHY Decision Rendered June 30, 1992 and County Agencies, or within six (6) months of transfer of title to the applicant herein. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Dinizio and Villa. This resolution was duly adopted. lk RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN DA~ 7/90/? ~ ~oua 7' Town Clerk, Town o~ ~ouz~0~ '00" E HEDGES 100.27' 100' 85.27' 2 STORY © COVER LOT 2 -- 84.98' '10" W ACT. DEED rENc. o.,',.-- 15.00' g 15.00' LOT,' 140' ),5" 20.Y LOT ~ / -'5'".k ,g~ o,~,J / 150.0 PLA~qNING BOARD MEMBERS Bet[heft Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman May 13, 1992 Minor Subdivision Thomas McCarthy SCTM9 1000-117-7-8 Thomas McCarthy has presented three different subdivision designs for the above mentioned parcel to the Planning Board. As of this date, however he has not made a formal application for any of them. At present, there are four dwellings on the site. The subject property is 0.4202 acres in size and is located in a R-40 Residential District. Mr. McCarthy proposes to subdivide the property into four lots, in order to locate an existing dwelling on each lot. The Board has reviewed the three plans, and although Plan 3 is favored over the others, the Board has comments and concerns regarding the overall development of the property. In general, the Board is not opposed to the concept of locating individual dwelling units on individual lots. However, in the case of the above mentioned property, we are concerned of the problems that may arise should the ownership be transferred to four separate individuals. A four lot subdivision will allow each owner to improve the site independently of the adjacent properties. This may affect the character of the neighborhood, and may also create problems if the capacity of the wells or sanitary systems must be increased or if they must be re-located. The Board has discussed options other than those shown on Plans 1, 2 and 3 with Mr. McCarthy. These include creating two or three lots rather than the four proposed. In this manner, the potential for overdevelopment of the site will be eliminated. Mr. McCarthy has also been reviewin~ the option of Thomas McCarthy May 13, 1992 Page 2 rehabilitating the property by participating in the Southold Town Affordable Housing Program. In a memorandum dated December 23, 1991 from Jim McMahon (copy enclosed) possible prices for each unit were put forth. The Board feels that based on the nature of the existing dwellings, the suggested prices set the stage for future improvements that will exceed the limits of the proposed lots. The Board feels that Mr. McCarthy should pursue the Affordable Housing option. However, based on the size, nature and location of the existing dwellings, the creation of four lots, each with the potential for a rehabilitated dwelling, will exceed the development potential of the property. It may make more sense to subdivide the property into 3 lots or into 2 lots, each lot having a principal dwelling and a rental unit. Encl. cc: Thomas McCarthy JAMES C. McMAHON Administrator ' Telephone (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF $OUTHOLD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD JIM MCMAHON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE PROPERTY IN NEW SUFFOLK (1000-117-7-8) DECEMBER 23, 1991 I have explored several options for the rehabilitation of the above property with Tom McCarthy and Bessie Swann, Director of the North Fork Housing Alliance. I believe the 4 housing units of substandard housing on this property would be enhanced by participation in the Southold Town Affordable Housing Program. Under this scenario, the 4 units would be sold under the guidelines prescribed in the Affordable Housing Code. I would suggest and I believe the market would dictate prices as follows: Unit A $85,000. Unit B $95,000. This unit is an owner occupied rental unit Unit C $70,000. Unit D $70,000. The Town of Southold Community Development Program will provide grants to rehabilitate each unit as follows: Unit A, C, D $20,000 each. Unit B $20,000 for owner occupied first floor, $20,000 for second floor rental unit. The target group for this project would be those families fitting the Section 8 Income Guidelines (attached). If you have any suggestions or questions, I am available at your convenience. OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK. COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOSEPH 'T. SANSEVERINO MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Ail Suffolk County Community Development Consortium Member, s i 'Barbara Mack, Assistant Director Community Developme~n~~/ ,%~,~;~ May 7, 1991 ~ ~'~'' Revised Section 8 Income Guidelines Please be advised that effective immediately the Section 8 income guidelines have been revised as follows: NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLDS LOWER INCOME LIMIT VERY LOW INCOME LIMIT 1 $26,600 $19,100 2 30,400 21,800 3 34,200 24,500 4 38,000 27,250 5 41,050 29,450 6 44,100 31,600 7 47,100 33,800 8 50,150 35,950 BM/ll 62 ECKERNKAMp DRIVE LANO OF FRYH£RR N/O/F WALTER F. & MARY SHIBLEY AREA _- 18,325sq. ft. · ,'KING ' STREET ., SURVEY OF ~W SUFFOLK SOUTHOL. D UNTY, N. 'Y. ~,~,~ ....000 't. 117 07 08 · "'.-'- Feb. 7, 1990 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Ben Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board ATTM: Melissa Jerry Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals April 28, 1992 Pending Subdivision Review - Thomas McCarthy The applicant in the above project has confirmed with our office that he has met on a preliminary level with Planning Board members. It is our understanding that Plan #3 may be preferred by the Planning Board over Plans 1 and 2. If there are areas of concern as it affects the lot line layout under Chapter 106 (Subdivision Regulations), please let us know as soon as possible. We do expect to extend receiving testimony and documentation in the record until on or about May 25, 1992. In the event you are not able to transmit your views in writing by May 25, 1992, please have someone contact Linda or myself directly so that she may keep us informed of the status of this project. Thank you. (The maps on file with our office appear to be the same maps on file with your office, therefore, additional sets have not been transmitted. ) lk 3 0 Ig02- SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTMg: COMMENTS: SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER JAMES C. McMAHON Administrator Telephone (516) 765-1892 TOWN OFSOUTHOLD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD JIM MCMAHON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE PROPERTY IN NEW SUFFOLK (1000-117-7-8) DECEMBER 23, 1991 I have explored several options for the rehabilitation of the above property with Tom McCarthy and Bessie Swann, Director of the North Fork Housing Alliance. I believe the 4 housing units of substandard housing on this property would be enhanced by participation in the Southold Town Affordable Housing Program. Under this scenario, the 4 units would be sold under the guidelines prescribed in the Affordable Housing Code. I would suggest and I believe the market would dictate prices as follows: Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit D $85,000. $95,000. This unit is an owner occupied rental unit $70,000. $70,000. The Town of Southold Community Development Program will provide grants to rehabilitate each unit as follows: Unit A, C, D $20,000 each. Unit B $20,000 for owner occupied first floor, second floor rental unit. $20,000 for The target group for this project would be those families fitting the Section 8 Income Guidelines (attached). If you have any suggestions or questions, I am available at your convenience. OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPiN SUFFOLK. COUNTY EXECUTIVE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: a J 11 Suffolk County Community Development Consortium Me~be~s /~ Barbara Mack, Assistant Director Community Developme~//}~ / / May 7, 1991 : ~ Revised Section 8 Income Guidelines Please be advised that effective immediately the Section 8 income guidelines have been revised as follows: NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLDS LOWER INCOME LIMIT VERY LOW INCOME LIMIT 1 $26,600 $19,100 2 30,400 21,800 3 34,200 24,500 4 38,000 27,250 5 41,050 29,450 6 44,100 31,600 7 47,100 33,800 8 50,150 35,950 BM/il · , N/O/F LAND OF FRYHERR N/O/F WALTER F. & MARY SHIBI. EY 100.27' I AREA N 8~' t,,~' STREET SURVEY OF 'W SUFFOLK SOUTHOLD , N.Y. ~ ~. 117 07 08 Soale 1" = £0' Feb. 7, ~990 -- 18,323sq. fL NOV'I 3 1991 . ~ PLANNING BOARD 19 ~ECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: O.K. moving on, I see Mr. McCarthy is here. Do you have a question for the Board tonight. Tom McCarthy: I just wanted to get the Board's feedback on the property in New Suffolk. I would also like to inform the Board that I've been working together with the Community Development Office as per your recommendation last month and the North Fork Housing Alliance and the project has got feedback from Bessie Swan and the Board of Directors to look further into it. I will be looking for any of the Board's feedback as to how you would like to see it done. Mr. McDonald: What did you present to them? Mr. McCarthy: What did I present? I presented the idea of a subdivision in four parts and single and separate dwelling units and they will be meeting Thursday to move further. They are interested. Mr. McDonald: So you talked ona mostly preliminary basis with them about it. Mr. McCarthy: Basically, but they are interested and they did bring it up at one of their regular meetings to the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors are very interested in the project. Mr. McDonald: I think if that is the road you are going to take that there is some serious interest here as well. Mr. McCarthy: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., we'll get back to you and you can keep us informed as to how you are making out. Mr. McCarthy: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: Next, I see Mr. Lark out in the audience. Mr. Lark: Good evening, when we were here the last time you said you were going to go down at look at the Grigonis parcel on Wells Avenue. Has the Board been down there? Mr. Orlowski: We've been done there but we haven't sat down together and made any d~cisions yet. Mr. Grigonis: Did VanTuyl get in touch with you? Mr. Orlowski: No. Mr. Grigonis: The secretary said she was going give him a message to get in touch with you. PLANNING BOARD 19 ~ECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: O.K. moving on, I see Mr. McCarthy is here. Do you have a question for the Board tonight. Tom McCarthy: I just wanted to get the Board's feedback on the property in New Suffolk. I would also like to inform the Board that I've been working together with the Community Development Office as per your recommendation last month and the North Fork Housing Alliance and the project has got feedback from Bessie Swan and the Board of Directors to look further into it. I will be looking for any of the Board's feedback as to how you would like to see it done. Mr. McDonald: What did you present to them? Mr. McCarthy: What did I present? I presented the idea of a subdivision in four parts and single and separate dwelling units and they will be meeting Thursday to move further. They are interested. Mr. McDonald: So you talked ona mostly preliminary basis with them about it. Mr. McCarthy: Basically, but they are interested and they did bring it up at one of their regular meetings to the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors are very interested in the project. Mr. McDonald: I think if that is the road you are going to take that there is some serious interest here as well. Mr. McCarthy: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., we'll get back to you and you can keep us informed as to how you are making out. Mr. McCarthy: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: Next, I see Mr. Lark out in the audience. Mr. Lark: Good evening, when we were here the last time you said you were going to go down at look at the Grigonis parcel on Wells Avenue. Has the Board been down there? Mr. Orlowski: We've been done there but we haven't sat down together and made any dscisions yet. Mr. Grigonis: Did VanTuyl get in touch with you? Mr. Orlowski: No. Mr. Grigonis: The secretary said she was going give him a message to get in touch with you. PLANNING BOARD 20 ~ECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: No. We just took a look at it and we are going to discuss it at the work session. Mr. Lark: O.K., I have got a couple of questions that maybe you could put in your discussion. I know that you wanted to treat the application as more or less a yield map, and keeping in mind that it is R-40. Then I finally get a hold of that September 24thletter that Melissa Spiro wrote, and in it she says that the Environmental Assessment must be corrected specifically number 16. That is very interested, which number 16 since there are three of them on the long form Environmental Assessment form, let me get that clarified. Ms. Spiro: Can I look that up and get back to you on that one? Mr. McDonald: If you have any questions for the Board we would like to entertain them. Mr. Lark: Well, Mr. Orlowski wrote the letter even though he never saw it. Mr. Orlowski: How do you know I never saw it? Mr. Lark: We already went through that. When will the Board have an answer? As you know, we have seven members and we have an estate to settle here and one of them has just gone to his eternal reward. Mr. Ward: We will be having a meeting very shortly and we will be taking it up. Mr. Lark: O.K., did you need anymore contours then he has shown on the map that I gave you the last time? Mr. Ward: Not to make a determination as to which way it goes. Mr. Lark: Is there anything else you need from us? Mr. McDonald: Have we made a request to them? Ms. Spiro: About a year and a half ago we did. Mr. McDonald: O.K., but we don't need it to make a decision, the basic decision. Mr. Lark: There will be public water there. Mr. McDonald: We may need that to do the final. It won't effect the R-40. It is not going to effect the decision as to how we handle the layout, but we will need it for engineering I am sure. Mr. Lark: Why will you need that? NING BOARD 21 CE~ER 9, 1991 Mr. McDonald: We are going to have to take a look at the drainage I assume. Mr. Lark: No, they are going to talk about public water, they are going to hook up the two ends of the subdivision to public water. Mr. McDonald: I'm not talking about how they are going to get water to drink, I am talking about how they are going to handle the runoff. Mr. Lark: Oh, you are talking about drainage. Mr. McDonald: yes. Mr. Lark: Did you want VanTuyl do give you a study on that? Mr. McDonald: Well, let's decide how the layout is going to go before we spend your money. Mr. Lark: Can we have a date on that? Mr. Latham: We'll get back to you. Mr. Lark: When is the next meeting. Mr. Lark: One died and one is sick so we are going to be here every week. Mr. Orlowski: Well, don't rush them. Mr. Lark: I'm not rushing them. Mr. Lark: On Varano. I spoke to you the last time and I think Melissa had the equal lot layout and I wanted to apply to the Board of Appeals on that. Can I go ahead on that, would I get a recommendation, a favorable recommendation? :Mr. McDonald: Have you made a application to the ZBA? Mr. Lark: I am in the process. I just have to finalize it. I have a one lot variance now. Remember this is the one I have the one lot variance? Mr. McDonald: I'm asking if you have asked the Board for a change in the variance? Mr. Lark: No, I wanted to hear it from you first because they are going to ask me your input. Mr. Ward: You have three lots so it didn't matter to us. Mr. Lark and his clients attended the meeting. Mr. Lark explained that his clients were not in favor of building an interior road. Mr. Lark gave the Board one copy of a map with two foot contours. The Planning Board said that they would review the map. Tom McCarthy 4 lot project in New Suffolk SCTM 1000-II7- 7- Mr. McCarthy explained that he had not yet made a formal application for the project and that he would be a contract vendee. He explained that there are currently 4 houses on I lot. They are all wood frame homes. There are Certificates of Occupancy on all houses. However, there is only one tax bill. Mr. Ward asked if he would be in ~avor of putting the houses into the affordable housing program. Mr. McCarthy said that he would look into putting the houses into the affordable housing program. The Planning Board said that they would like to field inspect the site. **************************************************************** 'I WALl*ER .F. & MARY I I I .4.¸ SHIBL E Y LAND OF FRYHERR I00.27' la' Io'.' E AREA = 18,323sq. fL HOU~ .KING SURVEY OF OPE/? T, Y SUFFOLK SOU.THOLD ,COUNTY, N. Y. O0 . 117- Se: la' ' I0" W S TREE T ... ~ Feb. 7, 1990 uuj ~, ~,~, .1~ ~OUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD F'r~.ared ~ ~ooo~dmoe wltlf the minimum ~'T~.~ ~ r.~. ~IC. NO 49008 ~: ~f~de f~ tltl~ ~vey~ ~k e~t~ehed ::. v' ..-'. ~ ...... : .... , ........... 80UTHOLD, N ~ 11971 ;~' Thomas J.McCarthy North Bayview Road Southold NY 11971 Southold Town Planning Board Bennett Orlowski Jr. Chairman November 12,1991 Re: Minor subdivision SCTM 1000-].].7-7-8 Dear Mr. Orlowski, The purpose of this letter is to familiariZ~etBeaBoard with this piece of property, consider the proposed subdivision and to ask for Planning suggestions that would enhance the character of the parcels as well as this neighborhood in New Suffolk. As can be seen on the enclosed ~urvey, this property is located on the northeast corner of King and Fourth Streets, directly behind the New Suffolk School. Currently located on this site are four single residences operating independent of eachother and in existence prior to zoning. It is my intent to subdivide this parcel into four lots according to the suggestions of your Board. Your feedback regarding lot lines would be greatly appreciated, Thankyou for your prompt atten- tion to this matter, Sincerely; Thomas J. McCarthy NOV ,31991 ! SOUTHO,.D :~: N/O/F "' :;: WALTER .F. & MARY SHIBIEy · Og' 00" it I LAND I : N 8~' I5' IO, £ KING N/O/F ' OF FRYHERR I SyoRy S TREE T OF SURVEY SUFFOLK sOIUI~HO~O UNTr, N..Y. ~000 .. 117- 07- 08 Saiie l" = £o~ :, 'Feb. 7, 1990 89: I$' I0'" FY 52' ~ :~1~. NO. ,tgeea P. o. MAIN ROAi~ $OUTHOLD, N K 11971 B ~E"VEI~LY HALLOCK, PBE~ID£NT TO: FROM: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN ~BESSIE E. SWANN, D.H.L. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPERTY LOCATED AT STREET, DATEs DECEMBER 17, 1991 27 1991 ' At the request of James McMahon, Town of Southold Community Development, please be advised this agency supports the development of above referenced property for Affordable Housing opportunities. Thomas McCarthy has requested that this agency support him as developer of property in New Suffolk (SCTM #1000- 117-7-8). Mr. McCarthy proposes to subdivide the 18,323 square feet of property containing four (4) units of substandard housing into four (4) separate parcels to be offered to Section 8 income eligible Southold Town residents. The North Fork Housing Alliance will provide home buyers' counselling, which includes acquisition of grants and low interest loans to the selected home buyers to improve properties. Home buyers' counselling includes acquisition of low interest or subsidized mortgages for income eligible families. The North Fork Housing Alliance, Inc. will attempt to have the entire block bordered by Orchard Street, New Suffolk Avenue, King Street and'First Street, designated by the Affordable Housing Corp. and Housing Preservation Grant Program as a targeted area in need of rehabilitation, so that other eligible home owners in that block will be able to rehabilitate and upgrade their homes at little or no cost to them. If Mr. McCarthy is permitted to develop this property in a manner which will be used for affordable housing, the North Fork Housing Alliance, Inc. will participate in the above stated manner. Enclosures: Survey Tax Map mc2 ': FUNDED BY N.Y.S. DIVISION OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY RENENVAL, VEATCH FOUNDATION, DIOCESE OD' ROCKVILLE CENTRE AND NATIONAL GLOBAL MINISTRIES AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY [MPLOYER AND PROVIDER APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765.1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 25, 1992 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Mr. Thomas J. McCarthy P.O. Box 166 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Your Letter' of Inquiry Dated February 20, 1992 Bank Institutions with Accessory Window Access Dear Mr. McCarthy: I am in receipt of your letter and will try to provide you with some guidance and response to your informal request, although the initial step should be to make a building permit application to the Building Inspector. It is my understanding that your client is a bank institution that would like to install "an accessory window facility for transporting of paper documents and the like to the bank facility" from motor vehicles. It is also my understanding that the property is or would be located in the Hamlet Business (HB) Zone District, and the principal use is banking. At sub-section (4), Article IX, Section 100-9lA , banks and financial institutions are listed as permitted uses, subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. There is a distinction in the code between banks and restaurants. Banking and financial institutions are permitted uses, as well as their incidental accessory uses and structures. There are, as you have mentioned, code restrictions concerning drive-in restaurants -- but you have indicated that your client is a banking institution. The zoning code is clear with respect to banking facilities {principal and accessory) permitted uses in the HB zone district, and it is hopeful that the Building Inspector would also agree that under Section 100-93(C-1) {als such accessory structures will fall under the provision for permitted "Accessory Uses": Page 2 - February 25, 1992 To: Mr. Thomas J. McCarthy Re: inquiry of February 20, 1992 - Bank Facil~ti !. ...Any customary structures or uses which are customarily incidental to the principal use, except those prohibited by this chapter... Please be aware that in the event the use is a principal use, rather than an accessory use as proposed herein, an additional 20,000 sq. ft. of land area would be required for each principal use. I ~n providing Principal Inspector Victor Lessard with a copy of this letter for his update when he returns from vacation. A formal appeal application requesting an Interpretation upon a determination of the Building Inspector may be filed should circumstances find it necessary. Town Attorney's Office Supervisor Scott L. Harris Planning Board/ Very truly yours, GERARD p. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN KEY MAP SCALE 1"=600' APPLICANT: PROPOSED FOR TOWN SUFFOLK S.C. TAX MINOR THOMAS Me CAI~Ti:IY PLAN- 2 SITUATED AT SUBDIVISION OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY, NEW YORK No. 1 000- 117-07-08 SCALE 1"--10' FEBRUARY 28, 1992 LOT 1 AREA : 4,113.01 sq. ff. 0.0944 ac. LOT 2 AREA = 5,259.03 aq. ff. 0.1203 ac. LOT 5 AREA = 5,700.86 sq. ff. 0.1309 dc. LOT 4 AREA = 5,250.77 sq. ff. 0.0746 ac. TOTAL AREA = 18,303.66 sq. ff. 0.4202 ac. BUILDING ZONE USE: R-40 Lond Surveyor P.O. Box 1931 Riverheod, New York 1190 (516)727-2090 [-ax # (516)722--5093 McCARTHY MANAGEMENT THOgL4S 3'. McCARTHY NORTH BAYVIE~' ROAD SOUTHOLD, NE~r YORK 1197! THE EXISTANCE OF RIGHT OF WAYS 0 UL #3 0 O0 0 0 0 Z WILLIAM SHIJ ?LE¥ & SOTIRA SHIBLEF N 89°09'00'' E 100.27' HEDGES FENCE 1,2'N.- N B9'09'00" E ~'~RH F~D WIRES CESSPOOL COVE9 CESSPOOL COVER rCHIM 30.2' 1 STORY FRAME HOUSE #305 85.27' STE¢S F ~- 'j 2 STORY FRAME HOUSE #1270 S 89'15'10 W APPROXIMATE WELL LOCAFION COVEF LOT 2 38.73' LOT I FENCE 0 6'N.~ 0 ~D I'~ 7 ACT. DEED FF~OE 0~'~ 0 6'W · IRREGULAR WIRE FENCE N,, '0,,"~ RICHARD R. FREYHERR N 89°1 5'1 0" E50.02' ACT. 50' DEED STOCKADE F~NCE N 89'15'10~ E FENCE~J CESSPOOL COVUR CESSPOOL 20 5' APPROXIMATE CESSPOOL LOCATION LOT 4 LOT ),5' 50.02' FENCE ° 3 SHED 50.02' 50.02' / STEPS 89°15'10" W OH'S ....... 46,2' o 84.98' Z ~ ~ x 150.00' 50.02' -STOCF~ADE FENCE FO. BROKEN CONC, MOM 2 0 0 52.06' I~Y ~ SCALE 1"=600' MINOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR BUILDING ZONE USE: R-40 APPLICANT: McCARTHY MANAGEMENT THOMAS J. McCARTHY NORTH BAYVIEIY ROAD $OUTHOLD, NET YORK '/1971 THIS SUBDIVISION WiLL APPEAR IN: DISTRICT fO00 SECTION 117 BLOCK 07 WELL CESSPOOL CESSPOOL (~ x/o/F WELL CESSPOOL RICHARD R. FREYHERR N 89° 5'10" E 50.02' ACT. E.OE o.~'.. 50' DEED ,~a.s' ~ C2 F~NC[ WJLLJAM ~HIBLEY o ~ mO ~ ~~ ~°°v[~ ~ ~, ~ ~ & SOTIRA SHIBLEY ~ , ~ ~ CDR. THOMAS McCARTHY ~ < CESSPOOL SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK N DWELLING JULY 20, 1992 (REVISED LOT LINES) ~ AUG. 19, 1992 (SHOW HOUSE,WELL & C.P. TO BE REMOVED FROM THE FRONT OF LOT 3)b dAN. 22, 1995 (ADDED TEST HOLE & TEST WELL) ~ ' ~o 2 STORY FRAME HOUSE JUNE 25, 1993 (ADDED EXISTING & PROP. WELLS & CESSPOOLS) ~ROPOSEO , W~ ~1270 dULY 28, ~9~3 (~ISED LOT UNES) %~ , 29.4' LOT 3 WE~ 127' TEST HOLE DATA ~ ~ / LOT 1AREA- 4,219.37 sq. ff. c[ss~oo~ T 0.156 ac. LOT 3 AREA =7,301.23 sq. ff. ~ ' , , ~,y.,' ,.., TOTAL AREA 18,303.66 sq. ff. 0.420 ac. 0 taus LOT I 0 ~ 0 SOUTHOLOIOWN I. ELEVATIONS ARE ASSUMED BUT RESTIVE. PbANNINSBOARB 2. EXISTING WELLS AND CESSPOOLS ARE TO BE ABANDONED. ~ ~ ~ / WPROXImTE ~. 18.2' g b WE~ COCA'ON ¢ WELL ~/ ~O BE REMOVED) O.l'E. 24' 52.0~ WELL Joseph A. Ingegno WELL --WOODP~T ~ mrs. ~'='~"~"~"~'~"=,~,,~,u~ =~. ~o~ S 89~ 1 5' 10" -- 1 50.00' PHONE (516)727-2090 Fox (516)722-5093 _~0~ / OFFICES LOCA~D AT MAILIN~ ADDRESS ~D/OR ~S~TS OF R~CORD. ~ One Union Squ~re P.O. Box ~93~ Riverhe~d, New Yo~ WELL [ I 92-120C SCALE 1'=600' BUILDING ZONE USE: R-40 APPLICANT: McCARTHY MANAGEMENT THOMAS J. McCARTHY NORTH BAYVIE~ ROAD SOUTHOLD, NE~r YORK 11971 THIS SUBDIVISION WILL APPEAR IN: DISTRICT !000 SECTION ! 17 BLOCK 07 PROPOSED WELL MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR THOMAS McCARTHY LLI SITUA TED A T < THE LOCATION OF WELLS AND CESSPOOLS SHOWN HEREON A~E FROM FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND/OR DATA OBTAINED F~OM OTHERS, WELL N 89°09'00" E / I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP WAS MADE BY US FROM ACTUAL SURVEY*N: COMPL&TED FEB. 28. 1992 AND THAT ALL! CONCRETE WELL CESSPOOL N/o/T WILLIAM SHIBLEY ,CC SOTIRA ~JHIBLEY HEDGES CESSPOOL CESSPOOL N/O/ /ELL CESSPOOL RICHARD R. FREYHERR CESSPOOL N 5'10"E ~ 50.02'ACT. WELL -~NGE O.O'". - 50' DEED O.9'E, 48.5' LI.J N ~B9'15'10" E FENCE 50.02'q~.~/ c--BLDG. COR, 1.9'E. 00.27'~Cl. 100' DEED ri.0[ CESSPOOL O~F ''" ,,-' i~.~ ,~ TOWN SOUTHOLD - rT FEBSU~Y 28, 1 ~2 ~,~ - - ~, ~.~ dULY 20, 1992 (REVISED LOT LINES) AUG. 19, 1992 (SHOW HOUSE,WELL ~ C.P. TO BE ~0~ I REMOVED FROM THE FRONT OF LOT 3) JAN. 22, 1993 (ADDED TEST HOLE & TEST WELL) JUNE 25, 1995 (ADDED EXISTING & PROP. WELLS JULY 28, 1995 (REVISED LOT LINES) CESSPOOLS) WELL TEST HOLE DATA -_~ 77tie Surveys -- Subdivisions -- PHONE (516)727-2090 OFFICES LOCATED AT One Union Square LOT 1 AREA = 4,219.37 sq. ff. 0.097 ~c. LOT 2 AREA = 6,783.06 ~q. ff. 0.156 DC. LOT 5 AREA = 7,301.23 sq. ff. 0.167 ac. TOTAL AREA _= 18,505.66 sq. ff. 0.420 dc. N.Y.S. Dc, No. 4968B CESSPOOL PROPOSED WELL% Ld 0 00 0 0 0 NOTES: Z S.6'. 1. ELEVATIONS ARE ASSUMED BUT RELATIVE. z ~/ 2. EXISTING WELLS AND CESSPOOLS ARE TO BE ABANDONED, © CESSPOOL S 8S'56'00" E ~ EN11~ANOE STORY FEAME HOUSE #305 2 STORY FRAME HOUSE 1~1270 PRO~OBE~ ., LOT 3 - CESSPOOL ~ ~ g PLAT, 21,5' u~ 20.3' ./ (TO BE REMOVE~) LOT I (TO 8/E ~ENO~VED)~ J A Ingegno u~momzE~ ~L~'no. o. ~mo~ ~ PROPOSED ~u~. ~e, · ~PS ~ . / Lond Surveyor HEDGES ~,~,~,~,~co~. ~ S 89"15'10" W lox (5~ S)722-50~3 ~ / Aquebogue, New York 11931 THE EXISTANCE OF RIGHT OF WAYS MAILING ADDRESS AND/OR E~S~MENTS O~ RECORD, ~F ANY. NOT SHOWN ARE NOT GUARANTEED, P.O. Box 1931 Riverhead, New York 11901 12.2' eg ENCLOSED 'ROPOSED-% WELL 50.00' 0 I'~ BROKEN CONC. MON. 5~.0~ WELL [ ~ 150.00' UN I 0 1994 SOUTHOLD TOWN P~ANNrNfl BOARO 92-120(: