Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5870
a R - : _ a, uein e °Airs 9 f 870 PPtSB PSI Con61-1, Sc Y2i4i 4,44/06 -44/) 1 • •APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �1ir�OF $f7(/y_ • Mailing Address: Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman ����rti�� ' O4 Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer ; 53095 Main Road• P.O. Box 1179 * * ; Southold,NY 11971-0959 James Dinizio,Jr. : a Q t Office Location: Michael A. Simon : � ��i� �� Town Annex/First Floor,North Fork Bank Leslie Kanes Weisman �y ,, °0 y fit.i" 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) •a" .. Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECEIVED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD A a:oserh, . Tel. (631)765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064 J 1 8 2006 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION Southold Town(led OF JUNE 29, 2006 ZBA File No. 5870 Applicants/Owners: SHEILA R. KENNEDY, Contract Vendee (RAUCH PARTNERS LP, Owner) Property Location: North of Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island at Hay Harbor, Minor Subdivision Map of Frances B. Rausch and Others, Lot#2. CTM Parcel No. 9-9-22.1 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on April 27, 2006, May 25, 2006 and June 22, 2006, with written extended for written rebuttal in opposition extended to June 28, 2006, at which time written and oral evidence submissions were completed. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is a vacant waterfront parcel consisting of a total of 1.91 +/- acres with access from a private right-of-way at two points along the property: the westerly corner point and along the mid-section point of the easterly lot line. RELIEF REQUESTED: Request for a Variance under Section 100-32, based on the Building Inspector's February 22, 2006 Notice of Disapproval, concerning a proposed single-family dwelling on a conforming 1.9-acre lot, located in the R80 zone district, and proposed at less than 60 feet from the front yard line facing a private right-of-way, less than 75 feet from the code- required rear yard lot line. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed dwelling is modest in size and the lot coverage will only be approximately three (3) percent of the 1.9-acre parcel. The building is proposed located on the high point of the subject property, will preserve open space closer to Hay Harbor and will preserve the historic character of the area. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The site and proposed dwelling are accessed by Page 2—June 29, 2006 • • ZBA Appl. 5870—Sheila Kennedy(Rauch Partners) CTM 9-9-22.1 1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed dwelling is modest in size and • the lot coverage will only be approximately three (3) percent of the 1.9-acre parcel. The building is proposed located on the high point of the subject property, will preserve open space closer to Hay Harbor and will preserve the historic character of the area. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The site and proposed dwelling are accessed by a common right-of-way that is used by two other neighbors. The proposed dwelling would be located 30 feet from the right-of-way instead of the required 60 feet. However, the impact would be greater on the owner/applicant than the neighbors since the neighbors must pass the owner/applicant's property to reach their own. While possible to move the proposed dwelling farther from the front lot line, the result would be an impracticably small flat area in the rear yard, and would have a greater visual impact on the neighbor to the south. The construction in another location would involve extensive excavation and grading at a much greater cost; also, the property is severely sloped (29%), as confirmed in an Affidavit signed by Richard H. Strouse, engineer and surveyor. 3. The rear yard setback variance granted herein is not substantial at 68 feet instead of the required 75 feet. Although the reduction in the required front yard setback of 60 feet allowing 30 feet is substantial when measured from the interior of the lot at the right-of-way, the right-of-way does not border the property lines that would be commonly found throughout the Town of Southold. 4. The alleged difficulty has not been self-created. Tidal wetlands on the northerly portion of the subject property and severe slopes on the southerly portion limit the location of a reasonable building envelope. 5. After considering all the documentation in support and against the application, the Board confirms that no evidence has been submitted to suggest that the proposed additions will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a single-family dwelling while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Chairwoman Oliva, seconded by Member Simon, and duly carried to GRANT the relief as applied for, shown on the site plan prepared for Sheila Kennedy by CME Associates Engineering, Land Surveying & Architecture, PLLC dated 02/03/2006, and applicant's construction diagrams revised 1/24/06 and 3/2/06. Any deviation from the variance given such as extensions, or demolitions which are not shown on the applicant's diagrams or survey site maps, are not authorized under this application when involving nonconformities under the zoning code. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning . Page 3—June 29, 2006 • • ZBA Appl. 5870—Sheila Kennedy(Rauch Partners) CTM 9-9-22.1 Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this • action. • Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Dinizio, and Simon. (Absent was Member Weisman. This R tion was duly adopted (4-0). A) &_ �1 Ruth D. Oliva 7/14/06 Approved for Filing • • O N I O - • _ I 1 k. 1 r e'n .4ne. !t[ j 1 CZ 0 a 111 �_ K:I /; __ J 0 .r nNA,e„�A %rr I rnao r.a. I�i.'�u1C A�-. - — ¢ .r w.,+<nma�.w r -� -. -.]ew_Ai•=Ib -5s....14r'+\b. _,YOrc4 6wo cNc... - Sus.\N['l.lb 4w.a.�le 1015 rr L i _. ..F . I mi.par 1-.1. .x : L,a,. 5a.,-0.m F,.m— - 1:-.. � � NI in No a�„ hum ��2 + = @:Pec p 1 baa r — a ---_ MEN I — . 4_ __ - -F- _. III _-:_ _'I-� µ--- — yzj.___ J - � I I -.. .�,z ifiVEt VEST €L j nov 400rp+.\Vn_s-r E.LEVATlctl3 4..a: I4 p o Saa.c,lk•_I_a'. T`? ICh4 NL`i-6-WE.IEA4 Wni S-`R4-:QcOF L sua.o-...,.,9.....0.0.a sanest,.ca...'eas..._ .. Ac -2':k•en..;a.aw...wc-mw..w Wor.m.s.e 4M._3naan+eiar.tc nvmuv.t_ • *n .S: Fees. a: 5 s.yu..ta. 'b wma_ .soma:MYxu.les wAza.AW X¢. 'ea 5<IYat Pane TT�� T� :win A NS+w.as wn a u'aataaA MADS: _ tip_4 fYuIYas s¢a-Lw...:s as ...N ..I3wnJ lai Wa.m,+a. k.—'Y10i rK.cEara MU-- _ble A .F¢C 5 n.AWf]RkIA a.0 u4`s¢�e.G." ne.Losse 4 —. s*s-.. ..- ...at ar.nuv,.s na ac.. vn.. 4' ,.-La.a.Ian ..a •7 EAt.L ✓nluELv _ -y..ws.n ea. Ana•e,`. Pse. ...s_r.�5v,..L.d.-...n_ _ SS._ne. SXI...-a. 4ximaim To M(ma.. . maS -STL S4E6.n"bwL Win. en...—..- " £le{4.JL•:M.yvTwee. SK.L1F.pv-% .WR. 4-:TJwm,.lti aa.._sr :tl'I - - Sul:4NL_paw.. sa . �1..w am..✓. Lc.. a.s ew Start sr Ou¢u_Ave -1,a4. Ta.Ranor,.__ Y.HC6¢Lc-cin [l .. }.rte FF.m. TK'RiRz D/2/pp'.. • i • . GW CO a CI 00 UJ � I I' Q S I I RBaa M Su,. WWI mos 1 o 1✓ ki A't¢'enyY I mwr�r rirrr it Y I a r~S,a '-W.E,. .. '11 Q - \ 2 `', KcnF HhTW-TQLLESS TV.1 wwect.eu wa _� NO .*ti's- ... • Q - -' --'-° - `.-alis-..,Q-R fs...'n..f- __.A _. y.F:S.Ih.4N.va„_CAc,.is f A tie eie adk �= o`-6k 1�W` 4..,.,,.,F } II a..r- ..a.A� I. tn.r tit. .. .--s: ab. W eJ. ®� Ism y lj dr P�1 N�_y a �uti i a �� a2?tiTe.w t4 s - �N l' '+.--rw .aa.I I Mi. • ` a I 4 T ----' 4......1.4r. _ e it."' "w�. } �% �t p L I lir .v v ( ney[.r+u s..b.. i- w.�+.:..r� a "1.1.10....".-."w .'1 as A... fi -span,...,,Q ..w .i -- Ro..an i - /�4u a..a..e..s.ay - S� v- tDtaas C., / 1�g I� YI t.* .I 1 M.Lo. (' p,. ,-,, ,.. -.e d T lt_".'..../�yj• F...�v po. -QEir _ L - Y ,1�,�' �^ \ II / I. II I' .i..agur u 1 et_ �T . • 4»A �e ' - T. --� n�„ i 41,2_22i M1 ��f --I - � I ai»< -ti.a,w...y. `}'}�1'"..�,r__--- • - -f aK I t 1Y I'=5't' @ � --7. „'_, 4 2�.�. �.,, .u.�' .� d w i i I �s. I ¢� I :! r S Nu Ir a �,. tq�,,... @o 0 I. ��\'/ IC � ` / '��4iit ' i ! 1'.:H i. 1, I ' 1 1 la ), I '�a - s -v. P,-.-, A d 1 _ Lim4_44 , f I� =1 t: i s �' 1 Z r 8 i ail L li ., — 1 t 1' .. ,.,:lea 1� a .", 3ni1 a, k. c ., em" . u u ' 'k- +� —-- .•y- 4 N�1411r6`A c`-.1.: (i, c ed �w s*.41 ■ oe» -n.....rwn. Vega- ! r MMry-+.w wa4,.,. 1�, _x":ira '—'y __'w Ft + - _ _ taw 5...�wkP.*•.+w: etim —. 44 o• -- �a:_� Y AP a.,.eac•nat u L� by. T���''�'� s.w.. ~..a. 4ECO�]n FLooE. 1p111 :. 1 ' :nn` ' 111 . ■. ' F12.57 FL0o11. _i.,.a.a+ W! .Y a cnaa+eaur— su..en141 : @ 5.....,,p..Re ry •.mea_Alarmameorrsertow_ --- 1 ----1,.--4s---_ - - .._"'`a°t°° -'r • - 111-71�IrP'IC - ...av '"'• Vann »...c._.. �'�-�: .aea.,tr.=ri? r_ _ F ^yY a„�.,.r ..$s4tA I .`xgctpl C44-1-td, Ct. n3St. Soarer ayaawLraa....mo.a --.om., pwwrta4g,ay- r PI G4V.N9. P. szas Y+..aa -.:9SY¢/.0 Af[l3-iL.tE>= u.u.�(.'.Lo` .h(oc �_?:»F,<IsuJCatLY i _Ab-4.gym.¢wwM1n6...'a¢**au 3 - Sb. .. ac ca., -au ___, 4 t�.i -u,ae w,.aa-ar.e.a nw» r«u_r a..a.a-w_.er �TGO' s I'Y'�� -_Yx.,.n..n-vw.a ti. =•-- R:.v-e..,v: - `'-" � - (out n{140. 'wri _ — • IL _ ` i GCO W 6 —� _` --_ __. --. _ -- — — - LL i`4." Q C .i� ♦ I -4silk. P14 _Irc m _ Po4 auliir inn 1 m r,.. �-K,aEr,�..oe--R..a . 1 AP�a..z 4 I?, .9 I �I � lull!I z , ,....-.+��w.. _.— -5ecx,+w-ha-Fz.- �� ________.Lia \ tc art7:-.... - `y41.nln.rs542.wo‘....‘....•.2. -1:'- - 1411 i lip 1, 1113 3 _ d P to IIIc 1 _ 1I 1:. L1:riii'mi 611 1111Ilk [ 'o1 I-. _1O1l�111. i i 11 .In t k F•. _ � — fI I ; I6 -_ __ 1. =.:1,14az-n4=E.AST"-€ern-r,or1 300 H-EAsr i e...•.,ter4._- ._ yw_I.a__ --.- _.5...:..,1/4r.4.-3..-- . I Vila i-1.1-1.41:, fl..QtL 1"ILIen-£..cVO t -_ Rri.4ae--144-Ant"nMs 1 Sete.hsab.m M/,4/es 1.-,...0.3 L1,1 o a o a. — co 0 TR.._444.4 . 4.4,,,,,,, .4-11..3La Q cra-F;tt4--..a11 _ CC il 4444 . a " ay 44-4 4[ CB85 F+.'-PYM1. WOS M" 'Si4lJ6a.Y ' ' B '4Ye 44-44 44-a-p. . 5` u 1 ra x i t mppsa_pae.% 4-i by. " --C '+muss cc ,us Pep �_ 1 I a..-a c.er5 ..w rush -- — �_-kRrso�a, �slux6 4.4 \I 1 / rz zq42 ,. IIE ;4_�..a ,..w..'P-rye •6., „" _ • • 1Lr • igt NI k----'''' '4- _ ✓ J,..,.,l.. v.. kiriI ir,,,,,nra+�--.+ a ,... a-s..r+.a H-4 44 ati- - I u. .e ia.-wad wrta Co. a _ m � ?- i o. 4 f . Bipw .aa.e - N 1• _... ali ]<W sis ItlJ'� IL . 1,, (a = r.. R.a. i I ' 1 µwee Rj - A Je J --i. . it rI 44 4.444444 444,4 o4 44r-44.- ' i � A _ cizos Cg-cr�otil A--A. t �� 7i. x I > �' F --� �h I 4 .- T Y; 1 /I-n-+-A --- cv , —11-11 t1 Lim / L. rt-4 I _. \ 14-4.4 v I <.wd mFc.1 Fa. 6. )s_ i \ � Je 1 I -?++P-.w5v+, s '� rr ' � y N F I c \ '' Ilj Fa __._ � p F '# { \�a.LL J .L rOi:^. x iY5V iy,� Ga `X �i4 •� 5.44-4, P.S.a e f9 .. Q �,✓ j �` ` basEcnerar/rouAaerio.. .a.a �� Ip¢oposeLoQ25iordCE- ret • Qcr e -2...a _ -1,.....u..:Wiwi_s....o.:.® rat l,a.. - --__ stc itrWamz Q,.,1 C.-It..-WA- ---r..4.-1. 1X"aysums Shure Jcaoa w.IQ• c14142 is-+m,I..re. _ geh+ &L.- sa-'..L.-Mos/ mwaar +-wad...:ie....ear....... 'c...a.a,+ 7h.r. sc.wA..ae A/2,41041-14444 S LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, APRIL 27,2006 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959,on THURSDAY.APRIL 27.2006: 2:10 P.M. SHIELA R. KENNEDY, Contract Vendee (RAUCH PARTNERS LP, Owners) #5870. Request for a Variance under Section 100-32, based on the Building Inspector's February 22, 2006 Notice of Disapproval, concerning a proposed dwelling at less than 60 feet from the front yard line facing a private right-of-way, less than 75 feet from the code-required rear yard line, premises located north of Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island at Hay Harbor; Lot #2, Minor Subdivision Map of Frances B. Rausch and others, filed 8/11/94 as Map No. 9547; CTM 9-9-22.1. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office (631) 765-1809, or I i nd a.kowalski©town.soUtho l d.ny.us. Dated: April 10,2006. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RUTH D. OLIVA, CHAIRWOMAN By Linda Kowalski S FORM NO.3 611 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD,NY NOTICE OF DISAPROVAL Date: February 22, 2006 To: Stephen Hamm III for Rauch Partners LP 38 Nugent Street Southampton,NY 11968 Please take notice that your application dated February 15, 2006 For permit for construction of a single family dwelling at Location of property ROW off Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island County Tax Map No. 1000- Section 9 Block 9 Lot 22.1 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed construction of a single family dwelling, on this conforming, 1.9 acre lot, located in the R80 District, is not permitted pursuant to Article III Section 100-32, which states: "No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the A-C, R80... Districts unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule incorporated into this chapter with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein full." The required front yard setback from a ROW is 60'(feet). The proposed front yard setback is at 30'(feet) In addition, the required rear yard setback is 75'(feet). The proposed rear yard setback is at approx. 68'(feet). Authorized Signature • &).u41 3/3 APPLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS 'd For Office Use Only p Fee:$7/i1) Filed By:��• nIOTY�^a Date Assigned/Assignment No. _ S Oge Office Notes: 4' 9 r/o/w off Parcel Location: House No. (no #)Street Equestrian Avenue Hamlet Fishers Island SCTM 1000 Section 9 Block 9 Lot(s) 22.1 Lot Size 1.91 at Zone District R-80 I (WE) APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED: February 22, 2006 A licant/OwnerSheila R. Kennedy as contract vendee of Rauch Fishers Pp (s); Island Partnar T P Mailing Address: 194 Lakeview Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 492-7940 NOTE: If applicant is not the owner,state if applicant is owner's attorney,agent,architect,builder,contract vendee,etc. Authorized Representative: Stephen L. Ham, III, Esq. Address: Matthews & Ham, 38 Nugent Street, Southampton, NY 11968 Telephone: (631) 283-2400 tkiC•, (631) 287-1076 Please specify who you wish correspondence to be mailed to, from the above listed names: 0 Applicant/Owner(s) I9 Authorized Representative 0 Other: WHFREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED February 13, 2006 FOR: Building Permit. 0 Certificate of Occupancy 0 Pre-Certificate of Occupancy ❑ Change of Use ❑Permit for As-Built Construction 0 Other: Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Indicate Article,Section, Subsection and paragraph of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code. Article III Section 100- 32 Subsection Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: ®A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. ❑A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. ❑Interpretation of the Town Code,Article Section ❑Reversal or Other A prior appeal 0 has a has not been made with respect to this property UNDER Appeal No. Year • 11--) Page 2 of 3 - Appeal Application Part A: AREA VARIANCE REASONS (attach extra sheet as needed): (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if granted, because: proposed use for single-family residence is consistent with permitted use; setback relief is requested not from a public street but from a private right-of-way* (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: the required front yard setback of 60 feet would produce an unreasonably small building envelope; property is severely sloped in the area of the permissible building envelope. (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: the setback is from a private right-of-way and not from a public street* (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions ili the neighborhood or district because: proposed use is a permitted one; proposed location is well away from tidal wetland (5) Has the variance been self-created? ( ) Yes, or (x ) No. If not, is the construction existing, as built? ( ) Yes, or (x) No. (6) Additional Information about the surrounding topography and building areas that relate to the difficulty In meeting the code requirements: (attach extra sheet as needed) The proposed house location is on the portion of the property landward of the right of way that is least affected by changes in contour. The landward portion of the property is quite severely sloped. This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. *Although Notice of Disapproval states that rear yard relief is also necessary, saaglicalh had $een previously advi�ed i the Buildinf iRtrtment that the aid in Mafia w Crewel si a ar and not a re r yar any event, a necessary is no substa ( ) Check this box and complete PART B, Questions on next page to apply USE VARIANCF, STANDARDS. (Please consult your attorney.) Otherwise, please proceed to the signature an4 notary area below. Signature o Appellant or Authorized Agent Swom to before me this (Agent must submit Authorization from Owner) 25"� day of br,uarx.,..., 2006 . Stephen L. Ham, III, authorized agent (O(Notary Public) CHARLOTTE VAN HOUTEN ZBA App 9/30/02 Notary Public,State of New York No.01VA6001651 Qualified in Suffolk County remission Expires Sept. 14, 00-so- 't • PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Please include with Z.B.A. Application) Applicant(s):Sheila R. Kennedy as contract vendee of Rauch Fishers Island $rtners, L.P. I. If building is existing and alterations/additions/renovations are proposed: A. Please give the dimensions and overall square footage of extensions beyond existing building: Dimensions/size: n/a Square footage: n/a B. Please give the dimensions and square footage of new proposed foundation areas which do not extend beyond the existing building: Dimensions/size: n/a Square footage: n/a H. If land is vacant: Please give dimensions and overall square footage of new construction: Dimension/size: 75+/- ft. x 45+/- ft. Square footage: 1,700+/- sq. f t. Height: 30+/- ft. � III.-Purpose and use of new construction requested in this application: construction of a single-family residence and attached garage IV. Additional information about the surrounding contours or nearby buildings that relate to the difficulty in meeting the code requirement(s): The portion of the property that is located landward of the right-of-way is severely Sloped. The proposed house location is on a part of that portion of the property that is not as severely affected by slopes as is the part where the permitted building envelope is located. V. Please submit seven(7)photos/sets after staking corners of the proposed new construction. 7/02 Please note:Further changes,after submitting the above information, must be placed in writing and may require a new Notice of Disapproval to show changes to the initial plans. If additional time is needed, please contact our office, or please check with Building Department (765-1802) or Appeals Department (765-1809) if you are not sure. Thank you. 1110r) IF) • QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION A. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale? 0 Yes M No B. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? ®Yes D No (limited re-grading will be involved at the time of construction) C. 1)Are there any areas that contain wetland grasses? likely near water 2)Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with this application? no 3)Is the property bulk headed between the wetlands area and the upland building area? no 4)If your property contains wetlands or pond areas,have you contacted the office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? no D. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? no (If not applicable, state"n/a".) E. Are there any patios,concrete barriers,bulkheads or fences that exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? no (If none exist, please state "none".) F. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? no If yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department. If none,please state. G. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? yes If yes,please explain where or submit copies of deeds. Rauch Fishers Island Partners, L.P. , the owner of thesub'ecf property, also owns the property adjoining on the south and east SCUCNo. 11000-9-V-22.2) H. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel vacant land and proposed use single-family residence with attached garage. 4betia., L• ('i 27. February 2g, 2006 Authorized Signature and Date Stephen L. Ham, III, authorized agent • W PJE• "a 0 c. so., 44CCNY vitt 6 „� ,, c„., iuc 4 yFra8 yo ey = N383,400oo 4• wwo 1 1+ - R INSERT > .p.Z .1 xcb i:too' W `Q co 5 3\ c& A. O• N..• 5I EV CI 3.3 35Atcl 2 HAY HARBOR 4 . O / a • ss 2.3140 \ /¢ /' V 32 .6 2.11441 1 • 4 • 1 151 32 , • F 3.1ud 11 45A i • , , 1 5 IM 1964 LIMO SEE SEC. NO. 130 ?2;120 154 a " 4. e I: `4. .a. l3.] P9 r1 E _R� , ` • ` i 1: \ 63.34, 4 R )) O 3914a� sPR6 * 1343.OA 6 ij 3.64 4z/ � 26.14 ' L6FFA , ani 35.65. 4 , , , ,. , ' . fy� q 2.6 r, 'i n,'PMs"ild.Ez 4sts � Cqq}`':c E �4 1 1 ®' T �Sb K�9 ` c„3.31 �� lei24 •Noo F F� -. .. :11114‘) IU 22- .., .. 5a {� 6 .._, Ma� A�� 1501 SA. 1 MVE. 1 381400 \ it, cEPR:•a40,‘„, w -, Amrtr r Al U. &t4.AM Ler w w lAaa Lnt —- School ohnkr Use —-SEM— xyrml Redo Lit. —-It—- UNLESSR. O RMSEE.x ALL MCpEREIS r 40.444�l01110.ot —� pyy— ryiya�k"�M" (21) mak' O Rrt Win''he -I - MUM Desk.,tut —-R - APE liIH THE M OWING ORiRILiE. Cy1ER IID MAINTENANCE, I MOTH MHOS Pre --I—— olpoons.xe r um —HST-- FEE 9 kropwt DISTRIBUTION DI Arm Lw ^^•.•--' Yexe0 n .a. """ ---- Light Wr.ki un —-L _ In4bx1 Nxiha Un -A—- pxr .l WATER SUFFOLK COUNT m1W 23 vw 13.I A1e1 or 13.11 r Lv --_— Lm a.r. In —_ __ Noor&N.nm Un—n—- AMBULANCE REFUSE II WITHOUT 1RITTE Lmnrw em 12.,11c1 sus,L. .. ..II u.. -x PEAL PROBERS O 1 6 ,q 1 H us 3 q N 1.IAIc1 '3 k; n 1.09c1IN ns.lno'•n /<. J1.64A(C) m^, I - v p& • • -1-fiNfr COUNTY OF SUFFOLK 1 t1,_+'1 STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE THOMAS ISLES,AICP DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING September 20, 2006 Ms. Ruth Oliva, Chair Town of Southold ZBA SEP 2 2 2306 53085 Main Rd., P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Dear Ms. Oliva: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following application(s)submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is/are considered to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Applicant(s) Municipal File Number(s) Manos,Peter&Arlene 5730 Klein,Geri Aimine 5793 & 5853 Curran, James 5795 Neumann, James 5822 Olvasid Realty* 5828 Fischer,Daniel 5833 Aliano,Nicholas** 5846 Hajek, Frank&Rose 5847 Miritello, Stephanie 5849 Chapman, John 5857 343 East 18 LLC (Lowry) 5860 Sweeney,Jim& Susan 5865 Ward,Richard& Susan 5867 Estate of Glenn Boocock 5868 Kennedy, Sheila \-5870 Galizia,Henry 5871 Baner, John &Denise 5874 Perillo, Thomas*** 5879 Fitzpatrick,Thomas&Mary 5880 Romanelli Brothers 5882 Perry,Richard&Kim 5886 Pollio,Anne 5889 Ekster,Lawrence&Ann 5891 Deegan, Francis&Nancy 5892 Bissett,James III 5894 Sutton,Alexander&Tracy 5898 Sullivan,Robert&Jackie 5902 LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H.LEE DENNISON BLDG.-4TH FLOOR . P.O.BOX 6100 . (631)853-5190 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER(631)853-4044 • -2- Latham, Stephen&Joan 5904 Fitzgerald,James 5905 Constantino,Ralph&Carmela 5908 Mascia,Philip 5899 Thermos,Barbara 5910 Gonzales,Joseph 5917 Albrecht, Scott&Wendy 5923 *The application as proposed is bordering on an overintensification of the use of the premises. The property can be reasonably developed in accordance with the existing zoning without seeking variances for an additional lot. **Staff notes the excavation for the footings and retaining walls associated with the proposed house. Limiting the size of the residence will help in minimizing impacts to the bluff. ***The proposed 15 ft. wide right-of-way should be designed as a flag lot to ensure the lot to the south will have legal access to Peconic Bay Blvd. Very truly yours, Thomas Isles,AICP Director of Planning S/s Christopher S. Wrede Environmental Planner CSW:cc LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H.LEE DENNISON BLDG.-4TH FLOOR • P.O.BOX 6100 . (631)853-5190 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER(631)853-4044 /6A FXV ROBERT W.ANTHONY P/171 ^t� P.O. BOX 383 )91(�\+� a�6 FISHERS ISLAND,NY 06390 June 12, 2006 :Ft; `J Ms. Linda Kowalski Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals ,JUN 1 4 2006 Town of Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Kowalski ;a , F;P ; s As a nearby neighbor of Sheila Kennedy's on Equestrian Avenue on Fishers Island,NY, I am writing to express my support for the variance she has requested(#5870). Sheila has kept us well informed during this lengthy process, and we appreciate her efforts in that regard. Back in the 1940's my grandfather, Samuel Salvage, owned the piece of property that Ms. Kennedy hopes to build on. At the time there was a large hotel and six cottages on site. My grandfather tore down the hotel and the six cottages soon after he purchased them. The neighborhood has been a quiet and respectful one, and I expect it will remain that way in the future. I believe that the lot Ms. Kennedy wants to build upon is a much preferred site than the piece closer to the water for all sorts of reasons. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance as this process moves forward. Sincerely yours, � w. tc\ - -,]Millbrook School Robert W. Anthony School Road,Millbrook,New York 12545 nadress Services Requested APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �rr''�QF •$�Q� • Mailing Address: Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman rdr 1�� SOW Southold Town Hall r' '�� 53095 Main Road•P.O. Box 1179 Gerard P. Goehringer 4 * Southold,NY 11971-0959 James Dinizio, Jr. rr+ , Office Location: Michael A. Simon 4. rrI Town Annex/First Floor,North Fork Bank Leslie Kanes Weisman .fCOUrj,w1,;rrr 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) ...- •'r Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631)765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064 July n � P t � Stephen L. Ham, Esq. Matthews & Ham 38 Nugent Street Southampton, New York 11068 Re: ZBA Ref. 5870 Kennedy, Sheila —Variance Determination Dearr. : Please find enclosed a copy of the above-noted determination rendered by the Zoning Board of Appeals at its June 29, 2006 Meeting. Please be sure to file an extra copy of the enclosed variance determination when submitting other final documents, or amendments, with the Building Department. Thank you. Very truly yours, inda KowadC ida-C Encl. Copy of Decision to: Building Department 20 r%c fa Aare, gdy.On oF1cekcisiaN) 4& GJ, k'eenan Sh1eila94 Lauch Kennedy JUN Lakeview Ave. 5 2006 Cambridge, MA. 02138 Fait,,,,yx Tel and fax: 617492-7940 ®04 o op o0 Email: sb.rauch@comcast.net < Ftics Dear Members of the Board: June 15,2006 My name is Sheila Kennedy and I am writing to respond to some of the issues raised at the hearing for my request for a variance# 5870 held on May 2S, 2006. I am sorry I did not attend this hearing but frankly I was concerned that my strong feelings for this property might have caused me to impose on your already over-committed schedules. However I am now aware that numerous concerns were raised, concerns which.I have attempted to address below. In the interest of your time, I have begun with an executive summary followed by a general discussion that provides additional background information and greater detail. I look forward to answering any further questions you might have and thank you for your time. Sincerely, —d Ltc:co . lam- Sheila Kennedy • • Executive Summary 1. Existing Lot. The lot for which I am requesting a variance was established in 1994 for the specific purpose of creating an independently buildable site. *The lot has been valued and taxed as buildable since then. *The lot existed as such when Mr. Keenan, an adjacent owner, acquired his property on March 22, 1996 *The site where I hope to locate my house is the one the town preferred when it approved the parcel for a single family residence in 1994. 2. Communication with neighbors: I have made every effort to communicate with my neighbors. I began making my initial contacts late in the summer and early fall of 2005.At that time none of the neighbors including Mr. Keenan objected to my locating the house on the plateau. In fact of those who expressed a preference between a site on the harbor or the hill, all preferred the latter. (A list of the neighbors I contacted and a more detailed discussion of my efforts to be sensitive to their concerns follows.) 3. Need for a variance. In addition to providing safe vehicular access for me, the requested variance enables me to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors: *my requested site permits the house to be moved 30 away from the Keenan property and to place it in a less intrusive position. *the design of the house is quite small, approximately 2000 square feet. Making it smaller is not a viable solution and placement on the lot is especially important. *the open space by the retaining wall overlooking Hay Harbor would remain vacant, something the vast majority of the neighbors and environmental"experts" favor. 4. Communication with Mr. Keenan: Mr. Keenan was the first neighbor to be contacted, a process that began around Labor Day 2005 when my brother spoke to him on the phone. *In late September or early October I sent Mr. Keenan copies of photographs showing the Mononotto Inn on the site dating from the 1800's and told him of my plans to build. * In early December 2005 I met with Mr. Keenan at the site.At this time Mr. Keenan expressed concern about my plans for the driveway and offered to pay for constructing a shared dock. I told him I could make no commitment for a dock at this time and began investigating alternative to the driveway in light of his concerns. I do not recall him voicing any concerns about his view. •In January or early February 2006 I sent Mr. Keenan a proposed site plan showing a new configuration for the driveway that addressed his and Mr.Wilmerding's(the other abutter) concerns. *In March we exchanged emails and though Mr. Keenan noted that he thought my proposed site was"squished,"I have no recollection of his expressing concerns about the house impacting his views. 1110 'On April 20, 2006 at Mr. Keenan's request, I met with him in Boston where we discussed his wanting to plant trees on my potential property and my giving him permanent access to the harbor. I left that meeting thinking we would work towards a joint solution on those issues. 'On April 24, 2006 Mr. Keenan told me by telephone for the first time that he had problems with my plan but said that he would not object to it if he had the right to plant trees on my lot and I granted him permanent access to the harbor. He did not mention any concerns for his view. *On April 24,2006 at Mr. Keenan's request, I asked my attorney Mr. Steven Ham to speak with him on the phone and in turn Mr. Keenan asked Mr. Ham to respond to his(Mr. Keenan's) concerns in writing. *On April 25, 2006 at Mr. Keenan's request I faxed the letter Mr. Ham had helped me prepare to Mr. Keenan at an office in New York City. This is the same letter Mr. Ham shared with you at the May 23R1 hearing. I have had no further direct communication with Mr. Keenan. *On April 26, 2006 at approximately 4 PM less than twenty-four hours before the first scheduled hearing Mr. Keenan called your office to ask for more time to address my request for a variance. 'On May 25, 2006 Mr. Keenan appeared before your board and claimed my proposed site would severely and negatively impact his view and thus his property. In light of this history, I find Mr. Keenan's position that he has had insufficient time to address my request for a variance and his concern for his view hard to understand. I have made every reasonable effort to accommodate his and other neighbors'concerns and to create the best possible plan for this special place. 4110 General Background and Responses to Issues Raised at the May 25, 2006 Hearing The following material provides background information and addresses some of the issues raised at-the May 25, 2006 hearing. 1) Background: I began coming to Fishers Island over fifty years ago and most of my time on the island has been spent on this peninsula. As I believe you are aware, at my parents' request,the town approved the parcel for which I am requesting a variance for a single family residence in 1994. My parents(Frances and Stewart Rauch)passed away in November of 2001 and my siblings and I now own their former house and this land in a family partnership. Last summer I began looking into doing what I had often discussed with my parents: building a modest house or cottage on the site. However some family members wanted the site to remain vacant and it was agreed that they could give Mr. Keenan the option of buying the parcel at the appraised market value on the condition that the land remain empty. My siblings also agreed before Mr. Keenan was contacted that if he did not move ahead, I would be given the opportunity to build. I understand that the possibility of Mr. Keenan's donating the parcel and, /or development rights and then taking a tax deduction may have been on the table but I was not involved in these discussions. For whatever reasons, Mr. Keenan decided not to pursue his option to buy and I was allowed to move forward. 2) The Planning Process: Mr. Keenan and Other Neighbors I understand that at the Mav 25th hearing it was a suggested that Mr. Keenan has not had adequate time to respond to my request for a variance. However, I have been working for almost a year with Mr. Kennan in an effort to make this plan the best it can be. In September 2005 when my siblings said that I could move forward with my plans to build, I assumed that I would be building near or on the site the town had approved in 1994. However when Mr. Ham spoke to the town about that location he was told that even though the town had approved the site and even though we were on a private road we would need a variance to proceed. I am not qualified to determine whether I need a variance to address the set back issues currently before us and I understand that even those who are qualified are not in agreement. However I thought(and still do)that rather than debating these points, it would be better for all if I worked with the town and the neighbors to propose the best plan possible from as many perspectives as possible. I was (and am) sure that together we can be responsible stewards of this special peninsula and its harbor. I began by contacting the neighbors on the peninsula: Four Wilmerding families,the Keenans,the Anthonys,the Bordens,the Brauns,the Gadas and the S • Chapotons. No one objected to my idea of locating the house on the hill and of those who expressed a preference for either the water side of the common drive or the hill, all favored the later. After my initial communications, I sent Mr. Keenan copies of pictures I had procured from The Fishers Island Library that showed the site as it appeared between c.1890 -1939 when the Mononotto Inn was located there. In early December 2005 after Mr. Keenan had emailed me when he was planning to be on the island,I went down from Boston to walk the site with him. Up until our walk, I was planning to bring the driveway up the rear of the site but when Mr. Keenan said that doing so would impose on his evening vista,I began to consider other options. At no time during our walk do I recall Mr. Keenan suggesting that he'd prefer the house be located on the harbor side of the access road. As I recall even when Mr. Keenan suggested that he wanted to look into the feasibility of moving the common driveway and offered to retain Mr. Richard Strouse to complete a study at his(Mr. Keenan's) expense,he made the offer with the understanding that the site under consideration was the upper one. I also recall our discussing the need for him to contact my siblings as most of the access road was on land the family partnership owned. It was also my understanding that Mr. Keenan said he would begin making the necessary contacts should he decide he wanted to pursue this idea but to my knowledge no such contacts have been made. I further recall that at this meeting Mr. Keenan suggested that if I completed a permitting process for a dock,he would pay to have one built provided we shared it. I thanked him for his generous offer but said that a dock was a long term issue for me. Even if legal, I didn't feel comfortable asking for a permit to build a dock on land I didn't own. I could live on the site without a dock but not without a house. Furthermore any dock at the cove would be almost literally at the Wilmerding's front door and before moving forward with such a large commitment, I would want to talk with them. I was however happy to revisit the potential of a shared dock later. In December 2205 I also met with Alec Wilmerding whose family owns the house noted above. This house abuts my proposed site to the northwest and is closer to it than either the Keenan property or the other three Wilmerding residences. Alec and I reviewed my plans and discussed the height of the proposed structure and some of his family's other concerns-primarily noise. Around Christmas I faxed additional information to Alec's father house in New Jersey where the extended family was gathering for the holiday. In January 2006, Mr. Harold Wilmerding, Alec's father and the owner of record of this abutting property, reviewed the material I had faxed him and suggested that I consider bringing the drive in the front of the upper site which would among other things protect a cedar grove and thus lessen the noise for those in his household. With Mr. Wilmerding's and Mr.Keenan's input,Mr.Richard Strouse developed a site plan to address their concerns. By moving the proposed driveway to the front of the upper site, both the Keenan's evening vista and the cedar trees which were of concern to Mr. Wilmerding would be preserved. II/ • During the winter of 2005 -2006, I sent Mr. Keenan updated information, including the site plan prepared by Mr. Strouse. In March we communicated by email. In fairness to Mr. Keenan in one of these emails he referred to my site as "squished"and suggested that through a land swap he might be able to ameliorate this situation. I responded that while I understood how my site might seem small to him in comparison to his property, I was almost sixty years old and was more concerned about my legs and/or life running out before I could enjoy my cottage on the hill than how much land I owned. I do not recall however Mr. Keenan's expressing concern about a potential house on the upper site imposing on his view. On April 20th at Mr. Keenan's request I met with him in Boston. As I recall, at this meeting we discussed primarily two issues: trees and a dock. I thought we left this meeting with the understanding that we were committed to working together and would touch bases again soon. However on Monday April 24th three days before the first scheduled hearing on the 27th Mr. Keenan told me by phone and for the first time that he had problems with my plan. Mr. Keenan now wanted me to grant him the right to plant trees on my potential site and permanent access to the water in return for his supporting my request for a variance.At this time and at Mr. Keenan request,I asked Mr. Ham to talk with him by phone and it was also at Mr. Keenan's suggestion that Mr. Ham assisted me in drafting my April 25th letter to Mr. Keenan, a letter which I believe Mr. Ham made available to you on May 2iik4 As noted in this letter,Mr. Kennan's two issues had evolved into a quid pro quos-neither of which I felt I could meet at that time. (Nor do I feel I can do so now) In addition to the trees and harbor access noted above, Mr. Keenan raised two additional points: My proposed septic tank was too close to his second (though unmarked)well and that because my family had failed to keep the path open to the cove as had been requested by the fire department,he had been doing so at his own expense . However when in an effort to find out how to remedy these concerns I contacted the water department,I was told that if a house is within five hundred feet of a town main,the homeowner must hook up to town water and should not be using well water for domestic purposes. If this fact is correct then the proposed site of the septic tank should not impact Mr. Keenan's water assuming he is in compliance with local regulations. If the proposed location still constitutes a problem,we will change its location. I was more concerned though with Mr. Keenan's claim to Mr. Ham that my family was not cooperating with the fire department and his implication that were it not for his benevolence,the entire peninsula and five or six homes never mind life would be in danger in the event of fire. However when I spoke to a department representative,he told me that the company had no position on keeping the path open and if the department wanted the path open,my family would have been notified. At Mr. Keenan request, I faxed the April 25th letter to him at an office in New York City. Though I have not heard from Mr. Keenan since, I understand that at approximately 4 PM on Wednesday April 26th less than twenty-four hours S • before the initial hearing was scheduled to begin on the 27th; he contacted your office asking for a continuance. Then on May 25'h he attended your hearing to express his concerns that my proposed house would impede his view. 3) A Buildable Lot and an Impaired View: I understand that Mr. Keenan does not think I should be permitted to build a house on the plateau because it will impact his view. As mentioned above the town approved this site for a single family residence in 1994. Mr. Keenan purchased his property from Mr. John Evans on March 22, 1996 two years after you granted approval. Thus when Mr. Keenan bought his property for which I understand he had legal representation,he either knew or should have known that a house might be built on this parcel. Yet despite Mr. Keenan's decade of ownership it was not until April 24th of this year that he expressed concern (at least to me)about his view. In fact rather than using these ten years to seek a view easement or plant trees and vegetation that would have comprised a more extensive natural buffer than currently exists between the his house and my potential site, Mr. Keenan cut and cleared(or had cut and had cleared) trees and vegetation between us with such vigor that not only have some on my potential property been decimated but the debris from my (and I suspect his) vegetation have found their way to my family's side of the property line. I'm sure that the cutting and dumping that has impacted our property has been unintentional. Nevertheless it seems unreasonable that after Mr. Keenan has caused some of the natural bather between the two sites to be cut that he now insists that his view will be harmed if a house is built on the plateau. It also seems unreasonable that given all the land Mr. Keenan owns where he can plant trees and despite his two private wells from which he can access water,he thinks he should be allowed to plant trees on our land at the top of the plateau, currently a location without water that in the future particularly in a strong wind or hurricane could be dangerous to me. 4) The Right of Way and Town Utility Easement: I understand that relocating the road was suggested as a way of making a site available where the current right of way now runs. I do not believe relocating the road would be a solution. In order to move the road four Wilmerding households, five Rauch families, and the Keenan's would have to agree. Furthermore even if these ten families could agree on where to relocate the road and who pays for it,I still would not be permitted to build where the current road is located. The town has a UTILITY EASEMENT that runs along the access road to the Keenan's and the four Wilmerding properties in roughly a straight line. It is not clear even if someone were to agree to pay for the utilities to be moved that the town would be willing to give up its direct right of way to the end of the peninsula. • Background: In 1967 my mother purchased what is now the Keenan's property,the parcel where our current family (Rauch)house is located, and the site for which I am requesting a variance as one parcel from Mr. John Wilmerding, Jr. At her request in August of that year, Chandler and Palmer(now CME)prepared a preliminary plan to relocate the common driveway she shared with the Wilmerdings. I assume this is the plan to which Mr. Keenan was referring on May 23`d as it is the one I shared with him on April 20th when we met in Boston. However even in 1967 when my mother considered relocating the road,the cost and inconvenience was deemed too high to justify the relocation. I also understand from Mr. Grebe,who I believe dug the trenches in which the utilities are now buried,that they were upgraded and put underground at Warner Brothers' expenses when the company used the Wilmerding(now MacLeod)house to film The World According to Garp,released in 1982.Even if the town were to allow the utilities to be moved,the cost would be extreme and make requiring such a move unreasonable. 3) Size of the Plateau and Size of the Building Sited there I understand that there was a question as to whether Mr. Grebe had moved soil on top of the hill to make room for a house.Not only is this suggetion mistaken but if anything the space available on the hill is less than it appears on the survey maps. When I met with Mr. Keenan on April 20th in Boston, I pointed out to him that even though planting sizable trees on the top of the hill might be desirable,there wasn't room. In fact I was struggling with landscape architects and Mr. Strouse to find room for vehicular access up hill. The attached copy of a photograph taken when the Mononotto Inn occupied the site gives a good idea of the original size of this natural plateau and the size of the building that was previously there. It is my understanding that this inn could accommodate roughly 150 guests as well as house many on the staff necessary to care for them. I have marked in ink the approximate location of where we'd like to site the cottage which would have roughly a 1000 square foot footprint. Given the size of the building that once dominated the plateau; it seems hard to imagine that a two story roughly 2000 square foot cottage would be excessive. 4)Limiting the Height of the House to One Story and Other Design Solutions: I understand the suggestion was made that the house be limited to one story so as not to possibly impede Mr. Keenan's view.As previously discussed the plateau is small and limiting a house or cottage of even roughly 2000 square feet to one story would not be feasible. Requiring people to live below ground so not to possibly affect Mr. Keenan's view not only seems unreasonable for a waterfront site but brings with it the inherent health, mold and stale air risks which can beproblematic in humid costal locations.I have however worked with and am committed to continuing to work with both landscape and general architects to minimize the impact of the cottage on the site. 41111/.Not only are we keeping the height well within town requirements but we've designed a hipped roof with a modest seven to twelve foot slope to further minimize its impact. I have also spoken with several landscape architects to determine how to best utilize climbing and cascading vines along the walls of the house as well as planting vines on the small flat area on the roof. If feasible, these vines would cascade downwards thereby further limiting the roof's impact if in fact the roof proves to be an eye sore from the Keenan's house. This landscaping approach which utilizes the height of the house as part of the solution would provide a more effective and practical screen in a shorter period of time than planting trees at ground level. A major reason to ask for a variance is move the house forward 30 feet and thereby allow the structure to be moved further AWAY from the Keenan house which is located to the south but mostly west of the requested site. In fact I'm hoping to site the house as far to the east on the plateau as possible-the placement being limited by the side setback requirement and topography. We are also exploring the feasibility of using a sky light for access to the maintenance hatch so that light can flow through the roof and lessen the need for south facing windows on the Keenan side of the house. As currently planned windows on the side facing the Keenan's are few and small and those on the upper story are even smaller-four of the five being bathroom and/or stairwell casement windows. As currently planned,the southwest corner of the house has no windows on the lower level and on the second story only small casement openings for air flow. It would be impossible to have such a sensitive design were we not permitted to move the house forward the 30 feet we are requesting thereby allowing us to move the cottage further away from the Keenan's house and to bring our car up behind the cottage and angled away from the Keenan's. 5) Selecting the Better Site: I understand that Mr. Keenan now thinks that the harbor side of the access road would be a better site than one on the plateau. I do not agree with this assessment. In 1994 when the town approved the harbor side site, concerns for building close to the water were not as great as they are today. Even at that time however the town preferred the site on the hill but my parents and others were concerned that rubble from the old hotel would make building there infeasible. Last summer when I first began looking into building and was told we would need a variance to proceed, we decided to reassess the environmental impact of both sites and ask the neighbors for their opinions. Because of the overwhelming preference for the upper site, including at that time Mr. Keenan's, we asked Mr. Grebe to dig test holes to determine the extent of the rubble. Mr. Grebe found numerous large boulders but-at least on the eastern most part of the plateau where I'd like to site the house- little rubble. Mr. Grebe concluded that while more expensive to develop than the water side location; building on the eastern portion of the upper site was likely possible. I have worked very hard since then to make this project the best it can be and until April 24th it seemed that everyone was in agreement that the hill location IND was the better choice. Indeed, Mr. Strouse's affidavit and Mr. Wilmerding's letter which I believe have been made available to you articulate these reasons which other than Mr. Keenan seem to be shared by all. While I understand that there are always hurdles to overcome in any project and I remain committed to working with Mr. Keenan and the larger community, I cannot make commitments that seem unreasonable . I hope you agree that I have been sensitive to the community and the environment and have chosen the best possible site. I also hope you will give me the opportunity to move forward by approving my request for a variance as soon as possible Thank you again for your time. • T.C9G115-1--QC • .i—k -42... ( , • S;�xr , S'"� . ]•i4 1 1 , )�:•,,..w..., l l:_ ,•:„0,5-.. M itip I z n 'W ',^i�3� jjj�`��,4 " .,., ..I���..� • "-r �� ii; 'g i:: 4�p�n� _�`I I p pg a • l' • '00 r _ - �� j .''..„,:c,;..:,...,'0:,1',,,,;.,.,-„,,,...,..„..„,..„-,:.„,,., �i'at, � la.. .�.- ' w7RF4nn'.'w i.. _ 'w'.4'.as=n7 wr,.»..,r+. + i.�7e.h.e i� �RN. . , 7��.� . 4Cw��� l ` �. � . e; - ,'� ' r � � � ,' r • �.-. wrsr..ee* J� r+l_' tip•.M" .ffi � - . " - _, ;"7 Al �i , .g 1, 3 " i f` .,. s d4ri .. ,/ i z4 ;rtg ;,-,2r..21,,,,...-,. !, .,, r ,, ' '7;....;;:?..'. ..::',.....4,4%.1.*''''..."' • r.. r .a , u" • - - ,. S aw k-4 r °• ,,, i 4R „ gft-r * p$ ,-.pra4Z,Z1� ri 1 ,.i a I -. -_ r. _. ... .r.,., . ". • • 194-1 Atc. it4)..k.s. 0 , %V. tffi/od o� STATE OF CONNECTICUT ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW LONDON ) RICHARD H. STROUSE, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a professional engineer and land surveyor, duly licensed by the State of New York (N.Y.S. License Nos. 059363 and 049521), with offices at 110 Broadway, Norwich, Connecticut 06360. 2. I am very familiar with the real property situate on a right-of-way at Fishers Island, New York and owned by Fishers Island Rauch Partners L.P. (SCTM No. 1000-9-9-22.1; Lot 2 of Rauch Subdivision Filed Map No. 9547) which is the subject of an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold (No. 5870). I have inspected the property on several occasions for survey and engineering purposes and I have advised the prospective purchaser, Sheila Kennedy, as to the feasibility of certain locations for the construction of a single-family dwelling on the property. 3. As evidenced by the Site Plan I prepared for Sheila Kennedy which has been submitted in connection with her appeal, the rear yard of the subject property is severely sloped (29%). In my opinion, construction of a house in that location would involve extensive excavation and grading at a much greater cost than the cost that would be involved with the proposed location. 4. On the other hand, the proposed location for the house is ideal from several perspectives. The area is relatively level and therefore only ordinary excavation and earth moving would be required. The proposed location would leave room for reasonably sized front, side and rear yards. Creation of a greater front yard setback in • . the relatively flat building area could possibly be accomplished, but only at the expense of producing a rear yard with severe slopes and preventing driveway access to the rear of the house. 5. The proposed location is desirable from an environmental standpoint as well. Not only would less earth movement be necessary, the construction activities as well as the septic system would be limited to an area at least 175 feet from Hay Harbor (as opposed to a site north of the right-of-way), thus reducing the chance of contamination of the tidal wetlands both during and after construction. Moreover, more substantial variances as well as environmental permits would probably be necessary if the house were located north of the right-of-way. 6. I make this affidavit in order to assist the Zoning Board of Appeals in its determination with respect to the application of Sheila Kennedy, knowing it will rely on the truthfulness hereof. i icha • '. ` rouse Subscribed and Sworn to Before Me This 02la Day of April, 2006 (.42.0021 OA m NtharactOr Notary Public ROSEANNEMUSCARELLA NOTARY PUBLIC tO MNIONs.... le.7q,9007 R� �fA_. 6 Off: • MATTHEWS & HAM ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 38 NUGENT STREET SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11988 PHILIP B.MATTHEWS (1012-1002) 831-283-2400 STEPHEN 1.. HAx, 111 FACSIMILE 032-287-1076 e-mail:Mattbamesq@aol.com BARBARA T.Hex April 27, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold FROM: Stephen L. Ham, Ill RE: Application of Sheila Kennedy (Application No. 5870-SCTM No. 1000-009.00-09.00-022.001) This Memorandum is submitted in support of the Application of Sheila Kennedy (Application No. 5870) for variances to construct a residence and attached garage on a parcel of vacant land situate at a right-of-way off Equestrian Avenue on Fishers Island (SCTM No. 1000-009.00-09.00-022.001). The subject premises (the "Premises")are now owned by Rauch Fishers Island Partners, L.P. ("Rauch Partners")and are designated as Lot No 2 on the Minor Subdivision Map of Property of Frances B. Rauch, R. Stewart Rauch and John C. Evans which was filed in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk on August 11, 1994 as Map No. 9547 (the"Minor Subdivision Map"). Rauch Partners is a family limited partnership whose partners are the children of Frances and Stewart Rauch, including applicant Sheila Kennedy. FACTS: By a Notice of Disapproval, dated February 22, 2006, the Building Inspector 1 • • denied an application for a building permit at the Premises because the proposed residence would be only 30 feet from a private right-of-way which serves the Premises and several other parcels. Despite advice I received from the Building Department last fall concerning the permissible building envelope, advice that is reflected on the Site Plan for Sheila Kennedy submitted with the application, the Notice of Disapproval also indicates that the proposed dwelling would encroach into the required rear yard by approximately 7 feet. The parcels adjoining the Premises on the northwest and southwest are owned by the Wilmerding and Keenan families and are designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 9, Block 9, Lots 3.1 - 3.5 and 16, respectively. The private right-of-way,which begins at Equestrian Avenue, crosses other property owned by Rauch Partners as well as the Premises and the Keenan property and is referred to hereinafter as the "Right-of-Way". Only the Rauch, Wilmerding and Keenan properties have any right to use the Right-of-Way. DISCUSSION: Since a single-family dwelling with attached garage is a permitted use in this R-80 Zone District and the relief sought relates to the dimensional or physical requirements of the Southold Town Zoning Code (the "Code"), the requested variances are area variances. Town Law § 267.1. Therefore, the standards of Town Law §267- b.3(b) apply. The factors to be considered by a zoning board of appeals in making a determination regarding an area variance under Town Law§267-b.3(b)are as follows: (1) the benefit to the applicant as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood; (2) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the 2 • • character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties; (3)whether the benefit sought can be achieved in another manner; (4) whether the variance is substantial; (5) whether the variance will have an adverse effect on physical or environmental characteristics; and (6) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. An examination of the circumstances present in the instant matter in light of the foregoing factors follows. 1. Relative Benefit and Detriment. Mrs. Kennedy intends to build a single-family dwelling on a 1.91-acre parcel in a residential zone. The proposed structures would be located at least 500 feet from Equestrian Avenue which is the nearest street over which anyone other than the Rauch, Keenan and Wilmerding families have any rights. There should be no detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood by the granting of the requested variances. There will be no undue increase in density since the Premises meet the Code requirement for lot area for a single-family dwelling and cannot be further subdivided. There will be no significant increase in noise or traffic. While there will be some change to the physical characteristics at the site, the overall impact should be slight. Indeed, the Premises were approved as a separate building site by the Planning Board in 1994. Perhaps most significantly, it is the Premises, not any of the other properties that have the right to use the Right-of-Way, that would be most affected by pedestrians and vehicles passing over the Right-of-Way in the vicinity of the proposed dwelling. The detriment in this instance, if any, is therefore to the owner, not to the neighborhood or to the public. Under these circumstances, the balance between benefit and detriment clearly tilts to the applicant. 2. Character of the Neighborhood. Construction of the residence in the proposed location will not result in an undesirable change in the neighborhood or to 3 • • nearby properties. The proposed dwelling is modest in scope. The lot coverage will be roughly 2-3%of the lot area,well below the maximum permitted and the residential use will be consistent with the Zoning Code. 3. Alternatives. Although the lot area of the Premises satisfies the minimum lot area for the R-80 Zone District,the Right-of-Way severely limits, if not entirely eliminates, the potential conforming building envelope since it essentially bisects the Premises into a northerly portion and a southerly portion from which front yard setbacks must be maintained. Moreover, the Premises border on tidal wetlands from which additional setbacks would be required under local and state laws. While tidal wetlands constrain potential house sites on the northerly portion of the property, severe slopes limit feasible building locations on the southerly portion of the property. As indicated by contours on the Site Plan, Mrs. Kennedy has selected the most level location south of the Right-of-Way for the proposed construction. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an affidavit of engineer Richard H. Strouse. According to Mr. Strouse, who has visited the site on several occasions, the proposed location would involve the least amount of disturbance and movement of earth and would provide reasonable front, rear and side yards. Therefore, while the dwelling could arguably be moved farther from what is deemed to be the front lot line, that change would result in the loss of any reasonably level rear yard. It would also produce a greater impact on the Keenan property since it would be closer to the common boundary line. Due to the practical difficulties, if not sheer impossibility, of constructing the dwelling in a conforming location at this site, the benefit sought cannot reasonably be achieved in another manner. With the northerly portion of the site being of no practical utility due to setback requirements from the Right-of-Way and tidal wetlands and with the 4 • • Right-of-Way creating a relatively small and sloped southerly portion of the property,there is not a location on the Premises where the proposed structures could be built without the owner coming into conflict with the Code or with other laws. The precise location for the structures was selected because it results in the house being placed in the flattest portion of the more environmentally acceptable southerly portion of the site. The circumstances giving rise to the difficulties are clearly unique to the property and not the result of some personal whim of the owner. 4. Substantial Nature of Variance. The applicant concedes that the requested front yard variance is substantial in that the required setback will be reduced from 60 to 30 feet. However, as noted above, the situation is most unusual in that the setback is being measured not from a public street but from a private right-of-way that only a few property owners can use. As noted previously, the Right-of-Way eliminates a great deal, if not all, of the useable space on the Premises. Moreover, if the applicant's interpretation of the rear yard is correct, the applicant is not proposing to build any structures that would be located closer to a true property line than what would otherwise be permitted.' Even if the Building Department is correct in its interpretation of the rear yard in this case, the 68 foot setback where 75 feet are required is not substantial. Were it not for the peculiar Code requirement for a structure to be set back from a private right- of-way, the front yard setback would be about 200 feet in this case. 5. Impact on Physical and Environmental Conditions. As previously noted, the variances will result in the house being placed in the flattest part of the t The applicant believes that the Building Department is in error in maintaining that the proposed structure encroaches on the required rear yard. That would be the case only if the border with Hay Harbor were considered to be a front lot line. The Right-of-Way essentially creates a triangular parcel so the rear yard is measured correctly on the Site Plan from the apex of that triangle. 5 • • • southerly portion of the property,thereby reducing the amount of excavation and regrading that will be required. Also, construction on the southerly side of the Right-of-Way should reduce the chances of contamination of the wetlands during and after construction. If variances permitting construction in the desired location are granted, the impact on physical and environmental conditions will therefore be much less extreme than if the applicant were to build in the more severely sloped area of the southerly portion of the property or closer to the tidal wetlands on the northerly portion of the property. Finally, as also previously noted, it is Mrs. Kennedy and not her neighbors who will be most affected by the proximity of the dwelling to the Right-of-Way. 6. Self-Created Hardship. The issue of self-created hardship is not pertinent here. Mrs. Kennedy is seeking the proper permits prior to construction, not seeking to legitimize an illegally built structure. Her right to a variance depends on the circumstances peculiar to this property and, absent other factors, is the same right as any prior owners have had and any future owners would have. Accordingly, the interests of justice would be served by granting the variance. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, your Board should grant variances in order to permit the applicant to construct the single-family residence in the requested location. S.L.H., Ill 6 EXHIBIT A • • STATE OF CONNECTICUT ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW LONDON ) RICHARD H. STROUSE, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a professional engineer and land surveyor, duly licensed by the State of New York (N.Y.S. License Nos. 059363 and 049521), with offices at 110 Broadway, Norwich, Connecticut 06360. 2. I am very familiar with the real property situate on a right-of-way at Fishers Island, New York and owned by Fishers Island Rauch Partners L.P. (SCTM No. 1000-9-9-22.1; Lot 2 of Rauch Subdivision Filed Map No. 9547) which is the subject of an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold (No. 5870). I have inspected the property on several occasions for survey and engineering purposes and I have advised the prospective purchaser, Sheila Kennedy, as to the feasibility of certain locations for the construction of a single-family dwelling on the property. 3. As evidenced by the Site Plan I prepared for Sheila Kennedy which has been submitted in connection with her appeal, the rear yard of the subject property is severely sloped (29%). In my opinion, construction of a house in that location would involve extensive excavation and grading at a much greater cost than the cost that would be involved with the proposed location. 4. On the other hand, the proposed location for the house is ideal from several perspectives. The area is relatively level and therefore only ordinary excavation and earth moving would be required. The proposed location would leave room for reasonably sized front, side and rear yards. Creation of a greater front yard setback in • • the relatively flat building area could possibly be accomplished, but only at the expense of producing a rear yard with severe slopes and preventing driveway access to the rear of the house. 5. The proposed location is desirable from an environmental standpoint as well. Not only would less earth movement be necessary, the construction activities as well as the septic system would be limited to an area at least 175 feet from Hay Harbor (as opposed to a site north of the right-of-way), thus reducing the chance of contamination of the tidal wetlands both during and after construction. Moreover, more substantial variances as well as environmental permits would probably be necessary if the house were located north of the right-of-way. 6. I make this affidavit in order to assist the Zoning Board of Appeals in its determination with respect to the application of Sheila Kennedy, knowing it will rely on the truthfulness hereof. ,--2 ire ^ichaf. . "rouse Subscribed and Sworn to Before Me This 02L, Day of April, 2006 ita‘2,21,041%)4) Notary Public ROSEANNEk1USCARELLA NOTARY POW= INCSA1 OM WP.*A 2007 • • Page 2-January 10,2002 v�r Parts 10 0o.-610 7i at Ash es[ - ,1 nh�� 4A"3. Pared 1000 -1-5.1 at Ftshets Island 3. In reviewing Town records,It noted that applicant's pareel„yyffs prnigTplyr part of a 15.45+- acre plot located near the Westerly end of the north shoreline of Filitteni island On October 26, 1970,with approval from the Town Planning Board,a 1.6+c acre parcel was conveyed to T.W.Russell,Jr. This property now contains a single-family dwelling owned by Russell which Is accessible via this dead-end private right-of-way,created at that time,and running along the southeasterly edge of the remaining larger parcel retained by the Guest family,and also conveyed to Russell at that time. 4. On.July 24,1995,the 13.85+-acre parcel,still owned by the Guest Family,was the subject.of..a minor subdivision plan when the applicant's 4.704- acre panel was spilt off (from the family owned parcel). This plan was approved by the Planning Board and utilizes the same right-of-way mentioned"above for access to the Russell lot, running over land owned R.Guest(the applicant herein). 5. It is also noted that the applicant hassubmitted letters of non jurisdiction from the N.YS. Department of Environmental Conservation and the Southold Town Board of Trustees. Each statement addresses the issue of the close proximityofthe salt water tidal, and fresh water wetlands that exist on the applicant's property. Each agency states a .determination of non-Jurisdiction provided that all state and local guidelines are met with regard to the wetlands. This includes the requirement that all construction be set back at least 100 feet from both the salt water and fresh water wetlands. Further instructions are also mentioned In these determinations concerning proper protection measures to be taken during construction to avoid and control erosion,etc. .6. The applicant states that the Building Deparhnent.determined that the yard facing. the private right-of-way Is a front yard, and given the stipulations ofthe N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town Board of Trustees regarding setbacks from wetlands, the applicant does not have an area on the property;sufficient toconstruct a houseand accessory pool without variances or some otherform of relief from the Board of Appeals. 7. The Board of Appeals, upon review of;the information presented, testimony submitted,and evidence obtained,determines the following: A. There will be no detriment tothe health,safety or welfare of the surroundingneighborhood or environment B. There will not be an undesirable change in the character of the. neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. C. Given the location of wetlands on the applicant's parcel,the situation has not been self-created. . Page 3=January 10,2002 ZBA peel.No.5047—R GueSt Parcel 1000-6-1-5.1 at Fishers Island D. Front yard setback relief would be substantial if the front yard faced a street rather than a private right-of-way:servicing another lot(Russell). E. Furthermore,this Board has,determined that this particular right-of-way is not a "Street,".according to;the Town.Cade;definitiOns. (Also refer to ZBA Cases#4818- . Meskouris of August 10,2000,and#4836-Koch of iuly 6,2000.) F. The reason stated in the October 26,2001 Notice of Disapproval was not correct based on a measur'ergent from the edge of the right-of-way to the neighboring parcel rather than from a"Street"as required by the Code. RESOLUTION/ACTION: Now,.therefore, on motion by Member Homing, seconded by Member Tortora,it was RESOLVED, that the October 26, 2001 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Department to Richard Guest,be and hereby Is Reversed. This action.does not authorizeor condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board:.Ayes: Goehringer, Tortora, Collins, a • -•- . Di,' '• was absent.) This Ftesolution was duly ADOPTED(4.0 G - • -+" P.GOEHRING - C •R� Approved for Filing ntht'Z. BY ro• D ut- old I • • Exhibit B Following are relevant definitions of "street" as set forth in two dictionaries: "a public thoroughfare, usually paved, in a village, town or city, including the sidewalk or sidewalks; the roadway of such a thoroughfare, as distinguished from the sidewalk; a main way or thoroughfare, as distinguished from a lane, alley or the like;" (from The Random House Dictionary of the English Language - Second Edition - Unabridged; Random House, Inc. 1987) "a thoroughfare esp. in a city, town or village that is wider than an alley or lane and that usu. includes sidewalks" (from Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary - Tenth Edition; Merriam-Webster, Incorporated 1993) ° � • • • MATTHEWS & HAM ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 38 NUGENT STREET SOUTHAMPTON, NEW Yon 11968 PHILIP B. MATTHEWS 6912-1092) 631-283-2400 STEPHEN L. RAR, IIT FACSIMILE 631-287-1076 // e-mail:Matthamesq@aol.eom -Z�D4 BARBARA T. Hex S/414-177, �J. June 22, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold FROM: Stephen L. Ham, Ill RE: Application of Sheila Kennedy (Application No. 5870) I am submitting this Memorandum in response to the letter to you from Patricia C. Moore, Esq., dated June 16, 2006, in which she suggests that your Board has no jurisdiction to amend a Planning Board "condition" varying an established building envelope on the property that is the subject of the referenced application. BACKGROUND As I mentioned at the public hearing of the Kennedy application on May 25, 2006, I handled the subdivision application for my client's parents, Stewart and Frances Rauch, in the early to mid-1990's. Accordingly, I have actual knowledge of the events leading to the approval of that subdivision. Stewart Rauch preferred a house location on the seaward or northerly side of the right-of-way primarily because he was concerned that the southerly portion of the property on which Mrs. Kennedy now proposes to build was unsuitable due to the 1 • • presence of construction debris from the old Mononoto hotel. Accordingly, he directed the surveyor to prepare a sketch plan showing a house location on the northerly portion of the property near a stone retaining wall. The Planning Board rejected the initial sketch plan on several grounds (including, incidentally,the fact that the property now owned by the Keenans had not been included as part of the subdivision). Significantly, the Board did not accept Mr. Rauch's proposed house location due to its proximity to a stone retaining wall. The Board asked for revised maps showing a setback of 75 feet from that wall. (See comment no. 5 to the Board's letter to me of December 4, 1991, attached hereto as Exhibit A.) Over the next year or so, I presented arguments to the Planning Board and the Town Trustees in support of Mr. Rauch's proposed house location. In the meantime, the Suffolk County Planning Commission submitted a report suggesting that the house be set back at least 100 feet from the top of what the Commission referred to as a "bluff' (presumably the top of the retaining wall). By resolution adopted August 9, 1993, the Planning Board overrode the County Planning Commission's report and adopted its own conditions relative to the subdivision which it required to be incorporated into a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. (See the Board's letter to me of August 10, 1993 attached hereto as Exhibit B.) I prepared a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions in compliance with the foregoing resolution and had it signed by my clients and filed in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk. A copy of the recorded Declaration(Liber 11648 page 203-October 15, 1993) is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Over the next several months,approval from the Suffolk County Department 2 • S of Health Services was obtained, a park fee was submitted and the matter was eventually placed on the Planning Board's agenda for a final public hearing which was held on June 13, 1994. By letter dated June 14, 1994, the Board informed me that a resolution of conditional final approval was adopted at that hearing. The only condition was submission of prints and mylars of the subdivision map showing that the Health Department approval had been obtained and setting forth a notation with respect to the filing of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D. On July 11, 1994, the Planning Board adopted a resolution authorizing the Chairman to sign the maps and mylars we had submitted in response to the condition in the June 13, 1994 resolution. A copy of the Board's letter to me of July 12, 1994 containing that resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Mylars of the final map as endorsed by the Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services were filed in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk on August 11, 1994 as Map No. 9547. CONCLUSION While Ms.Moore apparently has case authority supporting her assertion that a Zoning Board cannot amend a condition imposed bya Planning Board in connection with its approval of a subdivision application,that authority is completely irrelevant in this case. As you can see from the attached Exhibits,at no point did the Planning Board require that the house on the newly created parcel in the Rauch subdivision be located in the proposed building envelope. It merely permitted that location as an acceptable location at the request of the applicant after having initially rejected that location. It did not limit construction to the northerly portion of the property nor did it prohibit construction on 3 • • any other part of the property. Indeed, it is clear from the written documentation (and I can vouch as a witness) that the Board preferred to have the house located in the southerly portion of the property where Mrs. Kennedy now proposes to build it. Had the Planning Board intended that the proposed site on the northerly portion of the property(which is at least as nonconforming as Mrs. Kennedy's proposed site on the southerly portion) be the exclusive site, it presumably would have required the applicants to obtain a variance from your Board prior to granting final subdivision approval and have required a notation on the final map or a restrictive covenant in the Declaration prohibiting construction in other areas of the property. In summary, the building envelope shown on the subdivision plan is a permissible one- not an exclusive one. The Planning Board imposed conditions relating to the proposed house site which was controversial due to its proximity to a retaining wall and to tidal wetlands. The Board effectively authorized a house to be built at the site shown on the map but it never imposed a restriction or condition limiting development to that particular site. Accordingly, your authority to grant a variance for another site is not constrained in this instance. S.L.H., III 4 • -'F • 1,'l tt\> UFFO(�00G PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS W ,? SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ` O t' Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. �-inr, a 't't Richard G. Ward =_ ¶,,," Town Hall, 53095 Main Road ....••' Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 December 4, 1991 Stephen L. Ham, III Matthews & Ham See Coaa1TtOr1 r 45 Hampton Road Southampton, New York 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision Frances B. Rauch Fishers Island SCTM# 1000-9-9-22 Dear Mr. Ham: The Planning Board has reviewed the application for the above mentioned subdivision proposal. Please find their comments listed below: 1. According to the Planning Board's records, although SCTM# 1000-9-9-16 is shown on the tax map as a separate parcel, this parcel was not created by the Planning Board. Therefore, the Rauch application must incorporate this area within the proposed subdivision. The owner of this parcel must also be a party to the application. An additional $500.00 application fee for this lot will be required. 2. In the deed description submitted with the Rauch application, it appears that the accessway to Equestrian Avenue is included in the Rauch lot. The map does not reflect this. Documentation of the owner(s) of this accessway to Equestrian Avenue must be provided. 280-A approval may be required depending on the ownership of this area. 3. The road shown through the property also provides access to the adjacent lots, mainly SCTM# 1000-9-9-(3.1-3 .4) and SCTM# 1000-9-9-16. This must be indicated on the map. 4. The Questionnaire submitted with the application states that wetlands are located on this property. All wetlands must be indicated on the map. • 5 . The location of the proposed house is not acceptable. The building envelope for this lot must be at least seventy-five (75) feet from the top of the bank (the stone retaining wall) . 6 . Lot numbers must be shown for all lots. Please note that as per Section A106-38 E (3) of the Town Code, the Planning Board will be requiring a park and playground fee of $2000. 00 per vacant lot. Upon submission of the above mentioned items, the Planning Board will proceed withtheir review and will forward the maps to the Board of Town Trustees for their review. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, / ZenntiA Bennett Orlowski, r. 4"5 Chairman • • • - 'i•••0SOFFOLK(.0 i - ` PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS `r,` SCOTT HARRIS Supervisor Richard G.Wand.Chairman :�� 4'# 10 George Ritchie Latham.Jr. = 4.1 4 �,1 Town Hat 53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski.Jr. ......,,, P.O.Box 1179 Mark S.McDonald Southold.New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Fax(516)765- 1823 Telephone(516)765-1938 TOWN OF SOLITHOLD August 10, 1993 Steven L. Ham, III Matthews & Ham 45 Hampton Road Southampton, New York 11968 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivision for Frances B. & R. Stewart Rauch SCTM# 1000-9-9-22 Dear Mr. Ham: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, August 9, 1993: Be it RESOLVED to override the July 7, 1993 Suffolk County Planning Commission report for the following reason: The Southold Town Trustees reviewed the proposed subdivision and determined that the existing and proposed retaining walls are not bulkheads per se and are essentially a soil retentive feature protecting the steep slopes as opposed to a "sea-keeping" structure. Section 100-239.4 A of the Southold Town Code precludes the need for a 75 foot building setback from this type of retaining wall. In addition, the proposed building is located at least 75 feet landward of the wetland line. The Planning Board is also requiring that a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions be filed to include the following: 1. There shall be no further subdivision of either Lot 2 or Lot 3 in perpetuity. 2. Clearing and grading to the seaward side of the building envelope shall be limited to that necessary for removal of diseased, decayed and dead materials. • 3. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be required during and immediately after construction to insure that stormwater runoff will not carry eroded and other deleterious materials into Hay Harbor. • III • Frances B. & R. Stewart Rauch August 10, 1993 Page 2 4. No stormwater runoff resulting from the development and improvement of the subdivision or any of its lots shall be discharged into Hay Harbor. 5. These covenants and restrictions can be modified only at the request of the then owner of the premises with the approval of a majority plus one of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold after a public hearing. Adjoining property owners shall be entitled to notice of such public hearing but their consent to such modification shall not be required. The above mentioned covenants and restrictions must be presented in a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions in proper legal form. A copy of the draft Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions must' be. submitted for review by the Planning Board and the Town Attorney. Once approved, the document must be filed in the Office of the County Clerk. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, W Richard G. Ward 415 Chairman cc: Suffolk County Planning Commission Southold Town Trustees Frank Cichanowicz enc. ' BOXES 5 TI-IRU 9 MUST BE TYPED OR PD{N BLACK INK ONLY PRIOR TO RECONIG OR FILING. t II SUFFOLK{COUNTY CLERK 2 I `s _ g ur# 11648PC2O3 Number of pages car- re: -ii . I)tW WIWI. -mit- > ~ Serial# o o r•; Certificate CCo w _' 14 Prior co -4 2 Deed/Mortgage Instrument U Deed/Mortgage Tax Stamp V- Recording/Filinjstamps 4 IFEES Page/Filing Fee t?qq 1 . Mortgage Amt. Handling . 1.Basic Tax TP-584 2.SONYMA • Notation Sub Total EA-5217(County) • Sub Total G'?‘„ 3.SpecJAdd. EA-5217(State) --_' _- TOT.MTG.TAX - €( --r% BiIDU `.. �� RP.T.S.A. (#7 f1V��' Dual Town Dual County ' Held for Apportionment Comm.of Ed. 5_UU_ �j+ , Affidavit '1 I� � ki Transfer Tax `e'er� � Mansion • Tax Certified Copy - The property covered by this mortgage is or will be improved by a one or two Reg.Copy Sub Total family dwelling only. [•� �/a „�E„ LJ YES at tNO ax Other citls`t:Gl �""r'Q}' Cf GRAND TOTAL If NO,see appropriate tax clause on page# of this instrument. °p.. Real Property Tax Service Agency Verification ws Title Company Information Dist Section Block Lot .V 1000 009.00 09.00 022.000 • Stamp Id—1 Company Name D c nilinls ., ,_ - Title Number FEE PAID BY: ��� -- ' Cash_Check X Charge_ Stephen L. Ham, III, Emit Payer same asR&R X Matthews & Ham 45 Hampton Road .. OR Southampton NY 11968 L J RECORD&RETURN TO o I (AII RICSSI rit Suffolk County Recording & Endorsement Page - This page forms part of the attached DEcarLRAFTIr;oof�eenants made by: Frances B. Rauch and dd (Deed,Mortgage, etc.) — R. Stewart Rauch, Jr. The premises herein is situated in SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK. TO In the TOWN of coyrfiot_D Town of Southold In the VILLAGE arfAMLETof Fist cAc 'CMNP DECLARATION CI it- DECLARATION, made the ` day of October, 1993, by FRANCES B. RAUCH and R. STEWART RAUCH, JR. , both now residing at 928 Merion Square Road, Gladwyne, Pennsylvania, hereinafter referred to as the Declarants. WHEREAS, the Declarants are the owners of certain real property situate at Fishers Island, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, shown as Lot 2 and Lot 3 on the map entitled "Minor Subdivision Plan - Property of Frances B. Rauch and R. Stewart Rauch, Jr. ", prepared by Chandler, Palmer & King, dated February 22, 1993 and revised 3 May 1993 and September 29, 1993, DISTRICT which map is to be filed in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk 1000 (the "Minor Subdivision Map") , said real property being more SECTION 009. 00 particularly described on Schedule A hereto; and BLOCK WHEREAS, the Declarants have made application to the 09 . 00 Planning Board of the Town of Southold for approval of a minor LOT 022 . 000 subdivision as shown on the Minor Subdivision Map to create three separate legal building parcels shown as Lots 1, 2 and 3 thereon, said Lot 1 having been previously transferred to John C. Evans and said Lot 2 and Lot 3 being more particularly described on Schedules B and C hereto, respectively; and WHEREAS, for and in consideration of said granting of approval, the Planning Board of the Town of Southold has deemed it to be in the best interests of the Town of Southold and the owner and prospective owners of said Lot 2 and Lot 3 that the within covenants and restrictions be imposed on said Lots, and as a condition of said approval, said Planning Board has required that the within Declaration be recorded in the Office of the Suffolk 411 • County Clerk; and WHEREAS, the Declarants have considered the foregoing and determined that the same will be for the best interests of the Declarants and subsequent owners of said Lots; NOW, THEREFORE, THIS DECLARATION WITNESSETH: That the Declarants, for the purpose of carrying out the intentions above expressed, do hereby make known, admit, publish, covenant and agree that the said Lot 2 and Lot 3 described on Schedule B and Schedule C hereto, respectively, shall hereinafter be subject to the following covenants which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all purchasers of said premises, their heirs, executors, legal representatives, distributees, successors and assigns, to wit: 1. There shall be no further subdivision of either Lot 2 or Lot 3 in perpetuity. 2 . Clearing and grading to the seaward side of the building envelope for Lot 2 as shown on the Minor Subdivision Map shall be limited to that necessary for removal of diseased, decayed and dead materials. 3 . Erosion and sediment control measures shall be required during and immediately after construction to insure that stormwater runoff will not carry eroded and other deleterious materials into Hay Harbor. 4 . No stormwater runoff resulting from the development and improvement of the subdivision or any of its Lots shall be discharged into Hay Harbor. 5. This Declaration can be modified only at the request of the then owner of the said Lot 2 or Lot 3, with the approval of . • majority plus one of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold after a public hearing. Adjoining property owners shall be -ntitled to notice of such public hearing, but their consent to such modification shall not be required. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarants above named have -xecuted the foregoing Declaration as of the day and year first .hove written. p /La c:,„ A5 . /ea .. , A Frances B. Rauch R. Stewart Rauch, Jr. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ss. . COUNTY OF / e On the S day of October, 1993, before me personally appeared Frances B. Rauch and R. Stewart Rauch, Jr. , to me known and known to me to be the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged to me that they executed the same. Notary Public NOTARIAL SEAL ANN M.KOLETAS.Notary Public Lower Merion.Montgomery Co. My Commission Expires July 19. 1997 7.70i7 3/6 it • Sc ULE A • LOT #2 & 3 - FRANCES B. RAUCH & R. STEWART RAUCH, JR. 9/29/93 SrRre- or Mew yoak, CouQT y or SJFrbct,7owW OF S0'/rgo6,D of FcsHERS SScgn/j BEGINNING at a monument on the Easterly side of a 35 foot right of way at the dividing line between the herein described tract and land now or formerly of A. John Gada, said monument being located 1, 052. 29 feet North of a point which is 4, 626. 69 feet West of a monument marking U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Triangulation Station "PROS" and running thence South 31 degrees 18 minutes East 232. 75 feet to a point at the Northerly end of Equestrian Avenue; thence South 62 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 35.06 feet to a point; thence North 31 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds West 230. 75 feet to a point; thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 00 seconds West 50. 00 feet to a point; thence South 31 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds East 50.00 feet to a point; thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 00 seconds West 156. 66 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 33 degrees 19 minutes 00 seconds West 87.05 feet to a drill hole; thence continuing North 33 degrees 19 minutes 00 seconds West 374. 40 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 18 degrees 36 minutes 00 seconds West 216. 92 feet to a monument; thence North 65 degrees 31 minutes 00 seconds East 3336. 96 feet to the high water mark of Hay Harbor; thence Southerly and Southeasterly along the said high water mark of Hay Harbor 535 feet, more or less to a point; thence South 08 degrees 38 minutes 20 seconds East 95 feet more or less to a monument; thence South 42 degrees- 45 minutes 30 seconds West 125. 00 feet to the monument at the point of beginning; the last two lines abutting Easterly and Southeasterly on said land now or formerly of A. John Gada. Containing 5. 34 Acres more or less. Subject to a right of way 35 feet in width, the centerline of which being described as follows: BEGINNING at a point located South 18 degrees 36 minutes 00 seconds East 31 . 29 feet from a monument located 1,469. 85 feet North of a point which is 5, 126. 07 feet West of said "PROS" monument and thence running South 73 degrees 44 minutes 00 seconds East 117.91 feet to a point; thence South 75 degrees 05 minutes 00 seconds East 131. 18 feet to a point; thence South 46 degrees 53 minutes 00 seconds East 118. 5' feet to a point; thence South 30 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds East 521.3 feet more or less to the Northerly end of Equestrian Avenue. • • Subject also to rights for existing utility lines crossing the above described tract. • • • • . SCHEDULE• Hr LOT 42 - FRANCES B. RAUnH & STEWART RAUCH, JR. 9i29!9= BEGINNING at a monument at the Northwesterly corner of the herein described tract, said monument being located 1 , 469. 85 feet North of a point which is 5, 126.07 feet West of a monument marking U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Triangulation Station "PROS" and running thence North 65 degrees 31 minutes 00 seconds East 336. 96 feet to the high water mark of Hay Harbor; thence Southerly and Southeasterly along the said high water mark of Hay Harbor 270 feet, more or less to a point; thence South 54 degrees 40 minutes 27 seconds West 154 feet, more or less to a point; thence South 43 degrees 24 minutes 16 seconds West 226. 66 feet to a point; thence North 33 degrees 19 minutes 00 seconds West 100. 00 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 18 degrees 36 minutes 00 seconds West 216. 92 feet to the monument at the point of beginning. Containing 1.91 +1- Acres Together with a right of way 35 feet in width, the centerline of which being described as follows: BEGINNING at a point at the end of the third line in the above description, said point being located 1 ,345. 38 feet North of a point which is 4, 846. 19 feet West of a monument marking U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Triangulation Station "PROS" and running thence South 46 degrees 53 minutes 00 seconds East 77.52 feet to a point; thence South 30 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds East 521. 3 feet, more or less to the Northerly end of Equestrian Avenue. Subject to a right of way 35 feet in width, the centerline of which being described as follows: BEGINNING at a point at the end of the third line in the above description, said point being located 1 , 345. 3$ feet North of a point which is 4,846. 19 feet West of a monument marking U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Triangulation Station "PROS" and running thence North 46 degrees 53 minutes 00 seconds West 41.01 feet to a point; thence North 75 degrees 05 minutes 00 seconds West 131 . 18 feet to a point; thence North 73 degrees 44 minutes 00 seconds West 117. 91 feet to a point; said point being located South 18 degrees 36 minutes 00 seconds East 31. 29 feet from the monument at the Northwesterly corner of the above described lot. Subject also to rights for existing utility lines crossing the above described tract. ilb'flrt zud SCHEDULE LOT #k:3 - FRANCES B. RAUCH R. R. STEWART RAUCH, JR. 9/7. =9i 9.3 BEGINNING at a monument on the Easterly side of a 35 foot right of way at the dividing line between the herein described tract and land now or formerly of A. John Gada, said monument being located 1 , 052. 29 feet North of a point which is 4, 626. 69 feet West of a monument marking U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Triangulation Station "PROS" and running thence South 31 degrees 18 minutes East 232. 75 feet to a point at the Northerly end of Equestrian Avenue; thence South 62 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 35.06 feet to a point ; thence North 31 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds West 230.75 feet to a point; thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 00 seconds West 50.00 feet to a point; thence South 31 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds East 50. 00 feet to a point; thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 00 seconds West 156, 66 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 33 degrees 19 minutes 00 seconds West 87. 05 feet to a drill hole; thence continuing North 33 degrees 19 minutes 00 seconds West 274.40 feet to a point; thence North 43 degrees 24 minutes 16 seconds East 226. 66 feet to a point; thence North 54 degrees 40 minutes 27 seconds East 154 feet, more or less to the high water mark of Hay Harbor; thence Southerly along said high water mark about 265 feet to a point at said land now or formerly of A. John Gada; thence South 08 degrees 38 minutes 20 seconds East 95 feet more or less to a monument; thence South 42 degrees 45 minutes 30 seconds West 125. 00 feet to the monument at the point of beginning; the last two lines abutting Easterly and Southeasterly on said land now or formerly of A. John Gada. • Containing 3. 43 acres more or less. Subject to a right of way 35 feet in width, the centerline of which being described as follows; BEGINNING at a point at the end of the ninth line in the above description, said point being located 1, 345. 38 feet North of a point which is 4, 846. 19 feet West of a monument marking U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Triangulation Station "PROS" and running thence South 46 degrees 53 minutes 00 seconds East 77.52 feet to a point; thence South 30 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds East 521.3 feet, more or less to the Northerly end of Equestrian Avenue. Subject also to rights for existing utility lines crossing the above described tract. • • • • f-, 'r • • • PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS z Richard G.Ward, Chairman ae C Town Hall,53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. 1.` P.O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. �', �. ,I Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald __- 0,( jig •a ,,i Fax (516)765-3136 Kenneth L Edwards - ,,.��� Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 14, 1994 Stephen L. Ham, Ill Matthews and Ham 45 Hampton Rd. Southampton, NY 11968 Re: Minor Subdivision for Frances B. Rauch and R. Stewart Rauch, Jr. SCTM# 1000-9-9-22 Dear Mr. Ham: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, June 13, 1994: The final public hearing, which was held at 7:30 P.M., was closed. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Frances B. Rauch and R. Stewart Rauch, Jr. are the owners of SCTM# 1000-9-9-22 and John C. Evans is the owner of SCTM# 1000-9-9-16, located off Equestrian Ave. on Fishers Island; and WHEREAS, this minor subdivision is for 3 lots on 10.9 acres; and 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 August 9, 1993; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at Town Hall, Southold, New York on June 13, 1994; and i • Page 2 Minor Subdivision for Frances B. Rauch and R. Stewart Rauch, Jr. June 14, 1994 WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore, RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval on the surveys dated January 27, 1994, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys subject to fulfillment of the following condition. This condition must be met within six (6) months of the date of this resolution: 1. Five (5) paper prints and two (2) mylars of the final maps, all containing a valid stamp of Health Department approval and a notation that a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions was filed pertaining to the subdivision must be submitted. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely,nc � Q Richard G. Ward Chairman • . • • FOL et PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS lit g y.4 '. Richard G.Ward, Chairman Town Hall,53095 Main Road .s. ris P. O. Box 1179 George Ritchie Latham,Jr. ; O rt Southold,New York 11971 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. 'j Q! r1 Mark S.McDonald = O1 *too' Fax (516)765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards ,,,,,.� � Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 12, 1994 Stephen L. Ham, III Matthews & Ham 45 Hampton Rd. Southampton, NY 1968 Re: Minor subdivision for Frances B. Rauch and R. Stewart Rauch SCTM# 1000-9-9-22 Dear Mr. Ham: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, July 11, 1994:. BE TT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys dated May 26, 1994. Conditional final approval was granted on June 13, 1994. All conditions have been fulfilled. Enclosed please find a copy of the map which was endorsed by the Chairman. The mylar maps, which were also endorsed by the Chairman, must be picked up at this office and filed in the Office of the County Clerk. Any plat not so filed or recorded within sixty (60) days of the date of final approval, shall become null and void. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman enc. cc: Tax Assessors Building Department AfrOlTh •ALTER & SUSAN KEEN* \c P.O. BOX 32 FISHERS ISLnND,NY 06390 470 ( 6-/ 2 (631)788-7926 Q < < May 25, 2006 qr. Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold' 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 To the Board of Appeals: In regard to the public hearing scheduled for May 25, 2006 regarding Sheila . Kennedy's request for a zoning variance for the lot owned by Rauch Partners LP on Fish described in the attached Legal Notice, we would like to submit the following for your consideration in deciding whether or not to grant the variance. Background Our home is immediately adjacent to the property for which Ms. Kennedy has applied for a variance. The two properties share a common right-of-way for road access, and we believe that Mrs. Kennedy's longest property line with any one neighbor is the one adjoining ours. In other words,we are the neighbors most affected by Ms. Kennedy's plans. Objection to Variances Requested As currently positioned, Ms. Kennedy's home is sandwiched in between the access road, known as"Right of Way off Equestrian Avenue"and our property line(see photo#1). Per the R-80 zoning, variances are required for setbacks from both the mad(photo#2) and the rear property line. As currently planned,Ms. Kennedy's home will be a significant departure from the other R-80 conforming homes in the neighborhood. We object to granting of variances for Ms. Kennedy's plan, in its current form, because it ignores basic tenets of the Town of Southold's zoning requirements for homes R-80 areas and would significantly change the character of the neighborhood. Also, alternatives exist for Ms. Kennedy to build a home on the Rauch Partners LP lot that would comply with the zoning laws. Specific Issues Setbacks. By positioning her home within 25 feet of the street(photo#3), Ms. Kennedy will significantly change the natural, almost rural feel of our neighborhood. Her home will be clearly visible from the road,and it is positioned on the highest point of land of all the surrounding homes. Because Ms. Rauch plans to build as high up on her property as possible, it is all the more important that setbacks be maintained to minimize the intrusion of a structure that will be highly visible and intrusive to all the neighbors. Zoning Board of Appeal. 41. May 21, 2006 Page 2 of 2 Elevation. With a first floor elevation that is above the roofline of all of her neighbors,Ms. Kennedy's home will not only have a crowding impact,but it will be difficult to screen with appropriate landscaping and will be clearly visible to all the neighbors using the road. Because Ms. Rauch's home is on top of a hill, the impact of granting setback variances will be magnified and it will be difficult, if not impossible, for neighbors to screen Ms. Rauch's home from view with trees or other greenery. Driveway location. Ms. Rauch is planning to put a driveway in that is very close to the existing driveway for our home. We have been unable to fmd specific references to driveways in the Town zoning code, but would point out to the Board the proximity of the new driveway cut. Septic tanks. Ms. Rauch is planning to install septic tanks adjacent to our property,within 150 feet of our back-up well used for drinking water. Alternatives Ms. Kennedy's proposed construction could be achieved within the requirements of the zoning code. Such alternatives may be more expensive, and offer a less stunning view than building on the top of a hill sandwiched between the road and her neighbors,but they are nonetheless alternatives. Such alternatives could include building on the eastern side of the road,or a building a smaller home. Ms. Kennedy could also relocate the road, which is privately maintained by all of the neighbors, to one side of the property or another. Furthermore,we have offered to Ms. Kennedy free use of our land should she wish to reposition the road and driveway layout of the properties such that she might then be able to build a home in conformity with all applicable zoning requirements. Summary The proposed variances required by Ms. Kennedy to build a home on the lot owned by Rauch Partners LP are both undesirable and unnecessary. If built as planned, the home will be out of character for the neighborhood and negatively impact all of her neighbors. Ms. Kennedy has alternatives available to her including building a smaller house or building on another part of the Rauch Partners LP property. Because she has alternatives, and the variances as requested would negatively impact her neighbors, there is no reason for the Board to grant a variance in this case. We thank you for your consideration of this information, and urge you to uphold the zoning code duly enacted by the Town of Southold. Very truly yours, Walter& Susan Keenan Attachments Sheila R.Kennedy Lot-Fishers Island, NY . , t . 1.l<< { t l + c y R,.# 1r.. 5 a.' y y a + < I 0 w 1 ., . 3 ... �` . l .�r ,,,� r 1 Sheila R.Kennedy Lot-Fishers Island,NY +.NI', .R• +S` Z b.+ N.Y v ~ If • 4 R r a;,iii rF• +r' 1. s ,� i .I,:.71: y I �► . "fir•-'VC '«` • ,. ," f w ,,,,,,///,,, _ ��' Z k lWf. ' �i O *If f,yf ..�: �t y ' a Wr Y's, #Y% 4 w • • 2 Sheila R.Kennedy Lot-Fishers Island, NY it f *41 , , • - w w- ; 3 04/26/2006 14:48 21270 7 THE CYPRESS GR% PAGE 01/01 WALTER & SUSAN KEENAN S, P.O. Box 32 S /— ,Utvo. fAi Fes' FISHERS ISLAND,NY 06390 RECEIVED /fib S (631)788-7926 APR 2 6 2006 .3:itsenki April 26, 2006 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VIA FACSIMILE C (631) 765-9064 Zoning Board of Appeals c/o Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 To the Board of Appeals: In regard to the public hearing scheduled for tomorrow regarding Sheila R. Kennedy's request for a zoning variance for the lot owned by Rauch Partners LP on Fishers Island, as described in the attached Legal Notice,we respectfully request an adjournment of the hearing until your next meeting in May in order for us to have adequate time to review and understand the plans submitted by Ms. Kennedy,the Contract Vendee. Our home is immediately adjacent to the property for which she has applied for a variance. In addition to needing more time to understand the site plan and related zoning issues, please know that we did not receive notice of the hearing until April 20th and would greatly appreciate any additional time available and to have the opportunity to travel to a subsequent hearing. Also, in order to attend the hearing tomorrow,Mrs. Keenan would need to fly to New York from California, so additional advance notice would make it much easier for us to attend,which we very much want to do. We thank you for your consideration of this request, and will check back with Ms. Kowalski for information on a possible hearing date. Very truly yours, ar/lel yP .r---- —ice Walter& Susan Keenan cc: Sheila R. Kennedy attachment APR-27-2006 09:40 FROM: TO:16312871076 P.2 �`a�` d'a� Sheila Kennedy Q9 ' S Vic,V, 194 Lakeview Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 April 25, 2006 Mr.. and Mrs. Walter Keenan 1000 Mason Street -Apt. 801 San Francisco, CA 94108 Dear Walter and Susan: As you are aware, my application for variances that would permit me to construct a single-family residence and attached garage on the lot I am purchasing from our family limited partnership is scheduled for a public hearing this week. I am writing in response to the concerns you have expressed an issues you have raised with me and my attorney, Stephen Ham. 1. Location of Seotic System. The location of the septic system on my site plan was proposed by surveyor Dick Strouse. I understand that you have a second well not shown on my plan that Is located closer than 150 feet to my proposed system. I am advised that my system can be located on another part of my property If recessary so that the requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services can be satisfied. I also understand that I will not be able to obtain a building permit until I received an approval from the SCDHS. I will be happy to show you the revised plan when available. (By the way, when I tried to find out more about the requirements, I was told that you may be required under local regulations to hook up to the public water system since it is available within five hundred feet of your property. If that is in fact the case,this issue may be moot anyway.) 2. Installation of Row of Trees. I understand that you are prepared to pay for and cause to be planted a row of disease-resistant fir trees along the proposed limits of construction as shown on my site plan. While I agree with the goal of protecting our privacy, I believe it is premature to determine where the trees will be planted, let alone to cause them to be planted prior to the commencement of construction activities at my property. For one thing, 1 don't even own the property yet. (I expect to omplete the purchase early this summer.) Also, I would like to walk the site with you and Susan to • • N Mr. and Mrs. Walter Keenan Page 2 April 25, 2006 show you the conditions(including boulders,debris and depressed areas)that would make determining a tree line difficult, if not impossible, at this stage. Those conditions are not (and probably could not be)addressed on my site plan. Rather than dealing with particular locations now, it would make more sense for us to visit the site with a professional (if not a landscape architect, then at least a surveyor) so that we all will have en informed opinion. Because of all the variables involved with construction activities,even It we knew where the trees should go, I believe it would be risky to plant them before my foundation is installed and associated site work completed. 3. Path to Hay Harbor;Construction of Dock. Assuming I am the owner of the property this summer, I would have no objection to you and your children using and maintaining the path across the property to Hay Harbor for the duration of the year and at least until my construction begins. Your use would be subject, of course, to your holding me harmless from any resulting liability I might otherwise incur by reason of your use and any maintenance would be at your expense. However, I am somewhat surprised at your comments to my attorney that keeping the path open was essential for fire department purposes. When I inquired about your concerns,a member of the department told me that there is no fire department position on keeping the path cleared. Indeed, it is now apparently blocked by a log. I will consider making your use of the path more permanent (at least so long as you and I continue to own our respective properties) but I am not prepared to enter into any formal agreement at this time concerning either the path or your construction and use of a dock at the end of it. There are just too many factors that I would have to consider for an agreement of that sort. In summary, I hope you will support my application but I am not prepared at this time to offer you anything In return except my promise to work with you in good faith and with an open mind for a resolution of the issues that will benefit both of our properties. Sincerely, I'd 9L0'[L02Z291:01 :Wald 2S:60 9002-La-add ►9ful f 4 • • (0 3 > RECEIVED .i'0 "ti Harold P. Wilmerding i /S, " a e, "( MAY 0 4 2006 It CL. E. C 1C 1 . 55 Roxiticus Road go L HAY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Mendham,NJ 07945 3+ 2006 Ms.Linda Kowalski Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold,New York Dear Ms. Kowalski: I am writing in response to your April 1 th ice,which I received as an abutter to the Rauch Partners LP property.I would like to support S a Kennedy r uest for a variance(#5870.) Not only am I an abutter to this property but members of my family have lived on the peninsula for decades. In fact,I believe we sold the land for which Sheila is requesting a variance to her parents in the early 1960's along with the parcel where the current Rauch house is located,and that which is now the Keenan property.We were also involved in reviewing the plan for the minor subdivision for this parcel, which the town approved in 1994. Thus we have been aware for some time that a house might be built on the site and were not surprised when Sheila contacted us last fall.We were however interested in her idea of locating her house across the common driveway we share rather than near the retaining wall overlooking Hay Harbor. Even at first glance the"upper"site(though more expensive to develop)appeared preferable for us as well as other neighbors than the one closer to the water. Were she to build across driveway on the higher land,the open space by the wall would remain untouched and the historical character of the area dating back to the Mononotto Inn in the 1800's would remain intact. This is not to say that we didn't have questions and concerns about the project but Sheila has provided us with reasonable assurances as well as relocating her proposed driveway to accommodate our suggestions. In short I would like to support her request for a variance and hope you will approve it. Sincerely, 444,A7 a. r� Harold P. ilmcrding v 41P ok PATRICIA C. MOORE ] /44 I c 4 Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road l� Southold,New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 June 16, 2006 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Ruth Oliva, Chairwoman - Southold Town Hall 0:4Pr 53095Main Road Southold, NY 11971 1 � �� Re: Kennedy Appeal Fishers Island Dear Mrs. Oliva and Board: I have been retained by Mr. Keenan with regard to the above variance application. The Zoning Board does not have jurisdiction to amend a Planning Board condition: the building envelope was established on "Minor Subdivision Plan of Frances B. Rauch& R. Stewart Rauch, Jr.", approved by the Southold Town Planning Board in 1993. The Zoning Board is not authorized to grant a variance from a Planning Board Condition, it is not one of the enumerated powers set forth in Town Code Section 100- 272, nor is it authorized in Town Law. See attached Marx v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Village of Mill Neck, 137 A.D.2d 333, 529 N.Y.S.2d 330 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,1988) If there is anything else you or the board need please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, —''Patricia C. Moore cc: Steve Ham Esq. 0 JUN 1 9 2006 layBarbara Wilmerding Macleod C w ;,__:,_, 337 North Street �y Medfield, MA 02052 �v 62 June 16,2006 BY CERTIFIED MAIL Ms. Ruth D. Oliva,Chairwoman Southold Town Board of Appeals P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 RE: Sheila R. Kennedy's variance request (#5870) Dear Ms. Oliva, As a close neighbor and one who uses the private right-of-way to access my property,I am writing in support of Sheila R. Kennedy's request for a variance (#5870) necessary for her to begin construction of a house. My family and I have enjoyed living on the peninsula for many years. Having known all of the Rauch's,I have respected their sensitivity and use of the property. Shelia's plan to place her house on the south side of the right-of-way demonstrates her sensitivity to the property and most of her neighbors who abut her or use the private access road. Shelia has been very thoughtful in sharing her plan with neighbors,and has incorporated suggestions made by other members of my family. Building as currently planned,the open view of Hay Harbor with the beautiful stone wall dating to the historic period of the Mononotto will remain intact to the delight of all who pass by in the future. Thank you for my consideration and support of the request for a variance,and I look forward your Boards decision. ( ` Respectfully, b0i M eeC.QPVIN Barbara W. Macleod -49-Qqf (ip QPCS'2l S1 PATRICIA C. MOORE 37-50N222.1_1_ n Attorney at Law R r 51020 Main Road 2006 ,_. _ ,- _' Southold,New York 11971 JUN 2 33t nE* , Tl: (631)765-4330 - i3 0 /J /O Zh —'< (}�.o� Fax: (631)765-4643 (,�Q ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS n`f 20 June 23 , 2006 MEMORANDUM Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold RE: Application of Sheila Kennedy (Application No 5870) This memorandum is submitted in opposition to the variance application of Sheila Kennedy. FACTS In 1994 the Southold Town Planning Board approved a map of "Minor Subdivision of Frances B. Rauch & R. Stewart Rauch, Jr. " The subdivision consisted of three lots which map was filed in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk: Lot 1 contained an existing house on 5 . 6 acres Lot 2 a vacant lot on 1 . 91 acres with the building envelope shown Lot 3 contained an existing house on 3 .43 acres In approving the map the Board granted the building envelope of Lot 2 with limits of clearing and proper sediment control measures . In addition, the Planning Board prohibited the further subdivision of Lot 2 and Lot 3 , in perpetuity. The objectant, Mr. and Mrs Keenan, purchased lot 1 in this subdivision with the knowledge of the conditions set forth on the subdivision map and held the reasonable expectation that the house would be located within the Planning Board established building envelope . The owner of Lot 2 wishes to disregard the condition shown on the map filed with the Suffolk County Clerk. (410 • ZONING BOARD HAS NO JURISDICTION The Zoning Board does not have jurisdiction to modify conditions imposed upon a subdivision approved by the Planning Board. See Marx v Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Mill Neck, 137 AD2d 333 , 529 NYS2d 330 (2 Dept . 1988) , herein attached as Exhibit A. The location of the principal structure for Lot #2 was established on the filed map. This Board does not have the authority to vary the conditions set forth on a Planning Board approved filed plat . See Southold Town Code section 100-272 [lists the powers of the zoning board] AREA VARIANCE WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT NEIGHBOR Even if the Board concludes that they have jurisdiction, the variance should be denied based on the following: (1) An undesirable change will be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood and will be a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: The house is proposed at elevation 55 when the balance of the homes on this street are at elevation 35 or below. [see attached copy of subdivision map-Exhibit B] The result of placing this house on top of the hill will have the proposed house towering over the neighboring homes and interfering with their privacy. The style of the proposed house is a two story high pitch roof which will be seen above the tree line of the Keenan property. The adjoining homes, shown on the subdivision map, are built on the south side of the road. Their accessory garages are tucked into the land on the west side of the road. Mr Keenan would have no objection to developing the Kennedy property similarly: A one story garage could be constructed into the hill . The garage doors along the road with retaining walls would maintain the character of the existing parcel . The balance of the hill could be revegetated and look like Lot 3 on the subdivision. While this land was all cleared at one time in the early 1900 ' s for the motel, the trees have reclaimed the land and it is naturally wooded and private . (.1 411 • (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because : The applicant has an approved building envelope on a filed map. The house is elevated above Hay Harbor and 75 feet from the edge of wetlands . The "proposed house" shown on the filed subdivision map was to retain the stone wall . The Planning board, when this subdivision was approved, considered the development of the neighborhood and approved the map . The owners of Lot 1, 2 and 3 were family and there was unanimous support for the creation of these lots and the location of the building envelope . Mr. Keenan would support an application to the Trustees for relief from setbacks to wetlands . The setback was created when the Trustees jurisdiction was 75 feet from edge of wetlands, is vertically 40 feet above the wetland edge and the Trustees would generally grant such an application. (3) The amount of relief requested is substantial because: The Planning Board filed map building envelope is for a smaller house than the proposed house on the hill . Either house will enjoy views of Hay Harbor. . The Planning Board approved house will not impact the neighbors, while the house on the hill will adversely impact Mr. Keenan. Mr. Keenan detrimentally relied on the filed subdivision map and the mapped building envelope when he purchased the property. The map preserved his privacy while the proposed house on the hill intrudes on his privacy. (4) The variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: The subsoils conditions on the hill may be a problem. The vegetation on the hill was cleared in order to access equipment for development permits . This Hill at one time was as densely vegetated as the adjacent acres of Lot 3 on the subdivision map . We expect that the elevation of the hill will require retaining walls and regrading of slopes for construction equipment to access the top of the hill, as well as a driveway for the owner' s vehicles . The building envelope on the filed map is 75 feet from the edge of the wetlands, however, the Planning Board required covenants to address storm water runoff and limits of clearing to protect the water: These protective covenants state : Paragraph 2 : Clearing and grading to the seaward side of the building envelope for lot 2 as shown on the Minor Subdivision Map 111 • shall be limited to that necessary for removal of diseased, decayed and dead materials . Paragraph 3 : Erosion and sedimant control measures shall be required during and immediately after construction to insure that stormwater runoff will not carry eroded and other deleterious materials into Hay Harbor. Paragraph 4 : No stormwater runoff resulting from the development and improvement of the subdivision or any of the lots shall be discharged into Hay Harbor. (See Covenant & Restriction at Liber11648 page 203 in Mr. Ham' s memo ) (5) Has the variance been self-created? ( X ) Yes, or ( )No. If not, is the construction existing, as built? ( ) Yes, or ( ) No . : Owner wishes to modify the building envelope shown on a filed map. CONCLUSION The Zoning Board has no jurisdiction to modify the building envelope on a filed map; but even if the Board has authority to modify the location of a building envelope on a filed map, the variance should not be granted because the balancing test weighs in favor of denial of the variance. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING PEKMI1'APPLICA1JUN UtltU$Ltd t BUILDING DEPARTMENT • Do yore or need the following,before applying? TOWN H&LL and of Health SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 3 sets of Building Plans TEL: (631) 765-1802 Planning Board approval FAX: (631) 765-9502 Survey www.northfork.net/Southold/ PERMIT NO. Check Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Examined ,20 Contact: Approved ,20 - Mail to: Disapproved a/c 4660 Phone: Expiration ,20 Building Inspector APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT 5 Date February 13 , 20 06 INSTRUCTIONS a. Thpylkhcatte filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 3 sets of , urate plot plan to scale.Fee according to schedule. b.Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises,relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and waterways. c.The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application,the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e.No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what so ever until the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. f. Every building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced within 12 months after the date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date.If no.zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the property have been enacted in the interim,the Building Inspector may authorize, in writing,the extension of the permit for an addition six months. Thereafter,a new permit shall be required. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York, and other applicable Laws,Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions, or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described.The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws,ordinances,building code,housing code, and regulations,.and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. �j�►`.s.. Lacia*.r (Signature//of applicant or name,if a corporation) Stephen L. Ham, III 38 Nugent Street, Southampton, NY 11968 (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician,plumber or builder agent for contract vendee Sheila.Kennedy Name ofownerofpremises Rauch F.I. Partners, LP (Sheila Kennedy - contract vendee) (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer (Name and title of corporate officer) Builders License No. n/a Plumbers License No. n/a Electricians License No. n/a Other Trade's License No. n/a 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: (no #) • •, < • r/.o/w qff Equestrian Avenue Fishers IglanxLa ' ..: ,\, , , ,. House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 009.00 Block 09.00 Lot 022.001 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot (Name) 2. State existing use and occupanc3ip remises and intended use and occupsali of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupan _ vacant land b. Intended use and occupancy single-family residence with garage 3. Nature of work(check which applicable):New Building x Addition Alteration Repair Removal Demolition Other Work (Description) 4. Estimated Cost Fee $35.00 (To be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling,number of dwelling units 1 Number of dwelling units on each floor If garage, number of cars 2 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front n/a Rear Depth Height Number of Stories Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth Height Number of Stories 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front 75+/- ft. Rear 75+R ft. Depth 35+/- ft. Height Number of Stories 9. Size of lot: Front 200 feet Rear 317+/- feet Depth 350+/- feet 10. Date of Purchase Name of Former Owner Rauch 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated R-80 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation?YES x NO 13. Will lot be re-graded? YES_NO X Will excess fill be removed from premises? YES NO x 14.Names of Owner of premises Rauch Address Phone No. Name of Architect n/a Address Phone No Name of Contractor n/a Address Phone No. 15 a. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland? *YES NO X *IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES &D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b. Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? * YES x NO * IF YES, D.E.C.PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. 16. Provide survey,to scale,with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17. If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below,must provide topographical data on survey. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Stephen L. Ham, III being duly sworn,deposes and says that(s)he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract)above named, (S)Heisthe agent for contract vendee (Contractor,Agent,Corporate Officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this 13th day day ofM February 20 06 s. 04Ciet. /' Notary Public Signature of Applicant Stephen L. Ham, III CHARLOTTE VAN HOUTEN Notary Public,State of New York No.01VA6001651 Qualified in Suffolk County vel Commission Expires Sept. 14, . ---, / T` E HAY .E HARBORc7 iN0 '81 U a tt 1_4 On a 1 1z, .5 a • Wti, a In N N a I- K C— U mQ ch U � o ` L"'C1��s'�V. ca • °' V v N/F 5, i i.ed0 0 S kIL HAROLG P. WIL:NERDING ''tr „rq .- .<41_4 . o a ttik:�>i� U I V 3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE I z, 5 43 MUNIPAL MATER � 0J ; V ON SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM �_ U e / 03 • / / SUOSING LINE .RVEY , ', a'• . • / CLOSING I T N 0 3y696 `--- —� LOCATION MAP SCALE 1 "=400 J� • APPROXIMATE LIMITS TIDAL WETLANDS '4i�'0J �O\ d CEJ. ) o,,� _ 1\\ �lb il't) G'+ n'� Lb APPROXIMATE . '1 .iLLi'i ,c4` (� I ' HIGH WATER �''` )' N 1469.85 �— �� A /�� ( • dn+ 11 1 W 5126.07 ry \� 2jp* \� \ V l / ` mr.P , / ` �e RFFFRFNCFR �r- / c MONUMENT / \ 1.) MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAN PROPERTY OF FRANCES B. RAUCH, R. STEWART (FOUND) / \ \` RAUCH,& JOHN C. EVANS; FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK; CHANDLER, PALMER & / ir �q��\ ` \• • KING; NORWICH, CT.; DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993; SCALE: 1"=40'; SHEET 1 OF 1 iA / \` \�\• �� I, \ \ i/ i \\ • N4IES •% / i�' GRASS AREA /^\ V 1.) THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED FOR THE PARTIES AND PURPOSE INDICATED I (� / *r ` HEREON. ANY EXTENSION OF THE USE BEYOND THE PURPOSED AGREED TO A: ) \N ZJ9 o° -- • �// \\ ` i ENGAGEMENT,i BETWEEN THE CLIENT AND THE SURVEYOR EXCEEDS THE SCOPE OF THE �qt/ � �� I7 BENCHMARK \ /;/ �.'�/"' \ GD - ( ▪ ` Il TOP OF IRON PIN \ 2.) IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE STATE EDUCATION LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS pR�V 1 ELEVATION = 39.64 ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, TO ALTER AN A "� 1 \ E� ` 1 CENTERLINE OF \ ITEM IN ANY WAY. / t/'5oxPAwsI91 , � -•POOL BN_\ �� RIGHT • OF WAY b�� q 3,) ONLY COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MARKED WITH THE LAND SURVEYOR'S Y O / / �•• / /'� N 75'Osp �I� -------\\ N Day SIGNATURE AND AN ORIGINAL EMBOSSED OR INK SEAL ARE THE PRODUCT OF D LU 0�� A A `\ Q� 1. / _�"'\�`ANgT'�� iJL 18Tp'K`— �I �,yq , XCA THE LAND SURVEYOR. Ll,l IZ Y' 7/C \a 6 ` ♦ `\�� ` 'I \ «po 4.) COOF.OMATF DISTANCES ARE MEASURED FROM U,S, COAST AND GEODETIC Z Q . . : PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A 4, \ 6\ 7. / i\ C' � ' �-\ n Imo, Zy SURVEY I'kIANGULATIDN STATION "PROS" Z IGT Z Z Z / N1IN000S UNE OF SILT �' // '' / h SE BACKED WITH HAY .\ ; . \ 5.) SITE IS IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK TAX MAP 1000, D_ W Y K Z S. PLACE AS UNITS OF A • bry ' \ / i FE a� - \ N I \ )4 - \ \ R v�.� �' \ SECTION 009, BLOCK 9, LOT 22.1 LL1 w ,QQ • — /,/ / N\ 1 0� I 'R0'OSED ;, ki W \ \ \\ \\� D ' k \ 6.) TOTAL AREA = 1.91± ACRES. w O Crz /� %i\ \\ Z �� RNIEWAY/ T , 'e.e4 Z' \\ \� I �3 R\y� J_ W 4846.19 \ 7.) SITEN 1345.38 'IS LOCATED IN R-50 ZONE. a w— W w / \\ \�// i V\ I 1 \7�41P . 1�' "l i , _\\ m A L1.1 VI / e,) APPLICANT: SHEILA KENNEDY = p (=A / �'' aQ` \.� - e 1 ' \6\`, - 194 LAKEVEW AVENUE 01 __ _ N.g• I I �,e�q ; !AV-A& �* '1 \ �N�� \N 1 \ \\ CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 cn / / _— \� ' �a8 -rh� 4; J�4L 1"'v / ttrol ) 1 \ 9.) SITE IS SERVICED BY MUNICIPAL WATER AND ON SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL \(u^' \ \ SYSTEM. No `\\ \\ \ � �� , -,\" - � J ,//// I I /\ / \ \/� � \ 10.) BASE FOR LEVELS: NGVD 1929, \ \ 15 \` \\ p\pp\ \J\ i-�/ r/ �///// // N / / PIPES �\ \ ,\4�\\'/ // Cr R. N/F \ \ OUND \ \�\\4qB\\ \/'�iA- j/ R. STEWART \ LECFNn D/5 eD) \ \\ �/ / RAUCH, JR. EfOSTNG _� - \ r��\ :ate_' i/ // SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE \ \ \ FF FIRST FLOOR to D WELL \ , �/i MUNICIPAL WATER ELEV ELEVATION Z )2 1--\ \�-.3. - /�.// ON SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM \ \ sF SOUARE FEET a O R N/F �4N \ I 3fl \--� // // \ — — 5p — — EXISTING CONTOURS - o in WALTER C. KEENAN \ 3, �. �/�. \ so PROPOSED CONTOURS 1n SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE --J �'`'$11 �" \ / / ON SITE WELL ��� T3Z\ �// V EDGE OF LAWN ON SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM j I I (/\ id , '0 _ IA) Q BUILDING SETBACK LINE IAIA 26 �`�// f 1 '• PROPOSED RETAINING WALL o \`// �� 1 - . =10 =I= cf. ^ - PROPOSED SILT FENCE a^`i (� lel 1. PROPOSED LIMITS OF CLEARING o ��ti U z PROPOSED BURIED UTILITIES �V , H.0 INVERT ELEVATION Q c� ,p 1`, 7 TLeT ROLL r \\` ` P�•lN1 \� N'IL7�PIA1�i3' LTAKLL MVO '•1WN t o \ VN'" - !, FABRIC I �\ FABRIO.1 N o N \ 'VU,NY4 p POST \\\F\a\Z .---m—e- 1 0 y .• vi Ei \ fl�,Y`/ •y ,)���II' N b a o m tr g \ COMPACTED ' I,1W 0 w \ BACKFILL Iv'`�' 7. z 8 0m G' ANGLE 1O UP SLOPE ¢ 0 �i i o FOR STABILITY AND SILT FENCE BACKED 30 15 0 30 • SELF CLEANING BY HAYBALE BARRIER o. m o O U U 1 1 _ _ I \ NOT TO SCALE DATE; 02/03 2006 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET \ QUALITY CONTROL CERTIFICATION \ SCALE; 1 " = 30' • GROUP REVIEWED DATE SHEET PROJECT MANAGER F-14--se -CI' .7,oL \ suRv:r '�N s Z, $ • L \ q ENVIRONMENTAL \ 1 OF I CIVIL e 7.3...p .'$.�(� STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURAL FILE J ti- a I', rJ I`tS' --,` Town orT5outhold ZBA :._..€'® ' 'R d App. Name 0 Tax Map 0 File:No. a II -A- Board Member Leslie Kanes Weisman Q Unliste ; Search: i Other Hearing Time: �1:D3 PM File Number:,5870 Tax Map 9.-9- 22,1 ' App. Name: Kennedy, Sheila, Cont Vend (Rauch Partners-Ow i Received Date: 3/8/2006 Tot. Fees: $600.00 Hamlet Fishers Island ;Type: Residential Zone R-80 forwardedTownClerk 6` Date to 3/9/200 , MeetingDates Building Dept. Status: Closed Complete i',Action:�Approved Wim.. M µ _ Meeting Date l ,ND Date 1 /22/2006= ''�Location North along ROW from Equestrian Ave. ]�,�...,_ _ w ; ._.....m�� }`Short ,_..._„...._ ^ __ .mom ,�. Hearing Date 1 4/27/06; ND Date 2 3. i; - Setback of proposed dwelling, rear yard less than - I rDesc.: :60 ft. from front line and less than 75' from rear lot Hearing Date 2 5/25/061; ND Date 3 y copy •_ line. Hearing Date 3 }/22/2006'; ND Date 4 Approved 3-lot PB Minor, Lot #2, Map filed =; Hearing Date 4 ND Date 5 8/11/94. Send copyof dec to W. Keenan, neighbor; ' i HearingDate 5 i' ND Date 6 l' Notes9 � ��, �: i PH6/22/06 P Moore repr. Keenan in oppos. Written Action Date: /29/2006` ND Date 7 until.6/28/06.-.see notes. ... + 7/14J2006 .411.404 PMPSz i1U1�! Developed by the Southold Town Data Processing Department!, .. w �� �� RIGHTpr G ®�' ^ // WAY OF EXISTING Er HousE N/F qv / l l JAMES V. RIGHTER MONUMENT \.43/ / / // / o. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE N 5960.7 tiq // / // / /�o� MUNICIPAL WATER W 3667 96 \�S r / / / / / o = \ / / l/ // / // / "/c04) ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM \\ / / / / / / / t. - - \ / / / / / / /• \ APPROXIMATE LOCATION \ .4.7 // / // // / /// / WATER \ / / / / 2S0 .O IP I / // l / / / METER , - UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC \ O / / / / / // // / / / PIT & WATER SERVICE \ _ \ 50.13' B 179,57' _ S 15'39'54' 492.94' -\ ------- s9 RIGHT OF WAY 6. 1-79.57' ______________,=------- EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE --- - -��\ F .- 142.56!.- U "N 'V_____________ \\ 263.24' \\ 'V 142.5 ------ - -, - 1` 80.34' ♦ \-9T\ N\ 15'39'55. W --1_ \y ♦1% IL- `♦ -X1 I N 15'39'55" W BURaEo \G ♦♦♦ \\ \\ ��\ MARSH \- -c 1 G I PROPANE TANK ♦ � r" I LEACHING POOLS /—���♦♦ ♦♦♦ �� \��\\� • APPROXIMATE \��� ♦L ft \. LIMITS OF MARSH 1 1 %♦ •t9 OsN. �� N. • j if 00115 5 1:1' • • --.. --. / TRANSFORMER" \ ��\ ���` �� / , 54' v._sY,,,,,‘ \ \ ....._ ______ ----, 1 / I ....„...,,,,,,,,7--i5ITER ....X., \\ —-----__ ————————---——---——— . . \,........_. j DIST. a7•5 y `_SWIMMING POOL ♦♦ �N\ Tb AosSe L.L / BOX ♦ 111`/ EQUIPMENT •\ ♦♦ • j SEPTIC♦ `f ",'' ♦� �♦ \ g / TANK ♦ >,. `+ :. \� �l��l���v�°/ / ' i St1N \ / \ RESI©a a' ♦` �`\ h.. / P 0 0 L \\,..04,4,` 0i " \ .5:___......--- s I PARK // _ �o�q� \`\ Y �Z 13/ —r` io'Es - ,.--'�- e: ` POOL FENCE \ ------ gs, L__ •---- "tc \``---------- 0:=0 2 PER REFERENCEMAP ` 4"`5 ��" �I N 3LE FAMILY RESIDENCE /v ;:�:� ,�a'.w �:,.� �:.�. ���.::;�;�:-.���,�, ,s1,''''*.l'i r Tory ey,w.,w,s'.:i>;a s T>.k c ySi A,.: MUNICIPAL WATER " - -SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM /o, o • t! s_ - t ., ; • F PORCH Nis _....,:mow n*i�O ^ 0 DECK _ 03 F APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM • The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of Town officers and employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information, which can alert the Town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. Sheila Kennedy as contract vendee of YOURNAME: 'Rauch Fishers_Island Partners, L.P. (Last name, first name, middle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person or company name.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax Grievance Variance x Change of Zone Approval of Plat Exemption from Plat or Official Map Other If"Other", name the activity: Do you personally, (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the Town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the Town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO X If you answered"YES", complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold: Title or position of that person: • Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the Town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A through D (below) and/or describe the relationship in the space provided. The Town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A)the owner of greater than 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a corporation); B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer,director,partner, or employee of the applicant; or D)the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this 2e`' day of February, 2006 Signature: 5fy,A L • r1L. , Print Name: Stephen L. Ham, III., authorized agent MATTHEWS & HAM ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 38 NUGENT STREET SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 - - PHILIP B. MATTHEWS (1912-1992) 631-283-2400 � STEPHEN L. HAM, III FACSIMILE 631-287-1076 p� .^, �Df1(? a�w �„ e-mail.Matthamesq@aol corn MAR ll�dl� �''" �p BARBARA T. Hex r s wii-AQ%�11 frv"divt,f 4, mai 7: f Nt NA, March 1, 2006 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Mrs. Linda Kowalski Board of Appeals -Town of Southold 54375 State Route 25 (corner Main Road and Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Sheila R. Kennedy (SCTM No. 1000-9-9-22.1) Dear Linda: In connection with the referenced application, I have enclosed seven sets of the following:' 1. Applicant Transactional Disclosure Form, signed by me as agent. 2. Notice of Disapproval, dated February 22, 2006. 3. Application to the Southold Town Board of Appeals, including Area Variance Reasons, duly sworn to by me as agent, together with Project Description. 4. Z.B.A. Questionnaire, signed by me as agent. 5. Site Plan of the premises prepared for Sheila Kennedy by CME Associates Engineering, Surveying & Architecture, PLLC, dated February 3, 2006. I have also enclosed my check to the Town of Southold in the amount of $400. Please review the enclosed and give me a call if you require any further , Mrs. Linda Kowalski Page 2 Board of Appeals March 1, 2006 1 information, documentation or payment before this application can be placed on your calendar for a public hearing. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, 0-.0A/R__/444—. Stephen L. Ham, Ill Enclosures ,', I# ilii ,,�,, 4® soUry® , ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE e 4® �® % Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK i % P.O.Box 1179 cm Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS G MARRIAGE OFFICER �Q I, Fax(631) 765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER eiij If 0 fi'' Telephone (631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER �► southoldtown.northfork.net 0'' OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A.Neville DATED: March 9, 2006 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 5870 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 5870 of Sheila R. Kennedy-the Application to the Southold Town Board of Appeals. Also enclosed is the Project Description, Questionnaire For Filing With Your Z.B.A. Application, Applicant Transactional Disclosure Form,Notice of Disapproval dated February 22, 2006,Floor Plans and Elevations, and a Site Plan. Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 03/09/06 Receipt#: 11891 Transaction(s): Reference Subtotal 1 1 Application Fees 5870B $400.00 Check# 11891 Total Paid: $400 00 1 Name: Kennedy, Sheila R 194 Lakeview Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 Clerk ID: MICHELLE Internal ID 5870B Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 03/09/06 Receipt#: 11904 Transaction(s): Reference Subtotal 1 1 Application Fees 5870 $200.00 Check#. 11904 Total Paid: $200.00 Name: Kennedy, Sheila R 194 Lakeview Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 Clerk ID: MICHELLE Internal ID 5870 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS I//��'��• r Mailing Address: OFSOUT _ Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman r� 4� . , ' Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road•P.O. Box 1179 Gerard P. Goehringer � * Southold,NY 11971-0959 James Dinizio,Jr. u� �� Office Location: G @ Michael A. Simon : �` A\ Town Annex/First Floor,North Fork Bank Leslie Kanes Weisman �1'YC�� �`��,i� 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) •"' Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631)765-1809 •Fax(631) 765-9064 September 7, 2006 Mr. Thomas Isles, Director Suffolk County Department of Planning P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Dear Mr. Isles: Please find enclosed the following application with related documents for review pursuant to Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code: Appl. No. 5870 (Rauch/Kennedy) Action Requested: Rear and Front Yard Setback Variances Within 500 feet of: ( ) State or County Road ( x )Waterway (Bay, Sound, or Estuary) ( ) Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State, Federal land. If any other information is needed, please do not hesitate to call us. Thank you. Very truly yours, Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman By: Enclosures -fes OFFICE OF VIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Office Location: North Fork Bank Building-First Floor, 54375 Main Road at Youngs Avenue Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 http://southoldtown.northfork.net Email: Linda.KowalskiTown.Southold.ny.us Jayne.Martin(a�Town.Southold.ny.us (631) 765-1809 (ext. 5012 or 5011 during recording) office fax (631) 765-9064 VIA FAX o2,629 - /a /o MEMO TO: . Zr � DATE: &// /46, RE: E)),0 E Zh/9 �--?7,, - 704 x/026 6/6)(2.4 , _ _.... �. ic. 00C104 ZBA • • iciecp ® ¢ 2006 LEGAL NOTICE ZoiviA„,„, or SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPEALS THURSDAY,APRIL 27,2006 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Maln Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959,on THURSDAY,APRIL 27, 2006: 2:10 P.M. SHIELA R. KENNEDY, Contract Vendee (RAUCH PARTNERS LP, Owners) #5870. Request for a Variance under Section 100-32, based on the Building Inspector's February 22, 2006 Notice of Disapproval, concerning a proposed dwelling at less than 60 feet from the front yard line facing a private right-of-way, less than 75 feet from the code-required rear yard line, premises located north of Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island at Hay Harbor; Lot #2, Minor Subdivision Map of Frances B. Rausch and others,filed 8/11/94 as Map'No.9547; CTM 9-922.1. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office (631) 765-1809, or I i nda.kowalskl@town.southold.ny.us. Dated: April 10;2006. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RUTH D. OLIVA,CHAIRWOMAN By Linda Kowalski r 012) QQ� Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. Roland MARX, et al., Appellants, v. The ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the VILLAGE OF MILL NECK, Respondent. June 6, 1988. Action was brought seeking judgment varying decision of village planning board with regard to subdivision plan approved by board. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, Oppido, J., confirmed decision of zoning board that it had no jurisdiction to vary decision of planning board, and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Balletta, J., held that zoning board of appeals lacked jurisdiction to modify conditions imposed or subdivision plan by planning board. Affirmed. West Headnotes [1] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals 414VIII(A) In General 414k372.1 Maps, Plats, or Plans, Filing or Approval Requirement 414k372.6 k. Other Considerations. (Formerly 414k372.1) Subdivision control is aimed at protecting community from uneconomical land development and assuring residents that there will be adequate streets, sewers, water supply, and other essential services in subdivision. [2] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414I In General Primary goal of municipal zoning is development of balanced, cohesive community which efficiently uses municipality's available land. [3] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414I In General 414k2 k. Purpose. One basic purpose of zoning is to provide an orderly fashion for residents' need for various types of residential, commercial and industrial structures; concern is whether municipality as whole will be balanced and integrated community. [4] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VII Administration in General 414k353 Powers, Duties, and Liabilities 414k354 k. Boards of Appeals or Adjustment. Village board of trustees intended to grant village zoning board of appeals review power, only over determinations of building inspector, who is charged with responsibility for enforcement of zoning ordinance.McKinney's Village Law§§ 7-700 et seq., 7-712, subds. 2, 2(c). [5] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VII Administration in General 414k353 Powers, Duties, and Liabilities 414k354 k. Boards of Appeals or Adjustment. 414 Zoning and Planning 414IX Variances or Exceptions 414IX(A) In General 414k492 Hardship, Loss, or Injury r- , 414k493 k: In General. In addition to appellate jurisdiction over decisions of enforcement official,zoning board of appeals also has original jurisdiction to grant variances when strict application of zoning ordinance results in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to individual owner; as corollary to authority to both grant variances and to review determinations of enforcement official, zoning board of appeals also has primary jurisdiction of interpreting applicable zoning ordinance. McKinney's Village Law §§ 7-712, 7-728, subd. 1. [6] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals 414VIII(D) Effect of Determination; Revocation 414k468 Revocation or Modification 414k471.5 k. Maps, Plats, or Plans. Zoning board of appeals did not have authority to modify conditions imposed upon subdivision plan approved by village planning board.McKinney's Village Law§§ 7-712,7-728, subd. 1. [7] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals 414VIII(A) In General 414k373 Power to Grant 414k373.1 k. In General. (Formerly 414k373) Under statutory scheme, zoning boards of appeal are excluded from regulation of subdivision plats. McKinney's Village Law §§ 7-712, 7-728, subd. 1. [8] KeyCite this headnote L _ .11 414 Zoning and Planning 414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals 414VIII(A) In General 414k373 Power to Grant 414k374 k. Nature of Power. Where village board of trustees has expressly empowered it to do so, village planning board has very limited power under certain circumstances to modify applicable zoning regulations when it approves subdivisions;even then,planning board may only exercise such authority within strict limitations placed upon it by board of trustees for a particular subdivision under consideration. McKinney's CPLR 7801 et seq.; McKinney's Village Law §§ 7-712, 7-722, 7-728, subd. 1, 7-738, 7-740. **330 *334 Brendan R. Marx, New York City, for appellants. Payne, Wood & Littlejohn, Glen Cove (Daren A. Rathkopf, of counsel), for respondent. **331 Before MOLLEN, P.J., and KUNZEMAN, RUBIN and BALLETTA, JJ. BALLETTA, Justice. In this case, we are called upon to determine the question of whether a village zoning board of appeals has the authority to modify the conditions imposed by the village planning board upon a subdivision plan approved by the village planning board.For the reasons set forth herein, we conclude that it does not. The petitioners herein are the owners of a five-acre parcel of land located on Frost Mill Road in the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck, Nassau County. The area is zoned for five-acre single family use by the village's zoning ordinance(Building Zone Ordinance of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck § 400.6[1] ). The premises are improved by the petitioners'primary residence,which is not at issue on this appeal, and another structure, which is at the center of the dispute. This second structure was an accessory dwelling comprised of three bedrooms, a living room, kitchen, dining room and two baths as well as a two-car garage and a loft area. The subject property was originally on the westerly part of a 10.1-acre parcel known as the Weicker Estate. In 1979, the petitioners' predecessor in interest, Cuales Enterprises,Inc.,had applied to the Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Mill , Neck for a subdivision of the estate. On November 15, 1979, the planning board granted the application to subdivide the estate into two approximately equal parcels containing at least five acres as required by the zoning ordinance. As a result, the buildings on the proposed westerly lot (now the petitioners' property) did not comply with the 75-foot setback requirements of the ordinance:the primary residence had a 60-foot setback,while the second structure had only a 10-foot setback from the northerly property line. In granting the application to subdivide the estate,the planning board permitted both structures to remain. However, the planning board imposed the condition that the second structure could no longer be , used as an accessory *335 dwelling or living quarters and could only be used for a garage and dead storage. The petitioners and another individual, a Shawn Kennedy, purchased the subject premises in 1980. After taking title to the property, the petitioners allegedly converted the second structure into a dwelling for Kennedy. Subsequently, the Village Building Inspector visited the premises and found that the buildings were being used in contravention of the restriction imposed by the planning board. The petitioners were then requested to cease and desist from using the premises illegally.Thereafter,at some point between 1980 and 1985, Kennedy conveyed her interest in the property to one Nicastro, and in April 1985 the petitioners acquired sole ownership of the property by purchasing Nica stro's interest. The petitioners then appealed to the respondent zoning board for permission to use the second structure as an accessory dwelling having less than the required 75 foot setback mandated by the zoning ordinance, designating their application as an"appeal from the Planning Board Decision ofNovember 15, 1979".A hearing was held on July 29, 1985, with respect to the application. On or about September 12, 1986, the petitioners commenced the instant proceeding which sought a judgment, inter alia, directing the respondent zoning board to (1) redesignate the second structure as an accessory dwelling, (2) refund all taxes paid to date on the use of the premises as a dwelling, and (3) award them damages in an amount equal to the fair use value of the premises from the date that the building was restricted from use as a dwelling. It appears that as of September 1986 the respondent zoning board had not yet issued a decision with respect to the hearing held on July 29, 1985. In its answer dated October 26, 1986, the respondent zoning board generally denied the allegations in the petition and, as an affirmative defense, stated that the petitioners' sole remedy was to make an application **332 to the planning board. The respondent zoning board also issued a decision with respect to the application, in which it found that-"it [was] _without jurisdiction to vary the decision of the Planning Board",,and directed that the petitioners' application"be heard before the Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck". By judgment dated January 27, 1987,the Supreme Court,Nassau County(Oppido,J.), ruled that the respondent zoning board's decision that it was without jurisdiction"was:, correct. *336 The court noted that the planning board, and not the zoning board, had been delegated the power to control the subdivision of land. Thus,the court stated that the` zoning 7 board "may not trespass upon the functions or duties of the planning board"::1 On this appeal, the petitioners contend that the Supreme Court misconstrued the authority of the zoning board to grant the relief requested.The respondent zoning board argues that the court did not err in holding that it had no jurisdiction to relieve the subject property of the restriction imposed by the planning board. We agree with the respondent's contention. The resolution of the issue presented requires a study of the interplay between the closely related, yet distinct, zoning and planning functions of local government. Through the exercise of its zoning and planning powers, a municipality is able to control growth and development so as to provide a sound neighborhood environment to its residents. Although municipal planning "may not, in a definitional or conceptual sense be identified with the power to zone, it is designed to complement other land use restrictions, which, taken together, seek to implement a broader, comprehensive plan for community development" (Matter of Golden v. Planning Bd. of Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 372, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291). [1] The purpose of municipal planning "is to preserve through a governmental agency a uniform and harmonious development of the growth" of the municipality(Village of Lynbrook v. Cadoo,252 N.Y. 308, 314, 169 N.E. 394). The main tool of the municipal planner is the power to regulate the development of unimproved land through subdivision control. Subdivision control attempts to guide the systematic development of a community or area while "encouraging the provision of adequate facilities for the housing, distribution, comfort and convenience of local residents" (Matter of Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, supra, 30 N.Y.2d at 372, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291). It "reflects a legislative judgment that the building up of unimproved and undeveloped areas ought to be accompanied by provision for roads and streets and other essential facilities to meet the basic needs of the new residents of the area" (Matter of Brous v. Smith, 304 N.Y. 164, 169, 106 N.E.2d 503);Subdivision control is_air ied at protecting_the community-from an{ uneconomical development of land, and assuring persons living in the area where the subdivision is sought that there will be adequate streets,sewers,water supply;and other essential services (2 *337 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 21.91, at 64 [3rd Ed] ). [2][3] On the other hand, the primary goal of municipal zoning is the development of a balanced, cohesive community which efficiently uses the municipality's available land. One of the basic purposes of zoning is to provide in an orderly,fashion for the residents' need for various types of residential, commercial and industrial structures. The concern is whether the municipality as a whole will be a balanced and integrated - community(see,Berenson v. Town of New Castle, 38 N.Y.2d 102, 109, 378 N.Y.S.2d 672, 341 N.E.2d 236). However, zoning "has proven characteristically ineffective in treating with the problems attending subdivision", and thus the need for the planning board and its power to regulate subdivisions (Matter of Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, supra, 30 N.Y.2d at 372, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291). As stated in a leading text: "Zoning restrictions are principally designed to separate the uses to which land**333 ' in various areas of the community may be put as well as to regulate density of population and the degree of proximity of buildings and structures by prescribing the size of the lots on which permitted uses may be operated and the location of buildings and structures on those lots. Subdivision regulations are employed to ensure that individual lots intended to be developed for such permitted uses may safely be used for such purposes and that the use of specific parcels as zoned will not impose the burden of expense upon the community or create health or other hazards" (4 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning § 64.02, at 64-16 [4th ed.] The statutory scheme established by the relevant State enabling statutes and the local zoning ordinance reflect this dichotomy between the zoning and planning functions of local government. The board of zoning appeals of a village is authorized to "hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official charged with the enforcement of any[zoning] ordinances or local laws adopted pursuant to" Village Law article 7 (Village Law § 7-712[2] ). Pursuant to this•appellate"jurisdiction, the board of zoning appeals "may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or_-may,modify the' order, requirement, decision_'or determination appealed-from andishall make such order,requirement, decision or determination as�in its opinion•ought to be made in the premises and to that end shall have all the,powers: Of.the;_officer from whom the appealistaken" (Village Law § 7-712[2][c] ). *338 In accordance with Village Law article 7, the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck adopted a local ordinance granting the respondent the above delineated powers of appellate review of all determinations made by the Village Building Inspector "or other official charged with the enforcement" of the zoning laws (Building Zone Ordinance § 8,10.1) The Village Building Inspector is in fact chargedwith the main responsibility for the enforcement of the zoning ordinance (Building Zone Ordinance of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck § 910.1). [4] When the applicable provisions of the ordinance are read together, it becomes clear that the Board of Trustees intended to grant the respondent zoning board appellate ' 1 review power only over the determinations of the Building Inspector.This construction of the respondent zoning board's power is in keeping with Building Zone Ordinance of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck § 840.1., That section of the ordinance, in pertinent part, provides that "[a]ll provisions of this ordinance relating to the Board of Appeals shall be strictly construed. The Board, as a body of limited jurisdiction, shall act in full conformity with all provisions of law and of this ordinance and shall observe all limitations contained therein". [5] In addition to its appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the enforcement official,a zoning board of appeals also has original jurisdiction to grant variances when a strict application of the zoning,ordinance results in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to an individual property owner (Village Law § 7-712). As a corollary to the authority to both grant variances and to review the determinations of the enforcement official, a zoning board of appeals also has the primary jurisdiction of interpreting the applicable zoning ordinance(see,Thurman v.Holahan, 123 A.D.2d 687, 507 N.Y.S.2d 52;Van Deusen v.Jackson, 35 A.D.2d 58, 312 N.Y.S.2d 853, affd.28 N.Y.2d 608,319 N.Y.S.2d 855, 268 N.E.2d 650; Matter of Cohalan v. Schermerhorn, 77 Misc.2d 23, 351 N.Y.S.2d 505; Daly v. Eagan, 77 Misc.2d 279, 353 N.Y.S.2d 845). [6][7] However,'there is nothing in the_language of the,enabling statutes_or in the Building Zone Ordinance which would suggest that the respondent zoning board also 'has jurisdiction over subdivision plats. Indeed, it is readily apparent from the statutory scheme that zoning boards were to be excluded from the regulation of subdivision plats. **334 By statute, a village board of trustees may authorize and empower the village planning board to approve subdivision plats for the express "purpose of providing for the future *339 growth and development of the village and affording adequate facilities for the housing, transportation, distribution, comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its population" (Village Law § 7-728[1] ). A subdivision plat simply consists of the "division of one tract [of land] into a number of smaller lots with eventual separate ownership of each such lot" (Riegert Apts. Corp. v. Planning Bd.. of Town of' Clarkstown, 57 N.Y.2d 206, 211, 455 N.Y.S.2d 558, 441 N.E.2d 1076, quoting from 2 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning § 30.04[1], at 30-13-30-14 [4th ed.] ). A subdivision may merely involve the division of a large parcel of property into two parcels (Rules and Regulations of the Mill Neck Planning Board of the Village of Mill Neck § 2), and a plan may be "with or without streets or highways" (Village Law, § 7-728[1] ). This authority to supervise the character and improvement of a subdivision is consistent with the statutory provisions giving a planning board the power to prepare a comprehensive master plan for the future development of the village (Village Law § 7-722). [8] Where a board of trustees has expressly empowered it to do so, a planning board has a very limited power under certain circumstances to modify the applicable zoning i „ regulations when it approves a subdivision (Village Law § 7-738). Even then, the planning board may only exercise such authority within the strict limitations placed upon it by the board of trustees for the particular subdivision under consideration(see, Matter of Johnson v. Moore, 13 A.D.2d 984, 216 N.Y.S.2d 740; Daly v. Eagan, 77 Misc.2d 279, 353 N.Y.S.2d 845, supra ). "The issue of conformity with zoning regulations is within the primary jurisdiction of the * * * Zoning Board" (Thurman v. Holahan, 123 A.D.2d 687, 688, 507 N.Y.S.2d 52, supra). A developer whose plat has been approved by the planning board would still have to comply with the local zoning laws (Matter of Northern Operating Corp. v. Chamberlain, 34 A.D.2d 686, 312 N.Y.S.2d 398). Insofar as the purposes and powers of a zoning board of appeals and of a planning board are distinct and separate, the Village Law provides for direct review of their determinations by means of proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 (Village Law §§ 7-712, 7-740).,, "Accordingly,. the,decision of a duly_ empowered planning board regarding subdivision plat approval is final' (Matter of Woodhull Assoc. v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Northport, 63 A.D.2d 677, 678, 404 N.Y.S.2d 670; see also, Orrell v. Planning Bd. of Town of Pound Ridge, 66 Misc.2d 843, 322 N.Y.S.2d 444; Rules & Regulations of the Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck § 4[G] ).. It is clear, therefore, that the power to control the subdivision of land has been entrusted to planning boards and not to *340 zoning boards of appeals. "[T]he function of the Planning Board as to the subdivision of land provides for an orderly and compatible enforcement of policy along the lines of fixed standards. The entrance of the Board of Zoning Appeals into this area of control would not only rupture the statutory scheme but also interrupt the enforcement of the policy designed by the Planning Board" (Van Deusen v. Jackson, 35 A.D.2d 58, 62, 312 N.Y.S.2d 853, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 608, 319 N.Y.S.2d 855, 268 N.E.2d 650, supra ). This separation of powers between the two boards has also been recognized in other jurisdictions which have considered this issue (see e.g., Planning Board of Easton v. Koenig, 12 Mass.App. 1009, 429 N.E.2d 81; Noonan v. Zoning Board of Review, 90 R.I. 466, 159 A.2d 606; Seligman v. Belknap, 288 Ky. 133, 155 S.W.2d 735). Accordingly, in this case, the judgment appealed from, which confirmed the determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mill Neck that it was without jurisdiction to waive or modify a condition imposed upon a subdivision by the planning board, should be affirmed. **335 M The petitioners' proper remedy is to apply to the planning board for a lifting of the restriction, and, if the restriction is lifted, to reapply to the zoning board for a variance. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. MOLLEN, P.J., and KUNZEMAN and RUBIN, JJ., concur. N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,1988. Marx v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Village of Mill Neck 137 A.D.2d 333, 529 N.Y.S.2d 330 END OF DOCUMENT Case: Marx v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Village of Mill Neck Excerpt from: 137 A.D.2d 333, 529 N.Y.S.2d 330 to 137 A.D.2d 333, *340, 529 N.Y.S.2d 330, **335 y. •ELIZABETH VII i.F, ,�i 4 y , Town Hall,68095 Main Road TOWN CLERK 8 l'.O.Box 1179 • REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS ;`Q i Southold, New York 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER `l Fax(681) 765-6145 -_ RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER Ql _AO'lii Telephone(681) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER ------,..-0.1 ,, -��.,�'� southoldtown.northfork.net ,- • OFFICE OF THE J TOWN CLERIC - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS y • 'INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer) . One copy will be returned • in response to your request, or as an interim response, to you ,-- - _-___ _-._-_�_ ___ SECTION I. TO: - - (Department or Officer, if kno 'h he information you are reosting. ) RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.) • C---,---ryr_e_:„. - 75-g • . -4--C-4-e-ix_e4ft- "0-)44.--> . . ' --fk?Fis 61/2 S/0 4 leen 4a ,, rev 1_ SY'¢c-a_e. :// `" A "(1-4-p-h 4//7�o,6 4�,,o j l�,rn /l (..2, �C// Signature of Applicant: ---� Prated Name: - Address: L /27q at" ( c-S z a /_ / , Mailing Address (if different from above) : r�Y ^ Telephone Number: -7(.0 c3 3O Date: • J APPROVED r ,-,� � ` /�f� ri. �- 1 4/0111'r • I I APPROVED WITH DELAY* [ ] DENIED* l't/ Elizabeth A. Neville Date Freedom of Information Officer �* If delayed or denied see. reverse side for explanation; - ).-•- - � . - 1 :COMPLETE THI ION • • • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. SiAre item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X ❑Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee ,sc5 that we can return the card to you. B. Re iv d by( Med Name) C. Date of Delivery ■ . `tach this card to the back of the mailpiece, t7 or on the front if space permits. I�- D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No Walter and Susan Keenan 1000 Mason Street - Apt. 801 San Francisco, CA 94108 3. Service Type ®Certified Mail 0 Express Mall ❑Registered ®Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number 7005 1820 0007 8602 0596 (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 111111 First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • MATTHEWS & HAM 38 NUGENT STREET SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 i„,ll,,,ill,i„,11,,1„1„1„11„1,,,i1„ll,,,,ll,l„l,,,llil ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, STATE OF NEW YORK x In the Matter of the Application of Sheila R. Kennedy AFFIDAVIT Regarding Posting of a Sign upon OF SIGN Applicant's Land Identified as POSTING S.C.T.M. No. 1000-9-9-22.1 x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ss.: STATE OF NEW YORK ) I, Robert D. Evans, residing at Fishers Island, New York 06390 , being duly sworn, depose and say that: fre On the /z day of April, 2006, I personally placed the Town's Official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of the application of Sheila R. Kennedy noted thereon, securely upon the property of Rauch F.I. Partners L.P. , located ten (10)feet or closer from the street or right-of-way (driveway entrance) - facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance (near the entrance or driveway entrance of the property, as the area most visible to passersby); and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the subject hearing date, which hearing date was shown to be April 27, 2006. .1,e1/2‘. obert D. Evans Sworn to before me this 02a' day of April, 2006 i' l• (Notary 'ublic) ( _ ROXANNE SPAULDING "' NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No 01SP6113942 (aUAI II II I)IN SUI I 01 K COUNTY MY COMMISSION 1 XI'IItIS AUG 9,200$ ' . yard lot line,at 490 Gillette Drive,East i,.. KOFF:#5858-.Request for a Lot " 2,11 Marion; CTM-38-2-2 , ' 'Dr,Wider Section 100-26 to un- =^,J-7,---• , _ •,, .. a1 4't'l C.) 1 t o- - .-: e 955 A.M. a-rozYL FELD and merge"land(with a garage)identified as -JON MARG,9LIS 45875...genest_for clfM:1000-1262849.withilil,86?stkitare- i'i,VarklilAWS4Wil06;3;3;based..,'-feet,Ffibin't adjacent improved land, & I ttiLe/1060 '''on'the,,BuildingJispector's March 10; • '(with'i.house)identified as,CTM 10004, 2006Notice of Disapproval concern- 126-8-20 with 13,552 square feet,based, \f , ---Al ing,as,wimming pool proposed in a yard . .oit the-Building Inspectoes October 11,,--:,;;,„ 'bihelt,'dian,,`-the,Code=required,rear yard, 2005 Notice of Disapproval'deterrnin:,, at 300 Mith,ROalkiSouthold;-CTM 54- titigtheproperties-are merged pursuant Lo\ A f ,, ,..9-18.1.;', "4-,‘e, ;MA ,, ---4,-.1)-,YIN':-.„:1,? ,Ab';'Sedttori 100:25.'1466tiori'-ofIPrcipt, -. -.. ,10002k14;41-41d16SAN-SWEE- -ertY: Vest side of Wells Road(#1605), NEY#5865.14.9-q&St f(gril'-,`:`,.4,fillige*,-,„7„-,.,ilviattittieli,containing-25,42rsquare feet "der SectionfO0-2:fg4kAW4ix(*ari'KPL merged:Zone-District: R-40'Low-7 1 ...,,, „ '',. ,,...4,;, , kVFI' 7:41t9t131etation No. 503 ),:a.ty.,1':11:20,9,41* . fr',....,,:"DeAsItY.?..0Identiall ,__ ,.. based on the-Building litiPee;fOr:iiiei-;,',,?;?;,&-Ii00t-I",M:'!-E,:stAlla OF GLENN-W. cember29,, 005Nf- ie',A).-f Pts.,a101:ilygl;..',,',,-Bppicp -ic, "#',."§.:8g,0311.?vf,f0A:PiArea concerning-7, 1 yidebs:e46,:44.4itic,*s- y,iiis--„k .yarlatices'i,s,tindef.5SeitiOntAboA-,ibased alterations tOMr,Fistin:g._*e-:11.ing;T'afidkiiii,,p*:4*-fri4044.,,!'„Vehinary less'ingq-20'feet.on,a'Ainglelsideti4i-ld;y_isk40,6*.#8 ,014)0Piistiy1;:a*Ict- .-,and leii'iliaik35 feet';40fit,.'sgto,,,yat4;7;;"?,-,l_itwot200,6'icqii-, Cerritn. g`propiSied _less than35feeffrotn,thefhiiii,469*,:4i,,.2r'e:„:-El#1OOtti.Of laidWi thire"vis-eizI'kit sizes, and less than 75 feet from the billkhead.*:;"festiltingi'0, ,,iibri,Cbrifdrining lot size Location of Property: 2950 MinhehahaV,, k(kt-x*1:--;-o4fov--9Ad 120,000 scitiare,-- Bonlevard,Southold; TM 87237_42: , '' ' fget-'7„(atidi8oto*,i4 areafor Lot 2).'', 10:15 A.M. ,BLELL ASSOCIATES Loa10104,-..134driiy: East End RoaCF,' -andiGkSTON',PV-1,:41,i5J,35,5.-i(F.O,it- (at Block Island-Sound),Fishers 9n11019i6aringAPP1N39‘96)f...40ReftY-- 07,4,4-.74,w4't--'.;?,, 16-4t100J15:wiitii4Ectge4c*-,,sudiJ",--,J.:To.,p.:i?8fitgi:A• R.KENNEDY, . - --''---- '"1'---'''',"•°-,'' "'''0 qc-'2' !""'Vendee''OiXi.rdilli'ART-5 old;CIM88-5-68:" "': - ---- - Contract'' ' - „..I0:30,,A.M-.',10/-1N:gt-EAPI.vIAN -NERS'Lli-,QainerS)',.#5870.-R,-e4eStztok , #5857:1,,Re5fuest for a 42-Halide'under a ValgranCe`inidei-SeCton 100-32;based,, Section 100-33,based'OI:ifie'lilliirding'f'_':_"--011fie1fuildingiiiiiieCiiii4fetidaiili;"'' Iuspeetors,./4,tinary„qA,2,006,Nofipsbf.7,2,00NotiPP-'4.Pli .sapErovalsconcernn g-,.__ P;iqpi.Ogi.,.§#,-00,1**4!,#1.411*ii,';.; 4*,41?:w!:4,,, ..0*cati'oi)iairook, ,i:>,>§r:iiropp,§id,in'af yaid'opi'd',thAi'tlie','''fit*the'fidn't'Yarid'lintaCinin private LEGAL LPG14-LNTFE,.. .,,---' -',,,,,:, - required rear yard,at 2700 ArroWhead-=---,,right-of-way,less than 75 feet froini.the i F4-1-1i4: 5441':T°VYI ZONING Lane,Southold; 1001Y-98,2-20d, code-required rear yard line,premises fficktifilitifitiiiiii5A-T_Q,...'" ,, . '''N , ','',1',.--if.?ANitiii ;: :1.4:40-A:g.-:i_pggx•-/4 :1-e-,AMP,7,-,..;=1_,Vdated-„initli;i'`Ot Eq'itetiiiii'Xiiiiiire-,i 413FItglIAN'lltil'Oi*:4,44,06- -:'''' ' °BELL #5873 Request."‘ 14-'-----V- Fishers-,F.,-;located, Harbor•Lot#2', ,c, m..---,,,,w,,,,,t.....,, „1 .;v ,,,,i., ._ .. i' _.,„ . ,oria„,artance-, .,,,, ,,Island, a_., ay „ ,, ,,r,.., Ml ',',,(4,-0,,......„,cW.-,,-AWN,, ;-2,..,.„9S,' ', -',-under Section.1,001:2;44_154§44,-.bn,the:•,,.Minor Subdivision Map of Frances B., ogc„-g.'lxv.,q-p•„,,,n4;y:.:, .4,,.,piffr;t-t,,i Building'IngpeCtor'i.Vebiliat'372,17,20„06-Inspector's --olheis,flied 811-1/94 as Map' , f$.115.fit aibi4eattc;iii/fi:2677:ot,Ithrel-o*e.Law ' Notice of Disapprovalf.cOncenun—-g::_Pr-Ol '4"-Nizi.954:7;cTM‘9422.1. ,V,IA;',--, ,. ;‘,. 7,f,t,T17. ,4,......N'7.? the posed - - -4 • ,, .•:, '•' ', itt.1.5.1_Chapter, . 410.A40.,n141g)kvT ofj,,R9 , ,posed additions to the,existing dwelling k `i;'`:4229;1,4 =41•TIsHOLASAILIANOI : c;;,_.59,11%ts-gt:=1.h, following public i ;with:r(a)building s'e`tba'okiat'Ye-si;tha`h #1584`6:(coliiige'd hearing from 3/30/06): ;hearing-will'be h8letil% the SOUTH i I0 feelAri-i'iSingly',4,0y:ardi'leiilliAi25 ',7:1,14-effti-Laition:-.--;,WWSide:of Dtiek, Oh ?'T97NzoNIN9-..spAvv,,,.*,I, ‘=',fe6liV,iOilkde-*Eifdi;andleji,i4i;._ yxo--.041.4cf. iiii.:qaitide'41 -Glen APPEALS at diel-19:iiii:'''Halr''53,00:, 1 35-A5.,0(401,i4-1:4-;.'iiid,,(6)IcidOi,,eag.;';',._-i,'CL:J:1-6-1rOggi0N, cf,;.'4=2.,, Main Ckii4d';',-y:9-:.!ly,?r,-,1179 Southold exceeding the code of 20 per The heir all NeVir4i;bile11p71'49-29'59;1-ciii,II;11,'Sbqit! t;eentfor,tOta10.1114144*4.40atiOti of: /':,i5e,i-A0:04c6f4hkii:itpeselifativei,-IdeS1i:- APRIL 2746061 ' `'- ”-",r,--t=; f,,Eiopertyn,4*;#0-(qiil,,tkDAye;:EaSt,_, -z,1,14-i,to-fbe;heard:Itieaoh$liiarnig;_atid/O'r. '§:55'AM >1/tos '.ii•AiJEK'''80,1i:, !Maxiciqq-W-3,84 :1 i.,i-, „,,,,,,i,;,„,,,;,, ,..,,A6siiiiii";*48/0c*itt6i:-§iai&iielits1 1- g041."61/"a/Variance.Aiii.ciei..--§6tilisl.:9 .,042,20,..ky,,,A7:,',,GUI14:70866'.;.'., -';',-:bef,Ofel,the-,;&iiiilitsibil*Aciheaiiiig. ;li:o24-Z=A:':4'(Wii;,;tfiiieiFrela,tiOi',No i )ik,4:*41iii#;4-'Atio*-.0,40/101*, '/if•Ei§h',,y04:tiiii-*XPiiflAiC,earIferAtin/-1 5039),,and`1007244;based'bil'iliiiiiiiii:::: / 100,...$1!"0-4.,'IJ:44:41:%ii:-.the-Buildingi: ."040.0:4-4WFil01*,ISWaWkOrr; i.iig`IngtiettOr's_Mai."Cli>13,200614-6tiEe-iif,t i:Itjsii"4'tO'ts-Allinil::sp,'?,61;61:1:06V of 'revieW:dt*fir'egular bilkiesi:hOu'ri:If iiiiipiPtbyat'ecincernifigliiiiOVaIdith6: Disapproval amended March/-1,,-,2006'' you liafecifiestiOns;:please*noVh'eSi-,, [first-'flbOr 4-tlie?..eiiiiitig dwelling aniit i =conaqiiiiiigg-'commercial agricultural tate to contact iiii,df&e.(631)76521.809, freconStruCtion: The reeeiOritiifflObc''..' 1:greerilibilidiiinw1O6atIthi4t lessIthan15:-,' 5:„,,Oilincrat'IOVaiSId@tOWACS-Outhold.ny.lis '16-':C.bilStikletion4#0ifdtiald,161:6'beyond i - feptl-froni,the rear lot Aue;r'Idig W0:20- Dated:April 10,2006. L'''',',t'= the scope,,‘of2Itlie';ifinildink7...:-periiii't ire-j1 ,feet-on.a single side:,,,yardjiand;‘,ezCeed;-, ' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: r.,quested and-fratitCd;b1SALigiiSi'9,-12005,'-i- '11;, 15T-•,0 ,1-!m#,4?4,9Jf. c-1.,..pt7v,efiy:9t I.,-.,APT1:1.,TAP,i,Ty4:,:crirRI,y9.,,mAI:Ti (31.7154),4ftaivariadee requested'and ''',coverage on yar...99„1,:j34,0.:9,p't 1 ',----.' /•/•.., _ / •• .:/,133iii0a,:k.41-4y:,kil granted undeif:AppeatzNo:k5757.1-c ,,.' ':'*i79-'=0145--'"'Pj.cilf APO,'9'-'5:' °:Tth' ; I' 1832-1T 4/13'.1--'-;:------;•!..Y.i.c,t;,7--. 41: ' It 1.,02adj;.P'ecbilic;Cra68.44,4?!„:1..- c,le.'-firinigra seCoir&sto4aidditionibier the-;- :lekittidefirst!flOOr,i&Ui!thali 40' -t'1/,-9,,l'Pt?•,1\44.-;P::.',6!1/1;,?ffiIi,-,pgm ft 4158., ifronftliefrant-iiidiiie`and,idSfih-dii-._56.,. 1*P.,,c,14M19T4F,01Kaft Pac.P1Ajn,..#,.!-i.:',0:,. ifeet-,frOillie,'..'r,enr'iYarikiiiitv,li*kar-I, tions'09;:#441,1,199,14.12-*11in,Vc 1,6Hydb,46(453 * .0. *s,iffaaiiiiie-,1 :.#44pte_q.,ixtroAtotofi,_f_494. .-ati-ditGiltiohi-i1A6 d;,iii.ei)(!,i,$41follt=',1 i 1.)IPP:;c1.94iPmgP,w40,1-rial.,:"Tr* ICFM 11716215. .„4*4;-:144k .,,,../0:,.:,, 1-j,ak1-42°-*,.9--9A90 _ , -441*-P-1!P:ScIlai.4,1 i-9--':4.,.0.,.-„--.4,--.-.,-4aOSEnBt,,--,t-.n.'.,,,d0--DAv,c--,*,lf •-,,.0-ki,•,,1, M-. %...,4Vl-4J,±k,-0„,1-,t14g9,.-:;_-#,§0.,..,,,ft,i•,Wg,.,,.,:.,f6.,;0•0 i 44S4634#5644k4qstii6vY*11Nq,Mi21R04*°#$WVi'LsllP;km24 , 0 -- •• , serbaqk-atleS than15.feet,on.a„sidelancemidefSectidn4003Abased'ofthei.), .44k ,4 - <!. tA, 4 ---fiai ' > '• - yardiforz tosd. elngat38785itig,-nspector,s-Fjruary 23209bvtbi[ ' Ndfiski,,by9, !i,TdairTATN9ticqkohpis4piiiY4 it409gAati Me 1"tan!9nen! , tD6-11. r'as-built AsiVondisiOnsideed,an-adees:f- ; 1.40V.M.JolKancr*CQ_4LINEs2Ty*g:44dtllalat6666wdyivtol :il,.. , ,, BENDICK#5881'Aeigiest for'6.-'Ark-- dalfi‘ble,,,10,,eatfialil,16.,ii.rii,eifAily,61,.-7.tit:',.... !'ante-—Ani'ikeetio.'ns'-/-loo;?,eiA',674.12:- ETRL(Tlist.W.019cAlct$9_43g.S .l,g9_z-4'iniertiretatiOir14iiA0395iid4Too444; of the most easferntear extension of the-f'based o4Il.h6,13iiikii4 Inspector's/vIarai. '116Tsq)":4-,*I:46c__Pi.tieifi:PPII4C-r!'F, I,;/•,/,/,:.-„,,,',,,,,„ `_,,, -,„,- ,,, :.:-,. ...--'=-,,-,,, ;..,,,,r-„,,'a112e"--€: '--2•0---6--46'0N_1,O1-t-r-r•ee—li,f---D-t.i 0-S,i1••P•,,pli-,-:,-v..a—l'•-'d-•d/-l1-3ra., m'-1Afenf0SiimOlieFulm564;217- -1 ;ii?-179?ied,kaar3g:•t • e existing9•45'A1:iRALPH-and cARomss.ngle,family,dwelling whichmcease1SINOP0L1'#5876c44440,azyarb : heldhx"61iilthe,, „ge06431,v61” iiie udder Section 100-30A3,based'on r, h3Cated at less than the Code required 46: Alie,"biiik6-laikcioi'grNOVeratie-1.4 ' ' ' - - ' ' - ''' '- ., g f,- ,., ...feetfrom.'the.front yard lot-line. 2005Notiee/ot.ifisapp'rnaPoinceriarigrl '--,`"-T,Ili ,-',,,-'-di.i.ra-= i,---4-t•P,,, .--,uon,of ,roperty: 8y0- gtonRoad- I •. - . . f,t,..5.pipprs,4-..,addition,-;7tth,,,-alteration ' ” , -- , v.,,` 1 si.... .;(edtchOgue,;-QEM,5.7114A..„...,-,,,,:-,„-- - e,-.6.09911#41Ae:,',e,)e,ls:09kr#te).4n4-*Q fij.:4_;;Z1.;{4 -rjk,C$461-104110/,'_.8.874-44'..k.'6'5,,!1 ,14!4110.2f ar,ige;it§Pftink#Si*aitiati ',,,,4114iT0I1.4At-i4Tiii,444fVAiii5ifiVCOj '.11/114iiii:.* .iVitiOil,setback'.4:10ft:11,4V-,''' 24,1,'Cal ,:pb ,:lig;iiiiiiin'lliiiiicio'r?i, t4e:s.(1prequired-SO f.,...q.„PA:PAP reP,rs_..-,,-eDecember 29,'2005'.1‘ibtice'of'D.ikap.7,,,-, ''.1°,1,E11P,O,', 15:;;;Parie2Av'eitie;*004,-, .-,,:,;prPiral,P(VE"Prning-prOpOsed,additions;.'' ?,qpii,756,4: -.•:.,':,,,-,'"..:Ptc:`,''3,g:/,')': ',VA.',-,- ';'',.'iallie4titiii's to the existing:dWe'llin'i' P::1Ck,',,,?..,AiTY1,,,,, :."-T.nri-r.-9,A:11*,jw. ageqkth,,...a-k2yfehL9n;:4;'siii$1,q,'43,,:ail'r, 1$67,1.,#040:6*tka:`:!,:ya:Ei0CliAcko 4iaCioWtfiaw,35,-TektotAD:ocy4r,,..4g ,Se41:1:6ifiz,490:.d4k:hal4pzilii14BUildiiii f?",ileS'S'AiiW35:fee'efi4i-iiiiTi6iil,,i6fline Inipectorls October,6,2065-iNotice-,of f ;;!and,:Iesslhai:75,feeefrOin;,the;,,billkhead:', Disapproval,_7,concerning l:proposed,ad- Location-of 2950;Minne104 ditions to theeatisting'dwelling with set-- „A:Si-11'041g Ziti.i.hOld;`.:d11,4187I34".2:•„;,-;-r- - 'backs at les than 35 feet frdin.the front 1 ".,7,,,i',;-.1i50`..,4),M,1.150,13.1,40',.;,;and-,DENNIS; MATTHEWS 8C HAM ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 38 NUGENT STREET SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORE 11988 PHILIP B. MATTHEWS (1812-1882) 631-283-2400 STEPHEN L. HAM, III FACSIMILE 631-287-1076 e-matt Matthamesq@aol.com BARBARA T. HAM April 18, 2006 Mrs. Linda Kowalski Zoning Board of Appeals P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Sheila R. Kennedy; SCTM No. 1000-9-9-22.1 Dear Linda: In connection with the referenced application, I have enclosed a duly executed and sworn to Affidavit of Mailing, together with an attachment listing the owners notified, a copy of the legal notice, three original certified mail receipts and two of the original return receipt cards. An Affidavit of Posting will be provided to you for this application at or prior to the April 27 hearing. Sincerely, Stephen L. Ham, Ill Enclosures M1 , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: STATE OF NEW YORK x In the Matter of the Application of Sheila R. Kennedy AFFIDAVIT • OF MAILING SCTM No. 1000-009.00-09.00-022.001 - x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ss.: STATE OF NEW YORK ) I, CHARLOTTE VAN HOUTEN, residing at 16 Roses Grove Road, Southampton, New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the 12' day of April, 2006, I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in Southampton, New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED,a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to the current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the Assessors Office of the Town of Southold, for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the applicants' property. Charlotte Van Houten Sworn to before me this /`{t"day of April, 2006 Notary Public, State of New York STEPHEN L.HAM,ffi Notary Public,State of New York No.02HA4630120 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires July 31, '200 U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT u 1 (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) 0 For deli�veiyinformation visit our website at www.usps.come ILI 1:3SA1!_- R61i2CIS all CC9a0A L UE w Postage $ 0.87 Fri ,b. ..•'45, Nd d O Certified Fee 2.40 Q O Return Receipt Fee Ftco (Endorsement Required) 1.85 " Restricted Delivery Fee t • 6 , ci lU (Endorsement Required) �Q 5,,, Total Postage&Fees $ 5.11-9 04t'1 t'• in O Sent To o Walter and Susan Keenan N Street,A .No.; o;Vii,ptNo. 1000 Mason Street - Apt. 801 city,stat"P+4San Francisco, CA 94108 PS Form :00 June 2002 ••R• •r -f.rinstru i.n U.S. Postal ServiceTM 03 CERTIFIED MA•ILTM RECEIPT `D ..Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com® . 1-9 Postage $ 0.57 T '� Certified Fee w66, Return t Fee (Endorsement Required) oe SI �0 p Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) iBF{{ 1 N Total Postage&Fees MEMO_ - t Sent To I=1 Harold Wilmerding Street, POBoxNo. 55 Roxiticus Road city,state,ZP+4Mendham, NJ 07945 PS Form MOO,June 2002 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal ServiceTM Ln CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT ▪ (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) For deliveryinformationvisit our website at www.usps.come M aft"--IN( , S.Tgcs A L U S E rR —U Postage $ 0.87 L*lI 1' 0968 0 ,�0 Certified Fee N Nk o 2. 0 q c�PO , :TI9 Return Reclept Fee D (Endorsement Required) 1.85 r•VRD Here I. O Restricted Delivery Fee 1 �. ix) (Endorsement Required) 1erk.� , • C3 Total Postage&Fees $ 5.12 e, . r` 45 o Sent To FI Rauch Partners LP 0 N Street,Apt.No.; or PO Box No. 501 Park Avenue City,State,zIP+4Collingswood, NJ 08108 PS Form 3800,June 2002 See Reverse for Instructions IN Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. ❑ gent • Print your name and address on the reverse X r�'lJ ' 94Xddressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) W . Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No FI RAUCH PARTNERS LP 501 PARK AVENUE COLLINGSOOD, NJ 08108 3. Service Type ®Certified Mall 0 Express Mail 0 Registered Eg3 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number i 7004 0 7 5 0 0001 617 3 0795 (Transfer from service JabeQ PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 10111 First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender. Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • MATTHEWS & HAM 38 NUGENT STREET SOUTHAMPTON, NY — 11968 :1A1 D ': COMPLETE THIS SECT/• •ri-LE E T IS SECTION ON DELIVER' • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Sig,attire item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X / I J/� ❑Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse i—J,1- • /� 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. •eceived by(Pnnted.Name) C. •ate of Delivery • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, r or on the front if space permits. �-�l N J rl� ! ^` D. Is delivery addredifferent frohrritem 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enteVIelivery add 0 No Harold Wilmerding 1m- 1 Q`2-N" ^� 55 Roxiticus Road �,� Mendham, NJ 07945 - i I So-� 3. Service Type El Certified Mail 0 Express Mail ❑Registered In Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number 7004 0750 0001 6173 078�i.,,=`, (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1546 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 111111 First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box . 4 MATTHEWS & SAM 38 NUGENT STREET SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 1,„IIi IIII,111111„1,llilll,il„1,,,11111111!IIi,i„I,I,Iiii J - /' 4.r ATTACHMENT TO AFFIDAVIT OF-MAILING SCTM No. 1000 Owner and Address 9-9-3.1 Harold Wilmerding 55 Roxiticus Road Mendham, NJ 07945 9-9-16 Walter and Susan Keenan 1000 Mason Street - Apt. 801 San Francisco, CA 94108 9-9-22.2 Fl Rauch Partners LP 501 Park Avenue Collingswood, NJ 08108 04/10/2006 12:13 6317659064 ZBA PAGE 02 V LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY,APRIL 27,2006 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959,on THURSDAY.APRIL 27.2006: 2:10 P.M, SHIELA R. KENNEDY, Contract Vendee (RAUCH PARTNERS LP, Owners) #5870. Request for a Variance under Section 100-32, based on the Building Inspector's February 22, 2006 Notice of Disapproval, concerning a proposed dwelling at less than 60 feet from the front yard line facing a private right-of-way, less than 75 feet from the code-required rear yard line, premises located north of Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island at Hay Harbor; Lot #2, Minor Subdivision Map of Frances B. Rausch and others,filed 8/11194 as Map No.9547; CTM 9-9-22.1, The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above, Files are available for review during regular business hours. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office (631) 765-1809, or Linda.kowalskl@town.southold.ny.Us. Dated: April 10, 2006. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RUTH D. OLIVA,CHAIRWOMAN By Linda Kowalski M N ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064 LOCATION OF ZBA OFFICE: North Fork Bank Building, 1st Floor 54375 Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold website: http://southtown.northfork.net June 1, 2006 Re: Town Code Chapter 58 — Public Notices for Thursday, June 22, 2006 Hearings Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Times Review newspaper. 1) Before June 8th: Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, to all owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street. Use the current owner name and addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office located at Southold Town Hall, or Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to obtain a mailing address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability and to confirm this in either a written statement, or at the hearing, with the returned letter. AND before June 9th: please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, and furnish it to our office with the white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled hearing. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board at the hearing and return it when available. These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. 2) Before Junel4th: Please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other material, posting it at your property for at least seven (7) days and kept in place till the hearing date. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is available for the additional front yard. Please deliver your Affidavit of Posting at the meeting, or mail it to us by June15. If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Zoning Appeals Board and Staff A-Lad-a cdoz ) Ends. he.L,.r t �� Q_ .�.. • , ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL'o MAILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064 LOCATION OF ZBA OFFICE: North Fork Bank Building, 1st Floor 54375 Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold website: http://southtown.northfork.net April 6, 2006 Re: Town Code Chapter 58 — Public Notices for Thursday, April 27, 2006 Hearings Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Times Review newspaper. 1) Before April 17th: Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, to all owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street. Use the current owner name and addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office located at Southold Town Hall, or Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to obtain a mailing address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability and to confirm this in either a written statement, or at the hearing, with the returned letter. AND not later than April 19th: please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, and furnish it to our office with the white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled hearing. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board at the hearing and return it when available. These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. 2) Not Later Than April 19th: Please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other material, posting it at your property for at least seven (7) days and posted till the hearing is held. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is available for the additional front yard. Please deliver your Affidavit of Posting during the meeting, or mail it to us before the hearing date. If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Zoning Appeals Board and Staff Ends. NuTkL uF : EAKINta The following application will be heard by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at Town Nall, 53095 Main Road, Southold: . 'AME : KENNEDY ( RauchOwnr) #5870 MAP # : 9 .-9-22 . 1 APPEAL : Variance- Setbacks REQUEST: Constr. New Dwelling DATE : THURSDAY, APR. , 27 , 2 : IOPM If you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s) prior to the hearing during normal business days between 8 AM and 3 PM . TONING BOARD -TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 765- 1809 OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Office Location: North Fork Bank Building—First Floor, 54375 Main Road at Youngs Avenue Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 http://southoldtown.northfork.net Email: Linda.Kowalski(c�Town.Southold.ny.us Jayne.Martin(a�Town.Southold.ny.us (631) 765-1809 (ext. 5012 or 5011 during recording) office fax (631) 765-9064 VIA FAX a k 7,-- �0? MEMO • TO: DATE: Gf l!0! o 6 -- A 41-1 RE: cad �-e � � cyk- OL( Ill 1/ -((‘). 0 rk-o-J) .o_eutio ,,,t, act <f ) MATTHEWS & HAM ixv 1N s c.Y ED ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW MAR 2006 38 NUGENT STREET SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORE 11968 PHILIP B. MATTHEWS (1912-1992) 631-283-2400 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STEPHEN L.HAM, III FACSIMILE 631-287-1076 e-marl.Matthamesq@aol corn BARBARA T. HAM March 7, 2006 Mrs. Linda Kowalski Zoning Board of Appeals RECEIVE® P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 MAR 8 2006 Re: Application of Sheila R. Kennedy �l � (SCTM No. 1000-9-9-22.1) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Dear Linda: In accordance with your request, I have enclosed seven sets of Floor Plans and Elevations (consisting of four pages) relating to the proposed residence for Sheila Kennedy at Fishers Island to be constructed on the parcel that is the subject of the referenced application. The enclosed Plans and Elevations have obviously been reduced. If you require sets drawn to the original scale, let me know. Finally, I have enclosed my check to the Southold Town Clerk in the amount of the additional $200 fee. Please give me a call if you require any further information, documentation or payment before this matter can be placed on the calendar for a public hearing. Sincerely, CLQ... - Stephen L. Ham, Ill • Enclosures it OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Office Location: Town Annex, NFB Building, 54375 Main Road at Youngs Ave. Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 fax (631) 765-9064 aS-,71074, REPLY FORM DATE:LMOA ck3 ,,7.Q0(P TO: 4/74 0,., r)( Ala -g)/Hi " --U l ZB Ref# I O., I- 4 , s---"---old- : , Date of B ' ding In A ector's Notice o Disapproval: / .G, • ted- inti.6-ee -17,--1,-e_ . V) The application is incomplete for the reasons noted below,.i Please furnish seven (7) sets of the following: ( ) Please furnish s ven (7) sets of the following (within about 7 days, if possible in order that the application can be adve ' ed for the public aring calendar date of : ). The advertising deadline is 22 d before the mee date. You may forward the information by fax at 765-9064, however, please send th riginal and six sets by mail or by hand. Thank you. ( ) The map submitted d es not match the information on the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval. Please submit th amendme is dated directly to the Building Department for review, and if an amended tice of Dis proval is issued, please furnish seven (7) copies with a cover letter confirming that the ended relief that is being added or revised in your request for variance(s). Thank you. dr No q) Missing information — lL47L l e 90-e,�rkK2., yoUA) ap �Q OTHER/INFORMATION � REQUESTED,when possible (7 sets with cover/transmittal sheet): Filingfee $ �a0o aeck). ah.'� 111 ‘3 (1� ; Check amount was: $ 0b. . Please send.1i-e check). R ( ) Available survey showing existing property/building details, with licensed surveyor information. ( ) Architectural map or updated survey showing dimensions of existing and proposed new construction areas, setbacks to property lines, and building lot coverage calculations. My Rough diagram or sketch with building height (# of stories and distance from ground to top/ridge detail (and mean height, • also - - . .. - . ,.,p D L„_;,t C, a.,wc5 7 ` -a-2,21e .-�i,�itlafa, GLL-a-Q—g.). ( ) Letter confirming status and date of review by other involved agencies for presubmission comments, or copy of up-to-date agency action. ( ) Updated single-and-separate search dated back to April 23, 1957 (Zoning Section 100-23D-4), and copies of deeds dating back to creation of original lot lines for this property. Thank you. ,, ; INSTRP'^''IONS FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS SO TOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPE Phone: (631) 765-1809 Fax: (631) 765-auvi4 Please submit seven (7), collated sets with ORIGINAL FORMS, WITH SIGNATURES, on top with check: *NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL: from the Building Inspector dated within the last 60 days, together with copies of your entire submission to Building Department (permit application, letters, etc.). *APPLICATION: Typed or neatly written, signed by the property owner or representative and notarized. If you have a representative, please furnish a signed consent form stating he/she is authorized to sign and submit this application. *NEW SURVEY, or available survey of record attached to architect's site plan: Surveyor must show proposed and existing setbacks, patios/driveways, wetland buffers, high bank or bluff, square footage and dimensions of lot, dimensions of new construction, fences, tanks, overhangs, chimneys, cesspool locations, etc. (If your project involves total lot coverage exceeding 20% of the total area of the lot, surveyor must calculate square footage breakdown of all building areas.) Please give linear footage between new proposed construction and nearest wetland, bulkhead, top of the bank or bluff, and overhangs exceeding 18". *BUILDING-ELEVATION DIAGRAMS with design details showing height from ground to top A of roof ridge(s), mean height, new construction and step areas. (Photocopies of uncertified, rough sketches are also accepted by ZB.) *FLAG or STAKE outside corners of new construction areas for viewing; please provide seven (7) photos, labeled to identify areas of new construction or changes after it has been flagged or staked. (Photos to show the yard area under consideration: for example, distance between top of bluff and the staked area for new construction). *ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: Necessary ONLY if your project is other than a setback, lot size, or dimensional variance. *TOWN PROPERTY CARD photocopies (Assessors Office,Town Hall, 765-1937). ` ' te_etda �Q, p-t' J *CHECK payable to "SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK." (A copy of the code fee schedule is attached for re erence.� ,e 6 J/e . 6®D After the Board has reviewed the application and calendared your application for a public hearing, we will confirm the date, place and time of the hearing, and provide a letter with the Town's Legal Notice, a yellow sign for your posting, an area map showing the surrounding lots (circled) that will require certified mail notice from you, and Affidavit forms for your use. Please note: (A) changes after submitting the above must be described in wrif ng_to eB_oar_d___ of Appeals with copies of map changes. Changes may also require review by the Building Department, or an amended Notice of Disapproval, after you submit the changes to the Building Department for review. If you are not sure, please contact the Appeals Office staff at -7654809,-or-contact -the-Building Department's-Plan Reviewer 765-1862; _ (BI---a-copy of your application form, appealing a Notice of Disapproval, is necessary to be mailed or delivered to the Building Department under New York Town Law. Please keep copies of this proof for your records. Thank you. ZB 10/04 1 Jun 28 06 02: 15p Moore Law Office 631 765 4643 p. 2 Yahoo! Mail - n1oorcattysPage 1 of I Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail Make Yahoo!your borne page the Setarch llteb II Search 1 1 n•. ;•:. E"4 Welcome, mooreatty:'; Mail Home-Mail Tutorie is Help PIA Sion Out. My Account} Addresses ' Calendar Notepad What's New-Mail For Mobile-Upgrades- Options Check Mail] Compose J Search Mail -J Search the Web Previous i Next I Back to Messages YCJNA.GE. Save up to on pi Iona;er�ire Delete I Replyforward -j Move... .. Folders [Add - Edit; This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message- Mark as Unread] Printable View Inbox Date: Tue, :27 Jun 20t16 13.14-56 -0/00 (POT) Draft "Betsy Perkins"" <moor eattysbnlyaltoo corn. "s;•Add to Address Book .From: Sent } Add Mobile Alert Bulk {Empty] Subject: l-unnedy-kr eistn BA. Trash [Empty) To: ffttnatlleiq mol.com Yet See your .,Mr. Ham: f} credit score: SO Would you please confirm that you have received a copy of Pat Moore's it Save about£29 memordanum which she hand-delivered to the ZBA on Friday,6/23 before she over cable left on vacation. Earn a degree i can't seem to locate a copy of my cover letter to you. A`. in 1 yr. Thanks. Best card for ;AVA oad credit Betsy Perkins, LA for Patricia C. Moore Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. Delete I Reply J Forward i Move... • Proviow, j Next i Back to ivle,:;elge`7 Save Message Text i Full Headers Check Mail Compose 1 Search Mail ... 1 Search the Web I Conyi rghi,F.)1994-2.006 Yahoo!Inc All rights reserved Terms of Service-Copyighd'iP Policy-Guidelines-Ad Feedback NOTICE We roi'.cct pws000l i,i4 aiii,Aturi on this site To laden more about how we use your mlc:.rmti,,rri,sera our Privacy Polio http://us.f357.mail.yahoo.corn ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=496_400936_20448_608_521_8 1._. 6/28/2006 Jun 28 06 02: 15p Moore Lau.r Office 631 765 4643 p. 3 ---------- -. ....----- � 4 Yahoo! Mail -mooreattys@yatloo.com - Page 1 of 1 Yahoo' My Yahoo! Marl Make Yahoo!your home page t�eWeh I Search 1 , T„ �_ A• F r-,.— ' z Welcome, n�ooreattys Mail Home-Marl Tutorials-Help , ,21:--?, ;,, ..;, a ; - .w, [Sign Out, My Account) - :-;',3F. Addresses ' Calendar - Notepad ` What's New-Mail For Mobile- Upgrades- Options __--_..____________-------_-�------�--_--___.-__---__.--_---_--_,_Search Mail t Search the Web MallCotn{rose t Previous 1 Next j Back to Messages :. - •VuNAGE• Save up to 1:Y' � -,.,.3'50% en phone service Delete / Reply I Forward -- I Spam I Move... 1 Folders [Add Edit] This message is not flagged [Flag Message-Mark as Unread I Printable View Inbox From: Matthamesq©aol corn - Add to Address Book .i Add Mobile Alert Draft Date: Tuc, 27 Jun 2000 17 15.17 EDT Sent Subject: Re: kennedy - keenan ZBA Bulk ;Empty) To: moor e3ttyscryanon.corri Trash [Empty[ - --" See your t'' So confirmed, ; credit score' 50 Steve Ham -fi. �-. - —_ ,�., Netftix-55.99/mo. Stephen L.Ham, Ill, Esq. No Late Fees' Matthews&Ham 38 Nugent Street Find Any Southampton, NY 11968 Email Address Phone:(631)283-2400 Online Degree Fax:(631)287-1076 vt, Programs e-mail:matthamesq@aol.com IDelete t¢ {Reply --1 Forward -.-! Spam t Move... a' Previous t Next j Back to messages C SaveeMessage Text l Full Headers Check Mail 6 Compose I j Search Mail I Search the Web I Cop right: 1994-2006 Yahoo inc All nghia reber'ed,Tomas of Service-Copt/right/1P Policy-Guidelines-Ad Feedback NOTICE-We collect perennal information on this rite= To learn more about hog we use your irclonnation aee ow Privacy Policy http://us.f357.tnalyahoo.corn/yrn/ShowLetter?MsgId=5230 402067 2384_1217_316_0_... 6/28/2006 Jun 28 06 02: 15p Mo----;% Law Off ice 631 'rn5 4643 p. 1 „., PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631)765-4330 Fax: (631)765-4643 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET The pages comprising this facsimile transmission contain confidential information horn Patricia C.Moore. This information is intended solely for use by the individual entity named as the recipient hereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so we may arrange to retrieve this transmission at no cost to you. A - TO: . - 1 1-, ' FAX NO: RE: '0•- (1,'"\q DATE: LC- TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET IF TRANSMISSION IS FAULTY OR INCOMPLETE, PLEASE CALL BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. CLIENT NAME: OPERATOR: ,--\ • comments: „ , \ /1 ; t •"' • 1. „ . ,^1 i - r Y, r7, JUN 2 3 2006 )0'2- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. Roland MARX, et al., Appellants, v. The ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the VILLAGE OF MILL NECK, Respondent. June 6, 1988. Action was brought seeking judgment varying decision of village planning board with regard to subdivision plan approved by board. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, Oppido, J., confirmed decision of zoning board that it had no jurisdiction to vary decision of planning board, and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Balletta, J., held that zoning board of appeals lacked jurisdiction to modify conditions imposed or subdivision plan by planning board. Affirmed. West Headnotes [1] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals 414VIII(A) In General 414k372.1 Maps, Plats, or Plans, Filing or Approval Requirement 414k372.6 k. Other Considerations. (Formerly 414k372.1) Subdivision control is aimed at protecting community from uneconomical land development and assuring residents that there will be adequate streets, sewers, water supply, and other essential services in subdivision. [2] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 4141 In General 414k2 k. Purpose. Primary goal of municipal zoning is development of balanced, cohesive community which efficiently uses municipality's available land. ( [3] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414I In General 414k2 k. Purpose. One basic purpose of zoning is to provide an orderly fashion for residents' need for various types of residential, commercial and industrial structures; concern is whether municipality as whole will be balanced and integrated community. [4] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VII Administration in General 414k353 Powers, Duties, and Liabilities 414k354 k. Boards of Appeals or Adjustment. Village board of trustees intended to grant village zoning board of appeals review power only over determinations of building inspector, who is charged with responsibility for enforcement of zoning ordinance.McKinney's Village Law §§ 7-700 et seq., 7-712, subds. 2, 2(c). [5] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VII Administration in General 414k353 Powers, Duties, and Liabilities 414k354 k. Boards of Appeals or Adjustment. 414 Zoning and Planning 414IX Variances or Exceptions 414IX(A) In General 414k492 Hardship, Loss, or Injury 414k493 k. In General. In addition to appellate jurisdiction over decisions of enforcement official,zoning board F /- of appeals also has original jurisdiction to grant variances when strict application of zoning ordinance results in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to individual owner; as corollary to authority to both grant variances and to review determinations of enforcement official, zoning board of appeals also has primary jurisdiction of interpreting applicable zoning ordinance. McKinney's Village Law §§ 7-712, 7-728, subd. 1. [6] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals 414VIII(D) Effect of Determination; Revocation 414k468 Revocation or Modification 414k471.5 k. Maps, Plats, or Plans. Zoning board of appeals did not have authority to modify conditions imposed upon subdivision plan approved by village planning board.McKinney's Village Law §§ 7-712,7-728, subd. 1. [7] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals 414VIII(A) In General 414k373 Power to Grant 414k373.1 k. In General. (Formerly 414k373) Under statutory scheme, zoning boards of appeal are excluded from regulation of subdivision plats. McKinney's Village Law §§ 7-712, 7-728, subd. 1. [8] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414V1II Permits, Certificates and Approvals 414VIII(A) In General / , 414k373 Power to Grant 414k374 k. Nature of Power. Where village board of trustees has expressly empowered it to do so, village planning board has very limited power under certain circumstances to modify applicable zoning regulations when it approves subdivisions;even then,planning board may only exercise such authority within strict limitations placed upon it by board of trustees for a particular subdivision under consideration. McKinney's CPLR 7801 et seq.; McKinney's Village Law §§ 7-712, 7-722, 7-728, subd. 1, 7-738, 7-740. **330 *334 Brendan R. Marx, New York City, for appellants. Payne, Wood & Littlejohn, Glen Cove (Daren A. Rathkopf, of counsel), for respondent. **331 Before MOLLEN, P.J., and KUNZEMAN, RUBIN and BALLETTA, JJ. BALLETTA, Justice. In this case, we are called upon to determine the question of whether a village zoning board of appeals has the authority to modify the conditions imposed by the village planning board upon a subdivision plan approved by the village planning board.For the reasons set forth herein, we conclude that it does not. The petitioners herein are the owners of a five-acre parcel of land located on Frost Mill Road in the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck, Nassau County. The area is zoned for five-acre single family use by the village's zoning ordinance(Building Zone Ordinance of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck § 400.6[1] ). The premises are improved by the petitioners'primary residence, which is not at issue on this appeal, and another structure, which is at the center of the dispute. This second structure was an accessory dwelling comprised of three bedrooms, a living room, kitchen, dining room and two baths as well as a two-car garage and a loft area. The subject property was originally on the westerly part of a 10.1-acre parcel known as the Weicker Estate. In 1979, the petitioners' predecessor in interest, Cuales Enterprises,Inc.,had applied to the Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck for a subdivision of the estate. On November 15, 1979, the planning board granted the application to subdivide the estate into two approximately equal parcels containing at least five acres as required by 7 the zoning ordinance. As a result, the buildings on the proposed westerly lot (now the petitioners' property) did not comply with the 75-foot setback requirements of the ordinance: the primary residence had a 60-foot setback,while the second structure had only a 10-foot setback from the northerly property line. In granting the application to subdivide the estate, the planning board permitted both structures to remain. However, the planning board imposed the condition that the second structure could no longer be used as an accessory *335 dwelling or living quarters and could only be used for a garage and dead storage. The petitioners and another individual, a Shawn Kennedy, purchased the subject premises in 1980. After taking title to the property, the petitioners allegedly converted the second structure into a dwelling for Kennedy. Subsequently, the Village Building Inspector visited the premises and found that the buildings were being used in contravention of the restriction imposed by the planning board. The petitioners were then requested to cease and desist from using the premises illegally.Thereafter,at some point between 1980 and 1985, Kennedy conveyed her interest in the property to one Nicastro, and in April 1985 the petitioners acquired sole ownership of the property by purchasing Nicastro's interest. The petitioners then appealed to the respondent zoning board for permission to use the second structure as an accessory dwelling having less than the required 75 foot setback mandated by the zoning ordinance,designating their application as an"appeal from the Planning Board Decision ofNovember 15, 1979".A hearing was held on July 29, 1985, with respect to the application. On or about September 12, 1986, the petitioners commenced the instant proceeding which sought a judgment, inter alia, directing the respondent zoning board to (1) redesignate the second structure as an accessory dwelling, (2) refund all taxes paid to date on the use of the premises as a dwelling, and (3) award them damages in an amount equal to the fair use value of the premises from the date that the building was restricted from use as a dwelling. It appears that as of September 1986 the respondent zoning board had not yet issued a decision with respect to the hearing held on July 29, 1985. In its answer dated October 26, 1986, the respondent zoning board generally denied the allegations in the petition and, as an affirmative defense, stated that the petitioners' sole remedy was to make an application **332 to the planning board. The respondent zoning board also issued a decision with respect to the application, in which it found that "it [was] without jurisdiction to vary the decision of the Planning Board",and directed that the petitioners'application "be heard before the Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck". By judgment dated January 27, 1987,the Supreme Court,Nassau County(Oppido,J.), ruled that the respondent zoning board's decision that it was without jurisdiction was correct. *336 The court noted that the planning board, and not the zoning board, had been delegated the power to control the subdivision of land. Thus, the court stated that the zoning board "may not trespass upon the functions or duties of the planning board". On this appeal, the petitioners contend that the Supreme Court misconstrued the authority of the zoning board to grant the relief requested.The respondent zoning board argues that the court did not err in holding that it had no jurisdiction to relieve the subject property of the restriction imposed by the planning board. We agree with the respondent's contention. The resolution of the issue presented requires a study of the interplay between the closely related, yet distinct, zoning and planning functions of local government. Through the exercise of its zoning and planning powers, a municipality is able to control growth and development so as to provide a sound neighborhood environment to its residents. Although municipal planning "may not, in a definitional or conceptual sense be identified with the power to zone, it is designed to complement other land use restrictions, which, taken together, seek to implement a broader, comprehensive plan for community development" (Matter of Golden v. Planning Bd. of Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 372, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291). [1] The purpose of municipal planning "is to preserve through a governmental agency a uniform and harmonious development of the growth" of the municipality (Village of Lynbrook v. Cadoo, 252 N.Y. 308, 314, 169 N.E. 394). The main tool of the municipal planner is the power to regulate the development of unimproved land through subdivision control. Subdivision control attempts to guide the systematic development of a community or area while "encouraging the provision of adequate facilities for the housing, distribution, comfort and convenience of local residents" (Matter of Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, supra, 30 N.Y.2d at 372, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291). It"reflects a legislative judgment that the building up of unimproved and undeveloped areas ought to be accompanied by provision for roads and streets and other essential facilities to meet the basic needs of the new residents of the area" (Matter of Brous v. Smith, 304 N.Y. 164, 169, 106 N.E.2d 503). Subdivision control is aimed at protecting the community from an uneconomical development of land, and assuring persons living in the area where the subdivision is sought that there will be adequate streets,sewers,water supply,and other essential services (2 *337 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 21.91, at 64 [3rd Ed] ). [2][3] On the other hand, the primary goal of municipal zoning is the development of a balanced, cohesive community which efficiently uses the municipality's available land. One of the basic purposes of zoning is to provide in an orderly fashion for the residents' need for various types of residential, commercial and industrial structures. The concern is whether the municipality as a whole will be a balanced and integrated community (see,Berenson v. Town of New Castle, 38 N.Y.2d 102, 109, 378 N.Y.S.2d 672, 341 N.E.2d 236). However, zoning "has proven characteristically ineffective in treating with the problems attending subdivision", and thus the need for the planning board and its power to regulate subdivisions (Matter of Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, supra, 30 N.Y.2d at 372, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291). As stated in a leading text: "Zoning restrictions are principally designed to separate the uses to which land **333 in various areas of the community may be put as well as to regulate density of population and the degree of proximity of buildings and structures by prescribing the size of the lots on which permitted uses may be operated and the location of buildings and structures on those lots. Subdivision regulations are employed to ensure that individual lots intended to be developed for such permitted uses may safely be used for such purposes and that the use of specific parcels as zoned will not impose the burden of expense upon the community or create health or other hazards" (4 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning § 64.02, at 64-16 [4th ed.] ). The statutory scheme established by the relevant State enabling statutes and the local zoning ordinance reflect this dichotomy between the zoning and planning functions of local government. The board of zoning appeals of a village is authorized to "hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official charged with the enforcement of any[zoning]ordinances or local laws adopted pursuant to" Village Law article 7 (Village Law § 7-712[2] ). Pursuant to this appellate jurisdiction, the board of zoning appeals "may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and shall make such order,requirement, decision or determination as in its opinion ought to be made in the premises and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken" (Village Law § 7-712[2][c] ). *338 In accordance with Village Law article 7, the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck adopted a local ordinance granting the respondent the above delineated powers of appellate review of all determinations made by the Village Building Inspector "or other official charged with the enforcement" of the zoning laws (Building Zone Ordinance § 810.1) The Village Building Inspector is in fact charged with the main responsibility for the enforcement of the zoning ordinance (Building Zone Ordinance of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck § 910.1). [4] When the applicable provisions of the ordinance are read together, it becomes clear that the Board of Trustees intended to grant the respondent zoning board appellate review power only over the determinations of the Building Inspector.This construction of the respondent zoning board's power is in keeping with Building Zone Ordinance of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck § 840.1. That section of the ordinance, in pertinent part, provides that "[a]ll provisions of this ordinance relating to the Board of Appeals shall be strictly construed. The Board, as a body of limited jurisdiction, shall act in full conformity with all provisions of law and of this ordinance and shall observe all limitations contained therein". [5] In addition to its appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the enforcement official, a zoning board of appeals also has original jurisdiction to grant variances when a strict application of the zoning ordinance results in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to an individual property owner (Village Law § 7-712). As a corollary to the authority to both grant variances and to review the determinations of the enforcement official, a zoning board of appeals also has the primary jurisdiction of interpreting the applicable zoning ordinance(see,Thurman v.Holahan, 123 A.D.2d 687, 507 N.Y.S.2d 52;Van Deusen v. Jackson, 35 A.D.2d 58, 312 N.Y.S.2d 853, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 608,319 N.Y.S.2d 855, 268 N.E.2d 650; Matter of Cohalan v. Schermerhorn, 77 Misc.2d 23, 351 N.Y.S.2d 505; Daly v. Eagan, 77 Misc.2d 279, 353 N.Y.S.2d 845). [6][7] However, there is nothing in the language of the enabling statutes or in the Building Zone Ordinance which would suggest that the respondent zoning board also has jurisdiction over subdivision plats. Indeed, it is readily apparent from the statutory scheme that zoning boards were to be excluded from the regulation of subdivision plats. **334 By statute, a village board of trustees may authorize and empower the village planning board to approve subdivision plats for the express "purpose of providing for the future *339 growth and development ofthe village and affording adequate facilities for the housing, transportation, distribution, comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its population" (Village Law § 7-728[1] ). A subdivision plat simply consists of the "division of one tract [of land] into a number of smaller lots with eventual separate ownership of each such lot" (Riegert Apts. Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 57 N.Y.2d 206, 211, 455 N.Y.S.2d 558, 441 N.E.2d 1076, quoting from 2 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning § 30.04[1], at 30-13-30-14 [4th ed.] ). A subdivision may merely involve the division of a large parcel of property into two parcels (Rules and Regulations of the Mill Neck Planning Board of the Village of Mill Neck § 2), and a plan may be "with or without streets or highways" (Village Law, § 7-728[1] ). This authority to supervise the character and improvement of a subdivision is consistent with the statutory provisions giving a planning board the power to prepare a comprehensive master plan for the future development of the village (Village Law § 7-722). [8] Where a board of trustees has expressly empowered it to do so, a planning board has a very limited power under certain circumstances to modify the applicable zoning regulations when it approves a subdivision (Village Law § 7-738). Even then, the planning board may only exercise such authority within the strict limitations placed upon it by the board of trustees for the particular subdivision under consideration (see, Matter of Johnson v. Moore, 13 A.D.2d 984, 216 N.Y.S.2d 740; Daly v. Eagan, 77 Misc.2d 279, 353 N.Y.S.2d 845, supra ). "The issue of conformity with zoning regulations is within the primary jurisdiction of the * * * Zoning Board" (Thurman v. Holahan, 123 A.D.2d 687, 688, 507 N.Y.S.2d 52, supra). A developer whose plat has been approved by the planning board would still have to comply with the local zoning laws (Matter of Northern Operating Corp. v. Chamberlain, 34 A.D.2d 686, 312 N.Y.S.2d 398). Insofar as the purposes and powers of a zoning board of appeals and of a planning board are distinct and separate, the Village Law provides for direct review of their determinations by means of proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 (Village Law §§ 7-712, 7-740). "Accordingly, the decision of a duly empowered planning board regarding subdivision plat approval is final" (Matter of Woodhull Assoc. v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Northport, 63 A.D.2d 677, 678, 404 N.Y.S.2d 670; see also, Orrell v. Planning Bd. of Town of Pound Ridge, 66 Misc.2d 843, 322 N.Y.S.2d 444; Rules & Regulations of the Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck § 4[G] ). It is clear, therefore, that the power to control the subdivision of land has been entrusted to planning boards and not to *340 zoning boards of appeals. "[T]he function of the Planning Board as to the subdivision of land provides for an orderly and compatible enforcement of policy along the lines of fixed standards. The entrance of the Board of Zoning Appeals into this area of control would not only rupture the statutory scheme but also interrupt the enforcement of the policy designed by the Planning Board" (Van Deusen v. Jackson, 35 A.D.2d 58, 62, 312 N.Y.S.2d 853, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 608, 319 N.Y.S.2d 855, 268 N.E.2d 650, supra ). This separation of powers between the two boards has also been recognized in other jurisdictions which have considered this issue (see e.g., Planning Board of Easton v. Koenig, 12 Mass.App. 1009, 429 N.E.2d 81; Noonan v. Zoning Board of Review, 90 R.I. 466, 159 A.2d 606; Seligman v. Belknap, 288 Ky. 133, 155 S.W.2d 735). Accordingly, in this case, the judgment appealed from, which confirmed the determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mill Neck that it was without jurisdiction to waive or modify a condition imposed upon a subdivision by the planning board, should be affirmed. **335 The petitioners' proper remedy is to apply to the planning board for a lifting of the restriction, and, if the restriction is lifted, to reapply to the zoning board for a variance. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. 1 MOLLEN, P.J., and KUNZEMAN and RUBIN, JJ., concur. N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,1988. Marx v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Village of Mill Neck 137 A.D.2d 333, 529 N.Y.S.2d 330 END OF DOCUMENT Case: Marx v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Village of Mill Neck Excerpt from: 137 A.D.2d 333, 529 N.Y.S.2d 330 to 137 A.D.2d 333, *340, 529 N.Y.S.2d 330, **335 G r .-41\)2' PATRICIA C. MOORS Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel: (631)765-4330 Fax: (631)765-4643 June 23 , 2006 MEMORANDUM Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold RE: Application of Sheila Kennedy (Application No 5870) This memorandum is submitted in opposition to the variance application of Sheila Kennedy. FACTS In 1994 the Southold Town Planning Board approved a map of "Minor Subdivision of Frances B. Rauch & R. Stewart Rauch, Jr. " The subdivision consisted of three lots which map was filed in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk: Lot 1 contained an existing house on 5 . 6 acres Lot 2 a vacant lot on 1 . 91 acres with the building envelope shown Lot 3 contained an existing house on 3 .43 acres In approving the map the Board granted the building envelope of Lot 2 with limits of clearing and proper sediment control measures . In addition, the Planning Board prohibited the further subdivision of Lot 2 and Lot 3 , in perpetuity. The objectant, Mr. and Mrs Keenan, purchased lot 1 in this subdivision with the knowledge of the conditions set forth on the subdivision map and held the reasonable expectation that the house would be located within the Planning Board established building envelope. The owner of Lot 2 wishes to disregard the condition shown on the map filed with the Suffolk County Clerk. ZONING BOARD HAS NO JURISDICTION The Zoning Board does not have jurisdiction to modify conditions imposed upon a subdivision approved by the Planning Board. See Marx v Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Mill Neck, 137 AD2d 333, 529 NYS2d 330 (2 Dept . 1988) , herein attached as Exhibit A. The location of the principal structure for Lot #2 was established on the filed map . This Board does not have the authority to vary the conditions set forth on a Planning Board approved filed plat . See Southold Town Code section 100-272 [lists the powers of the zoning board] AREA VARIANCE WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT NEIGHBOR Even if the Board concludes that they have jurisdiction, the variance should be denied based on the following: (1) An undesirable change will be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood and will be a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because : The house is proposed at elevation 55 when the balance of the homes on this street are at elevation 35 or below. [see attached copy of subdivision map-Exhibit B] The result of placing this house on top of the hill will have the proposed house towering over the neighboring homes and interfering with their privacy. The style of the proposed house is a two story high pitch roof which will be seen above the tree line of the Keenan property. The adjoining homes, shown on the subdivision map, are built on the south side of the road. Their accessory garages are tucked into the land on the west side of the road. Mr Keenan would have no objection to developing the Kennedy property similarly: A one story garage could be constructed into the hill . The garage doors along the road with retaining walls would maintain the character of the existing parcel . The balance of the hill could be revegetated and look like Lot 3 on the subdivision. While this land was all cleared at one time in the early 1900 ' s for the motel, the trees have reclaimed the land and it is naturally wooded and private. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because : The applicant has an approved building envelope on a filed map. The house is elevated above Hay Harbor and 75 feet from the edge of wetlands . The "proposed house" shown on the filed subdivision map was to retain the stone wall . The Planning board, when this subdivision was approved, considered the development of the neighborhood and approved the map . The owners of Lot 1, 2 and 3 were family and there was unanimous support for the creation of these lots and the location of the building envelope . Mr. Keenan would support an application to the Trustees for relief from setbacks to wetlands . The setback was created when the Trustees jurisdiction was 75 feet from edge of wetlands, is vertically 40 feet above the wetland edge and the Trustees would generally grant such an application. (3) The amount of relief requested is substantial because : The Planning Board filed map building envelope is for a smaller house than the proposed house on the hill . Either house will enjoy views of Hay Harbor. . The Planning Board approved house will not impact the neighbors, while the house on the hill will adversely impact Mr. Keenan. Mr. Keenan detrimentally relied on the filed subdivision map and the mapped building envelope when he purchased the property. The map preserved his privacy while the proposed house on the hill intrudes on his privacy. (4) The variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: The subsoils conditions on the hill may be a problem. The vegetation on the hill was cleared in order to access equipment for development permits . This Hill at one time was as densely vegetated as the adjacent acres of Lot 3 on the subdivision map . We expect that the elevation of the hill will require retaining walls and regrading of slopes for construction equipment to access the top of the hill, as well as a driveway for the owner' s vehicles . The building envelope on the filed map is 75 feet from the edge of the wetlands, however, the Planning Board required covenants to address storm water runoff and limits of clearing to protect the water: These protective covenants state: Paragraph 2 : Clearing and grading to the seaward side of the building envelope for lot 2 as shown on the Minor Subdivision Map shall be limited to that necessary for removal of diseased, decayed and dead materials. Paragraph 3 : Erosion and sedimant control measures shall be required during and immediately after construction to insure that stormwater runoff will not carry eroded and other deleterious materials into Hay Harbor. Paragraph 4 : No stormwater runoff resulting from the development and improvement of the subdivision or any of the lots shall be discharged into Hay Harbor. (See Covenant & Restriction at Liberll648 page 203 in Mr. Ham' s memo ) (5) Has the variance been self-created? ( X ) Yes, or ( ) No. If not, is the construction existing, as built? ( ) Yes, or ( ) No . : Owner wishes to modify the building envelope shown on a filed map. CONCLUSION The Zoning Board has no jurisdiction to modify the building envelope on a filed map; but even if the Board has authority to modify the location of a building envelope on a filed map, the variance should not be granted because the balancing test weighs in favor of denial of the variance . Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. Roland MARX, et al., Appellants, v. The ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the VILLAGE OF MILL NECK, Respondent. June 6, 1988. Action was brought seeking judgment varying decision of village planning board with regard to subdivision plan approved by board. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, Oppido, J., confirmed decision of zoning board that it had no jurisdiction to vary decision of planning board, and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Balletta, J., held that zoning board of appeals lacked jurisdiction to modify conditions imposed or subdivision plan by planning board. Affirmed. West Headnotes [1] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals 414VIII(A) In General 414k372.1 Maps, Plats, or Plans, Filing or Approval Requirement 414k372.6 k. Other Considerations. (Formerly 414k372.1) Subdivision control is aimed at protecting community from uneconomical land development and assuring residents that there will be adequate streets, sewers, water supply, and other essential services in subdivision. [2] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414I In General 414k2 k. Purpose. • Primary goal of municipal zoning is development of balanced, cohesive community which efficiently uses municipality's available land. [3] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414I In General 414k2 k. Purpose. One basic purpose of zoning is to provide an orderly fashion for residents' need for various types of residential, commercial and industrial structures; concern is whether municipality as whole will be balanced and integrated community. [4] KeyCite this headnote • 414 Zoning and Planning 414VII Administration in General 414k353 Powers, Duties, and Liabilities 414k354 k. Boards of Appeals or Adjustment. Village board of trustees intended to grant village zoning board of appeals review power only over determinations of building inspector, who is charged with responsibility for enforcement of zoning ordinance.McKinney's Village Law §§ 7-700 et seq., 7-712, subds. 2, 2(c). [5] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VII Administration in General 414k353 Powers, Duties, and Liabilities 414k354 k. Boards of Appeals or Adjustment. 414 Zoning and Planning 414IX Variances or Exceptions 414IX(A) In General 414k492 Hardship, Loss, or Injury 414k493 k. In General. In addition to appellate jurisdiction over decisions of enforcement official,zoning board of appeals also has original jurisdiction to grant variances when strict application of zoning ordinance results in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to individual owner; as corollary to authority to both grant variances and to review determinations of enforcement official, zoning board of appeals also has primary jurisdiction of interpreting applicable zoning ordinance. McKinney's Village Law §§ 7-712, 7-728, subd. 1. [6] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals 414VIII(D) Effect of Determination; Revocation 414k468 Revocation or Modification 414k471.5 k. Maps, Plats, or Plans. Zoning board of appeals did not have authority to modify conditions imposed upon subdivision plan approved by village planning board.McKinney's Village Law§§ 7-712,7-728,subd. 1. [7] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals 414VIII(A) In General 414k373 Power to Grant 414k373.1 k. In General. (Formerly 414k373) Under statutory scheme, zoning boards of appeal are excluded from regulation of subdivision plats. McKinney's Village Law §§ 7-712, 7-728, subd. 1. [8] KeyCite this headnote 414 Zoning and Planning 414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals 414VIII(A) In General 414k373 Power to Grant 414k374 k. Nature of Power. Where village board of trustees has expressly empowered it to do so, village planning board has very limited power under certain circumstances to modify applicable zoning regulations when it approves subdivisions;even then,planning board may only exercise such authority within strict limitations placed upon it by board of trustees for a particular subdivision under consideration. McKinney's CPLR 7801 et seq.; McKinney's Village Law §§ 7-712, 7-722, 7-728, subd. 1, 7-738, 7-740. **330 *334 Brendan R. Marx, New York City, for appellants. Payne, Wood & Littlejohn, Glen Cove (Daren A. Rathkopf, of counsel), for respondent. **331 Before MOLLEN, P.J., and KUNZEMAN, RUBIN and BALLETTA, JJ. BALLETTA, Justice. In this case, we are called upon to determine the question of whether a village zoning board of appeals has the authority to modify the conditions imposed by the village planning board upon a subdivision plan approved by the village planning board.For the reasons set forth herein, we conclude that it does not. The petitioners herein are the owners of a five-acre parcel of land located on Frost Mill Road in the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck, Nassau County. The area is zoned for five-acre single family use by the village's zoning ordinance(Building Zone Ordinance of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck § 400.6[1] ). The premises are improved by the petitioners'primary residence, which is not at issue on this appeal, and another structure, which is at the center of the dispute. This second structure was an accessory dwelling comprised of three bedrooms, a living room, kitchen, dining room and two baths as well as a two-car garage and a loft area. The subject property was originally on the westerly part of a 10.1-acre parcel known as the Weicker Estate. In 1979, the petitioners' predecessor in interest, Cuales Enterprises,Inc.,had applied to the Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck for a subdivision of the estate. On November 15, 1979, the planning board granted the application to subdivide the estate into two approximately equal parcels containing at least five acres as required by the zoning ordinance. As a result, the buildings on the proposed westerly lot (now the petitioners' property) did not comply with the 75-foot setback requirements of the ordinance: the primary residence had a 60-foot setback,while the second structure had only a 10-foot setback from the northerly property line. In granting the application to subdivide the estate, the planning board permitted both structures to remain. However, the planning board imposed the condition that the second structure could no longer be used as an accessory *335 dwelling or living quarters and could only be used for a garage and dead storage. The petitioners and another individual, a Shawn Kennedy, purchased the subject premises in 1980. After taking title to the property, the petitioners allegedly converted the second structure into a dwelling for Kennedy. Subsequently, the Village Building Inspector visited the premises and found that the buildings were being used in contravention of the restriction imposed by the planning board. The petitioners were then requested to cease and desist from using the premises illegally.Thereafter,at some point between 1980 and 1985, Kennedy conveyed her interest in the property to one Nicastro, and in April 1985 the petitioners acquired sole ownership of the property by purchasing Nicastro's interest. The petitioners then appealed to the respondent zoning board for permission to use the second structure as an accessory dwelling having less than the required 75 foot setback mandated by the zoning ordinance, designating their application as an"appeal from the Planning Board Decision ofNovember 15, 1979".A hearing was held on July 29, 1985, with respect to the application. On or about September 12, 1986, the petitioners commenced the instant proceeding which sought a judgment, inter alia, directing the respondent zoning board to (1) redesignate the second structure as an accessory dwelling, (2) refund all taxes paid to date on the use of the premises as a dwelling, and (3) award them damages in an amount equal to the fair use value of the premises from the date that the building was restricted from use as a dwelling. It appears that as of September 1986 the respondent zoning board had not yet issued a decision with respect to the hearing held on July 29, 1985. In its answer dated October 26, 1986, the respondent zoning board generally denied the allegations in the petition and, as an affirmative defense, stated that the petitioners' sole remedy was to make an application **332 to the planning board. The respondent zoning board also issued a decision with respect to the application, in which it found that "it [was] without jurisdiction to vary the decision of the Planning Board", and directed that the petitioners'application "be heard before the Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck". By judgment dated January 27, 1987,the Supreme Court,Nassau County(Oppido,J.), ruled that the respondent zoning board's decision that it was without jurisdiction was correct. *336 The court noted that the planning board, and not the zoning board, had been delegated the power to control the subdivision of land. Thus, the court stated that the zoning board "may not trespass upon the functions or duties of the planning board". On this appeal, the petitioners contend that the Supreme Court misconstrued the authority of the zoning board to grant the relief requested.The respondent zoning board argues that the court did not err in holding that it had no jurisdiction to relieve the subject property of the restriction imposed by the planning board. We agree with the respondent's contention. The resolution of the issue presented requires a study of the interplay between the closely related, yet distinct, zoning and planning functions of local government. Through the exercise of its zoning and planning powers, a municipality is able to control growth and development so as to provide a sound neighborhood environment to its residents. Although municipal planning "may not, in a definitional or conceptual sense be identified with the power to zone, it is designed to complement other land use restrictions, which, taken together, seek to implement a broader, comprehensive plan for community development" (Matter of Golden v. Planning Bd. of Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 372, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291). [1] The purpose of municipal planning "is to preserve through a governmental agency a uniform and harmonious development of the growth" of the municipality(Village of Lynbrook v. Cadoo, 252 N.Y. 308, 314, 169 N.E. 394). The main tool of the municipal planner is the power to regulate the development of unimproved land through subdivision control. Subdivision control attempts to guide the systematic development of a community or area while "encouraging the provision of adequate facilities for the housing, distribution, comfort and convenience of local residents" (Matter of Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, supra, 30 N.Y.2d at 372, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291). It"reflects a legislative judgment that the building up of unimproved and undeveloped areas ought to be accompanied by provision for roads and streets and other essential facilities to meet the basic needs of the new residents of the area" (Matter of Brous v. Smith, 304 N.Y. 164, 169, 106 N.E.2d 503). Subdivision control is aimed at protecting the community from an uneconomical development of land, and assuring persons living in the area where the subdivision is sought that there will be adequate streets,sewers,water supply,and other essential services (2 *337 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 21.91, at 64 [3rd Ed] ). [2][3] On the other hand, the primary goal of municipal zoning is the development of a balanced, cohesive community which efficiently uses the municipality's available land. One of the basic purposes of zoning is to provide in an orderly fashion for the residents' need for various types of residential, commercial and industrial structures. The concern is whether the municipality as a whole will be a balanced and integrated community (see, Berenson v. Town ofNew Castle, 38 N.Y.2d 102, 109, 378 N.Y.S.2d 672, 341 N.E.2d 236). However, zoning "has proven characteristically ineffective in treating with the problems attending subdivision", and thus the need for the planning board and its power to regulate subdivisions (Matter of Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, supra, 30 N.Y.2d at 372, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291). As stated in a leading text: "Zoning restrictions are principally designed to separate the uses to which land **333 in various areas of the community may be put as well as to regulate density of population and the degree of proximity of buildings and structures by prescribing the size of the lots on which permitted uses may be operated and the location of buildings and structures on those lots. Subdivision regulations are employed to ensure that individual lots intended to be developed for such permitted uses may safely be used for such purposes and that the use of specific parcels as zoned will not impose the burden of expense upon the community or create health or other hazards" (4 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning § 64.02, at 64-16 [4th ed.] )• The statutory scheme established by the relevant State enabling statutes and the local zoning ordinance reflect this dichotomy between the zoning and planning functions of local government. The board of zoning appeals of a village is authorized to "hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official charged with the enforcement of any[zoning] ordinances or local laws adopted pursuant to" Village Law article 7 (Village Law § 7-712[2] ). Pursuant to this appellate jurisdiction, the board of zoning appeals "may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and shall make such order,requirement, decision or determination as in its opinion ought to be made in the premises and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken" (Village Law § 7-712[2][c] ). *338 In accordance with Village Law article 7, the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck adopted a local ordinance granting the respondent the above delineated powers of appellate review of all determinations made by the Village Building Inspector "or other official charged with the enforcement" of the zoning laws (Building Zone Ordinance § 810.1) The Village Building Inspector is in fact charged with the main responsibility for the enforcement of the zoning ordinance (Building Zone Ordinance of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck § 910.1). [4] When the applicable provisions of the ordinance are read together, it becomes clear that the Board of Trustees intended to grant the respondent zoning board appellate review power only over the determinations of the Building Inspector.This construction of the respondent zoning board's power is in keeping with Building Zone Ordinance of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck § 840.1. That section of the ordinance, in pertinent part, provides that "[a]ll provisions of this ordinance relating to the Board of Appeals shall be strictly construed. The Board, as a body of limited jurisdiction, shall act in full conformity with all provisions of law and of this ordinance and shall observe all limitations contained therein". [5] In addition to its appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the enforcement official, a zoning board of appeals also has original jurisdiction to grant variances when a strict application of the zoning ordinance results in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to an individual property owner (Village Law § 7-712). As a corollary to the authority to both grant variances and to review the determinations of the enforcement official, a zoning board of appeals also has the primary jurisdiction of interpreting the applicable zoning ordinance(see,Thurman v.Holahan, 123 A.D.2d 687, 507 N.Y.S.2d 52;Van Deusen v. Jackson, 35 A.D.2d 58,312 N.Y.S.2d 853, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 608, 319 N.Y.S.2d 855, 268 N.E.2d 650; Matter of Cohalan v. Schermerhorn, 77 Misc.2d 23, 351 N.Y.S.2d 505; Daly v. Eagan, 77 Misc.2d 279, 353 N.Y.S.2d 845). [6][7] However, there is nothing in the language of the enabling statutes or in the Building Zone Ordinance which would suggest that the respondent zoning board also has jurisdiction over subdivision plats. Indeed, it is readily apparent from the statutory scheme that zoning boards were to be excluded from the regulation of subdivision plats. **334 By statute, a village board of trustees may authorize and empower the village planning board to approve subdivision plats for the express "purpose of providing for the future *339 growth and development of the village and affording adequate facilities for the housing, transportation, distribution, comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its population" (Village Law § 7-728[1] ). A subdivision plat simply consists of the "division of one tract [of land] into a number of smaller lots with eventual separate ownership of each such lot" (Riegert Apts. Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 57 N.Y.2d 206, 211, 455 N.Y.S.2d 558, 441 N.E.2d 1076, quoting from 2 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning § 30.04[1], at 30-13-30-14 [4th ed.] ). A subdivision may merely involve the division of a large parcel of property into two parcels (Rules and Regulations of the Mill Neck Planning Board of the Village of Mill Neck § 2), and a plan may be "with or without streets or highways" (Village Law, § 7-728[1] ). This authority to supervise the character and improvement of a subdivision is consistent with the statutory provisions giving a planning board the power to prepare a comprehensive master plan for the future development of the village (Village Law § 7-722). [8] Where a board of trustees has expressly empowered it to do so, a planning board has a very limited power under certain circumstances to modify the applicable zoning regulations when it approves a subdivision (Village Law § 7-738). Even then, the planning board may only exercise such authority within the strict limitations placed upon it by the board of trustees for the particular subdivision under consideration (see, Matter of Johnson v. Moore, 13 A.D.2d 984, 216 N.Y.S.2d 740; Daly v. Eagan, 77 Misc.2d 279, 353 N.Y.S.2d 845, supra ). "The issue of conformity with zoning regulations is within the primary jurisdiction of the * * * Zoning Board" (Thurman v. Holahan, 123 A.D.2d 687, 688, 507 N.Y.S.2d 52, supra). A developer whose plat has been approved by the planning board would still have to comply with the local zoning laws (Matter of Northern Operating Corp. v. Chamberlain, 34 A.D.2d 686, 312 N.Y.S.2d 398). Insofar as the purposes and powers of a zoning board of appeals and of a planning board are distinct and separate, the Village Law provides for direct review of their determinations by means of proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 (Village Law §§ 7-712, 7-740). "Accordingly, the decision of a duly empowered planning board regarding subdivision plat approval is final" (Matter of Woodhull Assoc. v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Northport, 63 A.D.2d 677, 678, 404 N.Y.S.2d 670; see also, Orrell v. Planning Bd. of Town of Pound Ridge, 66 Misc.2d 843, 322 N.Y.S.2d 444; Rules & Regulations of the Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Mill Neck § 4[G] ). It is clear, therefore, that the power to control the subdivision of land has been entrusted to planning boards and not to *340 zoning boards of appeals. "[T]he function of the Planning Board as to the subdivision of land provides for an orderly and compatible enforcement of policy along the lines of fixed standards. The entrance of the Board of Zoning Appeals into this area of control would not only rupture the statutory scheme but also interrupt the enforcement of the policy designed by the Planning Board" (Van Deusen v. Jackson, 35 A.D.2d 58, 62, 312 N.Y.S.2d 853, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 608, 319 N.Y.S.2d 855, 268 N.E.2d 650, supra ). This separation of powers between the two boards has also been recognized in other jurisdictions which have considered this issue (see e.g., Planning Board of Easton v. Koenig, 12 Mass.App. 1009, 429 N.E.2d 81; Noonan v. Zoning Board of Review, 90 R.I. 466, 159 A.2d 606; Seligman v. Belknap, 288 Ky. 133, 155 S.W.2d 735). Accordingly, in this case, the judgment appealed from, which confirmed the determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mill Neck that it was without jurisdiction to waive or modify a condition imposed upon a subdivision by the planning board, should be affirmed. **335 The petitioners' proper remedy is to apply to the planning board for a lifting of the restriction, and, if the restriction is lifted, to reapply to the zoning board for a variance. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. MOLLEN, P.J., and KUNZEMAN and RUBIN, JJ., concur. N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,1988. Marx v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Village of Mill Neck 137 A.D.2d 333, 529 N.Y.S.2d 330 END OF DOCUMENT Case: Marx v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Village of Mill Neck Excerpt from: 137 A.D.2d 333, 529 N.Y.S.2d 330 to 137 A.D.2d 333, *340, 529 N.Y.S.2d 330, **335 (� R ��� N 1469.85 ` N/F WILMERDING ..,.�.....• R W 5126.07 IA, • _ I • \A — - MATCH MARK "'�y°�� q YATenYAwcSt • wt D G o, • �' selPO 001 �, —__ N 65°31 00 E N No o y - ' • -,I 336.96' �' / / t y� /�AG \ \ I I ! / HAY HARBOR s, 1� �j� -` ,► Y i. I#; / // \V \ ! 1 / 7 1 , �ypt 1 , o r VT 6a 35 M\ \\ \\ I I • ' I • z w "►1 Ii►C1`� %% - \ .� .• I 1 I I I !I ; TO\ / i lP OF BANK \\ I / �,,,x4 \ /.%/// 111 \ rn "i / 1/iiN N ,v in % - / / ....", �`' \ \ \\\' g�: \G�� / i i : HOLE ��iP ' I / WLANDS c!� luN LH / / / / _ / \\ Y \ \\\ \ • �::,.� ! 1L / AO "� ��,o/9/ 90 PROP. ' �`\ 1 / / cn �I f c. ✓ / • ; I 1 � te''--� \�\ \ \�\\\ \��\ If !�1 / 1 \ F • SESEPTIC SYSTE \ �\� II -{ �.ill � \ .� �. / \ I ' r-. `\ \ \ \ \ 1 I !ei' : """ "':...,„ A.:,., Or !`O !�' 9 �1q 3c C� ��1II :IC� �M�yV�, / 1..a I \ / 1 ■"wtl'.ii'" 1 \ l \I ..... O9 ! / / I S7/ Tie. t ,uuE ��\ \ I • I \ 1 1\ \\ / / •I�` .\ `\.:K. \ �' \�(p \ \ • cn ,_`' ( 1 1 \ \ 1\_ �� w \\ I. 1 \ w ::. • ,• G1 \\ y C,� \ 1 N I,‘ <0 C'91�T �p yip \.‘.1/2, \ I I 1 ( I 1 , I N�' —\ ♦\ - / .... 1 , 1 i 1« \G'+ ,�I` ! F\ /p0 o'3 `\ 'PROX. HIGH \ \ ,�. / �. / 1 ' 1. / \ �L G p \ \ 1 1 Nir / est \ 1 I • ■AMq . �� ='J. Cr �t / •5 '9j r to 'TER MARKli ,ra«n nuxs ���� \ / \,/ I f V. dJf?::, _` _� M \ `� \ \ (TYP.) \'' ," •., ' LA.....,,o.... n .M: ,...,IL. s`/ l" \ \� - �/ 1 I I,.,... , , • CY f• � � y YAi. \'G �/ / / � \ \ \ � \ lJm 1 , .I-\ I . .=f.•.L.�t. r� _ \\ � /� � 1 I ( • �=�►. \ o r , 1 ,\ III.� 5 o / \ \ \ ° 11 o \ I 11 • mss' � • 4� i►"' i� �! r7 / ` \ \ i I \ /r • \ .x \1 I I 1 C` ■M r / Q' / \ \ • \ \ 'w 1 iI / - ._- \\ \ 1 1 1 1 s A�. �C�C�� /01111. . .... lam' / / \ ti✓� /� \ \ \ o \ ty I � CC � / i \ a n■w. 1 I I /i mai 4 it 111114* ,0000.00010°' N\ S •\ \\ \ \ N. • < C / a I',1 • 1 I , / ! / , ' / O i Spp S p/L \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ Z V. ��� // � �I 4le Ii �1\�\ 1 \ ,Iteltr*°" {}FES / \ m D v i \\ \ __________\__ \ \ \ \ \ \ , / ; I I I `•= _iii;/ i \�\ �� j 6- / I \ \ \ \ \ - - 1 11-- s.,lori ,I 1 t \KEY MQP G^�P � / ` �� `' 1 / \\ \ DATUM Np \ 1. 13. // / 1 i \\ I � \ f ' / I I I ss \ BENCHMARK 92 \ \ \ \ \ • �/ �/ % 1 1 r A I TOP OF IRON PIN / — / - r SCALE 1�1 = 6001 ,�o `Z6 I \ \ '• ' i '~ 1 \ r a� I R. "� i IRON \ / l / ELEV.=39.64 \ \ \ •N '� i� i�� _���-��' _ tea/ si J / i \ \ PIPE / / 1 \ • •/ o�'2711 w\ W r � r ' / 1 I I �' P� � � '0 ) 7 / / \ �/ / 1 174.59 \ \ \ \ \IA _ \\ ��� Mme° �;I /_` ` "�." `;''615 �s¢• I ��P�' P��� \ \ ' \ Z N1345.38 ( 1 \ \ \ \ W \, IV�� \\ I I ►` � wD" ` • � \I 11 \ \ W484s.19 m • I . ;an.n. J�,,, ______ / ' �_ O_ \ / \6(4„, •i a I ..r u'■ Witt / / .°. \\ „ eAtu l: 0°"" � I Ao .� 0 \ \ r�' V� / 1 -J / I I I s $ . .,' 1..__ •: \ .srs�Dd. a ., N/P WI 1 I wr /� 1 CLM.J, d MTiNp1 J, .RL/A.R•WANT"war .0_• . \ / • ( \ °24\ I I I I IMa+Allo�.YJua JPMC.EVANS, . �^ Ill; AVF / / 35 �` 226 / I I I ` ✓.oaFerr HAW YATCH NAM A' J / • ' N/F // \ / / 1 Ki(i I ( ����,\ SUBJECT PROPERTY .: L • JOHiV C. EVANS 5 \ I II N • SCALE: i" = 100' • I T�I�-T-2�G'T It5�p 5e .o� �-r-' IL, �--• \ N tJ}_ �:�= S.lo+J.dG• / -�\ \ \ _ / / / ` II1 eZ r24• DIA CovER6.13 / I—� I • . _ / / / STONE W K \ \ - TEST HOLE DATA: LEGEND:_ / • �/ / ,�O \ \ ` \ _ ' \ `. \ I .. o oD.n f4) 8• DIA KNrr/ / \ \ ll I 1 �.D o o c c ,o D.h KOUTS/ �� --� !LEC I ., o .° 0 000 n D.s` / aox \ \ ;'" 0 CI lit '� - " N\F NOVA OR FORMERLY >- / --- — N 1 \ \ N '° :'.0 0 101001213. 0 14 SANU'r TOPSOIL 1.2 Q ( / i \ ; _o.. \ \ 1 \ \ v. �. • 14"-6 1/2. 6.13' FILL TYP. TYP►CAL 1 i Q ' \ EXISTING HOUSE ! ;/ �� \\\ CENTERLWE OF L i �l•`\ ` 1 4'--I I- e'—o' DIA 6 7/2'- %� i C�PSOIL EXIST. EXISTING 4. I POOL \ F� \ 176,_18/21.-2;', 8 1/2 SANDY ORANGE H ELECTRIC / - \ SUBSOI - — 40— EXI. ; CONTOUR Z ,` / / 1 \ EXISTING 35 I 1 \ 1\ \ HYDRANT 8 • \ 1 RIGHT OF WAY / , ` UF? Z q • / 5 I. w I ` pRy y 8 1/2'-16' SANDY h1�1�. COMP. Z R ► `\ / /2 E=E ,Llcre 0 EXISTING Q 5.91 N ► \ ,� / / — I i I 1 �I, RESI�:NCE , \ CRASS SECTION TILL \ \ I 'NOT TO SONE • ___ \ / • ,� , \ . x, z 1 \ \ \ NOTES: • / _ Box 0 I m " 1 \ \ e-e• \ N / / / o I I / o ` \ \ _ o � urso 1) PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT 1000, SECTION 009, LOT 22. / �\ � \ • / / o_ /`� I I 1 z \ "R,�,r,�� 2) TOTAL AREA = lo9*-J d� . � / _�� l \� z I m `� \ \ o3) MAP REFERENCE: PLAN OF PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED \ _ / FRO • _ \ \ _ 41 .r4--;,:, D TO FRANCES \ \ -- / / , O_ I • EG�fING i7 HYD! \ J ,' -' \ \ \ \ ' � '- B. RAUCH AT FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK, CHANDLER & PALMER ENG'RS, \ \ \ - �� I ( GE N _ I \ \ NORWICH, CONN., MARCH 7, 1967; SCALE: 1"=40'; ADDITIONS TO o _ N ' I \ I MAY 30, 1985. _ / \ ti I I 0 , 1" I 1 \ \\ c^� 4) PROPOSED LOT TO BE SERVICED BY MUNICIPAL WATER AND ON SITE \ \ / / \, I , \ CONCRETE ,. o \ \ i ' 1 ( I �� /;/ I eye, \ \ \ ------ ELer� SEWAGE DISPOSAL. ti \ , / / ' / \ \ I \ \ \ 5) SITE IS LOCATED IN ZONING DISTRICT R-80. s'ps �ocwNc cAS11Nc 6 C.UORDINATE DISTANCES ARE MEASURED FROM U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC to o \ \ \ / F�� I I , . / \ I \ / / / / I ' \� �,/ PQM I 1 `� TO CRADE SURVEY TRIANGULATION STATION "PROS". / • ........... / //, / I \ / BOG j / ' O = nNis►,m cwwE 7) —1-4. . E e,�-nUG-� 5' 2,C�N o F GJsL�/ Z'� (J5 .a �o _�� BY THE ....., + e .e:cA MRE ,JoH.J G.Eu4-,.S �+= 13 3 I \ / o % \ - .. ize;e oA w+R N i�etneA.�►A-/,1 .�-Ye►_o J.G•-z.ta4•e.Ge�F' ►ed +� l 2 Srwtr�-r �1 Je. Nerco TLET / if i / / / l \, , /� ^ m r -55 • / Q n7� ; - 4 I , 'AL. I , �� Lc plc J L�rGa,cJl/a��T��,1/r►7 �. o ' • / • / ✓ / / / -..I (n / / f,,•,.... INIFf 1�� �..�.r� —'r_'�.�- a ,L4--/-G�fC•�YL�,�.JI�.R �/ /`�. l--lye 8./- d.IZ�• �• /'_"+a-c--_�GL�, n • • / n ^ I�:: CONT/11101/1 HOT Z Q z / • / / / � m_ o m 0/ / o C °1- Id L��Y I I ASPHALT!x ;, i / I ' / D 0 �O cn / / �• /,P Pip H. g T� ��� II �4'WHEW acT SMILE�'° 'a w I. t. PROPERTY 0 • I , / 72° / D _ I st, o � �� MINOR SUSI�I VI51 ON PLAN • RAUCefgati . c 1 . z 1 / ( i . . . --uf / / // 5 ----- ---- / Z. /I �, y 1� 4. atoss SE ON S / / .7'. _____ V / �, ;a�i,,a• / I I / N1052.29) \2 `` \Al / O 41 S o. 1 COMPARIENT ` 0 RILL HOLE 30 F,, Z \ ` / I I �- z 3 D / W 4626.69 o Ck�J '� �EPTIG T!K RiaANCES • \ I I \ IN BOULDER �rj N pP / // I /'\ / JOHN G4- /f NOT TO SD \ I ' \ // / ` -fes/ \ I „� N�� P 40 20 0 40 \ 1 1 \ / / co 0.001 I / F • JR. \ \ \ \ \ GRAPHIC :ALE IN FEET \ / / �_ \ S P2610011W ' w I hereby certify that this map was mode Prom I SHIERS I SL./4NEP, NEIN YORK \ \ / \ w �/F z actual surveys completed January 15, Igal I o ° o o and monuments are set as shown, Ci \ \ / // \ m o " A declaration of covenants and restrictions O 0 a JOHN �' affecting the lots In the subdivision has REISIONS • O \ / / \ • ® ® CHANDLER. PALMER 8e KING �s / =DADA w been filed In the office off the Suffolk County �--� \ \ m NDATE DESCRIPTION • / IRON \ Clerk In Libor Page L. 2 \ ` / PIPE 156.66 ® Architects, Engineers and Surveyors N S 62° 261 W 4E0.561 __. :, u, �l- -w►�� �dr�tou5 v,�►o�s 110 BROADWAY NORWICH, CT 08380 203-888-3397 FAX 203-888-7801 • Q I \ x 1 ,c ,. \M k M r ../. A. x --=„ — - S 62°2610011 W 0s I am familiar with the standards for approval l \ / r,iglN LINK FENCE • \ i� and construction of subsurface sewage disposal,1 \ \ r • • . /�� systems for single family residence and will . • I N/F N/F I N/F I PLUG IN • abide by the conditions set forth therein and , : I N/F I • RICHARD A. MILLER JOHN C. EVANS WILLIAM J. 8a P�'R/C!A J. WILLIAM R. 8 MARY ALICE THOMAS DOHERTY, JR. a SIDEWALK on the permit to construct. MARK 'A' DATE: FEBFJARY 22, 1993 JUN 2 3 2005 FAULKl1EI HAASE CAROLYN J. DOI-ERTY MATCH _ — _ SCALE: 1" =40' 1 • .rf-` al j2 )6' ;IP?I • • APPLICANT _ r.:12:::.!-$? .. .�. ,� SHEET 1 01 1 -�