Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-113.-7-19.11Memo to File Date: 11/01/04 Re: Michael Piscano Lot Line Change Application SCTM# 1000-113-7-19.11 This file is hereby considered closed due to denial by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the requested variance. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman Gerard P. Gochringer Lydia A. Tortora Vincent Orlando James Dinizio, Jr. Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P,O. Box 1179 RECEI KD O d, 11971-0959 ¥' ~0~ 3:~__0Tel. (6313 765-1809 ;~f~ (63 i)765-9064 http://sou~holdtown.northfork.net ~~ aOA OV APP YoWh gl{ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD F~NDING& DEI.]BERA TION$ AN0 DECISION Meeting of October 7, 2004 ZBA File No. 5588 - Michael Plaaneno Property LocotJon: 1457 Cox Nank Road, Mattltuck - CTM No. 113-7-t9.11 SE DET IN ON: The Zoning Board of Appoaie has visited the property under consideration In this application and determines that this review fells under tho Type II category of the State's Llat of Actions, wtihout an adverse effect on tho environment If the project ia Implemented as planned. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hasting on this application on September 14, 2004, at which time whiten and oral evidence were presented. Baaed upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, end other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to he true and relevant: PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Tho applicant's survey dated September 2g, 1999, last revised August S, 2003 by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S., shews the property ls vacant, with 51.31 ft. frontage along the wast side of Cox Neck Road In Maffituck, end with a total land area of 72,974 sq. ~, inclusive of 50 ~ wide fight-of-way easement areas. Tho property Is Iooated in the R-80 Low-Denelty Residential Zone District. FIRST AND SECOND BASIS OF APPEAL APPUCATIC.~: (A) On August 12, 2004, · request for an area variaeoa, based on a dlrsot appeal under New York Town Low Section 277(6), requesting the creation of en undersized lot, based on the applloanre land being the remainder of property left after lot Iloa changes In 1985 In the immediate area, and (B) on September 14, 2004, a request for an area variance, based on an appeal of the Building Department's amended September 14, 2004 Notice of Dloapproval, which denied mt appflcetion for a building permit dated Auguot 31, 2004 to construct a new single family dwelling, on the grounds that the bulk schedule requlras a minimum lot elze of 80,DO0 square feet. DIRECT APPEAL E : The applicant has requested a direct appeal under Section 277(6) of New York Town Law, however, It ls noted that Section 277(6) applies only where s subdivision plat contains one or more lots which do not comply with the zoning regulations. The applicant's property is not shown on a plat shewing lots, blocks or sites, with or without streets or highways, or a plat already tiled in the office of the Suffolk county clerk. Therefore, the Board procoade to the Jurisdiction for eppllcanra requested area variance, based on the Building Department's amended September 14, 2004 Notloa of Disapproval. A A VAR E RE EST: The applicant requests an area variance under New York Town I~w, Section 267B conoarnlng a land area conelstJng of 72,974 sq. ft., instead of the code required 80,000 square feat. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal Inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board tinde the following facts to he true end relevant: 1. Grant of an area variance will product an undaslrsble change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The requested area variaece Involves a proposed Page 2 - October 7 ZBA File No. 5588 - Michael Plcacano 113-7-19.11 at Mattltuck parcel area of 37,974 sq. ft., out Of 72,g74 aquae feet of tho total property. The right-of-way and/or olaemant areae con-lac of at least 35,000 sq. fi., which lc not permlfied under the (:ode to be Included for building or donaity calculations Involving crestlon of a lot under Ch. 106 of the Town Code. TeeUmony wes also received from neighborhood raeldonta, who expre&eed conceal for a change In the eaeential quality of tho celghborhood and the de-valuation of the nearby raeldliUal prondsae. Impactl from subetanUal fi#lng of the abpllcent'a property and regarding near adjacent right-of-ways and other natghborlng lard would result and tho applicant hoe not offered expert testimony to the contrapj. The beard notes that the purpoae of tho R-80 Low-Dlialty ffealdentlal Dlatrlct lc to provide the open rural environment ce highly valued by year.round reeldoot~ and those periona who aupport tho Town of Southold'o recmatJon, rae(xl lid aecond-home economy. Tho economic, ccolel and ae'thatic benefice which can be obMIned for all clitzlia by limiting lees of ouch aroae are well documented and have Inapired c heat of governmental progrernl daelgned, with varying degrees of auccesc, to achieve this result. At the camo time, the town hoe an obligation to exercles Itl authority to reasonably regulate tho cubdlvialon and development of lend to further the acme purposes. 2. Tho relief a~ requaetad is cubetantJal. Although the total area owned by applicant is 72,974 sq. f~., only 37,974 aq. ft. le applicable aea clngle parcel for a dwelling. The 37, T94 sq. ft. area meets only 52% of the coda required 80,000 sq. ft. 3. No evidence hoe been submlfied to indicate that the propeeed lot cize variance will not have an adverse Impact on physical or environmental conditions In the nelghbo~houri. Concerns were ralaed at the healing with regard to the need to fill thc applicant's property and to re-grade the laid, and thc creation of flooding into other land araec due to alterctionc In re-grading actlvltlee. The land ia contoured, and contalnc · large depreeslon below grade level which acts cc natural drainage for aurroundlng lands. 4. The difficulty for tho agpllcant I$ aelf-Grestad. The property wac suld and suqulred without obtaining a building permit or other town approval for c single-family dwelling, and with knowledge of the applicable R-80 Raeldentlal Zoning Dlatrlct. 5. To grant the SUbStantial relief es requested reiultl In a de facto zoning change to less than the code required 80,000 sq. fi. In thle R-80 Recldnntial Zone Dlatrict. 6. Thle determination dona not affect any prior determination by the Zoning Board of Appcela with respect to the subject property relating to lesuae not before thc Zoning Board on this application. RESOLUTION OF THE BOAp_n: In considering all of thc above factor~ and applying thc balancing ta~t under New Yo~ Town Law 267oB, motion wes offered by Chclrwomli Olive, seconded by Member Tortora, to DENY the variance, es applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayee: Mambere Olive (Chairwoman), Goehrlnger and Tortoro. Hays: Orlando and Dlnlzlo. Thle Raeolution wes duly edopNl'6r(3~?). , RUTH D. OLIVA, CHAiRWOMAN t / I.,~/04 Approved for Filing 0~/2~/2~4 14:11 531 LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEAL8 TUEaOAy, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE I$ HEREBY GIVEN, pumuant fo ~ectiOn 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold. the fOllowing pub#c heating will be held by Ihe SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF ~4.t~e Ta~.c~.H..ll,..S3Og5 Main Reed. P.O. Box, '119, .~outhold, ~ Ymk11971-0959, on ~ ,q , a~ me ,,me noted below (or es ~oon thereafter as po~mlble): 10:45 AM ~ #~588. Direct appeal under New York Town Law Section 277(6), requesting an area variance under Article III, ~lection 100-32, Bulk Schedule, conceminga lot containing 72,975 ~1. ft. instead of the current code requirement of 80,000 sq. ft. Location of Property; 1457 COX Neck Reed, MaUttuck; CTM 113-7-19.11. The Boarcl of Appeals will hear ell pets(ms, or their representmivas, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit wi;~k,n statements before the ca~cfusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not Staff eadier than designated above. Files am evailal)M for review during regular business hours. If there are questions, please do not heslt~te to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: August 24, 2004. Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwomen Board of Appeals TO: FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: S~ptember 2, 2004 AMENDED: September 14, 2004 Patricia Moore A/C Pisacano 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Please take notice that your application dated September 1, 2004 For construction of a new single family dwelling at Location of property: 1457 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. NY SEP I 4 ~0o4 CountyTax Map No. 1000- Section 113 Block7 Lot 19.11 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed construction is not oermitted oursuant to bulk schedule, which states that the reauired lot si~e in the R-80 District is 80,000 square. The lot measures 72,974 square feet in total size. This ~lgtice of Disapproval was amended on Sgptember 14s 2004~ to correct errors. CC: file, Z.B.A. APPLICA~ TO IOffice Note~: THE SOUTHOLD TOW ~D OF APPEAI.,S Cox Neck Road Mattituck Parcel Location: l'louse No. St~eel Hamlet SCTM 1000 Section_LL3_Block ol_Lot{s) 19.ILL01 Size 72974 Zoue Diwrict r-80 I(~V'E) APPEAL%HE WTLITTEN DETER3ilNATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED: pursuant co Town La~ 277(6) direct appeal) and ~ottce of Disapproval ~ated Septenber 14, 2004 Applicant/Owner(s): ~ichael Ptsacano Mailing Address: P.O.Box 1931 Southold NY 11971 Telephone: 298-8808 (Deli) Authorized Representative: Patricta ¢. ~oore Esq. Address: 51020 ~ain Road, Southold R¥ 11971 Telephone: 765-4330 Please specify ~vho yon wish correspondence to be mailed lo, from Ihe above listed names: [3 Applicant/Owner(s) · Antborized Representative O Other: X.VHEREB¥ THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DEN1ED .AN APPLICATION DATED 9[ 1/04 FOR: · -. gf'Bn tiding Permit 13 Certificate of Occupancy [3 Pre-Certificate of Occopaacy [] Change of Use [] Permit for As-Built Construction O Appeal Pursuant to Town Law 277(6) Lo~ Size Other: Notice of Disapproval dated Snptember 14~ 2004 Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Indicate Article, Seclion, Subsection and paragraph of ZoningOrdinance by nnmbers. Do not quote ~e code. Bulk ScheduLe Article ~II Section 100- Subsection Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: ~ A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zooing Map. U A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. O Interpretation of the Town Code, Article Section O Reversal or Other A prior appeal ~ has 0 has not been made with respect to this proper~ UNDER Appeal No. Year q/Il/03 Reason for Appeal Zoning Board of Appeals re: Michael Pisacano AS AMENDED Continued Pursuant to Town Law section 267b-3 the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals is to analyze and assess the personal benefits anticipated by the applicant against the potentially deleterious effects that a grant of the relief requested would have on the health, safety and welfare of the effected neighborhood or community. In performing this balancing test, the Zoning Board is charged with the responsibility to consider the five factors enumerated in Town Law Section 267b-3(b). The variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if the variance is granted. The lot in it's present configuration has been in existence since 1985, prior to that time it was one larger lot owner by William Chudiak. In 1985 Chudiak the neighbors along Cox Neck Road who had undersized lots of 12,500 square feet in size asked Mr. Chudiak to sell them a portion of his property. Wells increased their lot by 10,000 sq. ft., Wanat increased their lot by slightly over 10,000 sq. ft. resulting in an increase of the undersized lots to a more conforming size of ~ acre in a two acre zone. The Planning Board had Mr. Chudiak make separate applications for each lot line change and granted four lot line changes to Adjacent owners Wanat, Wells, Becker and Zabicky. December 17, 1985 the Planning Board took &ction on emch application for lot line modification separately. Becket and Zabicky lot line changes accomplished by the buyers due to unknown reasons. were not The Applicant now must obtain a variance for the creation of an undersized lot which was left behind after the lot line changes of Wanat and Wells. The Wanat and Wells parcels remain undersized nonconforming lots but were doubled in size at the detriment of the Chudiak/Pisacano parcel. The remaining parcel is 1.6 acres, more than double the size of the Wanat and Wells parcel. If the three parcels were to be presented for lot line changes today each lot line modification would stand alone as a favorable improvement to an improved nonconforming property. Not only would the lots be more conforming they would also be conforming to the Health Department standards of one acre minimum, for private well and sanitary. The subject parcel, even after the lot line modification of 1985, remains larger than all the parcels to the north and south which front Cox Neck. While this area is zoned two acre (R-80) the existing lots along Cox Neck Road are less than two acres in size. Adjacent parcels on Cox Neck Road and across the road on Cox Neck Road the lots are .25 acre, 50 x 250, in some cases the properties merged to at best increase to 100 x 250. To the north parcels are .5 acres in size, as late as 1997 the Foster subdivision allowed undersized lots. The ZBA granted the creation of a lot in appeal #4423 on 10/17/96 and subject to a 50' right of way alond the entire south side of the parcel. Most development along Cox Neck Road is of lots that are less than the required 2 acres. No undesirable change to the character of the area in that the lot is similarly developed to other lots in the surrounding area. The applicant has designed a modest home on the subject property, the house requires no variances, and the property does not require a change to the topography or extensive regrading. The applicant will control their own water runoff with dry-wells, as required. The drainage in the area, complained of by the neighbors, should be addressed by the Town with the drainage area which was to be dedicated to the Town of Southold and continues to show up as a privately owned parcel (10000-113-7-19.29). 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The lot is land remaining from Planning Board action in 1985. The lot was purchased as a buildable parcel, at fair market value, and has Health Department approval. Denial of an area variance for this existing parcel will sterilize the lot and leave a parcel which is surrounded by developed lots. The owner will lose the cost of the property $90,000.00, and closing costs, paying taxes and interest on loans for the past two years and the added cost of obtaining approvals and litigation which is up to $30,000.00. The owner has borrowed and begged family and friends to keep from losing everything. The applicant purchased the property with a single and separate title search, clear title and a survey. The financial hardship would be severe. 3. The area variance is not substantial The application of the balancing test weighs in favor of the grant of the variance. The 10t is 1.6 acres in size, 72,974 square feet (80,000 is required) the variance is for 7,026 sq.ft. The parcel is a flag 10t with conforming width and depth. No variances for the construction of a house is required. The access is shared along the south end of the flag with the adjacent parcel owned by Milowski, Wells and Wanat. The right- of-way does not interfere with or impact the development of the house. The parcel is wooded and the surrounding property owners either face Cox Neck Road, or the south end of the right-of-way. The Hillicker Lot (tax map #19.10) has a house, large boat storage and repair building, and numerous boats stored on the property. The proposed lot faces an illegal commercial use on a undersized residential property. The proposed lot has much less impact on the neighborhood than the illegal boat repair commercial use on the neighborhood. 4. The variance will have no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. There are no wetlands. The parcel is created from the same land which Wells and Wanat now enjoy. Drainage from the development of the parcel can be addressed by use of drywells. Tax Lot 1000-113-7-19.29 was created and approved by the Planning Board for a Town Drainage Area. The neighbors had expressed objection due to drainage issues caused by other properties on Cox Neck Road. This lot will control their own rain runoff, the Town must address the drainage issued through the construction of sumps. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self-created. The owner purchased the property with clean title and a pending approval for construction. The land exists, the lot appears to be a standard construction lot, it is not a road end. The lot was created by the Planning Board through the subdivision process of land to the west or lot line changes of surrounding parcels to the south. No one knew or believed that this parcel would be considered ~not approved by Planning Board action" or left with uncertain status before he closed on the title. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance practicable given the personal benefits anticipated by the applicant. The area variance for the lot size is the only action available to the applicant. It is the only variance required and he can not make this lot more conforming through lot line changes from adjacent parcels because that is how this lot became undersized. Certainly, neither Wanat or Wells would sell back the land which was sold to them from Chudiak which made their improved parcels more conforming. We respectfully request that the appeal be together with any further relief that is necessary and reasonable. granted, deemed signature State of New York ) )ss County of Suffolk ) Sworn to this /~ Notary Public N~ 4~5913 ,~ _~_ i~&zTOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD ~)WNER' ~.~.,' ) ,//'A'" .; b ' ~o~ER ~, .... ES. /,,g, (j 1 SEAS. VL. ;FARM -~ I ~" i CO/¢¢4. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value ~'~,91~ LAND J IMP. ///c, o liable aoclland ~u.~ Plot tal FRONTAGE ON ROAD BULKHEAD APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer Lydia A. Tortora Vincent Orlando James Dinizio, Jr. TOWN MEMO http://sout holdtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall ~)(~_v 53095 Main Road Vt"0// P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBECT: Jeri Woodhouse, PB Chairwoman Members of the Planning Board Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Ruth Oliva, ZBA Chairwoman August 26, 2004 Appeal No. 5588 - M. Pisacano CTM 113-7-19.11 at Mattituck In accordance with New York Town Law, Section 277(6), recommendations are requested from the Planning Board concerning the above appeal for an area variance pending with our Department. The Board of Appeals must receive your recommendations before September 13, 2004. PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971-4616 BY HAND Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 August 12, 2oq4 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, NY 11971 Re: Michael Pisacano Premises: Cox Neck Road, Mattituck, SCTM # 1000-113-7-19.11 NY Dear Ladies/Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a completed Subdivision Application Form with attachments for the above referenced matter, along with check #1437 of Michael Pisacano, dated August 12, 2004, payable to the Town of Southold in the amount of $250.00. If you need anything else, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very t?ly yours, PCM/mm Enclosures PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILhrN B. WOODHOUSE Chair RICHARD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Planning Board From: Anthony Trezza Senior Planner Date: August 5, 2004 Re: Pisacano Lot Line Modification 1000-113-7-19.11 As requested, we have verified the current property owner information for the two lots which were subject to a lot line modification approval in 1985. Both Wanat and Zabicky are still listed as the current property owners, however Zabicky is now known as Siderakis. Please advise if you need additional information. PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 July 15, 2004 Southold Town Planning Board Jeri Woodhouse, Chairwoman Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Michael Pisacano 1000-113-07-19.11 200,; Dear Ms. Woodhouse: In accordance with our discussion at the Planning Board work session, enclosed please find the a copy of the survey which shows the existing configuration of the property. The subject property is the balance of land previously owned by Mr. William Chudiak (now deceased), a long time farmer and large landowner along Cox Neck Road. The deeds to this land date back to 1956. This 1.675 acre parcel was the subject of lot line change applications which were initiated by mutual consent of the abutting owners of Tax lot number 15, 16, 19.18 and 19.19 (see tax map attached). The Planning Board approved the lot line changes in 1985. Thereafter only lot 19.18 and 19.19 completed the lot line change with the appropriate deed restrictions that the lot line change constituted one combined lot. Mr. Chudiak was left with the subject property remaining, lot 15 and 16 could not complete the lot line change. In 2001 Mr. Chudiak was very elderly and disposing of all his properties. This lot was offered to the adjacent owners through Celic's Real Estate office. The adjacent owners were not interested in purchasing this land. Mr. Pisacano went into contract and proceeded to obtain Health Department approval to construct a single family residence on this property. Communications with Ed Forester, the principal building inspector at the time recognized this lot and was prepared to issue a building permit. In December 2001 Mr. Pisacano purchased the property as a buildable lot. Since 2001 Mr. Pisacano has been paying on loans and incurring debt. with appeals and litigation. A Zoning appeal was submitted in 2003 to overturn the determination of the building inspector that this lot was not a recognized lot, but after months of hearings and testimony the Board failed to make a finding on the issue on September 11, 2003 and the only recourse available to Mr. Pisacano was an Article 78 appeal. The Court in May 2004 upheld the ZBA that their failure to make a decision pursuant to Town Law 267-a (8) resulted in a denial of the application. Moreover the Town claimed that the ZBA had not issued a variance for the lot size which was less than 2 acres (this lot is 72,974.44). Mr. Pisacano begins again- he requests that the Planning Board review and ratify the two lot line changes which were approved in 1985 and consummated with the sale of the property and filing of covenants. The remainder parcel will be recognized as a lot being 72,974.44, subject to ZBA approval of an undersized lot. The building inspector can not issue a notice of disapproval for creation of the undersized lot until the Planning Board ratifies the two lot line changes (rather than four lot line changes of 1985). Without the notice of disapproval we can proceed to the ZBA for an area variance for the lot size. The Health Department has already approved this lot and once the ZBA grants the approval the parcel can be developed with a conforming single family residence (no variances were needed for the placement of the house. We thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, cc: Town Attorney Mr. Pisacano Valerie Scopaz, Planner Patricia C. Moore PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGLANO Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Subdivision Application Form APPLICATION TO APPROVE RENAINDER LOT AND MODIFY PRIOR LOT LlblE APPLICATIONS Name of Subdivision: Lot of Michael Pisacano Suffolk County Tax Map # ~000- 113 - 07 -19.11 / Type of Subdivision: Major Minor Cluster Subdivision: Yes x No Set-Off x Lot-Line modification of Hamlet: liattituck Street Location; cox Neck Road Acreage: 1.67 acres 72,976.6/* Number of Lots: one (one lot prior to lot line changes) Zoning District: R-80 Date: 8/10/04 Please Bst name, maiBng address, and phone number for the people below: Applicant: Hichae! Pisacano P.O.Box 1931 Southold, NY 11911 Agem handling the application: (Contact Person) Patricia C. Moore Esq. 51020 Main Road $outhold, NY 11971 Michael Pisacano Property Owner(s): Surveyor: Joseph Ingegno P.O.BOX 1931 Riverhead, NY 11901 Engineer: Attorney: Patricia C. Moore 5i020 main ROad $outhold, NY 11971 765-4330 Other Agent(s): Has this property had a previous application to the Planning Board? Has this property previously received a SEQRA review? Have you had any pre-submission conferences with the Planning Board? Does this application have variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals? ~, - Is this property adjacent to any bodies of water? Yes Are there any wetlands on the property? Yes Are there public water mains in an adjacent street? Yes Is public water proposed for the subdivision? Yes Is the majority of the property forested? Yes Is any part of the property in active agricultural use? Yes Is there a mortgage on the property? Does the owner own any adjacent properties? Is there an existing or proposed sale of development rights on the property? Yes (~ Yes (~ Are there any building permits currently pending on this Crooertv? (~ No Yes (~ so Yes ~ No The Town of $outhold's Code o£ Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the pg~t of_,town officers and employees. The purpose of ti]is form is to provide informatioll which can alert the town of possible co~flicts of interest and allow it to take whateYer action is necessar~ to avoid same. (Last alame, CLc~t tt~m~ m~dd.te initLai, un~s~ (If "Other," name the ac't£v~ty.) provided. parent, or ch[id is (che~k all that appl¥)~ PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the enviro'~ment. Please complete the entire form, Parts ^ through E. Answers to these questions wilJ be Considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will he needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full E^F will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME°FACTiON ZOO- -- LOCATION OF ACTION ~[nclude Slfeel Address, Munlclpallly and County) .^ME oF ^ppL.cA.T,SPO"SOR eUS'"ESS TELEP'O"E NAME OF ~N~R ~f different) ~ BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS STATE I ZIP CODE Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed ,~nd undeveloped ai'eas. 1. Present land use: I-II'lrban I"llndustrial t-ICommercia[ ~esidentiai (suburban} [:]Rural (non-tarn' I-IForest I-IAgriculture (:]Other 2. Total acreage of project area: /, ~:~;;:' acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres acres F o r e s tt,e,d,,~oo,//t~) acres acres Agrictdttu~r~l ~fn-cT~d'des orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) /', ~ acres ~ ~, ~ acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill} acres acres Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other (Indicate type) L/-'z~,~/'' acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? a. Soil drainage: I-IWell drained /Or2 % of site C]Moderately well drained _ % of site I-}Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the N' Land Classification System? acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppir~gs on project site? I-lYes ~o a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet} 2 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ~0-10% % O10-15% O15% or greater 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? OYes 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ~]Yes ..~o §. What is the depth of the water table? /7 ! (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? OYes 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? OYes 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? [:]Yes [~o According to ~/)t.~,~"c:~' ~ ~ Identify each species /'~ ./~,~-~ / 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e,, cliffs, dunes, other geological formations)- OYes ~['~ o Describe 13. Is the project site p/resently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? [:]Yes J~No If yes. explain 14. Does the present sit,,include scenic vews known to be important to the community? [=]Yes J.3~o 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. La~,~s, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: / a. Name b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? [~Yes a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow Connection? [:]Yes ' ON0 b) If yes, will improyements be necessary to allow connection? OYes ENo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district Certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? nyes ,~No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article g of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 C3Yes l;~No ' 20. Has the site ever been used for the c~isposal of solid or hazardous wastes? C]Yes B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor. C~ b. Project acreage to be developed: /. ~, acres initially; /- c. Proiect acreage to remain undeveloped C~ acres. d. Length of project, in miles: A//:'~ (If appropriate) e, 'If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed C.~ %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing (';) ; proposed g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ~///~ · (upon' completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family initially _~ / Ultimately I, Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; width; j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare prolect will occupy Is? 3 acres. acres ultimately. Condominium length. ft. 2, How much natural material (i.e.. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? EYes [~No I~IA a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [~Yes ENo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? E]Yes ONo 4 How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed-from site? ~"~-,-) acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years'old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? F'lYes ~]No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: I'~l a. Total number of phases anticipated b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? g. Will blasting occur during construction? I-lYes 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? (number). O tons/cubic yards months, (including demolition). month year, (including demolition). month year. [~Yes CINo ; after project is complete [:]Yes ~No If yes, explain 1 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? E]Yes ~[INO a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? I~Ye, f-INo Type 14. Will sudace area of an existing water body increase or decrease by pr0posal~ ~Yes Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? [3Yes ~[No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~]Yes [:]No a. If yes, what is the amount per month t ~¥eo.. _ ~ b. d. If yes, will an existing 'solid waste facili~ be used? 4~Yes C]No If 'yes,.give name C.4.,~l~i~t.,c~ if(~t,('~' ~J~c~0-~;, location E'-~L~lt3~,'tJ--~- Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ~lY~s ~4~do If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? E]Yes a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. project use herbicides or pesticides? [~Yes ~J~No tons/month. 18. 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? [3Yes D~o 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? [:}Yes 21. Will project result in an increase i,3~nergy use? I~Yes I-INo ~_ f yes . ,ndlcate type{s) ~ :c'~,,J~ ~c,~e fl~,1- 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity ~ gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day (~0 · gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? I-lYes ~kHo If Yes. explain 25. Approvals Required: City. Town, Village Board ~Yes [:]No City. Town, Village Planning Board ~Yes [:]No City, Town Zoning Board ~.Yes []No City, County Health Department '~Yes []No Other Local Agencies [~Yes UNo Other Regional Agencies [:]Yes ~.No State Agencies OYes ,[~No Federal Agencies []Yes [~o Submittal Type Dale . / C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planaing or zoning decision? ~Yes [3No It Yes, indicate decision required: [:]zoning amendment (~oning variance [:]special use permit [:]subdivision [:]site plan [~new/revision of master plan [:]resource management plan [=]other ~-~f 2. What is the zoning classification(s~of the site? ~-~- 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? / 4.-,What is the proposed zoning of .the site? 5. ~What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitl~d by the proposed zoning? 6. Is,the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ,~'es []No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ~,~ mile radius of proposed action? 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ~,~ mile? ,,~es C]No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land~ how many lots are proposed? . a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? [:3Yes ~o 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? [:]Yes ~:~4o ' a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? []Yes [:]No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? C]Yes' ~No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? [:3Yes [:]No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may he needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponso.pNam~? .'~l'/..Ld,~'~"/ /~f5~7.'"~.,'¢'~, ~ ~"~b~ Date., ~/~>X If the action Ii In the Coastal Area, and you are a lille agency, complete th~oaital Assessment Form before proceeding with this usessment. 5 D. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS AND WATER SUPPLY NARRATIVE REQUEST Attach any additional information as may be needed to c~ar/fy your p[oject. If th.er.e are or may be, a. ny adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and tl~e measures wmcn you propose to mitigate or avoid them. 1. Provide explanation of existing site use, occupancy, structures, sanitary flow, water use; compare to proposed use, occupancy, structures, sanitary flow, water use. ~'a~C~.~-/~ ~'~,o/~/'r~-~f 2. Indicate the source of water supply, nearest public water main, nearest public well field, and adjacent private wells (if known), fr~ ~ct2x w,t tt' - f~'5 td'et~-£ t.c~4. 3. If public water supply is proposed, indicate the ability of the water utility to provide water supply to the project. Provide letter of water availability or detailed explanation of status of review by water utility. 4. If private water supply is proposed, indicate the well specifications, water quality based on on-site water quality data. Provide Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval or detailed explan~ation of status 9f review by ~)gency._ 5. Indicate proposed water conservation measures that will mitigate for unavoidable adverse impacts (If any). Conservation measures should include, but not be limited to: a. The use of drought tolerant plants for landscaping. b. The preservation of exis/~ing native vegetative buffers. c. The conservation of e>fsting open space areas. d. The implementation 5f "natural" stormwater management practices (grass swales, filter sthps, created wetlands, etc...). ~t~-e'c~.t.r_~e ~r,,~/-~t~ --~t.~5~ ~a~.~ ~ P- E. VERIFICATION I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Signature,~~57~.. Date Title If the action is in the Coas. tal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. LASER FICHE FORM SUBDIVISIONS Project Type: Lot Line Chan,qes Status: ~ ¢_-/.~,5~ SCTM # · 1000 - 113.-7-19.11 Proiect Name: Pisacano, Michael Location: Cox Neck Road, Mattituck Hamlet: Mattituck Applicant Name: Michael Pisacano Owner Name: Michael Pisacano Zone 1' R-80 Approval Date: PLAT Signed Date: OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A date indicates that we have received the related information Zone 2: C and R's · Homeowners Association · R and M A,qreement: Address: County Filin.q Date: Zone 3: SCAN Dat~ NO SURVEY OF:~ PROPERTY ~TTi~CK TOWN OF' ~H,G.LD SUFFOLK cO'Ut'¢1~.~ ,N~E~ YOR~ S.C. TAX No. 1~%1~-07--19.11 SC~ ~1=~' SEPT~ ~ 1999 © 0 ~Z 0 ~,, I s'5;O0' LUCY NEUD~CK WICf{&EL iV~UDECK SUBVEY OF~ PROPERTY SITUA~ ~T MATg~CK TOWN OF ~THOLD SUFFOLK CO~N~; NE~ YORK S.C. TAX No. I~113-07,-19,1~ SEPTE~ ~, 1999 ~ ~1 U~0 ~Mm~0, LOT OWNERS ~S 'l ¥ © N/O/F ~LU~4~