HomeMy WebLinkAboutPadovan, Angelo (2) 0
W
lZ °/
~"r
lOl-~O &7TM_ Li~tV~
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIA GE. OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF iNFORMATION OFFICER
TOgl/JV HALL, 53095 MAIN ROAD
P.O. BOX l179
SOUTHOLD NY 11971
FAX: 631-'765-.6145
TELEPHONE: 631- 765-1800
southoldtown, northfork, net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS
INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (age~ncy
Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as
an interim response.
SECTION I.
TO:
(Department or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting).
RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file
title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information).
I0oo I - ]
Signature of Applicant:
Printed Name:
Address:
Mailing Address (if different from hbove):
Telephone Number: '~,,~- ~[2:~ I ,~'~-
[ ] APPROVED
[ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY*
Elizabeth A. Neville
Freedom of Information Officer
Accepting Clerk's Initials __
[ ] DENIED*
JAN 2 4 2008
Dat $outhol,J town (lerl~
Hand c~o department?
Yes V No Applicant's initia~
*If delayed or denied, see reverse side for explanation.
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
M~RRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown.nort hfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
2
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 768 OF 2002
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON NOVEMBER 19, 2002:
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2002
In the matter of the application of Proper-T Permit Services, appellant, to reverse the
determination of the Southold Town Trustees made on February 20, 2002, denying applicant
permission to construct a single-family dwelling, partially on pilings, with an on-site sewage
disposal and public water system located on the property owned by Angelo and Josephine
Padovan, of 22455 Sound View Avenue, Southold: SCTM #1000-135-1-23 & 24.1.
RELIEF REQUESTED
This is an appeal to reverse the decision made by the Southold Town Trustees dated
February 20, 2002, issued to Proper-T Permit Services, on behalf of Angelo and Josephine
Padovan, denying their request to "construct a single-family dwelling, partially on pilings, with
on-site sewage disposal system and public water." Appellant requests that the board reverse the
decision of the Trustees and grant a variance on the following grounds:
1. Appellant maintains that a variance would not compromise the existing shorefront natural
features, cause significant adverse effects upon the environment or put the proposed dwelling in
harm's way.
2. Appellant maintains that there is no other reasonable, prudent, or alternative site owned by
Mr. and Mrs. Padovan that is not already developed and thus, the present location is the only
available site for said purpose.
3. Appellant alleges that the design of the proposed structure will be such that the only intrusion
into the beach area will be the installation of pilings necessary to support the seaward portion of
the structure above the beach area.
4. Applicant further maintains that, based upon the long-term and damage-free survival of
several structures of similar type located to the west as well as to the east of the proposed
structure, it can be expected that said smlcture will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion
damage.
5. In addition, applicant maintains that the variance requested is the minimum necessary to
overcome the practical difficulty and necessary hardship which is the basis for the relief
requested.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Town Board of the Town of Southold held public hearings on this application on
June 18, 2002, and July 16, 2002, at which time both written and oral evidence was presented.
Based upon the review of the files of the Town Clerk's Office, the Trustees' Office, the
testimony and minutes of both the Trustee and Town Board public hearings, personal inspection
of the property, a review of a side elevation drawing submitted by applicant dated December 10,
2001, a survey submitted by applicant last dated May 23, 2001, and all other relevant
documentation, the Town Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant:
Relevant Code Provisions
Section 37-30 of the Southold Town Code addresses variances within the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Area. Initially, the law clearly indicates that the applicant shall bear the burden of
proving that, if the following criteria are met, a variance may be granted to circumvent the
restrictions imposed on the property. Key to this analysis, however, is that all of the applicable
criteria enumerated in §37-30 of the Code -- sections A, B, C, D, and, if applicable, E -- are
met. The criteria are:
A. No reasonable, prudent, alternative site is available.
All reasonable means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems
and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activity's design at the
property owner's expense.
C. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage.
D. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty
or hardship which was the basis for the requested variance.
E. Where public funds are utilized, the public benefits must clearly outweigh the long-
term adverse effects.
1. Finding of fact: Is there a reasonable, prudent, altemative site available?
In addressing this factor applicant only alleges that no other property is owned which is
not already developed. Thus, applicant's conclusion prematurely assumes that "the proposed
location of the dwelling on the property is the best location from all standpoints." Based on the
record, no alternatives have been addressed by the applicant utilizing architects, environmental
consultants, contractors, the planning board or the zoning board to move the home landward
towards Sound View Avenue. Furthermore, the survey submitted by applicant suggests that
there is in fact a portion of applicant's property, closer to Sound View Avenue, which would
possibly allow for construction and avoid, or, at the very least, diminish damage to the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area.
2. Finding of fact: Have all reasonable means and measures to mitigate the adverse impacts on
natural systems been incorporated into the activity's design at the owner's expense?
The applicant has failed to show that all responsible means and measures to lessen the
adverse impacts have been incorporated into the structure's design. Indeed, the applicant has
failed to show mitigation of adverse impacts in any way and has not articulated to any degree of
certainty how that will be addressed. Rather, applicant merely describes how the structure would
be built, and refers to the existence of pilings for "other purposes routinely permitted throughout
the Town." Applicant fails to provide any explanation or plan that will avoid or minimize any
compromise or damage to the existing shorefront and its natural features.~
3. Finding of fact: Will the development be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage?
The applicant has failed to show that the proposed structure will be reasonably safe from
flood and erosion damage. The applicant relies on the fact that other structures of similar type
are still erect and thus, it "can be expected" that this proposed structure would be free from
erosion damage. Despite this contention, however, nothing has been provided to the Board by
way of an expert or environmental consultant indicating that the area is actually reasonably safe
from flood or erosion and thus, could withstand the pressures of weather patterns without
protection and without putting the dwelling in harms way. Furthermore, applicant has failed to
submit an engineer's report addressing the state of the structures of"similar type" relied upon.
Moreover, due to the very nature of the coastal erosion hazard area and its malleability and
vulnerability to change, comparisons to other structures are not entirely sufficient to address this
factor.
Furthermore, while applicant refers to a structure currently on the property, as illustrated
in Exhibit A, it seems clear from even a brief review that the location of the proposed pilings,
cimled on said exhibit, are located significantly further seaward than the existing structure.
Moreover, though applicant does not articulate how much further seaward these proposed pilings
are, it also seems clear that said pilings, as well as any dwelling and proposed septic system, will
no doubt destroy the existing bluff and, in turn, destroy the current vegetation, with no plan
~ At the time of this application, applicant had failed to obtain a permit from the Department of Envkomnental
Conservation (DEC) of the State of New York as well as the Suffolk County Health Department, and had likewise
failed to address concerns of the Health Department with respect to swaying and sand consistency.
submitted or offered for re-growth. Indeed, it is well-settled that a bluffprotects shorelands and
coastal development by absorbing the often destructive energy of open water. Bluffs are a
source of depositional material for beaches and other unconsolidated natural protective features.2
Here, applicant's proposal would destroy all such bluffs and thus, destroy any protection the
structure may have from soil disturbance, water runoff, active erosion, and the impact of coastal
storms. For these reasons, applicant cannot submit that the development will be reasonably safe
from flood and erosion damage.
4. Finding of Fact: Is the variance requested the minimum necessary to ovemome the practical
difficulty or hardship which was the basis for the requested variance?
The applicant has failed to show that the variance requested is the minimum necessary to
overcome the difficulty or hardship. While a variance may be the minimum necessary to build
any structure on said property, this particular structure proves to be, for the lot size, a rather
large, two-story home, utilizing the entire area owned by Mr. and Mrs. Padovan and failing to
limit or minimize the damage that may be caused to the erosion area. Indeed, while the
minimum lot size for a one-family detached dwelling in the applicable R-40 zoning district is
850 square feet,3 the applicant proposes a structure with a footprint that suggests the home will
be at least 1600 square feet4 in size and approximately 36 feet above the existing grade and 45
feet above sea level. In short, applicant has failed to demonstrate any effort to minimize
permanent damage and prevent adverse effects upon both the natural protective features and the
natural resources present in the development site.
5. Finding of Fact: If public funds are utilized, do the public benefits clearly outweigh the long-
term adverse affects?
Because public funds will not be utilized, this section is not applicable and should not be
considered.
6. In addition to the above, the Board has considered all arguments and issues raised by
appellant.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applicable
standards, the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby resolves that appellant has failed to
meet his burden as required under §37-30 of the Southold Town Code. Because appellant has
failed to meet the criteria embedded in the Code, specifically, sections A, B, C, and D, the
granting of a variance would be contrary to the purpose and intent of Chapter 37, which ensures
the protection of land use and land development activities as well as the maintenance of natural
protective features and natural resources. Thus, the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
further resolves to
2 See Southold Town Code §37-17.
3 See Southold Town Code §100-30A.3.
4 Since the applicant fails to articulate the actual square footage of the proposed dwelling anywhere in the papers
submitted for review, this figure is only an estimate of the actual lot size.
DENY appellant's request to reverse the decision of the Board of Trustees denying
appellant a coastal erosion management permit and granting appellant a variance to
construct a dwelling on 22455 Sound View Avenue. Thus, the denial of the Board of
Trustees is hereby affirmed.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hail, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 411 OF 2002
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON JUNE 18, 2002:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets the time and place for
the reconvening of the public hearing for the appeal of a decision of the Southold Town
Trustees which decision denied the application of Angelo Padovan for July 16~ 2002~ at
10:00 a.m. in the Meeting Hall of the Southold Town Hall.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets
10:00 A.M., Tuesday, July 16, 2002, Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,
New York as thc time and place for a public hearing which was previously recessed and will
be reconvened on the question of appealing of a decision of the Southold Town Trustees'
denial of the Padovan application. The application was to "Construct single-family dwelling,
partially on pilings, with on-site sewage disposal system and public water". The property in
question is identified by SCTM# 1000-135-1-23 & 24.1. The application was denied under
Chapter 37 (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas) of the Town Code.
A more detailed description of the above mentioned application is on file in the Southold
Town Clerk's Office, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, and may be examined by any
interested person during business hours.
Dated: June 18, 2002
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
PLEASE PUBLISH ON .JULY 3, 2002~,.AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, PO
BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971.
Copies to the following:
The Suffolk Times
Town Board Members
Town Attorney
John Cushman, Accounting
Southold Town Trustees
Town Clerk's Bulletin Board
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFOtkM_iTION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 284 OF 2002
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON APRIL 25, 2002:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets the public hearing for
the appeal of a decision of the Southold Town Trustees which decision denied the
application of Angelo Padovan for June 18~ 2002 at 10:00 a.m. in the Meeting Hall of the
Southold Town Hall. The application was to "Construct single-family dwelling, partially on
pilings, with on-site sewage disposal system and public water". The property in questions is
identified by SCTM# I000-135-1-23 & 24.1. The application was denied under Chapter 37
(Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas) of the Town Code.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTING AS
THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW
APPLICATION OF ANGELO PADOVAN
FOR A VARIANCE TO OBTAIN A COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT PERMIT
TO:
SUPERVISOR JOSHUA Y. HORTON AND THE MEMBERS
OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD~i
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION
FOR A VARIANCE TO OBTAIN A
COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT PERMIT
This memorandum of law is being submitted bythe undersigned to this Board on July 16,
2002 in opposition to the application of Angelo Padovan for a variance to obtain a Coastal
Erosion Management Permit. I am submitting this MEMORANDUM OF LAW as part of my
appearance on July 16, 2002 before the Town Board of the Town of Southold on behalf of my
clients, who are 42 adjacent property owners who own real property at North Fork Beach
Condominiums Association. This application should be denied by the Town Board of the Town
of Southold in it's entirety because the applicants fail to establish a legal basis upon which
variance relief should be granted.
NATURE OF THE CASE
This is an application for variance relief from the setback requirements contained in
Chapter 37, COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREAS, Town Code of the Town of Southold, on
beach front property owned by the applicant. The applicant appeals a decision of the Southold
Town Board of Trustees dated February 27, 2002 which decision denied the requested relief
pursuant to Chapter 37, the issuance of a Coastal Erosion Management Permit, in it's entirety.
The applicant seeks to build a two story single family dwelling on wooded beach and waterfront
real property, partially on pilings, with on site sewage disposal system and public water, which
is within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
As a malCer of law, in order for this Board, which is acting as The Coastal Erosion Hazard
Board of Review, to grant the requested relief, this Board must determine, as a matter of law, that
the applicant has satisfied the standards of a variance. The standard of review to be considered
by this Board is enunciated in Southold Town Code §37-30, variances from standards and
restrictions which is part of Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, and in addition or in the
alternative, the general area variance standards applicable pursuant to New York State Town
Law §267-b(3)(b) should be considered.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Angelo Padovan, is the owner of real property currently improved with a
dwelling and located at 22455 Soundview Avenue, Southold, New York, Town of Southold,
SCTM # 1000-135-1 -Lots 23 & 24.1. The total acreage of the subject property, according to
the surveyor for the applicant, Anthony W. Lewandowski, by a survey prepared on November 22,
1999 and revised on July 27, 2000 and May 23, 2001, is 18,380 square feet.
The applicant appeals a decision of the Southold Town Board of Trustees dated February
27, 2002 which denied the requested relief in it's entirety, and specifically declined to issue a
Coastal Erosion Management Permit pursuant to Chapter 37 of the Town Code of the Town of
Southold, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. The applicant seeks to build a lwo story single family
dwelling on beach and waterfront real property, partially on pilings, with on site sewage disposal
system and public water, which is within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
On December 18, 2001, the applicant, Angelo Padovan, applied for approval pursuant
to Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, and Chapter 97, Wetlands, to construct a two
story single family dwelling on beach and water front real property, partially on pilings, with on
site sewage disposal system and public water, from the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold. Subsequently, the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council, which issues
advisory opinions to the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold, in an undated resolution
UNANIMOUSLY adopted a resolution recommending that the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold disapprove the requested relief pursuant to Chapter 97, Wetlands, on the grounds
that: 1 ) The applicant should provide the details of grade stabilization; 2) The proposed structure
would have a negative impact to the existing road area; 3) There is a concern with the proposed
septic design; 4} The project is within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area; and 5) If the Town of
Southold is in the business of approving houses being built within the wetlands boundary, the
Town needs to establish guidelines to address houses being built on the beach.
On February 27, 2002, The Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold disapproved the
relief requested by the applicant, the issuance of a Coastal Erosion Management Permit, on the
ground that, after reviewing Chapter 37 (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas) of the Town Code,
determined that the Code does not allow for the activities proposed to occur within that area.
The disapproval of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold did not address applicant'~
request for relief pursuant to Chapter 97(Wetlands) of the Town Cod~..
The applicant subsequently appealed the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold to the Town Board of the Town of Southold which also acts as The Coastal Erosion
Hazard Board of Review. The objectants were not aware of~ nor were they notified of, the
pendinq application before the Town of Southold until literally one day before the first public
hearinq date before the Southold Town Board in connection with the applicant's appeal of the
decision of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. This is why, even though the Board
of Trustees of the Town of Southold had nevertheless denied the relief requested by thn
applicants, the objectants had not previously made any appearances in connection with this
matter.
ARGUMENT
The Town Board of the Town of Southold acting as The Coastal Erosion Hazard Board
of Review, as a matter of law, must deny the applicant's request for a variance for the reasons
that follow:
a) CHAPTER 37 OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CODF
The applicant seeks variance relief from this Board to build on a small, wooded beach
and waterfront parcel located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area where a dwelling currently
exists. On October 8, 1991 this Board adopted Chapter 37 of the Town Code of the Town of
Southold, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. By adopting this legislation, this Board in effect only
allows construction within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas of the Town of Southold if this
Board, in appealing a denial by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold, grants variance
relief to build within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. In addition, this Board included
standards of review in Southold Town Code §37-30. However, it is unclear to me whether the
standards of §37-30, or the general standards for area variances mandated by New York State
Town Law §267-b(3)(b), are applicable in this case, thus I have analyzed the facts of this case
based on both sets of standards. Case law in New York State, however, clearly stands for the
proposition that financial loss in itself is insufficient to compel the granting of variance relief, and
"if hardship imposed upon property owner as result of area standard restrictions may be deemed
to be self-created or self-imposed, then showing of financial hardship itself does not entitle owner
to variance..." National Merritt, Inc., v. Weist, 41 N.Y.2d 438, 393 N.Y.S.2d 379 at 383 (Ct
of App. 1977). Also see Crossroads Recreation, Inc. v. Frank P. Broz et al., 4 N.Y.2d 39, 172
N.Y.S.2d 129 (Ct of App. 1958).
The findings contained in Southold Town Code §37-5 (A) state the following: "The Town
of Southold finds that the coastal erosion hazard area A. Is prone to erosion from the action of
the Long Island Sound, Gardiners Bay, Long Beach Bay and Orient Harbor. Such erosion may
be caused by the action of waves, currents running along the shore and wind-driven water and
ice. Such areas are also prone to erosion caused by the wind, runoff of rainwater along the
surface of the land or groundwater seepage, as well as by human activities such as construction,
navigation and certain forms of recreation.
I have conducted my own site inspection of the subject property. There is significant
vegetation which serves to strengthen the fragile beach front surrounding the subject property,
much of which would be destroyed or at a minimum weakened by the proposed construction.
In addition, the location is directly adjacent to Sound View Avenue, which road follows the beach
at this point and which road would be bare and unprotected should the proposed construction
take place. The views of the water by my clients, the 4/~ members of the North Fork Beach
Condominium's Association, which is located directly across the street from the subject property
on Sound View Avenue, would be eliminated by the construction as proposed. While the North
Fork Beach Condominium's Association owns a deck from Sound View Avenue to the beach
below, repairs have to be made at least annually due to damage to the deck as a direct result
of severe erosion and inclement weather conditions which are naturally occurring at a site directly
adjacent to where the applicant proposes to build a two story residence.
This Board should additionally consider the effect of precedent in granting the relief
requested by the applicant. If it truly is the intention of the Town Board of the Town of Southold
to restrict development in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas as outlined in Chapter 37 of the
$outhold Town Code, any decision bythis Board granting variance relief to a particular applicant
con be used by future applicants based on such a determination becoming "precedent" for future
cases. Thus, if the Town Board grants the relief requested by the applicant, in the future other
applicants may be entitled to such relief as a matter of law, thus in effect this Board would in
effect be either weakening or rendering entirely meaningless Chapter 37 of the $outhold Town
Code, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas by granting the relief requested by the applicant. Does this
Board want to place itself in such a position in the future?
b) ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICABLE VARIANCE STANDARD (S)
In this section of my Memorandum of Law, I will discuss the 1wa variance standards,
Southold Town Code §37~30, and New York State Town Law §267-b(3)(b). It is my position
and that of my clients that if this application is analyzed using either the standards contained in
Southold Town Code §37-30 orthe area variance standard enunciated in New York State Town
Low §267-b(3)(b), as a matter of law, this Board must deny the variance request of the applicant.
1) ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE STANDARDS CONTAINED IN
§37-30 OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CODE
In considering the application as presented, according to Southold Town Code Chapter
37, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, this Board must analyze the facts presented pursuant to
Southold Town Code §37-30. Variances from standards and restrictions, which states the
following:
Strict Application of the standards and restrictions of this chapter may cause practical difficulty
or unnecessary hardship. When this can be shown, such standards and restrictions may be
varied or modified, provided that the following criteria are met:
A_:. No reasonable, prudent, alternative site is available.
B~ All responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems and
their functions and values have been ~ncorporated ~nto the act~wty s des gn at the p operty
owner's expense.
C~. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage.
D~. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or
hardship which was the basis for the requested variance.
E. Where public funds are utilized, the public benefits must clearly outweigh the long term
adverse effects.
In applying Southold Town Code §37-30 (A) to the subject property, plenty of reasonable,
prudent alternative sites are available in the Town of Southold. This site is simply an
inappropriate site upon which to build what the applicant seeks to construct, a large two story
dwelling on pilings. There is land available elsewhere in the Town of Southold where such a
structure could be built without causing permanent, irreparable damage to the fragile beach
front of the surrounding area. In addition, due to the existing structure at the site, the applicant
already has use of the subject property. The subject property is simply too small for a large, lwo
story structure as proposed by the applicant, and the coastal erosion issues at the subject
property endanger the surrounding properties by it's development as proposed by the applicant.
There is no conforming location on the subject property upon which to build the structure
proposed bythe applicant without requiring variance relief, and without resulting in endangering
severe coastal erosion for the subject property and surrounding properties.
In applying Southold Town Code §37-30 (B) to the subject property, All responsible
means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems and their functions and
values have NOT been incorporated in~o the activity's design at the property owner's expense.
Indeed, the applicant has failed to show mitigation of adverse impacts in any way. Instead, what
the applicant is proposing to build will simply result in the destruction of natural systems and their
functions. The survey submitted by the applicant in connection with this application shows what
is certain to be the virtual destruction of the vegetation on the subject property which will result
8
in the removal of the natural vegetation which keeps the existing beach front intact. It will be
replaced by a massive two story structure on pilings that, along with the land, will thereafter lie
bare and will have to withstand the relentless pressures of weather patterns and coastal erosion
indefinitely in the future.
In applying Southold Town Code §37-30 (C) to the subject property, the development
will NOT be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage. Indeed, the reason Chapter 37
of the Southold Town Code was enacted was to discourage construction in Coastal Erosion
Hazard Areas. The construction as proposed will be subject to future damage, with all of it's
associated destruct[on. The subject prope~ is directly on the beach, and is subject to both flood
and erosion damage. Indeed, upon a site inspection of the property, I concluded that a WORSE
site does not exist within the Town of Southold when considering flood and erosion damage
issues. The construction proposed by the applicant is simply a disaster waiting to happen, and
is contrary to both the spirit and intent of Chapter 37 of the Southold Town Code.
In applying Southold Town Code §37~30 (D) to the subject property, the variance
requested is the not the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship which
was the basis for the requested variance. Instead, it is precisely the opposite, a two story
residence on pilings which includes large a deck on an extremely small parcel. The structure as
proposed is far from the minimum necessary, indeed it is simply overkill, especially considering
the small size of the subject parcel and the fragile location where it is proposed directly within
the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
In applying Southold Town Code §37~30 (E) to the subject property, where public
funds are utilized, the public benefits must clearly outweigh the long term adverse effects, since
this is private property and I am not aware that any public funds are involved in the proposed
construction by the applicant, I do not believe this section applies to the analysis.
Based on the analysis above, considering all aspects of the application, this Board should
affirm the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and deny the relief requested
by the applicant in it's entirety, thus denying the applicant's request for a Coastal Erosion
Management Permit.
2) ANALYSIS OF THE AREA VARIANCE STANDARD
To successfully establish the right of an applicant to an area variance, an applicant must
establish that the denial of the variance would cause practical difficulties and that he could not
utilize his property without coming into conflict with restrictions in a zoning ordinance, Fuhst v.
Foley, 45 NY2d 441,410 NYS2d 56, 382 NE2d 756 (Ct. of App 1978), see also Thompson
v. Curcio, 154 AD2d 602, 546 NYS2d 430 (2nd Dept 1989) and Townwide Properties, Inc. v.
Zoninq Bd of Appeals, 143 AD2d 757, 533 NYS2d 466 (2~d Dept. 1988). Economic injury is
irrelevant to this analysis (Shaughessy v. Roth, 204 A.D.2d 333, 611 N.Y.S.2d 281 (2nd Dept
1994). See also Munnelly v. Town of East Hampton, 173 AD2d 472,570 NYS2d 93 (2~d Dept
1991). There is a five part test that must be applied to this application for this Board to grant
an area variance to the applicant.
The factors to be considered by this Board in considering an application for an area
variance are: 1) Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area
variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicants to pursue, other than an area variance; 3) whether the requested area
10
variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact
on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the
alleged difficulty was selficreated, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the
Board, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance (Town Law §267-
b(3)(b).
1 ) Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance? Yes. The
proposed two story structure of the applicant will produce an undesirable change in the character
of the neighborhood and a detriment to nearby properties by the granting of the area variance.
The views of my clients at North Fork Beach Condominiums will be permanently lost, and the
other neighboring property owners along the beach front will be negatively impacted by the
erection of such a large, imposing structure along the beach. In addition, the aesthetic beauty
of the area will be forever changed by such a large two story residence on pilings being built
since the proposed residence is so completely out of character with the surrounding residential
community.
2) Will the benefit sought by the applicants be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicants to pursue, other than an area variance? Yes. The applicant could purchase a suitable
parcel of real property upon which to build such a large structure. Because the subject property
already has an existing residence, the applicant has the ability to use this property. What the
applicant proposes simply cannot be supported at the subject property, based on both the size
and location of the parcel.
3) Will the requested area variance be substantial? Yes, considering that the subject property
is extremely small, and since the proposed residence is a two story dwelling on pilings, the new
structure as proposed is entirely inconsistent with the existing residences in the surrounding area.
Especially when considering the small size of the parcel, that the structure will literally be built on
the beach, and that it will be two stories high on pilings within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area,
there is not doubt that the relief request is substantial in nature.
4) Will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? Yes. Both the physical and environmental
consequences of the proposed construction will be permanent and devastating to the area. The
physical structure will loom overhead, blocking the water views of the surrounding residents
permanently. The environmental harm consists of removal of vegetation as part of the proposed
construction which will endanger the adjacent properties, the fragile beach front, as well as
Sound View Avenue itself. Building such a large structure along the beach will leave the entire
area vulnerable to future coastal erosion, which is precisely why the Town Board of the Town of
Southold, in it's wisdom, enacted Chapter 37 of the Southold Town Code in the first place.
5) Will the alleged difficulty be self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the
decision of the Board, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance? Yes.
Without a shadow of a doubt, the applicants have self created the need to pursue variance relief
due to their voluntary decision to submit this application and roll the dice on whether this Board
will grant variance relief by the issuance of a Coastal Erosion Management Permit to build an
oversized two story residence with a deck on pilings at a parcel within the coastal erosion hazard
area when instead they could pursue purchasing a parcel of vacant land which is large enough
and in an appropriate location to allow for construction of the larger home they seek to build.
In addition, the applicant already has an existing structure at the subject property, thus the
applicant has the use of his property already.
For further analysis of the area variance standard as analyzed by the Courts specifically
regarding requests for area variances which include setbacks, I would respectfully refer this Board
and it's attorney to Wilson v. Town of Mohawk, 246 AD2d 762, 668 NYS2d 62 (Third Dept.
1998). Based on analysis above as well as the previous analysis based on Southold Town Code
§37-30, considering all aspects of the application, this Board should affirm the decision of the
Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and deny the relief requested by the applicant in it's
entirety, thus denying the applicant's request for a Coastal Erosion Management Permit.
C. THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT
The State Environmental Quality Review Act, or SEQR, is the environmental review
process that this Board must follow in considering the environmental consequences of the
variance relief requested. Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, entitled Environmental
Quality Review, outlines the general rules to be applied to this or any application before this
Board. 6 NYCRR §617, however, which is referenced in Chapter 44, includes the criteria for
classification of the relief requested as Type 1, Type 2, or Unlisted. Based on the Classification,
this Board as lead agency determines the extent of environmental review to be applied to this
application.
While it appears that this action might be classified as Type 2 based on 6 NYCRR §617.5
(12) (a copy, from 6 NYCRR §617.1 through §617.11 of which is attached to this Memorandum
of Law) based on this application being based on the granting of individual setback and lot line
variances, .because the setbacks involve variance relief from the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas
specifically desiclnated as sensitive environmental areas, I believe this Board should properly
determine this action to be unlisted. Based on the foreqoinch I believe the application should
be required to submit a long form EAF and an Environmental Impact Statement. Should this
Board choose to instead classify this action as Type 2 based on 6 NYCRR §617.5(12), this
determination may be reversible error in any Article 78 challenqe to the actions taken by this
Board.
D. FEMA COMPLIANCE
While FEMA compliance may not be part of the formal review process, I believe it is
important to address this issue because, unless the structure as proposed by the applicant is
FEMA compliant, the relief requested by the applicant should not be approved by this Board.
Whether the height of the structure as proposed, the dimensions, the proximity to the water, and
the design satisfies FEMA regulations is an issue that should be addressed as part of the review
process of this Board.
CONCLUSION
On behalf of my clients, the 42 members of The North Fork Beach Condominium's
Association, ~ respectfully request, based on the foregoing, that the applicant be required to
prepare a long form EAF and an Environmental Impact Statement in connection with this
application, and that the variance relief requested by applicant Angelo Padovan to obtain a
Coastal Erosion Management Permit be denied in it's entirety by this Board, and for such other
and further relief as this Board deems just and proper.
A~lorney for Objectants
The North Fork Beach Condominium
Association
P.O. Box 155
120 Court Street
Riverhead, N.Y. 11901
(631) 727-4200
'~CIIAIq'F-~ VI GENlg. R^L RI;A~ULA'['IONS
§617.1
PART 617
STATE ENVIROI'~;Mli;NTAL QL;ALI'J'Y RI,;VIF, W
~1~[i1 Authority, inltml and
61~.4 Typ~: I
§ 617.1i Authorit y, inlent and plxr'0t~se.
Review Act (SEQR).
generati~ins.
§617.1
(1) procc
(2) provisions £or cnordinming mukipJc ~g~ncy
lead agency (~cfion 6 7 6 ~f
617.20 o f this ~'~); ~d
] .
~ 617~ Defi,itio~.
(b) Action' i~cludc:
(i) ~e dkcctly undcn ~ 11)y an agency' or
(ii) involve funding by an agency; or
(4) ~y combi~tions ol thc ~lx~ve.
(c) Agency m~s a state
(e) A~proval ~eans a discredo0~ d~i~inn by an agcn ~' * asu ~ ~ c~tm, e~l cate,
maponfileinihe~)fficeof~csecre~a~olSt~ahas~cq~ dbyscr crt 4 ?)oflhe Hx(.cmive
' imp~ts will
(i) C~tical en~ronmental ar~ (Ci~) nlct~ a Sl:,Cclli[: ~:Ctl[Hil~;,JltC ;tl d2 i~lnatcd hy., siam
''
CHA[rlI:.R VI G~72~L:RAL RIK~LIt,ATION~
proposed
pm~icipate i~ the review t)~occss as a m~r~r ol th~: public
§ 617.2 :
sections 617.7 aod 617.12 ol this Part.
unrelated activitieS, needing mdJvidtlal delenl'~inations ol ~ignil'it'artc~,.
(~) Slate agency meam any [tgte ~pa~mcnt, agcrcy bo*r , [ ~ ~ ~cncfit c,,qm~atmrh
public authority o~ comnhssJon. , ,
~17.I4 of this P~. The facl
Pr~dur?doesn~tmeanchatllmt~i~tmatefl [~a ')'[tJlac i-~]~, )(Lht,rill¥Ol~;dil~cT~c5
not identd~ing il a~ a Type II action in i~s pro,xgdure~ '
agency's own SEQR procedures.
CHAPTER VI GENER*L 14EGULATIONS § 617,3
§ 617 ;3 i GeneraJ ruhn.
complied With the proviskq!l$ of SEQR. A projc:ct H~tmsor may l,Ct cnmnlct;ct: ;my phssizal
~tcrafion ~lat~ m an acti(~ undl thc [~ovision~ ol SI~QR h~i~c t~cen compik-d ,~ ith. "Ibc (rely
exception ~ ~is is provided Onder section 6[7.5(c)~ 18L (~l) and (2~1 of this Part An involved
finn ~Shas~enficd'l~eanlyexce~nontt;h: p'tv; t i r* : m6179m(5)(i)oldus
P~,
following t~c fili!~g of a fined ElS ~d Wriitcn JinkJlllgs stal; ~:~cnL ov p~trsuant lo ~t mn 6 l?.7(d)
imp~ts i~nttlied in ' c E S ~ r fl~c conditioned ~c~b~ti;e declaration
Els.
(d) 2~& lead agency will:make e~cr,
jufisdictiol~
which ~e ~y~ 11.
a}l St]OR procce,~lings in thc inLcrc.,i oi p' rip[ ~cvil:
(i~) ~e pu~ose of thc list ofTyl~ [ actions in t )i~ seCli(:lt ih
(1) This Type l l~st is not exhausli v~ o[ thosc ~clions diat aa agency dc~crmi~ics
(2) Agencies mhy adopt Omit o~il lis~ o~ i~dditim'.al
(ii) 50 units not to be connec~d (at the c0mmcnc;
(iii) in a city, town or vivace having a Impuladon
§ 6'17.5
(i)! a project or al;Litin that involves thc i,h}
OiI a pmj~t or action that Wot~ld usc ground
g~lqns per day;
(ii~) p~ng for 1;~ vehiclF~;
(i~) in a c~ty town or villag~ having a pt~pulafiou t,~ 15(U~![~} persom, or Icss~ a facility
wi~imor¢ ~aa l~l,OOO square f?l of grass it<a)r
(v~ m a city, tow~ ~ village ~lvmg a I)O~'luiaum~ oJ mo, ~ ti,~n ] 50,(X~ ~ runs, a ~acil~ty
wifit~ mom ~ 24(),0~) squa'c fee~ of gn:,s~ fl(~r
~ng]mgutation pc[taini;ng to height;
(8) [ any Unlis~d actium that tach.ides i~ r~o[ aghc. uhma[ ~c occumng ¥to; ~ or p~m~ally
(9) ~ ~y Unlismd actmn (u~eas ff~e actic,n i~ ttc~i~,m~J lo~ tl:r p[c~ati(,~ o~ ;{~e facility or
site) ~cuffing wholly or pa~i~ly wi;him o~ sub~tam~;idy comi~u;}u~ lO, any hi,doric huikiing,
p~s 60 and 63, 1994 I*ce section 6; '~ t7 t,~ i,l{.
~ 617.5 ~l~pe 11 actit,ml.
age~ie?.
facility; ]
pnnciples of
(4) repa~ng of existing high~/ays not inv~h,in~ the a,:ldi
existing utility facilities;
(6) main~nance of existing la~dscap~g~r rt~d 3: wtb;
a~y ~fion on ~i~ list;
(12) ~ng~of individual set~ek ~ lot line v~iances;
(13) gmnting of ~ ~ea va~Sm~ce(s) for a tingle.fmtfilv, tw ~-Iamil
(14) publico~ pfiwae best Ibrestmanagemam
of l~tt, but not i~cluding w~ste dispose, land cle~Sng
(16) ins~lati~n of ~fic conc-tg devices on
(17) mpp ng~f ex~st ng ~oafls, ~treets, htg ~ays,
stdp patterns;
(18) informmi m cnllectum mctu~ng b~ue ama collc~:~lon and ::c scmch, ~ ater
tI~isted action; i
CltAFFER VI GENEIIAI, REGUL^T[OI',!~ ,~ I~ 1 7.5
building
code(s];
(22)[ collecti ye bargtfi.ning actiyil~ea;
lng ex~sting debt;
(24), inspectior~s and licensing iacttv[tit'~ rclaLir>~[ to thc ~tu~lification~ o[ iud~viduM~ or
(~5) pumha~ or s~c of fumi~lfipgs, ~d~u.~ent m aUI>[~ILCS, i~ ~luding ~ aq~lus go~remment
h~d~us matedal~;
(26} license, lease zn~ ~t r~aewals, m trm~sl~:rs ot ov.,ncr~ hip ~ere~f, where [here wiil
(271~ adoption ol le[g~lations, [~licics, p~occdumh ~nd lDc.d l,~tli slam, vt d,:ci~.,ms in com~ec-
~on wi~ any action on O~is list;
FulfillS;
(31) inte~reOng an existing ~c,
(32)~ desig~fion oil0cal l~d~[tks
· e review pro.dares al ~his Pa~;
(34)~ ~fions uaden~dcen, fund~ ~r atH)u ~c.. priu~ < d.c .-I h't uve &tlc~ ~ct ~tn-u~ m SI~QR
(s~ cl~p~s 228 of the Laws ol I~(~. 233
~y ~u~h ce~ificale;
(36) action~ subject to thc class A or cta.is ]~i lcglom~i I)mjecl .lul :nt2t' ;~('1: t~l thc Adirl~ ~dack
Of SeCliOn 43-01~3 of thc Envir. llnlanL~ C(msltrv~tit~ i ',.,~s,/iii.]
617.6 lffiti~]review of actio~ anti esmbli!lhit~g It~tl aF,i m: ~.
(i) deter~ne whether t c ac trois subject t. SI.;QI,:. I~ 0~,' :, . ~ 'vpc 1I :.cu~::t, d~c
Fed~al agency, the provisiom¢ of s~tior~ 617.15 of th~ s Pall ag,pi);
(iv) m~ a prelilffin~y classification of ;mactmn as Type J o~ [.nlisted, usi.g thc
(2) For Type I acfiom% a [ul! 15AP (sec st~ction 617.20, App~mdi>; A, 41 thi~ Pa ':~ 1 t; *c
(3) For U~ist~ ~fions, thc short E,Mr(ice scctJoll 6l ?.20, Apl3C~,2ix C'. of tiffs I~[trl I ixmst
full EAI:. for Unhsmd ~tions if ~e ~holl [~,&:l~ u/t,~lld 11OI ?:t,vidc th~2 lead al~zn:) witll
(4) ~ agency may w~ve Lhe r~uire:~tent Ik~r ~l~t EAF it a ,:!r~ [{IS is [,epamd or
the action is either Ty~ 1 or L:~fli,siM md is i~ O~c ~:~;;~ ar~a, the i~arvtsJolls of 19 NYCRR
~ comply Wi~ ~e pmvisio~us of su~iv;si,,m I,l.) ol section ]i{15 {~[ ~trticle 25-AA [~f ate
Agriculture ~1 M~ts 12w, if applicable.
CHAP'I~R VI G;c';NI.!R A L RIiG U LATION S §617.6
dqtcm~inalion, ~hi,2Ecvor is la~c~
l(i) For~tTypelactions and IOl
(4) of figs su~livis:(m musl be li,]lo~ed.
i(ii) When an a,~e,n~y has ~e~l ~labl~:,J~2d a.~ Ih,2 Icad ,t);q2~c:y for an ardon invoh'ing an
· [s subdivision.
(3~ C~r~m~t~ reuiew.
w~ ~e appropriat~ regmn~ of[icc ol thc dcpartmcm.
~(ii) The lead a;gehcy musl &:termine t m sigmlic~mt e r,i Ihe action wnhin 20 calendar
w~ section b 17.12; of this PaR.
l(iii) if a lead ~gency exm'qil;c~s due diligence: in ~dc~:;d~;dng all olh,:r ia~olvcd agencies
m~ provides wrimm notice o( its &tcmdnafion ol :,ig] il:ic~Jm~ to ~: idcmified mvutvetl
su~ers~ bY a positive &cll~a~un by
(5~ Actions tbr w¢ich lead agcr)cy i:a~ n,;l x: ,P[~,~c~ up,m:
6-9/95
617.6 'i'~'[i..E 6 I~!N~,II{I)NMEN I'AL CC'NSERVA'i'I(V,
(ii) The r~ue~t must identity each involved agency's ju6sdfl:~c~ uvt~ e acuo a ~
subp~agraph Oi) (~f Ibis p~a~aph..
b~¢d on a ~v ew ff the facts, the criteria ~low, and ney c~, ~ ~ c v:ct
agency);
impact(s) of the proposed actk)n;
involved agencies ~nd the pt'ojcct
(6) Re-establisht~cnt of lead
~hc following ci~cu~s~s: : ,
(a) for a supplement to a finat ElS or ge~e~c ElS,
(b) upon f~ ~re 9f the lead age{~cy's basis ofjurisdic~ioa; or
(ii) Disputes cdnce~ng re-estabtishment tff lead a~cnc3 ik)r a ~upplet.cnt to a linal ElS
or generic ElS ~e subject to the dt:sig~afion pri~:dures conlfincfl in par;l~x'a[~h h)(5) of s
section.
(iii) Notice of ~-establishmeat of~le~ ageqcy us ~c g ye by I c ~;.;;, It:;td agent,; lo
Hiatod~
(al ~ lead agency must deten~ne the signilicance of a~l:,~ Type I .r t ~,li~acO action in
(2) To &t~n~nel~at an EIS will hot be reqtd~cd Io: ;t~/ acuo~, thc ]t~;~,d ik, icy
(b) For all Type I aqd U~s~d acuoes the lead at,choy mi,king a ,3ctctm~zali~{)n of signifi.
c~qc lnust: { ,
~ I) consider the adtion ms defined ia sections 61 'LY(b) slid ~[7.3(g) iff flli:,
CtlAPTE
VI GI~NERAL R~GLILAT[ONS §617.?
(c) ~fitefia for dc~ert~mdng signific~utce:
· e prqposcd ~tion m.~t ~ compahM aga:ns~ ~}~,: criteria n this ~bdivision T~c k)llo~ing list
(~) thc impa~ment of thc ~ractc~ o~ qmdil~ of inq~t~n~ml historical, ;z~cheologicaL
(~iii) a subs~aiai k~ng~ ia d~e usc, t.. cns y of usc, o~ ]itniJ inch~d~ ~ agr c ura,
o~ spacc or rccrm~t~obal~ ~csou~ccs, o~ in its capacity lo suppqrt c:Usdn8 uses;
absc~ the acUon;
advise imp~t on dsc ~nviroam~; or ~
(2)
(ii) de~n~cn~th~r~on.
§ 617.7
(i) its set, rig (e.g.. ~.rban or rural);
(ii) its probability o[ occnr'rimce;
(iii) ~ts d~ratm~; :
(v) its g~graplxic
(vi) i~ raagmtude; and
(vfi) thc ~lualbcr ofp~ple affected.
(fi) Co~tt ot ~d regal ye de~ h r~
lead agency m~ prep~e a cnndkfioned ncg01ave dec~m;L on [CNI.~) p~ o~ ii:~d tl~t
0) h~ c~mpletM a fullEAF;
(ii) h~ ~mplemd a c~rdinat~ rcvh:w in acct,r,:aacg ~dth 5CCL[OI* 6[7.6(b)(3) m' this
(i) has ~mpos~ SEQR c6ndifions p.trs=ar~ m 5,:ctiou {it 7.~tlb~ t*}' this P~ thru have
other d~um~nt~ion;
(v) has]published a ( c~ of a (~ID in t~[;: :Nil ;,.M ,: hH,imum 30 day
(3) %e le~d agency must ter[tlire ~ FjS if ruq~mstcd h) Ih~ a{)p;iciull.
(i) ch~ges are pro[meed tbr the ~oj,:xll;
(ii) ac~ info.etlon is cfi~vered:, or
(2) The l~ad agency must preps, fii~: and publish the m~ended ~t:ga[ive decimation in
(i) cha~ges ~e pro~se~ tBr the p:r0jcct; or
(ii) new infomation is discovered; o:
CHAI~rt,~R vi GENERA[,I~EC;t;t,^'rK~NS .~} 617.'10
§ 617.10 Notice and filing ~'equire-ments.
the ENB: '
(ii) with the appropr~a{e rcgional offiee tff Lnr depar m~cnl;
be prln~:ipally located;
could be 'satisfied by inchci~tmg lbo SEQR cLil~d~.flgilliOI1 el thc ~mtion m~tt ff,c agency's
defecation of sigmficance. ~
~) Posiuve aeclarmiona, ~s fi~ decl~a iomi lot al~ Type I and unlisted a,cti~ms must be
prepS, filed, publish~ ~md made ~vldlable ~l ~cordmco w:th this st, t~vision.. 'i he i~itive
d~l~afion must s~te that it Nt~ been pr~ared in accorc~nce wah ~ul,ic]e 8 of ~e En~ ironmem~
numar of a ~non who c~m provide fu~:r mlomx~tam;)~c 10cation~ fff tim act~tm; and a b~Sef
des~pfion of file ~ssible si[~ific~t em*ironmenta, el/ecl:; ~/at ha, ~ ~en idenfifa:d and the
(c) Notices ofcompletiofi ig'drO EIS'$. Whc:n:ver a Icad ;Lg':qcy has dc~cr:q uled thru a
d~[1 ~S is ~d~ua~ for public ~eview, il sha]l n'e ~aw, ami flit a i](kit't- ol complcd tm I'be notice
§ 617.10 :[,[~ ~: !,
lead agency; ~nd
(3) a statg'ment tiler comnients m-e requested and will he rcccixcd and consiciered b~ tbe
agency at a g~ven address for a s~ted pem~l not ~zss 0 u 3( ~ a]e~lCxv d~5's from the first filing
~caring at w~cb the cnvimnmc ~ ~paCl of the proposed action ale o;ns~dercd, whichever
~s later).
~]~e nouce ~1 complet on shfl be fil~l as presc~iSm~ lot aegaciuc de~ aratioas i,n plzragmph
(a)(2) of this ~ti m T m depmlment sl~l I,~blisb
· e ENB. [ ', notices ~>fcm~n[d,e ~o. ol'aH
(d) DraftElfi's. ~ · , ~ - · '
Fhc dral~ [~15~ w~ m~y I~ppcndlces, toge rte. w ~ ~
fion, shall ~ fi ~d ~d made avai~tble fnr c0¢ying as folb:,ws:
(1) role c(~py wilh ~c comm[ssionex a[ ~;0 Wolf I~,ad, All:,any, N y i 223 ~4~1}1
(2) one c~py wilh thc appr0ima~e resi0nal ol'1icc ol thc dcpa;mx-~l:
(3) one cgpy wi~ fire chi~ executive oflkx:r o[' Ibc [~dJlicld sab~livision .; ~[:,[ch fl~e
actian witl be pfincip~ly locamd; ~
(4) ff oth~ agencies arc inv61ved in ~e approv;~[ .l'*~e acnon, oaz copy s~ifl each such
not av~lable m meet mblic inle:rcsls, ~e le,~,] alF.cy may pr,~idc a. ~6ddfitiomd cop) to mc
local public li~ra~; ~d
(e) Notices o~heaffng. A nc,ti~e of he~rq[ ii mc lead a~?:c.cv dcicuaincs Ibat
held, Sh~[ ~ prqp~ed by thc lead agency, h ,.ihall spccily d~c ti m., place :md purpo~se
hemng, and sh~[ ~m~n a summary . ' .- .
~ ~t ElS. ~ hq nou~ of Jlc~ll~ ,~h~l b~ hl~.d, pab]~s ~ ti t;tltdc itvitllll}3lih ~
(0 Noliceao~omplelion ~(blo~EIS's Wi~cn a h:,.[; ~ChCy h; , I~ r d t
this.section.. The ,In°rice of completion shall b~: I[lk.d ~, [ ~ 4:lqi~,,; lt~ I;: ;1~;.11 i ( ; ] ,il lhi:~
(g) Final EIS~s. ']31e final ElS. togedler v/ah Ih: ~,,~ ,. i,i lib ~lmq~Iclit,il shall
the same m~ner ~s a a~l ElS. {
(h) E~h ageqcy subj.[ to fi'ds P~ sh~[l ~etain cop.:, td rzc mir,: ~ cos ~cc;ata dra
ZIS s, final EIS's ~d findings st,i~:a~ena in I]]t a which arc read ~ acc ~.d~}e for publi~
(i) S~R finings statemnts male p~sU~ll: to scctim~ 617.9 iff th:is J'a*l amst t~ riled with
all involv~ agencies ~d ~e applk~mt at ~e I:ime ~ey arc adopted.
See. filed M~h 22. 1976; rc[~. new lied: Jan 2,1. 1978; Sept L, 197g; 4mat. filed Oct
Amended (a){ 1), (3). '
~ 617.11 Criteria for de~rati=tng signffiqmace, ;
(a) T°d~te~ihewhc~erapm~sedTyp~oru~isteda: ~rr y v~a~gn
(5'1 l]~.cept as providt:,.l itl sub!:lar~lfTaph (i } ut Oxis l>itI'~lgl;l[ t[[e Ic,~d agel:cy me, si prepare
(i) No fir~ ElS nc(~lbe pmp~d
(a) the prolmseo ac[lion h~.~:en withflm~n or;
s~tion 617. i2 o[ this
~uately; 0r
(bd if problems widl ~eproposea
cation have been
617.12 ofithis Pm
(7) Sepplemen~
fi) ~e I~ agency may r~uim a supplem~mtal LiS. in~kt:d to the specif[:: s~gnificant
(iii) If a ~upplemcnt id required, ,~ will ~ sut~jec~ u. mc ~t,t /l't~ce~es of fi'lis Pa~
files relev~t to ~e EIS.
mam~bl~ ~ticlpated andIor have ~on identified ~ tE~. scoomg lm~Ccs~ 1.1S~ ,hould nat
includ~ in ~ appendix.
(3) AB ~aft m~d final lttSs must 11¢ [~rcc~lcd
(i) Whether it is a dutll or fin~ ElS.
§ 617.9
(ii) t~c m~nc ~
(i/i) thc locath
8750 Con~ciwadon
r d~scripdve title o~'the actiqn; r
person at the agcn~ y who can provi& further i~Ibr~ra:t.ion,
(vi) the date o its acceptance b.y Ihe lead aga'~cy and
(vii) in the ca:: of a draft t~J S, t,h~ date by ~llich ctmt mt:ars ~t~;l:t ha 'mb~litte~l.
precise summary which ~equaleiy anti p. ccuratel2/~umm trizt s the
(5) The format o[the dr,fit ElS may be flexible; however, all dl'al~, p~l.qs nmst include thc
f°ll°wing elements:i, , .~
(i) a concise d~scription of thc pioposed ~cbon, its pliq~osa, public [a!¢ ~] ,lad bendit~.
including social ar~l economic consid~:rations; ' ,
(ii) a concise idescripfion of tlJe! envLtoame.ntal sctti~g of the areas ti:* be
su~cient to un&r~mnd ~e m~p;mts of ~e pm~i~ ~tion and altemmives; ,
(hi) a smmme0t m~d ev~uafio, of ~e pol¢n6al significant ~ve~se environmental ira-
of ~eir ~unenc*. The draft ElS should i~nlkl~ and di~;cuss ~be followalg pal)
applicable ~d sigaificant:
(d) ~y gmWfl~-inducing aspec;~ of the Dropos~ at,it
(e) impacts]of the propped action on fltc usc .,;.: co.~crva3am pt e.~crgy (~t
to ~cle 55 or ~y pl~ subseq~le~lly ~tilied and ~Jc, p~d paratl:knt ;o article Y?
(iv) a descfip~ on of the mifigaflqn measures;
are fe~ible, consi lefing ~e objectives and ca. labilities of the prq)ecl ~lmns~r. Thc ttcscrip
uon ~d evaluafic ofe~h alternative should I~ at alevel of detail sa~licknt to penait
§ 617.9
alternative:
Cb) technolug2,;
Id) des~g:a;
(¢) timing;
[g) types ol set,oil. 1
applicable coastal ~[i~ies contorted in 19 NYCRR {,(Xl,5; or when ~c action ~s i~¢an
approv~ 1~ water,rom revimt~alion pmgm~m ama, wi~k~ dw ~ac~ progr~un pohcies;
(vii) for a stare age[my actiofi within a I~e~nmge a~{ a o t ~b& ~ cultural pazk thc ac¢on's
{vtii) a list of any andcrlyin~ studies, repons, E[Ss a~a ~ul~t:r i~ormz~don obt;nncd
(6) In Md o ~ to ¢16 ~&ysi~ o[ sigmficaet advcn,t impac[a required i~ subpmgmph
(b)(5){¢i) of ~s sector;, if informalion ;t~at rcasom~ly forcsc~tHia cai&strophic imp~ts to
agency?s SEQR liadml[a. ~e ElS
(i~) provide a sumat~ of e~is~ ~g c cd ole sciet~t:l~c evidence:, if available; and
sions or office facilities, %~.
(7) A ~Mt t r ~nal BiS my inco~ra~e I~ relerence air o~ j~t~nions tff oD~er dcxxuments.
including EISs that c~r~ain infomladon micviint to the st~emerlL The relcreac~
must ~ m~ avai a[e for nsp~ oa by the public w[~l]Jn t3~c t[q:e pefi~ lot pablic comment
in t~ s~e plies whore fl~c agcx~cy m~&us available copk'~ ~1' thc I?.IS~ When an ElS
inco~r~cs b~ rel~rence, ~e re[arm:lc~l docmuem m;~st k~ b~i~:fly desc~qbed, its applicable
findings su~iz~, and tim date Of its piep~mltion pmvkh:d.'1:
(8) Afia~EIS ~u~ cons'stol, ti :~raltl~,lS, includ .g~ygev[sions~rsapptcn~entstoit;
~n~ }HS, regardless of who prep~c~ it. Al revi,ions trod suppk ~lt:nts to Olc dl'i~lt ElS must be
s~cific~ly indicamd and idenu ~q:d a~ sm n ~c Illtal ElS
§617.10 Generi[' environm~ntui: impact slalemm]ts.
(a) Generic ElS} may ~ broader, :and mole general than site (,~ pn?lcct ~,pcct~c [.i55r
ShOed discuss the logic ~d ratiom~e Jar [bu cb,:dce5 adtanccd, Thc) r,~ ,dso includ[ an
present and ~y~jin general terms ~ I~w hy~tkeficai scenarios thl,t couk{ and ~c likely ~o
: (1) a numar of sep~am actiom io a giYen geogr xpztic ,~a ~hich, ff ~onsideted sin~,,ly
may have ~nor i~pacts, bm { o ~s,demd roger tcr rally ~t;tve ,~gmhcarlt m~packs;,
: (2) a s~ueac~ of actions, cor, tedlplated t,3 a singk a! cacy ot individua{;
(3) sep~ate aktions having gel erie or conm~mt impo;ts; or :
(4) an enure pro~ or plan having wade upph~tto~ or n:stnclmg t~e range o, ~umte
~mafive po c e} or projects, i lc ~'~ ag n w ,0} S gu ica changes to c ~[sl{ng, land use .Phms
deve opmem pl~, zoning regula;i ogs or age~}cy comilreh,msive resource ~;magemcnt plans.
b) ~ pa~c~ lgencies may prq~e gen~c EISs on ~c ;~o Xion of a cqmp~heas~e
)rcp~ in ~ordal ce with s~hdlwa~ 4, ~*tl~0 :_8q~ of ;D~. Gcnen? City t.il~, ,ubd~mn d,
;cction 272-a of ~( Town ~w; or a~i~sio~ 4, gmtio, 7-722 ol Om Village ~w a[td the
mplemcnfing regulations, hnPacts og ipdividu~; a¢tioms proposed m he g;mS:~l oui in
ante ~ ~e~ ~opmd plus and re~Olations *m:l :the tii~sholds ol condlt{o;l~ identified ir. ;he
~en~e ~S ~y r~uire no or limite~ SfiQR mVic'~' as deskribed in s iNli~isim s (c) ~ ~ {th of
(c) Generic ~S~ and ~eir fiodip~s shoul~ ~t hmh specific co di~ m{ or crimea under
which futura ~fion{ will ~ und~k~ or approved, includi~ag rt~uimnlgols I~r any subtgqucnt
SEQR'~mpIi~. ~is may ~clud~tues~olfls ~rtd criteNa for s~pl~temenlal Elgs to i'ellcct
an~y~ in ~e gen~c ElS. i i :
(d) When a fin~ generic ElS Ms been fi ~ ~n{ er t u s t ,~a t:
(1) no ~er SEQR cemplim~,~iis r~s~d ff a subsequent proposed acllioo will hc
generic ElS or i~ findings statement [
~ (2) an ~end ~ find~gs st ~ aqnt must F prcp~c:c ff fl~c subsequenl p~q~)s~ action
~uately addre~ md in ~e genem~ t~lS but wa& eot addressed or was nc~t afl?qutllely adde:sscd
in ~e findings su! :ment for ~e genoric ElS
nm result in ~y s[~ific~t ~n~iroa4~ent~ impi~ts; an,i
(4) a supplm~nt to ~e fin~ [l&nefig ElS must be [)reputed il the subscqucm
coaditions of an agcbcy decision on IbC immeflialc proje;t
}~'152 Conscrvatmn
L~ 617.12
Iin~l E~S;
program- undl thc a~cncy
~ 617.12 Documcnl ~relmrution, Iiling, pu[;Ik,:lfi~m ;md distrihutiou.
Thc ['ollowm~ - ,.~
§ 617.12
~nd Ibc p,~riod, not Ics~ Ihan ]30 calc~ldar days. th;ri i.~! ~Jfich L. Olllll~qil..~ '0. iii hc ~l~ccjll~d hy
inus[ hlcJ~dc thc I~riod (not Ifs [hen '.~(,calcmhu d~)'~ h.lLi [:lC d.LW ~lJ {ibng ol ju)i tc~ than
accepted ~y the lead agone7. :~ j
iv) ~]notiec oi' JlCal'Jl~ ]nlgM incl~udc thc litm d;uc, pl[~ce ;IHL[:~ILIFpO5[~ iii Lhc hcarin~
of hm~in~ma) bc combinofJ ~ilh Iht amice ol' coolpk~liori ,)J thc dl~?[
(V) Fi~ding~ must COiJ[~I~I thc Jlll~)t~laLhm tCliturod b)~ccu I []
Part. ~
(hi ~ling anti dtstrltmtmn cj ~ocumenls:: {It A fype I z~,:g~t~c dcctm';lJion. ~01difioncd
negative decjaradon, pasdt, c {leclarali(~n;:nolicc oj corupJelioll uf
hcadng and l~ndings nmsi bc filkd with: ~
(i) theJchief excctuive officer of hhc: political subdivision m which ~he ncli0n will be
p~ncipall~ located; J
(ii) tb~ lead agency;
{iii) ~J involved ageocie4 (see also ~c~ctioll 61 ?6J bJJ 5j of this P~-I
(v) if t~e action involves ~n appJic~lil, with the a )plicam ~ "
f2) A ne}at ve dec ar 0: iPrep~e{ . ~ [. .Lcd a ' ) t is [.~ 15}cd wilh die lead
agency. [ j
(3) All SgQR docomcnts an~ auticmh ir~cluding but not Jimilcd to,,
[ions, positiv{ declaratim~s. ~col?es. ntaic~ tff completion of an [ilS, I~JSs. nmiccs'ol hm~ing
~d findings ~ust be maintai~?l in files Ihat m'c readily acc:o:iMhlc ? Llxe pubhc and made
available on ~qucst.. ~i I
(4} Thc I~ad agenc) may qh~e a:(ti~ m pars(His requcsling do, imperilS IO recovc~ its
copying cost~ ~ [ i [ ~ ,
(51 [f sufficient copies ol Ih~ ElS arc hi~i availahlr m meet public in;cleat, thc k~ad agency
must provide )n additional cup2,'~nl tim dorulncnts to thc local i)ublic Id~r~r
(6) A ~py of the ElS taus{ be sent to Lhc ~pm-m~ent ol En~im[Imenml Conscrxation.
Division of Egvironmcmal Pcrmils 62~n)adway A:ban) N g 12232~. 1750.
(7) For st?e agency actions in thc CO¢iL~I area a Copy of Jnc ElS ni;ist t~ providcti o, thc
Sccm~y of~tate. '[i , . L .., ,
(c) Publication of notices. (1~ Notice {if aTypc [ ncgatJve dcck~rah~on, condmpncd nega-
Enviromnent~l Notice Bullelin(EWB) in ~ al;tuner prcscri~d b) tile del?artroom, qoli(:c Inusl
be provided b~ the lead agency djremJy to ['.m, imnmcntal Nuticc th:tkdl'~, 625 Broad*a~. Rm
538, AIb~y, iNY 12233-1750 for publicamm in thc ENB 'Ibc IiNl~ s acccsdbh on mc
notice in the qNB and e.5 r.Reg: Mcr
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
south oldtown.nor t hfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 11, 2002
James E. Fitzgerald, Jr.
Proper-T Permit Services
Post Office Box 617
Cutchogue, New York 11935
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
In accordance with our telephone conversation this afternoon, I am sending you the
newly adopted "Application for Appeal to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review" form,
together with a copy of the April 9, 2002 Southold Town Board resolution adopting this form.
Please complete and return this form, together with any other items that may be outstanding from
the Board of Trustee file. I am holding your check and all of the items that you submitted on
March 15, 2002 and will commence processing the appeal as soon as you return the completed
form. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 765-1800. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Southold Town Clerk
cc: Town Board
Town Attorney
Trustees
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN cLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS
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 to you
in response to your request, or as an interim response.
SECTION I.
(Department or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting.)
RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describ'~ the record sought. If )ossible supply
date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.
Printed Name: ~/l~[,/Ih ~?~J~//~/
Mailing Address (if different from above):
Telephone Number: ~/--~ -~/~ Date:
[ ] APPROVED
[ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY*
Elizabeth A. Neville
Freedom of Information Officer
[ ] DENIED* RECEIVED
mi ') 2 9tiff9
Southold Town Clodc
* If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation.
Alber~J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peg~yA. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York11971-0959
Telephone(631)765-1892
Fax(631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN CF SOUTHOLD
February 27.2002
Mr. James E. Fitzgerald, Jr.
Proper-T Permit Services
P.O. Box 617
Cutchogue, NY 1 '.'.93~';
,M\rGELO P,&DOVAN
22255 Som:dview Ave., Southold
SCTM#135-l-23 & 24. t
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
The Southold To.an Board of Trustees reviewed your application to construct a single-
!~:~i!v d:ve!li:~g within th~'~ Coastal E~oston Hazed Area and after reviewing Chapter 37
c.l she 'Tov;n Code, dc~.e:wA~ncd tkat the Code does not allow for the activities proposed, tv
occ~:r ,:.5~!~in fha: area.
Enclosed is a check in *_he ray_omar of $200.00, which is a reihnd of your application fbc.
12'./',~4: hax'~ ;m.. qtlr'.Sti:~i:s: : ....
ptc.~e ,:onta,:t our office.
Very truly yours,
Albert J. Krupski, Jr.
President, Board of Trustees
AJK:lms
Enc.
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
,6ol) 65-1892
Telephone ·" '
Fax (631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
January. 30, 2002
Mr. William Daley
Director
Bureau of Flood Protection
N~t'S DEC
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-3507
RE: ANGELO P3d)OVAN
22455 Soundview Ave., Southold
SCTM#135-1-23&24.1
2c~ Mr. Datey:
Our Beard recently requested your determination on Coastal Erosion. ~
your reaponse sc that we can proceed with our review of the application.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Albert J. Krupski, Jr.
President, Board of Trustees
Cc: James E. Fitzgerald
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Henry Smith
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
December 21, 2001
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
Mr. William Daley
Director
Bureau of Flood Protection
NYS DEC
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-3507
RE: ANGELO PADOVAN
22455 Sound View Avenue, Southold
SCTM#135-1-23 & 24.1
Dear Mr. Daley:
Please review the above-referenced for your determination on Coastal Erosion.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Albert J. Krupski, Jr.
President, Board of Trustees
AJK:lms
Enc.
cc: James E. Fitzgerald
Telephone
(631) 765-1892
Town Hall. 53095 Mah~ Road
P.O. Box 1179
Sour, hold. Ne~v York 1197~.
SOUTHOLD TOWl~
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Thursday,
December 13, 2001, the following recommendation was made:
Moved by Scott Hilary, seconded by Jason' Petrucci, it was
RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees DISAPPROVAL of
the Wetland Permit APplication of ANGELO PADOVAN to construct a single-family
dwelling, partially on pilings, with on-site sewage disposal system and public water.
Located: 22455 SoundviewAve., Southold. SCTM#135-1-23&24.1
The CAC recommends Disapproval for the following reasons:
The applicant should provide the details of grade stabilization.
The proposed structure would have a negative impact to the existing road
area.
There is a concern with the proposed septic design.
The project is within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
If the Town of Southold is in the business of approving houses being built
within the wetland boundary, the Town needs to establish guidelines to
address houses being built on the beach.
Vote of Council: Ayes: All
Motion Carried
THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT IS CIRCLED
?
/
SOUTEOLD
\,
BA ~~
HOG
BA
NECK
Y
t
VICINITY MAP
Application regarding the property of
Angelo Padovan, SCTM # 1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
Represented by
PROPER-T PERMIT SERVICES
P.O. Box 617, Cutchogue, NY 11935
James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. 516-734-5800
November 29, 2001
I
souND
THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT IS SHADED
9.2
TAX MAP
Application regarding the property of
Angelo Padovan, SCTM #1000-135-1-23 & 24. l
Represented by
PROPER-T PERMIT SERVICES
P.O. Box 617, Cutchogue, NY 11935
James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. 516-734-5800
November 29, 2001
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS
INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section [ of this form and give to Town Clerk's
Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you
in response to your request, or as an interim response.
SECTION J. ~'
TO.
{Department or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting.)
RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, ,supply
date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.)
Signature of Applicant:
Printed Name:
x /
Address:
Mailing Address (if different from above):
Telephone Number: 7~_~- ~' ~)
Date: / .o_/~,p//~. /
........................ ===== ................. = ................ --=~_~=~=I=V=I;:J~ .......
[ ] APPROVED
[ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY*
Elizabeth A. Neville
Freedom of Information Officer
[ ] DENIED*
DEC I o 2001
.,,~,~,~ ,owr~ ~lerk
Date
* If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. '"~
Albert J. I~upski, President
James King, Vice-President
Henry Smith
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,,New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
O~ce Use Only
Coastal Erosion Permit Application
~etland Permit Application ~Major
Waiver/Amendment/Changes
Received Fee:$~
__~.ompleted Applicat~on~
Incomplete
SEQRA Classification:
Type I Type II Unlisted
Coordination:(date sent)
'~CAC Referral Sent:~
~Date of Inspection: I~.~/~1~
· Receipt of CAC Report:
Lead Agency Dexcrmination:__
Technical Review:
.,"'Public Hearing Held: l~]~]lg]OI
Resolution:
Minor
NameofApplicant Angelo Padovan
Address 101-20 67th Drive, Forest Hills NY 11375
Phone Number:( ) 718-896-2354
Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - . 135-1-23 & 24.1
Property Location: 22455 Sound View Avenue, Southold
(provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location)
AGENT:
(If applicable)
Address:
James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. / Prooer-T Permit Services
PO Box 617, Cutchogue NY 11935
Phone: 73a-58~
B'rd of Trustees Application
GENERAL DATA
18~380
Land Area (in square feet):
Area Zoning: R-40
Previous use of property: Undev e 1 o'~e d
Inteaded use of property: Private residence
Prior permits/approvals for site improvements:
Agency Date
X No prior permits/approvals for site improvements.
Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or Suspended by a governmental agency?
X No Yes
If yes, provide explanation:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct single-family dwelling, partially on pilings, with on-
site sewage disposal system and public water.
B'rd of Trustees Application
COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA
Purposes of proposed activity: Construct single-family private
residence.
Are wetlands present within 100 feet of the proposed activity?
No X Yes
Does the project involve excavation or filling?
No X Yes
If Yes, how much material will be excavated?est 75 (cubic yards)
How much material will be filled? none (cubic yards)
Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: backhoe
Describe the nature and extent of the environmental impacts reasonably anticipated resulting
from implementation of the project as proposed. (Use attachments if necessary)
It is anticipated that there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts from the imple-
mentation oftbe project as proposed. The project is not likely to cause a measUrable increase in
erosion at the proposed site or at other nearby locations; the seaward limit of the project will be
s'unilar to that of the structure to the east, Which is known not to have caused erosion problems at
the site of the proposed project. It will either prevent or be neutral to the effects on natural protec-
tive featUres and their functions and protective values.
PROJECT I.D. NUMBER
617.21
Appendix C
State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTTION$ Only
PART I--PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completes by Applicant or Project sponsor)
1. APPUCANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME
James E. Fitzgerald? Jr. Padovan house
3. PROJECT LOCATION:
Municlpellty Southold , cot;;tty Suffolk
SEQR
4. PRECZSE LOCATION (Street address ana road intersections, prominent lanamarka, etc., or provide map)
22455 Sound View Avenue
Southold NY 11971
See attached maps·
5. IS PROPOSED ACTION:
~:] New [] Exoanalon [] Mo~iflcation/alteration
6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct single-family dwelling, partially on pilings, with on-
site sewage disposal system and public water.
7. AMOUNT OF LAND Arrc~,i mu:
Initially ap~rox O · 5 acres Ultimately N/A eeree
8. WILL PRO~.~t:,, ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONINO OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? [j Yes [] NO If NO, dee.rib, briefly
Fron~'yard setback requirement is not met.
9. WHAT IS ~-~-----~.,~T LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT?
[] Re.Id..till [] Industrial [] Commercial [] Agriculture [] Perk/ForeeUOpe~l spice [] Other
Medium-size private waterfro~'t r~sidences; commercial motel.
10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM AnY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL,
Required: h~YSDEC, - Southold Trustees
11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION NAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? [] Yes ~] NO If ~ list agency name anti permiulDpr?yal
[] Yes ~ No
James E. F Jr. '
' Al~plicant/s~onso~ '0 per - T .= s 11 / 29 / O 1
~x Date:
is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
OVER
1
Proper- T Perrni Services
POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617
(631) 734-5800
November 27, 2001
President
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Application for Permit on Behalf ofAngelo Padovan, SCTM #1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
Dear Sir:
Attached are documems which have been prepared in support of the application for a permit to
construct a single family dwelling on the property of Angelo Padovan in the Town of Southold.
Proper-T Permit Services represents Mr. Padovan in this matter, and a letter of authorization is
part of this submission.
If there are any questions, or if additional information is needed, please call me.
Enclosures:
Application Fee ($200)
Letter of Authorization
Notarized Statemem of Applicant ;
Survey of Property/Project Plan; Lewandowski, 5/23/01 (3 copies)
Application Form (3 copies)
Short EAF (3 copies)
Vicinity Map (3 copies)
Tax Map (3 copies)
a subsidiary of
THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Henry Smith
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Application
of
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
STATE OF NEW YORK)
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
i,~ames E. Fitzgerald,J~ residing at 385 Haywaters Dr~ve
Cutchogue NY 11935
being duly sworn, depose and say:
That on the 11thday of Dec 2001, I personally posted the
property known as 22615 Soun~ View Avenue, Southold
by placing the Board of Trustees official poster where it can
easily be seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster
has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the
public hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held~0[~l~
Dated: 12/19/01
Sworn to b~fore me this
\(~ay o f~%~.~200
Notary Pu'b 1 I~-A '~.~
I~ONNIE W. MAZ~AFERR~
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF:
Angelo Padovan
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
James E. Fitzgerald, .Ir., residing at 385 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935, being duly
sworn, deposes and says that on the 1 lth day of December, 2001, deponent mailed a tree copy of
the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the named persons at
the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said
persons are the addresses of said persons as shown in the current assessment roll of the Town of
Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Cutchogue, NY 11935,
that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Re-
quested.
Swo~to before me this '~(k~
day{}~&~, ,200' .
Notary Public~'-- ' k.~.'~
TO:
Date: December 7, 2001
Adjacent Property Owners
(Names and addresses are listed on the attached sheet.)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
In the matter off Angelo Padovan, SCTM//1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE THAT:
1. An application is being submitted to the Board of Trustees for a permit to:
Construct single-family dwelling, partially on pilings, with on-site sewage
disposal system and public water.
The project described above is proposed on property adjacem to yours. The street ad-
dress of that property is as follows:
22455 Sound View Avenue, Southold, NY 11971
The project, which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, or 97 of
the Town Code, is open to public comment. A public hearing will be held at Town Hall,
53095 Main Road, Southold, New York~ 1 t971 at or about 7:00 PM on Wednesday,
December 19, 2001. You may contact the Trustees Office at 631-765-1892 or in writing if
you wish to comment
The project described above will be reviewed' by the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold. The project may require independent review and approval by other agencies of
the Town, State, or Federal governments.
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NO.:
'Angelo Padovan
101-20 67th Drive
Forest Hills, NY 11375
718-896-2354
A copy of a sketch or plan showing the proposed project is enclosed for your convenience.
December 7, 2001
PADOVAN: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
OWNER, NOTICE NOT SENT
1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
Angelo Padovan
101-20 67th Drive
Forest Hills, NY 11375
NOTICE SENT
1000-135.1-1-22.1 & 43
North Fork Beach Condominiums
52325 County Road 48
Southold, NY 11971
1000-1-25.1
Angelo & Josephine Padovan
101-20 67t~ Drive
Forest Hills, NY 11375
101-20 67th Drive
Forest Hills, New York 11375
Presidem
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Sk:
Please be advised that I hereby designate and authorize James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. of Proper-T
Permit Services to act in my behalf as my agem in the submission and processing of a permit
application for the construction of a single-family dwelling on my property located on Sound
View Avenue in Southold and designated by Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000 -135-1-23 &
24.1, and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of the application.
Sincere!y,
Angelo adovan
STATEMENT TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
County of Strffolk )
State of New York )
I, Angelo Padovan, being duly sworn, depose and affirm that I am the owner of the property
located on Sound View Avenue, Southold, New York 11971, and identified by Suffolk
County Tax Map No. 1000-135-1-23 & 24.1, and that all work will be done in the manner set
forth in the present application and as may be approved by the Southold Board of Town
Trustees. I agree to hold the Town of Southold and the Town Trustees harmless and free from
any and all damages and claims arising under or by virtue of said permit(s), if granted. I
hereby authorize the Town Trustees or their agent(s) or representative(s) to enter upon my
property to inspect the premises in conjunction with the review of the present application.
Angelo Pad, van
Sworn to before me this ..~..o).. ....... day of.~ ............. ,2001
ILENE EISNER
Nota~ Public, State of New York
No. 41-4693907
Qualified in Queens County
Commission Expires March 30, 20~0~