Loading...
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~