The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6344 BOARD MEMBERS Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson James Dinizio Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ken Schneider Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · RO. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.north fork. net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 January 24, 2011 Theodore C. Martz, Jr. 145 Ryerson Avenue Manorville, NY 11949 RE: ZBA File #6344 Dear Mr. Martz, Jr.: At the Special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on January 19, 2011, the Board members reviewed, your written request received on December 27, 2010, to amend condition # 1 of decision #6344 dated December 2, 2010 in order to allow the existing structures to be brought into zoning compliance. By Resolution, the Board decided not to amend the condition. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Vicki Toth Board Assistant Cc: ZBA file#6344 December 27, 2010 Via: Fax Message and Regular Mail Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Att: Ms. Leslie Kanes Weisman Chairperson RE: ZBA file: 6344 Property at 555 Broadwater Road, Cutchogue, NY Dear Chairperson Weisman: I am contacting you with regard to the above approval and in particular the section which pertains to conditions. After a careful review of the application and the accompanying survey I content that perhaps an inadvertent omission has occurred in this section whereby the condition section was meant to continue and read .... Or said structures will be brought into zoning compliance.' Please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. ~ _ '7/TJ~eodor~ C. Mart~ 145 Ryerson Avenue Manorville, NY 11949 (631)-878-8443 CC: via Fax: EHA Att: Mr. Tony Pasca Office Locafion: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET # ofpgs inc. cover: Sender's Telephone #: 631-765-1809 (press 1 at recording) [] ORGE~FOR VO~ ~VO [] PLEASE COUNT [] AS ~QUESTED []. NOTES/COMMENTS: Sender's Initials: BOARD MEMBERS Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson James Dinizio Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ken Schneider Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · RO. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS R£CEIV D TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809. Fax (631) 765-9064 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINA~thoid Town Clerk MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2010 ZBA FILE: 6344 NAME OF APPLICANT: Theodore C. Martz, Jr. PROPERTY LOCATION: 555 Bmadwaters Rd., Cutchogue, NY SCTM# 1000-104-12-6.1 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without further steps under SEQRA. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issued its reply dated November 13, 2009 stating that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. LWRP: This application is not subject to review under Chapter 268 because the variance relief requested does not involve features that relate to a regulated natural feature or a bulkhead or other shoreline. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD: This application was referred to the Planning Board for comments, on November 23, 2009 the Planning Board issued a Memo stating that the proposed action is inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, and cannot support the granting of the lot area variances. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Subject parcel is improved with two one family dwellings it consists of 71,038.19 sq. ft. It has 205.52 feet of frontage on Broadwaters Road, 341.41 feet on the east property line, 200 feet on the south property line and 362 feet on the west property line as shown on the survey prepared April 30, 2007 by Kenneth M. Woychuk, LS. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Requests for Variances under Code Sections 280-18 and 280-10, based on the Building Inspector's August 19, 2009 Revised November 18, 2009 Notice of Disapproval and an application for a building permit for a subdivision and construction, disapproved for the following reasons: (1) lots merged under Section 280-10; when held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983...and according to Town Code, the existing lots am merged, (2) proposed Parcel I will contain mom than one dwelling, (3) subdivision will result in two lots having less than 40,000 square feet for each Parcel I & 2. RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 1.63 acre subject parcel into two separate parcels. The applicant proposes the subject parcel be subdivided as per the original subdivision lots 189 and 190 configuration, effectively requesting a de-merger of lots 189 and 190 or another configuration that would be Page 2 - Deccrabcr 2, 2010 ZBA File#6344 - Martz, Jr. acceptable to the Board. The proposed two lots will each require a lot area variance due to their proposed lot areas being less than the required 40,000 square feet per lot. The applicant is no longer requesting a variance for the proposed Parcel I to contain more than one dwelling, as indicted in reason (2) under "Basis of Application" above. AMENDED APPLICATION: During the hearing, the applicant was asked to bring the plan into more conformity with the code. The applicant on September 21, 2010 submitted a plan noting a subdivision line running west/east through the subject parcel. It shows one dwelling on each lot and the rear lot with conforming area. This configuration is the original proposal granted by the ZBA in 1978. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The subject parcel was originally created and existed as two lots, lots 189 and 190 of the "Amended Map A of Nassau Point", filed on June 28, 1922 as Map 156 in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office. The lots 189 and 190 where also respectively described as SCTM #'s 1000-104-12-05 and 06. Prior to zoning, there were two dwellings erected on these adjoining lots. These dwellings have pre-existing Certificates of Occupancy and they exist today. One of the two dwellings was mistakenly situated straddling the north-south division line between Lots 189 and 190, and the second dwelling/cottage is situated entirely on Lot 189. An Appeal, #2400 in 1978, was granted for a variance to allow a lot-line reconfiguration that would subdivide the lots with an east-west division line. This would reconfigure the two lots with one pre-existing dwelling on each lot and bring them into conformance with the Code. This reconfiguration will create a land locked "rear" lot requiring a right-of-way over the front lot to Broadwaters Road. The owner who applied for the variance that was granted in Appeal #2400, did not enact the lot line reconfiguration. The lots were later conveyed to another party who, in 2006, requested that the lots 189 and 190 be recognized as one lot for tax purposes. Pursuant to Town Code Article II, Section 280-10 the lots 189 and 190 have merged. Presently there exists two pre-existing non-conforming dwellings on the subject parcel. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services, recognizing the original lots 189 and 190 configuration, has granted approvals for the construction of a new dwelling on each of the two lots with the condition that "All structures are to be demolished" as noted on the separate surveys of Lot 190 and Lot 189, both dated April 30, 2007 and revised on April 28,2008 for Sanitary, prepared by Kenneth M. Woychuk L.S. and copies submitted in the application memorandum as Exhibit "L". The Planning Board, in a letter dated November 23, 2009, recommends a denial of the application based upon the potential adverse impacts of increased density and additional septic load. However, the Board finds that no such increase will take place since there currently exists two dwellings on the subject property and, in granting the lot line change requested, there will still be only two dwellings, one on each of the two proposed lots, each with upgraded septic systems. There were letters submitted to the Board from neighbors and the Nassau Point Property Owners Assoc. requesting the Board deny the application due to noncompliance with the code and the concern that trees would be removed while improvements were made to the parcel as a result of the proposed subdivision. The noncompliance to the Code of the proposed subdivision is the subject of this appeal and the applicant/owner of the subject parcel may, by right if he desires, remove any and all trees from his property or conversely plant more trees. The objecting neighbors own parcels which are also nonconforming, with respect to Lot Area, and are in the same configuration as the lots proposed by the applicant, and some are smaller in area than what the applicant proposes. FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on January 21, 2010, April 22, 2010, July 29, 2010 and September 23, 2010, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant and makes the following findings: 1. Town Law §267-b(3)(b}(1). Granting of the requested variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed subdivision would re-establish the original lot lines and create two lots that would conform to what is prevalent in size and dimensions to the Page 3 - December 2.2010 ZBA File#6344 Martz, Jr. majority of lots in this neighborhood. There has been no evidence presented that would indicate that the proposed subdivision would present a detriment to nearby properties. 2. Town Law §267-b{3}{b}{2}. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variances. The subject parcel consists of 71,038.19 square feet and therefore does not have sufficient lot area to meet the 40,000 sf/lot requirement in order to subdivide the parcel into two conforming lots. 3. Town Law §267-b('3}{b){3}. The variances granted herein are not substantial. Mathematically, the request to create two lots of 36,558.I9 and 34,480 square feet each, where 40,000 square feet is required, translates to only a 9% and 14% variance respectively. The applicant submitted a study of the parcels in the area with respect to their lot area size. The study showed that a majority of the parcels are nonconforming, and that the average size lot of the 135 lots studied is .73 acres (31,800 sf), thus translating to an average nonconformity of 20%. (Stated conversely, the average parcel studied is only 80% the size of a conforming parcel). The applicant's proposed variances of 9% and 14% are well below the average nonconformity of 20%. 4. Town Law §267-b{3}{b}(4}. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The property currently contains two single family dwellings each with its own septic system, and the same will be true in granting the proposed subdivision. All drainage will be controlled on site as per code and the sanitary will be upgraded 5. Town Law §267-b(3}{b}{5}. The difficulty has been self-created. The subject pamel was acquired by the applicant after the lot area requirements were established, consequently requiring the applicant to seek lot area variances for the proposed two lot subdivision. 6. Town Law §267-b. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of the subdivision of the subject parcel into two lots while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Schneider, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carded, to GRANT, the variance as applied for, and shown on the survey of Lots 189 & 190 inclusive and entitled "Proposed Land Division" dated April 30, 2007, Scale: 1"=30', Surveyor file #27-36SP (no revision dated indicted), prepared by Kenneth M. Woychuk, L.S. and the individual survey of Lot 189 dated revised Sanitary 4-28-08 and individual survey of Lot 190 dated revised Sanitary 4-28-08 both prepared by Kenneth M. Woychuk, L.S. Conditions: 1, All existing structures are to be demolished and removed. That the above conditions be written into the Building Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when issued. Any deviation from the survey, site plan and/or architectural drawings cited in this decision will result in delays and/or a possible denial by the Building Department of a building permit, and may require a new application and public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any deviation from the variance given such as extensions, or demolitions which are not shown on the applicant's diagrams or survey site maps, are not authorized under this application when involving nonconformities under the zoning code. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Page 4 Decembe~ 2, 2010 ZBA File#6344 Mmaz, Jt CTM: 1000-104-12 6.1 The Board reserves the right to substitute a similar design that is de minimis in nature for an alteration that does not increase the degree of Vote qf the Board: Ayes: MembersWeisman (Chairperson), Goehringer, Dinizio, Horning, Schneider. This R~lution was duly adopted (5-0). Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Approved for filing/,,~ / 7/2010 -08 S.C.T.M. NO. DISTRICT: I000 SECllON: 104 DWELL PUBLIC WATER [LEV. J9.4 S~L'n' S~NO 5.5 LOT I~8 BLOCK: 12 .LC 6. ! Ed. LS PUOL/C WATER tOWN 29' 46.g' 66'48'10" W tOT 202 10~.00' VACANT FINAL MAP IREVIEWED BY ZBA I SEE DECISION # I :;>. iLO NOTE: ALL STRUCTURES ARE TO BE DEMOLISHED THC WATER SUPPLY. I~I. LS AND CESSPOOL LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM FIELD OBSERVATIONS REVISE SANITARY 4-2B-OB AND OR DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHERS. AREA: 56.54.5.8 S.F. OR 0.84 ACRES ELEVAnoN DATUM: ASSUMED UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. COPIES OF THiS SURV~. MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYOR'S EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY. GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SBALL RU ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED AND ON HI5 BEHALF TO IHS TITLE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF' THE LENDING INSTITUTION, GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE, THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOBN HEREON FROM THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT INTENOEO TO MONUMENT THE PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIOE THE ERECTION OF FENCES. ADOITIONAL STRUCTURES OR ANO OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, E'ASEMEN AND/OR SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES RECORDED OR UNRECORDED ARE NOT GUARANTEED UNLESS PHYSICALLY EVIOENT ON THE PREMISES AT THE rIME OF' SURVEY SURVEY Of: LOT 189 CERTIFIED TO: 1tHEODORE C. MARTZ JR,: ~IAP OF: AMENDED MAP "A" OF NASSAU CLUB POINT PROPERTIES INC. rILED:JUNE 28, 1922 No, 156 SITUATED AT: CUTCHOGUE TOWN OF: SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK FILl[ ~/ 27-3e-! SCALE: 1'.40' DATE: ~L 30. 2007 ~. Y. S. UC NO. 50227 ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT INC.; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO., KENNETH M. WOYCHUK Land Surveying and Design P.O. Box 3, Ma%tituok, New York, 11952 PRON~ (8,~1) 298-15~8 FAX (631) 898-1588 O S.C.T.M, NO. DISTRICT: 10OO SECTION: 104 BLOCK: 12 LOT(S): PI06.1 183, Et. EV. 39.4 VACANT LOT LOT lg0 N 88o48'10,, W DWELL PUBLIC WATER FINAL MAP REVIEWED BY ZBA SEE DECISION # DATEDIo I LOT 202 NOTE: ALL STRUCTURES ARE TO gE: DEMOLISHE:D THE WATER SUPPLY. WELLS AND CESSPOOL LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM hELD OBSERVAnONS AND OR DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHERS, REVISED SANITARY 4-28-08 *.ssu,~co AREA: 54,480 S.F. OR 0,79 ACRES ELEVATION DAtUM: ........................ UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW, COPIES OF THIS SURV MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYOR'S EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT 8E CONSIDERED TO 8E A VALID TRUE COPY. GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RI ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INSTITUTION, GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE. THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON FROM THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT THE PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIDE THE ERECTION OF FENCES. ADDITIONAL STRucTURES OR AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. £ASEMEf AND/OR SUBSURI~ACE STRUC'~TURES RECORDED OR UNRECORDED ARE NOT GUARANTEED UNLESS J~HYSICALL Y EVIDENT ON FHE PREMISES A T THE TIME DF SURVEI SURVEY OF: LOT hr. AMENDED MAP "A" OF NASSAU CLUB MAP ~.. POINT PROPERTIES INC, FILED: JUNE 28. 1922 No. 156 SITUATED AT:CUTCHOGUE TOWN OF: SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK FILE #27-36-2 SCALE: I"=40' DATE: APRIL 50. 2007 N. ¥, S, UC H0. 50227 CERTIFIED TO: THEODORE C. MARTZ JR.: ABSOLUTE ABSTRAC'~ INC,~ FIDELI~' NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO.; _KENNETH M. WOYCHUK L.S. Land Surveying and Design P.O. ]Box 3, MatUtuek, New York, 11952 PHOI~ (~1) a98-1588 FAX (6~1) 29~-1586 S.C.T.M.# DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 104 BLOCK 12 LOT 6.1 LOT 188 TO BE DEM D o° ~ 79.5' EL LOT 189 PARCEL 1 56,545.8 S~F OR 0.64 ACRES N 66o48,10" PARCEL 2 54,480 S.F. OR ~.79 ACRES I 200.00' LOT 191 NDN. KEY MAP BROADWATERS COVE LOT 202 PROPOSED LAND DIVISION AREA: 7L058.19 SQ.FT. or '1.65 ACRES :L suRv£¥ oF: LOTS 189 & 190 INCL. . AMENDE/] MAP "A" OF NASSAU CLUB MAPOF POINT PROPERTIES /NC. Flu:r~:JUNE 28, 1922 No.156 SI~A~D AT, CUTCHOGUE TO~ OF. SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTT, NEW YORK CERTIFIED TO: THEODORE C. MARTZ JR ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT INC.; --IDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO.; RLE #27-565P SCALE I "----50' DA~E: APRIL 30, 2007 N ¥. S UC NO S0227 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ~_~, ~-~ L~- MARTIN H. SIDOR ~{ ~-~¥l · Chair -/ mLL~ J. CREMERS GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TO--SEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD MEMORANDUM MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 RECEIVED NOV 3 0 2089 aOARD OF APPEALs To: Gerard P. Goehringer, ZBA Chairman Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Martin H. Sidor, Chair Members of the Planning Board Date: November 23, 2009 Re: Request for lot area variances. ZBA # 6344 SCTM#1000-104-12-6.1 Zone: R-40 Location: Nassau Point, Cutchogue The Planning Board has received your request for comments regarding the above referenced application. The subject property is 71,028 square feet and is proposed to be subdivided into two lots, one 36,548 s.f. and one 34,480 s.f. We have reviewed the proposed action in the context of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, which is comprised of a number of plans and studies, and the zoning code itself. Based on comprehensive planning efforts, the Town Board applied the zoning district of R-40 to this area as an acknowledgement that the previous zoning allowing a higher density here was not in the best interest of the town. The merger law serves the same purpose by attempting to undo the overly dense arrangement of lots in an area such as this where it cannot be sustained. Lot area variances can slowly undermine the integrity of the code when taken cumulatively over time. This proposed lot area variance is inconsistent with the Hamlet Study, the 2007/2008 Hamlet Stakeholder recommendations, the 2003 Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Study. All recommend that additional density be located close to the hamlet centers, and Nassau Point is far from the hamlet center. RECEZYED , BOARD OF APPEALs Another major inconsistency with the Town's Comprehensive Plan is the adverse impact on the quality of the groundwater, which in turn will cause pollution to flow into the nearby bay. The Peconic Estuary Comprehensive Plan as well as Souti~oid's Plans call for protecting the water quality of the bays, a matter of public health, welfare and safety. Nassau Point Js already densely settled, and every home has a septic system, tawns and landscaping. Nitrates leaching from septic systems and fertilizer, and chemicals from pesticides end up in the groundwater. The groundwater travels to the bay, carrying the pollution with it. On such a narrow peninsula, the pollution arrives in the bay fairly quickly. Adding yet another septic system there will increase the polJution of the bay, and leads to the conclusion that increasing density beyond the current zoning should be prohibited. Allowing an additional substandard lot to be located in Nassau Point will result in increased traffic, which is inconsistent with the goal of almost every Town plan to reduce and control traffic. Nassau Point is too far from the hamlet center for easy walking and biking. Further, there is no opportunity for public transportation. From this location cars are likely used for all trips to the grocery store, library and other services. This increases pollution and traffic, and reduces quality of life for all. Lastly, the Planning Board would like to point out that it appears from a review of the aerial photo (2004 - see attached) that the lot is heavily wooded. Loss of trees, a valuable natural resource in Southold, will likely result from a lot area variance. Based on the above, the Planning Board has found that the proposed action is inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, and cannot support the granting of the lot area variances. We hope that the information provided to you is helpful. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the Planning Department. Thank you. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING THOMAS A. ISLES, A.I.C.P DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Town of Southold ZBA 53085 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Att: Gerard Goehringer, Chairman Dear Mr. Goeringer: November 13, 2009 Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14 14-23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following applications submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission are to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Applicants Municipal File Numbers Martz, Theodore C. Jr. Garipian, Kamick & Haci McElroy, Bryant & Mercy Witzke, William & Patricia Curtis (Charles M.) & Harvey (Jane W.) 6344 6345 6346 6347 6348 Very truly yours, Thomas A. Isles Director of Planning Theodore R. Klein Senior Planner TRK:ds LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 6100 (631) 853-5191 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER (631) 853-4044 FORM NO. 3 TO: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: August 19, 2009 Theodore C Martz, Jr Revised: November 18, 2009 C/o Bennett Enterprises P.O. Box 386 Wading River, NY 11792 Please take notice that your application dated August 17, 2009 For a permit for a subdivision and construction at: Location of property: 555 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 104 Block 12 Lot 6.1 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed two lot subdivision, on this 71,038 square foot lot in the Residential R-40 District, is not permitted pursuant to Article IV, Section 280-18, which states; No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the Low-Density Residential R-40 District unless the same conforms to the requirements of the Bulk Schedule and of the parking Schedule, with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full. Bulk Schedule requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. Following the proposed subdivision, each lot will be non-conforming, measuring 36,548.8 square feet for Parcel I and 34,480 square feet for Parcel 2. Additionally, permitted use is one-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot. Parcel 1 is proposed with two one-family dwellings. Additionally, pursuant to Article II~ Section 280-10~ which states; a nonconforming lot shall merge with an adiacent conforming or nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983... according to Town code the lots are merged. The proposed subdivision requires approval from the Southold Town Planning Board. This Notice of Disapproval was written based the survey by Kenneth M Woychuk, L.S. dated April 30, 2007. Authorized Signature Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL RECEZVED OCT 1 3 2009 BOARD OF APP~=AI.~ TO: Theodore C Martz, Jr C/o Bennett Enterprises P.O. Box 386 Wading River, NY 11792 DATE: August 19, 2009 Please take notice that your application dated August 17, 2009 For a permit for a subdivision and construction at: Location of property: 555 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 104 Block 1:2 Lot 6.~1 ls returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed two lot subdivision, on this 71,038 square foot lot in the Residential R-40 District, is not permitted pursuant to Article IV, Section 280-18, which states; No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the Low-Density Residential R-40 District unless the same conforms to the requirements of the Bulk Schedule and of the parking Schedule, with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full. Bulk Schedule requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. Following the proposed subdivision, each lot will be non-conforming, measuring 36,548.8 square feet for Parcel 1 and 34,480 square feet for Parcel 2. Additionally, permitted use is one- family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot. Parcel 1 is proposed with two one-family dwellings. The proposed subdivision requires approval from the Southold Town Planning Board. This Notice of Disapproval was written based the survey by Kenneth M Wo¥chuk, L.S. dated April 30, 2007. Authorized Signature Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. ,APPLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS 0 CT 1 3 2009 t -- c, ,~, ~ For Office Use Only (~ ~ t/~t ~///~ARD OF AOOF&I q Fce' S ~ FilcdBy:~ ~t~ Date Assignea/Assignment No. L~_~ ~ _t/77 ........ Parcel H0use No.555 Street Broadwaters Rd Hamlet Cutchogue 104 12 6.1 71038 R-40 SCTM 1000 Section Block Lot(s) Lot Size Zone I (WE) APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED: August 19, 2009 Theodore C. Martz ApplicanUOwner(s): Mailing Address: 145 Ryerson Avenue, Manorville, NY 11949 874-2303 Telephone: NOT~: In addldon to the above please complete below if application Is signed by applicant's attorney, agenl, architect, builder, contract vendee, etc. and name of person who agent represents: Authorized Representative:Bennett Enterprises for (X) Owner, or ( ) Other: Address: PO Box 386, Wading River, NY 11792 Telephone: 63a -aa~-59n7 Please check box to specify who you wish correspondence to be mailed to, from the above names: ~1 ApplicanUOwner(s) {~ Authorized Representative /3 Other Name/Address: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED FOR: X] Building Permit [] Certificate of Occupancy [] Pre-Certificate of Occupancy [] Change of Use B Permit for As-Built Construction DOther: July 20, 2009 Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Indicate Article, Section, Subsection of Zoning Ordinan~by numbers. Do not quote the code. 280-18 Article Section 280- Subsection Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: El A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. [] A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. [3 Interpretation of the Town Code, Article Section D Reversal or Other A prior appeai~g~has O has not been made with respect to this uropertv UNDER Appeal No. Year [~ . (P~ease be sure to research before completing this question or call our office to RECEWED Name of Applicant: Mart z CTM # 10 4 - 12 - 6.1 ZBA File # REASONS FOR APPEAL (additional sheets ~a¥ be used with preparer's sienature3: AREA VARIANCE REASONS: OCT 1 3 2009 BOARD OF ILI~PEAI~ (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of thc neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: Parcel consists of two lots (189 a 190)on the old filed map of Amended Map A of Nassau Club Point Properties. The majority of the lots in the neighborhood are situated on the same size lots as proposed. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: The lots are merged into the same name. The applicant is seeking a variance for the construction of a house on the second lot on the old filed map. (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: Parcel 1 lot area of 36,548 where 40,000 is required. 91% conformance Parcel 2 lot area of 34,480 where 40,000 is required. 86% conformance (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: There are two homes existing on parcel 1. The end result will remain the same. (5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ~)Yes, or ( )No. Are there Covenants and Restrictions concerning this laud: ~ No. [] Yes {please furnish copy)~ This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Check this box ( ) IF A USE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUES~D., AND P~SE~ ATTACHED USE VARIANCE SHEET: (Please be sure to consuit~u~,r a~) ~ ~ignature of Appellant or Authori~ge (Agent mort submit wrHt~n Authod~d.n from Owner Swore to before me this NOTARY pUBUC, State of NeW Yot~ No. 5008424 · led in Nassau oua~,! ..... =at~ TE THE APPLICANT'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION (For ZBA Reference) Applicant: Theodore Martz DatePreparcd: September 1, 2009 L ForDemolitionofExlstingBuildingAreas A portion of the house on parcel 1 Please describe areas being removed: will be removed to comply with si~e yard setbacks. RECEIVED OCT 1 3 009 ~ OF APPEALS II. New Construction Areas (New Dwelling or New Additions/Extensions): Dimensions of first floor extension: Dimensions of new second floor: Dimensions of floor above second level: Height (from finished ground to top of ridge): Is basement or lowest floor area being constructed? If yes, please provide height (above ground) measured frotn natural existing grade to first floor: III. Proposed Construction Description (Alterations or Structural Changes) (attach extra sheet if necessary)- Please describe building areas: ',lumber of Floors and General Characteristics BEFOKE Alterations: Alteration of existing home parcel~, construction ct new sinqle f~amily dwellinq parce.1 2 ~-lumber of Floors and Changes WITH Alterations: ~2~ IV. Calculations of building areas and lot coverage (from surveyor): Existing square footage of buildings on your proper%': Proposed increase of building coverage: Square footage of your lot: Percentage of coverage of your lot by building area: Single family dwelling on parcel V. Purpose of New Construction: VI. Please describe the land contours (fiat, slope %, heavily wooded, marsh area, etc.) on your land and how it relates to the difficulty in meeting the code requirement(s): No difficulty' in mee'~n~~----fh-e code requi~'ements. Please submit seven (7) photos, labeled to show different angles of yard areas after staking corners for new construction), and photos of building area to be altered with yard view. 7/2002; 2/2005; 1/2007 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILlinG WrFH YOUR Z~B.A. APPLICATION RECEIVED OCT 1 3 2009 BOARD OF APPEALS Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale? [1 Yes I~ No Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? XI No [~ Yes, please explain on attached sheet. 1) Are there areas that contain sand or wetland grasses? No 2) Are these areas shown on the map submitted with this application?_3a/a 3) Is the property bulkheaded between the wetlands area and the upland building area? 4) It' your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? _n/a Please confirm status of your inquiry or application with the Trustees: and if issued, please attach copies of permit with conditions and approved map. D. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? no E. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences that exist and are not shown on the sur~ey map that you are submitting? no (Please show area of these structures on a diagram if any exist. Or state "none" on the above line, if applicable.) F. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? no If yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department and describe: G. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcelg-o If yes, please label the proximity of your lands on your map with this application. 2 Single family dwellings H.Please list p~esent use or operation~ conducted at this parcel / and 176pc t use ~ (example: existi~arn~' same with garage or pool, or otlxer description.) Auth;riz~ed'Signatur~and Da~ ~ 2/05;1/07 Theodore Martz RECEIVED e ?.2o OCT ! 3 2009 IPR°JEcT I'D' NUMBER I Appendix C Rev~OwARD OF APPEAI"5 State Envlronmentat Quality SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only ~PART |~PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) SEQR I2. PROJECT NAME Broadwat er Rd · I 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR Theodore Martz 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Southold Suffolk COUnty 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street ~ddress and road Intersections, p~orninent landmarks, etc., or provide map} 555 Broadwaters Rd., Southold ~'} New [] F.<ganslon [] Modlttcattonlalteratlon Applicant seeks a subdivision of a 71,038 s.f. parcel into two parcels· parcel 1 having lot area of 36,545 s.f. and parcel 2 lot area of 34,480 s.f. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: WILt. PROPOSE ACTION COMPLY WITH ~XISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? [] Yes No II NO, describe briefly minimum lot area required is 40,000 s.f. requiring a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals -- 9. WHAT iS PRESENT LAND USE IN VlCINn'Y OF PROJECT? ~ascrlbe: Single family residences 10. ODES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAl., 11. STATE OR LOCAL)? :~ Yes [] No II ~e$, list agefl~/($) an'< pei'mlUapprovals Zoning Board Planning Board DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTL'~-~UD pERMIT OR APPROVAL'~ 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACT'ON WILL EXISTING p~[RMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? I CERTIFY THAT THE iNFORMATION PROVI~ABO E IS TRUE TO THE SE~' OF MY KNOWLEDGE r name Th~°re/~-~" / . Dat.: Signature: ~ the ,ct,on is ,n the ~~-~' the RECE/VED PART H--ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency) BOARD OF ADm:AL_~ IA OO~S ACTION ~XCE:O ANY TYPc. I THRESHOLO IN 6 NYO~R. P~RT 517.4~ If yes, coordinate tnb rewew process and use l~le FULL EAF C COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH TH~ FOLLOWING: (Ar:wers may oe han(~wnllen, il ~egl:lel D. WiLL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMFACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CEA? ~ Yes [] No E. l$ THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO SE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE SNVIRONMI[NTAL IMPACTS? [] Yes [~ NO I! Yes expla n b iefly ~ART Ill--DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (1'o be completed by Agency) · ff ct I~ant t ed above, dater~nine whether it is substan a, large,.important or otherwise, slgnlflcant.. . INSTRUCTIONS. For each adverjs.e · e _o,~. ,..~h ~te Iai sett ne (i.e. :than or rural); (b) brobabzflty of occurring, (c) duration, (d) irrevereibHit¥; (e) geographic scope; and (f} magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure treat explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have bean identified and aclecluately a(tdressed. question D of part II was checked yes, the determination and signiticsnce must evaluate the pofentisl, impact of the proposed acfio~ [] Check this bOX if you have identified one or more potentially IBrge O~'signlflcant adverse inY[5?cts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. [] Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on ettact~ments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination: L 2 RECEIVED APPLICANT OCT 1 3 2009 TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM (FOR SUBMISSION BY OWNER and OWNER'S AGENT) BOARD OF APPEALS The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of Town officers and emvlovees. The ~uroose of this form is to provide information, which can alert the Town of possible conflicts of inter~t and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. (Last name, first name, middle initial, unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person or company name.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax Grievance Variance ~/ Special Exception If "Other", name the activity:. Change of Zone Approval of Plat Exemption from Plat or Official Map Other Do you personally, (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the Town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation tn which the Town officer or employee owns more than % of the shares. XES NO LY Compete of this form and date an~[ sign below where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold: Title or position of that person: Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the Town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A through D (below) and/or describe the relationship in the space provided. The Town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, partner, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEZVED OCT 3 BOARD OF ~ WHEN TO USE THIS FORM: The form must be completed by the applicant for any special use permit, site plan approval, use variance, or subdivision approval on property within an agricultural district OR within 500 feet of tt farm operation located in agricultural distric~ All applications requiring an agricultural data statement rnUst bt referred to the Suffolk County Department of Planning in accordance with sections 239- tn and 239-n of the General Municipal Law. 1) NameofApplicant: Theodore Martz 2) AddressofApplicant: 145 Ryerson. Avenue, Monorv. il~le, 3) Name of Land Owner (if other than applicant): £ amc 4) Address of Land 0Wncr: 5) Description of Pr0posed Project: ' Subdivision into two parcels NY 11949 6) Location of Property (road and taxmap number):wrc~mclw~vc, w~ ~c,~c] gcmM '] nC~0-] 04-] 2-~.: 7) ls the parcei within an agricultural district? ['X[No I-lyes ffyes, Agricultural District Number 8) Is this parcel actively farmed? [~No I-lyes 9) Name and address 'o~ any oWner(s) of land within the agricultural district containing active farm operation(s) located 500 feet of the boundary of the proposed project. (Information ma}, be available through the Town Assessors Office, Town Hall location (765-1937) or t~om any public computer at the Town Hall locations by hewing the parcel numbers on the Town of Southold Real Property Tax System. Nam~ and Address f (Please use back side of page if more than six property owners am identified.) The lot numbers may be obtained, in advance, when requested from the Office of the Planning Board at 765- 1938 or the ~_~fqt~tk)a'rd~ A~ppeals at 765-1809. ~gna [e ot,~pp.ca~// ' Date Note: 1. Thc local board will solicit comQl~hls from the owllers of land identified above in order to consider thc effect of the proposed action on their farm operation. Solicitation will bo made by supplyin§ a copy of this statement. 2. Comments t~lm~d to thc {coal board will be taken into consideration aa pm of thc ovcrall review of this application. 3. Th~ clerk to the local board i$ responsible for sending copies of the completed Agricultural Data Statement to thc property owners identified above. The mst for mailing shall be paid by the applicant at the time the application is submitted for review. Failure to pay at such time means thc applicatiOn is not complete and cannot be acted upon by the board. 1-14-09 Town of Southold INSTRUCTIONS LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM RECEIVED 1 3 2009 BOARD OF APPEALs All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town). lfany question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it_shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# 1000 104 12-6.1 The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): TownBoard [] Planning Dept. [] BuiidingDept. [] BoardofTrustees [] Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response): (a) (b) (c) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital [] construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) [] Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) Permit, approval, license, certification: [] Nature and extent of action: Applicant is requesting a re-subdivision of two parcels that exist on an old filed map for the purpose of constructing a OCT 1 3 200 Location of action: Site acreage:. Present land use: 555 Broadwaters Rd. Cutchogue 1.63 single family dwelling and cottage BOARD OF APPEALS Present zoning classification: R- 4 0 If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Nameofapplicant:The°d°re Martz (b) Mailing address: 145 Ryerson Avenue, Manorville, NY 11949 c/o Bennett Enterprises LLC PO gnx 386: Wading Rivo_r: NY 11792 (c) Telephone number: A~ea Code ( ) 631 - 445 - 5907 (d) Application number, if any:. Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes [] No ~-~ If yes, which state or federal agency?. DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [] ]No [] (Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessary 'Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria [-~ Yes ~ No [] (Not Applicable- please explain) RECEXVEO OCT ! BOARD OF APP, ALS 'Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria [] Yes [] No [] (Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria [] Yes ~ No [] {Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of 8outhold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria [~ Yes ~ No [-~ (Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. ~-~ Yes [] No [] (Not Applicable - please explain) RECEWED OCT 1 BOARD OF AFg. i'4LS Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. See Section III - Policies Pages; 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. ~-~ Yes [] No [] (Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessary ~Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [] No ~-~ (Not Applicable - please explain) PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes~ No ~ (Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessary WORKING COAST POLICIES OCT 1 3 2009 .. BARD . 'Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote slt,ng of new water-I~penaOe~n~Ps~ii~ suitable locations. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [] No [] (Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additionaI shccts if necessary Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [] No [] Not Applicable - please explain Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [] No [] Not Applicable - please explain Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [] No [] Not Applicable - please explain ~*/ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RE( ~ORD CARD OWNER STREW,6--6-~ V,LU~GE D,sr. LOT ~ /£? ~, /fa FORMER OWNER N E A~i~' ' S W ~PE OF BUILDING ~ '~ ~ES. ~'~ ~ S~S. VL. FA~ CO~. C~. ~ISC. ~kt Value AGE BUILDING CONDITION I ~ ~ N~ NOR~L BELOW ABOVE ~ECE~D ~ FARM Acre Volue Per Volue T'Obkle 1 gO~ED OF APPEA~ ~illoble 2 rillable 3 ~ ,~'~:~ ~ ~ N~land ./ f .. j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;womplond FRONTAGE ON WATER ~ ~ ~ouse Plot .~13 /~00 / ~00 DEPTH .~ ? ~ep,~ ¢ .r ~ BULKH~D total _~ ~ ~ D~K 104.-12-6.1 12/06 ~ / /,,J~ Iii I I.I 1~11 I l'l~ll ~t I I1,1~ II .111 II I I.I I I I I I I I I~l~l Ii I I-l~q 'l ~lll P~ T/I I I I I I / II 117~ll ~ Il l-I I/I/Z II,vi I-I I Ii t~ll Itl I / I I I I I I / I Ill ~l I I I I I ~ ~ ~ l: Foundation Both T--t Basement ~::~ ~--"7'~ )ors Walls Fire Place Roof ~,ecreotion Room nterior Finish Heat ~/~. Dinette Rooms 1st Floor Rooms 2nd Floor .~/ /_/.~.~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD /~-~ FORMER OWNER N E ACR. S W ~PE OF BUILDING RES. ~ S~S. VL ~ FARM COMM. CB. MISC. Mkt. Volue AGE BUILDING CONDITION N~ NOeL BELOW ABOVE FARM Ac~e Volue Per V~lue Acre '.~le 1 Tilloble Tilloble 3 Wo~lond Sw~mplond FRONTAGE ON WATER House PIo~ DEPTH BULKH~D To~el D~K 104.-12-6.1 12/06 Bldg. <tension <tension xtension COLOR TRIM i m,( , · - IFoundation RECEIVED 0C1' 1 3 200S ~rch /_~o¢ lreezeway 'atio, ~.e~v ~- BW~k ~ta~/.~/~ 5'7 Bosement iExt. Walls Fire Place ~pe Roof Recreation Room Dormer Driveway BOARD OF APPEALS BR. 9 ~ ~ /~ Rooms 1st Flor R~ms 2nd Flor TOV~N OF SOUTHOLD BUILDINGJ)EPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTItOLD, NY 11971 TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 765-9502 SoutholdTown.NorthFork.net Examined ., 20 Approved Disapproved a/c ,201 Expiration ,20__ PERMIT NO. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST Do you have or need the following, before applying? Board of Health 4 sets of Building Plans Planning Board approval Survey_ Check Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Flood Pemait Storm-Water Assessment Form Contact: Building Inspector LPPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date INSTRUCTIONS a. This ap~l~llffit. MUST be co apletely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 4 sets ~fr~l~n~ ac~l~t~ ~1~. l~, .... ~?. 'ee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showIng location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and waterways. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what so ever until the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. f. Every building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced within 12 months after the date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date. If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the property have been enacted in the interim, the Building Inspector may authorize, in writing, the extension of the permit for an addition six months. Thereafter, a new permit shall be required. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions, or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. /~Signature of apphcant or name, l fa corpo2t~one., (Mailing addre'ss-ofapplicafi~ ' //?~ State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder Name of owner of premises /'-~ g'O dt:~' f-~v~'/c ?-_ (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer (Name and title of corporate officer) Builders LicenseNo. Plumbers LicenseNo. Electricians LicenseNo. Other Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Mgp No. 1000 Section /'O,~/ Block Subdivision ,/~/rr~.r~,'/~,,,'/f%7~z7 ~ ~-,~' t~J~ 'Filed Map No. ? ~-~ Lot construction: 2. a. Existing use and occupancy ,5/~/~ ~)ff~,.r~ ;5 tf~c,Dr~7//~ ,q~ . State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed b. Intended use and occupancy -~t~o ~qi,x~,~C/~; ~ 3. Nature of work (check which applicable)' New Building / "Addition J Alteration Repair Removal Demolition Other Work 4. Estimated Cost 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units If garage, number of cars ~ 2 Fee (Description) (To be paid on filing this application Number of dwelling units on each floor ~_ 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front Height Number of Stories Rear Depth Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front 50 Depth. Height ~7~', Number ofi¢ 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front Rear ,,-.l;)epth f 10. Date of Purchase Height ¢ . Number of Stories Size of lot: Fron(IqO) [0 ?- Rear qg Depth Name of Former Owner 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation? YES ~ NO__ 13. Will lot be re-graded? YES .~ NO__Will excess fill be removed from premises? YES__ J 14. Names of Owner of premises ~"~'oO/~e ~'~-t~ddress /{-/g ~,~r3o'n ~c_Phone No. ~'~ cf, 2 ~ 0.3 Name of Architect Address / Phone No Name of Contractor ,_~axe ~-$ oc~,~-~r' Address PhoneNo.' 15 a. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland? *YES NO __ * IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES & D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b. Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? * YES __ NO ~ * IF YES, D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. 16. Provide survey, to scale, with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17. If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below, must provide topographical data on survey. 18. Are there any covenants and restrictions with respect to this property? * YES__ · IF YES, PROVIDE A COPY. NO ~ STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF ) tr~l'C~.~/ ~/"~;' /1'-6 beingdulysworn, deposesandsaysthat(s)heistheapplicant (Name of individual signing con~l'~c~c) above named, (06ntractor, Agent, Corporate Officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are tree to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. ~5 ~ q County, New ¥o:'k ? ~ .......................................... ~STRICT SECTION BLOCK LOT B 12 17 21 26 THIS INDENTUPd~, Made the /~ day of September, p~neteen hundred and seventy-eight, between BRADFORD B. · GREEN, residing at 101 Bard Avenue, Staten Island, New York, and M_%RSHALL M. GREEN, residing at 900 Cat~Jaount Road, Fairfield, Connecticut, and DEBORAH G. ANDERSEN, residing at 62 Helen's Lane, Mill Ualley, California, party of the first part, and Rev. ANTHONY SAVASTANO, residing at Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Lindenh0rst, Suffolk County, New York, party of the second part, WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of the sum of Fifty-five Thousand ($55,000) dollars, lawful money of the United States, paid by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, peice of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Nassau Point, County of Suffolk, State of New York, known and des- ignated as Lots NOS. 189 and 190 on a certain map entitled, "~J~ended Map A of Nassau Point, owned by Nassau Point Club Properties, Inc., situate in Town of Southold, Long Island, New York", surveyed June 28th, 1922 by Otto W. Van Tuyl, Civil Engineer and Surveyor, Greenport, New York, and filed in the office of the County Clerk of Suffolk County, New York, August 16, 1922, File No. 156. SUBJECT to covenants and restrictions of record, if any affecting said premises. BEING AND INTENDED TO BE the same premises described in the deed dated Septe~oer 13, 1963, to Mary T. Green from John Albert, recorded in Suffolk County Clerk's Office on September 17, 1963, in Liber 5416, page 82 and in the deed dated March 15, 1968, to Bradford B. Green, Marshall M. REAL ESTATE SEP 1 5 ~78 SUFFOLK ARTHUR I. F£LIC~ R E C 0 R D E D ,o.. S..o,k FORM NO. 4 TSWN OF ' SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. PRE EXISTING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No: Z- 32256 Date: 03/20/07 THIS C]~RTIFIES chat the ~uildin~ DWELLING Location of Propex~y 375 BROADWATERS RD CUTCHOGUE (HOUSE NO.) (STREET) C~ty T~u~ap~]o. 473889 Section 104 Block 0012 S~ivislon Filed Map No. __ Lot No. __ co-~o~nms substantially to the Requirements for a ONE FAMILY DWELLING bu/lt prior to APRIL 9~ 1957 pursuant to wb/ch ~TIFIC_A~ OF ~ANC"fN~ Z- 32256 clated MARCH 20f 2007 was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is ONE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ACCESSORY COTTAGE* (HAMLET) Lot 006.001 The certificate is issued to ANTHON-f SAVASTANO (OWNER) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUI'~I'YDEPA~'IT4I~OFI~,ALTHAPPR.OVAL pL~ERSu~KTIPICATI(~NDA'£~u *PLEASE SEE ATTACHED INSPECTION REPORT. N/A N/A Rev. 1/81 AHTHON~ BAVAb'TA~0 - ~/~$/07 DATB: 03/19/07 A;pe~No. 2434 DaSd June 9, 1978 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TH~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To Bradford B. Green 101 Bard Avenue Staten Island, New York 10310 1978 ................... of the Zonin~ Ordinance ~d ~e d~i~n o! ~e Bu2din~ Inspector ( ) be ~ve~ ( ) be e~lrmedbecau~e 9:15 y.M. (D.S.T.) upon application of Bradford B. Greene, with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk and Parking Schedule for permission to divide property with insufficient area. Location,of property: Lots No. 189 and 190, Nassau Point, Cutchogue, New York. SEE REVERSE RECEIVED OCT 1 3 (b) The hardship created (is) (t~ not) unique and (wOuld) (would not) be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vlchaity of this propert~ and in the same use district becmust SEE REVERSE (c) The variance (does) (doe~ not) observ~ the spi~i~ oil the Ordinance aud (would) SEE REVERSE (would not) SEE REVERSE APPROVED RECEIVED After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to set off a lot with an existing building, on Broadwaters Road~ Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that the lot to be created would be undersized in a recommended low density area. Two water studies, a general study by Malcolm Pirnie of of the Town of Southold, in June, 1967, and the Suffolk County Board of Health 1971 survey Of Nassau Point in particular, updated to 1975, emphasize the finite nature of the available water supply which is re- plenished solely by rainfall. In 1975, 80 percent of the wells showed evidence of salt water intrusion according to the Board of Health letter of March 4, 1977, which indicates that there is no change in the 1975 test results. The creation of such a lot would set a precedent for the division of man~ lots which are somewhat over 40,000 square feet in Nassau Point but not large enough for two lots. Many single and separate un- developed lots on Nassau Point, some undersized- remain to be developed and. should have prior rights to the available water. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would not produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is not unique and would be shared by all properties alike in the i~ediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will change the character of the neighborhood, and will not observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion Of Mr. Gillispie, seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED,~%~Bradford B. Green, 101 Bard Avenue, Staten Island, New York, be~ENIE~permission to divide property with insufficient area. Locatikn~f~property: Lots No. 189 and 190, Nassau Point, Cutchogue, New York. Vote of th~ Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. OCT 1 3 ;~OARD OF APPEALs SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF ~PEALS will not change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. On motion by Mr. Bergen, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED that John A. Polywoda, Bay View Road, Sout~o~d, New York, be G~NTED permission, to erect second ground sign. Location of property: Southwest oorner Of Main Road (S. R. 25).,and Hobar~ Road, Southold, New York, bounded~on .the north by Main Road, east by Hobart Road; south by J. Lehman an~ west by Warnaka and Ross, subject to the ~oll0wing condi- tions: (1) The sign shall be no larger than 6 feet by 8 feet. (2) The sign shall be single faced. (3) The sign shall be located a~iea.~3~.rS~t~_~m~y pr~pg~e~tv line.. (4) Th~ sign shall be located at ~eas~. 30 feet from the intersection of Main Road (~2 R. 25) and Hobart Road. (5) Approval of the Suffolk County Planning Commisslon. Vote of'the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. .P~BLIC~HEAR~Q: ~ppeal.No~. 2%34 - Upon application0f..Bradford B. Green, l~l'iB~d'i.A~enue, Staten Island, New York,.'~or a variance in accordance ~Wi~h th~iZo~ing Ordinahce, Article III, Section'lGO-31 and Bulk a~d'iPa~k~nglS~edule for permission to divide property with ins~f- fiCien~ ~area~ Location of property: Lots No. 189 and 190, Nassau Point, Cutchogue, 'New .¥~rk. The ~ira~n~open~d the ~earing by reading the application for a Varlanc~i' i~ ~ce',~of hearing; affidaVl~ a~es~ln~ ~ ~ts publlca- t~on in i~he~i~a~ n'.~..spa~ers, and notice .to theapp~ca~. The Cha~rma~ .~ ~e~i~ ~ement .from theTown Clerk .~that 'no~%flcatlon by oer~ifiga~':~ee~ made to: ~. and ~s. Ch~ies~ J~ ~ausch, ~. Geo=~.E.~ Ba~k~, '~. Honorah McC Fleming. Fee. pa~d~$1~.00. T~~ ~ ~ ~.' Th~ application is acc~panie~ a~'~ r~ar ~n o~,~0~, feet wi~hla 'depth. ~f'i35~'~Se~ ~hi~ks out to ~ppro~te~y ~0,00~ :sqUare feet. The app~an~:~u~ 1~ The: house ~'~o~a~e~'in'su~h a wa~, ! a~s~e the re~= crea~e, woula have a~prOX~ty the s~e acreage as~e lot~e~ 9r~sen~ :ho~se~T~ ~n'~roadwa~ers aoaa. ~s there a~ne ~resen~ ~:~Wishes t~:sP~ ~ ~-s a~plicat~io~ Is Mr. '~r~en here?. (~ere. W~sn~ ~ · · ~S .~re~ne present who wishes t0 spea~.aga~st ~s a~l~cation? SOUTHOLD TOWN.BOARD OF~PEALS ~HE CHAt~4~N: If there is no one who wishes to speak against this applic$~ion I.~.wi~i.?3~$~e to speak against the application. It has become the policy of ~h~ B6~gd to recognize as dia the Malco%m'Pirnie Water s~udy 6f',a~ne. 1967, General Study of the T6wn of Sout~01d'Water Supply has begn Updated since sew ral times indicating that the finite nature of t~e av~lIable water supply pa=ticularly Nassau Point which is replenished s~!eiy~on. Long Island by r~ in falll we ha~ an application somewhat simila~ to this at that t~ Nassau!Pui~t Road to W~nnel accord~n~ tO a Board of:~e~ there ~ad not been any cha~ time we established a poli( one.un~esS~the two resulti~ a v~ew~%o ~eta~ning as muc] in which an applicant's lot stretched from eta Road, was to divide his property in two. ~e acreage. After inves~igatioh we found out s showed evidence Of salt ~ater intrusion lth letter of M~rch 4, 1977, in~icating that ;es since their 1975 test results. So at that which wcn/ld deny creation of ~wo lots from lots would be o~er 40,00O~sqBare feet. With of the. water s~ppIy as exists ~n Nassau Point for.the somet~e future us~ their lots~ there are guit~ No,'22~5.~ A~.i.no~dand Dia~ wa%er ~pp~y..~Fo~ instan?~ weliSi~.'~ed/~,.'e9 varyi] obvfou§~that th6r& is.a tel fresh ~er. Certainly an2 of some of the.people who:have~ not developed a few. There US a~ot in the file on Appeal a ~Gard~er bearing ~tNassau !Point's limited in one of the r~ports, 50 percent of the ~ degrees of ~.alt water int~?qsion. It is uous bala..nce in th~ area b~tWen' the Salt and large Withdrawa~s will ha~e drastic..effects. They speak or,nitrate' con( ~tration. The onty~ souroe~:of r~lenis~ent is by~ na~uZal 'precipltatio~. Salt ~ater chio~ida~ ~$]eVid~ht in 50 pe'r-' cent of~t~' w~Ils. ~ add~tionai 30 percent had: Ch%o~ide ievel~ in Whlch ~lf~ere~tla~n between salt water intrusion a~ cesspool pollution 'could' h~t'<be .~0tuall~ determined. Eighty pe'=c~n~ of ~h~ h6mes are'thus experiencing ~hlor~de leve~s in their.~water~ s~Pp~y ~r~at~· thom noel accepted gro~d Wa~er concentrations alth~U~ ~one ~eeded drinking ~ter"~t~. The rate of Salt water ~ion .ca~no~ be acCUrately established but the .rate will ~ a f~ction~ cf ~evel'~nt, population g~owth~ gro~';}~r w!~hd~awal and. the ~%~o~ nat~al precipitation. ~other ~ou~ w!~h the r~sultant loweriDg of the g~und Water' ~able will further'~r~vate ~e~fresh salt wa~er balance and increase the rate of grou~' ~ter de'or,oration. A~ter. ~d inspec.tion tho Board ~.~ . ~h~t '~e , :.New ~&=~.' Th~: ': ~n~.~ "~ ~e ~9~.: '&~D ~at ~e~ted '~e under,SiZed ~ ~';. ~e~ ~ ~. ~nsf~t~- area. ~ e,~a~ of sa!th Ie~ter Of ~hat there o ~han~e in ~e 19~S tgst results. The ~re~'i~ .of ~such: a l~t Would a, = a-. Preceder for the divisio~ Of man2: %10tS[~h~ .are SOme- what over. 40:/~ ~0 ~q~re.~eet:in NaSsau: ~oint.:bg~ ~0~ ia~gg.'.~n0~gh :fOr ~w6: lo%a. ~ y's!ngle and separate undevglOpea some"~nders'~z'~ ~., .t~ain ~O. be 4eVeioped the available ~ater. The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance would not produce p~actical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is not u~iq~e and would'be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and thevariance will change the character of the neighborhood, and wil~ not observe the spirit of the o~dinance. seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was RESOLVED, that Bradford B. Green, 1Gl Bard Avenue? .Staten Island, New .Y?r'k,.. be ~EN~ED' p~rmissi0n '~o. ~vide property, wi.th iinsuffiCie~t, la, ea. Location of pgoperty: Lots NO. 18'9 and 190, Nassau Point, cutch0gue, New Yo~k. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, and Doyen. PUBLTC HEARING: Appeal No. - Upon applicationo~ Donald G. King, ~ocky P6±nt Rca4, East Marion, New York, for a variance inlaccord~ ance:wlth ~he~iZoning 0~dinancei'artlc~e III, Section 108-30 and Bulk Schedule for ~er~iSsion to divide lot With insufficient a~ea. Location of property~ 'L~t No. 16, Map of Jackson's Landing, Ma~tituck, New York. The Cha~rm~m opened the hearing by re~ding the application for a variance, le~lnot~ce of hearing, affidavits attes'ting'to its publication in 'the of ' ' ' ' ' " ffc~al .newspapers, and not,ce to the appl!can~. The Chaxrman also read a s~atement from the Town Clerk that notification by certified mail had been~made to.: T~q~ CHAIRMAN: The County Tax Map indicates that this lot does in fact face on two streets. It appears to have 110 feet on Jackson!s Landing and 110 feet approximately on two courses on MillRoad also.known as COX Neck Roa~. The depth of this lot on the southerly dimension is 314 feetland',~n the northerly depth 250 feet. It look~ like one of the courses- is l~Lfeet and the Other is 139. You don't have any,.~e, computed on t~is, do yOU? DONAteD:, G. KING.: It is approximately 3/4 of an acre. ~,'~'; T~ ~ear d~easi0ns are 125 fe'~: 0~: ~ke o%~ ~ ~A%es' ~ b0~ a~rox~atel~, 1/2 ~re:-~2'U AcrOSs ~.-r~ on Jackson~ $ ~ng ... are se=eral .lo%s.,.t~ '.a~e~r :tQ' be i60.'~e.~t a~d~lfo.fe~t, about.~o,000 s~are .f~t. AC~as':~'~e~ 0~: Roaa o= 'c'~ N~ck Ro;ad are several s~ller lots that' '~P~r-'~om to %he west:, ~y 'Sta~t ou't at 1~0 feet, 91 feet,' .~o~e~go d~'tO ~5 feet. (Lots 11 and !~); S9 the~ are an .average Of a !00' .b~: square fee%. {we-~e' j~st:' ~iag' ~6. es:~a~l~h the 'n~i~rho6d. Is" ~h~re anyone who wishes to speak for this application? vi R£CEIV£D ocr 13 Zoo~ BOARD OF APPEALS After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to change lot lines and approval of access, south ~ide Broadwaters Boad, Cutchogue, New York. The findings of th~ Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The houses were originally sited on property linesand granting this application will in no way change the existing situation. ' The Boar~ finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the /mmediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of t~e neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance.~] THEREFO]~E IT WAS RESOLVED, Victor Teich c/o Butt G. Lewis, Main ~ad, Cutchogue, New York, be GP~NT~D pemiesion to change lot lines and ~pproval of access, eouth side ~roa~waters Road, Cutchogue, New!York, Lots %189 and 190, Amended Map "A" of Nassau ~oint ~roperties, Filed Map %156, as applied for. Vote of ~he Board= Ayes= - Messrs= Gillispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. :~ RECEIVED AND FILED BY RECEIVED -'~,~ ~ O~T 1 ~ ~009 South~ld ~own Board of Appeals -22- March 23, 1978 front yard setback, Westphalia Road and Deer Drive, Mattituck, New York. The findings of the BOa~ are thaw the reduction of the front yard setback to 26~ will mot affect ~he character of 7the area. ~he Board finds thaw stri wo~I~prod~oe practical difflc ~he'~rdsfiiPcreated iS unique proper'ties alike~in'the immedi in the same ase district; and charaoter of the neighborhood, the Ordinance. On ~otion by Mr. Gillispi ~ RESOLVED, Wilford Kr~ge~, · N~,.York, be ~RANTED perm~ss~o ci~t fron~'yard ~etback., West NeW York, Lot ~t9, Map of De~r :t ~pplication of the .0~,ance ~ties or Unnecessary 'hardship; and woul? not be ~hared bY al~ ~te vicinity 0f.lthis property and ~he variance will not chan. ~e the ~d will observe the sp~rlt Of seconded by Mr. Maimone, it was 130 Washington Drive, Ce~terport, %to. construct dwelling wi~h insuffi~ )halia Road ~9 Deer 'Drive, Mattituck, Par~, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: - Mes,ars:";~lisp~e, Grigonis, Doyen, 'Maimcne. pUBL~ ~NG: Appeal ~. 240~ ~ 9:00 ~.M: (E.S~T.) up.on apPl~a~i0n Of Vict6r'Te%~h c/O Sur~ G. Lewls,i Mal~ Road, Cutchogue,.2New York .for a.var~nce in accordance with the Zoning- orai~ance,~Article III, Sectio~ 10~73!.and Bulk 'Sohedule,~nd~ the TOwn L~W, section 280A f'orl/permlsslon to change~o~ ilnes and apProv~ of aCcess. Location of property: south Side B~ad- Waters Roa~, Cutch0gue, New ¥o~k; Lots %%89 a~d 190, Am~h~ed .Map "A" ~f Nas~a~ Foint Proper~i~s~ Filed Map #156. Tko ~.irman opened the h~aringby reading the application f~r a vari~oe, legal noti?e.o~ hea~i~g,, 'affidavits attesting to its Public,tiOn in the offlcia~ new~pa~er, anddlsapproval the BUiiai~g Inapect6=.. The ~airman also re~d'st~t~ent'from t~ T'ow~ C%erk that notification by certifiedmail ihad been made t~= Ho~drah Fleming; Charles U~ RausCh;' Geroge Barker. Fee paid $15.00. THE CHAIP~VakN: Anyone wish to speak..for this applicat%on? BURT ~j~WIS: I'm a real estate broker in Cutchogue an~ I'm speaking for'Mr. Teich. T~.E C~AIBMAN: Apparently he always owned both ~hese lots. Did he alw~.ys, own both lots~ BURT r~4IS: NO, he!s a con~ract vendee. THE CHAIRMAN: But these.two lots were under one ownership? Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- March 23, 1978 BURT LEWIS: They've been that way for a ~ong time. THE CHAIRMAN: And whoever built the original house ... BURT LEWIS: Made a mistake. Instea~ of getting a survey, they ~ust had these two lots and they put the house on the lot. Then it turned out later on that it stra~led two lots. THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe the fellow thought that the lot was divided crosswise. BURT ~EWIS: I got that information from Rod Van Tuyl. But if you gentlemen don't like that line the way.it's divided, we'd be happy to move it one way or the other. THE C~%XRMAN: I don't think it matters, if that's wh~hthey want it. The access is good, too, we drove up in i~. BURT LEWIS: That's the access that's being used now. THE CHAIRMAN: AnyQ~a present wish to speak against this application? (There was no response.) After. investigation and inspection, the Board. finds that the applicantrequests permission to change lot lines and approval of ac=ess, so~th side Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Boa~d'is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The houses were originally sited on pr0pert~ lines and granting this application will in n~ way c~an~e the ~existing situation. The Board finds that stric~ application of the Ordinance would prod~e' practical difficulties or unnecessary h~rdship; the hardsh~ crea~ed is unique and ~ould not be sharea by all ~roperties alike in the iamlediate vicinity of this property and xn the sam6~use district; and the variance will not '~ha~ge the character of the neighborhood, and will observ~ the spirit of the 0r~ina~de. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Maimone, it was RES0~VED, VictorTeich c/o BU~t G. Lewis, Main Rga~ Cutchogue, NeW Y0rk,'b~'~Dperm!ssion to chan~el l~'lines an~iaPproV~..~ ao0ess, Southlzi'de. Broadwaters Road,' cUtchogue,' ~ew York, L0tS'~'%189 and.190,'~end~d Map "A" Of Nassau' ~0int Pr0pertle~, Fi!~ Map'%~lS6, as. applied for. Vote o.f the Board: Ayes: - Messrs: S~lii~pie, Grigon!'s, Doyen, Maimone. ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, RMC, CMC TOWN CLERK REGISTBAR 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 TO: FROM: DATED: RE: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Elizabeth A. Neville October 19, 2009 Zoning Appeal No. 6344 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 6344 of Bennett Enterprises for Theodore C. Martz- the Application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Also enclosed is the Applicant's Project Description, Questionnaire, Short Environmental Assessment Form, Transactional Disclosure Form, Agricultural Data Statement, LWRP Consistency Assessment Form, Copy of Action of the Zoning Board of Appeals Dated July 19, 1978 (5 Pages), Copy of Sureey, 3 Pages of Property Record Card, Notice of Disapproval from Building Department Dated August 19, 2009, One page of Photos of Buildings, Copy of Survey Showing Proposed and Existing Construction Dated April 30, 2007 Prepared by Kenneth M. Woychuk L.S., Copy of Survey Showing Proposed Construction Dated April 30, 2007 Prepared by Kenneth M. Woychuk L.S., Copy of Survey Showing both Lots with Proposed & Existing Construction Dated April 30, 2007 Prepared by Kenneth M. Woychuk L.S. Town of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Date: 10/19/09 Transaction(s): 1 1 * * * RECEIPT * * * Application Fees Receipt"8: 60725 Reference Subtotal 6344 $600.00 Check#: 5401 Total Paid: $600.00 Name: Martz Jr., Theodore 145 Ryerson Ave. Manorville, NY 11949 Clerk ID: CAROLH Internal ID: 6344 STEPHEN ~. ANGEL CARMELA ~Vl. DI TALIA ANTHONY C, PA$CA NICA B. STRUNK LISA J. ROSS EsseKs, HEFTER <~ ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. ~30x 279 RIVERHEAd, N.Y. II901-0279 (63I) 369-1700 TelECOPieR NUMBER (631) 369-2065 October 20, 2010 WATER ~VllLL OFFICE MONTAU K HIGHWAY P. O. Box 570 WATER ~llLL, N.Y. 1197~ (631) 726 6633 RECE[VE~/,..,:>; OCT 2 0 2010 BOARD OF APPEALS Hand Delivered Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Theodore C Martz, Jr. ZBA File No. 6344 Premises: 555 Broadwaters Road Cutchogue, New York SCTM No.: 1000-104.00-012.00-006.001 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Members Dinizio, Goehringer, Homing, and Schneider: We are in receipt of three "objection" letters submitted to the Board since the close of oral testimony: a 10/4/10 letter from Mr. Fleming, an undated letter from the Milners delivered to the ZBA on 10/5/10, and a 9/29/10 letter from the Cantelmos. While we do not believe it is necessary to respond to each and every one of their comments, many of which we have addressed several times already, there are a few points we wish to clarify to set the record straight: 1. As reflected in the Cantelmo and Fleming letters, the neighbors have repeatedly claimed that the applicant purchased the subject property at a discount and stands to reap a windfall of profits, such as Mr. Fleming's claim that the applicant will "realize an instant gain of several hundred thousand dollars if the application is granted." While I understand that it has become somewhat of a tradition for neighbors to appear in opposition to applications and to play the "developer card" and accuse applicants of reaping profits at their expense, there is simply no basis in this case to make such an accusation. Nobody has explained how the applicant here stands to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits just by the grant of a variance that would allow the two houses on the subject property to be owned by two separate persons or entities. As we have explained several times, the applicant is not proposing to increase density at all - there are two houses on the property now, and there will only be two houses after the variance is granted. This is a matter of ownership, for the two houses currently are owned by one person and but could be owned by two if the lots are de-merged. I understand from the applicant that there will, in fact, be no "profits" at all received through this application. Any claim that there will be some "instant gain of several hundred thousand dollars" is unfounded and ridiculous under the circumstances. It is also telling that two of the three neighbors who have opposed the application most actively (the Flemings and the Milners) have multiple lots, including vacant ones, and have kept them "checkerboarded" to maintain what they would apparently consider to be the highest profit scenario. Whereas those neighbors have checkerboarded their properties in a way that would allow them to increase overall dwelling density, by adding a new home to each of their vacant parcels, the applicant here proposes no such increase in density. Their opposition is thus at once both baseless and hypocritical. 2. The Milners' letter displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the current zoning code when they argue that there will be "prejudice to the Cutchogue community" because the applicant is proposing a one-acre lot and 3/4-acre lot (under the alternative plan) whereas "two acre zoning is in effect." As the Board knows, the zoning of the subject property is entirely in the R-40 district. Thus, far from being well "undersized," one of the two lots would be conforming to the 40,000 sf requirement and the other would be .71 acres, which is comparable to the neighborhood average of .73 acres. 3. To the extent that the Milners claim there would be some environmental impacts ifa variance is granted, those claims are equally unfounded. The Milners raise some specter of environmental impacts on Broadwaters Cove just by the grant of a variance that would recognize only the legal right to own the two pre-existing homes in separate ownership. Their claim is inexplicable and indefensible. Not one environmental expert has suggested that this application could have some impact on any wetlands. Even it if could be presumed that the variance might some day result in a larger structure to the rear of the existing main house, where the second dwelling is, that development would be several hundred feet away from the wetlands. There is simply no wetland jurisdiction in this case. And, as we've explained previously, even if no variance is granted, any owner of the property could "clear cut" the property and propose far more massive development. In fact, because we have proposed non-disturbance buffers and a more limited principal building envelope than any "as of right" development, the grant of the application would ultimately reduce the potential clearing of the property in perpetuity. In short, while the neighbors' opposition to the application is perhaps expected and unsurprising, the bottom line is that nobody - despite three full hearing days and numerous written submissions - has ever identified a single adverse impact on the community, much less the type of impact that would outweigh the benefits of the application. The application will do nothing but recognize two pre-existing dwellings on their own lots, each of which would be keeping with the existing development pattern and character of the community. The added mitigation measures we have proposed go above and beyond what any of the objecting neighbors have ever voluntarily undertaken on their own properties. We submit that we have established compliance with the necessary elements to receive an area variance - conformance with the character of the community, insubstantiality of the variance, no reasonable alternative, and no physical/environmental impacts. The only other criteria (self-created hardship) is, as a matter of law, an element that cannot alone be used to deny an application. The application should therefore be granted. Thank you once again for you continued consideration of this application. cc: Joseph Rizzo, Esq. (for Cantelmo & Rehm) Angela Tese-Milner, Esq. Xavier Fleming NASSAU POINT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. PO BOX 346 CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 BOARD OF APPEAL~ September 30, 2010 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Application of Theodore C. Martz, Jr. Zoning Board of Appeals File No. 6344 STCM No. 1000-104.00-012.00-.006.001 555 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: As we expressed at the September 23, 2010 ZBA meeting, the Nassau Point Property Owners Association, representing almost 300 homeowners on Nassau Point, is opposed to granting lot size variances. In addition to the reasons already given for opposing lot size variances, and this request in particular, is that there are a good number of unimproved lots available for sale on Nassau Point that meet existing zoning requirements and on which development would not tend to change the character of the Point. Adding additional lots that do not conform to our zoning laws act to the detriment of all of the homeowners on Nassau Point. Again, we ask that you reject this request for a lot size variance, especially since it is not necessary given the availability of unimproved lots. rely, Thomas Cornwell, President CARmELA ~1. BI TALIA NICA B. ~TRUNK LISA J. ROSS MELfSSA H. SIDOR Hand Delivered Esseks, HefteR & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW io6 EAST iVlAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 (631) 3691700 TELECOI~IER NUMBER (631) 369 2065 September 27, 2010 BOARD OF,APPEALS WATER MILL OfF}CE ~/~ O NTAU K HIGHWAY P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 (63[) 726 6633 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application qf Theodore (_2 Martz, dr. ZBA Pile No. 6344 Premises: 555 Broadwaters Road Cutchogue, New York SCTM No.: 1000-104.00-012.00-006.001 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Members Dinizio, Goehringer, Homing, and Schneider: In furtherance of our discussions at the September 22, 2010 hearing, we are enclosing a revised survey which shows a "primary building envelope" for the southern lot as discussed at the hearing. A 301 setback has been shown along the western boundary, a 70' setback has been shown along the southern boundary, and a 40' setback has been shown along the eastern boundary. To confirm the applicant's offer of conditions, which can be memorialized in recorded covenants, to be filed prior to issuance of any building permit: 1. there will be only one common driveway serving both lots; 2. a 15' non-clearance buffer will be established around the western, southern, and eastern boundaries of the property; and 3. the rear (southern) parcel will be restricted by the proposed primary building envelope, which will limit the area available tbr any principal dwelling. Finally, 1 wish to respond briefly to several comments made by neighbors who expressed concerns that the application will set a tar-reaching precedence for the Nassau Point area. We believe that there is little or no basis Ibr such a concern. The subject property is unique not only because of its size (which is more than double the average lot size in the area), but because it September 27, 2010 Page 2 of 2 already has two legal single-family dwellings on the property, each with its own septic system. In other words, this application does not seek to increase dwelling density beyond what already exists on the property. It only seeks to recognize a legal separation of ownership of two pre- existing single-family dwellings. We are unaware of any other parcels in the area with similar circumstances and therefore believe that the granting of the application cannot have any precedential impact. Thank you for you continued consideration of this application. /bws Enclosure cc: Joseph Rizzo, Esq. (for Cantelmo & Rehm) Angela lese-Milner, Esq. Xavier Fleming S.C.T.M. NO. DISTRICT: 1000 SECTION: 104 BLOCK: 12 LOT(S): 6. I ~ I I I J I I ~ ~ LOT t~ LO~ ~90 I ~ I ~OARD OF APPEALS N~48 IO"W ~ ~ON. ~00.00' ~CN 2~, ~9~ ~ ~ ~2~o0. ~ ~A~EN S~PP~ ~ ~ ~ND ~00~ ~V~S~O 09-2~-~ 0 ~O¢~r~ONS ~0~ ~ ~0~ n~D oss5~wr/~s ~V~SS0 09-20-~ 0 ~ o~ o~r~ o~rm~5~ F~O~ o r~s. A~¢A: ~,0~.J9 SO.F~. o¢ ~.6~ ~C~S · ~V~r/ON ~m.'~: ......................... ~N~U~HON/ZSD ~LrEN~/ON ON ADO/r/ON ~ ~ ~ /S~ ~OL~r/ON OF SECr/ON ~09 OF ~ N~ ~0~ Sr~E 5D~CAr/ON L/Sr~D ~0~, ~ND ~0 ~ ~SS/~NEES OF ~ LENO/N¢ /NS~/~/ON, ~OAN~NrE~S A~E NOr ~NANSF~N~E. s~ o¢: ~O~S ~9 & ~90 ~NC~. C¢~¢~5~ ~0:~EOOO~5 C. n~¢o: JgN~ 2~, ~922 No.~56 F~O¢k~W N~ON~k l~k¢ ~NSg~NC¢ CO.; ¢o~ o¢: SOg~O~O ~NNETH M. ~OYCHUK L.S. S~0k~ CO~Y, ~W YO~ ~ ~nd $u~e~n¢ ~nd Desi~ P.O. Box 3, ~a~tuck, New York, 11952 PHO~ {631) 2~-15~ F~ (631) ~-15~ ~ ~ ~--~ ~ ~ "~0* O~T~; ~ ~. 200~ ~. ~. ~. U~ ~0. ~0227 ~ain~ni~ the ~ecords of WILLIAM W. ESSEKS ~VlARCIA Z. HEfter STEPHEN R. ANGel WILLIAM Power MALONeY CARMELA M. DI TALIA ANTHONY C. I~ASCA NICA ~3. STRUNK THEODORE D. SKLAR LISA J. Ross Hand Delivered Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 ESSEK$, HefTeR & ANGEL, LLP COUNSeLors At LAW I0~ EAST MAIN STREET P. O, Box ~79 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901 0~79 September 21, 2010 WATER r~l~LL OFFICE ~4ONTAUK HIGHWAY P, O. Box 570 WATER i~llLL, N.Y. 11976 (631) 726-6633 ~I~CEIVED ~0~20 ~FAPPEALS Re: Application of Theodore C Martz, dr. ZBA File No. 6344 Premises: 555 Broadwaters Road Cutchogue, New York SCTM No.: 1000-104.00-012.00-006.001 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Members Dinizio, Goehringer, Homing, and Schneider: As you may recall, based on our discussion at the July 29, 2010 ZBA meeting, we discussed making refinements to the alternative plan under which the parcel would be divided in accordance with the 1978 variance. Since that meeting, the applicant has met with some of the neighbors (and offered to meet with all of them), and has also staked the 25' right of way, as per the Board's request. As a result of some of the Board members' comments at the July 29th meeting, as well as comments from some of the neighbors, the applicant has asked its surveyor to revise the survey in two respects. A copy of the revised survey is enclosed. First, a line showing the "existing clearing" has been added to the survey to show the existing conditions more clearly. Second, a "15' buffer" line has been added to the west, south, and east perimeters of the subject property to show a proposed non-clearing buffer area. Although the owner would have a right to clear the entire parcel, it is offering to provide the 15' buffer in perpetuity. Moreover, the proposed division line, as per the 1978 variance, would require no additional clearing at this time, nor is any intended. The existing driveway will likely continue to serve as a "common driveway"/bt both parcels in the near future. Should the need ever arise to relocate the common driveway further east toward the right of way, the 15' buffer will ensure that the common driveway is screened from the property to the east. September 21, 2010 Page 2 of 2 We look forward to discussing the alternative plan in more detail and bringing the matter to a conclusion at the ZBA's meeting on September 23, 2010. /bws Enclosure cc: Joseph Rizzo, Esq. (for Cantelmo & Rehm) Angela Tese-Milner, Esq. Xavier Fleming Michael M. Milner, Esq Ang¢la rese-Milner, Esq TESE & MILNER One Mineita Lane New York, New York 10012 (212) 475- 3673 Fax (212) 598-5864 Vincent S Tese, Esq (1903-1972) Raymond Tese, Esq (1912-2002) To: Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 54375 Main Road Southold, New York Re: Application of Theodore C. Marz, Jr. ZBA File No. 6344 Premises: 555 Broadwaters Road Cutchogue New York SCTM No. 1000.104.00-012.00-006.001 BOARD OF AppE.qt,$ Dear Chairperson Wiesman and Members Dinizio, Goehringer, Homing and Schneider: I am submitting this written objection to the application of Theodore C. Marz, Jr. (hereinafter, "Applicant") ZBA File No. 6344 which seeks to subdivide, into two contiguous lots, lot 189/190 held as a single lot* located at 555 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue, New York, l 1935("Single Lot"). Applicant, a developer, recently purchased the Single Lot. I believe that the prejudice to the community and the environment, to wit: the delicate ecosystem of adjoining Broadwaters Cove substantially outweighs any prejudice to Applicant and that a review of the facts will show that there is no rational basis for granting Applicant the variance. My husband and I would be directly impacted by a subdivision of this Single Lot since we reside directly across from the Single Lot on Broadwaters Road. While this Zoning Board has broad discretion in this matter, I respectfully request that you deny the Application because the prejudice to the community clearly outweighs any hardship to the Applicant and there is no rational basis for granting the variance. Since this Single Lot has historically been owned as a single lot, and since Applicant a developer purchased it as such and since the Single Lot is less than two acres and given the Single Lots proximity to Broadwaters Cove and the Single Lots elevation to the surrounding lots, I request that the variance be denied. 1. If there is any hardship to Applicant who purchased the Single Lot as an investment, it is clearly a "self-created hardship". Applicant is a developer and he pumhased the Single Lot in his name. The request for a variance to subdivide the Single Lot is based on a "self created hardship". In Matter of Tsunis v. Zoning Board of Appeals of incorporated villiage of ?oquott, 59 A.D. 3d 726(2d Dept. 2009) the Second Department upheld a denial of a variance by a zoning board finding that the hardship was self created and that there was a rational basis for denying the variance. *The present dwelling straddles lot 189/190. There is no dispute that the Single Lot was conveyed to Applicant as a single lot by Father Anthony Savastano. Father Anthony Savastano had purchased the Single Lot in 1978 as a single lot, and resided there in the summers with his brother and sister. He conveyed the single lot to Applicant. 2. Applicant's argument to the Zoning Board of a rational basis for the subdivision into two lots does not outweigh prejudice to the Cutchogue community. Applicant claims that it is rational to subdivide the Single Lot because it is larger than the surrounding lots. However the Singe Lot is approximately one and three quarter acre and the two lots would be less than one acre and less than three quarters of an acre. It is my understanding that in Southold Township, two acre zoning is in effect. While Applicant points to the lots immediately surrounding the Single Lot as a rational basis for allowing subdivision based on size, this rational lacks substance for a number of reasons, including: a. The topography of the Single Lot is unique in its elevation and differs from the surrounding lots in its elevation. The Single Lot is at the apex of elevation from the surrounding lots and elevated significantly in comparison to the surrounding lots. The runoff from two substantial houses and septic systems from this elevated Single Lot would likely have an effect on Broadwaters Cove (See the attached Google map showing a pond emptying into Broadwaters Road within 389 feet from the Single Lot. I have attached a Wetlands Report which cites Broadwaters Cove as a significant tidal wildlife sanctuary in the Cutchogue Estuary and which points to the danger to this delicate ecosystem from the pressures of increasing density. b. Applicant states that there are already two houses on the Single Lot however, the Google yiew of the Single Lot demonstrates that the second house on the Single Lot is nothing more than a tiny cottage, outbuilding. Its impact on the surrounding fields, fauna and wildlife is de minimus. At present, Applicant would be confined to this building envelope. No doubt, were this Zoning Board to grant Applicant the variance, this tiny accessory building would be replaced with a larger dwelling and with an equally enlarged septic system. c. Broadwaters Cove is an important shellfish tidal estuary and home to endangered bird species including the Piping Plover and the Osprey. Nassau Point is a hilly peninsula jutting out into Peconic Bay, bounded on one side by Broadwaters Cove. Further, Nassau Point is characterized by many multi acre lots and unimproved bird sanctuaries. The variance if granted would provide a dangerous precedent for subdivision of single lots greater than one acre, with outbuildings. I also request that if Applicant persists in his application for a variance that he be required to conduct an impact study on the Broadwaters Cove estuary created by the buildings and runoff. I respectfully request th/the Appli~fltion be denied. V.et~]Truly YouI:'~'>~/ ~ 7'~ ' z /s/Angela We'se-Milner and Michael M. Milner CC. Xavier Fleming Esseks Hefter& AngelLLP Joseph Rizzo, Esq. COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM Name of Area: Designated: Date Revised: County: Town(s): 7Vd Quadrangle(s): Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands March 15, 1987 May 15, 2002 Suffolk Southold Southold, NY; Southampton, NY Assessment Criteria Ecosystem Rarity (ER)-4he uniqueness of the plant and animal community in the area and the physical, structural, and chemical features supporting this community. ER assessment: Bay-wetland complex, unusual in northern Long Island, but degraded in places by marina/residential development. Calculation: '/(16 x 9) Species Vulnerability (SV)--the degree ofvulnerabitity throughout its range in New York State of a species residing in the ecosystem or utilizing the ecosystem for its survival. SV assessment: Least tern (T), piping plover (E, T-Fed), and osprey (SC) nesting. Calculation: 36 + (25/2) + (16/4) = Human Use (HU)- the conduct of significant, demonstrable commercial, recreational, or educational wildlife-related human uses, either consumptive or non-consumptive, in the area or directly dependent upon the area. HU assessment: Commercial and recreational scalloping significant to Suffolk County. Clamming significant at the town level. Population Level (PL)--the concentration ora species in the area during its normal, recurring period of occurrence, regardless of the length of that period of occurrence. PL assessment: Concentration of osprey is significant at the county4evel. Replaceabitity (R)--ability to replace the area, either on or off site, with an equivalent replacement for the same fish and wildlife and uses of those same fish and wildlife, for the same users of those fish and wildlife. R assessment: Irreplaceable. 12 52.5 4 1.2 Habitat Index -- [ER + SV + HU + PL] = 72.5 Significance = HI x R = 87.0 Page I of 8 NEW YORK STATE SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT NARRATIVE CUTCHOGUE HARBOR AND WETLANDS LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: Cutchogue Harbor and its adjacent wetlands are located west of Little Hog Neck, opening into Little Peconic Bay in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangles: Southold, NY and Southampton, NY). This approximate 490 acre habitat includes the shallow open water area of Cutchogue Harbor (205 acres) and three adjacent, distinct tidal wetland/creek areas: Wickham Creek, Haywater Cove, and Meadow Beach (Horseshoe Cove). The Wickham Creek area contains approximately 70 acres of undisturbed tidal creek and Salt Marsh located behind a Iow beach on Cutchogue Harbor. The Haywater Cove area consists of approximately 190 acres of Salt Marsh islands, mudflats, open water and tidal Creek including East Creek, Mud Creek and Broadwater Cove. All three of these tidal creeks have been disturbed to some extent by adjacent residential and recreational development. The Meadow Beach area is an approximate 25 acre area, including a 15 acre wetland preserve owned by the Nature Conservancy, bordered by undeveloped wooded shoreline. Much of the Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands area receives moderate summer recreational use, including recreational boating in the coves and creeks. FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES: The Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands complex represents a valuable ecosystem area in northern Long Island. Although the three wetland sites are relatively small, and subject to human disturbances, they provide suitable habitat for a variety of coastal wildlife species, including osprey (SC), least tem (T), piping plover (E, T-Fed) and diamondback terrapin. Osprey have nested in the area for many years using man-made nesting platforms placed at Wickham Creek and Meadow Beach. The Meadow Beach nesting site has been especially productive in past years, and has served as a soume of young birds for the NYSDEC's "hacking" program in western New York. A nesting platform in Haywater Cove historically has been active and is an important potential nesting site. Meadow Beach supported a relatively small nesting colony of least terns of 20-60 pairs during 1982-1985. These numbers declined between 1986-1991 (ranging from 13-24 pairs). Least tern have nested sporadically since 1991 (1 pair in 1993; 14 pairs in 1997). Up to 4 pairs of piping plover nested at Meadow Beach and Wickham Creek during the early 1980s, but similarly, numbers of this species have declined to an annual average of I nesting pair between 1987 and 1996. The peak number of nesting piping plover pairs in the area during this period was 2, occurring in 1994. Diamondback terrapin nest in the Haywater Cove area, and up to 20 nests were reported from the Page 2 of 8 marsh areas at the mouth of Wickham Creek in 1996. This area may provide important breeding habitat for horseshoe crab, but additional documentation is required. The Cutchogue Harbor Wetlands serve as valuable feeding areas for the species noted above, as well as for herons, egrets, waterfowl, shorebirds, and a variety of other wildlife species. Bird species that are probable or confirmed inhabitants of the area include green heron, yellow-crowned night heron, Canada goose, mallard, American black duck, clapper rail, killdeer, belted kingfisher, red-winged blackbird, and sharp-tailed sparrow. Double-crested cormorant reportedly use surrounding creeks. Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands are vex productive areas for marine finfish and shellfish. The marshes, mudflats and tidal creeks contribute significantly to the biological productivity of Cutchogue Harbor and adjoining portions of the Peconic Bays. Historically, eelgrass beds were present in the southwestern portion on the harbor, supporting a large number of commercial scallop houses in New Suffolk to the west. The Cutchogue Harbor area is one of the top areas in Southold for the harvesting of scallops and clams. The level of scalloping is significant at the county level. Clamming is significant to the Town of Southold. There is also a conch fishery of local importance. An administrative closure is in effect between May 15 and October 31 for Broadwater Cove and Wickham Creek. East Creek is closed to shellfishing year round. Blue crab are harvested locally for recreational purposes. The wetlands and tidal creeks serve as nursery and feeding areas (April-November, generally) for many estuarine fish species, including scup and winter flounder. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Any activity that would substantially degrade the water quality in Cutchogue Harbor or the adjacent wetlands and creeks, would adversely affect the biological productivity of this area. All species offish and wildlife may be affected by water pollution, such as chemical contamination (including food chain effects resulting from bioaccumulation), oil spills, excessive turbidity, stormwater runoff, and waste disposal, including boat wastes. It is essential that high water quality be maintained in the area, through control of sewage discharges fi.om recreational boats and upland sources. Alteration of tidal patterns in the Cutchogue Harbor Wetlands (e.g., by modifying the inlets) could have major impacts on the fish and wildlife species present. Dredging in Cutchogue Harbor should be scheduled from September 15 through December 15 to minimize potential impacts on aquatic organisms and to allow for dredged material disposal when wildlife populations are least sensitive to disturbance. Dredged material disposal that alters creek inlets or tidal flow would negatively impact the habitat value of this site. Such impacts are reported to exist already at a dredged material disposal site in the Meadow Beach area, where tidal flow has been altered causing erosion of the marsh and shoaling to the north. Barriers to fish migration, whether physical or chemical, into Wickhara Creek or Haywater Cove would have a major impact on the fisheries. Restoration of fisheries habitat through removal of such barriers, or other means, should be considered for the Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands area. Page 3 of 8 Unrestricted use of motorized vessels including personal watercraft in the protected, shallow waters of bays, harbors, and tidal creeks can have adverse effects on aquatic vegetation and fish and wildlife populations. Use of motorized vessels should be controlled (e.g., no wake zones, speed zones, zones of exclusion) in and adjacent to shallow waters and vegetated wetlands. Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas, through loss of tidal connection, dredging, excavation, or filling, would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat area Dredged material disposal in this area would be detrimental, but such activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat for certain species of wildlife, especially nesting shorebirds. Construction of shoreline structures, such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments, in areas not previously disturbed by development, may result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of the Cutchogue Harbor area. Alternative strategies for the protection of shoreline property should be examined, including innovative, vegetation-based approaches. Control of invasive nuisance plant species, through a variety of means, may improve fish and wildlife species use of the area and enhance overall wetland values. Restoration opportunities may exist for eelgrass habitat in the western nearshore area of the harbor mouth. Eelgrass beds require high water quality for survival, and the existence of appropriate environmental conditions for eelgrass restoration should be carefully examined. Nesting shorebirds inhabiting Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands are highly vulnerable to disturbance by humans, especially during the nesting and fledging period (March 15 through August 15). Significant pedestrian traffic or recreational vehicle use of the beach could easily eliminate the use of this site as a breeding area and should be minimized during this period. Recreational activities (e.g., boat and personal watercraft landing, off-road vehicle use, picnicking) in the vicinity of bird nesting areas should be minimized during this period. Predation of chicks and destruction of eggs or nests by unleashed pets (e.g., dogs, cats) and natural predators may also occur, and predator control should be implemented where feasible. Fencing and/or continued annual posting of shorebird nesting areas should be provided to help protect these species. Control of vegetative succession, through beneficial use of dredged material or other means may improve the availability of nesting habitat in this area. Page 4 of 8 KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS: Habitat Unit NYS Department of State Division of Coastal Resources 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231 Phone: (518) 474-6000 NYSDEC--Region 1 State University of New York, Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 Phone: (631) 444-0354 Wildlife Manager NYSDEC--Region 1 State University of New York, Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Phone: (631 ) 444-0310 Bureau of Marine Resources NYSDEC 205 N. Belle Meade Road, Suite 1 East Setauket, NY 11733 Phone: (631) 444-0430 Finfish and Crustaceans NYSDEC 205 N. Belle Meade Road, Suite 1 East Setauket, NY 11733 Phone: (631) 444-0436 New York Natural Heritage Program Wildlife Resources Center 700 Troy-Schenectady Road Latham, NY 12110 Phone: (518) 783-3932 Town of Southold Town ttall 53095 Main Road; P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1801 Page 5 of 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Application of THEODORE C. MARTZ, JR., #6344 For Area Variances For Property Located At: 555 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue, SCTM 1000-104-12-6.1 VARIANCE AND ZONING ANALYSIS Dated: April 13, 2010 Submitted by: Anthony C. Pasca Esseks, Hefter & Angel, LLP Attorneys for Appiic~nt 108 E. Main Street Riverhead, NY 11952 631-369-1700 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to provide background information and to summarize and analyze the variance and zoning issues before the Zoning Board of Appeals in the apphcation of Theodore C. Martz, Jr., for area variances to allow his property at 555 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue (SCTM 1000-104-12-6.1), to be divided into two parcels. The variances are necessary, by virtue of the August 19, 2009 (rev. 11/18/09) Notice of Disapproval, to allow the property, which is already improved with two dwellings, to be "de-merged" and resubdivided into two parcels of 36,549 and 34,480 square feet where 40,000 square feet is otherwise required. The "Background and Supporting Evidence" section of this memorandum will provide the Board with the facts relating to conditions of the property, the history of its development (including a prior variance granted by this Board), the surrounding neighborhood, and the particulars of its proposed redevelopment. The "Variance Analysis" section will then demonstrate, based on those facts, that the requested variances cannot rationally be denied, since they will result in (1) a development pattern that is not only the historic pattern, but is consistent with the existing development pattern for the area (and therefore will have no adverse effect on the character of the community) and (2) a development pattern that is more conforr~ing to the zoning code as compared to the current non-conforming development on the property. BACKGROUND AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE The Subject Property The subject property was originally two lots - lots 189 and 190 of the "Amended Map A of Nassau Point," filed on June 28, 1922 as Map 156 in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office. (See E~hibit A). Those two original lots, now comprising the subject property, total 71,038.19 square feet, or 1.63 acres, located on Broadwaters Road, approximately 80 feet east of the intersection of Broadwaters and Wunneweta Road. The property is roughly a 200 by 350 rectangle. It has 205.52 feet of frontage on Broadwaters Road. An April 30, 2007 survey of the property's existing conditions is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. As depicted on the survey, the property is improved with two dwellings: a main house is located approximately 58 feet from the front lot line, and a smaller cottage is located further toward the rear of the property. The two dwellings unquestionably are lawful pre-existing structures. In 2007, the Building Inspector issued Pre-Existing Certificate of Occupancy No. Z-32256, dated 3/20/07, certifying the dwelling and cottage as pre-existing. (See Exhibit C). The two dwellings are served by public water, which is available for the entire area. The 1978 Variances In 1978, when lots 189 and 190 were still legally separate tax parcels but had the two existing dwellings on them (one of which straddled the division line), the Zoning Board approved variances to allow a lot-line change that would re-subdivide the properties with an east-west division line, rather than a north-south division line, so as to create roughly square-shaped parcels, each with one house. There were actually two appeals taken at that time, one under Appeal No. 2400, application dated February 24, 1978, and decision dated April 14, 1978 (see Exhibit D), and the other under Appeal No. 2434, application dated June 9, 1978, and letter dated August 28, 1978 re-affirming the prior decision for a new applicant (see Exhibit E). The 1978 variances were granted under the old "practical difficulties/hardship" criteria that used to be applicable to area variance application prior to the codification of Town Law § 267-b(3). The alleged hardship argued at the time was that the two houses could not be separately owned with the homes straddling the pre-existing lot lines, and the then owner was unwilling to relocate or rebuild the structures. The variances thus allowed the re-subdivision of the property with the east-west division line because it would have allowed each home to be on a separate lot with separate ownership, instead of having two houses on one lot, with one only capable of being leased. The ZBA in 1978 apparently found the separation of the two homes into two lots to be a sufficiently compelling reason to justify the grant the variances even though (1) the lot configuration would have been contrary to the prevailing development pattern in the area (which consists generally of long rectangular lots), (2) one of the lots would become legally landlocked, thereby requiring a frontage variance as well as an access easement to reach the street, and (3) there was no public water available in the area. Apparently, the owner who obtained the variances did not utilize them by re' subdividing the property. Those variances are arguably still in effect, however, as there was no lapse provision, and variances run with the land. See Ho!t_baus v. Zoning Bd. o£Appea]s of the Town of Kent, 209 A.D.2d 698 (2d Dep't 1994) (1970 variance ran with the land and was still in effect in 1991, despite its non-use). As explained below, this application does not seek to utilize the lot configuration approved by the 1978 variances at this time but to re-establish the original lot configuration, which is presumed to be more consistent with the character of the community. The applicant is willing to utilize the 1978 variance configuration if the Board deems that configuration more appropriate. Lot Merger In 1978, the two pre-existing parcels (lots 189 and 190) were conveyed to the Rev. Anthony Savatano, who continued to hold the parcels in common ownership thereafter. (See property record card, Exhibit F). Although presumably merged by operation of law, Rev. Savastano formally asked in 2006 that the parcels be recognized as one lot for tax purposes. (See Letter dated 12/12/06, Exhibit G). Neighborhood Survey A review of either the original subdivision map (Exhibit A) or the current tax map sections for the area (Exhibit H) confirm that the prevailing development pattern in the area generally consists of long rectangular lots, around 100 feet wide, mostly between 1/2 and 3/4 acres per lot for the interior (non-waterfront) lots, with some of the waterfront lots slightly larger (generally around 3/4 to I 1/4 acres). Applicant has performed an survey of 135 interior (non-waterfront) lots south of Broadwaters Cove, in the immediate neighborhood of the subject property, to ascertain the lot size and status of each parcel. The area studied is highlighted in yellow on the tax maps sections 111 and 104 (except for the applicant's property, 3 which is highlighted in green) in Exhibit H. The results of the survey are included in several tables annexed as Exhibit I hereto. A more thorough analysis of this data will be presented below. Proposed "De-Merger" and Re-subdivision In 2009, the Applicant applied to the Building Department to de-merge the property, re-establish the original lot lines (for parcels 189 and 190), partially demolish and reconstruct the main dwelling solely on parcel 1, retain the cottage thereon, and construct a new dwelling on Parcel 2. (A survey with proposed resubdivision line, showing the building envelopes of the new lots and some proposed locations of the new and reconstructed dwellings is annexed as Exhibit J). The Building Department issued a Notice of Disapproval on August 19, 2009, revised on November 18, 2009, identifying two grounds for denial: the lack of sufficient lot area to authorize the resubdividion, and the fact that lot I would have two dwellings on it. (Exhibit K). The Applicant appealed the Notice of Disapproval and sought the necessary area variances to authorize the resubdivision of the properties and the retention of the cottage. Since filing this appeal, the Applicant has decided to abandon any request to have two dwellings on any one parcel. Therefore, as a condition of the resubdivision, the Applicant will either convert the cottage to a permissible non- habitable accessory structure or remove it from lot 1. This application therefore seeks the required area variances to allow parcel 1 to have a lot area of 36,548 square feet where 40,000 sf is required (i.e., a 91% conformance, or a 9% variance), and to allow parcel 2 to have a lot area of 34,480 square feet, where 40,000 sfis required (i.e., an 86% conformance, or a 14% variance). The Suffolk County Department of Health Services recognizes the pre- existing lot configuration and has already granted approvals for the construction of new dwellings on each of the two lots. (See Exhibit L). The Planning Board, without hearing any of the Apphcant's arguments in support of the application, issued a November 23, 2009 Memorandum recommending a denial of the application. (See Exhibit M). The errors in the Planning Board's analysis will be addressed below. 4 VARIANCE ANALYSIS A. t~actors Supporting the Requested Area Variances There are numerous factors in this case supporting the requested area variances. The following will address those factors in light of the five-factor statutory "balancing test" set forth in Town Law § 267-b(3)(b), which requires the Board to "take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant," with particular consideration of the following 5 criteria: 1. Character of the Neighborhood The first and perhaps most critical factor to be considered by the Board is "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." See Town Law § 267-b(3)(b)(1). Typically, this factor requires the Board to view the prevailing characteristics of the neighborhood to determine the similarity or dissimilarity of the proposed development as compared to the existing community. Where a community is already developed in a manner that would be nonconforming to the dimensional requirements, and the requested variances would ultimately allow another property to be developed in that manner, then the variance can rarely said to produce an "undesirable change" in the character of the community. In other words, if the proposed development would be consistent with the existing character of the community, this factor weighs heavily in favor of the granting of a variance. Numerous judicial authorities support these propositions. See, for example, De£reestville Area Neighborhood Assn., Inc. v. PlanningBd. o£Town o£N. Greenbush, 16 A.D.3d 715, 724 (3d Dep't 2005) (area variance upheld to allow apartment complex where it was consistent with existing character of the mixed commercial, multifamily, and residential developments of the neighborhood); Gonzalez v. ZBA o£ Town o£Putnam Valley, 3 A.D.3d 496 (2d Dep't 2004) (where there were several substandard properties in immediate area, denial of variance was arbitrary); Gomez v. ZBA o£Town o£IMip, 293 A.D.2d 610 (2d Dep't 2002) (annulling condition of variance because most of homes in area were of similar sized lots and bulk); Wantagh Woods Neighborhood Association v. Board o£ZoningAppeals o£the Town o£Hempstead, 208 A.D.2d 935 (2d Dep't 1994) (where most properties in the neighborhood failed to conform to the zoning code, the proposed development was found not to have an adverse effect on the character of the community); Niceforo v. Zoning Bd. o£Appeals of Town of Huntington, 147 A.D.2d 483 (2d Dep't 1989) (where two thirds of properties were already nonconforming, variances would not have detrimental effect on community); 5 Cassano v. Zoning Board o£Appea]s of the Incorporated Village o£Bayville, 263 A.D.2d 506 (2d Dep't 1999) (where many other homes in neighborhood failed to meet setbacks, denial of variance was arbitrary); Filangeri v. Foster, 257 A.D.2d 895 (3d Dep't 1999); Witzle v. Zoning Bd. o£Appeals o£Town of Berne, 256 A.D.2d 775 (3d Dep't 1998). In fact, in the context of variances to allow a subdivision of property into substandards lots, the Suffolk County Supreme Court has explained that: Consistency with the neighborhood is the singularly most significant factor in subdivision cases, and that the effect of a requested variance in the neighborhood in which the property is located unquestionably is the paramount consideration in addressing the appropriateness of relief ... if an applicant is seeking variances to conform to that which is prevalent in the neighborhood, absent other overriding considerations, ~ denial of relief is likely to be found arbitrary. Deon v. Town o£Brookhaven, 12 Misc. 3d 1196A, 824 N.Y.S.2d 768 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk County 2006) In this case, the extensive data compiled by the applicant confirms that the subdivision of Applicant's parcel will undoubtedly conform to the character of the communiW. Applicant surveyed 135 interior parcels in the immediate area (Exhibit I) to ascertain the prevailing characteristics of the neighborhood5 The raw data compiled from the survey is depicted in tables in Exhibit I. An analysis of the data confirms the following salient and objectively measurable facts about the 99-acre study area: ~ The survey does not include waterfront parcels, which are admittedly somewhat larger than the interior parcels, because they are not readily comparable to interior parcels on a strict "size" basis, due to the limitations on their developable areas from the existence of wetlands and increased waterfront setbacks. The survey is therefore l~mited to non-waterfront parcels. 6 Ne~gl~bo~t~ood Study Area: 99.18 acres, 135 Lots Average size of Lot: .73 acres Nonconforming Lots: 117 lots or 87% of study area (<40,000 sf or .918 acres) Applicant's Current Lot: 1.61 acres Third largest of 135 lots 98th percentile in terms of size 220% the size of average lot If Variances Are Granted: Lot 1: .84 acres 109th largest of 136 lots 80th percentile in terms of size 115% the size of average lot Lot 2: .79 acres 101st largest of 136 lots 74th percentile in terms of size 108% the size of average lot This analysis confirms that the Applicant's parcel is currently far larger than the typical lot in the 99-acre study area, and, after it is subdivided, would still be well in excess of the typical lot. There can be httle benefit in requiring Applicant to maintain a lot that is 220% the size of the average lot for the study area when a subdivision would still mean that the newly-created parcels would be larger than the average size and would still be, respectively, in the upper 20% and 26% of all such lots in terms of size. Moreover, considering that the proposal only seeks to re-establish the original lot division lines that historically existed for close to a century, there can be little argument that the proposal will have any noticeable effect on the character of the community, much less a significant enough effect to outweigh the substantial benefits to be achieved by the applicant. A review of the original subdivision map (Exhibit A), which does not even include a large portion of the area, shows over 300 lots all arranged in the same "long lot" development pattern as being proposed to be re-established by the Applicant. If anything, the proposal will be more consistent with - and have a beneficial effect on - the character of the community as compared to the existing development of the property. The property currently is nonconforming to density requirements by virtue of the two dwelhngs existing on one lot. The applicant is proposing not only to re-establish a division line between the two dwellings, but to demolish portions of the existing structures as necessary to ensure that they are fully contained within the lawful building envelopes for each parcel. There can be little doubt that, from a zoning standpoint, the property will become more conforming as a result of the proposed variances. 2. Availability o£Alternatives The next factor requires the Board to consider "whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance." See Town Law § 267-b(3)(b)(2). The benefit to be achieved by the apphcant is to separate the two dwellings into individual lots, so that each can be separately owned, rather than leased. That benefit can only be achieved by area variance, ~ince the 'subject property does not have sufficient area to meet the 40,000 sf/lot requirement. It must be acknowledged, however, that the applicant does have another option to pursue an east-west division along the boundary line approved by area variances in 1978. But considering that such a division actually requires more variances (because it includes the lack of road frontage for one of the lots) and would be less in keeping with the prevailing development pattern in the area (which consists generally of longer lots rather than "stacked" lots). That would also create a landlocked parcel that only has a right-of-way access to a public road. 3. Substan tiality o£ Variances The third factor requires the Board to consider "whether the requested area variance is substantial." See Town Law § 267-b(3)(b)(3). The requested variances here are not substantial, either in the abstract or in context. Mathematically, the request to create two lots of 36,549 and 34,480 square feet each, where 40,000 square feet is otherwise required, translates to only a 9% and 14% variance respectively. Those variances, when taken in context, become even less substantial. The vast majority of the parcels in the study area are also nonconforming, and that the average size lot of the 135 lots studied is .73 acres, thus translating to an average nonconformity of 20% (stated conversely, the average parcel is only 80% the size of a conforming parcel). Applicant's proposed variances of 9% and 14% are still well below the average variance of 20%. Experts and courts both agree that the substantiality of a variance must be viewed in context, rather than through simple mathematical comparisons. As one commentator notes, "common sense must prevail and the percentage deviation from the legislated bulk requirements should not be considered in the void." Rice, Practice Commentaries, Village Law § 7-712-b. Rather, "the effect of the magnitude of a requested variance must be considered in the context of all the relevant statutory criteria, the requirement in the zoning law, the nature of the area and the effect which the variance may have on adjoining properties." Id. As another commentator notes, this factor "is not achieved by using a simple mathematical formula," but must be viewed in the context of the surroundings and circumstances of the inc[ividual case. Salkin, New York Zoning Law and Practice, §29:37, pp. 29- 57 to 29-58 (4th ed. 2000). Several cases illustrate the requirement that the magnitude of the variance must be considered in context, and these cases further confirm that where most of the other properties in the area are nonconforming, a variance that would otherwise seem substantial in the abstract is in fact de miuimis in context. See, £or example, Riklis v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 243 A.D.2d 482 (2d Dep't 1997) (where setback variance of 40% was still be more than the average setback in the neighborhood, the court found that the variance was not substantial in that context); Niceforo v, ZBA of Town of Huntington, 147 A.D.2d 483 (2d Dep't 1989) (variance from the lot width requirement is not substantial where two-thirds of the community failed to meet the requirement); Witzle v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Berne, 256 A.D.2d 775 (3d Dep't 1998) (variance was allowed where numerous lots in the surrounding area were nonconforming). Thus, while the lot area variances are not even substantial in the abstract, they are even more insubstantial in the context of the prevailing development patterns in the area. 4. Impacts on Physical or Environment Conditions The fourth factor requires the Board to consider "whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district." See Village Law § 7-712-b(3)(b)(4). We do not believe there is any evidence or suggestion that the area variances will have any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood. There 9 are already two dwellings on the property and two septic systems on the property, and the result of the division will be the same. Moreover, unlike in 1978 (when the original variances were granted), the then-existing concerns about the potability of groundwater (and salt-water intrusion) in the area have been all but eliminated by the availability of public water. 5. W~et.~er Difiiculty Was "Self-Created" The Board may also consider (but may not deny a variance exclusively on) the final factor as to "whether the alleged difficulty was self-created." See Town Law § 267-b(3)(b)(5). On one hand, the difficulty here is arguably self-created only because the property was acquired after the lot area requirements were established. On the other hand, because the 1978 variance is still legally in effect, the "difficulty" here is not really self-created but created by a 30-year old variance process that does not account for current development patterns. In any event, the Town Law makes it clear that this factor "shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance." In sum, we believe the various factors to be considered by the Board weigh heavily in favor of a grant of the requested variances. The benefit to the applicant clearly outweighs the detriment, if any, to the communiW, that would result ff those variances are granted. To the contrary, the character of the community would be enhanced by the property becoming more conforming (with respect to dwelling density) and more consistent with the prevailing development pattern in the area. We urge the Board to grant the requested variances. B. The Planning Board's Recommendation We obtained a "Memorandum" of the Planning Board, dated November 23, 2009 (Exhibit M), in which the Planning Board recommends against the approval of the variances. We believe the Planning Board did not have all of the facts before it and certainly did not entertain any argument by the Applicant before it rendered its recommendation. As a result, the recommendation is flawed on many levels. The primary flaw in the Planmng Board's analysis is that it apparently was unaware of two key facts: (1) there are already two dwellings on the property (each with its own septic system), and (2) the Applicant is no longer proposing to add any additional dwellings thereto. All of the Planning Board's concerns are resolved by those two facts. For example, to the extent page I of the memorandum deals with general statements of minimizing density, the reality is that these variances will not increase dwelling density at all. The single lot has two dwelling on it, and each proposed subdivided lot will have one dwelling on it. Overall density will remain l0 unchanged but, if anything, will become more conforming to the code requirement for one house per lot. On page 2, where the Planning Board expresses concerns about the effect on groundwater from "yet another septic system," the fact remains that there are already two septic systems serving the overall property, and the end result of this application will be the same. The same is true of the Planning Board's comment on page 2 regarding traffic - since there are already two dwellings on the property, the mere division of those dwellings between two lawful building lots will not have any effect on traffic. Final]y, the statements about the lot being heavily wooded is irrelevant and untrue. The lot already has multiple structures on it, and any owner of the property, whether one lot or two, would have a right to clear as much of the lot as desired. Finally, notwithstanding the fundamental factual flaws in the Planning Board's findings, it must be emphasized that the Planning Board is not the Zoning Board, and it certainly did not perform the balancing that this Board must conduct when weighing area variances. In essence, the Planning Board simply looked at the code and said, "this application would not conform to the code and therefore shonld not be granted." That type of analysis may be appropriate for planning boards, but it is antithetical to the function served by zoning boards. While a planning board applies zoning code requirements and has only limited powers to waive them (such as during cluster subdivisions), the very purpose zoning boards serve is to act as a "safety valve" by varying the strict application of a zoning code when justice requires it. As our State's highest court explained: Zoning Boards of Appeals were created "to interpret, to perfect, and to insure the validity of zoning" through the exercise of administrative discretion ..... Often regarded as a "safety valve," Zoning Boards of Appeals are invested with the power to vary zoning regulations in specific cases in order to avoid unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties arising from a literal application of the zoning lawoo. Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v. ZBA of Huntington, 97 N.Y.2d 86, 90 (2001). By pointing to the non-compliance with the code as the reason for denying the variances, the Planning Board failed to accept that such noncompliance is the only reason this application is being made. In the context of site plans and subdivisions, noncompliance with code requirements generally precludes a planning board from granting an approval. But in the context of variance applications, the Planning Board's reasoning is circular and would doom any variance application before it ll starts, since the only reason an applicant ever seeks an area variance is because the proposal does not conform to some code regulation. The Planning Board never did what this Board is charged by law to do: consider whether the so-called impacts truly outweighed the substantial benefits to be achieved by the grant of the variances so as to justify their denial. That balancing test is what determines the outcome of an area variance application under Town Law § 267-b(3)(b), not simply pointing to the perceived impacts and concluding, from those impacts alone, that the variance should be denied. The Planning Board here never once bothered to acknowledge the benefits to be achieved by the variances. It certainly never weighed those benefits against the perceived impacts. Respectfully, it would be irrational for this Board to follow the Planning Board in its refusal to consider this application for what it is: a variance application that will render the property more conforming and more consistent with the development pattern and character of the community. 12 Conclusion We respectfully urge the Board to grant the requested relief. Respectfully submitted, Anthony C. Pasca Esseks, Hefter & Angel, LLP A ttorr e ys £or App]ican t Theodore C. Martz, Jr. 108 E. Main Street Riverhead, NY 11952 631-369-1700 .%C.T.M. NO. CERT[F!ED TO: THEODORE C. MARTZ JR.; ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT INC.; TOWN OF SOUTROLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. PRE EXISTING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NO: Z- 32256 THIS CERTIFIES that the build/ng DWELLING Date: 03/20/07 Location of Property 375 BROADWATERS RD (HOUSE NO.) (STREET) County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 104 Block 0012 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. CUTCHOGUE (HAMLET) Lot 006.001 conforms substantially to the Requirements for a ONE FAMILY DWRLT.T~G built prior to APRIL 9~ 1957 pursuant to which CERTiFiCA~E OF OCC~IPA/qCYI~ER Z- 32256 dated M3kRCH 20, 2007 was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is ONE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ACCESSORY COTTAGE* The certificate is issued to ANTHONY SAVASTANO (OWNER) of the aforesaid building. Sb-FFOLK COUN~I~y DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL ELEctrICAL CI~{TIFICA~I~ NO. PLUMBEP~ CERTIFICATION DA'.~uf.u *PLEASE SEE ATTACHED INSPECTION REPORT. N/A N/A N/A u~horiz ed Signature Rev. 1/81 TOWN OF SOUTNOLD HOUSING CODE INSPECTION REPORT CUTCHOGUE ANTHONY SAVASTANO - 3/15/07 DAT~: 03/20/07 DWELLING: TYPE OF C0~S~UCTION: WOOD FRAMS ~ STOS/ES: 1.0 ~ EXITS: 4 VIOLATIONS: CHAPTER 45 N.Y. STATE UNIFORM FIRS PREVENTION & BUILDING CODE LOCATION DESCRIPTION ART. SEC. INSPECTED BY: N~ 2400 ~ February 24, 1978 Victor Teich ~/o Burr G. Lewis Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 atanm~n~lh~'--,I.._~B,~t~l~dAl~Inm March 23, 1978 ) ~ ~ a ~kd ~T*. ~" ~--a-- ~ Zo~ O~~--- DAT~_.M~_...r. ch _23, 1978 ~ ~ 9:00 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of 'Victor Teich c/o Burr G. Lewis, Mai~ ~Dad, Cut=bogus, New York for a variance in accordance with the zoning Ordinance, Artiole III, Section 100-31 and Bulk Sahedule, and the Town Law, Section 200A for pezmisaion to change lot lines and approval of aocees. Location of property: South side Broadwaters P~ad, Cutchogue, New York; Lots %189 and 190, Amended Map 'As of Nassau Point Properties, Piled Map ~156. SEE REVERSE (b) The hn~-~ ere*ted (Is) (/s not) untrue ami (wmtM) (would not) be shared b~ all ~ {would not) After. investigation and inspection~ the Board ~inds that the applicant ZeClUeSts pe~miasion to change lot lines and approval of access, south side Broadwaters Roa~, Cutchogue, New York. The findings of the Board are that the Board is in agreement with the reasoning of the applicant. The houses wore originally sited on property lines and granting this application will in n~ way change the existing situation. The Board fin~s that strict application of the Ozdinance would produce practical di£ficulties or --necessary hardship~ the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the ~---~late vicinity of this property and in the same usa dietriot~ and the variance will not change the character of ~h~ neighborhood, and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. THER~PORE IT ~S RESOLVED, Victor Teich c/o Burr G. Lewis, Main P~ad, Cutchogtle, H~w York, be GRANTED pemission to cha~ge lot lines a~d approval of access, south side Broadwaters Boed, C~tcho~e, New York, Lots %189 ~uld 190, Amended Map "Aw of Nassau Point P~operties, Filed Map 9156, as applied for. Vote of the Boar~= Ayes= - Masers= Glllispie, Grigonis, Doyen, Maimone. O O TOWH M' S~4JTHOI~, HEW YOlK APPEAL FROM DECIq. ION OF BUILDIN~ INSPECTOR DATE .2~2§1.2a .......... TO THE ZONING BQAR~ OFAPPEA~S, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. ~. l~ Me) 4a~._]fl;.e:1a3~...~l.t,~t~': ....................... o~ ....,q~;.aeld. .......................... ; ................... blame of ~q~elkm~ StteM o~d Nue~er .' ........................ ~ ........................................................ ~.~t. ............ H~Y ~ ~ THE Z~l~ ~ ~ ~ F~ ~E ~ISI~ ~ ~ BUI~I~ I~P~ ~ ~l~ ~ ~ ~ ................................... ~D .................................................... ~Y ~E ~1~ I~ ~l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~mlt s~ ~ N~ ~1~ (~) ~IT ~ U~ ( ) ~ F~ ~P~ ( ) ,.' .... 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE API~r~LED (indicate the Article Secti~, Sub- sactia~ and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordir, a,-~ by numbs. Do n~ quaee the A_--t3 100-31 Bal~.~az~ztz~ Sebedul.e & annce~! of access 3. TYPE OF APPEAL/q~eal b made herewith for (X) A VARIANCE to the Zoning O~inm~e m' Z~tng/v~p (X) A VARIANCE due to I~c~ of ~cce~ (State of New Yod~ Tom~ Law CI~p. 62 Cer~ L~ · ~t. 16 Sec. 280A SubMctian 3 ' 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A pmv~us appeol (has) (has not) been made with req2ect to this deciskm of the Buikfing Inspector o~ with req~ct to thi~ pmj2em/. Such appeal was ( ) reque~ for o special permit ( ) request for a ~2riance afld wa~ made in AlRoeal No ................................ Dated ................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL (X) A Va~2nce to Section 280A SuhMctiofl 3 (x) A Vadarme to the Zoning Ordinance (Continue on other side) 'The hard~hip c,~ is UNIQUE and is nat shored by all pmper~s alik~ in th~ Irradiate 3. 'J'ha YarJ~'.F.e would c~:~erve the spirit of ~e ~i~o ~ ~ ~ C~ ~E STATE OF NEW YORK EXHIBIT E Apeed~ 2434 ~ June 9, 1978 &c~0~ OF ~ ZO~NO BOARD OF Am~ALS O~ THE ~OWN OF ~ 101 ~rd AV~ Stat~ Island, N~ York 10310 itimm~b~-~_B~m July 6, 1978 C ) ~mf~Mdb~m~m 9:15 y.X. (D.$.T.) upon application of Bradford B. Greene, 101 Bard Avenue~ S~a~e~ Island, New York, for a variance An accordance wit~ the Zoning Ord4-Anoe, Article III, Section 100-31 and Bulk and Parking Schndule for ~erm£ssion to divide property with insuf~¢ient area. Location of property: Lots No. 189 and 190, Nassau Point, Cntchogue, New York. (we,told FORM APPROVED ~. Al~l~A LS BOARD MEMBERS ROBERTW. GILLISI'IE, 3R., CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONISo JR. SERGE OOYEN, Jl~. Southold Town Board of Appeals SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. 11cj'71 TELEPHONE 1802 August 28, 1978 Mr. Bradford B. Green 101 Bard Avenue Staten Island, New York 10310 Dear Mr. Green: Regarding your application date~ June 9, 1978, we. Wish to advise you of the following. We find that the Board previously divide~ this property, application. No. 2400 dated February 24, 1978, Burr G. Lewis, as agent for Victor Teich. The action datedMarch 23, 19~8, granted perm/ssion to ch~-ge the lot lines and approval of access as suggested in your application No. 2434. A copy of the survey attached to application No. 2400 indicating the suggested division as well as showing the access is attached for your information. Yours truly, RWG:bcc Enclosure ROBERT W. GILLISPIE, JR. Chairman EXHIBIT F ® ~'/ ¥OW/N OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD/~-~'~ OWNER STREET O--0-' ~ V,LL*GE D,S*.~ FORMER OWNER N E AC~ J ~ ~ G~. S W WPE OF BUILDING RES. ~'/0 S~S. VL FA~ COMM. CB. MISC. Mkt. V~lu~ AGE BUILDING CONDITION N~ NO~AL BELOW ABOVE FARM Acr~ Value Per Value Acre Tiltoble 2 owamplond FRONTAGE ON WATER House Plot _ .gl~ 1~00 /BOO DEPTH BULKH~D ' ," Total ~ ~ D~K TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD ,J ~,~ ¢~.~. S W WPE OF BUILDING R~s. 3// !s~s. VL ~ FAro COMM. CB. MISC. Mkt. Valu, AGE BUILDING CONDITION N~ NO~AL BELOW ABOVE FARM hcr~ Value Per Value Acre Tilloble Tilloble 2 rillnble 3 ,~'~mpi~nd FRONTAGE OM WATER House Pict ,. O[PTH BULKH~D Total , D~K I')¢ccmbcr 12, 200~ PINZINO & PINZINO /*e~.NIl~?, N~YoI~I~ 11030 TI~1 ;-:ril( )~IT: (S I G) 627-6601 Town of .%uthold Tax Assessor's Oflic~ Malu Rot,d .~outhold: New York ATTN: £ laire Glew VIA FACSIMILE 631-765-1356 InRc: Dist: I000, Sect 104, Block 12, Lol$ & 6 555/375 Broadwafers Road. Cutchoguc, NY I 19.35 Dear Madam: It is respecll~ly requesled Ihat with r~spc~.:t lo Ibc above noted proper~ including bmh separale Lot numbers be m~ged i.to a sinsle unit for the purpose~ of tax billing. lhe above noted parcel has be~n held continuously I/N/O Reverend Anthony Savaatm)o since pric. r to 1983. Attached is Power of Attorney authorizing our funn Io act on b~l~lf of Rev. Snvastano. If you have any question% please call me at your earlie~ ~)n~,emence. sdp/alr ~nc T ~fied 00000-000-000 :~0 900Z'TT .~.. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ~o,~ ~ NOT~C~ ~ ~ ~ SOUTHOLO S~CT~ON NO ~ -- I~T m ~.000 PROP[RTy ~1, SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS TAX MAP ACREAGE # OF LOTS AVERAGE # OF NON PERCENTAGE # OF LOTS # OF LOTS # OF LOTS SECTION LOT SIZE CONFORMING OF LOTS NON .79 ACRES .84 ACRES LARGER LOTS CONFORMING OR LESS OR LESS THAN 1.61 ACRES 104-11 10.26 11 .93 7 63% 4 5 0 104-12 13.39 16 .83 12 75% 9 11 0 111-3 10.84 17 .63 15 88% 14 14 0 111-4 26.36 36 .73 34 94% 29 31 2 111-6 14.12 21 .67 19 90% 18 18 0 111-7 13.85 20 .69 19 95% 17 19 0 111-8 10.36 14 .74 11 79% 9 10 0 99.18 135 .73 117 87% 100 108 2 SCTM# 1000-104-11 SCTM# ACREAGE STATUS 1000-104-11 - 1.8 .67 IMPROVED, NONC ONF ORMING 1000-104-11-2 1.34 IMPROVED, CONFORMiNG 1000-104-11-3 .89 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-11-4 .86 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-11-5 .95 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-104-11-8.1 1.50 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-104-11-9 1.25 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-104-11-12.1 .50 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-11-13 .84 VACANT, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-11 - 14 .76 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-11 - 15 .70 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING Total Acreage 10.26 Number of Lots 11 7 NONCONFORMING Average Lot Size .93 SCTM# 1000-104-12 SCTM# ACREAGE STATUS 1000-104-12-1 .60 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-12-2 .79 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-12-3 .94 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-104-12-4 .72 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-12-6.1 1.61 SUBJECT, IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-104-12-7 .80 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-12-8.1 .82 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-12-8.2 1.25 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-104-12-9 .60 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-12-10.2 .62 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-12-10.3 .65 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-12-10.4 .60 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-12-11 .60 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-12-12.1 .87 VACANT, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-12-12.2 .76 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-104-12-14.1 1.16 IMPROVED, CONFORMING ' Total Acreage 13.39 Number of Lots 16 12 NONCONFORMING Average Lot Size .83 SCTM#1000-111-3 SCTM# ACREAGE STATUS 1000-111-3-1 .55 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-2 .53 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-3 .53 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-4 .56 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-5 .45 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-6 .60 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-7 .60 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-8 .60 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-9 .90 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-10 .50 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-12.2 .67 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-13.1 1.05 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-111-3-14 .63 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-15 .71 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-16 1.12 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-111-3-17 .41 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-3-18 .43 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING Total Acreage 10.84 Number of Lots 17 15 NONCONFORMING Average Lot size .63 SCTM# 1000-111-4 SCTM# ACREAGE STATUS 1000-111-4-1 1.12 VACANT, CONFORMING 1000-111-4-2.1 2.1 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-111-4-2.2 2.2 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-111-4-3 .83 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-4 .76 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-5 .66 VACANT, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-6 .47 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-7 .66 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-8 .67 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-9 .61 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-10 .67 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-11 .24 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-12 .57 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-13 .60 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-14 .57 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-15 .53 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-16 .63 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-17 .61 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-18 .51 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-19 .44 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-20 .43 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-21 .48 VACANT, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-22 .51 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-23 .51 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-24 .64 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-25 .66 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-26 .60 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-26.3 .55 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-26.4 .64 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-28 .75 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-29 .63 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-30.2 .66 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-31 .56 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-32 1.51 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-111-4-33 .83 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-4-34 .95 IMPROVED, CONFORMING Total Acreage 26.36 Number of Lots 36 34 NONCONFORMING Average Lot Size .73 SCTM# 1000-111-6 SCTM# ACREAGE STATUS 1000-111-6-1 .50 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-6-2.2 .48 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMiNG 1000-111-6-2.2 .48 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMiNG 1000-111-6-3 .54 VACANT, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-6-4 .50 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-6-5 .67 VACANT, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-6-6 .67 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMiNG 1000-111-6-7 .67 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMiNG 1000-111-6-8 1.32 IMPROVED, CONFORMiNG 1000-111-6-9 1.22 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-111-6-10 .55 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-6-11 .72 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-6-12 .89 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMiNG 1000-111-6-13 .66 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-6-14 .68 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMiNG 1000-111-6-15 .69 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMiNG 1000-111-6-16.2 .59 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-6-16.2 .66 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-6-17 .49 VACANT, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-6-18 .50 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMiNG 1000-111-6-19 .64 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING Total Acreage 14.12 Number of Lots 21 19 NONCONFORMiNG Average Lot Size .67 SCTM#1000-111-7 SCTM# ACREAGE STATUS 1000-111-7-1 .49 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-2 .54 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-3 .57 iMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-4 .57 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-5 .70 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-6 .73 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-7 .73 IMPROVED. NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-8 .73 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-9 .73 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-10 .73 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-11 1.21 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-111-7-12 .36 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-14.1 .73 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-15 .73 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-16 .76 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-17 .52 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-18 .71 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-19 .81 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMiNG 1000-111-7-20 .81 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-7-21 .69 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING Total Acreage 13.85 Number of Lots 20 19 NONCONFORMING Average Lot Size .69 SCTM# 1000-111-8 SCTM# ~CREAGE STATUS 1000-111-8-1 .64 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-8-2 .48 IMPROVED, NONCONFOKMING 1000-111-8-3 .61 a IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-8-4 .44 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-8-6.1 1.05 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-111-8-6.2 .95 IMPROVED, CONFORMING 1000-111-8-7 1.12 VACANT, CONFORMING 1000-111-8-8 .53 VACANT, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-8-9 .57 VACANT, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-8-10 .89 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-8-11 .83 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-8-12 .75 VACANT, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-8-13 .75 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING 1000-111-8-14 .75 IMPROVED, NONCONFORMING Total Acreage 10.36 Number of Lots 14 11 NONCONFORMING Average Lot Size .74 5.C.T.M.# DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 104 BLOCK 12 LOT 6.1 KEY MAP BROADWATERS COVE LOT 189 I LOT PROPOSED LAND DIVISION mmv~o~:LOT$ 189 & 190 INCL. , ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT /NC.; TO: Th~odo~ C Mart,z, Jr Cio Benuett Enterprise~ P.O. Box 386 Wading ~v~. ~ 11792 ZDN ~ NG~'DDF,C,P PE:~L~ FORM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DISAPPROYAL DATE-: August 19, 2009 R~v~s~.'l: NO','emher IS. 2009 Please take notice t~tt your application dated August 1 ?, 2009 P&GE 02," Z ~ For a penuit for a subdivision and construction at: Locat!ou of property: 555 Broadwatar$ Kd,, Cu~¢hogue, NY Comnty Tax Map No. I000- Section ~04 Bloc, k 12 Lot 6,1 I.~ returned h~ewlth and disapprov~ on thc following groundS: Thc two'ooaed two lot ~ubdivisiom on this 71.038 sauat~ fool lot ~ t'~ Resld~tial R-40 District. 35 r,9t ~etmitted uurs' ~ ' Sc;ti n ~ ~:2~dldin~ ct ~x'mms~ sh~ll be used a~d rte b~iltli.~ or tmrt thief shMI b~ ~eet~d~ altered m ~e ~w.Da~iW Kesi~ti~ ~&0 Di~et ~les~ tk~ s~ co~oms to Bulk Se~dul~ ma~s a mln~m~ lot 81~ O~ ~.0~ aa~ f~t. ~o~o~ fia~ subd~sion. ~b }~ will b~ non~fo~iag. ~.n~afina 36.~48.8 ,auat~ f~ for pa~l ~4.480 so.~m ~am g~t Parc,! 2. A~fi~allY. ~ u~c is.~-~nmilv ~hed dw~s. not to ~xc~¢ one dwo~n~ on each 1o~. Panel 1 i~ ,~ad wi~ two oa,-f~flv A~difio~al~, uumaant t~.,~fle n. ~,c~on 2~.10. w~ch a*at~: · noncon~rmin, lot shall mer~ wi~ ~ adl~caa~ ~onfomln, or non~nformin~ I~ which bas bc~n hdd ~ own~r~ ~t~h the ~ lot g any tlm~ afiar .I,lv 1.19K%.. a~o~in~ ~ Town ~de th~ ~ ~ro~o~ed ~ubdixd~o~ ~au~a a~roval ~om Ih, S~tho[d Tox~ F~a~ni.. Board. Tk~s Notice 0f Di~mval was w~U~ baa~ ~ s'~v by K~c~ M W~ychu~ L.S. dated A~fi! 30. 200~, AurOra4 Si~ Not~ ~ Appi~cm~t: ~y ch~g~ of de~atio~ to the above ref~ced ~pplication, may $.C.T.M. NO. DISTRICT: 1000 SECTION: 104 BLOCK: 12 L( ;.I ~LL$ PUBLIC WATER Et.E~. 39.4 12-22-07 LOT 189 N 66~48,10- W VACANT 10~.00' LOT 190 NOTE: ALL STRUCTURES ARE TO E~E DEMOLISHED THE WA TER SUPPL Y- WELLS AND CESSPOOL REI/ISE SANITARY 4-28--08 LOCATIONS SHOI, FFV ARE FROM FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND OR DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHERS, AREA: 36,545.8 S.F. OR 0.84 ACRES ELEVATION DATUM: ___AS_S_U_M_E_O_ ................ UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. COPIES OF IMIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYOR'S EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY. GUARANIEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR H~IOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGNEE5 OF THE LENDING INSTITUTION, GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE. THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOF~V HEREON FROM THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT THE PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIOE THE ERECTION OF FENCES, ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS AND/OR SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES RECORDED O~ UNRECORDED ARE NOT GUARANT~ED UNLESS PHYSICALLY EVIDENT ON THE PREMISES AT 1-HE TIME OF SURVEY SURVEY Of: LOT 189 MAP OF:AMENDED MAP "A" OF NASBAU CLUB POINT PROPERTIES INC. FILED:JUNE 28. 1922 No.156 SITUATED AT: CUTCHOOUE TOWN OF: $OUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK FILE ~[ 27-36-1 SCALE: f'-40' DATE: N:~RIL 30, 2007 N. Y. $ LIC NO. 50227 CERTIFIED TO: THEODORE C. MARTZ JR.; ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT INC.; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INS(JRANCE CO.; .K_EN_N__~_T_H Iff_. WOYCII_UK L_.,.q__._ Land Surveying end Design P.O. Box 3, Ma%tit, uck, l~ew York. 11952 S.C.T.M. NO. DISIRICT: 1000 SEC1]ON: 104 BLOCK: 12 183. LOT(S): PI06, l ELEV. 39.4 12-22-07 VACANT LOT IBg LOT lgO N 86°48'J0- ~ LOT 202 DWELL PUEtL~C WATER 2¸0' NOTE: ALL STRUCTURES ARE TO BE DEMOLISHED THE WATER SUPPLY, WELLS AND CESSPOOL LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM FIELD OBSERVATIONS REVISED SANITARY 4--28--08 AND OR DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHERS. AREA: 34,480 S.F. OR 0.79 ACRES ELEVATION DATUM: ............. _~_~_o_ ........ UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW, COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYOR'S EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY, GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO I'HE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED HEREON, AND TO TIlE ASSIGNEES OF' THE LENDING INSTITUTION, GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE. THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON FROM THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT THE PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIDE THE ERECTION OF FENCES, ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. EASEMENTS AND/OR SUBSURFACE STRuC'TURES RECORDED OR UNRECORDED ARE NOT GUARANTEED UNLESS PHYSICALLY EVIDENT ON THE PREMISES AT THE TIME OF SURVEY SURVEY OF: LOT /go MAP OF: AMENDED MAP "A" OF NASSAU CLUB POINT PROPERTIES INC. FILED: JUNE 28, 1922 No. 156 SITUATED AT:CUTCHOGUE TOWN OF: SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK FILE tt27-36-2 SCALE: 1"=40' DATE: APRIL 30, 2007 N, Y. $, UC NO. 50227 CERTIFIED TO: THEODORE C. MARTZ JR.; ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT INC.; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO.; KENNETH M. WOYCHUK L.S. l~nd Surveying and Design P.O. Box 3, MattJtuok, New York, 11952 PHO{,I~ (B,ql) 298-1588 FA~ (63l) 2gf~-iS§8 PLAiWNI~G BOARD MEMBERS ]-~,Lu~LK--- - MARTIN H. SIDOR WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OVVICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & ¥oungs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 MEMORANDUM RECE,.,'VED NOV 3 0 ~00~ BOARD OF APPEALS To: Gerard P. Goehdnger, ZBA Chairman Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Martin H. Sidor, Chair Members of the Planning Board Date: November 23, 2009 Re: Request for lot area variances. ZBA # 6344 SCTM#1000-104-12-6.1 Zone: R-40 Location: Nassau Point, Cutchogue The Planning Board has received your request for comments regarding the above referenced application. The subject property is 71,028 square feet and is proposed to be subdivided into two lots, one 36,548 s.f. and one 34,480 s.f. We have reviewed the proposed action in the context of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, which is comprised of a number of plans and studies, and the zoning code itself. Based on comprehensive planning efforts, the Town Board applied the zoning district of R-40 to this area as an acknowledgement that the previous zoning allowing a higher density here was not in the best interest of the town. The merger law serves the same purpose by attempting to undo the ovedy dense arrangement of lots in an area such as this where it cannot be sustained. Lot area variances can slowly undermine the integrity of the code when taken cumulatively over time. This proposed lot area vadance is inconsistent with the Hamlet Study, the 2007/2008 Hamlet Stakeholder recommendations, the 2003 Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Study. All recommend that additional density be located close to the hamlet centers, and Nassau Point is far from the hamlet center. RECEDED BOARD OF APPEALS Another major inconsistency with the Town's Comprehensive Plan is the adverse impact on the quality of the groundwater, which in turn will cause pollution to flow into the nearby bay. The Peconic Estuary Comprehensive Plan as well as Southold's Plans call for protecting the water quality of the bays, a matter of public health, welfare and safety. Nassau Point is already densely settled, and every home has a septic system, lawns and landscaping. Nitrates leaching from septic systems and fertilizer, and chemicals from pesticides end up in the groundwater. The groundwater travels to the bay, carrying the pollution with it. On such a narrow peninsula, the pollution arrives in the bay fairly quickly. Adding yet another septic system there will increase the pollution of the bay, and leads to the conclusion that increasing density beyond the current zoning should be prohibited. Allowing an additional substandard lot to be located in Nassau Point will result in increased traffic, which is inconsistent with the goal of almost every Town plan to reduce and control traffic. Nassau Point is too far from the hamlet center for easy walking and biking. Further, there is no opportunity for public transportation. From this location cars are likely used for all trips to the grocery store, library and other services. This increases pollution and traffic, and reduces quality of life for all. Lastly, the Planning Board would like to point out that it appears from a review of the aerial photo (2004 - see attached) that the lot is heavily wooded. Loss of trees, a valuable natural resource in Southold, will likely result from a lot area variance. Based on the above, the Planning Board has found that the proposed action is inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, and cannot support the granting of the lot area variances. We hope that the information provided to you is helpful. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the Planning Department. Thank you. F. Xavier Fleming 116 Shields Ave. Williston Park, NY 11596 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 24375 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 RECEIVED OCT 4 7_gtr BOARD OF APPEALS 9/30/10 RE: Theodore Martz's ZBA Ca Dear Zoning Board Members, I received Mr. Pasca's letter dated 9/27/10 with his second proposal for division oftbe ~l'opelly at 555 Broadwaters Road. I will spare you repeating my objections and concerns, as I am on the record from the last meeting. Mr. Martz stands to realize an instant gain of several hundred thousand dollars if this application is granted. Unfortunately it is at the expense of the neighbors. Mr. Cantelmo is the compromised party in the original application and I am the compromised party in this second proposal. I have an uncomfortable feeling from the last meeting that a variance will be granted. In the spirit of fairness, I suggest Mr. Martz be directed by you to assume some of the hardship and spare the neighboring property owners. The following stipulations, in the form of Restrictive Covenants, would help to balance the scales. This assumes you approve this unprecedented variance. 1. The existing driveway will serve both lots and houses. 2. The building envelope will include garages, sheds, swimming pools or tennis courts. 3. If the cottage is demolished, the existing footprint will be used for the building ora new house. These proposals will distribute the burden to Mr. Martz and relieve Mr. Cantelmo and myself somewhat. The use of the existing driveway will eliminate the clearing of the proposed ROW - this would benefit Mr. Cantelmo. My proposed building envelope will expose the original house to most of the burden and significantly reduce the burden from all neighboring properties. The cottage footprint suggestion will also reduce exposure to the neighbors and put the burden on Mr. Martz. As stated, I do not share "the spirit of compromise" of this application. The Flemings have a long-term, vested interest on Nassau Point and feel the "compromise" w/Il damage our property value, our privacy and the integrity of the Town Code. Should you approve this application, please consider my suggestions on additional restrictions. Very~ours, F. Xagier F/geming BY HAND DELIVERY Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 54375 Ma'm Road Southold, New York 11971 Craig & Annie Cantelmo 255 Broadwaters Road Cutehogue, NY 11935 September 29/10 RECEIVED SEP ~ 9 20~0 BOARD OF APPEALS Re: Application of Theordore C. Martz,~., ~ Zoning Board of Appeals File N~344_._~ SCTM No. 1000-104.00-012.006.001~ 555 Broadwaters Road, Cutehogue, New York 11934 Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: Annie and I have lived at 255 Broadwaters Road in Cutchogue for the past 10 years. We're FULL TIME residents and have raised our children Max and Jack (7, 9 years old) at this address and both boys are pleased with the Cutcbogue East Elementary School. We do not own any other homes. We have little experience with the inner working of the Town of Southold because we are active in our children's lives and both Annie and I are employed. We are the recipient of the "McMansion" of Nassau Point on our East Side that a board member made mention to at the last meeting. We truly hope that the board can closely look at the application proposed so that we're not squeezed out of our modest home. When we moved into our home a decade ago we had the financial ability to knock down the existing home and build a large sprawling estate like "everyone else" was doing. We chose instead to work within the current footprint of the existing home and renovate to make it comfortable for our family and to be energy efficient. We chose not to remove any trees or disrupt the environment. We wanted our children to grow up with some trees and an understanding of the natural environment. I work in the fishing industry and have experienced first hand what overbuilding and excess can and have done to the local water quality and fisheries. We actively chose not to part take in these actions. We're now in a situation that causes us great despair because a builder, Mr. Theodore C. Martz Jr. LLC has purchased the land at 555 Bmadwaters Road and would like to De- Merge the property to develop or sell. We have some reservations about this action for the reasons stated below: 1) Theodore C. Martz Jr. LLC purchased the land merged. 2) Theodore C. Martz Jr. LLC purchased the land at a discount because De-Merger was deamed impossible due to the Town Zoning Law of 1983. 3) Theodore C. Martz Jr. LLC currently has two houses on this lot. 4) Demerging would not result in creating two conforming lots. 5) A larger home WILL be built behind the primary residence at 555 Broadwaters. 6) The builder Theodore C. Martz Jr. LLC walks away profiting and leaves behind the residents and tax payers of Southold Town, Craig and Annie Cantelmo, Xavier Flemming and Jeff and Linda Rehm to deal with the consequences. At the hearing September 23ra the counsel for Theodore Martz Jr. LLC said that if the De-Merger was granted it would result in the least amount of building on this lot. The least amount would be to keep the lot conforming to the zoning law of 1983. If the De- Merger were to be granted we can expect two outcomes: 1) Theodore C. Martz Jr. LLC develops the second lot and builds a large house negatively affecting the neighbors and enviroment. 2) Theodore C Martz Jr. LLC sells the De-Merged lot, resulting in more heatings in the future with another builder/developer. Please see the attached website posting of this lot on www.tmartz.com under properties. In conclusion, Annie and I would like to see the application denied. We believe that this is important for the future of Nassau Point, Cutchogue and Southold Town. Please feel fxee to contact us or visit at anytime. Sincerely, Craig, Annie, Max & Jack Cantelmo Rebecca S. Fleming 110 Seaman Ave. Apt 4H New York, NY 10034 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 9/23/10 RE: ZBA File #6344 -Application of Theodore Martz Dear Chairperson Weisman and Members of the Board: Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion regarding the variance requested by Mr. Martz. I am the daughter of Xavier Fleming, and I am the future trustee of the Fleming property on Nassau Point. As a representative of the 3ra generation of Flemings to reside in Cutchogue, I humbly request that the committee deny Mr. Martz's request. It is my contention that this matter be viewed in broader terms than just a dispute between a handful of property owners. I think the Town Board had it right when they instituted a 1 acre per lot requirement and the Lot Merger Law of 1983. Viewed together, these codes provide clear guidance in a case like this. This is an opporttmity for the Zoning Board to assert its role in shaping and maintaining the bucolic nature of the Town of Southold. To grant Mr. Martz's request in this case sets a dangerous precedent. The Town's current planning board agrees with me here, stated in their letter to the Zoning board dated 11/23/09: "the higher density that would result in granting this application is not in the best interest of the town...as lot area variances can slowly undermine the integrity of the code when taken cumulatively over time." Allowing developers to come in and parcel land into smaller parts than is drafted in our codebooks threatens a fundamental characteristic of this Town - space. In my lifetime, as suburbs have gotten more crowded and in response, exurbs have been built in tings around the suburbs, it is such a pleasure to return to Nassau Point and discover, tune and again, how restorative a little breathing room between neighbors can be. In 1958 my grandparents built a simple vacation home here with the intent that the property always be held in the family, and that is my father's and my wish as well. So far three generations of Flemings have enjoyed Nassau Point's tmique character. I consider myself a representative of the third generation as well as voice of future generations, my children and grandchildren at least. It is my hope that you deny Mr. Martz's request on the basis of the preservation of Nassau Point as we know it. If you were to grant this variance, the Zoning Board would then create an environment where others expect to receive the same favor. To speak quite frankly: I expect to be one of the only people gathered here today to see the long- term impact of the decision rendered.. Your ruling in this case will determine the nature of mine and my offspring's' experience of Nassau Poim and possibly that ofa generation's. Will it be the quiet retreat my grandparents knew? Or another example of suburban sprawl and excess? Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very Truly Yours, Rebecca S. Fleming (September 13, 2010) As a property owner and former president of the Nassau Point Property Owners Association (NPPOA), I believe that the protection of property value is a core reason for the long standing existence of our association. I have had the privilege and delight to observe Nassau Point for more than sixty years. For the most part, it continues to have the same look and feel as it did when I first came here as a child. While I agree that it not good policy for our association to enter into neighborhood squabbles, it is important to speak out in support of the existing zoning laws and in opposition to lot area variances in general. Our collective fear is that lot area variances hold the potential for negative consequences for all of us. Here are some points to ponder as we continue to take a broader view relative to the character of Nassau Point: · During my two terms (1990-1993) as president of the NPPOA there were several situations that had the potential to negatively impact our property values. In each case we provided a letter of objection or one of us addressed the ZBA at a hearing. As I recall, the ZBA subsequently upheld the zoning law and the position that we had taken. For us, it's not about picking winners and losers; it's about sticking to the zoning laws that protect our investments and the look and feel of Nassau Point. · Recently I attempted to count the number of potential lot split situations on Nassau Point. The criteria that I applied were more than one acre but fractionally less than two acres. I stopped counting at sixty. Picture sixty, or more, additional homes on Nassau Point with their negative impact on the quality of potable water and the bay that we all love. · Allowing a split simply because the new .71 acres lot will be similar to the average size neighborhood parcel of .73 acres is not sound logic. Given this criteria, a parcel of 1.5 acres abutting three .50 acre parcels could be subdivided into three lots. Is that what we want? This would indeed be a slippery slope. · Because of the current economic situation, I predict that you will see more and more split parcel proposals. When do you take a stand? As in the past, I hope it is now and that you uphold our strong zoning laws. In my opinion, this is just one of many applications to follow. I vote for consistency and the strict enforcement of the laws that are in place. I agree with Martin Sidor who, in November of 2009, wrote (ZBA letter - #6344) "Lot area variances can slowly undermine the integrity of the code when taken cumulatively over time ". Obviously it would not only be the code at risk but the character of the neighborhood and Nassau Point property values in general In summary when the town initially changed zoning for Nassau Point, our residents applauded. Clearly the new zoning laws placed a limit on further development and helped to preserve the overall character of our neighborhoods. I hope that you will not allow our property owners to become the victims of unintended consequences. Strict enforcement of our zoning laws was then, and is now, a good thing. Remember, you can't un- ring the bell at a later date. 460 West Cove Rd. Cutchogue, NY 11935 Zoning Board Meeting - Sept.23, 2010 I am Thomas Cornwell, the President of Nassau Point Property Owners Association representing almost 300 homeowners who own homes on Nassau Point. I live at 500 West Cove Road, Cutchogue. My purpose here today is not to become involved in any dispute between individual property owners, but to state the Association's position regarding lot size variances. One of the purposes of the Association is to "protect and maintain the property values of Nassau Point" and we vigorously support $outhold Town's Comprehensive Plan regarding lot sizes, especially in light of the existing density of Nassau Point. Nassau Point is an area of approximately 500+ acres with approximately 350 existing homes and there are still a number of compliant lot sizes available for development. The math is pretty easy. Being already quite densely developed, we strongly oppose any lot size variances because, as was stated in a November 23, 2009 memorandum from the Planning Board Office to the ZBA, and I quote, "lot area variances can slowly undermine the integrity of the code when taken cumulatively over time" and, consequently, will negatively impact the character of Nassau Point. Furthermore, since Nassau Point is virtually surrounded by water, increased housing density puts adverse pressure on the quality of our groundwater and increases the likelihood of pollution of the surrounding bay waters- groundwater being particularly important to those on the Point who have wells. The November 23rd, 2009 memorandum mentioned above, which is attached, also makes a number of other salient points about lot size variances with which we agree. We believe that strict enforcement of our zoning laws is important to the continued well being of Southold Town and Nassau Point, in particular, because of its uni,~ue nature. Thomas Cornwell, President Nassau Point Property Owners association Attachment: November 23, 2009 memorandum from Planning Board to ZBA J~' MARTIlq H. SH)OR ~ J. C~ ~E~ L. EDW~S GEORGE D. SO.MOM JOSEPH L. TO~SE~ /01 PLANNIN(~ BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDIT~ESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, ~Y 11971 O~'YICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.? Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 MEMORANDUM I~OARD OF APPEAI.~ To: Gerard P. Goehdnger, ZBA Chairman Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Martin H. Sidor, Chair Members of the Planning Board Date: November 23, 2009 Re; Request for lot area variances. ZBA # 6344 SCTM#1000-104-12-6.1 Zone: R-40 Location: Nassau Point, Cutchogue The Planning Board has received your request for comments regarding the above referenced application. The subject property is 71,028 square feet and is proposed to be subdivided into two lots, one 36,548 s.f. and one 34,480 s.f. We have reviewed the proposed action in the context of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, which is comprised of a number of plans and studies, and the zoning code itself. Based on comprehensive planning efforts, the Town Board applied the zoning distdct of R-40 to this area as an acknowledgement that the previous zoning allowing a higher density here was not in the best interest of tlie town. The merger law serves the same purpose by attempting to undo the overly dense arrangement of lots in an area such as this where it cannot be sustained. Lot area variances can slowly undermine the integrity of the code when taken cumulatively over time. This proposed lot area variance is inconsistent with the Hamlet Study, the 2007/2008 Hamlet Stakeholder recommendations, the 2003 Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Study. All recommend that additional density be located close to the hamlet centers, and Nassau Point is far from the hamlet center. NOV ~ 0 2009 BOARD OF APPEALS )ther major inconsistency with the Town's Comprehensive Plan is the adverse the quality of the groundwater, which in turn will cause pollution to flow into bay. The Peconic Estuary Comprehensive Plan as well as Southold's Plans for protecting the water quality of the bays, a matter of public health, welfare and Nassau Point is already densely settled, and every home has a septic system, landscaping. Nitrates leaching from septic systems and fertilizer, and pesticides end up in the groundwater. The groundwater travels to the ~ the pollution with it. On such a narrow peninsula, the pollution arrives in bay fairly quickly. Adding yet another septic system there will increase the pollution f the bay, and leads to the conclusion that increasing density beyond the current should be prohibited. an additional substandard lot to be located in Nassau Point will result in ncreased traffic, which is inconsistent with the goal of almost every Town plan to and control traffic. Nassau Point is too far from the hamlet canter for easy and biking. Further, there is no opportunity for public transportation. From this location care are likely used for all tdps to the grocery store, library and other services. This increases pollution and traffic, and reduces quality of life for all. Lastly, the Planning Board Would like to point out that it appears from a review of the aerial photo (2004 - see attached) that the lot is heavily wooded. Loss of trees, a valuable natural resoume in Southold, will likely result from a lot area variance. Based on the above, the Planning Board has found that the proposed action is inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, and cannot support the granting of the lot area variances. We hope that the information provided to you is helpful. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the Planning Department. Thank you. 2 August 26, 2010 .?~' ~ECEii/ED Town of Southold Board of Zoning Appeals PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Application # 6344 555 Broadwater Road, Cutchogue Re-hearing date Sept. 23, 2010 Att: Ms. Vicki Toft Secretary Please note the attached correspondence to those neighbors attending the previous Board meeting for this application and please further note that I have staked and flagged the proposed right of way as requested by the Board. I would like to invite those Board members who wish. to view the staking at their earliest convenience. If there are questions or additional information r. ccded I would appreciate a contact so that everything may be addressed as necessary prior to the Sept. 23r~ meeting, ~Jr. 145 Ryerson Avenue Manorville, New York 11949 (631)-878-8443 (516)-343-7143 (cell) Bilt rite85(~,.q mail. com e-mail CC: eha, lip Tony Pasca August26,2010 Craig and Annie Cantelmo 255 Broadwater Rood Cutchogue, New York 11935 ~ RECEZVED BOARD OF AppEALS RE: 555 Broadwater Road, Cutchogue, NY As your neighbor, I am contacting you regarding the previous Town of Southold Zoning Board hearings for the above parcel and in particular the interest you have demonstrated in this application. You may recall that at the last meeting an alternate plan was offered and the hearing became somewhat less formal with many of us approaching the Boord and discussing a variety of ideas in a somewhat relaxed forum. You may also recall that the Board requested that I stake and flag the proposed area of right of way and I have now completed this request. I am very interested in meeting with you in person to review the stake out and plan, answer any questions you may have and collect and ideas you may have. As such, I will make myself available on Tuesday, August 31,t @ 7:00PM at the property to meet with you. Should this be inconvenient, I do request you contact me as indicated below and I will make every effort to accomodate your schedule. I feel I have a very clear understanding of that which you do not want to see done, but I am uncertain of what you would like to see done and as such a personal meeting could indeed be productive. I look forward to headng from you or I will see you on the 31=t. Sincerely, Theodore C. Martz Jr. 145 Ryerson Avenue Manorville, NY 11949 (631)-878-8443 (516)-343-7143 (cell) Biltrite85(~,.q m ail. com- email August 26, 2010 R.J. and Linda Rehm 665 Broadwater Road Cutchogue, New York 11935 RECEIVED RE: 555 Broadwater Road, Cutchogue, NY As your neighbor, I am contacting you regarding the previous Town of Southold Zoning Board hearings for the above parcel and in particular the interest you have demonstrated in this application. You may recall that at the last meeting an alternate plan was offered and the hearing became somewhat less formal with many of us approaching the Board and discussing a variety of ideas in a somewhat relaxed forum. You may also recall that the Board requested that I stake and flag the proposed area of right of way and I have now completed this request. I am very interested in meeting with you in person to review the stake out and plan, answer any questions you may have and collect and ideas you may have. As such, I will make myself available on Tuesday, August 31= @ 7:00PM at the property to meet with you. Should this be inconvenient, I do request you contact me as indicated below and I will make every effort to accomodate your schedule. I feel I have a very clear understanding of that which you do not want to see done, but I am uncertain of what you would like to see done and as such a personal meeting could indeed be productive. I look forward to hearing from you or I will see you on the 31st. Sincerely, Theodore C. Martz Jr. 145 Ryerson Avenue Manorville, NY 11949 (631)-878-8443 (516)-343-7143 (cell) Biltrite85~(3mail.com- email August 26, 2010 Michael Milner Angela Tese PO Box 99 Cutchogue, New York 11935 RECEIVED AU~ ~ 0 2010z APPEALS RE: 555 Broadwater Road, Cutchogue, NY As your neighbor, I am contacting you regarding the previous Town of Southold Zoning Board hearings for the above parcel and in particular the interest you have demonstrated in this application. You may recall that at the last meeting an alternate plan wes offered and the hearing became somewhat less formal with many of us approaching the Board and discussing a variety of ideas in a somewhat relaxed forum. You may also recall that the Board requested that I stake and flag the proposed area of right of way and I have now completed this request. I am very interested in meeting with you in person to review the stake out and plan, answer any questions you may have and collect and ideas you may have. As such, I will make myself available on Tuesday, August 31=t @ 7:00PM at the property to meet with you. Should this be inconvenient, I do request you contact me as indicated below and I will make every effort to accomodate your schedule. I feel I have a very clear understanding of that which you do not want to see done, but I am uncertain of what you would like to see done and as such a personal meeting could indeed be productive. I look forward to hearing from you or I will see you on the 31~. Sincerely, Theodore C. Martz Jr. 145 Ryerson Avenue Manorville, NY 11949 (631)-878-8~,~.3 (516)-343-7143 (cell) Biltrite85~x~mail.com- email THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH N. RIZZO, ,IR., P.C. 28080 MAIN ROAD POST OFFICE BOX 988 CUTCHOGUE, NE'C/YORK 11935 TELEPHONE (631 ) 7340700 FACSIMILE (631 ) 734-9702 WW'W+JOERIZZOLAW.COM July 29, 2010 BY HAND DELIVERY Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 54375 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Theodore C. Martz, Jr., Zoning Board of Appeals File No. 6344 SCTM No. 1000-104.00-012.00-006.001 555 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue, New York 11934 Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: As you are aware, this office represents the Cantelmo and Rehm families, both of whom effectively sandwich the applicant's property, Cantelmo to the east, and Retina to the west. I appeared on behalf of both objectants (collectively, the "Objectants') at the hearing held earlier this year on the 22nd day of April 2010 (the "April Hearing"). This letter is in response to the letter dated the 21*t day of July, 2010 (the "July Letter") submitted on behalf of Theodore C. Martz, Jr. (the "Applicant"), by his counsel, Esseks, Heifer & Angel, LLP. The original application made by the Applicant pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code Chapter 280 (collectively, the "Town Code") sought variances under Code Sections 280-18 and 280-10 and for a building permit for a subdivision and construction that were disapproved by the Town because (i) the two lots were heretofore merged under Section 280-10 when they were held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and, according to Town Code, the existing lots were merged; (ii) th, e proposed Parcel 1 would contain more than one dwelling; and (iii) the subdivision would result in two lots having less than 40,000 square feet for each parcel. Subsequently, and, upon information and belief, the application was apparently modified so as to result in an application for only one dwelling unit per parcel. The opposition submitted on behalf of the Objectants and others at the April Hearing was made pursuant to the standard set forth in Town Law §267-b for a variance from the dimensional and area requirements of a zoning ordinance, i.e., that the requested variance does not outweigh the detriment it would cause to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood, in effect, a balancing test. New York State law requires the Zoning Board to take the following factors into consideration when making its determination: (i) whether or not an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or any detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting the area variance; (ii) whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method which would be feasible for the applicant to pursue but would not require a variance; (iii) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (iv) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (v) whether an alleged difficulty is self-created. The applicant would have this Board believe that the only objections to the application pertained to the removal of trees, hence being unresponsive to the substance of the application. Even a cursory perusal of the record shows the Applicant's position to be absurd on its face; indeed, the oral objections by others who appeared at the April Hearing extended much further than that limited, erroneous argument. The Zoning Board need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five standards set forth above, but must take merely one of the factors into accotmt. In furtherance of to the standards set forth above, the Board is obligated to weigh the benefits of the requested variance against several factors (noting herewith the occasional redundancy to the requirements of Town Law): (i) the benefits to the applicant, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; (ii) whether granting the variance would create an undesirable change or detriment to nearby properties; (iii) whether the benefits sought by the applicant could be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance; (iv) whether the variance is substantial as opposed to incidental; (v) whether the variance would have an adverse effect or impact upon the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; (vi) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, although that should not necessarily preclude the granting of the variance; and (vii) the Zoning Board, in the granting of area variances, must grant the minimum variance that it deems necessary and adequate, and at the same time to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. Not to be ignored is the fact that at the outset of the process, the Planning Board of the Town of Southold found that the application was inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and thus could not support the granting of the lot area variances. Its thinking was, inter alia, that the higher density that would result from the granting of the application was not in the best interests of the Town, as lot area variances can slowly undermine the integrity of the Code when taken cumulatively over time. The Planning Board also determined that the application would create an ~dverse impact on the quality of the groundwater, which in turn would cause pollution to flow into the nearby bay; that adding another septic system would increase pollution; that the addition of an additional substandard lot would result in increased traffic; and, that the loss of trees, a valuable natural resource in Southold, would also result from a lot area variance. The arguments submitted by counsel in favor of the application were substantially as follows: (i) there are more than 150 lots in Nassau Point that are substandard in size, and the addition of two more lots would have little, if any, impact upon Nassau Point; (ii) there was a variance application granted in 1978 that resulted in the merger of the two lots in question, and at this point in time the owners effectively wish to de-merge the lots, claiming that the owner is "entitled to that" without providing any legal authority in supportS; (iii) the 1978 variance application resulted in the lot line between the two parcels being redrawn parallel to the road (crosswise) rather than perpendicular (lengthwise) to the road2; (iv) granting the applicat/on will add to the character of the neighborhood because most of the lots are substandard; and (v) if granted, the variance would permit the erection of one house on the eastern lot, and demolish parts of the structure on the western lot, thereby resulting in only one home per lot, and as such, an improvement to the current situation. The Applicant's congenial offer to revert back to the 1978 status begs the question - in 1978 the Applicant sought the status that presently exists, and now in 2010 the Applicant wants what he didn't want then. How many bites at the apple does the Applicant want, and how many bites will the ZBA grant? The answer is simple - ONE - that which was given in 1978. Anything else implies a revolving door policy, clearly something that this Board does not favor. Counsel for the Applicant astoundingly invents a specious scenario that (i) is not part of the record; (ii) to my knowledge has never been raised before the ZBA3; and (iii) is a fabrication and entirely improper to this proceeding. Counsel fantasizes that "[W]hile the neighbors are objecting to the 'de-merger' of the applicant's lots, at least two of the families (Xavier/Fleming ~ - The applicant offers that "in the spirit of compromise, the applicant is still willing to revert to the original two-lot configuration approved by the ZBA in 1978." 2 _ The letter dated July 21, 2010 from the Applicant's attorney states that I, acting on behalf of my clients, states that "Apparently, Mr. Rizzo (who represented two of the neighbors) implied that the original 1978 variance configuration would be preferable to them" - that could not be any further from the truth. The inference drawn by counsel is as ridiculous as it is erroneous. 3 _ But even if the argument had been raised, is not germane to this proceeding in any respect and Millner/Tese) appear to have 'checkerboarded' their lots so as to maximize their development potential. They are thus arguing a double-standard: they want to maintain the ability to develop their substandard lots at a higher-than-permitted density yet for the applicant's lot, which already has two houses on it, they are objecting to a re-division of that lot, even though that would not create any new houses." Counsel also argues that "[A]ny speculation offered by the neighbors about the possible 'size' of a new house are also unfounded, considering that any owners of the newly- created lots would be in no different position than the neighbors who are objecting to the application." The two arguments described in the two paragraphs immediately preceding this paragraph raise serious issues as to the Applicant's intentions and the means by which to secure the approval of its application. First, the castle-in-the-sky suggestion argued by counsel that the adjoining landowners have deliberately (and consciously) "checkerboarded' parcels that they own so as to facilitate their development is just that - a whimsical flight of the imagination. There was no testimony by either landowner, nor by anyone else at the hearing, who could give legs to that argument. It simply holds no credibility. Secondly, counsel implies that the variance to be obtained is a condition precedent to the Applicant's sale of the property, thereby bringing forth a wholly new state of facts to be considered. This inference comes from counsel's argument that "any owners of the newly created lots would be in no different position than the neighbors who are objecting to the application." Aside from the notion that the statement doesn't make sense, it worries the objectants as to what might be built on the property if one day a developer appears on the scene with shovels and hammers to build a clone of the monstrosity that exists to the east of the Cantelmo property. Finally, counsel has failed to fully address the five statutory standards by which an application for a variance should be judged. For instance, the Applicant's argument for the Board to permit a "de-merger" is that he is "entitled to that". There is no authority provided that might persuade the Board to follow that recommendation, precisely because there isn't any such authority. The Apphcant seems to favor the negative arguments on support for its application, deliberately straying from the notion of a balancing test, i.e., whether the granting of the variance would outweigh the detriment it would cause to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) The Applicant argues that there are already many substandard lots in the neighborhood, so if his application is granted, two more substandard lots would not make any difference (that sounds much like "entitlement" set forth in the de-merger argument); Any discussion as to whether the benefits sought by the Applicant can be achieved my some method which would be feasible for the applicant to pursue but would not require a variance seems to have been made and granted in 1978 - this application is to reverse the one sought in 1978, that to which the Applicant would like this Board to revert to in the disguised "spirit of compromise"; The question as to whether the requested area variance is substantial is addressed in the same manner as the first issue, i.e., two more substandard lots won't make a difference in an area of many substandard lots, but the underlying question arises as to how many substandard lots are too many substandard lots - the answer is two more - hi~s - are acceptable; The impact of the granting of the variance upon the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district seems to have been trivialized by the Applicant, who in this case aims his defensive weapon at the argument of tree removal, that same argument he says is raised speciously by the Objectants and others who appeared at the initial hearing - the fact is that no trees may be removed before obtaining a building permit. The further argument that "there is nothing in the code that would preclude the clearing of the subject property ... [i]n any event, the speculation about some massive loss of trees is unfounded and untrue." What is disturbing here is that the present condition of the site, indeed the location of the structures, and so forth, all were derived from the 1978 action of this Board, and it is now that decision that the Applicant seeks to have reversed so that this application may be granted - this willy nilly posture should not be permitted in any respect. However, the Applicant failed to discuss an essential issue as to the impact of the construction, the altering of the natural contour of existing parcel, and the consequent devaluation of the surrounding properties. It seems clear that the proposed construction would have a definite adverse impact on both the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The notion of a self-created hardship stands front and center in this application; the decision of this Board in 1978 granted to the Applicant the current state of conditions at the site, and it is now an argument used to support the reversion to that which existed pre-1978 because he is "entitle to [the de-merger and granting of the variance]. In this case, the issue of a self-created hardship is elevated because of the action taken by the Board so many years ago. In conclusion, it is respectfully requested that the variance sought by the Applicant be denied for the reasons set forth herein, as well as for those arguments brought forth by others who seeks its denial as well. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation. JNR:sel cc.: Esseks, Heifer & Angel, LLP Xavier Fleming Angela Tese-Milner, Esq. CANTELMO RESIDUE 255 Broadwaters Road, Cutchog0~[KLY. 11935 Photographer Joseph N. Rizzo, Jr,, April 22, 2010 CANTELMO RESIDF~E 255 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue,"~.Y. 11935 Photographer Joseph N. Rizzo, Jr,, April 22, 2010 Photographer Joseph N. Rizzo, J r., April 22, 2010 CANTELMO RESIDENCE 255 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 Photographer Joseph N. Rizzo, Jr., April 22, 2010 ,/ LISA ~J. Ross Hand Delivered ESSEKS, HeFTeR & ANGEL, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW 108 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. BOX 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. I 1901-0B79 (631) 369-170o T£LECOPlER NUMBER (631) 369-2065 April 14, 2010 WATEr MILL OFFIce MONTAUK HIGHWAY P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 (631) 726 6633 RECEIVED Vicki Toth Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 BOARD OF APPEALS Re: Application of Theodore C. Martz, .Ir. ZBA File No. 6344 Premises: 555 Broadwaters Road Cutchogue, New York SCTMNo.: 1000-104.00-012.00-006.001 Dear Ms. Toth: With reference to the above ZBA application, enclosed please find seven (7) copies of our Variance and Zoning Analysis submitted on behalf of the Applicant. Please distribute a copy of the analysis to each of the Zoning Board members prior to the public hearing scheduled for Thursday, April 22, 2010. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Very t~ff?yours, /bws Enclosures LISA J. ROSS EsseK$, HEFTER & ANGEL, LLP COUNSeLoRs AT LAW IO5 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 (631) 369-1700 July 21, 2010 BOARD OF APPEALS P, O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 (631) 726-6633 Hand Delivered Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 54375 Main Read Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Theodore (5 Martz, Jr. ZBA File No. 6344 Premises: 555 Broadwaters Road Cutchogue, New York SCTM No.: 1000-I04.00-012.00-006.001 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Members Dinizio, Goehringer, Homing, and Schneider: As you may recall, we represent the applicant, Theodore C. Martz, Jr., with respect to his application for variances to allow the re-subdivision of his property. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board adjourned the matter to allow us to review the comments made by the neighbors who objected to the application, and to provide a written response. Please consider this letter our response to those comments. The primary area of comments to the Board centered around the trees. The neighbors complained that the variances would lead to a destruction of trees and, for that reason, the ZBA should deny the applications. As an initial matter, there is no requirement, to our knowledge, that the owner of a single-family residential lot maintain trees on the property. In other words, if the application were denied, there is nothing in the code that would preclude the clearing of the subject property. In any event, the speculation about some massive loss of trees is unfounded and untrue. Even if the variances were granted, massive clearing would not be necessary. With respect to the western lot, the only work that would be expected to be performed is a renovation to the structures, which would require no net loss of trees on that lot (if anything, some areas where current structures exist may be replanted). With respect to the eastern lot, the owner would have two choices. One option would be to locate the structures in the front 1/3rd of the property, ESSEK$, HEfTER & ANGEl, LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW ,JUL ~ 2 2010 BOARD OF APPEALS as depicted on the health-department approved plan (in Exhibit L to our original submissions). Under that option, there would be little if no net loss of trees, since the structures would be located in the general area of the existing driveway and some of the driveway could be removed and replanted. The second option would be to locate all new development in the rear 1/3rd of the lot, as depicted on the site plan shown on the land-division map (in Exhibit J to our original submissions). While that second option would require some clearing to locate those structures, the trees in the front 2/3rds of the lot would remain virtually undisturbed, except insofar as needed to continue the driveway (much of which already exists, and the rest of which can be carefully planned to meander through the trees). The rear 1/3rd will remain undisturbed to the extent that 35 feet of side yards and 50 foot rear yard setbacks would not be cleared. In fact, although the site plan submitted shows apossible pool in the rear yard, that is just a depiction for illustrative purposes; the pool may never be installed. In short, under any scenario, the speculation about some massive clearing is unfounded. In the spirit of compromise, the applicant is still willing to revert to the original two-lot configuration approved by the ZBA in 1978. That back-to-back lot configuration would not be in keeping with the prevailing long-lot, side-by-side configuration that is seen throughout the area, but it would not require any clearing of trees that would result from the side-by-side configuration, since the existing structures could be kept in their current locations and renovated. Moreover, the "rear" lot in that scenario would be conforming in size (at just over 40,000 sf), with the front lot similar in size (at nearly 31,000 sf, or .71 acres) to the average-sized neighborhood parcel (.73 acres) (see Exhibit I to our original submission). Apparently, Mr. Rizzo (who represented two of the neighbors) implied that the original 1978 variance configuration would be preferable to them.i Since the applicant is open to that option as an alternative to th'e proposed division, the applicant has asked its surveyor to show the division, as approved in the 1978 variance, on the current survey. A copy of that survey is annexed hereto. The applicant would consent to the Board re-approving the 1978 variances to allow the back-to- back lot configuration as an alternative to the requested variances to allow the side-by-side lot configuration. The neighbors have failed to raise any legitimate basis to find that the character of the neighborhood would be "altered" by re-dividing this previously-divided property back into its original configuration. Based on our client's review of the property information maintained by the Town, of the seven lots owned by the four families who objected to the application, all of them are less than one acre and their average size is smaller than the proposed lot size to be created by the t~.pplicant: i At page 235 of ttid transcript, Mr. Rizzo commented as follows: "In 1978 when they sought a variance the[y] obtained a varianc~ and they divided the lot in ... as was described an east]west portion as opposed to north/south as they wish to do no',s. That was good for them in 1978 it ought to be good for them right now. There's no reason to change except to make a buck...." EsseK$, HEFTER ~ ANGEl, LLP COUNSELORS at Law JUL ,~ ~, ZOIO BOARD OF APPEALS Property Owner Size of Lot (acres) Status 104-12-1 F.Xavier Fleming .60 Vacant 104-12-2 F.Xavier and Susan Fleming .793 Improved 104-12-3 F.Xavier Fleming .94 Improved 104-12-4 R.J. & Linda Rehm .72 Improved 104-10-4 Michael Milner and Angela .75 Improved Tese 104-10-5 AGM Properties (c/o .75 Vacant Michael Milner) 104-12-7 Craig and Annie Cantelmo .80 Improved Average: .76 Median: .75 The applicant's current lot size (1.63 acres) is thus double the average and median lot sizes of the neighbors' lots.~ and the proposed lots (at .83 and .791 acres) would still both be larger than average and median lot sizes of the neighbors' properties. Moreover, while the neighbors are objecting to the "de merger" of the applicant's lots, at least two of the families (Xavier/Fleming and Milner/Tese) appear to have "checkerboarded" their lots so as to maximize their development potential. They are thus arguing a double-standard: they want to maintain the ability to develop their substandard lots at a higher-than-permitted density yet for the applicant's lot, which already has two houses on it, they are objecting to a re-division of that lot, even though that would not create any new houses. Any speculation offered by the neighbors about the possible "size" of a new house are also unfounded, considering that any owners of the newly-created lots would be in no different position than the neighbors who are objecting to the application. In fact, a division of the lots would more likely lead to smaller homes being developed on the property since, by adding two extra side yards, the total building envelope would be reduced. In other words, the maximum width of the building envelope under the divided lot scenario would be about 65 feet each (or 130 feet total), whereas the maximum width of the building envelope for the "merged" lot is about 165 feet (because there are only two side yards instead of four side yards). The bottom line is that everything argued in our original submissions remains true. There is no rational basis for denying the application. Enclosure cc: Joseph Rizzo, Esq. (for Cantelmo & Rehm) Angela Tese-Mil!~er, Esq. Xavier Fleming S.C.T,M, NO. DISTRICT: 1000 S£CllON: 104 BLOCK: 12 LOT(S'):6.1 ,- JUL g 2010 BOARD OF APPEALS1 / ..... ~ 40,097,75 S.F. or 0.92 ACRES tot ' ~00. O0 ' ~OT ~NE ~HANGE ~ffH APPROVA~ OF ACCESS GRANT~ ~ THE TO~N OF SOUTHO[~ ~OARD OF ZONING APPEA~S ON ~78 AS ~' ~E ~A~N SUPPL~ ~S AMD CESSmOOL LOOA~OMS ~0~ ARE ~ mNO ~ Om~m OB~MEO ~0~ A~[A: 71,OJ&19 SO.FT. or 1.6J gCRES · ~t~v~rto~ o~rou: ......................... UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURLY IS A ~OLAflON OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LA~ COPIES OF THIS SURLY MAP NOT BEARING ~E LAND SUR~YOR'S EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COP~ GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR ~OM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPAN~ GO~RNMENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INSTITUTION, GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE. THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHO~ HEREON FROM THE PROPERTY LINES TO ~E STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT THE PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIDE THE ERECTION OF FENCES, ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. EASEMENTS AND/DR SUBSURFACE STRU~URES RECORDED OR UNRECORDED ARE NOT GUARANTEED UNLESS PHYSICALLY E~DENT ON THE PREMISES AT THE TIME OF SURVEY SURVEY OF: LOTS I~9 & 190 INCL. CERTIFIED TO: THEOOORE C. MAP OF:AM[ND[D ~P '~" OF NAS~U CLUB POINT PROPERTIES I~ ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT lNG.; FILED: JUNE 28, 1922 No. 156 : F/DELI~ NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO.; SITUATED AT: CUTGHOGUE SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK ~ ~nd Su~e~ng and Design ~ P.O. Box 3, Mattituek, New York, 11952 FILE ~ 27--36 SCALE: I "=40' DATE: APRIL 30, 2007 PHO~ (eSi) ZgB-JSe8 9914 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1__ week(s), successively, commencing on the 9th dayof September, 2010. Sworn to before me this ~OUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APpEAL~ THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 pUbLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HER.F..BY GIVEN, pur- suant to Section 26/of theTown Law and Town Code Chapter 280 (Zoning), Town of Southold, the following public hear- ings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF AP- PEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, EO. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on T~IURSDAY SEP- 9;30 AM - ANTHONY S. CAMPO #6411 - Request for Variance from Code Sections 280-124 and 280-I16, based on an application for building permit and thc Building Inspector's June 3, 2010 Notice of Disapproval concerning demolition and construction of a new single-family dwelling, at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) less than the code required rear yard setback of 50 feet, 3) less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet; at: 1105 F'~berman's Beach Rd., (adj. to Cotchng~e Harbor) Oatchngue, NY. SCTM#1000-111-1-26. 9;50 AM - R ICHAKD J. ~md JOANN SAVARESE #6415 - Request for Vari- ance from Code Section 280-124, based on an application for building permit and the Building Inspector's May 26, 2010, Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed demolition and construct new single-family dwelling, at; 1) less than the code reqnircd front yard setback of 35 feel 2) [ess than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feel, at: 2575 Old Orchard Rd., (adj, to Orient Bay) East Marion, NY. SCTM#10OO-3?-6-7.1, 10:ISAM STEPHANOS STE- FANIDES #6413 - Request, for Vari- ance from Code Sections 280-116(B) and 280-12.4, based on aa application for building pennit and the Building In- spector's June 11, ~010, Notice of Disap- proval coacernins propo~d alterations/ additions and "~s built" deck addition to seasonal dwelling, at; 1) less than the code required bulkhaed setback of 75 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, ·*/less than the code required total com- bined side yards of 25 feet, 4) less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 fe~t, 5) more than the code required total lot coverage of 20%, at: 780 Rabbit La., (adj. to Gardiner's Bay) East Mari- on, N'Y. SCTM#1000-31-18-17. 10:40 AM - CUTCHOGUE NEW SUFFOLK HIS'IX)RICAL COUNCIl. ~6416 & 6420- Request for Variance from Special Exception per Code Sec- lion 280-13B(15) and Variance from Code Section 280-18 based on an appli- cmion for building permit and the Bin[d- lng Inspector's July 19, 2010, Notice of Disapproval concerning construction of a now building; #6416 - owners request a Special Exception for Historical Society, #6420 - less than the code required front yard setback of 50 fe~t, at: 27230 Main Rd., and Case's La., Cotchogue, NY. 12:00 AM - DAItNA M. BASILICE #6409 - Request for Variance from Code Sections 280-15, based on an application for building permit and the Building In- spector's May 4, 2010 Notice of Disap- proval cone*ming proposed construc- the code required side yard setback of 20 feet, 2) less than the code required front code required maximum lot cov6rage of 20%; at: 3255 Bayshore Rd., (adj. to Pc- conic Bay) Greenport, NY SCTM#1000- 53-6-8 11:15 AM - RoY WARD ~5404 - Re- quest for Variance from Code Sections 280-124 and 280-116, based on an appli- cation for building permit and the Build- ing Inspector's March 8, 2010. amended June 3, 2010 Notice of Disapproval con- coming additions and alterations to an existing dwelling, at 1 ) less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) less than the 6ode required combined side.yard setback of 35 fcei~ 3) less ban tl~m~de required setback to a bulkhead of 75 feet;, at: 4075 Stilhaater Ave,, (East Creek (Eugene's Creek) Cutchngue, NY, SCTM#1000-137-1-8.1. 11'.30 ~ - DOUGLAS SLAMA and NANCY SCHRANK ~6418 - Tni~ is a request for a Waiver under Code Article II, Section 280-IOA, to unmerge land identified as SCTM #1000-98-5-9, based Principal Clerk //~ dayof ,,~./¢'~ ' 2010. NOIAnV ..... " ' on the Building Inspector's July 14, 2010 Notice of Disapproval citing Zoning Code Section 280-10A, which states that thc nonconforming lots merged until a total 10t size conforms to th6 current bulk schedule (minimum 40,000 square LLC #6388 - (adj, from July 29, 2010) JP,. ~4~, Adjourned from Public Heating June 30, 2010: Adjourned from Public Hearing July 29, 2010: The Board of Appeals will hear all persons or their r~presentatives, desiring [o be heard at each hearing, and~oi' desir- ing to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each nated above. Fries are available for re- view during regular business hours and prior to the day of the heating. If you have questions, please contact our Office at (631) 765-1809, or by email: HY- Southold.ny.us, Dated: Sentember 1. 2010 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS EESLIE KANES WEISMAN, CHAIR- PERSON · BY: Vickl Toth 54375 Main Road (Offic~ Location) 53095 Main Road (Mailing~JSPS) PO. Box 1179 Southold, NY 119714)959 7914-1T 9~ STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published et Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has Peen regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1__ week(s), successively, commencing on the 15th dayof July, 2010, ~' [ ~/~/'~ ~lerk day of Sworn to before me this .~~ 2010. CHRISTINA VOLINSKI NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. 01-V06105050 Qua~lRed In Suflolk County Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code Chapter 280 (Zoning), Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 20t0: 1:30 P.M. THEODORE C. MARTZ, JR. #6344. Requests for Variances under Code Sections 280-18 and 280-10, based on the Building Inspector's August 19, 2009 Revised November 18, 2009 Notice of Disapproval and an application for a building permit for a subdivision and construction, disapproved for the following reasons: (1) lots merged under Section 28040; when held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983...and according to Town Code, the existing lots are merged, (2) proposed Parcel 1 will contain more than one dwelling, (3) subdivision will result in two lots having less than 40,000 square feet for each Parcel 1 & 2. Location of property: 555 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue. CTM: 104-12-63 The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours and prior to the day of the hearing. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (63t) 765-t809, or by email: Vicki.Toth~.Town. Southold.n¥.us. Dated: March 23, 2010 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, CHAIRPERSON By Vicki Toth 54375 Main Road (Office Location) 53095 Main Road (Mailing/USPS) P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 #9717 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) REC~I'ED APR ,~ 0 ~010 BOARD OF APPEALS Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1__ week(s), successively, commencing on the 15th dayof April, 2010, Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this I~fl day°f ~(~//~G~~'(jv 2010. NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK NO. 01-V06105050 QufJIIfled mn Suffolk County ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064 LOCATION OF ZBA OFFICE: Town Hall Annex at North Fork Bank Building, 1st Floor 54375 Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold website: htlp://southtown.northfork.net March 22, 2009 Re: Town Code Chapter 55 - Public Notices for Thursday, April 22, 2010 Hearing Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Times Review newspaper. 1) Before April 1st: Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, to al._! owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street. Use the current owner name and addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office located at Southold Town Hall, or Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to obtain a mailin,q address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability, and to confirm how arran,qements were made in either a written statement, or durin,q the hearinq, providin.q the returned letter to us as soon as possible; AND not later than April 2nd: Please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Mailinq (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, and furnish to our office with the green/white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are returned to you later by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled hearing. If any envelope is returned "undeliverable", please advise this office as soon as possible. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board during the hearing and provide the card (when available). These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. 2) Not Later April 14th: Please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other material, posting it at your property for seven (7) days (or more) until the hearing is held. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is available for the additional front yard. Please deliver or mail your Affidavit of Postinfl for receipt by our office before April 20, 2010. If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. (PLEASE DISPLAY YOUR HOUSE NUMBER ALWAYS). Very truly yours, Zoning Appeals Board and Staff Encls. NOTICE OF HEARING The following application will be heard by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold: NAME: MARTZ, T. JR. # 6344 MAP #: 1000-104.-12-6.1 VARIANCE: SUBDIVISION REQUEST: TWO LOTS UNDER 40,000 SQ. FT. TWO DWELLINGS ON ONE LOT DATE: THURS, APRIL 22, 2010 1:30 PM If you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s) prior to the hearing during normal business days between 8 AM and 3 PM. ZONING BOARD-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 765-1809 FROM : Th~odor~ C. Msrtz Jr. Januany 20, 2010 PHONE NO. : 516 878 8443 Theodore C. Martz, Jr. Building Contractor 145 Ryerson Avenue Manorville, NY 11949 (631) 878-8443 Jan. 28 2818 01:14PM PL VIA: FAX MESSAGE ,TO: RE: (631)-765-9064 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Hearing of 01/21/2010 scheduled for 11:00AM 555 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue, NY Division of Property I must apologize for the lateness of this request, however, I have found it necessary to retain William Essecks, esq. as counsel in this matter and as such additional time is required to prepare. Accordingly, we are r/equesting a (30) thirty day postponement_ Office Locafion: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax(631)765-9064 Planning Board Gerard P. Goehringer, ZBA Chairman October 22, 2009 Request for Comments ZBA #6344 - Martz, Theordore C. r.~--~ - As confirmed with your office, the ZBA is reviewing the following application, and enclosed copies of Building Department's Notice of Disapproval, ZBA application, and latest map. The Planning Board may be involved under the site plan review steps under Chapter 280 (Zoning), and your review and comments are requested at this time. The file is ava'liable for review of additional documentation at your convenience for reference if needed. NAME TAX # / ZBA BD NOD VARIANCE PLANS PREPARER ZONE DATE DATE '": STAMPED Martz, 1000-104- #6344 ' August Two lot April 30, Kenneth M. Theodore C. 12-6.1 19,2009 subdivision 2007 Woychuk Jr. R-40 L.S. Zone Your comments are appreciated by November 30, 2009. Thank you. Encls. Office Location: ~ Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 : Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 http://southoldtown.northfork, net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 October 15, 2009 Mr. Thomas Isles,!iDirector Suffolk County Department of Planning P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Dear Mr. Isles: Please find enclosed the following application with related documents for review Pursuant to Article:XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code: ZBA File # 6344 Martz, Theodore C. Jr. Action Requested: Proposed two lot subdivision. Within 500 feet of: ( ) State or County Road : (X) Waterway (Bay, Sound, or Estuary) ( ) Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State, Federal land. '~ ( ) Boundary of Agricultural District '; ( ) Boundary of any Village or Town If any other 'nform'ation is needed, please do not hesitate to call us. Thank you. Encls. Very truly yours, Gera r)aH~ Goehringe, r-~ By: Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 http://southoldtown.north£ork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTItOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code Chapter 280 (Zoning), Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971.0959, on THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 2010: 1t:30 A.M. THEODORE C. MARTZ, JR. #6344, Requests for Variances under Code Sections 280-18 and 280.10, based on the Building Inspector's August 19, 2009 Revised November 18, 2009 Notice of Disapproval and an application for a building permit for a subdivision and construction, disapproved for the following reasons: (1) lots merged under Section 280.10; when held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983...and according to Town Code, the existing lots are merged, (2) proposed Parcel 1 will contain more than one dwelling, (3) subdivision will result in two lots having less than 40,000 square feet for each Parcel 1 & 2. Location of property: 555 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogus. CTM: 104-12-6.1 The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours and prior to the day of the hearing. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (631) 765-1809, or by email: Vicki.Toth~,Town.Southold.n¥.us. Dated: December 18, 2009. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN BY VlCKI TOTH 54375 Main Road (Office Location) 53095 Main Road (Mailing/USPS) P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 NOTICE OF HEARING The following application will be heard by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold: NAME: Martz, T. Jr. # 6344 MAP #: 1000-104.-12-6.1 VARIANCE: SUBDIVISION REQUEST: TWO LOTS UNDER 40,000 SQ. FT. TWO DWELLINGS ON ONE LOT DATE: THURS, Jan 21, 2010 11:30 AM If you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s) prior to the hearing during normal business days between 8 AM and 3 PM. ZONING BOARD-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 765-1809 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK _ n 5_ atter °f . (Name of Appli~nts) CTM Par~ ' - - X AFFIDAVIT OF MAILINGS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK} STATE OF NEWY. ORK) " ~ __ · ."~/~//~.- , New~ork ~being duly swom,'depose ahd say that;' MAIL, RE. TURN RECEIPT RE(: ¢:S'I'ED, a true copy of the'attached Legal Notice it3 prepaid, e;n. velopes addr~ ssed to current owners shown O_q..l~ current asseSsment-toll verified fmm the official records on file with the (t.~sse~sors,'or ( ) County Real Property Office' ' /'" ., .~Ar-e,v.ery property which abuts and is across a public or.p~vate stree..?J~'~i.~f~gh~l-of- way of record, surrounding<_~e appliCant's pr.~_rty// Sworn to be~r_e me th~ I day of "~)~'/'(~ ~ 20~ ~) /,~ //.,~ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW yORK '(Notary Pub!ici -_ ~ _ _ _ ~/.f_.,(...,r....~ QUAUFIED IN 8UFFOt. K t . PLEASE list, on the back of this Affidavit or ona. sheet of paper, the lot numbers next to the oWner names and addresses for Which notices were mailed. Thank you. March 30, 2010 To: 104-10-2.1 Joseph and Judith Zalner 6839 Manse St. Forest Hills, NY 11375 104-10-3 Louis and Sonya Sulich Trust PO Box 1091 Cutchogue, NY 11935 104-10-4 Michael Milner Angela Teste PO Box 99 Cutchogue, NY 11935 104-21-3 F. Xavier Fleming 116 Shields Avenue Wi#iston Park, NY 11596 104-12-4 R.J. and Linda Rehm 665 Broadwaters Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 104-12-7 Craig and Annie Cantelmo 255 Broadwaters Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Dear Property Owners: The enclosed information is supplied to you as required by the Town of Southold Board of Zoning Appeals. Please feel welcome to contact me with any questions or concerns you may have @ 0631)-878-8443. Theodore C. Martz Jr. 145 Ryemon Avenue Manorville, new York 11049 nj D Return Receipt Fee [~ (EndorSement Required) [~ Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) ru m Postage Cerktified Fee nj I'-1 Return Receipt Fee [:3 (Endorsement Required) ~ Restricted Delivery Fee (EndorSement Required) nj I-1 USE m Certified Fee nj $0.44 09~9 ~2 · ~0 ~; Postmark Postage Cedified Fee f--i Return Receipt Fee E:) (EndorSement Required) r"l Restricted Delivery Fee (EndorSement Required) [:3 ru cO Total PoStage & Fees 1. Art~le Addressed : · ~,~ 3. Service 'lype r'l Ce~fled Mall [] Registered [] Insured Mall [] Expm.~ Mall [] Retum Re~alpt fat [] C.O.D. 4. Reetflcted Delivery? (JD~ra Fee) [] Ye~ PS Fc~rn 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt · Complete Items 1, 2, and 3..Nsc complete item 4 if Restated Delivery Is desired. · P~lnt your name and addrees on the reverse an that we ~an return the ~ard to you. · Attach this ce~d to the back of the mailpleco, or on the front If space permits. . (Tmn~fer from sen/~e lebeO PS Form 381 1, February 2004 17 If YES, enter delivery sddmea below: ~alo [] Registered [] Return Recalpt for Memhendl~e [] Insured Mall [] C.O.D. · Re~c~d O~h~,'~ (F.~a F~e) OYes Domestic Return Re~alpt · Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Nsc complete item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. · print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the c~rd to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on the front If space petits. ~ PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt Signature · ~"~" .,.--~ .. ,, / •Ag~ 'IfYEa,~ ~lv~add~s~o~ O o Mall D ~s M~I ~ R~i~ ~ R~um R~i~ for M~I~ ~ D Insu~ Mall ~ C.O.D. 4. R~ ~11~ ~ ~) ~ Yes RECEIVED ZONINO BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YORK ................. 7'~ ......... 7 ..................... x In the Mattefof ~e Apphcatio~ of (lqmn¢ of Applioa~) POSTLNG Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applioant's Land Identified as 1000- - COUNTY OF SUFFO~B~~) ? STATE OF NEW Y~RK) -"~' ' / ~<~[',01/~, New for~_ei, ng~duly sworn,--'~.,...., depose and say t~ar '--' On the da of ~ , , ..... ,_~. ~,y ~ ,C , Ipersonallyplacedt,~e I'o~ ' v,,o~, ~ocate~ ten (!0~ f~t o~ ~ose~ f~o~ ~, ~l~( o, ~g~t-of*,~,y (~,,'ay ~;,%~,'~ ricing thc street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance;* and that . ~ h¢[eby.confirm tha! the ?oster has rem, ined in pi,ce for s~xe./dw,/.pm)r to lite suo]ect heaqng date, which hearing date was show~] to be __~ Sworn to before me th/s (Notary Public) APR 6 2010 BOARD OF APPEAL~ ................ "~-~3e--ar !:h~-exD-t!:~CC .9L-dL'iy~waY-.-e-ot-tan~e-qf mg.ps_uperty, as. fl~e area-mos! vlsi.bt.e-to passersby ....... · Complate items 1, 2, and 3. Also complate Item~4 ff Reatdcted Delivery is de~lre~:l. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the ma~lpiane. or on the front if space permits. 2. ArtJcle Number (rmns~er from sen/ce ~ PS Form 3811, February 2004 4. Reatrfcted Delivers? (F-x~a Fee) [] Yes Domestic Return Receipt · Complete Items 1,2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is deelrecl. · Print your name and addran~on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpJeca, or on the front If space permits. ~,/ , A. Signature ~ v,-~ .- / ~ ...... ~ OAger~ II s. Recelvedby(P1fntedName) ~. Dmof Delivery D.Isd~Nmyaddreaad~/emntfl~lml? [] Yes if YES, er~er dallve~ address b~ow: F1 No [] Ce~dfled Mall [] Reg~mred [] Insured Mall [] Ex~. Mall [3 Retum Receipt for Membendlse [] C.O,D. 4. Rest~eted Dolive~? (ZD~a Fee) [] Yes 2. Artlcie Number PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. A~r~ple~ item 4 E Reatricted Delive~ Is d~red. · Print your name and address, on the reveme so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailplsoe, or on the front E space perm,s. 1. Article Addressed tc~- /' . · ~ ~,~.,¢.~ [] Agent [] B. Rees;ved by ( Printed Name) C. Date of Dallve~y D. I~dallvmyaddreeadlfferentframlteml? []yes r delivery addre~ below: [] No ,-,.'- [] Return Reeslpt for Merchandlae [] Inaumd Mai [] C.O.D. 4. Restrfcted Dolive~? ~Extra Fee) [] Yes 2. Article Number ?r~,~,~.~ 7009 0620 0002 0096 4139 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064 LOCATION OF ZBA OFFICE: Town Hall Annex at North Fork Bank Building, 1st Floor 54375 Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold website: htm://southtown.northfork.net December 21, 2009 Re: Town Code Chapter 55 - Public Notices for Thursday, January 21, 2010 Hearing Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Times Review newspaper. 1) Before January 7th: Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, to all owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street. Use the current owner name and addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office located at Southold Town Hall, or Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to obtain a mailin,q address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability, and to confirm how arrangements were made in either a written statement, or during the hearin.q, providin,q the returned letter to us as soon as possible; AND not later than January 8th: Please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, and furnish to our office with the green/white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are returned to you later by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled hearing. If any envelope is returned "undeliverable", please advise this office as soon as possible. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board during the hearing and provide the card (when available). These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. 2) Not Later than January 13st: Please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other material, posting it at your property for seven (7) days (or more) until the hearing is held. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no moro than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the stroet. If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is available for the additional front yard. Please deliver or mail your Affidavit of Posting for receipt by our office before January 19, 2010. If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. (PLEASE DISPLAY YOUR HOUSE NUMBER ALWAYS). Very truly yours, Zoning Appeals Board and Staff Encls. #9610 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk cf THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 week(s), successively, commencing on the 7th day of January, 2020. · \ P'~ncipal Clerk Sworn to before me this day of (~~010, NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. 01 -~/O6105050 gual~l®d In ,Suffolk County BOARD MEMBERS Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson James Dinizio Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ken Schneider http://southoldtown.north fork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · t~O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 December 6, 2010 William Essecks, Esq. 108 East Main Street .Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: ZBA #6344 - Martz Dear Mr. Essecks: Transmitted for your records is a copy of the Board's December 2, 2010 Findings, Deliberations and Determination, the original of which was filed today with the Town Clerk regarding the above application, with copies forwarded to the Planning Board and Building Department. Please contact the Planning Board regarding the next step in this subdivision process. Sin?re~ Vicki Toth Encl. Copies of Decision to: Building Department Town Clerk (Original for filing) Planning Board S.C.T.M. NO. DISTRICT: 1OOO SECTION: 104 BLOCK: 12 LOT(S): 6.1 RECEIVED I~OOARD OFAPPEALS ~.7' ~ ; I I F I [ /f I X ,:- I ~00.00' LOT LINE CHANGE WITH APPROVAL OF ACCESS G~NTED ~Y THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ON MARCH 23, 1978 AS APPEL ~2400. THE WATER 5UPPL~; ~LLS AND CESSPO~ LOCA~ONS SHO~ ARE FR~ FIELD 08SERVATI~S REVISED 09-20-10 ~NO OR DATA OBTAINED FROM O~ERS. AREA: 71,038.19 SQ.FT. or 1.63 ACRES · ELgWr~ON O~rU~: ......................... UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURLY IS A ~OLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STAT~ EDUCATION LA~ COPIES OF THIS SURLY MAP NOT BEARING ~E LAND SUR~YOR'S EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT EE CONSIDERED TO 8E A VALID ~UE COP~ GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR ~OM THE SURLY IS PREPARED AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TI~E COMPAN~ GO~RNMENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSTI~TION LISTED HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INS~TU~ON, GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE. THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHO~ HEREON FROM THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE S~UCTURES ARE FOR A SPEOFIC PURPOS~ AND USE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT IN~NDED TO MONUMENT ~E PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIDE' THE ERECTION OF FENCES, ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR AND OTHER IMPRO~MENTS. EASEMENTS AND/OR SUBSURFACE STRU~URES RECORDED OR UNRECORDED ARE NOT GUARANTEED UNLESS PHYSICALLY EWDENT ON THE PREMISES AT THE TIME OF SURLY SURVEY OF: LOTS 189 ~ 190 INCL. CERTIFIED TO: THEODORE C. MARTZ JR.; MAP OF:A~ENDED ~AP "A' OF ~S~U CLUB POINT PROP[RnES ~N.. ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT INC.; FILED: JUNE 28, 1922 No. 156 FIDELI~ NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO.; SITUATED AT: CUTCHOGUE mo~ OF: SOUTHOLD ~NNETH M. WOYCHUK L.S. SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK ~~ ~ ~nd Sm, e~n, and Design P,O, Bo~ 3, MatUtuek, New York, 1195~ FILE ~ 27--36 SCALE: 1 ":40' DATE: APRIL 30, 2007 P~o~ (aa~) ~9a-~a~ $.C.T.M. NO. DISTRICT: 1000 SE:C'nON: 104 BLOCK: 12 LOT(S): PI06. I RECEI[VED OCT ] 2009 BOARD OF APPEALS LOT N 66o48,10- W ! 0:~.00' LOT LOT 202 THE WATER SUPPLY, WELLS AND CESSPOOL LOCA iTONS SHOWIV ARE FROM FIELD O~SERVA TIONS REVISED 7-8-09 AND OR DATA O~TAINED FRO~ OTHERS. AREA: 56,545.8 S.F. OR 0.84 ~RES EL~VA~ON DATUM: ...... ~ ............... UNAUTHORIZED ALTERA~ON OR ADDITION TO THIS SURLY IS A ~OLATION OF S~CTI~ 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STA~ EDUCATION LA~ COPIES OF THIS SU~Y MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SUR~YOR'S EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO 8E A VALID ~UE COP~ GUAR/:N~ES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR ~OM THE SURLY IS PREPARED AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE ~TLE COMPAN~ GO~RNMENTAL ~GENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED HEREON, AND TO ~E ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INS~TU~ON, GUARANTEES ARE NOT ~ANSFERABLE, THE OFFSET5 OR DIMEN~ONS SHO~ HEREON FR~ THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE S~UCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT IN~NDED TO MONUMENT ~E PROPERTY LINES ~ TO GUIDE THE ERECTION OF FENCES, ADDI~ONAL S~UC~RES OR A[~ OTHER IMPRO~MENTS. EASEMENTS AND/OR SUBSURFACE S~U~RES RECEDED OR UNRECORDED ARE NOT GUARANTEED UNLESS PH~ICALL Y E~DENT ON THE ~REMISES A T THE ~ME OF SURLY SURVEY OF: LOT 189 MAP OF: AMENDED MAP "A" OF NASSAU CLUB POINT PROPERTIES INC. FILED: JUNE 28, 1922 No.156 SITUATED AT: CUTCHOGUE TOWN OF: SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK FILE # 27--36-- 1SCALE: I "----40' DATE:APRIL 30, 2007 N, Y. S. UC NO. 50227 CERTIFIED TO: THEODORE C. MARTZ JR.; ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT INC.; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO.; KENNETH M. WOYCHUK L.S. Land Sarveying and Design P.O. Box 3, liatUtuck, New York, 11952 PHONE (031) ,~-1588 FAX (ca1) 298-1~8e metntoininf the records of Robert J. Hennessy S.C.T.M. NO. DISTRICT: 1000 SECTION: 104 BLOC:~: 12 LOT(S)= P/06.1 OW£LLs PUSUC ~Ar~R ARD OF APPER~ £LEV, .39.4 · DY LOAM 12-22-07 LOT 189 Z N 66'48'10" W 98.00' 2,0' DWELL PUBLIC WATER LOT202 I THE WA TER SUPPLY. WELLS AND CESSPOOL LOCATIONS SHOWN ,~RE FROM FIELD OBSERVATIONS REUSED 7-8-09 AND OR DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHERS, AREA: .34,480 S.F. OR 0.79 ACRES ELEVATION DATUM: ~'suuEo UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCA-ION LA~ COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT SEARING THE LAND SURVEYOR'S EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO SE A VALID TRUE COPY, GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED AND ON HIS SEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY. GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INSTITUTION, GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE. THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON FROM THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT THE PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIDE THE ERECTION OF FENCES, ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. EASEMENTS AND/OR SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES RECORDED OR UNRECORDED ARE NOT GUARANTEED UNLESS PHYSICALLY EVIDENT ON THE FREMISES AT THE TIME OF SURVEY SURVEY OF: LOT 190 CERTIFIED TO: THEODORE C. MARTZ JR.; MAP OF: AMENDED MAP "A" OF NASSAU CLUB ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT INC.; POINT PROPERTIES INC. FILED: JUNE 28, 1922 NO. 156 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO.; S~TUATED AT: CUTCHOGUE TOWN OF: SOUTHOLD KENNETH M. WOYCHUK L.S. SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK Land Sur~e~ng and Design PHONE (631) ~0~J-1588 PAX (681) 298-1588 FiLE # 27-36-2 SCALE: 1"=40' DATE~APRIL $0, 2007 N Y. s. LIC NO. 50227 tunisia/ninE Lb,! records of Robert J. Hennessy BROAD//ATER$ COVE TO'lIN OF SOUTHOLB