Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-83.-1-11 & 12Town, of Sou~thold '~ LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSME 1. All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold ~ge c'es, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Sonthold 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 w~thin the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the T( Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then achievement of the LWRP policy Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if determination that it is consistent to the maximum standards and conditions. If an action cannot be standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. affect the the consistency review law. modified prior to malting a practicable with the LWRP policy as consistent with the LWRP policy A copy of the LWRP is available in website (southoldtown.northfork.net), local libraries and the Town ~ B, DESCRIPTION OF $ SCm# { 2-'*-[ ( online at the Town of Southold's Office. the Planning.Department, all 201i The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate respo~e): To. Board [] Planning Dept. [] Building Dept. ~ BoardofTrustees~[/N~'~x 1. Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital consm~etion, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) Nature and,extent of action: .-~ ,_~ x Site acreage: '~D,'"~C~::~ '~ l sant zorn8 classification: If an applicati6n for the proposed a~ction has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (d) Application number, if any: Will the action be directly undertaken, require fiJ_nding, 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 IH - 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 HI - Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria '~'~ Yes [] No [] (Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section HI - 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 Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria ~yIes~ No[] (Not Applicable-please explain) Attach additional sheets ifnecessay Policy $. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section IH - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria ~ [] No [] (Not Applicable - please explain) Atlach 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, ~es [] No [] (Not Applicable - please explain) Atiach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold, See LWRP Section IH - Policies Pages 31l through 34 for evaluation criteria. See Section IH - Policies Pages; 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes ~ No~ (Not Applicable - please explain) Atlach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section IH - 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 recrentionai use of, coastal waters, public lnnds, nnd public resources of the Town of Southold. See LV~-RP Section IH - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation No [] (Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessary WORKING COAST POLICIES Policy I0. l~rotect Southoldts water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section HI - Policies; Pages 47 through $6 for evaluation criteria. [] No ( ot Applicable- please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long bland Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. BYes [] NO ~pplicable - please explain Attach additional sheets if necessm~y Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section HI - Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 13. P~omote appropriate use and development of energy and miner~ resources. See LWRP Section IH - Policies; Pages 6~ through 68 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [] No ~cable - please explain ALIANO PROPERTY GLEN COURT, CUTCHOGUE NY LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM POLICY 1. Forster 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. This project is consistent with this policy. A proposed single family dwelling on a conforming lot, located on an existing road, offering water views. The clearing of the property will be minimal and as necessary for the proposed development of the lot. POLICY 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. This project is consistent with this policy. The property is not located within or within close proximity to an archaeologically sensitive area as defined by the NYS H~storic Preservation Office. POLICY 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. This project is consistent with this policy. The single family dwelling is proposed on a privately owned parcel of land. The structure will not interfere with scenic views. All utilities are installed underground in this area. Denuded areas of the bluffto be re-vegetated with drought resistant town approved species. POLICY 4, Minimize loss of life, structures and natural resources from flooding and erosion. This project is consistent with this policy. The single family dwelling is to be located approximately 60' from the bluffand outside the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The dwelling is set as far back from the bluffwhile still maintaining town required setbacks to property lines or requiring minimal variance to setback requirements. Clearing of site to allow for the construction of the dwelling shall be kept to a minimum. All disturbed areas and de-nuded areas of the bluffshall be re-vegetated with town approved species. No hard structural erosion protection measure proposed as part of this project. POLICY 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. This project is consistent with this policy. All run-offwill be contained on site with the use of leaders and gutters and drywells. POLICY 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. This project is consistent with this policy. No development in the Long Island Sound Ecosystem. Run-off to be maintained on site, no intrusion into the Long Island Sound. No fill will be deposited in any wetlands or adjacent area. The dwelling to be located 60' from the top of the bluff maintaining a sufficient buffer fi.om development to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. POLICY 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. N/A POLICY 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. This project is consistent with this policy. This is a single residence producing household waste to be disposed of according to town policy. POLICY 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of coastal waters, public lands and public resources of the Town of Southold. This project is consistent with this policy. The property is adjacent to public access to the Long Island Sound and does not interfere or encumber this public access to the beach. POLICY 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable location. This project is consistent with this policy. This project does not have an impact on water dependent uses. POLICY 11: Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. N/A POLICY 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. N.A POLICY 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resoul~es. N/A SURVEY OF PROPERTY AT CUTCHOGUE TO WN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. 1000-83-01-11 &' 12 SCALE: 1'--30' JANUARY 1,3, 2004 ANY ALTERATION OR ADDllTON TO THIS SURVEY IS A t4OLAT~ON OF SECI~ON 72090F THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCA]70N LAW, EXCEPT AS PER SECTION ?209-SUBDIVISION 2. ALL CER ~TFICA ~70h HEREON ARE VALID FOR THIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONLY IF SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF 'THE SURV~' WHOSE SIGNATURE APPEARS HEREON. LOT NUMBERS REFER TO "MAP OF ~ISTA 8L'UFF" FIL. IN THE SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE ON MARC/ 15, 1968 AS FILE NO. 5060. ELEVATIONS REFERENCED TO N.G.V.D. June duly 19, gO04 (revi$1onl 'Jen. 13, 2005 (rewsions) dan. 19, 2005 (revisions) ~g. 51~ ~005 (drywe]ls etc.~ May ~ ~11 NOTE' - ' OF ,CUT = 8' ' AMOUNT OF~'F/LL u REQUIRED 650 c ,y~. PERCENT OF LOT ~ITH SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15~ LOT COVERAGE PROVUE ~ DRYWELtS ~ ~ ~ 5' D~P TO ~LE ROOF RUNOFF REVEGETA'TE ON TOP AND'BOTTOM OF THE RETAINING WALLS ~ 0~ SANITARY SYSTEM WELL WELL COMPAC 6RA VEL NSE. S../O,, ~0~6 N SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM DESfGNED BY' COMPaCtED ~ - ..... ~ ~,. - . '1000-8S-01-12 AREA=J4, J24~_¢~E~ TYPICAL FULL CRIB J " ~'~' ~gCONIC SUR~.~e~A ,.to','~.0. 'BOX 909"' COASTA~ EROSION ~ZARD LINE FROM · . 1250 ~A VELER STREET ~;'COASTAL~ EROSION ~ZARO AREA MAP SOUTHOLO, N.X 11971 '~Ph¢lo ~ ~8'545'83 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman G~rard P. Gochringer James Dinizio, Jr. Michael A. Simon Leslie Kanes Weisman hup://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF AUGUST 31, 2006 Mailine Address: Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Town Annex/First Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 RECEIVED - 1 200 ZB File No. 5846 - Nicholas Aliano Property Location: 3705 Duck Pond Road and Glen Court, Cutchogue CTM 83-1-12 SRORA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in thb application and determines that this review fails under the Type H category of the State's List of Actions and thus requires no additional steps under SEQRA. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's parcel (CTM 1000-83-01-12) consists of 34,324 square feet and is shown as Lot $ on the Map of Vista Bluff filed March 15, 1968 in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, and the adjacent Park & Playground Lot (CFM 1000-83-01-11) consists of 6,474 square feet. The linear footage along a tie line of the high water mark of the Long Island Sound, iurluding the Park Playground premises, is 222 feet wide, and the easterly side of the premises has 150 linear feet along the west side of Duck Pond Road. The applicant's survey with topographical information taken pclor to January 2006, maps the upland to be of approximately -/+8000 square feet, showing varying contours (10S and 119 linear feet in depth measured from the surveyor's top of the bluff line/64 ft. contour above mean sea level 0MSL) to the southerly property line). To the north is the Long Island Sound with adjacent steep bluffs and beach areas. To the south is applicant's Lot 6 which eontaina a very steeply sloping bluff, improved with a new dwelling - also of the applicant. To the west is Lot 4, improved with · dwelling and a 45 fL wide frontage along a town street (Glen Court). To the east is a town street (Duck Pond Road). Prom the westerly lot line adjacent to Glen Court, to the lot line adjacent to Dock Pond Road, the scale on the applicant's survey maps the property with an approximately 170 feet wide upland area at the top of the bloff. The entire premises consists of only 8000 sqoare feet on top of the bloff, and 26,234 square feet of steep slopes. These slopes are not gradual slopes, ranging from 8 feet elevation above MSL at the base (north side of bloff adjacent to beach area) to 60 feet at the highest existing land contour, over a short horizontal distance. The applicant's surveyor has shown a Hne to indieato a binff boundary somewhat parallel to the high water mark of the sound with the line including variable elevations from the lowest point at 8 ft. above MSL on the easterly point to 68 feet at the highest elevation above MSL. At the time of ronstruclion activities, a major portion of the area at the highest elevations 0andward of the 64 ft. contour) was excavated by the applicant for the footings of a foundation for a house size 20 ft. wide at the north side and widening to 30 feet at the south side, and 44 feet In depth. Activities were also *Page 2 -August 31, 2006 Confide~Work Copy ZB File No. 5846 - Nicholas Aliano'~ CTM No. 83-1-12 commenced to excavate for the new retaining wall structures (tiered down the bluff on the east sides), which are attempting to prevent slope failure. The eastern retaining wall concrete footing is seven feet seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. In viewing the npland areas from Glen Court and viewing/walking the bluff top and adjacent areas, the foundation footings are built into the originai bluff slope, rather than with a setback of 42 feet from the actual top or highest elevation of the origlnai bluff (top of bluff) line. New retaining wall structures and footings are about seven (7) feet below the highest or top elevation at the easterly side. The topographicul information shown on the applicant's survey does not accurately show the altered contours, before land dlsturbance~ excavation and re=grading. The land wraps around from the north in almost n full circle to a point near Glen Court and these areas, as shown on the applicant's map, are not in its original, natural state. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's Notices of Disapproval dated January 5, 2006, amended January 13, 2006, citing Sections 100-239.4A(1) and 100-244, in its denial of an application for a building permit to construct a new single family dwelling. The reasons stated by the Building Inspector in the denials are: (a) that all buildings located on lots adjacent to sounds and upon which there exists a bluff or bank landward of the shore or beach shall be set back not fewer than 100 feet from the top of such bluff or bank, and b) that a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet is required. CHAPTER 280 (formerly Chapter 100) - ZONING CODE PROVISIONS: Article XXIII Section 100-239.4A, which states: %4il buildings located on lots adjacent to sounds and upon which there exists a bluff or bank land~ard of the shore or beach shall be set back not fe~er than one kundred (100) feet from the top of suck bluff or bank." Article XXIV, Section 100-244, which states that a principal building shall have a minimum front yard at 4tO feet, for lots containing less than 39,999 square feet. CHAPTER 95 - LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM or LWRP PROVISIONS: The application has been reviewed under Chapter 95, and a Letter of Inconsistency Determination/Recommendation was issued on February 28, 2006, revised March 3, 2006. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this appUcation on March 2, 2006, March 30, 2006, and April 27, 2007, at wMch time written and oral evidence were presented, and written submissions extended through June 7, 2006 for aU documentation, and additional extension through September 6, 2006. Based upon ali testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCES REOUESTED: The applicant proposes a single-family dwelling, two wood retaining walls with concrete footings, proposed driveway, well facility, sanitary/septic system facifity, drywell and landscaping, within 100 feet from the top of bluff line adjacent to the Long Island Sound. The dwelling initially was proposed of a size 34.7 ft. wide x 44.4 ft. deep, set back 42 feet to the existing footing and -/+ 40 feet at the closest measurement at thc north/east corner of the proposed dwelling, and ,Page 3 - August 31,2006 Confld~Work Copy ZB File No. 5846 - Nicholas Allano'~=~ CTM No. 83-1-12 44 feet to the edge of the retaining wails, shown on the January 18, 2006 survey and measured by the surveyor from the top of the bluff. The following surveY site maps were submitted by applicant for consideration: a) survey revised January 18, 2006, proposing building setbacks to the northern top of the Sound bluff line, 40.8 ft. front setback fcom the westerly property line (adjacent to Glen Court), 16.2 feet from the southerly lot line (adjacent to other property of the applicant). The size of the new dwelling ts shown to be 34.7 ft. wide x 44.4 ft. deep building. The new footings for the residence is shown 40 feet and 42 feet from the surveyor's delineation for a "bluff line", and only 33 feet from eastern retaining wall structure. The dweliing's sanitary system is proposed to be built below the highest land elevation and into the eastern slope of the bluff. b) survey revised February 14, 2006, with building setbacks to be 50 feet from the northern top of the Sound bluffline, 30.3 feet to the westerly lot line, 15.3 feet from the southerly lot line. The size of the new dwelling was revised to be 45 ft. wide by 3S.S ft. deep. The dwelling's sanitary system is proposed to be built below the highest land elevation and into the eastern slope of the bluff. c) survey revised March 27, 2006 to show contour changes in the area of the newly constructed footings at 44 feet to the top of the Sound bluff (with the same proposed building, sanitary system and related facilities as shown on February 14, 2006 survey). BUILDING PERMIT ERROR: A Stop Work Order was issued by the Building Department regarding Building Permit # 31581-Z issued 11-04-2005, after the Building Department learned of the error in locating the proposed dwelling and related activities at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff. OTHER AGENCY DETERMINATIONS-'. The applicant has submitted information to show the following agency determinations related to this property: (a) Authorization issued December 28, 2004 - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Tidal Wetland Permit # 1-4738-03391/0001. The Metzger survey dated 1/13/04, revised 7/19/04 approved by the DEC shows the northwest corner of the residence at 48' from the top of bluff line and the retaining wall 27' from the top of bluff line. (b) Authorization issued April 20, 2005; Town of South#Id Board of Trnstees #6113. (c) Letter of Inconsistency with Poliey Standards under Chapter 95, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Pregrm (LWRP) Policy Standards dated February 28, 2006 and revised March 3, 2006. (d) Opinion issued by the State of New York Department of State, Resource Management Bureau, Division of Coastal Resources indicating rate of bluff recession. ADDITIONAL PROPERTY FACTS: The property has been mostly cleared of vegetation, including areas seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line. Prior to coustrnction, no clearing limits were established to mitigate and/or stabilize slopes or preserve indigenous vegetation to "the extent practical". Foundation footings were placed after excavating more than 12 feet into the ground of the ,Page 4 - August 31,2006 Confld~Work Copy ZB File No. 5846 - Nicholas Allano CTM No. 83-1-12 hill side (bluff) at the highest elevations above mean sea level (MSL). Aerial photos (attached) indicate that the bluff/clifton the property is unstable and erosive. REASONS FOR BOARD A(~ION: Information in the January 24, 200~ report antkorml by W"Eliam L. .l~eger, P.E., I.$ indicated the bluff is currently unstable with no toe control and some vegetated overburden, and the current bluff instability is unrelated to the construction of the foundation..." No evaluation of the clearing of the moderate to severe slopes in relation to banff/cliff/slopes instability and erosion was made in support of applicant's claims. In addition, the Jaeger report does not address the potential instability of the area down slope of the eastern retaining wall which consists of severe slopes cleared of vegetation. The effectiveness and success of the planting plan dated January 26, 2006 has been submitted by the Cromer Consulting Group cannot be assessed without knowing the percent slope post construction grading and the erosion control methods (if any) that will be employed at the bluff areas. Adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and adjacent areas would result from impairment of ecological quality, as indicated by degradation of ecological components. Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either as a direct loss origtoating within the resource area or as an indirect loss originating from nearby activities. Degradation eon also occur over a more extended period of time and may be indicated by increased siltation, changes in natural community composition, or evidence of pollution. A re-vegetation plan proposing ~ of indigenous droupht ~ species on all slopes greater than 15% to provide more effective slope stabilization and minimize fertilization and irrigation requirements is · method that should be used for any activity whatsoever, with construction after the areas have become stabilized and certified as such, before further excavating or building activities take place. Additional or further activities related to the new dwelling (including equipment, further excavating activities for a sanitary system, in-ground dryweHs, weft hook-ups, underground electric and plumbing, and other related land disturbances) wlil result in a physical loss of the hillside ecosystem. The ability to reduce adverse impact of developmeat is limited due to the fact that clearing and grading has already occurred on site, even while the applicant tried to mitigate some impacts through the placement of hay bales and silt fencing during construction. Also, septic systems shall not be located in an area with slopes greater than IS% or less than 65 feet from bluffs (ref. Saffola County Sanitary Code). The property contains very steep hillside slopes greater than 15% on three sides (north, east and south), and the septic system is proposed to be built and excavated into the side of the bluff. After excavating l0 or more feet into the bluff for installation of a septic system, at least 10 feet of fill would be needed for the entire excavated area (ref. Tkackoor (George) Mootoo, P.E. report dated $/'22/2006). Substantial cutting of the property took place, creating high walls for the footings of the foundation. The cutting was at the top of the bluff creating a very high wall (12 or more feet in height) on the west side of the foundation. Coastal Resources Division, New York State Department of State Evaluation Report by Fred J. Anders, Chief, Resource Management Bureau: In reply to the Town of Southold's request for geological technical opinion, a written evaluation was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals May 31, 2006. The Board adopts and incorporates the f'mdings and opinions from tiffs report. · Page 5 - August 31,2006 Confid~Nork Copy ZB File No. 5846 - Nicholas Aliano''~' CTM No. 83-1-12 The Board has visited the property and is aware of the coastal bluff at the applicant's property and recent bluff conditions and receding edges and other land changes. The parcel is bounded on the north by steep, loosely consolidated glacial' outwash bluffs fronting Long Island Sound, and on the east by a steep, loosely consolidated glacial outwash bluff along Duck Pond Road. The remainder of the applicant's parcel at the top of the bluff is small. Steep bluffs composed of loosely conselidated materials are well documented hazards to construction because of their geological activity. They are subject to alternating periods of stability followed by storm induced rapid erosion and/or catastrophic failure. Rapid erosion results from water flow over the surface and failure results from groundwater action within the bluff materials. Erosion of bluffs results in their recession, thus exposing construction near the receding edge to high risk of damage. The steep bluffs on the north side of applicant's parcel are adjacent to Long Island Sound and are thus subject to erosion at their base due to storm waves· Failure of these bluffs occurs during storms when a combination of waves oversteepening the bluff toe and rain penetrating along the top and face of the bluff, causes the materials to fall and slide down to the beach. This natural process is essential to long term maintenance of the beach, replacing sand washed away by storms, but is detrimental to properties on the bluff. The Town of Southoid administers Article 34 of the NY$ Environmental Conservation Law, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, which requires that in areas of coastal erosion aH structures be set back landward from a receding bluff edge. This protects tbs natural process of bluff failure that replenishes sand to beaches, thus protecting the beach, and protects life and property on or adjacent to the bluff. Beach and bluff recession rates are related and applying the beach erosion rate for this locality, the property building, set back 50 feet from the receding bluff edge, would have a theoretical maximum life of 62 years and a minimum life of about 14 years (rof. rate of erosion of approximately 0.8 feet per year between 1884-85 and 1998, but over the short term, erosion of more than 3.5 feet per year bas been measured, and other geological data on Page 2). The risk of failure can be increased by drainage changes atop the bluff. In coastal and non-coastal bluffs, failure and erosion due to rain events is usually enhanced when uatnral conditions are altered. The presence of new impermeable surfaces and resultant concentration and alteration of drainage, changes in vegetation and sell structure, and septic system placement on a steep bluff have been responsible for accelerated bluff recession in the past at similar sites, and these same factors are important ia this case and will likely increase the rate of bluff recession resulting in damage to the proposed building. Damage could also occur to neighboring properties. The facts and opinions contained in the Suffolk County Sell & Water evaluation reports and George Mootoo, P.E. reports have also been relied upon and accepted by the Board in making its determination. 1. For the above reasons, grant of the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 2. While it appears that the benefit sought cannot be accomplished without a variance, the variance requested is too severe under the constraints of the property. · Page 6 - A~gust 31,2006 Confid~Wod( Copy ZB File No. 5846 - Nicholas Aliano~'~' CTM No, 83-1-12 3. The vnrianees requested are substantial. The construction is proposed in on area that is substantially the top of a hill, or bluff, and the percentage of relief is at least 60% less than the code-required 100 ft. setback from the top of the bluff or hill for any construction. 4. The difficulty has been self-created when the appllennt designed a plan that is not in conformity to the minimum setback restrictions of the Zoning Code. 5. Substantial evidence has been submitted establishing that a variance in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Among other things, testimony was received from John Kaias that his family lived at their home on the west side for 18 years, and they have seen a fair amount of erosion through these years. After placement of a bulkhead at the Kalas property for toe protection along the bottom of the hill, the bluff eroded about two feet over that period of time. The applicant's property does not have toe protection or bulkheads at the north side of the hill, and the property is not adequately vegetated to prevent erosion. Instead of protection measures at the north side of the bluff and area adjacent to the Kalas property, the applicant excavated and installed retaining walls at the easterly side of the hill, and his southerly adjacent hillside where recent construction related to a new dwelling was completed. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering ali of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, and based upon the detailed reports and testimony submitted to the Board, a motion was offered by Chairwoman Oiiva, seconded by Member Simon, and duly carried, to DENY the variances applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Simon and Weisman. Nay: Member Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted (4-1). RUTH D. OLIVA, CHAIRWOMAN Approved for Filing 9-1-06 SI~T~ FINK~LSTEIN, LUND]~ERO, ISLER AND YAKA~O$~I, LLP Direct E-Marl: fisle~sftiy.com April 23, 2010 RECEIVED Leslie Kancs Weisman Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 APR 2 6 ZOla BOARD OF APPEALS Re: Nicholas Aliano v. $outhold Zoning Board of Appeals Suffolk County lndex No. 06-23694 Appellate Division No. 2009-02136 Dear Chairperson: We are pleased to enclose the Appellate Division's decision affirming the decision of the lower Court which sustained the Zoning Board's denial of an area variance to Mr. Aliano and his claim that he had vested fights to a building permit. On a personal note, I know that Ruth felt very strongly about this case and I am gratified that the Appellate Court sustained her determination and that of the other Board members. Enclosure cc: Martin Finnegan, Esq. - w/encl. Dictnled but not read Very truly yours, &. Frank A. Islet