Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
4662
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 28, 1999 Appl. No. 4662 — Patricia Rushin and Pamela Motlev PARCEL 1000-86-7-5 STREET & LOCALITY: 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: March 25, 1999 and June 24, 1999 FINDINGS OF FACT Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located along the south side of Indian Neck Road, Peconic and consists of approximately 3.4 acres. A site plan map was submitted to the Building Inspector dated August 1998, prepared by Brennan and Brennan, Architects (Project #9707001) showing an existing two-story single-family dwelling, an accessory single-family one-story house, accessory barn and two small accessory structures (gazebo and wood deck) located near the bulkheads. Later, on May 6, 1999, a July 1998 plan was also submitted for consideration which shows landscaping elements for both proposed Parcels A and B. Proposed by applicants is a division of the entire 3.4+- acres into two substandard parcels: (a) Parcel A proposed at 67,451 sq. ft. in area inclusive of the 1,732 sq. ft. beach area, 82 feet in nonconforming lot width, nonconforming side yards of the principal dwelling at 1.2 feet and 11.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 13.10 feet; (b) Parcel B proposed at 81,771 sq. ft. including the 851 sq. ft. of beach area, 77 ft. lot width, proposed nonconforming side yards at 10 feet and 16.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 26.9 feet. For the record it is noted that a Certificate of Occupancy for the Nonconforming Premises (as exists on this 3.43+- acre parcel was issued February 6, 1986 for: a one-story one -family wood framed dwelling, a guest cottage, accessory building containing a work shop, two -car garage and a carport, wood -framed shed, a bath house and metal building. (No building permits have been found of record since prior to 1961.) BASIS OF APPEAL: The Building Inspector's December 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval in this pending subdivision project with respect to: (a) Insufficient lot width for each proposed Parcel A and B, for one single-family dwelling use on each Parcel; (b) Insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel A; (c) Insufficient side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B; (d) Insufficient total side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B. (e) Proposed Parcel B — with "no safe and convenient access". (f) Bathhouse structure on Parcel A. Page 2 - July 28, 1999 ZBA Appl. No. 4662: Motley & Rushin 1000-86-7-5 No other relief is being requested and this determination is limited as written herein, and based upon the October 26, 1998 application for a Building Permit and the December 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Department. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants are requesting variances for the following regarding the proposed subdivision of their 3.43+- acre parcel: (a) Parcel A proposed at 67,451 sq. ft. in area inclusive of the 1,732 sq. ft. beach area and 82 feet in nonconforming lot width; (b) Parcel A with proposed nonconforming side yards from the new division line, leaving setbacks from the principal dwelling at 1.2 feet and 11.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 13.10 feet; (c) Parcel B proposed at 81,771 sq. ft. including 851 sq. ft. of beach area, 77 ft. lot width, (d) Parcel B proposed nonconforming side yards from the new division line, leaving setbacks from the main building at 10 feet and 16.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 26.9 feet. (e) Parcel A location of an existing accessory building, located 1+- ft. from the new division line. This building is noted on the August 1998 site plan as a "gazebo" located with insufficient setbacks from the new side property line and from the bulkhead. The building does not contain sleeping or living quarters, and its use will remain the same. OTHER INFORMATION: The Board notes that with respect to both lots, both lots have direct frontage on a public road. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: (1) The granting of the alternative area variance will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because there will no longer be more than one dwelling on each lot, thereby eliminating a nonconformity use. Each of the two parcels as proposed will not contain more than one single-family dwelling. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because there is no other land area available and it would be costly to relocate the buildings and access drive. (3) The requested area variances are substantial in relation to the code requirement. (4) No evidence has been submitted to show that the grant of the requested variances will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. (5) The alleged difficulty has not been self-created because it is related directly to the layout of the land and location of the buildings. Pagel - July 28, 1999 ZBA Appl. No. 4662: Motley & Rushin 1000-86-7-5 In considering this application, the Board deems this action to be the minimum necessary to enable the family members (applicants) to enjoy the benefit of separate ownership of land, while adequately preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Dinizio, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the area variances with respect to lot lines, lot size and setbacks of existing buildings, as requested, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the door and steps on the west side (shown on the plan) would be removed from the design; 2. That the screening be consistent with the recommendations of the architect for a distance of 100 feet, extending northerly from a point commencing at the front of new construction on Parcel B. 3. That the screening be continuously maintained in good condition at all times. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS GOEHRINGER, DINIZIO, TORTORA, COLLINS. (Member Horning of Fishers Island was absent.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). L. 9. JAME DINIZIO, JR. CHAIRMAN PRO TEM For Filing about 8/5/99 RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SO T CLD TOWI4 CLERK C, 9 i�if DATE 9 /• HOI AA Town of Southold lit ^ NOTICE OF Rif JAX, 5,1999 REBY GIVEN, 267 of the town of the Town of ing applications- Southold,"New York -11971, on THURSiDAY, MARCH 25, 1999 at theturns. noted below (or as soon therea`ft"' Iaapossible): 630I m. Appl. No. 4652 — BUHMING DEPARTMENT by EDWARD FORRESTER. This is a request for, a Town -Nide Inter- preliation with regard to the Southold .Town' Zoning code, At- ticle HI,. Section 100.31C(1),. Ac- cessoryBi ildings cind Structures, for an answer to the .Building. De - y5 a srai.i.um- uiai was ung_ inaTly desigped and:'fn[ended to be for vehicular use - a structure that cimbe construed to be a cus- tomary structure or use thatis gipat user, 6:35 o:m- Aunt. No. 4662 V ,, A. .tuu-uMA(2)Damd Upon a 1998m tlna pemmngsubmvision pro- sect; as follows: (#1asititfieienl lot width for each proposed Parcel A.and B, for one, single-family, dwelling use on each Parcel- % Insufficient lot mea of pro- posed Parcel A;. (c) Insufficient side yards for each proposed Parcel Aand. 8; (d), Insufficient total side. yards for: each ;proposed Parcel.A and B- (e),Proposed Farcel<•B with "no safe and convenient ac- cess". (f)Bethhousestructure on Parcel - 7.00 p m- Appl. No. 4660 .— EMPIRE. PETROLEUM, Contract 'XX Hamlet -Be ish a. Location .;$ ienee Road, Matt '4495 No "1U00-.1] ,only. The Boa. 4). time and pl -and sons orrepi ICA.. 'heard * r the desiring ii: ;ode; meats befc S and ini; Eacli:;fi 19.413 er. thande: osed able forTON than Hall basin head you have: front hesitate to ight- Dated: Mai icrty: g off Principal Clerk Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map a requesIt' for a Variance Article XXIV, Section 100 - based upon -a Notice of at ROBERT-LUSTMARTEN (7oseph Tanno; Contract Vendee)...This is STATE OF NEW YORK) a rgquest for a Variance under )SS: A XXIV Section 100-244B, base .upon a Notice of Disapproval COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) iss*drl:January Id;.1999 to construct new dwelling, after demolishing pp \ J 0 n rr ' t f I 0 of Mattltuck, in Said exissitng.:dwelling, .:which building county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is areafwiB-exceeed the 29, code I,a,Yion for lot>Zblot coverage and Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIlVIES, a feet'Locfromthe. b ocatropert line. Location frotiy,` property line. Location of weekl newspaper, ublished at Mattituck, in YP Prierty:2575 Old orchard Lane, the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and E rMarion, NY, County Tax Map 10 7-6-7.1. State of New York, and that the Notice of which klvp 3oYCE s666 the annexed is a printed copy, has been regu- Rkp.m. Thi� is a request for a variance 100. III-Aupon laxly published in said - Newspaper once each under Article -Section 30rg:4; ,based , upon a Notice of week for ' week successively, -h DisiiPprovaWated January2L; 1999 , j COmmenc g on the day to"nstruct,new detached two -car garage with second floor attic,locat- Of 19 ed l+o yard other than the required �I , me . . This Parcel is a counter lot ko r','nas875West .Cove Road (at Wear' Loop),' Nassau 'Point, Principal Clerk Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map 1006-111-3-18,,, also referred to as LoV20 on the Subdivision Map of Alii Azo Jersey. Sworn to b fore me this �� t "e 7 5 P -m. APPI. No 4669 — e day of T+' ."„""'-- 19 OE,'ALDINE FEREND-This is a request for a {#'ai"ver. of Lot under "le II, 100.26, �-1,-, ,L tviAPY DIANA FOSTER ✓ �1�2r� ) L!q Fs`J7ARY ?l;'bi.ls, STATE OF NEW YORK A Section regarding Lo a #249, consistingof a - AoN" mid / ;0, 52-4055)'4'9 SUFFOLK COUNTY 3I, ?gL pr mately. 26,000 sq. ft. in area £,t,;; Pe,iSSl i''d [.;FIRES ri'IuUST shod on Amended Map A of IVa ,,, a Point Club Properties. In the M646 of Disapproval issued June 22, 4498; the Town determined that theft has been merged with Lot W25 �, Location�c& Property; 5125 an 5. Vanston Road, Cutcbogue, County Tax Map Parcels. 1000 p.m... app,. 11u. -ro,s. — f L. FERGUSON MU-. _ Variances. are requested - krticle XXIV, Section: 100. nd Article Ill, Section 100 - ed upon, two Notices of - 'oval issued February 2; x permission to construct t -with last cleat front yard (s) and, alterations to an nonconforming. (Museum) this R-80 Residential' Zone Location. of Property: N!W estrian ..Avenue (Belt Hill and West Street), Fishers NY; County Tax -;Map No. 9-04-111 PM_;Appl. No. 4668 IAMPTON LUMBER This is a request for a :e under- Article. XXIV 100.241-G, for permission to e (re-establish) ureas a lam - FORM NO 3 TOOF,SODTHOLD �^ B ING DEPARTMENT SODTHOLD, N_Y.�I11ddg Fe,, NQTICE OF DISAPPROVAL ± DATE: December 1D 1998 To .PatrncilC Moore`(Mottley) ... .3.15. I1erStP J r�. ................... Mattatuck, NY "11952 PLEASE TARE NOTICE that your application dated .,,October 26 19M... for permit to subdivide property (lot line change) P •••• at Location of Property 6850 Indian Neck .Lane Peconic .... .......... ..... House No. Street Hamlet Count Tax Map No. 1000 Section 86 BLOCK I .... LOT ..5.......... Subdivision ............................... Filed Map No. .........Lot No. ....... is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds that the proposed lot. line change will create insufficient lot width (Parcel A & B, under Article III, Section 100-32 ..... Bulk, area and narking regulations), insufficient lot site (square feet) (Parcel A under Article III, Section 100-32), insufficient combined setbacks (Parcel A & B, under Article III, Section 100-32 Bulk, area and parking regulations),insufficient setback from property line (Parcel A bath house - under Article III, Section 100-33 accessory buildings) and no safe and convenient access (Parcel B - under Article-R%III. Section • 100-235.2 access requirement). *See attached survey. ..!� r .... BUILDING INSPECTOR Nature of work (check which applicable): Nes Building .......... Addition .......... Alteration ..........' Repair ............ Removal ... . Demolition ...... Other Work .................................. (Description) Estimated Cost ............ fee .............................................. (to be paid on filing this application) i. If dwelling, nudber of dwelling units ............ limber of dwelling units on each: floor ................ If garage, comber of cors .... i. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ...................... 1, Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front ................ Rear ........,.,....:Depth ................. Height ......................... Nmber of Stories ...................... Dimensions of same structure ,with alterations or additions: Front ...............Rear ............... Depth .................... Height .................... limber of Stories ............... 3. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front ............... Rear ............... Depth .............. Height......................... Naber of Stories ..................... 9. Size of lot: Hent .................... Rear .................... Depth .................... 10. Date of Purchase ..................... lure of Tomer owner ........................................ 11. Zone or use district in which premises ane situated............................................................... 12. Does proposed construction violate any -zoning 1m, ordinance or regulation: ........................ 13. Will lot be regraded .................... Will excess fill be removed from premises: YES ND 14. Names of Owner of premises ........................... Address .............................. Phone No. .............. Name of Architect .................................... Address .............................. Phone No. .............. Name of Contractor ................................... Address ...............................Phone No. 15. Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? * YES .......... NO .......... *1F YES, SOD1fi11D TOIdi TRUSTEES PE WT MAY DLA R1 Q[T RED. PLOT DIAGRAM locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, vihetber existing or proposed, and indicate all set -back dimensions from property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or corner lot. 1/J1-�ar,ed by Arennan 14-r-�Jvkel:S SFATI: OE NOW YM, 07Y5 ........ G D........................ ....being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Nacre of individual signing contract) above named, Heis the ....... .... .. . ..:..................... ........................................... ......... (Cont�egent, 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 true 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. Sworn to beef/fore me this _ Notary Public c rgnature of Applicant) FORM NO. 1 Gv TOWN OF SOUTHOLD =--- sBUILDING DEPARTMENT °Li ^•' D TOWN HALL - SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL: 765-1802 mined .................. 19.... Approved .......... ../..., 19..../ Permit No. Disapproved a/c .. frl .......... ............................... (Building Inspector) BOARD OF HEALTH ............... 3 SETS OF PLANS ............... SURVEY ........................ CHECK ......................... SEPTIC FORM ................... APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS NOTIFY: MAIL TO:.... ................ Date.................19.... a. This application must be completely fined in by ,typewriter or in iDk and submitted to the Building Inspector wi 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee 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 giving a detailed description of layout of property must be dram on the diagram whicb is part of this application. c. The work covered by this application may not be ccnmeoced before issuance of Building Permit. d.. Upon approval of this application,. the Building. Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such 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 arty purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS BMW MApE 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 applicant, or name, if a corporation) ................................................... - (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder ..........A.................................................................................. Name of owner of premises ..... J. !4 ! t! a %j/il aotc�_ _ r�kisya la ?....o ..... .............. (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant ' Lratina, ss; tore of duly authorized officer. (Name itorrporate officer) Builders License No . ......................... Plumbers License No . ......................... Electricians License. No . ..................... Other Trade's License No . .................... 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be dam ........Xd4gd?.. N Ck G44f ...... 1000 Ft6 - a 7 05 &moolw ..................................................................... .. ..................... House Number Street '.Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section .... A........ Block .... 07 ........ Lot .....Q�......... Subdivision ...... .....................;........ Filed Map No.............. Lot ............... (Name) 2.. State existing use and occupancy of prises and intended use and occvpar% of proposed construction a. Exist' use and {rrerG� rG��duiCcs OY1�(7_ lung occupancy y�..., . `/ _ / b. Intended use and LOT l/�! - rpt/ Bell .(Ie �Fy (jj� occupancy....................................7%..f ................... �lhn+dl>t�v>ry2.Etzsr��r8ro.oy pp TOWN OF SOUTHOLOr NEW YORK APPEAMMM MION OF BUILDQeG INSPECTOR FCR 1QQ0 DATE.... .... .. TO Tf&j(&NtQ8 OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD N Y �w� 6�a/_gam 1 (We) Patricia C. Moore on behalf of Patricia Rushin & Pamela Motley Nome of Ap ellante Street and Number ........................ 51020 Main Road, SouthclNY 11971 ........... ....:..............................................I ... ........... I ....... I... ............................HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON October 26, 1998 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT,NO. ..I ............... DATED ...................................................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Patricia Rushin & Pamela Morley by Patricia C. Moore Esq. ............................. .......................................... I...................... Nome of Applicant for permit of 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Street and Number M u n I c ip alit y State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( X) Area Variances 1, LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic R-80 .........................I ....... ....................................................... Street /llanllet Use District on Zonin Ma 7 5 g P District 1000 Section 86 Block Lot .......... Current Owner Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottley Jvtop No. Lot No. P r i or Owner Patricia D. Guinan (mother) 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article Iii Section 100-32, Article III- 33, Article XXIII, section 100-235 A2 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( X ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lock of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) VTaW1WX) been mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( X) request for o special permit two-family (open) request for a variance r lll.�i� Y5 aL SE and was mode in Appeal No. ...Y4W.V'4Ae ..... _Doted ...... ......................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (X) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested 'for the reason that Propertycontains two existing single family residences which the owners wish to maintain as separate parcels, each house can be remodeled and renovated. Owners wish to maintain existing structures as single family residence, each sister will have their own independent and separate parcel. No further subdivision is intended or desired. Form ZBt (Continue on other side) 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The owners had submitted a plan to convert the large single family residence into a two family in order to provide a comfortable living space for the two sisters who own the property. This application is still pending and will be Hrithdrawn upon approval of the proposed plan. 3. The area variance is not substantial The application of the balancing test weighs in favor of the grant of the variance. The proposed parcels will provide road frontage and the maximum setbacks for the existing residences. The lot line provides a proportioned split of the existing parcel, will not be further subdivided, and permits renovations to the second dwelling on the existing' parcel. 4. The variance will have no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The application merely creates a line between the residences. The families will continue to live on the property as they have since the property was acquired in 1940.. S. The alleged difficulty was not self-created. Reason for Appeal Continued } Zoning Board of Appeals JAN i re: Patricia G. Rushin & Pamela G. Motley 0 With regard to Lot A & B -insufficient lot width and insufficient combined setbacks, Lot A -insufficient lot t size,(Article III, section 32),and insufficient setback from property line (existing bath house & existing accessory buildings); Article XXIII, ;Section 235 A(2) existing driveway. Pursuant to Town Law section 267b-3 the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals is to analyze and asses the -personal benefits anticipated by the applicant against the potentiallydeleterious effects that a grant of the relief requested would have on the health, safety and welfare of the effected neighborhood or community. inperformingthis balancing test, the Zoning Board is charged with the responsibility to consider the five factors enumerated in Town Law Section 267b -3(b). The variance should be granted for the following reasons:' 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood` or a detriment to nearby properties, if the variance is granted. The parcel is 149,221 sq.ft. And contains two single family residences on one parcel The proposed division of the parcel into two more conforming parcels will not change orlaffect the character of the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The owners had submitted a plan to convert the large single family residence into a two family in order to provide a comfortable living space for the two sisters who own the property. This application is still pending and will be Hrithdrawn upon approval of the proposed plan. 3. The area variance is not substantial The application of the balancing test weighs in favor of the grant of the variance. The proposed parcels will provide road frontage and the maximum setbacks for the existing residences. The lot line provides a proportioned split of the existing parcel, will not be further subdivided, and permits renovations to the second dwelling on the existing' parcel. 4. The variance will have no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The application merely creates a line between the residences. The families will continue to live on the property as they have since the property was acquired in 1940.. S. The alleged difficulty was not self-created. The property was developed prior to zoning, the residences and other accessory structures are in place and will remain. 6_. The variance requested is the minimum variance practicable given the personal benefits anticipated by the applicant. The two residences must be preserved, the two sisters have lived in these homes all their lives and wish to preserve their homes. The division of the property between the two sisters is the practical solution .which will allow each home to be renovated.. With regard to access, each property will maintain over 60 feet of road frontage. The applicants do not intend, at this time, to make any physical change to the driveway. The parties will execute a "license" for the existing driveway. The driveway is a safe and adequate existing access. We respectfully request that the appeal be granted, together with any further relief that is deemed necessary and reasonable. Ell ly —F- �. signature JAN 5''I- State of New York ) ) ss County of Suffolk ) Sworn to this_5-7* 099 �2 12-- /rYAwiiA+in Notary"public MA ARETQiiuTKOM= Noimy ft 498M adc Cameyq , q7 - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPfiRTY Ri ORL CARD OWNER STREET , , VILLAGE DISTRICT SUB. LOT / FORMER OWNER N E ACREAGE S / W ti TYPE OF BUILDING j .ES. T , SEAS, VL FARM comm. IND. CB. MISC. LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS .�9�6&4- - r - -- i l�y.E?"t7 , o l� J 6. a 3 - � / Z /Y' O.6v y a J5".�rav3-4Z7 GZ �LI ClSoV --n C'J NaA! 5 %"(yUi Na dor,c)^n+ FiC /n Y�iS AGE BUILDING CQ1DfT,lON,u� .."-: - lok, NEW NORMAL ` BELO W ABOVE ) 'e1 - b-. S f3�{ja- Farm . Acre VaI`ae„Per Acre1alUe t r', C_ ! /tom- /c l .• ,� _ — ridable t----- Fillable 2 — _ � –I � / a� !t eel Filloble 3`- Noodland ¢” iwompland – -- 3rushland House Plot ,. G _. >n ei reH aic iuy s,eve W Bldg. OZg X LU Foundation Both Extension B x y a p 4, J Yao-6, ,Aestment /OY 0 Floors Q 47 Extension ;K Ext. Walls interior Finish tv ra L L - Extension 2 't 0 0 8 6 /Fire Place Heat 7 -" 1�14r,a V Porch Attic I- X Porch Rooms 1st Floor Breezeway 9 Patio Rooms 2nd Floor Garage Driveway O. B. i'T I �t� 1� - I t-�, Ga 0 1p1�2� / 13-,��P, — A I I 2� DIST. SUB. LOT OWNER STREET VILLAGE r FORMER OWNER N E ACR. S W TYPE OF BUILDING RES. SEAS. VL, FARM COMM. CB.- MICS. Mkt. Value LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS, { AGE BUILDING CONDITIO 1 _ NEW NORMAL, A�QVE FARM Aore Yalue peY14�e 2, Tillable FRONTAGE ON WATER Woodland FRONTAGE ON ROAD Meadowland DEPTH House Plot BULKHEAD Total' ` DOCK i i ^ _ _ _ _ • � . �� . a i �e � v IVB Sr Tm -4o-m-- 78t ---fr7 --n ------- I PARCEL BC tiT- ------ ------ a .�. / 23x 46' 50" E 1142.12' = 1 SITE PLAN SCALE• 1 50 BASED UPON SURVEY BY NOTE: THE SURVEY IS THE BEST INFORMATION CONCERNING JOHN T. METZGER EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS IN THE POSSESSION PECONIC SURVEYORS, P.C. OF THE OWNER, BUT THE OWNER AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZED SOUTHOLD, NY REPRESENTATIVES ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE 28 AUGUST 1997 CORRECTNESS OF , THE SURVEY INFFORMATION AND MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS THAT MAY EXIST. i i I 17, 57: 08 24 47' 00'% E EXIST nO8 '221 1PI�®PF ST-RY \ FR. BANK �< CFI CMF NY0. T *21 14'— 0" 2$'-4e' 42'-4" . Q U Z 0 U LL] a_ 526 WEST 22nd STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10011 212.989.1123 Gl rnaYRIGHT 1997 PRO,/ECT MAE RUSHIN/MOTTLEY RESIDENCE Indian Neck Road Peconic, NY ro✓ECT h0 9707001 TITLE SITE PLAN PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SCHEME D DATE AUGUST 1998 SCALE 1" = 50° aESIGNEO BY® nO8 '221 1PI�®PF D,74 'N SY. .. .,KADE FENCE 22 — H.'�1�M• BANK T & RAIL FENCE CFI I 1 CE 1'E W00 2�STSRY — FR. �-1 wj �(� � P\ LE ECK I ` PSE 1 I GRAVE DOCK \ � � GAZER � 1i l - CD �. •�x•�-••-ate x �\ 1 I' r� POST & RAIL FENCE ON LINE l cfl 11'-01e � LIMIT OF DEC ADJACENT AREA LIMIT OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD---- 4 TRUSTEES JURISDICTION REAR YARD SETBACK - 85 FT Q U Z 0 U LL] a_ 526 WEST 22nd STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10011 212.989.1123 Gl rnaYRIGHT 1997 PRO,/ECT MAE RUSHIN/MOTTLEY RESIDENCE Indian Neck Road Peconic, NY ro✓ECT h0 9707001 TITLE SITE PLAN PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SCHEME D DATE AUGUST 1998 SCALE 1" = 50° aESIGNEO BY® P B D,74 'N SY. PB CHEckso BYs PB -01 l3/ Or iNN 3: 38 1 -FAMILY DETATCHY6 C NON- NON- Co CONFORMING EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED W L S� DWELLINGS-- - -------LOTS LOTS PARCEL PARCEL B MINIMUM RE 'IREMENTS: LOT SITE (SQ FT) 80,000 120,000 TO 199,999 149,221 81j771 LOT WIDTH (FT) 175 - 134 LOT DEPTH (FT) 250 1,110 1,094 1,126 FRONT YARD (FT) 60 60 943 Cy 28 823 SIDE YARD (FT) 20 30 1.2 & 80 BOTH SIDE YARDS (FT) 4560 81.2 REAR YARD (FT) 75 Aa 85 1 ')A 0 LIVABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ FT 850 - 3,370 PER DWELLING UNIT) 3,370 2,851 MAXIMUM PERMITTED DIMENSIONS: LOT COVERAGE= (Y) 1 20 10 3 5 3 BUILDING HEIGHT (FT) 35 - 27 27 27 FNUMBER OF STORIES 2Y2 2 2 2 DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MAIN HOUSE PORCH TO BLUFF EDGE: 36 FT DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MAIN HOUSE PORCH TO SEAWARD BULKHEAD: 76 FT -NOTE: LOT COVERAGE INCLUDES ALL BUILDINGS ON LOT Muy a� , 2000 Re: Lead Agency Coordinatio Dear Reviewer: SAY 2 6 2000 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax(631)765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Requested Action: --- oA � a lo- s. oN 3.L4 we acres. 1 w o zc is z N� NC'C-- Aq-e,' var�ar\Ce -tc 6r 1; l0'4 Size d- SCiCS 4 n0.y-2 beer EI roayAe C 6u - it 2) A SEQRA Classification: (} Type I (x) Unlisted Contact Person: ALS/) (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD MEMBEJ, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman �\ LL J. CREMERS KENN TH L. EDWARDS ORGE ITCH E LATHAM, JR 4 R HAR CAGGIANO V A Muy a� , 2000 Re: Lead Agency Coordinatio Dear Reviewer: SAY 2 6 2000 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax(631)765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Requested Action: --- oA � a lo- s. oN 3.L4 we acres. 1 w o zc is z N� NC'C-- Aq-e,' var�ar\Ce -tc 6r 1; l0'4 Size d- SCiCS 4 n0.y-2 beer EI roayAe C 6u - it 2) A SEQRA Classification: (} Type I (x) Unlisted Contact Person: ALS/) (516) 765-1938 Page 2 Lead Agency Coordination Request The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. Planning Board Position: (?C ) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. ( ) Other (see comments below) Comments: z 8 (� &ec,�s; rnti a-&LcV e c Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Sincerely, r i Bennett Orlowski, Jr. �f Chairman cc: Board of Appeals Board of Trustees' Building Depa4nieM Southold Town Board Suffolk County Department of Health Services*' NYSDEC - Stony Brook" NYSDEC -Albany" NGW-YGF!k State Department el�Tra ion T s *Maps are enclosed for your review rev 4/94 .0 is 16-2 (2,187)—/-( 61.7.21 SEQR Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project arid, its site. dy identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 arrd 3 Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered, small to moderate or whether it is a potentially - large impact. The form also identifies whether an, impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially -large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ❑ Part 1 ❑ Part 2 El Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ❑ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepardd.* ❑ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. ` A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions PGLil foa �� S/1 /i7 a --r? &",/, 6yhd(Vi5/077 /Name of Action r rli/7 el /JOa✓'e oz Narne of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Of f icer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Restionsible Officer Signature of Vreparcr(lf different from responsible otficer) Date 1 7�C "ART 1—PROJECT 1NFORMA- N Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining .vhether the action propose(f may have a significant effect ,on the,environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E Answers to these questions will be considered -as part of the application for approval and maybe subject to further verification and public review Provide any additlona information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3 It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance NAME OF ACTION PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) ' acres 15 acres LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) 1� n i v�lil� L.CG e- PCl3 Eoq, O1al �l/ �- NAME OF A NT/SPONSOR BUSINES TELEPHONE ADDRESS Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) C% acres CITYIPO 56aM l� o Water Surface Area STATE ,V 1 ZIP CODE o1�'-7 / NAME OF OWNER (if different) fJ acres I BUSINESS TELEPHONE Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces d acres O acres Other (Indicate type) Mian 5o�yne ADDRESS 015 -acres �, 3. What is predorninant soil type(s) on project site? 3r,2wn CITY/PO STATE I ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ❑Poorly drarne d % u( site c�v{a<lI Vides /nom -IWC> .5f f7 d att 104ir'6e,IS 1ALI/V �C/Sf7�2Q within .oil group re 51 a n 0/7 e fes,-zc,/. Land Classification System? _m — acres (See 1 NYCRR 370). Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ❑Urban ❑Industrial ❑Commercial esidential (suburban) ❑Forest O22Agriculture ❑Other 2. Total acreage of project area: J ® acres. ❑Rural (non-farm) APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) ' acres 15 acres Forested acres 0 acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) 0 acres d acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) C% acres o acres Water Surface Area O acres D acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) fJ acres D acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces d acres O acres Other (Indicate type) Mian 5o�yne ° O� .teres 015 -acres �, 3. What is predorninant soil type(s) on project site? 3r,2wn a Soil drainage. C�Vell drained 1400 % of site ❑Moderately well drained °o of site ❑Poorly drarne d % u( site b If any agricultural land Is involve(!• how many acres of soil are classified within .oil group 1 through -1 of the NYS Land Classification System? _m — acres (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Utes 1�3<() �• What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) 2 fie o \ppro�unate price nt.i;: d ,rojcCt ,it( U f— SIr) 5 Ul pr„ l 015% Or ater 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or co am a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? Dyes VrNci 1�.7.- Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? Dyes L1kt�o 8. What is the depth of the water table? ti (in feet) /N9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? Dyes CR'No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Dyes li O 11. Does project site co tarn any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? Dyes 90 According to Identify each species 12 Are there any unrquor unusual land forms on the project site? (i e , cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ❑Yes L�No Describe 13. Is the project site p esently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? Dyes No If yes, explain 14 Does the presentst, include scenic views known to be important to the community? Dyes I�No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: M/'9 a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area. a. Name Iit7 (T . mete— '6'41y b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? Dyes Iallo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? Dyes 2 No .41 b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? Dyes ❑No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture an,d Markets Law, Article 25 -AA, Section 303 and 304? Dyes L''�t'No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous t� a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? Dyes BNo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wasml? Dyes 19<0 B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor —JQ— acres b. Project. acreage to be developed: acres initially; acre, ultimately c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped s acres d. Length of project, in miles. �)'� (If appropriate) d e If the project is an expansion, indicate per((,nt of vxpansicin proposed f Number of off-street parking spaces existing 7 , proposed g Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 51�ffl-er (upon completion of project)? h. If residential Number and type of housing units. One I-amily Two Family Multiple I'.unily Condonunium Initially oL Ultimately C9— i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure _ 3_.5_ height; _ width, _t10 length j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? ft 3 .L 3 How much n.rtural ,n.iten,+l (i ')(.k, earth cic ) xvilll h,• remove -d from Will disturbed areas be reclairri, Oyes allo ❑N/A a If yes, for what intend— purpose is the site being reclaimed? _ b, Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Dyes ONO c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Dyes ONO .1(('? /VOAt tons/cubic yards 4- How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? ��- acres 5 Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally -important vegetation be removed by this project? Dyes CXao 6 If single phase project. Anticipated period of construction N months, (including demolition) 7. If multi -phased a Total number of phases anticipated (number) b Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? Dyes ONO 8. Will blasting occur during construction? OYes CV0 9. Number of Jobs generated- during construction %i� after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 11 Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Dyes CE14q' If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? Dyes R<0 a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged � 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Dyes L11Vo Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Dyes Explain S'Gfin,�- 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 yyearr ood plain? Dyes Egr 16. Will the project generate solid waste? Dyes (q<0 C,(;, ) a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ❑Yes ONO c. If yes, give name locatian d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain ❑No ❑Yes ❑No 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? oyes ❑No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/morula. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Dyes QNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than on(- hour tier day)? Dyes n<u 20. Will project produce operating noise exceedint; the local ambient noise levels? ❑Yes LG1Vo 21 Will project result in an increase in energy ww? Dyes &K If yes , indicate type(s) __ 22. If water supply is from wt -11%. mdicate pumping capm.ity g,illons/minute. 23 Total anticipated water usage per day O gallons/day E 24. Does protect involve Local, State or Federal ftinding? OYes p"No \ If Yes, explain 4 " Asa 25. Appro.-11% Rkquir d SUI)nit ttal Tyt)c Date City, Town, Village Board s Lg'No O -' ('few City, Town, Village Planning Board CW ems ❑No City, Town Zoning Board EWes. ON. City, County Health Department WVPes ❑No Other Local Agencies ❑Yes ONo Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes ❑No State Agencies ❑Yes ❑No Federal Agencies ❑Yes ❑No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? Cg'Yes ONo If Yes, indicate decision required: �� ❑zoning amendment ❑zoning variance ❑special use permit Usubdivision Onew/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan ❑other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? AVO 0 3_ What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 2 40745 -- "r sfCA5 ce-ne"ax'- . I 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? -2— ! 21 , S What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as.permitted by the proposed zoning? rf / %/- W/M 2 holN'-S ❑site plan C6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Yes ❑N( 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/4 mile radius of proposed action? v J � 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/4 mile? 11ees ❑N( 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? Z - a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 1,-,5--4--re f A jF 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of'gewer or water districts? ❑Yes [E< 11. Will the proposed action create a emand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police fire protection)? ❑Yes EM0 a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ❑Yes ❑No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑Yes E<0 a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ❑Yes ❑No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be, needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them E. Verification I certify di t,.tare-i rrrn tion v' I bovc is true to thV hest of my knowledge / Applicant"Spo isor Na e Signature Title If (Ile action is in the Coastal Area, and you'are a stale agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 r • �+ . Ilvar`�-�L,I:J AINU Jr -Jr -11A IV1iAUIV11 VUJ= Rcsponsibillty of Lead A;,ency General Information (Read Carefull • In completing the form the reviewe"r should be guided by the question Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer Is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst •; Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that It is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated In PART 3 to determine significance Identifying an Impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2 The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation an Part 3 • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary Therefore the examples are Illustrative and have been offered as guidance They do not constitute an exhaustive Ilst of impacts and thresholds to answer each question • The number of examples per question does not indicate the Importance of each question • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions In PART 2. Answer Yes If there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. C. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to Indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. It Impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1 d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the Impact then consider the Impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 e. If a potentially large Impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderafe impact, also check the Yes box In column 3. A No response Indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1 - Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e, rock or soil) per year • Construction or expansion of a sanitary Landfill • Construction in a designated floodway • Other impacts 2. Will there he an effect t.-. .--1Y u,:.<1ue or unusual land (mnls found on the site? (i e, cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc )UNO [DYES • Specific land forms: 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ EJ Yes El No Cl ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ E] Yes El No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 1:1 No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ',G 0 IMPAC', N WATER 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) - ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland • Other impacts _ 4 Will proposed action affect any non -protected existing or new body of water? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area • Other impacts: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. C • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services • Proposed Action locates commercial anti/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste tromment andior storage facilities • Other impacts• G Will proposed action after drainage flow or pattc^rns, or surface water runoff? ONO ❑YI.S Examples that would aptly to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. Ilk. 7 1 pall to . derate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact B( Mitigated By Project Chang( ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 1:1 No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No w ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ _lYes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ Dyes . ❑No ❑ ❑ 1-1 Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ 11 Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No r,ro -Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated flood\vay • Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7 Will proposed action affect air quality? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs- per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or en&-ngered species? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts - 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non -threatened or non -endangered species? ONO • OYES Exampled that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? (-I NO OYES Cxamples that Would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, .cross or limit 11ccess to agrie ultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pastur(,, vineyard, orchard, etc ) 1 -II to N ,rate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By j Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO D ❑ 11 Yes ONO ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El NO ❑ ❑ El Yes ONO ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ Oyes ONO ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ►s• • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ONO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 61721, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area • Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory • Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or duality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 FJNO DYES • The permanr.nt foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity • A major reduction of an open space important to the community • Other impacts: 9 .. 1 III to 1_,,6erate Impact i ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No 1:1 Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes. ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No A 10 ❑ 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Large Mitigated By Impact Project Change ❑ El Yes [J No ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No 1:1 Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes. ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No A 10 ❑ Dyes ❑No ❑ ❑Yes El No ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑Yes El No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON Th 3PORTATION 11 to 2 Potential 3 Can Impact Be 14 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Moderate Large Mitigated By ONO DYES Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No any form of energy in the municipality. • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods ❑ ❑ F-1 Yes ONO • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Other impacts ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO IMPACT ON ENERGY 15 WWII proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ El Yes El No transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two tamrly residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ El Yes El No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? - ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day) ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO noise screen. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ONO ❑YE5 Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ E] Yes ONO substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc ) rn the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ Dyes El No form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ Oyes El No gas or other flammable liquids • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 0 N within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or haiardous waste • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO 10 IMPACT ON GRO1' f. AND CHARACTER 1 all to Impact Be OF COMMUNITY C7"H NEIGHBORHOOD Moderateey =LargeMitigated 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Impact nge __ ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No project is located is likely to grow by more than S% • The municipal 'budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑N • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use ❑ ❑ Dyes []No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No or areas of historic importance to the community • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. Q ❑ El Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 19 Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? E] NO .:YES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be poteittially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 . Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, includim: permanently lost re,ourceti of value • Whether the impact can or will he controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local need% and r;oals • Whether known objections to the protect relate to tho; unpin t (Contmue on attachments) 11 f 0 U l %.G 1 SCUH Appendix. S ie Environmental Quality view ���sual EAS' Addendum This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question l l of Part 2 of the Full EAF. (To be completed by Lead Agency) Visibility Project and Resource (in Miles) 1. Would the project be visible from: 0-'/4 '/a-'/2 1/2-3 3-5 5+ • A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? • An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? • A site or structure listed on the National or State ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Registers of Historic Places? • State Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • The State Forest Preserve? ❑ ❑ ❑ f❑ ❑ • National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ natural features? • National Park Service lands? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or Recreational? • Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ as part of the interstate System, or Amtrak? • A governmentally established or designated interstate ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or inter -county foot trail, or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? • A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic? • Municipal park, or designated open space? -❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • County road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • State? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Local road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Is the visibility of the project ;casonal? (i e., •screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ❑Yes ❑No 3. Are any of tho resot:i+es checked to queaton I used by the Intblic during the time of yr,Ir during which the project will he visible? ❑ Yes ❑ No r%• o DESCRIPTION OF F—STING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 4. From each item ct'~',`:<ed in question 1, --heck those whicF environment. ter/ Essentially undeveloped Forested Agricultural Suburban residential Industrial Commercial Urban River, Lake, Pond Cliffs, Overlooks Designated Open Space Flat Hilly Mountainous Other NOTE: add attachments as needed 5. Are there visually similar projects within: ierally describe the surrounding Within *'/a mile *11 mile ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Holidays/ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ [I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Routine travel by residents ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ *'/z mile 11 Yes El No *1 miles El Yes ❑No *2 miles El Yes El No *3 miles 11 Yes [I No _ * Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate.1 EXPOSURE 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate. CONTEXT 7. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is 2 FREQUENCY Holidays/ Activity Daily Weekly Weekends Seasonally Travel to and from work ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Involved in recreational activities ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Routine travel by residents ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ At a residence ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ At worksite ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Other _ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning oSUFFt](,��OG,�, p6411�m y� 41- 0 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 28, 1999 Appl. No. 4662 — Patricia Rushin and Pamela Mod PARCEL 1000-86-7-5 STREET & LOCALITY: 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: March 2511999 and June 24, 1999 FINDINGS OF FACT Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located along the south side of Indian Neck Road, Peconic and consists of approximately 3.4 acres. A site plan map was submitted to the Building Inspector dated August 1998, prepared by Brennan and Brennan, Architects (Project #9707001) showing an existing two-story single-family dwelling, an accessory single-family one-story house, accessory barn and two small accessory structures (gazebo and wood deck) located near the bulkheads. Later, on May 6, 1999, a July 1998 plan was also submitted for consideration which shows landscaping elements for both proposed Parcels A and B. Proposed by applicants is a division of the entire 3.4+- acres into two substandard parcels: (a) Parcel A proposed at 67,451 sq. ft. in area inclusive of the 1,732 sq. ft. beach area, 82 feet in nonconforming lot width, nonconforming side yards of the principal dwelling at 1.2 feet and 11.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 13.10 feet; (b) Parcel B proposed at 81,771 sq. ft. including the 851 sq. ft. of beach area, 77 ft. lot width, proposed nonconforming side yards at 10 feet and 16.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 26.9 feet. For the record it is noted that a Certificate of Occupancy for the Nonconforming Premises (as exists on this 3.43+- acre parcel was issued February 6, 1986 for: a one-story one -family wood framed dwelling, -a guest cottage, accessory building containing a work shop, two -car garage and a carport, wood -framed shed, a bath house and metal building. (No building permits have been found of record since prior to 1961.) BASIS OF APPEAL: The Building Inspector's December 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval in this pending subdivision project with respect to: (a) Insufficient lot width for each proposed Parcel A and B, for one single-family dwelling use on each Parcel; (b) Insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel A; (c) Insufficient side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B; (d) Insufficient total side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B. (e) Proposed Parcel B — with "no safe and convenient access". (f) Bathhouse structure on Parcel A. Page 2 - July 28, 1999 ZBA Appl. No. 4662: Motley & Rusnin 1000-86-7-5 i v No other relief is being requested and this determination is limited as written herein, and based upon the October 26, 1998 application for a Building Permit and the December 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Department. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants are requesting variances for the following regarding the proposed subdivision of their 3.43+- acre parcel: (a) Parcel A proposed at 67,451 sq. ft. in area inclusive of the 1,732 sq. ft. beach area and 82 feet in nonconforming lot width; (b) Parcel A with proposed nonconforming side yards from the new division line, leaving setbacks from the principal dwelling at 1.2 feet and 11.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 13.10 feet; (c) Parcel B proposed at 81,771 sq. ft. including 851 sq. ft. of beach area, 77 ft. lot width, (d) Parcel B proposed nonconforming side yards from the new division line, leaving setbacks from the main building at 10 feet and 16.9 feet, and nonconforming rear yard at 26.9 feet. (e) Parcel A location of an existing accessory building, located 1+- ft. from the new division line. This building is noted on the August 1998 site plan as a "gazebo" located with insufficient setbacks from the new side property line and from the bulkhead. The building does not contain sleeping or living quarters, and its use will remain the same. OTHER INFORMATION: The Board notes that with respect to both lots, both lots have direct frontage on a public road. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION DESCRIBED BELOW: (1) The granting of the alternative area variance will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because there will no longer be more than one dwelling on each lot, thereby eliminating a nonconformity use. Each of the two parcels as proposed will not contain more than one single-family dwelling. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because there is no other land area available and it would be costly to relocate the buildings and access drive. (3) The requested area variances are substantial in relation to the code requirement. (4) No evidence has been submitted to show that the grant of the requested variances will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. (5) The alleged difficulty has not been self-created because it is related directly to the layout of the land and location of the buildings. Page - July 28, 1999 LBA Appl. No 4662 Motley & Rusw 1000-86-7-5 01 In considering this application, the Board deems this action to be the minimum necessary to enable the family members (applicants) to enjoy the benefit of separate ownership of land, while adequately preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Dinizio, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the area variances with respect to lot lines, lot size and setbacks of existing buildings, as requested, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the door and steps on the west side (shown on the plan) would be removed from the design; 2. That the screening be consistent with the recommendations of the architect for a distance of 100 feet, extending northerly from a point commencing at the front of new construction on Parcel B. 3. That the screening be continuously maintained in good condition at all times. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS GOEHRINGER, DINIZIO, TORTORA, COLLINS. (Member Horning of Fishers Island was absent.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). JAMESYDINIZIO, JR. CHAIRMAN PRO TEM For Filing about 8/5/99 APPEALS BOARD MEMBER Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman \'>j James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Homing MEMORANDUM TO: Town Clerk's Office FROM: Jerry Goehringer, Chairman DATE: April 3, 2000 SUBJ: Start of ZBA Meetings Southold Town Hall - 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1.179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 11 This is a request that the Meeting Hall calendars of Regular Meetings for the ZBA for the remainder of the Year 2000, be changed to start at 6:15 p.m. instead of 6:30 p.m. Thank you. it APPEALS BOARD MEMBER,. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning REPLY MEMORANDUM BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Planning Board Attn: Melissa Spiro, Sr. Planner FROM: Jerry Goehringer, Chairman DATE: April 3, 2000 SUBJ: Your March 29, 2000 Inquiry -1000-86-7-5 (Ruskin -Motley) Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 In reply to your inquiry, please be advised that the map does not reflect the screening or other changes under the issuance of the variance. It is suggested that the Planning Board either request that the owner add the Conditions on the subdivision map before final approval is issued or the final maps signed, or alternatively the owner may apply for a building permit and certificate of occupancy for the building alteration, before the map is signed. Thank you for coordinating this review. PLABNING ENNETTHO LR ow��ER� ®�®Su�� Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS vy KENNETH L. EDWARDS eao ®®GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD PLANNINGBOA.., OFFICE Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 FROM: Melissa Spiro, Senior Planner RE: Proposed Subdivision for Rushin/Motley SCTM# 1000-86-7-5 + DATE: March 29, 2000 I ha, U vl�Q The Planning Board has received a subdivision application for the above mentioned parcel. Please review the attached map, dated March 10, 2000, and advise whether or not it is in conformance with the ZBA's July 28, 1999, determination. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Encl. 1e! • -ILP Ar KEY MAP o scale.- 1"= 600' TEST HOLE Palo brown line to coarse sand SW 4.e Water 1n pal® brown 4 10 coarse sand SW IW SUFFOLK COUNTY Y DEPARTMENT OF, HEAL TH SERVICES HA-UPPAUGEy N.Y. PATE: AW IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE PROPOSED REALTY SUBDIVISION.'OR DEMMOKENT FOR #V THE WITH4 TOTAL OF EkEOPT FROM, RE0Uy0ffN..-TSPUFSGANT TO AffTaE 6 OF TIC Wffol-K 1VA.TY SAWARY CODE SECTION 760* WATER ''DISPOSAL FACIUTAFS ON F,44H LOT MUST CONFORM a.-Mrr 0 T THE WE OF CaWTNA-TM A!!O ARE, SL OT TO SEPARA TE PMTS PURSUANT TO THOSE STAWARDS, JOSEPH H. BAER, P -E D#?ECTORt DIVISION OF ENVMNAOTAL OUAUTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Town of Southold, Zoning Board of Appeals COUNTY OF SUFFOLK',` ROBERT J. GAFFNEY L SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECU11VE August 18, 1999 STEPHEN M. JONES, A.I.C.P. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following application(s) submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is/are considered to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county -wide or inter -community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. Applicant(s) Municipal File Number(s) /Rushin (Patricia) & Motley (Pamela) 4662 Friedman, Stephen 4674 Trapido, Leonard 4693 Mackham, Linda Duffy 4713 Barry, Robert & Joyce 4714 Michelis, Gregory 4715 Rutkowski, Stanley 4716 Sclafani, Anthony & Cheryl* 4717 Yaccarino, Joseph 4719' Von Eiff, William 4720 Von Eiff, William 4721 Angell, Theodore 4726 *With the understanding that premises will be encumbered by appropriate restrictions, particularly as set forth by the Z.B.A. Very truly yours, Stephen M. Jones Director of Planning S/s Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR ■ P. O. BOX 6 100 ■ (5 1 6) 853-5190 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 1 1788-0099 TELECOPIER (5 1 6) 853-4044 (1-516) 765-1809 tel. BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD (1-516) 765-9064 fax Pursuant to Article XIV of the Suffolk County Adni„ist ative Code, The Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, New York, hereby refers the following to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: Y Variance from the Zoning Code, Article III Section 100-32 & 33 Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector Special Exception, Article Section Special Permit Appeal No: 4662 Applicant: Rushin P./M'ottley,P. Location of Affected Land: 6850 Indian Neck Rd., Peconic, NY County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- 86-7-5 Within 500 feet of: Town or Village Boundary Line _X Body of Water (Bay, Sound or Estuary) State or.County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Owned Land Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or other Recreation Area Existing or Proposed Right -of -Way of any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by the County or for which the County has established Channel Lines, or Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of an Airport Comments: Applicant is requesti-ng permission.to I ot. size & access over ex. driveway on lot #2. pies of Town file and related documents enclosed for your review. Dated :�jc6 67 1999 a J APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS, Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins Geotge Horning Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 August 5, 1999 Re: Appl. No. 4662 - Rushin and Motley (Variances) Dear Mrs. Moore: Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516)765-1809 Enclosed please find a copy of the Appeals Board's determination, with conditions, rendered July 28; 1999. We provided the Building Department with a copy today for their .permanent records and processing as may be needed. Please be sure to follow-up with the Planning Board regarding this project. Enclosure Copy of Decision to: Building Department Planning Board Extra Copy to P. Moore by Fax Decision filed 8/5 Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski p t Gorrc;ral pure for r all applications before the board: 14)1�, P, �� Cj *0�� j q q � -11X de.:,iding wh,;ther to grant an area variance, a zoning board rritist engage: in a balarc,14x , test, v, ..ighi.ag the bone kit to 'the applicant against the, &trimerit to tho health, salt:ty, and we] rur o ofthe neighborhood of community. > (McKkiney's Town Law § 267-1), subd. 3 ) 1Nitz1 v. Zoning E3d, of Appcals of Town of Berge, 681 N.Y.S.2d 634, (N, f.A.D. 3 Dept. 1993) Frezzitta Appli ;ation: fn an applicaticri for alt arca variance for a covered patio tic: Dec;ring liaobor Zoning Board of Appeals dens it of a 40 foot variance was overturned by the 2"t Dept- Appellate Division. Petitioners' desired benefit to have, a patio facing tile. water out wrrigh d the Board's finding that ik could be located elsewhere oll the petitioners° property. Bake;r_v. vnlie, 670 N.Y.S.2d '21G, 218 A.1 >.2d 527, (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1993)*-- Excerpt from page, 670 N.Y,S-2d 21 S Ln a varix w;e application for setbacks from the dune. once the; petitioners demonstraied the exist':tice sof practi.e sal diificulhe,; as a result of tho strict bapplacation of fh,�- dune svt'nacic regllirement, th, hwdea shifted to the. Zoning Board to estabtish that tl,.e public h?alth, safety grid wel.iarc would be sorv(d by upholding the denial of tht: variance . The practical difl:icalty application was trader he -pre -1,994 amendments to Town Law 767- (sev, > Ma wvi f National Merritt v. Weisz, 4'1 N. Y.2d 438, 443, 393 N.Y.S.2d 37-1), 361 N.E.2d 1028). Brous v- Plarinirzf; Bd, of Village of `,)utliarnpton, 594 N.Y.S.2d 316, 191 A.D.21d 551, (N.Y.A.D 2 Dept. 19935) Exceipt tioal pare 594 N.Y.S.?d 818. Applicable to 1' ,ushin `Motley application Tn a Southampl an case which applied the more restrictive law of area variailcos (prior to ")07-b tarrwriilments to '.;'own Law), is analogous to tile. l-,.tishiiv'Motley application- The, Petitioners own a 9.9-r cre oc;eanfiont parcel improved with, inter glia, amain house, a carriag4 house, arid a one-story beach hoose, which they propose to subdivide into three lots, each lot containing one of the t faresaid structures. Simultaneously, the petitioners also applied fot a variargee frorri the l0U Coot dune setback requirement set frith in the Soutbarnpic)'i. Village Zoniriv Code (sec, Sol thampton Village Zoning Code § 11 6-8[D][1] so a,; to ,:crrrssruct a socond story upon the bua.(.h b )use which was to become the principal residential dwelling, on Leat 31 Once area ��ari,inct applicant dernonstnttes existence. of practical difficulties asresult j�l' strict application of ex sting zoning requirements, burden shifts to zon=ing board to e.3iablish that public health, safety aid welfare would ht; served by upholding denial of variance. Blanket prol-613 tion on expansion of beach housr, in its present location as condition to approval of area variar ce for proposed subdivision of beach front property was unrcassonable where beech hoose coi Id not be used as primary residence, in current (;ondititn and bl� rket prohibition failed to se r;k. to ameliorate any demonstrable adverse =effects attributable to proposed use of land. Sro,is %. Planning Bd. of Village of Southampton, 594 N.Y,S-2d 81d, 191 A.-Id.T 553„ (Cv.Y.A-D. 2 t. 1993) v� 9 May 5, 1999 Mrs. Kathleen Verano 1024 79th Street Brooklyn, NY 11228 PAT1A Ce MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (516) 765-4330 Fax: (516) 765-4643 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re:Patricia Rushin & Pamela Motley 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic Dear Mrs. Verano, Chairman .and Board members: L� �_C -i Li \" 1,r �� ° \ MAK 61999 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary Enclosed please find the following for the subject property: 1. A proposed landscape plan which can be reduced if Mrs. Verano prefers, the property has an abundance of natural vegetation which creates a natural buffer and is preferable to Mrs. Motley. 2. An overlay of the landscape plan on the North-west view, and South-west view. (only Zoning Board has overlay of landscape plan for South-east view and North- east view because not visible by Verano property) 3. The elevation drawings. If you have any questions or wish to discuss anything, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ricia C. Moore CC: Pam Motley I e)e s e+ o1 tvese s,zf-c( M5 )a/i Vee'CA -PI � l lPlisc, �esd ��or� 'Ibwv� �►�e,, ,���� J I APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 �e'VI; FO��coG o y< cda 2 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD M April 15, 1999 Re: Appl. No. 4662 - Rushin and Motley Variances Dear Mrs. Moore: Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 This is sent as a reminder that the Board awaits a landscaping proposal on a rough sketch as discussed at the March 25, 1999 meeting, for coordination with Mrs. Varano and review by the Board Members. Sincerely yours, Linda Kowalski Board Secretary U Transcript of Public Hearings March 25, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 6:43 P.M. Appl. No. 46621- PATRICIA RUSHIN & PAMELA MOTTLEY This is a request for Variances under Article III, Sections 100-32, 100-33, and Section 100-235A(2) based upon a Notice of Disapproval issued December 10, 1998 in this pending subdivision project, as follows: (a) , Insufficient lot width for each proposed Parcel A and B, for one single-family dwelling use on each parcel; (b) Insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel A; (c) Insufficient side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B; (d) Insufficient total side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B. (e) Proposed Parcel B - with "no safe and convenient access"; (f) Accessory building on Parcel A (reference noted in the Disapproval) . Location of Property: 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, N.Y.; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-86-7-5 (containing, 3.43+ -acres) . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a subdivision map and I shorten it, hearing notice indicating, received by us on February 8, 1999, but, the date is August 19, 1998. Parcel A being 67,451 sq. ft. and Parcel B, 81,771 sq. ft. II have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Ms. Moore I just have to ask you, you still have another application pending before us on this that we have been holding in abeyance for some time? MS. MOORE: Yes, apparently there was one application that was in and depending on how this goes, I would imagine that's going to be ti Page 2 Hearing TraL___ripts March 25, 1999 ® Board of Appeals ultimately withdrawn. But, you know, keeping them both alive at least at present. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. What is the purpose of this application? MS. MOORE: Can I start? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hm, hm. MS. MOORE:, Thank you. Well before I begin I just want to introduce Pam Mottley is here today, she's one of the owners. Patrick Brennan is the architect. He's the one you have certainly met before. He unfortunately had an emergency. He's down at the emergency, so he couldn't be here 'tonight. But, he sends his apology. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did we meet Ms. Mottley before? MS. MOORE: No. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. Did we meet Ms. Rushin before? MS. MOORE: Pat Rushin? No I don't think you have. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We only met the architect then. That's it. MS. MOORE: Right, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MS. MOORE: Pat is in Atlanta. I'll start right off the bat with a, we have the affidavits of posting and notices that I left on there on the dais. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have those right? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, there're fine. MS. MOORE: Thank you. The first a, we have several elements and I'm going to go through the elements and address the facts that I think are pertinent to the elements that you have to consider and at any point in time if you want to interrupt by all means I'll try to answer any questions that come up and Pam also, if you, if I say something that's either not quite accurate please interject. The first issue is,, is that there's no undesirable change to be produced in the character of the neighborhood or, detriment to nearby properties if the variance is granted. As the Chairman pointed out, this parcel is 149,221 sq. ft. which the way the parcel is proposed Page 3 Hearing Tra_F__.-ripts March ,25, 1999 - Board of Appeals to be divided would create one ' Parcel A, 1.6 acres and Parcel B, 2 acres:Two acre zoning is here, so one lot would be conforming as far as lot size. The other lot is the nonconforming size. The proposed division of the parcel 2 or more conforming parcels will not change or effect the character of this neighborhood. The parties have been, the properties have been developed in the same manner that you saw. I would hope that everyone had an opportunity to inspect the property. I have some photographs here. But, if you'd like, I'd be happy to meet with you there for anyone who hasn't seen the property and point out the imaginary line that's being proposed here. The properties were developed with preservation of .privacy of the two homes and with preservation of privacy to the neighbors. The vegetation has been preserved in its natural state for the entire time that this has been in there. Ownership and we have four almost five generations of family members coming on to six generations that have lived in this house and wish to continue to live in these houses. The homes as you saw are staggered. You can see from the subdivision map, the homes are staggered and the subdivision itself will have very low impact on the character of the area . I took the time, I took from your records a copy of the tax map and what I did is, I took yellow highlighting. I'll give to you at the end with a copy of my outline that I'm referring to. I took the tax map and identified every parcel within this area that is applicable under Section 86 of the Suffolk County Tax Map and identified what I thought was going to be a quick trip to the Zoning Board ended up being quite a, quite an extensive trip because it, almost every single parcel that is on the same side of the road as the Mottley-Rushin parcel as well as across the street has had an application for a variance at one point in time or another and when I went ahead and highlighted every single parcel, this area has been the subject of numerous variance applications. Some properties receiving variance applications if not themselves but, certainly every parcel that I have identified has come for a variance at one time or another. I'm going to specifically address four parcels or four property owners in the development of these parcels that are almost identical to what we have here before you. I'll refer to Suffolk County Tax Map number just to start with and then the name. It's Section' 86-7-2, Koslowsky. The Koslowsky family. We're talking about families that have stayed in this area for generations and are contemporaries to my clients family history. The Koslowsky family in 1979 divided their original parcel with insufficient lot width and each house was created was essentially - developed quite close to the beach. In that particular case Koslowsky family, it was- a brother and a sister and they divided the property and later in 1996 variances for tennis courts and insufficient setbacks were permitted as to that parcel, lot 2. Then, we go to lot 86-7-4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. Those parcels are owned by Varano. That is actually filed subdivision' that from the records it was filed in June of 95. So it's quite recent. It's a minor subdivision of three lots and each lot is on average (inaudible) . Well, there under two acres. Each lot is an average of 1.7 7®5. That is, that set of three parcels is the, is, are properties directly adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Varano I'm sure you're familiar with the history. Some Board Members were around Page 4 Hearing Tra:__=ripts March 25, 1999 - Board of Appeals at the time, some of the newer Members may not. That the Varano ,family, had built, the history shows that there had built an illegal apartment and out building. in the,, garage-. The town denied that. A lawsuit entailed and then the town ultimately won that case. Unfortunately Mr. Varano passed away and the property was ultimately subdivided in 1995. That's not to disparage anything that history of the, property or the Varano family. It's just a comparison of the development of this area and the fact what we're proposing here is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the development of all of the properties in this vicinity. The third set of properties is 86-7-3.1, identified as the Katzenberg property. Here is a situation where two houses on one property similar to what we have, two house on one property. That property was split off with .4 acres with one house that was deeded over to Martin in 1972. The ZBA granted variances for a setoff undersized lot with existing residences and I have an appeal number of 1535 and in 1998 Ruth Miller obtained variance to construct an addition to the house and that was appeal 4550. So again, a parcel, Katzenberg is two houses, two parcels down from this one. And there are many but, these .seem to be the most similar to the application we have before you. And, finally 86-7-7.2, 7.3 and 7.4, that subdivision was the Prellwitzer, Prellwitz. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Perellowitz. MS. MOORE: What was it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Perellowitz. MS. MOORE: Perellowitz, thank you. In June of 81, probably Mr. Goehringer your history of the Board you know all of this but, for - the benefit of the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's the only five lot minor subdivision that we've ever done. MS. MOORE: ' That's right.- I don't see you as a Member. OK, would you like to testify? (laughter) The minor subdivision was created on. an average, a three of the lots. There was a five lot but, three of these lots were 1-1/2 acres undersized lots. These properties are all beautiful properties. This 'is a wonderful, beautiful area and the development that is being proposed is consistent with the development of this areae. The second element that we have to consider is that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. I know you know the history of the two sisters and the a, through your other application there was an extensive record of why they were looking to do what they were doing. They were advised at one, point in time, that to improve the cottage and I call - it the cottage and I'll go into that later but for purposes of describing one house from the other, the cottage being the smaller of the two houses, but by no means to diminish the fact that it's a full scale house heated with all of the amenities that a single family dwelling has , my house would have. Page 5 Hearing Tra.---ripts March 25, 1999 - Board of Appeals The cottage, lets see. What they had originally proposed was that they wanted to improve the cottage and 'they were advised that because there are two homes, full size homes on this property, that to make any improvements to the cottage would be considered an expansion of the nonconforming use and that's not permitted. It's a legal a, a, under the Building Inspector's interpretation of the code. The two families, they wanted, the families wanted to be comfortable. They wanted to continue to live there and as I said, the hall was to improve that second house. So the alternative for them was based on a long conference we had on how we were going to deal with this. Whether to apply for an expansion of the cottage or to do really what I thought based on the code and the policies of the code to eliminate nonconformity. Yes, you do have to grant variances but, you would of probably needed to grant variances for the conversion of the, for improvements of the cottage. Here, we're dealing with a situation where the subdivision would create an arb, I don't want to say arbitrate because it was very thought through. But an imaginary line as if we were to a, it reminds me of the movies where the two people are divorcing and they put a line through the house. I know it'll come to me later. But that's essentially what we're doing here. We're not, they all get along. They're creating an arbitrary line to establish the title difference between the two properties in order to allow the full development of that second house. Without the need for now or in the future having to come before this Board for variance one variance after another. That's really what happened in this neighborhood with the properties that had two houses on one piece of property. It always made sense. In fact, years ago the policy of the Planning Board and the Town was to encourage people to split off the subdivisions and I recently saw an application. Someone came, had me look at something that there had been a requirement in the approval of the CO by the Building Department that the subdivision was going to be applied for. So there was a time when these houses was the splitting of two houses on one property was encouraged and was the policy of the town. I hope that that still continues to be the policy of the town. I haven't seen really anything to the contrary. The history of the property, Robert Davidson is the applicant's grandfather. In 1940s he bought this house. He had two daughters. The two daughters had two daughters and they now have children and ultimately one side has grandchildren and the other ones not. She is the younger daughter. So the younger, (laughing) . So we have five generations, as she said, six generations, grandchildren that are enjoying this property, want to continue to enjoy this property. As I said, the division line would eliminate it on conformity and there is no plans to sell this property. Everything is going to remain exactly the way it is now. The only difference being that that cottage would be improved in accordance with the application you have before you. As far as the houses of the detail of the houses. The houses were built each with their own sanitary system and well. Both houses are designed as year round homes with heat and insulation. As I said before, the cottage is just because it's smaller of the two homes. The other is a very stately beautiful home. The cottage is about 1100 sq. ft. footprint. So it's also quite a large home. And, the cottage hasn't Page 6 Hearing Trasa.:`-ripts March 25, 1999 - Board of Appeals been renovated since a, or actually the homes have not really been renovated to any great extent since about 1945. In fact, we have some pictures that they will present that shows the loving care and the documentation of the renovations of the houses, or of the house, the main house. The third standard we ,have to consider is that the area variance is not substantial. That the application is, that the application, the balancing test weighs in favor of the grant of the variance. The proposed parcels will provide for road frontage. Maximum setbacks for existing residences. The houses are there. They're in the development ,of the subdivision line. There was great care taken in creating the maximum setbacks possible to make both houses have a fairly comfortable side yard. Both houses to have adequate front yard road frontage. The Building In cited the access issue, but mostly because they want to share the driveway. I think ultimately we could formulize it with a license agreement. But while everybody is there still living the same way as they were the day before the lot line setoff as the date after the lot setoff, there's no urgency to do anything with it such but they're prepared to do it. As I said, the properties will remain the way they are. So the variances are both impact and minimal. Again, it's just that arbitrated line that's, that's created. The fourth issue is the variance will have no adverse affect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. As I described for you, these houses have their own sanitary and their own well. The houses are there. Any improvements to the cottage are going to be structural in nature to improve what is, a 1940s construction and upgrade it to a 1990s construction with materials and the light. The properties have been maintained over time and improvements have been with a sensitivity to this property. The - history here is, that at one time there was a water tower, there was a barn, a chicken coupe. All of these things were removed. The bulkhead and the dock have been repaired after storms and the light to keep them in their current functioning condition. In reading the transcript from the other hearing, it was real clear and reading between the lines there was a concern and I think a legitimate one. Well if you were to convert this big house into a two family and you still have the cottage, now we're talking about three families and you know, what if, certainly their family has no intentions but maybe down the line somebody is going to come in and consider subdividing further. That's a very, that was good thinking on your part. That was never the intention. I don't think that they even thought of that but, certainly you've seen all kinds of things come before you where people have said,, they're never - going to do anything like that and then low and behold somebody comes to you and ask for permission to do something after the fact. Not my clients of course. So, a, boy, you guys. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : I haven't even gotten started. MS. MOORE: OK. A', there, now I lost my trend of thoughts. Sorry about that, sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let, let me, before you go, lets, lets just .arrive this. Page 7 Hearing Tra__�=__ripts March 25, 1999 - Board of Appeals MS. MOORE: Alright, go ahead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, you're telling me that this nice lady and her sister is it? MS. MOORE: Hm, hm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, are going to keep this property in common ownership. Is one going to take fee in one name and one going to take fee in the other name? MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So they're going to be MS. MOORE: Two lots. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Two lots. MS. MOORE: Well, yeah, two lots. That's what the subdivision is all about. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, is that what's going to happen? MS. MOORE: Yep, exactly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, cause, cause, your testimony to me, led me to believe that it was going to be held in common ownership. MS. MOORE: No, no, no, no. It's common family. It's not going to change. The family is going to remain there the way its always remained there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, but I'm saying if they were merged, what was the difference of drawing a line between the two of them? That was my point. If they were going to be held in common ownership. That was - MS. MOORE: Oh, no, no, no. Yes, we wouldn't do that. No, in fact, the whole purpose here is to make a one house equal in value and size and so on. It's not size, I know that. But equal in value to the other house with the splitting of the property in such a way that the main house has a little bit less land than the smaller house, but in value and equality, they're both equal. • One family member, one daughter has one house, the other daughter has the other house. The way they're through agreement, family agreement, that's how they've been working lit, out. But, the next generation doesn't have any, you know, everybody has to agree to sell, not to sell, buy out, not buy out. It � does create difficulty down in the future and when we sat down and considered all the options and the possibility of coming before this Board and asking to . expand the cottage through the code, we debated and weighed all the pros and cons and certainly the pros here I thought was to legalize conformity to the greatest extent. Yes you're granting variances to do this, Page 8 Hearing Tra.—ripts March 25, 1999 - Board of Appeals but you have to grant variances either way and as to the policy considerations, certainly it outweighed to subdivide this property setoff. It's a two lots. To create two separate distinct properties that could be held separately and one family member doesn't necessary have to agree to what the other one is doing. So that was the ultimate goal. The fifth consideration is that the alleged difficulty was not self-created. Certainly not here. This property was developed in the 1940s. They bought it with most of the structures that are here today and its remained in communal condition. They've taken very good care of it. The variance suppresses the minimal variance practical given the personal benefits anticipated by the applicant. Again, the two residences want to be preserved. The cottage wants to be improved and with regard to a, again, all kinds of things can be worked out and we talked about the owners and I talked about what conditions you might want to impose and we're certainly open to conditions that you might worry about this family going away and a new family coming in that's not so sensitive. It doesn't have the loving care to this property and certainly clearing restrictions. They want to keep the area wooded in the front. No impact, no change to the neighborhood. That the road frontage, nobody should know after this approved subdivision that anything has happened, other, in fact, the signs don't change. So a, and that's what we talked about. A shared access as a possibility or leaving it to them to decide some day in the future or their next several generations from now what to do there. As far as the condense from the Planning Board. I want to clarify or correct some of the misunderstandings I guess from the documentation that's a, I will blame them. I think it's what the documents say but don't say. The CO was issued in 1986, but that's not completely accurate. The main house was built in the 1890s, early 1900s as a 1-1/2 story framed wood framed building. We have a photograph of that. In the 19, it was renovated in prior to 1959, 45 now that I've seen the pictures. In 1945 there's pictures of the house really the way it is today, the main house. There's a full second story that hasn't changed. It has 2-1/2 baths, a large kitchen. It's heated. It has it own, as I've said, own sanitary and own well and it has 6 bedrooms and a cellar. That's what's there. There is a barn, a garage, a two car garage with a storage tool shed and workshop that's never to be occupied. It's a tool shed, it's a work area and if you look at it, it's going to stay that way. The gazebo is by the beach and that too in 1945 the cabana was there and the gazebo I think has been improved architecturally but it's standing. It's pretty and the cottage which they describe as a cottage began the size of the house if you've gone to see it. I started living in a house much smaller than that. 1-1/2 stories, it has an exterior staircase to a second story loft that has windows and it has been used in the years as access sleeping and storage area. It has one bath, a full kitchen, three bedrooms, a great room and dining room area, cellar, it's oil heat. That oil heat was installed 1963. Formally you had a pot belly stove in it. Own well and sanitary as I said. The cottage is approximately 1100 sq. ft. and proposed would be a 1600 sq. ft. So it's squaring off to make a nice size house. Two story house with dormers and two full baths. The Planning Board, they get, they gave this recommendation and I Page 9 Hearing Traaaa�ripts March 25, 1999 - Board of Appeals turn around and I see the applications or approvals for subdivisions next door that were approved in 1988, 95. I mean, so I kind of look and say, it's kind of disingenuous to make the kind of recommendation that was given. It just didn't make sense. And finally, the whole point here is that we are subdividing this property to eliminate a nonconforming situation. Two houses on one property with one property being two acres and the other property having to remain in acreage of 1.6 acres. They're two sizable properties and are consistent with the sizes in the area. So given all that we ask you to approve our application and we'd be happy to, do you have questions or comments? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : You want us to take questions Ms. Mottley before we go down the line with the Board Members or would you like to make a statement first? MS. MOTTLEY: I don't think I have anything to add to what Pat said. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : OK, great, thanks. Mr. Dinizio any questions of Ms. Moore, Mrs. Moore. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, just some comments I think. You know, if I'm looking at this A through F list that we have here, if you start with the first one I guess that's pretty much why we're here because there's insufficient lot area. MS. MOORE : Oh, you're looking at the Notice of Disapproval? MEMBER COLLINS: He's looking at the legal notice. MEMBER DINIZIO: The legal notice. MS. MOORE : Oh, the legal notice. MEMBER DINIZIO: Insufficient lot area. That's something we've pretty much always dealt with, you know, come close that's pretty good. I have no objection to that. Insufficient side yards. The side yard is insufficient whether this is one lot or two lots. So I don't know if that would be a problem. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, it's from the new division line, Jim. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, I see that. I know that. But what I'm saying is, if you look at appearance you're saying, I mean you have insufficient side yards right now. MS. MOORE : Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: It exits. So and as far as access, I didn't know that the town code required you to have a driveway. I think you can just park your car out front and walk to your house. Page 10 Hearing-, Tr': ,-1t!ripts March 25, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There may be a new issue on the safety, health, safety and welfare. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Particularly when you have a 1200 foot driveway which this isn't quite 1200 feet. Down farther it's 1200 feet. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, that's all I have to say. MS. MOORE: It's 500 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, the parcels down going west are, some of them are as much as 1200 feet deep. MS. MOORE: Oh, OK. That's the first time I've seen that but, I think if you look at the drawing you go OK, we'll give access when it's split. They have to get to their house whether they do it by share driveway or they do it with individual driveways. I think it would make more sense, at least my recommendation to them, is we take a one entrance off of the road so that you don't change the area at all. You can make it a nice green entrance with nice Rhododendrons of the bit and you come into a stately entrance way that then splits off between two properties. That's something ` they considered, they think it would be wonderful and they're' willing to do it. They don't need to do anything now. It's just the thought of god for bid something happens to one side of the family, and they're forced to sell what they're doing. If the Board wants to dictate what kind of access we don't care. If you want to make a recommendation we'll talk about it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: In a nut shell' what you have is a family compound and it has two dwellings on it, and the family wants for reasons both of structure integrity and family use to improve one of them. MS. MOORE: Correct MEMBER COLLINS: Arid they can't because there's two of them on one lot and what are you going to do. And, what you're proposing to do, is to split into two very, very, skinny lots so that legally the cottage will be on a separate lot and you can go ahead 'and improve it. MS. MOORE: Other than your description of very skinny lots, I agree with .everything you've said. MEMBER COLLINS: 55 feet is pretty skinny in my estimation. MS. MOORE: Well, alright, it's a matter of opinion. Page 11 Hearing Tr-...cripts March 25, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: At any rate, I mean all those lots down there are very narrow to begin with. It's why every neighbor has been in for a variance. Do I understand that the drawing that we have, this from Brennan & Brennan which shows the existing cottage, the existing smaller house, square it off, that that represents what the plan is more or less - MS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: For the smaller house and therefore the setbacks that are on here from the new lot line for that house are what you have in mind? MS. MOORE: Correct, that would be the maximum. MEMBER COLLINS: The reason I bring that up is, if they weren't what you had in mind, what you would find is, you'd get your lot line split and then you would have a nonconforming house and you would once again be back for variances if you want to change the footprint further. So I wanted to make sure that this is what you had in mind. MS. MOORE: Yes, there was a long, they met, I know that Pat you met with a, Pam I'm sorry with Patrick a long time on the getting a footprint that they can work off of and that certainly they'll take however long they want to take to design around that footprint, but yes. MEMBER COLLINS: I gather from what you've said, that there are not, at least now, any kind of family of course there's no reason for it I suppose now, it's just one lot, any kind of family arrangements or agreements for right of first refusal buy backs, that kind of thing. MS. MOORE: No their joint tenants on the property so they would have to agree to sell. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. But when they split the property they're going to be individually held. MS. MOORE: They're going to be, yes. MEMBER COLLINS: The reason I'm getting at that is that you know you will hear from, if we hear from neighbors what you'll hear and what you might hear from Board Members is, well, sure, what they're proposing to do now, is maintain what they have and do a legal step that enables them to improve the house and not change the nature of the property. MS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And, you know, sought of, is that a bad thing? No, but you'll hear people say well, but, what happens ten, fifteen years from now? And it seems to me what happens then, is Page 12 Hearing Tri_=:scripts March 25, 1999 - Board of Appeals supposing that one branch of the family decides they don't like the North Fork anymore, they want to live somewhere else. I can't imagine that anyone would buy that property who wasn't prepared to either become part of the family or buy out the whole thing: I mean it is a family compound and I'm not really worry about the stranger who is going to come in and buy the other half of the property because what he's buying into is somebody else's side yard. So I'm just saying - MS. MOORE: Well whoever buys, buys knowingly. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, and so I don't, I don't, I think that's sought of a false concern and I don't fear it and I just want to go on the record. MS. MOORE: OK., CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Thank you. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: As far as the family compound concept I don't really look at it that way. I look at it as a subdivision application. An application for area variances and frankly you' could walk out of here tomorrow and sell it to whoever you want and that would go with the variance. We have no control over ownership as you well know. The variance runs with the land. So that's not an issue in my mind. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sir? MEMBER HORNING: I would like to ask how well the fine the access is right now? Is it just like it is shown here? MS. MOORE: Yes. There, it's a really wooded area over there in this whole vicinity and what they have is, there's some beautiful trees that are in, on this property and ' when the dirt driveway was established it was hindering around the trees. They would like to preserve what's there the way it is because, they really don't want to touch any of the vegetation, the big trees. In fact, what we talked about as far as planning for future, while they're both confident and both thinking the same, including restrictions between each other on this property as far as the clearing, you know, trees that are over six inches in diameter shouldn't be touched. So, it's a fear that as you say that tomorrow , after the subdivisions are approved, the family could disagree and say,' you know what, I finally can get away from you. That's possible, but we're going to have, before that can be done because they're joint tenants right now on both properties, there are certain agreements that they both have to come to and some of those agreements are you know, limit the clearing, sharing an access so that the entrance out to Little Neck Road, you don't have two driveways. You have plenty of room for two, driveways but it's nice the. way it is and you can do a really nice job with a -shared access, and when you deal with shared access I always tell clients as long as everybody is OK in ' family, but, as soon as you get somebody who is not family they might want a gold Page 13 Hearing Tr � ,cripts March 25, 1999 - Board of Appeals leaf black top and the other guy wants blue stone. You know the blue stone guy doesn't want to pay for the black top so you want to come up with sharing, you know, sharing agreements on maintenance and so on of access. So these are all issues that we're ready and willing to address. We can address them here with you. I don't think it's necessary. I think that they're of the right mind to do this at a later date, because as you say, yes, you're not concerned about the family compound but for now, it is a family compound and the property even after the subdivision or at the time the subdivision is actually finalized there has to be a deed out to the two family members. Before that happens, believe me the two sisters are going to sit down and say,. OK, while everybody is Kosher we're going to make agreements amongst ourselves, and put them in as conveyance against the property so that you know , after I've, here's the deed to you, you can't say goodbye, and then, oh, yeah, I promised that but I really don't want todo it. So there's a plan to put all this as a comprehensive protection of the property and keep everything the way it is because they've been since the 40s the properties remained pretty much the way it is and they want to keep it that way. That's the way they grew up and their children are growing up the same way, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER : Thank else would like to speak in favor to speak against the application? state your name. you Ms. Moore. Is there anybody of this application? Anybody like Yes Ma'am. Kindly come up and MRS. VARANO: Good. evening. Kathleen Varano and, I own the property just west - adjacent to and Ms. Moore you're an eloquent speaker, you're used to this, I'm not. I'm a very unassuming person, this makes me nervous, but I do object. A lot of things you had said even about our subdivision were incorrect. But I'm not going to go into that. The only thing I'm saying is that the subdivision that we had, also we want to keep it in the family. I have three sons. I want each of them to have a part of our land which was just under 6 acres. So we, our subdivision really meant that two parcels would be correct and the one would be a little less. But like Pam and Pat, we also want to equalize if possible, and that's what we have come do. I can't imagine having -the cottage. They've been great neighbors, and we do enjoy them. But the cottage is lovely. It's right on our property line. We've managed to put shrubberies there. They have put some things there and it's worked very nicely. I mean they're quiet neighbors and it really has worked nicely. Our neighbors on the west of us, I don't know legal or not legal, they have extended their house right up to our property. line. Their parents were lovely people but as the generations come, they became very loud and boisterous and have had parties that even if I could complain, Pam has called me up and said, you're making too much noise when it's not even us. It's our neighbors because why, they're right up against the property line. I don't want in the future anything to ' come between Pam and myself because of, not even us so much because she's a very quiet lady, but children and the children after them. The two families have gotten along and I would like to remain as such. To have a Page 14 Hearing Tri__-cripts March 25, 1999 - B,oard of Appeals nice little cottage and have this big two story house in the same spot, I feel it would encroach on our privacy and our serenity which is why we are on the North Fork to begin with. We like it here, we've been here and we want to continue. My sons that are married, that have families now and we would like them to also enjoy it. They love- coming here- and they want to continue to come here. That's a way of a family to stay together and to have this large house there. I just, I don't know. I guess I'm a little leery ,about it. - experience tells you (interrupted) . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What large house are you talking about, Mrs. Varano? MRS. VARAN.O : The cottage to be made into a large two-story home. A nice quaint little cottage is what it is now. It really is lovely, but to have a large two-story home the size of the house, I don't know, I guess I'm just leery about that.. You don't know what the future brings. As far as the plumbing., well to me a little cottage and then having a large house - maybe the plumbing should be affected, I don't know - I don't know too much about plumbing, but. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you objecting to the subdivision of the properties? MRS. VARANO : No, not as a whole because I mean I can see why two sisters would want to have their own in name for their own children and grandchildren.. Their own. I mean there must be many ways to subdivide. I'm riot familiar with that. They've gone over that. So as far as that's concerned I mean, that's up to them. I'm just, I'm, afraid of a large house on my property line. That's, you know, the boat house is great- I mean all the other things that they have listed down, I think they should be able to enjoy their property as sisters. I would like to be able to enjoy mine and have my children and grandchildren also enjoy quietness. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank ` you. Anybody else like to speak against? Anything quickly .in rebuttal, Ms. Moore, we have a long agenda. MS. MOORE : Yes. I just to point out two things that I actually noticed. The house will not be encroaching any greater than the existing setback. That's been a, certainly she was sensitive to that since the Varanos are the closest property to the cottage. They maintain any addition is not going towards their property line and secondly I just asked, well would you be willing to put in more shrubbery to create a greater bluffer so that you will have their shrubbery as well as their, both sides would intermittent shrubs so that there's a noise- barrier as well as visual barrier. That's something she's certainly willing to do to mitigate any impact that they might have. Page 15 Hearing Tr,_-_cripts March 25, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you come up with a landscaping plan and submit it to the Board and submit it to Mrs.. Varano also. MS. MOORE: I, I don't think it needs to be such an elaborate landscaping plan. I think that shrubs of a certain size, I can have Patrick Brennan tell us what size is a reasonable size to be done. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And ' then send it to us. MS. MOORE : ' Yeah, that's alright. I just don't want to leave the hearing open indefinitely for- a simple - what's not even ( ) . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm closing the hearing on it. Just, pending the receipt of a, we'll refer to it as a ,landscaping plan. MRS. VARANO: Can I just say one more thing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go ahead. This is Mrs. Varano again. Go ahead. MRS. VARANO: I'm sorry. It's not just that I mean, keep the trees up, but, if we put a house on a separate parcel which would be just a little bit north of the cottage, you put all these large big trees or a big house, I mean, that will obstruct- our view of the water also. It will be literally our back yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just so you understand. They're utilizing the existing cottage and they're making it bigger. MRS. VARANO: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So they're not building any house bigger. MRS. VARANO: No, it's bigger not only this way, it goes up two stories. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, that is correct. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's closer. MRS. VARANO: So if you're low like -this, you're not really seeing anything much. I mean you know our house is there, but, when you're up high there's always, I mean you're just looking out down into somebody's home. Maybe across from bedrooms to bedroom or, down into the yard when you want to relax in your bathing suit or - something. It's just a, that's what I'm objecting to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The height? MRS. VARANO: The whole big structure as itself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The height? Yes, the mass of the structure. Page 16 Hearing Tr____cripts March 25, 1999 - Board of Appeals MRS. VARANO: Right, right. When things are setback to the property lines, you don't notice it as much, as if it were on top of you. It's not like city apartment buildings where they want to live next to each other. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MRS. VARANO: I don't know if I made myself clear. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I have to tell you that the purpose of my asking you if you objected to the subdivision was to say that this property certainly could be dealt with, with two houses on one piece of property without the subdivision, OK. That is not what is before us tonight, alright. And, that the skewing of the house could be further to the east or to the northeast which would take some of the saturation away from that setback, that 10.5% setback, OK. However, that is not to my knowledge what is proposed at this point. So a, you know. MS. MOORE : It's funny we were actually when we were creating the line and the setbacks of the expansion of the house a little bit because it's not really, when you add up square footage footprint 500 sq. ft. and you're going from a one and one-half story cottage to a two story but dormered so it's not going to be bulky, it's going to be with second story full rooms. We were trying to be sensitive to the setback to the property line. We got an existing setback right now, and that's why we're you know - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're holding that setback. My question is, did you show Mrs. Varano a copy of the plan for the house? MS. MOORE: We don't have, well we have a draft of it, but it changed so many times. I don't know if we got a final. If we knew what the footprint size is we could kind of work with some detail of the plan, but it was kind of going backwards. She had some idea of what she wanted, but, without knowing that the subdivision was going to go through and that you know, where you were going to draw the lines. I didn't want them spending money architecturals when we're really kind of, we have to back into it. So we can give you conceptual of what's, what I think the outside might look like. I think you have that part of design on that part. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you share that with Mrs. Varano? MS. MOORE : Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And if she has any objection to that, we will close the hearing but pending. We will not make a decision and pending any concern that she has after she's looked at the plans. (changed tape) . Page 17 Hearing Ti cripts March 25, 1999 - Board of Appeals MS. MOORE: We're sensitive to her concerns and we'll try to address them but we don't want limitation on we got a two story there to build a ranch. This is not something that would esthetically look good there. We're not proposing a ranch on their property so we can see in that direction. I don't think it's fair to do the reverse. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that but this is a issue where both property owners get along and it would be nice to at least do that and - MS. MOORE: We have no objection to that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, OK. So you're going to get back to me with some, get back to the Board with some - MS. MOORE: Landscaping. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Landscaping and in the interim, Ms. Mottley will show Mrs. Varano the plan, and Mrs. Varano if you'll call us, or, you write us a letter and say, you still have an ultimate concern regarding the plan, we'll reopen the hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a question? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: If she asks to reopen it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you ask, if you ask. MEMBER DINIZIO: Jerry? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, surely. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's funny, the additions to this cottage. Did you say to tear the house down and build a new house? MS. MOORE: Are we going to tear the house down? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, are you tearing down the cottage, you're just putting additions to it? MS. MOORE: No, there's a foundation there. You're not changing anything? MS. MOTTLEY : No. MS. MOORE: No because it can actually be dormered out so that with some - MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, so it's not like you're reconstructing a new footage. MS. MOORE: Let me give you some pictures. Have you seen the house? / k61) 11 PLANNING BOARD PA1EMBR_ : �® �® Town Hall, 53095 Main Road BENNETT O LOWSKI, JR. ®�® �P.O. Box 1179 Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 �Q C� KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. 0� Telephone (516) 765-1938 RICHARD G. WARD ®� ED PII.ANNEN(G ]B®A.IED ®FIFH(CE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD t TO: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of A pp eals Members FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman�� RE: Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottley Appl. No. 4662 SCTM# 1000-86-7-5 DATE: March 11, 1999 The Planning Board reviewed the above mentioned request for Variances at the March 8, 1999, work session. Please find the Planning Board's comments below. The subject property is located in the R-80 Zoning District. As per the December 10, 1998, Notice of Disapproval, variances are required for lot width, side yard and area for one or both of the proposed parcels. The Planning Board is not in favor of the creation of lots which do not meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning District. The February 6, 1986, Certificate of Occupancy for the property certifies that the property contains "a one story, one family wood framed dwelling; a guest cottage; an accessory building containing a work shop, two car garage & a carport. Property also contains a wood framed shed; a bath house; and an accessory metal shell building." The existing use of the property is considered a non -conforming use. The Planning Board is in favor of allowing the existing non -conforming use to continue in accordance with Article XXIV (Nonconforming Uses and Buildings) of the Town Code. The Planning Board is not in favor of allowing a subdivision of the property which will create other non -conformities in regard to lot area, width and set -back and which will allow the potential expansion of the structure, which currently has a Certificate of Occupancy for a guest cottage, to be expanded to a year-round home. In addition, please note that the Planning Board has not received a subdivision application for the subject property. Please feel free to contact me, or Melissa, if you require any additional information in regard to the above. 07/i9/1999 12:19 5167654643 LAW OFFICES MOORE PAGE 01. PATWCIA C. MOORE Anomey at Law 51020 maW Road - Southold, Now York 11971 Tel: (516) 765-4310 Fax: (S16) 765-4643 -FArSTMT_T_,R rQUER SEPPT The pages- comprising; this facsimile .9 transmission contain Confidential information from n. - Patricia C. Moore. This information is , d solely',tor use by the'i-ndividual 'entity named I as the recipient hereof. if you are. not -the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure,, copying, distribution, or use, of the contents of this- transmission is prohibited. if you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so we may arrange, to retrieve this, transmission at no cost to, you. TO: o,Jj )C) U)Al -20 r%,d c 'Zo"In) RE. DATE: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLIMING COVER SHEET a. IF TRANSMISSION IS FAULTY OR INCOMPLETE, PLEASE CALL BACK AS 800M AS POSSIBLE. CLIENT NAME: 07/19/1999 12:19 5167654643 LAW -,OFFICES MOORE. PAGE, 02 PATRICU c. Mood Attorney at Law `51020 Mahn Road `.Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (516) 7654330 Fax: (516) 76S4643, dt Rut amw .Southold Town Zoning Soard of Appeals - Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman~ Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,, NY' 11.971 Re:Patricia Rushin &.-Pamela'Motley 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic Dear Chairman '.and"Board members.: „ 'I was advised by, Ms: Motley, that over the -weekend they experienced an electrical' fire in the cottage. The quick response from the Southold Fire Department and the owners avoided ,- any -.structural damage to property or injury; however,- the need. to upgrade and. improve the cottage. has' become even -more important. My clients have, asked that the. b_oar.d please consider and approve the application, as soon :as possible so that the renovations to.the,cottage can proceed. Very,truly yours, atricia C. Moore cc: Pam Motley �1 Patricia G. Rushin & Pamela G. Motley Pursuant to Town Law section 267b-3 the Zoning Board is charged with the responsibility to consider the five factors enumerated in Town Law Section 267b -3(b). The variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if the variance is granted. The parcel is 149,221 sq.ft. And contains two single family - residences on one parcel. The proposed division of the parcel into two more conforming parcels will not change or affect the character of the neighborhood. The properties have been developed in such a manner as to preserves privacy for each house and from all the neighbors. The vegetation has been preserved in a natural state and the existing buildings are staggered to maintain their privacy- the proposed subdivision will - have very low impact on the character of the area because we are taking existing structures and renovating them. A copy of tax map with yellow highlighted markings shows the number of variance applications in the neighborhood. Specifically noted are and resulting sizes of this area : the subdivisions the properties in 11 86-7-2 Kozlowsky in 1979 divided the property with insufficient lot width, each house is quite close to the beach. Similarly, a brother & sister divided the property. Later in 1996 a variance for a tennis court with insufficient setbacks was permitted. 86-7-4.1, 4.2, 4.3, Varano filed 6-/2/95 minor subdivision 3 lots each lot is, on average, 1.75 acres in size (ADJACENT PARCEL). Verano built an illegal apartment in the outbuilding (garage). Denied by Town, law suit brought and Town won. After Mr. Verano died estate subdivided property in 1995. 86-7-3.1 Katzenberg two houses on one property- split .4 acres with house to Martin in 1972. ZBA granted a variance to set-off undersized lot with existing residence (appeal 1535) and in 1998 Ruth Miller obtained a variance to construct an addition to the house (appeal 4550). 86-7-7.217.317.41 Prellwitz in 6/25/81 obtained a minor subdivision creating, on average, three 1.5 acre undersized A parcels. Indian beck Lane and the streets off of Indian Neck Lane contain several subdivisions that were developed over time. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The two sisters were advised that they could not improve the cottage so they submitted a plan to convert the large single family residence into a two family dwelling in order to provide a comfortable living space for the two sister's families who own the property. This application is still pending and will be withdrawn upon approval of the proposed plan. The goal was to improve the second house however because it is considered nonconforming any change requires one or more variances. This subdivision will reduce the need for future variances, and permit improvements to the cottage without creating any actual physical change to the property. HISTORY OF PROPERTY® Robert P. Davidson - applicant's grandfather (19401s) bought house, he had two daughters- applicant's mother® mother transferred house to her two daughters- each have one child (five generations have enjoyed this property) Now the families want to preserve this property and improve the second house. The proposed division line of this property will eliminate the nonconforming second house on the same property. There are no plans to sell these properties, each sister will be able to preserve the one house for their children. The houses are built each with their own sanitary system and well, and both houses are designed as year round homes with heat and insulation. The "cottage" is simply because it is smaller than the stately main house, but it is fully functional as an independent living unit and has remained so since approx. 1945 when it was last renovated. 3. The area variance is not substantial The application of the balancing test weighs in favor of the grant of the variance. The proposed parcels frontage and the maximum subdivided,existing residences. existing parcel, will ermits the second dwelling parcel. .- set-off of from _ _ in house will provide road setbacks for the The lot line split of the not be further renovations to n the existing the second house will eliminate a nonconforming second residence on the same parcel. The houses were placed on the property in such a way as to maximize their privacy® the division line of the properties maintain this goal. The location of the homes and division of the properties will not impact the neighbors in that the properties will remain as they were originally developed. This is a very low impact subdivision® and use of homes remains the same. 4. The variance will have no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. applicationThe -_ tes a line between the residences. The families will continue to live on the property as _ _ since the property was acquired in 1940. The renovations to - cottage structurewill bring the into conformance with the state building code. continuallyhas _ _ _« this property - the• - contained water tower,and chicken coop which have been - • - . The bulkhead and dock were repaired, in kind/in place, after Northeaster of early 90's. two-familyA concern voiced by some board members regarding additional subdivision of the property with the •• • should be intention intend to ( road) with impact to resolved now. Family has no of further subdividing and maintain wooded front yard vegetative buffers- no visual neighbors. This subdivision 11 was necessary only because of the Town s restrictions on improvements to the cottage. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self- created. The property was .developed prior to zoning, the residences and other accessory structures are in place and will remain. The history of the development in this area shows the splitting off of properties making most of the properties of comparable size to the proposed lots. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance practicable given the personal benefits anticipated by the applicant. The two residences must be preserved, the two sisters have lived in these homes all their lives. The division of the property between the two sisters is the practical solution which will allow each home to be renovated and the family to preserve their homestead. This proposed set off is consistent with the history of lot creation in this neighborhood. I.e. Kazenburg property, Varano, Kazlowski (Wells original owner) regardWith • access, each propertywill maintain • over 1 feet of road frontage. The applicants do not intend, at this time, to make any physical• _ to the driveway. parties execute"license" for - existing driveway. The driveway is a safe d access.adequate existing - future drivewayeach property could have their own access or share an access off Indian -Lane. Comments from Planning Board: Certificate of Occupancy issued in 1986 not • p - accurate: Main House: built i I n 1890-1900 as 1 Y2 floorstory wood frame building last renovated prior to 1959 (full second • • - -•, :11 sq.ft.•• bath,_ ., - Kitchen,heat,sanitary & - bedrooms, - Barn/Garages 2 car garage, storage tool shed with work shop Gazebo by beach® outdoor shower Cottage: 1 story, exterior stairs for second story loft with window- used as excess -• and • bathroom, full Kitchen,3 bedrooms, -_room with w t I i living & dining, cellar, oil heat (1963 heat installed), formerly a pot-belly stove, own well and sanitary6 The cottage is @1,100 sq.ft. Footprint proposed 1,600 footprint 2 story (dormers) and 2 full bathrooms. The Planning Board has as recently as 1998 approved a similar subdivision next door for Verano with three undersized lots. The proposed subdivision will eliminate a nonconforming use (2 houses on one property) merely by granting area variances. The Southold Town policy considerations favor the granting of area variances and the subdivision to eliminate a nonconforming use. We are not creating a lot for future development- the houses are existing and we are merely creating an artificial division line between the properties. We respectfully request that the appeal be granted, together with any further relief that is deemed necessary and reasonable. ! v _— t , 'i �i ! I f Lor ----------- - at r �)4-11 — --- --- -- - - �%% —'° %ti►'!n �5 Cs�,rtt w� 5�c. �P�-, I v�cn�,�+--�� ' -- I—or. --------------- ----- - -- .i i' 444 ' n,s�� x 37 ,644 --he s20, 4 s 1.�..,0:17 1 ,41, 1 - at r �)4-11 — --- --- -- - - �%% —'° %ti►'!n �5 Cs�,rtt w� 5�c. �P�-, I v�cn�,�+--�� ' -- PC -0 Ce - !il -------------------- ---- "7 17 f 91C, a( CL lij I rl Rawl e a Ov Gtdad:n In Pt m (m? Pai m ®. bvmPlRkt lb -- POI — LM1®1 WIrt111m -- N -- IPIFA gY9NeTIZl194E. 41i�ES «o�e.,a —�— seaHmmdroaa (211 m.RAy,.. --P-- mR.emMw --R-- AIs vaxw PaPoewo n NOTICE © _ U OLK E P, d,P d,P TwI16 SOUTHOLD =:cnoN N MA�TTaAXa LLT2RATXKsa�M Real Property Tax Service Agency r USTp& nam m arc P®11YRI ,� �P 086 ,� ..,` : m P,,,,, e„ __— — _ 1LR P•rtn County Center Riverhead, N Y 11901 LqI W iM W — • -- •mra OmH w -- • — �� SIFTa.R mIMTT TAR YIP 6 PPp®Ilm Ij hNRv 27 �` PIa A— 12.1 A(d) or 121& Iow, V-1- FFJdP5P U Tiff A mau.a R.a 12.1 AIS e. u.r w,M ud — s -- MAL Ma TAX senna AoxT. seat x rttT: P � In ISTacr AD lUOO PROPERTY meamml DAM APPEALS BOARD MEMBERT Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 �o�;SVFFO(,rco � ?1 y Z BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 28, 1999 Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold; New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Re: New Submission — Lot Lire Change and/or Lot Size Variances. Rushin & Motley Lands at 86-7-5 Dear Mrs. Moore: In reviewing your January 5, 1999 letter with enclosures, please note that the application must be deemed incomplete pending receipt of the following: a) seven (7) prints of the proposed subdivision map which shows the zl�`�� square footage of land area above the bulkhead proposed for each lot #1 and #2 (100-239) and the setbacks of the existing buildings from the new division line; l b) $600 filing fee for this new project (while the former applications are eld in abeyance as you suggested pending the outcome of this new application). c) copy of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval on this specific project which we understand has been issued but not furnished with your �I�� submission'. 4' 41 Please submit the above prior to February 16 for review and calendaring by the Board Members. Thank you. Very truI GERARD P. GOEHRI GER CHAIRMAN APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ' Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Homing Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 28, 1999 Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Re: New Submission — Lot une Change and/or Lot Size Variances. Rushin & Motley Lands at 86-7-5 Dear Mrs. Moore: In reviewing your January 5, 1999 letter with enclosures, please note that the application must be deemed incomplete pending receipt of the following: a) seven (7) prints of the proposed subdivision map which shows the square footage of land area above the bulkhead proposed for each lot #1 and #2 (100-239) and the setbacks of the existing buildings from the new division line; b) $600 filing fee for this new project (while the former applications are held in abeyance as you suggested pending the outcome of this new application). c) copy of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval on this specific project which we understand has been issued but not furnished with your submission. Please submit the above prior to February 16 for review and calendaring by the Board Members. Thank you. Very truI 1 GERARD P. GOEHRI GER (�A CHAIRMAN ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville DATED: February 3 1999 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. BOX 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 4662 - Patricia Rushin & Pamela Motley Transmitted herewith is Zoning Board Of Appeals Application 4661 - Patricia Rushin and Pamela Motley. Also included is Notice Of Disapproval, Letters of Authorization, copy of survey, letter from Patricia C. Moore dated January 5, 1999, Certificate Of Occupancy dated February 6, 1986, Applicant Transactional Disclosure Form, Short Environmental Assessment Form and Appendix to said form and Z.B.A. Questionnaire. r PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 r Tel: (516) 765-4330 Fax: (516) 765-4643 B Q 3 i999 i February 2, 1999 Southold Zoning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re:Lot line change/ area variances Rushin & Motley 86-7-5 Dear Linda: Enclosed please find $600 filing fee and copy of building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval issued December 10, 1998. The architect will forward 7 prints directly to you. We hope that we can get onto your March hearing calender. Very truly yours, >atric?ia C. Moore PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (516) 765-4330 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary nuary 5, 1999 Re: Patricia Rushin & Pamela Motley 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic Dear Chairman and Board members: Enclosed please find area variances for the subject property which are necessary in order to subdivide this parcel into two lots. The Special Exception application previously heard by this board will be withdrawn upon issuance of the variances.: The subject property has been retained by the family, and will continue to be used without actual boundaries. The subdivision will enable the sisters to improve the second cottage to make it comfortable for their use and for estate planning. The existing parcel is oversized and contains two single family residences. The subdivision will eliminate a preexisting nonconforming condition, the area variances will not increase the degree of nonconformity since the structures are existing. Very y yours, atricia C. Moore cc: Patricia Rushin, & Pamela Mottley Mr. Brennan, Architect Patricia G. Rushin July 31, 1998 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Moore: I, Patricia G. Rushin, residing at 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic NY 11958 hereby authorize you to make any and all applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board of the Town of Southold, Health Department, DEC and any other necessary agencies on my behalf. Very truly yours, WA Patricia G. Rushi Pam Mottley July 31, 1998 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Moore: I, Pam Mottley, residing at 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic NY 11958 hereby authorize you to make any and all applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board of the Town of Southold, Health Department, DEC and any other necessary agencies on my behalf. Very truly yours, ptV Pam Mot ley TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR ' TOWN ITALL SOUTIIOLD, NES`' YORK CER'T'IFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NONCONFORMING PREMISES TRIS' IS TO CERTIFY that the /X/ Land /X/. Building(s) /_/ Use(s) Pre C.O. #- Z14212 Date- Feb. 6,1986 located at 6850 Indian Neck Road Peconic Street Hamlet shown on County tax map as District 1000, Section 086 Block 07 Lot 005 , does(not)conform to the present Building Zone Code of the Town of Southold for the following reasons: Non -conforming guest cottage. Non -conforming accessory build - (3 -buildings.) Non -conforming guest cottage in front yard. On the basis of information presented to the Building Inspector's Office, it has been determined that the above nonconforming 51 Land /X / Building(s) /_/Use(s) existed on the effective date the present Building Zone Code of the Town of Southold, and may be continued pursuant to and subject to the appli- cable provisions of said Code. IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that, based upon information presented to the Building Inspector's Office,- the occupancy and use for which this Certifi- cate is issued is as follows; Property contains a one story, one family wood framed dwelling; a guest cottage; an accessory building contain- ing a work shop, two car garage & a carport. Property also contains a wood framed shed; a bath house;,and an accessory metal shell build- ing. All in an A -Residential -Agricultural Zone with access to Indian neck Roa The Certificate is issued to of the aforesaid building. GUINAN, PATRICIA (owner, Y4VVMX?5JKXSKXii0 Suffolk County Department of Health Approval NIR UI\TDERVArRiTEft5 CERTIFICATE NO. NIR NOTICE IS HEREBY GIZrEN that the owner of the above premises ILRS NOT CONSENTED TO AN INSPECTION of the premises by the Building Inspec- tor to determine if the premises comply with all applicable codes and ordin- ances, other than the Building Zone Code, and therefore, no such inspection has been conducted. This Certificate, therefore, does not, and is not intended to certify that the premises comply with all other applicable codes and regula- tions. c- � Iluilding inspector 14161121871—Text 12 PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 617.21 S EQ R Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only ..�r...,m..T.n.I rr- ae —mnlotarl hV Annlicant or Proiect snonsorl 1. APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME r, Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottley area variances 1 Ir 9 a. PROJECT LOCATION: 6850 Indian Neck Lane county Suffolk Municipality e d. PRECISE LOCATION (Street aodress and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide maul ` � JAN 1000-86-7-5 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic - 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: r-� C3 New ❑Expansion [3Modlflcatlonlalteration new lot line between existin Struct 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Existing property with two single family nonconforming residences to be split into two parcels with nonconforming set backs 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially 3.25 acres acres Ultimately 3 25 acres a. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ❑ Yes ® No If No, describe briefly area variances required S. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ® Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture ❑ Park/FoeesUOpen space ❑ Other Describe: 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL STATE OR LOCAL/? Qt Yes ❑ No If yes, list agency(s) and permtUaoprovals Planning Board and health dept. 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTI:.V HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? [2Ye3 L N• It ye:• list agency name and permit/approval C.O.rs for all existing structures 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑ Yes ® No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor na Pdtricia C. Moore Date: 12/28/98 Signature: If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment AVER 1 (Continued on reverse side) The N.Y.S. Environmental Qua! -;ti Review act requires submission Of -.'s =arm, and an env__c,nriental review will lie mdde Ly to=s joara before any action is taken. SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR IA INSTRUC-_ IONS: (a) in o=±er to ans-der the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that tae prepar_r will use currently available information concerning the projec= and the 'likely i- acts of the action. It is not expected that!- -- addit_onal st-d'-es, research or other investigations will be undertaken, l (b) If anv question has been answered Yes the project may be s nificart and completed Environmental assessment Form is necessarv. (c) If a11 auesticns have been answered No it is likely that project is not significant. (d) Envi_crmental assessment 1. Will project result in a large physical change _ to the projec= site or physically -alter more / h --an 10 acres of land? Yes ✓VO 2. Wi11 there be a major change to any unique or // =usual land form on the site? Yes ATO 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on an existing hcdv of water? Yes /_No 4. 'riil_ projec= Have a potentially large impact on / groundwater =uality? Yes ✓ No 5. Will projec= significantly effect drainage flow on adjacent sites? _Yes /No o, Will projectrfect anv threatened or endangered piar_t or an =--- species? -res No 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on air cuality? Yes Vo 8. ni_1 project :ave a major effect on visual char- ac=er of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be iportant to the community? Yes VNo 9. will project adversely impact any site or struct- ure of historic, pre -historic, or paleontologicaL _-crtance or any site designated as a critical ,� envircnmental area by a local agency? _res "' No i 10. Will project Have a major effect on existing or .,..:r a recreational opportunities? Yes No 11. Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major affect to existing transportation systems? Yes No 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturb- / ance as a result of the project's operation? 'res ✓vo 13. Will projec= :ave any impact on public health / or safety? les �/ No 14. Will project affect the existing community by / directly causing a growth in permanent pooula- f/ tion of more _tan 5 percent over a one-year "es Vo period or have a major negative effect on the cha-acter of _^.e community or neighborhood? 15. :s t -.ere pub=_c controversy concerning the project? Yes NO Preparar's Si' na=u e: Representi .g: / Date: Z3A 9,/.75 1 JAN Q 5 1�� • • QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION A. Please disclose the names of the owner(s) and any other individuals (and entities) having a -financial interest in the subject premises and a description of their interests: (Separate sheet may be attached.) B. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for - sale or being shown to prospective buyers? of sail al )� (X ) No. (If Yes, please attach copy "conditions" s to chane or alter land contours C. Are there any proposal g = N1 .JAN g IR ( } Yes { �} No D. 1. Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses. Lg___ 2. Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with— this iththis application? bay 3. Is the property bulkheaded between the wetlands area and the upland building area? yes 4. if your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the Office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction. I E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five state efeet above mean sea level? no (If not app F. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences which exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? no If none exist, please state "none." G. 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. If none, please state. H. Do you or any co-owner other whereor land close submet pies parcel? no If yes, please explain of deeds. I. Please list present use or operations conductedat nd pat this parcel residential proposed use residential vz A rized Signature and Date 9 /A-7 > n 10M11t. w L-7 APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORK The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest acid allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOUR NAME: Patric a Rushin and Pamela Mottley (sisters) (Last name, first name, middle initial, you ae applying in the name of someone other entity, s�iach as a company. If so, the ot}fler persan's or company's name.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Variance Change of zone Approval of plat Exemption from plat or official map other (If "Other," name the activity.) unless else or indicate Do you personally (or t:hrouglx your company, spouse, siblingf, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Soutlxold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in wlxich the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in whiclx the town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO If you answered "YES," complete the balance of this .form and date and sign wliere indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself (the applicant) acrd the town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or ]ger spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all. that; apply): 11) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant; is a corporation); F3) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a noncorporate 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 Submitted Mis da o 199g Signature Pr1.nt- name NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1999 NOTICE IS HEREBY -GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following application will be held for public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS, at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1999 at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter as possible): 8:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4662 — PATRICIA RUSHIN & PAMELA MOTTLEY. Variances are requested under Article III, Sections 100-32, 100-33, and Article XXIII,, Section 100-235A(2) based upon the December 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval in this pending subdivision project for: (a) Insufficient lot width for each proposed Parcel A and B, for one single-family dwelling use on each Parcel; (b) Insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel A; (c) Insufficient side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B; (d) Insufficient total side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B. (e) Proposed Parcel B — with "no safe and convenient access". (f) Bathhouse structure on Parcel A. Locatiomof Property: 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-86-7-5 (current size: 3.43+- acres). The Board of Appeals will at said time and' place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above applications or to submit written statements before concluding the hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (516) 765-1809. Dated: May 26, 1999. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski Im •YA:10'= l=�4!JjI:. eity?ain6g'215 Green Hi1F11:�`ane,, ?Eastern.Shores"Lot 123, Greenport;' Parcc11000 33=2-48: r: Appl. No. •4698 '- ifRLLIAM ',..L-IEB,LEINV - rand BUDD'S,=POND -_REALT'--Vari- ances^aie:regnestedfor•lof area'of• 35,000*'sq; ft.,'lbt depth'of 100t`ft:, rear yard at•1'ess than 25 feet;=land- sca0d aiea''at less than, 20%,. -and building'kieight•at•36:5 feetiq'this M- II@Marine Zone .District: 4These requests,are based up'on.•an applical ,`' _E Q 3' It :T IJ -',P? I •:si P. - p.M., I yT:::-� cierii lot width ;forfor each rcel'A - and�,B' ;one v= dwelling yus: onf each [rain "lo"t, a,rea'of` io- eni'-side Yards for'6a6h' icient tgipF ide :yards posed Pastel A► and'B;�� sedParcel $'",. �`ivith convenienf'access';. ' u` se'structur`e on`Pazcel JEROME V. 'uncle"r•:AiEicle i. loca4e`; ,`;.pro reduced; .rear Backs., and un 100=103(; `for -=_. ac mole;>_ tliac :frontage', in;Yf. is ZoneDistrict: iipon'an ,appl "'.permit'"an. Departm`eni's' r,'a' building' "'Building 1999 'Notice kation `' `'of ai ffi`_f9oad- i �ckey,,:j 4ek �T 1Vi- •Pastel " �. rA---Viiri=' ier,.Articl8; a pioposed'accessory btW, g at less than.the,code regij ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottlev (Name of Applicant) Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as 1000- 86 - 7 - 5 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, f�� �`- residing at Terry Lane Southold , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: ;L On the qday of �� ,19 I personally placed the Town's official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of my application, in a secure position upon my property, located ten (10) feet or closer from the street or right-of- way - facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way abutting this property;* and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the subject hearing date, wh7;K(Signzature)-77—� e 24 Jun 99 Sworn to before me this 97'f,'�'day of—'T&1-4VE- , 19 24 ftblic, Stat® of Now V(2n (Notary Public)Nt°498 *near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passersby. PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (516) 765-4330 Fax:: (516) 765-4643 D M, C(:,- [E 0 W, E h I JUN -. 41999 June 3, 1999 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Att: Ms. Linda Kowalski RE: Patricia Rushin and Pamela Mottley Application Hearing Date: June 24, 1999 Dear Linda: Enclosed please find Affidavit of Mailing with Certified Mail Receipts and Affidavit of Posting for the above referenced matter. Very truly yours, PATRICIA C. MOORE PCM/kk Encls. 41 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK x In the Matter of the Application of _Patricia Rushin and Pamela Mottlev (Names of Applicants) Parcel ID#1000- 86-7-5 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, Margaret Rutkowski residing at Theresa Drive Mattituck , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: �D �C�C��dL� JUN -.41999 D AFFIDAVIT OF MAILINGS On the 2 day of June 51999 , I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in Southold, New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with theAssessors, or () County Real Property Office Southold, NY for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the applicant's property. Sworn to before me this day of June , 19 99. L-IrNotary Public) or (Signature) Margaret Rutkowski PATRICIA Q MOORE "00k k CO a r ty - N 486166@ COMM18WROn EXPIM June 16. PLEASE list, on the back of this Affidavit or on a sheet of paper, the lot numbers next to the owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed Thank you. Rushin and Mottley SCTM 1000-86-7-5 NAME ADDRESS r Mark S. Lowenheim 6565 Indian Neck Lane ' & PO Box 123 Walter Chadwick Peconic NY 11958 ,,/Kathleen Varano & Others 1024 - 79"' St Brooklyn, NY 11228 -/Louise O. Day & Others 88 Wyckoff St Brooklyn, NY 11201 ,Gregory R. Cukor 5913 Meadowood Rd Baltimore MD 12121 JUN ®� 1999 MAP NO. 1000-86-6-25 1000-86-7-4.3.?4 -1 )*\'\ J 1000-86-6-26.1 J 1000-86-7-6 l� \ U� — - � - � - - - .st•.„t...� .,,. . ' mss. m. SO_ 37S P[E 9_C ND.O]S IEC S _ .S]S i .K. ^- .,`. �: C ^ry �`•- _ _ ._ -F �'F` .E v♦^+,-A '- .: vi ate.aen'••",_ .w tie men�� �-'£1 ea9 0 •Tcn 62a — H:.CR LIV MATCH LI'E r C M LINF � INC i Z:o i-OD0 �qP na PCR P,RCEL K0. \ r0R PARCELa aRCEL .16 �i�tCTSSEL H0.0,3-Cei]-el '., -ne-oos.l 9EEo6�1. � ; ••. i2>kl � E � 5-61 JI M1•^ } Y S° 4 4\'h °• C ♦�°" ♦ Ot. /. I h���•i r + S 5VMT 21101 b J s 1p CA i O/P'b EC f •! o I.T �:;� /•• 44 \,P'r•.� 2 +Zppjcl =9K I•lv O 3:8'2 \ a •% I + \ 32 CE �'ff Pa ~ 49.nA1c1 t e O r� 1� � 9�°�,• w.,T,4 ISIAcI 2i 9 � \ j •• CIL K t 2 • 6. .r e • � •. `iP 6-23 . \� 9p 431 I .t • •• \ �^� ' 33 T'BP ... / TON.0 1 _ SOOTNC s t°~\ •�. T`� A `� n :llel• r4 rt\n• - `I TOWNOP SOUTHOLD 71-IA AIII \ I Spyc\ °plc gcf ,•. g., I./q(tl • I W ) • / •� IPu . wD. ,. �% \11 1 N1 ' • 12.6 II0 1] � p I w..• [ori //)r%" � / E �%r ' 2T °\`p\[,u ,\rj•r ��✓�.J 'T IOAAI[1 // � \ n6Aic1 / ,EEK ° 24 5\D•\ rte._. l D'i —� I .... Ladd \ r: _ ••• � \`°• � �`J \.:!• •t,) •Plc\ •� \LP ur /` Tt v w \4 � I.Iltcl I 13 •.m 6.2 •' �\ � J 1 m — e•bP LE\ ✓ ILL• _ 4 SpPlcl ��.°. S.a Alcl I 1 1 yP! e. A - I.IM 1 m 11 - `- `VV( `` I-� •' � s i SE 1°PEfi c s a 41 2 � v SD I o• ° m I 24 m• � Pt♦ y ... r RD .n • , � ! ` 20 1. i W PAR EL x0. E soND. Des 3-ou � ,a e1�.� 2 e I I] •le �'e • .r N6D'� s♦ Iri: -_ m ,2g d •'° •`4` .ub LT'ld g 9pc L]a 9�ini[I /� `G� IS \,,p _._ • °•. `• CR PtRCEIe YT\o - "� Z •2. = I Opt °i0 o1N05EE SECS _ 2p .•r - as SM.3 TOaY b °0•U, Rr o9S-01-� ` t. gq• 2• f i •°e O PoRPMCEL NO. T,i ° J.n3+y \CALLt } �• � i EE EO. NO I LINE Y4TC�LINE S t 9b1. G •.T ��• n 2.¢i1J o9n. Dl.00l.51}A t e \`P\� - \ p\P� L e / �O -__ ♦ —� } _ MareN / -� MATAl CH ZZ—N—CR—E. [ o rcrs. a t J C H LINE BE.... vy 9EE S. ND O6e f` Cp d THE DiPMIT SEE SEC. NO.— Legend KEY YAPTm DF SOUTHOLD SECTION Mp. © COUNTY OF SUFFOLK � .-• P.,.,I B• P-rrru R.a L.. fb. Dmnn LH. -- — We••u Daaln Lam•_—.M--. yy...•,u. Lw lw OC YICNN;p°CAEER, JR. °•Cs...�yr T••nL,n.Y -- YnwDi.a�n4n, -- 9dwDmm�Lm•_—.q.—_ °•dW.m•Is ,r o� '°° °` P.edl Property Tax Service Agency viL EOF Jrd2 'Y'- vv C.. •.A..Eu.. SMlnl•im Ln Llr _---_ vrllY•Lw __��� Lii4r p.nrn L:n. _—.L.._,- O2 kd.d Dr�.w AS'• —LE wrEET COYOtY_CeDler DISTRICT ND.1000 rr 1y� M1 R.d...... Pmnyl.vuv RSJ.J �.._,� Bluff LiAr — PwY D�•wln le+ _-. 2S u.A Arw vu4 River6eod, L. L, New York PROPERTY 0.44�• w... xl..Dl.•:n Lti _ —_ s.. o...:n La. gu cd�1..A A.m IV PI w+�c.dre.• ' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 530. Southold, New York, concerning this property. 4 MY, •fitWNE R (S)F R E #.,... 2&1 A /' :; ,PA7� 415*1 IV t oTrLG, Ap� If you have an interest in this project, you are invited to view the Town file(s) which are available for inspection prior to the day of the hearing durind normal business days between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. BOARD OF . APPEALS • OF SOUTHOLD: 1 r' L FOR BOARD AND STAFF USE �� Updated New Information Vzo lqq_V I1 a Pit , C�� e JC 3 LLLU n2 Updated / d; Irl c. I Ll FOR BOARD AND STAFF USE - New Information ad c 2 piC¢JL 2-5 ' 01 c 1 0� n -. MAR 25 '99 15:41 SOUTHOLD TOWN ACCOUNTING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN Off' SiaUTiiOLD-.NEW YORK 11, the Mattes. of the Application Of Patricia Rushin & Pamela Mottley (Names%of Applicants) Parcel LD #1,i)00- 86-�L-5 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF ANEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILINGS Margaret Rutkowski residing, at Theresa Drive, Mattituck New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: , . On fhe 11th day Of March ,19 99 , I personally wiled at the unit New `}loris, by CERTIVIED MAM States F'4af ®f Ice iso _ SSoutthoold � of the attached L .9 Notice in' R=vjRN uECE><P'g` R 2UESTED, a true copy prepaid ewirelope$ addressed to current owners shown on the cearreoassessment, roll veriheslf from the official records on rde with the 03 Asses r r era which Real Property Office Southold Town for every p p abuts and is across a public or private street,`or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the applicant's property- Margaret ropertyMargaret Rutkowski SWOM to l;sefore sne this 25th d March p-9.9 PATRICIA Co RE (Nota'u 1PUblic) Hourf te,' ® New, v® 1k. u ®: o 4689 ,668 M0d.8$1®n . P 1PoaJune it -1—o® !PLEASE ,fist, on alae b=k of this Af�rdavtt or ora a shoe' of paler', 8o alae olvilzr non= and addre=S for ivlsich notices WeWee nwiledL Th an yalt. 16, Baltimore, MD 12121 Name Address Man No. (Mark S. Lowenheim 6565 Indian Neck Lane 1000-86-6-25 & PO Box 123 ' Walter Chadwick Peconic NY 11958 Kathleen Varano & Others 1024 - 79th St 1000-86-7-4.3 Brooklyn, NY 11228 ,/Vincent J & Carol U. Freda Robin Lane 1000-86-6-26.1 Alpine, NJ 07620 -Gregory R Cukor 5913 Meadowood Rd 1000-86-7-6 Baltimore, MD 12121 —. MAR 25 '99 15:41 SOUTHOL 'TOWN ACCOUNTING r zoNING [;O•.&RD-OF APPEALS TOWN OF SIaUTHOLD:NEW YORIIC���x In the Mattel' of the Application of Patricia Ru_shin & Pamela Mottle (Names, of Applicants) Parcel - D #1,i)00- 86-q-5 COUNTY U:F SUFFOLK) STATE OF I..4EW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILINGS residing at Terry Lane, Patricia C. Moore g Southold , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On t'he day of March - P. 1"I h ., p Notice in . ItE`i'U yPT' RIQUES'PED, a true co y of the attached Legai prepaid ems►elopes a to current owners shown on the current assessment ' roll verifierlf from the oti"[ciial rec0 de wits► the ( )Assessors+ or ()Count; Ofi.�ee for every Property which Real Propc:rty a of record.. abuts and i:s across a public or private street, or vehicular n 3010 QualldWig the applicalre"1017-m -3 N k Road, Peconic, NY i posted the subject property at i bearing SCTM #1000-86-7-5. � - (ftmature) Patricia C. Moore Saturn to l;fefore ane this '25th day of March , 19 99 MARCARET C. ALITKOM Public, State of Now VOR (No iry Public) N0°B�� QnMed N Butfolk COMV ftawmimomlMD ? % PLEASE Mist, on the bad of !di � f (l Vil if Iron a notec� iseet of vete aPaper, the !od rutaabers do Ilse olatunames and namand adWa. f Thank yala. 031'25/1999 15:23 "51.67654643 - LAW'OFFICES MOORS PAGE 02 —_.... -P.1:1 15:41S UTF�P99TAACCOLNTING i ` . , NTNG •A ®�+ Alm ) : wwri-OF Si9mow—MEW Y® at ., lea the buttg4 0� die Afgg AFFIDAVIT lrto,teley OF, Patricia �ushin & Pamela NVJLINGS Mmwoi'App➢' Mi41W 86-7-5. ; COUNTY .0 F SUFF®D Swag OF NEw YORM Rutkowski residingat Theresa 'Drive, L Margaret- � dul swGrn depose ead'say ttsni* Mattituck .New York. i�f� Y moiled 'at'tbe Upii Op #Le i 1 th day 'Of March ' 1l.� / F' ®illy S PoSt OWee.ia Southold Now Yorks by C=r9W Notice InJWT URK 1 , a tme.copy of the attacww , �,�,�p erased count owmen shown as the ce� a 9 C®u t i pfd to CU oo file with the Au� roll venfsal iron the o�iielal ro whkb deal poopcoy Southold Town for every p pert► 1 buts and i:s n public ov pe'+vs9t®steeet, 0r vol�leu0�tr rift-o'oy ®f sato rdi at's prp i Se1:0ulidh�ffi the 11� ) , Margaret Rutkowski Swom® to. ora me,ab 25th ; d March , ih�.9� ;. XWMAC.Mcm �Notll!ry Pudic) ft*ft ftft of m%&, . . SuBmYtCoual► - Ito. 4fA1NO f a vit of ori a al�eet of PaP¢rNvrwm-Aws led �1. ►S� g on aha back'0f . Qvh Xgli as wore no'Hed lO tha orw1wr AW P 03/25/1999 15:23 5167654643 , LAW OFFICES.MOORE mak S. Lowanham 6865 indian No& L4w 1000-86.&25 & FO Box 123 Wdw amdwick TOwnic -NY 11958 & Othm 1024'- 79th St 1000-8&7-4e3 Brooklm NY 11223 Vmmt I & CwA U Frala Robin Lm, 1000686.&26.1 Alpim Ivd 07620 Gregory IL ZWwr 5913meadowood 1 7®6 re, 12121 PAGE 03 03/251999 1.5:'23 5167654643- -'LAW OFFICES MOORE PAGE 04 No Insurence Gov®rage Pn�desd. , l r not use for Intsmadonal Mall See revelae $sotto Z. 3419. 461 ,25'7., " U6 PoOt®I servi`e - - � ipt ®r C®rtlAild Mail Vs Postel seeervi" . Reeipt for Cortifled. Mail CoverAge� Provided - No Insurifsce CO'Pmvldod: No lnesurereca not use for Intemwwnsl MeA See'nm _ ®® not use for lntern®tlonal Mall Se®mvers®_ 10Rathleea Varaai® & 04 sent.lo Gregory R. Cukorc, Poems .5'5 IOe71 B tier, 5913'Msadowo®d; sued I , 1024- �:a 1 Baltimore MO Raetdsled ttaArery Fee Pw , mels, IL ior BrqokjXa- Amm , .5 geav ID Who fi/R9ERt1 Ad*mwy Ad&= l \ c rdw Fal 1..40 Comed Fee .1..40 Poetm or 9pedsl DdWY �wwdyw P 1.25 �o. %Owpm* woo f, TOTAL -Pow A 6eas .3.20 rgo ._o oft .. 102 IL Z 306-46 '1 259' Z 306 461 265 -us 'Paete! SatVloe R®ciipt for Certified Mail ; No lensurdn@ Covemp Pmvldod° Do not use for lntemadonel Mall See reseveoseer dark S: Lowenheim &= &N~ Walter Chadwick Peconic,NYI 958 P«stepo. .55 ce'dlad No 1.40 sp@cw oWW" Flo sna.rw 1'.25 Feets S 3.20' U9 Postal S®Nece Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurence Gov®rage Pn�desd. , l r not use for Intsmadonal Mall See revelae $sotto Vin Mane., � .. •, e F r J /', Al Poems .5'5 Gr1PRed Fea 1.40`• Raetdsled ttaArery Fee Amm , .5 geav ID Who fi/R9ERt1 Ad*mwy Ad&= l \ Tor 3.20 Poetm or 03/25/1'999,- 15°_23 5167654643'. LAW -OFFICES MOORS PAGE 05 ® trims 9 m�nah®r= smrdomw. 1 also wish to laftive ff% �cwnom Retie & AIL r>B 4L ftaIwkV sdt Am (for an .fouryaweemesed&amosd»""Mditbnnwow wonnhrngo .pne.m� aw ann m ar �onl a nu�lp.w, a an ao. b.d� a.p.a ao. na 1.13 AddrunWe Addrear :bM� e E +/bguset� on xn nr�l.o. lworon did& 2. ® Rmbfftd Dah" do R«ens en as re.raw er aalde,e>tlle9wea and mhe a.m. Consult pm"mgw for fm TWE; )PRima W. 4& AMO Mwnbw y . Z 306 461 257 a 4b. 8® oYTm Kath ben Var.ano Others - 1024: 79th Street. p EWM Md 13 kwmW .Brook"syn, NY 11228 13 PAMpwm*1 for l6bularmilft p COD 7. Date of De(Ivery S. Received ay: (PARE Nama) e. MdressoWs Acicifeds PVy K mpnW - _ $ P8 Form 361.1,. Dawnb r 1994 icma&974 0cmfflell< a K6Iqm Fm pt ' - �. •: :.'; iii;. :;:. - ., .. - ■Oomph Mm I malar 2 for edditl" NMom I also wish to receive Bt© - ■Own0pe ksm.9, 4 mW 41L foWowAng eervicee (for an ■Para yayaounam9 ma sddn on the rower atAr lam w due r�. can rewM"$ pig fee): woM�er,�mmt,ad. fbnn me tlr r�ord.of do n�pmea, or a, ow Qadt H opt a0M nal . 0dre�8e'a Address ■W�tm.'A.ean Rm=dpt on to mdoem mew dw awf a numbw. 2. ® Restricted Delivery line Rdu ftwo V" , to yr m V.0 t*W "m dwwrma a+d tm Qde Corosuft poslRtieaErir fDr fee. 3. Arddo Add . to: ee. Z 8 g 265 Irk S. Lowenheim & Walter Chcaw'_ck 4b. ervW1;pe ' 6,565 Indian. Neck Laae Q Replatered ®`CeAMed P.0 . Box 123 Q ExpreesMeli p Insured Peconbz NY 11958Q RaoimReo>olptfor COD 7. Da<s of Delivery 8.. By. (Point Name 8. Addroe�a'a Add (On 9 f®d PS orm-3811, December 1994 aows6.97r wi-m Domeeflo Return A0050i 63/25/1999 15023 5167654643 LAW OFFICES MOORE 25 ,99 15:41 -SOUTaC OWNCOL44TXNG n r, e LA _Patricia Co 1400re I Jill 111;1 ilp,,, n,, 7T,77, 47a.s _ at Terty Laae,. Marek o 19--U l PAGE 66 P.bs1 i i Il 1 63/25/1999 15:.23 516765aF---3 LAW OFFICES MOORE PAGE 01 PA RRI C. MOOS AOMW at Lw " 51020 A4Liu Road 9ou&al NgwYale 11971 Tei: (516)165-4330 Fm (516) 765.4643 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET The pages comprising this facsimile. transmission -contain, confidential information from Patricia C. -Moore. This- information i's 'intended solely for use - by the individual entity named as' the recipient hereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that,any disclosure, copying, distribution,. or use of. the contents ,of`�this transmission is prohibited:. If. you have. received this transmission in error,: -please notify'us by telephone immediately .so we .:nay arrange' to. retrieve this .transmission at no cost to you. 'T0: S® 70'k 01. d . -?®wly Oldie RE: DATE • .25" Alit it. % 7 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET IF TRANSMISSION IS FAULTY OR INCOMPUTE, PLEASE -CALL BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. CLIENT NAME: OPERATOR:. -MARGARET NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1999 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of 'the Town of Southold, the following application will be held for a public hearing on THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1999 by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS', at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter as possible): 6:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4662 — PATRICIA RUSHIN & PAMELA MOTTLEY. Variances are requested for Variances under Article III, Sections 100-32, 100-33, and Section 100-235A(2) based upon a Notice of Disapproval issued December 10, 1998 in this pending subdivision project for: (a) Insufficient lot width for each proposed Parcel A and B, for one single-family dwelling use on each Parcel; (b) Insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel A; (c) Insufficient side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B; (d) Insufficient total side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B. (e) Proposed Parcel B — with "no safe and convenient access". (f) Bathhouse structure on Parcel A. Location of Property: 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-86-7-5 (containing 3.43+- acres). The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above application or desiring to submit written statements before concluding the hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (516) 765-1809. Dated: March 8, 1999. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OFAPPE"AL5 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-1809 fax 765-9064 March 8, 1999 Re: Chapter 58 — Public Notice for Thursday, March 25, 1999 Hearing Dear Applicant:' Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the L.I. Traveler Newspaper, the Town's official newspaper for 1998-99. Pursuant to Chapter 58 of the Southold Town Code (copy enclosed), formal notice of your application and hearing must be mailed and shall include a map or sketch showing the new location with the setbacks and use noted. Send this Notice, as soon as possible, with the map to all owners of land (vacant or improved) surrounding yours, including land across any street or right-of-way that borders your property. Use the current addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office (765-1937) or the County Real Property Office in Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. Please submit your Affidavit of Mailing to us by the Friday before the hearing date, with the post office receipts postmarked. Later, when the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board at the hearing. You must post the enclosed sign no later than 3/18/99. Post the sign facing the street, no more than 10 feet from your front property line than one street or, roadway, a sign is enclosed sign(s) must remain in place for at least sever posted through the day of the hearing. If you i After the signs have been in place for seven Posting to us for the permanent file. bordering the street. (If you border more for the front yard facing each one.) The (7) days, and if possible, should remain eed a replacement sign, please contact us. (7) days, please submit your Affidavit of If you do not meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. It may be necessary to postpone your hearing if the required steps are not followed. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, ZBA Office SURVEY OF PROPER T Y A T PECONIC TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N. Y. 1000 - 86 - 07 - 05 Scale: 1" = 50' Aug. 28, 1997 AREA = 149,054 sq.ft. or 3. 4218 ac. (to tie line) ANY ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW EXCEPT AS PER SECTION 7209 -SUBDIVISION 2. ALL CERTIFICATIONS HEREON ARE VALID FOR THIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONLY lF SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR WHOSE SIGNATURE APPEARS HEREON. O Q N/O/F RICHARD M. CUKOR e S. 23' 42' 40' E. \ /\ 2z 53/.08' S. 23 47' 0' 9 Nyry \ 0' E. o o cmf Posf �r �oiY {ecce• ,7,,546.76' C+ - / 7.30 -QE ;� CO hse//.T, NLCG I1J Q w \ / I 9 ` 3 Pc A e o�ock � \ � � cox , �r6 � 1 • � w000c D I \ 7 7 N �` o hJ e,.9' a � / / I s,! -C R,cy {ecce �_ ~ ` � podf c ry/Y �!ence I ` N. 23' 46' 50 11W. cm f- 0"ra Zi tM r //42./2' w\ i N/O/F KA THLEEN VARANO & O THERS ADDITIONALLY TO COMPLY WITH SAID LAW THE TERM 'ALTERED BY' MUST BE USED BY ANY AND ALL SURVEYORS UTILIZING A COPY ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO N.G. V.D. OF ANOTHER SURVEYOR'S MAP. TERMS SUCH AS 'INSPECTED' AND BROUGHT -TO -DATE' ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. PECONIC Sb ? :"d1GQS?� f5/ 61 765 - 5 P. 0. BOX 909 1230 TRAVELER STREET SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 NO. 496/8 97-285 DA3LE AREA DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MAIN HOUSE PORCH TO BLUFF EDGE: 36 FT DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MAIN HOUSE PORCH TO SEAWARD BULKHEAD. 76 FT =NOTE= LOT COVERAGE INCLUDES ALL BUILDINGS ON LOT N/O/F S 23. 42' 40'' E 531.08' D I R T D R I V E PARCEL A RICHARD M. CUKOR I cMF S 23* 47' 00'' E — . — PARCEL B — — — — — — — — — — — N 23, 46' 50" E 1142.12' ;REA �....�'�� 0SITE PLAN = SCALE 1" - 50' BASED UPON SURVEY BY NOTE: THE SURVEY IS THE BEST INFORMATION CONCERNING JOHN T. METZGER EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS IN THE POSSESSION PECONIC SURVEYORS, P.C. OF THE OWNER, BUT THE OWNER AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZED SOUTHOLD, NY REPRESENTATIVES ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE 28 AUGUST 1997 CORRECTNESS OF THE SURVEY INFORMATION AND MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS THAT MAY EXIST. N/O/F KATHLEEN nm Y (03, q 32 --)Q . rr x'13 Z 54 , GT i F 1 STOCKADE FENCE 546.76` NYT1•22 _. - - }OP OF BANK CMF ((UU POST & RAIL FENCE' �.-. MF 1-1.W.M '0 -FENCE VE Tse -1.4' 4 FR. FXI�T 1.2' d- 2 STRY FL WOO i— ✓�, z CD FR. F DECK <( • {-�-P(� I GRAVE' - SHE _ °, r?" - U o.. ; �` �ID DOC c�`�'t1K �.:.,.:. CON z EXIST I��D,�,�1c1.Ut`"3 GAZE? 7 O �5 e-Q,1=r U FR. r n CMF 10.5 C 1v1F POST & RAIL FENCE ON LINE r 42'-4" LIMIT OF DEC 'j ADJACENT AREA 1 / REVISlON5 DATE OE509I117IL3'V 4 BRENNAN AN D BRENNAN ARCHITECTS LLP 526 WEST 22nd STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10011 212.9$9.1123 © COPYRIGHT 1997 PRO✓ECT N,4ME RUSHIN/MOTTLEY RESIDENCE Indian Neck Road Peconic, NY • PRO✓ECT NO 9707001 •.�r; ,4<,> ; ;j TRUSTEES JURISDICTION � � LIMIT OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD rJrl-E r U SITE PLAN C PROPOSED � 'EAR YARD SETBACK - 85 FT SUBDIVISION VARANO & OTHERS SCHEME D Q � j { 1 04 7E FEB " ® i?'MAUGUST 1998 1 50 OESIGNEO BYi P B DRAWN BY. PB CHECKED 8Y. PB ORAV.fNG NO A-01 R-80 1 -FAMILY DETATCHED DWELLINGS NON- CONFORMING LOTS EXISTING PROPOSED PARCEL A PROPOSED PARCEL B MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: 80,000 120,000 TO 199,999 149,221 67,451 81,771 LOT SITE (SO FT) LOT WIDTH (FT) 175 - 134 82 77 LOT DEPTH (FT) 250 - 1,110 1,094 1,126 FRONT YARD (FT) 60 60 943 928 823 SIDE YARD (FT) 20 30 1.2 & 80 1.2 & 11.9 10 & 16.9 BOTH SIDE YARDS (FT) 45 60 81.2 13.10 26.9 REAR YARD (FT) 75 85 103 103 249 LIVABLE FLOOR AREA (SO FT PER DWELLING UNIT) 850 - 3,370 3,370 2,851 MAXIMUM PERMITTED DIMENSIONS: 20 10 3 5 3 LOT COVERAGE- (Y> BUILDING HEIGHT (FT) 35 - 27 27 27 NUMBER, OF STORIES 2 2 2 2 DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MAIN HOUSE PORCH TO BLUFF EDGE: 36 FT DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MAIN HOUSE PORCH TO SEAWARD BULKHEAD. 76 FT =NOTE= LOT COVERAGE INCLUDES ALL BUILDINGS ON LOT N/O/F S 23. 42' 40'' E 531.08' D I R T D R I V E PARCEL A RICHARD M. CUKOR I cMF S 23* 47' 00'' E — . — PARCEL B — — — — — — — — — — — N 23, 46' 50" E 1142.12' ;REA �....�'�� 0SITE PLAN = SCALE 1" - 50' BASED UPON SURVEY BY NOTE: THE SURVEY IS THE BEST INFORMATION CONCERNING JOHN T. METZGER EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS IN THE POSSESSION PECONIC SURVEYORS, P.C. OF THE OWNER, BUT THE OWNER AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZED SOUTHOLD, NY REPRESENTATIVES ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE 28 AUGUST 1997 CORRECTNESS OF THE SURVEY INFORMATION AND MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS THAT MAY EXIST. N/O/F KATHLEEN nm Y (03, q 32 --)Q . rr x'13 Z 54 , GT i F 1 STOCKADE FENCE 546.76` NYT1•22 _. - - }OP OF BANK CMF ((UU POST & RAIL FENCE' �.-. MF 1-1.W.M '0 -FENCE VE Tse -1.4' 4 FR. FXI�T 1.2' d- 2 STRY FL WOO i— ✓�, z CD FR. F DECK <( • {-�-P(� I GRAVE' - SHE _ °, r?" - U o.. ; �` �ID DOC c�`�'t1K �.:.,.:. CON z EXIST I��D,�,�1c1.Ut`"3 GAZE? 7 O �5 e-Q,1=r U FR. r n CMF 10.5 C 1v1F POST & RAIL FENCE ON LINE r 42'-4" LIMIT OF DEC 'j ADJACENT AREA 1 / REVISlON5 DATE OE509I117IL3'V 4 BRENNAN AN D BRENNAN ARCHITECTS LLP 526 WEST 22nd STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10011 212.9$9.1123 © COPYRIGHT 1997 PRO✓ECT N,4ME RUSHIN/MOTTLEY RESIDENCE Indian Neck Road Peconic, NY • PRO✓ECT NO 9707001 •.�r; ,4<,> ; ;j TRUSTEES JURISDICTION � � LIMIT OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD rJrl-E r U SITE PLAN C PROPOSED � 'EAR YARD SETBACK - 85 FT SUBDIVISION VARANO & OTHERS SCHEME D Q � j { 1 04 7E FEB " ® i?'MAUGUST 1998 1 50 OESIGNEO BYi P B DRAWN BY. PB CHECKED 8Y. PB ORAV.fNG NO A-01 0 BUILDABLE AREA 10 112 14 1 � \ I � \ � 1 \ MF ---------I----------1--------- DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MAIN HOUSE PORCH TO BLUFF EDGE: 36 FT DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MAIN HOUSE PORCH TO SEAWARD BULKHEAD: 76 FT =NOTE: LOT COVERAGE INCLUDES ALL BUILDINGS ON LOT N/O/F RICHARD M. CUKOR \\16 \18 \20 _-'22 24 24 ,22 3)K` 42' 4011 E- ' 531.08' S 23* .47' 00"' E 546.76' NYT 1022 STOCKADE FENCE S 2 CMF CMF POST & RAIL FENCE T ----\y------------- C�------ �--------j�------- f P 11� it Y� 2, _ I 121 18 211 114 1 n0 1 6 2_ I TOIP OF' �ANK 1.4' 4I \ O 3,932 SQ. FT. 1,787 SQ. FT. 1,732 SQ. FT. D_ -I --R' T D R I V E - \` R-80 1 -FAMILY DETATCHED DWELLINGS NON- CONFORMING LOTS EXISTING PROPOSED PARCEL A PROPOSED PARCEL B MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: 80,000 120,000 TO 199,999 149,221 67,451 81,771 LOT SITE (SQ FT) LOT WIDTH (FT) 175 - 134 82 77 LOT DEPTH (FT) 250 - 1,110 1,094 1,126 FRONT YARD (FT) 60 60 943 928 823 SIDE YARD (FT) 20 30 1.2 & 80 1.2 & 11.9 10 & 16.9 BOTH SIDE YARDS (FT) 45 60 81.2 13.10 26.9 REAR YARD (FT) 75 85 103 103 249 LIVABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ FT PER DWELLING UNIT) 850 - 3,370 3,370 2,851 MAXIMUM PERMITTED DIMENSIONS: 20 10 3 5 3 LOT COVERAGE-(;/) BUILDING HEIGHT (FT) 35 - 27 27 27 NUMBER OF STORIES 272 - 2 2 2 DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MAIN HOUSE PORCH TO BLUFF EDGE: 36 FT DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MAIN HOUSE PORCH TO SEAWARD BULKHEAD: 76 FT =NOTE: LOT COVERAGE INCLUDES ALL BUILDINGS ON LOT N/O/F RICHARD M. CUKOR \\16 \18 \20 _-'22 24 24 ,22 3)K` 42' 4011 E- ' 531.08' S 23* .47' 00"' E 546.76' NYT 1022 STOCKADE FENCE S 2 CMF CMF POST & RAIL FENCE T ----\y------------- C�------ �--------j�------- f P 11� it Y� 2, _ I 121 18 211 114 1 n0 1 6 2_ I TOIP OF' �ANK 1.4' 4I \ O 3,932 SQ. FT. 1,787 SQ. FT. 1,732 SQ. FT. D_ -I --R' T D R I V E - \` FR. 4 3'� -FENCE 1 E --- ---- - XISI- --' --- ` . STRY\\F Ab woo PARCEL A FR. i\ L1E1 , DECK I / --i-------------�---------- ----------- ----------------- - -----------------=--\\ -- (� ----------- • -IE ---�- GRAVE \ \\------------- if I V 6) CON "^PO—R-C— 1 � ' ' I 'EXIST H GAZEB` O m- --------�------------1 - --------------------------------- -----------------'--------------------------------------- ----, ------------ --- _ X I-STR-Y- 1 bOCK 79,963 SQ. FT -----------'---1/�----------/------------PARCEL-B------t--------------------------------------- -- -- \------� --_1/3Y FR.%----------__-- i;�'1 n-+-----�H� ', I � r-- 955 SQ. FT. �(� 851 SQ. FT. ----- '------------------.--------- ------ -- "=i== �s�------------------ -------------------------- ����--_if---�_f=-�Ex- 5� —- MF--�E- / - ! - _'"+�+' — I POST & RAIL FENCE ON LINE - I 1 11'\ I `► 1 r� ! N 23)K 46' 50'' E 1142.12'__----------- NYT ;I#21 0 CO BUILDABLE AREA 0I j 10'-6" 31'-0" 10'-6" I 1 1 (n I I 41'-6"!IMIT OF DEC I 1 1 -- --------------- ! �---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------i-------- -- - i it i� ADJACENT AREA I I I i LMIT OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SETBACK LINE j SETBACK LINE j SETBACK LINE ; ;' TRUSTEES] JURISDICTION REAR YARD SETBACK - 85 FT N/O/F KATHLEEN VARANO & OTHERS ------------------------ I--------------- --------- I I I -------------- ---- , —____------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------� I -----------------------------'� /•-----.-•_-_---------------_--------.--------------_-----_---------------------_-----_---_--------------_---_---_------------------------------------------_-------_--------�------J r/ SITE PLAN = 1 SCALE 1" e 50' BASED UPON SURVEY BY NOTE: THE SURVEY IS THE BEST INFORMATION CONCERNING JOHN T. METZGER EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS IN THE POSSESSION PECONIC SURVEYORS, P.C. OF THE OWNER, BUT THE OWNER AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZED SOUTHOLD, NY REPRESENTATIVES ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE 28 AUGUST 1997 CORRECTNESS OF THE SURVEY INFORMATION AND MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS THAT MAY EXIST. mm REVISIONS OATE OESCRIPTION PATRICK BRENNAN ARCHITECT 526 WEST 22nd STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10011 212.989.1123 © COPYRIGHT 1997 PRO✓ECT NAME MOTTLEY RESIDENCE Indian Neck Road Peconic, NY PRO✓ECT NO 9707001 TITLE SITE PLAN PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SCHEME D GATE JULY 1998 SCALE 1" = 50' OESIONEO SY. P B DRAWN SYS PB CHECKED SY, PB ORAWINO NO -V i�V2 -v FlT�;1�4� C'r�GNNr,N A�C4-11T�1:1 MOT1 Y F���I�%CI�J�G il ------ ----- --------------------------- 17- ......... PATRICK rzENNc�N ,��<�Hi � �cT MAV 3qq r� MG'T����u �E`�,G�PJ�E I �Cl;Tli-EAST I/'I�;\�,% PAIRIIII-K, P ��-NNAKI AF,,,CHIT�CT ��IAY 19 ql (I mCT'(L�y' R i t ? !1 5 ! � 1 - i I ; I 1=771 1 f -7 7-1 MAY3, 1=1�iq , r � H N COTTAGE - 2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION SCALE -1/4" - T-0" mmo i .nij j ���� �� Mm mom COTTAGE - 1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION SCALE��/�" - i'-0" RIDGE ELEV: 22'-4/2" CEILING ELEV: 17'-0" FIRST FLOOR ELEV: PORCH ELEV: -0'-4" ONE GROUND ELEV: -11-6 " u COTTAGE - PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:1/4" - 1'-0" mioil, ll, COTTAGE - PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION O SCALE:1/4" - V-0" 17 rp R REI�ISIONS IOFI TE DESCRIPTION PATRICK BRENNAN ARCHITECT 526 WEST 22nd STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10011 212.989.1123 © COPYRIGHT 1997 PRO✓ECT IV41YE MOTTLEY RESIDENCE Indian Neck Road Peconic, NY PRO✓ECT NO 9707001 TITLE COTTAGE - PROPOSED ELEVATIONS OATS JULY 1998 SCALE OESIONEO BYE ORAA✓N BYi CHECKED BY. ,U1?4XI1VG NO SECOND FLOOR ELEV: 97U7----\ EILING ELEV: ELEV8'-0" FIRST FLOOR ELEV: PORCH ELEV: -0'-4" ONE GROUND ELEV: -11-6 " u COTTAGE - PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:1/4" - 1'-0" mioil, ll, COTTAGE - PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION O SCALE:1/4" - V-0" 17 rp R REI�ISIONS IOFI TE DESCRIPTION PATRICK BRENNAN ARCHITECT 526 WEST 22nd STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10011 212.989.1123 © COPYRIGHT 1997 PRO✓ECT IV41YE MOTTLEY RESIDENCE Indian Neck Road Peconic, NY PRO✓ECT NO 9707001 TITLE COTTAGE - PROPOSED ELEVATIONS OATS JULY 1998 SCALE OESIONEO BYE ORAA✓N BYi CHECKED BY. ,U1?4XI1VG NO