Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4030 " /9/~~e) ADZ 4, TOWN OF SOU THOLD, ARKI N s 57191 Pew stz, rk- APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR y 08 V91 APPEAL NO. 1t `6 A~ DATE r tk TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF 360'M'..d;'T"k' 1, (We) SUE HANAUER and JOAN BAGLEYz.....of Name of Appellant Street and Number Agew.XRXka........ HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO. DATED WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO SUE HANAUER and JOAN BAGLEY Name of Applicant for permit of Woadbur New York Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( x) Permit to construct second residence 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ....15160„Soundview Ave. & 2205 Lighthouse..Rd., Southold, N, . Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Map District 1000 Section 56Block 6 Lot,4 Current Owner Sue Hanauer/Joan Bagley /viop No. Lot No. Prior Owner Lawrence W. Stephenson 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 Do not quote the Ordinance.)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 100-31 A (1), Art. XXIII, §100-239, Art. III, §100-32. 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 lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 ( ) r 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has)ma0 been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No .................................Dated REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( x) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that See Appellants' appeal submitted simultaneously herewith. Form ZBI (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL. Continued • O4.1i9:)dA 1. STRICT APPLICATION jWHR (WAINNANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because See Appellants' appeal, submitted simultaneously herewith. )z;. .1 2 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because See Appellants' appeal, submitted simultaneously herewith. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because See Appellants' appeal, submitted simultaneously herewith. RE LL IKE & TENET STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ignature IRVING L KE Sworn to this .............24th......................... day of................. April 1991 C.,~ otory Public CAROL J. HANSALIK NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New Yonr Qualified in Suffolk County W. 52-4726353 7[rri Exp;;(% I'A/3/ ? Al FO.RM.NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOIVN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date.... Decembers .............19 90, To Sue, Hanauer & Joan Bagley 130 Woodbury Road Woodbury, N.Y. 11797 26, 1() 90 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ,~lovember . for permit to Construct a second residence at Location of Property .15160 Soundview Ave. & 2205 Lighthouse Rd: Southold, N.Y. . House No: Sheet - .Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section go........ Block ....6. 4 .......Lot Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds Under Article III . Section 100-31 A (1) only 1 (one) one family dwelling permitted on each lot. Amend disapproval.of Dec. 5, 1990 to include following: The area of parcels I and 2 contains less than 80,000 square feet of upland area as required by . Article XXIII, Section 100-239 and Article III, Section 100-32. Action required by the Zoning Board of Appeals. • Action also required by N.Y. State Department of Environmental Conservation and Board of Town Trustees. ?IIuil ng Inspector RV 1/So BOARO OF HEALTH 3 SETS OF PLANS ~f FORM NO.I SURVEY ..........K......: TOWN OFSOUTHOLD CHECK BUILDING DFPARTMENT SEPTIC FORM TOWN HALL SCUT11QLa_I!\.Y.tU171 NDTIFY, I EL.: 765-1802 BALL ExamincJ 19 MAIL TO: Approved . 19 Permit No............ Disapproved a/c • . . . (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date ggypmbqr ?_k,,....I99 INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, wit: sets of plans, acanrate 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 stre or areas, and giving a detailed, description of layout of property must be drawn on the dia.-ram which is part of this api cation. e. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. A. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Buildin^ Permit to the applicant. Such perr, shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupan shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to t, 3uilding Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances . 2egulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein describe Cite applicant a_rees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances. building code, housing code, and regulations, and ; dmit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. (Signature oi' applicant, or name, if a corporation) 130. Woodbu;r,y:PPAIi.WA•ad6Ur.:%.N,X..1179.7 (Mailing address of applicant) fate whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder AgpAt........................................... ame or owncr or premises ..SRP..HdpduA.r.drll..lQBq•.6agley..(Gemini~..... . (as on the tax roll or latest deed) applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No . . Plumber's License No . . Electrician's License No. • . • • • Other Trade's License No. . . Location of land on which proposed work will be done, Lot #1 t Southwest corner of Sound,v,i.i yv. , qe V.P• Aigh1;49Vse Road...Southold • ifousc`Numbcr Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 1009, Block SQ , C Oek.6....... Lot. . 1 , subdivision .tie,Hanaugr.A. Sloan.Aag)eY........ Filed Map No. ,$7,;2025..... Lot.~..~t.$.. (Naito) Mate existin0 Z use and occupancy of premises and intended tuse and occupancy of proposed construction: A. Lxisting use and occupancy S. Intended use and occupancy. ` •Two r S tary. •ras 1 dente. PA Lo t. Al - . • • • • • . A P R- 3- 9 1 W E D 1 6 0 5 S_ H A.N A U E R A S S O C_ P. HH 1 e s Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building X......... Additicn Alteration Repair- • • . Rgmoval Demolition swimninr a Pool . Tennis Court Accessory Building Fence .......Other Work:.......... Estimated Cost......... Fee (to he paid on filing this application) If dwelling. number of dwelling units 1...... Number of dwelling units on each floor . . If garage. number of cars ....2 . If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use • . , , , , , Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front Rear Depth licigl,t Number of Stones . Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth Ilcight . ..........Number of Stories . • • . . Dimensions of entire new construction: Front 3D. 2 Rear . 20 Depth 6f} . . Height ?.4 Number of Stories Size of lot: Front ZU......... , . Rea_ .163...94 Depth .~15..Q4. Date of Purchase Name of Former Owner . Zone or use district in which premises are situated AC 4.4s44 ~ • Does proposed construction violate an zoning law, ordinance or regulation. Will lot be re raded No.. \Vilfcxccss fill be removed from premises, Yc. . Name ofOv+rnerafpremises .S~+A ,H'~nauer/JoanAddress130.Woodbury,Rd.,phoneNorJlb. 42:4.4.Q4. Name of Architect . B a.F1 ey Address Wvad4 u ry.,..N . Y.. . Phone No... • . • . Name of Contractor . • Address . Phone No... . , S.Is tlxis property located within 3po feet of a tidal wetland? xYCS...•KO • *If yes, Southold Town Trustees Permit may be required. PLOT DIAGRAM; Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and.indicate all set-back dimen sip . operty lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate a terior or comer lot. See attached survey ;p iTATE OF NEW YORE, S .S :OUNTY OF.. • • ..Saafv.nd .l; ara,~t°e r Ming dilly.>vo n, deposes arid sale's that he i5 the 3pplic (Name of individual signing contract) above named. icisthe Age, nt........... (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) if said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file tl pplication: that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that t vork'will be performed in the manner set fort), in the application filed therewith. ;worn to before me this ....26th dayof....... Havember...... 19.9.0 40tary Public.... ./K-'X. County Ni,hry Pub it~ A. K;ITot No.4839377 5 of New York , , , , . . EE Nassee Cahn emmission xtdres March 5,1va.~ (Signature of applicar £ t T S i ~ ~A ~S 11' N ! a N U C7 Q a s 3 H Q U w I° ' t Z~ Z P, 41 CZ ? J ,~,D O O 6 b 0 0- Bdl' Z p p U LL, > W 3 Q . } Q H b ZO t H d IW6 U a ~ Sx f- ,lu ca L/I IA7 p d A Ltl r- Hd v Y Z ° g O Q Z LL. d m o~„ o a 3 14 0 I LL LL l L T L ^ N a o Y r O 0 Q p' p p 83 I tt:t 0 o `o w LL 4.. - v i i 9r , w a 3 e"w _ F _ ' r n i I t~ ate. - - ~ J c c o, '6 'ininiA N f, F I W W~ W POND '1 575 5I5 UND .1.50.3 VIEW 4.t-Sol AVENUE .7:49,4 I 01.51.1 m e1:52,4 t' - S. N=: APPEaDVn SUBJECT TO WOLTER SUPPLY / 'F i / p WELL LS,^NL'OF aNG WITH STANDAIRDS. TEST I ~ . A WELL INDICATES PESTICIDE CONTAMINATI02S. I. t ~ 0912 N tt t t ~ I f tt LD g% / / / A I t o J ~5w i / m f I, { 0 G) / ( I I C t ( ; , I r m I t l POND I 1 NEW WELL'- O t D \ 15 t I' \ I \\y \ If 990" o I / cn ^O c _ cao'sa. $IaK Ft.sD.2 Y b' or 456.941 T€3T1T44€ 0. t TEDT NOLg LT SRNOAND LOAM 2,0 V t / BROW1EDR AVELL SRNO NN / RRAOM ENT! S.O EkA81 S.46°5510 W' MCGUITe / now or formerly John A TX ce0 Ito SURVEY FOR SUE HANAUER B JOAN BAGLEY SAtR:12, iS85 ` SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES AT SOUTHOLD DATE; FE5.26,1985 SC; I* A' SOUTHOLD so' FOR. APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCT/yI~ON ONLY STOWN UFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. NOBLE 8611 . ' ~f~>3 Q 5 So3~ NUINUTHORIEED ALTERATIONOIIAODITI011 M THIS SATE SYy 115 REF. NO, SVIVII a A VIOLATION. OF SECTION 72W OF THE NEW FORK STATE EDUCATION LAW : A COPIES Of AXIS SMYEV NOT SEARYG THE LAND 'SE Of ~•1, SURVEYORS INKED IM OR EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL S APPROVE NDT BEY CDNSwEREe TO KA IA,WD TRUE CORY ro ~'S{D W A~ OAF HEALTH DEPART-MENr •GA;A FON gNVN01OL IQIONSINGC T " 1 _,Y_ - " " AND S .CHA THE TITLE S IIUt'OODYI )f i1 :MCARCfTYATp aAIM YI"YIOURCSH WATER }N~WITS PUBLIC- MC. +1L A4EM[T AND I f xD S rgTlryhN LIRED CD O YWF CO. TAR MAP piT }j~QSfSCi10x SIOCR$~^LOTHERCON. AND TO NE ASSIONLCS Of THE LEHDINO 41 BNERE AM NO OMEELIIISS WITHIN 100 'EST OF THIS PROPEATY INSTINTIOR: OUAMNT90 ARE HOT. TN.WSFEAARLE OTHER TRAM THOSE 500" M((P~to".' to ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SVSSfOVENT iTX[YMTEB SW FLY ANo S[WAQ DISPOSAL SYSTEM FOR NIS A0.0ENfL 0 OWRCAS 019T.NCES SHOWN HEREON 'BON PROPERTY LINES 1 1 WILLVONEORM TO THE STAMDAPDS OF THE SUFFOLK COMTY DEPARTMENT TOXXISTINS STPUCNRES ARE IM A SPECIFIC It SB9'A M HEALTH SEMICES. PURPOSE AND APL NOT TO BE USED TO ESTABLISH 1 F APPLICANT, . PROPERTY LINES OR FOR THE ERECTION OF FENCES IEAID WOEft~ 'ADDRESS Et YOUNG a YOUNG RRI 4MOSTRANDER AVENUE NOTE 1. 6 MONUMENT LINE SHOWN THUS 50 2CONTOUR ALDEN W.YOUNG, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER 1 - _ 3.70TAL AREA = 4,945 ACRES AND LAND SURVEYOR N.YS.UCENSE:0.12843-. ~ HOWARD WYOUNG, LAND SURVEYOR *THE TNM OFW¢L(WI,fEPrIC TANKIfTJac[SSIOOLSfPI SHOWN HEREON N.Y. S. LICENSE NO.45893 L//{(j~j~}{/ I ME FARM FIELD.ONSLAYATIOMS ANOOROATA CITAINEDFROM OFFERS ~ I 1 ~ r 4 N °/f°jeiefia°~',~+[~k~+•~a xJF4 > ~ , ,I. I \ t ~ \ \ COG °j Zi "Kb ~ f ~9P)~y fJ o~`~ 1 f \ % n r 4pfP ~ d' ole °~i ~`k. j~. ~ app • ~ \_n/ ~F[R ff T[R x[T[[rre u ' S F~ ed tr p.°xRLTWna,K \ \p O.FP 4 `1 Nb Ten xaF S-~ TFfT xaie a-i °°e` t D°p M- / • G.G wuon m 4°° e° ~ G 9 .40,v t \ / a 'Q.' 1 i~ IIDTF: tF1.YOlUYFYT \ 2.SUr[°Lx [p1x ITAXII A. M. OISI IppG SFR5° 6 {b[. \ 1{`\ r~ R f. tUY.I .RFi ..,f.5 .CMLf G FL EA.= Ep[FRE K2G °NO y. IYa M" TMF"Tp1fR~ ` •~11Yn"'M. K DIME ~ axoxx IF TCRNRGMK YG1-0 FGmxY [Olxf'1rylFnNEI M1 T i ~ ,i TxE wmx cauxTr xn. Ar NWGR WMRS TIM WATER a4r y[ "N"A0R°YL xgLINEt ryxdu wrG lNR{{OEVFUiY[x[// ~I! ~ MAY R i~lni COYNYWI}X1NE p1NDxR0aMORWNI[yERTa OFr TR[w[IX[[pIX{[pFRIR[fExTOFMFKTx t V MJWM°W. Y[RWQ/(Y.S. L.l. l1Cx0.E6a{} ~ ~q~'J NINOR SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR SUE HANAUER S JOAN SASLEY xov. n.Rr 'Y0 . A. . AT SDUTNq,O +un 0 : A. o•a "-sL1, MT _ ....r SOWN a SD i. M". acK[ 0 • SUFiOLR CDYNTT- NEW TDIIR YO wwar i i 1 W Iww sT•[oss • 1 y. unMwunnu».+ q. 1~ rc t~~T[ .i :~m yf+r o .w$~.S"~`•:: S,c{a xqq i - - - I 1 Y..~ k • "A W. ~ uYw~wr q w 'TOIO )TPLG[L WE" Drum >YP/C<L SEWAG O/°PYadL IS)fM YOUNG aYOUNG "•~E RIVER[EAD, NEW WRR TTP/fd( P[OT RRM Kxx W..wxG rx0 nixx,K [xam[R Y01INpfY11V(Tpl Yf Y[[xf[xo,tNs xOWN10 WfmYG IIWaUM[[Ox M.[RURY{(1p GMp ~ 1 I"~ 1 3 h~ REILLY, LIKE & TENETY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST MAIN STREET IRVING LIKE P.O. BOX 218 BERNARD J. REILLY BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702 VINCENT G TENEIY (516) 669-3000 pp~ FAX (516) 669.4122 ~Y ' ' i a91 OFCOU"sm. June 10, 1991 JOSEPH H. WSPEDON Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application for Variance Hanauer & Bagley - 1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Goehringer: As requested in your letter of May 22, 1991, enclosed is a copy of a survey of our client's property showing the Suffolk County Department of Health Services' (SCDHS) stamp of approval of construction of the proposed house shown thereon. Please note Exhibit "J" of the Appeal, which is a letter dated May 29, 1987, in which the SCDHS concluded that the soil conditions on the subject property appear to be acceptable for the installation of individual sewage disposal systems on parcels 1 and 2. These are the minor subdivision lots. Very truly yours, LY, LIKE, TENETY & AMBROSINO IL:ch IR NG Encls cc: Mr. Sanford Hanauer PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ° i t n TT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor George Jr. Richard Ritchie Latham, Ward J Town H II, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 August 15, 1991 Sanford Hanauer Sanford Hanauer Associates, Inc. 130 Woodbury Road Woodbury, New York 11797 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Joint Project for Hanauer/Bagley SCTM# 1000-50-6-4 and Too Bee Realty SCTM# 1000-50-6-5 Dear Mr. Hanauer: On August 9, 1991, Melissa Spiro of this office met with you and David Kapell to discuss an alternate option for development of the above mentioned parcels. The alternative discussed was that you would merge the above mentioned parcels, and present a clustered layout with the open space area (the ponds all wetland areas and the upland area located at the westerly side of Sound Avenue) to be offered for dedication to the Town. At the meeting, you asked if the Planning Board would list the procedure it would follow should you choose this alternative. I have listed the general process below. It should be noted that although the procedures are listed in numerical order, some of the procedures will run concurrently. In addition, due to the fact that many of the procedures involve coordination with other Boards, and submissions on your part, it is not feasible to include a time- table. 1. In order to proceed with the cluster proposal, the properties must be merged. Thus, the Too Bee Realty map which was filed on April 19, 1991, must be abandoned. The procedure for abandoning the Too Bee Realty plat can be obtained from the Suffolk County Clerk's office. The Planning Board can not take any final action on the clustered proposal until such time that the parcels are merged. 2. The following must be presented to the Planning Board: A. A Yield map containing six (6) lots. The amount of wetland, pond and upland area must be indicated for each lot. B. A preliminary Sketch map containing six (6) clustered lots and indicating that the open space area is to be offered to the Town for dedication. All lots are to be on the "Too Bee Realty" side of the parcel, with the exception of a lot which may include the existing foundation. It is not necessary to construct a road to provide access to the interior lots. However, common driveways must be designed for all flag lots, in order to reduce the number of curb cuts on Lighthouse Road. 3. The Planning Board will forward the Yield Map and the preliminary Sketch Map to the Board of Town Trustees for their review of the wetland delineation. 4. The Planning Board will follow the procedures listed below in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA): A. The Planning Board will review the Positive Declaration which was granted on May 23, 1991. If the new application (six (6) clustered lots with the open space to be dedicated to the Town) mitigates the reasons set forth in the Positive Declaration, the Positive Declaration will be rescinded. B. The Planning Board will conduct a coordinated review in accordance with SEQRA for the new application. 5. It will be necessary for you to apply for area variances for all lots shown on the Yield map which do not meet the minimum requirements for the Residential Low-Density R-80 District. A disapproval from the Building Department will be required prior to your submittal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If the Planning Board is in favor of the preliminary Sketch Map, it will support your application before the Zoning Board of Appeals. 6. If the area variance(s) are granted, the Planning Board will proceed with its review of the clustered subdivision in accordance with the Town's Subdivision Regulations. This will include, but not be limited to, a determination on the sketch plan, a drainage review, and a final public hearing which will be scheduled upon receipt of a complete final application (including Health Department approval). I trust you will find the above list helpful. Of course, any approvals would be conditioned on the pond and associated areas being offered for dedication to the Town. Although the use of this open space has not been formally discussed by the Town Board, it is the Planning Board's intent to leave this area in its existing condition. In order to insure this, a restrictive Conservation Easement could be established by either yourself or the Planning Board prior to dedication of the area to the Town. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. The Board awaits your decision as to how you wish to proceed. Very truly yours, Ave Bennett Orlowski, Chairman cc: Scott Harris, Town Supervisor Town Board Members Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals ? Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees Raymond Jacobs, Superintendent of Highways James Richter, Engineering Inspector tj l_/ ~fy 4~' , ° OG o PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS N+ P~ SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennet[ Orlowski, Jr., Chairman xj' D x A c, Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 October 9, 1991 fl m Sanford Hanauer W i '91991 130 Woodbury Road Woodbury, New York 11797 nU - RE: Proposed Major Subdivi ion Joint Project for Hanauer/Bagley SCTM# 1000-50-6-4 Too Bee Realty SCTM# 1000-50-6-5 Dear Mr. Hanauer: The Planning Board has reviewed the preliminary sketch of the above mentioned project which was submitted on September 18, 1991. The procedure for approving the project was also discussed by the Town Attorney, members of the Planning Board and members of the Town Trustees at a meeting held on September 27, 1991, and at a later date with a representative from the office of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The enclosed sketch reflects the changes that must be made to your preliminary sketch in order to obtain approvals. An explanation of the changes are noted below: 1. The land to the south of the pond is to be included with the parcel to be dedicated to the Town; 2. A-building envelope is to be indicated for Lot 6; 3. A seventy-five (75) foot conservation easement area is to be indicated around the pond area. While the terms of this conservation area will be defined in more detail, in general, this area shall be left in its natural state with a provision for a foot path to the pond for each lot. The land within the building envelope for Lot 6 shall not be subject to the conservation easement. 4. The access for Lot 5 is to be located on the north side of the lot. The accessways for all flag lots need only be 15 feet in width. Page 2 Hanauer/Bagley & Too Bee Since the maps we have are outdated, and do not shown the verified wetlands line, it would be appreciated if the revised maps included the verified wetland line. In addition you should make the necessary application(s) to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the area variance(s). Please contact that office if you have any questions about the application itself. I have enclosed a chart of the general time frames for the project. I hope this will be of help to you. The Planning Board awaits your formal submission of the clustered subdivision. Please contact Melissa Spiro if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Z41'a av/; /IJW57 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman encl. cc: Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Z tthew Kiernan, Assistant Town Attorney rard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals John M. Bredemeyer, President, Town Trustees Applicant submits ' revised maps to PB • - FB forwards maps 2-3 nc°rM3 ENERAL TIME FRAMES FOR to Trustees ifu`CCe permits q[antetl, I NAHAUEq/BAGLEY ANB TOO BEE REALTY JOINT Pg0.1ECT g.i[ea SECS from Trustees 'NOTE: ItuT^E EQRA PB initiates 1 1. All items (maps, decisions from other Boards, ..[missions n[dinated EMIR 30 Oay 2a DA 5 PB makes k-' SEQR from aFPl icant) most be submitted at process least DwP Ill weeks Ce044i11l1PN F,R RuAL ditetmi nation Prior to:a regular scheduled Planning Board meeting in PC.Ce55 SEDQ tE Q. order to be included on the agenda. These time periods have not been factored into the time char[. 2. Total time as per chart is approximately 39 weeks, ants from tnvolved agencies unhe time expended for the applicant's submissions is known, and has Out been factored lot. the time chart.) Applicant has BB (The flow char[ begins with the assumption that the amend disapproval applicant has submitted all necessary information for each l 1 waEr.S application.) S-7 I ZBA decision] 3. PB - Planning Board Applica ne a vd. BB - Building Department applies tion'before ZHA - Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA DEC - Department of Environmental Conservation EEQR - State Environmental Quality Review Ac[ L_FBh d ides for hde t etmination dnates with: 4Y k,XElcS Fire District heating d -Engineer etcrmina[ion ules ProfProf. . nearing • Applicant submits: -final maps with _ Health Approval. e 3-µ NEEkS I Mo.,, 4, M95 Fi nal detS[mioatuon 11 permits q.cand Final hearing Icond l[ iencd n (fee Of ITrus[ces, DEC, tea) adieati on to townl If all in order. PD schedules final hearin ( t ti,`w A 4~ pza s_ ~I PIT L T c~ F.3JN~ aF~ER D CoR 4 DEUtC iorJ To TII\jJ `1) O J~ i X40 10 Z i z5 ` ~ ~ t c 1 \ U I _ 1 ; N N.1 did N 1 ~ zip SCALE ~ o S c.P y s~~~ocK PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS cn SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman? Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward h F( f Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -fix gyp ~ W December 20, 1991 ~i 2 3 NO Sanford Hanauer 130 Woodbury Road Woodbury, New York 11797 _ RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Hanauer/Bagley/Too Bee Realty SCTM# 1000-50-6-4 & 5 Dear Mr. Hanauer: The Planning Board is in receipt of the yield map dated November 22, 1991, and the cluster map dated December 10, 1991, for the above mentioned subdivision. The Board is in favor of the general layout and will proceed with their review as quickly as possible. A few minor changes to the cluster map are needed. These are listed below: 1. The area between the pond and the wetlands line as determined by En-Consultants, Inc., is to be included within the parcel to be offered for dedication to the Town of Southold. The metes and bounds of this parcel must also be shown. 2. The wetland area within the Too Bee Realty subdivision shall be shown as "the overflow area" on the current map. This area shall be included within the land to be dedicated to the Town. Please show the point of discharge from the pond into the overflow area. This should also be included in the area to be dedicated to the Town. 3. It is not necessary to show a right-of-way around the common driveway areas. It should be noted on the map that Lots 4 and 5 are to share the common driveway shown on Lot 1. In addition to the revisions listed above, a revised application form and a short environmental assessment form are needed to complete the file for this new application. Upon submission of these items and eight (8) copies of the revised cluster maps, the Planning Board will start the SEQRA lead agency coordination process. It is understood that you will be making an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Planning Board will await a determination from that Board before making a sketch determination. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. 4fs Chairman cc: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals John M. Bredemeyer, President, Board of Trustees APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS y SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor M l Gerard P. Gcehringer, Chairman , Charles Grigonis, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa BOARD OF APPEALS Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 May 22, 1991 Irving Like, Esq. Reilly, Like & Tenety 200 West Main Street P.O. Box 218 Babylon, NY 11702 Re: Application for Variance Hanauer & Bagley 1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Like: This will confirm that we are in receipt of your recent application for a variance under section 100-239 of the Zoning Code in the proposed minor subdivision into two lots, which is pending with the Southold Town Planning Board and Suffolk County Health Department. Pursuant to the requirements of the N.Y.Y. Environmental Quality Review Act, Part 617, Sections 617.3, the Board of Appeals has notified the Planning Board, as lead agency in this project, that an application for an area variance has been filed and that the Planning Board, together with the applicants, should proceed with a Scoping Session as part of the requirements for preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. In accordance with the requirements of SEQRA, the area variance is being held in abeyance, however, the Board of Appeals will, of course, participate as an involved agency in assisting the lead agency in the preparation of a scoping checklist and areas of concern. You are requested to coordinate all SEQRA documentation through the Planning Board as Lead Agency, or to help expedite the reviews by simultaneously providing our office with extra copies of the documentation. In the interim, please: (a) notify the Planning Board as to your intentions to proceed under the coordinated agency SEQRA review and requested Scoping Session; (b) provide us with seven (7) prints of the original map; (c) provide us with a copy of the most current Suffolk County Health Department approved map locating the new cesspool and well systems for the new dwelling (for which Building Permit #16160 has been written) in the most westerly section of the premises. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN lk r APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS " SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. t Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa BOARD OF APPEALS Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone (516) 765-1800 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board FROM: Jerry Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals DATE: May 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Your File - Hanauer & Bagley CTM #1000-50-6-4 This memorandum is to advise that we have received an application for an area variance concerning the above pending subdivision project. It is our understanding in reviewing the Planning Board file that a SEQRA Scoping Session was postponed without a date as requested by the applicants' attorney. Although we are in receipt of the area variance request, the Board of Appeals would like to be included in your list as an involved and interested agency under SEQRA by the Planning Board, which is Lead Agency in this project. It is our recommendation that the Planning Board notify the applicants' attorney and re-schedule the SEQRA Scoping Session, (or pursuant to Section 617.7a, alternatively prepare for exchange a written scope of issues to be addressed in the DEIS). You may note in the SEQRA rules that a written scope of issues should be provided (within 30 days of a Positive Declaration), and if none is provided, then the applicant may submit a DEIS. Also, if the applicants prefer (within 30 calendar days) not to proceed with a Scoping Session, the applicant may prepare a DEIS. The applicant should, in any event, decide within the next 30 days. Pursuant to Section 617.3(a), any further ZBA action to decide or carry out the variance application have been held in abeyance until such time as SEQRA has continued with the Page 2 - May 22, 1991 To: Planning Board Re: Hanauer & Bagley involved agencies and finalized by the Planning Board, as lead agency. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to participate in your coordination of this matter under SEQRA. GG:lk cc: Town Attorneys 2 -8- §617.617.3 § C ~ of actions listed as Type II actions in that agency's own procedures to implement SEQR adopted pursuant to section 617.4 of this Part. The fact that an action is listed as a Type II action in any agency's procedures does not mean that it is to be treated as a Type II action by any other involved agency not listing it as a Type II action in its procedures. (kk) "Unlisted action" shall mean all actions not excluded or exempt, not listed as a Type I or Type II action in this Part, or in the case of l a particular agency action, not listed as a Type I or Type II action in the agency's own SEQR procedures. 617.3 GENERAL RULES. (a) No agency involved in an action shall carry out, fund or approve the action until it has complied with the provisions of SEAR. No physi- cal alteration related to an action shall be commenced by a project spon- sor until the provisions of SEAR have been complied with except as provided under sections 617.3(c) or 617.13(d)(18) of this Part. No f .agency shall issue a decision on an action that it knows_any_other_^ it involved agency has determined may have a significant effect on the environment until a final EIS and findings statement have been filed except as provided under section 617.8(e)(1) of this Part.' t (b) SEAR does not change the existing jurisdiction of agencies nor the jurisdiction between or among State and local agencies. SEQR provides all involved agencies with the authority, following the filing of a final EIS and written findings statement, or pursuant to section 617.6(h) of this Part to impose substantive conditions upon an action to ensure that the requirements of this Part have been satisfied. The con- ditions imposed must be practicable and reasonably related to impacts identified in the EIS or the conditioned negative declaration. t (c) Nothing in this Part shall prevent an agency or an applicant L from: (1) conducting concurrent environmental, engineering, economic, ` feasibility and other studies and preliminary planning and budgetary pro- 1 cesses necessary to the formulation of a proposal for action, provided r those activities do not commit the agency to commence, engage in or 1L approve such-action; or f -19- §617.6 §617.7 a CND has been issued, states what conditions have been imposed and allows for a minimum 30-day public comment period; and (v) the CND has been prepared and filed in accordance with sections 617.6(g) and 617.10(a)(2) of this Part. (2) A draft EIS must be prepared if comments are received regarding the proposed CND which would support a positive declaration concerning: (i) the previously identified or newly raised significant environmental impacts; or (ii) the need for the examination of the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. (3) The lead agency must require an EIS if requested by the applicant. (i) Rescission of Negative Declarations: At any time prior to its decision to undertake, fund or approve an action, a lead agency must rescind a negative declaration if it deter- mines that a significant environmental effect may result from a project modification or that there exists a change of circumstances which was not previously addressed. Prior to any rescission, the lead agency must inform other involved agencies and the applicant and must provide a reasonable opportunity for the applicant to respond. 617.7 SCOPING. (a) Formal scoping is optional. It may occur either at the ini- tiation of the lead agency or at the request of the applicant, prior to the acceptance of a draft EIS. If the action involves an applicant, either a written scope of issues to be addressed in the draft EIS must be provides oy the lead agency to the applicant and all involved agencies, within 30 calendar days following the filing of the positive declaration, or an applicant may initiate the process by providing the lead agency with a draft scope of issues. Scoping may be accomplished throua_h meeting(s), exchanges of written material, or other methods that will allow the lead agency, the applicant, and involved agencies to agree upon a written scope of issues in a timely manner. In the event that th_• lead agency fails to provide a written scope of issues within 30 -20- §617.7 §617.8 calendar days following the filing of a positive declaration, the appli- cant may submit a draft EIS. - - - - (b) Involved agencies should provide input for the scoping state- ment reflecting their agency's concerns, permit jurisdictions and information needs sufficient to make their respective SEAR findings. Failure of an involved agency to participate in the scoping process will not delay completion of the written scope of issues. At the discretion of the lead agency, other interested agencies and the public may be invited to participate in the scoping process. The lead agency's methods for obtaining scoping information should reflect the complexity of the project, the degree of public concern and the significance of the environmental impacts. (c) When scoping occurs, the lead agency shall try to identify each relevant issue during the scoping process and provide the preparer of the EIS with the greatest possible specificity so that the environmental review process may proceed in an efficient manner. If the lead agency later determines that issues not included within the scoping document should be included in the EIS, it must provide the applicant and the involved agencies with a written statement explaining the need for addi- tional analysis. (d) Scoping should identify the extent and quality of information needed for the preparer to properly address each concern. Scoping may also be used to determine which issues are not relevant for further consideration or have been covered by prior environmental review. Scoping should also identify the reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. (e) The lead agency may utilize the Scoping Checklist in section 617.21, Appendix D, of this Part and may modify the checklist as needed to adequately assess potential environmental impacts. 617.8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCEDURES. (a) The applicant or the lead agency, at the applicant's option, shall prepare the draft EIS. If the applicant does not exercise the _ option to prepare the draft EIS, the lead agency shall prepare it, cause it to be prepared, or terminate its review of the action. A fee may be L- 00 0 REILLY, LIKE & TENETY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 700 WEST MAIN STREET IRVING LIKE P.O. BOX 218 BERNARD J. REILLY BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702 VINCENT C. TENEIY (516) 669-3000 FAX (516) 669-0122 OFCOUNSFL May 1, 1991 JOSEPH H. WSPEDON Linda Kowalski, Clerk Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Re: Hanauer & Bagley Southold, NY 11971 S/W corner Lighthouse Rd. and Soundview Rd., Southold Dear Ms. Kowalski: We represent the above owners who appeal from the decision of the Town of Southold Building Inspector, and submit herewith the following documents in support of appellants' application for a variance: 1. Original and two copies of Appellants' Appeal to Southold Zoning Board of Appeals; 2. Notice of Disapproval (see Exhibit "A" to Appeal); 3. Application, of Irving Like, Esq., signed and notarized in accordance with the attached authorization of appellants; 4. Copies of Notice to Adjoining Property Owners. Affidavits of service and certified mail receipts will be forwarded to you; 5. Environmental Assessment Form (see Exhibit "O" to Appeal); 6. ZBA Questionnaire - to be furnished by May 10, 1991; 7. Plan to scale (see Exhibit "C" to Appeal); 8. Copy of current deed. Would you please schedule this matter on the Board's June calendar, and advise if you require any further information. We will appreciate your returning the enclosed postal card acknowledging receipt of the foregoing. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Ver r ly yours, IL:ch IRVI LIK Encls. REILLY, LIKE & TENETY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 700 WEST MAIN STREET IRVING LIKE P.O. BOX 216 BERNARD J. REILLY BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702 VINCENT C. TENETY 516) 669-300D FAX (516) 6694122 MAY - 8 OFCOUNSBL May 6, 1991 JOSEPH H. WSPEDON Linda Kowalski, Clerk Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Hanauer & Bagley S/W corner Lighthouse Rd. and Soundview Rd., Southold Dear Ms. Kowalski: Enclosed is a check payable to the order of Town of Southold ZBA in the amount of $500., representing the filing fee for the above application. We trust that this application package is now complete, but would appreciate hearing from you if it is not. Thank you for your many courtesies and cooperation. Very truly yours, R LY LIKE & IL:ch IR TENE LIK Encls. 0 0 oS~FFOIK~OG JUDITH T. TERRY L Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK o T P.O. Box 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS off Southold, New Yolk l 1971 MARRIAGE OFFICER y Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Office of the Town Clerk DATE: May 8, 1991 RE: ZONING APPEAL APPL. NO. 4030 - SUE HANAUER & JOAN BAGLEY Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal Appl. No. 4030 - SUE HANAUER & JOAN BAGLEY together with letters from Reilly, Like & Tenety, Attorneys at Law, the Notice to Adjacent Property Owners, the Short Environmental Assessment Form, a copy of the deed of the property, a copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals Questionnaire, and a copy of the Appeal of Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley. Judith T. Terry Town Clerk fi CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS July 2, 1991 David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scoping Documentation Dear Mr. Kappell: As per the request of the Southold Planning Board, I have compiled the attached literature with regard to the requested scope for the above noted Draft EIS. Contained herein is a copy of the Town Positive Declaration, a copy of the Long EAF Part III used as partial basis for the determination, and an outline prepared by our office as a format and minimum scope of issues to be included in the Draft EIS. This package should be used by a professional environmental consultant as a guide for the issues to be included in the Draft EIS. In addition, the meeting proposed to be conducted on July 2, 1991, at 2:30 p.m. will serve as a verbal discussion of these issues and other concerns which may be raised at that time. The Draft EIS will be compared against the attached information and notes from the Scoping Meeting, in order to determine completeness in addressing issues of concern as expressed by the lead agency. Please review this information, and feel free to contact the Town for additional input during the preparation of the document. Thank you for your attention to this matter. V~ry 'y yo s, ' harles oorhis cc: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Valerie Scopaz 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 119 71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 05/23/89 POSITIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law _ State Environmental Quality Review Act and 6NYCRR part 617, Section 617.10 and chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency for this unlisted action described below has determined that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NAME OF ACTION: Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley SCTM $1000-50-6-4. SEQR STATUS: Type I - Unlisted V DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 4.945 acre parcel into 2 lots, 2.466 acres and 2.479 acres respectively. This parcel is zoned A-C (Agricultural Conservation). It is located on Sound View Avenue at Southold. REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: The Planning Board has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form, has completed Parts II and III, and has conducted a field Inspection of the site. Based on the above, the Planning Board has determined that: The proposed action has the potential of having a significant impact to the physical characteristics of the project site. There may be an effect on the existing freshwater pond and CONTINUED wetlands on the site due to the proximity of the proposed construction. The proposed action will involve construction within the required setback from a freshwater body. There may be an effect on the existing freshwater pond and wetlands on the site due to the fact that the proposal includes private wells within 70 feet and individual sewage disposal systems within 100 feet. The upland area of the subject premises does not meet the minimum lot area requirement for two dwellings. CONTACT PERSON Further information can be obtained by contacting Jill M. Thorp, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. Copies mailed to the following: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk county Planning Commission Robert Greene, DEC Commissioner Mohabir Perseud, Department of State Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. James Schondebare, Town Attorney Judith Terry, Town Clerk Building Department Board of Appeals Board of Trustees Applicant Planning Board T, Part III Impact on Land: The proposed action will result in a potential large impact to the physical characteristics of the project site. Construction on proposed lot No. 2 will occur on slopes of 15% or greater. This cannot be mitigated by project change due to the fact that there is already a foundation in place on this lot. There will also be an affect on the existing freshwater pond and wetlands on the site due to the proximity of the proposed construction to these areas. While this cannot be entirely mitigated by project change, it can be minimized by allowing only one dwelling to be constructed, that being the completion of the dwelling on Lot #2. Impact on Water: The proposed action will have a large impact on the freshwater wetland, particularly since the set back from the wetland line on Lot No. 1 is 50 feet and the setback on Lot No. 2 is only 30 feet. This can be mitigated by project change. The construction also includes private wells within 70 feet of the freshwater wetlands and individual sewage disposal systems within 100 feet. These private wells will produce a draw down effect on the wetlands and the individual sewage disposal systems will introduce additional pollution to the pond. The proposed action will also affect surface and groundwater quality since it requires the use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve the proposed actions. Also, the project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into the existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. This can be mitigated by a project change limiting construction to one dwelling only and mitigation measures during construction. The proposed action will alter surface water runoff by creating more impervious surfaces and elimination of existing vegetation. c I SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. c ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS 8 LANDUSE PLANNERS Impact on Plants and Animals: The proposed action could affect non-threatened or non-endangered species in that it may interfere with resident or migratory wildlife species, particularly in that the freshwater pond is most likely used as a source of drinking water. the pond is also a habitat to a variety of local water species such as ducks, geese, and swans. Impact on Aesthetic Resources: The proposed action will affect aesthetic resources since the uses are in sharp contrast to the surrounding natural resources. The proposed land use will also be visual to users of aesthetic resources and will eliminate their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of those resources, as well as eliminate the scenic view of the pond which are important to the area. Impact on Open Space and Recreation: The proposed action will result in the permanent closure of a future recreational opportunity which is the use of the pond as an area for bird watching and ice skating. This proposal will also cause a major reduction and ultimate elimination of an open space important to the community. Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood: This proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects, particularly in areas with natural resources such as those present on this site. This action would be a divergence from the local goals and policies of the Town which include preservation of the wetland areas, and natural resources important to the community. The subject premises contains an upland area barely sufficient for one dwelling. It does not meet the minimum lot area requirement for two dwellings. Therefore a subdivision into two conforming lots cannot be accomplished on this parcel. SAI SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. S411 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & LANDUSE PLANNERS t ~ From a review of the environmental factors present on this parcel a two lot subdivision would create a severe adverse impact on the pond and its environs. Reduction to one lot only using the existing foundation and using proposed location of well, septic system, and driveway on "Lot 2", with no clearing within 50 feet of the pond (except where it exists now), and no fertilized vegetation, including lawn, on the property except for native indigenous species fertilized with slow-release organic fertilizers, all taken together would mitigate environmental impacts to the greatest degree practicable. The best mitigation measure is the acquisition of this parcel for use as a Town skating area since that has been the historic use of the site. The existing foundation could then be utilized for an accessory building to the skating area. SfI SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ~f ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & LANDUSE PLANNERS SCOPING OUTLINE HANAUER/BAGLEY DRAFT EIS 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS AND SUMMARY A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft EIS if it is over ten (10) pages in length. The summary will include: A. Brief description of the action B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, issues of controversy must be specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed D. Alternative considered E. Matters.to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and history - prior reviews, approvals, etc 2. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on adopted community developments plans 3. Objectives of the project sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action a) social b) economic B. LOCATION 1. Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps is recommended) 2. Description of access to site 3. Description of existing zoning of proposed site C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT (a table of site quantities is recommended) 1. Total site area a) proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads) b) amount of land to be cleared - areas of fertilized and non- fertilized vegetation c) open space - areas to remain wooded (specify if proposed for dedication or restrictive covenants) 2. Structures conceptual, building envelopes 3. Parking conceptual a pavement area b number of spaces and layout 4. Water Supply and Sanitary Disposal 5. Stormwater Disposal CRAMER, VOORHIS & ,ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a total construction period anticipated b schedule of construction c) future potential development, on site or on adjoining properties 2. Operation a) type of operation - landscape and open space maintenance E. APPROVALS 1. Permit approvals - Planning Board; Zoning Board; Suffolk County, sanitary/water supply; NYSDES, freshwater wetlands; Town Trustees, other. III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) composition and thickness of subsurface material - general stratigraphy 2. Surface - Suffolk County Soil Survey a) List of soil types b) discussion of soil characteristics c) distribution of soil types at project site d) suitability for use 3. Topography a) description of topography at project site - slopes - prominent or unique features b) description of topography of surrounding areas B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater - from existing literature and test hole information a) location and description of aquifers and recharge ayes - depth of water table - seasonal variation - quality - quantity - flow b) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater - location of existing wells - Public/private water supply - industrial uses - agricultural uses 2. Surface water CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope a) location and description of surface waters located on project site or those that may be influenced by the project examples: - seasonal variation - quantity - classification according to New York State b) identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters - public/private water supply - agricultural uses - recreational c) description of existing drainage areas, patterns and channels d) discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of water supply C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding area b) discussion of site vegetation characteristics - species presence and abundance - age - size - distribution - dominance - community types - unique, rare and endangered species - value as habitat for wildlife - productivity 2. Fish, Shellfish, and Wildlife a) list of fish, shellfish and wildlife species on the project site and within surrounding area, including migratory and resident species b) discussion of fish, shellfish and wildlife population characteristics - species presence and abundance - distribution - dominance - unique, rare and endangered species - productivity 3. Wetlands a) list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site b) discuss wetland characteristics - acreage - vegetative cover - classification - benefits of wetland such as flood an erosion control recreation, wildlife habitat c) discussion of pond vegetation CRAMER, VOORHIS, &,ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL=AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope emergent and submergents species extent of wetlands, quality of wetlands and vegetation inventory d) discuss wetland regulatory setbacks as per Article 24 and Town Trustees Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transporting services a) description of the size, capacity and condition of services - roads - access/egress from site b) description of current level of use of services - source of existing traffic B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) description of the existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area b) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area 2. Land use plans a) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area C. COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Educational facilities 2. Police protection 3. Fire protection 4. Recreational facilities 5. Utilities 6. Water supply 7. Solid waste disposal D. DEMOGRAPHY 1. Population characteristics a) discussion of existing population E. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) description of the physical character of the community 2. Historic resources a) location and description of historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included on Statewide Inventory CRAMER, VOORHIS. & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PJ,ANW G CONSULTANTS Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope IV. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Surface - List and discuss constrained soils and limitations 2. Topography - Discuss steep slope areas, drainageways, and potential for erosion B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater - Discuss conformance to County sanitay, surface water and well setbacks. Discuss 150 foot separation between well and sanitary for subdivision systems. Discuss vertical profile of sanitary system, and limitations due to depth to groundwater. Discuss nutrient input to pond sanitary waste and fertilizer; nitrogen budget using BURBS or WALRUS. 2. Surface water - Discuss conformance to use guidelines as per NYSDEC. Discuss potential eutrophication. Discuss drainage areas of flood potential. C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation - Quantify type and quantity of vegetation and habitat changes on site. 2. Fish, Shellfish, and Wildlife - Discuss change is utilization of site by species identified in inventory on a habitat basis. Relate nutrient input and potential eutrophication to pond wildlife species. Give particular attention to Endangered, Threatened and Species of Special Concern 3. Wetlands - Discuss potential impact on beneficial values of wetlands. Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION - Generally discuss ability of roads to accomodate site traffic. B. LAND USE AND ZONING - General discussion of project with zoning and land use plans C. COMMUNITY SERVICES - General discussion on ability of service disticts to service proposed project. D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources - Discussion of visual resource changes as a result of project. How will project be viewed from surroundings CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL<AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope V. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section IV. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material for land reclamation 2. Surface a) use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscaping b) minimize disturbance of non-construction areas c) design and implement soil erosion control plan 3. Topography a avoid construction on areas or steep slope b design adequate soil erosion devices to protect areas of steep slope B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) design system of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater prior to recharge of groundwater b) maintain permeable areas on the site 2. Surface water a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation - hay bales - temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas - landscaping b) design adequate stormwater control system D. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) restrict clearing to only those areas necessary b) preserve part of site as a natural area c) after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportation a) design adequate and safe access to project site to handle projected traffic flow B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a design project to comply with existing land use plans b design functional and visually appealing facility to set standard 11N CRAMER, VOORHIS a ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL,AND,PLANNI'NG CONSULTANTS e .;iii Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope and precedent for future surrounding land use C. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) design exterior of structures to physically blend with existing surroundings b) minimize visual impact through thoughtful and innovative design of lighting and sins (consider: height, size, intensity, glare, and hours of lighting operation) c) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational equipment and facilities VI. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section IV that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section V. VII. ALTERNATIVES This section contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES 1. Site layout a) location of structures b) location of access routes, parking and utility routes 2. Orientation a) compatibility with slope and drainage patterns b) site size and set back requirements B. ALTERNATIVES SIZE 1. One dwelling alternative should be analyzed as compared to proposed project C. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 1. Potential for TDR - Other receiving sites owned by applicant, availabity of land. C. NO ACTION - Acquisition potential, funds, and possible identification of parcel for acquistion 1. Impacts of no action a effect on public need b effect on private developers' need c) beneficial or adverse environmental impacts CRAMER, VOORHIS &+ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL-AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS AA f Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope VIII.IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section III that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. IX. APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. A. List of underlying studies, reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement B. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale D. Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may be included CRAMER, VOORHIS &ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL,AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward i Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: All Involved Agencies FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman,,,9Q~~s RE: Scoping Session for Hanauer and Bagley SCTM#1000-50-6-4 DATE: June 19, 1991 AtScoping Session has been set for 3 P.M., Tuesday, July 2, 1991, for the above mentioned subdivision application. The meeting will be held in the conference room of the Town Hall which is located on the Main Road in Southold. A copy of the Positive Declaration may have been sent to you on May 23, 1989. Another copy is enclosed with this letter for your convenience. 7 If you are unable to attend the Scoping Session, please send any i comments you may have as to items you wish addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, to the Planning Board office. The Board's facsimile number is 765-1823. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Board office at 765-1938. Encl. cc: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Matthew G. Kiernan, Assistant Town Attorney Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Town Trustees Raymond Jacobs, Highway Superintendent James Richter, Road Inspector John Holzaphel, Conservation Advisory Council Vito Minei, Director, Office of Ecology, SCDHS Robert DeLuca, Office of Ecology, SCHDS Louise Harrison, Office of Ecology, SCHDS Stephen Costa, Suffolk County Department of Health Services Frank Dowling, Suffolk County Department of Planning Walter C. Hazlitt, Exec. Director, SC Water Authority F t REILLY, LIKE & TENETY T ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST MAIN STREET 1RVING UKE P.O. BOX 218 JUN - 6 1991 BERNARD J. RMLY BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702 VINCENT C TENETY (516) 669-3000 FAX (516) 669-4122 OF COUNSEL June 5, 1991 JOSEPH H. MCSPEDON Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application for Variance Hanauer & Bagley - 1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Goehringer: In accordance with your letter of May 22, 1991, we enclose herewith the following: 1. Copy of letter this date to Southold Planning Board notifying of our intentions to proceed under the coordinated agency SEQRA review and requesting a Scoping session; 2. Seven prints of original map (included as Exhibit "C" to applicants' Appeal previously submitted). A copy of the most current Suffolk County Health Department approved map locating the new cesspool and well systems requested in that letter will be furnished as soon as possible. Very truly yours, LLY, IKE, TENET AMBROSINO IL:ch IRV LIK Encls ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS S2~/l~~ / TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x Appeal of SUE HANAUER and JOAN BAGLEY, Appellants, From the Building Inspector's "Notice of Disapproval for Building Permit", dated December 5, 1990. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x NATURE OF APPEAL 1. The Appellants, SUE HANAUER, residing at Woodbury, New York, and JOAN BAGLEY, residing at Woodbury, New York, who are the owners of the premises hereafter described, hereby appeal for an area variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") of the Town of Southold from the Building Inspector's "Notice of Disapproval for Building Permit", dated December 5, 1990 (Exhibit "A"), whereby the Building Inspector denied to Appellants a building permit to construct for residential use a dwelling on Lot #1, southwest corner of Soundview Avenue and Lighthouse Road, Southold, NY, Suffolk County Tax Map Section 1000, Block 6, Lot 4, Filed Map No. 87-2025, Lot 1 and 2, pursuant to an application for a building permit, dated November 26, 1990 (Exhibit "B"). The variance requested would allow a lot area for parcels 1 and 2 as shown on the two lot Minor Subdivision Plan referred in paragraph 2 below to have less than 80,000 square feet of upland area per lot as required by Southold Town Code Article III, SS100-31 (A) and 100-32 and Article XXIII, §100-239. 2. The premises which are the subject of this appeal are approximately five (5) acres in size and are shown on the 2 lot Minor Subdivision Plan prepared by Young & Young dated December 23, 1987 and revised July 25, 1988, August 2, 1988 and November 22, 1988 (Exhibit "C"). 3. This appeal to the ZBA is necessary because the Building Inspector issued the Notice of Disapproval as a consequence of the Southold Planning Board's statement expressed in its letters of July 3, 1989 (Exhibit "D") and November 21, 1990 (Exhibit "E"), that it cannot proceed with the application because of its position that: A. Appellant may, upon receipt of a disapproval from the Building Department, proceed with an application before the ZBA for any area variance, and B. The Planning Board will withhold the rescheduling of the [SEQRA] scoping session, until notification that the ZBA has made a determination on the appeal. 4. On December 2, 1982, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") issued a letter to the former owner of the premises (Exhibit "F") stating that the subject premises were less than 12.4 acres in size and had not - 2 - been designated by the State as having unusual local importance and, therefore, no permit under Article 24 (Freshwater Wetlands) of the Environmental Conservation Law was required. 5. On December 8, 1983, appellants made an application to the Planning Board for a Minor Subdivision of two lots. 6. Appellants' attorneys, Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, Esqs., by letter dated December 8, 1983 to the Building Inspector (Exhibit "G"), informed him that, because there were less than two acres of upland for each lot, the Planning Board was required to deny sketch plan approval based upon the two acre zoning ordinance, and informed the Building Inspector that appellants intended to apply to the Board of Appeals for a variance, and requested that the Building Inspector send a Notice of Disapproval. The appellants then applied to the ZBA for variances under Article III, §100-31 of the zoning code. 7. Thereafter, the Town of Southold adopted Local Law 6-1984, requiring a permit to conduct activities on wetlands (Southold Code §97-20A), and before a new building could be constructed on an area adjacent to a freshwater wetland, permission was required from the Southold Board of Town Trustees. 8. On July 18, 1985, the Southold Trustees adopted a resolution granting appellants permission under the provisions of the Southold wetland ordinance to construct a dwelling on the 3 - premises, which permission was extended through July 23, 1987. The foundation for that dwelling was later located on that portion of the premises shown as Lot 2 on the Minor Subdivision Plan. 9. Appellants undertook to determine whether the lots covered by the Minor Subdivision Plan contained sufficient area to permit appellants to construct a second dwelling on the premises in compliance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 10. On February 19, 1987, Victor Lessard, Executive Administrator of the Building Department, sent to Bennett Orlowski, the Planning Board Chairman, a memorandum (Exhibit "H") in which he stated: It is my understanding that parcels containing wetlands, sand pits, etc. for purposes of determining the area of a parcel only, must be included in the calculations. The board should take this approach, until such time the State wishes to change its' (sic) laws. 11. On May 15, 1987, the Chairman of the ZBA sent a letter dated May 15, 1987 to appellants' attorneys, Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, Esqs. (Exhibit "I"), stating in part: This letter will confirm our recent conversations in the above matter. Our Town Attorney has advised that Court Decisions were rendered during 1985 indicating that wetland areas cannot be deleted when calculating the area of lot(s) in pending or proposed divisions of land. 4 - At our Regular Meeting held April 2, 1987, the Board of Appeals reviewed and concurred with the February 19, 1987 Memorandum of the Building Inspector and town Attorney's Opinion that wetland areas cannot be deleted from the area of a lot for proposed set- offs or other divisions of land. As a consequence of this letter, the appellants' variance application was deadfiled. 12. The appellants also proceeded with an application to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services ("SCDHS") for approval of the installation of sewage disposal systems on parcels 1 and 2 of the Minor Subdivision map. 13. On May 29, 1987, the SCDHS issued a letter to appellants' agent, David Kapell (Exhibit "J"), stating that the soil conditions on the subject premises appeared to be acceptable for the installation of individual sewage disposal systems on parcels 1 and 2, and further stated: Since the Zoning Board is no longer involved in the SEQRA process, this Department will be coordinating with the Planning Board in relation to the location of the sewage disposal system to any wetlands. 14. On July 1, 1987, the Building Inspector issued a building permit to construct one house on the premises described therein (Exhibit "K"), to be located on that portion of the premises which is shown as Lot 2 on the Minor Subdivision map. - 5 - 15. On or about July, 1987, a foundation was installed pursuant to such permit. 16. On August 24, 1987, the Southold Town Planning Board received from appellants an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in connection with appellants' prior Minor Subdivision proposal to divide the premises into two residential building lots. 17. The Planning Board engaged Sidney B. Bowne & Son, consulting engineers, to review the project and appellants' initial EAF. 18. On October 30, 1987, Sidney B. Bowne sent a letter requesting additional information and a revised EAF. 19. In response to Sidney B. Bowne's comments, appellants engaged En-Consultants and filed a new Long Environmental Assessment Form ("LEAF") dated January 13, 1988, which specifically addressed those comments. Unfortunately, Sidney B. Bowne proceeded to re-review the initial August 24, 1987 EAF, instead of reviewing the En-Consultants' January 13, 1988 LEAF, thereby causing several months delay. 20. Further delay ensued as the result of the Planning Board engaging Szepatowski Associates as new consultants to review the project, and the En-Consultants' LEAF. The Town's second consultant took three or four months to review En-Consultants' submission. - 6 Upon completion of that review, the Town's consultant requested a survey of the project's potential impact on endangered wildlife species. This necessitated appellants' contracting with Hampton Manor Associates to conduct such survey at considerable expense. The survey was completed and submitted to the Planning Board. 21. On or about January 10, 1989, while the SEQR process on appellants' Minor Subdivision proposal was pending, the Town adopted supplementary regulations by Local Law 1-1989, prohibiting the inclusion of land under water in computing development density (Zoning Ordinance §100-239). 22. On March 4, 1989 and March 29, 1989, appellants' agent, David E. Kappell, wrote letters inquiring of the Planning Board as to its extraordinarily protected review of the items submitted in connection with the Minor Subdivision project, and requested that it expedite its procedures so as to bring the project to fruition. 23. On April 13, 1989, Szepatowki Associates, Inc. submitted to the Planning Board completed LEAFS Parts II and III for the Minor Subdivision Plan, and recommended a negative SEQR declaration conditioned, in part, that the Minor Subdivision be reduced to one lot only, using the existing foundation, and undertaking certain mitigation measures. - 7 - 24. On May 22, 1989, the Planning Board informed appellants' agent, David E. Kapell, of its adoption on May 15, 1989, of a resolution that it make a positive SEQR declaration. As a reason in support of its SEQR determination, the Planning Board stated that: The upland area of the subject premises does meet the minimum lot area requirement for two dwellings. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES 25. Appellants registered their objection with the Planning Board to its determination. 26. Applicants had proceeded in good faith with the Minor Subdivision project in reliance upon the opinions of the Building Inspector, Town Attorney and ZBA that the portion of the premises which was under water could be counted in determining the density of development under the A-C zoning and, therefore, appellants were entitled to build on each of the two lots of the Minor Subdivision Plan. 27. In further reliance, the appellants had built a foundation on lot 2, and expended substantial sums for engineering, contractors, agents, environmental consultants and attorneys fees in furtherance of the project. 28. Were it not for the protracted Planning Board SEQRA review of the Minor Subdivision application, appellants would - 8 - have received its approval of two building lots, and obtained from the Building Inspector a building permit to construct a second residential dwelling on lot 1 of the Minor Subdivision, before the change in the zoning ordinance on January 10, 1989 which prohibited the inclusion of land under water in calculating density. 29. The Planning Board reviewed appellants' concerns at its meeting on June 12, 1989, and then issued its letter of July 3, 1989 (Exhibit "L") which informed appellants that, upon receipt of a disapproval from the Building Department, they could proceed with an application before the ZBA for an area variance. The Planning Board further stated that it would withhold the re-scheduling of its scoping session (SEQR) until notification that the ZBA had made a determination on the application 30. On November, 1990, appellants' counsel and representatives met with the Planning Board and requested it reconsider the position taken in its letter of July 3, 1989. 31. The ZBA, however, adhered to its position as evidenced by its letter dated November 21, 1990, (Exhibit 32. The Planning Board informed appellants that it lacks the power to give appellants the equitable relief they seek 33. Accordingly, appellants have followed the procedure outlined in the Planning Board's letter of November 21, 1990, 9 - s and have obtained the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval for Building Permit, necessary to the initiation of the instant appeal to the ZBA for an area variance. 34. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that there are practical difficulties present here which justify the ZBA in granting the requested area variance. FINANCIAL HARDSHIP 35. Appellants have incurred many thousands of dollars in fees and expenses for their own and the Planning Board's engineers and consultants in connection with the Planning Board's protracted SEQRA processing of the Minor Subdivision Plan. 36. In addition, the Planning Board's refusal to approve appellants' Minor Subdivision Plan for the reasons stated in its letter of November 21, 1990 has caused the loss of a major part of the value of appellants' property in that it has deprived applicants of all beneficial use of one of the two building lots of the Minor Subdivision Plan. 37. Appellants have engaged Andrew D. Stype, C.A.R., a firm of appraisers, to estimate the economic injury to appellants caused by the loss of one building lot. 38. The appraisal report of Andrew D. Stype, C.A.R., - 10 - • dated October 22, 1990, a copy of which will be introduced in evidence at the ZBA hearing on this appeal, establishes that appellants' damages are One Hundred Thirty Thousand ($130,000.00) Dollars, an amount whose magnitude is sufficient to justify characterization of the Planning Board's action as a confiscatory taking of appellants' property. 39. According the grant by the ZBA of the requested variance is necessary to assure that appellants' due process rights are not violated. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF MINOR SUBDIVISION 40. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has concluded that soil conditions on the Minor Subdivision Plan are satisfactory for the installation of individual sewage disposal systems on each of the 2 lots of the Minor Subdivision Plan (Exhibit "J 41. The affidavit of ecologist Ken Coenen, dated March 21, 1991 (Exhibit "N") and the full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) appended thereto as Exhibit "O", establishes that a residential dwelling can be constructed on Lot no. 2 of the Minor Subdivision Plan without unacceptable adverse environmental impact to the subject premises or to surrounding properties, and in a manner compatible with the principles governing ZBA grants of area variances. - 11 - 42. In view of the significant economic injury inflicted upon appellants by disapproval of a building permit for a second dwelling, and the absence of adverse health or environmental impacts to the subject premises or surrounding properties that would result from the grant of such building permit, appellants are also entitled to an area variance on the ground of financial hardship. 43. For all the reasons and grounds stated, appellants respectfully request the ZBA to grant an area variance permitting the appellants to obtain a building permit to construct a residential dwelling on Lot 1 of the Minor Subdivision Plan as described in Paragraph 1, supra. Dated: Babylon, New York REILLY, LIKE & TENETY April 25, 1991 Attorneys for Appellants Office and P.O. Address 200 West Main Street P.O. Box 218 Babylon, NY 11702 (516) 669-3000 - 12 - Exhibit A • • FORM NO. 3 0 ( J TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL / Date 19 94. To 954..~?lGL,c4P!1r.. 4i2tt. ~rj.a~y /30 2a~ iC..~... O PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated yy , 19 .4 . for permit to 49"Ovi +~r.. .4 at Location of Property House No. Street e Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 4.D• , , , , , Block ll~. ......Lot . Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. is returned herewith and disapproved on the followin,,Uounds . , 1;6~' 7 Z' C, . . . ' r Bu' din !Inspector RV 1/80 ,~V- 6 REILLY, LIKE & TENETY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST MAIN STREET IRVINO LIKE P.O. BOX 218 BERNARD J. REIUY BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702 VINCENT' C TP.NE W (516) 669-3000 FAX (516) 6694122 OFCO"HSM April 2 1991 JOSEPH H. WSPEDON Thomas J. Fisher, Building Inspector Building Department Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re: Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-50-6-4 Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley Dear Mr. Fisher: We represent Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley. On December 5, 1990 you issued the enclosed Notice of Disapproval of our clients' application for a permit to construct a second resideme at the location 15160 Soundview Avenue and 2205 Lighthouse Road, Southold. We are in the process of preparing the variance application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and Ms. Linda Kowalski has informed us that the Notice of Disapproval should be amended so that it reads as follows: " .Under Article III Section 100-31A(1) only 1 (one) one family dwelling permitted on each lot. The area of parcels 1 and 2 contains less than 80,000 square feet of upland area per lot as required by $$100-239 and 100-232. Action required by the Zoning Board of Appeals." Please speak to Ms. Kowalski to confirm the need for such amendment, and send us an amended Notice of Disapproval. S' ce ely, -~z IL:ch /IR NG LI E cc: Linda Kowalski, Clerk, ZBA ? Mr. Sanford Hanauer r~ REILLY, LIKE & TENETY ATTORNEYS AT IAW 200 WEST MAIN STREET IRVING UIM P.O. BOX 219 BERNARD I REIUY BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702 VINCENT G TENETY (516) 669-3000 FAX (516) 6694122 OFCOUNSE. JOSEPH H. McSPEDON April 2, 1991 Thomas J. Fisher, Building Inspector Building Department Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re: Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-50-6-4 Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley Dear Mr. Fisher: We represent Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley. On December 5, 1990 you issued the enclosed Notice of Disapproval of our clients' application for a permit to construct a second resideme at the location 15160 Soundview Avenue and 2205 Lighthouse Road, Southold. We are in the process of preparing the variance application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and Ms. Linda Kowalski has informed us that the Notice of Disapproval should be amended so that it reads as follows: " Under Article III Section 100-31A(1) only 1 (one) one family dwelling permitted on each lot. The area of parcels 1 and 2 contains less than 80,000 square feet of upland area per lot as required by SS100-239 and 100-232. Action required by the Zoning Board of Appeals." Please speak to Ms. Kowalski to confirm the need for such amendment, and send us an amended Notice of Disapproval. S' ce ely, IL:ch IR NG LI E cc: Linda Kowalski, Clerk, ZBA Mr. Sanford Hanauer • FORM NO. a I~ TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL ~ Date 19 9~. To P.5Q. !/P?lCLc4P!L. Qi~2:. , ady/. a e- /3G Gf..y 2a~ !L ~~c z O `.~..f~7-` PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated , , , , , , , , , , • 19l4~ . for permit to C C+1LQ ~ -4 . Location of Property G'• ,p~cacor {eG~ ' Q~ ~~~ds a/ House No. I S` eei ' f%F y..Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section Block 4~ ......Lot ...~f.......... Subdivision Filed Map No.'................ Lot No. is returned herewith and disapproved on the following-,grounds 71 4150 ..7ot2AO_ . Bu' din~!Inspector RV 1/80 Exhibit B U Z_ T D ~u W p~ R 7 8 J U Z w co f 7 J • BOARD OF HEALTH FORM11NO.t 3 SETS OF PLANS TOWN OFSOUTHOLD SURRVEY CHCK BUILDING DEPARTMENT SEPTIC FORM TOWN HALL S0UTI1(3L,p, N Y_ ttn71 NDT I FY $ TEL.:7G5-7802 CALL Exatttincd l9 . . MAIL TO; Approved Permit No . . Disapproved a/c (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date .Noyergb~r , 199 INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be sets of completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Ios Puns, 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 stye or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this apI cation. C. The work covered by this application may not be commencedlbefore issuance of Building Permit. . Upon approval of this application, the Building inspector wil issued a Buildin gPermitn the tishall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. applicant. Such perr, e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupa.•t shall have been granted by the Buildin.- Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to t. 3uilding Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances . 2c,ulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein describe "lie applicant agrees to comply with all appiica5lc laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and dmit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. (Signature of applicant, or name, if a corpor~uon) J3o woo0b4`rx:Roadi.Wo0.0urv%.N,X..I1.7a7 (Mailing address of applicant) Late whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder ameofownerofpremises ..$U1?..HdoA11e•r• anri..l4an..liagley..(Gem.ini) (as on the tax roll or latest deed) applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No. Plumber's License No . Electrician's License No . ' Other Trade's License No. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: Lot N11 Southwest corner of So4nd,v,i,yty,Avt:nug & (<ighthouse Road; Southold Ifouse Number . Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section . , l OOQ. , , , , , • • , IIluukSQ.Qlock 6 .k€ , N na, . Lot 4 Subdivision S • 44r,A..a0dit..Qagley........F.iledntapNO. 7- 02 (Nantc) $ Lot .2... x2te existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: A. Lxisting use and occupancy......... B. Intended use and occupancy.' ....Two: s.tory. ras i deuce . Olt lot. Al , , , • • • APR- :S-191 WED 1 0 S S H A N A U E R A S S O C_ F' b l Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building x, Addition Alteration Repait Removal Demolition SwimninS pool Tennis Court......... Accessory Building . . . . . . . . . . Fence .......Other Work:.......... Estimated Cost Fee (to be paid on filing this application) If dwcllin„ number of dwelling units 1...... Number of dwelling units on each floor . 3.. , , If gar3cc, number of cars ..................2 . If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front Rear Depth Hei^_Irt Numbcr of Stories Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth )Height Number of Stories . Dimensions of entire new construction: Front . 3A.... 2- . , , , Rear Q Depth ....40 licigllt ...24,,,,,,,, Number of Stories. Size of lot: Front ......2Z 8.......... Rear .163...94 Depth .53.5.•04.... • . Date of Purchase Name of Formcr Owner Zone or use district in which premises are situated AC . !~A tt.t IS 4 ~ /1/.13. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: Will lot be regraded NA.. Will excess fill be removed from premises: Yc. • Name of Owner of premises .Sitg.H0nauer/Joan Address 130-Woodbtiry.?d,..Phone No516.-A92:44•Q4• Name of Architect .Bag1eyAddress WoAdoury....N.Y....Phone No............... Name of Contractor . ' Address , Phone No... _l S.ls LbAs property located within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? *YES Wo74 *If yes, Southold Town Trustees permit may be required. PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicate all setback dimension'. f: operty lines. Give street and block number or description accordinS to deed, and show street names and indicate W::c::. tenor or comer lot. See attached survey ;TATE OF NEW YORE, S.S .OUNTY OF , , , , , • • • . • ..Sa o ford .Han.a.tle r bcinS duly swom, deposes and says that he is the ipplic! (Name of individual signing contract) ebovc named. icistile Arye.nt........... (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, ctc-) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to male and file tl pplication; that 311 statements contained in this application arc true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that t vork will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed thcrewilh. ;Wom to beMotc me this Novemb ...........26th dayof er... 19.90 n ~ ~oWry Public, County q SkofG N~o.1839' "3'j~ tafa of New Yak ' . . Ibmrnlssloo Expires Merih 3,143--l • • • • (Si.-nature of applicar Exhibit C U Z_ T aU D K N N W t0 ~U J Z ~ N J Exhibit D ti Z T a ~ry v¢~ mwg ~m m~U J m mtn Z J f Dar Town Hall. 53095 Main Road vv `e Oy: P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 3, 1189 David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 RE: Hanauer/Bagley SCTM$1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell: The Planning Board has reviewed the concerns brought up at the meeting held on June 12, 1989. As stated in the Positive Declaration, the upland area of the subject premises does not meet the mini;num lot area requirement for the Agricultural-Conservation (AC) District. The Planning Board can not proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of the above mentioned district. If you wish, upon receipt of a disapproval from the Building Department, you can proceed with an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. The Planning Board will withhold the re-scheduling of the scoping session until notification that the Zoning Board of Appeals has made a determination on the application. Please contact the office if you have any further questions. ery tr l.y' o s BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN cc: Sanford Hanauer, Applicant Milton Bagley, Applicant Kenneth Coenen, Applicant's Consultant James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney Thomas W. Cramer, Town Consultant Zoning Board of Appeals Building Department Exhibit E U Z_ T aU v¢m mwg ~m U M J 7 m z RN J 7 i i v 4 G ~Gy PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 'T SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ~?0 Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. p~ Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 November 21, 1990 ' David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 RE: Subdivision Proposal for Hanauer/Bagley SCTM# 1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell; The Planning Board has reviewed the discussion which took place, at your client's request, at the November 13, 1990, Planning Board meeting. The Board's position has not changed from that stated in their July 3, 1989, correspondence (copy enclosed). The parcel is located in the Agricultural-Conservation (AC) District. The upland areas of the proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot requirements for this district. The Planning Board can not proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of the above mentioned district. If you wish, you can proceed with an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Alo Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman enc. cc: Sanford Hanauer, Applicant Milton Bagley, Applicant Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Exhibit F Z Z_ T a a: m ¢M dw$ ~m V ~ r ~ U J m Z A (/1 J NEW YORK TE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMEMI.AvMSER.VATION Regutato&y A6Saiu Unit BPdg. 40, SUIIV--Room 219 Stony Wok, NY 11794 r (516) 751-7900 W t r-I,4aw. i wo cAos" D^cce~ier 2L9~'Z Ma;n Rd Z(tor Laulrehce S>tep4ewsox) P. o. i3ox /`L24, 1I Ma~t~ {(Ar- Ivy! I/9sZ RE: ProPtrTy 04- Lawrt?.cc chSo h Deal "s. f7bi9 a-1 I Wickkam for LOW rehce s~eJohetiso: A tev.iev has been made ob youx paoposat to: de o el°P /0 1'cPer~y P~• P-F I o wn o ~+e L Old. N Orion ffor~on J,' j,t ouSe Rol- ona/ Sourd VI"c love O 9 'n.oFso<t~6~P°n' to W% ua4eof an 44,r Corner At -Flia wn erSec 10*^ parcel is s~f SuAa/k eb. -Tai ,s (a~jaceMf) aLnd -F ,-?,dp D4?-;~t* oa a rtk ° S.ouqq(c) ©SO aS S ow or, -*X wAp 061 The New Yo S e epa~Lanent ohb EnvuwnmentaP Conseltvation ieaa detumined that the above prtofeet .ta: Dep+..D f Moxe than 100' ~Cxom Fxe6hwatex t9etPancls Peg '4 /a4ar y The Fxeehwatei. Wettanda pxeaent axe .tentati.vety mapped as Pees than 12.4 pgalrr acxee and have not been dea.ignated by the State ae having unuauat Poca.P S4 Jie~ .impoktance at this time zo axe not cuxxentty rtegutated by NYSDEC Pb _ The wW-and6 pxeaeat axe Ti.dat and it appean.a that you need to appty box I' a T daf Wettand6 Permit WI coar, Thexe6oxe,-no pv:mit undert Akti,ete 24 (Fxeshwate/Z Wettands) or') tke Fnvikon- ~~p It mentat Conaexvati.on Law .ia %equiAed. wick Loft Very oUM,A C~Vl .i o2 Dan.ief J. LoAkin Reg,i.onat Pvtmit Admini,etxatort DJL: R?4T: cz Exhibit G U Z_ T aU a¢~ vwo Imo ~ m Y m y Z J 'AW OFFICES WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.c. MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK LONG ISLAND WILLIAM WICKHAM NEW YORK 11952 ERIC J. BRESSLER ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM 516-298-8353 FRANKLYN A. FARRIS December 8, 1983 Building Inspector Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Hanauer & Bagley Property at Soundview Ave. & Lighthouse Road, Southold, N.Y. Suffolk Co. Tax Map #1000-50-6-4 Dear Sir: Application was made to the Planning Board for a minor subdivision of two lots, as shown on the enclosed map. Because there are less than two acres of upland for each lot, the Planning Board was required to deny sketch plan approval based upon the two-acre zoning ordinance. We therefore in- tend to apply to the Board of Appeals for a variance and would appreciate your sending us a Notice of Disapproval. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Abigail A. Wickham AAW:emu encl. CC: Mr. Sanford Hanauer Exhibit H U Z r- nU v cc ap~ m W S J m U 10 ~ U J J m Z m (n J ~ s TEL. 765-180' ~~l 5~EF01,~~0 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD O~ Cl~ OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECI'OIL P.O. BOX 728 r+ TOWN HAL SOUTHOLD, N YL11971 February 19, 1987 TO: Bennett Orlowski, Planning Board Chairman FROM: Victor Lessard, Executive Administrator SUBJECT: Wetland Areas it is my understanding that parcels containing wetlands, sand pits, etc. for purposes of determining the area of a parcel only, must be included in the ca- culations. The board should take this approach, until such time the State wishes to change its' laws. CND Exhibit I U Z r- aV v¢w °~Wo ~ m p t0~ V ~mZ m h J 4 •oS~FFOI,Y~o Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHDLD, L.1., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765 1809 APPEALS BOARD C fig' q i 7` MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS May 15 , 1987 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. Main Road, Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11-952 Re: Appeal No. 3214 - Hanauer and Bagley (Variances) Dear Gail: This letter will confirm our recent conversations in the above matter. Our Town Attorney has advised that Court Decisions were rendered during 1986 indicating that wetland areas cannot be deleted when calculating the area of lot(s) in pending or proposed divisions of land. At our Regular Meeting held April 2, 1987, the Board of Appeals reviewed and concurred with the February 19, 1987 Memorandum of the Building Inspector and Town Attorney's Opinion that wetland areas cannot be deleted from the area of a lot for proposed set-offs or other divisions of land. Inasmuch as your application is for Variances under Article III, Section 100-31 of the Zoning Code, it would appear that if your proposal is for a minimum lot area of a 80,000 sq. ft. and minimum lot width of 175 feet for each proposed lot, for single-family dwelling use and meeting Jt all other zoning requirements, a variance is not required. Please be sure to check with Mr. Lessard of the Building Department as to whether or not in his opinion any other variances or appeal would be necessary under the Town Code. If you feel that you would like to proceed with a variance application with all of the above in mind, please let us know. We are transmitting copies of this letter to the Planning Page 2 - May 15, 1987 Re: Appeal No. 3214 - Hanauer & Bagley Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. Board and Building Department for their files, as well as the Suffolk County Health Department for their pending Article VI application. Unless we hear otherwise, we will assume that this variance application is to be deadfiled. Yours very truly, ~ Z GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN 1k / Enclosure cc: Planning Board Building Department Suffolk County Health Department Exhibit J U Z_ r aU ~¢M dwo Ia)o t0 ~U cco Z W y f ~ J 7 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK a Michael A. LoGrande SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H. COMMISSIONER May 29, 1987 David E. Kapell Kapell Real Estates Inc. 10 Flanders Road Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 RE: Hanauer & Begley (T) Southold Dear Mr. Kapell: Based upon the information you have submitted, the soil conditions appear to be acceptable for the installation of individual sewage disposal systems on Parcels 1 and 2. In addition, any final maps submitted to the Department should clearly show the high water mark and wetlands of the pond. Since the Zoning Board is no longer involved in the SEQRA 1 process, this Department will be coordinating with the Planning Board in relation to the location of the sewage disposal system to any wetlands. If you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, u~~Y Royal R. Reynolds, P.E. Sr. Public Health Engineer Bureau of Wastewater Management RRR:ljr cc: Southold Planning Board COUNTY CENTER 548-3312 RIVERHEAD. N.Y. 11 901 Exhibit K Z Z aU a ¢ m dwa 5mo tO~U J Z J s • FORM NO. f TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) i . N2 116160 Z Date 19.. . . ' ' Permission is hereby granted to: 1!l t. cbvL 1.. Y J cwt 1Vcr-....N....:.~.:.....'..:.3.`~.y............ ~ jj............. at premises located at ...°:?...tir..:. ~.....a 01.Ilk~ County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ......:0.5...... Block a........ Lot No.... 9 ..4 pursuant to application dated ...................1 191. 1, and approved by the 3uilding Inspector. Fee i Y NZ- ~ building inspecrot Exhibit L d Z T D Q th ~ m O U m D U J J 67 mrn Z E ~ J 7 Town Hall. 53095 Blain Road `•'r's'"' P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 761.1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOIVN OF SOUTHOLD July 3, 1989 David Kapell 400 Front Street Creenport, New York 11944 RE: Hanauer/Bagley SCTM#1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell: The Planning Board has reviewed the concerns brought up at the meeting held on June 12, 1989. As stated in the Positive Declaration, the upland area of the subject premises does not meet the minimum lot area requirement for the Agricultural-Conservation (AC) District. The Planning Board can not proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of,the above mentioned district. If you wish, upon receipt -f a disapproval 4-cr, the Building Department, you can proceed with an appliu"tion before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. The Planning Board will withhold the re-scheduling of the scoping session until notification that the Zoning Board of Appeals has made a determination on the application. Please contact the office if you have any further questions. er1 y o s - IV .Grti+a? BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN cc: Sanford Hanauer, Applicant Milton Bagley, Applicant Kenneth Coenen, Applicant's Consultant Names A. Schondebare, Town Attorney Thomas W. Cramer, Town Consultant Zoning Board of Appeals Building Department Exhibit M 0 Z T a ~ a ¢ m mwo W D O J c m z m vi J e,,UffOI r .y PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS o ~'r SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman x?Q • t: Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. y b0 Richard G. Ward Town Hall. 53095 Main Roao Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765.1823 November 21, 1990 David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 RE: Subdivision Proposal for Hanauer/Bagley SCTM# 1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell; The Planning Board has reviewed the discussion which took place, at your client's request, at the November 13, 1990, Planning Board meeting. The Board's position has not changed from that stated in their July 3, 1989, correspondence (copy enclosed). The parcel is located in the Agricultural-Conservation (AC) District. The upland areas of the proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot requirements for this district. The Planning Board can not proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of the above mentioned district. If you wish, you can proceed with an application before the .Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Aloo:~s Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman enc. cc: Sanford Hanauer, Applicant Milton Bagley, Applicant Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney, Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector . r Gy PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman 1 ~ Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. y b~ Richard G. Ward Town Hall. 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 November 21, 1990 David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 RE: Subdivision Proposal for Hanauer/Bagley SCTM# 1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell; The Planning Board has reviewed the discussion which took place, at your client's request, at the November 13, 1990, Planning Board meeting. The Board's position has not changed from that stated in their July 3, 1989, correspondence (copy enclosed). The parcel is located in the Agricultural-Conservation (AC) District. The upland areas of the proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot requirements for this district. The Planning Board can not proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of the above mentioned district. If you wish, you can proceed with an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, 4e.;Sr,~ l Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman enc. cc: Sanford Hanauer, Applicant Milton Bagley, Applicant Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney, Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Exhibit N U Z_ T a c7 a ¢ m vWo ~ m p c m z J 7 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL OF SUE HANAUER & JOAN BAGLEY, APPELLANTS FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S "NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT," DATED DECEMBER 5, 1990 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) ss: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) KENNETH C. COENEN, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. My name is Kenneth C. Coenen and I reside at 186 Wading River Road, Manorville, N.Y. 11949. This affidavit is written on behalf of the petitioner's application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, and in support of the above captioned appeal. 2. Since January of 1974 I have been employed in various capacities as a professional planner, specializing in environmental planning. Much of my professional career involves a variety of projects located on the eastern end of Long Island, including the Town of Southold. 3. The application of Hanauer & Bagley for a division of property and the building of two houses on said property located in the Town of Southold will not, in my opinion harm the environment, nor cause any damages to wetlands located on the property. 4. Chapter 97 of the Code of the Town of Southold, entitled "Wetlands" was enacted to provide for the "protection, preservation , proper maintenance and use of [the Town's] wetlands in order to minimize damage form erosion, turbidity or siltation, saltwater intrusion, loss of fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation and the destruction of the natural habitat thereof, to minimize danger of flood and storm-tide damage and pollution ant to otherwise protect the quality of wetlands, tidal waters, marshes, shorelines, beaches and natural drainage systems for their conservation, economic , aesthetic, recreational and other public uses and values, and, further, to protect the potable fresh water supplies of the town from the dangers of drought, overdraft, pollution from saltwater intrusion and misuse or mismanagement." 5. The land which applicants Hanauer and Bagley wish to divide contains a small freshwater pond and an associated wetland fringe surrounding the pond. The wetlands have been delineated on several surveys prepared by Young and Young, land surveyors. 6. Freshwater wetlands, as defined by the Town of Southold in Chapter 97 of the Code of the Town of Southold are "(1) Freshwater wetlands as defined in Article 24, Title 1 Subsection 24-0107, Subdivisions 1(a) to 1(d) inclusive of the Environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York; and (2) Ali land immediately adjacent to a "freshwater wetland" as defined in Subsection B(l) and lying within seventy-five (75) feet landward of the most landward edge of a "freshwater wetland."" (7) In Subsection 97-20 "Permit required." of Southold Town's Wetland Law, a permit is required for; "A. Permit required. Notwithstanding any prior course of conduct or permission granted, no person shall conduct operations on any wetlands in the Town of Southold unless he shall first obtain a written permit therefor issued by authority of the Trustees as hereinafter provided and only while such permit remains in effect. (emphasis added) "B. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection A of this section, the Trustees may, by resolution, waive the requirement of a permit with respect to lands immediately adjacent to wetlands, as defined in Subsection A(3) or B(2) of the definition of 'wetlands' in Subsection 97-13, if the Trustees find and determine that no operations are proposed on such lands, or that the operations proposed thereon comply with the standards set forth in Subsection 97-28 of this chapter." 8. Operations are defined in Subsection 97-13 of the Wetland law as; "A. The removal of material from wetlands. B. The deposit of material on wetlands. C. The erection, construction, alteration or enlargement of any building, dock, pier, wharf, bulkhead, jetty, groin or other structure, temporary or permanent, on wetlands." 9. Applicants Hanauer and Bagley are proposing nothing that is a regulated activity according to the Town of Southold Wetland Law (Chapter 97 of the Town Code) in that they are only proposing to subdivide the land which is an unregulated activity. Additionally, the proposed house construction on the lot without a building permit, is also an unregulated activity because the entire construction will be beyond the 75 foot line from the edge of the wetlands, and thus is outside the jurisdiction of the wetland law. 10. The Southold Town Planning Board, in processing the application of Hanauer and Bagley for subdivision approval, has addressed the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (SEQRA) by first issuing a negative declaration, if the applicants were to abandon their effort to subdivide the property, and only construct the house for which a building permit was issued. The Planning Board, in a subsequent decision, issued a positive declaration and requested the preparation of a full Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the subdivision of the land into two lots. The Planning Board was concerned regarding several issues related to the wetlands and pond located on the property, particularly the potential for contamination of the pond from underground sanitary systems. 11. The Planning Board, in issuing their positive declaration, ignored much information supplied to the Planning Board by the applicants, including the engineering report stating the pond is a perched body of water, not connected to the groundwater in the area, and would not be affected by the construction of an underground sanitary system which would discharge to the aquifer and not the waters of the perched pond. The Planning Board also ignored the various reports supplied to the board regarding the nature and extent of the wetlands found on the property which found the wetlands to be common vegetation type wetlands surrounding the fringes of the pond, offering no special values other than those values normally associated with wetlands. Kenneth C. Coenen Sworn to before me this d2/'yday of March, 1991. Notary ublic CAROL J. HANSALIK 40TARY PUBLIC, State of New York Qualified in SufblI, County No. 52-0.726'=/M Teri Expires (A / 1 bA KENNETH C. COENEN, AZCP 186 Wading River Road Manorville, N.Y. 11949 516-878-2398 Educational Background 1971-1972 Montclair State College, Upper Montclair, N.J. 1972-1974 Long Island University, Southampton Center, Southampton, N.Y. B.A. Environmental Science Professional Experience 1988 - Present President, Hampton - Manor Associates, Manorville, N.Y. Firm provides planning, development and zoning services environmental assessment and facilities locations services and permit processing services. Consultation services provided to a number of clients regarding real estate and other matters. Recent projects include preparation of a Environmental Impact Statement for 96+ acre waterfront subdivision, design and processing of several residential developments and permit services for several clients. Consultant to the newly incorporated Village of Pine Valley, N.Y. regarding preparation of a Master Plan, zoning codes and other village legislation. Appearances before various planning boards, zoning boards and Town and Village Boards as well as state and county agencies. Instructor for the land use segment of training required for persons enrolled in Real Estate Salesperson courses at two private schools. 1985-1987 General Manager, Clause Planning Concepts, Inc. Mattituck, N. Y. Duties included the preparation and processing of subdivision plans, zone change applications for the Kenneth C. Coenen, AICP Page 2. construction of senior citizen housing, affordable housing plans, commercial site plans, preparation of environmental impact studies and real estate consultation for a variety of projects located on eastern Long Island and in southwest Florida. Preparation of a facilities location study as subcontractor for the relocation of the East Hampton Post Office. Appearances before a variety of Town and Village boards and agencies. 1982-1984 Senior Environmental Planner, Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. Southampton, N.Y. 11968 Involved with the design and processing of subdivision applications within several political jurisdictions, preparation of Environmental Impact Statements for several major development projects within the Towns of Southampton and East Hampton, N.Y. Preparation of a business area plan for the Town of East Hampton for 10 minor business districts, and an environmental study for the Lake Montauk drainage basin. Involved with reviews of updated master plans and zoning ordinances for several clients. 1980-1982 Environmental Planner, Frederick P. Clark Associates, Rye, N.Y. 10480 Partial responsibilities included preparation of wetland maps for the Town of Darien, Ct., environmental management plan for the Village of Mill Neck, N.Y., subdivision design for several developments in Westchester and Rockland County, traffic and parking study for the Washington Heights/Inwood area of Manhattan. Consulting Town Planner to the Town of Pound Ridge, N.Y. where responsibilities included the day to day review of development plans and environmental studies and final preparation of an update of the Town's Master Plan. Assisted in the preparation of several major environmental impact statements and a plan for the future of Hempstead Harbor for the Town of North Hempstead. Project Planner for the Town of East Hampton Business area plan. 1974-1980 Group for America's South Fork, Inc., Kenneth C. Goenen, AICP Page 3. Bridgehampton, N.Y. 11932 Began as student intern and progressed to increasingly responsible positions of Research Assistant and finally Research Director within this not-for-profit organization. Responsible for providing policy statements regarding land use issues and environmental research. Issues included, residential and commercial land development, planning and zoning, transfer of development rights and purchase of development rights as planning tools, potable water policy, farmland preservation, ecological resource protection, parkland and open space policy, shoreline and wetlands protection. Initiated independent water quality laboratory program which received State certifications. Supervised student intern program. Appointed to the Town of Southampton Farmland Preservation Advisory Committee. Guest speaker at various civic functions and guest lecturer at Long Island University, Southampton Center, regarding shoreline issues. Appearances before a wide variety of state, county and local agencies. Personal Data Born: March 18, 1953 Paterson N.J. Married with three sons Achieved rank of Eagle Scout with the Boy Scouts Executive Board member and General Manager of the Manorville Athletic League, Inc. Licensed Real Estate Salesman Professional Affiliations Member - American Institute of Certified Planners Member - American Planning Association Exhibit 0 d Z T O Q M ~ W O ~ m p U D S~° mY C Z N N J ` ART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed 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 may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional 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 J ~ .~l V I S / O.J O ~ ~JE ~~ii.7 ~-?(3 2 Y' V O'~/J /`~6 L LOCATIO OF ACTION (Include Stree/,~t(fAddress, Munlcipallly end County) C1N1 VrE.J f'f"./6 T ~-t t~OJSE ~L~ - SO?/ko~ 5o C NAME OF APPLICANTISPONSOR _ 1USINESS TELEPHONE E V Y v~9~ ~3fiv ft- f s /6) L 9 Z- yyo ADDRESS (30 Ids b~ e 41D-. CITYIPO ATE ZIP CODE tvb Eve, /b /f79 NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION 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 ?'Residential (suburban) ?Rural (non-farm) ?Forest ?Agriculture VOther VA410L ~o?,F uuDr2 cw sfC x cw 2. Total acreage of project area: 01 c1 ± acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area I . r acres l ' S acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads• buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other (Indicate type) WJ acres r acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? 21" /V A'-7 a. Soil drainage: ?Well drained ' % of site ?Moderately well drained % Of site ?Poorly drained Vp % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? Na acres. (See 1 NYCRR~ f370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on proje t site? ?Yes ONO a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) 2 9 Approx.mate percentage of proposed*ject site with slopes: C0.10':6 _ 'b _10-15^0 2 °.6 =15% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ?Yes o 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ?Yes ;6110 8. What is the depth of the water table? _2-0 '1 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? *es ?No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Oes ?No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or, animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ?Yes XfJo According to FEEL i NsbCAIP: Y 2 e7pe>ref - /~ENas t~ C, Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) les ?No Describe ~3EYL ~ u n -110i>- R2,,b 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? XYes ?No If yes, explain IJ N?cri tce serf of oN r~avn 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? HYes ?No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: ti /i a. Name of Stream and name of River to whit it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name ket 1J/Yae'7) b. Size (In acres) 7-Ste, 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? IEUfes ?No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? I VYes ?No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ?Yes Flo 18. Is the site located in an agriculturaa~strict certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ?Yes o 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ?Yes 49'N0 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ?Yes "[:,~Qo 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 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 4-5 , acres initially;. 5= acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped rc,) acres. d. Length of project, in miles: A2 9- (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed t f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing O ; proposed v g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially 2 Ultimately / - i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; wid h; length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? ft. 3 2. How much natural material (i.(.. - 0C earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? Mes ?No ?N/A a. If yes, for what intend.,. purpose is the site being reclaimed? alE f~~-mss b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? -Yes ?No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? .?C es ?No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? C y' acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ?Yes Qlo 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction f 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? ?Yes ?No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ?Yes :218o 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction A) ' hf-; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project O 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ?Yes o If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? :es XNo 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? Ej~'es ONo Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ?Yes *0 Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ?Yes J511vo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? Yes ONo a. If yes, what is the amount per month #23 lea I tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ZYes ?No c. If yes, give name -10, L (I ; location 5e~~ o /n d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ?Yes Z9140 e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? )KYes ONo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? 1659 hs.u I tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? N F- years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? OYes -~eNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? OYes VI'0 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? OYes' ONo p.~C~ 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? QYes ?No If yes , indicate type(s) r f g s E~'ec~n,~; fy 4oi2 hEa~ 9 fpo,xS~ArioJ 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day • S~"gallonslday. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ?Yes kq0 If Yes, explain 4 25. Appro%.vs Requ.-ed: Submittal Type Dale City, Town. % !;,.,P Board _..Yes ONo City, Town. Village Planning Board _:~#es CNo ~grn_v"o City. Town Zoning Board "Yes ?No t 0,51 City, County Health Department iZYes CNo ~sfr ~r }AZ 2po~ Other Local Agencies CYes qo Other Regional Agencies ?Yes E4fNo State Agencies ?Yes f,%No Federal Agencies ?Yes Ch<o C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? *es ?No If Yes, indicate decision required: e subdivision amendment A7oning variance ?special use permit 1~Isubdivision ?site plan ?new/revision of master plan ?resource management plan ?other / 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? Z Rc ? E 12rrSr nr. )/I t I 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Z' 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? J-Oes CNo 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a mile radius of proposed action? h46 / c 2. 4c,i2.E '/~-eS , aE N f r rt•) 0 '~G14 E2cD i2 EZir7 E~rifi/ D9, JFIay.rc .c./ L 4 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a mile? MB es ?No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? Z_ a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? Z { 01'c2 S 10 Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ?Yes -RNo 11. Will the proposed Rc-u/n create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? `es Jo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? VYes ?No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic.significantly above present levels? ?Yes ?No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? 2Kes ?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 that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. ApplicantrSponsorr Name REaltic ti ~J Date d P~ Signature Title 11'k if the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 BOARD OF APPEALS. TOWN OF SOUTHOt D In the Matter or the Petition of Sur Il~ue~gr2 E ?e,w gsa~Fy NOTICE to the Board of Aooeals of the Town of Souttold TO ADJACENT TO: Ivan A. Kitanof & Wife PROPERTY OWNER 358 Hillside Drive South New Hyde Park, New York 11040 Re: 1000-50-6-3 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it i the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a ariance (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) (circle choice] 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: t,L 9515 wce6c 3A(4 esT A09 ore ~nurro?/FSO 4?~ of L/(~NTHn~~SE .'20.40 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: oism/er /yea !EC 6'O 04-& / LOT - : 4 That h? such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief:' PeeemWoN To er1Anl?[atr r AE 4149eC6L t Bu/LO 4 ~li/E Sri.., ys~ APr&.,arrQ ON L.eT att / S. That the provisioe s of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article :Tr7F Section- J'/dV -.13Z 4- [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. A ~cc~ Z 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will iea,_ 3 to filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road Southold, New York and you may then and there :xafnine the same during regular office hours. (516) 795-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such tearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the, ight to appear and be heard at such hearing. 3ated• ( vc- Petitioner Suea K .ti. ~.st t eo,A gay Ley CAROlI E1 Owners'Names: Notaryry Public State of New Yak Post Office Address No.483937f • Nassau Corx r ` loo woeat3cte y tZoAp Commission Expires March 3,19) x.uoeeOd4R.-f tJ•~, [t747 Tel. No. (sw ro9'.!- g9o9 [Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal to be attached-ler conve'n'ience 3urposes.] :.r r '.6 1991 00 PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS NAM ADDRESS IVAN A. KITANOF & Wife 358 Hillside Drive, South New Hyde Park, NY 11040 P 419 035 960 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL 11see Reverse) a ' Str ett d o. S Y i( o e ntl,i}IP e a O 0 Postage S Certified Fee Specia Rest at L very w 2 Retu t showing to w,We,,, ate DReturn t showi o whom, Date, and A elrvery N C TOTAL Postage and Fees S~ Postmark or Dale M E `o LL N a STATE OF NEW YORK) ss.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ROBIN MILLS residing at Richland Blvd. Bay Shore,NY 11706 being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the n day of May 19 deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addressee of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at Babylon NY ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered) mail. / rL.t~q ROBIN MILLS Sworn to before me this 219nd day of (,ll.(4 L1N~' I otary Pub c MARXM E S. 50 MT Notary Publk, Stan of Newyork No. 4747440, Suffolk Coor" Taan EtW?ee Oot. 31,1891 (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property owners,.) BOARD OF APPEALS- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of 5QF_ AAmAt k < 1eAw 2~6&9,y NOTICE • , to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold TO ADJACENT TO: Genevieve Sepenoski PROPERTY OWNER North Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: 1000-54-3-24.1 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a ariance (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) [circle choice] ) 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: $ 245 ACPCS ScLejWwesr etag aW_ A Seui4yV1 " A?E _ of L / NTHevSE f~0~40 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: >7/SMcr /ODD TEC SO 81& / LOT ~L •i That hl such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief:' Pu/!/SS/on/ -0 SttAO/yLl~' T!/E 9344C6L ! B /c0 A 4AIC ,t,vi . ,QEtje~ptt!?~ pN - LcT 5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Cede applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article --TT J, 1 orc , - .?S f A A f Y ,r ioa [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will 1~/00 be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 745-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: ' w t.C A- +'C_ Petitioner 'SUE tlw++audt TJOe.t ~,nSxRY ll.IIOEH G Owners' Names : S7~o('N°N•1b111 Post Office Address (ti3o woep8ue•Y tZowr~ t~ueeot~etR.-( tJ•~• tt747 Tel . No. ( trtw ro91- q9~9 [Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal to be attaoeI a„fo~,cony~e;a°~p.pce purposes.] 4~ Q 6" 01 31 tvjl MAY-6; 00 PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS NAM ADDRESS Genevieve Sepenoski North Road, Southold,NY 11971 P 419 035 958 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) I;gnt d Street a No. A a P. S nd Code °m oQ 41,971 Postage S , 41 Certified Fee C71) Special very Fee Rest t Delivery Fe I Z__ Pet e~p og d(] tow nd Date Deli N Pelur g whom. Date, a dress of ivery ru j TOTAL Postage and Fees 8 Postmark or Date m e7 E 0 LL N a STATE OF NEW YORK) ss.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ROBIN MILLS residing at Richland B1vd.,Bay Shore,NY being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the gnri day of May 119 91 deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at Rahvl on rNV ;that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered) mail. ` g ROBIN MILLS Sworn to before me this 2nd day of May -119 91 L OZ, nLt otary Pu 'c MARJOR1E S. 111106W Now V htbft Stet of NewTok No. 474744, SuffoNt Counts tAMw bokw Oot it,lSSt (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property owners..) BOARD OF APPEALS. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of SUE LlsetauC2 4 1eAg Beat Y NOTICE TO to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold ADJACENT TO: TooBee Realty PROPERTY OWNER 95 Cypress Drive Woodbury, New York 11797 Re: 1000-50-6-5 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it i the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a ariance (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) [circle choice] ' i 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: ! 25/S ACESS soawwegr ease vr1 ep Se"t4yill 0 AV& 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: Om-* cr iooo SEC eV 491;t i Aer ~L - , i That hl such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief:' /1r4,V/S7,0 SJON St!!!t!!/L?r rNe ft:;4.tC6L t Ba/LO A 4AIA A& y? ~FeiweeNF ON " S. That the provisions f the Southold Town Zoning Cede applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article Section 1 QQ - 2 1 A detzl -r aCEZZz: -T/" [ ] Section 28 -A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. ,moo 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road Southold, New York and you may then and there exafnine the same during regular office hour,. (516) 745-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals. that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler•Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated:~!~ M /9 / Lt,F~ X~4,Irc-.t-~e Petitioner SUE %^w0ji at Joart BAyLRY Owners'Names: 1'E4sitpso gdx3uolssmwo3 Post Office Address woea8t+ty tL+ow.r~ nMIFN,.LLt6R roN 1340 4% AWN to prig nfgna 6.u" ~IN3Ifly a -300000tatt•( N•~, ty47. ' r Tel . No. ( 516 ) 6911- -4 [Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal to be attachattroft?" purposes. ,7 tfXF/+5 MAY - 6 0 • ' i • PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS NAM ADDRESS TooBee Realty 95 Cypress Drive, Woodbury, NY 11797 P 419 035 959 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Sent m Sir,Qetan 0. - 5 d 71'11 u P Late an I ode vi ~ Postage 5 1 /S Cetlifietl Fee Spec, R Ret es V'Very ceipi shown br? to low tl Date De' er N X Return Date, and ipi s owi p whom. m elrvery TOTAL Postage and Fees S POS(malk 01 Date E o LL N a STATE OF NEW YORK) ss.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ROBIN MILLS residing at Richland Blvd., Bay Shore,NY being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the n day of May '19 91 deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessmintioll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at Baby on, NY ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) T#fritfp md) mail. ROBIN PALLS Sworn to before me this 2nd day of May 19 91 <=YM JA AAA) Notary Pub c MAKXM S. 808W NOWYhditf ft ofNswyda No. 47474406 Or" Cow* Um bek" Dot 31. feel (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property owners..) BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of SUE 44awotiE0_ <,1oaw NOTICE TO to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold ADJACENT TO: Ivan A. Kitanof & Wife PROPERTY OWNER 358 Hillside Drive South New Hyde Park, New York 11040 Re: 1000-50-6-3 016 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a ariance (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) [circle choice] 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribedasfollows: !A245 ACRES 8c,cr;WwrsT efi ~euNO?i2sJ Aa/B 4F /CHTHQUSE J12,04 v 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: ID/s7-R/CT logo SEC eV 64*0 / Lor - : 4 That hl such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: Peep/SSioN To Brien/?t~e THE 144WMe T AM-640 ,4 AAJE a sn./xsi APl F oM- LcT / 5. That the provisioc#s of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought byy,, the under- signed are Article Section I ,-)n .~S I .A 11A7 icLe ?Tia-o _a Z [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there ex2lnine the same during regular office hours. (516) 75-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Stiard of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: 1 vc Petitioner SuE tiAs+AUtR t.toa,N BwytRY CAROL EN Owners'Names: Notary Public, State of New York Post Office Address No.ry839377 • Nassau Cou Imo woep$.aty t?o,a.T~ Commission Expires March 3, t....~ o oofDetb~( N•~}• 7 r t74 Tel . No. ( SIG l 691- 4989 [Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal to be attached for convenience purposes.] BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of SUE gAmAue*t < law BAaIFY NOTICE TO , to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold ADJACENT TO: TooBee Realty PROPERTY OWNER 96 Cypress Drive Woodbury, New York 11797 Re: 1000-50-6-5 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold torequest a ariance (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) (circle choice] I % 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: $ 245 ACPES saortiwrsT AXwa!4 ei* aeuN0&11eW A?1E 0 4 L11;9rMau E ;&4 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: A/STQfCT iooo SEC 50 94& G A07- 4 That b) such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: Pee af/sSlOn/ -0 Srle t7n/[G~' T!/E $4~CC6L ! Bu/40 A r/U,/E ~,t.yi yy i QA1 LeT # / 5. That the provisions f the Southold Town Zoning Cede applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article Secuop 1 oo - -74 1 A A Ti 42a4: Sioa -2?3z- [ ] Section 28 -A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 795-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated:* '9 / z~l Lt~2~ X t=4~f.C-~t-c~-2 Petitioner SuE Hw.twlR T.toaN t3wycaY Owners'Names: KA I'E gatew 1011dx3 uoltsnuwoa Post Office Address ^RMN - LLEBfgt-o" 13o woep8wtY Tc'Oe YA AwN to OM'oggn a}a~ ~JN3C)f'Y10 tyseoaBatR-( As•~, tt74Z 11,Y1 Tel. No. (sw ) Io9~- 4go9 _ . [Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal to be attached for convenience purposes.] BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of SUE 14AMAQE9t < to an 8n,at. y NOTICE TO to the Board of Anneals of the Town of Southold ADJACENT TO: Genevieve Sepenoski PROPERTY OWNER North Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: 1000-54-3-24.1 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1- That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold torequest 2 ariance (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) [circle choice] 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: 94/5 AMERS aour#WES7- ,gOttNO?/F-!d 4vW 4 L/(tNTHouS6 ~20~40 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: oismicr /goo see ea 94*0 A <cr 4Z i That h~ such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief:' PGC/ffXSLOn/ To cr~eei?Llnr 7,#E n44C6L ! BuiLO A -AAIE ~ t,vi ~ ,QESi~eda?E oN " LOT aR` 5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Cede applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article --TL- section I ocr) - 3 1 A A,tTiGiZ Y u,.1r /ce -,1 k [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will 9/00 be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road Southold, New York and you may then and there exafnine the same during regular office hours. (516) 795-1609. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: ' C r • Petitioner SuE tya.taurR 1Joavt $wy~sY SIR"-MR Owners'Names: af YtsRear' Post Office Address Q1186M1fd,l (moo WOOis84GY Q•oAt? ...O 00fl4&J w•V. Iy47 Tel. No. (aw ro9a-- - -4e"I [Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal to be attached for convenience purposes.] w ,14-16# 42871_Text 12 • • PROJECT 1.0. NUMBER 617.21 L SEOR Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I-PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or project sponsor) 1. APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2, PROJECT NAME 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality See Exhibit "0" to Appellants Appnl a. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc, or provide map) 6. IS PROPOSED ACTON: ? New ? Expanslon ? Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially acres Ultimately 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LANG USE RESTRICTIONS? ~ acres ? Yes ? No If NO, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LANG USE IN VICINITY OF PROJEGTT Residential ?Industrial ,?Commercial ?A riculture DeseriDe: 0 ? ParWForesVOpen space ? Omer 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVEflNMENTAI AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAy? ? Yes ? No It yes, list agency(s) and permipapprovals r12. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? Yes ? No It yea, list agency name and permit/approval A RESULT OF PROPOSED ATION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATYes ? No 1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF My KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: Date: 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 OVER 1 (Continued on reverse side) The N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act requires submission of this form, and an environmental review will be made Ly this ooard before any action is taken, ii . SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS- (a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information' concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be sig- nificant and completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. - (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that the project is not significant. (d) Environmental Assessment ' 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? -Yes ENO 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form on the site? 1• Yes - No 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on an existing body of water? Yes No 4. Will project have a potentially large-impact on groundwater quality? _Yes _No 5. Will project significantly effect drainage flow an adjacent sites? _Yes ENO 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? Yes - No 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? __Yes - No a. Will project have a major effect on visual char- acter of the community or scenic views or vistas - known to be important to the community? _Yes No ' 9. Will project adversely impact any site or struct- ure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological importance or any site designated as a critical envircnmental area by a local agency? - Yes .ENO , 10. Will project have a major effect on existing or + future recreational opportunities? - - Yes _No 11. Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect 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? _ Yes I No 13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety? -Yes -No 14. Will project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent popula- tion of more than 5 percent over a one-year eyes period or have a major negative effect on the No character of the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? Yes ~yo Preparer's Signature: Reoresentinq; 29A y/75 Date: • • 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.) Sue Hanauer Owner Joan Bagley Owner B. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale or being shown to prospective buyers? { ) Yes ( x) No. (If Yes, please attach copy of "conditions" of sale.) C. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? ( ) Yes {x) No D. 1. Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? Yes 2. Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with this application? Yes 3. Is the property bulkheaded between the wetlands area and the upland building area? No 4. If your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? Yes E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? N/A (If not applicable, state "N.A.") F. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences which exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? None If none exist, please state "none." G. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? Yes 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 also own other land close to this parcel? Yes If yes, please explain where or submit copies of deeds.Four (4) two acre lots south of property. I. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel Foundation installed on lot #2 and propose se to complete house on lot 2 and obtain approval for buildi g a hou e on lot 1. 5/2/91 Authori d Sign ture and Da a Irving Like Attorne for Sue anauer and Joan Bagley MAY " 6 3/87, 10/901k I y ER9842 PuE598 F""""d 4 r s. T.C. Fn,m mr-NM _&WI. a 1 Sale Uen' wun , rr.enan . aRamu bnmrn , p,a-In.W Wml u. Cu, q., a,,,,,, CONSULT YOUR LAWYER BEFORE SIG NO THIS INSTRUMENT • •^e~R .na<(( THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD It USED BY LAWYERS ONLY THIS INDEN uRE, made the 26th day of July nineteen hundred and BETWEEN eighty-five a LAWRENCE W. STEPHENSON residing at 2241 West Monona ` Drive, Phoenix, Arizona 85027, and SUSAN J. y STEPHENSON, residing at 1362 Walden Road, Walnut Creek, California 94596 party of the first part, and 149 SUE HANAUER and JOAN BAGLEY, as tenants in common, residing at 2 The Hollows, Syosset, New York 11791, and 95 Cypress Drive, Woodbury, New York 11797, respectively, party of the second part, WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of ten dollars and other valuable consideration paid by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land,XJEPfJQBic$OSDdfEtKSty~tt~2FSdfYrYo~fe~ situate, lying and beingkoilka at Hortons Point, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows, to wit: BEGINNING at a corner formed by the intersection of the westerly side of Lighthouse Road with the southerly side of Soundview Avenue; RUNNING THENCE along the westerly side of Lighthouse Road, South :STRICT 410 11' 00" East 419:04 feet to land now or formerly of John McGuire; IOU THENCE along the northerly line of land now or formerly of John McGuire, South 480 55' 10" West 456.94 feet to the easterly line :CTION of land now or formerly of Genevieve Sepenowski; THENCE along the easterly line of land now or formerly of Genevieve i0.00 Sepenowski, North 420 15' 20" West 515.04 feet to the southerly side of Soundview Avenue; ,OCK THENCE along the southerly side of Soundview Avenue North 600 31' 30" East 476.50 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING. 1.00 BEING and intended to be the same premises conveyed to the parties T of the first part by deed dated 1/8/73, recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's office on 1/8/73, in Liber 7318, page 454. 4.000 There has been executed and intended to be recorded simultaneously herewith a purchase money first mortgage from the grantees herein 6~1'4S to the grantors herein in the original principal sum of $40,000.00. TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the first part in and to any streets and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof ; TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. 4 AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises have been encumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consid- eration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the sane for any other purpose. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has khd) esccuteri tu(; drud the dap and vcar tint abu•.c written. IN PRESENCE OF: RECfjE IVED REAL ESTATE i Unttct l l~4O a nm. AUG 1 198$ v LAtephenson STEPIENSON a k a Lawrence W. 1 h Lson oa nt,VyuxI UJ. S%POXQPI TRANSFER TAX SUSAN J. S EPHENSON, by Lawrreore W. . n(1,7 ~IIFFnI w , LIBEP, U644 FACE 099 ` sln ft or Ntw YORK. COUNTY or SUFFOLK SS: STATE Or NEW YORK, COUNTY Or On the 26th day of July, 1985 , before me On the day of 19 t personally' came personally came LAWRENCE W. STEPHENSON to me known to be the individual described in and who to me known to be the individual described in executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowlei he executed the same. - executed the same. C~-\6., Notary Pubiic Af17}MY S. TO`ULL NOTARY PLW-C, Same of New Tod IF_ M Tyr I, STATE OF NEW YORK ) a~ ss.. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK. ) STATE Or NEW YORK, COUNTY Or on the 26th day of July 1985, On the day of 19 b personally came before me personally came Lawrence W. StepFllensOn the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrume to me known to be the individual described in whom I am personally acquainted, who, being. by and who executed the foregoing instrument and sworn, did depose and say that he resides at o. to me known to be the attorney-in-fact of that he*knows Susan J. Stephenson the individual(s) described in, and who, by said attorney-in- to be the it fact executed the same, and acknowledged that described in and who executed the foregoing inst he executed said instrument as the act and that he, said subscribing witness, was present deed of said Susan J. Stephenson execute the samee and that he, said at the same time subscribed h name as witness - by virtue of a power-of attorney dated - July 18, 1985 and intended to be recorded simultaneously herewith. ~I Tie. Y.4 Ka eG gTIO Ckw=wvm, l N.:b :KL is 8L LMER 9542 PAGE 60,0 Bargain anb Oair Eprd WITH COVENANT AGAINST GRANTOR's ACTS SECTION TITLE NO. S, BLOCK LAWRENCE N. STEPHENSON LOT a/k/a LAWRENCE,I,d. STEPHENSON et al. COUNTY OR TOWN SUE HANAUER & JOAN BAGLEY Recorded at Requat of GWC&CLE INSU P STANDARD FORM OF MEW YORK ROARO OF TITLE UNDERWRITERS Return by Mail to Distributed by WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, CHICAGO TITLE ESQS. INSUIERAMCE COMPANY Main Road - PO Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 Zip No. U W 0 _Z O V K o t1N W ~~tN 31-131'fI" 0 S91 Hd ? I sn>; N N W i February 1, 1991 I, Sue Hanauer, on behalf of Joan Bagley/Sue Hanauer, authorize Irving Like to act as our agent with regard to the 4.9 acre parcel located on the southwest corner of Lighthouse Road and Soundview Avenue in the Town of Southold. Y~ 2 Sue Hanauer CAROL A K9ENKi Ilda t>YM StaAe of NeM Yadt N0. X8393!/ • NImY OadYipbY Expires March 3.1 • i~PI i REILLY, LIKE & TENETY , Kq( 61991 ATTORNEYSATLAW 200 WEST MAIN STREET IRVING LIKE P.O. BOX 218 BERNARD J. REILLY BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702 VINCENT C. TENEPY (516) 669-3000 FAX (516) 669-0122 OF COUNSEL JOSEPH H. McSPEDON May 3, 1991 Linda Kowalski, Clerk Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Hanauer & Bagley s/w corner Lighthouse Rd. and Soundview Rd. Southold, NY Dear Ms. Kowalski: Enclosed please find certified mail return receipts of the notices to adjacent landowners in connection with the above matter. The filing fee of $500.00 will be forwarded to you under separate cover in the next day or so. Thank you. ry t my yours, IL:pb Irv' g Lik Enc. • • REILLY, LIKE & TENETY j 61991 ATTORNEYS AT LAW I_ 200 WEST MAIN STREET IRVING LIKE P.O. BOX 218 BERNARD J. REILLY BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702 VINCENT C. TENETY 516) 669-3000 FAX (516) 6694122 OFMUNSF JOSEPH H. WSPEDON May 2, 1991 Linda Kowalski, Clerk Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Hanauer & Bagley S/W corner Lighthouse Rd. and Soundview Rd., Southold Dear Ms. Kowalski: We enclose herein the ZBA Questionnaire required by your office in connection with the appeal of the above owners. We will furnish you with the certified return receipts of the notices to adjacent landowners as soon as they have been received. Please advise if you require any further information. 5IRG ruly yours IL:ch E Encls. REILLY, LIKE & TENETY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST MAIN STREET JUN-6, IRVING LIKE P.O. BOX 218 BERNARD J. REILLY BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702 VINCENT G TENETY (516) 669-3000 FAX (516) 6694122 OFOOUNSEL June 5, 1991 JOSEPH H. WSPEDON Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application for Variance Hanauer and Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4 Gentlemen: We represent Hanauer and Bagley on their application for a variance under Section 100-239 of the Zoning Code in the proposed minor subdivision into two lots, which is pending with the Southold Town Planning Board and Suffolk County Health Department. Enclosed is a copy of a letter dated May 22, 1991 from the Board of Appeals. In accordance with its directions, I am herewith notifying you that our client intends to proceed under the coordinated SEQRA review, and requests a Scoping session at your earliest possible date. Very truly yours, L , LIKE, TENE AMBROSINO IL:ch IRV G LIK Encl. / cc: Southold Board of Appeals/ Sanford Hanauer r PIANNING BOARD 19 NOVEM 1990 0 ao~ 3 Mr. Raynor: I can go in and get it updated, I can go in C tomorrow but I didn't want to go in, have it updated have it filed and then not be able to pump it to the satisfaction of the r commissioners. I will await your instructions. Mr. McDonald: Would you be prepared if the commissioner could find their way clear to take care of this you would be prepared to pump it off for them in any manner they prescribed. Mr. Raynor: Yes. Thank you very much. Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, Mr. Hanauer and Mr. Bagley are here. Mr. Irving Like: I'm a council to the Wickham firm. Mr. Bagley is not here, Mr. Hanauer and Mr. Kapellare here. There's an old mexican curse that says, may your life be filled with lawyers and I'm afraid that Mr. Hanauer and Mr. Bagley have been afflicted with that curse. I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to meet with you in this informal way. Back in July of last year, you wrote a letter to Mr. Kapell stating that, the Planning Board has reviewed the concerns brought up at the meeting held on June 12, 1989 as C stated in the positive declaration, the upland area of the subject premises does not meet the minimum lot area requirement to the agricultural conservation A-C district and the Planning Board cannot proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of the above mentioned district. If you wish upon receipt of a disapproval from the Building Department you can proceed with an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. The reason we are here tonight is to ask you respectfully to reconsider that position in the light of a number of equitable considerations that I would like to bring to your attention as well as some very practical reasons. First a little chronology I think may be helpful. Back in July of 1985 the Southold Trustees passed a resolution which authorized the issuance of a permit to build one house. In July of 1985, this is the letter I am referring to (Submitted letter). On February 19th of 1987 a memo was sent to you from Victor Lessard stating that it was his understanding that parcels containing wetlands, for purposes of determining the area of the parcel must be included in the calculations and he stated that the board should take this approach until such time as the state wishes to change this clause. Then,.on May 15th of 1987 the Board of Appeals addressed the letter to the Wickham law firm and I will hand it up to you in a moment, in which it stated that the Town Attorney has advised that court decisions were rendered during 1986 indicating that wetland areas cannot be deleted when calculating the area of lots in pending or proposed divisions of land. That is this letter. That is May 15th, 1987. Now, that date is PLANNING BOARD • 20 NOVEMP# 1990 very important because on May 23rd of 1987 Hanauer and C Bagley submitted an application for a minor two lot subdivision. On May 29th of 1987 the Suffolk County Department of Health Services sent a letter stating that the two lots were considered to be suitable for the installation of individual sewage disposal systems and I will hand that letter in. Now, as of May 29th, 1987 so far as the Board of Appeals was concerned, so far as the Town Attorney was concerned, so far as the courts were concerned, if you came in with an application and there was wetlands or land under water on your property, you would none the less have to count that towards density. In May of 1987, these applicants, I believe, had a right to proceed with a two lot subdivision. A building permit was issued on July 23rd, 1985 to build the first house so what you had before you in May of 1987, was a two lot subdivision under which a building permit had been issued for one house and then in August of 1987 the foundation was installed. Mr. Orlowski: The building permit was issued on one lot. Mr. Like: I understand that, it was issued on one lot. Mr. McDonald: There was a lot and a building permit was issued for one lot. Mr. Like: Then there was an application for a two lot C subdivision on which that one lot on which the building permit was issued was shown and located. In August of 1987 the foundation was installed. Now, it wasn't until February of 1989 that you amended your zoning ordinance to prohibit the calculation of land under water towards computing density and I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that it was on the strength of that amendment of the ordinance which led you in July of 1989 to say that you could not proceed with the application. Now, there is a lot of case law and I won't burden you with it now, which states that where you have a map pending before a body such as the Planning Board, where you have a permit that has been issued or you have the commencement of physical construction on the property pursuant to the permit, the applicant has the vested right to proceed. Put that aside for the moment because I said earlier that I want to deal with equities of the situation. Now you have suggested that the applicant go before the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals has already expressed itself and the correspondence before you indicates that the Board of Appeals believes that the land should be counted towards density. Furthermore, as you know, when you seek a variance you have to establish before the Board of Appeals that you will suffer significant financial injury if the variance has been denied. We have consulted with an appraiser and we have an appraisal report indicating that if a variance is denied so that this owner is limited to one house he will lose approximately $130,000.00. That is the value of the building lot in this area based on market data and comparable sales. We believe that going before the Board of Appeals we could make a case of PLANNING BOARD • ( 21 NOVEM#V( 1990 significant financial injury that would justify getting a permit, C to complete a minor subdivision for two lots and we think it would be a waste of the board's time to come forward again with all of the layout that would be incident to that procedure. Now, here is a practical consideration that I said I would discuss earlier. You are aware of the problem that has been caused by the business with the pond. Primarily, what has been happening is storm water drainage from the town road carrying with it contaminants gets into the pond on the Hanauer property and the overflow of storm waters also causes the pond to rise and to swell beyond its normal configuration. We have commissioned a report by the Barrett Engineering Firm and they have informed us that based on the preliminary investigation of the area, approximately 1300 linear feet of town roads, Soundview Avenue and Lighthouse road drain directly to the low point on Sound View into the ponds on the Hanauer property and on the property to the North. The only drainage that is provided by the town are two twelve inch metal pipes on the south edge of the pavement of Sound View Avenue draining into the pond onto the Hanauer property and a culvert which connects the two ponds. Mr. Barrett, we've asked him to do a more detailed analysis but he has already indicated that a minimal amount of drainage that would be necessary to correct the situation on the town road would be a substantial dollar amount so we have a situation where we're being denied the opportunity to build two lots and we are confronted with a C condition of flooding which comes from a town road and we are left with a situation where there is significant financial injury. What I would like to do now is introduce Mr. Hanauer and ask him to submit to you a proposal which would involve your permitting him to go forward with two lots and a suggestion as to correct the drainage problem. Mr. Sanford Hanauer: As Mr. Like has indicated the following would be my suggestion or a suggestion. Being that the elevation of the road is I believe around fifty feet and the low point which is on the adjoining property which is about forty-seven to fifty in this area. What happens is the water runs into the pond and when it reaches its crest it backs up through the culvert floods the neighbor to the north. Several years ago, about a year ago, there was a berm down here that was placed there by a farmer some twenty odd years ago, I understand, was cut open and released the water on the property to the south which is the Too Bee Property and created a wetland area. Being that this is the low point, what we would like to suggest is being involved in the Too Bee Property also. The best way to control the water here is to create some sort of a drainage system in this northwest corner of the Too Bee property whereby with a pipe controlling the level of the pond so this way the water could continue to spill into the pond and be controlled by a level in here and we are willing to give the town an easement to a section of this property to construct such a drainage ditch and I think that would solve everybody's problem. PLANNING BOARD • 22 NOVEMF* 1990 Mr. McDonald: How long have you owned this property? C Mr. Hanauer: About five years. Mr. McDonald: The pond was there when you bought it. Mr. Hanauer: Yes. Mr. McDonald: The drainage situation was approximately the same at the time you bought it. Mr. Hanauer: I wrote a letter to Ray Jacobs asking him when the culvert was installed and I have a photograph showing this road without any disturbance to the blacktop. Mr. McDonald: Was this pond here at the time you bought that? Mr. Hanauer: Yes. The pond showed on the original maps in 1873 without a road. Mr. McDonald: So it was one pond. Mr. Hanauer: It was one pond so I think what happens there is the water starts up here and flows into this pond and then when it really overflows onto the road in the winter time when there are icy conditions it becomes hazardous and I think that is why C the Highway Department put the culvert underneath the road to avoid the spillover onto the road and as a result more water comes into our pond. Mr. Orlowski: Did you ever get a variance to put that foundation in so close to the pond? Mr. Hanauer: Yes, at that time fifty feet was required. Mr. Orlowski: This is forty-six feet. Mr. Hanauer: Well, the pond has changed since this last survey was taken. Mr. McDonald: This foundation is in compliance with all the regulations? Mr. Hanauer: That is correct. Mr. Orlowski: I think it was suppose to be seventy-five. Mr. Hanauer: At the time, we originally wanted to put it on the edge of the pond and they asked for a fifty-foot setback. Mr. McDonald: And you are forty-six. PLANNING BOARD • 23 NOVEME9 1990 Mr. Hanauer: Well, that survey was made after the wetland C survey so we have had changes in the elevation of the pond, it fluctuates. Mr. Orlowski: I can remember and I go. back a little ways. This was in a long, long time ago I even think before you owned it. Mr. Hanauer: Which? Mr. Orlowski: This piece of property on a subdivision. Mr. Hanauer: It was previously owned by a family called Stefenson, we purchased from them. I really don't know if they had made any applications. Mr. McDonald: We've been told that the DEC had an order to close the opening that had been created in the southern part of the pond, is that correct? Mr. Hanauer: That is correct. Mr. McDonald: Has it been closed? Mr. Hanauer: Yes, it was closed. The DEC asked us to do it and we complied. The ditch showed on this map. Originally, we had a negative declaration on this piece of property and then when this water was let out onto this property it was a request from the Town Trustees to go back and they designated it as a wetland. But we requested when the dike was put back, if they would go back six months and examine it they would remove the wetlands designation. Mr. McDonald: Well, the subdivision map shows the buffer no matter what the Trustees would do in the future that shows in the subdivision map with this other property. Mr. Hanauer: Which property? McDonald: For this wetlands, so whatever the Trustees say that would remain in the subdivision map no matter what. Mr. Hanauer: Well, O.K., but if it was found that this was done illegally by creating the wetland, we know it was cut open we have evidence, we have a document from the Police Department and the Bay Constable has it. Ms. Scopaz: You said earlier you are proposing drainage. By putting in a pipe would that not in effect establish the wetlands permanently? Mr. Hanauer: No, not unless you put in a storm drain or a sump. PLANNING BOARD 24 NOVEMBI&( , 1990 Mr. McDonald: Why that rather than just a natural drainage area? . C Mr. Hanauer: I'm not an engineer. Mr. McDonald: How much do you envision lowering the water table, not the water table but the level of the pond? Mr. Hanauer: We would like to keep it at a level of roughly forty-seven. Mr. McDonald: And its present level is? Mr. Hanauer: I think now it is way up, I think it is about forty-eight. Mr. McDonald: So you envision lowering the level of the pond? Mr. Hanauer: Just to control it so it doesn't back up and allows for heavy rainfall and drainage, it's like a valve. Mr. McDonald: See, these are two problems. One is a drainage problem. You're talking about drainage from the town road to your property which is really not in our province in a sense. The other one you are talking about the actual subdivision of the property which clearly is in our jurisdiction. Mr. Hanauer: The Planning Board has the power to deal with conditions with this sort here and solve these problems and if what we are suggesting is that (inaudible) minor subdivision you can also solve the problem that otherwise might burden the tax payers with the town that would be prudent on the part of the Planning Board. So I think your powers are considerable and we are proposing a solution which we think will not only take care of the two lot subdivision but take care of a festering problem that has caused nothing but acrimony. Ms. Scopaz: If you are proposing to allow the two subdivisions to be considered as one piece of property for purposes of drainage.... Mr. Like: No, what we're suggesting is that Mr. Hanauer will consent to burden another piece of property of his by either creating a storm drainage easement or dedicating it so that it serves as a safety valve to prevent flooding from occurring on a town road and from flooding occurring on his property and the neighbor to the north. Incidentally, the other point I would like to make is that under none of the proposals that are being presented to you will there be any disturbance to the.pond. The pond will be kept as a resource and it will be kept as open space. Whatever buffers you feel are necessary will be established, we even could, as part of any arrangement with whoever buys these properties create a two party homeowners association with covenances protecting the pond. If we had presented this to you as a cluster, we could have given you a PLANNING BOARD • ( 25 NOVEMV&R( 3, 1990 map with three lots, two of them being lots on which the two C buildings were to be constructed and the third lot being the pond and that could be protected in some fashion to be dedicated and be protected. Mr. McDonald: Do you have a sketch plan on this? Is there a sketch plan approval? Is there any approval? I'm not the Board of Appeals so I'm not going to get into it really but you are essentially saying your vested but you don't even have a sketch plan approval. Mr. Like: I know, I'm saying that there was a minor subdivision submitted. Mr. McDonald: Where is it, where is the sketch plan? Mr. Like: There was a application submitted. Mr. McDonald: You don't even have a sketch plan approval on it though. I mean where is the vested? Is there a sketch plan approval on it? Mr. Kappel: We applied in May of 1987 for a subdivision application. Subsequent to that a determination of a requirement that we file a long form environmental assessment was made by this board. I prepared and filed a long form environmental assessment which the board found inadequate and suggested that we hire a professional to do the same thing which we did. We hired En-Consultants from Southampton and filed a new long form environmental assessment which specifically addressed the comments of the town's engineer at the time in response to my original filing. We.submitted the amended or revised assessment. The town engineer proceeded to re-review the original filing that I had made as opposed to reviewing the filing that En-Consultants provided which resulted in at least a three or four month delay. When we finally received the town engineers seconds review it became obvious that he had reviewed the same document twice. So then the town retained the services of Dave Emilita's firm and Mr. Emilita proceeded then over a three or four month period to finally review En-Consultants submission. Upon the completion of that review, Mr. Emilita suggested that there was a necessity for a survey of the potential for impacts on endangered wild life and animal species, so we contracted with Hampton Manor Associates to conduct such a survey at considerable expense. The survey was completed and submitted and as a result of all of these submissions the.Planning Board then made a positive declaration on the long form environmental assessment. We did have a scoping session and that was, I believe in June or July of 1989 and that's where the thing left off. At that point, and during this period of time, the Town Board amended the zoning such that the requirement that the wetland area be excluded from ( the computation for density purposes. It was altered. Meanwhile, we had diligently pursued all of the steps that the PLANNING BOARD . ( 26 NOVEMY&(-', 1990 Planning Board had laid out, operating under the assumption that the wetlands were going to be included in the density calculation, thousands of dollars were spent and a considerably amount of time elapsed. The fact that the Planning Board didn't take action on it is of no fault of ours. Mr. McDonald: We had a scoping session? Mr. Kapell: We had a scoping session yes. Mr. McDonald: And you submitted an impact statement? Mr. Kapell: No, we never submitted a draft environmental impact statement because at that point we were told that we had to go to the Zoning Board. In other words, two years elapsed. Essentially what happened was two years elapsed during which time we complied with various requirements that were set before us. Mr. McDonald: Let me see if I understand. You had a scoping session, you never submitted a enviromental impact statement. In the meantime, you've gone to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Kapell: No, no. We didn't, we elected not to. Mr. McDonald: You elected not to but you took no other action C as well. What other action did you take after that? Mr. Kapell: We haven't done anything since July of 1985. Mr. McDonald: So you didn't submit the impact statement and you did nothing else. Mr. Kapell: No, there was no point in submitting an impact statement if we were going to have to go to the Zoning Board first and get a variance. What was the applicant to gain by spending several thousand dollars in more time preparing a draft environmental impact statement when in fact the Zoning Board might very well turn them down. Mr. McDonald: But you would have had to have it for that too. You would have had to have the SEQRA process at the ZBA as well. Mr. Kapell: The point is, is that at that point and if I can speak for you Sandy, at that point, the whole question of the town's disposition towards this application became a subject of discussion because the rules essentially had been changed in mid stream. The question of the inclusion of the wetland area into the density calculation had never been an issue until the scoping session. Mr. Orlowski: It's been a year and a half and now your back here telling us that you have some type of status. PLANNING BOARD • 27 NOVEMSV(-1990 Mr. Kapell: Well, we waited two years to get to the last C point. Mr. Like: The answer to that Mr. Orlowski, is that my client has been stunned and it was that dilemma of being caught between a rock and a hard place that led them to consult me and I reviewed the file and we're here tonight in the interest of working this out in an applicable way and that is why I started out by saying we think the equities here suggest, as well as the practicality suggests that should allowed to proceed. We don't think that being allowed to build two lots will be injurious to the environment. We believe that all of our consultants have come to that conclusion. Nobody has negative.... nobody has come forth and said you are going to hurt the pond in anyway. Mr. Orlowski: Well, there hasn't been any formal impact statement. Mr. McDonald: The process hasn't been entered into it. Mr. Like: We are perfectly prepared to defend the two lot subdivision as being one that is compatible with good environment practices We are perfectly prepared to protect the pond in any reasonable way. We are prepared to adopt whatever mitigation proposals the Planning Board makes as well as the DEC, if the DEC is interested and my experience is that a project of C this minimum size can be handled in a matter that is compatible with good planning. We don't think we are asking a great deal to be allowed to go forward. Especially, when not to go forward means a substantial loss financially for the client. Mr. McDonald: I don't see how we can do anything, I mean the section of the code that is applicable here about his density is in the Zoning section of the code and that is clearly in the province of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We can't simply waive that requirement. If it was in the subdivision section, if we thought it had equity we could but since it's in the Zoning section any relief from that section of the code would have to come from the Zoning Board Appeals. I'm talking about the section about deletion, the present existence in the code, the deletion of wetlands is in the zoning section. Not in the subdivision section. Mr. Like: The court cases indicate that where you have an owner who would be entitled to the density under Section 281B certainly in this instance we would be entitled under Section 281B of the town law or under your cluster to come in with two lots that we are entitled and to go forward with two lots not withstanding the local ordinance of the type you're talking about. Mr. McDonald: That determines the actual yield. You haven't determined your yield yet. PLANNING BOARD • 28 NOVEMF# 1990 Mr. Like: I'm saying the case law consisting of Forte versus C the Village of Worwick, the Done Company case, friends of Shawangunks, Inc. all say that where the owner has the right to a cluster under Section 281B of the Town Law, which we obviously do in this case, that that gives him the yield and that under those circumstances you can't delete land under water from calculating density. Mr. Orlowski: I think that was a minimum of ten acres to wasn't it? Mr. Like: No, your cluster provisions allow you to go forward with less than ten acres. Back then you didn't have the requirements. Mr. McDonald: You're not required to cluster at the present time. Mr. Like: I'm saying that from the standpoint of vested rights that we believe we have right now to go forward. Mr. McDonald: But you're not a cluster subdivision, there would never be any question if it would be a cluster. What is your total acreage? Mr. Like: 4.9 acres. Mr. McDonald: The code doesn't talk about cluster until you're ten acres. Mr. Like: No, that's when it is mandatory but we can apply for a cluster under B of that section of your Zoning ordinance. You have the right to mandate cluster if it is more then ten acres but you and your discretion can treat this as a cluster and we can apply for cluster. I'm simply asking you to exercise your discretion in an equitable manner here to treat this applicant as one against who the rules were changed in middle of the procedures. Mr. Orlowski: Well back then, and being on the board, it was written in the code it was "land subject to flooding" left a lot of things open and we were having some problems with it. Back then the board felt any land under water was unbuildable period. As policy we stuck to that. In this case here I would say we would be on good grounds and sticking to our policy that this isn't wetlands or land subject to flooding, we're talking about land under water and that is why even now brought it up to send it before the Zoning Board of Appeals. You know this isn't even close. One half is under water and one half is above. Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to mention one thing. I understand your argument but I do want to point out one thing, the statement that was made earlier that in 1989 when the Town Board changed the Zoning Code. The things that you are PLANNING BOARD 29 NOVEM*( 1990 asking the Planning Board to do are not within their C jurisdiction. They were determined by the Town Board, by the adoption of the zoning code, and there was no grandfather clause built into it and that was something that was made very clear to this board. The town board does not care at what stage a subdivision was in, if it does not have final approval then all the rules of the game have changed.. The town board is quite. aware that it has done that. Your arguments about the vested interests have to do with the building permit application and that is not a matter before the Planning Board. If you have a question about whether your foundation is vested that is an issue that you would take up before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The way the code currently stands, my understanding is, you have to go to the Zoning Board to ask for the relief, and present your case to the board, including all the case law that you've sited. I don't think that this board has any jurisdiction, it says very clear, in the code, whether they would want to or not. Mr. Like: I respect your comments and I am aware of what we would have to do before the Board of Appeals, but what I am trying to do however, is to see whether or not there is a basis for a practical solution that will accomplish not only the end results of fairness for everybody concerned, but also solve a drainage problem. Now, what is your, and I am seeking some guidance now from you, what is your sense as to how you would C regard an application for a cluster where we would present you with a site plan showing let us say three lots. Two of which would be the lots on which the buildings would be built and the third lot would be the pond. We have certainly the amount of area to have a cluster. Mr. McDonald: We would deny it for lack of variance and you would go to the ZBA. That section of the code is very clear that that is deleted. It doesn't talk about whether it's cluster or not cluster that's section 239. That section says that if it is underwater it is deleted from the yield calculations. Now, we don't have the power, even if we saw merit in this we don't physically have the power over that. If the case that you are siting is correct the ZBA is still the place to do that. I don't see how we can get into their section of the code and tell them what to do. Mr. Kapell: To carry this on a little bit. Say the applicant decided to apply for the variance wouldn't the zoning board ask this board for a recommendation on the variance? Mr. McDonald: On the basis of something that was submitted they would ask for our comments. Mr. Kapell: They would ask for your recommendation wouldn't they? PLANNING BOARD 30 NOVEMilp( 3, 1990 Mr. Like: Do you see any equity in this situation? Are we just C wasting our time tonight or our we trying to get through to you that what's happened here is unfair to this applicant. This applicant pursued every request that was made by the Planning Board and the ground was cut out from under him. Mr. Orlowski: I really don't see that. I'll have the town attorney review this with us. You know you also waited another year and a half to come back in and there is no sketch granted here. The Planning Board, and I told you our policy before, this land was under water so we did not entertain and sent it to the ZBA. Mr. Like: The ZBA at the time you sent it to them said you have to count that land even though it is under water. When this matter was originally brought to the attention of the ZBA they said you've got to count it under water, the town attorney said you've got to count it under water, the court said you had to count it under water. Then while this application is pending, and this applicant is breaking his chops and spending his money getting all the studies you want, and the town board goes and changes all of the rules. Now, if that doesn't sound like equity, I think I would be very much surprised if you would not feel deep down that something here needs attention and needs direction. That is not fair. That is not fair play with this applicant. Now, you can say to me you don't have the power but I know you know deep down that this guy was shafted. This applicant was shafted and he stands to lose $130,000.00 plus all the other monies plus the delay and you're forcing him into an issue where he's got to go to the courts. We don't want to go to the courts. We would rather sit down and work out a solution that is not going to hurt anybody. Mr. McDonald: We're not telling you that. In fact, if you went to the court at this point, again I'm not a lawyer so it's only the way I understand it, you wouldn't get anywhere in the courts now until you went to the ZBA. You would have to exhaust all your local possibilities before they would entertain it. The next step with this is the ZBA isn't it? Mr. Like: I would be very happy to talk to the town attorney, you might mention to the town attorney the case of DuVail vs. Ross. Mr. McDonald: I'll be happy to let you take care of that. Mr. Like: Whether it's a Planning Board or a Zoning Board of Appeals or any kind of a board, if an applicant is delayed and because the delay is prevented from getting vested rights he is entitled to relief from the courts. Mr. Orlowski: That's if you were delayed. Mr. Like: There is no question that we were delayed. PLANNING BOARD • 31 NOVEh* s, 1990 Mr. McDonald: Where is your impact statement that you were requested to do? Mr. Like: I explained to you that if you're telling the applicant "we're only going to give you one lot but we want you to spend $10,000.00 on a full impact statement. Mr. McDonald: You don't have to determine that in advance, the impact statement is part of it. Mr. Like: But you have already determined that you are not going to give him more then one lot why should he spend $10,000.00 on a full impact statement. After he gives you the impact statement you'll say "sorry fellow you've got only one lot". Mr. McDonald: But his contention all along that he has two lots. Mr. Like: But you told me he didn't have two lots. Mr. McDonald: If we tell you now that you don't have two lots then you're going to go to court. Mr. Like: You're saying to him we're not going to give you two lots go get an impact statement. Does that make sense to get an impact statement after you tell him. { Mr. McDonald: I wasn't here so I'm not sure but there was a scoping session that you entered into. Mr. Hanauer: We requested a scoping session and two people appeared at this seeping session. Melissa and En-Consultant and the first question we asked was why was there a change, why were they deleting the calculation of the water? No one could answer that. Your new consultant said we have to do whatever statement has to be done before we talk about anything else. I said, well we have to get this question answered and we can never get it answered. We started out initially as a variance then when they said you could calculate the water as part of it, we were told to change it to a minor subdivision after going through two years of all the shenanigans and everything that was asked for. We come back now and now we're back to a variance. Mr. McDonald: I guess I know what is really confusing here, the problem I have a problem with, why do you need a seeping session with the Planning Board at all, hold it, if your not trying to get a subdivision. Mr. Hanauer: You called a seeping session, we didn't call it. Mr. McDonald: Why are you even talking to the Planning Board if it's a single lot you would be with the building inspector. The mear fact that you are with us means that you are trying to PLANNING BOARD 32 NOVEM*( 3, 1990 • subdivide the property and the scoping session must have been r about that subdivision property. Yes or no? Mr. Hanauer: When we received the positive declaration with a letter from Mr. Orlowski, we questioned it because we wanted to talk about it. That's what we wanted to talk about. Mr. McDonald: It must have been about a subdivision though, it couldn't have been about anything else. Mr. Kapell: What it all boils down to if we were taken by complete surprise that after two years of attempting to pursue the subdivision and complying with the various requests that had been made of us to supply information in order for the board to advance the subdivision that we were at that point advised that the wetlands, that underwater area was going to be deleted from the density calculation. That's the problem, that's the hub of it. Had we been advised of that at the onset, that the position that the zoning board had taken that it should be included was not going to be respected by this board, other avenue's might have been considered at that point. What the beef is here is that that wasn't put forward and then as a result a considerable amount of time and expense were expended by the applicant. That's the issue and that is where the question of fair play arises. So now what we are saying to you I think, is that rather than go ahead now and spend another several thousand dollars on the draft environmental impact statement, and five hundred dollars or whatever the new fee is to apply to the Zoning Board for a variance, knowing that that variance application has to come back before this board for recommendation. If you guys are going to recommend against it. Mr. McDonald: Well, I for one will not give a•recommendation before the time that they ask for it. I don't even know what you are going to go in front of them with. You can tell me here but that's no guarantee of what is going to come from them. I am not going to put myself in the position of telling you something before I really even know what it is. I understand you are trying to operate in good faith but from my standpoint how can I possibility do that. You want me to tell you all the answers in advance and I won't do it. Mr. Kapell: I think essentially what, and I don't want to take your chair Mr. Like, but I think essentially what we are asking you for is to give consideration to the fact that we were encouraged to pursue this application on the assumption that the position of the Zoning Board had taken with regard to the underwater land would be respected. That is really what it boils down to. Now the question is, can we pursue it on the original assumption? If not, then I think it is up to Mr. Like and Mr. Hanauer. Mr. Like: I would like to suggest that you confer with the Town Attorney on this particular matter and see whether or not he PLANNING BOARD •C 33 NOVEM&I 3, 1990 feels there isn't some way that this can be resolved at the C Planning Board level if he feels not, if he feels that you are powerless then we will understand. If he feels that you are powerless but we have some equity based on the presentation that we have made then we would hope that we would get a favorable recommendation for the Board of Appeals. We don't plan on making any drastic changes, we have shown you what we have in mind, whatever we showed you is what we're going to show the Board of Appeals in terms of seeking their approval. On that basis we were hoping that by meeting with you today, we could have some indication from you without a commitment because certainly you would want to see the final papers before you committed yourself. We need to have some encouragement before we go ahead and spend a lot more money and time on this. Mr. Orlowski: Well, I think the board has agreed that our hands are tied as far as what we can do and I think that you will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We will talk with our Town Attorney. Mr. McDonald: Should Mr. Like actually discuss it with the Town Attorney? Mr. Orlowski: Well, he has that option and I would like to discuss it with him first also. I don't see that we can do C anything. This board has made no decision one way or the other for or against, I'm sure we are going to have to want for a impact statement and make our recommendations after that. Mr. Like: You do understand that we are reluctant to present you with a impact statement. Mr. Orlowski: I do. Mr. Like: When we know that you will not give two lots. Mr. Orlowski: Well, we can't. Mr. Like: Whether you can do it or not is in my book something to be discussed with the Town Attorney. Mr. Orlowski: When you go to the Zoning Board of Appeals is when you are going to have to prove a hardship of some sort. Mr. Like: Well, I think $130.000.00 bucks is a hell of a hardship. Mr. McDonald: You will not proceed to a decision from them without the SEQRA. I mean, they will not do it without the SEQRA process. Mr. Kapell: Nobody proposes to evade the SEQRA process, that is not the issue. PLANNING BOARD • 34 NOVEOR(-3, 1990 Mr. McDonald: What I am saying is, almost any route you take C except simply forget it, you are going to have to do this. Mr. Like: It is a matter of timing. If we are told by the Board of Appeals, we approved your variance but you still have to go through the SEQRA process. Mr. McDonald: No, no, they will not, they cannot do that. They can't take any action without that in place. It will be done before they make any determination what so ever. Otherwise, it won't be legal. Now, I hope you get in touch with the Town Attorney, I would look forward to the Town Attorney's comments really. It is interesting. Mr. Kapell: I think really what the question of hardship revolves around is this assumption that the Zoning Board of Appeals original position with regards to whether or not the wetlands were going to be included. Mr. Orlowski: The Zoning Board of Appeals assumption and our policy can be two different things. Mr. McDonald: If that is the case, they would take that into account in their decision. Mr. Kapell: You are both under the same roof. We're on the outside. You are all under the same roof, I don't think it is unreasonable for an applicant to assume that two boards in the same town would have some coordination. Mr. McDonald: Coordination yes, but that does not necessarily mean that we are going to either be in agreement or that we would completely overlap what we are doing. Mr. Kapell: But let me say in all fairness there was never any correspondence from this board or anything on the record to indicate that this board disagreed with the ZBA's determination. We were lead along for two years filing these various documents and the first indication that this board was not going to honor the ZBA's position with regard to that question was when the positive declaration came along two years after we applied. That is the problem. Mr. Hanauer: Why did you put us all through those steps? Mr. McDonald: What we don't have the power to do, we can't do. I mean I would love to be able to just kind of solve problems like that but other people have authority in certain areas and I will not infringe on their authority anymore than I would allow them to do ours. The ZBA cannot subdivide property. We wouldn't allow it but at the same extend the kind of relief you need under the code comes from them. It really comes from them. Now, if the Town Attorney has an opinion that is really different to that and it is his opinion and he has case behind PLANNING BOARD • C 35 NOVE# 3, 1990 it and it is a general agreement, I don't think we are close to that but, on the basis of what I read I just don't see where we have it to do for you. We just don't have that power to do it for you. Mr. Like: You have the power to recognize the equities in the situation. You have the power after having heard the equities in the situation to make an appropriate comment to the Board of Appeals. That you do have the power to do because that is recommendatory and that the Board of Appeals either considers it or doesn't consider it and I take it they take seriously what you tell them. You now have a better understanding of the hardships that have been opposed upon this applicant and how they have arisen and I think that we are not asking too much of you to give seriou3 consideration to making a positive recommendation to the Board of Appeals. We will then go forward and do what we have to do with the Board of Appeals including whatever SEQRA documentation is required. Mr. Orlowski: Any recommendation from this board will not come through until the SEQRA process in finished. You are on a very fragile area there and there are a lot of questions to be answered. When you say you can build a house without any impact, that is what you are going to have to prove and this board would want to see that. The Zoning Board will ask for our recommendation and we will make our recommendation and they are C going to decide whether it is a hardship. I mean, we are out of it and we haven't made a recommendation to deny or approve this one way or another since day one and what you say was a delay well, maybe it was or maybe it wasn't but you waited another year and a half to come back and tell us that we were dragging our feet. I think that the way the code is written right now you have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Like: You said the rug was pulled out from under this applicant you know suddenly and without warning after he spent a lot of money and was led to believe based on what the Town Attorney has said and what the Board of Appeals have said that you count it and then you have a change that says you can't count it and that is the classic situation where courts of law say there are equities here which should be respected and what we are saying to you is that you believe you don't have the power then the very least you can do is to say to the Board of Appeals, this applicant has an equity and the Planning Board assuming your satisfied with the environmental analysis we'll recommend he be granted his variance. We will take care of the financial part. We will demonstrate to the Board of Appeals what the financial injury is going to be but it would certainly be helpful for the Planning Board to make some comment which is not negative to our chances before the Board of Appeals. Mr. McDonald: I think our determination is going to be built on planning considerations the equity won't enter into it. That is PLANNING BOARD • ( 36 NOVE*R( 3, 1990 a job for the Zoning Board of Appeals. There's criteria that C has been handed down under who knows how many court cases. Mr. Like: I have been going before Planning Board's for the past twenty years and you can't tell me that the Planning Board is unmindful of (inaudible) that is simply not true. Mr. McDonald: The recommendation we're going to send to them is going to be based on Planning consideration. They will entertain the equity question. That is their job and that is really their job, that's their expertise. In this case we're not going to substitute our jobs for this, we're going to look at this on a planning basis. That's what they ask us our recommendation on. They don't need our opinion on the equity of it, there are going to actually ma'ce a determination. They are going to use their judgement to make this determination, net ours in that matter and we're going to comment on the planning aspects of it. I think if you have case, go. If you have it then you will win. If you do not, you will not. Mr. Like: Are there any other questions you have at this point? Mr. Orlowski: Not right now. We'll talk with the town attorney. Mr. Hanauer: How do we address the drainage? Ms. Scopaz: Can I make one suggestion. I think it would be useful for the record if you would condense your presentation in a letter, if you can present your presentation that you made earlier this evening into writing and this way we can use that as the basis for our discussion with the town attorney. In other words he would have something in writing so that we are all talking about the same thing and it would also be in the file for the record that you're pursuing this matter and I think that that would just be useful just to make sure that in our discussion with the town attorney that we're touching on the same points that your touching. Mr. Like: Could I get a transcript of the tape which will be helpful to me in composing such a summary. Mr. McDonald: It will take time. Mr. Like: If you'll furnish me with a transcript it would be a great help. Could you give me a copy of the tape? Mr. McDonald: With our facilities I would'nt absolutely count on it. Mr. Latham: Let's keep the thing going one way or the other. Mr. Like: Thank you. PLANNING BOARD • 37 NOVE4F( 3, 1990 Mr. Hanauer: We didn't discuss the drainage? How do we C resolve the drainage? Mr. McDonald: If there was a subdivision, assuming you got through the ZBA and you had whatever variances, whatever drainage problems existed on the site would have to be dealt with within the Planning process. At that time, I would think in conjunction with the Highway Department that we would be able to solve the drainage problem. We have to solve the drainage problem. Then, I think that would finally fall into our laps. We would count highly on the Highway Department and their comments on the subject and our consultant as well. Mr. Hanauer: You'll be looking into that in the meantime? Mr. McDonald: No, for anything you've submitted we would have to send to the consultants and they would want money for that, for the reviews and to do it before there was anything in the way of approvals would be premature. Mr. Hanauer: I mean regardless, even if we didn't get the approvals we still have the drainage problems. Mr. McDonald: If it's not a subdivision, we no longer have any power over it. I'm not denying the problem no matter how you look at it. It's whether we have the power to do anything about it. As a subdivision, the drainage would be in purview but as a lot, it is not within our purview anymore. We no longer have any power over it. Mr. Hanauer: Who would then? Mr. McDonald: The Highway Department. Mr. Like, Mr. Hanauer, Mr. Kapell: Thank you very much. Being there was no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i Jane Rousseau, Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chai fan - > r. 1 MAY 1 4 h 91 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS t 4 ^ SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr.' as71t+''~j~ - - Richard G. Ward Town Hall. 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 November 21, 1990 David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 RE: Subdivision Proposal for Hanauer/Bagley SCTM# 1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell; The Planning Board has reviewed the discussion which took place, at your client's request, at the November 13, 1990, Planning Board meeting. The Board's position has not changed from that stated in their July 3, 1989, correspondence (copy enclosed). The parcel is located in the Agricultural-Conservation (AC) District. The upland areas of the proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot requirements for this district. The Planning Board can not proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of the above mentioned district. If you wish, you can proceed with an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, ,i Bennett Orlowi, J Chairman enc. cc: Sanford Hanauer, Applicant Milton Bagley, Applicant Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector l-<: .4+.....e s.. n s-et:.~-aw.e.~rx......... -,-,Y .c.xetawi! r Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765 -1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 3, 1989 David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 RE: Hanauer/Bagley SCTMy1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell: The Planning Board has reviewed the concerns brought up at the meeting held on June 12, 1989. As stated in the Positive Declaration, the upland area of the subject premises does not meet the minimum lot area requirement for the Agricultural-Conservation (AC) District. The Planning Board can not proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of the above mentioned district. If you wish, upon receipt of a disapproval from the Building Department, you can proceed with an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. The Planning Board will withhold the re-scheduling of the scoping session until notification that the Zoning Board of Appeals has made a determination on the application. Please contact the office if you have any further questions. ery ly of k44 -.J. ~fg B ENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CIIAIRMA14 CC: Sanford Hanauer, Applicant Milton Bagley, Applicant Kenneth Coenen, Applicant's Consultant Tames A. Schondebare, Town Attorney Thomas W. Cramer, Town Consultant Zoning Board of Appeals Building Department S~Zq `~7 KAPELL REAL ESTATE, INC. 10 Flanders Road Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 369-0044 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 (516) 477-9403 21 North Ferry Road Shelter Island, New York 11964 (516) 749-3030 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 May 23, 1987 Dear Mr. Chairman: I enclose herewith on behalf of my clients, Sue Hanauer & Joan Bag- ley, an application for a set-off of property they own at the southwest corner of Lighthouse Road & Soundview Avenue, Southold, N.Y. Please note that this application replaces the application which you have had pending for a lot line change on the same property. My clients have instructed me to withdraw the request for same. I have attached to the set-off application a copy of a letter from the Southold Town Board of Appeals concerning the subject property and the Town of Southold 's new position regarding wetlands which exist on the site. Thankyou for your assistance in advancing the project and please no- tify me as to how I may assist the Board in its review. incerely, David E. Kapell as agent Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Set-Off Application of Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley David E. Kapell, as agent Gentlemen: The following statements are offered for your consideration in the review of the above-mentioned minor subdivision and its referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: (1) No grading, other than foundation excavation for a residential building is proposed. (2) No new roads are proposed and no changes will be made in the grades of the existing roads. (3) No new drainage structures or alteration of existing structures are proposed. Yours truly, 5Da v id E. Kapell s agent APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT To the Planning Board of the Town of Southold: The undersigned applicant hereby applies for (tentative) (final) approval of a subdivision plat in accordance with Article 16 of the Town Law and the Rules and Regulations of the Southold Town Planning Board, and represents and states as follows: 1. The applicant is the owner of record of the land under application. (If the applicant is not the owner of record of the land under application, the applicant shall state his interest in said land under application.) 2. The name of the subdivision is to be ..Sue..Ha.nauer Joan Bagley, David E. KapeII as agent 3. The entire land under application is described in Schedule "A" hereto annexed. (Copy of deed suggested.) 4. The land is held by the applicant under deeds recorded in Suffolk County Clerk's office as follows: Liber 9842........... Page .........598 On 8/1/85 Liber Page On Liber Page On Liber Page On Liber Page On as devised under the Last Will and Testament of or as distributee 5. The area of the land is .....4..94.5...... acres. 6. All taxes which are liens on the land at the (late hereof have been paid except N.A...................................................... 7. The land is encumbered by ....N.A mortgage s as follows: (a) Mortgage recorded in Liber Page ..................in original amount of $ unpaid amount $ held by address (b) Mortgage recorded in Liber Pace in original amount of unpaid amount $ held by address (c) Mortgage recorded in Liber Page in original amount of unpaid amount held by address 8. There are no other encumbrances or liens against the land except N.A. 9. The land lies inthefollowing zoningusedistricts .A-Agric,4.tlixll,-RQS,id2flt,1 a, 1, 10. No part of the land lies under water whether tide water, stream, pond water or otherwise, ex- cept .as..shown on survey attached. 11. The applicant shall at his expense install all required public improvements. 12. The land (g((XeX) (does not) lie in a Water District or Water Supply District. Name of Dis- trict, if within a District, is 13. Water mains will be laid by .....N.A and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 14. Electric lines and standards will be installed by . N . A . . • • • • • • • • • • • • and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said lines. 15. Gas mains will be installed by N. A and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 16. If streets shown on the plat are claimed by the applicant to be existing public streets in the Suffolk County Highway system, annex Schedule "P" hereto, to show same. 17. If streets shown on the plat are claimed by the applicant to be existing public streets in the Town of Southold Highway system, annex Schedule "C" hereto to show same. 18. There are no existing buildings or structures on the land which are not located and shown on the plat. 19. Where the plat shows proposed streets which are extensions of streets on adjoining sub- division maps heretofore filed, there are no reserve strips at the end of the streets on said existing maps at their conjunctions with the proposed streets. 20. In the course of these proceedings, the applicant will offer proof of title as required by Sec. 335 of the Real Property Law. 21. Submit a copy of proposed deed for lots shoring all restrictions, covenants, etc. Annex Schedule "D". 22. The applicant estimates that the cost of grading and required public improvements will he as itemized in Schedule "E" hereto annexed and requests that the maturity of the Performance Bond be fixed at years. The Performance Bond will he written by a licensed surety company unless otherwise shown on Schedule "F". Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley DATE MdY............ 19.87. Oa.vi.d..E...Ka.pe.l.L..as..ag.ent......... ( . f Applicant) By (Sig ture and Title) P.O.Box 463, Greenport.,. N, Y.. 11944 (Address) STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF Suf fA J,k • • , , , , • ss iC On the 'z........... day of ..............May..........., 19. 87. before me personally came David E. Kapell • • • • • • • to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that ....Ile...... executed the same. NOW, Jose" LTOWNMN06JL otary Public cow~ STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss: On the day of 19......, before me personally came .........................to me known, who being by me duly sworn did de- pose and say that resides at No . ...............................that is the of the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed by order of the board of directors of said corporation. and that signed name thereto by like order. Notary Public Addendum Set-Off Application Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley 1. Tax map # 1000-50-6-4 2. There are no existing restrictions which apply to the subject property. 3. Adjoining property owners: 1. TooBee Realty Corp. 2. Ivan A. & Danica A. Kitano£ 3. Genevieve Sepenoski ~ p eER 9042 A61498 • - / / Standard N.Y.B.T.U. Form B Mr M -Bmgain and Sale Deed, with Covenan I -pia" Gnnmr', A,11-Individual ur rAYWratlVn. (,ingk sheet) CONSULT YOUR LAWYER BEFORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUMENT. THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD BE USED BY LAWYERS Y THIS INDENTURE, made the 26th day of July nineteen hundred and eighty- BETWEEN y~Q LAWRENCE W. STEPHENSON residing at 2241 West Monona Drive, Phoenix, Arizona 85027, and SUSAN J. STEPHENSON, residing at 1362 Walden Road, Walnut ~-y Creek, California 94596 party of the first part, and 149 SUE HANAUER and JOAN BAGLEY, as tenants in common, residing at 2 The Hollows, Syosset, New York 11791, and 95 Cypress Drive, Woodbury, New York 11797, respectively, party of the second part, WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of ten dollars and other valuable considera paid by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the f or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land,~L3iNt~ttR&c$tY+18}G~b[~tydclft}~Nd~~C}k sits lying and beingxC4koc at Hortons Point, Town of Southold, County of Suff and State of New York, bounded and described as follows, to wit: BEGINNING at a corner formed by the intersection of the westerly side of Lighthouse Road with the southerly side of Soundview Avenue; RUNNING THENCE along the westerly side of Lighthouse Road, South DISTRICT 410 11' 00" East 419.04 feet to land now or formerly of John McGuire; 1000 THENCE along the northerly line of land now or formerly of John McGuire, South 480 55' 10" West 456.94 feet to the easterly line SECTION of land now or formerly of Genevieve Sepenowski; THENCE along the easterly line of land now or formerly of Genevi 050.00 Sepenowski, North 420 15' 20" West 515.04 feet to the southerly side of Soundview Avenue; BLOCK THENCE along the southerly side of Soundview Avenue North 601 311 30" East 476.50 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING. 06.00 BEING and intended to be the same premises conveyed to the parti LOT of the first part by deed dated 1/8/73, recorded in-the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on 1/8/73,: in Liber 7318, page 454. 004.000 There has been executed and intended to be recorded simultaneous. herewith a purchase money first mortgage from the grantees hereii `s~114s to the grantors herein in the original principal sum of $40,000.1 y ti I r TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the first part in and to any streets a roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof; TOGETHER with the appurtenan< and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises; TO HAVE AND 1 HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns the party of the second part forever. AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anythi ^i whereby the said premises have been encumbered in any way whatcver, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Licra law, covenants that the party the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will (told the right to receive such consi oration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will app the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the salve f any other purpose. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indentpre so require IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first abo- written. IN PRESENCE oF: RECEIVED 6AW RE AL ESTATE i nm ENCE W. STEPIENSON a k a Lawrence AUG 1 1985 -Stephenson TRANSFER TAX' , SUSAN J. S EPHENSO , byµLawrence W SUFFOLK Stephenson as attorney-in-fact COUNTY t- LIBER 9042 PACE 599 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUF LK SS: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SS: On the 26th day of July, 1985 before me On the personally came day of 19 before me LAWRENCE W. STEPHENSON personally came to me known to be the individual described in and who to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. nn executed the same. X13 Notary Public Affll!1IY B. TOHul NOTARY PTM C, Stota of Saw Tort , .:..z `.V .%.V 19 2! OF ORK ) PY OF SUFFOLK. ) STATE Of NEW YORK. COUNTY,OF' - SS: )n the 26th day of July 1985, On the day of e me . , personally came 19 before me personally came Lawrence W. Steg ensc n the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with known to be the individual described in whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly aha executed the foregoing instrument and sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No. known to be the attorney-in-fact of 'I J. Stephenson the individual(s) that he'knows .ibed in, and who, by said attorney-in- executed the same, and acknowledged that described in and who executed the foregoingh instrument; to be individual 'ecuted said instrument as the act and that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw of said Susan J. Stephenson execute the same; and that he, said witness, -rtue of a power of attorney dated at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto. Ly 18, 1985 and intended to be ded simultaneously herewith. NOTARY PT7,VV'., State of Now York Y% oaa-11SAIMID p~ ri„r, >l M:ach DO 19 Ore ~ T 9842 PACE 00- - 19ttrgalh nub #air Bred - KITH COVENANT AGAINST GRANTOR'S Acrs SECTION r BLOCK LAWRENCE N. STEPHENSON LOT f- 't/a LAWRENCE L+1. STEPHENSON et al. f 1OO COUNTY OR TOWN t 3 HANAUER & JOAN BAGLEY Recorded at R uat of E " LE AUR x pc F WDAND FORM OF NEW YDNA BOARD OF TITLE UNDENWRITENS Return by Mail to Distributed by f WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, OHtCAGO TITLE ESQS'. KNSiJIRANCE COMPANY Main Road - PO Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 Zip No. ~(iS; ~ A1NO00 711O3 j© )j11319 V113Sgi-V 31131141P S91 Hate, Z (13aNn~?N 141(.4 (9184) g~ II PROJECT I.D. NUMBER ~ II W YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CO RVATION DIVISION OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1. Applicant/sponsor Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley 2. Project Name David E. Kapell, as agent same 3. Project location: Municipality Southold County Suffolk 4. Is proposed action: w _ New ? Expansion ? Modification/alteration S. Describe project briefly: Applicant proposes to set-off a building lot of 2.497 acres from a parcel of 4.945 acres. 6. Precise location (road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map) Southwest corner of Lighthouse Road & Soundview Avenue, Southold, N.Y. 7. Amount of land affected: Initially Q q4 5 acres Ultimately Q Q Q F acres a. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictionsi tAS Yes ? No If No. describe briefly 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project? W Residential ? Industrial ? Commercial ? Agriculture ? Parkland/open space ? Other Describe: 10. Does action involve a permitlapproval, or funding, now or ultimately, from any other governmental agency (Federal, state or local)? El Yes ? No If yes, list agency(s) and permittapprovals S.C.D.H.S. Article VI (pending) 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? ? Yes of~ WJ No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval type 12. As result of proposed action will existing permit/approval require modification? ? Yes No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley Appbcant/s name: _J1a,1_i_d_ ,_...J( y.e1,L.._as-Zg_E-r4-t- Date: 5 / 2 3 / 6 7 Signature: Q ecA L If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER r oS~FFOrx~o o . Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD -STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.1., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI May 15 , 1987 Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. Main Road, Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Appeal No. 3214 - Hanauer and Bagley (Variances) Dear Gail: This letter will confirm our recent conversations in the above matter. Our Town Attorney has advised that Court Decisions were rendered during 1986 indicating that wetland areas cannot be deleted when calculating the area of lot(s) in pending or proposed divisions of land. At our Regular Meeting held April 2, 1987, the Board of Appeals reviewed and concurred with the February 19, 1987 Memorandum of the Building Inspector and Town Attorney's Opinion that wetland areas cannot be deleted from the area of a lot for proposed set-offs or other divisions of land. Inasmuch as your application is for Variances under Article III, Section 100-31 of the Zoning Code, it would appear that-tf your proposal is for a minimum lot area of 80,000 sq. ft. and minimum lot width of 175 feet for each proposed lot, for single-family dwelling use and meeting all other zoning requirements, a variance is not required. Please be sure to check with Mr. Lessard of the Building Department as to whether or not in his opinion any other variances or appeal would be necessary under the Town Code. If you feel that you would like to proceed with a variance application with all of the above in mind, please let us know. We are transmitting copies of this letter to the Planning 2 _ May 15, 1987 Appeal No. 3214 - Hanauer & Bagley gail A. Wickham, Esq. Board and Building Department for their files, as well as the Suffolk County Health Department for their pending Article VI application. Unless we hear otherwise, we will assume that this variance application is to be deadfiled. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN A' . lk ! Enclosure h cc. Planning Board Building Department t Suffolk county Health Department ~i i. JAMES BITSES, KATHERINE BITSES, StU i w 1 , FLORENCE RIEFF, STEVE ALDI, MARY ALDI _IM'AY 4"' OBJECTORS TO: i J THE PLANNING BOARD TOWN HALL MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X S IRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that it has come to our attention that two applications have been made for minor subdivisions on the westerly side of Lighthouse Road near the intersection of Soundview I Avenue in Southold. (See Map #1 , made part hereof) Application #1- Minor Subdivision of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley (two lots) Application #2 - Minor Subdivision of Too Bee Realty Corp. (four lots) 1. We object to the granting of these subdivisions for the following reasons: Both proponents Hanauer and Bagley and Too Bee Realty are one and the same., using the fiction of two legal entities to circumvent the Statutes requiring that subdivisions of five or more lots must comply to the requirements of a major subdivision. ' -1= 2- The map filed by Hanauer and Bagley is in error as to the extent of water covering their subdivision. An examination of the filed map (Map #1 herein) shows the pond waterline on the easterly side of the parcel closely paralleling the 55 foot contour. The waterline on the left side of the pond is purely imaginary and diverges radically from the 55 foot contour. (See enclosed Map #1) As shown on Map #1 the failure to report this condition is a major underrepresentation which a field inspection will disclose. 3- Both proponents (Too Bee and Hanauer and Bagley) maintain an illegal dam at the boundary between the two minor subdivisions. (Sze Green line on Map #1) This dam masks the fact that there j is a marshy area in the northwesterly corner at the Too Bee subdivision (Shown in red on Map A. This is a major underrepresentation. 4- Both proponents have erected a dam as aforesaid which is blocking the normal flow of ground water and causing the same to back-up and inundate the properties of Bitses, Rieff and Aldi to the north, contrary to Southold Town Statute Sec. 82-2A. This is a major under representation. 5- The erection of this dam is in violation of Southold Town Statutes Sec 82--2A; 81-6(3); 81-7K; Bl- 5(1) 81-13; and 82-2A as aforesaid. The erection of this dam is unreported to the Dept of Env. Con. as required by law. The environmental impact statement filed by both minor subdivisions is fataly defective and contains major underrepresentations requiring a reinspection by both the DEC and the Southold Planning Board.,, and raises doubts as to the bona fides of both applications. 6- On at least three occasions the dam has backed up ground waters to the extent of flooding Soundview Avenue to a depth of six inches, making it impassable to vehicular traffic and constituting a legal public Nuisance. On one occasion (as is shown in the Highway Department Records) the Highway Departmem3 removed the dam in order to unflood Soundview Avenue. On two other occasions the dam was removed by others to relieve the flooding at Soundview Avenue. The highway culverts have been raised twice to accommodate the overflow and are now at Soundview Avenue level and cannot be raised any further. The overflow continues, the damage to adjoining upland property owners continues and ' the situation is now critical. -2- 7- Many of the above objections were raised at the Public Hearing, as the record thereof will show„ at which time proponents were advised of the circumstances herein. W H E R E F O R E For these and other valid objections the undersigned respectfully requests that the Planning Board (a) Stop all proceedings as to these two subdivisions (b) Conduct a field inspection in company with the objectors listed herein and the proponents Too Bee Realty and Hanauer and Bagley (c) Schedule a rehearing before the Planning Board of both applications for minor subdivisions (d) Set aside any and all approvals, if any granted to proponents and withhold such approvals until such time as the serious questions raised herein have been resolved Respectfully submitted, JAMES BITSES KATHERINE BITSES FLORENCE RIEFF STEVE ALDI MARY ALDI Objectors i f -3- a AV I `ate I v i i j y J I JAMES BITSES, KATHERINE BITSES, FLORENCE RIEFF, STEVE ALDI, MARY ALDI -?+.flp~/=-~Qo 'll OBJECTORS yl/il TO. THE PLANNING BOARD TOWN HALL MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X S IRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that it has come to our attention that two applications have been made for minor subdivisions on the westerly side of Lighthouse Road near the intersection of Soundview Avenue in Southold. (See Map #1 , made part hereof) Application #1- Minor Subdivision of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley (two lots) Application #2 - Minor Subdivision of Too Bee Realty Corp. (four lots) 1. We object to the granting of these subdivisions for the following reasons: Both proponents Hanauer and Bagley and Too Bee Realty are one and the same., using the fiction of two legal entities to circumvent the Statutes requiring that subdivisions of five or more lots must comply to the requirements of a major subdivision. ~ ~ -1= 2-- The map filed by Hanauer and Bagley is in error as to the extent of water covering their subdivision. An examination of the filed map (Map #1 herein) shows the pond waterline on the easterly side of the parcel closely paralleling the 55 foot contour. The waterline on the left side of the pond is purely imaginary and diverges radically from the 55 foot contour. (See enclosed Map #1) As shown on Map #1 the failure to report this condition is a major underrepresentation which a field inspection will disclose. 3- Both proponents (Too Bee and Hanauer and Bagley) maintain an illegal dam at the boundary between the two minor subdivisions. (See Green line on Map #1) This dam masks the fact that there is a marshy area in the northwesterly corner at the Too Bee subdivision (Shown in red on Map K. This is a major under rep resentation. 4- Both proponents have erected a dam as aforesaid which is blocking the normal flow of ground water and causing the same to back-up and inundate the properties of Bitses, Rieff and Aldi to the north, contrary to Southold Town Statute Sec. 82-2A. This is a major under rep resentation. 5- The erection of this dam is in violation of Southold Town Statutes Sec 82-2A; 81-6(3); 81-7K; Bl 5(1) 81-13; and 82-2A as aforesaid. The erection of this dam is unreported to the Dept of Env. Con. as required by law. The environmental impact statement filed by both minor subdivisions is fataly defective and contains major underrepresentations requiring a reinspection by both the DEC and the Southold Planning Board.,, and raises doubts as to the bona fides of both applications. 6- On at least three occasions the dam has backed up ground waters to the extent of flooding Soundview Avenue to a depth of six inches, making it impassable to vehicular traffic and constituting a legal public Nuisance. On one occasion (as is shown in the Highway Department Records) the Highway Department removed the dam in order to unflood Soundview Avenue. On two other occasions the dam was removed by others to relieve the flooding at Soundview Avenue. The highway culverts have been raised twice to accommodate the overflow and are now at Soundview Avenue level and cannot be raised any further. The overflow continues, the damage to adjoining upland property owners continues and the situation is now critical. -2- i 7- Many of the above objections were raised at the Public Hearing, as the record thereof will show„ at which time proponents were advised of the circumstances herein. W H E R E F O R E For these and other valid objections the undersigned respectfully requests that the Planning Board (a) Stop all proceedings as to these two subdivisions (b) Conduct a field inspection in company with the objectors listed herein and the proponents Too Bee Realty and Hanauer and Bagley (c) Schedule a rehearing before the Planning Board of both applications for minor subdivisions (d) Set aside any and all approvals, if any granted to proponents and withhold such approvals until such time as the serious questions raised herein have been resolved Re tfully sub ed AMES BITSE i KATHERINE BITSES I FLORENCE RIEFF STEVE ALDI MARY ALDI Objectors i -3- i ,e4jtV J 41 ~d i ZIAM' 1 -41 16 TEL. 765-1802 i, ~g~EFOU(~oG TOWN OF SOUTHOLD U OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 \ TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 col ya L Y February 19, 1987 TO: Bennett Orlowski, Planning Board Chairman FROM: Victor Lessard, Executive Administrator SUBJECT: Wetland Areas It is my understanding that parcels containing wetlands, sand pits, etc. for purposes of determining the area of a parcel only, must be included in the ca- culations. The board should take this approach, until such time the State wishes to change its'' laws. CONS VS7 s 4F- Zand 2C1£ C'otn#any N. COUNTRY RD. • BOX 361 WADING RIVER. N.Y. 1179) (5i6) 929.3575 April 25, 1985 Wickham, Wickham , 6 Bressler, P.C. Main Road, P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 Attn: Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. Re: Hanauer and Bagley Lighthouse Rd and Soundview Ave. Southold, N.Y. Dear Ms. Wickham: As per your request, I have personally inspected the above referenced property and can offer the following comments relative to the parcel's development potential. 1) Upland vegetation found at the subject surrounding the small freshwater pond is predominantly Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) and Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). Said trees average 6" - 8" diameter breast height (dbh) and cover an understory of honeysuckle and greenbriar. The pond shoreline area contains a freshwater wetland fringe 10' to 20' in width. Wetlands species observed include Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and Summersweet (Clethra alnifolia). 2) The southeast corner of the property appears to have sufficient area to construct one single family dwelling. Said dwelling should be sited as to prevent fertilizers. and road/roof runoff from entering the wetland system and a natural buffer area should be established between the pond and improved areas. Turf landscaping should be minimized and subsurface recharge utilized for roof drains and driveway drainage. Lastly, hay bales should be installed along the wetland buffer area prior to any construction activities. • e~te~ daW ?eaf zu~ Z~ ~ebSs ~C~.Se~ dy.a C l~ I hg~e~tw~, L~L"~2 5~ GL? 7~~ s Nc.te, aM.d t~.~ P{ s~~dTiJl,~t,~y ~`~p llca,{ZUtn,, fP~ a.Gfi'alb~ l'~61 - blem a 1791-flk C,arS~/c~ o Cup Ss 6. cow. •a. G~ T Tcv SF-~^~ G ~iM15 / hc.kiP,* f Cc lA-. OIN lG,e ?,v. vI lIPA W-e4V+ Ds U41-i W b s dent. di c o f fa L end ` ~cf 1(~,{t'es . k4uebea,. LKv"i~ el¢~ 4,50 i&e- Pon A5 44keFc Z4 0c L&0 - 4,fmtt &Z sfJ,a4cl d fD , o u~,~ c-4r~{ti. L~sT- ~ Q-t,.•e~ s I a 's1 s P&O., Qs also 1 te wl-e Ca~s~l zc.~,~ r aw~ ?s Q°ss~bl~~~G Gvr,s,s Jeu~/ G~ ~~SD~ GUU e Pa./~ Ohm UtAr Le zt - G~s .rz a cfiV?. Dcc u,( a& [ CL tv~ I w, to c GJdVtSe f jtv,t4 pp d . ~a Town Hall, 53095 Main Road ' P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 1 TELEPHONE (516) 7 65 -19 38 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Board of Trustees From: Planning Board RE: Hanauer & Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4 Date: October 25, 1988 Enclosed please find a revised map for the above mentioned subdivision. The Trustees previously inspected the property, however since that time the applicant flagged the wetlands and delineated them on the map. Please see David Emilita's varification of the flagging. Please review and refer any comments to the Planning Board office. enc. MS/jt i • o~v one FRANK A. KUJAWSKI, JR., President a i ~ LI - S TELEPHONE ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President (516) 765-1892 JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III SOUTHOLD TOWN JOHN L. BEDNOSKI, JR. PLANNING BOARD HENRY P. SMITH'.. r BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. . Box Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 October 3, 1988 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Proposed subdivision for Hanauer and Bagley 1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised that the Town Trustees inspected the above referenced property on September 23, 1988. The Trustees have no objection to this project. Very truly yours, Frank A. Kujawski, Jr. President Towner stees~ By: Ilene Pfif e 1 ng, Cle r FAK:ip HENRY P. SMITH, President ti JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. ~ 4 TELEI1110NE PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD (516) 765-1892 ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. Obi •,1'~!! ?Yr ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD Of 'T'ORT' TRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 August 6, 1986 Abigail A. Wickham Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. Main Road, P.•0. Box 1424 Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley Dear Ms. Wickham: A question has been raised regarding this proposal by the Board of Appeals. Please be advised that approval by the Town Trustees has been granted based on the Suevey for 11n,, -r loan Bneley it Southnid. I 1, 1. ,-D. -U, , .o- .,tit, rI, v,s,u • LJoj stlowiug the building envelope placement 50' from the edge of the pond. Please be advised that there is to he no disturbance to the Emergent Aquatic Vegetation in this area and the following provisions shall be taken during construction: - 1. During excavation the fill. most h..• contained so that it does not wash into the pond. 2. Care should be taken so as to prelude the entry of any construction material into the pond, 3. Blacktop driveways can not h, use,;. 4. Following construction all areas f oxposed soil shall be properly protected with soit.~He ,ros;ion control devices and/ or vegetated to prevent entry nl- ,,oil into the pond. if you have any questions or •„u( ))lease do not hesitate to contact this office. -r: truly yours, • ~~SUFF~(k~o • O Gy HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. ° , T (51 ) TELEPHONE PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN O,~",;+Iy rb0 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 August 6, 1986 Abigail A. Wickham Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. Main Road, P. 0. Box 1424 Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley Dear Ms. Wickham: A question has been raised regarding this proposal by the Board of Appeals. Please be advised that approval by the Town Trustees has been granted based on the Suevey for Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley at Southold, Dated Feb. 26, 1985 and revised March 12, 1985 showing the building envelope placement 50' from the edge of the pond. Please be advised that there is to be no disturbance to the Emergent Aquatic Vegetation in this area and the following provisions shall be taken during construction: 1. During excavation the fill must be contained so that it does not wash into the pond. 2. Care should be taken so as to preclude the entry of any construction material into the pond. 3. Blacktop driveways can not be used. 4. Following construction all areas of exposed soil shall be properly protected with suitable erosion control devices and/ or vegetated to prevent entry of soil into the pond. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, TOWN OF SOUTH-OLD BOARD OF SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK WETLANDS PERMIT This Wetlands Permit No. 29Z has been granted by the Town Trustees according to information furnished in Application No 60 filed by Applicant.. Sue Hanauer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, &.Joan,Bagley n July .11.............. 19..8. map o proposed work will be kept on file in the Trustee rrrc:e er tne app ica ton number given. Permit granted to do the following work , onstruc single family residence 11 y and sanitary system on ro ert Location of property on which work to be done , Rummel's Pond.................................... corner of Lighthouse „ Road and Soundview Avenue „Southold,,,Ngw„XO.r.k Creek, Bay or Harbor fronting property ......H..u..m..m..e..l..'s Pond Size of work: Length Width Height Above High Water Depth Below Low Water - .Yards to be Excavated Yards to be Filled Manner in which material is to be removed or deposited Intended use of property A" Residential & Ag=,j ~,ul tura 1 Conditions if any Expiration Date ...Jul l 11, 1986 if work..}tas„not commenced„>?y,,,S.aid..dake............ Number of Inspections Required .-..TruS.te.es..axe...to..be..notified..upon..the..completion,...... of the work. Inspection Fees .........$.5...4.4 Liability Policies in the Amount of The validity of this permit is or may be subject to the approval of other governmental or municipal authorities. The Town accepts no responsibility in applying for or obtaining such approval. In the event that such approval is necessary, the holder of this permit shall not commence operations here- under until such approval has been obtained in writing. The failure to obtain such other approval when required shall subject this permit to immediate revocation by the Trustees upon receipt by the Trustees of written notice from such other governmental or municipal authorities of its refusal or disapproval. r r • The applicant does by the acceptance of this permit, assume all responsibility for operations under- taken pursuant to this permit, and shall take all precautions for the prevention of injuries to parsons and property resulting from such operations. By such acceptance, the applicant also agrees to indemni- fy and save harmless the Town, and its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims arising from operations under this permit and any and all acts or omissions of applicant, his agent and employees. The applicant and the owner and occupants of the premises upon which the operations authorized by this permit are being conducted, do, by the acceptance of this permit, give consent to the Town, and its officers and employees to enter upon the premises where such operations are being conducted to make such inspections as the Town may deem necessary to insure that such operations are being con- ducted in conformity with this permit. This operation will not substantially: A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the town. B. Cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation. C. Cause saltwater intrusion into the fresh water resources of the town. D. Adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vege- tation or the natural habitat thereof. E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage. F. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the town. G. Change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters. H. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity. 1. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town. Signedi cam! 1..:.~~( President Board of outhold Town Trustees Date...... y?-C . L. /y~ i i ~OG~yFFO(K~o 0 IRK TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 July 18, 1985 Mrs. Abigail A. Wickham Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P. C. Main Road, P. O. Box 1424 Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley Wetland Application No. 260 Dear Mrs. Wickham: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Trustees at a Special Meeting held on July 11, 1985 with reference to the wetland application of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley. RESOLVED that Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley be granted permission under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, New York, all in accordance with the application. This permit will expire on dcH3s-2G, 1986~f//,/y if the work has not commenced by said date. There shall be two inspections required; and the trustees shall be notified when the project is complete. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees ~J Ilene Pfifferling~& Secretary to Board HPS:ip cc: Trustees Bldg. Dept. File PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES JUNE 26, 1985 ° 8:00 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SUE HANAUER AND JOAN BAGLEY FOR A WETLANDS PERMIT, APPLICATION NO. 260 SUBMITTED BY AGIGAIL WICKHAM. ATTORNEY. Present were: Vice-President John Bredemeyer, III Trustee Frank Kujawski Trustee John Bednoski Secretary Ilene Pfifferling Absent: Henry P. Smith, President TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Before we get involved with the process, I just like to say anyone having a comment, please come forward and speak their name loudly and clearly. If you represent any group, association or corporation identify yourself so we have a notation on the record and we know who you represent. The Board received a communication from the County Dept. of Health with respect to the application of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley for a Wetlands Permit. The Board was concerned that there would be no impact on the pond from activity surrounding water supply and sewage that might be generated if the house were permitted there, TRUSTEE KUJAWSKI: The following letter was received from Mr. Walter Lindley, Environmental Planner, Waste Water Management Section, Dept. of Health Services for the record: Dear Mr. Henry P. Smith: This office has received your letter dated May 30, 1985 regarding the Hanauer/Bagley property. The pond, located onthe parcel, appears to be perched water retained by loamy soil and not hydralically connected to the groundwater table. If the area around the pond is not disturbed and its' elevation is controlled to that shown on the survey dated February 26, 1985, it will not affect the proper functioning of the sanitary system. The subsoils of the site appears to be poor for the proper functioning of the sanitary system. The applicant must demonstrate Public Hearing - Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley June 26, 1985 Page 2. to the satisfaction of the department that clean sand can be reached prior to approval of the proposed sanitary system. The test well data indicates pesticide contamination by Aldicarb and Carbofuran. In addtiion, the well showed the affects of nitrates impacts with 8.8 mg/l of N. The test well exceeds the standards of the department and is unacceptable. Although there appears to be no significant environmental impacts from the proposed project, the application for approval to 'construct is in non-conformity to the departments' standards and is pending. If you have any questions regarding the afore-mentioned, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Walter G. Lindley Environmental Planner Waste Water Management Section TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? KATHRYN BITSES: My name is Kathryn Bitses and I am the adjoining property owner, the application is for the large pond, I own the small pond adjacent to the large pond. I would like to voice my objection at the proper time. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You may speak now. MRS. BITSES: The pond in question has a dam which had been build on the property of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley. Each year, that dam has been getting higher and higher and higher. When we bought the property in 1953, we had a very small pond in which we planted water lillies and goldfish. It was perfectly controlled we had fruit trees on that side of our property. Little by little the height of that dam was raised and our property became flooded. We lost our fruit trees now we have an acre and one half of water on our property. Each time it rains the road is flooded. The Town comes along and raises the conduit under the road they have done this two or three times. They raise the level of the road they do nothing about the dam that does all the damage. I don't know what they intend to build, or how they are going to build or how much land they are going to fill in. What is going to happen is the water that will not be able to naturally leave that property is going to back up on me. My property is consisted of three acres. I have now over an acre and one half under water. Eventually, if they are allowed to build and fill in, I am going to have water up to my doorstep. I think that the town, before granting any kind of permit to fill in should look at the matter Public Hearing - Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley June 26, 1985 Page 3. they should inspect my property and see the damage that is being done to us. Also, Mrs. Rees who never had any puddle on her land now has a sizeable pond on her property each time it rains. Last year the town was forced to cut through the dam so that some of the water could leave and go naturally into the sand soil. WHat has happened they have prevented the natural flow of water from taking it's natural course and going and finding it's final destination in sandy loam. That entire area is clay. When it rains a certain amount of water is retained. If you dam it up the dam gets higher and the .water gets higher and higher. It backs up on our property and now, it not only comes back on my property 'but has gone to three or four others along the same line. I don't know what they are going to build but I would like to find out, if I may. Also, my brother James Bitses is expected here in a little while and he will request permission to speak also. He understands these things alot better than I do. Thank You. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else here to speak on behalf of or against this application? ABIGAIL IJICKHAM: I'm Gail Wickham and I am representing the applicant. I have a few things I would like to say, first in support of the application and then response to the comment. As far as the construction on this property it has been placed as far back from the pond as it is possible with the Town's set back regulations. Mr. Bowman of the Land Use Company has done an investigation of vegetation on the site, and has not found anything that would be harmed by the construction of this residence or that is significantly important under the environmental regulations. We are talking about one house on 5.2 acres. As far as the Health Dept. comments, I think the Board should be aware that on June 18th we did receive a map from the Health Dept. stamped with an approval for the construction. We are aware of pesticide contamination which has been discussed with the Board of Health. We understand that in accordance with the approval, the water supply has to conform with their standards. That will be taken care of at the time of construction. As far as Mrs. Bitses complaint, I think her complaint is with the town. Her problem is the water level. That issue is something that will affect this property as well as her property. I believe that the water level is occuring because of the run off from the town road. It has created culverts from the roads. All the water washes to a low point. The Hanauer's and the Bagley's are willing to work with the Town on this point, we have discussed this briefly with Ray Dean some number of months ago. If we get our approval as well as continue our discussions to see what might be done. The dam may or may * not be the right solution Mr. Hanauer has been in touch with Pete and Barret who is an engineering firm about a kitchen sink type of method of control for the water level if it becomes necessary. Certainly I can appreciate Mrs. Bitses concern I don't think the dam is going to be at.all changed by the location of the house on this property. That is a separate issue which has to be dealt with and I think there are ample ways of dealing Public Hearing - Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley June 26, 1985 Page 4. with it. If the Board has any questions, I will be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KUJAWSKI: Was that approval for the sanitary system from the Health Dept. that you received? MRS. WICKHAM: It says Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services for approval of construction and we do show the location proposed for the septic tank and cesspool. Now in the course of our application to the Board of Health we did do alot of digging. We have not yet gotten to pure sand because of the expense of getting a crain in there. The Dept. of Health was willing to wait until we were ready to construct with the understanding that we would have to go down to pure sand and if necessary backfill some of the unacceptable material. Remove some of the unacceptable material and backfill the same. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In light of the fact that there seems to be some concern over run off being a problem in excessive amounts, would there be any problem in training water from roofs and having it run into dry wells? MRS. WICKHAM: That is not a problem, although I would like to note that that type of run off is not significant compared to the amour of run off coming from the road. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYRE: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for the application at this time? MRS BITSES: May I respond? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it would be most appropriate if we could have all parties get their chance to speak on behalf of the application at one time. MR. BAGLEY: On behalf of Bagley and Hanauer we do not have any intention of filling in the pond and doing anything detrimental to the area. As Mrs. Bitses pointed out the problem is the pond is dammed up from the south side.by the farmer and that is what is causing the problem. MRS. BITSES: I don't think Mr. Bagley understands what the exact situation is. The dam has nothing to do with the farmer. The farmer has been shoveling the dirt and creating the dam on his property. The entire dam is on Mr. Bagley's property. Every year since he has been there since 1952 he has had no problem. The size of Mr. Bagley's pond was smaller, our pond was smaller both were controllable. Public Hearing - Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley June 26, 1985 Page 4. with it. If the Board has any questions, I will be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KUJAWSKI: Was that approval for the sanitary system from the Health Dept. that you received? MRS. WICKHAM: It says Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services for approval of construction and we do show the location proposed for the septic tank and cesspool. Now in the course of our application to the Board of Health we did do alot of digging. We have not yet gotten to pure sand because of the expense of getting a crain in there. The Dept. of Health was willing to wait until we were ready to construct with the understanding that we would have to go down to pure sand and if necessary backfill some of the unacceptable material. Remove some of the unacceptable material and backfill the same. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In light of the fact that there seems to be some concern over run off being a problem in excessive amounts, would there be any problem in training water from roofs and having it run into dry wells? MRS. WICKHAM: That is not a problem, although I would like to note that that type of run off is not significant compared to the amount of run off coming from the road. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYRE: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for the application at this time? MRS BITSES: May I respond? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it would be most appropriate if we could have all parties get their chance to speak on behalf of the application at one time. MR. BAGLEY: On behalf of Bagley and Hanauer we do not have any intention of filling in the pond and doing anything detrimental to the area. As Mrs. Bitses pointed out the problem is the pond is dammed up from the south side,by the farmer and that is what is causing the problem. MRS. BITSES: I don't think Mr. Bagley understands what the exact situation is. The dam has nothing to do with the farmer. The farmer has been shoveling the dirt and creating the dam on his property. The entire dam is on Mr. Bagley's property. Every year since he has been there since 1952 he has had no problem. The size of Mr. Bagley's pond was smaller, our pond was smaller both were controllable. 46 Public Hearing - Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley June 26, 1985 Page 5. When they started to dam, every year we have been sneaking around like thieves going and cutting the dam, so that the water will run off in the winter so that our pond will decrease. We have been doing this since 1955, when they first put up the dam. Now the Dam is on Mr. Bagley's property, each time we go there the dam gets higher and higher and higher. The water level of both ponds gets higher and higher and higher. Now it has come to the point where during the winter the water level reaches to the road, and when it reaches the road we call .the Town and the Town comes and cuts through the dam. Now the dam is on his property and he wants to control the pond and the water level and he wants to make the pond smaller and he wants drier land all he has to do is get rid of that dam - dam, if you pardon my expression. Do you understand? Now we have been controlling this ourselves. If worse comes to worse we may have to go to court. An acre and one half under two inches of water, we can not take it any longer. We can not take loosing our trees any longer. We have nothing left of our orchard. We have two inches of water, three inches of water, five inches of water. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank You. Do we have any more comments with respect to this application? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I would like to say to Mrs. Bitses, I think we are on the same side. I think the problem she is concerned with is the dam, is on Mr. Bagley's property, that they can control. MR. BAGLEY: I am Mr. Bagley and I would just like to say, if a dam exists, I do not even know it. You said it was constructed in the 1950's? That predates our association with the situation by 20 years. I have never seen the dam. If a dam exists on our property, I would just assume that they take the dam away. The size of the pond is of no matter to us,if it.were smaller. I can understand her concern. I really want her to know, both as a neighbor and the Board to know that in no way, in any way did we mitigate this situation it's my understanding that the water is dammed, if you will, by a berm that the farmer has created. If there is a dam on our property we have control over it. This is the first I hear of it, I assure you. Then we don't have any problem. We are on the same side. Thank you. TRUSTEE KUJAWSKI: Would you make that a commitment that if this application is approved and it did turn out to be on your property that it would be removed? MR. BAGLEY: Definitely. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't think they necessarily want to eliminate the pond, to the extent removing the dam would do that. Public Hearing - Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley June 26, 1985 Page 5. When they started to dam, every year we have been sneaking around like thieves going and cutting the dam, so that the water will run off in the winter so that our pond will decrease. We have been doing this since 1955, when they first put up the dam. Now the Dam is on Mr. Bagley's property, each time we go there the dam gets higher and higher and higher. The water level of both ponds gets higher and higher and higher. Now it has come to the point where during the winter the water level reaches to the road, and when it reaches the road we call the Town and the Town comes and cuts through the dam. Now the dam is on his property and he wants to control the pond and the water level and he wants to make the pond smaller and he wants drier land all he has to do is get rid of that dam - dam, if you pardon my expression. Do you understand? Now we have been controllinc this ourselves. If worse comes to worse we may have to go to court. An acre and one half under two inches of water, we can not take it any longer. We can not take loosing our trees any longer. We have nothing left of our orchard. We have two inches of water, three inches of water, five inches of water. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank You. Do we have any more comments with respect to this application? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I would like to say to Mrs. Bitses, I think we are on the same side. I think the problem she is concerned with is the dam, is on Mr. Bagley's property, that they can control. MR. BAGLEY: I am Mr. Bagley and I would just like to say, if a dam exists, I do not even know it. You said it was constructed in the 1950's? That predates our association with the situation by 20 years. I have never seen the dam. If a dam exists on our property, I would just assume that they take the dam away. The size of the pond is of no matter to us.if it.were smaller. I can understand her concern. I really want her to know, both as a neighbor and the Board to know that in no way, in any way did we mitigate this situation it's my understanding that the water is dammed, if you will, by a berm that the farmer has created. If.there is a dam on our property we have control over it. This is the first I hear of it, I assure you. Then we don't have any problem. We are on the same side. Thank you. TRUSTEE KUJAWSKI: Would you make that a commitment that if this application is approved and it did turn out to be on your property that it would be removed? MR. BAGLEY: Definitely. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't think they necessarily want to eliminate the pond, to the extent removing the dam would do that. Public Hearing - Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley June 26, 1985 Page 6. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We couldn't have that. That would be unacceptable to this board. TRUSTEE KUJAWSKI: We do not want the pond eliminated either, but if it has created flooding. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: To avoid flooding yes, we would use the dam and the other method I mentioned that the engineer considered..to control the water level. Not to eliminate the pond. MR. BAGLEY: I have no problem with her concern, actually.I have ,empathy. MRS. BITSES: It is not a question of eliminating the pond, Mr. Bagle it is a question of controling both ponds. So that we don't have damage, and you don't have damage. And you don't have a swamp and we don't have a swamp. MR. BAGLEY: Not only am I with you, but we are truly innocent of your allegation. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? No comments. I will close the hearing. For the record the public notice has been published in the Suffolk Times, signed by Anna Lekkas. Also from the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, signed by Barbara Forbes, and proof that it was published on the Bulletin Board. Vice-President John Bredemeyer by Secretary Ilene Pfifferling Public Hearing - Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley June 26, 1985 Page 6. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We couldn't have that. That would be unacceptable to this board. TRUSTEE KUJAWSKI: We do not want the pond eliminated either, but if it has created flooding. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: To avoid flooding yes, we would use the dam and the other method I mentioned that the engineer considered,.to control the water level. Not to eliminate the pond. MR. BAGLEY: I have no problem with her concern, actually I have .empathy. MRS. BITSES: It is not a question of eliminating the pond, Mr. Bagle} it is a question of controling both ponds. So that we don't have damage, and you don't have damage. And you don't have a swamp and we don't have a swamp. MR. BAGLEY: Not only am I with you, but we are truly innocent of your allegation. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? No comments. I will close the hearing. For the record the public notice has been published in the Suffolk Times, signed by Anna Lekkas. Also from the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, signed by Barbara Forbes, and proof that it was published on the Bulletin Board. Vice-President John Bredemeyer by Secretary Ilene Pfifferling NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON WETLAND APPLICATIONS NOTICE IS HEREBY GI V- EN that public hearings will be COUNTY OF SUFFOLK held by the Town Trustees of STATE OF NEW YORK ss: the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on Wednesday, June 26, 1985 on _ the following applications for Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the 'permits under the provisions Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, of the Wetland Ordinance of a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; j the Town of Southold: and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, 8:00 P.M: In the matter of the application of Sue Hanauer has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman and Joan Bagley submitted by once each week for / weeks Wickham, Wickham & Bres- j sler to construct a single Z family dwelling, well and successively, commencing on the 'q sanitary system on property located on Hummel's Pond, I S/W corner of Lighthouse day ' ' ' ' ' ' • • • 19 . 1 Road and Soundview Avenue, Southold. I ~ 8:02 P.M.- In the matter of the application of Ralph Stock- er to construct 64' timbered bulkhead: place two (2) 20' X K- 6' floats parallel to bulkhead Sworn to before me this and dredge to 4' below mean • • • • • day of low water and utilize spoil (50 cu. yds.) as backfill for bulk- ......q'°"........... , 19 . ,head. Property is located at Maple Lane and Snug Harbor Road, Lot 59 on Cleave Point, Greenport, on Dawn Lagoon. 8:04 P.M.- In the matter of the application of John Kram- Notary Public er to construct 50' of bulk- head at or above mean high BARBARA FORBES water, backfill 20 cu. yds. of Notary Public, State of New York fill, dredge 250 cu. yds. of No. 4806846 eroded material in front of Qualified in Suffolk County bulkhead. Property located on Commission Expires March 30, 19 west side of Manhasset Av- enue; 110' S/0 Champlin Place, Greenport. 8:06 P.M.- In the matter of the application of Ingeborg Mueller to construct a 70' catwalk, 16' tamp, 40' floating dock with associated piling on property located at Westview Drive, Mattituck Inlet, Matti- tuck. 8:08 P.M.- In the matter of the application of Joseph Moisa to construct a 70' catwalk, 16' ramp, 40' floating dock with associated pilings on property located at Westview Drive, Mattituck Inlet, Matti- tuck. All persons interested in said matters should appear at the time and place above specified and will be given an opportunity to be heard. Com- ments may be submitted in writing also. . Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees r? p r7,"L. THOLD TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 July 18, 1985 Mrs. Abigail A. Wickham Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P. C. Main Road, P. O. Box 1424 Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley Wetland Application No. 260 Dear Mrs. Wickham: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Trustees at a Special Meeting held on July 11, 1985 with reference to the wetland application of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley. RESOLVED that Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley be granted permission under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, New York, all in accordance with the application. This permit will expire on June 26, 1986 if the work has not commenced by said date. There shall be two inspections required; and the trustees shall be notified when the project is complete. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Oln Ilene Pfifferling Secretary to Board HPS:ip cc: Trustees Bldg. Dept. File COUNTY OF SUFFOLK J~7~ 4 7 PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M.D.. M.P.H. COMMISSIONER Mr. Henry P. Smith Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, N.Y. 11971 June 14, 1985 Re: Hanauer and Bagley Property Wetland Application No. 260 H. D. Ref# 85 SO 36 Dear Mr. Henry P. Smith This office has received your letter dated May 30, 1985 regarding the Hanauer/Bagley property. The pond„located on the parcel, appears to be perched water retained by loamy soil and not hydralically connected to the groundwater table. If the area around the pond is not disturbed and its' elevation is controlled to that shown on the survey dated Feb. 26, 1985,it will not affect the proper functioning of the sanitary system. The subsoils of the site appears to be poor for the proper functioning of the sanitary system. The applicant must demonstrate to the satifaction of the department that clean sand can be reached prior to approval of the proposed sanitary system. The test well data indicates pesticide contamination by Aldicarb and Carbofuran. In addition, the well showed the affects of nitrates impacts with 8.8 mg/l of N. The test well exceeds the standards of the department and is unacceptable. Although there appears to be no significant environmental impacts from the proposed project, the application for approval to construct is in non - conformity to the departments' standards and is pending. If you have any questions regarding the afore-mentioned, please feel free to contact me. Very e Walter G. Lindley Enviromental Planner Waste 4Jater Mangement Section 41GL/wgl COUNTYCENTER RI VERHEAD. N.Y. 11901 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOR'N TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 May 30, 1985 Mr. Walter G. Lindley, Environmental Planner Wastewater Management Section Department of Health Services County Center Riverhead, New York 11901 Re: Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley Property Located on S/W/C Soundview Ave. Southold Wetland Application No. 260 Dear Mr. Lindley: Please be advised that the Trustees have made an initial determination of Non-Significance on the application referenced above, at their meeting held on May 29, 1985. However, the Trustees would like to engage the help of your department to determine if there will be any adverse impacts in the following areas: 1. Freshwater Supply 2. Sanitary system 3. Future effects of leaching 4. Possibility of draining the pond Thank you for your anticipated help and cooperation, in regard to this matter. We await your findings and determination. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees HPS:ip COMMUNICATION - May 29, 1985 From Walter G. Lindley, Environmental Planner, Wastewater Management Section, Suffolk County Health Department a lead agency coordination request on the Hanauer and Bagley application. • ` SIGNIFICANT DECLARATI~ See reverse for Negative Declaration Resolution - May 29, 1985 WHEREAS, Wickham, Wickham & Bressler on behalf of Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley has heretofore applied to the Southold Town Trustees, pursuant to Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold for permission t~ construct a single family dwelling, well & 'sanitary system on property located on the south west corner of Lighthouse Road and Soundview Avenue, Southold, NOW, THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law; Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Code, the Southold Town Trustees, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effe; on the environment. 2. That the Secretary to the Trustees shall file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and code. 3. That the Secretary to the Trustees shall immediately notify the applicant, Wickham, Wickham & Bressler on behalf of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley and further request said applicant to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code. -Z tJ~ ~ ~h`-1' .r77~ TELEPHONE BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES (516) 765.1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT 7N THE ENVIRONMENT Dated: May 29, 1985 Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Trustees, as lead agency for the action described below, has determined that the project, which is unlisted will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Application of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley to construct a single family dwelling,. well and sanitary system. Project is located on Hummel's Pond, S/W corner of Lighthouse Road,and Soundview Avenue, Southold, New York.. The project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: An environmental assessment has been submitted which indicated that no significant adverse effect to the environment are likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. Because there has been a response from the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council indicating that this project would not have a significant effect to the environment. Because there has been no response in the allotted time from-the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Southold Town Building Department, it is assumed that there are no objections nor comments from those agencies. Further information can be obtained by contacting Henry P. Smith, President, Board of Town Trustees, Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold, New York 11971. Copies to: Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Walter G. Lindley, Dept.of•=- Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany- Health Services Southold Town Building Department's Abigail Wickham on behalf of'-- Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council Sue Hanauer s Joan Bagley Town Clerk's Bulletin Board COUNTY OF SUFFOLK C(nv ?C,Q, PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER April 25, 1985 The Honorable Francis J. Murphy " Supervisor, Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Health Services Reference No. 85-SO-36, Application of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley, Property S/W/C Sound View Avenue and Lighthouse Road, Southold SCTM 1000-050-06-04 Dear Supervisor Murphy: This office is in receipt of an application for the above referenced site. The site plan proposes a single family dwelling with individual sanitary system and water supply system. A copy of the proposal is enclosed for your review. Please note that the parcel contains a large pond which apparently acts as a storm water detention area. During a period of heavy rainfall, the pond will increase in size and may flood the entire parcel causing failure of the proposed sewage disposal system. In light of the above, this office requests your concerns and/or requirements for the above proposed action. In addition, the department wishes to know if any drainage im- provements are required or planned. Since the pond and its banks may be considered freshwater wetlands, this office respect- ively requests that the Town of Southold assume lead agency status pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law. It would be appreciated if your office would notify the writer of your agreement to this request. Very truly yours, Walter G. Lindley Environmental Planner Wastewater Management Section WGL:Cah cc: Southold Town Building Dept. Southold Town Highway Dept. ,111" Southold Town Trustees "~""`•D N' 11901 (516) 548-3317 ra.;7 (="_-_i c.-.-~. The regular meeting of the Conservation Advisory Counci was held at 7:30 p.m. on April 23, 1985 at Southold Town Hall Main Road, Southold. Present were: Frank Cichanowicz - Chairman Robert Hood John Tuthill Betty Wells Martin Garrell On motion made by Frank Cichanowicz, seconded by Martin Garrell RESOLVED to recommend to the Town Trustees approval of the wetland application #258 submitted by Costello Marine for Ingeborg Mueller to construct catwalk, ramp, floating dock with associated piling. Mattituck Inlet, Mattituck. Vote of Council: Ayes: All On motion made by Robert Hood, seconded by John Tuthill RESOLVED to recommend to the Town Trustees approval of the wetland application #259 submitted by Costello Marine on behalf of Joseph Moisa to construct catwalk,ramp, floating dock with associated piling. Mattituck Inlet, Mattituck. Vote of Council: Ayes: All on motion made by Robert Hood, seconded by Martin Garrell RESOLVED to recommend to the Town Trustees disapproval of the wetland application #260 submitted by Agigail A. Wickham on behalf of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley to construct a single family dwelling. ! They would be building on fresh water wetlands, which would contaminate the wetlands. It would be a defininte destruction of the pond. There is not enough land to support a house. Hummel's Pond, Southold. Vote of Council: Ayes: All on motion made by John Tuthill, seconded by Frank Cichanowicz RESOLVED to recommend to the Town Trustees approval of the wetland application #261 submitted by Ralph Stocker to construct bulkhead, place two floats parallel to bulkhead and dredge and utilize spoil as backfill. Snug Harbor Rd. Greenport. Vote of Council: Ayes: All On motion made by Martin Garrell, seconded by Betty Wells RESOLVED to recommend to the Town Trustees approval of the wetland application #262 submitted by John Kramer to construct bulkhead and dredte. Sterling Creek, Greenport. Vote of Council: Ayes: All 05~FF%'( rD -f~ L n T+) TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 April 16, 1985 Charles T. Hamilton Alternate Regional Permit Administrator N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation Bdilidng 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 Dear Mr. Hamilton: Enclosed is application Of Abigail A. Wickham on behalf of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley for a Wetland Permit. This project is unlisted and our initial determination of non-significance has been made and we wish to coordinate this action to conform our initial determination in our role as lead agency. May we have your view on.this matter. Written comments on this project will be received at this office until May 6, 1985 We shall interpret your lack of response to mean there is no objection by your agency. Very truly yours, HENRY P. SMITH, PRESIDENT BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Ilene Pfifferling Enclosures Secretary to Board cc: Commissioner Williams Southold Town Building Department LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.C. MAIN ROAD. P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK LONG ISLAND NEW YORK 11952 WILLIAM WICKHAM ERIC J. BRESSLER 516-298-8353 ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM FRANKLYN A. FARRIS April 5, 1985 Southold Town Board of Trustees Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley Gentlemen: The Board of Appeals has asked for your comments on the above subdivision/variance application. My reading of the Town Code and the Environmental Conservation Law leads me to question whether, since this Pond does not appear on an in- ventory map promulgated by the Department of Environmental Conservation, your Board has jurisdiction over the project. However, in deference to the request of the Zoning Board of Appeals, I am submitting an application without prejudice as to the jurisdictional question. The Pond is an artificial creation of drainage from the Town highways and surrounding properties on the Northeast and West, and a dam constructed over 40 years ago on the South end to prevent overflow onto the farm to the South. It is perched water, and the entire Pond could be eliminated by puncturing the dam or the clay and/or silt level on which the water is perched. Obviously, my clients would not be in- terested in destroying the Pond, but its character and water supply source do raise questions of environmental viability. We enclose a survey of the proposed subdivision and also a survey of the proposed house location on lot 2. I would appreciate your scheduling this matter for your next available meeting date, since my clients are under stringent time limitations regarding approvals. u Vejai o l A. Wickham AAW:emu encls. ALL DOCKS AND BULK- HEADS MUST DISPLAY VISIBLE PERMIT NUMBERS. BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALL MOORINGS AND Main Road Telephone STAKES MUST DISPLAY (516-765-1892) VISIBLE MOORING NUMBERS. Southold, New York 11971 NOTICE OF ACTION - NOT A PERMIT To.... Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. on behalf of Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagle, 1. Your application, dated... Agril.Aj. 1985.., ,,,has been reviewed b- this Board, at a meeting of the Trustees held on... July, 11 4 1985.. and resulting in the action, as indicated below: -XXX) Application approved. Application denied. Application tabled. 2. Comments and remarks: Application approved as per specifications submitted. 3. If your application is approved above, a Permit Fee is now due, and should be made payable to the order of the Board of Southold Town Trustees. This fee is computed below according to the Schedule of Rates as set forth in the Instruction Sheet (Form 1/1). This fee must be paid within 90 days or reapplication and additional fee will be necessary. If the Permit Fee is paid in person to the Clerk of the Board, the Permit will be obtainable at the same time. If the fee is paid by mail, the Perm will be mailed in reply. 4. Computation of Permit Fee: $5.00 Inspection fee is now due. Upon remittance your permit will be forwarded by mail. Total Fee for this application..................... C- Signed //.u<.?~~~.~122.,. A 'QPre=ent, Board of Sou oTown Tr B y C? FFG(,~ r TELEPHONE (516) 165-1692 BOARD OF TORN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 119 71 APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO THE TOWN TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT PURSUANT TO THE LAWS, ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE COASTAL AND INTERIOR WETLANDS, FLOOD PLAINS AND DRAINAGE AREAS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, AND THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 32 OF THE CODES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. APPLICATION NO. _,~~L_DATE OF APPLICATION_ April 4 , 1_9_8_5 SUE HANAUER and IDENTITY OF APPLICANTJUAN BAGLEY PHONE NO-- Z-The Hollows, Syosset, New York 11791 & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT__ 95 Cypress Driv_e~Woodbury, New York _ 11797 _ TAX MAP NO._ 1_000-050-006-004 C/O WICiHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.C., Attorneys for Applicants AGENT/I:7'Y `}U`B~~~1[~[~ j.~Yti t>>rk_ _PHONE NO. - an-d-~vei Pa, -ly 298-8353 PERMIT REQUESTED Ty construct a single amilwdwe tin Lm we 11 and sanitary stem LOCATION OF PROPERTY FOR WHICH PERMIT WANTED Hummel's Pond, $/W corner of Lighthouse Road & Soundview Avenue Southold, New York _ 11971 HOME ADDRESS OF PERMIT APPLICANT IF DIFFERENT FROM AFORESAID LOCATION - 2 The Hollows, Syosset, NY 11971 & 95 Cypress Drive, Woodbury, NY, both c/o Wickham,-Wickham & Bressler, P.C., Box 1424. Mattituck,NY CREEK, BAY OR HARBOR FRONTING PROPERTY Hummel's Pond SIZE OF PROPOSED WORK_ See attached map. LENGTH WIDTH HEIGHT ABOVE HIGH WATER N/A C COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) STATE OF NEW YORK )SS: ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM, BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES she is a member of the firm of WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLM, P.C., attorneys for . AND SAYS THAT/XKXXX THE APPLICANTSFOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMITS, AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THAT THE WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT, IF GRANTED. WI WICKHPM BRESSI2 c- By By Abig it A. Wickham Attorneys for Applicants SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 4th DAY OF April t985 Ft 1 EN M. URBANSKI NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARY PUBLIC. State of Now York No.4688534 ,~kQ Ouelffied Suffolk County Commmm itiesMuch30.1-L- EXAMINED APPROVED "WETLANDS" PERMIT (CHAPTER 97) APPROVED "BOAT,DOCKS, WHARVES" PERMIT (CHAPTER 32) DISAPPROVED "WETLANDS PERMIT"(CHAPTER 97) DISAPPROVED "BOATS.DOCKS, WHARVES" PERMIT (CHAPTER 32) CONDITIONS, IF ANY EXAMINING BODY SIGNATURE OF CHAIRMAN COMPUTATION OF FEES inn rn..nA x/77 /QS DEPTH BELOW LOW WATER N/A - - - YARDS TO BE EXCAVATED N/A YARDS TO BE FILLED N/A - - - - - - - - - WIDTH OF CANAL, CREEK OR BAY FRONTING PROPERTY_ APprOXlmgte1y 250' DEPTH AT LOW.TIDE N/A AVERAGE RISE IN TIDE - - - - - - - DISTANCE TO THE NEAREST CHANNEL FT. DISTANCE PROJECT EXTENDS BEYOND SIMILAR PROJECTS IN THE AREA FT IS THIS FOR PRIVATE OR BUSINESS 'USE ?T iyaleJr-+.Sld~ntial us AREA ZONING "A" Residential & Agricultural MANNER IN WHICH MATERIAL WILL BE REMOVED OR DEPOSITED N/A INTENDED USE OF PROPERTY C,,~t'.7 zvcs. DESCRIBE ANY KNOWN PRIOR OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON THE PREM I SE Farmer to the South periodically dams end of Pond. AND WHETHER ANY PRIOR LICENSE OR PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO ERRECT STRUCTURES OR TO DREDGE OR DEPOSIT FILL ON SAID PREMISES AND WHETHER ANY PERMITS OR LICENSES WERE EVER SUSPENDED OR REVOKED BY A GOVERNMENTA AGENCY No. - - - DESCRIBE FULLY THE REHABILITATION AND PROPOSED CONDITION OF THE PREMISES AFTER THE WORK IS COMPLETED INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE PROJECT SITE IF NECESSARY- At the time _re-sidence_is constructed, _ it will be located-as-far-back from the Pond as frontsard set back permits, with 20'. buffer strip along Pond and precautions to avoid run off___ProQosed hog~s`1Q Q~_fpx~Qt~_is_shnwn nn~ttarhaA sketob WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, IF NOT THE SAME AS THE APPLICANT. - - - KAPELL REAL ESTATE, INC. 400 Front Street Post Office Box 463 Greenport, New York 11944 516-477-0100 BRANCH OFFICES 21 North Ferry Road, Box 1009 Shelter Island, New York 11964 (516) 749-0100 10 Flanders Road, Box 1771 Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 369-0100 June 23, 1988 Mr. Victor Lessard Building Dept. Administrator Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Ref: Building permit # 16160 dated 7/1/87 Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley Dear Vic: On behalf of my clients, Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley, I hereby request a six month extension of the above referenced building permit which is due to expire on July 1, 1988. The foundation for the proposed house has been installed and we anticipate framing to begin shortly. Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Reqa ds, David E. Kapell as agent -7 7 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~OPERTY RECORD CARD Q) OWNER STREET VILLAGE DISTRICT SUB. LOT /c,7r -.L, C.- I.:_.a___L ~(-I _.~d`-yt ztri f'.~P!t~~~"`.C,• 1r` 1 1 FORMER OWNER 'SF?NGi~'N ~'rl N ( [t~fJ ? E t ACREAGE '171 W / TYPE OF BUILDING 7 ~J 0 d .f t{ ~j. / ! I ! ~7 RES. yw SEAS. VL- FARM COMM. I IND. I CB. MISC. I Est. Mkt. Value ND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS )lh t. r , r XV: c J/ -Z (0 d 1 p / 'J`> 1, 1. If- 'd (4 -1, A /u; 7 I 0r7 lJ~!' (nrl 17a 7~~(Cr illl i1.ll4 r, ~ I-If i/' 1, ir.:J AGE BUILDING CONDITION NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FRONTAGE ON WATER Farm Acre Value Per Acre Value FRONTAGE ON ROAD j Till 1 BULKHEAD Ti~!etle 2 DOCK ,_/J Tillable 3 - t__.----- - ' Woodland i - - - ~t Brushland House Plot Total , J - - WORK NO. f TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL n,7 COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) rp ~i N? 18179 Z Date ~~c .....7 19 p.9 Permission is hereby granted to: -GdMfl~f ...emu.: :.....!.!.g~f to C#..A....... 4........ 5j.......txn . ) .t.... ' -1Sr ~i ....2 ~z2~ cox 141 a o at premises located at --477i.i d }l!t ::.....................................s... ..:.........!....1...... ................................................................,,..II. County Tax Map No. 1000 Section VSk Block Lot No. Q.7 a ''t pursuant to application dated d 0...~ 19$.. .and approved by the Building Inspector. U„ ~ S a o , ~ Fee 5.../ ...z:........... Building Inspector `~t > - 3 f r + ' mss'. Rev. 6/30/80"~ FORM NO. 1 • TOWN OF SOUTHOLD • BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 765-1802 Examined A laA, .7 198. Application No Approved L ,r s. 19 ~R Permit No./.4$.l Disapproved a/c (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date June .5.. ' • . • 1989. INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 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 drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli- cation. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued 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 any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances of 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 necessa ections. gn 5David ature of applicant, or name, if a corporation) E. Kapell,_aauagent 400..F.ront..Street,. Gr.eenpart,. N.Y.. (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. A.gent............................................. Name of owner of premises . S.ue. Hanaver. A. Joan . 8aS1Qy (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No . Plumber's License No . Electrician's License No . Other Trade's License No . 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. s lw- -corner - of. -Lighthouse . Road ; and..... . Soundview..Avenue, . Soutllo-ld, . N...Y............................................. House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 50• Block ......6 Lot A............ Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot............... (Name) 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy Vacant. land . b. Intended use and occupancy Residen.tial . 3. Nature of work (check which applic~e): New Building ....X Additi~......... Alteration Repair Removal Demolition Other Work (Description) 4. Estimated Cost Fee (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units , . one . Number of dwelling units on each floor If garage, number of cars 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front Rear Depth Height Number ofStories Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth Height Number of Stories 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front Rear Depth Height Number ofStories 9. Size of lot: Front Rear Depth . 10. Date of Purchase Name of Former Owner 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: 13. Will lot be regraded Will excess fill be removed from premises: Yes No 14. Name of Owner of premises Address Phone No:.............. . Name of Architect Address Phone No.......:. , . Name of Contractor Address Phone No............... . PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether 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. See attached plans. STATE OF NEW YORK, S.S COUNTY OF Suf.~olk• . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .David •E.. 4,;apell being duly swom, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named. He is the Agen.t (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are 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 before me this 5.th ...day of ..........June......., 1989. Notary Public . Suffrmlk........... Count n~ .~~qe4~ LINDA J. COOPER (Signature of applicant) Notary Public, State of New Y No. 4822563, Suffolk Cou Term Expires December 31,1nty 7TION DATE COMMENTS .ro (1St) - C FOUNDATION (2nd) 0jj 2. ~ z ~ o N ROUGH FRAME & ~J PLUMBING r P' 3. n '-3 C~, t INSULATION PER N. Y. ` y STATE ENERGY CODE m rd 4. 13 FINAL ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: tl 'Ic X 1 ro z~N a ~ y H M O J zv x~ cn ~ a r'l^ y V C Q C7 f ro W 3 J II • I I N $ I I I ~ d" N ~ . N I I I i Vow vY i - ~j a e c:F 51.E ~.s 'r'4i„Y..~ t' G7 - O S . a ~.^r G`g'(6RED gRCy, ~4. RIU qzO TFC ,aQ rt sr 16316 + ~TF DF NEW NQ q(yGION ~7E JOB NQ HA~AJ~~• P~e~LEY R-~s?r%~?Jc.E . ~Y DP.*NM NO APIODVM cA ~v .l ^ n l~ r~ C~ f G m I~ v lop D N b ~ 1 l~A O IIPP .3 ~ Q~~ S\ LG 6te C 41` o'-4" - - _y 64 21 M40. rw I O L t V ~ Y L {i t ~I rn c rn v m n to e, 41=z" l J 1 11 ~ S> JB~h 2.85 1.10" ~ COMMON, POND I I1 `575 SOUND I El.sa.a VIEW WI_so.~ AVENUE.] 49 4 I el 51A _A2Lii /N.60°3113 ~1E i -48--_----__,\ u e : z.a 476. \ \ NOTE: APPROVAL SDRiM= TO WATER SUPPLY 1 l WELL CONFORMING WITH STANDARDS. TEST I I WELL IR'TDicATEs PESTICIDE CONTAKMTION. I I / S.00 »i0 n- / / I I I p ro m l I s r To ~N / / / I O O; / / / I I I p- ~iT ADD : £ / I I m Z N°_/ / ~ I I I I fn I I I 1 / POND II II I ~ \ I I 1 I \ \ I I ~ 11 o \ I 1 1 MN \ 1 n NEW WELL _ + \ \ l I Il „ 3 \ W \ \ \ \ 1 -)3 1 o a I \ 0l \p- / ~ I / ~V fN f ppSED vRDV ~~5~ 'o / LooaoloSE O1 2 \ D / / / Of a b. ' If / 456.94 TEST HOLE / a LE LTBRNSANDLCAM If / YE9T Hp DROWN SRAVELL Z.0 SUID,ROCK / FRAGMENTS O EI:ASI 5.48°55101 W' A_ M~GUire 1 / formerly. J°htT TIN SAND Tow Or TRACEGRAVEL I " 1 exo ,+I SURVEY FOR SUE HANAUER 81 JOAN BAGLEY mAR.12, 1985 SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NEAITH SERVICES DATE FEB. 26,1985 AT SOUTHOLD FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION ONLY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCALE: I°=50~ O SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK NO. 85-216 G HS REF. NO. NUNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION oR ADDITION TO THIS )ATE SURVEY 6 A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE ` NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW A COPIES OF THIS SNIV EY NOT NARWG THE LAND 'Tf OF L-.<W SURVEYOR'S IMKED SEAL OR EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL S1 APPROVE D?~" NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BLE VALID TRUE COPY *GUARANTEES INDICATED EREOM pp N, oq SMALL RUM ORLY TO y1~' I'D 'r THE PERSON HEALTH DEPARTMENT -DATA FOR APPROMAL TO CONSTRUCT AND OF HIS BE WHOM THE IAVEY IS PREPARED * i0 2 A OF HIS cwLr TO THE rrt LE COMPANY, GovuM- RM[LntlT WRG tlIM MI.N KSOWCo[ y WTfnPRIVTL PIMLIC_ MENTAL AGENCY AM LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED W / p RI CO. TMMAP pST 1~,$SCCTIOM 50 BLOCK OUB LOT 0044 MORE , AND TO ME ASSIGNEES OF THE LFMDIMO R MESA AN ND OWLLLIMS WITHIN 100 FEET OF MIS PROPERTY WSIITULIM. QUARANTCES ARE HOT MAIIEFENASLL "HER THAN THOSE $NO" NQLOW TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEQUENT N THE "Tax SUPPLY RAW IEWSE DISPOSAL SYSTEM POST MIS RES I DEl4 OWNERS N HEREON O N DISTANCU 5TRUC RES ARE US ED A A iPON SP PROPERTY LIKES WILL CONFORM TO TM[ STANDARDS OF THE SUFFMK COUNTY DEPARTMENT S OF HEALTH SWIMS. I RPOSE E 1 ARE NOT TO I BE USED N ESTABLISH 6893 PURPO 1 OS APPLICANT. PIDOPLRTV LINES S OR T On FOR THE ERECTION OF O FENCES ~O CARD SD0.YN LOM[Sf TEL. X00 OSTRANDER AVENUE YOUNG a YOUNG RIVERNEAO,NEW YORK NOTE=L¦=MONUMENT OWN TNVRl:i BO o:. ...adNw'~Ye. I %J LLDEN W.YOIINO, RROFE55DONAL ENGINEER ~~y, KAPELL REAL ESTATE, INC. Q 400 Front Street _ Post Office Box 463 `'AR ..py Greenport, New York 11944 BRANCH OFFICES 516-477-0100 BLDG. DEPT. 21 North Ferry Road, Box 1009 ' 101i11N OF $OUTHOLD Shelter Island, New York 11964 (516) 749-0100 10 Flanders Road, Box 1771 Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 369-0100 March 4, 1989 Mr..Victor Lessard Southold Town Building Dept. Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 RE: Hanauer & Bagley Building permit #161602 Dear Vic: This will serve as a reuqest for a six month extension of the referenced building permit which was previously extended from July 1, 1988 to february 1, 1989. It is my clients, plan to complete construction of this house this spring. As you may recall, the foundation is already in place. I have enclosed two copies of the subject permit. Would you please return one to me indicating the extension approval? Thanks for your help. Regards, David E. Kapell as agent FORK N062 - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. _ BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) W 1 b 3 6 0 Z Date .....f-i"u, I.......................... , 191.1 Permission is hereby granted to: Item :.y.~....~~.9.. /CaG. at premises located at ?a5?... 1 S 1 l• u 0,t~}c.,...IJiaaJ ll . County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ......Q .4;.b Block Lot No.....1 pursuant to application dated ~l 194.1.., and approved by the Building Inspector. Fee $1) . Building Inspector r - 4 J~ Rev. 6/3080 t ~k( f3 r l So z ss a t ~ 1 FORM X0.9 - " TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) N°_ 14150 Z Date .......?USr........ 191.. Permission is hereby gronted to: ...........'1.......Cxt',~3s to ~''C7h~ 3!uCT .....1...1..K at premises located at ..GiGu200..... z4AIrlya.. .s... e Y ' .J7 . r 5' ............................a.....G.,ulJ.v..l.cw..~,........~~..:: . County Tax Map No. 1000 Sectio... f.0 Block ...0.4.......... LLoot- No..C2.0..; Z......... pursuant to application dated ........~c~ 19X. and approved by the Building Inspector. Fee 5...1/..x`... s Building Inspector 4 a.: Rev. 6/30/80 ,,`~ry ate„ - .o{E.: , nL. . . M~"ds:^ ep•,r> : ; » - 9~~e- .^!?[.'~+.i~w&~r"!~4Etiv'~s+~t,.:o-r~xo,w t ,.a,::+~ h i 1 i• V y~y~ i yY\ i t` 5 r n l. t +u l t i .;lam.. '1'Y• S t' } :1. l i 1~R~''~'i~?Ki j4n• JJ ~ b 6'tat,~,~ ~j .~'"t?i' r 1 r k ^ layytfp'~ rl{ yS .1~~p'y,~C ',F'd"kt}y-i' 'N f,aY l 3-^ a ui+lr'Sta'r^r` a,':>ry3k°$nutN i 'rl !t'rF~.Fip~•`.'kh i alrty.,W"e;.r; ,'ki1 ti nl` Fjkl# '7611Yt+ r: , b F t ~ cnr„ .FORM NO.: S r . ^ tr y y r +r ' -a, , r.yd.i y'li'r" "aij '1"{4 : r t. • n•t" ?'SJra; i;:•c+r I, ~ „ ~ , t • t l OWN OF,SOUTHOLD I t 4° 4 t y rr BUILDING %EPARTMENT t , Y ``~c;rt °,l .fir*~ '„'k.g. }'"`4r~.?.'r2TOWN HALL 'r:d! i`ritr`iK,.;\`~,UAa~Sr''9' ,SOIITHGLD, N Y ly "fit? k.i [1fL 4i. rally. ,u'f,~l I)f.~4t, ^r n rM tl;h '1'j'}W 1A' @t'~vl .d{H > t v5,.,j > r'r,'S}a}'y ii,It Z ,r~ r 1 t_y="sit mF~"K y t , s I 1 r ~ f r 4Y+~Ar t4~(frrt'b fr _?It°.K <li~xi Sf""r ~i°>d ~,j•' ' t ~rYfC}i, F+i t~$y4r t ~"f~~~i tr ,hl.}5 YF k.~.v'fd ti~ f ~.[t ittr. a et 4 Y~ie ;G atll tk {BUfyILyDING PERMIT.r f r tt, 3n y, 1 ra Ip'~ Y r f. af'•t • lv p f:l`~Y i rj,,,v~-c • 1. ,Y„•~'M.~,w.r~'ke " Ir•rX r lr'' ,s Y. r d„y r -0t r {I~,F ,Yr4 '_rT 1 . >t A tY. •1 ~ (t1 A: 1 r to ' ! P 2' l br pin r t r , J k` Orr ? , (THIS PERMIT MUST WXEPT•ON THE.PREMISES UNTIL FULL 4 i . ` [ , Yr <n u. r ti~ ! k Y .rT r I JPYi COMPLETION OF E WORK AUTHORIZED) rte n + to`"kN yy~~ t, y M• r r r 1 rir l t t Y i`~~5'~ i" ~rY ~Ti 'rr'PI q u tZ +t + r r W r 4 1 • Lt,~,7,+Sl~+~ti J . u t r , 'sye~ryr'. 'r,~°tr PII a "~i' 4 .r k!-,pk' ' NO 16160 `y z Date . , 19 Cryw+S,~ i,Y}~~~yF{r f ° tl3o ^h`°x!r~'1 r... f..r 4 r!! , ja ly..lY A•~S,/ryS rr~,'JS H;.. c. N i ' . `,Permission is hereby granted tot ,v+.lrr"- i i sr,tt?rwr?•WK~ir~.:~ r `L< rr ~i• • 3 ?Y'yr "w~~'F P FG yy °v°'3gi~`d7n t A, r t s ,tir,rfr4it An"? 9 kfLv. S'v 'h,~, t. r , v . t S r D tir t~, .eI+~Atr bMi t Tpt~~~'.'y!'r•+° a$ J 1 2i<ti: r {i i4 ~.;g `'r+'..a4 1 ~M ..t tis r,r`4'1°)SR'Ya "r ,.r ~nPS FI'N~'~r r , ~~'twlr: rat"'=rS Y r tOn5Y1.... . 'r; ? r• ` ut e r ; , . a.c / r sy ,at premises located at 31uu ti c Jam.. ~v ~ / ~ i v J aJ~«w ~k.. . . ~ iF~'t .-,(•,t~ r1?r(;,... 7 .r Sw'f 15'e~,tir: c l,i. i rn43' ~ County Tax Map No. 1000 Section....., Q,1 Block.. ~ Lot No ,.~c rJj~•;~" pursuant; to opplication\ dofed's.1. and approved by the 19 it r4 , Building Inspector. Fee $ rb~: . Building Inspector` Rev. 6/30/80 TEL. 765-1802 oSc~~EFOU(~~Gy TOWN OF SOUTHOLD S < OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 v' TOWN HALL "O SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 To: Eileen Pfifferling, Trustees Secretary / \ From: Victor Lessard, Executive Administrator Subject: Hanauer & Bagley A permit was issued to Hanauer & Bagley on July 23, 1985. A normal permit, from the Building Department has a life span of 18 months. This may be extended once for a period of 6 months, for a total life span of two years. This has happened in this case. Before granting six months extention, the plans, etc., were reviewed to note if any changes were made since the permit was issued. The present status is that the permit will terminate on July 23, 1987. If the applicant has not completed everything; a new permit process will have to be addressed. This permit has no changes since its inception. L /'I k 1 FORM NO.1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD j BUILDING DEPARTMENT V 1 TOWN HALL `!1'I(\+~ ? 9 SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 U gLOr,. DEP7• TEL.: 765-1802 TO~NN Of 50U7H0~ Examined Received 19-- Approved . fUG.~ . z3..., II)P Permit No. 1. / 5~- ` .I p •.~C Disapproved a/c J (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date 7....... , 19 INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan sliowing location of lot and of buildings or premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public stret or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this apl cation. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such pern shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupan shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to t Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein describe The applicant 'agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. f .Sc E 1-114AI Ac.- 11 r-:~ A6,/ F (Signature of applicant, or name, if a corporation) a Tart -7411/~ws , yA c /GSs j 79~ (Mailing address of applicant),,,qS,,,,-, 77 State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or~buil c Name of owner of premises :...t.......... (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No . Plumber's License No . Electrician's License No . Other Trade's License No. ) / / C . 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. ..('0, i~'h~oL SP c` ~n r, i/h9................ . (louse Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section X Block Lot Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot (Name) 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy L/Il nea f ~ b. Intended use and occupancy 'P,;7th-~2~~_................ !:`N 3. Nature of work (V check which applicable): New Building . :,uiition Alteration Repair Removal Demolition Other Work (Description) 4. Estimated Cost Fee (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units Number of dwelling units on each floor If garage, number of cars . 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front Rear Depth Height Number ofStories Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth Height Number of Stories . 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front R<r C", Rear Depth Ir~ight Number of Storics . 9. Size of lot: Front Rear S Depth 10. Date of Purchase Name of Fonner Owner . 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated %I- . 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ..,.-.(.6 . . 13. Will lot be regraded lVi Will excess fill be removed from premises: Yes D 14. Name of Owner of premises Address Phone No...... . Name of Architect Address Phone No.(,C:. Name of Contractor Address Phone No............. . PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and, indicate all set-back dimensions frog property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate wheth: interior or corner lot. STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF /S.S being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applican (Name of individual signing contract) above named. / He is the r.'Vie ...,l.L.cCEI (pntractor, gent, 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 thi application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that th. work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this .I..day of 19 "A~ Notary Public, County i HELEN K. DE VOE 4 ;f . NDTARY PUBLIC, State of New Yak No. 4707878, SAO; ' try Xk (Signature of applicant; Term Expires MSar/gh q t 7r - & ~~QC_ NEW YORK !CITE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENfAPASEPVATION ReguRaJ,.onU A66aiu Unit W- g. 40,'SUPV--Room 219 Stony Rrtooh, VY 11794 I (516) 751-779,00 q G VV I c.~/ T~haw. £ VVI c Aah. Dee e&tx jcr 21 O Z L L / maiv, 0 or LOW fence STef7hehsoh P.O. 130 l~zS~ u~ ~~9s2 I M a -ffi -r1 a c k, C• LZ RE: Proferf y 04- Lawre,kce 2/oACkSoPt I Dean MS. I"Tb13aW,ck~,dM -C0 r- Laulrenc< S~ep4cAS4 A.tevlew ha6 been made oh yout p4opo6aE: to: II I y S e U o Norton P+ or4rn Pf- l wn• a Rol 1n A/'7'<r SCC Tlo O`~ ~~,9~1 ~iouSt, . an~ l.,SO Ural IVI¢tu NuC• ,,,o!:!~,,JLLPjation:Parcel IS S~Tka~e~ Ova 44,r- corner 0'{- T~+IJ~ /hTtrSea, /or% Go. a map P f/oav (aa~ ntan~) and f *he SouI4. SurCl(olk ~ ~S roc of S•"i (c OSO aS Sow Jh-~aX m~P O'7 I The New Yot State epantmoeou Enviunmentae Conservation ha6 deteAmcned ~e a t that the above piw ec.t .ie: I. Dee+. of Mone than 100' 6.%om Nrebhmatm wettand6 Pc ju to40r The Fte6hwateA wettand6 p)Le6ent ate tentativeeti mapped a6 te66 than 12.4 P90i actee and have not been dee.ignated by the State as having un suat .tocat •importtance at th,i.6 time eo ate not ewctentty regulated by NVSDEC Pp The weteands pte6ent ate T.idat and it appeat6 that you need to apply Got ,/'bY a T.ida Weteande Permit viiCpl Thm6ote, no petmi.t under Anticte 24 (FAe,6hwateA Weteand6) o6 the Env.inon- C mentat ConbeAvation Law .e.6 %equiAed. VehU .0mey' youth, 02 Davie? J. Lath.in Reg•ionae Permit Adm.utiettator DJL:RNT:cz CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES JUL Z i99~ ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS July 2, 1991 David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scoping Documentation Dear Mr. Kappell: As per the request of the Southold Planning Board, I have compiled the attached literature with regard to the requested scope for the above noted Draft EIS. Contained herein is a copy of the Town Positive Declaration, a copy of the Long EAF Part III used as partial basis for the determination, and an outline prepared by our office as a format and minimum scope of issues to be included in the Draft EIS. This package should be used by a professional environmental consultant as a guide for the issues to be included in the Draft EIS. In addition, the meeting proposed to be conducted on July 2, 1991, at 2:30 p.m. will serve as a verbal discussion of these issues and other concerns which may be raised at that time. The Draft EIS will be compared against the attached information and notes from the Scoping Meeting, in order to determine completeness in addressing issues of concern as expressed by the lead agency. Please review this information, and feel free to contact the Town for additional input during the preparation of the document. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Zh ry -tYUfy yo s, 'l~z rles oorhis cc: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Valerie Scopaz 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 • c _ _ JUL 21S91 Town Hall. 53095 Main Road ` P.O. Box 1179 . Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 05/23/89 POSITIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review Act and 6NYCRR part 617, Section 617.10 and chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency for this unlisted action described below has determined that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NAME OF ACTION: Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4. SEQR STATUS: Type I , Unlisted V DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 4.945 acre parcel into 2 lots, 2.466 acres and 2.479 acres respectively. This parcel is zoned A-C (Agricultural Conservation). It is located on Sound View Avenue at Southold. REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: The Planning Board has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form, has completed Parts II and III, and has conducted a field Inspection of the site. Based on the above, the Planning Board has determined that: The proposed action has the potential of having a significant impact to the physical characteristics of the project site. There may be an effect on the existing freshwater pond and CONTINUED wetlands on the site due to the proximity of the proposed construction. The proposed action will involve construction within the required setback from a freshwater body. There may be an effect on the existing freshwater pond and wetlands on the site due to the fact that the proposal includes private wells within 70 feet and individual sewage disposal systems within 100 feet. The upland area of the subject premises does not meet the minimum lot area requirement for two dwellings. CONTACT PERSON Further information can be obtained by contacting Jill M. Thorp, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. Copies mailed to the following: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk county Planning Commission Robert Greene, DEC Commissioner Mohabir Perseud, Department of State Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. James Schondebare, Town Attorney Judith Terry, Town Clerk Building Department Board of Appeals Board of Trustees Applicant Planning Board Part III Impact on Land: The proposed action will result in a potential large impact to the physical characteristics of the project site. Construction on proposed lot No. 2 will occur on slopes of 158 or greater. This cannot be mitigated by project change due to the fact that there is already a foundation in place on this lot. There will also be an affect on the existing freshwater pond and wetlands on the site due to the proximity of the proposed construction to these areas. While this cannot be entirely mitigated by project change, it can be minimized by allowing only one dwelling to be constructed, that being the completion of the dwelling on Lot #2. Impact on Water: The proposed action will have a large impact on the freshwater wetland, particularly since the set back from the wetland line on Lot No. 1 is 50 feet and the setback on Lot No. 2 is only 30 feet. This can be mitigated by project change. The construction also includes private wells within 70 feet of the freshwater wetlands and individual sewage disposal systems within 100 feet. These private wells will produce a draw down effect on the wetlands and the individual sewage disposal systems will introduce additional pollution to the pond. The proposed action will also affect surface and groundwater quality since it requires the use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve the proposed actions. Also, the project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into the existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. This can be mitigated by a project change limiting construction to one dwelling only and mitigation measures during construction. The proposed action will alter surface water runoff by creating more impervious surfaces and elimination of existing vegetation. S41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ' ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & LANDUSE PLANNERS Impact on Plants and Animals: The proposed action could affect non-threatened or non-endangered species in that it may interfere with resident or migratory wildlife species, particularly in that the freshwater pond is most likely used as a source of drinking water. the pond is also a habitat to a variety of local water species such as ducks, geese, and swans. Impact on Aesthetic Resources: The proposed action will affect aesthetic resources since the uses are in sharp contrast to the surrounding natural resources. The proposed land use will also be visual to users of aesthetic resources and will eliminate their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of those resources, as well as eliminate the scenic view of the pond which are important to the area. Impact on Open Space and Recreation: The proposed action will result in the permanent closure of a future recreational opportunity which is the use of the pond as an area for bird watching and ice skating. This proposal will also cause a major reduction and ultimate elimination of an open space important to the community. Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood: This proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects, particularly in areas with natural resources such as those present on this site. This action would be a divergence from the local goals and policies of the Town which include preservation of the wetland areas, and natural resources important to the community. The subject premises contains an upland area barely sufficient for one dwelling. It does not meet the minimum lot area requirement for two dwellings. Therefore a subdivision into two conforming lots cannot be accomplished on this parcel. SAI SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. S AI ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS& LANDUSE PLANNERS From a review of the environmental factors present on this parcel a two lot subdivision. would create a severe adverse impact on the pond and its environs. Reduction to one lot only using the existing foundation and using proposed location of well, septic system, and driveway on "Lot 2", with no clearing within 50 feet of the pond (except where it exists now), and no fertilized vegetation, including lawn, on the property except for native indigenous species fertilized with slow-release organic fertilizers, all taken together would mitigate environmental impacts to the greatest degree practicable. The best mitigation measure is the acquisition of this parcel for use as a Town skating area since that has been the historic use of the site. The existing foundation could then be utilized for an accessory building to the skating area. S41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. c ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & LANDUSE PLANNERS i' JUL 2!991 C:.L_ - SCOPING OUTLINE HANAUER/BAGLEY DRAFT EIS 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS AND SUMMARY A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft EIS if it is over ten (10) pages in length. The summary will include: A. Brief description of the action B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, i es of controversy must be specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed D. Alternative considered E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and history - prior reviews, approvals, etc 2. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on adopted community developments plans 3. Objectives of the project sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action a social b economic B. LOCATION 1. Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps is recommended) 2. Description of access to site 3. Description of existing zoning of proposed site C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT (a table of site quantities is recommended) 1. Total site area a proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads) b amount of land to be cleared - areas of fertilized and non- fertilized vegetation c) open space - areas to remain wooded (specify if proposed for dedication or restrictive covenants) 2. Structures conceptual, building envelopes 3. Parking conceptual a pavement area b number of spaces and layout 4. Water Supply and Sanitary Disposal 5. Stormwater Disposal CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL - D.PLANNING CONSULTANTS .ifl~ µ`AA Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a) total construction period anticipated b) schedule of construction c) future potential development, on site or on adjoining properties 2. Operation a) type of operation - landscape and open space maintenance E. APPROVALS 1. Permit approvals - Planning Board; Zoning Board; Suffolk County, sanitary/water supply; NYSDES, freshwater wetlands; Town Trustees, other. III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) composition and thickness of subsurface material - general stratigraphy 2. Surface - Suffolk County Soil Survey a) List of soil types b) discussion of soil characteristics c) distribution of soil types at project site d) suitability for use 3. Topography a) description of topography at project site - slopes - prominent or unique features b) description of topography of surrounding areas B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater - from existing literature and test hole information a) location and description of aquifers and recharge ares - depth of water table - seasonal variation - quality - quantity - flow b) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater - location of existing wells - Public/private water supply - industrial uses - agricultural uses 2. Surface water CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL~AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope a) location and description of surface waters located on project site or those that may be influenced by the project examples: - seasonal variation - quantity - classification according to New York State b) identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters - public/private water supply - agricultural uses - recreational c) description of existing drainage areas, patterns and channels d) discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of water supply C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding area b) discussion of site vegetation characteristics - species presence and abundance - age - size - distribution - dominance - community types - unique, rare and endangered species - value as habitat for wildlife - productivity 2. Fish, Shellfish, and Wildlife a) list of fish, shellfish and wildlife species on the project site and within surrounding area, including migratory and resident species b) discussion of fish, shellfish and wildlife population characteristics - species presence and abundance - distribution - dominance - unique, rare and endangered species - productivity 3. Wetlands a) list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site b) discuss wetland characteristics - acreage - vegetative cover - classification benefits of wetland such as flood an erosion control recreation wildlife habitat c) discussion of pond vegetation CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL:AND„PLANNI'VG CONSULTANTS "Al Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope - emergent and submergents species - extent of wetlands, quality of wetlands and vegetation inventory d) discuss wetland regulatory setbacks as per Article 24 and Town Trustees Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transporting services a) description of the size, capacity and condition of services - roads - access egress from site b) description of current level of use of services - source of existing traffic B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) description of the existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area b) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area 2. Land use plans a) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area C. COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Educational facilities 2. Police protection 3. Fire protection 4. Recreational facilities 5. Utilities 6. Water supply 7. Solid waste disposal D. DEMOGRAPHY 1. Population characteristics a) discussion of existing population E. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) description of the physical character of the community 2. Historic resources a) location and description of historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included on Statewide Inventory CRAMER, VOORHIS. & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTALAND. PLANNING CONSULTANTS Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope IV. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Surface - List and discuss constrained soils and limitations 2. Topography - Discuss steep slope areas, drainageways, and potential for erosion B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater - Discuss conformance to County sanitay, surface water and well setbacks. Discuss 150 foot separation between well and sanitary for subdivision systems. Discuss vertical profile of sanitary system, and limitations due to depth to groundwater. Discuss nutrient input to pond sanitary waste and fertilizer; nitrogen budget using BURBS or WALRUS. 2. Surface water - Discuss conformance to use guidelines as per NYSDEC. Discuss potential eutrophication. Discuss drainage areas of flood potential. C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation - Quantify type and quantity of vegetation and habitat changes on site. 2. Fish, Shellfish, and Wildlife - Discuss change is utilization of site by species identified in inventory on a habitat basis. Relate nutrient input and potential eutrophication to pond wildlife species. Give particular attention to Endangered, Threatened and Species of Special Concern 3. Wetlands - Discuss potential impact on beneficial values of wetlands. Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION - Generally discuss ability of roads to accomodate site traffic. B. LAND USE AND ZONING - General discussion of project with zoning and land use plans C. COMMUNITY SERVICES - General discussion on ability of service disticts to service proposed project. D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources - Discussion of visual resource changes as a result of project. How will project be viewed from surroundings CRAMER, VOORHIS, &,A$SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAMD PI„Afl ING CONSULTANTS Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope V. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section IV. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material for land reclamation 2. Surface a) use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscaping b) minimize disturbance of non-construction areas c) design and implement soil erosion control plan 3. Topography a) avoid construction on areas or steep slope b) design adequate soil erosion devices to protect areas of steep slope B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) design system of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater prior to recharge of groundwater b) maintain permeable areas on the site 2. Surface water a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation - hay bales - temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas - landscaping b) design adequate stormwater control system D. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) restrict clearing to only those areas necessary b) preserve part of site as a natural area c) after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportation a) design adequate and safe access to project site to handle projected traffic flow B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) design functional to comply with existing land use plans b) design functional and visually appealing facility to set standard CRAMER, VOORHIS &.ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL, AND. PLAIt1N1NG CONSULTANTS Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope and precedent for future surrounding land use C. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) design exterior of structures to physically blend with existing surroundings b) minimize visual impact through thoughtful and innovative design of lighting and sins (consider: height, size, intensity, glare, and hours of lighting operation) c) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational equipment and facilities VI. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section IV that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section V. VII. ALTERNATIVES This section contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES 1. Site layout a) location of structures b) location of access routes, parking and utility routes 2. Orientation a) compatibility with slope and drainage patterns b) site size and set back requirements B. ALTERNATIVES SIZE 1. One dwelling alternative should be analyzed as compared to proposed project C. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 1. Potential for TDR - Other receiving sites owned by applicant, availabity of land. C. NO ACTION - Acquisition potential, funds, and possible identification of parcel for acquistion 1. Impacts of no action a) effect on public need b) effect on private developers' need c) beneficial or adverse environmental impacts CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL; A D PLANNING CONSULTANTS zz~ wiu A Hanauer/Bagley Draft EIS Scope VIII.IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section III that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. IX. APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. A. List of underlying studies, reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement B. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale D. Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may be included CRAMER, VOORHIS &ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL,AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS ,:;a as F e~3t~•~r(f±'~' PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS $A s SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman.. Supervisor .i ' George Ritchie Latham, Jr. -p Richard G. Ward' t;g t~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: All Involved Agencies FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman RE: Scoping Session for JV ? Hanauer and Bagley SCTM#1000-50-6-4 DATE: June 19, 1991 A Scoping Session has been set for 3 P.M., Tuesday, July 2, ~7 1991, for the above mentioned subdivision application. The meeting will be held in the conference room of the Town Hall which is located on the Main Road in Southold. A copy of the Positive Declaration may have been sent to you on May 23, 1989. Another copy is enclosed with this letter for your convenience. If you are unable to attend the Scoping Session, please send any comments you may have as to items you wish addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, to the Planning Board office. The Board's facsimile number is 765-1823. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Board office at 765-1938. Encl. cc: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Matthew G. Kiernan, Assistant Town Attorney Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Town Trustees Raymond Jacobs, Highway Superintendent James Richter, Road Inspector John Holzaphel, Conservation Advisory Council Vito Minei, Director, Office of Ecology, SCDHS Robert DeLuca, office of Ecology, SCHDS Louise Harrison, Office of Ecology, SCDHS Stephen Costa, Suffolk County Department of Health Services Frank Dowling, Suffolk County Department of Planning Walter C. Hazlitt, Exec. Director, SC Water Authority Thomas Jorling, NYSDEC Albany David Morrell, NYSDEC, SUNY Stony Brook Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Sanford Hanauer, Applicant Joan Bagley, Applicant Irving Like, Attorney Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1 179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 05/23/89 POSITIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law _ State Environmental Quality Review Act and 6NYCRR part 617, Section 617.10 and chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency for this unlisted action described below has determined that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NAME OF ACTION: Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4. SEAR STATUS: Type I Unlisted V DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 4.945 acre parcel into 2 lots, 2.466 acres and 2.479 acres respectively. This parcel is zoned A-C (Agricultural Conservation). It is located on Sound View Avenue at Southold. REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: The Planning Board has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form, has completed Parts II and III, and has conducted a field Inspection of the site. Based on the above, the Planning Board has determined that: The proposed action has the potential of having a significant impact to the physical characteristics of the project site. There may be an effect on the existing freshwater pond and CONTINUED wetlands on the site due to the proximity of the proposed construction. The proposed action will involve construction within the required setback from a freshwater body. There may be an effect on the existing freshwater pond and wetlands on the site due to the fact that the proposal includes private wells within 70 feet and individual sewage disposal systems within 100 feet. The upland area of the subject premises does not meet the minimum lot area requirement for two dwellings. CONTACT PERSON Further information can be obtained by contacting Jill M. Thorp, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. Copies mailed to the following: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk county Planning Commission Robert Greene, DEC Commissioner Mohabir Perseud, Department of State Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. James Schondebare, Town Attorney Judith Terry, Town Clerk Building Department Board of Appeals Board of Trustees Applicant Planning Board / I I I ~W° ~ \ \ \ p 1~ ~~E N•aO /aH¢9 S CY~ ~ \ Y%~~ s as C o' \ OvA, 60 3a ai II • L `e \ rao NO a 1 ,•1 \ r ~O a foN ` e, .ryo x. "e,1 ! ~r ~ a•. r1 os oo ~'F. %G ~i\~ 'TI Pa4s 11 ,,a= ~a r COG~'U.{70 ` YN =yl \ TP o~fo 1 i 1~e~p L.~ ti y5°°ePe l) 1 Y a, O Jrr1 ~ I ASP OfJQyP o`~`i+ '~tI \ ~ `~~yy~• paNe PLO / 11 0oN P•' \ ~9P ~-ae "off ,o ~1°cp \LME 6, WESMNLTEM NETLLNpS G5 °~P ~a,P" Sy Rib~O W EN-CONSULTM'T5, 1^.C _~~O Z P JQ NB \ TESTNOLE 8-1 TEST ROLE A o = - A shoo ups 11 °;4' ° A / NOTE I / r h5\° c°~ \ ` / zIJ= MONUMENT < s CuFro0N COUNTY " ' a•'o" 1000 OUNT IST i TOTAL AREA =0' \ - r' IYp A YATFORS ARE N -50 / i THUS -I°NS SHOWN n70 NUS W'IO-OB - AP b COPO SHOWN TOPoGRApHIC IC 1 MAI THE SUFFOLK CWr THE WATER SUPPLYAND SE WAGE REQUI GllCGML FGCI U LOTS 4 pf NENT~ COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS AND NE°UIHEMENTS OF 0FI THE SUFfpLN COUNTY pkilARTM INTMENi OFNfLLTH ` N n+W V ~G~-5L------ c HOWANO W YOVNG,N YS L S' LIC.NO A569] ..T. \ MINOR SUE DIVISION PLAN FOR SUE RANAUER 8 JOAN BAGLE /r AT SOUTHOLD TO.N OF SOUTHOLD ^~..+I°^_•~ n..ne.. r SUFFOLK COUNTY. NEM YORK, low Q I , l . S o0 ,d OF Gs~ Sao ) ? 1, p ? ~ ? I \ \ C4TION MAP ? ? \ SCALE'- 1'=600' o\ f+4\ 1 I- I ~4 e1 t ~Z I r,a 1 1 ( ~ 1 c~ 1 o!i°^IS 1 \ ~ \ .L .9006. ~p~ Q~P 9~ . s. w ~c \scS'a4i I I. \ p 0~0 I o. ~~e^ ~ e'oei' I ~p F p i I \~I e'/ 1 I _ a4•ppQ I <1 e~'' ~yc5 I p I u I I , 00 A`T c, I ^LCJ S 0 - ~ - p i c e`x e'~ y ~ t1 - 0 O\ /pe/ NOTES I.W=MONUMENT d =LATH ao15\Q / 2. SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP GIST. 1000 SECT. 50 ELK .6 LOT4 3. TOTAL AREA =4.945 ACRES 4. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO NGVD. (MSL 1929) 5 ELEVATIONS SHOWN THUSt474 AND CONTOURS SHOWN THUS;---48--- ARE FROM ACTUAL SURVEY. 6 CONTOURS SHOWN THUS-=48--ARE FROM ..TOPOGRAPHIC MAP- 5 EASTERN TOWNS" PREPARED FOR THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS. ,MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR :SUE HANAUER 8 JOAN BAGLEY NOV 22,1986 j ? AUG. 2,1988 AT JULY °5, 1988 $OUTHOLD CATE DEC. 23,987 - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCALE 1"-60 _ SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. RO 87-2025 ~ •~1., `/yx is . k CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS June 15, 1989 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Scoping Meeting for DEIS Hanauer & Bagley ka Southold SCTM #1000-50-6-4 Dear Benny: As per our discussion of yesterday, a Scoping meeting was scheduled to be held on June 12, 1989 at the Southold Town Hall, for the above referenced action. However, the scoping of the DEIS was not accomplished for the following reasons: * The applicant objected to the Positive Declaration, claiming sufficient information had be provided. * The applicant wishes to have the Positive Declaration rescinded. * The applicant feels the proposed parcels have sufficient square footage to conform to the zoning. (ie. disagrees with the Town's position that underwater land cannot be used in computing lot square footage requirements) * The applicant feels that the Zoning Board of Appeals should first act on the lot area variance, if appropriate. He wishes the Planning Board to render a decision on the need for a variance. Those present at the meeting were: Milton Bagley Applicant Kenneth C. Coenen Hampton-Manor Associates, Inc. (Consultant to Applicant) Page 1 of 3 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Hanauer & Bagley Scoping Meeting Thomas W. Cramer, ASLA Cramer, Voorhis & Associates (Consultant to Lead Agency) Mr. Hanauer Applicant David E. Kapell Real Estate Agent Melissa Spiro Planning Board Staff The need for the DEIS was explained to all present, as well as the relevent procedures and the rules and regulations of SEAR. After about 45 minutes the meeting ended, with no Scoping of the document (at the applicant's request) and the applicant wishing the Board to render the above cited decision. In light of the above we would like to make the following observations and suggestions, based on the rules and regulations of SEAR: 1. If a variance is required for the proposed lot areas, then the Zoning Board of Appeals would also be an Involved Agency, according to SEAR [617.2 (t)]. 2. If, through the establishment of Lead Agency, the Planning Board did not contact the ZBA, the Planning Board should coordinate the additional involved agency (ZBA) for the Lead Agency status [617.6 (d)]. 3. The Planning Board should once again seek Lead Agency status based on the criteria for determining lead agency contained within SEAR [617.6 (5)]. 4. The Planning Board, after re-establishing Lead gcy s ou re-a irm TT7e_P_o`s1_T_1ve_Declara ion wien e invo ve agencies , ase on i eria for determinin signs stance ((;S1T 119~ No agency (including the ZBA can issue a=eci~s on on an ac ion w determination that it may have a significant effect on the environment, until after the ShQH process is completed 61 .~11,. 5. While scoping of the DEIS document is optional, the Board should seek input on the scope from the CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page 2 of 3 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Hanauer & Bagley Scoping Meeting ZBA, and contact the applicant to set up a new scoping meeting. If the applicant does not wish to attend a scoping meeting, a written scope of issues should be prepared, in a timely manner, and supplied to the applicant (617.7). 6. If the applicant does not exercise the option to prepare the DEIS, the Lead Agency shall prepare it, cause it to be prepared, or terminate its review of the action [617.8 (a)]. We hope the above has been helpful to the Board in the consideration of the action. If we can answer any questions concerning the above or supply any additional information please feel free to contact us. Very trul .rnirs' omas W. Cramer, ASLA ri CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page 3 of 3 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS -20- 617.7 1617.8 calendar days following the filing of a positive declaration, the appli- C cant may submit a draft EIS. (b) Involved agencies should provide input for the scoping state- ment reflecting their agency's concerns, permit jurisdictions and information needs sufficient to make their respective SEAR findings. Failure of an involved a ency to participate in the scoping process will not delay completion of the written scope of issues. At the discretion of the lead agency, other interested agencies and the public may be invited to participate in the scoping process. The lead agency's methods for obtaining scoping information should reflect the complexity of the project, the degree of public concern and the significance of the environmental impacts. (c) When scoping occurs, the lead agency shall try to identify each relevant issue during the scoping process and provide the preparer of the EIS with the greatest possible specificity so that the environmental review process may proceed in an efficient manner. If the lead agency later determines that issues not included within the scoping document should be included in the EIS, it must provide the applicant and the involved agencies with a written statement explaining the need for addi- tional analysis. (d) Scoping should identify the extent and quality of information needed for the preparer to properly address each concern. Scoping may also be used to determine which issues are not relevant for further consideration or have been covered by prior environmental review. Scoping should also identify the reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. (e) The lead agency may utilize the Scoping Checklist in section 617.21, Appendix 0, of this Part and may modify the checklist as needed to adequately assess potential environmental impacts. 617.8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCEDURES. (a) The applicant or the lead agency, at the applicant's option, shall prepare the draft EIS. If the applicant does not exercise the option to prepare the draft EIS, the lead agency shall prepare it, cause it to be prepared, or terminate its review of the action. A fee may be 1 -19- H6 ° §6177 .7 l~ a CND has been issued, states what conditions have been imposed and 3 allows for a minimum 30-day public comment period; and 1 (v) the CND has been prepared and filed in accordance with sections 617.6(g) and 617.10(a)(2) of this Part. (2) A draft EIS must be prepared if comments are received regarding the proposed CND which would support a positive declaration concerning: M the previously identified or newly raised significant environmental impacts; or 1 (ii) the need for the examination of the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. (3) The lead agency must require an EIS if requested by the applicant. { M Rescission of Negative Declarations: t At any time prior to its decision to undertake, fund or approve an action, a lead agency must rescind a negative declaration if it deter- mines that a significant environmental effect may result from a project modification or that there exists a change of circumstances which was not previously addressed. Prior to any rescission, the lead agency must inform other involved agencies and the applicant and must provide a reasonable opportunity for the applicant to respond. 617.7 SCOPING. (a) Formal scoping is optional. It may occur either at the ini- tiation of the lead agency or at the request of the applicant, prior to the acceptance of a draft EIS. If the action involves an applicant, either a written scope of issues to be addressed in the draft EIS must be providaG Dy the lead agency to the applicant and all involved agencies, L within 30 calendar days following the filing of the positive declaration, or an applicant may initiate the process by providing the lead agency with a draft scope of issues. Scoping may be accomplished through meeting(s), exchanges of written material, or other methods that will allow the lead agency, the applicant, and involved agencies to agree upon a written scope of issues in a timely manner. In the event that tha lead agency fails to provide a written scope of issues within 30 o NOV 2 3 1990 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman BYO Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr.F~ Richard G. Ward 1 At Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 November 21, 1990 David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 RE: Subdivision Proposal for Hanauer/Bagley SCTM# 1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell; The Planning Board has reviewed the discussion which took place, at your client's request, at the November 13, 1990, Planning Board meeting. The Board's position has not changed from that stated in their July 3, 1989, correspondence (copy enclosed). The parcel is located in the Agricultural-Conservation (AC) District. The upland areas of the proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot requirements for this district. The Planning Board can not proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of the above mentioned district. If you wish, you can proceed with an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, zs~~ Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman enc. cc: Sanford Hanauer, Applicant Milton Bagley, Applicant Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector • C, • Town Hall. 53095 Main Road ?"'A?4' P.O. Box 1179 .-s Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 3, 1989 David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 RE: Hanauer/Bagley SCTM))1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell: The Planning Board has reviewed the concerns brought up at the meeting held on June 12, 1989. As stated in the Positive Declaration, the upland area of the subject premises does not meet the minimum lot area requirement for the Agricultural-Conservation (AC) District. The Planning Board can not proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of the above mentioned district. If you wish, upon receipt of a disapproval from the Building Department, you can proceed with an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. The Planning Board will withhold the re-scheduling of the scoping session until notification that the Zoning Board of Appeals has made a determination on the application. Please contact the office if you have any further questions. erycl,y o ff -Pn t/tt? BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN CC: Sanford Hanauer, Applicant Milton Bagley, Applicant Kenneth Coenen, Applicant's Consultant James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney Thomas W. Cramer, Town Consultant Zoning Board of Appeals Building Department ~ ~~is6LSUd~i 2 3 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS rsr+' U I i COTC L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman V~t,t! JI Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Jy ~~o Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 David Kapell November 21, 1990 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 RE: Subdivision Proposal for Hanauer/Bagley SCTM# 1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell; The Planning Board has reviewed the discussion which took place, at your client's request, at the November 13, 1990, Planning Board meeting. The Board's position has not changed from that stated in their July 3, 1989, correspondence (copy enclosed). The parcel is located in the Agricultural-Conservation (AC) District. The upland areas of the proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot requirements for this district. The Planning Board can not proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of the above mentioned district. If you wish, you can proceed with an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman enc. cc: Sanford Hanauer, Applicant Milton Bagley, Applicant Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector w: -:...~.~nurawon+.:.wa.•!........ r..:.:ni,, .<w.r++^AF41Fraw~+;.:.t ,e .o , .~r..a+.wu..-w+~sWX" _ 4iray.- `wA~: °.-.te'a' 9 CC= Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 - pa, 1 r?s Southold. New York 119 71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 3, 1989 David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 RE: Hanauer/Bagley SCTM#1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell: The Planning Board has reviewed the concerns brought up at the meeting held on June 12, 1989. As stated in the Positive Declaration, the upland area of the subject premises does not meet the minimum lot area requirement for the Agricultural-Conservation (AC) District. The Planning Board can not proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of the above mentioned district. If you wish, upon receipt of a disapproval from the Building Department, you can proceed with an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area.variance. The Planning Board will withhold the re-scheduling of the scoping session until notification that the Zoning Board of Appeals has made a determination on the application. Please contact the office if you have any further questions. eryL~'~/ trp.y s BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN Cc: Sanford Hanauer, Applicant Milton Bagley, Applicant Kenneth Coenen, Applicant's Consultant James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney Thomas W. Cramer, Town Consultant Zoning Board of Appeals' Building Department - .~.;~rt.5w_4+o-x'6FP+•l+.c...a.+4i.1.~ieC+iW.w>..•w°n-.~:~...alYNw.++L+... . -a-x'.Sc•.a.=•.a..w.......a...-.fcd...`.~y^y. ~wYrwueink +n PLANNING BOARD • 19 NOVEM* 13, 1990 Mr. Raynor: I can go in and get it updated, I can go in tomorrow but I didn't want to go in, have it updated have it filed and then not be able to pump it to the satisfaction of the commissioners. I will await your instructions. Mr. McDonald: Would you be prepared if the commissioner could find their way clear to take care of this you would be prepared to pump it off for them in any manner they prescribed. Mr. Raynor: Yes. Thank you very much. ***x*******x*****x*****x***xxxx*xxxxxxxx Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, Mr. Hanauer and Mr. Barmy are here. Mr. Irving Like: I'm a council to the Wickham firm. Mr. Bagley is not here, Mr. Hanauer and Mr. Kapellare here. There's an old mexican curse that says, may your life be filled with lawyers and I'm afraid that Mr. Hanauer and Mr. Bagley have been afflicted with that curse. I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to meet with you in this informal way. Back in July of last year, you wrote a letter to Mr. Kapell stating that, the Planning Board has reviewed the concerns brought up at the meeting held on June 12, 1989 as stated in the positive declaration, the upland area of the subject premises does not meet the minimum lot area requirement to the agricultural conservation A-C district and the Planning Board cannot proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of the above mentioned district. If you wish upon receipt of a disapproval from the Building Department you can proceed with an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. The reason we are here tonight is to ask you respectfully to reconsider that position in the light of a number of equitable considerations that I would like to bring to your attention as well as some very practical reasons. First a little chronology I think may be helpful. Back in July of 1985 the Southold Trustees passed a resolution which authorized the issuance of a permit to build one house. In July of 1985, this is the letter I am referring to (Submitted letter). On February 19th of 1987 a memo was sent to you from Victor Lessard stating that it was his understanding that parcels containing wetlands, for purposes of determining the area of the parcel must be included in the calculations and he stated that the board should take this approach until such time as the state wishes to change this clause. Then, on May 15th of 1987 the Board of Appeals addressed the letter to the Wickham law firm and I will hand it up to you in a moment, in which it stated that the Town Attorney has advised that court decisions were rendered during 1986 indicating that wetland areas cannot be deleted when calculating the area of lots in pending or proposed divisions of land. That is this letter. That is May 15th, 1987. Now, that date is PLANNING BOARD • 20 NOVAR 13, 1990 very important because on May 23rd of 1987 Hanauer and Bagley submitted an application for a minor two lot subdivision. On May 29th of 1987 the Suffolk County Department of Health Services sent a letter stating that the two lots were considered to be suitable for the installation of individual sewage disposal systems and I will hand that letter in. Now, as of May 29th, 1987 so far as the Board of Appeals was concerned, so far as the Town Attorney was concerned, so far as the courts were concerned, if you came in with an application and there was wetlands or land under water on your property, you would none the less have to count that towards density. In May of 1987, these applicants, I believe, had a right to proceed with a two lot subdivision. A building permit was issued on July 23rd, 1985 to build the first house so what you had before you in May of 1987, was a two lot subdivision under which a building permit had been issued for one house and then in August of 1987 the foundation was installed. Mr. Orlowski: The building permit was issued on one lot. Mr. Like: I understand that, it was issued on one lot. Mr. McDonald: There was a lot and a building permit was issued for one lot. Mr. Like: Then there was an application for a two lot subdivision on which that one lot on which the building permit was issued was shown and located. In August of 1987 the foundation was installed. Now, it wasn't until February of 1989 that you amended your zoning ordinance to prohibit the calculation of land under water towards computing density and I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that it was on the strength of that amendment of the ordinance which led you in July of 1989 to say that you could not proceed with the application. Now, there is a lot of case law and I won't burden you with it now, which states that where you have a map pending before a body such as the Planning Board, where you have a permit that has been issued or you have the commencement of physical construction on the property pursuant to the permit, the applicant has the vested right to proceed. Put that aside for the moment because I said earlier that I want to deal with equities of the situation. Now you have suggested that the applicant go before the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals has already expressed itself and the correspondence before you indicates that the Board of Appeals believes that the land should be counted towards density. Furthermore, as you know, when you seek a variance you have to establish before the Board of Appeals that you will suffer significant financial injury if the variance has been denied. We have consulted with an appraiser and we have an appraisal report indicating that if a variance is denied so that this owner is limited to one house he will lose approximately $130,000.00. That is the value of the building lot in this area based on market data and comparable sales. We believe that going before the Board of Appeals we could make a case of PLANNING BOARD • 21 NOVEMBE93, 1990 significant financial injury that would justify getting a permit to complete a minor subdivision for two lots and we think it would be a waste of the board's time to come forward again with all of the layout that would be.incident to that procedure. Now, here is a practical consideration that I said I would discuss earlier. You are aware of the problem that has been caused by the business with the pond. Primarily, what has been happening is storm water drainage from the town road carrying with it contaminants gets into the pond on the Hanauer property and the overflow of storm waters also causes the pond to rise and to swell beyond its normal configuration. We have commissioned a report by the Barrett Engineering Firm and they have informed us that based on the preliminary investigation of the area, approximately 1300 linear feet of town roads, Soundview Avenue and Lighthouse road drain directly tc the low point on Sound View into the ponds on the Hanauer property and on the property to the North. The only drainage that is provided by the town are two twelve inch metal pipes on the south edge of the pavement of Sound View Avenue draining into the pond onto the Hanauer property and a culvert which connects the two ponds. Mr. Barrett, we've asked him to do a more detailed analysis but he has already indicated that a minimal amount of drainage that would be necessary to correct the situation on the town road would be a substantial dollar amount so we have a situation where we're being denied the opportunity to build two lots and we are confronted with a condition of flooding which comes from a town road and we are left with a situation where there is significant financial injury. What I would like to do now is introduce Mr. Hanauer and ask him to submit to you a proposal which would involve your permitting him to go forward with two lots and a suggestion as to correct the drainage problem. Mr. Sanford Hanauer: As Mr. Like has indicated the following' would be my suggestion or a suggestion. Being that the elevation of the road is I believe around fifty feet and the low point which is on the adjoining property which is about forty-seven to fifty in this area. What happens is the water runs into the pond and when it reaches its crest it backs up through the culvert floods the neighbor to the north. Several years ago, about a year ago, there was a berm down here that was placed there by a farmer some twenty odd years ago, I understand, was cut open and released the water on the property to the south which is the Too Bee Property and created a wetland area. Being that this is the low point, what we would like to suggest is being involved in the Too Bee Property also. The best way to control the water here is to create some sort of a drainage system in this northwest corner of the Too Bee property whereby with a pipe controlling the level of the pond so this way the water could continue to spill into the pond and be controlled by a level in here and we are willing to give the town an easement to a section of this property to construct such a drainage ditch and I think that would solve everybody's problem. PLANNING BOARD • 22 NOVIOER 13, 1990 Mr. McDonald: How long have you owned this property? Mr. Hanauer: About five years. Mr. McDonald: The pond was there when you bought it. Mr. Hanauer: Yes. Mr. McDonald: The drainage situation was approximately the same at the time you bought it. Mr. Hanauer: I wrote a letter to Ray Jacobs asking him when the culvert was installed and I have a photograph showing this road without any disturbance to the blacktop. Mr. McDonald: Was this pond here at the time you bought that? Mr. Hanauer: Yes. The pond showed on the original maps in 1873 without a road. Mr. McDonald: So it was one pond. Mr. Hanauer: It was one pond so I think what happens there is the water starts up here and flows into this pond and then when it really overflows onto the road in the winter time when there are icy conditions it becomes hazardous and I think that is why the Highway Department put the culvert underneath the road to avoid the spillover onto the road and as a result more water comes into our pond. Mr. Orlowski: Did you ever get a variance to put that foundation in so close to the pond? Mr. Hanauer: Yes, at that time fifty feet was required. y Mr. Orlowski: This is forty-six feet. Mr. Hanauer: Well, the pond has changed since this last survey was taken. Mr. McDonald: This foundation is in compliance with all the regulations? Mr. Hanauer: That is correct. Mr. Orlowski: I think it was suppose to be seventy-five. Mr. Hanauer: At the time, we originally wanted to put it on the edge of the pond and they asked for a fifty-foot setback. Mr. McDonald: And you are forty-six. PLANNING BOARD • 23 NOVEMB*13, 1990 Mr. Hanauer: Well, that survey was made after the wetland survey so we have had changes in the elevation of the pond, it fluctuates. Mr. Orlowski: I can remember and I go back a little ways. This was in a long, long time ago I even think before you owned it. Mr. Hanauer: Which? Mr. Orlowski: This piece of property on a subdivision. Mr. Hanauer: It was previously owned by a family called Stefenson, we purchased from them. I really don't know if they had made any applications. Mr. McDonald: We've been told that the DEC had an order to close the opening that had been created in the southern part of the pond, is that correct? Mr. Hanauer: That is correct. Mr. McDonald: Has it been closed? Mr. Hanauer: Yes, it was closed. The DEC asked us to do it and we complied. The ditch showed on this map. Originally, we had a negative declaration on this piece of property and then when this water was let out onto this property it was a request from the Town Trustees to go back and they designated it as a wetland. But we requested when the dike was put back, if they would go back six months and examine it they would remove the wetlands designation. Mr. McDonald: Well, the subdivision map shows the buffer no matter what the Trustees would do in the future that shows in the subdivision map with this other property. Mr. Hanauer: Which property? McDonald: For this wetlands, so whatever the Trustees say that would remain in the subdivision map no matter what. Mr. Hanauer: Well, O.K., but if it was found that this was done illegally by creating the wetland, we know it was cut open we have evidence, we have a document from the Police Department and the Bay Constable has it. Ms. Scopaz: You said earlier you are proposing drainage. By putting in a pipe would that not in effect establish the wetlands permanently? Mr. Hanauer: No, not unless you put in a storm drain or a sump. PLANNING BOARD • 24 NOVEIOR 13, 1990 Mr. McDonald: Why that rather than just a natural drainage area? Mr. Hanauer: I'm not an engineer. Mr. McDonald: How much do you envision lowering the water table, not the water table but the level of the pond? Mr. Hanauer: We would like to keep it at a level of roughly forty-seven. Mr. McDonald: And its present level is? Mr. Hanauer: I think now it is way up, I think it is about forty-eight. Mr. McDonald: So you envision lowering the level of the pond? Mr. Hanauer: Just to control it so it doesn't back up and allows for heavy rainfall and drainage, it's like a valve. Mr. McDonald: See, these are two problems. One is a drainage problem. You're talking about drainage from the town road to your property which is really not in our province in a sense. The other one you are talking about the actual subdivision of the property which clearly is in our jurisdiction. Mr. Hanauer: The Planning Board has the power to deal with conditions with this sort here and solve these problems and if what we are suggesting is that (inaudible) minor subdivision you can also solve the problem that otherwise might burden the tax payers with the town that would be prudent on the part of the Planning Board. So I think your powers are considerable and we are proposing a solution which we think will not only take care of the two lot subdivision but take care of a festering problem that has caused nothing but acrimony. Ms. Scopaz: If you are proposing to allow the two subdivisions to be considered as one piece of property for purposes of drainage.... Mr. Like: No, what we're suggesting is that Mr. Hanauer will consent to burden another piece of property of his by either creating a storm drainage easement or dedicating it so that it serves as a safety valve to prevent flooding from occurring on a town road and from flooding occurring on his property and the neighbor to the north. Incidentally, the other point I would like to make is that under none of the proposals that are being presented to you will there be any disturbance to the pond. The pond will be kept as a resource and it will be kept as open space. Whatever buffers you feel are necessary will be established, we even could, as part of any arrangement with whoever buys these properties create a two party homeowners association with covenances protecting the pond. If we had presented this to you as a cluster, we could have given you a 'PLANNING BOARD • 25 NOVEMB10 13, 1990 map with three lots, two of them being lots on which the two buildings were to be constructed and the third lot being the pond and that could be protected in some fashion to be dedicated and be protected. Mr. McDonald: Do you have a sketch plan on this? Is there a sketch plan approval? Is there any approval? I'm not the Board of Appeals so I'm not going to get into it really but you are essentially saying your vested but you don't even have a sketch plan approval. Mr. Like: I know, I'm saying that there was a minor subdivision submitted. Mr. McDonald: Where is it, where is the sketch plan? Mr. Like: There was a application submitted. Mr. McDonald: You don't even have a sketch plan approval on it though. I mean where is the vested? Is there a sketch plan approval on it? Mr. Kappel: We applied in May of 1987 for a subdivision application. Subsequent to that a determination of a requirement that we file a long form environmental assessment was made by this board. I prepared and filed a long form environmental assessment which the board found inadequate and suggested that we hire a professional to do the same thing which we did. We hired En-Consultants from Southampton and filed a new long form environmental assessment which specifically addressed the comments of the town's engineer at the time in response to my original filing. We submitted the amended or revised assessment. The town engineer proceeded to re-review the original filing that I had made as opposed to reviewing the filing that En-Consultants provided which resulted in at least a three or four month delay. When we finally received the town engineers seconds review it became obvious that he had reviewed the same document twice. So then the town retained the services of Dave Emilita's firm and Mr. Emilita proceeded then over a three or four month period to finally review En-Consultants submission. Upon the completion of that review, Mr. Emilita suggested that there was a necessity for a survey of the potential for impacts on endangered wild life and animal species, so we contracted with Hampton Manor Associates to conduct such a survey at considerable expense. The survey was completed and submitted and as a result of all of these submissions the Planning Board then made a positive declaration on the long form environmental assessment. We did have a scoping session and that was, I believe in June or July of 1989 and that's where the thing left off. At that point, and during this period of time, the Town Board amended the zoning such that the requirement that the wetland area be excluded from the computation for density purposes. It was altered. Meanwhile, we had diligently pursued all of the steps that the PLANNING BOARD • 26 NOVE&R 13, 1990 Planning Board had laid out, operating under the assumption that the wetlands were going to be included in the density calculation, thousands of dollars were spent and a considerably amount of time elapsed. The fact that the Planning Board didn't take action on it is of no fault of ours. Mr. McDonald: We had a scoping session? Mr. Kapell: We had a scoping session yes. Mr. McDonald: And you submitted an impact statement? Mr. Kapell: No, we never submitted a draft environmental impact statement because at that point we were told that we had to go to the Zoning Board. In other words, two years elapsed. Essentially what happened was two years elapsed during which time we complied with various requirements that were set before us. Mr. McDonald: Let me see if I understand. You had a scoping session, you never submitted a enviromental impact statement. In the meantime, you've gone to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Kapell: No, no. We didn't, we elected not to. Mr. McDonald: You elected not to but you took no other action as well. What other action did you take after that? Mr. Kapell: We haven't done anything since July of 1985. Mr. McDonald: So you didn't submit the impact statement and you did nothing else. Mr. Kapell: No, there was no point in submitting an impact statement if we were going to have to go to the Zoning Board first and get a variance. What was the applicant to gain by spending several thousand dollars in more time preparing a draft environmental impact statement when in fact the Zoning Board might very well turn them down. Mr. McDonald: But you would have had to have it for that too. You would have had to have the SEQRA process at the ZBA as well. Mr. Kapell: The point is, is that at that point and if I can speak for you Sandy, at that point, the whole question of the town's disposition towards this application became a subject of discussion because the rules essentially had been changed in mid stream. The question of the inclusion of the wetland area into the density calculation had never been an issue until the scoping session. Mr. Orlowski: It's been a year and a half and now your back here telling us that you have some type of status. PLANNING BOARD • 27 NOVEMBO13, 1990 Mr. Kapell: Well, we waited two years to get to the last point. Mr. Like: The answer to that Mr. Orlowski, is that my client has been stunned and it was that dilemma of being caught between a rock and a hard place that led them to consult me and I reviewed the file and we're here tonight in the interest of working this out in an applicable way and that is why I started out by saying we think the equities here suggest, as well as the practicality suggests that should allowed to proceed. We don't think that being allowed to build two lots will be injurious to the environment. We believe that all of our consultants have come to that conclusion. Nobody has negative...; nobody has come forth and said you are going to hurt the pond in anyway. Mr. Orlowski: Well, there hasn't been any formal impact statement. Mr. McDonald: The process hasn't been entered into it. Mr. Like: We are perfectly prepared to defend the two lot subdivision as being one that is compatible with good environment practices We are perfectly prepared to protect the pond in any reasonable way. We are prepared to adopt whatever mitigation proposals the Planning Board makes as well as the DEC, if the DEC is interested and my experience is that a project of this minimum size can be handled in a matter that is compatible with good planning. We don't think we are asking a great deal to be allowed to go forward. Especially, when not to go forward means a substantial loss financially for the client. Mr. McDonald: I don't see how we can do anything, I mean the section of the code that is applicable here about his density is in the Zoning section of the code and that is clearly in the province of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We can't simply waive that requirement. If it was in the subdivision section, if we thought it had equity we could but since it's in the Zoning section any relief from that section of the code would have to come from the Zoning Board Appeals. I'm talking about the section about deletion, the present existence in the code, the deletion of wetlands is in the zoning section. Not in the subdivision section. Mr. Like: The court cases indicate that where you have an owner who would be entitled to the density under Section 281B certainly in this instance we would be entitled under Section 281B of the town law or under your cluster to come in with two lots that we are entitled and to go forward with two lots not withstanding the local ordinance of the type you're talking about. Mr. McDonald: That determines the actual yield. You haven't determined your yield yet. PLANNING BOARD • 28 NOVE*R 13, 1990 Mr. Like: I'm saying the case law consisting of Forte versus the Village of Worwick, the Done Company case, friends of Shawangunks, Inc. all say that where the owner has the right to a cluster under Section 281B of the Town Law, which we obviously do in this case, that that gives him the yield and that under those circumstances you can't delete land under water from calculating density. Mr. Orlowski: I think that was a minimum of ten acres too wasn't it? Mr. Like: No, your cluster provisions allow you to go forward with less than ten acres. Back then you didn't have the requirements. Mr. McDonald: You're not required to cluster at the present time. Mr. Like: I'm saying that from the standpoint of vested rights that we believe we have right now to go forward. Mr. McDonald: But you're not a cluster subdivision, there would never be any question if it would be a cluster. What is your total acreage? Mr. Like: 4.9 acres. Mr. McDonald: The code doesn't talk about cluster until you're ten acres. Mr. Like: No, that's when it is mandatory but we can apply for a cluster under B of that Section of your Zoning ordinance. You have the right to mandate cluster if it is more then ten acres but you and your discretion can treat this as a cluster and we can apply for cluster. I'm simply asking you to exercise your ? discretion in an equitable manner here to treat this applicant as one against who the rules were changed in middle of the procedures. Mr. Orlowski: Well back then, and being on the board, it was written in the code it was "land subject to flooding" left a lot of things open and we were having some problems with it. Back then the board felt any land under water was unbuildable period. As policy we stuck to that. In this case here I would say we would be on good grounds and sticking to our policy that this isn't wetlands or land subject to flooding, we're talking about land under water and that is why even now brought it up to send it before the Zoning Board of Appeals. You know this isn't even close. One half is under water and one half is above. Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to mention one thing. I understand your argument but I do want to point out one thing, the statement that was made earlier that in 1989 when the Town Board changed the Zoning Code. The things that you are PLANNING BOARD • 29 NOVEMBE*3, 1990 asking the Planning Board to do are not within their jurisdiction. They were determined by the Town Board, by the adoption of the zoning code, and there was no grandfather clause built into it and that was something that was made very clear to this board. The town board does not care at what stage a subdivision was in, if it does not have final approval then all the rules of the game have changed. The town board is quite aware that it has done that. Your arguments about the vested interests have to do with the building permit application and that is not a matter before the Planning Board. If you have a question about whether your foundation is vested that is an issue that you would take up before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The way the code currently stands, my understanding is, you have to go to the Zoning Board to ask for the relief, and present your case to the board, including all the case law that you've sited. I don't think that this board has any jurisdiction, it says very clear, in the code, whether they would want to or not. Mr. Like: I respect your comments and I am aware of what we would have to do before the Board of Appeals, but what I am trying to do however, is to see whether or not there is a basis for a practical solution that will accomplish not only the end results of fairness for everybody concerned, but also solve a drainage problem. Now, what is your, and I am seeking some guidance now from you, what is your sense as to how you would regard an application for a cluster where we would present you with a site plan showing let us say three lots. Two of which would be the lots on which the buildings would be built and the third lot would be the pond. We have certainly the amount of area to have a cluster. Mr. McDonald: We would deny it for lack of variance and you would go to the ZBA. That section of the code is very clear that that is deleted. It doesn't talk about whether it's cluster or not cluster that's section 239. That section says that if it is underwater it is deleted from the yield calculations. Now, we don't have the power, even if we saw merit in this we don't physically have the power over that. If the case that you are siting is correct the ZBA is still the place to do that. I don't see how we can get into their section of the code and tell them what to do. Mr. Kapell: To carry this on a little bit. Say the applicant decided to apply for the variance wouldn't the zoning board ask this board for a recommendation on the variance? Mr. McDonald: On the basis of something that was submitted they would ask for our comments. Mr. Kapell: They would ask for your recommendation wouldn't they? PLANNING BOARD • 30 NOV*ER 13, 1990 Mr. Like: Do you see any equity in this situation? Are we just wasting our time tonight or our we trying to get through to you that what's happened here is unfair to this applicant. This applicant pursued every request that was made by the Planning Board and the ground was cut out from under him. Mr. Orlowski: I really don't see that. I'll have the town attorney review this with us. You know you also waited another year and a half to come back in and there is no sketch granted here. The Planning Board, and I told you our policy before, this land was under water so we did not entertain and sent it to the ZBA. Mr. Like: The ZBA at the time you sent it to them said you have to count that land even though it is under water. When this matter was originally brought to the attention of the ZBA they said you've got to count it under water, the town attorney / said you've got to count it under water, the court said you had to count it under water. Then while this application is pending, and this applicant is breaking his chops and spending his money getting all the studies you want, and the town board goes and changes all of the rules. Now, if that doesn't sound like equity, I think I would be very much surprised if you would not feel deep down that something here needs attention and needs direction. That is not fair. That is not fair play with this applicant. Now, you can say to me you don't have the power but I know you know deep down that this guy was shafted. This applicant was shafted and he stands to lose $130,000.00 plus all the other monies plus the delay and you're forcing him into an issue where he's got to go to the courts. We don't want to go to the courts. We would rather sit down and work out a solution that is not going to hurt anybody. Mr. McDonald: We're not telling you that. In fact, if you went to the court at this point, again I'm not a lawyer so it's only the way I understand it, you wouldn't get anywhere in the courts now until you went to the ZBA. You would have to exhaust all your local possibilities before they would entertain it. The next step with this is the ZBA isn't it? Mr. Like: I would be very happy to talk to the town attorney, you might mention to the town attorney the case of DuVail vs. Ross. Mr. McDonald: I'll be happy to let you take care of that. Mr. Like: Whether it's a Planning Board or a Zoning Board of Appeals or any kind of a board, if an applicant is delayed and because the delay is prevented from getting vested rights he is entitled to relief from the courts. Mr. Orlowski: That's if you were delayed. Mr. Like: There is no question that we were delayed. PLANNING BOARD . 31 NOVEMBE03, 1990 Mr. McDonald: Where is your impact statement that you were requested to do? Mr. Like: I explained to you that if you're telling the applicant "we're only going to give you one lot but we want you to spend $10,000.00 on a full impact statement. Mr. McDonald: You don't have to determine that in advance, the impact statement is part of it. Mr. Like: But you have already determined that you are not going to give him more then one lot why should he spend $10,000.00 on a full impact statement. After he gives you the impact statement you'll say "sorry fellow you've got only one lot". Mr. McDonald: But his contention all along that he has two lots. Mr. Like: But you told me he didn't have two lots. Mr. McDonald: If we tell you now that you don't have two lots then you're going to go to court. Mr. Like: You're saying to him we're not going to give you two lots go get an impact statement. Does that make sense to get an impact statement after you tell him. Mr. McDonald: I wasn't here so I'm not sure but there was a scoping session that you entered into. Mr. Hanauer: We requested a scoping session and two people appeared at this scoping session. Melissa and En-Consultant and the first question we asked was why was there a change, why were they deleting the calculation of the water? No one could answer that. Your new consultant said we have to do whatever statement has to be done before we talk about anything else. I said, well we have to get this question answered and we can never get it answered. We started out initially as a variance then when they said you could calculate the water as part of it, we were told to change it to a minor subdivision after going through two years of all the shenanigans and everything that was asked for. We come back now and now we're back to a variance. Mr. McDonald: I guess I know what is really confusing here, the problem I have a problem with, why do you need a scoping session with the Planning Board at all, hold it, if your not trying to get a subdivision. Mr. Hanauer: You called a scoping session, we didn't call it. Mr. McDonald: Why are you even talking to the Planning Board if it's a single lot you would be with the building inspector. The mear fact that you are with us means that you are trying to PLANNING BOARD • 32 NOVEOR 13, 1990 subdivide the property and the scoping session must have been about that subdivision property. Yes or no? Mr. Hanauer: When we received the positive declaration with a letter from Mr. Orlowski, we questioned it because we wanted to talk about it. That's what we wanted to talk about. Mr. McDonald: It must have been about a subdivision though, it couldn't have been about anything else. Mr. Kapell: What it all boils down to if we were taken by complete surprise that after two years of attempting to pursue the subdivision and complying with the various requests that had been made of us to supply information in order for the board to advance the subdivision that we were at that point advised that the wetlands, that underwater area was going to be deleted from the density calculation. That's the problem, that's the hub of it. Had we been advised of that at the onset, that the position that the zoning board had taken that it should be included was not going to be respected by this board, other avenue's might have been considered at that point. What the beef is here is that that wasn't put forward and then as a result a considerable amount of time and expense were expended by the applicant. That's the issue and that is where the question of fair play arises. So now what we are saying to you I think, is that rather than go ahead now and spend another several thousand dollars on the draft environmental impact statement, and five hundred dollars or whatever the new fee is to apply to the Zoning Board for a variance, knowing that that variance application has to come back before this board for recommendation. If you guys are going to recommend against it. Mr. McDonald: Well, I for one will not give a recommendation before the time that they ask for it. I don't even know what you are going to go in front of them with. You can tell me here but that's no guarantee of what is going to come from them. I am not going to put myself in the position of telling you something before I really even know what it is. I understand you are trying to operate in good faith but from my standpoint how can I possibility do that. You want me to tell you all the answers in advance and I won't do it. Mr. Kapell: I think essentially what, and I don't want to take your chair Mr. Like, but I think essentially what we are asking you for is to give consideration to the fact that we were encouraged to pursue this application on the assumption that the position of the Zoning Board had taken with regard to the underwater land would be respected. That is really what it boils down to. Now the question is, can we pursue it on the original assumption? If not, then I think it is up to Mr. Like and Mr. Hanauer. Mr. Like: I would like to suggest that you confer with the Town Attorney on this particular matter and see whether or not he PLANNING BOARD • 33 NOVEMB*13, 1990 . feels there isn't some way that this can be resolved at the Planning Board level if he feels not, if he feels that you are powerless then we will understand. If he feels that you are powerless but we have some equity based on the presentation that we have made then we would hope that we would get a favorable recommendation for the Board of Appeals. We don't plan on making any drastic changes, we have shown you what we have in mind, whatever we showed you is what we're going to show the Board of Appeals in terms of seeking their approval. On that basis we were hoping that by meeting with you today, we could have some indication from you without a commitment because certainly you would want to see the final papers before you committed yourself. We need to have some encouragement before we go ahead and spend a lot more money and time on this. Mr. Orlowski: Well, I think the board has agreed that our hands are tied as far as what we can do and I think that you will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We will talk with our Town Attorney. Mr. McDonald: Should Mr. Like actually discuss it with the Town Attorney? Mr. Orlowski: Well, he has that option and I would like to discuss it with him first also. I don't see that we can do anything. This board has made no decision one way or the other for or against, I'm sure we are going to have to want for a impact statement and make our recommendations after that. Mr. Like: You do understand that we are reluctant to present you with a impact statement. Mr. Orlowski: I do. Mr. Like: When we know that you will not give two lots. Mr. Orlowski: Well, we can't. Mr. Like: Whether you can do it or not is in my book something to be discussed with the Town Attorney. Mr. Orlowski: When you go to the Zoning Board of Appeals is when you are going to have to prove a hardship of some sort. Mr. Like: Well, I think $130.000.00 bucks is a hell of a hardship. Mr. McDonald: You will not proceed to a decision from them without the SEQRA. I mean, they will not do it without the SEQRA process. Mr. Kapell: Nobody proposes to evade the SEQRA process, that is not the issue. PLANNING BOARD • 34 NOVEOER 13, 1990 . Mr. McDonald: What I am saying is, almost any route you take except simply forget it, you are going to have to do this. Mr. Like: It is a matter of timing. If we are told by the Board of Appeals, we approved your variance but you still have to go through the SEQRA process. Mr. McDonald: No, no, they will not, they cannot do that. They can't take an action without that in lace. It will be done before they make any determination w at so ever. Otherwise, it won't be legal. Now, I hope you get in touch with the Town Attorney, I would look forward to the Town Attorney's comments really. It is interesting. Mr. Kapell: I think really what the question of hardship revolves around is this assumption that the Zoning Board of Appeals original position with regards to whether or not the wetlands were going to be included. Mr. Orlowski: The Zoning Board of Appeals assumption and our policy can be two different things. Mr. McDonald: If that is the case, they would take that into account in their decision. Mr. Kapell: You are both under the same roof. We're on the outside. You are all under the same roof, I don't think it is unreasonable for an applicant to assume that two boards in the same town would have some coordination. Mr. McDonald: Coordination yes, but that does not necessarily mean that we are going to either be in agreement or that we would completely overlap what we are doing. Mr. Kapell: But let me say in all fairness there was never any correspondence from this board or anything on the record to indicate that this board disagreed with the ZBA's determination. We were lead along for two years filing these various documents and the first indication that this board was not going to honor the ZBA's position with regard to that question was when the positive declaration came along two years after we applied. That is the problem. Mr. Hanauer: Why did you put us all through those steps? Mr. McDonald: What we don't have the power to do, we can't do. I mean I would love to be able to just kind of solve problems like that but other people have authority in certain areas and I will not infringe on their authority anymore than I would allow them to do ours. The ZBA cannot subdivide property. We wouldn't allow it but at the same extend the kind of relief you need under the code comes from them. It really comes from them. Now, if the Town Attorney has an opinion that is really different to that and it is his opinion and he has case behind PLANNING BOARD • 35 NOVEMBID 13, 1990 it and it is a general agreement, I don't think we are close to that but, on the basis of what I read I just don't see where we have it to do for you. We just don't have that power to do it for you. Mr. Like: You have the power to recognize the equities in the situation. You have the power after having heard the equities in the situation to make an appropriate comment to the Board of Appeals. That you do have the power to do because that is recommendatory and that the Board of Appeals either considers it or doesn't consider it and I take it they take seriously what you tell them. You now have a better understanding of the hardships that have been opposed upon this applicant and how they have arisen and I think that we are not asking too much of you to give serious consideration to making a positive recommendation to the Board of Appeals. We will then go forward and do what we have to do with the Board of Appeals including whatever SEQRA documentation is required. Mr. Orlowski: Any recommendation from this board will not come through until the SEQRA process in finished. You are on a very fragile area there and there are a lot of questions to be answered. When you say you can build a house without any impact, that is what you are going to have to prove and this board would want to see that. The Zoning Board will ask for our recommendation and we will make our recommendation and they are going to decide whether it is a hardship. I mean, we are out of it and we haven't made a recommendation to deny or approve this one way or another since day one and what you say was a delay well, maybe it was or maybe it wasn't but you waited another year and a half to come back and tell us that we were dragging our feet. I think that the way the code is written right now you have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Like: You said the rug was pulled out from under this applicant you know suddenly and without warning after he spent a lot of money and was led to believe based on what the Town Attorney has said and what the Board of Appeals have said that you count it and then you have a change that says you can't count it and that is the classic situation where courts of law say there are equities here which should be respected and what we are saying to you is that you believe you don't have the power then the very least you can do is to say to the Board of Appeals, this applicant has an equity and the Planning Board assuming your satisfied with the environmental analysis we'll recommend he be granted his variance. We will take care of the financial part. We will demonstrate to the Board of Appeals what the financial injury is going to be but it would certainly be helpful for the Planning Board to make some comment which is not negative to our chances before the Board of Appeals. Mr. McDonald: I think our determination is going to be built on planning considerations the equity won't enter into it. That is PLANNING BOARD • 36 NOVEOR 13, 1990 a job for the Zoning Board of Appeals. There's criteria that has been handed down under who knows how many court cases. Mr. Like: I have been going before Planning Board's for the past twenty years and you can't tell me that the Planning Board is unmindful of (inaudible) that is simply not true. Mr. McDonald: The recommendation we're going to send to them is going to be based on Planning consideration. They will entertain the equity question. That is their job and that is really their job, that's their expertise. In this case we're not going to substitute our jobs for this, we're going to look at this on a planning basis. That's what they ask us our recommendation on. They don't need our opinion on the equity of it, there are going to actually make a determination. They are going to use their judgement to make this determination, not ours in that matter and we're going to comment on the planning aspects of it. I think if you have case, go. If you have it then you will win. If you do not, you will not. Mr. Like: Are there any other questions you have at this point? Mr. Orlowski: Not right now. We'll talk with the town attorney. Mr. Hanauer: How do we address the drainage? Ms. Scopaz: Can I make one suggestion. I think it would be useful for the record if you would condense your presentation in a letter, if you can present your presentation that you made earlier this evening into writing and this way we can use that as the basis for our discussion with the town attorney. In other words he would have something in writing so that we are all talking about the same thing and it would also be in the file for the record that you're pursuing this matter and I think that that would just be useful just to make sure that in our discussion with the town attorney that we're touching on the same points that your touching. Mr. Like: Could I get a transcript of the tape which will be helpful to me in composing such a summary. Mr. McDonald: It will take time. Mr. Like: If you'll furnish me with a transcript it would be a great help. Could you give me a copy of the tape? Mr. McDonald: With our facilities I would'nt absolutely count on it. Mr. Latham: Let's keep the thing going one way or the other. Mr. Like: Thank you. L ~ PLANNING BOARD • 37 NOVEMBE 13, 1990 Mr. Hanauer: We didn't discuss the drainage? How do we resolve the drainage? Mr. McDonald: If there was a subdivision, assuming you got through the ZBA and you had whatever variances, whatever drainage problems existed on the site would have to be dealt with within the Planning process. At that time, I would think in conjunction with the Highway Department that we would be able to solve the drainage problem. We have to solve the drainage problem. Then, I think that would finally fall into our laps. We would count highly on the Highway Department and their comments on the subject and our consultant as well. Mr. Hanauer: You'll be looking into that in the meantime? Mr. McDonald: No, for anything you've submitted we would have to send to the consultants and they would want money for that, for the reviews and to do it before there was anything in the way of approvals would be premature. Mr. Hanauer: I mean regardless, even if we didn't get the approvals we still have the drainage problems. Mr. McDonald: If it's not a subdivision, we no longer have any power over it. I'm not denying the problem no matter how you look at it. It's whether we have the power to do anything about it. As a subdivision, the drainage would be in purview but as a lot, it is not within our purview anymore. We no longer have any power over it. Mr. Hanauer: Who would then? Mr. McDonald: The Highway Department. Mr. Like, Mr. Hanauer, Mr. Kapell: Thank you very much. Being there was no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jane Rousseau, Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chai /an } Ll SAMFORD NANAUEH ASSOCIATES INC DESIGNERS Si1Lrl~~"^130 WOODBURY ROAD U'^~1 WOODBURY NY 11797 P~,-0M?Jjp!ry Ll~~.'.^ll 516692.4404 July 17, 1989 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board Office Town of Southold P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Re: Hanauer/Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4 Your letter of June 19th to Mr. David Kapell requested we submit the balance of $925 covering the environmental review of the above-named project by Szepatowski Associates. Attached to your letter, were copies of the following invoices from Szepatowski: September 29, 1988 $425.00 April 27, 1989 $500.00 The April invoice is marked "Corrected Invoice"; therefore, would you please review this matter and advise if the balance due is $425 or $500. We would also appreciate receiving all back up material on what was done by Szepatowski Associates. Ve truly yours,l ~ P Sanford Hana er ~-Pc SH:cdk cc: Mr. David Kapell Mr. Milton Bagley ~T----- A ° JUL 1 9 1989 SA `o°RD, c HANAI c DESIGNERS SUL'; }iUl D 7G; H'^ 130 WOODBURY ROAD P1ANNi ; g~i;;;,D j WOODBURY NY 97 76.692.4404 5 July 17, 1989 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board Office Town of Southold P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Re: Hanauer/Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4 Your letter of June 19th to Mr. David Kapell requested we submit the balance of $925 covering the environmental review of the above-named project by Szepatowski Associates. Attached to your letter, were copies of the following invoices from Szepatowski: September 29, 1988 $425.00 April 27, 1989 $500.00 The April invoice is marked "Corrected Invoice"; therefore, would you please review this matter and advise if the balance due is $425 or $500. We would also appreciate receiving all back up material on what was done by Szepatowski Associates. Ve truly you~rs,l Sanford Hana er -pc SH:cdk cc: Mr. David Kapell Mr. Milton Bagley CLA -I JAMES A. SCHONDEBARE _ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN ATTORNEY P.O. Box 1179 ROBERT H. BERNTSSON Mt Southold, New York 11971 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY TELEPHONE (516) 765-1939 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY FAX NO. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD (516) 765-1823 INTER-OFFICE MEMO FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO: Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Building Department and Trustees FROM: James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney r/ DATE: August 4, 1989 RE: Wetlands and Lands underwater. The prior opinion of the Town Attorney, that lands underwater and wetlands could not be deleted when calculating the lot area in pending subdivision of land was based on the prior Town Code. So that all departments are aware, it is the position of this office based on new zoning amendments and the definitions contained therein, wetland areas or lands underwater are not to be calculated in determining lot area. These are to be excluded in determining yield. Town Hall. 53095 Main Road p P.O. Box 1179 `III ab~~ Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (SLO 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 3, 1989 David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 RE: Hanauer/Bagley SCTM#1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell: The Planning Board has reviewed the concerns brought up at the meeting held on June 12, 1989. As stated in.the Positive Declaration, the upland area of the subject premises does not meet the minimum lot area requirement for the Agricultural-Conservation (AC) District. The Planning Board can not proceed with this application as it does not conform to the requirements of the above mentioned district. If you wish, upon receipt of a disapproval from the Building Department, you can proceed with an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. The Planning Board will withhold the re-scheduling of the scoping session until notification that the Zoning Board of Appeals has made a determination on the application. Please contact the office if you have any further questions. ery tr l.y o s I BENNst ETT ORLOWSK2, JR. CHAIRMAN cc: Sanford Hanauer, Applicant Milton Bagley, Applicant Kenneth Coenen, Applicant's Consultant James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney Thomas W. Cramer, Town Consultant ?doning Board of Appeals Building Department Town H311. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 ?p Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE . (516) 765-1936 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 3.9, 1989 David Kapell 400 Front Street Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Hanauer/Bagley SCTM 41000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell: A review of our books indicates that the fees for the ongoing environmental review of the above-referenced project subject to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act have not been paid. Enclosed you will find a copy of the bill that was sent to the Planning Board by its environmental consultant, Szepatowski Associates, Inc. for the review of the above-named project to date. It would be appreciated if you would submit the balance, which is $925.00, to this office by July 3, 1989. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. V y truly yours, ^ n % . r. f ..L~.i N /f... , zzl~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. CHAIRMAN cc: James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney John A. Cushman, Town Accountant Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: All Involved Agencies FROM: Southold Planning Board RE: Hanauer & Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4 Date: June 5, 1989 A positive declaration was declared on this application on May 15, 1989. A copy of which was mailed to you. A scoping session has been set for Monday, June 12, 1989 at 2:00 p.m. If you wish to attend or send comments, please notify this office at 765-1938. enc. cc: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Environmental Conservation, SB Suffolk County Department of Planning Judith Terry, Town Clerk Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Building Department Trustees Zoning Board of Appeals Applicant Planning Board • k' ~ t Town Hall. 53095 Main Road n P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 119 71 TELEPHONE (516)7651938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 22, 1989 David Kapell P.O. Bor. 463 Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Hanauer & Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, May 15, 1989. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act of a significant effect on the environment. (See enclosed Positive Declaration). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Ver rule yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. CHAIRMAN cc: Kenneth Coenen enc. it Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 05/23/89 POSITIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review Act and 6NYCRR part 617, Section 617.10 and chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency for this unlisted action described below has determined that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NAME OF ACTION: Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4. SEQR STATUS: Type I . Unlisted V DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 4.945 acre parcel into 2 lots, 2.466 acres and 2.479 acres respectively. This parcel is zoned A-C (Agricultural Conservation). It is located on Sound View Avenue at Southold. REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: The Planning Board has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form, has completed Parts II and III, and has conducted a field Inspection of the site. Based on the above, the Planning Board has determined that: The proposed action has the potential of having a significant impact to the physical characteristics of the project site. There may be an effect on the e;:isting freshwater pond and CONTINUED wetlands on the site due to the proximity of the proposed construction. The proposed action will involve construction within the required setback from a freshwater body. There may be an effect on the existing freshwater pond and wetlands on the site due to the fact that the proposal includes private wells within 70 feet and individual sewage disposal systems within 100 feet. The upland area of the subject premises does not meet the minimum lot area requirement for two dwellings. CONTACT PERSON Further information can be obtained by contacting Jill M. Thorp, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. Copies mailed to the following: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk county Planning Commission Robert Greene, DEC Commissioner Mohabir Perseud, Department of State Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. James Schondebare, Town Attorney Judith Terry, Town Clerk Building Department Board of Appeals Board of Trustees Applicant Planning Board S41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. S41 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & LANDUSE PLANNERS April 13, 1989 J Melissa Spiro Planner r Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision Hanauer/Bagley Dear Melissa: Enclosed please find a completed LEAF Parts II and III for the above mentioned subdivision proposal. Also enclosed is a recommended declaration for the Board's consideration. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES, INC. Diane M. Schultze Planner DMS:jlm enc. 23 Narragansett Ave. Jamestown, RI 02835 (401) 423-0430 Office (401) 423-0037 fax i 1406-2 (2:87)-7c 817.21 I U i'1'{ SEAR Appendix A State Environmental Ouality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM"`" 7 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 and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 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 n^tenna!!y-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: El Part 1 EX Part 2 :CPart 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. G A The project will riot 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 prepared.' -D C The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on th,• environment. therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. A Conditioned Negative Declaration is onls valid for Unlisted Actions Minor Subdivision for Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley \am., of Action _ Town_ of Southold _Planninq Board Nor.. w I -a,: Ag, nth Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Signature or K, - .,I,!, r u r m Lead Aj;rr:,. s_ S,;:n.ature or Prepan`r (If clotrrr•nt iron: responsible otficerj Uel, 1 Part 2-PR&CII APACTS AND THEIR MAq*TU(_ Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer 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 in 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 list 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. If 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 moderate 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. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By IMPACT ON LAND Impact Impact Project Change 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ?NO 91YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 [1] ? OYes ?No 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 In ? K]Yes ?No 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. ? ? ?Yes ?No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ? ? ?Yes ?No 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ? ? ?Yes ?No than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ? ? ?Yes ?No tons of natural material (i e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill ? ? ?Yes ?No • Construction in a designated floodway. ? ? ?Yes ?No • Other impacts ? ? ?Yes ?No 2. Will there be an effect t ...ty u::,que or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)ONO Z3YES • Specific land forms: freshwater pond and wetlands ? 17 Ekyes ?No 6 1 .2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be IMPACT ON WATER Moderate Large Mitigated By 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Impact Impact Project Change (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) ?NO KIYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ? ? ?Yes ?No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ? ? ?Yes ?No protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ? ? ?Yes ?No • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ? ? ?Yes ?No • Other impacts' - mnatrnr•f icsn within 30 fPPt of a ? ® 12 Yes ?No freshwater wetland 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ? ? ?Yes ?No or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ? ? ?Yes ?No • Other impacts: construction of dwellings with ? ® ®Yes ?No private wells and isds within 100 feet of 5 Vf IQ$ropose e/scfttiondaffe Hu~flacneQoojc,A wwat ~dy of water . quality or quantity? ONO BYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ? ® ®Yes ?No • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ? ly (y~Yes ?No have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ? ? ?Yes ?No gallons per minute pumping capacity • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ? ? ?Yes ?No supply system. • Proposed Oction will adverse'e affect groundwater. ? ? ?Yes ?No • Liquid effluent will be convey, r! off the site to facilities which presently ? ? ?Yes ?No do not exist or have inadequate capacity • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ? ? ?Yes ?No day. • Proposed ?chon will likely c:.us• siltation or other discharge into an ? E ZYes ?No existing body of water tc it e exte,t that there will be an obrious visual contrast -p natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ? ? ?Yes ?No products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas e%ithout eater r ® Eyes ?No and;or sewer services. • Proposed Action locate+ comn:err ial and'or industrial uses %Nhich mac ? C r1'es C'No require new or expansion of exnUng eeaste treatment and or storage farilitacs • Other mipacts___ _ - _ ? ? =Yes r110 6 Will proposed action alter drainage Coe, or patterns, or surface i water runoff? L_ ,NO x:115 Ex, tples mat would apply to column S • Pr( 1,,->cd Action would change flood Nvater flows r ryes ['No 7 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Proposed Action may. cause substantial erosion. ? Q (RYes ?No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns ? ? ®Yes ?No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ? ? ?Yes ?No • Other impacts: ? ? ?Yes ONo IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? ®NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ? ? ?Yes ?No hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ? ? ?Yes ?No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ? ? ?Yes ?No heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ? ? ?Yes ?No to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ? ? ?Yes ?No development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ? ? ?Yes ENO IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS g Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? DNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ? ? ?Yes ?No list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Remova- of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ? ? ?Yes ?No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ? ? ?Yes ?No than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: ? ? ?Yes ?No 9 Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? ONO g1YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ® ? IXYes ENO migratory fish. shellfish or wild Lie species • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ? ? ?Yes ?No of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important %egelatlnn IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 A%ill 0w Propo,-d Action oitr•cf agricultural land resources? ZNO DIES Examples thnt rsould algrly to column 1 • the proposed action „nuld serer. cross or limit access to agricultural C ? Eyes rN'o - - land (includes cropland, hn\lields. pasture, yme~ard, orchard, etc ) ' 8 1 2 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential 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 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ? ? ?Yes ?No • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ? ? ?Yes ?No • Other impacts: ? ? ?Yes ?No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel pr energy supply? ffNO DYES. Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of 7 ? ?Yes ?No any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ? ? ?Yes ?No transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: ? ? ?Yes ?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 ?No facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ? ? ?Yes ?No • 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 ?No noise screen. • Other impacts: ? ? ?Yes ?No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? )aN0 DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ? ? ?Yes ?No substances (i e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation. etc ) in 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 ? ? ?1'es ?No form 0 e toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious. etc ) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ? ? ?Yes ?No gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action mas result in the excavation or other disturbance ? ? ?Yes ?N'O within 2.000 feet of a site used for the disposal of so:id or hazardous waste • Othof impacts' ? ? ?Yes ?No 1 y 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact Be OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By 18 Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Impact Impact Project Change ?NO !~C,YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ? ? ?Yes ?No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • 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 ?No • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ? ? ?Yes ?No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ? ? ?Yes ?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. ? M ®Yes ?No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ? ? ?Yes ?No • Other impacts: ? ? ?Yes ?No 19 Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ?NO th[S None as of March 28, 1989 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 potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the fol!o~%inp for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 Briefly describe the impact. 2 Des(nbe (d 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 anss,er the question of importance, consider. • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irwversibihts, including permanentIN lost resources of salue • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • the repional consequence of the impact • Its potential dnergence from local needs and goals • 1\'hethcr Lnown oblections to the project relate to lhi> impact (Continae on atta(hments) QW, 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ? ? Dyes ?No agricultural (and. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ? ? ?Yes ?No of agricultural land or, if located in an Agri cultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of, agricultural land. - - • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ? ? ?Yes ?No lard 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: _ ? ? ?Yes ?No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ONO OYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 r~ • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ? L-7 Yes ?No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural • Proposed (and uses, or project components visible to users of ? 1~ InYes ?No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. E) Yes Project components that will result in the elimination or significant LJ ? Yes ?No screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: ? ? ?Yes ?No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring "holly or partially within or substantially ? ? ?Yes ?No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. _ • An% impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ? ? -Yes ?N`o project site. • Proposed Action s+'dl occur in an area designated as sensitive for ? ? ?Yes ?No archaeological sites on the N1"S Site Inventory. • Other impacts ? ? ?Yes ?No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 11 will Proposed Action aitect the quanUhv or quahhr of existing or tuture open spaces or re( rational opportunities? Examples that ssould apply to column 2 DNO LX) ES • the permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity ? Q Iy{Yes ?No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ? ® QYes ?No • Other impacts ? ? ?Yes ?No Part III Impact on Land: The proposed action will result in a potential large impact to the physical characteristics of the project site. Construction on proposed lot No. 2 will occur on slopes of 158 or greater. This cannot be mitigated by project change due to the fact that there is already a foundation in place on this lot. There will also be an affect on the existing freshwater pond and wetlands on the site due to the proximity of the proposed construction to these areas. While this cannot be entirely mitigated by project change, it can be minimized by allowing only one dwelling to be constructed, that being the completion of the dwelling on Lot #2. Impact on Water: The proposed action will have a large impact on the freshwater wetland, particularly since the set back from the wetland line on Lot No. 1 is 50 feet and the setback on Lot No. 2 is only 30 feet. This can be mitigated by project change. The construction also includes private wells within 70 feet of the freshwater wetlands and individual sewage disposal systems within 100 feet. These private wells will produce a draw down effect on the wetlands and the individual sewage disposal systems will introduce additional pollution to the pond. The proposed action will also affect surface and groundwater quality since it requires the use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve the proposed actions. Also, the project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into the existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. This can be mitigated by a project change limiting construction to one dwelling only and mitigation measures during construction. The proposed action will alter surface water runoff by creating more impervious surfaces and elimination of existing vegetation. S41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. S41 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & LANDUSE PLANNERS Impact on Plants and Animals: The proposed action could affect non-threatened or non-endangered species in that it may interfere with resident or migratory wildlife species, particularly in that the freshwater pond is most likely used as a source of drinking water. the pond is also a habitat to a variety of local water species such as ducks, geese, and swans. Impact on Aesthetic Resources: The proposed action will affect aesthetic resources since the uses are in sharp contrast to the surrounding natural resources. The proposed land use will also be visual to users of aesthetic resources and will eliminate their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of those resources, as well as eliminate the scenic view of the pond which are important to the area. Impact on Open Space and Recreation: The proposed action will result in the permanent closure of a future recreational opportunity which is the use of the pond as an area for bird watching and ice skating. This proposal will also cause a major reduction and ultimate elimination of an open space important to the community. Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood: This proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects, particularly in areas with natural resources such as those present on this site. This action would be a divergence from the local goals and policies of the Town which include preservation of the wetland areas, and natural resources important to the community. The subject premises contains an upland area barely sufficient for one dwelling. It does not meet the minimum lot area requirement for two dwellings. Therefore a subdivision into two conforming lots cannot be accomplished on this parcel. SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. C 41 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & LANDUSE PLANNERS From a review of the environmental factors present on this parcel a two lot subdivision would create a severe adverse impact on the pond and its environs. Reduction to one lot only using the existing foundation and using proposed location of well, septic system, and driveway on "Lot 2", with no clearing within 50 feet of the pond (except where it exists now), and no fertilized vegetation, including lawn, on the property except for native indigenous species fertilized with slow-release organic fertilizers, all taken together would mitigate environmental impacts to the greatest degree practicable. The best mitigation measure is the acquisition of this parcel for use as a Town skating area since that has been the historic use of the site. The existing foundation could then be utilized for an accessory building to the skating area. S41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. M' ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & LANDUSE PLANNERS 74.12712187)-9c 617.21 SEOR - Appendix F State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Project Number Date 4/11/89 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Southold Town Planning Board as lead agency., has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Minor Subdivision Hanauer and Bagley SEAR Status: Type I ? Unlisted 12 Conditioned Negative Declaration: ® Yes ?No Description of Action: Realty subdivision of 4.945 acres, including a 2.6 acre pond, into 2 building lots. I I I i Location: (Include street address and the-name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) Located at the Southwest corner of Soundview Avenue and Lighthouse Road, Southold, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk. See attached location man. SEOR Negative Declaration Page 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination: (See 617.6(g) for requirements of this determination; see 617.6(h) for Conditioned Negative Declaration) See Parts II-and III attached. This negative declaration is conditioned on the following: A reduction to one lot only using the existing foundation and 'using the proposed location of well, septic system and drivewav on "Lot 2". No clearing_ within fiftv (50).feet of the.pond (except where it exists now) and no feritlized vegetation, including lawn, except for native indigenous species fertilized with slow-release organic fertilizer. These measures, all taken together, would mitigate environmental impacts to the greatest degree possible. If Conditioned Negative Declaration, provide on attachment the specific mitigation measures imposed. For Further Information: Contact Person: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Address: Southold Town Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Telephone Number: 516/765-1938 For Type I Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a Copy of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 Appropriate Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Conservation Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located. Applicant (if any) Other involved agencies (if any) soUNO ~OMB _ SOUND Q - ' Rio fro 4 1 PpNO . HP SO LOCATION MAP SCALE: l"z 600' MINOR SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL HANAUER AND BAGLEY SANFORD HANAUER ASSOCIATES INC SOUTHDLD TDNlN PLANNING BOARD D E S I G N E R S 130 WOODBURY ROAD WOODBURY NY 11797 516.692.4404 March 29, 1989 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Planning Board Office Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Re: Proposed Minor Subdivision Hanauer-Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4 With regard to the above minor subdivision, Mr. Kappel submitted, at the end of January, the information that you requested in your letter of October 25, 1988. Last Friday, I stopped in at the Planning Board to see what the status was, only to find out that the information you obtained the end of January just went out to Mr. Emilita a few days ago. This accounts for another two-month delay, and I would appreciate your expediting the procedures. Thanking you for your attention to this matter, I am Very y ours, Sanford anauer SH:cdk cc: David Kapell Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 22, 1989 David Emilita, AICP Szepatowski Associates Inc. 23 Narragansett Ave. Jamestown, Rhode Island 02835 RE: Minor Subdivision of Hanauer & Bagley SC'I'M$1000-50-6-4 Dear Dave: Enclosed please find the response of the applicant to your review dated September 26, 1988. The applicant submitted the enclosed to our office in February. The Planning Board was reviewing a Title Search for the parcel, and the enclosed was inadvertently not sent to you. Please review as soon as possible. Thank you in advance for your assistance. ery tru y s, ' J BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN enc. KAPELL REAL ESTATE, INC. 400 Front Street Post office Box 463 Greenport, New York 11944 BRANCH OFFICES 516-477-0100! _ 21 North Ferry Road, Box 1009 Shelter Island, New York 11964 (516) 749-0100 10 Flanders Road, Box 1771 Riverhead, New York 11901 - (516) 369-0100 March 4, 1969 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision of Hanauer & Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Chairman: In connection with the above referenced subdivision, refe- rence is made to my letter dated January 27, 1989. My clients have asked me to inquire as to the review of the items submitted at the time. Our original submission of the long form environmental asessment requetsed by your board was made on August 24, 1987. The review of same has been extraordinarily protracted and my clients are anxious to bring this project to fruition. We would appreciate anything you can do to expedite this matter for us. Very truly you S, David E. Kapell as agent KAPELL REAL ESTATE, INC. 400 Front Street Post Office Box 463 Greenport, New York 11944 7 BRANCH OFFICES 516-477-0100 21 North' Ferry Road, Box 1009 W- - Shelter Island, New York 11964 (516) 749-0100, 10 Flanders Road, Box 1771 - Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 369-0100 SuU I Hip 0 7t',~;d PLh;~Piii,G ?"AAD Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 January 27, 1989 Re: Minor subdivision of Hanauer & Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Chairman: Pursuant to your letter dated October 25, 1988 I submit herewith the following items requested by David Emilita in his review of the Long Form Environmental Assessment filed in connec- tion with the above referenced project: 1. Revised surveys prepared by Young & Young 2. Report of Hampton Manor Associates as to presence or lack thereof of any threatened or endangered species. I would appreciate anything which you can do to expedite final review and action on these submissions. Review of our assessment is now in its 18th month. Very truly yours, 41( 8* w.~ David E. kapell as agent Hampton-Manor Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 308 v Manorville, New York 11949 (516) 878-1031 January 11, 1989 Ms. Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley C/O Sanford Hanauer Associates 130 Woodbury Road Woodbury, N.Y. 11794 Re: Minor Subdivision at Lighthouse and Soundview Southold Dear Ms. Hanauer and Ms. Bagley: This office has reviewed the minor subdivision plan for the property noted above, and completed field studies of the flora and fauna found on the property. Field inspections were done on January 9 & 10 of this year with the results noted below. At the time of field inspections, ice covered the pond found on the property which limited the investigations into the aquatic life which could be found in the pond. Additionally, investigations centered on the proposed lot number 1 of the minor subdivision regarding flora and fauna as a foundation is already in place on lot number 2. Overview of Site Conditions The property consists of a total of 4.945 acres and includes a pond, apparently man made as evidenced by an earthen dam at the southern end of the pond. The pond supports vegetation consisting of flooded shrubs and emergent vegetation. A small fringe of freshwater wetlands surrounds the western, southern and eastern portions of the pond. The northern portion of the pond is bounded by Sound View Avenue with a culvert connecting this pond to a smaller pond on the north side of the road. Several other culverts were also noted indicating that road runoff from both Lighthouse Road and Sound View Avenue are directed to this pond. Road runoff from Sound View Avenue and Lighthouse Road may adversely affect the water quality in the pond. Adjacent to the freshwater wetlands are wooded uplands The property has residential development to the north, west and east, while an open, fallow farm field is found to the south of the property. Wildlife populations directly observed consist primarily of songbirds, although two species of gamebirds were observed and others are likely to inhabit the property at other times of the year. Again, a specific inventory is included below. Flora Inventory The following flora species have been identified on the minor subdivision property of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley, this list is not to be considered a complete site inventory, as field identification of vegetation is limited by the time of year in which the inventory was completed: Wetland Species Clethra alnifolia Sweet Pepperbush Cephanalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush Blueberry Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle Smilax rotundiflora Catbrier Carex spp. Sedges Juncus spp. or Elocharis spp. Rushes Upland Species Quercus rubra Red Oak Quercus velutina Black Oak Quercus alba White Oak Prunus serotina Wild Cherry Juniperus communis Dwarf Juniper Betula lenta Grey Birch Betula populifolia White Birch Kalmia latifolia Mountain Laurel Smilax rotundiflora Catbrier Robina pseudo-acadia Black Locust Ilex verticillata Winterberry Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle Note: Some species can be found in both the freshwater wetland and the upland habitats. Fauna Species The following species of wildlife were directly observed on the subject property, or evidence of their use of the property was found. Avian Populations Parus atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee Parus bicolor Tufted Titmouse Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay Corvus brachyrhynchos Common Crow Sturnus vulgaris Starling Richmondea cardinalensis Cardinal Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker Colinus virginianus Quail Phasianus colchius Ring-Necked Pheasant Larus argentatus Herring Gull Although not physcially observed due to the frozen conditions of the pond it is assumed that the pond is habitat to a variety of common local water species including ducks and geese during times when the pond is open. Additionally, the pond is likely used by a variety of migratory species as a resting place and a source for food. Mammal Populations The following species were directly observed, or evidence was found of their habitation of the property in question. Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer Sylvilegus floridans Eastern Cottontail Scuirus carolinensis Gray Squirrel Additionally, it is likely that raccoons, opossum, chipmunks, mice, moles and bats could be found on the property. No inventory of reptiles and/or amphibians was possible due to the weather conditions, however, it is likely that the pond and surrounding habitat is the home to a variety of common reptiles and amphibians, including frogs, toads, salamanders, turtles and possibly garter snakes. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species No direct observation of any rare, threatened or endangered species was made on the subject property, nor was the habitat found considered to be of such a nature that the existence of any rare, threatened or endangered species be likely on this property. Summary The subject property is habitat to a variety of flora and faunal species, most of which are quite common to the area. No unusual species were noted during the field inspections conducted. No species considered rare, threatened or endangered were observed, nor was the habitat found which would support any of these species. This report can be used as you see fit, particularly as a submission to the Town of Southold Planning Board, in compliance with their requests. Should you have any questions regarding the content of this report, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kenneth C. Coenen, AICP President KCC/ cc: David Kapell KAPELL REAL ESTATE, INC. 400 Front Street Post Office Box 463 Greenport, New York 11944-- BRANCH OFFICES 516-477-0100 ,•`If 21 North Ferry Road, Box 1009 Shelter Island, New York 11964 (516) 749-0100 10 Flanders Road, Box 1771 ' - t Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 369-0100 SOU7t1010 70~;~{;~ PUiNNIiJG 80A iD Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 January 27, 1989 Re: Minor subdivision of Hanauer & Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Chairman: Pursuant to your letter dated October 25, 1988 I submit herewith the following items requested by David Emilita in his review of the Long Form Environmental Assessment filed in connec- tion with the above referenced project: 1. Revised surveys prepared by Young & Young 2. Report of Hampton Manor Associates as to presence or lack thereof of any threatened or endangered species. I would appreciate anything which you can do to expedite final review and action on these submissions. Review of our assessment is now in its 18th month. Very truly yours, David E. kapell as agent r ~ .v Town Hall, 53095 Main Road = v` P.O. Box 1 179 Southold, New York l 1971 A d TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 25, 1988 David Kapell P.O. Box 364 Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Proposed minor subdivision of Hanauer & Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell: Enclosed please find David Emilita's report dated September 26, 1988. The Planning Board requests compliance with the report, specifically with numbers Four (4) and Five (5). The Planning Board will proceed with their review upon receipt of this information. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Vezy.,.truly yours, rJ N~ • v f J? ~ i y,~ \.....-it~l <lw-%~.. ;1.•''f :.pro.. 17 V BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. CHAIRMAN enc. MS/jt SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS t j SOUTHDLD T01JN ~ 4LANNING DDARD September 26, 1988 Mr. Bennett Orlowski Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Hanover & Basley Dear Mr. Orlowski, Per your request of 25 August the premises was field inspected again on 14 September with the updated survey dated 2 August 88. Referring to our letter of 16 May 88, I make the following comments. 1. Freshwater wetlands flagged but not numbered either on the survey or in the field. Since I agree with the accuracy of the field flagging and of the placement of the field flagging on the survey, this need not be corrected. For the future however, this practice may not prove acceptable. 2. It is assumed all permits on Lot 2 are now in the Planning Board file. 3. Except for the northeast and southwest corners of Tax Parcel 41 which I could not find due to dense underbrush, all other corners were located. No proposed sanitary system location are shown; no proposed well on Lot 1 is show, presumably the existing well on Lot 2 will be utilized but no SCDHS permit for it appears in the file copies sent to us; no driveway location for Lot 2 is indicated on the survey; all other information is okay. 23 Narragansett Ave. Jamestown, RI 02835 (401) 423-0430 Species documentation is not supplied. The first page of l~ communication dated 25 April 85 from the Land Use Company to Abigail Wickham is not sufficient to complete a Part I or Part II. 6. Please draw the applicant's attention to items 4 and 5 above. We are available for any questions. Sincerely, SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES, INC. (Mrj David J.S. Emi ita, AICP Principal Planner DJSE:mt Town Hall, 53095 Main Road S ,t't\i P.O. Box 1179 ry"'A Southold, New York 11971 fi . TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 25, 1988 David Emilita Szepatowski Associates,Inc. 23 Narragansett Avenue Jamestown, Rhode Island 02835 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivision for Hanauer & Bagley SCTM 01000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Emilita: Enclosed please find material submitted for the above mentioned subdivision as per your letter dated May 16, 1988. Please notify us if any additional imformation is needed. Vpar-y~ truly yours, ..fir cI/~~~ t~v„~~-t~s~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. CHAIRMAN enc: jt Ur Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM TO: The Board of Trustees FROM: The Planning Board RE: Proposed minor subdivision for Hanouer and Bagley SCTM ##1000-50-6-4 DATE: August 25, 1988 Attached please find the map for the above mentioned subdivision. Also find a copy of correspondence from your office dated August 6, 1986 (Please excuse the poor print, we do not have the original). This letter is not clear as to which lot it refers to. The house shown on the enclosed map on Lot 2 is closer than the 50' noted in this letter. Please review and respond. Thank you for your assistence. enc: it KAPELL REAL ESTATE, INC. 400 Front Street Post Office Box 463 _ Greenport, New York 11944 - 6-477-0100 BRANCH OFFICES 51 J j 11 U 21 North Ferry Road, Box 1009 I:1 ~;3 U Shelter Island, New York 11964 ..,A d (516) 749-0100 10 Flanders Road, Box 1771 SOUTHOLD TOWN Riverhead, New York 11901 PLANNING BOARD (516) 369-0100 August 18, 1988 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Hanauer & Bagley Set-off Dear Mr. Chairman: In connection with the above referenced project this will serve as our response to The letter dated May 16, 1968 from David Emilita and addressed to you in review of our long form environ- mental assessment dated January 13, 1988. We submit, herewith, the following items as requested: 1. Revised survey made by Young & Young dated August 2, 1988. This survey contains all the information requested by Mr. Emilita. 2.Copies of the builidng permit for lot #2.-ef he Heath yep pr-9ved map m9e Also a copy of a letter of no jurisdiction issued by the N.Y.S.-D.E.C. 3. Copy of letter dated May 29, 1987 from the SCDHS confir- ming their approval of soil borings for both lots 1 & 2. 4.Copy of letter from The Land Use Company describing vege- tation on the site. 5. Please be advised that we have had the pond perimiter flagged, as best as possible, as requested. I hope that this provides you with the information necessary-to act on our long form assessment, the review of which has been extra- ordinarily protracted. truly avid E. Kapell as agent i T CV-1 KAPELL R L ESTATE, INC. C--f ~ c-, 400 Fr nt Street CUVE~ 1-e.4--~~ 4- Post Offic ox 463 _ Greenport, New ork 11944 - i 516-477-01 BRANCH OFF ES vv ( O O 1~ 30 S-e-~ D, - ~ 21 North Ferry R d, Box 1009 ~-1-V ~/OV (1i!J Shelter Island, New ork 11964 _ / (516) 749-0100 RZ- C- A IZhC", I 10 Flanders Road, Box 71 SOUTHOLO TOWN Riverhead, New York 119 1e t 4}r t PLANNfNG BOARD (516) 369-0100_ 1t~`.5 :M~c<lcs f~CC~ C C'n ycor Gnu e~ ~e_ A1gust 18, 1988 Mr. Bennett Orl ow i, Jr. Chairman, Southold own Planning and Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Hanauer & Bagley et-o Dear Mr. Chairman: ll,~E41W'f- In connection with the above fe e k_o ect this will serve as our response to The le w e a 8 from David Emilita and addressed to you in r w o Aorm environ- mental assessment dated January 13, °O 41-c s n(~If•~'zAlit,r. We submit, herewith, the follo ing items as requested: 1. Revised survey made by oung & Young dated August 2, 1988 This survey contains 1 the information requested by Mr. Emilita. 2.Copies of the bu' idng permit for lot #2.~-of Also a copy of a letter of o jurisdiction issued by the N.Y.S.-D.E.C. ~[A OM1 3. Copy letter dated May 29, 1987 from the SCDHS confir- 04 mi their approval of soil borings for both lots l & 2. 4. opy of letter from The Land Use Company describing vege- tation on the site. 5. Please be advised that we have had the pond perimiter flagged, as best as possible, as requested. I hope that this provides you with the information necessary to a•t on our long form assessment, the review of which has been extra- rdinarily protracted. U~ry trulyyo rs , avid E. Kapell as agent • ` G\ F-Cam` • TiA~Lrn_ r P ' -1V~~I~,;~; G"B0,1RD TO~RrN O SOU. HOLD 3LS ~~'OLK~5:() NTY Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 May 25, 1988 David Kapell P.O. Box 463 Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Hanauer and Bagley SCTM #1000-50-6-4 Dear Mr. Kapell: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on 'day. May 231, RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept and request compliance with Dave Emilita's report dated May 16, 1988. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, -GsvstG~~~~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. CHAIRMAN Enc: it b~ Ltd. RAY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS 1988 vY ll~ May 16, 1988 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Hanauer and Bagley Dear Mr. Orlowski, Per your request of 21 April, I field inspected the site on 4 May. The written documentation I received from your office consists of a LEAF Part I dated January 13, 1988 and survey dated February 26, 1985. In order to complete a Part II review the following information needs to be completed: 1. Verified delineation of freshwater wetlands (using a numbered flagging system). 2. Copies of all permits on "Lot 2". 3. Field flagging of all lot corners, existing and proposed. 4. Up-to-date survey showing verified wetland flagging, location of the existing foundation, building envelopes, proposed well, sanitary system and driveways and edge of pond by tie lines; (rather that sketch) all in addition to and correction of information shown on the February 26, 1985 survey. 5. Independent verification of threatened and endangered species. Upon receipt of this information we will proceed with further review. Sincerely, SZtZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES, INC. David J.S.~-LO'milita Principal Planner, AICP DJSE:mt 23 Narragansett,Nve. Imneslown. RI 02835 (401) 423-0430 Ltd. WAY' 1 r~' 19d ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS 8v , May 16, 1988 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Hanauer and Bagley Dear- Mr. Orlowski, Per your request of 21 April, I field inspected the site on 4 May. The written documentation I received from your office consists of a LEAF Part I dated January 13, 1988 and survey dated February 26, 1985. In order to complete a Part II review the following information needs to be completed: 1. Verified delineation of freshwater wetlands (using a numbered flagging system). 2. Copies of all permits on "Lot 2". 3. Field flagging of all lot corners, existing and proposed. 4. Up-to-date survey showing verified wetland flagging, location of the existing foundation, building envelopes, proposed well, sanitary.system and driveways and edge of pond by tie lines; (rather that sketch) all in addition to and correction of information shown on the February 26, 1985 survey. 5. Independent verification of threatened and endangered species. Upon receipt of this information we will proceed with further review. `u t t_ t r e Sincerely, - SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES, INC. ~y/(~7 9 UL~~L •~La2<.c-- ~_:-z~ a Vic` ~ d-- David J.S. ilita' Principal Planner, AICP t DJSE:mtrs ~c~a~c d 23 Narragansett Ave. Jamestown, RI 021 PL 4N~VING B RD TO O SOU,: J~n0D SLG'YO~`~c''-ogN Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 April 21, 1988 Dave Emilita Szepatowski Associates,Inc. 23 Narragansett Avenue Jamestown, Rhode Island 02835 RE: Environmental Assesment form of Hanauer and Bagley Dear Dave: Please be advised that I am sending a revised Environmental Assesment form of Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley for your review. Our office was under the impression that this had been previously sent to you. However, it has been brought to our attention that this may not have been the case. As an appreciable amount of time has passed, we would appreciate your review and comments as soon as possible. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR~ " CHAIRMAN j t (n P L:6el F OU C, B0 , TO~1 OSOIO D cn n S OO N Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 April 19, 1988 Mr. David Kapell P.O. Box 463 Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Hanauer and Bagley Dear Mr. Kapell: Enclosed is a copy of the engineer's report for the above mentioned subdivision. The Planning Board hereby requests compliance with this report. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, -L::,WU e,U- 9dzk, ~ (1n. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.nd) CHAIRMAN jd &..gY B. BOWNE B SOp Sdney B. Bowes, P.E., L.S. Roland Anders (1922-1959) Lza~dlt~i/x~ 4?11jo urd Frank Capobianco Chester C Kelsey, P.E., L.S. Roger L. Cocchi 45 Manor Road Francis J Lynch R Alexandre W. obert A. Stanton. Mnton. , P.E. P.E. Smithtown, N.Y. 11787 Philip Schlotzhauer Robert A. Robert W. Brown, L.S. 516 724-0611 Joseph F. stagman Zabdlel A. Blackman, P.E., L.S. Paul F. Stevens William T. Styne George A. Style, P.E. Richard R. Weber Jerry D. Almont. P.E. George L. Fagan, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Thomas R. Pynchon, L.S. March 29, 1988 Mr. Bennet Orlowski, Jr., Chairman TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Hanauer & Bagley Subdivision, Southold, N.Y. (SBB NO. 87136) S. C. T.M. Designation: 1000 - 50 - 6 - 4 Dear Sir: We have reviewed the latest submission of Part I Environmental Assessment for the above noted project. The following are comments on items that must be corrected or revised prior to Part II evaluation. It is to be noted that the bulk of the comments or required corrections are repeats of those presented in the October 27, 1987 report. We also requested earlier that a site plan showing proposed structures and appurtenant features be submitted. The plan that we have been provided with is dated February 26, 1985 and does not show any proposed development. If there are any facets of this report that you wish to have clarified, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, SIDNEY B.'BOWNE & SON CONSULTING 'GINEERS EDWARD ~HANNEMANN EJJ:clg D ~ PLANNING MINEOLA • SMITHTOWN • NEW YORK CITY • CLEARWATER An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/H - March 29, 1988 HANAUER & BAGLEY SUBDIVISION, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK S. C. T.M. DESIGNATION: 1000 - 50 - 6 - 4 EAF - PART I - REVIEW A. 3. Correct forested area - that will not remain the same after development. If a foundation has been installed as noted in letter of January 22, 1988 by Roz Haje that the structure should be shown on the map submitted and taken into consider- ation when filling out the EAF. Indicate are of wetlands. Enter area of all unvegetated surfaces, i. e. area denuded due to construction, paths and any other travelled ways. s Area of roads, buildings and all paved surfaces must be entered. d Note: Take into consideration the effect of development in " the "after completion column". e 4. Refer to the Suffolk County Soils Survey Book for proper soils r description. B. 5b. Enter depth to bedrock. 8. Enter depth to water table as shown on "Suffolk County Water B Table Map" (March 1987). o 10. This phase of study to be conducted by a qualified profes- W sional person. " a 11. The geological formation which creates the pond basin should be described and the question answered in the affirmative. v B. lb. The site is presently undeveloped and the ultimate developed acreage is to be based on a site plan showing the proposed s features of development, i.e., house driveways, walks, and any o other appurtenant features. This data is to be used in answering the question. " c. Enter the correct figure. f. Enter the number of off-street parking space. This would include any space that the homeowner would use to park his/her c ar. g. Enter the maximum vehicular trips generated per hour by the completed development. SBB NO. 87136 Disc/SH-1 1. • l Orcti 9, 1988 h. No one-family units exist at present, however, ultimately two will exist. j. Enter the height of the tallest proposed structure. B.3. This project requires clearing of ground cover and possibly trees and brush. This combined area must be entered here. 5. It is common procedure to landscape disturbed areas when building is completed. Therefore, this should be answered in the affirmative unless there is no intention to landscape, i. e. , lawns, shrubs, etc. 6. Indicate length of time anticipated for completion of project. S 9. Complete this question appropriately. d 15 a. b. c Fill out properly. " a 20 & 21. Complete these questions with correct figures. Y The commentary on the original EAF submitted to the Town of Southold, B. see report dated 10/27/87 is for the most part a repeat of the comments presented in this report. B 0 W n e G s 0 n SBB NO. 87136 Disc/SH-1 2. PLANNING BOARD 'row-N O (SOU D SUFFOL~1C DEN Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 rnacc~n ~C~ Robert Brown Sidney and Bowne and Son Hauppague, NY 11787 Dear Mr. Brown: Pursuant to your agreement with the Town of Southold, the Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the following: Application of (Major s-u~bdivision,~minor subdivision site plan) ~4sLg.U2 Q J ap Hamlet MATERIAL SUBMITTED: File 11 y3~j Nn . R7 t 36 Suffolk County Tax Map No.. 1000 50 - ~j - Sketch plan Preliminary map Street Profiles Grading Plan Preliminary site plan Final Map Other Comments: R A ?,t~Y' 'n a f i i u Very truly ours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, SR.,CHAIRMAN ms' SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD APPENDIX A EAF ENYIRO;IMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART I Project Information 10T ICF: This dncument s desicned to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to these questions will be considered as cart of the applr:atipn for aDprcval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide anv additional Information you believe will be needea to complete PARTS 2 and 3. it is expected "ndt 'CmDletlcn cf the EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not in,nlre new studies, research or investigation. If information requi rind such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF PROJECT: NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different) Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley iName) 130 Woodbury Road ADDRESS AND NAME OF APPLICANT: treet Woodbury, New York 11797 En-Consultants, Inc. TP.?'~ State p ame 1329 North Sea Road BUStNCSS PHONE: 516692-4404 (Street) Southampton, New York 11968 Applicant proposes to divide a p< rate (ZTPT- of land with an area of 5.556 aci into two residential building loi DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT- (Briefly describe type of project or action) - and Sanitary system on each. to aij, approva s to ui on o nave been received and oun a ton is in. (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - Indicate N.A. if not applicable) ' A. SITE DESCRIPTION "R- (Physical setting of overall project, both develoned and undeveloped areas) 1. General character of the land: Generally uniform slope X Generally uneven and rolling or irregular 2. Present land use: Urban Industval Co'mCrcial Suburban Rural , Forest Agriculture them acant-re51 etttld~~ 3. Total acreage of project area: 4_95cres.or 215,404 s.f. Approximate acreage: Presentiv After Completion Presently After Completion Meadow or Brushland -acres --acres Hater Surface Area 109~009crosf. 1090009 S Forested 203r404a~as£.1821404es.f, Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) _ -acres acres Agricultural acres acres Roads, bui ldinds tletland (Freshwater or and other paved Tidal As per Articles surfaces 0 acres4f000sap tres ?a, fS or r.C.L.) *llL0GGr&.f.10Wes.f. - "'Approximation tither (indicate tyne) 0 acres6r000sa€re5 Ian~scaping a. 'mat is predominant soil tvpe(s) on project site? Montauk lne_sandy loan, 3-8% slopes (MEB) 5. a. ',re there bedrock outcroaoinns on prnipct'site? -_-Yes X-No Riverhead sandy loam 3-8% (R, t -•~at is depth to bedrock? --(In feet) 9!1/?B 6. Apn roxima :e n--pti, -a-e " aroposed nroject sit? kith slooes• 0-10'. 100 !n_151 t;'163 or greater k. - 7. Is project contiguous to, ar contain a buildvin or site listed on the National Register of Historic • Places? Yes X No 6. What is the depth to 'hE water table:' 27+ feet based upon Y&Y test hole. rlpf., 'f s) 9. Do hunting or fishing opportunitie presently exist in the project area? X Yes _No 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered - __Yes -10. according to - Identify each species _NOne apparent Ea -time of field inspection (12/18/87) 11. Are there any u aue or unusual land forms o th% project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - - Yes _No. (Describe ~on 12. Is the protect site presently used by the connxmity or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - Yes No. 13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? X Yes No 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Nape of stream and name of river to which it is tributary 15. Lakes, Ponds, Hetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Kane Unnamed pond ; b. Size (in acres) 2.5 acres 16. What is the dominant land use2~ and zoning classification within apt/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single 91nVle slam yy'reS`I entla~`aanClf agrlcul tural: 2 story). 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 4.9+ acres. b. Project acreage developed: •2511-acres initially; .25+ acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 4.65+A d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If pro'ect is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot- age NIA ; developed acreage f. Number of off-strfxit parking spaces existino 0 proposed 6 g. Maximum vehicular trios generated r-r hour 1,8 (upon completion r,f project) h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial 2 Ultimate 2 i. If: Orientation - "eighborhood-City-Regional Estimated Employment Commercial N/A Industrial ° j. Total height of tal les C7%ii'oposed structure 35 feet. t 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site - 0 tons --cubic yards. 3. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed fror site ..5± acres. 4. Will any mature fce•,t: over 170 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project' , es No 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X yes -No 6. If single phase crniert: Anticipated period of construction 12 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-nhased project: a. Total number of phases anticipated NSA No. b. Anticipated date of comrnencement phase 1 month ear (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date final phase month wear. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent Dhases? -Yes No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? -Yes X No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 12 ; after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? -Yes X No. If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes _No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) sewage c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged 13. Will surface area of existing lakes- onds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes No. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? -Yes X No 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? X Yes -No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disnosal facility be used? X Yes No, c. If yes, give name:Southold Carting : location Southold Town Landfill, Mattituck d. [fill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal s,vstem or into a sanitary landfill? -Yes X No 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? -Yes X No 17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour oer day)? Yes X No 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? -Yes X No 19. Will project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes _No. 'f yes, indicate type(s) Electricity and fuel oil 20. If water supply is from wells indicate pumping capacity /t, 2 gals/minute. 21. Total anticipated water usage pe:c,day _ 300 vats/dav/house 22. Zoning: a. Ilhat is dominant zoning classification of site? A Agric/Resident b. Current specific zoninq classification of site SaIne c. Is oronosed use cors,sten- ,"h rresent zoninq? Yes d. If no, indicate desired zoninq 26. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit required? _Yes X No b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? _ _Yes _ X No • c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required Submittal Approval (Yes, No) (Type) (Date) (Date) City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board ser-off Town, Zoning Board City, County Health Department -X 5wlftar7-S7sten cUTd-Cvell - Other local aqencies Other regional agencies State Agencies -X 7 82 Federal Agencies C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as ,Y)1 be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the p pdsal, p ease discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid them.i'. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: /,2( y aj rest i TITLE: En-Consult ts, Inc. REPRESENTING: Sue Hanauer and Joan Bagley DATE: January 13, 1988 LEPF ~eoMn~-r~ LCPF OaS FitL~-D i I f k) P ' A~~ I V"Bf?~ D T ~ O D St FQI Y 5 Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 November 9, 1987 Mr. David Kapell P.O. Box 463 Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Hanauer and Bagley Dear Mr. Kapell: Enclosed is a copy of the engineer's review of the LEAF, for the above mentioned subdivision. Would you please comply with this report and resubmit a corrected form. Upon receipt of same, we will continue the review of this proposal. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD OIDNEY B. BOWNE & SOP Sidney B. Bowne, P.E., L.S. l0 Ufa Roland Anders (1922-1959) Roger L Cocchl Chester C Kelsey, P.E., L.S. 45 Manor Road Philip Sc Lynch Alexandre W. Mercll, P.E. Philip Schlatzhauer Robert A. Stanton, P.E. Smithtown, N.Y. 11787 Joseph F. Stegman Robert W. Brown, L.S. (516 724-0611 Paul F. T. Stys Zabdiel A. Blackman, P.E., L.S. William T. sryne Richard B. Weber George A. Style, P.E. v t Jerry D. Almon, P E 'lQ Q~] George L. Fagan, Jr. Ph.D., FE, n^ 1Q'87 Frank Capobianco C.E.o Y 'J - - October 30, 1987 Thomas R. Pynchon, L.S.-----' - Mr. Bennet Orlowski, Jr., Chairman TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Diane Schultze, Secretary, Planning Board Re: Hanauer & Bagley Subdivision, Southold, New York (SBB NO. 87136) Dear Sir: We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form for the above noted project. There are a number of omissions and incorrect answers. Upon resubmission of the corrected form we will submit the Part II portion of the EAF (Project Impacts and their Magnitude). It is to be noted that a body of fresh water lies within the project site. The Department of Environmental Conservation holds jurisdiction over the pond and a 76' buffer strip. They will also require a Cultural Resource Inventory conducted by a professional archaeologist as is mandated by SEQRA. The applicant has failed to date to comply with items requested in letters dated May 29, 1987 by the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services and August 3, 1987 by this office. If there are any items that the Planning Board feels should be discussed, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, SIDNEY B. BOWNE & SON CON ULTIN I EERS • ilc6A.ri~y EDWARD HANNEMANN Encl. EJJ:clg xc: Ray Jacobs, Supt./Hwys. Ray Dean (SBB) D/85 MINEOLA • SMITHTOWN • NEW YORK CITY • CLEARWATER An Equal Opportunity Employer li • tober 1987 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD EAF REVIEW, PART I HANAUER & BAGLEY SUBDIVISION, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK A.3 Forested acreage will not remain the same after build g. Wetlands item not completed. Roads, buildin s, and other aved surfaces - if project is to be ui t on t e after completion" column must be filled in, s 4. Refer to the Suffolk County Soils Survey book for proper soils description, d n 5.b Enter depth to bed rock. a 8. Enter depth to water table as shown on Suffolk County v Water Table Map (Mar. 1987). Also show actual depth to existing water level based on actual test hole. B 10. This phase of study to be conducted by a qualified professional with back up data. This is also a D.E.C. B requirement. 0 11. The pond is the result of a geological formation - the w answer here should be "yes". n 13. This answer should be "yes" e B.l.b. Presently the site is undeveloped and the ultimately developed acreage is to be based on a site plan showing the intent. No such plan has been submitted. s c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped. The pond (2.5 acres) will not be developed nor will be some peripheral ° areas to the pond. Compile data and enter, n f. Off-street parking would include driveway parking by home owners. g. Enter maximum vehicular trips generated per hour by two residences. See Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers - (1983). h. Under "one family" initial indicate "zero" as none exist at present. j. Indicate the height of the tallest proposed building. SBB NO. 87136 D/85 - 1 - • Oct~r 30, 37 B.3 In order to construct 2 homes and appurtenances which is the stated intent, the area to be cleared must be entered here. 5. If, as is normal procedure, landscaping is to follow construction this should be answered "yes". 6. Indicate length of time it is anticipated to complete construction. 9. Indicate number of jobs generated to construct 2 homes (i.e. excavator, concrete crew, carpenters, sheet rockers, roofers, electrician, plumbers, etc.) s 15.a. Project does involve solid waste (household refuse). d b. Enter "yes" „ C. Enter name of private carting firm and location of dump site. Y 20. Complete this question with pumping capacity. B. 21. Estimated water demand for two residences must be entered. B 26. The project involves a body of fresh water, therefore, ° the N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation requires W agency approval. a U s O n SBB NO. 87136 D/85 _ 2 _ 5~FF0(,f--~, P D T F D S C .Q Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 O~bber as ~ 19Fs 7 Robert Brown Sidney and Bowne and Son Hauppague, NY 11787 Dear Mr. Brown: Pursuant to your agreement with the Town of Southold, the Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the following: A plication of (Major subdivision, nor subdivisio site plan) C1rY)11PY yf` is LOu Hamlet MATERIAL SUBMITTED: File Suffolk County Tax Nap No. 1000- Sketch plan Preliminary map Street Profiles Grading Plan Preliminary site plan Final Map Other I C0 ~J~_pC Long FYlV1YbY1M[rcFn~ Q~j rney~t ~-r[vNe ' Comments: LUDUId U ndy i6e U`, , rr( omm r,O QrtmnS (oj+1i rep -try P~Pr ~nrr} (nn car, Pr fob Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.,CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD T , ;`C~Sd D SL 1Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 Robert Brown Sidney and Bowne and Son Hauppague, NY 11787 Dear Mr. Brown: Pursuant to your agreement with the Town of Southold, the Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the following: Application of (Major subdivision, minor subdivision, site plan) "(Yt ~ f"1( I1/1 1 ~]!'d X11 ,1 Q,L[9r)C.. Hamlet MATERIAL SUBMITTED: File # Suffolk County Tax Map No. lobo q Sketch plan Preliminary map Street Profiles Grading Plan Preliminary site plan Final Map Other Comments: 122{AA Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.,CHAIRMAN 0 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD IDMEY Be BOWNE & SOW. Sidney B. Bovine, P.E.. L.S. Roland Anders (1922-1959) Roger L. Cocchi Chester C Kelsey. PE., L.S. 45 Manor Road Francis J. Lynch Alexandre W. Mercil, P.E. Philip Scmotzhauer Robert A. Stanton, P.E. Smithtown, N.Y. 11787 Joseph F. Steelman Robert W. Brown, L.S. 516 724_0611 Paul F Stevens Zabdiel A. Blackman, P.E., L.S. William T. Styne Richard 8. Weber George A. Style, P.E. Jerry 0. Almont, P.E. George L. Fagan, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Frank Capobianco. C.E. Thomas R. Pynchon, L.S. August 3, 1987 Mr. Bennet Orlowski, Jr., Chairman TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Diane Schultze, Secretary to Planning Board Re: Hanauer & Bagley Minor Subdivision, Southold, N.Y. (SBB NO. 87136) Gentlemen: After review of the above referenced project, we suggest that the Minor Subdivision Plan be revised to include the following: 1. Location of proposed dwelling shall be shown on each lot, a distance of 75 feet must be maintained between the edge of wetland and the proposed structures. Driveways and proposed regrading shall also be shown; 2. The test hole shall be shown on the plan with location and existing elevation; 3. Additional topography shall be shown (200 feet overlap). Elevation of water surface of the pond on the northwesterly side of Sound View Avenue shall be shown along with any pipe or conduit between the ponds. Datum shal l be N. G. V. D. of 1929 and shal l be notd as such on the plan. Very truly yours, SIDNEY B. BOWNE & SON CONSULTING ENGINEERS ROBERT W. BROWN, L. S. JWK:clg RECEIVED BY cc: Ray Jacobs, Supt /Hwys. SOUTH6IN NirilirG GO,1?D AUG Uo 5 DATE MINEOLA • SMITHTOWN • NEW YORK CITY • CLEARWATER An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/H <'.;ECEiVED BY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUU~II~U C ~1 11 ' ~jBARD . ~ Fhi r EAF DATE ENVIKIMEIITAL ASSESSMENT --PART I Project Information NOTICE: This document destened to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a signifi effect on the envirc-,.. nt. Please corn:lete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to these questions will be con. AS Dart of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Pro any additional information you believe will be needed to complete PARTS 2 and 3. It is expectea that ccr•olbtirn of the EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information reguirina such additional work is unavailable so indicate and specify each instance. AAME OF PROJECT: NAME AND ADCRESS OF OVNER (If niff•r•nta . Hanauer & Ba ley Set-off Sue Hanauer & Joan Ba le - WamA) ADDRESS AND NAME OF APPLICANT: 1 4f1 WnnnAhnr . a ri (Street; ~ David E. Kapell, as agent Woodbury, N.Y. 11797 ameJ (State! IZIP% 400 Front Street Box 463 BUSINCSS PHONE: 477-O~g trcet Greenport, N.Y. 11944 hta :el l tp DESCRIPTIC4 OF PROJECT: (Briefly describe type of project or action) Anl icant' prnrsn cPc ~n Aivirl ner•^••--a _r T rag „f S_SSFi ar•rac 1Tltn two residential building Iot (PLEASE CCt1PLETE EACH QUESTION - Indicate N.A. if not applicable) A. SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both deve)oned and undevelooed areas) 1. General character of the land: Generally uniform slope X Generally uneven and rolling or irreg, 2. Present land use: UrDAn Industrial Commercial , Suburban - , Rural For, Agriculture X , Other va .ant- 3. Total acreage of project areas • 55Ecres. _ Aooroximate acre age: Presently After Completion Presently After Coml Meadow or Brushland _acres _acres Ilater Surface Area _ Sacres 2 .5- Forested _-acres ~-acres. Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) acres aan cultu acres acres i - Roads, huildjnns l,tland (Fre Shwater o and other paved Tidal as ner Articles surtacez .'a. nr r.C.l.) _ _acres _acres __acres Otner (indicate type) _acres _ 4. 'iti: Is ,.edomin,int soil t?or(s) on project site. Loam sand & e 5. : 're :ner• >rdrocc outcro]]Inas on •+M _ _ YPS XY_ .4C cotn to tedreCLI ~(~n 'ee X) 6. Aporoxirmte percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0-175 1 1~- grea[er 15: or 7. Is project contiguous to, or contain a buildinn or site Places? Yes _Z_Np listed on the Rational Register of Historic B. What is the depth to the water table __feet greater than 27 feet 9. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the Project area? _Yes X No 10. Does project endanoce=rre d„SS-.Fontg~ species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or *t .Yes -"XJo, ccordin ~ - ~ g to - identify each species 11. Are there a nJc.pRTgpp,orruunusual land forms fomations;- _Yesj 'X- Ilo on the project site? (i. e. cliffs, dunes ,'other geological (Describe ) 12. Is the proj ec site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - _4~_Yez No. 1J. 1OoeS4fKt~present site offer or include scenic views or Ye vistas known to be important to the community? ~is E NO 14. S>ms within or contiguous to project area: N.A. - a. Name of stream and name of river to which. it is tributary 1S. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: A- Nano . Nn names : b. Size (in acres) 7 S arrPc 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single-family residential, R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story)Single family residential & agricultural. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor acres. b. Project acreage develope a es initially~`~ res ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undevelope d._ Length of project, in miles: bI n (if appropriate) e. If project is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot- age N . A . ; developed acreage f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing propose g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour'`p.]-A- (u on completion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housin- 7 - :ne Family Two Family _ Multiple Family Condominium Initial r. Ultimate 2 1• If: ririentation "eigntornood-City-Regional Estimated Employment Corrercial industrial . j. Total heignt e/ tallest ^ronosed structure ~f et. 2. Now much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site - 0 tons N cubic 3. No. many acres of veqetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site res. d. Will any mature forest (over 170 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be rengved by this project? _Yes _1y1_=No 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during constructions Y05 6. If single Phase project: Anticipated period of cons t ruct`(oos ths, (including ion). 7. If multi-nhased Project: a. Total number of phases anti~C.i rated No. b. AnticiDated date of commencement phase month year (includi N.A. demolition) - c. Approximate comoleti.on date final phase month _y ear, d. Isphase 1 financially dependent on subsequent Phases? _Yes _ 8. Will blasting occur during construction? YmsX..8 No 9. Number of jobs generated: during tonstruc tonN1d7°A1 after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project N. A. - 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? _Yes X No. If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes _40. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) Sewage e. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged N . A 13. Will surface area of existing lakes ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by.procosal? Yes )i No. la. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? _Yes -X-20 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes ~X-TPd b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disoosal atf-l+ty be used?, -Yes N c. If yes, give name: oca ti on~ d. !fill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? _Yes X_ 16, will ornject use herbicides or pesticides? _Yes M_'lo 17. Will project routinely produce odors (m, re than one hour Der day)? - Yes X No 18. will project produce ooerating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? Yes X No 19. 4ill project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes _4o. If yes, indicate type(s) _ Zlectricity & fuel for two homes. 20. 1f. water suooly is fro„we]Is indicate oumoin capacity gals/minute2 residential 21. Total anticipated water usaqe per dayls/day. see above wells 22. Zoning: a. What is dominant zoning classification of site? A A ricultuarl/Residenti b. Current specific zoning classification of site Same _ Is orpposen use co^sistrq. a C". present :onlnr? Yes d. If no, indicate desired Zerinq BVED BY 30411. . IGWN PLANNING BOARD AUG 24 1987 EAF DATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. - PART 11 rl'~~? ~L~~ e'D Pro'ect Lmpaa s and Th it Haanitude r General Infr ~a;i d_ ;cF+-.! Carefully) - In completing the form should be regi6gi been guided by the uti Hy~Ci'sions and deter reasccz pl e? The reviewer, is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. - ±1 - identifying that ar effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necE sicnif?csnt. Arty large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identify etrect in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further.. _ - The Examples Provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible of magnituae that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable thr State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. - Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offere They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each nuestion. - The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any effect. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. e. If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the appropriate box (column I or 2) to indicate the c size of the imoact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column -Z impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact taen consider the imoact as notentially larg proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large imoact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less the magnitude, place a Yes in cola^.n 3. A No response indicates- that such a reduction is not posse 1. 2. SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN I MODERATE LARGE REDO IMPACT IMPACT PROJE IMPACT ON LAND /N~O YES L WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO -"\~77 t'TriL O PROJECT SITE? Exaroles that. Would Aeol; to Column 2 Any cpnstru_tion on slopes of 15X or greater, (15 foot rise ner - 100 foot of lenq t^.;, pr. where the aeneral slopes in the project area exceed 10%.. _ Cer.struction on Land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. - ronstrucrion of naved narkinq area,frr 1,^^n or more vehicles. _ Cans truction on lard where bedrock is exposed or generally .)tnin 3 feet cf existing ground surface. tens': r.Kl~an tra- will continue for more than 1 year or involve - co'e !Mar, ere -.a:e or staoe. Exc?va!:an cor -•r,ng purnoses that would re-ove pore than 1.00C xcs cf r.a ;u Cal mappal (i.e. rack or soil) per year, C-nstr,ttioe of any new Sanlta"y landfill. .g- - 1. 3. C!'ALL TO POTENTIAL CAN I'1PACT BE OERATE LARGE REDUCED BY, ..oarT 14Pa f.T PonjrrT rPANGr Construction in a designated fioodway. Other impacts: 2. PILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LANs FORMS TO YES FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cliff;, dunes, geological forma- OO Dons, etc.) Snecific land forms: ?'PACT ON WATER 3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER. BODY DESIG HATED AS NO YES PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envlr-........ XO onRental Conservation Law, E.C.L.) Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. - - Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. _ Other impacts: - 4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NO4-PROTECTED EXISTING OR NFH NO YES BODY OF HATER? ............................................0 O Ex!.-oles 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 imnacts• 5. WILL PROJECT. AFFECT 5URFACF. OR GROIBIONATER ODALITY? - YES Exarples that !F!ould Apply to Column 2 O Prnject will require a discharge permit. _ Project requires use of a source of water that does not have dporoval to serve proposed project. - Project requires water supply from wells with nreater than !i gallons per minute gumoing capacity. - - - Construction or operation causing any contanination Of A Puolic water Supply system. - Project will adversely affect groundwater. Li=uid effluent all be conveyed off the site to fac'lities nicn presently do not exist or have ina_e-ua[e capacity. P137ett reiuirinq a facility that would use water in eress of 20.gC0 gallons per dav. - Pr=;ect ..ill likely cause siltation or other discharge 'n:O an eastinq o-dy of water to the extent that there will Ce an ^.o a 0us visual contrast to natural condlIiOnt. 16 ' 1. 2.. 'La LL T(.` PnTENTIAL qIrip VDEPATE LAR ,E REQUcr L'iPACT I'•PaCT [PPI'RCiT lther Impacts' 6. 91LL PROJECT ALTER DR4INAQE F1.111, PATTE"'15 OR RUNOFF? ® O - Examnle that "ould Apply to Col urn 2 Project wnuld imnede flood water flows. _ Proiect is likely to cause substantial erosion. _ Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. _ Other Impacts: 1-PACT 1I all [to YFS 7. BILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY?...... 10 0 Fxanoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will Induce 1,010 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. PrOJect will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse Per hour. - _ P"Ject emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 _ lbs. Per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Other impacts: Iw011T ny m agTC ,q in !jy, t 8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED CB ENDANGERED SPECIES? '10 YES Examines that Would Apply to Column 2 - O O Reduction of one or more species listed on the Ile. York _ or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of anv portion of a critical or significant wild- life habltJt. - Ap^licatinn of Pesticide or he-bicide over rare than Cris? a Year other ttun forzge:calturjI parro .!s. • n•1•r impacts: . 9. 'FILL PROJECT SUSS%:;TIALLY AFFECT IDN-THREAT E:IEO OR NO YES E'iCt.'1 .E RE7 SPECIES? ...........................0 O fse -nl. that mould Apply to Column 2 rrollct ould suostenc,ally interfere with amo resldant or migratory fISh or wildlife species. Project reouires the r^rrovdl of pore than 1^ acres of !crest !over 19n seers in ane) or other locally ,nPortent vegetatlon. • 7- - 1. 2. 3. -ALL TO °CTE:!TIAL C.1:1 I7`PAG cE ODEPATE LAgGE REDUCED nv 1-PAC7 I-raCT PPO.)ECT rpn;r pmar' C; 4I $i'sl orvv.Rc, 19. LILL THE ocn)FCT ArrECT 41r75, 'IISTAS Q2 T:IF 11TSPAL In c I YE' CHARMACTER OF THE ;J IFIGH80RWv)O OR CO4 V,11IITV) Exomnles that Mould Apply to Column 2 © V An incOmeatible visual affect caused by the intrcwuctinn _ of new materials, colors and/or forms in contrast to the surrounding landscape. A project easily visible, not easily screened,that is Obviously different from nthers around it. Project ••-ill result in the elimination or major screening of scenic views or vistas known to be - important to the area. Other impacts- .IHPACT ON HICT071C PrcnUpCFS , 11. WILL PROJECT 11-PACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, NO YES PPE-HISTOaIC OR PALEONTCOICAL ICrOPTANCE? O Exaroles that Hould Apply to Column 2 P m.iect occurina wholly or nartially within or contiouous _ to any facility or site listed on the Rational Renister of historic places. _ Any iroact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Other impacts: IHPAfT (IN OD°N cPACE S Prrg°ATTnp 12. WILL THE PPnJECT AFFECT THE OUA!ITITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING NO YES OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES CR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU'IITIES?..•••' O O Examples that Mould Apply to Column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: IwDAr' n'1 TD qWM?171n1 17. :'ILL T-E;r EE A•1 EFFECT TO EXISTCIC TRANSPORTATIn'I N0 YES E+a:olas that could Annly to Column 2 X AlterJtlpn of Present patterns of ro verent of People and/or ;pots. - Prplect .+111 result in severe traffic problems. :they Ircacts: SMALL TO pOTENTI.AL I CAd IMPA( FtOOERATE LA?GE REDUCED IMPACT VIPACT PROJECT C IMPACT ON E"IEPGY 10. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR NO YES ENERGY SUPPLY? O Exadoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Project causing greater than 5: increase in any form of energy used in municipality. Project requiring the creation or extension of an enerny _ transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single - or'two family residences. Other impacts: IMPACT ON NOTSE 15. WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION NO YES or ELECTRICAL OISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? Exa,-oleS that Would Aooly to Column Z (DO Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. - Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Project will nroduce operating noise exceedinn the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. - Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. - Other impacts: IPPACT ON HEALTH ; HA7ARnS 16. WILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, I10 YES Examoies that Nould Apply to Column 2 00 Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous _ substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or uoset conditions, or there will he a chronic loo level discharge or emission. Project that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" _ (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, _ infectious, etc.. Mnciudinn wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain gases.) Storage facilities for one million or more Oallnns of Ilouified natural has or other liouids. Other hcoactsf • ISLL fi it,TEniLL Lam, iHr Z LT 00ERETE LARGE- REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT ON GPO'.rTW AND CHAPACTrR OF COP!"DITTY OR 9r lruapq~nnp 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHAPACTER nF THE EXISTING COMMUNITY? NO YES O O Example that Would Apply to Column 2 The population of the City, Town or Village in which the _ project is located is likely to grow by more than 5- of resident human population. - The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or o?era- _ ting services will increase by more than 5; per year as a result of this project. Will involve any permanent facility of a non.aoricultural _ use in an agricultural district or remove nrime-agricultural lands from cultivation. - The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. Project will set an important precedent for future projects. Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more _ businesses. Other impacts: - .10 YES 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY COIXERNING THE PROJECT? O Exe-ples that Would Apply to Colurn 2 Either government or citizens of adjacent =o. .unities have expressed opposition or rejected the Dr0leCt or have not been contacted. Objections to the nroject from within the community. IF ANY ACTIC•'1 11: PORT 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE HAGUITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT: DETERMINATION PART I _ PART II - PART 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, 2 and 3) and considering both the magnitude and Imnortance of each impact, It Is reasonably determined that: PREPARE A IIErATIVE DECLARATION • A. The Droject will result in no major impacts and, therefore. O Is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment. B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the envy ronment, there will not Ce a significant effect in this case PREPARE A NEGa TIVE nECLARATIOII because the nrtrnation measures described in PART 3 have been O included as part of the proposed project. C. The project will result in one or more major adverse impacts PREPARE POcITIVE CECL.IRATIO:I PROCEED WITH El' that cannot be reduced and may cause S1QMIflC3nt damage to the envlrOncent. O ate $Igna [u re 0( R^sppns1ble VrrlC ldl in L2ad Agency Slgndture or ,renarer (l: different rrom resnonsiole Orricer) Print or t~De ne-e or resoq nsro ie orf usai in Lead Agencv EAF r Envi mNMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III EVALUMON OF TPE I"pnOTA`ICE OF 1AP4CTS VIFORMATION - Part 3 is prepared if one or more impact or effect is considered to be potentially laroe. - The amount of writing necessary to answer part 3 may be determined by answering the ouestion: In brie comnleting the instructions below have I placed in this record sufficient information to indicate the reasonableness of my decisions? INSTRUCTIOIIS f CO=7lete the following for each impact or effect identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. , 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than laroe impact by x Ject change. 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonahle to conclude that this impact is import- to the minicipality (city, town or village) in which the project is located. To answer the question of importance, consider: - The probability of the impact or effect occurring The duration of the impact or effect - Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources or values - Whether the impact or effect can be controlled - The regional consequence of the impact or effect - Its potential divergence from local needs and goals - Whether known objections to the project apply to this impact or effect. - OETE.°INATMI OF SIGNIFICANCE An action is considered to be significant if: nne (or more) impact is determined to both larne and its (their) consequence, based on the revic above, is important. PAPT III STATUiE.ITS (Continue on Attachments, as needed) 26. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit required? _Yes -(_No b. Does project involve State or. Federal funding or financing? _ _Yes _ L-No . c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required Submittal Approval (Yes, No) (Type) (Date) (Date) City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board Yes- Sew=Sff- City, Town, Zoning Board - City. County Health Department e A rUTZ--71 57' Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies - ' Federal Agencies C. 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 the proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or of M. . PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: ~•~t TITLE: Agent REPRESENTING: Slle Hanauer & Joan Bagley DATE: July' 29, 1987 a KAPELL REAL ESTATE, INC. 400 Front Street Post Office Box 463 D';Td Greenport, New York 11944 516-477-0100 BRANCH OFFICES 21 North Ferry Road, Box 1009 Shelter Island, New York 11964 (516) 749-0100 10 Flanders Road, Box 1771 Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 369-0100 Ms. Diane Schultz Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Ref: Hanauer & Bagley Set-off August 24, 1987 Dear Diane: Pursuant to the Planning Board's request I enclose herewith a com- pleted long form environmental assessment regarding the subject project. Thankyou for your help. Sincerely, David E. Kapell RECEIVED BY SOUTHOLD TOMH PLANNING BOARD AUG 24 1927 - DATE OUNTY OF SUFFOLK i oc le Michael A. LoGra DAj¢ SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H. COMMISSIONER May 29, 1987 David E. Kapell Kapell Real Estates Inc. 10 Flanders Road Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 RE: Hanauer & Begley (T) Southold Dear Mr. Kapell: Based upon the information you have submitted, the soil conditions appear to be acceptable for the installation of individual sewage disposal systems on Parcels 1 and 2. In addition, any final maps submitted to the Department should clearly show the high water mark and wetlands of the pond. Since the Zoning Board is no longer involved in the SEQRA process, this Department will be coordinating with the Planning Board in relation to the location of the sewage disposal system to any wetlands. If you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Royal R. Reynolds, P.E. Sr. Public Health Engineer Bureau of Wastewater Management RRR:ljr cc: Southold Planning Board COUNTY CENTER 548-3312 RI V ERHEAD. N.Y. 11901 1'1'rIt PNI C6' ti r P < T( " LD SCE Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 J U L 8 1987 Robert Brown Sidney and Bowne and Son Hauppague, NY 11787 Dear Mr. Brown: Pursuant to your agreement with the Town of Southold, the Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the following: Application of (Major subdivision, minor subdivision site plan) Hamlet MATERIAL SUBMITTED: File # Suffolk County Tax Map No. IXo Sketch plan Preliminary map Street Profiles Grading Plan Preliminary site plan Final Map Other 3EAF C mme ts: We. x/11 m• n~ . ry truly yours, Oti(ala,~,.~,- BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.,CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PL'ANNIN B6'9RD TO,W]V O SOU, I(OLD Sl.; 7FQ1Lj.K--C01VN,TY Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 June 28, 1987 Mr. David Kapell Kapell Real Estate, Inc. Front Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Hanauer and Bagley set off Dear Mr, Kapell: The above mentioned proposal was reviewed by the Planning Consultant, David Emilita. Based on this review, a Long Environmental Assessment is requested to be filled out. Enclosed is a Long Environmental Assessment Form for you to fill out and return. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. 4 i 14161 (9184) p s s " PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 11 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION e DIVISION OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS • State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1. Applicant/sponsor Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley David E. Kapell, as agent = Project Name same 3. Project location: Municipality Southold - county Suffolk 4. Is prro~IpIosed action: W _ New ? Expansion ? Modification/alteration 5. Describe project briefly; Applicant proposes to set-off a building lot of 2-.497 acres from a parcel of 4.945 acres. 6. Precise location (road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map) Southwest corner of Lighthouse Road & Soundview Avenue, Southold, N.Y. 7. Amount of land affected: Initially 4 145 acres Ultimately 49AC acres 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? W Yes ? No If No, describe briefly 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project? Q Residential ? Industrial ? Commercial ? Agriculture ? Parkland/open space ? Other Describe: 10. Does action involve a permiVapproval, or funding, now or ultimately, from any other governmental agency (Federal, state or local)? El Yes ? No If yes, list agency(s) and permitiapprovals S.C.D.H.S. Article VI (pending) 11. Does any aspect )l of~fl the action have a currently valid permit or approval? ? Yes FX1 No If yes, list agency name and permiVapproval type 12. As result of proposed action will existing permit/approval require modification? ? Yes No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE 15 TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Sue Hanauer & Joan Bagley L Applicants name: n a v_1-d_ -J Fill ~S 1JL'71t Date: 5/23/87 Signature: Q F If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding With this assessment OVER 0 0 i- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ti ~r Din n Michael A. LoGrande SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M.D.. M.P.H. COMMISSIONER May 29, 1987 David E. Kapell Kapell Real Estates Inc. 10 Flanders Road Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 RE: Hanauer & Begley (T) Southold Dear Mr. Kapell: Based upon the information you have submitted, the soil conditions appear to be acceptable for the installation of individual sewage disposal systems on Parcels 1 and 2. In addition, any final maps submitted to the Department - should clearly show the high water mark and wetlands of the pond. Since the Zoning Board is no longer involved in the SEQRA process, this Department will be coordinating with the Planning Board in relation to the location of the sewage disposal system to any wetlands. If you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, (3-1-~~ C( L Royal R. Reynolds, P.E. Sr. Public Health Engineer Bureau of Wastewater Management RRR:ljr cc: Southold Planning Board COUNTY CENTER 548-3312 RIVERHEAD. N.Y. 11901 \ \ \ \ - 50U90 - 50Uxx 4 _ xxx souxC souxo v~• -PI ~cc c •tal3 1 I ENO i~ P yy I pl0 ' ,ox f ;r\ ,e y r• LOQATIO LOCATION MAP ,•a / 1 \ SCALE I' SCALE 1"-600' I e~ ! ,CLOD 4 Of ~ ? `v r` ? I \ C)IJ `0 !t ~ 1 \ ~ s 4.1 t sOrrOP2'S/p / „I'ec•1 `ce I 11 I ` \ 6e \ so o 1. ;A 'ek . ~C I, III 11 1 P` v 1 \ \ \ o r I'°. / .,IIII ~ 19 t e' 1 ra'I o~• 1 \ I ~ ~ \ 00 - >I \ 'ins /or '6`~s`l al~ PP ~p a~i I Gq lff°\ ?sc~~E/ ' \ f xx ~pV ~QJ P~J I 1~ ~rl/ ' o„e 1 I ~ •.Cf+ pP~pc i ~ / v I I °~f / r c / 1 p f~I dro so III RC. -po 60 C) RIC `LINE OF ESHWATER WETLANDS AS O^P of e°' `p FQ`'P N~~ f£T I D BY EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. \ \O/, _ - , Q'(p / \ \ jP 9 ay ~ /i' 'L b~~P ' 1 I J?~2 BIC TEST HOLE B-I TEST HOLE B-2 i i JP/'N I 1 1 1 \ LT. xxxaxx0 mvx 0.0 [xx. e[tt L0u1 0.0 I I NN 2.0 [KOVx axveur xn0wx cntt 6lxx 2.5 sP I ~eNe ` t\ [fx n.xOCK TRACK "AM 4 S rxffxcnn 3.0 °'o / OS rSn II ?6~9 ; II ?o O~ fad NOTIE I. Ill= MONUMENT d=LATH ' 4=LATH I y 2,. SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP TY TAX MAP TAN ~D I N~ DIST. 1000 SECT.50 BLK.6 U TAN [.x0 Ttfc[a.v[I. P` 5' 3.. TOTAL AREA =4,945 ACRES T.50 BLK.6 LOT4 TRACK gtll[L 4,945 ACRES 1 4. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED 5 ELEVATIONS SHOWN THUS 4E4 I REFERENCED TO NOVD. (MSL 1929)x, AWN THUS~4E4 AND CONTOURS SHOWN THUS----48--- ARE FROM ACTT ARE FROM ACTUAL SURVEY. 2Ta 2TD a CONTOURS SHOWN THUS-- 49 V THUS--=48--ARE FROM =TOPOGRAPHIC MAP - 5 EASTER f \ THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT. 0 MAP - 5 EASTERN TOWNS" PREPARED FOR ;OUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS. THE WATER SUPPLYAND SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES FOR ALL LOTS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THESUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. HOWARD W. YOUNG, .Y.S. L.S. LIC.140.46893 JJL~J 691 u 1 1i . MINOR SUBDIVISIOIN PLAN FOR LI- PRDPERrT LINE _ SUE HANAUER a JOAN BAGLEY LEY NOV. 22 , 1968 S 'Amy. WELL FINISHED GRADE WELL AUG. 21988 JULY 25, 1988 z RE GA. AT SOUTHOLD ErORADE DATE DEC. 23, 1967 rAAX F/NISNED ONADE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCALE! I°= 6d l'M/N I MIN SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK NO, 87 -2025 E'wix E/ wax. 2 g y Z •tMAUTMMl2[D ALT[RATIION DN ADDITION N THIS ME H HOUSE It SURVEY 0 A VIOLATION OP 11l CTIOM Tf 03 CF iNC y - N y h J,~N MCM TONN STATE IDUUYIDMI LIM +C w - 1 V"PVC A"Pvt ACOPIES DF THIS SURVEY MOT MARNA THE LAND W S ^IL_~SaT SUR VCIORS INKED SEAL OR EMCDSSEU SC/1L SMALL ,No P, OF NpW 4ALL ^pD p. }O F R MOT BE COMBIDEREDTO NAVALID TKUE COPT Q `00 Y GROUND WATER _ MlN SDO Sp. Mau EPA ED TO DE. FI THE ICRSDMEFOR WHOMETMC SUINEY 15LPR"UONLY O _ - - M WRLL AREA G S' M/ A - - } AMC M HI! BEHALF 10 T6E TITLE COMPANY, DOVGM- pro rOVL PO mm SEPT/C TANK S PT/C TANx R GEACHMG AIDE MENTAL AGENCY NO LENDIWB INSTITUTION LISTED !DD DAL NG[ON, AND TO THE ASSIOWEE! OF THE LENDING t ? SEPTIC rANx MSTITUT1011. GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRM15F[MABLE MD ie i TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUSSEOUENT ELE * ' LEALT/lND (DAL LEACHING POOL Q W OWNERS DUST NCES SHOWN HEREON FROM PROPERTY LINES LINE! A TOtxISTIMG STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC {2 P'M/N PURPOSE AND ARE NOT TO BE USED TO ESTABLISH in S G.P.M. GRd/ND WA_ER PROPERTY LINES OR FOR THE ERECTION OF FENCES IC SORMERS/RLE MAIP ICES ~'rfp ~1IY GMO g ROAD TYPICAL WELL DETA/L TYPICAL' SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM •YDIUNG YOUNG 400 AVE YOUNG RRHEADN NDER EW YORK E ALDENI W YOUNG, PROFESSIONAL ENGINE SSIONAL ENGINEER AND LAND SURVEYOR N.YS.UCENSE NO.I TYPICAL PLOT PLAN GS. LICENSE NO.12845 HOWARWD WYOUNG, LAND SURVEYOR D SURVEYOR N.Y.S. (LICENSE NO.43093 3 60173 1E