Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3710Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 37]0 Application Dated February 3, ]988 TO: The Cove at S0uth01d, Inc. 5044 Expressway Drive South Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 [Appellant(s)] At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on June 2, ]988, the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property New York Town Law, Section 280-a [ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section [X] Request for Variance to the Zoning.Ordinance Article X! , Section 100-]]9.2(B) [ ] Request for Application of THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD, INC. for a Variance under Article XI, Section 100-119.2 of the Zoning Code, for permission to locate buildings 75 or more feet from the N.Y.S.D.E.C. determined tidal wetlands line and at not less than 18 feet from the Town Trustees determined wetland grasses as approved under Trustees Permit Application No. 601. Location of Property: South Side of Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-5-20. WHEREAS, an application was filed on February 3, 1988 in the Matter of The Cove at Southold, Inc. under Appeal No. 3710; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held on March 17, 1988 and April 14, 1988 concerning the request for a Variance under the Provisions of Article XI, Section lO0-ll9.2(B); and ] WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testi- mony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 1988, Local Law #15 of 1988 was adopted by the Southold Town Board; and WHEREAS, Local Law #15-1988 amended the provisions under Section 100-119.2, subsection B of the Zoning Code, to exclude those projects which are upon "lands not bulkheaded and are subject to a determination by the Board of Town Trustees under Chapter 97 of the Code of the Town of Southold"; and WHEREAS, notification has been received that Local Law #15 was filed with the Secretary of State on or about May 25, 1988; and WHEREAS, the subject premises is not bulkheaded and has received conditional approval from the Southold Town Trustees under Permit #601; and (CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO) DATED: June 6, 1988. Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN OF APPEALS ZONING BOARD Page 2 - A~pl. No.3710 Matter of THE COVE AY SOUTHOLD, Decision R~ndered June 2, 1988 INC. WHEREAS, it has been held in the Courts that the law that exists at the time of a decision will apply [Alscot Investing Corp. v. Rockville Centre, 99 AD 2d 754, 471 NYS2d 669 (1984, 2d Dept.]; (Aversano v. Two Family Use Board, 117 AD 2d 665, 498 NYS2d 403 [1986, 2d Dept.]); [Cathedral of the Incarnation v. Glimm, 61 NY 2d 826, 473 NYS 972, 462 NE2d 149 (1984)]; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that for the reasons noted above, this Board is without jurisdiction to act on this application, as applied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, C~[~4~IRMAN June 6, 1988 RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLF. MK DATE&/~/iY HOUR 3"~'~a~ NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of th~ Town of Sou~hold, the following hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at a Regular Meeting at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1'988 at the ~ollow- ing times: 7:30 o.m. Appl. No. 3714 DALE MAYNARD. Variance the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of the insufficient area and width of two parcels as approved by the Planning Board in the subdivision known as "Seawood Acres-, Section I" Filed Map No. 2575. Location of Property: West Side of Seawood Drive, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-79-7- 64 and 65. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3713 - ROBERT STARON. Variance To the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section ]00-32 for approval of the construction of accessory storage shed with an insuffi- cient setback from property lines at premises known as ]490 Waterview Drive, Southold, NY~ County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-78-7-54. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3711 ERNEST AND DORIS ROBINSON. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance° Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct deck with an insufficient setback from existing bulkhead ac premises known as 915 Mill Creek Drive, Southold, NY, County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-135-3-37. 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3712 - ROBERT CLEMENS. Variances: (a) To the Zoning Ordinance, Article II1, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission To construct additions to dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback from the easterly property line, and (b) for ap3roval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a over a private right-of-way extending off the south side of Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-5-17. 8:00 Variances 100-119.2 p.m. Appl. No. 3543 - PETER AND BARBARA HERZ. to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section for permission to locate qew single-family dwelling Page 2 Notice of Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of March lt, 1988 with insufficient setbacks from e×i~ting bulkhead and from highwater areas along Midway Inlet and HOg Neck Bay, premises known as 70 Cedar Point Drive~ Southold, NY~ Cedar Beach Park Map, Part of Lots 152 and 110; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-90-02-13.1. 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 3687 - JON C. KERBS. InterpreTation and, if necessary, Variance under Article XI, Section 100-119.2 of the Zoning Code, for permission to locate building 75 feet from the N.Y.S.D.E.C. determined tidal wetlands line as approved under D.E.S. Permit #10-86-0092 and in accordance with Town Trustees Wetland Permit No. 373 conditionally approved June 25, 1987. Losation of Property: East Side of Narrow River Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-27-2-$. ~ 8:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3710 - THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD, INC. Variance under Article XI, Section 100-119.2 of the Zoning Code, for permission to locate buildings 75 or more fee't the N.Y.S.D.E.C. determined tidal wetlands line and from at not less-than 18 feet from the Town Trustees determined wetland grasses as approved under Trustees Permit Application No 601 Location of Property- South Side of Main Ba~v~ew Road, Southold, NY$ County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-5-20. The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all representatives or persons desiring to be heard in each of the above matters. Each hearing will not start the time allotted. Written comments may be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. For more informa- tion, please call 765-1809. Dated: March 3, 1§88. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of ~ne Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following hearings will be held by the SOUTHOED TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at a Regular Meeting at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1988 at the follom- ing times: 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3719 SOUTHO[D SAVINGS BANK. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100- 60(C)[2](a) for permission to erect an os:premises building identification sign, the lower edge of which will be less than four feet above ground. Location of Property: 1400 Railroad (Youn§s) Avenue, Southold, NY~ County Tax Map Parcel N6s. 1000-60-2-10.4 (prev. 10.2 & 10.3). 7:35 ~.m. Appl. No. 3716 ROBERT E. WALDRON, JR. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct deck addition a~ rear of existing dwelling which is less than 75 feet from the mean highwater mark along dredggd canal at James Creek, Mattituck. Location of Property: 2980 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck~ NY~ County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-4-17. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3575 ROSA J. HODGSON. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of the insufficient area and width of parcel to be set-off in ~his pending division of land. Location of ProDerty: North Side of Pine Neck Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-70-6-33. Containing 7.152 acres total. 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3707 - JOSEPH F. CITARDI. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Articles: (a) XI, Section 100-119.2 as to insufficient setback from bank' or bluff along the Long Island Sound, and (b) III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, as to insufficient fron~yard setback From the front [southerly] p~operty line along C.R. 48, in this proposal to construct new single-family dwelling. Location of Property: 56225 C.R. 48, Greenpor~, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-44-01-22. Page 2 - Notice of Hearings Regular Meeting - April 14, 1988 Southold Town Board of Appeals 8:06 p.m. Appl. No. 3709 EDWARD A. HANUS. (Recessed from February 18, 1988 as agreed). Special Exceotion for approval of Accessory Apartment within existing dwelling in accordance with the requirements of Article III, Section lO0-30B(15). Location of Property: 636 Lupton Point Road~ Mattituck, N¥~ County Tax MaD Parcel No. 1000-115-11-3. 8:16 p.m. Appl. No. 3715 BERNARD KIERNAN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct additions to dwelling and accessory structure,s) within 75'feet of the ordinary highwater mark along Southold Bay. Location of Property: 1606 Nort~ Parish Drive, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-71-1-15. 8;20 p.m. Appl. No. 3722 MANFRED KUERNER. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 and Article III, Section 100-31, for permission to extend §arage an additional two feet from that previously granted under Appl. No. 3706 and to construct additional living area at rear of dwelling with reduction Of nonconforming sideyard at the north and south sides, insufficient total sideyards, excessive lot coverage, and within 75 feet of bulkhead along highwater of "Old Cove" [a/k/a Arshamomaque Pond]. Location of Property: East Side of Carole Road, Southold, NY~ County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-52~2-3. 8:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3687 JON C. KERBS. (Recessed from March 17, 1988). Interpretation and, if necessary, Variance under Article XI, Section 100-119.2 of the Zoning Code, for permission to locace building pursuant to DEC Permit #10-86-0092 and Trustees Wetland Permit #373. Location of Property: Orient; County Tax Map 8:45 p.m. TARTAN East Side of Narrow River Road, Parcel No. 1000-27-2-5. OIL CORP.: (a) Appl: No. 3633 - Special Excegtion under Artic]e VII, Section lO0-70(B) of the Zoning Code for approval of the e'stablishment of a partial self-service gasoline station; and (b) Appl. No. 3636 Variance under Articles VI, Section 100-62(B), VII, Section lO0-70(B) for an Interpreta- tion of "retail shopping center" and for permission to establish convenience store as an accessory co the existing gasoline-service station. Page 3 - Notice of Hearings Regular Meeting - April 14, 1988 Southold Town Board of Appeals Location of ProperTy: South Side of Main Road, West Side of Marratooka Lane, and the East Side of Sunset Avenue, Matti- tuck, NY, 1000-115-3-9. Zone: "B~I" General Business. 8:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3703 - JOHN AND EVELYN KEATING. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct new dwelling and garage with an insufficient setback from top of bluff or bank along the Long Island. Location of Property: 19995 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-51-04-006. ~ 9:00 p.m. Appl. No. 3710 THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD, (Continued from March 17~ 1988). \ I NC~_~ The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place any and all representatives or persons desiring to be heard in each of the above matters. Each hearing will not start before the time allotted. Written comments may be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated: April l, 1988. BY ORDER OF:-THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary FORM NO. a TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTIIOLD. N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL File N~ ................................Date . .~. P~4+.....°?~.....~. ?. ....... 19 ?.'.~.. To,4.~1,.~ ................ . .L~.....~..~..~ .c~.~~.. ~. '?1-'..~.~.~ .~. I ..... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated . ..x~,...C~...~., .~. ~ ...... I9 . .~'.~ . Ibr pemlit to construct ................................................ ; ...... at l.o,:~tio,, o~' I',op,,,'tv,,o,,~o,~o: .7.9.~.... 1~. ~..g ................ '~"~'~' s'~,~oot ~d-.. ....... County Tax Map No. 1000 Sectiou -..CD. ~.~ ..... Block ....Q .~.~. ...... Lot . ..~..D.'. ....... Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No. ~ .... . .......... is returned herewith and disapproved oll tile following gronllds. e~ ~. ~..~..~..?.. ~....~¢~..~....~a.. ~...~......~..~. ................... ......... Building Inspector TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING NSPECTOR To THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. TOWN APPF~L NO. DATE .............................. (We) ...T...h~.-..O..o.y..e....a..t....$.P..u..t. tlq..1.~,....I.n..9.,: ........... of 5044 ExRress.w..aj. Drive South Name of AppeJlont Street and Numl:~r .gp. nk~nkn~ ........................................................................ ~Te.~z..Y~ ........... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO..L63.7.9.7 ........................ DATED ...A..q~...~..s..t....2..5.?...~?. ...................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ) ) X) Nome of Applicant for permit of .................. Street and Number Municipafity State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY PERMIT TO BUILD ], LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..~.,.7.9.:},0...~B...~.~.Y~.e..~....~.~.:/.S.,o.D.t.~.o.,~..d_/,'J~'~ ..................... Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Map D~str~ct ]000 Section 087Bloc, k 05Lot 20 Current Owner ~:he Cave at Southaldt Ina, Map No. 'Lot No. N/A Prior Owner. Ba_~l/view Development Corp. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Porogrpph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordi.nonce.) Article ×z Section 11c~.?, 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is mode herewith for (please check appropriate box) (X) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lock of access (State of New York Town Law Chop. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 () ( ) (X) () 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appea{ was (n/)srequest for a special permit (n/~arequest for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Doted ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested~rthe ~ason that theapplicant has received both a negative declaration and an approval of the permit from the Town of Southold Board of Trustees to work within the 75' buffer area of the wetlands line established by the Board of Trustees on October 22, 1987. Accordingly and pursuant to Article XI, Section 119.2 the applicant is required to make application for construction activities within the buffer area 75' from the established wetlands line. ~orm z~ %~ ~,:: ~,; ~:~:: ':: ~:;:: (~Oz~t:jnue on other side) ~Building Units 9~1~::?:~:,:, Building Units'l~-16;~ =:!~ Building Units 17-20 REASON FOR APPEAL ~ Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION ~.F.~?THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- Sary HARDSHIP because ~h~ applicant would not- be in a position to implement its site plan which has'' ~iready h~n,~:~pproved by the Town of Southold Planning Board, the Town of Southotd Board of Trustees, and Building permits have been issued by the Town of Southold Building Department. 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 the ~unieipaZ±t¥, through the Planning Board and Board of Trustees hms already granted ~pprovals to construct 33 residential condominium units. 3 Tine Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the site approved by the Town of Southotd Planning Board cud permit granted hy the Town of Southold Board of Trustees are consistent wit~ the current applicable zoning for this area, STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss COUNTY OF Signature Sworn to this ....'~...[O...~..'~. ........................... day of...t'.~) .~..f,,,~O.~....~'. .................... ~988 Nora r~olic TOWN OF $OUTHOLD I STREET PROPERTY VILLAGE RECORD DIST. CARD ,,, .~ COUNTY TAX MAP NO. I LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS: ,- .. L M, Bldg. Extension Extension Extension Ge~age O~:B. Foundation Basement Ext. Walls Fire Place Patio Driveway Porch Bath Floors Intorior Finish Hea,t Attic Rooms 1st Floor ~ooms 2nd Floor TRANscrIPT O~HEARIN~' 0' SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1988 Appl. NO. 3710 Applicant(s): The Cove at Southold Location of Property: Bayvie~ Road, S0uth01d, County Tax Map ID NO. 1000- 87-5-20. NY Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also present were approximately 60 persons in the audience, and Linda Kowalski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals.( Building- Department Administrator, Mr. Lessard was absent.) The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:50 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a hearing that is reconvened from the last regularly scheduled meeting concerning approximately 12 units. It's basically an interpretation similiar to other hearings that we've had of this nature. We"~e taken significant testimony to the tune of 2½ to 3 hours at the last hearing and we asked that anybody that had spoken then to please not to speak tonight unless there is some specific issue that has been brought forth. We ask also that any discussions that you have, deal mainly with the setbacks, that are basically areas that are germaine to the setbacks which is the nature of our disapproval. And not necessarily to areas that the Town Trustees Have dealt with. Although., the present Trustees have spent a great amount of time at the last hearing explaining specific issues along with the applicant or the agent for the ap- plicant, Mr~ Klatsky. I think everybody at the last meeting did understand the application and the purpose for it towards the end of the hearing. I would ask also that if specific questions are asked concerning, that were redundant from the last hearing, and I know this is basically a paraphrase of what I said before, that pos- sibly those questions can be asked of the applicant out in the hall at the end of the hearing if there is redundancy. And I'll open the hearing to anybody who would like to comment on this particular pro- ject and anybody who might not have particularly been here at the~. last hearing. Yes ma'am. Could I ask you to use the mike and state your name if you wouldn't mind. MS. HALSEY: I do have a financial interest in some property on Hardneck. And of course as a resident, I have a great deal of in- terest in the welfare of the area. One thing I did notice and that is; some of the land in this particular situation is filled land. I believe that was done in the 1950's. It has been my .... How shall I say it. I have noticed that often times in ~hose days, people did not necessarily get all the permits for the filling that they should do. The federal government does have a thousand foot ~Page 2 - Thursday, A~ll 14, 1988 ' Public Hearing - Thee at Southold Southold Zoning ~oard--of Appeals MS. HALSEY (continued): jurisdiction in the natural defense interest from navigable water. And I believe in those days, this was navigable meaning you could float a boat in it with a soldier in it or a sailor perhaps if you preferred. If the' Board is considering that fill as actual land surface that is legal and Perhaps it is, I don't know, perhaps it shouldn't. And if that is the case, I hope you will go into the files of the Corps of Engineers and find out whether indeed this land is actual legal land that you should think of as land rather than some sort of intrusion that perhaps should De removed 2 ~ by court order. Thank you. CHAIR{AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. like to speak? Yes. Is there anybody else who would MS. WACKER: I had spoken at the last hearing but I had some other thoughts if permissable and I!m representing the Northfork Environ- mental Council. I had talked to one of the developers, Joe Boschetti who I consider more environmentally aware a builder'than most. And besides, he lives here in town. If he could eliminate the last three buildings, those actually within what we're discussing here of course, 75 feet of the wetlands line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you referring to 17 through 20, Ronnie? Are those the buildings? MS. WACKER: 75 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No I mean number 17 through 20. Is that the ones directly to the west that's closest to the wetland? MS. WACKER: Yes. I had asked whether he would consider not b~ild- ing those buildings and he said no. That he had permission to build them and he would take as much of a loss if he'were not to build them. And we can appreciate that. But at the same time, the Trus- tees have set a line that should be law and not be negotiated away for fertilizers and pooper scoopers. But .each has the law on his side. Joe has an investment in his property. The Trustees have an investment .or an obligation to ma'intain the quality of this creek for generations to come. Joe has been given permits to build on the creek. Just because other town agencies have granted him the right to build so close to the wetlands line, I think does not mean we should continue to make the same mistake. Two wrongs don't make a right. And we've been given a second chance now to correct that mistake, let's take it. The Zoning Board of Appeals should not permit those three buildings to be built in our opinion. Not only to ensure the quality of these shell£ishing waters for our baymen and other residents but to protect those people who will be buying the houses in the development. They are looking forward in years to come, to swimming, clamming and boating in clean waters. This will be much more likely if there are 21 condos instead of 33. Cer- tainly if there are fewer of them, they will be more exclusive, have better views and increase value which can be reflected in higher ~Page 3 - Thursday, A~&~il 14, 1988 · Public Hearing - Th~ve at Southold Southold Zoning Boar~ of Appeals MS. WACKER (continued): sales prices. Now, if it is still an economic hardship even with higher'prices for fewer houses, for the developer to give up the three buildings, then we would like to propose that the Town Board, rather that the town assume a share of-the loss it has helped to create. The town has voted the money to buy open space. Couldn't this be a part of that open space? Or if this isn't feasible, shouldn't we find another means, perhaps tax abatement to indemnify the developers for some of their loss. I wish we dould think about this as a town. And gentlemen of the Appea! Board, we would like to urge upon you that legally and ethically,!.it!s your right and your~duty to deny this variance. Now, I've also Deen asked to repre- sent the Citizen. Advisory Committie of the Brown Tide Task Force which at its regular meeting of April 7~h, .voted on ~his resolution and I'll read to you. Considering the potential of pollution of Cory Creek and ultimately Peconic Bay from 33 families, their pets, their use of lawn fertilizers and swimming pool chemicals, the Citizens Advisory Commit- tee of the ~rown Tide Task Force recommend that the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals deny a variance to build..~i2 housing units within 75 feet of the wetlands line established by Southold Town Trustees. Now this is approved eight in favor with five abstentions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? Yes ma'am. MS. HEACOCK: I hadn't planned just g6ing to come and show my meeting. I haven't no numbers going to say. on saying anything tonight. 'I was face. It's my first time at a town to give you. I'm not sure what I'm CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sometimes that's better. MS. HEACOCK: I was just struck by what you were saying before about the gas station. I'm amazed how things happen. I~feel out of con- trol. I'm the one who wrote to you saying; is there anybody there at all? I feel like I'm calling out'into the darkness wondering if anybody's thinking, if anybody's aware of what in fact we are doing to our town. Sometimes I feel like T'm powerless. I don't want to be disrespectful to developers but I do feel like. I'm powerless to people who have money. I'm just a person who has a little house on the end of Cedar Beach and I'm just watching my community destroyed. It hurts my heart. It's going to hurt my drinking water I fear. It is going to hurt the beaucolic meandering roads that I feel is just turning into suburban sprawl. And I just hope that someone is lis- tening to us little ~eople who don't 'know too much but do care about what's going on in the community. Thank you. cHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like-to speak? For the record, I'd just like to add what I said con- cerning the Kerbs application. And that is; the nature of this appli- cation before us was basically an example of overlapping jurisdiction. And although I feel the Trustees have done an'adequate job in this particular area, I have no idea how my fellow Board members feel. However, I just want to mention again for the record, at the last Co-Committee Meeting and the Co-Committee is a series of Town Board · Page 4 - Thursday, ~il 14, 1988 Public Hearing'- The~ve at Southold Southold Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued): members, department heads and we drum out and we change and modify which then ultimately comes to a public hearing, modifications to the Zoning Code. We will, in the very near future, be modifying the Zoning Code such that the Trustees are the only organization that has these specific powers with setbacks and they will be deal- ing with it based solely on their expertise and the environmental issues that they deal with. So that if this particular application was submitted or if the Building Inspector chose to deny it at this particular time, I should say at a time two months from now, then the application would not have come before us. It is primarily an interpretation and we will do the best we possibly can to deal with the feelings and. emotions that most everyone has. As we deal with most of the applications and that was the reason why we don't vote on this application right after %he hearing. We usually have some- times, two and three meetings before we actually render a decision. So I appreciate everybody coming down tonight. The purpose of this second hearing was to hear anyone that was unable to attend the first one and was mainly at the r~quest of several people that felt that particular way. And I feel that way also. Everybody should be heard. So we thank you all very very much for coming out and I'm g~ing to make a motion closing this hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. June 6, 1988 To k~om it May Concern (If the shoe fits wear it), Congratulationsl You've done it again. How satisfied and proud you must all be. Cove vs Local People. Developer once again victorious. Thanks to our local officials we voted to protect our land and wetland we lost the long hard battle. Bitter-YES, defeated-YES, Disgusted-YES. Obviously oblivious to our numerous letters, petitions, phone calls which ment nothing but a piece of garbage for your wastebasket. Each of you as you travel the highways to whatever, do enjoy the monster that you are helping to create. As the Country disappears-enjoy the city atmosphere you vote for with each pasting Cove type decision you make. The HELL with individual landowners trying to perserve his peace and quiet. ~ could cheerfwlly wish you might have the noise, lights etc. zn your individual back yard. Then perhaps you would show concern and compassion for the rest of us. Once again thank you for nothing. You reallYsold us down the river. Sincerely, A Disgruntled Native- Jean 'Thompson P.O. Box 309 SoutI:told, NY 11971 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1988 Appl. No. 3710 Applicant(s): THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD Location of Property: South Side of Main Bayview Rd., County Tax Map ID No.: 1000- 87 - 5 -20 Southold Board Members Present: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass.(Mr.Sawicki was absent.). Also Present Were: Victor Lessard (Building Department), Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 75 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 10:17 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated the first day of September, by the applicant or an agent for the applicant and we have a site plan, the most recent date; January 18, 1988 prepared by Howard Young, Surveyor indicating the entire parcel and telling they exist at this particular time in reference to setbacks. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map in- dicating this and surrounding properties in the area. As for the nature of the caveat before this hearing, it's similiar to a caveat that I dealt with before. The only difference basically is that we have more property. One thing I should bare in mind, it is my contention and I'm restating this because things change very quickly in these applications and sometimes I don't aprise myself of them and that's because I don't come down every night and look at the application, that I believe that basically the problem that we have here are four(buildings) that are not under construction. They are the four(buildings) to the most westerly side of the property. I think they're units 17, 18, 19 and 20. And at this particular time, when discussing this with the newspapers, I said that the edge of these proposed buildings lie approximately 91 feet. lhey used the figure of 94 but I see here it's 91~rom the tidal wetlands line. Again, the most southerly buildings in any case. I'm sorry, the most westerly buildings in any case. And the, we are ]y~n§ at this particular time, approximately 91 feet from the New York State Tidal Wetlands Line. And again, a valuation of jurisdiction in this particular case. who would like to be heard? Mr. Klaskey. How are you? Rage 2.- Thursday~arch 17, 1988 Public Hearing - ~ Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. KLASKEY: My name is Wilbur Klaskey. I'm the Vice President of Leemark Associates as well as The Cove at Southold, Inc. And if I could take the liberty of not using this and going to a few Boards for some help in explaining the particular program. Be- fore I get into that, I'd like to, as nicely as possible, take some e×ception about being included as a similar program to the Kerbs application that was heard and of which there was much dis- cussion. The reason I would take some exception to that, is that I think we're dealing with a totally different kind of a program concerning the spirit of the law, in that this is a program that was a highly mitigated program as developed in an application be- fore the Trustee~. I got added the full support of the C.A.C. that no building ~elow an 11 foot elevation based on the U.S.G.A. standard. ~_nd I think I'll be able to demonstrate this evening that the program, if anything, puts a protective envelope around the wetlands that was not there previously and will be there in perpetuity based on the set of covenants and restrictions that were established by the applicant and the Board of Trustees in cooperation of one another. So I think that this application does in fact, take on a wholly different light and a spirit and I'd like to proceed from that basiS. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Your statements are duly noted and I was referring mainly to the situation of 119 2B as what is the area that we were discussing. MR. KIJ~SKEY: Occasionally you walk on the same side of the street with some people, you might get identified~ with ~hem and ! was tryin§ to e$- tablish the difference The program had been described at about -- 8.75 acres. It lies on the north from Main Bayview Road facing on the south by C0reyCreek. I'll speak louder then because I have difficulty using this. The pro~ram is bordered by two official identification marks. And that is Main Bayview on the south and, I mean on the north, Corey Creek on the south. It's basically be- cause of C0rey- Creek that the issue of tidal wetlands becomes an issue of discussion. The program as identified earlier, is on 8.75 acres. It is within an "M" zone. And the density and yield is consistent with the present Zone or within that area. What I've shown on the first map for the Board is basically a map a little bit different than the one that's shown that you have. I have a second map which reflects that. But it's to demonstrate something that's a little bit different than what we would be required for the application itself. The reason I'm using this, it seems to me that there are basically two courses of action that are available to the Board. The first course of action, is an action of non-jurisdiction. And the basis of non-jurisdiction would be from, as I define it in 119 2B would be the basis for the ordinary high water mark or the 75 feet landward of the tidal wetlands. Just for the sake of this particular discussion and also for your consideration, I have assumed tidal wetlands for the first part of my discussion, as the New York State Environ- mental Control Line established some time in '85, re- established. again in October 22nd by another field investigation by D.E.C. and reaffirmed at that point. The blue line over here, the ]and- P~ge 3 - Thursday, ~rch 17, 1988 Public Hearing!- The Cove at Southold So~thold Town Z.B.A. MR. KLASKEY (continued): ward edge of that is the definition in actuality of the D.E.C. tidal wetlands line. ~nd in addition and coincidentally, falls very close to, I think, the definition within 119 2B as to the high water mark, the ordinary high water mark as defined within the ordinance and specifically within the Board of Appeals sec- tion of the ordinance. I think that is a logical approach to define this but that certainly is a decision for the Board. The second approach which I think the Board has within its jurisdic- tion and purview is the granting of an area variance as I call it rather than a variance in the more judicial terms, secured from a typical zoning board of appeals application. In with that, I'd like to turn back to basically the map which the Board has in front of it. It's the identical map except what I have done is I have colored this map up so that it pictor'iai]3 clearly defines I think, what the issues are and what actions have been taken historically to identify this program and put in a wholly different category. And I'll just spend a little bit of history on that which I'll reaffirm on some other points as I go through this. But this particular program, historically, was reviewed and approved for preliminary site plan approval by the Town of Southold Planning Board in the latter part of probably 1984. This program was given a non-jurisdictional status by D.E.C. during the same period and D.E.C. has reaffirmed that position relative- ly recently. At that junction in time, one must understand that the Board of Trustees did not have jurisdiction concerning tidal wetland matters in this area and that's one of the reason, unfor- tunately, that the Board of Trustees were not actually made a part of a comprehensive SEQRA review process. The Board of Trustee~and we really have no dispute about this-- It became a jurisdictional influence within this area and in fact made their presence felt in September of 1987. They appeared on the site. We've dealt with the Board of Trustees from that point on. The Board of Trustees did in fact take a totally different position, one much more conservative than the New York State Department of Environ- mental Control. And again, we do not dispute that. We simply adopted that line. Just for your background and maybe a member of the Trustees will respond to this, but it was my sense during this discussion that the Trustees assumed this position in order to achieve jurisdiction in order to put this within a protective environmental envelope. I also would like to alert the Board as well as the audience that the previous use which was also com- mitted was for 33 motel units built some years ago with a tra- ditional raw septic system servicing those 33 units and that particular system lying well within the critical area of what is defined as tidal wetlands. Probably by both D.E.C. as well as the Board of Trustees. I bring this out because later on, I want to indicate to you that from a purely environmental stand- point, this program does put in a protective envelope for per- petuity concerns about the relationship of this development to wetlands and to Cory Creek. I also would like to establish for ~- the record that this particular program has already received two separate distinct negative declarations. The first by the ~ Town of Southold Planning Board. The second, a conditional negative declaration based on our comprehensive set of mitiga- Page 4~ - Thursda March 17, 1988 Public Hearing - Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. KLASKEY (continued): tion measures by the Board of Trustees as late as December the 16th when that was actually issued. I would also like to state that again, as opposed to the previous applicant, this appli- cant has worked In a harmonious sense with both Board of Trus- tess as well as the C.A.C. in devising a mitigation plan. And in some cases, we, the applicant, have made suggestions that within the mitigation program, that it further helped, I think, on a total mitigation basis. And if anything, I feel very proud to say that I think this could be a of the type of miti- gation studies that should be done concerning programs relating to bodies of water and tidal wetlands. Well, I feel very good about that and maybe the Trustees want to comment on that. And because environment, even though it may not be your total purview, it certainly is a factor in considering this application. If in fact, the Board does decide to take this under its jurisdiction, there is certain points that have to be established for the record. One is and we've heard it this evening, the hearing of practical difficulty because that is what in fact, is felt by this program if this were denied. The practical difficulties concern that as a an owner of a piece of property, we have made due diligence in developing this consistent with the Town of Brookhaven zoning code. Any action this evening .... Southold, sorry, lhe ap- plicant is working within an "M" zone and just for the history and record, again, there was 33 motel units in here which were again, environmentally unset and we're not asking for any in- crease in yield, any increase in density. What we simply did and secured was site plan approval for what was permitted on the property itself. So there would be very practical difficulties in that, we would not be able to develop this within the yield or density that is permitted to us as part of our rights. Now, there is in this case, as opposed to a range of other things you have probably heard this evening, the range of mitigation measures developed by the Board of Trustees as well as the ap- plicant; that I would suggest to you is probably the high water mark in mitigation measures concerning any development that probably Southold has actually seen. Let me turn this over a bit. It might be a little clearer at this point and time to the Board. What we did basically was create two zones within this program. One delineated in the dark green which is the Cory Creek side of this and delineated by a wetlands line deter- mined by the Board of Trustees. The second, we put in a second zone which extends beyond the 75 foot beyond the actual line it- self. We did this for two basic reasons. The Board of Trustees were asking that different mitigation measures apply to different zones. In both zones as an example, there is no fertilizer to be used in either one of these zones which was a prime require- ment by the Board of Trustees in relation to its effect upon Cory Creek. Second of all, buildings were in fact moved further away from the wetlands line. Again, at the request of the Board of Trustees. Still of course, within the closest one is probably-- 18 foot from the actual delineation of that line and within the 75 foot buffer. Again, further mitigation measures; all utilities. P~ge 5.- Thursday~ Public Hearing - Southold Town Z.B.A. ~rch 17, 1988 Cove at Southold MR. KLASKEY (continued): primarily of the water lines were pulled back and away from the wetlands line. So there was no construction activity taking place within the defined area in the dark green. In going much further in that getting more involved in whole environmental is- sues, that within the both the dark green and the lighter green area there is a range of restrictions as to wha% kind of plant- ing fields could in fact, be utilized within those areas. We defined a list of materials. Those kinds of materials are non- competitive with what is reportedly a wetlands area. So that there was no conflict with any of the materials put in place as opposed to the materials that are there today. We went a step further than that and I think this one actually came from the applicant rather than the Trustees but it's included in i~itiga- tion measures. All of the units, not only the units that were sited as ~fected as being close to the wetlands, but all the units closer to the Cory Creek and the body of water. All were changed architecturally to prevent any access from the rear to these units into the wetlands. So all access from the unit it- self from the rear of these units were graded off basically so that there's no... One can not walk from one's patio or deck onto the wetlands. Those are the kinds of series of mitigation measures plus a rather extensive planning list, that was done in order to create a protective envelope in perpetuity. Now, one other thing which extends beyond, incidentally, areas of jurisdiction by the Board of Trustees is that we in fact, agreed to establish a different whole fertilization program for that area beyond the Board of Trustees influence. In essence the 80ard of Trustees, we could have said no to that because they have no jurisdiction. We went further and said yes to a restricted fertilization program within this area in light. We said that fertilization only happens twice a year and we agreed to a spe- cific type of fertilization; a slow release program which would not have an effect upon the environment. In addition to that from an environmental point of view, having nothing to do with mitigation measures, is that this program is serviced by really a state of the art sewer and sanitary system. This building is served by a denitrofication system away from and out of any of the jurisdiction but consistent with the most modern techniques of dealing with sanitary wastes. There was some comment, I think in a local newspaper that labelled an area of this as septic tank. What this is basically is a low point of site where effluent for any given unit, in fact, stays in here and is pumped out immedi- ately back up to a denitrofication program up in this area over here. Continuing on again, in talking about that, that was the mitigation program. I think it should be highlighted. Is that we have established, I think, that this should not be considered a substantial variance. And the reason this is not a substan- tial variance doesn't relate to arithematic measurements, it relates to the mitigation program as to its effect upon the en- vironment and upon the wetlands area. Also, I think in rela- tion to that discussion, you have to sort of also understand that there have been negative declarations by two other town agencies in the past. There also has been the D.E.C. involve- ment which established wetlands, with established permit pro- cess for this particular program. The second item that I think P~ge 6~- Thursday, Public Hearing Southold Town Z.B.A. ~rch 17, Cove at 1988 Southold MR. KLASKEY (continued): we have to discuss in context with the Board of Trustees is; that there hasn't been a change in the character of the area from land use point of view or from a development point of view. Normally, when you respond to this before a Board of Appeals, you're talk- ing about a future development which we've already heard in some cases. But in this case, you have two yardsticks to go that there hasn't been a change. The first yardstick and the most obvious one is that; we did have 33 motel units here which is consistent with the current zoning as it effects this application. We again, are going on the basis of 33 units. There is no change in the character of the area. ~e're not asking for anything to increase the yield or density. MR. : No way. You dumped all that soil next to my house all the way up to the bank. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Please. Excuse me sir. You'll be given a chance. MR. KLASKEY: And it's consistent with the zoning. Now, one of the other yardsticks I would like to use in this is that are there alternative plans? The answer is a basically resounding, no. There aren't any alternative plans because we have met the spirit of this. And the only way that this could be developed consistent with the basic underlined ordinance is to develop 33 units as shown. We've made our adjustments with the Board of Trustees to make this more harmonious for environmental consideration. The other area and the other yardstick that I think we should mention again, is whether or not there's significant economic injury to the appli- cant. Clearly, we would suffer great economic loss within this program well in excess of a million dollars if he were not able to develop this consistent with the underlying ordinance that permitted us to do this 33 units. I think after a lot of discus- sion, that the real question is; has the interest of justice been served. What is the underlying bottom line result of this program? I would purport to tell you that again, justice has been more than served with this program especially with the input of the Board of Trustees and the rather extensive and comprehensive mitigation mea- sures. In that again, I'll use the phrase again, there has been a protective envelope established around what is considered cherished area of wetlands and we consider them cherished also. And from that point of view, I think in asking the question as to whether justice has been served, clearly has in that the net bottom line effect is that we're ending up with a program that is much more environmentally secure than what had been there historically and certainly one of the better programs that will protect the en- vironment in the future in perpetuity. In whether we have met this There have been other agencies given negative declarations on this matter. One other criteria I think we also should establish and that is whether or not there is any impact '' on any governmental facilities. Again, there is no impact on any ~ Page 7.- Thursday, Public Hearing - Southold Town Z.B.A. [rch 17, 1988 Cove at Southold MR. KLASKEY (continued): governmental facilities and none within this area. I think that just for the record again, I'll have to comment. I think that there are a number in the audience who certainly have the ability and should participate within this hearing. But I hear, based on some erroneously material pub- lished a week ago in a local newspaper, that particular news- paper did come out with an article in today's paper basically retracting almost 90% of all the comments and said they relooked at the code and now have sensed that this is the program, I think, can be judged as a good program environmentally. I would then rest and respond to any questions that you may have or if you want me to respond to anything. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to establish two things, Mr. Klaskey. We got here tonight based upon the moving of a line. And I assume that line is the line between the light green and the dark green. MR. KLASKEY: That's the Board of Trustees' line. Correct. just colored that making it more significant. I CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to bring that out because there appears to be some sort of misconception in that particular area. We'll go on to the remaining part of the hearing. Thank you. Is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes. MRS. LARSEN: As far as what Mr. Klaskey was saying in reference to good comparison made between the previous application and this application; I~was referring to section 119~2 and there is no com- parison between the two. First of all, this is above the tidal floodplain. Second of all, it was a predetermined use with an "M-l" zone. There were no additional lot yields added. It had a negative declaration from the Planning Board. It had, my compari- son was that the D.E.C. line was just ..... We did not go by the D.E.C. line. We pulled the D.E.C. line landward. What we achieved was t.~at we looked at the parcel. It came out that they started excavating down on the site and all the Trustees went down and looked at it and we looked at the maps and we saw where the D.E.C. wetland line was and we saw that this was not near the tidal area and that it was a raised area and a fill area and yet it was supporting spartina grasses. We went and met with vari- ous departments including the Building Department, people from the D.E.C., representatives from the Board of Trustees and repre-- sentatives from the company. And it was agreed upon by everyone that the line would be pulled landward. What we were able to accomplish by pulling the line landward was having the developer put the parcels that were seaward of the building envelopes in perpetual convenants and restrictions. Meaning, that those grasses and that upland portion that is not inter-t~da] & that spot will never be touched and never be disturbed. Had we not pulled our line forward, it would have been non-jurisdictional. They cooperated to a full extent. We asked for non-fertilizer appli- cation and ingenous species to be planted around the bushes. Page 8 - Thursday~arch 17, 1988 Public Hearing - The Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. MRS. LARSEN (continued): They met with me, I remember, one morning at 7:30 or 8:30 in the morning and we came down and we talked about a memo that I had sent. There is no danger of salt water intrusion on this par- ticular site. Not on this site from the well system. The sep- tic system and leeching field is upland 300 feet from any wet- lands. So there's not going to be any contaminants there. There is adequate drainage on the whole property that will absorb any runoff before it hits the wetlands and the buffer will be left there. We spoke with members of the C.A.C. who are preparing a booklet that says, that specifically deals with people who are on waterfront property. They've agreed to put that in their in- formation that they distribute to any potential customer. It was an existing pre-use. I felt that, myself, I didn't vote on it. I wasn't at the Board. But that they really went quite far in doing everything that they could to environmentally mitigate it. And it has to be remembered that the Trustees did not have jurisdiction at the time of the approval. That we came in after all prior approvals were granted and moved their line. And as a result .... Another thing that they also did that they didn't men- tion. There was a pool approved, if anyone is familiar with the area, along the bulkhead. I felt, other Trustee members felt, aesthetically, the pool wasn't the greatest place plus the impacts from the water should they .... And they withdrew the pool portion of it. I came away feeling that we had achieved something at that point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Klaskey. MR. KLASKEY: I'd like to thank Ellen for her comments but one thing, we did withdraw the pool even though we had some qua]ms about it in that it was behind a man-made bulkhead. And tra- ditionally, it would not be considered within a wetland area. I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that we've withdrawn the pool. The pool was not within the jurisdiction of any of the agencies. The pool has been relocated and that's shown on this particular map and it's not part of this applica- tion. But it's in this section here and it's labelled future pool. This particular location has been approved by D.E.C. as the location for a pool and an actual tennis court in this area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? And I ask if there are any spokespersons for groups, if those particular people will come forward. RONNIEWACHER : I'm it. My name is Ronnie Wacher and I'm representing the Northfork Environmental Council and I thank you for the opportunity. I think that we all remember the case of Patty Hearst some years ago. The Heiress, who after being kidnapped, fell into the spell of her kidnappers and and went on to rob a bank with them. I'm afraid that's what is happening here. The Trustees have been working with the developers of The Page 9 - Thursday, P~blic~Hearing - Southold Town Z.B.A. ~rch 17, 1988 Cove at Southold MRS. WACHER (continued): Cove at Southold for so long that they've begun to identify with them. Why else would they have set a wetland line and then grant it permission to build 12 condominium units within the line that they set. It states that the developer agreed to certain restric- tions which they said would mitigate the damage of building in a fragile area, would inevitably create. Among these mitigating measures are? promise to use no fertilizers on the lower portion~ of the property. So it would have no impact on the water. But to use fertilizers only twice a year in the other less endangered areas and to agree that owners would leash their dogs and cats and use pooper scoopers to dispose of feces that would otherwise find their way into the creek. Pooper scoopers indeed, to me, is a proposterous notion. And who will watch to see that Fito does not run out unattended or that his additions to the ferti- lization are wisked out of sight. Who will check to see that the agreed upon use of fertilize~ is carried out in years to come? Why do they need cultivated grass in a marshland anyway? The Trustees made a wetland line within which building was not to take place. This was a more astringent line than that placed by the D.E.C. and that's laud able. But if they are going to make a stricter line, then why do they then say to the developer, that that's okay. You can build there anyway. If they set a line, let them stick to it. We can sympathize with the developer who seems to want to cooperate with the requests made of him. The trouble is that so few requests have been made. As we un- derstand it, the developer has placed the buildings 90 feet so that it's some 15 feet beyond what is required, behind the D.E.C. line. Then the Trustees, when they were given their new responsi- bility over wetlands, brought the line farther back than the D.E.C. But they pay no attention to that. This is one of those cases that Ellen Larsen said recently fell between the cracks. That this does not excuse the Trustees for giving away a creek that's still are the best shellfishing waters in the town. The Trustees are our first line of defense. If we can't rely upon them to uphold their line, then where can we look for protection for the wetlands? In this case, we are asking you, the Zoning Board of Appeals, to correct their mistake. Otherwise, other developers are going to want the same privilege. This will set a precedent. So I ask you, please deny the variance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? Yes sir. You have to state your name sir. MR.: (Ted) SUNS[[MAN : This gentleman speaks very well about the environment and so forth. Maybe what I have to say has very lit-_ tle to do with this project but he apparantly doesn't even know he's in the Town of Southold. Secondly, he ~efaces our .... This sign cove, cove, cove all the way to the telephones. I would like to ask him who gave him permission to put his sign saying cove, on the telephone poles? Page l0 - Thursda~arch 17, 1988 Public Hearing -~T~ Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Gunse]man, I thank you for your com- ments but the sign issue is really an issue of enforcement. MR. GUNTZLE~LAN: Well, I .... It's disregard for our town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. Thank you. Sir, you have to use the mike and state your name. BUD YOUNG: I'd like to ask a few questions if I could. I'm very curious about the cesspool system. He says he has tanks down here and they're supposed to hold sewage and so forth and then immedi- ately rush it back up here. Now, as far as I'm concerned, the water line is much closer in here. I just can't believe he can even have tanks here for sewage storage and immediately rush it back here. This is low area in here. I live right next door. This is all low area. When there is storms and stuff, it goes much higher. Especially over here. And you have put soil and stuff all the way up here. I don't know who gave you permission for that. Tons of it. Right? And as far as I'm concerned, your building right up there. CHAIPJ~AN GOEHRINGER: Would you like to answer that Mr. Klaskey? MR. KLASKEY: I don't know what answer but I don't have my wife with me so it's tough to respond. First of all, the question of the septic; these are 8 inch re-enforced enclosed concrete cylin- ders in this area here. This does in fact, the low point of the site. Keep in mind that the elevation of every unit is at least or if not, higher, of the 11 foot elevation. This is not a stor- age area. This .... All units that flow into here would be ef- fluent and immediately gets pumped up to the denitrofication pro- gram up here which is a relatively new state of the art that's been accepted by Suffolk County Department Health Services and has been approved on that basis. So being at elevation 11 and thereabouts, we are more than above any type of a critical salt water intrusion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you a question ~t that point? I think there's maybe .... I can clear it up. These are very simply holding tanks. There is no leeching from these tanks. Is that correct? MR. KLASKEY: Correct. These are 8 inch re-enforced holding tanks. They don't even hold material. It comes down to a low point and immediately gets pumped up to the actual denitrofication up here. So it's not a septic in relation to the previous application where you have the septic tank that bleeds, in fact, to the salt water marsh. I'd also like to comment that it's not a septic system. This particular program is well out of any type of environmental area plus is beyond the 300 foot definition ~fwhat's in the juris- diction of the Department of Environmental Control. I think it should be pointed out also as a statement was made which I think is incorrect, that we are not building in the wetlands. The ap- plication before you is to build within the 75 foot buffer. Again," I think we've established such a rather in depth range of mitiga- tion measures that every one who is concerned about tidal wetlands, P~e if - Thursday~arch 17, Public Hearing - The Cove at Southold Town Z.B.A. 1988 Southold MR. KLASKEY (continued): should realize that we're better off after this program is com- pleted than what was there historically before. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In reference to the question of filling. You are basically, regrading the area in the light green. Is that correct? I mean, there are filling techniques being done in that area? MR. KLASKEY: Let me just explain it to you. There has been a permit granted by the New York State Department of Environment Control. A permit granted which permits us to, in fact, bring fill into this site. Not the wetlands but in the site, for road grading and for filling in of units that we have some prob- lems. For example one area of fill, is that within this unit over here, this area in here was, in fact, where the old septic system was which was bleeding right directly into the pond or into the Cory Creek in the Town of Southold. And when that was uncovered, that had to be filled in. That was something of the fill. Not in the wetlands, but in this area over here. Of the 9,500 yards, cubic yards of fill hauled in to date on this site, the only ones that fall within the dimension of the permit pro- cess is only about 2,000 yards Uut within this area over here. Again, I must emphasize there has been no fill in any wetlands. None whatsoever. That was, I think, a bit of a misinterpreta- tion of a newspaper article which did not define what the fill was being used for. So to date, the effected area over here which the D.E.C. has already granted a permit for to bring in as much as 9,700 cubic yards of fill, only about 2,000 yards have been put in this area. The remainder of that fill we're talking about that has come on the site for trip tickets and so on, has been for the actual building and foundation and layers of the denitrofication system which does require that fill ma- terial. So nothing has gone into the wetland area. MR. PAT LONG : I think and I don't have the actual course. Do you know actually .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need your name for the record sir. MR, KLATSKY: I think you're probably talking about four feet. MR. LONG: I live directly across the creek. The second question. You say that as soon as a level within these tanks reaches a certain height, it is automatically pumped up. Do you have your own source of power for this development? MR. KLASKEY: Yes. MR. LONG: You have your generators and in effect, you have your own power plants? MR. KLASKEY: No. ~age ~2 - Thursda March 17, 1988 Phblic Hearing Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. LONG: No, you don't. Ok. What happens .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pat, you can not ask him specific questions. You've got to ask the questions to the Board. So please. MR. LONG: So in the event of a power failure of which there are many in this area, how are the holding tanks pumped if he does not have his own separate power plant which is the only way you have a continual source of power where we live? MR. KLASKEY: There's an automatic alarm and dial system which will!.be installed when that is actually installed. And if there is a power outage, the plumber is put on notice that he must be out there with an electric power generator out there. That's an acceptable approach and one that has been accepted by the Suffolk County Department of Public Health Services. Because this issue as to what happens when there is a power outage, is an issue that comes up with any type of a pumping system that's critical to the process of the effluent. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ladies, before you sir. MRS. FLETCHER: My name is Linda Fletcher and I live in New Suf- folk and I'd just like to ask a question that maybe you could, in the process, ask back. It has been my experience that when the condominium projects are built, the builder or the developer or both leave after they're sold. And the management of all these promises is turned over to I don't know who. So could you ask them, are they planning to fulfill these promises by managing the project or after its completion and after all the units have been sold. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you answer that Mr. Klaskey? MR. KLASKEY: I will answer it but on the preface that it's not really a legitimate consideration for the Board. But I will con- tend the following: first of all, there is a professional mana- ger that is retained. In this case, it's a group called Well Management. They are professionals. This is not a local land- scaper to come out there and cut grass, put fertilizer down as required. This is a professional manager. And the restriction that was established earlier by covenants and restrictions, are filed documents which are part of the offer in the plan in which that manager must adhere to. Second of all, no on~,is going to say to you or myself that in fact, it may not be a mistake some time in the future for all human beings. I would contend though, that there's more of a chance as myself, or you, living in a single family house have more of an opportunity to violate a covenant and restriction than a homeowner's association does. The point is that we have a Board of Managers. We have a pro- fessional management. We've never asked that single family homeowners, do you have a professional manager managing your house, managing your septic system and so on. In this case, we Page 13 - Thursda~March 17, 1988 Public Hearing - The Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. KLASKEY (continued): do have that. And I think there's a greater lever of protection by having that professionalism built in and paid for by the owners than we do as single family homeowners. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The gentleman with the blue sweater on. MR. JONES: My name is Robert Jones and I just wanted to comment on the comparisons between the use that existed on the property at an earlier date which was 32 or 33 units and the indication here that it's approximately the same. The creation of units would presumably have at least 2 bedrooms, a kitchen a bath, would not be equivalent in any respect to the amount of use that was actually, the amount of use that actually existed when they had condominiums there. Motel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Yes ma'am. AGN£$ PICK[N50N:- What may not have been considered in granting the permit to build 12 homes on the wetland buffer zone, at The Cove at Sout~old, was the hardship on the residents of Southold Town, in particular those who live in the Bayview area. The possible o~s of shellfishing if Cory Creek becomes polluted means a loss of livelihood and pleasure for many people; of strapping water- view ultimately paying for water systems if the initial supply runs dry or salty; adding traffic to an all too busy Bayview Road are only some of the hardships that we may look forward to by in- cluding 33 tw~-story homes on 8 acres which should support no more than 4 homes. With this in mind and wishing to be reasonable, we propose the follo%¢ing compromise: number one; permit the building of 21 homes on what is unquestionably uplands, less mitigating the hardships just mentioned. Number two, have the management company for The Cove post a 20 year bond to insure that the chemicals and rate of application for the lawn and the use of pooper scoopers both specified by the Board of Trustees, be carried out both ini- tially and well into the future. Number three, specify that any water from the swimming pool either from~drainage or purging, be treated to reduce the high chemical content before being released into the ground water or into Cory Creek. An alternative to this treatment would be to carry this water by tank trunk to be disposed of in a less sensitive area. This proposal does not pretend to do away with all of the problems that this development presents but should be met with favor by environmentally sensitive town's repre- sentatives with the people they represent and with an environmentally sensitive developer. While this development is claimed to be an improvement on the Cove Motel, formally located on this site, any& one truly familiar with the site knows that the motel was relatively unobtrusive because of the low buildings, the beautiful natural lo- cust grove, since bulldozed, and the seasonal two to three months per year nature of the business. The demands on water and waste disposal are only a small fraction of what the demands will be for'- this new development. Thirty-three two-story homes on eight acres can hardly be considered an improvement. Thank you. ~ Page 14 Z.B.A. March 17, 1988 Transcript of Public Hearing Matter of THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would like to say for the record just so the audience is aware of this, that we received this application on the 7th of February, 1988. This Board has not looked at this application under the S.E.Q.R.A. process. It has not looked at this application before it was received by our Department. There were building permits granted. There are building permits still in effect to my knowledge for exactly 29 of these units.~ There is no physical way that these units could be reduced to this number that this nice lady has spoken to us about. All I can tell you is that we are here under an interpretation. The interpreation is, do we take the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as Mr. Klatsky says, that line, or do we take the line that the Southold Town Trustees have dealt with? So far as I'm concerned, we're talking mainly the buildings that are basically to the west and to the south, and that's basically what's before us tonight. There are some state- ments here that are well beyond that purview based upon the amount of time that it has taken us to receive this application. And that's all I can tell you at this point. I'll let Mr. Klatsky respond, and Mr. Bredemeyer, do you want to say something first? (continued on page 15) Page 15 - Thursda~March 17, 1988 Public Hearing - The Cove at Southold Southold Town Z,B~A. JOHN BREDF2~EYER, TOWN TRUSTEE MEMBER/PRESIDENT: Not wishing to be considered held captive like Patty Hearst but I have the Trustee file here, a copy, in its entirety and I'm not here in favor or against the application. We voted a permit out on it. It's unfortunate Ms. Larsen takes somewhat a different tact, I think as a public official representing the Trustees and the Trustee members, we don't particularly endorse projects per say but we deal with the facts as we have them, see them and we try to act responsibily. I have all the facts here. I think a lot of the questions are being answered. Your comments to the chair reflecting things the Trustees looked at. An~ I'd be glad to answer questions maybe later on if there's time, if people are so interested. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. KlatSky- MR. KLATSKY: I've been called many things, but neYer a terrorist. And I don't want to hold anyone captive either. Any attempt to reduce the yield in number of units would be an economic hard- ship and would be unacceptable to the developing group. And more specifically, in doing some calculations on that, there is just about a million six hundred thousand dollars of a loss that will be considered if those particular units were in fact, not built. Again, I think there's comment again about the status and the nature of a homeowners association. I think that again, I'd like to say, a homeowners association, I think, is probably one of the more responsible, based on experience, groups that can actually service even a single family house as well as a mul- ti-family development as is of this nature. I don't think that it's also in the purview of the Board or many Boards to talk about the issue of aesthetics. Although I have some great difficulty in no making a comment that the previous motel... I have difficulty stretching my imagination to call it a delicate kind of a situation. And as I understand that, the summers when the motel was active, was quite a boisterous kind of area. In addition, I'd like to comment to the Board that our experience in basically your second home market, is that these units will be primarily used by those people during the summer months. That has been the experience to date for us in ~he second home market. These units are certainly not a cottage and built on the terms of only being used for summer use. These are full fledged units mee~in§New York Build- ing Code criteria with heating and air conditioning and could serve someone on a year around basis. But our experience that they are in fact, not used on that type of a full facility. I would also suggest that I don't think there is any additional traffic that would be generated from these units based on turn over rates and experience with motels. I think, historically, you'll find that motels do have a larger generation of traffic than someone who owns a house within an area and isn't just one family versus num- bers of families changing occupancy rates during course of weeks and months during the su~ner. Page 16 _ Thursday, March 17, 1988 Public Hearing - The Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me one second. What I'm basically discussing is possibly recessing the hearing but we're going to go to 11:30. And at that particular time, if there are more com- ments, we're going to be forced to recess. We'll start with this gentleman over here. MR. LONG: I live directly across C0r~y Creek from this develop- ment and where the motel had been for many many years, from the time I was a very young boy and we came out here for the summers. And I've heard more noise from the construction at the Cove then I ever heard during the summer from people staying at the motel. I basically, have two questions. Number one regards why after a line was agreed to, did the parties who agreed to it, knowingly just ignore and go ahead not thinking that this would ever come back and blow up in their face which it seems to have now? It doesn't make a lot of sense with an investment of this kind. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just let me clarify the water line. Which line are you referring to? MR. LONG: Well, the line that was established as I understand it tonight, by the Board of Trustees and then was ignored I think was the word I heard used several times. I question that. I question the foresight of a professional organization not to see that this would cause some problems at least for them. The other thing that I heard not only in this matter, but in the matter before, is the question of economic hardship. Fine. There very well may be eco- nomic hardship. But what of all the other people who live on Cory Creek? Doesn't something like this create a chance of economic hardship for us? Doesn't the fact that now we're looking at build- ings instead of scenery, doesn't that deplete our property values? Doesn't the fact that there's more traffic on that Creek, deplete our property values? Do we count for nothing? I understand this is a big investment and a lot of time and effort went into it. But there are also a lot of people who have lived there for years and years. And in any of these situations that I've heard, the people who have been there are not counted for anything. An in- dividual or a corporation comes in and says; I or we have this money invested, boom, boom, boom. Everybody else can go take a hike. That's not right. There are other people who have lived there for many many years who in their terms, in terms of their financial situation, have as great an investment in their homes. And certainly their rights and their investment should be treated with equal attention but yet it isn't. I question how this can continually happen. We have another development now in the com- munity I live in, in Laughing Water where the interest of one individual is going ~0 take prec~de~t 0¥~he interests of 80 separate families and that's nonsense. Either something is right or it's wrong. If it's set out that it's wrong, fine. It has to be stopped. It's as easy as that. What the man from the Bayman's Association said earlier is true. If you're going to establish rules, if you are going to establish guidelines, even if you have to do it on an individual basis, you have to uphold those rules and guidelines. That's common sense. But it's more than Page 17- Thursd~March 17, 1988 Public Hearing - T~e Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. LONG (continued): common sense, it's right. And that's something we see less and less in the Town of Southold. Things are done not because they are right but because they are convenient. And I would hope, in this case, something is worked out where common sense and a sense of right prevails. MR. BREDEMEYER: I'd just like to explain the wetlands line de- termination process since Mr. Long and I think others have not been given the full opportunity to understand or appreciate what the Trustees went through and to give you our assurances there was no shortcuts. There were no conveniences made here. The Trustees started the process on September 17 with a violation issued by the Town Bay Constable. We immediately got in touch with personnel of the D.E.C. to discuss their wetland line de- termination with them with the result that it was not suffici- ently conservative to meet what our interpretation of Town Code is. And at that meeting, we did not, it was a longer work day and the D.E.C. personnel has been very short staffed and unfor- tunately we couldn't get a forum of Board members present. So the D.E.C. flagged the site with the then president, Henry Smith and reaffirmed their original line determination with an expla- nation of their legal sufficiency-why they had to stand with that line. Based on information we had was the D.E.C. was taking no jurisdiction whatsoever and that the units we're going to be outside the D.E.C.'s jurisdiction. Therefore, no itigation was possible on this site. The Trustees, viewing this subsequently, on the 17th of October, since the meeting with the D.E.C. was the 16th. On the 17th, the meeting was held where members of the Trustees were present. At that time, three Trustees got to the site at approximately 8 o'clock in the morning. My vehicle had broken down. I called ahead to Chairman Smith at the time and told him I'd be late to the site and arrived a little bit later and the Trustees had come to a wetland line determination they felt was much more conservative than the D.E.C. line. And ar- riving late to the site, I was rather surprised because there was three Trustees ready to leave. They were already very well pleased with the line they had determined. And being fast on the heels of a November election, I must admit I was thoroughly amazed to see a conservative republican and a democrat all agree on one wetlands line in this town. And I said gee; it's time to go and qet some breakfast. And we left. Subsequent to that, Jeff G0ubeau wasn't available that week. He was doing inspections on Fisher s Island. He called me up on Sunday and he said, did you miss that determination. You really blew it. There's a whole big piece of spartana on the wetland down here. So sub- sequently, Jeff wrote a letter. We went and through that pro- cess out entirely. We got the C.A.C. involved and we came up with a line which is so conservative as to even challenge legal sensibility. I think it was .... MR. SUD ¥0UNG : It barely meets the bank. I went down there on the bottom there. It barely meets the bank where you put the line. Page 18 - Thursda~ March 17, 1988 Public Hearing - Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. BREDEMEYER: No, no. This line that we have here, this is the wetland line. It is fully inclusive of every wetland indi- cator on the property in terms of what we could expect to up- hold in the court of law. We went well above and beyond. Ear- lier there was discussion on Ba¢cbarisand this site is not particularly Baccharis-rich but there are some.These plants are growing up in Peconic on the Main Road. Many of the plants on the site in the upper area, were bayberry. They're not even considered wetland indicators. We drew a line that was more conservative than any agency would do in most of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. And it was line that we took because we wanted to include beyond that line mitigation in the adjacent 75 foot zone to the maximum extent possible. Now, had the Trustees merely accepted the D.E.C. line which would have been conveni- ences as would have been suggested, we could have walked away fromn~his project. We took a conservative line which led to a certain inferences, I think, that we wouldn't even be able to uphold it in a court of law. We took an extremely a~gressive ap- proach and one that I don't think we should be ashamed of. And then .... I'm talking to the chair but only directly my voice to you so that you can hear me. And based on that approach, we worked with the applicant not under any spell, mind you. We took out the rulebook, the recommendations of the 208 study of the Long Island Regional Planning Board. We created a buffer zone which is second to none. And we held a public hearing at which we had no one speak up. We had no one present and so we had no idea of any degree of local opposition whatsoever. We were the first agency to hold a public hearing on this matter in the town. MR.RON MORIZZ0 : I have a question. Would it have made a dif- ference if someone stood up and spoke? Would it really make a difference? MR. BREDEMEYER: We pride ourselves in trying to work with the public as much as the applicant. MR. MORIZZ0 : That doesn't make any difference. MR. BREDEMEYER: I don't even know what we're doing here now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not your fault. Ron, first of all, what you are trying to see is an example of people trying to work things out. This project is seven-eighths under way. Alright. Almost nine nineths underway. MR. MORIZZ0 : That's why nobody is going to say no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It has nothing to do with saying no at this particular point. The point is question is that we have an over- lapping jurisdictional law. They have the same. We have the same. That's the reason why it has come to us tonight. That's the reason why we're sitting here. That is the main reason why we're sitting Page 19 - Thursd~ March 17, 1988 Public Hearing -~e Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued): here. We're not sitting here for any other particular reason because we would all like to be home with our families. The point in question is because we care and because the Euilding Inspector has denied this particular application under 119-2B. They have it under the wetlands law. I'll be honest with you. Under this particular situation, their construction, their light green area, and I know the Trustees don't agree with this, we consider it a buffer zone. Ok. They established it as a buffer zone. The issue that is before us tonight is basically what I said in the beginning. The most westerly buildingswhich were next to the gentleman that walked out, we are at this par- ticular time, 91 feet, of which our jurisdiction stopped at 75, from those buildings. The buildings that are a little farther south and a little more east, we are 94 feet which our juris- diction stops at 75. The other buildings that are to the most I guess, southeast, we are 93 feet of which our jurisdiction stops at 75. It is basically an interpretation at this par- ticular time. Please remember, we are not trying to take any- thing away from anybody here. We are trying to listen to exact- ly what you're saying. But you must understand that there are active permits on these buildings. And these active permits are in effect except for the ones that I just mentioned~ Frank]in? Mr. Baer --you'd like to speak? MR. BAER: My name is Franklin Baer. I'm speaking as a resident on the other end of Cory Creek and also a person who is concerned about not only this situation but the environment in general. And I accept what you say Mr. Goehringer about what we're here for to- night. And I think what I'm going to ask you or the question I'm going to raise, is relevant to that I hope. The way in which this 18 foot line was established as in relation to the 5 foot line of the D.E.C., seems to me, to be somewhat confusing. In that if I am correct and if I'm not, please tell me. The 18 foot line is not always the same distance from the 75 foot line and it creates a question of where you are actually talking about sometimes when you compare these two. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't understand what you mean by the 18 foot line. MR. BAER: Well, the 18 foot line is mentioned in your .... It says here, to locate buildings 75 or more feet from the New York State D.E.C. determined tidal wetland line and at not less than 18 feet from the Town Trustees determined wetland grasses as ap- proved and so forth. The wetland of grasses is a different thing than the tidal wetland. And I understand you've got some spartana up beyond the ~ump that exists there and you go down and you find the wetlands on the other side of that. I don't how much has been destroyed by all this activity. And then you have the question also, of how much spartana and other growth there might have been and I don't know. I'm just asking the questions. If this deter- mination had been made before the topsoil had been removed to Page 20 - Thursd March 17, 1988 Public Hearing Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. BAER (continued): start building these buildings. The Trustees, according to what Jay Bredermeyer told us a little while ago, actually didn't get started on the matter of establishing a line until about the same time the building had already begun. And actually didn't get around to establishing a line until a month or so later. I just can't understand how these things have been allowed to happen. And again, what there is you can do about it and I think something should be done to try to bring this in to order. And I hope that, I'm sure that the people who live in that area would be glad to work with you on it. And I hope that we can get something done in order to handle this thing right. And in the mean time, hope- fully, hopefully, we can do something to delay the additional building that may occur if nothing is done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Klaskey, would you let Mr. Bredemeyer answer that question? MR. BREDEMEYER: There were about four or five questions. The first question is; were the Trustees familiar with the extent of wetlands on the site? Yes we were. We were familiar for several years because we had a history of a violation when dredging activi- ty took place unapproved in the area of the.~o~t basin. We had walked the site at that time. The initial~a~ember 17th noted by the Bay Constable at our direction, was in fact, for the com- mencement of construction of this unit, I believe, up here. And at that time, we did familiarize ourselves with the site and that was actually prior to the clearing of this site. So we were fa- miliar with the general distribution of the wetland grasses on the site. The clearing operation subsequent to the initial Trus- tee line determination on October 17th, I believe it was, that they did find the D.E.C. did clear wetlands, did clear the adja- cent area near the wetlands but didn't take any wetland indica- tors ou~ whatsoever and we had already been on the site two or three times prior to that and also had the Bay Constable present. So there was no loss of wetland whatsoever on this site. There were no spartana or other wetlands lost. The spartana fringe on the site is somewhat unique. It is not tidal water nourished. It receives a substantial amount of salt spray from the prevail- ing southwesterly winds in the summertime and it's mostly a wind driven system. And so we actually have artificially main- tained wetlands well into the upland zone but we felt it was valuable to try to maintain as much of these as possible. The other questions pertaining to that, I think I pretty much covered what Mr. Baer said. Is there anything else I failed to cover on that? MR. BAER: I just got to say that connected with that Jay, I realize what you said. But the fact still remains that you didn't get around to establishing this 18 foot line until September and October when building had already begun. Page 21 - Thursd~March 17, 1988 Public Hearing - The Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. BREDEMEYER: That was something that was beyond our control. It was by virtue of the D.E.C.'s line. We had no control over that. MR. BAER: I realize that. saying that's the way it is into consideration. I'm not saying it's your fault. I'm and something that has to be taken MR. ROBERI JONE$ : In the Trustees determination, did they ad- dress the problem of 32 units on 8 acres? MR. BREDEMEYER: The Trustees are without jurisdiction to comment on density but we did have a chance to discuss some of the issues surrounding the denitrofication systems since I'm personally fa- miliar with them and I've read up on them. And essentially, it's probably one of the most mitigated systems in use in the country presently and there's probably less nitrogen going into the site than would have been there from the pre-existing use as well as the shellfishing concerns of the Trustees were discussed at length because of our means to keeping our currently certified creek open. Sections of this creek are up for nomination as a critical environ- mental area and we certainly don't want to loose our shellfish. The sanitary system on the site discharging the waste 300 feet from the wetlands, will essentially provide a total chloroform free en- vironment. The pooper scooper ordinance which was poked fun at, was merely an attempt to have the homeowner's association to be neat and police up after their animals. And unfortunately, we can't be running after every animal in the town but we have to start someplace. And I'm sure that many of you have your animals, are in the same particular position. It was an effort on the part of the applicant and the Trustees to flag people in their home- owners' association realizing that new people in the community are probably going to be no less concerned for shellfishing than you are. And they probably will be as committed and that's the way we have to approach these things. The technical basis for the fixed elements of the system were looked at as much as we could within our jurisdiction. We had no control over density. To give the ability to the Trustees wouldn't serve the situation. We don't want this. It's beyond our power. R. JONES: Did the Trustees make any effort to get in contact with whatever agencies are concerned with densities? MR. BREDEMEYER: is decided prior trol over this. The Trustees are powerless. The density issue to us by a site plan approval. We had no con- MR. JONES: What agency is presumably concerned with the density? MR. BREDEMEYER: It's set by law. It's set by the zoning in the area and the pre-existing site plan. When we were called on the site, our job was to look at the wetland related issue only. We had no control over density. The Trustees would gladly lower density in the time anytime you asked them. We have no control over it whatsoever. Page 22 - Thursda~March 17, 1988 Public Hearing - The Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. LONG: Mr. Bredemeyer, share with us why, and granted you put a lot of work in it, no one is denying that. But the basic question re- mains. Why did you put all the effort into establishing a harsher line and then let the building commence in back of that line? That's something that's still not clear in my mind. You will have to straighten that out. MR. BREDEMEYER: Ok. Fine. That's a good question. This is a permitting zoning. Our code specifically directs us to review an application with respect to a 75 foot zone. Within that area, if the Board achieves what they feel is total mitigation, we are not obliged to go outside the zone. The specific legislative in- tent of the 75 foot zone when we requested these code changes to the Town Board, was to give us the power to mitigate within that area so that we could control roof runoff, chloroform penetration, use of fertilizers, surface runoffs from other sources, pervious surfaces of, impervious surfaces of driveways of such. But es- sentially the legislative intent of our wetland ordinance, Chap- ter 97, is to give us the right to mitigate. The fact that some structures may have penetrated the edge of that, is relatively insignificant because the structures, all their runoff is contained on site upland of that. There is no discharge seaward of it. The general contour of the slopes on the site is controlled so there are no steep grades of slopes that are going to essentially put any possible pollution from animals along into the creek. All these are areas that were looked at in the process. The actual line, the Trustees line, this area, the green area, is a zone of mitigation. If we dDn't achieve what we're looking for, we can say; yes, we're going to move it from the area and get it out of of our jurisdiction. That would have been the very easiest way out of this. We could have come in and said, get everything out of our jurisdiction and we could have walked away. And the appli- cant could have actually gone back in this zone afterwards and put in high fertility lawn species as usual ordinary usual main- tenance. It was difficult to stop an applicant in maintaining a lawn which is a very ordinary and usual kind of a thing to do. But why working with them up front on it, and saying we want these restrictive covenants, we want the on site drainage containment, we want to push them back, we want the water lines back. And we were able to achieve a lot more. This is what ~aused this whole bru-ha-ha tonight. Am I correct? I don't honestly know what caused the whole bru-ha-ha here tonight. The Trustees, besides from seeing some articles in the newspapers, had no idea there was any concern whatsoever. We had no one show up our public hearing. MRS. A. DICKINS0~ Then why did we get a variance notice? MR. BREDEMEYER: I ~elieve the gentleman from the Z.B.A. had a slight different set up then we do. We have a code which tells us to review an application within 75 feet of the water. It's not for us to variance. It's a permitting jurisdiction. Southold Town Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll explain that question ma'am. I need your name for the record. By the way, we are going to recess un- til the April 14th meeting. And we will come back and hopefully, I really ask you all to come in here and to look over the file so you're completely well versed with it. What had happened, basical- ly, was when the Trustees had established this line and this was brought up basically by Mr. Baer. We had 75 foot jurisdiction al- so. Since the line was moved back, we then,,rthe Building Inspector~~ then felt that possibly we had jurisdiction in the area of the dif- ference between the dark green and the light green and that's the 18 foot mark that you're referring to Franklin on this basis here and that is at this closest point, we're 18 feet fromthe edge of the building. Remember, we're not dealing with environmental is- sues on the Zoning Board. We are dealing with setbacks. And that was the reason this particular application was denied and then it precipitated or initiated this hearing tonight. And basically, it's what I said in the beginning of the meeting. In the beginning of the meeting I said basically, that we are here for an interpre- tation. Do we accept this line or do we accept this line. We have always accepted the New York State Department of Environmental Con- servation line. Always. We have uniquely done that. The question is, do we accept ~his line or do we accept this line. Conceivably, if we accept this line, then we are fairly close to and in the 75 foot p rview area. If we accept th~s line, we are 90 plus feet away. And that's the basic issue before you tonight. But I have to strenously say I appreciate Mr. Bredemeyer coming down here. Because many of the questions that were addressed tonight, were issues that probably should have been addressed at his public hearing and he did mention that to you. If you want to discuss based upon this, we would be very happy to entertain that. I'm going to ask Mr. Bredemeyer and I know it's an imposition because he does represent another Board in this town, to come back and address that issue or any other issues that we can't answer based upon what went onin this particular application and we'll be deal- ing with it on that basis. Mr. Klaskey. MR. KLASKEY: Ok. There was a question and I guess it's still not part of the p~rview Of the Board but I guess just for information purposes. The site ~s 8.75 acres. Within that and within the "M" zone, that permits exactly 33 units. That is how the determination is made. And on'that basis and on a site plan review process and -on numerous public hearings with the Planning Board within this Town. That's how the yield and the density was in fact established I would like to just .... I know this is not an appropriate request at this point but I'd like to, for the record, establish that his applicant and this developer which I don't find is a bad word, has been sitting in a position not to move on certain portions of this program since September of 1987. And because of possibly conflict- ing jurisdictions and of course there was an attempt to extend this hearing date, we were going to be asked again to wait until April before this is actually, before decision is rendered. I would real- ly request that this hearing be completed this evening in light of the hardship that it has to date been experienced by the developer. I think we've been patient. I think we responded to questions. I think we gave you probably one of the more comprehensive applica- tions that you have ever seen. It is not a question of not having enough information made available. We gave you a whole mitigation program. We established all the elevations and topography that conceivably have been requested. Thank~to the Board of Trustees, they also appeared to resolve other questions. And I'd really like to request the Board that this meeting be closed because we have aired the issue and this public has had the opportunitv to Page 24 _ Thursda~March 17, 1988 Public Hearing - Th~ Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. KLASKEY (continued): express their views. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, let's ask the public. Is there any- body that still has questions that they want asked, would like to review the file? You would sir. MR. JOHNSON: There is one thing I would like to know. Everyone says there's runoff. No runoff. The front of that property on Bayview Road, I would say, is at least 20 feet or more higher than the lower end of the property. It can rain hard out here. You can have any kind of bad weather you want, and when it starts running down, it's going to go down in that creek. And if anybody goes by that drive going down to The Cove right now, any water that runs down that driveway is going to go right down where those platoon docks are and that's the way I feel about it. You're go~ ing to have runoff down there no matter what you do. I'd like to know how they're going to stop it when it's that much higher than where the water land is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. FRANK 8AER: I would urge you to delay the decision un~il April 14th. I realize maybe it's something of a hardship to these deve- lopers. It's less than another month. And there are questions that have been raised here tonight which have not been answered and I think it's logical that you be given the opportunity to look into these matters even in more detail as you have suggested your- self and that we have an opportunity also, to those parties that may be concerned, to consider what has been said here tonight and come back with any comments or questions we might have on April 14th. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just wait one second in the back. This gentleman was here. MR.~LLEN: I'm a property Owner down in this area where they're, it's called Angel Shores. And I kind.of think that this is going to set a new precedent if this is th~/~e you're going to rule on using a line set by the Trustees rather than the D.E.C.. Then it will effect every other project that is now coming up because the Trustees will have to set new lines down in Angel Shores or other developments~ then I think you should wait and be very careful on your thought and take it up at your next meeting. CHAIRPLAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Just wait one second in the back. MR. 3. 8RED£M[¥[R : If I could speak to that. This was very un- usual in that the Trustees did not have an opportunity to meet with the person n~ of the D.E.C. We regularly tried to do that. Here again, the D.E.C. started the process without us, looked at it and said it's beyond their jurisdiction. So we never coordinated. But we have, as a result of this, already communicated with the D.E.C. and we are requesting to coordinate with their lines in the future on all projects. And in the Angel Shores development 'Page 25 - Thursday,O~rch 17, 1988 Public Hearing - The Cove at Southold Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. BREDEMEYER (continued): we've already centrally coordinated with the D.E.C. through a pro- cess where both lines are being incorpOrated in the pre- planning stages of the project so that this sort of situation should not arise. This is not precedental because the D.E.C. personnel and the Trustees are permitted to go out on these jointly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In the back of the room now. MRS. JONES : Just as a supporter of not closing it out to- night. Do you know that your own agenda, that at least 160 people signed a petition and for obvious reasons, many of them could not be here tonight. Certainly those of us who are here, would like to be in touch with them and tell them what are some of the questions that arose and some of the answers both good and bad that have been given. So I certainly urge you to hold the meeting over to the 14th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Could I have your name ma'am. MRS. JONES: M. Jones. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mrs. Jones. Yes sir. MR. MCKENNA: Forgive me but could you repeat the date that you re- ceived this application? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: February 7, 1988. MR. MCKENNA: Februaryit'7th's SECRETARY: Actually, February 3rd. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me. I'm four days off. I just want to bear in mind so that everybody is aware of the situation when you go home. And that is, these are the three buildings here, the three series of buildings, I should say. Four units to each build- ing, that are the permits that have actually been held in abeyance. The remaining are still in effect. So that you're aware of that situation before you come down and review the particular file. And again, this one, this one and this one. The purpose of that again, you can see that they are the ones that fall the closest within the buffer line between the dark green and the light green. Just so you're aware of that situation. So what I'll do at this particular point, Mr. Klaskey, I'm sorry we have to rule over your assuming the Board votes in unison with me on this, we'll hold this over until the 14th of April. The last hearing in the meeting, we hope the counter is not as lengthy as it was tonight and we'll ask Mr. Bredemeyer if he wouldn't mind to come back since he's done such a great job to- night in answering some of the questions that you people have had and we thank you all for coming in. And I'll make that motion. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. Ail in favor - AYE. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 June 6, 1988 Mr. Wilbur Klatsky The Cove at Southold, Inc. 5044 Expressway Drive South Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 Re: Appl. No. 3710 (Variance) Dear Mr. Klatsky: Transmitted herewith for your records is a copy of the recent determination made by the Board of Appeals at our Special Meeting held June 2, 1988 in the above matter. Copies of same have been transmitted Building Department, Planning Board, and Town for their files. to the Trustees Yours very truly, Enclosure Copies of GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski Decision to: Building Department Mr. Victor Lessard (Exec. Adm.) Planning Board Secretary Southold Town Trustees Clerk Mr. and Mrs. Robert Thompson A LEMARK ASSOCIATES AFFILIATE 5044 EXPRESSWAY DRIVE SOUTH RONKONKOMA, NEW YORK 11779 BUS. OFFICE (516) 588-3036 SITE OFFICE (516) 765-5253 FAX (516) 588-3432 April 5, 1988 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Reference: The Cove at Southold Dear Mr. Goehringer: In an effort to keep your files current I am enclosing a copy of the Amendment to Permit dated March 14, 1988 from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as well as a copy of the map which was approved by N.Y.S.D.E.C. This new map is the one that contains the changes request by the Town of Southold Board of Trustees. In the event there is anything else you might require for the hearing on the 14th, please give us a call. Sincerely, Office Manager JML: MMY Enclsoure New York State Department of Envlronmenlal Conservation Regulatory Affairs Unit - Region I Bldg. 40, SUNY, Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 Thomas C Jorllng Commissioner -- · [ I _t ,-I.' AMENDMENT TO PERMIT ~'~^'~ ~ ~- . Former ~ermit # (if any): ~0~ ~__ Dear ~,. % . ~cent request to extend the above p,~-!t has kcan reviawad- pursuant t~ 62 s ee~ determined that there has not bee~~ ~n~nv _ conditions, relevant technology or ~pl icab existing perm~; ~ Your recent request to modify the above per,it has bee. revie~ pursuant to 6NYCRR, Part 621. It has been determlned that the proposed modifications will not substantially change the scope of the permitted actions o~ the existing permit conditions. ~he~efor~, the permit is amended to author~e:~~. ~{% ~0Q~.~ · hi~'leteer ih an ~en~ ~-~ '~ th~ o~'-~ ~ig~pe~f~ ~n~,as such, shall be poseed ~ [he job si[e, All other terms and conditions remain as written in the original permit. Very truly yours, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator S e ,'~ t--~. We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI S~. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' frol, the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Douthold. We feel that this density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual ~oss of shellfishing and other marine life. We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at ~outhold. We feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual loss of shellfishing and other marine life. We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Douthold. We feel that th~ density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual toss of shellfishing and other marine life. c We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI $~. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove ut Douthold. We feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only le~d to its pollution un eventual toss of shellfishing and other marine life. We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. ~e feel that thAs density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual loss of shellfishing and other marine life. We~ the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ~TICLE XI S~.. 119.2 (~onstruction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. We feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual ~oss of shellfishing and other marine life. We, the undersized, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' fro:, the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. We feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual loss of shellfishingand other marine life. NAi,~ W~ the undersigned, object to a request for a variance f~om ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. We feel that th&s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual loss of shellfishing and other marine life. We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC.. 119.2 (construction activities less tha~ ?5' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at '.Jouthold. We feel that th~s density of Building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual toss shell fishing and other marine life. We, the undersigned, object tosa request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 [construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. We feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual loss of shellfishing and other marine life. ADDRESg We, the under~igned, object to a request for a varianc~ from ARTIC~XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the l~ndward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. We feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution ~n eventual toss of shellflshing and other marine life. ADDRESS We, ~e undersigned, object to a request for a variance ~ ~1 1 from ~RTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. We feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual .loss of shellfishing and other marine llfe. We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activi%ies less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. We feel that th&s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual toss of shellfishing and other marine life. ADD~ES3 We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (con~r~ction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. We feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual loss of shellfishing and other marine life. We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. ll9.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. ~e feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual .loss of shellfishing and other marine life. NAi~ April 28,1988 Supervisor Francis J. ~urphy Southold ?~rnBoard Town Hall, Southold, N.Y., 11~71 Dear Frank, After the April 14 ZBA hearing on the "COVE" in Bayview project, we asked Mr. Geohringer if the 33 two-story townhouses approved on 8.4 acres was baaed on the number of motel unite previously located on the same site. His answer was "Yes". How can the density of 75,000 sq. feet of living space on 8.4 acres, as compared to 9,000 sq. feet there previously, have been permitted and considered am "improvement"?? The Planning B~ard's lack of vision and serious consideration in 1984 in approving this prmJect is reprehensible. When we tried to convey ou~ dismay to the Planning Board on June 25,1984, we were told it was passed, without an opportunity to voice objectiens. Chairman Bennett Orlowski told us "We think it's an improvement". Clearly the Planning Board's definition of "improvement" should be investigated. Before-this meeting,we had addressed all our letters of protest to Henry Raynor, then Chairman of the Planning Board. Imagine our surprise and disillusionment when we learned that just two weeks after his resignation from the Planning Boa~mi, he became Consultant for the Bayview Development Corp., owners of the "COVE" p~Ject at that time~! We were not permitted to dissent until February 1988, when we received a variance request issued by the ZBA to permit the building of 12 of the 33 COVE" townhouses on the buffer zone, designated so by the Board of ~usteee, who summarily contradicted themselves and approved the abeA-~-~tion. Happily, the ZBA does not seem to be in as much of a huxm-~to push this through aa ~he_~ther two agencies, a~d seems to be giving intelligent consideration to ti~preblem of development on the wetlands of Corey Creek. We are confident that the ZBA will not compound the other agencies' mistakes. ~ quality of life here in Bayview has been greatly diminished by this huge complex right in the midst of what was one o£ the most beautiful residential areas in Southold. While we realize that the p~posed Cove buildings on the wetlands is not under your jurisdiction, we feel that the facts stated here should be brought to your attention and shared with the agencies repo~ing.~o~ you. Sincerely yours, A~n~s P. Dickinson Bayview Rd. Southold, N.Y.. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RI'tAD- STAT£ ROAD 25 BnUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11c:J'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Southold Town Trustees John M. Bredemeyer, President ~. Jerry Goehringer, Z.B.A. Chairman- March 1, 1988 "The Cove" at Bayview, Southold Board of Appeals. Hearing March 17, 1988 As disclosed recently in our recent conference and in research- ing town records, it is our understanding that numerous events and actions took place by the Board of Town Trustees which included the establishment of a Town Trustee buffer line landward of the N.Y.S. Wetlands line. Since these actions were taken subsequent to the issuance of Building Permits for this project and prompted an appeal to this Board, we must request the presence of at least one Member of the Board of Trustees who is knowledgeable with all the facts in this regard during the course of the public hearing. The Hearing has been calendared for Thursday, March 17, 1988 at 8:00 p.m. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. GG:lk cc: Building Department Town Attorneys HENRY P. SMITH, JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III, President John Bednoski, Jr. ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR, Vice-President BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 January 27, 1988 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 Mr. Wilbur Klatsky, Vice-President Lemark Associates 5044 Expressway Drive South Ronkonkoma, New York 11779 Re: Application No. 601 - Cove at Southold Dear Mr. Klatsky: The following action was taken by the Board of Town Trustees during their regular meeting held on January 21, 1988 regarding the above matter. Moved by Trustee Bednoski seconded by Trustee Smith WHEREAS, Wilbur Klatsky on behalf of the Cove at Southold applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town o£ Southold, application dated December 4, 1987, and WHEREAS said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on January 21, 1988 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not a£fect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Wilbur Klatsky on behalf of the Cove at Southold BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED PERMISSION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Construct certain housing units within 75' buffer. Property is located on Main Bayview Road, Southold. Approval is granted as submitted, the covenants and restrictions will have to be reviewed by the Town Attorney to insure that they are truly acceptable in the form of what the Trustees requested for the Town. These will have to be acceptable to the Town Attorney. Wilbur Klatsky on Page 2. of the Cove at Southold This permit will expire on January 21, 1990 if work has not commenced by said date. There are two inspections required and the Trustees are to be notified upon the completion of the work. Prior to the issuance of said permit by the Clerk, the applicant shall file with the Clerk a certificate that he has public liability insurance policies insuring against any liability which may arise in the performance of the operations pursuant to such permit in such amount as shall be fixed by the Trustees, which said policies shall name the Town as a name insured. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. Please remit $10.00 for wetland inspection fees. PLEASE RETURN TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR A DETERMINATION ON THE NEED OF ANY OTHER TOWN PERMITS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. Very truly yours, John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Board of Town Trustees JMB :ip cc: Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling, D.E.C., Albany Robert A. Greene, D.E.C., Stony Brook Stephen Mars, Army Corps of Engineers Thomas Hart, Coastal Management John Holzapfel, Chairman, Southold Town C.A.C. Victor Lessard, Admin., Building Dept. Planning Board Board of Appeals~ Town Attorney with attachments file PERMIT ISSUED TO PERMIT 10-84-0118 UNDERTItEENVIgON/VlENTALCOHSERVAI]ON LAW ~ AgTICLE15, (Protection of Waler, J~ ARHCLE25,(TidalWetlands, ARTICLE 24, (Freshwater Wetlands) ARTICLE 36, (Construction in Flood Ilazard Areas) Bayview Development Corp. ADORESS OF PERMHIEE 120-Mineo~a-B~vd. ~, O. ~neola,my 11501 LOCAl[ON OF PROJECT (Section of slte~m, lidal wetland, dam, building) Core¥ Creek Soo thold DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT c/o Jeffrey Forchelli, Esq. Place 9750 cubic yards of clean upland fill a minimum of 50' of landward of the tidal wetland b-6-6h-~f~, construct 33--~ic uo~nh~uges--and~assuclaL~d-struc~rur~s-.a mlrrim~ml--Df 75~-l~md~-ard.of the tidal wetland boundary, construct gravel roads and realign boat ramp road as per supplied plans o~ '£as~ and u±emency June i6, i~84. COMMUNIIY NAME (Clly, Town, Village) COUNTY Suffolk 1. The permitlee shall file in lhe office of the appropriale Regional Fermil Administrator, a nolice of inlention Io commence work at least 48 hours in advance of the time of commencemenl and shall also notify him plolnpIly in wriling of the completion of Ihe work. 2. The permilled 'work shall be sul~jecl ~o inspeclion by an auflmrlzed represenlalive of the Department of Environmenlal Conservation who may order the work suspended if the poblic~_interest so requires. 3. AS a condition of the issuance of this permit, the applicant has ac- cepled expressly, by the execution of 1he application, the full legal respon- sibility for all damages, direct or indirect, of whatever nalure, and by whom- ever suffered, arising oul of Ihe project described herein and has agreed Io indemnify and save harmless Ihe Slale from gulls, actions, damages and cosls of every name and descriplion resulting Iron Ibe said project. 4. Any material dredged in ~he prosecution of Ihe work herein pe~milled shall be ~emoved evenly, wilhoul leaving large refuse piles, ridges across the bed of Ihe waterway or flood plain or deep holes that may have a tendency to cause injury to navigable channels or to 1he banks of Ihe waterway. 5. Any material Io be deposited or dumped under this permit, eilher in lhe waterway ot on shore above high-water mark, shall be deposiled or dumped al Ihe locality shown on Ihe drawing hereto allached, and, if so P~escribed Ihereon, wilhin or behind a good and substanlial bulkhead or bulkheads, such as will prevent escape of Ihe material inlo the walerway. 6. There shall be no unreasonable interference wilh navigation by the work herein aul-horized. 7. That if fulure operations by the Stale of Hew York require an alleration in Ihe position of the slruclure o~ work herein aulhorized, or if, in Ihe opinion of the Department of Environmenlal Conservalion il shall cause unreasonable obslruclion to the tree navigation of said waters or flood fl0w~ or endanger Ihe heallh, safety or welfare of the people of Ibe State, or loss or'deslruclion of Ihe natural resources of the Slale, the owner may be ordered by Ihe Deparlo menl Io remove or aller the slruclural work, obstructions, or hazards caused thereby without expense to Ihe Slale; and if, upon the expiration or ~evocalion of this permit, the struclure, flU, excavation, or olber modificalion of Ihe Walercourse hereby aulhorized shall not be *compleled, the owners shall, wilhout expenselolbe Slate, and Iosuch exlenl and in such lime and manner as Ihe Deparlment of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or condition Ihe navigable and flood capacity of the walercourse. No claim shall be made againsl 1he Slate of New York on accounl of any such removal or Southold . TOWN Southold .................. J FIA CO~,tMUNITY NO. DAM NO. J PER~41T EXPIRATION DATE I December 31, 1986 GENERAL CONDI]'IONS 8. That Ihe Slale of New York shall in no case be liable for any dam or injury to the structure or work herein aulhorized which may be caused h compensaHon shall accrue from any such damage. 9. That if Ihe display of lights and signals on any wdrk hereby aulln.~ is not otherwise provided for by law, such lights and signals as may be scribed by the United Slates Coasl Guard shall be inslalled and by and at Ihe expense of Ibe owner, 10. Ail work carried oul under this permil shah be perlormed in .{~ dance with established engineering practice and in a workmanlike mann¢,r. be just and equitable. [f upon the expiralion or revocation of this permil, modification of the wetland hereby authorized has not been completed, applicant shall, without expense to the State, and Io such extent and in remove all or any porlion of Ihe uncompleted slructure or fill and restore sile lo ils former condition. Ho claim shall be made againsl Ihe Slale of Yolk on accounl of any such removal or alteration. 12. This permil shall nol be construed as conveying to the applicanl righl to l~espass upon lhe lands or inlerfere wilh the riparian righls of Io perJorm the permitted work or as aulhorizing Ihe impairment of any rig lille or interest in real or personal properly held or vested in a person m party Io Ihe permit. 13. The permillee is responsible for obtaining any olher permils, provals, lands, easements and rights-of-way which may be required for project. 14. If granied under Article 36, this permit is granted solely on the b; of Ihe requirements of Arlicle 36 of Ihe Environmental Conservation Law Part 500 of 6 NYCRR (Construction in Flood Plain Areas having Special. ri Hazards - Building Permits) and in no way signifies that Ihe projecl wili free from flooding. 15. By acceplance of this permit the pefmillee agrees thai Ihe pe~ (SEE REVERSE 51DE} ~CIA(~DI] IONS 2. 3. 4. All surface and road runoff shall be contained on site. There shall be no distrubance to vegetation or topography a minimum of 50' landward of the tidal wetland boundary. There shall be no distrubance to tidal wetlands as a result of this project. A copy of approved plans shall be available at project site while all work is in progress. SPECIAL CONDITIONS A THROUGH J, ALSO SPECIAL CONDITION M ATTACHED. -~[R~41! ISSUE DATE Sept. 12, 1984 USACE JPERMIT ADMINISTRATOR Daniel J. Larkin"... ' -' ADDRESS ,':..'BLDG. 6,0, St.r~, STO~ BROOK,N~ 1179z .The following conditions apply to all permits: If any of the permit conditions are unclear, the permittee shall contact the Division of Regulatory Affairs at the address and telephor~e noted below. A copy of this permit or approval and approved pro~e~ plans and supplement- ary conditions shall be available at ~.~e project site whenever authorized work is in progress. The permit sign enclosed with the permit or a Copy of approval letter shall be protected from the weather and posted in a con'spicious location at the work site until completion of authorized work. At least 45 hours prior to commencement of the project, the permittee shall complete and return the top portion of the enclosed receipt form certifying that he is fully aware of and understands all provisions and conditions of this permit. Within one week of completion of the permitted work the bottom portion of that form shall also be completed and returned. For projects involving activities to be accomplished over a period or more than one year, the permittee shall notify the Regional Permit Administrator in writing at least 48 hours to the commencement of resumption of work each year. If project design modifications take place after permit issuance, the permittee shall submit the appropriate plan changes for approval by the Regional Rermit Administrator prior to undertaking any such modifications. The permittee is advised that substantial modification may require submiss- ion of a new application for permit. Ail necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude cont~m~nation of any wetlands or waterway by suspended solids, sediment, fuels, solvents, lubricants, epoxy coating, paints, concrete, leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the project work. Any failure to comply precisely with all of the terms and conditions of this permit, Unless authorized in writing, shall be treated as a violation of the Environmental Conservation Law. The permittee is advised to obtain any permits or approvals that may be required from the U.S. Department of Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, 26 Federal Plaza, l~ew York ~ 10007, (Attention Regulatory Functions Branch), prior to commencing work authorized herein. The granting of this permit does not relieve the permittee of the responsib- ility of obtaining a grant, easement, or other necessary approval from the Division of Land Utilization, Office of General Services, Tower Building, Empire. State Plaza, Albany, ~.~ 12242, which may be required for any encroachment upon State-owned lands under water. Regional Permit Administrator 1,~S Department of Enviro~mental Cons. -' ' Bldg. 40, 8~'Y--Room 21~ Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 DEC ~ 10-84-0118 The following cond~s shall apply if checked' am Regional Permit Admi'Sistrator: lc. able by the -- Ail dredging shall be conducted so as to leave a un~formbottOm elevation free of mounds or holes. Ail spoil material shall be disposed of either in the Atlantic Ocean or at an approved U.S. Government Dumping Ground, as directed by the District Engineer, U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Any spoil material not intended for such water dis- posal shall be removed from the site and disposed of at an approved upland site. All fill and'spoil material shall be suitably contained at the work site so as to prevent its eroding, leaching or otherwise entering into.adJacemt wetlands and waterways. Ne , Ail peripheral rip-rap berms, cofferdams, rock revetments, gabions, bulkheads, etc. shall be completed prior to placement of any fill material behind such structures. 0 .... All repairs to existing structures shall be confined to replacement. of-existing structural elements with no change indesign. ~mension~ or materi-]9, un.less specifically authorized herein. _P._The-following Water Quality Certification shall'apply-lf':reqhired by one or more agencies of the United States Gove~ument and if -... .... --checked as applicable by the Regional Permit Adm{nisLAators: In-accordancewith Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean. Water~ct-of"- ..... 1977 (PL 95-217) the New York State Department of Envtrc~~"ntal .Conservation hereby certifies that the subject proJect-p~oposal will not contravene effluent l~m~tatlons or other ]~tat-ions~'o~-standards'' -.under Sections.301, 302, 303, 306 or 307 or the Act. September 1.2, 1984 10-84-0118 Daniel J. Larkin, P.E. Regio~ ~ ~Pe £ ~lt _A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~%%-a~.or .... ~-- .Division of Regulatory Affairs '" NYS Depa~'tmen~'o£_Envtru~,a~eutal ...... Consex-va t~on '~tony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900" mpl 'nts Ove Crc ks'de C d Co m r e on o By Donald Mace Williams Somefear Pollut. ionoftastlmony Dlck~nsonpresented apet,tlon with 160 signatures at the first session and since then has add- ed more than 40, he said. Some residents of a creekside neighborhood in Southdld say occupants of a dozen planned condomin- iums on the creek couldn't be trusted to use the right fertilizers, plant the right grasses and always clean up after their dogs. The residents are fighting a request for a zoning variance that would permit construction of the units on or near wetlands in a complex called The Cove. They also object to the prospective loss of their view of Corey Creek, which an opposition leader has charac- terized as "a lovely spot to look at." The leader, Wesley Dickinson, said he has .more than 200 signatures on a petition opposing the vari- ance. 'He plans to submit the petition Thursday night to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. A zoning variance from the board, along with permits already obtained from other agencies, is required by the town code, Councilwoman Ellen Larsen said. To Dickinson's surprise, the condominium project has had a backer in Larsen, known for her environ- mentalist stands on such plans. Larsen said this weekend that the developers, Joseph Fischetti Jr. and Wilbur Klatsky, have been cooperative in adopting such protective measures as removing rear exits to the planned buildings and relocating a swimming pool that would have been on the creek. She also said and a marred wew trustees, of which Larsen was a member until she took office on the town board in January. She said the trustees could not have refused a permit for the con- structian, which the planning board approved in the first half of 1984, because the trustees have had juris- diction over construction in or near the wetlands only since August, 1984. She said her tendency has been to approach any such ro'ect as a bad idea. "I mean, condos on a creek __ it'sPa ~isaster," she said, but added: "How can you take someone's zoning away from them. Also, she said, the daveiopers have vowed to educate the occupants of the complex on how to help prevent pollution. The measures include planting only ap- proved kinds of grass, cleaning up pets' excrement and using no fertilizer along the seaward buildings. Dickinson questioned who was "going to follow anyone around a couple of years from now" to make sure the rules were obeyed. Larsen said she believed that people would abide by the measures, "or do their best." But she said town officials would have to keep residents aware of the need for caution. there was no chance of septic leachate getting into the creek because it would be pumped to a leaching field At 9 p.m. Thursday, the zoning board of appeals 300 feet from the wetlands. . will continue a public hearing on the issue that began Those measures were required by the board of March 17 and was broken off after nearly three hours Construction has begun on 20 units of The Cove. Those units are on uplands, whereas the remaining 12 are in a strip that the trustees have classified as wetlands or a buffer zone. Before the new project was begun, the site was occupied by a 33-unit motel. Dickinson said the motel was one-story, was secluded among locust, cedar and cherry trees, and operated only in the summer. After the current developers acquired the land, the trees were bulldozed, he said, and the condominium build- ~ngs are really obtrusive. He noted that Corey Creek is unpolluted -- one of the few in the area still open to shellfishing. He said residents feared that the project might add to the brown tide that has killed many shellfish in the bays. "This is a lovely spot to look at," Dickinson said. "It's too bad it couldn't have been taken over by the town for a park." Klatsky, one of the developers, said Saturday that the project isn't an environmental issue because state and local agencies had given it ,"basically negati,ve declarations, which means there s no impact on the area." He said the motel that previously operated there had an "old-fashioned septic system which probably did bleed into the water," but that the new complex has a modern denitrification system. "It's a sound and environmentally sensitive pro- gram," he said of The Cove. On the Road · A _11-'le ® JUDITH T. TERRY ~~ TOWN CLERK ~:a:s:~l~ o~ vI:~U S:~VJST~CS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 2, 1988 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 From: Re: Linda Kowalski, Secretary, Judith Terry, Town Clerk Local Laws 14 & 15 - 1988 Board of Appeals Local Law No. 14 - 1988, A Local Law in relation to Zoning, and Local Law No. 15 - 1988, A Local Law in relation to Zoning, were both received by the Department of State on May 25, 1988 according to my certified mail return receipt. \Mr. G. Georinger, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Cedar Be~Road Southold, ~ew York ~pril 9, 1988 11971 Dear Mr. Georinger: This letter is to inform you of our deep concern, along with many in Southold Township, over the e×pedient, but unwise variance which is allowing The Cove developers to develop less than seventy-five feet from the landward edge of tidal wetlands. The main issue is that the Board of Trust~es set a line which is considered right, and now the developers w~nt to change it, and that is wrong. Whether it is the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board or the Trustees, someone must take ~wift and responsible action to see that th~ d~velopers are not allowed to build so close to Corey Creek, and to see that our town is not destroyed by the maneuverings of developers. We feel very unprotected by those elected to preserve our land, water, community. We fear that the Ang~ Shores development in Southold will also be ~ust another raping of the land, and it will be your children and ours whose wells will rund dry or fill with salt, whose waters will be polluted, and whose home and community will move from "bucolic, meandering country roads," to suburban sprawl. "Hello, this is Southold...is anybody there? Is anybody there at ali?" Respect£~lly submitted and in deep_concern, ~C D~. Heacock Caren A. Heacock CC: Mr. Frank Murphy Congressman G. Mochbrueckner The Suffolk Times 305 Topsail Lane Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-5013 PEILMITS REQUIRED Government agencies that have jurisdiction and whose approval is needed for any activity such as construc- tion of docks and bulkheads, dredging and filling, and other alterations of waterways and wetlands: BAYS & LONG ISLAND SOUND (Docks, Jetties and Alterations) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York State De- partment of Environmental Conservation. SALTWATER CREEKS & WETLANDS (Docks, Bulkheads, Moorings, Stakes, Dredg- ing, Filling) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. New York State De- partment of Environmental Conservation, Southold Town Trustees if project involves wet]ands, Southold Town Board (after review by Soutbold Town Trustees and Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council). FRESHWATER LAKES, STREAMS & WETLANDS (Alterations or Construction) New York State Department of Environmental Con- servation, and Southold Town Board. Copies of pertinent ordinances and regulations can be obtained by writing or telephoning: Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, South- old, New York 11971. (516) 765-1801 Local Tidal WetlandsPermit Administrator, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Stony Brook, New York 11794. (516) 751-7900 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 313 West Main Street, Riverhead, New York 11901. (516) 727-4257 Local guidance is available from the Southold Town Trustees at their monthly meetings in the Town Hall. For time and date call (516) 765-1:~'. l ego{ ~?.~ HY? ~ ~...¢vo stricting development of our water- ways, wetlands and shorelines? Because the Town of Southold's natural heritage in fl~ese areas is much of what is left in all of New York State. Of the 25,000 acres of undestroyed wetlands in the state, 18,000 acres are in Suffolk County. Wetlands are tile source of, or provide basic sus- tenance for, much of our food, recreation and economy. They provide the nntrients for an abundance of fish, shellfish and wildlife. They provide spawning and nursery areas for sportfish and mollusks, and nesting and feeding areas for waterfowl. They act as a gigantic filter, cleansing out waters nvice a day as tides move in and out. They serve as buffers against severe storms, pro- tecting our land against erosion. They protect the fresh water aquifer from salt water intrusion. They protect the source of livclihood and profit for people and businesses involved in providing fish and shellfish for all of us to enjoy. They retain their aesthetic value as open areas of beauty where nature's phenomena can be observed the year around. TRUSTEES' GUIDELINES The Soutbold Town Trustees will use tile following guidelines: BULKHEADING * Need must be demonstrated. Taking of fill, for any reason from town bottonl- lands is usually not pernlitted. Construction must be compatible with existing alterations on adjacent properties. Bulkheads must be as far back from mean high water as possible. Long term environmental effects must not be seriously damaging. DOCKS & PILINGS* Elevated docks and walks over wetlands are en- cot~raged to avoid bulkheading, dredging and damage to wetlands. Height of docks should conform to the docks in the area and always be above the marsh grass. Length should be kept to a minimum. JETTIES & GROINS* Not recommended for most areas. Demonstrable need is of primary concern. Relationship to existing groins and piers is im- portant. Height of groins shall follow a low profi~ to tile existing beach so that littoral drifting sand can nourish downdrift beaches. Long term natural effects must not be serious- ly damaging. *ACCESS O'~, ER DR AROUND STRUCTURES No structure shall inhibit the public's right to walk along the shore front unless access is provided over or around the structure. A LEMARK ASSOCIATES AFFILIATE 5044 EXPRESSWAY DRIVE SOUTH RONKONKOMA, NEW YORK 11779 BUS. OFFICE (516) 588-3036 SITE OFFICE (516) 765-5253 FAX (516) 588-3432 March 22, 1988 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Mr. Gerard P. Goehzinger Chairman Reference: The Cove at Southotd, Inc. App]:]catic, n before Southold Board of Appeals Ordinance Dear Mr. Goehringer: Just a reminder that at our public hearing, of March 17, 1988, which has been continued, I requested that the Board of Appesls also consider the matter of DETERMINATION OF SIGNi?ICANCE pursuant to the SEQRA process. We would of course recommend a DECLARATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT be rendered by the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals consistent with previous DECLARATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT rendered by the Town of Southold Planning Board and Town of Southold Board of Trustees. Thank you again for your continued help on 5h~o matter. Yours truly, Wilbur K!atsky 16 Twisting Lane Wantagh, New York 11793 780 Minnehaha Boulevard Southold, New York 11971 Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 25 March 1988 Gentlemen: As new homeowners in the "Laughing Water" section of Southold, we are strongly opposed to the building of additional units in the condominium project called "The Cove." While we were considering settling in Southold, we were impressed with the firm position held by the Town, limiting the construction of condominiums in order to conserve the relatively unspoiled environment which is fast-disappearing from Long Island. Construction of more condominiums can only be detrimental to this ideal and, specifically, could be devastating to the wetlands and waters in the Corey Creek area. We are concerned that your approval of the variance requested by the developers of "The Cove" could establish a precedent for similar actions in the future. Therefore, we earnestly urge you to deny this variance. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, ROSS MC HUGH E MC HUGH LAUGHING WATER PROPERTY OWNERS March 21, 1988 ASSN., INC. Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: The Cove at Southold Dear Mr. Goehringer, I am writing on behalf of our Association in order to thank you and the Board for giving us the opportunity to share our feelings with you regarding the above matter. Obviously, a great deal was said at the meeting on the 17th; however, we feel there is one fact that came to light that should not be forgotten -- namely, the fact that the Trustees established a wetlands line that was not to be violated. We feel very strongly that their original intent should be upheld. In closing, thanks again for your interest courtesy and grace under very trying conditions for one look forward in this matter. Your is commendable and I to working with you in the future. President - L.W.P.O.A. PWL:pl Memorandum from.... $outhoid Town Board of Appeals TOWN HALL, SOUTHOLD, N,Y. 11971 765-1809 To: Chris From: Z. B. A. Office Date 3/22/88 In reference to your inquiry today concerning The Cove application, we are attaching copies of our response to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson and a copy of the Legal Notice, which explains the nature of the application. We hope this information will be sufficient at this time. lk Attachments Southold Town Board! Main Street i Southold, New Yorkl~ March 10, 1988 .: Frank blUrphy, Supr. Dear Mr. Murphy: We have learned that The Cove, a condominium now under con- struction on Corey Creek in Southold, has applied for a variance permitting construction of twelve units below the New York State limit on wetlands use. Such building would violate New York State regulations. Corey Creek which is still unspoiled would be endangered by overuse;the density of this project is already over the permitted land use. Ground water, in short supply, would be further depleted. We seem to have Missed on This voriance$o have most / the notice of the original hearing of our neighbors. Very truly yours, ~ - _',i~ ~(~. ~ Robert E.Johnson Eileen M.c, Johnson SOUTHOLD ADDRESS: Corey Creek RFD #1 Box 430 Coke Drive, Southold WINTER ADDRESS 40-24 208th Street Bayside, New York 11361 from ARTICLE ×I ~EC. ll9.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at ~outhold. We feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, o~ only lead to its pollution a~eventual ~oss shellfishing and other marine life. ADDRm~.~ We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. We feel that th&s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual toss of shellfishing and other marine life. We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI ~EC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Douthold. We feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual loss of shellfishing and other marine life. We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. He feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual loss of shellfishing and other marine life. We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI S~.. 119o2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at ~outhold. ~e feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual toss of shellfishing and other marine life. NA~E :;e, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance (~ ~ from ARTICLE ZI Sz:C. 119.2 (construction activities - less than 75' from the Iandward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at ]outhold. '~e feel that th&s density of building-;, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its oollution an eventual ~oss of shellfishin,] and other o~arine life. f o/g tY/d We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. We feel that th&s density of b~ilding, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual ~oss of shellfishing and other marine life. ADDR so.~ We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Jouthold. We feel that th&s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual toss of shellfishing and other marine life. } We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI S~. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at :outhold. We feel that th~z density of b~ilding, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to it~ pollution an eventual ~oss of shellfi~hing and other marine life. We, the undersigned, object to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the lgndward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Southold. We feel that th~s density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual loss of shellfishing and other marine life. We, the undersigned, ~bject to a request for a variance from ARTICLE XI SEC. 119.2 (construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands) at The Cove at Sou~hold. We feel that this density of building, so close to Corey Creek, can only lead to its pollution an eventual toss of shellfishing and other marine life. ADD.QF.'qS 8355 Main Bayview Southold, New York 11971 March 14, 1988 Board of Appeal Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Re: The Cove - Variance - Wetlands Dear Sirs: We object to a variance being granted to The Cove project in the matter of building on what we understand to be designated tidal wetlands. While we are sympathetic towards efforts to increase jobs and housing in the community, we do not believe that putting condominiums on wetlands is in the long term interest of the community. We are also saddened by surely well meaning but ineffective efforts to preserve the character of the Town. The Cove project has already turned a quiet resort with trees and landscape into a virtual desert with no trees. Why do you let people proceed in such a manner? In addition, the legalized vandalism produced by building codes that mandate wide driveways, black top, bringing driveway grade up to the road, etc., will ruin the rural nature of the area. The Town even can't or won't do anything about the gross violation of speed limits on Main Bayview (particularly the straightaway in front of The Cove). Will it do any better with protecting the wetlands? More people, more cars, more garbage and more sewerage will be put into The Cove. No doubt the less trees there are and the closer is the grade of the driveway to the road, the safer it will be for the residents to come in and out of the property. Similarly, the less marine and wild life there is will surely keep their boats and cars cleaner! Yg~ars ~ruly, . J6hn M. Richards~Sn Mary S. Richardson APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, .IR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- -~TATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11cj'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 March 15, 1988 Mr. and Mrs. Robert 40-24 208th Street Bayside, NY 11361 E. Johnson Re: Your Letter dated March 10, 1988 "The Cove" Project, Southold Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: This morning we received your letter concerning the above project. We have tried to reach you by telephone without luck. Thank you for your interest and concerns concerning the recent application of "The Cove." We are enclosing a copy of the Notice of Hearing which explains that the application under consideration is the same project which has been approved by the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town Trustees. It is our understanding that there will be no change in these agency permits. The hearing has been advertised for Thursday, March 17, 1988, and the jurisdiction of this Department is questionable at this point. Please feel free to contact our office for further information. Your attendance at the hearing, as well as your neighbors, are certainly most welcome. Please feel free to contact me at any time. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER lk CHAIRMAN Enclosure March 10, 1988 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Dear Members of the Zoning Board: We have learned that The Cove, a condominium now under con- struction on Corey Creek in $outhold, has applied for a variance permitting construction of twelve units below the New York State limit on wetlands use. Such building would violate New York State Corey Creek which is still unsp~iled would by overuse; the density is already greatly mitted use. Ground water, in short supply, further depleted. regulations. be endangered over the per- would be We seem to have missed the notice of the original hearing on this variance; so have most of our neighbors. SOUTHOLD ADDRESS: Corey Creek RFD# 1, Box 430 Coke Drive, Southold Very truly yours, Robert E.~ Johnson E~leen ]~. Joh'ns'0~ WINTER ADDRESS: 40-24 208th Street Bayside, N.Y. 11361 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 March 10, Dear Members of the Zoning Board: We have learned that The Cove, a condominium now under con- struction on Corey Creek in Southold, has applied for a variance permitting construction of twelve units below the New York State limit on wetlands use. Such building would violate New York State Corey Creek which is still unsp,,iled would by overuse; the density is already greatly mitted use. Ground water, in short supply, further depleted. regulations. be endangered over the per- would be We seem to have missed the notice of the original hearing on this variance; so have most of our neighbors. SOUTHOLD ADDRESS: Corey Creek RFD# 1, Box 430 Coke Drive, Southold Very truly yours, Robert E.t Johnson WINTER ADDRESS: 40-24 208th Street Bayside, N.Y. 11361 DATE ~ I~;ITIALED 355 Opechee Ave. Southold, N.Y. 11971 March 12, 1988 Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Gentlemen: I am writing to protest the proposed variance for the condominium project known as "The Cove". The article in the March 10 issue of The Suffolk Times containing the following quote "the project is an out- standing example of cooperation between an environment- ally-minded business venture and an environmentally- minded town" strikes fear in my heart. It would seem to me that it draws a picture of a Zoning Board bent on stamping out wetlands and destroying the natural beauty of the North Fork, while filling it with condos and empty shopping malls. I hope this matter will be given a great deal of thought and even more on-sight examination. Very truly yours, March 9, 1988 Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Sir/Madam: I am writing this letter in the hopes that you will give a great deal of consideration before passing a variance for "The Cove". Our environment is in such bad shape now, I really feel that by granting this you will be doing the residents of Southold an injustice. I am a property owner in Laughing Water and use the beach and have a boat. With the weekend boat traffic, the water is c~wded at best. The marina at the cove will have to be enlarged and possibly a great deal of off-shore mooring permits ilssued, not to mention the questions of the cesspool waste. Not only will this add to water pollution, but I feel a great many boating accidents. We have a hard enough time getting the town engineers to get approval for dredging the channel---with all this added usage, this too can create another problem. If we allow them to build, the beach area in front of "The Cove" will not accommodate all the residents. Thus, they will boat over to the outer beaches at the mouth of the channel. Laughing Water owns one of them. Do we have to become policemen to check who and who does not belong on our beach. Willthe town provide us with signs ands inform "The Cove" as well. Southold is such a quaint, little town that seems almost untouched by the hazzards of big city life. Must we build on every square inch of ground available. With the way people are applying for variances,, maybe each one should to put to referendum. Sincerely yours, (Mrs.) Pamela Z. Holzer March 2, 1988 Zoning Board Town Hall Southold, NY of Appeals 11971 LAUGHING WATER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN., INn. ~OUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 re: Proposed Variance for The Cove at Southold, inc. Gentlemen: This in the above matter. letter is to request that we be recorded as a party of interest Further, we wish to inform you that our organization of more 80 families is unanimously opposed to this proposal. Kindly keep us informed of any hearings, etc., regarding this project. You may contact us at P.O. than which are scheduled Box 20, Southold. Sincerely, The Board L.W.P.O.A. of Directors PWL:pl .lAMES BITSES MAIN ROAD SDUTHDLD, N. Y. 11971 February 8, 1988 Board of Appeals, Town of Southotd, Southold, N. Y. 11971 Gentlemen: I am the owner of the property bordering the Cove to the southeast. My property looks directly across Corey Creek toward the waterfront of the Cove and therefore the appearance of the water- front is of vital importance to me. It is my ~nderstanding that 75' is the minimum distance allowed for construction to the high water mark. Accordingly I have filed Covenants and Restrictions on m__y own property which mandates 75' as a minimum distance for any structure. For your benefit, I am including several paragraphs from my declaration of Covenants and Restrictions: '5Io new residential struclure or sanitary disposal facility shall be constructed or otherwise located within 75' of the upland edge of the tidal wetlands along the shoreline of Corey Creek. A conservation or scenic easement having a minimum width of 75' from the upland edge of tidal wetlands and including the titdal wetlands shall be established along the shoreline of Corey Creek to insure that no development adverse to the aesthetic quality of the shoreline will take place along the ah oreline. No structure shall be erected in a zone 75' in width, extending back from the mean high water mark. The area within this zone (which is also referred to in Paragraph Seven herein), shall be level, clear of obstruction and planted solely to grass. Boulders, trees~ bushes or other structures in the said zone constitute obstructions. Excepted from this re- striction are piers and docks approved by the Southold Town Trustees and no more than one pier or docking structure shall be built on each let. ' -2- May I suggest that the request for a variance within 75' of the high water mark represents a failure on the part of the architect for the Cove to create a design consonant with the law. I would suggest that they either change their plans or change their architect. In the past I had cordial relations with the owners of the Cove and intend to continue to do so. However. I cannot consent to a variance of this type which is basic and binding upon all. What is good enough for me is good enough for them and I would recommend to this Board that in light of the prkvileges already extended to them in the development of their property, that this basic exception be denied them. ~B: ah P. S. Yours truly~/ , James B~tses I respectfully request the privilege of being heard in the event there is a public hearing in this matter. March ?, 19~ Xo~e Drive Southold, N.Y. 11971 Zoning ~oard o[ Appeals Town of $outhold Main Street Southold. N.Y. 11971 Dear Sirs: It has been brought to our attention that a variance request has been submitted to permxt the construction of condominiums on tidal wetlands at Th__e_~.~r_o~e~tv on .~iew Road, $outhold. During the last election everyone running for office seemed sincere in speaking out against indiscriminate development in our town. The variance referred to above, if approved, would certainly open the door and we strongly urge that it be denied. Corey Creek is one of the most beautiful waterways left on the North Fork and we have always had confidence that the people res- ponsible for keeping it that way would have the wisdom to do so. Please don't disappoint us. We will shortly be stopping by to asX for more details on the status of the requested variance. In the meantime it is our hope that o~her residents will be expressing similar opposition to the proposed constr~ctxon on designated tidal wetlands. In closing, we deplore the permission given the complex to build a swimming pool. The impact on water needed by the thirty- three units would be enough of a strain on our water supply. To squander our precious water on a swimming pool, we feel Xs totally irresponsible. copyto: The Town ~oard of Southold Att: Mr. Frank Murphy doseph Sawicki, Assemblyman Riverhead Very truly yours, HENRY P. SMITH, JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III, President John Bednoski, Jr. ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: John Holzapfel, Chairman Conservation Advisory Council John M. Bredemeyer, III, Presi~ March 8, 1988 "The Cove" at Bayview, Southold Please review the attached memorandum regarding the above referenced matter. We would appreciate your attendance on March 17, 1988 for input at the hearing as requested. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. JB:ip cc: Z.B.A~/ file David Gunselman Hiawathas Path $outhold, NY March 4, 1988 Gerard P. Goehringer, ,Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road, Southold, NY 11871 this area. It's time to just "SAY NO" to you to lead the fight against this proposals. Dear Mr. Goehringer: I have received correspondence from the President of The Laughing Water Property O~ers Assn. that the developers of The Cove have filed an appeal that is to allow the new units they are proposing to build to encroach onto what has been designated Tidal Wetlands. As you are no doubt aware much of the property that abuts Corey Creek and Cove property is the result of sand dredge done many years ago. I have written to you previously and you were good enough to phone me to express your constant concern regarding the violations of Town, State and Federal regulations that were enacted to prevent the very thing that is now to be considered by the Board. As difficult as it is for a layman, I have attempted to read and understand the law concerning wetland preservation. I believe the Federal Clean Water Act alone would preclude the proposed development as noted in many sections of Title II and most of Titles III and IV. Certainly the N.Y. State "Tidal Wetlands Act" would be violated were the developers permitted to infringe as they propose. The Town of Southold has seen the constant variances that have destroyed so much of the wetlands we cherish and that have enhanced the appeal of ! Mr. Goehringer, I appeal and future destructive Main Bayview Road Southold, N. Y. 11971 February 25, 1988 Board of Appeals, Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: I am addressing you in regard to a variance requested by developers of The Cove at Southold for permission to extendi~their construction activities further upon restricted wetlands. Since my property lies immediately to the west, and I own a right-of-way to the water, I am deeply concerned and am opposed to the granting of the variance. 1. Existing laws for the protection of wetlands should not be pushed aside for a developer's profit or convenience. 2. Granting a variance of this kind establishes a pre- cedent that can open the doors to a flood of similar requests for violations of the laws concerning wetlands. 3. The development of The Cove has already completely changed the topography of the meadow that formerly existed at this site. Hundreds of truckloads of sand have been brought in to make building on this lowland feasible. Extending operations farther out on the wetlands means filling in more marginal tideland property in order to accommodate more houses. This can threaten the ecology of both the shore and the creek. 4. Additional housing means increasing the population density on Bayview Road, and making the traffic a real problem for those who live here. I believe it is time for the Board of Appeals to be firm in refusing requests of builders for further encroachment on pro- tected marginal land. The laws for the protection of wetlands were passed just for this contingency, and builders should be as- sured when they buy property that certain safeguards are immovable, in accordance with the law. Very truly yours, Mrs. Robert W. Greene Rob.e.u P. Long publmheu 446 Glen Court, Cuteho~uo, NY 1190~ USA Guidebooks Castle Tours March 5, 1988 Board of Appeals, Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re: Request for variance in order to build on Dear Sirs: designated tidal wetlands by The Cove at Southold. During the 25 years I have been a property owner in the Town of Southold, I have been appalled at the steady deterioration of our bays and creeks for fishing, boating and swimming, and the increasing pollution of our priceless groundwater. The Cove developer already has been given concessions to build 33 two-story residences on eight acres, and now it is revealed that 12 of these units are to be located entirely on designated tidal wet- lands, thus violating rules and boundaries laid down by our Town officials. The drainage from the large swimming pool, and lawn and shrub chemicals, to say nothing of the 33 or more cesspools draining into the ground beside Corey Creek, will add a very significant amount to existing pollution. The 12 units on the wetland area are patently illegal and should not be permitted under any circumstance. The boundaries for wetland construction were carefully enacted and should not be considered expendable in order to accommodate developers. It's bad enough to see the old trees bulldozed down, and new buildings blocking waterviews, without adding 12 more units to the rising complex at the cove. Let's stop killing our bays and creeks now. March 5, 1988 Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 We are landowners in the Laughing Waters area of the town of Southold and We are writing to voice our opposition to the granting of any variance for the condominium project called "The Cove". We purchased property in Southold because it was unlike many of the over developed areas on the Island and has maintained its rural charm and way of life. We feel a project like "The Cove" is a step backwards- towards commercialization of the beautiful Town of Southold. Beck Ella Beck February 22, !93~ Bayview Road, ~outhold ew ~ork 11971 i iain {cad ~o~thold, 2ew York ]]971 ~e are tn receipt of a certified letter that requests a variance to permit building on the TO~!N O? ~OUTHOLD designated tidal wetlands at The Cove at ~outh~ld, Inc., Bayview ~oad, ~outhold. The developer re~uesting this variance has already been ~ranted concessions to buil~ thirty-three two story residences on eight acres~ more than eight times the density arojected on the Sou%hold Wewn ~aster ±~lan ~or this area. fhe potential for polluting adjacent ~erey !]reek is enormous considering the chemicals that must be used for maintenance of the ~arge swimmi~ 2ool, cheminala for ~awn and shrub maintenance, ~lus the waste produced by thirty-three families ~n~ their oe%s. !~ow we lear~ thst t~el~e of the thirty-three units are located entirely withi~ ~et]ands as designated by ~outhold Town, making the location of these units illegal or at least contrary to the wetlands guidelines. fe question the "~roteetion" given to our wetlands by the Board of Trustees (whose sole reason for existence is to Drotect our bays, creeks and wetlands) since they have ~iv~!~ approval to thi~ variance request. ~hat is the point of having a ~outhold Town wetlands line if variances are routinely graat~rd? !]ompliance with this variance will inevitably bring about an en~ to shellfishing, as it has in Lill Creek and ~4attituck Creek. Pem~itting multiple-dwellin~ construction is brinffing an end to the rural feelinE of our area, Forcing us to support the installation of a water system that we don't need for a density of people that we don't want. ~e should not be e×Dected to approve this variance request when this developer has already spoiled what was once beautiful by blocking off the waterview, levelling most of the trees and otherwise demolishing the natural beauty of the land. under his development. At least give us an opportunity to give Corey Creek a chance ~or survival by denying this variance. ~.yours, . . ,/es~Ley ~. Dickinson Agnes ~. Dickinson DECLARATION, Made as of this ~O~ day of-~y, 1988, by THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD, INC., a New York corporation with offices at 5044 Expressway Drive South, Ronkonkoma, New York, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer", WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of the premises described on Schedule A annexed hereto and made a part hereof ("the Premises"); and WHEREAS, the Developer wishes to establish a general scheme of covenants and restrictions for the purpose of an orderly and attractive vegetation plan for the Premises, and to restrict the use of the Premises in connection therewith; WHEREAS, Developer has caused a Vegetation Plan to be shown on the site plan prepared by Henderson & Bodwell, last dated January 18, 1988 to show said Vegetation Plan, a copy of which is annexed hereto, and made a part hereof as Exhibit A (the "Plan"); NOW THEREFORE, the Developer, for itself, its successors and that the Premises is and shall be held, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants which shall run with the land as hereinafter assigns, declares transferred, sold, and restrictions, set forth: 1. No areas shown as fertilization shall take place at any time within Zone I and Zone 2 on said Plan. 2. Fertilization of all other areas shown on said plan shall be fertilized only twice per year, once in the early spring and once in the late fall. Fertilizer shall be a 50% organic, commercial formula containing 5% nitrogen, 10~ phosphoric acid, and 5~ potash applied at the rate of 20 pounds per 1,000 square feet of lawn area. 3. Lawn grass seeding in Zone i as shown on said Plan shall be limited to ollowing mixture: 80~ Reliant Hard Fescue 20~ Jamestown Chewings Fescue 30% Rebel Tall Fescue 25% Foxtail Barley 15% Seaside Creeping Bentgrass 10% Slender Wheatgrass 10% Alkaligrass 10% Western Wheatgrass 4. Lawn grass seeding in Zone 2 as shown on said Plan shall be limited to the following mixture: 80% Reliant Hard Fescue 20% Jamestown Chewings Fescue 5. All plant material utilized for ornamental shrubbery in Zone I and Zone 2 as shown on said Plan shall be restricted to beach and related specimen.such as, but not limited to, groundseltree, marsh elder, beach plum, bayberry, eastern red cedar, ink berry, arrowood viburnum, mugo pine, convex Japanese holly, red chokeberry, and compact burning bush. 6. There shall be no rear access from Units i through 20 inclusive as shown on the Plan. 7. All condominium association homeowners must leash all dogs, cats, and other pets and shall not be permitted to run loose. Said homeowners shall be responsible for the picking up and depositing in an appropriate container or disposal bin provided by the condominium association of the pets waste. 8. This declaration shall be binding, enure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by the Developer and any duly authorized civic organization of the community and/or any homeowner in the community authorized by the Developer. Furthermore, any occasioned by the enf¢ of the above covenants or restrictions shall be charged to the homeowner in violation thereof. Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or equity against any person or persona violating or attempting to violate any covenant either to restrain violation or to recover damages. In no event, shall the foregoing covenants and restrictions be in any matter construed to hold the Developer legally responsible or liable for the enforcement or non- enforcement of any provisions of the covenants and restrictions if he is no longer in title to the Premises or the portion thereof upon which~ any other party wishes to enforce any provision of the covenants and restrictions. The Developoer shall not be liable or responsible for the performance of any other party in connection with the enforcement of any provision of the covenants and restrictions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer, The Cove at Southold, Inc., has set its seal and affixed its signature the day and year first above written. THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD, INC. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 'llcJ'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor FROM: Jerry Goehringer, Z.B.A. Chairman~__~---~--~ DATE: February 29, 1988 SUBJECT: Communications from Robert and Jean Thompson Premises known as "The Cove" at Bayview, Southold 1000-87-5-20 At present we have an application pending concerning the above premises which is scheduled to be heard on Thursday, March 17, 1988 at approximately 8:00 p.m. It is our understanding that this project has received the approvals of the Town Trustees, after altering the original Town setback line, prompting an application for a variance under the Zoning Ordinance. It is also our understanding that the Town Trustees have established a "buffer" of 75 feet from the N.Y.S. wetlands boundary line, and it is within this "buffer" that the applicant is requesting a variance. Building Permits appear to have been issued in August of 1987 (prior to the alteration for the buffer) and we suggest that you contact Vic concerning the events. (Our office did not become involved with this project until this month --subsequent to the issuance of all permits.) Attached are copies of responses and documentation which may be of assistance for you. cc: Town Attorneys Building Department FRANCIS J. MURPHY SUPERVISOR TELEPHONE (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Building Department Bay Constable ~Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Francis J. Murphy DATE: February 29, 1988 SUBJECT: THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD, INC. TOWN HALL, 53095 MAIN ROAD P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NEW YORK 11971 Please review the attached material regarding the above subject and let me know if this information is true so that I may respond back to Mr. Robert Thompson. Thank you for your cooperation. FJM:cms HENRY P. SMITH JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III, President John Bednoski, Jr. ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 February 26, TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 1988 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Goehringer: Recently several situations have arisen where the Trustees have made different [t'ypically more stringent]wetland line determinations than other involved agencies in writing Wetland Permits. After thorough discussion at two work sessions, the Trustees consensus is as follows: 1. Strict observance of our permit restrictions and mitigation measures is far more important than the academic question of whose line is "better." 2. Please strictly observe our line for all Town setbacks where a project was fully coordinated and had the opportunity of a pre-submission conference with the Trustees/Conservation Advisory Council. 3. In the case where a pre-submission conference was not possible, we have no objection of your agency using a wetland line other than ours provided all Trustee Permit conditions are adhered to and the reasons for using another agencies line are chiefly non-wetland in nature. In closing, the Trustees would like to encourage the use of joint pre-submission conferences with the personnel of the New York State D.E.C. for all commercial, subdivisions and potentially controversial projects so as to avoid any confusion in the future. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. JMB: lp Sincerely yours, John M. Bredemeyer, III Pres., Board of Trustees Page 2 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, February 26, 1988 Chairman, ZBA CC: Victor Lessard, Admin., Bldg. Dept. Planning Board Conservation Advisory Council N.Y.S.D.E.C., Regulatory Affairs Town Attorney Trustees file Joseph Fischetti APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, .IR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.h, N.Y. 11~'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 February 29, 1988 Mrs. Jean Dickinson Thompson Box 309 Southold, NY 1197l Re: Your Letter Dated February 22, 1988 Dear Mrs. Thompson: We are in receipt of your letter received concerning two different pieces of property at Bayview, Southold. today Please be assured that your letter will be made part of the file concerning The Cove. The public hearing has been scheduled for March 17, 1988 at approximately 7:35 p.m. and your partici- pation is welcome. Concerning the second part of your letter, we have no record of a complaint on the Schuler house through our office. It is possible that you spoke with a representative from the Building Department or Planning Office, and suggest that if you have a complaint concerning those premises, that you contact the Building Department in writing. It appears that permits are pending through their office at this time. If you would like to meet with me personally, I would be happy to do so. Yours very truly, lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER cc: Building Department CHAIRMAN Mr. Victor Lessard, Executive Administrator February 22, 1988 To ~aom it may concern, As a native of long standing (1700's), a concerned frustrated taxpayer, I would like to voice my concern. I should like to go on record as being vehementally opposed tothe proposed adddition to the Cove of Southold Incorp. off of Main BayView Road. According to the map this is definately Wet Land. The Country beauty of this original property has been completely, painstakingly destroyed. This new proposed addition is a continuation of destroying yet another body of water-this time COr~y::~ Creek. I am thoroughly disgusted, saddene~ and sickened at the_ many seeming violations of the law that exist for one person than does not apply to another. To cite onesuch example is the existing house built on the sharp turn -Main BayView in Southold, South East of the Catholic Cemetery. Presently this is owned by the Schuler Family now very much for sale with numerous realtor signs. How did this ever pass zoning? My telephone call to the zoning board questioning this in- formed me it had been passed by two necessary factions before it reached local level so they agreed to let this pass. Is this possible? k~o cares? The magnitude of destroying precious wetland goes on and on dating to years ago. The Goose Creek Bridge are~ was successfully destroyed and developed. It would appear the builder-realtor, obviously the person with a sizable bank account rules supreme-usually the "Johnny come Lately". PLEASE-those of you that have the power DO SOMZTHING NOW. Eno,~gh d~mmge has been done. Thank you for your time. Sincerely~ HENRY P. SMITH, JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III,'President John. Bednoski, Jr. ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President BOARD OF TO'tN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SoLrrHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 January 27, 1988 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 Mr. James A. Schondebare Town Attorney Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Wilbur Klatsky, The Cove at Southold Main Bayview Road, Southold - Application No. 60] Dear Mr. Sc~ebare:~..~ Transmitted herewith for your review and approval is a copy of the Town Trustee resolution approving the above project. Will you kindly review same to be sure that what the Trustees requested has been submitted. Attached is additional information, as a result of a $coping Meeting, outlining the items to be incorporated in the Covenants and Restrictions. Please remit your determination, regarding this matter, to this office in writing. Should you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact this office. Very truly yours, John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Board of Town Trustees JM B: ip cc: Wilbur Klatsky file Attachments · HENRY P. SMITH, JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III, President John Bednoski, Jr. ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR, Vice-President TELEPHONE ($ 16) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 January 27, 1988 Mr. Wilbur Klatsky, Vice-President Lemark Associates 5044 Expressway Drive South Ronkonkoma, New York 11779 Re: Application No. 601 - Cove at Southold Dear Mr. Klatsky: The following action was taken by the Board of Town Trustees during their regular meeting held on January 21, 1988 regarding the above matter. Moved by Trustee Bednoski seconded by Trustee Smith WltEREAS, Wilbur Klatsky on behalf of the Cove at Southold applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated December 4, 1987, and WHEREAS said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on January 21, 1988 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Wilbur Klatsky on behalf of the Cove. at Southold BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED PERMISSION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Construct certain housing units within 75' buffer. Property is located on Main Bayview Road, Southold. Approval is granted as submitted, the covenants and restrictions will have to be reviewed by the Town Attorney to insure that they are truly acceptable in the form of what the Trustees requested for the Town. These will have to be acceptable to the Town Attorney. Wilbur Klatsky on behalf~l the Cove at Southold P. age 2. This permit will expire on January 21, 1990 if work has not commenced by said date. There are two inspections required and the Trustees are to be notified upon the completion of the work. Prior to the issuance of said permit by the Clerk, the applicant shall file with the Clerk a certificate that he has public liability insurance policies insuring against any liability which may arise in the performance of the operations pursuant to such permit in such amount as shall be fixed by the Trustees, which said policies shall name the Town as a name insured. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. Please remit $10.00 for wetland inspection fees. PLEASE RETURN TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR A DETERMINATION ON THE NEED OF ANY OTHER TOWN PERMITS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. Very truly yours, John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Board of Town Trustees JMB :ip cc: Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling, D.E.C., Albany Robert A. Greene, D.E.C., Stony Brook Stephen Mars, Army Corps of Engineers Thomas Hart, Coastal Management John Holzapfel, Chairman, Southold Town C.A.C. Victor Lessard, Admin., Building Dept. ~ Planning Board Board of Appeals Town Attorney with attachments file New York State DepaHmentofEnvironmentalConservation Regulatory Affairs Unit - Region Bldg. 40, SUNY, Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 RE: Permit No. & Location: , .... Henry G. William! Commissioner AMENDMENT TO PERMIT Former Permit # (if any): ~" Your recent request to extend the above permit has been reviewed pursuant to 6NYCRR, Part 621. It has been determined that there has not been a material change in environmental conditions, relevant technology or applicable law or regulations since the issuance of ~he~xisting permit; therefore, the expiration date is extended to . Your recent r~uest to~odify the above permit has been reviewed pursuant to 6NYCRR, P~t ~1. It.has been determined that the proposed modifications will n~t ~'ostantially change the scope of the permitted act ions or the exis~i~p~t conditions. . . Therefore, the permit'~s amen~ded to authorize. This letter is an amendment to the original permit and as such, shall be posted at the job site. ,~. '. All other terms and conditions remain as written in the original permit. Very truly yours, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator Sent to: A LEMARK ASSOCIATES AFFILIATE 5044 EXPRESSWAY DRIVE SOUTH RONKONKOMA, NEW YORK 11779 February 10, 1988 BUS. OFFICE (516) 588-3036 SITE OFFICE (516) 765-5253 FAX (516) 588-3432 Mr. John Bredemeyer President Board of Town Trustees Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Mr. Gerard Goeringer Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Reference: The Cove at Southold Dear Gentlemen: This letter is to confirm our meeting of 6:30 p.m. at Southold Town Hall to discuss Thank you for continued cooperation. Sincerely,/~______~ Wilbur Klatsky WK:MMY February 22, the above. 1988 at cc: Joseph Fischetti, Jr. UNITS 1-5-13 FfnCellarF1E1 4'6", FinFirstF1 E1 13' O O --O UNITS 2-6-14 -- i FinCellarF1E1 4'6" ~.i FinFirstF1 E1 13' UNITS 3-7-15 FinCellarF1E1 4'6" FinFirstF1 E1 13' UNITS 4-8-16 FinCellarF1E1 4'6" FinFirstF1 E1 13' "F'f','~l d/-x!_. JCUr.,T~P- THE :COVE: L[~ IT ,,,'% p-',..c?h4rZ/--.-r:¢,....4 :?'L-,%>4 AT A LEMARK ASSOCIATES AFFILIATE 5044 EXPRESSWAY DRIVE SOUTH RONKONKOMA, NEW YORK 11779 BUS. OFFICE (516) 588-3036 SITE OFFICE (516) 765-5253 FAX (516) 588-3432 Town of Southold Board of Appeals Main Road Southold NY 11971 Reference: Variance Application Zoning Ordinance Article XI, Section 119.2B Gentlemen: Following up recent discussions with the building inspector, as well as the secretary to the Southold Board of Appeals, enclosed is the completed application, in triplicate, for the above referenced matter. The need to make this application stems from a cease and desist order issued by the Southold building inspector regarding building units 13 through 16 and 17 through 20. Accordingly, this application is specifically directed to securing relief from hardship caused by the subject cease and desist order. Before enumerating the list of enclosures for the subject application, we would like to point out that this application may be academic since the landward limit of the tidal wetlands line established by The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in 1984 and reaffirmed by Charles Hamilton of NYSDEC at a field meeting with the Town of Southold Board of Trustees on October 16, 1987 is beyond 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands or the ordinary high water mark of the tidal water body. Since the Town of Southold Board of Appeals can only make this determination upon receipt of an application, below is a list of the contents of the applicants submission package. 1. Town of Southold Building Department Notice of Disapproval. Town of Southold Appeal from Decision of Building Inspector, in triplicate. Notice to Adjacent Property Owners, with list of abutting owners names and addresses. 4. Copy of the map of The Cove At Southold. Long Form Environmental Assessment which has previously been submitted to the Town of Southold Board of Trustees. 6. Completed Board of Appeals questionnaire. 7. Disclosure Affidavit. Approval of the permit of The Cove At Southold by the Board of Trustees application #601. 9. NYSDEC amended permit #10-84-0118. The Planning board has approved a site plan for the subject property. The applicant following action by the Town of Southold Board of Appeals will submit a revised site plan for planning board review a~ a~c~ion.~ Said site plan will reflect the current Dian Uh~e~ c0ns~deration by the Town of Southold Board of Apeals'. Said revised plan was the subject of the Town of Southold Board ~ of Trustees approval of the applicants permit request. Please find enclosed copy of the Town of Southold building permit. 10. Six sets of the site plan showing building configuration, as well as distances from tidal wetlands line established by NYSDEC and a second tidal wetlands line as established by the Town of Southold Board of Trustees. 11. Six copies of the Unit "A" Foundation Plan/Typical Cluster. 12. A check in the amount of $150.00 payable to the Southold Town Clerk for the subject fee. Please note that all outside corners of the proposed buildings regarding this application will be staked by the week ending February 5, 1988 for your review and inspection. Also please note that the building heights within the subject application are 31'10" from the finished first floor elevation. Building elevation information, namely the finished cellar and finished first floor elevations are contained on the Unit "A" Foundation Plan/Typical Cluster enclosed· Also for your help and assistance we are providing you with a background review concerning The Cove at Southold Inc. We appreciate your continued cooperation. Sincerely, ~il~ur Klatsky Vice President WK:JML Enclosures NOW THEREFORE, assigns, declares transferred, sold, and restrictions, set forth: DECLA~ATIO~ COVENANTS AND RESTRICT~ DECLARATION, Made as of this day of , 1988, by THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD, INC., a New York corporation with offices at 5044 Expressway Drive South, Ronkonkoma, New York, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer", WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of the premises described on Schedule A annexed hereto and made a part hereof ("the Premises")~ and WHEREAS, the Developer wishes to establish a general scheme of covenants and restrictions for the purpose of an orderly and attractive vegetation plan for the Premises, and to restrict the use of the Premises in connection therewith~ WHEREAS, Developer has caused a Vegetation Plan to be shown on the site plan prepared by Henderson & Bodwell, last dated January 18, 1988 to show said Vegetation Plan, a copy of which is annexed hereto, and made a'part hereof as Exhibit A (the "Plan")~ the Developer, for itself, its successors and that the Premises is and shall be held, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants which shall run with the land as hereinafter 1. No fertilization shall take place at any time within areas shown as Zone i and Zone 2 on said Plan. 2. Fertilization of all other areas shown on said plan shall be fertilized only twice per year, once in the early spring and once in the late fall. Fertilizer shall be a 50% organic, commercial formula containing 5% nitrogen, 10% phosphoric acid, and 5~ potash applied at the rate of 20 pounds per 1,000 square feet of lawn area. 3. Lawn grass seeding in Zone I as shown on said Plan shhll ~e limited to th~llowing mixture: 80% Reliant Hard Fescue 20% Jamestown Chewings Fescue 30~ Rebel Tall Fescue 25% Foxtail Barley 15~ Seaside Creeping Bentgrass 10~ Slender Wheatgrass 10~ Alkaligrass 10~ Western Wheatgrass 4. Lawn grass seeding in Zone 2 as shown on said Plan shall be limited to the following mixture: 80~ Reliant Hard Fescue 20~ Jamestown Chewings Fescue 5. All plant material utilized for ornamental shrubbery in Zone i and Zone 2 as shown on said Plan shall be restricted to beach and related specimen such as, but not limited to, groundseltree, marsh elder, beach plum, bayberry, eastern red cedar, ink berry, arrowood viburnum, mugo pine, convex Japanese holly, red chokeberry, and compact burning bush. 6. Any rear access from units i through 20 shall only be to rear decks which must be surrounded by a railing. 7. All condominium unit owners must leash all dogs & cats, and said dogs & cats shall not be permitted to run loose. Said unit owners shall be responsible for the picking up of pet waste and depositing same in an appropriate container or disposal bin provided by the condominium. 8. This declaration shall be binding, enure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by the Condominium Board. Furthermore, any costs occasioned by the enforcement of the above covenants or restrictions shall be charged to the unit owner in violation thereof. Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant either to restrain violation or to recover damages including legal fees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer, The Cove at Southold, Inc., has set its seal and affixed its signature the day and year first above written. THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD, INC. By ~ECO~D AND RETURN TO: D'Amato, Forchelli, hibert, Schwartz & Mineo Attention: Peter Alpert, Esq. 120 Mineola Boulevard P.O. Box 31 Mineola, New York 11501 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765 1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS April 14, 1988 S.E.Q.R.A. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERTJ. DOUGLASS NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION JOSEPHH. SAWiCKI Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3710 PROJECT NAME: THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD, INC. This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the ~ithin project not to have a signifi- cant adverse_effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To locate buildings 75 or more feet from NYS D.E.C. determined tidal wetlands line and at not less than 18 feet from the Town Trustees determined wetland grasses '' LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: S/s Main Bayview.~oad, Sou%hold, NY 1000-87-5-20 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short~ form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linde KowalsRi, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals,.Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. mc the Town of Southold, the followin~ hearings will be held ~M~l~thoid" lng. Location of Property: Town '[~nll, Main Road, ~5 C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; .APRIL 14 1988 at the follow- ing time~: 7:35 p.m~ AppL No. 3719- ~.. Variance to the ~m~ ~ Vi, ~on 1~ (~ [2] (a) ~r ~on to e~ ~ o~p~ b~g identi~tion ~, the l~r ~ge of which ~1! ~ l~s four f~ a~ ~d. ~. tion of ~y: t~ ~ad ~) A~ ~u~old, Cowry ~ Map ~ls Nos. 1~2-1.4 ~. 10.2 & 10.3). 7:35 p.m. A~I. N~ ROBE~ E. WALDRON JR. di~ ~icie ~, ~ 1~119.2 for ~ission to con- struct d~k addition at ~r of ~sting d~tling w~ch is th~ 75 f~t from ~e m~ h~gh~t~ ~ ~ong ~ at J~ ~k, Mat- tituck. ~tion of ~pe~y: 2980 Ole Jule ~ Mattituck, ~ ~unty ~ Map ~1 No. 1~I~-~17. t:~ p.m. Appl. No. 357~- R~SA J. HOD~SON. V~i~ to the ~ning Or- din~ ~c~ II1, ~iou 1~31, Bulk ~ for ~- P~{ of ~e i~u~t ~ ~d ~d~ ofp~ ~ ~ ~ t~s ~dln{ ~vi~on of l~d. ~tion of ~,~ No,h Side of Pine Neck Road, ~u~old, ~; ~ ~ Map ~l NO. 1~7~33. Con- ~ng 7.152 a~ ~. 7:50 p.m. AppL No. 37~- JOSEPH E CITARDI. Vari~ ~ the ~ning ~- dln~ ~ic~: (a) XI, ~on 1~119.2 as to insufficient ~- ~ck from ~k ~ bluff ~ong the ~ng Island ~und, ~d ~) !il, Section 1~-31. Bulk Schedul~ ns to insufficient fmnt~ ~back from the f~nt [~uth~ly] p~y llne ~oug C.R. ~, in t~s pm~ ~ ~n- struct n~ single-family d~]l- County Tax Map Parcel No. 100~_ ~. 01-22. 8.'05 p.m. Appl. No. 370~- ed from February 18, 1988, as · ~,t~-ed). Special Exception for approval of A,'e~___sory Apart- ment within existin~ dwelling in accordance with the quirements of Article I11, Sec- tion 100-308(I$). Location of Property: 635 [.upton Point Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-115-11-3. 8:15 p.m. AppL No. 3715- BERNARD KIERNAN. dinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to con- struct additions to dv~lling and accessory structure(s) within 75 feet of the ordinary hi~hwater mark along Southuld Bay. Loca- tion of Property: 1605 North Parish Drive, Southold, NY; County T~x Map Parcel No. 1000-71-1-15. 8:20 p.m. AppL No. 3722- variances to the ~onin8 Or- dinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 and Article Iii. Sec- tion 100-31, for permission to extend garage an additional tm feet from that previously granted under Appl, No. 3706 and to construct additional liv- ina nma at rear of dwellin~ with reduction of nonconforming sldeyard at the north nnd south sides, insufficient total ~ideyard~ excessl~ lot corette, and within 75 feet of bulkhead along hi,m-star of "Old Cove" [a/k/a Arshnmonmque Pond]. Location of Property: East Side of Carole Road, Southold, NY; CoUnty Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-52-2.3. 8:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3687- JON C. KERI~ (Recessed from March 17, 1988). Interpretation and, if necessary, Variance under Article XI, Section 100-119.2 of the Zoning Code, for permission to locate building pursuant to DEC Permit No. 10-86-0092 and Trustees Wetland Permit No. 373. Loca- tion of Property: Fast Side of County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-27-2-5. 8:45 p.m. ~ CORP.: (a) Appl. NO. 3633- Special Exception unde~ Article VII, Section 100-70(B) of the Zoning Code for approval of the establishment of a partinl self- service g~sollne station; and (b) AppL No 3636- Variance under Articles VI, Section 100-62(B), VII, Section I00-70(B) for an Interpretation of ' 't,.~mil shoppin~ center" and for permission to establish eon- venjencc store a~ an accessory to the existing gasoline-service station. Location of Property: South Side of M~in Road, West Side of M_.~r~. rooks Lane, an~ the ~.ast Side of Sunset A~-nue, Mattituck, NY, 1000-115-3-9. Zone: 'B-I" General Bnsine~s. 8:50 p.m. Appt. No. 370~- ~.n~m Ordinance, Article XI, Sec- on 100-119.2 for permission to construct new dwelling and garage with an insufficient set- back from top of bluff or ba~k along.the L?n8 Island Sound. ~f~,tmn of Property: ~ ~.~ p.m. AppL No. 37i0- __T~__~ C YE AT SOUT~OLD INC. (Continued from March 17, 1988). The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all .representatives or persons dexir- lng to be heard in each of the not start before the time ted. Written comments may be submitted prior to the conclu- sion of the subject henrin~. For ~mom information, plense cnll ~765-1~0~. D~ted: April 1, 19~8 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINOER, CHAIRMAN Linda Kowalski, IT-4/7/88(59) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SS: STATE OF NEW YORK Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman once each week for .................... ./ ...... weeks successively, commencing on the -'~ dayo .... -- Sworn to before me this ..................... day of Notary Public lqo~7 Publi~ State of ~qew qu~Jfled in Suffolk / Tow~ Law and the Ca~de ox ~ Town of Southold, the following hearings will bc held by the ~OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF ~ at a Regttiar Meexing at thc Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New york, on THURSDAY. APRIL 14. 1988 at the following thncs: 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3719 - $OUTHOLD SAVINGS BANK. Variance to thc Zoning Ordinance, Ardclc VI, Section 100-60(C)[2](a) for permission to erect an on- premises building identification sign, thc lower edge of which will be less than four feet above ground. Location of Property: 1400 Railroad (Youngs) Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Nds. 1000-60-2-10.4 (pray. 10.2 & 10.3)· 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3716 - ROBERT E. WALDRON. JR. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, A~cle X], Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct deck ad- dition at rear of existing dwelling which is less than 75 fe~t from the mean highwatcr mark along dredged canal at James Creek, Mattituck. Location of Property: 2980 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-4-1'L 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3575 - ROSA J. HODGSON. Variances to thc Zoning Ordinance, Article I~, Section 100-31. Bulk Schedule, for approval of the insufficient area and width of parcel to be set-off in this pending division of land. Location of Property: North Side of Pine Neck Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 70-6-33. Containing 7.152 acres total. 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3707 IOSEPH F. C1TARDI. Vatiances to the Zoning Ordinance, Articles: (a) XI, Section 100-119.2 as to insufficient setback from bank or bluff along the Long Island Sound, and CO) iii, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, as to insufficient frontyard setback from the front [southerly] property line along C.R. 48, in this proposal to construct new single-family dwelling. Location of Property: 56225 C.R. 48, Grcenpo~, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 44-01-22. 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 3709 - DW A. US. (Recessed from February 18, 1988 as agreed). Special Exception for approval of Accessor~ Apartment within existing dwelling in accordance with the requirements of Article 111, Section 100-30B(15). Location of Property: 635 Lupron Point Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 115-ll-3. 8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 3715 - ]~[/~d~- Variance to See Legals, next page of n~ ~ sidcyard at the [~lf~'Aa~nmomaque Pond]. ~6~ of ~y: East Side of 52-2-3. 8:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3687 - · JON C. KERBS (Recessed from March t7, 1988). Interpretation and, if necessary, Variance under Article XI, Section 100-119.2 of the Zoning Code, for permission to locate building pursuant to DEC Permit #10-86-0~92 and Trustees Wetland Permit #373. Location of Property: East Side of Narrow River Road, Orient; County Tax 8:45 p.m. ~ ~p.: (a) Appl. No. 3633 - Special establishment of a pe~ial self- Co) Appl. No. 3636 - Variance 62(R), VII, Scction 100-70(B) for day of 8:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3703 Vatiance 1o the Zoning Ordinance, Article )il, Sectien 100-119.2 ~'~, permission to ~t dwelling and' he with an insufficlesst setl~k from top of bluff or bank a~g the Long Island. Lo~ation of Property: THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD. (Continued fr~n Mamh 17, 1988j. ~.e q~d of App,, ,~ bear representntives or per~ desiring~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P, GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 sriUTH{3LD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (5t6) 765-1809 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time and date of the public hearing concerning your recent application is a copy of the Legal Notice as published in the L.I. Traveler- Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Weekly Times, Inc. Someone should appear in your behalf during the public hearing in the event there are questions from board members or persons in the audience. Please be assured that your public hearing will not start before the time allotted in the Legal Notice. If you have any questions, please feel frae to 'call our office, 765-1809. Yours very tr.ulv_.~ . ~ G~RAR-D'P. GOEHR~NGER ~2~ CHAIRMAN Linda Kowalski Secretary and Board Clerk Enclosure Distribution List Hearings of March 17, 1988 Southold Town Board of Appeals Copies to the foll6wing on or about March 8, 1988: Suffolk Times (Personal Delivery 3/8) L.I. Traveler (Personal Delivery 3/8) Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. (for Maynard) 180 Old Country Road, Box 1547, Riverhead, NY ll901 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Staron, Waterview Drive~ Southold, NY 11971 Mr. and Mrs. Ernest G. Robinson, 223 Diane Place, Paramus, NJ 07652 Mr. Garrett A. Strang, R.A. as Agent for Robert Clemens Box 1412, Southold, NY 11971 Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Patricia C. Moore, Esq., Box 23, Main Road, Mattituck, NY 11971 Attorneys for Mr. and Mrs. Peter Herz Richard J. Cron, Esq., Cron & Cron, Main Road~ Cutchogue, NY 11935 Stephen R~ Angel~ Esq. as Attorney for Jon C. Ke'rbs Esseks, Hefter & Angel, Box 279, Riverhead, Mr. Jon C. Kerbs, Box 525, Greenport, NY 11944 NY 11901 The Others: Mr. Robert Thompson and Mrs. Jean Dickinson Thompson P.O. Box 309, Southold, NY 11971 James Bitses, Esq., Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Mr. and Mrs. Wesley R. Dickinson, Bayview Road, Southold, NY 11971 Mr. David Gunselman, Hiawathas Path, Southold, NY 11971 Mrs. Robert W. Greene, Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY 11971 Laughing Waters Property Owners Assn., Inc., Box 20, Southold, NY 11971 Mrs. V. Gilford, Box 312, Southold, NY 11971 Mr. Bud Young, Private Road off Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY 11971 Cove at Southold, Inc., 5044 Expressway Drive South~-~onkonkoma 11779 Southold Town Trustee Office Southold Town Building Inspectors Office Town ~611 Bulletin Board (lobby) Individual ZBA files Individual Board Members with related info from file JUDITH T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February,, 1988 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk 3710 TO: FROM: Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York I !971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 · application of The Cove at Southold, Inc. for a variance. Also included in notification to adjacent property owners; Short Environmental Assessment Form; Letter relative to N.Y.S. Tidal Wetlands Land-Use; Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department; survey of property; and any other attachments relative to this application. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Page 4 Legal Notice Regular Meeting - April 14, 1988 Southold Town Board of Appeals Copies to the following on or about 4/4/88: Suffolk Times, Inc. L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. Individual Board Members(with copies Town Clerk's Bulletin Board of file) Bruer & Lark, Main Road, Box 1059, Southold, NY 11971 as Attorneys for Southold Savings Bank Mr. Robert E. Waldron, Jr., 2980 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 Mr. Garrett A. Stran§, R.A. as Agent for Mrs. Rosa Hodgson P.O. Box 1412, Southold, NY 11971 Mr. Harold Conroy, Lighthouse Lane, 'Southold, NY 11971 Peconic Associates, Inc., One Bootleg Alley, Box 672, Greenport, NY 11944 Charles R. Cuddy, Esq., 180 Old Country Road, Box 1547, Riverhead, NY 11901, as Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Edward A. Hanus Mr. Sam Ganshaw, Lupton Point Road, Mattituck, NY 11952 Mr. and Mrs. Jack Drobet, Box 965, Mattituck, NY 11952 Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. (Attn.: Joyce Steiner) in behalf of Mr. Joseph R. Corso Mr. Joseph R. Corso, 750 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck, NY 11952 Mr. and Mrs. Edward A. Hanus, 635 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck~ NY 11952 Mr. Garrett A. Strang, R.A. as Agent for Mr. Bernard Kiernan P.O. Box 1412, Southold, NY 11971 Patricia C. Moore, Esq., Moore & Moore, Box 23, Mattituck, NY 11952 as Attorneys for Manfred Kuerner and John & Evelyn Keating Stephen R. Angel, Esq. as Attorney for Jon C. Kerbs 108 East Main Street, Box 279, Riverhead, NY 11901 Mr. Jon C. Kerbs, Box 525, Greenport, NY 11944 Catriona Glazebrook, Esq., Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley 33 West Second Street, Box 398, Riverhead, NY ll901 William D. Moore, Esq., Moore & Moore, Box 23, Mattituck, NY 11952 as Attorney for Tartan Oil Corp. Mr. and Mrs. Gregory Ofrias, Sunset Avenue, Mattituck, NY 11952 Mr. Wilbur Klatsky, The Cove at Southold, 5044 Expressway Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 Mr. John Bredemeyer, President, Town Trustees Office Drive South, l"4OllLk~ 1~ l"l~K~.l~ ~Jiv- EN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN Regular Meeting at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY on THURSDAY., MARCH 17. 1988 at the follow- ing times: 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3714- DALE MAYNARD. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article II1, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of the in- sufficient area and width of two pamels as approved by the Plan- ning Board in the subdivision known as "seawood Acres, Sec- tion 17 Filed Map No. 2575. Location of Property: West Side of Seawood Drive, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-79-7-64 and 65. 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3713- ~ Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100.32 for approval of the construction of accessory storage shed with an insufficient setback from property lines at premises known as 1490 Water- view Drive, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-78-7-54. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3711- ERNEST AND DORIS/ Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct deck with an insuf- ficient setback from existing bulkhead at premises known as 915 Mill C~ek Drive, Southold, NY, County Tax Map Parcel No. .:.1000-135-3-37. 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3712- .ROBERT CLEMENS. Variances: (a) to the Zoning Or- dinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for per- mission to construct additions to dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback from the easterly property line, and (b} for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280.a over a private fight-of-way extending off the south side of · Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-87-5-17. 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 3543- PETER AND BARBARA HERZ: Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to~/ locate new single-family dwell- ing with insufficient setbacks from existing bulkhead and from highwater areas along Midway Inlet and Hog Neck Bay, premises known as 70 Cedar Point Drive, Southoid, NY; Cedar Beach Park Map, Part of Lots 152 and 110; Coun- ty Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-90-02-13.1. UNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: NEW YORK Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said kong Island Traveler-Watchman once each week for / weeks successively, commencing on the ............ 'ff..~. ..... ?5... 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 368% JON C. KERBS. Interpretation and, if necessary, Variance under Article XI, Section 100-119.2 of the Zoning Code, for permission to locate building 75 feet from the N.Y.S.D.E.C. determined tidal wetlands line as approved under D.E.C. Permit No. 10-86-0092 and in accor- dance with Town 'lq'ustees Wetland Permit No. 373 coodi- tionally approved June 25, 1987. Location of Property: East Side of Narrow River Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-27-2-5. 3710_~ ~8:35 p.m. Appl. No. THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD~ - ~IN~. Variance'under Article XI, Section 100.119.2 of the Zoning Code, for permission to locate buildings 75 or more feet from the N.Y.S.D.E.C. determined ' tidal wetlands line and at not less than 18 feet from the Town ' Trustees determined wetland grasses as approved under Trustees Permit Application No. 601. Location of Property: South Side of Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000.87-5-20. ~----~The Board of Appeals will hear at said time and place all representatives or persons desir- ing to be heard in each of the above matters. Each hearing will not start before the time allot- ted. Written comments may be submitted prior to the conclu- sion of the subject hearing. For more information, please call 765-1809. Dated: March 3, 1988 - BY ORDER OF THE : ~ sOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS~") GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary IT-3/10/88(5) ,re me this /d '~ ..................... day of Notary Public BARBARA FORBES Notary Public, State of New York No. 4806846 Qualified in Suf;olk County Commission Expires ~//~r )/ 19a~0~ / ~d~/~- Property: West Side of Seawood ' Drive, $outhold, NY; County Tax ~' Map Parcels No. 1000-79-7.~1 . NOTICE OF HEARINGS ~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, ~' pursuant ~o Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the foHow~ng hearings ~ be held by SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ~ at a Regular Meetinj at the Southold Torn Hall, Main Road, Southuld, New York, on · HURSDAY. MARC~I 17. I 9~ at the follow:lng times: 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 3714 - Zoning Ordinance, Article Section 100-31. Bulk Schedule, for approval of the insuffi~ent area and width of two parcels as approved by the Pinnnin8 B4~rd in the subdivision known as "Seawood Acres, Seedon l*, Fried Map No. 2575. Loca~on of of-way extending off the south side of Main Bayvinw Road, and ~5.. . Soothold, NY; County Tax Map ROB~R,T STARO~. Vad~ ~. :~ 8:~~ 350 - · e ~g ~, A~cin ~, Variances to the Zoning Section 100-32 for approval of thc shed with an insuffi~ent setback from property tines at premises known as 1490 Waterview Drive, Southuld, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-78-7-34. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3711 - ILqNR~T AN~ DORI$ Ronr~so~. Valance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to construct deck with e~isting bulkhead at pre, nines known as 915 Mill Creek Southold, NY. County Tax Map Pan=el No. I000-135-3-37. Ordinance, Anlele XI, Section 100-119.2 for permission to ~.: !?te.~tew .l~.g]e-fanuly dwalling w]!h tnsuffictent setbacks from extsting bulkhead and from highwater areas along Midway Inlet and Hog Neck Bay, premises known as 70 Cedar Point Drive, Southold, NY; Cedar Beach Park Map, Part of Lots 152 and 110; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 90-02-13.1. 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3712 - ROBERT CLP. MEN,~, Variances: (a) to the Zoning Ordinance,~ Article 111, Secti°n 100-31, Bu~ Schedule, for permission t5 construct additions to dwelling with an insufficient rearyar~l setback from the easterly property · line, and (b) for approval of access pursuant to New York Town Law, __ ' Sect;on 280-a over a p~vate right- 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 3687 - JON C_ KI?I~R~ ~.~l~totin~ matters. Eac~ hearing will n~ ~ . - . and, ff ~s~, Va~ ~,' W~t~en,~ ~ommen. · A~ele ~, Se~ 1~-119.2 of ~s may be encing on the · e ~g C~e, for ~ssi~ ~f ~ subje~he~g. F~ m~ ~ 19~ ~ D~: ~3, 1988. 7~-I~. 100-!19.2 ot the Zoning Cede, for penmssinn to locate in~ildings 7~ J or more feet from the N.Y.S./ IDb. E-C. determined tidal wetlands me and et nm less than 18 fcet~- from the Town Trustees determlne~ ~ . wetland grasses as appm~d ~ ~--- of Gr®enport, m Trustees Permit Applieati~m No. [~rn. seys thet he/sho 601. Location of Pmpany, Sooth · Side of Main~ Reyview' Road, ~:O/K Soetknld, NY; County Tax Map ~feenPort in the Town Parcel No. 1000-87-5-20. / - The Board of Appeals will hear ~,folk end Stets of New at said time and place all [which tbe enn®xed repr~e~tettves.o~ perone desiring $ to be heard in each of the above ~'e§ulnrly published N.Y.S.D.E.C. determined tidal wetlands llne as approved under D.E.C. Petmlt #10-86-0092 and in accordance with Town Trustees Wetland Permit No. 373 conditionally approved June 25, 1987. Location of Property: East Side of Nan'ow River Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. I000-27-2-5. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWtCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD-r::TATE ROAD 2=, SOUTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time and date of the public hearing concerning your recent application is a copy of the Legal Notice as published in the L.I. Traveler- Watchman, Inc. and Suffolk Weekly Times, Inc. Someone should appear in your behalf during the public hearing in the event there are questions from board members or persons in the audience. Please be assured that your public hearing will not start before the time allotted in the Legal Notice. If you have any questions, please feel free to call our office, 765-1809. Yours very tr.ulv_.~ . ,~ G'~RA~D P. GOEHR~NGER j CHAIRMAN Enclosure Linda Kowalski Secretary and Board Clerk BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of : to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold : TO: NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER 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 Ivariance)l(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: souths~de of Main Bayview Road, approximately 630~ east of 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: from Article XI, Section 119.2 construction activities less than 75' from the landward edge of tlda] wRtl~nd~. $. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are ~icle XT ~<:~.on 11 q _ ~ ~ E '1 Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-wa~v. 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 ma), then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 765-1809. 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: ~n~, ~__,/~'~ Petitioner Owners ' Names: The Cove at Southold, Inc. Post Office Address 5044 Expressway Drive South Ronkonkoma, New York 11779 Tel. No. ( 516 ) 588-3036 [Copy of sketch or plan purposes.] showing proposal to be a~.~~ence NAME SEE ATTACHED LIST PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICF ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT ADDRESS STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) SS.: ~C~IL6L~/~ /~L~TSK)/ ,residingat ~R~Lz~z~ ~6,N~., ~ ~ , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on ~he ~ day of ~~Y ,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 thor respective name; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current ass~sment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United Stat~ Post ~- rice at ~-~ 1~ ~c~ / ~ ~ ; that said Notices were mailed to each of ~persons by (certified) (registered) mail. ~ ~ Sworn to before me this Notary Pul~lic (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property owners.) BACKGROUND DATA THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD INC. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF APPEALS The applicant thought it would be helpful to outline the circumstances surrounding this application. In this regard, we wish to note that the subject application has, to date, received the following approvals: Final site plan approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board 2. The Town of Southold Building Department building permit 3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Suffolk County Board of Health 5. New York State Board of Health 6. Negative Declaration by the Town of Southold Planning Board Negative Declaration by the Town of Southold Board of Trustees 8. Town of Southold Board of Trustees permit We are outlining the above to indicate to the Board of Appeals that the applicant, in fact, has rigorously addressed all relevant agencies and/or departments required to implement its program. At the inception of this program in 1984, the applicant worked closely with the Planning Board and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to establish not only site plan approval but address the tidal wetlands matter. Based upon field inspections by DEC, the applicant prepared its site plan in order to stay beyond the 75' tidal wetlands area of jurisdiction. Unfortunately, in 1984, the Board of Trustees were not an agency of jurisdiction concerning tidal wetlands matters and only after the fact became the authorized lead agency on tidal wetlands matters for the Town of Southold. The applicant did not address the Board of Trustees during initial processing if its application for site plan approval since at that point in time they were not an agency having jurisdiction. The Board of Trustees during the Fall of 1987 did in fact become involved and had jurisdiction in this matter. The applicant accoringly complied with the Board of Trustees in establishing a Board of Trustees wetlands line and further made application to the Board of Trustees to work within their 75' buffer tidal wetlands area. It also should be noted that an extensive mitigation Dian, outlined on the map enclosed and within the Covenants & Restrictions enclosed, was devloped by the Board of Trustees and the applicant. It should be further noted that the applicant appeared before the CAC in developing its mitigation measures and secure their approval. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. APPEAL NO. DATE .............................. 1, (We)..~'ae..C,o'~e..ae..~l~i-..Xe~e. ............ of ...~)/~,..bpx_~_ emmy..D~&ve..~ou~;b .................... Name of Appellant Street and Number ~ ........................................................................ N~'4~"Y~J~ .......... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION Of: THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO. 1'8.3797 ........................ DATED .Auguet..2.5~..,lS)&7 ....................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) ( ) (X) · .The..Cove..et..gouthoJ, dv..Zna., ........................... Name of Applicant for permit of 5X)AA ,.Expr. emm~..Dst:rye..South,,. · Ronkon .kqma~.. timt. ~*o,r t*..LI.7.7.9 ................... Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY PEIttIIT TO BUILD 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY .~l~....7930..~4~:.~Kg~,f~.R~,.~.~ol~/.~. ...................... Street /nam~=~/ Use District on Zoning Mop District 1000 Section.~. Block_. Lot-- - r ' ........................................... ~m/. ............ u.~ ........ ~u....tur en: 0~ner .,...: Map No. Lot No. Prior Owner ~._.~.= lelA _ ........... . ........ 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 Z~ Section ,,^ . 3, TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith ~or (please check appropriate box) ( X) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap· 62 Cons· Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 () 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (has not) been mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was (~/a} request for a special permit (a/iii request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... ( ) REASON FOR APPEAL A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that the applicant ham received both a negative declaration and an approval of the pemit from the Town of Southold Board of Trustees to within the 75' buffer area of the wetlands line established by the Board of Trueteee on October 22, 1987. Accordingly and pursuant to Article XX, Section 119.2 the applicant is required to make application for construction activities within the buffer area 75* from the established ~etlande line. Form ZBI (Continue on other side) · Butldins Unite 9-12 BuLldins UnZto 13-16 BuiXd~n~ Unite 17-20 REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because the applicant wou~d not be in · poei~on to impleuent its site plan vhtch has ·lre·dy been approved by the Toys of 8outhold Planning Board~ tim Toys of .South·Id Board of Trueteee~ and Building pernuts have b·en ia~ued by Ch· To~n of SouCho~d Building Department. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shored by alt properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because the ~un:l.¢tpelity. through the Planniu$ Board and Board of Trustees has already granted approvals Co construct 33 residential condomini~n un,ts. 3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the siC· approv·d by the To~n of $outhold PlAnnin~ Board and permit 8~·nted by the To~ o~ ~ut~ld B~rd of are co~ioc~t ~th the cu~ent appli~ble zon~g for this STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss COUNTY OF ) Signature Sworn to this ....,~.J[~l.,~.i ............................ day of...'~t~-~.b,~,../~',.. ............... 19~ · ' ~/ - Noto/y Public N01ARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 4895248, Sullolk Countyc~ q Commissmn Expires June 1.19~~ 617.21 SEQR a~ Appendix A i S! £nvi~ronmental Quallly Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicauts 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 obiective 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 identifyi.ng the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. Pt 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 idelntitied as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DEIERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify Ihe Portions of CAF completed for this project: [] Part 1 [] Part 2 []Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts I and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: [] A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* [:] C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a posillve declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Date 1 "'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 ~nvironment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of II~e 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 tire 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 The Cove at Southold, Inc. LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) South sidd of Bayview Road, Southold, NY NAM,E,{OF APPLICANTISP NSC I BUSINESS TELEPHONE ~e Cove at ~o~ut~old, Inc. (516I 588-3036 ADO~S4S4 Expressway Drive South, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 CITY/PO I STATE I ZIP CODE NAME OF OWNER (If dllferent) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) ADDRESS CITY/PO STATE I ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Please Complele Each Questlon-lndicate N.A. if hot applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: [Urban I~lndustrial ~lForest (~Agriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: 8.75 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and otlr_er uaved surfaces typeLawnj. Restricted see Exhibit A Other (Indicate DCommercial []Other ~Residential (suburban) E]Rural (non-farm) 4.6 PRESENTLY AFT E R ,~.~/~PLETION acres acres 1,25 0.5 acres acres 0 0 acres acres 1.5 1.5 acres acres acres acres 0 0 acres acres I. 1.9 acres acres 0 2.0 acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Plymouth Loamy Sand a. Soil drainage: El:]Well drained 100 % of lite []:]Moderately well drained % of site [=]Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? N/A acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? [:]Yes ~]No a. What is depth to bedrock? 500:~ (in feet) 2 5. A[~proximate percentage of propose ' site with slopes: [0-10% 10¢~_ % [10-15% % [15% or great~le' % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a bu!lding, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ~lYes F_.~No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? [l-lyes [~No 5'+ 8. What is the depth of the water table? -- (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~lYes I-INo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ~Y~ I~No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? DYes ~No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) [Yes I~No Describe !3. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? DYes I~No If yes, explain ~14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ~lYes I~No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name Core~- Creek 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? DOYes I-1No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? b. Size (In acres) ]~]Yes ~No ~]Yes I-INo 13+ 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ~lYes ~No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 I-lYes ~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? []-lyes [~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 8.75 b. Project acreage to be developed: acres initially; c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 4°25 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed bi/A f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed 69 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 33 h. acres. 4.5 4.5 acres u'-'ma-e'y.lt~ ti If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family (upon completion of project)? Multiple Family Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 30~ height; 60+ width; j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 230 Condominium 33 33 115+ -- length. ft. 3 0 removed from thc tons/cubic yards · 2· How much natural material (i.e., ~arth, etc.) will be 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? Vi-lyes ~lNo I-IN/A a, If yes, for what intendud purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? i~Yes i-INo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? I~Yes I-INo - 4. HOw many acres of vegetation (tree~, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? .75 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? r-lYes, i~No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 15 months, (including demolition)· 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated N/A (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I September month 87 c. Approximate completion date of final phase January month 89 d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? EYes i~No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? I-iYes [~No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 22 .; after project is complete 33 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? CiYes ~]No If yes, explain year, (including demolition). year. 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? C3Yes []No 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? ~[JYes I-INo Type Sanitar}~ Waste 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? I-lYes E1No Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? 16. Will the project generate solid waste? [~Yes CINo a. If yes, what is the amount per month 3 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ~[Yes ~lNo c. If yes, give name To~rn of Southold Land fi1! ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain ~-Iyes [-INo Cutchogue i-lyes K'INo 17. Will the proje(~t involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ([]Yes I-lyes ~No N/A tons/month. years. See Exhibit A attached I-1No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? r-lYes [~qo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? r-lYes 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~]Yes t~No If yes , indicate type(s) Electric ~No 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 60 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 11500 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? CIYes If Yes, explain gallons/minute. []No City, Town, Village Board Yes I~No City, To',~n, Village Planning Board (~Yes IqNo City, Town Zoning Board I~lYes L~No City, County Health Department [~Yes [No Other Local Agencies [~Yes ~lNo Other Regional Agencies [:]Yes [~No State Agencies [~Yes [:]No Federal Agencies ~lyes C. Zoning and Planning Information Ty SITE PLAN AND NEG. DEC WATER SUPPLY AND SEWER BOARD OF TRUSTEES Submittal Date NY State. Health Dept. Dept..of Environmet 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? NqYes If Yes, indicate decision required: [zoning amendment '[zoning variance []special use permit Clsubdivision ' ~site plan [~new/revision of master plan [resource management plan Clother M Zone 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 33 Residential units 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? N/A 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? N/A 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? [2~Yes 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1,4 mile radius of proposed action~ Residential 2 acre~ ' [No 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoin'lng/surrounding land uses within a' % mile? L-~Yes [No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? E]Yes ~No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? [~Yes a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? i~Yes i-lNo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? i-iYes r~No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? []-lyes C]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. See Attached Exhibit A E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge· Applicant/Sponsor ,Name Wil, bur~, ~l~a t sky · .,,/~/ ', ,~ / Date Novemb~30, 1987i S,gnature ',' /~/~'c-(.~.--- ~. ~d- f~'-~"/~-~ Title Vice President Lemark Associates,'/..,:./'~ If the action is in Ihe Coastal Area, and you are a slate agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 Part 2--PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIH iW~:"~i~i iUL~ 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 tbn! an impact will be potentially larxe (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily signliicanl. 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. Instrucllons (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 question's 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 I or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceed5 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. IMPACT ON LAND ~. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? E]NO [3YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. · Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. · Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated floodway. · Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect t~...,,y unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)[3NO [3YES · Specific land forms: I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] []Yes I~No [] [] ~lyes []No [] [] l-lyes [~]No [] [] ~lyes i-lNo [] [] []Yes []No [] [] I~lyes []No [] [] E]Yes i--INo [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes r-lNo [] [] []Yes IDNo IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL IZINO Examples that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected water body. · Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. · Extension of utili~/distribution facilities through a protected water body. · Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. · Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? r-lNO nyES Examples that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impacts: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantityi~ [-INO I-lyES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. · Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. · Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. P Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to tile extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1/100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. · Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. · Other impacts: 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoffi~ [qNO I~Y£S Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would chain,,, flood water flows. 7 I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact B~ Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] I-JYes I-JNo [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes E]No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] [E]Yes E]No ICI [] E]Yes l~No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes I~No [] [] E]Yes l-INo [] [] CIyes E]No [] [] E]Yes E]No [] [] I-lyes I--INo [] [] CIY.s []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] I--lyes E]No [] [] E]Yes ~lNo [] [] []Yes i-lNo [] [] I-lYes E]No [] [] []Yes E]No [] [] EIYes I~No [] [] []Yes -[]No · Proposed Action may cause substantial er•sion.:. · Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. · Proposed Action Will allow development inla designated floodway.' · Other impacts: · ~ IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quali~yi' Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or mot · 2 3 Smal Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes •No I-I [] OYes I-]No [] [] '[]Yes I-INo [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No r []' [] I--lyes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] I-] []Yes []No [] : [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes' []No [] [] I-lYes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] C'lyes .~]No DNO · DYES vehicle trips in any given · Proposed Action will result in he incineration Of more than i ton of refuse per hour. ! i ~ i ~ ~ I ' ~' ~ · Emission rate of iotal contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. · Proposed act on will allow an in'crease n the amount of land committed to industrial use. i i I · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. ' , · Other impacts: ~ ' r'' ~ ' IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS , 6. Will Proposed Action affect any threatene~l or endangered species;i' j I I i ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ DNO I-lyES Examples that would apply t~ column 2 J · Reduction of one or more spe~:ies listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. · Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. · Other impacts:. ! t J 9. Will Proposed A~ction substan:tially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species~' j , [-INO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action ~would substantiallY, .... interfere with any re'~ident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. ~ · Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. ! i IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources~ I j ONO I-lyES Examples that Would apply to column 2 i · The proposed action would sever, cross or lim t access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) ' · Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. · The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources~ [3NO OYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. · Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. · Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importanceS' I-IN• nYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site liste~J on the State or National Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site inventory. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities~ Examples that would apply to column 2 ENO I-lyES · The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. · A major reduction of an open space important to the community. · Other impacts: Small Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] I'-1 []Yes [-]No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] OYes •No [] [] []Yes i--IN( [] [] []Yes []No [] [] E]Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] r-lyes E]No [] ' [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes I-1No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes I-IN• [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes I-IN• [] [] i []Yes i--IN• 9 IMPACT ON TRANS~RTATION 14. Will ~here be an effect to existing transportation systems? [3NO [:]YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. · Proposed Action will result in maior traffic problems. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? I-IN• I-lYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. · Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy 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: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? mN• BYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blastin8 within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. · Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). · Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. · Other impacts:. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? E]NO [:]YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) · Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. · Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. · Other impacts: 10 Small to Moderate Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Potential Large Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change i-lYes •No []Yes []No I-lyes []No []Yes •No []Yes I-IN• OYes •No r-lYes ["]No []Yes I-IN• []Yes []No BYes i-lNo []Yes [~No []Yes FIN• []Yes I-1No []Yes E]No OYes []NO []Yes []No IMPACT ON GROWTH . .OCHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will p~oposed action affect the character of the existing community? [~NO F~YES Examples that would apply to colunm 2 · The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. · The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. · Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. · Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. · Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. · Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. · Other impacts: Small Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] []Yes [:]No [] [] [:]Yes []No [] [] []Yes [-1No [] [] []Yes I~No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes [:]No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts~' IqNO ~IyES 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 Responslbilily of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered Io be polentially large, even if the impact(s) may be miBgaled. Inslruclions Discuss the following for each impact i~lentified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence of the impact · Its potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 QUESTIO~INAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH YOUR APPLICATIO~I FORNS TO TH'E ~.OARD OF-~-p-PEALS Please complete, sign and return to the Office of the Board of Appeals with your completed application forms. If "Yes" is ans~ered to any questions below, please be sure to depict fhese areas on your survey (or certified sketch), to scale, and submit other supporting documenta- tion. 1. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours ~ · ' ' : .-'"' '(A) Yes O 2.a~ Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? (Attached is a list of the wetland grasses defined by Town Code, Ch. 97 for your reference.) Y'es~ Q Are there any areas open to a waterway without bulkhead? ~ N~ Are there existing structures at or below ground level such as patios, foundations, etc? ' (g) .b) Are theFe any existing or proposed fences, concrete barriers, decks, e~c? If project is proposed for an accessory building or structure, is total height at more than 18 feet above average ground level? State ~otal: ft. 6. If project is proposed for principal building or structure, is total height at more than 35 feet above average groundl--[~-~l? State ~otal: 31'10" ft. 7. Are there other premises under your ownership abutting this parcel? If .yes, please submit copy of deed. 8. Are there any building permits pending on this parcel {or abutting land under your ownership,-if any)~ State Permit # and Nature: guildin~ Permit #16379 ' _ Granted August 25, 1987 - .Q Yes Yes Yes Yes 9. Do state whether or not applications are pending concerning these premises before any other department or agency (State, Town, County, Village, etc.): P1 arming, Board ' Town Board - (c) Town Trdstees -- County Health Department- Village' Of Greenport .... N.Y.S.D.E.C. Other Is premises pending a sale or conveyance? If yes, please submit copy of nam_es or purchasers and conditions of sale. (from contract). l l. Is new construction proposed in the area of contours at 5 feet or less as exists?~- . 12~ If new construction is proposed in an area wit'hin 75 feet of wetland grasses, or land area at an eleva- tion of five feet or less above mean sea level, have you made application to the Town Trustees for an inspection for possible waiver or permit under (I)) the requ_irements of Ch. 97 of the To~.m Code? 13. Please list present use or operations ConduJted upon the . subject prgperty at this time Construction of a 33 unit housing program and proposed land within "M" zone' perminni~g ~=id use. - *Please submit photographs for the record. I certify that the.abov~e, statenents are true rel~ian b, . . ~nd are being s ~~,~,~, . Wilb.~.r Kla~tsky, Vice President ion. Siqna;ure -(Prope~y Owner) (Au'~i~orized Agent) 10. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Q N~ for 3/3~ lk · C. § 97-13 WETLANDS § 97-13 TOWN ~ The Town of Soutbold. TRUSTEES -- Tho Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. [Addcd 6-5-84 by L.L. No. 6-1954] WETLANDS [Amended 8-26-76 by L.L. No. 2-1976; 3-26- ' 85 by L.L. No. 6-1985]: A. TIDAL WETLANDS: (1) All lands generally covered-or intermittcatly cov- ered with, or whkh border on, tidal waters, or-lands lying beneatl~ ti(Iai waters, which at mcan low t/de are Covered by tidal water:~ to a maximum depth of five (5) feet, including but, not limited to banks, bogs, salt marsh, swamps, meadows, flats or other low lying lands subject to tidal action; (2) Ail bank~, bogs. meadows, fiats anti tidal 'mar~h subject to such tides and upon which grows or may grow some or any. of tile following: salt hay, bla:'k grass, saltworts, sea' lavender, tall cord<rass, high bush, cattails, groundsel, marshmallow and low march cordgrass; and/or (2) (3) All land immediately ndjacent to a tidal wetl:md as defined in Subsection Al2) and lying within seven- fy-five (75) feet landward of tile m,,at kmdwaM edge of such a tidal wetl:md. FRESIIWATER WETLANDS: "Freshwater ~ - . ~ etland~ , s definer n Arac e 2.1, Ti- tle i, ] 21-0107, Subdivisions l(a) to l(d) inclusive, of the Environmenud Conservation Law of ~he State of New York; and All land/mnwdhttely adjacent to a "freshwaler wet- land." as daf/ned m S u ~soction Ii(1) and lying with- in seventy-five (75) feet landward of the most land. ward edge of a ' fi eshwater wetland." 9705 FOOTNOTES TO QUESTIONNAIRE (A) Not within the 75' tidal wetlands as estalished by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (B) Ail living areas are above groundwater level, as well as all electrical, heating and air conditioning systems. (C) The applicant has one pending application concerning this program. It should be noted that an application may be required to the Southold Planning Board regarding certain minor changes to the site plan which were required by the Board of Trustees. These changes to the site plan relate to minor movement of buildings 9 through 12 and 13 through 16. These changes were made in order to eliminate all construction activities from all tidal wetlands areas as designed by the Board of Trustees. It is important to note that no construction activities were ever to take place within the 75' tidal wetlands area as designed by NYSDEC. (D) The applicant has made application to the Board of Trustees and has secured their approval on January 21, 1988, as well as the permit. (See approval from the Board of Trustees attached) DISCLOSURE AFFIDAVIT TITLE The Cove At Southold, Inc. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Wilbur Klatsky, as agent, being duly sworn, deposes and says that: 1. The name and address of owner of subject property is The Cove at Southold, Inc., 5044 Expressway Drive South, Ronkonkoma, New York. 2. That the name and address of affiant is Wilbur Klatsky, TaGliabue Road, Shoreham, New York. 3. That affiant's relationship to the subject property is Vice President of The Cove At Southold, Inc. 4. There is no State or municipal officer or employee who has an interest, except NONE. 5. There is no person holding an office, by election, appointed or otherwise, in a political party, who has an interest in the subject property, except NONE. 6. The name and address of all persons having an interest in the within application are as follows: Gerald Friedman Van Wyck Lane Lloyd Harbor, NY Joseph Fischetti, Jr. Hobart Road Southold NY 11791 Lawrence KoGel Briarcliff Road Shoreham NY 11786 Wilbur Klatsky TaGliabue Road Shoreham NY 11786 7. The names of any persons having an interest in the within application as listed in paragraph 5 hereof who has made a contribution to a political party within one (1) year immediately preceding the filing of the within application are NONE. Wilbur Klatsky, A~ ~Gent SWORN to before me this ~'~- day of MiCH£LLE YATES ~ NOTARY PUOLIC, State of Now York No. 4895248, Suffolk County ~ Commission ~xp~re~ June k 19~L{ 1988 A LEMARK ASSOCIATES AFFILIATE 5044 EXPRESSWAY DRIVE SOUTH RONKONKOMA, NEW YORK 11779 January 20, 1988 BUS. OFFICE (516) 588-3036 SITE OFFICE (516) 765-5253 FAX (516) 588-3432 Mr. Henry P. Smith Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall P.O. Box 728 Southold NY 11971 Reference: Application No. 601 The Cove At Southold Dear Mr. Smith: As you recall at our meeting of December 17, 1987 regarding the above, the Trustees, as lead agency in this matter, reviewed the application and resolved that the subject application was of no significant environmental impact regarding the State Environ- mental Quality Review Act and thereby granted a negative decla- ration on the subject application . In addition, the Trustees set a specific hearing date of January 21, 1988 concerning the applicants request for a wetlands permit for the subject action. Accordingly, and pursuant to the Trustees request, the applicant has prepared a vegetation and mitigation site plan indicating changes and measures required by the Trustees for this wetlands permit. In addition, the applicant was requested to prepare Covenants and Restrictions for the implementation of mitigation measures agreed upon. Ten (10) copies of said covenants and restrictions and vegetation mitigation maps are enclosed for your review and action. Please note, consistent with our meeting with you of December 17, that the applicant has revised the site plan consistent with our discussions as follows: 1) Relocate units 5 through 8, 9 through 12, and 13 through 16 in order that all construction activities be removed from the wetlands area shown on the site plan as Zone 2. 2) The applicant has shown the 75' buffer area on the attached plan as Zone 1 and has restricted vegetation consistent with previous discussions within that zone, as well as within the designated wetlands. Mr. Henry P. Smith January 20, 1988 Page 2 of 2 3) The applicant has eliminated the use of fertilizers within both Zones 1 and 2 consistent with the Trustees request. 4) The applicant has provided that within other areas of the subject development which are outside the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees, that fertilizer be restricted to two applications per year with specifications established both on the site plan, as well as within the covenants and restrictions. 5) The applicant has agreed to specific types of grass seed and plant materials to be utilized within Zones i and 2 consistent with the Trustees request. 6) The applicant has provided language within the covenants and restrictions for "pooper scooper" provisions consistent with the request of the Trustees. In addition, the applicant wishes to note that the sponsor has withdrawn the application concerning the location of the pool and accordingly has withdrawn the pool from the subject site plan map. The applicant will be making application to the Town of Southold Planning Board for relocation of the pool and tennis courts at the northeasterly quadrant of the program which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Wilbur Klatsky WK: JMI~ Enclosures CC: C.A.C. /bHENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 To: From: Re: Date: Donald Dzenkowski, Bay Constable Trustee Office Cove Property, Main Bayview Road, September 17, 1987 Southold Don, the Trustees, during inspections on September 16, 1987 inspected the above referenced property and have determined that the stakes on the property are within the Trustees jurisdiction. Please issue a Notice of Violation advising that a Wetland Permit will be required for this project (in addition to all other Town Permits) prior to the commencement of the project. Please advise the owner of the property that the Trustees will be glad to meet with him on the site to mark the meadow fringe. There is to be no disturbance within 50' of the wetlands. Building Dept., Victor Lessard, Admin. Board of Appeals ~-~ Planning Board Trustees file HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PH}LLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN TELEPHONE (516) 765-1692 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, $3095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO-SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT DATE: December 18, I987 APPLICATION NO.: 601 NAME: Wilbur Klatsky on behalf of the Cove at Southold This notice is issued pursuant to the provisions of 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 will not have a significant effect on the environment. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: ~NLISTED DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To construct certain housing units within a 75' buffer. LOCATION: South side of Main Bayview Road, Southold. CONDITIONAL DECLARATION: As amended to mitigation measures. REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: 1. An environmental assessment form has been submitted which indicated that there would be no adverse effect to the environment should the project be implemented as plqnned. 2. Because there has been no response in the allotted time from the Southold Town Building Dept. and the New York State D.E.C. it is assumed that there are no objections nor comments from those agencies. Board of Trustees Page 2. For further information regarding this application please contact: Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 Call: (516) 765-1892 cc: Robert A. Greene, D.E.C., Stony Brook Commissioner Henry G. Williams, D.E.C., Albany Stephen Mars, Army Corps of Engineers Thomas Hart, Coastal Management Conservation Advisory Council Bldg. Dept. Board of Appeals Town Clerk's Bulletin Board File Wilbur Klatsky for the Cove at Southold HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 1197I December 18, 1987 Mr. Wilbur Klatsky, V.P. Lemark Associates 5044 Expressway Drive South Ronkonkoma, New York 11779 Re: Application No. 601 - Cove at Southold Dear Mr. Klatsky: The following actions were taken by the Board of Town Trustees during their regular meeting held on December 17, 1987 regarding the above application: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees DENY the request made by Wilbur Klatsky on behalf of the Cove at Southold, Inc. for a Waiver of the Wetland Ordinance for the construction of certain housing units within a 75' buffer because of the scope of the project, the long environmental assessment form, and additional items that should be discussed through the application process and review. The property is located on Main Bayview Road, Southold. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declare itself lead agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter of the application of Wilbur Klatsky on behalf of the Cove at Southold, Inc. for a Wetland Permit on certain property located on Main Bayview Road, Southold. Please remit $125.00 additional for this application. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees HPS: ip cc: Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling, D.E.C., Albany Robert A. Greene, D.E.C., Stony Brook Stephen Mars, Army Corps of Engineers Thomas Hart, Coastal Management John Holzapfel, Chairman, Southold Town C.A.C. Victor Lessard, Admin., Building Dept. Planning Board Board of Appeals Trustees HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PH1LLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 December 18, 1987 Mr. Joseph Fischetti, Jr., P.E. 5044 Expressway Drive South Ronkonkoma, New York 11779 Re: Application No. 593 - Pool The Cove at Southold Dear Mr. Fischetti: The following action was taken by the Board of Town Trustees during their regular meeting held on December 17, 1987 regarding the above matter. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declare itself lead agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter of the application of Joseph Fischetti, Jr. on behalf of the Cove at Southold for a Wetland Permit on certain property located on the southside of Main Bayview Road, Southold. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees HPS:ip cc: Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling, D.E.C., Albany Robert A. Greene, D.E.C., Stony Brook Stephen Mars, Army Corps of Engineers Thomas Hart, Coastal Management John Holzapfel, Chairman, Southold Town C.A.C. Victor Lessard, Admin., Building Dept. Planning Board Board of Appeals file HENRY P. SMITH JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, President John Bednoski, Jr. ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 January 22, 1988 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 Mr. Joseph Fischetti, Jr., P.E. The Cove At Southold 5044 Expressway Drive South Ronkonkoma, New York 11779 Re: Application No. 593 - The Cove at Southold Main Bayview Road, Southold Dear Mr. Fischetti: Pursuant to your request to withdraw the above referenced application, please be advised that the following action was taken by the Board of Town Trustees during their regular meeting held on January 21, 1988 as follows: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees Accept the request made by Joseph Fischetti, Jr. on behalf of the Cove at Southold to withdraw application no. 593 for a Wetland Permit. Very truly yours, John M. Bredemeyer, President Board of Town Trustees JMB :ip cc: Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling, D.E.C., Albany Robert A. Greene, D.E.C.-, Stony Brook Stephen Mars, Army Corps of Engineers Thomas Hart, Coastal Management John Holzapfel, Chairman,· Southold Town C.A.C. Victor Lessard, Admin., Building Dept. Planning Board Board of Appeals file SEE April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 - Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of t~e Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of t~e Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of t~e Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sinc. erely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 - Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within the ZBA's jurisdiction; ~ ' Second, the Trustees, obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community,s best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, ..9 April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community,s best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees, line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 - Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within the ZBA's jurisdiction; ~ · Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees, line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. ~ncerely, ~/~ April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within the ZBA's jurisdiction; ~ ' Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of tSe Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gera?d Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehr~nger Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 - Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardiz~ the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, ~pril 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 - Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincer~ely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community,s best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 - Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within the ZBA's jurisdiction; ~ ' Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees, line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, 305 Topsail Lane Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-5013 April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspect~ of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 - Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sin~c/~ely, ~ April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 of $outhold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the Granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town of Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel ~h~'-: several very important points the Board should keep in mi. First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, set of circumstances there be denied. I'm confident you'll agree that under the present is no doubt the proposed variance must Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: Propoqed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin th~ ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 - Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. GoehrinGer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the Granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls within the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the Granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstanCes there is no doubt the proposed variance be denied. Sincerely, April 14~ 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 - Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel ther~ ~ several very important points the Board should keep in :t First, the problem at hand most definitely falls w.ithin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance ~,. be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing the'it wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardiz the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the in question. In clgsing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 - Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, ~pril 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 ~-e: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, ,~['ril 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely,, April 15, 1988 Board of Appeal Members Dear Sirs, I am wrtting to you in connection with the proposed variance at the Cove in Southold. Having attended both meetings in connection with this proposal, I came away from the meeting April 14th feeling completely frustrated and let down. Probably due to my inexperience and ignorance of precedure it seemed to me the meeting ended abruptl~ with many in attendance feeling they could not express their concerns. Our creeks, bays soundand all bodies of water are a nations growing problem and concern. My feeling is Corey Creek is one of the few remaining smaller but valuable bodies of water-hopefully no yet contaminated. It is ~ic~uresque and valuable to all baymen for their livehood, for the rest of us a place to fish, clam, sail, swim with few restrictions. Having lived almost across from the Cove for many years and residing for the last 40years a few miles from this location, it is frustrating and disturbing beyond words to think of the proposal for 3 more such units so close to wet land. It is in your power to save this very valuable creek. I beg of you to deny this variance. Help save our Corey Creek before it is too late. A precedent must be establis-ed -not next week-next monthor next year but NOW. I respectfully acknowledge the tremendous responsibility and burden you each have in reaching a decision. However, it iI in your power to decide, are we to become another sectmon of Long Island to be ravaged and destroyed t~ a developers paradise? Please help us to keep what is left of our once quiet, ~uaint Country atmosphere, Our existing highways are becmming a dangerous nightmare-all ready overcrowded and the influx of "S,,mmer Visitors" has not begun. At both meetings the hardship for Mr. Fischetti, should this variance not be passed seemed to be an issue. With my limited income , it would seem to ~ave theincome that has all ready financed the existing condos is a far cry from anyone suffering financiallY7. I believe the only issue is to Save the Wet Lands. It is so important for our children and grandchildren for generations to come to be able to enjoy the creeks etc. Respectifully Submitted, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 of $outhold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversezl all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values o-~-the m~!ny h°~e o~ers adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin th.~ ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, April 14, 1988 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Zoning Board of Appeals - Town of $outhold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: Proposed variance for The Cove Dear Mr. Goehringer, In reaching its decision in the above matter I feel there are several very important points the Board should keep in mind: First, the problem at hand most definitely falls wSthin the ZBA's jurisdiction; Second, the Trustees' obvious concern in establishing their wetlands boundary was in the community's best interest; Third, any violation of the Trustees' line will adversely affect all aspects of the surrounding areas's quality of life; Fourth, the granting of any variance will seriously jeopardize the property values of the many home owners adjacent to the area in question. In closing, I'm confident you'll agree that under the present set of circumstances there is no doubt the proposed variance must be denied. Sincerely, 4-" 570N~.. E~L[ND -- F~AiATN STAISIL~ZED '¢/EAP..IM G C.O UP. se BAGE LOCAT?ON MAP Vacant n~w or 8 U~ck (Vocant) 20 'ER X 17,0 ~50.00' CONCRETE or formerly Hob~rt, ,W., ~reen ,:. t~ Helen Grin ~ . now. //PATIO now mO~N a? S/TE PL A/V THE COVE .:7: SOUTHO£D Of TYPICAL L~ACHING ¢. POOL ¢- CATCN OA$1N 14B ' 0f'~' P'~C, 8AN SEWE~ ' G" WATEI 8§' 0F-~P~¢, SAN SEWER - '""~. 'I or. formerly Mary E Clemeea (Vocant) ' now 0 formerly [ NO EVIDENCE OF ~.rt U clembn$ TOWN: OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK dOUIVT~, AA. ~. SCALE, i. 30' SEPT, /$, ,/.984 ~" WA~ER MAIN COR~y now or formerly ,Budd -, ' (V~ant) Young THE LANP\VAI~' L,'MIT oF TIDAL WETLANI;;~ ~H~'WN I~ F~H THE 1~4 N.MS.~E.& INOFE~TI~N NvHE~E ~EATAIN F~PO~EP DUILPlN~ 6~NE~ ~VERE OTAKE~ N.Y5.~.E.&. F~ THE ~TAKEG T~ THE TI~AU LINE O~ W£TLANB$ AS BE~t6~.ATEB $OUTHOLD AND LOCATED OCT, · BY YOUNG I~ YOUNG ¸ O)4 no~ , or formerly /-- ~ OF I0' EASEMENT -~,~-I ~-r~ ~ ,~' ~C. &AN. SEWER ~ ' ' //~- t /. \ Budd B.I Young \ TEST HOLE NO.~: No,. e4 - 4e / LOCATION MAP SCAL£ 1":600' Vocant 2O or formerly Jock C/Dr/oho (Vocant) 4 G 250.00 LEACHING F~ELD N25"5300 E now or formerly /~ober! ~ Helen Green W Grsen 0 iS" CMP forcefly of 5 N 25° 53'00~E 46.50' or formerly Mary £ Clemens (VecanU (TYPICAL,) \ \ 9 ~0 COFCEy CR~£K formerly Budd (FocanQ B. Young ~'X/-//~/7- .4 ~/TE PL TH£ COV / S O U THO£ D 8A YVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORA T/ON AT SOUTHO£D TOWN OF SOU THO£ D SUFT-OI K COUIV TY, I~ L SCALE I"= 50' SEPT 15, 19,84 S 22°04 22 ~/ THE LAIq[2xVAI;~I;2 LIPIlT OF TIIFAL \VETLANI?¢ '~HO\VN H~REON I~ FR~'P'I THE 1~,4 N.'r'S.~zgo. INOPEbTICN ',.vHEle. E OEf~TAIN I'dEA'~LtlEEI"flENT~ \VEI~E i'd~.P'E ANI2 I~EE, zCl:e, 12~.l:7 I~Y'THE N~P~.O. FI~M TH~ ~T~,Kg~ T~ THE TIDAL \VETLANI~. ~ON~ 5_ ZO~ S SEEDING AND FERTILIZING SCHEDULE All disturbed areas within Zone 1 are to be seeded with one of the following mixtures: A. 80% Reliant Hard Fescue 20% Jamestown Chewings Fescue B. 30% Rebel Tall Fescue 25% Foxtail Barley 15% Seaside Creeping Bentgrass 10% Slender Wheatgrass 10% Alkaligrass 10% Western Wheatgrass I2. At the discretion of the Southold Town Trustees, areas within Zone 2 that do not have a satisfactory vegetative cover, will be seeded with mixture "B" above. In either of these zones 1 or 2, listed above, no fertilization sha]t take place at any time. All other areas shall be seeded or sodded at the developer's option, with conventions] lawn material. These areas shall be fertilized only twice per year, once in the ear]y spring and once in late fall. Fertilizer shall be a 50% organic, commercial formula containing 5% nitrogen, 10% phosphoric acid, and 5% potash, applied at the rate of 20 pounds per 1,000 square feet of lawn area. 4) formerly Budd B. Youn9 /085.48