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