The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3299 1~,I MTT,~,ER, DOUGLAS #~ Sound Ave. 6/2~/84 FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTItOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTItOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated...~..~:~..~..... ! .~ ..... , 19 .~.~.. for permit to ~ T.'~.. ~..~. ................................................ at ~cation of~operty . 2~W..~.. I~.(~.~. . County T~ Map No. 1000 Section .... ].~ ~ ..... Block .... ~ ........ Lot .../.~ ....... Subdivision ................ Filed Map No ................. Lot No .................. is returned herewith and disapproved on the following ~ounds..~..'~. :.~-.....~..~....~. ~.. I~'~' ~" ~" '~' ' ~ ~' '~' '~' '~'"L, - -~- · ~'v .~-- .~. .~- X .~....o~......~...~..~. · ~ .~ ~---~-~..5- .~,~ i~-..~.~.x. ~ i'.~i Building Inspector FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL ~,. ~.~...~: .%,...~ ~,.. ~.o..~.?.~. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ............ .~. ~'~..~.. I ~ ...... 19 .~.. for pe~it to ~-~ ~ LocationofProperty ..~.~ ~*~ · ~) ~~~ Hoas~ No. H~mlet County T~ Map No. 1000 Section .... ~.& ~ ..... Block .... ~ ........ ~t .../.~ ....... Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No .................. is returned herewith and disapproved on the following g~ounds..~..'~..'.c~.....~.~....~. ~.. ~ ~.:.~.. ~..~...:~..~ .~..~... _, .-~.. ~. . ~ ~ .~.~. ~.~....~......~...~..~-....... ~.~.~.~ .~...~...~.. ~~ .~....o~.. ~...~.....~. ~..~ ~ ~. :. ~ ~...~.~_. ~. ~.~. ~...~....~..' ~. ~...~ .... Building Inspector RV 1/80 TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, NL~V YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. APPEAL NO. ~ ~ 9 ~7 DATE ..... ' Name of Appellant Street and Number ...................... O.U.o..q.u.~ ......................................................... ,N..e..w.....Y.p...r..k. ......... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION DATED: FOR: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) ( ) ......... l~o.u gla~...~iLL~ r ....................................... Name of Applicant for permit of .............. fi.~.. ,Q Ld... ~.o..i..o....E .q ~.~ ~...Q.u..9_% .u..e.., ............. ~.~.W.....Y.g.r...k. ........................ Street ond Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY PERMIT TO BITE~D Subdivide 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ...P...r..i.y..a. te Road #18 (Kirkup Lane), Laurel ........ ........................... 1QQQ-[ ~]-.4- lQ OWNER(S) ..... [~j~.]~v.~ b~ 1. '] ...... ~,6fi~ ..... Map No. Lot No. DATE P~3RCHASED: ...~q~y. gq~..V.~. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Porograph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Ar'c±cle III ~ Section100-31, Sect±on 106-36 C 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (XX) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) 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 (k~) (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the BuiLding Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (×If A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is requested for the reason that ~e ~oaZd Z±ke to Subdivide the parcel in a manner consistent with the nature the area. ZB1 (Continue on other side) of REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties~r unneces- sary HARDSHIP because it would result in two lots of nearly fou~ acres each in an area zoned for two acres, and surrounded by substantially smaller lots. 2. The hardshipcreatedis UNIQUE and isnotshared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity ofthisproperty and in this use districtbecausethe zoning ordinance has not been applied in such a manner in the past,and because of the unique condition of the property. 3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because it would still result in lots with a substantially greater land area than those in the surrounding area. STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss COUNTY OF ) Sworn to this ~J day of..,.~.....~ .................. 19~y Notary Public o' LTOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD FORMER OWNER I N, .- J E,.., ' ' ~ I ACR. I !._ _ -- -- j ~.... _.~ '-~ ;. J ~W~ .... ii .... ~'.i. ~PE OF BUILDING ~ND IMP. TOTAL DATE R~ARKS , ~ ~ /. AGE BUILDING CONDITION NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FARM Acre Tillable 1 i Tillable 2 Tillable 3 Woodland Swampland FRONTAGE ON WATER Brushland FRONTAGE ON ROAD House PJot DEPTH ' ' ',BULKHEAD Value Per Value Acre jDOCK LOT SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY - s ~. --ORGE O GULDI, 11111 etitioner-, ~,W~,~',C~,~, - FLAN~I~'~-~; S~FFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, Respondents. IA$ PART XIV : DATED: July 2, 1990 : INDEX NO.: 89-14187 : BOTION DATE: 08/30/89 : CDISPSUBJ GEORGE O. GULDI, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner 11 Griffing Avenue Westhampton Beach, New York 11978 E. THOMAS BOYLE, ESQ. Attorney for SUFFOLK COUNTY 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 JAMES A. SCHONDEBARE, ESQ. /Attorney for SOUTHOLD TOWN %/ Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Petitioners seek a judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR annulling the determination of respondent~ Southold Town Planning Board, which requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA; ECL Art. 8). Petitioners own an eight-acre parcel Of land on Laurel Lake in the Town of Southold. Approximately one-half of the parcel is classified as wetlands. Under the Town Zoning Code, the parcel is located in a district that requires a two-acre minimum lot for one-family dwellings. On March 13, 1984, petitioners applied to the Planning Board for a minor subdivision of their parcel into three lots. included in the application was a sho~t environmental assessment form (EAF). When the Planning Board advised petitioners that it intended to exclude the wetland area from the calculation of lot sizes, petitioners submitted written arguments as to why this exclusion would be unlawful and economically unwise. Nevertheless, on September 11, 1984, the Planning Board denied the application on the ground MILLER v. SOUTHOLD TOWN Index No. 89-14187 Page Two that the lot areas were inadequate, after exclusion of wetlands, for the proposed construction of single-family homes. Petitioners then made an application to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals (Board of Appeals) for avariance and at a meeting on October 25, 1984, that board voted to hold petitioners' application "in abeyance pending receipt of...(1) N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) approval or comments; (2) Suffolk County Department of Health Services (DHS) review, comments and/or approval". A letter dated November 7, 1984, advising petitioners of the board's action stated: "It is our- understanding that an application has been filed ~ith the N.Y.S.DzE.C. in Stony Brook and is pending". On March 12, 1986, the DEC issued a form Notice of Complete Application for a freshwater wetlands permit to construct three single-family homes on lots of 2-1/2 acres each adjacent to Laurel Lake. In an area on the form for SEQR Determination, a box is checked indicating, "ProjeCt is an unlisted action; it has been determined that~the project will not have a significant effect on the environment". On a line for SEQR Lead Agency, a typed entry reads, "NYSDEC". A copy of the notice was forwarded to the Southold Town Supervisor. On May 29, 1986, the DEC i~ued a permit to petitioners for the construction of the dwellings, specifying a minimum distance landward of the wetlands boundary for each lot. The permit was subsequently renewed and remains in effect. In 1987, the Board of Appeals learned through .the Town Attorney that wetland areas cannot be deleted from lot areas in subdivisions. In a letter dated May 15, 1987, the Board of Appeals advised petitioners that no MILLER v. SOUTHOLD TOWN Index No. 89-14187 Page Three variance was required for their subdivision and accordingly, their application was "deadfiled". Armed with the DEC permit and the Board of Appeals decision, petitioners made several requests to the Planning Board .- to reconsider their application, without success. Requests to the DHS to issue their required permit met with a similar result. On four occasions, the latest of which being on March 21, 1989, DHS advised petitioners that it could take no action until receipt of a "SEQR determination letter" from the Town. Meanwhile, in January and February of 1989, there was communication between the Planning Board and DHS regarding four other proposed subdivisions on Laurel Lake, ranging in size from ten to ninety-one acres. The documents exchanged indicate the parties' agreement that the Planning Board should act as lead agency for SEQR review, that a positive declaration was appropriate, and that a generic EIS (GELS) should be prepared. Then on June 5, 1989, petitioners received telephone notice at 4:00 p.m. that their application was on the agenda of the Planning Board meeting scheduled for that evening. At the meeting petitioners 1Darned for the first time that their proposed subdivision had been joined with the four others mentioned above, with the effect of constituting a Type I action. By a vote of three to one, the Planning Board declared itself lead agency, made a positive declaration, and called for the preparation of a GEIS. Thereafter, petitioners brought this proceeding'alleging that the actions of respondents are capricious and unreasonable. With respect to the actions of the Planning Board, the court agrees. MILLER v. $OUTHOLD TOWN Index No. 89-14187 Pa~e ~our Respondent DH$ argues that under the regulations promulgated for implementation of SEQRA (6 NYORR Part 607), a lead agency must be established before a determination of significance is made and that %he DEC failed to comply with the time requirements for the coordinated review of a proposed action. Section 617.6(c)(1) states, in pertinent part, that, "When an agency...receives an application for...approval for...~ll_~ action under=oinm coordinated review in which other agencies are involved, it shall, as soon as possible, mail the EAF...and a copy of [the] application...to all involved agencies notifying them that a lead a~ency- must be agreed upon within 80 calendar days of the date" of mailini[ (emphasis added). The court finds that this regulation was not applicable to the situation herein. Both the DHS and the Town, through its Board of Appeals, were waiting for the action of other agencies to "complete" the review process. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners' application to DEC was undergoing a coordinated review. Instead, the review was an uncoordinated one under 817.8(d), which provides in subdivigion (3) that, "When an agency determines that an unlisted action will not have a significant effect on the environment, the coordinated review and notification procedures...are optional. For uncoordinated review of unlisted actions, each involved agency must make its own determination of significance" with respect to the component for which its approval is required. During the period in which petitioners' application was before the DEC (from 1984 until May 29, 1986), both DHS and the Town had ample opportunity to make a declaration of significance. Both of these involved SILLER v. SOUTHOLD TOWH Index No. 89-14187 Page Five agencies failed to take any action. The Notice of Complete Application in which DEC made a negative declaration allowed a 30-day period for public comment. The regulations for uncoordinated review provide that, "At any time prior to an agency's final decision, that agency's negative declaration may be superseded by a positive declaration by any other involved agency" (817.6~d~£31). DEC's decision became final with its issuance of a permit on Nay 29, 1986. Hence the Planning Board's positive declaration is £ar too late and is null and void. The Town Planning Board has o££ered nothing to explain its position in this matter. From the fact that for almost five years' the Planning Board persisted in refusing to reconsider petitioners' application, one must conclude that it took the attitude that no · application was pending. However, by reviving the application in June of 1989, for consideration with £our new proposals, the Planning Board is now estopped from maintaining that position. Respondent Town has also refused to address the me~lts of this petition; it merely asserts the statute of limitations as a defense. Referring back to the denial o£ petitioners' application, which was filed in the Town Clerk's office on September 12, 1984, respondent relies on Town Law Sec 282. The statute requires the commencement of an Article 78 proceeding for judicial review of a planning board decision within 30 days of the filing o£ the decision in the office of the board. However, petitioners here are seeking review o£ the Planning Board's June 1989 decision, the positive SEQR declaration and requirement ~or a GEIS. Because respondent has offered no proof of the filing of that decision, it MILLER v. SOUTHOLD TOWN Index No. 89-14187 Pa~e Six has not shown that this proceeding was commenced beyond the statute of limitations (Matter of Ferri~an v. Thompson, 135 AD2d 953, 522 NYS2d 362 [Jd Dept 1987]; So~nosa v. Ackerman, 98 Misc2d 1073, 415 NYS2d 358 [Sup Ct Monroe Co., 1979]). The DHS has stated that petitioners' proposal conforms with the Department's requirements for water supply and sewage disposal. The Planning Board has not objected that the proposed subdivision violates other requirements of the zoning code. Therefore, the petition is granted, the Planning Board's determination of environmental significance ks annulled, and the Town Planning Board is directed to give immediate consideration to petitioners' proposal separate and apart from any and all other subdivisions proposed for the Laurel Lake area. The Board ks further directed not to exclude the wetland area from the calculation of lot sizes. If a public hearing is required, the Board is directed to hold such hearing within 30 days of the date of service upon them of a copy of this Judgment, with notice of entry and to render its decision ~kthin ten days thereafter. Petitioners are granted costs against the Southold Town ~lanning Board, pursuant to Town Law Sec 282. Submit Judgment providing accordingly. WILL1A E. UNDEi , OOD, JR. WILLIAM L. UNDERWOOD, JR. J.S.C. NOV LEAHEY AND GULDI PAGE.08 SUPRE~ COORT, SUB~OLE COUNTY DOUGLAS fflLLEB & GEORGE O. GULDI, : Petitioners, : -against- : : SOUTH05D TOWN, SOUTHOLD TOWN : PLANNING BOARD, SUFFOLK COUNTY : DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, : Respondents. : : ~EMORAMDUH BY UNDERWOOD, JR., J.S.C. DATED: INDEX NO.: MOTION DATE: CDISPSUBJ October 17,. 1990. GEORGE O. GULDI, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner 11Griffing Avenue Westhampton Baach, New York 11978 E. THOMAS BOYLE, ESQ. Attorney for SUFFOLK COUNTY 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, Hew York 11787 JAMES A. SCHONDEBARE, ESQ. Attorney for SOUTHOLD TOWN 8outhold Town Hall 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York .11971 Respondents have requested the Court to "reexamine" its memorandum-decision dated July 2, 1990, regarding the imposition of costs - a~ainst them pursuant to Town Law sec 282. The court amends the said decision by adding thereto the specific reasons for imposing costs against the Planning Board. A careful review of the decision reveals that the Court found that the Planning Board, in intentionally disregarding the advice of the Town Attorney with respect to deleting wetland areas from the calculation of lot sizes, acted in bad faith or with malice; that the Board ~as grossly negligent with respect to its responsibility as an involved agency in the review of petitioner's application under SEQRA; that the Board was malicious in obstructing petitioner's application for five years; and that it was grossly negligent in finally joining petitioner's application to the four new ones without advance notice. Under the circumstances, the court believes the imposition of costs to be justified and a judgment is signed simultaneously herewith. Ordered. WILLIAM L. UNDERWOOD, J.S.C. I'.IOU !4 '90 1~-:59 LEAHEY AND GULnI PAGE.O~ ~ntsr~Offics Co~munication TO: SUPREME COURT MARK ZUC~ERMA~t ESQ. LAW SECRETARY TO JUDGE UNDERWOOD DATE: 9/26/90 FROM: JUDITH M. GORDON COURT ATTORNEY SUPREME COURT LAW DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: MILLER V. SOUTHOLD COMMENTS: ! ~ave reviewed ths Arnoff and Guldi letters, the ccur~s decision, and Town Law S222. .I do not feel the% the statute requires the court to describe the specific actions which are indicative of gross ne~ligence, bad faith or malice. I agree With Mr. Guldi t~at the decision ~mplies that the Board acted in bad faith or with malice (or both) in lntentibnally disregarding the advice of the Town.Attorney (with respect to deleting wetland areas fro~ the calculation of lo~' sizes), was malicious in obstructing the app%i~ation for five years, and was at least grossly negligent in reviving the application without notice to the petitioner until the last moment before the public hearing on the new proposals. Therefore, I do not feel that it is necessary to fecal! the decision in order to include the reasons for imposing costs if you disagree, · However, . I would b? happy to'draft an sdditiol~ml paragra~h_f-or._ins~r~ion_/D, the ~pin~on. If y0~aqree 'with m ~n, I suggest that Y~'6~ntact Hr. Arnoff and inform h 'Y~thatthe court will not informally entertain his request. JG/kem l ' enc~. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DOUGLAS MILLER & GEORGE O. GULDI, Petitioners, -against- ' ' SOUTHOLD TOWN, SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD, SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES. Respondents. RECEIVED. · j JL 9,1989 Index No. NOTICE OF PETITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Petition of George O. Guldi, duly verified the 17th day of July, and the exhibits annexed thereto, the undersigned will move the Court at an IAS part thereof, to be held at the Supreme Court House, Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York on the 30th day of August, 1989 at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for Judgement pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, annulling and setting aside the arbitrary determinations of the Respondents denying the application of Petitioner for a minor subdivision of a parcel of land located in Southold, New York, and reversing their unlawful refusal to permit the lawful utilization of Land, and further vacating their unlawful declaration of lead agency for SEQRA purposes and their arbitrary and capricious requirement of the preparation and filing of a Environmental Impact Statement, and directing Respondents to approve and issue such permits to Petitioners; as applied for, and fo~ such other and further relief as to the Court may seem Just and proper in the premises. Please take further notice, that a verified answer, and any other documents supporting such answer, must be served at least five days, before such time, and that pursuant to Section 7804 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, you are directed to file with the Clerk of the Court your answer and any other papers thereon, together with any other papers to be considered herein. Westhampton Beach, NY July 17, 1989 George O. Guldi, Esq. Attorney for the Petitioner 11 Griffing Avenue Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 (516) 288-3737 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DOUGLAS MILLER & GEORGE O. GULDI, Petitioners, -against- SOUTHOLD TOWN, SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD, SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES. Respondents. Index No. PETITION TO THE SUPRE~tE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: The Petitioner respectfully alleges as follows: 1. Petitioner Douglas Miller is a resident of Suffolk County and resides at Old Main Road Quogue, New York and 'is the owner of an undivided two thirds interest in a parcel of land on Laurel Lake in the Town of Southold bearing tax map n,~mher 1000- 121-4-10 which is the subject of this proceeding. (hereinafter the "Land") The most current survey of the land is annexed hereto as part of Exhibit "9" and reflects the seven survey revisions which have been required by the Respondents. Exhibit "9" shows that the parcel consists of 8.176 acres, of which approximately 3.9 are wetland. The applicable Zoning is two acre and therefore the proposed subdivision application represents a less than full permitted utilization of the land: All setbacks substantially exceed all required minimums. Each proposed lot includes at least 1 1/4 acres of upland and lots range from slightly more than two and one half acres to in excess of three acres. 2. Petitioner George O. Guldi is a resident of Suffolk Count and resides at 9 Griffing Avenue, Westhampton Beach, New York and is the owner of an undivided on third interest in the Land which has been purchased during the pendancy of the applications to subdivide the land. 3. Petitioners caused an application to be made to Respondent Southold Town Planning Board for the minor subdivision of the Land pursuant to the applicable zoning laws of the Town of Southold. Said application was duly filed and correct and complete in all respects on March 13, 1984. Included in said application was a short environmental assessment form. (A copy of said application is annexed hereto as exhibit "1") 4. Prior to a hearing by the Planning Board an application and ruling by the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding road access was required and obtained. Still prior to any hearing regarding the matter the Planning Board advised us that they intended to exclude all wetlands from lot area in considering this application. As a result of said advice a letter was transmitted to the Planning Board dated May 7, 1984 setting forth the basis upon which such an exclusion would be unlawful. (A copy is annexed hereto as exhibit "2") 5. As a result of the delivery of exhibit 2 the Planning Board did adjourn ~onsideration of this application to seek legal advice as was conf~rmed in Petitioners letter to them dated May 8, 1984. (A copy of which is annexed hereto as exhibit "3") 6. No response was given or received to the communications regarding the improprie6yof excluding wetlands from area for subdivision purposes (See, Ex "4"). 7. On September 11, 1984 the Planning Board did unlawfully deny the application for a minor subdivision on the sole basis that the lot area was inadequate after the exclusion of the wetland from all calculation. (A copy of said denial is annexed hereto as exhibit "5") 8. In order to exhaust administrative remedies before commencing legal proceedings an application was submitted to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance from the determination of the Planning Board. On November 7, 1984 the Zoning Board of Appeals determined to hold the application in abeyance pending the receipt of permits from the New York State DEC and from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. (A copy of said determination is annexed hereto as exhibit "6") 9. On March 12, 1986 t4he DEC did issue a Notice of Complete Application which inter alia reached a SEQRAdetermination that the proposed subdivision and residential use of the property would have no significant effect on the environment. The DEC did in said document declare itself to be the lead agency for SEQRA purposes and did coordinate with other governmental agencies by CC of their determination to the Supervisor of the Town of Southold. Pursuant to the requirements of the DEC an advertisement of the DEC SEQRA determination and of the declaration of the DEC as lead agency was advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the town of Southold the week of March 27th 1986. (A copy of which determination and advertisement are annexed hereto as exhibit "7") 10. Subsequently on March 29, 1986 the State DEC did issue a permit to the Petitioners for the proposed subdivision and' construction of three residential premises on the Land which permit has been renewed and extended and is in full force and effect. (A copy of the permit and renewals is annexed hereto as exhibit "8") 11. The Petitioners have continued to pursue the issuance of a permit from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for the issuance of a permit. Petitioners have been advised by the County Department of Health Services that the only reason that they have failed and refused to issue a Permit for the Land is a result of the refusal of the Town of Southold to issue a SEQRA letter pursuant to the March 13, 1984 Environmental Assessment Form submitted in support of the application. Annexed hereto as Exhibit "9" is a copy of a letter confirming that position by the Health Department. No response to this letter has ever been received. 12. On or about May 15, 1987, the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals advised Petitioners that no Zoning Variance would be necessary for the Land since it was improper to exclude wetland from area for subdivision purposes. Annexed hereto as Exhibit 10 is a copy of the letter to the Petitioners advising them that the position taken by them since 1984 was correct. 13. Since the date of that letter the Southold Town Planning Board has failed and refused to deal with the application in good faith, and has refused to respond to request for action on the matter dated June 30, 1987, (Exhibit "11") July 23, 1987 (Exhibit "12") and August 13, 1987 (Exhibit 13) as well as a plethora of phone inquiries and requests. 14. On June 5, 1989 at approximately 4 P.M. Petitioners were given telephone notice that there application was on the agenda of the Planning Board. At 7:30 that evening by a vote of four to one the Planning Board voted to require the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in connection with the application for the subdivision and development of the Land as well as several other additional parcels. (A copy of the minutes of the meeting reflecting this resolution is annexed hereto as exhibit "14"). 15. Pursuant to the Resolmtion of the Planning Board the Petitioners were directed to attend a Scoping Session held in Town hall to outline the Environmental Impact Statement which will be required to be filed. At that meeting the Petitioners were provided the draft outline of the statement to be prepared, a copy of which is annexed hereto as exhibit "15", the cost and expense for the preparation of which could well equal or exceed the value of the parcel. 16. The actions of Respondents are capricious and unreasonable. 17. The Petitioner has made no previous application to this Court for the relief requested herein, and has pursued all administrative remedies and review available to him. Wherefore, your P~titioner prays that the unilateral action of Respondents be set aside and that they be directed to issue the subdivision approval and Department of Health Services Permits to the Petitioner, and that they be directed to cease and desist from all further delay and obstruction of the use of the petitioners land by them for the lawful purposes which they have been seeking for five and one half years and for such other, further, and different relief as may be just and proper under the circumstances. George O. Guldi I, George 0 Guldi, being duly sworn, say: I am a Petitioner in the within action; I have read the foregoing Petition and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters stated therein to be on information and belief, and as to those matters~ I believe it to be true. /~.///~//~/~./~ Sworn to before me this~ / ~/ ~Not ary ~u~llc ~IIC'I.[AIq .J. C,I~CIISE ~ c~ -~, -fid March 13, 1984 Planninq Board Town of Souuhold Town Hall Souuhold, New York 11971 Re: A.Dplication of Douqlas Miller for Minor Subdivision of Tax Map ~i000-I2!-4-10 Dear Sirs: of Enclosed are ~he following documenus in suDzoru the above named appiication for ~ minor subdivisi6~: a) 8 copies of contoured scketch map with names of adjoininq owners and kev mad to streets. b) Fees of $75.00 for three l~t a~plication. c) Le~er reqardinq drainaqe. d) Short Envlronmenual Assessment form. e} Copy of Contract of Sale from Mulvlhill to Miller. f) Copy of Mulvihi!l deed conuaininq Leqai description of pro~er~y. g) 6 copies of a memorandum to the board describinq proposed restrictions on lots of subdivision. If any additional information would be of any use to the Board or any of its members, please contac: me and qive me an opportunity to provide it. Please con~ac~ 'me as soon as a date for a meeting at w~ich this application 'can be heard is set so that I can be certain to remain available. GEORGE O. GULDI g GRIFI=ING AVEN[JE t;~zi pro ...... . ~--. · to ~l~c p o: c - [i~ ~t.. . , . · .......... .--f: ".'? u: c mn jor thc;:-- ,- 22.'''': ....... 7 ~--- ;tn .... ~ rcau!~ ~n.~ ::ad:.r cJvcrcc .ff.. on air qu.:' :~).: ..... g- If lit S:-=,,~ ' ' ' ' ..... ' ..... ..y. lC. ." · °g=:~c>'?- ' o- r '~' '~"-- ~:<~vc c: ;nc;-- rr . ....v...:-~ 1~. W.~ - · ' :''on''~ ~ .~ .... ' ~- Projec: rei=u.lcr!y '' 12. W~ ~ ~ .... ~ '. ................ ' '* I'~u3cc: have ..... : . ; .................. 11il! .~-.-,'. , .. ' ................... neinh~o-, ',~' -, ~n= community or ~5. l: ', ..oo~ .................. - , , ................. -- Ii:crc puL.Ilo COntrovcray co~,ccrninn the - ' DAT~ - Sou:hold Town Planning Board Town Hail $ou~hold, New v ~ .or., 11971 Gentlemen: The following s=a=emenn= are offered for your conslderaulon in %he review of the a~ove-men=ioned minor subdivision and itt (i: ~;o .~rading, o=ner ,1 (2) No new roads are ~rcgose= and no changes Will be made No new dra~na=e s~ruc:ures are i'' % .;~.~- '- "i"-7 ' :. ' ~ Llbl:ll'] .I.1..1,.,:1 .Tills INDENTUIIF..,nmde~. ," "' dayol Januory , al.eL , hu.drcd and party ol die first para, and JAIIE$ V. MULVItlILL, residinE a6 Libby Avenue, Pomp,on Pluins, Nm~ Jersey, party of thc seco.d part, WITN£SSETll, that the party o{ the first pa~t, hi con~hleratlon o{ Ten ($10.00) ...... by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and reh:ase tnlto the party o{ the second pad, the heirs or successors and assigns of fi~e party of the se~nd part [orever, AL~ ~at certain plot, piece or parcel o{ land, ~J~{ml~~~~~~ Suffolk and State of Now york, bo~u%ded and desoribed ~s followu~ BEOITININO a~ n point on the northerly shore of Laurel Lake on the ally,sion line between land l'ormorly of l{lrkup on the and long of Barbara Jazo~l;ck on the Eos~; ru~lJ-nf3 ~}lonce alo,~ , ¢ , . tl~eo cotu-aes as follow, l (1).North 98id ].and formerly o~ l.ill~tp. ~ .... * 2nq Ceeb to n monmnon$, thenc0 ., t2~ North 25 degreoa l~ m~.t,,,~... . ~ - O0 seconds Easb 153.> ~.e.~ . thence ~lo~L~ ~u,~u~_~,.~{ ~rtnttte;1 O0 aeco~a ~= ~,'q~'22 feet; (1) North ~0 ~agro~,~ ~ ..:C.ute.~ O0 secOntts .uuy.~.~-~,. ~-t' tholu:e i now ox f°rml -~ -. 'il1 South 15 des~ees_~ - k-- 20 second~l ~ ~.~ esot' thence (2) ~o - ~ ,~;,--os 12 minuses ~v ' 126.h{~ feeu; ~no,,~,. ,¢, [.uurol Lnko{ ~henco westerly alon6 s~.id 'i3.00 foot to tho shore el' .here of Laurel Lake ~pproximatelY 550 feo~ to the point or place of . Beginning. ' ~ --e or less according ~oa surve~ i · - - ~-,-- o* 7 r. clOs muv . - -.- Hated December 'i Conbalnln~ ~n U' ~"So]'t Licn~e~ LnnG ~,voyoz u, - '; of Otto W. Van Tuyu ~ ' ' ' - - - ,~,- C-om tile north- 1961. ,-, ........ ,~h p. ,,J.~ht of wo.y 20 ~? . -, .... , lnnO. formerly of ~ TOGE'~IU~n w-'-~'jo .~.o°ovomiseo, nor~ltn~z~ t~',k~n ~S tits North Road or SoIUI6 AvenUe. ' tho ea~bez'].Y ' '' t riVage road Imowu as laaUmre · TOGETHER with au ca.m-out and right of way from - ,~,.~,v nod r, lon~ .he p. _- .n, then~ter'J.Y ~1 ~ rt~h.b, titie._an~ ~'~ ;n-. hixo t4at;(,~'u: p0r t r .1. ~ d ... . -., .~l,,-,~'t,ht lt.,~?l,' I ~ -'.' ..... ~.. ,. ( C,PPL!CAT~ON FOR APPROVALC ' pLeAT To the Planning Board of the Town of $outhold: The ufldersig'ned applicant hereby applies for (tentative) (final) approval of a subdivision plat in accordance with Article 16 oi the Town Law and the Roles and Reffulations oi the Southold T~wu Planning Board. and represents and states as foilows: 1. The applicant ii tile ..... u~ ,c~.u~,; ,~ ;.,< i~;;:; ~.,ic; ~,:;i;;ic,,;;,~.;. (Ii tile applicant ia not the owner of record oi the land under appilcation, the applicant .~hall state his interest in iaid land under application.) 2. T'ne name oi the subcLivlsion is to be .~..~. ~.~ ............. J. The entire land under application is described in Schedule "A'* hereto annexed. (Copy of 4. The land is held by t~e~ppllcant under deed~ recorded in Suifolk County Clcrk'a off{ce as follows: Liber ..... ~ ....... P:ge ...... ~ ............. 0~.. ~ .................. ; Li~er ............ ~ ........... Page ...................... Liber ........................ Page ...................... Liber ........................ Page ...................... On .... .................... ; Liber ........................ Page ...................... ~ devised unaec t~e ~$t Will and Testament o{ ......................................... or as distributee ........................................................................ All t~xes which are liens on the land at :he date hcreoi have been paid ~cept .......... 7- The land is encumbere6 by ~ ~x;'~' mortgage Cs) as iollows: (a) ~lortgage recorded in Liber ............ Page .................. ~. in original amount oi$ ................ unpaid amount $ ................ held by.......: .......... . ......... · .. ......................... address ...................................................... (b) Mortgage recorded in Liber ............ Page ................... '. in ori~nal amount al $ ................ unpaid amount $ ................ held hy ..... ....... : .................. address ....................................... lC) ~{ort;age recorde~ [n Liber ............ Pale ............... in original ~.moum' of $ ........ unpaid amount $ ................ held by .................. .......... address ................... 8. There are no other encnmhrunces or liens ag-~inst the land excepc ~4,,~y .~/., ~/~ (-.~_~ ........ ...................................... ... ... . .. o The {:nd lies in the fnllowinff zoning usc di.~:ricts ..~,-. ~'. .~ ............. ]0..'x'o part oi the land lies under water whether tide ~cater stream, pond water or otherwise, cept Il. The apl)l/cant shall ac his expense in.~call ail reqnired public imprnvemencs. !2. The !an¢l ~',~} I,lues not! lle in a Water f~ist=~i:: ur Vs'ater _Cupply District..N.'ame of Di~- :rice. il ~:'it~in a Oistrtct. :s .............................................................. I$. Water tn:ins well be [aid hv .... ..~.....~.. ° and fat ~n,~ char.'ze will he made ~or inataili,:~ .<aid mains. .................................... anti la) tnol charge will be made for installing said lines. 1-:. ";as mains ,,'iii be installed h,- . . .'.~. t~ . ./~/..' ............... and la) (no, char~'e will he made ."or instailln:C-atd mains. lo. if ~treet$ shown on :!:.e plat are claimed by the applicant to he ,-mstm:~ pnblie streets in :he Sui/oik Count)' Highway system, annex -Cchedule "B" hereto, to show same. 17. If streets sho~vn on the plat are claimed I)y tile applicant to be existing public streets in t!;e Town o? -~outhold Highway system, annex '~chedule "C" hereto to show same~ 18. Tllere are no existin~ huildlngs or structures ,m the land which are not located and shown on the plat. ' 19. Where the plat shows proposed streets whict~ are extensions of :streets on division maps heretoiore filed, there are ~o reserx'e strips at tile end of the streets on said existing maps at their co~junctions with th~ proposed streets. .--~0. In the course oi these proceedings, the applic'ant will o;fer penni oi tilte a.s required by Sec. .];t.~ u{ the Real Property r~w. 2I. ~ubmtt a copy oi proposed deed for lots :ihos~,ing all restrictions. ~ovenants. etc. Annex Schedule "D". ; ' ' ' .:.':<././.-'. · · c . . $ ...... a~ ttemtzed m .chcdule I~ hereto annexed and requests that the maturity of the Periormance Rood be ilxed at ............ years. The Per/ormance Bond ~vill be writre.-: by a licen~e~ surety company unless otherwise shown on Schedule "l:". ..:...< ....... .... ( Name ol' A~,ptlcant) ~ ' .......... ,....- t -~-,/:.///: ~ ~ :. . . .~:. ~. . .c~. . V~, ...... : ...... (Addressl ,~ ................................. to me known to be t,he individual descr bed in and wh,, exec~:te~l the fore~oin~ instrument, and acknowlrdeed that .... fl.~C~-, ...... executed the !amc. Notary Pubik: ST.\TF OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF ............................. ss: On the .................. day ............... :1' ........... l¢) ....... be/ore me persona/l?- came ................ tb me known, who bein v me duly sworn did de- pose and say that resides at No.. '7 ...................... ........... ........................... that ................... is the ...... of · the corporation described in and which executed tile /orecoing' instrument; that ............ kno~vs the seal of said corporation; that the seal a/fixed by order o{ the board of directors of said corpor- ig~ by · arson, and that ............ s ed ............ name thereto like order. Notary Public MEMORANDUM To: SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD From: GEORGE O. GULDI Re: Minor Subdivision Application of Douglas Miller of Tax Map ~1000-121-4-10 into three lots. Proposed Easements and Restrictions. 1] Ail three lots would have an unimproved pedes- trian right of way to a point at the intersection of lots B, C and the edge of the wetlands.* At the intersection point a brldge would be constructed to the peninsula and a nature walk will be built to the edge of the lake. The use of the nature walk and bridge would be an appertenant riqht of way of each iotowner. Maintenance of the bridge and nature walk will be a joint and several obligation of all three lo,owners. Maintenance decisions and rules as ~o use w~ll regu~r~ the consent of ~u least two of the lot- owners. A~por:~one~ shares of the maintenance expenses wl!l become a lien against the land. 2) Lot B shall have an easment over lot A for the conscruclon and malnuenace of a driveway to Kirmup road. such easement shall be adjacent so the exis=inq Li!co right of way. The ¢ons~ruc=ion and mai:enace of this.driveway w~ll De the sole obligatlon of the owner of lot B. 3) The easements and rights of way as ~%e? exist in ~he Mu!vihi!i deed, a copy of wnic is provlded herewl=n, will be orese~zed itt -~ _..e deed of the sUndived * For discussion purposes the proposed lots are refered to as A,B & C. Lot A is ~be western most lot, Lot B is the center lot and Lot C is the eastern most lot. WARNI/N(At NI) It[I ,'NI'A'III~N Iq M,%IH': II1~1' Iltl5 Fl~h,~t ~)F' t;(lNIIt~t;l' I"~Ut 'lltl: 5AI.E ANti PU[U:IIA~E UT IlEAl. ~;~I'AIF: ~OMI'I.IE;~ ~TIIII ~I.I:IION 5.;.2 O1" '111~; I;I..NI.:ItAI. I)IH.II;AiI()N~ I.AW ("PLA JR ENULl~il"). CONSULT YOUR LAWYF. R BEFORE 5IGNIN~ IF. MeIEr FIRE AND CASUAI. IY LOSSE-S: Ihl* .[ lite {;*'.r%nl (ll,ligali,m~ L:~*~ .ill .i,i,h U.r I'a~t upon lakh~[ o{ lille lo or p.~r-~h,, vi the CO~i RACT OF SALE .re,I,' .' ,,f the ~ t~. da} of February . l~ 8d BE'I~EF~ Agnes Mulvihill ~ddres*: 2607 Cravey Drive N.E., Atlaltta, Georgia 303,15 Add,~a: 101-18 97 Avenue, Ozon~ Park, New York 11416 hereina{tercalle,l"l'URCIl,%~[il~",~hn"g'er~l" bu~: 7.,I Acres on North sid~ of · l,nn eel t, nke St~eztAddce~s. Undeveloped Lot between Kirkup Way ~ ~ake Why Tax Map lJe~lg,,nth,,: Suffolk Co. Real Prop. Tax Map ~ 1000-121-4-10 rlghts appurtenant rightS, and rights to land under waterl whether acquired by deed or otherwise. The sale also includes all shrubbery, play,tings, and otht'r per- sonar property as may be on the p~operty at the time of olosing · E~rludr,I f""" IId~ .ale .~r~ F'..dtu,e ami h.u..hold h.,,ldd.g..Thore ace tie' lmproven~entS on this property. Frlc~: l. a. 'lhe put, ha~e pdrels sixty-ltine thuusaud ~ 69,0t)O.O0 ~ 6,900-(J0 ~. . -i)- -0- ,~ ¢,2,100.0~ "S.bje, I to" 'and ~ith an' dante ul ,al ..i. d.e ami i.n).nhle 4. 'lhe I'ITEMISt~ are to I,e hn.slrfrr,I d. Eosement o[ ~.I.~. Co. [or right of way, prfi.,d end firm el Deed: Dele and I'lace : I!,m. iJ Ce,li~,ntr and orders: ; f~nnlt il t~ i In IA, E/fro/ 5. ~EI.I.EIT .h.l Kive mini I'ltltCIIA.~t:II s .cmJ.'t fl '11.~ Ne~ ¥,-k It,,:.d *,l lille IhJ,t,.~w,ih'~. s~ill I~ ssilll.g lo .I,l--V. nmi l.suee J. Iccorda.ce will heir sls.ds~d I,.-, .I lill~ I,,,lir). lul~j,s'l em'h other .ruler Ihl "I:I.O5IN(;" means the s,.llh'm,'.t ~s I Iln.~h.t I.II .~.~l'il' II,'e ~i., ,h ~l~l,',J. '11.' d,'r,I ~ill r.,.lnh~ n r,,~,'.~.l 7. i.I,O~INi. ~,? ...... New York, New Yo .... -. n~ such adjourned 275 Maq%sgn ~ve.~.-.,~ '" oa' ~i_:2..tatiOn of the par StyJ~ Age,icY "" ,':: :',:. J,i~h~,,). 'T"']'.'~. ~,'~, ).'.1 --.~ u,,-~6,i ,'~' ,I 19 ,,'~'"" ,d .,,,) '~b.I ,~,~ ~1] I Iii ~,ill ,J,'Jl~.,:~i]l~.ll~l ... ,fllllil i" JqjljC'll'~l' IL "~ ~ ....... - J ~ ' I%~J~J al 1.1~,. ~"" ' ': l~ J.f.I i~t lrc. T-.,~, . ...... ',, .... ,'~ I. ,h'l,sr~ t" I ~ iU.I. .~ ~.Xi~IINI, MIITIII,,%I'I~'.. .. %!,1 1.1".11 sh, I fay I1,~ h IlK ht.?.a..~,~'. ~:,. ,e,I I,v Ihe I.,hh n ,,~ ,I ~1,..,,%,.,,.I I,'"'-,,1 ~,. ,. ,,,,,,,~ .,,'~' '"'"'~'""' "~;,.;. ~ , ,,,,' ,',',"~'""'"'.'""%;", ~'(,~ s .,,.,,~ ,','"' "'"' '"' ' ....... ' i". ,,I ~.,h, ls,,,,~ '"" ,.- .. ~ L,,,%~. h,,..h,~. I. ...... . · ~.hh .%1 ,,,,h'~ ,,s ,..., I .... .% %,~,~h,~ ,,.U.~r? ~: .-Mi<F~ .I.,11 I-' Irfi ~,,;. ~,,.,,,,, ,,,.' '~.',':'~(~ ~ ,, ~ ,,,~. ,,,.,,.,~,,,,, ~',."' ~'."'.: ,, ,,.., .,. ,h,.~,.,,,,,""" ~1'~ ~,,Ik J~ll"l 1 ....... ~ . lot U,.,*id A~i,btri: as ,~t¢.: Lien: i Li~bilitr: ~rrillng: $;ng,,Inr Also Means plural: 11. If II.':e I,o n w*ltrr u.'lrr ~,,; the I'III'MI~I S..~1 1.1.1'1~ .I,:,11 Im~,id* a ;,'ndh,g h. d ,l ,h. ,,,.I ,,,,,,, Ih'E. II~i,f) da;s bel,.r CI.uSI~G d~lle ami the u.lixed m,'l,., , h.c,' ..,I .,'-,'~ .,d, il n.). -h dl I,,, :q,l,.,~li,,.,'d -- Ih,, 15. SEI.LFIt ha. Iht ~,14b,. I. tlr,Ill I'UIH:H X~I~II .- ~.~ .,li.~-I...I ,,I Ih,. I..,h.~- I,d,.' t~ilh ti..,.,...I dab' m,t h'ss th:~t; li~e'l~;I bnti.e~s dn)s nlh'l {J.IISI~ : i,~,.~hh'tl Ih.It .lib iai I,ill~ Ih,'t, I~,l ..... ~l,.h'*l I- snld ddh, produced at s~.u.9~ ,,,., ..~ .,,, ,,,,,:,,, ,,' ,~,~ ',.,'.,,,,',' .,' ": ~:";';',":'d ~;"h ~'-;';C; ',~'. :; . ,~,-- ,"~. """' ' ' ~ li.'l..*'t ~,f.,..,dt. b'-,~;'l'1 irs t~t ,,Ih,'r trlulltt ~ed-.t I,"*"'"' I,~i.g ? l{ a t Ir exnm .nl.I t ) I, ' ' ~ ~.,ilar t,, th'd I ¢1 I I ElL ~'11 I H d~.dl ,h.lix,.r n salid;;,I,,l~ dri~fil,',l dli,la;il .d I I.II~IXI; that IhcI ale not egnh.st ~H.l.l.lt. 1~. Al (J.I)~IH(:. SEI.I.I~i .h:dl d,.li~,'r n ,.,.llili,,I ,h,,L Im}:d,h' I,, ti,,. ,,.1,; ,,I Ih,. :q,l,eq';i.d'' <htl,.. ]9. ~11 m~,.r} Val,I ,,fl n,.,',.m,l P[ Ihi~ t.~,lflf3, I. :m,] IJ~,' irn~,m;d,J,' r~l"'l~s"' ''{ rx~,t;liuali,,..,I ;~.. I'IH;MI$1';~ nmi ,,{ .'* '"'~"t ..d .. x.) i..I.,-,t;,.,* ~ r'~ · ~.,r,~ ~a,,' Il.',,. '.- Ih.' I'ltI.Ml~l'.~ r.Ur,.',ubl.' ,,.t ol the j'KEMI$ES. $u,h lic.~ sl,al~ .,,t , ..Ihm~ nh,'l dt.lnuit m I'r~h',*'u""" .I Ii.' ,,,utlmt I'UItCIIASER. 20. I[ ~EI.I.IJT h u.:dd,' h, II;m'{rf IJlh' I,, I'1'iU:IIA¢I It h, ~.',.~,J:u.,' ~iI)l tl,;' ,,,.t~a,t. ~111 I It'~ re,l,' hnh'l'f ~,i,l.l,~.lk,. ,'h. ,v ~, I'l'U' ~" ,th ,, n 1" ?,...t.ll,; .... .I,.,,I .I.dl I,,' r,,..i,h'."l ,-.., ,.ll,',l. ..,I .,..h,r SI'J.I.E 21. I'1.II~t;IIA<I'IT I~,,?,h~t,.,i ,,hh ,. r r,,.,i ,,.. Itltt IX¢I'.B .g,,'," ;" I'""":'"' '"'"' ,;',,,, ami is I'UI~glIASEIT d.dl have the fighl, alter fras,,.abh' .,,li, P I. 51J.l,l'Jt. lo i..I.'tl Ih,.m I.' ,.,' t'l,I 99 All nil f .tl,'f~h~-di'? :t,,,l ng/r,'l.,'ld~ I,rl~*,','- ~1 I.l.IJt a,,,I I I' U II ~, t,s ,.,, · .- , .... ~ ., ,,. ,, ,, h:,. ~,,.,.,, ,,,~,','"~ ~'"" .h,., u,, h,,:.;,,t,'~'.~"foEGs ~ Ile~Lo . ,~fili,,g. 11.. i.,,~lll,l,l d,:dl al-,, :q'~lT :?,) ,,:; . · ,.,.h,,, ,,,, ,,:,, ;'L; ...... ' "' '"" '"'"'"'"' '""'"" v. '. ,-,,,,,,." "'" ,.h:,:?. , ::',:)':,, the di~tfil,uh"", hr.s, exr,'.l,"~. '"" ' '.. ,'ha.c,'s i. ,lalr' ,,,,,I tim,' I,,'fi'''l' r this contract. 2L A,w .h,gula, s.o,d ott,',,,, het~h, d,all nls,~ I.' ,,.~,,1 .' i,, th,' rI.t.I .J"'""s"' ih,. ~,',,.,' .,I Ihi~ In I~tcsen¢¢ peisonally c;ime to m the individual described in and who executed Ibc foregoing lnsttumeut, and acknowlell§ed that ,4~ execute~ the same. STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF On tbs day el before mc parse.ally came to me known, who, being It)' me duly swam, did depose and any that he resides at Ho. that he is the of , lite corporat~ou described in and wblcb executed lite fo..goi.g tnstru .e st, tbnt he knows the seal o[ said coq omi oq ~h~t the seal e~xed to sald instrument is sucb corpornte seal, Ibnt it was so afl xe~ br o~der of the board o[ directors of .id eorporatlou, e.d that he signed h nnme thereto by like order. ~c-v,q.~/- '-TV OF STATE OF ps.eMily came lo me known to be lite tnd~vldunl described in nn~ who execuled Ihe Ioreg.lng insl~umeut~ and ~cknowledsed tbat d ti ' · execule STALE OF HEW yOiK;I:OUNTY : .:1'; ~ : '' . ,'~ .I . ~ , ,' 19 before me Ou lite ~ day os personnlly came . ' ' to me known hud known a pti ~e.b;p, and ~nown to end who executed lite [oreKoins luflruntent In the paflne.l.p duly Itallte, nll~ ~c~.owldFd' tl~ be executed Ibc IoregolnK insltumeni br an,] on bebfll[ of said partoe.blp. 19 , at Closing of title under the within contract is hereb) adjourned to - - ; title lo be closed etd all adjustnte.ta lo be made o'clock, at as of 19 Dated, ' 19 For value received, tbe wlthlu contract nnd all tbs right, title a.d interest of tbs purcb.er thereunder are hereby assigned, Inns[erred an~ set over unto and ,eld assignee betcby assumes all obbgatlo ~ o( the pu[cbascr tbereuuder. Dated, 19 .- . .......... ~ ....................................................... : ........... ~Aelt TITLG GUARANTEE' NEWYORK SECTION LOT cOUNTY OR lawn I'llE~,I ISES Rider A 25. A. The obligation of Purchaser hereunder are subject: (a) to the issuance of a commitment letter by a commercial bank, savings bank, savings and loan association or insurance company doinq business in the Sate of New York to Pur- chaser, on or before March 15, 1984 (acopy of which letter shall be furnished to Seller promptly after receipt thereof), pursuant to which the institution agrees to lend not less than $ 51,750, at a rate of interest not to exceed * % per annum, for a term of at least ** years solely upon the security of a pledge, security interest or assignment of, and/or mortgage on, the Premises, in order to enable Purchaser to consummate the transaction provided herein; *Not to exceed the prevailing market rate, ** No: to ex- ceed the prevailing term. of loan (b) to the c!osinq of the loan on or before the date fixed in Paragraph 10 for closing. B. Purchaser shall apply for the loan, shall furnish to the institution, within ~ ._ye (5) days of the date hereof, accurate and complete information on Purchaser and memDers of Purchaser's fam- ily, as required, shall advise Seller-of the name and address of the institution to which such aoplicati0n has been made and date upon which i~ was made. C. Purchaser shall accept an? commitment letter complying with the terms of subparagraph A(a; hereof, if issued, shall pay any application, a~pra~sal, com.mztment or ocher fees in respect of uha loaa, and shall comp~, wz%h ~he requirements of the com,.it- men: ie~er o~ner than :hose rela~nq to the Corporation. D. Provided thac Purchaser shall have fulfilled all of Pur- chaser's cblic, au~ons under suDparagra~h B hereof, if the aforemen- =icned com,-..IL-..en: letter is no= issued by. the .'_-.a=~e .~rcviled for in sub:aracrauh A(a) hereof, Purchaser shall have the -~' :o te-~u..znaue 'h_=..'_ a=rmemen:, on No:Loc ~iven_ not more than five (5) days thereafter, or :f the other conditions provided fur in sub- paraqra?. A hereof are not met. Purchaser shall have :he rlqnt :o term,_naue :his agreement on :.~otice ~o Seller, and in either such even: _1_ stuns :heretofore paid on account of the purchase price shall be re~_urned without delay and without interest to Purchaser, and all per-_les hereto shall be relieved of and from any further liability hereunder. 26. The down oavment made oursuant to 9~rac~auh 3 hereof, shall be held in esc~oQ bv~,,/~,/~/~/~,'~/, ~'~j attorneys for Seller, pendinq the'clo~lnq or otter disposition of the down pay- ment pursuant to the terms of this A~reement.. Neither party hereto shall have any claLm againsu,~-~-/~ ~, '~W~/~/~ ~'~9 , for any dis- position of the down payment maGe by it in good faith. 27. The obligations of purchaser hereunder all subject to acqui- sition of a written document confirming the approval of the Planning Soard of the Town of Southold or a site plan for the de- velopment of the Premises. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if said a~proval has not been obtained within 60 days of the date hereof then; (a) Seller may issue a notice, the content of which will serve to terminate this agreement, five days from the receipt thereof, un- less the actions specified in sun-paragraph (b) herein are taken by the purchaser; (b) If, upon receipt of the notice referred to in sub-garagrsph (a) above, purchaser elects to waive condition regarding site plan approval, then, upon written notice to the seller of that fact, the notice referred to in suD-paragraph (a) above will be deemed void, and the Closing shall take place as provided in paragraph 7. 'Exhibit # 2 $¢HEFFLER G~,'LDI I~I~LIN$I~Y & STEIN May 7, 1984 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of' Miller Tax MaD 1000-121-4-10 Dear Sirs: 4, 1983, vised.by I have been informed that by letter dated February the Southold Town Planning Roard ("Board") was ad- the Town Attorney that the: Section A i06-36A of the Planning 9oard's subdivision regulations orovides, in part, that 'land subject to floodin~ or land deemed by the Planning Board to be uninhabitable shall no~ be platted for residential occupancy . ' I would construe this to mean that only the upland can be considered part of a lot. By this letter I will at'tempt to summarize our posi- tion with respect to this question in the hope that some reso- lution is possible through dialogue. 'It is our position that the Code of the Town of Southold provisions of ~ 106-36 Drain- ~e Improvements relate to questions of Drainage Improvements, and that the Town Codes express provisions relating to Lots (~ 106-35) and the Zoning Laws Incorporated by reference in that provision control lot sizes. In those instances where the provisions of the Zon- ing Ordinances have been intended to exclude portions of a parcel from its area for purposes of computing 10t sizes the zoning ordinance has made express provision to do so. For ex- ample, in the subdivision relating to cluster developments ~ 100-136(A)(1) there is such an express limitation as the one . which the February 4, 1983 letter concludes can be supported on the basis of the drainage regulations. Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. May 7, 1984 Page 2 I respectfully submit that such a construction of the drainage regulations cannot be supported. The require- ments of hearings and notice to amend zoning regulations must be complied with in order to affect a substantive change of the law. The argument that the intent of ~ 106-36C was to ex- clude wetlands from lot areas cannot stand in light of the exi press language used in the Zoning Law to accomplish that re- sult where it was desired. In order to change the law the Town must do more than place a new and unsupported meaning on the words of the existing Code. While the objectives of preserving wetlands, and of controlling the rate of growth in the area are no doubt lauda- tory, before a change in the law to exclude wetlands from lot areas for all purposes is considered, there are substantial, and perhaps grave economic consequences to the Town of the ex- istence of such a provision which must first be carefully con- sidered. This letter is not an adequate way to fully discuss those issues but will only seek to point them out. .The two . primary possible consequences to be dealt with are firstly, the direct costs to the Town of such a policy, and secondly the affect of such a policy on the tax base of the Town. Direct Costs to the Town "The Tidal Wetlands Act", New York Environmental Conservation Law, Act 25, effective September.l, 1973, gives full power over the regulation oX tidal wetlands to the De- partment of Environmental Conservation ("DEC"). Among the criteria specified for the DEC to consider denying or granting an application for a proposed use the DEC must consider the possibilities of inter alia flooding and storm dangers. The constitutionality of the provision is preserved*.by Section 25-0404 which provides: Cf. Chase v. City of Glen Cove, 34 Misc.2d 819, 227 N.Y.S.2d 131 (1962); Vern6n Park Realty v. City of Mount Vernon, 307 ' N.Y. 493, 121 N.E.2d 516 (1954); City of Plainfield v. Bor- ough of Middlesex, 69 N.J. Super. 13~, 173 A.2d 785 (1961); Sanderson v. City of Willmor, 162 N.w.2d 494 (Minn. 1968). Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. May 7, 1984 Page 3 Any person aggrieved by the issuance, de- nial, suspension or revocation of a permit may with- in thirty days from the date of the commissioner's order seek judicial review . In the event that the court may find that the determination of the commissioner constitutes the equivalent of a taking without compensation, and the land so regu- lated otherwise meets the interest and objectives of this act, it may, at the election of the commis- sioner, either set aside the order or require the commissioner to acquire the' tidal wetlands or such rights in them as have been taken, proceeding under the power of eminent domain. Given the relative value of the undeveloped wetlands in the Town, and given the requirement zoning regulations must be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner,* the possibility that the Town could be required to condemn all wetlands with respect to which subdivision application would be economically devistating (e.g., Russo v. New York State Department of En- vironmental Conservatlon, et al., Supreme Court, Nassau Co. January 13, 1976, Kelly J.). While most wetlands in the Town are already part of existing subdivisions, as is discussed in Part 2 of this letter, there would be substantial impact on the Town because of the very high value of that wetland which is as yet undeveloped. Effect on Tax Base Lands which can be utilized for no purpose, must be appraised at nominal value for Real Estate Tax Purposes (e.g., Russo v. Board of Assessors, County of Nassau, (1976). Land wnic~ is of a szmilar nature, description and use must be assessed on an equal basis. The economic effects of removing all land subject to flooding from the tax roles of the Town would result in the virtual economic collapse of the town or in mainland property tax payers suffering vastly increased tax burdens. * See, Matter of DiMa9gio v. Brown, 19 N.Y.2d 283, 279 N.Y.$.2d 161, 225 N.S.2d 871; Myer v. Myer, 271 A.D. 465{ 66 N.Y.S.2d 83 aff'd 296 N.Y. 979, 73 N.E.2d 562 (19 ); Matter of Posner v. Rockefeller, 31 A.D.2d 352, 297 N.Y.S.2d 867. Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. May 7, 1984 Page 4 Less Drastic Alternatives The apparent objectives of a provision excluding land subject to flooding from lot areas can be readily achieved though less drastic alternatives than those discussed herein. The most obvious alternative is the upzoning of the areas in question to larger lot sizes. Upzoning would result in reduced demands on the water table, environment, and not have the adverse economic effects of requiring condemnation or removal of property from the tax roles. The recen~ upzoning of the area in which this proposed subdivision lies, has to a large extent accomplished this result. The Current Application The application of Miller with respect to this par- cel is an application which exceeds current ~tandards. While the parcel consists of 7.2+ acres and is zoned for 2 acre de- velopment this application is for a subdivision of only 3 lots each of which exceed the minimum lot size by at least 25%. Each of the proposed lots will provide more than adequate set backs from all proposed boundries, with ample set ba~k from the wetlands. The proposal provides for the permanent preser- vation of the wetlands on the parcel, while leavinq those wet- lands under private ownership and on the tax role. Conclusion While the bulk of this letter deals with the conse- quences of a change in the laws of the Town of Southold to ex- clyde all wetlands from lot areas for zoning purposes, we must reiterate that it is our position that a new interpretation of the existing provisions with respect to the drainage regula- tions of subdivisions constitutes a change of law without com- pliance with the mandatory steps for amendment. Furthermore, by this letter we attempt to point out some of the issues that would be created, if an amendment, to the effect of the suggested interpretation were to be adopted. I remain available to further discuss this proposal at the convenience of the Board, its counsel or other repre~ sentatives, please feel free to contact me. Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. May 7, 1984 Page 5 Also enclosed are six vey which has a key map showing Lane. copies of a supplemental sur- the travelled route of Kirkup Enclosures truly yours, May ~/ 1984 Robert W. Tasker, Esq. Town Attorney 425 Main Street $outhold, NY 11944 Re: Miller Application for minor subdivision Dear Mr. Tasker, I have tried to reach you at your office without success to discuss the enclosed draft of a proposed letter to the Planning Board. Z have been advised that the proposed subdivision is not likely to be approved since it includes wetlands in each'of the proposed. I have been provided a copy of your letter to the PLanning Board, da=ed February 4, 1983 in which you advise the with respec= to Section A 106- 36C of the subdivision regulations. In that my position requires me to take a position which is contras! to that set forth in your letter of February 4, 1983, Z am forewar~inq you this draft letter prior to such time as I provide it to the Board. I ask that you review the draft and contact me so that I can accomidate any additional information which might be helpful in the final draft which I provide to the Board. Z look foreward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours George O. Gu!di bcc: Douglas Miller : . Moy 1 ~ Mr. Henry E. Roynor, Jr. Mr. Bennett OrlowsKi, Jr. Southold Town Pionning Boord Town Southold, New York 11771 Re: Applicotion oF Miller I hove been informed thot by letter doted 4, 1783, the So,;thold Town PIonning Boord ('Boord') vised by the Town ~ttorney thor the.' Feb p~o ry WOS od- Section A 106-J6A oF the PIonning Bocrd's subdivision regulctions Brovides, in port, thor 'lond sub.ject to Flooding or lend deemed by the Plonning Boord to be oninhobitcble shcll not be plotted For residentiol occuponcy · · .' I would construe this to mecn thct only the upi.and c.an be considered port o~ o lot. By this letter I will cttempt to summcrize o,xr posi- tion with respect to this question in the hope thct some reso- lution is possible through. . diclogue. It ~s our position thct the Code o? the Town o? Southold provisions o? ~-~J~£g%~J~O!~ relote to questions o? Droincge Improvements, ,and thor the Town Codes express provisions reloting to Lots (.~ 106-35) .and 'the Zoning Lcws Incorproted by re?erence in thor provision control lot sizes, In those instonces where the provisions o? the Zon- ing Ordinonces hove been intended to e>:clcde portions o? ~ porcel From its crec For purposes oF computing lot sizes the zoning ordinonce hos mode express provision to do so. For e~:- ompIe, in the s~bdivision reloting to cluster developments < lO0-1J&(A)(1) there is such on express limitotion cs the one which the Februcry 4, 1785 letter concludes con be supported on the bosis oF the drcinoge regulotions. Henry E. ~oynor, Jr. Bennett OrlowsKi, Jr. I, 1984 Pcge 2 I respectfully submit thor such c construction of the droincge regulctions conner be supported. The require- merits of hootings end notice to emend zoning reguictions must be'complied with in order to effect c substontive chonge of the low. The crgument thor the intent of 4 106-J&C wes to ex- clude wetlcnds From lot crees cermet stcnd in light of the ex- press 1.1ngucge used in the Zoning Low to cccomplish th.it re- suit where it wes desired. In order to chcnge the low the Town must do more then plcce c new end unsupported mooning on the words of the existing Code. While the ob.jectives oF preserving wetlcnds, end oF controlling the rote oF growth in the orec ore no doubt tory, before o chonge in the 1.1w to exclude wetlcnds From lot .lrecs For ell purposes is considered, there ore substontiol, end perhops grove economic consequences to the Town oF the istence of such .1 provision which must First be c.ireFully con- sidered. This letter is not on odequote woy to ~ully discuss those issues but will only seek to point them out. The two primcry possible consequences to be deolt with ore Firstly, the direct costs to the town o? such o policy, end secondly the o?Fect of such o policy on the to>: bose of the Town. 'The Tidql Wetlcnds Act', New York Environmentol Conservotion Low, hot 25, effective September i, 197~, gives Full power over the regulotion of tidoi wetlonds to the De- portment of Environmentol Conservotion ('~EC')o Among the criterio specified For the BEC to consider denying or grcnting on cpplicotion ~or o proposed ~se the DEC must consider the possibilities of iO~ ~ii~ Flooding end storm dcngers0 The constitutionolity of'the provision is preservedZ by Section 25-0404 which provides; CF. Chose v. ~i!Z_~_~i~o-~S~, 54 Misc.2d $19, ~,7 N.YoS.2d 1Ji (1962); Vernon P,~pK_Re,lltz v. Citz of Mount Uernon, N.Y. 495, 121NoE.2d 516 (1954);---Cit~--------------°F PloinField v. ---Bor- g'~g~_~_~!~:'~, 69 N*J. Super. 136, 175 ~.2d 785 (1961); v. 162 N,W.2d 494 (Minno 1968). Mr. Henry Eo R.lynor, Jr. Mr. Bennett OrlowsKi, Jr. Moy l, 1784 Poge 5 Any person ,lggrieved by the issuonce, de- nicl, suspension or revocotion oF c permit mcy with- in thirty dcys ~rom the dote oF the commissioner's order seek .judiciol review 0 . · · In the event thor the court moy ~ind thor the determinotion oF the commissioner constitutes the equivolent o~ o toKing without compensotion, ond the lend so regu- loted otherwise meets the interest ond objectives oF this oct, it moy, ct the election oF the commis- sioner, either set oside the order or require the commissioner to ocquire the tidol wetlonds or such rights in them ,is hove been t.lKen, proceeding under the power o~ eminent domoin. .- Given the relotive volue o~ the undeveloped wetlcnds in the Town, ond given the requirement zoning regulotions must be ~pplied in c nondiscriminotory monner,Z the possibility thor the Town could be required to condemn oil wetlonds with respect to which subdivision cpplicotion would be economicoily devistoting (e.g., ~ v0 ~_~£~_~_~O~_~_~- ~i£~O~O~!_~O~%~!~i_~_~!!, Supreme Court, N.iss.~u Co. Jonuory 1J, 1~76, Kelly J0)o While most wetlcnds in the Town ore olreody port o£ existing subdivisions, os is discussed in Port 2 oF this letter, there would be substontiol impoct on the Town beccuse oF the very high volue oF thor wetiund which is cs yet undeveloped. Lends which con be utilized ~or no purpose, re,asr be oppri,lsed ,it nomin,ii vciue For Re,ii Estcte T,l:4 Purposes (e.g., _~,j_ss_o v. _B_o,2_r_d__o_~__~s_s~_ss_o_rsi_~_o,4_n_tz__of NS_s_s~, '(1776). Lond which is oF o similor noture, description ond use must be ossessed on on equoi bosis. The economic effects oF removing oil lond subject to {looding ~rom the toy roles o~ the Town would result in the virtuol economic collopse oF the town or in t~=;: b.,~ =4~moinlond property to:-: poyers su~ering vostly increosed to:-: burdens. See, Motter oF v. 17 N.Y.2d 283, 27? ~ " "~" " ' ' HXer, 271 A.D. N.Y.o.~d 161, ~ N.E.~d 871~, ~Z~Z v. - -- 4~5, 6~ N.Y.S.2d 85 ~ oF~'d 27~ N.Y. ?7?, 75 N.E.2d 562 (17 ); v. 51 2?7 Mr. Henry Eo ~cynor, J~. Mr. Bennett OrlowsKi, Jr. Moy 1, 1984 Foge 4 Less Drcmtic Alternctives The cpporent objectives o~ o provision excluding lend sub,ject to ~looding ~ro~ lot .ire,as con be re,idily cchieved though less drostic oltern,itives then those herein. The most obvious clternctive is the upzoning o~ t~e creos in question to lorger lot sizes. Upzoning would result in reduced demcnds on the woter toble, environment, ond not hove the cdverse economic e{~ects o~ requiring condemnction or removol o~ property ~rom the tox roles. The recent upzoning o~ the oreo in which this proposed subdivision lies. hcs to lcrge extent ,accomplished this result. The cpplicotion o? Miller with respect to this p.lr- eel is on cpplicotion which exceeds current stcndords. While the p.lrcel consists o? 7.2~ ocres ~nd is zoned ?or 2 ccre de- velopment this opplicction is ?or c subdivision o? only 5 lots etch o? whic.h exceed the mini~,um lot size by ct lecst 25%. E.sch o? the proposed lots will provide more th,in ,ldequcte set b,acKs ?rom ,all proposed boundries, with ,ample set b,lcK ?rom the wetl,inds. The proposol provides ?or the perm,~nent preser~ ' votion o? the wetlunds on the p,ircel, while leoving those wet- lends under private ownership end on the t~:: role. 'Con r_ lus ion While the b~ilK o? this letter decls with the conse- quences o? o chcnge in the l~ws o? the Town o? Southold to ex- clude oll wetl,inds ?rom lot ore.~s ?or zoning purposes, we must reiterote th,it it is our position th,it o new interpretotion o? the existing provisions with respect to the drcin,age regul,i- tions o~ subdivisions constitutes o ch,inge o~ 1,aw without com- plicnce with the mondctory steps ~or omendment. Furthermore, by this letter we ,attempt to point out some o~ the issues thot would be erected, i~ cn omendment, to the e~Fect o~ the s~-ggested interpret,~tion were to be ,adopted. I remoin ovoiloble to ~urther disucss this propos,al the convenience o? the Bo,ird, its counsel or other repre- sentatives, pieose ?eel ?ree to contcct me. Hr. Henry Eo Rqynor, Jr. Hr. Bennett OrlowsZi, Jr. M,~y ir i~84 Poge 5 Also enclosed vey which h,is ,~ Key m,~p Lcneo ,~re si:.: copies o~ c supplementci sur- showing the tr,iveiled route o£ KirKup Very truly yours, George O. Guldi Enclosures Exhibit # 3 May 8, 1984 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman $outhold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Miller Tax MaD 1000-121-4-10 Dear Members of the Planning Board: This letter is to confirm our understanding that the above-referenced application for approval of a minor subdivi- sion has been referred by the Board to the Town Attorney for an opinion with respect to the exclusion of wetlands from lot sizes for subdivision purposes of the lots in this minor sub- division. As is outlined in my letter of May 7, 1984 which was delivered by hand to the members of the Board, I do not believe that the exclusion of wetlands from lot sizes is per- missible under the existing laws of the Town of Southold. As the Board is aware, and the contract of sale which is filed with the Board ind$cates, there is substantial pressure from the seller of this parcel to complete the Board's examination and review of this application in order to permit the closing and transfer of title to occur. While I appreciate the extraordinary workload and pressures that the Board operates under, I request that the Board hear and deter- mine this matter at its earliest possible convenience. Be- cause of these time pressures, and on the assumption that the Board would need the advice of its Counsel, I took the liberty of forwarding a draft of the letter to the Town Attorney gn May 2, 1984 prior to its submission to the Board. As a supplement to those arguments presented to the Board at its hearing on May 7, 1984, there are a few addi-' tional observations I think are important to bring to the Mr..Bennett Orlowski, Jr. May 8, 1984 Page 2 Board's attention. The simplest characterization of the issue to be determined by the Board is basicly a mathematical deter- mination. The parcel in question has a total area in excess of seven acres and has been designated and taxed as such since at least the 1960's. The question mathematically is whether the two-acre zoning as applied to the seven plus acre lot re- sults in at least three lots as is proposed by the subdivi- sion, or in two lots as has been suggested by the Board. We submit that under the applicable law a three-lot determination is proper. In addition, we must point, out that the character of the area in which this proposed subdivision lies is composed of substantially smaller lots than the dry upland portion of the lots proposed by the subdivision. Furthermore, we have been advised that the 47 acre track to the west of the subject of this application has recently been acquired by a corpora- tion with the intention of proposing a major cluster subdivi- sion along and around the 800 feet of lakefront which that lot has. Under the cluster subdivision regulations, the lot sizes of the future potential development to the west would also be smaller than the three lots proposed in this minor subdiPi- sion. It would be manifestly unfair, as well as contrary to the zoning laws, to compel the applicant to divide this parcel and develop lots which were vastly larger than any of the ex- isting lots or potential future lots in the area. For the reasons set forth in this letter and for the reasons set forth in the letter dated May 7, 1984 and provided to the Board, we submit that there is no proper basis upon which the application for a three'lot subdivision of this par- cel can be denied. ; , Please advise us of the scheduled date for the next Planning Board meeting so that we may attend. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require any additional or supplemental information. cc: · ~~~l~Very truly~~yo s ._/ Robert W. Tasker,/Esq. ~ ~ Mr. Douglas Mil{er GEORGE O. GUI. DI August 9, 1984 Southold Town Hall Southold, Town Planning Board New York 11971 Re: Application of Miller Tax Map 1000-121-4-10 Dear Sirs, Thank you for advising me by telephone that the above referenced matter had been adjourned from the July 30, meeting of the Planning Board since the Board has not received any response from the town attorney to my letter dated May 7, 1984, a draft of which was sent by me to the town attorney on May 2, 1984. While we appreciate the dedication and diligences of the members of the Board we are constrained to point out that the application has been complete and pending since the beginning of the year and the delay in receiving any response whatsoever from the town attorney seems excessive. ' ' While we do not request that the Board act in the absence of the advice of counsel we respectfully request that every effort be made to obtain that advice so that we can pursue our application and complete our obligations under our contract. Please notify me as soon as any response from the town attorney is available, and .~dvise me when we are next on the Board's agenda. } Very truly yours, George O. Guldi .( Southold. N.Y. 11971 · (516) 755-1938 September 11, 1984 Mr. George O. Guldi Attorney at Law Scheffler Guldi Karlinsky and Stein .275 Madison Avenue '' New York, NY 10016 Re: Application for minor subdivision Douglas Miller at Laurel Dear Mr. Guldi: Please let this confirm the action of the Planning Board Monday, September 10, 1984. .RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board deny the application of Douglas Miller to subdivide property located at Laurel since with the deletion of the wetlands, the buildable area of the lots is less than 80,000 sq. ft.; therefore, lots of insufficient area would be created. ~/~ If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. " Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRM3~N y .THOLD T?W ulane-M. $¢nultze, Se~ret'ary Exhibit # 6 ~ Soathold Town Board o peals MAIN RI-lAD- STATE Rr'IAD 25 -mOL~THOLD. L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE {518) 785-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONI$. JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICXI November 7, 1984 George O. Guldi, Esq. 875 Avenue of the Americas Suite 2424 New York, NY lO001 Re: Appeal No. 3299 Douglas Miller Dear Mr. Guldi: This letter will confirm that the following action was taken at a Regular Meeting of the board held October 25, 1984, concerning this matter: RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3299, application for DOUGLAS MILLER for a variance in order to allow inclusion of we-~an~s ~ area for approval of a three-lot minor subdivision, BE AND HERESY IS HELD TEMPORARILY IN ABEYANCE pending receipt of the following documents: 1. N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation approval or comments; 2. Suffolk County Department o~ Health Services review, comments and/or approval, in accordance with Article 6, Realty Subdivisions and Developments. It is our understanding that an application has been filed with the N.Y.S.D.E.C. in Stony Brook and the matter is pending. Please keep us advised regarding developments with bo~h agencies. Thank you for your cooperation. Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER .CH~,IRMAN · Exhibit # 7 /' Address: D.~.u~las Miller 40 Old Main Road ____~uoSue~ N. Y. 11960 Permilsappliedforandapplicalionnumber{s) Freshuacer Wetlan.__du Per-~it ~o. I0-85-136~ Proiect de~c~ilxion and Iocalion. TowrU~oi ~_~outhold Coumy ol g,,i:fnlk Construct 3 single famLly ho~es to within 50 feet of the ~ adjacent co Laurel Lake on lots of ac lease 2~ acres each. The project is located be~veen the LILCO righc-of-~ay and Laurel Lake in M4ttituck. SEQR DET[RMINATION: (check appropriale boxl n S£QK.2 · '~ S£QR.3 i-1 SEQR-4 n SEQR-$ ^ final environmental in,pact slale[nenl has ~en pfep.l~ed on Ihis i)toj~[ and ~s on file SEQR LEAD AGENCY NYSDEC Projucl is no; sublet[ lo $£QR because il is an exenq~L excluded or a 1yp¢ II ;cJib~ P~oject is a Type I aclion; il ha~ ~en determined thai Ih~ plOlL~l will ~ol have 2 sJgnJhCanl clio. cf Ol1 IIIL' env,ronment. A Neg,ilive Decla~a6on has ~en prepared and is on fil~. P, oj~I is an unli~led aclion; il has been dezermin~ Ihal ~le ploj~l will I~l t,a.'(- a ~gnificam ,d/ecl on Ihe environmenl. A dra, e,wimnmumal tmpacl s[al~monl h~s becel pr~.pared on Ihis pmlecz and ~ on file. AVAILABILI~' FOR PUBLIC CO~vLMEN[: Applicazions may be rc¥iewed al Ihe address li~l~ be16~9. Commums on project musl ~ submilled IO the Comact Person indical~ ~l~ by no ~ler Ihan April I I, 1986 CONTACT PERSON: Michael J. FLse~na,Sr. Enviro~encal Analyst ~ldg. 40, ~, Room 219 Stony ~rook, ~ 11794 (516) 75~-7900 1. THIS IS NOT A PERMIT ' [-1 n4~ requued New York State Department of Environmental Co~ervauon Bldg. gO0 SU~r~--ILoom 219 (SI6) ~4~nry G. Williams l~arch 12, 198~ ~ ' I Dear Hr. Hiller: 'Enclosed is & '~ottca of C~aplete Appltcazlou" ~hich ~ou are to nave in the Lon~ Island Traveler once duz~ng the ~eak of ~am on any day ldouda7 t~to~gh Friday. ptea~ tnscmct ~e n~spapet to ~bl~sB only t~e ~cer~L~tBtn the box. Under the heading *'5Eq~ DefeCation" o~he~e_line eet~ got ~hlch a box ~s been ~rk~d shoed be publiah~. Please reques~ ~he uevspap~ publXsh~ to p~ovid~ ~h a "~roof ~ubX~cation~ fo~ tbs ~tice. Upon recipe of th~ *Troo~ of promptly toward it to'this office for f~t~ ~th 7~t appl~iou. You a~e c~ pay the cost of ~ publi~i~u~thla 30 days.. P~ease be ad~s~ chac ~y ~Y or fa~ure co co~17 rich the ~or publicatiou~7 result in d~ays ~ processing ~ issuance o[ y~ur application. you ~ave a~7 queStions, pl--~ contac: tha undersig~ed at ~516) 751-7900. VerT ~uly yours, Senior Envt~onaen£al Analys£ ° ~'uOUNTY OF SUFFOLK '~ STATE OF NEW YORK ss: ( 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 ...................... Sworn to before me this ...... ,~ ~o ~' ................ day of Notary Public BA.I~A.R~ FORBES ~Totary Publ/¢. State of Ne~ Y~k N~ ~6 Qualifi~ ~ S~o;k ~ GEORGE O. GULDI WENDY A OLUM' GULDI & OLUM 875 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS SUITE 2424 NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10001 (212) 714-1315 45 MAIN STREET SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 (516) 283-8288 April 8, 1986 Mr. Michael J. Fiscina Senior Environmental Analyst New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, SUNY-Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 Re: FWW Permit No. 10-85-1368 Dear Mr. Fiscina, . . Enclosed pursuant to your letter to my client dated March 12, 1986 is the original proof of publication of the advertisement required by the terms of your letter. Please note that Mr. Miller's correct address, in the event you have occassion to direct anything directly to his attention in the future, is 55 Old Main Road, Quogue, NY 11959, and not 40 Old Maia. Road,.,.Quogue, NY 11960. None the less we received the correspondence in time to permit us to place the ad pursuant to the schedule required by you. Please direct all further.correspondence to this office. CC Mr. Douglas Miller Very. truly yours,_ GOG/nbw Eno. New York State Department of Environmental' Conservation The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued permit(s) pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law for work being conducted on this site. For further informa- tion regarding the nature and extent of work approved and any Departmental conditions on it, contact the Regional Permit Administrator listed below. Please refer to the permit number shown when contacting the DEC. l~av~.d beRid~er Alternate Regional Permit Admlnlstralor Permit No. 10-85-1368 Expiration Date 9~2~1 (I 1~32~ NOTE: This notice Is not a permit 10-85-1368 FACILITY;PROGRAM NUMBeR(s) HEW J--JArticle 15, Title 5: Protection oJ Water r'JArticle 15, Title 1St Water Supply __ -- [~^rticle 15. Title lS: : Water Transport _ J--~Article 15, Title 15: Long Island Wells [-]^rticle 15. Title 2r: Wild. Scenic : and Recreational Rivers -- PERMIT Under the Env;ronmental Conservation Law ~FFECIIVE DA.Ti 5/29/86 ~X~IRATJON 12/31/87 ~]Article 17. Titles 7', 8: SPDES J'~Article 19: Air Pollution Control I-]Article 23. Title 27: Mined Land Reclamation ~^rticle 24: Freshwater Wetlands J-]Article 25: Tidal Wetlands J-]Article 27, Title 7: Solid Waste Management r'~.~rticle 27, Title 9: Hazardous Waste Management _ · ~-l,~rticle 34: Coasta~ I:rosion Management _ J~Article 36: Floodplain Management r'~Articles 1, 3, 37; 6NYCRR 380: Radiation Contro~ _ J--'J6NYCRR COB: N--New, R--Renewal, M--Modilication , Water Quality Certification ~ C-Construction, O-Opera~ion. (If Applicablel, . ~e family dwelling on .Lot 1 a minimum of 9~0',1~ -~e amily dwel~Lng on Lot 3 a minimum of 105 landward of t lands boundary, one fa~ on t_~o_t 2 a_ mi~ ~~'~. All sanitary systems shaLL oe co s 100' landward of the freshwater wetlands'bo=ndar"- ........... ~ ' GENERAt'~ONO~td¢t compliance ,. N~'! YOP~ STATE DEPAR~NT OF ~,~VIRO~E~'NTAL CGltS.-'.RVATION Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, Sb/~Y--Room 219 Stony Brook, MY 11794 (516) 751-7900 May 29, 1986 Mr. Douglas Miller 40 Old Main Road Quogue, N.Y. 11960 RE: PERMIT NO..I0-85-1368 Dear Mr. Mtlle~: In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and i~s implementing Regulations (6}~CRR, Part 621) we are enclosing your permit.' Please read all condt~ions marefully. If are unable to comply with any conditions, please contac~ the Regional Regulatory Affairs Unit, ~S Department of Environmental Conservation, State University of ~ew York at ~tony Brook, ~uilding 40, Stony Brook, New York. ". .-M. so enclosed is a permi~ sign which you are to conspicuously post ac the project site, protected from the weather. Sincerely, David DeRidder Alternate Regional Permit Agminis=ra~or DDR:co's Enclosures -) it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of'said waters or flood flows or endanger the health.' safety or welfare of the people of the State. or cause loss or destruction of the natural remove or alter the structural work. obstructmns, or hazards caused thereby without expense to the State..and if. upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the structure, fill. excavation, or other modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall nat be com- extent and in such time and manner as th~ Department et E nvimnmemal 11. Tha~ the State el New York shaU in no ~ase be liable tot any damage by or re~ull from ~uture operations u~derlaken by the State lot the no claim or right to compensation shall 3cctue from any such damage. be prescribed by the UnRed States Coati Guard shalJ be installed and maintained. : 13. All neces~a~ precautions shall be taken to p~eclude contamination the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a tendency to cause damage .to navigable channels ot to the banks of 15. If any material is to be deposited or dumped under this permit, either in the waterway o~ on shore above high-wate~ mark. it shall be deposited or dumped at the Iocafity shpwn on the dra~ving hereto attached, and. if so prescribed lhereon, within or behind a good and substantial bulkhead or bulkheads, such as will preven~ escape of the material into the wate~ay. 16. Thereshaltbenounreasonablelntederencewithnavig~[ionbythework herein authorized. 17. If granted under Articles 2; or 2S. and vocatmn of this permit, moddication et the wetland hereby authorized has not been completed. ~h~ applicant shall, wilhou~ expense to the State. and to such extent'and ia such time and manne~ as the Oepartment o{ Env,onment~l Come,orion may reauite, remove aU or any portion of [he uncompleted s~tucture or li)l and restore lhe site to ils {ormee condition. No Claim shall be made againsl ~he State 18. If Eranled under Article 36~ thls permit does not Sightly in any way that ih~ a~ect ~iil be tree iro~ 19. All activities authorized bv ~his pe~mil must be in strict con(o~mance with the approved plans subm.~lted ~ the appllcan~ o~ hit agent as part o~ ~h~'pesmit appllcation, r. Such aporaved plans we~e'p~ep~ed by · lacesL :ev:se~ Youn~ & Young, L,S. on 10/21/~ · SPECIAL CONDITIONS~ I. There shall be no disturbance to Ye§eta:ion or topography ~ minimum of 50' landvard of the freshwater vetland boundary on Lots I and 3. 2. T~ere shall be ~o disturbance ~o vegetation or rcopography a minimu~ of 25* landward of the ~reshvacer vetlands boundary on LoC: 2. 3. Hay bales shall be placed aC the com~encemen~ elf construction and remain tn place until the grade has been stab$lized with vegetation a: :he landward edge of bUffer areas (25' Lot I, 50' Lot 2 & 3) Supplementary Special Conditions (A) through (J) at'cached. 10-85-1368 k ~/A Page 2 ............ Z. --- SU~FL~__--'__,'T~¥ SFECI.AL CO),'DITIOI:S.-.. '- The following conditions apply to all A. If any of the permit conditions are unclear, the permittee shall contact the Division of. Regulatory Affairs a= the address and t~lephone noted B. A copy of this permit or approval and supplementary conditions shall be. available at th~ project site whenever authorized work is in progress, C. The permit sign. enclosed with t~e permit or a copy of letter of approval shall be protected from the weather'and posted in a conspicinus location ac the work sit~ until completion of ~uthorized work. .. D. At least 48 hours prior to c~encement of the projecti the permittee'shai1 complete and return the top Tort!om o~,..=be.anclc~ad r~tp= form certifying that he is fully aware of and understands all provisio~s and conditions of this permit. Within one week of completion of the pet-mi~ted work, the bottom portion cf :hat form shall also b~ %ompleted and zeturned. For proJecte involving activities to. be accomplished over a period or more than one year, .the peru/tree shall notify the Regional;~ermit Administrator · in writing at least 48 hours to the commencement of resumption of work each year. F. If project d'esfgn modifica=ions take place after per=lc issuance, the permittee shall submit the appropriate plan changes for approval by the Regional Perm/t Administrator prior to undertaking any"such ~odifioations. The perm_t-tt~e is advised that substao~ial modl~icatlon may require sub- mission of a new application for permit. 'Ail necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude Cont~mination of any · wetlands or waterway by suspended solids, sediment, fuels, solventS, lubricants, epoxy coatings, paints, concrete, leachate or any other ~ ~nvironmentally deleterious macerisls.-assoCia=ed vi~h thl project work, ~y failure to c~ply precisely with ~11 of the terms and conditions of this permit, un.less authorized in w~iting, shall be treated as a viola~ion of the Euvlro~mental ConserWation Law. I..~The'permittee is advised to obtain any permits or approvals that may be 26 Federal Plaza, Hew York, NY 10278, (Attention: Regulatory Functions Branch), prior to commencemen= of work authorized herein. '' J. The granting of this permit does not relieve the permittee of the responsibilit? of obtaining a grant, easement, or other necessary approval from the Division of Land Ut!Ii:etlon, Office of General Services, Tower Building, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12242,.whtch may b~ required for any encroachment upon State-o~ned lands under water. ."' Regional ]ermit AdminiStrator NY$ Dept. of Environmental. Conserva~ion Bldg. 40, SUNY--Room 219 '. .. Stony Brook, NY~ 10-85-1368 . · h~SDMC, Regional Permit Administrator Bldg. 40, S~Y~Room 21~ Stony Brook, KY I17~4 Pe:nlt No. Contractor Is'sued to Address Dear Sir: Phone No; ................... Pursuant to General Condition Number ! of the above referenced perm/: you ar~ hereby notified Chat the au:horized ac~!vl~y shali commence on' '. . This notice is to be sen= a: least Cwo days in advance of coc=~encemen: of the project. The permit sign ~11 be posted ac the SlOe and copy of perml: will be available at site for inspection. · Subm/cted by' Failure to noclf7 or post sign will leave o~ner and/or contractor subject to applicable penalties for non-oo=pllance =~th pe:-'~t conditions If t~ere i~ more :han one contractor - use attachments to list additional name(s)., "address(es), ~9ne number(s) and !den:Ifylng work.each one is to do. .- · ; :: N~fSDEC, Regional Pe.--a/t Adm/n/strator Bldg. ~0, Stony Brook, NY I17~4 · No. "'.Issued Co '. · Dear Sir:. .. .NOTICE' OF COMic_ L_=TION Pursuant Co General Cond!Clon Number 1 of the above referenced per~/C you are hereby notified thaC the authorized activity vas completed on ..... ,' Photos of completed work shall be forwa:ded vi~h chis notice.. '' Submitted'bY (This no:Ioe is to be send. Co above add:ess promptly up~? ?mpl'e=Io~ of ~roJe¢=)'. -' ~aLlure Co'noilly ~!ll leave o~mer and/or conCracto~ sub~ecc Co app$1cable penalcles ': for n~n-=o=pl~a~ce with per'-/~.conditions. New York State Department of .~ .~ironmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Unit - Regioq I Bldg. 40, SUNY, Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 Henry G. Williams Commissioner RE: Permit No. & Location: AMENDMENT TO PERMIT Former Permit (if any): oo Dear gig: 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 tec~no!ogy or applicable law or regulations since the issuance of the existing permit; therefore, the expiration date is extended to ~c ~/.r /~7~7/ Your ~ecent reouest ~o modify the able permit has bem~ reviewed , pursuan~t~ 6NYCRR, ~Da"~2I. It hasj0a~'~ determined t_J~r~, the proposed modi~i-eations will~ substantial~y-~hange the scope~of the permi~dted al~ons or the e~6isting permit c~ditions.. Therefore, the permit is amended to authorize: This letter is an amendment to posted at the job site. Ail other terms and conditions Sent to: the original permit and as such, shall be remain as written in the original permit.. Very truly yours, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator ( STATE DEPARI~IENT OF ENVIRON%~'}.rrAL CONSERVATIOM Regulatory Affairs Unit guilding 40, SUNY--Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 (518) 751-7900 October 10, 1986 RE: Permit No., Location - ~,~ 10-85-1368, Laurel Lake, Mattituck, Southold, Suffolk Co. ~eor~e O. 875 Avenue of the Suite 2424 New York. NY ~000! For: Douglas Miller Dear Mr. guldi: Your recent request to ~Ytend the above permit has been reviewed pursuant to 6~rfCP.R, Part 621. It ha~ been determined that there has not been a material change in envtr~nmental'conditions, relevant technology or applicable law or regulations since the issuance of the existing permit; therefore, the expiration date is extended ~o ' : LX Your recent request to modify ~he above permi~ ha~ been reviewed pursuant to 6~YCRR, Part 621. It ha~ been determined that the proposed modifications will not substantially change the scope of the permitted actions or the existing permit conditions° Therefore, the permit is amended to authorize: Relocating building envelope on Lot 35' further landward of Freshwater Wetland Boundary as per plans by Young & Young, last revision 9/22/86 (attached). This letter is an amendment to tha original permit and as'such, shall be posted at the Job site. ",. All other terms and conditions r~"~tn aa written in the original permit. Very truly yours, Alternate Regional Permit Administrator CTR:DDR:co's attachment Sent to: Exhibit # 9 ~ 875 AV~U~ OF TME AMF_~C. AS NE'~ YCIL.'<, NYr'J YCICK 10CO1 M-ay 9, 1989 M2. Roy Reynolds, Senior Engineer Suffolk County Department of Health Se~ices Riverhead County Center Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Dear M~. Reynolds: Re: M~l!er proper=y/ Southold Pursuant to our telephone conversation of March 1989, enclosed please find the .revised su~;eys as required by your department as well as the request for a SEQRA determination by the Town cf Southold which was sukmitted' to them in 1984 and regarding which they have failed to take any action to date. I greatly appreciate your cooperation in helping me attempt to resolve the few remaining obstacles in arriving at the point of being able to utilize the property in Southo!d. I have enclosed 2 copies of the amended su~zey for your file and 4 other copies & ask that ybu stamp the latter 4 copies with our permit and return same to my office. " As explained earlier today, all attempts to communicate with the Town of Sou:hold regarding their requirements for the finalization of details necessa.--! to allow any use of my prope?~y have failedl As a result I cannot provide you with a SEQRA dete_--mination by town. Also enclosed is an additional copy of the determination of ~ .- the DEC that the proposed project has no substantial environmental '.::. :__, : _'.' .',i :7 ' -.. . - act. '-" -'""-' . ..: -.~ ...... - - '.:- :~ .': .-:.j.Town of Southo!d, we by a copy of this letter request t.hat they '.-~ .- .--.-:':'- .7process .the -applications .-before 'ithem in ' accordance 'with ~he _.:~: ~ '.'.."~',:~' requirements of law. ' ............. '" ....... .-:'::': '::'-:::.'.:,' '-- '~' ' .. .... .' :..=. _ .~ .:..~_.~......... . ..... _ ...... . ....... - ..... :1_'..:..~.. i'."'.' .'" ' ' - .............. Again, thank you for your time and your concern. I was assured by another Department of Health Se~;ices ~mployee today that you would be of most invaluable assistance in this matter, and he was correct. Thank you for your help. CC: Southold Town Eno!. GCG:grb Ve~ truly yours, LiuREL L~K£ YOUNG e YOUNG RIVERHEA°~ NEW Y~ &/..DEN W. YOUNG, PROF£SS/ONAL ENOlNEER L UREL TYPICAL W[L OETAIL Southold Town Board o£ Appeals MAIN ROAO- STATI~ I~OAD 2.-~ cJI)UTI-II-ILO, L.I., N.Y. 11c~71 TELEPHONE (518) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONI$, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH R. SAWlCKI May 15, 1987 George O. Guldi, Esq. Guldi & Olum 875 Avenue of the Americas Suite 2424 New York, NY lO001 Re: Appeal No. 3299 Douglas Miller (Variance) Dear Mr. Guldi: In updating the above file, we have been advised through our Town Attorney that Court Decision(s) were rendered during 1986 indicating that wetland areas cannot be deleted when calculating the area of Lot(s) in pending or proposed divi- sions of land. At our Regular Meeting held April 2, 1987, the Board of Appeals reviewed and concurred with the February 19, 1987 Memorandum of the Building Inspector'('cop~'~enclosed) and Town Attorney's Opinion that wetland areas cannot be deleted from the area of a lot for proposed set-offs or other divisions*of land. ~ Inasmuch as your application is for Variances under Article III, Section lO0-31 of the Zoning Code, it would appear that if your proposal is for a minimum lot area of 80,000 sq. ft. and minimum lot width of 175 feet for each proposed lot, for single-family dwelling use and meeting all other zoning requirements, a variance is not required. Please be sure to check with Mr. Lessard of the Building Department as to whether or not in his opinion any other variances or appeal would be necessary under the'Town Code. If you feel that you would like to proceed with a variance application with all of the above in mind, please (Douglas Miller) Page 2 Appeal No. 3299 May 15, 1987 George O. Guldi, Esq. let us know. We are transmitting copies of this letter to the Planning Board and Building Department for their files. Unless we hear otherwise, we will application is to be deadfiled. lk Enclosure cc: Planning Board Building Department assume this variance Yours very truly, 'GERARD~P./GOEBRINGER CHAIRMAN j TEL. 765-1802 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF- BUILDING INSPECI'OR P.O. BOX ?28 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 February 19, 1987 TO: Bennett Orlowski, Planning Boar~ chairman ~. FROM: Victor Lessard, Executive Admlnistrator~ SUBJECT: Wetland Areas It is my understanding th~ parcels containing wetlands, sand pits, etc. for purposes of determining the area of a parcel only, mus.~ be included in the ca- culations. The board should take this approach, until such time the State wishes to change its' laws. GEORGE O. OUL~I WENDY A. OLUM" Guldi & Olurn ~7~ AVI~qL~ OF TH~ AMERICA~ SUl'~ 24~4 N~/Y~Ri~ NEW YORK 1~I ~212) 45 MAIN STREET SOL,PI"HAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 (SI6) 28~..82S8 Planning Board, Southold Town Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Sirs: June 30, 1987 Re: Miller application for subdivision of Laurel Lake I am writing with reference to the above application for a minor subdivision on Laurel Lake. This application was submitted to the Planning Board on March 13 of 1984. In connection with this application by my letter of May 7, of 1984 I outlined for the Planning Board and the Town Attorney the reasons that it would be improper to exclude the wetland from lot area for zoning purposes.. Nothwitstanding the foregoing, by letter of September 11, 1984 the Planning Board rejected the application on the sole ground that the lot area would be insufficient if you subtracted the wetlands from the divided lots. Since that time I have pursued the required DEC, County Department of Health and Town Trustee permits necessary to pursue my appeal from that denial. On or about May 15, 1~87, I recieved a notification from the Zoning Board of Appeals that the wetland could not be excluded fro~ lot area for subdivision purposes. Since that time I have through repeated contacts with your office tried to acertain when if at all the planning Board wishes to reconsider the application in light of the Board of Zoning appeals dismissal of the appeal from the Boards previous decision. The pending application is one which calls for 'no- activity within or adjacent to the wetland area and for only three lots from the 8.4 acres where we would be entitled'to four lots if we were interested in the full development of the parcel. We would hope that these substantial. concessions would be sufficient to convince the Board'that our plan for utilization of the property is a good'one. GEORGE O. GUI. DI WENDY A. OLUM· 45 ~ STRF. v.--r $OUTHAMFrON. NEW YOKIf 11968 (516) 183~2~ Also enclosed for use by the board are copies of the Permit issued by the DEC in connection with this application. Given that this application has been pending for over two years I look forward to your prompt reply. cc. Mr. Douglas Exhibit # 12 GEORGE O. GULDI WF~",iDY A. OLUM* Guldi &. Olum ~7~ ^v¢~vE o~ ~ SUrTE 2424 NEW YORK, NEW YORK IC~I (~12) 714-1315 : 45 MA[lq 5TP, EET SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 1 Ith~ (516) 283-8288 JULY 23, 1987 Mr. Frank Yakaboski P 0 Box 389 Riverhead, New York 11901 Dear Mr. Yakaboski A copy of the enclosed letter dated May 7, 1984 to Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. and Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. re: Application of Miller - Tax Map 1000-121-4-10 is being forwarded to you at the request of George O. Guldi. Very truly yours, GOG:lpm Exhibit # 13 .f GEORGE O. OUI. DI WENDY A. OLUM' Gum & O -um 875 AVENUE OF TI-IE AMERIC.~. S NEY,' YORK. NEV. t YORK I0~01 {2 I.Z} 714-1315 45 MAIN STKEET SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 (516) 283-8288 August 13, 1987 Mr. Frank Yakobski Smith, Finkelstein & Lundberg P 0 Box 389 Riverhead, New York 11901 Dear Mr. Yakobski: I have been attempting to reach you since July 23, 1987 when I sent you copies of my May 7, 1984 correspondence with respect to the application of Douglas Miller for.the sub-division of 8.4 acres on Laurel Lake. Since that time I have been unable to reach you. As I outlined in our conversation at that time it is our position that our pending application for the sub-division of this land together with its existing DEC permits meets and exceeds all zoning and sub-division requirements of the town of $outhold. The continued delay of our application without a pub.lic hearing is without legal justificstion, cause or excuse. The c~nti~d~'failure and . refusal of the officials of the town of Southold and their agents and employees to communicate with me with respect to' this application is depriving ~e and my client of due process and equal protection of law. Upon information and belief this activity is being engaged in a systematic manner as the result of an agreement among and between the officials of the town of Southold to deprive me and my client of the use and occupancy of our land through the continued refusal to deal with us or to communicate with us in good faith. We have done everything in our power to provide and work with the officials of the to~p of Southold. At the same time, subsequent to our'application for the permits and sub-division pending the adjacent.land owner has developed several acres for industrial and commercial purposes as well as built several residential units on the lake although their application was submitted long after ours and their work has been"completed~for years. GULDI ~. OLUM On the basis of the foregoing I am of the opinion that the conduct of the town of Southold with respect to the instant application is sufficient to sustain a Federal cause of action under 42 U. S. Codes Section 1983 and Section"1985 for deprivation of civil rights under color of law. If I am faced with a continued failure and refusal to deal with our application in good faith I will be compelled to demonstrate to the officials of the town of Southold that I 'too know where the courthouse is located. I would appr~dia~"it'l~ you would return any of dozens of phone calls or acknowledge receipt of this letter. If I do not receive any response or answer I will be compelled to initiate action. I.am disappointed.that I have been compelled to write this letter since in the one conversation we did have I found you to be delightful'and had looked forward to working with you in an effort to bring this application to a final resolution. Very truly yours, GOG:lpm CC: Mr. Douglas Miller Exhibit # 14 ~ Town Hall. 53095 blai. Road P.O. Box I 179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 76S-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 5, 1989 The Southold Town Planning Board held a regula~ meeting on Monday, June 5, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold. Present were: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Member William Mullen Member G. Richie Latham Member Kenneth Edwards Town Planner Valerie Scopaz Planner Melissa Spiro Planner Trainee Robert G. Kassner Temporary Secretary Jane Rousseau Absent: Member Richard Ward Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this meeting to order. First order of business is the public hearing On the final map surveyed December 8, 1987.' This lot line.change is located on Sound View Avenue At Southold. We have proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler Watchman and the Suffolk Times. At this time everything is-in order for a final hearing. I'll ask if there are any objections to'this subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone out there~who is " neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that might be of interest to the board? Bea~ing none, are there any questions from the board? Board members: No questions. Mr. Orlowski: No further comment, I will declare this h~aring closed. Everything is in order to approve and sign. (Chairman · signed maps). ' ~ Mr~ Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second: Mr. Orlowski: North Road ~ssociates - Board to keep the public hearing open from February 6, 1989. This minor subdivision is on 16.886 acres located at Orient. SCTM ~1000-18-4-1. What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Board to set Mcnday~ June 19, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold as the time and place for the next regular Planning ~oard ~eeting. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any'questions on the motion? All those in favor? AYES: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr.. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Board to approve the minutes of the ~egular meetings of May 1, 1989, May 15, 1989 and August 30, 1988. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made an~ seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those fn favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opp6sed? So ordered. (Chairman signed minutes) Mr. Orlowski: Next order of business at 7:45 p.m. - Frank & Myrtle Hendrickson - Public hearing on the final ~ap dated ~ December 2, 1988. This lot line change is o~ 95,75~ sq. ft. located at Southold. ~. SCTM ~1000-70-4-44 & 45. We have proof of publication in the Long Island'Traveler Watchman and proof of Publication in the SuffolkTimes. At this time everything is in order for a publio hearing and I will. ask if there are any objections to this lot line change? Hearing none, are there any endorsements? Mr. John Wagner: On behalf of the applicant of Esseks, Esseks, and Angel. I will endorse this lot line change. Mr. Orlowski: Any other endorsements? Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman, could I request one thing of the applicant? Do you have a copy of the property deed of the lot? The board would like to have it for their records. Mr. John Wagner: Yes. These are our file copies that we have. Ms. Scopaz: Thank you. Mr. John wagner: Now these are deeds into Hendrickson and the deed that I believe we are discussing is a deed that will come from Cramer for the westerly portion of the central lot and it will be over to the adjoining owners'on the west. 'That will effect the lot change and that deed will contain a covenants provide that the property transfer will merge with the westerly property. Mr. Orlowski: Is anyone out there neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that may be of interest to the board? Hearing none, any questions from the board? Board Members: Mo questions. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., I will declare this hearing closed. Being it is a lot line change and everything is in order would the board like to act on this tonight? : Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer th~ following resolution: .~: BE IT HEPF~y RESOLVED that the Pl'anning Board moves to grant conditional final approval of the' lot line change application of Frank and Myrtle Hendrickson subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: .' The new deed ~or the westerIy part of Lot ~1000-070-04-44 shall be deeded out to the current owner of Lot ~1000-070-040-43 with the following restrictions: This parcel shall not be imp:roved by a single family residence, and, further , shall be considered.merged with Lot ~1000-070-040-43. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. motion? Ail those in favor? Any questions on the '~ ... PLANNING~nOARD PAGE 4 ~- JUNE 5, 1989 Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Or%owski, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Mul!an Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SUBDIVISIONS: Final: Mr. Orlowski: George H. Waterman III - Board to r~view the motion authorizing the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated June 2, 1988. This lot line change located on Fishers Island was approved on July 25, 1988 subject to review of.the Suffolk County Planning Commission comments. SCTM ~1000-2-1-2.3. Mr. Edwards: Mr. finally been met, maps. Chairman, seeing'that all the conditions have I make a motion that the Chairman endorse the Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr.'Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Monday, June 19, 1989 at 8:00 p.m. final maps dated January 2, 1989. 5.912- acres located at Cutchogue. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman signed maps). Orlowski: Next we have Thomas Shalvey ~ Board to set for a public hearing on the This minor subdivision is on SCTM ~1000-84-4-11. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski,'Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opppsed? So ordered. Preliminary: None Sketch: Mr. Orlowski: Henry Rutowski - Board to start the coordination process to determine lead agency and environmental significance. Board to make a determination on. the sketch map. dated April 24, 1989. This minor subdivision is on 4.7959 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM ~1000-108-1-2. Mr. Latham: I would like to offer the following resolution: MOTION to approve the sketch plan dated April 24, 1989 subject to the following: - the curb cut to be used for the co~on driveway on to Wickham Avenue must be 20 feet in width. This revision is to be shown on the final plan; - a covenant and restriction shall be placed .on the iots stating that there shall be no structures within 50 feet of Middle Road (C.R. 48). This 50' area shall be planted as a buffer for screening purposes. Further, there shall be no driveways or other vehicular access ~$D~ C.R..48. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, 'Mr. Mullen. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: I'll entertain a motion to start the coordination process to determine lead agency and environmental significance. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orl6wski: Motion made and seconded. Any guestions on the motion? All those in favor. .... Ayes: Mr. Mullen, ~tr. Latham,-Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SE~RA DETF~RMINATIONS: Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act on the following: Peconic Homes - SCTM ~1000-121-2-7/1000-125-1-p/o ~. A% T. Holding - SCTM 91000-121-5-8.;1000-122-2-25. Joseph Macari - SCTM ~1000-121-4-9. Daniel Jacoby - SCTM ~1000-125-1-5. Douqlas Miller - SCTM ~1000-121-4-10. .Mr. Orlowski: I'll make a motion that PURSUANT to part 617 of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Southold Town Planning Board assumes lead agency, and, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed actions described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that.a Draft Environmental Impact Statement shall be prepared. ~ The Proposed Actions are as follows: A. T. Holding Co. SCTM { 1000-121-5-18 1000-122-1-15 34 lots on 91.53 acres. Joseph Macari SCTM ~ 1000-121-~=9 17 lots on 63.57 acres. Peconic Homes SCTM ~ 1000-121-3-7 1000-121-1-p/o 5 19 lots on 45.18 acres. Daniel Jacoby SC~.! ~ 1000-125-1-5 2 lots on 10.58 acres. Douglas Miller SCTM $ 1000-121-3-10.1 3 lots on 8.2 acres SEQRA Status: Each of the individual actions around the Lake is, in .effect, an unlisted action, but the cumulative effect is akin t~ a Type I action. ~ ~ Reasons Supporting This Deter%~ination: There are three major and two minor subdivision proposals which together encompass approximately 219 acres and 85 ,lots in the vicinity of Laurel Lake; and There should be consideration of the potential cumulative effect of the proposed development on the ecology of the ~rea with regard to the overall impacts on groundwater quality, Surfac~ water quality, wildlife habitat, and public lands: and The Laurel Lake area has been under study as a special groundwater protection area by the Long Island Regional Planning' Board's Special Groundwater Protection Area Advisory Council;and The stretch of Sound Avenue between Bergen Avenue to the west 'and Cox Neck Road to the east is the sole point of ingress and egress, and none of these subdivisions has additional access to PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 ~ JUNE 5, 1989 other public roads. This stretch of road is a heavily traveled east-west corridor and also a curving road on hilly terrain. Its capacity to handle safely the additional volume of traffic from the projected development should be examined. Ken Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Mr. Raynor: Mr. Chairman, may I board makes a determination? Mr. Orlowski: O.K. speak on the motion before the Mr. Raynor: On behalf of ~'e~nic'-~me~, ~he"~ton-Brothers, in reviewing the DEIS which you are reqUe~tin~. I~ states that 218 acres are involved in the overall area La~rel Lake. What is the yield? Mr. Orlowski: 85 lots. Mr. Raynor: 85 lots. What is the traffic count on. the North Road and Sound Avenue record and the impact on those 85 lots would be that to determine a positive declaration. Is that what I am interpreting the board to say? Mr. Orlowski: Part of it, yes. Mr. Raynor: The board also states that the ground water is of a concern. On behalf of my applicant, the groundwater on his parcel has already been tested and been approved by the Department of Health Services. How that can have an effect wi~h regard to a deterioration on that property by the board assuming that this should be a positive deeta~a~io~,-Io~an,~ really understahd. If we are going to look at~ traffic, ~o ~o back to that for just a moment, I feel that it is incumbent that this board study the North side of Sound Avenue as well as the intersection, and not only the-soUth side because they would have the same existihg problems. I feel that the board in determining this a positive declaration is being arbitrary in a sense that it is not taking on both sides of Sound Avenue and if, in fact, it is the intent to study the trzffic patterns, then those properties to the North should also be studied. Other than that I would ask the board to reconsider its resolution before a count. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Mr. Pete Danowski: On behalf of Mr. Macari and his subdivision. I certainly support the comments of Mr. Raynor. As you know we have made every attempt to tryand be reasonable iM trying to layout the subdivision. We have met witk staff,, we have read in recommendations, we revised the map time and time PLANNING BOARD ~ PAGE 8 /- JUNE 5, 1989 again. You are well aware.that I have been before you before and going over a little bit of history of this site, in fact site was issued a negative declaration with regard to twice as many lots some few years back. We certainly have tried to meet with your staff and your private consultants. We have gone to the extent of hiring Doctor Richard Jackson who has prepared a preliminary report which was submitted to your boa~d in hopes of delaying any concerns. We have also listened to the direction of access points and can only provide what we have. I'm not sure the status of some of the subdivisions, such as A.T. Holding, hdw active or non-active it is. Obviously, they originally filed an application, but having charted their recent progress they have been fellowin~ through on that application. In any case, we would object to the positive declaration. We feel, as Mr. Raynor has indicated, we have proof of quality water, we've go~ ~se.~el~.samp!~d~and.~ev~e~ b~-~he ~atth Department and it meets the Health Departments standards and I will want to provide that further information .to this board. To choose one side of the road and not the other, I think is unfair but I cer%ainly do not want to penalize the other side of the road if it is not required to go through a positive declaration. To issue a type I does not necessarily mean that we have to prepare a DEIS. If we've got more that fifty units, if that is the concern, then sure cumulatively say we have more than fifty. We alone don't have more than fifty housing units proposed to be developed. We tried to provide the open space where you people wanted them as far as staff was concerned. We try and cooperate anyway we can to relieve neighboring sites. We've tied our access points together to lead in both directions to the east. I believe Mrs. Kujawski has a lot to try to access, we would lead with Peconic Homes to jointly access out to Sound Avenue. We've done everything reasonable that can be done with that site. The site is not going to change. After a ~ears worth of applications and reviews and revisions, to now say to us "let's begin .a lab~riou-~.procedure~_going ~krough a process by which you have most of the information supplied to · you I believe is unfair. The client is only going to lead to litigation. In closing, if you are going to continue with this positive declaration, I just have an inquire as to when you intend or if you can'let us know when you wish to scope this to limit the DEIS and the issues to be raised herein. I have this rational of thinking here that all we are trying to do is delay these projects with some long winded hope that somehow the .County or someone is going to come over and take out this property with some long ranged goal of future land or water resource can table. We wish to build, we have a right to build under existing zoning. We certainly have the right'to direct this many ways about the layouts. We would be more that happy to meet with you and follow your advice, but I think all this is going to lead to is delay and its just driving up the cost of development. So I object to the positive declaration. M~. Douglas Miller: We've submitted our sequel letter in 1984, this is the first time that.anyone .has mentioned anything in .PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 JUNE 5, 1989 about five years. We were called at 4:'00 and it was said it would be on tonight's agenda. This represents to me a rocketing and unjust, ,,nfair and illegal act on your part and totally irresponsible. You have been persisting to deny us legal rights to use the land consisting of time laws and you have acted knowingly and unlawfully. Mr. Lessard advised you that regarding the wetlands not being counted in total acreage was unlawful and you refused to acknewledge our concerns in that regard. We do have a SEQRA determination from the DEC which was a negative environmental impact. I feel that your actions are not consistent with good government and are somewhat going against the principals of democracy. Thank you. ~ Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? I have a motion made and ' seconded. Ail those in favor? i Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. No: Mr. Mullen: Mr. Orlowski: So moved. Mr. Mullen reneged. Mr. Latham: I would like to make a comment on this. Mr. Raynor had a point about the North side Of the road. Mr. Orlowski: Well, the North side was in before most of this and we have negotiated another access out on to a back road onto Bergen Avenue so I think the traffic will be handled there. Mr. Mullen: I have a question if I may. The last gentlemen that appeared, did you say sir that the first 'time that you knew about this meeting was tonight? Mr. Douglas Miller: We were called at 4:00 this afternoon. Mr. Mullen: Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: August Acres '- Board to review the positive declaration which was issued on August 15, 1988. This major subdivision is on 43.062 acres located at Greenport. SCTM ~1000-53-4-44.2. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman I would like to offer the following' resolution: WHEREAS, a determination of a Positive Declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) was made by the Planning Board on August 15, 1988 for the application of ..-.~ August Acres; and ~ ....?. ~_-. . -~ ....... WHEREAS, the application received preliminary approval ~rior to the time at which SBQRA was in effect; and ..... GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for Laurel Lake Study Area Southold. New York DRAFT GEIS OUTLINE This document is to be used for discussion purposes only. A finalized copy of this outline will be prepared after the formal $coping meetinQ is held. Cover Sheet The A. B. '~C. D. EIS shall begin with a cover sheet that includes: That this is a draft generic statement Name or other descriptive'title of the project(s) Location (county and town) of the project Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the statement and the name and telephone number of a person at the aoency to be contacted for further information Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a contact name and telephone number Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS In the case of a Draft EIS. the deadline date by which comments are due should be indicated II. Table of Contents and Summary A table of contents and a brief .summar~are.~equired for Draft ElS and Final EIS's. The summary shouId incIude: A. Brief description of th~ action B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, (issues of controversy must be specified) C. Mitioation measures proposed O. Alternative(s) considered. E. Matters to be. decided (permits, approvals, funding) III. Description of the Proposed Action A. PROJECT PURPOSE. NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and history CRAMER, VC RHtS ,"A$SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT 7 G CONSULTANTS Page I D~,'t Scoping Outline,' Laurel Lake Study Area ED Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on adopted community developments plans Objectives of the project sponsors Benefits of the proposed action a) social b) economic LOCATION i. ' Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps is recommended) Description of access to site Description of existing zoning of proposed site DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1. Composite map of pending actions a) proposed layout~ ' b) Suffolk Cty. Tax Map No's. 2. Estimated site data a) proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots. roads) b) amount of land to be cleared c) open space $. Structures, proposed number and layout 4. Proposed drainage systems 5. Sewage Disposal 6. Water Supply CONSTRUCTION 1. Construction a) total construction period anticipated b) schedule of construction c) future poten.tial..de~ei~pment, on,site(s) or on adjoining properties d) Suggested protection methods APPROVALS I. Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations 2. Other permit approval or funding requirements including but not limited to: - Town - County - State CRAMER, VC RHts ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 2 ~,aft Scoping Outline Laurel Lake Study ~rea IV. Environmental Setting Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Surface a) List of soil types b) discussion of soil characteristics examples: - physical properties (indication of soils capabilities and or limitations) c) aoricultural soil properties list soils by name. slope and soil oroup ranking within NYS Land (1NYCRR 570) - number of acres within each oroup d) distribut(mn ~f"~oii types at project site - location of soils on map e) suitability for use examples: - agriculture ' - recreation construction f) subsoil discussion 2. Topooraphy a) description of topography at project site examples: - slopes - prominent or unique features b) slope anaiysis (example O-lO~, i0-20~, >20~) WATER RESOURC£$ 1. Groundwater a) location and description of aquifers and recharge areas examples: - depth of water table - seasonal ~ariation quality quantity - direction & velocity of flow b) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater examples: - -location of existing wells - public/private water supply - industrial uses - agricultural uses c) studies and reports Special Groundwater Protection Area (LIRPB) CRAMER, VCC R , ASSOCIA/ES ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS Page.'S Draft Scoping Outline Laurel Lake Study Area Co - Water Advisory Committee of the Town of Southold - North Fork Water Supply Study Surface water a) location and description of surface waters located on project site or those that may be influenced by the project examples: seasonal variation quantity classification according to New York State Department of Health b) identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters c) description of existing drainage areas. patterns and channels d) discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of water supply TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on b) 2. Fish a) b) the project site and within the surrounding area discussion of site vegetation characteristics examples: - species presence and abundance - age - size - distribution - dominance - community types - unique, rare and endanoered species - value as habitat for wildlife - productivity and Wiidlif~ list of fish and wildlife species on the project site and within surroundino area. includino mioratory and resident species discussion of fish and wildlife population characteristics examples: - species presence and abundance - distribution - dominance' - unique, rare and endanoered species - productivity CRAMER. VC RH ,, ; SOClATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 4 D~aft Scoping Outline Laurel Lake Study Area Wetlands a) list and map wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site b) discuss wetland characteristics examples: acreage vegetative cover - classification - benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion control, recreation Human Resources TRANSPORTATION 1. Transporting services a) description of the size, capacity and condition of se~yices examples: - roads - intersections - traffic control - access/egress from site b) description of current level cf of services examples: a.m. and p.m. peak vehicle mix source of existing accident history capacity analysis and use hour traffic flow traffic LAND U E AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) description of the existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area examples: - commercial - residential - agricultural - business - retail - industrial - vacant b) description of existin9 zoning of site and surrounding area c) description of any affected agricultural district or other farmland retention program boundary in and surrounding the CRAMER, VC , &;//// SSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT 7 G CONSULTANTS Page 5 Dr~ft Scoping Outline'' Laurel Lake Study Area Co Do E= Land c) site use plans description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area discussion of future development trends or pressures plans to be discussed, but not limited - Town Master Plan - 208 Study - NURP~ - North Fork Hater Supply COMMUNITY SERVICE (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) 5. 6. 7. 8. Educational facilities Police protection " Fire protection Health care facilities Social services Recreational facilities Utilities Public water supply Solid waste disposal DEMOGRAPHY 1. Population characteristics a) discussion of existing population parameters examples: distribution - density - household size and composition b) discussion of-projections-for population growth CULTURAL RESOURCES I. Visual resources a) description of the physical character of the community b) description of natural areas/land use '' patterns of local visual importance. 2. Historic and archaeological resources a) location and description of historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included on Statewide CRAMER, RHt SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS page6 D~.?t Scoping Outline Laurel Lake Study Area b) Inventory identification of sites having potential significant archaeological value include results of cultural resource survey; to be conducted by qualified archaeolooist. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. The follo~ino is a summary of potentially laroe impacts: A. PHYSICAL CHANGE TO THE'PROJECT SITE. 1. impact on soils and topooraphy AFFECT ON GROUNDWATER 1. adverse affect to oroundwater a) water quality b) water quantity/availability c) conformance to plans and regulations THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES 1. reduction of species found on State or Federal list (iff ~pplicable) 2. loss of habitats : NON-THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIE~ i. interference with residence or mioratory 2. loss of habitat TRANSPORTATION IMPAOTS level of service capacity analysis physical factors - CU tva tu re - site distance 4. .access and safety F. COMMUNITY SERVICES G. LAND USE PLANS .. 1. compatibility/conformance . 2. existing land use patterns H. CULTURAL " I. historic .. 2. pre-historic ._ " ... :.:'.'"."L.c"' i. · Laurel Lake Study Area visual and open space VI. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Surface a) use topsoil stockpiled durino construc~ion~fo.~ restoration and landscaping b) minimize disturbance of non-construction sites c) design and implement soil erosion control plan Topography a) avoid construction on areas or steep slope b) design adequate soil erosion devices to protect areas of steep slope .' ¢) minimize disturbance of non-construction sites B = WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) locations of sanitary discharge b) maintain permeable areas on the site c) landscaping and landscape management plans d) stormwater controls 2. Surface water a) ensure use ok soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation examples: hay bales - temporary restoration of veoetation to .disturbed areas - landscaping b) desion adequate stormwater control system c) restrict use of salt or sand for road and parking area snow removal d) avoid direct discharges to surface water resources CRAMER, VC R -ffS / " $SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 8 Draft Scoping Outline Laurel Lake Study Area TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY Vegetation a) restrict clearing to only b) c) d) 2. Fish b) c) those areas necessary preserve part of site as a natural area after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation purchase open space at another location and dedicate to local government or conservation organization and Wildlife provide adequate habitat (shelter and food) for remaining wildlife species schedule construction to avoid sensitive periods of'fish' ~nd'Wildlife cycles wildlife plantings to restore or create additional habitat Human Resources TRANSPORTATION I. Transportation a) design adequate and safe access to project site to handle projected traffic flow b) install adequate traffic controi devices LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land usa and zoning a) design project to comply with existing land use plans and studies b) design functional and visually appealing facility to.se.~.standard.and p~cedent for future surrounding land use Co COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Police protection a) provide equipment, funds, or'services directly to the community Fire protection a) provide equipment, funds or services directly to the ccmmunity Utilities a) install utility services underground b) incorporate water saving fixtures into facility design c) incorporate energy-saving measures into . . facility design CRAMER, VC~RI'-~,~ ~. OCIATES .'.- Page,' Draft Scoping Outline'' Laurel Lake Study Area CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) minimize visual impact through thoughtful and innovative design b) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses c) preservation of existing vegetation 2. Historic and archaeological resources a) Prepare a plan, including measures to mitigate impacts to historic/archaeological resources through data recovery, avoidance and/or restr£c~£on ~.pro~ect activities b) develop measures to convey cultural information to the community (e.G. through scientific/popular reports, displays) c) preserve architecturally significant structures and make an adequate permanent photographic and statistical record of those that must be destroyed VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VII. ALTERNATIVES This section contains categories of alternatives ~ith examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. Identify those categories of alternatives ~hich should be included in the EIS by placing a check in the box located to the left of the topic. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES 1. Site layout a) density and location of structures b) location of access routes, parking and CRAMER, a SSOClAl - ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS PageilO D~aft Scoping Outline Laurel Lake Study Area Co utility routes Orientation a) ~ompatibility with slope and drainage patterns b) site size and set back requirements Technology a) pollution control equipment b) innovative vs. proven technologies Mix of activities a) townhouses b) large iots ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT(S) 1. Limitino factors a) availability of iand b) suitability of alternative layout to accommodate design requirements c) suitable market area d) compatibility ~i~h local zoning and master plan e) compatibility with regional objectives ALTERNATIVES SIZE 1. Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts 2. Increase or decrease project size to correspond to market and community needs ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION SCHEDULING 1. Commence construction at a different time 2. Phase construction/operation $. Restrict construction/operation work schedule NO ACTION 1. Impacts of no action a) effect on public need b) effect on private developers' need c) beneficial or adverse environmental impacts IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. CRAMER, VC~RHt~ ~',~ASSOClATES Pageil Draft Scoping Outline' Laurel Lake Study Area X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS Describe in this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have. Listed on the next page are examples of topics that are typically affected by the growth induced by a project. POPULATION 1. Increases in resident population due construction of housing to the SUPPORT FACILITIES l. Business and community service demand created to serve the increased population DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 1. Introduction or improvement of infrastructure (roads, waste disposal, sewers, water) to service proposed proj'ect 2. Creation of further growth potential by construction of improved infrastructure XI. APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. A. List of underlyin0 studies, reports and information considered and relied on in preparino statement B. List all federal, state, reoional, or local agencies, organizations, consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale D. Relevant correspondence regarding the projects ~ay be included (required in the Final EIS) Page '[2 October 17, 1984 Board of Appeals Town of Southold Main Street Southold, New York 11971 Re: Petition of Douglas Miller Tax Map # 1000-121-4-10 Laurel Lake Gentlemen: want to go on record as opposed to the above-captioned petition. Should this application be granted, any loss of the natural wetlands around Laurel Lake in the construction of a three lot subdivision will undoubtedly adversely affect the ecological balance of Laurel Lake and change the nature of this quiet rural neighborhood. Furthermore...~he construction of new homes will cause substantial traffic problems on the one-lane dirt road which serves the people living around the lake. Very truly yours, HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN Ni. 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 October 31, 1986 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 Mr. George O. Guldi Guldi & Olum 875 Avenue of the Americas Suite 2424 New York, New York 10001 Re: Douglas Miller Wetland Application No. 409 Dear Mr. Guldi: The following actions were taken by the Board of Trustees regarding the above captioned matter: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees rescind the Lead Agency Declaration declared on the application submitted by George O. Guld£ on behalf of Douglas Miller for the construction of a single family residence on property located on the North side of Laurel Lake, Laurel. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declare "No Jurisdiction" on the wetland application submitted by George O. Guldi on behalf of Douglas Miller for the construction of a single family residence on property located on the North side of Laurel Lake, Laurel, based on the amended survey by Young & Young for the minor subdivision sketch plan for Douglas Miller at Matt£tuck, revised September 22, 1986 showing placement of the house 85' from the edge of wetlands. HPS: ip cc: Bldg. Dept. Board of Appeals~/ D.E.C. Stony Brook C.A.C. file Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees GEORGE O. GULDI WENDY A. OLUM* GULDI ~ OLUM 875 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS SUITE 2424 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001 (212) 7144315 45 MAIN STREET SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 (516) 283-8288 October 1, 1986 Gerard P. Goehringer Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Douglas Miller Dear Mr. Goehringer, Enclosed for your use and information please find six (6) copies of the amended proposed minor subdivision for Laurel Lake as referenced above. The amended survey reflects the application as submitted to the Suffolk County Department of Health with respect to the test wells and drainage test hole as indicated on the drawing. Furthermore, as is indicated on the drawing, the proposed building envelope on Lot 2, the center lot, has been moved back, so that it is more than 85 feet from the edge of the wetlands. I will be contacting you in the near future with the results of the Department of Health application. At that time I anticipate we will go forward with the Zoning Board of Appeals consideration of our pending application. / ( ;' GOG/nbw / ,~ / Enc. CC: Mr. Douglas Miller March 4, 1985 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40, S. U. N. Y. Stony brook, N.Y. 11794 Attention: Mr. Michael Facina, Re: Subdivision at Laurel Lake Dear Mr. Facina, Thankyou for your advice in your recnt conversation with Walter E. Guldi, P.E. with respect to the above mentioned subdivision. Pursuant to that advice and as a supplement to my request of October 9, 1984 enclosed is an origonal scetch map for the proposed subdivision. As you can see there are no proposed building sights set forth on the enclosed scetch map, but all proposed structures will be set back from the wetlands in accordance with all applicable regulations. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the enclosed. truly your~/~ cc, Walter E. Guldi, P./ ~~../ Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Douglas Miller S U._FF~O~LK~CO'E~NTY Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 August 17 , 1984 Environmental Analysis Unit DEC, Building 40, Room 219 SUNY Stony Brook, New York 11794 Gentlemen: Enclosed find a completed Short Environmental Assessment Form and a copy of the map of the minor subdivision of Douglas Miller, located at Laurel. This pro~ect is unlisted and an initial determination of non-significance has been made. We wish to coordinate this action to confirm our initial determination.. , .... May we have your views on this matter. Written comments on this project will be received at this office until August 31, 198 4 We shall interpret lack of response to mean there is no objection by your agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act% and our agency will assume the status of lead agency. Yours truly, enc. cc: Department of Health Services BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secret~ry (- PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUT;VE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES Dear ~. a~Zo~W/** DAVID HARRIS, M.D.. M.P.H. Date We are in receipt of your letter dated ,~(~.~yT-'/Z I~B~ concerning the above referenced project. [] 1. This Department has no objection to your designation of lead agency status. 2. This Department is in agreement with your initial determination. 3. This Department does not agree with your initial determination. See Comments. e Insufficient information is available for technical comments. There is no record of an application to this Department. I--) A more accurate project locatiin is needed. (Suffolk County Tax Map #) 6. This Department has received an application and it is: [] Complete [] Incomplete Other: 7. It appears that the project can be served by: Sewage Disposal System Sewer System and Treatment Works Subsurface Sewage Disposal System(s) Other: 548-3318 Water SupplS Ssstem [] A Public Water Supply System [] Individual Water Supply System[s) [] Other: Comments: The Health Department's primary environmental concern pertaining to development is that the applicant comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code especially Article V and VI, and relevant construction standards for water supply and sanitary sewage disposal. These considerations are to be reviewed completely at the time of application, Full consideration in placement of water supply wells and disposal systems is given to state and town wetland requirements. The Health Department maintains jurisdiction over final location of disposal and well systems and the applicant should not undertake to construct any water supply or disposal system without Health Department approval. Other portions of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code also apply to commercial development such as Article XII. The Lead Agency is requested to forward a copy of this form to the applicant with its findings. Further con~nent may be provided upon completion of the application review. Name Phone Southold Town Board of'Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25' SOUTHOLO, L.I., N.Y. 11cj'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOERRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH N. SAWlCKI November 7, 1984 George O. Guldi, Esq. 875 Avenue of the Americas Suite 2424 New York, NY lO001 Re: Appeal No. 3299 Douglas Miller Dear Mr. Guldi: This letter will confirm that the following action was taken at a Regular Meetin~ of the board held October 25, 1984, concern, ing this matter: RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3299, application for DOUGLAS MILLER for a variance in order to allqw, inclusion of ~s ~ area for approval of.a three-lot minor subdi, vision, BE AND HERE~Y'ISi~ELD TEMPORARILY iN ABEYANCE pending receipt of the following documents: l.~j~ 1. N.Y.S. Department of JEnvironmental Conservation i~approval or comments; 2. Suffolk County Department of Health Services review, comments and/or approval; in accordance w.~th Article 6, Realty Subdivisions and Developments. It is our understanding'that an application has been filed with the N.Y.S.D.E.C. in Stony Brook.an~ the ma~ter is pen~ng. Please keep us advised regarding developments with~both agencies. Thank you for you[_coopeKation. 'Yours very truly, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER _~HAIRM&~ By Linda Kowalski G EOI~GE O. October 9, 1984 New York State Department of Environmental Environmental Analysis Unit Building 40, S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook, New York 11794 Attn: Mr. Michael Facina Conservation Re: Subdivision on Laurel Lake Dear Mr. Facina, Enclosed please find a copy of the Survey relating to our application for a subdivision of a parcel on Laurel Lake in Southold Town. Please advise me of the status of this freshwater wetlands under the Freshwater Wetlands Act of 1975, and what classification, if any, has been established for the wetlands adjoining this parcel. Please contact me at your convenience if you have questions. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. any Very truly you~.~., ' Geor~~ O. Ca2,~i cc: Southhold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMORANDUM To: SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD From: GEORGE 0. GULDI Re: Minor Subdivision Application of Douglas Miller of Tax Map #1000-121-4-10 into three lots. Proposed Easements and Restrictions. 1) Ail three lots would have an unimproved pedes- trian right of way to a point at the intersection of lots B, C and the edge of the wetlands.* At the intersection point a bridge would be constructed to the peninsula and a nature walk will be built to the edge of the lake. The use of the nature walk and bridge would be an appertenant right of way of each lotowner. Maintenance of the bridge and nature walk will be a joint and several obligation of all three lotowners. Maintenance decisions and rules as to use will require the consent of at least two of the lot- owners. Apportioned shares of the maintenance expenses will become a lien against the land. 2) Lot B shall have an easment over lot A for the construcion and maintenace of a driveway to Kirkup road. Such easement shall be adjacent to the existing Lilco right of way. The construction and maitenace of this driveway will be the sole obligation of the owner of lot B. 3) The easements and rights of way as they exist in the Mulvihill deed, a copy of whic is provided herewith, will be preserved int the deed of the subdived lots. * For discussion purposes the proposed lots are refered to as A,B & C. Lot A is the western most lot, Lot B is the center lot and Lot C is the eastern most lot. Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 May 10, 1984 Mr. Robert Tasker Town Attorney ...... 425 Main Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Miller at Laurel minor subdivision application : Dear Mr. Tasker: The'~lanning Board had requested that the wetlands be deleted from the buildable base of the above mentioned subdivision. The attorney for the ~pplicant, Mr. George O. Guldi, is .objecting to this request. .. The Board was-~presented with the enclosed correspondence stating ~he reasons for his objectio~ at the regular meeting of May 7, 1984.- It was the c°ncen~us of the Board to ~equest your-Qpinion~3~ on the correspondence and direct the Board as to how they should proceed with this application. Thank you for your asSistance~· Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN By Diane M. Schultze, S~cretary enc. 8outhold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 September 11, 1984 Mr. George O. Guldi Attorney at Law Scheffler Guldi Karlinsky and Stein 2.75 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Re: Application for minor subdivision Douglas Miller at Laurel Dear Mr. Guldi: Please let this confirm the action of the Planning Board Monday, September 10, 1984. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board deny the application of Douglas Miller to subdivide property located at Laurel since with the deletion of the wetlands, the buildable area of the lots is less than 80,000 sq. ft.~ therefor~ lots of insufficient area would be created. {/06 If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN THOLD TOWN PLAN~N3Nq ~OARD. sc u:.e, e.retar Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH R. SAWICKI May 15, 1987 George O. Guldi, Esq. Guldi & Olum 875 Avenue of the Americas Suite 2424 New York, NY lO001 Re: Appeal No. 3299 Douglas Miller (Variance) Dear Mr. Guldi: In updating the above file, we have been advised through' our Town Attorney that Court Decision(s) were rendered during 1986 indicating that wetland areas cannot be deleted when calculating the area of Lot(s) in pending or proposed divi- sions of land. At our Regular Meeting held April 2, 1987, the Board of Appeals reviewed and concurred with the February 19, 1987 Memorandum of the Building Inspector (copy enclosed) and Town Attorney's Opinion that wetland areas cannot be deleted from the area of a lot for proposed set-offs or other divisions of land. Inasmuch as your application is for Variances under Article III, Section 100-31 of the Zoning Code, it would appear that if your proposal is for a minimum lot area of 80,000 sq. ft. and minimum lot width of 175 feet for each proposed lot, for single-family dwelling use and meeting all other zoning requirements, a variance is not required. Please be sure to check with Mr. Lessard of the Building Department as to whether or not in his opinion any other variances or appeal would be necessary under the Town Code. If you feel that you would like to proceed with a variance application with all of the above in mind, please Page 2 Appeal No. 3299 May 15, 1987 George O. Guldi, Esq. (Douglas Miller let us know. We are transmitting copies of this letter to the Planning Board and Building Department for their files. Unless we hear otherwise, we will assume this variance application is to be deadfiled. Yours very truly, lk Enclosure cc: Planning Board Building Department GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECI'OR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD. N.Y. 11971 TEL. 765-1802 February 19, 1987 TO: Bennett Orlowski, Planning Boar~ Chairman ~.~ FROM: Victor Lessard, Executive Admlnistrator~t SUBJECT: Wetland Areas It is my understanding that parcels containing wetlands, sand pits, etc. for purposes of determining the area of a parcel only, mus~ be included in the ca- culations. The board should take this approach, until such time the State wishes to change its' laws. GULDI & OLUM 875 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS SUITE 2424 NEW YORK, NI:W YORK 10001 (212) 714-1315 GEORGE O. GULDI WENDY A. OLUM* 45 MAIN STREET SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 (516) 283-8288 June 18, 1986 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO Box 728 So~thold, NY 11971 Re: Douglas Miller subdivision application- Laurel Lake Dear Sir~, Enclosed please find copies of our recent correspondence from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation together with the permits issued by them in connection with our application for the subdivision of the above mentioned property. I forward them to you at this time for your information purposes. We are currently making arrangements for the drilling of a test well on the property in connection with the application to the Suffolk County Department of Health in connection with the subdivision. We will advise you immediately upon receipt of any response from them. Please contact me if you have any questions. GOG/nbw Enc. Very truly yours, NI~.~ YORK STATE DEPAR~1~T OF ENVIRONHENTAL CONSERVATION Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, SUNY--Room 219 Stony Brook, }~ 11794 (516) 751-7900 May 29, 1986 Mr. Douglas Miller 40 Old Main Road Quogue, N.Y. 11960 RE: PERMIT NO. 10-85-1368 Dear Mr. Miller: In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and its implementing Regulations (6NYCRR, Part 621) we are enclosing your permit. Please read all conditions carefully. If you are unable to comply with any conditions, please contact the Regional Regulatory Affairs Unit, l~S Department of Environmental Conservation, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Building 40, Stony Brook, New York. Also enclosed is a pet~tt sign which you are to conspicuously post at the pro~ect site, protected from the weather. Sincerely, David DeRidder Alternate Regional Permit Administrator DDR:co's Enclosures Region No.: Applicant: Amount: $ NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ' UNIFORM PROCEDURES ACT Application Identification No,: Permit Type: Check '~ Money Order [] Check or M.O. No.: 74? 32-14-13 (9/77) 10-85-1368 FACILITY/PROGRAM NUMBER(s) N/A PERMIT Under the Environmental Conservation I~w EFFECTIVE DATE 5/29/86 EXPIRATION DATE(s) 12/31/87 i--]Article 15, Title 5: Protection of Water [_--]Article 15, Title 15: Water Supply [--JArticle 15, Title 15: Water Transport [--]Article 15. Title 15: Long Island Wells [~Article 15, Title 27: Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers [~6NYCRR 608: Water Quality Certification r-JArticle 17, Titles 7, 8: SPDES __ J--lArticle 19: Air Pollution Control J--JArticJe 23, Title 27: Mined Land Reclamation :X~] Article 24: Freshwater Wetlands N J--JArticle 25: Tidal Wetlands N--New, R--Renewal, M--Modification [-JArticle 27, Title 7: Solid Waste Management r-lArticle 27, Title 9: Hazardous Waste Management [-]Article 34: Coastal Erosion Management ~-JArticle 36: Floodplain Management [--JArticles 1, 3, 37; 6NYCRR 380: Radiation Control C--Construction, O--Operation, (If Applicable) PERMIT ISSUED TO Douglas Miller ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE 40 Old Main Rd., Quogue, ~ 11960 ^CENT FOR PERM~TTEE~ONTACT PERSON ~orge Guldi,875 Ave.of the Americas,Suite 2424,1~/.I~Z 10001 NAME AND ADDRESS OF FACILITY (If diffeeent from Permittee) JTELEPHONE NUMBER LOCATION OF PROJECT COUNTY Laurel Lake,Mattituck T O W N/~r~]~:~ UTM COORDINATES Southold Suffolk DE~RIPTION OFPRO)ECT/FACILITY Construct one family dwelling on Lot 1 a m~nimum of 90' landward of freshwater wetlands boundary, one family dwelling on Lot 3 a minimum of 105' landward of the freshwater wetlands boundary, one family dwelling on Lot 2 a minimum of 50' landward of treshwater wetlands boundary. Ail sanitary systems shall be constructed a minimum of 100' landward of the freshwater wetlands boundary. GENERAL CONDITIONS By acceptance of this permit, the pennittoe asrees that the permit is contingent upon Krict compliant'e with the ECL all applicable regulations and the eonditiom specilied herein or attached hereto. The Dermittee shall file in the office of the aDpropriate reBK~q al permit administrator, or other office designated in the special conditions, a notice of intention to commence work at least 48 hours in advance of the time of commencement and shall also notify him/her promptly in writins of the completion of the work The permitted work shall be subiect to inspectK~ by an authorized representative of the DeDartment of E nviroflmental Conservatie~ which may order the work suspended if the pubBc interest so requires The petmittee has accepted expressly, by the execution of t~m application, the full legal responsibility for all damages, direct or indirect, of whatever nature, and by whomever suffered, arising out of the prolect described herein and has agreed to indemnify and save bare, less the State from suits, actions, damages and co~ts of everf name and descrip- tion resulting from the said proiect The Department reserves the right to modify, suspend o~ revoke this permit at any time after due notice, and, if requested, hold a hearing when: a) the scope of the project is exceeded or a violation of any condition of the permit or provisions of the ECL and pertinent tabulations are found; or b) the permit was obtained by misrepresentation or failure to disclose relevent facts; or c) newly discovered information or significant physical changes am discovered since the permit was issued The permittee is responsible for keeping the permit active by submitting a ~enewal al)Dlication, includinB any forms, fees or supplemental information which may be required by the Department, no later than 30 days (180 days for SPDES or Solid or Sazarduous Waste Management permits) prior to the expiration date. 6 This permit shall not he construed as conveying to the applicant any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian right~ of others in order to perform the permitted work or as authorizing the impairment of any tights, title or interest in real of personal prooerty held or vested in a person not a patty to the permit 7 The permittee is ~esponsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, lands, easements and rights-of way which may he required for this project. Issuance of this permit by the Department does not, unless expressly provided for. modify, supersede or rescind an order on consent or determination by the Commissioner issued heretofore by the Department ot anV of the terms, conditions, or requirements contained in such order or determination Any modification of this permit gran by the Depertmeflt must be in writing and attached hereto PERMIT ISSUANCE DATE PERMIT ADMINISTRAT~ J ADDRESS Bldg. 40, Sb~'~ ,I~. 219 5/29/86 David geRidder Stony Brook,NY 11794 AUTHORIZED SIGNAT RE ' ~i ADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOB ARTICLES 15 (~itle 5), 24. 25, 34 and 36 ( 10 That if future operations by the State of New York require an al- 14 Any material dredged in the prosecution of the work here~n permitted terat~on in the position of the structure or work herein authorized, or if. in the opinion of the Department of [nvironmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said waters or flood f~ows or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the people of the State, or cause loss or destruction of the natural resources of the State, the owner may he ordered by the Department to remove or alter the structura~ work, obstructions, or hazards caused thereby without expense to the State, and if, upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be com- pleted, the owners, shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable and flood capacity of the watercourse No claim shall he made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration 11 That the State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the conservation or improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or right to compensation shal~ accrue from any such damage 12 That if the display of lights and signals on any work hereby authorized is not othenvise provided for by law, such lights and signals as may be prescribed by the United States Coast Guard shall be installed and maintained 13 All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels. solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings, paints, concrete, leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the proJect. shall be removed evenly, without leaving large refuse piles, ridges across the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a tendency to cause damage to navigable channels or to the banks of a waterway 15 If any material is to be deposited or dumped under this permit, either in the waterway or on shore above high-water mark, it shall be deposited or dumped at the locality shown on the drawing hereto attached, and, if so prescribed thereon, within or behind a good and substantial bulkhead or bulkheads, such as will prevent escape of the material into the waterway 16 There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the work herein authorized 17 If 8ranted under Articles 24 or 25. and if upon the expiration or re- vocation of this permit, modification of the wetland hereby authorized has not been completed, the applicant shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove alt or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its former condition. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. 18 if granted under Article 36, this permit does not signify in any way that the proiect will be free from flooding. 19 All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or his agent as part of the permit application. Such approved plans were prepared by ~atest revlse~ aate Young & Young, L.S. on !9/21/$5 - SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. There shall be no disturbance to vegetation or topography a minimum of 50' landward of the freshwater wetland boundary on Lots 1 and 3. 2. There shall be no disturbance to vegetation or topography a minimum of 25' landward of the freshwater wetlands boundary on Lot 2. 3. Hay bales shall be placed at the commencement of construction and remain in place until the grade has been stabilized with vegetation at the landward edge of buffer areas (25' Lot i, 50' Lot 2 & 3) Supplementary Special Conditions (A) through (J) attached. DEC PERMIT NUMBER 10-85-1368 PROGRAM/FACILITY NUMBER Page 2 of 3 SUPPLEHENTARY SPECIAL CONDITIONS The foll~tng conditions apply to all permits: A. If any of the permit conditions are unclear, the permittee shall contact the Division of Regulatory Affairs at the address and t~tephone noted below. B. A copy of this permit or approval and supplementary conditions shall be. avaLlable at the project site whenever authorized work is in progress. C. The permit sign enclosed with the permit or a copy of letter of approval shall be protected from the weather and posted in a conspicinus location at the work site until completion of authorized work. D. At least 48 hours prior to cv.~.encement 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. E. For projects involving activities to. be accomplished over a period mr more than one year, the permittee shall notify the Regional Permit Adm':.nistrator , in writing at least 48 hours to the commencement of resumption of work each year. F. If project design modifications taka place after permit issuance, the permittee shall submit the appropriate plan changes for approval by the Regional Permit Administrator prior to undertaking any such modifications. The permi~tee is advised that substantial modification may require sub- mission of a new application for permit. G. All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude cont~'"tuation of any wetlands or water~ay by suspended solids, sediment lubricants, epoxy coatings, paints, concrete, leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the project work. ,It. 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. I. ~The permittee is advised to obtain any permits or approvals that may be ' required from the U.S. Department of Army Corps of Engineers, NY District, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278, (Attention: Regulatory Functions Branch), prior to commencement of work authorized herein. J. The granting of this permit does not relieve the permitten of the responsibility 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, NY 12242, which may be required for any encroachment upon State-owned lands under water. DEC # Regional Permit Aamtnistrator NYS Dept. of Enviroomental-Conservation Bldg. 40, SUNY--Room 219 Stony Brook, NY (516) 751-7900 _ . 10-85-1368 Page 3 of 3 NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF WORK R~SDEC, Regional Permit Administrator Bldg. 40, SUN~'--Room 219 Stony Brook, NY 11794 Permit No. Contractor Issued to Address Phone NO~ Dear Sir: Pursuant to General Condition Number 1 of the above referenced permit you are hereby notified that the authorized activity shall commence on This notice is to he sent at least ~wo days /n advance of co~encement of the projegt. The permit sign will be posted at the site and copy of perm/t will be available at site for inspection. Submitted bM Failure to notify or post signwill leave owner and/or contractor subject to applicable penalties for non-compliance with permit conditions. If there is more thau one contractor - use attachments to list additional name(s), address(es), ~_~_me number(s) and identifying work each one is to do. NOTICE'OF COMPLETION NYSDEC, Regional Perm/t Administrator Bldg. 40, SUN~--Room 219 Stony Brook, N~ 11794 RE: Permit No. ~Issued to · Dear Sir: Pursuant to Geners/ Condition Number ! of the above referenced permit you are hereby notified that the authorized activity was completed on .... :' Photos of completed work shall be forwarded with this notice. Submitted'b~ (This notice is to be sent. to above address promptly upon completion of project). Failure to-notify will leave owner and/or contractor subject to applicable penalties for non-compliance with permit conditions. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NOTICE The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued permit(s) pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law for work being conducted on this site. For further informa- tion regarding the nature and extent of work approved and any Departmental conditions on it, contact the Regional Permit Administrator listed below. Please refer to the permit number shown when contacting the DEC. David DeR~dder Alternate Regional Permit Administrator Permit No. zo-85~z36s Expiration Date 95-20-1 (11/~2) NOTE: This notice is not a permit G~ox~E O. Gu~x November 1, 1985 Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall $outhold, NY 11971 Attention: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Re: Appeal 3299 Douglas Miller Dear Mr. Goeringer, For the use and information of the Board, enclosed please find one complete copy of the documents that they have advised me they wish me to file. I will promptly foreward you any response I receive from them. Please contact me if you have any questions. GEORGE O. GULDI November 1, 1985 New York State Department of Envirnmental Protection Building 40 Room 219 SUNY at Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11790 Att: Regional Permit Administrator, Re: D. Miller Subdivision on Laurel Lake, at Mittituck Town of Southhold County of Suffolk Tax Map 1000-121-4-10 Dear Sirs: Pursuant to my recent convesations with your office in response to my corespondence of October 9, 1984 and of March 4, 1984 enclosed pleas find the following items with respect to the above mentioned subdivision application: 5 copies of Form 95-19-2 Application 1 Short EAF 1 Addendum to EAF 1 Project Permit Requirement Questionaire 1 Applicant Check List 5 Suveys depicting wetlands and use with location key map 11 Recent Photo's of Project Area with Owners Name 1 Check Payable to DEC for $75 Filing Fees Additional information will be provided upon request if required. Please contact me upon receipt if you require any additional information of if there are any questions. Geo_rrY truly yours, cc. Mr. Douglas Miller / ~ Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals " I ,~ 70o2o~'40"E. '- .... - ~ Mt~OPOS£D LOT 2 .. W£rL~OS ~ LOT 8$G. El' ~ ,' LAUREL LAKE Part h Structural-Archaeological Assessment Form (Addendum to EAF) Project Information (Applicant) l. Is project eontinguous to, or contain a structure or are~gieal site listed ir, the State/National Register of Historic Places? yes no 2. Approximate percentage o,f p_~ropo~ed~projeet si~/with, sloRes; 0-10% ~ %; 10-15% 3. Approximate percentage o.f prop..osed project site with the following drainage charac- teristics: well drained ~/~q %, mederately well drained %; poorl~y drained _~%_. (Uae the..Soi)/Sur~'-yr~la~ifi_e_ati, ons for your county). ~ ' 4. Mas the lano within the proposed projdct ar¢~ been previously disturbed/altered (excavated, mined, landscaped, filled, utilities installed)? yes ~ no __ ff yes, briefly deseribe each. ~.~-0<~/~,-~.) e}'n/~Z //-. d~]) 5. Are there any buildings/structures built prior to 1940 and/or listed on the State Register of Hi.Places within or adjacent to the proposed project area? yes no,~,~ If "yes", provide the following information for each building/structure (use attachments if needed): a.) type of structure (eg. house, outbuilding, b~rn, bridge, dam tunnel), b.) location, e.) approximate age. Photogrsphs which illustrate the general nature of tho project r~.ea can assist the environments! analyst in his/her review. Submittal of photos is opt}onal and not a required component of the initial EAF. Part Il: Evaluation (Environmental Analyst) 1. Archaeological Concerns a.) Is the proposed action within a circle or square identifi_~d, on the OPR~{P maps? yes no c.) Is the area under review apparently undisturbed? yes *' no (Pi~se contact CRS f~ a~istanee in evaluating disturbance.) Will the proposed action include a physical disturbance of the area? yes d.) is the slope in the area less than 15%?· yes '~" no ' Unless on limestone/flint escarpments..c"~ ¢. ~. ,,~,/,/~,,-'//~:,~' z'~ ?:: If the answer is yes to all of the preceding questions, refer to the Cultural Resource Section. 2. Structural Concerns Will the p~oject alter the physical eheraeter or sightline of any building or structure built prior to 1940 or listed on the State/National Register of Historic Places? /~. '~.: If "yes", refer to the Cultural Resource Section and provide photographs for each historic structure affected. Part l]h Determination -- Refered to the Cultural Resource ~eetion for review. -- No referral to the Cultural Resource Section. SHPA Review complete. Date ~ffignatura of/Praparer DEC Permit Number DEC 3/85 19-2 ({ l-B3) N£V~ YORK STATE D£PARTM[NI O£ ENVIRONt~4ENTA[ CONSERVATION { A~ICATI~ NUMBER I 4PPUOATION Re~ In~m~fls on ~ck ~o~ c~in8 Ibis a~licalion, P[ea~ W~ or prim clearly in ink U~ ~rale ~a a~ ~hibi~ ~ ~ ~1 da~ ~ ~s ~r ~ ~ ~ ~s ~ k ~u~e. ~ ARTICLE 15, TITLE 3 (~TR~ ~ A~A~ INSETS, WEEDS,, OR UND~I~BLE FISH) ~ ~LE 15, ~T~ S (~TE~ ~ WATEr) ~ ~ t~ con~r~, ~r~ion, ~ ~ir ~ a D~ or ~r im~nt s~m~um. ~ ~r ~ digu~e ~ a ~E~ BED or ~cavati~ in or fill ~ ~vi~ble water. ~S~A~R W~) ~ ~it ~ l~er of ~issi~ ~ AR~CLE 25 ~1 I 7. I'ROPOS~OIJ~: .~"l'~,.~e '18. I'IIOI'OSi~STAKIING DATE: Je..~K31ClMATECOMPLt"TIO~ ORTE: t10 FEEOf 7o avoid delay be sure all infotTmtion indicated below is included (where applic- able) with your submittal. If you have cueotione call (516) 751-7900. SUBNI~.D: 1. "APPLICATION FOR'IS" (lB triplicate) Instructions on reverse; rust include pro- Ject description--state t~e of structure(s) or work prouo~ed 6 specific dimensioni, ar~s. ~un~s. etc, involved. It also ~us~ be signed. , / 2. .,'// 4. "A~ORI~TION LE~" (if applicant is other than o~er) 5, "~TIO}I ~.P" (in triplicate) mp of general location of project site i~t to ~ocate the site; m~e roadu, bodies of water, land~r~, telephone pole street address, etc. ~py of tax section mp is usually cl~rest. 6. "~NC E~VIRO~NT~ ASSESSI~I~ FO~' If you're aware your project ts a ~e I action as defined in SgO~, Art. ~, Part 617 request this fom, co. lets Part I sabot ~ith application. ~is ~y be required on s~h mlisted actton~ as ~ubiiw .lsion~, ~ndmiui~s, ~erc~l ~elo~ent, I~Jor Beach ~ntrol l. lork, *~Jor Dred- 7. "~S" (in triplicate) (five aeta for pto,~ecte lteted tn ~6 above). Plans need to e~ ar~ o~ veg~aud/wate~ay directly affected. Att~ch'a atat~ent as to ~eas- able ~tetnattvea, Provide aa ~ch data aa poaaible to cl~:~y delineate project, Shot: d~aioea, d~atancea from fixed obJecte (~n~ente, ad~oi~ag eenter~ine of road, etc.) Elevationa (exiat~n~ & propoaed); dietancea [ro~ terulat- ed ~et~anda & wate~couraea, mean high water (~B,I). Additio~l data needed acco~ lug to type of atructure(a), ~tk ot action propoaed as lieted below: ' A. ~NSTRU~]ON/{-~ ~n adJac~t area e,R. butldtnga, acceaao~ et~ctutea auch' as p~is, decks, tennis courts, etc., filling, excavation (for excavation bel~ see dredgiu~ below) grading, clearcutting, roads, subdivisions, cond~ini~s. a recent plan you must sho~: (1) ~7 line and/or wetland line, state ho~ this was dete~ined. **(2) Specific location in outline o[ proposed structure(s), ~ork area(s) pro~s~ subdivisions l~e, etc. **(3)Sho~ on plan: sanitary system(s) & d~ veil location ~ith recent test hole & distance to ~ or wet.nd edge; data to sho~ groundwater level~~ **(6) I[ filling (a) a~unt i~ cubic yards; t~e of ~ter~l & source. (b) existin~ t proposed el~ation mst be sh~ ~ plan. (5) ~e lot on plans ~s been in single & separateo~ership (~) (6) Subeit flood zone desiationl ~a~e, o.~her and date of ~. ~ B. B~ R~ RBTAINII~ ~L OR C~ION eh~ on a recur sudsy: ~(1) Lo.itoh of proposed ec~cture(s), ~ or ~etland edRe; state distances to~ existin~ structure(s) e.R. ~use, road, property line, ~n~ent. (2) Cross-sect. & Plan view of structure(s)l t~e of ~te~ll ~, existing pro.add elevations aea~ard & land~ard of proposed st~ct~ ~ording ~o~ fl~. Sho~ const~ction detail, s~te specific (3) ~tline of excavati~ &/or fill. State ~t., t~e & source o~ fill. C. ~Cl~ ~2~ PI2~ BP~ ROAD STRU~S on site plan or sudsy: '~(1) ~Location of proposed structure(s) in rela:i~ to }~r wet.nd edge, ~ ~ t~ces to ~istini st~cture(s) i.e. house, road, p~perty line. (2) Cross-sect. & plaai6~, ahoy d~msi~s a elev. above ~ & wetland. D. D~ING (r~val of ~ter~l ~elov }~ to establish or lactose water (1) ~ plan: l~ts o~ dredging referenced to lands adjacent to rate.ay. **(2) ~ plan: o~tl~e limits of proposed spoil (3) $pil site ~er~s authorization l[ di[ferent from a~licant. -(~) Cross-sect. vi~ of ar~ to be dredged & spoil ar~ ~ith d~ensions & ations of existing i proposed depths referenced to (5) ~unt in cu. yds. t~e of mterial to be dredRed (sand, slit,' muck) (6) II.ns of dredgin2 ~ydraulic, bucket, etc.) E. J~XESt O~XNS~ B~?A~/~ FI~ED (l) F~n v~ nhow~g ~oea~on..of n~rue~ure(n), d~z & d~tances ~o Jac~t l~d ar~s & ~scl~ set. Cures ~thln 1~' of ~an high ~ter.~ (2) Cross-sect. vl~ of st~cture: d~e~lona, elev., ~I, (3) Profile el~. of stature r~ative to ~istin~ M[o~ uh~ US{ivu ~. "~{T PI~S OF P~ ~" are teq~r~ (label with ~er~s ~ne) *tNO~: L~ITS OF ~ ~ST BE ST~, ~ S~l~ ST~S AT SI~ PRIOR ~ FT~.D IHSPE~ION~ I~IUB B} 2T SIB 12S B~ OR NOT BE~ ~,~. A * ~T ST~ED, ~ NOTICE SE]~ AT ~'~A~ NE~ 'YORK STATE DEPARTHENT OF ENVIRON~EI~TAL CONSERVATION PROJECT PEK~T KE~UIRDfENT QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose of this questionnaire is to assist the applicant in determining what, if any, Departmeot Permits or approvals must be obtained before starting york on a proposed project. If you are not sure if the action proposed is s regulated activity or is within an area subject to Department regulations (tidal vetlands, freshwater wetlands, etc.) contact our regional office for clarification. A pre-application conference with our staff to obtain guidance in the Depart~aent's permit application revie~ process can be arranged. A~SI~ER ALL qUESTIONS 1. Realty-Subdivision Approvals in Nassau County Does.project involve subdivision of land into or more residential Iota that will be served by a public or co~,nity sewage disposal system? 2. Hinin~ Permit Does project involve the sfl~ing and cmmercial sale or off-site use of 1,O00 tons of mineral within 12 calendar ~onths (e~cepting excavat- Ion or grading in connection ~rlth on site con- struction or fatting)? 3. Air Cont~rmination Permit a) ~e~ or Nodified Sources: ~oes project involve the construction, ~od- Siltation or operation of a boiler greater than 1 million BTU/hr rated heat input, an incinerator or an industrial process? b) Indirect Source: Does project involve consttmction or modif- ication of a high.ay, airport or a parking facility with 250 or more spaces? 4. Solid Waste Nana~ment Permit Does project involve the storage, transfer processing or disposal of solid waste? 5. ~ild~ Scenic & Recreational Rivers Permit Only applies to certain lands within a ~mile of the Carmans River. Consult D.g.C. Regional Office for exact determination. 6. Water Supply Permit Does project involve the acquisition of land or construction of facilities for water sup- ply or distribution purposes? 7. LonE Island Well Per.it a) Does project involve the construction of a ne~well or deepening or increasing the capacity of au existing veil to ~lthdrav water at a rate greater than &5 gallons a~nute? b) Will project require the t,q?orary lovering of groundwater levels fo~ cnnstruetion purposes? ~ 8. Protection pf Waters a) Will project chause~ ~dify or otherwise disturb the course, cha~el or bed of any strea~ classified C(T) or higher? (consult the Regional Office for classifications). b) Does project t~volve the t~o, rary or permanent artificial obstruction of a nat- ural stressor rater course? c) Does project involve the construction or repair of s per~mnent dock, pier or wharf having a top surface area more than 200 square feet? NOT YES NO K}FYJN -2- d) Does project involve any ancsvation or placing of fill in the navigable waters of the State and adjacent wetlands? 9. Tidal l~etlands Permit I.~ill project be loca~ed: &) in tidal waters? b) ~rlthin 300 feet of either the land- ward edge of s tidal wetland boundaTy or a tidal body of water? II. l~ill there be any subdivision of laud or physical alterations of land or water? ~mmp~ions to the above regulation location if: 1) FroJect will be located at a ~round elevation of 10 feet or higher above ~ean sea level (except. tn~ on the face of a bluff or cliff). 2) A substantial, roulade s~ructure (such as a paved street or bulkhead) 100 feet or lon~er exists between the project site and tidal wetlonds or tidal water. (Consult D.I.C. Regional Office if unsure). 10. Freshwater l~etlands Fenait a) Will project area be within, or within I00 feet of a freshwater wet_tend or freshwater body of 12.4 acres or larger? b) l~ill project involve drainis~, dredging, fillip, excavat-ln~, erectin~ structures, roads, utilities or other alterations or placing any for~ of pollution iua wetland? (Consult D.E.C. R~gional Office if unsure). ktl~l &01--l~ter ~k~lt~ Certific~_!_~_ Letter 'Does project or sotivi~y require a Federal Porsdt or License? If so, this g~te certt~tcation My · be required prior to Federal approval. 12. State Pollutant Dts~ae~.lt~_!ou Syste~-- !.Does Project involve: a) A proposed subdivision of five or ~ore units? b) A l~opozad or existin~ discharge of 1,000 ~allons per day of sewage or any discharge of industrial or other wastes ~o ground waters? c) Any discharge of sewage, industrial or other ~astes to surface water? -d) 'Any disposal of stor~ater con~aining sewage industrial or other wastes? e) Any storage and dispozal of potentially toxic or hazardous wastes? 13. ~he folLowi~ additio~1 required D.l.C.per~its bays been applied for: l pe of Permit NOT YES NO Application Number Application Ftlin~ Date ApplicantOs Na~e (if different on application now b~i~ aulmitr~d) 14. List all other permits, licenses or approvals required by other agencies of 8overzment: ~ypeof PeEult C~vernmental Status or approval A~ency I certify that the above t-~or~tion is correct to tl~ I~.st of sy kao~led~t.. NEW YORK STATEDiviSioNDEPAR'~MENToF REGULAToRyOF ENVIRONMENTALAFFAiRS CONSERVATION PROJECT I D State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I Project information (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 2 Project Name initially cms Ultimately acres ~'-Rec, il~tial [] Indu~'ial .J.~'Commercial [] Aliriculture [] earkl&n~/open space [] ' I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Coastal A~sessment Form before proceeding with thl~ asse~ment OVER . PAF.~ II Environmental Assessment C3 Vegetation or fauna, movement of fish or wildlife species, significant habitat~, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: C4 A community's existins plans o~ ~oals as officially adopted, o~ a change in u~e or iflte.sit~ of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly C5 Growth. subsequent developate~t, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. PART III Dltlrmlnlltlo~ of Slgnlflclnel (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (el geo~rephic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. [] Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAt' occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL/LONG FORM EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. .,,~.~h.e, ck you on information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, this box ~f have determined, based the that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide here, and on attachments as necessary, the reasons supportng this determination: Ageflcy Name Agency Prepa~efs Name Preparers SignaturefTitle Date JUDITH T, TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR or VITAL Sl &l [STICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 October 15, 1984 To: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals From: Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk Transmitted herewith is Appeal No. 3299 application for a variance by George O. Guldi for Douglas Miller, and accompanying papers as outlined on the attached letters from George O. Guldi, dated September 26, 1984 and October 9, 1984. th T. Terry ~/ Southold Town Clerk GEORGE O. GU~-D~r 875 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS SUITE NEW YORK, NY October 9, 1984 Southold Town Zoning Board of Town Hall $outhold, New York 11971 Appeals Dear Sirs: Enclosed please find my check in the amount of $50.00 which was inadvertantly left out of my prior correspondence to you. Also enclosed please find a notorized affidavit of maiiling of notices to adjoining property owners. Please contact me if any additional documents are required. Very truly yoursj.~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. ~.~, (/3 TO THE ZONING BOARD Of APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, (v~X ........... D.Q.U.g %.¢ ~...H J.1 Le.~. .................... of ........ .5...5....0..! ~....~...a. %.n.....R..9. ~..d. ............................. Nome of Appell(~nt Street (:nd Number ...................... Q.U.o..q.u...e. ......................................................... ~..e..w....~.o...K.k' ......... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION DATED: FOR: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) ( ) (XX) ......... D o.u g 3.a,s...H.% 13,.~ ~ ....................................... Name of Applicant for permit of .............. .~.~ ...O. !,ct.., M..~ ./..r~....R...o. ~).d..,,....Q .u...o_q..u..e.., ............. .N .q~.m...Y..o..r...k ........................ Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY PERMIT TO B~I~ Subdivide 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ~.~.[~:.¥~.a..t~.e..~.~R~.9~.a~.d...~.1..8.~...(..~..1]..r..k..~u.~p..~.L.~.~.)..~.~.~.~ ....... Street and Hamlet Zone . _ .~ .Q Q.0.r..l.~ .~ .r..4.r. 1Q ............................................... OWNER(S): .... ~.l.v. g .h$.l. ............. lv~ep No. Lot No. DATE PURCHASED: ...Qq~t.~q~..V.~ 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number, Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article III , Sectionl00-3l, Section 106-36 C 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (X×) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chop. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal ~) (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such ~ppeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... ( ) (X~ ( ) REASON FOR APPEAL A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that we would like to Subdivide the parcel in a manner consistent with the area. the nature of Form ZB1 (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sory HARDSHIP because it would result in two lots of nearly four acres each in an area zoned for two acres, and surrounded by substantially smaller lots. 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 zoning ordinance has not been applied in such a manner in the past and because of the unique condition of the property. 3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CtlARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because it would still result in lots with a substantially greater land area than those in the surrounding area. Notary Public Southold, N.Y, 11971 (516) 765-1938 September 11, 1984 Mr. George O. Guldi Attorney at Law Scheffler Guldi Karlinsky and Stein 275 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Re: Application for minor subdivision Douglas Miller at Laurel Dear Mr. Guldi: Please let this confirm the action of the Planning Board Monday, September 10, 1984. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board deny the application of Douglas Miller to subdivide property located at Laurel since with the deletion of the wetlands, the buildable area of the lots is less than 80,000 sq. ft.; therefor~ lots of insufficient area would be created. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN THOLD TOWN PLAN~N3N~ ~OARD . Schultze, Se~ret'ary BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of : Douglas Miller : : to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold : TO: NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ~-~ ~OU 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 (Variance) (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) [circle choice] Variance for lot area~ inc. l,,din~ wetlands ). 2. Thattheproperty whichisthesubiectofthePetitionislocatedadiacenttoyourpropertyandisdes- cribedasfollows: Tax Map ~lOO0-121-&-lO f~rm~r]y n£ M. lvlhi~ nn I.~,,r~l T.~V9 between the West end of L~urel Way and thm Emir ~i~ nf gir~,,p Pn~ (North End nf l,ske). 3. Thattheproperty whichisthesubjectofsuchPetitionislocatedinthefoUowingzoningdistrict: Residential 4. ThatbysuchPetition, theundersigned willrequestthefollowingrelief: Inclusion of ~ in lot area for approva~ of 3 lot minor wetlands 5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are ~krticle III Section 100-31 106-36 (c) 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 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. P it?onffr b~)~'~oge~e3 Guldi P~os ti Office Address P. 3§6 566 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PR0Vl0ED-- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Street and No. P.O., State ~nd ZtP Co~e Date, a~ A~ress of Delivery ~T P 386 865 565 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANnP nnv~:nAGE PROVfDED-- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MA~L (See Reverse) P.O., State an~ ~P C~d~ Date, and Address of Delivery TOTALP~.~F,~ ....... ?S P 386 865 563 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCe. 33',;7.~,AGE PROVIDED-- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MA~L (See Reverse) b'/¥~otD az. t~llot,./,d Street end No; P.O., Statl and ZIP C~e Date, and Addres~ ~ t STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) PS Fo~'m 3800, Feb. 1982 ~ ~. ~ / ~ . , being duly sworn, deposes ~nd says that on ~he ~ day of ' O~ ~O ~'~ , 19 ~, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice ~t forth on the r~ veme side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite thor r~p~tiVe ' namm; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addr~ses of said pe~ons a~ ~own the current ~smsment roll of the Town of Somhold; that said Notic~ were mailed at the Unit~ rice at ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ · ; that said Notices were mailed to · (certified) (registered)' mail. FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL To ~. 0 ~ ~ .,~. .... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated .......... .~% s-r~..~.. .. ~ ~ ...... 19 .~ ~.. for pe~it to ~ F~ ~ ................................................ at ~cation of Property .R~..~.. ~ ~.~ ~.~. ~ County T~ Map No. 1000 Section .... ].~ ~ ..... Block .... ~ ........ Lot ... [.~ ....... Subdivision ................. Filed Map No ................. Lot No .................. is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds..~..~.' .~-.....~.~..%~.. ~.:. ~,.. ~.~. ~.~.. ~~ ~..~.. ~. ~...~......~...~...a.. .:~ ~...~.~:W~...%..~,...~. ~...;~....~..' ~. :~...~ .... Building Inspector RV 1/80 The A.Y.2. t;:lvironmental Quality i~(:view Act j'eq~jir'es cub- mission of Lhis. rs, 8lid an envir'onmer~Lallview ~ili be made by this bo before any ~c~ion is ta~. SHORT I.N STRA.~CTIC.~ S ~ (a) In ~rder to answer the questions in this short ~.AF is ts ass.um~ed that the ~reparer will use currently aYaiIabls lnforr.~ation concernin~ %he proJec~ and l~ely ~c~s of the acc!on. I% is no~ e~ec%ed 2~ additional a%udi~ ro~emrch o%her investigations w~i b~ ~derta~en, (b) If any question ha~ b~eu answered Yes the proJec% ~y be si~ifican: and a completed Enviro~m~n~al Assessmen~ Fo~ i~ neces=arf. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is l~ely t~t this project significant. (d) ~vircr~ent~l 1. W~i project reset in a larEe physical to the prelect site or ~hysically alter more t~n 10 acres of land? . · · · · · · · · · · · Yes ~ No 2. Will thers be a major chan~e ~o any ~ique or unusual land fo~ fo~d on the site? . · · . · Yes ~ No 3. W~i project alter or ~ve a large effect on an existing body of water? . . · . · · ~ . . . Yes XX &. W~I project have a potentially large ~ on ~c.~d~ter quality? . . ~ . . . ~ . . . . ~ Yes XX No ~, W~l project si~ificantly effect drayage ~ on ad~acent sites? . . . . . . . . ..... Yes XX No Wi!l ~roJec% affect any t~eatened or endangered 7. W~i project reset in a major adverse effect on air quality? . . ~ . . ...... . Y~s XX 8, W~I project have ~ =a Jot effect on visual octet of the community or scenic views oF vistas kno~ to be ~portant to the corn.reunify? . . . Yes XX No 9. Will pro,eot adversel~ ~pact any site or st~c~ ute of historic, pre-histor!c~ or paleontological importance or any site desi~a~ed as a critical enviro~en~l area by a loca~ agency? . . . Yes ~ No 10. W~I project have a ~Jo~ effect on exist~g or future recreational opport~lities~ . . . Yes ..~X No 11. Will project result In ~jor traffic problems or systems? . . , . . . . . . . . . Yes XX NO 12. Will proJec~ reg~arly cause objectionable noise. &lore. vibration, or electrical dis%ur~ once as a rest% of %he proJecu's operation? . Ye~ XX No 13. Will project have any impac~ on public health or Ye~ XX 1L. Will project ~ffect the existing co.unity by directly causing a ~rowth in permanent tlon of more t~an 5 percent over a on.year period ~ have a major nega:ive effect on character of the com. gunity ~r neigl~bornoo~?.. Yes XX 15~ Is there public controversy co~nlng the project? Yes XX No RfPRESE.ITI .... / DouEla~iller DATE: QUEST!ONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND FILED WITH APPLICATION TO THE Z.B.A. The New York State Tidal Wetlands and Use Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Part 661, requires an application to the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, Environmental Analysis Unit, Building 40, $.U.N.Y., Stony [3rook, NY 11794, (tel. 516-751--7900), if you have checked Box #1 and/or Box#6 below. Please either call their office or personally visit them at their Stony Brook office for instructions and application forms. Once you have received written notification of approva please provide our office with a copy (with the conditions) as early as possible in order that we may continue processing your Z.B.A. application. [ ] 2. I ] 3. [ ] 4. [ ] 5. [ ] Waterfront without bulkheading Waterfront with bulkheading in good cor~dition [ ] the full length of the property [ ] at least 100' in length Not located within 300' of waterfror~t or wetlands area May be located within 300' of waterfront or wetlands area; however, the following structure separates ~ay property from this environn~ental area: [ ] 50' existing road [ ] existing structures [ ] bluff area more than 10' in elevation above mean sea level This proposed addition/expansion of an existing building will be more than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands/waterfront areas, This proposed addition/expansion of an existing building will NOT be more than 75' from the landward edge of tidal wetlands/waterfront area. [ ] 7. Please be aware that any and all subdivisions and new dwellings will also require an application to the N,Y.5. Department of Environmental Conservation for their review and approval, If you are able to provide them with recent photograpi~s of the project and wetland areas, it would help expedite the processing of your applica- tion. This questionnaire is made to explain the requirements of this State [.aw and to prevent any unnecessary delays in processing your application(s). 10/831k G~o~tc.~ O. GUL~X 87S AVENUE Of THE AMERICAS SUITE 2424 NEW YORK, NY 1000l September 26, 1984 Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Miller Tax Map 1000-121-4-10 Dear Sirs: This is an application on behalf of Douglas Miller pursuant to a variance of lot sizes pursuant to a recent decision of the Planning Board and the Building Inspector, relating to the subdivision of 7.4 (+ or -) acres on Laurel Lake in Laurel. Without prejudice to our right to challenge the legal basis for the Planning Board's decision, we submit this application for a variance in order to exhaust our administrative remedies. In support of this appeal, please find enclosed the following documents: 4. 5. 6. Appeal Form. Copies of Notices to Adjoining Landowners. $50.00 filing fee for this Appeal. Eight copies of the current Survey. Environmental Assesment Form. Wetlands Letter. Please contact me if required. I am available this application. any additional documents are at your convenience to discuss Very truly yours, LOCATION NOTE= now or formerly Joseph Macgr/ 8$G. 27 ' LOT E ~ LOT % % now ar formerly Harold ~ Brown