Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Mattebella Vineyard
LOCATION MAP SCALE:1"=600' x Opo w v 1 jgN (n Posy G° �\�5 � R\� GP < �o \d\n - tc\eo �ov�o d5 N° e\O ey d ti \ o J\� \�\�\o\ "�• E to e� Z� �aa� o\� obey 0� S° o� o S rLo 1''% 3 j O� \ N �� O \ , 0-0 / foo o �\J \0\ \ \I D• \ \ ,9 RP\� ° ffNz �PF` � 55NNS, ao SPF�NGF. ° � O 0 1 of ` . � �a ° . Jo°�1\ pO o`11 0 01 •oo°� 2� 0 co p, V���od`� 9$ N6 �JP�° SQ F�NG�� �0 /L iia ' NOF OF •�� AGF- `\ i-' 1��; ( f—— 1 \ � �� O �i� 1 \ vnN o L.1/J \ aO \N5 ff-y \ `\ ,°ego• ,'' ` �e"S O PNOP°AGF-e PR'A`NG . O 'OJ \^ FOSS YY ` OO "0 .::..• ' Q�� IaF.O STONE DRIVEWAY P \ o \ 7 0 O b �: PrvR O ;Gt oEG� SP 5 S�P�V qr o Q ,�ANFNPGF SEO \ SP`�R •0 z o �ogt�O OPO ti \ �o lop" APs° 3 PNQrtP\°oO\\\ $ INE / ?i a Ov P `90 7L PO00 coNGR \ GP50�`RER a..J os� < pSFo qRF 5 C°JK fE",S a°� 4R°S�P \ 0 God \ Vol N"N2 SF • /> ZING PSS) 1 fE. L✓ i m s S . 0� F 0• �1 Ffk�c,F. \\ S\G`' 1�bfij• •�Cj• NOS ` f86 SHESOs 0 0 o v \ \ FRPM�G 39 °` d o -P \\ O \ F!�"0\NG 'RPS,!- 8J\�0 Z6 36 'e. m 1 �o c�< \\ �o \\ o• yQO�E- G�F, 9W-5�N S� SQP�O St`E0 `O3 �N `o F SNEO 'o \ `0 \ \\ Gv J W-- a\ ti \ R8 a O s O \ NG. FSL°G O° �^N. y �\\•ONG � G�61�O o � 0 N�, 0 1a � w�(,, 2" eF�`cF. � O° a' �'9N �o t P•�O 9�0�, 9� \\\ \ .�g�0 �1 © O O �SOGGPOF' GAP°E eS9� SEG r O ° FEN StoENGF F 0� /f_O` .00. N �9� e 5 lJ 0) 00 ° m� / �0 e 0 1P v r. a 5 00,1 & 0\1 o o fE�•S �• SITE DATA cow cow O, 0 °^�� O � Y PO 1 1. AREA = 134,246 S.F. 2. ZONING USE DISTRICT = A—C �9 �REFENGE A�1 !a �o�oo LEGEND. 3. GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ZONE = IV 4. SCHOOL DISTRICT = SOUTHOLD 5. POSTAL DISTRICT = SOUTHOLD 00 > �Nt BUILDING DESCRIPTION AREA EXISTING ON LAST NEW PROPOSED 6. FIRE DISTRICT = SOUTHOLD 4„• sOE ' of QP�E� SITE PLAN 7. UTILITIES = S.C.W.A., VERIZON, PSEG o. EOG 1D RESIDENCE 1,050 S.F. YES ' 2O STORAGE, RESIDENTIAL 99 S.F. — YES APPLICANT / •O FZ O MATTEBELLA VINEYARDS HOLDING LLC. _ � e�\ �' `� 3 GARAGE, WINERY & STORAGE 491 S.F. YES �O� '\`I\ \O `F 46005 MAIN ROAD rc' 1 \ of Q\�' \% Q`B` 4O WINE STORAGE SHED 98 S.F. — YES SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 L� �� L Q \ �\0 J��\,� 5O SHED FOR TASTING ROOM 232 S.F. YES — JAN 1 8 2017 b \Q0t0 > 1Qyy 6O FARM STORAGE 78 S.F. — YES 6' 1 NOTES Southold loom \ �• 7O FARM STORAGE 86 S.F. — YES Planning Board 1. REFERENCE DEED L. 12392 CP. 996 �ygrL90 O 8O FARM STORAGE 65 S.F. YES 2. LOT COVERAGE: EXISTING = 3906 S.F. OR 2.9% 0 9O FRAME GARAGE, STORAGE 363 S.F. YES PROPOSED = 5082 S.F. OR 3.8% WATER TOWER & WELL ENCLOSURE 103 S.F. YES DEC. 22, 2016 PLAN PREPARED 2y' a 1 DATE: REVISION: oQ`d�ES �` ���• 11 FARM SHOP, OFFICE 169 S.F. YES �� 12 DECK ON GROUND, UNATTACHED 224 S.F. — YES SITE PLAN 13�� FARM STORAGE 97 S.F. — YES Prepared For: 14 FARM OFFICE, NO BATH OR KITCHEN 401 S.F. YES Mattebella Vineyards 15 ANCHORED DECK 100 S.F. YES �. — Holding LLC. Z �Q�ti� 16 ANCHORED DECK 100 S.F. YES "Winery Improvments" G FRAME BUILDING 50 S.F. — ` YES At LAND 18 FRAME BUILDING 50 S.F. — YE5 Southold ._.. ... Town Of DAVID H. FOX, L.S. P.C. N.Y.S.L.S. #50234 19 FRAME BUILDING 50 S.F. — YES Southold FOX LAND SURVEYING 20 PERGOLA/SHEDS 100 S.F. — — YES Suffolk County, New York 64 SUNSET AVENUE WESTHAMPTON BEACH, N.Y. 11978 21 PERGOLA/SHEDS 100 S.F. — — YES Suff. Co. Tax Map: (631) 288-0022 Dist. 1000 Sect. 075.00 Block 02.00 Lal 015.001 UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OFSECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE 22 2 STALL STABLE 200 S.F. — — YES EDUCATION LAW. COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYOR'S IN SEAL OR EMBOSSED SEAL 40 0 40 SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY. 23 WINERY 875 S.F. — — YES I ( CERT FICATION INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED AND ON HIS SCALE:1"=40' BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY I AND LENDING INSTITUTION LSTED HEREON AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INSTITUTION. CERTIFICATIONS ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEQUENT OWNERS. DWG: 2016-074 BOARD MEMBERS � � '�fi � « Southold Town Hall ° Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179 i� �� �,���� Southold,NY 11971-0959 Eric Dantes r[ Office Location: Gerard P.Goehringer S% Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning w « �, �� 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Kenneth Schneider "` � °� �� � « ���ISouthold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel.(631) 765-1809 •Fax(631) 765-9064 VA k -w n� II MEMO N .,.. TO: Planning Board FROM: Leslie K. Weisman, ZBA Chairperson nrY""'� 1 - DATE: January 18, 2017 SUBJECT: Request for Comments ZBA #7041 — Mattebella Vineyards Holding Co., LLC d/b/a Mattebella The ZBA is reviewing the following application, and enclosed copies of, ZBA application, and latest map. The Planning Board may be involved under the site plan review steps under Chapter 280 (Zoning), and your review and comments are requested at this time. The file is available for review of additional documentation at your convenience for reference if needed. NAME TAXI ... ..ZBA.... ...__ — __r�._. _ ........ ..� .. ,. _ ... HEARING VARIANCE PLANS PREPARER ZONE DATE DATE _ STAMPED _ MATTEBELLA75.-2- �#7041416/17 Art. III Sec 1/17/17 Fox Land_ VINEYARDS 15.1 280-14 & Art. Surveying HOLDING AC Zone III Sec 280-15 CO., LLC D/B/A MATTEBELLA Your comments are appreciated by one week prior to above hearing date. Thank you. Encls. FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: November 16, 2016 TO: Gail Wickham(Mattebella Vineyard) PO Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 Please take notice that your request dated October 14, 2016 For permit to legalize hftcej i I Location of property: 46005 Main Road, Southold,NY County Tax Map No. 1000–Section 75 Block Lot,1_5.1„ Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The"asbLdlt"cons[niction is 11 !Estiapt to Article 111,....Section 280-14 which states —No.,O)tAld"�Q� premises shall be used and no_b_uild_9 RJ �Lted r altered in teA � R-K9-A-20-,—1 -200 gad 1, 00 Districts iy&�'; the same corilbriiis to the Bulk Schedtile wid Parking Sell(Idtfle1ed�iqLo at1] iticorp this challLer Wjt)jAhe same rorce and effect.as if such mqlg(iogs were set forth herein full." Milk Sclic(hile reqt6res a piinitnum side K4-d setback of 20 lbet and a mirtimum rear and setback of 75 fect- YL Building#3 notes a side yard setback of 10 feet. Building#4 notes a side yard setback of 2 feet. Building#5 notes a side yard setback of 1 foot. Building#6 notes a side yard setback of 6.2 feet. Building#9 notes a side yard setback of 6.1 feet. Building#14 notes a rear yard setback of+/- 3.7 feet. l7grthermore l3tfild�i%,,#2 rte^ r(L(,, jal ac!pesspr . is J1oU_T.rn*_( Section,280-15 which states that ori, parcels olf 80,000 square feet or 1110 "1 m i i:i i rini ni,side ya ��,k or 25 feet is reggired. Building#2 is noted as having a 0' setback. In addit iori the ct reAcu ires site ri ap r<wal fqjin the S old 6 I'laig', 1 13 rd. ----------- A 'i I signat,t1re Cc: File, ZBA, planning LAW OFFICES WICKfIAM, BRESSLER & GEASA, P.C. 13015 MAIN ROAD. P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK.LONG ISLAND ERIC J. BRESSLER NEW YORK 11952 WILLIAM WICKHAM(06-02) ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM JANET GEASA 631-298-8353 TIELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565 awickliarn((i_)wbgla%v),ers.coni January 13, 2017 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Property owned by Mattebella Vineyards Holding Company, LLC d/b/a Mattebella. Vineyards Premises: 46005 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 SCT M# 1000-51-2-15.1 (Farm 15.2) Ladies and Gentlemen: This application seeks variances for an array of small buildings with insufficient side yard setback, on a parcel of property with full development rights (15.1) which is part of applicant's farm parcel on which development rights are owned by the Town of Southold (15.2). Accordingly, we enclose the following papers, in eight sets, in connection with the Notice of Disapproval dated November 16, 2016: 1. Copy of Notice of Disapproval dated November 16, 2016; 2. Owner's Authorization of Agent. 3. Application to Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals and copies of COs; 4. Applicant's Project Description with photos and Questionnaire; 5. Transactional Disclosure Forms for owner and agent; 6. Original Survey and Building Diagram; 7. Agricultural Data Statement; 8. Covenants and Restrictions (Development Rights Easement for 15.2) 9. Town Property Card and Tax Map 10. LWRP Consistency Assessment Form; 11. Short Environmental Assessment Form; 12. Appeal fee of$2,750.00; Please schedule this matter at your next available hearing, and kindly contact Christine Tobin at (631) 655-9554 for an appointment to inspect the property, or you may contact me directly. As this is an active farming operation, access by appointment only is required. Thank you for your consideration. Very I y y yours, rill v"rue� ,4A HIldin Abigail A. Wickham end,301shdzbaaT)pma11ebe11a Boardi g A eels icai AUTHORIZATION (where the Applicant is not the Owner) _—. C t . Y al �� (Mailing(Print property owner's narne) ( $Address) o ok y 1 f %) do hereby authorize ec a.v ` t le v � .����" ( (Agent) IV., C q , ......�„ ��, � l w, to apply for variance(s) on my behalf fro the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. ...... ..................... 11 ko it, _ ......... ...... ..............__ �...... (Owner's Signature) Y��� �thP✓ .— ------ (Print Owner's Name) Fee: $ .......... Filed By:, Assignment No., APPLICATION ]°O THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS AREA VARIANCE House No. 46005 Street Main Road Hamlet Southold (winery parcel) ........... _ SCTM 1000 Section 75 Block 2 Lot(s) 15.1 Lot Size 146,34,2so ft Zone AC ------------------ Note: Adjoining Vineyard/Farm Lot 15.2 (Dev Rts. Sold) is a part of the overall property, 18.4 a. I (WE) APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OFT E BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED November 16, 2016 BASED ON SURVEY/SITE PLAN DATED October 11, 2016, revised December 22, 2016 (no relevant change per Building Dept.) M Applicant(s)/Owner(s): Mattebella Vineyardq_HpIdin _-Company, LLC dba attebella........................... Vineyards Mailing Address: 46005 Main Road, Southold,NY 11971 Telephone: (031) 655-9554 Fax: Email: matt bellaaicloud.com - —-------------------------------- NOTE: In addition to the above, please complete below if application is signed by applicant's attorney,agent, architect, builder,contract vendee,etc. and name of person who agent represents: 1_ Name of Representative: Abigail A. Wickhamfor (X) Owner ()Other: ........................ Address: PO Box 1424, 13015 Main 1�.oad, Mq1titLick,NY 11952 ----------- Telephone:-631-298-8353 y Fax: 63 1 2 9,87,8565 Email: awickham@wbglawyers.com Please check to specify who you wish correspondence to be mailed to,from the above names: Applicant/Owner(s), (X) Authorized Representative, () Other Name/Address below: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REVIEWED SURVEY/SITE PLAN DATED October 11, 2016, renlaced by survey dated Decembet- 22. 2016 and DENIED AN ... . ................................ ........... APPLICATION DATED October 14, 2016 FOR: .................................... (X) Building Permit Certificate of Occupancy Pre-Certificate of Occupancy Change of Use (X) Permit for As-Built Construction () Other: Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (indicate Article,Section,Subsection of Zoning Ordinance by numbers.Do not quote the code.) Article: III Section: 280-14 Subsection: and Section: 280-15 Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: (x ) A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law- Section 280-A. Interpretation of the Town Code, Article Section--,,,,,,, Reversal or Other: A prior appeal () has, (X) has not been made at any time with respect to this property, UNDER Appeal No(s). Year(s). . .................. (Please be sure to research before completing this question or call our office for assistance) Name of Owner: ZBA FileH REASONS FOR APPEAL (Please be specific, addilioimlsheels may be used with preparer's Vib;+naiure iiotari:0), INTRODUCTION-, This application for variances seeks approval of a) a tasting room and winery production building which pre-exist zoning but whose setbacks now require a variance because the use has changed from residential/agricultural (the Nierodzik farm) to residential/agricultural (vineyard)/winery; and b) several small sheds which were located without sufficient sideyard setback. The two main buildings, the red existing winery building (#3) and the tasting room (#5), were former farm buildings that remain in their original location and footprint but require a variance due to the change of use of a pre-existing building. The sheds have been laid out to form a progression of buildings around the outer perimeter of the property, in the same general area as the existing buildings now housing the tasting room, red winery, and the barn/garage (0). Three of the sheds requiring sideyard variances are less than 100 sq ft in area. All of these buildings are too close to the rear yard of the property to the south (Gorman, tax lot 14) which has, since the applicants purchased the property, been derelict, creating an eyesore as well as a security concern. The position of these buildings helps screen and block off those adjoining property issues, and provides an open vista toward the vineyard on preserved farmland. While several of the buildings are moveable and could be moved to a conforming location, it would interfere with the progressive layout described above and put building locations out of synch with each other and the red winery and tasting room which they serve. The proximate locations make sense from an operational standpoint. A review of the survey reveals that each of the adjoining neighbor's properties has one or more buildings of varying sizes which are extremely close to or on the property lines. Further, the array of small buildings creates a less developed atmosphere than a large consolidated building, and also creates a more outdoor-based tasting area which is consequently seasonal, rather than a large tasting room which would generate year round traffic. The subject parcel, tax lot 15.1, is merged with the adjoining farm parcel, tax lot 15.2, containing 18.4 acres of farmland (15 a. of producing vineyards) from which applicant's wine is produced and whose development rights are owned by Southold Town. Each variance request is addressed separately below as to each of the five factors relevant to variance relief to facilitate the Board's review of each request. For the Board's convenience, a chart on the survey and a Schedule B to this application have been prepared to illustrate the various elements of relief sought. A. Buildinv 3 —Winery production,,building/wine stor4gq.Q�,,iDk1S. barrel s._qases,and .................................... ........................................... ...... lab),J,Q5Q.sf. 10 1601 sideyard" setback- 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: First, the former and proposed uses are of similar intensity. The building was a garage and farm building and has existed on the property prior to zoning. The pre- existing insufficient setback was created at the inception of the Zoning Code. It has hot 2 and cold running water(no bathroom) and electricity. There is no access by the public to this building When the new proposed winery (82')) is constructed, the active production in this building will consist mainly of storage and laboratory work. The adjoining property to the south, tax lot 14, is used for commercial purposes and contains a two derelict houses. Second, almost all of the accessory buildings in the neighborhood are at or very close to the property line. Thus, the location of this building is not out of character. See, for example accessory buildings located to the south and west of the property. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: It is not a moveable building and has existed in the current location for many years. Its footprint has not been enlarged. The only alternative is to build a much larger, costlier and more intensive winery building further from a boundary line. 3. The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: The variance is required due to a change of use only, taking it out of the pre- existing use protection. The use is no more intensive than the prior farming use for equipment maintenance, and the building has existed in that location for any years. 4. The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: The active use of the building is seasonal, primarily during harvest and periodically throughout'the year as the wine making occurs. The remainder of the year the use is inactive. 5. Has the alleged difficulty been self created? {X ) Yes, or No Why: The building was planned to be used as a winery until the proposed winery could be constructed, which has been delayed due to financial and planning reasons. B. Buildinp,4—Case Stora gea moveable shed, 98,sf,2 foot sidcyj�gd setback. 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: First,the location was primarily due to (a) the need to block an opening in the fence between this property and the applicant's property that was created by squatters living in the property to the south and entering the applicant's property, and (b)the proximity to the winery. The applicant needed to secure the property from theft and vandalism and this was placed close to the fence to reinforce it. Second, Building 44 abuts an active commercial property with two homes which are in terrible condition. Third, its setback is similar to four other accessory buildings on adjoining properties in the neighborhood, one of which is shown as a privy. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: To move the shed 18 feet north would put it inconveniently far from the winery and inconsistent with the layout of the other buildings on the property. 3. The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: it is a very small structure, with inactive use, and blocks the neighboring property. "Substantial" in this context is 3 not an exclusively mathematical concept. While the setback relief requested is 19 of 20 feet, the inactive use of the shed, its low height (approx. 9 feet), and the even smaller setback of the two sheds on the immediately adjoining property (Tax lot 14). These mitigating factors decrease the impact of the large variance as measured in distance. The case law on this subject confirms that the percentage deviation from the Code requirement is does not define "substantial", but rather it is the overall effect of the variance if granted. The NY McKinney's excerpt from Ay�t��Wflt v. Town of Bedfor(l .......... ........Town..................................., ZBA, N.Y.L.J. June 25, 2003, P.21, col.4 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co., 2003, attached, asserts that substantiality cannot be viewed in a vacuum. InRaub i�l v.�Boardwof Zoning Appeals of the Village of Brookville,N.Y.L.J. Dec. 27, 1995, p33, co12 (Sup.Ct.NassauCo.1995) the court found that the factual circumstances minimized the impact of the percentage deviation (45%) in the maximum permitted cubic foot size of a dwelling, in large part because 66% of the properties in the subdivision did not comply. Here, none of the accessory structures on adjoining properties shown on the survey appear to comply. 4. The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: The adjoining properties to the south and west have similar sheds. 5. Has the alleged difficulty been self created? {X } Yes, or No Why: Applicant was unaware that a shed under 100 sq. ft. needed to maintain Code setbacks. C. Buildin2 5 —Tasting TppM, 232 sf. I foot sidey rd setback. 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: This is an original pre-existing building which was restored from a former farm structure, and is located on the original foundation. It was originally heated as it has a chimney, but does not now have central heating. It backs up directly to two sheds on Tax Lot 14 which have a smaller setback. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: To move the structure would ruin the old structural nature of the building. 3. The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: the structure is small, and contains seating for only I I people. It is only used seasonally, as it has no central heat. Mathematics is not the only controlling basis of this factor. 4. The variance will NOT have an adverse effect orimpact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: the building has existed prior to zoning in its current location. 5. Has the alleged difficulty been self created? {X I Yes, or No Why: While the building is pre-existing, its use as a tasting room changes the use to require a setback or a variance. D, Buildinv 6—Wstorage 78 sf, t.ised to hold suppfies for rig small ma , 7 ............. .......... T�,f(i,gerajimi, and farm i(env;, 62 11 sideyard seth-acL ....................................... ... ............ ..... ......... 4 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: The building is very small, is used only seasonally, and backs up to property with similarly situated buildings. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: it holds supplies for the tasting room and its location immediately adjacent to the tasting room is important to the applicant. 3. The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: it is a very small building, seasonally used, and blocks the view of the adjoining property. The numerical computation is not controlling for the same reasons as Section B(3) for Building 4. 4. The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: the adjoining properties to the south and west have sheds at similar distances and it is used only by staff. 5. Has the alleged difficulty been self created? {X } Yes, or No Why: It was placed too close to the line by the applicant. Applicant was unaware that a shed under 100 sq. ft. needed to maintain Code setbacks. E. Buil i 9— a . 1prage and ba n/ arage.for farm use, 363 sf,-6.1 sidevard setback -------- .......... E Z 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: First, this is a pre-existing building whose use and dimensions have not changed. Second, it backs up to a building which was at some point converted to a dwelling which is in extremely poor condition, and which has less of a setback than it does, so it does not adversely affect the adjoining property. Third, we believe, based on the construction in the building, that it pre-dated zoning, but it is not accurately shown on the old survey and consequently is not on the pre-CO. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: it would cost more to relocate the building than it is worth; but its use to applicant is important for storage. 3. The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: it is actually further from the property line than the similarly sized and similarly used buildings on nearby properties to the south and west. 4. The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: See I and 3 above. 5. Has the alleged difficulty been self created? f I Yes, or { XJ No Why: The building was constructed in its location prior to zoning and has not moved. The variance is required by the Code setbacks which were enacted after its construction, as the location of the building was not properly shown on the survey furnished for the Pre-CO.. 5 F. Building 14 –office and storage for,�yiqerv. 401 sq ft (+ 64 sf loft). 4 foot setback .................. --—--------................ -loft)................................................................... (1.7 balcony) ........................ 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: This tiny building has an open floor plan on the first floor with files and a desk top table for office work. It has no bathroom, kitchen, or living area. It has a ladder to the second floor loft, which contains files and supplies, and the balcony is for appearance only–there is no door to it from the interior. It is located a significant distance from surrounding homes, and the immediate neighbor, Thomas Jerome, has advised that he has no objection to it. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: of the cost to move the structure. The applicant had thought a lot line change with the neighbor might occur to alleviate the problem, until the cost of a lot line change was revealed to be significant. 3. The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: it is extremely small, and located at the extreme end of the neighbor's property where it does not impinge on any buildings or views. 4. The variance will NOT have an adverse effect orimpact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: same as #3. 5. Has the alleged difficulty been self created? {X } Yes, or No Why: The applicant constructed the building too close to the property line. G. Building 42, frame shed. 99 sq ft, which the survey .1 tis1v showed as "to be removed", .2 foot sidey4TO setback. This shed serves as storage for the residence, in ..................... .....................................................I . which-the a ............ ------- pplicant's farm workers reside. The survey shows it is to be removed but that ....................................... ... 111,____...................................... -1 is inaccurate and the ma will be- mended once aPy,pthqK, e eq T,qhanges a required. , .......................... P.......ff..............-_--a................. 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: it shields the property from the commercial use and unsavory residential occupants to the west, which has sheds of similar setback. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: if applicant moves the building, a stronger, bigger fence will be needed. 3. The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: it is not out of keeping with the neighborhood. The mathematical calculation is not controlling, for the same reasons as in Section B (3) for Building 4. 4. The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: there are many residential sheds of similar situation in the immediate neighborhood. 5. Has the alleged difficulty been self created? {X } Yes, or f I No Why: Applicant placed the shed, under 100 sq ft, in a convenient location without awareness of the setback requirement. 6 Are there any Covenants or Restrictions concerning this land? {X I No { } Yes (please furnish a copy) As Tax lot 15.2 is part of the overall parcel, the development rights restrictions are attached to this application. This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character oft e neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. SEE FOLLOWING PAGE FOR SIGNATURE. 7 REASONS AO APPEAL (Please he spe cafic�, additional sheets rrva)r b used with rear�pa cv s sr.,nalur-e notarized) �.�.� C��: � 9'V) 4;' ` ,�-�"d 1. An undesirable::change will not be produced in the Cl of the neighbor or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: 2.The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance,because: 3.The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: 4.The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: 5. Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? { } Yes,or { } No Why: Are there any Covenants or Restrictions concerning this land? { }No { } Yes(please furnish a copy) This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate,and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. ......... Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent (Agent must submit written Authorization frorn owner) Sworn to before me this 13 day � �� r�7PJ �IG�6i✓1 o4' ''J-ZVt 0 ceb°l 0 INN y kstdic: ABIGAIL A, WICKHAM lot,xt°y public State of New York No, 52-4642871 O°_!aMied in St..dffoll� CourIty Commibsion t::spires Sept. 30, 20t� Schedule B Mattebella Vineyards# Building Chart Building# Size Setback, Original Use Proposed Use Utilities, etc. „ m 3 491 sq 7.3' Farm shop/gar Winery production Water supply, elec 22.2X22.2 On slab 4 98 sf 2' N/A Case storage shed No installed utilities 12.1X8.1 5 232 sf 1' Farm office/shop Tasting room Electricity 18.6X12.6 Foundation 6 79.05 sf 6.2' N/A Winery storage and No installed utilities 10.1X6.9 + tasting room supplies 3.6x2.6 9 363 sf 6.1' Farm barn/garage Farm barn/garage No installed utilities 20.1 X 18.0 14 401 sf ' N/A Office/winery storage Electric 64 sf loft 12.3X8.2 2 99 sf N/A Residential storage Electric 12.1 X8.1 Seating Chart Building# or Area Description No. of seats 5 Tasting Room 11 12 Covered deck 8 15 Covered Deck 8 16 Covered deck 8 A Outdoor seating area 28 B Outdoor seating area 16 79 Total Seats I f Y va�l4 W", b r- X PI,A,NNING `1 saay.anl as l;y, the denial of a variance to permit the expansion �,jnsnnc'1w facilities having 44 parking spaces, while 1123 spaces e-ncuqu.aia t�a�, was annulled because of the lack of any factual i�44or the board's mechanical recitation of the statutory scan �tls, While not specificallyally discussing the obviously substantial vara: of the deviation, the court emphasized that the parking j sanenanea�l.0 aira�ed primarily at commercial establishments, was n ,nllc:ana;allla related to the church's intermittent use of the opncn ty ,aa'az'1 the fact that the expanded facilities would not �e asQ the number of congregates. Korean Evangelical Church -°�I,ong, Island v. Board of Appeals of the Village of Westbury, ,1,..N., Feb. 28, 1996, p. 31, col. 2 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co.1996). NP g ar WWA fealty Holding 11 .1,LC v. Board of Zoning /Appeals of e C allup en of Lynbrook, N.Y.L.J. Feb. 17, 2004, p. 22, col. 1 (Sup. Nassaa.;n Co. 2004), a variance fronsm a maximum height re- x einsn n i of forty feet was ,sought in order to permit a 77 foot rlg pole with a large America flag in front of a car dealership, la�'aa, zoning board of appeals denied the variance, in part, because n °(a aaaal the 93 percent variance to be "quite substantial." The court noted that it "does weigh against petitioner . °. t�i aC the variance sought is substantial." However, viewing the hlyr of the circumstances and considering the other applicable �;liata aaac.e: criteria, the court concluded that "under the circeim- ttan.aca;s, and in light of the subject matter, the court finds this 1£ v or standing alone is insufficient as a matter of law to deny the �� Vtaaa aaaabc°."' (citing Sexton v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town f°Clyster Bay, 300 A.D.2d 494, 497, 751 N.Y.S.2d 595, 598 (2d ,e ac"i'n1.. 2002)). y, 1� tnn ,eJ4,a.lu loo v Town of yd ,1 Y.1..J. p. 21 aabT,74 (Ssnla. Ct. We°SICJW'Slar ( aa. 17001), the court criticized the zoning board of appeals' analysis in th;,a it "was, primarily, concerned with the extent of the deviation from the standards established by the zoning code without con- jp sin et'iosg the impact on the surrounding community." The court concluded that: FBA's consideration of this percentage deviation alone, taken �- in a vacuum, is not an adequate indicator of the substantiality of the Petitioner's Variance Application. Certainly, a small r clavntat.icana 11,w nail a a ,u bsduan ti,,:d Impact (,)I a large d va a9.icana call latwe Anila^ or no ina°alstatt c9tupe[lalnasa on the of 91au vn.bradna'ua_, caiaplaa:uagioa�. a aal bt.<.aoa8z.alnt,y aanaast alol h(I laadgvd in the � lrabstract. The gt')t<ality aak the relev'an i c°la°a bauaa I:antra arsna t be cvsalnaated urn r1u,a.c:n n,uiniirgp, w he'ther dic vav is l'nca ant ght is, ill actuality, a substantial one. as Td. (citing Rauvogel v. Board of loaning Appeals of the Village of Brookville, .N.Y.L.J. Dec. 27, 1995, p. 33, col. 2 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co. 1995)y Kleinhou.se v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of )' 141 k P ') 1996 WL 34569o58(N.Y3up.)(Trial Order) Supreme Court,New York. Nassau County In the Matter of the Application of Jay RAUBVOGEL and Randy Raubvogel,Petitioners, V BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OFTHE INCORPORA-11M VILLAGE OF BROOKVILLE,Respondent. No,007113/95. April 9,1996, For adUdginent Pursuant tel Article 78 of the CPLR Order and Judgment Han Bruce D Alpert Petitioners,JAY RAUBVOGEL and RANDY RAUBVOGEL,having cornmenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 by duly filing and serving a Notice of Petition and Petition dated March 10, 1995 in which a judgment is sought to annul and reverse the determination of the Respondent,BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF BROOKVILLE,dated February 6,1995 and filed February 11, 1995,which determination denied Petitioners'application for variances from the maximum allowable building volume and maximum aggregate lot coverage provisions of the Village of Brookville Zoning Ordinance,and further to compel a grant of such variances and the issuance of the necessary building permits therefor;and Respondent having opposed said Petition in a Verified Answer dated June 29, 1995;and Petitioners having replied thereto in a Reply Affidavit sworn to by John M Chase on August 9,1995;and Respondent having replied thereto in an affidavit sworn to by Thomas B Wassel on September 14, 1995;and the issues in this proceeding having duly come on to be heard by this Court an September 27,1995,and the proofs and arguments of all parties having been presented by their respective counsel,and after due consideration and deliberation having been held thereon and given to the merits of the parties'contentions,and a decision of this Court having been made thereon dated December 11,1995,in favor of the Petitioners,JAY RAUBVOGEL and RANDY RAUBVOGEL,and against the Respondent,BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF BROOKVILLE,it is hereby ORDERED,ADJUDGED AND DECREED,that the Petition be and the same hereby is in all respects granted,and it is further ORDERED,ADJUDGED AND DECREED,that the determination made by the Respondent,BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF BROOKVILLE,dated February 6,1995 and filed February 11,1995,Is hereby annulled and reversed;and it is further ORDERED,ADJUDGED AND DECREED,that the variances sought by Petitioners in their application to Respondent are i hereby granted and Respondent is directed to issue same arid,to the extent Petitioners'application for building permits have been withheld based exclusively on the need for or denial of said variances,Respondent is directed to issue said building permits as well Dated:April 9,1996 —signature— J S C 1995 WI,J7959416(N.Y.Sup.)(Trial Order) Supreme Court,New York. Nissan County In the Matter of the Application of Jay RAUBVOGEL and Randy Raubvogel,Petitioners, y, BOARD OFZONING APPEALS of the Incorporated Village of Brookville,Respondent. No,007113/95. December ii,iqgq. Memorandum Forchelli,Schwartz,Mineo&Canino,LLP,Attorneys for Petitioners,120 Mineola Blvd,,Mineola,NY 11501 Cullen&Dykman,P C,Attorneys for Respondent,100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd.,Garden City,NY 11530. Hon,Bruce D.Alpert,Judge, MOTION DATE:September 27, 1995 DATED:December 11,1995 In this Article 78 proceeding,the petitioners seek a judgment annulling and reversing the determination of the respondent board dated and filed February 6,1995 and February 11,1995,respectively,which denied their application for area variances In addition,the petitioners seek to compel a grant of the variances sought and the issuance of necessary pen-nits The property at issue on which a single family dwelling and accessory structures have been erected is located along the west side of Brook Lane within the Incorporated Village of Brookville,The petitioners are the owners of the property which has been designated as Section 17, Block 10,Lot 38 within the Nassau County Land and Tax Map The petitioners seek to add extensions to each side of the dwelling maintained on the subject property,Their proposal runs afoul of two provisions of the zoning ordinance to wit:§218,24.4(N)and(K)(2) Subdivision N limits the maximum allowable building volume to 65,000 cubic feet for the first two acres of lot area,while,the applicable aspect of subdivision K limits the aggregate lot coverage,inclusive of principal building,garage,accessory buildings,cabanas,swimming pools,tennis courts,porches,breezeways and patios to no more than 15%of the total square foot area of the building lot While the petitioners contend that the proposed additions would result in a building volume of 97,815 cubic feet or 32,815 cubic feet above legal maximum,the volume calculations prepared and submitted by the respondent(exhibit 7 annexed to affidavit of Timothy Dougherty) indicate a proposed building volume approximately 3,300 cubic feet less While the magnitude of the variance sought under subdivision N(based on the respondent's calculations)can only be characterized as quite substantial(approximately 45%more than maximum allowable),the magnitude of the second variance sought can only be regarded as di minimis(,6%). Subsequent to hearing held by the respondent on April 28,1994,the Board,by resolution executed February 11, 1995,made various findings of fact and denied petitioners'application, Village Law§7-712-b(3)(b)requires zoning boards of appeals,in rendering determinations of applications for area variances,to analyze and assess the personal benefits anticipated by the applicant against the potentially deleterious effects that a grant of the relief sought Would have on the health safety and welfare of the effected neighborhood or community. In performing this balancing test,zoning boards are charged with the responsibility to consider:"(1)whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance;(2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance (3)whether the requested area variance is substantial'(4)whether the proposed variance will have art adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood district;and(5)whether me alleged difficulty was self-created;which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals,but shall not necessarily preclude are granting of the area variance"(§'7-712-b[3][b]of the Village Law) Judicial scrutiny of municipal land use determinations of this nature"[ijs subject to the limitation that Courts may not interfere with decisions enjoying a rational basis,supported by substantial evidence in the record (citations omitted)"(Matter of Doyle v Amster,79 NY2d 5924 596) Its determination that the proposal represents a substantial variation in the maximum permissible volume,is clearly rational and supported by substantial evidence in the record However,its determinations that a grant of the relief sought would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood,and would alter its character are riot supported by substantial evidence in[lie record Of the nineteen(19)homes within Cedar Brooks Estates,the subdivision in which the petitioners'residence is situated,merely a third thereof comply with the building volume limitations at issue herein Were the applicants afforded the relief they seek,the resulting increase in building volume would still be approximately 13,000 cubic feet less than one of their neighbor's. Based on figures provided by the respondent,the current building volume average in Cedar Brooks Estates exceeds the standard by more than 8,500 cubic feet Under petitioner's proposal the average building volurne in the neighborhood will increase by less than 1,000 cubic feet While the proposed variance in building volume is quite substantial(approximately 45%above the ceiling),its magnitude is minimized when considered in conjunction with the fact that the petitioners were issued a certificate of occupancy at a time when the property's building volume significantly exceeded the 65,000 Cubic feet limitation Inexplicably,the petitioners'experience was riot an isolated one Respondent's assertion that its Building Department misconstrued the regulation and interpreted"building Volume"as"habitable space",though it stretches the bounds of credulity,may explain why almost 66% of the properties in Cedar Brooks Estate do riot comply with the building volume limitation rhe respondent's emphasis on the concepts of self-created hardship and corresponding lack of"practical difficulty"ignores the change in the law reflected by the adoption of Village Law§7-71 2-b(b)(3),as an applicant seeking an area variance '[njeed not show'practical difficulties'as that test was formerly applied."(Matter of Sasso v Osgood,86 NY2d 374,384) It merits mention that the statute explicitly provides that the presence of a self-created hardship does not,of necessity,prevent the issuance of an area variance The rejection of an application for a variance from a municipality's zoning ordinance must be accompanied by factual findings upon which the rejection is predicated Mere conclusory statements as to the adverse effects on a neighborhood arid/or an anticipated alteration of a neighborhood's character,such as in the matter at bar,are insufficient Though the respondent arguably engaged in a balancing of competing interests,as required(see,Matter of Sasso v Osgood,supra),the absence of evidement underpinnings within the record supportive of the conclusions expressed,mandates the annulment and reversal of its decision and compels the issuance of the area variances petitioners seek (see,Matter of Coates v Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Bayville,58 NY2d 800,803;Matter of Castle Properties Company v Ackerson,163 AD2d 785, ?87[3d Dept];Matter of Ferrigan v Thompson, 135 AD2d 953,954,appeal dismissed 72 NY2d 854:Syracuse,Bros,Inc v Darcy, 127 AD2d 588,589) Neither conclusory assertions(see,Matter of FJ R.Enterprises, Inc v Town Board of Town of Southeast,50 AD2d 836,837),nor speculation as to a variance's ultimate effects(see,Matter of Salierno v Briggs,14'1 AD2d 547,549)constitute an acceptable substitute for substantial evidence. Lastly,to the extent that the Board may have relied on the observations made during a personal inspection of the petitioners'property,the failure to disclose the facts gleaned therefrom is problematic (see,Matter of Holmes&Murphy, Inc v Bush,6 AD2d 200[4th Dept]) For the reasons hereinabove articulated,the determination made by the respondent is annulled and reversed The Board is directed to have the area variances sought herein issued ro the extent that the associated building permits have been withheld based,exclusively,on the denial of the variances herein sought,same shall be issued, Settle Judgment on Notice -signature>-, JSC FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. PRS EXISTING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No Z-24575Date AUGUST 15, 1996 THIS CERTIFIES that the building ONE FAMILY DWELLING Location of Pro erty 46005 MAIN RD. SOUTHOLD, N.Y. ._House No. _._ .�_ ....... Street ....w._........_. .. Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 75 Block 2 Lot 15.1 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Requirements for a One Family Dwelling built Prior to: APRIL 9, 1957 pursuant to which CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NUMBER Z-24575 dated AUGUST 15, 1996 was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is ONE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ACCESSORY GARAGE & STRUCTURES* The certificate is issued to JOHN W. NIRRODZIK (owner) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. N/A PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED N/A *PLEASE SEE ATTACHED INSPECTION REPORT. _ m....,e Building Inspec r ... _ _... Rev. 1/B1 r� C" _ ,t,z ,,7 u C, n s�w q t" BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD HOUSING CODE INSPECTION REPORT LOCATION: 46035 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ('nwnber b street) munii paliC Y1 c SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 1.0'r(s) NAME OF OWNER (s) JOHN W. NIERODZIK ®.., . A SINGLE FAMILY & FARM RM (type (owne11 r-tenant} ADMITTED BY: LIZ McCAY ACCOMPANIED BY: SHARON KEY AVAILABLE SUFF.CO.... TAX MAP NO. ]000-75-2-15.2 SOURCE OF REQUEST: PAUL CAMANITI, ATTY DATE: AUG. 2, 1996 -- .... ...... _ ......... DWELL I NG TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION WOOD FRAME E STORIES I 1 EXITS 3 FOUNDATION CEMENT BLOCK CELLAR FULL CRAWL SPACE TOTAL ROOMS: IST FLR. 4 2ND FLR. 3RD FLRe BATHROOM (s) ONE TOILET ROOM (s) UTILITY ROOM PORCH TYPE REAR MUD ROOM, RONT ENCLOSED BECK TYPE PATIO BREEZEWAY FIREPLACE GARAGE DOMESTIC UOTWATER X% TYPE HEATER L.P. GAS AIRCONDITIONING TYPE HEAT OIL WARM AIR XX HOTWATER OTHER: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: GARAGE, TYPE OF CONST. I CAR WOOD STORAGE, TYPE CONST. 5 WOOD FRAME & WATER TOWER SWIMMING POOL GUEST, TYPE CONST. (SEE REMMIKS 6-SURVEY-3- ----— -- OTHER: VIOLATIONS: CHAPTER 45 N.Y. STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION & BUILDING CODE ......... _..... L.00AT"TON DESCRIPTION ART. SEC. fl I CAR WOOD FRAME GARAGE WITH SIDE STORAGE b REMILANTS OF GREI+NI10 SE LARGE ACCESSORY BARN - UNSAFE PART„IALLY COLLAPSED_ , .,...... SHEDTOTAr I Y, GONE .. UNSAFE f4 . SHED-_—UNSAFE...._PARTLALLLY_COLLAPSED.-- SA ......_,_— SF A .UNSAFE - PARTIALLY_,COLLAPSED .m .....__ ....... ........... 4.7 ... ......... .—.WATER .TOWv,,R-.......STEEL QR ....TOP PAARTTAI.LY COLLAPSED _...... ..... REMARKS: SKE. ATTACHED SURVEY TOIOENTIFY ACCKSt>ORYBUILD1NCS. .._ ... . ---.. INSPECTED BYMy� �” �x' DA'L'E OF INSPEC'T'ION AUG. 6 1996 I ,. OHN M. BOUFIS J TIME START 10:10 AM END 10:50 AM APPLICANT'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICANT HI" i . W t. -,' DATE PREPARED- 1. ... �� For Demolition of Existing Building Areas Please y describe cribe areas being being rernoved -- G"zv idm-. `7 S ; - r�a �n:.o,)v.F.1z,[.., � ...... � a N elkYt 0 w�� �t J 11. New Construction Areas (New Dwelling or New Additions/Extensions): .Dimensions of first floor extension: �� � � ����W� 3�i Z�`.st °�w ,,.��,�l— �� ff��, 10 K10 C .... Dimensions of new second floor. ....... .... . �... ................................ ...... ........_.. Dimensions of floor above second level® Height(from finished ground to top of ridge): �Q C _ Is basement or lowest floor area being constructed?If yes please provi&height(above ground) measured from natural existing grade to first floor 4,�roe; rr 111. Proposed Construction Description (Alterations or Structural Changes) (Attach extra sheet if necessary). Please describe building areas: Number of Floors and General Characteristics BEFORE Alterations: Number of Floors and Changes WITH Alterations: IV. Calculations of building areas and lot coverage(from surveyor) Existing square footage of buildings on yourproperty: Proposed increase of building coverages„, f � � f . a ,a� Square footage of yor logy Vim, Percentage of coverage of our lot b buiUs&slsk" area: ..� � 0, 1 ... _ V. Purpose of New Construction .. ts1 m t 1 `.f.�.,�? ,:1,_ tL2,L,1,. .r VI. Please describe the land contours (flat, slope %,heavily wooded,marsh area,etc.) on your land and how it relates to the difficulty in meeting the code requirement(s): . ... ......... ... Please submit 8 sets of photos,labeled to show different angles of yard areas after staking corners for new construction, and photos of building area to be altered with yard view. 4/2012 aeellapg. 1 Rear of residence (#1) and wine strorage area(outdoor/production) Outdoor production area to east of red winery building VV s e a INME- - - �e m y North side of red winery building(#3)and Case storage shed(44) South side of red winery building (#3), Case storage shed (#4) and crush pad atteella Pg. 2 { $ t l to Red winery building(#3)Tasting room( `5 Storage.shed 0'16) Tasting room(#5) Tasting room storage( 6) Case storage shed(#4)iIt W- � r F S s t t m e a s n a r m f Fann bam/g age (#9) Red office (#1 ) and Shed to be moved (#13) aebella pg. 3 ........... 54 Proposed Winery Site (#23) - r o r7LIo 6 P @� 4u'� �m� 2 k d M q 1 I b ^ a 1 W,, r � QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR ZBA APPLICATION A. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale? Yes XNo B. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? No —Yes please explain on attached sheet. ........... -.. ............................ C. 1.) Are there areas that contain sand or wetland grasses? -------- ................. . ........................... 2.) Are those areas shown on the survey submitted with this application?__ ---- 3.) Is the property bulk headed between the wetlands area and the upland building area? -----........... ................... I——................................ your property contains wetlands or pond areas,have you contacted the Office of the Town trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? �UA Please confirm status of your inquiry or application with the Trustees:-- ---- ...... and if issued, please attach copies of permit with conditions and approved survey. D. Is there a depression or sloping elcwdit.)n near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? -No................... . ............... ............................. E� Are there ,,iny patios, concre(e [)arriers,bulkheads or ferices that exist that are not shown En the survey that you are subMi(I 44V.......... Please show area of the structures on a diagram if any exist or state none on the above line. F. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises?__ Mi- If yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and survey as approved by the Building Department and please describe: G Please attach all pre-certificates of occupancy and certificates of occupancy for the subject premises. If any are lacking, please apply to the Building Department to either obtain them or to obtain an Amended Notice of Disapproval. H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land adjoining or close to this parcel?—YC a if yes, please label the proximity of your lands on your survey. TX Lo+ 15,2- &PP 6 YJ I. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel 4................ d the proposed use Sa og, -i-. ---- ................................... an ................ ..... (ex: existing single family,proposed: same with garage, pool or otlier) pa, 1 .3 -Lo)-7 ..................- ......... .................. .... ...........�....... Authorized and Date APPLICANT/OWNER TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of of filleresl on the pptLLof town and cm Tj!Kjq1rj-10Se,44 this, �Io ,)Vclvide inrq!�nufiqn"roll ah call ale (110 town 0 ,L)!Issible coliflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOUR NAME : �Ido,),,L (Last name,first name,middlelid"I'441 unless are applying in the name of someone else oilo her entity,such as a company.If so,indicate the other person's or company's name.) TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply) Tax grievance Building Permit Variance Trustee Permit Change of Zone ............ Coastal Erosion Approval of Plat Mooring Other(activity) .............-1111--- Planning Do you personally(or through your company,spouse,sibling,parent,or child)have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship"includes by blood,marriage,or business interest."Business interest" means a business,including a partnership,in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5%of the shares. YES NO X If you answered "YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold —------ Title or position of that person ------- Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representative)and the town officer or employee.Either check the appropriate line A)through D)and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,or child is(check all that apply) A)the owner of greater that 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a corporation) B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation) Q an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant;or D)the actual applicant DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP ---- ------ —-- Submitted this day of----k—1 ,20-—----------- Signature ........................... Print Name PPL A IVT�IC W AAE�e_ TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM Th("Yow It o f,So III hold's 0"It of t,I]tics vrollibil s Conflict S ol,inti s fo I'm is to 1�!�pvidr ill fo rulat i oil ss,hiels ell it o lert I lie I o sy I(I r gqswite con nic is or it I IC rest a 11 It allow it tri 1 a ly whatvVer ac I ion is necessary to avoid same. YOUR NAME .......... (Last name,first name,middle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a company.If so,indicate the other person's or company's name.) TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply) Tax grievance ............... Building Permit Variance Trustee Permit Change of Zone Coastal Erosion Approval of Plat Mooring ..... Other(activity) Planning Do you personally(or through your company,spouse,sibling,parent,or child)have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold?"Relationship"includes by blood,marriage,or business interest."Business interest" means a business,including a partnership,in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by)a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5%of the shares. YES NO If you answered"YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person ......... Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representative)and the town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A)through D) and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,or child is(check all that apply) A)the owner of greater that 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a corporation) B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation) Q an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant;or D)the actual applicant DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP ................... Submitted this day of20 _71 ........... Signature Print Name AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code l �hibj(s coi0licti ofinteres.!jqi t!n?art ol'town officers atidovc of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same, YOUR NAME : &(TAt(_A�L01(_k1ki./W (Last name,first name,middle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a company.If so,indicate the other person's or company's name.) TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply) Tax grievance Building Permit . Variance Trustee Permit Change of Zone Coastal Erosion -........... Approval of Plat Mooring Other(activity) ..........- Planning A Do you personally(or through your company,spouse,sibling,parent,or child)have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship"includes by blood,marriage,or business interest."Business interest" means a business,including a partnership,in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by)a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5%of the shares. YES NO If you answered "YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold .................... Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representative)and the town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A)through D)and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,or child is(check all that apply) A)the owner of greater that 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a corporation) B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation) Q an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant;or D)the actual applicant DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP ............. .............. Z., Submitted this day of-, 4'1;(�_ 20o Signature... Print Name AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD WHEN TO USE THIS FORM: This form must be completed by the applicant for any special use permit, site plan approval, use variance, area variance or subdivision approval on property within an agricultural district OR within 500 feet of a farm operation located in an agricultural district. All applications requiring an agricultural data statement must be referred to the Suffolk County Department of Planning in accordance with Section 239m and 239n of the General Municipal Law. 1. Name of Applicant: Mattebella Vineyards 2. Address of Applicant: 46005 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 3. Name of Land Owner (if other than Applicant): Same 4. Address of Land Owner: Same 5. Description of Proposed Project: A01i ation f ar a 1a1°a v 1 I L�tsti r �o�tlyl o� .ar° d r ea winery production buildin& 6. Location of Property: (road and Tax map number)46005Main„yRoad, Southold, NY 11971 __ 1000-75-2-15.1 7. Is the parcel within 500 feet of a farm operation? {X} Yes { } No 8. Is this parcel actively farmed? {X} Yes { } No 9. Name and addresses of any owner(s) of land within the agricultural district containing active farm operations. Suffolk County Tax Lot numbers will be provided to you by the Zoning Board Staff, it is your responsibility to obtain the current names and mailing addresses from the Town Assessor's Office (765-1937) or from the Real Property Tax Office located in Riverhead. NAME and ADDRESS 1. 1000-75-2-15.2: Mattebella Vineyards Holding Co LLC, 46005 Main Rd., Southold,NY 11971 11j1icant 2. 1000-75-3-2: Ethel Schroeder PO Box 354 Peconic NY 11958 3. 10075-3-3:0 William J Smith,P.O. Box 1238, Cutcholue, NY 11935 4, 1000-75-2-8: Neal J. Cichanowitz Trust and Sara Cichanowicz Trust c/o Brenda Cichanowicz 2100 Indian Neck Road Peconic NY 11 ....... .................................................................................................................................... ._........�..W__W__.....................................-.�.mm._�.............................W..............,...m...................WW_�WW...WW.. ... 958 5. 1000-75-6-9.6: Corey Creek, LLC. 36225 Route 25, Cutchogue, NY 11935 6. 1000-75-6-11: Francesca and Bradley Anderson, 51 Cranberry St., Brooklyn, NY 11201 (Please vse- is back of this page if there are additional property owners) r t1.,natu of Applicant Date Note: 1. The local Board will solicit comments from the owners of land identified above in order to consider the effect of the proposed action on their farm operation. Solicitations will be made by supplying a copy of this statement. 2. Comments returned to the local Board will be taken into consideration as part as the overall review of this application. 3. Copies of the completed Agricultural Data Statement shall be sent by applicant to the property owners identified above. The cost for mailing shall be paid by the Applicant at the time the application is submitted for review. � � c fir, r 51 } a " r1, 1'yV9 x wa f f , , w M gym... J41 E " x n u oK Go �ryµ M YAM1'` 10 � k ,.� � � S "` ✓' ar.� ,�,..:.� °as 1.4 ,1 .9Ywr„��i pazue}{ofo Page l of Property Summary District I Section I Block I Lot I Liber/Page Recorded Date Price Doc Date 1900000 MATTEBELLA VINEYARDS HOLDING COMPANY LLC �SOUTHOLD TOWN OF Property Information History Information 1 Property Detail- Doc# Condo Floor Frontage Depth AppiroxMiate Acreage Area Deed Other Use Remarks Street# Unit Pre-Dir Street Name Post-Dir Type Centro�id L 24286.10 3C, City or Town Village State Zip Code IMailing Address Ambulance School Fire Water Lightk,ig Refuse Sewer Pine Ba,�Ms —–— Land Value Full Value Assessment Roll Year Filed Map Condominum htti)://p-is.co.suffolk.ny.us/rps/Parcellnfo.aspx?&tmnld=l 000075000200015d=\7— 1/5/3017 999 . 11 Ek ?AtiE 4 .!J , SEP 2 5 2003 217910 Southold Town INDENTUR Plannin Board THIS INDENTURE, made this Z9/ day of t ?it '� 1980 between JOHN NIERODIZIK residing at. 1 ,4 Main Rea Sauthald_ New York party of the first part, and the TOWN OR SOUTHOLD, a municipal corporation of �o9T the State of New York,' havings its office and principal place of business at^Main Road, Town of Southold, County' of Suffolk and State of New York, party of the second part. w WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of Ten and 00/100 ($10.00) Dollars, lawful money of the United States, and other good and valuable consideration paid by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, its successors and assigns forever, SrQ��J,�l the Development Rights, by which is meant the permanent legal interest and right, �7�Qp as authorized by Section 247. of the New York State General Municipal Law, as 3LvGl� amended, to permit, require -or restrict the use of the premises exclusively for L'OO agricultural production as that term is presently defined in Chapter 25 of the L 0� Southold Town Code, and the right to prohibit or restrict the use of the premises UOv for any purpose other than agricultural production, to ALL those pieces or parcels of land, situate, lying and being in the Town ! of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, more particularly described on Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, TOGETHER with the non-exclusive right, if any, of the party of the first part as to the. use for ingress and egress of any streets and roads abutting the above described premises REVED -1 to the center lines thereof. $.......... .............. ' ` REAL ESTATE 20"1 910 w. MAR G 1988 TRANSI=Eq TAX SUFFOLK m TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises, insofar as the rights granted hereunder are concerned, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, its successors and assigns forever. AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises have been incumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the rights to receive such consideration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total for the same' for any other purpose. The party of the first part, as a covenant running with the land in perpetuity, further covenants and agrees for the party of the first part, and its heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns, of the party of the first part, to use the premises on and after the date of this instrument solely for the purpose of agricultural production. The definition of "Agricultural production" as defined in Section 25--30 of Chapter 25 of the Southold Town Code is as follows : "Agricultural production - shall mean the production for commercial purposes of crops, livestock and livestock products,_ but not land or portions thereof used for processing or retail merchandising of such crops, livestock or livestock produdts. Land used in agricultural production shall also include fences, equipment storage buildings, livestock barns, irrigation systems, and any other structures used exclusively for agricultural purposes". The party of the first part and the party of the second part do hereby covenant and agree in perpetuity that either of them or their respective heirs, 1188 9991 wt.452 • successors, legal representatives or assigns, shall only use the premises on and after this date for the purpose of such agricultural production and the grantor covenants and agrees that the underlying fee title may not be subdivided into plots by the filing of a subdivision map pursuant to Sections 265 and 277 of the Town Law and Section 335 of the Real Property Law, or any of such sections of the Town or Real Property Law or any laws replacing or in furtherance of them. The word -"party" shall be construed as if it reads "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and.year first above written. r IN 2PRSENCE OF olin, Nierodizik or ATTEST AND APPMED 4 Town Attorney THE N 0 U b Fran J. ISI 0ySupervisor -3- LIBEEk 9991 PACE 453 STATE OF NEW YORK) ss. : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) On this V? day ofd! `,, , 198before me personally came FRANCIS J. MURPHY, to me known, who being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at Old Main Road, Mattituck, New York; that he is the Supervisor of the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, the municipal corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said,, instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Town Board of said corporation; and that he signed his name hereto by like order. 150 Ae Notary Public 1111ERT W.TA. KEAC NOTARY EOEuaoc,5�ar of N.Y, No,52493:3733„Swf, y form ex iros March 30,39 STATE OF NEW YORK) ss. : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) On the " day of - 198�j, before me personally came JOHN Nle ODIZIK to me known to be the individual(s) described .in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he- executed the same, " rotary Public ROBERT W,TASKER —4— NOTARY PUBUC.State of N.Y. Die,5 2-39337Z3,Su H.Cmy Torr»L'tpires March 30,1 98. L VICE 454 SCHEDULE A ATTACHED TO AND FORMING A PART OF AN INDENTURE FROM JOHN NIERODI [K TO .r THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DATED ii/,,�A- ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the Town of Southold; County of Suffolk and State. of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northerly- side of Main Road, said point being distant 727.78 feet easterly from the corner formed by the intersection-of the easterly side of Maple Avenue (private road) with the northerly side of Main Road, said point also being where the southeasterly corner of land of Nierodzik intersects the said northerly side of Main Road and from said point of beginning; RUNNING THENCE along the easterly and northerly line of land of Nierodzik the following four courses and distances : 1) North 27 degrees 37 minutes 40 seconds West, 216.69 feet; 2) South 63 degrees 42 minutes 20 seconds West, 261.66 feet; 3) North 26 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West, 100.00 feet; 4) South 63 degrees 42 minutes 20 seconds West, 100.00 feet to land of Jerome; RUNNING THENCE along the easterly line of land of Jerome the following two courses and distances: 1) North 25 degrees 43 minutes 40 seconds West, 1526. 10 feet; 2) North 25 degrees 47 minutes 40 seconds West, 674.09 feet to land of Long Island Railroad; RUNNING THENCE along the southerly line of the Long Island Railroad, North 60 degrees 33 minutes 00 seconds East, 312.21 feet to land now or formerly of Moelius; RUNNING THENCE along the westerly line of land of Moelius, South 27 degrees 37 minutes 40 seconds East, 2535..01 feet to the northerly side of Main Road; RUNNING THENCE South .64 degrees 41 minutes West along the northerly side of Main Road 25.02 feet to land of Nierodzik and the point or place of beginning. Containing 18.417 acres. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD ' CARD OWNER STREET VILLAGE DIST,; SUB. LOT 4 FORMER OWr,,,ER ACR - a - . - i n S TYPE OF BUILDING 1W RES. `, r SEAS. VL. 1 COMM. B. MICS. Mkt. Value ND 1MP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS f 4 7 F' l r r- 3 a- a rtt f _LzDING CON O CJ r Tillable - F O'1}NAGE ON WATER Woodland ' ' FRONTAGE ON ROAD Meadowland DEPTH House i BULKHEAD Total DOCK 'LO+Z �F m - 75.-2-15,1 5/12 -_ iM, plda, Extend on Extension Foundation Bath -_ Sasement Floors 3a. Porch Ex'. �r o11s E r Interior Finish Breezeway Fire Place NeatDR. - pe Roof Rcoms 1st Floor BrR R _ ` Recreation Room Rccros Lnd F(acr C, B. A x . I Donner Drivewav `tom 1 - j .TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD OWNER I STREET f VILLAGE DIST.1 SUB. LOT FORMER O °P N E f ACR. f-4fc -4 r s F` S W TYPE bF BUILDING rp _ e 3 RES, SEAS. VL. FARM COMM. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS 42 F. t .= r - - e Ji- ---_ , g r- z' r ti 7 I ' 1ICsiJ, 2/ f —3 r I f t _ d 2-1 if JJ � Z A 3 a ( , Tillable m=. FRONTAGE ON WATER t s Woodland FRONTAGE ON ROAD F f - Meadowland DEPTH House Plot BULKHEAD Tota I � E Town Of Southold LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENTFORM MATTEBELLA VINEYARDS A. INSTRUCTIONS 1. All applicants for permits* including Town Of Southold agencies,shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town Of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. 2. Before answering the questions in Section C,the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area(which includes all of Southold Town). 3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes",then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus,the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary,modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website(southoldtown.northfork.net),the Board of Trustees Office,the Planning Department,all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# 1000-75-2-15.1 (15.2) The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): Town Board Planning Dept. X Building Dept. Board of Trustees ZBA X 1. Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: X Nature and extent of action: Approval of converted pre-existing and new as-built structures for winery and agricultural use and proposed winery. Location of action: 46005 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Site acreage: 3.1 a (adjoining farm 18.4 a) Present land use: Vineyard, farm winery and tasting room, storage buildings Present zoning classification: AC 2. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a)Name of applicant: MATTEBELLA VINEYARDS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC (b) Mailing address: c/o Wickham, Bressler, & Geasa, P.C. PO Box 1424, Mattituck, NY 11952 (c) Telephone number: Area Code (631) 298-8353 Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding,or approval by a state or federal agency?NO Yes No If yes, which state or federal agency? _____ DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. Yes No (Not Applicable - please explain) Yes—This is a working vineyard and winery on preserved land. Applicant has tailored its use by employing several small shed structures in keeping with the rural farm nature of the property and the area, avoiding the necessity of a large overpowering structure. Most of the tasting room usage is seasonal and outdoors. The expansion of the wine production facilities will allow a more efficient use the property, allow consolidation of the current outdoor production elements, supplement the existing infrastructure, minimizing additional development. Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III —Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria Yes No (Not Applicable—please explain) Yes. This application will foster the historical use of the property as a working farm. Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III —Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria Yes No (Not Applicable—please explain) Yes, the use of the existing buildings will minimize the need for a large building which would block scenic views. The small proposed winery building is one story and to the side of the property, allowing views of the preserved farmland to continue. NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria Yes No (Not Applicable—please explain) N/A. Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria Yes No (Not Applicable—please explain) Yes— Suffolk County Health Dept. regulations will be employed. Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. 2 Yes No (Not Applicable—please explain) NOT APPLICABLE Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III — Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. See Section III—Policies Pages; 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. Yes No (Not Applicable—please explain) Not Applicable Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section III —Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. Yes No (Not Applicable—please explain) Not Applicable PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. Yes No (Not Applicable—please explain) NOT APPLICABLE, except that the winery/tasting room encourages the outdoor enjoyment of the scenic vista afforded by the preserved farmland on which the development rights are owned by the Town of Southold. WORKING COAST POLICIES Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria. Yes No (Not Applicable—please explain) NOT APPLICABLE Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. Yes No Not Applicable—please explain NOT APPLICABLE Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. Yes No Not Applicable —please explain Yes—this project is essential to the economic viability of the agricultural operation. Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. Yes No Not Applicable— Not Applicable Zba/lwrpMattebella 3 Short Environmental Assessinent Form Part ProieCf hifivniWtion Purtl - Projcrt[nformnhuu. The opphmntnr prnjeel xponmnriaresponsible for the complchonof Part 1. Rexponses become part n[the application for approval orfondin-,are Subject copublic review, and muy be mbJco\|o fu/fher,crificmionr Complete Part | based on in6znnmim/ Currently available, |fnddihmm| research nrinvestigation *ou|dhoneeded mFully respond to any item, please answer nndhnnmgh|y as pnuaih|c bused no vuncot information. Complete all itenis in Part I- You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful tnthe lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary tosupplement any item. . _ . .,. _................ _. ----- ................. ................ 5. Is the proposed action, N`O YES S '-S?A ✓ „ _ .. a. Apermitted use under the zoning regulations? � Rl rt ._._�-...... 1.7. Consistent with the adopted coin preheusive plan'? 6 Is the aroposed action consistent with the predominant character of existing built or natural t -- . .... 1--_ ' IS C} �1 5 _ L 7, Is the site of the proposed action located , -? } ,atcd iia,of clo€,s it acijcpira,a state listed Critical Environmental �1wca'? NO Y L.S 11 If Yes, identify 8. a, Will the proposed action result in a suhstantial increase; in traffic above present levels? NO YES ,. b. the public transportation service(s)available at or near the site of the proposed action? c. Are any. pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or vicar site of the proposed action'? ....... ---- _ _ _ ..... _ ..... ...... 9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: New construction will comply with code; preexisting_structures and existing strudures may not 10. Will the proposed action connect to an exis to -- p 1 sting publicrpri®�atc:tv�rrter supply? NO YES If No,describe method for providing potable water; El FV { i. Will floc proposed -- ---- -- .... ........- _ u. action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment F/ El New winery will have newly constructed and approved wastewater treatment facility and sanitary system ®® — ®._., ........ — .... — —.. 12. a. Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic NO YES Places? �a" b° Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area`' ZI_ � El 13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action.or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain NO _.—YES',", wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency'? b. Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? El If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: t i -- 14 I®ntifv he typical ®MoEl at t p_ 91� r r are likely to be Found on the . _..... _ -._.. types es that occur on,or arc. l�kel}� A project site. ( Deck all that apply: g �arly inid-successional El Wetland 0 Urban Suburban 15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any specks �°� -�� — — — of animal,or associated habitats, listed NO l'Ii"S by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered'? � ...... w„.. .._,_ __ ......... ......... -.. .......... 16. Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO Y l S 17. Fill the propos m to inn„® -- ......... �✓ . .. _ . prop eci action create storm ouster ch5charge,either from 1point or°nota-point sources? 1�`11.1.10....._ YES If Y"es, , , ❑✓ a° W� storm water storwater discharges flow to adJacent properties? NO YES ........ b. Will storm water discharges he directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? If Yes, briefly describe: _JNO YES For new buildings..Moirn-water frurn root ru noll will he directed to dry wells, foLpctlraaptay-�f pichraairkyv i IV a1.:rurrlw°urw}af1''r.o — adjoining properties does not occur Page 2 of 3 p . II.➢cacs the paraapreasr d actionuracVande construction n.acU rt the nin.. in car other activities that ncw�eult i � . np oundmesnt.of NOF, water or soler l'gUiids(e,g retention pond. waste lagoon, daon)? If Yes,e%pnitain gacnrp ose and Faure, m e ..... „ .._ w.. ... _. ...... m... 19 _. Has the site o tlae 1.,arc7posed action of an adjoininng property been the location orall active or dosed NOY Ip 4 S+alin:V ,u rr�t,i9 nt4tiut; n7 �ni4 lata:°ulily�":' a C. pd s ,i nld; El ,alb ect caf remedi at Pf. Has the site of theproposed action or an adjoining Ip i-operty been the 4ionn.J,. (ongoingdim NO co nliId ed) for Iln u-"ardous aarsoc"" ip °u ti s,dcslca blo- 2/1 I��i 1 AFFIRM "Il'll��AT°�'IlE INFORMATION ZION ��1p��.�VIT.)ED ABOVE IS"�I"ll I11L;....AND a"�ul:�.;Ul..i�,�a�"� "IC's a YE�III B --.. AppiicarwVsponsor Lnan � a , ef 1-6... 2017 'wig n.atumeo Abig,,A1 A.Wickham,A .dbq E PRINT FORM Page 3 of v 1,,QCIM 16 , 1 f, f 3.5A(c)gj s= - _ 1.2 14— L / /�+/' SEE SEC.NO.069 1 1 2(c) 4 ,•`'r ' 1t—� fp 15 2 7S- 4 C �D z 01 Pl Nk ` 202 46,4A - 'COUAfrYOF SUFFOLK DEVELOPMEMRIGHT$) n _ 17,2 Z, 19.6A 5 frowrvoFsourNoco DEVELOPMENTRIGMS) FOR PCL YDS Egg 201 2..&4(c) 4.5Atx ` 17. - 4 2A(c) n27� 3 -I 4.3A(c) 1 krlV/�` 15v l k -= 9.70A �'` _ � ib t` SCN.DIST.NO 5 15-4 _ - \ 26zi y \ (COUNTYOFSUFFOLK D 230A £ £ - 15.4A DEVELOPMENT RIGRTSJ k. OF SOfR},OLp �s f �, DEVELOPMENTRlGNTSJ • �c PDUNTYOF SUFFOLK 152 _ OEVELOPMENTRIGNTS) 1 ° 2 3A(c) z7 12 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1.1 '_ _ 6.1 i - 2.8A - '! „¢ ag 23.1A(c) ryI FOR PCL NO V77 - .. 153 3.2 4 20A 2.4A