Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFaga, Kevin & Jeanine Jill M.Doherty,President *rS�U�y� Town Hall Annex James F.King,Vice-President ,`O �® 54375 Main Road Dave Bergen P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Bob Ghosio,Jr. N �r John Bredemeyer Old+ �� Telephone(631) 765-1892 COU Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Jill M. Doherty, President Board of Trustees DATE: July 27, 2010 RE: Kevin & Jeanine Faga 12632 Main Rd., East Marion SCTM#31-14-8.2 In response to your request, our Board has not completed our review of the proposed project, however, we are considering moving the proposed dwelling further landward of the bulkhead and in line with the neighboring dwellings. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance. Office,Location: O��QF S®Ujyol Mailing Address: � O Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank 53095 Main Road 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 • COQ Southold,NY 11971-0959 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631.)765-1809 Fax(631)765-9064 MEMO Date: July 21, 2010 To: Southold Town Trustees From: Board of Zoning Appeals RE: Faga application Comment: We have a hearing scheduled for July 29, 2010 for Kevin and Jeanine Faga, located at 12632 Main Rd., East Marion, to construct of a new dwelling. Weare requesting comments from your Board in regards to this property. Thank you. E '� J U L 2 1 2010 `4 tj southoid Town Board of Trustees Aj't" . d • ` tips 4p ry d m ., n•N Cu•C1 C�I y�c •� n. .21' cu .li I op i N N � X O s n0 � O z O - v - p0� u► " z (Loot � 3ygM No�N yN z 5' -n 0 m — ' ! O zx r- 70 g0 y�o_ �,d ds'd SMO .M ;w, > " r MT 1313 • 48 SITE PLAN: FACIA RE51 DENGE rn EAST MARION, NY A j� y 5.0.T.M# 1000-031-14-008.2 m JE '�� 1 m COUNTY OF 5UFFOLK TOWN OF 5OUTHOLD r `5H, JOB No.: 070042 DRAWN BY: DG rn ' TEL .: 651.2C DATE: 7-2q-10 APPROVED BY: JTB" ' i142.ba' 5 38°44'00" E ` 1 \ \ 1 \ \y O EXI5TIN(5 HOOD 1 \ °� \ 10" q Z15' R�C�HT 1 STEPS, W RAILING 1 \ OR0 p` (BY OWNER OF \ A \\ _ W/at�' LOT 8.1) \ STORM PRAINACE LP \ 2 SIDE YARD Vip x b' DEEP O \ .�AO 5ETBAGK 15'-O" O \ TA Z JI \ c5 p \ m to 3.1. A � sr �s ,-�� TEST �Y HOLE\ w1 zA 0101 I 10' MIN Q N� 0 \_ / EX. LP\ \ O 1• 10 M o11z :15TING 5EPTIG 'STEM TO REMAIN p���\NCo 1 ZO 2Y2 STORY DWELLING y\,6' p(L -( (4 BEDROOM) 1 / EX. ST\ GYRD GP` EXI5TIN ENTRY '1 HOOD 1 f O PORCH 1 DECK 1\ I N 45,1' Z -V ry \ \ EXISTING . . \ HELL TO _ 1 ` REMAIN ` m 1 51DE Y ARD 5E7BAGK•= lo' — �� 4 Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED Toth,-Vicki From: acetweety@aol.com WO-- Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:01 PM BOARD OF APPEALS To: Toth,Vicki Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Letter of Protest and Objection- Faga Variance- Message is from an unknown sender Attachments: Letter of Protest-FAGA Variance.pdf Dear Ms. Toth, Attached find my letter of protest and objection to the variance request. Sincerely, Sofia Antoniadis vo ,r HCl . 4/21/2010 "v RECEIVED Sofia Antoniadis APR 2 2010 30 12500 Main Road BOARD'OF APPEALS PO Box 413 East Marion , NY 11939 April 19,2010 Zoning Board of Appeals Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson i 54375 Main Road(Office Location) 54095 Main Road(Mailing/USPS) PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Re: Letter of Protest and Objection Kevin&Jeanine Faga#6367 12632 Main Road,East Marion,NY 11939 CTM Parcel 1000-31-14-8.2 Dear Chairperson; As owner of 12500 Main Road East Marion,NY.My property is the western neighbor of the Faga property. Please consider this letter as a letter of protest and I request that the Variance under Section 280-124 and 280-116B be denied.A variance is not required. In January of 2009,a variance was granted to the Faga's based on the modifications of the then existing residence structure with 1,088 square feet to remain and 54 square feet to be removed and a 527 square feet as proposed addition. In addition,the two sheds were to be removed. In 2009,our family was excited for the Faga's and the renovation project. We did not protest the repairs to the residence. But,in October 2009,the entire residence was demolished down to the bare foundation walls and crawl space. There is no residence what so ever. What are left are deteriorated basement and crawl space walls. The demolition of the entire residence has created a wind tunnel. This wind tunnel was the direct cause of my losing 10 mature trees along the eastern boundary of my property this March 2010.My property has incurred a great loss,and these trees will take decades to grow and replace those which have fallen as a direct result of the existing house being completely torn down against code and deviation to original grant. It appears that in bad faith he applied for a renovation plan and he mislead the town,the zoning board by proceeding with his intention of completely demolishing the structure. As such,my neighbor waived his rights to proceed under the renovation and now must proceed as new construction. To grants this variance will encourage all other property owners to break the town rules and disregard permits and regulations. There are no extenuating circumstances;he has the land to comply with the setbacks. To grant this variance will reward his bad behavior and bad faith. Since the original scope of work seemed quite deceptive by all standards,the new residence should be only allowed if the set backs are followed as new construction as there should be no question that this is in fact new construction. Additionally,we want the minimum 10 foot set back adhered to and that the side entrance with deck and chimney shown be located past the 10 foot setback.I am also requesting that since this is a new structure it must be built at no less than the 75 feet from the existing bulkhead.The same rules should apply to all. The revised plans that I have received from Patricia Moore's office is adding in its entirety a new residence with a minimum of 2743 square feet. This is a large home,too close to the bulkhead and will be overbearing on my property. The indications that there is an existing structure are quite misleading and fraudulent. Also,as per my letter in January 2009,I am concerned about the location of the new . septic system,well and contamination of my drinking water well. Please follow the code,there is no reason whatsoever not to.The remains of the basement are no excuse to call this project an alteration to an"existing residence"There is no existing structure and there is room on the lot to adhere to the code setbacks.To grant this variance will encourage all other property owners to break the town rules and disregard permits and regulations. Sincerely, RECEIVED S a Antoniadis APR 2 1 20104(, 6, BOARD OF APPEAL'S' s Board of Trustees 12 July 23,2008 inplace. Are there any comments here? Any comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve replacement of the dock in place and it will be untreated decking, and deny the addition of any additional tie-off piles because of the eel grass beds. The only thing we are approving is just exactly what is there to be replaced. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: The stairs to the beach they included on this. I don't have a problem with that. A set of stairs going down to the beach on the side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we talked about that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's not in the description. TRUSTEE KING: I think we'll just stay with the original,just replace what is there, because of the moratorium. You can't add anything to construction under the moratorium. It has to be strictly inplace replacement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They can do that and come back to us. TRUSTEE KING: For an amendment for the stairs after we settle what is going on with the moratorium. So we'll move on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we'll need a new survey. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, Jeffrey Butler on behalf of KEVIN FAGA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to renovate and construct additions to the existing single-family dwelling and upgrade the sanitary system. Located: 12580 Main Road, East Marion. The LWRP coordinator has determined this to be inconsistent with the LWRP according to the following policies; 6.3, and notes the distance from the bulkhead to the proposed action is approximately 24 feet. Minimum setback distance of 100 feet is required. Also building setback requirements are adjacent to water bodies and wetlands which show that this needs to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He notes that if the action is approved, use the following best management practices required: Ten-foot, non-turf buffer. And that's pretty much of the bulk of that report. CAC supports the application with the condition that the proposed addition is relocated away from the water as far as possible and drywells and gutters are installed to contain the roof Board of Trustees 13 July 23,2008 runoff. All the Trustees were there. We have seen this. There were a couple of questions as far as exterior walls being removed, whether or not this is going to be a demolition. We have, the application mentions, the plans show a porch but we don't know where the porch is. And with that, I'll open it up to comments. Would anybody like to make a comment on this? MR. BUTLER: Jeffrey T. Butler here with the applicant Kevin Faga. I brought with me, Jill had asked me that question about the existing versus proposed conditions of the dwelling. You can see from the photograph, the exterior walls of what is there and some of the interior walls there are to remain. There was an existing, I believe it was a covered porch on a slab on the water side of the structure. That's what is being proposed to be cut back so it is landward of the coastal erosion hazard line. It also has to be built to be flood compliant because of the FEMA regulations that are required. The existing foundation will remain. The addition that we are proposing is further back than the existing structure that is there now. The documents I'll hand up to you now show the existing conditions within the house and the proposed conditions which explain the porch above, which is proposed on the second floor. We also at this point have a letter of non jurisdiction from the DEC for the proposed work and we are into the Suffolk County Health Department for the new sanitary system now. We are awaiting comments TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On what you just gave us, on the first floor plan, you are showing a deck on there now? MR. BUTLER: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was on the original set of plans that we saw when we were out there. MR. BUTLER: At this time that is not proposed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The deck is not part of the plans? MR. BUTLER: Correct. Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There are also a couple of letters that came in yesterday and today which I'll read into the record. To the Board of Trustees and Southold Town. This is from Amelia Bueckle (sic), 23 Meriden Avenue, Key Largo, Florida. My main concern about the Kevin Faga property addition is my water view from my home at 12580. 1 will be a full-time resident as of September 1, 2008. 1 have a limited view of the bay from my kitchen window, which is very important to me and my family and adds great value to my home. Thank you, Amelia Bueckle. From Sophia Antonidas (sic) at 12500 Main Road, East Marion. She writes: Greetings. I am in receipt of the notice to adjacent property owner and as the owner of 12500 Main Road I have concerns Board of Trustees 14 July 23,2008 with the renovation and upgrade of the sanitary system. I respectfully request that in my absence of the scheduled hearing July 23, 2008 at 6:00 PM, that my concerns be documented and made public. Although I did not have adequate time to review the site plan provided with knowledgeable authorities I'm concerned that the proposed three pools shown close to the property line are too close to my existing drinking water well. Thank you. Should you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Sophia Antonidas. Does anyone on the Board have any comment or questions? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bob, the addition, the most seaward side where the small bump out is, the new addition is not going any farther seaward than what exists? I can't tell from what is in front of me. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It looks on the site plan that we had out in the field, it shows it is actually extending, song, is actually retreating by about a foot, two feet. I can't tell. MR. BUTLER: About three feet less, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So the footprint will be, at least on the existing residence, will be a foot farther away from the bulkhead. MR. BUTLER: At least, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments or questions from the audience on this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did we talk about the house being moved back? I missed the first part of the conversation. Is it possible to move the structure-back at all some? MR. BUTLER: Mr. Faga had a conversation with the contractor since, Jill, you and I spoke, and the difference is_about$200,000 in cost to demolish and rebuild versus make use of what is there, which represents'a substantial percentage of the project. MR. FAGA: If I may,with all due respect, I can't afford that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand. We just try, whenever possible — MR. FAGA: I understand completely. TRUSTEE KING: Is that well water there? MR. BUTLER: There is well water now. TRUSTEE KING: Is it county water in that area? MR. BUTLER: I was told county water goes just past the property by the Suffolk County Health Department based on the address I gave them. I still have to verify that in the street. I don't know for sure. We are hoping it is. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not sure. (Perusing.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I can't find it listed here. MR. CORCORAN: Has the application been made with the ZBA yet? MR. BUTLER: Not yet, no. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The file says they have to go to ZBA on this anyway. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe they should go there first. Board of Trustees 15 July 23,2008 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To clear everything on the septic and all TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's, the additions are all landward of the existing. If they have to come back to us for something, then come back to us. TRUSTEE KING: All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not like some of the other ones. There is another one tonight that is major. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Say again? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This one doesn't seem that it matters whether it goes to us first or ZBA first. To me anyway. That's how I look at it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. I would like, since this structure is landward, the proposed addition is landward rather than seaward, I would not want to send the applicant to ZBA first, then have to come back here again. I think we should go ahead and act on it and if we approve it and ZBA tells him to change it, they come back to us, if not, they have both permits and approval and they are done. It saves the applicant time and it may be easier. MR. CORCORAN: It may be exempt from ZBA if everything is landward. MR. BUTLER: I have not had that discussion with them. I know they are going to want, unless I do something with the second floor on the western side of the property, where there is a ten foot setback, my second floor. MR. CORCORAN: If it's landward, it's not landward of the back of the property. Are you going up? MR. BUTLER: In that portion I'm going up. I have a second floor there now but I'm putting, it's a cape design. I'm putting more mass. So they want to look at it. MR. CORCORAN: I see TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It may not seem like much but when you raise the configuration of the second floor and it's significantly larger. So, any other comments or questions? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have all the drywells and all that on the plans? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Everything is here. Nothing out of the ordinary. It was found inconsistent. One of the main reasons it was found to be inconsistent is it's within the 100 foot setback from the wetland boundary, which is in case is the bulkhead. But I don't think it's practical to be able to move it back that far. MR. FAGA: It would put me ON the neighbor's property, almost. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Typically we may not allow this as a new permit today. Basically it's a renovation staying mostly within the footprint, extending a little bit, but not out of the realm of-- so if there are no other comments or questions, I'll make a motion -- TRUSTEE KING: Are they going to put a non-turf buffer in there in Board of Trustees 16 July 23,2008 front of the bulkhead? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, one comment, just to make sure, the project complies with Drainage Code Chapter 236? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 1'11 make a motion to approve this application of Mr. Butler on behalf of Kevin Faga to renovate and construct - additions to the existing single-family dwelling and to upgrade the sanitary system as per the plans noting that we are requiring a ten-foot, non-turf buffer along the bulkhead and that all drainage be brought up to Chapter 236 code. And by adding the buffer and noting that it is not practical to move this home beyond 100 feet, that the Board finds it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: They should have a row of staked hay bales during construction on the seaward side. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And add a row of hay bales along the seaward side of the project during construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. BUTLER: Thank you TRUSTEE BERGEN: En-Consultants on behalf of KEVIN $ALEXANDRA OWARA requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#6248 and Coastal Erosion Permit#6248C to reduce and modify the scope of the previously approved rock revetment to a double row of quarrystone; and reconstruct (inplace with open-grate decking) and extend the existing bluff stairs over the stone to beach. Located: 14345 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. The CAC did not make an inspection, so there was no recommendation made. There was no'LWRP report done on this, but given the fact that the project is actually a reduction in size from what was previously approved and the project as described looks like it would be consistent under the LWRP, I would first ask is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Good evening. Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of the O'Mara's. Very briefly, Dave, your description is correct. This Board had originally, in 2005, late 2005, issued a permit for a traditionally designed rock revetment. We have been back and forth with the DEC for a very, very long time. I think Jim was out there with Chuck Hamilton at one point. To make a two-year story in 20 seconds, what we ended up with was a very similar structure but {' VOW a; e BOARD MEMBERS S0 Southold Town Hall eslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson hO� Ol0 53095 Main Road•P.O. Box 1179 ' Southold,NY 11971-0959 James Diniziot Office Location: Gerard R Goehringer G Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Ken Schneider �'YCQU N Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RE EIVED Tel.(631)765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064 , P 1 S E 3 2010 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2010 Sau "d I® Ge�jr�ay./JA_ ZBA FILE: 6367 NAME OF APPLICANT:Kevin B.and Jeanine Faga PROPERTY LOCATION: 12632 Main Road,East Marion,NY SCTM 1000-31-14-8.2 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the propertj�'under considera/ __,,in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of t ate's List of Actions, wiwoci - r f further steps uhder SEQRA. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issued its reply dated March 3, 2010, stating that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. LWRP DETERMINATION: A Letter dated April 21, 2010 confirming inconsistency was submitted to the Board of Appeals under Chapter 95, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Code and Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) standards. This memorandum is based upon the Applicant's original, and subsequent, revised site plans. However, grant of alternative relief, instead of the variances as requested in this variance application, will substantially increase the setback measured between the nearest corner facing the water side,the cantilever balcony facing the waterside, and also the setback to the wooden bulkhead on Orient Harbor. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The Applicant's property is a 17,532.58 sq. ft. non-conforming parcel in the R-40 District. The northerly lot line measures 103.35 feet adjacent to another property. The easterly lot line measures 142.69 feet from the northeast corner of the parcel to the southeast corner,which extends a short distance beyond a wooden bulkhead abutting Orient Harbor. The southerly lot line measures 120.86 feet along the shoreline roughly parallel with the bulkhead, and the westerly lot line measures 176.52 feet from the shoreline to the northwest corner of the parcel. The property is currently developed with portions of the foundation remaining after the demolition of the original single family residence that existed on this site. There are also two small sheds which are proposed to be removed, identified as structures E and C on the site plan. The foundation remains and accessory structures are shown on the site survey drawn by Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C. dated June 19, 2008, revised several times,and last revised on Feb 2,2010. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Requests for Variances under Sections 280-124 and 280-116B,based on the Building Inspector's February 3,2010 amended Notice of Disapproval concerning demolition and reconstruction of a single- family dwelling at less than the code required minimum of 10 feet on a single side yard and less than 75 feet from the existing bulkhead dwelling and foundation were removed,this is a deviation from original grant No's. 6281 adjacent to Orient Harbor, at 12632 Main Road,East Marion; CTM Parcel 1000-31-14-8.2. !, Page 2—August 26,2010 ZBA File#6367—Kevin B.and Jeamne Faga CTM: 1000-31-14-8.2 RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant proposes to construct a new two story single family dwelling,partly on the reconstructed remains of an old foundation, and partly on newly constructed foundation. The Applicant proposes a westerly side yard setback of 9.3 feet, and a setback from the wooden bulkhead of 27.3 feet. AMENDED APPLICATION: During the hearing,the applicant was asked to bring the plan into more conformity with the code. The applicant on July 29, 2010 submitted an alternate site plan which relocated the proposed structure,and increased the setback from the bulkhead to 55+-feet to the closest corner, and 51.6 feet to the closest corner of the proposed cantilever balcony. The latest,alternate, site plan also changed the originally proposed non- conforming side yard setback of 9.3 feet,to a conforming setback,bringing the plan into more conformity with the codes. The alternate site plan survey was drawn by Jeffery T.Butler, and is dated July 29, 2010. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Applicant had previously requested variances in ZBA files# 6281 and #6243. At that time the Applicant proposed building alterations and additions to the existing single family dwelling located in a non-conforming location on this property. The final amended Application requested a variance for a 9.2 foot side yard setback, and a variance for a 25.5 foot setback from the bulkhead for renovations to an existing structure, and also a variance for a 30.6 foot setback from the bulkhead for a proposed new two-story addition. In a decision dated April 14, 2009,the ZBA granted the variances as applied for, with several conditions designated for the protection of the waterfront environment. Subsequent to the granting of the variances, the Applicant proceeded with a complete demolition of the existing single family dwelling, leaving only the remains of a partially damaged foundation. This action effectively nullified the #6281/#6243 ZBA decision, and removed the pre-existing non-conforming status that had existed for the building. This led the Town Building Dept. to issue an amended Notice of Disapproval dated Feb. 3,2010,which was followed by this new appeal#6367 to the ZBA,for the consideration of granting new variances for new construction on the site of the demolished building. These events directed the ZBA to re-assess the Applicant's current situation, with the renewed focus upon granting the minimum variance relief necessary for the Applicant to construct a new single family dwelling on the parcel. The ZBA received an alternate site plan submitted by the Applicant on July 29, 2010, and this site plan situates the proposed building in a much more conforming area of the property. The relocation of construction thereby achieves the goal sought by the ZBA to grant the minimum relief necessary for the Applicant to achieve the benefit of a new structure, while preserving and protecting the environment of the neighborhood. The Applicant's estimated $15,000 value of the remnants of the existing old foundation, considered in relation to the overall cost incurred with the proposed new construction, does not present a sufficient or compelling reason to re-create new substantial non conformities on the property. The submitted alternate site plan also shows proposed new construction at a greater distance landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line than any previously considered plan, as is shown on the latest site survey dated July 29,2010. FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on April 22,2010,and on July 29,2010,at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony,documentation,personal inspection of the property,and other evidence,the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant and makes the following findings: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Town Law X267-b(3)(b)(1) Grant of alternate relief will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The Applicant will have conforming front yard and side yard setbacks. The Applicant will have a non-conforming setback from the bulkhead. However,this setback will be within the average range for other non-conforming bulkhead setbacks within the neighborhood. 2. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(2). The benefit sought by the applicant of the construction of a new single-family dwelling on this site, can be achieved by the granting of alternate relief, rather than through the granting of more substantial area variances,as applied for. 3. Town Law§267-b(3)(b)(3). The variance granted herein is substantial since it is a 26%+-reduction in 75 foot I y 1 Page 3—August 26,2010 ZBA File#6367—Kevin B and Jeanine Faga CTM. 1000-31-14-8.2 setback from the bulkhead required by Town Code. However, as noted above the proposed non-conforming setback is similar to others in the neighborhood. 4. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(4) No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this residential community will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, provided that gutters and leaders tied into a drywell are installed on site to prevent roof runoff and a landscaped buffer along the bulkhead is established according to best management practices for protection of water bodies, will mitigate potential adverse impacts on the physical or environmental conditions. 5. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(5). The difficulty has been self-created by the demolition of the existing structure. 6. Town Law 4267-b. Grant of alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a new single family dwelling on the waterfront, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-13, motion was offered by Member Horning, seconded by Member Dinizio, and duly carried,to DENY, as applied for,and GRANT ALTERNATIVE RELIEF exactly as shown on the site plan survey prepared by Jeffery T.Butler and dated July 29,2010. With the following conditions: 1. Gutters and leaders tied in to a drywell shall be installed on the new dwelling to prevent roof runoff 2. A 15 foot landscaped buffer of nativeagr sses and other drought tolerant native plantings such as rosa rugosa shall be established along the bulkhead moving landward toward the proposed dwelling and shall be continuously maintained. Before applying for a building permit,the applicant or agent must submit to the Board of Appeals for approval and filing,two sets of the final survey and architectural drawings conforming to the alternative relief granted herein. The ZBA will forward one set of approved, stamped drawings to the Building Department.Failure to follow this procedure may result in the delay or denial of a building permit,and may require a new application and.public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any deviation from the variance given such as extensions, or demolitions which are not shown on the applicant's diagrams or survey site maps, are not authorized under this application when involving nonconformities under the zoning code. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. The Board reserves the right to substitute a similar design that is de minimis in nature for an alteration that does not increase the degree of nonconformity. Vote oft oard. Ayes:Members Weisman (Chairperson), Dinizi0, Goehringer, Horning, Schneider. This R s0,luti was duly adopted(5-0). t RECEIVED s ie Kanes Weisman hairperson Approved for FilingZ /2010 l SEP 3 2010 sn"',1,1 70m Cleft + l �► - Town Hall,53095 Main Rd. James Eckert,Chairman H ft P.O.Box 1179 Lauren Standish,Secretary �m �y V Southold,NY 11971 Telephone(631)765-1892 J [ '� Fax(631)765-6641 Conservation Advisory Council Town of Southold At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Wed., December 9, 2009, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Doug Hardy, seconded by Greta Schiller, it was RESOLVED to SUPPORT the Wetland Permit application of KEVIN FAGA to remove the existing dwelling to top of foundation; repair foundation and elevate to make flood compliant; rebuild house with addition and square-off house on west side. Located: 12580 Main Rd., East Marion. SCTM#31-1,4-8.2 Inspected by: Peter Young The CAC Supports the application subject to the review of best practices and building codes by the Board of Trustees. Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried r 4 1 sl 02/2009 1217 . v 6 � l 12/02k200�9 12 1A8y �- James F.King,President Off' Cp P O.Box 1179 Jill M Doherty,Vice-President A GypSouthold,NY 11971 Peggy A Dickerson ti Telephone(631)765-1892 Dave Beigen u, atFax(631)765-6641 Bob Ghosio,Jr. '� y�ol � Sao Southold Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection/Worksession Report Date/Time: Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E. on behalf of KEVIN FAGA requests a Wetland Permit to re ve t e existing dwelling to top of foundation; repair foundation and to make flood compliant; rebuild house with addition and square-off house on west side. Located: 12580 Main Rd., East Marion. SCTM#31-14-8.2 Type of area to be impacted: _Saltwater Wetland Freshwater Wetland Sound Bay Distance of proposed work to edge of wetland Part of Town Code proposed/work falls under: _Chapt.275 Cha pt. 1 1 other Type of Application: Wetland _Coastal Erosion Amendment _Ad ministrative_Emergency Pre-Submission Violation Info needed: Modifications: Conditions: Present Were: _J.King _J. Doherty_P.Dickerson D. Bergen_ B.Ghosio, D. Dzenkowski other Form filled out in the field by Mailed/Faxed to: Date: OFFICE LOCATION: OF SOUpy® MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex �® �® P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 t (cor Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY 11971Q Telephone: 631 765-1938' ® �® Fax: 631765-3136 ®lyC®UN�,� LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD k' To: Jim King, President Town oSouthold Board of Trustees =� p�C� , From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner " 76 " LWRP Coordinator 2009 �^ 7 p4• fh'Old Date: December 15, 2009 �_,4 of Trse s Re: Proposed Wetland Permit for KEVIN FAGA SCTM# 31-14-8.2 Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E. on behalf of KEVIN FAGA requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing dwelling to top of foundation; repair foundation and elevate to make flood compliant; rebuild house with addition and square=off house on west side. Located: 12580 Main Rd., East Marion. SCTM#31=14-8.2 Note that the proposed action is located within_Flood Zone X-an (area determined to be out of the 2% floodplain) (FIRM Panel 0064H revised September 25, 2009) and not located within Flood Zone AE9 as stated on the plat. The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the record's available to me, it is my recommendation that the proposed action is CONSISTENT with the denoted following Policy Standards and therefore is CONSISTENT with the LWRP provided the following best management practices are implemented. Additionally, if the action is approved and to further Policy 4.2 Protect and restore natural protective features and Policy 6.3 D and E (below); Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem 6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. D. Provide adequate buffers between wetlands and adjacent or nearby uses and activities in order to ensure protection of the wetland's character, quality, value's, and functions. E. Maintain buffers to ensure that adverse effects of adjacent or nearby development are avoided: 1: Maintain buffers to achieve a high filtration efficiency of surface runoff. To minimize residential use impacts to the water quality of Orient Harbor it is recommended that a perpetual landscape vegetated buffer be required from the existing.wooden bulkhead to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line. It is further recommended that the Board require the dimensions and terms of the buffer to be filed within a Covenant and Restriction and filed with the office of the Suffolk County Clerk. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the,Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney i \ f ` 1 James F.King,President ��OF soyoTown Hall Jill M. Doherty,Vice-President �O l0 53095,Route 25 - P.O.Box 1179 Peggy A.Dickerson Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen G Q �` • �O Telephone(631)765-1892 Bob Ghosio,Jr. �Ol',C�U Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office Use Only coastal Erosion Permit Application Wetland Permit Application Administrative Permit _Amendment/Transfer/Extension v'Received Application: b t-Ireceived Fee:$ .completed Application _Incomplete i;._ i {� ^'\, _SEQRA Classification: Type I Type II Unlisted Coordination:(date sent) ,., WVW Consistency Assessment Form NOV_ .CAC Referral Sent: I I -s9 mate of Inspection: I Receipt of CAC Report: Seutt _Lead Agency Determination: board o^__f T t��s _Technical Review: - 0ulic Hearing Held: Resolution: Name of ApplicantCc /�A6 Address d-& d 4,�2 SZ-AR;S:� L F AKPhone Number:( Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - D 3 ej® �.p Property Location: z� /Zi9 .ff 44 L✓NVCrT 1,; 2412161A1 A (provide LILCO Pole#, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: �p''i� �. ��TG el, (If applicable) Address: i 2 /z) Phone: b 5 �"�O� - fir7? '2 ,�bx r -,,rd of Trustees Applicatio- - GENERAL DATA Land Area(in square feet): / S moo? ,�� -5a oE-;- Area Zoning: 1!2- Z/O Previous use of property: '&g Intended use of property: A/ Covenants and Restrictions: Yes No If"Yes",please provide copy. Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Date zAgency '® No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? Noi4—xYes If yes,provide explanation:S�v P bio/Z &- 1-�,c,6A. s y Rem �.D �b Project Description(use attachments if necessary): C1t116XA- 4PPI 7-10A) 0/0 /iu /�P�'G�G�JT�v�/ �►s u�L� As SQv�6l. ,7 rd of Trustees Applicatic-- WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations: AO 1/A 7-1o.J X r s Te F� ^►�Avn) ��lh A i N,,, o � colq-"--dam .Area of wetlands on lot: square feet 7,-, Percent coverage of lot: % Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: 4�l feet Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: 7 feet Does the project involve excavation or filling? No Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated?cubic yards How much material will be filled? g;zD cubic yards C�AuiL Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: �A feet Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: 4 l Olo Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: Aley rA-/b--4- Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by reason of such proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate): /I/a Ale =yard of Trustees Applicata' County of Suffolk State of New York 7, BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AN6 AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S)AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/BER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVES(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF APPLICATION. Signature SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF —Tl 6L, ,20_ Q5 LAUREN M.STANDISH Notary Public,State of New York No.O1ST6164008 Qualified in Suffolk Count 14 otary Public Commission Expires April 9,A /f PROJECT ID NUMBER 61720 SEQR APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 -PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1 APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2 PROJECT NAME 3 PROJECT LOCATI . Municipality 654-51- �ia 2/(j County 4.PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections, Prominent landmarks etc -or provide map SSC T A-, - 3 / - /Y - &>� 5.IS PROPOSED ACTION: 1-1 New El Expansion F,-qJ 'edification/alteration 6.DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY. L� A®o ja -1aP o r4-'1v9 7 AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially ' V-5--acres Ultimately acres &WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS9 ❑Yes ®No If no,describe briefly. '2 Ao-f' A Pop/--lp lvs 9.WH T IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) Residential M Industrial F-1 Commercial DAgriculture F-1 Park/Forest/Open Space 0 Other (describe) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, State or Local) 22'es [--]No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval• 11.DOES ANY AS ECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ElYeso If yes, list agency name and permit / approval 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION ILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? 'es ❑No `.&9., t I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant / Spon r Name Date: Signature e/ ` If the action is a Costal Area,and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT(To be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR,PART 617.4? If yes,coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. Yes 0 No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR,PART 617.6? If No,a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. El Yes ❑ No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING:(Answers may be handwritten,if legible) C1. Existing air quality,surface or groundwater quality or quantity,noise levels,existing traffic pattern,solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: C2. Aesthetic,agricultural,archaeological,historic,or other natural or cultural resources,or community or neighborhood character?Explain briefly. C3 Vegetation or fauna,fish,shellfish or wildlife species,significant habitats,or threatened or endangered species?Explain briefly: C4 A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted,or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?Explain briefly C5 Growth,subsequent development,or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?Explain briefly: C6 Longterm,short term,cumulative,or other effects not identified in C1-05? Explain briefly: C7. Other impacts(including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy? Explain briefly. D WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA(CEA)? If Xes,ex Iain briefl : Yes ❑No E. IS THERE,OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE,CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If yes explain: E] Yes ONO PART III-DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE(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;(e) geographic 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. If question d of part ii was checked yes,the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur.Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,that the proposed actio WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting thi determination. Name of Lead Agency Date Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible officer) PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK residing atAWAL Al Gov SF ,being duly sworn, deposes and says tha on the d dyo=f ) 206q, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the,addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll"o�f�the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at 3m ,that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered)mail. Sworn to before me this 3 rd Da of cmbtk, , 20 OT N Public Stllr�is'TIN t�cfv�+1 Qs�aliCc�l�o.SesikpRlO ty A i William Hukill 1770 Stars Road East Marion, NY 11939 SCTM# 1000-031-14-8.1 Maria Xefos P.O. Box 413 East Marion, NY 11939 SCTM# 1000-031-14-7 William Clayton 12832 Route 25 East Marion, NY 11939 SCTM# 1000-031-14-15 Town of Southold LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM 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" or "no", then the proposed action will affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus_, each answer must be ezplained in detail, listing both supporting and non- supporting facts. 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: onlire-a, e=T -of o tlio��lC�d's website(southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees O k n D�pa nent, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. s NOV 2 0 2009 B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION U - `t! - l>C� 8-• E �_ Southold Tc .� SCTM# ,. _ ...J 6ozrc .y _n. PROJECT NAME -A 4.4 The Application has been submitted to(check appropriate response): Town Board ❑ Planning Board❑ Building Dept. ❑ Board of Trustees 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: R Nature an extent of action: 5IY247 6 F mak)�71/� �U2it�yLi 'gyp /yP Off^ fav iyo.o r/o/!�e �✓�i �-SGG �/Yo � MJo� ���o Go�o�O��'' ���v�� 0 A PD O A D®e r/o Ns Location of action: InA N Site acreage: l 7, S�a 5-0 it7 ify Present land use: 14-S 1pe 1vT Present zoning classification: R-Z D 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: e �.A-,e 7. T<-E /L- (b) Mailing address: ��Ga.�• Ste'. /1-P, , ,rA.,rtpp & � _ 0 (c) Telephone number: Area Code S-0 •(d) Application number,if any: ---Will the action be directly undertaken,require funding,or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes ETNo❑ If yes,which state or federal agency? Al C. Evaluate the project to the following policies by analyzing how the project will further support-or not support the policies. Provide all proposed Best Management Practices that will further each policy. Incomplete answers will require that the form be returned for completion. 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. DYes ❑ No [:] Not Applicable e-/va V-A rte' G BSoL 6-1-Z- 7-/1/J c i-Y/L A 6!5j51Vr Attach additional sheets if necessary 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 ENot Applicable I I Attach additional sheets if necessary 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 A,Q cf,..-v -,7-�7 2�,A,0/7 �L�•�c�IYTs Attach additional sheets if necessary 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 F-1Yes ❑ No [9 Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary 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 ol u Yes 1:1 No El Not Applicable f oaf uP 7-DGeF, /itia 7�A�- l 5 /Lo�yS�'O !� 42A-o1Y God i h/ Attach additional sheets if necessary 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. ❑ ❑ LJ Yes No Not App :ble Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LNVRP Section III — Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary 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. 1:1 Yes 1:1No aEI 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. ❑ YesEl No Js Not Applicable �`L1 JIA A/-) Attach additional sheets if necessary WORKING COAST POLICIE 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 Attach additional sheets if necessary 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. El Yes 1:1No Ei Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III — Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. ElYes ❑ No[1 Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary 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 ll-7r�- PREPARED BYT, Tz e 2 TITLEDATA` 'r TEST HOLE DATA AREA COVERAGE CHART: LINE / 5YMBOL LEC END „ (TEST HOLE DUG BY: DESIG.: STRUCTURE: EXISTING AREA: AREA TO BE REMOVED: AREA TO REMAIN: PROPOSED AREA: McDONALD 6EO5GIENGE ,TY LINE T ST HOLE FIRST FLOOR 5EGOND FLOOROOR FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOORPROP 5 ON JUNE 26, 2008) SETBACK LINE - - - - RESIDENCE 1,143 SQ.FT. 4qb SQ.FT. 23q.72 50.FT. CATCH BASIN O ® EXISTING TO BE MIXED SAND d LOAM P REMOVED/RELOCATED• 2' GAS VALVE D4 © RESIDENCE _ 54.3q SQ.FT. (W�J WATER y,1 Zn 1,088.62 5Q.FT. " s a w. PALE BROWN FINE TO RE5IDENGE (FOOTPRINT) ELECTRICAL E WATER VALVE GOUARSE SAND WITH 10-20% GRAVEL - 5W © SHED 73.44 5Q.FT. 73.44 SQ.FT. 4 GAS MANHOLE COVER MH 9' A o D SHED ±25.00 5Q.FT. ±25.00 SQ.FT. S o < O �- M..., TELEPHONE T UTILITY POLE ,� �F \ SITE_" 55 SHED 32.00 50.FT. 32.00 SQ.FT. A SANITARY SEWER WATER IN PALE LOG TION LIGHT POST BROWN FINE TO FENCE COARSE SAND WITH F RE51DENCE 288.00 5Q.FT. 288.0 5Q.FT. O a s - RAVE � 10 20% G L �c MONUMENT - E F OVERHEAD ELECTRIC \\ \\ SW . '• @ PORCH ±Sq.Sq SQ.FT. GONG. CURB STAKE Doo Q ENTRY PORCH 25.00 50.FT. COASTAL ER05ION HYDRANT 6;Y0 WATER ENCOUNTERED 0 @ Q Y HAZARD LINE O o 9.0' BELOW 5URFACE I GARAGE 600 SQ.FT. i N TOTAL (FOOTPRINT): 1,273.44 SQ.FT. ±111.3q SQ.FT. 1,162.06 SQ.FT. ±1002Sq SQ.FT. ; _ :_ _.. ,..: ._•"�.:,.,,,:,,.,: ;.."•,',.;'°,:. "w':;,-.:-,.•....:.:�;:" ..;.-,.;�;:,::;.".:"` ;:-.•..,', - . s $ � o ' ABBRE\/I AT I ONS ABV --- ABOVE GA --- GAGE, GAUGE TOTAL (LIVING AREA): 4%.00 50.FT. 1,088.62 SQ.FT. 288.00 SQ.FT. 527.7NOT TOO SCALE 2 5Q.FT. LO CM ie. AFF --- ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR GV --- GALVANIZED NOALE AFC, --- ABOVE FINISHED MET --- METAL GRADE AG --- ABOVE GROUND NTS --- NOT TO SCALE EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE: BG --- BOTTOM OF CURB O.H.--- OVER HEAD 1,273.44 50.FT. / ±17,532.58 50.FT. = 7.26% PROPOSED 51 TE PLAN: BI --- BOTTOM OF ISLAND PLGS --- PLAGE5 PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE (INCLUDING PORGHE5): GB --- CATCH BASIN PVG --- POLYVINYL CHLORIDE 2,276.04 50.FT / ±17,532.58 SQ.FT. = 12Aa96 51TUATE AT: GONG --- CONCRETE PP --- POWER POLE PROPOSED LIVING AREA: EAST MARION N.Y. CON5T --- CONSTRUCTION ROP --- REINF. GONG. PIPE 1,584.62 5Q.FT (EXISTING) + 860.72 SQ.FT. (PROPOSED) = 2445.34 SQ.FT. (TOTAL) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CONT --- GONTINUOU5/CONTINUE REINF --- REINFORCED SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK CPR --- COPPER 50 --- STORM DRAIN SGTM NO.: 1000-31-14-0008.2 DIAM --- DIAMETER 5T --- STEEL DIP --- DUCTILE IRON PIPE TG --- TOP OF CURB ZONING DISTRICT: RESIDENTIAL '840' D.W.--- DOUBLE WALL TI --- TOP OF ISLAND EXIST --- EX15TINO TERM --- TERMINATE MAIN ROAD M FO --- FLOOR DRAIN U/L --- UNLEADED I FO --- FUEL OIL VIF --- VERIFY IN FIELD ' EAST MARION, NY IIg3q F/G --- FIBER 6LA55 WO --- WASTE OIL FTG --- FOOTING WWM --- WELDED WIRE MESH p ` SITE DATA: EXISTING: PROPOSED: 0- AREA OF 51-TE: ±17,532.585.F. (0.403AG) N.G. LINE OF PROPOSED COVERAGE CALCULATION: SEE AREA COVERAGE CHART m HAY BALES AND SILT -"0' NON TURF O CLAYTON FENCE BUFFER \ BASE FLOOD ELEVATION: � d TIE = 202.56' _ 11 MAP NO. 631300064E - AE ,1 (NGVD Ig201) �T� N 5 38044'00" E \O 142.bq' EX►STING WOOD BULKHEAD F-+-i 3 1 1 PROPERTY OWNER: • '- KEVIN FAGA p..� v 1= 14/ \ 1 1 12632 MAIN ROAD >`- + ° LY m IL 1 4 ( 1 1 EAST MARION, NY IIg3q P4 J 2 EXISTING WOOD 1 1 15' RIGHT OF WAY I , / STEPS W/ RAILING 1 1 W < (BY OWNER OF \ 1 F--i X Z U- �, LOT 8.I) 11 1 SAFE DIG - o _ 51DE YARD SETBAGK = 15'-O" O X \ 1 < O - o �� o \ 11 Before You Did, Drill Or Blast! p4 O = � Z w CALLUS TOLL FREE 1-800-962-7962 J r 1 1 NY indu-vial code nUe 753 requires no © BYO Q less than two working days notice,but not N S�_,�+iST •��• I. O �!� � �w ,•�j � \ � 1 I � � more than ten days notice. S.G.T.M. LOT No. 008.1 1=IIN N/F fio�pso Q r1� w HUKILL TEST Z \'A� 11 J�� HOLE �` �' . FO �1� ZONING INFORMATION: W 1A suFEm- s �1.\fix GK �1� ?0 1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R=40)_ 96 INL o� EXISTING ASPHALT 3 OF p0 m1 1 CGQ \ Z . EXISTIN %C-� DRIVEWAY TO BE p,N� 1 \ BEY T BUT Q O �M� �Q" F Ile I I/ Ar!I RAIL FENGE ALTERED 3p 6 R1 O LOT AREA: 9 tt To BE o,,1r� 1v MINIMUM ALLOWED: 40.000 SQ.FT. � . >~ \: REMOVED \ PROPOSED LEACHING POOL (U 8'� x b' DEEP FOR RAIN 8' NI� 41rnv PROVIDED: 117,532.58 SQ.FT. r- �u IIWI� w ; \ 46' PROPOSED old I�j / WATER RUNOFF O Z \ G SECOND FL. -'1� �z LOT WIDTH: O PORCH �1� o�-A MINIMUM ALLOWED: 150' �O 073493 Io MIN (TVP) ss, 11 �10� PROVIDED. 103.35 01-E S\ -, 2 ell __.._.... - I \ ) 5D ~ 1e EXISTING SHED 1 lAl LOT DEPTH: JEFFREY T. BUTLER, P.E. PROPOSED LEAGHING POOL \ / 0 41✓ 1 N1 ' (I) 8'd� x 4' DEEP FOR RAIN // \ �-- � ROOF OVERHANG r� MINIMUM ALLOWED: 175 IWATER RUNOFF , 5 7�O' D TO BE REMOVED \ NI PROVIDED: 142.69' I \ Q PROPOSED O' EXISTING 1 0 r O PROPOSED S �' O 2 STORY 1 WOOD vl` YARD REQUIREMENTS: _ �p COVERED ` ADDITION V DECK \ 1 MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK: 35' O ENTRY PORCH I \ / or 1 11 PROVIDED: 91'-0" z Q O; 2 ' 1 MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK: 10' Q 3 p w _ M/N 5.a 64.3 gs'► 1 PROVIDED: 9 -3 C, O m J } q`, 1 4 uJ O z o �\ EXISTING 1 CUMULATIVE SIDE YARD SETBACKS: 25 O : O 35.0' 1 PROVIDED: 65'-6" Z Q w z �1 < QL \� \ �� (�BE OM) X4.2 1•.. 33. 1 1 Q - IY I (To NOVATED TOA 42'6 1 1 MINIMUM REAR SETBACK: 35' ,..� z Q O m � < z 2y� STORY RE5IDENGE) :11 BUILDING AREA I EXISTING \ ' EL. II.77' © TO BE REMOVED 1 11 PROVIDED: 35'-7" a ly I p\ PROPOSED 1 1 } O FRAME SHEDS ry GARAGE 1 // NOTE: EXI5TING DWELLING \ LIVING (FLOOR) AREA: TO BE \ (� 'PEMOVED TO TOP OF FOUNDATION. 1• 1 1 I--I O H O_ I REMOVED \ OI \ FOUNDATION TO eE ELEVATED SO 1 1 MINIMUM REQUIRED: 850 SQ.FT. z # C EXISTING: 1ST: 1,088.62 SQ. FT. O �\ THAT STRUCTURE COMPLIES WITH N10, 2ND: 496 SQ. FT. -� O FEMA AND N.Y.S. RES. CODE 8323 '•� ` N 1 1 PROPOSED: 1ST: 288 SQ. FT. _ X , 11 1 2ND: 559.41 SQ. FT (Y O SETBA k _ 1O,-o;, _ zs.q s� , 1 TOTAL: 2.400.34 SO, FT. Q - U- N 35°21'00" p7' 44.6 -Y,gRD SORY STRUGTIj SID '� PROP05ED 5QUARING •• 1 LOT COVERAGE: 111 z 2 N 3 _ ETBAGK = :_ • t�' v o MAX. ALLOWED. 207 I- 1- _ 3 -OFF OF STRUCTURE 00 1 EXISTING: 7.26 z O < 2°55'00" W 1 ,, (J L L1 c EXISTING STOCKADE: FENCE --�� � `- N SITE FLAB _ _ " , CONCRETE 1 PROPOSED: 12.98% v : \ 2 WALL 1 BUILDING HEIGHT: N� \ 8 =o MAX. ALLOWED: 35' - DEF05 O N 35°21'oo' EXISTING: 24'-0" ° 20 10 � 10 20 30 40 50 F A G7E : GRAPHIC, 56ALE I' - 10'-O" 1�-p W 38.03 • �, PROPOSED: 28'-0" a 10' NON TURF N `-rn BUFFER NUMBER OF STORIES: MAX. ALLOWED: 2.5 s N \ � EXISTING: 2.0 „ o PROPOSED: 2.0 o � :n \ 1 Of C13 0 U rn t