HomeMy WebLinkAbout7038 a-
CHECK BOXES AS COMPLETED
( ) Tape this form to outside of file
( ) Pull ZBA copy of ND
( ) Check file boxes for prior; cQ c a O
( ) Assign next number on li ' cD a a
outside of file folder •`D 0
ca
( ) Date stamp entire origin c `o•
file number
( ) Hole punch entire origina m.v -V c w M w rn �
(before sending to T.C.) W ° 3 CO o oM CD
z .�
( ) Create new index card o :3 <
( ) Print contact info & tape m
w3 n
3 0
( ) Prepare transmittal to To o rn o
( ) Send original application 6 < ; m
to Town Clerk CD M n Cr
oma
( ) Note inside file folder w/r � 0)
and tape to inside of foldE s O0 3
( ) Copy County Tax Map; hig
neighbors and AG lots
( ) Make 7 copies and put wit 3' '•
( ) Do mailing label
0
W
CC P/
LW
�o
aPA(0ts
m— V,eAA) ��ra' d�� � � OR�
n4ex 0-91 pcu-�A
ego--lsr
Pj U41 0
_
,Aq et- - - - - -- -- - ---- - -- - - -
I
if/o/z•r-FI ��w ,rS,e �/c'iE-.✓T .3;/ K.r.2, �
_ _�1]/fts L--;__�oT___-!'v�T�__�X/S i.avG-_.Bzu�.d �,✓�____,
-- -------- -
d ��� oaf
EN-CONSULTANTS
May 11, 2017
Leslie Weisman, Chairwoman RECEIVED
Board of Zoning Appeals
Town of Southold MAY I16 2017
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Re: Amy and Christopher Astley, Case No. 7038
Dear Ms. Weisman:
As I recently communicated to Kim Fuentes of your office via email, please let this letter
confirm that the applicants at this time wish to withdraw without prejudice the variance
application submitted by En-Consultants on or about December 16, 2017.
And because no variances were granted and no public hearing was ever held or publicly noticed,
they are also requesting a partial refund of their$1,500 application fee.
Resp ctfully yours,
Robert E. Herrmann
Coastal Management Specialist
1319 North Sea Road I Southampton,New York 11968 1 p 631.283.6360 1 f 631.283.6136 www.enconsultants.com
environmental consulting
Fuentes, Kim 41 1�
From: Robert Herrmann <rherrmann@enconsultants.com>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:52 AM
To: Fuentes, Kim
Subject: Astley application
Kim, please be informed that we would at this time like to withdraw without prejudice our application for variance
submitted on behalf of Chris and Amy Astley for 460 North View Drive, Orient.
I will submit a formal hard copy letter for your file but wanted to respond asap to your inquiry regarding the scheduling
of the public hearing.
Best,
Rob Herrmann
Robert E.Herrmann,MEM
Coastal Management Specialist
En-Consultants
1319 North Sea Road
Southampton,NY 11968
Phone: 631-283-6360
Fax: 631-283-6136
Email:rherrmann@enconsultants.com
www.enconsultants.com
1
® SURVEY OF PROPERTY
RECEIVEL
2 206 SI T UA TED A T
ORIENT
ZONING BC3ARL'7 OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
LONG ISLA SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
�-� S� UND S.C. TAX No. 1000- 13-01 -5.2
SCALE 1 "=20'
SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
JANUARY 10, 2006 ADDED LOT COVERAGE DATA
N B4039 49" E MARCH 22, 2007 REVISED SITE PLAN
S 87'28'06» E ' MAY IREVISED
90.60' 43.02 MAY 25, 2007 REVISEDTO HOWEXISTINGPATIOS TO BE REMOVED
- - _ APRIL 15, 2008 FOUNDATION LOCATION
MARCH 3, 2009 FINAL SURVEY
TIE LINE ALONG APPARENT HIGH WATERDECEMBER 4, 2009 ADDED NEW WATER LINE
MARK OCTOBER 9, 2015 UPDATE SURVEY
ON SEPTEMBER 25, ZoosDECEMBER 15, 2015 ADD ADDITIONAL NOTES FOR PROPOSED POOL
8
2 / FEBRUARY 25, 2016 ADD ADJACENT POOL & HOUSE LOCATIONS
AUGUST 10, 2016 UPDATE TOPO. AND REVISED PROPOSED POOL
/ - \ Z / / =
10 AUGUST
L SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 REVISE PROPOSED POOL SIZE
W
Ono °gnu / / � - - - - - - __ ' � _115 Q� AREA = 35,799.45 sq. ft.
Q / / / / 18 O J NOTES: (TO TIE LINE) 0.$21 CIC.
Q. a � � / ' / / / _ - - - - - _ � � '- � -- � .20 1 . ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO N.G.V.D. 1929 DATUM
-22
zi 10 / / / / / - - - - - - - __24 Vi EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN THUS: 10o.0
-26 EXISTING CONTOUR LINES ARE SHOWN THUS: - - - -too- -
_23 F.FL. - FIRST FLOOR
G.FL. - GARAGE FLOOR
_
-33 B.B. - BOTTOM BULKHEOF ADHEAD
-36 T.W. _ TOP OF WALL
-38 B.W. BOTTOM OF WALL
20' � ' / / / / - / -40 2. APPROXIMATE AREA OF DISTURBANCE WITHIN PROJECT LIMITING FENCE IS 5,100 sq ft.
22 - / / / / / / / / - - / / / / -42 3. ADJACENT POOL & HOUSE TO THE WEST ARE AS SCALED FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH.
-446
26 / / / / / / / / / / - - _ / / / - _5o EXISTING LOT COVERAGE
-52 OVER LOT AREA LANDWARD OF COASTAL EROSION HAZARD LINE
26 / / / / / / / / / - -- / / / �_ -54 AREA =12,490 sq. ft.
30 / / / / / - / / / -56
57 / / / / / / / ! / / - / / / / -58 DESCRIPTION AREA Y. LOT COVERAGE
/ / / / -60
34 / i - / / / 62 HOUSE 1,734 sq. ft. 13.9%.
/ ! / / / / / / / -64
36' /_ 66 ROOF OVER PORCH 196 sq. ft. 1.6%
36 j / / / i / / / / / == / j / / / j j, / =680 TOTAL EXISTING 1,930 sq. ft. 15.5%
40' ! / / /
.774 W
PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE AFTER FINAL BUILD-OUT
X778 *P- OVER LOT AREA LANDWARD OF COASTAL EROSION HAZARD LINE
46 /
4 / / / / / / / / / j j / / / -80 AREA =12,490 sq. ft.8
50 / / / / / / / / / / / / j / / / / j / / / X84 DESCRIPTION AREA % LOT COVERAGE
52' / / / / / / / / / j / / / / / j j .� / / j =888 , 1 x o HOUSE q. ft. 13.9%
T.WW' C. 1,734 s
55 / /_ / i9WA`g`Ns p x ROOF OVER PORCH 196 sq. ft. 1.6X
58- / / / ! / / / / / / *000 rE WA�� m PROP. POOL W/COPING 392 sq. ft. 3.1%
o - / / / / / / / / ! / / � / / / / / , / X92 BT.W� Oz
6 / / / / / / ! / / / / / / ! / ! / / 94�P�� T.WjAd `z TOTAL PROPOSED 2,3zz sq. ft. 18.6Y"
6 96
/ / � �Z
0
66 _
T.W.95. �o
B.W.92.4
98.8 / 1$' WALL
/ .tio°
9', oy�' ,o
s�.a 01
\ p
62 / / / / / / -X oo0e\ \ \
Z Z ,Z 66 A2Ya� \ \ \ \
No O 66/ / - .104 \' X 101.0\ \ \ \
Zia, Eo o• \-_0_5.5 \ \ Roo"O �R �� I \ \ Fav�c• �
0
/ 1�PAS10� I cON� pq ��� 1 133. " / I I \ ���
/ E GON N1 �/Ep 101.
COASTAL EROSION HAZARD LINE AS SCALED FROM I \ \ CC)� �
COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA / 105.7 15,1. rev �cgiN °Np1j/0N
COAS /p / / x o e
PHOTO No. 47-655-83 SHEET 19 OF 4 a c v W „\ \ \
F3pW. m 9B 1 / / Oc^ vY r X 30" DOU� \ I 1� �J
CHER Q
x 1,
� �/ & ? S I I >s
_ T I TEST HOLE DATA
4 y0
X 105.0U Fy
112111 51 x LIMN ROJ G QO (TEST HOLE DUG BY MCDONALD CEOSCIENCE
���/ / 105.6 v 105.8 0• I Nd F�NG�I I 6 fro ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2aa006)
'
PO
/ Ir y� __X92
D
/W I / TEST HOLE 140' DARK BROWN LOAM OL
?•0 / I G) ,
104.44 0 A 2.
26.2' 4v ?m �3 �O� OO
BRSILTY SAND SM
'
op /
���'
�`,;°A /� f�, I r oo (�� D�
N E 1 i1QMEN r_ 105.2 r \°' qj / O �O �V�� • e e e ' PALE BROWN FINE SAND SP
HOUSE I Lj"' QO � � X ` CD
20 4 ��� 121 28=4' _ I o,
103.9 104.9 b 2nd STORy�
POOL I X I °VER WOOpHOUSE ti Q °\ \• I I < e' .
1 103.3 m 10 TREEDECK ��FF 104 6 OO 10 Q� Py �Q
AIR GOND. 26'...' op /i-\ ONE WALK c�� y1 g4
UN 1 PROP .......:.:.. . .. 22.4 / Q 0� y�
�+-c^ 102.5 _ 1V. .:.::'.�:.�...•.�NGI�p.. .... 1 ❑❑ AFF,. `�Oc� .. O�r7 \J(J a, ..a PALE BROWN SILTY SAND SM
,' O UNL5 TEST HOLE / LEACHING
POOL I 6 l
J
W
O I p \3
0
103.5 \�7' X2,0" TWIN TRE 03� L S�/ G�F \�� d :
• O 1 3.9 O 103.7 OP p� �N G / X
PROP. POOL \ PR \"� 26'
1 ORYINELL �j1X \ /ES J(���fi PALE BROWN FINE SAND SP
PROF051EP j
POOL FEt`LGE 10 Ov R ' WHO 4
A 32
FOUND REP BAR0 Soo O O'(�
r f 29 +^�,^
C7 :, C`
102.8 X 5 '0$9 S R, .,.�"4 �R�o X CER TIFIED TO:
102--% �y ..- was �It��ER CHRISTOPHER ASTLEY
AMY ASTLEY
e dQ n .ea•.. .. X
g0
c e e' PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINIMUM
EDGE OF PAVEMENT e+. QN X ^ ' < VAT STANDARDS FOR TITL URVEYS AS ESTABLISHED
e 4
c PRI BY THE L.I.A.L. PPRO ND ADOPTED
FOR SUCH .�\"' OR TATE LAND
e TITLE ASS ATR)RA-
50' MIN. OV,
•, . �/:•T L
OR TO BE SUFFIN S TO
TOON
� KEEP SEDIMENT
w
HAY BALES AND/OR
a SILT FENCING
w
w `l\
� A
Q
I �y
STEEL OR WOOD
/1 EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC POST (TYP•) y N.Y.S. Lic. No. 50467
REO'D. WITHOUT WIRE MESH SUPPORT
10' MAX. O.C. SPACING
W/ WIRE SUPPORT FENCE UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION
HAY BALES AND/OR 36" HIGH POLE (MAX.) 6' MAX. O.C. SPACING TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF
SILT FENCING STEEL OR WOOD POST W/0 WIRE SUPPORT FENCE �.., SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE
EDUCATION LAW. Nathan Taft Corwin
��-
PLAN VIEW -dFLOW ;: , ' " yob COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARING Land S u r v e o r
THE LAND SURVEYOR'S INKED SEAL OR \
Tom~ .' �- EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED JV
% TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY.
ROAD EXISTING GRADE --�---'
•ATTACH FILTER FABRIC SECURELY CERTIFICATIONS INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN
m TO UPSTREAM SIDE OF POST ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY
MAY BALES AND/OR \ •3:?k \ IS PREPARED, AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE
SILT FENCING /�� \ ;'_.:' \ \ TITLE Title Surveys - Subdivisions - Site Plans - Construction Layout
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE BASE OF \//% % '\r^\T\//\`� \\/�\��/�\ f"t / � LENDING COMPANY,
NSTITUTGON GOVERNMENTAL
HEREONNC AGENCY Y
COMPACTED 3/4"STONE BLEND c /%/ / SILT FENCE DETAILS
OR N.Y.S. D.O.T.APPROVED R.C.A w / / NOT ra SCALE TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INSTI- PHONE (631)727-2090 FOX (631)727-1727
FILL TO 18' MIN. ABOVE EXISTING \ \\\• 4" x 6" TRENCH TUTION. CERTIFICATIONS ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE.
GRADE TO ALLOW FOR DRAINAGE /j\\ W/ COMPACTED
CROSS SECTIOBACKFILL NOTES: SILT FENCE SHALL BE PLACED PARALLEL TO SLOPE CONTOURS TO OFFICES LOCATED AT MAILING ADDRESS
N MAXIMIZE PONDING EFFICIENCY. INSPECT AND REPAIR SILT FENCE AFTER THE EXISTENCE OF RIGHTS OF WAY
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TRENCH DETAIL EACH STORM EVENT AND REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN NECESSARY. REMOVED AND/OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD, IF 1586 Main Road P.O. Box 16
(NOT TO SCALE) (NOT TO SCAM SEDIMENT SHALL BE DEPOSITED TO AN AREA THAT WILL NOT ALLOW ANY, NOT SHOWN ARE NOT GUARANTEED. Jamesport, New York 11947 Jamesport, New York 11947
OFF-SITE TRANSPORT.
S� COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
DECEIVED
SAN
Orr APPEALS
APPEALS
ZONING BOARD
Steven Bellone
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Department of
Economic Development and Planning
Theresa Ward Division of Planning
Commissioner and Environment
January 11, 2017
Town of Southold
Zoning Board of Appeals
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
Attn: Leslie Weisman
Dear Ms. Weisman:
Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A14-14 thru A 14-25 of the Suffolk County Administrative
Code, the following application submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is to be a
matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or.inter-community
impacts. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or
disapproval.
Applicant Municipal File Number
Doyle, Marialice #7033
LeJon Enterprises, Inc. #7034
Crowley, Ian&Lynette #7035
Astley, Christopher #7038
Very truly yours, ,
Sarah Lansdale
Director of Planning
Theodore R. Klein
Principal Planner
TRK/cd
H.LEE DENNISON BLDG ■ 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th FI ■ P.O.BOX 6100■ HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099■ (631)853-5191
1� </OFFICE LOCATION: �®v ® �® MAILING ADDRESS:
Town Hall Annex a® �® P.O.Box 1179
54375 State Route 25 Southold, NY 11971
(cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) cs�
V! Southold, NY 11971 ® �� Telephone: 631 765-1938
COU NTY9� Fax: 631 765-3136
LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ly
RECEIVED
MAR 2 3 2017
MEMORANDUM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
To: Leslie Weisman, Chair
Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator
Date March 23, 2017
Re: Coastal Consistency Review for ZBA File Ref AMY AND CHRISTOPHER ASTLEY#7038
SCTM#1000-13-1-5.2.
AMY AND CHRISTOPHER ASTLEY#7038 - Request for Variances under Article III, Section 280-15F;
Article XXII, Section 280-116A, Article XXIII, Section 280-124 and the Building Ins'pector's October 27,
2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground
swimming pool, at: 1) located in other than the code required rear yard; 2) located less than the code
required 100 feet from the top of the bluff; 3) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of
40 feet, at: 460 North View Drive, (Adj. to the Long Island Sound) Orient, NY. SCTM#1000-13-1-5.2.
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 records available to me, it is my recommendation that the action is
CONSISTENT with the Policy Standards and therefore is CONSISTENT with the LWRP provided the
following is considered:
1. To further 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 it is recommended that a
vegetated buffer be established north of North View Road to maintain the visual character of the
neighborhood. The buffer could be landscaped inside or outside of the proposed pool fence for the
purpose of providing vegetative screening.
2. To further Policy 4 Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion
and Policy 6 Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold's ecosystem; it is
recommended that the Board establish a non-disturbance buffer landward of the top-of-bluff to the
Coastal Erosion Hazard line. The non-disturbance buffer should include the existing vegetation.
Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider this
recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed
action.
Cc: William Duffy, Town Attorney
-7v0-6
RECEIVED
MAR 2 3 2017
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
-
Suffolk .rOLK C /' ` Corey Humphrey
423mmmnoAvenue � D��o �anoun
�— �v�a110 — ' ~~~^---�—
(631)852-3286
Riverhead,mY11oo1
�� W�.vm&4��vm*w�mun�|kSV«Co'»"u Rob Carpenter
��« ~' una/nnan
'Pr 71
VA
RECEIVED
Leslie K. Weisman, Chairperson ���D �.� �0��
TovvnofSouthold Board ofAppeals
'`'�" � " �°"'
p.O. Box 1l79, S39O5Main Road ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS
Southold, NY11971
March Z3, ZO17
Re: ZBA#7O3O—As |ey, Christopher and Amy 3CTM # 1000'13-1-5.2
Dear Ms. Weisman:
As per your request our office has conducted on evaluation of the above subject property for the
purpose ofreviewing the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of an in'
ground pool at the above address. This evaluation of the property located at 460 North View Drive,
Orient was conducted on February m, 2017. The following are the observations and recommendations
respective ofthe findings ofthis inspection.
The property is situated on a local high point at the top of the bluff. We were unable to assess the
condition of the bluff from below, asthere was no local access available to us.
The house has gutters and downspouts installed, but no drywells. On the northeast corner of the house,
a corrugated plastic pipe is attached to the bottom of downspout, and the pipe heads towards the
eastern boundary of the property.The drainage from this pipe likely ends up on the neighbor's property.
Approximately 1ODfeet from the eastern property boundary on North View Road, there is local |uvv
elevation in the road. We observed o buildup of eroded sediment in the north side of the road. Any
potential street side erosion from this proposed project could travel to this are and collect.
At this location, maintaining bluff stability and protecting Long Island Sound from sediment pollution are
the primary considerations associated with the installation and maintenance of the pool at this location.
In order to install this pool, a high degree of soil excavation will be necessary. Such soil disturbance
leads to a high erosion potential. The dnxe proximity to the bluff similarly lends to a high potential for
sediment loading into Long Island Sound. Therefore, itiscritically necessary that silt fencing ixerected
prior to soil disturbance to capture any sediment traveling downslope.
�0
All exposed soils should be seeded with turf grass and covered with erosion control fabric as soon as
possible after soil disturbance. This will help stabilize the soils on the slope and aid in seed germination.
Soil which has been excavated should be immediately removed from the site and not stockpiled due to
the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Excavation and construction equipment should not be
stored or left running on the proposed construction area due to the heavy weight and vibrations of
these machines may cause instability atop the bluff.
It is critically important to have a drywell installed when draining a pool in a location such as this. Pool
water being drained should not be discharged across the soil surface.There is a drywell proposed in this
plan.
Finally, drywells should be installed to receive water from the existing downspouts collecting rainwater.
Overland flow of water poses an erosion hazard, especially to highly erodible sites such as bluff faces.
Sincerely,
Ann Marie Calabro Ken Johnson
Soil District Technician Soil District Technician
Page 2
j
FORM NO. 3
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
DATE: January 14, 2016
RENEWED &AMENDED: October 27,2016
TO: EN-Consultants (Astley)
1319 North Sea Road
Southampton,NY 11968 1!9ez
Please take notice that your application dated December 15, 2015 �c Pv
For permit to construct an accessoryground swimmingpool at �°; Ab
`®mcg
Location of property: 460 North View Drive, Orient ®®®0®
County Tax Map No. 1000—Section 13 Block 1 Lot 5_2
Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds:
The proposed construction is not permitted pursuant to Section 280-15F, which states;
"In the case of a waterfront parcel, accessory buildings and structures may be located in the front yard,
provided that such buildings and structures meet the front-yard setback requirements set forth by this
code, and the side yard setback requirements for accessory buildings in Subsection B..."
The accessory in-ground swimming pool is noted as being partially located in the side yard.
Also, pursuant to Article XXIII, Section 280-124, lots measuring between 20,000 and 39,999 square feet in total
size, require a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet. The proposed construction notes a front yard setback of
15 feet.
Furthermore, the proposed construction is not permitted pursuant to Article XXII Section 280-116A, which
states;
"All buildings or structures located on lots upon which there exists a bluff landward of the shore or
beach shall be set back not fewer than 100 feet from the tgp of such bluff."
The ro o ed access in- ound swiling pool is noted as being 70 feet from the top of the bluff.
This N ti e of Disap roval as aLendedtober 27, 2016following the submission of a revised survey.
�L
Authorized Signa eNote to Applicant: Any change orthe above referenced application, may require
further review by the Southold Town Building Department.
CC:file, Z.B.A.
Fee:$ Filed W.. Assignment No.
RECEIVE®
APPLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALEC 2 2 2016
AREA VARIANCE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
House No. 460 Street North View Drive Hamlet Orient
SCTM 1000 Sectio`n 13 Block I Lot(s) 5.2 Lot Size 35,799 sf Zone R-40
s
I (WE) APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
DATED: 1/14/16 BASED ON SURVEY/SITE PLAN DATED 12/15/15
Applicant(s)/Owner(s): Christopher T.&Amy Astley
Mailing Address: 434 Greenwich Street,2F,New York,NY 10013
Telephone: 646-515-6661 Fax: N/A Email: castley@mac.com
NOTE:In addition to the above,please completed below if applicant is signed by applicant's attorney,agent,
architect,builder,contract vendee,etc.and name of person who agent represents:
Name of Representative: En-Consultants for(X)Owner ( )Other:
Address: 1319 North Sea Road,Southampton,NY 11968
Telephone: 631-283-6360 Fax: 631-283-6136 Email:rhenmann@enconsultants com
Please check box 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 9/29/16 and DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED 12/15/15 FOR:
( ) Building Permit
( )Certificate of Occupancy ( )Pre-Certificate of Occupancy
( ) Change of Use
( ) Permit for As-Built Construction
( )Other:
Provision of the Zoning'Ordinance Appealed. Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragraph
of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code.
Article III Section 280- 15 Subsection F
Article XXII Section 280- 124 Subsection B
116 A
Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for:
( )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, ( )has not been made at any time with respect to this property,
UNDER Appeal No(s). 6004 Year(s). 2007 (P l e q s e be sure to
research before co in this uest'on or cal ou o ce for assistance)
Name of Owner: stopper Amy. t�e ZBA File#
i
REASONS FOR APPEAL (Please be specific, additional sheets may be used with preparer's
signature notarized):
(1)An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties if granted,because:
See attached.
(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:
RECEIVED -]Zj`3
See attached. DEC 2 2 20
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
(3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because:
See attached.
(4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district because:
See attached.
(5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? WYes, or { )No.
See attached.
Are there any Covenants and Restrictions concerning this land: %)No { )Yes(please furnish 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 we re of the community.
Signature of ppellant or Authorized Agent
16th (Agent must submit written Authorization from Owner)
Sworn to before me this Robert E.Herrmann CDcember p 16 Coastal Management Specialist
C4jo Lblic
SIN H, S YE PNEN9
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF NEW YORK
COMMISSION N0 , 5015931
OUALIFIED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
EXPIRES AUGUST 2 , 2011
REASGris FOR APPEAL ADDENDUM
for AMY&CHRISTOPHER ASTLEY RECE1eVED,✓�,3SS
460 NORTH VIEW DRIVE L
ORIENT,NY DEC 2 2 2086
SCTM#1000-13-1-5.2
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1) As part of a prior variance application approved in May 2007 (Case No. 6004, 5/25/07), a swimming
pool was proposed in the same nonconforming side yard with a similar nonconforming front yard
setback but also with a nonconforming side yard setback of 5 feet and, according to the Board's
decision, would have caused lot coverage to exceed the allowable 20 percent when combined with
the rest of the then proposed work. The currently proposed pool, by contrast, exceeds the required
side yard setback and would increase lot coverage by only 392 sf to a conforming 19.1 percent if the
pool coping is included in the lot coverage calculation. The previously proposed swimming pool
was eliminated from the prior variance application as part of a site plan revision that appears to have
been designed to reduce lot coverage and assuage concerns over the potential impacts of locating a
swimming pool only 5 feet from the westerly property line. As currently proposed, according to the
"Notice of Disapproval" issued by the Building Department, construction of the swimming pool
requires relief from §280-15(F), accessory located partially in a prohibited side yard; §280-116(A),
structure located less than 100 feet from bluff crest; and §280-124(B), accessory with
nonconforming front yard setback. It is the applicants' position that granting of this relief will not
produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties for the following reasons.
Although determined by the Building Department to not be located on the landward side of the
dwelling and thus in need of relief from §280-116(A), the pool would effectively be separated from
the bluff by the existing dwelling and set back 70 feet from the bluff crest, a greater bluff setback
than the Board approved for swimming pools on the property adjacent to the west (Case No. 5809,
1/26/06) and two properties to the west (Case No. 6045, 7/12/07). And although also determined by
the Building Department to be located"partially located in the side yard,"the pool would have a side
yard setback that exceeds the required 10' side yard setback by more than 3 feet and nearly equals
the 15' side yard setback required for a principal dwelling structure. The pool approved and
constructed on the adjacent westerly property was also approved in a nonconforming side yard and is
located approximately 16 feet from the shared property line according to the applicant's survey.
Because of the existing site topography on the subject property and adjacent westerly property, the
proposed pool would be located at a higher elevation than westerly adjacent pool and thus out of
sight from that neighboring vantage point; and a dense hedgerow would screen the pool from view
both from North View Drive and the properties located across the roadway. The Board applied
similar justification for the westerly adjacent swimming pool, which was approved in a
nonconforming side yard with a nonconforming 25' front yard setback and nonconforming 55' bluff
setback, when it found that the pool would "not produce an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties"because it would be located"completely out
Robert t.Iterrmann
Sworn to before me this 16th
dayof ecember, 2016. KIM H . STEPHENS
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF NEW YORK
otas ublic COMMISSION NO . 5015931
` QUALIFIED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
EXPIRES AUGUST 2 , 201J
of sight from off the premises" and that "extensive existing landscaping with native ornamentals,
shrubs, and evergreen trees creates further privacy from adjacent properties and the road frontage."
It is also a significant consideration that although the swimming pool is proposed only 15 feet from
the mapped road that acts as the front lot line, the pool would be set back approximately 28 feet from
the actual pavement of North View Road, a scarcely traveled private road that provides access to a
limited number of homes in the neighborhood and does not serve as a public throughway to other
locations. Similar reasoning was applied by the Board in its 2000 decision(Case No. 485 1)to grant
the relief necessary to construct a dwelling 25 feet from neighboring South View Road, wherein the
Board found that "South View Drive is a private road mapped at 50 feet wide, but the paved
roadway is scarcely 10 feet wide and the proposed house is about 52 feet from that pavement
although only 25 feet from the edge of the mapped road. The paved roadway is little traveled, is
owned by the property owners association, and is unlikely ever to be widened. For these reasons,
grant of the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties." Here the width of the paved roadway varies from
15 to 21 feet in front of the subject property, and the pool would be located more than 160 feet from
the nearest dwellings located on the opposite side of the road.
2) Due to the size and configuration of the property and the presence of the bluff, the benefit sought by
the applicant, i.e., the use of a recreational swimming pool, cannot be achieved without the benefit of
an area variance because there is nowhere on the property a pool could be physically situated such
that it would be located in a front or rear yard and simultaneously comply with the 100' bluff setback
and 40' front yard setback. In fact, the only two places the pool could be located on the property are
where the pool is proposed on the west side of the property or in the easterly side yard. However,
due to the configuration of the dwelling; the curvature of the front lot line; and the need for the pool
to a maintain a 10' setback from the side lot line and a 20' separation distance from the septic
system, there is in fact little room to locate the pool on the east side of the property. For example, if
the pool were placed along the 10' side yard setback as far from the road as possible, such that a
separation of only 3 feet was maintained between the pool and the roofed porch, the front yard
setback could be increased by a maximum of 5 feet to 20' but at the expense of a 21' reduction in the
bluff setback to 49 feet. Additionally, the east side of the property is characterized by dense
vegetation, including two substantial (18" and 30" diameter) black cherry trees, and a moderately to
steeply sloped grade. Thus, construction of the pool on the east side would require significant
clearing; removal of both large trees; and substantial reconstruction and engineering of the slope
with retaining walls. In contrast, where proposed on the west side of the property, the pool can be
situated within a flat area of existing lawn where it should be necessary to remove only a 6" diameter
tree and 10" diameter tree located adjacent to the house.
Robert . errmann
Sworn to before me this 16th
day of December, 2016.
_ RECEIVED
Notary ub is SIM H , S T€P H€N S (DEC 2 2 2w .
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF NEW YORK ZONING BOARD OF AppEALS 2
COMMISSION N0 . 5015931
QUALIFIED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
EXPIRES AUGUST 2 , 201'
The applicants recognize that 11i the Board's July 2007 decision (Case i�o. 6045) to grant the relief
necessary to construct a 16' x 30' swimming pool two properties to the west with a 24' front yard
setback and 55' bluff setback, the approved 24' front yard setback represented alternative relief to
the initially proposed 18' setback. But in that case the proposed 16' x 30' pool was 168 sf or
roughly 54% larger than the 12' x 26' pool proposed herein, and it was physically possible to
relocate that pool 6' farther from the road. Here, the pool cannot be located any farther from the
road, and for the reasons described above, there is no superior alternative location on the property
that would provide a meaningful increase in the front yard setback without significantly reducing the
bluff setback. And given the variance history in the neighborhood; the non-public nature of the
private road; and the screening of the pool from the road and neighboring properties, all as described
above, it would be undesirable to marginally increase the front yard setback at the significant
expense of the bluff setback.
3) Neither the bluff setback relief nor the partially nonconforming side yard relief is substantial, but the
required front yard relief is mathematically substantial. However, because of the nature of the
private road and vegetative screening of the pool from the road and opposing properties, the relief is
not effectively substantial.
4) With respect to physical and environmental conditions, the proposed pool will have no adverse
impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed swimming
pool would be located more than 240 feet from the surface waters of Long Island Sound and thus
nearly 5 times the required 50' setback for swimming pools from wetlands pursuant to Chapter 275.
It will also be situated more than 20 feet above the groundwater table and thus not require
dewatering or otherwise interfere with the groundwater table. With a proposed 70' setback from the
top of bluff, the proposed swimming pool would be located less than the required setback of 100 feet
from the bluff, but it would be situated on the south/landward side of the existing dwelling and thus
farther from the bluff than the dwelling. Placed as such in the substantially level lawn area on the
south side of the dwelling, the proposed pool would have no impacts on the condition of the bluff
nor be subject to erosion risks greater than those associated with the more seaward positioned
dwelling. In fact, the proposed location for the pool to the south of the house was chosen
specifically to avoid potential bluff impacts associated with a more seaward location. And in a 2007
letter submitted to the Board during the applicants' prior variance application, the Suffolk County
Soil and Water Conservation District expressed their finding that "no natural resource limitations
were found on the subject property" and that at the time of their site visit"the bluff appeared to be in
stabile [sic] condition,"findings we expect will be the same today based on the presently stable, well
vegetated condition of the bluff. Nevertheless, to reduce the area of impervious surfaces situated
nearest the bluff and thereby create a potential reduction in surface water runoff (and associated
erosion risks) nearest the bluff, the project proposes to remove an existing 326 sf concrete patio
located only 15 feet from the top of the bluff. Although excluded from the definition of "building
area" and thus not regulated as "lot coverage" pursuant to §280-4(B),re val of this 326 sf patio
Robert .)Herrmann
Sworn to before me this 16th
day of December, 2016.
otar PublicGr KIM H , STEPHEN S
NOTARY PUBLIC DEC
STATE OF NEW YORK 3
COMMISSION N0 . 5015931
QUALIFIED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY ��NIiVG BOARD ��1J� ��"
EXPIRES AUGUST 2 , 20 ZI
would limit the net increase's,, impervious surface coverage of the property to 66 square feet. As
additional mitigation, a temporary project limiting fence will be set in place between the work site
and the seaward side of the dwelling to control and contain site disturbance and potential runoff
during construction; and a pool drywell will be permanently installed upon completion of
construction to capture pool backwash.
5) The difficulty is self-created due to the applicants' decision to propose a swimming pool on a
property with known building area limitations.
RECEIVED
DEC � 2 2010
ZONING BOAR®OF APPEALS
Robert ffHerrmann
Sworn to before me this 16th
dayof ecemb�er, 2016.
/f
Notar blic KIM H . STEPHEN S
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF NEW YORK 4
COMMISSION NO , 5015931
QUALIFIED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
EXPIRES AUGUST 2 , 20_07
APPLICANT'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Applicant:Christopher T.&Amy Astley Date Prepared: December 16,2016
RECEIVED
I. For Demolition of Existing Building Areas
Please describe areas being removed: 326 sf concrete patio ng 9 t 2nig
ZONING BEARD OF APPEA
II. New Construction Areas (New Dwelling or New Additions/Extensions):
Dimensions of first floor extension:
Dimensions of new second floor:
Dimensions of floor above second level:
Height(from finished ground to top of ridge):
Is basement or lowest floor area being constructed?If yes, please provide height(above ground)measured from
natural existing grade to first floor:
1I1. Proposed Construction Description (Alterations or Structural Changes)
(Attach extra sheet if necessary)-Please describe building areas:
Number of Floors and General Characteristics BEFORE Alterations: N/A
Number of Floors and Changes WITH Alterations: Proposed 14'x 28'in-ground swimming pool(including coping).
IV. Calculations of building areas and lot coverage (from surveyor):
Existing square footage of buildings on your property: 1,930 sf
Proposed increase of building coverage: 392 sf
Square footage of your lot: 35,799 sf; 12,490 sf "Buildable Lane"
Percentage of coverage of your lot by building area: 15.5%existing; 18.6%proposed
V. Purpose of New Construction• Recreational swimming pool
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):
Approximately 23,309 sf or 65%of the 35,799 sf property is comprised of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area associated with the steeply sloping bluff on
the north side of the property fronting Long Island Sound Because of the presence of this bluff and the Building Department's interpretation of Section
280-116(a),i.e.,that the proposed swimming pool is not located landward of the existing dwelling,a bluff setback variance is required due to the pool's
location 70 rather than 100 feet from the top of bluff. Additionally,the sloping grade on the east side of the property leaves the flatter grade on the west
side of the property as a more practical and appropriate location for the proposed pool relative to land contours.
Please submit eight (8) 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
RECEIVED 03"
QUESTIONNAIRE DEC 2 2 2016
FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
A. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale?
Yes X No
B. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours?
X No Yes,please explain on attached sheet.
C. 1)Are there any areas that contain sand or wetland grasses? Yes
2)Are these areas shown on the map submitted with this application? Yes
3) Is the property bulkheaded between the wetlands area and the upland building
area? No
4)If your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the Office of
the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? No Please confirm status
of your inquiry or application with the Trustees:Application to be filed pending completion of
and if issued,please attach copies of permit with conditions and approved survey. ZBA review.
D. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or
below five feet above mean sea level? No
E. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences that exist and are not
shown on the survey map that you are submitting? No 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? No 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? No
If yes,please label the proximity of your lands on your survey.
I. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel Single family residence with masonry patio
and proposed use Same with swimming pool added and patio removed.
(ex:existing single-family dwelling,proposed:same with
garage ool or other)
Authorize ' nature and Date
Robert E.Herrmann
Coastal Management Specialist
RECEIVED
AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT DEC S 2 2016
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
WHEN TO USE THIS FORM. The 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 agricultural district. All applications
requiring an agricultural data statement must be referred to the Suffolk County Department of Planning
in accordance with Sections 239m and 239n of the General Municipal Law.
1)Name of Applicant: En-Consultants
2)Address of Applicant: 1319 North Sea Road,Southampton,NY 11968
3)Name of Land Owner(if other than applicant) Christopher T. &Amy Astley
4)Address of Land Owner: 434 Greenwich Street,Apt.217,New York,NY 10013
5)Description of Proposed Project: Construct a 14'x 28'swimming pool;install a pool drywell,pool equipment,
and pool enclosure fencing;and remove an approximately 326 sf on-grade masonry patio from north side of house,
all as depicted on the site plan prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin III Land Surveyor,last dated September 29,2016.
6)Location of Property (road and tax map number):460 North view Drive,Orient; SCTM#1000-13-1-5.2
7)Is the parcel within 500 feet of a farm operation? t }Yes {X}No
8)Is this parcel actively farmed? f }Yes {X}No
9)Name and address 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(Please use back side of page if there are additional property ownersIL- .)
12 / 16 / 2016
Signatu 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.Solicitation will be made by supplying a copy of this statement.
2.Comments returned to the local board will be taken into consideration as part of 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.
6 ���� ��
17.20
Appendix B DEC 2016
Short Environmental Assessment Form
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Instructions for Completing
Part I-Project Information.The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1.Responses
become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part I based on information currently available.If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully
respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful
to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part I-Project and Sponsor Information
Name of Action or Project:
Astley Swimming Pool
Project Location(describe;and attach a location map):
460 North View Drive,Orient,Town of Southold, SCTM#1000-13-1-5.2;property is located on north side of North
View Drive,+/-380'west of Brown's Hill Road(private),map provided.
Brief Description of Proposed Action:
Construct a 14'x 28'swimming pool;install a pool drywell,pool equipment,and pool enclosure fencing;and remove
an approximately 326 sf on-grade masonry patio from north side of house,all as depicted on the site plan prepared by
Nathan Taft Corwin III Land Surveyor,last dated September 29,2016.
Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: 646-515-6661
Christopher T.&Amy Astley E-Mail: castley@mac.com
Address:
434 Greenwich Street,Apt.2F
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
New York NY 10023
1.Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES
administrative rule,or regulation?
If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that X
may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2.If no,continue to question 2.
2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other governmental Agency? NO YES
If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval:
X
Southold Trustees,Southold Building
3.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 35,799 sf
b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? +/-5,100 sf
c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 35,799 sf
4. Check all land uses that occur on, adjoining and near the proposed action.
❑Urban ❑Rural(non-agriculture) ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ®Residential(suburban)
❑Forest ❑Agriculture ®Aquatic ❑ Other(specify):
❑Parkland
Page 1 of 4
i Y
RECEIVED
5. Is the proposed action, DEC NO YES N/A
a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL X
b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? X
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural NO YES
landscape
X
7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES
If Yes,identify: X
8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES
X
b.Are public transportation service(s)available at or near the site of the proposed action? X
c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? X
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
N/A
10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing potable water: N/A
11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: N/A
12.a.Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic NO YES
Places?
X
b.Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area?
X
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? X
b.Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? X
If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres-
14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site.Check all that apply.
® Shoreline ❑Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑Early mid-successional
® Wetland ❑Urban ® Suburban
15 Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed NO YES
by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? X
16.Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO YES
X
17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES
If Yes,
a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑NO❑YES X
b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)?
If Yes,briefly describe: ❑NO❑YES
Page 2 of 4
18.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in they event of 3� NO YES
water or other liquids(e.g.retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? '1fl
If Yes,explain purpose and size: 0B
X
Z051111
APLS
19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or close NO YES
solid waste management facility?
If Yes,describe: X
20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES
completed)for hazardous waste?
If Yes,describe: X
I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/sponsor name: RobertHerrmann,Coastal Mgmt. Specialist Date: December 16,2016
Signature:
Part 2-Impact Assessment.The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 2.Answer all of the following
questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part I and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or
otherwise available to the reviewer.When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept"Have my
responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?"
No,or Moderate
small to large
impact impact
may may
occur occur
1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning
regulations?
2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land?
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community?
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
establishment of a Critical Environmental Area(CEA)?
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or
affect existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway?
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate
reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
7. Will the proposed action impact existing:
a.public/private water supplies?
b.public/private wastewater treatment utilities?
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,archaeological,
architectural or aesthetic resources?
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources(e.g.,wetlands,
waterbodies,groundwater,air quality,flora and fauna)?
Page 3 of 4
1 I 1
RECEIVED
DEC 2 9,2016 No,or Moderate
small to large
impact impact
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS may may
occur
10.Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,flooding or drainage
problems?
11.Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health?
Part 3-Determination of significance.The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 3.For every
question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur", or if there is a need to explain why a particular
element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please complete Part I
Part 3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that have been included by
the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts.Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact
may or will not be significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,probability of occurring,
duration,irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude.Also consider the potential for short-term,long-term and
cumulative impacts.
❑ Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an
environmental impact statement is required.
❑ Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action will not,result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
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)
Page 4 of 4
RECEIVED
DEC � 2 20$-105
APPLICANT/OWNER ZONING BOARD CP APPEALS
TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM
The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and employees The purpose
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. Astley, Christopher T.
YOUR NAME: Astley,Amy
(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 X Trustee Permit
Change of Zone Coastal Erosion
Approval of Plat Mooring
Other(activity) Planning
Do you personally(or th"rough 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)
C)an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant;or
D)the actual applicant
DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP
+
Submitted is � d1
ay of 1� ,20
a
Signature '
Print Name Christopher T. stley Amy stley
4
RECFWED 6'61
AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM
The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and employees.The purpose
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 Herrmann,Robert E.
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 xxX 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 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 this16th day of December,2016
Signature
Print Name Robert E.Herrmann
RECEIVED
Town of Southold
LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM D�� �� 039
A. INSTRUCTIONS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
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 si nig ficant
beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town)
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 explained 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: 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# 13 - 1 - 5.2
PROJECT NAME Christopher T. &Amy Astley
The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response):
Town Board ❑ Planning Board❑ Building Dept. ❑ Board of Trustees ❑
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:
Nature and extent of action:
Construct a 14'x 28'swimming pool;install a pool drywell,pool equipment,and pool enclosure fencing;and remove an approximately
326 sf on-grade masonry patio from north side of house,all as depicted on the site plan prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin III Land
Surveyor,last dated September 29,2016.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Location of action: 460 North View Drive,Orient RECEIVED 1031
Site acreage: 35,799 sf
DEC �2 2W
Present land use: Residential,single family dwelling ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Present zoning classification: R-40
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: Christopher T.&Amy Astley
(b) Mailing address: 434 Greenwich Street,Apt.2F
New York,NY 10013
(c) Telephone number: Area Code 646-515-6661
(d) Application number, if any:
Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency?
Yes ❑ No® If yes, which state or federal agency?
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.
❑Yes ❑ No ® Not Applicable
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 ® Not Applicable
RECEIVED -7
DEC 2M
7oNIAyr. BOARD OF APPEALS
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
The proposed swimming pool would be situated on the south/landward side of the existing dwelling and therefore not visible from Long
Island Sound. The pool would also be screened from North View Drive,a private roadway,by an existing hedgerow. Thus,the project
will not affect existing visual quality or scenic resources.
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
®Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Applicable
See attached addendum.
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
®Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Applicable
See attached addendum.
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.
®Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Applicable
RECED
LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM DEC
ADDENDUM FOR
AMY & CHRISTOPHER ASTLEY ZONING 130ARD OF APPEALS
460 NORTH VIEW DRIVE
ORIENT,NY
SCTM#1000-13-1-5.2
Policies 4,5, & 6
The proposed swimming pool would be located more than 240 feet from the surface waters of Long
Island Sound and thus nearly 5 times the required 50' setback for swimming pools from wetlands
pursuant to Chapter 275. It will also be situated more than 20 feet above the groundwater table and
thus not require dewatering or otherwise interfere with the groundwater table. With a proposed 70'
setback from the top of bluff, the proposed swimming pool would be located less than the required
setback of 100 feet from the bluff, but it would be situated on the south/landward side of the existing
dwelling and thus farther from the bluff than the dwelling. Placed as such in the substantially level
lawn area on the south side of the dwelling, the proposed pool would have no impacts on the condition
of the bluff nor be subject to erosion risks greater than those associated with the more seaward
positioned dwelling. In fact, the proposed location for the pool to the south of the house was chosen
specifically to avoid potential bluff impacts associated with a more seaward location. And in a 2007
letter submitted to the Board during the applicants' prior variance application, the Suffolk County Soil
and Water Conservation District expressed their finding that "no natural resource limitations were
found on the subject property" and that at the time of their site visit"the bluff appeared to be in stabile
[sic] condition," findings we expect will be the same today based on the presently stable, well
vegetated condition of the bluff. Nevertheless, to reduce the area of impervious surfaces situated
nearest the bluff and thereby create a potential reduction in surface water runoff (and associated
erosion risks)nearest the bluff, the project proposes to remove an existing 326 sf concrete patio located
only 15 feet from the top of the bluff. Although excluded from the definition of"building area" and
thus not regulated as "lot coverage" pursuant to §280-4(B), removal of this 326 sf patio would limit the
net increase in impervious surface coverage of the property to 66 square feet. As additional mitigation,
a temporary project limiting fence will be set in place between the work site and the seaward side of
the dwelling to control and contain site disturbance and potential runoff during construction; and a
pool drywell will be permanently installed upon completion of construction to capture pool backwash.
The project as designed is this consistent with Policies 4, 5, and 6.
-7031
See attached addendum.
DEC, _
ZONING RnARD OF APPEAM
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP 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.
❑Yes ❑ No ® 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 F-1 No® Not Applicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
WORKING COAST POLICIES
Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-'±_,,;endent uses and promote siting of -_AN water-dependent uses in
suitable locations. See LWRP Section ItI - Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria.
❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not Applicable RECENED -b3-9
nEr, 9 A 2011}
ZONING E30ARD OF APPEALb
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.
❑Yes ❑ No ® 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.
❑ Yes 1:1 No ® 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
PREPARED BY TITLECoastalMgmt. specialist DATE12/16/16
Robert E. errmann
Amended on 811105
RECEIVED
DEC 2 2 2016 1 fl-3�
ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
Board of Zoning Appeals Application
AUTHORIZATION
(Where the Applicant is not the Owner)
Christopher T.Astley
We/ 1, Amy Astley residing at 434 Greenwich St., 2F
(Print property owner's name) (Mailing Address)
New York, NY 10013 do hereby authorize En-Consultants
(Agent)
to apply for variance(s) on my behalf from the
Southold Zoning Board of Appeals.
(Owi is Si tun (Ow ers Signature)
Amy Astley Christopher T.Astley
(Print Owner's Name)
FORM NO. 4
RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT DEC 2 2 2016
Office of the nuilding Inspector
Torn Hall ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold, N.X.
CERTIFXCATE OF OCCUPANCY
No: Z-25669 bate: 04/22/98
THIS CERTIFIES that the building HEATING SYSTEM
Loc at j.On of Property; 460 NORTH VIEW DR ORIVINT
(HOUSE NO. ) (STREET) (HAMLET)
Coupty Tax Map No. 473889 Section 13 Block 1 .Lot 5.2
Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No.
conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore
filed in this office dated NOVEMBER 20, 1997 pursuant to which
Building Permit No. 2 }575-Z dated DECEMSER 23, 1997
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 HEATING SYSTEM AS APPLIED VOR "AS BUILT" & AS PER REQUIREMENTS OF
NEW YORK STATN ENERGY CODES.
The certificate is issued to CHR'CSTOPHER_T. & AMY ASTLEY
(OWNER)
of the aforesaid building.
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A
ELECTRICAL CERTIFICATE NO. p8NDING 02/12/98
PLUMBERS CERTIFICATXON DATED N/A
i
al n Insp Or
Rev. 1/81
60/Z0 39Vd S=sna G_10H1f10S Tb9959LT09 Cb :cT 9T0Z/9T/ZT
FORM NO. 4
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD c�
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
office of the Building Inspector g
Town Hall DEC
Southold, N.Y.
zONING BOARD OF APPEALS
UPDATED
PRE EXISTING
CERTIFICATE OP OCCUPANCY
No 2-25670 Date APRIL 22, 1998
THIS CERTIFIES that the building ONE FAMILY DWELLING
Location of Property 460 NORTH VIEW DRIVE ORIENT, N.Y.
House No. Street Hamlet
County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 13 Block 1 tot 5.2
Subdiv.ioion_ _—Viled Map No. Lot No.
conforms substantially to the Requirements For a One Family nwolling built
Prior to: APRIL 9, 1957 pursuant to which CRAT'IFICA.TE OF
OCCUPkNCY NUMBER Z-25670 dated Al AlL 22, 1998
was issued, and conforms to all of the reguirements of the applicable
provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is
issued in YLAR ROUND DUE FAMILY DWJsL INIG
The certificate is issued to CHR1STOPEW.R T. & AMY ASTLI;Y
(ownarn)
of the aforesaid building.
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A
UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO, N/A
PLUMBERS CERTtrICATION DATED N/A
*TEAS UPDATES PRE CO Z-6349 DAT90 MARCS! 6, 1975.
S ,
8 ilding Inspector
Rev. 1/81
E9,!Z0 39"d S33isna1 QIOHinos Zb9999LTE9 Eb :ET 9TK/9i/�T
FORM NO, 4
REOEIVED ,may b' b
DEC
TOWN OF SOUTHO'LD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
office of the Building inspector
Town Hall
Southold, N.Y.
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
No: Z-34156 Date: 01/07/10
THIS C RTIFIES that the building ADDITION/ALTERATIONS
Location of property: ___._460_ NORTH VIEW DR _ _ ORIENT
(HOUSE N0.) (STREET) (HAMLET)
County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 13 Block 1 Lot 5.2
subdivigiou Filed Map No. Lot No.
conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore
filed in this office dated OCTOBER 2, 2007 pursuant to which
Building PerntiC. Ido_ 33438-2 dated OCTOBER __2,. 2007
wap issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable
provisions of the law. The occupancy for Which this Certi'f'icate is issued
is ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS, INCLUDING SCREENED PORCH, DECKING, ENTRY
ADDITION ANT) OUTDOOR SHOWER, TO AN EXISTING ONE FAMILY DWELLING AS APPL190
FOR PER ZBA ##6004 DATED 6[14L'/.�-�
The certificate is issued to CHRISTOPHER T & AMY_ASTLEY
---, .-•- ---•-•-••--(OWNER) ---------
Of the aforesaid building,
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ERALTH .APPROVAL R10-07-0002 12/18/09
ELECTRICAL CERTIFICATE NO. 8317 12/26/08
PL0M8MZS CARTIF'ICATION DATED 06/29/09 KING PLUMBING
9
uth ize ignature
1/81
"0/90 39Vd S=Sn1 li C-10H1f10S Tb9959LT99 GV •GT 9TBZ/9T/ZT
.APPEALS BOARD MEMBERSSQ `, Mailing Address:
SOF l�j�,
Ruth D.Oliva,Chairwoman �► plG _ Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179
Gerard P. Goehringert * Southold,NY 11971-0959
James Dinizio,Jr. CP ac Office Location:
Michael A.SimonO �� Town Annex/First Floor,North Fork Bank
Leslie Kanes Weisman �y�vu '(,�1 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD q'
Tel.(631)765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064
JUN 2 6 2007
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION S h0k TO
MEETING OF JUNE 14, 2007
ZB File No. 6004--Christopher and Amy Astley
Property Location: 460 Northview Drive, Orient CTM 13-1-5.2
SEORA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type Ii category of
the State's List of Actions, without further steps under SEQRA.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicants' 35,799 square foot parcel has approximately
130 feet along North View Road, a private road, and +/- 112 feet of depth measured between the
crest of the bluff and the front lot line adjacent to the road, with a remaining depth of +/- 170 feet
between the top of the bluff and the deeded lot line at the high water mark of the Long Island Sound.
The property is improved with a single-story, single-family dwelling as shown on September 25,
2006 survey, revised March 22, 2007 by Joseph A. Ingegno, Land Surveyor.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances under Sections 280-10, 280-15, 280-124, 280-
116, based on the applicants' request for a building permit and the Building Inspector's December
26, 2006 Notice of Disapproval, concerning: (1) a screened porch addition proposed at less than
100 feet from the top of the bluff adjacent to the Long Island Sound, (2) proposed additions to the
existing dwelling which will be less than 40 feet from the front property line, and (3) a proposed
swimming pool with a setback at less than 40 feet from the front lot line.
SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application has been referred to the Suffolk
County Department of Planning as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections
A 14-14 to 23, and a County reply dated February 13, 2007 states that the application is considered
a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community
impact.
TOWN CODE CHAPTER 95 (268) LWRP DETERMINATION: This application has been referred to
the Town LWRP Coordinator as required under chapter 268, and a reply was submitted to the Board
of Appeals with a determination of inconsistency under LWRP Policy 6 Standards with regard to the
100 ft. minimum setback requirement under Section 280-116A of the Town Code, and stating that
the property contains moderate to severe slopes. The Board of Appeals held the first public hearing
on April 26, 2007, and requested revisions to the applicants' plan that would bring new construction
setbacks into more conformity with the Code, in light of the existing dwelling location. An alternative
plan was submitted by applicants relocating the porch and reducing its size, and removing the
� Page 2—June 14,2007
ZBFile No.6004-Christopher and Amy Astley RECEIVED m
CTM No. 13-1-5.2 1U��4
DEC 2 2 2010
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
swimming pool, which amendment not only substantially reduced the percentage of lot coverage to
meet the 20% code limitation but also allows the ground to remain undisturbed, without excavation
within the 100 ft, bluff restricted area. The new construction is also required to conform to code
concerning erosion and sediment controls during construction activities to protect the bluff, and as
per Code for gutters, downspouts and sub-surface drywells to control storm water runoff from all
impervious surfaces.
Area Variance Relief Requested: The applicants' original request was to construct an addition to the
dwelling with a setback at 26.9 feet measured between the closest corner point and the front lot line.
Also proposed was a 12.9' x 16.9' one-story screened porch 18.2 feet from the top of the bluff and
an accessory 12' x 20' swimming pool proposed in a nonconforming location at 19.4 feet from the
front lot line and 5 feet from the side property line, shown on the January 10, 2006 survey prepared
by Joseph A. Inpegno. On January 18, 2007, the ZBA received Diagrams A002, A102-A103, A300
A301, amended 1-15-07 from Ryall Porter Architects proposing similar additions for the increased
living floor space, a deck and outdoor shower, as well as an unheated 240 sq. ft. accessory
swimming pool, noted at 19 feet from the front lot line and 5 ft. minimum from the side lot line. On
April 2, 2007, a survey map revised March 22, 2007 prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S. was
submitted by the applicants to show the minimum code requirement of 15 feet from the westerly side
lot line, showing a proposed 12' x 20' size of the accessory swimming pool at a minimum of 15 feet
from the westerly side lot line and siting of the fence enclosure, revising the front setback for the
pool from 19 feet to 17.3 feet at its closest point, and reducing the size of the raised screen porch to
1410.5"wide by 12'11.5" deep.
Amended Variance Request: During the April 26, 2007 hearing, the Board asked the applicant to
bring the plan into more conformity with the zoning code requirements, and to provide calculations of
lot coverage applicable under Local Law 11-2007, adopted by the Town on March 27, 2007. The
applicants requested an adjournment to allow an extension of time to prepare the lot coverage
calculations and to submit possible alternative plans, keeping the hearing open for further questions
by Board Members until the next hearing calendar (May 31, 2007), On May 10, 2007, William S.
Ryall Jr., Architect submitted revised Site Plans A002 and First Floor Plan A100, both dated May 9
2007, agreeing not to build a swimming pool and removing same from the plans, relocating the
porch addition farther from the bluff and reducing its size, placing pier foundations under the new
porch four feet further from the outer edge of the porch (away from the top of bluff), and submitting
lot coverage calculation diagram dated 5-09-07 confirming the allowable lot coverage at less than
the code limitation of 20% (based on the estimated 12,831 sq. ft, of land area) with the new
construction, as revised. During the May 31, 2007 public hearing, the final May 25, 2007 revised
survey map prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S. was submitted for clarification of the different
changes offered by applicant for consideration.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on April 26, 2007 and May 31,
2007, 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:
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and
personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings:
y. Page 3—June 14,2007 0/z 3
ZB'File No.6004-Christopher and Amy Astley
CTM No. 13-1-5.2 IRl��la)C9/
DEC 2
ZONING BGARD OF APPEALS
1. Grant of the alternative revised plan, in this variance application, will not produce an undesirable
change in the character in the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The single-family
dwelling which exists was constructed on a lot containing a total area of 35,799 square feet and the
dwelling is presently only 31'9" from the top of bluff. The land slopes down significantly from the
crest of the bluff to the Long Island Sound in the rear yard, and encompasses a large section of the
applicants' deeded land. The applicants' property also has moderate slopes on both the side and
front yards making any addition(s) difficult to build. The pool will also be built only 15 feet from the
westerly neighbor's side line and would be at a higher elevation than the neighbor's pool. The porch
would be 26 from the top of the bluff. The bluff on this property is stable according to the Soil and
Water inspector's evaluation, but the property to the east has incurred severe erosion. In
discussions with the applicants advising them of the difficulties in their proposal, they agreed to not
build a swimming pool, which decreases the amount of overall coverage of the lot by buildings to
meet the code limitation, and to move the screened porch to increase the setback from the bluff from
the requested 18' to 26', as well as reducing the size of the porch over the existing patio existing in
this location.
2. The benefit sought by the applicants cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicants to pursue, other than an area variance. There is no other location on the property for the
placement of a bed and bath addition and a screened porch.
3. The variances granted herein are substantial. The code requires a 40-foot setback from the front
yard, and the new addition will be only 26.9 feet. The screened porch would require a 100 foot
setback from the bluff, and is only 29'1"from the top of the bluff.
4. The difficulty has been self-created as the applicants chose to plan for additions knowing the
setback requirements of the codes.
5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this residential community will
have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
6. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the
applicants to enjoy the benefit of a bed-and-bath addition and screened porch addition over the
existing patio, 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-B, motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Members
Simon and Dinizio, and duly carried, to
GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the amended survey prepared by Joseph A.
Ingegno, Land Surveyor revised May 25. 2007, and the Site Plans A002 and First Floor Plan A100,
both revised May 9. 2007 prepared by Ryall Porter Architects, subject to the following condition: All
rainwater should be collected into dry wells as per code (see revised maps, noted above).
That this ZBA condition be written into the Building Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when
issued.
RECEIVED
Page 4—June 14,2007
i ZBOFIIe No.6004-Christopher and Amy Astley
No. 13-1-5.2 DECEIe
A 2 2016
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 of the Board: Ayes: Members Dinizio (Chairman), Oliva, Goehringer, and Simon. Member
Weisman was absent. This Resolution s duly ad (4-0).
t
rmeJs Dinizio Jr., Ch rma 6/ ad—/2007
ved for Filing
RECEIVED
JUN 2 6 2007
53h®11T!' rr
i
' J3
Vol- o7
-4--1,3.,-11-0 7
c107 -
RECErVE-b
DEC 1 - 2016
4001 NG BOARD OF APPEALS
y
1
i
'l
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK DATE..Jan......9, 1975
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Appeal No. 1985 Dated December 3, 1974
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To George Stankevich a/c Edna Doll Appellant
6 La Salle Avenue
Cranford, N. J.
\� at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 9, 1975 the appeal
4 was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your
Request for variance due to lack of access to property
( ) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance
(X) Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance
1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION.By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be
granted ( ) be denied pursuant to Article .................. Section ............... Subsection .................... paragraph
.................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Building Inspector ( ) be reversed ( ) be
confirmed because 9:45 P.M. (E.S.T.) upon application of George Stankevich,
Esq, a/c Edna Doll, Brown's Hills Estates, Orient, New York for a
variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-30 and Bulk Schedule for permission to divide lot
with existing -uilding with insufficient width and area. Location
of property: North side Private Road-North Drive, bounded on the
north by Long Island Sound; east by W. Johnson; south by North
View Drive (Pvt. Rd.) ; west by Helen Hass. Fee paid $15.00.
2. VARIANCE.By resolution of the Board it was determined that
(a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardship because
SEE REVERSE
(b) The hardship created (Is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties
alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because
SEE REVERSE
(c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) (would not)
change the character of the district because
SEE REVERSE
and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( ) be denied and
that the previous decisions of the Building Inspector( ) be confirmed ( ) be reversed.
SEE REVERSE
R/,s NG BOARD OF S /�O�
FORM ZB4
rjor%.e McDermott, Secretary
t '
�$( After investigation and inspection the Board finds that
vvv applicant requests permission to divide lot with existing
building, with insufficient width and area, on the north side
of Private Road-North Drive, Brown's Hills Estates, Orient.
The findings of the Board are that applicant is the owner
of a lot comprising 1.81 acres which she wishes to divide
into two parcels. The neighborhood has been developed for
many years and many of the neighboring parcels which have
been built upon are smaller than the lots which would be
created by division of applicant's property. The wooded and
rolling topography of the property would provide privacy
for surrounding neighbors from the existing house or a future
house on the westerly side of the property. The Board agrees
with the reasoning of the applicant.
The Board finds that strict application of the Ordinance
would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship;
the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all
properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property
and in the same use district; and the variance will not
change the character of the neighborhood, and will observe
the spirit of the Ordinance.
THEREFORE IT WAS RESOLVED, George Stankevich, Esq. a/c
Edna Doll, Brown's Hills Estates, Orient, New York be GRANTED
PERMISSION TO divide lot with existing building, with in-
sufficient width and area, on the north side Private Road-
North Drive, Brown's Hills Estates, Orient, New York, as
applied for.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen,
Grigonis, Hulse, Doyen.
r
W&Iy'dstimate,dis 1 ;'
® -•Each gnd box represents aprum
' 0 65 ffu honzonta y by 0 8fi mt -- _ ' + 0' 1'000
v Scald.1:24,000
W3 s`
7'"715; :'X3 711 ', Y3` 7rri5 - Z$= 7z°IVoo A4,' r
L
Suffdk Cm*Nag5trorn Map 1149 I
{;
1, -+2,000'
Mulford Pt� 111 spi Onent
• � ,� .Count
r UFYS nig,.fr \
IAP Q
1 0 m °� Charles r
e RoseAirport
c
n
Site 2r Acce�Via — e " - ,'• ,
SubJect propertal) \ `�� `� Po "
ORIENT POINT ° �Y
ear
[ENT
Central
Cem
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Eagle Pt
Ben's Pt
i Uig Beach Bay
Wetlands
Park Office,'
Bath
Ho.u-w' �.Parking
t Browns Pt ~j
Peter Nes cklt �/ '��-- <•
Orient Beach 0' -
K, r
State Park ✓ Fort'T,erry,
' ,, � � 800 .. _, ,���\,�/Jj_ - - ,I•,'� 'r
IPlumIsland
f1 ! Amrroi Disease Center
t(Restncted)
PWK ISLAND
�_ w—� _____-_.__.___ �`{9�"•' ''r'~i'{ .�'�-', ` _ / 0 Plun, Island F.ock
i
I
460 N View Dr
O�
nv
i
ta
®2016 Google Google-earth
Imagery 0.11 Si,1201 9 1994 4'0'�''<r,2 .,r i %E I' ? _ IF all 708 f1 O
owl
l -r
/ ^ /.��..t' +`'� /`SIJ.r'�� >♦' J� ; .. '-1 � '. .>r~ , °�1( �'/Y
1 �
' 1 ' - � I / ' 1 ' 1 ' R► 1
1• ` 1
+.ems r ,p,� a•,X` __ � _; ,� , s: �,
OWL—
SM
06
S
�•�;� _ �. .. .+ ,_ .. __ :a �. i
�� , '`T „YID,• -']' �'l ^.-f +W�� �+�'C. �j��� �...-:d���� � - 'S.
dM
�._ �'�Z=�_ .. M .mow _ _, ` _`5. �.W�,��XY•i..` 1
3•:
f �
a s�
.. _ -- - —•�-- ice. . w-
��.,�{. •� as Y. .�.. � �;'��• .<. Y `!_-.,may �.-'� -,�.,•
� T Ar
G. J�4� ,. �C'•< `;� �I!� � •�" _."�i yam .
Let
♦ '! f " � � .- iii.M•' ! z - �..v�, ` y� �..- �`.,
r
• l/ • l / / I I � / ! / I / I l l / l/l I � /l l l l l / / l/'
•. v ,� ` �°r'"s♦•e ' t �,-- " �-. •+x •'► yam`• -,� h _ � L / 7
�.. ':6;.. ! . ,.• t fir. •">
4
♦
IP
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD- PROPERTY RECORD CARD
G6 3 - > ,-
w
OWNER r STREE70 (0 VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOQ"
IL
A/d_1 to '
FORMER Q\AI iER �rrN /J E•
e; S W � _ TYPE OF BUILDING �
RES. \� SEAS. VL. FARM COMM. CB. M[SC. Mkt. Value
0n AND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS S L)
. e��a �°�''
U)
If )
Tv� id Ov
C) ' 6 ? �S o ald
3 y o a o a �-i� 7s a3 9g - B a s .s- s�Fa�r n Stl 5,94!)h )
� J
o �-�oo �oo�`'� loo a 6 Qg . j z, r� 9 7 -' �- $�q �-� ! nv ,s- 30 ot
�, �✓ Ca too < C( 200UZ [A/o o a 6E# 334'1g add 14ims +er �-I ops o
AGE BUILDING CONDITION
NEW NORMAL. BELOW ABOVE
FARM Acre Value Per Value
Acre
LD Tillable I A p�
-A Tillable 2
Lo
Tillable 3 ,�-
� ;' � �'
LD
Woodland - Z3 l p$
Cr FRONTAGE-ON WATER '
v Swamplands
Co
m FRONTAGE ON ROAD
Brushland00
� 6'/f fr
,4CD
House Plot DEPTH (/er'd
04
BULKHEAD
Total DOCK
T
...,y s� :;� <....,.- -:_. !■�■■■!■■■■■ii�ld�■■■!■ilii
- . r . ,.�,`� _ ,�.� - ■■■■iii ■■■II■■■���Il�!!■■■■■■■■
0 ■■■■■■lir!■i■■■■� i■■i■1■■■■■■
._ �.. . ...__ .. .__. _ lis!■■ ■■■■■■■���■■■■t■■i■!
�- ■i■■i■ ■■■■■■fir■■■■■■■■■■■
■i■■■ ■■!■■■i■!■■■■■■EMI iMMEMIN MOMEMOMMEMENEME ME INi
,® Foundation
■
Dormer
■
Driveway
• l-i
lfw
.,.,4ce1. �, x i■��:ilii■■■■■■■■��■���■!!!■!
�, , r � ` r - s ''may` -''< �rf,�■■�■■,■■�■■■■■■■■■����i���■
' -� 1 ; + � } �•, ` i�3�!■■■■ilii■■i■i■i■\'rIC►\■■
s^.'[Fci ��P i� 1, r '"!�I�i►r�i■■i►�'a�!'�■i■i■■i■ill■1■■
FAMINWEVA
. ��I.• I \_.._ Y :.:-. ill.• ��..� �...•_ :. :7
: _, _-sem. :.x,•...s ..., L.JF. ! ■■�i�!■■■■!/!■!■■■!■� '!i■■
.� : -..-_�- _ . - -:..: Y''-.':=:.., itl���■i■■���I�LI■■■!■■■■■■■■■■moi
. .: • = . . ... . . . .- - --�:- ■■ii■lid■�l►�■i■■!!!■■■■■■■■■■ , .
■!!■■mill■!►i■�i1■■■■■I■!■!■■■■
■■■■■■■!■■■■!!�■�■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■
PC
Foundation Fin. 13, Bath
Basement � , ,,
fs SLAB
Ext Interior Finish
Fire Place
• • o .
Woodstove
EN-CONSULTANTS
December 16,2016
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Attn.: Kim Fuentes
Re: Christopher T.&Amy Astley
460 North View Drive,Orient
SCTM#1000-13-1-5.2
Dear Ms.Fuentes:
Enclosed for review are(9)separate sets of the following for your review: M1
1. Notice of Disapproval dated January 14,2016,renewed&amended October 27,2016.
2. Office Check List.
3. Zoning Board of Appeals application including;
a. Reasons for Appeal(4 additional pages).
b. Applicant's Project Description.
c. Questionnaire.
d. Certificates of Occupancy#'s Z-25669,Z-25670&Z-34156.
e. Agricultural Data Statement.
f. Short Environmental Assessment Form. �'f
g. Owner's Consent.
h. Applicant&Agent Transactional Disclosure Forms.
4. LWRP Consistency Assessment Form(with addendum).
5. Copy of prior Appeal No.6004(June 26,2007).
6. Site Photographs.
7. Survey/site plan prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin III Land Surveyor,last dated September 29,2016.
8. Property card for SCTM#1000-13-1-5.2.
9. Application fee of$1,500.
I hope this information shall allow you to process our request. Should any additional information be required,
pleas do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sinc rely,
Robe .Herrmann
Coastal Management Specialist
/khs
Enc.
1319 North Sea Road I Southampton,New York 11968 p 631.283.6360 f 631.283.6136 www enconsultants.com
environmental consulting
®�®gVFFOL�c® Town Hall,53095 Main Road
-
ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE,MMC
TOWN CLERK o= P.O.Box 1179
coo Southold,New York 11971
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS _ ® Fax(631)765-6145
MARRIAGE OFFICER �'� Q`' Telephone(631)765-1800
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER ®.( ' �� www.southoldtownny.gov
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Elizabeth A.Neville
DATED: December 27, 2016
RE: Zoning Appeal No. 7038
Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 7038 for En-Consultants for Christopher
Astley-The Application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Also enclosed are the
Reasons for Appeal Addendum,the Applicant's Project Description, Questionnaire, Agricultural
Data Statement, Short Environmental Assessment Form,Applicant/Owner Transactional
Disclosure Form, Agent/Representative Transactional Disclosure Form, LWRP Consistency
Assessment Form with Addendum,Notice of Disapproval, Board of Zoning Appeals Application
Authorization, Certificate of Occupancy, Findings Deliberations and Determination Meeting of
June 14, 2007, Street Map, Photos, Property Record Card, En-Consultants Application Cover
Letter and Survey.
ZBA TO TOWN CLERK TRANSMITTAL SHEET
(Filing of Application and Check for Processing)
DATE: December 21 , 2016
ZBA# NAME OF APPLICANT CHECK # AMOUNT TC DATE STAMP
En-Consultants for : RECEIVED
7038 ASTLEY, 6955 $1500.00
CHRISTOPHER
DEC 2 3 2016
Southold Town Clerk
TOTAL $1500.00
Sent via Inter-Office to Town Clerk by: ES
Thank you.
^.a<.+ ,��•.mso-,�.'�? Zw y„�,°'..,,,;. T:• �.• ^•..» ,..,,^e<rv'.-„. v..@�'V�� y>'"`. yyra.•.ep�,"a°�",.��r'^m'�,. :.,✓-n ,,.,.r„ay,.+ � v”` ,,, u...
ONSUL'TANTS;� ��.��--�•�`";�-�; ,.�r�-�.....'�_��� �"_gym�-'"°"°-�-.a�-�,,``�.,� �
�131,9'•N0F1TH-SEA ROAD PH;,631),283-6360
;O,IJTFiAM�TON,_ � �• .»- -P'-�--,`�."'�':.--""..-,..:'-G�.:'°— °�.;,...- -«;�,._-,.�`-•,,,•,�".v ... -„”-;�'"°�"���umea•a��xraw,.� ,;�:
NY_11968 '"
,.,•_ _ --�'`° ..w+"'_ -•.•......- �,.�" •,. rrokman m.9�eh ss>t
<. .. �.,:
'DATE
�''''--PAY"'"'� ,'°-.,.,•-- ^,.....���, �---. `ate.,, -:-... , _.,»�.;;:,,s> ""`�-»'"-=`'" '"-<:' ��-,:��� -�;,., ,,, � �. .�,. -""' '�"�,�"..���< ,,-
' -T,O TFIE
ORDE0`. ' .,�" ,F�'�„� _� -,. „�'-•,.�, y,��,.,,-,`•-^ .,,,,� '*-,. ".A-.,a>„�tl��''�"�—�--'"-ti',,.,,�� `=.,,.,�r ., � "`�,^',,� .�""`y ^s
r R F-
�'¢ - . ..✓" 4w 4„�.w'V`C- ��,e �1�� •" �a "--,..a+^ '-'-"�..-� s-` ....- �"'"l.at�xa1%��V��:^..U�;�:A;' �,.x„
;...,., '..•~^'ems.,'°'^-,.,,-""".wy ,-r ,,.r` .w..,. 'r`"T,,,,�� ... "�'"�;..i, .�y�.'
��� � /� f"-- ''rY"''2.t a s„y,be rs L„P '",' � '•- ...+•'a. aw' _. ..::"cam ac-.,Baa,.,.,�''L.`+mam..owyA;k>-.".°t a��•
°�.�`-��4" ""''�. d =41-a
_ •'^.,� .w".'�, -.,��m-� - i-'._ ���.d _¢-'ne, ",.-+^..��- ""-a,"-,a^,.,.`=-.. o,a v'-K A,y „[ ,� DO.L•LARS_u� ,`
r' ... ,�' '^' ..r-..,�,., •-w'`w,�s,••-.'�'��,»�"°. "�h,..-'"` '..:-.""�.m"--•.,..°''M'�`Ra,.m�'A"�"^.a..�r��;'",u„°`"�'�c,,-'"�� >.v.'
-'"-',. �"'�"'� ., R a. �' �.,, �"' �,r`,.,,,�-.,,"mom` «„�„r.. .>��,+^ .. .,,,y.�,;. ••h:v.,r '�.,«a -a..i;.s -,
_ .��+ .ti]arrywamstaks W 'ra„y` ...,- 4=...°•.r�_` •''m..�' %s'"b"''.. >• "r.r-'^a: w.�' .,.b" A""''� 9-
An ;, +, ,u'�''a,< .r%.:t_ -., TL .. •, .=wi'„ °'�,� �"'Q..,s, "'y�,�,.._•a.w Y�,a^ ,N'°;x. -y, -.ti
JJ.` - t'rr '�i d'/'/�1,0��� �R�w'm�� max ,;;' �s r ' r �d - ^' ✓ �' °moo d'a.: `"m.,, `"" '�+..
�•tiPOR•CX�irCSr�Vi�V—Q%�. <I+Y7.•1�'�/3 � y 4 - ' +, '"ys a +
, y^�..'. `r ��./i,• -"`�Via.�'"','.'h-.""m�w�."X'" ••�,a ,r.,
. �-1,_j.s, �.. .. _ .e,�„ ��y,.� '-�.y." --�e � — �yy✓."`•a.,= ..,,�w� r, } �„y� .ag wz�.
+ r
* * * RECEIPT * * *
Date: 12/27/16 Receipt#: 214963
Quantity Transactions Reference Subtotal
1 ZBA Application Fees 7038 $1,500.00
Total Paid: $1,500.00
Notes:
Payment Type Amount Paid By
CK#6955 $1,500.00 En-Consultants
Southold Town Clerk's Office
53095 Main Road, PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Name: Astley, Christopher
434 Greenwich St#2f
New York, NY 10013
Clerk ID: SABRINA Internal ID:7038
T Z
John O. Winter RECEDED
Nina Z. Winter
590 North View Drive MAR
PO Box 550
Orient, NY 11957 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
tel: 631-323-3733
e: lohnandnina@earthlink.net
Certified mail number: 7015 1730 0002 3348 7540, return receipt.
March 20, 2017
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
re: ZBA File No.: 7038
Applicants: Astley, 460 North View Drive, Orient NY 11957
County Tax Map: 1000 - 13 - 1 - 5.2
Variance application to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool.
Dear Honorable Chairperson Leslie Kanes Weisman and Members of the Southold
Zoning Board of Appeals,
Our names are John and Nina Winter and our home is directly west and adjacent to our
neighbor applicants Mr. and Mrs. Astley. Ten years ago in 2007 the applicants twice
appeared before your Board of Appeals requesting variances for multiple additions to
their existing bluff front home along with an accessory in-ground swimming pool. During
the hearings of April 26 and May 31, 2007 the Chairperson and Board Members
independently and gravely expressed their safety concerns of having an in-ground pool
dug into a clay mix underlying bluff so close to and over 14 feet higher than our adjacent
property. Concerns for our lives, property, bluff and environmental safety were
corresponded to the Board on January 12, 2007 and April 10, 2007 and additionally re-
stated during the public hearing of April 26, 2007. Please find attached the entire
transcript of the April 26, 2007 hearing kindly noting pages 66 and 67 citing the perils of
the in-ground pool we brought to the Board's attention.
During the first hearing on April 26, 2007 following discussions with the Board regarding
all excavations, expansions and impacts the applicants acknowledged their small lot's
excavation difficulty and conceded the in-ground pool as a compromise in order to
obtain their needed home extensions. The following was stated at the hearing:
Winter to Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
P 2
March 20, 2017 ®�1O0 SOAR®OP APP�AI
Board Member Goehringer: If that pool was to blow out, for some specific reason,
it would totally flood the next door neighbor's property(page 49).
Chairperson Oliva: and as far as I'm concerned, III tell you right off, the pool is
out. I agree with Mr. Goehringer, that if there was some sort of a fallout from that pool,
you would completely flood their property(page 50) ..when we have to write up our
decision in order to meet the LWRP consistency report, which Mark Terry who is
coordinator, that it's inconsistent, at least if we can say that we're taking out the pool
(page 52).
Board Member Weisman: The problem that I agree about the swimming pool, we
all know that there is potentially very serious impact because pools do require
significant excavation;it is the only thing on here that is requiring significant
excavation. My concern is (A) with a pool(page 55). And of course, you'd have to do
a lot of clearing of that if you were to put the pool where your proposed location is on
that side(page 56).
Mrs.Astley (applicant): If the pool is highly objectionable, I dont think we should
even -- Bill(the architect) will redraw these plans(page 65).
Winter (neighbor): Potential soil collapse along with tons of water damage would
be catastrophic to our personal safety, property, the bluff and environment. We wish
to avoid such liability. We believe it is inherently dangerous to have two pools in such
close proximity given the slope of the soil and little room on the westerly side of the
Astley's lot(page 67).
Board Member Weisman: I mean there is no other location for the pool on this
site as far as 1 can see. And if you are really willing to say that that was not the most
compelling thing for you, that can only be helpful(page 68).
Board Member Simon: In general that is very helpful to show a spirit of
compromise and also ordering your priorities for us, which so your remarks I think
were very constructive to your project and also to our ease in making a decision
(page 68).
Board Member Weisman: and I do understand the Winter's concern about that
possible hazard, so I think it behooves all of us to do it(page 69).
4
Winter to Zoning Board of Appeals R��E�V�O
Town of Southold
March 20, 2017 MAR 2 3 20171
page 3
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
During the second hearing on May 31, 2007 the applicant's architect presented the
Board with a survey dated May 25, 2007 removing the pool from the proposal. The
following was presented and stated at the hearing:
Ryall Porter Architects: Letter May 9, 2007, As per the ZBA hearing of April 261h,
we made the following changes to the plan for the Astley property at 460 North View
Drive:Remove the swimming pool. Letter May 24, 2007, Along these lines, please
note that we have reduced the scope of our proposal by eliminating the pool that was
originally part of the project scope. (Copies attached).
Chairperson Oliva: Its a carryover from the last hearing. I really compliment you
on what you have tried to do with what we have requested. You took away the pool
(page 77).
Please find copies of both hearing's transcripts attached for your perusal.
The Boards Findings. Deliberations and Determination Meeting of June 14. 2007, copy
attached, stated the following:
An alternative plan was submitted by applicants relocating the porch and
reducing its size, and removing the swimming pool
Amended Variance Request: On May 10, 2007, William S. Ryall Jr.,Architect
submitted revised Site Plans A002 and First Floor Plan A 100, both dated May 9, 2007,
agreeing not to build a swimming pool and removing same from the plans.
Findings of Fact& Reasons For Board Action: In discussions with the
applicants advising them of the difficulties in their proposal, they agreed to
not build a swimming pool.
The applicants made a binding agreement with the Board in 2007 not to build an in-
ground pool and obtained what they needed in order to expand their home size. Ten
years later it is inconceivably audacious that the applicants are willingly coming back to
the ZBA with such an identical proposition knowing full well that their actions are placing
their direct westerly neighbor's property and person in grave jeopardy. Regardless for
safety and with contempt, the Astley's citied the Board's June 14, 2007 Findings,
Deliberations and Determination in their 2017 application and are now circling back to
the Appeals Board proposing a closer and larger in-ground pool in the exact same south
west corner of their small lot.
9
RECEIVED
Winter to Zoning Board of Appeals MAR 2 3 20171!
Town of Southold
March 20, 2017 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
page 4
We wonder what the applicant's impression of respect is. In our opinion and under
these circumstances certainly none is shown in any manner to the Appeals Board nor to
us as their direct neighbors. The Board may wish to consider the imperative of
summarily dismissing the applicant's "re-hearing" in lieu of the decision's history so as to
not waste the Appeal Board and Southold Town resources of time and money which
would be better made available for people with important, new and legitimate needs.
Being that nothing has changed, the applicant's property hasn't magically gotten larger
and that the matter of the in-ground pool has been argued, heard and settled in 2007
we hereby request that this outrage, peril and liability never make it's masquerading
appearance to the Appeals Board a second time.
Thank you for your considerations.
Respectfully submitted,
10-L Z
John O. Winter
Nina Z. Winter
Addendum: Summary Comparison of in-ground pool specifications:
Application dated January 16, 2007; Application dated December 16, 2016;
revised survey March 22, 2007: survey September 29, 2016:
In-ground pool size: 12 x 20 In-ground pool size: 12 x 26
(with coping: 14 x 28)
LARGER
Westerly neighbor side set back: 15 Westerly side neighbor set back: 13
CLOSER
Northerly front property set back: 17 Northerly front property set back 15
CLOSER
Location: SW corner of property Location: SW corner of property
EXACTLY THE SAME
DECEIVED
y's FORM NO. 3 fVlAR �� �p
zF t
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DATE: January 14,2016
s
RENEWED &AMENDED: October 27,201'6=,
TO: EN-Consultants (Astley)
F.
1319 North Sea Road
Southampton,NY 11968
Plea§etake notice that your application dated December 15, 2015
For permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming=pool at eY -
Location of property:460 North View Drive, Orient
County Tax Map No. 1000—Section 13 Block 1 Lot 5_2
Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds:
The proposed construction is not permitted pursuant to Section 280-15F which states,•
"In the case of a waterfront parcel, accessory buildings and structures may be located in the front yard
provided that such buildings and structures meet the front-yard setback requirements set forth by this
code,and the side vard setback requirements for accessory buildings in Subsection B..."
The accessory in-ground swimming pool is noted as being partially located in the side yard
Also, pursuant to Article XXIII, Section 280-124 lots measuring between 20,000 and 39,999 square feet in total
size,require a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet The proposed construction notes a front yard setback of
15 feet.
Furthermore,the proposed construction is not permitted pursuant to Article XXII Section 280-116A,which
states:
"All buildings or structures located on lots upon which there exists a bluff landward of the shore or
beach shaU be set back not fewer than 100 feet from the to of such bluff."
The ro o ed access in- ound swg pool is noted as being 70 feet from the ft of the bluff.
This N ti e of Disap royal as a ended on October 27, 2016 following the submission of a revised survey.
Authorized Signature
Note to Applicant:Any change or o the above referenced application, may require
further review by the Southold Town Building Department.
CC.-file, Z.B.A.
S
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS 0f SO UT Mailing Address:
Ruth D. Oliva,Chairwoman �0AN Olo Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179
Gerard P.Goehringert Southold,NY 11971-0959
James Dinizio,Jr. Cn Office Location:
Michael A. Simon �` i� Town Annex/First Floor,North Fork Bank
Leslie Kanes Weisman Ol'YCOU{ �� 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS nUJ
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED
^ Tel. (631)765-1809 • Fax (631)765-9064 MAR % 3 2017
�! FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION ZONING BOARD OF APPElALS
MEETING OF JUNE 14, 2007
ZB File No. 6004—Christopher and Amy Astley
Property Location: 460 Northview Drive, Orient CTM 13-1-5.2
SEQRA DETERMINATION: 'The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type 11 category of
the State's List of Actions, without further steps under SEQRA.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicants' 35,799 square foot parcel has approximately
130 feet along North View Road, a private road, and +/- 112 feet of depth measured between the
crest of the bluff and the front lot line adjacent to the road, with a remaining depth of +/- 170 feet
between the top of the bluff and the deeded lot line at the high water mark of the Long Island Sound.
The property is improved with a single-story, single-family dwelling as shown on September 25,
2006 survey, revised March 22, 2007 by Joseph A. Ingegno, Land Surveyor.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances under Sections 280-10, 280-15, 280-124, 280-
116, based on the applicants' request for a building permit and the Building Inspector's December
26, 2006 Notice of Disapproval, concerning: (1) a screened porch addition proposed at less than
100 feet from the top of the bluff adjacent to the Long Island Sound, (2) proposed additions to the
existing dwelling which will be less than 40 feet from the front property line, and (3) a proposed
swimming pool with a-setback at less than 40 feet from the front-lot line.
SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE:' This application has been referred to the Suffolk
County Department of Planning as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections
A 14-14 to 23, and a County reply dated February 13, 2007 states that the application is considered
a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community
impact.
TOWN CODE CHAPTER 95 (268) LWRP DETERMINATION: This application has been referred to
the Town LWRP Coordinator as required under chapter 268, and a reply was submitted to the Board
of Appeals with a determination of inconsistency under LWRP Policy 6 Standards with regard to the
100 ft, minimum setback requirement under Section 280-116A of the Town Code, and stating that
the property contains moderate to severe slopes. The Board of Appeals held the first public hearing
on April 26, 2007, and requested revisions to the applicants' plan that would bring new construction
setbacks into more conformity with the Code, in light of the existing dwelling location. An alternative
plan was-submitted by applicants relocating the porch and reducing its size, and removing the
Page 2—June 14,2007
ZB File No.6004-Christopher and Amy Astley RECEIVED
CTM No. 13-1-5.2 -70
�"ONTNG BOARD OF A9PI ALS
swimming pool, which amendment not only substantially reduced the percentage of lot coverage to
meet the 20% code limitation but also allows the ground to remain undisturbed, without excavation
within the 100 ft. bluff restricted area. The new construction is also required to conform to code
concerning erosion and sediment controls during construction activities to protect the bluff, and as
per Code for gutters, downspouts and sub-surface drywells to control storm water runoff from all
impervious surfaces.
Area Variance Relief Requested: The applicants' original request was to construct an addition to the
dwelling with a setback at 26:9 feet measured between the closest corner point and the front lot line.
Also proposed was a 12.9' x 16.9' one-story screened porch 18.2 feet from the top of the bluff and
an accessory 12' x 20' swimming pool proposed in a nonconforming location at 19.4 feet from the
front lot line and 5 feet from the side property line, shown on the January 10, 2006 survey prepared
by Joseph A. 1n eano. On January 18, 2007, the ZBA received Diagrams A002, A102-A103, A300-
A301, amended 1-15-07 from Ryall Porter Architects proposing similar additions for the increased
living floor space, a deck and outdoor shower, as well as an unheated 240 sq. ft. accessory
swimming pool, noted at 19 feet from the front lot line and 5 ft. minimum from the side lot line. On
April 2, 2007, a survey map revised March 22, 2007 prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S. was
submitted by the applicants to show the minimum code requirement of 15 feet from the westerly side
lot line; showinga proposed 12' x 20'-size of the accessory swimming pool at a minimum of 15 feet
from the westerly side lot line and siting of the fence enclosure, revising the front setback for the
pool from 19 feet to 17.3 feet at its closest point, and reducing the size of the raised screen porch to
14'10.5° wide by 12'11.5" deep. i
' Amended Variance Request: During the April 26, 2007 hearing, the_Board asked the applicant to
bring the plan into more conformity with-the zoning_code requirements, and to provide calculations of
lot coverage applicable under Local Law 11-2007, adopted by the Town on March 27, 2007. The
applicants requested an adjournment to allow an extension of time to prepare the lot coverage
calculations and to submit possible alternative plans, keeping the hearing open for further questions
by Board Members until the next hearing calendar (May 31, 2007). On May 10,-2007, William S.
Ryall Jr., Architect submitted revised Site Plans A002 and First Floor Plan A100 both_ dated May 9
2007, agreeing not to build a swimming pool and removing same from the plans, relocating the
porch addition farther from the bluff and reducing its size, placing pier foundations under the new
porch four feet further from the outer edge of the porch (away from the top of bluff), and submitting
lot coverage calculation diagram dated 5-09-07 confirming the allowable lot coverage at less than
the code limitation of 20% (based on the estimated 12,831 sq. ft. of land area) with _the new
construction, as revised.- During the May 31, 2007 public hearing, the final May 25,_2007 revised
survey map_prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S. was-submitted for clarification of the different
changes.offered by applicant for consideration.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on April 26, 2007 and May 31,
2007, 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:
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and
personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings:
r �
Page 3—June 14,2007
ZB File No.6004-Christopher and Amy Astley RIECEVED Zr� �
CTM No.13-1-5.2
MAR 2 3 2017
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1. Grant of the alternative revised plan, in this variance application, will not produce an undesirable
change in the character in the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The single-family
dwelling which exists was constructed on a lot containing a total area of 35,799 square feet and the
dwelling is presently only 31'9" from the top of bluff. The land slopes down significantly from the
crest of the bluff to the Long Island Sound in the rear yard, and encompasses a large section of the
applicants' deeded land. The applicants' property also has moderate slopes on both the side and
front yards making any addition(s) difficult to build. The pool will also be built only 15 feet from the
westerly neighbor's side line and would be at a higher elevation than the neighbor's pool. The porch
would be 26 from the top of the bluff. The bluff on this property is stable according to the Soil and
Water inspector's evaluation, but the property to the east has incurred severe erosion. In
-discussions with the applicants advising them of the difficulties in their proposal, they agreed to not
build a swimming_pool, which decreases the amount of overall coverage of the lot by buildings to
meet the code limitation, and to move the screened porch to increase the setback from the bluff from
the requested 18' to 26', as well as reducing the size of the porch over the existing patio existing in
this location.
2. The benefit sought by the applicants cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicants to pursue, other than an area variance, There is no other location on the property for the
placement of a bed and bath addition and a screened porch.
3. The variances granted herein are substantial. The code requires a 40-foot setback from the front
yard, and the new addition will be only 26.9 feet. The screened porch would require a 100 foot
setback from the bluff, and is only 29'1"from the top of the bluff.
4. The difficulty has been self-created as the applicants chose to plan for additions knowing the
setback requirements of the codes.
5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this residential community will
have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
6. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the
applicants to enjoy the benefit of a bed-and-bath addition and screened porch addition over the
existing patio, 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-B, motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Members
Simon and Dinizio, and duly carried, to
GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the amended survey prepared by Joseph A.
Ingegno, Land Surveyor revised May 25, 2007, and the Site Plans A002 and First Floor Plan A100,
both revised May 9, 2007 prepared by Ryall Porter Architects, subject to the following condition: All
rainwater should be collected into dry wells as per code (see revised maps, noted above).
That this ZBA condition be written into the Building Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when
issued.
H -
. 1
-701 Page'4—June 14,2007 y�� `f 3
ZB File No.6004-Christopher and Amy Astley RECEIVED
CTM No. 13-1-5.2
LIAR 2
ZONING BOARD OF APPEAo
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 of the Board: Ayes: Members Dinizio (Chairman), Oliva, Goehringer, and Simon. Member
Weisman was absent. This Resolution s duly ad d (4-0).
rmeJs Dinizio Jr., Ch rma 6/ � /2007
ved for Filing
11i�! fJ„cf 'i}; `•rL.t,�! �-i '�.!,�� 'p F70tl Ill ?3
a hitects r
I -40141tAG 50ARD or-APP r. h c n-e
1 1 � PJ;:i lUi; City 1001(i
1 r;. 12''21 i;q 7'r,
rll
9 May 2007
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold tT�_, .�T;• .-` T
Mr.James Dinizio, Jr.,Chairman
53095 Route 25 1
PO Box 1179 MAY 4 2007 }
Southold, NY 11971
re: Application for Variance (r`•'•":''�' `"'r'=°F F't� `amu`
Astley House
460 North View Drive, Brown's Hills, Orient, NY 11957
Dear Chairman Dinizio and Members of the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals,
As per the ZBA hearing on April 2611, we have made the following changes to
the plan for the Astley property at 460 North View Drive:
1. Remove swimming pool
2. Reduce size of Screened Porch and move it away from top of bluff
Enclosed please find seven (7) copies of the following documents dated
05/09/07:
1. A002 Site Plan
2. A100 First Floor Plan
3. Diagram of Proposed Coverage of Buildable Area as per LWRP guidelines
i� _h l:^ ;l r• at less than 20%of Buildable Area
rlannlc
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
a
William Ryall AIA, LE D
CG
MAY-24-2tV 12:56 P.02
s -
0 architects 4V
24 May 2007 MAR 2 3 2017
Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Town of Southold
Mr.James Dinizio,Jr.,Chairman
53095 Route 25
PQ Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
M: LWRP Consistency
Astley House(ZEfA Rie Ref.No.6004)
460 Nortel View Drive,Brown's Hills, Orient,NY 11967
Dear Chairman Dinizio,
I am writing to address the concerns expressed in a memo from
Mr. Mark,Terry, dated May 22, 2007, regarding the proposed
addition to the Astley property and its adherence to the Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy.
Regarding Mr. Terry's concerns about setback requirements, we
have made every effort to ensure that the proposed addition
complies with the Southold Town Code to the greatest extent
possible. ' Please note that because the crest of the bluff falls only
112'��"from the front property line, no new structure can
reasonably satisfy the 100'-0° minimum setback required by
Article XXIII Section of the Southold Town Code. With this in
mind, we have made a sincere effort to design an addltion that
meets the spatial and programmatic needs of the owners while
also mediating bluff and front yard setback requirements set forth
in the code.
Along these lines, please note that we have reduced the Scope of"
our proposal by eliminating the pool that was originally part of the;
>project scope. The proposed screened porch has also been
reduced in size, and relocated farther from the bluff. This
screened porch will be supported on pier foundations, which will
be set back an additional four feet from the edge of the porch.
Any necessary excavation for these piers will be done by hand to
minimize disturbance to the bluff.
MAY-24-2007 12:57 P.03
Ryall - !
Porter
Rer-EIVED
MAR
XONING 130ARD OF APPEALS
In light of Mr. Terry's citation of moderate to severe slopes on the
property, I would like to point out that the proposed bedroom
addition has been located on the most level area of the site.
Moreover, the test hole data included in the submitted surveys
reflects that the soil in this area shows no evidence of air pockets,
and is composed predominately of sand and silty sand rather than
undesirable clay or sift subsurfaces.
c
As for the question as to the accuracy of the bluff line denoted on
the survey, please refer to the attached memo from James King
Jr., President of the Southold Board of Trustees, dated May 10,
2007. The memo states that the top of the bluff Is accurately
depicted on the submitted surveys.
In accordance with Mr. Terry's recommendations, the submitted
survey illustrates that a row of staked hay bales will be installed
prior to construction to protect the bluff. The survey also
illustrates the location of sub-surface drywalls, which will be
installed along with new gutters and downspouts to capture all
storm water runoff.
The proposed addition to the Astleys' house has been developed
with the utmost concern for preserving the bluff. My colleague,
Bill Ryall, will be present at the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing
on May 3111to discuss the project. Please feel free to contact me
if you have any questions or concerns.
Best regards,
Meredith Epley
For Ryall Porter Architects
2 you think she' ll submit, that will make us happy,
then we can close this hearing and we can make a .7®32
3 decision. a
BOARD MEMBER S IMON: Jim, the question is [RECEIVED
4 not whether it makes us happy but whether we can
makea decision based on reading those materialsMAR 2 3 2017
5 or rather we need to reserve the opportunity
®IVd�@G BOARD OAPPEAL
ask questions.
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That' s right that' s
what I'm asking the• Board. Either way, in my one
7 vote is one way or another.
BOARD 'MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you a
8 _question, how 'long is it going to take you to make
this determination, an hour? Okay, then give it
9 to us in an hour.
BOARD SECY.. KOWALSKI: We could reconvene
10 this afternoon.
MS. TOTH: :That would be fine.
11 CHAIRMAN D-INIZIO: So you can submit that
today and we can close it at that time.
12 ; MS., %TOTH: Fine.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I mention
13 that to you', 'w_ hen,;you look -at the beautiful
landscape and lawn that you have, don' t believe
14 that it' s flat, and the problem is this: A pool
builder will always want to raise that up enough
15 so that "that pool does not become a recharge basin
when., it rains, so it' s always going to stick one
16 end of,;it ,out of the ground. So that is what you
have to be.- concerned about. Is that elevation of
17 what other side is going to come out of the
ground.
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO:' He's going to build it
onto the highest point, and then a couple inches
19 more.
MS. TOTH: I tell you, I know that
20 firsthand, my next door neighbor, same thing, we
thought it was flat.
21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That could be the other
side, you don' t know. So, we're going to
22 adjourn this hearing until 1:30 this
afternoon. I' ll entertain the motion to adjourn
23 the hearing.
(See minutes for resolution. )
24 -------------------------------------------------
.CHAIRMAN_ DINIZIO-: Next hearing is f,or
25 Christopher and Amy Astley. Is there anyone here
to represent them? Could you stand up, sir, and
April 26, 2007
_ 47
1
2 state your name and your address? RECEIVED
MR. RYALL: I'm Bill Ryall, and my office
3 address is 135 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, MAR 2 3 top
10010, and my Orient address is PO Box 57 .
4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Ruth, ZQWNS BOARD OF APPEALS
is yours?
5 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. This request
is for a variance under Section 280-10, 280-15,
6 280-124, 280-116, based on the applicant' s request
for a building permit and the Building Inspector' s
7 December 26, 2006 notice of disapproval concerning
one, a screened porch addition proposed at less
8 than 100 feet at the top of the bluff adjacent to
Long Island Sound; two, proposed additions to the
9 existing dwelling which will ,be less than 40 feet
from the front property line; and three, a
10 proposed -swimming pool in a location_ other_ 'than
that the code required rear yard and less than 40 ,
11 feet from the front lot, line. Location of
property is 460 _Northview Drive, Orient.
12 Yes, sir, you have a very difficult spot.
MR. RYALL: Yes. But mostly I'm here to
13 just answer your questions. And this is Chris and
Amy Astley.
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, do you have any
questions?
15 MR. RYALL: I guess I just should quickly
summarize because Chris and Amy have a house in,
16 Browns Hills where I also live and have a house
which I built from scratch, theirs is from the
17 1950s. And I'm sure you' re all familiar with
Browns Hills, but it' s a private subdivision from
18 the ' 50s with very small lots. None of them
conform to the two acre current zoning. And Chris
19 and Amy' s is actually on the bluff overlooking the
beach on Browns Hills. So they have .8 acres and
20 their house which is a 1955 or 157 small modern
cottage really is on the flat portion of the lot
21 at the top of the hill. And we would , like to add
to it because they have really one room and an
22 alcove, which they're using as a bedroom. And
they have two kids and they would like to be able
23 to live there more comfortably. So we're doing
what we consider to be the least amount of
24 addition to make it really habitable or at least
more usable for them, which is to add. two bedrooms
25 on top of each other actually to keep the impact
on the land as minimal as possible. So it' s the
April 26, 2007
\ . e
48
1
2 kids' bedroom, the girls will share a bedroom and
bathroom downstairs and the parents are upstairs `703
3 with a bathroom and a bedroom. So the footprint (RECEIVED
of the existing house is 1,070 square feet and the
4 addition would be 675 square feet on the ground. MAR 2 3 20g
I think the total enclosed area of the addition, I
5 think is 1, 350. ZONING BOARD OFAPPC-fgLc
The height,` even though it's two stories,
6 the height is only 19 feet eight inches at the top
of the roof peak, so it' s more than 15 feet below
7 the town ordinance of 35 feet.
There's also an application, part of this
8 is to build a screen porch on the house which
would be over what is already an existing patio,
9 but it would be on posts, on Sonatube concrete
footings, which are going to be hand dug to make
10 absolute minimal environmental impact. We of
course would have hay bales surrounding all of
11 this construction.
And- _there' s a poor application too as part
12 "of -this . We, had located initially just the pool
as again, on the flat part of the land, on the
13 front yard side because that' s part of keeping
everything away from the bluff as much as
14 possible. And we had originally -- the surveyor
had, and we had located it just at the town
15 requirement of five feet from the town property
line. The next door neighbor, which is the latest
16 house to be built in the neighborhood just two
years ago, I think it was actually finished a year
17 ago complained about that, you have letters from
him about that, so we have moved the swimming pool
18 another 10 feet. So it' s 15 feet from the
property line. It's still in the front yard. So
19 you have neighbors, you have I think half dozen
letters from neighbors supporting the application,
20 then a couple letter from the next door neighbor
asking questions and asking you to look into some
21 things.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The burning
22 question that's bothering me is why not push the
addition closer to the house.
23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You took the words
out of my mouth.
24 ' BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And have this
huge stairway area and pushing everything towards
25 the road. The other concern, and I'm just
throwing this out, is this pool in its present
April 26, 2007
a
r
49
. 1
2 location based upon the topography of the next 7n"U �
door neighbor's property, which is way low, it' s RECEIVED 3 got to be a gunite pool. It can' t be a liner
pool. If that pool was to blow out, for some MAR 2
4 specific reason, it would totally flood the- next
door neighbor' s property. ZONING 130ARD OF APPEAL:
5 MR. RYALL: How would it do that if it' s
in the ground?
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How would it do
that? By leaching right out.
7 MR. RYALL: If it leached out.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In my particular
8 opinion we had a similar situation up on Hyatt
Road probably three or four years ago and this
9 Board -- I'm not telling tales out of school --
and we ended up denying that application for that
10 particular reason. And I realize if it adds to
the cost of the situation if this Board is so
11 inclined to grant it, but I'm just making a
constructive statement before -- and I do
12 apologize, Ruth.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You took the words
13 out of my mouth. Why can' t the addition be
snuggled right up against the house?
14 MR. RYALL: Well, it could, but actually
by doing it this way, it moves it, for the most
15 part, it moves it farther away from the bluff to
do this, and it makes the house less of a big
16 house and more of a cottage in its feel by the
size of the different pieces of the house.
17 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: But with the stair
addition in the hallway?
18 MR. RYALL: Do you have a floor plan
there?
19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. It just seems
to me that if it' s against the house and more
20 toward --
MR. RYALL: It's also to allow --
21 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: There' s a little flat
area right in if here' that to me it would be far
22 better suited to an addition to staking it over
here where there' s more of a drop off.
23 MR. RYALL: Well, it' s actually not on, I
wouldn' t say it' s flat, as you pointed out about
24 some other matters, but it' s not a steep slope at
all. It' s not a slope where the addition' s going
25 to be. And the reason for pulling the bedrooms
away, from an architectural standpoint, as I said,
April 26, 2007
50
2 is to have the scale so we're not taking a little
house that looks like it' s got this little two RECEIVED
3 story thing slammed up against it, but also, for MAR 2
really light and air all around the addition. So 2017
4 it' s in a way what we wanted was a cottage putZG
the property that' s not an addition, but of course BOARD®�A�p�,q
5 it is an, addition. You have to do it that way and
it had to be connected internally. So it was
6 purely a design and architectural decision, but I
don' t think that it does anything detrimental to
7 the land at all. I mean, of course the first
question always was, why not just build a second
8 story on the existing house, couldn' t do that.
It' s just a slab on grade. ' It would not be able
9 to support. It can actually barely support itself
in our opinion. I mean it' s a simple wood frame
10 structure.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It' s no basement,
11 just a slab?
MR. RYALL: Yes. And this, the addition
12 won' t have a basement either.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And also your
13 screened-in porch, it's so close to- the bluff, and
I'm trying to alleviate any weight on that bluff
i ) 14 because I know there is a clay liner there and --
MR. RYALL: Yes. Which was a problem with
15 the next door neighbor, Marshall Johnson.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And I live in Orient
16 too on River Road, and that porch went down the
slope and we want to keep it as least as possible,
17 and as far as I'm concerned, I' ll tell you- right
off, the pool is out. We also have to comply with
18 our Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and
this whole thing is inconsistent, of course, with
19 the program, but you have what you have. You
know, you can' t move the whole house someplace
20 because you only have a very small lot. But the
pool, no, I would not put that weight on the
21 bluff. I agree with Mr. Goehringer, that if there
,was .some sort of a fallout from -that pool, you
22 [ would completely flood their property. So, you
have the whole Sound in front of you, I see really
23 no need for a pool. And the screened-in porch
also is so close, is there any way that you could
24 screen in part of that existing screened-in patio?
I walked, I tried to, it' s very difficult with all
25 that brush there, and then you do have the
concrete retaining wall from your neighbor
April 26 , 2007
{ 51
1
2 there. So it' s hard to get through that mess.
It' s not your fault.
3 MR. RYALL: We're not actually, we feel
we're not doing very much grading on this at all.
4 We don' t see any need for retaining ourselves for
what we want to do. I think with the screened-in `x(73
5 porch, they will be in small hand dug foundations RECEIVED
and sonatubes right there, and we have had the
6 structural engineer look at it and there' s not MAR 2
going to, be any structural problem. I mean, the
7 porch is a lightweight structure, it' s not ZONING BOARD OFAPPfALS
enclosed, it' s really just the wood frame, the
8 roof and the screens. So there would just be
three, you probably can' t see it but they're
9 dotted rectangles underneath that porch where the
three foundations go out there, two of which I
10 think are two feet square, underground, four feet
and then the Sonatube, which is really just an
11 eight or nine inch diameter. So it' s about as
minimum as possible. I am very, very sensitive to
12 environmental issues. I mean, I'm a member of the
U. S. Green Building Council, and I'm lead
13 certified professional, so I do take all this very
seriously. And one other thing I forgot to say is
14 you' ll see there are dry wells located all over.
What we did was put in dry wells not just for the
15 addition, but also to take care of all the runoff
that is existing so in fact, the structures won' t
16 send anything across the soil at all.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I mean, you have the
17 existing little patio there with the bricks .
MR. RYALL: Yes.
18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And it is only 18
feet from the edge of the bluff. And by us giving
19 you a variance for that, kind of condones building
things 18 feet from the bluff and the setback is
20 100 foot, which you cannot meet in any way or
measure, I understand that, but it makes it
21 difficult for us as a Board when we have so many
other decisions such as this on bluffs. We've
22 tried tobe very, very careful about granting
anything.
23 MR. RYALL: Right. I guess the current
setback, which is not exactly a standard you want
24 to strive for, but the setback of the existing
house is just under 32 feet.
25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I know you can' t do
anything about that. What' s there is there but
April 26 , 2007
52
1
2 when we have to write up our decision in order to
meet the LWRP consistency report, which is Mark
3 Terry who is the coordinator, that it' s ��
inconsistent, at least if we can say that we' re RECEIVED 3
4 taking out the pool, and we're still on the
situation with the screened porch. We have MAR 2 3
5 mitigated to some extent the 100 foot required
setback and made it as consistent as possible ZQ41(YG BOARD OPAPPEALS
6 the small lot that it is. We are very sympathetic
to the people who have family; you wanted to have
7 a little more room.
MR. RYALL: Okay, I think that the
8 porch -- I just don' t believe that the porch would
be anything damaging. By what I have said about
9 the foundation, if someone were building at grade
there and actually having to put a grade bead in
10 and the foundations in, which would be a trench 46
inches deep all around the four sides of the
11 porch, then that would require mechanical
equipment and would be a big mess. But this is
12 not going to be at all. I mean, I would be happy
for you to write a stipulation that it' s agreed
13 only because the foundations are going to be dug
by hand with nine inch diameter sonatubes because
14 nothing could be more environmental sensitive than
that. And then that would cover it so that
15 someone couldn' t say, well, they got it, and I
want to do it with a bulldozer next time and you
16 say no that's not the way it was.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth, didn' t we
17 hold the photos next door, 54 feet away from this
house?
18 MR. RYALL: For the house next door?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The problem also
19 is water runoff. I'm just going to throw that in,
I know it' s not my turn. From that screened
20 porch.
MR. RYALL: Oh, no, we're capturing all
21 the rain water from the roof, and that' s also
going to down spouts and-going right to the dry
22 wells, the one right on the street side of the
house. So there will be no runoff at all from the
23 screened porch. I mean, that is really the most
environmentally sensitive point right there that
24 there should be no runoff in that direction at
all. That' s in the direction of Marshall
25 Johnson' s , house, which is where the trouble was .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Right. Let me hear
April 26, 2007
53
1
2 what my colleagues have to say.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you finished?
3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: For the minute.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry, you can go
4 ahead.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s discuss
5 the proposed entrance, the stairway addition. MAR
Without the new deck that's proposed on that, if
6 you pull that farther east -- ZGt41KG 00ARD OF RPS
MR. RYALL: Yes, east in the direction of
7 the bluff.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, east
8 parallel to the bluff, farther into the house,
closest to the existing irregular 'brick patio.
9 That' s the best way for me to describe it. It
would take you farther away from that property
10 line over there, farther away from the bluff
itself because of the proximity of the way the
11 house is positioned, and with the elimination of
the deck, which I didn't know; is it a raised
12 deck?
MR. RYALL: I think it's the wrong word to
13 say it's a deck, it' s not raised at all; it' s the
front porch, and it' s really at grade as close to
14 the grade as possible. So it's probably a six
inch step.
15 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How much grading are
you going to have to do?
16 MR. RYALL: I think there's going to be no
grading at all. I mean, nothing as far as
17 regrading the land. I think it' s almost entirely
just a matter of putting in the foundation, the
18 poured concrete foundation underneath the addition
along the perimeter. But there' s no regrading in
19 terms of recontouring the landscape at all.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The point in
20 question is that if it' s at grade, maybe you can
limit the size of it, and it would be conforming
21 thereby allowing this whole shrinking a little and
allowing it to be pulled in that direction and
22 giving the Board a little more control over the
housing aspect and not spreading it out to the
23 point it' s spread out.
MR. RYALL: Okay.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s just my
suggestion.
25 MR. RYALL: How close -- I mean, what
would it actually have to technically do to have
April 26 , 2007
54
1
2 to conform to the new environmental setback?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a very
3 difficult lot.
MR. RYALL: I know but they all are, in
4 terms of numbers what are you guys trying to work RECEWED
with?
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The maximum UAR 29
amount ever setback from the road, the maxiRMfVG
6 amount of setback from the bluff and keeping theBOgROOFgppEgL9
house in a more conforming circumference rather
7 than having these flags coming out all over the
place. And I'm no engineer and no water expert,
8 but I can' t physically see -- and this is not a
discourse back and forth, you' re a very nice man
9 and I'm sure wonderful at what you do -- but I
can' t see how you' re going to take that water off
10 that screened porch and put it into a leaching
pool all the way in the front.
11 MR. RYALL: It's very easy because the
screen porch, will be the floor of it, which is
12 the wood deck, is at the elevation of the house,
which is 106 feet above sea level and the roof of
13 it will probably be eight or nine feet above that
and it' s going to drain let' s see to the southeast
14 corner, the corner that's closest to the house,
which is where the water is going to be forced to
15 drain, going to a downspout there and it' s only,
I'd say 12 feet from there to where we have
16 located the dry well.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My rain gutters
17 take less than 40 percent of the water off the
roof of my house.
18 MR. RYALL: Where does the rest of it go?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Out of the
19 gutters, overflow. The minute you put something
in to restrict any leaf containment, I would say
20 I'm down to 33 percent. It just rolls right over
the top of the gutters, and if you don' t use the
21 leaf containment, it clogs up the gutters and
they' re totally not functional anyway.
22 MR. RYALL: Well, there has to be a
leader, and there has to be a screen there anyway
23 to keep the leaves out of it, obviously it' s going
to get clogged up. I mean, all gutters get
24 clogged if people don' t maintain them.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There are ways to
25 maintain them.
MR. RYALL: It helps, but everyone has to
April 26 , 2007
55
1
2 check their gutters, they have to and often they
don' t check them until they see the water running
3 down the side of their house or --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Down the cliff.
4 MR. RYALL: Or into the house under the
roof . I mean, I understand that maintenance is RECkxvefa
5 part of the deal, but I don' t think that we' re
creating a maintenance problem any more than an MAR 232017
6 existing structure or a new structure.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s j us -BOARD OF APPEALS-
7 suggestion, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
8 BOARD- MEMBER WEISMAN: In reviewing these
plans in some detail, I have to say that I think
9 the method of construction is the least intrusive
in terms of excavation that I have seen in a long
10 time. It is very environmentally responsible to
build this way. The problem that I agree about
11 _the swimming pool, we all know that there is
potentially very serious impact because pools do
12 require significant excavation; it is the- ' only '
thing on here that is requiring significant .
13 excavation. The proposed screen porch from a
construction point of view will have minimal
14 impact on any kind of change in topography or
anything ,else. But it does set a precedent for
15 construction on the bluff even with your
suggestion that because it's done by hand and so
16 on it mitigates. The problem here is with
something spread out, and I think the elevation is
17 very handsome and very much in keeping -- I know
the C and Rs, there' s C and Rs for height
18 restrictions in Browns Hills anyway.
MR. RYALL: We have a story and a half,
19 whatever that means.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: My concern is, (A)
20 with a pool, I think you have handled runoff in a
way that is very informed; the plan says that the
21 total lot coverage lists a new addition, with the
new addition it's going to be 8.26 percent; did I
22 read that wrong?
MR. RYALL: It's probably correct because
23 the lot is . 8 something of an acre, so, you just
don' t -- more than half the lot is the bluff- hill
24 side going down to the beach.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s why --
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It' s not the buildable.
MR. RYALL: No. They always ask for it as
April 26, 2007
l 56
1
� 3
2 a percentage of the whole lot so it always comes RECEIVED
r" in very low on all these lots then you wonder --
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because the LIAR 2 3 2011
building envelope is so small.
4 MR. RYALL: In reality, yes. .ZONDfJGs0ARDOFAPPEALS
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But well, their
5 deed does not go out into the water.
MR. RYALL: Goes to the high water mark.
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Goes down the bluff.
BOARD,MEMBER WEISMAN: I don' t know if
7 you' re aware of this, clearly anyone looking at
this would say clearly it' s, oh, my God, it' s wall
8 to wall house, given the size of what your lot
looks like, given the terms of the building
9 envelope, then there's this very steep bluff
that' s heavily vegetated with brambles and I-think
10 keeping that vegetation, as I'm sure -you realize,
is very important in terms of maintaining
11 stability.
MR. RYALL: It' s critical.
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. ' And of
course, you'd have to do a lot of clearing of that
13 if you were to put the pool where your proposed —
location is on that side, and that is even though
{ 14 it' s an artificially created condition that your
neighbor built in a ravine, not the ideal building
15 site, but there it is, it' s a fact.
MR. RYALL: It should never have been
16 built, but that' s not what we' re here to discuss .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Exactly. And now
17 there are potential consequences for you and this
is how the domino effect in neighborhood
18 development takes place. But I want to make it
clear to my colleagues and I guess for the record
19 that the new legislation essentially defines what
a building envelope is and calculates lot coverage
20 based upon a percentage of a buildable area and
that' s because of a situation like this where
21 many, many properties are right under water.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Wetlands.
22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it could never
be built upon because of the environmental
23 constraints. So you get what looks like these
huge houses on these little lots when in fact
24 that' s not really the legal definition of the size
of the property. So we're trying to look at ways
25 to be more sustainable in our analysis of
impacts. So the house looks a lot bigger on this
April 26, 2007
57
1
2 site than what it really is.
MR. RYALL: I think when you look at it onRECEIVED
3 the plan rather than it becoming a big kind of
blown up balloon or elephant. MAR -3 2017
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's very small and
it' s very horizontal and it doesn' t have a loPWF30ARD OFAPP8-QLg
5 multilevels, and I don' t think, frankly, that you
know, if you start pulling that stairway closer,
6 you' re going to have a mean little space with no
light, no ventilation, no view. I don' t have a
7 problem with the way it' s proposed. The only
thing that I certainly think would be worth
8 thinking about is if there' s any way, any other
location for that screened porch, which I think
9 there are other locations, look at the layout,
maybe not as desirable from views in three
10 directions, maybe cutting off some interior view
from a particular room. There' s a lot of
11 possibilities. It could be a second story over
one piece.
12 MR. RYALL: I mean, I realize that you
guys are not making decisions in front of us, you
13 have to discuss all of this, but we did wonder
about that, and we thought one possibility would
14 have been outside where the kitchen is, but that
technically does put it on the bluff side of the
15 existing house, but it' s also quite flat up there
too.
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the setback
would be --
17 MR. RYALL: Really no different than the
existing house.
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I mean, I'm very
sympathetic to not wanting to block ventilation
19 and light and view, and there are other factors
here when you do a good piece of architecture.
20 MR. RYALL: Well, that' s kind of what
we're there for, the light and the view and the
21 air, and you don' t want to go into a dark room and
have to turn on the light in the middle of the
22 day, you know, there are windows on all sides.
You know, we' re calling it a stair hall, but
23 frankly, I would have called it a breezeway that
could be closed in. It' s really to let the air
24 flow through the house. There are just sliding
doors on both sides. I mean, at first we just
25 thought of it that way, just as a breezeway and
then we thought, well, let' s be real, we' re making
April 26, 2007
58
2 this house so a person could go out there in the IRECEIV
SD
middle of the winter if they wanted to and walk
3 from the bedrooms to the house enclosed and of kAR 22 2017
course heat the house.
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So I think it' s
L1���C SO�Rt7 OFgpp�q�
really in the spirit of what this sort of -seasonal
5 feeling is like. You know, I just think that the
building, it looks as though it's going to spill
6 off this little hill. That's going to be flat,
where your addition is is flat. I don' t have any
7 problem with those little flags, I can' imagine
what it will look like when cleared, and I'm sure
8 you' re going to want to do some screening from the
road because your driveway' s moved over so you
9 don' t have to worry about that. Whether you put a
pool there or you don' t, you' re still going to
10 want to have some screening. So in a sense it' s
almost like even though it's a front yard, it' s
11 sort of going to appear like a side yard from the
elevation and so on.
12 MR. RYALL: The road is down below and
even now there' s no grass lawn that comes down to
13 the road and we have no intention of ever having
it that way. Chris and Amy don' t really go to the
14 country so they- can cut the grass on the weekend.
And frankly, big lawns are the worse thing we
15 could plant.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Who wants to have a
16 big lawn anyway?
MR. RYALL: Well, it seems like a lot of
17 people want them, but -they're not very good for
the groundwater at all. And in this funny
18 situation, I mean, this is an aside at Browns
Hills, now we have Suffolk County Water Authority,
19 which we never used to have. We had our own
well. It was private. We owned the well, we
20 owned the roads. So now we're Suffolk County and
Suffolk County put everybody on 'frontage, rather
21 than metering their water, so they have no
incentive to conserve the use of water
22 whatsoever. So those who have swimming pools up
there, which there are pools, pay the same price
23 as the retired single person who lives two doors
down, who uses about 50 gallons a day.
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, not fair.
MR. RYALL: Then there are others who have
25 the sprinklers going off when it' s raining. I
think it' s something between the Town and Suffolk
April 26, 2007
1 --
59
2 County Water Authority. Because I have already r03-6
asked them and they said they don' t want to bother RECEIVED
3 to meter.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, can we kind of MAR 2 3 2017
4 keep this to the subject at hand?
MR. RYALL: Yes. 20NING BOARD OF APP64LS
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you.
6 MR. RYALL: I'm happy, of course, very
happy to answer any questions.
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to see a
lot coverage number based on the new code
8 provision regarding what counts as a building
envelope.
9 MR. RYALL: The legal lot?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Based on the legal
10 lot.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, we have a new code,
11 sir. And we need for you to base it on that new
code. Looks to me it' s going to be more like 30
12 percent.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, whether it' s 30
13 percent or 20 or 15 percent is something that we
need to know, I believe.
14 MR. RYALL: How do you actually define the
building envelope?
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We' ll give you a copy
of the law.
16 MR. RYALL: This came into effect?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: About a month ago.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The notice of
disapproval was not written on that.
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Because the
application was not done at that time.
19 MR. RYALL: Of course we' re conforming to
the new code because we didn' t have approval
20 before that came into effect; is that right, we' re
old code?
21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Not necessarily, we can
grant a variance, it's just, you know, we'd like
22 to know --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What exactly we' re
23 granting for a variance. For example, if you were
to apply today, you might have to apply for a lot
24 coverage variance, we don' t know this because we
don' t have the numbers.
25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Essentially,
you' ll be excluding unbuildable land. You' ll be
April 26, 2007
60
1
2 excluding the beach, you' ll be excluding the UAR 20171
bluff, you' ll be excluding all those natural
3 protective areas that are regulated by our c ING80RRD OF
from the denominator of the equation. So the APPEALS
4 denominator would no longer be total --
MR. RYALL: So we would exclude everything
5 from the' top of the bluff down. I suppose that' s
for sure. Then do we exclude the side yards and
6 the front yard too?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No, it' s not a
7 building envelope issue.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s not the yard.
8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s not a
building envelope issue, that' s a little confusing
9 of terms. It' s your structure area as your
numerator, and your buildable land as your
10 denominator. Which is total acreage minus sort of
build the natural protected areas, environmental
11 protective features, bluff, beach, coastal erosion
if there is any, which I don' t think there is
12 any.
MR. RYALL: Well, since this has come into
13 effect, we should actually do that calculation and
send it into you. Have you seen one yet?
14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: You' re not the
first one before us. There' s been one before.
15 MR. RYALL: I thought we could say we were
the first one, but I guess not.
16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I'm sorry.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Somebody had to be
17 the first one.
MR. RYALL: I'd, rather be the last one on
18 the last code.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, so does anybody
19 else have any comments on this application?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I too am concerned
20 about the proposed screened-in porch. You say
that some kind of digging is going to have to be
21 done, even if it's done by hand. Something, then
there' s the problem of avoiding the slippery slope
22 of arguments of the setting of a precedent say in
a year or two there will be a new technology which
23 doesn' t require hand digging but in fact some kind
of machine, and is that going to be allowable or
24 not. So we want to look a little more closely at
this because it is the case that some impact is
25 going to be made on that sensitive area on the
bluff. I'd like to know more about that. I
April 26, 2007
< 61
1
2 myself am not particularly worried about the �Q
structure with the bedrooms placed behind there. RECEIVED
3 I think that' s a fairly imaginative idea. I �A� � ����
believe the plan tends to be as reasonably
4 environmentally sensitive as you could.
Another issue regarding the swimming p� '1g®AR®OFgppEpgS
5 I think we all have some doubts, if you could
provide or help provide some kind of technical
6 information regarding how much of a hazard, a side
from the' gunite versus lined pool, is a swimming
7 pool . If there were some kind of substantive
argument that said that building the pool at that
8 place would not in fact potentially impact the
neighbor, it would be useful for us to have that
9 because we don' t have complete information on how
dangerous that might be.
10 MR. RYALL: Well, I think aside, you can
see from the survey, yes, it' s slightly sloped
11 there, but there's not a substantial slope where
that pool is proposed at all. So I have never
12 really thought of what danger the pool could
cause. I mean, if it was built into a hillside
13 where it was part of a retaining wall, yes, but
it' s the ground that' s holding it in place.
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Some people have
flagged that as an issue, I don' t have an opinion
15 on that. There' s the question, one could argue
and there is good legal precedent, that if your
16 neighbor built in a ravine and bad things happened
to him in consequence of legal development above
17 the ravine, that may be his problem rather than
yours, but I doubt if his lawyers would see it
18 that way.
MR. RYALL: Well, he actually is creating
19 his own problem. I have no idea how his pool was
approved. You know he has a pool that' s been
20 approved located 10 feet on the other side of the
property line.
21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. Can we hold
on? I have a conversation over here. I have you
22 saying this, and I have us talking about a pool in
another yard. So can we just keep the
23 conversation to this issue?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The issue is what
24 impact if any could the pool on your property
have. I don' t care about the other pool, but if
25 there' s good evidence that it would not have any
impact over any threat beyond leaving it the way
April 26, 2007
62
1 RECEIVED
2 it was or just having a big pool, we'd like to MAR 3 2017
know that.
3 MR. RYALL: Well, it' s on a fairly f l a7a®NING BOARD OF APPEALS
piece of property, so I just don' t know where the
4 pool would be inclined to move.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Could you have a pool
5 there at all, is the terrain such that a pool is a
hazardous construction; I don' t know the answer to
6 that. But the reason that people have flagged the
notion of a pool and the neighbor is that it
7 sounds as though it could be potentially more
threatening. I'd like to know whether that' s
8 nonsense or whether there's something to that.
That' s what I'm saying and you say one thing and
9 he says something else.
MR. RYALL: You realize that we' re here at
10 this meeting a month later than it was first
scheduled because the neighbor wanted to attend
11 the meeting.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There were other
12 reasons too.
MR. RYALL: Is his highness here?
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not sure that's
relevant to the question.
14 MR. RYALL: Well, we could ask him the
question rather than asking me.
15 MS. SIRICO: I'm here to represent the
Winters, and I take offense to that.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let' s get it off the
personal level. Michael, let's hear all the
17 testimony first and if we have questions, then we
can get the answer to those questions. I
18 understand what you're trying to do here.
MR. RYALL: I understand the question. I
19 have never had to say how a pool would potentially
cause problems to someone else. I mean, it' s in
20 the ground on a fairly flat piece of property,
we' re not having to build retaining walls or do
21 major earth moving to cause a pool to be put
there.
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I'm saying is if
somebody has a lot that' s at the edge of a bluff
23 and let' s say it's 50 feet from the edge of the
bluff, and they want to put a swimming pool 10
24 feet from the edge of the bluff, I'm not sure I
want to argue that that could not have any effect
25 on the stability of the bluff as opposed to
leaving it alone. And that' s the kind of question
April 26, 2007
RECE ME-D
63
LIAR 2 2ov
2 that I have in mind here. Is that neutral wi RUNG BOA80 OFA pV�
respect to potential- environmental impact that' s
3 all I'm saying.
MR. RYALL: Okay. And I don' t think it' s
4 doing it'.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Calls for an
5 engineer.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just going
6 to make a broad statement and that is from the
most recent hearing that we had that is now
7 presently at the Planning Board that we' re holding
in abeyance, I am not voting, and I' ll make a
8 blanket statement that I'm not going to vote on
anything unless it's gunite on a waterfront piece
9 of property anymore. From the ability of having
any type' of movement on any piece of property, and
10 I' ll make that statement based upon anything that
has smaller than 40, 000 square feet landward of
11 the tip of the bluff. It is just too small to put
a regular liner pool in based upon any type of
12 movement that may exist. I don' t care if it's in
the front, I don't care if it's in the back. And
13 I' ll make one other statement, we were granting
pools over the years no closer than 45 feet to the
14 top of the bluff and we were requesting small
machinery to go in on those areas to dig those
15 pools. The smallest possible backhoe possible and
that was at 45 feet.
16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Most of them were
70 feet.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s potentially
vulnerable.
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, it is.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, it is.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No matter how
stable it looks now. My wife just sold a house on
20 the Long Island Sound that was moved back 135
feet, 140 feet in 1983, it was one of the biggest
21 moves they ever made, her parents made -- she did
not sell alone she has three sisters -- that house
22 dropped four inches every week until they moved it
back. And that was all done by cliff score, by
23 the nature of the storm. And I'm not saying
that' s going to happen to this piece or any piece
24 in Browns Hills, I'm just telling you that that
was something that they had to do. The house was
25 between 2, 400 and 3, 000 square feet and it was one
composite move along with the chimney but that' s
Aprii 26, 2007
s y '
[� � IfVEO 64
1
��R�
2 what they had to do. MAR 23 -7b3y
MR. RYALL: In fact, along those same NING 60ARD OF App
3 lines, Chris and Amy were really wondering at
first whether they should add onto the house or
4 accept that there is a limited life span to this
house and then move. So they considered that very
5 seriously, particularly in light of the problems
that were caused by runoff next door at Marshall
6 Johnson' s house. So it was really after the
assessment was made next door and we received an
7 engineer' s and environmental report over there
that Chris and Amy decided that, yes, this was a
8 safe thing to do and go ahead, but obviously with
the idea of doing it with the least impact
9 possible on the land. And that' s really been our
attitude about it.
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, could you stand
up and go to the microphone, state your name,
11 please.
MS. ASTLEY: I'm Amy Astley and my husband
12 Chris and I own 460 Northview in Browns Hills.
Chris and I respect all your decisions and
13 certainly the pool. And we would not have
actually even thought to ask for the pool if we
14 had not seen that our neighbor the Winters were
granted the approval to build a pool next door to
15 us in the ravine that we have been discussing. If
the pool can' t be built -- maybe I'm speaking out
16 of turn -- it can' t be built and that' s fine. We
have lived there 10 years, we love it. Our kids
17 swim in the ocean and with the jellyfish they
can' t swim. We're not contentious about the pool.
18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Chris, if there' s
jellyfish in the Sound go down to the Potato
19 Dock. Because my grandkids go down there.
MS. ASTLEY: They go to Potato Beach and
20 the pool' s not -- I'm just speaking from the heart
here, and may be it's not politic, but we
21 don' t -- the pool doesn' t make or break our
property or our love of Orient.
22-' BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You basically need
more room in the house.
23 MS. ASTLEY: Yes, that' s basically our
desire to keep our family there. We looked at
24 selling our property and we just couldn' t let it
go. We just love it.
25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don' t blame you.
MS. ASTLEY: I don' t know why I'm on the
April 26, 2007
� r
1 � V@ECEMVE[0-765
03
2 verge of tears, this is ridiculous, but we just MAR 2 3 209
want to keep the family there as long as we c15MING BOARD OFAPPEA&_5
3 and we would not want to fight with anyone about a
pool, and we chose not to fight with the Winters
4 when they approached us to say that they wished to
build a pool. We never wrote you any letters
5 opposing ' it or gave -them a moment' s grief because
we want to be neighborly, and we love Browns
6 Hills, and we love Orient, and we love the north
fork and we're from Manhattan and we love it here
7 because we don' t want to ,come and fight with
people, and we certainly don' t want to fight in
8 our neighborhood or with our neighbors. And when
we saw that they could have a pool, we thought as
9 we finally were able to afford to consider
enlarging the house for us and our kids, we asked
10 Bill to look at putting it in, and we knew that
there was a strong possibility that it wasn' t
11 going to work, but we thought there was a
precedent that our neighbors had the pool. And I
12 don' t know the details of their pool or the size
of their pool or anything,_ and I wish them well.
13 And Chris and I had no desire to write any
_ negative letters or show our faces here to fight
14 about their pool or their property. I'm just
putting it out there. We have no desire to have a
15 fight about a pool or a porch, right? I mean, we
love the, porch, but --
16 MR. ASTLEY: I think that porch would be
like a place, if we were granted permission to do
17 it, that we would spend all our, time out there.
MS. ASTLEY: Yes. You know it' s
18 beautiful. , You look at the water, the porch in
the back of the house is not terribly useful- I
19 probably should just sit down. It' s just not
something that we should spend two hours talking
20 about. If the pool is highly objectionable, . I
don' t think we should even -- Bill will redraw,
21 these plans with the --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you-.-
22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Does anybody
23 else on the Board here have any more questions of
the architect? ' I guess my only comment on this is
24 I thought that the porch could be put someplace
else, that screened porch, but the pool I didn' t
25 have any objection, but if you want to take it out
of there it probably may be helpful to you. Does
April 26, 2007
i 1
f ��C 66
1
2 anybody in the audience have anything to
BAR _1103-3
contribute to this? Ma'am?
3 MS. SIRICO: Hi, my name is ,Vera Ree�����BOARD.0 �� �
Sirico, and I reside at 275 Baldwin Place in
4 Cutchogue. And I was asked by John and Nina
Winter, who live on Northview Drive just to read
5 this letter in their absence.
"Dear Chairman and Members of the Southold
6 Zoning Board of Appeals:
"In our absence today we, John and Nina
7 winter, direct neighbors of the applicants,
respectfully ask the Board to allow our
8 representative Vera Reed Sirico to address and
read into the record our present concern brought
9 about by the applicant' s proposed construction
plan.
10 "According to our earlier March 6, 2007
letter and attachments provided to the Board, we
11 have received an amended March 22, 2007 revised
site plan for our immediate neighbors, the
12 Astleys. The plans state that the footings for
the 212 square foot screened-in porch at the
13 northern edge of the bluff's property shall be
excavated by hand in order to minimize land
14 disturbance. We support the Astley' s
consideration of land management.
15 "Architect Mr. William Ryall stated to me
during our cordial April 9, 2007 conversation that
16 the ground to peak maximum height of the addition
shall be 19' 8" , enclosing one bedroom and one
17 bath on each level . We noticed that the new plans
propose a larger addition in lieu of the deleted
18 deck; provided this proposed addition remain
within such height constraints at around 675
19 square feet, we support our neighbor's expansion.
"In addition, we additionally support the
20 planned placement of two dry wells to catch rain
water runoff. Our concern is still the proposed
21 location of the inground swimming pool . The
original site plans of November 16, 2006 had the
22 pool five feet from our property line. The
present plan is to move the pool so that it is 15
23 feet from our property line.
"As it is presently proposed, the pool
24 would, be 14 , feet higher than our property
level. It is estimated that for a four foot deep
25 pool, the mass of water is 30 ton in addition to
the weight of the pool walls, and as such, we are
April 26, 2007
1 - RECEIVED 67
-763-3
2 extremely concerned about the stability of the MAR 2 3 2017
applicant' s soil directly above our proper tYONING BOARD OF APPEALS
3 Thirty tons is the equivalent of stacking 20
automobiles on top of one another. Any increase
4 in pool depth would add even more load to the
land. Potential soil collapse along with tons of
5 water damage would be catastrophic to our personal
safety, property, the bluff and environment. • We
6 wish to avoid such liability. Please reference
the applicant' s architectural drawings which
7 indicate falling contour elevations directly west
of the proposed pool .
8 "As a point of further information, the
ZBA, the Board of Trustees, and Building
9 Department have granted us the permit to construct
our 16' by 32' inground pool, which is contracted
10 to be built 10 feet from the property line, way
below the applicant's proposed pool site. Our
11 side is staked and we should be starting the
process soon. We believe it is inherently
12 dangerous to have two pools in such close
proximity given the slope of the soil and little
13 room on the westerly side of the Astley' s 'lo,t.
"We respectfully recommend that the
14 Astleys consider placing the inground pool in the
approximate location of the proposed driveway
15 therefore not affecting either ourselves or their
easterly neighbor. My discussion with Mr. Ryall
16 arrived at the agreement to relocate the pool
equipment away from our property line and closer
17 to the street to minimize the noise impact of a
running one horsepower pool motor on both our
18 residences. This would be mutually beneficial.
The present proposed location is exactly adjacent
19 to our outdoor patio entrance and living room. In
addition,, Mr. Ryall agreed to move the proposed
20 location of the pool dry wells away from the
sloping property line and closer to the street.
21 "Please find the following documentation
attached supporting our position that the proposed
22 pool site be moved considerably away from our
property line in order to better distribute the
23 loading of the land. Please find that we have
made available to the Board seven sets of copies
24 of this letter and its exhibits several weeks
prior to this hearing. We defer to the Board our
25 safety concerns regarding the proposed pool site.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our
April 26 , 2007
68
1
2 views.
Most Sincerely, John Winter and Nina
3 Winter" - '7z)3?CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Do you have
4 anything else to add? Okay. Anybody else anybody RECEIVED
have any comments?
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What are we MAR MOP
going to do about the hearing?
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I am think ingZWNG BOARD OF APPEALS
may leave it open.
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, in view of
obtaining more information about the potential lot
8 coverage relative to the new code, which you' ll
need a little bit of time to figure out, in view
9 of your very clearly stated consideration of
building responsibly in the environment that
10 clearly you all live in and your neighbors and are
concerned about in terms of impacts, perhaps
11 reconsidering one or two possible alternative
setbacks for a screened porch. I totally support
12 your desire to have one. What we're trying to do
is obviously not encroach any further on that
13 bluff line than your existing house already does,
and that will take a little bit of doing and
14 finagling to look at alternatives. I would like
to suggest the possibility of keeping the hearing
15 open until next month, until the next hearing so
that additional materials could be considered and
16 submitted so that we can then adjudicate with the
most information.
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And also they should
revise their plan, and I would also concur, just
18 to reconsider that porch. Put it in between the
house.
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Look at
alternatives and let us know what the lot coverage
20 is, and frankly, if you are willing to forego the
pool, that should help considerably with the lot
21 coverage issue.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, because pools
22 count toward lot coverage.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I mean there is no
23 other location for the pool on this site as far as
I can see. And if you are really willing to say
24 that that was not the most compelling thing for
you, that can only be helpful .
25 BOARD -MEMBER SIMON: In general that, is
really helpful to show a spirit of compromise and-
April 26 , 2007
69
1
2 also ordering your priorities for us, which so 703�?
your remarks I think were very constructive to RECEIVED
3 your project and also to our ease in making a
decision. MAR 2 3 209
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's also very
clear that you are good neighbors and that you ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
5 have a lot of support from your neighbors, and I '
do understand the Winters' concern about that
6 possible hazard, so I think it behooves all of us
to do it.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we'll leave this
hearing open until --
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The date is May
31st, and we would need to ask for a cover letter
9 with seven sets, and you could give it to us about
10 days before that if you can. If you need more
10 time, we can always give you another date.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, so do, we have a
11 motion to that effect?
(See minutes for resolution. )
12 ------------------------------------------------- -
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The next hearing is for
13 Joseph Gulmi and Susan Braver. This is a request
for variance under Zoning Code Section 280-105,
14 based on the Building Inspector' s December 11,
2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning an as-built
15 fence exceeding the code limitation of four feet
in height when located in or along a front yard
16 area, and under former Section 133 (now 280-15)
for relief from condition under ZBA number 5340
17 concerning the location of an as-built swimming
pool at less than 30 feet from the front lot
18 line. Location of the property: 250 Pine Tree
Court, Cutchogue.
19 Is there anybody here representing this
application? Yes, sir, can you state your name
20 and address?
IMR. GULMI: Joseph Gulmi, 250 Pine Tree
21 Court in Cutchogue.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, is this yours?
22 It' s a carryover hearing.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Briefly, since we
23 have already had sessions on this hearing before
now, we don' t have to go over everything. The
24 notice of disapproval has to do with the as-built
fence, which exceeds the code limitation. We have
25 heard testimony regarding the need for that
exception and the deer and the leaping of the
April 26, 2007
1 77
�A Fi ke �0 _600 L(
2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else, anybody �(�3
3 in the audience? Sir, are you okay now? Okay,
I' ll entertain a motion that we close this hearng�� +}
4 and settle it on the 14th, we' ll be making a MAR 017
decision.
5 (See minutes for resolution. ) ZONING BOARD OFAPP
-------------------------------------------------
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The -next hearing i-s for
the ,As.tleys;. Ruth, - this is, yours.
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's a carryover
fro1w,the fa'st-=hearing.
8 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes. Request for
variance under Sections 280-10, 280-15, 280-124,
9 280-116 based on the applicant' s request for a
building permit and the Building Inspector's
10 December 26, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning
one, a screened porch addition proposed at less
11 than 100 feet from the top of the bluff adjacent
to the Long Island Sound; and two, proposed
12 additions to the existing dwelling which will be
less than 40 feet from the front property line. , I
13 really compliment you on-what you have tried to do
with what we have requested,. You took away the
14 pool; you have moved back the screened porch.
It' s really nine point something feet from the top
15 of the bluff, and I give you much credit. I think
they did a really good job.
16 MR. REILLY: I'm Bill Reilly. I'm here
with Chris and Amy Astley. So that we did that to
17 the porch and also we were conforming to the new
regulations about the building of buildable area,
18 not the lot area. So we redid that, and I have
the new surveys you didn' t specifically ask for
19 them, but we had Joe ingegno change all the stuff
that we did on the architectural plans too. So
20 I'm going to give that to you too. They show you
they work it out to 19.47 percent is what it comes
21 to of the buildable area after all this is said
and done. In addition to moving the porch back,
22 we also made it smaller. .
• i
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have enough
23 copies there for us, sir?
MR. REILLY: Yes.
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually, we've got
them.
25 MR. REILLY: I'm trying to think if we
covered all the issues that you guys raised. I
r
May 31, Z007-
p
t All, N
r
t '
1 78
2 want to say about the screened porch, even though
stF on the survey it shows the porch 26 feet from the 7 o �a
J s
3 bluff, not 29, which is what the existing house RECEIVED
is, actually the foundation -- which is the hand
4 dug sonatube foundation -- is 29, even a little MAR 2 3 2017
bit further back because we cantilevered the porch
5 four feet out. And also this porch, as you ca7n0NING 60ARD OF APPEALS
see, is being built above already an existing
6 concrete patio that' s on the land right there. So
really I feel that we're having no negative effect
7 on the land whatsoever. Also you can see we have
set the porch to be sure that it' s exactly 15 feet
8 away from the property line to match Johnson to
the east; so we' re not asking for any variance in
9 that.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'd really like to
10 make the comment, it was really a difficult piece
of property to do anything with, and considering
11 our comments at the last hearing, I think you have
done a really good job. I compliment you.
12 MR. REILLY: Thank you, any questions for
us?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the roof
line on the front porch, gable end?
14 MR. REILLY: No. On the porch, on the
outside, when you're looking at it from the
15 outside it will essentially look flat, but
actually ,it does slope back towards the road so
16 that the water can be entirely captured and go
into that dry well that you see on the plan.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And you've moved
those too away.
18 MR. REILLY: Actually the house right now
does send water all over the place but we're
19 capturing all of it from the existing and the new,
and putting every last drop into dry well.
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would concur with
Ruth that this is a really reasonable response to
21 a merciless interrogation.
MR. REILLY: As we said, we like the
22 rules, we didn' t know about all of them until the
day before, so I think we are number two with the
23 new --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Drainage code.
24 MR. REILLY: And the buildable area too,
but I'm very much in favor of all these rules, and
25 it' s about my responsibility to figure out how to
do all these things.
May 31, 2007
79
1
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Simply to support
3 what my colleagues have said, it' s an excellent
example of good cooperation between a zoning
4 board, architect and a client, and I think the
outcome will be satisfactory to everybody,
5 including your neighbors in your neighborhood and
all of the other variables that you had to deal
6 with. It' s quite clear that the heavy equipment
line is going to be very far away from the bluff
7 and there will be absolutely minimal land
disturbance, which was a big concern. So I think
8 all of the questions have been properly answered
and I certainly support this proposal as amended.
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, I have no
questions . Is there anyone in the audience that
10 has any questions, anything they want to say?
Okay, hearing none, I' ll entertain a motion to
11 close this hearing until the 14th.
(See minutes for resolution. )
12 -------------------------------------------------
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We have one other
13 hearing for Kelly.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have Kelly, they
14 just submitted, the Kelly' s have just submitted
this and I' ll read it. "The Kelly' s had asked the
15 sign company to defer or withdraw the application
so they can redesign the sign. Can the Board
16 table it for today pending a new application or
withdraw if they design a conforming sign?"
17 That' s Gail Wickham, Attorney for the Kelly' s.
So I'll entertain a motion that we defer
18 this application until our next meeting, our next
regular meeting. -`)Q 3�?
19 (See minutes for resolution. )
RECEIVED
20
MAR 2 3 2017
21
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
22
23
24
25
May 31, 2007
r
Fuentes, Kim
From: Fuentes, Kim
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 8:29 AM
To: 'Robert Herrmann'
Subject: RE:Astley#7033 - please hold off on legal notice
Hi Rob,
This is to confirm that I received your request to postpone the public hearing of Astley
#7033. Our next available openings for public hearing will be June 1St or July 6. Let me know
to which date you wish to adjourn.
Kim E. Fuentes
Secretary to the Zoning Board ofAppeals
Town of Southold
54375 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
631-765-1809, Ex. 5011
E-mail: kimf@southoldtownnv.gov
From: Robert Herrmann [mailto:rherrmann@enconsultants.com]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 11:06 PM
To: Fuentes, Kim
Subject: Astley - please hold off on legal notice
Hi Kim, my clients would definitely like to postpone for now, so please do not proceed with noticing the application for
April.
Please drop me a line or give me a call to confirm receipt of this email.
Thanks,
Rob
Robert E.Herrmann,MEM
Coastal Management Specialist
En-Consultants
1319 North Sea Road
Southampton,NY 11968
Phone: 631-283-6360
Fax: 631-283-6136
Email: rherrmann@enconsultants.com
www.enconsultants.com
1
—` C"PAID
LAW OFFICES
WICKHAM,BRESSLER & GEASA, P.C.
13015 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424
MATTITUCK,LONG ISLAND
ERIC Ja BRESSLER NEW YORK 11952 WILLIAM WICKHAM(06-02)
ABIGAIL A.WICKHAM
t..
JANET'GEASA 631-298-8353
TELEFAX NO.611-298-8565 �-ro UV Z
awickham@wbglawyers.com v
April 25, 2017 APR 2 2017
Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 BY-
�p3
Southold,New York 11971 ""'��'��
Re: Astley, Appeal No. 7038, 460 North View Drive, Orient, NY
Variance request for in ground swimming pool
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We were retained by John and Nina Winter of 590 North View Drive, Orient,NY, in January
of this year regarding the Astley application. As they have very grave concerns about the
potential damage the proposed construction could have to their property, they immediately hired
Joseph Fischetti to review the property and retained him t_o act as their professional engineer for
the'ZBA hearing which was scheduledfor April-6,2017. The Winters, Mr. Fischetti and I were
prepared to appear, when the applicant "requested an adjournment just a few days prior to the
hearing ate: -..-...—
We just learned that the new hearing may be scheduled for June 1. Mr. Fischetti has advised
that he will be unable to attend due to a long-scheduled out patient medical procedure. Since the
applicant has adjourned this matter once, we ask that the matter be scheduled for your July
meeting instead. Otherwise, we will be unable to present important and necessary professional
engineering testimony, and will have to request a further adjournment of the hearing at that time.
We do not believe a written report from Mr. Fischetti will be as effective as his presence at the
hearing, since you will not have an opportunity to question him, and he will not have an
opportunity to hear the applicant's testimony and that of their witnesses, and to address or rebut
their presentation.
We also note that this matter was already addressed in Appeal No. 6004, in 2007, wherein the
applicant obtained additional variance relief for other construction by agreeing not to build the
swimming pool. There has been no change in circumstances since that decision was rendered.
Since the applicant waited 10 years to bring the same application, another month should not
prejudice him in any way. Our clients; however, will be greatly prejudiced if our request for an
adjournment is not granted. I do not make this request lightly; recognizing we are not the
applicant, but believe this case has particular circumstances which merit your consideration.
Very truly yours,
/lV
AAW/em Abigail A. Wickham
Ce: John and Nina Winter
EN-Consultants, Inc.
s
Fuen', s, Kim
From: Robert Herrmann <rherrmann@enconsultants.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 10:36 AM
To: Fuentes, Kim
Subject: RE:Astley#7033
Kim, let's move ahead with adjourning until the June meeting, but you and I should touch base far enough ahead of that
date to confirm so that you don't prepare any unnecessary paperwork for that meeting in the event we need to adjourn
until an even later date.
Thanks,
Rob
a
From: Fuentes, Kim [mailto:kimf@southoldtownny..ov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 8:59 AM
To: 'Robert Herrmann'
Subject: Astley #7033
Hi Rob, 7d
Did you wish to adjourn Astley public hearing to a new date?
Kim E. Fuentes
Secretary to the Zoning Board ofAppeals
Town of Southold
54375 Main Road
,Southold, NY 11971
631-765-1809, Ex. 5011
E-mail.kimf@southoldtownn, .gov
From: Fuentes, Kim
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 8:29 AM
To: 'Robert Herrmann'
Subject: RE: Astley #7033 - please hold off on legal notice
Hi Rob,
This is to confirm that I received your request to postpone the public hearing of Astley
#7033. Our next available openings for public hearing will be June 1St or July 6. Let me know
to which date you wish to adjourn.
Prim E, Fuentes
Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
54375 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
1
Fuentes, Kim
From: Robert Herrmann <rherrmann@enconsultants.com>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 11:06 PM
To: Fuentes, Kim
Subject: Astley- please hold off on legal notice
Hi Kim, my clients would definitely like to postpone for now, so please do not proceed with noticing the application for
April.
Please drop me a line or give me a call to confirm receipt of this email.
Thanks,
Rob
Robert E.Herrmann,MEM
Coastal Management Specialist
En-Consultants
1319 North Sea Road
Southampton,NY 11968
Phone: 631-283-6360
Fax: 631-283-6136
Email: rherrmann@enconsultants.com
www.enconsultants.com
1
BOARD MEMBERS - Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson
� $�UryO 53095 Main Road-P.O.Box 1179
O !p Southold,NY 11971-0959
Eric Dantes Office Location:
Gerard P.Goehringer G Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
George Homing g �` a0 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Kenneth Schneider OQ[JN% Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel.(631)765-1809-Fax(631)765-9064
MEMO
TO: ENGINEERING
FROM: Leslie K. Weisman, ZBA Chairperson
DATE: March 10, 2017
SUBJECT: Request for Comments ZBA# 7038 ASTLEY, Christopher
1000-13.-1-5.2
The ZBA is reviewing the following application. Enclosed are copies of Building
Department's Notice of Disapproval, ZBA application, current map on file. 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.
APPLICANT TAX# ZBA# HEARING CODE DATE OF PREPARER
ZONE DATE SECTION STAMPED OF SURVEY
DIST SITE
PLAN
ASTLEY, 1000-13- 7038 April 6, Art XXIII Sec Sept. 29, Nathan Taft
Christopher 1-5.2 2017 280-124 Art 2016 Corwin III
XXII Sec 280-
116A
Your comments are requested 1 week prior to hearing date.
Thank you.
Ends.
BOARD MEMBERS ®F so Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson �� y® 53095 Main Road-P.O.Box 1179
�® l0 Southold,NY 11971-0959
Eric Dantes #it Office Location:
Gerard P.Goehringer Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
George Horning ® aQ 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Kenneth Schneider l�COU NTY,� Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel.(631) 765-1809-Fax(631)765-9064
LEGAL NOTICE
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2017
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code
Chapter 280 (Zoning), Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,
Southold, New York 11971-0959, on THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2017:
10:00 A.M. - AMY AND CHRISTOPHER ASTLEY #7038 - Request for Variances under
Article III, Section 280-15F; Article XXII, Section 280-116A, Article XXIII, Section 280-124
and, the Building Inspector's October 27, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool, at: 1)
located in other than the code required rear yard; 2) located less than the code required
100 feet from the top of the bluff; 3) less than the code required minimum front yard
setback of 40 feet, at: 460 North View Drive, (Adj. to the Long Island Sound) Orient, NY.
SCTM#1000-13-1-5.2.
The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard
at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of
each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are
available for review during regular business hours and prior to the day of the hearing. If
you have questions, please contact our office at (631) 765-1809, or by email:
kimf@southoldtownny.gov
Dated: March 16, 2017 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, CHAIRPERSON
By: Kim E. Fuentes
54375 Main Road (Office Location)
53095 Main Road (Mailing/USPS)
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MAILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building,
P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959
(631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064
LOCATION OF ZBA OFFICE: Town Hall Annex at North Fork Bank Building, 1st Floor
54375 Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold
website: http://southtown.northfork.net
March 6, 2017
Re: Town Code Chapter 55 -Public Notices for Thursday, April 6, 2017
Hearing
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice
will be published in the next issue of The Suffolk Times.
1) Before March 20th:
Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone
number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the
new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED, to all owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or
improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street.
Use the current owner name and addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the
Southold Town Assessors' Office, or Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If
you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as
well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable you are requested to make other attempts to
obtain a mailing address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability,
and to confirm how arrangements were made in either a written statement, or during the
hearing providing the returned letter to us as soon as possible;
AND not later than March 27th: Please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of
Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, along with the
green/white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are
returned to you later by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled
hearing. If any envelope is returned "undeliverable", please advise this office as soon as
possible. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board,during the hearing and
provide the card (when available). These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all
Notices.
2) Not Later March 29th: Please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a
signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other material, posting it at the subject property seven
(7) days (or more) prior to hearing. (It is the applicant/agents responsibility to maintain sign
until Public Hearing) Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, not more than
10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. If you border more than one street or
roadway, an extra sign is supplied for posting on both front yards. Please deliver or mail your
Affidavit of Posting for receipt by our office before April 4, 2017.
If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank
you for your cooperation. (PLEASE DISPLAY YOUR HOUSE NUMBER ALWAYS).
Very truly yours,
Zoning Appeals Board and Staff
Ends.
�+IvTIi. E uF HEARING
The following application will be heard by the Southold Town
Board of Appeals at Town Hall , 53095 Main Road, Southold:
.'AME : ASTLEY A . & C . # 7038
CTnn # : 1000 - 13- 1 -5 . 2
JARIANCEN BLUFF YARD SETBACK,
LOCATION
r_1EQUESTE. IN -GROUNDSWIMMIN POOL
DATE : THURS . , APRIL 6 , 2017 10EM00AM
If you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s) prior to the
hearing during normal business days between 8 AM and 3 PM. ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 765- 1809
BOARD MEMBERS *pE SOSouthold Town Hall
�o� Ury�l®
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971-0959
Eric Dantes Office Location:
Gerard P.Goehringer G Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
George Horning �p `�� 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Kenneth Schneider 100u y,e� Southold,NY 11971
http://soutfioldtown.northfork.net
ZONINGOWN OF DUTHOLD LS
TOD E C E D U E
Tel.(631)765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064 EC 2 3 2016
December 23, 2016
Southold Town
Planning Board
Mark Terry, Principal Planner
LWRP Coordinator
Planning Board Office
Town of Southold
Town Hall Annex
Southold,NY 11971
Re: ZBA File Ref. No. # 7038 ASTLEY, Christopher
Dear Mark:
We have received an application to construct an in-ground swimming pool. A copy of
the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval under Chapter 280 (Zoning Code), and
survey map, project description form, are attached for your reference.
Your written evaluation with recommendations for this proposal, as required under the
Code procedures of LWRP Section 268-5D is requested within 30 days of receipt of this
letter.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Leslie K. Weisman
Chairp n
By: .y
BOARD MEMBERS �rjf S0 l Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson � p 1 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179
Eric Dantes Southold,NY 11971-0959
Office Location:
Gerard P.Goehringer G Q Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
George Horning �� �� 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Kenneth Schneider cQ(fme� Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
e
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel.(631)765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064
December 23, 2016
Ms. Sarah Lansdale, Director
Suffolk County Department of Planning
P.O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099
Dear Ms. Lansdale :
Please find enclosed the following application with related documents for review
pursuant to Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code:
ZBA File # 7038 Owner/Applicant : ASTLEY, Christopher
Action Requested: Construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool.
Within 500 feet of: ( ) State or County Road
(X) Waterway (Bay, Sound, or Estuary)
( ) Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State, Federal land.
( ) Boundary of Agricultural District
( ) Boundary of any Village or Town
If any other information is needed, please do not hesitate to call us. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Leslie K. Weisman
ZBA Chpirper on
Encls.
{
BOARD MEMBERS rJf S 0Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971-0959
Eric Dantes Office Location:
Gerard P.Goehringer G Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
George Horning �p �� 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Kenneth Schneider �yCOU N Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel.(631)765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064
December 23, 2016
Suffolk County Soil and Water
Conservation District
Attn: Corey Humphrey
423 Griffing Ave.,
Suite 110
Riverhead, New York 11901
Re: ZBA # 7038 ASTLEY, CHRISTOPHER 1000-13-1-5.2
Dear Sir or Madam:
We have received an application for a project adjacent to a waterway,
shown on the enclosed site map. The hearing on this application is
expected to be held in approximately 3 weeks.
Enclosed is a copy of the site map, together with the application and a
copy of the area map. May we ask for your assistance in an evaluation
and recommendations for this proposal.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
--- - _ ---Leslie-K.-Weisman
Chairperson
By:
Encls.
-7 - V
/-S-� 7y
1000- 13 - 1 -
ns
3 - 1 -s
13
do PD 65 M9 4
3 OA(c)
o Jia /•
�s j dp nR 2
V-11 7 2A(c)
1,011c, .21
820 16A
1 7A
PR
17A
8 78 aR y' 82
I 'a 1 7A N•,Y 'Y, 822 221A(c)
Rn817
117A '� O 823 Yb y O
0
6 16 J GQ', 814 S 'a RR
7 1.7A
1 OA(C) $ s °'`j� c I'n < 824
,�� O bm nT •� � 2
815 825 �' Rn
��• ,O.6y O og 1 3A(c) 3,` s 4813 ,Ery nR L'i4 826 m
9 t m ti
0 4 51 s .71A(C) 121 'b 812 827 s
II°a a wl u
MO.ro12A(c) , � w 92 0 '>s 9 a 8.11 �+ retova 'tr RR 831
143 ,� • 1 2A(C) 113 �� Ra 6 10 M1�n O' m 28 a 82a+l 9 ys' 8 30
16 (c) ,p
101 5 102 a p ? m zy'
16A �P d 9 OJ 55P�c1
-p 8 111 +Y 8953a
1.7A(c) 2 m FOR PCL NO 84
8 SEE SEC NO B 8 hl a
p
018-04-0077
5 FOR PCL NO ,<y 1 - �„ 11 f fe b �l �' 88 r; °
SEE SEC NO a 3 ^°M1 ,� 71 d q 835 1 OA
(R
018-03.0303 b -------- ------- 6 EC oGE
1)
3 __ 1 DA(c) 9�q '� a, MATCH — LINE BASIN No t) w .�
LINE � ��O41 P 3 82
3 ,5
51
V
Stlml Q9dlW -- �� 11yEonlDWMLbw —�H—� U ESsP 01TM sE AILPROPEPTESNOTICE 1�77f y C(
,R° nn em Lem --���— As+E Pn,wHT�eaL nsTw�,s �Y�' ��r ,
S— vm MAINTENANCE ALTERATION,SALE OR fy V Real
aS H^ (21) Blah Na O P __ —— R� ?6 HYDRANT DISTRIBUTION OF—PORTION OF THE 2• C,,
W H,—`O—U- UDHT 4D SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP IS PROHIBITED
°A m C�ryUw tyu�iblYe --L-- ArbWenm DWid Lme--A-- R,RK 65 WTHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE •'R7n:..' 200
'm PK OmatYm _—p-- WsslowaiwlTna,law--ww-- AK6ULAN'� mtortR EA REAL PROPERTY TAX SERNCEAOENCY `""v"'PPPWWnYYY �y
bnnlM --- Sim
121 A(E)W 121A -
------